HomeMy WebLinkAbout20 - Balboa Inn & Expansion - 105 Main & 707 Ocean Front41 n CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: January 9, 2001
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.: 20
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell
NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92659 (949) 644 -3210
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
PROJECT: Balboa Inn & Expansion
105 Main Street & 707 Ocean Front
PURPOSE OF
APPLICATION: A Use Permit for the Balboa Inn located at 105 Main Street its proposed
expansion to the 707 Ocean Front property. The expansion project
involves the construction of a two and three story structure consisting of
11 new guest suites, guest spa area, approximately 2,000 square feet of
retail space, and a partially covered 20 space, tandem parking area. It
will also involve the demolition of an existing one -story retail building
and pool area that currently serves the existing Balboa Inn. The use
permit application also includes consideration of an exception to the
maximum allowable floor area ratio, building bulk and building height
established by Title 20 of the Municipal Code for the expansion.
RECOMMENDED
ACTION: Hold a public hearing and Uphold the decision of the Planning
Commission to Approve Use Permit No. 3683.
ALTERNATIVES: The City Council has the option to deny the project or modify the project.
GENERAL PLAN: Retail & Service Commercial
ZONE: SP -8 (Central Balboa Specific Area Plan, Retail & Service Commercial)
OWNER: Michel Pourmussa, Managing Member of Balboa Inn, LLC.
Introduction
On December 7, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 3638 for the Balboa
Inn and its expansion. The expansion is proposed to be located on the property south of Ocean
Front (the boardwalk) where the pool and retail building are located, between Ocean Front and
the Balboa Pier parking lot. On December 20, 2000, a nearby property owner, Mr. James W.
Read, Jr. filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the project. The appellant
submitted a letter dated December 26, 2000 that outlines several concerns and suggestions and he
has included several letters and other materials for the City Council's consideration.
Discussion
The Use Permit for the proposed project covers the existing Balboa Inn and permits the
construction of a two and three story structure consisting of 11 new guest suites, guest spa area,
approximately 2,000 square feet of retail space, and a partially covered 20 space, tandem parking
area.
The project site is located in the 26/35 height limitation zone and is allocated a 0.511.0 floor area
ratio by the General Plan. The proposed project exceeds the basic building height limit of 26 feet
by three feet, six inches with the peak of the third story roof elements at 31 feet. Additionally, the
project exceeds the 0.5 basic floor area ratio (FAR) by 755.5 square feet and building bulk limit
of 0.75 FAR by 4,139 square feet. Each of these items can be approved through a use permit by
making specific findings related to the height, bulk and scale of the proposed construction. The
findings are extensive and take into account the height, location, size and bulk of surrounding
developments. The Planning Commission considered these issues in depth and received public
testimony at 4 public hearings. As noted in the appellant's letter, the Planning Commission voted
4 -3 for project approval.
All the letters and petition attached to the appellant's letter were considered by the Planning
Commission. Each of the areas of concern the appellant raises in his letter were also discussed by
the Planning Commission, but the Planning Commission came to a different conclusion and
approved the project. The issue of cumulative analysis is identified in the Negative Declaration,
and the project was determined not to present impacts that would be cumulatively considerable.
The unpaid transient occupancy tax issue was identified, and although it is not a land use issue,
the Planning Commission required that the unpaid balance be paid prior to the issuance of a
building permit. Lastly, the appellant contends that the Greenlight initiative should be considered
in conjunction with this project. The Greenlight initiative only affects certain General Plan
amendments and the proposed project does not include a General Plan amendment as it is
consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, the Greenlight initiative does not have bearing upon
consideration of the proposed project.
The appellant suggests that the proposed project be denied based upon the increased height, floor
area and building bulk. Additionally, he suggests that the City purchase the property where the
expansion of the Balboa Inn is proposed and somehow facilitate expanding and revitalizing the
existing Inn. Expanding the existing Balboa Inn by adding a floor cannot be accomplished
without significant zoning deviations as it is a legal, nonconforming structure. Additionally, the
Balboa Inn is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and expanding it in the way the
appellant suggests would be inconsistent with preserving its historic character. The design of the
proposed expansion project was developed with an eye to preserving and enhancing the historic
character of the Balboa Inn.
Use Permit No. 3683
January 9, 2000
Page 2
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to
approve Use Permit No. 3683, as the appeal filed does not present compelling new information
that would render the decision of the Planning Commission invalid. If the City Council believes
that the findings for approval cannot be made, staff recommends that the City Council overturn
the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the project by making the findings for denial
which contained within the Planning Commission staff report.
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Planning Director
a
Exhibits
Prepared by:
JAMES W. CAMPBELL
Senior Planner
Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 7, 2000.
2. Excerpt of draft minutes from the December 7, 2000 Planning Commission meeting.
3. Appeal letter dated December 26, 2000 (with attachments).
JA1CFrYCNL0001\0109 \U3683 ccrpt 1- 09 -OlAm
Use Permit No. 3683
January 9, 2000
Page 3
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: December 7, 2000
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.: 3
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell
�IFOw"� NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Appeal Period: 14 days
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: Balboa Inn & Expansion
105 Main Street & 707 Ocean Front
PURPOSE OF
APPLICATION: A Use Permit for the Balboa Inn located at 105 Main Street its
proposed expansion to the 707 Ocean Front property. The expansion
project involves the construction of a two and three story structure
consisting of 11 new guest suites, guest spa area, approximately 2,000
square feet of retail space, and a partially covered 20 space, tandem
parking area. It will also involve the demolition of an existing one -
story retail building and pool area that currently serves the existing
Balboa Inn. The use permit application also includes consideration of
an exception to the maximum allowable floor area ratio, building bulk
and building height established by Title 20 of the Municipal Code for
the expansion.
ACTION: • Approve the Negative Declaration making the findings contained
in Exhibit I; and
• Approve Use Permit No. 3683 subject to the findings, mitigation
measures and conditions of approval attached as Exhibit A.
LEGAL
DESCRIPTION: The easterly 135 feet of the northerly 55 feet of Lot D of the Balboa Tract
GENERAL PLAN: Retail & Service Commercial
ZONE: SP -8 (Central Balboa Specific Area Plan, Retail & Service Commercial)
OWNER: Michel Pourmussa, Managing Member of Balboa Inn, LLC.
Points and Authority
• Conformance with the General Plan
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for "Retail Service Commercial'
uses. A hotel use is permitted within this designation.
• Environmental Compliance (California Environmental Quality Act)
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines and City Council Policy K -3, an Initial Study has been prepared for the project.
Based upon the analysis contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that if 10
proposed mitigation measures are incorporated, the project will not have a significant effect
6
on the environment. A Mitigated Negative Declaration and mitigation monitoring and
reporting program have been prepared for the project, and they are attached for the Planning
Commission's review.
• Use Permit procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal Code.
• Consideration to exceed maximum allowable floor area and building pursuant to Chapter 20.63
of the Municipal Code and Alternative Development Regulations for the Central Balboa
Specific Plan.
• Consideration to exceed the basic allowable building height pursuant to Chapter 20.65 of the
Municipal Code and Alternative Development Regulations for the Central Balboa Specific
Plan.
Vicinity Map
Newport Channel
B� Project Site BO,q 205 Main Street
/ 0 O
2
' e
Project Site % Ba26oa In F
707 Ocean Fr
�\ D
City Parking Lot
0 Park
I Beach �) 't Park g L
Beach v
Paclra: Oei)o.
Use Permit 3683
Current
Development:
The site is developed with a 34 room hotel, retail uses and restaurant. The ocean side parcel is
developed with a one -story, 2970 s.f. retail building (coffee house and beach rentals). The site
is also used by the Balboa Inn for its pool area and accessory storage.
To the north:
Existing Balboa Inn and visitor serving retail uses.
To the east:
Restaurant and bar, retail uses, beach, Balboa Park, Balboa Pier and City beach parking.
To the south:
City beach parking, beach and Pacific Ocean.
To the west:
City beach parking, beach and Pacific Ocean, three duplex s, 3-story condominium complex.
Use Permit No. 3683
December 7, 2000
Pale 2
LO
Introduction
This item was continued from October 5, 2000. At the last meeting, the Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing and could not reach a consensus with only 6 member of the
Commission present. The item was continued to this meeting in order to have the full
Commission consider the item.
Discussion
During the last meeting, the Planning Commission made several changes to the findings and
conditions of approval as a result of the discussion. These changes have been incorporated are
highlighted in the attached exhibit.
The Planning Commission expressed concerns regarding the delinquent Transient Occupancy
Taxes. Staff has discussed this issue with the Assistant City Attorney and believes that there is a
sufficient nexus between the project and the payment of the delinquent taxes to require that the
applicant pay the taxes as a condition of approval. An additional finding has been prepared and a
condition of approval requiring that the applicant enter into an agreement regarding payment of
the taxes be executed prior to the issuance of a building permit.
One additional change staff suggests, that was not previously discussed, is the condition that
voids all previous discretionary permits upon approval of this Use Permit. Staff recommends that
the condition be amended to void those obsolete permits for the 105 Main Street project site
immediately as the applicant will vest himself of this Use Permit immediately. Voiding of the
permits for the 707 Ocean Front project site is premature as these uses will operate for the
foreseeable future pending Coastal Commission review prior to the issuance of a building permit
for construction. Additionally, these uses potentially may operate indefinitely if the applicant
does not implement the proposed construction for whatever reason. The revised condition is
highlighted in the attached exhibit.
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
�PPllanning Director 1
9 /�4/l.9(.1 �
Exhibits
Prepared by:
JAMES W. CAMPBELL
Senior Planner
A. Revised findings and conditions of approval.
B. Findings for denial.
C. Excerpt of meeting minutes from October 5, 2000.
D. Planning Commission staff report dated October 5, 2000.
Use Permit No. 3683
December 7, 2000
Page 3
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
Use Permit No. 3683, Balboa Inn
Mitigated Negative Declaration
A. Mitigated Negative Declaration:
Findings:
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in
compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3.
2. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not
have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment.
3. There are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the
project.
4. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects.
5. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be
caused by the proposed project.
6. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various
decisions on this project.
Mitigation Measures:
1. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following
measures are complied with to reduce short -term (construction) air quality
impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular
watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining
equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction
activities to minimize project- related emissions.
2. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will
comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce odors from construction
activities
3. During grading activities, a qualified archeologist/paleontologist shall be present
to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural
resources are uncovered, the archeologist/paleontologist shall have the authority to
Use Permit No. 3683
December 7, 2000
Page 4
stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess
the significance of the find.
4. During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and
siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local
and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City
Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.10).
5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a
comprehensive geotechnical investigation to the Planning and Building
Department for review and approval.
6. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public
Works Department to determine compliance.
7. The project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General
Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions.
During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are
allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays.
8. Prior to the start of construction activities (e.g. demolition of existing building), a
construction traffic control plan shall be prepared which includes the haul route,
truck hauling operations, construction traffic flagmen, and construction
warning/directional signage.
9. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project applicant shall
coordinate with utility and service organizations regarding any construction
activities to ensure existing facilities are protected and any necessary expansion or
relocation of facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the
appropriate public agencies.
10. Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall submit to the
Planning and Building Department a letter from the City Utilities Department
confirming availability of utility services to and from the site.
B. Use Permit No. 3683:
Findings:
1. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates both sites, 105 Main Street
and 707 Ocean Front, for "Retail and Service Commercial" uses. The project
includes existing visitor accommodations and new accommodations and retail uses
which are permitted uses within this commercial designation.
2. The existing Balboa Inn provides visitor accommodations (34 units) within the
Central Balboa Specific Area Plan consistent with the General Plan. The inn is a
local historical landmark and has not proven to be detrimental to the health, safety,
Use Permit No. 3683
December 7, 2000
Page 5
-1
peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Approval of
the use permit makes the use conforming with respect to permit requirements and
does not authorize any changes to the operational characteristics of the use. No
expansion of the use or area on the property north of Ocean Front where the existing
Balboa Inn is located (105 Main Street) is authorized. The structures on the 105
Main Street site remains legal, nonconforming with respect to building height, floor
area ratio, building bulk, parking and landscaping.
3. The proposed construction of additional area for visitor accommodations on 707
Ocean Front which will be operated in conjunction with the existing Balboa Inn
does not constitute an expansion of a nonconforming structure. The existing
Balboa Inn is located at 105 Main Street and the new hotel area is separated from
this property by a public street, and constitutes a separate building site.
4. Based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and
all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as
conditioned, could have a significant effect on the environment; therefore a
Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately
addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the
requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration was
considered prior to approval of the project.
5. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole there is
no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for
an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends.
On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of
adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a
De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR.
6. A trip generation study has been prepared by the Traffic Engineer which analyzes
the expected trip generation for the proposed project, and verifies that the proposed
project will generate approximately 165 vehicle trips per day which is not a
significant increase warranting a traffic study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance.
7. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the
proposed development.
8. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.91.040 of the
Municipal Code.
9. The existing Balboa Inn is presently delinquent in the payment of Transient
Occupancy Tax. This delinquent payment was incurred by the prior
owner /operator and the present owner /operator is current in their payments.
Use Permit No. 3683
December 7, 2000
Page 6
16
The current owner /operator is still responsible for repayment of the
delinquent taxes pursuant to the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The
expanded project with the additional rooms will increase occupancy of the
existing hotel and make the hotel more successful, thereby enabling the
applicant the opportunity to repay that debt.
10. Approval of Use Permit No. 3683 will not, under the circumstances of the case be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and
is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following
reasons:
(a) The Central Balboa Specific Area Plan statistical area has approximately
47,000 square feet of remaining entitlement, and the proposed project will
not the put the area in deficit.
(b) The Central Balboa Specific Area Plan statistical area does have several
underutilized properties. None of these parcels are of sufficient size or seems
likely to redevelop in the near future that would cause the base development
allocation of the entire statistical area to be exceeded.
(c) The increased development is 755.5 square feet which is 7.78% of the
overall project. The increased development increases the mass of the project
making it two and three stories. The building is consistent with massing and
size of the adjacent 4 -story inn and does not constitute an abrupt change in
scale as it is lower than the inn. The duplexes to the west to the west are two
story and are developed well above 1.0 FAR and the three story
condominiums to the west are of similar size and scale to the proposed
project. The change in scale from the south is significant, but is not
inconsistent with the change in scale between structures located on Main
Street as it extends the characteristic urban fabric further south.
(d) The Central Balboa Specific Area Plan area acts as a visitor serving
commercial area and recreational area. The recreational use of the area
served both visitors as well as residents. The use of the site for visitor
accommodations and retail uses is compatible with the surrounding uses.
(e) The increase development of does not have a significant effect upon public
views. Views from Ocean Front and Main Street are partially blocked by the
existing development of the site and the increased development will not
dramatically affect this view. The proposed project will open a portion of the
view (westerly 26.5 feet) presently blocked by the perimeter walls. The view
of the project site and the adjacent commercial area will be affected by the
project, but in a positive way due to the project's high level of architectural
detail and consistent architectural style with the adjacent Balboa Inn.
Use Permit No. 3683
December 7, 2000
Page 7
(f) The site is flat and has no submerged areas and has no sensitive resources.
The site is physically suitable for development as vehicular access and
utilities presently exist that can serve the proposed project. The site is
located adjacent to the Balboa Inn which is a locally significant historical
landmark and focal point of the Central Balboa area. The design of the
building is consistent with the architecture of the inn thereby preserving and
enhancing the unique character of the area.
(g) The design of the project predominantly with visitor accommodations with
its connection to the existing Balboa Inn realistically precludes other land
uses that would generate additional traffic. The project does provide 8
excess parking stalls that will be available to provide additional parking
for the existing inn thereby reducing parking demand generated by the
existing inn for the public beach parking.
(h) The project is designed to be consistent with the adjacent Balboa Inn which
has local historical significance. Promoting commercial districts and
providing opportunities for older, underutilized properties to redevelop is
consistent with General Plan policies. Preserving and enhancing the Balboa
Inn and surroundings is a goal of the Central Balboa Specific Plan.
(i) The increased height results in a decreased building footprint where the
westerly 26.5 feet of the property is not developed with any buildings, which
will open a portion of the view of the ocean and beach to Ocean Front.
(j) The increased height permits greater building articulation where there is a
single story portion between the two three story elements. This building mass
articulation avoids a flat two story building that could potentially occupy the
entire site. The increased height permits higher clear heights for the project
which results in the ability to incorporate additional architectural details that
are consistent and compatible with the adjacent Balboa Inn which strengthens
the unique and historic character of the of the area.
(k) The proposed three story building is consistent with massing and size of the
adjacent inn and does not constitute an abrupt change in scale as it is lower
than the adjacent 4 -story inn. Further west are three duplexes which are two -
story and a three story condominium development. The duplexes are no
more than 26 feet in height and the increased height suggested does not
create an abrupt scale relationship.
(1) Deviations from the building height in conjunction with a request to increase
the floor area ratio is acceptable based upon Alternative Development
Regulations when innovative or superior urban design is proposed pursuant
to the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan.
(i) The project is designed to create visual interest and it incorporates
pedestrian scale elements along Main Street, Ocean Front and the beach
Use Permit No. 3683
December 7, 2000
Page 8
lin,
parking lot driveway to the south which enhances the significant
pedestrian circulation of the area.
(ii) The project is not monotonous, nor visually unappealing as the plans
include both vertical and horizontal articulation which break up building
mass.
(iii) The project is designed to visually connect to the urban commercial area to
the north and it does not create gaps in the streetscape system.
(iv) The proposed expands the pedestrian spaces by providing a covered
walkway by the sidewalk with recessed building entries and a landscaped
court along Ocean Front.
(v) The project includes enhanced paving materials at the building entrance
and under the pedestrian bridge which will identify entrances and add
visual interest.
(vi) Site design and parking areas are designed to minimize pedestrian/vehicle
conflicts by providing one parking area entrance on the south side of the
site and bollards between the parking areas and Ocean Front. These
features also help to minimize vehiclelbicycle conflicts. The project
provides sufficient parking for the new uses it provides 8 additional spaces
for the Balboa Inn which presently relies upon the City parking and street
parking.
(vii) The project avoids large blank walls and long stretches of walls without
windows or architectural relief which would be unfriendly to pedestrians.
Awnings and a covered walkways provide for weather protection and they
relate to the overall scale of the architectural details. The design and
architecture incorporates features including arches, column details,
window ledges, arched windows, Spanish roof tiles, exposed rafter tails,
balcony railings and other features that mimics the design and architecture
of the historic Balboa Inn. The project is conditiond that exterior finishes,
materials and colors shall be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance
of a building permit and that these elements shall ne consistent and
compatible with the existing Balboa Inn. The project includes the use of
materials that are not out of character with the area.
(viii) If the plans were not approved, the project could be redesigned at two
stories, but the building mass articulation would be lost or the overall
building footprint would potentially increase, and many of the benefits of
the proposed project would not be realized.
(ix) The plan does not hinder the public's expenditures and planned projects to
improve the public parking lot, streetscape and landscaing within the area.
Use Permit No. 3683
December 7, 2000
Page 9
Conditions:
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan,
floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. The applicant shall submit
samples of materials and colors to the Planning Department for approval prior to the
issuance of a building permit for new construction. Said materials and colors shall
be consistent and compatible with the existing Balboa Inn. The development shall
be high quality and employ materials, finishes and application techniques which are
compatible with the historic existing character of the existing Balboa Inn.
2. All previous discretionary approvals for the 105 Main Street project sites, except
for Use Permit No. 3158 and all subsequent amendments to Use Permit No. 3158,
are hereby null and void. Those discretionary approvals for the 707 Ocean Front
project site shall be null and void upon the commencement of construction for
the expanded Balboa Inn proposed thereon.
3. The visitor accommodations located on 707 Ocean Front shall not be operated
separately or independently from the existing Balboa Inn located at 105 Main Street.
4. The project shall provide 20 parking spaces on site for all on -site uses. Excess
parking provided shall be dedicated for use and limited to use by patrons or
employees of the existing Balboa Inn.
5. All trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and public streets.
A restrictive covenant shall be prepared and recorded in the title of both the
existing Balboa Inn and 707 Ocean Front that will limit the uses,
development and operation of both properties as one consistent with this use
permit and preclude conversion of the buildings to any use that would
generate additional vehicle traffic or parking demand and precludes separate
conveyance of 707 Ocean Front and 105 Main Street while either is used
pursuant to this use permit. The covenant shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney prior to recordation.
7. Perimeter landscaping required pursuant to Section 20.45.035(L) of the Municipal
Code shall not be required.
8. The applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed
landscape architect or licensed architect for on -site and adjacent off -site planting
areas. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient
irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Director prior
to the issuance of a building permit. All planting areas shall be provided with a
permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable
Use Permit No. 3683
December 7, 2000
Page 10
1
0-01
- -
- -
- - M_ -
-
A restrictive covenant shall be prepared and recorded in the title of both the
existing Balboa Inn and 707 Ocean Front that will limit the uses,
development and operation of both properties as one consistent with this use
permit and preclude conversion of the buildings to any use that would
generate additional vehicle traffic or parking demand and precludes separate
conveyance of 707 Ocean Front and 105 Main Street while either is used
pursuant to this use permit. The covenant shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney prior to recordation.
7. Perimeter landscaping required pursuant to Section 20.45.035(L) of the Municipal
Code shall not be required.
8. The applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed
landscape architect or licensed architect for on -site and adjacent off -site planting
areas. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient
irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Director prior
to the issuance of a building permit. All planting areas shall be provided with a
permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable
Use Permit No. 3683
December 7, 2000
Page 10
1
for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. Planting areas
adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or
similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede
vehicular sight distance to the sapsfaction of the Traffic Engineer.
9. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be maintained in accordance
with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a
healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing,
mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and
debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments,
replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance.
10. The owner shall provide and execute a replacement encroachment agreement
subject to review and approval by the City for the continued operation of the
pedestrian bridge.
Standard Requirements:
11. All improvements within the public right of way shall be constructed as required
by Ordinance and the Public Works Department.
12. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to
guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to
record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public
improvements.
13. That all construction within the public right -of -way be subject to further review by
the Public Works Department and be completed under an encroachment permit
issued by the Public Works Department. That an Encroachment Agreement be
executed for all non - standard improvements approved to be constructed within the
public right -of -way.
14. The final design of all on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian
circulation systems shall be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer.
15. The proposed parking spaces shall be restriped to comply with City Standard 805
L -A and L -B. The HC space shall be modified so that a van size loading area is
provided on the right side of the space.
16. The applicant or operator of the facility shall provide valet attendant service for
the tandem parking lot at all times. The applicant or operator shall prepare a valet
operated parking plan to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
17. The applicant shall provide wheel stops or other approved protective barrier
methods as necessary within the parking facility.
Use Permit No. 3683
December 7, 2000
Page 11
15
18. For Fair Share fee purposes the retail square footage shall be considered part of
the hotel and not accessed as separate retail square footage. However, there will
be no credit given from the existing current use.
19. A drainage study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public
Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain
facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any building permits.
Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer
systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the
developer.
20. Any Edison transformer serving the site shall be located outside the sight distance
planes as described in City Standard 110 -L.
21. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of
construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control
equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and
materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements.
22. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards,
unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
23. The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building
Code, including State Disabled Access requirements, unless otherwise approved by
the Building Department.
24. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and
adjacent public streets within the limits authorized by this use permit, and shall be
sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, Community Noise Control.
25. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate
pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is
determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or
impractical.
26. The parking spaces shall be marked with approved traffic markers or painted white
lines not less than 4 inches wide.
27. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use
Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a
determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes
injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general
welfare of the community.
28. The applicant shall be vested in the Use Permit for the existing Balboa Inn
immediately upon the effective date of this Use Permit. This Use Permit, as it
applies to the proposed new construction, shall expire unless exercised within 24
Use Permit No. 3683
December 7, 2000
Page 12
months from the effective date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code.
29. The applicant shall. to enter into an agreement with the City, prior to
issuance of permits, on payment of outstanding Transient Occupancy Taxes.
Use Permit No. 3683
December 7, 2000
Page 13
11
r
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
Use Permit No. 3683, Balboa Inn
The proposed additional construction of 707 Ocean Front exceeds the base floor area,
allowable building bulk and base building height. The project site is surrounded by
pedestrian oriented public spaces with no significant buildings or structures located
nearby. Building located to the north are the existing two and three story Balboa Inn and
two story duplexes and single story commercial buildings. The requested increase in
building height and area facilitate three story buildings south of Ocean Front. Although
the adjacent Balboa Inn is two and three stories in height and is taller than the proposed
project, the increased height and area of the development is out of character with the
Central Balboa area where one and two story development predominate. The requested
increases in building mass and height create unacceptable scale relationships with the
surrounding public spaces which are pedestrian walkways.
