HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0_Via_Lido_Amendments_PA2011-024CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
May 5, 2011 Hearing
Agenda Item 3
SUBJECT: Via Lido Amendments - (PA2011 -024)
3363, 3369 & 3377 Via Lido and 3378 Via Oporto
• General Plan Amendment No. GP2011 -003
• Local CoastalPlan Amendment No. LC2011 -002
• Code Amendment No. CA2011 -005
APPLICANT: Allan Fainbarg
PLANNER: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner
(949) 644 -3208, rung @newportbeachca.gov
'C• _ uu_G 1
The property owner is seeking to continue the existing nonconforming commercial uses
of the subject property by requesting the following amendments:
1) General Plan Land Use designation from Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) to Mixed -
Use Vertical (MU -V),
2) Coastal Land Use Plan designation from Multiple -Unit Residential (RM -D) to Mixed -
Use Vertical (MU -V), and
3) Zoning designation from Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) to Mixed -Use Vertical (MU-
V)
No new land use or development is proposed at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing; and
2) Adopt Resolution No. _ (Attachment No. PC 1) and attached Exhibits
recommending the City Council:
• Approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2011 -003,
• Approve Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. LC2011 -002, and
• Approve Code Amendment No. CA2011 -005
Via Lido Amendments
May 5, 2011
Page 2
VICINITY MAP
„n
a
Q
Y
GENERAL PLAN & COASTAL LAND
USE
ZONING
Mu.w/
Mu -w
Mu W,
Mu W,
M
s++
PP
y ■r 11 /e MIOY
}
?66
•W
/N
wnnwou
LOCATION
EXISTING GENERAL PLAN &
EXISTING
CURRENT USE
COASTAL LAND USE
ZONING
ON -SITE
RM /20 DU /AC & RM -D
RM 2178 SA/DU
Retail Commercial & Office Uses
NORTH
MU -W
MU -W2
Retail Commercial & Office Uses
SOUTH
RM /20 DU /AC & RM -D
RM 2178 SA/DU
Retail Commercial & Office Uses
EAST
MU -W
MU -W2
Office & Residential Uses
WEST
CG 0.5 FAR & CG -B
CG 0.5 FAR
Retail Commercial Uses
Via Lido Amendments
May 5, 2011
Page 3
INTRODUCTION
Project Setting
The subject property is an approximately 8,106 square feet in size and located on the
inland side of Via Lido in Lido Marina Village area. It has land use designation of RM
(Multiple -Unit Residential) by the General Plan Land Use Element, Coastal Land Use
Plan and the Zoning Code. The property is currently improved with two, single -story
commercial buildings that are being occupied by a beauty salon, a day spa, and two
office developments.
Background
The subject property was originally developed with commercial and office developments
in 1970. The Zoning designation was C -1 (Light Commercial), according to the City's
building records.
On March 10, 1983, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 3024 to allow
the establishment of a take -out ice cream shop to be located in the smaller building
facing Via Oporto (3378 Via Oporto). The subject property, at that time, has a zoning
designation of C -O (Limited Commercial).
On November 9, 1992, the City Council adopted Ordinance 92 -45 to reclassify specific
parcels City -wide including the subject property, from C -O (Limited Commercial) to RSC
(Retail & Service Commercial), in order to be consistent with the 1988 Comprehensive
General Plan Revision.
On July 25, 2006, the Newport Beach City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006 -76
approving a comprehensive update to the Newport Beach General Plan ( "General Plan
Update "). As a part of this update, the General Plan designation of the subject property
was changed from RSC to RM (Multiple Residential) 20 DU /AC.
On November 13, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2007 -71, approving
Coastal Land. Use Plan Amendment No. LC2007 -001, making the Coastal Land Use Plan
consistent with the General Plan Update. As a part of this Coastal Land Use Amendment,
the Coastal Land Use designation of the subject property was changed from CG -B
(General Commercial) 0.75 FAR to RM -D (Multiple Residential) 20 -29.9 DU /AC.
