Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBalboa Inn, LLC (PA2002-236)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 3 January 9, 2003 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner, (949) 644 -3210 Campbell Q city. newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Balboa Inn Expansion — Amendment to Use Permit No. 3683 APPLICANT NAME: Balboa Inn, LLC — Michel Pourmussa, Managing partner ISSUE: Should the Planning Commission approve an amendment to a previously approved Use Permit for the expansion of the Balboa Inn to be located at 707 E. Ocean Front? RECOMMENDATION: Hold a public hearing and approve the requested amendment to Use Permit No. 3683 subject to the findings and conditions of approval within the attached draft resolution (Exhibit No. 1). DISCUSSION: Background: The Planning Commission considered and approved Use Permit No. 3683 on December 7, 2000. This decision was upheld by the City Council on appeal on January 9, 2001. The original project involved 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 site is located at 707 E. Ocean Front, which is on the ocean side of Ocean Front adjacent to the Balboa Inn. The application was required as the visitor accommodations require a Use Permit pursuant to the Zoning Code. Additionally, the Use Permit allowed the project to exceed the 0.5 floor area ratio, building bulk and established a maximum height of 29.5 feet to the midpoint of the roof, which is in excess of the 26 -foot base height limit. The project applicant has received approval of the project from the Coastal Commission. The three previous staff reports and minutes of the meetings are attached as Exhibits 2 -7. Balboa Inn — UP3683A January 9, 2003 Page 2 Project Changes: Changes to the project are necessary to comply with the Building and Fire Codes. Additionally, as the project was refined from the conceptual "planning" phase to obtain a building permit, additional changes are requested to make the project functional. Several changes, including an elevator and other architectural features proposed, exceed the height limit established by Use Permit No. 3683. Additionally, collective changes in the project have reduced the open space, landscaping, commercial area and available parking; however, the project will continue to provide the required parking such that no parking waiver is necessary. Staff concluded that the collective changes to the project required an amendment to the Use Permit. The individual changes to the parking are summarized as follows and are depicted in the revised drawings (Exhibits 8 & 9): 1. Elevator — The Building and Fire Department has determined that an elevator is required for disabled and fire access to all three levels of the project. Additionally, the use of the existing elevator in the older portion of the Balboa Inn via the bridge Balboa Inn — UP3683A January 9, 2003 Page 3 over Ocean Front cannot satisfy this requirement as was anticipated in the prior approval. Therefore the applicant has included an elevator to the third level with the peak of the elevator penthouse at 34 feet. The height of this feature exceeds the height limit established with the original approval of 29.5 feet to the midpoint of other roofs elements. The applicant has made every effort to minimize the height of this feature by using a hydraulic model with a minimum amount of overrun (height above the elevator cab), reducing ceiling heights and the garage clearance. The elevator tower is approximately 9 feet square to accommodate a gurney sized elevator that is required by the Fire Department. The elevator tower reduces the visual open space previously used to off -set the increased height and bulk of the project. 2. Exterior walkways The requirement for the elevator necessitates walkways from all third floor rooms to the elevator as opposed to stairways leading down to the second level. These walkways also occupy the visual open space previously used to off -set the increased height of the project. The redesigned project also includes an additional exiting stairway from the second level to the parking area. This additional exit is required by the Building Code, displaces two parking spaces and incrementally reduces the open space over the parking, which again was used to off -set the increased height and bulk of the project. This exit stair is denoted on the plans as Stair #2. 3. Elevated architectural features In two places at the third level, a round roof element has been included that exceeds the height limit previously established. These features are roughly 11 feet in diameter and are 2 feet higher than originally planned. It should be noted that the current architect for the project has concluded that the original design for these features based upon the approved elevations is technically infeasible. 4. Reduced parking & commercial area The additional exit stair, elevator, mechanical space, utility space and a van accessible loading area for the disabled parking space have displaced area originally planned for parking and has impacted the location of the commercial space. The applicant has incorporated the outdoor walkway /patio within the interior commercial space; however the total commercial space has been reduced. The original project had 1,350 square feet of enclosed commercial area and a 710 square foot outdoor walkway for a total of 2,060 square feet. This total area was used for establishing required parking. The revised project has approximately 1,790 gross square feet of commercial area (excluding mechanical areas for the hotel). The total required parking for the expansion project is 11 spaces (5.1 spaces for the Balboa Inn — UP3683A January 9, 2003 Page 4 commercial area at 1 space per 350 square feet plus 5.5 spaces for the 11 new rooms at 1 space for every 2 rooms). The revised parking area provides 17 spaces, a reduction of 3 spaces from the previously approved plan, which exceeds required parking by 6 spaces. The original plan required a total of 12 spaces. 5. Smaller landscaped courtyard The original plan had a 340 square foot landscaped court between a portion of the parking area and ocean front. The planter has been reduced to approximately 200 square feet and will be partly covered by a disabled access ramp from the existing bridge to the spa level. This ramp cannot be eliminated nor reduced without increasing the height of the overall project or reconstructing a portion of the bridge to accommodate the ramp. Additionally, the water feature originally planned for this area has been eliminated. 6. Other architectural features A comparison between the approved and proposed elevations shows a reduced number of windows and changes in window locations. The primary reason in the reduction is that the original plan had multiple windows in places where windows are not traditionally located in a hotel room. For instance, windows are not located in the wall where the head of the bed is located and large windows are not generally located in bathrooms. Further comparison of the elevations shows that the revised plans do not incorporate a decorative balustrade for the third level railings but use a thin wrought iron rail. Additionally, several awnings are not present due to window changes and window moldings are less massive. The reason for eliminating the third level balustrade and reducing the mass of the moldings is to reduce the weight of these features for structural purposes. Additionally, the architect wanted to make the railings as open as possible. Analysis: The net effect of the changes primarily impacts visual open space and building height, both of which were important considerations to the original project approval. The findings for increased area, bulk and height are discussed in detail in the previous staff report and are summarized as follows: Increased area and bulk: • The project provides reduced traffic and parking demand • The project does not significantly impair public views • The project does not create an abrupt change in scale • The project provides innovative designs • The project is compatible with the area Balboa Inn — UP3683A January 9, 2003 Page 5 Increased height: • The increased height increases public visual open space and views • The increased height does not create abrupt height relationships • The increased height creates enhanced architecture • The project has no more area than otherwise allowed (waived by alternative development regulation per Central Balboa Specific area plan — see previous staff report). The locations of the new features for the third level are centrally located within the project setback from Ocean Front by 13 to 20 feet. The elevator tower is approximately 20 feet from Ocean Front, approximately 31 feet from Main Street and approximately 26 feet from the property line separating the site from the Balboa Pier public parking lot. The new elevator tower at 34 feet high and the two round roof elements are not very massive when compared to the overall project mass and the increased height of these features is not out of scale with the project and abutting structures of similar height. The presence of the elevator tower and third level walkways and other exits reduce open areas, which were important factors in the decision to allow the original project to exceed floor area, bulk and height limits. The location of the features, being central to the project mass, again helps to off -set the loss of open space. From the public's vantage point, these features will not block any important view any more so than the approved project would have. The primary impact to views will be from the existing Balboa Inn. The location of stair #2 near at Ocean Front maintains the expected view of the ocean from the nearby homes to the west across Ocean Front. The gross area of the project remains the same at 1.3 FAR although the bulk of the project increases with the elevator tower and walkways. The third level walkways do not actually increase the actual numerical calculation of building bulk, but their presence impacts the perception of open area between the two separated room blocks. The elevator tower increases project bulk by approximately 1.7% over the approved project bulk. Again, with the location and size of the elevator tower, staff believes that the required findings can be made. The reduced landscaped court with its partial cover reduces open area between the project and Ocean Front. This decrease in open space is partially tempered with the 10- foot wide landscape area provided within Ocean Front between the project and the pedestrian walkway. The overall architectural character of the project was also an important aspect of project approval. It should be noted that the plans at this stage are not as detailed as they will be prior to issuance of a building permit. Additionally, the revised plans are not hand drawn as with the original plans. Computer aided drafting has the tendency to make the plans seem less inviting. The applicant has prepared a colored rendering of the project for review (Exhibit No. 8). The basic architectural design and many of the details substantially conform to the original plans and it should be noted that the revised plans better reflect a project that can be built in compliance with applicable codes as opposed to the original Balboa Inn — UP3683A January 9, 2003 Page 6 conceptual plans. Finally, the Commission included a condition of approval requiring that the applicant pay the costs of having the Planning Department use an independent design consultant to oversee the plan check process to ensure project quality. Although staff has not availed itself of this opportunity at this point, staff plans to use this resource for final plan review provided that the Planning Commission considers the amendments to the project favorably. Environmental Review: The Commission reviewed and approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the original project. Staff believes that the environment and the project have not changed significantly to require additional environmental review and that the previous mitigated negative declaration remains adequate. Public Notice: Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot with the agenda, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Alternatives: The Planning Commission has the following alternatives: 1. The Commission can decline to approve the amendment to the Use Permit. This action will require the project to be redesigned without a third level as the original project cannot be implemented in compliance with the Building and Fire Code. The applicant has indicated that a modified project such as that would not be pursued at this time. The existing approval will remain effective for the existing Balboa Inn. 2. The Commission can modify the project to mitigate the specific concerns of the Commission or community resulting from the changes to the project. CONCLUSION: Staff believes that the findings for project approval can be re- affirmed with some changes to the facts related to the changes to the project. Staff has prepared a draft resolution for project approval which restates the original findings and conditions of approval as approved by the Planning Commission and modified by the City Council (Exhibit No. 1). Prepared by: 4WW all mes Camp II, Sehybr Planner Attachments: Balboa Inn — UP3683A January 9, 2003 Page 7 Submitted by: Patricia Temple, Pla Wing Director 1. Draft resolution for project approval. 