2. The project hinders public views from Main Street and Ocean Front of the beach and
ocean due to the size, height and location of the proposed project.
Use Permit No. 3683
December 7, 2000
Page 14 v
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
October 5, 2000
INDEX
SUBJECT: Balboa Inn & Expansion
Item No. 1
105 Main Street & 707 Ocean Front
UP No. 3683 and
• Approve the Negative Declaration
Negative Declaration
• Use Permit No. 3683
A request for e Use Permit to construct c two and three story building for 1 1 new
Continued to
guest rooms for the Balboa Inn, 2060 square feet of retail space and a partially
12/07/2000
open parking garage with 20 tandem parking spaces. The use permit
application also includes consideration or an exception to the maximum
allowable 'floor area and basic allowable building height.
Senior Planner James Campbell presented slides on the proposed application
noting the following:
• This is a new application, the original one was denied without prejudice in
July 2000.
• Difference in applications is the inclusion of the existing Inn within the
overall project application.
• Existing Inn is a non - conforming, 34 -room hotel 'built in 1933.
• Expansion request is for a new 11 -room hotel, which is on the oceanfront
side with 2.060 square feet of retail space accommodated on the first
floor.
• Pool area, accessory storage areas and existing retail space that will be
removed were noted on the slides.
• The application includes consideration to allow the structure to exceed
the maximum building height of 26 feet. The highest poriions of the
project are 31 feet at two separate elements.
• Elevation drawings were explained.
• A proposal of a decorative masonry wall to screen along the parking
areas. .
• Application requests to exceed the maximum allowable floor area by 755
square feet.
Chairperson Selich noted that at the July 201h meeting, the Planning Commission
formally denied without prejudice the application. By State low this application
hod run out of time and there were unresolved issues with the status of all of the
different approvals that hod been given over the years. We wanfed to unify
those approvals under one use permit.
At Commission inquiry, staff noted that this application is slightly different in that it
includes the existing Balboa Inn. Staff is recommending no changes to the
existing Inn: it is e conforming use but e non - conforming structure relative to
building height, floor area ratio and parking. The resfaurcnt has a separate use
permit and staff would like to keep that separate. The expansion is the some
project: nothing is being added to it.
Mr. Campbell noted that there are several changes to the conditions resulting
from discussion at the July meeting. One has to do with the valet parking plan:
)9
W_4%
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
October 5, 2000
finishes to be consistent with the existing Inn; the use shall not be operated
separately or independently from the existing Balboa Inn and the owner shall
provide and execute a replacement encroachment agreement subject to
review and approval by the City for continued operation of the pedestrian
bridge.
Commissioner Kronzley noted that he had received a letter from Mr. Sherreitt who
had protested the original application. One of the points he brought up was a
use permit for more height and square footage than allowed by City Ordinances.
Staff clarified that the Zoning Ordinance permits the consideration of the
structures to exceed the basic limit, which is 26 feet, up to 35 feet through a Use
Permit. It is authorized by the Code, but subject to that approval with specific
findings. It is also permissible to exceed the basic area limit up to an FAR of 1.0
through a use permit. The findings are different than typical variance findings.
The bridge was built in 1936 with an encroachment agreement. We can verify
that it is structurally sound.
Ms. Temple added that the Building Department would require all information
necessary to assure compliance with building codes.
Commissioner Kiser asked the status of payment on the Transient Occupancy
Taxes (TOT).
Assistant City Manager, Sharon Wood answered that she and the Revenue
Manager had met with the owners of the Inn to discuss a payment plan for the
back TOT and have come to some agreements in concept. We will be doing a
formal agreement with them after the action on the expansion is taken. The two
will probably be tied together in terms of timing. However, this issue is not a [and
issue and is not one that the Planning Commission should be considering as part
of your decision even though it is important to the City.
Commissioner Kiser noted Standard Requirement T18 indicates thof for the fair
share fee purposes, the retail square footage shall be considered part of the
hotel and not assessed as separate retail square footage. However, there will be
no credit given from the existing current use. What affect does that have on the
City?
Mr. Edmonston answered that this clarifies that both the existing retail and the
future retail would be considered an accessory use of the hotel. We would apply
the hotel rate to the increased rooms, but there would not be either a credit to
the existing retail because it is part of the existing hotel, nor would there be an
additional charge for the new retail that replaces the existing retail. We will still
collect the fair share fees based on the i I additional rooms. A typical hotel has
some retail and restaurant type use in it and therefore, those trips cre already
included. In this case the actual use of the off -site retail presently is primarily by
the public. We put this in here because that is the way to deaf with the issue of
INDEX
Ia
M
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
October 5, 2000
demolishing some retail and building new retail and the 11 additional rooms.
Commissioner Kronzley noted it is important to look at economic impacts of
projects. We need to review this in projects that will bring in additional revenues
and costs to the City. I am concerned with the fact that this applicant has not
been willing to pay back taxes since July and we are still trying to figure out some
method of payment. I have a problem that we apparently have not received
any payment on these back taxes that would be a consideration in reviewing this
application.
Commissioner Tucker, noting condition 6, asked shouldn't the restrictive covenant
prohibit separate conveyance of the two parcels while either parcel is being
operated under this use permit?
Assistant City Attorney Robin Clauson answered that the City may not have the
power to prevent them from conveying the property. If they do convey it, they
still will not be able to change the use or operate separately under the provisions
of the use permit. Suggested language changes would be in Finding 9g. '....The
project does provide 8 excess parking stalls that will be Fwailsbta 'e provide
additional parking for the existing inn....' If we connect the fact that those 8
spaces are providing parking for and limited to the inn, that adds to the fact that
they can not be operated separately. Condition 4 would say, :....Excess parking
provided shall be dedicated for use and limited to use by patrons or employees
of the existing Balboa Inn.' That helps in the concept that this use permit is for one
project, even though it is two separate properties. Condition 3 clearly states that
they can not be operated separately.
Commissioner Tucker noted that he is proposing that they be tied together while
either portion is operated under the use permit. It seems that the bridge services
the oceanfront parcel but the access to it for ADA purposes is from the Main
Street parcel. If you had that in two different hands, if it is ever conveyed
separately, the very least would be some type of easement document for
people who want to get ADA access to the oceanfront parcel to have the right
to use the stain Street parcel to get that access.
Chairperson Selich asked it we could do something similar to what we have
people do who build over two property lines and two lots, we make a recorded
covenant to hold the two lots together.
Ms. Clauson stated that there is a provision in the Building Code that requires that
when building is built over two adjoining properties a covenant is recorded that
states that the two properties are held together. These two properties are
separate. The ownership of the property does not let the property be operated
other than what is authorized under this use permit. Maybe the applicant would
agree to such a covenant and not challenge it. I don't think that the Planning
Commission has the authority to require a covenant that restricts the sale of the
property.
INDEX
4
al
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
October 5, 2000
Chairperson Selich noted his concern that although a condition prevents the
operation as two separate facilities; these conditions are not always made
available. One piece could be sold off and then we have two property owners
come in and the City is forced to make some accommodation to them. Where
if, it was noticed while buying the property during escrow, all these questions
would be answered before the title changed hands on the property.
Ms. Clauson noted that one option would be to have the use permit recorded
against the property. At Commission inquiry, Ms. Clauson answered that it is her
understanding that the bridge crosses over a public thoroughfare; they are not
two adjoining properties. The Planning Commission can add a condition that the
property owner shall record a covenant while the use permit is in force.
Commissioner Tucker noted that this is a unique circumstance with a public
thoroughfare in the middle of the project. The way this project has been
presented to us, it is one project on two separate lots. A very important element
is dependent on both sides being held in use together.
Public comment was opened.
Ron Boers, representing the Balboa Inn noted that he is satisfied with the way staff
has depicted the situation. The language in the report states that if this
expansion of the Balboa Inn is to be permitted it can only be done as one hotel
operation and can not be separated.
Chairperson Selich answered that is correct. What the Planning Commission is
trying to do is prevent an owner from selling one parcel or the other off without
notification of this use permit. The only way we would have assurance is to have
something recorded against the property that is identified in escrow.
Mr. Boers stated that this was acceptable to the applicants, Mr. and Mrs.
Pourmosso who are in the audience.
Commissioner Agajanian noted his concern of the need for the additional bulk
particularly on the third floor. If we narrow it down it.becomes a financial issue
and that raises a lot of questions in my mind. What is the justification fcr the size of
a structure for 11 rooms as opposed to 9 rooms? What is the marginal difference?
Mr. Boers answered that the rationale of this design approach was to allow for
articulation of the bulk of the building. Think of it as a platform over parking with
two residences above it. One is made up of 6 hotel rooms and the other is made
up of 5 hotel rooms. The flexibility to use both two and three story height
elements is a positive way to articulate the mass of the building and make it
appear less than if everything was on one level above the parking.
Commissioner Agajanian asked the height and bulls are for aesthetic reasons, not
INDEX
s��
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
October 5, 2000
for financial reasons? 9 rooms would do instead of 11 rooms?
Mr. Boers answered that is correct. It would be hard to separate the two. The
situation is that the number of premium rooms is very limited. The back rooms,
which are in the four -story element, are limited in terms of upgrade to a higher
premium. What these I I rooms do is double the number of premium rooms that
the hotel has to sell. That makes this a more viable economic operation as a
small -scale inn.
Mr. Pourmosso, manager of the Balboa Inn, answered that presently there are 8
ocean view suites. We are adding ocean front rooms that are in demand. It is
an economic feature to have the 11 rooms. We have more incentive to do this
project with 11 rooms as opposed to 9 rooms because there is more money
involved in it for us and economically it makes more sense. You have to realize
that at some point we have to make a profit and if the number of rooms is not
enough to make a profit, the project would not make economic sense and I will
not do it. At Commission inquiry he answered that a nine -room project would not
be economically attractive. The minimum number of rooms that we will do is 11.
He explained that nobody uses the swimming pool and it remains inactive 90 -95%
of the time. People who come to the hotel want to use the beach. However, on
the second floor we have included designs for a spa, lap pool and Jacuzzi with a
sun deck.
Tom Hyans, 217 19th Street noted that he was under the impression that there
were four units on the third floor, not two.
Mr. Campbell answered that there are two elements that have third floors. In
each element there are two units:
Public comment was closed.
Motion was made by Chairperson Selich to approve Use Permit No. 3683 subject
to the findings, mitigation measures and conditions of approval attached as
Exhibit A as modified by the Assistant City Attorney and incorporating
Commissioner Tucker's comments including his suggestions to the modifications to
condition number 6.
Ms. Clauson suggested that condition 6 add the sentence that the covenant
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation.
Commissioner Agajonion noted his concern of the height. There is a better
solution to this site and the issue of 11 rooms versus 9 rooms and the economic
feasibility of that could probably be worked out so that one of those three story
tower elements might be dropped down to two. I would be prepared to look at
that project without as much height on one of the towers. Until then, what they
are requesting for, the encroachment, the expansion that is required for this, is
more than what I think that the City is going to benefit from.
INDEX
6
a'
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
October 5, 2000
Chairperson Selich referring to page 4 of the drawings noted that he does not
believe it is out of scale with the existing building and that it is totally in proportion
and scale with what is there now.
Commissioner Tucker noted his support of the Chairman's comments. The way
the Ordinance is set up, this is not a variance, this is a use permit that under
certain circumstances the code contemplates that more will be allowed on a
property than a base level. As long as you stay below a certain higher level, it is
done by use permit, which allows us to exercise our discretion in the review. If this
was a variance application, I think it would have ended as quickly as some we
have dealt with recently. This is a circumstance where we actually have a lot of
input into the design features. If you recall, when this applicant was here the first
time I in particular had a lot of design questions. They came back in with another
set of designs that more highly articulated the areas that I was concerned with
and showed us what the applicant was really proposing to do. We went through
the straw vote process on basically the some set of plans with a couple of
changes that Commissioner Kranzley asked for with respect to visibility through
parking areas. I feel the project is in scale and consistent with what it was that
we had a straw vote on the last go- around so I am supportive of the motion.
Ms. Clauson asked for a clarification of the motion as it pertains to suggested
language made by Commissioner Tucker on condition 6.
Commissioner Tucker presented written comments to Ms. Clauson.
Ms. Wood noted that condition 6 has a different purpose than perhaps what
Commissioner Tucker was referring to. It has to do with code issues about not
expanding beyond the parking and traffic that has been considered.
Commissioner Tucker was talking about the joining of two properties and the
operation.
Commissioner Kranzley asked what happens on the TOT? What recourse does
the City have on this?
Ms. Wood answered that these owners inherited this debt when there was a
transfer of ownership. They apparently were not entirely aware of the situation.
We have been talking to them for a couple of years about doing some upgrades
to the hotel so that it would bring in more and a higher quality of visitor in so they
would have rates that would provide the City with additional TOT in the future.
This had eventually led to this project. For that reason and the applicants who
have been working with us towards those goals, we have been talking about a
workout plan to pay back this TOT over time, but to allow them to do it later so
that we do not hinder them from doing this project.
Commissioner Kranzley commented that they are currently paying the TOT
charges, but it is an historical debt that they were not aware of, which they
o� 7
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
October 5, 2000
should have researched before they bought this project, that is outstanding.
Ms. Wood noted that they are paying their current TOT fees.
Commissioner Kranzley stated that the conditions that start on page 7 are
promises. I take these conditions very seriously. I thought I made it very clear last
time that we wanted some progress in those discussions and frankly I am shocked
that two and one half months later we still have not gone any farther than we
were in July. I also want to desperately improve Balboa Village and I have been
very active over a number of years in both time and money doing everything I
can to help upgrade the peninsula. So, I am with some reluctance going to
favor this motion but I am disturbed that we have not been able to come to
some resolution on this TOT payment.
Commissioner Kiser commented that insertion of the word allow in condition 6 as
suggested by Commissioner Tucker allows possible interpretation by others that
would favor developing the site somehow in ways in addition to what is
contained in the conditions. I suggest that this be re- considered and removed.
Commissioner Tucker noted that the goal is to have a smoothly flowing English
sentence that imparts the idea that the use permit is what they have to adhere
to. If there were better language, then I would support it.
Ms. Clauson noted additional suggested language for this condition:
'A restrictive covenant shall be prepared and recorded in the title of both the
existing Balboa Inn and 707 Ocean Front that will limit the uses, development and
operation of both properties as one consistent with this use permit and preclude
conversion of the buildings to any use that would generate additional vehicle
traffic or parking demand and precludes separate conveyance of 707 Ocean
Front and 105 Main Street while either is used pursuant to this use permit. The
covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to
recordation.'
Chairperson Selich noted he would include this in his motion.
Commissioner Kiser noted that a lot of a hard work has been done on this project.
It is a generally attractive project. The Balboa Village needs the investment. The
objections that I have are that this is on extremely sensitive area by the side of
oceanfront walk and directly adjacent to a public park and to the entry to the
Balboa Pier. The peninsula is almost entirely a two -story community with very few
exceptions. One of those is the Balboa Inn itself. The project is a bit out of
character with the community and when viewed from public areas it is too
massive and two dominating in that area. In that respect only, it is not attractive.
I understand that the applicant could choose to build a monolithic structure that
could be built within development rights. I would not presume that this architect
or applicant would ever come forward with a project that would not be the very
best thing they could do with what was available to them in the way of
INDEX
-5
-.Of-
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
October 5, 2000
entitlements. I believe that staying within present entitlements a very attractive
project on that side of ocean front walk could be completed. I can not support
the motion that is on the table.
Commissioner McDaniel noted that he wasn't going to support this motion for
reasons as stated by the previous speaker. I think this would set bad precedent
by stating that we are going to redevelop and don't redevelop some of the old.
If there were significant redevelopment of the old. I would be more interested.
The Balboa Inn has 13.6 rooms that they do not use: yet they want to build 11
more. I am having difficulty with the fact that this project needs to be viable and
asks for additional rooms when it is not using what it has already. I am having
trouble with the removal of the swimming pool. I have talked with lots of people
who are in the business who believe that is a significant aspect of any hotel at
the beach or not at the beach.
Chairperson Selich withdrew his motion and made another motion to continue
this item to December 7th when we have a full Commission.
Mr. Boers noted this continuance was acceptable
Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajonion. Selich. Kranzley. Tucker
Noes: None
Absent: Gifford
Cowan Duplex (Jay Cowan, applicant)
(continued-from 09/07/2000)
3030 Breakers Drive
• Variance No. 1236
Request to construc new 6800 square foot duplex that exceeds the 24 -foot
height limitation by up feet. The request for a modification for a 16 -foot
high retaining wall located j7NVe required side yard to exceed the maximum
wall height of 6 feet has been eliNSA2ted.
Senior Planner James Campbell presente ides noting the revised elevations
and the following:
• 16 -foot retaining wall was eliminated.
• 41h floor element was lowered 10 feet.
• Project was tucked into the hill thereby reducing th verall size.
• Change in amount of potential view blockage.
Commissioner Kranzley talked about the view of the parking lot that
blocked. Now, it seems the view of the lower part of the house is
doesn't seem to block anything at all other than part of the house.
INDEX
Item No. 2
V 1236
Acceptance of a
Mitigated Negative
Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring
Program
Approved
0
CITY OF NTEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item No.:
3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person:
—p..* NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658
(949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3250 Appeal Period:
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT: Balboa Inn & Expansion
105 Main Street & 707 Ocean Front
October 5, 2000
I
James Campbell
(949) 644 -3210
14 days
PURPOSE OF
APPLICATION: A Use Permit for the Balboa Inn located at 105 Main Street its
proposed expansion to the 707 Ocean Front property. The expansion
project involves the construction of a two and three story structure
consisting of 11 new guest suites, guest spa area, approximately 2,000
square feet of retail space, and a partially covered 20 space, tandem
parking area. It will also involve the demolition of an existing one -
story retail building and pool area that currently serves the existing
Balboa Inn. The use permit application also includes consideration of
an exception to the maximum allowable floor area ratio, building bulk
and building height established by Title 20 of the Municipal Code for
the expansion.
ACTION: • Approve the Negative Declaration making the findings contained in
Exhibit I; and
• Approve Use Permit No. 3683 subject to thefindings, mitigation measures
and conditions of approval attached as Exhibit A.
LEGAL The easterly 135 feet of the northerly 55 feet of Lot D of the Balboa
DESCRIPTION: Tract
GENERAL PLAN: Retail & Service Commercial
ZONE: SP -8 (Central Balboa Specific Area Plan, Retail & Service
Commercial)
OWNER: Michel Pourmussa, Managing Member of Balboa Inn, LLC.
Points and Authority
• Conformance with the General Plan
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site for 'Retail Service Commercial"
uses. A hotel use is permitted within this designation.
• Environmental Compliance (California Environmental Quality Act)
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines and City Council Policy K -3, an Initial Study has been prepared for the project.
Based upon the analysis contained in the Initial Study, it has been determined that if 10
Al
proposed mitigation measures are incorporated, the project will not have a significant effect
on the environment. A Mitigated Negative Declaration and mitigation monitoring and
reporting program have been prepared for the project, and they are attached for the Planning
Commission's review.
• Use Permit procedures and requirements are set forth in Chapter 20.91 of the Municipal Code.
• Consideration to exceed maximum allowable floor area and building pursuant to Chapter 20.63
of the Municipal Code and Alternative Development Regulations for the Central Balboa
Specific Plan.
• Consideration to exceed the basic allowable building height pursuant to Chapter 20.65 of the
Municipal Code and Alternative Development Regulations for the Central Balboa Specific
Plan.
Vicinity Map
�/ / / V � � � ,N•wpoR Chlrtrrel
B� \/ Project Site
X60, 105 Main Street i
Protect Site / \ \` galbca In �< ~
i 7070cean Front'
� City Parking Lot "�
0/ Park
Jif
Beach RY Parking LOt
Beach
f'acilir ocean
s `
Use Permit 3683
Current
Development:
The site is developed with a 34 room hotel, retail uses and restaurant. The ocean side parcel is
developed with a one -story, 2970 s.f. retail building (coffee house and beach rentals): The site
is also used by the Balboa Inn for its pool area and accessory storage.
To the north:
Existing Balboa Inn and visitor serving retail uses.
To the east:
Restaurant and bar, retail uses, beach, Balboa Park, Balboa Pier and City beach parking.
To the south:
City beach parking, beach and Pacific Ocean.
To the west:
City beach parking, beach and Pacific Ocean, three duplexes, 3-story condominium complex.
Use Permit No. 3683
October 5, 2000
Pag�
Introduction
The applicant, Balboa Inn, LLC, requests approval of a Use Permit for the existing Balboa Inn
and the expansion of the inn on the ocean side of Ocean Front. Hotel development in the RSC
zone of the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan requires the approval of a Use Permit. The project
also exceeds the maximum allowable floor area pursuant to Section 20.63.060 of the Zoning Code
and the project exceeds the basic height limit of 26 feet by 5 feet, both of which also require the
Planning Commission consider a Use Permit. The Planning Commission considered the
expansion portion of the present application in July 2000, and indicated mixed support for the
project provided that the use permit include the entire Balboa Inn complex, and that a solid wall
between the parking area and Ocean Front be provided. Both of these items are incorporated
within the present application.
Project Description
The application is divided into two separate elements. The first element is the existing Balboa
Inn which is a conforming use, but the site development is nonconforming with regards to floor
area ratio, building bulk, building height and parking. The second element of the application is
the demolition of the existing facilities on 707 Ocean Front (retail building and pool area) and the
construction of new retail space, visitor accommodations and parking. Specifically, 1,350 sq. ft:
of new, enclosed retail space with a 710 sq. ft. walkway /patio, 1 1 new hotel guest rooms and a
partially covered parking garage with 20 tandem parking spaces is proposed. The new
construction has one, two and three story elements with a maximum roof height of 31 feet above
natural grade. Vehicular access will be provided from the Balboa Pier parking lot, and a
spa/sundeck will be provided for guest use on the second level. The existing pedestrian bridge
over Ocean Front from the present Balboa Inn will be preserved and used for secondary access to
the proposed project. Additionally, the applicant proposes enhanced paving within the parking
garage and across Ocean Front.
Analvsis
The existing Balboa Inn is included within this application for the purposes of confirming its status.
The inn was constructed in 1930 prior to the city regulating land use through zoning. Later, use
permits were required for hotel uses, and the inn became a legal, nonconforming use by virtue of
not having a use permit. In 1963, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 931, which
permitted the conversion of the hotel rooms into thirty -four residential apartments. In 1967, the
Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. 1281, which was a request to convert the Balboa
Inn to a private school. When the school closed in 1969, the City determined that the use of the
premises could revert to the uses permitted under Use Permit No. 931. This determination also
re- authorized the prior use of the property as a hotel which was not listed in UP No. 931 even
though the previous use had ceased and the rights to use those previous approvals has lapsed due
to the conversion of the property to a school. The present use permit application, when approved,
will confirm the historic use of the property as a hotel and nullify all previous approvals except
the use permit for the existing restaurant (UP No. 3158 Amended). Staff recommends that the
use permit for the existing restaurant remain as it is a separate use and is not operated by the
applicant.
Use Permit No. 3683
October 5, 2000
Page 3 �t
Section 20.91.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use
permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the
use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to
the health, safety, peace. morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in
the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Keeping this general finding in mind, the
following factors should be considered.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
The existing Balboa Inn site is nonconforming with respect to the FAR and is permitted to
continue indefinitely. Additionally, the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan permits the
reconstruction of the area for any reason.
Area Characteristics
105 Main Street, existing Balboa Inn site
Area Description
Gross Area
(insquare feet
Retail
2P984
Restaurant (UP 3158A)
NPA: 1,365 s.f. (before 3PM)
2,773 s.f. (after 3PM)
4,962
Hotel (34 rooms)
24,313
Total
32,259
Floor Area Ratio
2.52
Parkin (on -site)
0
Parkin (off -site for restaurant)
24
The new construction on 707 Ocean Front must comply with current provisions of the Zoning
Code unless permitted to deviate pursuant to a Use Permit or Variance. The proposed construction
is not considered an expansion of the existing nonconforming Balboa Inn as the two sites are
separated by a 30 -foot wide public street developed as a bike /pedestrian path. The separation
creates two separate sites by definition even though the sites will continue to be connected by the
existing pedestrian bridge. Being separate sites, the additional area proposed for 707 Ocean Front
does not constitute an expansion of the existing Balboa Inn which is a nonconforming structure.