On January 28, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2008 -05, which in addition
to other Zoning Code changes, established the maximum time period for the abatement
and termination of nonconforming uses in residential districts. The nonconformity
determination; however, could not be made until the finalization of the City's Local Coastal
Plan (LCP) which occurred on July 14, 2009.
Via Lido Amendments
May 5, 2011
Page 4
On October 25, 2010, the City Council adopted a Comprehensive Update to the Zoning
Code (Newport Beach Municipal Code Title 20) bringing consistency between the Zoning
Code and the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Zoning designation of the
subject property was changed from RSC (Retail & Service Commercial) to RM (Multiple
Residential) 2178 square feet per dwelling unit (20 units per acre). The result of this
action rendered the existing commercial uses located on subject property nonconforming,
making them subject to abatement.
The City sent letters to all known uses that are subject to abatement. Subsequently, staff
has met and continues to meet with many of the owners of property that are subject to
abatement to discuss the land use options that are available to address their individual
situations. These options include the conversion of existing uses to residential uses
(apartment, townhouse, etc); request for extension of the abatement period; and /or
request to amend the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Code to allow the
continuation of the existing commercial uses. In the case of the subject application, the
property owner chooses to pursue amendments to change the land use designations of
their property from residential to mixed -use.
Project Description
The subject application does not include a specific project for development at this time.
The proposed land use changes, as shown below, would allow the retention of the
existing land use and allow for future development in accordance with the standards of
the proposed zoning district.
DISCUSSION
Analysis
Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning
Code are legislative acts. Neither City nor State Planning Law sets forth required
findings for approval or denial of such amendments. However, when making a
recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission should consider
applicable policies and development standards to ensure internal consistency.
Existing
Proposed
General Plan
Multiple -Unit Residential
Mixed -Use Vertical (MU -V)
RM 20 DU /AC
Coastal Land Use Plan
Multiple -Unit Residential
Mixed -Use Vertical (MU -V)
RM -D 20.0 -29.9 DU /AC
Zoning District
Multiple -Unit Residential
Mixed -Use Vertical (MU -V)
(RM) 2178 S.F. /DU
DISCUSSION
Analysis
Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning
Code are legislative acts. Neither City nor State Planning Law sets forth required
findings for approval or denial of such amendments. However, when making a
recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission should consider
applicable policies and development standards to ensure internal consistency.
Via Lido Amendments
May 5, 2011
Page 5
General Plan
The applicant requests to amend the General Plan to change the subject property from
a multiple -unit residential to a mixed -use land use designation. The MU -V designation
is intended to provide for the development of properties for mixed -use structures that
vertically integrate housing with retail uses including retail, office, restaurant, and similar
nonresidential uses. MU -V designated sites also may be developed exclusively for retail
or offices in accordance with the CN, CC, CG, or CO -G designations.
Mixed -Use Buildings: floor area to land ratio of 1.50; where a minimum floor area to land
ratio of 0.35 and maximum of 0.5 shall be used for nonresidential purposes and
maximum of 1.00 for residential. .
Nonresidential Buildings: floor area to land area ratio of 0.75.
In considering the proposed General Plan Amendment, the Planning Commission
should consider the following Land Use Element policies:
Policy LU 3.2 - Growth and Change states as follows:
Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill
with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. 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.
Policy LU 3.2 is intended to provide direction to decision - makers in determining under
what circumstances changes in land use, density, or intensity should be considered.
This policy recognizes that there are some areas of the City that are not achieving their
full potential and the policy establishes strategies for their enhancement and
revitalization. The proposed amendment would not create unacceptable or significant
traffic impacts or impacts to existing infrastructure or public services given the relatively
small size of the lot and MU -V Development Standards. The continuation of existing
uses is consistent with the uses allowed under the proposed mixed -use designation.
