Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout14 - Planning and Land Use Entitlements for Harbor Pointe Senior Living, Located at 101 Bayview Place (PA2015-210)Q SEW Pp�T CITY OF �m z NEWPORT BEACH c�<,FORN'P City Council Staff Report February 12, 2019 Agenda Item No. 14 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Seimone Jurjis, Community Development Director - 949-644-3232, sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP, Associate Planner bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov PHONE: 949-644-3253 TITLE: Consideration of Planning and Land Use Entitlements for Harbor Pointe Senior Living, Located at 101 Bayview Place (PA2015-210) /_1 16"t I:f_Tel 6 The applicant proposes the demolition of an existing approximately 8,800 -square -foot restaurant building (Kitayama) to accommodate the development of an approximately 85,000 -square -foot, 120 bed, three-story senior convalescent and congregate care facility (i.e., memory care and assisted living as a State -licensed Residential Care Facility for the Elderly [RCFE]). The project site is approximately 1.5 acres in area and is located at the corner of Bristol Street and Bayview Place. Included in the planning applications for consideration by the City Council are a general plan amendment, planned community development plan amendment, major site development review, development agreement, and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Planning Commission has reviewed the project and applications and recommends City Council approval as proposed. RECOMMENDATION: a) Conduct a public hearing; b) Adopt Resolution No. 2019-13, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Certifying Environmental Impact Report No. ER2018-001, Making Facts and Findings, and Approving a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project - A Senior Convalescent and Congregate Care Facility Located at 101 Bayview Place (PA2015-210) (Attachment A); c) Adopt Resolution No. 2019-14, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Approving General Plan Amendment No. GP2015-004 to Change the Land Use Designation from General Commercial (CO -G) to Private Institutional (PI) for the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project - A Senior Convalescent and Congregate Care Facility Located at 101 Bayview Place (PA2015-210) (Attachment B); 14-1 Consideration of Planning and Land Use Entitlements for Harbor Pointe Senior Living February 12, 2019 Page 2 d) Waive full reading, direct the City Clerk to read by title only, introduce Ordinance No. 2019-3, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Adopting Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2015-005 Amending Area 5 of the Bayview Planned Community (PC -32) for the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project - A Senior Convalescent and Congregate Care Facility Located at 101 Bayview Place (PA2015-210), and pass on to a second reading on February 26, 2019 (Attachment C); e) Adopt Resolution No. 2019-15, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Approving Major Site Development Review No. SD2015-007, and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-047 for the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project - A Senior Convalescent and Congregate Care Facility Located at 101 Bayview Place (PA2015-210) (Attachment D); and f) Waive full reading, direct the City Clerk to read by title only, introduce Ordinance No. 2019-4, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Approving Development Agreement No. DA2018-006 for the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project - A Senior Convalescent and Congregate Care Facility Located at 101 Bayview Place (PA2015-210), and pass to second reading on February 26, 2019 (Attachment E). FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: In order to quantify the project's long-term fiscal implications on City resources, staff engaged a consultant to prepare a fiscal impact assessment in accordance with General Plan Implementation Policies 12.1 and 12.2 (Attachment G). The consultant's analysis uses the City's fiscal impact model, which calculates the average cost of public services required by new development, on the assumption that new development affects City services in the same way that existing development does. In this case the fiscal analysis included three different land use options for the site, including (1) the proposed project; (2) the existing restaurant (8,800 square feet); and (3) a 70,000 -square -foot office building. The consultant concluded that the proposed project would result in an estimated annual revenue to the City of $2,929 while the existing restaurant is estimated to bring in a greater revenue of about $4,017. The office building would be expected to employ about 233 workers, which would result in increased traffic and an annual cost to the City of approximately $59,863. This is largely due to an increased demand on emergency services and infrastructure maintenance. 14-2 Consideration of Planning and Land Use Entitlements for Harbor Pointe Senior Living February 12, 2019 Page 3 It should be noted that the proposed project is anticipated to require additional emergency medical services beyond the current demand for the restaurant. It will also contribute to a cumulatively increased demand on emergency medical services that is driven by other current and future proposed development in the airport area. This is discussed in more detail under Section 4.10 (Public Services) of the EIR. In order to offset this potential cumulative impact, the applicant proposes a development agreement that includes a public benefit fee to purchase and equip a new rescue ambulance with patient transport and advanced life support (ALS) capabilities. The new ambulance would be located at Santa Ana Heights Fire Station No. 7 and would serve the surrounding area. DISCUSSION: Project Setting The 1.5 -acre project site is located in the northernmost portion of the Santa Ana Heights area and just south of the Airport Area, across the 73 freeway (SR -73). The site is immediately bound by Bristol Street and SR -73 on the northeast, Bayview Place and a six -story office building complex on the southeast, Baycrest condominiums on the southwest, and a three-story office building with parking below and the Santa Ana Heights residential neighborhood to the northwest. The property is presently developed with an approximately 8,800 -square -foot restaurant (Kitayama). The Kitayama building is a single -story structure with a 111 -space surface parking lot, based on research of City records. The parking lot extends from the restaurant building and immediately adjoins the residential properties to the southwest and northwest. The General Plan land use designation for the property is General Commercial Office (CO -G). The property is designated as Anomaly No. 22, and the maximum development capacity is either 8,000 square feet for a restaurant or 70,000 square feet for an office. The CO -G designation is intended to provide for administrative, professional, and medical offices with limited accessory retail and service uses. Hotels, motels, and convalescent hospitals are not permitted. It should be noted that the existing restaurant building exceeds the allowed floor area based on the most recent site survey. Implementation of the proposed project would eliminate the inconsistency. The site is located in the Area 5 (Restaurant, Professional and Administrative Offices) Subarea of the Bayview Planned Community (PC -32) Zoning District, which allows a variety of uses from restaurants, bars, theaters, and nightclubs to animal hospitals, welding shops, and wholesale bakeries. A vicinity map is provided on the following page. 14-3 Consideration of Planning and Land Use Entitlements for Harbor Pointe Senior Living February 12, 2019 Page 4 VICINITY MAP x144 1 ,��lF f �` t - • r " U � �rm� ��, •aft. ! QN jg a � � / � � �,, .r *� _ '� '� i �,� shy \ . ✓ � . � r~B /, t fit. t F r vEw - 2 > GENERAL PLAN ZONING All J. X i . v a 'ham LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON-SITE General Commercial Office CO -G Bayview Planned Communit PC -32 Kita ama Restaurant NORTH General Commercial (CG) Newport Place Planned Community Multi -tenant commercial Mixed -Use Horizontal MU -H2 PC -11 office buildin s and retail SOUTH Multiple Family Residential (RM) PC -32 Ba crest Communit EASTIF CO -G PC -32 Multi -tenant office buildings WEST CO -G 7 P anta Ana Heights Specific Plan Area Multi -tenant office (SP -7) I buildings and residential 14-4 Consideration of Planning and Land Use Entitlements for Harbor Pointe Senior Living February 12, 2019 Page 5 Project Description The requested amendments would allow the construction of a three-story, 85,000 -square - foot residential care facility for the elderly that contains 120 beds. The proposed general plan and planned community (zoning) amendment would specifically allow this type of development and use only. Project plans are included in Attachment D and are summarized below. State Licensing — Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) The new facility will operate as a RCFE and will be licensed by the State Department of Social Services (DSS). RCFEs are often referred to as assisted living or congregate care. They are licensed non—medical facilities that provide rooms, meals, housekeeping, supervision, management of medication, and personal care assistance with basic activities like hygiene, dressing, and eating. These facilities are intended for people who are unable to live by themselves, but who do not need twenty -four-hour medical or nursing care. RCFEs serve persons 60 years of age and older and often include dining room, libraries, small salons, exercise facilities and other amenities. Facility Composition As proposed, there will be 81 assisted living care units (42 "studios," 27 single -bed rooms, and 12 two -bed rooms) and 20 memory care units (13 single -bed rooms and 7 two -bed rooms) with 120 total beds. Each floor of the building will have support spaces, such as laundry, kitchen, and dining areas. Several amenities will also be provided to residents including a theater, community store, fitness room, spa, salon, library, copy room, computer lab, grill/cafe, quiet room, and an activity room. In addition, the project design includes 5,406 square feet of outdoor gardens for residents, which are surrounded by walls such that they are private and secure. Floor Area The three-story building is situated at the northeastern corner of the property and fronting Bristol Street and Bayview Place. It includes a total floor area of approximately 85,000 square feet, not including the subterranean parking area. The majority of the footprint would measure approximately 192 feet by 155 feet, and the resulting lot coverage is approximately 50 percent. Height The maximum building height allowed by the proposed and existing development standards is 35 feet, as measured from finish floor to top of the uppermost ceiling with an additional 10 feet allowed for mechanical equipment screening. The proposed structure will be 33 feet to the top of the roof; however, mechanical equipment behind screening elements will be up to 39 feet, 6 inches in height. 14-5 Consideration of Planning and Land Use Entitlements for Harbor Pointe Senior Living February 12, 2019 Page 6 Setbacks The structure will maintain a setback of 41 feet to the southwest property line near the Baycrest condominiums, as well as 41 feet to the northwest property line adjacent to an office building and single-family residences. The proposed setbacks are larger than the currently required setbacks thereby resulting in greater separation between the proposed facility and residential properties than required. A setback of 15 feet will be provided from the Bristol Street property line to the north and a setback of 11 feet will be provided from the Bayview Place property line to the east. All areas within these setback areas that are not used as vehicular access will be landscaped to provide a buffer from the street. Parking and Vehicle Access A total of 53 on-site parking spaces will be provided to serve the facility, all contained within a proposed subterranean parking structure beneath the building. The proposed design exceeds the Zoning Code required parking requirement of 40 parking spaces with a surplus of 13 spaces provided on-site. The facility is anticipated to receive up to two scheduled food deliveries per week, which would be received at the front of the building off Bayview Place. Loading, unloading, and other deliveries would also occur in this same location. Refuse collection would occur at the southerly portion of the building in front of the trash enclosure and within the 41 -foot buffer to the residential neighborhood. Refuse collection vehicles would use the emergency access gate on Bristol Street to exit the site, which would eliminate potential circulation conflicts and limit the use of a truck's backing signal. In the event of an emergency, emergency services personnel would have the option of using a Knox Box to access the vehicle entry on Bristol Street. A Knox Box is a locked metallic box that holds any key(s) to enter the property or enter into the building. The Fire Department holds the master key to open the Knox Box. Building Materials and Landscaping The proposed building will be a modern design with architecture that includes stacked stone columns at the entry, stone veneer and stucco at the exterior of the building, stainless steel metal panels at accent areas, glass windows, and concrete or composition shingle roofing. While many of the existing mature trees surrounding the site will be protected and retained as part of the project, the entire site will be upgraded with approximately 18,859 square feet of new landscaping. Other Components A detailed discussion of the project components, including an analysis of applicable General Plan policies, Planned Community development standards, project architecture, and the required project findings related to the site development review and conditional use permit are provided in the Planning Commission staff report dated December 6, 2018 (Attachment K). 14-6 Consideration of Planning and Land Use Entitlements for Harbor Pointe Senior Living February 12, 2019 Page 7 Charter Section 423 (Measure S) Analysis Charter Requirements Pursuant to Charter Section 423 (Charter) and Council Policy A-18, an analysis must be prepared to establish whether a proposed General Plan amendment requires a vote by the electorate, if approved by City Council. Any proposed amendment is combined with 80 percent of the increases in traffic, dwelling units, and non-residential floor area allowed by previous General Plan amendments (approved within the preceding 10 years) within the same statistical area. The Charter specifies the following thresholds: 100 dwelling units (density), 100 a.m. peak hour trips and 100 p.m. peak hour trips (traffic), and 40,000 square feet of non-residential floor area (intensity). If any one of the thresholds is exceeded, and the City Council approves the requested General Plan amendment, the amendment would be classified as a "major amendment" and be subject to voter consideration. Approved amendments, other than those approved by the electorate, are tracked for 10 years and factored into the analysis of future amendments within the same statistical area as indicated. Proposed General Plan Amendment The project site is located within Statistical Area J6 of the General Plan Land Use Element and would result in an increase of 15,000 additional square feet of nonresidential floor area. There have been no prior amendments approved within Statistical Area J6 since the 2006 General Plan Update. As the project is nonresidential and does not include an increase in floor area over 40,000 square feet, staff evaluated the project's trip generation rates to determine whether a vote of the electorate is required. Since a 70,000 -square -foot office building is presently allowed by the General Plan at the project site, the general office rate (1.56 a.m. peak trips and 1.49 p.m. peak trips per thousand square feet of floor area) was used for the analysis along with the nursing home rate (0.40 a.m. peak trips and 0.36 p.m. peak trips per thousand square feet of floor area). The nursing home rate was identified and accepted by the City's Traffic Engineer as the best available comparable use in Council Policy A-18. The analysis is summarized in Table 1. Table 1: Charter Section 423 Analysis Summary Statistical Area J6 Increase in Increase in Increase in P.M. Increase in Allowed Floor A.M. Peak peak Hour Trips Allowed Area (sq. ft.) Hour Trips Dwelling Units GP2015-004 (PA2015-210) 15,000 -75 -74 0 101 Bayview Place Prior Amendments (80%) 0 0 0 0 None TOTALS 15,000 -75 -74 0 Section 423 Thresholds 40,000 100 100 100 Vote Required? No No No No 14-7 Consideration of Planning and Land Use Entitlements for Harbor Pointe Senior Living February 12, 2019 Page 8 The current Section 423 tracking table before the proposed Amendment is provided as Attachment H. As indicated in Table 1, the proposed amendment does not exceed any applicable thresholds to require a vote of the electorate. Development Agreement While not required by NBMC Section 15.45.020 (Development Agreements), the applicant is requesting a Development Agreement (Agreement). Agreement Term The applicant has requested a 10 -year term. The duration is appropriate because the project will be implemented in one construction phase and it is sufficiently long enough to account for changing market conditions. Public Benefit Fee The applicant has agreed to pay the City a public benefit fee of $1,000,000, which will be paid within 60 days of the City's issuance of building permits. A portion of the fee will satisfy the fair share obligation pursuant to EIR Mitigation Measure MM FIRE -1 to provide a new ambulance unit at Fire Station No. 7. The remainder of the funds will be available to the City for any purpose. Other Considerations While not part of the Agreement, the applicant will also make available a total of $150,000 to nearby entities such as, but not limited to, the Newport Bay Conservancy, Bayview Court HOA, and the Bayview Terrace HOA for unspecified future programs, activities and/or improvements. Plannina Commission Review and Recommendation The Planning Commission held a public hearing on December 6, 2018. Staff and the applicant provided presentations that explained the requested approvals and described the project. The main topic discussed by the Planning Commission was the land use designation change, consistency with the General Plan policies related to land use, and the compatibility of the proposed RCFE with the surrounding land uses. Following the conclusion of the public comments and discussion, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed legislative amendments and project site design including circulation, landscaping, height, and setbacks were consistent with all applicable General Plan policies, compatible with the surrounding land uses, and that all applicable findings for approval for the requested applications could be made. The Planning Commission voted unanimously (6-0, with one absence) to recommend that the City Council approve the project as proposed by the applicant. The Planning Commission resolution, meeting minutes, and staff report are attached for reference as Attachments I, J, and K. Consideration of Planning and Land Use Entitlements for Harbor Pointe Senior Living February 12, 2019 Page 9 Public Comments Since the December 6, 2018, Planning Commission hearing, three public comment letters have been received in opposition to the project. Staff will provide an update of any additional public comments received at the public hearing. All correspondence received after the Planning Commission hearing and prior to production of this report are attached as Attachment M. Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) John Wayne Airport is located approximately 0.7 -mile northwest of the project site and is the nearest public airport. The project is within the notification area of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. However, the project is below the maximum transitional imagery surface heights, and thus the project is within the building height limits of the AELUP. A "No Hazard" determination was provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Property falls inside the Noise Impact Zone "2" — Moderate Noise Impact where uses would be exposed to noise between 60 and 65 decibels (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The proposed use is considered "normally compatible" where conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice to insulate residents from the negative effects of aircraft noise. The project site is within Safety Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern Zone), where the likelihood of an accident is low. When originally adopted, ALUC determined that the City's general plan and zoning code were consistent with the land use policies of the (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. Since the Harbor Pointe project includes both a general plan amendment and planned community development plan (zoning) amendment, Section 21676(b) of the Public Utilities Code requires ALUC review to determine if the proposed amendments are consistent with the AELUP. On January 17, 2019, the ALUC reviewed the proposed project and found it consistent with the AELUP (Attachment L). However, the ALUC did include two conditions on the consistency determination: (1) to modify noise mitigation measure NOI-4; and (2) to include an additional condition of approval on the project requiring outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft (Condition of Approval No. 67 in Attachment D). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Prior to making an approval decision on the proposed project or a modified project, the City Council must first review, consider, and certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), SCH No. 2016071062. The City contracted with Psomas, an environmental consulting firm, to prepare an Initial Study and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed project in accordance with the CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The DEIR was routed to the City Council in advance of this staff report to allow additional time to review the report. 14-9 Consideration of Planning and Land Use Entitlements for Harbor Pointe Senior Living February 12, 2019 Page 10 A copy of the DEIR was also made available on the City's website (http://www.newportbeachca.gov/cega), at each Newport Beach Public Library, and at the Community Development Department at City Hall. The draft EIR was completed and circulated for a 50 -day public -review period that began on August 10, 2018, and concluded on September 28, 2018. A total of 82 comments were received from interested parties. The consultant and staff prepared written responses to each of the comments received on the adequacy of the DEIR. The following environmental topics were identified as potentially affected by the implementation of the proposed project: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services, Transportation and Traffic, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Sewer Services. These topics were the subject of the DEIR analysis, and potential impacts were identified. The document includes mitigation measures to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level related to Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, and Public Services. On the basis of the analysis provided in the DEIR, City staff has concluded that the project would not have a long term significant impact on the environment and there are no significant short-term or construction -related impacts. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives are available to the City Council: 1. The City Council may require or suggest specific changes that are necessary to alleviate any identified concerns. If the requested changes are substantial, staff will return with a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions. 2. The City Council may approve one of the project alternatives discussed in the Final EIR. These include the "No Project" alternative and the "Office Building" alternative. Should the City Council choose to do so, staff will return with revised resolutions incorporating new findings and/or conditions. 3. If the City Council believes the change in land use is inappropriate, or if there are insufficient facts to support the project, they may deny the application by adopting the draft resolution for denial (Attachment F). 14-10 Consideration of Planning and Land Use Entitlements for Harbor Pointe Senior Living February 12, 2019 Page 11 NOTICING: Notice of this application was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways) including the applicant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the NBMC. A courtesy notice of the hearing was also emailed to the interested parties list for this project. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A —Resolution No. 2019-13 - Certifying the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program and Adopting CEQA Facts and Findings Attachment B — Resolution No. 2019-14 - Approving the General Plan Amendment Attachment C — Ordinance No. 2019-3 - Approving the Planned Community Development Plan Amendment Attachment D — Resolution No. 2019-15 - Approving the Major Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit (Includes Project Plans) Attachment E — Ordinance No. 2019-4 - Approving the Development Agreement Attachment F — Draft Resolution for Denial Attachment G — Fiscal Impact Analysis Attachment H —Current Statistical Area J6 Section 423 Table Attachment I —Planning Commission Resolution Attachment J — Planning Commission Minutes, December 6, 2018 Attachment K — Planning Commission Staff Report, December 6, 2018 Attachment L —ALUC Determination Letter, January 17, 2019 Attachment M — Public Comments 14-11 Attachment A Draft Resolution Certifying the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program and adopting CEQA Facts and Findings 14-12 RESOLUTION NO. 2019-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. ER2018-001, MAKING FACTS AND FINDINGS, AND APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT — A SENIOR CONVALESCENT AND CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY LOCATED AT 101 BAYVIEW PLACE (PA2015-210) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Harbor Pointe Senior Living LLC of California ("Applicant"), with respect to property located at 101 Bayview Place, and legally described as Lot 1 of Tract No. 12528 in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 551 Pages 38 through 41 inclusive of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, Assessor's Parcel No. 442-283-05 ("Property"); WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes the demolition of an existing approximately 8,800 square -foot restaurant ("Kitayama") to accommodate the development of an approximately 85,000 square -foot, three-story senior convalescent and congregate care facility (i.e., memory care and assisted living) as a State -licensed Residential Care Facility for the Elderly ("RCFE") with 120 beds ("Project"); WHEREAS, in order to implement the Project, the Applicant requests or requires the following approvals from the City of Newport Beach ("City"): • General Plan Amendment ("GPA") — The current land use designation is General Commercial Office ("CO -G") which allows 8,000 square feet for restaurant use or 70,000 square feet for office use. The general plan amendment would change the CO -G land use designation to Private Institutions ("PI") and amend Anomaly No. 22 to allow the 85,000 square foot RCFE (Table LU2 and associated figures); • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment (Zoning) — To change the allowed land uses and amend development standards in Area 5 of the Bayview Planned Community ("PC -32") Zoning District; • Major Site Development Review — To ensure the Project is developed in accordance with the applicable planned community and zoning code development standards and regulations pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews); 14-13 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 2 of 5 Conditional Use Permit — To allow the use of the Property as a 120 bed RCFE (memory care and assisted living facility) with conditions of approval that protect the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding community; Development Agreement — The applicant has requested a development agreement, which will provide for public benefits as the project is implemented; and Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") — To address reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the Project with corresponding mitigation measures that reduce those environmental impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et. seq. and the California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. WHEREAS, the Property is located within the PC -32 Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is designated as CO -G; WHEREAS, the Property is not located within the coastal zone; therefore, a coastal development permit is not required; WHEREAS, on February 23, 2017, the Planning Commission held a study session in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, to provide initial direction on the Project. No action was taken at the study session. Although not required, the City mailed a courtesy public notice of this study session to property owners within a 300' radius of the Property; WHEREAS, on September 13, 2018, the Planning Commission held a study session in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, to receive a project update and review the draft EIR. No action was taken at the study session. Although not required, the City mailed a courtesy public notice of this study session to property owners within a 300' radius of the Property; WHEREAS, on December 6, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et. seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapter 20.62 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2018-033 by a unanimous vote of 6-0 recommending approval of the Project, and the land use entitlements referenced above, to the City Council; 14-14 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 3 of 5 WHEREAS, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, the City is required to consult with California Native American tribes that have requested in writing to be informed of proposed projects in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe. Two tribes have requested notification in writing. The tribal contacts were provided notice on February 12, 2016. California Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 requires 30 days prior to City Council action to allow tribal contacts to respond with a request to consult. A response letter was received from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation on May 4, 2016, requesting that a monitor from their tribe oversee ground disturbing construction work. An additional letter was received August 17, 2018. During consultation with staff, City Council Policy K-5 was discussed which requires a qualified archaeologist be present during ground breaking, as well as General Plan Historical Resources Policy HR 2.3 (Cultural Organizations) which requires notification to cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources and to allow representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites. Andrew Salas, the representative for the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, disagreed that the implementation of those two policies would be sufficient. Accordingly, a condition of approval was included as part of the conditional use permit/site development approval review requiring tribal monitoring. Consultation was closed; WHEREAS, pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq., the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), and City Council Policy K-3, it was determined that the project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of an EIR; WHEREAS, on July 22, 2016, the City, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of the EIR and mailed that NOP to responsible and trustee public agencies, organizations likely to be interested in the potential impacts, property owners within a 300' radius of the Property, and any persons who had previously requested notice in writing; WHEREAS, on August 15, 2016, the City held a public scoping meeting to present the project and to solicit input from interested individuals, organizations, and responsible and trustee public agencies regarding environmental issues that should be addressed in the EIR; WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2016071062) ("DEIR") and errata have been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3; 14-15 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 4 of 5 WHEREAS, the DEIR was circulated for a 50 day comment period beginning on August 10, 2018, and ending on September 28, 2018. The DEIR, comments, and responses to the comments were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project; WHEREAS, the Final EIR ("FEIR"), consisting of the NOP, DEIR, Responses to Comments, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibits "A" and "B," and incorporated herein by reference, were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project; WHEREAS, the FEIR does not identify any significant impacts to the environment which are unavoidable; and WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the Project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse effects 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 anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit B), which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, are feasible and will reduce the potential environmental impacts, with the exception of short-term construction related noise, to a less than significant level. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby certifies Environmental Impact Report No. ER2018-001 (SCH No. 2016071062), attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. EIR No. ER2018-001 consists of the Notice of Preparation, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Appendices, Responses to Comments, and Clarifications and Revisions to the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Section 2: The City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the "CEQA Findings of Fact for the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project, Final Environmental Impact Report" attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference in accordance with 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15091 and the California Public Resources Code Section 21081. Section 3: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the Mitigation Monitoring Report Program, attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. Section 4: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. 14-16 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 5 of 5 Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 6: The City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. Section 7: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. ADOPTED this 12th day of February, 2019. Diane B. Dixon Mayor ATTEST: Leilani I. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE YD m C12tu'p Aaron . Harp City AVbrney Attachments: Exhibit A - Environmental Impact Report No. ER2018-001 Exhibit B - Mitigation Monitoring Report Program Exhibit C — Facts and Findings Regarding the Environmental Effects of the Approval of the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project 14-17 Exhibit "A" Environmental Impact Report EIR SCH No. 2016071062 • Notice of Preparation • Environmental Analysis • Alternatives Analysis • Appendices • Responses to Comments • Clarifications and Revisions to Draft EIR (Available separate due to bulk) http://www. newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?paqe=1 347 14-18 Exhibit "B" Mitigation Monitoring Report Program 14-19 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Final Environmental Impact Report Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project (PA2015-210) SCH No. 2016071062 City of Newport Beach Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Contact: Benjamin Zdeba, AICP bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov 949.644.3253 December 2018 14-20 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 14-21 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Final Environmental Impact Report Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project (PA2015-210) SCH No. 2016071062 December 2018 Lead Agency: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Community Development Department 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Contact: Benjamin Zdeba, AICP Prepared by: Psomas 3 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 200 Santa Ana, California 92707 14-22 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 14-23 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page MitigationMonitoring and Reporting Program.................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................1 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring Procedures.............................................................................1 1.3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program....................................................1 HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 14-24 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ACRONYM LIST The following are acronyms used in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Matrix: A ALS Advanced Life Support ALUC Airport Land Use Commission APN Assessor's Parcel Number C CBC California Building Code CEQA California Environmental Quality Act City City of Newport Beach CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO -G General Commercial Office Council City of Huntington Beach City Council CULT Cultural Resources D dBA A -weighted decibels E EIR Environmental Impact Report F Final EIR Final EnvironmentallmpactReport, Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project (2018) G GEO Geology and Soils H HAZ Hazards and Hazardous Materials L Leq Interior Average Hourly Noise Level LU Land Use and Planning M MM Mitigation Measure MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program N NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NBMC Newport Beach Municipal Code NOI Noise NOI Notice of Intent O OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration P PC -32 Bayview Planned Community Development Plan PI Private Institution Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program R RR Regulatory Requirement ii HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 14-25 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SR State Route T TRAN Transportation and Traffic HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 14-26 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 14-27 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 1.1 INTRODUCTION In accordance with the requirements of Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, and as part of its certification of the adequacy of Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project, the City Council (Council) of the City of Newport Beach (City) adopts the following Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP or Program). The Council adopts this MMRP in its capacity as the lead agency for Final EIR in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.), and the City of Newport Beach Monitoring Requirements. The principal purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the Council -approved mitigation measures and development requirements for the adopted Project are reported and monitored to ensure compliance with the measures' requirements. In general, City of Newport Beach, Community Development Department is responsible for overseeing implementation and completion of the adopted measures. This includes the review of all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition, unless otherwise noted in the attached MMRP Table. However, the Council retains overall responsibility for verifying implementation of all adopted mitigation measures. 1.2 MITIGATION MONITORING PROCEDURES The City is the designated lead agency for the MMRP. The Community Development Department is responsible for reviewing all monitoring reports, enforcement actions, and document disposition, unless otherwise noted in the MMRP Table. 1.3 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The MMRP is provided in tabular format to facilitate effective tracking and documentation of the status of regulatory requirements and mitigation measures. The attached MMRP Table provides the following monitoring information: • Regulatory Requirements. The text of all adopted Regulatory Requirements for the Project from Final EIR. • Mitigation Measures. The text of all adopted mitigation measures for the Project from Final EIR. • Responsible for Implementation. The Project Applicant or designated representative is the responsible party for implementing the measure, and the City of Newport Beach or a designated representative is responsible for monitoring implementation of the measure, unless noted differently. • Timing of Mitigation. A time frame is provided for performance of the mitigation measure, and the points selected are designed to ensure that impact -related components do not proceed without establishing that the mitigation is implemented. HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 14-28 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • Responsibility for Monitoring. The City Department(s) or other public agency(ies) responsible for overseeing the implementation and completion of each measure. • Completion Date. The date the measure is completed. This column of the MMRP Table is to be filled in by the approving/verifying authority at a later date. Upon completion, the MMRP and associated documentation will be kept on file at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division) 1.4 PROJECT LOCATION The 1.5 -acre Project site is located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. It is located southwest of State Route (SR) 73, less than one-half mile from the intersection of Jamboree Road and Bristol Street. Specifically, the subject property is immediately bound by Bristol Street and SR -73 on the northeast, Bayview Place and a six -story office building complex on the southeast, Baycrest condominiums on the southwest, and a three-story office building with parking below and the Santa Ana Heights residential neighborhood to the northwest. The current address of the site is 101 Bayview Place, Newport Beach, California 92660. The assessor's parcel number (APN) is 442-283-05. Currently, the Project site is accessed by a driveway on Bayview Place, located along the southeastern Project boundary. Access to Bayview Place is provided by Bristol Street to the northeast and Bayview Way to the south. Jamboree Road, a major north -south thoroughfare, is approximately 0.20 mile east of the Project boundary and provides access to both Bristol Street and Bayview Place. SR -73 is located approximately 0.05 mile north of the Project site and provides access to Jamboree Road from Southbound SR 73. 