Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 - Via Lido Amendments - 3363 & 3377 Via Lido and 3378 Via Oporto2EVPART CITY OF NEWPORT REACH a C'lIF00.NP City Council Staff Report Agenda Item No. 19 June 28, 2011 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Community Development Department Kimberly Brandt, Director 949- 644 -3226, kbrandt @newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner APPROVED: TITLE: VIA LIDO AMENDMENTS (PA2011 -024) 3363, 3377 Via Lido and 3378 Via Oporto ABSTRACT: Amendments to the General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, and the Zoning Code to change the designations of subject property from Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) to Mixed -Use Vertical (MU -V). This item was continued from the June 14, 2011, City Council meeting. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. 2011 -79 (Attachment No. CC 1) approving: • General Plan Amendment No. GP2011 -003 and • Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. LC2011 -002; and 3) Introduce Ordinance No. 2011 -18 (Attachment No. CC 2) approving: • Code Amendment No. CA2011 -005; and • Pass to second reading for adoption on July 12, 2011 2 Via Lido Amendments June 28, 2011 Page 2 3 VICINITY MAP '',;. py M � t ' l i ` } 0 s - a � yyte fy'Q . GENERAL PLAN & COASTAL LAND USE ZONING MU -W1 p, S 6 MU W3 MU W2 pn S e RM Is se/ou 4 0.M 4O Rll l AC RM-0 q NM ]ESA /oV 9'S � 9P k 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 -13 CG 0.5 FAR Retail Commercial Uses 3 4 Via Lido Amendments June 28, 2011 Page 3 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no budgetary impact related to this item. Project Setting The subject property is approximately 8,106 square feet in size and located on the inland side of Via Lido in Lido Marina Village area. The property is designated 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 office uses. Background 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 "). 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. 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 - Unit Residential) 2178 square feet per dwelling unit (20 units per acre). The result of this action rendered the existing commercial uses located on the subject property nonconforming, making them subject to abatement later this year. On May 5, 2011, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments. After evaluating the proposed land use designations and their intensities, and hearing testimony from the applicant and the public, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend approval of the proposed amendments. A copy of the staff report (Attachment CC3), Planning Commissions Resolution (Attachment CC4) and the minutes of the hearing are attached (Attachment CC5). 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 specific findings for approval or denial of such amendments. However, when making such decisions the City Council should consider applicable General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan Policies and development standards to ensure consistency and compatibility with surrounding uses. 5 Via Lido Amendments June 28, 2011 Page 4 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. The MU -V would allow for the following: A mixed -use building with a total 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. The MU -V designation would also allow a nonresidential building with a maximum floor area to land area ratio of 0.75. General Plan Consistency with the policies of the General Plan (Policy LU 3.2 - Growth and Change, Policy LU 3.3 Opportunities for Change, and Policy LU 6.9.1 — Priority Uses) have been evaluated in conjunction with the proposed amendments and have been determined to be consistent with those policies as reflected in the attached consistency determination (Attachment CC6). 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. 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. In the Coastal Land Use Plan, visitor - serving uses are considered 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 Land Use Plan. 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 A Via Lido Amendments June 28, 2011 Page 5 subject to Chapter 20.38 (Nonconforming Uses and Structures) and new development would require conformance with applicable development and parking standards. 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. CC7). SB18 Tribal Consultation Guidelines Pursuant to Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code (CGC), 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. The appropriate tribe contacts supplied by the NAHC were provided notice on February 28, 2011, to allow tribe contacts to respond to the request to consult. That 90 day period ended on May 28, 2011. Staff has not received any responses. 7 Table 1 Charter Section 423 Analysis Summary `. "'Statistical Area' B5' Allowed-Ftoor M. Peak Hour P.M Peak Hour ticrease.in Allowed; Area.`' Trips Tnps Dwelling Units . Prior Amendment 12,083 (at 80 %) 36.30 (at 80 %) 48.40 (at 80 %) 0 GP2010 -005 Proposed 4,053 12.67 16.83 1 GP2011 -003 TOTAL 16,136 48.97 65.23 1 SB18 Tribal Consultation Guidelines Pursuant to Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code (CGC), 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. The appropriate tribe contacts supplied by the NAHC were provided notice on February 28, 2011, to allow tribe contacts to respond to the request to consult. That 90 day period ended on May 28, 2011. Staff has not received any responses. 