Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-22 - Approving Code Amendment No. CA2010-009 Increasing the Maximum Development Limit for Property Located at 100-300 West Coast Highway to 19,905 Square Feet (PA2010-114)ORDINANCE NO. 2011 -22 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2010 -009 INCREASING THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT LIMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 100 -300 WEST COAST HIGHWAY TO 19,905 SQUARE FEET (PA2010 -114) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by VBAS Corporation, with respect to properties located at 100- 300 West Coast Highway, and legally described as Lots 1, 2, 3 ,4, 5, and 6 of Tract No. 1210 requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to accommodate the development of a 23,015- square -foot, two -story commercial building and a three -story parking structure The following applications were requested or required in order to implement the project as proposed: a. An amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to increase the allowable floor area for the project site from 16,518 square feet (0.5 FAR) to a maximum development limit of 23,015 square feet (approx. 0.7 FAR); b. An amendment to the Zoning Map of the Zoning Code to increase the allowable floor area limitation for the project site from 0.3/0.5 FAR to a maximum development limit of 23,015 square feet (approx. 0.7 FAR); c. A site development review to allow the construction of a 23,015- square -foot, two -story building and a three -story parking structure that will exceed the 31- foot base height limit with a maximum height of 40 feet; d. A conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a parking structure adjacent to a residential zoning district, to modify the off - street parking requirements, allow for the use of off -site parking, and to establish a parking management plan for the site; e. A variance to allow the commercial building and parking structure to encroach five feet into the five -foot rear yard setback; f. A parcel map to consolidate six lots into one parcel; and g. A traffic study pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 2. The subject property is located within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Commercial General (CG). 3. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. City Council Ordinance No. 2011 -22 Paae 2 of 7 4. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 23, 2011, 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 Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. 5. At the June 23, 2011, Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the project without prejudice. 6. On July 1, 2011, the Planning Commission's decision to deny the applicant's request was appealed by City Councilmember Edward Selich. The appeal was filed to allow the City Council an opportunity to review the project since the project sits at the western entry into the Mariner's Mile corridor, which is an area the City is trying to revitalize given the poor condition of the properties. 7. Due to the concerns expressed by the community and the Planning Commission at the June 23, 2011, Planning Commission hearing, the applicant modified the application request by reducing the project gross floor area from 23,015 square feet (approx 0.7 FAR) to 19,905 square feet (approx. 0.6 FAR), increased on -site parking supplies, and eliminating the need for off -site parking. 8. A public hearing was held by the City Council on August 9, 2011, 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 Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this meeting. 9. Pursuant to Section 20.64.030.C, the public hearing was conducted "de novo," meaning that it was a new hearing and the decision being appealed has no force or effect as of the date the call for review was filed. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. 2. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 -day comment period beginning on April 11, 2011 and ending on May 11, 2011. The contents of the environmental document and comments on the document were considered by the City Council in its review of the proposed project. 3. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project, with mitigation measures, 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 City Council Ordinance No. 2011 -22 Paqe 3 of 7 compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and will reduce the potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. 4. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program were adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2011 -86. The modifications proposed by the applicant subsequent to the circulation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration do not constitute "substantial revisions" that would warrant recirculation of the MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. 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. 5. The City Council 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. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. 1. The project site is located within the Mariner's Mile commercial corridor. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site General Commercial (CG), which is intended to provide for a wide variety of commercial activities primarily oriented to serve citywide or regional needs. The proposed commercial building would be consistent with this designation. 2. General Plan Policy LU 3.2 encourages the enhancement of existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, by allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. The policy states that changes in use and /or density /intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. The proposed General Plan Amendment and Code Amendment for increased intensity is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 3.2 as follows: a. The General Plan recognizes the Mariner's Mile corridor as a location that needs revitalization. City Council Ordinance No. 2011 -22 Page 4 of 7 b. The increased intensity would provide an economic stimulus needed to accommodate the redevelopment of six lots into one commercial development. c. As stated in the General Plan, Newport Beach residents desire high quality development and have identified the Mariner's Mile corridor is an area that needs revitalization. d. Redevelopment of the subject property helps implement the goal of revitalizing the corridor and may encourage the redevelopment of other underperforming properties within the Mariner's Mile corridor. The project's high quality and distinctive architectural features, such as the corner tower element and cupola, will serve as a focal point and anchor into the entry into the Mariner's Mile corridor. In addition, the project's landscaping and water feature within the public right -of -way will significantly improve the streetscape in the corridor. e. The traffic impact analysis that was prepared for the project found that the addition of project - related traffic would not have a significant impact at any of the study intersections. f. The project site is served by existing infrastructure and public services. The proposed increase in intensity will not necessitate any expansion of existing infrastructure. The project will extend the transition area from three lanes to two lanes (lane drop extension) on West Coast Highway, which will improve safety of westbound traffic and improve access to the site. The removal of the three existing power poles and undergrounding of the power lines will provide a public benefit. SECTION 4. DECISION. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Zoning Map shall be amended as provided in Exhibit "A" and as described below, with all other provisions of the existing Zoning Map remaining unchanged, for property located at 100 -300 West Coast Highway, and legally described as Lots 1 through 6 of Tract No. 1210. 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance 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 ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses and phrases be declared unconstitutional. 3. This action shall become final and effective thirty days after the adoption of this Ordinance. City Council Ordinance No. 2011 -22 Paqe 5 of 7 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the gth day of August, 2011, and adopted on the 13th day of September 2011, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS Henn, Rosansky, Hill, Selich, Curry NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS Daigle, Gardner ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS Nnna MAYOR Michael F. Henn ATTEST: CAPAA� p Leilani Brown, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM, FFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: David Hunt, City Attorneq 211t for the City of Newport Beach City Council Ordinance No. 2011 -22 Paqe 6 of 7 EXHIBIT "A" Anomaly Development Limit Number (Square feet) PC 43 ..till Ypk CA2010- 009.mxd July /2011 37 0 250 500 CA2010 -009 (PA2010 -114) i Feet Zoning Code Amendment 100, 224, and 300 West Coast Highway N,,.. STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE 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 ordinance, being Ordinance No. 2011 -22 was duly and regularly introduced on the 9th day of August, 2011, and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the 13th day of September, 2011, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote, to wit: Ayes: Hill, Rosansky, Selich, Curry, Mayor Henn Noes: Gardner, Daigle Absent: None Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 14th day of September, 2011. City Clerk City of Newport Beach, California (Seal) CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION 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 Ordinance No. 2011 -21 has been duly and regularly published according to law and the order of the City Council of said City and that same was so published in The Daily Pilot, a daily newspaper of general circulation on the following dates: 2011. Introduced Ordinance: August 13, 2011 Adopted Ordinance: September 17, 2011 ��22�, y�, ,� `��p� In witness whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name this PA day of DU U�/SA 0014 - ovb::� City Clerk City of Newport Beach, California