1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY The Project site consists of 1.5 acres of developed land bound by Bristol Street and SR -73 on the northeast, Bayview Place and a six -story office building complex on the southeast, Baycrest condominiums on the southwest, and a three-story office building with parking below and the Santa Ana Heights residential neighborhood to the northwest. The Project consists of applications for a General Plan Amendment (GP2015-004), Planned Community Development Plan Amendment (PD2015-005) for the Bayview Planned Community, Major Site Development Review (SD2015-007), Conditional Use Permit (UP2015-047), Development Agreement (DA2018-006), and Environmental Impact Report (ER2018-001). Approval of these applications would allow for the demolition and removal of the existing approximate 8,800 -square -foot, single -story restaurant, associated parking, and improvements on the site; preparation of the site for redevelopment; and construction of a three-story building with a proposed gross floor area of 84,517 square feet, containing 101 assisted living and memory care units' (120 beds), ancillary uses, and subsurface parking. The units would consist of 42 assisted living studios, 27 assisted living one -bedroom units, 12 assisted living two - Under the existing General Plan, the site is designated for CO -G (General Commercial Office) land uses. The proposed designation of the Project site is PI (Private Institutions), which allows for congregate care homes and convalescent facilities. NBMC Chapter 2070 (Definitions) defines convalescent facilities as establishments that provide care on a 24-hour basis for persons requiring regular medical attention. HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 14-29 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program bedroom units, 13 memory care one -bedroom units, and 7 memory care two-bedroom units. Additionally, the proposed facility would include living rooms, dining rooms, grill, fitness room, spa/salon, theater, library, roof garden, community store, computer lab, activity room, medication rooms, and support uses such as offices, lab, mail room, laundry, and maintenance facilities. Separate interior courtyards would offer seating, outdoor dining, and landscaping for the assisted living and memory care residents. The building height is 33 feet at the top of the roof and 39 feet and 6 inches at the highest point, which includes mechanical equipment screening. This is within the height limits for the site in the existing Bayview Planned Community text. Landscaping, drive aisles, and passenger drop-off would also be provided on the property. Construction is expected to take 12 to 14 months. Building excavation would require the removal of approximately 10,300 cubic yards, of which 10,200 cubic yards would be exported and 100 cubic yards would be used for site fill. UNIT MIX AND ANCILLARY USES AT THE FACILITY The first floor of the facility would house the 20 memory care units, including 13 one -bedroom units and 7 two-bedroom units, in addition to a total of 5 assisted living studios. The first floor would also include the main lobby, memory care lobby, living rooms, dining rooms, private dining area, kitchen, courtyards, a patio area, library, copy room, grille, resident care rooms, care offices, quiet room, support facility, administrative offices, mail room, and restroom facilities. The second floor includes assisted living studios, assisted living one -bedroom units, and assisted living two-bedroom units. The 19 assisted living studios are 400 square feet and 480 square feet in size; the 14 assisted living one -bedroom units range in size between 600 and 695 square feet; and the 6 assisted living two-bedroom units range in size from 667 to 870 square feet. In addition, this floor includes lobbies, computer lab, activity room, support facility, housekeeping, storage, standard residential laundry, and administrative office space. The third floor includes assisted living studios, assisted living one -bedroom units, and assisted living two-bedroom units. The 18 assisted living studios are 400 square feet and 480 square feet in size; the 13 assisted living one -bedroom units range in size between 600 and 695 square feet, and the 6 assisted living two-bedroom units range in size from 667 to 870 square feet. In addition, this floor includes lobbies, computer lab, support facilities, housekeeping, storage, standard residential laundry, assisted living roof garden, and restroom facilities. The basement includes parking spaces, lobbies, theater, ticket booth, theater concession, community store, storage, fitness room, spa, salon, staff breakroom, restroom facilities, maintenance, mechanical room, commercial laundry, and electric room. CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN The Project proposes to retain the existing mature landscaping and further enhance it with additional trees and planting along the property line. In addition to trees around the perimeter of the site, the proposed structure would be surrounded by a concrete walk and trees/plantings. Approximately 33 percent of the site would be landscaped upon completion. The Project proposes two interior courtyards, separated by a decorative stonewall with cap, for the assisted living and memory care residents and their guests. The assisted living courtyard HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 14-30 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would include outdoor dining tables and chairs; lounge seating area with trellis, fire element, and wood paving; a water feature; large specimen tree in a raised planter; decorative pots with accent planting; and pedestal paving. The memory care courtyard would include bench seating, planting area, small accent trees in raised planters, water feature, decorative pots with accent planting, and enhanced concrete paving. Additionally, an outdoor amenity/patio is proposed at the northeast of the building's main entrance/waiting area. The patio would include enhanced paving, gardens, seating, and an overhead trellis. PROTECT ACCESSIPARKING An entrance driveway and passenger drop-off are proposed with direct access from Bayview Place, along the southeastern boundary of the Project site. Access to the underground parking is off the main entry, and an exit -only emergency drive to Bristol Street is on the northwest corner of the site. The emergency exit to Bristol Street would include an emergency gate with a Knox - Box. A drive aisle is also provided on the southwest and northwest sides of the building. Section 20.40.040 (Off -Street Parking Spaces Required) of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) requires one parking space per three beds for convalescent facilities; therefore, the proposed Project would be required to provide a total of 40 parking spaces (36 standard and 4 accessible or barrier -free). However, the proposed Project includes 53 parking spaces, which is 13 spaces or approximately 33 percent more than the City requirement. Of the proposed 53 parking spaces, 49 would be standard and 4 would be accessible or barrier -free. 4 HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 14-31 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 14-32 oftAblelf 'o �:e" Timing i g�Res " onsrbih far AMt' 0 mp, e owDat e Z 1WH M -t oh"Wasum, H" gpl efit, 6&Nf em ati '$i 11, ��­ I'll", � , 1� t' i91tatUtd R ,e av Cultural Resources RR CULT -1 If archaeological or paleontological resources Developer; During City of Newport Beach are discovered during construction, all Qualified Monitor construction Community construction activities in the general area of the Development discovery shall be temporarily halted until the Department - Planning resource is examined by a qualified monitor, Division retained by the Developer. The monitor shall recommend next steps (i.e., additional excavation, curation, preservation, etc.). RR CULT -2 In the event that human remains are unearthed County Coroner During excavation City of Newport Beach during excavation and grading activities, all and grading Community activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to Development California Health and Safety Code Section Department - Planning 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until Division the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who shall serve as consultant on how to proceed with the remains. MM CULT -1 Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, Project Applicant; Prior to the City of Newport Beach Project Applicant shall provide written Certified issuance of any Community evidence to the City of Newport Beach Professional grading permit Development Community Development Department that an Paleontologist Department - Planning Orange County -certified professional Division Paleontologist has been retained to monitor any potential impacts to paleontological resources throughout the duration of any HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 14-32 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ground -disturbing activities at the Project site. The paleontologist shall review the Project's final plans and develop and implement a Paleontological Mitigation Plan, which shall include the following minimum elements: • All earthmoving activities 8 -feet or more below the current surface shall be monitored fulltime by a qualified paleontological monitor. • If fossils are discovered, the paleontological monitor has the authority to temporarily divert work, as deemed necessary, to allow recovery of the fossils and evaluation of the fossil locality. • Fossil localities shall require documentation including stratigraphic columns and samples for micropaleontological analyses and for dating. • Fossils shall be prepared to the point of identification prior to being donated to an appropriate repository. • The final report shall interpret any paleontological resources discovered in the regional context and provide the catalog and all specialists' reports as appendices. Geology and Soils MM GEO-1 Site preparation and building design Project Applicant; Prior to the City of Newport Beach specifications shall follow the recommendations Construction issuance of any Community in the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by Contractor grading permit Development 0 HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 14-33 Ninyo & Moore (dated December 2015, updated April 2016): • Earthwork. Earthwork shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the applicable agencies and recommendations of the Geotechnical Evaluation. Seismic Design Considerations. Design of the proposed improvements shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of governing jurisdictions and applicable seismic design criteria in the California Building Code (CBC) and the City's Building Code. Foundations. Foundations shall be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the geotechnical recommendations in the Geotechnical Evaluation. Requirements of the governing jurisdictions, practices of the Structural Engineers Association of California, and applicable building codes shall also be considered in the design of the structures. • Sidewalks. Sidewalks shall be designed in accordance with agency standards. • Corrosivity. Due to the presence of corrosive soils in the Project area, corrosion protection for the Project shall be designed by a Corrosion Engineer. • Concrete Placement. Recommendations regarding the type of cement and concrete HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Department - Building Division 7 14-34 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program cover necessary for the site shall be implemented. • Preliminary Pavement Design Recommendations. Recommendations regarding preliminary pavement design shall be implemented. • Drainage. Recommendations regarding adequate surface drainage shall be implemented. • Landscaping. Recommendations regarding landscaping and drought - tolerant plants shall be implemented. The construction specifications shall be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach Building Official prior to issuance of a grading permit. II Hazards and Hazardous Materials I I I 1 II RR HAZ-1 Demolition shall be conducted in accordance Project Applicant; In conjunction City of Newport Beach with the remediation and mitigation procedures Construction with the issuance Community established by all federal, State, and local Contractor of a demolition Development standards, including those of the federal and permit Department - Building State Occupational Safety and Health Division Administrations (OSHA and CaJOSHA) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations for the excavation, removal, and proper disposal of asbestos - containing materials (SCAQMD Regulation X - National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart M - National Emission Standards For Asbestos). The materials shall be disposed of at a certified asbestos landfill. The Asbestos -Abatement Contractor shall comply E HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 14-35 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 14-36 Responsible for Tuning. of MU44 Responsiblith y'f©r Completions Date `Miti ban Measures Implementation Mit►gatiori Monitoring {Signature Requ;red) with notification and asbestos -removal procedures outlined in SCAQMD Rule 1403 to reduce asbestos-related health risks. SCAQMD Rule 1403 applies to any demolition or renovation activity and the associated disturbance of asbestos -containing materials. These requirements shall be included on the contractor specifications and verified by the City of Newport Beach's Community Development Department in conjunction with the issuance of a Demolition Permit. RR HAZ-2 Contractors shall comply with the requirements Project Applicant; During demolition City of Newport Beach of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations Construction Community (Section 1532.1), which sets exposure limits, Contractor Development exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, Department - Building and good working practices by workers exposed Division to lead. Lead -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Health and Safety Code. RR HAZ-3 Federal Aviation Administration Form 7460-2, Project Applicant Five days after City of Newport Beach Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, shall construction Community be filed electronically within five days after the reaches its Development construction reaches its greatest height. This greatest height Department - Planning shall be verified by the City of Newport Beach's Division Community Development Department. RR HAZ-4 Prior to City Council's consideration of the City of Newport Prior to City City of Newport Beach amendments to the General Plan and the Beach Community Council's Community Bayview Planned Community Development Plan Development consideration of Development Amendment (PC -32), the City of Newport Beach Department the amendments Department - Planning Community Development Department shall refer to the General Plan Division the proposed actions to the Airport Land Use and the Bayview Commission (ALUC). The referral shall be Planned HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 14-36 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 10 HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 14-37 Responsible for Timing of< 'Respo Mbilityfor Com Mitwation Measures °� Iriiplementation Mit gatiom Monrtoring , [Signature Required) r_ ��,..a m. :.,.. ._.. � �... submitted by the City and agendized by the Community ALUC staff between the City's expected Planning Development Plan Commission and City Council hearings (since the Amendment (PC- ALUC meets on the third Thursday afternoon of 32) -between the each month, submittals must be received in the Planning ALUC office by the first of the month to ensure Commission and sufficient time for review, analysis, and City Council agendizing). hearings Land Use and Planning MM LU -1 Prior to issuance of certificates of use and Project Applicant Prior to the City of Newport Beach occupancy, the Applicant shall produce evidence issuance of Community to the Community Development Director of a certificates of use Development notice for prospective residents that this and occupancy Department - Planning property is subject to over -flight, and sound of Division aircraft operating from John Wayne Airport. Noise MM NOI-1 Prior to the issue of demolition, grading, or Project Applicant; Prior to the Public Works building permits, the Applicant shall provide Construction issuance of Department or evidence acceptable to the City of Newport Contractor demolition, Community Beach Public Works Director and/or Community grading, or any Development Development Director, that construction plans building permits Department and specifications require temporary noise barriers to be installed on the northwestern and southwestern Project boundaries. The noise barriers shall be 10 feet high, shall be solid from the ground to the top of the barrier, and have a weight of at least 2.5 pounds per square foot, which is equivalent to 3/a. -inch thick plywood. MM NOI-2 Prior to the start of grading, the Applicant shall Project Applicant; Prior to the City of Newport Beach provide evidence acceptable to the City of Construction issuance of Community Newport Beach Community Development Contractor demolition, Development 10 HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 14-37 Director that construction plans and specifications require: a. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers; mufflers shall be equivalent to or of greater noise reducing performance than manufacturer's standard. b. Stationary equipment, such as generators, cranes, and air compressors, shall be located as far from local residences as feasible. Stationary equipment shall be equipped with appropriate noise reduction measures (e.g., silencers, shrouds, or other devices) to limit the equipment noise at the nearest sensitive residences to 65 dBA Leq. c. Equipment maintenance, vehicle parking, and material staging areas shall be located as far away from local residences as feasible. d. The Applicant shall provide a qualified "Noise Disturbance Coordinator." The Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the Community Development Department. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program grading, or any Department -Building building permits Division HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 11 14-38 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program qftfiYResponsible far Timing of; ResponsibilityJ --a"o"n,M S fl ANneni�oif MItig on Monitoring re 4 l The contact name and the telephone number for the Disturbance Coordinator shall be clearly posted on-site. e. Construction activities shall not take place outside the allowable hours specified by NBMC Section 10.28.040 (7 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturdays; construction is prohibited on Sundays and/or federal holidays. MM NOI-3 Prior to the issue of demolition, grading, or Project Applicant; Prior to the City of Newport Beach building permits, the Applicant shall provide Construction issuance of Community evidence acceptable to the City of Newport Contractor demolition, Development Beach Community Development Director that grading, or any Department - Building construction plans and specifications require building permits Division that large bulldozers, large loaded trucks, vibratory rollers (operated in static mode), caisson drilling, and other similar large equipment not be used within 150 feet of occupied residences and that jackhammers not be used within 60 feet of occupied residences. MM NOI-4 Prior to the issue of the building permit for the Project Applicant Prior to the City of Newport Beach proposed Project, the Applicant shall submit an issuance of Community acoustical analysis acceptable to the City of demolition, Development Newport Beach Community Development grading, or any Department - Planning Director or Building Official, that demonstrates building permits or Building Division that the proposed architectural design would provide an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL or less (based on buildout traffic noise conditions and in compliance with the AELUP for JWA) in all habitable rooms of the proposed building facing Bristol Street or Bayview Place. The Applicant shall also submit plans and specifications showing that: 12 HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 14-39 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4NO-1, pensi Igi T-iinin —q,&-,R'eW I ty -- 'n- OM, �-d 17wtimate. Implementation Mitigation 0r1" L, S-l1g7n1 Required) 4, 4,0 iK Tm, • All residential units facing Bristol Street and Bayview Place shall be provided with a means of mechanical ventilation, as required by the California Building Code for occupancy with windows closed. Public Services MM FIRE -1 Within 60 calendar days of the City's issuance Project Applicant Within 60 Newport Beach Fire of the first building permit for the Project, the calendar days of Department Applicant shall provide payment to the City of the City's issuance Newport Beach for the Project's pro -rata share of the first of the cost for purchasing and equipping a new building permit rescue ambulance with patient transport and advanced life support (ALS) capabilities to be located at Santa Ana Heights Fire Station No. 7. Transportation/Traffic RR TRAN-1 Prior to issuance of any building permit, the Project Applicant; Prior to the Community Applicant shall prepare a Construction Construction issuance of any Development and Management Plan for review and approval by Contractor building permit Public Works the Community Development and Public Department Works Departments. The Plan shall identify construction phasing and address traffic control for any temporary lane closures, detours, or other disruptions to traffic circulation and public transit routes. The Plan shall identify the routes that construction vehicles shall use to access the site, the hours of construction traffic, traffic controls and detours, vehicle staging areas, and parking areas for the Project. Emergency service providers and the area's business and the general public shall be notified in advance of any disruptions that may occur. This notice HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 13 14-40 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 14 shall be provided at least two weeks prior to disruptions. The City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall monitor haul operations. A staging area shall be designated on site for construction equipment and supplies to be stored during construction. HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 14-41 (Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, Title 2, Division 6, California Code of Regulations.) § 18702.1. Materiality Standard: Financial Interests in Business Entities. (a) The reasonably foreseeable financial effect of a governmental decision on a business entity in which an official has a financial interest identified in Section 87103(a) or (d) is material whenever the business entity: (1) Initiates the proceeding in which the governmental decision will be made by filing an application, claim, appeal, or request for other government action concerning the business entity; (2) Offers to make a sale of a service or a product to the official's agency: (3) Bids on or enters into a written contract with the official's agency; (4) Is the named manufacturer in a purchase order of any product purchased by the official's agency or the sales provider of any products to the official's agency that aggregates to $1,000 or more in any 12 -month period; (5) Applies for a permit, license, grant, tax credit, exception, variance, or other entitlement that the official's agency is authorized to issue; (6) Is the subject of any inspection, action, or proceeding subject to the regulatory authority of the official's agency; or (7) Is otherwise subject to an action taken by the official's agency, the effect of which is directed solely at the business entity in which the official has an interest. (8) Exception. Notwithstanding the above provisions, any financial effect on a business entity that occurs as a result of a travel payment made for food, lodging, transportation, or fuel, authorized by an agency in the course of carrying out an agency 14-42 function, to a business entity that provides such services to the general public shall be treated under subdivision (b). (b) For a governmental decision not identified in subdivision (a), the financial effect is material if a prudent person with sufficient information would find it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision's financial effect would contribute to a change in the price of the business entity's publicly traded stock, or the value of a privately -held business entity. Examples of decisions that may be applicable include those that: (1) Authorize, prohibit, regulate or otherwise establish conditions for an activity in which the business entity is engaged; (2) Increase or decrease the amount of competition in the field in which the business entity is engaged; (3) Increase or decrease the need for the products or services that the business entity supplies; (4) Make improvements in the surrounding neighborhood such as redevelopment projects, traffic/road improvements, or parking changes that may affect, either temporarily or permanently, the amount of business the business entity receives; (5) Decide the location of a major development, entertainment facility, or other project that would increase or decrease the amount of business the entity draws from the location of the project; or (6) Increase or decrease the tax burden, debt, or financial or legal liability of the business entity. Note: Authority cited: Section 83112, Government Code. Reference: Sections 87100, 87102.5, 87102.6, 87102.8 and 87103, Government Code. 14-43 HISTORY 1. New section filed 9-5-85; effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 85, No. 36). 2. Amendment filed 10-17-88; operative 11-16-88 (Register 88, No. 43). 3. Amendment of subsection (a)(1) filed 3-14-95; operative 3-14-95 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 95, No. 11). 4. Amendment of subsections (a)(2), (a)(3)(E), (a)(4) and (c) -(c)(2) filed 12-11-95; operative 12- 11-95 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(d) (Register 95, No. 50). 5. Amendment of subsection (a)(1) and Note filed 6-13-97; operative 6-13-97. Submitted to OAL for printing only (Register 97, No. 24), 6. Repealer and new section filed 11-23-98; operative 11-23-98 pursuant to the 1974 version of Government Code section 11380.2 and title 2, California Code of Regulations, section 18312(d) and (e) (Register 98, No. 48). 7. Editorial correction of History 6 (Register 2000, No. 25). 8. Amendment of section and Note filed 1-10-2001; operative 2-1-2001. Submitted to OAL for filing pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office of Administrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements) (Register 2001, No. 2). 9. Amendment of subsection (c) filed 1-16-2002; operative 2-15-2002 (Register 2002, No. 3). 10. Amendment of subsection (a) , new subsection (d) and amendment of Note filed 6-10-2003; operative 6-10-2003 (Register 2003, No. 24). 14-44 11. Change without regulatory effect renumbering former section 18702.1 to section 18704.1 and renumbering former section 18705.1 to section 18702.1 filed 4-27-2015. Submitted to OAL for filing pursuant to Fair Political Practices Commission v. Office ofAdministrative Law, 3 Civil C010924, California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, nonpublished decision, April 27, 1992 (FPPC regulations only subject to 1974 Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking requirements and not subject to procedural or substantive review by OAL) (Register 2015, No. 18). 4 14-45 Exhibit "C" Facts and Findings Regarding the Environmental Effects of the Approval of the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR THE HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2016071062) (PA2015-210) 1. INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15091 (collectively, CEQA) require that a public agency consider the environmental impacts of a project before a project is approved and make specific findings. The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can or should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subsection (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially 1 14-47 lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 further provides: (a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) Where the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. This statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091. Having received, reviewed, and considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) and the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project, SCH No. 2016071062 (collectively, the EIR), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the following Findings and Facts in Support of Findings (Findings) are hereby adopted by the City of Newport Beach (City) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency. These Findings set forth the environmental basis for the discretionary actions to be undertaken by the City for the development of the Project. These actions include the certification and/or approval of the following for Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project: • Environmental Impact Report No. ER2018-001 (SCH#2016071062) • General Plan Amendment No. GP2015-004 • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2015-005 • Major Site Development Review No. SD2015-007. • Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-047 2 14-48 These actions are collectively referred to herein as the Project. A. Document Format These Findings have been organized into the following sections: 1. Section 1 provides an introduction to these Findings. 2. Section 2 provides a summary of the Project, overview of the discretionary actions required for approval of the Project, and a statement of the Project's objectives. 3. Section 3 provides a summary of previous environmental reviews related to the Project area that took place prior to the environmental review done specifically for the Project, and a summary of public participation in the environmental review for the Project. 4. Section 4 sets forth findings regarding the environmental impacts that were determined to be—as a result of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and consideration of comments received during the NOP comment period—either not relevant to the Project or clearly not at levels that were deemed significant for consideration at the Project -specific level. 5. Section 5 sets forth findings regarding significant or potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR that the City has determined are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of regulatory requirements (RR) and/or mitigation measures (MM). In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of these measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project and adopted as conditions of the Project by the Lead Agency. Where potentially significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels through adherence to RRs and MMs, these findings specify how those impacts were reduced to an acceptable level. 6. Section 6 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the proposed Project. B. Custodian and Location of Records The documents and other materials that constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the Project are at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. The City of Newport Beach is the custodian of the Administrative Record for the Project. 3 14-49 2. PROJECT SUMMARY A. Project Location The 1.5 -acre Project site is located in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. It is located southwest of State Route (SR) 73, less than one-half mile from the intersection of Jamboree Road and Bristol Street. The property is immediately bound by Bristol Street and SR -73 on the northeast, Bayview Place and a six -story office building complex on the southeast, Baycrest condominiums on the southwest, and a three-story office building and the Santa Ana Heights residential neighborhood to the northwest. Regional access to the site is from East Coast Highway (SR -1) via Jamboree Road or the Costa Mesa Freeway (SR -55). The Project site is accessed by a driveway on Bayview Place, located along the southeastern Project boundary. Access to Bayview Place is provided by Bristol Street to the northeast and Bayview Way to the south. Jamboree Road, a major north -south thoroughfare, is approximately 0.20 mile east of the Project boundary and provides access to both Bristol Street and Bayview Place. SR -73 is located approximately 0.05 mile north of the Project site and provides access to Jamboree Road from Southbound SR -73. B. Project Description The Project involves demolition and removal of the existing approximate 8,800 -square - foot, single -story restaurant, associated parking, and improvements on the site; preparation of the site for redevelopment; and construction of a three-story building with a proposed gross floor area of 84,517 square feet, containing 101 assisted living and memory care units (120 beds), ancillary uses, and subsurface parking. The units would consist of 42 assisted living studios, 27 assisted living one -bedroom units, 12 assisted living two-bedroom units, 13 memory care one -bedroom units, and 7 memory care two- bedroom units. Additionally, the proposed facility would include living rooms, dining rooms, grill, fitness room, spa/salon, theater, library, roof garden, community store, computer lab, activity room, medication rooms, and support uses such as offices, lab, mail room, laundry, and maintenance facilities. Separate interior courtyards would offer seating, outdoor dining, and landscaping for the assisted living and memory care residents. Other amenities would include a landscaped walkway around the structure, a roof garden on the third level overlooking the interior courtyards, and a patio accessible from the library on the first floor of the building. The building height is 33 feet at the top of the roof and 39 feet, 6 inches at the highest point, which includes mechanical equipment screening. This is within the height limits in the Bayview Planned Community text. Landscaping, drive aisles, and passenger drop-off would also be provided on the property. ILI 14-50 C. Legislative and Discretionary Actions Implementation of the Project will require several actions by the City, including Environmental Impact Report No. ER2018-001 (SCH#2016071062): An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed Project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.). General Plan Amendment No. GP2015-004: To change the existing land use designation of the Project site from CO -G (General Commercial Office) to PI (Private Institutions). As stated in the General Plan, the PI land use designation allows land uses such as privately -owned facilities that serve the public, including places for religious assembly, private schools, health care, cultural institutions, museums, yacht clubs, congregate homes, and comparable facilities. This proposal would also increase the development allocation in the anomaly table from 70,000 square feet to 85,000 square feet. • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2015-005: The proposed Project would include an amendment to the existing Bayview Planned Community Development Plan (PC -32) to allow for Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) (assisted living and memory care for seniors) and amend the land use and development standards for the Project site. The proposed revisions to the PC -32 text are as follows. Increase in floor area from 8,000 square feet for restaurant use or 70,000 square feet for office use to 85,000 square feet for RCFE. According to Chapter 20.40.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC), the parking requirement for convalescent facilities is one space per three beds; with 120 beds, the Project would be required to provide a total of 40 parking spaces (36 standard and 4 accessible or barrier -free). The Project proposes 53 spaces. Of the proposed 53 parking spaces, 49 would be standard and 4 would be accessible or barrier -free. PC -32 would be amended to reflect the applicable parking requirements. Revisions to the allowed land uses in Area 5 of the Bayview Planned Community Development Plan (PC -32), which would involve removing the commercial uses currently allowed and only providing for RCFE. Under the proposed amendment, permitted uses subject to a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) include RCFE as defined by the State of California including assisted living facilities and memory care services serving the elderly and any other uses that in the opinion of the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission are of a similar nature. Major Site Development Review No. SD2015-007: Major Site Development Review No. SD2015-007 is required pursuant to Section 20.52.080 (Site 14-51 Development Reviews) of the NBMC to allow the construction of over 19,999 square feet of nonresidential gross floor area. The purpose of the Site Development Review is to review the Project plans to ensure site development is in accordance with the applicable planned community and zoning code development standards. • Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-047: The amended Bayview Planning Community Development Plan (PC -32) would require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval. Therefore, the proposed Project is required to obtain a CUP to allow the establishment of a 120 -bed senior assisted and memory care facility. • Development Agreement: The proposed Project includes a request for a Development Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and the Applicant. The Development Agreement will provide community benefits determined by decision makers. The Final EIR would also provide environmental information to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other public agencies that may be required to grant approvals and permits or coordinate with the City of Newport Beach as a part of Project implementation. These agencies include, but are not limited to: - Airport Land Use Commission of Orange County (ALUC). The Project is within the John Wayne Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP). The overseeing agency, ALUC, must review the proposed Project and determine its consistency with the AELUP. The ALUC considered the Project at its January 17, 2019, public meeting and voted to find the Project consistent with the Commission's AELUP. - Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Santa Ana RWQCB would approve the Project's compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Statewide General Construction Activity permit and Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit. - South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Future construction of the Project would require permitting by SCAQMD for Rules 201 (permit to construct), 402 (nuisance odors), 403 (fugitive dust), 445 (wood burning), and 1113 (architectural coatings). A 14-52 D. Statement of Project Objectives The statement of objectives sought by the Project and set forth in the Final EIR is provided as follows: 1. Develop a high quality and safe senior living facility that would respond to the growing demand for senior housing and cater to the needs of the local elderly population. 2. Create a self-sufficient facility that would provide services and amenities to enhance livability for the onsite resident population. 3. Create a mix of assisted living and memory care units that would cater to the specific needs of the resident population. 4. Construct and operate a use that is compatible with and respectful to the surrounding land uses, physically and aesthetically. 5. Create appropriate landscaping buffers to protect privacy of adjoining neighbors and enhance the Project and community. 6. Implement a Project consistent with the Bayview Planned Community Development Plan (PC -32) requirements and standards (e.g., height limit, setbacks). 7. Implement a land use that would result in fewer vehicular trips than the existing use onsite or the permitted land uses in the Bayview Planning Community Development Plan (PC -32). 3. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The EIR prepared for the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project is the only environmental review conducted for the proposed Project. No other reviews have been previously conducted. The Final EIR includes the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) dated August 2018, written comments on the Draft EIR that were received during the 50 -day public review period, written responses to those comments, clarifications/changes to the Final EIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. In conformance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project: • Completion of the NOP, which was released for a 30 -day public review period from July 22, 2016 through August 22, 2016. The NOP was sent to all responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the Office of Planning Research and posted at the Orange County Clerk -Recorder's office and on the City's website on July 22, 2016. • During the NOP review period, a Scoping Meeting was held to solicit additional suggestions on the content of the Harbor Pointe Senior Living EIR. Attendees were provided an opportunity to identify verbally or in writing the issues they felt should be addressed in the EIR. The scoping meeting was held on August 15, 2016, at 14-53 the Civic Center Community Room, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. The notice of the public scoping meeting was included in the NOP. • The Draft EIR was made available for a 50 -day public review period (August 10, 2018 to September 28, 2018). The Draft EIR consisted of analysis of the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project and the technical appendices. The Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR was published in the Orange County Daily Pilot, a newspaper of general circulation, on August 10, 2018. The NOA was sent to all interested persons, agencies and organizations. The Notice of Completion (NOC) was sent to the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento for distribution to public agencies. The NOA was also posted at the Orange County Clerk -Recorder's office. Copies of the Draft EIR were made available for public review at the City of Newport Beach, Planning Division, Newport Beach Central Branch Library, Newport Beach Balboa Branch Library, and Newport Beach Mariners Branch Library. The Draft EIR was available for download via the City's website: https://www. newportbeachca.gov/qovernment/departments/community- development/planning-division/projects-environmental-document-download- page/environmental-document-download-page. • During the public review of the Draft EIR, a Planning Commission Study Session was held on September 13, 2018 in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California 92660. At the Study Session a total of 23 verbal comments were received. These comments are included and addressed in the Responses to Comments document. • Preparation of a Draft Final EIR included Draft EIR, comments on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, clarifications/revisions to the Draft EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and appended documents. The Responses to Comments were provided to the City Planning Commissioners on November 27, 2018 and posted on the City's website on the same day. • The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Project on December 6, 2018, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. Notices of time, place, and purpose of the public hearing were provided in accordance with CEQA and NBMC. The Final EIR, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this hearing. Notice for this public hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all property owners within a minimum of 300 feet of the Project site and to all interested persons, agencies and organizations, and posted at the Project site a minimum of 10 days in advance of the hearing, consistent with the NBMC. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for the meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. • In compliance with Section 15088(b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (State CEQA Guidelines), the City prepared written Responses to Comments to public agencies and posted the responses on the City's website, at least 10 days prior to certifying the Final EIR. 0 14-54 • The City Council held a public hearing on February 12, 2019, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was provided in accordance with CEQA and NBMC. The Final EIR, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the City Council at this hearing. Notice for the meeting was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all property owners within a minimum 300 feet of the Project site and to all interested persons, agencies and organizations, and posted at the Project site a minimum of 10 days in advance of the hearing, consistent with the NBMC. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for the meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project consists of the following documents and other evidence, at a minimum: • All Project application materials submitted to the City by the Applicant and its representatives; • NOP and all other public notices issued by the City in conjunction with the proposed Project, • The Final EIR, including the Draft EIR and all appendices, the Responses to Comments, Clarifications and Revisions as Part of the Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and all supporting materials referenced therein. All documents, studies, EIRs, or other materials incorporated by reference in the Draft EIR and Final EIR; • Written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public during the 50 -day public review comment period on the Draft EIR; • All responses to the written comments submitted by agencies and members of the public provided at the December 6, 2018, Planning Commission Public Hearing; • The testimony provided by agencies and members of the public at the City Council public hearing on February 12, 2019; • All final City Staff Reports relating to the Draft EIR, Final EIR, and the Project; • All other public reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, or other planning documents relating to the Project, the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR prepared by the City, consultants to the City, or Responsible or Trustee Agencies. • The MMRP adopted by the City for the Project; the Ordinances and Resolutions adopted by the City in connection with the proposed Project; and all documents incorporated by reference therein; • These Findings of Fact adopted by the City for the Project, any documents expressly cited in these Findings of Fact; and • Any other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6(e). D 14-55 The documents and other material that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are based are located at the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department. The custodian for these documents is the City of Newport Beach. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(2) and 14 California Code Regulations Section 15091(e). 4. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WERE DETERMINED NOT TO BE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (a) Impacts Determined Less than Significant In Section 2.0, Introduction, Project History, and Setting, of the Draft EIR An Initial Study (IS) was not prepared for the proposed Project, and only an NOP was circulated by the City on July 22, 2016. The scope of the EIR is based on the findings of the technical studies, determination by the City, input received from the agencies and the public as part of the scoping process, and the analysis of topics and CEQA Checklist questions in Section 2.0 of the Draft EIR. Based on the City's determination, the EIR addressed all environmental topics with potential to result in significant effects. Using the City's Environmental Checklist Form, the following issues were assessed as "No Impact" or "Less Than Significant Impact." Therefore, in accordance with Section 15128 of the State CEQA Guidelines, these were identified as topical areas or issues within topical areas that did not receive further evaluation in the Draft EIR: 1) Agriculture and Forest Resources: The Project site and surrounding areas are designated as Urban and Built -Up Land and is not zoned for agriculture. The Project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No portion of the Project site is covered by a Williamson Act Contract. Additionally, the Project site does not include forest resources, including timberlands. This topic was focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 2) Air Quality: The Project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors and, therefore, would not produce objectionable odors. The potential odor emitted during construction would be associated with construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings and temporary in nature. Odors emitted long-term would include solid waste storage. However, these materials would be stored in compliance with Municipal Code Section 20.30.120. This checklist question was focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 3) Biological Resources: The Project would not 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Additionally, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local Zo 14-56 or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. Further, the Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. This topic was focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 4) Cultural/Scientific Resources: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. The Project site is not identified as a historic resource per the City of Newport Beach General Plan EIR, and no historical resources or districts are located near the Project site. The demolition of the restaurant and associated site improvements and redevelopment of the Project site would not cause any direct or indirect impact to historic resources, nor would it adversely affect the historic significance of historical resources in the City. This checklist question was focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 5) Geology and Soils: The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Map or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault or expose people or structures to landslides. The Project would not be located on expansive soils or require the use of septic systems or alternative waste water disposal systems. These checklist questions were focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 6) Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school, be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as such, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the area associated with proximity to a private airstrip; impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. These checklist questions were focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 11 14-57 7) Hydrology and Water Quality: The Project would not place housing within a 100 - year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map. The proposed Project site is not within a 100 -year flood hazard area and therefore would not impede or redirect flood flows or expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, nor would it expose people or structures to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. These checklist questions were focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 8) Land Use and Planning: The Project would not divide or disrupt the physical arrangement of an established community, as it would be located on an existing legal lot surrounded by public roads and sidewalks. Additionally, the proposed Project is within the Orange County Central -Coastal NCCP/HCP, but it is not identified for conservation. These checklist questions were focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 9) Mineral Resources: The Project would not 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 and would not result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. No mining activities or mineral extraction uses occur near the Project site, and the site is not underlain by an oilfield. This topic was focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 10) Noise: The Project site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip and therefore the project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels related to private aircraft. This checklist question was focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 11) Population or Housing: The Project would not induce substantial population growth directly or indirectly; would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; and would not displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. In terms of direct population growth, the 120 - resident population is an insignificant number in relationship to the overall City population. Additionally, the proposed Project would not result in indirect population growth, as the Project would not extend infrastructure beyond the boundaries of the Project site that would facilitate growth. Thus, the proposed Project would not result in direct or indirect population growth in the area. This topic was focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 12) Public Services: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance 12 14-58 objectives for schools, parks, and other public facilities (libraries). These checklist questions were focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 13) Recreation: The Project would not 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 and would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The proposed Project would not substantially increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities due to the nature of the use and the age of the resident population. On-site recreational amenities would be provided to meet the needs of the residents. This topic was focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 14) Transportation/Traffic: The Project would not conflict with the applicable Orange County Transportation Authority's (OCTA's) Congestion Management Plan (CMP) level of service standards and travel demand. The Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks; and would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. These checklist questions were focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. 15) Utilities and Services Systems: The Project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. This checklist question was focused out from further analysis in the Draft EIR. (b) Impacts Determined to be Less Than Significant in the Draft EIR The following impacts were evaluated in the Draft EIR and determined to be less than significant solely through adherence to the Project design and City requirements. Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the Draft EIR, and the comments received by the public on the Draft EIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City indicating that the Project would have an impact on the following environmental areas: 1) Aesthetics and Visual Resources: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas; substantially damage scenic resources; adversely affect the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or generate additional light or glare in the Project area. 2) Air Quality: The Project would not conflict with the applicable air quality plan; result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. 3) Geology and Soils: The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. 13 14-59 4) Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with the plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. 5) Hydrology and Water Quality: The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level; substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including 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, substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the 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; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. 6) Land Use and Planning: The Project would not conflict with any applicable General Plan policies or result in incompatibility with the surrounding uses. 7) Noise and Vibration: The Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels, as the threshold for noise impacts to sensitive uses (65 dBA CNEL contour) would not be exceed. 8) Public Services: The Project would not create significant impacts related to fire protection (project -specific) and police protection services such that would result in substantial adverse physical impacts (provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities) and need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. 9) Transportation and Traffic: The Project -generated traffic would not conflict with applicable City plans governing the performance of the area -wide circulation system (would not result in increased trip generation); substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses; or result in inadequate emergency access. 10) Tribal Cultural Resources: The Project would not cause substantial adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural resources (i.e., site, feature, place, cultural landscape, scared place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe) that are either listed/eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources or determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant. 11) Utilities and Service Systems: The Project would not result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities; 14 14-60 result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities; result in insufficient water supplies to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources; or result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. Additionally, the Project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity and comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. 5. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The following potentially significant environmental impacts were analyzed in the EIR, and the effects of the Project were considered. As a result of environmental analysis of the Project; compliance with existing laws, codes, and statutes; and the identification of the regulatory requirements and feasible mitigation measures (together referred herein as the Mitigation Program), potentially significant impacts have been determined by the City to be reduced to a level of less than significant, and the City has found—in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a) (1)—that "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. This is referred to herein as "Finding 1." Where the City has determined—pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(a)(2) and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(2)—that "Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency," the City's finding is referred to herein as "Finding 2." A. Cultural Resources (1) Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Finding 1: Regulatory Requirement is introduced focusing on potential discovery of resources during construction. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding Regulatory Requirement RR CULT -1 (compliance with Paleontological and Archaeological Resource Protection Guidelines in the City Council Policy K-5) requires that if resources (i.e., archaeological) are discovered during construction, all activities be halted until resources are examined by a qualified monitor. Therefore, impacts to significance of an archaeological resources pursuant tc Section 15064.5 would be less than significant. 15 14-61 Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements RR CULT -1 If archaeological or paleontological resources are discovered during construction, all construction activities in the general area of the discovery shall be temporarily halted until the resource is examined by a qualified monitor, retained by the Developer. The monitor shall recommend next steps (i.e., additional excavation, curation, preservation, etc.). (2) Potential Impact: The project would directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site. Finding 1. Mitigation Measure is introduced requiring presence of a paleontologist monitor during grading and excavation activities. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is mitigated to less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding Mitigation Measure MM CULT -1 requires a paleontologist monitor to be present during grading and excavation activities. If fossil remains are discovered, the paleontologist would have the authority to temporarily divert work to allow recovery of the fossils. Therefore, impacts pertaining to significance of paleontological resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements MM CULT -1 Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, Project Applicant shall provide written evidence to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department that an Orange County—certified professional Paleontologist has been retained to monitor any potential impacts to paleontological resources throughout the duration of any ground -disturbing activities at the Project site. The paleontologist shall review the Project's final plans and develop and implement a Paleontological Mitigation Plan, which shall include the following minimum elements: • All earthmoving activities 8 -feet or more below the current surface shall be monitored fulltime by a qualified paleontological monitor. If fossils are discovered, the paleontological monitor has the authority to temporarily divert work, as deemed necessary, to allow recovery of the fossils and evaluation of the fossil locality. • Fossil localities shall require documentation including stratigraphic columns and samples for micropaleontological analyses and for dating. 16 14-62 • Fossils shall be prepared to the point of identification prior to being donated to an appropriate repository. • The final report shall interpret any paleontological resources discovered in the regional context and provide the catalog and all specialists' reports as appendices. (3) Potential Impact: The project would disturb human remains, including those, interred outside of formal cemeteries. Finding 1. Regulatory Requirement is introduced pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 in case human remains area discovered during excavation and grading activities. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding Regulatory Requirement RR CULT -2 (pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5) requires that if human remains are unearthed, all activities cease, and the County Coroner be notified. Therefore, impacts pertaining to disturbance of human remains would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements RR CULT -2 In the event that human remains are unearthed during excavation and grading activities, all activity shall cease immediately. Pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. The NAHC shall then contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who shall serve as consultant on how to proceed with the remains. B. Geology and Soils (1) Potential Impact: The project would expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving.- i. nvolving: i. Strong seismic ground shaking ii. Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction Finding 1. Mitigation Measure is introduced to address potentially significant impacts associated with seismic shaking and seismic ground failure in the form of liquefaction, seismically induced settlement, and lateral spreading. The City 17 14-63 hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is mitigated to less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding The Project site is in a seismically active area that would likely experience strong ground shaking during the life of any project developed thereon. However, compliance with existing regulations and implementation of MM GEO-1 would reduce potentially significant impacts. MM GEO-1 requires compliance with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by Ninyo & Moore regarding site preparation and building design specification. With implementation of mitigation measure, potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements MM GEO-1 Site preparation and building design specifications shall follow the recommendations in the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by Ninyo & Moore (dated December 2015, updated April 2016).- • 016): • Earthwork. Earthwork shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of the applicable agencies and recommendations of the Geotechnical Evaluation. • Seismic Design Considerations. Design of the proposed improvements shall be performed in accordance with the requirements of governing jurisdictions and applicable seismic design criteria in the California Building Code (CBC) and the City's Building Code. • Foundations. Foundations shall be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the geotechnical recommendations in the Geotechnical Evaluation. Requirements of the governing jurisdictions, practices of the Structural Engineers Association of California, and applicable building codes shall also be considered in the design of the structures. • Sidewalks. Sidewalks shall be designed in accordance with agency standards. • Corrosivity. Due to the presence of corrosive soils in the Project area, corrosion protection for the Project shall be designed by a Corrosion Engineer. • Concrete Placement. Recommendations regarding the type of cement and concrete cover necessary for the site shall be implemented. • Preliminary Pavement Design Recommendations. Recommendations regarding preliminary pavement design shall be implemented. Zs 14-64 • Drainage. Recommendations regarding adequate surface drainage shall be implemented. • Landscaping. Recommendations regarding landscaping and drought -tolerant plants shall be implemented. The construction specifications shall be reviewed by the City of Newport Beach Building Official prior to issuance of a grading permit. (2) Potential Impact: The Project would be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Finding 1. Mitigation Measure is introduced to address potentially significant impacts associated with unstable soil resulting in on- or off-site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is mitigated to less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding The Project site is not located in a potential landslide area or a potential liquefaction area; however, the Geotechnical Evaluation indicates that soils between 36 feet below ground surface (bgs) and 49 feet bgs could be susceptible to liquefaction. According to the Geotechnical Evaluation, post -earthquake settlement as a result of liquefaction would be up to 2 inches; and the on-site soils have an expansion index of 93 (high expansion potential). However, MM GEO-1 requires compliance with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by Ninyo & Moore regarding site preparation and building design specification. With implementation of mitigation measure, potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Re uq latory Requirements The above MM GEO-1 applies. (3) Potential Impact: The Project would be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the California Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. Finding 1. Mitigation Measure is introduced to address potentially significant impacts associated with expanse soil. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is mitigated to less than significant. Facts in Support of Finding The Geotechnical Evaluation concludes that the Project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations in the evaluation are 19 14-65 incorporated into the design and construction of the proposed Project. MM GEO- 1 requires compliance with the recommendations in the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by Ninyo & Moore regarding site preparation and building design specification. Additionally, Project construction would be required to comply with Chapter 15.10, Excavation and Grading, of the City's Municipal Code and other applicable building standards. Therefore, the Project's impacts related to unstable soils would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measure and compliance with City regulations. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements The above MM GEO-1 applies. C. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (1) Potential Impact: The Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Finding 1. Regulatory Requirement is introduced to address potentially significant impacts associated with the transport of potentially hazardous materials, as demolition may include hazardous materials. Demolition activities would be required to comply with existing regulatory requirements. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with compliance with regulatory requirement. Facts in Support of Finding Demolition and construction activities for the proposed Project would be relatively short-term (approximately 12 to 14 months), and the transport, use, and disposal of any hazardous materials as part of these activities would be temporary. Construction activities would involve the use of chemical substances such as solvents, paints, fuel for equipment, and other potentially hazardous materials. These materials are common for construction activities, would be used in limited quantities, and do not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment. As part of the demolition activities the transport of demolition debris would also occur, which may potentially include hazardous materials. However, RR HAZ-1 requires that demolition occur in compliance federal, State, and local standards, including those of federal and State Occupational Safety and Health Administrations (OSHA) and (CalOSHA). With compliance, potential impacts would be less than significant. Mitiaation Measures and Reaulatory Reauirements RR HAZA Demolition shall be conducted in accordance with the remediation and mitigation procedures established by all federal, State, and local standards, including those of the federal and State Occupational Safety and Health Administrations (OSHA and CalOSHA) and South c 14-66 Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulations for the excavation, removal, and proper disposal of asbestos -containing materials (SCAQMD Regulation X - National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart M - National Emission Standards For Asbestos). The materials shall be disposed of at a certified asbestos landfill. The Asbestos -Abatement Contractor shall comply with notification and asbestos -removal procedures outlined in SCAQMD Rule 1403 to reduce asbestos-related health risks. SCAQMD Rule 1403 applies to any demolition or renovation activity and the associated disturbance of asbestos -containing materials. These requirements shall be included on the contractor specifications and verified by the City of Newport Beach's Community Development Department in conjunction with the issuance of a Demolition Permit. (2) Potential Impact: The Project would 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. Finding 1. Regulatory Requirement is introduced to address potentially significant impacts associated handling and disposal of lead-based paint (LBP) during demolition activities. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with compliance with regulatory requirement. Facts in Support of Finding Although Phase I ESA revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the Project site, considering the demolition of the existing restaurant, compliance with the existing regulatory requirements and a survey of hazardous building materials would be required. RR HAZ-2 requires compliance with Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 1532.1), which sets working practices for lead exposure. With compliance, potential impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements RR HAZ-2 Contractors shall comply with the requirements of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (Section 1532.1), which sets exposure limits, exposure monitoring, respiratory protection, and good working practices by workers exposed to lead. Lead -contaminated debris and other wastes shall be managed and disposed of in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Health and Safety Code. (3) Potential Impact: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the Project would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. 21 14-67 Finding 1. Regulatory Requirement is introduced pertaining to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) determination of No Hazard. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with compliance with regulatory requirement. Facts in Support of Finding The determination of No Hazard for the proposed structure stated that the structure would not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation; however, it required that the FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be filed electronically within five days after the construction reaches its greatest height. The determination of No Hazard for the temporary construction equipment indicated that the temporary structure (i.e., construction equipment boom lift) would not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Both determinations stated that while marking and lighting are not necessary, should they be included, they would be installed and maintained in accordance with the FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 L. RR HAZ-3 requires filing of FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration. With compliance, potential impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, in light of the required legislative approvals (i.e., General Plan Amendment and amendment to PC -32), per the Public Utilities Code, Division 9, Aviation, Section 21676(b), RR HAZ-4 is included regarding the City referral of the proposed actions to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). With compliance potential impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements RR HAZ-3 Federal Aviation Administration Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, shall be filed electronically within five days after the construction reaches its greatest height. This shall be verified by the City of Newport Beach's Community Development Department. RR HAZ-4 Prior to City Council's consideration of the amendments to the General Plan and the Bayview Planned Community Development Plan Amendment (PC -32), the City of Newport Beach Community Development Department shall refer the proposed actions to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The referral shall be submitted by the City and agendized by the ALUC staff between the City's expected Planning Commission and City Council hearings (since the ALUC meets on the third Thursday afternoon of each month, submittals must be received in the ALUC office by the first of the month to ensure sufficient time for review, analysis, and agendizing). 22 14-68 D. Land Use and Planning (1) Potential Impact: The Project would 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. Finding 1. Mitigation Measure is introduced to ensure consistency with the recommendations in the AELUP for projects in the Noise Impact Zone "2". The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measure. Facts in Support of Finding The Project site is in the Noise Impact Zone "2", as designated in the AELUP, and site is subject to aircraft noise and is located in the typical 85 departure Single Event Noise Equivalent Level for several types of aircraft that operate at JWA (A300-600 and the 737-700). Building noise attenuation would ensure that the interior noise levels achieve the 45 -dB standard. The Project would not include public outdoor areas, although it would include common outdoor areas for Project residents. However, based on consistency with the AELUP policy requirements, notification of prospective residents of the presence of operating aircraft is required. MM LU -1 requires notification of prospective residents of the presence of aircraft operating from John Wayne Airport. Therefore, in an abundance of caution, the Project has been identified as having a potential significant impact, which would be mitigated to less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measure. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements MM LU -1 Prior to issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, the Applicant shall produce evidence to the Community Development Director of a notice for prospective residents that this property is subject to over- flight, sight, and sound of aircraft operating from John Wayne Airport. E. Noise (1) Potential Impact: The Project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. [Short -Term] (2) Potential Impact: The project would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Finding 1. Mitigation Measures are introduced to address construction noise increases at adjacent residences, despite the six-foot block wall along the southwest and northwest property lines. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and 23 14-69 determines that this impact is less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measure. Facts in Support of Finding Construction activities have the potential to generate substantial increases over ambient noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors and would therefore be audible and potentially disturbing and annoying. Construction noise increases at adjacent residences, without mitigation, could be substantial and potentially significant. Although currently there is a six-foot block wall along the southwest and northwest property line, which would serve to attenuate noise, to further reduce and minimize construction noise levels, MMs NOI-1 and NOI-2 are introduced to reduce the impacts. MM N0I-1 requires 10 -foot high temporary noise barriers to be installed on the northwest and southwest property boundaries reducing the construction noise at the receptors by at least 5 dBA. MM NOI-2 requires construction equipment to have properly operating and maintained mufflers, stationary equipment to be located and equipped to minimize noise, and staging areas to be located as far away from local residences as feasible. With implementation of mitigation measures, potential impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements MM N0I-1 Prior to the issue of demolition, grading, or building permits, the Applicant shall provide evidence acceptable to the City of Newport Beach Public Works Director and/or Community Development Director, that construction plans and specifications require temporary noise barriers to be installed on the northwestern and southwestern project boundaries. The noise barriers shall be 10 feet high, shall be solid from the ground to the top of the barrier, and have a weight of at least 2.5 pounds per square foot, which is equivalent to 3/ -inch thick plywood. MM N0I-2 Prior to the start of grading, the Applicant shall provide evidence acceptable to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director that construction plans and specifications require: a. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers; mufflers shall be equivalent to or of greater noise reducing performance than manufacturer's standard. b. Stationary equipment, such as generators, cranes, and air compressors, shall be located as far from local residences as feasible. Stationary equipment shall be equipped with appropriate noise reduction measures (e.g., silencers, shrouds, or other devices) to limit the equipment noise at the nearest sensitive residences to 65 dBA Leq. 24 14-70 c. Equipment maintenance, vehicle parking, and material staging areas shall be located as far away from local residences as feasible. d. The Applicant shall provide a qualified "Noise Disturbance Coordinator." The Disturbance Coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. When a complaint is received, the Disturbance Coordinator shall notify the City within 24 hours of the complaint and determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall implement reasonable measures to resolve the complaint, as deemed acceptable by the Community Development Department. The contact name and the telephone number for the Disturbance Coordinator shall be clearly posted on-site. a. Construction activities shall not take place outside the allowable hours specified by NBMC Section 10.28.040 (7 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturdays; construction is prohibited on Sundays and/or federal holidays. (3) Potential Impact: The project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Finding 1. Mitigation Measure is introduced to avoid a potential construction vibration impact requiring that large equipment and similar large vibration - producing equipment not be used within 150 feet of occupied residences and that jackhammers not be used within 60 feet of occupied residences. Vibratory rollers, if used, can be operated in the static mode when within 150 feet of residences. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measure. Facts in Support of Finding Conventional construction equipment would be used for demolition and excavation and grading activities, and large equipment would not be anticipated to be used to develop the Project site. Vibration levels for large bulldozers, caisson drilling, loaded trucks, and jackhammers at a distance of 50 feet would exceed the 72 VdB impact threshold, and would be a potential significant impact. MM N0I-3 would avoid a potential construction vibration impact. With implementation of mitigation measure, potential impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements MM NOI-3 Prior to the issue of demolition, grading, or building permits, the Applicant shall provide evidence acceptable to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director that construction plans and specifications require that large bulldozers, large loaded trucks, 25 14-71 vibratory rollers (operated in static mode), caisson drilling, and other similar large equipment not be used within 150 feet of occupied residences and that jackhammers not be used within 60 feet of occupied residences. (4) Potential Impact: The Project would result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. (Long -Term). (5) Potential Impact: The Project would result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Finding 1. Mitigation Measure is introduced to require compliance with CBC and preparation of a noise analysis. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measure. Facts in Support of Finding Exterior noise from vehicular traffic could potentially expose future residents of the Project to interior and exterior noise levels that would be incompatible with the limits in the City of Newport Beach General Plan and interior noise levels that would exceed the limit specified in the California Building Code. To be consistent with the General Plan, a detailed analysis of noise insulation features must be included in the design. Further, the CBC requires that interior noise levels in habitable rooms subject to exterior noise not exceed 45 dBA CNEL Therefore, MM NOI-4 would be incorporated into the Project to ensure noise compatibility and compliance with the CBC. MM NOI-4 requires a noise analysis demonstrating that interior noise levels would be 45 dBA CNEL or less, and that mechanical ventilation would be provided to habitable rooms facing Bristol Street and Bayview Place. With implementation of mitigation measure, potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements MM N0I4 Prior to the issue of the building permit for the proposed Project, the Applicant shall submit an acoustical analysis acceptable to the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director or Building Official, that demonstrates that the proposed architectural design would provide an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL or less (based on buildout traffic noise conditions and in compliance with the AELUP for JWA) in all habitable rooms of the proposed building facing Bristol Street or Bayview Place. The Applicant shall also submit plans and specifications showing that: • All residential units facing Bristol Street and Bayview Place shall be provided with a means of mechanical ventilation, as required by the California Building Code for occupancy with windows closed. 26 14-72 (6) Potential Impact: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, the Project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Finding 1. Mitigation Measure is introduced to require compliance with CBC and preparation of a noise analysis. The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this impact is less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measure. Facts in Support of Finding The Project site is located approximately 0.7 mile south of John Wayne Airport and within the area covered by the Orange County ALUC Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. Although the Project site is partially at the 2016 60 dBA CNEL noise contour, MM NOI-4, above, requires demonstrating that interior noise levels would not exceed 45 dBA CNEL based on future traffic noise levels of 70 dBA CNEL or greater. Because the JWA aircraft noise of approximately 60 dBA CNEL is 10 dBA less than the traffic noise, the sum of the aircraft and traffic noise would be negligibly greater than the traffic noise alone. Therefore, MM NOI-4 would ensure adequate noise attenuation from aircraft noise as well as traffic noise. With implementation of mitigation measure, potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements The above MM NOI-4 applies. F. Public Services (1) Potential Impact: The Project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of fire protection services (cumulative) and associated new or physically altered facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Finding 1. Mitigation Measure is introduced to address the Project's contribution to cumulative fire protection impact and require payment of Project's pro -rata share of the cost for purchasing and equipping a new rescue ambulance (cumulative impact). The City hereby makes Finding 1 and determines that this cumulative impact is reduced to less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measure. Facts in Support of Finding Future development in the City are expected to increase demand for fire protection services and would contribute to the need for additional equipment and personnel to meet the demand. Based on the evaluation conducted by the Newport Beach Fire Department, an adequate level of service can be provided to meet the long- range demand through the hiring of additional staff and providing additional equipment. However, although the Project's demand for fire protection services 27 14-73 would not result in construction of new or expansion of existing facility, to meet the staffing demand of the Project, MM FIRE -1 is proposed to address the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts. With implementation of mitigation measures, potential cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures and Regulatory Requirements MM FIRE -1 Within 60 calendar days of the City's issuance of the first building permit for the Project, the Applicant shall provide payment to the City of Newport Beach for the Project's pro -rata share of the cost for purchasing and equipping a new rescue ambulance with patient transport and advanced life support (ALS) capabilities to be located at Santa Ana Heights Fire Station No. 7. 6. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES A. Alternatives Selected for Analysis The following two alternatives have been determined to represent a reasonable range of alternatives that could potentially attain most of the basic objectives of the Project and have the potential to avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects of the Project. These alternatives are analyzed in detail in the following sections. No Project Alternative • Office Development Alternative An EIR must identify an "environmentally superior" alternative, and where the No Project Alternative is identified as environmentally superior, the EIR is required to identify as environmentally superior an alternative from among the others evaluated. Each alternative's environmental impacts are compared to the proposed Project and determined to be environmentally superior, neutral, or inferior. However, only significant impacts are used in making the final determination of whether an alternative is environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed Project. However, no impacts analyzed in the Draft EIR were found to be significant and unavoidable. Subsection 5.4 in Section 5.0, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR identifies the environmentally superior alternative. The proposed Project is analyzed in detail in Section 4.0 of the Draft EIR. 1. Alternatives Comparison Table 1, Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives and Impacts of the Proposed Project, below, provides a summary matrix that compares the impacts associated with the Project with the impacts of each of the proposed alternatives. m 14-74 Table 1 Comparison of Impacts Associated with the Alternatives and Impacts of the Proposed Project 29 14-75 Alternatives Proposed Project Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Impact Category Impact No Project Office Development Aesthetics Threshold 4.1.1 Have a substantial adverse effect on a Less Than Significant Less Similar scenic vista Threshold 4.1.2 Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock Less Than Significant Less Similar outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway Threshold 4.1-3 Substantially degrade the existing visual Less Than Significant Less Similar character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Threshold 4.1.4 Create a new source of substantial light Less Than Significant Less Similar or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Air Quality Threshold 4.2-1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation Less Than Significant Similar Similar of the applicable air quality plan. Threshold 4.2.2 Construction: Construction: Construction: Violate any air quality standard or Less Than Significant Less Less contribute substantially to an existing or Operation: Operation: 0 eration: projected air quality violation. Less Than Significant Greater Greater 29 14-75 30 14-76 Alternatives Proposed Project Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Impact Category Impact No Project Office Development Threshold 4.2.3 Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal Less Than Significant Similar Greater or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors). Threshold 4.2.4 Expose sensitive receptors to Less Than Significant Less Similar substantial pollutant concentrations. Cultural Resources Threshold 4.3.1 Cause a substantial adverse change in Less Than Significant Less Greater the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. Threshold 4.3-2 Directly or indirectly destroy a unique Less Than Significant Less Greater paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Threshold 4.3.3 Disturb any human remains, including Less Than Significant Less Greater those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Geology and Soils Threshold 4.4-1 Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death Less Than Significant Less Similar involving: with Mitigation (i) Strong seismic ground shaking. (ii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction. Threshold 4.4-2 Result in substantial soil erosion or the Less Than Significant Less Similar loss of topsoil. 30 14-76 31 14-77 Alternatives Proposed Project Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Impact Category Impact No Project Office Development Threshold 4.4-3 Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become Less Than Significant unstable as a result of the Project, and with Mitigation Less Similar potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. Threshold 4.4-4 Be located on expansive soils, as Less Than Significant defined in Table 18-1-B of the California with Mitigation Less Similar Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Threshold 4.5-1 Construction: Construction: Construction: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, Less Than Significant Less Greater either directly or indirectly, that may Operation: Operation: Operation: have a significant impact on the environment. Less Than Significant Greater Greater Threshold 4.5.2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of Less Than Significant Greater Similar reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Threshold 4.6-1 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine Less Than Significant Less Similar transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Threshold 4.6-2 Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident Less Than Significant Less Similar conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. 31 14-77 32 14-78 Alternatives Proposed Project Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Impact Category Impact No Project Office Development Threshold 4.6-3 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a Less Than Significant Less Less public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area HydrokW and Water Quality WATER QUALITY Threshold 4.7-1 Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Less Than Significant Greater Similar Threshold 4.7.6 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Threshold 4.7-2 Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater Less Than Significant Less Similar 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). Threshold 4.7-3 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including the alteration of the course of a stream or Less Than Significant Less Similar river, in manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site. DRAINAGE Threshold 4.7-4 Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including Less Than Significant Less Similar through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a 32 14-78 33 14-79 Alternatives Proposed Project Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Impact Category Impact No Project Office Development manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. and Threshold 4.7-5 Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Land Use and Planning Threshold 4.8.1 Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project Less Than Significant (including, but not limited to the general with Mitigation Less Less plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Noise Threshold 4.9.1 Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of Less Than Significant Less Similar standards established in a local general with Mitigation plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies. Threshold 4.9-4 Result in a substantial temporary or Less Than Significant periodic increase in ambient noise levels with Mitigation Less Greater in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Threshold 4.9-2 Result in exposure of persons to or Less Than Significant Less Similar generation of excessive groundborne with Mitigation vibration or groundborne noise levels, 33 14-79 34 14-80 Alternatives Proposed Project Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Impact Category Impact No Project Office Development Threshold 4.9.3 Result in a substantial permanent Less Than Significant increase in ambient noise levels in the with Mitigation Greater Greater Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Threshold 4.9.5 For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a Less Than Significant Less Less public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. Public Services Threshold 4.10.1 Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental 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: (i) Fire protection Less Than Significant Less Similar (ii) Police protection Less Than Significant Less Similar Transporiaiffon/Trafffic Threshold 4.11-1 Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, Construction: Construction: Construction: taking into account all modes of Less Than Significant Less Greater transportation including mass transit and Operation: Operation: Operation: non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, Less Than Significant Greater Greater including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit. 34 14-80 35 14-81 Alternatives Proposed Project Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Impact Category Impact No Project Office Development Threshold 4.11-2 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) Less Than Significant Less Similar and Threshold 4.11-3 Result in inadequate emergency access. Tubal Cultural Resources Threshold 4.12.1 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of Less Than Significant Less Greater historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1 (k), or ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Utilities and Service Systems Threshold 4.13.1 Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment Less Than Significant Less Similar facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could 35 14-81 a) No Project/No Build Alternative Description: Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate a "No Project" alternative to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving a proposed project with the impacts of not approving that project. Section 15126.6(e)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines describes the two general types of no project 36 14-82 Alternatives Proposed Project Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Impact Category Impact No Project Office Development cause significant environmental impacts. and Threshold 4.13-4 Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the Project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. Threshold 4.13-2 Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or Less Than Significant Less Similar expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects. Threshold 4.13-3 Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from Less Than Significant Less Similar existing entitlements and resources, or if are new or expanded entitlements are needed. Threshold 4.13-5 Be served by a landfill with insufficient Less Than Significant Less Similar permitted capacity to accommodate the Project's solid waste disposal needs? Threshold 4.13-6 Not comply with federal, state, and local Less Than Significant Less Similar statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Proposed Project: Development of 3 -story building with 101 assisted living and memory care units, with 120 beds. Alternative 1 — No Project Alternative: No new development; operation of the existing restaurant will continue. Alternative 2 — Office Development Alternative: Construction of 70,000 -square foot office building to replace existing restaurant. Source: Psomas, 2018. a) No Project/No Build Alternative Description: Section 15126.6(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR evaluate a "No Project" alternative to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving a proposed project with the impacts of not approving that project. Section 15126.6(e)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines describes the two general types of no project 36 14-82 alternative: (1) when the project is the revision of an existing land use, regulatory policy, or ongoing operation, the no project alternative would be the continuation of that plan and (2) when the project is other than a land use/regulatory plan (e.g., a specific development on an identifiable property), the no project alternative is the circumstance under which that project is not processed (i.e., no development). Under the No Project Alternative, existing site conditions and the environmental setting would remain unchanged. This alternative assumes the site would continue to remain in its existing state without demolition of the existing structure and site improvements, and the continued use and operation of the existing Kitayama restaurant. Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the No Project environmental impacts as compared to the proposed Project is set forth in Subsection 5.3.1 in Section 5, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. In comparison to the proposed Project, as shown above in Table 1, the No Project Alternative would result in fewer impacts for the following environmental topics: Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Hazardous and Hazardous Materials, Public Services, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems. However, the No Project Alternative would generate more operational vehicle trips than the proposed Project, resulting in greater Air Quality, Noise (long-term traffic and on-site noise generation), GHG Emissions, and Transportation/Traffic impacts compared to the Project. Additionally, this alternative would not provide permanent BMPs to reduce water quality impacts over existing conditions, resulting in more impacts associated with Hydrology and Water Quality. Overall, the No Project Alternative would have less environmental impacts than the proposed Project. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: By not developing the site with the proposed senior living facility, the No Project Alternative would only attain 3 of the 7 Project Objectives identified in Subsection 5.2.1 in Section 5.0, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. Specifically, the No Project Alternative would not meet the objectives related to the development of a senior living, self-sufficient facility, and a mix of assisted living and memory care units. While the existing restaurant under this Alternative has been developed to be compatible with surrounding land uses; provides landscaping buffers; and complies with the Bayview Planned Community Development Plan, it would not be a land use that would reduce vehicle trips to and from the site, since this Alternative would retain the existing restaurant, as allowed by the existing PC Development Plan. Feasibility: Since the No Project Alternative would allow the existing land use (Kitayama Restaurant) to continue operating on the Project site, the feasibility of this alternative would rely on the economic feasibility of indefinite operation of this use. No changes to the existing conditions would occur, and all operations would continue indefinitely. Finding: In comparison to the proposed Project, the No Project Alternative would reduce impacts to Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Hazardous and Hazardous Materials, Public Services, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems. This alternative would result in greater Air Quality, GHG Emissions, Noise (long-term traffic and on-site noise generation), Hydrology and Water Quality, and Transportation/Traffic impacts 37 14-83 compared to the project. By not developing the site with the proposed senior living project, the No Project Alternative would only attain 3 of the 7 Project Objectives identified in Subsection 5.2.1 in Section 5.0, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. Overall, even though the No Project Alternative would not result in beneficial effects, such as the reduction of long- term impacts related to Air Quality, GHG Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Transportation/Traffic, that would occur under the proposed Project, it would have fewer environmental impacts than the proposed Project, making it the environmentally superior alternative. However, since the No Project Alternative fails to meet all but 3 of the Project objectives, it has been rejected by the City in favor of the proposed Project. b) Office Development Alternative Description: The Office Development Alternative assumes the redevelopment of the site with a 70,000 -square -foot office building, as allowed under the Bayview Planned Community Development Plan (PC -32) for Area 5 and the General Commercial Office designation of the site in the Newport Beach General Plan. The designation of Restaurant/Professional and Administrative Office for this area would permit development of an administrative and professional office, subject to a use permit, with a maximum of 70,000 square feet in floor area and 35 feet in height. Other development standards such as building site area, off-street parking, setbacks, landscaping, and more are also provided for the Area 5 designation. In compliance with these standards, the Office Development Alternative proposes an office building with 3 floors over 3 stories of subterranean parking garage. Each floor would be approximately 23,000 square feet. The required parking would be accommodated by 57 surface parking spaces and 183 parking spaces in the garage. The building height above the ground surface grade would be 33 feet plus 10 feet for mechanical screening on the roof top. The building basement would be approximately 30 feet deep. Exterior fagade would be glass and aluminum, similar to other buildings in the area. Under the Office Development Alternative, the legislative actions including the General Plan and the Planned Community Development Plan Amendments under the proposed project, would not be required. However, a Major Site Development Review, as well as a Use Permit would still be required as the Professional and Administrative Office is a permitted use, subject to a use permit. Environmental Effects: A full discussion of the Office Development Alternative's environmental impacts compared to those of the proposed Project is set forth in Subsection 5.3.2 in Section 5.0, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR, which is hereby incorporated by reference. The Office Development Alternative would result in reduced impacts related to Land Use and Planning, as compared to the proposed Project. Impacts related to Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Operational Noise, Public Services, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems would be similar to those of the proposed project. However, impacts associated with Air Quality, GHG Emissions, im ME Construction Noise, and Transportation/Traffic would be greater due to the (1) greater number of vehicle trips that would be generated by the office development under this alternative compared to the proposed project, (2) more excavation and soil export required for the Office Development Alternative, and (3) greater energy and water use in the Office Development Alternative. Ability to Achieve Project Objectives: With the redevelopment of the site with an office building, this alternative would fully meet 2 and partially meet 2 of the 7 Project Objectives identified in Subsection 5.2.1 in Section 5.0, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR. Specifically, the Office Development Alternative would not meet the objectives related to the development of a senior living, self-sufficient facility, and a mix of assisted living and memory care units. The proposed office under this alternative could be designed and constructed to be compatible with surrounding land uses and comply with the Bayview Planned Community Development Plan (PC -32). However, the landscaping under this alternative partially meets the objective of creating landscaping buffers, compared to the proposed Project. While this alternative would reduce vehicular trips to and from the site, as generated by the existing restaurant, it would not reduce vehicular trips from any other permitted land use in the Bayview Planned Community Development Plan since the proposed office use would have the same floor area as another permitted use in PC -32. Additionally, this alternative would have increased vehicular trips compared to the proposed project. Feasibility: Although the Office Development Alternative would be physically feasible, it may not be economically feasible. It is uncertain whether this alternative would yield a reasonable return on investment. Finding: The Office Development Alternative would generally have the same impacts as the Project on most issues; with lesser impacts on Land Use and Planning but greater impacts than the project in terms of Air Quality, GHG Emissions, Construction Noise, and Transportation/Traffic. Thus, it cannot be considered an environmentally superior alternative to the project. In addition, this alternative would only meet 3 of the 7 project objectives. Based on the detailed analyses in the Draft EIR Section 5.3.1 (Alternative 1 — No Project Alternative) and Section 5.3.2 (Alternative 2 — Office Development Alternative) and the summaries above and in Tables 1, above, and 5-2 in the Draft EIR, the proposed Project is the next environmentally superior alternative to the No Project Alternative. 39 14-85 Attachment B Draft Resolution Approving the General Plan Amendment RESOLUTION NO. 2019-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2015-004 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL (CO -G) TO PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS (PI) FOR THE HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT - A SENIOR CONVALESCENT AND CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY LOCATED AT 101 BAYVIEW PLACE (PA2015-210) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Harbor Pointe Senior Living LLC of California ("Applicant"), with respect to property located at 101 Bayview Place, and legally described as Lot 1 of Tract No. 12528 in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 551, Pages 38 through 41 inclusive of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, Assessor's Parcel No. 442-283-05 ("Property"); WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes the demolition of an existing approximately 8,800 square -foot restaurant ("Kitayama") to accommodate the development of an approximately 85,000 square -foot, three-story senior convalescent and congregate care facility (i.e., memory care and assisted living) as a State -licensed Residential Care Facility for the Elderly ("RCFE") with 120 beds ("Project"); WHEREAS, in order to implement the Project, the Applicant requests or requires the following approvals from the City of Newport Beach ("City"): • General Plan Amendment ("GPA") — The current land use designation is General Commercial Office ("CO -G") which allows 8,000 square feet for restaurant use or 70,000 square feet for office use. The general plan amendment would change the CO -G land use designation to Private Institutions ("PI") and amend Anomaly No. 22 to allow the 85,000 square foot RCFE (Table LU2 and associated figures); • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment (Zoning) — To change the allowed land uses and amend development standards in Area 5 of the Bayview Planned Community ("PC -32") Zoning District; • Major Site Development Review — To ensure the Project is developed in accordance with the applicable planned community and zoning code development standards and regulations pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews); 14-87 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 2 of 10 Conditional Use Permit — To allow the use of the Property as a 120 bed RCFE (memory care and assisted living facility) with conditions of approval that protect the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding community; Development Agreement — The applicant has requested a development agreement, which will provide for public benefits as the project is implemented, and Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") — To address reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the Project with corresponding mitigation measures that reduce those environmental impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq. and the California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. WHEREAS, the Property is located within the PC -32 Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is designated as CO -G; WHEREAS, the Property is not located within the coastal zone; therefore, a coastal development permit is not required; WHEREAS, on February 23, 2017, the Planning Commission held a study session in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, to provide initial direction on the Project. No action was taken at the study session. Although not required, the City mailed a courtesy public notice of this study session to property owners within a 300' radius of the Property; WHEREAS, on September 13, 2018, the Planning Commission held a study session in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, to receive a project update and review the draft EIR. No action was taken at the study session. Although not required, the City mailed a courtesy public notice of this study session to property owners within a 300' radius of the Property; WHEREAS, on December 6, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et. seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapter 20.62 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing; WER Resolution No. 2019 - Page 3 of 10 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2018-033 by a unanimous vote of 6-0 recommending approval of the Project, and the land use entitlements referenced above, to the City Council; WHEREAS, on January 17, 2019, the Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC") found the City of Newport Beach Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project to be consistent with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport; WHEREAS, on February 12, 2019, the City Council held a public hearing in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing; WHEREAS, amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code are legislative acts and neither the City nor State Planning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of such amendments; WHEREAS, City Council Policy A-18 requires that proposed CPAs be reviewed to determine if a vote of the electorate would be required pursuant to Section 423 of the City Charter. If a GPA (separately or cumulatively with other GPAs within the previous ten (10) years) generates more than one hundred (100) peak hour trips (a.m. or p.m.), adds forty thousand (40,000) square feet of nonresidential floor area, or adds more than one hundred (100) dwelling units in a statistical area, a vote of the electorate would be required if the City Council approves the GPA. This Property is within Statistical Area J6. There have been no GPAs in Statistical Area J6 since the General Plan update in 2006. The amendment results in 15,000 square feet of additional nonresidential floor area and the Project does not include dwelling units. The additional 15,000 square feet for the proposed facility results in a net decrease of 75 a.m. peak hour trips and a net decrease of 74 p.m. peak hour trips. The reduction in trips is based on the trip generation rates for the allowed general office building and a nursing home (i.e., best available comparable use in Council Policy A-18). As none of the thresholds specified by Charter Section 423 are exceeded, no vote of the electorate is required if the City Council chooses to approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2015-004; WHEREAS, the future development of the property affected by the proposed amendments will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan; and will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed amendments to the PC -32 Zoning District of the NBMC; and • Resolution No. 2019 - Page 4 of 10 WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65352.3, a local government is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission ("NAHC") each time it considers a proposal to adopt or amend the General Plan. If requested by any tribe, the local government must consult for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to cultural resources. The City received comments from the NAHC indicating that eight tribal contacts should be provided notice regarding the proposed amendment. The tribal contacts were provided notice on April 19, 2016. California Government Code Section 65352.3 requires notification 90 days prior to Council action to allow tribe contacts to respond to the request to consult. The City was not contacted by any tribal contacts during this 90 day period. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and has determined that modifications to the Project made by the City Council, if any, are not major changes that require referral back to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation. Section 2: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves General Plan Amendment No. GP2015-004 as attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein by reference changing the land use designation of the Property from General Commercial Office ("CO -G") to Private Institutions ("PI"), and amending Anomaly No. 22 (Table LU2 and associated figures). Section 3: Though not required to make specific findings, the requested GPA and resulting land use change is consistent with the following General Plan land use policies: 1. Land Use Element Policy LU 2.1 (Resident -Serving Land Uses) encourages uses that support the needs of Newport Beach's residents including housing, retail, services, employment, recreation, education, culture, entertainment, and social and spiritual activity that are in balance with the community natural resources and open space. Facts in Support of LU 2.1. The Project would replace the existing restaurant with an RCFE that would serve this age demographic of the City which comprises almost twenty five (25) percent of the City's total population according to latest available American Community Survey ("ACS") data. At present, there are approximately 685 beds in similar facilities citywide. 14-90 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 5 of 10 2. Land Use Element Policy LU 3.2 (Growth and Change) encourages enhancement of existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re- use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. Facts in Support of LU 3.2. The Project would enhance the Bristol Street corridor by providing an updated building that complies with all current Building and Fire Codes. The change in use and increase in floor area are appropriate given that the Project will provide additional, adequate accommodations for a large segment of the City's population, which is continuing to grow. Mitigation Measure MM FIRE -1 of the draft EIR requires the Applicant to provide an additional ambulance for the nearby Santa Ana Heights Fire Station No. 7 to ensure emergency medical services, to the City as a whole, are not compromised. Furthermore, the Project would result in a calculated overall decrease of average daily trips ("ADT") by 426, based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' ("ITE") 2017 Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition trip rates for restaurant and assisted living land uses. A restaurant land use of this size generates a calculated 738 average daily trips, while an assisted living facility of this size generates a calculated 312 average daily trips. 3. Land Use Element Policy LU 3.8 (Project Entitlement Review with Airport Land Use Commission) requires the ALUC to review the adoption or amendment of the General Plan, Zoning Code, specific plans, and Planned Community development plans for land within the John Wayne Airport planning area, as established in the JWA Airport Environs Land Use Plan ("AELUP") in accordance with Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities Code. In addition, the ALUC reviews all development projects with a building height greater than 200'. Facts in Support of LU 3.8. On January 17, 2019, the ALUC reviewed the proposed project and found it consistent with the AELUP. However, the ALUC did include two conditions which have been incorporated into the Project approvals. These two conditions include: (1) modifying noise mitigation measure NOI-4, and (2) including an additional condition of approval on the project requiring outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft. 14-91 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 6 of 10 4. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.2.2 (Buffering Residential Areas) which requires commercial uses adjoining residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible and minimize impacts through such techniques as: • Incorporation of landscape, decorative walls, enclosed trash containers, downward focused lighting fixtures, and/or comparable buffering elements; • Attractive architectural treatment of elevations facing the residential neighborhood; • Location of automobile and truck access to prevent impacts on neighborhood traffic and privacy; and Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.1 (Compatible Development) which requires buildings and properties be designed to ensure compatibility within and as interfaces between neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. Facts in Support of LU 5.6.1. The Project is designed to be compatible with the adjoining residential neighborhoods by incorporating a perimeter landscaping buffer and site walls, as well as an increased setback of 41' from the adjoining residential properties, where the development standards require twenty (20) feet, for a proposed three-story building. Although landscaping will buffer the view of the building from the residences, the architectural treatment will be composed of varied materials including stacked stone columns, stone veneer and smooth stucco, stainless steel metal panels, glass windows, and concrete or composition shingle roofing. Although the drive aisle and entrance into the subterranean parking wraps around the building nearest the residential community to the south, it will be buffered by landscaping and taller site walls. Additionally, all of the day-to-day vehicular activity with employee shift changes and visitors will occur in the subterranean parking area, as well as at the front entrance near the corner of Bristol Street and Bayview Place. 5. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.2 (Form and Environment) requires new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns. 14-92 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 7 of 10 Facts in Support of LU 5.6.2. The Project's design is architecturally compatible with the adjoining office buildings to the west and east, which are taller than the proposed building. Building materials consisting of smooth stucco, stainless steel metal panels, glass windows, and concrete or composition shingle roofing have also been selected to blend with and complement the residential neighborhoods to the west and south. The aesthetics of the Project were also reviewed as part of the draft EIR and no significant impacts were identified. 6. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.6.3 (Ambient Lighting) requires outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient lighting of their location. Although a final lighting design has not yet been created, Condition of Approval Nos. 29 and 30 are included to require a photometric survey to determine the location of outdoor lighting to avoid negative lighting impacts to neighboring uses. This will be reviewed prior to issuance of any building permit for new construction and a final inspection will be conducted to ensure the site is not excessively illuminated. 7. Land Use Element Policy LU 6.1.2 (Siting of New Development) allows for the development of new public and institutional facilities within the City provided that the use and facilities are compatible with adjoining land uses, environmentally suitable, and can be supported by transportation and utility infrastructure. Facts in Support of LU 6.1.2. The Project will replace an existing nonresidential use with a RCFE, which may serve approximately 25% of the City's population. The new construction will comply with all applicable requirements, as amended, including the maximum height limit currently allowed for a new building at this site. Although the Project includes an increase in floor area, the amount of ADT generated will be reduced from the current restaurant land use or the potential office land use. The Property is located in a nonresidential corridor along Bristol Street, which is developed with office buildings, commercial uses, and a hotel. The Project is compatible with adjoining residential, office, and hotel land uses. No significant unavoidable environmental impacts associated with the project were identified in the draft EIR. The draft EIR includes mitigation measures through the MMRP that will ensure any potentially significant environmental impacts are mitigated. The project site buffers residential development from Bristol Street and the SR73 Freeway. Based on the analysis performed for the draft EIR, project design and the quasi -residential use, the RCFE is anticipated to be compatible with the surrounding use. All existing streets and utilities are sufficient to support the Project, as studied in the Technical Appendices to the draft EIR. 14-93 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 8 of 10 8. Land Use Element Policy LU 6.1.3 (Architecture and Planning that Complements Adjoining Uses) ensures that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure are designed to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with the district or neighborhood in which they are located, following the design and development policies for private uses specified by this Plan. Design impacts on adjoining uses shall be carefully considered in development addressing such issues as lighting spillover, noise, hours of operation, parking, local traffic impacts, and privacy. Facts in Support of LU 6.1.3. The Project is located adjacent to professional office buildings. It is also near existing residential communities; however, the building setback is at least 41' from the nearest residentially zoned property and approximately 90'from the nearest residence. The majority of the building will also be set back approximately 15' from the property line abutting the Bristol Street right-of-way and 11' from the Bayview Place right-of-way. The Project's construction will comply with all current regulatory requirements, including applicable height limits ensuring the scale and mass of construction will be compatible. A lighting plan has not been finalized, However, Conditions of Approval Nos. 29 and 30, require a photometric survey that will determine the location of outdoor lighting to avoid any potential impacts on adjoining properties related to lighting spillover. Outdoor open spaces for residents of the facility are not proposed adjacent to the adjoining residential areas, which will help provide privacy for occupants of the facility, as well as for the nearby residents. The larger courtyard areas are internal and are buffered by the building, which will help to provide sound attenuation. Conditions of Approval Nos. 10 and 11 limit allowable hours for routine deliveries and trash pick-up, as well as visitors to the facility, which will help to ensure the hours are compatible with the adjoining neighborhood. All required parking is provided on-site. If there are any issues with parking in the future, Condition of Approval No. 9 allows appropriate review by the Community Development Director. The average number of daily trips to this type of facility is determined by the number of beds. When compared to the ITE's trip generation rates for a restaurant land use, there is a calculated reduction of average daily trips to the site and thus, no foreseeable local traffic impact. Section 4. The requested GPA from CO -G to PI does not eliminate existing or future land uses to the overall detriment of the community given the site's size, location, and surrounding uses. Numerous CO -G designated properties are located throughout the City that could accommodate office and restaurant uses. Additionally, office uses are allowed by right and restaurants are conditionally allowed in 16 commercial and mixed- use zoning districts. 14-94 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 9 of 10 Section 5: General Plan Amendment No. GP2015-004 does not require voter approval pursuant to Section 423 of the City Charter in that there have been no GPAs in Statistical Area J6, where the Property is located, since the 2006 General Plan Update. The amendment results in 15,000 square feet of additional nonresidential floor area, does not include dwelling unit and will not result in an increase in ADTs. The additional 15,000 square feet for the proposed facility results in a net decrease of 75 a.m. peak hour trips and a net decrease of 74 p.m. peak hour trips. Section 6: The Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2016071062) was prepared for the Project in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City Council Policy K-3. By Resolution No. 2019-_, the City Council, having final approval authority over the Project, adopted and certified as complete and adequate the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2016071062) and adopted "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program." Resolution No. 2019-_ is hereby incorporated by reference. Section 7: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. Section 8: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 9: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon the effective date of City Council Ordinance No. 2019-_ adopting Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2015-005 and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. ADOPTED this 12th day of February, 2019. Diane B. Dixon Mayor 14-95 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 10 of 10 ATTEST: Leilani 1. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE tj �y(4Ap C. Harpttorney Attachments: Exhibit A - Table LU2 Anomaly Locations Amendment and General Plan Land Use Map Amendment 14-96 Exhibit "A" Table LU2 Anomaly Locations Amendment and General Plan Land Use Map Amendment 14-97 22 Land Use Change: General Commercial Office (CO -G) to Private Institutions (PI) r' Land Use Element Anomaly Number Statistical Area Land Use Desf nation Development Limit Development Limit Qfher 1 L4 MU -1-12 460,095 471 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) 2 L4 MU4-12 1,052,880 2.1 L4 MU -1-12 18,810 3 L4 CO -G 734,641 4 L4 MU -1-12 250,176 5 L4 MU -H2 32,500 6 L4 MU -1-12 46,044 7 L4 MU -1-12 81,372 8 L4 MU -1-12 442,775 9 L4 CG920,000 164 Hotel Rooms (included in total square footage) 10 L4 MU -H231,362 349 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) 11 L4 CG 11,950 12 L4 MU -1-12 457,860 13 L4 CO -G 288,264 14 L4 CO-GIMU-H2 860,884 15 L4 MU -1-12 228,214 16 L4 CO -G 344,231 17 L4 MU -1-12 33,292 304 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) 18 L4 CG 225,289 19 L4 CG 228,530 21 J6 CO -G 687,000 CV 300 Hotel Rooms 22 J6 ?-I . 