Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18 - Staff ReportCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. _1b November 14, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3208 rung@city.newport-beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Our Lady Queen of Angels Church Expansion 2046 & 2100 Mar Vista Drive Use Permit No. 2005 -090 Traffic Study No. 2006 -002 Mitigated Negative Declaration (PA2005 -092) APPLICANT: The Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange APPELLANT: Paul D. Doremus (Villa Granada Homeowners Association) ISSUE Should the City Council uphold Lady Queen of Angels Church facilities by relocating its churc Drive (presently used by St. Mar its existing site at 2046 Mar Vist a RECOMMENDATION the decision of the Planning Commission to allow Our (OLQA) to expand their existing church and school h to the adjacent property located at 2100 Mar Vista k Presbyterian Church) and to expand the school within Drive? Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, deny the appeal and uphold and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission by adopting the attached resolution (Attachment A). OLQA requests the approval of a use permit to allow the expansion of the existing church and school facilities. The expansion includes the construction of a 1,170 -seat santuary, ten (10) additional classrooms, a 9,450 square foot gymnasium and parking. The application includes the following additional request: the proposed church santuary to exceed the permitted building height of 35 feet (90 feet proposed for the steeple); to allow the transfer OLQA's Appeal November 14, 2006 Page 2 of 4 of development intensity between the two sites in accordance with Section 20.63.080 of the Municipal Code; and to allow ten (10) portable classrooms to be located on the school site during the construction period. A more detailed project description is contained in the Planning Commission staff report and Migitated Negative Declaration. The project was reviewed at two hearings held by the Planning Commission, on August 17 and September 7, 2006, with approval of the project occurring at the second meeting (Attachment B). The approval resolution, staff reports and minutes from those meetings are attached as Attachments C through F with the project plans attached as Attachment G. Appeal On September 20, 2006, Paul Doremus, representing Villa Granada Homeowners Association, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to approve the project. The appeal is attached to the report as Attachment H. The appellant requested that the appeal be heard by the City Council in January of 2007, in order to allow sufficient time to conduct new studies (e.g. traffic study) and to review, all documentation pertaining to the proposed church expansion. The appellant also requested that OLQA immediately cease and desist any and all attempts to install any new classrooms which are either of a temporary or permanent basis. OLQA does not agree to such a delay and has requested that the City Council hear the appeal at its earliest convenience consistent with Section of 20.95.060 (Procedures for Appeals) that requires the scheduling of an appeal within 60 days of the filing of the appeal. The hearing may only be delayed beyond 60 days provided that both the applicant and the appellant agree to a later date or that the City Council agrees to a later date. Without an agreement, staff scheduled this hearing in accordance with Section of 20.95.060. The appellant believes that the traffic study is insufficient as it only focuses on one primary intersection (Jamboree Rd. /Ford - Eastbluff). The appellant would like a new study to evaluate the abutting intersections of Eastbluff/Mar Vista, Mar Vista/ Domingo, and Domingo /Amigos Way. The appellant further contends that the findings from his independent studies will show that the project will exacerbate traffic conditions in the area to the detriment of the neighborhood. Lastly, the appellant firmly believes that the forthcoming new information will shed light on the complicated equation of the ongoing and dangerous traffic jams and congestion experienced in the surrounding area and it will validate their concerns of the size of the school and church expansion including the height of the proposed santuary. The traffic study was prepared by Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer in accordance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). It also included an analysis of reasonably foreseeable projects such that the analysis OLQA's Appeal November 14, 2006 Page 3 of 4 would be sufficient to satisfy California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. The study also evaluated local circulation and on -site parking issues. The traffic study evaluates existing weekday and Sunday average daily traffic volumes for all residential streets in the immediate area (Eastbluff Drive, Vista Del Oro, Mar Vista Drive and Domingo Drive) and discloses the contribution of new traffic from the OLQA operation. The traffic study analyzes the project in the context of the traffic and operations associated with Corona del Mar High School. Conditions of approval include parking and traffic management and scheduling of OLQA school activities and religious services to best avoid significant overlap in schedules that would exacerbate the existing challenging traffic and parking issues experienced in the area. The parking management plan includes a school drop- off /pick -up plan to better manage these activities. The plan also includes how parking is managed for varying sizes of mass or assembly events including mid -week memorial services that occur from time to time. A construction phasing plan was also developed to minimize the impacts of the construction on the local streets surrounding the project site. Implementation of these plans as required by the conditions of approval should improve circulation and parking issues for the church and school operations by reducing the need for vehicles to circulate on the public streets for parking. Off -site parking demands are anticiated to be reduced as well. In conclusion, the Planning Commission found that implementation of the project pursuant to the conditions of approval would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. On October 30, 2006, the appellant submitted a package of information (Attachment 1) that contained copies of the written correspondence that were previously reviewed by staff and the Planning Commission. During two public hearings, the Planning Commission thoroughly reviewed all public comments and listened to concerns expressed by residents including the appellant's concerns. The appellant has not submitted a traffic study or any other technical reports as of the drafting of this report that would call into question the validity of the analysis in the record. The appellant's opinion does not constitute substantial evidence of a fair argument that there would be a substantial environmental impact related to traffic or parking should the City Council choose to approve the application. Environmental Review The Initial Study of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by PCR Service Corporation for the proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Attachment J). This document was made available for public review and comment twice (between June 30 and July 30, 2006 and between August 3 and August 23, 2006). The Planning Commission considered the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration during consideration of the project and concluded that the documentation was adequate and adopted it. It is staffs belief that the appellant has not presented any new information OLQA's Appeal November 14, 2006 Page 4 of 4 that would lead one to conclude that the Mitigated Negative Declaration should not be adopted. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Alternatives The Council has the following options: 1. Postpone the appeal hearing to January 23, 2007 (120 days from the appeal filing deadline date of September 20, 2006), as requested by the appellant. 2. Modify any aspect of the Use Permit application. 3. Uphold the appeal and deny Use Permit No. 2005 -090. Prepared by: Flo alinh M. Ung, As ci a Planner Attachments: Submitted by: David Lepo, P ning Director A. Draft City Council Resolution B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1696 C. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 7, 2006 D. Excerpt of Minutes dated September 7, 2006 E. Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 17, 2006 F. Excerpt of Minutes dated August 17, 2006 G. Project Plans H. Appeal Application submitted by the Appellant I. Information submitted by the Appellant date stamped October 30, 2006 J. Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration' 'Distributed separately due to bulk. The entire document is available in City Clerk's Office and the Planning Department.