No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 - PA2001-128 - Cannery Lofts - 501-507 & 500-512 30th Street, 2908-2912 Lafayette AvenueCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH p4 b � PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD c,�soah`� NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 Hearing Date: Agenda Item: Staff Person: Period: REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROJECT: Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) 501 -507 & 500 -512 3& Street, 2908 -2912 Lafayette Avenue March 12, 2002 11 James Campbell (949) 644 -3210 None SUMMARY: Request for a Site Plan Review, Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Residential Development Permit and Traffic Study for the construction of 22 commercial/residential buildings on 16 lots that encompass approximately 1.44 acres in the Cannery Village area. The Use Permit involves the request for the buildings to exceed the base height limit of 26 feet by 7 feet. The project also requests to subdivide one lot, which was the result of a previous merger of 7 lots, recreating the previous subdivision pattern. RECOMMENDED 1) Hold a public hearing. ACTION: 2) Affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Planning Commission in approving the Cannery Lofts project. Introduction On February 21, 2002, the Planning Commission approved the Cannery Lofts project. An unsigned copy of the resolution that contains the adopted findings and conditions of approval is attached as Exhibit No. 1. On February 22, 2002, Mayor Ridgeway called the item for review. The Planning Commission conducted three meetings on the project where the public had an opportunity to participate in the review of the project. A copy of the staff reports and minutes of these meetings are attached as Exhibit Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7. The project plans are attached as Exhibit No. 8. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was also prepared and adopted in conjunction with project approval (Exhibit Nos. 9 & 10). The Environmental Quality Affairs Committee commented on the MND and responses are included in the Responses to Comments document. Several Comtnittee members prepared comments on the responses that were considered by the Commission (Exhibit No. 11). Lastly, the Commission considered one additional letter of opposition that was presented at the last Commission meeting from Lucile Kring representing a group of property owners that has called themselves Owners Residents Against Cannery Lofts Expansion (ORACLE). This letter and flyer /petition is attached as Exhibit No. 12. The project involves 5 discretionary applications and are listed as follows: 1. Site Plan Review No. 2001 -002 Site planning and environmental resource protection for the 2908 -2912 Lafayette Avenue lots only, as they are designated RMC, which requires site plan review. 2. Use Permit No. 2001 -022 Request for increased building height of all 22 buildings proposed. 3. Newport Tract Map No. 2001 -001 (TTM No. 16292) Subdivides 501 300 Street only, recreating the original 7 lots of the underlying subdivision pattern. 4. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2001 -003 A feasibility study concludes that it is not financially feasible to include affordable housing in the project and therefore, the applicant will be required to pay an in -lieu fee of $139,898.00 5. Traffic Study No. 2001 -004 A traffic study has been prepared in accordance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The project will result in an increase in traffic; however, no mitigation is required. The project also includes a request for non - standard improvements within the public right -of- way. These improvements will come before the City Council at a later date with more specific designs. The attached drawings depict the conceptual improvements. Discussion The proposed project consists of the private redevelopment of approximately 1.44 acres of the Cannery Village along 3e Street between Villa Way and the Rhine Channel. All existing structures will be removed. Construction will consist of 22 individual mixed use buildings consisting of retail commercial or office uses on the ground floor and a two -story loft residence above. A full and complete project description is contained within the December 6, 2001 staff report to the Planning Commission (Exhibit No. 6). The most controversial aspect of the project revolved around the finding that the project is consistent with the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan. The specific plan has a recommended architectural theme that is "reminiscent of the previous use of the area, and can provide a continuity throughout the area while preserving the variety and individuality of uses that gives the area its charm." Some members of the public believe that the architecture is repetitive and therefore inconsistent with the Specific Plan. The Commission found that the project meets the architectural theme with its use of materials listed in the Specific Plan and further found that the architecture did not limit the variety and individuality of uses in the area. Mixed use projects with residences located atop a commercial space are consistent with uses permitted by both the General Plan and Specific Plan. The overall height of the buildings was also of concern and was highly scrutinized by the Commission. The Commission found that the design of the project including setbacks, open terraces, open balconies and parking breezeways counterbalanced the size and height of the features that would exceed the 26 -foot base height limit. A full discussion of the height is contained within the December 6, 2001 staff report. Public views of the Rhine Channel were also discussed. The 4 proposed buildings for Lafayette Avenue will effectively limit existing views from the Lafayette Avenue through the existing boat storage yard. However, a new view of the Rhine Channel will be created to off -set this loss. An unobstructed view of the Rhine Channel, as well as direct public access to the water, will be created through a 6 -foot wide public walkway to be improved along the bulkhead within a dedicated Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -125) March 12, 2002 Page 2 of 4 easement. The walkway will be directly accessible from 3e Street. This easement and walkway is required pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance. On -site parking and street parking were also debated. Each of the 22 lots provides a two car garage for the residence. Commercial parking is also provided with 17 of the 22 units providing 4 spaces in a tandem configuration. Two spaces are accessible from the alley and two spaces are accessible from the street. One extra space is provided in excess of the Zoning Code for 16 of these units. One unit provides 3 spaces accessible from the alley, while the 4 lots proposed for Lafayette Avenue provide 1 commercial parking space for each lot. Due to the design of the project with a drive approach for each lot, street parking will be reduced by 10 spaces. This reduction is unavoidable due to the proposed design; however the loss is not considered significant due to the overall number of spaces in the district, the presence of the city parking lot abutting the site, the extra on -site parking provided with the 3& Street units and the fact that the project is not located adjacent to a popular coastal access point. Lastly, the applicant's proposed improvements to the public right -of -way were analyzed. The existing street section would be changed to eliminate the curb and gutter and redirect drainage to the middle of the street via a new trench drain. Enhanced pavement in the form of brick pavers or stamped, colored concrete is proposed for the sidewalks. This pavement would also be applied in 4- foot wide bands perpendicular to the sidewalks crossing the street. A band would also cross Lafayette Avenue to connect the four lots that abut the bay. There was criticism targeted to the concern that the improvements might not "fit in" with the existing standard improvements of the area. The feasibility of the drainage concept was studied and deemed feasible, although not all of the engineering details are finalized. The placement of street fixtures (street lights, trees, parking meters, etc.) were also studied, with the conclusion that a slalom course was not going to be created and that pedestrians will be properly protected through the use of bollards. In conclusion, the Planning Commission found that the improvements complement the project while providing continuity and an enhanced pedestrian experience. As can be seen from the three Planning Commission staff reports attached, the project is a complex design and it underwent refinements during the hearing process. Each of the "unresolved" issues highlighted in the January 2, 2002 staff report were addressed by the applicant through further study, which in some instances led to design changes. The 51 required conditions of approval resolved the remaining issues that were not possible to incorporate within the project plans. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing and either affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Planning Commission. Submitted by: PATRICA L. TEMPLE Planning Director Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner c 2L�Inr� A Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -125) March 12, 2002 Page 3 of 4 Exhibits 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1550 (Corrected but unsigned). 2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 21, 2002. 3. Excerpt of Minutes from the February 21, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting (Draft). 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 3, 2002. 5. Excerpt of Minutes from the January 3, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting. 6. Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 6, 2001. 7. Excerpt of Minutes from the December 6, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting. 8. Project Plans & Subdivision map. 9. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration 10. Corrected Responses to Comments on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. 11. Comment letter from individuals appointed to the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee dated February 16, 2002. 12. Letter and flyer /petition from ORACLE dated February 21, 2002. Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) March 12, 2002 Page 4 of 4 Exhibit No. 1 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1550 (Corrected but unsigned) 5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK RESOLUTION NO. 1550 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING SITE REVIEW NO. 2001 -001, USE PERMIT NO. 2001 -022, NEWPORT TRACT MAP NO. 2001 -002 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP. NO. 16292), COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2001 -003 & TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 2001- 004 FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 501 -507 & 500 -512 30m STREET, 2908 -2912 LAFAYETTE AVENUE (PA2001 -127). The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application Was filed by Cannery Lofts, L.P. with respect to property located at 501 -507 & 500 -512 30a' Street, 2908 -2912 Lafayette Avenue (PA2001 -127) and legally described as Lots 1 through 10 of Block 430, Lots 8 through 15 of Block 328 and Lots 4 through 7 of Block 328 of Lancaster's Addition. The applicant seeks approval of a Site Plan Review for the Lafayette Avenue Lots, Tentative Tract Map, Use Permit, Coastal Residential Development Permit and a Traffic Study for the construction of 22 commercial/residential buildings on 16 lots that encompass approximately 1.44 acres in the Cannery Village area. Section 2. A public hearing was held on December 6, 2001, January 3, 2002 and February 21, 2002, at 6:30 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meetings was given. Evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at the meetings. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: Consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan 1. The Land Use Element (LUE) and Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan (LCP/LUP) both designate the portion of the project site located west of Lafayette Avenue for Mixed Commercial - Retail & Service Commercial & Industrial. The four lots located east of Lafayette Avenue are designated Recreational Marine Commercial. Within both these designations in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan, residential uses are permitted on the second floor above commercial uses provided it meets Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards. Each of the 4 building types proposed meets the minimum and maximum commercial FAR and maximum residential FAR with all buildings falling below the 1.25 FAR maximum as indicated in the project plans as listed in Exhibit "A" incorporated herein by reference. Therefore, the project is consistent with the LUE and LCP/LUP. 2. The proposed project includes a mix of commercial and residential development that will replace the existing commercial development occupying the site. The portion of the proposed development located on Lafayette Street will be marine- oriented, as prescribed by the existing planning and zoning documents that regulate development. Public access to the marina area is provided along the frontage of the lots located along Lafayette Street. No I Resolution No. 1550 Page 2 of 15 significant natural landforms, including coastal bluffs and cliffs, are located on the site or in the immediate area. Public views of the marina area will be maintained through the public walk located along the frontage of the development proposed along Lafayette Street. The four lots proposed along Lafayette Street will accommodate marine uses and will provide public access to the marina area between the proposed structures and the bulkhead. The proposed project is designed to complement the nautical and historical maritime character of the area. Due to these factors, the project is deemed consistent with the LUE and LCP/LUP. Consistent with the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan 1. The Cannery Village Specific Plan is intended to provide an active pedestrian- oriented, specialty retail area with a wide range of uses including retail, professional offices that provide service directly to the public, residential uses on the second floor, and marine - related light industrial uses. The project provides retail uses with residences on the second floor, and incorporates changes to the street in an effort to promote pedestrian- orientation. 2. The Specific Plan has a recommended architectural theme that is "reminiscent of the previous use of the area, and can provide a continuity throughout the area while preserving the variety and individuality of uses that give the area its charm." The cannery theme includes the use nautical and marine elements, the use of corrugated metal building materials, the attractive expression of mechanical equipment. Features of the project include: galvanized metal exterior finishes that are treated to better withstand weathering, exposed metal beams and canvas canopies accents, a modest use of stucco as a siding material, wood accent panels in partially protected areas, decks with cable railing systems and teak accents. The use of these materials and the overall industrial loft architectural style is reminiscent of the past marine industrial use of the Cannery Village area. 3. The Specific Plan speaks of a "continuity" that preserves "the variety and individuality of uses that give the area its charm." Although the project does not exhibit a significant variety of architectural styling, the project will incorporate different materials from unit to unit that will assist in mitigating the repetitive architecture. Further, nothing in the architecture will minimize the variety and individuality of uses in the Cannery Village. In the broader context of the entire Cannery Village, the project adds its own separate and distinct interpretation of variety and individuality that is clearly evidenced in the eclectic nature of the village. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan. Use Permit for Building Height 1. The project incorporates increased setbacks, which results in more public visual open space. The first and second levels of the building are further set back from the alleys and streets beyond the minimum setbacks. There are three foot setbacks between buildings on he Lafayette Lots where none are required. The project also incorporates an open terraces and balconies at both the front and rear of the second and third level of each residential unit. These features increase open space that is visible by the public. The location of the portions of the building that exceeds the 26 -foot height limit are generally located in the middle of the buildings. The increased setbacks, open aspects of the terraces and balconies and location of 0 Resolution No. 1550 Page 3 of 15 the features that exceeds the basic height limit will provide a slightly greater view of the sky for someone on the street and the alley as what could be constructed within the basic height limit. 2. The increased height creates a two story breezeway open from the street to the alley behind the project. This 9' -6" wide by 20 feet high breezeway is visible to the public and assists in off - setting the increased height. Other units include open parking courts that are also visible from the public sidewalk and create an open feel in the area. 3. The proposed buildings that face 30`s Street will occupy less area and volume than a conforming building. The project will also occupy approximately 34,000 cubic feet when roughly 50,00 cubic feet could be built in compliance with the 26 -foot height limit. 4. The four units proposed for Lafayette Avenue are slightly different in what features encroach above the height limit. The roof of these units exceeds the height limit by approximately 5 feet and the third floor area is approximately 20% of each lot. This level is 16 feet wide when viewed from the street and it is 26 feet in width when viewed from the bay. The third level is also set back further than the lower levels from Lafayette and the bay. The size and setbacks of these features assist in mitigating the added height. These lots provide three breezeways between the buildings. The middle breezeway is 6 feet wide and the other two are 3 feet wide. Additionally, the site plans depicts open courtyards and an open terrace facing the bay. 5. The proposed 20 -foot high trellis wall at the 5 -foot setback line along Lafayette Avenue does not significantly block visibility of the open aspects of the project due to its open wire nature as exhibited by the material sample presented to the Planning Commission. This finding is also based upon the fact that the trellis wall will have openings for vehicle access that will be open during regular business hours and free from vines or plant material of any kind. 6. The building height above 26 feet creates the ability to construct the third level portion of the loft style residences. The loft concept is not possible without a two story residential space. The increased building height permits greater building articulation that has been expressed in the increased and varying setbacks, open terraces, balconies and the breezeway opening through to the alley. It would be difficult to incorporate the amount of articulation and creativity of design without the increased height while providing comparable square footage. The design of a 26- foot high mixed use building with the same floor area would likely be wider and more boxy in appearance. The increase height allows greater flexibility in design, which is exhibited in the project, and is architecturally superior to that achievable within the 26 -foot height limit. 7. Consistent with the eclectic nature of Cannery Village, there is a variety of building heights in the area. Surrounding buildings are generally one and two story at or near the 26 -foot height limit. Some projects include the Cannery Restaurant, the 28`s Street Manna project and a mixed use development west of the project that exceeds the 26 -foot height limit. Some of these building are nonconforming, light industrial buildings, and others have received Use Permits to exceed the base height limit. The portions of the buildings above 26 feet are generally located to the center and rear of the buildings, which helps lessen the bulk of the buildings perceived from 30`s Street and Lafayette Avenue. The presence of other buildings of comparable height in the area and the location, design and bulk of features of the project I Resolution No. 1550 Page 4 of 15 that exceeds 26 feet, the increased height to accommodate these specific features is not an abrupt change in scale. 8. The floor area ratio of the project ranges from 0.997 to 1.047, which is below the maximum of 1.25 FAR; therefore the project does not achieve any additional floor area due to the additional height. Site Plan Review for 2908 - 2912 Lafayette Avenue 1. The Lafayette lots are flat, paved with concrete with no trees or shrubs, no unique natural landforms or coastal bluffs or other environmental resources. No known archaeological and historical resources are known to exist and are unlikely to exist due to the disturbed nature of the site. The site will be graded to maintain the minimum building pad elevation of 6.27 feet above mean sea level using the NGVD29 vertical datum. This change in grade is necessary to provide minimum flood protection and does not constitute significant alteration of the site as the grade will be similar to abutting properties. The development of the lots provides a 10 -foot bulkhead setback, within which a 6 -foot easement will be dedicated for public access to the waterfront, which does not exist today. 2. The four Lafayette buildings are consistent with the development standards of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan with the exception of building height. Their height and bulk is comparable to the Cannery Restaurant and the adjacent building presently occupied by Shock Boats as well as other structures located in the vicinity. 3. The development of the 4 units on Lafayette will effectively block the view to the Rhine channel from Lafayette. However, these streets are not designated as a Scenic Highway or Drive and no public parks are in the vicinity where views would be impacted. The project provides a 6 -foot public access easement within the 10 -foot bulkhead setback along the channel that connects to the 30`s Street end. From this easement, that presently does not exist, public views will be created. 4. The project site is not subject to any increased potential of geologic hazard due to its location than other properties in the area. All applicable City and State building codes and seismic design recommendations contained within the Preliminary Geotechnical investigation will be applied through the issuance of a building permit, which will minimize possible risks of liquefaction damage during an earthquake. 5. The Noise Element does not indicate that the project site is subject to noise levels that exceed 60 CNEL, therefore, it is not anticipated that the project will not be subject to excessive noise. The residential portions of the project will need to be sound insulated sufficiently to ensure compliance with interior noise standards of the Community Noise Ordinance. 6. The Planning, Public Works and Building Departments have reviewed the site plan for proper pedestrian and vehicle function. The Public Works Department is satisfied with access and circulation from Lafayette Avenue as it meets applicable standards. A reciprocal parking easement is necessary to ensure proper location and sharing of disabled parking. Public coastal access along the Rhine Charnel is provided in accordance with the Zoning Code. A 6 -foot wide horizontal easement that is parallel to and abuts the Rhine Channel will be dedicated to the Resolution No. 1550 Page 5 of 15 public and will be improved with a walkway by the applicant. The easement and walkway will be directly accessible by the public from 3e Street, a public street. No vertical access easements are necessary due to the direct access from 307b Street. 7. The air conditioning units will be located on the roof in the middle of the building and will not be visible from the ground. Trash storage areas are not specifically delineated on the plans, and will be accommodated within the commercial spaces and residential garages, and will only be visible for trash-pickup. 8. Residences nearby the Lafayette portion of the project are few and are located within the existing mixed use district. Due to the small size of the commercial uses and the fact that that they are within a mixed use project, land use conflicts or other negative impacts to nearby residences are not anticipated. Tract Map for 5010' Street 1. The subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and the Cannery VillagefMcFadden Specific Plan. Additionally, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code and Subdivision Map Act and conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance. 2. The site to be subdivided is flat, developed with urban uses with no environmental resources. No other physical constraints to construction are known. The site, previous to a lot merger, was 7 lots consistent with the subdivision pattern of the majority of the Cannery Village area. The proposed subdivision will recreate the previous subdivision pattern consistent with the surrounding properties. Applicable planning policies and codes permit mixed use development where one residential unit is permitted above a commercial space on a minimum of a 2,375 square foot lot provided the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standard is met. Each of the 7 proposed lots is larger than this limit, one residential unit is proposed per lot consistent with applicable FAR standards. Due to these factors, the site is suitable for the type and density of development proposed. 3. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. It concludes that the project will have a less than significant impact to the environment. The site is developed in a highly urbanized area and no significant natural resources exist in the area of the project site except for Newport Bay. The project includes a system of filtering storm runoff on site before it discharged to the storm water system. The project also includes improvements to the local storm water system where a fossil type filter will be installed to treat the fast or low flow discharge prior to discharge to Newport Bay. These features will mitigate and improve water quality thereby avoiding impacts to fish or wildlife. 4. The project consists of 22 individual commercial/residential structures permitted by local ordinances and the General Plan. The design of the subdivision is identical to the surrounding subdivision pattern. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the existing subdivision pattern has generated any serious public health problems. 5. No public easements for access through or use of the property have been retained for the use by the public at large. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are 11 Resolution No. 1550 Page 6 of 15 present and will be modified, if necessary, to serve the new project. Therefore the proposed subdivision will not impact public easements. Public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 19 of the Municipal Code and Section 66411 of the Subdivision Map Act and public improvements may be required of a developer per Section 20.91.040 of the Municipal Code. 6. The design of the proposed project provides each lot with direct southern exposure to the maximum extent feasible, therefore, solar access and passive energy conservation goals are met. 7. The proposed subdivision facilitates the creation of 7 new residential units that likely would not be developed due to current housing trends although they could be developed under existing zoning provisions without the subdivision. These 7 new units will assist the city in meeting its housing needs. Public services are available to serve the proposed development of the site and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project indicates that the project's potential environmental impacts are expected to be less than significant. 8. Waste discharge into the existing sewer will be consistent with retail commercial, office and residential use due to the design and limitations of the use property established by existing zoning regulations It is not anticipated that waste discharge into the sewer from these uses would violate any Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements or Orange County Sanitation District standards. 9. The proposed project is entirely within the coastal zone and the site is not presently developed or occupied with coastal- related uses, coastal - dependent uses or water - oriented recreational uses. Although the City of Newport Beach does not have a certified Local Coastal Program, the project is consistent with the city's certified Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. The subdivision does not abut the ocean or bay, therefore no coastal access is required. The site Recreation policies of the Coastal Act require that sites suitable for water - oriented recreational activities that cannot be supplied inland must be protected. These policies prioritize water - oriented recreational activities over other land uses and encourage aquaculture and water - oriented recreational support facilities. The portion of the project site proposed to be subdivided is not suitable for water - oriented recreational activities due to its size and location. Coastal Residential Development Permit I. The entire project is located within the coastal zone and requests the construction of 22 units. Pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code, when a project proposes to create 10 or more units within the coastal zone, affordable housing must be included within the project unless it can be determined infeasible. The Housing Element of the General Plan determines the number and type of affordable housing that is required. In accordance with the Housing Element, 2 moderate income units would be required to be included within the project. 2. The City caused the preparation of a feasibility study pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code and the Housing Element. The study was prepared by Kayser Marston Associates, Inc. and is dated February 12, 2002 and is incorporated herein by reference. The study concludes that it is financially infeasible to include 2 moderate income units within the project. Therefore, in order to satisfy the inclusionary housing requirement and foster affordable housing within the 12. Resolution No. 1550 Page 7 of 15 Coastal Zone, the project is required to pay to the City of Newport Beach an in -lieu fee in the amount of $139,898.00. The City of Newport Beach will then be responsible to provide 2 moderate income units in accordance with applicable State requirements. Traffic Study 1. A traffic study, entitled Cannery Lofts TPO Traffic Analysis (Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., October 30, 2001), was prepared for the project in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance). 2. The traffic study indicates that the project will increase traffic on 1 primary intersection (Newport Boulevard and Via Lido) by one percent (I %) or more during the PM Peak Hour one year after the completion of the project. 3. Utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis specified by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the traffic study determined that the project will not cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service at the Newport Boulevard and Via Lido intersection. The intersection is anticipated to operate at LOS A with an ICU value of 0.41, and no mitigation is required. Mitigated Negative Declaration 1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The Draft MND was circulated for public comment between November 5, 2001 and December 5, 2001. Comments were received from The City of Newport Beach Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, California Department of Transportation, California Coastal Commission and Lucille Kring on behalf of Owners/Residents Against Cannery Lofts Expansion. Responses to these comments were prepared and sent to the commenting parties on February 8, 2002. 2. The contents of the environmental document, including comments on the document and responses to the comments, have been considered in the various decisions on this project On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project nor cumulative impacts are anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are applied to the project and are incorporated as conditions of approval. Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby adopts a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approves Site Plan Review No. 2001 -001, Use Permit No. 2001 -022, Newport Tract Map No. 2001 -002 (Tentative Tract Map. No. 16292), Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2001 -003 & Traffic Study No. 2001 -004, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A' attached. 17; Resolution No. 1550 Page 8 of 15 Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is call for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21" DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2002. I -Vim BY: Larry Tucker, Chairman Earl McDaniel, Secretary F.Vd NOES: ABSENT: E Resolution No. 1550 Page 9 of 15 Exhibit "A" Conditions of Approval The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans except as modified below. The plans are identified by date as follows: Sheet No. Date Sheet No. Date 01 09/14/2001 13 09/14/2001 02 03/12/2001 14 10/18/2001 02 -B 09/14/2001 15 02112/2002 03 09/14/2001 16 09/14/2001 04 02106/2002 17 09/14/2001 05 09/14/2001 17 -B 09/14/2001 06 10/18/2001 18 02/12/2002 07 10/18/2001 19 09/14/2001 08 09/14/2001 19 -B 09/14/2001 09 11/28/2001 20 09/14/2001 10 10/18/2001 21 09/14/2001 11 10/18/2001 22 02/12/2002 12 10/18/2001 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. Project approvals, with the exception of the Tentative Tract Map, 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. Reasonable extensions may be granted by the Planning Director in accordance with applicable regulations. The Tentative Tract Map shall expire within 36 months from the date of approval unless extensions are granted prior to expiration in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Map Act. 4. Deleted 5. The applicant shall obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit for the project. 6. In lieu of the requirement for 10% of the proposed dwelling units to be affordable as defined by the City's Housing Element, a fee of $6,359 per unit built for a total of $139,898.00 shall be paid to the City to satisfy the project's affordable housing requirement. 7. The minimum elevation of the finished floor for project buildings shall be 6.27 feet above mean sea level based upon NGV29 vertical datum. 8. Each building between Villa Way and Lafayette Avenue shall be protected with an automatic fire suppression sprinkler system subject to the review and approval of the Newport Beach Fire Department. 9. Exterior decks, exterior balconies, exterior terraces, setback areas, breezeways for vehicular parking areas, open vehicular parking areas or exterior walkways shall not be covered or U Resolution No. 1550 Page 10 of 15 enclosed without the prior approval of the Building and Fire Departments and the Planning Commission. 10. The proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, any local amendments to the UBC, and State Disabled Access requirements, unless otherwise approved by the Building Department. The trellises on the 30a' Street lots will be set back to comply with the Uniform Building Code Requirements. 11. Disabled parking shall be reviewed and approved by the Division of the State Architect prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit for new construction. A reciprocal use and access easement for the parking spaces between Lots El & E2 and between Lots E3 & E4 shall be required. Any reciprocal easements associated with the provision pf disable parking shall be recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit. Owners shall provide proof of recordation of the reciprocal parking easement and a title commitment dated after the date of recordation showing the agreement being recorded prior to any financing on either property and/or that any existing mortgage has agreed to such subordination. 12. Commercial trash receptacles shall be stored within the commercial space or shall otherwise be screened from public view as determined by the Planning Director. Residential trash receptacles shall be stored within the residential garages. 13. The enclosed garages shall be available for the exclusive use of the residential occupants for parking purposes only. No conversion of the garage spaces to other use shall be permitted. The open parking spaces shall be available for the exclusive use of the commercial businesses and customers while those commercial businesses are open for business. 14. The commercial spaces within the project shall not be converted or used for residential purposes. Residential spaces shall be used for residential purposes and shall not be converted or used for exclusive commercial purposes. Commercial activity within the residential portions of all buildings shall comply with Section 20.60.100 (Home Occupations in Residential Districts). 15. 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. 16. 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 In Resolution No. 1550 Page 11 of 15 operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 17. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the new construction proposed for the four lots on Lafayette Avenue, the applicant shall dedicate a 6 -foot wide public access easement along the entire water frontage of each property to the City of Newport Beach. The access easement shall be subject to the review and approval of the Newport Beach City Attorney and Coastal Commission prior to recordation. The easement shall be improved with a hard paved surface and railings as approved by the Public Woks Department. The easement shall be directly accessible by the public from 30'x' Street and not be gated, enclosed or otherwise blocked by present or future property owners or occupants of the four properties. Present or future property owners or occupants shall not place or store any objects including but not limited to boats, tables, chairs, umbrellas and shade canopies within the easement area. 18. The boat slips bayward of property shall only be used in conjunction with the proposed residential dwelling units. Commercial use or rental of the boat slips is prohibited due to the lack of vehicular parking for the slips. The applicant or owner shall obtain new harbor permits for residential use prior to the issuance of a building permit for new construction. 19. The project must comply with the interior and exterior noise standards for residential uses of the Noise Ordinance. The interior noise standard is 45dBA between the hours of 7:OOAM and 10:00PM and 40dBA between the hours of 10:00PM and 7:OOAM. The exterior noise level standard is 55dBA between the hours of 7:OOAM and 10:OOPM and 50dBA between the hours of 10:00PM and 7:OOAM. An acoustic study shall be performed by a qualified professional that demonstrates compliance with these standards of the Noise Ordinance. This acoustic study shall be performed and submitted to the City Planning Department prior to occupancy of the project. If the exterior noise levels exceed applicable standards, additional mitigation shall be required which may include the installation of additional sound attenuation devices as recommended by the acoustic study and subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 20. Each residential unit and each commercial building shall be separately served with an individual water service and sewer lateral connection to the public water and sewer systems unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department and the Building Department. 21. Intersections of private drives with 30th Street and Lafayette Avenue shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 35 miles per hour. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstruction shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed twenty -four inches in height. 22. A condition survey of the existing bulkhead along the bay sides of the property shall be made by a civil or structural engineer prior to issuance of any grading permits, and that the bulkhead be repaired in conformance with the recommendations of the condition survey and to the satisfaction of the Building Department and Harbor Resources Division. The top of the bulkhead is to be a minimum elevation of 6.27 MSL based upon NGV29 vertical datum. IVA Resolution No. 1550 Page 12 of 15 23. All improvements within the public right of way shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 24. 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. The applicant shall prepare a construction phasing plan and construction delivery plan that includes routing of large vehicles prior to the issuance of building permits for new construction. Large construction vehicles shall not be permitted to travel narrow streets and alleys as determined by the Public Works Department. 25. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 26. A hydrology and hydraulic 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 and public improvements prior to recording of the tract map. 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. 27. Deleted 28. The applicant shall provide wheel stops or other approved protective barrier methods as necessary within the parking areas. The parking spaces shall be marked with approved traffic markers subject to the approval of the Public Works Department or painted white lines not less than 4 inches wide. 29. Fair Share traffic mitigation fees shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit for new construction on the project site. 30. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets within the limits authorized by this permit, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. The air conditioning units atop the 30th Street units may be visible in accordance with the approved plans. The air conditioning units atop Lots NI, NIO, S1 and S8 shall be setback from abutting sidewalks by no less than 10 feet. 31. Overhead utilities serving the site to be subdivided 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 physically infeasible. 32. A final map shall be recorded. That the final map be prepared so that the Bearings relate to the State Plane Coordinate System. The final map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD83) and that prior to recordation of the final map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall submit to the County Surveyor and to the City of Newport Beach a digital- graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision N Resolution No. 1550 Page 13 of 15 Manual, Subarticle 18. That prior to recordation of the final map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Section s 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set on each lot comer unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 33. A standard subdivision agreement and accompanying surety shall be provided in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of the public improvements if it is desired to record a tract map or obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 34. The on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer. The width of the commercial parking spaces within the proposed breezeways shall be increased to a minimum clear width of 9 feet 6 inches. 35. All work within the public right of way must be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the Public Works Department. 36. Street, drainage and utility improvements shall be shown of standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer. All non - standard improvements shall be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer and approved by the City Engineer and the City Council. 37. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code or other applicable section or chapter, street trees shall be required and shall be subject to the review and approval of the General Services and Public Works Departments. 38. An encroachment agreement is required for all non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way. Prior to the issuance of an encroachment permit for the construction of non- standard improvements, an association or maintenance assessment district shall be formed that will be responsible for the maintenance of the non - standard improvements. This association or assessment district must be formed and approved by the City prior to recordation of the tract map or issuance of any Grading or Building Permits unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. 39. A site plan shall be provided prior to recordation of any tract map or issuance of a building permit for new construction showing the location of all proposed street lights, fire hydrants, trees, landscape, vents and other obstructions. 40. The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all applicable City plan check and inspection fees. 41. The front setback area shall be landscaped per Section 20.43.050 (50% of the setback area). The landscape areas of the Lafayette Avenue lots depicted in the drawings shall be increased by expanding the area devoted to turf block in front of the residential garage aprons within the front yard setback so that the 50% landscape requirement is met. K Resolution No. 1550 Page 14 of 15 42. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut -off fixtures. 43. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the illuminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The applicant shall prepare photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated 44. Signs shall be regulated by the Balboa Sign Overlay except that roof signs shall be prohibited. 45. Mitigation Measures - Geology. 1. The proposed structures shall be designed using a reduced bearing value and a specially designed foundation system that distributes building loads as evenly as possible across the clay layer. The recommended bearing value and an estimate of the corresponding settlements within the site for the special foundation are presented in the Geotechnical Investigation (Petra, 2001). 2. Proposed buildings and structures shall be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in Sections 1626 through 1633 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. The method of design will be dependent on the seismic zoning, site characteristics, occupancy category, building configuration, type of structural system, and building height. 3. The project shall be designed to incorporate the following structural design criteria to minimize the impacts of groundshaking and related seismic effects. UBC 1997 Table Factor 16 -1 Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.40 16 -J Soil Profile Type So and SE 16 -0 Seismic Coefficient C. 0.57 16 -R Seismic Coefficient C" 1.54 16 -S Near - Source Factor N. 1.3 16 -T Near - Source Factor N" 1.6 16 -U Seismic Source Type B 4. To mitigate the potential for earthquake - induced liquefaction, all of the structures proposed shall be supported by a mat foundation system or post- tensioned foundation system that will create a rigid foundation that more evenly distributes the building loads across the underlying supporting soils. 5. An allowable bearing value of 1,000 pounds per square foot shall be used for footings founded at minimum depths of 18 inches below the nearest adjacent final grade. (No increase in bearing value should be provided for footings having a greater depth.) For design of mat foundation systems, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pounds per cubic inch may be considered. Resolution No. 1550 Page 15 of 15 6. Sulfate- resistant cement shall be used in all concrete that may be in contact with on -site soils. Careful control of the maximum water - cement ratio and the minimum concrete compressive strength is also required in order to provide proper resistance against deterioration due to sulfates. 46. Mitigation Measures - Hazards and Hazardous Materials 1. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall conduct a survey for the presence of lead based paint and asbestos - containing material in the structure located at 515 30h Street. Should such materials be found in the structure, they shall be abated pursuant to applicable regulatory requirements at least 10 days prior to demolition. 2. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall ensure that the items located at 515 30th Street (e.g., fuel cans, outboard motors, vehicles, etc.) be removed from the property. 3. If any stained soil or other suspect material is encountered during grading operations, a qualified environmental firm shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the potential environmental conditions. 47. Mitigation Measures - Noise 1. The hours of operation of equipment that produces significant noise or levels noticeably above general construction noise be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. weekdays and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Saturday. 2. All construction equipment shall be muffled and shall be maintained in good working order to reduce the equipment - related noise generation. 3. If heavy construction activities occur adjacent to noise sensitive land uses, the temporary noise barriers should be installed to protect those land uses during the periods of loudest construction events. 4. All construction activities will comply with applicable state and local construction noise regulations. 48. Mitigation Measure - Public Services The applicant will be required to incorporate specific recommendations prescribed by the Newport Beach Fire and Building Department to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. 49. Mitigation Measure - Recreation The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee to the City of Newport Beach as required pursuant to Title 19 of the Municipal Code. 50. The applicant shall dedicate to the City 10 -foot corner cutoffs for pedestrian access purposes at the 3& Street/Villa Way and 3e Street/Lafayette Street intersections. 51. The trellis wall located on the four Lafayette Avenue lots shall not be planted with vines or other plant materials. V THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK M Exhibit No. 2 Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 21, 2002 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK M �aEwPpe CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: a' s 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: c'�roaa`� NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 6443200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 Appeal Period: February 21, 2002 1 James Campbell (949) 644 -3210 14 days REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) 501 -507 & 500 -512 30th Street, 2908 -2912 Lafayette Avenue SUMMARY: Request for the Cannery Lofts Mixed Use Development that consists of 22 individual commercial and residential units proposed for 16 existing lots to be located on properties along both the north and south sides of 30th between Villa Way and Lafayette Street and two lots on the east side of Lafayette Street along the Rhine Channel. The property is located in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area and is zoned SP #6 (RSC & RMC) District. Site Plan Review No. 2001 -001 is only associated with the 4 buildings proposed along the Rhine Channel. Use Permit No. 2001 -022 is associated with all of the proposed buildings as they would exceed the base height limit of 26 feet. Newport Tract Map No. 2001 -Q02 requests to subdivide one lot, which was the result of a previous merger of 7 lots, recreating the previous subdivision pattern. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2001 -003 is associated with the feasibility of including affordable housing within the project as required by the Zoning Code and Housing Element or the payment of an in -lieu fee. The project requires the consideration of a Traffic Study prepared pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) by Adopting Resolution No. entitled, "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approving Site Review No. 2001 -001, Use Permit No. 2001 -022, Newport Tract Map No. 2001 -002 (Tentative Tract Map. No. 16292), Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2001 -003 & Traffic Study No. 2001- 004' for properties located at 501 -507 & 500 -512 30th Street, 2908 -2912 Lafayette Avenue (PA2001- 127)." (Exhibit No. 1) Discussion This hearing was continued from December 6, 2001 and January 3, 2002. The fast meeting provided an introduction and discussion of the physical nature of the project. The second meeting focused on the environmental issues and comments received on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Public testimony was taken during both meetings. 25 At the conclusion of the last meeting, there were several unresolved issues. During the course of working through those issues with the applicant and the various responsible city departments, another issue arose conceming a deficiency in front yard landscaping of a portion of the project. Because of this, staff sent a revised notice for the consideration of a Variance. However, the applicant has indicated a revision in the project that has eliminated the need to consider the Variance. Further refinements of the project have necessitated the revision of Sheet 4 (site plan), Sheet 18 (on- street parking analysis) and Sheet 22 (proposed streetscape plan). These plans are attached as Exhibit No. 2. Following is a discussion of the topics worked upon since the last meeting and changes to the project as a result. Planning Department Issues MND Responses - As noted previously, 4 comment letters were received (EQAC, ORACLE, CalTrans & Coastal Commission). Responses to the comments were prepared by Keeton Krietzer, the primary author of the MND, and staff. The responses to comments and the comment letters are attached as Exhibit No. 6. The responses were transmitted to the commenting parties on February 8, 2002. After publication of the responses, several minor omissions and errors were — — discovered that are addressed in an Errata attached as Exhibit No. 5. Staff believes that the responses, with the errata, adequately address the comments raised, and that the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration can be adopted. Coastal Residential Development Permit - There is an affordable housing goal established by the Housing Element and Chapter 20.86 (Low and Moderate Income Housing Within the Coastal Zone) that is 10% of the project be for low or moderate income households. The City had Keyser Marston Associates conduct an affordable housing feasibility study as required by this Chapter. The study concludes that it is not feasible to require that 2 of the 22 units proposed be reserved for moderate income households. The report is attached as Exhibit No. 3. Because of the finding that it is infeasible to require the inclusion of affordable housing with the project, the payment of an in -lieu fee is necessary. The fee will be paid into the city's affordable housing fund, and the City will then have the responsibility to create the 2 units. The in -lieu fee identified by staff is $6,359 per unit built for a total of•St- 39,898.00. The per unit fee is calculated by starting with the fee assessed to the last project (The Shores) and adjusting it for inflation using the LA, Orange and Riverside County CPI index. Landscaping Requirement - During the review of the street improvements, staff noticed that the required front yard landscaping standard was not met. The Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan requires that 50% of the required front yard be devoted to landscaping. The applicant has modified and increased the planter area of the 18 units that face 3& Street to comply. The 4 lots on Lafayette Avenue provide landscaping within the required 5 -foot front yard setback in the form of turf block. The turf block areas comprise approximately 31% of Lots E2 and E3 and 41.5% of lots El and E4. This deficiency led staff to include a Variance request for the project. Subsequent to the notices being mailed, the applicant informed staff that the driveway areas for the residences would also be paved with turf block. This change has not been incorporated within the plans at this time, but the new turf block area would increase the landscape areas to approximately 75% of Lots E2 and E3 and 87% of Lots E1 and E4. It should be noted that the turf block areas are not 100% landscaping, but some lesser percentage. Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) February 21, 2002 Page 2 of 7 l .i1' Traditionally, decorative pavers or other hardscape features have been counted toward the landscape percentage requirement when it does not dominate the design. Staff believes that this interpretation can be applied in this case and that the turf block area in total meets the 50% coverage requirement, although unfortunately, the area will not support shrubs or trees. Building Department Issues Occupancy Separation Walls - As indicated in the previous report, the applicant sought relief from having to construct an occupancy separation wall at the property line and the street facing terraces that are partially covered with an open metal beam and canvas awning system. The terrace cover cannot be built within three feet of the property line when it abuts private property without providing a I hour separation wall. The plans presently do not show this wall. The applicant filed for a building modification to allow this design by suggesting other means of protection. The application was denied by the Building Department. The applicant has indicated that the metal terrace frame and cover will be modified to comply with the Building Code by providing a 3 -foot setback from the side property line. This change affects the lots facing 30a' Street with the exception of the 4 end units that face Villa Way and Lafayette Avenue. The change to the plans has not been made at this time and a condition of approval has been included to require that the project comply with the Building Code. The Building Department also re�orts that the plans have additional minor deficiencies, which affect the architecture. Each 30 Street unit has incorporated an occupancy separation wall between the residential area and stairway and the covered commercial parking within the breezeways. The wall that has been included has not been extended fully where the third level covers the second level. This area is located on the second level shown on Sheet 11 and highlighted on Exhibit No. 4. The applicant has indicated that the necessary changes will be incorporated in order to comply with the Building Code. Trellis Wall - As noted previously, the trellis wall for the Lafayette lots does not meet the Building Code setback standards. The trellis wall is parallel to the street and is not permitted to be within 3 feet of the intervening property lines that are roughly perpendicular to the street. A modification of the building standards was suggested as an option, but the applicant has not filed an application requesting relief from the standard nor has the trellis wall been modified to comply. Without approval of a building modification request, the proposed trellis wall will need to be eliminated or altered to provide a 3 -foot setback. The applicant has selected the material for the proposed trellis wall. A sample of the metal material will be available at the meeting for review. Disabled Parking - Staff previously identified that two of the lots on Lafayette Avenue did not have disabled parking. The applicant proposes to solve this situation by creating and recording a reciprocal parking agreement between the two lots that share the same court (Lots El/E2 and Lots E3/E4). This easement will allow the lots without the disabled parking space to use the space on the abutting lot. This easement will also solve the issue with the loading area for the disabled space being located on the neighbor's lot. It should be noted that the loading area for the disabled parking space is in front of the parking space for the adjacent lot. The Building Department indicates that this sharing of disabled parking and the unconventional "partially Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) February 21, 2002 Page 3 of 7 V i tandem" configuration requires approval from the Division of the State Architect (DSA). Finally, the Building Department has indicated that the tandem disabled parking for the 3e Street lots also needs DSA approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. If the disabled parking areas are not approved as presently designed, the Lafayette lots cannot be implemented as presently designed and will need to be revised. This potential revision might require that buildings be moved: The solution for the 3e Street lots is simpler, because each lot has an extra commercial parking space in front of the disabled parking space that can be eliminated. Fire Department Issues The Building Department issues discussed above, with the exception of the disabled parking issue, are also unresolved with the Fire Department. Their resolution in accordance with the Building Code will also satisfy the Fire Department. Additionally, the Fire Marshal has required that the all of the 3e Street lots be fully sprinklered due to access and building height, as required by the Fire Code. The applicant has agreed to install sprinklers and a fire alarm system in each of the 18 units that face 30`" Street in satisfaction of the Fire Code and in accordance with Fire Department specifications. The sprinkler requirement does not apply to the Lafayette units due to the separation between the buildings. The Fire Department- has -no -other outstanding issues. Public Works Issues Authority - A question was raised as to whether the Planning Commission has the ability to review and comment on improvements within the public right -of -way. Pursuant to Section 707 of the Charter, the Planning Commission has the power and duty to make recommendations to the City Council concerning proposed public works projects. As indicated in Section 707, the Commission can make a recommendation and the City Council has ultimate decision making authority. Hydrology - The Public Works Department requested a hydrology /drainage study to be prepared to verify the feasibility of the proposed drainage concept to avoid potential flooding concerns. A preliminary study has been prepared to the Department's satisfaction. During the review of the study, it was discovered that the finished floor of the first level did not meet the minimum flood elevation of the Municipal Code. The finished floors of the project did range between 6.70 and 8.83 feet and appeared to comply with the City standard which is 6.27 feet above mean sea level. However, the floor elevations were based on the NAVD88 vertical datum and the city standard floor elevation of 6.27 feel in based on the NGV29 datum, which has a difference of 2.34 feet in elevation. This simple fact would have left the project, except for one unit, below the minimum elevation specified by the Municipal Code. The applicant has modified the project to increase the finished floor elevation to 8.61 feet NAVD88, which results in an increase in the overall height of the project. The increased height of the foundation of the project does not impact the numerical measurement of building height. Section 20.65.030 indicates that building height is measured from the minimum flood elevation in areas where the sites must be raised to meet the flood elevation standard. In other words, the height of a project is not penalized by having to comply with Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) February 21, 2002 Page 4 of 7�� minimum flood elevation standards. It is the City's policy to raise buildings out of the flood hazard areas and measuring height from the previous grade would create a disincentive to comply with minimum flood elevation standards. The increased height of the foundations does, however, increase the overall height of the project as related to the surrounding buildings. The increase in height differs from lot to lot and ranges between -0.22 to 1.91 feet with the average increase being 1.45 feet. This increase in height can be considered in conjunction with the facts supporting the findings for increased height of the project. The surrounding buildings may not be at or above the minimum required elevation. Most of the buildings are older and do not comply. Ultimately all buildings in the village will comply as they redevelop and the increase in height of the project attributable to the higher foundation will be lessened over time. The increase in base height of the project has assisted drainage issues and the Department's concern related to feasibility of the drainage concept is eliminated. The concern rested in the low elevation of the center drain relative to the bay. Raising the foundations of the project allows the center drain to be at a higher elevation, which improves drainage and permits the installation of the low flow - water - treatment- devices designed to improve the quality of the storm water. However, the change from a standard crowned street section to an alley -like section has another minor impact, in that an estimated 2800 cubic feet of water storage will be lost. This amount of water is considered insignificant by the Public Works Department as it will be partially accommodated within the new drain in the center of the street and any remainder will be dispersed over a wide area and is considered negligible. Although the final engineering is not complete, the Public Works Department believes that the drainage concept is feasible and the project as designed minimizes flooding concerns. Parking - The design and location of on- street parking has been a significant topic of debate between the applicant and staff. The applicant and staff have been working together in an attempt to minimize the loss of on- street parking. The proposed street plan, which is shown on Sheet 4, has been modified to eliminate street parking that does not meet design standards. The change in on- street parking is shown on Sheet 18. Only 4 on- street parking spaces will remain on 30th Street between Villa Way and Lafayette Avenue. The total loss of on- street spaces due to the project will be 10 spaces. Although this circumstance is not desirable, inserting additional spaces that do not meet minimum dimensions or impede vehicular maneuvering is not supported by the Public Works Department. The significance of the loss of ten spaces in not considered a significant environmental affect due to the overall number of spaces in the district, the presence of the city parking lot abutting the site, the extra on -site parking provided with the 30`s Street units and the fact that the project location is not adjacent to a popular coastal access point. The commercial parking spaces within the 30'h Street breezeways are deficient in terms of width. The spaces on the current plans show 9'4" and must be increased to 9' -6 ". A condition of approval has been included requiring the change. Pedestrian Circulation - The Public Works Department has been concerned about the possibility that pedestrian access might be constricted with the non - standard improvements. The lack of detail, the need for bollards to protect the walkway and the location of street trees, parking meters Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) February 21, 2002 Page 5 of 7 and street lights were of concern. Staff did not want a slalom course created or the requirement of a public pedestrian easement on private property if at all possible. In response, the applicant has provided a modified and larger drawing (revised sheet 22). Although not all fixtures are located, the plan shows sufficient detail to satisfy the concerns of the Public Works Department. No public pedestrian easement on private property will be needed. As an outgrowth of the hydrology issue, it was decided that the 'elevation of the sidewalk will need to be increased by approximately 3 inches. This change assists in providing disabled access to the buildings as well as assisting drainage. Non- Standard Improvements - Liability Sr maintenance of the non - standard improvements has been an on -going concern of staff. Liability for the public right of way will remain with the City as there is no plan to privatize the streets. Ordinarily when such improvements are proposed, the City requires an encroachment agreement that assigns maintenance to the abutting property owner whether that is an individual or a property owners association (POA). Assigning responsibility to 22 individual property owners for a portion of street is not a workable alternative. The Public Works Department would normally recommend that a new POA be created so the responsibility is assigned to one entity. The applicant does not desire to create a - -POA; however requiring a POA and assigning responsibility for maintenance is one option the city has. The applicant proposes a second option that is the creation of a maintenance assessment district where the 22 property owners of the project will be assessed periodically an amount of money that will be determined based upon the maintenance and future replacement needs of the improvements. The City will then be responsible for the maintenance and will use the funds of the assessment district to conduct necessary repairs or replacement. The City has not created a similar maintenance assessment district in the past. The mechanics of the district are straight forward, but an additional administrative burden will be placed upon the Public Works Department. However, the maintenance scheme is technically feasible and is acceptable to staff, and will be considered by the City Council with the request for non - standard improvements. The primary benefit of the maintenance assessment district is that the financing of the maintenance and replacement of the improvements is pre - established, more secure and is in the control of the City. Roll -type curbs for Lafayette Avenue were originally proposed due to the need for a very wide vehicular access area. Currently, the Public Works Department only accepts rolled curbs for private streets. The applicant has changed the plans to provide a drive approach that is the full width of the Lafayette Avenue lots and must be designed to meet disabled access requirements. Therefore, this issue is resolved. Public Works staff also identified a need to provide corner cutoffs at the four corners of 3& Street for adequate pedestrian circulation. The 10 -foot radius corner cutoffs will be dedicated to the city for the sidewalk. The applicant has agreed to this and the corner cutoff features are included on the revised site plan (sheet 4). Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) February 21, 2002 Page 6 of 7 Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take additional public testimony. Staff believes that there are sufficient facts to support all of the findings for each application requested subject to the draft conditions of approval. The findings and conditions of approval are contained in the attached draft resolution for project approval. Staff has not prepared findings for denial at this time based upon the last two meetings on this project. If the Commission desires to take a different action than suggested, staff will prepare findings to reflect the desires of the Commission. Submitted by: PATRICA L. TEMPLE Pll annnn���ing Director 7-, 47L il0( „LCds� 7, Exhibits 2. Revised Plans (Sheet 4,18 & 22). 3. Affordable Housing Feasibility Report. Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner -:JW C� 4. Partial second floor plan indicating missing wall separation to be revised. 6. Respeages to @enmwats. 7. Comment letters receive since the last meeting 8. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) February 21, 2002 Page 7 of 7 V Exhibit No. 1 Draft Resolution for project approval qJ 'COG N? oti iKr lb Exhibit No. 2 Revised Plans (Sheet 4, 18 & 22) _ . 0 I sl Iii vAe 14 :lid 44 -,- - to OR VL L A a I A y I Z i �z m s s 0 cn aS2 9 a K O N V Is a o y ti m e; #ega fuse OD 0 O N O 2 H A °n x 3 cs J W Oki H_ O a 'a s - -Jj F - -7 ice= �\o gill 14 ,. n a S � 88 FRI &s gs asp as °t r n c a a z z � a s -e r O T CA N F3 { Q Y O N �a yys F6go s ®$3 sa 9 Rolm G Exhibit No. 3 Affordable Housing Feasibility Report - 1'1�� K E Y S E R M A R S T O N A s s o c I A T E S INC. 500 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE. SUITE 1480 Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 PHONE: 2131622 -8095 FAX: 213/622 -S2o4 MEMORANDUM To: James Campbell, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach From: Kathleen Head Date:.._. February _ 13, 2002 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMEN H CI11 AM FEB 1 4 2002 PM 7181911011111211;213141516 I Subject: Cannery Lofts: Inclusionary Housing Analysis ADPISORS IN: REAL ESTATE REDEVELOPMENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FISCAL IMPACT INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE VALUATION AND LITIGATION SUPPORT Los Angeles Calvin E. Hollis. 11 Kathleen H. Head James A. Rabe Paul C. Anderson Gregory D. Soo -Hoe San Diego Gerald M. Trimble Paul C. Marra SAN FRANCISCO A. Jerry Keyser Timothy C. Kelly Kate Earle Funk Robert T. Wetmore'- - -- - -'- Debbie M. Kern In accordance with our agreement, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) evaluated the financial characteristics of the 63,866 square foot Cannery Lofts mixed -use project. As currently proposed, the project will include approximately 46,750 square feet of residential space and 17,109 square feet of commercial space in 22 buildings (Project).' The purpose of the KMA analysis is to determine whether it is financially feasible for the Developer to fulfill the City of Newport Beach (City) inclusionary housing requirements within the Project as specified in Chapter 20.86 (Low and Moderate Income Housing within the Coastal Zone) of the Newport Beach Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance). INCLUSIONARY HOUSING OBLIGATION The Ordinance requires all new residential developments of 10 units or more with the Coastal Zone to allocate between 10% and 20% of the homes in the Project to low and moderate income households. The City staff has instructed KMA to assume that the Cannery Lofts Project is obligated to provide two moderate - income units to fulfill the Ordinance requirements- - The City's Housing Element defines the calculation methodology that must be used to quantify the affordable housing cost for moderate - income households. Based on this methodology, the affordable housing price is quantified by multiplying the defined moderate - income amount times three. The income level used in the calculation is derived from the 2002 Orange County household income data published by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). ' Each building will include approximately 2,125 square feet of residential space and 778 square feet of commercial space. ` 0202017:NB:KHH:gbd 16091.001.007 To: James Campbell, City of Newport Beach February 13, 2002 Subject: Cannery Lofts: Inclusionary Housing Analysis Page 2 For the purposes of this analysis, KMA tested the impact created by including two moderate income units under two different alternatives, which can be described as follows: High Alternative: The household income is set at 120% of the Orange County median income for a four person household. The resulting affordable price is $272,160. Low Alternative: The household income is set at 100% of the Orange County median income for a three person household. The affordable price is $204,000. To achieve the proposed density, the Project must meet both the City's mixed -use standards, and the City's parking standards. To that end, each building in the Project includes a - .- - - residential and a commercial component, and the buildings -have been- designed to be sold to single entities that will own both the residential and the commercial use. For the purposes of determining the financial impact created by the Ordinance requirements, KMA has assumed that the commercial component of both the moderate income units could be sold or rented at the fair market value. Thus, the value for the moderate income units is set at the sum of the maximum affordable moderate income price, plus the market value for 778 square feet of commercial space. ASSUMPTIONS The KMA analysis is based on the following major assumptions: Land Purchase Price The 1.45 acre development site is currently improved with a mix of uses including an office building, a mixed -use building, a small house, a boat storage facility and a surface parking lot. The development site was acquired for $9.4 million, which equates to $149 per square foot of land area. It is important to understand that the price paid to acquire the properties includes the values associated with the existing improvements. While these improvements added value to the properties from the former owners' perspectives, it is the Developer's intent to demolish all the existing improvements on the development site. Thus, the Developer was required to pay a premium to acquire improved properties, and then the Developer must also incur the costs required to demolish the improvements. It is KMA's understanding that the Developer acquired the properties in arms length transactions. Therefore, KMA applied the $9.4 million acquisition cost in the Project pro forma. 0202017:N8:KHH:gbd 16091.001.007 To: James Campbell, City of Newport Beach Subject: Cannery Lofts: Inclusionary Housing Analysis Scope of Development February 13, 2002 Page 3 The Project includes 22 separate residential/commercial buildings, each of which will be individually owned. As currently proposed, 18 buildings will be located on interior lots, and four buildings will be located on the waterfront. For the purposes of this financial analysis, ICMA assumed that the moderate income units could be provided in buildings located on interior lots. ANALYSIS To evaluate the financial impact created by the Ordinance requirements, KMA prepared pro forma analyses for the following scenarios: Scenario 1: All 22 units are sold at market rates. Scenario 2: 20 units are sold at market rates, and two units are sold at the moderate income price under the "High Alternative ". Scenario 3: 20 units are sold at market rates, and two units are sold at the moderate income price under the "Low Alternative ". The pro forma analyses are presented in Appendices A through C at the conclusion of this memorandum, and are organized as follows: Table 1: Estimated Development Costs Table 2: Projected Sales Revenues Table 3: Developer Profit Calculation Estimated Development Costs The majority of the assumptions applied in the development cost estimates do not vary from scenario -to- scenario. The key assumptions applied in the KMA analysis are: The property assemblage costs total $9.40 million, or $427,300 per unit. 2. The direct building costs are based on estimates provided by the Developer. These costs total $6.99 million, or approximately $317,600 per unit 2 KMA estimated the indirect costs at $1.31 million, or $59,400 per unit. 2 The building and parking costs are estimated at $100 per square foot of gross building area (GBA), m° and the off- and on -site improvement costs are estimated at $27,300 per unit. 0202017:NB:KHH:gbd 16091.001.007 To: James Campbell, City of Newport Beach February 13, 2002 Subject: Cannery Lofts: Inclusionary Housing Analysis Page 4 4. KMA set the "Developer Fee" at 3% of the projected sales revenues for the Project. This estimate ranges from $674,000 for Scenario 3, to $702,000 for Scenario 1. 5. The financing costs and closing costs are dependent on the sales revenues projected to be generated by the Project. KMA estimated these costs at $3.62 million for Scenario 1, and $3.48 million for Scenarios 2 and 3. The following table presents the estimated development costs under the three scenarios: Scenario 1: Market Rate Appendix A — Table 1 $22.01 million Two Moderate Income Units Scenario 2: High Alternative Appendix B — Table 1 $21.86 million Scenario 3: Low Alternative Appendix C — Table 1 $21.85 million As can be seen in the table above, the costs for the -market rate project are estimated to be $150,000 to $160,000 higher than the costs for the two scenarios that include moderate income units. Projected Sales Revenues The sales revenues are projected as follows: Market Rate Units Waterfront Interior Moderate Income Units Residential Commercia13 Total Moderate $1,800,000 $900,000 Hioh Alternative $272,160 $204,000 233,500 233,500 Based on the preceding assumptions, the sales revenues for each scenario are projected as follows: Scenario 1: Market Rate Appendix A — Table 2 $23.40 million Two Moderate Income Units Scenario 2: High Alternative Appendix B — Table 2 $22.61 million Scenario 3: Low Alternative Appendix C — Table 2 $22.47 million 3 The value is based on $2.50 per square foot per month rent; a 10% allowance for vacancy and collection costs; and a 9% Capitalization rate. This equates to $300 per square foot of GBA. 9 0202017:N8:KHH:gbd 16091.001.007 To: James Campbell, City of Newport Beach February 13, 2002 Subject: Cannery Lofts: Inclusionary Housing Analysis Page 5 If the High Alternative is applied, the imposition of the Ordinance requirements is projected to reduce the Project's sales revenues by $790,000. If the Low Alternative is used, the sales revenues are projected to decrease by $930,000. Developer Profit Calculation To assist in evaluating the impact created by the Ordinance requirements, KMA estimated the Developer Profit that could be anticipated under the three scenarios being tested. The results of this analysis are presented below: Development Cost Developer Profit Profit as % of Se Scenario 1 Market Rate $23,400,000 22,015,000 $1,385,000 5.9% Two Moderate Income Units :enario 2 Scenario Alternative Low Altema 22,611,000 $22,475 21.856.000 21.850 $755,000 625,000 3.3% 2.8% As illustrated in the table above, the Developer Profit is anticipated to decrease by $630,000 if the High Alternative is applied, and $760,000 if the Low Alternative is applied. This represents a 45% to 55% reduction in the Developer Profit. FINDINGS Based on the results of the preceding analysis, KMA has reached the following conclusions: The Developer Profit anticipated to be generated by the Project is below average even if it is assumed that no income and affordability restrictions are applied to the development: a. To reach a more typical return for a development of the proposed size and inherent risk level, the sales prices for all 22 units would have to increase by approximately 12% over the current projections. This means that the sales prices would have to be $100,000 per unit higher for the interior buildings and $200,000 per unit higher for the waterfront buildings than the prices found in the current projections. b. If the Developer is required to set -aside two units at fixed prices for moderate income households, the achievable sales prices for the 20 unrestricted units would have to outpace the projections by $150,000 per building for the interior units and $300,000 per building for the waterfront units for the Project to achieve the threshold profit level. �q k� Yi i% 0202017:NB:KHH:9btl 16091.001.007 To: James Campbell, City of Newport Beach February 13, 2002 Subject: Cannery Lofts: Inclusionary Housing Analysis Page 6 2. The KMA affordability analysis is predicated on the assumption that the City would allow the Developer to sell or rent the commercial square footage in the two moderate income buildings at the fair market value. If that is not the case, the Developer Profit associated with the two moderate income scenarios would be reduced to $173,000 to $302,000, respectively. This equates to a .8% to 1.4% return on the projected sales revenues for the Project. It is the KMA conclusion that it is not financially feasible for the Project to fulfill the Ordinance requirements on -site. The imposition of these requirements would reduce the profit that could be anticipated from the Project to an unacceptably low level. This is the case even if it is assumed that the High Alternative affordability standards could be applied, and that the commercial components could be sold or rented at the fair market value. 0202017.N8:KHH:gbd 18091.001.007 APPENDIX A SCENARIO 1 PRO FORMAANALYSIS 22 MARKET RATE UNITS 0202017:NB:KHH:gbd 16081.001.007 TABLE 1 ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS 22 MARKET RATE UNITS INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS CANNERY LOFTS NEWPORT BEACH. CALIFORNIA I. Land Acquisition Costs II. Direct Costs' On & Off -Site Improvements Market Rate Units Total Direct Costs - - -- - -- III. Indirect Costs Architecture, Eng. & Consulting Permits R Fees Taxes, Ins, Legal BAcctg Marketing/Leasing Contingency Allowance Total Indirect Costs IV.. Developer Fee 2 V. Financing /Closing Costs Interest & Loan Origination Fees Residential Closing CostsNVarranties z Total Financing/Closing Costs L19� 22 Units 22 Units 63,866 Sf GBA $427,300 /Unit $27,300 /Unit $100 /Sf 6.0% Direct Costs 22 Units $25,000 /Unit 1.5%, Direct Costs 22 Units $1,000 /Unit 3.0% Direct Costs 3.0% Sales Revenues 70.0% Financed 7.0% Sales Revenues $600,000 6,387,000 $419,000 550,000 105,000 22,000 210,000 $9,401,000 $1,306,000 $702,000 $1,981,000 1,538,000 $3,619,000 Total Development Cost $22,015,000 Development Cost Per Unit $1,000,700 ' Based on Developer estimate. z See TABLE 2 for sales revenue estimates. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: M Cannerv: Cost: 2113/2002 TABLE 2 PROJECTED SALES REVENUES 22 MARKET RATE UNITS INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS CANNERY LOFTS NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: M Cannery: Value: 2/13/2002 Total Sales Use No. of Units Unit Size Sales Price Revenues Residential Sales Revenues Interior Units 18 Units 2,903 Sf $900,000 /Unit $16,200,000 __ - -- _Waterfront- Units - - - - -- 4--Units ---2.903—SL--- $1,800,000 /Unit 7,200,000 Total Residential Sales Revenue 22 Units $1,063,600 /Unit $23,400,000 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: M Cannery: Value: 2/13/2002 TABLE 3 DEVELOPER PROFIT CALCULATION 22 MARKET RATE UNITS INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS CANNERY LOFTS NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1. Sales Revenues II. Development Costs As % of Sales Revenue Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: M Cannery; Profit; 2113/2002 See TABLE 2 See TABLE 1 $23,400,000 $22,015,000 $1,385,000 1 _ .....__ APPENDIX B SCENARIO 2 PRO FORMAANALYSIS 20 MARKET RATE UNITS & TWO MODERATE INCOME UNITS HIGH ALTERNATIVE 0202017:NB:KHH:gb0 16091.001.007 L6 TABLE 1 ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS 20 MARKET RATE UNITS & 2 MODERATE INCOME UNITS INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS - HIGH ALTERNATIVE CANNERY LOFTS NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA I. Land Acquisition Costs 11. Direct Costs' On & Off -Site Improvements Market Rate Units Moderate Income Units Total Direct Costs 111. Indirect Costs Architecture, Eng. & Consulting Permits & Fees Taxes, Ins, Legal & Acctg Marketing/Leasing Contingency Allowance Total Indirect Costs IV. Developer Fee 2 22 Units 22 Units 58,050 Sf G&4 5.805 Sf GSA $427,300 /Unit $27,300 /Unit $100 /Sf $100 /Sf 6.0% Direct Costs 22 Units $25,000 /Unit 1.5% Direct Costs 22 Units $1,000 /Unit 3.0% Direct Costs 3.0% Sales Revenues V. Financing /Closing Costs Interest & Loan Origination Fees 70.0% Financed Residential Closing CostsNVarranties 2 7.2% Sales Revenues Retail Sale Closing Costs 2 5.0% Sales Revenues Total Financing/Closing Costs $600,000 5.806,000 581,000 $419,000 550,000 105,000 22,000 210,000 $1,911,000 1,550,000 23,000 $9,401,000 $6,987,000 $1,306.000 $678,000 $3,484,000 /1. Total Development Cost $21.856,000 Development Cost Per Unit $993,500 ' Based on Developer estimate. 2 See TABLE 2 for sales revenue estimates. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: 11-1—Cannery: Cost; 2113 /2002 TABLE 2 PROJECTED SALES REVENUES 20 MARKET RATE UNITS & 2 MODERATE INCOME UNITS INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS - HIGH ALTERNATNE CANNERY LOFTS NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Use No. of Units I. Market Rate Units Interior Units 16 Units Waterfront Units - - - -- - - - - -- 4 Units Total Residential Sales Revenue 20 Units II. Moderate Income Units Residential Space 2 Units Retail Space Unit Size Sales Price 2,903 Sf $900,000 /Unit 2,903 Sf $1,800,000 /Unit $1,080,000 /Unit Total Sales Revenues $14,400,000 7,200,000 $21,600,000 2,125 Sf $272,160 /Unit $544,000 1,556 Sf $300 /Sf2 467,000 $1,011,000 III. Total Sales Revenues $22,611,000 ' 4 Person household; 2002 Orange County income data; 120% of Median; price set at 3 times income. 2 Based on average rent @ $2.50/sf; vacancy & expenses @ 10 %; and a 9% capitalization rate. 4-A Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates. Inc. File name: IH Cannery: Value; 203 /2002 TABLE 3 DEVELOPER PROFIT CALCULATION 20 MARKET RATE UNITS & 2 MODERATE INCOME UNITS INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS - HIGH ALTERNATIVE CANNERY LOFTS NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA I. Sales Revenues See TABLE 2 $22,611,000 11. Development Costs See TABLE 1 $21,856.000 $755,000_ As %, of Sales Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: IH Cannerv: Profit: 211312002 go APPENDIX C SCENARIO 3 PRO FORMA ANALYSIS 20 MARKET RATE UNITS & TWO MODERATE INCOME UNITS LOW ALTERNATIVE 0202017:NB:KHH:0bd 16091.001.007 �0 TABLE 1 ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS 20 MARKET RATE UNITS &2 MODERATE INCOME UNITS INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ANALYSIS - LOW ALTERNATIVE CANNERY LOFTS NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 1. Land Acquisition Costs 11. Direct Costs' On & Off -Site Improvements Market Rate Units Moderate Income Units Total Direct Costs 111. Indirect Costs Architecture, Eng. & Consulting Permits & Fees Taxes, Ins, Legal & Acctg Marketing/Leasing Contingency Allowance Total Indirect Costs IV. Developer Fee 2 22 Units 22 Units 58,060 Sf GBA 5,806 Sf GBA $427,300 /Unit $27,300 /Unit $600,000 $100 /Sf 5,806,000 $100 /Sf 581,000 6.0% Direct Costs 22 Units $25,000 /Unit 1.5% Direct Costs 22 Units $1,000 /Unit 3.0% Direct Costs 3.0% Sales Revenues V. Financing /Closing Costs Interest & Loan Origination Fees 70.0% Financed Residential Closing CostsNVarranties 2 7.1% Sales Revenues Retail Sale Closing Costs 2 5.0% Sales Revenues VI. Total Financing/Closing Costs $419,000 550,000 105,000 22,000 210,000 $1,918,000 1,541,000 23,000 $9,401,000 $6,987,000 $1,305,000 $674,000 $3,482,000 Total Development Cost $21,850,000 Development Cost Per Unit $993,200 ' Based on Developer estimate. 2 See TABLE 2 for sales revenue estimates. F Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. File name: IL—Cannery; Cost; 2/13/2002 Exhibit No. 4 Partial second floor plan indicating missing wall separation to be revised `1 4 6 A -- FOLDING GLASS DOORS I I I I y DINING I 1 ry TROMING COAT RAC( 14' -Y % IO' -2 AND PANTRY I I I tr F18O7ACE fllt K T H EAl " b W -S' X t7 -4' I W �•e I N I /N1 W . PONDER It U. 2' -6r, % T -0' I m' ® I 6 I 1 � I 1 - I I ® I I I I LIVING I I _ 14' -T % TSB' LINE OF BALCONY FOLDING GLASS DOORS ABM ONE-NOUR OCONPm4T I SEP 9EVISIO110.18 O1 STEEL IF= o SECOND FLOOR ell H Exhibit No. 5 Errata to Responses to Comments - s I Exhibit No. 6 Responses to Comments O"^ CLO �Ap 4p-,- Exhibit No. 7 Comment letters receive since the last meeting 4*0\ V- y�i0� ol�J -Q�. S.rw b Aeed4 \ P 11,4e Ct- Y 4F�!' CITE nF �iF�nra,�T� q� H FEb zuuZ Ak4/wzey 1pFTs AllxzD UsE 1>�YCXOPHli ✓r /f�R aOD / - /aZ / 1 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPrRT rEACH PRESERVE CANNERY AM FEB 1 5 2002 PM VILLAGE! 71818110111112111213141516 V Cannery Lofts will put 22 three -story residential /commercial units on the entire 500 block of 30w Street in Cannery Village and the waterfront at Lafayette, next to the Cannery Restaurant. We are not opposed to development in Cannery Village. However, we oppose the current plans for Cannery Lofts for the following reasons: • The density and height of the development will change the character,,-- _ aesthetics and scale of Cannery Village forever. • The proposed project does not meet the original intent of the Cannery Village Specific Plan, which calls for an eclectic atmosphere that reflects the area's history and marine commercial environment. • As proposed, the project will create significant traffic and parking impacts (e.g. tandem parking, possibility for separate tenant of commercial portion of units). • As proposed, the architecture does not reflect the area's cannery history, as called for in the Cannery Village Specific Plan. • As proposed, the overwhelming residential, institutional look of the project will discourage commercial /retail businesses in Cannery Village. Other: 1 4H mwrJ zwly1 —,,o GlWW 2*e•' &74!MW /Nrr 7i*EB3fE ll&'.://r' AAW7 DF o'u' 4 Y 'l '_ Z A 0Z1Z,0 </kOL- 70147_ /T .c/or AE A/10A4E*. A11 ALSO Ca e,6x wAEo NSoe�s- 7;P1iFF' /G 44,v9ED BY 7W/� d6yyL zoP vr�T A /D Eli Please print: NA.✓'Y M0.2E d�S /d.9�es •tJ� NAME ADDRESS 1-seenr. PHONEIE -MAIL You have permission to present this petition to the City of Newport Beach as a record of my (signature) _j (signature)_ (signature)_ plans for this project: rr+-- (date) o?- ,G�VCiti ri�Y Exhibit No. 8 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program _ _ -1 f, lw i MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM CANNERY LOFTS NEWPORT BEACH, CA INTRODUCTION The California Public Resources code Section 2108.16 requires that a lead or responsible agency adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) when approving or carrying out a project where an environmental document, either an environmental impact report (EIR) or a mitigated negative declaration (MND), has identified measures to reduce potential adverse environmental impacts to levels that are less than significant. An El has been prepared for this project which addresses the potential environmental impacts and, where appropriate, recommends measures to mitigate these impacts. An MMRP is, therefore, required to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are successfully implemented. The City of Newport Beach is the lead agency for the Cannery Lofts project and, therefore, is responsible for implementation of the MMRP. This report describes the MMRP for the Cannery Lofts project and identifies the department in the City of Newport Beach that will be responsible for monitoring implementation of the MMRP. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM MANAGEMENT The MMRP for the Cannery Lofts project will be active through all phases of the project, including design, construction, and operation. The proposed project will be developed in phases and will include building permits, occupancy permits and other permits required for implementation of the project components. There are mitigation measures that must be continuously implemented throughout the development of the project site. For example, mitigation measures implemented "prior to building permits" must be implemented prior to the issuance of each building permit issued for the project. The enforcement of the MMRP is also the responsibility of the City of Newport Beach. The City personnel responsible for verifying compliance with the mitigation measures are identified in the MMRP and include the Planning Director, the Director of Public Works, Utilities Director, and the City Engineer, and City Traffic Engineer (or their designees). These department heads are responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measures are implemented by the project applicant. If an adopted mitigation measures is not being properly implemented, the designated monitoring personnel shall require corrective actions to ensure adequate implementation. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The attached table identifies the mitigation program required to be implemented by the project applicant for the Cannery Lofts project. The mitigation program includes the following components: (1) standards conditions (SCs); and (2) mitigation measures (MMs). The table identifies the timing of implementation, the respective measure (i.e. SC or MM) required, and the individual responsible for monitoring compliance. The MMRP also includes columns that will be used by the compliance monitor to document when implementation of the measure is completed. 417 ,,.t E7 N O a i ¢w R CC w=) MIR 0- _ LL p W OV J W Z <� >m z 00 CC w¢ Ra 2 ad �F �z_ O� 0 O Q L7 F _ N o' a occ -v2 pmF amF a�F mm pm mom cco 0 ..y �m 52 3m a2 jm or '3 B. b2 '9m ?r '9 B. Co 0 O O O O o O m W m m 0. a a a a a o T -. 0 mz 0 mz 0 m= 0 mz 0 mr 0 m= ;a yam �a �a �i �a �� = C = C = C = C = C = C '.F 96 0�0 of .°c C7 .°c t7 .g` ty ° C7 C7 '�°c C7 0 -. LL a a a` a a DjlO ALL gold Z• 9S mmC $pm m0 �v C! > D DD M O �o o m m 0 o a n c o« E 0 5 a :•�' >.•'. : •. O�':L 0 m.comm m $0 �° t.6E SO O,"mOq maoi mQT ��acc Sao `m a -amo+ ��.0 °m Dcoc m ;mo- ai° TEE yg c mc•�nt CpO� qo $ ° z ohm "m C 0�a mo 2 8 coo D – O •O C �m S+m L m g O O U 0 D . _ ,._ma 3 LE `� DcmS mc'3•o Empm3 mmm moomn £mm mm - a C oDmmt E D +m T"' aco m C m .m -- c,m`E� ,0gCc mm'S €m�m' mm m 0 $`oo mE n`' >'6E oc�jg aN0-3 ..m €08 qV. _aD $Q Dam `m ° ocmry 0m �' °m c. voz �'o c °Emo . ..$E cpm�f 0 0M a�$00 v °v{WOO Q'"� LL Ern ci �co �c q jmD °c cv $ga g cE � �D 'c .$ miq._�s ,02—a oo q.m m o om5 `o� $Scc DCTCC °m$ Gq CO C"'OC� �''- BE gym- oD mLLO 6E"-,. "�0 m« m 5E� "cm U(SZZm T °- mm� � 0 q� c ELS0 mi m 0 o a- �•c mo cr�pp'' Ti 'omNO$� a€ o oo` can m m m$H Dca q om ocg�Ti m--Dm 'maam o$•p rdf_��, - n om u!0Z tam o 0 OE o�m aYmY m$Qm D2°tE c= m%SsLLLL`a O o -8 O m ?mC m c O °%� 0 =C qE q2Z, o o NUo � 61! Um om 0m E_ E ERE e0 no mw« c cmlm CC6 i &.a C .� O � zmg 0 O m C 0. O 0p (O N N Z m gc� m o q 2 m C m v O 0yy O C E 2 a � 8-et d � m cm mm` - C °g W E'f fi -E o` a.v -o c N c N N C N Q IE a O 1E a ZF_F ¢W am W� R Q 0� (3 0 OF F OS` z z 0 Q O F z Q yU 0� 0 Q Q m W Q 2 ° 0�U z C O 6 E O U m m- o a o mo � m p E 3 o v5; : m m a m c E mam D m �.m a m qoo m m m d m p 0 m m 0 m m a0 a J a CO J a 0 a a0 m J m 0.0 m co o 0 cc c c c c c c 0 to r q `zx a m m m m a U =pp m p 0 W m C m 0 N O C1 m 0 Ol m 0 0 OOm C t Om N a N G c C= c C A c O C O m a N % m a C V c c NA p Ua2.0 E.cc an cc C, 07� o'vm oc . >-W E E c� - cmU cmUcmU cmU ;._am _m. a0 oa m..'._aU a`0 0'a 0'a c O_ cc_SBo WO -,: am a m E o8 mma vE > v my Ew 3 N O N n m c D N a c W N 6; m m« m EE .Ny 3 m03 E o mE n a »£ u . m cm y�v_ xm -e.a omn ac- o c a E na Day m" C : . Em E o -B S c m m cmi p c- �'�- ` Sm ..ti V O"� N p c m c m OILS 0.6 m `E a c —E da 2 _ N ° ;. u °aO 0 00 m Cmm ' ._.aEM� >> 5mc. ova m$ oNO m'm ma= Sm c° d m a m q a p m m IL m —m= m° me ow E S o•m o, m -=n V m . z° -- fi ale =N o * W, 0 2 m o c m ° t `• t L1( ` - U p W C C m C q � C C °m n aao "mno� W c co E °zmm � o 9a9 9-6 oD 0 .: a°m °gEm a > t E — o mm MO L n8 m N aD 0 o z n m m �_gg w go M THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Exhibit No. 3 Excerpt of Minutes from the February 21, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting (Draft) THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK l City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2002 SUBJECT: Cannery Lofts 501 -507 & 500 -512 30th Street, 2908 -2912 Lafayette Avenue • (PA2001 -128) Request for the Cannery Lofts Mixed Use Development that consists of 22 individual commercial and residential units proposed for 16 existing lots to be located on properties along both the north and south sides of 30th between Villa Way and Lafayette Street and two tots on the east side of Lafayette Street along the Rhine Channel. The property is located in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan Area and is zoned SP #6 (RSC & RMC) District. Site Plan Review No. 2001 -001 is only associated with the 4 buildings proposed along the Rhine Channel. Use Permit No. 2001 -022 is associated with all of the proposed buildings as they would exceed the base height limit of 26 feet. Newport Tract Map No. 2001 -002 requests to subdivide one lot, which was the result of a previous merger of 7 lots, recreating the previous subdivision pattern. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2001 -003 is associated with the feasibility of including affordable housing within the project as required by the Zoning Code and Housing Element or the payment of an in -lieu fee. The project requires the consideration of a Traffic Study prepared pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). Chairperson Tucker distributed an agenda for this item that included a: summary of the past two hearings, staff input, summary of previous public testimony, questions from the Commission, new testimony, and straw votes. He then noted the following points: • Two previous public hearings involved physical nature of the project, and CEQA related information. Public testimony was taken at both meetings. • Tonight's hearing is to hear everything else not heard yet and to resolve final issues. • Staff is to document concerns from other departments. Mr. Jim Campbell then summarized the staff report: • Planning Department issues of MND responses, Coastal Residential Development Permit, landscaping requirement. • Building Department issues of occupancy separation walls, trellis wall, disabled parking. • Fire Department issues being resolved with the 30th Street lots fully sprinklered. • Public Works issues of authority, hydrology, parking, pedestrian circulation, non standard improvements. Commissioner Kranzley noted his concern of the significant number of outstanding issues on this item at this third hearing. Commissioner McDaniel noted his concern about the outstanding issues as well. Chairperson Tucker stated this is a complex project with many parts. We need to INDEX Item 1 PA2001 -128 Approved Im City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2002 see what issues are outstanding after we refine a set of conditions for this project, get a straw vote and then determine if we are ready for a final vote. Continuing, he asked about: • Coastal Commission comments regarding residential uses not being part of the certified Land Use Plan. Ms. Temple answered that when the City adopted the Specific Plan, staff included the concept of residential mixed use throughout the Cannery Village area. These comments may be referring to the fact the base land use designation contained in the LCP. The RMC designation doesn't talk about the possibility for residential. However, in the specific area description further on in the LCP it does introduce that concept. I believe the writer of the comments did not delve deep enough into the Certified Land Use Plan, so the comments are erroneous. Continuing, Chairman Tucker stated that there are a few items that are outstanding: • the landscaping mentioned in the staff report; there is an increase in the amount of turf block that will be used to meet the requirements for the Lafayette lots. Is that a condition? • the occupancy separation walls; the metal trellis frame covered had to be modified. Is that a condition? • Wall included does not extend fully where the third level covers the second level. The applicant indicated that the necessary changes will be incorporated in order to comply with the Building Code. Is this a condition? Mr. Campbell noted that condition 10 suffices for the concern of the occupancy separation walls and that condition 41 requires compliance with the landscape requirements of the Specific Area Plan. At Commission inquiry, he stated that specific language regarding turf block can be added, and then explained the term 'turf block'. Continuing, Chairman Tucker asked and was answered: • Disabled parking - the parking easement is answered in condition 11 that deals with design and can include verbiage to the reciprocal language as well. Chairman Tucker noted that the easement, if it is done, would have to be prior to the loan on the property, or the loan would have to subordinate to that easement so it would not go away due to foreclosure and becomes prior to the mortgage. Staff and Commission noted the following: • Condition 8 - address fire suppression sprinkler system subject to the Newport Beach Fire Department. • Condition 26 - addresses hydrology and hydraulic study approved by the Public Works Department; covers both private and street F4V City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2002 drainage. Verbiage to be added to specifically address public improvements. • Finding 2 for the use permit that refers to 9 foot 4 inch wide spaces needs to be changed to 9 foot 6 inch. • Condition 12 - dealing with trash storage to be screened from public view and /or stored in residential garages. • Condition 20 - separate water service and sewer lateral connections. • Variance request due to landscape requirement deficiency. Applicant revised project to include turf block that increases landscaping. This meets the minimum standard, therefore a variance is no longer necessary. • Condition 5 - deals with the City's not having a certified LCP; projects of this nature need to receive approval by the Coastal Commission through the Coastal Development Permit process. All commercial projects in the Cannery Village go to the Coastal Commission. Chairman Tucker then gave a synopsis of previous public testimony from the two previous meetings. Public comment was opened. Ken Schofield, 1355 Page Lane, Redlands owner of a building at 29th and Lafayette, as an architect noted: • Testified that the drainage gutter appears to be 36" wide. • Changes to the separation walls and how the building appearance is affected. • Increasing the parking width two inches per unit that on 30th Street will add 1 1/2 feet to the project; how will that fit into the building design? • Handicap parking situation is problematic. • Commercial trash, how is that being handled as there seems to be no place for it on the site. • Noted that the mixed use is wonderful for the area, however, the design and 'cookie cutter' type design does not fit in the Cannery Village area. Lucille Kring, representing 'ORACLE' 1619 W. Lorraine, Anaheim distributed a letter to the Commission and noted the following concerns: • Height is not compatible with the neighborhood. • Elimination of view corridors. • Tandem parking is problematic. • Coastal access. • Architectural compatibility. • Urban runoff and other water quality impacts. • Affordable housing. • Public safety. • Recommendations from the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) Rub City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2002 Chairperson Tucker discussed side yard setbacks; view corridors; affordable housing; in -lieu fees; urban runoff and fossil filters; and the purpose of CEQA for disclosure. Ms. Temple added that this project in terms of both construction and operation will be required to meet -all of the new water quality permit requirements. Page 10 of the December 6th meeting refers to Code Section 20.65.055 that establishes four findings that must be made to approve a use permit to the secondary permitted height limit. Chairperson Tucker then read the findings for the public. He concluded noting that the Commission must find that the architectural treatment of the buildings will result in a superior design product. This is a key item on the height issue. Brett DeValier, 1201 Estelle, owner of a business at 409 30th Street spoke in support of the project. As a resident of Newport Beach he has seen this area grow and change in the last 35 years. This area needs this project and it would be unfortunate if the City turned it down. Carol Plotkin, 509 315+ Street, spoke in support of the project. As a business owner with her residence above, stated she is very concerned about several buildings that are old and run down in her area and asked for more positive development in this area. At Commission inquiry, she stated that she has parking for ten in the back of her building. Tom Blurock, 3000 Newport Blvd., stated his support of the redevelopment but noted that the applicant is asking for so many exceptions; buildings are too high; concrete walls on the end of the street and the architecture changes the scale of the neighborhood. Philip Bettencourt, 110 Newport Center Drive, speaking for the applicant, noted the following: • Master plan approach produced this project that is in compliance With the Cannery Village Specific Plan. • Our detractors are measuring us with standards that deal with aesthetic judgments. • We would like to be measured against the standards of the Specific Plan that provides circumstances for alternative height standards. • We are prepared to accept all the conditions and we believe they address all of the issues that have been identified and are part of the public record. • We recommend that the Environmental Mitigation Measures that need to be done and the Mitigated Negative Declaration should be adopted. • In our reading of the conditions, there outstanding. • This applicant has the same opportunity exceptions to published standards. are no matters that are as others, to seek certain oaf INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2002 INDEX • This application includes in one entitlement procedure a Tract Map as well as a use permit with multiple conditions that are very detailed. Kevin Weeda, the applicant, stated: • He has worked diligently on this project for almost a year going through the issues and coordinating with staff. • We are prepared to accept all the conditions as is. • We are really talking about a discretionary approval for height. • The opponents to our project have made the height their issue because they do not like the aesthetics of the project. • We think we have designed a project that is intelligent and meets all of the Specific Plan guidelines. The original building design were 35 feet tall at the first Development Review Committee meeting almost a year ago. • We minimized the height based on conversations both with staff and some Commissioners and came up with a roof height of 31± feet. These are two-story loft residences on top of one story commercial, essentially the buildings are three stories tall. • 31 feet is what we are allowed to build without coming before the Planning Commission. • Most of the new buildings in that area are 31 feet or taller. • The project is not the tallest in the village. • Park area at the end of the street enhances the area. • Offered to improve the street and change some of the materials. By doing so, we will raise some of the elevations and solve some of the drainage issues that currently exist. • We are being penalized for assembling lots and trying to do a master plan rather than developing individual units. Commissioner Kranzley stated that he met with Mr. Weeda that day. He then asked about varying the materials on the facade. Mr. Weeda then displayed and explained a slide depicting the material sketch. He then displayed a sample of trellis wall that will be used on the Lafayette units only. It is not recommended to have plant materials on it. Discussion then followed on variation of facades and the cost of project. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Kiser confirmed with staff that the project could by right be built to 31 feet as long as the average does not exceed 26 feet at the mid point of the roof. Commissioner McDaniel noted: • 49 conditions on this project, which means that someone else will be looking at these issues. I don't know what I am voting on. I am having some difficulty voting on a project that I am not really sure what it will look like. I would like to know about the drainage, the landscaping, E M1 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2002 etc. • Loss of parking. Now, there is very little parking and with the addition of the commercial application I am more concerned about the lack of parking. • Trash storage is still an issue. • Assessment District, I am uncomfortable with how that works. Commissioner Tucker noted: Trash pick up is all in the alleys. The condition is that it is to be screened. Ms. Temple added that there is no specific location provision for a conventional dumpster situation. In places in the older commercial districts with alleys, there have been some challenges managing the trash situation there because the City does not provide pick up of the commercial trash. Many times the property owners get together and come up with arrangements of sharing and joining in order to not use the large dumpsters. I am not sure there is going to be room to do that, so the condition of approval is worded in such a fashion that if that can't happen then they will have to pull their trash cans into a place that is screened from the alley within the commercial part of the building. The residential is much easier to deal with because they have garages where they can store their trash cans. Commissioner Kiser noted: • The completion of resolutions and conditions in such a way to miss nothing. • 1 am not a fan of the architecture, but would not deny the project because of that. • These are going to be fee lots without any CC and R's having to do with the exterior treatments and further improvements. • Ten years from now each individual owner will put their own facade on, these things are not going to remain the same. • The model that is on exhibit tends to make the project look like big, and bulky. • The floor area ratios of the project between .997 and 1.047 is significantly below the maximum 1.25. There is no additional square footage gained from the additional height. • The applicant has met my height concerns. Commissioner Agajanian noted his concerns: • Tandem parking. • Loss of street parking. • Architecture is done well, however, is concerned with the bulk. • The character of the area would probably be better served if the entire project were divided into the original lots and built lot by lot. • The Lafayette units are detached and I have design concerns about them. • The economic rationale as a master plan project, I am concerned INDEX P City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2002 about the profitability of developing on a lot by lot basis. Our choice is whether the additional height requirement that is being asked for weighs beneficially with the treatment of the entire project, and I think it does. Supports the project although it is not a perfect project. Commissioner Gifford noted: • This project is exciting and renewing in the village. • The architecture is appropriate. • Looking at the findings we need to make for the increased height, the height intrudes minimally. This project meets and exceeds the criteria for allowing that to happen. • Supports the project. Commissioner Kranzley noted he does not like the project because: • The project doesn't fit into the Cannery area. • The design is monotonous and clearly not what is envisioned for the Cannery Village. • I understand that a different design would not come before the Commission. I respect the fact that he did not do that. • 1 believe we should ask for more. • 1 re -read the Specific Area Plan and this project fits within its guidelines. • My problems and comments about this project are moot because it is allowed under the Specific Plan. • The Specific Area Plan has been in place for 25 years and quite frankly has not worked. Clearly today, Cannery Village is worse than it was 25 years ago, with the loss of shops and restaurants, etc. • If this proposal fits within those guidelines, we should look at the Specific Area Plan. • I will reluctantly be in favor of this project. Commissioner Selich stated his support of the project noting: • The Commission is not charged to get into architectural review. • Trash is being handled just as is being required of everyone else. • Parking on site makes up for removal of on- street parking. • Tandem parking is a concern, however, we have to take what we can get in this older area. Chairman Tucker stated his support of the project noting our job is statutory in nature. It is not our place to decide how somebody is going to design their project. The applicant has designed his project with materials as allowed by the guidelines called for by the Specific Plan. He then asked for a clean up of findings and conditions. Commission and staff noted the following changes: Resolution, Section 1 - add, The applicant seeks approval of a Site DRAF INDEX ma „I a I City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2002 Plan Review, 'for Lafayette Avenue lots'. Resolution, Section 2 - add, public hearing held also on February 21, 2002. Resolution, Section 3, under Site Plan Review - change word, 'disable' to 'disabled' parking. This appears throughout, change all. ¢• Resolution, Section 3, under 'Consistent with the General Plan and Local Coastal Program', remove duplicate 'consistent with' in the last line of 1. and insert 'listed in Exhibit A' after ...project plans... .• Resolution, Section 3, under 'Consistent with the Cannery Village.. - Add as the third sentence, 'Further, nothing in the architecture will minimize the variety and individuality of uses in Cannery Village.' .• Resolution, Section 3, under 'Use Permit for Building Height, # 1 - add a third sentence to say, 'There are three foot setbacks between buildings on the 30th Street lots where no setbacks are required.' Resolution, Section 3, under 'Use Permit for Building Height, #2 - change 9' -4" to 9'6 ". Resolution, Section 3, under 'Use Permit for Building Height, #6 - add, 'and creativity of design', to the fourth sentence. The next sentence, delete, 'Typically' and say, 'The design of a 26 -foot high mixed use building with the same floor area would likely be wider and more boxy in appearance. Resolution, Section 3, under 'Use Permit for Building Height, #7 - the last sentence should read, 'the presence of other buildings of comparable height in the area, etc... :• Resolution, Section 3, under title of Site Plan Review for 2908 and 2912 Lafayette Avenue, put a dash instead of an ampersand. �s Resolution, Section 3, under 'Site Plan Review for 2908 and 2912 Lafayette Avenue' #6 - Sentence starts with, 'Public coastal access, strike 'to the' Zoning Code. The next sentence at the end add, 'by the applicant'. Resolution, Section 3, under 'Tract Map for 501 30th Street - #9 substitute subdivision with project. Resolution, Section 4 - second line says '....and Approves Site Plan Review...' ❖ Conditions of Approval: o All the corrections presented in a memorandum prepared by staff dated 2/21/02. o #4 - delete. o #10 - add, The trellises on Lafayette lots will be set back to comply with the Uniform Building Code requirements. o #11 - additional wording, A reciprocal use and access easement for the parking spaces between Lots El & E2 and between Lots E3 & E4 shall be required. Any reciprocal easements associated with the provision of disabled parking shall be recorded prior to the Issuance of a building permit. Owners shall provide proof of recordation of the reciprocal parking easement and a title commitment dated after the date of recordation showing the INDEX M ✓ ?_ City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2002 agreement being recorded prior to any financing on either property and /or that any existing mortgage has agreed to such subordination. '.' Ms. Clauson added that there is language that can be added to require the document to be recorded to anything. (to be included). Owners shall provide proof of recordation of the reciprocal parking easement and a title commitment dated after the date of recordation showing the agreement being recorded prior to any financing on either property and /or that any existing mortgage has agreed to such subordination. o #16 - how is that enforced? Staff answered as a response to a complaint basis with Code Enforcement supervision on a lot by lot basis. o #17 - staff explained that the Specific Area Plan requires the dedication to be made and the easement is to be recorded. A dedication is not part of the subdivision and would be a dedication of an easement. o # 21 - intersections of 'private' drives. o #25 and #33 seem to be the same thing. Staff answered that one of the conditions refers to a subdivision surety and the other one refers to the overall public improvements. o #25 - delete, ....'record a parcel map or,' because there is no parcel map. o #26 - insert in the first sentence, '....and public improvements'..., ' o #27 - repeats part of #34, 1 recommend we delete #27. o #30, the next to the last line, change wit to with. o #34 - very last line change 'increased'. o #35 - repeats parts of #38 with reference to encroachment permit. Mr. Edmonston stated these are both correct. Any work in the public right -of -way is done under an encroachment permit. Since this project includes proposals for non- standard improvements for delineation, those types of improvements, if the City is going to maintain them, we would not use the non- standard improvement method because it will be approved as part of the plans and the City is responsible for it. The purpose of a non - standard improvement method is to make the private property owner responsible. o #36 - insert 'and the' in the last sentence referring to non - standard approvals only. o #41 - delete sentence, ..Trees shall be planted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of .... And insert, 'The landscaped areas of the Lafayette Avenue lots depicted on the drawings shall be increased by expanding the area devoted to turf block in front of the residential garage aprons within the front yard setback area so that the 50% landscape requirement is met.' o #42 - Commissioner Kiser asked for and received a definition of what does the term 'walpak' and 'zero cut -off' type fixtures 10 0WIT INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 2002 mean. • Mitigation Measures - Noise #47 - change the hours from 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. weekdays and 8 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. Saturday. • Add, #51 - The trellis walls shall not be planted with vines or other plant materials. Staff indicated that this is something that is very important to the Fire Department because it would potentially become a fire hazard. Chairperson Tucker then asked if the Commission found the answers to the response to comments sufficient. He was answered yes. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich to approve the Cannery Lofts (PA2001- 128) by adopting Resolution 1551 entitled, "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approving Site Review No. 2001 -001, Use Permit No. 2001 -022, Newport Tract Map No. 2001 -002 (Tentative Tract Map. No. 16292), Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2001 -003 & Traffic Study No. 2001 -004 for properties located at 501 -507 & 500 -512 30th Street, 2908 -2912 Lafayette Avenue (PA2001- 127)." (Exhibit No. 1) as attached with the findings and conditions as modified this evening. Commissioner McDaniel stated there are issues that could have been addressed that were not resolved, therefore he will not support this project. Ayes: Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker, Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: McDaniel INDEX ADDITIONAL BUSINESS: Additional Business a) . Council Follow -up - Ms. Wood stated that at the City Council meeting of Fe ary 12h the initiation of the two General Plan Amendments for Newport a and Shellmaker Island were heard. The item on the Van Cleve appeal been called up by the City Council. b) Oral report from Planni Commission's representative to the Economic Development Committee - ne. Commissioner Selich stated that a lot of time was spent by the Comm n streamlining the Zoning Code. The EDC was one of the primary motiv s. He noted that some of the materials that were dealt with tonight sho have been dealt with staff. This level of detail and nonsubstantive items I 't know. I can see ways this could have been handled to avoid a lot this. Whether the applicant's consultant gave bad advice or the applica as stubborn in the way he wanted to approach it or the City gave him d advice, whatever, we need to take a look at it. If we do this to anyb who wants to do something creative, they are not going to do it. This painful. Discussion continued on design criteria, CEQA guidelines an 11 Exhibit No. 4 Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 3, 2002 ' ell THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK qiD aEW"Oq, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: January 3, 2002 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 1 u 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 Appeal Period: 14 days REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) 501 -507 & 500 -512 30th Street, 2908 -2912 Lafayette Avenue SUMMARY: Request for a Site Plan Review, Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Residential Development Permit and Traffic Study for the construction of 22 commercial/residential buildings on 16 lots that encompass approximately 1.44 acres in the Cannery Village area. The Use Permit involves the request for the buildings to exceed the base height limit of 26 feet by 7 feet. The project also requests to subdivide one lot, which was the result of a previous merger of 7 lots, recreating the previous -.. subdivision pattern, - -__. . RECOMMENDED ACTION: Continue the item to a date identified at the hearing Discussion This hearing was continued from December 6, 2001. The previous meeting provided a good introduction of the project and public testimony was taken. At the Commission' direction, testimony regarding environmental issues and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was directed to this meeting. The Commission also wanted to have a listing of remaining unresolved or open issues. They are as follows: Planning Department MND Responses - Letters have been received from 4 entities (EQAC, ORACLE, CalTrans & Coastal Commission).'Responses are currently being drafted and will be available shortly after the first of the year. - Coastal Residential Development Permit - The affordable housing feasibility study has not bee completed at this time. Completion of the study is anticipated by late January. 2. Building Department The applicant has been seeking relief from having to construct occupancy separation walls for interior stairways and terraces by suggesting 'other means of protection." Applicant desires that all these walls be eliminated but has not come to an agreement with the Building qi and Fire Departments. Plans do show the separation for the interior staircases, but do not show the walls that separate the street facing terraces. These walls have an effect upon the open area of the trellis that the applicant seeks to compensate the requested increased height The trellis wall for the Lafayette lots does not meet the Building Code setback standards. A modification to the standards will be necessary to ensure that they are not combustible and have no vines growing on them. Disabled parking for two of the Lafayette lots has not be provided. 3. Fire Department The items indicated above related to the Building Department related to occupancy separation walls are also unresolved with the Fire Department. The Fire Department will be requiring fire sprinklers and requests that they be included as a condition of approval. The Fire Marshal believes that sprinklers, are necessary to reduce fire hazards. -The applicant believes that fire sprinklers are not required. 4. Public Works The Public Works Department has requested a hydrology /drainage study to be prepared to verify the feasibility of the proposed drainage concept to avoid potential flooding concerns. The proposed street plan shows street parking that is unacceptable to Public Works due to vehicle maneuvering needs. Loss of on -street parking spaces should be minimized. Further details and analysis is underway. Minor vehicle maneuvering conflicts with rear space and garages remains. Pedestrian access is constricted. A public easement over private property is needed based upon the present partial plan. Public Works has safety concerns. Where does the street end and the sidewalk begin? In an area of non - standard improvements, clear delineation and safety devices (bollards) are needed. The applicant is preparing a more detailed drawing of the pedestrian area. Liability & Maintenance. Who is responsible? Discussions with the applicant are ongoing. Roll -type curbs for Lafayette are not recommended and alternatives are being examined. - Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) January 3, 2002 Page 2 of 3 y Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take public testimony on the project. Staff further requests that the Commission indicate any other issues or questions for staff to focus on for the next meeting. Finally, staff recommends that this item be continued to a date to be identified at the hearing. Several of the unresolved items will take an undetermined amount of time as of the writing of this report. Staff will be working with the applicant before the meeting to identify an appropriate a future date to continue the item to that allows sufficient time to resolve the remaining issues. Submitted by: PATRICA L. TEMPLE Planning Director 1 QP pit icf J_ Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner TWA Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) January 3, 2002 Page3of3 �7� THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK m Exhibit No. 5 Excerpt of Minutes from the January 3, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK I�L'> x City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 C INDEX SUBJECT: Cannery Lofts Item No. 1 501 -507 & 500 -512 30M Street, 2908 -2912 Lafayette Avenue PA2001 -128 (PA2001 -128) Request for a Site Plan Review, Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Continued to Residential Development Permit and Traffic Study for the construction of 22 02/21/2002 commercial /residential buildings on 16 lots that encompass approximately 1.44 acres in the Cannery Village area. The Use Permit involves the request for the buildings to exceed the base height limit of 26 feet by 7 feet. The project also requests to subdivide one lot, which was the result of a previous merger of 7 lots, recreating the previous subdivision pattern. Chairman Tucker stated that this is a continued hearing on the project. Tonight we are going through the environmental document. This matter will not come to a vote tonight, as there are still outstanding issues that need to be resolved. At the end of the discussion on the CEQA matters we will go through what is outstanding and then we will attempt to reach a date for this matter to be continued to. I am hoping that the next time we meet on this item, the Commission will be in a position to act, but that is not going to happen tonight. We are going to focus on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the comments that we have received to that document. We have received three comment letters, one from the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) of the City, one from Lucille Mng and one from the Coastal Commission. I would like to start off with the EQAC representative. Commissioner Kranzley stated that though he was not at the last meeting, he listened to the tape and has met with the developer and several residents in the community. Robert Hawkins, Chairman of EQAC speaking as their representative noted he was at the meeting at the request of Assistant City Manager Sharon Wood and Commissioner McDaniel. He noted that he has not prepared nor did the Committee authorize any separate presentation other than the written comments before you. Chairperson Tucker explained he would like to go through the letter to be sure that the Commission and staff understand the points made. He then asked about the type of environmental document that should be used. You have _ cited part of the guidelines that an Environmental Impact Review (EIR) is the type of document that should be used as opposed to a Mitigated Negative Declaration whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. I wanted to clarify that there are other things in the guidelines that indicate that if you can mitigate those impacts to a level of insignificance then the proper document is a Mitigated Negative Declaration. One of the things we are going to be looking for as we go through the comments is whether a fair argument has been made that the applicant can not mitigate potential impacts to a level of insignificance. That is what the standard is. Cl I �x ' City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 Mr. Hawkins answered that the fair argument standard is understood as has been stated both with respect to impacts as well as mitigation. Chairperson Tucker noted the key is the substantial evidence in the record. The guidelines also say that arguments, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative or evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous or evidence that is not credible shall not constitute substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts and expert opinion supported by fact. That is the standard by which we will evaluate the propriety of using a mitigated negative declaration. Mr. Hawkins noted that these comments are meant to focus the issues on the environmental documents that the EQAC reviewed. Chairpersori Tucker nofed that one of the things mentioned was the project description was ambiguous. The project issues noted were the trench drain and the use' permit application. What do you mean by ambiguous? Mr. Hawkins answered that as the comments develop, we had a concern about the capacity of the drain. It seemed to the Committee that if the project description was full and complete, we would have a sizing for that drain to understand whether it was adequate or not. We are losing in this project the two side gutters that are typically present on most city streets and we are relying solely on one center drain. Obviously it is in the applicant's best interest to make sure that it is correctly sized and we were hoping to see that. Chairperson Tucker noted that curbs of some type would still be there. Discussion followed on the shape of the drain and sufficiency of size, as well as the Committee's apparent confusion on the height of the buildings requested in the use permit application. Continuing, Chairman Tucker stated that the aesthetics issue raised is the primary issue for the Planning Commission to decide, whether this project architecturally fits. How would these issues be different if there were 22 separate projects with 22 separate architects? How would the environmental impacts be any different with 22 separate projects, yet probably none of those separate projects would have come to us with a CEQA document like this. This is a subdivided, zoned, general plan location where some architectural decisions were made and therefore a use permit is required because the applicants chose to take advantage of a code section that allows one to go over the basic height if they can come forth and show that they have the requisite architectural justification for it. That is why I have been grappling with the comments that we have received. If the property were developed with 22 separate buildings with 22 separate owners, all built to the maximum, how would this be different from an environmental standpoint? INDEX 09 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 INDEX Mr. Hawkins answered that the Committee understood that sort of concern. As I understand it as a result of the presentation made to EQAC, it is my recollection that they could also be entitled to massing and build a massive structure that covers the entire block but does not require the height and there would be no CEQA documents as well. There are two concerns before you. I think that the environmental review process is' one of those where the City and the Commission negotiates with the applicant and the land owner to develop a project, which is really the highest standards for both. When we start taking this and look at 22 different property owners and each can build a unique little building, I still think that you are going to have that negotiation, but in this setting, you have the opportunity to address it in a better fashion. Chairperson Tucker asked about the comment made that the Negative Declaration should discuss the architectural guidelines in some detail. The guidelines are a paragraph in the Zoning Ordinance. Is there further guidelines that I am not aware of? Ms. Temple answered that the Design and Development Guidelines of the Cannery Village is about half a page within the Specific Plan Zoning. Chairperson Tucker added that it is discussed in the Neg Dec on page 39 but it is more a repetition of what is in there. There is not a lot in the way of guidelines. Mr. Hawkins noted that the concern of EQAC is that the document could be enhanced and better able for public review if something as easy as a paragraph was inserted in the document. Chairperson Tucker then asked about the comment on geology that there was a concern that the Neg Dec does not really talk about the mitigation measures for subsidence or lateral spreading. Actually it does address it. The lateral spreading from liquefaction is just like putting ice cream on a plate and then when it melts it will spread, which liquid does versus a solid. That is going to happen whether this project happens or not. There is no mitigation measure other than a structural engineer designs the structures to take into account that liquefaction might happen and that is on page 28 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr. Hawkins answered that lateral spreading and subsidence are terms of art. However, those terms of art are not carried through on the mitigation measures. It may be that there is a mitigation measure that addresses these concerns, but the document doesn't say that and that was the point of the comment. Chairperson Tucker then asked about hydrology and water quality issues. It is indicated that the Neg Dec repeatedly notes that the project will increase the pervious surface area. The water quality requirements are in transition now. What I am finding in my developments is that you almost need to increase the pervious areas. It will increase the percolation rates but I am not sure the groundwater issue is one that is a major issue in this setting. W City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 Mr. Hawkins answered that, he is not aware of any groundwater production facilities in and around the area. I am not here to withdraw or modify any of the comments that are written, I am just responding to the questions. Chairperson Tucker then asked about the land use planning comments and that the project is more residential than commercial, which is true. The way the zoning is set up, that is actually what is allowed. You have a .5 FAR for the commercial and then 1.25 with the residential. By statutory definition, it is not surprising that if somebody built out to the maximum FAR they are going to have 60% residential and 40% commercial. That is what is allowed. Mr. Hawkins answered that the core of this comment is inserting this predominantly residential project in an existing and planned commercial area could divide the existing and proposed district. We have made that point with respect to the aesthetics as well. Any project redeveloping existing structures is always going to have this blending problem. We are pointing out that will be an environmental impact and the question is, what if anything is anybody going to do about it? Chairperson Tucker noted these are rules, nothing can be done about it and we are stuck with them whether we like them or not. Continuing, he noted that the public services issue is a work in progress now, so we will put that in abeyance until we see what staff and the applicant comes up with. The same thing with what is going to happen to the street to the extent that it ends up with a materially different design of the project then we will have to figure out what to do. We have to see if there will be mitigation measures. Mr. Hawkins noted that the core comment we have is simply the deferral of the mitigation measure. I think that is a legitimate concern with respect to the document. I understand what your point is that these are issues still being resolved internally. Chairperson Tucker noted that the traffic is at a Level of Service A in the intersection that has been studied that could be impacted nearby. It seems to me that some of the comments that EQAC had as well as some of the comments that Ms. Kring had, are in large measure, comments on what