2. City Council Staff report dated 1/09/2001. 3. Excerpt of minutes from Council meeting 1/09/2001. 4. Planning Commission Staff report dated 12/07/2000. 5. Excerpt of minutes from 12/07/2000. 6. Planning Commission Staff report dated 10/05/2000. 7. Excerpt of minutes from 10/05/2000. 8. Colored rendering of revised elevations. 9. Revised plans including original elevations for comparison. 10. Original floor plans. This Page Left Intentionally Blank G Attachment No. 1 Draft resolution for project approval. 0 This Page Left Intentionally Blank 1d RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING AMENDED USE PERMIT NO. 3683 FOR THE BALBOA INN LOCATED AT 105 MAIN STREET & 707 E. OCEAN FRONT. (PA2002 -236) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. On January 9, 2001, at a noticed public hearing, the City approved Use Permit No. 3683 for the existing Balboa Inn located at 105 Main Street to operate as a conforming use pursuant to the Use Permit and an expansion to the inn proposed for 707 E. Ocean Front. The sites are legally described as Lots 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 in Block 10 of the Balboa Tract and the easterly 135 feet of the northerly 55 feet of Lot D of the Balboa Tract. The expansion project consisted of the demolition of all structures at 707 E. Ocean Front and the construction of a two and three story structure consisting of 11 new guest suites, guest spa area, approximately 2,060 square feet of retail space, and a partially covered 20 space, tandem parking area. The use permit authorized the expansion project to exceed the floor area ratio, building bulk and established a height limit in excess of 26 feet. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared, considered and adopted for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Section 2. An application was filed by Michel Pourmussa, managing member of the Balboa Inn LLC., with respect to property located at 707 E. Ocean Front, requesting approval of an amendment to Use Permit No. 3683 to permit changes to the approved project including an increase in bulk, an increase in height of certain features as well as other architectural and design changes. The proposed changes were not within the scope of the original approval. Section 3. A public hearing was held on January 9, 2003 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California regarding the requested amendment to the approved project. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given in accordance with the Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. Section 4. The Planning Commission finds as follows: 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 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 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 11 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. 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 payment 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. f� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 11 10. Approval of Use Permit No. 3683, and this amendment 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 760 square feet, which is 7.8% 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. 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 11 (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 does provide 8 excess parking stalls that will 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 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 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. 9 � City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 5 of I 1 (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. (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 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 tiles, 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 in 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 landscaping within the area. Section 5. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Use Permit No. 3683 and this amendment to the use permit, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A." Section 6. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is called for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 15 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Pace 6 of 11 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2003. M FEW Steven Kiser, Chairman Shant Agajanian, Secretary AYES: NOES: 14 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Paee 7 of 11 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL USE PERMIT NO. 3683 Amended 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 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. 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 development at 105 Main Street. 2. All previous discretionary approvals for the 105 Main Street project site, 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 development 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 restrictive covenant shall be prepared and recorded in the title of both the existing 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 the City Attorney's approval prior to recordation. 7. 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. Perimeter landscaping required pursuant to Section 20.45.035(L) of the Municipal Code shall not be required. 11 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 8 of 11 8. 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. 9. 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: 10.All improvements within the public right of way shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 11. 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. 12.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. 13.The final design of all on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to the approval of the Traffic Engineer. 14. 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. 15.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. 16.The applicant shall provide wheel stops or other approved protective barrier methods as necessary within the parking facility. 17. 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. 18.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 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 9 of 11 extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study shall be the responsibility of the developer. 19.Any Edison transformer serving the site shall be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110 -L. 20. 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. 21.The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 22. 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. 23.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. 24.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. 25.The parking spaces shall be marked with approved traffic markers or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide. 26. 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. 27. The applicant shall be vested in the Use Permit for the existing 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. 28.The applicant shall pay all outstanding Transient Occupancy Tax within 30 days of the approval of the project by the California Coastal Commission. 29.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 11 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Paee 10 of 11 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. Mitigation measures 30. 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. 31. During construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that the project will comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance), to reduce odors from construction activities 32. 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. 33. 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). 34. 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. 35. 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. 36.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 ISE City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Paae 11 of 11 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. 37. 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. 38. 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. 39. 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. A This Page Left Intentionally Blank M Attachment No. 2 City Council Staff report dated 1/09/2001. R This Page Left Intentionally Blank A 1 '•� -.� �e�EW �J 1� C7(IC00.0. PROJECT: 1"� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 6443250 PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: RECOMMENDED ACTION: ALTERNATIVES: GENERAL PLAN: ZONE: OWNER: Introduction Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Balboa Inn & Expansion 105 Main Street & 707 Ocean Front January 9, 2001 James Campbell (949) 6443210 None FILE COPY 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. Hold a public hearing and Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to Approve Use Permit No. 3683. The City Council has the option to deny the project or modify the project. Retail & Service Commercial SP -8 (Central Balboa Specific Area Plan, Retail & Service Commercial) Michel Pourmussa, Managing Member of Balboa Inn, LLC. 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. ,25 �t 4.' Discussion C'5 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 1? (0 � 5 a� ka, i �4'j; 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 Q — Exhibits Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner L, JAIUMNLUGM0109W3683 ccrpt I-09 -0I.do Use Permit No. 3683 January 9, 2000 Page 3 )1 This Page Left Intentionally Blank ay Attachment No. 3 Excerpt of minutes from Council meeting 1/09/2001. al This Page Left Intentionally Blank p City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX r 20. BALBOA INN & EXPANSION - 105 MAIN STREET & 707 OCEAN 105 Main Street & FRONT - A USE PERMIT FOR THE BALBOA INN LOCATED AT 105 707 Ocean Front MAIN STREET ITS PROPOSED EXPANSION TO THE 707 OCEAN Use Permit 3683 FRONT PROPERTY. THE EXPANSION PROJECT INVOLVES THE (88) 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 FILE �o� APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF AN EXCEPTION TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO, BUILDING BULK AND BUILDING HEIGHT ESTABLISHED BY TITLE 10 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE EXPANSION. Council Member Bromberg announced that he must recuse himself due to a possible conflict of interest. He reported that the applicant's representative is a director with the Balboa Performing Arts Theater Foundation; he is an officer, director, and legal counsel for the Theater Foundation; and the Theater Foundation has taken a formal position on this issue, which creates an automatic bias. Planning Director Temple noted that this project does not include any significant alterations to the existing Balboa Inn at this time; however, construction will take place on the parcel of land across from the oceanfront boardwalk which is currently occupied by a small retail kiosk and a pool area that serves the Balboa Inn. She reported that the project includes construction of both retail and hotel facilities, and a partially covered parking area since the Inn currently has no parking of its own. She added that the project includes using the flexibility contained in the General Plan and zoning code to allow more floor area for low traffic generating land uses, which hotels are, and it also includes a request to exceed the basic height Limit to a secondary height limit allowed by the code through the approval of a use permit. James W. Read, Jr., P.O. Box 780, appellant, stated that he found it interesting that the people speaking on the last issue were discussing essentially what he, his neighbors, and the Central Newport Association oppose. He stated that they understand that they cannot totally oppose a building there since they are already entitled to build a smaller, less dense project. He reported that this project exceeds floor ratio and height, and that a 55 x 32 foot wall would block the view from his porch. He indicated that the Central Newport Association's policy states that they oppose the increase of hotel capacities, new hotel construction, and the licensing of additional take -out food service establishments within the boundaries of this Association, the beach, or the recreation area of the Peninsula. He stated that a neighbor east of the Inn submitted a petition containing about 63 names in opposition to this project and that there is no petition supporting the project. He expressed the opinion that the Balboa Inn, the Performing Arts Theater, and the Balboa parking lot, should be considered together since traffic has always been bad in the area. He also reported that about $55,000 in bed tax has not been paid and finds it disingenuous that the applicant Volume 54 - Page 26 31 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX said he was not aware of this. He also asked about the Greenlight provisions since this is an excessive project. Mayor Adams stated that the Planning Commission has required that the bed tax be paid before the applicant can receive a building permit. He noted that no one has entitlement to views; however, it appears that the view impact from Mr. Read's porch is relatively insignificant compared to the total view. Mr. Read stated that he would not be able to see all of the pier and the ocean to the east after construction, which