HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 - Amending the San Joaquin Plaza Planned Community and Approving a Development Agreement for the Museum House Residential Project - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed
December 13, 2016
Item No. 5
From: Ramirez, Gregg
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 10:06 AM
To: City Clerk's Office; Mulvey, Jennifer; Brown, Leilani
Subject: FW: Comments on the Museum House
Attachments: MusuemHouseLegalLetterll-16.docx
Good morning,
Please distribute the attached letter regarding Agenda Item No. 5. to the City Council.
Thank you,
G regg
-----Original Message -----
From: Susan Skinner [mailto:seskinner@me.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2016 4:46 AM
To: Ramirez, Gregg
Subject: Comments on the Museum House
Gregg,
I reviewed the agenda for the city's meeting on Tuesday and was surprised to find that the letter that I submitted on
November 29 to the City Clerk was not included in your packet. If you review the video of that meeting, you can see me
walking over to the clerk immediately after my comments and giving her my letter. I am including my letter to you again
in this Email and will arrange to have it delivered to the city for a time stamp on Monday or Tuesday as well. In addition,
I would appreciate your acknowledgement of this Email and the letter contained within it.
The final approval of the project cannot occur on Tuesday as the legal process is incomplete, as detailed in my letter.
Thank you,
Susan Skinner
November 29, 2016
The Honorable Diane B. Dixon
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Members of the Newport Beach City Council
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Aaron C. Harp City Attorney
100 Civic Center Drive
Newport Beach, California 92660
Re: City Council Consideration of the Museum House Project
Dear Mayor Dixon and Members of the Newport Beach City Council:
After reviewing the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the
proposed 100 -residential unit condominium project, the Museum House
("Project") and related materials, I continue to oppose the Project. The Project
applicant has requested several approvals from the City of Newport Beach
("City"), including the approval of a vesting tentative tract map
("VTTM"). However, review of the Planning Commission packet reveals that the
Project's VTTM is defective, cannot take effect if adopted by the City Council, and
may be incomplete.
Under Newport Beach Municipal Code section 19.20.030, "whenever a
subdivider files a vesting tentative map for a subdivision whose intended
development is inconsistent with the Zoning Code or Districting Maps in existence
at that time, that inconsistency shall be noted on the vesting tentative
map." Despite requiring a General Plan Amendment and a Planned Community
District Plan Amendment, the Project's VTTM does not contain a notation of the
development's inconsistency with these plans.
Under the Newport Beach Municipal Code, prior to approval of a VTTM, the
City is required to make a finding that "the proposed map ... [is] consistent with
the General Plan and any applicable specific plan." Newport Beach Municipal
Code § 19.12.070. Yet the VTTM would allow the development of a 100 -unit
condominium building in conflict with the allowable height and use of the Project
site under the City's existing land use regulations. Therefore, the City cannot
make its required findings of consistency with the General Plan and the San
Joaquin Plaza Planned Community District Plan. Accordingly, unless the VTTM
is conditioned on a General Plan Amendment or Planned Community District Plan
Amendment, the VTTM would be void upon adoption for its inconsistency with
the existing General Plan and Planned Community District Plan
Amendment. Thus, the City should postpone approval of the VTTM until the
General Plan Amendment and Planned Community District Plan Amendment
become effective, so that the City may make the required findings.
Further, review of the Planning Commission package reveals only one sheet
of the VTTM, which does not appear to subdivide any parcels. If this is the
complete VTTM being approved, then it is not a valid VTTM because there is no
subdivision of land. If this is not the complete VTTM, then the Planning
Commission—and the public—did not have the complete VTTM available at the
time of the Planning Commission's recommendation, and a new Planning
Commission hearing on the full VTTM should be held.
Sincerely,
Susan Skinner
2042 Port Provence Place
Newport Beach, CA 92660