the present zoning allows. The comments seems to indicate the project should be less intense than what the zoning documents really say that it can be. Maybe that is where the conflict is. Mr. Hawkins noted that the issue with traffic is parking, not the circulation. With respect to the traffic, there are some mathematical and numerical problems that can be easily resolved in your responses. Chairperson Tucker stated that they would be. He then thanked the speaker for his comments. go City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 Commissioner Kiser asked when the written comments to the EQAC letter would be ready? He was answered that those comments should be ready within a week to ten days. Chairperson Tucker then stated he would talk about the Lucille Kring letter. Lucille Kring, at Commission inquiry, noted that she lives in Anaheim and. does not own properly in the Cannery Village area. She is helping friends who live in the area who feel this particular project is not right for the neighborhood. Continuing, she noted that none of them feel that this property should not be developed; they just feel that this development is too massive for the Cannery Village. Chairperson Tucker stated this is not the issue, actually what is being proposed by the applicant is consistent with what they are allowed to do. The massiveness really is not, except for the aesthetics, what we are considering. How many people are you speaking for? Ms. Kring then faced the audience and asked how many were against the project whom she represented. Four people raised their hands. She then stated that today she received several letters that were presented to the Planning Commission, from Dr. Vickers, Dr. Morgan and Roy Jackson. Chairperson Tucker then stated that the purpose of this hearing is to address the details of the environmental document. Commissioner Gifford asked the speaker to clarify whom she is representing. Ms. Kring answered that her group, ORACLE, is a grass roots organization that do not support the project even though it is okay with the zoning. The objection is they do not want something -like this in their neighborhood. She has gone to many businesses and residences in the community. She has some signatures and did ask for some to speak at the meeting tonight. She stated that a number would be around 30 that she represents who occupy and /or rent businesses. None of them are occupants of any of the structures that are going to be demolished in answer to Commission query. Chairperson Tucker thanked the speaker for her letter. He noted that the standard for review is credible evidence, not arguments or speculations or unsubstantiated opinion or narrative. The first comment you had dealt with the length of the public review period. Commissioner Tucker noted that the review period rules are the same for everyone. There will be a response to your letter. Continuing, he noted the following issues: • Propriety of a Mitigated Negative Declaration as opposed to an Environmental Impact Report. As we go through your letter, I am going to be asking what is your substantial argument. • The nature of crediting the project with what existing development is INDEX 1{i1 �fw City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 there already. Your position is that if something has been vacant for a period of time, it shoujd not get credited. That is not standard operating procedure in any jurisdiction that I am aware of. There is not a lot of difference between something that is occupied month to month and something that is not occupied at all. Someone has a right to use it and whatever credits are available, are available. The project should be marine oriented and coastal dependent. That pertains to the four lots on the water as opposed to the other 18 lots. The other 18 lots are not bound by the same limit. He then asked about incentive use requirement along the water information from staff. Ms. Temple answered that neither the General Plan, LCP or the Zoning Code actually mandate a limitation just to coastally dependent or marine related uses. The incentive use provisions were intended to provide a modest incentive to maintain a portion of the waterfront areas with those types of-uses- U is 'no absolute requirement. Within our system, there is only one use that mandates the provision of a coastally dependent or marine related use and that is general tenancy office development. Any other form of retail, even non -marine related retail and other marine related uses such as yacht brokers, etc. are all permitted and do not require the provision of the coastally dependent or marine related. It is a goal, not a mandate. Chairperson Tucker asked if this project was built as 22 separate projects with 22 separate architects and looked totally different, would there be an objection to the project? Ms. Kring answered that she believed there would not be because each architect would have its own distinctiveness and each property would be viewed differently and there would be the eclectic charm and aesthetic value that the Cannery is known for. When you walk around this area now, each building is different. But when you have 22 that all look alike, it is too massive, uniform and homogenous. If there were 22 different buildings, they would not be built all at the same time and would be phased in. I don't think there would be as much concern if that were the case. If you phased in 22 individual buildings with the some idea of commercial /residential, each one would have its own individuality where we don't believe that this project does. If they wanted the height variance for each of the 22 buildings, we would have a concern with that. Chairperson Tucker noted that the property is not cheap there and people would try to maximize what they could have. Our charge under the Code is to look at the design trade off. That is one of the things the Code allows an applicant to do and we respond to that. Continuing, he asked staff about tandem parking. Ms. Temple answered that tandem parking is allowed under the Code. Ms. Kring answered that just because tandem parking is allowed under the INDEX WA City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 INDEX Code that does not necessarily mean people are gang to use it. It is a concern as it may create problems for parking on the street. Chairperson Tucker answered that it is allowed and went on to the next issue noted in her letter of Coastal Residential Development permit, which The Commission has not seen the analysis. One of the alternatives available for projects is that affordable units are put somewhere in the City. It is not necessarily the case that the affordable housing has to be in the development and in this particular case, it may not be. That study will come back and analyze what the alternatives are and make recommendations to us. Another issue that was raised in the letter was the aesthetics and public visual access with the three -foot side yards. A lot of these buildings are up against each other in this area today with no open area in between. _ Ms. Temple noted that the only setback requirements on these lots in Cannery Village are a front setback and an alley side setback; there are no side yard requirements. Continuing, Chairperson Tucker noted the comments on the issues raised by Ms. Kring's letter: • The architecture and the same theme for all 22 units - really is the key issue for the Commission to decide,. The question is, has the applicant carried the burden of coming up with a design that at least four of us p believe accomplishes superior architectural quality to justify exceeding ' the basic height limit. As indicated, the applicant's choice is to build within the 26 feet if we don't approve of that. • Intensity of development - that really is part of the air quality discussion. The applicant is proposing a project that does not require any floor area ratio variances. The -air quality analysis is based upon a general plan analysis with an air quality management plan that assumes a certain intensity and based upon our general plan and as long as the applicant is not increasing above that, that issue has already been resolved. I don't see that as something that requires any additional analysis. • The cultural resources - the area has been graded and developed, this is not going to be a deep excavation project. I don't think we wilt need to have any paleontologists out there while this is going on. • The issue of Newport Plating and possible contamination - I am not - - sure that we have anything other than speculation. • The Water Quality Control Board comment - the board for our region has not adopted anything yet, so it is hard to force somebody to comply with something that has not been adopted. This applicant by increasing the pervious areas significantly, landscaping and turf block, meets the goals that typically the Water Quality Control Board tries to implement, which is to have run off water flow over landscaping to allow it to percolate and cleanse before it ends up where it ends up. This applicant is also proposing a filter in the trench drain. Right now, that water goes straight to the bay. , Cii<"7 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 • Marine oriented and coastal dependent uses - the Planning Director has discussed that one. • Environmental analysis on a re- design - a valid concern if it gets redesigned to the point where that is necessary. Sometimes redesigns are not real significant in terms of what they look like and environmental impact. We do not yet know if this will happen and will have to wait and see how that ends up. • Parkland issue - This will probably be handled one of two ways, payment of a. fee or the applicant is willing to spend money for the end of 30th Street barring any technical reasons. The public might want to let the City know if they are interested in some parkland there. • The traffic analysis - your comment is that the traffic analysis 'drastically' underestimates the potential traffic and circulation system. We have the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, which includes a detailed set --of-rules-governing how traffic studies are to be conducted. Whether you are for or against a project, you should be for a consistent set of rules. In this case, the applicant has followed the rules and to ask him to do something beyond them is not fair nor justified • The timing of the project with a completion date in 2003 - this is probably realistic. Assuming the applicant can get going by the first of next year, I am assuming it will all be done in one phase and it will take a year or more for processing the permits. It might be tight, but it could happen. • The analysis considering other major developments that may occur on Balboa Peninsula would be additional traffic impacts - the reality is the way our traffic analysis system works everything is computed in based upon the intensity allowed under the General Plan and is already in the traffic model. This project is not intensifying what is in the General Plan today; it is intensifying what is physically there today. I don't think there would be any cumulative impacts to look at based on the fact build out is already computed in the model. Ms. Kring stated that the comments were very helpful. However, this community is built on a village atmosphere and is very unique and unusual. There are so many people who have been here for years, residents and investors and business owners, and they want to maintain the same aesthetic values. The aesthetics are things that should be of concern to the Commission. Chairperson Tucker requested that the speaker confine her comments to the CEQA issues, as there was public testimony from the residents at the last hearing about the other merits of the this project. Ms. Kring answered that the City is just starting the General Plan Update and we feel that perhaps any change could be put off until the General Plan is updated for the whole City since the Cannery will be part of that. Since you ask for input from all citizens in the area for the update, and a lot of people are concerned about the village and the city, then you could put this decision off until the General Plan has been satisfied. 9 INDEX El City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 INDEX Chairperson Tucker answered that the General Plan update process is a vision and blueprint for the future; it is not a moratorium. This applicant has come forth with a plan based upon the General Plan. When that update gets completed, I suspect could be after the applicant plans to be finished with this project and will be approximately two years away. Commissioner Kiser asked how the update would affect a Specific Plan for the Cannery Village that is already in place? Ms. Temple answered that there is a possibility that through the General Plan update process, issues related to this project could become policy points for discussion and potential change in the General Plan. It is unknown whether that outcome would come to fruition or not. We all know height is a sensitive issue in Newport Beach._Once the General Plan update is completed, there is still a tremendous amount of follow up work to update the Zoning Code to implement those new. policies, so we are talking about quite a lengthy period of time. Frankly, right now we are dealing with a project that is consistent with the General Plan. You can't deny it on the basis of something that you might do in the future. Commissioner Gifford commented that it is her understanding that some specific area plans contain some elements that are not the same as the General Plan._ When you say it will be accomplished by follow up, does that mean that specific area plans will be adjusted to conform? Ms. Temple answered that no, we are consistent now. If there were policies that were adopted that would further limit heights in certain areas or call for a different palette of land uses in say a specific plan, then we would have to follow up immediately through implementing ordinances and that could mean amendments to the Specific Area Plans. Ms. Wood added that one of the things that staff is hoping to accomplish through this update is to make it more of a general policy document and guide for the City then what we have today, which is more specific then you would see General Plans in a lot of cities. If the height in Cannery Village or on waterfront properties were to become an issue in the General Plan, I would think we might have some policy direction to reduce height limits. The General Plan - would not say the height limit in Cannery Village should be 26 feet; it would be a more general thing. As noted, we would then follow up with implementing ordinances and the Commission and Council would then consider exactly how much of a reduction in height would be appropriate and that would be put into the zoning for the Specific Plan. Commissioner Kiser then asked if the General Plan does get updated, that it probably would not mandate zoning changes for areas that already have existing Specific Plans like Cannery Village? Rather it would just give a policy direction to potential changes in zoning? 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 Ms. Wbod answered that you would not want to amend the General Plan, so that you immediately have throughout the City a number of inconsistencies between Zoning and General Plan. So if there were changes in land use that come.out of the General Plan, those would be the highest priority to address with Zoning Amendments. Things like the height limit I think, especially since that is more of a policy issue and the General Plan would have less specificity to it, we could take a little bit longer to make those changes. Chairperson Tucker noted that there is a Vision Festival going on next weekend and if you have a different vision for Cannery Village than what is being suggested by the applicant tonight, you should show up and express your vision. Tonight we are proceeding with the General Plan in existence today. Public comment was opened. Dennis Overstreet, 128 Via Trieste noted that he recently acquired the property at 2816 Lafayette, which was a restaurant on the waterfront. He noted he is not that familiar with this project. However, he believes as a retailer and businessman, that the design does not enhance retail or a commercial environment even though being of mixed use. Doing away with the street and the disappearance of curbs, it looks residential and will discourage people from the surrounding area from believing this is a place to conduct retail business. Where is the commercial coming in? Additionally, there is not enough parking. Chairperson Tucker answered that in the environmental document there are certain things we are looking at tonight. If the applicant had not come in for the Use Permit, we would not see or have the ability to talk about the architecture at all. I think those uses are what they are going to be, there is a lot of uses in that area and properties that do look like residential that have office below. Tom Bluerock, 3000 Newport Boulevard stated he has followed this project as it has been submitted to the City. He asked the Commission to consider one thing and that is the height of the project. Most of the projects there have not needed a height variance, this much building is going to change the scale and urban character. I would urge you to consider that height limit. You can get the same area without the height variance and I don't know why he needs to request additional height. Commissioner Kiser asked about the need for a use permit for height for other structures that have been constructed in Cannery Village. Have others come in and received conditional use permits to increase the height over 26 feet for projects that have been constructed down there? I am not sure that the statement made about others not needing a use permit for height in that area, ... I believe is not a true statement. Ms. Temple answered that there have been projects; I would not say the I1 INDEX 30 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes C ;•` January 3, 2002 INDEX majority of projects that have requested to exceed the basic height limit. Probably the most recent and significant project that requested that relief was the 28th Street Marina project. It has been many years and projects have availed themselves of the relief through a use permit. Frits Howser, 608 St. James Place stated that he supports the project. He has reviewed the plans and notes it is a good addition to the area. This type of project should encourage more redevelopment and refurbishment in the area. I have no comments on the environmental issues. Brent Delvalle, 1201 Estelle Lane noted he supports the project and that the architectural theme looks good. Public comment closed. Commissioner Selich, referring to the revised staff report and the occupancy separation walls and fire sprinklers, asked if those aren't building code issues? The fire sprinklers are requested to be included as a condition of approval. What is the difference here that we are requiring them? Ms. Temple answered she would have to go back to the Fire Marshall for the specifics as to why he is requesting them. Specifically, the fire separation walls are code requirement. I believe that the discussion for the need of the fire _ sprinklers is related to the possibility that some of those fire separation walls might be able to be modified or eliminated. The only reason they were included is because the separation walls will have an impact visually from the outside of the structure of the street and so it could possibly affect the judgment related to the height limit findings. Commissioner Selich noted that on the sprinklers, again if the buildings were to come in individually and not be required to do sprinklers, based on what I have seen so far I fail to see the reason that we would require 22 buildings to do it because they are coming in at the same time. I don't see why you would treat one different than the other. Ms. Temple answered she would try and get further information on this question for the Commission. Commissioner Gifford stated that she is seeing some possible potential that the requirement /conditioning for fire sprinklers is not simply, 'okay you don't have to have them', but we are going to decide that we want them. Rather the reverse of what Chairman Tucker has been talking about, this is what the requirements are, so don't be talking about what you wish for. We are going to operate under the requirements. Here there is not a requirement for sprinklers but someone is talking about what they wish for. Is the idea here that if there are sprinklers there could be a trade off with the height of the fire separation wall and we could be talking about a way to potentially not require a height limit increase? The result of not requiring the fire separation wall at all would be what l . 12 101 (' City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 in terms of height and the issues we are dealing with? Ms. Temple answered that one of the comments the applicant made to staff is that the breezeways through on the ground floor provide part of the visual openness that would justify exceeding the height limit. To the extent those breezeways are obscured by a solid, full height fire separation wall, that argument may hold less weight with the Commission. The plans that the Commission has been shown show the fire separation walls. If they were to be eliminated there would probably be a little bit more open visual view through the project between the sheet and the alley. To the extent that became important in the consideration for making the findings on the height limit, then may be there is a slight fie between those issues. It is not that the fire separation walls and the placement of the mechanical equipment would affect the actual height. Ms. Temple clarified that the separation walls are unrelated to the proposed height of the buildings. - – — — — Commissioner Kranzley stated he knows that tandem parking can be used to satisfy parking requirements; one comes to mind on Coast Highway. Because it is allowed, does it mean that we need to accept it as a mitigation for sub- standard parking ?" Ms. Temple answered that it is not a substitution for substandard parking; it is just the way to achieve the greatest amount of on site parking supply. Commissioner Kranzley noted that we historically discourage tandem parking and in fact where we have allowed tandem parking, I would say that it is not utilized. My question is, are we required to accept tandem parking as a fulfillment of the parking requirement? Ms. Temple answered that the Code does allow it. I believe that you can not not allow it. Commissioner Kranzley stated that if we see a shopping center come in and they say that in order to satisfy the parking needs of a shopping center, we are going to have X number of parking spaces. The Commission does not have any discretion over that? Ms. Temple answered that we do in that kind of parking pool arrangement have the ability to require and review valet parking plans. Chairperson Tucker noted that with a larger scale use where people do not know each other, tandem parking is a recipe for a disaster. It is not something that I am enthused about in any circumstances, but when you have 700/800 square foot. commercial use where you will have a person who owns the property, the chances for utilizing the tandem parking will be greater, especially in an area where you have parking meters on the street. They are going to figure out how to use tandem spaces because it will mean money otherNMse. 13 INDEX F 01 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 Ms. Temple added that the accommodation of tandem parking particularly in areas like the Cannery Village is just that, an accommodation on a 30 -foot wide lot on an individual property. It is virtually impossible to get new Code required parking without the use of tandem spaces. I think the City is realistic, we understand many times they are not used but at least there is a potential for use. If the parking situation got difficult enough, people would start using them. We agree it is not an optimal arrangement, but in these older subdivided areas, it really has been the only way to achieve on -site parking without waivers. Chairperson Tucker then stated he would like to get the response to comments before discussing the Coastal Commission letter. He then asked if members of the audience wish to speak on the Coastal Commission letter. There was no response. Mr. James Campbell noted that the staff reports lists by that are outstanding and high lighted the following. Planning Department: • Responses to comments - expected to be ready within week to ten days. • Coastal Residential Development Permit - expect completion of the study by late January. Building Department: • One occupancy separation wall not on plans that has to do with the trellises at the interior property line. Additionally, there is ongoing discussion about use of fire sprinklers as protection to remove some of the occupancy separation walls in the interior. No verification from Fire Marshall or building official as to what will be done with this. Expect this to be resolved within the next two weeks. Public Works Department: • Concerns with hydrology /drainage and would like the preparation of a study to ensure that the proposed drainage concept is feasible. The applicant assures that this can be prepared within the next two weeks or so. Pedestrian interface within the public realm out front would work, as there are non - standard improvements there. We want to have further clarification and details of where the cars and pedestrians will be. Additional exhibits are being prepared by the applicant to show possibly some protective devices to better assess the path of travel to ensure safety. I do not know when those are coming, although we hope to have them shortly. Maintenance of these non- standard improvements, discussions are ongoing. An Assessment District option is being discussed whereby the owners would pay into a fund that the City would control and the City would then maintain the improvements as necessary. Some minor details with street improvements and we hope to have 14 INDEX vi A ' City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 those at least addressed by the applicant and reviewed by the appropriate staff • and recommendations brought back to the Commission. I would anticipate, given the complexity of the issues we have here, and the length of time necessary for the Coastal Residential Development Permit and the Hydrology Study, I don't see being able to bring this back to the Commission before the second meeting of February. I recommend we continue this item to February 21, 2002. Commissioner Selich noted you are talking about the design of these non- standard improvements and pedestrian separation. We already have an example of that in Lido Marina Village, are we having problems there that necessitate a different standard. - - --- -- Ms. Temple noted that during discussions with the applicant and Public Works staff, we did talk specifically about the non - standard improvements in Lido Marina Village. Based on personal experience, we discussed how there is very little traffic on that street, there is also not very much traffic going to be on this street as well. However, the pedestrians seem to have the greatest amount of problem understanding where the cars are supposed to be versus where they i are supposed to be walking. There have been some conflict issues. Af Commission inquiry, Ms. Temple added that most of the people walk down the street and this is something that the Public Works Department wants a greater understanding of, this is an area with a more conventional layout. It's a grid system, a type of pedesfian environment that people do tend to traverse on and all the other surrounding streets are conventional curb /gutter sidewalk arrangements that are very well understood by the pedesfian.- The Public Works Department is concerned that there may be some extra problems and wants to be careful. Commissioner Gifford noted her concern that in seeing this project, this is not something that just came up, this is not an issue that just arose. I wonder why we are just getting to look at this or really trying to understand it at this moment. Ms. Wood answered that we became aware of the extent of the Public Works Department concerns later than we should have. In addition to things mentioned by Ms. Temple, I think that in this area the drainage concerns are greater than they are in Lido Marina Village. They were also concerned with whether the proposed improvements would meet accessibility requirements for the disabled and since the City has had claims filed against us for those kinds of issues in the public right of way, the Public Works Department wants to be careful about that. Commissioner riser asked about the disabled parking for two of the Lafayette lots not provided. Could the requirement to provide handicap parking or disabled parking necessitate a change in design of the buildings once that is 15 INDEX luo City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 complied with? Mr. Campbell answered that might be the case because there really is not enough room to squeeze the maneuvering area for the occupant to enter /exit a vehicle. The way the design is laid out that extra five feet can not go in there. We pointed this out to the applicant, but they have not addressed it, so I am not sure how it will be resolved at this point. Commissioner Kiser noted his main concern in the interest of not having everyone to waste time on the project and be able to make comments that make sense, we need to get everything in front of us that shows the design of the project as it is to be approved. Even though the revised staff report is short, I see several things that as far as I am concerned could have a significant impact on the look of the project. Many of the concerns I have heard raised by the public and Commission have to do with architecture, views and such. I that all changes, we may be starting over. Other things noted in the staff report, such as separation walls for the interior stairways, they too could have o fairly significant visual impact on the project if those change. The point I am trying to make, the last time it was the trellis wall being apparently not to Building Code setback standards and there being a requirement that they not be combustible and have no vines growing on them. We were under the impression at the last meeting that there was going to be a wall there with a trellis and plantings on it. I really would like to see this project in a complete form at the next meeting. I don't want to have to piece meal this and make changes later or have to approve something that is a fairly significant project particularly for this area and then have to guess at what other elements the Building Department or Fire Department gets done with their approval. So, if we even need a longer continuance to get everything together so we can finally consider this, I would be all for that. Chairperson Tucker stated that the next time we see this, it is to be in a position to vote on it. Because the Use Permit is a critical element and it is tied into making required findings that the project represents a superior architectural product by allowing the height to go above the basic height, we actually have to tie any approval to a specific set of elevations. What you say is 100% accurate and we need to know what we are voting on and to the extent there are design changes, those need to come back to us. At some point, the staff will tip us off if significant changes occur, and we will have another presentation. If minor, staff can point them out to us. No matter which way it goes, we have to have in front of us what is being voted on, not here's the old plans and here are the changes. Commissioner Kiser asked the applicant for more renderings of the way the landscaping is intended to look. Also, because of the comments heard from the meetings, one of the big concerns is how this project all built at once will fit in and how it will look afterwards. It would help to have something to show how it will look, not only from street side, but even from the alleys and how it will look when the landscaping has matured. 16 INDEX r F.~ City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes January 3, 2002 INDEX Chairperson Tucker noted that the next time this comes back, we will re -open the public hearing and anybody who wants to make comments about the project can do so. Tonight I tried to limit the testimony to the CEQA documents because that was the purpose of tonight's hearing and we wanted to gain that information. The Commission's feeling is that we need to have everything at the next meeting so that we know what we are voting on. Motion was made by Commissioner Kranzley to continue this item to February 21, 2002. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser. Agajanian, Tucker Gifford, Kranzley, Selich Noes: None SUBJECT: Brown Duplex Item No. 2 405 Dahlia Avenue PA2001 -173 (PA2001 -173) Req t for a variance to permit a duplex to exceed the 1.5 floor area limit Approved with applica within Corona del Mar. The request includes reduction of the front modifications to the yard setba from 15 -feet to 74' and the reduction of the rear yard setback from project 10 -feet to 3-6 . Chairperson Tucker ted this item was before the Commission in November 2001. The application was to variance of the floor area ratio. There was no majority apparent on the vote at t time, therefore it was continued. Commissioner Krardey noted th he is not in favor of a modification of the front yard setback and would like to m ain the 15 feet. He met with the applicant and visited the site. He asked for cl . cation of the carport /garage area from staff. Staff answered that the minimum vehicle spac 'dth is 8 foot 3 inches. If it were up against an obstruction like a wall or post, itwo be increased by 6 inches. In this particular application 17 feet 6 inches is the mi um width for two spaces with obstructions on both sides. On the revised plans ther ' no dimension given. Commissioner Krardey reitetated he would like to retain as mu of the front yard setback as possible and he is concerned about the view corrido . to the street. He is also concemed about anything less than a three -foot setbac ' the back yard area. I would consider a variance with certain parameters t I just mentioned. Chairperson Tucker noted there might be an assumed variance or a reasonabl setback for computation purposes. We then have the City's Ordinances that mandate what the setback is that we can then look at changing by way of 17 Exhibit No. 6 Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 6, 2001 106 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK M CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hearing Date: December 6, 2001 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Agenda Item: 1 _ 3300 NEWPORT BOULEVARD Staff Person: James Campbell roar'* NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3210 (949) 644 -3200; FAX (949) 644 -3229 Appeal Period: 14 days REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) 501 -507 & 500 -512 30s' Street, 2908 -2912 Lafayette Avenue SUMMARY: Request for a Site Plan Review, Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Residential Development Permit and Traffic Study for the construction of 22 commercial/residential buildings on 16 lots that encompass approximately 1.44 acres in the Cannery Village area. The Use Permit involves the request for the buildings to exceed the base height limit of 26 feet by 7 feet. The project also requests to subdivide one lot, which was the result of a previous merger of 7 lots, recreating the previous subdivision pattern. RECONIMENDED ACTION: Continue the item to January 17, 2002 APPLICANT: Canner Lofts, L.P., Kevin Weeda 492 30 Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663 LOCATION: 500 block of 30'h Street between Villa Way and Lafayette Avenue and two bay front lots south of and adjacent to 30d' Street LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1 -10 of Block 430 & Lots 8 -15 of Block 329 & Lots 4 -715 of Block 4-7 of Block 328 of "Lancaster's Addition to Newport Beach" GENERAL PLAN: Recreational Marine Commercial & Mixed Retail and Service Commercial and Industrial ZONING DISTRICT: Specific Plan District #6, Cannery Village/McFadden Square - Recreational Marine Commercial & - Retail & Service Commercial W-7 Vicinity Map A N Project Site ® Area. of Enhanced Pavement SR2001 -002, UP2001 -022, NT2001 -001, CR2001 -003 and TS2001 -004 (PA2001 -128) Current Development- Mixture of commercial and office uses, marine industrial and boat storage yards To the north: Mixture of office and retail uses, coffee house , residential and industrial uses To the east: Cannery Restaurant, Rhine Channel To the south: Mixture of office, retail, residential and industrial uses To the west: Public parking, mixture of office, retail, residential and industrial uses Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) December 6, 2001 Page 2 of 22 11 Introduction The applicant proposes to redevelop 16 lots within the Cannery Village area creating a 22 unit mixed use project. The project site is located along 3& Street between Villa Way and Lafayette Avenue. The project includes 4 lots on Lafayette Avenue directly south of 300' Street abutting the Rhine Channel. The project involves 5 discretionary applications for the Planning Commission and are listed as follows: 1. Site Plan Review No. 2001 -002 2. Use Permit No. 2001 -022 3. Newport Tract Map No. 2001 -001 (TTM No. 16292) 4. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2001 -003 5. Traffic Study No. 2001 -004 The project includes a request for non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way that is a discretionary item for the City Council. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act for consideration. Proiect Overview The project consists of the construction 22 commercial/residential buildings on 16 lots that encompass approximately 1.44 acres in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan District No. 6. The proposed project includes the demolition of the buildings and related development that currently exists. At the present time, approximately 20,160 square feet of commercial and marine - related uses, one possible dwelling unit within an old travel trailer, and parking facilities occupy the 1.44 acres. The 22 individual structures, including one on each of 22 lots, will allow for retail uses on the lower level and a residential dwelling unit above the commercial space. Each of the 22 units will be sold independently and the applicant is not proposing any CC & R's or other collective arrangement. Eighteen of the 22 buildings are proposed on the north and south sides of 3& Street, between Villa Way on the west and Lafayette Avenue on the east. These lots are designated Retail and Service Commercial (RSC) by the Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan (LCP/LUP) and the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. The remaining four buildin s are proposed on the th four lots fronting on e Rhine Channel on Lafayette Avenue, south of 30 Street. These lots are designated Recreational and Marine Commercial (RMC) on the LCP/LUP and Land Use Element. The project also includes changes to the street section, pavement and drainage of 30'' Street from Villa Way to the Rhine Channel. The 30'' Street right -of -way will remain the same and will maintain the existing top of curb elevations; however, a new trench drain will be located in the center of the street that will be designed to drain to existing catch basins. These non - standard improvements will require approval by the City Council through an encroachment permit/agreement. Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) December 6, 2001 Page 3 of 22 ` k 07 Table I below provides a summary of the commercial and residential development proposed by the applicant. The project includes 17,109 square feet of commercial (i.e., retail and marine commercial) development with 75 parking spaces, compared to the 25,875 square feet of existing commercial and marine - oriented development that currently exists on the site. In addition, 22 residential dwelling units are proposed with 44 residential parking spaces. The lots are designated "N" for north of 3& Street, "S" for south of 3& Street and "E" for east of Lafayette Avenue and consecutively numbered. This system for lot designation is used within the project plans. Table I Development Summary Cannery Lofts Lot Residential S uate Feet) Commercial :. (Square Feet) Parking (Residential) Parking...,;. (Commercial). 30M Street -North Side NI (501 30'h Street) 2,086 745 2 4 N2 (503 30P Street ) 2,086 745 2 4 N3 (505 30P. Street) 2,086 745 2 4 N4 507 30P Street 2,086 745 2 4 N5 (509 3& Street 2,086 745 2 4 N6 (511 3 Street) 2,086 745 2 4 N7 (513 3& Street) 2,086 745 2 4 N8 (515 30 Street 2,086 745 2 4 N9 (517 30 Street 2,086 745 2 4 Nl (519 30 Street) 1,902 658 2 5 .Sub - Total- North 1 20,676 7,363 20 39 30 Street -South Side Sl (500 3& Street) 2,086 745 2 4 S2 (502 3& Street ) 2,086 745 2 4 S3 (504 W Street) 2,086 745 2 4 S4 (506 3& Street) 2,086 745 2 4 S5 (508 30 Sheet ) 2,086 745 2 4 S6 (510 30 Street 2,086 745 2 4 S7 512 30 Sheet 2,086 745 2 4 S8 (514 3V Street) 2,418 962 2 4 Sub -Total - South 17 020 1 6,177 16 32 Lafayette Avenue El (2912 Lafayette) 2,274 833 2 1 E2 (2910 Lafayette) 2,256 918 2 1 E3 (2908 Lafayette) 2,276 864 2 1 E4 (2906 Lafayette) 2,255 954 2 1 Sub -Total - Lafayette 9,061 3,569 8 4 Total Development 1 46,757 1 17,109 1 44 75 Analysis Project implementation as designed necessitates the approval of a Use Permit due to the height of the proposed structures. The proposed building heights exceed the 26 -foot maximum height established by the specific plan. The Use Permit could allow the buildings to be constructed up to 35 feet, provided that the Planning Commission, in granting such use permit, can make the Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) December 6, 2001 Page 4 of 22 t findings contained within Chapter 20.65. The applicant is proposing a maximum height of 33 feet. The four lots on Lafayette Avenue that abut the Rhine Channel require the approval of a Site Plan Review application pursuant to the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan as these lots are within the RMC zone. The project also requires the consideration of a tract map that would subdivide a portion of the project area back to the original subdivision pattern. In addition, the project requires the consideration of a Coastal Residential Development Permit (CDRP) application, which relates to the inclusion of affordable housing due to the construction of 10 or more units within the coastal zone. Lastly, the entire project requires a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission. General Plan Land Use Element & Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan The Land Use Element (LUE) and Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan (LCP/LUP) have very similar policies for the project site. The portion of the site located west of Lafayette Avenue is designated for as "Mixed Commercial - Retail & Service Commercial & Industrial," which has been applied to the eastern portion of Cannery Village as it is predominantly retail in character, but also has some light industrial, marine industrial and service office uses. The four lots located east of Lafayette Avenue ate- designated Recreational Marine Commercial. This land use category applies to waterfront commercial areas where the City wishes to preserve and encourage uses that facilitate a marine commercial and visitor serving orientation. Uses that are given a priority include marine commercial (e.g., marinas, marine supply sales, yacht brokers, etc.), marine industrial (e.g., marine construction, boat repair and servicing, etc.), and visitor serving commercial (e.g., social clubs, commercial recreation, etc.). Within the Cannery Village area, residential uses are permitted on the second floor above commercial uses provided that the total floor area of the mixed use project does not exceed 1.25 FAR. The project has 4 unit types with the following area characteristics that are all below the 1.25 FAR maximum of the General Plan: Unit Type Number of units Commercial area Commercial FAR Residential area Residential FAR Total FAR A 16 745 0.267 2086 0.748 1.015 B 1 658 0.256 1902 0.741 0.997 C 1 962 0.298 2418 0.749 1.047 E 4 .833-954 0.271 - 0.311 2255-2274 0.734 1.005 - 1.045 The LUE has estimated growth for each statistical area in the City. The majority of the increase in dwelling units (i.e., 294 units of the 301 projected) for the Central Newport Statistical Area were anticipated to be developed in Cannery Village in 1987. Although the LCP/LUP identifies different planning areas for statistical purposes, both the Land Use Element and the LCP/LUP treat the Cannery Village area consistently. Presently, there are 182 residential units within the Cannery Village area with a present projected total of 407. Implementation of the project will increase the total unit count by 22 for a total of 204 which is far below total residential build out. Similarly, the remaining 154,068 of the total 467,051 square feet of commercial development Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) December 6, 2001 Page 5 of 22 projected for this statistical area were also allocated to Cannery Village at that time. Since 1987, additional commercial development has occurred; however, commercial development within the Cannery Village sub -area is still below the projection, based upon the Land Use Element. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of the site with 17,109 square feet of commercial space removing 20,160 square feet of existing non - residential area for a net reduction of 3,021 square feet. Therefore, the proposed use is entirely consistent with the land use projections of the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. The General Plan contains 12 general development policies that are discussed within the following table: General Plan Policy Policy Analysis A. The City shall provide for sufficient diversity of land uses The proposed project includes a professional office and residential so that schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, development pursuant to the Cannery Village Specific Plan District churches and neighborhood shopping centers are in close proximity to No. 6. The residential dwelling units are proposed to be located over each resident of the community. the professional office development on each of the 22 lots.. This combination addresses the proximity of home and work uses and would result in the elimination of the hometm -work vehicular trips and, consequently, mobile -source air emissions. Further, this combination of uses is located in an area of the City that is designated for retail uses. The proposed project is consistent with this policy that is intended to provide not only diversity but also proximity of land uses. B. To insure redevelopment of older or underutilized The project proposes to redevelop approximately I." acres (22 lots) properties, and to preserve the value of property, the floor area limits located in the City within the Cannery Village Specific Plan District specified in the Land Use Element allow for some modest growth. To No. 6 that are underutilized. These uses will replace the existing uses insure that traffic does not exceed the level of service desired by the with professional office development in combination with residential City, variable floor area limits shall be established based upon the trip development that is consistent with the land use designations and generation characteristics of the use or uses proposed for the site. residential and commercial projections adopted for the area and included in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. It is anticipated that project implementation would result in an increase of approximately 560 trips per day greater than the vehicular trips generated by existing land uses occupying the subject property. This increase, after a credit is applied for the reduction in trips due to the balance provided by combining jobs and housing in the same development, achieves the goal of minimizing traffic and potential impacts on existing levels of service at intersections within the City. C. Commercial, recreation or destination visitor serving The proposed project includes a mix of commercial and residential facilities in and around the harbor shall be controlled and regulated to development that will replace the existing commercial development minimize traffic congestion and parking shortages, to ensure access to occupying the site. The portion of the proposed development located the water for residents and visitors, as well as maintain the high on Lafayette Street will be marine - oriented, as prescribed by the quality of life and the unique and beautiful residential areas that existing planning and zoning documents that regulate development. border the harbor. The "combined' conametcial/residential use of the site is intended to facilitate circulation and parking in the Cannery ViflagelMcFaddcu Square Specific Plan area. Public access to the marina area is provided along the frontage of the lots located along Lafayette Street. D. The siting of new buildings and structures shall be No significant natural landforms, including coastal bluffs and cliffs, controlled and regulated to ensure, to the extent practical, the are located on the site or in the immediate area. Public views of the preservation of public views, the preservation of unique natural marina area will be maintained through the public walk located along resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural landforms along the frontage of the development proposed along Lafayette Sheet. bluffs and cliffs. Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) December 6, 2001 Page 6 of 22 EE General Plan Policy Policy Analysis E. Provisions shall be made for the encouragement or The four lots proposed along Lafayette Street will accommodate development of suitable and adequate sites for commercial marine- marine uses and will provide public access to the marina area between related facilities so as to continue the City's historical and maritime the proposed structures and the bulkhead. The proposed project is atmosphere, and the charm and character such business have designed to complement the nautical and historical maritime charac ter traditionally provided the City. - of the area. . F. The City shall develop and maintain suitable and adequate The project will be required to comply the with design standards standards for landscaping, sign control, site and building design, prescribed by the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan. parking and undergromtding of utilities and other development standards to ensure that the beauty and charm of existing residential neighborhoods are maintained, that commercial and office projects are aestheticallyrpleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses and that the appearance of, and activities conducted within industrial developments are also compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. G. Prohibit or restrict certain types of land use conversions or The proposed project adds residential units in an area designated for forms of ownership which, by their nature, reduce available housing, mixed -use. are incompatible with residential uses, or present police, health, or safety problems. H. Continue to oppose the lease of offshore tracts to oil Not Applicable. - - -- _ -- - producers and prohibit the construction of new onshore oil facilities except as may be necessary in conjunction with the operation of the West Newport oil field. L Restrict and control development in flood hazard areas. The site is not in a floor hazard area, therefore the policy is not applicable. J. The City shall aggressively pursue annexation of territory Not Applicable. within its sphere of influence with due consideration given to costs and benefits associated with incorporation. K The land use designations and building intensity standards Not Applicable. in this Element reflect limits on John Wayne Airport imposed by the Airport Settlement Agreement and the provisions of that Agreement have become an integral pan of the land use and planning process of the City of Newport Beach. The City should take all steps necessary to ' preserve and protect the Agreement, as well as assist in the selection of a second commercial airport, which, in conjunction with John Wayne Airport, could serve a majority of the County's short- and medium - haul demand. L The City shall encourage its community commercial The project is consistent with the Cannery Village/McFadden Square districts to reflect and complement the high quality of its residential area and revitalizes the property through redevelopment and provides areas. The City shall promote the prosperity of its several community pedestrian oriented features that will complement Cannery Village. commercial districts through the adoption and application of its planning, zoning, building and public works codes, regulations, policies and activities. Harbor and Bay Element The City of Newport Beach adopted a Harbor and Bay Element of the General Plan on June 12, 2001. This optional element of the General Plan focuses on the uses of the water and waterfront property within the area encompassing Newport Harbor, including the subject property, and supplements provisions of the Land Use and the Recreation and Open Space Elements. The Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) December 6, 2001 Page 7 of 22 IZI principal goal of the Harbor and Bay Element is to establish policies and programs that will preserve the diversity and charm of Newport Harbor and Bay without unduly restricting the rights of the waterfront property owner. Although the Element is intended to control the content of Harbor Regulations and Harbor Permit Policies bayward of the bulkhead or the line of mean high tide, it is also considered in land use decisions related to properties adjacent to Newport Bay, including a portion of the project site. A number of objectives identified in this Element relate to the development/redevelopment of the subject property. Specifically, these objectives include: • Ensure that water dependent and water related uses and recreational activities remain a primary use of the harbor. • Preserve and encourage enhancement of existing commercial areas, including the redevelopment of outdated or antiquated commercial development, in a manner that maintains the charm and character of the harbor. • Maintain and enhance existing marine support uses and encourage and provide incentives for retention and expansion of these uses. • Maintain and enhance public access to the Harbor water and waterfront areas. • Enhance the water quality and protect the - marine environment in.Newport Harbor and Upper Newport Bay. • Preserve and enhance the visual character and historical resources of the Harbor and the Bay. The proposed project addresses the objectives articulated in the Harbor and Bay Element in the following manner. The four lots proposed on Lafayette Street are intended to accommodate marine- oriented commercial uses. This use limitation is insured due to the limited parking provided on these lots. Only marine commercial uses that require no more parking than 1 space per 1000 square feet are permitted without a parking waiver. The property will be redeveloped with commercial uses that that result in the, intensification of the use of the property. In doing so, the project will replace the open boat storage for Shock Boats, an adjacent business on Lafayette Avenue. Another small boat storage yard (Chris Craft) located at the southeast comer of 30`s Street and Villa Way also will be replaced by the project. In each of these cases, the storage of boats will be replaced, but the business will remain as they operate in nearby locations. These marine- related, harbor support uses are free to locate anywhere the use is permitted. It is also the intent of the design of the project to enhance the visual character of the area through the use of architectural and structural components that incorporate nautical features. Public access to The Rhine Channel will be maintained through the provision of a walkway proposed within the ]0 -foot setback area adjacent to the existing bulkhead of the manna. Further, visuhl access through the development (i.e., four lots on Lafayette Street) is provided via the "breezeways" that will physically separate the four structures proposed along Lafayette Avenue. Finally, public access to the bay and views will be provided by a "park" proposed between the Lafayette Avenue lots and the Cannery Restaurant. This area is proposed as a passive recreational feature for the neighborhood and is presently part of the 30n' Street right -of -way. Finally, in order to accommodate surface runoff from the site, 30's Street will be reconstructed so that drainage is directed to the facilities under the proposed reconstructed street to a storm water runoff filter system prior to being discharged into existing storm water conveyance facilities. Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) December 6, 2001 Page 8 of 22 G NO Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan The Cannery Village Specific Plan is intended to provide an active pedestrian- oriented, specialty retail area with a wide range of uses including retail, professional offices that provide service directly to the public, residential uses on the second floor, and marine- related light industrial uses. The project provides retail uses with residences on the second floor, and incorporates changes to the street in an effort to promote pedestrian- orientation. The Specific Plan also has an architectural theme that is stated as follows: "Cannery Village Theme. A cannery theme is recommended for the Cannery Village area The cannery theme is reminiscent of the previous use of the area, and can provide a continuity throughout the area while preserving the variety and individuality of uses that give the area its charrrL The cannery theme should be expanded to include other nautical and marine elements as appropriate. Elements of a cannery theme that may be applied to structures include: a Use of corrugated metal shed -type buildings or siding where appropriate, with a higher level_of finish than would normally be associated with such structures. b. Attractive expression of mechanical equipment and systems by incorporation into the design of structures within the height limit. C. Use of nautical devices in signs, architectural details and decoration, such as heavy rope, pilings, timbers, brass fixtures, etc." The project proposes galvanized metal exterior finishes, treated to better withstand weathering, for some walls and roofs. Exposed metal beams and canvas canopies are proposed as accents. A modest use of stucco as a siding material is proposed. The predominant siding material will be concrete board panels that will be visible in the interior spaces of the project and on the ends of the buildings. Wood panels will also be used in partially protected areas as an accent. Decks will have cable railing systems with teak accents. Staff believes that the overall architectural theme is reminiscent of the past use of the area due to the "industrial" architectural style. However, the Specific Plan speaks of a "continuity" that preserves "the variety and individuality of uses that give the area its charm." From the perspective that the project consists of 22 units of the same design in a single block, consistency with the Specific Plan is less clear. Staffs main criticism of the project rests in the repetitive nature of the architecture that does not reflect the "eclectic," lot by lot design character of the area. If the project is viewed in a broader context of the entire village, the variety and individuality development throughout the village is more apparent. Floor Area and Building Bulk The project must comply with Chapter 20.63 that stipulates maximum floor area ratios and building bulk. As noted previously in the discussion related to the General Plan, the project complies with the maximum FAR, which is 1.25 FAR for mixed use developments. For the commercial portion of the project, there is a minimum of 0.25 FAR and a maximum of 0.5 FAR. The residential space is limited to a maximum of 0.75 FAR. As noted in the following table, the project complies with these standards. Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) December 6, 2001 Page 9 of 22 �� 7 Unit T Number of units Commercial area I Commercial FAR Residential area Residential FAR Total FAR A 16 745 0.267 2086 0.748 1.015 B 1 658 0.256 1902 0.741 0.997 C 1 962 0.298 2418 0.749 1.047 E. 4 954 max: 0.271 min. 0.311 max. 2274 max. 0.734 max. 1.045 max. Building bulk is defined as gross floor area with the following modifications: exclude outdoor dining areas, include courtyards not open on at least two sides, include covered parking, and includes. twice those areas that measure 18 feet from the finished floor to average roof above. In the case of this project, the calculation of bulk includes the at grade covered parking within the breezeway and loft areas that meet the 18 -foot high siandard. The maximum building bulk ratio is the gross floor area ratio plus 0.35 for mixed use projects (1.25 + 0.35 = 1.55). The following table indicates the building bulk tabulations; each of the 22 buildings complies with the 1.55 bulk area to lot ratio. Unit Type Number of units Gross Floor Area (ea.) Total FAR (ea.) Building Bulk (s q. ft.) Building Bulk Ratio A 16 2831 1.015 4295 1.54 B 1 2560 0.997 3177 1.24 C 1 3380 1.047 3908 1.21 E 4 3209 max. 1.045 max. 3938 max. 1.28 Use Permit for Increased Height The site is located in the 26/35 height limitation zone that permits buildings and structures to be 26 feet in height and up to a maximum of 35 feet through the approval of a use permit. Each of the 22 units is proposed to exceed the 26 -foot base height limit. The height of the project is 33 feet measured from natural grade to the top of the parapet walls that separate the 30`s Street buildings. The peak of the gently sloping roof of these building is 31 feet high and the midpoint is approximately 28.5 feet. Additionally, each of the 30fl' Street buildings also will have a roof mounted air conditioner with protective guardrail that will be approximately 34 feet from grade. The Lafayette units are slightly different in that the height of the flat roof of these structures is 30' -8" and the parapet walls are 32' -8" and a vertical shaft for a skylight is 32' -8" high. The increased building height of the project 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 applicant believes that the increased setbacks in the project result in more public visual open space and should be considered as a mitigating factor in the request for increased height. Specifically, the project provides a 5' -6" setback as opposed to the minimum 5 -foot front yard setback. The first and second levels of the building are set Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) December 6, 2001 Page 10 of 22 ' back 16-8" from the alley as opposed to the minimum 10 feet. The third level balcony of each unit will be set back 10 feet from the alley and is only 1/2 of the lot width. The project also incorporates an open terrace at both the front and rear of the second level for each residential unit. The front terrace will have an open metal frame with a retractable awning. The third level has a smaller balcony on both the front and alley side of the project. It must be noted that the open terraces on the second level facing the street abut side property lines. In the case of the 30`h Street units, a property line separates each unit. With the 4 lots on Lafayette, the two end units abut the street and adjacent property. Due to the proximity to these property lines, the openings at the property line and awnings depicted in the drawings must be modified to provide fire separation. This will require a wall to be placed between the terrace and the property line, and the awning to be fire retardant or be eliminated. The applicant is seeking relief from this requirement and is exploring other means acceptable to the Building and Fire Departments that will preserve the openness of the terrace. 301h Street Buildings The increased height is associated with the third level of the buildings. The 31 -foot peak of the roofs would be a permissible encroachment if the midpoint of the roof were 26 feet high. The midpoint is 28.5 feet high. The portion of the building that exceeds 26 feet is located roughly in the middle and toward the rear of the building and is indicated on Sheets 6, 7 & 8 of the project plans. The peak is located approximately 57 feet from the front property line and 36 feet from the rear property line. In relation to 17 of the 18 units facing 30th Street, the increased height creates a two story breezeway open from the street to the alley behind the project. This 9'-4" wide by 20 feet high breezeway is a portion of the public visual open space and view that the applicant believes assists in off - setting the increased height. These breezeways will be used for the parking of 4 automobiles which staff believes will reduce the perception of the open space. The one unit that does not have a breezeway is the easterly unit on the north side of 30'h Street abutting Lafayette Avenue. This lot is triangular and cannot accommodate the same breezeway feature, but it does have an open area facing the alley and Lafayette. The drawings on Sheets 9 and 10 show how the proposed open areas of the project work. Additionally, the applicant has prepared two exhibits that compare the area of the proposed encroachment above 26 feet to the area remaining open and to the area that would be occupied by a conforming building (Exhibits No. 1 A & B). These exhibits depict two sections of the 30`h Street buildings perpendicular to the street. They show that the proposed buildings would occupy less area than a conforming building. Roughly half of the proposed building occupies 82% of the allowable area, and the remaining half occupies 24% of allowable area. The applicant has also prepared a volumetric analysis that compares the approximate volume of the proposed units to what could be constructed within the 26 -foot height limit (Exhibits No. 2 A & B). This analysis shows that the project occupies approximately 34,000 cubic feet when roughly 50,000 cubic feet could be built in compliance with the 26 -foot height limit. Although these exhibits show that Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) December 6, 200I Page I I of 22 12,5 the project results in more open area than a conforming building, the open area is not all visible to the public, since the sections are perpendicular to the street. The view lines on exhibits IA & 1B show that the proposed buildings would provide a slightly greater view of the sky for someone on the street and the alley. Lafayette Avenue Buildings The four units proposed for Lafayette Avenue are slightly different in what features encroach above the height limit. The roof of these units exceeds the height limit by approximately 5 feet and the third floor area is approximately 20% of each lot. This level is 16 feet wide when viewed from the street and it is 26 feet in width when viewed from the bay. The third level is also set back further than the lower levels from Lafayette and the bay. The size and setbacks of these features assist in mitigating the added height. These lots provide three breezeways between the buildings. The middle breezeway is 6 feet. wide and the other two are 3 feet wide. Additionally, the site plans depicts open courtyards and an open terrace facing the bay. Parking is proposed within these courtyards. The applicant-also- proposes to construct a 20 -foot high trellis wall at the 5- foot setback line along Lafayette for these units. This feature is depicted on sheet 7 of the plans. The trellis wall will have vehicle and pedestrian gates and be constructed of metal or wood and be a minimum of 50% open. Staff believes that it will obstruct views between the buildings and the perception of visual open space. The applicant contends that the gates will be open during regular business hours, but there is no effective way to regulate this. 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 building height above 26 feet creates the ability to construct the third level portion of the loft style residences. The loft concept is not possible without a two story residential space. The increased building height also permits greater building articulation that has been expressed in the increased and varying setbacks, open terraces, balconies and breezeways. It would be difficult to incorporate the amount of articulation without the increased height while providing comparable square footage. Typically, the design of a 26 -foot high mixed use building is boxy when an effort is made to maximize the floor area of the project. 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. Consistent with the eclectic nature of Cannery Village, there is a variety of building heights in the area. Surrounding buildings are generally one and two story at or near the 26 -foot height limit. Some projects include the Cannery Restaurant, the 28d' Street Marina project and a mixed use development west of the project that exceeds the 26 -foot Cannery Lofts(PA2001 -128) December 6, 2001 Page 12 of 22 M height limit. Some of these building are nonconforming, light industrial buildings, and others have received Use Permits to exceed the base height limit. The high parapet wall on the north and of the Lafayette building may be an abrupt change in relationship to the adjacent street that the applicant desires to enhance as a mini -park. Staff recommends that the applicant examine how to reduce the height of this wall while meeting applicable building codes. The portions of the buildings above 26 feet are generally located to the center and rear of the buildings, which helps lessen the bulk of the buildings. The roof -top guardrails for the air conditioners on the 3e Street units measure approximately 8 feet wide by 17 feet deep with a maximum height of 34 feet. They are positioned over the middle of the building and this location helps lessen their scale. However, the guardrail features are positioned at the east and west elevations of the, 3& Street units on both the north and south side. These features will be at the property line abutting the sidewalks along Villa Way and Lafayette Avenue. The proximity of these features to the sidewalk may be an abrupt scale issue. It can be remedied with the guardrails being set back further away — from the street, possibly on the other side of the respective units. D. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. The floor area ratio of the project ranges from 0.997 to 1.047, which is below the maximum of 1.25 FAR; therefore the project does not achieve any additional floor area due to the additional height. Site Plan Review The four lots located on the Rhine Channel are subject to Site Plan Review pursuant to the Cannery Village Specific Plan designation of the site as Recreational Marine Commercial (RMC). Section 20.92 of the Zoning Code establishes 12 standards for review of projects. A. Sites subject to site plan review under the provisions of this chapter shall be graded and developed with due regard for the aesthetic qualities of the natural terrain, harbor, and landscape, giving special consideration to waterfront resources and unique landforms such as coastal bluffs or other sloped areas; trees and shrubs shall not be indiscriminately destroyed: The site is flat, paved with concrete with no trees or shrubs, no unique natural landforms or coastal bluffs or other environmental resources. The site will be graded to maintain the minimum building pad elevation of 6.27 feet above mean sea level. This change in grade is necessary to provide minimum flood protection and does not constitute significant alteration of the site as the grade will be similar to abutting properties. The development of the lots provides a 10 -foot bulkhead setback, within which a 6 -foot easement will be dedicated for public access to the waterfront, which does not exist today. Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) December 6, 2001 Page 13 of 22 B. Development shall be compatible with the character of the neighborhood and surrounding sites and shall not be detrimental to the orderly and harmonious development of the surroundings and of the City: The four Lafayette buildings are consistent with the development standards of the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan with the exception of building height. Their bulk is comparable to the Cannery restaurant and -Shock Boats building as well as other structures located in the vicinity. However, the entire Lafayette Avenue frontage must be accessible to vehicles and the applicant is proposing a rolled curb, which is dissimilar to the area. C. Development shall be sited and designed to maximize protection of public views, with special consideration given to views from public parks and from roadways designated as Scenic Highways and Scenic Drives in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan: The development of the 4 units on Lafayette will effectively block the view to the Rhine channel from Lafayette and 3& Street. However, these streets are not designated as a Scenic Highway or Drive and no public parks are in the vicinity where views would be impacted. The project provides a 6 -foot public access easement within the 10 -foot bulkhead setback along the channel that connects to the 30th Street end. From this easement, that presently does not exist, public views will be created. D. Environmentally sensitive areas shall be preserved and protected. No structures or landform alteration shall be permitted in environmentally sensitive areas unless specific mitigation measures are adopted which will reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level or the Planning Commission fends that the benefits outweigh the adverse impact: The site is not within a designated Environmental Sensitive Area (ESA). E. No structures shall be permitted in areas of potential geologic hazard unless specific mitigation measures are adopted which will reduce adverse impacts to an acceptable level or the Planning Commission fends that the benefits outweigh the adverse impacts: The project site is not in an area of potential geologic hazard. The site is located close to the Newport Inglewood fault zone and severe ground shaking at the project site might be experienced during a major event and liquefaction is of concern. A preliminary geotechnical investigation has been conducted that recommends enhanced construction techniques thereby providing mitigation for liquefaction issues. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, the applicant must submit a final soils report to the Building Department for review and approval. All applicable City and State building codes and seismic design guidelines will be applied through the issuance of a building permit, which will minimize possible risks of liquefaction damage during an earthquake. - - F. Residential development shall be permitted in areas subject to noise levels greater than 60 CNEL only where specific mitigation measures will reduce noise levels in exterior areas to less than 60 CNEL and reduce noise levels in the interior of residences to 45 CNEL or less: The Noise Element does not indicate that the project site is subject to noise levels that exceed 60 CNEL. The proposed project includes outdoor decks for the residents on the second level and the City noise ordinance requires that interior noise levels must comply with the 45 CNEL or less standard. The applicant will be required to Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) December 6, 2001 Page 14 of 22 pp 1�� submit an acoustic study prior to occupancy of the residences that documents that the interior and exterior noise levels meet this standard. G. Site plan and layout of buildings, parking areas, pedestrian and vehicular access ways, and other site features shall give proper consideration to functional aspects of site development. The Planning, Public Works and Building Departments have reviewed the site plan for proper pedestrian and vehicle function. The Public Works Department is not satisfied with the vehicle maneuvering off the alley due to the placement of the visitor spaces and garages. They are recommending that the visitor space be set back one foot further from the alley and that some sort of bollard be considered to protect the parking space from vehicles accessing the garages. The access to the residential garages on Lafayette Avenue is not prone to this problem and meets applicable standards. The visitor parking spaces for the 4 units on Lafayette Avenue do not provide proper disabled parking, however. Two of the units do not provide a disabled parking space and although the other two units do, the 5 -foot maneuvering area encroaches on the neighboring lot. A solution has not yet been identified by the architect. Other minor conflicts exist and the Public Works Department is recommending that a condition of project approval be that the parking and maneuvering issues be subject to further refinement under the direction of the City Traffic Engineer. Public coastal access along the Rhine Channel is required pursuant to the the Zoning Code and Coastal Act. The Zoning Code requires a 6 -foot wide horizontal easement that is parallel to the bay and a vertical easement perpendicular to the bay from Lafayette Avenue. The horizontal easement area is provided within the 10 -foot setback between the bayside building and the bulkhead. The vertical easement is not necessary as direct access to the horizontal easement is provided from 3& Street, a public street. The Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission require easements be recorded against the property for the benefit of the public. A condition of approval should be included that requires the recordation of the coastal access easement prior to the issuance of a building permit for the bay front lots. H. Development shall be consistent with specific General Plan and applicable specific plan district policies and objectives, and shall not preclude the implementation of those policies and objectives: This finding has been discussed previously in this report. L Development shall be physically compatible with the development site, taking into consideration site characteristics including, but not limited to, slopes, submerged areas, and sensitive resources: The site is flat and devoid of sensitive resources and the development project does not require significant alteration of the site and is therefore compatible with the site. J. When feasible, electrical and similar mechanical equipment and trash and storage areas shall be concealed: The air conditioning unit will be located on the roof in the middle of the building and will not be visible from the ground. Trash storage areas are not specifically delineated on the plans, and the applicant intends that trash storage be Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -I28) December 6, 2001 Page 15 of 22 p 1 V9 accommodated within the commercial spaces and residential garages, and they will only be visible for trash- pickup. K Archaeological and historical resources shall be protected to the extent feasible, No known archaeological and historical resources are known to exist and are unlikely to exist due to the disturbed nature of the site. L. Commercial development shall not have significant adverse effects on residences in an abutting residential district: There are no purely abutting residential districts. Nearby residences aid few and located within the existing mixed use district. Due to the small size of the commercial uses and the fact that that they are within a mixed use project themselves, staff does not anticipate any negative impacts to nearby residences. Tract Map The northeast comer of Villa Way and 300' Street was resubdivided in the past to merge seven, roughly 30 -feet wide by 93 feet deep lots, into one lot. The applicant desires to subdivide the lot -- back -to -- the— previous-7— lotsJl7he ni mmum lot size for commercial lots within the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan is 2,000 square feet. The proposed lots will be actually be between 2,786 and 2,789 square feet in size which meets the minimum standards, and therefore, no deviation from lot design standards are necessary. Pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code, the following findings must be made to approve the tract map. If the Planning Commission determines that one or more of the findings listed cannot be made, the tentative tract must be denied. 1. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. As noted in the previous. sections, staff believes that the project can be found consistent with the General Plait and the Cannery Village/McFadden Specific Plan. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tract map believes that it is consistent with the Subdivision Code. Conditions of approval will be included to ensure compliance. 2. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The portion of the project to be subdivided is flat with no environmental resources to speak of. Although the site is prone- to liquefaction in a major earthquake, proper engineering and construction can mitigate the severity of the issue. No other physical constraints to construction are known. The site, previous to a lot merger, was 7 lots consistent with the subdivision pattern of the majority of the Cannery Village area. The proposed subdivision will recreate this previous subdivision pattern consistent with the surrounding properties. Applicable planning policies and codes permit mixed use development where one residential unit is permitted above a commercial space on a minimum of a 2,375 square foot lot provided the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standard is met. Each of the 7 proposed lots is larger than this limit, one residential unit is proposed per lot, and the project meets applicable FAR standards as discussed previously in the report. Due to these factors, staff Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) December 6, 2001 Page 16 of 22 U3 believes that the site can be found suitable for the type and density of development proposed. 3. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision - making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. It concludes that the project will have•a less than significant impact to the environment. The site is developed in a highly urbanized area and no significant natural resources exist in the area of the project site except for Newport Bay. The project includes a system of filtering storm runoff on site before it discharged to the storm water system. The project also includes improvements to the local storm water system where a fossil type filter will be installed to treat the first or low flow discharge prior to discharge to Newport Bay. These features will mitigate and improve water quality thereby avoiding impacts to fish or wildlife. 4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project consists of 22 individual commercial/residential structures permitted by local ordinances and the General Plan. The design of the subdivision is identical to the surrounding subdivision pattern. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the existing subdivision pattern has generated any serious public health problems. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the- type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision - making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. No public easements for access through or use of the property have been retained for the use by the public at large. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, if necessary, to serve the new project. 6 That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) December 6, 2001 Page 17 of 22 131 land. The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract, therefore, this finding does not apply. 7. That, in the case of a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be -included within the .land project; and (b) the decision - making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. The definition of a land project was deleted from the Business and Professional Code several years ago. The previous definition related to subdivisions of 50 or more unimproved parcels. Using this old definition, this finding is not applicable. If a more conservative interpretation of the definition of a "land project" were used, the proposed project can be found consistent with the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan. 8. That solar access and passive heating, and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. The design of the proposed project provides each lot with direct southern exposure to the maximum extent feasible, therefore, this finding can be made. 9. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. The proposed subdivision facilitates the creation of 7 new residential units that likely would not be developed although they potentially could be developed under existing zoning provisions without the subdivision. These 7 new units will assist the city in meeting its housing needs. Public services are available to serve the proposed development of the site and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project indicates that the project's potential environmental impacts are expected to be less than significant. 10. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Waste discharge into the existing sewer will be consistent with retail and residential use of the property which does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board ( RWQCB) requirements. The RWQCB has not provided any comments related to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration as of the drafting of this report. 11. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Lone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. The proposed subdivision is entirely within the coastal zone and the site subject to the Tentative Tract Map is not presently developed with coastal- related uses, coastal- dependent uses or water - oriented recreational uses. These uses are located on other portions of the project site but are not located on the portion of the site proposed for subdivision. The City of Newport Beach does not have a certified Local Coastal Program; however, staff believes Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) December 6, 2001 Page 18 of 22 that the project is consistent with the city's certified Local Coastal Program Land Use Program as discussed previously in this report. The portion of the site to be subdivided does not abut the ocean or bay, therefore no coastal access is required. Recreation policies of the Coastal Act require that sites suitable for water - oriented recreational activities that cannot be supplied inland must be protected. These policies prioritize water - oriented - recreational activities over other land uses and encourage aquaculture and water- oriented recreational support facilities. The portion of the project site proposed to be subdivided is not suitable for water- oriented recreational activities due to its size and location. In summary, staff believes that each of the required findings for the proposed subdivision either can be made or is inapplicable to the project. Coastal Residential Development Permit (CRDP) Pursuant to Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code, when a project proposes to create 10 or more units within the coastal zone, affordable housing must be included within the project unless it can be determined infeasible. In that instance, the payment of an in -lieu fee to the city's affordable housing fund is an option. Staff has selected a qualified consultant to prepare the feasibility analysis, but the study has not been completed. Staff anticipates that the consultant will be complete shortly after the first of the year. Therefore, the Commission cannot take action on the CRDP at this time. Traffic Study A traffic study is required pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) when a project will generate in excess of 300 average daily trips (ADT). The City Traffic Engineer prepared a preliminary estimate of trips and concluded that a traffic study would be required. A traffic study was then prepared by Austin -Foust under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines (Exhibit No. 3). Trip generation was based upon 22 medium density residences and 17, 109 square feet of general commercial uses. Credits were given for the office and industrial uses presently in existence. The net increase in traffic or new trips due to the project is 560 average daily trips, -17 AM peak hour trips and 32 PM peak hour trips. The project traffic was distributed to the road network in accordance with the TPO and traffic engineering principals outlined on page 1 of the study. Pursuant to the TPO, the timeframe used for the analysis is early 2004, which is 1 year after the initial occupancy of the project. Using this technique accounts for future increases in traffic due to committed projects, anticipated build out of the General Plan and a 1% ambient growth factor. The following five (5) intersections were identified as study intersections based upon the project distribution: 1. Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road 2. Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue and Coast Highway 3. Riverside Avenue and Coast Highway 4. Tustin Avenue and Coast Highway 5. Newport Boulevard and Via Lido Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) December 6, 2001 Page 19 of 22 t�I The traffic study concludes that the traffic volume of only one intersection, Newport Boulevard and Via Lido, is increased by more than 1% during the PM peak hour only. hntersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) was conducted for this intersection. The projected ICU values are 0.427 in the AM and 0.414 in the PM. This ICU value is within Level of Service A which is an acceptable level of service. Therefore, no mitigation is required as the project will not cause any intersections to operate at an unsatisfactory level of service (above 0.90 ICU). Street Improvements The applicant is proposing a change to the streetscape with the intent to create a more vibrant pedestrian experience. The City Council will need to review the changes through an encroachment permit/agreement at a later date. The information related to these improvements is provided to the Commission for informational purposes only as the Commission has no jurisdiction over the request. The existing street section would be changed to eliminate the curb and gutter and redirect drainage middle_of the street via a new trench drain. Enhanced pavement in the form of brick pavers or stamped, colored concrete is proposed for the sidewalks. This pavement would also be applied in 4- foot wide bands perpendicular to the sidewalks crossing the street. A band would also cross Lafayette Avenue to connect the four lots that abut the bay. Similar enhanced pavement is also proposed for pedestrian areas of the private property to provide continuity. The Public Works Department has concerns regarding the proposal as the applicant has not identified a reliable mechanism for maintenance of the improvements. Additionally, there are liability concerns as the design does not account for safety devices to prevent vehicles from crossing over to the sidewalk. The submitted designs do not account for other street fixtures such as street lights, street trees, parking meters, etc. It is likely that that these fixtures will necessitate pedestrian access easements to be provided on private property in order to provide minimum disabled access. The applicant prepared an exhibit with additional details in an enlarged plan view which is included in the project plans. However, this plan was submitted on November 29, 2001 and has not been reviewed as of the drafting of this report. Staff will review the plan and may be prepared to provide additional observations at the hearing. The feasibility of the drainage scheme has not yet been verified and the Public Works Department is requiring a hydrology study to be performed prior to the encroachment permit/agreement going to the City Council. If the feasibility of the system cannot be proven, the street section and drainage pattern must remain intact. Staff recommends that this Public Works requirement be added as a mitigation measure and incorporated within the Mitigated Negative Declaration. - The design of the project will impact the amount of on -street parking due to the number of driveways and minimum vehicle maneuvering needs. Presently, parking is provided on both sides of 30th Street and 12 spaces are provided. There are 10 spaces presently on Lafayette Avenue. The site plan shows 18 on- street spaces on 3& Street and 8 spaces on Lafayette; however, the Public Works Department will only accept 4 of these spaces due to the need to provide access to the on- site parking spaces. Therefore, there is potentially a loss of 10 spaces (4 spaces on 3e Street and 8 spaces on Lafayette). Staff does not consider this a significant impact because there is low demand Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) December 6, 2001 Page 20 of 22 for public parking in Cannery Village. The reduction of these convenient spaces is off set by the fact that each of the 30's street units provides one parking space in excess of requirements. The loss of on- street spaces is expected to be an issue with the Coastal Commission as these spaces serve the general public, whereas the additional off -street spaces would be for customers and employees of the project. Fire Department Concerns The Fire Marshal is concerned about adequate fire protection for the occupants of the structure. Although response times to the site are considered to be adequate and adequate fire department apparatus is available, the design of the site will pose problems to fire fighting personnel. Several factors affect the ability of the Fire Department to provide an adequate level of fire protection. Specifically, the Fire Marshal is concerned that adequate access to all portions of the proposed structures is not available to emergency vehicles and personnel. The density of the project, its mixture of uses with the commercial use on the ground floor and residential use above, the manner in which parking is provided with limited separation between the structures, and the additional height requested for the buildings in excess of 26 feet all pose additional problems to the Fire Department. Even with compliance with the Building Code related to occupancy and - -- building separation, the possibility of a fire spreading from one lot to another is possible. Even though this possibility is small, it is not insignificant in the professional opinion of the Fire Marshal. In order to alleviate this concern, the Fire Marshal desires to have all the buildings fully sprinklered. The Building Department supports the inclusion of a fire sprinkler system. In Newport Beach, fire sprinklers are mandatory if a building exceeds 5,000 square feet, or when the Building Code requires them due to other factors. In this case, each building is less than 5,000 square feet and the Building Code does not mandate sprinklers. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring a fire sprinkler system to the satisfaction of the Fire and Building Departments. Environmental Review Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document was prepared by Keeton Krietzer, principal of Keeton Krietzer Consulting. The MND has been noticed and distributed for a 30 -day comment period that expires on December 5, 2001. The MND is attached as Exhibit No. 4 for consideration. The MND identifies 5 issue areas where 15 mitigation measures are identified. Those issues identified are: Geology & Soils, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Noise, Public Services - Fire and Public Services - Parks. With the implementation of the suggested mitigation measures, the projects environmental impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels. The MND was reviewed by the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC) who issued a 10 page comment letter. Staff is preparing responses to the comments, and they will be available before the Commission takes action on the project. If other comment letters are received, staff will prepare responses for the Commission's consideration. Cannery Lofts (PA2001 -128) December 6, 2001 Page 21 of 22 �� Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, take public testimony and provide direction to staff and the applicant. Additionally, staff recommends that this item be continued to January 17, 2001 in order to complete the review and responses to comments on the MND. . Submitted by: SHARON Z. WOOD Assistant City Manager Exhibits 1. View analysis 2. Volumetric analysis 3. Traffic Study Prepared by: JAMES W. CAMPBELL Senior Planner Cannery Lofts gM001 -128) December 6, 2001 Page 22 of 22 ,M Exhibit No. 1 View Area Analysis NI �zx ¥.•� ..— - - /\ .�z ]� �\ - - - \© ; . K : k \.2 ~ / \ §§ � !§ $ 2§ 7 \2 - ■ % §d ¥■ kk � m B k I § U & \ / E k S IN S z C:) z � C:) � � § k Q k k^ § � i m 2� § ) ) $ \ \ B \ § I § � k k k k � m S IN S z C:) z � C:) � � § k Q j� !■ ■x, i f 2� § § I § � \ � m b § ¥ � � o■ � LuA � 2 v I, ■ro ■a ; � § } / � ■� _.• 1$$ o_ 2� c r m I �� �' � � � I� �I �• 133H5 a - -- '7 LA- Lu It ri IJ LJJ § � o r i � 1 �° r fi K � •� �' � 4( I � , tWy sY gIN ----II O V_ I � I LU w J LU + / C:) z 5_l I z aI ------- - - - - -- w _I L 3 tic, Exhibit No. 2 Volume Analysis pq 14D NOV -30 -01 35 =10 FROM= TANNERHECHT 10= 41S9791S30 jAVL/r- NOL VM6 A4,voW01i5(lc All M e6' /M/CwV7 L/M /r pn/ "I AVID 4-407:- vo110104F PIA G17-" qz♦ ];X7 /GtE • sHeer tv 9 N` t�� r -TT— 3 '! Ewrcarra dv,Ld/Aia� vo4vME h A N O�SG PACE 3/6 IS' o1 AccPl' ryvl�dNG GRvs-j r�cZ1'o�l . AIWA tG74„ 9-F, 301 wr {, vTti �-- 50210 ODIC FftT. car►a� Wiry J�O/z AC7' Otl, vivtr 77PE. 141 A NOV -30 -01 15 =10 FROM =TANNERHECHT 10=4159791530 PACE 4/9 T✓Uf.f — V(/t'Vlwry /J/vr.v/ ary It/or eI of-of V • fvr. ON 30`0%� s7/e r-C-T' . ki jl+� 155.91 1� =C . A .� A 6Ec ON J, LA w rw #WcorozG IfRp1 dd /� a .f 7*r o �,� pNcr.orso eoirvrr+G it's t ST i J i9Rt�dZL hVFY � �sr PG- GRRAGE 'sw�R' , ftlAN No cOWNWNY t-vF7`s g' x z�r ,F 91, 1'F /o l -2. CF TrC)v0 scA a %F "W A �- 164-5; - X 10, WrDt 26, 570 agate rrOWA E VIMM A^Y 56CVOWAA = O_6,320 G-F- seawp/og = 6832 GF C-+ MSF SGtv6ek= L1912 CF c- 47VIf 0�2 Exhibit No., 3 Draft Traffic Study I XS d 0 CANNERY L017TS TPO Traffic Analysis O.�epared by: tin -Foust Associates, Inc. 20 North Tustin Avenue Ana, California 92705 -7827 (714) 667 -0496 October 15, 2001 F OCT 1 5 2001 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NPVOnOT cEACH AM OCT 3 0 2001 PM 4i818i10111112111213141S16 Im CANNERY LOFTS TPO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS This report summarizes an analysis performed for Cannery Lofts residential/commercial center in Newport Beach based on the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) methodology. The Cannery Lofts consists of 22 condominium units located over 17,109 square feet of general commercial space. The project is located along 30" Street between Villa Way and Lafayette Avenue in the Balboa Peninsula area of the City of Newport Beach. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the project. Access to the proposed project will be provided by 30" Street as well as by alleys north of and south of 301" Street. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed site plan. TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION The proposed project consists of 22 condominium units and 17,109 square feet of general commercial space. The project site is currently developed with a mixture of office and industrial uses. Traffic generated by the existing uses was subtracted from the trips generated by the proposed project to obtain the net new trips being added to the surrounding circulation system.. Trip generation for the existing uses and the proposed project is summarized in Table 1. As this table indicates, the proposed project generates a total of 948 trips daily, of which 560 trips are new trips. During the AM peak hour there is a reduction in trips generated compared with the trip generation of the existing uses. During the PM peak hour the proposed project generates 32 new trips compared with the trip generation of the existing uses. Trip distribution of project- generated traffic onto the surrounding circulation system was determined from observed travel patterns in the vicinity of the project site as well as from locations and_ levels of development in relation to the subject property. The residential units and general commercial uses will have different distribution patterns. The commercial shops are small and will have a large proportion of local trips which do not impact any of the study intersections; whereas, virtually all traffic from the residential units is assumed to leave the area. The general distribution is illustrated in Figure 3. Approximately 50 percent of residential project traffic is oriented toward the north, 25 percent is oriented toward the west, and 25 percent is oriented toward the east. Approximately 50 percent of the 9 Cannery Lofts TPO 1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc Traffic Analysis 770001Rpt.wpd 1q Cannery Lofts TPO Traffic Analysis Figure 1 PROJECT LOCATION Austin -Faust Associates, Im 770001rptfigl.dwg I IY 'ggq EDJ btl Y I IJ6dC, I b- um um EM MI EM I ' I L iO•.J:. 3Y 0. Y..: .:! .: 9 S a 1 S s C ® < ® IM � ® I I Is F r s �AYM V t IA N _ C 1 F {Safi N �-+ ti LLI 0 w O 0. a V 3 'N d m A O 6 Q p � h v°. C a' n pO F u. T =w OF Table I TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Source: 1996 Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) trip rates W Cannery Lofts TPO 4 Austin -Foust Associates, Ina Traffic Analysis 770001Rpt.wpd 9 '649 - -AM PEAK HOUR- -PM PEAK HOUR - LAND USE TYPE UNITS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL ADT TRIP RATES - Residential -Low DU .20 .70 .90 .70 .40 1.10 11.00 Residential- Medium DU .17 .49 .66 .47 .36 .83 8.10 General Commercial TSF .60 .50 1.10 1.90 2.00 3.90 45.00 Office TSF 1.69 .21 1.90 .32 1.55 1.87 14.03 Industrial TSF .76 .16 .92 .12 .86 .98 6.97 TRIP GENERATION Existing Credits Residential -Low 1 DU 0 1 1 1 0 1 11 Office 15.47 TSF 26 3 29 5 24 29 217 industrial - -22.90 TSF 17 4 21 3 20 23 160 TOTAL CREDITS 43 8 51 9 44 53 388 Proposed Project Residential- Medium 22 DU 4 11 15 10 8 18 178 General Commercial 17.11 TSF 10 9 19 33 34 67 770 TOTAL 14 20 34 43 42 85 948 NET NEW TRIPS -29 12 -17 34 -2 32 560 Source: 1996 Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) trip rates W Cannery Lofts TPO 4 Austin -Foust Associates, Ina Traffic Analysis 770001Rpt.wpd 9 '649 z O m u H LU W I O a a 1# C3 9 u s m s •� sSa �S a^ 0 O F w w 'w sW =w OF 14q commercial uses traffic is oriented toward the north, 13 percent is oriented toward the west, 12 percent is oriented toward the east, and 25 percent is assumed to remain in the Balboa Peninsula area. Project - generated trips were distributed to the circulation system according to these distribution patterns. Figure 4 illustrates AM and PM peak hour project trips. IVANyyf IutiTl7��1�1." The City of Newport Beach identified five intersections for analysis to determine the impact of the proposed commercial development. These intersections are: Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road Balboa Boulevard/Superior Avenue and Coast Highway Riverside Avenue and Coast Highway Tustin Avenue and Coast Highway Newport Boulevard and Via Lido Existing peak hour intersection volumes were provided by City staff. An ambient growth rate of 1.0 percent per year was added to the existing volumes on Newport Boulevard and Coast Highway. Construction of the project is expected to be complete in 2003; therefore, the study year is 2004. Traffic generated by approved projects in the study area, obtained from City Staff, were added to the existing peak hour volumes to obtain projected peak hour volumes for the intersections prior to the addition of project - generated traffic. Table 2 summarizes the approved projects included in this analysis. Projected -plus- project peak hour volumes were obtained by adding the project- generated peak hour intersection volumes presented above to the existing - plus - regional growth- plus - approved projects peak hour volumes. _ The TPO analysis consists of a one percent analysis and an ICU analysis at each study intersection. The one percent analysis compares the proposed project traffic with projected peak hour volumes. To pass the one percent analysis, peak hour traffic from the proposed project must be less than one percent of the projected peak hour traffic on each leg of the intersection. If the proposed project passes the one percent analysis, then the ICU analysis is not required and no further analysis Cannery Lofts TPO Traffic Analysis Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 770001Rptwpd 1 C3 4' F tu W ° O o a. u. ct a 0 x x a w w 0 N N O �r L� c a n 0 �q v� c m OF J) Cannery Lofts TPO Traffic Analysis Table 2 APPROVED PROJECT'S SUMMARY PERCENT LOCATION COMPLETE Hoag Hospital Extension 62 Balboa Bay Club Expansion - 0 Fashion-Island Expansion 36 Temple Bat Yahm Expansion 0 Ford Redevelopment 85 Four Seasons Expansion 0 Holtze Hotel 30 CIOSA - Irvine Project 91 Newport Dunes 0 Irvine Redevelopment 1999 0 8 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc 770001Rpt.wpd 16 Z is necessary. If the proposed project does not pass the one percent analysis, then the ICU analysis must be performed for the intersection. Table 3 summarizes the results of the one percent analysis (the one percent analysis sheets are included in the appendix). As this table indicates, the proposed project passes the one percent analysis at all study intersections during the AM and PM peak hour, with the exception of Newport Boulevard and Via Lido during the PM peak hour. The proposed project fails the one percent analysis at Newport Boulevard and Via Lido during the PM peak hour and must perform an ICU analysis at this location. An ICU analysis was performed for the intersection which failed the one percent test. The existing lane configuration was analyzed and a capacity of 1,600 vph per lane with no clearance factor was utilized (ICU analysis sheets are included in the appendix). The ICU analysis is summarized in the following table. As this table shows, the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Via Lido will operate at level of service (LOS) "A" during the PM peak hour without and with the proposed project. The proposed project will have no marginal impact on the intersection of Newport Boulevard and Via Lido. ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY PROJECTED EXISTING + PROPOSED INTERSECTION AM PM AM PM 5. Newport & Via Lido .425 .414 .427 .414 Level of service ranges: .00 - .60 A .61 —.70 B .71 -.80 C .81 -.90 D .91 -1.00 E Above 1.00 F CONCLUSIONS The proposed project, consisting of 22 condominium units and 17,109 square feet of general commercial space, will generate 560 more daily trips than is currently being generated by the site, and 32 more PM peak hour trips than existing uses. Five intersections in the vicinity were checked to determine the marginal impact of project traffic on the street system. One of the five intersections did Cannery Lofts TPO Traffic Analysis +r Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 770001Rpt.wpd 1�� Table 3 SUMMARY OF ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS led Cannery Lofts TPO 10 Austin -Foust Associates, Ina Traffic Analysis 770001Rpt.wpd ---- AM PEAK 1 HOUR VOLUMES — LESS THAN 1% OF INTERSECTION NB SB EB WB PEAK I HOUR VOLUMES 1. Newport & Hospital 6 0 0 0 Yes 2. Balboa/Superior & Coast Hwy 1 0 0 2 Yes 3. Riverside & Coast Hwy 0 0 3 0 Yes 4. Tustin & Coast Hwy 0 0 3 0 Yes 5. Newport & Via Lido 10 0 0 2 Yes led Cannery Lofts TPO 10 Austin -Foust Associates, Ina Traffic Analysis 770001Rpt.wpd — PM PEAK 1 HOUR VOLUMES — LESS THAN 1% OF INTERSEC'CION NB SB EB WB PEAK I HOUR VOLUMES 1. Newport & Hospital 0 16 0 0 Yes 2. Batboa/Superior & Coast Hwy 0 0 6 0 Yes 3. Riverside & Coast Hwy 0 0 _ _.. . _0 5 Yes 4. Tustin & Coast Hwy 0 0 U 5 Yes 5. Newport & Via Lido 0 26 0 0 No led Cannery Lofts TPO 10 Austin -Foust Associates, Ina Traffic Analysis 770001Rpt.wpd not pass the one percent analysis. An ICU analysis was performed on the one intersection failing the one percent test. That intersection passed the ICU analysis. Consequently, the proposed project has no significant impact on the study intersections, and no additional intersection improvements are required. Cannery Lofts TPO Traffic Analysis 11 !q1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc 770001Rpt.wpd I vbb APPENDIX iv ol 11% Traffic Volume Analysis => Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. i) PROJECT: Cannery Lofts FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2004 i'�`1 Intersection: 1. Newport Blvd 8 Hospital Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spring 2001 Peak 1 Hour Approved Existing Regional Projects Projected 11% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1732 52 20 1804 18 6 Southbound 1387 42 69 1498 15 0 Eastbound 614 0 8 622 6 __ 0 Westbound 384 0 1 385 4 0 _> Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1652 50 42 1744 17 0 Southbound 2054 62 41 2157 22 17 Eastbound 631 0 23 654 7 0 Westbound 403 0 0 403 4 0 => Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. i) PROJECT: Cannery Lofts FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2004 i'�`1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Southbound 496 0 0 496 Intersection: 2. Coast Hwy 8 Balboa/Superior 0 Eastbound 4307 129 35 4471 45 Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2001 Westbound 884 27 17 928 9 - Peak 1 Hour - Approved Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD 821 0 2 823 8 0 Southbound Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour - Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 878 0 2 880 9 1 Southbound 496 0 0 496 5 0 Eastbound 4307 129 35 4471 45 0 Westbound 884 27 17 928 9 2 > Northbound Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD 821 0 2 823 8 0 Southbound 1259 0 0 1259 13 0 Eastbound 1746 52 26 1824 18 6 Westbound 2740 82 61 2883 29 0 => Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 12 PROJECT: Cannery Lofts FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2004 ISE) 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Southbound Intersection: 3. Coast Hwy & Riverside 0 Eastbound 2720 82 54 2856 29 Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2001 Westbound 1265 38 52 1355 14 - Peak 1 Hour Approved Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Southbound 509 0 1 510 5 0 Eastbound 1932 58 70 2060 21 AM PEAK PERIOD Westbound 3178 95 71 3344 33 Northbound 3 0 0 3 0 0 Southbound 454 0 2 456 5 0 Eastbound 2720 82 54 2856 29 3 Westbound 1265 38 52 1355 14 0 _> Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected AM Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater Nan 1% of Projected AM Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 40 0 0 40 0 0 Southbound 509 0 1 510 5 0 Eastbound 1932 58 70 2060 21 0 Westbound 3178 95 71 3344 33 5 - - Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. Z, 'ROJECT: Cannery Lofts FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2004 15O, Southbound 48 0 0 48 0 0 Eastbound ° 1% Traffic Volume Analysis 1500 60 52 1612 16 0 => Intersection: 4. Coast Hwy 8 Tustin Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 2000 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. Peak 1 Hour - Approved PM PEAK PERIOD Existing Regional Projects Projected 1 %of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume 5-, Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2 0 0 2 0 0 Southbound 48 0 0 48 0 0 Eastbound 2431 97 57 2585 26 Westbound 1500 60 52 1612 16 0 => Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 21/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 7 0 0 7 0 0 Southbound 140 0 0 140 1 0 Eastbound 2070 83 68 2221 22 0 Westbound 2868 115 71 3054 31 5-, Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected PM Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Cannery Lofts 14 FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2004 11v0 • 0 0 0 0 0 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Westbound 280 0 0 280 3 2 _> Intersection: S. Newport Blvd &Via Lido Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spring 1999 Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Peak1 Hour Approved Northbound 1200 0 0 1200 12 0 Existing Regional Projects Projected I% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1510 0 0 1510 15 9 Southbound 1007 0 0 1007 10 0 Eastbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 Westbound 280 0 0 280 3 2 _> Project AM Traffic is estimated to be less than I% of Projected AM Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1200 0 0 1200 12 0 Southbound 2066 0 0 2066 21 26 Eastbound 1 0 0 1 0 0 Westbound 480 0 0 480 5 0 - " Project PM Traffic is estimated to be less than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 2 112 Hour Traffic Volume. _> Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 2 1/2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Cannery Lofts )J FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2004 61 • e S. Newport Blvd 8 Via Lido Existing LANES CAPACITY NBL 0 0 NBT 3 4800 NBR f SBL 2 3200 SBT 3 4800 SBR 0 0 EBL 0 0 EBT 0 0 EBR 0 0 WBL 1 1600 WBT _0_ _ 0 WBR 2 3200 Right Turn Adjustment TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZAI AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR VOL VIC VOL VIC 0 0 1158 .241* 1483 .309* 42 27 513 .160* 256 .080* 1520 .324 717 .156 33 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 .013* 7 .004* 0 0 460 .144 273 .085 WBR .011* WBR .021* ION .425 .414 Existing + Project LANES CAPACITY NBL 0 0 NBT 3 4800 NBR f SBL 2 3200 SBT 3 4800 SBR 0 0 EBL 0 0 EBT 0 0 EBR 0 0 WBL 1 1600 WBT 0 0 WBR 2 3200 Right Turn Adjustment TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZA AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR VOL VIC VOL VIC 0 0 1167 .243* 1483 .309* 42 27 513 .160* 260 .081* 1520 .324 739 .161 33 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 .013* 7 .004* 0 0 462 .144 273 .085 WBR .011* WBR .020* ION .427 .414 a(a I l0?2 Exhibit No. 4 Mitigated Negative Declaration (separate from report) w fop; a-* Iw Exhibit No. 5 Project plans (separate from report) P&VA io,014 { Je 1 b4 Exhibit No. 6 Tract Map (separate from report) Al 1 (05 3o M Exhibit No. 7 Excerpt of Minutes from the December 6, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting 1 (01 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEIS f BLANK i City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 SUBJECT! Cannery Loft 501 -507 3 500 -512 30th Street, 2908 -2912 Lafayette Avenue (PA2061.128) Request for a Site Plan Review, Use Permit, Tentative Tract Map, Coastal Residential Development Permit and Traffic Study for the construction of 22 commercial /residential buildings on 16 lots that encompass approximately 1.44 acres in the Cannery Village area. The Use Permit involves the request for the buildings to exceed the base height limit of 26 feet by 7 feet. The project also requests to subdivide one lot, which was the result of a previous merger of 7 lots, recreating the previous subdivision pattern. Chairperson Tucker noted that no action on this matter would be taken at this meeting tonight. We want to make sure that the Commission and public understand this project. We will receive public comment tonight so that we can then instruct staff as to what - items -we want-clarified at the next meeting. We also will not be reviewing the CEQA matters tonight. I would ask the EQAC representative to make his presentation at the next meeting. There are five different action items that we are going to be looking at for this project overall. • Site Plan review- involves the water front lots. • Use Permit - involves all the lots and is a request by the applicant to exceed the basic height limit. • Tract Map - re- subdivide what was once seven lots merged into one lot and now the applicant is asking to re- subdivide that back into seven lots. • Coastal Residential Development Permit - pertains to affordable housing. • Traffic Study - the project will generate more than 300 average daily trips. • Environmental document - supports all discretionary actions that the Planning Commission is considering. Ms. Temple stated that there is no additional information other than prepared answers to a series of questions that the chairman provided staff and other Commissioners that would be better addressed subsequent to the project presentation by the applicant. This is an initial hearing and the staff report does not include a set of findings and conditions that would allow final action tonight. Mr. Phil Bettencourt, 110 Newport Center Drive spoke on behalf of the Cannery Lofts LP. He noted that this project is a fresh and a new master plan investment in Cannery Village. He thanked the staff for their time and help on this project. He noted that there have been several community meetings discussing this project. The presentation tonight will focus on the project design and its evolution and we reserve the right to revisit environmental, compliance finding questions at subsequent meetings when all the documentation is at hand. Mr. Kevin Weeda, 429 West 30th Street as the applicant with Cannery Lofts, LP spoke about the project. He noted that the Cannery Lofts is a live /work INDEX Item No. 1 PA2001 -128 Continued to 01/03/2002 i! , City of Newport Beach .' Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 pedestrian mix use project design. I have been fortunate to take enough lots and look at master planning a small block within Cannery Village designing in accordance with the Specific Plan. He then presented a Power Point display noting the following: • Vicinity Map of the project location composed of 22 lots, 10 lots on the north side of 301h Street, 8 lots on the south and 4 lots on the waterfront. • Pictures of completed projects locally on Lido Island and in Cannery Village area. He then introduce his architect noting that he hired a firm that had a lot of experience with this mixed use type of product. David Hetch and Jim Tanner, architectures of the project continued with the presentation noting the following: • Pictures of finished products with the live /work concept in San -: - Francisco, etc. Kevin Weedo continued with the presentation pointing out the immediate properties on 30th Street, Snug Harbor and Cannery Restaurant, and existing buildings on 31s' Street and 29th Street with commercial /residential mixed use. David Hetch continued with the presentation noting: • The mixed use with residential parking on the ground level. `.:. • The overall site plan with commercial /residential parking. • Paving patterns. • Landscape areas /details. • Side yard setbacks. • Views to the Rhine Channel. • A 10 -foot public access area adjacent to the Rhine Channel. • Shared parking courts. • Theme of material as identified in the Specific Plan. • Proposed property lines. • Overall views of the model that was on exhibit. • Commercial spaces are one story high along both sides of the street and then stepping back to the residential above. • Water front lots with public access. • Comparison slides of proposed design with if the project was built out per the Specific Plan, which is 26 -foot height limit and what is possible leaving the setbacks per the Specific Plan in front and back. • The lots are 30 feet wide. • Building out 26 feet lot line to lot line and setback to setback, could potentially build out 50,000 cubic feet of enclosed area allowing for some parking area underneath. • A diagram of the proposed design with the tiered residential above with setbacks from the street has a total of approximately 34,000 cubic feet build out. • Diagrams showing how residential is stepped back from the street in trying to reduce the mass due to the increased height. INDEX k10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes 4'J', December 6, 2001 INDEX • Diagrams showing the proposed breezeways to allow air and light into the project. • Additional comparisons between the 26 -foot allowable height and setbacks compared to the proposed design. • Diagrams depicting the private garage and living areas. • Diagram showing the manipulated materials as specified by the Specific Plan. Mr. Weeda summarized that a lot of time and effort has been spent with the design team working through a lot of different designs to capitalize on what the essence of the Specific Plan is. We feel this project meets the Specific Plan and have incorporated those requested materials. The units have been designed with architectural integrity giving a lot of open areas, breezeways and terraces to make them more interesting than building to maximum limits. By the Specific Plan guidance, we could actually build 50,000 cubic feet on each one of these lots, at 26 feet tall, 30 feet wide and still incorporate all the parking in the -rear. From an urban design standpoint, that was not practical and was very dark. We have incorporated breezeways that go through the entire project so that there is a transfer of light and air. We are committed to designing a good project that works well with the community. We think this project solves a lot of problems that our communities will be facing in the future, particularly with congestion. This proposed project offers the owner /operator to live and work in the same location, thereby necessitating no car trips on the roadway at 5:00 p.m. We think this is a good use of our lots in particular and are in a place where redevelopment would be nice.. We are committed to doing a high quality project. Chairman Tucker then announced a three - minute break to allow time for the Commission to review the materials board and project model. Commissioner Kiser asked about the posts and independent structures as seen in one of the slides that come off the main buildings. What is the purpose of these elements that are not part of the mass of the structure, the beams and columns that come out towards the street? Mr. Weeda answered that they are going to be a metal trellis that will have a canvas awning that will slide back and forth. They are mainly an architectural feature to add dimension to the terrace area and provide some shade. Parking is provided on site with additional parking on the street. A plan utilizing the height of 26 feet on each setback line front and rear and on the zero lot line on each property sideline without seeking any extra entitlement is something that could be done with only a building permit. A site plan review is required along the water front lots and a tract map would also be required. Commissioner McDaniel expressed his concern of how this project transitions into everything else, how does it look from the water? How does it blend into the community? tai City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 Mr. Weeda noted that scale plays an important part. Our building that is actually 35 feet tall compared to the proposed ridgeline units, which the highest point is 31 feet tall and at the other end of the area is the Cannery, Restaurant with a ridgeline of 40 feet. Scale wise, the project will be between these two buildings. The scale relationship is nice and is not going to be abrupt. There is a ten -foot walkway on the waterside and the project has breezeways to reduce the massiveness. Commissioner Kiser asked about the mechanical elements. Mr. Weeda answered that the top of the mechanical elements are above the 31 feet. We are keeping this lower than the 35 feet. There will be a railing around the mechanical equipment as required by building code on each of these units. Commissioner Kiser asked about the public walkway in front of the project on the water. What happens to it on the other end of the project? Mr. Weeda, referring to a slide, answered that is private property and would therefore not be providing access in that area, but there is access provided through the public streetway. We are proposing to turn this area into a public i, park. The owner of the Cannery Restaurant has offered to assist in that concept so we are hoping to have that as part of our design package. Chairperson Tucker asked what the trellis walls on Lafayette lots would look like. Mr. Hecht answered that the trellis elements are slender steel framework with a lattice out of metal that will provide an urban edge and provide some distinction between the streets and the courts that are by the property. No vegetation is proposed at this time. You would drive into the private garage areas there. The trellis material is very thin and open similar to a screen door. Mr. Weeda noted that the park feature is something to be included in the project as the street end will not be used as an access so there is no reason why we couldn't dedicate it or make it something more public and useable. At Commission inquiry, he noted that the trash can sizes are small 35 -45 gallon size. We will organize coordination for a commercial trash pick up of trash for the commercial units. The trash cans are proposed to be kept in the garage, not in the alleyway. Commissioner Selich asked what controls would you have in the future that will keep these buildings looking like they are? What will prevent someone from putting in a remodel with a cape cod fagade? Mr. Weeda answered that nothing would prevent them from doing any type of architecture other than city ordinances. I can't image at the sales prices that we are looking at that someone would come in and do those types of changes. INDEX 1 ice City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 INDEX They could tear down the structure and build anything they want in the middle of this., Mr. Weeda, at Commission inquiry, noted that there are 16 lots and they are asking that one lot be re- subdivided back to the original 7 lots thereby having a total of 22 lots. They would all then be fee simple. Public comment was opened. Chairperson Tucker asked for those in support of the project to speak first. Phil Bettencourt stated that Mr. Tovari of the architect's office is available to use the graphics if the Chair deems. Bill Ficker, as an architect and co- developer of 417 301h Street stated that at that time of development, we were in hopes that more development would be spurred by what we did. The only two that happened were -the- two, projects-on- 30th Street done by Mr. Weeda. The buildings are designed well and in the spirit of the Specific Plan. The character and materials used reflect what we all anticipated with the Specific Plan and Cannery Village. We have a developer who has created quality work and I hope that you will urge him to do that in Cannery Village. This project is about 60,000 square feet, which is like 10 6,000 square foot homes in the Down Coast area, so it really isn't that big a project. I think we need a big critical mass like this to kick off this area just like downtown Balboa needs it and other parts of Newport Beach. Doing it one lot at a time is really tough. So I hope we can encourage them to pursue this project and develop it as proposed. I am very much in favor of improving the streets. Rolled curbs are fine, I would probably not want to see any curbs there and see the more casual parking then what we get when we have curbs. Driving in off the street encourages the 'in and out' traffic that small art studios and my own office have, that kind of quick parking. I hope that you would encourage with a project of this size, under grounding the utilities in Cannery Village. It is important to the quality of our project and perhaps critical mass of this project, would encourage all of us to participate in that. Also, in the further development of the parking structure in the public parking lot, I think we would all like to see that. Chairperson Tucker noted that we had received correspondence that indicates that the repetitiveness of the design is inconsistent with the eclectic feel of the village and the eclectic intentions of the specific Plan. What are your thoughts on that? Mr. Ficker answered that is probably a natural reaction because people are used to looking at single 30 -foot developments and expressing their own character on each lot. However, that doesn't seem to be happening very quickly. If a lot of people bought a lot of lots and built their own houses on there, but if you look at what is there, this project is more like one building with a lot of articulation on it. We should not be surprised if someone were to come in here and wipe out all the property lines and build one building and have loft J -12-, h City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 living above light commercial /industrial or professional uses. I think the architects have done an outstanding job. Jack Jakosky, resident of Balboa Peninsula and owner of an office building on 32nd Street. I have been in this area for a long time both from a family and owner standpoint. I applaud Mr. Weeda for the vision of assembling these lots and master planning it. It is a fantastic amenity to the Cannery Village and in terms of creating a critical mass in terms of moving the area along. What is planned here is a great amenity with a great linkage to the rehab of the Cannery Restaurant. I strongly urge the Commission to approve it. Mr. Weeda has demonstrated quality and concern with aesthetics on the projects that he has done on Lido and the two buildings on 301h Street in Cannery Village. Having someone who is local doing this type of project is advantageous because Mr. Weeda will ensure that his passion and quality of commitment is there. Mr. and Mrs. Dennis Rapp, 313 Via Lido Soud stated that he lives in a house that the applicant has built. We are very impressed with the work.and have had so many people stop by and take pictures of my house. We always get such lovely comments about our home. It's his community as well, and he is very sensitive as you can see from all the homes he has built. We are strongly in favor of this project and hope you will approve it. Jack Croul, owner of the Cannery Restaurant stated he thinks it is great that Mr. Weeds has taken this run down area and come up with a design that is superior. We are working together to build a park at the end of 301h Street where it dead -ends into the channel, if the City will go along with it. I recommend that you approve this project. Gordon Atkinson, owner of Atkinson's Men Clothing Store on Via Lido. F live on Lido Island and have known Mr. Weeda for ten years. He builds great projects and is a family man. He cares about this project and it is wonderful to see. Phil Edmonson, architect stated he has been in the Cannery Village since 1984. He had the opportunity to work with Mr. Weeda to work on the second project that you saw he built in the Cannery Village area. It is my opinion, this project is completely consistent with the Specific Plan and parleys the aesthetics of the Cannery Village area that we are all seeking to recreate that was here when it was actually a functional working portion of the harbor. The examples shown in the beginning of the presentation showed the single, hodge -podge single lot possibility of infill development that doesn't necessarily achieve a cohesive feeling for the area that the Specific Plan is trying to achieve. In agreeing with previous speaker, it may feel like a large project when you look at it overall, but as you get into the details it addresses very well the needs and potential of those lots.. It adds to the fabric of the city. Mr. Weeda is a professional and this project is exactly on the mark. I urge you to support the project. Steve Rabell, spoke in support of this project citing similar reasons. INDEX (1q City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 INDEX Tom Holbrook, 220 Via Mentone• noted his family experience working in the Cannery Village area. He noted that this area needs something like this project, it is well over due. It is a great area and will be an enhancement. I support this project. Tom Farrell, 117 Via Karon noted he has seen Mr. Weeda's work. He builds a beautiful project. The closed Snug Harbor and the boat yards are an eyesore and this certainly would be an improvement. As the construction lender, he has been involved with the plans, looked at economics, and looked at this thing to the maximum, so he gives his support. Ted McKibbon, 1107 Highland Drive spoke in support of the project. It is a unique implementation and what I have seen of the renderings, I think there will be a great improvement there. Mark Faulkner, 411 301h Street has his business of product design office. Architecturally, Mr. Weeda has demonstrated that he knows how to build quality buildings. The team that he has put together is strong. The Tanner Group is renowned for the live /work loft type architecture. As a design professional, I applaud the designs of the architects; they have done a great job and I urge you to support this project. Mark Merrill, owner of property on Mariner's Mile spoke in support of the project. He noted that the fragmented ownership is a difficult issue to overcome. This is a unique concept of architecture. I urge you to support this project, as this multiple lot project will be good for the area and the economy and a catalyst for good things in Cannery Village. Barbara Mason, 601 Lido Park Drive stated that her only objection is to the architecture. She approves of the concept of living above the work area, but the architecture is the style from the 50's and is very much out of favor and is very ugly. From the air a lot of the high rises in the area will be looking down at all the air - conditioning units, it would be better to have roof gardens. I ask that you not support this project as proposed. George Leeper, Cannery Village noted his concern of exemptions to parking, disability parking or height limitations. My understanding is that the height limit is 31 feet with an average of 26 feet. This project violates this rule and I am against it just for that reason. As a member of the real estate community I question whether or not these are marketable and they may be left in the community. I hope that does not happen. Buzz Person, 507 291h Street spoke in opposition to the project. As a past Planning Commissioner he had discussed and voted on many issues including the Cannery Village Specific Plan. We in Cannery Village for the most part are in favor of development of lots in there, and have been for a long time. The problem has been that a particular landowner owned several lots and sold a �1�; City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 portion of them off to Mr. Weeda very recently. That landowner sat on those lots and would not develop them and just collected the rents. The reason there has not been a great deal of development in the past ten years is that there were no lots available for people to develop even though there had been high demand. Most of us who do live in the Village above the commercial property love that type of living, it is great. As a past Chairman of the Planning Commission when the Cannery Village Specific Area Plan was adopted, we did not intend or envision this type of project nor a row of buildings on 30m Street all looking the same, with the same elevations and with four more on the waterfront. I wrote the language specifically that continuity that preserves the variety and individuality of uses that give the area its charm. I have little recollection of language that deals with the architectural features and I don't think we gave a lot of time to that when we considered the Specific Area Plan. I am very concerned, I am pro development and we need it, but I don't think this is the right development. I understand the concerns spoken previously, but I believe that you need to give this project a lot of time and thought tbecause -it will affect approximately 20% of the landmass in the village. At Commission inquiry, he noted that he objects to this project because of the mass of the project. The mass and the way this particular project is put together is somewhat startling ... At Commission inquiry, he noted we envisioned a type of individual buildings that would have different elevations, in and out features and all with different materials. This project has essentially all 22 buildings the same. The mass issue is reported in the staff report, and to be honest, I don't think the applicant would build to it. A building with a 26 -foot height with a flat roof could conceivably create a greater deal of mass as opposed to this, but I don't believe they will do that. Public comment was closed. Chairperson Tucker noted that there would be another hearing on this matter. We will keep in mind all your testimony. Commissioner Selich asked staff to look at all the different applications and with things that are being proposed particularly in the public right of way. I would like to have some of those improvements in the conditions in the project and how we can do that. I am thinking particularly of the encroachments going to Council, whether they happen or not and if they do no happen it may have an influence on how I look at this project. I would like to see how that could be tied together. Ms. Temple answered that the Planning Commission does not actually approve non - standard improvements in the public right of way. However, if the features associated with those improvements off site are critical to the Commission's willingness to either approve the Site Plan review or the Use Permit to exceed the basic height limit, I believe that you can make those conditions of approval. This would mean that unless they could achieve council approval of those improvements, then your approval would not be able to be fulfilled. INDEX ko City of Newport Beach s Planning Commission Minutes 1 December 6, 2001 INDEX Ms. Clauson agreed adding to also include it to the extent that it might relate to an environmental impact mitigation measure also could be considered. Chairperson Tucker asked about the walls of the building facing the Cannery Restaurant, are they going to have windows or be sheer walls? He expressed his concern regarding noise and potential complaints from residents. Mr. Campbell answered that there was not a specific elevation prepared for that, but you can see it on sheet 6 of the plans and there are some windows there. Mr. Hecht answered that there are separate elevations in the drawings, and those would have additional windows. There are certain requirements that we have to meet regarding noise. -Mr: - Tanner noted there are also certain techniques that we can use for the reduction in sound transmission by using laminated glass and we will meet state law. Commissioner Kiser asked about potential input from Fire Marshal. What about this? Mr. Campbell answered that there have been numerous discussions and that there is still some negotiations in progress regarding some of the features. The drawings do reflect what the fire department wants to see at this point with the exception of work to be done about the open terraces on the street and whether there was a fire separation wall needed there. We feel that the bulk and mass of the building really would not be changed, if anything it would actually be reduced with some of the separation walls coming out of the project if they can demonstrate adequate occupancy separation to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. Ms. Temple added that this particular project has been in plan review and some form of interaction with Building Department and the Fire Marshal's office for quite some time. The project presented tonight is substantially different from the original concepts that we reviewed so the project has undergone very significant redesign over the last several months. Chairperson Tucker asked for an inventory of items that were still issues, i.e., parking, CEQA and Fire Marshal issues. I would like the staff report to deal with what the open items were, where we are or if we are in a position to resolving them and if there are any still open especially if they affect the design of the building. -Additionally, any issues that have been resolved that had impact on the design is to be pointed out as well. Continuing, he recommended that this item be continued to the meeting of January 3, 2002. We have other matters that we have had trailing and we may not actually hear this item on the 314, but I would like this continued and if staff and the applicant are in a position to proceed with this, I would like to be able to have it heard then. 10 I11 City of Newport Beach < Planning Commission Minutes December 6, 2001 Motion was made by Commissioner Kiser to continue this item to January 3, 2002. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajanian, Tucker Gifford, Selich Noes: None Absent: Kranzley INDEX S ECT: Camco Pacific Construction Company Item No. 2 1811 Quail Street PA2001 -157 (PA2001 -157) A request a General Plarr Amendmentand- Planned Community Development Recommended for Text Amend nt to increase the development allocation within the Airport Area approval 2 -7 (Statistical a L -4), Newport Place Planned Community Block G & H, which would permit a 590 net square foot addition to an existing office building located at 1811 Qu Street. Public comment was op ed and closed. Motion was made by Com ' sioner Selich to recommend approval of General Pion Amendment No. 200 4 and Planned Community Development Amendment 2001-002 by adopt! Resolution No. 1543. Ayes: McDaniel, Kiser, Agajani Tucker, Gifford, Selich Noes: None Absent: Kranzley as• SUBJECT: Design Standards for Mobile mess on Individual Lots Rem No. 3 • PA 2001 -223 PA2001 -223 An amendment to Chapter 20.60 (Site Regulations) to es lish design standards Recommended for for mobile homes on individual lots. approval Commissioner Agajanian asked if there was a minimum floor a size for the manufactured homes? Ms. Temple answered that they are regulated to the same extent as y other conventional single - family development, which has no minimum size. only minimum is that every individual unit must have two parking spaces. Public comment was opened and closed. I1 Exhibit No. 8 Project Plans & Subdivision Map 1 -19 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK m � \ x� /� ■_ � a - ! � ■ , | | || | ( § !� ` -`•!§ • _ C2 « | ■! | §�t) |§■ ,`§ § ® � `�■■ |!! §§,§ � , � k § !• §E• §�f! §.,- ���! r . 2. ■!!�l ;� ■,.�_�! ® §y, ` _ LAJE§ \§ |)12133 RE u , ■..,! .. |�,- ..!! |,�.l, |., � \� 0 L y ��IIIIII���I �IIII� �IIIIII�I� �I � . 3211M.1111111 1111 FIRM. F C U i ,f xxfp pp¢ lidgg g a 9 h d p9p I ®10 L£2 -0��$3 ;t344YC 1130 $ 5@ �3g ! 3� s�� @g 33y53 E���: 8a °8B$YB $$a 169 i z998a$$$:3 iE::813 $I gg • $�Seeee: e0000 ®O ®_��li rs °o .3o 00000 SS 3 i9 El II I !p a b I 7 I I I�I figg; I I M Lgg j N H W O J W � Z m 'e V a v 0 a 0 z a V2 6 y s W � N H W O J W � Z m 'e V a v 0 a 0 z a V2 CC f N J z 0 Y IL \OF 0 jimimmmimmi �eeeeeeeee �eeeeeeeeel Deeeeeee�� �seeeeAee� D��AeAeee� �eeeeeseee �eeeeeeeeee'1 mom �eeeee�e�e�� RIMMeeeeeeA mooloonall �eeeeeeeAeee �eee ®eeeeeee �eeeeee�eee� �DeeeeDeAeeA De�Ae�A�eA�� �,eeDeeeeee�� ®AA ® ®AAAAAA� �seeeeeeeee� \OF 0 5 e n € E 4 B o_ 0 J O W O d i M O gig. 69 .H N Y .d 0 d e E a� H W J W Z C . s = a = s m ` II�nuHI��1ug1I : _= t "e y s I jimimmmimmi �eeeeeeeee �eeeeeeeeel Deeeeeee�� �seeeeAee� D��AeAeee� �eeeeeseee mom RIMMeeeeeeA mooloonall 09999999 5 e n € E 4 B o_ 0 J O W O d i M O gig. 69 .H N Y .d 0 d e E a� H W J W Z C . s = a = s m ` II�nuHI��1ug1I : _= t "e y s I a I I gg I i� cl I r j,.1 011 J/314 �5 1 I %;82"xx'�e�EYx4ga" s- Ima -Mf= axx:WR�F nl .5� mil tt__ 13 gig all 141 3 x I s°i E I c I 3 I I - -- N W co i � W =i y' I I m. h m h p e s, I _ �a I C h Lp a NR o = d N O 6 O 6. N N N L O a+f 6 J N O Y 6 a 9 N tz O LLJ J Y 3 Z Z V m s° QH Sr An s� ig s� n� s$ 103 z 0 i� Wg s,y R� 4� 3g ng Bg nx° sn 10s �g CW.E —1 ts x1 Rya 0.$ x3� Ag Pa xd =i lip Ell An Py Ag x� Ag� Rg F� 9® k ke� N N C O ++ .0 y O N N L SC O w m JIRO sill i[ 6_a Z t6.1 €i V7 W Co � • [Q3 W Z m v � A 4 U L J 1, rl z� �� Nsei pp ®P i —1 . �-� N N C O ++ .0 y O N N L SC O w m JIRO sill i[ 6_a Z t6.1 €i V7 W Co � • [Q3 W Z m v � A 4 U L J 1, rl GS a� a� 1N gi y� n 7 a1 o1 oR os .1 a1 az G1 Doi o� _W y G 'c s DoIr 0 a� y� H 6 a� lirg or a� W m afi z� o o s 5 M l 3E1 ail L/) H LA- O zm Z $�43 sE a N O W a 'cf E J s J m pi y aei�a3 c x E 0 oa i o s o m U � y ry O m 6 N O_ i V1 0 J Y 5 W � Z Z o V � „I m 0 J,! N FF a I o In cn `$ L•— _,..,._� _ � _ !I:� 11 � W I In a-to rim". 4,11 Lw 1UPPI, Zv; Hui; ba AL a-to rim". 4,11 Lw T� I I I L_ ia'1:1:paa I111111:1111.■� I I z .6 f 0 LL I II I c II _ -7 e v Milli Milli Mill milli �I'I 11111 ru o� W� W e� c� 5 --El i is a�aiia U N a Q T N � d � N � N ` c [%J d L p O C�J LL a N Cr O 0 c� $ LL O J y- 5 W Z m Z � V � OCJ', J 10 z V ge IF 3� .I °o °o s e N 5[e l 8 R P P a I CY�_ a 0 z z 61 z 0 J O w cn Qv> L~L d w/ VJ LU x W m � Z w " Q C-1 = J 14,6 ' � m cyi� d 4 � x • m �Y a 0 z z 61 z 0 J O w cn Qv> L~L d w/ VJ LU x W m � Z w " Q C-1 = J 14,6 M l n% / r 1 _ rr'" I I °a W N i c 5 all J iJ ple B N 3 F M r U N y c T +' H d N V) r 9 C C � N � N c y d L p O LL a N tz O LU Z tz§ 6 y 0 J 0 w Q Y E b b y EDZ n n p W d Q ®R 5 all J iJ ple B N 3 F M r U N y c T +' H d N V) r 9 C C � N � N c y d L p O LL a N tz O LU Z tz§ 6 y MM1 M111 Mal MIN oeiii ooiii MIN oeiit MI91A . MIAIA . OIAIA MIAII MIR HIN IAAAA RM EN 11111 19111 31111 c N y C N fO h 1 y O `+ O d 1� J Li 1_ O W QZ 4 cm LL W � o 4 U O h II i U ^ h f Z Q U ^ L Z N I�InH ^�I'gj1 Z G�l J G3 E3 1 JR, J J 0 0 0 0 0 Mil w 0 W Z m V � M J W� '3 :E t9(p w C d O � O v _ � L VJ C N [O d C O f w J VJ 0 0 0 0 0 Mil w 0 W Z m V � M J W� '3 :E t9(p ^J 0 s a a N N RE °a a 4 S a cn a 0 a F 0 a G a F r r 's N .0 � N r C N O N ' N VJ J m _L rz O W Sg h H LL J � 5 L s W � Z � Z e V 2 Sri J Icl I io \ $| | § ;| § §f A § U,9 | Belle II IElEli & § \ : ,.l! . k §| 2-�, | } k ( m 11 1 gg HIM Jill 1 mall I gal MR pIyRq s i$SEII I = MINOR q g {12 oil xal�a €�@ � $ mill oil X t $ 'd'd � @Q 5' @ i$ i Z s a J 'z Z_ J W 4 m } Z ¢s z� w i cn 0 J W Z m Z U � N w r a U O N N Q 0 Z Q d' W J 3 a J 1 14, Cl _n a VAN $� OX, A d V> C G o ¢ 41 rz ............. \\. \oo oo� cv N 2 O 2 N Z5 a H Z O O d cn 0 LU J ¢g 11 V K F U L WE 2 d#t ) §¥ § 2§| B ®k e 2 °■ §(, ■ � k( \k •) k k § ) 2 d#t ) §¥ § 2§| B ®k e 2 °■ §(, ■ � * ��§ c_ & !• |! _ � | / ! � $ . 2 ] m,.. g(! co � 3 -m C \� I M a e e 0 WE w g 2 0 I m 3 g B 8 rm '¢' Q S c m "a8 oil I • c eo d m m 444111 N 'O O J � O N � O 6 d O (p O�gg�ytltl fill d M m r a m W a m $ M W O W x� x� w � Z® Z : �> � AVS HIM f � \ ■ \s ° / kU� _ ~ f !`||.' | f q 01 d |! |' |{ �| 13 Go m $ma an } /U; � � ) \ f � / � ƒ ■ | f q 01 d |! |' |{ �| 13 Go m $ma an } /U; N s E i C C f0 d Q> C . L C) �i O iX• fill '11p11 �S e z e� & s H O J LLA Z Z e � i n e t d� t � x a d d °m 0 0 � LL n an- l 3 N O w 1 n!JL i2 0 L C= W z � d V p:ed" .0 CL g ti V Q ti ti ti w 1 a g l 80 Y 1U 1` ON WLLOO!/<FpIUV1 E1 /7:':��t�RiI 31W.i�IH131 IIIIo, Z- Z— H H H e H Hg BBa� 11� oil Ij Q 1 R i11p�1161116�al�tii�ll�� 11 � �•d" IYI4jdaei.HHa�z o0 a . 1 l 11 .1 atl p��¢1 is 11196yj9i�pB81'e!!el @ge9ipllpY! • lit....R1Aa go II ENDS \ l SRI \ \\ 1U 1` ON WLLOO!/<FpIUV1 E1 /7:':��t�RiI 31W.i�IH131 IIIIo, Z- Z— H H H e H Hg BBa� 11� oil Ij Q 1 R i11p�1161116�al�tii�ll�� 11 � �•d" IYI4jdaei.HHa�z o0 a . 1 l 11 .1 atl p��¢1 is 11196yj9i�pB81'e!!el @ge9ipllpY! • lit....R1Aa go Exhibit No. 9 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration o " I THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK rr ; To: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (949) 644 -3200 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Office of Planning and Research X P.O. BOX 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812 -3044 ❑County Clerk, County of Orange Public Services Division P.O. Box 238 Santa Ana CA 92702 Public review period: From: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard - P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 (Orange County) Date received for filing at OPR/County Clerk: 1110512001 to 1210512001 Name of Project: Cannery Lofts Mixed Use Development (PA2001 -128) Project Location: The entire 500 block of 306 Street, 2908 & 2912 Lafayette Way, Cannery Village Project Description.- The project consists of 22 commercial /residential buildings on 16 lots that encompass approximately 1.44 acres in the Cannery Village area of the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project includes the demolition of the buildings and related development that currently exists, including marine- oriented and coastal dependent uses as well as general retail uses and parking facilities. The 22 individual structures will allow for professional office or retail uses on the lower level and a residential dwelling unit above the commercial space. Eighteen of the 22 buildings are proposed on the north and south sides of 3e Street, between Villa Way on the west and Lafayette Avenue on the east. The remaining four buildings are proposed on the four lots fronting on the Rhine Channel on Lafayette Avenue, south of 30" Street. The project also includes changes to the street section, pavement and drainage of 30" Street from Villa Way to the Rhine Channel. In addition, landscaping will be included within the wider public walk that will extend beyond the right -of -way into property on both sides of 30" Street. The project requires the consideration of a Use Permit to allow the proposed mixed use buildings to exceed the base height limit of 26 feet by 7 feet. The project also requests to subdivide one lot, which was the result of a previous merger of 7 lots, recreating the previous subdivision pattern. 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 72(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 youAave any questions or would like further James Campbell, Senior Planner please contact the undersigned at (949) 644 -3210. Date nni�p fit/, I 2. 3. 4. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Project Title: Cannery Lofts 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: 500 -519 30'e Street and 2906 -2912 Lafayette Street within the Cannery Village Specific Plan 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Kevin Weeda Cannery Lofts, L.P. 492 30" Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 673 -6025 6. General Plan Designation: Recreational Marine Commercial (RMC) Retail and Service Commercial (RSC) 7. Zoning: Specific Plan District #6 Cannery Village/McFadden Square 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project,._and_aay —secondary,... support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The applicant, Cannery Logs, L.P., is proposing to construct 22 commercial/residential buildings on 16 lots that encompass approximately 1.44 acres in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan District No. 6 in the City of Newport Beach (refer to Exhibit 1). The proposed project includes the demolition of the buildings and related development that currently exist, including marine - oriented and coastal dependent uses as well as general retail uses and parldng . facilities. At the present time, approximately 25,785 square feet of commercial and marine - related uses, one residential dwelling unit, and parldng facilities occupy the 1.44 acres (refer to Exhibit 2). The 22 individual structures, including one on each of 22 lots (refer to Exhibit 3), will allow for professional office or retail uses on the lower level and a residential dwelling "unit above the commercial space. Eighteen of the 22 buildings are proposed on the north and south sides of 30' Street, between Villa Way on the west and Lafayette Avenue on the east; these lots are designated Retail and Service Commercial (RSC) by the Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan (LCP/LUP) and the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan; the remaining four buildings are Page 1 Z.l o i ill WIC ��O �NEjsiN / 9 po�G� rttsE Q. AO \\ / / O• `•or, L��A O• pd' / r.• •om s r �1VIC P� G *Q CL Q W y G `o 2 Uv Z F- U < _w �m �0 Q —a 0;t :a x w w 8 b 8 t! a Z J a W W ¢ W ¢ 10. o p V 4 C 0 �P: °11 W 0 2 d X � y X a m o a sae er k�Y 3 eE �Eo tlt A J bg 7 l f 2 E _ _ � « |� � � `. ,§ P�� _ Ewes G!k 4!; § Mfg | ME it '. \ _ � RRmIt. I .\ t � 2 . j E ` �§`9( |p § /]; yj §eB§j /Qt ; gAlmQmR §nHER • §, m_. m ;_. m z z R!# ME I gedl LLI i \e «� ��~ -� aaK[� ■ | |� � .� � % :� /�� I UP LU t2 � \\ I J l proposed on the four lots fronting on the Rhine Channel on Lafayette Avenue, south of 30°i Street; these lots are designated Recreational and Marine Commercial (RMC) on the LCP/LUP and Land Use Element. The project also includes changes to the street section, pavement and drainage of 301" Street from Villa Way to the Rhine Channel. The 30" Street right -of -way will remain the same and will maintain the existing top of curb elevations; however, a new trench drain will be located in the center of the street that will be designed to drain to existing catch basins. In addition, landscaping will be included within the wider public walk that will extend beyond the right -of -way into property on both sides of 30" Street. As presented in Table 1, which provides a summary of the commercial and residential development proposed by the applicant, 17,109 square feet of commercial (i.e., professional office) development is proposed (with 75 parking spaces), compared to the 25,875 square feet of existing commercial and marine- oriented development that currently exists on the site. In addition, 22 residential dwelling units are proposed, including 44 residential parking spaces. Table 1 Proposed Project Development Summary Cannery Lofts Lot _. Residential (Square.Feet) Commercial (Square Feet) - Parking. (Residential) Parking :. (Commercial) 30tH Street — North Side NI (501 30h Street) 2,086 745 2 4 N2 (503 30 Street) 2,086 745 2 4 N3 (505 3V Street) 2,086 745 2 4 N4 (507 3V Street) 2,086 745 2 4 N5 (509 30' Street) 2,086 745 2 4 N6 (511 3V Street) 2,086 745 2 4 N7 (513 0 Street) 2,086 745 2 4 N8 (515 30 Street) 2,086 745 2 4 N9 (517 3 Street) 2,086 745 2 4 N10 (519 30 Street) 1,902 658 2 5 Sub -Total -North 20,676 7.363 20 39 30t° Street — South Side S 1 (500 3V Street) 2,086 745 2 4 S2 (502 30P Street) 2,086 745 2 4 S3 (504 3 Street) 2,086 745 2 4 S4 (506 30'" Street) 2,086 745 2 4 SS (508 30 Street) 2,086 745 2 4 S6 (510 30 Street) 2,086 745 2 4 S7 (512 30 Street) 2,086 745 2 4 S8 (514 30 Sheet) 2,418 962 2 4 Sub -Total -South 17,020 6,177 16 32 CHECKLIST 1' Page 2 ��i Lot Residential (Square Feet) Commercial (Square Feet) Parking (Residential) Parking (Commercial) Lafayette Avenue El (2912 Lafayette) 2,274 833 2 1 E2 (29 10 Lafayette) 2,256 918 2 1 E3 (2908 Lafayette) 2,276 864 2 1 E4 (2906 Lafayette) 2,255 954 2 1 Sub - Total— Lafayette 9,061 3,569 8 4 Total Development 46,757 17,109 44 75 SOURCE: Tanner Hecht Architecture; September 14, 2001. Project implementation will necessitate the approval of a Use Permit pursuant to the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan District No. 6 development regulations due to the height of the proposed structures. The proposed building heights exceed the 26 -foot maximum height established by the specific plan. The Use Permit allows the buildings to be constructed up to 35 feet, provided that the Planning Commission, in granting such use permit, finds that additional criteria are met. The applicant is proposing a maximum height of 32 feet. The four lots on Lafayette Street that abut the Rhine Channel require the approval of a Site Plan Review application pursuant to the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Area Plan and Chapter 20.92 of the Newport Beach Zoning Code. In addition, the project also requires the consideration of a Coastal Residential Development Permit (CDRP) application, which relates to the inclusion of affordable housing due to the construction of 10 or more units within the coastal zone. Lastly, the project requires a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings.) Current Development: Mixed land uses, including commercial (marine sales), professional office, boat storage, residential, and vacant parcels. - - - To the north: Existing commercial development and vacant parcels. To the east: The Rhine Channel. To the south: Existing commercial development. To the west: Existing commercial development and a public parking lot. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). California Coastal Commission (Coastal Development Permit) Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (401 Certification) CHECxl.tsT Page 3 2-113 t s ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: 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. ❑ Land Use Planning ❑ Population & Housing if Geological Problems ❑ Water ❑ Air Quality ❑ Transportation/ Circulation ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Public Services ❑ Utilities, & Service Systems ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Cultural Resources El Noise El. Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: 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 1 in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 3 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. l ❑ 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 Jdescribed 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. ❑ CHECKLIST j 4 ggPage e J i �p 3 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 ED?,, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. by: James Campbell, Senior Planning Department Prepared by: Keeton K. Kreitzer, Signature / / DZ D Date ! (-OZ •O IJ Signature Date F: \USERS\PLN\SHARED\I FORMS \NEG -DEMOOCKLIST.DOC CHECKLLST Page 5 t� ) i t 1 f i 7t t T i :3 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST I. AESTHETICS. Would the 0 project: a) Have a substantial adverse 0 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? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. II. 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 Califomia 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? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Lf ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 6 Z0 III. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? C) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 CHECKLIST Page 7 2.19 CHECKLIST Page 8 Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Have a substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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? d) Interfere substantially with the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? CHECKLIST Page 8 i i 3 l i 3 7 3 J i CHECXLW Page 9 'Z2t Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Disturb any human remains, ❑ ❑ ❑ [.1 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: i) Rupture of a known ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Xquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ shaking? iii) Seismic - related ground ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ E( b) Result in substantial soil ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ erosion or the loss of topsoil? C) Be located on a geologic unit ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 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? CHECXLW Page 9 'Z2t d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to fife or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately 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 public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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? C) Emit hazardous emissions or 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 that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑� —� - ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ CHECKt.IS'r Page 10 Z.22 CHE=ST Page 11 ZZ7j Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless impact Mitigation Incorporated e) For a project within an airport ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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? D For a project within the vicinity ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 of a 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 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? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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)? CHE=ST Page 11 ZZ7j 01 _1 i i z ) a 3 i i Page 12 aq significant 5ignmcant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated C) Substantially alter the existing ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Q Otherwise substantially ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100- ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ year flood hazard area as - mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ a 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, ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ or mudflow? Page 12 aq IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Physically divide 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? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat 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 locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? 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? Potentially Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑. ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ CHECKLIST Page 13 SV7 CHECKLIST Page 14 22� Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impart Mitigation Incorporated b) Exposure of persons to or ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? C) A substantial permanent ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 airport land use land use plan or, where such a plan has not. been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 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)? b) Displace substantial numbers ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? CHECKLIST Page 14 22� F i a s C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 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: 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 Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact impact Unless Impact ❑ Mitigation ❑ ❑ Incorporated 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑- 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ bI ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0MCKUS1' Page 15 Z21 i 3 j i i r i I 1 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC 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 Potentially Less than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ . ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ . ❑ 0 . ❑ CHECKLIST Page 16 On,& i s i l N A a J b) Require or result in the Lesstnan construction of new water or gnificant wastewater treatment facilities Significant or expansion of existing Impact facilities, the construction of Impact which could cause significant environmental effects? C) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or ❑ expansion of existing facilities, H the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies Q available to serve the project ❑ from existing entitlements and H resources, or are new or ❑ expanded entitlements E1 needed? e) Result in a determination by D the 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 permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulation related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. �wnuauy rotenoairy Lesstnan No gnificant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ ❑ H ❑ ❑ ❑ -- E1 ❑ ❑ ❑ D ❑ CHECKUST Page 17 IZA i j 1 i XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. CHECKLIST Page 18 W-1 no Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated A) Does the project have the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 potential 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 prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts ❑ ❑ �j ❑ that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) C) Does the project have ❑ ❑ El ❑ environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site - specific conditions for the project. CHECKLIST Page 18 W-1 no CHECKLIST EXPLANATION Aesthetics Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: _ • Changes at the site substantially degrade the character of the site, degrade an existing public viewshed, or alter the character of a public viewshed by the introduction of anomalous structures or elements. • Changes at the site would result in changes in the expectations of viewers (measured against the relative - importance of those views) and would result in a negative impression of the viewshed. (The emphasis of '- this criterion is on views from public areas, not views from individual lots unless view easements are involved.) • Changes at the site substantially conflict with and/or do not uphold the scenic and visual quality objectives for development, as articulated in the City's General Plan goals, objectives and policies. Analysis: a. Less than Significant Impact The Local Coastal Plan /Land Use Plan (LCP /LUP) identifies several "coastal view areas" in Newport Beach where it is the City's policy to require development to be sited and designed to maximize protection of coastal views; however, the subject property is not identified as one of the "coastal view areas" identified by the City. Visual access to the The Rhine Channel and marina area currently exist through the portion of the site east of Lafayette Street that does not contain structures (i.e., this portion of the site supports the adjacent marine sales use). In addition, the City's Harbor and Bay Element of the General Plan also address visual character (Goal HB-4). It is the City's goal to preserve and enhance the visual character and historical resources of the Harbor and the Bay through the maintenance and enhancement of the diverse waterfront image of Newport Harbor by preserving its variety of beachibulkhead profiles that characterize its residential and commercial waterfronts and, at the same time, maintaining the unique historical resources of Newport Harbor. To this end, the applicant has proposed development that facilitates visual access, even though the site will be intensively developed with a combination of commercial (including marine commercial) and professional office - uses; Although the development includes the construction of buildings that exceed the 26 -foot building height limit t prescribed by the existing Speck Plan, the buildings proposed along The Rhine Channel are set back in excess 3 of existing requirements (a 10 -foot setback from the existing bulkhead, including the public access way along the dock). Public visual access is provided between all of the buildings through three -foot side yards proposed for each lot. In addition, the side yards between the middle two lots (E2 and E3) proposed for Lafayette Street face each other to create a six -foot breezeway through the entire length of the lots. Exhibit 4 illustrates the exterior fq elevations of the commercial /residential structures proposed for the Lafayette Street parcels. As can be seen, although the proposed structures exceed the 26 -foot building height limit, they are below the 35 -foot maximum height limit prescribed for a Use Permit. In addition, the three- and six -foot view "windows" or "open breezeways", i between the four lots are evident, allowing view through the subject property to The Rhine Channel and marina to the east. An open boat storage yard area exists to the south of the building group; the public street terminating at 1 the Rhine Channel will be converted by the project applicant, in conjunction with the Cannery Restaurant improvements, to a passive recreation area that will visually enhance the visual character of the area and promote and facilitate public access to the marine area. Although these structures will be higher than the Lafayette Street structures, they will not exceed the 35 -foot building height limit imposed on development subject to a Use Permit. In addition, although no direct views to the marina exist to the north and south from these structures, breezeways are also provided to enhance the visual character of the site and provide a partial "window" through the development to adjacent properties. The exterior elevations of the 30t' Street buildings and breezeways are illustrated on Exhibit 5. For the 30"' Street buildings, CHECKLIST Page 19 .5! G� o� O� A9 up Y C n "a 1 a� o� Y1 a� G� e� G� 1 U oo� z�0 H£ ?y£ z a`a 2 y a ON o� W V7 Cn lib Z� G� C H s G1 11'6 I L 1J u.� N� r�rair J E N C O � iA W y o a`a m fill 3 z �e w 0 z �o Ye C Y C Yi ONx II�I� a ay nm nn InE� i® O� n� i1 L bH 8v L 44 IOE _I 0 QC] P1 22 21 a� nri a� nqm �6 a I NI N W� N H ag� O� xp� W® a96 p yi P2 aE P 0 i IS P6 0.� ad P� a� Pg� P9g Fg ® Yry } nsQk N w n .O JI5 W M N 9 � � N W y_ ✓y L �G C W tai 5 ff 0 z 81 to Q �•s W Z Z o v � 1orf visual open space is provided by creating two story high, through block breezeways between the building groups. These breezeways accommodate commercial parking spaces and reduce the overall sense of "mass." The breezeways also provide for commonly shared landscaped open space. The character of the 301" Street buildings is illustrated in Exhibit 6. Exhibit 7 illustrates the lines of sight that will be available after the proposed project is completed. As can be seen, even though the proposed buildings exceed the 26 -foot height limit, the future lines of sight will not be significantly impacted because the mechanical structures and portions of the buildings that exceed the 26 -foot building height are "recessed" or set back above the third flood and will not be seen from 301" Street vantage points. The front of the building will direct views beyond the structure above the highest portions of the proposed structure. In addition, the (covered) breezeways will allow for visual penetration through the lot to properties located both north and south of the site when viewed from 301 Street and the alley. The visual penetration will enhance the character of the area and minimize the effect of the building mass. These features, combined with the design and character of the project, will result in less than significant impacts. In addition to the design and character of the proposed structures, the applicant is also proposing to reconstruct 30" Street. Exhibit 8 illustrates both the existing and proposed street sections. At the present time, 301" street is relatively "sterile" and devoid of parkway landscaping. Redevelopment of the site as proposed includes introducing landscaping in the form of street trees within the parkway to enhance the visual character of the street, provide some shade and complement the proposed buildings. The integration of the parkway landscaping will have a positive visual impact. b. Less than Significant Impact Project implementation will not result in significant impacts to existing scenic resources. As previously indicated, the subject property is not located within a coastal view area as defined by the Newport Beach LCP /LUP. Further, no other natural (scenic) resources (e.g., rock outcroppings, trees, etc.) exist within the viewshed. Although the Cannery Restaurant building is located immediately north of the Lafayette Street component of the proposed project site, this building is neither identified nor acknowledged as an historic resource; other buildings in the immediate vicinity of the site are commercial and residential in nature and do not possess historic qualities and are not recognized as historic or visual resources: Development of the. subject property will convert the existing, j underutilized site comprising several older buildings lacking a common theme to a commercial/residential j development having a unified theme that responds to the development standards and guidelines prescribed by the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan No. 6. Therefore, project implementation will not result in significant impacts, given the lack of scenic resources and /or historic building and features in the immediate area and in the viewshed. ) a 1 C. Less than Significant Impact As indicated above, the 3V Street parcels are developed with parking lots and a few commercial structures, some of which are vacant, that are not visually significant. As such, the site does not constitute a visual amenity and is not characterized by features that are recognized as having aesthetic significance. Similarly, with the exception of the Cannery Restaurant located immediately north of the Lafayette Street parcels, the area in which the site is located lacks significant aesthetic quality. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the parcels on 301 Street as well as the four undeveloped parcels on Lafayette Street by utilizing building materials and integrating features into the design of the project. It is anticipated that these features will be complimentary to the existing "cannery" theme and marina character of the area and are consistent with the design guidelines of the Canney Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan Area. The design takes advantage of the use of corrugated metal and high finish siding, exposed mechanical systems, and a variety of materials. Further, the nautical features and marine elements, as prescribed by the Speck Plan regulations, will be incorporated into the design of the project. To the extent that the applicant addresses the Cannery Village design guidelines, implementation of the proposed project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. CHECKLIST Page 20 M :C. M9 ';' ��." f. !. I' �q �-. j 4 A 1 i' s "� �r n'P -� .r; z I �� � i m a v A �' i �° Via✓ ti M r x w E rn 0 m m L M x m c 3 m 2 s �i �e lit. H F-� O r a s W Z � Q V z: �J e a z u U tZ yW F- N 2 F Y2 t5 F-1-w a r te--i-, r, ddla LJ ?.; I A N O 2. N N V1 O 9 U e� J Y cn tz 0 J L Y W m Z � Z o V �I Y Y Y tl h d.. Less than Significant Impact The subject property is located within a highly urbanized area within the City of Newport Beach. Both commercial and residential development is permitted in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Speck Plan Area. A variety of commercial uses, including retail, professional office, general and marine commercial and some industrial uses exist in the area that utilize lighting for advertisement, operations and general security; in addition, street and parking lot lighting is also a significant source of light and glare in the area. As a result, several sources of lighting exist that have already altered nighttime views from off -site locations. Because the site is not considered to be a significant visual resource and, further, due to the nature and extent of existing development and the significant lighting that characterizes the area in the evening, the introduction of lighting necessary to provide security and illuminate the buildings will not substantially change the character of the area and, most importantly, will not adversely affect any day or nighttime views to the area. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Mitigation Measures: Final design of the proposed project will be consistent with the design guidelines established in the adopted Cannery Village /McFadden Square Speck Plan No. 6. That design will be consistent and complementary to the existing character of the area. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated to occur and no mitigation measures are required. II. Agricultural Resources Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if the following occurs: • Loss or elimination of "prime* agricultural lands as designated by the State of California and /or County of Orange and such designated soils are capable of sustained, viable agricultural production. Analysis: a. No Impact Project implementation will not result in the conversion of any prime or otherwise significant farmland. Ail of the parcels included within the limits of the subject site are developed with urban uses. According to the Orange County Important Farmland Map, the entire area is designated as "Urban and Built Up Land." b. No Impact None of the parcels comprising the subject property are zoned for agricultural uses and/or included in a Williamson Act contract. Project implementation will not require changes either to the existing zoning classifications or land use designations reflected in the Newport Beach General Plan. Therefore, no conflicts with the adopted short- and long -range plans will occur and no impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. C. No Impact The proposed project will result in redevelopment of the affected parcels from their current mixed uses to a commercial /residential development with a unified character. Implementation of the proposed land use will not adversely alter the existing environment and, specifically, will not result in the conversion of existing agricultural uses or prime farmland to non - agricultural uses. No properties within the project environs are currently designated for agricultural purposes or are in an agricultural use. The parcels included in the subject property neither contain prime farmland nor support existing agricultural .uses and they are not located in proximity to existing agricultural CHECKLIST Page 21 uses that would be affected if the project is approved. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: No significant impacts to agricultural soils and /or resources are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. III. Air Quality Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts If any of the following occur: • The project could interfere with the attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation. • The project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area that would be in excess of that projected in the AQMP. • The project could generate vehicle trips that cause a localized violation of CO standards. • The project might have the potential to create or be subjected to objectionable odors. • The project could have hazardous materials on -site and could result in an accidental release of air toxic emissions. • The project could be occupied by sensitive receptors near a facility that emits air toxics or near CO "hot spots." • The project could emit carcinogenic air contaminants that could pose a cancer risk. Analysis: a. Less than Significant The proposed project is consistent with the adopted Newport Beach General Plan. This long -range plan has been utilized by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to prepare the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Project implementation does not include land use changes that would conflict with the long -range air quality projections; rather, the proposed project is entirely consistent with the adopted General Plan and, therefore, the AQMP. Although redevelopment of the subject property will intensify the use of the site, the development proposed is well within the density range and intensity of development prescribed by the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. Most importantly, the project is subject to the strategies and programs included in the AQMP. As such, the applicant will be required to implement measures to minimize pollutant emissions and to cooperate with the SCAQMD and other regional agencies that implement and enforce regional air quality management plans through such mechanisms as industrial emission levels, transportation systems management plans, etc. Asa result, no significant impacts are anticipated and the project would not obstruct the implementation of applicable air quality plans and /or programs. b. Less than Significant As previously indicated, the proposed project encompasses redevelopment of the underdeveloped property. Approval of the proposed project would result in conformity with the long -range land use plan (i.e., General Plan Land Use Element) adopted for the site by the City of Newport Beach. The City's General Plan projected additional development/redevelopment within the Cannery Vllage/MgFadden Square Specific Plan Area. Project implementation is well within the futureflong -range projections assumed by the General Plan. The project will be consistent with all of the policies and requirements established by that plan. The project site is located within an urbanized area in the City of Newport Beach. The land uses adjacent to the project site include mixed commercial, industrial, and marine oriented uses, a parking lot and some residential dwelling units. Approval of the proposed project would result in a continuation of the use of the site, albeit at a greater intensity of development. However, neither this use nor the adjacent mixed uses will be subjected to substantial pollutant CHECKLIST Page 22 T concentrations that would significantly affect health and welfare and /or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. C. Less than Significant Project implementation will not result in significant air quality impacts. Although project implementation will result in a net increase in daily vehicular trips as compared with the existing development, this net increase in vehicular trips will not contribute significantly to the pollutant burden, either locally or in the South Coast Air Basin. The applicant is proposing approximately 17,100 square feet of marine commercial and professional office development. This figure compares to the over 25,000 square feet of existing commercial development that currently occupies the subject property. As a result, mobile source emissions are anticipated to be less than those resulting from implementation of the 17;100 square feet of commercial uses. In addition to the commercial development, 22 residential dwelling units are proposed over the marine commercial and professional office buildings, which would result in additional vehicular trips and, consequently, pollutant emissions. However, mobile - source emissions resulting from the proposed residential component will be less than significant, based on Table 6 -2 (Screening Table for Operation — Daily Thresholds of Potential Significance for Air Quality) in the CEQA Air Quafrfy Handbook prescribed by the SCAQMD. Based on the SCAQMD criteria contained in that table, operational emissions resulting from the residential component are not anticipated to be significant because fewer than 166 single - family residential dwelling units are proposed. Trip generation may also be reduced further because it is anticipated that the owner of the commercial component of each lot will reside in the residential dwelling. As a result, the home - to-work trips would be eliminated or significantly reduced, resulting in a commensurate reduction in mobile source emissions. Therefore, mobile source emissions will be less than significant based on the SCAQMD's significance thresholds. Although grading the site will produce some dust and particulate matter as well as emissions from construction equipment, the potential emissions are not considered to be significant when incorporating the standard dust control measures mandated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The applicant will be required to comply with SCAQMD rules that address PM10. Implementation of the rules that address dust suppression will reduce short-term fugitive dust impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. These requirements are mandated by SCAQMD Rule 403, which includes: (1) the application of nontoxic chemical soil stabilizers to all inactive construction areas (i.e., pregraded areas inactive for 10 days or more); (2) watering active sites at least two times daily; (3) all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered, or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance with the California Vehicle Code Section 23114); and the reduction of all traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph or less. Once construction is completed, the short-term air emissions will cease. With the implementation of the mandated dust suppression procedures prescribed by the SCAQMD, potential construction - related impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. d. Less than Significant The only sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site are the occupants of the residential dwelling units in the surrounding area. The greatest amount of pollutants generated by the proposed project will occur during the construction phase. In particular, demolition of the existing buildings and grading operations to prepare the site for construction of the proposed commercial /residential development will result in the generation of short-term pollutant emissions; however, the emissions will comprise mostly dust and particulate materials that- will be dispersed in the area of operations. However, such emissions will be controlled through the implementation of standard conditions and rules prescribed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated. e. Less than Significant Objectionable odors are not currently present within the project site or environs. Approval of the proposed project would not ultimately result in the creation of objectionable odors. Demolition of the existing structures and related facilities and construction of the proposed commercial /residential development on the site will involve activities and the use of equipment typical of development projects of a similar size and type. The emission of significant odors is not anticipated during construction. Exhaust fans and related equipment to disperse air from the interior spaces will meet AQMD requirements. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. CHECKLIST Page 23 10 Mitigation Measures: No significant air quality impacts are anticipated. Compliance with standard conditions established by the SCAQMD and City of Newport Beach will ensure that construction impacts are minimized. No mitigation measures are required. IV. Biological Resources Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: • The project would result in a direct loss of individuals of a state or federal listed threatened or endangered species. • The project would result in the direct loss of a significant or important biological habitat for any sensitive, threatened, or endangered species of plant or animal. • The project would have a substantial adverse effect on habitat essential for state or federal listed fish, wildlife, or plants. Analysis: a. No Impact The subject property is located within an urbanized area in the City of Newport Beach. The entire site is developed with mixed uses, including commercial, boat storage, public parking, residential and related land uses. No candidate, sensitive, or special status species of flora or fauna are known to exist within the proposed limits of the site, which has been completely altered, and devoid of natural features. Although the subject property is located within the City's coastal zone and is subject to that agency's regulatory process for development, it is not directly affected by any regional plans, policies of other resource agencies. Project implementation will not result in any significant impacts to sensitive biological resources and no mitigation measures are required. b. No Impact As indicated above, the subject property is urbanized and does not contain riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. The entire site has been developed and is covered by buildings and/or impervious surfaces in the form of parking lots and streets. Redevelopment of the site as proposed with a combination of commercial and residential structures will not result in significant adverse impacts to riparian or sensitive habitats. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. C. No Impact No portion of the subject property contains federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of We Clean Water Act. Specifically, no marshes, vernal pools or other wetlands defined by either the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the California Department of Fish and Game are located within the limits of the project site, which is completed developed, and devoid of natural habitat As a result, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. d. No Impact Although the site is located within the coastal zone, the area in question is completely developed. No sensitive habitat and/or wildlife migratory corridors are located in the vicinity of the subject property. As a result, no portion of the proposed subject property is part of a migration corridor or is used by migratory fish or wildlife species as a wildlife corridor. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. CHECKLIST Page 24 ZA k e. No Impact Although implementation of the proposed project will result in physical changes to the property in question, it will not result in significant impacts to biological resources. Neither the City's General Plan nor the Local Coastal Program /Land Use Plan (LCP/LUP) identified the subject property as supporting sensitive habitat and /or biological resources. The proposed project is generally consistent with policies adopted by the City of Newport Beach as articulated in the General Plan. No significant or "heritage" trees are located within the limits of the project site. As indicated in the preceding assessment, no biological resources exist within the limits of the existing parcels comprising the site and no significant impacts to biological resources will occur as a result of project implementation. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. No Impact The proposed project site is completely urbanized and does not support any coastal sage scrub or other sensitive habitat and species that are protected by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or other local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, development pursuant to the proposed site development plan will nQt conflict with local, regional or state resource preservation and conservation policies. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: Because the subject property is devoid of any natural habitat and does not support any sensitive biological resources, including plant and wildlife species, no significant impacts will occur to biological resources if the project is implemented as proposed. No mitigation measures are required. V. Cultural Resources Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: • Project implementation will disrupt or adversely affect an archaeological or historic site, structure, or artifact. • Project Implementation will disrupt or adversely affect a paleontological site. Analysis: a. No Impact None of the existing buildings occupying the site are designated as historic structures. As a result, implementation of the proposed commercial/residential development will not affect any existing historical resource in the City of Newport Beach. Because the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Speck Plan District No. 6, no changes to the existing land use policies related to historic structures are anticipated. As a result, no significant impacts to historic resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. b. No Impact The subject property and surrounding area are urbanized and extensive development has occurred that involved extensive grading and landform modification. Any near - surface archaeological sites would have been destroyed by past grading activities. Redevelopment proposed pursuant to the proposed site development plan will involve demolition of the existing structures, minor grading and excavation, and construction of the commercial /residential structures. Excavation of the site will not result in significant adverse impacts cultural resources. No mitigation measures are required. CHECKLIST 'Page 25 7.`ftt2. C. No Impact The subject property is located within an urbanized area and has been previously graded and developed, as indicated above. Any surficial paleontological resources that may have existed at one time have likely been unearthed or disturbed as a result of prior development. Similar to potential impacts described for archaeological resources, implementation of the proposed project will not result in any potential significant impacts to paleontological resources because the site is highly disturbed and any resources would have been destroyed by past development activities associated with site development. No mitigation measures are required. d. No Impact There are no known ethnic cultural values attributable to the existing parcels that have been previously developed. In particular, no human remains are known to exist within the affected parcels that have all been significantly altered by past grading and site development; no human remains were known to have been discovered during those operations. Although project implementation will necessitate demolition and grading, human remains are not expected to be encountered. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: The site has been extensively altered by prior development. None of the structures that exist are designated as "historical." Any potential cultural and/or scientific resources would have been discovered at that time. Redevelopment of the site will not result in significant impacts and no mitigation is required. VI. Geology and Soils Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: Groundshaking and/or secondary seismic effects (e.g., liquefaction, slope failure, etc.) could cause substantial structural damage and/or an unmitigated risk to human safety, even after implementation of the recommended geotechnical measures, required local and state seismic design parameters, and common engineering practices for seismic hazard abatement. Adverse soil conditions such as compressible, expansive, or corrosive soils present a damage hazard to occupied structures or infrastructure facilities. Analysis: a. Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated Based on information presented in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the proposed project (Petra, 2001), the site lies within the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone that has a history of moderate to high seismic-activity. However, this fault is not sufficiently well defined in the area of the subject property to be placed within the boundaries of an "Earthquake Fault Zone" as defined by the State of California in the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. No other active or potentially active faults project through the site. Based on the analysis performed by the geotechnical consultant, the Newport- Inglewood fault (approximately 0.1 to 0.2 kilometer (i.e., 300 to 600 feet) southwest of the subject property would probably generate the most severe site ground motions in the event of a seismic event. The anticipated maximum moment magnitude (Mw) of 6.9 and an anticipated slip rate of 1.0 mm/year are estimated to occur (Petra, 2001). This strong groundshaking could result in significant impacts to the proposed project and will necessitate the incorporation of mitigation measures to reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level. CHECKLIST Page 26 Z47� Based on the published Seismic Hazards Zones Map for the Newport Beach quadrangle (CDMG, 1997), the subject property lies within a designated liquefaction hazard area. This is due, primarily, to the fine- grained nature and relatively uniform gradation of sands underlying the area, to the presence of shallow groundwater, and to the proximity of the Newport- Inglewood fault. The probability of occurrence of ground failure associated with severe ground shaking (e.g., landsliding, ground subsidence, ground lurching, shallow ground rupture, liquefaction, and soil strength loss) depends on the severity of the earthquake, distance from the causative fault, topography, subsoils and groundwater conditions, and other related factors. With the exception of possible liquefaction and corresponding liquefaction- induced subsidence and lateral spreading, all of the seismic - induced ground failure conditions identified above are unlikely to occur at the site. A site - speck probabilistic analysis (i.e., an analysis of the likelihood of earthquake occurrences that incorporates uncertainties of time, recurrence intervals, size, and location along faults of hypothetical earthquakes) was performed to determine the anticipated peak ground acceleration and the potential for liquefaction at the site in the event of an earthquake. A peak ground acceleration of 0.31 g was estimated for the site based on a 7.5 magnitude earthquake. The liquefaction study indicated that the existing marine deposit soil layers from a depth of 5 to 30 feet below the ground surface have a factor of safety against occurrence of liquefaction of less than 1.3 and, therefore, are considered susceptible to liquefaction during a seismic event as determined by the probabilistic seismic analysis (i.e., 7.5 magnitude with a peak ground acceleration of 0.318). As a result, in the event of seismically- induced liquefaction, the proposed structures may be subjected to such potential hazards as foundation- bearing failure and liquefaction- induced subsidence. Mitigation measures will be necessary to ensure that the potential effects of liquefaction as well as impacts resulting from groundshaking associated with a seismic event are reduced to a less than significant level. b. Less than Significant Impact The subject property is currently developed with structures, parking lots and impervious surfaces. Implementation of the proposed project will necessitate the demolition of the existing structures and facilities and redevelopment of the site with several structures that will accommodate 22 residential dwelling units and professional offices in combination. After the completion of demolition, the site soils will -be exposed temporarily while construction of the proposed project takes place. In that interim period, it is possible that some erosion, may occur, resulting in some minor sedimentation; however, in order to ensure that erosion and sedimentation are minimized, the applicant will be required to prepare and submit a Notice of Intent for coverage under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Runoff Permit to the Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to initiation of construction activities. As required by the NPDES permit, a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared and will establish BMPs intended to reduce sedimentation and erosion. Implementation of the mandatory BMPs will avoid potential erosion impacts associated with site grading and development. C. Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated The subject property is essentially flat, with little discernible topographic relief. Although project implementation will not result in any landsliding or unstable slopes, there is a free -face structure along the east side of the site (i.e., the existing bulkhead sea wall located along the east side of the existing boat yard) that could be affected by liquefaction- induced lateral spreading. In addition, an average shrinkage factor of 15 percent has been estimated to occur when excavated on -site soils are replaced as properly compacted fill. A clay layer exists at depths of approximately 3 to 4 feet below the existing ground surface within the subject property. Since this clay layer lies within the influence zone of the proposed building footings, the potential exists for the clay layer to consolidate and result in a certain amount of differential settlement. Total settlement due to both the settlement of the day layer and the settlement of the newly compacted fill materials is expected to be less than 3/4 of an inch, and differential settlement between adjacent footings is estimated to be less than 114 inch over a span of 20 feet. The majority of the anticipated settlement is expected to take place during construction as building loads are applied. Potential subsidence is estimated to be between 0.10 and 0.15 foot when exposed bottom surfaces in removal areas are scared and recompacted as recommended in the Geotechnical Investigation (Petra, 2001). Mitigation measures will be required to ensure that potential adverse effects associated with lateral spreading and subsidence are reduced to a less than significant level. CHECKLIST Page 27 2wq`­V d. Less than Significant Impact Based on test results and calculations, the expansion potential of the subsurface soils is very low (i.e., Expansion Index 0-20) and, therefore, the soils will not have a significant impact on the building foundations. However, as indicated above, the potential exists for significant total and differential settlement of the proposed building foundations due to liquefaction- induced subsidence in the event of a significant seismic event (refer to We and VI.c, above). e. No Impact The proposed project is located in an area of the City of Newport Beach that is served by a system of sanitary sewers. Septic tanks and /or alternative waste disposal systems will not be used. The City currently maintains existing sewer mains and facilities to serve the proposed project. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: Prior to issuance of the grading permit for the proposed project, the applicant shall submit plans to the City's Building Department that reflect the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Petra (2001) and include -the following: The proposed structures shall be designed using a reduced bearing value and a specially designed foundation system that distributes building loads as evenly as possible across the clay layer. The recommended bearing value and an estimate of the corresponding settlements within the site for the special foundation are presented in the Geotechnical Investigation (Petra, 2001). 2. Proposed buildings and structures shall be designed and constructed to resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in Sections 1626 through 1633 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. The method of design will be dependent on the seismic zoning, site characteristics, occupancy category, building configuration, type of structural system, and building height. 3. The project shall be designed to incorporate the following structural design criteria to minimize the impacts of groundshaking and related seismic effects. UBC 1997 Table Factor 16 -1 Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.40 16 -J Soil Profile Type So and SE 16 -0 Seismic Coefficient Ca 0.57 16 -R Seismic Coefficient C. 1.54 16 -S Near - Source Factor Ne 1.3 16 -T Near - Source Factor N, 1.6 16 -U Seismic Source Type B 4. To mitigate the potential for earthquake- induced liquefaction, all of the structures proposed shall be supported by a mat foundation system or post- tensioned foundation system that will create a rigid foundation that more evenly distributes the building loads across the underlying supporting soils. 5. An allowable bearing value of 1,000 pounds per square foot shall be used for footings founded at minimum depths of 18 inches below the nearest adjacent final grade. (No increase in bearing value should be provided for footings having a greater depth.) For design of mat foundation systems, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pounds per cubic inch may be considered. CHECKLIST Page 28 01�1 Lit; 6. Sulfate- resistant cement shall be used in all concrete that may be in contact with on -site soils. Careful control of the maximum water - cement ratio and the minimum concrete compressive strength is also required in order to provide proper resistance against deterioration due to sulfates. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. • 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. • Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. • Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. • Result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area if located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Analysis: a. Less than Significant Impact The proposed project includes residential and commercial (i.e., professional office) development that will not use hazardous materials during the life of the structures. Although the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) concluded that several of the buildings contained asbestos- containing materials (ACM), lead -based paint (LBP) and other potentially hazardous materials, the site has been remediated and the hazardous materials have been removed from the site and transported to a landfill or other facility certified to accept the materials. Therefore, project implementation will now involve only the demolition of the structures and disposal of the non - hazardous building and other inert materials at a disposal site. No significant impacts will result from the route transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials and no mitigation measures are required. b. Less than Significant Impact As indicated above, project implementation includes the demolition of existing commercial, boat storage, parking and related development within the redevelopment of approximately 1.44 acres. Due to the age of the structures, asbestos - containing materials (ACMs) and lead -based paint (LBP) was found to be present in the existing structures that are proposed for demolition. In addition, fluorescent light fixtures were also observed in the structures on the site; these items, which may contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and trace amounts of mercury, also pose a potential health hazard. Although demolition of the proposed project, without the implementation of proper remediation, could result in the release of airborne contaminants, all of the materials found in the buildings during the site surveys have been removed and properly disposed. As a result, demolition of the structures will not result in a release of hazardous materials. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. C. No Impact With the exception of commonly used household hazardous materials (e.g., insecticides, herbicides, etc.), neither the residential nor commercial uses proposed for the site will utilize hazardous or acutely hazardous materials. Further, no school is located within one - quarter mile from the subject property that would be affected, either by construction activities or long -term activities occurring on the site. No impacts will occur as a result of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required. C14ECKUST Page 29 24L d. Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated A search of federal, state, and local government listings was undertaken during the Phase I ESA that was conducted by Petra Geotechnical, Inc. As a result of that search, it was determined that the site is not listed on any of the various government agency records. However, 13 sites were identified during the search that, based on their relative distance form the site and /or their "up- gradient" location from the site, may influence the site. After further review of the records for each of these sites, only one site was identified to have a recognized environmental condition. Newport Plating, located at 2810 Villa Way approximately 350 feet south of the site, is included on the Cal- Sites, Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System - Small Quality Generator (RCRIS -SQG), Facility Index Systems (FINDS), CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned (CERC- NFRAP), and Spills Leaks Investigation Cleanup (CA -SLIC) databases. According to the information derived from the data base search, this site had an unlined sump and has impacted both soil and groundwater. Both the local health agency and the regional water quality control board are involved with enforcement actions for this site. Based on a review of Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB), and Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) files, it was determined that the facility was closed in 1987 or 1988. In 1987, a Cleanup and Abatement Order was issued and subsequently two site investigations were conducted. Although it was determined that soil and groundwater beneath the facility has been impacted by heavy metals and cyanide, it was further determined that it is unlikely that contaminants from Newport Plating have migrated beneath the subject site, based on discussions with the OCHCA. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated to soils and /or groundwater contamination. A second area of concern was identified in the initial Phase I assessment. A rear garage located at 512 301, Street (part of the subject property) had been used to store miscellaneous items, including numerous on- gallon and five - gallon paint cans, several bags of stucco, bricks, tiles, and appliances. The environmental consultant (Petra) recommended removal of debris and re- inspection of the garage after the items were removed to evaluate the condition of the floor with respect to the potential for contaminant migration to the subsurface. Based on the reinspection of the property, it has been determined that all of the items have been removed from the rear garage at identified previously and that no recognized environmental conditions exist at the 512 30" Street location. The reinspection of the site by Petra revealed no new recognized environmental conditions; however, asbestos - containing materials and lead based paint may exist in the building occupying 515 30`" Street because the structure has been present since 1945. It will be necessary to abate any identified lead based paint and asbestos containing materials prior to remodeling or demolition. In addition, several items were observed on the property at that location, including approximately seven 5- gallon fuel cans and approximately five outboard motors. Some oil staining was observed on the concrete, probably associated with parked vehicles. e. No Impact The subject property is not located within the limits of the John Wayne Airport land use plan. Neither that commercial airport nor any other public airport is located within two miles of the site. As a result, project implementation will not result.in potential adverse impacts, including safety hazards, to people residing or working in the project area. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are necessary. f. No Impact The subject property is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, redevelopment of the site as proposed will not result in potential adverse impacts, including safety hazards, to people residing or working in the project area. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are necessary. g. No Impact The adopted Newport Beach Emergency Operations Plan was prepared in accordance with Federal, State, and County guidelines, and was developed to meet the particular needs of the community and to accomplish several CHECKLIST Page 30 241 objectives, including, but not limited to, saving lives and protecting property. The proposed project is consistent with the Risk Reduction Program adopted by the City because it addresses the potential geologic constraints (e.g., seismic groundshaking, liquefaction, and other geologic hazards), flooding, fire, public safety and other related hazards through the coordinated review and approval process that is implemented by the City of Newport Beach. The site development plans will be submitted to the City of Newport Beach to ensure that adequate service systems, grading and building and construction, public safety and other features are adequate to reduce risks to an acceptable level. Further, none of the evacuation routes identified in the City's Public Safety Element will be adversely affected by the proposed project. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are necessary. h. No Impact The subject property is located within a highly urbanized area of the City of Newport Beach. No natural habitat and /or native vegetation exists either on the site or in the project environs. As a result, the site is not subject to the potential for wildland fires. No significant impacts as a result of wildland fires will occur if the project is implemented and no mitigation measures are necessary. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures will be implement to address potential environmental conditions that exist on the subject property. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall conduct a survey for the presence of lead based paint and asbestos- containing material in the structure located at 515 301" Street. Should such materials be found in the structure, they shall be abated pursuant to applicable regulatory requirements at least 10 days prior to demolition. 2. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, the applicant shall ensure that the items located at 515 301" Street (e.g., fuel cans, outboard motors, vehicles, etc.) be removed from the property. 3. If any stained soil or other suspect material is encountered during grading operations, a qualified environmental firm shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the potential environmental conditions. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: • Substantial and adverse increased inundation, sedimentation and/or damage from water forces to the subject project and/or other properties are caused by improvements such as grading, construction of barriers or structures. - • Development within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated by FEMA that would expose people and/or property to potential serious injury and /or damage. • Impervious surfaces increase and/or divert storm water runoff that result in the inability of the existing collection and conveyance facilities to accommodate the increased flows. • Project implementation will cause a violation of water quality objectives and impede the existing beneficial uses of on -site surface waters or off -site coastal waters. • A usable groundwater aquifer for municipal, private, or agricultural purposes is substantially and adversely affected by depletion or recharge. • Storm water and/or induced runoff mixes with a tidal habitat or pond causing instability to the existing water quality (e.g., reduction of salinity, increase of dissolved solids, introduction of sediments, etc.) which, in turn, substantially and adversely affects the habitat. CHECKLIST Page 31 194 • Sediments are increased and /or diverted by proposed improvements and cause sediment deposition in sensitive habitat areas (e.g., riparian, etc.) to the detriment of the habitat and /or sensitive species. Analysis: a. Less than Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project will not result in any violations of water quality or waste discharge requirements. The subject property is developed and supports approximately 25,760 square feet of commercial and residential development; the site is covered almost entirely with impervious surfaces, including parking facilities. As a result, surface runoff emanating on the site as a result of construction typically contain pollutants such as paints, cleansers, solvents, and oils and grease. Post - development runoff will also contain some pollutants, most notably, those that are hydrocarbon based resulting from the use of automobiles. In order to ensure that these pollutants are properly disposed, the applicant will be required to include construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), where applicable into the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Potential construction BMPs may include such techniques as protecting storm drain inlets, on -site dust control and street sweeping, and implementing fertilizer, pesticide and soil amendment management practices. Ultimately, the storm runoff associated with site development will drain into the stormwater system that is located in 301" Street where the applicant is proposing stormwater runoff filter system that will "treat" surface runoff before being discharged. As a result, potential impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. b. Less than Significant Impact Given the location of the site in proximity to the harbor area, the subject site is not located in an area that is utilized by the City for groundwater recharge. As previously indicated, the subject property is nearly entirely developed and covered with mostly impervious surfaces; no groundwater "recharge" occurs at the present time. Project implementation will result in the demolition of the existing structures and ancillary facilities, which will be replaced with a combination of both commercial and residential development. As a result, there would not be any change from the existing conditions that would result either in a lowering of the local groundwater table or significantly affect the production rate for existing domestic water wells that are - located elsewhere in the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. C. Less than Significant Impact As indicated previously, the site and environs are entirely developed; no natural drainage courses traverse the project area. Project implementation will maintain the existing drainage characteristics and will neither change the existing drainage patterns nor result in a significant increase in the rate or volume of surface runoff. As proposed, the 30' Street lots will be graded to drain into the center of 30" Street where it will be directed to facilities under the street. The underground storm drain will carry the runoff east under 30" Street to the Stormwater Runoff Filter System and then into the City's storm drain system. Surface runoff from the Lafayette Street parcels will be directed west into Lafayette Street before entering the underground storm drain system and the filter before it is discharged. As a result, the project will not result in any significant impacts to any natural drainage courses. d. Less than Significant Impact The total existing runoff emanating from the subject property is based on impervious surfaces comprising over 72,000 square feet (including 30" Street); only 329 square feet of the site are currently landscaped and are pervious, through which infiltration can occur. Redevelopment of the site will result in a reduction of the impervious surfaces and, as a result, a reduction in the amount of runoff. Upon completion of the project, the site will contain only 60,200 square feet of imperviously surfaces (including the roof areas of the structures proposed for 30`" Street, 30" Street, and other pavement areas on the site), reducing the impervious surfaces by over 12,000 square feet (17 percent). In order to further reduce the amount of surface runoff, the applicant is proposing over 18,000 square feet of turf -block in the areas surrounding the building. The turf block and percolation base and substrate will provide on -site runoff management. The calculations of impervious surfaces are presented in Table 1. CHECKLIST Page 32 �� Table 1 Existing and Proposed Drainage Management Cannery Lofts Runoff Areas, :. Existing Conditions (Area in Square Feet) : Post - Development Conditions (Area in Square Feet) . . Roof Area — 301" Street 16,644 36,600 Roof Area 0 Lafayette Street 0 7,200 30'" Street (paved R -O -W) 10,000 10,000 Pavement Area 45,766 6,400 Total 72,410 60,200 Remediation Area 329' 18,1002 'Landscaped Area 2Turf- -block area with percolation base and substrate SOURCE: Tanner Hecht Architecture The incorporation of this system will effectively reduce surface runoff from the property. Therefore, no increase in surface runoff will occur and no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. e. Less than Significant Impact As indicated in the discussion presented above in Section VIIIA., implementation of the proposed project will result in a 17 percent reduction in impervious areas and, as a result, a reduction in the amount of stormwater runoff that occurs under existing conditions. There are adequate .collection and conveyance facilities to accommodate the existing and future storm flows. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Less than Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project will not significantly degrade existing water quality. As previously indicated, the site is covered with development and impervious surfaces that generate runoff. It is anticipated that demolition and grading necessary to implement the proposed project will result in exposing the site prior to construction. This condition could promote erosion because the stability of soil is reduced. Construction activities also typically involve several other pollutants such as paints, cleansers, solvents, and oils and grease. If these materials are not applied or disposed of properly, or if a leak occurs, excess quantities could be carried off -site in the runoff. However, the project will be required to develop and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that will provide both construction and post - construction Best Management Practices (BMPs), including but not limited to street sweeping, catch basin inspection and cleaning, common area runoff minimizing landscape design, common area litter control, etc. Through the implementation of these and /or other BMPs, no significant water quality impacts are anticipated. g. Less than Significant Impact According to information contained in the City's Public Safety Element, the potential for loss due to flooding is greatest in the low -lying areas immediately adjacent to the Santa Ana River. Other areas subject to flooding and inundation include the Newport Back Bay area and drainages tributary to that feature. The subject property is not located in any of the flood -prone areas delineated in the City of Newport Beach. No portion of the subject property is located within the designated 100 -year flood plain as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Therefore, none of the structures, including the residential component will be located within a FEMA 100 -year flood plain; no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. CHECKLIST Page 33 2 h. Less than Significant Impact The subject property is currently developed and contains structures and other improvements. Redevelopment of the subject property as proposed would not create an impediment to surface flows or result in the redirection of flood flows. Therefore, no significant impacts will result if the project is implemented. Less than Significant Impact The Public Safety Element of the Newport Beach General Plan addresses flood hazards. As indicated in that document, the area in which the proposed project is located is not identified as being subject to flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a dam or levee. No such facilities are located in close proximity to the site that would pose a significant threat to public health and safety. No significant impacts will result from project implementation. Less than Significant Impact The City's Public Safety Element addresses the potential for storm surges and secondary seismic effects such as tsunamis and seiches. A study conducted for the Public Safety Element concluded that the bulkhead elevation in the interior waterways provides adequate freeboard for estimated possible storm surges within the bay. The potential for seiches (i.e., the oscillation of sloshing of water in an enclosed body of water caused by seismic activity or landsliding) to occur in the City, including within the vicinity of the subject property, is low and does not represent a potential hazard to public safety. Finally, the risk to public safety on the site from tsunamis was determined to be extremely remote within the City. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed project. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the proposed project will result in an increase in the amount of pervious surfaces to facilitate the reduction in surface flows. In addition, the project has been designed to address surface water and runoff associated with the proposed project. Adequate storm.drainage and flow control facilities exist in the project area to accommodate the proposed project. In addition, the incorporation of BMPs as prescribed by the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange and Calftmia Regional Water Quality Control Board will ensure that no significant water quality impacts will occur. Therefore, no mitigation measures, either for surface hydrology or water quality, are required. IX. Land Use and Planning Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: • Physically divide an established community. • Conflict with the City of Orange General Plan or zoning ordinance. • Conflict with the Natural Community Conservation Plan /Habitat Conservation Plan for Orange County. • Be incompatible with adjacent land uses. Analysis: a. Less than Significant Impact The subject property is located within the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan District No. 6 in the City of Newport Beach. This specific plan district, which encompasses a total of approximately 41.09 acres within the area bounded by the West Lido Channel on the east, 32nd Street and 30"' Street on the north and northwest, respectively, Balboa Boulevard on the west, and 2e Street and Newport Bay on the southwest and south, respectively. As indicated in the zoning district regulations, the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan CHECKLIST Page 34 9 .S 1 - District No. 6 is intended to serve as an active, pedestrian - oriented specialty retail area with a wide range of visitor- serving, neighborhood commercial, and marine - related uses. The focus of the area is the specialty retail district, which is located in the area bounded by 32nd Street, Villa Way, 29'" Street, and Newport Boulevard. The subject property comprises approximately 1.44 acres, including 18 lots (0.97 acre) north and south of 30" Street between Villa Way on the west and Lafayette Avenue on the east and 4 lots (0.28 acre) east of Lafayette Avenue and south of 301 Street. The area in which the subject property is located is characterized by a variety of retail commercial, professional office, industrial and marine- oriented land uses. The 1.44 -acre site is located in the east - central portion of the specific plan area, adjacent to The Rhine Channel inlet. The site supports approximately 25,785 square feet of mixed commercial development, ancillary on -site parking, and two residential dwelling units. Although the introduction of new commercial and residential development may alter the character of the immediate area, the proposed land uses are generally compatible with the land uses that exist to the north, west and south (The Rhine Channel abuts the eastern property boundary). The proposed project will not act as a physical barrier and will not physically divide the existing community. The site will be developed in accordance with the development standards and design criteria established by the City of Newport Beach. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. b. Less than Significant Impact - --Newport- Beach General Plan Land Use Element The 1.44 -acre property is designated as Mixed Commercial on the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. The portion of the site located west of Lafayette Avenue is designated for "Retail & Service Commercial & Industrial, which has been applied to areas that are predominantly retail in character, but also accommodate some service office uses. The four lots located east of Lafayette Avenue are designated Recreational Marine Commercial & Multi- Family Residential. This land use category applies to waterfront commercial areas in the City where the City wishes to preserve and encourage uses that facilitate a marine commercial and visitor serving orientation. Uses that are given a priority include marine commercial (e.g., marinas, marine supply sales, yacht brokers, etc.), marine industrial (e.g., marine construction, boat repair and servicing, etc.), and visitor serving commercial (e.g., social dubs, commercial recreation, etc.). In addition, senior citizen housing facilities are also permitted in this category. The Land Use Element defines several statistical areas in the City of Newport Beach. The subject property is located in Statistical Area B5 (Central Newport). According to the Land Use Element, commercial development is permitted in this statistical area up to the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) 0.50/1.00. All of the commercial areas (except the Lucky Market Center) allow residential development on the second floor in conjunction with ground floor commercial, up to a total FAR of 1.25. The Land Use Element allows for the development of one dwelling unit for each 2,375 square feet of buildable lot area (with a minimum of one unit for each lot). Finally, the Land Use Element has estimated growth for each statistical area in the City. Table 2 reflects the existing and projected residential and commercial development projections identified by the City. CHECKLIST Page 35 .e) Table 2 Estimated Growth for Cannery Village Cannery Lofts As presented in Table 2, the majority (i.e., 294 units) of the 333 dwelling units projected for the Central Newport Statistical Area were anticipated to be developed in Cannery Village in 1987. Similarly, the remaining 154,068 of the total 416,297 square feet of commercial development projected for this statistical area were also allocated to Cannery Village at that time. Since 1987, additional development has occurred; however, residential and commercial development within the Cannery Village sub -area is still below the projection for each, based on the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of the site with 17,109 square feet of professional office development and 22 single - family residential dwelling units, which is entirely consistent with the land use projections included in the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. In addition to the land use projections, the City has adopted several policies related to land use that are included in the General Plan. The relationship of the proposed project to these policies is presented in Table 3. Table 3 Newport Beach Land Use Element Policy Analysis Cannery Lofts General Plan Policy Residential Development [DUs) Commercial Development (Sq. Ft.) The proposed project includes a professional office and residential Existing Gen. Plan Projection Projected Growth Existing Gen. Plan Projection Projected Growth combination addresses the proximity of home and work uses and ' would result in the elimination of the home -to -work vehicular trips and, consequently, mobile -source air emissions. Further, this Cannery Village 1987 113 407 294 411,872 565,940 154,068 2001 182 407 225 N/A N/A N/A variable floor area limits shall be established based upon the trip residential development that is consistent with the land use generation characteristics of the use or uses proposed for the site. designations and residential and commercial projections adopted for the area and included in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. SOURCE: Newport Beach General Plan; October 24, 1988; City of Newport Beach Planning Department; November 2001. As presented in Table 2, the majority (i.e., 294 units) of the 333 dwelling units projected for the Central Newport Statistical Area were anticipated to be developed in Cannery Village in 1987. Similarly, the remaining 154,068 of the total 416,297 square feet of commercial development projected for this statistical area were also allocated to Cannery Village at that time. Since 1987, additional development has occurred; however, residential and commercial development within the Cannery Village sub -area is still below the projection for each, based on the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the development of the site with 17,109 square feet of professional office development and 22 single - family residential dwelling units, which is entirely consistent with the land use projections included in the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. In addition to the land use projections, the City has adopted several policies related to land use that are included in the General Plan. The relationship of the proposed project to these policies is presented in Table 3. Table 3 Newport Beach Land Use Element Policy Analysis Cannery Lofts General Plan Policy Policy Analysis The City shall provide for sufficient diversity of land uses so that The proposed project includes a professional office and residential schools, employment, recreation areas, public facilities, churches development pursuant to the Cannery Village Specific Plan District and neighborhood shopping centers are in close proximity to each No. 6. The residential dwelling units are proposed to be located over resident of the community. the professional office development on each of the 22 lots. This combination addresses the proximity of home and work uses and ' would result in the elimination of the home -to -work vehicular trips and, consequently, mobile -source air emissions. Further, this combination of uses is located in an area of the City that is designated for retail uses. The proposed project is consistent with this policy that is intended to provide not only diversity but also proximity of land uses. To insure redevelopment of older or underutilized properties, and to The project proposes to redevelop approximately 1.44 acres (22 lots) preserve the value of property, the floor area limits specified in the located in the City within the Cannery Village Specific Plan District Land Use Element allow for some modest growth. To insure that No. 6 that are underutilized. These uses will replace the existing traffic does not exceed the level of service desired by the City, uses with professional office development in combination with variable floor area limits shall be established based upon the trip residential development that is consistent with the land use generation characteristics of the use or uses proposed for the site. designations and residential and commercial projections adopted for the area and included in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Property values will increase when compared to the existing land uses that include vacant buildings, parking lots and underutilized properties. It is anticipated that project implementation would result in an increase of approximately 560 trips per day greater than the C1MCl rST Page 36 General Plan Policy Policy.Analysis vehicular trips generated by existing land uses occupying the subject property. This increase, after a credit is applied for the reduction in trips due to the balance provided by combining jobs and housing in the same development achieves the goal of minimizing traffic and potential impacts on existing levels of service at Intersections within the City. . Commercial, recreation or destination visitor serving facilities in and The proposed project includes a mix of commercial and residential around the harbor shall be controlled and regulated to minimize development that will replace the existing commercial development traffic congestion and parking shortages, to ensure access to the occupying the site. The portion of the proposed development located water for residents and visitors, as well as maintain the high quality on Lafayette Street will be marine - oriented, as prescribed by the of life and the unique and beautiful residential areas that border the existing planning and zoning documents that regulate development harbor. The "combined" commerciallresidential use of the site is intended to facilitate circulation and parking in the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan area. Public access to the marina area is provided along the frontage of the lots located along Lafayette Street The proposed development is intended to meet the design guidelines prescribed by the Specific Plan for the area. The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and No significant natural landfonns, inciuding coastal bluffs and CAMS, regulated to ensure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public are located on the site or in the immediate area. Public views of the views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize marina area will be maintained through the public walk located along the alteration of natural landfoms along bluffs and cliffs. the frontage of the development proposed along Lafayette Street Provisions shall be made for the encouragement or development of The proposed project will be designed- to complement the nautical suitable and adequate sites for commercial marine related facilities and historical maritime character of the area Architectural elements so as to continue the City's historical and maritime atmosphere, and of the proposed structures will incorporate the maritime features that the charm and character such business have traditionally provided are consistent with the prevailing maritime character. In addition, the the City. four lots proposed along Lafayette Street will accommodate marine uses and will provide public access to the marina area between the proposed structures and the bulkhead. The City shall develop and maintain suitable and adequate standards The project will be required to comply the with design standards for landscaping, sign control, site and building design, parking and prescribed by the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan undergrounding of utilities and other development standards to and other requirements imposed by the City to ensure that land use ensure that the beauty and charm of existing residential compatibility is achieved. neighborhoods are maintained, that commercial and office projects are aesthetically pleasing and compatible with surrounding land uses and that the appearance of, and activities conducted within industrial developments are also compatible with surrounding land uses and consistent with the public health, safety and welfare. Prohibit or restrict certain types of land use conversions or forms of The proposed project is generally consistent with the Land Use ownership which, by their nature, reduce available housing, are Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, the Local Coastal incompatible with residential uses, or present police, health, or safety Plan /Land Use Plan, and other relevant plans and policies adopted problems. by the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project will result in an increase of residential dwelling units within the City; further, the proposed development will be compatible with the types and intensities of development that existing with the project environs. Continue to oppose the lease of offshore tracts to oil producers and The proposed project is a commercial/residentiat project located prohibit the construction of new onshore oil facilities except as may within the Cannery \Allage Specific Plan District No. 6. No offshore be necessary in conjunction with the operation of the West Newport or onshore oil facilities are proposed. oil field. The City shall aggressively pursue annexation of territory within its The proposed project is located within the existing corporate limits of sphere of influence with due consideration given to costs and the City of Newport Beach. benefits associated with incorporation. The land use designations and building intensity standards in this The subject project is not located within the limits of John Wayne Element reflect limits on John Wayne Airport imposed by the Airport Airport and, therefore, development is not affected by the building Settlement Agreement and the provisions of that agreement have and intensity standards imposed on development within the JWS become an integral part of the land use and planning process of the environs. City of Newport Beach. The City should take all steps necessary to preserve and protect the Agreement, as well as assist in the selection of a second commercial airport, which, in conjunction with John Wayne Airport, could serve a majority of the County's short- and medium haul demand. CHECKLIST Page 37 q offices are permitted only in conjunction with an "incentive" use. The LCP /LUP also provides for the development of commercial uses in combination with residential dwellings, consistent with the goal of reducing traffic generation. In particular, the professional office uses proposed for those lots require the following: (1) approval of a use permit, and (2) development must be in conjunction with an incentive use (e.g., marinas, marine construction, retail marine sales, etc.) use that must occupy at least 40 percent of the site /lot. Further, the City must design standards for density, height and parking incentives for developments, such as that proposed, that utilize a mixed use concept, including the provision or maintenance of an incentive use that is coastal- dependent. The areas not adjoining the waterfront in the City are designated for a mixture of "Retail and Service Commercial" (RSC) uses to provide visitor - serving facilities, and General Industry; to encourage marine - related industrial uses. The remaining 18 lots, which are "non - waterfront" lots, are designated RSC and are not required to provide incentive uses; however, they also require a use permit. On all commercial lots, residential uses are permitted on the second floor or above where the ground floor is occupied by another permitted use up to a total floor area ratio of 1.25. All of the professional office development proposed by the applicant will occupy ground floor of the structures; residential uses are located on the second level, above the ground floor commercial use, consistent with the LCP /LUP, subject to a use permit. One dwelling unit is permitted for each 2,375 square feet of buildable lot area (with a minimum of one unit on each lot). The applicant is proposing to develop the property as 22 individual lots. A commercial use is proposed on the ground floor with residential uses above, as permitted by the LCP /LUP (subject to a use permit). Further, four bayfront lots are also proposed to be "marine - oriented" uses. In general, the concept proposed by the applicant is consistent with the LCP /LUP and related plans and policies. However, the City Council must determine that the uses occupying the four bayfront lots reflect the incentive uses listed in the LCP /LUP. Newport Beach Zoning The project site is located within the Cannery Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan District No. 6. The specific plan ensures consistency between the stated goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the LCP /LUP. As indicated above, the four lots located on Lafayette Avenue that front on The Rhine are designated for "Recreation and Marine Commercial" uses, which encourages a continuation of the marine- oriented uses, maintains the marine theme and character of the area, and encourages public physical and visual access to the bay; these lots are required to include "incentive uses" (i.e., marine- oriented, recreation and visitor - serving uses as defined previously in the General Plan and LCP/LUP. The remaining 18 lots fronting on 300 Street are designated "Retail and Service Commercial," and are not required to include "incentive uses" in the site development. The theme for the Cannery Village component of the specific plan district is "... reminiscent of the previous use of the area .. " The specific plan recommends the use of such materials as corrugated metal shed - type building or siding where appropriate, incorporation of attractively expressed mechanical equipment into the building design and height limit, and the use of nautical devices in signs, architectural details, etc. Incorporation and integration of such elements, as currently proposed, will ensure consistency with the Cannery Village component of the specific plan. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated. C. No Impact The subject property is located in an area of the City of Newport Beach and County that is not addressed either in a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. As a result, project implementation will not conflict with any policies established for such plans. Nonetheless, the property is located within the coastal zone of the City of Newport Beach and is subject to the policies and programs adopted by the City for the LCP /LUP. However, none of the policies established by the City for environmental s3ensitive habitat areas apply to the site because no such habitat exists on the property. As previously indicated, the site is entirely developed with urban uses and does not support any sensitive habitat and /or species designated by state or federal resources agencies. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur if the project is implemented and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the proposed prgject is generally consistent with the long -range plans adopted by the City of Newport Beach, including the General Plan and Local Coastal Program /Land Use Plan, and Cannery CHECKLIST Page 39 r:�15 Village/McFadden Square Specific Plan No. 6. Therefore, no significant land use impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. X. Mineral Resources Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: Project implementation will result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource identified on the City's General Plan and/or State of California documents that has economic values both locally and regionally. Analysis: a. No Impact The subject* property is currently intensively developed with urban uses, including commercial, marine - related commercial and industrial, residential and public parking facilities. Neither the City's General Plan nor the State of California has identified the site or environs as a potential mineral of State -wide or regional significance. No mineral resources are known to exist and, therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result -of project - implementation. b. No Impact As indicated above, the Newport Beach General Plan does not acknowledge the site or environs as having a potential to have value as a locally important mineral resource site. Redevelopment of the subject property as proposed will not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource recovery site and, therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Mitigation Measures: As indicated above, project implementation will not result in any significant impacts to mineral resources. . Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. XI. Noise Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: An increase of three dB which creates an area of noise /land use incompatibility or which worsens an existing excessive noise situation by +1 dB; and/or The proposed project generates noise that would contribute to noise levels that exceed the State noise/land use compatibility guidelines which allow for exterior noise levels up to 70 dB CNEL; and/or The proposed residential development is exposed to noise levels that exceed the State noisefland use compatibility guidelines which allow for exterior levels up to 70 dB CNEL. Analysis: a. Less than Significant The project site and vicinity are located within an urbanized area. Although vehicular traffic utilizing Newport Avenue is the primary source of noise in the project environs, the site is not located adjacent to major roadways that accommodate high traffic volumes and generate high noise levels. Ambient mobile -source noise levels in the CHECKLIST Page 40 256 vicinity of the subject property are less than 60 dBA CNEL as indicated in the City's Noise Element. Future (i.e., 2010) roadway noise levels are anticipated to increase and affect areas not currently affected as a result of increased vehicular traffic; however, the subject property is not located with the 60 dBA CNEL or higher noise contours. It is anticipated that approval of the proposed project would not contribute significantly to vehicular traffic that would result in increased noise levels and result in the exposure of residents or other sensitive receptors. Approximately 560 daily trips would be added to the existing volumes utilizing the adjacent street system. The addition of only 560 daily trips will not result in increased noise levels associated with the vehicular traffic on the adjacent streets. Project- related traffic will not increase substantially to contribute significantly to ambient noise levels. Therefore, potential impacts are considered to be less than significant. b. Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Construction noise is generally high level, short-term duration noise, which represents a potential short-term impact to the ambient noise levels near the site. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. The proposed project calls for the demolition of structures that exist on the subject property to make way for redevelopment of the site. Demolition noise is usually short duration noise that has the potential to reach very high levels. Noise from bulldozers and skip loaders can be exceeded by the impact noise generated by pneumatic equipment, falling debris, and the collapse of the structure(s) being demolished. These events have the potential to generate noise and vibration levels that can impact nearby land uses. It is estimated that impact noise from falling debris and the pneumatic hammers used to break concrete will reach maximum levels as high as 95 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The degree of impact will be dictated by the amount of construction equipment used, the density of heavy equipment, the proximity to the nearest land use, and the duration of the grading and construction process. The City of Newport Beach ordinance 10.28.040 addresses construction noise. This ordinance limits excessive construction noise "... to any weekday except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., nor on any Saturday except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m." Construction activities are prohibited on Sundays and holidays in the City of Newport Beach. The City's Noise Ordinance limits only the hours of operation for construction activities; it does not establish limits on the noise levels that can be generated by construction equipment. Subsequently, nearby land uses may be impacted by high level, short-term construction noise. C. Less than Significant As indicated in Section XV (Transportation/Traffic), project implementation will result in a net increase of only 560 vehicles per day. This minor increase in traffic, when distributed onto the surrounding circulation system, will not result in a significant tong -term increase in ambient noise levels. The traffic levels projected by the City reflect future buildout of the general plan land uses. Because the proposed project is consistent with the land uses prescribed in the Newport Beach General Plan, the proposed project will neither contribute the significant mobile - source noise in the project vicinity and /or City of Newport nor exceed any long -term noise projections for the area. Therefore, no significant tong -tens noise impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. d. Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated It is possible that short-term noise levels may increase during the demolition, site preparation and construction phases of the proposed project. The proposed project calls for the demolition of several existing structures to make way for development. Demolition noise is expected to be of short duration and will have the potential to reach very high levels. Noise from bulldozers and skip loaders may be exceeded by the impact noise generated by pneumatic equipment, falling debris, and the collapse of the structure being demolished. These events have the potential to generate noise and vibration levels that can impact nearby sensitive land uses. These potential increases may occur as nuisance to the adjacent commercial and residential development. The severity of the potential impact will be dictated by the type and amount of construction equipment used, the density of heavy equipment, the proximity to a noise sensitive land use area (e.g., residential), and the duration of the grading and site development process. Noise levels may reach 95 dBA at 50 feet from the source for such equipment as pneumatic hammers. These short-term noise impacts, although potentially significant, are permitted by the City during normal working hours established by the Noise Control Ordinance. Therefore, any future development must comply with the City's Noise Element and Noise Control Ordinance to ensure that construction impacts are adequately addressed. The City's Noise Control Ordinance is used to protect people from noise generated by CHECKLIST Page 41 25-1 people or machinery on adjacent property. Specifically, the ordinance addresses construction noise by regulating construction hours. Demolition, grading and construction hours will be restricted to those hours established by the Noise Control Ordinance. e. No Impact No portion of the project site is located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Redevelopment of the subject property as proposed would neither affect nor be affected by aircraft operations at such a facility that would generate noise in excess of regulatory standards. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. No Impact No portion of the project site is located in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Redevelopment of the subject property as proposed would neither affect nor be affected by aircraft operations at such a facility that would generate noise in excess of regulatory standards. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. Mitigation Measures: to - addition to complying with the City's Noise Ordinance, the following mitigation measures are recommended to ensure that obtrusive construction noise will be minimized in the vicinity of the proposed project. The hours of operation of equipment that produces significant noise or levels noticeably above general construction noise be limited to between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. 2. All construction equipment shall be muffled and shall be maintained in good working order to reduce the equipment - related noise generation. 3. If heavy construction activities occur adjacent to noise sensitive land uses, the temporary noise barriers should be installed to protect those land uses during the periods of loudest construction events. 4. All construction activities will comply with applicable state and local construction noise regulations. X11. Population and Housing Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: • Induce substantial growth or concentration of population. • Displace a large number of people. • Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. • Be substantially inconsistent with long- range, adopted City goals and /or policies. Analysis: a. Less than Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project is entirely consistent with the land use projections established by the City of Newport Beach for the Central Newport Statistical Area (B5) that includes the Cannery Village/McFadden Specific Plan District No. 6. Although project implementation will result in the demolition of the existing development occupying the subject property, including one residential dwelling unit, the elimination of that dwelling will be replaced by 22 dwelling units, resulting in a net increase of 21 residential dwellings. CHECKLIST Page 42 ZJ:5V As presented in Table 1, the proposed project includes the development of one single - family residence on the second floor of each of the professional office uses, for a total of 22 residential dwelling units. Based on the residential projections, the majority of the residential growth anticipated for Statistical Area B5 would occur in Cannery Village. At the present time, Cannery Village supports approximately 182 residential dwelling units, which is 225 units less than the 407 units projected by the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Project implementation will increase the number of residential dwelling units in Statistical Area B5. That residential development is consistent with the residential growth projected for the Central Newport Statistical Area. After development of the proposed project, a total of 204 residential dwelling units will exist in Cannery Village, or 203 less than the 407 dwelling units projected for the area by the Newport Beach General Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. b. Less than Significant Impact Although project implementation will result in the demolition of the existing development, including the two residential dwelling units occupying the subject property, the loss of two dwelling units is not considered significant because the proposed project includes the development of 22 single - family dwellings, or an increase of 21 dwelling units on the subject site. The 22 dwelling units are not proposed as "replacement housing. The project is not located in a redevelopment project area and there is no requirement to provide replacement housing. However, as indicated above, project implementation will result in a net increase of 21 dwelling units. As a result, the loss of the existing dwelling unit has been offset by the increase in the total number of new dwelling units proposed. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. C. Less than Significant Impact Based on a population per household of 2.09 (U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000), the proposed project would result in the maximum displacement of only two residents who occupy the dwelling unit that would be demolished and eliminated as a result of project implementation. As indicated above, project implementation will result in a net increase of 21 residential dwelling units. That figure will offset the loss of housing and the displacement of individuals and /or families occupying the existing dwelling unit. Although not intended as replacement housing, the construction of 22 dwelling units in the City will increase the number of residences within Cannery Village in a manner that is consistent with the City's General Plan. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Mitigation Measures: No significant impacts to population and housing will occur as a result of project implementation. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. XIII. Public Services Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: • An increase in the demand for fire protection services to such a degree that accepted service standards (e.g., manpower, equipment, response times, etc.) are not maintained. • The interference with emergency response or evacuation plan(s) in the community or not provide intemally consistent analysis or policies to guide future development. • Expose people or structures to 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. • Result in response times that exceed the City's adopted maximum emergency response criteria. • An increase in the demand for law enforcement services to such a degree that accepted service standards are not maintained without an increase in manpower and /or equipment. CHECKLIST Page 43 �I • Create student enrollments that exceed available capacities of school facilities or educational services and would require the construction of new school facilities. Analysis: a. Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated Fire protection facilities and service to the subject property are provided by the Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department ( NBFMD). The NBFMD operates and maintains a total of six fire stations throughout the City. Primary response services to the subject site are provided by Fire Station No. 2 (Lido Station), located at 476 32nd Street, approximately one - quarter mile to the west. Equipment includes one fire engine, one fire truck, one medic van and one HAZMAT response unit that are manned by eight personnel. Although response times to the site are considered to be adequate, design of the site as currently proposed will pose problems to fire fighting personnel and will result in potentially significant impacts to the fire department. Specifically, adequate access to all portions of the proposed structures is not available to emergency vehicles. Several factors affect the ability of the NBFMD to provide an adequate level of fire protection. The proposed mixed development with the commercial use on the ground floor and residential use above, the manner in which parking is provided without adequate separation between the structures, and the additional height requested for the buildings (in excess of 26 feet) pose additional problems to the NBFMD for providing adequate fire protection. The combination of these factors will result in a potentially significant impact on the NBFMD resources. As a result, additional features and potential redesign of the project will be required to mitigate the potential impacts on fire protection service and facilities. Police protection in the City of Newport Beach is provided by the Newport Beach Police Department. The Department's headquarters are located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara. The City'[s Police Department currently has a ratio of 1.91 swom officers for each 1,000 residents in the City, based on a total (year- found) population. This ratio is considered adequate for the current population. The surrounding circulation allows for direct access to the site, which is available to each of the lots in order to facilitate emergency access. Implementation of the proposed project will not result in a significant impact to police protection services because development currently existing on the site and the area surrounding the property is intensively developed and is served by the Department. The provision of educational services in the City of Newport Beach is the responsibility of the Newport Beach Unified School District. The proposed project includes 22 residential dwelling units. Based on the current student generation rates, the proposed project could result in the generation of approximately 6 K -12 students (22 units x 0.259 K -12 student1dwelling unit). The District's facilities are overcrowded and require the payment of the State statutory fees to offset additional students. Payment of the State- mandated statutory school fees will be adequate to. offset potential impacts to the District. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. Mitigation Measures The applicant will be required to incorporate specific recommendations prescribed by the Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department and Building Department to ensure that adequate fire protection can be provided. - XIV. Recreation Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: • Create a demand for recreation services that exceeds the design or use standards of existing and /or planned facilities on the adopted Recreation Element of the City for the area. CHECKLIST Page 44 Analysis: a. Potentially Significant unless Mitigation Incorporated The subject property is located in Service Area 1 (West Newport), which encompasses the coastal area west of the Newport Pier, including West Newport, Newport Shores, Lido Peninsula, and Newport Island. The West Newport Service Area currently has a combined park/beach acreage of 43.1 acres; the majority of this acreage is active beach recreation (34 acres), with only 9.1 acres of existing parks. This total park acreage figure compares to 64.7 acres that have been identified by the City as "needed" based on the City's standard of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. At the present time, there is a deficit of 21.6 acres of parkland. The City has identified the need for sports fields within a new community or neighborhood -level park in Service Area 1. Project implementation would result in the generation of approximately 50 residents within the Service Area 1 (i.e., 22 dwelling units x 2.25 persons per household). Given the current deficiency of parkland and recreational facilities, the additional residents could adversely affect existing recreational. facilities until such time as the facilities identified in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the General Plan are acquired and /or improved. Based on the standard of 5 acres for each 1,000 residents, the proposed project would create a demand for 0.25 acre of parkland and/or recreational facilities. Although these impacts are potentially significant, the City will require payment of "in -lieu" fees pursuant to the existing Park Fee Policy to ensure that the project mitigates the potential impact associated with its implementation. b. Less than Significant Impact No recreational facilities are included with the proposed commercial and residential development. As a result, no new construction related to recreation facilities and/or services will occur and no significant impacts, either on the environment or to potential recreational opportunities, are anticipated as a result of project implementation. No mitigation measures are required. Payment of this fee will reduce the impacts to recreational facilities to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measures: Prior to issuance of the building permit; the applicant shall. pay the applicable park "in lieu" fees as prescribed by the Newport Beach Park Fee Policy. W. Transportation/Traffic Significance Criteria: Implementation of the proposed project would result in a significant adverse environmental impact if any of the following occurs as a result of project implementation: • The project will generate an increase in traffic at intersections in the City of Newport Beach which results in an ICU change of 0.01 or more and the resulting ICU is 0.91 (LOS E) or greater. • The project will generate an increase in traffic at a CMP intersection resulting in a LOS F, or-if a CMP intersection maintains an existing LOS F and an increase in traffic results in an ICU change beyond 0.10. • The project will result in adequate access or parking capacity. a. Less than Significant Based on applicable trip generation rates, the proposed project will generate a total of 948 trips per day. However, because a portion of the project site is developed with residential, office and industrial land uses, it is estimated that 388 trips per day are currently generated by the existing uses. Therefore, the proposed project has been "credited" with the 388 existing daily trips, resulting in a net "new" trip increase of 560 trips per day. The effect of the credit of the existing daily trips will result in a decrease of 17 trips during the a.m. peak hour and an increase of 32 trips during the p.m. peak hour, as reflected in Table 4. CHECKLIST Page 45 Table 4 Trip Generation Summary Cannery Lofts Land Use I Units. I Rate: I In ^,•, r Out " �V Total', In 'T Out nTotal . ADT: I Residential (Low) 1 DU 11/DU 0 1 1 1 0 1 11 Office 15.47 TSF 14.03/TSF 26 3 29 5 24 29 217 Industrial 22.90 TSF 6.97/TSF 17 4 21 3 20 23 160 Total "Credits" 43 8 51 9 44 53 388 New Residential Trips •29 12 -17 34 -2 —3-24-5-60 Proposed Project Residential (Medium) 8.10 /DU 4 11 15 10 8 18 178 General Commercial 45.0/TSF 10 9 19 33 34 67 770 Total Proposed Project 14 20 34 43 42 85 948 New Residential Trips •29 12 -17 34 -2 —3-24-5-60 SOURCE: Cannery Lofts TPO Traffic Analysis; Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.; October 15, 2001. 1996 Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM) trip rates. Five intersections were evaluated as part of the required Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) analysis to determine the impact of the proposed project. These intersections included: • Newport Boulevard /Hospital Road • Balboa Boulevard /Superior Avenue and Coast Highway • Riverside Avenue /Coast Highway • Tustin Avenue/Coast Highway • Newport Boulevard/Via Lido Construction of the project is expected to be complete in 2003; therefore, the study year was analyzed was 2004. The TPO analysis consists of a one percent analysis and an intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analysis at each of the five study intersections. The one percent analysis compared the proposed project traffic with projected peak hour volumes. Peak hour traffic from the proposed project must be less than one percent of the project peak hour traffic on each leg of the study intersection in order to pass the one percent analysis. If the project contributes less than one percent of the peak hour traffic, then the ICU analysis is not required and no further analysis is necessary based on the City's TPO requirements. Table 5 summarizes the results of the one percent analysis conducted for the proposed project. With the exception of the Newport Boulevard/Via Lido intersection, project - related traffic does not contribute one percent or more to the peak hour volumes at the other four intersections. The proposed project fails the one percent analysis at the Newport BoulevardNia Lido intersection during the p.m. peak hour. CHECKLIST Page 46 Table 5 Summary of One Percent Analysis Cannery Lofts Intersection NB I SB EB WB Less than One Percent of Peak One Hour Volumes AM Peak One -Hour Volumes Newport Boulevard /Hospital 6 0 0 0 Yes Balboa/Superior & Coast Highway 1 0 0 2 Yes Riverside /Coast Highway 0 0 3 0 Yes Tustin /Coast Highway 0 0 3 0 Yes Newport Boulevard/Via Lido 10 0 0 2 Yes PM Peak One -Hour Volumes Newport Boulevard/Hospital 0 16 0 0 Yes Balboa/Superior & Coast Highway 0 6 0 Yes Riverside/Coast Highway 0 5 Yes Tustin /Coast Highway n02F 0 5 Yes Newport BoulevardNia Lido 0 0 No - SOURCE: Cannery Lofts TPO Traffic Analysis; Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.; October 15, 2001 As indicated above, an ICU analysis was performed for the Newport Boulevard/Via Lido intersection. Based on that analysis, it was determined that the Newport Boulevard/Via Lido intersection will operate at a level of service (LOS) "A" during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours without the proposed project. When the project - related traffic is added to that intersection, LOS "A" will be maintained during both peak hours, as reflected in Table 6. Table 6 ICU Analysis Summary Cannery Lofts Intersection Existing ICU /LOS Existing Plus Project ICU /LOS AM PM AM PM Newport Boulevard/Via Lido 0.4251A 0.414/A 0.427/A 0.4141A SOURCE: Cannery Lofts TPO Traffic Analysis; Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.; October 15, 2001. Therefore, based on the TPO analysis conducted for the proposed project, including the one percent analysis for the five study intersection and the ICU analysis conducted for the Newport BoulevardNia Lido intersection, no significant traffic impacts are anticipated to result from project implementation. b. Less than Significant The proposed project is not subject to the Orange County Congestion Management Plan which requires a traffic impact analysis if the project generates 2,400 or more daily vehicle trips. As indicated above, the proposed project will result in the generation of only 560 "net" daily vehicular trips. Further, the TPO analysis conducted for the proposed project concluded that the project will not have any significant impacts on either of the five study intersections. Therefore, project implementation will not exceed either individually or cumulative, any level of service established by the City or Newport Beach or County of Orange for designated roadways. CHECKLIST Page 47 ZIP $ C. No Impact Project implementation will not result in any changes to air traffic patterns. The subject site is currently developed and is not located within the immediate environs of John Wayne Airport (JWA) or other facility that would be affected by site development. Air traffic patterns into and out of JWA will not change if the project is developed as proposed. No significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. d. Less than Significant Impact The applicant is proposing to redevelop several lots fronting on 30'" Street and Lafayette Avenue within the Cannery Village area. Site development will not result in any changes in the existing circulation conditions; the existing street system will continue to function in the same manner it does for the existing development and conditions. Although construction equipment will utilize the existing circulation system to access the site, the construction phase is only temporary, and use of the equipment will not pose unusual safety hazards or conditions. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. e. Less than Significant Impact Site development as proposed will not adversely affect emergency access, either to the subject property or adjacent development. Both 300' Street and Lafayette Avenue will provide vehicular access to each of the lots. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Less than Significant Impact At the present time, approximately 20 on- street, metered parking spaces exist along 30'" Street (12) and Lafayette Street (8). After implementation of the proposed project, the number of on -street parking will be reduced to 4 spaces. Although all of the number of existing on -street parking spaces located along the 30" Street and Lafayette Street will be reduced to approximately 4 parking spaces. However, this reduction of on- street parking will be offset by a surplus of off -street parking that is proposed, which exceeds the existing Newport Beach parking code requirements. Table 7 summarizes the off - street parking proposed for the project. Table 7 Off-Street Parking Cannery Lofts Location Residential Parking - Commercial Parking Total Parking Required . Proposed Requireciz Proposed Required Proposed N1 (501 30th Street) 2 2 3 4 5 6 N2 (503 30in Street) 2 2 3 4 5 6 N3 (505 30M Street) 2 2 3 4 5 6 N4 (507 30M Street) 2 2 3 4 5 6 N5 (509 30M Street) 2 2 3 4 5 6 N6 (511 30in Street) 2 2 3 4 5 _6 N7 (513 30M Street) 2 2 3 4 5 6 N8 (515 30M Street) 2 2 3 4 5 6 N9 (517 30M Street) 2 2 3 4 5 6 N 10 (519 30M Street) 2 2 3 3 5 5 E1 (2912 Lafayette Street) 2 2 1 1 3 3 E2 (2910 Lafayette Street) 2 2 1 1 3 3 E3 (2908 Lafayette Street) 2 2 1 1 3 3 E4 (2906 Lafayette Street) 2 2 1 1 3 3 S1 (500 30 Street) 2 2 3 4 5 6 S2 (502 30111 Street) 2 2 3 4 5 I 6 S3 (504 30M Street) 2 2 3 4 5 I 6 S4 (506 301n Street) 2 2 3 4 5 I 6 S5 (508 30m Street) 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 CHECKLIST Page 48 V.q. Location Residential Parkin Commercial Parking Total Parking Requiredl Proposed Required Proposed Required I Proposed S6 (510 30th Street) 2 2 3 4 5 6 S7 (512 30 Street) 2 2 3 4 5 6 S8 (514 30m Street) 2 2 4 4 6 1 6 Totals 44 44 59 75 103 1 119 12 parking spaces for each residential dwelling unit. 21n RSC Districts, commercial officelretail uses require 1 parking space for each 250 square feet of commercial space. In RMC Distrticts, commercial spaces used for boat saleslrentallstorage require one parking space for each 1,000 square feet Of commercial space. SOURCE: Tanner Hecht Architecture; September 14, 2001. As presented in Table 7, the applicant is proposing to provide 119 off -street parking spaces, or about 15 percent more than required by the City's parking code. As a result, no significant impacts to parking will occur. g. Less than Significant Impact Project implementation will not conflict with any policies adopted by the City that address alternative modes or transportation,- including the use of bicycles. The City of Newport Beach favors the use of bicycles for both transportation and recreation. Project implementation will not conflict with the City's desire to facilitate bicycle circulation. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. Mitigation Measures: No significant traffic Impacts, including access and safety and parking are anticipated as a result of project implementation. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required. XVI. Utilities and Services Systems Significance Criteria: The proposed project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts if any of the following occur: • The project - related demand caused an increase in wastewater treatment that reached or exceeded the current capacity of existing or planned treatment facilities or caused a reduction in the level of service, thereby requiring substantial expansion of existing facilities or the construction of new facilities. • The proposed project's use of water resources will substantially and adversely deplete existing sources of domestic water. • The proposed project will require the construction of new water facilities beyond those already planned and the cost of which would not be borne by the applicant. • The project will generate solid waste that exceeds the capacity of the landfill to accept and disposal of the waste. Analysis: a. Less than Significant Implementation of the proposed project will result in the generation of approximately 5,280 gallons per day (gpd) of raw sewage based on a sewage generation rate of 80 gallons per day (gpd) per person. This amount assumes three persons, including two associated with the residential component and one for the commercial component. The site is currently served by 8 -inch lines located in the centerlines of Lafayette Street and the alleys. The proposed project will utilize these facilities to accept the sewage flows associated with the proposed project. The proposed development will require new laterals to be installed where existing laterals cannot be utilized. The CHECKLIST Page 49 S existing sewage collection and treatment systems have adequate to accommodate the proposed project. No significant impacts will occur to either the existing collection or treatment facilities. Further, project implementation does not include uses that would necessitate treatment beyond that currently provided by the Orange County Sanitation District. Therefore, the raw sewage generated by the proposed project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements established by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. b. Less than Significant As indicated above, the site is currently served by an existing system of sewer mains. In addition, there is a 12- inch water main in Lafayette Street and 8 -inch mains in the alleys that serve the existing development. Project implementation will not require the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. Domestic water can be provided from the existing water supply and distribution system, which meet both the existing and proposed fire demands. If required, individual fire connections will be made to the domestic water lateral; however, no significant project - related impacts to either domestic water service or sewage serve will occur as a result of project implementation. C. Less than Significant As indicated in Section VIII (Hydrology and Water Quality), the proposed project will not require the construction of new storm water drainage facilities that would result in potentially significant environmental impacts. The surface water runoff will be drain into 30'" Street and Lafayette Street where it will be collected and conveyed to facilities under 301" Street and to a Stornwater Runoff Filter system before entering the City's storm drain system. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. d. Less than Significant Project implementation will not adversely affect existing water supplies. The project is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Element and will not create demands for water that exceed the parameters upon which the water supply and distribution is based. Although new laterals will be required, existing supplies are adequate to ensure the provision of adequate fire flows and domestic water service to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of project implementation: e. Less than Significant The Orange County Sanitation Districts (OCSD) has adequate capacity at the existing treatment facilities to provide sanitary treatment to the small incremental increase in raw sewage that will be generated by the proposed project. The OCSD operates two treatment plans that have a combined capacity of 450 million gallons per day. Both plants are operating below their design capacities and can accommodate the small, incremental increase in raw sewage generated by the proposed project. Therefore, no significant impacts are required as a result of project implementation. f. Less than Signficant. Project implementation will result in the generation of additional refuse; however, the increase is anticipated to represent a small, incremental increase of the amount currently generated by the uses that existing on the subject property. Demolition of the existing structures and facilities are expected to contribute to the on -site solid waste disposal requirements. The majority of the demolition waste could be diverted from landfill space through recycling of wood, metal, concrete, and other building materials. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a small incremental increase in solid waste at the site. The County landfill system (i.e., three landfill sites) has a capacity in excess of 30 years. In addition, operations with the City and, therefore, on the project site, would be subject to requirement set forth by the CIWMP to divert 50 percent of its solid waste, as required by A6939. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a significant impact to the provision of solid waste disposal services. CHECKLIST Page 50 ZWO 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 #6, Cannery Village/McFadden Square. 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, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993. 9. PETRA, "Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Mixed Use Development (Office and Residential Buildings), Cannery Village, North and South Sides of 30'° Street, East of Villa Way, Newport Beach, CA; March 6, 2001. 10. PETRA, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, "The Cannery: An Approximately 1 Acre Parcel Located East of the Intersection of 30" Street & Villa Way, City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, Califomia," Final Report, January 16, 2001. 11. PETRA, "Addendum to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for The Cannery; An Approximately 1- acre Parcel Located East of the Intersection of 301" Street & Villa Way, City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California;" August 30, 2001 12. Tanner Hecht Architecture, "Existing and Proposed Drainage Management; (No Date). 13. Austin -Foust Associates, Inc.; "Cannery Lofts TPO Traffic Analysis," October 15, 2001. 