With respect to the proposed new construction on 707 Ocean Front, the maximum FAR is
govemed by the Land Use Element, Central Balboa Area which is 0.5/1.0 FAR. This FAR is
implemented by the Zoning Code by Chapter 20.63. The site is 7,425 square feet in area which
will permit 3,712.5 square feet of base FAR uses (0.5 FAR) or up to 7,425 square feet of
maximum FAR uses (1.0 FAR) with a Use Permit. Retail uses are defined as base FAR uses and
visitor accommodations are defined as maximum FAR uses pursuant to Table 60.63 within
Chapter 20.63 of the Municipal Code. In a project where we have both base and maximum FAR
uses, the area devoted to each use is weighted per Section 20.63.040. The base FAR use
weighting factor is 1.00 and the maximum FAR use weighting factor is 0.50. After applying the
weighting factors to the areas, the sum of the areas may not exceed the base FAR established by
Use Permit No. 3683
October 5, 2000
Page h
the General Plan. Applying these factors to the proposed project, the resultant weighted area is
4,468 square feet and resultant weighted FAR is 0.60 which exceeds the base FAR limit of 0.5 by
755.5 square feet. Referring to the table below, the applicant is designating the walkway area
within for retail uses and is providing parking for the area in order to possibly use the area in
conjunction with the retail businesses or possibly a small coffee house or similar establishment.
If an eating and drinking establishment is proposed, a use permit will be required.
Area Characteristics
707 Ocean Front, proposed additional development
Area Description
Gross Area
(in square feet)
FAR Category
Weighting
Factor
Weighted
Area
Ground Floor
Enclosed Retail
1,350
Base
1.00
1,350
Walkway (retail)
710
Base
1.00
710
Garage
2,832
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stairs
196
Maximum
0.50
98
Subtotal
5,088 footprint
N/A
N/A
2,149
Floor 2
Accommodations
2,940
Maximum
0.50
1,470
Floor 3
Accommodations
1,680
Maximum
0.50
840
Total
9,708
N/A
N/A
4,459
Floor Area Ratio
1.31
N/A
N/A
0.60
A use permit may be approved for projects which exceed the base development allocation
established for the statistical area for which the project is proposed up to the maximum floor
area ratio established for the statistical area. The following findings shall be considered.
Required findings for project approval:
a. That the mix of existing and approved development within the statistical area in
which the project is proposed does not exceed the base development allocation
established for that statistical area.
The Central Balboa Specific Area Plan statistical area has approximately 47,000 square
feet of remaining entitlement, and the proposed project requesting 755.5 square feet will
not the put the area in deficit.
b. That the statistical area in which the project is proposed does not contain any
wideveloped or underdeveloped properties of sufficient size which, if developed
within the land use intensities established by the Land Use Element of the General
Plan, would cause the base development allocation for that statistical area to be
exceeded.
The Central Balboa Specific Area Plan statistical area has approximately 47,000 square feet
of projected growth identified and the applicant's increased area is approximately 1.6% of
this total entitlement. Staff does not believe that this is a significant amount to take from the
Use Permit No. 3683
October 5, 2000
PaB5--r� 3
statistical areapool. There are no vacant commercial parcels remaining within the statistical
area There has been limited redevelopment in the area over the 14 years the present General
Plan has been in effect, and the difficulty in providing additional parking limits
development potential. Lastly, it is not common for full build -out of a General Plan to be
reached as some properties are never developed to their full potential.
C. The increased development, including above grade covered parking, does not
create abrupt changes in scale between: the proposed development and
development in the surrounding area.
The increased development requested is 755.5 square feet which is 7.78% of the overall
project. The new development increases the mass of the project by an amount
approximately equivalent one of the two third story elements. These elements are located
at the southwesterly and southeasterly corners of the proposed project. When compared to
the commercial and residential building across Ocean Front, the building height and
massing is consistent with the massing and size of the 4 -story inn and does not constitute
an abrupt change in scale as it is designed to be lower than the inn. Further west are three
duplexes in the RSC zone which are two -story and a four story condominium
development in the MFR zone. The two story duplexes are developed well above 1.0
FAR and the three story condominiums exceed the current 1.75 FAR limit.
The scale relationship of the proposed project should also be evaluated with the
development on the ocean side of Ocean Front. The surrounding development is the
Balboa Pier parking lot, Balboa Pier and Balboa Park. The only structures are the gazebo
in the park, the restroom facilities, the bus shelter and the pier itself. These structures are
less massive and lower than the proposed project and are separated from the project site
by varying distances. The closest developed area are the surrounding walkways and
parking lot. The third floor elements will be separated from the nearby walkway to the
south by a 10 -foot wide planter and this separation will reduce the perception of building
massing as the closer one is to a tall structure, the taller it seems. The portion of the pier
parking lot that abuts the site will be separated from the building massing by
approximately 26 feet. A separation is not present at the southeasterly corner and, along
Main Street, however. Although the perception of building mass will be more dominant
in this location, it is not out of character with the relationship between the sidewalk and
structures further north on Main Street. No other buildings are located across Main Street
to the east and south of Ocean Front, and these open areas will assist to preserve a feeling
of openness. Standing at this location will be similar to standing on the northeast corner
of Ocean Front and Main Street at the entrance to the retail space within the existing
Balboa Inn complex. The building at this location is higher (approximately 42 feet) and
far more massive than the third story elements proposed, and staff does not believe that
this existing height and scale relationship is undesirable nor abrupt.
d. That the proposed use and structures, including above grade covered parking, are
compatible with the surrounding area.
The Central Balboa Specific Area Plan area is a visitor serving commercial area and
recreational area. The recreational use of the area served both visitors as well as residents.
The use of the site for visitor accommodations and retail uses is compatible with the
Use Permit No. 3683
October 5, 2000
Pag5k6
�a
surrounding uses. The previous discussion highlights the issues of compatibility of the
structures with its surroundings, and staff believes that the structure can be found
compatible.
e. The increased development, including above grade covered parking, will not
result in significant impairment of public views.
There are two types of public vistas at the location. First, there are views of the Pacific
Ocean and beach. Second, there is a view of the commercial area and project site from the
adjacent park, parking lot, beach and abutting public right -of -way. Ocean views from
Ocean Front are blocked by the existing development on the site and the increased
development will not affect this view. The proposed project will open a portion of the
view (westerly 26.5 feet) presently blocked by the perimeter walls. The view of the ocean
from Main Street will be changed with the project, but the existing site development
effectively blocks the view while standing in the public right -of way. The project will
occupy all of the eastern portion of the site right up to the property line with a three story
building while the existing development is set back 6 to 10 feet and one story. The
increased blockage of the view from Main Street should be considered, although staff
does not believe the change to be significant. The view of the project site and the adjacent
commercial area will be affected by the project, but in a positive way. This view is
considered secondary to views of natural landforms, but the project's high level of
architectural detail and consistent architectural style with the adjacent Balboa Inn will
enhance the view of the project site in staffs opinion.
f. That the site is physically suitable for the development proposed, including above
grade covered parking, taking into consideration site characteristics including,
but not limited to, slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources.
The site is flat, developed, has no submerged areas and has no sensitive environmental
resources. The site is physically suitable for development as vehicular access and utilities
presently exist that can serve the proposed project. The site is located adjacent to the
Balboa Inn which is a locally significant historical landmark and focal point of the
Central Balboa area. The design of the building is consistent with the architecture of the
inn thereby preserving and enhancing the unique character of the area.
Additionally, one or more of the following findings must be made:
a. The project provides for the consolidation of existing legal lots to provide unified
site design.
The project does not provide for the consolidation of legal lots.
b. The project provides for shared access with adjoining properties to a public right -
of -way through common driveways and closes and relinquishes access rights to
any other existing driveways.
The project does not provide for shared access of adjoining lots.
Use Permit No. 3683
October 5, 2000
Paged
C. The project provides for cross - easements, joint maintenance agreements, and
reciprocal parking agreements with adjoining properties to facilitate the shared
use of parking areas and to improve internal circulation.
The project does not provide elements to facilitate the shared use of parking areas to
improve internal circulation.
d. The project's design and construction preclude land uses with high traffic
generating characteristics.
The design of the project predominantly with visitor accommodations with its connection
to the existing Balboa Inn realistically precludes other land uses that would generate
additional traffic. Conversion of the project to higher traffic generating uses is further
unlikely due to the significant additional investment in infrastructure and architecture.
Hotel uses also predominantly generate traffic in off -peak hours.
e. The project incorporates design characteristics which mitigate any additional
traffic generation or parking demand characteristics associated with the
increased entitlement or which serve to improve existing traffic circulation or
parking conditions.
The design of the project predominantly with visitor accommodations with its connection
to the existing Balboa Inn realistically precludes other land uses that would generate
additional traffic. The project provides 8 excess parking stalls that will be available to the
existing inn thereby reducing parking demand for the Balboa Pier parking lot used
primarily by the public associated with beach use.
f. The project provides infrastructure improvements or dedications beyond what is
necessary to serve the project and its population.
The project does not provide infrastructure beyond what is necessary to serve the
proposed project.
g. The project incorporates innovative design or construction methods which further
the goals of the General Plan.
The project is designed to be consistent with the adjacent Balboa Inn which has local
historical significance. The design of the proposed construction utilize architectural
details and styling of the existing Balboa Inn and incorporates elements found in historic
downtown urban districts. Promoting commercial districts and providing opportunities
for older, underutilized properties to redevelop is consistent with General Plan policy.
Preserving and enhancing the Balboa Inn and surroundings is a goal of the Central Balboa
Specific Plan.
h. A covenant shall be recorded which would bind the current and future property
owners to the land uses which will not overburden the circulation system.
A restrictive covenant can be prepared that will limit the uses and development of the site
consistent with this use permit, and preclude conversion of the buildings to uses that
Use Permit No. 3683
October 5, 2000
Page 2- 7 i�
would generate additional vehicle traffic or parking demand. This requirement is included
as a condition of approval.
Based upon the discussion above, staff believes that there are sufficient grounds to approve the
increased floor area.
Building Bulk
Building bulk is defined as the gross floor area minus certain exclusions for outdoor dining areas,
open courtyards and underground parking. In this application, the only difference between building
bulk and gross floor area would be outdoor dining which is not proposed at this time. The
maximum building bulk shall not exceed the permitted floor area ratio plus 0.25 for commercial
uses which is 0.75FAR (permitted floor area ratio 0.5 FAR + 0.25FAR = 0.75FAR). The proposed
FAR is 1.31 which can be approved pursuant to a Use Permit provided that the required findings
from Section 20.63.040 (C -2) can be made and that the project can be found consistent with any
applicable design criteria adopted by the City Council. The specific findings are discussed above in
the Floor Area Ratio section as required findings c-f.
Building Height
The site is located in the 26/35 height limitation zone that permits buildings and structures by right
to be less than 26 feet in height and up to a maximum of 35 feet through the approval of a use
permit. Buildings and structures above 35 feet require approval of a variance. The proposed project
has an overall building height of 31 feet measured from natural grade to the highest point of the
roof and 29.5 feet to the midpoint of the pitched roof. The increased building height can be
approved provided that the following findings can be made pursuant to Section 20.65.055.
A. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and
views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention
shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground
cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas.
The increased height results in a decreased building footprint where the westerly 26.5 feet
of the property is not developed with any buildings, which will open a portion of the view
of the ocean and beach to Ocean Front. Additionally, the increased height at the easterly
and westerly portion of the project allows less building mass and structure height in the
central portion of the project and the creation of a landscaped court at grade near Ocean
Front. The one story portion of the project is below the 26 -foot height limit opening a
view corridor to the existing inn. The courtyard creates more open space between the
proposed structure and the existing inn for the public walk on Ocean Front.
B. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural
treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the
area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone
The increased height permits greater building articulation where there is a single story
portion between the two three story elements. This building mass articulation avoids a flat
two story building that could potentially occupy the entire site. The increased height permits
higher clear heights for the project which results in the ability to incorporate additional
Use Permit No. 3683
October 5, 2000 /
Page9 3 S
architectural details that are consistent and compatible with the adjacent Balboa Inn which
strengthens the unique and historic character of the area.
C. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale
relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or
public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure
including both horizontal and vertical dimensions
The increased height requested is from 26 feet to 29.5 feet at the midpoint of the roof and
31 feet to the peak. These elements are located at the southwesterly and southeasterly
corners of the proposed new construction. The proposed three story building, however, is
consistent with the massing and size of the adjacent inn and does not constitute an abrupt
change in scale as it is lower than the adjacent 4 -story inn. Further west are three
duplexes which are two -story and a three story condominium development which well
exceeds the height of the proposed project. The duplexes are no more than 26 feet in
height and the 5 -foot difference is relatively minor and does not create an abrupt scale
relationship in staff s opinion.
The increased height should be compared with the existing development south of Ocean
Front. The ocean side development is the pier parking lot, Balboa Park and the pier itself.
Existing structures are the gazebo in the park, restroom structures and bus shelter. These
structures are far lower in height and are separated from the project site by varying
distances. None of these structures directly abut the site. The closest development to the
31 -foot high elements would be the surrounding walkways and pier parking lot. The 31-
foot high elements will be separated from the nearby walkway to the south by a 10 -foot
wide planter and this separation will reduce the perception and impact of a 5 -foot increase
in building height, as the closer one is to a tall structure, the taller is feels. The portion of
the pier parking lot that abuts the site will be separated from the building massing by
approximately 26 feet. The separation is not present at the southeasterly comer and along
Main Street. Standing at this location will be similar to standing on the northeast corner
of Ocean Front and Main Street at the entrance to the retail space within the existing
Balboa Inn complex. The building at this location is approximately 42 feet which is 11
feet higher than the third story elements proposed, and staff does not believe that this
existing height and scale relationship is undesirable nor abrupt. Although the perception
of building height will be more significant in this location, it is not out of character to the
relationship of building height to the sidewalk further north along Main Street. No other
buildings are located across Main Street to the east, south of Ocean Front and these open
areas will assist to preserve a feeling of openness.
D. The structure shall have no more .floor area than could have been achieved
without the use permit.
The applicant is seeking a use permit to allow the development to exceed the base floor
area ratio and to exceed the basic height limit. The project could be redesigned at two
stories, but the building mass articulation would be lost or the overall building footprint
would potentially increase. The spa and sun deck would potentially be lost or forced to be
moved inside the two story structure. Within the Central Balboa Specific Plan, the City
has flexibility to consider deviations to the established standards by considering
Use Permit No. 3683
October 5, 2000
Page f�
3 6
Alternative Development Regulations when innovative or superior urban design is
proposed. The Alternative Development Regulations within the Specific Plan permits the
City to consider deviations from all development standards, except lot area and width,
provided that certain findings can be made. Staff proposes that the increased building
height can be considered in conjunction with a request to exceed the FAR through this
provision. The following findings must be considered in order to approve alternative
standards.
1. The proposed site plat is consistent with the Central Balboa Specific Plan and
other applicable policies.
2. The proposed site plat is compatible with surrounding development.
3. The proposed site plan provides the potential for superior urban design in
comparison with the development under specific plan district regulations that
would apply if the site plat were not approved.
4. The deviations from the specific plan district regulations that otherwise would
apply are justified by compensating benefits of proposed the site plan.
5. The proposed site plan shall ensure that the public benefits derived from expendi-
tures of public funds for improvement and beautification of streets and public
facilities within Central Balboa Specific Plan area shall be protected.
No specific architectural theme was recommended for the Central Balboa Specific Plan
area, but the intent to preserve the historic character of the area and maintain harmony
with the existing structures, and to allow opportunities for architectural diversity is clearly
indicated. The focus upon providing pedestrian scale developments that utilize materials
and features consistent with the historic structures in the area, namely the Balboa Pavilion
and the Balboa Inn, was identified. The project is designed to create visual interest and it
incorporates pedestrian scale elements along Main Street, Ocean Front and the beach
parking lot driveway to the south, which enhances the significant pedestrian circulation of
the area.
The proposed project is not monotonous, nor visually unappealing as the plans include both
vertical and horizontal articulation which break up building mass. The project is designed to
visually connect to the urban commercial area to the north and it does not create gaps in the
streetscape system. The proposed project expands the pedestrian spaces by providing a
covered walkway by the sidewalk with recessed building entries and a landscaped court
along Ocean Front. The project includes enhanced paving materials at the building entrance
and under the pedestrian bridge which will identify entrances and add visual interest. The
parking areas are designed to minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts by providing one
parking area entrance on the south side of the site and bollards between the parking areas
and Ocean Front. These features also help to minimize vehicle/bicycle conflicts. The project
provides sufficient parking for the new uses as well as providing 8 additional spaces for the
Balboa Inn which presently relies upon the city parking lot and street parking. The project
avoids large blank walls and long stretches of walls without windows or architectural relief,
which would be unfriendly to pedestrians. Awnings and a covered walkway provide for
weather protection and they relate to the overall scale of the architectural details in staffs
opinion. The design and architecture incorporate features including arches, column details,
Use Permit No. 3683
October 5, 2000
Page
31
window ledges, arched windows, Spanish roof tiles, exposed rafter tails, balcony railings
and other features that mimic the design and architecture of the historic Balboa Inn. The
proposed finish will be a smooth natural stucco similar to the Balboa Inn. The project
includes the use of materials that are not out of character with the area. Due to the fact that
the color palette for the project has not been selected, staff recommends that the project be
required to be consistent with the existing inn and that significant deviations not be
permitted.
If the proposed plans were not approved, the project could be redesigned at two stories, but
the building mass articulation would be lost or the overall building footprint would
potentially increase and many of the benefits of the proposed project would not be realized.
Dimishing the number of rooms or retail space makes the project financially infeasible
according to the applicant, and therefore if the project were not approved, the city would not
realize the benefits that redeveloping the site would bring. Those benefits are increased
visitors and increased economic activity and removal of an older, eclectic development that
does not have a strong connection architecturally or physically to the Central Balboa
commercial area. The project enhances and preserves the historic character of the area
which is a central goal of the specific plan.
The plan does not hinder the public's planned projects and expenditures to improve the
public parking lot, streetscape and landscaping within the area. The project was planned
considering the proposed redesign of the Balboa Pier parking lot.
In conclusion, staff believes that the proposed project exhibits most if not all the elements of
superior urban design encouraged by the Central Balboa Specific Plan, and the benefits of the
project offset the deviation of building height, FAR and building bulk requested.
Central Balboa Specific Plan
The proposed plan has been analyzed by staff for consistency with the provisions of Chapter
20.45 which is the Central Balboa Specific Plan. The proposed plan meets the following
commercial property development standards: minimum lot area, minimum lot width, minimum
front, side and rear setbacks, required building lines, vertical and horizontal building articulation,
building materials and parking. As noted previously, the plan exceeds the floor area ratio and
building height, which can be altered through making affirmative findings pursuant to Alternative
Development Regulations. Please refer to the preceding discussion related to these issues.
The proposed project has two additional deficiencies that can be considered pursuant to
Alternative Development Regulations. First, the project does not provide the comer setback
which requires the comer of the first floor of a building on a corner lot to be set back a specified
distance. However, the project does provide a covered pedestrian walkway which effectively
recesses the building entrances and enhances the pedestrian environment. Second, the project
also does not provide a 3 foot landscape setback to the parking lot where it abuts adjoining
streets. The parking area will have a 10 -foot wide landscape buffer from both Ocean Front and
the beach parking lot driveway, but it is provided within the public right -of -way. The applicant is
willing to enhance the existing planters and maintain them. The project does provide a
combination of landscaping and hardscape that satisfies the minimum of 8% of the site through
the inclusion of enhanced paving and a garden court along Ocean Front. Due to these design
Use Permit No. 3683
October 5, 2000
Page -R!'
3�
factors, as well as the preceding discussion of superior urban design consistent with the Central
Balboa Specific Plan, staff recommends that these deviations be approved.
The project includes a tandem parking lot layout with 20 parking stalls. The Public Works
Department has reviewed the use of tandem parking and finds it acceptable provided that an
attendant parking service be provided at all times. The valet parking service and a valet parking
plan will be required as a condition of approval.
The subject Use Permit application includes the existing Balboa Inn. Project approval will
confirm the status of the existing inn as a conforming use, although the structures will remain
legal nonconforming with respect to building height, floor area ratio, building bulk, parking and
landscaping. Staff is not recommending any operational changes or controls at this time. If the
Planning Commission has any specific concerns about the operational characteristics of the
existing Balboa Inn, conditions can be included within this permit application.
Recommendation
Section 20.91.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides that in order to grant any use
permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the
use or building applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to
the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in
the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City.
In this particular case, based upon the analysis contained in this report, staff believes that the
findings for approval of the use permit can be made for the proposed Balboa Inn project. Staff
believes that the findings for the increased building height and floor area and deviations form the
Central Balboa Specific Plan can be made pursuant to Chapters 20.63 and 20.65 and 20.45 by using
AlteMative Development Regulations based upon superior urban design.
Issues related to access and site circulation have been reviewed by the Traffic Engineer and are
considered adequate with the approval of a valet operating plan. The Traffic Engineer looked at the
project for consistency with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and has determined that a traffic study is
not required because the proposed project does not result in an increase of greater than 300 trips to
the site.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and circulated for public comment in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Ten mitigation measures are identified
that will mitigate any potential impact to the environment to a less than significant level. The
Mitigated Negative Declaration and its Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are attached
for your consideration.
Use Permit No. 3683
October 5, 2000
Page j3'
3�
Should the Planning Commission wish to approve the subject project, the actions and findings and
conditions of approval set forth in the attached Exhibit "A" are suggested. However, should
information be presented at the public hearing, or if it is the desire of the Commission to deny or
request modifications of this application, the Planning Commission may wish to take such action
and direct staff accordingly.
Submitted by:
PATRICIA L. TEMPLE
Prepared by:
JAMES W. CAMPBELL
Plannin Director Senior Planner
Exhibits
A. Findings and Conditions of Approval
B. Mitigated Negative Declaration
C. Mitigation Monitoring Program
D. Comment letters
E. Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations (separate from the report)
\\MIS_I\SYS \USERS\PLN\ SHARED \IPLANCOM\2000 \I0- 05pc\Balboa Inn \U3683rpt.doc
Use Permit No. 3683
October 5, 2000
Page
q0
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
Use Permit No. 3683, Balboa Inn
Mitigated Negative Declaration
A. Mitigated Negative Declaration:
Findings:
1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in
compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA
Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3.
2. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the proposed project does not
have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment.
3. There are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the
project.
4. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects.
5. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be
caused by the proposed project.
6. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various
decisions on this project.
Mitigation Measures:
During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the following
measures are complied with to reduce short -term (construction) air quality
impacts associated with the project: a) controlling fugitive dust by regular
watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining
equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling construction
activities to minimize project- related emissions.
2. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will
comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce odors from construction
activities
3. During grading activities, a qualified archeologist/paleontologist shall be present
to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural
q1
resources are uncovered, the archeologist/paleontologist shall have the authority to
stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess
the significance of the find.
4. During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion and
siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all applicable local
and State building codes and seismic design guidelines, including the City
Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Section 15.10).
5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a
comprehensive geotechnical investigation to the Planning and Building
Department for review and approval.
6. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the approval of the Public .
Works Department to determine compliance.
7. The project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport Beach General
Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code pertaining to noise restrictions.
During construction activities, the hours of construction and excavation work are
allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays and holidays.
8. Prior to the start of construction activities (e.g. demolition of existing building), a
construction traffic control plan shall be prepared which includes the haul route,
truck hauling operations, construction traffic flagmen, and construction
warning/directional signage.
9. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project applicant shall
coordinate with utility and service organizations regarding any construction
activities to ensure existing facilities are protected and any necessary expansion or
relocation of facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the
appropriate public agencies.
10. Prior to the commencement of - rading activities, the applicant shall submit to the
Planning and Building Department a letter from the City Utilities Department
confirming availability of utility services to and from the site.
�I�
B. Use Permit No. 3683:
Findings:
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates both sites, 105 Main Street
and 707 Ocean Front, for "Retail and Service Commercial' uses. The project
includes existing visitor accommodations and new accommodations and retail uses
which are permitted uses within this commercial designation.
2. The existing Balboa Inn provides visitor accommodations (34 units) within the
Central Balboa Specific Area Plan consistent with the General Plan. The inn is a
local historical landmark and has not proven to be detrimental to the health, safety,
peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and
improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. Approval of
the use permit makes the use conforming with respect to permit requirements and
does not authorize any changes to the operational characteristics of the use. No
expansion of the use or area on the property north of Ocean Front where the existing
Balboa Inn is located (105 Main Street) is authorized. The structures on the 105
Main Street site remains legal, nonconforming with respect to building height, floor
area ratio, building bulk, parking and landscaping.