The development of vertically integrated mixed -use buildings will be compatible with the
future development planned for Lido Marina Village and nearby properties.
Via Lido Amendments
May 5, 2011
Page 6
LU Policy 3.3 - Opportunities for Change states in part as follows:
Land Use Policy LU 3.3 is intended to advance Goal LU 3, to provide: "Opportunities
for Change - Provide opportunities for improved development and enhanced
environments for residents in the following districts and corridors... Balboa Peninsula:
more efficient patterns of use that consolidate the Peninsula's visitor - serving and mixed
uses within the core commercial districts; encourage marine - related uses especially
along the bay front; integrate residential with retail and visitor - serving uses in Lido
Marina Village, McFadden Square, Balboa Village, and along portions of the Harbor
frontage; re -use interior parcels in Cannery Village for residential and limited mixed -use
and live /work buildings; and redevelop underperforming properties outside of the core
commercial districts along the Balboa Boulevard corridor for residential. Infill
development shall be designed and sited to preserve the historical and architectural
fabric of these districts."
The subject site is located at the Lido Marina Village's southern edge where specialty
retail uses, restaurants, office uses, the City Hall and churches are in existence. This
area has experienced a high number of building vacancies and many retail /office
developments that are underperforming. The subject site is improved with two, single -
story commercial buildings and currently occupied by a beauty salon, a day spa, real
estate office and a consulting office. Staff believes the proposed project can be found
consistent with this policy as the proposed amendments would allow the existing
office /commercial uses to remain and provide future opportunity for residential
development to be developed above retail and office uses.
LU Policy 6.9.1 — Priority Uses
Encourage uses that take advantages of Lido Village's location at the Harbor's turning
basin and its vitality and pedestrian character, including visitor - serving and retail
commercial, small lodging facilities (bed and breakfasts, inns), and mixed -use buildings
that integrate residential with retail uses (areas designated as "MU -W2'; Subarea "A'j. A
portion of the Harbor frontage and interior parcels (Subarea "B') may also contain multi-
family residential (designated as 'RM (20DU /AC)'7, and the parcel adjoining the Lido
Isle Bridge a recreational and marine commercial use (designated as "CM (0.3)']
Staff believes the proposed project can be found consistent with this policy as the
proposed amendments would allow the existing office /commercial uses to remain and
provide future opportunity for residential development to be developed above retail and
office uses at the subject site would be complementary to the nearby MU -W2
designated properties.
Via Lido Amendments
May 5, 2011
Page 7
Coastal Land Use Plan
The subject property is located in the coastal zone and therefore, is subject to the
applicable goals, objective and policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan. This Plan is
created to govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City of
Newport Beach and is in accordance with the California Coastal Act of 1976. The
subject property has a land use designation of Multiple -Unit Residential (RM -D) 20.0-
29.9 DU /AC. The applicant is requesting to change the current land use to a mixed -use
designation. The subject property does not contain any sensitive coastal resources as it
is presently improved with commercial buildings nor located where public access
easements would be required. The Coastal Act prioritizes land uses, and visitor - serving
uses are a higher priority land use than residential use. The continuation of commercial
uses and future redevelopment on the subject property as permitted in the MU -V
designation will not conflict with the policies of the Coastal Act.
Zoning Code
The MU -V Zoning District is intended to provide for areas appropriate for the
development of mixed -use structures that vertically integrate residential dwelling units
above the ground floor with retail uses including office, restaurant, retail, and similar
nonresidential uses located on the ground floor or above.
The stated purpose and intent of the Zoning Code is to carry out the policies of the City
of Newport Beach General Plan. Consistency between the General Plan and zoning
designation is critical to ensure orderly development and enforcement. With regard to
the subject property, existing commercial and office developments would not strictly
conform to all standards of the proposed MU -V Zoning District; however, continued
commercial use would be allowed without abatement. The subject property would be
subject to Chapter 20.38 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures) and new development
would require conformance with applicable development and parking standards.
