HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 - The Residences at Newport Place Appeal (PA2014-150)CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH
City Council Staff Report
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED BY:
PHONE:
July 26, 2016
Agenda Item No. 14
HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director - 949-644-3232,
kbrandt@newportbeachca.gov
Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner, runq(D_newportbeachca.gov
949-644-3208
TITLE: The Residences at Newport Place Appeal (PA2014-150) Located at
1701 Corinthian Way, 1660 Dove Street, 4251, 4253, and 4255
Martingale Way, and 4200, 4220, 4250 Scott Drive
ABSTRACT:
An appeal of the Planning Commission's June 23, 2016, decision to deny Planned
Development Permit No. PL2014-001, Lot Merger No. LM2014-003, and Affordable
Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O15-001. The appeal was filed by the applicant
who is seeking approval to redevelop a 5.70 -acre property with a mixed use project
consisting of 384 residential units and 5,677 square feet of retail. The project site is
located in the Airport Area within the Newport Place Planned Community, at the
northeast corner of the intersection of Dove Street and Scott Drive, as shown on the
vicinity map (Attachment CC1).
RECOMMENDATION:
a) Conduct a de novo public hearing;
b) Determine that the action of referring the project to the Planning Commission is not a
project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
c) Refer the application on appeal to the Planning Commission for further consideration
due to changes proposed by the applicant.
BACKGROUND
On June 9, 2016, the Planning Commission conducted a noticed public hearing and,
following receipt of public comments and deliberation, voted 4-1 (2 absent) to deny the
project. Resolution No. 2019 denying the project was adopted unanimously on June 23,
2016, and it includes the written findings for the action (Attachment CC2). The Planning
Commission expressed many concerns and principal among them were:
14-1
The Residences at Newport Place Appeal
July 26, 2016
Page 2
• Encroachments within minimum building setbacks;
• Exceedance of the maximum building height standard;
• Waiver of the park dedication;
• Public open space design and limits on public access;
• Project integration with surroundings;
• Limited amount of commercial space proposed; and
• Parking
Following the public hearing, the applicant (appellant) met with staff to discuss the
following project changes in response to the Planning Commission's decision:
• Compliance with minimum setback requirements;
• Compliance with maximum building height standards;
• Dedication of the minimum required 0.5 -acre neighborhood park which will
reduce the number of units proposed from 384 to 350 units;
• Increased on-site retail square footage.
• Increased number of parking spaces.
On July 7, 2016, the applicant filed an appeal (Attachment CC3). However, plans
reflecting the changes have not been submitted. Pursuant to Zoning Code Section
20.64.030.D.2 (Filing and Processing of Appeals and Calls for Review), if new or
different evidence is presented on appeal, the City Council may refer the matter to the
previous review authority for further consideration. Given the fact that the applicant is
proposing to make significant changes to the project, staff recommends the City Council
refer the modified project to the Planning Commission for consideration. The
Commission would hold a public hearing on the revised project and provide a
recommendation for future City Council consideration. If the City Council does not refer
the application to the Planning Commission, the City Council has the following options:
Should the City Council choose to act on the original project, staff recommends
continuing the hearing to August 9, 2016.
Should the City Council choose to act on the revised project, staff recommends
continuing the hearing to September 27, 2016, to allow staff time to analyze the
revised project and prepare a staff report and recommendation.
Attachment CC4 is written correspondence received for the appeal.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
There is no fiscal impact related to this item.
14-2
The Residences at Newport Place Appeal
July 26, 2016
Page 3
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Should the City Council refer the matter back to the Planning Commission, this action
would not be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Environmental
review will be in accordance with CEQA when taking final action.
NOTICING:
Notice of this hearing 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. The agenda item has been noticed according to the
Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the
item).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment CC1 - Vicinity Map
Attachment CC2 - Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019
Attachment CC3 - Appeal
Attachment CC4 - Correspondence
14-3
Attachment CC1
Vicinity Map
14-4
}
`
r !
�` f J' � 4 !.y} �9U} - ~ "4 Wx !1 .. '� e� j/J 3•.1. 1~
IL
NN"
W F f dF d '•. ~ Y a Y Y 1 �
r , VII
'ter I,
y
'� r y, ' Via, '�� , '�,—•�"� !