3. The proposed construction of additional area for visitor accommodations on 707
Ocean Front which will be operated in conjunction with the existing Balboa Inn
does not constitute an expansion of a nonconforming structure. The existing
Balboa Inn is located at 105 Main Street and the new hotel area is separated from
this property by a public street, and constitutes a separate building site.
4. Based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments received, and
all related documents, there is no substantial evidence that the project, as
conditioned, could have a significant effect on the environment; therefore a
Negative Declaration has been prepared. The Negative Declaration adequately
addresses the potential environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the
requirements of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration was
considered prior to approval of the project.
5. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a whole there is
no evidence before this agency that the proposed project will have the potential for
an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends.
On the basis of the evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of
adverse effect contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed project qualifies for a
De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR.
6. A trip generation study has been prepared by the Traffic Engineer which analyzes
the expected trip generation for the proposed project, and verifies that the proposed
project will generate approximately 165 vehicle trips per day which is not a
H3
1k
significant increase warranting a traffic study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing
Ordinance.
7. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the
proposed development.
8. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.91.040 of the
Municipal Code.
9. Approval of Use Permit No. 3683 will not, under the circumstances of the case be
detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to
property or improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and
is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following .
reasons:
(a) The Central Balboa Specific Area Plan statistical area has approximately
47,000 square feet of remaining entitlement, and the proposed project will
not the put the area in deficit.
(b) The Central Balboa Specific Area Plan statistical area does have several
underutilized properties. None of these parcels are of sufficient size or seems
likely to redevelop in the near future that would cause the base development
allocation of the entire statistical area to be exceeded.
(c) The increased development is 755.5 square feet which is 7.78% of the
overall project. The increased development increases the mass of the project
making it two and three stories. The building is consistent with massing and
size of the adjacent 4 -story inn and does not constitute an abrupt change in
scale as it is lower than the inn. The duplexes to the west to the west are two
story and are developed well above 1.0 FAR and the three story
condominiums to the west are of similar size and scale to the proposed
project. The change in scale from the south is significant, but is not
inconsistent with the change in scale between structures located on Main
Street as it extends the characteristic urban fabric further south.
(d) The Central Balboa Specific Area Plan area acts as a visitor serving
commercial area and recreational area. The recreational use of the area
served both visitors as well as residents. The use of the site for visitor
accommodations and retail uses is compatible with the surrounding uses.
(e) The increase development of does not have a significant effect upon public
views. Views from Ocean Front and Main Street are partially blocked by the
existing development of the site and the increased development will not
dramatically affect this view. The proposed project will open a portion of the
view (westerly 26.5 feet) presently blocked by the perimeter walls. The view
of the project site and the adjacent commercial area will be affected by the
411
project, but in a positive way due to the project's high level of architectural
detail and consistent architectural style with the adjacent Balboa Inn.
(f) The site is flat and has no submerged areas and has no sensitive resources.
The site is physically suitable for development as vehicular access and
utilities presently exist that can serve the proposed project. The site is
located adjacent to the Balboa Inn which is a locally significant historical
landmark and focal point of the Central Balboa area. The design of the
building is consistent with the architecture of the inn thereby preserving and
enhancing the unique character of the area.
(g) The design of the project predominantly with visitor accommodations with
its connection to the existing Balboa Inn realistically precludes other land
uses that would generate additional traffic. The project does provide 8
excess parking stalls that will be available to the existing inn thereby
reducing parking demand generated by the existing inn for the public beach
parking.
(h) The project is designed to be consistent with the adjacent Balboa Inn which
has local historical significance. Promoting commercial districts and
providing opportunities for older, underutilized properties to redevelop is
consistent with General Plan policies. Preserving and enhancing the Balboa
Inn and surroundings is a goal of the Central Balboa Specific Plan.
(i) The increased height results in a decreased building footprint where the
westerly 26.5 feet of the property is not developed with any buildings, which
will open a portion of the view of the ocean and beach to Ocean Front.
(j) The increased height permits greater building articulation where there is a
single story portion between the two three story elements. This building mass
articulation avoids a flat two story building that could potentially occupy the
entire site. The increased height permits higher clear heights for the project
which results in the ability to incorporate additional architectural details that
are consistent and compatible with the adjacent Balboa Inn which strengthens
the unique and historic character of the of the area.
(k) The proposed three story building is consistent with massing and size of the
adjacent inn and does not constitute an abrupt change in scale as it is lower
than the adjacent 4 -story inn. Further west are three duplexes which are two -
story and a three story condominium development. The duplexes are no
more than 26 feet in height and the increased height suggested does not
create an abrupt scale relationship.
(1) Deviations from the building height in conjunction with a request to increase
the floor area ratio is acceptable based upon Alternative Development
Regulations when innovative or superior urban design is proposed pursuant
to the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan.
'�5
(i) The project is designed to create visual interest and it incorporates
pedestrian scale elements along Main Street, Ocean Front and the beach
parking lot driveway to the south which enhances the significant
pedestrian circulation of the area.
(ii) The project is not monotonous, nor visually unappealing as the plans
include both vertical and horizontal articulation which break up building
mass.
(iii) The project is designed to visually connect to the urban commercial area to
the north and it does not create gaps in the streetscape system.
(iv) The proposed expands the pedestrian spaces by providing a covered
walkway by the sidewalk with recessed building entries and a landscaped
court along Ocean Front.
(v) The project includes enhanced paving materials at the building entrance
and under the pedestrian bridge which will identify entrances and add
visual interest.
(vi) Site design and parking areas are designed to minimize pedestrian/vehicle
conflicts by providing one parking area entrance on the south side of the
site and bollards between the parking areas and Ocean Front. These
features also help to minimize vehicle/bicycle conflicts. The project
provides sufficient parking for the new uses it provides 8 additional spaces
for the Balboa Inn which presently relies upon the City parking and street
parking.
(vii) The project avoids large blank walls and long stretches of walls without
windows or architectural relief which would be unfriendly to pedestrians.
Awnings and a covered walkways provide for weather protection and they
relate to the overall scale of the architectural details. The design and
architecture incorporates features including arches, column details,
window ledges, arched windows, Spanish roof tiles, exposed rafter tails,
balcony railings and other features that mimics the design and architecture
of the historic Balboa Inn. The project is conditiond that exterior finishes,
materials and colors shall be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance
of a building permit and that these elements shall ne consistent and
compatible with the existing Balboa Inn. The project includes the use of
materials that are not out of character with the area.
(viii) If the plans were not approved, the project could be redesigned at two
stories, but the building mass articulation would be lost or the overall
building footprint would potentially increase and many of the benefits of
the proposed project would not be realized.
(ix) The plan does not hinder the public's expenditures and planned projects to
improve the public parking lot, streetscape and landscaing within the area.
y6
Conditions:
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan,
floor plans and elevations, except as noted below. The applicant shall submit
samples of materials and colors to the Planning Department for approval prior to the
issuance of a building permit for new construction. Said materials and colors shall
be consistent and compatible with the existing Balboa Inn. The development shall
be high quality and employ materials, finishes and application techniques which are
compatible with the historic existing character of the existing Balboa Inn.
2. All previous discretionary approvals for the project sites, except for Use Permit No.
3158 and all subsequent amendments to Use Permit No. 3158, are hereby null and
void.
The visitor accommodations located on 707 Ocean Front shall not be operated
separately or independently from the existing Balboa Inn located at 105 Main Street.
4. The project shall provide 20 parking spaces on site for all on -site uses. Excess
parking provided shall be dedicated for use by patrons or employees of the existing
Balboa Inn.
5. All trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and public streets.
6. A restrictive covenant shall be prepared and recorded on the title of the property
that will limit the uses and development of the site consistent with this use permit,
and preclude conversion of the buildings to any use that would generate additional
vehicle traffic -or parking demand.
Perimeter landscaping required pursuant to Section 20.45.035(L) of the Municipal
Code shall not be required.
8. The applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed
landscape architect or licensed architect for on -site and adjacent off -site planting
areas. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient
irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Director prior
to the issuance of a building permit. All planting areas shall be provided with a
permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable
for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. Planting areas
adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or
similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede
vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer.
9. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be maintained in accordance
with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a
healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing,
mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and
y �'
debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments,
replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance.
10. The owner shall provide and execute a replacement encroachment agreement
subject to review and approval by the City for the continued operation of the
pedestrian bridge.
Standard Requirements:
11. All improvements within the public right of way shall be constructed as required
by Ordinance and the Public Works Department.
12. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to
guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to
record a parcel map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public
improvements.
13. That all construction within the public right -of -way be subject to further review by
the Public Works Department and be completed under an encroachment permit
issued by the Public Works Department. That an Encroachment Agreement be
executed for all non - standard improvements approved to be constructed within the
public right -of -way.
14. The final design of all on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian
circulation systems shall be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer.
15. The proposed parking spaces shall be restriped to comply with City Standard 805
L -A and L -B. , The HC space shall be modified so that a van size loading area is
provided on the right side of the space.
16. The applicant or operator of the facility shall provide valet attendant service for
the tandem parking lot at all times. The applicant or operator shall prepare a valet
operated parking plan to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
17. The applicant shall provide wheel stops or other approved protective barrier
methods as necessary within the parking facility.
18. For Fair Share fee purposes the retail square footage shall be considered part of
the hotel and not accessed as separate retail square footage. However, there will
be no credit given from the existing current use.
19. A drainage study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public
Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain
facilities for the on -site improvements prior to issuance of any building permits.
Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer
systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the
developer.
20. Any Edison transformer serving the site shall be located outside the sight distance
planes as described in City Standard 110 -L.
21. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of
construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control
equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and
materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements.
22. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards,
unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
23. The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building
Code, including State Disabled Access requirements, unless otherwise approved by
the Building Department.
24. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and
adjacent public streets within the limits authorized by this use permit, and shall be
sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, Community Noise Control.
25. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate
pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is
determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or
impractical.
26. The parking spaces shall be marked with approved traffic markers or painted white
lines not less than 4 inches wide.
27. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this Use
Permit or recommend to the City Council the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a
determination that the operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes
injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general
welfare of the community.
28. The applicant shall be vested in the Use Permit for the existing Balboa Inn
immediately upon the effective date of this Use Permit. This Use Permit, as it
applies to the proposed new construction, shall expire unless exercised within 24
months from the effective date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code.
lR
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
(949) 644 -3225
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
POSTED
SEP 0 1 2000
GARY L. GRANVILLE, Clerk•Recoider
DEP ly
It you have any questions or Would like further mlormatlon, please contact the undersigned at (949) 044 -6LIU.
Date J
Ja Campbell. Senior anner
IA
By
To:
From: City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
Office of Planning and Research
3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
F7 1
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Sacramento, CA 95814
(Orange County)
County Clerk. County of Orange
Public Services Division
P.O. Box 238
Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk:
Santa Ana, CA 92702
Public review period: September 1, 2000 to October 1, 2000
Name of Project: Balboa Inn Hotel expansion.
Project Location: 105 Main Street, Newport Beach, CA
Located near the intersection of Washington Street and Ocean Front in the Central Balboa
Island area of Newport Beach.
Project Description: The application is a request to permit the approval of a Use Permit for
the Balboa Inn Addition. The project involves the construction of a two and three story
structure comprised of 11 -guest rooms; approximately 2,000 square feet of retail uses, guest spa
area, and a 20 space, partially enclosed, tandem parking facility. The project involves the
demolition of an existing one -story building and adjacent pool area.
Finding: Pursuant to the provisions of City Council K -3 pertaining to procedures and guidelines to implement the California
Environmental Quality Act, the Environmental Affairs Committee has evaluated the proposed project and determined that the
proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment.
A copy of the Initial Study containing the analysis supporting this finding is 2 attached ❑ on file at the Planning
Department. The Initial Study may include mitigation measures that would eliminate or reduce potential environmental
impacts. This document will be considered by the decision- maker(s) prior to final action on the proposed project. If a public
hearing will be held to consider this project, a notice of the time and location is attached. Additional plans, studies and/or
exhibits relating to the proposed project may be available for public review. If you would like to examine these materials, you
are invited to contact the undersigned.
If you wish to appeal the appropriateness or adequacy of this document, your comments should be submitted in writing
prior to the close of the public review period. Your comments should specifically identify what environmental impacts you
believe would result from the project, why they are significant, and what changes or mitigation measures you believe should be
adopted to eliminate or reduce these impacts. There is no fee for this appeal. If a public hearing will be held, you are also
invited to attend and testify as to the appropriateness of this document.
It you have any questions or Would like further mlormatlon, please contact the undersigned at (949) 044 -6LIU.
Date J
Ja Campbell. Senior anner
IA
2.
3.
Cl
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
Project Title: Balboa Inn Hotel Addition
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Newport Beach
Planning Department
3300 Newport Boulevard,
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Contact Person and Phone Number: James Campbell, Senior Planner, Planning Department
(949) 644 -3210
Project Location: The site is located at 105 Main Street near Washington Street and Ocean
Front in the City of Newport Beach.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Balboa Inn, LCC, 105 Main Street, Newport Beach,
California 92661.
6. General Plan Designation: Retail and Service Commercial
7. Zoning: Specific Plan District #8, Central Balboa
8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later
phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its
implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
91
10.
The application is a request to permit the approval of a Use Permit and Coastal Development
Permit for the Balboa Inn Hotel Addition. The project involves the construction of a two -
story structure comprised of hotel - related retail, 14 guest suites and 28 parking stalls. The
project will involve the demolition of an existing one -story retail building.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.)
Current
Development:
The site is developed with a one -story, 2970 s.f. retail building (coffee house and beach
rentals). The site is also used by the Balboa Inn for its pool area and accessory storage.
To the north:
Existing Balboa Inn and visitor serving retail uses.
To the east:
Restaurant and bar, retail uses, beach, Balboa Park, Balboa Pier and City beach parking.
To the south:
City beach parking, beach and Pacific Ocean.
To the west:
City beach parking, beach and Pacific Ocean, three duplexes, 3 -story condominium
complex.
Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.) Coastal Commission (Coastal Development Permit)
CHECKLIST
Page -I �j 1
_H_
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect
on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because
all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier
EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required. ❑
by: James Campbell, Senior Planner Signature Date
Planning Department
CHECKUsT
Page-a'�';Z
n
b) Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
C) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non - attainment
under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting
a substantial number of people?
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations
or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (including, but not limited
to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,
hydrological interruption, or other
means?
roienvany
Significant
Impact
0
0
n
0
roiennany
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
El
0
E
0
u
Lessthan No
Significant Impact
Impact
Ef ❑
❑ 2
n
0
Al
FFAI
N
CHECKLIST 3
Page �5
CHECKLIST
Page,7i 5
1W
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
Impact
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
❑
❑
❑
0
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist - Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division
of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground
❑
❑
0
❑
shaking?
iii) Seismic - related ground failure,
❑
❑
❑
0
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
❑
❑
❑
0
b)
Result in substantial soil erosion or
❑
❑
0
❑
the loss of topsoil?
C)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil
❑
❑
❑
0
that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project and potentially result in on-
or off -site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
d)
Be located on expansive soil, as
❑
❑
❑
0
defined in Table 18- 1 -13 of the
Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e)
Have soils incapable of adequately
❑
❑
❑
0
supporting the use septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste
water?
VII.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS.
Would the project:
a)
Create a significant hazard to the
❑
❑
❑
0
public or the environment through
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
CHECKLIST
Page,7i 5
1W
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY.
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements?
b) Substantially deplete groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net deficit in
aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of pre- existing
nearby wells would drop to a level
which would not support existing
land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
C) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off -site?
d) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of a
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on or off -site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade
water quality?
g) Place housing within a 100 -year
flood hazard area as mapped on a
federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑ ❑ Q ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
CHECKLIST . 55
Page
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant significant significant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
XI.
NOISE.
Would the project result in:
a)
Exposure of persons to or
❑
❑
0
❑
generation of noise levels in excess
of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other
agencies?
b)
Exposure of persons to or
❑
❑
0
❑
generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
C)
A substantial permanent increase in
❑
❑
❑
0
ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
d)
A substantial temporary or periodic
❑
❑
0
❑
increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
e)
For a project located within an
❑
❑
0
❑
airport land use land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would
the project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a
❑
❑
❑
0
private airstrip, would the project
expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive
noise levels?
XII.
POPULATION AND HOUSING.
Would the project:
a)
Induce substantial population
❑
❑
❑
D
growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
CHECKLIST
Page Jul'
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Signlficant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑
the project:
a)
Cause an increase in traffic which is
❑
substantial in relation to the existing
❑
traffic load and capacity of the street
❑
system (i.e., result in a substantial
❑
increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b)
Exceed either individually or
cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
C)
Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change
in location that results in substantial
safety risks?
d)
Substantially increase hazards due
to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
e)
Result in inadequate emergency
access?
f)
Result in inadequate parking
capacity?
g)
Conflict with.adopted policies, plans,
or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
Potentially Potentially Less than No
Significant Significant Signlficant Impact
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑ ❑ ❑ Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
❑
❑
❑
Q
XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ Q
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
CHECKLIST
Page 135
b) Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
( "Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the
effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects.)
Potentially
Potentially
Less than No
Significant
Significant
Significant Impact
Impact
Unless
Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
❑
❑
❑ Z
C) Does the project have ❑ ❑ ❑
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which
they address site - specific conditions for the project.
CHECKLIST r/
Page,Y5 J
1
LOS ANGELES r , % \SAN BER COUNTY
COUNTY
ti
Riverside
(PARK
ORANGE
1 CYPRESS • �
• Sd 3
��d v
Garden Grove Freeway LL
TUSTIN
9�d •
sp+� SANTA ANA
COSTA
MESA
NEWPORT
BEACH
PROJECT
LOCATION
MAP NOT TO SCALE
IRVINE
BEACH
RIVERSIDE
COUNTY
ORANGE
LAKE
CREST p° COUNTY
MISSION
VIEJO
Regional Location Map
EXHIBIT 1
O 6
O
LAGUNA
.�
�
NIGUEL
i
SAN JUAN
CAPISTRANO
;
DANA
POINT
i
SAN DIEGO
•
COUNTY
SAN
CLEMENTE If
Regional Location Map
EXHIBIT 1
Vicinity Map
B,y<e
h
.Newport CIIa Mei
V
City Parking Lot
Beach t5
�J
M
C yi
•
Pacific Orean
Surrounding Development:
Current
Development:
The site is developed with a one -story, 2970 s.f. retail building (coffee house and beach
rentals). The site is also used by the Balboa Inn for its pool area and accessory storage.
To the north:
Existing- Balboa Inn and visitor serving retail uses.
To the east:
Restaurant and bar, retail uses, beach, Balboa Park, Balboa Pier and City beach parkingi
To the South:
City beach parking, beach and Pacific Ocean.
To the west:
City beach parking, beach and Pacific Ocean, three duplexes, 3-story condominium complex.
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS
Page 2 �O
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Less Than Significant
Impact)
The project site is located in an area that is already developed and urbanized. The
proposed hotel addition will replace an existing one -story building and pool area.
The hotel is proposed to be a 2 & 3 story, 11 -room facility, retail uses, guest spa and
associated parking. Although, the new hotel building will be greater in height than
the existing one -story building, the project will not adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area which
is developed with retail and service commercial uses. The proposed project will
introduce additional lighting associated with the operation of the hotel (hotel
rooms, security lighting, landscape lighting, etc.). The project includes a solid
wall that screens the parking facility which will reduce light from vehicles spilling
onto Ocean Front. The lighting will be visible, however, due to the urbanized
developed nature of the immediate vicinity, potential impacts of light and glare
are not considered significant.
II. Agriculture Resources
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? (No Impact)
The project is located in a developed urbanized area of the City. The project site
is already developed with an existing one -story building and pool area. The site is
not utilized for farmland uses and/or agriculture resources. Therefore, the
proposed project will not have any impacts on agriculture resources.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract? (No Impact)
See response to Section E (a) above. The project does not conflict with the
existing zoning for the site. The property is not zoned for agricultural uses nor is
subject to a Williamson Act contract.
C) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-
agricultural use? (No Impact)
The proposed hotel project will not have any impact on farmland or agricultural
uses. The site is located in a developed area that does not contain farmland or
agricultural uses. Therefore, the project will not have any impact that could result
in the conversion of property to non - agricultural use.
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS ICJ
Page 4
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation? (Less Than Significant Impact)
Potential air quality impacts to surrounding businesses from project construction
activities will be minimized through mitigation measures, including short -term
impacts to air quality from air pollutants being emitted by construction equipment
and dust generated during site preparation. The project will require limited
grading since the site has been previously developed with an existing building.
The existing 1 -story retail building and pool area will be demolished so that the
proposed hotel addition can be accommodated on the site. The demolition
activities will result in short -term air quality impacts (e.g. dust), however, with
implementation of recommended mitigation measures this impact is considered
less than significant.
The small amount of project - related emissions will have no impact on regional
particulate levels. Where construction operations are near existing businesses, the
dust generated by such activities is considered a local nuisance as opposed to an
actual health hazard. If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control dust as
required by SCAQMD Rule 403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. The
following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce short-term
construction related air quality impacts to a level of less than signif cant.
Mitigation Measure No. 1 During construction activities, the applicant shall
ensure that the following measures are complied with to reduce short -term
(construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a) controlling
fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative measures to meet South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b)
maintaining equipment engines in proper tune; and c) phasing and scheduling
construction activities to minimize project - related emissions.
Mitigation Measure No. 2 During construction activities, the applicant shall
ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce
odors from construction activities
C) Result in a .cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air..quality standard (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? (No Impact)
See response to Section III (a) above. The project is located in the South Coast
Air Basin that is a designated non - attainment area. However, the proposed hotel
addition does not represent significant growth beyond that already previously
evaluated and forecasted for air quality cumulative impacts of basin -wide growth
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS
Page 6 (nroZy
See response to Section IV (a) above
habitat or sensitive natural community.
The site does not contain any riparian
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (No Impact)
See response to Section IV (a) above. The site does not contain any wetlands.
Therefore, the project will not result in any impacts to wetlands.
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites? (No Impact)
See response to Section IV (a) above. The site does not contain any migratory
fish or wildlife species. Therefore, the project will not have any impacts to such
species.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinance protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (No Impact)
See response to Section IV (a) above. The site does not contain any vegetation
(including trees) that is protected by City policy or ordinance. Therefore, the
project will not conflict with any policies or ordinance pertaining to biological
resources.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (No Impact)
See response to Section IV (a) and (e) above. The site does not contain any
biological resources that would be subject to a conservation plan.
V. Cultural Resources
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical
resource as defined in Section 15064.5? (No Impact)
The project site is currently developed with an existing 1 -story building and pool
area for the existing Balboa Inn Hotel. The site is also located in an area that is
developed with urban uses such as office buildings, retail and service uses, and
hotels. The project site will not directly or indirectly have any impacts on cultural
(including historical) resources.
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS
Page 8
�3
JIJ-
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside formal
cemeteries? (No Impact)
See response to Section V (a) and (b) above. It is not anticipated that the project
will result in any impact since the site is already developed and located in an
urbanized area of the City.
VI. Geology & Soils
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The Final EIR/GPA 82 -2 (page 37-41) includes a complete discussion of existing
conditions, impacts and City policy and requirements pertaining to geology and
soils. The Public Safety Element of the City's General Plan identifies the potential
natural physical hazards that potentially could affect properties located in Newport
Beach. The City of Newport Beach is located along the southwesterly edge of the
Los Angeles basin adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. The potential for damage results
from seismic- related events exists within the City as it does throughout the Southern
California. Seismic hazards include ground shaking, ground failure, ground
displacement, tsunamis and seiches.
The topography of the site is relatively flat. The site is not located in an area of
unique geologic or physical features. There are no evident faults on the site. The
closest known active or potentially active fault is the Newport- Inglewood Fault. The
Whittier - Elsinore Fault is located over 40 miles northeast of the site. The Whittier -
Elsinore Fault is included with a Special Studies Zone by the State of California.
The site is not located within Alquist- Priolo special fault zone. The site is
expected to be subject to moderate to severe ground shaking from a regional
seismic event within the project life of the proposed building.
The property was originally graded in conjunction with the development of the
existing one -story building and adjacent Balboa Inn Hotel. The site topography is
flat and minimal site preparation (e.g. grading) will be needed. in conjunction with
the project. The existing building will be demolished so that the proposed hotel
addition can be accommodated on the site. It is anticipated that the project will
require exporting building debris associated with the demolition activity. The
debris will be exported to a Southern California site.