7 Via Lido Amendments June 28, 2011 Page 6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Stiff recommends the City Council find this project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to Section 15302— Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. NOTICING: The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item). 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. Sul�ed by: Kimberly Bran4 AIC Community Development Director Attachments: CC 1 Draft Resolution CC 2 CC 3 CC 4 CC 5 CC 6 CC 7 Draft Ordinance Planning Commission Staff Report, May 5, 2011 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1841 Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, dated May 5, 2011 General Plan Land Use Consistency Determination Section 423 Analysis Table Up DRAFT RESOLUTION With attachments Exhibit A (General Plan Amendment) Exhibit B (Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment) pr —9 ffAM"Ik MIL I 10 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND COASTAL LAND USE PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3363, 3369 & 3377 VIA LIDO AND 3378 VIA OPORTO (PA2011- 024) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. An application was filed by Allan Fainbarg, property owner, with respect to property located at 3363, 3369 & 3377 Via Lido and 3378 Via Oporto, and legally described as Portion of Lot 4 of Tract No. 1117, Book 35, Page 48 of Miscellaneous Maps, requesting approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2011 -003 and Local Coastal .Plan Amendment LC2011 -002, to change the General Plan Land Use and Coastal Land Use Plan designations from RM (Multiple -Unit Residential) to MU -V (Mixed -Use Vertical) Zoning District. 2. 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 "), 3. 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. 4 On February 5, 2009, the Coastal Commission certified Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2007 -001 with suggested modifications as consistent with Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act (NPB_MAJ_1 -07). 5. On July 14, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010 -053 accepting all Coastal Commission suggested modifications and re- adopting Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2007 -001 to incorporate all of the suggested modifications within the Coastal Land Use Plan. 6. On July 14, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010 -054 initiating a General Plan Amendment to make the Land Use Element of the General Plan consistent with Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2007 -001. Pursuant to Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code, the appropriate tribe contacts identified by the Native American Heritage Commission were provided notice of the proposed General Plan Amendment on February 28, 2011. The California Government Code requires 90 days to allow tribe contacts to respond to the request to 11 Resolution No. Page 2 consult unless the tribe contacts mutually agree to a shorter time period. The response period ended on May 28, 2011. No requests for consultation were received. 8. 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. At the.conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously (7 ayes, 0 noes) to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 1841 recommending City Council adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendment, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment, and Zoning Code Amendment. 9. A public hearing was held on June 28, 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. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to Section 15302 — Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 The proposed amendments are exempt since they do not entail any significant alternation to the subject property and are essentially bringing the General Plan Land 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. 2. The City's action to amend the General Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan and the Zoning Code as requested by the property owner is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to California Code of Regulations §15265. 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 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 Resolution No. Page 3 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 3. FINDINGS. The proposed amendments of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan and the Zoning Code are necessary to implement the property owner request. 2. General Plan Amendment No. GP2011 -003 when added to previous General Plan Amendments within the last 10 years, results in the following increases in residential units, peak hour A.M. and P.M. trips, and /or non - residential floor area within Land Use Statistical Area B5: Pursuant to the requirements of Charter Section 423 (Measure S) and Council Policy A -18 (Measure S Guidelines), General Plan Amendment No. GP2011 -003 is classified as a "Minor Amendment" and no vote of the electorate is required. 