is a loss of about 30 degrees of his view. Mayor Adams stated that, by looking at Mr. Read's photos, it appears that his view is already significantly blocked by palm trees. He noted that the staff report finds that the appeal packet does not present compelling new information that would render the Planning Commission's decision invalid. Mr. Read believed that Council is having a de novo hearing, adding that this would be an excessive building by way of use permit. In response to Mayor Adams' questions, Ms. Temple clarified that the use permit is for the height limit and to allow the project to make use of the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) provided in the General Plan and the zoning code which allows low traffic generating land uses to go to a higher 1.0 FAR. She stated that the use permit is still part of the approval and is a permitted level of development, not a variance level of development. With regard to the number of rooms, she indicated that this is a matter of design. Mayor Adams stated that NIr. Read contends that there is some similarity between this and the previous hearing; however, the last hearing was a variance. Further, Mr. Read suggests that Council is starting fresh, but the City Attorney pointed out that Council can take everything that the Planning Commission did into consideration. In response to Council Member Proctor's question, Mr. Read stated that there is no new or different circumstances that exist regarding his opposition. Regarding the unpaid hotel tax, Council Member Heffernan stated that it seems like the applicant is coming before Council owing 550,000 to the City and asking for a favor. He asked why the amount has accumulated for so long and why it is not a condition' for him to pay this up front before he does anything. City Attorney Burnham stated that he cannot state why the amount has accumulated to the extent that it has, but the issuance of a building permit is the firmest evidence that the proponent is taking advantage of a use permit that may be granted. Council Member Heffernan expressed the opinion that the City should receive the money sooner rather than wait for the applicant to get a building permit since the money is already owed. Mr. Burnham stated that Council can set a different timeframe for collection of the amount. He indicated that it was his understanding that the applicant was not the individual who was responsible for payment of the taxes before they accrued to the amount that they have. He stated that the condition has been placed, but Council can set a trigger of 90 days after this decision becomes final. Council Member Heffernan stated that, considering the size of the project, the applicant is going to be spending a lot more than $50,000 on architects and engineers to put together a construction drawing. Mr. Burnham suggested that Council ask whether the applicant consents to the condition. Volume 54 - Page 27 g,, City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX Ron Baers, representing the applicants /owners of the Balboa Inn (Raymond and Michelle Pourmussa), stated that the unpaid Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) was an inherited problem that the owners have been working with the City on for a year. Mr. Beers reported that the Balboa Village and Balboa Inn are within residential neighborhoods. He utilized illustrations to show that the proposed addition is to be constructed where the retail, storage building, and pool are currently located. He stated that the parcel and the Inn are part of Balboa's street grid and is part of the Village. He reported that the Inn has two story front wings, three story back wings, and is about 40 feet high. He added that many of the commercial buildings, including the Pavilion, are three stories high. He stated that Balboa Village is changing due to the City's reinvestment to beautify public streets and spaces, and to improve infrastructure. He believed that the proposed changes to the Inn will implement many of these improvemencs, particularly around the parcel. He added that the proposed addition will enhance the pedestrian environment by providing a street level, covered arcade along Main Street and by installing and maintaining about 3,000 square feet of landscape around the property at the owners' expense. He stated that other improvements include the provisions for a garden court and water feature. He indicated that they also propose to extend the historic attributes of the Inn, which is a Spanish colonial revival building, through the use of similar materials and details. He stated that they are providing a residentially scaled project that consists of two residential buildings (30x40 feet and 330x55 feet) which will be set over a sundeck with a spa, ground floor parking, retail, and an arcade. He pointed out that the City does provide flexibility in its regulations to encourage a better designed project. He added that they chose to set back the mass of the building by 28 feet to provide a landscaped frontage in front of the parking area. Mr. Beers emphasized that the Balboa Inn is a historic treasure in the Village and that the proposed addition reflects the historic values in its design and, therefore, extends the historic character along Main Street and Oceanfront, and when viewed from all sides. The existing Inn, for the last three years, has undergone significant reinvesting (exceeding $250,000) to refurbish and maintain the property, and to bring this historic treasure into a much better condition. He believed that the addition will ensure continued economic success for Balboa and will be a catalyst for revitalization of the Village. Further, the proposed 11 room addition doubles the number of ocean front quality rooms. He added that City policy for design standards in Balboa provide flexibility from the established standards when an innovative design is proposed. He stated that the tradeoff is that they are asking for an additional 755 square feet of FAR, noting that they have a maximum building height of 31 feet which is on the low end for buildings in the area. He believes that they have provided a proposal that is compatible in every way, scale, and character of Balboa. Council Member Heffernan asked Mr. Baers if he is empowered to make some concession relative to the unpaid TOT finding from the Planning Commission. Mr. Baers stated that the next step in the permitting process is to go to the Coastal Commission, which is a six month process and believed that this is one of the reasons why the time trigger was set before receiving Volume 54 - Page 28 53 - a City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 INDEX the building permit. Council Member Heffernan stated that he views this as an existing problem that the applicants should have known about when the property was purchased and that the City is being put -off over a tax that is owed. He emphasized that the redevelopment of the site does not change its current use-and the fact that the tax is due. He stated that, by the City putting this off, it is almost as if the City is a partner in the project. In response to Mayor Adams' question, Mr. Beers confirmed that the applicant agrees with all the conditions that were set by the Planning Commission. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway asked the City Attorney if the City can enforce that type of condition and noted that the City is within its right to enforce payment of the TOT right now. He stated that the issue is not conditioning this project but is a matter of having the Revenue Director seek payment. Tod White, 1120 East Balboa Boulevard, representing the Balboa Peninsula Point Association which consists of about 500 families as members, stated that he is president of the Association and, as a general principal, they are opposed to construction of new buildings on the ocean side of the boardwalk; however, the Board voted to support this proposal since it is an existing structure and it would be a significant improvement, considering what they are legally entitled to build. Speaking for himself and noting that the City is committing about $7.5 million for major improvements in the area, he encouraged Council to be very supportive of private capital being invested to improve the Balboa Village, especially since the owners are actually running the business. He believed that this complements what the City is already proposing to do in the area. Dona Colombero, 1002 East Ocean Front, believed that the proposal is a marvelous idea. She stated that almost everyone she knows has used the Inn and now it has a chance to be more financially viable by adding rooms. She indicated that everyone is waiting for the renaissance of the Village and that everyone feels that the Inn is a treasure and cornerstone. She stated that they happily support the improvement. Michele Roberge, Executive Director of the Balboa Performing Arts Theater, stated that she is voicing the Theater Foundation's support of the project. She indicated that she understands Mr. Read's concern regarding the view; however, she stated that she is more concerned about the view down Balboa Boulevard and Main Street. She reported that the Theater, the Inn, and all the business owners are trying to upgrade the neighborhood to make it more attractive and exciting, and make it a destination point for many people to enjoy. She noted that it is going to be her job once the Theater is open to attract patrons to drive down that street and find parking to come to an arts event at a small theater, and anything to entice people to come down to that area is welcomed. She stated that the Theater has a wonderful relationship with the Inn since it is her job to find first class hotel rooms for the artists that perform at the Theater. She emphasized that the Pavilion, the Theater, and the Inn are the anchors in Balboa Village and encouraged Council to support all growth to any and all of those entities. Dan Parr,. 1585 East Ocean, stated that he is speaking on behalf of himself and his wife, Diana, who support the project. He indicated that they have Volume 54 - Page 29 3 1 City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes ' January 9, 2001 INDEX 1 lived there for 24 years and have waited, with great excitement, for some change to the Village because it has been in the process of slow deterioration for a lot of years. He noted that the money the City has committed and the Theater project are very exciting, and reiterated that the Inn is an anchor in the Village.. He reported that he and his wife looked at the plans and drawings, and stated that the arcade along Main Street is a nice entry to the Balboa Pier. He stated that it is something that is offered in many pier communities and would offer a great improvement to the downtown shopping area. He pointed out that one of the reasons the Village is not more successful is because there is no close parking, but stated that this project is thoughtful in that the applicant will be creating 20 parking spaces devoted to the hotel. He added that the landscaping is also nice and fits with the Village they want to live in and enjoy. Bill Malcomb stated that most of the speakers have already given the same opinions that he has regarding support of the project. He reported that he is an architect, but has no relationship with the project or the architect who did the design, and has looked at the drawings very carefully and feels that the project is an extraordinarily sensitive solution to a very difficult problem. Further, he expressed the opinion that the Inn has bent over backwards to provide something that is consistent with the existing Inn and very sensitive in its detail and relationship to its neighbors. He added that this is a real opportunity for the Peninsula and expressed hope that Council will support the project. Rod E. Harter, 105 Main Street, stated that he is the Manager of Balboa Inn and believed that tonight is a wonderful example of democracy at work since everyone has had the opportunity to voice problems and issues. He noted that the Inn has been sensitively designed and will be an anchor for the Village. He thanked Council for listening to everyone. Gay Wassall-Kelly, 409 East Edgewater, President of the Balboa Merchant Owners Association (BMOA), stated that the Board agrees, with one abstention, to support the revitalization of downtown Balboa. She stated that, with the City's commitment of $7.5 million, it is a plus that the Balboa Inn, a private establishment, is willing to reinvest in Balboa. She noted that the project is a much needed improvement on the corner which is the main entrance to Balboa. She added that the plans are compatible with the historic Spanish flavor of the Inn and the expansion has the possibility of benefiting other businesses. Regarding parking and traffic, she stated that the Inn will provide 22 parking stalls which is almost impossible to have built. She indicated that the BMOA hopes that owners of other buildings and businesses will also invest in the future of Balboa. Bob Black indicated that everything he was going to say has basically been stated, but emphasized that the property owner is willing to put money back into his business to enhance it and hopefully start complementing what the City is going to be putting into the area. He expressed hope that other property owners will do the same. He added that the area is happy to see that the Inn will be creating