85 00 - 23 K2 PR 15,000 24 L3 IG 89,624 25 L3 PI 84,585 26 L3 IG 33,940 27 L3 IG 86,000 28 L3 IG 110,600 29 L3 CG 471500 30 M6 CG 54,000 31 L2 PR 75,000 32 L2 PI 34,000 11,544 sf restricted to general office use only (included in total square Office: 660,000 sf, Retail: 27,000 sf Residential Care Facility for the LGRFEL- - - - - - - - - _ --_ - _- -_ -_ _ _ - - peleted:C6G ' , Deleted: 70,006 Deleted: Restaurant 8000 at, or Office; 70X0 at Administrative Office and Support Facilitates: 30,000 sf 33 M3 PI 163,680 Community Mausoleum and GAen Crypts: 121,680 sf Family Mausoleums: 12,000 sf 34 1 L1 CaR 484,348 35 L1 C&R 199,095 36 L1 CO -R 227,797 Newport Beach General Plan 73 14-99 Attachment C Draft Ordinance Approving the Planned Community Development Plan Amendment 14-100 ORDINANCE NO. 2019- 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. PD2015-005 AMENDING AREA 5 OF THE BAYVIEW PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC -32) FOR THE HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT — A SENIOR CONVALESCENT AND CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY LOCATED AT 101 BAYVIEW PLACE (PA2015-210) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Harbor Pointe Senior Living LLC of California ("Applicant"), with respect to property located at 101 Bayview Place, and legally described as Lot 1 of Tract No. 12528 in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 551 Pages 38 through 41 inclusive of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, Assessor's Parcel No. 442-283-05 ("Property"); WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes the demolition of an existing approximately 8,800 square -foot restaurant ("Kitayama") to accommodate the development of an approximately 85,000 square -foot, three-story senior convalescent and congregate care facility (i.e., memory care and assisted living) as a State -licensed Residential Care Facility for the Elderly ("RCFE") with 120 beds ("Project"); WHEREAS, in order to implement the Project, the Applicant requests or requires the following approvals from the City of Newport Beach ("City"): • General Plan Amendment ("GPA") — The current land use designation is General Commercial Office ("CO -G") which allows 8,000 square feet for restaurant use or 70,000 square feet for office use. The general plan amendment would change the CO -G land use designation to Private Institutions ("PI") and amend Anomaly No. 22 to allow the 85,000 square foot RCFE (Table LU2 and associated figures); • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment (Zoning) — To change the allowed land uses and amend development standards in Area 5 of the Bayview Planned Community ("PC -32") Zoning District; • Major Site Development Review — To ensure the Project is developed in accordance with the applicable planned community and zoning code development standards and regulations pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews); 14-101 Ordinance No. 2019 - Page 2 of 5 Conditional Use Permit — To allow the use of the Property as a 120 bed RCFE (memory care and assisted living facility) with conditions of approval that protect the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding community; Development Agreement — The applicant has requested a development agreement, which will provide for public benefits as the project is implemented; and Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") — To address reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the Project with corresponding mitigation measures that reduce those environmental impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq. and the California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. WHEREAS, the Property is located within Area 5 of the PC -32 Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is designated as CO -G; WHEREAS, the Property is not located within the coastal zone; therefore, a coastal development permit is not required; WHEREAS, on February 23, 2017, the Planning Commission held a study session in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, to provide initial direction on the Project. No action was taken at the study session. Although not required, the City mailed a courtesy public notice of this study session to property owners within a 300' radius of the Property; WHEREAS, on September 13, 2018, the Planning Commission held a study session in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, to receive a project update and review the draft EIR. No action was taken at the study session. Although not required, the City mailed a courtesy public notice of this study session to property owners within a 300' radius of the Property; WHEREAS, on December 6, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et. seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapter 20.62 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2018-033 by a unanimous vote of 6-0 recommending approval of the Project, and the land use entitlements referenced above, to the City Council; 14-102 Ordinance No. 2019 - Page 3 of 5 WHEREAS, on January 17, 2019, the Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC") reviewed the proposed project and found it consistent with the AELUP. However, the ALUC did include two conditions on the consistency determination: (1) to modify noise mitigation measure NOI-4; and (2) to include an additional condition of approval on the project requiring outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft; WHEREAS, on February 12, 2019, the City Council held a public hearing in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing; WHEREAS, amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code are legislative acts and neither the NBMC nor State Planning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of such amendments; WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the PC -32 Zoning District meets the intent and purpose for a PC as specified in NBMC Section 20.56.010 (Planned Community District Procedures, Purpose). The property is located in the northern portion of Santa Ana Heights, which includes a mixture of commercial support uses, professional offices, a hotel, and residential developments. The amended PC -32 Development Plan is complimentary to the surrounding development, including the standards and allowed uses of the other planning areas of the PC -32 Zoning District and the adjoining Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Area; WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the PC -32 Development Plan would apply appropriate site and Project -specific setbacks, intensity, and height limits to the project site given the site's urban location and all required parking is provided onsite. The site is currently fully developed and does not support any natural resources. All potential environmental impacts associated with the Project are appropriately addressed through standard building permit procedures and the mitigation measures identified in the final EIR; WHEREAS, the proposed PC -32 (Bayview Planned Community) amendment and zoning designation are consistent with the proposed General Plan Amendment (GP2015- 004) that changes the land use category from CO -G to PI, and amends Anomaly No. 22 to replace the existing allowed development limits of 8,000 square feet for restaurant or seventy thousand (70,000) square feet for office with 85,000 square feet for a RCFE; and 14-103 Ordinance No. 2019 - Page 4 of 5 WHEREAS, the future development of the property affected by the proposed amendments will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan; and will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed PC - 32 Zoning District of the NBMC. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach ordains as follows.- Section ollows: Section 1: The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and has determined that modifications to the Project made by the City Council, if any, are not major changes that require referral back to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation. Section 2: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2015-005 as depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, changing the land use designation for Area 5 of the Bayview Planned Community (PC -32) Zoning District from Restaurant Site/Administrative Office to RCFE with a maximum allowed gross floor area of 85,000 square feet and amend other land use and development standards. Section 3: The recitals provided in this ordinance are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this ordinance. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 5: The Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2016071062) was prepared for the project in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. By Resolution No. 2019-_, the City Council, having final approval authority over the project, adopted and certified as complete and adequate the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2016071062) and adopted "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program." Resolution No. 2019-_ is hereby incorporated by reference. 14-104 Ordinance No. 2019 - Page 5 of 5 Section 6: Except as expressly modified in this ordinance, all other Sections, Subsections, terms, clauses and phrases set forth in the NBMC shall remain unchanged and shall be in full force and effect. Section 7: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be published pursuant to City Charter Section 414. This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 12«' day of February 2019, and adopted on the 26th day of February, 2019, by the following vote, to -wit: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: DIANE B. DIXON, MAYOR ATTEST: LEILANI 1. BROWN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE _11 f /�_, V0jai.5k, qC AA �? N . HARP, CITY ATTORNEY Exhibit A: PC -32 (Bayview Planned Community Development Plan and Development Standards) 14-105 Exhibit A BAYVIEW PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH August 15, 1985 Amendment No. 644 Resolution No. 87-24 Adopted February 9, 1987 Amendment No. 825 Resolution No. 95-115 Adopted October 9, 1995 Planned Community Amendment No. PD2010-004(PA2010-062) Ordinance No. 2010-12 Adopted July 6, 2010 Planned Community Amendment No. PD2015-005 (PA2015-210) Ordinance No. 2019 - Adopted February 26, 2019 14-106 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION 1 GENERAL NOTES 2 DEFINITIONS 3 SITE STATISTICS 5 AREA 1, MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL 6 AREAS 1 AND 2, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 9 AREA 3, PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 12 AREA 4, HOTEL SITE 15 AREA 5, RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY (RCFE) 18 AREA 6, BUFFER 23 14-107 INTRODUCTION Location The Bayview project site is located on the southwest corner of the intersections of Bristol Street South and Jamboree Road in the Santa Ana Heights area of unincorporated Orange County. To the north is Bristol Street South and the extension of the Corona del Mar Freeway. West of the site is a residential area of single-family homes. To the south is Upper Newport Bay. Existing Zoning • PA/95 PD: Professional Administrative • CC/90: Community Commercial • CC/35: Community Commercial • R1-2975 PD (2975): Single family, 2,975 square feet minimum lot size. • R2-2, 400: Multi -family, 2,400 square feet minimum area per unit. B 1: Buffer. The development standards set forth herein will provide for the development of the subject property, in accordance with these standards and those of the City of Newport Beach. Land Uses The Bayview development is designated for residential, recreational, commercial, professional, institutional, hotel, and office uses as shown on Exhibit 1. 14-108 GENERAL NOTES 1. Water service to the Planned Community District will be provided by the Irvine Ranch Water District or the City of Newport Beach. 2. Sewage Disposal service facilities to the Planned Community will be provided by the Irvine Ranch Water District. 3. Except as otherwise stated in this Planned Community text, the requirement of the Newport Beach Zoning Ordinance shall apply. Where a conflict exists, the Planned Community text shall supersede. 4. The contents of this text notwithstanding, all construction within the Planned Community boundaries shall comply with all provisions of the Uniform Building Code and the various mechanical codes related thereto except as noted in the Preannexation Agreement. 5. A pedestrian and bicycle trail system shall be provided as shown on the approved Tentative Map of Tract No. 12212. The system shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. 6. Affordable housing shall be provided as per the Bayview Preannexation Agreement. 7. Park dedication shall be provided as per the Bayview Preannexation Agreement. 2 14-109 Definitions The following definitions shall apply to the development of Bayview Planned Community. 1. Gross Acreage shall mean the entire site area within the project boundary as shown on the approved Tentative Map of Tract 12212. 2. Parcel Map Net Area shall mean the entire area within the project boundary line excluding previously dedicated perimeter streets. 3. Building Acreage shall mean the entire site area within the project boundary excluding streets, park dedication, areas with existing natural slopes greater than 2:1, and natural floodplains. 4. Cluster Unit Development shall mean a combination or arrangement of attached or detached dwellings and their accessory structures on contiguous or related building sites where the yards and open spaces are combined into more desirable arrangements or open spaces and where the individual sites may have less than the required average of the district but the density of the overall development meets the required standard. 5. Conventional Subdivision on a Planned Community Concept shall mean a conventional subdivision of detached dwellings and their accessory structures on individual lots where the lot size may be less than the required average for the district but where open space areas are provided for the enhancement and utilization of the overall development. K 14-110 PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 14-111 Facility for the Elderly 6 Buffer 16 Total Gross Area 64.2 BAYVIEW SITE STATISTICS Maximum Gross Area Acreage 1 Multi -family 6.1 Residential - - 2 Single family 17.4 Residential - 27,500 3 Professional 16.8 Administrative Office - 85,000 • Office - • Retail - 4 Hotel Site 6.3 5 Residential Care 1.6 Facility for the Elderly 6 Buffer 16 Total Gross Area 64.2 BAYVIEW SITE STATISTICS Maximum Maximum Maximum D.U. Hotel Rooms Gross Sq.Ft. 88 - - 145 - - - - 660,000 - - 27,500 - 300 - - - 85,000 E 14-112 AREA 1, MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL Intent The inclusion of multi -family residential units in the Bayview Planned Community District provides quality housing opportunities to the general public. Permitted Uses 1. Single-family dwellings/attached or detached. 2. Noncommercial recreation facilities. 3. Duplexes. 4. Dwelling groups and multiple -family dwellings. 5. Residential condominium projects and community apartment projects. 6. Sewage lift stations. 7. Community care facilities service six or fewer persons. 8. Any other uses that in the opinion of the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission are of a similar nature. 9. Gated community with vehicular access control facilities. Temporary Uses Permitted 1. Model homes, temporary real estate offices, and signs. 2. Temporary use of a mobile home residence during construction. 3. Real estate signs. 6 14-113 Accessory Uses Permitted The following accessory uses and structures are permitted when customarily associated with and subordinate to a permitted principal use on the same building site. 1. Garages and carports. 2. Swimming pools and spas. 3. Fences and walls. 4. Signs, 5. Any other accessory use or structure which the Planning Commission finds to be of a similar nature. Development Standards/Attached Residential 1. Maximum Height Limits All buildings shall not exceed an average of 35 feet. 2. Setbacks A minimum setback of fifteen feet shall apply to all structures other than garages adjacent to public streets; except that balconies and patios may encroach six feet into the required setback. Architectural features such as but not limited to cornices, eaves, and wingwalls may extend two and one-half (2-1/2) feet into the required setback from a public street. Setbacks shall be measured from the ultimate right-of-way line. 3. Setbacks from Other Property Lines and Structures a. A minimum of first -story front yard setback of five feet shall be required. This setback shall be measured from the back of curb or in the event that sidewalks are constructed, from back of sidewalk. The second story front may be constructed adjacent to the back of curb or in the event that sidewalks are constructed, adjacent to back of sidewalk. b. All main residential structures shall be a minimum of eight feet apart. This shall be measured from face of finished wall to face of finished wall. 14-114 C. Detached garages shall be separated from main residential structures a minimum of eight feet. This also shall be measured from face of finished wall to face of finished wall. d. Garages with direct access from private streets shall be set back a minimum of five feet form back of curb, or in the event that sidewalks are constructed, form back of sidewalk. e. A minimum five-foot setback shall occur from the most northerly property line of lots 5, 6, and 7 on the Tentative Map of Tract 1236. 4. Fences, Hedges and Walls Fences shall be limited to a maximum height of eight feet. 5. Architectural Features Architectural features, such as but not limited to cornices, eaves, and wing walls, may extend two and one-half (2-1/2) feet into any front, side or rear yard setback. 6. Parking Two covered spaces per unit plus .36 guest parking spaces per unit will be required. 25% of all guest parking may be compact spaces. Guest parking shall be clustered with a minimum of tow spaces per cluster. 8 14-115 AREAS 1 AND 2, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Intent The R1 designation is established to provide for the development of a medium density single family residential neighborhood. The area provides a method whereby land may be developed to utilize design features which take advantage of modern site planning techniques. The intent is to produce an integrated development project providing an environment of stable, desirable character which will be in harmony with existing and potential development of the surrounding neighborhood. Permitted Uses 1. Single-family dwellings. 2. Noncommercial recreation facilities. 3. Sewage lift stations. 4. Any other uses that in the opinion of the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission are of a similar nature. 5. Gated community with vehicular access control facilities. Temporary Uses Permitted 1. Model homes, temporary real estate offices, and signs. 2. Temporary use of a construction trailer. 3. Real estate signs. Accessory Uses Permitted The following accessory uses and structures are permitted when customarily associated with and subordinate to a permitted principal use on the same building site. 1. Garages and carports. 2. Swimming pools and spas. 3. Fences and walls. 9 14-116 4. Patio covers. 5. Any other accessory use or structure which the Planning Commission finds to be of a similar nature. Development Standards 1. Maximum Height Limits All buildings shall not exceed an average of 35 feet. 2. Building Site Area The minimum building site area shall be 2,975 square feet. 3. Setbacks a. Front Yard (1) Where garages face the street, the front yard setback shall be a minimum of five feet from back of curb or in the event sidewalks are constructed, minimum of five feet from back of sidewalk. (2) Where garages face the alley the front setback shall be a minimum of eight feet from back of curb or in the event sidewalks are constructed, minimum of eight from back of sidewalk. b. Side Yard (1) Minimum setback of four feet from property line with a ten foot minimum setback between buildings. C. Rear Yard (1) Where garages face the street, the rear yard setback shall be a minimum of eight feet. (2) Where garages face the alley rear setback shall be a minimum of fifteen feet from centerline of alley. 4. Fences, Hedges, and Walls Fences shall be limited to a minimum height of eight feet except within the front yard setback where fences, hedges and walls shall be limited to three feet. 10 14-117 5. Trellis Open trellis and beam construction, and patio covers where reciprocal side yard easements exist, shall be permitted within six feet of a residential structure on adjacent property. Trellis and beam construction and patio covers shall be permitted to extend to within three feet of the residential dwelling on the adjacent property if the structure is open on three sides and the total area is 400 square feet or less. Where a corner dwelling exists adjacent to a private street or drive, open trellis and beam construction and patio covers shall be permitted to extend within three feet of a property line except in such cases where an intervening wall exists, such structure may not extend beyond said wall. Limited to 9' 0" in height 6. Parking Parking for residential uses shall be in the form of not less than two (2) covered parking spaces on-site per dwelling unit. 7. Architectural Features Architectural features, such as but not limited to cornices, eaves, fireplaces, bay windows and wingwalls, may extend two and one-half (2-1/2) feet into any front, side or rear yard setback. 8. Pools, Spas, Air Conditioning and Related Equipment Where reciprocal easements exist, pools and spas may be located in the reciprocal easement; however, no pool, spa or air conditioning equipment shall be permitted in the reciprocal easement. All pool, spa and air conditioning equipment shall be sound attenuated in such a manner as to achieve a maximum sound level of 55dBA at the property line. 1. Equipment may not cross property line. 2. Pools or spas may cross property line up to easement line. 14-118 AREA 3, PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Intent The intent is to provide areas for the development of professional and administrative offices and related uses in locations of close proximity to residential areas. These uses can conveniently serve the public and create a suitable environment for professional and administrative office buildings especially designed for this purpose. Uses in the area have been located on sites large enough to provide for landscaped open spaces and offstreet parking facilities. The area is intended to be located on heavily traveled streets or adjacent to commercial or industrial districts. The land may be developed to utilize design features which take advantage of modern site planning techniques. Permitted Uses 1. Professional offices. 2. Administrative offices. 3. Restaurants, bars, theater/nightclubs and delicatessens. 4. Accessory structures and uses necessary and customarily incidental to permitted uses including dry cleaners, barber shops, copy centers, shoe repairs, photo finishing, stationers, convenience markets and onsite liquor sales. 5. Business and real estate signs. 6. Gas stations, auto services, and detailing in parking structures. 7. Health Club. 8. Offstreet parking structures. 9. Landscaped areas, parks, and open space areas when integrated into the development project. 10. Any other uses that in the opinion of the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission are of similar nature. 11. Medical Offices 12. Outpatient surgery facility 14-119 Permitted Uses Subject to Use Permit 1. Helistop. Development Standards 1. Maximum Height Limits All buildings shall not exceed 95 feet in height. This height shall be measured from first floor elevation (excluding subterranean levels) to ceiling elevation of uppermost floor. An additional fifteen (15') feet height extension is permitted only to accommodate and screen mechanical equipment. 2. Building Site Area The minimum building site area shall be 10,000 square feet. Minimum Building Site Width: There is no restriction on building site width. Minimum Building Site Depth: There is no restriction on building site depth. Maximum Gross Floor Area: The total gross floor area of the combined two commercial office building structures shall not exceed 660,000 gross square feet. There is no gross floor area or building coverage restrictions on individual buildings in cluster developments provided that the provisions stated above are met, adequate offstreet parking is provided, and provisions are made for the maintenance of common areas and access to individual building sites. This is subject to the review of the Director of Planning and the Director of Public Works. 3. Setbacks Front, side, and rear yard setbacks shall each be ten feet from the property line. Distances between buildings shall be in compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 4. Streets and Driveways Streets and driveways shall provide adequate vehicular circulation for service and emergency vehicles for the project and the area within which it is located. Required widths and improvements shall be established by the recorded Tract Map. 13 14-120 5. Offstreet Parking Offstreet parking shall be provided in accordance with the approved parking plan and Preannexation Agreement. 6. Trash and Storage Area All storage of cartons, containers, and trash shall be shielded from view within a building or within an area enclosed by a wall not less than six feet in height. 7. Landscaping Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect, licensed landscaping contractor, or architect, and shall be reviewed by the Department of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation and approved by the Director of Planning and Director of Public Works. 14 14-121 AREA 4 HOTEL SITE Intent The Community Commercial designation provides areas for commercial uses which offer a wide range of goods and services including those facilities for overnight accommodations, shopping goods, convenience goods and services, and food services. Permitted Uses 1. Hotels and motels 2. Ancillary structures and uses necessary and customarily incidental to hotels and motels including but not limited to: • Retail businesses. • Restaurants, bars and theater/nightclubs. • Service businesses. 0 Automobile parking lots and structures. • Recreation facilities. • Day nurseries. • Public and private parks and playgrounds. 0 Financial institutions. • Public/private utility buildings and structures. • Self-service laundry and dry cleaning facilities. Any other uses that in the opinion of the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission are of a similar nature. Temporary Uses Permitted 1. Commercial coaches. Permitted Uses Subject to Use Permit 15 14-122 1. Automobile washing. 2. Health Clubs. 3. Helistops. 4. Mini -storage facilities. 5. Public utility exchanges and substations. 6. Any other use which the Planning Commission finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this area. Permitted Accessory Uses The following accessory uses and structures are permitted when customarily associated with and subordinate to a permitted principal use on the same building site. buildings. 1. Detached buildings. 2. Fences and walls. 3. Signs. 4. Accessory uses and structures which the Planning Commission finds to be of a similar nature. 5. Onsite liquor sales. Prohibited Uses 1. Automobile repair garages, fender and body repair, and paint shops. 2. Automobile service stations. 3. Automobile wrecking, junk, and salvage yards. 4. Beverage bottling plants. 5. Cleaning, dyeing, and laundry plants. 6. Ice Production. 16 14-123 7. Rental and sales agencies for agricultural, industrial, and construction equipment. 8. Rental and sales agencies for trailers, boats, trucks, automobiles, and recreational vehicles. 9. Tire retreading. 10. Warehouses, contractor's storage yards, and work and fabricating areas. 11. Welding shops. 12. Wholesale bakeries. Development Standards 1. Maximum Height Limits Buildings shall not exceed 90 feet. This height shall be measured from first floor elevation (excluding subterranean levels) to ceiling elevation of uppermost floor. An additional fifteen (15') feet height extension is permitted only to accommodate and screen rooftop mechanical equipment. 2. Building Site Area There are no specifications for minimum building site area. 3. Offstreet Parking Offstreet Parking shall be provided in accordance with the and Preannexation Agreement. Any changes to said plan shall be approved by the City of Newport Beach Planning Director. 4. Structural Setbacks Community Commercial uses which abut: Use Front Yard Side and Rear Yards Commercial 5 feet 0 feet Residential 5 feet 20 feet Professional Administrative 5 feet 0 feet Street setbacks: Front, side and rear yard setbacks shall each be ten feet from the property line. Distances between buildings shall be in compliance with the Uniform Building Code. 17 14-124 5. Loading All loading and unloading operations shall be performed on the site and loading platforms and areas shall be screened by a landscape or architectural feature. 6. Trash and Storage Area All storage of cartons, containers and trash shall be shielded from view within a building or within an area enclosed by a wall not less than 6 feet in height. 7. Landscaping Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect, licensed landscaping contractor, or architect, and shall be reviewed by the Department of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation and approved by the Director of Planning and Director of Public Works. 18 14-125 AREA 5 RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY (RCFE) Intent The Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) designation provides areas for facilities which serve seniors in need of assisted living, memory care and similar uses. The purpose of this designation is to support an "aging in place" development that offers a range of living arrangements for senior citizens that includes physical and programmed social connectivity, and supportive services. Permitted Uses Subject to Use Permit 1. RCFE as defined by the State of California including assisted living facilities and memory care services serving the elderly. 2. Any other uses that in the opinion of the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission are of a similar nature. Temporary Uses Permitted 1. Temporary uses are subject to the provisions of NBMC Section 20.52.040 (Limited Term Permits) or its successor section. Permitted Accessory Uses The following accessory uses are permitted when customarily associated with and subordinate to a permitted principal use on the same building site. 1. Retail businesses as an accessory use to the RCFE. 2. Service businesses as an accessory use to the RCFE. Prohibited Uses 1. Any use specifically not listed as permitted or conditionally permitted. Development Standards 1. Maximum Height Limits Buildings shall not exceed 35 feet. This height shall be measured from first floor elevation (excluding subterranean levels) to ceiling elevation of uppermost floor. An additional ten (10') feet height extension is permitted only to accommodate and screen mechanical equipment. 19 14-126 2. Maximum Square Feet Floor area limit is 85,000 sq. ft. 3. Building Site Area Minimum building site area is 1.5 acres 4. Off -Street Parking Off-street parking shall be provided at a ratio of not less than one space per three beds. 5. Setbacks Front (Bayview Place): 10 feet Right Side (Bristol Street): 15 feet Left Side: 40 feet Rear: 40 feet 6. Other Development Standards Unless otherwise approved by the review authority, all other development standards including those related to signs, fences, walls, lighting, noise, solid waste and recycling, and landscaping shall comply with the NBMC Title 20 (Planning and Zoning) and any other applicable titles of the NBMC. 7. Loading All loading and unloading operations shall be performed on the site and loading platforms and areas shall be screened by a landscape or architectural feature. 8. Trash and Storage Area All storage of cartons, containers and trash shall be shielded from view within a building or within an area enclosed by a wall not less than 6 feet in height. 9. Landscaping Detailed landscaping and irrigation plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect, licensed contractor, or architect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. 20 14-127 AREA 6, BUFFER Intent The Buffer designation is established to provide open space forth purpose of buffering two areas of use that are incompatible, preserving an area with unique or sensitive environmental features, linking other open space areas, or shaping urban form, and for reservation of potential road right-of-way. Permitted Uses 1. Back Bay access. 2. Marine preserves. 3. Passive parks and greenbelts. 4. Riding and hiking trails. 5. Fences. 6. Viewpoints. 7. Wildlife corridors. 8. Any other use that in the opinion of the City of Newport Beach Planning Director is consistent with the above stated uses, purposes, and intent of the area. 9. Roadways. 10. Desilting basins and drainage facilities. 11. Active parks and playgrounds. 12. Overhead or underground utility facilities. 13. Walls or opaque fences over 3-1/2 feet in height. 14. Any other use which the Planning Commission finds consistent with the purpose and intent of this area. 21 14-128 Permitted Accessory Uses Accessory uses and structures which are customarily associated with and subordinate to a permitted principal use on the same building site and which are consistent with the purpose and intent of this district are permitted. Site Development Standards Building Site Area There is no minimum building site area. 2. Building Height The maximum building height shall be 18 feet. 3. Building Setbacks Building Setbacks shall be 20 feet from all property lines. 4. Signage No signs shall exceed six square feet in area. 22 14-129 Attachment D Draft Resolution Approving the Major Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit (Includes Project Plans) 14-130 RESOLUTION NO. 2019- 15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SD2015-007, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. UP2015-047 FOR THE HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT - A SENIOR CONVALESCENT AND CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY LOCATED AT 101 BAYVIEW PLACE (PA2015-210) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Harbor Pointe Senior Living LLC of California ("Applicant"), with respect to property located at 101 Bayview Place, and legally described as Lot 1 of Tract No. 12528 in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 551 Pages 38 through 41 inclusive of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, Assessor's Parcel No. 442-283-05 ("Property"); WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes the demolition of an existing approximately 8,800 square -foot restaurant ("Kitayama") to accommodate the development of an approximately 85,000 square -foot, three-story senior convalescent and congregate care facility (i.e., memory care and assisted living) as a State -licensed Residential Care Facility for the Elderly ("RCFE") with 120 beds ("Project"); WHEREAS, in order to implement the Project, the Applicant requests or requires the following approvals from the City of Newport Beach ("City"): • General Plan Amendment ("GPA") — The current land use designation is General Commercial Office ("CO -G") which allows 8,000 square feet for restaurant use or 70,000 square feet for office use. The general plan amendment would change the CO -G land use designation to Private Institutions ("PI") and amend Anomaly No. 22 to allow the 85,000 square foot RCFE (Table LU2 and associated figures); • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment (Zoning) — To change the allowed land uses and amend development standards in Area 5 of the Bayview Planned Community ("PC -32") Zoning District; • Major Site Development Review — To ensure the Project is developed in accordance with the applicable planned community and zoning code development standards and regulations pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews); 14-131 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 2 of 12 • Conditional Use Permit — To allow the use of the Property as a 120 bed RCFE (memory care and assisted living facility) with conditions of approval that protect the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding community. A conditional use permit is required pursuant to the amended Area 5 of the PC -32 Zoning District land use regulations; • Development Agreement — The applicant has requested a development agreement, which will provide for public benefits as the project is implemented; and • Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") — To address reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the Project with corresponding mitigation measures that reduce those environmental impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et. seq. and the California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. WHEREAS, the Property is located within the PC -32 Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is designated as CO -G; WHEREAS, the Property is not located within the coastal zone; therefore, a coastal development permit is not required; WHEREAS, on February 23, 2017, the Planning Commission held a study session in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, to provide initial direction on the Project. No action was taken at the study session. Although not required, the City mailed a courtesy public notice of this study session to property owners within a 300' radius of the Property; WHEREAS, on September 13, 2018, the Planning Commission held a study session in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, to receive a project update and review the draft EIR. No action was taken at the study session. Although not required, the City mailed a courtesy public notice of this study session to property owners within a 300' radius of the Property; WHEREAS, on December 6, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et. seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapter 20.62 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing; 14-132 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 3 of 12 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2018-033 by a unanimous vote of 6-0 recommending approval of the Project, and the land use entitlements referenced above, to the City Council; WHEREAS, on January 17, 2019, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) reviewed the proposed project and found it consistent with the AELUP. However, the ALUC did include two conditions on the consistency determination: (1) to modify noise mitigation measure N0I-4; and (2) to include an additional condition of approval on the project requiring outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft; WHEREAS, on February 12, 2019, the City Council held a public hearing in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing; WHEREAS, a site development review is required for the nonresidential construction consisting of 20,000 square feet or more of gross floor area. The site development review analyzes the project as a whole for compatibility with the site and surrounding land uses; and WHEREAS, a conditional use permit is required pursuant to the amended Area 5 of the PC -32 Zoning District land use regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and has determined that modifications to the project made by the City Council, if any, are not major changes that require referral back to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation. Section 2: The City Council hereby approves Major Site Development Review No. SD2015-007 and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-047, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section 3: In accordance with NBMC Section 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Reviews), the findings and facts in support of a site development review are set forth as follows: 14-133 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 4 of 12 A. Allowed within the subject Zoning district. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed Major Site Development Review for an approximately 85,000 square -foot RCFE is consistent with the proposed amendment to the PC -32 Development Plan, which would allow a residential care facility for the elderly, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The RCFE would be a combined convalescent and congregate care facility. NBMC Chapter 20.70 (Definitions) defines convalescent facilities as establishments that provide care on a 24 hour basis for persons requiring regular medical attention. In this case, the convalescent facility is in the form of a 20 bed memory care facility for Alzheimer and dementia patients. Congregate care is defined as housing built specifically for the elderly that provides services, such as an on-site meal program, housekeeping, laundry, social activities, and transportation. In this case, there will be 100 beds for congregate care with various shared amenities and services provided. The total number of beds between the two components will bel 20 within 101 rooms. Finding: B. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria in [NEMC Subsection 20.52.080(C) (2) (c)]. a. Compliance with this Section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure,- b. tructure, b. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent development, and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; C. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; d. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces, e. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and 14-134 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 5 of 12 f. The protection of significant views from public rights) -of -way and compliance with [NBMC] Section 20.30. 100 (Public View Protections). Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The project is consistent with the amended PI General Plan land use designation and the amended PC -32 Zoning District. 2. The proposed structure will maintain a similar size and scale to that of the existing adjoining nonresidential buildings to the west and east along Bristol Street. The total gross floor area will be no more than 85,000 square feet, which will be compliant with the maximum floor area allowed for a RCFE. 3. The proposed structure complies with the pre- and post -amendment maximum height of 35' for this area of PC -32 from finish grade to the top of the uppermost ceiling with an additional 10' feet allowed for roofing and mechanical screening. All mechanical equipment on the rooftop will be screened in compliance with NBMC Subsection 20.30.020 (Buffering and Screening). 4. The proposed structure is required to comply with all Building and Fire Codes. The facility is required to obtain a license from the Department of Social Services ("DSS") of the State of California for its operation. 5. The Project will be modern in appearance with building materials and finishes that include stone veneer and smooth stucco, stainless steel metal panels, glass windows, and concrete or composition shingle roofing. 6. Site access, including the drive aisles, driveways, parking and loading spaces have all been reviewed by the Public Works Department for adequacy, efficiency, and safety. The Project design complies with the required parking ratio of one parking space for every three beds (i.e., 120 beds divided by three = a minimum of 40 parking spaces). 7. The proposed setbacks would be greater than the currently required setbacks in the PC -32 Development Plan. The Project is designed such that the building is set back a minimum of approximately 41 feet from the adjacent residential properties. The setback area will be improved with parking areas, landscaping, and site walls to help buffer the site from adjacent residential uses. The building will also be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the Bristol Street property line and 11 feet from 14-135 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 6 of 12 the Bayview Place property line, which exceeds the current 10 foot minimum setback requirement. 8. All facility operations including, but not limited to, visiting hours and delivery hours to the facility are limited by the conditions of approval to help mitigate potential impacts to the adjacent residential neighbors. 9. The Project includes approximately 18,859 square feet of landscape area, which has been designed to meet NBMC Chapter 14.17 (Water -Efficient Landscape) requirements with respect to water efficiency. 10. Although a photometric survey has not been provided, lighting of the building is conditioned to meet the requirements of the NBMC to mitigate impacts to neighboring properties. 11. The Project site does not have the potential to obstruct public views from public view points and corridors, as identified on General Plan Figure NR 3 (Coastal Views), to the Pacific Ocean, Newport Bay and Harbor, offshore islands, the Old Channel of the Santa River (the Oxbow Loop), Newport Pier, Balboa Pier, designated landmark and historic structures, parks, coastal and inland bluffs, canyons, mountains, wetlands, and permanent passive open space. The Project is not located near any public view points and there are no designated public views through or across the site. Finding: C. The proposed development is not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The residential project has been designed to ensure that potential conflicts with surrounding land uses are minimized to the extent possible to maintain a healthy environment for both businesses and residents by providing an architecturally pleasing project with articulation and building modulations to enhance the urban environment consistent with development in Newport Center. 14-136 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 7 of 12 2. The Project has been designed to ensure that potential conflicts with surrounding land uses are minimized to the extent possible to maintain a healthy environment for both businesses and residents by providing an architecturally pleasing project with articulation and building modulations to enhance the urban environment consistent with development along Bristol Street. 3. The proposed building has been designed to accommodate and provide safe access for emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, and refuse collections vehicles, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. Emergency, refuse and delivery trucks will utilize the entry drive off Bayview Place at the easterly side of the Property. The final size, design, location, and screening of the refuse enclosures will comply with the requirements of NBMC Section 20.30.120 (Solid Waste & Recyclable Materials Storage), ensuring compatibility with the on-site and adjacent uses. 4. Conditions of approval are included to help ensure any potential impacts are limited, including, but not limited to: a. Conditions of Approval Nos. 29 and 30 require all outdoor lighting to meet the requirements of the Zoning Code, prohibiting light and glare spillage from the facility to the adjacent properties. This will be reviewed in more detail as part of the building permit plan check process; b. Condition of Approval No.10 limits delivery and commercial trash pick-up hours to the facility to mitigate potential impacts to the adjacent neighbors; C. Condition of Approval No. 11 limits visiting hours to the facility to mitigate potential impacts to the adjacent neighbors; and d. The noise from a convalescent and/or congregate care facility is typically low. Condition of Approval No. 32 helps to ensure that the use will comply with NBMC Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control). 