3. The existing buildings and uses, and future development of the subject property affected by the proposed amendment 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. -13 �' CliarteSechond23Au�lyszsS.um aiy ':. _ = Allowed Floor M keakFlour Nl peakliou>= 7neLeasein2illowed Prior Amendment 12,083 (at 80 %) 36.30 (at 80 %) 48.40 (at 80 %) 0 GP2010 -005 Proposed 4,053 12.67 16.83 1 GP2011 -003 TOTAL 16,136 48.97 65.23 1 Pursuant to the requirements of Charter Section 423 (Measure S) and Council Policy A -18 (Measure S Guidelines), General Plan Amendment No. GP2011 -003 is classified as a "Minor Amendment" and no vote of the electorate is required. 3. The existing buildings and uses, and future development of the subject property affected by the proposed amendment 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. -13 Resolution No. Page 4 SECTION 4. DECISION NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. Amendments to the General Plan and Local 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. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby authorizes submittal of the Local Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment to the California Coastal Commission for formal review and approval. 3. Local Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2011 -002 shall not become effective until after California Coastal Commission approves it and subsequent action is taken to adopt the Amendment by the City Council. 4. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves General Plan Amendment as shown in attached Exhibit A and Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment as shown in attached Exhibit B. Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the June 28, 2011, by the following vote to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 14 Resolution No. Page 5 RESOLUTION ATTACHMENT Exhibit A (General Plan Amendment Map) 15 16, �CN1, 0 A 0 p p a s 9 �o p NAIMI " I n42\ 1 71�U--H 47.,,11,1, --- 1 S 31ST ST <Ipp pq u- R 0 250 o4rwwr�R0 GP2011 -003 (PA2011 -024) 125 I Feet General Plan Amendment e F PpRN° 3363, 3369, and 3377 Via Lido & 3378 Via Oporto NE` ar 17 GP2011- 003.mxd April /2011 , _,,., _,,, ,,, ,,,,,,, 12 RESOLUTION A T r H Erg T F xiibit E (Coastal Land I_I._,,. Flan Map) Resolution No. Page 6 19 20 �TRFFT Z M v O A 1 �a m Z $F Y ir V� MU -W \P a L � 9 D C'O O 0 o' VIA MALAGA 1 '—� 32ND STREET Ju - MU- ��$� r / CN 31ST ST 31ST STREET ,,tiWPOR LC2011 -002 (PA2011 -024) Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment m 3363, 3369, and 3377 Via Lido & 3378 Via Oporto LC2011- 002.mxd April /2011 ©3 \ 0 125 250 Feet ® n 22 DRAFT ORDINANCE With attachments Exhibit A (Zoning Code Amendment) 23 24 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3363, 3369 & 3377 VIA LIDO AND 3378 VIA OPORTO (PA2011 -024) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Allan Fainbarg, property owner, with respect to property located at 3363, 3369 & 3377 Via Lido and 3378 Via Oporto, and legally described as Portion of Lot 4 of Tract No. 1117, Book 35, Page 48 of Miscellaneous Maps, requesting approval of Code Amendment No. CA2011 -005 to change the Zoning designation from RM (Multiple -Unit Residential) to MU -V (Mixed -Use Vertical) Zoning District; WHEREAS, on May 5, 2011, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing 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 and Brown Act. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting; WHEREAS, at the May 5, 2011, public hearing, the Planning Commission received public comments and on an affirmative motion (7 ayes, 0 noes), forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed Zoning Code Amendment; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the Multiple -Unit Residential (R- M) Zoning District, and the General Plan Land Use Element designation is Multiple -Unit Residential (RM); WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the Coastal Zone. The subject application considered by the City Council will simultaneously change the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Coastal Land Use Plan from Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) to Mixed -Use Vertical (MU -V) land use designation; WHEREAS, 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 Vertical (MU -V) designation; WHEREAS, 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; and WHEREAS, 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 as ORDINANCE NO. Page 2 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 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. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Zoning Map shall be amended as provided in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference to change the zoning district of subject property from RM (Multiple -Unit Residential) to MU -V (Mixed -Use Vertical), with all other provisions of the existing Zoning Map remaining unchanged. The change; however, shall not become effective until Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. LC2011 -002 is approved by the California Coastal Commission. SECTION 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 any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses and phrases be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 3: This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to Section 15302 — Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 The proposed amendments are exempt since they do not entail any significant alternation to the subject property and are essentially bringing the General Plan Land 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. SECTION 4: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and