CHECKLIST EXPLANA77ONS
Page 10 �`�
iv) Landslides? (No Impact)
Landslides and erosion hazard potential is typically associated with hillside areas.
The project site is located in a developed area of the City and the topography of the
site is very flat. The Public Safety Element of the City's General Plan does
designate the project area as a high potential for landslides. The project will not
result in any significant impacts associated with landslides.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (No Impact)
See response to Section VI(a)(i). The project will require minimal site
preparation (e.g. grading) and therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as
a result of soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
C) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on or
off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The project site is located in a developed area of the City and the topography of the
site is very flat. A mitigation measure is presented in Section VI(a)(i) that requires
compliance with applicable building codes and seismic design guidelines.
Therefore, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, potential
impacts will be reduced to an insignificant level.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform
Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (No
Impact)
The project is not located on expansive soil as defined per the Uniform Building
Code. However, a mitigation measure is presented in Section VI(a)(i) that requires
compliance with applicable building codes and seismic design guidelines.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available
for the disposal of waste water? (No Impact)
The project site is currently developed with an existing one -story building and
pool area associated with the Balboa Inn Hotel. The site will not be utilizing
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. The site can be served by
an existing sewer system. Therefore, the project will not result in any significant
impacts associated with septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems.
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS J
Page 12 ���
The project site is located over five miles from John Wayne Airport. The project
does not pose a safety hazard for hotel guests or employees working in the project
area. The proposed project is compatible with surrounding uses. The immediate
project area is developed with retail and service uses. Therefore, the project is not
anticipated to have any impacts associated with a public airport.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project
result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project
area? (No Impact)
See response to VII (a) above. Additionally, the site is not located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (No Impact)
The proposed hotel addition is located in an urbanized area of the City. The project
itself will not result in any impacts to an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan.
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
(No Impact)
The proposed hotel addition is located in an urbanized area of the City. The project
itself (or location) will not be a significant risk involving wildland fires.
VIII. Hydrology & Water Quality
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
(No Impact)
The project site is located within the Santa Ana River Basin. The site is under the
jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
for issues related to water quality. Each of the nine California RWQCBs is
responsible for adopting and implementing water quality.control plans for each
basin's water bodies, regulating waste discharges from both point and nonpoint
sources, and monitoring permit compliance within its designated basin. There is
a Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) which is implemented by the Cities
(including Newport Beach), County of Orange, and Orange County Flood
Control District. The DAMP was prepared in compliance with specific
requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
storm water program. The DAMP includes a wide range of Best Management
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS �(c
Page 14
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure
of a levee or dam? (No Impact)
See response to Section VIII (a)(c) and (g) above. Also, the project site is not
located near a levee or dam.
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (No Impact)
See response to Section VIII (a)(c) above.
IX. Land Use and Planning
a) Physically divide an established community? (No Impact)
The project site is located at 105 Main Street near the intersection of Washington
Street and the Ocean Front boardwalk in the Central Balboa area of Newport
Beach. Although the project will require the demolition of the existing building
and pool area, the project will not physically divide an established community.
The development of the project will not require subdivision of property or
physically divide adjacent properties. Therefore, the project will not result in
significant impacts to an established community.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project ( including, but not limited
to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? (No Impact)
The application is a request to permit the approval of a Use Permit. The project is
located within the coastal zone and therefore will require approval of a Coastal
Development Permit. The project involves the construction of a two - story, 14-
guest room hotel facility and approximately 1,964 square feet of retail uses, pool
area and associated parking.
The project site is currently developed with a one -story building utilized as a
coffee house (Beach Blend) and for beach rentals. The project will involve the
demolition of the existing one -story building and adjacent pool area to allow for
the construction of the proposed hotel addition. The Land Use Element of the
City's General Plan identifies that the project site is located. within the Specific
Plan (Central Balboa) area of Newport Beach. The Land Use Element designates
the property for Retail and Service Commercial uses. The Retail and Service
Commercial designation allows for such land uses as hotels. The proposed hotel
addition is compatible with surrounding land uses that include hotels, motels,
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS
Page ��
retail, and restaurants. Therefore, the proposed project will not conflict with any
applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation.
C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan? (No Impact)
See response to IX (a)(b) above. Also, the project is not subject to any applicable
habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
X. Mineral Resources
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (No
Impact)
The area surrounding the project is fully developed. The project consists of a
hotel addition and retail use that will replace an existing one -story building and
pool area. The use of natural resources will not be significantly affected by this
project due to the limited size of the project (approximately 5,568 square feet).
Therefore, no significant increase in the use of energy or natural resources is
anticipated as a result of the project.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,
or other land use plan? (No Impact)
See response to Section X (a) above. The City's General Plan does not delineate
any locally important mineral resource in the project area. Therefore, the
proposed project will not result in any significant impacts to a locally important
mineral resource.
C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact)
See response to Section X(a) above. The project area is developed with retail and
commercial service uses. The site is not zoned for residential uses. The project will
not displace people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing.
XI. Noise
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies? (Less Than Significant
Impact)
CHECKUSTExPCnrrar NS Ike
Page 18
Construction noise represents a short -term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise
generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers,
concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high noise levels. However,
intervening structures (e.g., adjacent three -story Balboa Inn Hotel) will act as a
noise barrier to some extent and reduce levels. Noise levels will be further
mitigated by limiting the hours of construction through provisions contained in
the City Noise Control Regulations (NBMC Chapter 10.28).
Mitigation Measure No. 7 The project will comply with the provisions of the
City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code
pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours of
construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on
weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at any time on Sundays
and holidays.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (No Impact)
The project site is located over five miles from the John Wayne Airport. The
Noise Element of the City's General Plan identifies that the site is located outside
the CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) noise contour for the airport. The
proposed hotel project is consistent with the land use designation for the site and
surrounding area. The project will be required to comply with Uniform Building
Code regulations and the City's design requirements and noise control measures.
Mitigation measures are presented in Section XI (d) above. Therefore, it is
anticipated that any potential noise impacts will be reduced to less than
significant.
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (No Impact)
The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore,
there are no project impacts associated with a private airstrip.
XII. Population and Housing
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (No
Impact)
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS
Page 20—
Natural Gas
The Gas Company
Electricity
Southern California Edison Company
Telecommunications
Pacific Bell
Water/Wastewater
City of Newport Beach Utilities Department
Solid Waste
Waste Management of Orange County
Transit System
Orange County Transportation Authority
Fire protection? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The City of Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department are currently providing
fire protection and emergency response services for the existing building (beach
rentals & coffee house) and the Balboa Inn Hotel. The City of Newport Beach
Fire and Marine Department will continue to provide fire protection and
emergency response services to the site if developed with the proposed hotel
addition. The closest emergency response facility to the site is Station #1 located
on E. Balboa Boulevard. Five other facilities are also available for emergency
response service. Response times to the site are dependent on various factors.
Response time is generally five minutes or less. Emergency calls receive the
quickest response times with alarm calls and non - emergency calls having longer
response times respectively. The availability of personnel and extenuating
circumstances may further affect response times.
The proposed hotel addition may potentially increase the number of calls for
service to the location; however, it is anticipated that the project will not require
any new facilities or staff. The Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department. (letter
dated November 29, 1999) have indicated that due to the design of the site, access
may be deficient and that the building may need to be fully fire sprinklered with
standpipes installed in combination with the fire sprinkler system. Current
emergency equipment and facilities at the project site must be evaluated to ensure
that the current facilities are adequate and serviceable for the hotel. Items that
need to be evaluated include, but are not limited to, the following: firefighter
communication equipment, fire pump, and on site water supply.
All fire protection must be designed as an integral part of the construction process
with all improvements and/or modernization of equipment systems or devices
identified and agreed upon by the City of Newport Beach Fire and Marine
Department prior to any construction approval.
Police protection? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The City of Newport Beach Police Department is currently providing Law
enforcement services to the site. The City of Newport Beach Police Department
will continue to provide law enforcement services to the site once the construction
is complete. The City's police facility is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive. The
policy facility is approximately six miles from the project site. Response times to
CHECKUSTEXPLANATIONS
Page 22 'gcr /V V
significant increase in the use of existing recreational facilities since the hotel is
limited in size (14 guest rooms), will provide on -site recreational amenities. The
site is located is in close proximity to the public beach and therefore, an incremental
increase in the use of the public beach by hotel guest is likely. However, this
increase is not considered significant due to the relatively small size of the project.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction of or expansion of recreational facilities which might have
an adverse physical effect on the environment? Opportunities? (No
Impact)
The proposed hotel addition will include on -site recreation amenities such as a
pool, jacuzzi hot tub, gazebo, and sun deck area. The recreational component of
the project is designed for the rooftop of the hotel building and therefore, it is not
anticipated that the project will have an adverse physical effect on the
environment.
XV. Transportation/Traffic
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a
substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume
to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Less Than
Significant Impact)
The project is not anticipated to generate a significant amount of vehicular traffic
since the project is limited in size. The proposed hotel addition and retail use
will generate approximately 143 average vehicle trips (ADT) per day. The ADT
is based on a factor of 8.7 trips per hotel room and 45 trips per 1,000 square feet
of retail. The existing one -story (1,014 square foot retail building) will be
replaced with 1,964 square feet of retail. Therefore, based on the evaluation of the
project and analysis per the City's Traffic Department, the project will result in a
minimal increase of traffic.
Access to the site is provided from the street at the south side of the new hotel
addition and pedestrian access is from the ocean front walkway and existing hotel
court yard from the north. Hotel parking will be provided on the first floor of the
building. The parking is further described in Section XV (f).
The project will have short-term impacts associated with construction activities.
The site is currently developed with a one -story building and pool area. The
existing commercial building and pool area will be demolished so that the new
hotel addition can be accommodated on the site. Building debris and site
demolition materials will be transported off -site. A mitigation measure is
recommended that requiring a traffic control plan for the exportation of the site
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS /I
Page 24
and agreed upon by the City of Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department prior
to any construction approval.
f) Result in adequate parking capacity? (No Impact)
The proposed hotel will provide approximately 22 parking stalls for the 14 -room
hotel addition and retail uses. Although, 22 spaces will be provided, 20 of the 22
parking stalls provide adequate size, location and turning movement for parking.
The parking spaces required are 14 spaces (1 space per 2 hotel guest rooms and 1
space per 350 sq.ft. of retail). The parking to be provided complies with City
requirements and will be adequate to serve the hotel operations. Additionally, the
Balboa Inn Hotel will provide valet parking, Thursday through Sunday from 11:00
a.m. to 9:00 p.m. during the busy season of April through September. In the off
season, October through March, valet parking will be provided Saturdays and
Sundays only from 11:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (No
Impact)
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) provides public
transportation services to and around the site. The OCTA currently provides
local bus service in the vicinity of the project site along Balboa Boulevard. The
OCTA bus routes 65 and 53 operate along Balboa Boulevard. There is a bus stop
at OceanFront near the Balboa Municipal Parking Lot. OCTA's long range plan
calls for a 49010 expansion of bus service (in Orange County) by year 2015. The
OCTA (letter dated December 3, 1999) have indicated that sufficient capacity is
available, even during the summer when demand for service tends to increase.
The project is not expected to negatively impact any current facility, service or
service expansion plans for the project area and/or site. Therefore, the proposed
hotel addition will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation.
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? (Less Than Significant Impact)
The proposed 14 -room hotel facility will replace an existing one -story commercial
building utilized for beach rentals and a coffee house. It is not. anticipated that the
project will exceed wastewater treatment requirements. A mitigation measure to
further reduce potential impacts to water quality has been presented in Section
VM(a) requiring compliance with the NPDES requirements.
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS y1.
Page 26
serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's
existing commitments? (Less Than Significant Impact)
See response to Section XVI (b) above.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (No Impact)
See response to Section XVI (c) above. The site is currently being provided solid
waste services by Waste Management of Orange County. Waste Management of
Orange County will continue to provide solid waste disposal services to the
proposed hotel building once the project is complete. Further, there are no
expected negative impacts from the hotel, and no new facilities or staff are
anticipated.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to
solid waste? (No Impact)
See response to Section XVI (b) above.
CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS r� 2
Page 28
I
a la a
"s�eesg
R! Y
R
G
I�
e.6�b
f CT
i
�Y
�ti I
it
Ix
,__'
1
0
i
i
D�
Zvi
- F�l
m
ca T
MIN
t.
q
ilk
$,
To
on, nMn nn
�r
I<
a�
•m
oN1
ID
I;
SE
� u
F
T.
D
O
Z
T
t
T
O
n
-a
'v
�u
Im
H
Ir
D
0
iZ
i�
I�yy
K
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
City of Newport Beach
Balboa Inn & Expansion
Use Permit 3683
I. OVERVIEW
This mitigation monitoring program was prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code
Section 21081.6 (AB 3180 of 1988). It describes the requirements and procedures to be
followed by the applicant and the City to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of
this project will be carried out. Attachment 1 summarizes the mitigation measures,
implementing actions, and verification procedures for this project.
II. MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES
Mitigation measures can be implemented in three ways: (1) through project design, which is
verified by plan check and inspection; (2) through compliance with various codes, ordinances,
policies, standards, and conditions of approval which are satisfied prior to or during construction
and verified by plan check and /or inspection; and (3) through monitoring and reporting after
construction is completed. Compliance monitoring procedures for these three types of mitigation
measures are summarized below.
A. Mitigation measures implemented through project design:
Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project design will be placed in the official
project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent discretionary or ministerial permits,
the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is in conformance with the approved
project design. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to approved plans.
B. Mitigation measures implemented through compliance with codes, ordinances, policies,
standards, or conditions of approval:
Upon project approval, a copy of the approved project description and conditions of approval
will be placed in the official project file. As part of the review process for all subsequent
discretionary or ministerial permits, the file will be checked to verify that the requested permit is
in compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, policies, standards and conditions of
approval. Field inspections will verify that construction conforms to applicable standards and
conditions.
C. Mitigation measures implemented through post- construction monitoring:
If any mitigation measures require verification and reporting after construction is completed, the
City will maintain a log of these mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements, and will
review completed monitoring reports. Upon submittal, the City will approve the report, request
additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final
monitoring reports will be placed in the official file.jd
_( v
C�
O
ax
V
Z Q 3:
U h
Fq ee•,
°wOW::
zz�a
F
O
z
O
,Q
v
i
C
q u
u �
L �
'C
u
e
`ab
am
am
0
0
0
o
O a
U
h C
U
C O
c
o
a
e
0
e
e
l V
•^
y
d ti G
O
O .�
eZ
.z
V
_
h^
O
Z ry
0
pV p
h
d«
•> O
dj
C
T
o�
to
Q
v
3 to
� Q •�
't7
y
` E3 l
tl
d
L
•O VO
h «^
C
V l
O i
ohi
O
Z3 O
Z3
C
'b l
Q.
�..
O
� �
i
y O
•N
7=
C
i d
a
d
O
'}
OOZ
Q
O`
V
Cp �4 to
i
�4
C
C
a >
Q
T
rz
O d
O
,i �.
i
� � `.
C
•y
�
y
•i V �
�
V
C .p
t:l
t:3
Z
h 4
4�
f=
(�
�
\\
\\
-
;)
>
f)
!)
f(
-
f)
G�
}\
\(
/[
%£ ;
tee«
to
-Z
@$
!
§)K
. -%&
ykx
g«:
�
».
a/»%emu [ �
- =)m
\ \�q
ƒƒ/
\
=
(i(Z3
\ \
\
\LZI
\e
-
/ »!
{\ Q. 4
--,z
\
\ \�
)k�2
&/2
\3
-
- -
rz -4
/-
,)g
'-,S'
e.2=
/2§
le
w�"
:z
1,0
%
%o�
\ \\,
\��
66
:1
=
u2
�-`
/ \k
�_E
`«tj\
®\
{j &>55
a(t
ja \§
\$%2iu
/�
�«�\
\/
�\kƒ
}/
{ \)�(j\
2gOG3§
/$2§
» \�Q
r«
/ft&§
f=
IN
§�
>
±&
2(
&§§
)•
¥
¥
»
))
}\
\)
r
\\
6(
)(
�\2f{
-wZZ
~
/ §{t\\
\«
\§
\� §
}\
.:z
2
/ \22
to
»a§
)k \\
_
—Z
to
to
,
/ //ƒ
»
to
z
\
Z'Z'
y \g\
�)
�±&
\(}
& -(\�
(
`
-%
\
2p
\r te/
\
ƒ)
»\)\\(
/
\to
\ \�
(( §
¥ k
IN
N
PACIFIC COAST 1 ^'1 M ., REALTY GROUP
RECEIVED By
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
s
Al SEP 26 -4060 PM
i /'
/ / / / -
% 3
S�
234 EAST I r 1-11 St'n's 1 18 • COSTA Nti55:\. CA 92627 • (7 14) 6:31 -6006 • FAX (7 14) 631 -0580
VJ
A.
TF!
Pi
re
717
o
iR
IF
m
!-jLl LJ
tt
T: ifi IM . '. . H17=z
m
I
------ -------
NIAN, MF�---
CCC
0
nmn mn
7-1-7
Firl
Mo- 0 0 n R I m
lz
r.-j 0
C>O I �
oq 10
ICP
iT
am i
r 7p
Z nr's
0�% 13
_Jo
Ilp-M 0 o
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
SUBJECT: Balboa Inn & Expansion
105 Main Sheet & 707 Ocean Front
Approve Use Permit No. 3683
• Approve the Negative Declaration making the
findings contained in Exhibit 1;
A Use Permit for the Balboa Inn located at 105 Main Street its proposed
expansion to the 707 Ocean Front property. The expansion project involves
the construction of a two and three story structure consisting of 11 new guest
suites, guest spa area, approximately 2,000 square feet of retail space, and a
partially covered 20 space, tandem parking area. It will also involve the
demolition of an existing one -story retail building and pool area that currently
serves the existing Balboa Inn. The use permit application also includes
consideration of an exception to the maximum allowable floor area ratio,
building bulk and building height established by Title 20 of the Municipal
Code for the expansion.
Chairperson Selich noted that this item had been continued and the
Planning Commission has held a number of hearings. At the last meeting it
was voted on resulting in a three /three deadlock. Therefore, we continued
this item for a new vote. However, we will open the public hearing for any
additional testimony.
Public comment was opened.
Ron Baers noted he was representing Raymond and Michael Pourmussa the
owners of the Balboa Inn and was available to answer any questions.
Dan Parr, 1585 East Ocean Boulevard noted his support of the project. He
stated he has reviewed the architectural plans and feels it will be a desirable
addition to the village. He commented that it would be a nice entryway to
the pier and add some nice shops to the area.
Bill Wren, 1118 East Balboa Boulevard spoke in support of this project. As an
active citizen in various committees he stated that this project would be a
great benefit to the Balboa area. The investment by these property owners
will stimulate the entire area. He urged approval of this project.
Donna Colovero, 1002 East Ocean Front noted that she has been a patron of
the inn for many years. She noted her support of the project and stated that
the renovation appears to be compatible with the surrounding area and
businesses.
Bill Malcolm, 2136 Miramar noted his support of the project for similar reasons
stated by previous speakers. He noted that as an architect, the plans are
excellent and the buildings are in proportion.
INDEX
Item No. 3
UP No. 3683
Negative Declaration
Approved
M
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7. 2000 INDEX
Vic Sherrill. 704 East Oceanfront requested that this application be denied.
He stated that to allow this project would affect the properties and the
people on either side. He presented a petition signed by approximately 62
people who are opposed to the use permit. We have no objection to
building within the requirements in terms of height and size. We are
concerned about an oversized building at that location. We think the
property owner has every right to build what is allowed by the city. Most of
the people on either side of the Inn have indicated that it is going to be
harmful to their welfare and also be injurious to their property. There was a
question as to why there were not a lot of people here. I think the people
who have signed these papers really trust you as a Planning Commission and
that you will hear what they have to say and consider their wishes. They
believe in you and trust you. With the rules and regulations as far as granting
a use permit it indicates that if it is harmful and detrimental to the people
who reside around it. the residents. and injurious to the property owners that
you do not grant a use permit. My question is how do you address that with
this large number of people immediately around it that feel it will be injurious
to their property and harmful to their welfare?
Tod White. 1120 East Balboa Boulevard stated that the Board of Directors of
the Balboa Peninsula Resident Association is in support of this proposal.
Additionally. he noted that many of the businesses are in buildings not owned
by the business operators. Here we have an opportunity to support people
who are willing to invest their money to make the village stronger and better.
This will be a benefit to all the residents to have a strong business district.
Michelle Roberge. Executive Director of the Balboa Theater spoke in support of
this project. She noted that she is currently involved in renovating the Balboa
Theater as part of the city vision of Balboa Village as a cultural. visitor and
resident friendly destination. She noted that people will be drawn to this area
by successful businesses. The expansion of the inn is a crucial factor in this
renovation. She noted her support of the Balboa Inn and endorses this
expansion.
James W. Read. Jr.. 702 East Ocean Front stated that there will be a view
blockage towards the pier from the easterly side of his property. He noted that
this project is too massive and bulky and that it will produce a tunnel affect. I
presented a letter to you regarding this project. He stated he was opposed to
this expansion.
Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Gifford noted the following on the findings and conditions:
Finding 10 (1) [iv] the word development should be inserted after the word
proposed.
q3
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
Finding 10 (1) [vii] spelling of the words conditioned and be; the last sentence to
read, The project includes the use of materials that are in character with the
area.'
Condition 1 is I believe. an extremely important condition. A couple of
changes: The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department samples of
materials and colors to be subject to the approval of the Planning Director prior
to the issuance of a building permit for new construction' This would make it
very clear about the approval not that they are just submitted.
She then asked if any language could be put in to emphasise something
analgous to a materials condition in a contract, is there anything that works like
that?
Ms. Clauson noted that one way would be to add language that the approval
of this use permit is specific to the development plans as approved.
Commissioner Gifford asked if that raises the threshold of substantial
conformance? She was answered that it emphasizes the importance of the
site plans as approved.
Continuing, Commissioner Gifford stated that in the last sentence of condtiion 1
she is concerned with the 'high quality'. This seems to be a modifier and may
be subjective. Is there a hierarchy of terms?
Ms. Clauson answered that we have used terms before like, first class quality,
high quality. There could be a general acceptance of what high quality is. It is
a matter of terminology that the Commission is comfortable with.
Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood noted that in this condition, the more
important thing to help us is the requirement that the materials, finishes and
techniquest be compatible with the existing inn. That is the level of quality that
we are looking for, exceptt somehting newer.
Commisisoner Gifford noted that is her concern. I am not sure that some of the
materials in the existing inn are what I would think of as meeting the standard
we might be expecting. 'Character might be better to emphasize.
Ms. Clauson offered that maybe Mr. Baers could come up with some wording
from an architectural design standard that would be accepted in the industry.
Ms. Temple noted that one technique, as a means of assistance to staff, is to
get as much articulation into the record as to what the real goals of the
Planning Commisison are when it is addressing the issues of quality. Perhaps as
a way to insure that staff has a full understanding of what that means is to also
require the applicant to fund staff retaining a design professional to review the
materials boards and advise us on the level of quality we are achieving. If by
INDEX
�q
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
virture of explanation in the record that the Commisison gives us that staff does
not feel that. or there is some question that the quality standards are not being
met. then we could bring it back to the Planning Commission for further review.
or. to simply require different materials.
Commisisoner Gifford noted this has merit and asked that something be
drafted to .be included in the conditions. In Condition 3 we talk about 707
Ocean Front and then we talk about the existing Balboa Inn. I am concerned
that in some cases if it is not the Balboa Inn any more we might have
comprimised some of these conditions. Can we refer to a specific address
there instead so that we are not just talking about a business name?
Ms. Temple answered yes.
Commissioner Gifford continued noting that the address of 105 Main Street
should be referred to instead of Balboa Inn. Reading Condition 6. line 3 should
have a comma placed after the word one: the last sentence shall read. The
covenant shall be reviewed and be subject to the City Attorney's approval
prior to recordation:
Condition 10: is there an encroachment agreement?
Mr. Campbell answered that there is an outdated encroachment agreement
that could potentially be removed or eliminated so we wanted that to be re-
done.
Continuing. Commisisoner Gifford asked about Finding 9 that deals with the
delinquency of the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). She noted her objection to
the idea that if you are delinquent the City might give you more consideration
and entitlements hoping that will allow you to acquire the funds to pay the
delinquency. That is problematic for me philosophecially. I would like to hear
from the other Commissioners about changing that to a condtfion.