14. Keeton Kreitzer Consulting; "Final EIR, Office Site B Expansion, Koll Center Newport Planned Community;" 2000. CHECKLIST Page 52 2G_1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK mg Exhibit No. 10 Corrected Responses to Comments on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Zvi THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Response to Public Comments Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Cannery Lofts - Newport Beach, CA The public review period for the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)) for the Cannery Lofts Use Permit extended from November 5, 2001 through December 5, 2001. A total of four (4) comment letters was received on the Cannery Lofts MND. Responses to each of the comments in those letters have been prepared and are included with the Final MND. The public agencies, organizations and individuals that commented on the Draft MND include: A. City of Newport Beach Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (November 27, 2001) B. California Department of Transportation (November 27, 2001) C. California Coastal Commission (December 4, 2001) D. Lucille Kring/ORACLE (December 4, 2001) Responses to these comments have been prepared pursuant to Section 15088 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Letters received during the public review period have been reproduced in the section that follows. All letters received have been reviewed and substantive comments have been identified. Responses have been prepared and follow each letter of comment in this "Response to Public Comments" Appendix to the Final MND. Each comment in each letter for which a response is required has been numbered for easy reference. it Al M E M To: From: Subject: Date: o-. VJv I l 01 ; O R A N Planning Commission - City of Newport Beach NOV -27 -01 Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee City of Newport Beach Cannery Lofts Mixed Use Development (the "Project") November 27, 2001 1:41PM; Page 2 Letter A U M Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "DMND ") for the Cannery Lofts Mixed Use Development (the "Project ") which is located along the entire block of 500 30th Street and 2908 through 2912 Lafayette Way, Newport Beach, California 92663. As you know, pursuant to Council Resolution No. 2001 -73, the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Citizens Advisory Committee may comment on environmental documents such as the DMND upon referral from the City Manager. The City Manager and its staff have referred the DMND to the Committee. For the reasons discussed below and identified below, we recommend that either a new or revised Document address the following concerns: (1) The Project Description is ambiguous and should be revised; (2) The Project may have impacts on aesthetic resources by failing to provide visual access, by creating conflicts with existing uses, and by failing to analyze and discuss the Project's compliance with the Cannery Village Specific Plan Guidelines; (3) The DMND should discuss mitigation of impacts on soils and geologic resources including discussion of liquefaction potential in view of the increase of pervious surfaces and mitigation of lateral spreading potential; (4) The DMND should resolve conflicts as to whether the Project area currently contains hazardous materials and the impacts of the Project on removal of toxic materials from in and around the Bay; - -- .. , NOV- Ll -01 1:42PM; Page 3 Planning Connnission City of Newport Beach Page 2 November 27, 2001 (5) The DMND should discuss and analyze the Project's impacts on water resources and mitigation of such impacts including the sizing and capacity of drainage facilities including the trench drain and its catch basins as well as the impact of the increased pervious surfaces on liquefaction and groundwater resources; (6) The DMND should discuss the Project's land use impacts including the Project's compliance with the Cannery Village Specific Plan and the Project's potential conflict with existing uses including the conflicts between marine and residential uses, between the mass and volume of the Project and existing surrounding uses, and between the Project improvements and existing unimproved uses; (7) The DMND should attempt to resolve and provide specific mitigation or criteria for mitigation of the Project's impacts on public services including on fire prevention resources; (8) The DMND should discuss and analyze the Project's impacts on transportation and parking resources including a discussion of parking impacts and proposed mitigation for such impacts; (9) The DMND should analyze and discuss the Project's impacts on recreational opportunities including the creation of commercial uses adjacent to the Bay which may be suitable for marine opportunities including boat launching. In addition, we note several typographic errors in the City's Notice of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project including the stated finding. Instead of the A2 "Environmental Affairs Committee" stated as making a finding (which is incorrect as a matter of City resolution as well as in fact), we recommend "Planning Staff' or "City Staff" as making the requisite finding. IL Introduction: Legal Standard CEQA Guidelines section 15070(b) requires that a mitigated negative declaration show that A3 ( "project plans or proposals ... would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur." ,` ?q (f I " -ci -ui 1 :42PM; Page 4 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Page 3 November 27, 2001 Ld, (Emphasis added.) Further, environmental documents such as the DMND are reviewed using the "fair argument standard: "Under this test, the agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. [Citations.] If such evidence is found, it cannot be overcome by substantial evidence to the contrary." Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal. App. 4th 1359, 1399 -1400. However, as discussed above, the MOD may fail to satisfy this "fair argument standard:" as discussed below, the Project may have several significant impacts which require We recommend that, as concluded below, the Project requires a more complete environmental analysis; the Project requires either the re- circulation of a new DMND with a complete Project Description and a explanation of the checklist, or the preparation of a full EIR (the "Revised Document"). HL SuRzestions for a Revised "Project Descriutioa." The Project description is one of the key parts of any environmental document. As the Court of Appeal in County of LayQ noted long ago, "Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision - makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the `no project' alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." County of Inyo v City of Los Angelm (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185, 199. In addition, the CEQA Guidelines section 15124 requires that an environmental document describe the project "in away that will be meaningful to the public, to the other reviewing agencies, and to the decision - makers." Discussion, Guidelines section 15124. Although adequate in many respects, the "Project Description" presents several challenges which are easily remedied. For instance, Page 2 of the Project Description in the Checklist discusses the new trench drain. Given our concerns addressed below, the Project Description should discuss this new feature more fully including its capacity, the catch basins (DS a� A5 ., W Planning Corr¢nission City of Newport Beach Page 4 November 27, 2001 11O .J Nov -27.01 1.43PM; Page 5 and the ultimate direction of the flow. Or again, Page 3 of the Project Description discusses "The Use Permit allows building heights to be constructed up to 35 feet ...." It is unclear whether this is the current permit or the Proposed Permit. The Revised Document should clarify this issue. TV. "Environmental Checklist." & "Aesthetics." The Checklist indicates that the Project has less than significant impacts on Aesthetic Resources. The Checklist Explanation explains that the bases for this conclusion are: (1) The Project facilitates and preserves visual access by its breezeway features which will allow views of the area; (2) The Project enhances aesthetic resources by the presence of parkway landscaping; (3) The Project will not substantially degrade existing aesthetic resources because the Project will comply with Cannery Village Design Guidelines. Respectfully, we have concerns that either the Project does not achieve these goals or does not have these benefits. First, the mass and volume of the Project may give rise to aesthetic impacts. We are concerned that although the Project relies on breezeways to facilitate views, the breezeways and "windows" are not large enough to further this end. As discussed below in drainage, the parkway landscaping may come at a price: significant drainage impacts. Further, although this feature may advance aesthetic goals within the Project, it will conflict with the surrounding unredeveloped area. The revised document should discuss ways to harmonize the Project with its neighbors so that the Project will advance the entire area, not one isolated block. As to the Project's compliance with the Cannery Village Design Guidelines, in order to assess this compliance, the DMND should discuss these guidelines and discuss in some detail the relevant features which will comply with these guidelines. For instance, the Guidelines discuss the theme for the area: nautical and marine elements including use of nautical devices in signage and use of corrugated metal roofs or siding. Among other things, we question whether, given the high residential component of the Project, the Project's proposed corrugated metal siding is appropriate for a residential use. Further, as discussed above, we are concerned that the volume and mass of the structure may not further this theme. Without some discussion of these features in the Revised Document, the public cannot determine whether the proposed mitigation — compliance with the guidelines — mitigates the impact to the appropriate level of less than lP 7LO .• X10 1:44PM; Page 6 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Page 5 November 27, 2001 significant impact. The Revised Document should analyze and address these impacts and appropriate mitigation. B "Geology and Soils." The Checklist indicates that the Project could have significant geologic/soils impacts without mitigation. The Checklist Explanation notes that: "Mitigation measures will be necessary to ensure that the potential adverse effects associated with lateral spreading and subsidence are reduced to a less than significant level." Page 27. We note that this concem over subsidence and lateral spreading_could_affect the bulkhead sea wall along the east side of the Project. None of the mitigation measures expressly address either the subsidence or the lateral spreading issue. Given the importance of the issue and the express need for mitigation, the Revised Document should discuss what mitigation measure addresses these impacts. In addition, the Checklist indicates that the Project is located in an area subject to liquefaction. The Checklist Explanation notes that a liquefaction study indicates that the Project area is susceptible to liquefaction. The DMND also notes that surface water flooding may be mitigated by an increase in pervious surfaces. however, the increase of pervious surfaces may exacerbate the liquefaction potential. The Revised Document should analyze and discuss this increased potential. _, °Hazards and Hazardous Materials." The Checklist identifies no impact to hazards or hazardous materials as potentially significant. At Page 29, the Checklist Explanation states that: "Although the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) concluded that several of the buildings contained asbestos - containing materials (ACM), lead-based paint (LBP) and other potentially hazardous materials, the site has been remediated and the hazardous materials have been removed from the site and transported to a landfill or other facility certified to accept the materials." However, at Page 30, the DMND states: "The reinspection of the site by Petra revealed no new recognized environmental conditions; however, asbestos- containing materials --- .. -- .. � , - rvov -u -ut 1 :44PM; Page 7 Planning Conamssion City of Newport Beach Page 6 November 27, 2001 and lead based (sic) paint may exist in the building occupying 515 30 Street. ... " The DMND must reconcile and address these inconsistent statements. Further, we understand that the seabed of the Rhine Channel contiguous to the four bayfront lots of the Project may contain some concentrated toxic materials. This material has been described to be of a nature and sufficient to preclude traditional dredging and barging All offshore to an ocean dumpsite. Dredged material may require transport inland for disposal. The Project may affect remediation. The Revised Document should address this potential impact and provide appropriate mitigation. In addition, the four bay front lots along Lafayette Dr. were used for marine A 2 purposes and a boat yard iaclu—ding for fie scraping and painting boats with lead paints. Again, prior to construction of the Project, these lots must be tested for these and other hazardous materials. The Revised Document should discuss and analyze the results of these tests. U3 04 Finally, Mitigation Measure No. 3 is inadequate. At Page 31, the DMND states: "If any stained soil or other suspect material is encountered during grading operations, a qualified environmental firm shall be contacted immediately to evaluate the potential environmental conditions." However, this measure fails to state what happens if the evaluation proves contamination which would require remediation. The Revised Document should discuss what would happen in the event that the environmental firm determines that contamination or other suspect material is present and may require remediation. & Hydrology and Water Quality," As indicated above, at Page 2, the Project Description discusses a new drainage feature: _ "[A] new trench drain will be located in the center of the street that will be designed to drain to existing catch basins. In addition, landscaping will be included within the wider public walk that will extend beyond the right -of -way into the property on both sides of 30"' Street." However, as noted above, the Project Description fails to discuss the sizing of the trench drain. We assume that the trench drain is designed to replace two street gutters along the public walk M- A15 A16 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Page 7 November 27, 2001 thereby allowing for a larger public i the size of the gutters. However, the .... I I - V. ,.V�,., rage e e problem is that the center drain must be double fails to discuss the capacity of the trench drain. In addition, at Page 32, th identifies a treatment feature "that will `treat' surface runoff before being discharged. feature raises two problems. First, the DMND fails to identify where the "treated water" will e discharged. We assume that the runoff will drain to the bay. This raises the second problem. I Le DMND must discuss the level of treatment, the treatment standards and methods, and wh L entity maintains the treatment feature. We recommend that the and provide a detailed discussion of the In addition, at Page 32, groundwater recharge. However, the 1 A17 pervious surface area, in part, as mitig; pervious surface will increase the perc groundwater levels. The Revised Doc significant, it should propose appropri; Am 09 E The DMN Element is to establish policies and prog Newport Harbor and Bay without undu] Further, the first priority land uses for tb unclear that the Project advances the go: land uses including the priority of water Specific Plan, likewise, is to preserve th above, the size, mass, commonality of ti and char goal. In addition, at Page 35, existing community. Further, the DM impact on land use. However, we disagree. C site (the portion west of Lafayette) is de: Service Commercial & Industrial." The appears to designate the site similarly. A are similarly designated and are also use DMND notes that the Cannery Village Document discuss the sizing of the trench drain it feature. dM states that the Project will have no impact on i repeatedly notes that the Project will increase the it the surface water impacts. However, increased rates of surface waters. This increase may affect should discuss this potential impact and, if tes that "(t)he principal goal of the Harbor and Bay that will preserve the diversity and charm of the ricting the rights of the waterfront property owner." ment are water dependent uses. However, it is diversity and charm or addresses the priority of ident uses. Further, the goal of the Cannery Village rsity and charm of the area However, as indicated jest and its units may conflict with the diversity states that the Project will not divide the :s that the Project will not have a significant ige 35, the DMND recognizes that the bulk of the led in the General Plan as "Mixed Retail and nery Village Specific Plan District No. 6 also Ucated on Page 3, all of the surrounding properties "commercial development." Further, on page 35, the Plan District is: 2219 N UO Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Page 8 November 27, 2001 "...intended to serve as retail area, with a wide r commercial, and marine But, as delineated on DMND Pages 2 a Residential, 13,540 sq. ft (21.2 %). of O commercial." Given these percentages, Inserting this predominantly residential divide the existing and proposed comm of the Project as well as the increase in the existing commercial and the Project The Revised Document appropriate analysis. If the impact is & appropriate mitigation. On page 4� Protection, the DMND notes that the des, the City's Fire Department. The DMND "The combination of the; significant impact on the features and redesign of 1 potential impacts on fire However, at Page 44, ••• d• -�i �.•,vrm, raye � :tive, pedestrian oriented specialty of visitor- serving, neighborhood ed uses." the Project consists of 46,757 sq. ft. (73.2%) and only 3569 sq. ft. (5.6 %) of "marine Project is more residential than commercial. ixt in an existing and planned commercial area could 1 district. However, given the admitted high intensity tit over the surrounding areas, any conflict between sidential use will likely become more significant tl address this potential impact and provide an ..,.._ 'cant, the Revised Document must propose discussion of the potential impacts on Fire the Project may pose a number of problems for will result in a potentially resources. As a result, additional t will be required to mitigate the i service and facilities." Measure No. 1 states: "The applicant will be req " ed to incorporate specific recommendations prescri by the Newport Beach Fire and Marine Department and B ding Department to ensure that adequate fire protection be provided." The DMND provides no fiuther specificii y 0r criteria for this promised mitigation measure. Further, the DMND fails to state whether "s mitigation would require significant redesign of the Project (as suggested in the earlier p h of the DMND) or other significant modifications to the project as proposed. This lack of crit or specificity for this crucial mitigation measure amounts to an impermissible deferral of r x.tigation. "By deferring environm;irces assessment to a fixture date, the conditions run counter to that policy of CEQA which environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process." Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296, 308. 6 1-0 J�J UJV IIO1, Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Page 9 November 27, 2001 S= Bozung v. Local Agency Formatiol principle that the environmental impact planning.*); Mount Sutro Defense Con Cal. App. 3d 20, 34 (noting that enviroi planning process "where genuine flexib The Revised Document resources and provide either appropriate G. In addres notes that although the Project may red appears to be a typo in the actual numb Ul sixteen (16) off-street spaces over that concludes at Page 49 that: "As a result, k22 ,23 This conclusion is misle 35 of the 75 spaces serving the comma is, parking spaces located behind other feasible, at times, for residential uses, v use. Our experience with such plans is in the fear of being blocked in by later additional analysis and study: its conch Revised Document should provide this The DMND states that 25,785 square feet of commercial and nu Document states that 13,540 of the total would actually be offices. DMND, Page By contrast, the Traffic S are different: 15,470 square feet of offic the Traffic Study considers all of the pro Commercial." (Table 1, page 4, Traffic different categories of use result in difl and the DMND. For instance, using the change from a minus 29 in the Traffic S1 peak hour trips would be reduced, howc generation rates.) The AM peak hour dif and Via Lido during the AM peak hour, intersection is currently operating at a hi Nov -27 -01 1:46PM; Page 10 1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263, 282 (holding that "the be assessed as early as possible in government ee v. Regents of University of California (1978) 77 ltal problems should be considered at a point in the remains "). identify the Project's impacts on fire prevention ation or criteria for such mitigation. the category (f) of parking, at Page 48, the DMND rxMng on- sireet.parking capacity (we note that there he Project will increase off street parking capacity by red for the commercial and office uses. The DMND impacts to parking will occur." g and possibly wrong. The DMND fails to note that (predominantly office) uses are "tandem" spaces, that ing spaces. Although such a parking plan may be iestion whether such is feasible for commercial/office patrons/tenants avoid use of the front tandem space rrs. Thus, the DMND parking plan requires i of "no significant impact" is questionable. The ysis and provide appropriate mitigation. mount of existing uses include "approximately me related uses." DMND, Page 2. In addition, the 17,109 square feet of the proposed commercial space i and 39. fy states that the existing uses are much greater and plus 22,900 square feet of industrial uses. Further, sed non - residential square footage would be "General idy.) The combined effect of this increase and t traffic generations rates between the Traffic Study vIND figures, the inbound AM peak hour trips would y to as much as a plus 17 trips per day. (The afternoon , by the difference between commercial and office ence would trigger the 1% analysis at Newport Blvd. addition to the PM peak hour. Although this Level of Service (LOS "A ") in both the AM and PM get 1 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Page 10 November 27, 2001 peak hours and the Project's traffic impac Revised Document should nonetheless ex Study and the DMND. H. "Recreatio At Page 45, A24 I recreational facilities and that the Project' However, the DMND fails to appreciate 8 The Project as proposed cc DMND fails to appreciate the importance A25 exists in the lower bay area. Further, the these resources is tmpo antrtan d scarce. 1 the Project's impacts on such resources, a L. Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons, 426 I preparation of a Revised Document whit] Nov -27 -01 1:47PM; Page 11 would not serve to worsen this service level, the ain or clarify the discrepancies between the Traffic DMND recognizes the paucity of parkland and :reased residents may exacerbate this problem. scope of this impact. commerciallmarine uses to residential uses. The Project site: currently, no public boat launch will constune existing boat storage. Each of vised Document should discuss these resources, any appropriate mitigation. DMND is insufficient: we recommend that the the above concerns. B� 0 A. City of Newport Beach Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (November 15, 2001) Response to Comment No. i This comment provides a summary of the specific comments presented in the body of the memorandum. Please refer to the responses to those comments, which provide address the specific comments summarized here. Response to Comment No. 2 This comment correctly identifies a reference to the Environmental Affairs Committee, the predecessor committee to the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC). As such, the reference is incorrect and should reflect City Staff as indicated in this comment. Response to Comment No. 3 This comment alleges that the " ... DMND may fail to satisfy this 'fair argument standard:' because the project implementation may result in several significant impacts that require mitigation. The Draft MND does include a rigorous analysis of the potential impacts. As prescribed by Section 15064 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the analysis concluded that although project implementation may result in potentially significant impacts, mitigation measures have been identified that either eliminate the potential impacts or reduce them to a less than significant level. Further, CEQA acknowledges that the existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of project does not alone require the preparation of an EIR; rather, substantial evidence must be provided that supports such a determination. The Draft MND has disclosed the project- related impacts and identified appropriate mitigation measures to support the conclusion of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Response to Comment No. 4 The project description identifies a new trench drain system that is a project component. Although specific detail on the trench drain (e.g., capacity, etc.), is not presented in the project description, the trench drain and its characteristics are illustrated on Exhibit 8. The trench drain must be designed to accommodate the proposed surface flows emanating from the site (which are estimated to be less than those which occur under existing conditions) pursuant not only to City of Newport Beach requirements but also in accordance with California Regional Water Quality Control Board and California Coastal Commission requirements, as well as existing flows from off -site. The flow characteristics are described in Section Vlll.c of the Draft MND (refer top. 32). Neither the direction of flow nor the ultimate discharge location will change from the existing conditions. Stormwater will be discharged into the Rhine Channel. However, as indicated in the environmental analysis in Section Vlll.a, the applicant will be required to implement appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be approved not only by the City but also the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Coastal Commission. Appropriate conditions for the control of runoff and water quality impacts are typically prescribed by the Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of the Coastal Residential Development Permit. Although this comment indicates that a use permit would allow building heights up to 35 feet, the fourth sentence on page 3 of the project description indicates that the applicant " ... is proposing a maximum height of 32 feet" The building height of 32 feet reflects a typographical error. The building height proposed by the applicant is 33 feet and is within the 35 -foot height limitation imposed by the Use Permit. As a result, a Use Permit must be approved by the Planning Commission, if additional criteria are met. Response to Comment No. 5 It is not just the breezeways upon which the determination is made that project implementation will not have significant aesthetic impacts. Specifically, the impact significance criteria employed to determine project- related impacts place emphasis on public viewsheds. Although it is true that the streets are public areas, it is important to note that the City's General Plan has not identified either the streets or the site as a "significant public viewshed or visuaVaesthetic resource." In addition to the "breezeways" that are proposed between the four structures proposed on Lafayette Avenue, which provide visual access through 2 -6 the site, the applicant is also proposing a 6400t public access way between the proposed development and the existing marina bulkhead. Therefore, although visual access through the Lafayette parcels will be "constrained," visual access is facilitated by the breezeways and the public access way that preserved unrestricted views into the marina. Response to Comment No. 6 This comment refers to potential "significant drainage impacts" but does not identify that nature and extent of such impacts. As indicated in the discussion of hydrology impacts (refer to Section VIII, pp. 31 -34), the increase in pervious areas within the subject property will result in a commensurate decrease in the amount of surface runoff. Based on a preliminary hydrology analysis that was prepared by the project engineer, the existing 25 -year storm flow of 7.67 cubic feet per second (cfs) will be reduced to 7.53 cfs, a reduction of approximately 2 percent. Based on the length of the street (250 feet), 30th Street will have a capacity of 22.5 cfs, which is adequate to accommodate the post - development storm flows. Based on that deternination, it is unclear how the landscaping would cause drainage impacts. The proposed drainage system will be designed to accommodate the post - development runoff, pursuant to City, Regional Water Quality Control Board and Coastal Commission requirements. As a result, significant impacts would be less than significant. This comment also suggests that the project landscaping is in conflict with the surrounding "unredeveloped" areas. While it may be true that the landscape plan may create a different character than the surrounding development, this comment expresses the subjective opinion of the writer. The analysis concludes that the proposed project is consistent with the land use parameters established by the City's General Plan and zoning (e.g., floor area ratio, land use, etc.) the design and character of the proposed project are features of the project that are reviewed and evaluated by the Newport Beach Planning Commission, which will determine whether the design is consistent with the development guidelines prescribed in Specific Plan District No. 6 (Cannery Village/McFadden Square). Response to Comment No. 7 As indicated in Section Lc (refer to p. 20), the environmental analysis presented in the Mitigated MND indicates that the design will be " .. . complementary to the existing 'cannery' theme and marina character." That discussion indicates that the materials utilized in the project to create the character will be consistent of those, which emphasize nautical features and marine elements. Although no specific elements are identif ied (with the exception of the corrugated metal and high finish siding for the structural element) in the discussion, the Planning Commission will review the project design, including the design elements, and determine the consistency with the Cannery Village. Design Guidelines. It is important to note that the development standards established for the property would allow the construction of structures that are virtually devoid of articulation and variable setbacks. The proposed project represents a departure from the rigid monolithic structures that would be permitted under the existing development standards. Based on the proposed project features, the potential aesthetics were determined to be less than significant. As indicated in Response to Comment No. 5, the Newport Beach Planning Commission will determine whether the character created for the project is consistent with the Cannery Village/McFadden Square design guidelines. However, it is important to note that this determination is separate from the determining whether project implementation will result in a significant aesthetic impact. Response to Comment No. 8 In order to evaluate the potential for lateral spreading along the east side of the site (i.e., bulkhead sea wall), the structural plans and calculations for the existing bulkhead sea wall will be reviewed and evaluated by a structural engineer and geotechnical engineer. This condition will ensure that any structural modifications to ensure the integrity of the sea wall will be maintained. The Building Department, as a routine procedure prior to the issuance of a building permit, requires that the Bulkhead, deadman, and tiebacks be inspected and repaired as necessary. Potential voids behind the bulkhead created by hydrologic action will be eliminated through the inspection and maintenance process. Response to Comment No. 9 3 404 The mitigation measures presented in the Draft MND address the potential for liquefaction. As indicated in the geotechnical evaluation prepared for the project, several options are available to the property owner as a means of mitigation the potential detrimental effects of liquefaction and soils consolidation. These options provide varying degrees of mitigation (e.g., low, moderate, and high). The measures recommended in the geotechnical investigation and prescribed in the Draft MND assume a "moderate" level of mitigation for damages related to liquefaction potential and to mitigate potential distress due potential settlement. These measures will be designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and other applicable codes and will be reviewed and approved by the Building Official. Response to Comment No. 10 The environmental analysis, indeed, identifies the potential for asbestos and lead -based paint to exist in the building occupying 515 30th Street. This discussion does not conflict with the prior statements retarding the reinspection of the 512 30th Street development by Petra because the conditions at the 515 30 Street location had been identified in a prior investigation. The supplemental Petra site investigation confirmed that no new recognized environmental conditions exist that had not been identified in the previous investigation. Finally, the document includes a mitigation measure that addresses the existing conditions at 515 30'h Street, where the existing structure(s) could contain lead -based paint and asbestos; however, these materials are not considered "recognized environmental conditions" according to the Standards of Practice for Phase I Environmental Site Assessments as adopted by the American Society for Testing and Materials. Nonetheless, the mitigation measure (refer to p. 31) requires that the applicant conduct a survey and, if found to exist, abate the materials in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements prior to demolition. Response to Comment No. 11 Although this comment suggests that the Rhine Channel " ... may contain some concentrated toxic materials," the nature and extent of those materials is not identified. No such information was identified in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). Dredging of the Rhine Channel is not anticipated in order to implement the proposed project. Without such dredging, it is not clear how potentially significant impacts could occur as a result of project by the mere existence of such materials in the channel. Response to Comment No. 12 As indicated in the Phase I ESA and supplemental ESA, no such toxic materials were noted during site investigation. Without any indication that contaminated soils exist on the subject property (based on the Phase I ESA), there is no compelling reason to conduct soils investigations and testing. Response to Comment No. 13 The mitigation measure cited in this comment is a standard measure that is recommended to ensure that a potential environmental condition that may exist below the ground surface can be identified during the grading phase, prior to development of the site. Once evaluated, the appropriate remediation measures can be implemented to effectively address the specific environmental condition. In the event remediation is required, grading activities would be halted or redirected as necessary while specific remedial actions are identified and implemented. Any remediation that may be necessary would be conducted in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. PM Response to Comment No. 14 The trench drain proposed for the proposed project will be designed in accordance with requirements established by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department standards to ensure that the capacity of the stormwater collection system is adequate to accommodate the post - development runoff resulting from project implementation. As described in the Draft MND, the post - development surface runoff flows will be quantitatively less than the runoff that occurs under the "existing conditions" because the amount of pervious surfaces on the property will increase, resulting in a decrease in post - development runoff. Nonetheless, the proposed storm drainage facilities will be designed in accordance with the City's requirements accommodate storm flows resulting from project implementation. Response to Comment No. 15 Revisions and betterments to the current regime for receipt and management of urban flows are proposed to accommodate the proposed project. The new regime includes the implementation of a system of turf block fields on each individual lot with percolation into substrate for on -site runoff management. These fields, covering a portion of each lot, would allow low flows to percolate into the substrate, while higher flows would drain through subdrains into a new drainage system in 30th Street. In addition, roof drains will be directed to this system. The proposed reconstruction of 30'h Street is envisioned to incorporate a swale at the centerline of the street (replacing the existing curb face surface flow drains), potentially with a trench drain to diver water within this street to the new storm drain. This new storm drain would then be directed to a cleaning chamber (Vortechs Storm Water Treatment System or approved equal) prior to discharge into the public storm drain system currently tributary to Newport Bay at the Rhine Channel. Due to the reconstruction of 30th Street, the existing public catch basins are proposed to be reconstructed on the adjacent streets with related pipes as necessary. These new basins will be fitted with 'fossil filters" or approved equal to clean contaminants during initial low flows prior to said flows entering the existing public storm drain systems. Due to an increase in the pervious land area within the area of the application, peak flows are expected to decrease in magnitude. Final construction drawings and calculations shall be based on the Orange County hydrology manual and the requirements of the City of Newport Beach. The likely pipe diameter for the proposed 30 Street drain line will be not les than 8 inches nor greater than 18 inches, depending upon whether a trench drain as envisioned is accepted or not and upon appropriate calculations. All work shall ultimately be subject to the approval of the City Public Works Department. Response to Comment No. 16 The applicant is proposing to reconstruct 301h Street, which will be redesigned to include one 14 -foot (one- way) travel lane and two 8 -foot parking lanes. A three -foot wide "trench" is located in the middle of the street within the 30 -foot right -of -way. The street will be graded to have a two percent grade within the limits of the sidewalks, increasing to 2.5 percent to the trench in the center of the street. The curbs and gutters in the existing cross - section are eliminated in the proposed street cross - section. The vertical distance from the top of the street to the bottom of the "trench" is approximately 0.64 foot. Post - development surface runoff will be directed to 30th Street and into the trench drain. A drainage pipe will convey runoff collected in the trench drain located under the centerline of the street to existing drainage facilities before it is discharged into the Rhine Channel. The storm water treatment system is described in Response to Comment No. 15. Response to Comment No. 17 Groundwater was encountered on the site at depths of 7 to 8 feet below the existing ground surface. The depth to groundwater reflected the water level of the nearby bay and ocean at the time the borings were conducted (December 2000). Although it is anticipated that a minor increase in the amount of absorptionipercolation will occur as a result of the increase in pervious surfaces integrated within the site. plan, the nominal increase in groundwater would not significantly affect existing groundwater levels. Rather, groundwater levels beneath the site are expected to fluctuate as a result of the fluctuation of tides and not from the minor increase in absorption. Therefore, groundwater levels beneath the site are 5 Me expected to range from approximately 5 to 8 feet below the existing ground surface with the greatest fluctuations occurring in the proximity of Newport Bay. In addition, it is important to understand that the minor increase in groundwater "recharge" will not adversely affect a groundwater basin that is the source of potable water, either for the City of Newport Beach or other municipalities. Response to Comment No. 18 With the exception of the building height (for which the applicant is requesting a Use Permit), the proposed structures are consistent with the development standards established in the Specific Plan District No. 6 for Cannery Village. Only the four lots located on Lafayette Avenue are limited to marine - oriented uses pursuant to the RMC land use designation. As required for the proposed Use Permit, the project is subject to review by the Newport Beach Planning Commission, which will make the final determination that the proposed project meets the goals and objectives of the relevant policies and programs adopted by the City for the Cannery Village, including the size, mass, "commonality' and character. Response to Comment No. 19 As indicated above, the land use components of the proposed (i.e., residential, office and marine commercial) are consistent with the land use regulations governing development of the site. However, the proposed residential development does not exceed the floor area ratio established by the development regulations. Similarly, the office and marine commercial development components, although less than the residential components in terms of gross floor area, are similarly consistent with the development standards established for the respective land use districts. Although the residential component is the largest component in area, it encompasses only 22 dwelling units. This figure compares to the 407 dwelling units projected for the Cannery Village area by the Newport Beach General Plan. Further, that number represents only 10 percent of the 225 dwelling units that remain to be developed in Cannery Village. As a result, the residential development as well as the office and marine commercial development are consistent with the long -range projections for the area; hence, no significant impact are anticipated. Response to Comment No. 20 As indicated in the analysis presented in the Draft MND, the combination of project design characteristics contribute the unacceptable conditions that affect the ability of the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) to provide an adequate level of service. Based on the deficiencies noted by the Fire and Building Departments, the proposed project has been redesigned to address the potential impacts to fire suppression. Specifically, occupancy separation walls have been incorporated into the design and the NBFD requires that fire sprinklers also be incorporated into the structures proposed on 30" Street as a condition of approval for added protection to offset the building massing and access constraints. With the incorporation of these design features and condition of approval, potential impacts to fire protection service and facilities have been reduced to a less than significant level. As indicated above (refer to Response to Comment No. 19), the NBFD will be responsible for reviewing the site plan to ensure that all of the concerns that were identified in the Draft MND are adequately addressed to ensure that an adequate level of fire protection can be provided. Any changes to the project resulting from implementing the NBFD recommendations that result in significant impacts that were not previously evaluated in the Draft MND must be reevaluated and a revised environmental document (e.g., MND or EIR) will be prepared and circulated for public review and comment. Response to Comment No. 21 Section XV.f on page 48 of the MND incorrectly referenced 20 on- street metered parking that exist along the project frontage, including 12 spaces on 30" Street and 8 spaces on Lafayette Street. Based on a parking study that was conducted for the proposed project, the actual number of metered parking spaces along the project frontage was determined to be 22, including 12 spaces along 3dh Street and 10 spaces along Lafayette Avenue. Based on comments by the City of Newport Beach, the on -street parking plan was revised to reflect a total of 12 on- street parking spaces, including 4 spaces on the north side of 30'" M Street and 8 spaces along Lafayette Avenue. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a reduction of 10 on -street parking spaces, rather than the loss of 16 spaces implied in the analysis presented in the MND. Response to Comment No. 22 The applicant has submitted supplemental information regarding parking. The parking analysis conducted for the proposed project included a survey of the existing both on -street and off -street (e.g., public parking lot) parking availability in the vicinity of the project and the observed demand for such parking. The results of the survey are reflected below. As indicated in the preceding table, a total of 126 parkin spaces, including 44 on -street spaces and 82 spaces in the Citys public parking lot at Villa Way and 209 are available to serve the development in the vicinity of the project. However, the highest demand observed was only 62 parking spaces, or approximately 50 percent of the total number of parking spaces was utilized at any time during the parking study (conducted in September 2001). Of the 44 on -street parking spaces, only 22 (50 percent) were utilized at any one time during the survey. As can be seen, the egreatest demand for parking in the vicinity of the project site occurred in Villa Way, between 2e and 30 Street, where 75 percent of the parking spaces were utilized. This figure compares to only 30 percent of the on -street parking on Lafayette Avenue, also between 290° Street and 3& Street. In addition, only 49 percent of the parking spaces provided in the City's public lot was observed to be utilized at anytime during the survey. The potential impacts of the proposed on- street parking plan were evaluated based on the parking demand factors derived from field observations. The results of this analysis are presented below. 7 I' Existing Highest Demand Location Parkin S aces I'Observed % Observed 30 Street between Villa Way and Lafayette Ave 12 7 58 Villa Way between 29 Street and 300' Street 12 9 75 Lafayette Avenue between 29th Street and 20 6 30 3e Street Sub -Total 44 22 50 City Parking Lot - Villa Wa /30" Street 82 40 49 Total 126 62 49 SOURCE: Kimle -Horn and Associates, Inc. January 14, 2002 As indicated in the preceding table, a total of 126 parkin spaces, including 44 on -street spaces and 82 spaces in the Citys public parking lot at Villa Way and 209 are available to serve the development in the vicinity of the project. However, the highest demand observed was only 62 parking spaces, or approximately 50 percent of the total number of parking spaces was utilized at any time during the parking study (conducted in September 2001). Of the 44 on -street parking spaces, only 22 (50 percent) were utilized at any one time during the survey. As can be seen, the egreatest demand for parking in the vicinity of the project site occurred in Villa Way, between 2e and 30 Street, where 75 percent of the parking spaces were utilized. This figure compares to only 30 percent of the on -street parking on Lafayette Avenue, also between 290° Street and 3& Street. In addition, only 49 percent of the parking spaces provided in the City's public lot was observed to be utilized at anytime during the survey. The potential impacts of the proposed on- street parking plan were evaluated based on the parking demand factors derived from field observations. The results of this analysis are presented below. 7 I' Scenario Ex stin I g : Parkling Proposed Parkin Location S aces Demand: Percent Spaces. Demand Percent 30 Street between Villa Way and Lafa tte Ave 12 7 58 4' 7 175 Villa W ay between 29 Street and 30th Street 12 9 75 12 9 75 Lafayette Avenue between 29 Street And 30th Street 20 6 30 20 6 30 Total 44 22 50 36 1 22 1 61 'The parking study concluded that 9 parking spaces could be accommodated; however, the Newport Beach Public Works Department determined that only 4 parking spaces could be provided due to vehicle maneuvering conflicts. SOURCE: Kimle -Horn and Associates, Inc. (January 14, 2002 Based on the analysis of parking presented above, the proposed parking will adequately accommodate the existing peak parking demand. Of the 41 spaces provided in the proposed plan, only 22 spaces would be used at any one time, based on field observations, resulting in the availability of 19 parking spates. Therefore, the removal of 10 on- street parking spaces would not significantly impact the availability of on- street parking in the vicinity of the proposed project. As indicated above, proposed parking demand comprises only 61 percent of the total spaces proposed, even with the loss of the 10 parking spaces. Response to Comment No. 23 The Mitigated Negative Declaration inadvertently omitted a reference to retail commercial development that is proposed by the applicant. The proposed project will consist of 17,109 square feet of a combination of retail commercial and office development. The traffic analysis is based on the retail /office combination. The total square footage of existing buildings cited in the draft mitigated negative declaration of 25, 785 sq. ft. was taken from the application. In an attempt to verify this number, staff found several slight discrepancies. The actual square footage of all existing buildings, based upon a combination of building permit records and the application, is 20,130 square feet. The areas used in the traffic study are different due to credits that were denied and the use of lot areas for the boat storage yards. Credits were given to active uses, including the boat storage lots, in accordance with trip generation values identified in the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model ( NBTAM). Trip credits were not given to vacant buildings. Those building are the series of industrial buildings located at 508 30th Street and the former Snug Harbor restaurant/bar located at 517 -519 301' Street. The trip generation rate used for the boat storage lots is 6.97 average daily trips per 1,000 square feet of gross lot area. This is the lowest industrial rate identified by NBTAM. No more accurate trip generation rate is identified by the NBTAM or within the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual. If a 50% lower trip generation rate were used for the boat storage yards, the resulting decrease in trip credits would not cause the project to increase traffic by more than 1 % at the 4 study intersections where ICU analysis was not performed due to the relatively small number of trips the use generates. The increase in traffic due to a hypothetical reduction in trip credits will not change the LOS A predicted at the Newport Boulevard/Via Lido intersection. Response to Comment No. 24 The Draft MND does indicate that the West Newport Service Area (Service Area No. 1) is deficient, based on the City's standard, in parkland. It is important to note that the City is currently working to develop the 14.25 -acre Caltrans West property as a park to serve the residents in Service Area No. 1. The City of Newport Beach park dedication ordinance allows for either dedication of land designated for park use or for the payment of in -lieu fees (as suggested in the environmental analysis on page 45) or a combination of the two. When in -lieu fees are required to be paid to satisfy the parkland dedication requirement, the (7101 fees are placed in a fund earmarked for the provision or rehabilitation of park and recreational facilities ". . . reasonably related to serving the subdivision .. ". It could be expected that the in -lieu fees collected from the proposed seven -unit subdivision of a portion of the project could be used to develop the Caltrans West property or the proposed mini -park located at the terminus of 30"' Street abutting the project site. The applicant proposes to use subdivision fees to provide the funds necessary to improve the mini -park. Response to Comment No. 25 As indicated in this comment, neither the subject property nor the lower bay area supports a boat launch. Although such a facility may be both important and scarce, a boat launch is not proposed as a project component. It is important to understand that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and is not required to provide boat launch facilities. Future development and/or redevelopment within the Marina may consider this use; however, the Land Use Element does not require that a boat launch be included in development within the marina area. The existing boat storage areas will be eliminated as a result of project implementation; however, there is no evidence that the loss of this limited boat storage area is will be significant. Response to Comment No. 26 This comment reflects the collective opinion of the City's Environmental Quality Affairs Committee. It is the opinion of the City's Planning Department staff that the environmental analysis presented in the Draft MND and the supplemental responses to the comments submitted by the EQAC adequately address the environmental issues raised; no new significant environmental effects have been identified. Therefore, revisions to the Draft MND and recirculation of the document are not necessary. ME STATE OF CALIFORNIA— BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY GRAY DAVIS Co DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3337 Michelson Drive Suite 380 Wine, CA. 92612 -8894 November 27, 2001 Mr. James Campbell City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Cannery Lofts .Dear Mr. Campbell, RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT N H CITY �� > Ir'^ Letter B P AM M 718191! Q 1i 1;141112131 41518 File: IGR/CEQA SCH #: 2001111043 Log* 983 SR: PCH Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Initial Study /Negative Declaration for the Cannery Lofts Project. The project consists of construction of 22 commercial /residential buildings. The project location is on 500 -519 30th Street and 2906 -2912 Lafayette Street within the Cannery Village Specific Plan District No. 6 in the City of Newport Beach. The nearest state route to the project site is Pacific Coast Highway. Caltrans District 12 status is a reviewing agency on this project and has no comments at this time. However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans right way an encroachment permit is required. Applicants are required to plan for sufficient permit processing time, which may include engineering studies and environmental documentation. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and other future developments, which could potentially impact our transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724 -2267. Sincerely, Robert F. Joseph, Chief IGR/Community Planning Branch c: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research Ron Heigeson, HQ 1GR/Community Planning Y Y B. California Department of Transportation (November 27, 2001) Response to Comment No. 1 This letter from Caftrans indicating that the agency does not have any comments is acknowledged. As requested, however, should project implementation affect any Caltrans right -of -way, the applicant will be required to process an encroachment permit through Caltrans. 10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION South Coast Area Office 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000 Long Beach, CA 908024302 (562) 590 -5071 C1 to December 4, 2001 R=C Letter C PLANNING IDEPARTMEN7 James Campbell, Senior Planner CITY nF City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard DEC 0 6 2001 Newport Beach, CA 92663 AM PrA 7181911011111211121$14151 SUBJECT: Negative Declaration for Cannery Lofts —SCH # 2001111043 500 -519 30'h Street and 2906 -2912 Lafayette Street, Cannery Village City of Newport Beach, Orange County r �` Dear Mr. Campbell: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (DMND) for the Cannery Lofts Project at 500 -519 30"' Street and 2906 -2912 Lafayette Street in the City of - Newport Beactr. –The project under consideration involves demolition of all existing development and construction of twenty -two (22) new mixed -use structures with professional office or retail uses on the ground floor and residential units above. The comments provided below convey project concerns and questions which Coastal Commission staff believes should be addressed in the final environmental document. Aesthetics Section 30251 of the Coastal Act pertains to scenic and visual resources. it states: The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas... A portion of the proposed Cannery Lofts development involves new construction adjacent to the Rhine Channel. Development at this site must be sited and designed to be visually compatible with the marine character of the surrounding area. It is also necessary to ensure that new development is sited and designed to protect views to and along the Channel. Exhibit 4 illustrates the proposed waterfront structures on Lafayette. Inclusion of a graphic demonstrating existing public views to the water would be helpful for comparative purposes. The environmental document describes the creation of 3' and 6' wide "breezeways" between the - C2 channel- fronting structures. However, Exhibit 4 includes a diagram of a "Trellis Wall" along the frontage of these structures. The trellis appears to obstruct the proposed breezeways. The FMND should include an analysis of how the proposed trellis affects the view of the Rhine Channel. The DMND states that the proposed structures may be constructed at a height of 35' with approval of a Use Permit. The project plans demonstrate that the new structures will be three stories high (Exhibits 5 & 6). With the exception of the Cannery Restaurant and a few other structures, it C3 appears that the pattern of development in the subject area consists of primarily two -story structures. The FMND should include an explanation as to how new three -story development will compare to and affect the character of the surrounding area. In addition, please address the potential "wall effect" of the new structures along Lafayette as it relates to protection of coastal views cited above (Section 30251). i C4 Draft MND Comments — Cannery Lofts Page 2 of 4 Hydrology and Water Quality Section 30230 of the Coastal Act states, in pertinent part: Marine resources shalt be maintained, enhanced, and where feasible, restored. Section 30231 of the Coastal Act states: The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface water flow, encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams. Section 30232 of the Coastal Act states, in pertinent part: Protection against the spillage of crude oil, gas, petroleum products, or hazardous substances shall be provided in relation to any development or transportation of such materials. Newport Harbor (Lower Newport Bay) is a critical coastal water body on the federal Clean Water Act 303(d) list of "impaired" water bodies. The designation as `impaired" means the quality of the water body cannot support beneficial recreation and aquatic uses. The listing is made by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region ( RWQCB), and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and confirmed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Further, the RWQCB has targeted the Newport Bay watershed, which would include Newport Harbor, for increased scrutiny as a higher priority watershed under its Watershed Management Initiative. The DMND includes measures to reduce impervious surfaces, thereby filtering urban run -off and improving water quality. The document states that a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will be required to be developed and implemented. However, no timeline or specific BMPs are included. Please note that a WQMP must be submitted for Commission review as part of the project submittal for a coastal development permit. As discussed on page 34, bulkhead elevation in the interior waterways provides adequate ``15 freeboard for estimated possible storm surges within the bay." The condition of existing bulkheads at the subject site along the Rhine Channel is not addressed. Any reconstruction or modifications to the bulkheads should be addressed in the FMND. Land Use and Planning Section IX (b) concludes that the project will have a less than significant impact on land use and C6 planning as it relates to conflict with applicable plans and policies. However, due to the conflict with the City of Newport Beach LUP discussed below, Commission staff considers the impact potentially significant. C7 The project is located in the Cannery Village /McFadden Square Specific Plan area, which has been designated for a mixture of retail and commercial uses to promote marine and visitor- serving commercial types of development. Within the Specific Plan, second story residential development is permitted within the Retail and Service Commercial (RSC) area in conjunction with ground floor commercial uses that provide direct services to the public. The Land Use Plan (LUP) states on G t page 52 that `professional and business offices not providing goods or services to the public or net O` W C9 Draft MND Comments — Cannery Logs Page 3 of 4 ancillary to any other permitted use are allowed only on the second floor or above." The DMND does not specify that ground floor development within the RSC area along 301' Street will be limited to commercial development directly serving the public. The FMND should clarify that ground floor uses are limited to those that provide direct commercial services to the public. While the lots on 30th Street are designated RSC, the lots along Lafayette are designated Recreation and Marine Commercial (RMC). Under this land use classification, marine - oriented and visitor - serving uses are allowed with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5!1.0. The LUP lists permitted uses on pages 43 and 44. Residential development is not listed as an allowable use. Therefore, the proposed second story residential units are inconsistent with the LUP. The FMND should address this issue as it relates to the Cannery Lofts Project. Recreation Section 30212, states, in pertinent part: (a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where: (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the - protection of fragile coastal resources, (2) adequate access exists nearby The report states that no recreational facilities are included as part of the proposed project. Instead, fees would be paid into an in -lieu park fund. However, the project description describes the creation of a park between the Lafayette structures and the Cannery Restaurant. A walkway along the bulkhead is also described. Please explain in the FMND what public recreational amenities will be provided as part of the proposed project. Signage, dedication and long -term maintenance should also be addressed. The applicant should be aware that inclusion of public access opportunities is encouraged and will be considered during review of a coastal development permit application. Transportation/Traffic The DMND states that construction equipment will utilize the existing circulation system, but not pose unusual safety hazards or conditions. Traffic impacts during the construction phase are not 10 discussed. The FMND should discuss the anticipated duration of the construction phase and potential impacts to the surrounding roaaways. The document should address how adverse effects to coastal access during peak beach use seasons will be minimized during construction. Section XV (f) considers the impact to parking capacity less than significant. The text notes that the project provides parking that exceeds the requirements of the City of Newport Beach. The City :11 parking requirements are outlined in Table T. The City's parking standards differ from the Commission's typically applied parking standards. The applicant should note that the Commission's typically applied parking standards would be applied to the current project when submitted for a coastal development permit. 12 For general retail uses, the Commission's regularly used parking standard is one space for every 225 square feet of gross floor area. There is no differentiation between marine commercial and general retail. The Commission typically imposes a parking standard of 1 space per each 250 square feet of gross office space. For warehouse uses, the Commission has typically imposed a standard of 1 space per 1000 square feet of gross floor area, or one space per employee. If a reduction in the Commission's typically applied parking standards is requested by the applicant, a parking study prepared by an appropriately qualified professional must be submitted. A parking p 0� Draft MND Comments— Cannery Lofts Page 4 of 4 study should fully address the potential parking impacts of the proposed intensification of land uses and recommend mitigation if necessary. Section 30252 of the Coastal Act supports the provision of adequate parking facilities or the provision of substitute means of serving the development with public transportation. On- street C13 parking provides an excellent opportunity for public parking. The document states that on- street parking will be reduced and new, reconfigured off - street parking will be created. However, it is unclear how much existing off - street parking will be lost with construction of the proposed project. Please include a comparison of current off- street parking to that proposed. The project plans include the use of tandem parking. It is unclear how the off - street tandem C1� parking design will be managed to accommodate commercial customers and the general public (signage, time of day restrictions, etc.). The FMND should include a more detailed description of the use of tandem parking in the current proposal. Thank you for the opportunity to provide preliminary comments regarding the Cannery Lofts Project. We look forward to reviewing the final environmental document and coastal development permit application. If you have any questions, feel free to call me at (562) 590 -5071. Sincerely, Anne L. Blemker Coastal Program Analyst cc: State Clearinghouse, File RtLettersICEQAICannery Lofts.doc 02 G- C. California Coastal Commission (December 4, 2001) Response to Comment No. 1 Existing views to the Rhine Channel from Lafayette Avenue are largely unobstructed at the present time as illustrated in the attached photographs. As can be seen, the four lots on Lafayette Avenue are undeveloped, with the exception of the concrete surface extending from the existing bulkhead to Lafayette Avenue. Post - development views from this area will be altered as a result of the construction of the four buildings. Specifically, although three- and six -foot "breezeways" will be provided between the four buildings that will provide for narrow 'visual windows" through the proposed development, views of the Rhine Channel from the area west of Lafayette Avenue will be obstructed by the proposed development. Although the views will be dramatically different than those that currently exist, it is important to note that views of the Rhine Channel will not be eliminated as a result of project implementation. Rather, the proposed project includes a six -foot pedestrian access way between the proposed structures and the channel, ensuring that neither access nor views will be eliminated. The City of Newport Beach will require that the character of the proposed development be in keeping with the character of the Cannery Village area, including the use of nautical themes and materials. To this end, the project is generally consistent with the intent of Section 30251 of the Coastal Act as articulated in this comment. Response to Comment No. 2 The applicant has proposed a change to trellis in order to address view impacts associated with the trellis previously identified that incorporated wood and metal. The material that will comprise the "trellis" as currently proposed is 95 to 98 percent transparent, compared to the 50 percent of the trellis area that would be "open" under the earlier design. It is a very thin gage wire cage material called "greenscreen" and is primarily used as a support to growth vines within the material. Although the trellis will utilize the greenscreen material, the applicant does not proposed to grow any materials in the trellis and would be prohibited from doing so by the Newport Beach Fire Marshal and Building Code as the trellis must be fire resistant. It is proposed as an architectural feature to complement the project's design as well as to facilitate visual access through the breezeways. In addition, the applicant is proposing to include a garage door type that can be rolled up in sections in the parking areas. The doors will be open during the daytime business hours and rolled down (i.e., closed) in the evenings for security. Response to Comment No. 3 Although the structures are proposed to be 33 feet, exceeding the permitted 26 -foot height limitation, the proposed structures have been designed to offset the undesirable effects typically associated with taller buildings. In particular, the building mass will be diminished by variations in the articulation of the structures. In addition, rooflines will lower along 30th Street than along the alleys. As illustrated on Exhibit 7, the lines of sight from the existing sidewalk beyond the roof line would be less obtrusive than the 26 -foot tall structure because of the open terrace. As can be seen, the tallest part of the structure is located well "behind" the 30th Street elevation. As reflected in the lines -of- sight, the taller portion of the structure is located toward the alley and is partially buffered from the greatest amount of pedestrian and vehicular activity on 30th Street. In order to minimize the effect of the incased building height in that location, however, an open terrace is also provided along the rear of each structure to provide additional variation in the building articulation and minimize the perception of "mass." The structures proposed on the Lafayette Street parcels have varied articulation and materials intended to complement the marine character of the area. Four structures are proposed that will be physically separated from one another by three- and six -foot `view windows" that are intended to retain views through the property into the marina. As indicated in Response to Comment No. 1, the proposed project includes a six -foot pedestrian access way between the proposed structures and the channel, ensuring that neither access nor views will be eliminated. The character of the proposed development will be in keeping with the character of the Cannery Village area, including the use of nautical themes and materials. 