it shall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. to ORDINANCE NO. Page 3 This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 28th day of June, 2011, and adopted on the 12th day of July, 2011, by the following.vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MICHAEL HENN, MAYOR ATTEST: LEILANI BROWN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: DAVID HUNT, CITY ATTORNEY oC% 22 ORDINANCE NO. _ Page 4 ORDINANCE ATTACHMENT Exhibit A (Zoning Code Amendment) 29 30 S2 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated May 5, 2011 OV 33 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i �� I I I i CITY 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 PROJECT SUMMARY 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 35 so Via Lido Amendments May 5, 20.11 Page 2 3Y- -- VICINITY MAP -� Jf t1. ♦ e _. O GENERAL PLAN & COASTAL LAND USE ZONING - air _ 4 4 y _ a+ i LOCATION EXI STING G�NRAL PLAN & EXISTING. CURR>:N7° USE COASTAf.,LANP USE 2oNING ON =SITE RMI20 DUtAC & RM -D RM 2178 SA/DU Retail Commercial & Office Uses NORTH MUM MU-W2 R @tall Commercial & Office Uses SOUTW RM /20'DUTAC &.RM -D RM 2978 SAIDU Retail' Commercial R Office Uses EAST MUM MU-W2 Office: &Residential Uses. WEST_ _ CG 0.5 FAR _& CG -B_ CO 0.5 FAR__ ( Retail Commercial Uses 3Y- i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i �� i i 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. 3�° 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. 40 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. 40 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 Buildinas: 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. -9-2 . 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 Villaae, 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. Inirll 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 69.1— 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)'J 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. 42 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. 4S 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 1DU /AC 4 1.00 FAR 7(6+1 quest) 10 8 +2 guest) Total 2,837 sf. + 3 DU 4,053 sf. + 4 DU 19 27 Commercial Only .75 FAR)Parkin Total 6,080 sf. (.75 FAR) 25 (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). 44 Via Lido Amendments May 5, 2011 Page 9 - Table 1 _ _ ; Gharfer Section 9�3 %A�alysis,SummaYy z Statlsfrcal Area B1: AIIPWeii Floor ;A M Peak�Hour P: M Peak Hour 1'ttcrease �a` Area Trips Tnps Allowed .,'; - Da4elling,Uhfis Prior Amendment 12,083 (at 80 %) 36.30 (at 80 %) 48.40 (at 80 %) 0 GP2010 -005 Proposed 4,053 12.67 16.83 1 GP2011 -003 TOTAL 16,136 48.97 65.23 1 S818 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). 45 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, Assocl4W Planner Gregg Ram— ifei, Senior Planner ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution with exhibits PC 2 Section 423 Analysis Table Tmplt: 11123109 F:\USERS \PLWShared\PA's \PAs - 2011\PA2011- 024 \PC \Staff_Report.doex 40 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1841 Ir 111 -+7 49 RESOLUTION NO, 7°41 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 (PA2011a 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. 200676 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. 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 Cky'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. 200$705,.menboned above, those properties are.subject to abatement. 5. An application was.filed by Allan Fainbarg with respect to property located at;3363, 3369 & 3377 V.ia .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: 1841 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 Vedicai (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 1.0 -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 1.00 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- Seetion 423 are exceeded, no vote ofthe 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 toi and considered by, .the Planning Commission at this meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. This project has been determined to be categorically exempt under the requirements of the . California Environmental Quality Act under Class 2 (Replacement or Reconstruction). 1 The proposed amendments are exempt since they do not entail any significant alteration.to the subject properties and are'eseentiallybringing the General Plan Land TmgIU: 0411409 50 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1841 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 CEOA. 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 maybe awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. FINDINGS. 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 Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. Plan Amendment LC2011 -002; and Zoning Code TmPRh.041iA /10 Beach hereby, recommends City GP2011. -003; Coastal Land Use Amendment CA2011 -005 from 152 Planning Commission Resolution Rio. 1841 Page 4 of 4 Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) to Mixed -Use Vertical (MU -V), Statistical Area B5, Attachment Exhibit A. 2. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all 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 City's approval of the Via Lido Amendments (PA2011 -024) including, but not limited to, General Plan Amendment No. GP2011 -003, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment LC2011 -002, and Zoning Code Amendment CA2011 -005. 