more parking since it is very hard to come by. Dave Bejoc, 600 East Oceanfront, stated that he is not aware of anyone on the Planning Commission actually standing on his balcony or sitting in his Volume 54 - Page 30 35 I� City of Newport Beach City Council Minutes ' January 9, 2001 r INDEX den to see how this project would impact his property and the 23 others that reside at Rendezvous Condominiums. He indicated that no one who lives in the Village is going to argue that any improvement would be great compared to what is there now and asked why the Inn cannot be improved within the allowable limits. Further, he expressed the opinion that, as you walk down the boardwalk there are views of palm trees and skies, but to put three stories.of concrete, no matter how it is dressed up, is not the best possible use for that area. He noted that there was a lot of positive support for the project, but believed that a majority of those in favor are not personally impacted. Mayor Adams reported that some of the Planning Commissioners did view the site from balconies. He added that Mr. Bejoc is probably mischaracterizing the view of the building that he will be getting, noting that it is not a sheer wall, is set back, and a lot of care has been taken with regard to residents' views. He stated that the Inn is a relatively minor part of the view. He took issue with a previous comment, clarifying that the proposal is already at allowable limits, which is the point of the use permit process. Regarding the exception, Mayor Adams indicated that it is something that is allowed with low intensity uses and is done to encourage low traffic generated development. Ms. Temple added that the word "exception" is a misnomer since the code simply requires the review and approval of a use permit to make use of the maximum FAR. Further, there are certain findings that need to be made. She explained that the reason the provision exists is so the City can impose specific conditions that will limit the use and prevent its conversion to some other use that is not in the traffic generated characteristics of the proposal. In response to Mr. Bejoc's concerns, Mayor Adams reported that the Inn will mostly be two stories high and that the allowable uses for this site have been in place for quite some time. He added that Mr. Bejoc probably purchased his property knowing that something like this could be built under a conditional use permit. Mr. Bejoc indicated that he did not know about this when he bought his property and that he found out about this just last February. Mayor Adams stated that property owners need to do their due diligence and understand what the entitlements are around their property, especially with regard to the view corridor. Regarding a comparison between this project and the Kings Road issue, he emphasized that there is no parallel because that was a variance and this is a conditional use permit, and the processes are quite different. Mr. Read suggested paving Balboa Boulevard and stated that this is the single most important thing for the Peninsula. Public Works Director Webb reported that this will be done; however, it is too expensive to do the repaving and undergrounding all at once. He reported that it will be done over the next four years and that the first piece has already been awarded that will go from Adams to Medina. He added that the second piece will be from Medina to about 12th Street and the third piece will be in the blacFadden Square area. Council Member Heffernan asked how this piece of real estate got on the ocean side of the boardwalk. Mr. Burnham stated that the size and ownership of the parcel was established pursuant to litigation. Ms. Temple Volume 54 - Page 31 City of Newport Beach Y City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 r added that there are very small lots bayward of the boardwalk that were in the original 1907 subdivision. She indicated that this lot, for some unknown reason, was litigated through a Superior Court action and was established by ruling in 1961 or 1962. Motion by Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve Use Permit No. 3683. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway's question of whether the City can impose a requirement on Use Permit No. 3683 that they pay the delinquent TOT, Mr. Burnham stated that one of the findings that Council has to make to grant the use permit is that the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code. To make that finding, the City is free to impose a payment of delinquent TOT because that is apparently necessary to comply with the provisions of the code. He indicated that the timing of the payment is up to Council's discretion. Noting the time involved with a Coastal Commission approval, Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway indicated that he is going to uphold the provision that the Planning Commission imposed, adding that he is hopeful that the applicant will pay the TOT sooner than later. Council Member Heffernan expressed the opinion that, if there is going to be a contingency, it should be with the Coastal Commission approval. He stated that, once this is approved by the Coastal Commission, the applicant will spend a lot of money for other consultants and will then have approval from both the City and the Coastal Commission. He emphasized that, at that point, they should be paying the delinquent tax, He requested that the maker of the motion amend his motion to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission, subject to the owner paying the delinquent hotel tax within 30 days of approval of the project by the Coastal Commission. Mr. Burnham indicated that this was something Council could do. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway's question, Mr. Beers stated that the condition to pay the unpaid TOT 30 days after Coastal Commission approval was an acceptable. condition. Mayor Pro Tem Ridgeway agreed to amend the motion. The amended motion carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil, Ridgeway, Glover, Proctor, Mayor Adams Noes: None Abstain: Bromberg Absent: None 21. PL 'VG DIRECTOR'S USE PERMIT NO. 69, ACCESSORY OUTDOO NG PERMIT NO. 76 - EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING FULL SERVICE —SMALL SCALE EATING AND DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT INTO NEIGHBORING TENANT SPACE, INCREASING THE INTERIO�Rt T G FROM 12 SEATS TO 21 SEATS, INCREASING THE EXTERIOR ING FROM 8 TO 12 SEATS AND PROVIDING SEPARATE GENDER R OOMS. Mayor Adams opened the public hearing. volume 54 - Page 32 INDEX Planning Director's Use Permit 691 Accessory Outdoor Dining Permit 76 (68) 31 This Page Left Intentionally Blank 3ry Attachment No. 4 Planning Commission Staff report dated 12/07/2000. 39 This Page Left Intentionally Blank 46 .'; �,Ewaoar CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH °e PLANNING DEPARTMENT ' J 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200. FAX (949) 644-; PROJECT: PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: ACTION: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: GENERAL PLAN: ZONE: OWNER: Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Balboa Inn & Expansion 105 Main Street & 707 Ocean Front Points and Authority James Campbell (949) 644 -3210 14 days 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. Approve the Negative Declaration making the findings contained in Exhibit 1; and Approve Use Permit No. 3683 subject to the findings, mitigation measures and conditions of approval attached as Exhibit A. The easterly 135 feet of the northerly 55 feet of Lot D of the Balboa Tract Retail & Service Commercial SP -8 (Central Balboa Specific Area Plan, Retail & Service Commercial) Michel Pourmussa, Managing Member of Balboa Inn, L.LC. • 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 tl f on the environment. Mitigated Negative Declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program have been prepared for the project, and they are attached for the Planting 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. Use Permit 3683 Current Developtent: 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: Exi ng Balboa Inn and visitor serving retail uses. To the east: Restaurant and bar, retail uses, beach, Balboa Park, Balboa Pier and City beach parldng. 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 December 7, 2000 Page 2 y ^ 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 Planning Director Exhibits Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner Use Permit No. 3683 December 7, 2000 r 2 Page 3 'iJ This Page Left Intentionally Blank 41 Attachment No. 5 Excerpt of minutes from 12/07/2000. q.5 This Page Left Intentionally Blank 46 F TY City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 SUBJECT: Balboa Inn & Expansion 105 Main Street & 707 Ocean Front Approve Use Permit No. 3683 Approve the Negative Declaration making the findings contained in Exhibit 1: FILE COPY 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 Pourmusso 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 INDEX item No. 3 UP No. 3683 Negative Declaration Approved Q1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 excellent and the buildings are in proportion. (': Vic Sherritt, 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 for 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 properly 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 (I) [iv] the word development should be inserted after the word INDEX 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 INDEX proposed. Finding 10 (I) [vn) 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 specfic 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. Boers 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 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 INDEX 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 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 comp6mised 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 offer 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 thereon 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 ITOT). 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 condtiion. 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 (I) [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. 56 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 INDEX Ms. Temple asked if we should add into Condition 1 a little bit more articulation 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 property 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 51 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 INDEX 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 as suggested by Commissioner Gifford. Ayes: Selich, Gifford, Kronzley, Tucker Noes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agaianian 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: Fin in s: 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. Mitiaation 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 9 .sa City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 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 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 10 INDEX 53 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 INDEX 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: 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 11 nil City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 INDEX 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 Pee 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 12 5s City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 INDEX 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 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 13 Sl� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 INDEX Development at 105 Main Street realistically precludes other land uses that would generate additional traffic. The project does provide 8 excess parking stalls that will be evailcbfe 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 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 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 parking lot driveway to the 14 51 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 INDEX 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 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. (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 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 tiles, 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 Gut of in character with the area. 15 6 � City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 INDEX (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 landscaping within the area. Conditions: 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 P-IGRRiflg 9epertaaeat ter 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 ` the } ° l inn - 'evelopment at 105 Main Street. 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 kaa development 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. r84AG4'.'A } h II L PFPPAFRd AREA FPPARded GI; the 16 S7 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 INDEX thR 44P. r-GRqi4PR4 'ih this U68 PeFFA4, nd erl .de A restrictive covenant shall be prepared and recorded in the title of both the existing Balboa inn 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 eppreved -43-y -the City Attorney's approval prior to recordation. 7. ge' eter landscaping req lined t to Se - +'^^ 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. 