Chairperson Selich noted Condition 29 refers to the TOT. Following a brief
discussion it was suggested and agreed to change the wording. 'that prior to
issuance of permits. the outstanding TOT shall be paid'.
Commissioner Gifford then referred to Condition 7 and stated that it should be
moved as a sentence at the end of Condition 8. This application has to move
on to the Coastal Commisison. Would there be any objection to language
similar to page 9. 10 (1) [viii] be the first finding we make? I know professional
planners have their own view of things and a finding that is simply a matter of
existing situations so that the first finding would be that there is presently an
entitlement on the site for x number of square feet. etc. If we could put that in.
I would feel better about that there.
Ms. Temple asked if we should add into Condition 1 a little bit more articulation
INDEX
q5
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
as to what permisisons, so that we can say x amount of floor area, x amount of
height, etc.? Commisisoner Gifford answered that would be perfect.
Motion was made by Commissioner Gifford to approve the Negative
Declaration making the findings contained in Exhibit l; approve Use Permit
No. 3683 subject to the Findings, Mitigation Measures and Conditions of
approval attached as Exhibit A and subject further to the items I have
articulated.
Chairperson Selich asked if there were any comments or discussion on the
comments made by Commissioner Gifford outside of the TOT issue? None,
then on the TOT issue, Ms. Wood wanted to speak so that is the only thing we
are dealing with.
Ms. Wood noted that the payment of the TOT is more properly something to
be handled by the City Council and City Manager rather than the Planning
Commission as a land use issue. I would prefer that the condition be similar to
the way staff has presented it so that there is some flexibility but still insures
that we resolve that issue before this project goes ahead.
Commissioner Kranzley noted that if the City Council chooses to amend that
language then they could. This sends a message that we have been trying
to send for every hearing that we have had on this and that is we are not
going to approve this project unless the delinquent TOT is paid. The other
thing is in Finding 9; my understanding is that there is cross ownership
between the old ownership and the new ownership. So I don't know if that
finding is precise, as the current owners were at least limited partners in the
prior ownership, so we might want to research that.
Commissioner .Kiser noted a typographical error in Finding 9; Condition 29
should read, 'the applicant shall, prior-to issuance of permits, pay in full all
outstanding Transient Occupancy Taxes'. The reason for the clarification is as
I have expressed as well as other Commissioners in past hearings, a real
concern that if the TOT can not be paid by this applicant prior to starting this
construction project, I would be concerned they may run out of funds. If they
are that thinly capitalized so that this can not be done as part of their
financing and project we may end up with a half built project. It is a great
concern beyond the general or philosophical concern that I don't think we
should frankly be dealing with this until it is current. Realizing that the City
attorney has found a significant nexus in the staff report to connect the
payment of those TOT with our approval, I feel strongly about this clarification.
Commissioner Gifford noted this was her intent in her motion.
Commissioner Tucker stated his agreement with Commissioner Kranzley that if
this is the only part of the puzzle the applicant can decide to appeal it and
take it up to Council or just pay it. I would like to see the condition changed
INDEX
q(p
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
as suggested by Commissioner Gifford.
Ayes:
Selich, Gifford, Kranzley, Tucker
Noes:
McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian
Absent:
None
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
Use Permit No. 3683, Balboa Inn
Mitigated Negative Declaration
A. Mitigated Negative Declaration:
Findings:
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been
prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3.
2. On the basis of the analysis set forth in the Initial Study and Mitigated
Negative Declaration, including the mitigation measures listed, the
proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade
the quality of the environment.
3. There are no long -term environmental goals that would be
compromised by the project.
4. No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other
projects,
5. There are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that
would be caused by the proposed project.
6. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in
the various decisions on this project.
Mitication Measures:
During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the
following measures are complied with to reduce short-term
(construction) air quality impacts associated with the project: a)
controlling fugitive dust by regular watering, or other dust palliative
measures to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust); b) maintaining equipment engines
INDEX
a1
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
INDEX
in proper tune: and c) phasing and scheduling construction activities
to minimize project - related emissions.
2. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the
project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce
odors from construction activities
3. During grading activities, a qualified archeologist /paleontologist shall
be present to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If
significant cultural resources are uncovered, the
archeologist /paleontologist shall have the authority to stop or
temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to
assess the significance of the find.
4. During construction activities, the project will comply with the erosion
and siltation control measures of the City's grading ordinance and all
applicable local and State building codes and seismic design
guidelines, including the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC
Section 15.10).
5. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a
comprehensive geotechnical investigation to the Planning and
Building Department for review and approval.
6. The project shall conform to the requirements of the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and shall be subject to the
approval of the Public Works Department to determine compliance.
7. The project will comply with the provisions of the City of Newport
Beach General Plan Noise Element and the Municipal Code
pertaining to noise restrictions. During construction activities, the hours
of construction and excavation work are allowed from 7:00 a.m. to
6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and not at
any time on Sundays and holidays.
8. Prior to the start of construction activities (e.g. demolition of existing
building), a construction traffic control plan shall be prepared which
includes the haul route, truck hauling operations, construction traffic
flagmen, and construction warning /directional signage.
9. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, the project
applicant shall coordinate with utility and service organizations
regarding any construction activities to ensure existing facilities are
protected and any necessary expansion or relocation of facilities are
planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public
agencies.
ID
9�
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
10. Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the applicant shall
submit to the Planning and Building Department a letter from the City
Utilities Department confirming availability of utility services to and
from the site.
B. Use Permit No. 3483:
Findings:
The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates both sites, 105
Main Street and 707 Ocean Front, for "Retail and Service Commercial'
uses. The project includes existing visitor accommodations and new
accommodations and retail uses which are permitted uses within this
commercial designation.
2. The existing Development at 105 Main Street provides visitor
accommodations (34 units) within the Central Balboa Specific Area Plan
consistent with the General Plan. The inn is a local historical landmark
and has not proven to be detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in
the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to
property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare
of the City. Approval of the use permit makes the use conforming with
respect to permit requirements and does not authorize any changes to
the operational characteristics of the use. No expansion of the use or
area on the property north of Ocean Front where the existing Balboa
Inn is located (105 Main Street) is authorized. The structures on the 105
Main Street site remains legal, nonconforming with respect to building
height, floor area ratio, building bulk, parking and landscaping.
3. The proposed construction , of additional area for visitor
accommodations on 707 Ocean Front which will be operated in
conjunction with the existing Development at 105 Main Street does
not constitute an expansion of a nonconforming structure. The existing
Balboa Inn is located at 105 Main Street and the new hotel area is
separated from this property by a public street, and constitutes a
separate building site.
4. Based upon the information contained in the Initial Study, comments
received, and all related documents, there is no substantial evidence
that the project, as conditioned, could have a significant effect on the
environment; therefore a Negative Declaration has been prepared.
The Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential
environmental impacts of the project, and satisfies all the requirements
of CEQA, and is therefore approved. The Negative Declaration was
considered prior to approval of the project.
INDEX
MW
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
5. An Initial Study has been conducted, and considering the record as a
whole there is no evidence before this agency that the proposed
project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources
or the habitat ,upon which wildlife depends. On the basis of the
evidence in the record, this agency finds that the presumption of
adverse effect' contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California
Code of Regulations (CCR) has been rebutted. Therefore, the proposed
project qualifies for a De Minimis Impact Fee Exemption pursuant to
Section 753.5(c) of Title 14, CCR.
6. A trip generation study has been prepared by the Traffic Engineer which
analyzes the expected trip generation for the proposed project, and
verifies that the proposed project will generate approximately 165
vehicle trips per day which is not a significant increase warranting a
traffic study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
7. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use
of property within the proposed development.
8. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section
20.91.040 of the Municipal Code.
9. The existing Balboa Inn owes the City delinquent Transient Occupancy
Tax. This delinquent payment was incurred by the prior
owner /operator and the present owner /operator is current in their
payments. The current owner /operator remains responsible for
repayment of the delinquent taxes pursuant to the Newport Beach
Municipal Code. The expanded project with the additional rooms will
increase occupancy of the existing hotel and make the hotel more
successful, thereby increasing future TOT revenues and enabling the
applicant to repay that those taxes owned.
10. Approval of Use Permit No. 3683 will not, under the circumstances of the
case be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and
general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or
be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the
neighborhood or the general welfare of the City and is consistent with
the legislative intent of Title 20 of this Code for the following reasons:
(a) The Central Balboa Specific Area Plan statistical area has
approximately 47,000 square feet of remaining entitlement, and
the proposed project will not the put the area in deficit.
(b) The Central Balboa Specific Area Plan statistical area does have
several underutilized properties. None of these parcels are of
sufficient size or seems likely to redevelop in the near future that
12
INDEX
166
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
would cause the base development allocation of the entire
statistical area to be exceeded.
(c) The increased development is 755.5 square feet, which is 7.78% of
the overall project. The increased development increases the
mass of the project making it two and three stories. The building is
consistent with massing and size of the adjacent 4 -story inn and
does not constitute an abrupt change in scale, as it is lower than
the inn. The duplexes to the west to the west are two story and are
developed well above 1.0 FAR and the three story condominiums
to the west are of similar size and scale to the proposed project.
The change in scale from the south is significant, but is not
inconsistent with the change in scale between structures located
on Main Street as it extends the characteristic urban fabric further
south.
(d) The Central Balboa Specific Area Plan area acts as a visitor
serving commercial area and recreational area. The
recreational use of the area served both visitors as well as
residents. The use of the site for visitor accommodations and
retail uses is compatible with the surrounding uses.
(e) The increase development of does not have a significant effect
upon public views. Views from Ocean Front and Main Street are
partially blocked by the existing development of the site and the
increased development will not dramatically affect this view.
The proposed project will open a portion of the view (westerly
26.5 feet) presently blocked by the perimeter walls. The view of
the project site and the adjacent commercial area will be
affected by the project, but in a positive way due to the
project's high level of .architectural detail and consistent
architectural style with the adjacent Development at 105 Main
Street.
(f) The site is flat and has no submerged areas and has no sensitive
resources. The site is physically suitable for development as
vehicular access and utilities presently exist that can serve the
proposed. project. The site is located adjacent to the
Development at 105 Main Street which is a locally significant
historical landmark and focal point of the Central Balboa area.
The design of the building is consistent with the architecture of the
inn thereby preserving and enhancing the unique character of
the area.
(g) The design of the project predominantly with visitor
accommodations with its connection to the existing
Development at 105 Main Street realistically precludes other
land uses that would generate additional traffic. The project
13
INDEX
161
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
INDEX
does provide 8 excess parking stalls that will be eveileble fe
provide additional parking for the existing inn thereby reducing
parking demand generated by the existing inn for the public
beach parking.
(h) The project is designed to be consistent with the adjacent
Development at 105 Main Street, which has local historical
significance. Promoting commercial districts and providing
opportunities for older, underutilized properties to redevelop is
consistent with General Plan policies. Preserving and enhancing
the Balboa Inn and surroundings is a goal of the Central Balboa
Specific Plan.
(i) The increased height results in a decreased building footprint
where the westerly 26.5 feet of the property is not developed
with any buildings, which will open a portion of the view of the
ocean and beach to Ocean Front.
(j) The increased height permits greater building articulation where
there is a single story portion between the two three story
elements. This building mass articulation avoids a flat two story
building that could potentially occupy the entire site. The
increased height permits higher clear heights for the project which
results in the ability to incorporate additional architectural details
that are consistent and compatible with the adjacent
Development at 105 Main Street which strengthens the unique
and historic character of the of the area.
(k) The proposed three -story building is consistent with massing and
size of the adjacent inn and does not constitute on abrupt
change in scale, as it is lower than the adjacent 4 -story inn. Further
west are three duplexes which are two-story and a three -story
condominium development. The duplexes are no more than 26
feet in height and the increased height suggested does not
create an abrupt scale relationship.
(1) Deviations from the building height in conjunction with a request
to increase the floor area ratio is acceptable based upon
Alternative Development Regulations when innovative or
superior urban design is proposed pursuant to the Central
Balboa Specific Area Plan.
(i) The project is designed to create visual interest and it
incorporates pedestrian scale elements along Main Street,
Ocean Front and the beach parking lot driveway to the
south which enhances the significant pedestrian
14
`63�-
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
circulation of the area.
INDEX
(ii) The project is not monotonous, nor visually unappealing as
the plans include both vertical and horizontal articulation,
which break up building mass.
(iii) The project is designed to visually connect to the urban
commercial area to the north and it does not create gaps
in the streetscape system.
(iv) The proposed development expands the pedestrian
spaces by providing a covered walkway by the sidewalk
with recessed building entries and a landscaped court
along Ocean Front.
(v) The project includes enhanced paving materials at the
building entrance and under the pedestrian bridge, which
will identify entrances and add visual interest.
(vi) Site design and parking areas are designed to minimize
pedestrian /vehicle conflicts by providing one parking area
entrance on the south side of the site and bollards
between the parking areas and Ocean Front. These
features also help to minimize vehicle /bicycle conflicts. The
project provides sufficient parking for the new uses it
provides 8 additional spaces for the Development at 105
Main Street which presently relies upon the City parking
and street parking.
(v(i) The project avoids large blank walls and long stretches of
walls without windows or architectural relief, which would
be unfriendly to pedestrians. Awnings and a covered
walkway provide for weather protection and they relate to
the overall scale of the architectural details. The design
and architecture incorporates features including arches,
column details, window ledges, arched windows, Spanish
roof files, exposed rafter tails, balcony railings and other
features that mimics the design and architecture of the
historic Development at 105 Main Street. The project is
conditioned that exterior finishes, materials and colors shall
be reviewed and approved prior to the issuance of a
building permit and that these elements shall be consistent
and compatible with the existing development at 105
Main Street. The project includes the use of materials that
are Aet out a in character with the area.
(viii) If the plans were not approved, the project could be
15
X63
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000 INDEX
redesigned at two stories, but the building mass
articulation would be lost or the overall building footprint
would potentially increase, and many of the benefits of the
proposed project would not be realized.
Conditions:
(ix) The plan does not hinder the public's expenditures and
planned projects to improve the public parking lot,
streetscape and landscaping within the area.
The development shall be in substantial conformance with the
approved site plan, floor plans and elevations, except as noted
below. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Department
samples of materials and colors to be subject to the PaeaF+iag
DepertmeRl feF approval of the Planning Director prior to the
issuance of a building permit for new construction. Said
materials and colors shall be consistent and compatible with
the existing Development at 105 Main Street. The development
shall be high quality and employ materials, finishes and
application techniques which are compatible with the historic
existing ehGFGc-te• Gf the exi stil;g Be bee IRR.—development at
105 Main Street. [add more articulation regarding permissions]
2. All previous discretionary approvals for the 105 Main Street
project sites, except for Use Permit No. 3158 and all subsequent
amendments to Use Permit No. 3158 are hereby null and void.
Those discretionary approvals for the 707 Ocean Front project
site shall be null and void upon the commencement of
construction for the expanded Development at 105 Main Street
proposed thereon.
3. The visitor accommodations located on 707 Ocean Front shall
not be operated separately or independently from the existing
8albee4aadevelopment located at 105 Main Street.
4. The project shall provide 20 parking spaces on site for all on -site
uses. Excess parking provided shall be dedicated for use and
limited to use by patrons or employees of the existing
Development at 105 Main Street.
5. All trash areas shall be screened from adjoining properties and
public streets.
6. A restrietive e, . enEmt
be
the
she!! prepe•ed
e^-' FeeeFded eR
the site eegsistent
4,ith this use—
peunit, end pFer=lude
16
164
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
INDEX
A restrictive covenant shall be prepared and recorded in the
title of both the existing Balboa nn development at 105 Main
Street and 707 Ocean Front that will limit the uses.
development and operation of both properties as one.
consistent with this use permit and preclude conversion of the
buildings to any use that would generate additional vehicle
traffic or parking demand and precludes separate
conveyance of 707 Ocean Front and 105 Main Street while
either is used pursuant to this use permit. The covenant shall be
reviewed and be subject to approved -by4he City Attorney's
approval prior to recordation.
8. The applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan
prepared by a licensed landscape architect ar licensed
architect far an -site and adjacent aff -site planting areas.
These plans shall incorporate draught tolerant plantings and
water efficient irrigatian practices, and the plans shall be
approved by the Planning Director priar to the issuance of a
building permit. All planting areas shall be provided with a
permanent underground autamatic sprinkler irrigatian system
of a design suitable far the type and arrangement of the plant
materials selected. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular
activity shall be pratected by a cantinuaus cancrete curb ar
similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located sa as
not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of
the Traffic Engineer. Perimeter landscaping required pursuant
to Section 20.45.035(L) of the Municipal Code shall not be
required.
All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be
maintained in accardance with the appraved landscape
plan. AI( landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy
and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning,
fertilizing, mawing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be
kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigatian systems shall be
kept aperable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs,
and cleaning as part of regular maintenance.
10. The owner shall pravide and execute a replacement
encroachment agreement subject to review and appravai by
17
105
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
INDEX
the City for the continued operation of the pedestrian bridge.
Standard Reauirements:
Il. All improvements within the public right of way shall be
constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works
Department.
12. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works
Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of
the public improvements, if it is desired to record a parcel map
or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public
improvements.
13. That all construction within the public right -of -way be subject
to further review by the Public Works Department and be
completed under an encroachment permit issued by the
Public Works Department. That an Encroachment Agreement
be executed for all non - standard improvements approved to
be constructed within the public right -of -way.
14. The final design of all on -site parking, vehicular circulation and
pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to the approval
of the Traffic Engineer.
15. The proposed parking spaces shall be restriped to comply with
City Standard 805 L -A and L -B. The HC space shall be modified
so that a van size loading area is provided on the right side of
the space.
16. The applicant or operator of the facility shall provide valet
attendant service for the tandem parking lot at all times. The
applicant or operator shall prepare a valet operated parking
plan to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works
Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
17. The applicant shall provide wheel stops or other approved
protective barrier methods as necessary within the parking
facility.
18. For Fair Share fee purposes the retail square footage shall be
considered part of the hotel and not accessed as separate
retail square footage. However, there will be no credit given
from the existing current use.
19. A drainage study shall be prepared by the applicant and
approved by the Public Works Department, along with a
lI %]
Wpb
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7, 2000
INDEX
master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the
on -site improvements prior to issuance of any building permits.
Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain,
water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study
shall be the responsibility of the developer.
20. Any Edison transformer serving the site shall be located outside
the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110 -L.
21. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by
movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper
use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control
and transportation of equipment and materials shall be
conducted in accordance with state and local requirements.
22. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances,
policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified
by the conditions of approval.
23. The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the
Uniform Building Code, including State Disabled Access
requirements, unless otherwise approved by the Building
Department.
24. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of
adjacent properties and adjacent public streets within the limits
authorized by this use permit, and shall be sound attenuated in
accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, Community Noise Control.
25. Overhead utilities serving, the site shall be undergrounded to the
nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140
of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City
Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or
impractical.
26. The parking spaces shall be marked with approved traffic
markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide.
27. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of
approval to this Use Permit or recommend to the City Council
the revocation of this Use Permit, upon a determination that the
operation which is the subject of this Use Permit, causes injury, or
is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or
general welfare of the community.
28. The applicant shall be vested in the. Use Permit for the existing
19
161
City of Newport Beach
Planning Commission Minutes
December 7. 2000
Development at 105 Main Street immediately upon the
effective date of this Use Permit. This Use Permit. as it applies to
the proposed new construction. shall expire unless exercised
within 24 months from the effective date of approval as
specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code.
29. Prior to the Issuance of permits. the applicant shall pay all the
outstanding Transient Occupancy Taxes- shag-be- paid. Toe
9asupsRGy' Taxes.
30. The applicant shall reimburse the City of Newport Beach. prior
to the Issuance of a building permit. for the costs associated
with having the final plans and specifications for the project
evaluated by an Independent architect or design consultant
and to have the construction monitored to ensure proper
implementation. The independent architect or design
consultant shall be hired by the City to act as a consultant and
construction monitor and shall advise the City as to the
implementation of the project in accordance with the intent of
the Planning Commission's approval. The purpose for the
independent review and monitoring shall be to ensure that the
plans and specifications include the use of modern high
quality materials. finishes and construction techniques that will
make the new construction consistent and compatible with the
historic character of the Balboa Inn. The Planning Commission
desires that the new construction be accomplished in such a
Way as to make it appear as a contemporary with the historic
Balboa Inn. not identical to the Balboa Inn and conforming
with the high level of architectural and design detailing
indicated in the approved site plan. floor plans and elevation
drawings. which is a specific reason for the approval of this Use
Permit.
+wa
Go Rent -A -Van
4320 Campus Dtive
• Use Permit No. 3677
On October 19. 2000. the P Commission considered the proposed sign
program for the Go Ren t -A- and continued the discussion to this
meeting to allow the applicant time vised the sign program. The
applicant has submitted a revised sign progra ached as Exhibit
The two proposed signs are individual channel lette h exposed neon
20
`It,l!73
Item 4
UP 3677 Sign Review
Approved
au
JAMES W. READ, JR.
P. O. BOX 780
BALBOA, CA 92661 -0780
(949) 673 -0782
December 26, 2000
City Council
Re: Use Permit 3683
Dear Members of the City Council,
Enclosed with this cover letter are materials dealing with we 63± residents and
property owners opposing the Use Permit 3683 for the expansion, beyond that allowed by
the Municipal Code for developments, of the Balboa Inn. These same materials have been
provided to the Planning Commission, the Planning Director and the Assistant City
Manager.
This appeal was filed by me on December 20, 2000 and as of the writing of this
letter 1 do not know the date of the hearing before the City Council. This information 1
hope you will read prior to the public hearing as 1 personally believe other alternatives to
the Use Permit need to be thought through if we are really going to enhance our Balboa
Village. This appeal comes before you on a close 4 to 3 vote.
From my reading of the city's documents it appears to be a foregone conclusion by
them that this is what the Planning Commissioners want and in like manner the City
Council. We owners/residents feel this is too massive for our Balboa Village. A number
of residents, not within the area of the proposed project as well as the Executive Director
of the proposed Performing Arts Center, have cavalierly said how wonderful this project
is. If they were faced with this project's bulk and height (55 feet wide by 32.5 feet high)
in their front yard, l suspect they would have a much different attitude and be outraged.
Suggestions by we property owners/residents to the Planning Commission as well
as City Staff have been totally ignored, even though Commissioner Gifford raised the idea
of buying this property. Note, It is the only sizable and developable piece of property
south of Ocean Front, AKA "the boardwalk."
Attached to this letter is a summary sheet of documents submitted in opposition to
this Use Permit. These are immediately after the summary sheet.
Nib
CONCERNS AND SUGGESTIONS
CONCERNS
A. Too massive in height and bulk for the area We have seen the phone
company building as an example of a bunker building. When I constructed my home on
Ocean Front in 1973 - 1974,1 was told repeatedly by staff that the Peninsula was to remain
a maximum of two (2) stories.
B If built, it will create a tunnel effect with the existing Balboa Inn to the
north, creating an unfriendly and uninviting view, primarily into a parking garage.
C. The planning staff has nol taken into account on the Peninsula cumulative
effects (as to both traffic congestion and increased pollution on the other projects (i.e.,
increased parking spaces in the Balboa parking lot; the 350 seat Performing Arts Center;
the Marina Park 5 Star Luxury Hotel - with 1,000 daily trips).
D. . Is there really a need for this particular project, especially in light of prior
testimony that the Balboa Inn is never fully occupied and the proposed 5 Star Hotel?
E. Unpaid Bed Taxes of $55,00 (added to these should be penalties and
interest). If the owners don't pay these timely, can they really qualify for a loan?
F. If approved in the present form or some other (per code without Use
Permit), will it actually be completed? A half built building would be a legal challenge to
the city to complete or remove as well as an eye sore.
G. Consideration and/or application of the Green Light Initiative.
H. Will we be increasing the amount of vacant commercial property?
SUGGESTIONS
A. That this excessive building, needing a Use Permit for approval, be denied.
B. If the Balboa Inn, like the Pavilion, is a landmark - that city staff work with
the owners to buy this property and utilize those funds to add a story to the existing
Balboa Inn and revitalize and rehabilitate the existing Inn's two (2) buildings. This may
sound like an inconsistency on my part - but I believe the idea suggested would, when
added to the existing building, create a better and more distinctive project for the Balboa
Village. Also enhanced would be the utilization of the parcel to enhance the traffic flow
from the Balboa Parking lot to Balboa Boulevard.
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES W. READ, JR.