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, causes of action, suitor proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. PASSED, APPROVED ARID ADOPTED THIS e DAY OF MAY, 2011. AYES: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, McDaniel, Amen, Toerge, and Hiligren NOES: None `M1 M Tmpp: 04!74/10 52 Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes, Dated May 5, 2011 i 940M 153 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5� � NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/05/2011 Miller responded that he expects that the Irvine Company can complete the project qui er and less expensive than if it were a City project and that would benefit the City. Commis 'oner Eaton had a questions regarding the 650 Building that will be built: • Num r of stories it will have. • Genera ime estimate when it will be completed. • When will e left turn lane be completed? Mr. Miller stated the b 'Iding will be 20 stories high and is under the 295 -fo height limit. Permits are expect to be pulled in July or August 2011, and this pro' ct should be completed by October 2 2. Commissioner Hawkins asked r. Miller to respond to the fol wing regarding paragraph 4.3 of the Development reement. • It requires the Planning Commissio to hear this item. • It stated this project shall be eligibl for consideratio as an in -lieu contribution under the Fair Share Contribution rdinance, hich would make this a discretionary action. • The City did not have to approve an in -lieu c di • Mr. Hawkins pointed out there is a public ben fee. Mr. Miller responded the agreement reflects t existing rdinance, which requires the Planning Commission hear this item. If the ity did not ap ove this project, the Irvine Company would pay the fee, and the City ould have to do th work. When permits are pulled for the 650 Building project, the ine Company will pay e public benefit fee of $13,500,000.00 and the City Council ill determine the use for tho funds. Public comment period was ope ed. No public comments. Public comment perio as closed. Motion made by ommissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins adopt a resol ion approving staff's recommendation of the amount of in -lieu contributions eemed applicable towards Fair Share Fees due to construction of the third eastb nd left turn lane on San Joaquin Hills Road at MacArthur Boulevard. Motio carried with the following vote: Ay Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren es: None ecused: Ameri PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS SUBJECT: Via Lido Amendments — (PA2011 -024) ITEM NO. 3 3363, 3369, & 3377 Via Lido and 3378 Via Oporto PA2011 -024 The property owner is seeking to continue the existing nonconforming commercial uses Approved of the subject property by requesting the following amendments: Page 3Sa NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/05/2011 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 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner, gave a brief overview of the staff report with a PowerPoint presentation. Commissioner Hillgren asked Ms. Ung what the allowed FAR is under the current zoning designation, the new zoning, and the requested application. Ms. Ung answered under the existing zoning designation, which is Multi- Family Residential, the FAR is 20 units per acre. With that density, the property could be developed up to three residential units and the parking requirement would be seven parking spaces. This is consistent with the General Plan and the existing commercial use is currently non - complaint. The applicant is requesting a mixed -use designation and wants to maintain the existing commercial uses. They would like to have a future opportunity of a MU -V, mixed -use with residential on top of commercial, which would allow a minimum of three residential and a maximum of four residential units. Commercial floor area within a future mixed development would be a minimum of 2800 square feet and a maximum 4000 square feet. Mr. Hillgren asked if the net request is to add approximately 3000 - square -feet of retail and one additional unit. Ms. Ung answered yes. Commissioner Hawkins asked what type of approvals would be necessary should the applicant move forward with a future project. Ms. Ung said the applicant would need to go through the proper application procedure depending on the project they presented. Parking would be the most identifiable restraint on this property and likely require a waiver or off -site parking. Commissioner Toerge did not believe there was a possible way this project can meet the minimum requirement under the mixed -use designation without offering a parking waiver. Senior Planner Gregg Ramirez answered the basic thought behind showing a minimum for the mixed -use districts was to get a true mixed -use project in a location; not ending up with a project consisting of 5000 - square -feet of commercial and one big residential - unit on top, or a token couple hundred square feet of commercial and four residential - units on top, which truly is not mixed -use. There is the option of commercial only development with no minimum floor area requirement. Commissioner Eaton asked if there was any off - street parking currently devoted to this property. Did the City require parking when this property was built in the 