• a
I' ry
�f
_ :..
M1x x 4
Attachment CC2
Planning Commission Resolution 2019
RESOLUTION NO. 2019
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. PL2014-001, LOT
MERGER NO. LM2014-003 AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NO. AH2O15-001 FOR THE
RESIDENCES AT NEWPORT PLACE PROJECT LOCATED AT
1701 CORINTHIAN WAY, 4251, 4253 AND 4255 MARTINGALE
WAY, 4200, 4220 AND 4250 SCOTT DRIVE AND 1660 DOVE
STREET (PA2014-150)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1, STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by Newport Place Residential, Inc., with respect to property
located at 1701 Corinthian Way, 4251, 4253 and 4255 Martingale Way, 4200, 4220 and
4250 Scott Drive and 1660 Dove Street and legally described as Lot 1 of Tract 7770, and
Parcels 1 and 2 of Book 53, Page 13 of Parcel Maps requesting an approval for the
development of a mixed use residential project. The following approvals are requested or
required in order to implement the project as proposed:
a. A Planned Development Permit pursuant to Section 20.52.060 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code to allow the construction of 384 multi-fami[y residential
units and 5,677 square feet of retail use with an adjustment request of the
development standards to allow:
The maximum building setback encroachments into the required 30 -foot
street setback of 12 feet on Corinthian Way, 10 feet on Martingale Way, 8
feet on Dove Street and 6 feet on Scott Drive.
The residential buildings to exceed the 55 -foot height limit by 3 feet for the
main portion of the buildings and 28 feet for the architectural elements.
b. A waiver of General Plan Land Use Policy 6.15.13 for relief from the requirement
of a minimum 0.5 -acre neighborhood park to the City, and to accept a fee
payment equal to the value of the 0.5 acre of parkland established by Ordinance
No. 2007-30.
C. A Lot Merger pursuant to Section 19.68.030(H) of the City of Newport Beach
Municipal Code (NBMC) to combine three parcels into one.
d. An Affordable Housing Implementation Plan to specify how the proposed project
would meet the City's affordable housing requirements pursuant to Part III
(Residential Overlay) of the Newport Place Planned Community and NBMC
Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus).
14-7
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019
Paqe 2 of 6
2. The subject property is located within General Commercial Site 6 of the PC 11 (Newport
Place) Planned Community Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element
category is Mixed -Use District Horizontal -2 (MU -1-12).
3. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone.
4. On March 3, 2016, the Planning Commission held a study session for the proposed
project and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration in the Council Chambers, located
at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. Staff and the applicant presented project
information to the Planning Commission and public. Commissioners expressed
numerous concerns regarding the proposed project, including, but not limited to, the
overall density, project design and architecture, setback encroachments, building height,
amount of commercial uses provided, and parking.
5. A public hearing was held on June 9, 2016, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic
Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was
given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and the NBMC. Evidence, both
written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at
this public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission
voted 4-1 (2 absent) to deny the project and continue the item to June 23, 2016, for
consideration of a resolution for project denial.
6. On June 23, 2016, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport
Beach, the Planning Commission considered this resolution denying the project.
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.
SECTION 3. FINDINGS.
1. In accordance with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.15.13, the Planning
Commission does not waive the required neighborhood park dedication based upon
the following:
a. The required dedication and improvement of 8% of a project site or a minimum of 0.5
acres of parkland ensures the creation of a neighborhood identity and would serve
the daily recreational needs of the community within easy walking distance of homes
and nearby businesses. There are no neighborhood parks within easy walking
distance presently. Waiving the requirement would not meet the goal of the policy and
would leave future residents underserved with nearby parkland.
b. In -lieu of dedicating the parkland, the applicant proposes a passive open space area,
without traditional active recreational amenities such as a playground. The applicant
proposes the payment of an in -lieu fee in the amount of the value of the parkland
03-03-2015
14-8
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019
Page 3of6
requested to be waived. Given that the applicant can accommodate a half acre open
space area in the design of the project, the development parcels are not too small to
accommodate the dedication of the area for park purposes. Furthermore, public
access would be limited to daylight hours and the open space area would be fenced
and gated. Public access would also be further limited as a proposed public access
easement would only cover selected portions of the open space provided. These
project features do not create a neighborhood identity and do not adequately meet
the daily recreational and commercial needs of the community.