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 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 17 5 Y1 •;;fin; City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 INDEX the City for the continued operation of the pedestrian bridge. Standard Reauirements 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 18 6) City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 2000 Sr 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 1 10-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 INDEX 0 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 -shG9 be paid. The 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. SUBJECT: Go Rent -A -Van 4320 Campus Drive • Use Permit No. 3677 On October 19, 2000, the Planning Commission considered the proposed sign program for the Go Rent -A -Van facility and continued the discussion to this meeting to allow the applicant time to revised the sign program. The applicant has submitted a revised sign program attached as Exhibit No. 1. The two proposed signs are individual channel letters with exposed neon 20 INDEX Item 4 UP 3677 Sign Review Approved 1 This Page Left Intentionally Blank L� Attachment No. 6 Planning Commission Staff report dated 1010512000. �5 This Page Left Intentionally Blank .l 'n PROJECT: ;11111 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: . Hearing Date: Agenda Item No.: Staff Person: REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Balboa Inn & Expansion 105 Main Street & 707 Ocean Front James Campbell (949) 644 -3210 14 days 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 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 11 fi @ 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. Use Pennit 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 To the south: City beach parking, beach and Pacific Ocean. To the west: I City beach parking, beach and Pacific Ocean, three duplexes, 3 -sto condominium complex. Use Permit No. 3683 October 5, 2000 Page 2 �° Introduction 4 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, 11 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. Analysis 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 �q Page l L`Y 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 in'square Peet) - Retail 2,984 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 governed by the Land Use Element, Central Balboa Area which is 0.511.0 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.defrned 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 4 f! 1' 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 ; 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 NIA 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 1 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 undeveloped 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 Page 5 l statistical area pool. ere 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 crease 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 comers 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 comer 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 n Page 6 1 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 staff's 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 Page 7 1 � 4 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 8 FI I cii: -Y�. would generate additional vehicle traffic or parking demand. \`Phis 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 Page 9 ') 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 comers 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 corner and along Main Street. Standing at this location will be similar to standing on the northeast comer 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 10 (� 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 plan is consistent with the Central Balboa Specific Plan and other applicable policies. 2. The proposed site plan 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 plan 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 vehicletbicycle 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 11 window ledges, arched windows, Spanish roof tiles, exposed after 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 corner setback which requires the comer of the first floor of a building on a comer 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 12 b Sf 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 Alternative 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 13 nn 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 W Exhibits B. Mitigated Negative Declaration C. Mitigation Monitoring Program D. Comment letters Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner VWS_1\SyS1USERS1PLN\ SHARED \1PLANCOM\2000\10- 05pc1Balboa Inn \U3683rpt.doc Use Permit No. 3683 October 5, 2000 Page V �O °-- CITY(,...,,' F NEWPORT BEACH .,Rf� 3300 eewport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3225 NEGATIVE DECLARATION OST'ED SEP 0 1 2000 GARY L. GRANVILLE, Clerk- Recorder If you have any questions oor would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644- 210. Date I 3a Campbell, Senior anner N 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 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 arequest 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 I1 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. If you have any questions oor would like further information, please contact the undersigned at (949) 644- 210. Date I 3a Campbell, Senior anner N 1 1 FA 3. 0 5. aif vab. 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.) 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. 91 10. 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 I 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) CH ECKMT Page 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 1 r u The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X. Land Use Planning ❑ Population & Housing t< Geological Problems XWater R Air Quality ❑ Transportation/ Circulation ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources ❑ Hazards KNoise ONandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: Public Services J. Utilities & Service Systems 14 Aesthetics X Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ 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 revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ 1011 crn:cxUST Page 2 gjty 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. 0 by: James Campbell, Senior Planner Signature Date Planning Department # &� b� CEBCKMT Page 3 r� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST El 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? C) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 11. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or 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? 111. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 . ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 q5 CHECxusr Page 4 CHE=ST Page 5 Potentially Potentially less than No . Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact . Mitigation Incorporated b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ C`7 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? CHE=ST Page 5 i 7: r' 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 impeded the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 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? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of.an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: r- Potentially Potentially - Less than . No ... Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ V CHECKLIST Page 6 y.. .• CHECVIZT Page 7 Potentially Potentially Less man no Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact .. Mitigation i) Rupture of a known earthquake ❑ Incorporated ❑ ❑ 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 faun? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground failure, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 including liquefaction? 0 iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 -B 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? .• CHECVIZT Page 7 gi CHECKLIST Page 9 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Create a significant hazard to the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? C) Emit hazardous emissions or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 included on a list of hazardous materials sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project within an airport land ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? .g) Impair implementation of or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ D 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? gi CHECKLIST Page 9 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 after 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 Potentially Potentially LesS man _ no Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 ❑ ❑ lE ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 5#0 cHECKMT Page 9 -Ar- CHECKLIST Page 10 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact - Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated h) Place within a 100 - yearflood hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or ❑ ❑ ❑ mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: 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? b) Result in the loss of availability of a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? C) Displace substantial numbers of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? CHECKLIST Page 10 'r C XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: 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? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an 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 private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? otentially Potentially - Less then No Ignificant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: 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)? CMCK WT Page 11 ��e�p 1 4 r ally b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction & replacement housing elsewhere? C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Other public facilities? XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 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? Potentially Significant Impact IFS C potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated En G Less than 1, Ru Significant Impact Impact 0 El ❑ 0 El ❑ ❑ ❑ Eel ❑ ❑ ❑ Ed ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ EZ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 q3 L=.ru ST Page 12 XV. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC Would 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)? XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Potentially Potentlaiiy Less than Significant Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ 7 Ifs 6 U E No Impact J ❑ Q ❑ 0 ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ Q qq CHECKUST Page 13 —4-?, 75 CHECKLIST Page 14 Potentially Potentially Lass than No Significant Significant Significant Impact impact , Impact .. itigation Incorporated b) Require or result in the construction ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C) Require or result in the construction ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies ❑ ❑ ❑ available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient ❑ ❑ ❑ El permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and-local ❑ ❑ ❑ Q statutes and regulation related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. A) Does the project have the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ B to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major period of California history or Drehistorv? 75 CHECKLIST Page 14 , 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. .311 CHECKLIST Page 15 Significant Significant Significant impact Impact Unless Impact . Mitigation ' Incorporated b) Does the project have impacts that ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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.) 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. .311 CHECKLIST Page 15 SOURCE LIST The following enumerated documents are available at the offices of the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92660. 1. Final Program EIR — City of Newport Beach General Plan 2. General Plan, including all its elements, City of Newport Beach. 3. Specific Plan, District #8, Central Balboa. 4. Title 20, Zoning Code of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 5. City Excavation and Grading Code, Newport Beach Municipal Code. 6. Chapter 10.28, Community Noise Ordinance of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 7. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan 1997. 8. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Management Plan EIR, 1997. 