Under the existing RM (20 DU /AC) designation, the subject property could be
developed with a maximum of three (3) residential dwelling units. A total of seven (7)
parking spaces would be required.
The main purpose of the requested amendment is to maintain the existing commercial
uses at the subject property. The applicant also desires, in the future, to have the
opportunity to develop residential use above the commercial development.
The charts below demonstrate how the subject property of 8,106 square feet in size
could be developed under the minimum and maximum intensity allowance for MU -V
zoning designation. For simplicity, it is assumed that parking for the commercial
development is a retail use, with the parking requirement of one space for every 250
square feet of gross floor area.
Via Lido Amendments
May 5, 2011
Page 8
Proposed MU -V designation:
Mixed Use (1.5 FAR )
Parking
Total
6,080 sf. (.75 FAR)
Min
Max
Min
Max
Non -Res
2,837 sf .35 FAR
4,053 sf .50 FAR)
12 1/250
17 1/250)
Res
3 20 /DU /AC
4 1.00 FAR
7 6 +1 uest
10 8 +2 uest
Total
2,837 sf. + 3 DU
4,053 sf. + 4 DU
19
27
Commercial Only (.75 FAR)
Parking
Total
6,080 sf. (.75 FAR)
125 (1/250)
As demonstrated, under the minimum mixed -use intensity allowance the subject
property could be developed with 2,837 square feet of retail commercial development
and three (3) residential dwelling units. Under this scenario, some if not all of the 19
required parking spaces would be off -site, unless a parking waiver could be granted due
to the small size of the lot. The maximum mixed -use intensity; however, may not be
feasible due to site constraints (i.e., size and location of the property and development
standards, including parking, height limits, etc.).
Charter Section 423 (Measure S) Analysis
Pursuant to City Charter Section 423 and Council Policy A -18, an analysis must be
prepared to establish whether a proposed general plan amendment (if approved)
requires a vote by the electorate. The proposed amendments are combined with 80% of
the increases in traffic, dwelling units and non - residential floor area created by previous
general plan amendments (approved within the preceding 10 years) within the same
statistical area. The following thresholds are applicable: 100 dwelling units, 100 a.m.
peak hour trips, 100 p.m. peak hour trips, or 40,000 square feet of non - residential floor
area. If any of the thresholds are exceeded with Council approval of the amendment,
the amendment would be classified as a "major amendment' and be subject to voter
consideration. Approved amendments, other than those approved by the electorate, are
tracked for 10 years and factored into the analysis of future amendments as indicated.
Table 1, below, summarizes the changes created by the proposed amendment with the
MU -V designation for the subject property, at the maximum allowable intensity. As
indicated, in either case, none of the four thresholds would be exceeded, and therefore,
a vote is not required. A more detailed analysis is attached (Attachment No. PC 2).
Via Lido Amendments
May 5, 2011
Page 9
SB18 Tribal Consultation Guidelines
Pursuant to Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, a local government is
required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) each time it considers a proposal to adopt or amend the General
Plan. If requested by any tribe, the local government must consult for the purpose of
preserving or mitigating impacts to cultural resources. The City received comments from
the NAHC indicating that nine tribe contacts should be provided notice regarding the
proposed project. The appropriate tribe contacts supplied by the NAHC were provided
notice on February 28, 2011. Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code
requires 90 days to allow tribe contacts to respond to the request to consult unless the
tribe contacts mutually agree to a shorter time period. Staff has not received any
responses although the review period remains open. The Planning Commission may
recommend the proposed general plan amendment to City Council at this time.
However, the City Council may not act on the proposed amendment until the tribe
review period is concluded. Given the site is presently developed and that the no
development is proposed at this time, staff does not anticipate any conflicts or need for
monitoring by the tribes. If any comments are received from the tribes, they will be
forwarded to the City Council for consideration.