2. In accordance with NBMC Section 20.52.060(F), the Planning Commission was
unable to make the following finding(s) in support of the Planned Development Permit:
"Be substantially consistent with the purpose, intent, goals, policies, actions, and land
use designations of the General Plan, and any applicable specific plan."
"The project would produce a development of higher quality and greater excellence of
design than that might otherwise result from using the standard development
regulations. "
"The design, location, operating characteristics, and size of the project would be
compatible with the existing and future uses in the vicinity, in terms of aesthetic values,
character, scale, and view protection."
The proposed project does not meet these criteria for the following reasons:
a. The project does not provide the required parkland pursuant to General Plan Policy
LU6.15.13. The open space proposed and limited public access will not meet the
recreational needs of residents and the community. The facts in support of Finding
1 above are incorporated herein by reference.
b. General Plan Policy LU 6.15.7 requires residential projects to be developed at a
maximum of 50 dwelling units per net acre. The net acreage shall be exclusive of
existing and new rights of way, public pedestrian ways and neighborhood parks.
General Plan Policy LU 6.15.13 requires the dedication of 8% of a project site or a
minimum of 0.5 acres of parkland. Denial of the requested waiver to dedicate
parkland results in a project that exceeds 50 dwelling units per acre, and therefore,
the proposed project is not consistent with Policy LU 6.15.7. Density Bonus units
were not considered in this determination.
c. The density of the proposed project exceeds 50 dwelling units per net acre and
with the inclusion of density bonus units, the project is too large as evidenced by
the request to exceed the height limit and encroach into required setbacks. The
increased size and density of the project will increase demands for parkland and
the requested parkland waiver would create increased density resulting in a
negative environment for residents. These project features do not create a project
of superior design and the project is not compatible with planned development in
the area.
03-03-2015
14-9
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019
Paae 4 of 6
d. The proposed project provides 715 parking spaces which reflects reduced
standards allowed for a project that includes affordable housing in accordance with
NBMC Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus). The Zoning Code would otherwise require
960 parking spaces for the residential component of the project. Due to magnitude
of the reduction in neighborhood -serving commercial uses, the distance to other
commercial services, and limited transit options, residents may be more reliant
upon automobiles. As a result, the proposed project does not meet resident parking
demands and the result may be the increased use of street parking or unauthorized
use of parking on private property. These potential project ramifications would
negatively change the character of the area.
e. The project includes the elimination of 58,277 square feet of neighborhood -serving
commercial uses including restaurants. Existing uses in the area and the
community in general has come to rely on these uses. The project includes 5,677
square feet of retail uses and the overall reduction of commercial space will not
adequately serve the existing community. The community will need to travel further
to find necessary goods and services. The construction of 384 units at the project
site will compound the issue by increasing demands for supporting services. As a
result, the project will not meet the community's goal to create a mixed-use
community that provides jobs, residential and supporting services in proximity, with
pedestrian -oriented amenities that facilitates walking and enhance livability
(General Plan Goal LU 6.15).
3. In accordance with NBMC Section 20.30.060(C)(3) the Planning Commission was
unable to approve the requested height increase above 55 feet for the following
reasons:
a. The project does not provide additional project amenities beyond those that are
otherwise required including but not limited to additional landscaped open space,
increased setbacks and open areas. The applicant specifically requests reduced
setbacks to abutting streets thereby reducing landscaped open space. The
applicant also requests the relief from dedicating parkland required pursuant to
General Plan Policy 6.15.13, which compromises a necessary goal of the General
Plan to create a neighborhood identity and serve the daily recreational needs of the
community within easy walking distance of homes and nearby businesses given that
there are no neighborhood parks within easy walking distance of the project site
currently leaving future residents and the community recreationally underserved.
b. Many of the existing buildings in the vicinity of the project are 1 to 3 stories and are
below 55 feet in height. Additionally, existing buildings provide 30 -foot setbacks or
more in many cases. The increased height and reduced setbacks would create
taller buildings closer to streets than planned creating a development pattern that
would be out of scale with the character of the area.
c. Increased interior ceiling heights can be achieved while complying with the
established height standards. Increased architectural expression and visual interest
03-03-2015
14-10
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019
Page 5 of 6
through taller architectural features can be achieved while complying with the
established height standards.
d. Surrounding properties meet setbacks and conform to applicable height limits and
reducing these standards could set a detrimental precedent for future projects.