7b CFECKUST Page 16 LOS ANGELES COUNTY i[ • '%4, Riverside IENA 4RK OI CYPRESS • 01"o n Grove Freeway sp• SANTA ANA • COSTA MESA r� • NEWPORT BEACH (y� MAP NOT TO SCALE • TUSTIN • • IRVINE BEACH PROJECT LOCATION Qw SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LAKE OREST • Sa' MISSION V10 0 LAGUNA NIGUEL SANJUAN \ CAPISTRANO OANA�POINT SAN % %6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY r ORANGE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTY Regional Location Map EXHIBIT 1 9?1� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Balboa Inn Hotel Addition 105 Main Street, Newport Beach Proiect 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; a guest spa, approximately 2,000 square feet of retail uses, and associated parking. The project involves the demolition of an existing one -story building and adjacent pool area. The regional location of the site is depicted on Exhibit 1 and the project vicinity on Exhibit 2. The project plans are presented in the appendix of this document. The Balboa Inn is located at 105 Main Street near the intersection of Washington Street and Ocean Front in central Balboa area of Newport Beach. The property is currently developed with a one -story building that is utilized for beach rentals and a coffee house. Surrounding properties are also developed with retail uses, restaurants, hotel uses, parking areas, the Balboa Pavilion, Balboa Island Ferry, Pennisula Park, beach and the Pacific Ocean are also in close proximity. The building architecture will be compatible with the existing Balboa Inn Hotel and surrounding uses. demolition of the existing 1,014 square foot retail building that presently houses a small coffee shop and beach bike rental. Additionally, the existing pool area, accessory hotel storage structures and perimeter walls will be eliminated. The existing pedestrian bridge over Ocean Front from the present Balboa Inn will be preserved and used for secondary access to the proposed project. The project will consist of 1,350 sq. ft. of new, enclosed retail space with a 710 sq. ft. walkway /patio, 11 new hotel guest rooms and a partially covered parking garage with 20 tandem parking spaces. 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. Additionally, the applicant proposes enhanced paving within the parking garage and across Ocean Front. 9q r 3 1 "s 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 parking. To the south: Cit beach parldng, beach and Pacific Ocean. To the west: City beach parking, beach and Pacific Ocean, three duplexes, 3-story condominium complex. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 2 I ANALYSIS The following discussion provides explanations for the conclusions contained in the Environmental Checklist regarding the proposed project's environmental Impacts. I. AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Less Than Significant Impact) There are two types of public vistas at the location. First, there are views of the Pacific Ocean and beach and 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. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (No Impact) See response to Section I (a) above. The project will not have a significant impact to any scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. The project site does contain existing landscaping associated with the one -story building that will be demolished to accommodate the hotel addition. The Balboa Inn addition will include landscaping that will replace that removed. The landscaping will comply with the Specific Plan requirements. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to Section I (a) above. cHECKUST EXPLANATIONS O Page 3 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 11 (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 Page 4 ,y r III. Air Quality a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (No Impact) The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) sets and enforces regulations for stationary sources in the basin. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for controlling motor vehicle emissions. The SCAQMD in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has developed the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the air basin. The AQMP goals include the implementation of technological and innovative changes that provide for achieving clean air goals while maintaining a healthy economy. The AQMP also addresses state and federal planning requirements and programs. Regional and local air quality has been previously addressed in the Final Program E1R for the City of Newport Beach General Plan. The 1997 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) which was developed by the SCAQMD in coordination with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) includes a comprehensive analysis of future emission forecasts which reflect demographic and economic growth forecasts provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The build -out of the City of Newport Beach (including the project area) is included in these forecasts. The 1997 AQMP provide an extensive analysis of potential impacts, including the cumulative impacts of basin -wide growth and development. The Land Use Element of the City's General Plan identifies that the project site is located within the Specific Plan (Central Balboa) area. The property is located in the Retail and Service Commercial, SP -8 (RSC) District. The proposed hotel (including the retail use) is approximately 5,568 square feet in size and will replace the existing 1 -story retail building and pool area. The Retail and Service Commercial designation allows for such land uses as hotels. The project is very limited in size for a hotel project by providing only 14 -guest rooms. As such, it is not anticipated that the project will generate a significant number of vehicle trips. The applicant has indicated that the project will not require additional employees since the current staff is employed part time and would be hired as full time employees once the hotel addition is completed. Therefore, due to the limited size of the project and minimal vehicle trips associated with the hotel addition, the project will not result in any air quality impacts. Also, the projected growth in the area (cumulative) has already been included in forecasts that are incorporated into the 1997 AQMP. The project will not result in any new significant impacts that are significantly greater than that previously evaluated in regards to air quality. a CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 5 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 significant. 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 cHEcKmT EXPLANATIONS Page 6 . „ and development. Therefore, the project will not result in any significant impacts cumulatively to air quality. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? - (Less Than Significant Impact) The project is not located in an area that would expose sensitive receptors (e.g. elementary schools etc.) to substantial pollutant concentrations.. The site is located over two miles from the closes elementary school. The site is located in an area already developed with retail and service commercial uses, therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will result in any significant impacts to sensitive receptors. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Less Than Significant Impact) The proposed hotel addition is compatible with the surrounding developed area. The impacts to surrounding business properties from hotel operations (including an incremental increase in emissions and odors associated with food preparation) will be minimal. However, these effects are not considered significant. Additional potential Iona term air quality impacts associated with the proposed project include those associated with vehicular emissions. The project is very limited in size (11 guest rooms and approximately 2,000 square feet of retail uses) and will not generate a significant amount of vehicle traffic. The hotel use will not create odors affecting a substantial number of people, therefore the project will not result in any significant impacts associated with objectionable odors. IV. Biological Resources 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? (No Impact) The project site is currently developed with an existing 1 -story building and pool area for the Balboa Inn Hotel. The site is also located in an area, which is developed with urban uses such as retail and service uses, hotels, and residential. The project site will not directly or indirectly have any impacts on sensitive biological resources. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (No Impact) CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS f t5 Page 7 4, See response to Section IV (a) above. The site does not contain any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community. 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 150645? (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 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? (Less Than Impact) See response to Section V (a) above. The project site is already developed. The proposed project includes replacing an existing I -story building and pool area. Due to the existing site conditions, the project will require minimal site preparation (e.g. grading). Although, it is not anticipated that the project will have any impacts on archeological resources, a mitigation measure is presented to ensure that any potential discoveries during site preparation activities (grading/excavation) are mitigated. Mitigation Measure No. 3 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that a qualified paleontologistlarchaeologist has been retained to observe grading activities and salvage and catalog cultural material or fossils as necessary. The paleontologist /archaeologist shall be present at the pre- grading conference, establish procedures for paleontological / archaeological resource surveillance, and establish, in cooperation with the Applicant, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and evaluation of the cultural material or fossils. If major paleontologicallarchaeological resources are discovered, which require long -term halting or redirecting or grading, the paleontologist/ archaeologist shall report such findings to the Applicant and the City. The paleontologistlarchae- ologist shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the Applicant, which ensure proper exploration and/or salvage. Excavated finds shall be offered to the City, or its designee, on a first- refusal basis. The Applicant may retain said finds if written assurance is provided that they will be properly preserved in Orange County, unless said finds are of special significance, or a museum in Orange County indicates a desire to study andlor display them at the time, in which case items shall be donated to the City, or designee. These actions shall be subject to the approval of the City C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Less Than Significant) See response to Section V (a) and (b) above. It is not anticipated that the project will result in any direct or indirect impacts to unique paleontological resources or geologic features due to the existing site conditions and will not excavate or grade extensively (the site is already developed with an existing structure). Although, it is not anticipated that the project will not result in any significant impacts to unique paleontological resources or unique geologic features, a mitigation measure is presented in Section V(b) to ensure that any potential discoveries during site preparation activities ( grading /excavation) are mitigated. CHECKLIST WLANAMONS Page 9 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 EIPJGPA 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 shafting, 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. cHECKUST EXPLANATIONS Page 10 M u Compliance with the City Excavation and Grading Code (NBMC Sec. 15.10,140) will reduce any'potential impacts to an insignificant level. No cumulative impacts associated with geological conditions are anticipated as a result of the proposed hotel project. Mitigation Measure No. 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). Mitigation Measure No. 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. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to Section vI (a)(i) above. The Newport- Inglewood Fault is believed to be capable of producing an earthquake of 7.5 magnitude. The Whittier- Elsinore Fault is estimated to potentially produce an earthquake of 7.0 magnitude. Primary hazards of an earthquake include groundshaking, ground displacement and subsidence. In the event of a regional seismic event, the site would experience moderate to severe ground shaking. A mitigation measure is presented in Section VI(a)(i) requiring compliance with applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines. Therefore, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, potential impacts will be reduced to an insignificant level. iii) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to Section VI (a)(i) above. Ground failure, liquefaction, seiching and dam failure are secondary seismic hazards which may result from an earthquake. Ground failure in the form of landslides, rock falls, subsidence, and other surface and near surface ground failures can occur as a result of a seismic event. In mm, this may result in complete loss of strength of water - saturated subsurface foundation soil (liquefaction). The Potential for liquefaction is associated with the soil types and shallow groundwater. A mitigation measure is presented in Section VI(a)(i) requiring compliance with applicable local and State building codes and seismic design guidelines. The site is currently developed with. an existing one -story building. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measure requiring compliance with building codes and seismic design regulations it is not anticipated that there will be any significant impacts associated with ground failure or liquefaction. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS V Page 11 Gil, 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 EXPL4NATIONS Page 12 „ ®R ' VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Y a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (No Impact) The proposed project does not involve the transport, use, or disposal of any hazardous materials. Additionally, previous .geological and site assessment documentation associated with the existing one -story building and adjacent Balboa Inn Hotel have identified that there are no environmental conditions, including hazardous substances (including soils, surface waters, and groundwater) in connection with the project site. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (No Impact) See response to VII (a) above. The project consists of the development of.a 14 room hotel addition and retail uses. The site is already developed with an existing 1 -story building and pool area that is proposed for demolition so that the hotel addition can be accommodated on the site. The project itself does not pose as a significant hazard to the public or the environment. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to VII (a) above. The closest school to the project site is an elementary school located near 13'h Street and Balboa Boulevard. The school is approximately 2 miles from the project site. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will have any impact on schools. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials ..sites which complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65462.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (No Impact) See response to VII (a) above. Additionally, the site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites. e) For a project 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 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (No Impact) CHECKUST EXPLANAMONS ` Page 13 �� 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 ExPIANAT1oNS 1 �� Page 14 F� Practices (BMPs) and control techniques to further reduce the. amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system. The City of Newport Beach has for many years been performing many of the procedures that protect the quality of stormwater runoff, such as: site construction erosion and sediment control programs, sweeping streets, managing solid waste, recycling programs, storm drain and catch basin maintenance, enforcing prohibitions on illegal discharges, controlling spills, supervising industrial waste discharges through permitting, and enforcing ordinances prohibiting certain discharges. Additionally, previous geological and site assessment documentation for the Balboa Inn Hotel concluded that there are no environmental conditions, including hazardous substances (including soils, surface waters, and groundwater) in connection with the project site. The proposed project would not substantially increase water runoff. The site is already developed with an existing building and is located in an urbanized area of the City. The project is located is close proximity to the beach and ocean front. However, with the incorporation of City standard conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures, no cumulative impacts associated with hydrologic conditions are anticipated as a result of the project. To ensure that storm runoff will not significantly impact the existing drainage system, mitigation measures in compliance with said City regulations will reduce any potential impacts to an insignificant level. Mitigation Measure No. 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. 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)? (No Impact) See Response to Section VM(a) above. The proposed site is located . in a developed area of the City and contains an existing one -story. The project site topography is flat and will require minimal site preparation (e.g. grading/excavation). Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will have any significant impact on groundwater. C) Substantially alter 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? (Less Than Significant Impact) CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 15 3 e ;rig C7 See response to Section VIII (a) above. The project will result in a change to the drainage pattern of the site, however, this change is not considered significant. The site is currently developed with a one -story building utilized for beach rentals and a coffee house (Beach Blend). The building and pool area will be demolished so that the proposed hotel addition can be constructed on the site. The drainage pattern will not be substantially altered since the site has already been previously developed with an existing building. The site is located in an area that has existing storm drain facilities. Therefore, the project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. Additionally, with the implementation of standard conditions of approval including compliance with NPDES requirements (Best Management Practices (BMPs) it its not anticipated that the project will result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. A mitigation measure is presented Section VM(a) requiring NPDES compliance. 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? (No Impact) See response to Section VIII (c) above. 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? (No Impact) See response to Section VIII (a)(c) above. f) Otherwise substantially degrade'water quality? (No Impact) See response to Section VIII (a)(c) above. 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? (No Impact) See response to Section VIII (a)(c) above. h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (No Impact) See response to Section VIII (a)(c) and (g) above. 114 CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 16 wk� „ rj_ u 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 115 Page 17 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) CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 18 �`k U The area surrounding the project site is fully developed. The project consists of a hotel addition and retail use that will replace an existing one -story building currently utilized for beach rentals and a coffee house. Future on-site-noise impacts will not significantly differ from those which now exist. The proposed hotel will generate an increase in traffic, however, the increase is minimal due to the limited size of the project (14 guest rooms and less than 2,000 square feet of retail uses). The project will generate approximately 143 average daily vehicle trips. Therefore, noise levels associated with project related traffic is not anticipated to be significantly greater than that currently experienced. The project will result in short-term construction related noise impacts, however, with the incorporation of City standard conditions of approval and/or mitigation measures, these short-term noise impacts will be less than significant. A mitigation measures is presented in Section XI (d) below for potential construction noise impacts. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Less Than Significant Impact) Surrounding businesses in the immediate vicinity (e.g. adjacent Balboa Inn Hotel, including retail uses, restaurants, park and beach areas) may experience some groundbome vibration and noise associated with the demolition of the existing building and construction activities for the proposed hotel addition. However, due to the relatively small size of the existing. building, it is not anticipated that the demolish activities will result in excessive vibration or groundborne noise levels. A mitigation measure is presented in Section XI (d) below which will reduce construction related temporary impacts to a level of less than significant. C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to XI (a) above, The project is limited in size and will not generate any significant amounts of vehicle trips. Therefore, permanent noise levels associated with hotel operations (including traffic) will not significantly differ from those, which now exist. Therefore, the project will not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity as a result of the hotel project. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Less Than Significant Impact) , � u CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS ' 11 Page 19 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). Mitieation 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. X11. 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) 11� CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 20' ,,: L 1 The proposed project consists of replacing an existing one -story commercial building (beach rentals and Beach Blend coffee house) and adjacent pool area. The existing Balboa Inn Hotel has six employees, all of which are part-time with the exception of the hotel resident manager. The project applicant has indicated that no additional employees will be hired as a result of the hotel addition. However, the current part -time maids may be hired on as full -time employment positions as a result of the project. Therefore, no direct population and/or demand for housing increase would result from the project or the employees. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (No Impact) The project area is developed with hotel, retail and service uses, restaurant, park and beach areas. The site or immediate project area is not zoned for residential uses. The project will not displace any existing housing. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replace housing elsewhere? (No Impact) See response to XII (b) above. The project will not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of people and/or housing. The site is not zoned for residential uses. The project will not displace people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. XIII. Public Services a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Utilities and service systems are already servicing the existing building and adjacent Balboa Inn Hotel. A survey was conducted to assess any possible changes on demand for existing community services and public utility providers currently serving the site. Each appropriate agency was given a project description and site plan of the proposed hotel addition, and a Service Availability /Capacity Information Request questionnaire designed to determine any possible impacts on services. The survey and responses from these service providers are on file with the City of Newport Beach, Planning Department. The agencies contacted and which provide services to the site are: Fire Protection City of Newport Beach Fire & Marine Department Law Enforcement City of Newport Beach Police Department CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 21 J Natural Gas Electricity Telecommunications Water/Wastewater Solid,Waste Transit System �•3 The Gas Company Southern California Edison Company Pacific Bell City of Newport Beach Utilities Department Waste Management of Orange County 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 cHECKLST EXPLANATIONS Page 22 1 ! 1 tl the site are dependent on various factors. 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 Newport Beach Police Department has a staffing ration of 1.87 swom officers per 1,000 population. This is based on a year -round resident population of 72,623 persons and equates to a total of 136 sworn police officers. At this time, there are no plans for additional facilities or expansion of current facilities. It is anticipated that the hotel project may increase the number of calls for service to the location; however, no new facilities or staff will be required. The Newport Beach Police Department (letter dated October 22, 1999) have indicated that a potential increase in the number of calls for service will depend on the types of ancillary services (in regards to the hotel related retail use), such as alcohol sales, banquet facilities, and entertainment venues it offers. The Newport Beach Police Department have indicated (letter dated October 22, 1999) that the level of staffing, along with the existing levels of equipment and facilities, is adequate to service the project area including the proposed hotel addition. Schools? (No Impact) The proposed project consists of a proposed 14 -room hotel project and hotel related retail uses. The hotel will require minimal staffing of employees (existing part -time employees will become full time). Therefore, it is not anticipated that there will be any significant impacts to schools in relation to the proposed hotel project. Other public facilities? (No Impact) The project site is developed with an existing one -story commercial building. Surrounding properties are also developed. There are sufficient public or governmental services that serve the area and the project would not create significant additional demand for these services. XIV. Recreation a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Less Than Significant Impact) The proposed 14 -room hotel addition to the Balboa Inn Hotel is not anticipated to significantly increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks and recreational facilities. The hotel addition includes a viewing deck that will have a pool, hot tub jacuzzi area, gazebo, sun deck, birdcage and planters around the viewing deck. It is not anticipated that the proposed hotel use will generate a CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Id,' Page 23 " , p, - 1 FATA 0 y1Y. S1 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 liave an :adverse physical effect on the environment. 