NOTE: There is an error on page 4 of the letter to the Planning Commission dated
12/7/00. In the first paragraph of page 4 the last sentence of that
paragraph is in error and should be deleted.
lix
SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTS
Cover Letter
1. Five page letter (Quality of Life) to Planning Commission dated 12/7/2000.
2. Four page letter (Forever Is A Long Time) to Planning Commission for
Previous Use Permit 3661 re the same project as current Use Permit 3683.
3. Cover letter to Conunissioner Gifford dated 12/712000
4. Letter from Mr. Stephen Titus dated 10/20/2000
5. Letter from Mr. Vic Sherritt dated 10/2/2000
6. Letter from Mr. Curt Herbert dated 9/26/2000
7. Letter to Assistant City Manager, Ms. Sharon Z. Wood dated 7/19/2000
8. Letter to Planning Director Ms. Patricia L. Temple dated 7/19/2000.
9. Petition from 63± home owners/residents, circa 7/1/2000.
10. Copy of Green Light (Measure S) Initiative
11. Notice of Appeal
113
"Quality of Life"
Re: Use Permit No. 3683
Proposed Expansion of the Balboa Inn
The statement "Quality of Life" is quite often bandied about in matters such as the
use permit, now in front of you when dealing with land use matters. And the "Quality of
Life" issues are perhaps as elusive as beauty (i.e., in the eye of the beholder).
At a recent panel of contestants prior to the election for City Council each and
everyone emphasized that they wanted to maintain Newport Beach's "Quality of Life."
Philosophically bolstering the quality issue is the overwhelming passage of the Green -light
initiative. .
From my own personal standpoint I find the following concerns regarding the
quality issue.
Traffic and congestion
2. ' Air pollution
Visual pollution
a. A tunnel effect due to height of proposed building
b. View blockage
Created for the 50± residents affected by the development
2. For the public on the boardwalk (East Ocean Front)
Traffic and Congestion
With the increased trips generated by the project, the proposed increase in spaces
in the Balboa Parking Lot, the proposed renovation of the Balboa Theater into a
performing arts center with 350 seats, the proposed 5 -star resort for Marina Village, that
resort producing 1000 trips per day, let alone the massive parking structure on Balboa
Blvd. as part of that resort equals a tremendous impact.
If you have been to the Balboa area on a summer weekend, it would be readily
apparent the traffic problem will be greatly increased beyond the extreme congestion that
now exists.
The staff report conveniently ignores the cumulative number of cars as well as the
pollution generated by the higher number of vehicles. The Commission should have staff
11a
address these issues and mitigation measure, if they in fact are possible.
One of the Commissioners at a previous meeting felt one criterion for approval
was the question of need. We have heard testimony from various individuals that they
have never had any problem obtaining a room =y time of the year at the Balboa Inn.
Commercial Need: On Monday, December 4, 2000 I did an unscientific survey of
the Balboa Village commercial business area.
Findings:
A. Stores out of business or vacant
1. Asiatic Chinese restaurant at 810 Balboa Blvd.
2. Sergio's Optical at 701 Balboa Blvd.
3. Alfie's Restaurant (formerly Heidi's) on Palm, but it now appears
some new restaurant is remodeling the interior
4. Bubbles Art Gallery (formerly Bubbles of Balboa)
5. Vacancy at 611 Balboa Blvd.
6. Former Cleaners at 605 Balboa Blvd. (7 to 8 years)
7. Emerald Forest and other stores at Palm and Bay Front
8. Baubles, Bangles and Art having a closing business sale
9. Nouvelle Armoire on Main going out of business after 30 years.
Closed for the Day Business
1. Ocean Front - wheel works and snack shop
2. Orange Julius
3. T Shirt Shop next to Orange Julius
4. Sushi- Teriyaki
5. Snack Shop at 613 Balboa Blvd.
6. Bike rental at Palm and Ocean Front
2 5
Open for Business Stores
Fun Zone businesses
2. Balboa Market - the new owners have just painted the building a
pleasing sand color
Ocean Front Bar and Grill - at 1 pm no one in the restaurant and
only 1 person in the bar
4. Britta's Cafe - at 1:10 pm four patrons in the cafe
5. Building housing the Mithrush Beachware, for sale. Location Main
and Balboa Blvd.
6. Shore House Restaurant
Silver Jewelry store at 603 Balboa Blvd.
8. Trinket Sale and Bike rental at Balboa and Palm
Conclusion:
It is readily apparent in these best of economic times there is more
commercial space than can be utilized. Therefore there is clearly no need for additional
commercial space as proposed by the applicant now or in the future for the Balboa
Village.
Financial Aspects
In reviewing title documents, all of which are public records. l note the Balboa Inn
has a first trust deed of 4.3 million dollars placed on it on 6/30/98. Obviously this 4.3
million note has very large payments. 1 question how the Inn and any additions can be
built when additional funds will be required for the new structure and for both structures
to generate enough revenue to make the payments. It is inconsistent for the applicant to
say the new premium ocean view suites (overlooking the parking lot to the south) can
really add revenue when the new proposed structure will block = the old premium ocean
views.
If the proponent cannot pay the past due bed taxes, how will he make payments on
his loan(s)?
1 am fearful that we may have abandoned or vacant structures thereby not
enhancing the "re- vitalization" of Balboa. 1 note from my own prior uniform transient
jib
occupancy tax return there is a penalty of 10% if not paid timely and an interest charge of
1 -1/2% per month. 1 expect the city to require every penny to be paid. As a suggestion
for collection of this amount, the City Attorney could easily prepare a lawsuit for the
amount owed and have the applicant stipulate to a judgment. This judgment should then
be recorded against the property thereby "guaranteeing" payment upon sale, lease or
construction on the property. I find the applicant's statement to the Commission that he
did =know of the prior bed tax very disingenuous for a sophisticated businessman.
Notwithstanding the California Public Records Act Section 6250 of the Government Code
and following, when I requested information regarding the bed tax re Balboa Inn, the
supervisor told me that was privileged information. I further note from the title
documents that the property (site address 705 Balboa Blvd.), that is the subject of this
proposed use permit, is owned by Mr. Gary E. Malazian but appears to be in a trust.
Perhaps the applicant can help me and the Commission with this confusion?
Minutes of October 5, 2000
Commissioner Kranzley (p. 4) questions the economic impact of the project. In
my 30 years of property ownership in Balboa I have seen a continual coming and going of
businesses. I cannot see how this project will help re- vitalize Balboa. Clearly there is, has
been, and always will be many commercial vacancies, even in this best of economic times.
Commissioner Agajaman's insightful question to the applicant's representative drew out
the fact that 9 rooms would do instead of 11. And the more rooms are for financial
reasons rather than aesthetic (page 5 & 6 of the minutes of October 5, 2000). It should
be a rhetorical question, that if they can't rent out the rooms they now have, how can they
then rent out more rooms?
Green -light Measures
It is clear that a majority of the voters (residents) of Newport Beach wish to
propose a philosophy of slower and less massive growth within the city. I believe the
project proposed fits under that philosophy, if not the act itself.
Balboa's statistical area is built out
2. The project exceeds existing allowances for both bulk and height
3. When other projects in the statistical area are included (i.e., Performing
Arts and new Balboa parking area), the threshold of 100 peak hour trips
will probably be exceeded.
I now note that staff has finally added to their suggestions for the Commission
actions in Exhibit B at p.14 of the minutes; FINDINGS FOR DENIAL.
4
��1
Conclusion and Recommendation
The two land marks in the Balboa Village area are the Pavilion and the Balboa Inn.
1 believe, following Commissioner Gifford's suggestion, the city, the planning commission,
and council should consider condemning the proposed parcel, paying adequate
compensation to the owner, then request the applicant use the proceeds to add an
additional story on the front building (overlooking Ocean Front) to both enhance the
ocean view suites the applicant has talked about and make the Inn stand out as a real
landmark. A view of the existing two buildings comprising the Balboa Inn show a need
for both to be renovated and perhaps remodeled. And added plus to this proposal would
be better circulation of traffic out of the Balboa Parking Lot.
It is respectfully suggested that the use permit for this project be denied.
December 7, 2000
jj b
JAMES W. READ, JR.
P. O. BOX 780
BALBOA, CA 92661 -0780
(949) 673 -0782
July 19, 2000
Dear Commissioners,
My opening paragraph I believe sums up my opposing position to the project and
that of 50+ neighbors who are located both east and west of the proposed project.
I speak from a 30 year ownership of property on the peninsula as well as 26+ years
residency in the 700 block of East Ocean Front.
My observations, suggestions and/or recommendations are in the accompanying
materials.
Very truly yours,
JAMES W. READ, JR
III
RE: USE PERMIT 3661 - BALBOA INN
NOTE: FOREVER IS A LONG TIME
The three photographs following this page show the following:
#1. The present view from my second floor deck in the 700 block of East
Ocean Front
#2. The view after the proposed development in picture #2. Please note the 8'
ladder for scale.
#3. This shows an 8' ladder against the rear of the Balboa Inn (alley). By my
rough calculation the roof is approximately 32' above the ground level.
STAFF REPORT
Although corrected orally at the commission hearing from 14 to 11 room
expansion, there is still confusion to me as to the commercial increase 2060 sq. ft.; 1350
sq. ft. p. 2 of project description. At page 24, paragraph XV re transportation/traffic
using the data in the report, I determine there to be 188 trips per day, an almost 20%
increase of that stated in the report. Appendix A speaks of project plans. My copy does
not contain any plans or elevations. The purpose of application now reads two (2) and
three (3) story building. The filed negative declaration; the city environmental check list,
page 1, item 8 speaks to a two (2) story structure; also the city's negative declaration in
the project description also mentions a two (2) story structure. Should there be an
accurate report done to reflect these errors?
In reading the action part of the staff report it would appear that we have a done
deal even before a hearing. The action portion might want to include rejection of negative
declaration and preparation of an EIR. Also disapproval of the use permit.
My first impression of reading this report to the planning commission leads to the
conclusion it was written by the applicant due to its glowing approval of this project. Was
the preparation by Hodge & Associates? Was it prepared by the planning department?
Retail and Semi - Commercial Zone
Environmental compliance.
No significant effect. How is this defined? It is difficult to believe you can ever
mitigate car exhaust. Especially the cumulative effect of 188 car trips per day plus the
proposed enhancement of the Balboa parking lot with increased car and bus. traffic.
I�Jb
p Mfl-
I
f�Z •.
r. � 7ba "J.rM.
tT_J
_.,.. ..
c.... :� ti. q...
i.
iR' � _. rr` _ r r i r
��e S. I. 4....:, e,w .� ) ,
!. . •�. M..•• ^�' � �''
'��.�:l f._ =._^ yam, n =�� :� 'aiS''a'riC
,iGy �
�KZ.I� :' _ ..
�.�i'. i
� t.. ' ..�
/Y.: .. .. � u.
.?4.j j
—.i
l J
How will the parking needs of the 350 seat performing arts center be addressed
when it is completed, along with traffic congestion and pollution?
Findings
It appears that most of the findings for approval can not be met and those that are,
appear to be the conclusions of the authors.
Buildinf'_Heiebt and BAUk
Question: Are we discussing a maximum height of 35' with an over -all height of
31'? No matter which height, we 50 plus impacted owners and/or residents will have
some of our view toward the ocean totally obliterated.
Alternate standards - the proposed plan is consistent with surrounding
development P -8. If you look east and west of the project such is NOT the fact.
Smog - Trips and Congestion
What. will be the cumulative effect of the 188 trips per day generated by the hotel,
plus the enhanced parking in the Balboa Parking Lot and the 350 seat Performing Arts
Theater?
Economics
The owner, Mr. Pourmussa, through his representative, feels that unless the
massive building is permitted, it would not be economically feasible. As one of the
commissioners pointed out at the June meeting, there needs to be a need for approval to
be granted.
One long term resident testified at the hearing that on the busiest days of the
summer week -ends she has always been able to get a room My limited experience is the
same.
1 believe the present owners have only owned the Balboa Inn for 2 years and 1
question, after 71 years in place as an inn and other uses, that all of a sudden we need
more rooms for rent.
There is no need for more commercial space in Balboa. Viewing the inn's
commercial as I have for 26+ years the only viability is the surf and T -shirt shops even
though they have undergone many ownership changes throughout the years. The
restaurant and bar are continually changing hands. The only restaurant that came close to
success was Mi Casa (Main location on 17th St/Santa Ana Blvd in Costa Mesa). Even
they left after a short duration. On a general daily inspection 1 find no people eating in the
restaurant and very few in the bar.
2 1A3
Of the seven shops on the ground floor that replaced the old Classic -styled Bank
of America building between Washington and Palm only two have tenants - fast food and
tattoolbody piercing parlor. On Palm the old Bubbles of Balboa continues to be vacant.
The "Village" has unfortunately degenerated from a neighborhood center (no laundry,
shoemaker, clothing stores, hardware store) to a dilapidated business community in no
way serving the needs of the community. Clearly the rents are too high to generate new
or existing businesses to those vacant buildings. Economics and the market place will
eventually solve that problem Lice it or not all the planning and monetary expenditure
will not make the peninsula a destination resort. The bulk of the people I observe go to
Catalina and do not utilize the businesses in Balboa. The advent of the so- called "smart"
meters have not changed that. They only make users mad and people shun them Plus
when visitors get an unexpected ticket not knowing how these meters operate, it leaves a
less than friendly feeling for the city of Newport Beach.
When my construction partner and myself developed the three duplexes in the 700
block of Ocean Front, we had numerous meetings with the staff as well as planning
hearings with the Planning Commission and Coastal Commission. When we suggested to
the staff one 3 -story building instead of three duplexes, we were told in no uncertain terms
that the Balboa area was a two story zone and anything else would be rejected. When
pointing out the phone company's monstrosity on Balboa Blvd. and the four story
condominiums on East Bay, which resemble a bunker, we were told that was a mistake.
My Recommendations:
Pave Newport and Balboa Blvds. leading to the peninsula. This has been
neglected for the 30 years that 1 have owned property. This would make
the area more user friendly and be a plus for the residents who are not
casual visitors. It would certainly enhance our health and welfare both
physically and emotionally. We have had study after study and gross
quantities spent on consultants - this unfortunately has not created much
pavement.
2. As expressed by Commissioner Gifford,
Explore the possibility of condemnation of the property, the subject of
the use permit, to enhance the Balboa Parking lot plan for circulation. As
noted at the recent hearing this is the only parcel of property that is south
of the "boardwalk" (i.e., Ocean Front). If adequate compensation and a
stream -lined approval process, perhaps I&. Pourmussa could remove the
front part of the Balboa Inn, that South of the courtyard leaving the rear
building in place -- and build that quality inn that the Balboa Specific Plan
and the city, as well as we residents, would like to see. Could the city
provide I&. Pourmussa with a long term, low interest loan?
IA
A further commercial note: Any business owner who came to the Balboa
area should have known when they located their business here its seasonal
nature and difficulty of parking.
Bed Tax (Revenue)
I recently requested from the city's Revenue Division a disclosure of the
Bed Taxes for previous years of the Balboa Inn. My reason was to attempt
to analyze these receipts to determine if room occupancy had changed from
year to year in relation to the concept of need as expressed by the
applicant. A supervisor informed me these records were not available to
the public except by court subpoena.
3. Somewhere in the city's operating budget of 98 million, the proposed
Balboa Improvement Plan of 7.5 million and our capital expenditures
budget of 40+ million there should be adequate funds to accomplish the
above referenced goals. Perhaps a bond covering revenues generated in
the area would create adequate funds. More extreme would be the
designation as a redevelopment area.
Attached is a recent review from the Los Angeles Times travel section - Kids -eye
View, a clear idea that a new inn and re- habilitated old inn would be a success.
In closing FOREVER IS A LONG TIME
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES W. READ, JR.
4
P,5
L4 SUNDAY. JUNE 2S, 2000
Tustinresldent
Marie Newland
and her ton.
Aaron, 6;overiook
the Balboa
Penimmist from
the Fun Zone
Ferris wheel, right,
Local eats Include
the Balboa Bar, far
right. ice cream
covered with hot
fudge: then mfled,.
In sprinkles of
chopped peanuts
WEEKEND ESCAPI
Kid's -Eye View of F
A family finds summer fun at a carnival on the coast, whl
and other flights of fancy keep a 4- year -old daughter smi
By SUSAN FREUDENHEIM.
TIMES STAFF M=
EWPORT BEACH —tike
many Angelenos, my
family loves the ocean,
yet we rarely take advan-
tage of the region's beaches. So we
were happy when out -of -town
friends invited in recently to visit
the oceanfront house they had
rented on Newport's Balboa Penn-
Sula, '
We'd been to Newport often to
visit the an museum but had never
been on the peninsula, so while we
were there for the day, we checked
out the boardwalk,
What we saw Intrigued us
enough to plan a weekend trip. My
• husband, Richard; and 1 have a 4-
• year -ok1 daughter, Rachel, and the
heart of Balboa Peninsula offers
mote than the usual assortment of
summer -style diversions fn a few
block$ for families with small kids.
The beaches are wide, clean and
well attended by lifeguards; you'll
find a piet for fishing and a board-
walk for cycling, skating, jogging
and walking; the harbor offers boat
touts that extend out Into the
ocean; and there are plenty of the
Susan Freadenheim Is an mss
wthet fat The Times.
requisite somenit shops. But the
most important draw is the Fun
Zone, .a small but well- managed
amusement area dominated by a
Ferris wheel, built in 1936 on the
harbor side of the peninsula. Be-
chei immediately dubbed the area
"the carnival.”
We chose the Balboa Inn, a
Spanish -style structure built in
1930, primarily because of its locs-
don: It faces the beach and is just
two blocks from the Fun Zane. We
also were sutured by the aquatic
facilities, which include a beautiful
L- shaped pool and a large hot rob.
The two- mile -long Balboa
Peninsula is just south of the end
of Cahbornia Highway 55, show an
hour's drive from out Hollywood
home. We arrived about 8 p.m. on
a Friday, parked as directed in the
),b
Budget for Three''
'• �'
Balboa lnn,2nigbts..S442.95.
Dinneq Bay Butget:..: 1423
Luncli, Ruby's.':r::4 i32AO
i wport
Dinner,
„+'"y. . Beach
. Chi Chi's •'
,
�7n, •� Iq' y� •i.,. .:
HQ `:., .....: ::'...13.50:.
Winch. Bd"a' Gaff,.;: X36,93 �
rF'n. "'to
Snack$ _ Bo";
N.s is�
RiC -gsanA arcaAe' .r Y2.OQ
22
.Bda(toura
. n• -
.00'.
'ParklpH r .14:00'
Gas :...............: .. 9.71 .
s
FINALTAII— „:::,.. "♦p06.72:
ses 66 ,
Balboa Inn. IOS Main St. Bal-
Met =
'boa, � CA:.. 92661_. telephone
t,' Btltwe ws`°re
(949j(67$'-34A' .'=' (949)
u s !
673 -4587„ Internet Anp; // '
u%r
www.b I hoof '.core.
w. wn�i�. mns
requisite somenit shops. But the
most important draw is the Fun
Zone, .a small but well- managed
amusement area dominated by a
Ferris wheel, built in 1936 on the
harbor side of the peninsula. Be-
chei immediately dubbed the area
"the carnival.”
We chose the Balboa Inn, a
Spanish -style structure built in
1930, primarily because of its locs-
don: It faces the beach and is just
two blocks from the Fun Zane. We
also were sutured by the aquatic
facilities, which include a beautiful
L- shaped pool and a large hot rob.
The two- mile -long Balboa
Peninsula is just south of the end
of Cahbornia Highway 55, show an
hour's drive from out Hollywood
home. We arrived about 8 p.m. on
a Friday, parked as directed in the
),b
LOS ANGELES TIMES
E: NEWPORT BEACH
conditioning, which shouldn't be a
problem with -the beach so near.
But with windows open, noise is
unavoidable. Our room, which had
a king -size bed and room enough
for a rollaway for Rachel, over-
looked the courtyard and was
probably one of the noisiest.
11 F
Continental breakfast is served
on the terrace overlooking the
ocean from 7 to 10 a.m., and we
were up early Saturday to eat.
Rachel insisted on going straight
into the pool. She was in heaven.
>
By 10 we were at the beach and by
alb
o a
I p.m. at the Fun Zone. Fora 4-
year -old with a huge appetite for
adventure but a short attention
span, the activities are great.
°reaFerriswheel
We ate lunch at Ruby's at the end
of Balboa Pier, right outside our ho-
ning daylong
td. The soda -shop chain offers good
all
salads and Mexican food along with
milkshakes and cheeseburgers, and
nearby public beach lot ($7 for 24
-a good kids' menu.
After lunch we were immedi-
hours) and checked In. Then we
went immediately to t ine Fun
ately on the bumper cars, merry-
one, a five - minute walk, to look
go- round, Ferris wheel and spin-
ning cups, and It's a wonder we
for food and
for
f quirk ride.
We found lots of burger-and-Ice
survived. Rachel was deterred from
cream stands still open. One of the
the constant spinning only by a
side trip into the arcade, with its
local specialties Is the Balboa Bar, .
quarter games that made tons of
a block of ice cream dipped before
noise and spit out redemption
your eyes in hot fudge, then tolled
tickets. (You had to win 35, for ex-
in rainbow sprinkles or chopped
.ample, to get a plastic finger pup -
peanuts. We had to try one (ah, re-
pet of a lion -1 know, because
search). Also on the menu were
that's what we got.)
frown hananas (same treatment as
Rides are $1 to $2 each and kid -
the Balboa Bar) and, for Rachel, a
die- sized, but adults will appreci-
snow cone. Too limit for rides, we
ate the view from the Ferris wheel.
headed back to the hotel.
Sitting at the top while someone
As it turns out, the Balboa Inn is
boarded below, we couldn't help
fairly pricey for the accommoda-
but pinch ourselves —an hour
lions it provides. Rooms range
away and a world of difference
from $169 for a small double to
from our urban home.
$349 for an oceanfront suite, but
After exhausting all that the Fun
the property is somewhat run -
Zone offers, we headed back to the
down: our room could have used
pool for a late - afternoon swim. It
new carpeting and a fresh coal of
was empty, perfectly healed by the
paint. And we found the desk peo-
sun, just right for a leisurely play -
ple a bit surly. -
time for Rachel' She's just learning
It's a place that could be really
to swim, and the combination of
nice but that doesn't quite live up
moving from shallow, cool water
to its lovely exterior. Although its
to the warm safety of the hot tub
great location makes up for a lot, a
helped to build her confidence.
downstairs bar slays open until 10
Rachel fell asleep in the room at
p.m. and blasts loud music
6,.so we had to bring In dinner. We
throughout the courtyard, keeping
opted for good Mexican food,
everyone awake —not a plus for
which 1 got from nearby Chi Chi's
the many guests wilt small kids.
Polio, an unpretentious place with
It also doesn't have air-
seating and takeout. I had the half
chicken with garlic sauce, which
came with salad w well as rice and
beans, and Richard had a carne
asada burrito. Rachel slept
through.
We turned in early and were up
Sunday morning at 7. Richard
jogged on the boardwalk while Ra-
chel and I ate breakfast, then
headed back to the pool (her
choice) early. We were at the
beach by 10, and this time she
spent most of her time in the
ocean, which was surprisingly
warm for early summer.
Hotel checkout time is noon,
but we were out a bit early to catch
a boat tour of the harbor. Plans
changed rapidly, w they often do
with small children, because Ra.
chel wanted to ride her bike before
the boat. The delay wasn't a prob-
lem because boats leave hourly
and the tour lasts about 45 min-
utes. We went south to see sea li-
ons, but you can also go north to
circle Lido Island.
Guides gave us some history of
the region, a longtime resort for
Hollywood and rich corporate
characters.
After the boat we took a couple
of more Fun Zone odes and then
tore Rachel away for a late lunch at
one of the area's quaint restau-
rants, Britta's Cold. 1 had an excel-
lent brie and roasted vegetable
sandwich on a baguette, and Rich-
ard had a roasted vegetable salad
that he liked. Rachel had plain
pasta with butter, a dish not on the
menu but fixed at her request.
Rachel made no secret of her re-
luctance to leave —as only a 4-
year -old can —but I really knew
how much fun she'd had when she
said as she fell asleep at home that
night, "Mom, I miss our hotel. Can
we go back there sometime? ".
Indeed.
More Weekend
Etscepes
• To see past Weekend Es-
capes, visit our Web site at
hop: / /www.latinies.com/
travel. To purchase copies of
past weekend articles, call
Times on Demand, (800) 788-
8804, Mon.-Fri.
pl
JAMES W. READ, JR.
P. O. BOX 780
BALBOA, CA 92661 -0780
(949) 673 -0782
December 7, 2000
Dear Ms. Gifford,
From my enclosed analysis you can see I have incorporated your suggestion that
the city acquire the subject property and offered one step further - that the condemnation
moneys be used to enhance and add a story to the Balboa Inn to make it a stand out as a
landmark. This idea, of course, would require the proponent, the city and the residents
joining together to work on this idea.