Environmental Review
The proposed amendments are exempt since they do not entail any significant
alteration to the subject property and will bring the General Plan Land Use, Coastal
Land Use, and Zoning District designations consistent with the present use of the
subject property. The site is presently developed and no development is proposed at
this time, however, future development of the existing property and structures would be
categorically exempt under Section 15302 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines — Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction).
Table 1
Charter
Section 423 Apalysis
Summary
Statistical Area B1
Allowed Floor
A.M. Peak Hour
P.M. Peak Hour
Increase In
Allowed
Area '
Trips
Trips
Dwelling Units
Prior
Amendment
12,083 (at 80 %)
36.30 (at 80 %)
48.40 (at 80 %)
0
GP2010 -005
Proposed
GP2011.003
4,053
12.67
16.83
1
TOTAL
16,136
48.97
65.23
1
SB18 Tribal Consultation Guidelines
Pursuant to Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, a local government is
required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) each time it considers a proposal to adopt or amend the General
Plan. If requested by any tribe, the local government must consult for the purpose of
preserving or mitigating impacts to cultural resources. The City received comments from
the NAHC indicating that nine tribe contacts should be provided notice regarding the
proposed project. The appropriate tribe contacts supplied by the NAHC were provided
notice on February 28, 2011. Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code
requires 90 days to allow tribe contacts to respond to the request to consult unless the
tribe contacts mutually agree to a shorter time period. Staff has not received any
responses although the review period remains open. The Planning Commission may
recommend the proposed general plan amendment to City Council at this time.
However, the City Council may not act on the proposed amendment until the tribe
review period is concluded. Given the site is presently developed and that the no
development is proposed at this time, staff does not anticipate any conflicts or need for
monitoring by the tribes. If any comments are received from the tribes, they will be
forwarded to the City Council for consideration.
Environmental Review
The proposed amendments are exempt since they do not entail any significant
alteration to the subject property and will bring the General Plan Land Use, Coastal
Land Use, and Zoning District designations consistent with the present use of the
subject property. The site is presently developed and no development is proposed at
this time, however, future development of the existing property and structures would be
categorically exempt under Section 15302 of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines — Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction).
Via Lido Amendments
May 5, 2011
Page 10
Summary
The applicant has requested the amendments to allow retention of the existing
commercial buildings and uses. These uses have been in existence for a very long time
and their abatement at this time seems contrary to the General Plan Policies that
promote revitalization of the area. Continuation of these uses and future development
consistent with the MU -V designation doesn't appear to be in conflict with the General
Plan or Coastal Land Use Plan or Coastal Act. Staff does not foresee any adverse
environmental impacts with continued use or redevelopment of the property. The
approval of the General Plan Amendment to MU -V designation would not necessitate a
vote of the electorate, as required by Section 423 of the City Charter.
Public Notice
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within
300 feet of the properties, and was posted at the site a minimum of ten 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.
Prepared by:
Submitted by:
Ros linh Ung, Associ t Planner Gregg Ramie ,Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Draft Resolution with exhibits
PC 2 Section 423 Analysis Table
F1USERS \PLN \Shared \PA's \PAs - 2011 \PA2011 - 024 \PC \Staff_Report.docx
TmpR: 11/23/09
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. _
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO
THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, COASTAL LAND USE
PLAN AND THE ZONING CODE TO CHANGE THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FROM MULTIPLE -UNIT RESIDENTIAL (RM) TO
MIXED -USE VERTICAL (MU -V) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
3363, 3369 & 3377 VIA LIDO and 3378 VIA OPORTO (PA2011-
024)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. On July 25, 2006, the Newport Beach City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006 -76
approving a comprehensive update to the Newport Beach General Plan ( "General
Plan Update ").
2. On November 13, 2007, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2007 -71, approving
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2007 -001 making the Coastal Land Use Plan
consistent with the General Plan Update.
3. On January 28, 2008, the City Council adopted a new ordinance (Ordinance No. 2008-
05) that established the maximum time period for the abatement and termination of
nonconforming uses in residential districts. However, determinations of nonconformity
could not be made until the finalization of the City's Local Coastal Plan (LCP), which
occurred on July 14, 2009.