11 1� F d O L R CL d c d a w d a R w R J w O L d L O t 1 9 # a v ,e ZU p, l 4 :h � d _ R t U m _ t d t 0 0 m v L R IL m d m m R R s 0 L t W W y R W 3 d F AL) 1 =�a' Response to Comment No. 4 The applicant will be required to prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP) prior to issuance of the grading permit. As indicated in the discussion presented in Section Vlll.a (refer to page 32 of the Draft MND), appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be identified and incorporated into the construction and operation of the proposed project to ensure that potential water quality impacts are eliminated or reduced to a less than significant level. As identified in this comment, the WQMP and SW PPP that list the BMPs proposed by the applicant will also be submitted to the Coastal Commission for review and approval at the time the Coastal Development Permit is being reviewed by the Commission. Approval of the SWPPP and WQMP would be required prior to the issuance of the grading permit by the City of Newport Beach. Response to Comment No. 5 The bulkhead along the eastern property boundary of the Lafayette Avenue lots was constructed in 1989- 90 by Shellmaker, Inc. According to the project applicant, the condition of the bulkhead is excellent and no reconstruction is either necessary or proposed to reinforce the structure or provide further protection to the proposed development on the inland side. The Building Department, as a routine procedure prior to the issuance of a building permit, requires that the bulkhead, deadman, and tiebacks be inspected and repaired as necessary. Potential voids behind the bulkhead created by hydrologic action will be eliminated through the inspection and maintenance process. Response to Comment No. 6 This comment seems to indicate that the residential component of the RMC development element is inconsistent with the Land Use Plan (LUP) adopted by the City of Newport Beach. It is important to understand that residential development is permitted, subject to approval of a Use Permit by the City of Newport Beach, if the ground floor use is marine- oriented or visitor- serving commercial. Because the proposed ground floor uses will be marine- oriented, the residential uses above the ground floor uses proposed along Lafayette Avenue are consistent with the LUP. Although the LUP does not include residential uses as a permitted use, the LUP does acknowledge that residential uses " ... shall be permitted on the second level or above where the ground floor is occupied by a permitted use, subject to review and approval of a Use Permit." (LUP, p. 44) Residential development is proposed above the commercial use on the ground floor on each of the four Lafayette Avenue lots. As specified in the LUP, while not recognized as a permitted use in the LUP, the residential dwelling units proposed for Lafayette Avenue will require the approval of a Use Permit by the City of Newport Beach given the fact that the ground floors of each of the proposed residential dwelling units are proposed to be occupied by a "permitted use" (i.e., marine - oriented and visitor - serving use). Response to Comment No. 7 This comment is acknowledged. As indicated, ground floor development within in the RSC land use district existing along 30"' Street will be limited to commercial development directly serving the public. Response to Comment No. 8 Refer to Response to Comment No. 6, which indicates that residential uses are permitted above the ground floor, subject to the approval of a Use Permit. Response to Comment No. 9 As indicated in this comment and in the Draft MND, the proposed project does not include recreational facilities; further, the applicant will be assessed the "in -lieu" fee consistent with the City's park dedication requirements which allow for the dedication of parkland and/or the payment of fees. Although Exhibit 3 (Proposed Site Plan) indicates that a "public park" will be located along the segment of 3dh Street east of Lafayette Avenue extending to the bulkhead, this facility is more accurately described as passive open space that will enhance site development as well as facilitate public access to the six -foot pedestrian 12 access way proposed along the frontage of the proposed building between the existing Rhine Channel bulkhead and the development. At the present time, the extension of 30x' Street does not service as an access way or other meaningful (vehicular) circulation component. It does, however, allow public access to the Rhine Channel. In addition, a pump for the existing storm drain is located near its terminus. Although the "proposed park" indicated on Exhibit 3 would not include active recreation amenities, it would contribute to the overall character of the area. In addition, access to the existing vault that contains the pump system for the storm drain will be maintained in the passive park. The provision of this "amenity" is intended to meet the general goals of providing public access to the coast. Response to Comment No. 10 The applicant has indicated that construction of the waterfront lots along Lafayette Avenue and the lots alonghthe south side of 3e Street will occur first, followed by the construction of the lots on the north side of 30 Street. It is anticipated that 30'h Street between Villa Way on the west and Lafayette Avenue on the east will be closed to vehicular and pedestrian traffic during the construction phase of the development; however, the closure of this short segment of 3e Street will not significantly affect circulation in the area, because it is a one -way street that currently serves the existing 30x' Street development only. With the demolition of the structures and uses that currently occupy the site, any traffic generated by the existing development would be eliminated. The remaining traffic utilizing 30x' Street would be diverted either to 29x' Street or 318' street; in addition, alleys to the north and south of the subject property would be adequate to accommodate to the traffic that would be redirected as a result of construction activities and the closed segment of 30x' Street. Villa Way provides access to the east/west streets that serve development existing in the surrounding area. As a result, the closure of 30x' Street during the duration of site preparation and construction will not significantly affect circulation in the area. Response to Comment No. i i This comment acknowledges that the proposed off - street parking exceeds the current City parking code requirements, which differ from the Coastal Commission standards that are typically applied to development within the coastal zone. Further, the Coastal Commission will determine the appropriate off - street parking requirements prior to the approval of the Coastal Development Permit. To that end, should the Coastal Commission establish a more rigorous requirement than that imposed by the City of Newport Beach, the applicant will comply with the more rigorous requirement and, if necessary, redesign the proposed project to ensure that the applicable parking requirements are met. Response to Comment No. 12 Based on the Coastal Commission's regularly used parking standard of one parking space for each 225 square feet of gross office space, the proposed project would be required to provide a total of 55 parking spaces for the 30th Street development; the proposed project includes 71 parking spaces dedicated to the commercial development for that area. Assuming a retail development scenario for all of the 300' Street development, the Coastal Commission standard of 1 parking space for each 225 square feet would yield a total of 61 parking spaces, or 10 fewer than currently groposed for the same area. In either case, only the 962 square foot commercial use proposed for 514 30 Street would not meet these typical standards and would require one additional off - street parking space. All of the other commercial units would meet or exceed the 1 parking space for each 225 and 250 square feet for retail and office development, respectively. However, applying the same standards to the Lafayette Street development would result in a potential shortfall of off - street parking. Each of the commercial units proposed on Lafayette Street would require 4 parking spaces (based on either 225 or 250 square feet for each parking space), compared to only one space required pursuant to the City of Newport Beach parking standard of 1 parking space for each 1,000 square feet. As a result, each of the four Lafayette Street commercial units would be deficient by three parking spaces based on the typical Coastal Commission parking requirements. As indicated in this comment, the Coastal Commission will determine the specific parking requirements to be applied to the commercial component of the project. Should the applicant wish to propose fewer parking spaces than the number required by the Coastal Commission, a detailed parking study that addresses potential parking impacts (and mitigation, if necessary) will be submitted for review and consideration by the Coastal Commission. 13 M, Response to Comment No. 13 The applicant has submitted supplemental information regarding parking. The parking analysis conducted for the proposed project included a survey of the existing both on- street and off - street (e.g., public parking lot) parking availability in the vicinity of the project and the observed demand for such parking. The results of the survey are reflected below. As indicated in the preceding table, a total of 126 parking spaces, including 44 on- street spaces and 82 spaces in the City's public parking lot at Villa Way and 20 Street, are available to serve the development in the vicinity of the project. However, the highest demand observed was only 62 parking spaces, or approximately 50 percent of the total number of parking spaces was utilized at any time during the parking study (conducted in September 2001). Of the 44 on- street parking spaces, only 22 (50 percent) were utilized at any one time during the survey. As can be seen, the greatest demand for parking in the vicinity of the project site occurred in Villa Way, between 29th and 30t Street, where 75 percent of the parking spaces were utilized. This figure compares to only 30 percent of the on- street parking on Lafayette Avenue, also between 29th Street and 30th Street. In addition, only 49 percent of the parking spaces provided in the Citys public lot was observed to be utilized at any time during the survey. The potential impacts of the proposed on- street parking plan were evaluated based on the parking demand factors derived from field observations. The results of this analysis are presented below. Scenario, Existing Highest Demand Parkin Location Parking Spaces. Observed % Observed Y016 Street between Villa Demand Percent' 30 Street between Villa Way Way and Lafayette Ave 12 7 58 Villa Way between 29 and Lafa ette Ave 12 Street and 30th Street 12 9 75 Lafayette Avenue Villa Way between 29 Street and between 29th Street and 20 6 30 30th Street 12 9 75 Sub -Total 44 22 50 City Parking Lot — Villa Way/30th Street 82 40 49 Total 126 62 49 SOURCE: Kimle -Horn and Associates, Inc. (January 14 2002 As indicated in the preceding table, a total of 126 parking spaces, including 44 on- street spaces and 82 spaces in the City's public parking lot at Villa Way and 20 Street, are available to serve the development in the vicinity of the project. However, the highest demand observed was only 62 parking spaces, or approximately 50 percent of the total number of parking spaces was utilized at any time during the parking study (conducted in September 2001). Of the 44 on- street parking spaces, only 22 (50 percent) were utilized at any one time during the survey. As can be seen, the greatest demand for parking in the vicinity of the project site occurred in Villa Way, between 29th and 30t Street, where 75 percent of the parking spaces were utilized. This figure compares to only 30 percent of the on- street parking on Lafayette Avenue, also between 29th Street and 30th Street. In addition, only 49 percent of the parking spaces provided in the Citys public lot was observed to be utilized at any time during the survey. The potential impacts of the proposed on- street parking plan were evaluated based on the parking demand factors derived from field observations. The results of this analysis are presented below. Scenario, Ex stinit Parldng Proposed Parkin Location Spaces Demand Percent Space Demand Percent' 30 Street between Villa Way and Lafa ette Ave 12 7 58 4' 7 175 Villa Way between 29 Street and 30th Street 12 9 75 12 9 75 Lafayette Avenue between 29 Street And 30th Street 20 6 30 20 6 30 Total 44 22 50 36 22 61 The parking study concluded that 9 parking spaces could be accommodated; however, the Newport Beach Public Works Department determined that only 4 parking spaces could be provided due to vehicle maneuvering conflicts. SOURCE: Kimle -Horn and Associates, Inc. (January 14, 2002 Based on the analysis of parking presented above, the proposed parking will adequately accommodate the existing peak parking demand. Of the 41 spaces provided in the proposed plan, only 22 spaces would 14 v be used at any one time, based on field observations, resulting in the availability of 19 parking spaces. Therefore, the removal of 10 on- street parking spaces would not significantly impact the availability of on- street parking in the vicinity of the proposed project. As indicated above, proposed parking demand comprises only 61 percent of the total spaces proposed, even with the loss of the 10 parking spaces. It is important to note that the applicant has provided 16 more off - street parking spaces than required to alleviate potential parking shortfall. Response to Comment No. 14 As indicated in this comment, tandem parking is proposed to satisfy the off- street parking requirement. This parking is intended to accommodate both tenant and visitor demands; however, it is not intended to accommodate public parking. Public parking would be accommodated in the on- street parking spaces and in the nearby public parking lot. The most interior parking spaces of the tandem parking spaces will serve as tenant parking, with the spaces located immediately behind those spaces as visitor spaces. Any instances of visitors inadvertently parking in tenant parking spaces can be easily rectified through cooperation between the individual occupants. In order to facilitate off- street parking, a parking management plan will be implemented that includes signage to help better manage the tandem parking that would be used by both residents and visitors. As a result, no significant parking impacts associated with the tandem parking are anticipated. 15 M RECEIVED Letter D PLANNING DEPART4IENI CITY n;: niGlkjUnc 7 James Campbell, Senior Planner Nov. 19, 2001 City of Newport Beach AM DECO 2001 PM Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 18 IS Newport Beach, CA 9265878915_ A RE: COMMENTS TO DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIOrr � Cannery Lofts Mixed Use Development (PA2001 -128) ` The following are comments submitted for the public record regarding the Cannery Lofts project, involving the entire 500 block of 30`h Street in the Cannery Village area of Newport Beach. First, we ask for an extension of the public review and comment period. Since the Mitigated Negative Declaration was released for the minimum 30-day review period on Nov. 2, the Veteran's Day and Thanksgiving holidays interrupted the public review. This D1. does not follow the intent of providing the public with a reasonable review and comment period that is not hampered by the observance of significant national holidays and office closures. Second, we believe the Mitigated Negative Declaration is not the appropriate environmental document for this project. Since the project incorporates an entire block, D2 falls within the coastal zone, and constitutes significant permanent changes to the areas' traditional use (not in compliance with the Specific Plan for the Cannery Village), we believe the project more appropriately requires the thorough analysis of an Environmental Impact Report. Ile-Cannery Village area is unique in its ambience and history;. the Cannery Lofts project is a high - density, high- impact project that will not contribute to the development of a true Cannery Village atmosphere. The concentration of building height, massing and identical architecture on this block will create the effect of one large, homogenous D3 structure, eliminating view corridors and destroying the eclectic nature of a Cannery Village. The Specific Plan's aesthetic goals for the Cannery Village are an important part of its local and visitor appeal, and its future economic development. This project opens the door to other mediocre development in the area that does not respond to City planning goals. Other comments, specific to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (NIND) are: • The Cannery Lofts project includes demolition of 25,785 square feet of "marine- oriented and coastal dependent uses" as well as general retail uses and parking D4 facilities. Much of this square footage has been vacant for some time and should not get "credited" against new development with respect to environmental impacts. -I 11 o1 D5 D6 D7 Kil Cannery Lofts November 19, 2001 The proposed project does not include "marine- oriented and coastal dependent uses "; rather, more intensive retail traffic generating uses are proposed. Not only does tivs go against what the Specific Plan for this area was designed to include, but is also contrary to the Coastal Act, by eliminating marine- oriented and coastal dependent uses. The land use analysis in the MND states that the City's Land Use Element designates the project site as Recreational Marine Commercial, which is applied to "...waterfront commercial areas in the City where the City wishes to preserve and encourage uses that facilitate a marine commercial and visitor serving orientation." How is marine commercial being met? How is the City going to ensure that the general commercial development proposed as part of the project is actually "visitor serving"? The proposed site plan shows tandem parking for visitors. This is bound to cause continuous problems, both in terms of access to parking areas, and blocking the ability of a visitor to leave a parking space as a result of being blocked in by another vehicle. It is disingenuous for the MI-TD to state that the City's off - street parking requirements for commercial development are met through the provision of tandem parking. I The description of the project provided in the MND states that "...the project also requires the consideration of a Coastal Residential Development Permit (CDRP) application, which relates to the inclusion of affordable housing due to the construction of 10 or more units within the coastal zone." How are affordable housing requirements related to this project to be addressed? At a recent community meeting, the project developer could not provide a per unit sale price but stated the project would be `very high end ". This does not sound like the Cannery Lofts can claim they are affordable housing. • The aesthetics analysis states, "...public visual access is provided between all of the buildings through three -foot side yards proposed for each lot." This is D9 essentially no public visual access. A single person standing between the buildings will block the view corridor. The affect for the businesses and residents _ near this project will be to have their view corridor eliminated. D10 The proposed architecture (as shown on the exterior elevations included in the MND) is not consistent with the intent of the Cannery Village Specific Plan. This is not a creative plan showing any attempt to create a Cannery ambience. In reality, the sameness of the identical heights, architecture and appearance of the buildings give this project an institutional feel that is completely opposite the goal of the Cannery Village Specific Plan. Page 2 �D M Cannery Lofts November 19, 2001 • The MND advocates for the project by determining the project site to be "underutilized" (p. 20) and by determining that the project will result in D11 "...conformity with the long -range land use plan..." at "a greater intensity of development" (p. 22). Is this saying that that a measure of consistency with the City's goals is increased density? • The air quality analysis states that trip generation "...may also be reduced further because it is anticipated that the owner of the commercial component of each lot will reside in the residential dwelling." If eliminating air quality impacts is met D12 by this assumption, the City needs to require that owners live and reside at the project. Also, at a recent community meeting the project developer stated the commercial portion of each unit could be leased to someone other than the residential tenant. This means additional traffic and trip generation. • The MND states that excavation of the site "...will not result in sigdificant __ - D13 adverse impacts (to) cultural resources ". If the project proposes excavation at all below depths related to the existing development, paleontological monitoring in this fossil - sensitive coastal area should be required. • The discussion of hazards —such as cyanide —in the MND states that "...it is unlikely that contaminants from Newport Plating have migrated beneath the D14 subject site..." and then determines that potential environmental effects are less than significant. How can this conclusion be made without testing? • The discussion of hydrology and water quality should take into consideration the new requirements that are being formulated by the Regional Water Quality D15 Control Boards. This project,concentrates height and density—with minimal side yard setbacks —over an entire block near the coastal zone. How carefully have the potential impacts of urban runoff impacts been studied? • Table 3 in the MND contains an analysis of the project with the City's General D16 Plan states that the residential units are proposed to be located "...over the professional office development of each of the 22 lots." How is professional office development considered "marine- oriented" and "coastal- dependent"? D17 The discussion on fire protection services states that "...adequate access to all portions of the proposed structures is not available..." and, as "...a result, additional features and potential redesign of the project will be required to mitigate the potential impacts on fire protection services and facilities." When will the environmental analysis of a redesign be provided? How can the MND say the impacts will be mitigated, when the impacts of redesigned project are not provided? How can a conclusion about environmental impacts of a future redesign that has not been undertaken? What if the Fire Department's concerns cannot be addressed? Page 3 Cannery Lofts November 19, 2001 Lm The discussion of parkland impacts states that this area of the City has a "...deficit of 21.6 acres of parkland..." but then proposes payment of fees to mitigate for the impacts to parkland. Why isn't actual public parkland provided? If the City keeps collecting fees, and keeps allowing development, there will be a lot of money with no place left in the City undeveloped to put parks. • The traffic analysis drastically underestimates the potential traffic and circulation system impacts by: crediting trips for some properties that have been vacant for some time and thus, have not been generating existing trips; and by crediting trips D19 based on factors for "office" and "industrial" rather than for the existing land use mix, which includes a parking facility (non - traffic generator), vacant buildings (non - traffic generators) marine - related uses (hardly any traffic generation). D20 D21 The traffic analysis_also_underestimates by utilizing a project completion date of 2003. This is totally unrealistic, given that the project cannot feasibly have obtained approval to develop (including from the California Coastal Commission) for at least a year. A traffic analysis should be completed on a more accurate estimation of project completion, which may identify potential impacts and required mitigation. The analysis does not consider other major developments that may occur on Balboa Island, an additional impact to traffic flows for the entire area. We appreciate the opportunity to comment and strongly urge the reviewing bodies to carefully consider the permanent changes and impacts the Cannery Lofts project will have on the Cannery Village area. This project must have more critical review and study, an extended public review and comment period (after the upcoming holiday season for a genuine allowance for the public's review), and a requirement to comply with the City's planning goals within the Specific Plan. Currently, Cannery Lofts does not attempt to comply with City planning goals or the community aesthetic, and would significantly and forever change the Cannery Village with concentrated traffic and environmental impacts. Lucille Kring, on behalf of ORACLE Owners/Residents Against Cannery Lofts Expansion P.O. Box 345 351 N. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 info a oraclenyb.com Page 4 M Me D. Lucille Kring/ORACLE (December 4, 2001) Response to Comment No. 1 As indicated in this comment, the public review and comment period extended from November 5 through December 5, 2001. An extension of the public review period may be granted by the City of Newport Beach if it determines that the public review period did not provide adequate time for reasonable review. This comment will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Response to Comment No. 2 This comment suggests that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is not the appropriate environmental clearance for the proposed project; however, this conclusion is not supported by factual evidence that would support the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report. The City of Newport Beach believes that the analysis presented in the initial study addresses the specific project and adequately evaluates the potential environmental consequences associated with the Cannery Lofts project. Further, where project - related impacts are anticipated, appropriate mitigation measures have been prescribed to eliminate or reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. Response to Comment No. 3 This comment expresses a subjective opinion as to the character of the proposed Cannery Lofts project. The proposed project is generally consistent with the development standards established by the Cannery Village Specific Plan No. 6, both in terms of land use intensity and character. The specific plan, which establishes policies to guide the orderly development and improvement of the area, includes design guidelines and development standards that are consistent with the stated goals, policies and objectives of the Newport Beach General Plan. It is important to note that the design and development guidelines incorporate ample flexibility to achieve the specific goals of improving the impact of the specific plan area and to reinforce the character of the Cannery Village area. To that end, the proposed project incorporates the design elements (use of nautical and marine elements in architectural expressions, similar building materials, variation in building articulation, etc.) desired for the area as recommended in the specific plan to enhance "... continuity throughout the area while preserving the variety and individuality of uses that give the area its charm." Response to Comment No. 4 Credits were given to active uses, including the boat storage lots, in accordance with trip generation values identified in the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model ( NBTAM). Trip credits were not given to vacant buildings. Those building are the series of industrial buildings located at 508 30'h Street and the former Snug Harbor restaurant/bar located at 517 -519 30th Street. The trip generation rate used for the boat storage lots is 6.97 average daily trips per 1,000 square feet of gross lot area. This is the lowest industrial rate identified by NBTAM. No more accurate trip generation rate is identified by the NBTAM or within the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual. If a 50% lower trip generation rate were used for the boat storage yards, the resulting decrease in trip credits would not cause the project to increase traffic by more than 1 % at the 4 study intersections where ICU analysis was not performed due to the relatively small number of trips the use generates. The increase in traffic due to a hypothetical reduction in trip credits will not change the LOS A predicted at the Newport Boulevard/Via Lido intersection. 16 1� Response to Comment No. 5 Only the four lots located on Lafayette Avenue are designated Recreational Marine Commercial. The comment indicates that development proposed for these lots must include marine- oriented land uses. However, marine- oriented uses are "incentive uses" and are not required. To achieve that end, the four lots proposed on Lafayette Street are intended to accommodate marine - oriented commercial uses. This use limitation is ensured due to the limited parking provided on these lots. Only marine commercial uses that require no more parking than one (1) space for each 1,000 square feet are permitted without a parking waiver, which would require future consideration of a use permit by the Newport Beach Planning Commission. The property will be redeveloped with commercial uses that result in the intensification of the use of the property-, however, pursuant to the existing land use and parking requirements, the uses will be limited to marine- oriented commercial development. Response to Comment No. 6 As indicated in Response to Comment No. 5, use of the four lots on Lafayette Avenue will be limited to marine- oriented commercial uses. Although specific uses have not been identified for the four lots, development with marine - oriented uses will be ensured through the parking requirements and at the time the business license is granted. Response to Comment No. 7 Off- street parking will be provided pursuant to the City s parking ordinance that allows the use of tandem parking. Although tandem parking is proposed, no significant parking problems are foreseen. All of the off - street parking spaces would be appropriately and clearly designated as either "employee" or `visitor." The employee spaces for the commercial component would be located in front of the visitor spaces to minimize conflicts. However, in the event a visitor parks in a space designated for and employee and is "blocked" from leaving, the situation would be resolved simply by notifying the individual blocking the driveway that he must move the vehicle so that the blocked visitor can exit the site. Although this situation may be a nuisance or inconvenience, it is not a considered to be a significant impact. As previously indicated, tandem parking is permitted by the City's parking ordinance. In order to facilitate off - street parking, a parking management plan will be implemented that includes signage to help better manage the tandem parking that would be used by both residents and visitors. Response to Comment No. B Although the proposed project does not now include affordable housing, the City of Newport Beach is currently undertaking a study to determine the feasibility of requiring two of the dwelling units proposed in the project to be affordable to "moderate income" households. If it is determined that providing affordable housing on -site is infeasible, the applicant will be required to pay an "in -lieu" fee that will satisfy the affordable housing requirements. Response to Comment No. 9 Visual access to the marina and beyond is provided not only through the 3- and 6 -foot side yards between the Lafayette Avenue lots but also along the public access way along the Rhine Channel as part of the proposed project. At the present time, the area along the Rhine Channel bulkhead is private property and would not be accessible to the general public. However, development of the project proposes a 6 -foot public access easement between the bulkhead and the proposed development that would allow for pedestrian access to the waterfront area. Therefore, project implementation would facilitate visual access into the marina from Lafayette Avenue in two ways: (2) through "breeze ways" located between the four buildings and (2) along the public access easement proposed along the front of the lots. 17 ON , Response to Comment No. 10 This comment represents a subjective opinion. Although the architectural theme of the proposed mixed use development reflects a unified character intemally (i.e., far the 22 individual lots), the design integrates nautical elements and materials that complement the desired character of the marina area and as well as that stipulated in the Cannery Village Specific Plan. This character is further enhanced with the integration of building setbacks, fenestration, articulation, and rooflines that also provide for variety when compared to the existing development within the Cannery Village as a whole. It is important to note that the Planning Commission will have discretion in determining the consistency of the architecture with the design guidelines established in the Cannery Village Specific Plan. Response to Comment No. 1 i The MND does not advocate the proposed project. Rather, the analysis presented in the environmental document accurately describes the site as "underutilized" based on the fact that the existing development is substantially below the maximum floor area ratio permitted by the General Plan. This description of the existing development and other statements related to the conformity of the proposed project with the long range plans for the area are intended to accurately compare the existing and proposed development with the long -range plans adopted for the area and not to suggest that the existing development is "inconsistent" with or does not achieve the long -range goals and objectives of the adopted long -range plans. The discussion and analysis of the intensity of development is included in the analysis merely to convey the fact that the proposed project is consistent with those plans and not to suggest, as indicated in this comment, that increased development intensity is the only measure of consistency. Response to Comment No. 12 The analysis in Section III (Air Quality) correctly concludes that.potential air quality impacts may be reduced if the owners of the commercial components also reside in the residential dwelling units. Obviously, it is neither possible nor practical to require the owners of the commercial development to also reside in the residential dwelling units and, further, such a condition would not be placed either on the proposed project or other projects in the City of Newport Beach. However, it is important to note that the analysis concluded that potential air quality impacts would be less than significant because the number of dwelling units and commercial development do not reach the minimum thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, assuming a "worst case" scenario (i.e., owners of the commercial and residential components are not the same). As indicated in the environmental analysis, that determination is based on the information presented in Table 6 -2 ( "Screening Table for Operation - Daily Thresholds of Potential Significance for Air Quality"). Response to Comment No. 13 As indicated in the environmental analysis, the site has been disturbed extensively by grading associated with prior development. Although there is no evidence that significant cultural or paleontological resources exist on the site and, further, it is unlikely that such resources would be encountered, the City may include a condition that a County- certified archaeologist1paleontologist is required to be present during grading to ensure that if any cultural or scientific resources are encountered during grading, work can be temporarily halted or redirected until the artifacts can be evaluated and properly addressed. Response to Comment No. 14 As indicated on page 30 of the Draft MND, the cyanide was associated with the Newport Plating facility located at 2810 Villa Way, approximately 350 feet south of the subject property. The determination that the potential impacts associated with the Newport Plating facility, including potential cyanide contamination, are not significant is based on information presented in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Addendum to that document prepared by PETRA. According to those documents, OCHCA officials have concluded that neither soil nor groundwater contamination has occurred to the subject property; hence, potential impacts are less than significant. Response to Comment No. 15 18 1 ize The analysis presented in the environmental analysis (refer to Section Vlll.d on page 32) concludes that there will be a net increase in pervious surfaces and, therefore, a potential net decrease in surface runoff. Approximately 18,000 square feet of turf block with percolation base and substrate will reduce the amount of surface runoff, when compared to the less than 350 square feet of pervious surfaces that currently comprise the site. It is not anticipated that the types or concentrations of pollutants would increase as a result of project implementation. The applicant has proposed a fossil filter system to "treat" the runoff before it is discharged into the Rhine Channel. In addition to the storm drainage and treatment proposed for the project, the applicant must comply with the most current requirements imposed by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Coastal Commission to ensure that any surface water discharges meet the minimum requirements established by those agencies. Response to Comment No. 16 As indicated in Response to Comment No. 5, "marine- oriented" uses are incentive uses that apply to the four lots located on Lafayette Avenue property, which are designated Recreational Marine Commercial. It is important to note that marine oriented uses are not required uses. The remaining lots, encompassing 18 dwelling units and associated commercial are designated "Retail and Service Commercial and Industrial" by the Newport Beach Land Use Element (and zoned Retail and Service Commercial), which does not require that any portion of the development be "marine- oriented." Rather, the commercial uses proposed for the 30th Street components may accommodate a variety of retail and service commercial uses, including offices. To that end, the proposed project is consistent with the land use designation and zoning applied to the properties. The marine - oriented uses proposed for the four lots along Lafayette Avenue will be ensured through the parking ordinance and business license approval process. Response to Comment No. 17 The environmental analysis indicated that the proposed design currently does not meet some City and Uniform Fire Code requirements and that specific elements of the project must be redesigned to address the deficiencies. Those deficiencies have been corrected through the redesign of the project (i.e., incorporation of occupancy separation walls. In addition, the Newport Beach Fire Department is requiring sprinklers for the 18 units proposed on 30' Street due to the increased height and constrained access. The incorporation of these design features and the requirement for sprinklers will reduce the potential impacts to fire suppression to a less than significant level. Response to Comment No. 18 The City of Newport Beach park dedication ordinance allows for either dedication of land designated for park use or for the payment of in -lieu fees (as suggested in the environmental analysis on page 45) or a combination of the two. When in -lieu fees are required to be paid to satisfy the parkland dedication requirement, the fees are placed in a fund earmarked for the provision or rehabilitation of park and recreational facilities "... reasonably related to serving the subdivision .. ". It is important to note that the City is currently working to develop the 14.25 -acre Caltrans West property as a park to serve the residents in Service Area 1 (West Newport). It could be expected that the in -lieu fees collected from the proposed project would be used to develop this facility or the proposed mini -park identified at the terminus of 30th Street, abutting the project site. Neither the Land Use Element nor the Recreation and Open Space Element of the City's General Plan designates any area within the project site for park use. Response to Comment No. 19 Refer to Response to Comment No. 4 for an explanation of how the trip credits was determined by the City. 19 t4 Response to Comment No. 20 The Cannery Lofts application was deemed complete on 1014/2001. At that time, no applications for any large projects located on the Balboa Island were on file or were reasonably foreseeable. The only application on file that effects traffic in the area is Phase II of the Hoag Hospital expansion. Another application for a project in the vicinity of Cannery Lofts is the South Coast Shipyard mixed -use development. The application for this project was not on file and was not considered reasonable foreseeable by city staff when the Cannery Lofts application was deemed complete. The traffic generated by both of these projects was not included in the Cannery Lofts Traffic Study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance as it was not an approved or committed project. The results of the Hoag Phase II traffic study indicated that the second phase of the hospital expansion would not cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection. However, three intersections would operate at unsatisfactory levels of services attributable to further build out of the General Plan and regional traffic growth over the 5 years expected to implement the Hoag project. Project traffic is not considered cumulatively considerable as it is consistent with anticipated build out of the General Plan. The project is required to pay a fair share traffic impact fee in accordance with Chapter 15.38 of the Municipal Code. This fair share traffic contribution is designed to raise revenues to allow the City to construct circulation system improvements that increase roadway and intersection capacity thereby mitigating future development related traffic congestion. Response to Comment No. 21 As indicated in the responses to Comments 1, 2 and 3, the City of Newport Beach has complied with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines as well as the Citys adopted CEQA requirements to ensure that the proposed project has been adequately evaluated. The City believes that proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration thoroughly evaluated the potential impacts of the proposed project, including consistency with existing plans and programs. In addition, the 30 -day public comment period provided adequate opportunity for public review and comment on that analysis. 20 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK gm Exhibit No. 11 Comment letter from individuals appointed to the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee dated February 16, 2002 1i This Page Intentionally Left Blank WO MEMORANDUM To: Planning Commission; City of Newport Beach From: Robert C. Hawkins, Barry Eaton, Tom Hyans, Elaine Linhoff, and Cris Trapp Subject: Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "DMND ") for the Cannery Village Project (the "Project ") Date: February 16, 2002 Thank you for the opportunity to provide further comments (the "Further Comments ") on the DMND for the Project. Although these comments are from individuals, these comments add to EQAC's earlier comments on the DMND and focus on the Responses to Comments including Responses to EQAC's comments. At the outset, as with EQAC's comments, we wish to thank you and members of the City's Planning Staff, including Mr. James Campbell, for their invaluable assistance in understanding the Project and in developing these Further Comments on the District's Responses. Of course, these Further Comments are those of the above individuals and do not reflect the views of City staff or EQAC, but simply the above individuals. We offer the following Further Comments: First, the Responses to Comments address EQAC's concerns over drainage and fire impacts by referring to the City's Departments of Fire and Public Works. The Planning Commission should receive written confirmation from these respective departments that the fire access and protection, and proposed trench drain issues have been resolved to the standards for each of these departments. Second, as to the aesthetic and land use impacts of the "wall effect" along the Rhine Channel as well as the Project's division of the surrounding commercial community, the Responses are not fully responsive. EQAC's initial comments as well as those of the Coastal Commission raise two important aesthetic and land use issues: the Project with four bay front lots will create a wall between the community and the bay; and the entire Project with its three story and largely residential structures will divide the surrounding Commercial community. These impacts remain unaddressed and unmitigated. X19 Correlatively, EQAC's Comments questioned the Project's consistency with the Harbor Element of the General Plan. The Responses did not address the issue. Thus, the inconsistency of the Project with the Harbor Element remains. Third, and importantly, the brand new Parking Study which is incorporated into the Responses to both the EQAC and Coastal Commission comments is very misleading. This study purports to show that the Project will not have an impact on parking and that a parking surplus remains in the neighborhood after the Project. However, the Study is misleading and fails for five separate reasons: (1) During the Study, the Cannery restaurant was closed; now and when the Project will be built and operate, the Cannery Restaurant is open and likely will be open; (2) The Study was conducted in the off peak season; it should be done in the summer, when parking in that area is at a premium; (3) The Study did not take into account the Project's differing uses and how those differing uses may have different parking demands and impacts; (4) The Study concludes that surplus parking will remain. Most of the purported surplus was provided by the City lot, which we understand intended to provide parking for existing non- conforming buildings without their own parking, not for new projects such as this one; and (5) The Responses state that the inner space of the tandem spaces is allocated for employee parking. However, the DMND parking plan shows 17 such spaces designated for visitors. Visitors will not use inner spaces. Thus, such an allocation will likely result in exacerbating the lack of on- street spaces in the project. Exhibit No. 12 Letter and flyer /petition from ORACLE dated February 21, 2002 UZ This Page Intentionally Left Blank m Larry Tucker, Chairman Feb. 21, 2002 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 RE: CANNERY LOFTS The Cannery Lofts project should not go forward in its current form. The project simply proposes too much height, massing and uniformity, and it is not in keeping with the goals of the Cannery Village Specific Plan. Attempts to meet with the developer by other community members to suggest architectural and other changes have been unsuccessful. Also, the public has not had the opportunity to review and comment on recent revisions or changes to the project plans as a result of the last Planning Commission meeting, during which the Commission noted multiple outstanding issues. There are still significant public concerns regarding the project: • Coastal access —The California Coastal Commission (CCC) expressed considerable concerns about public access — visual and physical —and parking related to the proposed project. The CCC response letter states they will review the project and may suggest changes. The developer and the staff should meet with the CCC now, address the needed changes to resolve these concerns up front, and provide the revised project plans to the public for review. • Elimination of view corridors —The project effectively blocks coastal views for an entire block. No side yard setback between all 22 identical units on the entire block means a single person blocks "view corridors ". • Parking —Tandem parking is known to be problematic. The fact that the commercial portion of the unit can be leased out to others means more vehicles, in addition to the business traffic parking. Reliance on nearby public parking places a burden on an already busy residential and business community. • Height—The proposed height is not compatible with the neighborhood. Two - story units are a more appropriate scale for Cannery Village and the maximum height that should be considered. Two -story units with some one -story elements would create an eclectic architectural impression that would encourage the aesthetic and marine environment desired in Cannery Village. • Architectural compatibility—There have been numerous comments made to the developer (many by other developers and architects) requesting a more eclectic architectural theme, in keeping with the Cannery Village Specific Plan goals and the coastal marine history of the Village. Current architecture does not meet the community's stated goals for Cannery Village. Urban runoff and other water quality impacts —Newly adopted Regional Water Quality Board rules have stringent requirements for runoff, especially in coastal/beach areas. The new "first flush" requirements may require redesign of impacted storm drains. The developer needs to demonstrate an ability to achieve the rules before the project should be allowed to go forward. Failure to meet and enforce these new rules can have implications for the City of Newport Beach. • Affordable housing —It is unclear how the required Coast Residential Development Permit affordable housing requirements are being met. • Public safety —The City of Newport Beach Fire Department remains concerned about the ability of the site to be adequately and safely served. Changes made to the project to address this necessitate a re- circulation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Recommendations from the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC)—The concerns and analysis by the EQAC -- established by the City Council —were ignored or discounted at the last Planning Commission meeting. This qualified group of community members volunteers their time to review projects before the City to provide credible public input and ensure the community's voice is heard. The issues raised by the EQAC should be addressed, not ignored. Considering all these significant concems —and others commented on by Planning Commissioners at the last meeting —we still don't know what the final project will look likel We do know that it represents a significant increase in massing and density from other proposed projects and the existing neighborhood, and that fact alone makes it incompatible with the surrounding area. It would not be responsible for this project to go forward when the public still has not seen how it may have changed to incorporate concerns from previous meetings. If significant changes have been or will be made to the project to address concerns, then the Mitigated Negative Declaration should be re- circulated for public review and comment. Since the project incorporates the entire block, falls within the coastal zone, and constitutes significant permanent changes to the area's traditional use (not in compliance with the Cannery Village Specific Plan), we believe the project requires additional analysis and review. The concerns of the community and the EQAC should be noted and notignored. The Cannery Village area is unique in its ambience and history; the Cannery Lofts project is a high - density, high- impact development that will not contribute to the development of a true Cannery Village atmosphere. The concentration of building height, massing and identical architecture on this block will create the effect of one large, homogenous structure, eliminating view corridors and destroying the eclectic nature of Cannery Village. Listen to the Cannery Village residents and business owners, listen to EQAC, listen to the comments made at the recent General Plan Update Visioning Festival, and follow the road map provided in the Cannery Village Specific Plan. The Visioning Festival Summary (January 2002) confirms residents are concerned with overbuilding and the erosion of the historic character of areas like Cannery Village, and their comments repeat many of the concerns stated above. Please do not force a project that is not a good fit for Cannery Village. Lucille Kring Owners/Residents Against Cannery Lofts Expansion P.O. Box 345 351 N. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Cc: Planning Commission City Council James Campbell, Newport Beach Planning Department Enc. Names of those signing petition against Cannery Lofts proposed project. jdv The residents and local business people listed here oppose the current plans for the Cannery Lofts project. Some of the concerns include: • The density and height of the development will change the character, aesthetics and scale of Cannery Village forever. • The proposed project does not meet the original intent of the Specific Plan, which calls for an eclectic atmosphere that reflects the area's history and marine environment. • As proposed, the project will create significant traffic and parking impacts (e.g. tandem parking, possibility for separate tenant of commercial portion of units). • As proposed, the overwhelming residential, institutional look of the project will discourage existing and future commercial/retail business in Cannery Village. • As proposed, the height and density will block viewscapes for an entire block. WE OPPOSE THE CURRENT PLANS FOR CANNERY LOFTS IN CANNERY VILLAGE.!* Christine Eisenberg Geoffrey Fults Dan & Patricia Hilton Steve Dobbie Roy Jackson Mary Bacon Nicole Chamberlain Jonny Gilchrist J. Cerbasi Marie Little John Newcomb Kathy Dardos Nicholas Holmes Marilyn Poliquin Pat Chamberlain Joshua Arimond Dave Tax Clola Jacobs Kevin Tiernan Edward E. Wall Gardenia Carannelli Andrea Chandler Shelly Dale Jennifer Baker Diane Maragliano Lorna M. Barry Steve Murow Bob Lindsey Del Chase Mark Umatum Tom Keefer Amy McLomb Jackson Price Barbara Price Aham Westsawn Jennifer Praska Deborah C. Purinton Robert Brocke Neil J. Powers Judy Rosener Robert Tiernan Theodore R. Barry Sarah Maurer Joe Maurer Christel Olsson Dana Wilkes Suzanne Ginn Emily Wilson Mack Paul Pagg Margie Talley Suzanne F7lamore Brandon Avila Mary H. Williamson Jennifer Woodward T. Winston Vickers Andrew Wunderlich Denise Johnson Caroline K. Patrick Marta Alerudis Roy Geinson Susan E. Winston Joseph Rosener All the names above are from people representing themselves as residents and/or business people within the Newport Beach/Cannery Village area. *Signed petitions, with addresses, support aU names listed '*(? MAR -11 -49 04:05PM FROM- NEWPORT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 714- 729 -4417 '02 I'1'1R 12 [2:42 NEWPORT HARBOR AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE T %,EAC: March 11, 2002 The Honorable Tod Ridgeway Mayor of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 VIA FACSIMILE Dear Mayor Ridgeway, 7 -454 P.02/02 F -553 "RECEIV D AFTER AGENDA �l��n�f 1 am writing to inform you that the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors is in unanimous support of the newly proposed "Cannery Lofts" project. The Chamber of Commerce feels the Cannery Lofts were designed to be compatible with the local building patterns and would be an excellent addition to the Newport Beach community. The theme of the responsible neighborhood development will be a modem industrial loft with an emphasis on technology and design as well as to promote a community spirit within Cannery Village. The Chamber of Commerce believes this project could give a much - needed boost to the depressed Cannery Village area. It is our hope that the community will embrace this responsible neighborhood development for the good of the City as a whole. As The business and community leader, we at the Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce with our over 1,000 members representing over 20,000 employees, urge the Newport Beach City Council to support the proposed Cannery Lofts project when it comes before at tomorrow night's City Council meeting. Sincerely, Richard R_ Luehrs President and CEO cc: The Honorable Newport Beach City Council Members Gary Adams, Steve Bromberg, Norma Glover, John Heffernan, Dennis O'Neil, and Gary Proctor 1470 JAMBOREE ROAD. NEWPORT BEAcn, CALIFORNIA 92660 • PH: (949) 729-4400 ' FAX: (949) 7294417 • WEB: WWWMEWPORTMACK.COM L7wswt0- wMSi J�d' _�,',j^, �y (/�fanOiow The Honorable Todd Ridgeway -07 City Council City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 MAR –7 P 3 :03 March 6, 2002 RE: CANNERY LOFTS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (PA2001 -128) MARCH 12, 2002 Public Hearing & Mitigated Negative Declaration The Cannery Lofts project should not go forward in its current form. While we are supportive of improvements in the Cannery Village, this project simply proposes too much height, massing and uniformity. There are unresolved issues, concerns about the architecture, confusion about how specific operations of the mixed uses will be managed, and significant impacts to the existing businesses and residents of the area. As proposed, Cannery Lofts is not in keeping with the goals of the Cannery Village Specific Plan or the community's expressed desires at the Vision Festival for the General Plan Update. There have been numerous recent revisions or changes to the project plans as a result of the final Planning Commission meeting, during which the Commission noted multiple outstanding issues and placed approximately 50 conditions on the proposed project. Although the Planning Commissioners are somewhat constrained by their defined role, Commissioners did express concern regarding resolution of the outstanding issues. Specifically, one Commissioner noted the number of conditions and expressed he still did not know what the project would ultimately look like. Another Commissioner noted he had never seen a project with so many outstanding issues sixty days after the fast public hearing. Specific issues with which we are concerned include: Coastal access —The California Coastal Commission (CCC) expressed considerable concerns about public access — visual and physical —and parking related to the proposed project. The CCC response letter states they will review the project and may suggest changes. Again, the community is uncertain about the project's final form. Elimination of view corridors —The project effectively blocks coastal views for an entire block. No side yard setback between all 22 identical units on the entire block means a single person blocks "view corridors ". While this issue was brushed aside at the Planning Commission level as "something that would happen anyway ", the City has the opportunity to direct modification of the project through decreased massing or improved architecture. Ultimately, that is why projects undergo public and elected official review: to achieve something that will be a lasting asset to the community. Parking— Tandem parking is known to be problematic, and this was acknowledged by at least one Planning Commissioner. The fact that the commercial portion of the unit can be leased out to others means more vehicles, in addition to the business traffic parking. Reliance on nearby public parking places a burden on an already busy residential and business community. Cannery Village can become a unique business and retail destination. However, visitors may be frustrated, leave and/or never come back if parking is confusing or inadequate. Height —The proposed height is not compatible with the scale of the neighborhood and will create a "canyon" effect. Two -story units are a more appropriate scale for Cannery Village and the maximum height that should be considered. Two -story units with some one -story elements would create an eclectic architectural impression that would encourage the aesthetic and marine environment desired in Cannery Village. Architectural compatibility—There have been numerous comments made to the developer (many by other developers and architects) requesting a more eclectic architectural theme, in keeping with the Cannery Village Specific Plan goals and the coastal marine history of the Village. Current architecture does not meet the community's stated goals for Cannery Village. Why approve something mediocre, especially when it involves an entire block? • Urban runoff and other water quality impacts —Newly adopted Regional Water Quality Board rules have stringent requirements for runoff, especially in coastal/beach areas. Failure to meet and enforce these new rules can have implications for the City of Newport Beach. Affordable housing —It is unclear how the required Coast Residential Development Permit affordable housing requirements are being met. We understand the developer will be required to make a monetary contribution for affordable housing, and that the Cannery Lofts will ask for high end purchase prices. Where will the affordable housing needs be met? Recommendations from the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee (EQAC�—The concerns and analysis by the EQAC —established by the City Council—did not appear to be addressed by the Planning Commission. This qualified group of community members volunteers their time to review projects before the City to provide credible public input and ensure the community's voice is heard. The issues raised by the EQAC should be addressed, not ignored. It would not be responsible for this project to go forward until the public has the opportunity to see what it will really look like. The final project — incorporating revisions from the Planning Commission hearings and conditions — should come in a more complete form before the City Council. This also will allow the public an opportunity to comment on the "real" project. If "significant" changes have been or will be made to the project to address concerns voiced at the Planning Commission or before the City Council, then the Mitigated Negative Declaration should be re- circulated for public review and comment. Please consider the Cannery Village residents and business owners (and what they expected from the roadmap provided in the Cannery Village Specific Plan). We have included a handout with the names of local residents and businesses that are concerned about this project. Please review the concerns outlined by EQAC, and remember the comments made at the recent General Plan Update Visioning Festival. The Visioning Festival Summary (January 2002) confirms residents are concerned with overbuilding and the erosion of the historic character of areas like Cannery Village, and their comments repeat many of the concerns stated above. Your leadership is needed to make Cannery Lofts a better fit for Cannery Village. Lucille Kring Owners/Residents Against Cannery Lofts Expansion P.O. Box 345 351 N. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Cc: City Council James Campbell, Newport Beach Planning Department Enc. Names of those signing petition against Cannery Lofts proposed project. The residents, voters and local business people listed here oppose the current plans for the Cannery Lofts project. Some of the concerns include: • The density and height of the development will change the character, aesthetics and scale of Cannery Village forever. • The proposed project does not meet the original intent of the Specific Plan, which calls for an eclectic atmosphere that reflects the area's history and marine environment. • As proposed, the project will create significant traffic and parking impacts (e.g. tandem parking, possibility for separate tenant of commercial portion of units). • As proposed, the overwhelming residential, institutional look of the project will discourage existing and future commercial /retail business in Cannery Village. • As proposed, the height and density will block viewscapes for an entire block. WE OPPOSE THE CURRENT PLANS FOR CANNERY LOFTS IN CANNERY VILLAGE!* Christine Eisenberg Geoffrey Fults Dan & Patricia Hilton Steve Dobbie Roy Jackson Mary Bacon Nicole Chamberlain Jonny Gilchrist J. Cerbasi Marie Little John Newcomb Kathy Dardos Nicholas Holmes Marilyn Poliquin Pat Chamberlain Joshua Arimond Dave Tax Clola Jacobs Kevin Tiernan Robert Tiernan Edward E. Wall Theodore R. Barry Gardenia Carannelli Sarah Maurer Andrea Chandler Joe Maurer Shelly Dale Christel Olsson Jennifer Baker Dana Wilkes Diane Maragliano Suzanne Ginn Lorna M. Barry Emily Wilson Mack Steve Murow Paul Pagg Bob Lindsey Margie Talley Del Chase Suzanne Filamore Mark Umatum Brandon Avila Tom Keefer Mary H. Williamson Amy McLomb Jennifer Woodward Judy Rosener Jackson Price Barbara Price Andrew Wunderlich Aham Westsawn Denise Johnson Jennifer Praska Caroline K. Patrick Deborah C. Purinton Marta Alerudis Robert Brocke Roy Geinson Neil J. Powers Susan E. Winston Joseph Rosener T.Winston Vickers, DVM All the names above are from people representing themselves as residents and/or business people within the Newport Beach/Cannery Village area. *Sfened petitions, with addresses, support all names listed. CANNERY LOFTS Quick Facts March, 2002 Developer: Cannery Lofts, L.P., Kevin Weeda, 429 W. 30`h Street, Newport Beach, CA 92663, (949) 673 -6025, Facsimile, (949) 721 -9652, e -mail, info@cannerylofts.com .� City Staff Contact: Jim Campbell, Senior Planner, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, CA 92663, (949) 644 -3210, e -mail, icamt)bell@city.newport- beach.ca.us City Environmental Impact Consultant: Keeton Kreitzer, Keeton Kreitzer Consulting, 17782 E. 17t' Street, Suite 106, Tustin, CA 92780, (714) 665 -8509, Facsimile, (714) 665 -8539, e-mail, kreitzergearthlink.net Architect: David Hetch, TannerHecht Architecture, 444 Spear Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 979 -1500, Facsimile, (415) 979 -1530, e -mail, info@tannerhect.com Entitlement Representative: Philip Bettencourt, Bettencourt & Associates, 110 Newport Center Dr., Ste. 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660, (949) 720- 0970, Facsimile, (949) 721 -9921, e-mail, PBCourt@pacbell.net, website, www.bettencougplans.com .as Location of Future Mixed Use Buildings: 18 buildings are on the 500 Block of West 30`h Street between Villa Way and Lafayette. Four waterfront buildings are located from 2900 to 2912 Lafayette along the Rhine Channel. All buildings are within the Cannery Village Specific Plan in Newport Beach. Total Number of Mixed Use Buildings: 22 General Plan Designation: Recreational Marine Commercial (RMC) and Retail and Service Commercial (RSC) Minimum Lot Size: 30'x 92', Approximately 2,760 sq. ft. Total Acreage: Approximately 1.44 acres �. Public Approvals: Newport Beach Planning Commission, Thursday, February 21, 2002. I i d I cii V) N cu U^\ ao J W >. M J 06 U U0 M C. 0 J U .V t ILI Via Oporto on CD N ' cn f (+y �Y^#F. �M � � �wkY('" Y'°F�YV.a �, ✓��:..y 'j# '(.E N I 4.4 r t / 11IPP E n (; � is � � � �• `� „. 'w f x ,1 / r t �r Vin•, �'�+ •i it '�' . I { � n (f�� It 5 w!1: jI T Qa4� 3 F 4' ^^� fn W � W � O V) L O 4-. O X_ � 0 'E °' o O L % J L E 4w E W N U OTC U N fa C .N U O 4-J L C) O O Ln 4-J .O fa 0 Q I tj J "0 f6 fa fa C: Q) m fn U � f6 4-J *-� M M 4.3 E O 4-+ > 0 r-1 U LO \ : \ %6ZZ KN, IJ 'AWAPF TY . �� � \� ~��� \ , F,! - 0, ANP,&IYAF Air, PI -6 MT lig. Elm O Q E (a X W V- 0 J L O a) J ER mod : I.f M-1 IN /� Cn � V ro 4J L — z° 0 0, ' M w 06 o J .N 0) O 0 ' M w O / 1r` v � 7 }jt � (ri � ��� � � �� ;j` l J ,�� �.. � r ,2,�� � �,�° 3 ,�;� '_ "C ".pi �'`� � ." � � � ., a � ,� u �� .a . Eg � .� :� � � I � F �] / °"/ � e y { t jH rf '1 �il"���.i �. t`5 )r 'i k �. � '1 ``�•. �� � ' -. f!f b R -Y ,� 2, �' �.T j, .,�;. ��� - , 1 �, :r. � �; ;�� ,. to (LL` '_ n'g�;,�� � ~ �+ �� 6wi �.W'�.. :� y �,�I� / k :' ,< �.. t r ;rt � v �„ _ *�;: �' ;ph � � .. ', . �� ? ',� r�t. � . � _ _may, Y ,......... J ` � .. � :. — - --� _ _ ��T_3 � "'Air 1. 4 ° .S ..... ``l . 4r �; •,n r, `'.,. v . N V •0 fu � cn 0 4-, C U) M 'i `'L— O fu C fu V � -� � v 0 _E fu f 4-0 • V •� u L N cn -0 C N •� /� i� V 1 m 4-J fo L v •i O U fu fa Q Q E p V) E N 42 OV N N Q N � U � fo O U .- U C7 • • • • • • cn a-J O E O O L Q E f--i ^-J` ^W W 'L V / .I-- 4-+ O M ^0 W cn O Q O L CL 0 m c 0 d 01 C N W Z O LU W C W a O a co M M C h M m M M i ftwo N 7 rt r3 ' x _ y �e H r � .`G v m tY 5 r C� u 0 Y N .. i L fo W fu u W ^O^ r) O L ^ 1.L ti w co m w 6A = • F i Y • u Y • �i i L fo W fu u W ^O^ r) O L ^ 1.L ti 9 4-J N O z 0) O O J N O O O_ N O 42 O J N C C U 9 4-J V) M W 0) C O O N N N O O L CL .j CO G �MMWMI, -77 406 v r tF� a,k ;JA N. , A41 T4 I lx4l ( , It� ML r 1 �} `Mi 1 t�k,�j� �" �fFi`ffrly��+!�� ���.r� tj(�• �" ��� � `� .. ga� j wn u f It 15iy} nI �• � E3 � � ���- 1 • I 1 � h �� +t t s5` a tr a 4 (J, - k al h tf i {- � • -•' x 1 # +, � yf S t � 4 I • � l '4F :�w T V, }l of It el iY / zL �� t � a ��� ► } i P �� 1 v (�t ��i � '�4UYR� � �� • � �': i p ,r r I a All. >n -� 4 �t / �. • I n ( y } t4 � • q FIi tilt tt CO G 0) a-J L 4J L C) M LO N E L cn fa 6 W CD L CD =i W m N _ am N > 0 ci f6 L f0 m E L cn fa 6 W CD L CD =i W m N I f0 N a-J fa 37 N U) O Q O i f1. J N f0 U r- N 4-J V) fu N a-J O U) 0) C O O J a-J N N L a-J V) L a-J O M J N C f0 U 9 L Q �L H fu L- 0 .L W J C C f0 U i s s rn N C) M r6in 9 4-J V) fu 4-J =3 0 U) 0) C: 0 0 -j 4-J 4-J 4� C) ro V) it2 0 Q) c C fo U Cf) Refer to File 68 for PowerPoint Presentation