HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit No. 1Exhibit 1
Revised Draft Resolution
3
RESOLUTION NO. _
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH NO. 2008 -021075) &
APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2007 -001,
MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2007 -044, USE PERMIT NO.
2007 -011 AND COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT NO. 2007 -001 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5515
RIVER AVENUE (PA 2007 -100).
WHEREAS, an application was filed by Seashore Village, LLC requesting
approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001, Modification Permit No. 2007 -044, Use
Permit No. 2007 -011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001, with
respect to property located at 5515 River Avenue, and legally described as Lot 105 of
Tract 3812, to develop 12 detached, single -unit residential structures and 6 detached,
two -unit (duplex) residential structures (24 units total). The site is currently developed
with a 54 -unit apartment complex that would be demolished to accommodate the
proposed development. Project implementation requires the approval of the following
applications: 1) Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001 to create a 24 -unit condominium
subdivision; 2) Modification Permit No. 2007 -044 to allow encroachments into the
required front and side yard setback areas and a reduction in the required distance
between detached buildings; 3) Use Permit No. 2007 -011 to allow each of the 6 duplex
structures to exceed the City's base height limit; and 4) Coastal Residential
Development Permit No. 2007 -001 to ensure compliance with Government Code
Section 65590 (Mello Act), which regulates the demolition of low and moderate income
(affordable) dwelling units in the Coastal Zone; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on April 17, 2008, in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place
and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code.
Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning
Commission at this meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth objectives,
policies and limitations for development in the City and designates the general
distribution and location of land uses and residential and commercial densities. The
Land Use Element designates the project site as Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) with a
maximum development limit of 51 dwelling units. The RM designation is intended to
provide primarily for multi - family residential development containing attached or detached
dwelling units. The proposed subdivision is consistent with this designation; and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is consistent with Land Use Policy 5.1.9
that requires multi - family dwellings be designed to convey a high quality architectural
character. The project has been designed to be compatible with the development
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 2 of 23
pattern and character of the surrounding neighborhood, which generally consists of two -
and three -story, single -unit and two -unit dwellings. Each unit will feature either a
"Craftsman" or "Plantation" architectural style. Architectural details and enhancements
(i.e. batt and board wood siding, louvered window shutters, decorative trim, and stone
veneer) will be provided on all building elevations. The 2nd floor facades are setback
from the 1st floor on the rear elevations and cantilevered over the 1st floor on the front
elevations, providing articulation and modulation to the building mass. The 3`d floor of
each building is setback from the front and rear elevations, towards the interior portion
of each building envelope, to reduce the visual mass of the structures as viewed from
the streets; and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is consistent with Land Use Policy 6.2.9
that requires open space and recreational facilities to be integrated into and preserved
in private residential development. A majority of the units have been designed with
small (approx. 300 sq. ft.) front patio areas, which are comparable in size to the outdoor
living areas of the surrounding residential development within the neighborhood. All
units are provided useable and functional 2n4 level and 3`d level deck spaces (ranging
between 48 and 154 sq. ft.). West Newport Park, an active recreational park, is located
immediately west of the project site and the beach is located approximately 120 feet
south of the site; both the park and the beach will provide additional recreational
opportunities. A condition of project approval has been included that prohibits any floor
area additions to the approved building envelopes, which will preserve open patio and
deck areas proposed for each unit and the common landscaped and open space areas;
and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element of the General Plan sets forth goals and
policies to facilitate the attainment of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocations and
to foster the availability of affordable housing to all income levels to the greatest extent
feasible. The demolition of the older, non - conforming, 54 -unit apartment complex and
development of 24 condominiums, will result in a total reduction of 30 dwelling units. As
discussed in the Population and Housing section of the Initial Study prepared for the
project, there are approximately 43,851 housing units in the City, of which
approximately 5,462 units are vacant. The rental vacancy rate is estimated at 7.7
percent with approximately 3,337 rental units vacant (American Community Survey
2006). Therefore, the reduction and change in housing type is not considered
significant, as there are sufficient existing rental units available to absorb the displaced
rental units. Additionally, Housing Program 1.1.3 requires the replacement of housing
demolished within the Coastal Zone when housing is, or has been, occupied by low -
income or moderate - income households. A total of 6 rental units have been identified to
have been occupied by low- income and moderate- income households, which the
applicant will be required to replace at an off -site location with restrictions to maintain
their affordability for a minimum of 30 years; and
WHEREAS, the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) of the Local Coastal Program sets
forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 3 of 23
zone and addresses land use and development, public access and recreation, and coastal
resources protection in accordance with the California Coastal Act. The proposed
subdivision is consistent with the CLUP for the following reasons:
The subject property is located within an existing developed area of the coastal
zone and the proposed project density of 16.1 units per acre is below the maximum
density limit of 30 units per acre established for the RH -A designation of the CLUP.