4. On October 25, 2010, the City Council adopted a Comprehensive Update to the Zoning
Code (Title 20) bringing consistency between the Zoning Code and the Land Use
Element of the General Plan. The result of that action rendered numerous properties
nonconforming, with existing commercial buildings and uses located within residential
districts. In accordance with Ordinance No. 2008 -05, mentioned above, those properties
are subject to abatement.
5. An application was filed by Allan Fainbarg with respect to property located at 3363, 3369
& 3377 Via Lido and 3378 Via Oporto, requesting approval for an amendment to the
General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and the Zoning Code to change the land use
designation from Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) to Mixed -Use Vertical (MU -V).
6. The subject property is currently located within the Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) Zoning
District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Multiple -Unit Residential
Land Use (RM).
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 2 of 4
7. The change of the General Plan designations of the subject property is from Multiple -Unit
Residential (RM) to Mixed -Use Vertical (MU -V).
8. The recommended change of the Zoning District designations of the subject property
from Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) to Mixed -Use Vertical (MU -V).
9. The subject property is located within the coastal zone. The Coastal Land Use Plan
category of the subject property is Multiple -Unit Residential Land Use designation (RM-
D).
10. The recommended change to the Coastal Land Use designation is consistent with the
recommended General Plan Amendment for the subject property from Multiple -Unit
Residential (RM -D) to Mixed -Use Vertical (MU -V).
11. Council Policy A -18 requires that proposed General Plan amendment be reviewed to
determine if a vote of the electorate would be required. If a project (separately or
cumulatively with other projects over a 10 -year span) exceeds any one of the following
three thresholds, a vote of the electorate would be required if the City Council
approves the suggested General Plan Amendment: the project generates more than
100 peak hour trips, adds 40,000 square feet of non - residential floor area, or adds
more than 100 dwelling units in a statistical area.
12. This is the second set of General Plan Amendments that affect Statistical Area B5
since the General Plan update in 2006. The proposed amendment including the
previous amendment result in an increase of 48.97 a.m. peak hour trips and an
increase 65.23 p.m. peak hour trips based on the commercial and residential housing
trip rates reflected in Council Policy A -18; an increase of 16,136 square feet in non-
residential floor area; and an increase of one dwelling unit. As none of the four
thresholds that require a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 are exceeded, no vote
of the electorate is required.
13. A public hearing was held on May 5, 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.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements
of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 2 (Replacement or
Reconstruction).
2. The proposed amendments are exempt since they do not entail any significant
alteration to the subject properties and are essentially bringing the General Plan Land
Tmplt: 04/14/10
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 3 of 4
Use Designation, Coastal Land Use Designation and Zoning District to be consistent
with the existing use of the buildings located on the subject property involved.
Therefore, this activity is not subject to CEQA.
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 the project applicant is the primary beneficiary of such approvals, it is appropriate
that the applicant 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. FINDINGS.
1. Amendments to the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan are legislative acts.
Neither the City nor State Planning Law set forth any required findings for either
approval or denial of such amendments.
2. Code amendments are legislative acts. Neither the City Municipal Code nor State
Planning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of such
amendments, unless they are determined not to be required for the public necessity
and convenience and the general welfare.
3. The amendments of the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Coastal Land
Use Plan will provide consistency with the proposed code amendment to change the
zoning of the subject property from Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) to Mixed -Use (MU-
V) designation.
4. The existing buildings and uses, and future development of the subject property
affected by the proposed amendments will be consistent with the goals and policies of
the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan; and will be
consistent with the purpose and intent of the MU -V zoning district of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code.
5. The subject property is occupied by two, single -story commercial buildings and
currently occupied by a beauty salon, a day spa, real estate office and a consulting
office. The existing uses are permitted in the MU -V zoning district.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends City Council
approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2011 -003, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment
LC2011 -002, and Zoning Code Amendment from Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) to Mixed -
Use Vertical (MU -V), Statistical Area B5, Attachment Exhibit A.