1970s? Page" �I��iN7i7: millc ara m RMLOGEWf►l11 non- complaint, and why it was not included in this proposal. Ms. Ung stated she did not have any background information regarding the original entitlements granted to this property. Regarding the property next door, there is different owner and they are taking a different path. Mr. Campbell stated the owner next door is looking to develop a residential project consistent with the General Plan. Commissioner Unsworth stated it has been a short time since adopting the General Plan and here we are requesting an amendment. He had some concerns and questions: • Was there a reason for changing this designation to residential in the General Plan, and if that reasoning still holds true today? • Does the property owner to the south, who is considering residential use, have any concerns with this property being mixed -use? • A lot work went into the General Plan; the citizens voted on it, we've change the Frog House, now this request. How many more will we get before we need to go back to the vote of the people? • Is there a commercial development small enough that could go on this site and be able to park on -site, or will there always be a waiver or off -site parking involved? Mr. Campbell indicated that it was his belief that the reason to change this block to residential was to reduce commercial.land and bring more people to the district, in the hopes of revitalizing the area, and bring more economical benefits to the district. Council adopted the ordinance change that amortizes non - residential uses in residential zones and put a short amortization period on these commercial properties. Changing the land use within a year of adoption of the Zoning Code may not be within our best interest. Allowing this project to remain as is and changing the land use to a mixed -use project in the future should not prove to be detrimental to the community, and approval would allow a little more flexibility and a more orderly change to future land use. Mr. Campbell said the neighboring property owner is aware of this application but their view of it is not known. Regarding the parking, Mr. Campbell believes there will be a need for a waiver for any future commercial redevelopment of this site. With a mixed -use project with three units, it would be a tight fit, but each unit could have tandem parking. Iry Chase, attorney and representative for the applicant, stated they were not here by choice but were here because of the change to the ordinance. The applicant does not want to redevelopment the property, but wants it to remain as commercial and keep their tenants in place with the current uses. In 1964, the previous owner deeded a piece of the property to the City so a street could be put in, and in exchange for that, there was no on -site parking required. There are no plans to redevelop the site, as it would be to cost prohibitive to do so. The reason for asking for the zoning amendment is it that it will give them the most flexibility and it would allow continuation of the current commercial uses. Commissioner Hawkins stated he sympathized with the applicant, and the City put them in this position by adopting the zoning ordinance for the Group Homes. Public comment period was opened. 05/05/2011 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 05/05/2011 No public comments. Public comment period was closed. Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Unsworth, to adopt a resolution, including the additional language of the indemnification clause, 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 Motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, McDaniel, Ameri, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None S JECT: Pemstein Residence Minor Use Permit and Variance (PA2010 -173) ITEM Yb. 4 2430 Holiday Road P 0 -173 Minor use rmit to allow senior accessory dwelling (granny) unit and two related variance Continued requests to al w for the construction of 1) a garage addition to encroach 2 feet into the to June 9, easterly 10 -foot e yard setback and 2) an 8- foot -high wall to encroach into the 10 -foot 2011 easterly side yards back. The application also includes a request for variance appro to retain nine (9) as -b ' over - height structures located within required setbacks incl ing: four (4) arbors, three (3) Ils, a free - standing fireplace and a storage shed. S FF AND COMMISSIONER IT WS Chairperson Earl McDaniel recognize that Patricia Temple, for er Planning Director, ITEM NO. 5 was present. Ms. Temple thanked the C missioners. Planning Director's report: • Malarky's Irish Pub appeal was heard at the Ap ' 6, 2011, City Council meeting. In order to allow the applicant time to consider rop ed action and an opportunity to for him to develop an alternative proposal at could tentially address the Council's concern, the City Council continued the ublic hearing t ay 10, 2011. • The Planning Commission meeti of June 9, 2011, may ha four lengthy items, and staff suggests an earlier s rt time. Commission and staff reed to start at 4 .pm, go until 6 pm, stop for alf -hour break, and then resume the eeting at 6:30. Should any of the items b taken off the agenda, it will be decided to consider the starting time. Planning Commission r Orts: No reports ITEM NO. 6 Announcements o matters that Commission members would like placed on a fu re ITEM NO. 7 agenda for disc ion, action, or report. - None