I note that currently the Balboa Inn is falling into disrepair. The stairs to be rear of
the main building (nearest Ocean Front) are in such bad shape they are `roped off' by
yellow construction tape. Also recent and ongoing repair of drainpipe in the alley is done
by duct tape.
Although it is the 11th hour for the hearing, I would like you, if at all possible, to
visit my duplex so I could show you the part of my view that will be lost forever. If the
project is approved in its now form, notwithstanding the architect's rendering of the front
of the building, the rear of the building on the south side of Ocean Front will become a
dark massive tunnel.
My earlier suggestion, if implemented, will accomplish the following:
Permit the applicant to enhance his existing building. Also allow him more
profitable Ocean Front suites.
Permit and enhance the flow of traffic out of the Balboa Parking Lot.
Allow us 50± property owners to maintain our ocean views.
Very truly yours,
JAMES W. READ, JR
lad
y
07/20/00 11:07
July 20, 2000
$213 828 8488 PAYDEN & RYGEL
STEPriEN TITUS
1013 NET BAY AV°_RO$
NFWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92661-1015
(949) 673 -0050
Planning Commission Chairman Michael Kranzley
1217 Bay Avenue
Newl)ort Beach CA 92661
Via FAX 949 - 644 -1250
Dear Planning Commission Chaimtan 1Cranzley:
I am writing to you to express my opposition to the Balboa Inn Proposal as presently
suvcnued.
1 recognize that the applicant owns the land on which it seeks to add 11 new guest moms.
However, the proposed plan exceeds the allowable height limit so the project would block the
ocean view of surrounding property owners. An ocean view is a key element of considerable
value and should not be infringed upon by some property owners at the cxpcnse of other property
owners as a matter of common equity.
Furthermore, it is my understanding the ground floor automobile parking area could be
excavated, as has hecn done by others in the neighborhood, to bring the project into compliance
with the areas height limit.
Please uphold the building restrictions that others have complied with.
Sincerely,
tephen Titus Ul�ll3(
m001
1 ;0
October 2, 2000
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I have been out of town. Opening my mail, I received the notice of the hearing for
the Balboa Inn project. Thank you for sending it to me. I will be out of town for the
hearing on Thursday night.
Several things I would like for you to think about. For most of the major
developments in Newport Beach that affect neighbors, the developer and architect
have made efforts to contact the neighbors and dialogue with them. This has not
happened. Also, when there appears to be real concern, the planning commission
has asked that the parties to get together and talk. This has not happened to my
knowledge. Our only dialogue has been at the commission hearing in a
confrontational situation with a limited time to talk with no opportunity to even ask
a question later.
I believe the 'function of the planning commission is to hear from people, to get the
parties together to attempt to come to a mutual concessus with compromises to
create good relationships and understandings. It appears to me that you are meeting
a legal requirement of having a hearing in this case, but not really interested in
getting people together to seek an understanding and possible solution that is
agreeable to all parties. I hope that this not true.
One thing that has been troubling to me is that Section 20.91.035 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code provides "that in order to grant a use permit, the Planning
Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or
building applied for, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or
be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood."
Almost all the people on the boardwalk who reside within a block in a half of either
side of the Balboa Inn have signed a statement that this project does not meet that
provision. It is detrimental and injurious to them and their property. I am interested
in your response to this.
Thank you for your service to the City Of Newport Beach.
Vic Sherreitt
v
PACIFIC COAST
REALTY G R O U P
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
B
PM
eve
r �
s •
� r
r, ,v i-
i ell/.
i Alt- /
3:14 li.Ntif I7 "fit Sritr.i:"f • $tff�C I IK • Ct ri'f.� \lii5.�. C:\ 5l3(i37 • (7ld) (i31- (iOO(i I': \X 1: I4) (i:f l -U.�i RO
�3
JAMES W. READ, JR.
P. O. BOX 780
BALBOA, CA 92661 -0780
(949) 673 -0782
July 19, 2000
City of Newport Beach
Ms. Sharon Z. Wood
Assistant City Manager
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach; CA 92658
Re: Use Permit 3661
Hearing Date: July 20, 2000
Dcar Ms. Wood,
Enclosed with this letter are accompanying materials with questions, observations,
and recommendations that I have submitted to each of the planning commissioners.
1 would solicit your help in expanding the scope, of not just this project and my
recommendation but to include all of the proposed improvements to implement the
rehabilitation of our peninsula.
Very truly yours,
JAMES W. READ, JR.
} 53.
JAMES W. READ, JR.
P. O. BOX 780
BALBOA, CA 92661 -0780
(949) 673 -0782
July 19, 2000
City of Newport Beach
Patricia L. Temple,
Planning Director
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Dear Ms. Temple,
Enclosed with this letter is a packet of questions, observations and
recommendations that I have submitted to each of the planning commissioners.
I have tried in my analysis to be constructive and forward thinking regarding my
home and the surrounding neighborhood in which I have lived for the past 26 years.
Very truly yours,
JAMES W. READ, JR.
133
Petition
We the undersigned OPPOSE the expansion of the Balboa In at
105 Main, Balboa, CA problems traffic
We feel that this project would increase the already bad p
and noise in the area. That it would greatly decrease the enjoyment and
peace of residence and visitors as they walk by aid feel the closed feeling of
a large building on the ocean front. We also feel that the project would not
add to the Balboa Village in a positive way.
The project consists of the demolition of the existing retail building and pool area south of
Ocean Front. The applicant proposes to construct a two and three -story building for 11
new guest rooms for the Balboa Inn, 2060 square feet of retail space and a partially open
parking garage with 20 tandem parking spans. The project exceeds the basic allowable
building height by 5 feet and the allowable floor area by 2,205 square feet.
Name Address Date
Petition
We the undersigned OPPOSE the expansion of the Balboa In at
105 Main, Balboa, CA
We fee14hat this project would increase the already bad problems with traffic
and noisd in the area. That it would greatly decrease the enjoyment and
peace of residence and visitors as they walk by and feel the closed feeling of
a large building on the ocean front. We also feel that the project would not
add to the Balboa Village in a positive way.
The prpiect consists of the demolition of the existing retail building and pool area south of
Ckean Front. The applicant proposes to construct a two and three -story building for 1 I
new 9" rooms for the Balboa Inn, 20W square feet of retail space and a partially open
parking garage with 20 tandem parking spaces. The project exceeds the basic allowable
building height by 5 feet and the allowable floor area by 2,205 square feet.
Name Address Date
131�
TO: NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: THE PEOPLE IMPACTED
We strongly oppose the proposed building expansion for the Balboa Inn, 105 Main
Street, Balboa as it will be DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, PEACE,
COMFORT, and GENERAL WELFARE; and be DETRIMENTAL and
INJURIOUS TO PROPERTY and IMPROVEIa NTS in the NEIGHBORHOOD. II
NAME ADDRESS
7p�1
66/
F area F,�,6 ac 6�i, vrc6/
TO: NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: THE PEOPLE IMPACTED
We strongly oppose the proposed building expansion for the Balboa Inn, 105 Main
Street, Balboa as it will be DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, PEACE,
COMFORT, and GENERAL WELFARE; and be DETRIMENTAL and
INJURIOUS TO PROPERTY and IMPROVEMENTS in the NEIGHBORHOOD.
NAME ADDRESS 0
13'�
i 3w
A MEASURE TO AMEND THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY CHARTER TO
REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL OF CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE
NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN.
The proposed Measure, if approved, would amend the Newport Beach City
Charter (Charter) to require voter approval of certain amendments to the Newport
Beach General Plan (General Plan). The Measure would require voter approval of any
amendment to the General Plan that has been adopted by the City Council and is
defined as a "major amendment'. A "major amendment" is defined as one that would,
individually or in combination with previous amendments in the "same neighborhood ",
generate more than 100 peak hour trips (trips), add more than 100 dwelling units
(density), or add more than 40,000 square feet of floor area (intensity). To determine if
any specific amendment is "major", the trips, density or intensity of that amendment are
added to 80% of the trips, density or intensity resulting from other amendments affecting
the "same neighborhood" that have been adopted by the City Council within the
preceding ten years. Amendments affect the "same neighborhood" if they affect the
same Statistical Area as shown on the excerpt (page 89) from the Land Use Element of
the General Plan that is attached to the petition.
Any "major amendment' adopted by the City Council would not take effect until
submitted to the electorate at the first municipal election after adoption and approved by
a majority of those voting on the measure. The City Council may submit a "major
amendment' to the electorate at a special election if the City and the applicant for the
amendment agree to share the costs of the special election. Each "major amendment'
must be presented to the electorate as a separate and distinct ballot measure that is
worded so that a "Yes" vote approves the amendment and a "No" vote rejects the
amendment. The voter approval requirement of the proposed Measure would apply to
any "major amendment' unless prohibited by state or federal law.
The proposed Measure includes six "Paragraphs" with various titles beginning
with `Purpose" and ending with "Severability ". If the proposed Measure is approved
these 'Paragraphs" would not become part of the City Charter but do express the intent
of the voters and would provide guidance in interpreting, implementing and
administering the City Charter. The proposed Measure is intended to apply to all "major
amendments" initiated after the filing of the Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition" (June
21, 1999) except those amendments that have a "vested right" to proceed. The "peak
hour trips" generated by any amendment are to be calculated using the "most recent
version" of the Trip Generation Manual of the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
)�l
INITI, E MEASURE TO BE SUBMITTED DIRECTLY TO THI TERS
The ctry attorney has prepareo ...e following title and summary of the chief purpose and point, .rf the proposed measure:
"A MEASURE TO AMEND THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY CHARTER TO REQUIRE VOTER
APPROVAL OF CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN
The proposed measure, if approved. would amend the Newport Beath City Charter (Charter) to require voter
Approval of certain amendments to the Newport Beach General Plan (General Plan} The Measure would require voter
approval of any amendment to the General Nan that has been adopted by the Ci Council and is defined at a "major
amendment.'• A "major amendment" is defined as one that would, individually or in combination with previous
amendments in the "same neighborhood ". generate more than 100 peak hour trippss (trips), add more than 100 dwelling
units (density). or add more than 40.000 square fat of floor area ('Intensity} To determine if any specific amendment is
"major", the trips, density or intensity of that amendment are added to 130% of the tri ppss.. density or Intensity resulting
from other amendments affecting the "same neighborhood" that have been adopted Dy the City Council within the
preceding ten years, Amendments affect the "same neighborhood" if they affect the same SStatistical Area as shown on the
excerpt (page 39) from the Land Use Element of the General Plan that is attached to the petition
Any major amendment" adopted by the City Council would not take effect until submitted to the electorate at the first
municipa� election after adoption and approved by a ma'ority of those voting on the measure The City Council may
submit a "major amendment" to the electorate at a s=' election if the City and the applicant for the amendment agree
to share the costs of the special elation, Each "major amendment' must be presented to the electorate as a separate and
distinct ballot measure that is worded so that a "Yes" vote approves the amendment and a "No" vote rejects the
amendment The voter approval requirement of the proposed Measure would apply to any "major amendment" unless
prohibited by state or federal law.
e proposed Measure includes see "Paragraphs" with various titles beginning with "Purpose" and ending with
"Severability" . If the proposed Measure is approved these ••Paragraphs•' would not become part of the CRY Charter but
do express the intent of the voters and would provide guidance in interpreting. implementing and administering the City
Charter. The proposed Measure is intended to apply to all "major amendments initiated after the filing of the Notice of
Intent to Circulate Petition" (June 21. 1999) except those amendments that have a "vested right" to proceed. The "peak
hour trips" generated by any amendment are to be calculated using the "mast recent version" of the Trip Generation
Manual of the Institute of Transportation Englnetm..
Petition for-Submission to Voters of Proposed Amendment to the Chatter of the City of Newport Beach.
To the city council of the City of Newport Beath: We. the undersigned. registered and qualified voters of the State of
California. residents of the City of Newport Beach. pursuant to Section 3 of Article XI of the California Constitution and
Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 34450) of Part I of Division 2 of Tide 4 of the Government Code, present to the city
council of the city this petition and request that the following proposed amendment to the charter of the city be submitted
to the registered and qualified voters of the city for their adoption or rejection at an election on a date to be determined by
the city council.
The proposed charter amendment reads as follows:
First Amendment. Article N of the City (hurter of Newport Beach is amended by adding the following provisions as Section 423:
"Section 423. Protection from Traffic and Density.
Voter approval is required for any major amendment to the Newport Beach General
Plan. A "major amendment" is one that significantly increases the maximum amount
of traffic that allowed uses could generate, or significantly increases allowed density or
intensity. "Significantly increases" means over 100 peak hour trips (traffic), or over
100 dwelling units (density), or over 40,000 square feet of floor area (intensity); these
- - (7he proposed amendment is continued on the other side of this paper.) - - - - - - - - - -
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC: THIS PETITION MAY BE CIRCULATED BY A PAID
SIGNATURE GATHERER OR A VOLUNTEER. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK. This column for
All signers of this petition must be registered to vote in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. official use only
DECLARATION�jr MCULATOR,t,-90 be comylett�)fler above signatures have been obtained.)
(PRINT your name �) 1. e• • ,. )un register d� vote in the City of Newport Beach,
Orange County, California. My residence address is•, j ,t-. - ' " �>
I circulated this petition and saw each of therappended signatures be' wri Each signature on this petition is, to the best of
my information and belief, the genuine simahlre f the person whose 7tle i t be. All signature On this document were
obtained between the dates of A and / )arc utld&jTofy of perjury under the
laws of the State o ('.�Iifr,mi at a goilp a�d correct. / L ... �J
at.4 a /j California. Signature i• ^�
Executed on J _1) .. .. i
�Lit)
(Print N ' -
(Rcst4enx Address ONLYa
(Signature;
(Prinl(a )_ /� - /
(Ci (Y) (Date'
(Residence Address 9DLYI
2.
(Signature).
( try (Date)
(Print Np-,�t .
(Residence A$yms OM.Y) -
3.
(Signature) I r
(Prim Name) �� a
(City) . r r (Date) - --
(Residence Address ONLY) n
'
4.
_
(Signature)
(Prim Nam)
'-fin
(City: (Date))
(Residence Address ONLY)
5.
(Signature)
(City) (Date)
DECLARATION�jr MCULATOR,t,-90 be comylett�)fler above signatures have been obtained.)
(PRINT your name �) 1. e• • ,. )un register d� vote in the City of Newport Beach,
Orange County, California. My residence address is•, j ,t-. - ' " �>
I circulated this petition and saw each of therappended signatures be' wri Each signature on this petition is, to the best of
my information and belief, the genuine simahlre f the person whose 7tle i t be. All signature On this document were
obtained between the dates of A and / )arc utld&jTofy of perjury under the
laws of the State o ('.�Iifr,mi at a goilp a�d correct. / L ... �J
at.4 a /j California. Signature i• ^�
Executed on J _1) .. .. i
�Lit)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. (Proposed amendment. continued) • - -- • - • - • - - - - - • - -
thrlds shall apply to the total of. 1) Increases resulting from the amendment
itself, plus 2) Eighty percent of the increases resulting from other amendments
affecting the same neighborhood and adopted within the preceding ten years.
"Other amendments" does not include those approved by the voters.
"Neighborhood" shall mean a Statistical Area as shown in the Land Use Element
of the General Plan, page 89, in effect from 1988 to 1998, and new Statistical Areas
created from time to time for land subsequently annexed to the City.
"Voter approval is required" means that the amendment shall not take effect
unless it has been submitted to the voters and approved by a majority of those
voting on it Any such amendment shall be submitted to a public vote as a separate
and distinct ballot measure notwithstanding its approval by the city council at the
same time as one or more other amendments to the City's General Plan. The city
council shall set any election required by this Section for the municipal election
next following city council approval of the amendment, or, by mutual agreement
with the applicant for the amendment, may call a special election for this purpose
with the cost of the special election shared by the applicant and the City as they
may agree. In any election required by this Section, the ballot measure shall be
worded such that a YES vote approves the amendment and a NO vote rejects the
amendment; any such election in which the ballot measure is not so worded shall
be void and shall have no effect.
This Section shall not apply if state or federal law precludes a vote of the
voters on the amendment."
(End of amendment. But the proposed ballot measure also includes the following Second" through -Seventh".)
Second. Purpose. It is the purpose of the amendment to give the voters the power to prevent Newport Beach
from becoming a traffic - congested city, by requiring their approval for any change to the City's General Plan that
may significantly increase allowed traffic; and also to make sure that major changes do not escape scrutiny by
being presented piecemeal as a succession of small changes.
Third. Findings. 1. In planning the growth of their city and protecting its quality of life, a prime
concem of the people of Newport Beach is to avoid congestion and gridlock from too much traffic.
2. The General Plan guides growth in the City of Newport Beach by designating land use categories for
all lands in the City, and providing limits on the allowed density and intensity of use for each land use category.
3. The General Plan already provides for additional growth in the City; if all development allowed by the
General Plan were to be built, the traffic generated in the City would increase by about 20%.
4. The people, whose quality of life is at stake, should have the power to disapprove any proposed
General Plan amendment that may significantly increase traffic congestion beyond that which could already occur
from development under the General Plan.
Fourth. Implementation. 1. It is the intent of the foregoing amendment to the City Charter of the City of
Newport Beach that, to the maximum extent permitted by law, it apply to all amendments to the General Plan
approved by the Newport Beach city council after the time of filing of the Notice Of Intent To Circulate Petition,
provided that it shall not apply to any amendment for a development project which has obtained a "vested right"
as of the effective date of the foregoing amendment to the City Charter. A "vested right" shall have been
obtained if:
Page two
. - '41
(a) The project has received final approval of vesting tentative map. As to such vesting tentative maps,
however, they shall be exempt only to the extent that development is expressly authorized in the vesting tentative
map itself, or
(b) The project has obtained final approval of a Development Agreement as authorized by the California
Government Code; or
(c) The following criteria are met with respect to the project:
(i) The project has received a building permit, or where no building permit is required, its final discretionary
approval, and
(ii) Substantial expenditures have been incurred in good faith reliance on the building permit, or where no
building permit is required, the final discretionary approval for the project; and
(iii) Substantial construction has been performed in good faith reliance on the building permit, or where no
building permit is required, on the final discretionary approval.
Phased projects shall qualify for vested rights exemptions only on a phase by phase basis consistent with
California law.
2. The city council is encouraged to adopt guidelines to implement the foregoing amendment to the City
Charter of the City of Newport Beach following public notice and public hearing, provided that any such
guidelines shall be consistent with the amendment and its purposes and findings. Any such guidelines shall be
adopted by not less than six affirmative votes, and may be amended from time to time by not less than six
affirmative votes.
3. The City shall take all steps necessary to defend vigorously any challenge to the validity of the
foregoing amendment to the City Charter of the City of Newport Beach.
4. Peak hour trip generation rates shall be calculated using the most recent version of the Trip Generation
Manual of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The city may fine -tune these rates, but not to less than 95%
of the rates in the Manual..
Filth. Attachment. Attached to this petition is a copy of page 89 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan,
showing the "Statistical Areas" of the City of Newport Beach.
Sixth. Construction. Nothing herein shall be construed to make illegal any lawful use presently being made of
any land or to prohibit the development of any land in accordance with the provisions of the City's General Plan
in force at the time of filing of the Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition.
Seventh. Severabillty. If any part of this initiative is declared invalid on its face or as applied to a particular
case, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts, or their application to other cases. It is
hereby declared that each part of this initiative would have been adopted irrespective of the fact that any one or
more other parts be declared invalid. "Part" is generic, including but not limited to: Word, clause, phrase,
sentence, paragraph, subsection, section, and provision.
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Endq(pro sedballormeasure.
Po ) - - - - - - - - - - - - =- - - - -
The following copy of the Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition is printed here as required by Elections Cade soctions 9207 and 9256:
Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition
Notice is hereby given by the persons whose names appear hereon of their intention to circulate the
petition within the City of Newport Beach for the purpose of submitting to the voters a proposed amendment to
the Charter of the City of Newport Beach. A statement of the reasons of the proposed action as contemplated
in the Petition is as follows:
Future growth in Newport Beach is guided by the General Plan. To avoid gridlock, this limits growth to
what will produce about 200/a more traffic than we have now. Even that limit is now in danger. Lobbyists are
putting heavy pressure on the city council to keep granting General Plan changes which will raise that limit ever
higher. Requiring a vote of the people on any change which raises that limit significantly will take pressure off
the city council, and protect the people from unwanted increases.
Date of first publication: July 30, 1999. Si gn ed: Evelyn R Harr, Philip L Ars4 Thomas E. N y
mts, proponents
Page three
1`��
u
P
I
u
p
va..,, ao
Page four
TO THE CIRCULATOR: Thank you for volunteering to help out.
Please watch the signatures being written, so you can sign the "Declaration of Circulator"
underneath them. Where it says "obtained between the dates of and ," put
in the first date and the last date among the five signature dates. Then sign the declaration and
return the petition to the person who gave it to you. or mail it to
GREENLIGNf
P.O. Box 100
Balboa Island CA 92662 -0100 Thank you.
CITY F N ('IIel') k- ,-+,+- 1-32-t, C'
O
E1N�g�'�ACH
APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No. '0U 01120 All •29
Name of Appellant �FI.G'6 6F i <tE IIITY.GL�BK
or person filing: James W. Read, Jr. etTY F NE RORT �Rlhone:
Address: P.O. Box 780, Balboa, CA 92661
Date of Planning Commission decision: December 7, 200
Regarding application of:
Exnansion of the Balboa Inn (UP 3683)
(Description of application filed with Planning Commission)
(949)673 -0782
Use permit requesting height and bulk (square frontage) exceeding that
allowed by Municipal Code.
Reasons for Appeal :
Flawed EIR - Inadequate consideration of cumulative effects of
the "project" when combined with other area projects and /or proposals
re: traffic, pollution, quality of life, etc. Excessive development -
Green Light consideration.
4 !6)4
of Appellant
CLERK
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received:
Date Dec. 19, 2000
r.�
for
Hearing Date. An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing before the City Council within thirty (30) days of the
filing of the appeal unless both applicant and appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date (NBMC Sec.
20.95.050)
cc: Appellant
Planning (Furnish one set of mailing labels for mailing)
File
APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.95.0408
Appeal Fee: $287 pursuant to Resolution No. 2000 -59 adopted on 6 -27 -00 (eff. 7/1/00)
(Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #2700 -5000)
To: Newport City Council RECEIVED
From: Vic Sherreitt
Subject: Use Permit No. 3683 Balboa Inn '01 A —5 P 3 '02
Date: January 4, 2001
RECEIVED
JAN 0 5 2001
CITY ATTORNEY'S
I own the property at 704 E. Ocean Front, next���{arn unable to attend the
hearing as I have a previous obligation to about ewport peop a cannot be changed.
I ask you not to grant a Use Permit to build an oversize building as approved by the Planning
Commission by a split 4 to 3 vote. The proposed building will be detrimental to the peace,
comfort, and general welfare of the persons residing in the neighborhood. It will also be injurious
to the property owners on the board walk on either side of the Balboa Inn.
A three story building will greatly restrict the view of many residents. Looking from the front
deck of our property, you will see this tall three story building looming up on the front east side.
It will restrict the light. By reducing the view, it will reduce the property values for many
properties along the board walk.
An attractive building that fits into the building and zoning ordinances without requiring a Use
Permit could be designed and built.
According to Section 20.91.035 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code " In order to grant any
use permit, the Planning Commission shall find that the establishment, maintenance, or operation
of the use or building applied for WILL NOT be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals,
comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood; or be
detrimental or injurious to property or improvementsin the neighborhood."
We have submitted to the Planning Commission petitions with 62 signatures asking that the Use
Permit not be approved. Almost all the property owners and residents on the board walk for
about one & one/half blocks on either side of the Balboa Inn have signed.
I have asked the Planning Commission at each of the hearings about Section 20.91.035. The four
commissioners voting for the Use Permit have refused to respond.
Could, you, as our elected council persons please respond ? Does this Section mean anything or
is the Planning Commission now changing the rules ?
G
v A',
Vic Sherreitt
400 S. Bay Front
Balboa Island, Ca 92662
949 673 -6640
0110912001 14:58 --- 19496443250
q4 q, L 4`i'- --x.) A'S n
N0.671 [Pool
"RECEIVED AMR AGENDA
PRINTED:" IF Q-- I:q-01
- I- - - -.-, - --- -- - - - .. . /- r/- 6 /
ot cT