Tmplt: 04/14110
Planning Commission Resolution No.
Page 4 of 4
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 5th DAY OF MAY, 2011.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY:
Earl McDaniel, Chairman
Michael Toerge, Secretary
Tmpit: 04/14/10
Exhibit A
Existing and Proposed Land
Use Designations
r
IqT
o,
oA
-W2
CN
K
\,RR
O
{O �
S
VIAMA "
OV
loll IIII E=
_�
3ISrs. X04
04 �gwv,rk9 GP2011 -003 (PA2011 -024)
General Plan Amendment
u °.„oars m 3363, 3369, and 3377 Via Lido
GP2011- 003.mxd April /2011 & 3378 Via Oporto
0 125 250
Feet
e
3TRFET
Z
M
0
O
A
1
/P=JA
�O
f+
Q �P
MU -W \p
o
G �
D
RM -D
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
VIA MALAGA
32NO STREET
MU-
CN I ITT],
31ST ST 31ST STREET
"gwv LC2011 -002 (PA2011 -024)
o�'�kr�
Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment
3363, 3369, and 3377 Via Lido
& 3378 Via Oporto
LC2011- 002.mxd April /2011
OV
0 125 250
Feet
e
N.°
0
r
ud
I kTlyk�
99\
\09
0
-A
C A
m
0
0
E
<o
N VAU
OS
i
6
3
�e
15 T
31ST ST )1ST ST 4�0 p�1'
MIIIH -- u-
CA2011 -005 (PA2011 -024)
m Zoning Code Amendment
C'GIIUY� <* 3363, 3369, and 3377 Via Lido
CA2011- 005.mxd ApApril/2011 & 3378 Via Oporto
0 125 250
Feet
N
I`
Attachment No. PC 2
Section 423 Analysis Table
Vin Lido General Anienrbnent (PA2011 -024)
Charter Section 423 Analysis
Current Current Current Existing Traffic Land Use Proposed Proposed Proposed Traffic Land Total du Total squaro
Address Description
OP clonally Intensity / /loot area Description dsnslty Use Description changes Existing AM Existing PM Proposed GP Intensity /Floor Proposed AM Proposed PM AM Change PM Change footage
6Bg¢s
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT NO.OP2010
-008
- STATISTICAL AREA B5
6,713- square -foot lot fully
#220. Apartment
Commercial blended rate
2102 W. Ocean Frond (Map ID 4)
developed with a two -story
MU -W2
4
3356.5
(0.61AM/0.62PM (rips per une)
8 Commercial blended rate per
12.11
15.91
CV 0.5
0
3,357
per Council Polley A -18
10.07
1343
-2.04
-2 48
4
0
i i -room hotel The
Council Policy A -18 (3.0 AM d
(3.0 AM 8 4.0 PM hips
Dorymans Inn
per 1.000s0
4.0 PM trips per 1,000sO
3,750- square -fool lot Is
#220 - Apartment
Commerwi blended rate
-
2305 W. Ocean Front (Map ID 6)
fully developed wah a 15-
1
1875
(0.51AMl0.62PM trips per old)
8 Commercial blended rate per
6.14
8.12
CV 0.5
0
1,875
per Council Polley A-18
5.63
7.50
051
0 62
.1
0
room hotel The Newport
(3.0 AM 8 4.0 PM trips
Beachwalk Hotel
PM Policy A -18 (3.0 AM 6
per 1,000sO
4.0
4.0 PM (rips per 1,000aQ
#220 - Apartment
21,576-square -foot lot Is
#230-
(0.51AM/0.62PM trips per
3368 Via Lido (Map ID 2)
fully developed with a two-
RM
g
0
Residentia fCondominlum
3.96
4.86
MU -W2
13
15,103
una) & Commercial
51.94
68.47
47.9796
616128
4
15,103
story office building and a
Townhouse (0.44AWO 54PM
blended rate per Council
parking lot
trips per und)
Polley A -ill (3.0 AM 8 4.0
PM trips per 1,00030
Lido Peninsula
33,050- square -foot lot is
unallocated,
Commercial blended rate
870 Lido Park Or. (Map ID 7a)
fully wiN
ly
MU -Wit
Pan of Lido
unallocated. pan of
Lido Peninsula
see Lido Peninsula subtotal
Included In Lido
Peninsula
included In Lido
CM 0.5
0
16,525
per Council Polley A -18
49.6
fib. i
NA
NA
NA
NA
anlslahops on
Peninsula
subtotal
below
subotal
Peninsula subotel
(3.0 AM 8 4.0 PM (rips
Rhine
Rhine
subtotal
per 1 ODOs
unallocated.