5. The Project would introduce approximately 120 new residents, which is a nominal increase in the City's overall total population. However, these types of facilities typically require more calls for emergency medical services than a residential community of the same size. Given the Project's location and its adjacency to currently proposed residential projects and projects under construction, the combined projects could impact the ability of emergency services to meet standard levels or jeopardize the ability to meet existing response times. As such, Mitigation Measure MM FIRE -1 has been included in the EIR to ensure the Applicant contributes a fair share amount for the purchasing and equipping of a new rescue 14-137 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 8 of 12 ambulance with patient transport and advanced life support ("ALS") capabilities. This new ambulance would be stationed at the nearby Santa Ana Heights Fire Station No. 7 and would serve the Property, as well as the new projects within the airport area and existing development in the Santa Ana Heights area and other nearby communities. 6. The Irvine Ranch Water District ("IRWD") has sufficient water supply to serve the Project and has provided a conditional will -serve letter. Also, the project includes the installation of water -efficient fixtures in each care unit to reduce water use and landscape irrigation systems designed with weather sensors, timers, and low -flow irrigation devices. 7. The John Wayne Airport is located approximately 0.7 -mile northwest of the Property and is the nearest public airport. The Project is within the notification area of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan ("AELUP") for John Wayne Airport. However, the Project is below the maximum transitional imagery surface heights, and thus the project is within the building height limits of the AELUP. A "No Hazard" determination was provided by the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"). The Property falls inside the Noise Impact Zone "2" — Moderate Noise Impact where uses would be exposed to noise between 60 and 65 decibels (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level ("CNEL"). The proposed use is considered "normally compatible" where conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice to insulate residents from the negative effects of aircraft noise. The project site is within Safety Zone 6 ("Traffic Pattern Zone"), where the likelihood of an accident is low. 8. The Project does not involve the use or the manufacturing of any hazardous substances that could impact nearby development. Moreover, project construction would comply with all applicable laws and regulations governing application and disposal of any hazardous materials discovered during construction. 9. Rooftop mechanical equipment is fully enclosed within an equipment screen and is not visible from the public right-of-way. 10. The new construction complies with all Building, Public Works, Fire Codes, City ordinances, and all conditions of approval. 11. A nonresidential structure has existed at this location since late 1986. The Project will improve the site with construction that complies with all current requirements and will reduce the overall average daily trips ("ADT') by approximately 426 per the 2017 Institute of Transportation Engineers ("ITE") Trip Generation Manual. 14-138 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 9 of 12 12. The Project would replace the Kitayama restaurant with a needed service for the aging population, which comprises almost 25 percent of the City's total population according to latest available American Community Survey ("ACS") data. Section 4: In accordance with NBMC Section 20.52.020(F) (Findings and Decision), the following findings and facts in support of such findings for Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-007 are set forth as follows: Finding: A. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. Facts in Support of Finding: The Project is consistent with the General Plan, as proposed to be amended. See all Facts in Support of Findings B and C above. Finding: B. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the NBMC. Facts in Support of Finding: The Project complies with all NBMC and PC -32 development standards, as proposed to be amended, including, but not limited to, height, floor area, parking, and landscaping. See all Facts in Support of Findings A and B above. Finding: C. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Project will replace an existing nonresidential use with a new nonresidential use. At present, a 70,000 square foot office building could be allowed on the Property. The Project would be of similar bulk and scale, but would have a lesser 14-139 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 10 of 12 trip generation. RCFE and similar assisted living facilities have very low ADT and peak -hour trip generation. All improvements will modernize and comprehensively upgrade the general appearance of the site. 2. The Property is located at the corner of Bayview Place and Bristol Street. The existing driveway entrance from Bayview Place will be maintained and used as the primary entry and exit. 3. The Property is immediately adjacent to professional office buildings to the west and east, which are both taller buildings. Also to the west is the Residential Single - Family ("RSF") District of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Area ("SP -7"). RSF properties are permitted to have structures with a maximum height of 35 feet. The Project is a quasi -residential use and complies with the maximum height limitations currently identified in the PC -32 Development Plan. It has been designed such that it will be compatible with the adjoining land uses. Multi -family condominiums are abutting the Project site to the south. All proposed construction will be set back a minimum of approximately 41 feet from the property lines abutting the residential uses. The main drive aisle, landscaping, and a perimeter site will serve to further buffer those residential uses from the Project. 4. Condition of Approval No. 2 is included to limit the Project to 120 beds, which will ensure the operation does not intensify. 5. See all Facts in Support of Finding C above. Finding: D. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The Property is currently developed with a single driveway approach accessible from Bayview Place. The Project will maintain the existing driveway approach and will add another approach on Bristol Street for emergency vehicle access. 2. The Project site provides adequate parking and circulation including turn -around areas for deliveries. Conditions of approval are included to ensure compliance with all the circulation standards and the final plans are required to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 14-140 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 11 of 12 3. Adequate emergency vehicle access has been incorporated into the Project design. Conditions of approval are included to help ensure compliance with all emergency vehicle access requirements and the final plans are required to be approved by the Fire Department. 4. The IRWD currently services the site with water and sewer via mains that run through Bristol Street and Bayview Place. As part of the Project review, the IRWD issued a conditional will -serve letter, indicating the Project could be adequately served by its infrastructure. The Gas Company and Southern California Edison will continue to service the site through existing connections. Finding: E. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Facts in Support of Finding: See all Facts in Support of Finding C above. Section 5: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. Section 6: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 7: The Harbor Pointe Senior Living Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2016071062) was prepared for the project in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. By Resolution No. 2019-_, the City Council, having final approval authority over the Project, adopted and certified as complete and adequate the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2016071062) and adopted "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program." Resolution No. 2019-_ is hereby incorporated by reference. 14-141 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 12 of 12 Section 8: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon the effective date of City Council Ordinance No. 2019-_ adopting Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2015-005 and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. ADOPTED this 12th day of February, 2019. Diane B. Dixon Mayor ATTEST: Leilani I. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE j Ali n C. Harp Ci y Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval Exhibit B: Project Plans 14-142 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project -specific conditions are in italics) Planning Division The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval. (Except as modified by applicable conditions of approval.) 2. This approval authorizes a 120 bed Residential Care Facility for the Elderly, as specified in the adopted Planned Community Development Plan. 3. The project shall adhere to the development standards established in the amended PC -32 Development Plan for the project site. 4. The applicant shall comply with all project design features, mitigation measures, and standard conditions contained within the approved mitigation monitoring reporting program ("MMRP') of EIR SCH No. 2016071062 for the project. 5. All proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provisions of PC -32 and NBMC Chapter 20.42 (Sign Standards). 6. The tem7 and expiration of Major Site Development Review No. SD2017-007 and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-047 shall be governed by Development Agreement No. DA2018-006. 7. The Project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 8. This approval may be modified or revoked by the Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance. 9. Any material changes in operational characteristics, including but not limited to the following, may require an amendment to this use permit or issuance of a new use permit as determined by the Community Development Director. a. Expiration without renewal, or permanent loss of a Department of Social Services ("DSS') license as a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly ("RCFE'). A-1 14-143 b. Change in on-site staffing that creates a deficiency in parking supply or results in a parking impact to surrounding properties; C. Increase in physical capacity of facility and increases in floor area of facility; and d. Request for amendment to any condition or conditions of approval. 10. Routine deliveries (i.e., scheduled deliveries) and commercial trash pickup at the site shall be limited to 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. This condition is not intended to limit irregular parcel delivery services to the same timeframe. 11. Visiting hours shall be limited from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., daily. 12. All residents, visitors, and employees shall park on-site. Parking on any residential streets is strictly prohibited. 13. The use shall be operated in compliance with applicable State and local laws. 14. The Operator shall comply with the Business License provisions of the NBMC. 15. The Operator shall provide and maintain public notice of the Regional DSS Office and the Long -Term Ombudsman addresses and phone numbers for receiving inquiries and/or complaints in reference to the operation of its facility. 16. The Operator shall not allow more than two residents in one bedroom. 17. Smoking on-site shall be restricted to a designated area that will prevent second- hand smoke from traveling to the adjacent properties. This area shall be identified on the final construction drawings. 18. Prior to the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy, the Operator shall obtain approval of an RCFE license from the DSS and maintain a DSS license at all times for the memory care facility. 19. On-site assembly -type amenities within the property are limited solely to use by the residents of the facility and their visiting guests, and facility staff during their shift. 20. Any and all medical waste generated through the operation of the facility shall be disposed of in accordance with the NBMC, and all other laws and best industry standards and practices. A-2 14-144 21. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure (three walls and a self -latching gate) or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties, except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies. The trash enclosure shall have a decorative solid roof for aesthetic and screening purposes. 22. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside and outside of the establishment, however, not located on or within any public property or right- of-way. 23. The exterior of the business shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. 24. The Applicant shall ensure that the trash dumpsters and/or receptacles are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of either fully self- contained dumpsters or periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Division. Cleaning and maintenance of trash dumpsters shall be done in compliance with the provisions of NBMC Title 14; including all future amendments (including Water Quality related requirements). 25. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit "A" shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. 26. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit to the Planning Division an additional copy of the approved architectural plans for inclusion in the file. The plans shall be identical to those approved by all City departments for building permit issuance. The approved copy shall include architectural sheets only and shall be reduced in size to 11 inches by 17 inches. The plans shall accurately depict the elements approved by Permit and shall highlight the approved elements such that they are readily discernible from other elements of the plans. 27. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall submit a final landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the City Urban Forester and the Planning Division. The design shall comply with NBMC Chapter 14.17 (Water - Efficient Landscaping). A-3 14-145 28. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 29. The site shall be in compliance with Zoning Code Section 20.30.070 (Outdoor Lighting). If in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources, the Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 30. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall prepare photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. The survey shall show that lighting values are one inch or less at all property lines, unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Director. 31. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 32. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of NBMC Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the NBMC. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods unless the ambient noise level is higher: 33. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. 34. Construction activities shall comply with NBMC Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity -Noise Regulations), which restricts hours of noise -generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturday. Noise -generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. A-4 14-146 Between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 P.M. Between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a. m.4 Location Interior Exterior Interior Exterior Residential Property 45dBA 55dBA 40dBA 50dBA Residential Property located within 100 feet of a commercial property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA Mixed Use Property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA Commercial Property NIA 65dBA NIA 60dBA 33. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. 34. Construction activities shall comply with NBMC Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity -Noise Regulations), which restricts hours of noise -generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. on Saturday. Noise -generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. A-4 14-146 35. No outside paging system shall be utilized in conjunction with this establishment. 36. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container enclosure. 37. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall provide satisfactory evidence that a Native American monitor has been retained to observe the site when construction activities occur in native soils. In the event that tribal cultural resources are discovered, the Native American monitor shall be included in the consultation on the recommended next steps. 38. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall submit a construction management and delivery plan to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works and Community Development Departments. The plan shall include discussion of project phasing; parking arrangements for both sites during construction (including construction parking); anticipated haul routes; and construction mitigation. Upon approval of the plan, the applicant shall be responsible for implementing and complying with the stipulations set forth in the approved plan. 39. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project including, but not limited to, General Plan Amendment No. GP2015-004, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2015- 005, Major Site Development Review No. SD2015-007, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-047, and Development Agreement No. DA2018-006. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by Applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The Applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The Applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. Fire Department 40. The Applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Fire Department. A-5 14-147 41. The grade of the fire apparatus access road shall be within the limits established by the Fire Code Official based on the Fire Department's apparatus. As per Newport Beach Amendments to the California Fire Code ("CFC'), the gradient for a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed 10 percent. 42. Emergency fire access roadways shall be designed as the Newport Beach Guideline C.01 and C. 02. Emergency access roadways minimum street width shall be twenty (20) feet with no parking on either side. The width shall be increased to 26' within 30' of a hydrant and no vehicle parking allowed. Parking on one side is permitted for streets that are a minimum of 28' wide. Parking on both sides is permitted for streets that are a minimum of 26' wide. Access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13'6". See CFC Section 503.2.1. 43. Emergency fire access roadways must be constructed of a material that provides an all-weather driving surface, capable of supporting 72, 000 pounds imposed load for fire apparatus, and truck outrigger loads of 75 pounds per square inch over a two foot area. 44. Vehicle access gates or barrier installed across streets shall be in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Guideline C. 01, California Fire Code, and the NBMC. 45. Any obstruction in required fire access roadways such as speed humps or other traffic calming measures, when approved by the Fire Code Official, shall be in accordance with the Newport Beach Public Works Department's Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines. 46. Approved vehicle access for firefighting shall be provided to al/ construction or demolition sites. Vehicle access shall be provided to within 100' of temporary or permanent Fire Department connections. Either temporary or permanent roads, capable of supporting vehicle loading under all weather conditions, shall provide vehicle access. Said access shall be maintained until permanent fire apparatus access roads are available. 47. The R2.1 occupancy shall be justified by specifying the proposed use of memory care facility and the type of clients it serves. 48. Grounds of a residential care facility R2.1 may be fenced and equipped with locks provided safe dispersal areas are located not less than 50' from the building. Dispersal areas shall be sized to provide not less than three square feet per occupant. 49. Gurney -sized accessible elevator will be required with elevator recall as per CFC Section 607 and CBC Section 3002. 50. Fire flow shall be determined as per City of Newport Beach Guideline B.01. See CFC 507.3. A-6 14-148 51. Fire hydrants shall be provided and located within 400' of all portions of the building. See CFC Section 507.5.1. 52. Any property that is fenced may obstruct existing fire hydrants; therefore, hydrants that cannot be utilized due to fencing will not be considered usable with regard to fire flow requirements for the new structure. See CFC Section 507.5.4. 53. Public Safety Radio System Coverage will be required per CFC Section 510.1 and City of Newport Beach Guideline D.05. 54. Standby power shall be provided for emergency responder radio coverage systems, as required in CFC Section 510.4.2.3. The standby power supply shall be capable of operating the emergency responder radio coverage system for a duration of not less than 24 hours. See CFC Section 604.2.3. 55. Pursuant to the Amendment to CFC Section 604.8, provide and electrical outlets (120 volt, duplex) connected to the emergency generator circuitry system when a generator is required by CFC Section 604.2 in every fire control room and in other areas as may be designated by the Fire Code Official in the following locations: a. In the main exit corridor of each floor adjacent to each exit enclosure; b. On every level in every stairwell, C. In each elevator lobby; d. In public assembly areas larger than 1, 500 square feet; e. In every fire control room; and f. In such other areas, as may be designated by the Fire Code Official. 56. Licensed 24 hour care facilities in a Group R-2.1, R-3.1 or R-4 occupancy shall comply with CBC Section 435 for special provisions for licensed twenty-four hour care facilities in a Group R-2.1, R-3.1 or R-4 occupancy. Building Division 57. The Applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division. The construction plans must comply with the most current California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. 58. The Applicant shall employ the following best available control measures ("BACM") to reduce construction -related air quality impacts: A-7 14-149 Dust Control • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. • Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. • Sweep or wash any site access points within two hours of any visible dirt deposits on any public roadway. • Cover or water twice daily any on-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. • Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed twenty five (25) m.p.h. Emissions Require 90 day low-NOx tune-ups for off road equipment. Limit allowable idling to 30 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. Off -Site Impacts • Encourage carpooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site. • Sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. Fill Placement The number and type of equipment for dirt pushing will be limited on any day to ensure that SCAQMD significance thresholds are not exceeded. Maintain and utilize a continuous water application system during earth placement and compaction to achieve 10 percent soil moisture content in the top six inch surface layer, subject to review/discretion of the geotechnical engineer. 59. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan ("WQMP") for the proposed Project, subject to the approval of the Building Division and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices ("BMP") to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. A-8 14-150 60. A list of "good housekeeping" practices will be incorporated into the long-term post - construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of storm water away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non- structural BMP. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMP. Public Works Department 61. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right-of- way. 62. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance standard STD -110-L. 63. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, said damage shall be repaired and/or additional reconstruction within the public right-of-way may be required. 64. The Applicant shall reconstruct all damaged and/or broken existing curb, gutter, sidewalk and street along the Bristol Street South and Bayview Place along the property frontages. 65. All on-site drainage shall comply with the latest City water quality requirements. 66. The parking layout shall comply with City Standards STD -805 -L-A and STD -805- L-13. 67. Prior to the issuance of the final certificate of occupancy, the Applicant shall fabricate and post signage in conspicuous locations within the outdoor living areas informing residents and the public of the presence of operating aircraft. A-9 14-151 PROJECT TEAM OWNER CENTERPOINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC. 3101 WEST COAST HIGHWAY SUITE 150A NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 C 949-212-2901 T 949-791-8431 PAUL@CENTERPOINTESL.COM ARCHITECT DOUGLAS PANCAKE ARCHITECTS 19000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 500, IRVINE, CA, 92612, T: 949-720-3850 F: 949-720-3843 W: PAN CAKEARCHITECTS.COM DOUGLAS PANCAKE, AIA, ARCHITECT CIVIL ENGINEER TAIT AND ASSOCIATES 701 N. PARKCENTER DRIVE SANTAANA, CA 92705 T: 714-560-8660 JACOB VANDERVIS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT CONCEPTUAL DESIGN AND PLANNING COMPANY 3195-C AIRPORT LOOP DRIVE COSTA MESA, CA 92626 T: 949.399.0870 JOHN PALISIN, PROJECT MANAGER JPALISIN@CDPCINC.COM GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER NINYO AND MOORE 475 GODDARD, SUITE 200 IRVINE, CA 92618 T: (949_753-7070 DANIEL CHU ENTITLEMENTS MIG I ENTITLEMENT ADVISORS 5000 BIRCH, SUITE 400 EAST TOWER NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 T:(949)422-2303 CAROL MCDERMOTT CAROL@ENTITLEMENTADVISORS.COM SITE DATA Title Al Site Plan A2 Basement Plan ZONING REQ CODE REQ PROVIDED NOTES AREA SF / ACRES N/A N/A 65,384 SF / 1.50 ac A7 MIN LOT SIZE N/A N/A N/A Sections LOT COVERAGE N/A N/A 40% BLDG FOOTPRINT BUILDING FOOTPRINT N/A N/A 26,287 SF 680 FAR N/A N/A 129% (84,517 SF / 65,384 SF) x 100 LANDSCAPE AREA N/A N/A 33% 18,859 SF PERVIOUS / 2,722 SF NON -PERVIOUS DRIVEWAYAREA N/A N/A 27% 17,516 SF BUILDING HEIGHT 45'-0" MAX 50'-0" MAX 39'-6" AL -213 ASSISTED LIVING - 2 BED 2 2 870 1,740 Douglas Pancake LOW A R C H 1 T E C T S 19000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 500, IRVINE, CA 92612-1460 T: 949.720.3850 • F: 949.720.3843 0 WWW.PANCAKEARCHITECTS.COM HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC CENTERPOINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC. HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC 101 BAYVIEW PLACE, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 BY: CENTERPOINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC. SHEET INDEX T Title Al Site Plan A2 Basement Plan A3 First Floor Plan A4 Second Floor Plan A5 Third Floor Plan A6 Roof Plan A7 Elevations A8 Elevations A9 Sections A10 Elevation Study All Elevation Study C-1 Title Sheet C-2 Preliminary Grading Plan C-3 Details WQMP Water Quality Management Plan 1 of 2 Overall Landscape Plan 2 of 2 Enlarged Landscape Plan UNIT MIX Unit Name Unit Type Beds Qty rea ASF) Total (SF) AL -OA ASSISTED LIVING - STUDIO 1 30 400 12,000 AL -OB ASSISTED LIVING - STUDIO 1 4 400 1,604 AL -OC ASSISTED LIVING - STUDIO 1 8 480 3,840 AL -1A ASSISTED LIVING - 1 BED 1 14 680 9,520 AL -1 B ASSISTED LIVING - 1 BED 1 6 600 3,606 AL -1C ASSISTED LIVING - 1 BED 1 5 600 3,000 AL -1 D ASSISTED LIVING - 1 BED 1 2 695 1,390 AL -213 ASSISTED LIVING - 2 BED 2 2 870 1,740 AL -2C ASSISTED LIVING - 2 BED 2 2 844 1,688 AL -2D ASSISTED LIVING - 2 BED 2 4 834 3,336 AL -2E ASSISTED LIVING - 2 BED 2 4 667 2,660 MC -OA MEMORY CARE - 1 BED 1 3 401 1,203 MC -OA MEMORY CARE - 1 BED 1 7 400 2,801 MC -OB MEMORY CARE - 1 BED 1 3 400 1,203 MC -2A MEMORY CARE - 2 BED 2 4 480 1,920 MC -213 MEMORY CARE - 2 BED 2 1 625 625 MC -2C MEMORY CARE - 2 BED 2 2 527 1,054 120 101 53,190 sq ft 3ROSS BUILDING AREA Occupancy Area (SF 3asement GROSS 5,56E 5,566 sq f -first Floor GROSS 26,281 26,287 sq f iecond Floor GROSS 26,911 26,917 sq f Fhird Floor GROSS 25,74 25,747 sq f 84,517 sq ft PARKING SUMMARY ZONING BUILDING REQD. CODE PROVIDED NOTES REQD. PARKING - ACCESSIBLE - 2 3 2: 26-50 SPACES PARKING - ACCESSIBLE VAN - 1 1 1 PER 6 PARKING - RESIDENT 40 - 49 1 SPACE FOR EVERY 3 BEDS 53 EXCESS PARKING OF 13 SPACES PROJECT DATA PROJECT AREA n 2 C 70 r 00 �o 0 �y d U _W Q DO P� 6 VICINITY MAP ^p Title T PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 14-152 LL] Q LL] Q m EXISTING RESIDENCE EXISTIN RESIDEN EXISTING RESIDENCE ^p Douglas Pancake LOW A R C H 1 T E C T S 19000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 500, IRVINE, CA 92612-1460 T: 949.720.3850 • F: 949.720.3843 0 WWW.PANCAKEARCHITECTS.COM 2 A7 / HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC 101 BAYVIEW PLACE, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 BY: CENTERPOINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC. U Q w � m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REFERENCE NORTH D Site Plan Al PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 14-153 Douglas Pancake LOW A R C H I T E C T S 19000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 500, IRVINE, CA 92612-1460 T: 949.720.3850 • F: 949.720.3843 • WWW.PANCAKEARCHITECTS.COM HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC 101 BAYVIEW PLACE, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 BY: CENTERPOINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC. SCALE: 1/8" = i Basement Plan ^p A2 PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 14-154 Ewl L 7'-0" I. 35'-0" 1 15'-4" 1 16'-8" 1 16'-0" 1 ; 16'-8" 1 14'-8" 1 40'-8" 1 53'-0" I. ^p Douglas Pancake LOW A R C H 1 T E C T S 19000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 500, IRVINE, CA 92612-1460 T: 949.720.3850 • F: 949.720.3843 0 WWW.PANCAKEARCHITECTS.COM HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC 101 BAYVIEW PLACE, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 BY: CENTERPOINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC. v 0 0 co First Floor Plan A3 PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 14-155 Douglas Pancake LOW A R C H 1 T E C T S 19000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 500, IRVINE, CA 92612-1460 T: 949.720.3850 • F: 949.720.3843 0 WWW.PANCAKEARCHITECTS.COM 1 A9 i HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC 101 BAYVIEW PLACE, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 BY: CENTERPOINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC. Second Floor SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" D Second Floor Plan ^p PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 14-156 ^p Douglas Pancake LOW A R C H 1 T E C T S 19000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 500, IRVINE, CA 92612-1460 T: 949.720.3850 • F: 949.720.3843 0 WWW.PANCAKEARCHITECTS.COM 55'-4" 16'-8" 16'-0" ! 16'-8" 55'-4" 53'-0" 1 A9 i HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC 101 BAYVIEW PLACE, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 BY: CENTERPOINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I J Third Floor SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" REFERENCE NORTH D Third Floor Plan A5 PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 14-157 Douglas Pancake LOW A R C H 1 T E C T S 19000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 500, IRVINE, CA 92612-1460 T: 949.720.3850 • F: 949.720.3843 0 WWW.PANCAKEARCHITECTS.COM 1 A9 i HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC 101 BAYVIEW PLACE, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 BY: CENTERPOINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC. SCALE: 1/8" = D Roof Plan ^p PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 14-158 Douglas Pancake LOW A R C H 1 T E C T S 19000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 500, IRVINE, CA 92612-1460 T: 949.720.3850 • F: 949.720.3843 0 WWW.PANCAKEARCHITECTS.COM HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC 101 BAYVIEW PLACE, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 BY: CENTERPOINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC. 9Viewfrom SE Bristol St SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" EXTERIOR FINISHES EXTERIOR WALLS STUCCO W-1 MANUF: TYPE: EXTERIOR PLASTER CEMENT COLOR: LIGHT BEIGE ICBO NO.: STUCCO W-2 MANUF: TYPE: EXTERIOR PLASTER CEMENT COLOR: DARK BEIGE ICBO NO.: STUCCO W-3 MANUF: TYPE: EXTERIOR PLASTER CEMENT COLOR: MEDIUM BEIGE ICBO NO.: DOOR & WINDOWS D-1 MANUF: TYPE: COLOR: ANODIZED BRONZE ICBO NO.: FOAM TRIM T-2 MANUF: WITH STUCCO FINISH TYPE: FOAM WITH STUCCO COLOR: DARK BEIGE ICBO NO.: METAL RAILING T-3 MANUF: TYPE: COLOR: ANODIZED BRONZE ICBO NO.: ROOF R-1 MANUF: TYP E: COLOR: BROWN ASPHALT SHINGLES ICBO NO.: 1 View from Bayview PI SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" Elevations ^p A7 PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 14-159 Douglas Pancake LOW A R C H 1 T E C T S 19000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 500, IRVINE, CA 92612-1460 T: 949.720.3850 • F: 949.720.3843 0 WWW.PANCAKEARCHITECTS.COM HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC 101 BAYVIEW PLACE, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 BY: CENTERPOINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC. )or 9Viewfrom Condominiums SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" EXTERIOR FINISHES EXTERIOR WALLS STUCCO W-1 MANUF: TYPE: EXTERIOR PLASTER CEMENT COLOR: LIGHT BEIGE ICBO NO.: STUCCO W-2 MANUF: TYPE: EXTERIOR PLASTER CEMENT COLOR: DARK BEIGE ICBO NO.: STUCCO W-3 MANUF: TYPE: EXTERIOR PLASTER CEMENT COLOR: MEDIUM BEIGE ICBO NO.: DOOR & WINDOWS D-1 MANUF: TYPE: COLOR: ANODIZED BRONZE ICBO NO.: FOAM TRIM T-2 MANUF: WITH STUCCO FINISH TYPE: FOAM WITH STUCCO COLOR: DARK BEIGE ICBO NO.: METAL RAILING T-3 MANUF: TYPE: COLOR: ANODIZED BRONZE ICBO NO.: ROOF R-1 MANUF: TYP E: COLOR: BROWN ASPHALT SHINGLES ICBO NO.: 1 View from Santa Ana Heights SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" Elevations ^p PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 14-160 �1p Douglas Pancake LOW A R C H I T E C T S 19000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 500, IRVINE, CA 92612-1460 T: 949.720.3850 • F: 949.720.3843 • WWW.PANCAKEARCHITECTS.COM goo HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC 101 BAYVIEW PLACE, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 BY: CENTERPOINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC. 46'-7" 1 Section A SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" EXISTING ADJACENT GARAGE Sections PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 33'-0" Roof 22'-0" Third Floor 11'-0" Second Floor EXISTING ADJACENT CONDOMINIUM -12'-0" Basement 14-161 ORIGINAL CUP SUBMITTAL ORIGIIS 2 View from SE Bristol St SCALE: 1 /8" = 1'-0" Douglas Pancake LOW A R C H 1 T E C T S 19000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 500, IRVINE, CA 92612-1460 T: 949.720.3850 • F: 949.720.3843 0 WWW.PANCAKEARCHITECTS.COM HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC 101 BAYVIEW PLACE, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 BY: CENTERPOINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC. )or 1 View from Bayview PI SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" ^p Elevation Study A10 PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 14-162 ORIGINAL CUP SUBMITTAL ORIGINAL ^l 10 01IQIIAITTA 1 ^p 2View from Condominiums SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" Douglas Pancake LOW A R C H 1 T E C T S 19000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 500, IRVINE, CA 92612-1460 T: 949.720.3850 • F: 949.720.3843 0 WWW.PANCAKEARCHITECTS.COM HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC 101 BAYVIEW PLACE, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 BY: CENTERPOINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC. )or 1 View from Santa Ana Heights SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" Elevation Study A1 1 PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 14-163 GENERAL GRADING NOTES 1. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO CHAPTER 15 OF THE NEWPORT BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE (NBMC), THE PROJECT SOILS REPORT AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PERMIT. 2. DUST SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY WATERING AND/OR DUST PALLIATIVE. 3. SANITARY FACILITIES SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON THE SITE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. 4. WORK HOURS ARE LIMITED FROM 7:00 AM TO 6:30 PM MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY; 8:00 AM TO 6:00 PM SATURDAYS; AND NO WORK ON SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS PER SECTION 10-28 OF THE NBMC. 5. NOISE, EXCAVATION, DELIVERY AND REMOVAL SHALL BE CONTROLLED PER SECTION 10-28 OF THE NBMC. 6. THE STAMPED SET OF APPROVED PLANS SHALL BE ON THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES. 7. PERMITTEE AND CONTRACTOR ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING AND PROTECTING UTILITIES. 8. APPROVED SHORING, DRAINAGE PROVISIONS AND PROTECTIVE MEASURES MUST BE USED TO PROTECT ADJOINING PROPERTIES DURING THE GRADING OPERATION. 9. CESSPOOLS AND SEPTIC TANKS SHALL BE ABANDONED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE AND APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. 10. HAUL ROUTES FOR IMPORT OR EXPORT OF MATERIALS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER AND PROCEDURES SHALL CONFORM WITH CHAPTER 15 OF THE NBMC. 11. POSITIVE DRAINAGE SHALL BE MAINTAINED AWAY FROM ALL BUILDING AND SLOPE AREAS. 12. FAILURE TO REQUEST INSPECTIONS AND/OR HAVE REMOVABLE EROSION CONTROL DEVICES ON-SITE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIMES SHALL RESULT IN A "STOP WORK" ORDER. 13. ALL PLASTIC DRAINAGE PIPES SHALL CONSIST OF PVC OR ABS PLASTIC SCHEDULE 40 OR SDR 35 OR ADS 3000 WITH GLUED JOINTS.. 14. NO PAINT, PLASTER, CEMENT, SOIL, MORTAR OR OTHER RESIDUE SHALL BE ALLOWED TO ENTER STREETS, CURBS, GUTTERS OR STORM DRAINS. ALL MATERIAL AND WASTE SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE. EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL PLANS ARE REQUIRED FROM OCTOBER 15 TO MAY 15. 2. EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE AVAILABLE ON-SITE BETWEEN OCTOBER 15 AND MAY 15. 3. BETWEEN OCTOBER 15 AND MAY 15, EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY WHENEVER THE FIVE-DAY PROBABILITY OF RAIN EXCEEDS 30 PERCENT. DURING THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR, THEY SHALL BE IN PLACE AT THE END OF THE WORKING DAY, WHENEVER THE DAILY RAINFALL PROBABILITY EXCEEDS 50 PERCENT. 4. TEMPORARY DESILTING BASINS, WHEN REQUIRED, SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. REQUIRED INSPECTIONS 1. A PRE -GRADING MEETING SHALL BE SCHEDULED 48 HOURS PRIOR TO START OF GRADING WITH THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE PRESENT: OWNER, GRADING CONTRACTOR, DESIGN CIVIL ENGINEER, SOILS ENGINEER, GEOLOGIST, CITY BUILDING INSPECTOR OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES. REQUIRED FIELD INSPECTIONS WILL BE OUTLINED AT THE MEETING. 2. A PRE -PAVING MEETING SHALL BE SCHEDULED 48 HOURS PRIOR TO START OF THE SUB -GRADE PREPARATION FOR THE PAVING WITH THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE PRESENT: OWNER, PAVING CONTRACTORS, DESIGN CIVIL ENGINEER, SOILS ENGINEER, CITY BUILDING INSPECTOR OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES. REQUIRED FIELD INSPECTIONS WILL BE OUTLINED AT THE MEETING. GRADING FILLS/CUTS 1. GRADED SLOPES SHALL BE NO STEEPER THAN 2 HORIZONTAL TO 1 VERTICAL. 2. FILL SLOPES SHALL BE COMPACTED TO NO LESS THAN 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION OUT TO THE FINISHED SURFACE. 3. ALL FILLS SHALL BE COMPACTED THROUGHOUT TO A MINIMUM OF 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION AS DETERMINED BY ASTM TEST METHOD 1557, AND APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. COMPACTION TESTS SHALL BE PERFORMED APPROXIMATELY EVERY TWO FEET IN VERTICAL HEIGHT AND OF SUFFICIENT QUANTITY TO ATTEST TO THE OVERALL COMPACTION EFFORT APPLIED TO THE FILL AREAS. 4. AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL SHALL BE CLEARED OF ALL VEGETATION AND DEBRIS, SCARIFIED AND APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACING OF THE FILL. 5. FILLS SHALL BE KEYED OR BENCHED INTO COMPETENT MATERIAL. 6. ALL EXISTING FILLS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER OR REMOVED BEFORE ANY ADDITIONAL FILLS ARE ADDED. 7. ANY EXISTING IRRIGATION LINES AND CISTERNS SHALL BE REMOVED OR CRUSHED IN PLACE AND BACKFILLED AND APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 8. THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST AND SOILS ENGINEER SHALL, AFTER CLEARING AND PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF FILL IN CANYONS, INSPECT EACH CANYON FOR AREAS OF ADVERSE STABILITY AND DETERMINE THE PRESENCE OF, OR POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE ACCUMULATION OF, SUBSURFACE WATER OR SPRING FLOW. IF NEEDED, DRAINS WILL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF FILL IN EACH RESPECTIVE CANYON. 9. THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE SUBDRAINS SHALL BE SURVEYED IN THE FIELD FOR LINE AND GRADE. 10. ALL TRENCH BACKFILLS SHALL BE COMPACTED THROUGHOUT TO A MINIMUM OF 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION, AND APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE BUILDING DIVISION MAY REQUIRE CORING OF CONCRETE FLAT WORK PLACED OVER UNTESTED BACKFILLS TO FACILITATE TESTING. 11. THE STOCKPILING OF EXCESS MATERIAL SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING DIVISION. 12. LANDSCAPING OF ALL SLOPES AND PADS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 15 OF THE NBMC. 13. ALL CUT SLOPES SHALL BE INVESTIGATED BOTH DURING AND AFTER GRADING BY AN ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST TO DETERMINE IF ANY STABILITY PROBLEM EXISTS. SHOULD EXCAVATION DISCLOSE ANY GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS OR POTENTIAL GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS, THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST SHALL RECOMMEND AND SUBMIT NECESSARY TREATMENT TO THE BUILDING DIVISION FOR APPROVAL. 14. WHERE SUPPORT OR BUTTRESSING OF CUT AND NATURAL SLOPES IS DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY BY THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST AND SOILS ENGINEER, THE SOILS ENGINEER WILL OBTAIN APPROVAL OF DESIGN, LOCATION AND CALCULATIONS FROM THE BUILDING DIVISION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 15. THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST AND SOILS ENGINEER SHALL INSPECT AND TEST THE CONSTRUCTION OF ALL BUTTRESS FILLS AND ATTEST TO THE STABILITY OF THE SLOPE AND ADJACENT STRUCTURES UPON COMPLETION. 16. WHEN CUT PADS ARE BROUGHT TO NEAR GRADE THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST SHALL DETERMINE IF THE BEDROCK IS EXTENSIVELY FRACTURED OR FAULTED AND WILL READILY TRANSMIT WATER. IF CONSIDERED NECESSARY BY THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST AND SOILS ENGINEER, A COMPACTED FILL BLANKET WILL BE PLACED. 17. THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST SHALL PERFORM PERIODIC INSPECTIONS DURING GRADING. 