HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-98 - Denying the Appeal without Prejudice and Upholding the Planning Commission Denial of Planned Development Permit No. PL2014-001, Lot Merger No. LM2014-003, Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2015-001, and the Requested Park Waiver for tRESOLUTION NO. 2016-98
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DENIAL OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NO. PL2014-001, LOT MERGER NO. LM2014-003,
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
NO. AH2015-001, AND THE REQUESTED PARK WAIVER 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)
WHEREAS, 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 (NBMC) to allow the construction of 384 multi -family
residential units and 5,677 square feet of retail use with an adjustment request of
the development standards to allow:
i. 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.
ii. 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 NBMC Section 19.68.030(H) 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);
Resolution No. 2016-98
Page 2 of 7
WHEREAS, 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);
WHEREAS, the subject property is not located within the coastal zone;
WHEREAS, 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. The Planning Commission 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;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission 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 public hearing 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 to deny the project without prejudice and adopted Resolution
No. 2019 for project denial on June 23, 2016;
WHEREAS, on July 7, 2016, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the City Council on July 26, 2016, in the
Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach to consider the applicant's
appeal. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing 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 City Council at this public hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as
follows:
Section 1: The recitals provided above are true and correct and are incorporated
into the operative part of this resolution.
Section 2: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby deny without
prejudice Planned Development Permit No. PL2014-001, Lot Merger No. LM2014-003,
Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2015-001, and the requested park waiver.
This denial is based upon the oral and written testimony and evidence presented at the public
hearing and upon the following findings:
1. In accordance with General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.15.13, the City Council
does not waive the required neighborhood park dedication based upon the following:
Resolution No. 2016-98
Page 3 of 7
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 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 Subsection 20.52.060(F), the City Council 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,
Resolution No. 2016-98
Page 4 of 7
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.
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 Subsection 20.30.060(C)(3) the City Council 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
Resolution No. 2016-98
Page 5 of 7
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 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 NBMC Subsection 19.68.030(H), the City Council 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 Subsection 19.08.030(A)(3), the City Council 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, water 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."
Resolution No. 2016-98
Page 6 of 7
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 City Council was unable to approve the proposed affordable housing
implementation plan (AHIP) for the following reason(s):
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 AHIP or
require an affordable housing agreement pursuant to NBMC 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 3: 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 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for
any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares
that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or
phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences,
clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Resolution No. 2016-98
Page 7 of 7
Section 5: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City
Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting this resolution.
ADOPTED this 26th day of July, 2016.
ATTEST:
�4 bvr�.
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk
&�L%L -
Diane B. Dixo
Mayor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss.
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH }
I, Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California, do hereby certify that the
whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing resolution, being Resolution
No. 2016-98 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a
regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 26`h day of July, 2016, and that the same
was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Council Member Peotter, Council Member Duffield, Council Member Selich,
Council Member Curry, Council Member Petros, Mayor Pro Tem Muldoon,
Mayor Dixon
NAYS: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of
said City this 27th day of July, 2016.
C
Leilani I. Brown, MMC
City Clerk
Newport Beach, California
(Seal)