Requests for xcused absences — Commissioner Hillgren reminded Commission that he ITEM NO. 8 requeste5A be absent on May 19, 2011 and June 9, 2011 and request was granted at last me ,pring. AD URNMENT: 7.50 p.m. HAEL TOERGE, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION General Plan Consistency Determination 59 m GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PLAN CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION: Goal LU3 of the General Plan states as follows: A development pattern that retains and complements the City's residential neighborhoods, commercial and industrial districts, open spaces, and natural environment. GENERAL PLAN POLICY CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Policy LU 3.2 - Growth and Change states as Proposed amendments are consistent with this policy. follows: Policy LU 3.2 is intended to provide direction to decision - Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and makers in determining under what circumstances changes corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses in land use, density, or intensity should be considered. that are complementary in type, form, scale, and This policy recognizes that there are some areas of the character. Changes in use and /or City that are not achieving their full potential and the policy density /intensity should be considered only in establishes strategies for their enhancement and those areas that are economically revitalization. The proposed amendment would not create unacceptable or significant traffic impacts or impacts to underperforming, are necessary to accommodate existing infrastructure or public services given the Newport Beach's share of projected regional relatively small size of the lot and MU -V Development population growth, improve the relationship and Standards. The continuation of existing uses is consistent reduce commuting distance between home and with the uses allowed under the proposed mixed -use jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish designation. The development of vertically integrated Newport Beach as a special place to live for its mixed -use buildings will be compatible with the future residents. The scale of growth and new development planned for Lido Marina Village and nearby development shall be coordinated with the properties. provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. Policy LU 3.3 - Opportunities for Change states in Proposed amendments are consistent with this policy. part as follows: The subject site is located at the Lido Marina Village's Provide opportunities for improved development southern edge where specialty retail uses, restaurants, and enhanced environments for residents in the office uses, the City Hall and churches are in existence. following districts and corridors... Balboa This area has experienced a high number of building Peninsula: more efficient patterns of use that vacancies and many retail /office developments that are consolidate the Peninsula's visitor- serving and underperforming. The subject site is improved with two, single -story commercial buildings and currently occupied mixed uses within the core commercial districts; by a beauty salon, a day spa, real estate office and a encourage marine - related uses especially along consulting office. Staff believes the proposed project can the boy front; integrate residential with retail and be found consistent with this policy as the proposed visitor - serving uses in Lido Marina Village, amendments would allow the existing office /commercial uses to remain and provide future opportunity for McFadden Square, Balboa Village, and along portions of the Harbor frontage; re -use interior residential development to be developed above retail and parcels in Cannery Village for residential and office uses. limited mixed -use and live /work buildings; and redevelop underperforming properties outside of the core commercial districts along the Balboa 01 Boulevard corridor for residential. Infill development shall be designed and sited to preserve the historical and architectural fabric of these districts." Goal LU6.9 of the General Plan states as follows: A pedestrian- oriented village environment that reflects its waterfront location, providing a mix of uses that serves visitors and local residents Policy 6.9.1— Priority Uses Proposed amendments are consistent with this policy. Encourage uses that take advantages of Lido The proposed amendments would allow the existing Village's location at the Harbor's turning basin office /commercial uses to remain and provide future and its vitality and pedestrian character, including opportunity for residential development to be developed visitor - serving and retail commercial, small above retail and office uses at the subject site would be lodging facilities (bed and breakfasts, inns), and complementary to the nearby MUM2 designated mixed -use buildings that integrate residential properties. with retail uses [areas designated as "MU -W2'; Subarea 'A'7. A portion of the Harbor frontage and interior parcels (Subarea "B ") may also contain multi family residential [designated as "RM (20DU /AC) "], and the parcel adjoining the Lido Isle Bridge a recreational and marine commercial use [designated as "CM (0.3) "1 02 CITY CHARTER SECTION 423 ANALYSIS TABLE ATTACHMENT N®. CC 7 &S 64 Via Lido General Amendment (PA2011-024) Charter Section 423 Analysis 06/01/2011 Page 1 of 1 &6- - P GP IOtensityllloorarea Decd UQO.