2. Public services and infrastructure are currently available and serve the proposed
development (8" sewer and water lines are located in both the Seashore Drive and
River Avenue rights -of -way), and all applicable improvements required by Section
19.28 (Subdivision Improvements) of the Subdivision Code are required to be
constructed by the applicant.
3. The proposed development has been designed to comply with all applicable Multi -
Family Residential (MFR) development regulations of the City's Zoning Code,
including density, floor area, open space, and parking, to insure design
compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Although deviations from the
required setbacks and the base height limit are proposed, these deviations will not
result in a site plan that is inconsistent with the character and development pattern
of the surrounding residential neighborhood.
4. The proposed project will not impact coastal resources nor the ability of the public
to reach, use or view the shoreline of coastal waters or inland coastal recreation
areas and trails.
5. The project includes 63 parking spaces, which exceeds the minimum parking
requirements of the Zoning Code.
6. Gated vehicular access is prohibited, and as a result, the internal roadway will
provide unrestricted vehicular access through the project from River Avenue and
Neptune Avenue and will not inhibit public access to the beach.
7. The project site is not located near the vicinity of a designated public view point
or coastal view road requiring view protection and will not impact any public
views or degrade the visual qualities of the coastal zone.
WHEREAS, subject property is located within the Multi - Family Residential (MFR)
Zoning District . The proposed detached, single -unit and two -unit residential structures
are permitted uses within this zoning designation. With the exception of the increased
setback encroachments, reduction in the minimum distance between buildings, and
building height increase, all of the applicable development regulations of the MFR
zoning regulations have been met; and
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 4 of 23
WHEREAS, Section 20.93.030 (Modification Permits) of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code requires findings and facts in support of such findings for approval of a
modification permit for the encroachments into the required 20 -foot front yard setbacks
and 25 -foot side yard setbacks, and deviation from the minimum 10 -foot building
separation. Such findings and facts to support such findings are as follows:
Finding: The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties
associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code
results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of
the Zoning Code.
Facts in Support of Finding:
While the MFR District permits the proposed single -unit and two -unit
residences, the development setback and building separation standards were
intended to apply to larger, multiple -unit buildings, such as the 3 -story, 54 -unit
apartment building that exists on -site today. The legislative intent of required
setbacks is to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each
dwelling unit. Given that a larger, single structure building would result in more
visual and physical massing, a larger setback would be preferred for that
development type.
b. The applicant has proposed 24 single -unit and two -unit residences designed to
appear as if they were situated on individual 30- foot -wide lots and setbacks
comparable to surrounding R -1 and R -2 lots. Utilizing the R -1 and R -2
development standards as a guide for determining acceptable setbacks and
building separation is appropriate in this case.
c. Given that the MFR District permits the proposed detached development, but
doesn't provide corresponding development standards, strict application of the
Code would result in a physical hardship that is inconsistent with the intent of
the Code.
2. Finding: The requested modification will be compatible with the existing
development in the neighborhood.
Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed project has been designed to appear
as if each unit is situated on a 30- foot -wide lot with setbacks comparable to the
surrounding R -1 and R -2 lots. Those reductions in the setbacks and building
separation to accommodate the smaller detached, residential units arguably results
in a site plan that is more compatible and consistent with the historic development
pattern of the area rather than a single, larger apartment- complex. The following
facts support compatibility of the proposed project with the existing neighborhood:
Vi
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 5 of 23
a. R -1, R -2, and MFR lots only require 3 to 4 -foot side yard setbacks. The
proposed 6 -foot separation between buildings within the project is consistent
with the required 3-foot side yard setbacks of many of the 30 -foot wide lots in
the surrounding neighborhood, which results in a total distance of 6 feet
between buildings.
b. The proposed project is designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30-
foot -wide lot, the setbacks provided to the east property line are consistent and
compatible with the required 3 -foot side yard setbacks of the surrounding 30-
foot and 40- foot -wide lots in the neighborhood. The single -unit building fronting
Seashore Drive that is proposed to encroach 21 feet into the required side yard
setback adjacent to the east property line will maintain a 4 -foot setback. The
duplex unit fronting River Avenue that encroaches 17.5 feet into the required
side yard setback adjacent to east property line will maintain a 7.5 -foot setback.
c. The 6 single -unit structures adjacent to West Newport Park are proposed to
encroach 15 feet into the required side yard setback, maintaining a 10 -foot
setback to the property line. Due to the orientation of these units, this setback
area is equivalent to their front yards and is consistent with the majority of the
front yard setbacks in the immediate vicinity of this project that range between 0
and 10 feet.
d. The 6 units fronting Seashore Drive are proposed to encroach 10 feet into the
required 20 -foot setback, maintaining a 10 -foot setback to the property line. The
proposed 10 -foot setback exceeds the required 0 to 5 -foot front yard setbacks
that are required on a majority of the properties fronting Seashore Avenue in the
immediate vicinity of this project.
e. The 6 duplex structures and 1 single -unit structure adjacent to River Avenue are
proposed to encroach between 5 and 10 feet into the required 20 -foot setback,
maintaining a minimum 10 to 15 -foot setback to the property line. These
proposed setbacks are consistent with, or exceed, the required 5 to 10 -foot front
yard setbacks that are required on a majority of the other existing properties
fronting River Avenue in the immediate vicinity of this project.
3. Finding: The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or
safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will
not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements
in the neighborhood.
Facts in Support of Finding:
a. The project has been designed to include setbacks comparable to the setback
requirements of the surrounding R -1 and R -2 lots. Similar setback and
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 6 of 23
distancing requirements are common throughout the City and have not proven
detrimental.
b. To ensure compatibility with the development standards of the neighboring R -2
units, a condition of project approval has been included requiring the two
structures that encroach into the side yard setback area immediately adjacent to
the east property line to conform to the 24 -foot height limit.
WHEREAS, the site is located in the 28/32 -foot height limitation zone that
permits buildings and structures to exceed the 28 -foot height limit up to a maximum of
32 -feet through the approval of a use permit. Ridges of pitched roofs are permitted to
exceed the height limit by 5 additional feet. The proposed project exceeds the 28 -foot
base height limit. The proposed roof midpoints of the 6 duplex buildings are at 28 feet 10
inches, as measured from the finished pad elevation. The ridges of the buildings are
comforming with a height of approximately 31 feet 4 inches measured from the finished
pad elevation. Section 20.65.055 of the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission
to make certain mandatory findings in order to approve a use permit to exceed the base
height limit. Such findings and facts to support such findings are as follows:
1. Finding: The increased building height would result in more public visual open
space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular
attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage
of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas.
Facts in Support of Finding:
a. The 6 duplex units that are proposed to exceed the 28 -foot base height limit
have been designed with low- pitched gable roof lines, resulting in a maximum
midpoint elevation of 28 feet 10 inches (10 inches over the maximum limit)
and a maximum ridge elevation of 31 feet 4 inches (1 foot 8 inches under the
maximum ridge limit).
b. A conforming roof plan can easily be accomplished by designing a taller
structure with longer roof spans, thereby lowering the midpoint below the 28-
foot limit. This quirk in the City's method of measuring roof midpoints results
in conforming roof midpoints but increases the overall height of the building to
the maximum 33 -foot ridge limit. Therefore, the 10 -inch height increase to the
midpoint allowance actually results in a 1 -foot 8 inch overall height reduction
of the proposed buildings, resulting in increased public visual open space and
views than could otherwise be afforded with a conforming roof plan.
c. A single, large multiple -unit building that conforms to the minimum setbacks
and maximum height could be constructed, which would likely result in a more
visually massive and bulky structure. Such a project could result in a 63
percent total maximum lot coverage. The proposed project, with 18 smaller
to
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 7 of 23
detached single -unit and two -unit structures results in a substantially smaller
36 percent lot coverage. This reduction in lot coverage not only increases the
public visual open space and view opportunities through the site, but also
allows for increased landscaping of the site, which is proposed at 28 percent
of the lot (the existing development of the site provides only 14.4 percent
landscaping).