#230-
700 Lido Park Dr. (Map ID 7b)
34 dwelling units on a
g
MU -W3
part of Lido
unallocalecl, pan of
Lido Peninsula
see Lido Peninsula subtotal
Included In Lido
Included in Lido
ResidentleVCOntlominlum
15.0
18.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
88,548- square -loot lot
Peninsula
bed
peninsula
Peninsula subotel
RM 34 du
34
0
Townhouse
subtotal
subtotal
subotal
(0.44AM/0.64PM trips per
unit)
2DO +dvrelling units on an
unallocated,
par( of Lido
unallocated, pan of
see Lido Peninsula subtotal
Included In Lido
Included In Lido
N230-
Resldenhal/Condominlum
710 Lido Park Dr. (Map ID 7c)
approximate 386,347
MU -Wit
(Ito Peninsula
peninsula
RM 217 du
217
0
Townhouse
95.5
117.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
square-fool site
Peninsula
subtotal
subolel
Peninsula subotel
(0.44AM/0.64PM trips per
subtotal
untt
Shipyard, manna reclMea,
unallocated,
Commercial blended tale
101 -351 Shipyard Way (Map
commercial on
MU
Pecl of Lido
unallocated, pan of
see Lido Peninsula subtotal
Included In Lido
included In Lido
per Council Policy A -18
ID 7tlj
approximately 527,182
-W3
Peninsula
Lido Peninsula
below
Peninsula
Peninsula subotal
CM (anomaly #78)
0
139,840
AM 8 PM (rips
419.5
559.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
s oars -tool site
subtotal
subtotal
subotal
r 1 OOOs
per f)
#230 -
ResidenllaVCondominlum
Townhouse (0.44AM10.54PM
Lido Peninsula subtotal
251
156,365
trips per unit) 8 Commercial
579.5
781
251
156,365
579.5
761.0
0
0
0
0
blentled rate per Council Policy
A -18 (3.0 AM 8 4.0 PM trips per
1 0003
TOTAL STATISTICAL AREA B6
265
161,597
802
790
264
176,699.7
647
850
46.4
60.6
01
16,103
80% of Proposed Intensity -FAR
88.3
48A
0
12,087
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO.OPA2011-003
- STATISTICAL
AREA 86
0220 - Apartment (0.51
8,106 square -foot lot Is
AM 8 0.62 PM trips per
3363, 3389, 3177 Vu Lido and 337
fully developed with a
RM
3(20
#220 - Apartment (0 51 AM 8
unit) B Commerclal
4,105 square -fool
ungs/aue)
0
062 PM trips per Dwelling Unit)
t53
1.88
MU•V
4
4,053.00
blended rate per Council
14.20
18.69
12.67
16.83
1
4.053 .00
commercial building
Policy A -18 (3.0 AM 8 4.0
PM trips per 1,0DOs0
TOTAL STATISTICAL AREA 85
WITH PROPOSED AMENDMENT
48.97
65.23
1
16.136.00
04/26/2011
Page 1 of 1