4. In accordance with NEMC Section 19.68.030(H), the Planning Commission was
unable to make the following finding(s) in support of the requested lot merger:
"Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or
injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of
the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative
intent of this title. "
a. The proposed lot merger directly relates to and is necessary for the requested
Planned Development Permit and the findings for approval of the Planned
Development Permit have not been met.
b. Approval of the requested lot merger without approval of the Planned Development
Permit under these circumstances would be detrimental to the peace, comfort and
general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the project
site proposed use and the general welfare of the City
5. In accordance with NBMC Section 19.08.030(A)(3), the Planning Commission was
unable to make the following finding(s) in support of the requested parcel map waiver:
"That the proposed division of land complies with requirements as to area,
improvement and design, flood water drainage control, appropriate improved public
roads and property access, sanitary disposal facilities, wafer supply availability,
environmental protection, and other applicable requirements of Title 19, the Zoning
Code, the General Plan, and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan."
a. The proposed parcel map waiver for the lot merger directly relates to and is
necessary for the requested Planned Development Permit and the findings for
approval of the Planned Development Permit have not been met. Specifically, the
project is not consistent with General Plan Policies LU 6.15.7 and LU 6.15.13.
b. Approval of the parcel map waiver without approval of the Planned Development
Permit under these circumstances would be detrimental to the peace, comfort and
general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the project
site proposed use and the general welfare of the City
6, The Planning Commission was unable to approve the proposed affordable housing
implementation plan (AHIP) for the following reason(s):
03-03-2015
14-11
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2019
Page6of6
Findings for the approval of the requested Planned Development Permit have not
been satisfied, and therefore, the project cannot be approved. As a result, there is no
requirement to construct affordable housing and no need to approve an AH1P or
require an affordable housing agreement pursuant to NEMC Chapter 20.32 (Density
Bonus).
7. The City of Newport Beach has satisfied its affordable portion of the Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA) through the approval of recent affordable housing
projects. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5, the denial of this project
does not render infeasible the construction of affordable units because the project can
be redesigned to comply with the General Plan by providing the minimum parkland to
meet the need of the community and comply with applicable zoning standards while
providing affordable housing units. The denial without prejudice allows the project to be
immediately redesigned to comply with applicable General Plan and Zoning standards
while allowing the inclusion of affordable housing.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies without prejudice
Planned Development Permit No. PL2014-001, Lot Merger No. LM2014-003, Affordable
Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O15-001, and the requested park waiver, height
increase, lot merger, and parcel map waiver.
2. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution
was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or the action is
called for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.64
(appeals or Calls for Review) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF JUNE, 2016.
AYES: KRAMER, KOETTING, LAWLER, WEIGAND, ZAK
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: BROWN, HILLGREN
1=YA
03-03-2015
14-12
Attachment CC3
Appeal
14-13
Appeal Application
City Clerk's Office
100 Civic Center Drive / P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915
949-644-3005
Appeal the Decision of:
0 Hearing Officer - NBMC §20.64
lF] Operator License - NBMC §5.25.060
Attention: City Manager)
91 Planning Commission - NBMC §20.64
0 Zoning Administrator - NSMC §20.64 and
15.45.080 FJ
❑ Other
Appellant Information:
Names): Newport Place Residential, LLC
Address: 20411 SW Birch, Suite 310
City/State/Zip: Newport Beach, California 92650
Phone: (949) 672-8068 Fax:
Appealing Application Regarding:
Crk's'Date & Tm+$tamp
~ns rs:I t!: 16
Applicable Appeal Fees Pursuant to
Master Fee Schedule adopted 9-22-15:
Hearing Officer - $1,506.00
Operator License - $692.00
Planning Commission - $1,506.00
Zoning Administrator - $1,506.00
Other ., $
Email: blensen@np-residential.corn
Name of Applicant(s): Newport Place Residential, LLC Date of Decision: June 23, 2016
Project ND,: PA2014-150 Activity No.: PA2014-150
Site Address: 1701 Corinthian Way, 1660 Dove Street, 4251, 4253, 4255 Martingale way, 4200, 4220 & 4250 Scott Drive
Description of application: see Attached "A"
Reason(s) for Appeal (attach a separate sheet if necessary): see Attachment "A"
Signature of Appellant: bAw Alav Date: � 2a
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: , �j q I 20
Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: �,�'!�
L
Lkr
J e� - ��-poli.