18. NOTIFICATION OF NONCOMPLIANCE: IF, IN THE COURSE OF FULFILLING THEIR RESPONSIBILITY, THE CIVIL ENGINEER, THE SOILS ENGINEER, THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST OR THE TESTING AGENCY FINDS THAT THE WORK IS NOT BEING DONE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVED GRADING PLANS, THE DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY IN WRITING TO THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF THE GRADING WORK AND TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTIVE MEASURES, IF NECESSARY, SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVAL. IMPORTANT NOTICE Section 4216/4217 of the Government Code requires a Dig Alert identification Number be issued before a Permit to Excavate will be valid For your Dig Alert ID Number Call UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 1-800-422-4133 For Underground Locating 2 Working Days before You Dig PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN FORo Lu CENTER POINTE SENIOR LIVING I� UTILITY/ GOVERNING AGENCIES CONTACTS WATER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC 00 WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL, 100 CIVIC CENTER DR. > NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PHONE: (949) 644-3311 ELECTRIC U) STORM DRAIN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC O WORKS DEPARTMENT �7-)> CITY HALL, 100 CIVIC CENTER DR. D� Q= 0 0 0 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 Q 0 O-3 PHONE: (949) 644-3311 SEWER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL, 100 CIVIC CENTER DR. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PHONE: (949) 644-3311 CONTACT: MIKE LYNCH (WASTEWATER SUPERVISOR) PHONE: (949) 718-3415 CITY OF CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC PUBLIC WORKS WORKS DEPARTMENT PO BOX 1768 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 PHONE: (949) 644-3311 UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES & USES THE ENGINEER PREPARING THESE PLANS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY THE PREPARER OF THESE PLANS. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY, THAT THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL BE MADE TO APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS, AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR FURTHER AGREES TO DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD DESIGN PROFESSIONAL HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTING LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF DESIGN PROFESSIONAL. 101 BAYVIEW PLACE .a-> gLL, I�CO 0 0 pI NEWPORT BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CA CL BRISTOL STREET BRISTOL STREET S E%ISTING BIDEWALK EXISTING �! SIDEWALK EMERGENCY DRIVE EXIT�1 ONLY L L I LLI R MC COURTYARD I F3 COUAL RTYARD LLj _ w PROPOSED V 3 STORY Q BUILDING a ASSENGER ROP OFF w 120 } m ri AP I TRASH / 0 PRO -CSL] S D l L-1 SITE MAP N.T.S. \ ENGINEERS NOTE TO CONTRACTOR THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, PIPES, AND/OR STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS WERE OBTAINED BY A SEARCH OF AVAILABLE RECORDS. TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE ARE NO EXISTING UTILITIES EXCEPT AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASCERTAIN THE TRUE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL LOCATION OF THOSE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES TO BE USED AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE UTILITIES, SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN HEREON. IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY DISCREPANCIES, CONFLICTS OR AREAS WHICH HE FEELS UNWORKABLE, HE SHALL NOTIFY THE GRADING ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO CONTINUING OR DEVIATING FROM THIS PLAN. APPLICABLE CODES CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT SHALL AT A MINIMUM COMPLY WITH: • 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC) • 2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC) • CURRENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCE 2012 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (SSPWC) "GREENBOOK" • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STANDARD SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH SSPWC. • 2012 STANDARD PLANS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (SPPWC) • CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STANDARD DRAWINGS CIVIL SHEET INDEX C-1 TITLE SHEET C-2 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN C-3 DETAILS PROJECT DIRECTORY TAIT & ASSOCIATES: CIVIL ENGINEER 701 N. PARKCENTER DRIVE SANTA ANA, CA 92705 PH: (714) 560-8200 ARCHITECT: DOUGLAS PANCAKE ARCHITECTS 19000 MACARTHUR BLVD., SUITE 500 IRVINE, CA 92612 PH: (949) 720-3850 SOILS ENGINEER: NINYO & MOORE 475 GODDARD, SUITE 200 IRVINE, CA 92618 PH: (949) 753-7070 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION: CENTER POINTE SENIOR LIVING 101 BAYVIEW PLACE, NEWPORT BEACH, CA REPORT DATE: DECEMBER 9, 2015 APPROVED PC# TBD PROJECT NO.: 209537001 N 00 0 10 LO 0 0 IN E 0000 0 CD U 10. LO � 3 a3 10 10 QU E PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROPERTY DATA OFESS/ APN:442-283-05 �� A TRACT: 12528 LOT: 1 ` , N m PROJECT AREA yt Exp.12/31 2018 EXISTING: 1.5 I PROJECT f CT AREA: 1..5 ACRES s9TF oCA OFO��\/ O z X .E a)0 0-_ LC__ o 0_ IL N > 00 0 U U P LL W E .� 0 0 V) GO 0 E o Q) 0) E .(D 0 0 U E 0 0 N 111) EARTHWORK QUANTITIES CUT: 10,300 CUBIC YARDS FILL: 100 CUBIC YARDS NET: 10,200 CUBIC YARDS *QUANTITIES SHOWN HEREON FOR BONDING PURPOSES ONLY. ESTIMATION DOES NOT INCLUDE SPOILS RESULTING FROM UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS. Uj CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR BIDDING A COMPLETE JOB WITH THEIR OWN W QUANTITIES. W SURVEY & BENCHMARK _j w 11�__ BASIS OF BEARING: THE BASIS OF BEARINGS IS THE CENTERLINE OF BAYVIEW PLACE AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO. 12528 ON FILE IN BOOK 551, PAGES 38 THROUGH 41 INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS BEING NORTH 40°38'15" EAST. BENCHMARK: PER THE COUNTY OF ORANGE SURVEY BENCHMARKS BM: #3N-61-89 NAVD: 1988 ADJUSTED: 2003 ELEVATION: 56.989 FEET DESCRIPTION: DESCRIBED BY OCS 2003 - FOUND 3 3/4" OCS ALUMINUM BENCHMARK DISK STAMPED "3N-61-89", SET IN THE NORTHERLY CORNER OF A 4.5 FT. BY 8FT. CONCRETE CATCH BASIN. MONUMENT IS LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY SIDE OF BRISTOL STREET, 450 FT. NORTHERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF JAMBOREE, 33 FT. SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF SOUTH BOUND BRISTOL AND 28 FT. NORTHERLY OF A SINGLE LIGHT STANDARD MONUMENT IS SET LEVEL WITH THE SIDWALK. JACOB VANDERVIS RCE DATE z i C� J Z o i O of eco LL'rn0U)rn zQQz QQ fW�0 LILI �U vJi�:Uco�U LL] �wW=w }mom~- zmz -_0000 O�L;w zw�z LL] Z o W z U W U C-1 1 OF 3 c a� rn C E 0- 00 00 Ki I 0 N N PLAN CHECK: PA2�1_2a64 7 00 N O > Q00 ~ o U) zLU0 Y z O Q � w �7-)> � m D� Q= 0 0 0 Q w 0 W Q 0 O-3 C-1 1 OF 3 c a� rn C E 0- 00 00 Ki I 0 N N PLAN CHECK: PA2�1_2a64 7 (57.15TC) JOIN EX. --I 57.86TC 57.36FS EX. SCE EASEMENT BIO -FILTRATION PLANTER 54.441 N V WALL A T FIRE ACCESS EXIT (57.33TC JOIN EX. 77TC 2 58.02TC 57.52FS E SD . 58 49T 2 57.99FL I 6% 3 59.25TC 58.75FS -R 59.50FFE W 59.08TC 2 v 58.58FL 2.9% N v BRISTOL STREET 16 Li PROPOSED SCREEN W (5 /-PER ARCHITECTURAL58 - SDS M. 30TG D 58.50FG SD 58.30TG 58.92FS LIMITS OF UNDERGROUND STRUCTURE C PROPOSED 3 STORY BUILDING FF=59.50 7- 2.0% 2.0% 7 (57.63TC) (57.03FL) (57.09EP) (58.06FS 1-51 50.33E 52 53 I 54- V� 55 3 56 BFP IM 57.82FS 58.29FS 0 CF FS u'b. 0"C 3.6% 2 p% 57.12FS DROP-OFF ZO 59.50FFE _ _ td/ EX. SCE EASEMENT -^'� 0" CURB 1 G� TRASH ENCLOSURE TO BE RELOCATED 0 CF �'y 4 O ` 56.70TC 3 v PAD=58.90 59.35TC 56.70FS 59.05F 6.5% - 56.63FS 59.50FFE 3F 59.10TC 59.50FFE D 7 ,� o (5 3 58.60FS �\ 59.40FS is p JOIN EX. I \ LIMITS OF `r� 7 UNDERGROUND STRUCTURE \ 59.37FS 58.19TC 2 1 I 57.6 FL �\ (57.36TC) PB(,(56.67FL) (56.86EP) i AN ` v SD (56.19FL) 16 Q JOIN EX. S SID (56.25TC) ENGINEERS NOTE TO CONTRACTOR ' 55.771 N V 0wV PROPOSED (55.75FL) LLQ IV (56.34TC) 2% MAX E/B FS FH (56.36FL) 5&15 G JOIN EX. Q 57.65 (56.07FL) 56.34FL REMOVE EX. (56.22EP) 56.38FL SECTION E e � .5 56.78FS ON ASTM D1557-07 TEST METHOD CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY, THAT THIS REQUIREMENT 56.87FS 1WOO57.25FS ON ASTM D1557-07 TEST METHOD SHALL BE MADE TO APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS, AND ' 41 0 _ 3 59 I II - i � N 10 .00TC 3 59.40TC 3 58.9 C \ 10 -III PROPOSED SCREEN WALL 58.29FS I �0 52.921NV 58.50FS 58.90FSs 58.43FSt. z 1=1 I I �� 58.22FS 51.921NV Sp 8 SD S� SD D 7 C _ PER ARCHITECTURAL 57.81 TC 2 11 52.921NV N� 58.72TC 2 2 58.14TC F� I I_ 31 FL 58.22FL 57.64FL I (56.51 TC) ILTRATION 58.06TC PLANTER 57.56FL 2 IMPORTANT NOTICE Section 4216/4217 of the Government Code requires a Dig Alert identification Number be issued before a Permit to Excavate will be valid For your Dig Alert ID Number Call UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 1-800-422-4133 For Underground Locating 2 Working Days before You Dig 57.32FL 9 ,57.79TC 57 S AN SCAPE SD (56.19FL) I JOIN EX. S SID (56.25TC) ENGINEERS NOTE TO CONTRACTOR 57.89TC 57.39FL 55.771 N V JOIN EX. PROPOSED (55.75FL) ROLLED 6 (56.34TC) 2% MAX 5 0 (55.861NV (55.84FL) (56.8fft) (56.74TC) COMPACTED SUBGRADE** - - - APPROVED BY THE PREPARER OF THESE PLANS. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT IN ACCORDANCE PAVEMENT 7 (56.07FL) © 24 INCHES THICKNESS REMOVE EX. (56.22EP) 04 00!0� a 0 20 30 40 X � SURFACE ® 12' zwrn0�rn Q QQ- }Lu ±8.7' 3' ll UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES &USES n ENGINEERS NOTE TO CONTRACTOR �J SEE 8'ECTION DETAIL 1 HEREON EXISTING BLOCK WALL TO REMAIN 0 PROP. BLDG. SECTION A -A N.T.S. PROP. BLDG. R EXISTING II BLOCK WALL II TO REMAIN SECTION B -B N.T.S. NL'Y Q R/W X � SURFACE ® 12' zwrn0�rn Q QQ- }Lu ±8.7' 3' ll UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES &USES n ENGINEERS NOTE TO CONTRACTOR PROP. WALK PROP. JOIN EX. PROPOSED THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, PIPES, AND/OR ROLLED SIDES AND BOTTOM OF BASIN TOL1.1 PAVEMENT 2% MAX CURB EDGE OF COMPACTED SUBGRADE** - - - APPROVED BY THE PREPARER OF THESE PLANS. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT IN ACCORDANCE PAVEMENT O 24 INCHES THICKNESS © 24 INCHES THICKNESS REMOVE EX. EXCEPT AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASCERTAIN THE TRUE CURB & GUTTER SECTION E -E N.T.S. VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL LOCATION OF THOSE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES TO BE USED ADD GRAVEL PAD OF 1 TO 1.5 IN. DIAMETER AND TO OVERLAP OPENING BY 6" LANDSCAPE Pc- C- _"�< LIP 2 12" CURB CUT N.T.S. (IN FEET) TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 TRAFFIC INDEX 6.0 1 INCH = 20 FEET NL'Y R/W PRECISE GRADING CONSTRUCTION NOTES O PROTECT IN PLACE. O2 CONSTRUCT 6" CURB & GUTTER PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD -182-L, TYPE A. O3 CONSTRUCT 6" CURB PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD -182-L, TYPE B. ® CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD -160-A. O5 CONSTRUCT CURB ACCESS RAMP PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD -181 -L-A, CASE "C". © CONSTRUCT DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD -181 -L -D. O7 CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD -180-L. ® CONSTRUCT STANDARD DUTY PAVEMENT PER DETAIL 1 SHOWN HEREON. O9 CONSTRUCT HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT PER DETAIL 1 SHOWN HEREON. 10 CONSTRUCT 12" CURB CUTS @ 9' O.C. PER DETAIL 2 SHOWN HEREON. 11 INSTALL 16'X32' CUDO UNDERGROUND STORMWATER STORAGE SYSTEM PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. SEE SHEET 3 FOR DETAILS. 12 INSTALL JENSEN TRIPLEX LIFT STATION PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. SEE SHEET 3 FOR DETAILS. 13 CONSTRUCT CONCRETE ROLLED CURB PER OC PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STD. PLAN 1201. 14 CONSTRUCT PRIVATE DRAINS THROUGH CURB PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD -184-L. 15 CONSTRUCT 6" THICK x 4' WIDE PCC V -GUTTER. 16 RECONSTRUCT ALL DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALK AND STREET ALONG ROADWAY IF DEEMED NECESSARY BY INSPECTOR. LEGEND PROPERTY LINE STANDARD DUTY PAVEMENT HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT CONCRETE BIO -RETENTION PLANTER 65' PROP. SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE - EX. C&G- - - - - -EX. LANDSCAPE EX. C&G -� --- ====___ _ --- r �-�_---------------- ---- SECTION C -C '- TC N.T.S. 6" CF FL GUTTER (TYP.) r LIP EL'Y R/W 44' ±0.5' 8' ±25.5' 10' PROP. SIDEWALK LANDSCAPEEX. C&G I EX. MEDIAN I Y _ 0 - Lu 0 01 Q O X � SURFACE ® SECTION DETAIL 1 zwrn0�rn Q QQ- }Lu 3SPHALT IN HESSURFACE THICKNESSOURSE 4SNCHES THICKNESSOURSE ll UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES &USES n ENGINEERS NOTE TO CONTRACTOR O CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE* 10 INCHES THICKNESS CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE* 12 INCHES THICKNESS O THE ENGINEER PREPARING THESE PLANS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, PIPES, AND/OR EXISTING BLOCK WALL SIDES AND BOTTOM OF BASIN TOL1.1 UU W > w W = w CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST BE STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS WERE OBTAINED BY A SEARCH OF AVAILABLE J COMPACTED SUBGRADE** COMPACTED SUBGRADE** APPROVED BY THE PREPARER OF THESE PLANS. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT IN ACCORDANCE RECORDS. TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE ARE NO EXISTING UTILITIES O 24 INCHES THICKNESS © 24 INCHES THICKNESS WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO EXCEPT AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASCERTAIN THE TRUE U ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL LOCATION OF THOSE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES TO BE USED *95% COMPACTION BASED ON ASTM D1557-07 TEST METHOD CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY, THAT THIS REQUIREMENT AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE UTILITIES, **90% COMPACTION BASED ON ASTM D1557-07 TEST METHOD SHALL BE MADE TO APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS, AND SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN HEREON. IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY 0 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR FURTHER AGREES TO DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD DESIGN PROFESSIONAL DISCREPANCIES, CONFLICTS OR AREAS WHICH HE FEELS UNWORKABLE, HE SHALL N 00N HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK NOTIFY THE GRADING ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO CONTINUING OR DEVIATING o PAVEMENT SECTION ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTING LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF DESIGN PROFESSIONAL. FROM THIS PLAN. 1 j)AC N.T.S. NL'Y R/W PRECISE GRADING CONSTRUCTION NOTES O PROTECT IN PLACE. O2 CONSTRUCT 6" CURB & GUTTER PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD -182-L, TYPE A. O3 CONSTRUCT 6" CURB PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD -182-L, TYPE B. ® CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD -160-A. O5 CONSTRUCT CURB ACCESS RAMP PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD -181 -L-A, CASE "C". © CONSTRUCT DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD -181 -L -D. O7 CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD -180-L. ® CONSTRUCT STANDARD DUTY PAVEMENT PER DETAIL 1 SHOWN HEREON. O9 CONSTRUCT HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT PER DETAIL 1 SHOWN HEREON. 10 CONSTRUCT 12" CURB CUTS @ 9' O.C. PER DETAIL 2 SHOWN HEREON. 11 INSTALL 16'X32' CUDO UNDERGROUND STORMWATER STORAGE SYSTEM PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. SEE SHEET 3 FOR DETAILS. 12 INSTALL JENSEN TRIPLEX LIFT STATION PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. SEE SHEET 3 FOR DETAILS. 13 CONSTRUCT CONCRETE ROLLED CURB PER OC PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT STD. PLAN 1201. 14 CONSTRUCT PRIVATE DRAINS THROUGH CURB PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD -184-L. 15 CONSTRUCT 6" THICK x 4' WIDE PCC V -GUTTER. 16 RECONSTRUCT ALL DAMAGED CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALK AND STREET ALONG ROADWAY IF DEEMED NECESSARY BY INSPECTOR. LEGEND PROPERTY LINE STANDARD DUTY PAVEMENT HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT CONCRETE BIO -RETENTION PLANTER 65' PROP. SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE - EX. C&G- - - - - -EX. LANDSCAPE EX. C&G -� --- ====___ _ --- r �-�_---------------- ---- SECTION C -C '- TC N.T.S. 6" CF FL GUTTER (TYP.) r LIP EL'Y R/W 44' ±0.5' 8' ±25.5' 10' PROP. SIDEWALK LANDSCAPEEX. C&G I EX. MEDIAN I Y _ 0 - Lu 0 01 m Exp.12/31 2018 \TF of ICA OF���\P CCr`Tlrl�l n n Z 24"X24" INLET GRATE CURBS CUT PER PLAN PER PLAN 9" PONDING - 2" -3" MULCH LAYER 6" PVC RISER - FILTER FABRIC PIPE N.T.S. Q Z X � J > c� zwrn0�rn Q QQ- }Lu z_ C) 0 Z j zUj0 Q Y W i�: o �w�> Q= EXISTING BLOCK WALL SIDES AND BOTTOM OF BASIN TOL1.1 UU W > w W = w Z r, BE LINED WITH TEMP PROOF 250 J W U GC OR APPROVED EQUAL FLUID w z APPLIED WATERPROOFING LL.I MEMBRANE. OF U 00 - 0 N 00N U o P 1 �ID LO a 0 V) m a� ,o o o� �� a�01 0o C Q p UC CJ o a � 6 CD U C '0 L- N Q LO C) z 3 0.0 o° ai ° 0 1010 QIMEEMW U m Exp.12/31 2018 \TF of ICA OF���\P CCr`Tlrl�l n n Z 24"X24" INLET GRATE CURBS CUT PER PLAN PER PLAN 9" PONDING - 2" -3" MULCH LAYER 6" PVC RISER - FILTER FABRIC PIPE N.T.S. n Q Z 0 o0�M J > c� zwrn0�rn Q QQ- }Lu z_ C) 0 Z j n _ 0 o0�M Q�� Zm�Zo a-0Ua- zwrn0�rn Q QQ- }Lu 0 0 It z z zUj0 Q Y W i�: (nom=W =_ �w�> Q= EXISTING BLOCK WALL SIDES AND BOTTOM OF BASIN TOL1.1 UU W > w W = w 24" BIO -FILTER MEDIA WITH \ MIN. 8 IN/HR PERCOLATION RATE 0 7-'/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \12" PERVIOUS BACKFILL (PER SPPWC TABLE 300-3.5.2(A) BIO -FILTRATION DETAIL 6' PERFORATED PIPE IN 8" GRAVEL JACKET N.T.S JACOB VANDERVIS RCE DATE }mz COm CO � 00 N 0 Q�� Zm�Zo a-0Ua- co 0 0 It z ��zE U)Lu LU z zUj0 Q Y W i�: O �w�> Q= o SIDES AND BOTTOM OF BASIN TOL1.1 Q 0 Z r, BE LINED WITH TEMP PROOF 250 J W U GC OR APPROVED EQUAL FLUID w z APPLIED WATERPROOFING LL.I MEMBRANE. OF U 24" BIO -FILTER MEDIA WITH \ MIN. 8 IN/HR PERCOLATION RATE 0 7-'/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \12" PERVIOUS BACKFILL (PER SPPWC TABLE 300-3.5.2(A) BIO -FILTRATION DETAIL 6' PERFORATED PIPE IN 8" GRAVEL JACKET N.T.S JACOB VANDERVIS RCE DATE PLAN CHECK: PA2�1�_2a�5 7 00 N 0 Q�� co ~ \ 0 It z zUj0 Q Y 7_5�m O �w�> Q= Q � w Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 C-2 2 OF 3 PLAN CHECK: PA2�1�_2a�5 7 CURB FACE 0/3 4/3 [!3 10' OR VARIES 3/8' EXPANSION JOINT 2� MATERIAL (TYP) CURB ACCESS RAMP SHALL COMPLY WITH CURRENT ADA REQUIREMENTS CURB RETURN AREA R=15' FOR LOCAL STREETS AND 25' FOR ARTERIAL STREETS UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED )K )K 10' FOR MAJOR, 10' FOR PRIMARY, AND 8' FOR SECONDARY STREETS UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN CONCRETE SHALL BE 560-C-3250 R iu 1 t rit,ric 2' OR 4' MIN MATCH SLOPE 2% MAX, EXIST, a .. .. •°: -- LANDSCAPE PARKWAY WITH STREET TREES REQUIRED ° WHEN DISTANCE FROM CURB 4' MIN, PCC, TO PROPERTY LINE EXCEEDS TYPICAL SECTION AREAS, T CONCRETEIN SIDEWALK IN COMMERCIAL AREAS WITH STREET TREES, 3/8" EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS 1-1/4' SAVED, QUICK -JOINT OR EQUAL 8' 8' 8' 8' 8' 8' 8' 8' PLANTING OR CONCRETE WALK WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS & EXPANSION JOINTS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVED: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SIDEWALK DETAIL RCE NO. 36106 �-�LIC WORKS DIRECTOR Drawn: M.Cracia p.N cN 'C U Scale: N.T.S. Date: Sep 1994 O+� O C I::\USLRS\PBW\Shared\CAD S"IU\ STD DeIailsv2003_Sid\- DRAWING NO. STD_ 180-L 1' 6' 24' 1/2' R 1' WIDE BY 1' DEEP 3/8' LIP AC PATCH BACK 6' OR 8' RI CURB FACE 3112 BATTER a a a .I/2' R a Ll' R .o ' ° a . G .. .. LEVEL TYPE A P.C.C. CURB AND GUTTER (CURB FACE SHALL BE 6' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) 6' 112' R 1' WIDE BY 1' DEEP a ° � AC PATCH BACK 31i2 • BATTER d.•. 0 0 4 a TYPE B P.C.C. CURB (CURB FACE SHALL BE 6' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) NOTES: 1, GUTTER SURFACE WITHIN 4' OF FLDWLINE SHALL BE GIVEN A STEEL TROWEL, (APPLIES TO TYPE 'A' CURB) 2, PREFORMED 3/8' THICK EXPANSION FILLER SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL TYPES DF CURB AT THE RC, AND EC, OF RETURNS, AT INTERVALS OF 60' BETWEEN RETURNS AND AT THE ENDS OF DRIVEWAYS, SIMILAR EXPANSIDN JOINTS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL GUTTERS ADJOINING CURB, WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS SHALL BE FORMED AT INTERVALS OF 20' BETWEEN RETURNS, (APPLIES TD TYPES 'A', 'B', AND 'C' CURBS), 3, CONCRETE SHALL BE 56D -C-3250, 4, SMOOTH TRDWL THE TDP 4 -INCH OF THE BACK OF CURB, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVED: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RCE NO. 36106 BLIC WORKS DIRECTOR STANDARD CURB SECTIONS Drawn: M.Gracia Scale: N.T.S. TYPES "A11 AND IIB11 Date: Nov. 1993 uses o "Iii zopo4 sIa's1D\ DRAWING NO. STD_ 182-L 6Z w� O �z x� .O O p p.N cN 'C U �o U Z O+� O C ON4;Uw N � �N 2 O v a)'m OD =� o = c O O o Z 5 N _ *ai c DESIGNED BY OTHERS 7 I '��PIPE �W o zzxD J o U 0 c o I 3 Z cO 0 Y x Ing ~ „O- � � � + g° .'T. v, A- A N V O ° I nDo L_ w Z� 22 o �U O ¢� _� C X m �� o "' �° w� " z� a c l Ca A O °' o O `o W Z t� Q Qom'. U co DD 2+ w L . - •, C� r j Z L In A - `J U n 0 p , x U U E c x a°mal uoo �O vn v:.r u!W ,i a!q°uDA a� z ao v c U O D W N N DaJD 6u!IuD d J N N o c �v F-xz.ZV4 u_;5 ON O++ V ao (o co °cOo ooy v o v E"°'� o v Of o _e o o c -2 v L2 m U O oo o z to O U c C0 O °o o 3 Z O m O) Nn p 1 M,Z wW y XD" XDW v o O v xDW z x'd �z Xz 2 o d > CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CURB ACCESS RAMP DETAILS I p pN CN O �z x� .O O p p.N cN 'C U Z c U Z 1 ON4;Uw � NU_P 2 1 DIA JENSEN PRECAST CONCRETE CUSTOM FLAT TOP 3 M O Y y o xW�V -um iE'8 5 PIPE MATERIAL, LOCATION, SIZE & INVERT ELEVATION OF INLET PIPING. _ *ai 6 oo o z to O U c C0 O °o o 3 Z O m O) Nn p 1 M,Z wW y XD" XDW v o O v xDW z x'd �z Xz 2 o d > CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CURB ACCESS RAMP DETAILS I p pN CN r i V p.N cN 'C U 96" X 48" ALUMINUM, TRIPLEX ACCESS HATCH FOR PEDESTRIAN 30OPSF LIVE LOADING c 1 20) 19 L 2 1 DIA JENSEN PRECAST CONCRETE CUSTOM FLAT TOP 3 M O Y y o oo o z to O U c C0 O °o o 3 Z O m O) Nn p 1 M,Z wW y XD" XDW v o O v xDW z x'd �z Xz 2 o d > CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CURB ACCESS RAMP DETAILS I p pN CN r i V p.N cN 'C U 96" X 48" ALUMINUM, TRIPLEX ACCESS HATCH FOR PEDESTRIAN 30OPSF LIVE LOADING HDPE STORM INLET INVERT EL: 1 20) 19 9 UDy��I 2 1 DIA JENSEN PRECAST CONCRETE CUSTOM FLAT TOP 3 o x Y 4 o �a 5 PIPE MATERIAL, LOCATION, SIZE & INVERT ELEVATION OF INLET PIPING. _ *ai 6 DESIGNED BY OTHERS 7 I '��PIPE -� o o U MOUNT 6" STILLING WELLTO WALL I O I III WITH SS WALL BRACKET AMD SS WEDGE STYLE ANCHORS OPTICAL FLOAT SWITCH WITH CORD WEIGHT N 1 INLET PIPE O L> O / 610'-0" WET WELL I.D. v DESIGNED BY OTHERS - DIP FLG x FLG SPOOL 6'-0" 13 3 _°� PLAN SECTION HN o Z� o 3 DIP RFCA W/ SS HRDWR 16 3 DIP FLG x PE SPOOL 2-4- 17 3 DIP FLG x FLG SPOOL 0'-9" o O'N u 12,8 3 DIP FLG 90 ELBOW cnox � 8 w o:co � N >\ N Z Y Co w a N 1 SS PIPE WALL CLAMP M M g v 3 pp 4 N 0 v U - O] c � `o E c6 o � � U z oo o z to O U c C0 O °o o 3 Z O m O) Nn p 1 M,Z wW y XD" XDW v o O v xDW z x'd �z Xz 2 o d > CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CURB ACCESS RAMP DETAILS I p pN CN DESCRIPTION V p.N cN 'C U 96" X 48" ALUMINUM, TRIPLEX ACCESS HATCH FOR PEDESTRIAN 30OPSF LIVE LOADING HDPE STORM INLET INVERT EL: 1 20) 19 DIA JENSEN PRECAST CONCRETE MANHOLE 17'-6" RIM TO SUMP - NO LINER OR COATING 2 1 DIA JENSEN PRECAST CONCRETE CUSTOM FLAT TOP 3 1 ALUMINUM, TRIPLE DOOR ACCESS HATCH FOR PEDESTRIAN 300 PSF LIVE LOADING 4 o �a 5 PIPE MATERIAL, LOCATION, SIZE & INVERT ELEVATION OF INLET PIPING. _ *ai 6 DESIGNED BY OTHERS 7 I '��PIPE 7 o SS FLOAT BRACKET W/ CORD GRIPS U MOUNT 6" STILLING WELLTO WALL I O I III WITH SS WALL BRACKET AMD SS WEDGE STYLE ANCHORS OPTICAL FLOAT SWITCH WITH CORD WEIGHT 10 1 INLET PIPE *FORCE MAIN CONNECTION / 610'-0" WET WELL I.D. v DESIGNED BY OTHERS O11'-10" WET WELL O.D. DIP FLG x FLG SPOOL 6'-0" 13 3 PLAN SECTION HN 3 VAL-MATIC CAM -CENTRIC FLANGED, WORM GEAR ACTUATED PLUG VALVE WITH HANDWHEEL o 3 DIP RFCA W/ SS HRDWR 16 3 DIP FLG x PE SPOOL 2-4- 17 3 DIP FLG x FLG SPOOL 0'-9" 18 3 DIP FLG 90 ELBOW 19 8 w 20 � N >\ N 1 n O N Co w a N 1 SS PIPE WALL CLAMP C O o O Oaf RCE NO. 36106 ''WJU4.iC WORKS DIRECTOR yawn: R. OKADA Scale: N.T.S. Date: 11/2005 I.TIEaS,PBw\shar°d\cAD STD\ STD MIa i.a00 W, DRAWING NO. STD -181 -L-A 45° DESCRIPTION PARTS LIST CL F' 96" X 48" ALUMINUM, TRIPLEX ACCESS HATCH FOR PEDESTRIAN 30OPSF LIVE LOADING HDPE STORM INLET INVERT EL: 1 20) 19 DIA JENSEN PRECAST CONCRETE MANHOLE 17'-6" RIM TO SUMP - NO LINER OR COATING 2 1 DIA JENSEN PRECAST CONCRETE CUSTOM FLAT TOP 3 1 ALUMINUM, TRIPLE DOOR ACCESS HATCH FOR PEDESTRIAN 300 PSF LIVE LOADING 4 CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY - 5 PIPE MATERIAL, LOCATION, SIZE & INVERT ELEVATION OF INLET PIPING. _ *ai 6 DESIGNED BY OTHERS 7 I '��PIPE 7 1 SS FLOAT BRACKET W/ CORD GRIPS 8 MOUNT 6" STILLING WELLTO WALL I O I III WITH SS WALL BRACKET AMD SS WEDGE STYLE ANCHORS OPTICAL FLOAT SWITCH WITH CORD WEIGHT 10 1 INLET PIPE *FORCE MAIN CONNECTION / 610'-0" WET WELL I.D. v DESIGNED BY OTHERS O11'-10" WET WELL O.D. DIP FLG x FLG SPOOL 6'-0" 13 3 PLAN SECTION ANTI -FLOTATION COLLAR 3 VAL-MATIC CAM -CENTRIC FLANGED, WORM GEAR ACTUATED PLUG VALVE WITH HANDWHEEL FG/RIM EL: l •� J� O ' G / I III.. ,� PRESSURE TRANSDUCER SHALL 22 15 FORCEMAIN REMAIN IN STILLING WELL FOR INVERT EL: NORMAL OPERATION 21 16 cur . 14 17 13 PUMP 3 ON /HIGH LEVEL EL: LAG PUMP 60Hz EL: �J ' LEAD PUMP 60Hz EL: ' LEAD PUMP 40Hz EL: s PUMPS OFF EL: -- LOW ALARM EL: �/g��► FOUNDATION, SUBGRADE AND ' ! I BACKFILL DESIGNED BY OTHERS SUMP EL: e Y ELEVATION.! SEC70'; DISCLAIMERS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: 1) ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS WERE PROVIDED BY OTHERS. ANY CHANGE GREATER THAN 0.1 FT. REQUIRES ENGINEER APPROVAL. 2) JENSEN PRECAST ASSUMES NO RISK FOR DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS DRAWING AND THE ACTUAL ELEVATIONS/DIMENSIONS IN THE FIELD. 3) THE SPECIFIED PUMPS ARE DESIGNED TO OPERATE AT THE DESIGN POINT SHOWN, BUT THE SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY JENSEN PRECAST. 4.) OWNER MUST CONFIRM THE SUITABILITY OF THIS DESIGN PRIOR TO PRODUCTION. 5.) CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE ALL INCIDENTAL MATERIAL AND LABOR FOR A COMPLETE OPERATIONAL SYSTEM. 6.) ALL DUCTILE IRON PIPE TO BE CEMENT LINED AND SHOP PRIME COATED. ALL BURIED PIPE MUST BE POLYETHYLENE ENCASED. ALL GASKETS TO BE FULL FACE %" THICK NEOPRENE RUBBER. NUTS AND BOLTS IN WET WELL TO BE STAINLESS STEEL. 1. IF DISTANCE FROM CURB TO BACK OF SIDEWALK IS TOO SHORT TO ACCOMODATE RAMP AND 4 ft. PLATFORM (LANDING) AS IN CASE A, THE SIDWALK MAY BE DEPRESSED LONGITUDINALLY AS IN CASE B OR C OR MAY BE WIDENED AS IN CASE D. 2. IF SIDEWALK IS LESS THAN 6 ft. WIDE, THE FULL WIDTH OF THE SIDEWALK SHALL BE DEPRESSED AS SHOWN IN CASE C. 3. WHEN RAMP IS LOCATED IN CENTER OF CURB RETURN, CROSSWALK CONFIGURATION MUST BE SIMILAR TO THAT SHOWN FOR CASE E TO ACCOMMODATE WHEELCHAIRS. 4. FOR CASES F AND G, THE LONGITUDINAL PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK MAY NEED TO BE DEPRESSED AS SHOWN IN CASE B. 5. IF LOCATED ON A CURB THE SIDES OF THE RAMP NEED NOT BE PARALLEL, BUT THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF THE RAMP SHALL BE 4 ft.. 6. TRANSITIONS FROM RAMPS TO WALKS, GUTTERS, OR STREETS SHALL BE FLUSH AND FREE OF ABRUPT CHANGES. 7. SIDEWALK AND RAMP THICKNESS, "T", SHALL BE 4 in. MINIMUM. 8. THE RAMP SHALL HAVE A 12 in. WIDE BORDER WITH 1/4 in. GROOVES APPROXIMATELY 3/4 in. ON CENTER. SEE GROOVING DETAIL. 9. WHEN DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE IS NOT REQUIRED ON A CURB RAMP, THE CONCRETE FINISH OF THE RAMP AND ITS FLARED SIDES SHALL HAVE A TRANSVERSE BROOMED SURFACE TEXTURE ROUGHER THAN THE SURROUNDING SIDEWALK. 10. RAMP SIDE SLOPE VARIES UNIFORMLY FROM A MAXIMUM OF 10% AT CURB TO CONFORM WITH LONGITUDINAL SIDEWALK SLOPE ADJACENT TO TOP OF THE RAMP, EXCEPT IN CASE C. 11. UTILITY PULL BOXES, MANHOLES, VAULTS AND ALL OTHER UTILITY FACILITIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CURB RAMP WILL BE RELOCATED OR ADJUSTED TO GRADE OWNER PRIOR T0, OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH, CURB RAMP CONSTRUCTION. BY THE 12. MAXIMUM SLOPES OF ADJOINING GUTTER, THE ROAD SURFACE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE. CURB RAMP AND CONTINUOUS PASSAGE TO THE CURB RAMP SHALL NOT EXCEED 5 PERCENT WITHIN 4 ft. OF THE TOP OR BOTTOM OF THE CURB RAMP. 13. CONCRETE SHALL BE 560-C-3250. 14. RETROFITS - WHEN A WHEELCHAIR RAMP IS ADDED TO AN EXISTING FACILITY, THE CHANGES ARE PERMI TED: (A) RAMP GRADE IN CASE "C" MAT BE INCREASED TO 4%. (B) OTHER RAMP GRADES MAYBE INCREASED TO A MAXIMUM OF 11.1% (NEVERTHELESS, THEY SHOULD BE AS FLAT AS FEASABLE. (C) WHERE THE 4 FOOT PLATFORM IS NOT FEASABLE, THE WIDTH MAY BE DECREASED TO 3 FOO T. (D) THE PLATFORM MAY BE ELIMINATED IF THE GRADE DOES NOT EXCEED 8.331%. 15. RASIED TRUNCATED DOMES SHALL BE DARK GREY IN COLOR AND SHALL BE "TERRA PAVING" AS MANUFACTURED BY WAUSAU TILE, INC. OF WISCONSIN OR EQUAL. 16. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACES SHALL EXTEND 36 INCHES MINIMUM IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND THR FULL WIDTH OF THE CURB RAMP. NOTE: ADAPTED FROM CALTRANS CURRENT STANDARDS PLANS FOR UP-TO-DATE REQUIREMENTS. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVEDI PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CURB ACCESS RAMP RIREC 0. 0 PUBLIC WORKS N O TES DATE 11/17/06 SCALE MTS. DRAWN R, OKADA S TD -181-L -C PUMP CHARACTERISTICS DESCRIPTION PARTS LIST ITEM QTY DESCRIPTION 1 1 DIA JENSEN PRECAST CONCRETE MANHOLE 17'-6" RIM TO SUMP - NO LINER OR COATING 2 1 DIA JENSEN PRECAST CONCRETE CUSTOM FLAT TOP 3 1 ALUMINUM, TRIPLE DOOR ACCESS HATCH FOR PEDESTRIAN 300 PSF LIVE LOADING 4 3 HOMA NON CLOG PUMP 6" DISCHARGE W/ AUTO COUPLING SYSTEM, 21.5HP, THERMAL SENSORS, EXTERIOR COATED WITH HIGH SOLIDS POLY -AMIDE EPDXY, SEAL PROBES, 50 ft CABLE 5 3 2" 304SS UPPER GUIDE RAIL BRACKET 6 6 2" 304SS GUIDE RAIL 7 1 SS FLOAT BRACKET W/ CORD GRIPS 8 1 STAINLESS STEEL SUBMERSIBLE PRESSURE TRANSDUCER 9 2 OPTICAL FLOAT SWITCH WITH CORD WEIGHT 10 1 INLET PIPE 11 3 X DIP FLG ECCENTRIC REDUCER 12 3 DIP FLG x FLG SPOOL 6'-0" 13 3 BALL CHECK VALVE BY AVK 14 3 VAL-MATIC CAM -CENTRIC FLANGED, WORM GEAR ACTUATED PLUG VALVE WITH HANDWHEEL 15 3 DIP RFCA W/ SS HRDWR 16 3 DIP FLG x PE SPOOL 2-4- 17 3 DIP FLG x FLG SPOOL 0'-9" 18 3 DIP FLG 90 ELBOW 19 3 DIP FLG x PE SPOOL 4'-6" 20 3 FLEXIBLE RESILIENT PIPE CONNECTORS MEETING ASTM C-923 21 1 PVC STILLING WELL 22 1 2 1 SS PIPE WALL CLAMP PUMP CHARACTERISTICS DESCRIPTION SINGLE PUMP PARALLEL DESIGN FLOW TOTAL DYNAMIC HEAD STATIC HEAD MANUFACTURER MODEL NUMBER HORSE POWER FULL LOAD AMPS MAX PUMP SPEED POWER SUPPLY POWER SUPPLY NUMBER OF PUMPS FREQUENCY TOP DIAMETER MIN. 50% of base MAX. 65% of base 5mm(0.2") BASE DIAMETER 23mm MIN. (0.9") 36mm MAX. (1.4") RAISED TRUNCATED DOME 41mm (1.6") Min. 61min (2.4") Max Center to Center spacing Base Spacing RAISED TRUNCATED DOME PATTERN IN-LINE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVED: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT See Notes 9, 15 and 16 RCE N0.36106 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR CURB ACCESS RAMP Drawn: R. Okada DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE Date: 11/2005 Scale: N.T.S. DRAWING NO. STD_ 181 -L-D ±TBD CUDO-DT-0001 INLET f 11 ® - ±TBD -OUTLET INLET CATCH BASIN, CLEAN-OUT ACCESS PER PLAN. AS REQUIRED. PLAN VIEW 1 TO 4 MODULE STACKS COMPACTED SOIL AS APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED SCALE: NONE BY PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. - OPTIONAL GEOGRID BI -AXLE ON GRAVEL OR SAND. (TENSART"' BX1200 OR BACKFILL, 12" MINIMUM ABOVE CUDOT" SYSTEM, COMPACTED - EQUIVALENT) 12" MAXIMUM BELOW AS REQUIRED BY PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. FINISHED GRADE AT SHALLOWEST POINT. BACKFILL MATERIAL PER CUSTOMER BEDDING/BACKFILL SPECIFICATION. SEE NOTE 1. 624.00" MAINTENANCE/INSPECTION ACCESS COVERS TYPICAL. 3.00' [36.00"] MINIMUM GEOGRID FIELD POURED CONCRETE COLLAR REQUIRED, BY OTHERS. CONCRETE OR - MATERIAL FROM EDGES OF TANK. ASPHALT PAVEMENT. 7xx,\�\ MAXIMUM.4.00 M?NIIMUM \ \ TYPICAL CATCH BASIN \ --- --- \ 12.00 OR OTHER INLET \.::. A\ \�\ \ \ \\ MINIMUM. STRUCTURE PER PLAN. \\ \ \ \ 0 WRAP ENTIRE SYSTEM WITH \\ SEE NOTE 2. INLET PIPE, 618.00" MAXIMUM, \ ONE TO FOUR FOR CONNECTION CONFIGURATION REFERENCE \ CUDO-0008 & CUDO-PIPE-0001. ` \\ MAXIMUM CUD OT" INLET CUDOT"" SHOULD USE \ MODULE STACKS. PERFORATED PARTITION PANELS ON THREE SIDES \\\ FOR OPTIONAL GROSS POLLUTANT FILTER (GPF). GROSS POLLUTANT FILTER (GPF) \ \ 4.00 TO 6.00 MINIMUM. OPTIONAL ON CUDO 2 THRU 4, NOT AVAILABLE IN CUDO' 1 SYSTEMS.\\\ \\ \ \\\\ \\\ \\ \\ \\\ \\ \\\\ \\\ \ \ OUTLET PIPE, 618.00" MAXIMUM. FOR CONNECTION SIDE PLUGS MAY BE SUPPLIED AS PERFORATED CONFIGURATION REFERENCE, AT THE DISCRETION OF KRISTAR CUDO-0008 & CUDO-PIPE-0001. NOTES: 1. INSTALL GEOGRID LAYER, (TENSART"' 6X1200 OR EQUIVALENT) IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS. 2. SYSTEM ENCASED ENTIRELY WITH 36 MIL REINFORCED POLYETHYLENE IMPERMEABLE LINER OR EQUIVALENT AS REQUIRED. 3. FIELD POURED CONCRETE COLLAR REQUIRED AROUND ALL ACCESS COVERS & HATCHES, BY OTHERS. 4. ALL EXTERNAL PIPING & ANGLES BY OTHERS. REFER TO PLANS. VARIABLE SECTION / CUTAWAY VIEW SCALE: NONE 12.00 MINIMUM JACOB VANDERVIS RCE DATE (V e0 0 10 V) a) Ill 6 u) 42 o 6 0, o (DU of U 00 O i� 6 p U 0c 10 CLQ L� o ° a3 Y _ U LU Q m r� X E C N _c o D_ D_ N 0 0 00 0 U U C (D c.- 0 v) co 0 c o Ill 0) E 00 U c 0 0 ROFESS/0N A Nps PI F< c :T N,.0046301 * Exp.1AA2/31/2018 or C-3 3 OF 3 PLAN CHECK: PA2�1�_2��6 V 00 z V �CO> J ZZ o 0- \Q Uj J och � O W z�0)0�� 2 U) QRZ Q0 W�UW �U �W J Q� �Q W>ww=w _ 1 >_ m m Q zm�z a� O o�OU0 W 0 Lu W w LLI z W z WLU z U z W U C-3 3 OF 3 PLAN CHECK: PA2�1�_2��6 00 t0 (N O �CO> 0- \Q z N ZLU Y O �w�U-5> �Q OeQ=<W< ❑ ❑ U ❑ W 0Om ❑ -) C-3 3 OF 3 PLAN CHECK: PA2�1�_2��6 BRISTOL STREET FH 57 TSPB 3.86' GV SD PROPOSED rA BIO–FILTRATION #1 AREA = 299 SF 0.2 5 CD Cd 0 1 N v 58— _SD SD ;59" SD PROPOSED STORM DRAIN PROPOSED WALL SD PROPOSED CURI WITH 12" CUTS PROPOSED E� I 3 STO RY BUILDING I RAMP TO PARKING E� Nv PAVED ROAD STORM DRAIPROPOSEN I I I 1 I BFP GI O TRASH ENCLOSURE Im,,,, 01 100 _I ofeF 59 � 53 54 — '55— rc 0.70 P POSED PUMP ��1 TSPBO FD 1 SD SD 11.0' S� I Q0 I I B SIDEWALK �� —I I PROPOSED CUDO DETENTION SYSTEM PROPOSED STORM DRAIN 0 0 ' 1 EMS Pink I �Affl WA ��� �i��� �.'� --- IMPORTANT NOTICE Section 4216/4217 of the Government Code requires a Dig Alert identification Number be issued before a Permit to Excavate will be valid For your Dig Alert ID Number Call UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 1-800-422-4133 For Underground Locating 2 Working Days before You Dig D SD PROPOSED CURB WITH 12" CUTS —III FRI SD SID —III_III_ =11F1 TLLI III 7- 9 . 4PROPOSED TRATION #3 SEA = 1151 SF TSP N B(2) O%vv ow`' '/W owv OPOSED 4' "V" GU w U a J d W a Go PROPOSED CURB DRAMS – PROPOSED SITE DISCHARGE UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES & USES ENGINEERS NOTE TO CONTRACTOR THE ENGINEER PREPARING THESE PLANS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, PIPES, AND/OR CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST BE STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS WERE OBTAINED BY A SEARCH OF AVAILABLE APPROVED BY THE PREPARER OF THESE PLANS. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT IN ACCORDANCE RECORDS. TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE ARE NO EXISTING UTILITIES WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO EXCEPT AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASCERTAIN THE TRUE ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL LOCATION OF THOSE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES TO BE USED CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY, THAT THIS REQUIREMENT AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE UTILITIES, SHALL BE MADE TO APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS, AND SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN HEREON. IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR FURTHER AGREES TO DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD DESIGN PROFESSIONAL DISCREPANCIES, CONFLICTS OR AREAS WHICH HE FEELS UNWORKABLE, HE SHALL HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK NOTIFY THE GRADING ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO CONTINUING OR DEVIATING ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTING LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF DESIGN PROFESSIONAL. FROM THIS PLAN. 24"X24" INLET GRATE CURBS CUT PER PLAN PER PLAN 9" PONDING - 2" -3" MULCH LAYER 6" PVC RISER - FILTER FABRIC PIPE LEGEND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED BIO -TREATMENT PLANTER X DRAINAGE AREA X. X X ACREAGE DRAINAGE AREAS PROPOSED STORM DRAIN EXISTING BLOCK WALL n SIDES AND BOTTOM OF BASIN TO BE LINED WITH TEMP PROOF 250 GC OR APPROVED EQUAL FLUID APPLIED WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE. 24" BIO–FILTER MEDIA WITH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ K MIN. 8 IN/HR PERCOLATION RATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ , 12 PERVIOUS BACKFILL (PER SPPWC TABLE 300-3.5.2(A) BIO -FILTRATION DETAIL 6' PERFORATED PIPE N.T.S IN 8" GRAVEL JACKET SUMMARY TABLE DA R W REQUIRED AREA (FT2)BMP SD SD A 0.25 SD – 299 1 317 B 0.55 PROPOSED STORM DRAIN PROPOSED WALL SD PROPOSED CURI WITH 12" CUTS PROPOSED E� I 3 STO RY BUILDING I RAMP TO PARKING E� Nv PAVED ROAD STORM DRAIPROPOSEN I I I 1 I BFP GI O TRASH ENCLOSURE Im,,,, 01 100 _I ofeF 59 � 53 54 — '55— rc 0.70 P POSED PUMP ��1 TSPBO FD 1 SD SD 11.0' S� I Q0 I I B SIDEWALK �� —I I PROPOSED CUDO DETENTION SYSTEM PROPOSED STORM DRAIN 0 0 ' 1 EMS Pink I �Affl WA ��� �i��� �.'� --- IMPORTANT NOTICE Section 4216/4217 of the Government Code requires a Dig Alert identification Number be issued before a Permit to Excavate will be valid For your Dig Alert ID Number Call UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 1-800-422-4133 For Underground Locating 2 Working Days before You Dig D SD PROPOSED CURB WITH 12" CUTS —III FRI SD SID —III_III_ =11F1 TLLI III 7- 9 . 4PROPOSED TRATION #3 SEA = 1151 SF TSP N B(2) O%vv ow`' '/W owv OPOSED 4' "V" GU w U a J d W a Go PROPOSED CURB DRAMS – PROPOSED SITE DISCHARGE UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES & USES ENGINEERS NOTE TO CONTRACTOR THE ENGINEER PREPARING THESE PLANS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, PIPES, AND/OR CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST BE STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS WERE OBTAINED BY A SEARCH OF AVAILABLE APPROVED BY THE PREPARER OF THESE PLANS. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT IN ACCORDANCE RECORDS. TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE ARE NO EXISTING UTILITIES WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO EXCEPT AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASCERTAIN THE TRUE ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL LOCATION OF THOSE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES TO BE USED CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY, THAT THIS REQUIREMENT AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE UTILITIES, SHALL BE MADE TO APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS, AND SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN HEREON. IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR FURTHER AGREES TO DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD DESIGN PROFESSIONAL DISCREPANCIES, CONFLICTS OR AREAS WHICH HE FEELS UNWORKABLE, HE SHALL HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK NOTIFY THE GRADING ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO CONTINUING OR DEVIATING ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTING LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF DESIGN PROFESSIONAL. FROM THIS PLAN. 24"X24" INLET GRATE CURBS CUT PER PLAN PER PLAN 9" PONDING - 2" -3" MULCH LAYER 6" PVC RISER - FILTER FABRIC PIPE LEGEND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED BIO -TREATMENT PLANTER X DRAINAGE AREA X. X X ACREAGE DRAINAGE AREAS PROPOSED STORM DRAIN EXISTING BLOCK WALL n SIDES AND BOTTOM OF BASIN TO BE LINED WITH TEMP PROOF 250 GC OR APPROVED EQUAL FLUID APPLIED WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE. 24" BIO–FILTER MEDIA WITH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ K MIN. 8 IN/HR PERCOLATION RATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ , 12 PERVIOUS BACKFILL (PER SPPWC TABLE 300-3.5.2(A) BIO -FILTRATION DETAIL 6' PERFORATED PIPE N.T.S IN 8" GRAVEL JACKET SUMMARY TABLE DA AREA (AC) 3 DCV (FT) REQUIRED AREA (FT2)BMP i BMP PROVIDED AREA (FT2) A 0.25 411 299 1 317 B 0.55 1183 861 2 1117 C 0.70 1454 1057 3 1496 �i 0 20 30 40 (IN FEET) 1 INCH = 20 FEET JACOB VANDERVIS RCE DATE U) z O U) z > O w d U co Lu 0 F / QROFESS/�N� v � cy— : V * Exp.12/31 2018 sgTF I OF CA Z xC Q J i J zQ a_ N o L.I_ J w G 0 ON ~M O lJ 0 zUM_ -M z -Co z Q UU W jw W =w ,y LL }m[�m CO Q zm�zo� Z ad 0 D LU D' .nN J LLJLL M WW a> 0� zLU � U 00 o U N 0 U 0 a 10 LLLO N N m > oLO LN E� mC, 20 0 U v � o '� O -_ U aC -0� 0- Q LO v3 a>o zv C< o 0 o a3 °O 10 01 U C / QROFESS/�N� v � cy— : V * Exp.12/31 2018 sgTF I OF CA WQMP 1 of 1 rn 3 v a or a I 00 N 0 00 a N c v a a 7 CL m 0 C 0 U Z w s U v m M t 0 0- 3 m z I 00 N O 00 CL N N 0 rn c �3 v L / Y t 7 v m L w E a N I 0 N U m 0 PLAN CHECK: PA2015-212 14-167 Z Z Q J i J zQ a_ N o L.I_ J w G 0 ON ~M O lJ 0 zUM_ -M z QQzQQ WEU U w W= 3: C0 z Q UU W jw W =w ,y LL }m[�m CO Q zm�zo� Z oii l � w LU z 0 D LU D' 0_ J LLJLL M WW 1121 U 0� zLU � U WQMP 1 of 1 rn 3 v a or a I 00 N 0 00 a N c v a a 7 CL m 0 C 0 U Z w s U v m M t 0 0- 3 m z I 00 N O 00 CL N N 0 rn c �3 v L / Y t 7 v m L w E a N I 0 N U m 0 PLAN CHECK: PA2015-212 14-167 00 � N O F --I>00 Q ~moo z Cn z Q Ycn wLU O z � Q� Q= Q > w � m Q p 0 D U 0 D' 0 WQMP 1 of 1 rn 3 v a or a I 00 N 0 00 a N c v a a 7 CL m 0 C 0 U Z w s U v m M t 0 0- 3 m z I 00 N O 00 CL N N 0 rn c �3 v L / Y t 7 v m L w E a N I 0 N U m 0 PLAN CHECK: PA2015-212 14-167 MEMORY CARE COURTYARD PLANT PALETTE SYMBOL B07A I AL NAME COMMON NAME WUCOLS SIZE & HIGH MALL. - SHRUBS AND GROUNCOVERS REGION 3 SEATING - WAY FINDING - SENSORY PLAINT MATERIAL PER ARCHITECT'S PLAN ASSISTED LIVING LIBRARY PATIO SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME WTJCOLs SIZE QUANTITY MAIN ENTRY 8c PERIMETER - WATER FEATURE - FLOWERING TREES - DECORATIVE POTS WITH REGION 3 — - GAL - ENHANCED PAVING - EASE OF CIRCULATION ACCENT PLAITS SEE ENLARGEMENT -TABLES AND HAIR -OVERHEAD TRELLIS TREE AEIVIUM,,VlARTICP BLACK ROSE A,EDNIUM Low 5 GAL. SHEET - LOUNGE SEATING- DECORATIVE RATIIIE FENCE..r - AGAVE SPECIES AGAVE LOW 5SEE ENLARGEMENT far BRISTOL TOL STREET I� - ENHANCED PAVING WITH GATE CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS WESTERNREDI3UD tow 38" ALOE SPECIES ALOE LOW 5 GAL - SHEET 2 CARISSA M.GREEN CARPET' DWARF NATAL PLUM MOD 5 GAL, DI TE VELI=TA FRYNIOHY LILY MOD CAL. ti ERIOSOTYA JAPONICA LOQUAT TREE NOD 48' BOX 1 LANTANA'NEW GOLD" NEW GOLD LANTANA LOW 5 GAL. - I ''COPPERTONE MYOPORUM PAWFOLIUM MYOPORUM LOW t GAL. } WTUS COMMUNIS'COMPACTA DWARF MYRTLE LOW 5 GAL- .. EXISTING SIDEWALK ,� - -- v PITTOSPORUIO TOBIRA MOCK ORANGE MOD 5 GAL. :, , . LA, ER TROEMIA'NATCHEZ CRAPE MYRTLE MOD 4" BOX io� ER E C i SALVIA SPP SAGE LOVA! 5GAL. RIVE EXIT - �`% � I SENECIO S. BLUE CK LKSTICK5' BLUE CHALKSTICKS LOW 1 GAL. STRELITZIA NICOLAI GIANT BIRD OF PARADISE MOD 15 GAL, OiL � LA ERSTROEMIA 'SEMINOLE PINK' CRAPE MYRTLE MOD 36" BOX ST%RELgZIA REGIME BIRD OF PARADISE MOD 5 GAL, - r WE TRINGIA VLUE GEM' BLUE GEM COAST ROSEMARY LOW 5 GAL, PINUS ELDERICA MONDELL PINE LOW 36: BOX 9 DECORATIVE ROCVJ COBBLE J. MEMORY CARE AND ASSISTED LIVING COURTYARD ACHILLEAM.'PAPRIKA YARROW LOW 1 GAL. LOPHO TEMON CONFERTUS BRISBANE BOX LOW 36 BOY I " CAARPENTERIA CALIFORNICA BUSH ANEMONE LOIN 5 GAL. • • CLIVIA INIATA, KAFFIR LILY LOVA! I GAL. .* DIGITALIS PURPUREA COMMON FOXGLOVE MOD I GAL. GARDENIAJASMIMODES EITCHII EVERBLOO iN GARDENIA MOD 5 GAL. S�'fv1BOl BOTANICAL NAME OQ�I NAME Vs+IJCOL SIZE QL�f�f�JfITY REGION 3 T ,i IRIS DOUGLASIANA DOUGLAS IRIS LOW 5 CAL. PALMS LAVANDULA A. 'BUENA VISTA' LAVENDER BUEC�A VISTA LOVA! 5 GAL. {� - - - - - - - - . I �_ - LIGUSTRUtk+1! JAPONICA TEXANUM' TEXAS PRIVET MOD 5 GAL. - - - - - - - - - - - - - I A.RCHONTOPHOENIX KING PALM MOD 16' BTFI � LOMANDRA L. 