2. Finding: The increased building height would result in a more desirable
architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual
character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone.
Facts in Support of Finding:
a. The low- pitched gable roof lines result in building heights that are generally
more compatible with the heights and architectural styles of the development
in the surrounding neighborhood.
The design of a conforming roof plan results in increased overall building
heights and visual massing as viewed from the street elevation and also
results in less desirable architectural treatment of the side elevations, with
more drastic roof lines that are less visually appealing.
3. Finding: The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt
scale relationships being created between the structure and existing
developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total
bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions.
Facts in Support of Finding:
The proposed street facing elevations will be scaled down by concentrating
the highest portions of the building mass away from the street frontages.
Through this design, the front and rear masses of the buildings are minimized
and allow more light and ventilation to the immediate neighbors.
With the exception of the existing R -2 properties to the east, the project site is
separated from other uses by River Avenue, Seashore Drive, and the West
Newport Park. This separation, in conjunction with the design of the buildings
to limit the bulk and mass of the third floor to the center of the lots, eliminates
any undesirable or abrupt scale relationships between the project and existing
developments.
c. A condition of approval has been included to require the reduction in heights
of structures adjacent to the existing R -2 properties to conform with a 24 -foot
base height limit. This reduction in height should result in a project that is
U.
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 8 of 23
compatible in scale to the adjacent R -2 properties and will help ease the
transition of the projects increased heights to the existing neighborhood.
4. Finding: The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been
achieved without the use permit.
Facts in Support of Finding:
a. The proposed floor area ratio for the project is 1.23 FAR, which is below the
maximum of 1.75 FAR; therefore the project does not achieve any additional
floor area due to the additional height.
b. The additional allowance in height only affects roof lines and results in an
architecturally superior product than would be achieved through a roof design
that conforms to the height limit.
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting the approval of a tentative tract map, for
condominium purposes, to create 24 airspace condominium units Pursuant to Section
19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code, certain findings and facts in support of such
findings shall be made for approval of a tentative tract map. Such findings and facts to
support such findings are as follows:
1. Finding: That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the
subdivision are consistent with General Plan and any applicable specific plan,
and with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City
Subdivision Code.
Facts in Support of Finding:
a. The project is consistent with the Multiple Unit' Residential General Plan
designation of the site.
b. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tentative maps and
believes that they are consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code
(Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
c. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title
19.
2. Finding: That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of
development.
Facts in Support of Finding:
a. The existing site is entirely developed and does not support any environmental
resources.
t `L_
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 9 of 23
The site is relatively flat and based on the geologic investigation performed for
the site, no signs of unstable or expansive soils are evident, nor is the site
subject to erosion.
c. The geologic investigation revealed that the underlying soil of the site has a
significant liquefaction potential if subject to heavy vibration; however, mitigation
measures have been incorporated, as recommended by the site - specific
geotechnical investigation, that will reduce impacts to a less than significant
level.
d. The site is currently developed with multiple - family dwelling units at a density
greater than that proposed.
3. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the
decision - making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an
environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made
pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that
specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared
and concludes that no significant environmental impacts will result with proposed
development of the site in accordance with the proposed subdivision map.
4. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not
likely to cause serious public health problems.
Facts in Support of Finding:
a. The project consists of 24 residential units as permitted by the Zoning Code and
the General Plan.
b. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the planned subdivision
pattern will generate any serious public health problems.
c. All mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration to ensure the protection of the public health.
5. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or
use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision -
making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access
t3
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 10 of 23
or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only
to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to
determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or
use of property within a subdivision.