City Clerk 4 .
cc: Department Director, Deputy Director, Staff, File
F; IUserslClerklShared4ForrnsOppeal Application
Updated 2-23-16
14-14
ATTACHMENT "A7
Description of Application
Planned Development Permit to allow the redevelopment of the existing MacArthur Square shopping
center to include construction of 384 multi -family residential units and 5,677 square feet of retail use
with an adjustment to development standards that include: building setback encroachments into the
required 30 -foot street setback of 12 feet on Corinthian Way, 10 feet on Martingale Way, 8 feet on
Dove Street, and 6 feet on Scott Drive; adjustments to exceed the 55 -foot height limit by introducing
architectural elements up to 83 feet in freight; a waiver of General Plan Policy 6.15.13 in return for a
fee payment equal to the value of the 0.5 acre parkland established by Ordinance No. 2007-30; a lot
merger to combine three existing parcels into one; and an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan
for the proposed project.
Reason(s) for Appeal
Newport Place Residential, LLC, and Lester C. Smull, Property Owner ("Appellant"), appeal the 4-1
decision by the Planning Commission to deny the redevelopment of the MacArthur Square shopping
center with a high quality mixed use residential and retail development.
When presented to the Planning Commission for consideration, the proposed project included 384
multi -family residential units and 5,677 square feet of retail space with building setbacks from 18
feet to 59 feet, building heights up to 83 feet, and a waiver of the 0.5 acre neighborhood public park.
The proposed project offered to pay a fee equal to the value of the 0.5 acre parkland per Ordinance
No. 2007-30 in light of the fact that the park location and characteristics do not fit the definition of
neighborhood park per the City's General Plan and the proposed park site is remote from potential
users, does not serve public needs, and would create a maintenance and liability burden for the City if
dedicated for public use. After working with City staff for over 2 years developing this project, the
Appellant feels that the Appellant's originally proposed project is the best project and should still be
considered by City Council as is. The applicable land use regulations do not require that any
commercial square footage be maintained on the site and the Appellant feels that the amount of retail
square footage voluntarily proposed is more than sufficient. An area study was performed within
walking distance of the project (0.5 miles) and demonstrates that of the uses being eliminated as a
result of the redevelopment, uses that would be in demand for residential support (i.e. medical,
dental, convenience store, hair & nail salons, dry cleaners, dining establishments, etc), exist, often
times in multiple locations within the surveyed area. By not including excess retail space within the
development, it allows existing surrounding businesses to benefit from the introduction of residential
use in the community and aims to help drive business to these existing establishments. The proposed
setback modifications aim to eliminate a "remote island" feel that would otherwise potentially exist if
the 30' building setbacks were maintained. The overall reduction in the setbacks allow the proposed
stoop units to provide more connection to the surrounding public sidewalk and provide more of the
"walkable neighborhood" environment that is desired within the City's vision for the area. The
variation in setbacks also allow for increased building articulation, resulting in a more aesthetically
pleasing appearance when viewed from the street. The increased building height allows for more
architectural interest and a variation of the building roofline that breaks up massing of the buildings.
It is important to note that the areas of the highest elevation of 83 feet are the non -habitable tower
elements that disguise elevator equipment and stairwells.