� ? 9 � P '_ nbnaity/Flo r Descri lion, _. P ;. P P RM h,,.e B changas;;,< tp lag �_,,. -: ,- :density ,, s; :;` 1 ;:' ,penalty :U60 y PREVIOUSL,YiAPPROVED,GENERALPLANAMENOMENY-,,NO.'GP2OiO,406-,YSTATIST L AREABV-_- 7 6,713-square-foot lot fully #220- Apartment Commercial blended rate 2102 W. Oman Front ID developed with a two-slory (0.61AMM.62PM trips per unit) per councU Policy A-18 (Map 4) ii -room hotel The MU-W2 4 3356.5 & Commercial blended rate per 12.11 16.91 CV0.5 0 3,357 (3-0 AM & 4.0 PM hips 10.07 13.43 -2.04 -2.48 .4 0 Dorymans Inn Council Policy A.1 8 (3.0 AM & per 1,000so 4.0 PM trips per 1,000sf]i 3.750-square-foot [at is #220-Apartment Commercial Wanted rate 2306 W. Oman Front (Map ID 6) rally developed Win a 16- M1J_VV2 1 1876& (0.51AWO.62PM trips per unit) Commercial blended rate per 6.14 8.12 GV0.5 0 L876 per Council Policy A-1 8 5.63 T -0.51 -0.62 -1 0 room hotel The Newport Council Policy A-18 (3.0 AM & (3.0 AM & 4.0 PM taps Beachwark Hotel 4.0 PM trips per 1,WDso per 1,000so #220 - Apartment 21.576-square-foot lot Is #230 - (0.51 AM/0.62PM trips per 3366 Via Lido (Map ID 2) fully developed wth a two. RM 9 0 ResidenflaVCondominfu na 3.96 4.86 MU-W2 13 15.103 unit) & Commercial 51.94 68.47 47.9796 03.6128 4 '16,103 story office building and a Townhouse, (0.44AW0.54PM blended rate per Council parldrit; lot hips per unit) PORGY A-1 8 (3.0 AM & 4.0 PM trips per I.ODOso Lido Peninsula 33,050-square-foot lot Is unallocated, Commercial blended rate 670 Lido Park Dr. fully developed with part of Lido un,hocated, part of see Lido Peninsula subtotal included In Lido Induct din Lido per Council Policy A-1 8 (Me p ID 7a) mstaurants/shopson MU-VV'3 Peninsula Lido Peninsula subtotal below Peninsula subotal Pardus Ufa subotal CM 0.5 0 16.525 (3.0 AM & 4.0 PM trips 49.6 66.1 NA NA NA NA Rhine subtotal per 1,000so unallocated, 9230- 34 dwelling units on a part of Lid a u,,hamtod, part of see Lido Peninsula subtotal included in Lido Included In Lido ResklentlaffCondombilum 700 Lido Park Dr. (Map ID 7b) 88,546-square-foot lot MU-W3 Peninsula Lido Peninsula below Peninsula Peninsula subotal RM 34 du 341 0 Townhouse 16.0 IBA NA NA NA NA subtotal subtotal subDtal (0.44AM10.54PM trips per unh) unalocand #230 - 200+ dwelling units on an of Lido u pad of see Lido Peninsula subtotal included in Lido Included In Lido Resklentiatk3ondonnLrilum 710 Lido Park Dr. (Map ID 7c) alpfumdrindo 366,347 MU -W3 pad Lido Peninsula Peninsula RM 217 du 217 0 Townhouse 95.5 117.2 NA NA NA NA square-footside Peninsula subtotal below subobd Peninsula sounded (0.44AM/0.54PM trips per subtotal I unit) Shipyard Way(Map Shipyard, marine facifites, unallocated, unallocated, pad of included In Lido Co mmordal blended rate 101�351 commercial on MU -W3 pad of Lido Lido Peninsula see Lido Peninsula subtotal Peninsula Included In Lido CM (anomaly #78) 0 139,840 r -l" pe Counchpol"YA 419.5 659A NA NA NA NA ID 7d) approximately 527,i82 Peninsula subtotal below subond Peninsula suboof (3.0 AM & 4.0 PM kips SQUare-foot she subtotal per 1,000so #230 - ResIdenUaVCondomfnlum Townhouse (0A4AMd0.54PM Lido Peninsula subtotal 251 166,365 hips per unit) & Commercial 579.5 761 251 156.365 579 76L. 0. 0 D blended rate per Council Policy I A -18 (3.0 AM & 4.0 PM hips per 1 1,00OSD TOTAL STATISTICAL AREA 136 1 2651 161,597 602 790 264 176.699.7 1 647 850 46.4 60.6 0 16,103 80% of Proposed Intensity -FAR 36.3 48A 0 12,083 PROPOSEO.',GENERAt:PLM'AMENDMENTNO,'GPA2011;003�'STATISTiuAL,�AREABS ,,77� 77777777 777777 7 7_151�11_:' 777777T77 77777777 TT77- #220 - Apartment (0.51 8,106 square-foot lot Is AM & 0.62 PM trips per 3363, 3369, 3377 Via Lido and 337f Why developed with a RM 3(20 0 4220 - Apartment (0.61 AM & 1.53 1.86 MU -V 4 4.053.00 n u '"Commerchd 14.20 18.69 12.67 16.831 1 4,053.110. 4,105 square-foot uniftslacre) 0.62 PM trips per Dweling Until b hurded rate per Council commercial holding Policy A-18 (3.0 AM & 4.0 PM hips per 1,000so TOTAL STATISTICAL AREA B6 MTH PROPOSED AMENDMENT 48.97 65.23 1 16,136.00 06/01/2011 Page 1 of 1 &6- VIA LIDO AMENDMENTS 3363, 3369 & 3377Via Lido and 3378Via Oporto (PA201 1 -024) City Council Public Hearing June 28, 201 F4 0± F U �WPp �LIFOR�% All �, Aw Vicinity Map Subject Prooertv • I ,ml COLDWELL BAN RF51 nl ♦IIAI ItRU Af ENJOY LPIIN4 THE LIFE $T'ILES ON I LIDO GLE AND THE BALBOJ PENINSULA FREE LOST OF XOMES AMO MAPS COME 00 IN > } J 1 West side Via Lido, in Lido Marina Village •Multiple -Unit Residential, maximum 20 dwelling units per acre •Property is 8,106 square feet in area •Originally developed with commercial uses in 1970 •Parking eliminated with past street widening •Improved with two, single -story commercial buildings with approximately 4,100 gross square feet •Occupied by a beauty salon, a day spa, a real estate and a consulting office •The existing commercial uses are nonconforming and subject to abatement Existing RM (20 du /ac) Designation: -3 residential dwelling units maximum -7 parking spaces required Proaosed MUN Desieunation: - Mixed -use building of Total 1.50 FAR 2,837 sf. + 3 DU (min) 4,053 sf. + 4 DU (max) - Commercial Only of 0.75 FAR maximum (6,080 square feet) On June 5, 2011, Planning Commission considered and recommended approval 1. General Plan Amendment 2. Local Coastal Plan Amendment 3. Zoning Amendment change the designations of the subject property from RM (20du /ac) to MU -V