Facts in Support of Finding:
a. A 24- foot -wide easement through the site will be retained by the City to
ensure access rights for public emergency and security ingress/egress, public
utility purposes, and weekly trash pick -up.
b. A 6 -foot sidewalk easement currently exists along the Seashore Drive
frontage and the applicant is required to construct full -width sidewalks.
c. No other public easements for access through or use of the property have
been retained for use by the public at large.
d. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are
present and will be modified, if necessary, to serve the proposed project.
6. Finding: That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the
Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to
the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting
parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their
agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental
to the commercial agricultural use of the land.
Facts in Support of Finding: The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract.
7. Finding: That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the
California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted speck plan
for the area to be included within the land project; and (b) the decision - making
body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for
the area.
Facts in Support of Finding: The subject property is not located within the
boundaries of a speck plan.
8. Finding: That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements
have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the
Subdivision Map Act.
Facts in Support of Finding:
tY
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 11 of 23
Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code requires new construction to meet
minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and
climate.
The Newport Beach Building Department will enforce Title 24 compliance
through the plan check and field inspection processes for the construction of
any future proposed residences.
9. Finding: That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the
Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code
regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the
housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's
residents and available fiscal and environmental resources.
Facts in Support of Finding:
a. To compensate for the demolition of 6 units currently occupied by persons of
lower or moderate income, the applicant will be required to replace the units
at an off -site location within the City for a minimum period of 30 years.
b. Public services are available to serve the proposed development of the site
and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project indicates that
the project's potential environmental impacts are expected to be less than
significant.
10. Finding: That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the
existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements
prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Facts in Support of Finding:
a. Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with the
existing residential use of the property and does not violate Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements.
b. Sewer connections have been conditioned to be installed per City Standards,
the applicable provisions of Chapter 14.24 (Sewer Connection, Permits), and
the latest revision of the Uniform Plumbing Code.
11. Finding: For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the
subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where
applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the
Coastal Act.
K
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 12 of 23
Facts in Support of Finding:
a. The project has been designed and conditioned for consistency with the City's
Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan.
b. The project site is not located adjacent to the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean
and is not presently developed with coastal - related uses, coastal- dependent
uses or water - oriented recreational uses.
WHEREAS, Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code (Low and Moderate Income
Housing within the Coastal Zone) requires the processing of a coastal residential
development permit (CRDP) to ensure compliance with Government Code Section
65590 (commonly known as the 1982 Mellow Act). The Mellow Act prohibits the City
from approving the demolition or conversion of existing housing units occupied by low -
or moderate - income households located within the Coastal Zone, unless provisions are
made for their replacement with new affordable units. If feasible, all or any portion of the
replacement units must be located on the site of the demolished structure or elsewhere
in the Coastal Zone. If location on -site or within the Coastal Zone is not feasible, the
units must be located within three miles of the Coastal Zone's inland boundary; and
WHEREAS, based on an income survey performed in June of 2007 by the Las
Brisas property manager, Allen Properties, it was determined that a total of 6 units in the
existing apartment complex are occupied by low- and moderate - income households. It
has been determined to be feasible for the applicant to commit $1.35 million which the
applicant will use to provide 6 affordable housing units at an off -site location, or
locations, for a minimum period of 30 years; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have
been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State
CEQA Guidelines; and, City Council Policy K -3. The Draft MND was circulated for public
comment between February 21 and March 21, 2008. Comments were received from the
Southern California Gas Company, Native American Heritage Commission, Lennie
DeCaro, California Department of Transportation, and Department of Toxic Control
Substances. The contents of the environmental document, including comments on the
document, have been considered in the various decisions on this project; and
WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed
project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no
known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally,
there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project,
nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation
measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting
Program are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than
significant level; and
t(,
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 13 of 23
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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; and
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY RESOLVES AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby
find, on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative
Declaration reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The
Planning Commission hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH No. 2008-
021075, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit
"A ". The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this
decision was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport
Boulevard, Newport Beach, California.
Section 2. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission
hereby approves Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001, Modification Permit No. 2007 -044,
Use Permit No. 2007 -011 & Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001, all
subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made hereof.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17'-h DAY OF APRIL, 2008.
BY:
Robert Hawkins, Chairman
No
Bradley Hilgren, Secretary
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
(I