14-15
While the Appellant believes the requested adjustments to the City's park dedication., setback, and
building height standards are justified on their own merits (and were fully supported by City staff), it
also is important to keep in mind that the project is a density bonus affordable housing project within
the meaning of Government Code Section 65915 and Chapter 20.32 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code. As such, since 30% of the Project's "base" number of units will be kept affordable to lower
income households, the Project is entitled to receive three (3) "incentives or concessions -with that
term defined to include `°[a] reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code
requirements or architectural design requirements... , including, but not limited to, a reduction in
setback ..requirements that would otherwise be required" and "[o]ther regulatory incentives or
concessions proposed by the developer... that result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual
cost reductions." (See Government Code Section 65915(b)(3), (d)(2)(C), and (k)(1).)
Feedback from the Planning Commission during the public hearing suggested that modifications to
certain aspects of the proposed project would be looked upon more favorably, however, a
continuance was not offered and when requested by the Appellant, was denied by the Commission on
a 3-2 vote without any opportunity provided for -further discussion between the Appellant, Staff and
the Commission. Thus, the Appellant feels that due process was denied by not allowing a
continuance that would have provided the Appellant the opportunity to address the comments of the
Commission and modify the proposed project. While the Appellant feels that modifying the proposed
project would provide a less desirable option, the Appellant has prepared a revision to the project that
eliminates all of the variances that were originally included within the project, is fully compliant with
all applicable General Plan policies, municipal code regulations, etc., and addresses additional
comments (i.e. provision of additional retail space and parking), which the Appellant is prepared to
share and discuss with the City Council as well as the Planning Commission, if given the opportunity
to do so.
Development Agreement
While it was not a finding within the resolution for denial of the project, it is important to note that
there was a significant amount of discussion regarding the proposed project and the insistence by
some of the Planning Commissioners to have a Development Agreement imposed on the project. The
Appellant is in agreement with Staff's assessment of the appropriate policies within the City's
General Plan and Municipal Code both at the time the project commenced over 2 years ago, and
through the Planning Commission hearings --that there is no policy requiring a Development
Agreement for this project. The Appellant is concerned that the Planning Commissioner's focus on
this item, even after discussion of staff's assessment that arose during the June 9`h public hearing
could be affecting the critique of the other aspects of the project that were used as the basis for
denial. This is further evidenced by Planning Commission's denial of a continuation requested by the
Appellant at the lune 9a' hearing that would allow the project time to further address the
Commissioner's comments regarding building setbacks, height and the park provision.
14-16
BUSINESS PROPERTIES
MANAGEMENT COMPAN-Y
176.31 FITCII
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA Oe614-6021
(949) 474-8900
FAX (919) 474-8036
July 7, 2016
City of Newport Beach
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach. CA 92660
To whom it may concern,
1. Lester C. Smull, authorize Newport Place Residential. LLC to file, on my behalf, the appeal for
the Residences at Newport Place project (Project Number PA2014-150).
Srn,cerely,
Lester C. Smull, Trustee, Managing General Partner
MacArthur Square, a California General Partnership
cc: Newport Place Residential. LLC
14-17
BUSINESS PROPERTIES
MACARTHUR SQUARE
17631 RTCH
IRVINE, CA 92614-6021
FARMERS & MERCHANTS BALK
23772 ROCKFIELO BLVD..
LAKE FOREST, CA 92630
NO: 0000020684
DATE AMOUNT
07/0112016 $1,506.00
PAY
PAY ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIX AND XX 1 100 DOLLARS
TO TRIG CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ORDER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
OF 100 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
14-18
Receipt #1018941.005
Recreation & Senior Services 'Dept.
100 Civic Center Drive
Bay E
Newport Beach, CA 92554
Phone: (949) 544-3151
FAX: (949) 544-3155
Email: recreation @newportbeachca,gov
DROP -1N CUSTOMER
Payment Summary
Check: $1,506.00 Check # 24684
Credit Card: $0
Account: $4
Financial Aid: $0
Total Received: $1,506.00
Transactions
Customer Description
Drop -In Customer CC PlanningCommission Appeal
Action; Product Sale
Home phone:
email. --
iD: !
Page 1 of I
Receipt #1018941.005
]ul 7, 2016 4:18 PM.
