The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1793 - RECOMMEND APPROVAL AMENDMENT TO THE NNCPC PD AND CA TO DISTRICTING MAP NO. 48, NO. 49, AND NO. 50RESOLUTION NO. 1793 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE NORTH NEWPORT CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A CODE AMENDMENT TO DISTRICTING MAP NO. 48, NO. 49, AND NO. 50 (PA2009 -111) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by the Irvine Company with respect to properties located in Block 100, Block 400, and Block 800 of Newport Center Drive and at the southwest corner and San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard, and legally described in Exhibit A, requesting approval of Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2009 -003 and Code Amendment No. CA2009 -005. 2. The applicant proposes to incorporate portions of Block 100, Block 400, Block 800, and Newport Village into the North Newport Center Planned Community and to change the zoning classification of these properties from Administrative, Professional, Financial (APF), and Planned Community (PC -28, PC -23, and PC -27) to Planned Community (PC -56). 3. The subject properties are located within the APF, PC -28, PC -23, and PC -27 Zoning Districts and the General Plan Land Use Element categories are Regional Commercial Office (CO -R), Medical Commercial Office (CO -M), Multiple Unit Residential (RM) and Open Space (OS). 4. The subject properties are not located within the coastal zone. 5. Public hearing were held on October 8, 2009, and on October 22, 2009, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of these meetings were given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at these meetings. SECTION 2. FINDINGS. 1. The Development Plan Amendment, with the recommended text changes, is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan as the proposed land use regulations are consistent with the Regional Commercial Office (CO -R), Medical Commercial Office (CO -M), Multiple Residential (RM), and Open Space (OS) land use categories designated on the subject properties. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1793 Paoe 2 of 4 2. The Development Plan Amendment, with the recommended text changes, is consistent with Section 20.35.050.0 of the Municipal Code, which establishes the requirements of a Planned Community Development Plan. 3. The Development Plan Amendment, with the recommended text changes, will not increase the intensity or density of allowable land uses or change the types of allowable uses in the subject portions of Blocks 100, 400, and 800 or the open space parcel in the northern portion of Newport Village; in the areas already covered by the Development Plan; or on any other properties. 4. The subject portions of Blocks 100, 400, and 800 are fully developed, the open space parcel in the northern portion of Newport Village shall remain designated as open space, and the applicant does not seek any further entitlements through this Development Plan Amendment or Code Amendment. SECTION 3. CEQA DETERMINATION. 1. It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Development Plan Amendment, with the recommended text changes, and Code Amendment will result in any environmental impacts because the Development Plan Amendment, with the recommended text changes, simply extends the existing zoning restrictions to include the subject portions of Blocks 100, 400, and 800 and the open space parcel in the northern portion of Newport Village. The Code Amendment will amend Districting Maps No. 48, No. 49, and No. 50 to reflect the zoning reclassification of the subject portions of Block 100 (APF District), Block 400 (PC -28 District), Block 800 (PC -23 District), and Newport Village (PC -27 District) to the North Newport Center Planned Community (PC -56) District. Thus, the Development Plan Amendment, with the recommended text changes, and Code Amendment are exempt from further environmental review consistent with the common sense exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15061(b)(3)). 2. Muzzy Ranch v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission (2007) 41 CalAth 372, 389the California Supreme Court held that the CEQA common sense exemption applied to the approval of a land use compatibility plan that merely extended existing land use restrictions to a greater geographical area. 3. 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. Therefore, to the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant and property owner shall defend, indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all Planning Commission Resolution No. 1793 Paae 3 of 4 claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to the project, the project's approval based on the City's CEQA determination and /or the City's failure to comply with the requirements of any federal, state, or local laws, including, but not limited to, CEQA, General Plan and zoning requirements. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends approval of Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2009 -003 and Code Amendment No. CA2009 -005 to the City Council. 2. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that Districting Maps No. 48, No. 49, and No. 50 be amended as provided in Exhibit B. 3. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the North Newport Center Planned Community Development be amended as provided in Exhibit C with the following revisions: List Medical Retail as "Not Permitted" in Block 800 in Table 1 in Section IIA1. Revise Section IIIA2c and Section IIIA2d: c. Rooftop Appurtenances Rooftop appurtenances are permitted and may exceed the maximum building height up to 20 feet. Rooftop Appurtenances shall demonstrate compliance with conditions related to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the John Wayne ort c To�toP w�aeszion 111 (A) (2) (a)R.00 op purtenances must be edcn.df�ew— fcocw —stfee `adjacent aQ- Supports for window washing equipment are permitted, and are not required to be screened from view. No setbacks are required. The Planning Director shall notify the Planning Commission and City Council if rooftop appurtenances above the height limit are approved, consistent with Section IV (A)(3). d. Architectural Features Architectural features are permitted and may exceed the maximum building height up to 20 feet. Such features must be an extension of the architectural Planning Commission Resolution No. 1793 Page 4 of 4 style of the building in terms of materials, design and color. Architectural features shall demonstrate compliance with conditions related to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for the John Wayne Airport, consistent with Section Ill (A) (2) (a). The Planning Director shall notify the Planning Commission and City Council if architectural features above the height limit are approved, consistent with Section IV (A)(3). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009. AYES: Unsworth, Peotter, McDaniel and Toerge NOES: Eaton and Hawkins ABSTAIN: Hawkins BY: Earl McDaniel, Acting Chairman BY: Q-1rc -'.- Charles Unsworth, Secretary