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 gei since the project is limited in size. will generate approximately 143 av is based on a factor of 8.7 trips per of retail. The existing one -story replaced with 1,964 square feet of n project and analysis per the City's minimal increase of traffic. ate a significant amount of vehicular traffic The proposed hotel addition and retail use ige vehicle trips (ADT) per day. The ADT >tel room and 45 trips per 1,000 square feet 1,014 square foot retail building) will be il. Therefore, based on the evaluation of the iffrc Department, the project will result in a 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 i The site is currently developed u existing commercial building and hotel addition can be accommoc demolition materials will be tra recommended that requiring a trat acts associated with construction activities, a one -story building and pool area. The >1 area will be demolished so that the new d on the site. Building debris and site orted off -site. A mitigation measure is control plan for the exportation of the site CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 24 ►aa IM .s debris and project construction activities. The area surrounding the project site is fully developed with retail and commercial uses, .hotel, , and restaurants. Therefore, a traffic control .plan is recommended to ensure implementation of proper construction related signage, construction traffic flagmen, and truck hauling operations to reduce potential`short-term traffic impacts. Mitigation Measure No. 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. b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (No Impact) See response to Section XV (a) above. 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? (No Impact) See response to Section XV (a) above. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (No Impact) See response to Section XV (a) above. Also, the project does not propose any design features relative to curves, intersections, or incompatible uses. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to Section XV (a) above. Access to the site is provided from the street at the south side of the new hotel addition and the pedestrian access is from the ocean front walkway and existing hotel court yard from the north. 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. The building will.be located so that it is accessible from Washington Avenue, Main Street, and the street at the south side of the hotel addition and the ocean front walkway area. 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 CHECKLLST EXPL4NKnONS 1 �3 Page 25 B 4j vI IR 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 taming 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 49% 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 VIII(a) requiring compliance with the NPDES requirements. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS Page 26 0 b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less Than Significant Impact) The City of Newport Beach Utilities Department currently provides water and wastewater services to the site. It is anticipated that there is adequate capacity to serve the proposed office building. The points of connection for all applicable water and sewer lines will need to be identified and agreed to by the City of Newport Beach Utilities Department prior to any construction approval. The project will not result in the significant alteration or expansion of existing utility and service systems since the site is already developed and being served by the utility providers. However, to ensure that there are no adverse impacts associated with the proposed hotel, a mitigation measure is presented which requires coordination with utility and service organizations prior to the commencement of construction. Mitiaation Measure No. 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. Mitigation Measure No. 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. C) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to Section XVI (b) above. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Less Than Significant Impact) See response to Section XVI (b) above. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to CHECKLIST EXPtANAMNS P15 Page 27 P� •1'1 ; 1 • 1'� P.f Qr 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 Page 28 pa u ill, n 0 XVU. Mandatory Findings of Significance A) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? on the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment. The project site is located in a developed urbanized area of the City. The site is located within the coastal zone and requires approval of a Coastal Development Permit. The site is surrounding by developed properties and it is not anticipated that the proposed hotel addition will impact any significant environmental resources, including plants or wildlife. B) Does the project has the potential to achieve short -term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals? There are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project. Additionally, the environmental analysis of the proposed project concluded that the project would not result in any significantly greater impacts than that of the existing site development due to the limited size of the proposed hotel addition. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long -term goals. C) Does the project have possible environmental effects which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? No cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with this or other projects. The project is consistent with the type of land uses developed in the area. The project will not result in environmental effects which are cumulatively considerable based on evaluation of projected growth and planned projects for the project area known as of the date of this analysis. D) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? That there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed project. The proposed hotel addition is consistent with the land uses in the project area and the environmental evaluation has concluded that no adverse significant environmental impacts will result from the project. CHECKLIST EXPLANATIONS pl Page 29 , f �. � ? ,. �:, �y�;; �, � ��� �� eY �i �� � �� �� ��.� U:PJ Qua %'@� �a� TT!$Jill 6�OMO al a 8 4,��+, �cv� f AWN J R =-' o o 0 0 o MCA 4, . i aq . GO w rn cl koAUO� �o ME l 3 3 (�/ -0 =- C3 1 11 0 O om Of I z k k la f +S d�1 m O 15-1- 11A O o L)M Q NH -� f 1101, ( ✓1�: 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. H. 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 ,r additional information, or pursue enforcement remedies in the event of noncompliance. Final 3 T monitoring reports will be placed in the official file. M a c� 0 ax UU � a6A �e� W O W M w oa zoo OU O z 0 F 135 m P 'O 1 Y ,, i ,s t A ` q • � O v = TQa., w [^F G M •+mow+ � tp1 � •,.fir. C ;:. M e c e b o � c � p � •.°-. °a �C o tt tj to (IL ZZ sz lu u d C O .y CgOi O 'OC 'b y U" N a' 'C5 IL y 3 O O. v N C1 W O O.2 y O C o` o 'C o0 to ° s v m ° is ° a " 5 3 v N ° ci l:-'s tt C U ca. to O C y h N \ y .S C a o A ti Q 0i S? O It c CS a )3� , ►3� g s 4 4 •� ,fi `o a • O '• p 'C o 'tl o 'yo �. 4 oLU C LM 4 v C G a 42 G U U U 4 C. O- 37 O O O " Q ,o c 1. �. �V S. z P $ P a lbo :s � 'ts r ct °' r lu °° r VCr� � MO 7z C� ztj r eon r lz ° o v to .V v o' v °� '^• p C O O Ct O y- fi y 0 d C O .. O cc y ��' S do U -�D q3 st ZI O Q CS u qri .. .r x O 4, O ,v '� 'a .''h. O r C g (z O s y r to ° p y to ° 'h a u° Ol ci w y n c 4 c q c A v 0. 'Z , ►3� n r*: � Y r 3"v PACIFIC COAST +4 7 REALTY GROUP �Zlp —OO RECEIVED 6Y PLANNING D= PARTAIENT CITY OF N_'v'.'P ^FT aEACH /7/. �04t 5-& e AM SEP 2b 2060 PM ����,�;,�.�► ��ddN�"-� 71819 i101?111�1l1213141516 f��e -tea- jvo. � , �- e 40 a-le�e� '4SOI 6000 � 13� 3;34 G:�sr t7nl Srl :rar • SL 1 1 1 ; 1 1 H • C O S I -k \Ira. . CA 92627 (714) 63 1-60 06 -FA X 17141 631 -OSSC) Gjl 137 This Page Left Intentionally Blank I 0 Attachment No. 7 Excerpt of minutes from 10/05/2000. )qi This Page Left Intentionally Blank 10- City of Newport Beach FILE COPY Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 INDEX SUBJECT: Balboa Inn & Expansion Item No. 1 105 Main Street & 707 Ocean Front UP No. 3583 and • Approve the Negative Declaration Negative Declaration • Use Permit No. 3683 A request for a Use Permit to construct a 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 of 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 portions 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 20th meeting, the Planning Commission formally denied without prejudice the application. By State law this application had run out of time and there were unresolved issues with the status of all of the different approvals that had been given over the years. We wanted 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 a conforming use but a non - conforming structure relative to building height, floor area ratio and parking. The restaurant 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; 10 u � eft i. L• -, City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 INDEX 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 Kranzley 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. If 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 land 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 # 18 indicates that 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 11 additional rooms. A typical hotel has some retail and restaurant type use in it and therefore, those trips are 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 deal with the issue of 'qq City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 INDEX demolishing some retail and building new retail and the I I additional rooms Commissioner Kranzley 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 hP G"G:'hle t.. 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 Main 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. I q5 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 INDEX 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. Pourmossa 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 for 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 bulk are for aesthetic reasons, not 0 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 INDEX 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 11 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. Pourmossa, 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 191n 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 Agojanian 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. 141 r City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 INDEX 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 l q� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 INDEX 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. 1 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. 1 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 1, 1 � ✓ City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes October 5, 2000 INDEX 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 71h when we have a full Commission. Mr. Baers noted this continuance was acceptable. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanion, Selich, Kranzley, Tucker Noes: None Absent: Gifford BJECT: Cowan Duplex (Jay Cowan, applicant) Item No. 2 (continued from 09/07/2000) V 1236 3030 Breakers Drive Acceptance of a • Variance No. 1236 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Request to construc new 6800 square foot duplex that exceeds the 24 -foot Mitigation Monitoring height limitation by up t feet. The request for a modification for a 16 -foot Program high retaining wall located in e required side yard to exceed the maximum wall height of 6 feet has been.eli ted. Approved Senior Planner James Campbell presence 'des 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 the erall 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. � 5� Attachment No. 8 Colored rendering of revised elevations. 151 This Page Left Intentionally Blank slog >, .� �§ p � | \\ ` \ |� ,! \�. <y pa 27/ e | \ � § O | | | ( §< | � , ; � |§| m § % A 8 , ■ §k�\ |o |■ §§§R7 This Page Left Intentionally Blank )5q Attachment No. 9 Revised plans including original elevations for comparison. 155 This Page Left Intentionally Blank 13361s NIVN C Z V a m a as I I i III LL �f I Z 6 ae w_ F^ I Az � )5) O . 6' I � M z e ry £ 'So coq 8 I 3 p $g 13361s NIVN C Z V a m a as I I i III LL �f I Z 6 ae w_ F^ I Az � )5) 0 0 o g o o; U` k o-} I a �I 2 O j O LL J 0�. W � � Y I y Y I N � � 0 a aw m w x o � a E a a O O n O O N Q .m a O JO ,d J Fo 6_ 9 its oz oae 15 � e 3 O J a � J ' n O' (D � (� N Y w o� .r 3 O J a � J ' n O' (D � (� N Y w o� O O O O O m m m a a e M WO 0 E z sz o m� a� UR I )5l O J LL � (� Y w 0 E z sz o m� a� UR I )5l Any Ti 'S5L' y 99 III I � l a 2 0 p r � � z a is Qi Z 0 f 4 '+ W W WC N z � �z do cm I <�� 2 <k»q <A� \�) .Iy ; !2 [ \\ \j\\ &< a C� R [ \\ \� Z | | § §1. |9 |� | § )} | 7; § � §{ � §§ | ,| �Q� This Page Left Intentionally Blank I�C- Attachment No. 10 Original floor plans. ��3 This Page Left Intentionally Blank )d it ao T Ly ui r,7[---- ❑ U Ll Ob� Q Nip �T r 5� 84 e 8 a MAIN 5TRr k0 dba- s_ T �o �� a iZ ,.