Prepared By: Lisa Gizara
Customer ID: 1
Horne phone: --, Work phone: --
Cash:
$0
Memo:
$0
Gift Card:
$0
Total payments: $1,505.00
Payment Plan: $0
Charge
$1,506.00
Total Charges $1,506,00
Total Payments $1,506.Dp
Balance $0
Thank you for your choosing Newport Beach Recreation & Senior Services. Please visit us
online at www.newportbeachca.gov
https:llactivenet001. active. coinlcnbregfserviet/processReceiptPayment.sdi 07/0712016
14-19
Attachment CC4
Correspondence
14-20
SHOPOFF REALTY
INVESTMENTS
roosformiq Opporhn)ify into Valk
July 13, 2016
Mayor Diane Dixon
& Members of the Newport Beach City Council
City of Newport Beach
1000 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
RE: The Residences at Newport Place (PA 2014-150)
1701 Corinthian Way,1660 Dove Street, 4251, 4253, 4255 Martingale Way, &
4200, 4220, 4250 Scott Drive
• Mitigated Negative Declaration No. MD2015-009
• Planned Development Permit No. PL2014-001
• Lot Merger No. LM2014-003
• Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O15-001
Dear Mayor Dixon & Members of the Newport Beach City Council:
We reviewed the above referenced application for The Residences at Newport Place
(RNP) and previously expressed our concerns in a formal letter and during public
comments to the Planning Commission, which voted to deny a motion to continue
the hearing and voted to deny the project. Since the Planning Commission's June
23rd Final Denial (Resolution 2019) the applicant has exercised their rights to
appeal the denial to City Council, so we wish to express our concerns to the council.
These concerns deal with the extent this Airport Area application is requesting
waivers from General Plan requirements and Zoning requirements. While we
recognize the Newport Place zoning standards provide for residential development
on sites smaller than 10 -acres with a 30% affordable component, we believe that a
Development Agreement and a 1 acre park are required by the General Plan.
Additionally, we believe the applicant needs to live within the height and setback
standards as defined by the Newport Place Zoning,
Development Agreement Requirement
We believe there is no justification for the lack of a Development Agreement and the
fees associated, which are required by the General Plan as follows:
Land Use Element -Airport Area -Mixed Use Districts (Subarea C. MU -1-12
Designation)
LU 6.15.12 Development Agreements P. 3-109
14-21
SHOPOFF REALTY
INVESTMENTS
Pausiarmiq Opportunity into Wile
"A Development Agreement shall be required for all projects that include infill
residential units. The Development Agreement shall define the improvements and
public benefits to be provided by the developer in exchange for the City's
commitment for the number, density, and location of housing units." (Imp. 2.1, 3.1,
4.1, 13.1)
The common definition of "infill development" is the process of developing vacant
or under -used parcels within existing urban areas that are already largely
developed. This project is definitively infill residential in nature and should have a
Development Agreement and the fees associated.
We disagree with staff's rationale that the General Plan Development Agreement
requirements were only intended for "additive units" and not for those projects like
the RNP that provide 384 "replacement units".
As the Planning Commission is aware, in February of 2013, Uptown Newport was
the first Airport Area project to be approved by the City of Newport Beach, and was
required to have a Development Agreement and Public Benefit Fee on all of its 1,244
units - both replacement and additive. These fees, originally set at $32,500 per unit
on the document effective date of April 2013, increase by CPI annually on each first
day of January and as of January 1, 2016 have increased to $33,798.05 per unit. CPI
has increased from 232.531 in April 2013 to 236.525 at the end of December 2015,
a 3.994 point increase, which equates to a 1.718% increase.
Based on staff's recommendation for the RNP project, the Uptown Newport project
should only be paying fees for the 290 "additive" units and not the 954 "replacement
units" and density bonus units.
With CPI -adjusted DA fees of $33,058.35 per dwelling unit, that reduction in fees
equates to approximately $31,537,665.90 (Thirty-one Million, Five Hundred Thirty-
seven Thousand, Six Hundred Sixty-five Dollars and Ninety Cents) for Uptown
Newport.
954 Dwelling Units x $33,O5B.35 Per Unit = $31,537,665.90
Or said a different way, if the same DA Fees were imposed on the RNP project, the
fees would be approximately $12,694,406.40 (Twelve Million, Six Hundred Ninety-
four Thousand, Four Hundred Six Dollars and Forty Cents).
384 Dwelling Units x $33,058.35 Per Unit = $12,694,406.40
SHOPOFF REALTY
INVESTMENTS
fransfornrrng Opportunity into Value
Based on the magnitude of the fees in question here, we strongly urge the Planning
Commission to seek the City Council's review of this project so that the requirement
of a Development Agreement can be sought. Lack of a Development Agreement on
this project would be unfair and inequitable to all other Airport Area residential
projects.
Park Requirement: We believe there is no justification to grant a General Plan Land
Use Policy (Neighborhood Parks (LU6.15.13) waiver of the park dedication. The
General Plan states, "In every case, the neighborhood park shall be at least 8 percent
of the total Residential Village Area or one acre in area, whichever is greater, and
shall have a minimum dimension of 150 feet." We believe the General Plan clearly
requires and anticipated all Airport Area residential communities would provide a
public park. Granting a deviation from this requirement would create a precedent
for future Airport Area residential projects and establishes an inequity in which the
city is applying its standards.
The requested waiver of the 1 acre park for public dedication also allows the
applicant to generate additional density on the site as the park acreage is not
deducted from the total land. With a 1 acre park, the net acreage would be 4.7 acres
creating a maximum of 235 units based on the maximum density of 50 upa before
the density bonus and 317 units with the 35% density bonus. This is a reduction in
54 allowable units and 67 units with the density bonus.
Deviation from Newport Place Zoning Standards
The Newport Place zoning sets forth a maximum building height of 55 feet. The
height of a structure can he increased with approval of a site development review
and subject to required findings.
The height requested by the applicant exceeds the 55 foot height limit by 28 feet.
We understand that the height deviations can be approved if the Planning
Commission approves a set of findings and a Planned Development Permit. The
staff report indicates that the additional height to 83 is only for architectural
elements, but the plans indicate there are living spaces within the additional height.
We believe the request is far reaching (over a 50% increase in height) and the
findings can't be made.
2 Park Plaza, Suite 700, Irvine Galilomia pi
14-23
SHOPOFF REALTY
INVESTMENTS
Iranstornting Opportunity into Vatue
Deviation from the Newport Place Setback Standards
The applicant is also requesting deviation from the 30' setback standard on all
streets the project abuts; Corinthian Way, Martingale Way, Dove Street, and Scott
Drive. The applicant's representative stated that the request was based on the fact
that the Newport Place Zoning Standards never anticipated residential. The staff
report suggests they are supportive of the setback deviation provided the applicant
builds a O.S acre park with public access.
We contend if the zoning standards needed to be modified to accommodate
residential, the applicant should have requested a Zone Change as part of its
application as is the case with all other Airport Area residential projects.
In conclusion, we believe this project is too far reaching and doesn't meet the basic
standards and requirements that are mandated for the Airport Area residential
developments. This development project should be held to the same standards as
others in the Airport Area and as such should have a Development Agreement and
the associated fees; should adhere to the park requirement, which would reduce the
density; and should comply with the Newport Place height and setbacks or submit
for a zone change. The applicant's requests for deviations are an attempt to
circumvent the appropriate zone change, which would in itself trigger a legislative
action requiring a Development Agreement.
We are hopeful the City Council will uphold the Planning Commission's denial of this
project or request the applicant significantly revise the project to be more in
keeping with the standards and requirements being applied to all other Airport Area
residential projects.
Thank you for considering our thoughts and concerns.
Sincerely,
f ohn Santry
Executive Vice President- Acquisitions and Development
14-24
Ung, Rosalinh
From: mbaguy99@aol.com
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 8:08 PM
To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office; Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org
Subject: Public Comments: The Residences at Newport Place
Please do not let this project through. It violates the General Plan and several other regulations.
Herbert Karg
Corona del Mar resident for 40 years.
mbaguy99@aol.com
14-25