'BREEZE DWARF MAT RUSH LOW 1 GAL, �% .. ' CUNNINGHAMIANGI _ - SALVIA CLEVELANDII CALIFORNIA SLUE SAGE LOVA! 5 GAL, _ _ I PHOENIX DACTYLIFERA DATE PALM LOW 18' BTFi I t' - DEGLET NOOK' STACHYS BYZANYINA LAMRS EARS MOD 5 GAL, + i _ ' — . . - . - , ,- MINE LONICERA JAPONICA JAPANESE HONEYSUCKLE LOW 5 GAI__ T EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN - PROTECT I PLACE PERECNkLS FOR POTS Cl UPPANIOPSIS ARROTWOOD TREE AGAVE ATTENUATA'KARA TRIPES' VARIEGATED AGAVE LOW 5 GAL. ANAQARDIOIDES A,EONIUM 'SUNBURST AEONIUM SUNBURST LOW I GAL. —---- --- - I CORDYLINE AUSTRA,LIS `RED STAR' FLAMING GLOW MEXICAN LILY LOW 5 GAL. _ - CRA�SSULA CA,PITELLA4 CAMPFIRE' CAMPFIRE CRASSULA LOW I GAL- I I - EXISTING PALMS TO REMAIN =PROTECT IN PLACELu E F1f VERIA 'AFTER GLOW ECFIEVERIA LAW I G4L- #; PHORMIUM 'BRONZE BABY` NEW ZEALAND FLAB{ MOD 5 GAL, 5YAQRUS ROMMZQFFIANUM QUEEN PALM SANSEVE RIA T. 'LAURENTII SPORT STRIPED MOTHER-IN-LAW TONGUE LOW 5 GAL' �� .= � SEDUM MORGANIANUM BURRO'S TAIL LOW 1 GAL. I •- I�YA,SHINGTOIVlA FILIFERA CALIFORNIA FAN PALM I - Lu NOTES: PLANT MATERIAL NOT LISTED MAY BE USED. SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY, ALL LANDSCAPE PLANS AND INSTALLATIONS SMALL A.DHEPE TO CITY DESIGN GUIDELINES, CODES AND REGULATIONS, ■'s - i TREES 1 PALMS SHRUBS AND GR U DC VER ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL RECEIVE AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. J ALL LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION SHALL BE PERMANENTLY MAINTAINED, UNDER 7' WEIGHT 1 ** - Cercis occidentalis Logerstroemic Criss❑ m. Green Carpet' =sula capitella MVcporum parvifdi4,m t Sedum 5tac:hys byzantine i+ SEE ENLARGEMENT A, :; 1Hx X0.15 5 F�ybrids 1'-' HEIGHT `Campfire' ?�lorgarionum _ I1 0-25'9 x 15-26'S SHEETISTINN .!: -+4 �. .� :�� �'tff• .moi ;�'_5�•r,'�+S- URB PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFEE�2 '` r � �� � ' � '� ` � '` � '' ' �.•`'`.'� ; � } ;. E ISTING SIDEWALKTW Y '•_' w PERIMETER LANDSCAPE ER Achillea MllefoElum Aeonium unt�uiff CiMa mlrk2a Ecr ria ift dougldsidn Lantana 'New Gold' Lavarxduld'I�ue� Vista' Sedum s. 'BlueC a cks' EriobotW japonica Coppe*xie' 'paprika' 'After Glove * 15-30r H x 15-30'5 '-3' H EIGHT ASS IST Ef LiiJIIV URTYARf ADJACENT PROPERTY AkfV ENTRY SEE ENLARGEMENT Dr - TABLES AND CHAIRS - FILE FEATURE - ENHANCED PAVkf IG SHEET confertuLophostes Pings Hx 2 ave attenuota 'Dara stripes' Agave species Aloe species Lo mondra'Brs ze salvia Sap oon#�rtu5 3�J-55' H x 2.35' 5 FOR OUTDOOR DINING - WOOD DECK PAVING - CIRCULAR PLANTER 4" HIGH WALL, PER a +i z' s 3'-4' HEIGHT WATER FEATURE - DECORATIVE POTS WITH WITH SPECIMEN PALMS ARCHITECT'S PLAN f- � '-:-� ��l ;; +,• .' ENHANCED PAVING ACCENT PLANTS - DECORATIVE WALL PERIMETER LANDSCAPE � � x�ti � - - LOUNGE SEATING LARGE SPECIMEN TREE IN - ACCENT PLANT MATERIAL - OVERHEAD TRELLIS RAISED PLANTER ? , � CONCEPTUAL IRRIGATION NOTES; •., `" ALL LANDSCAPE PLANS AND INSTALLATIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH CITY TREES SHALL BE IRRIGATED SEPARATELY FROM SHRUBS AND eg L�4gltoris �urpurea Slavla cleveloadll Myrtus communis 'Compacta' Sanseveria t, Sfr�IItzIQ Archontophoenix Phoenix Aeonium 'Zwartkop' pietes e# reginae Cl..cunningharniono clacMi#era'-6' HEIIHT Laureniii Sport' O GF NEWPORT BEACH DESIGN GUIDEL€NES, CODES AND REGULATIONS. GROUND OVERS. �� w x 12 f � s ao W � 2��0 s ''ss�f raduuk - - SITE LOIN VOLUME DISTRIBUTION IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH WEATHER BASED SPRINKLER HEAD SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS WHERE AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION CONTROLLER SHALL BE USED IN COMPLIANCE IRRIGATION WATER IS CONTAINED WITHIN PERMOUS SURFACE. WITH THE CfTY WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES, QUICKCOUPLING VALVE SHALL 8E LOCKING TYPE, , �� :Ji4fWa5 RAlNf�3RD SQA STREAM f3UBBLERr DRIP BUBBLER, AND HUNTER IV1P ROTATOR ' :flt.w NOZZLES SHALL BE USED FOR LOW VOLUME IRRIGATION WATER DISTRIBUTION, IR I ATION SYSTEM SHALL BE MONITORED EOR LEADS AND Buuus Iaponica'Green Beaute Cdrpenteod Gardenia jasminaodes 'rl rnurn Anus RrbormUnter Vlr�irlr +a lRue Gem' BREAKAGE WEEKLY.aatitorr�Ica 1letchii, 5prt:ng I3arrquefi 'Bue Balm ABOVE 6 HEIGHT m IRRIGATION SYSTEM WU BE EQUIPPED WITH MASTER VALVE AND PRESSURE WATERING SCHEDULE SHALL BE REVIEWED QUARTERLY._ REGULATOR TO PREVE 1T WATER WAST P. :.s f,.} ceREHcwwlSe*erH 68% OR MORE PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE LOW OR VERY LOW WATER { SPRINKLER HEADS SHALL BE EQUIPPED �AlITI� PRESSURE REGULATOR AND a CHECK VALVE TO PREVENT MISTING AND HEAD DRAINAGE, USE MATERIAL,. VICINITY IAP N. _r CorWine austrolis tigustrum japonicum Lonloera japonica Pittosposrurn tobira Strelitzio nicalai CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN 'f�edS#or' tl [ planning TSS- Airport Loop pr, Studio Dn, costa fVlesa, A 962 T: 949.399.0870 F: 949.599.0882 www- dp inc.corn HARBOR POINT SENIOR LIVING,, LLC OI 10, 0, 0I 0' 6659 Marra Rood, Atascadero, A 9 422 � 101 BAY IE PLACE, NEWPORT POf T BEACH, CA 92660 SNI=FF 1 F 2 i � T: 805.466.3385 F: 805.46.3214 GATE; 1 1-13-18 ry 75 E. Santa Clara t„ 6th Floor, San Jose, CA 95113 SCALE: 1 {� = 0� --y NEWPORTBEACH, CA � �� ���#: ���� ACCESS TO GARAGE DECORATIVE GUARDRAIL ENHANCED CONCRETE PAVING BOTH SIDES OF DRIVE AISLE ALL ACCENT TREE 'RVERY'� _ � _ - IN RAISED PLANTER Ft PLANTING AREA - - FLOWERING VINE I ENHANCED PAVING ACCENT FLOWERING TREE PLANTER WALL BENCH SEATING _ � ` � _ . - . y WATER FEATURE}<; PLANTING AREA s' _ .- 1 ' ENHANCED FAVI 1 - - DECORATIVE STONE MALL ASSISTED LIVING L I B RARY PATIO - WITH CAP TABLES AND CHAINS LOUNGE SEATING TRELLIS ENHANCED PAVING OVERHEAD TRELLIS LOUNGE AREA LOUNGE CHAIRS DECORATIVE POTS DECORATIVE PENCE WITH SATE FIRE ELEMENT --- WITH ACCENT PLANTING LARGE SPECIMEN TREE h INRAISED PLANTER LIBRARY LOUNGE SEATING AREA LOUNGE SEATING 1OUTDOOR DINING TABLE AND CHAIRS TRASH RECEPTACLES WOOD PLANK PAVING] _ LOUNGE SEATING F f LOUNGE SEATING 1 OUTDOOR DIMING TABLE AND CHAIRS DEC RA71VE RAILING; WITH GATE 4 i CONCRETE WALK L -' L , MED- _ . OUTDOOR DINING - — R _ - TABLES AND CHAIRS MAIN ENTRY DECORATIVE WALL Fit SCALE, 1I _ 3 UI WITH COBBLE BASIN DECORATIVE GUARDRAIL Df AIL -- -- DECORATIVE POTS WITH ACCENT PLANTING F y .-� PLANK PAVING FLUSH PLANTER PST OPTIONS MEMORY CART; ANIS ASSISTED LIVING COURTYARDS SCALE. Y = 10' WITH ADJACENT COURTYARD PEDESTAL PAVING ENHANCED CONCRETE ' ' ..4•.�r;' PLANTING AREA _ - PAVING AREA - - - DECORATIVE WALL WITH COBBLE BASIN (BOTH SIDES OF ENTRY) ARE — — SEAT WALL �lil EMUIC PASSENGER DROP—OFF AREA BENCH SEATINGT --,T WATER FEATURE DECORATIVE BOLLARD COURTYARD I x' BENCH PLANTING AREA DECORATIVE POTw ENHANCED PAMI G PLANTED WALL — WITH AGENT PLANTING LU Poo TRELLIS �} LOUNGE CHAIRS _ DECORATIVE STONE WALL It . „� -• Yy - _.± ,�. � . -� � �f � �"- - ' DECORATIVE WALL WITH CAS PLANK PAVING � �_ I WITH SAP LOUNGE SEATING 1 OUTDOOR DINING TABLE AND CHAINS IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN AS ITpI ING - w DECORATIVE POTS WITH ROUNDABOUT WITH CENTER ,. 9 ■ ■A■ I ��:� " �J ii/ � ' '�}j} D � AGENT PLANTINGISLAND ACCENT PLANTING MAIN ENTRY LANDSCAPE MAIN ENTRY - FOUNTAIN PLANTED POT OPTIONS WATER FEATURE SCALE. 1" — 0' DECORATIVE WALL SCALE; 3/16" = 1'-0' WITH COBBLE BASIN DECORATIVE ATIVE UA Df AIL CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN - ENLARGEMENTS concQutugl I nein 3195-C Airport Loop Di, Studio One, Costa Mesa. CA 92626 T; 949.399.0870 F; 949,399.0882 www-cdpcin .corn HARBOR POINT SENIOR LIVING,, LLC1 1 BAYVIEE I PACE, E I P f T BEACH CA 92660 MEET OE T O , Atas A93422 �` i � T; 80,466.58 F; 805,466.36b,�p4 DATE; 1 1 -1 -18I 75 E. Santa Clara St., 6th Floor, San Jose, CA 95113 I NEWPORT EACH CA NCDPC JOB#; 18083 14-169 Attachment E Draft Ordinance Approving the Development Agreement 14-170 ORDINANCE NO. 2019- 4 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DA2018-006 FOR THE HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT — A SENIOR CONVALESCENT AND CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY LOCATED AT 101 BAYVIEW PLACE (PA2015- 210) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Harbor Pointe Senior Living LLC of California ("Applicant"), with respect to property located at 101 Bayview Place, and legally described as Lot 1 of Tract No. 12528 in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 551 Pages 38 through 41 inclusive of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, Assessor's Parcel No. 442-283-05 ("Property"); WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes the demolition of an existing approximately 8,800 square -foot restaurant ("Kitayama") to accommodate the development of an approximately 85,000 square -foot, three-story senior convalescent and congregate care facility (i.e., memory care and assisted living) as a State -licensed Residential Care Facility for the Elderly ("RCFE") with 120 beds ("Project"); WHEREAS, in order to implement the Project, the Applicant requests or requires the following approvals from the City of Newport Beach ("City"): • General Plan Amendment ("GPA") — The current land use designation is General Commercial Office ("CO -G") which allows 8,000 square feet for restaurant use or 70,000 square feet for office use. The general plan amendment would change the CO -G land use designation to Private Institutions ("PI") and amend Anomaly No. 22 to allow the 85,000 square foot RCFE (Table LU2 and associated figures); • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment (Zoning) — To change the allowed land uses and amend development standards in Area 5 of the Bayview Planned Community ("PC -32") Zoning District; • Major Site Development Review — To ensure the Project is developed in accordance with the applicable planned community and zoning code development standards and regulations pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews); 14-171 Ordinance No. 2019 - Page 2 of 5 Conditional Use Permit — To allow the use of the Property as a 120 bed RCFE (memory care and assisted living facility) with conditions of approval that protect the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding community; Development Agreement — The applicant has requested a development agreement, which will provide for public benefits as the project is implemented; and Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") — To address reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the Project with corresponding mitigation measures that reduce those environmental impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq. and the California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. WHEREAS, the Property is located within the PC -32 Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is designated as CO -G; WHEREAS, the Property is not located within the coastal zone; therefore, a coastal development permit is not required; WHEREAS, on February 23, 2017, the Planning Commission held a study session in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, to provide initial direction on the Project. No action was taken at the study session. Although not required, the City mailed a courtesy public notice of this study session to property owners within a 300' radius of the Property; WHEREAS, on September 13, 2018, the Planning Commission held a study session in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, to receive a project update and review the draft EIR. No action was taken at the study session. Although not required, the City mailed a courtesy public notice of this study session to property owners within a 300' radius of the Property; WHEREAS, on December 6, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et. seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapter 20.62 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing; 14-172 Ordinance No. 2019 - Page 3 of 5 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2018-033 by a unanimous vote of 6-0 recommending approval of the Project, and the land use entitlements referenced above, to the City Council; WHEREAS, on February 12, 2019, the City Council held a public hearing in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and NBMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing; WHEREAS, the City Council adopted City Council Resolution No. 2019 - approving General Plan Amendment No. GP2015-004 to change the land use designation for the Property from CO -G to PI, and amend Anomaly No. 22 to replace the existing allowed development limits of eight thousand (8,000) square feet for restaurant or 70,000 square feet for office with 85,000 square feet for a RCFE; WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2019-_ to change the land use designation for Area 5 of the Bayview Planned Community (PC -32) Zoning District from Restaurant Site/Administrative Office to RCFE with a maximum allowed gross floor area of 85,000 square feet and amend other land use and development standards. WHEREAS, a development agreement is requested by the applicant as part of the requested approvals for the proposed project; WHEREAS, the proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Newport Beach General Plan. The City Council concurs with the conclusion of the consistency analysis of the proposed project with these goals and policies provided in the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Final EIR (SCH No. 2016071062); and WHEREAS, the Development Agreement includes all the mandatory elements for consideration and public benefits that are appropriate to support conveying the vested development rights consistent with the General Plan, NBMC Chapter 15.45, and Government Code Sections 65864 et. seq. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach ordains as follows: 14-173 Ordinance No. 2019 - Page 4 of 5 Section 1: The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission and has determined that modifications to the project made by the City Council, if any, are not major changes that require referral back to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation. Section 2: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves Development Agreement No. DA2018-006, as set forth in Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Section 3: The recitals provided in this ordinance are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this ordinance. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 5: The Harbor Pointe Senior Living Final EIR (SCH No. 2016071062) was prepared for the project in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. By Resolution No. 2019-_, the City Council, having final approval authority over the project, adopted and certified as complete and adequate the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2016071062) and adopted "Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program." Resolution No. 2019-_ is hereby incorporated by reference. 14-174 Ordinance No. 2019 - Page 5 of 5 Section 6: The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be published pursuant to City Charter Section 414. This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 12th day of February 2019, and adopted on the 26th day of February, 2019, by the following vote, to -wit - AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: DIANE B. DIXON, MAYOR ATTEST: LEILANI I. BROWN, CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ��AA N C. HARP, CITY ATTORNEY Attachment: Exhibit A - Development Agreement No. DA2018-006 14-175 Exhibit "A" Development Agreement No. DA2018-006 14-176 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: City Clerk (Space Above This Line Is for Recorder's Use Only) This Agreement is recorded at the request and for the benefit of the City of Newport Beach and is exempt from the payment of a recording fee pursuant to Government Code §§ 6103 and 27383. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT between CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH and HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC concerning 101 BAYVIEW PLACE 14-177 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (Pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 15.45 and California Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5) This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement" or "Development Agreement") is dated for reference purposes as of the _ day of _, 2019 ("Agreement Date"), and is being entered into by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ("City") a California municipal corporation and charter city, organized and existing under and by virtue of its Charter and the Constitution, and the laws of the State of California, and HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC, a California limited liability company ("Developer"). City and Developer are sometimes collectively referred to in this Agreement as the "Parties" and individually as a "Party." RECITALS A. Developer is in the process of purchasing that certain real property located in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California commonly referred to as the 1.50 acre Kitayama Restaurant project site, located at 101 Bayview Place (APN # 442-283-05), and generally bounded by Bristol Street on the north and Bayview Place on the east ("Property"). As of the Agreement Date, the Property is owned by Kodaka Inc., a California Corporation ("Kodaka"), but Developer has a legal or equitable interest in the Property and therefore is authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65865 and Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 15.45. The Property is more particularly described in the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit A and is depicted on the site map attached hereto as Exhibit B. B. To encourage investment in, and commitment to, comprehensive planning and public facilities financing, strengthen the public planning process and encourage private implementation of the local general plan, provide certainty in the approval of projects to avoid waste of time and resources, and reduce the economic costs of development by providing assurance to property owners that they may proceed with projects consistent with existing land use policies, rules, and regulations, the California Legislature adopted California Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5 ("Development Agreement Statute") authorizing cities and counties to enter into development agreements with persons or entities having a legal or equitable interest in real property located within their jurisdiction. C. On March 13, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2007-6, entitled "Ordinance Amending Chapter 15.45 of City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Regarding Development Agreements" ("Development Agreement Ordinance"). This Agreement is consistent with the Development Agreement Ordinance. D. As detailed in Section 4 of this Agreement and the Development Plans (as defined herein), and in consideration of the significant benefits outlined in this Agreement, Developer has agreed to pay a total Public Benefit Fee and Mitigation Impact Fee (as defined herein) in the sum of one million dollars ($1,000,000). The allocation of the amount of the Public Benefit Fee and Mitigation Impact Fee shall be within sole discretion of the City; however, payment of the Public Benefit Fee and Mitigation Impact Fee is intended to fully satisfy Developer's obligation under MM FIRE -1 from the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Draft Environmental Impact 14-178 Report (SCH No. 2016071062). Developer shall pay the Public Benefit Fee and Mitigation Impact Fee to the City within sixty (60) calendar days of the City's issuance of the first building permit for the Project (as defined herein). E. Although not a part of this Agreement, and pending future negotiation with the recipient parties, Developer shall make up to one hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) available to any or all of the following: Newport Bay Conservancy, Bayview Court Homeowners Association and the Bayview Terrace Homeowners Association to support unspecified future programs, activities and/or improvements. The City has no control and is not involved in any way whatsoever with the agreement between the Developer and the aforementioned parties regarding the funding of the unspecified future projects, activities, and/or improvements. Any mention of the proposed agreement between the Developer and the Newport Bay Conservancy, Bayview Court Homeowners Association and/or the Bayview Terrace Homeowners Association in this Development Agreement is merely a recital and is in no way connected to or required under this Agreement. F. This Agreement is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan, including, without limitation, the Property's proposed "Private Institutions" General Plan designation that is being adopted and approved by the City Council concurrently with the approval of this Agreement to establish appropriate standards to regulate land use and development of the Property consistent with the General Plan. G. In recognition of the significant public benefits that this Agreement provides, the City Council has found that this Agreement: (i) is consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan as of the date of this Agreement; (ii) is in the best interests of the health, safety, and general welfare of City, its residents, and the public; (iii) is entered into pursuant to, and constitutes a present exercise of, the City's police power; (iv) is consistent and has been approved consistent with the Project's final Environmental Impact Report (SCH# 2016071062) ("EIR") that has been certified by the City Council on or before the Agreement Date, all of which analyze the environmental effects of the proposed development of the Project on the Property, and all of the findings, conditions of approval and mitigation measures related thereto; and (v) is consistent and has been approved consistent with provisions of California Government Code Section 65867 and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 15.45. H. On December 6, 2018, City's Planning Commission held a public hearing on this Agreement, made findings and determinations with respect to this Agreement, and recommended to the City Council that the City Council approve this Agreement. 1. On February 12, 2019, the City Council also held a public hearing on this Agreement and considered the Planning Commission's recommendations and the testimony and information submitted by City staff, Developer, and members of the public. On . 2019, consistent with applicable provisions of the Development Agreement Statute and Development Agreement Ordinance, the City Council adopted its Ordinance No. ("Adopting Ordinance"), finding this Agreement consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and approving this Agreement. AGREEMENT 14-179 NOW, THEREFORE, City and Developer agree as follows: Definitions. In addition to any terms defined elsewhere in this Agreement, the following terms when used in this Agreement shall have the meanings set forth below: "Action" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 8.10 of this Agreement. "Adopting Ordinance" shall mean City Council Ordinance No. approving and adopting this Agreement. "Agreement" shall mean this Development Agreement, as the same may be amended from time to time. "Agreement Date" shall mean the date first written above, which date is the date the City Council adopted the Adopting Ordinance. "CEQA" shall mean the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code sections 21000-21177) and the implementing regulations promulgated thereunder by the Secretary for Resources (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000 el seq.), as the same may be amended from time to time. "City" shall mean the City of Newport Beach, a California municipal corporation and charter city, and any successor or assignee of the rights and obligations of the City of Newport Beach hereunder. "City Council" shall mean the governing body of City. "City's Affiliated Parties" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 10.1 of this Agreement. "Claim" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 10.1 of this Agreement. "CPI Index" shall mean the Consumer Price Index published from time to time by the United States Department of Labor for all urban consumers (all items) for the smallest geographic area that includes the City or, if such index is discontinued, such other similar index as may be publicly available that is selected by City in its reasonable discretion. "Cure Period" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 8.1 of this Agreement. "Default" shall have the meaning ascribed to that term in Section 8.1 of this Agreement. "Develop" or "Development' shall mean to improve or the improvement of the Property for the purpose of completing the structures, improvements, and facilities comprising the Project, including but not limited to: grading; the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Project, whether located within or outside the Property; the construction of all of the private improvements and facilities comprising the Project; the preservation or restoration, as required of natural and man-made or altered open space areas; and the installation of 14-180 landscaping. The terms "Develop" and "Development," as used herein, do not include the maintenance, repair, reconstruction, replacement, or redevelopment of any structure, improvement, or facility after the initial construction and completion thereof. "Developer" shall mean Harbor Pointe Senior Living, LLC, a California limited liability company, and any successor or assignee to all or any portion of its right, title, and/or interest in and to ownership of all or a portion of the Property and/or the Project. "Development Agreement Ordinance" shall mean Chapter 15.45 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. "Development Agreement Statute" shall mean California Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5, inclusive. "Development Exactions" shall mean any requirement of City in connection with or pursuant to any ordinance, resolution, rule, or official policy for the dedication of land, the construction or installation of any public improvement or facility, or the payment of any fee or charge in order to lessen, offset, mitigate, or compensate for the impacts of Development of the Project on the environment or other public interests. "Development Plan" shall mean all of the land use entitlements, approvals and permits approved by the City for the Project on or before the Agreement Date, as the same may be amended from time to time consistent with this Agreement. Such land use entitlements, approvals and permits include, without limitation, the following: (1) the Development rights as provided under this Agreement; (2) General Plan Amendment No. GP2015-004 to amend Anomaly No. 22 to eliminate the existing allowed development limits of 8,000 square feet of restaurant or 70,000 square feet of office and allow only an 85,000 square feet for a residential care facility for the elderly ("RCFE") and to change the land use designation for the property from General Commercial Office ("CO -G") to Private Institutions ("PI"); (3) Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2015-005 to change the land use allowances, restrict the permitted use to only an RCFE, and change some development standards in the Bayview Planned Community ("PC -32") Development Plan; (4) Major Site Development Review to ensure site development is in accordance with the applicable planned community and zoning code development standards pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews); (5) Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-047 to allow the operation of a 120 -bed RCFE; (6) the EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 2016071062); and (7) all conditions of approval and all mitigation measures approved for the Project on or before the Agreement Date. "Development Regulations" shall mean the following regulations as they are in effect as of the Effective Date and to the extent they govern or regulate the development of the Property, but excluding any amendment or modification to the Development Regulations adopted, approved, or imposed after the Effective Date that affects the Development of the Property, unless such amendment or modification is expressly authorized by this Agreement or is agreed to by Developer in writing: the General Plan; the Development Plan; and, to the extent not expressly superseded by the Development Plan or this Agreement (see Section 4.3 in particular), all other land use and subdivision regulations governing the permitted uses, density and intensity of use, design, and improvement, procedures for obtaining required City permits and approvals 4 14-181 for development, and similar matters that may apply to the Development of the Project on the Property during the Term of this Agreement that are set forth in Title 15 of the Municipal Code (buildings and construction), Title 19 of the Municipal Code (subdivisions and inclusionary housing), and Title 20 of the Municipal Code (planning, zoning and density bonus), but specifically excluding all other sections of the Municipal Code, including without limitation Title 5 of the Municipal Code (business licenses and regulations). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the term "Development Regulations," as used herein, does not include any City ordinance, resolution, code, rule, regulation or official policy governing any of the following: (i) the conduct of businesses, professions, and occupations; (ii) taxes and assessments; (iii) the control and abatement of nuisances; (iv) the granting of encroachment permits and the conveyance of rights and interests which provide for the use of or the entry upon public property; or (v) the exercise of the power of eminent domain. "Effective Date" shall mean the latest of all of the following occurring: (i) the date that is ninety (90) calendar days after the Agreement Date; (ii) if a referendum concerning the Adopting Ordinance, the Development Plan, or any of the Development Regulations approved on or before the Agreement Date is timely qualified for the ballot and a referendum election is held concerning the Adopting Ordinance or any of such Development Regulations, the date on which the referendum is certified resulting in upholding and approving the Adopting Ordinance and the Development Regulations; (iii) if a lawsuit is timely filed challenging the validity or legality of the Adopting Ordinance, this Agreement, the Development Plan, and/or any of the Development Regulations approved on or before the Agreement Date, the date on which said challenge is finally resolved in favor of the validity or legality of the Adopting Ordinance, this Agreement, the Development Plan, and/or the applicable Development Regulations, whether such finality is achieved by a final non -appealable judgment, voluntary or involuntary dismissal (and the passage of any time required to appeal an involuntary dismissal), or binding written settlement agreement; or (iv) the date on which title to the Property has been transferred to, and vested in, Developer as evidenced by an instrument duly recorded with the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Orange. Promptly after the Effective Date occurs, the Parties agree to cooperate in causing an appropriate instrument to be executed and recorded against the Property memorializing the Effective Date. "Environmental Laws" means all federal, state, regional, county, municipal, and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations which are in effect as of the Agreement Date, and all federal, state, regional, county, municipal, and local laws, statutes, rules, ordinances, rules, and regulations which may hereafter be enacted and which apply to the Property or any part thereof, pertaining to the use, generation, storage, disposal, release, treatment, or removal of any Hazardous Substances, including without limitation the following: the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Sections 9601, et seq., as amended ("CERCLA"); the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. Sections 6901, et sec ., as amended ("RCRA''): the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. Sections 11001 et seq., as amended; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. Section 1801, et SeMc ., as amended; the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 7401 et seq., as amended; the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251, et M., as amended; the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 2601 et seq., as amended, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. Sections 136 et seg., as amended; the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 300f et seq., as amended; the Federal Radon and Indoor E 14-182 Air Quality Research Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 7401 et se ., as amended; the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 651 et sea., as amended; and California Health and Safety Code Section 25100, et SeMc . "General Plan" shall mean City's 2006 General Plan adopted by the City Council on July 25, 2006, by Resolution No. 2006-76, and any amendments to the 2006 General Plan that became effective before the Effective Date. The term "General Plan" shall exclude any amendments that became effective after the Effective Date unless such amendment is expressly authorized by this Agreement, or is specifically agreed to by Developer. The Land Use Plan of the Land Use Element of the General Plan was approved by City voters in a general election on November 7, 2006. "Hazardous Substances" means any toxic substance or waste, pollutant, hazardous substance or waste, contaminant, special waste, industrial substance or waste, petroleum or petroleum -derived substance or waste, or any toxic or hazardous constituent or additive to or breakdown component from any such substance or waste, including without limitation any substance, waste, or material regulated under or defined as "hazardous" or "toxic" under any Environmental Law. "Mitigation Impact Fee" means the funds meant to satisfy the requirements of MM FIRE- "Mortgap,e" shall mean a mortgage, deed of trust, sale and leaseback arrangement, or any other form of conveyance in which the Property, or a part or interest in the Property, is pledged as security and contracted for in good faith and for fair value. "Mortgagee" shall mean the holder of a beneficial interest under a Mortgage or any successor or assignee of the Mortgagee. "Notice of Default' shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 8.1 of this Agreement. "Party' or "Parties" shall mean either City or Developer or both, as determined by the context. "Project" shall mean all on-site and off-site improvements, the demolition of an existing approximately 8,800 -square -foot restaurant building ("Kitayama") to accommodate the development of an approximately 85,000 -square -foot, three-story senior convalescent and congregate care facility (i.e., memory care and assisted living as a State -licensed RCFE) with 120 beds, consistent with the Development Plan and as provided in this Agreement and the Development Regulations, as the same may be modified or amended from time to time consistent with this Agreement and applicable law. "Property" is located at 101 Bayview Place in the City, as described in Exhibit A and depicted on Exhibit B. "Public Benefit Fee" shall mean any amount of the $1,000,000 fee paid by the Developer which is in excess of the Mitigation Impact Fee. n 14-183 "Subsequent Development Approvals" shall mean all discretionary development and building approvals that Developer is required to obtain to Develop the Project on and with respect to the Property after the Agreement Date consistent with the Development Regulations and this Agreement. "Term" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 2.4 of this Agreement. "Termination Date" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 2.4 of this Agreement. "Transfer" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 11 of this Agreement. 2. General Provisions. 2.1 Plan Consistency, Zoning Implementation. This Agreement is consistent with the General Plan and Bayview Planned Community ("PC -32") Development Plan, as amended by the approvals in the Development Plan adopted concurrently herewith. 2.2 Binding Effect of Agreement. The Property is hereby made subject to this Agreement. Development of the Property is hereby authorized and shall be carried out in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 2.3 Developer Representations and Warranties Regarding Ownership of the Property and Related Matters Pertaining to this Agreement. Developer and each person executing this Agreement on behalf of Developer hereby represents and warrants to City as follows: (i) that Developer has an option to purchase the fee simple title to the Property and will be the owner of fee simple title to the Property following the Effective Date; (ii) if Developer or any co-owner comprising Developer is a legal entity that such entity is duly formed and existing and is authorized to do business in the State of California; (iii) if Developer or any co-owner comprising Developer is a natural person that such natural person has the legal right and capacity to execute this Agreement; (iv) that all actions required to be taken by all persons and entities comprising Developer to enter into this Agreement have been taken and that Developer has the legal authority to enter into this Agreement; (v) that Developer's entering into and performing its obligations set forth in this Agreement will not result in a violation of any obligation, contractual or otherwise, that Developer or any person or entity comprising Developer has to any third party; and (vi) that neither Developer nor any co- owner comprising Developer is currently the subject of any voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy or insolvency petition; and (vii) that Developer has no actual knowledge of any pending or threatened claims of any person or entity affecting the validity of any of the representations and warranties set forth in clauses (i) -(vi), inclusive. 2.4 Term. The term of this Agreement ("Term") shall commence on the Effective Date and shall terminate on the "Termination Date." 7 14-184 Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, if any Party reasonably determines that the Effective Date of this Agreement will not occur because, for example, (i) the Adopting Ordinance or any of the Development Regulations approved on or before the Agreement Date for the Project has/have been disapproved by City's voters at a referendum election or (ii) a final non -appealable judgment is entered in a judicial action challenging the validity or legality of the Adopting Ordinance, this Agreement, and/or any of the Development Regulations for the Project approved on or before the Agreement Date such that this Agreement and/or any of such Development Regulations is/are invalid and unenforceable in whole or in such a substantial part that the judgment substantially impairs such Party's rights or substantially increases its obligations or risks hereunder or thereunder, then such Party, in its sole and absolute discretion, shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon delivery of a written notice of termination to the other Party, in which event neither Party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder except that Developer's indemnity obligations set forth in Article 10 shall remain in full force and effect and shall be enforceable, and the Development Regulations applicable to the Project and the Property only (but not those general Development Regulations applicable to other properties in the City) shall be repealed by the City after delivery of said notice of termination except for the Development Regulations that have been disapproved by City's voters at a referendum election and, therefore, never took effect. The Termination Date shall be the earliest of the following dates: (i) the tenth (10th) anniversary of the Effective Date; (ii) such earlier date that this Agreement may be terminated in accordance with Articles 5, 7, and/or Section 8.3 of this Agreement and/or Sections 65865.1 and/or 65868 of the Development Agreement Statute; or (iii) completion of the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, including Developer's complete satisfaction, performance, and payment, as applicable, of all Development Exactions, the issuance of all required final occupancy permits, and acceptance by City or applicable public agency(ies) or private entity(ies) of all required offers of dedication. Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, the provisions set forth in Article 10 and Section 14.11 (as well as any other Developer obligations set forth in this Agreement that are expressly written to survive the Termination Date) shall survive the Termination Date of this Agreement. 3. Public Benefits, 3.1 Public Benefit Fee and Mitigation Impact Fee. As consideration for City's approval and performance of its obligations set forth in this Agreement, Developer shall pay to City a fee in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,0000), which shall be in addition to any other fee or charge to which the Property and the Project would otherwise be subject. The allocation of said amount between the Public Benefit Fee and Mitigation Impact Fee shall be within sole discretion of the City. Payment of the Public Benefit Fee and Mitigation Impact Fee shall fully satisfy the Developer's obligation under MM FIRE -1 from the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2016071062). The Developer shall pay the Public Benefit Fee and Mitigation Impact Fee to the City within sixty (60) days of the City's issuance of the Project's first building permit. Should the E:3 14-185 Developer fail to pay the Public Benefit Fee and Mitigation Impact Fee within sixty (60) days of the City's issuance of the Project's first building permit, the Developer shall be in default of the Agreement, as further described in Section 8 of this Agreement. The City has not designated a specific project or purpose for the Public Benefit Fee. Developer acknowledges by its approval and execution of this Agreement that it is voluntarily agreeing to pay the Public Benefit Fee, that its obligation to pay the Public Benefit Fee is an essential term of this Agreement and is not severable from City's obligations and Developer's vested rights to be acquired hereunder, and that Developer expressly waives any constitutional, statutory, or common law right it might have in the absence of this Agreement to protest or challenge the payment of the Public Benefit Fee on any ground whatsoever, including without limitation pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, California Constitution Article I Section 19, the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq.), or otherwise. In addition to any other remedy set forth in this Agreement for Developer's default, if Developer shall fail to timely pay any portion of the Public Benefit Fee when due, City shall have the right to withhold issuance of any further building permits, occupancy permits, or other development or building permits for the Project. The City shall use the Mitigation Impact Fee, in part, to fulfill Developer's obligation under MM FIRE -1 from the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2016071062). To satisfy MM FIRE -1, Developer is responsible for a proportional share of the cost for purchasing and equipping a new rescue ambulance with patient transport and advanced life support (ALS) capabilities to be located at Santa Ana Heights Fire Station No. 7 ("Ambulance"), estimated to cost four hundred and fifty -thousand dollars ($450,000.00). The funds necessary for the Ambulance are to be apportioned amongst various new developments in the area through various means, such as development agreements. The City will determine the proportional share of the cost of the Ambulance at a future date; however, given that the Public Benefit Fee and Mitigation Impact Fee is one million dollars ($1,000,000), the fees set forth herein are sufficient to ensure MM FIRE -1 is satisfied and that there is consideration for this Agreement. Any portion of the one million dollars ($1,000,000) in excess of what is necessary for the Mitigation Impact Fee, shall be deemed to be the Public Benefit Fee. Developer acknowledges by its approval and execution of this Agreement that it is voluntarily agreeing to pay the Mitigation Impact Fee, that its obligation to pay the Mitigation Impact Fee is an essential term of this Agreement and is not severable from City's obligations and Developer's vested rights to be acquired hereunder, and that Developer expressly waives any constitutional, statutory, or common law right it might have in the absence of this Agreement to protest or challenge the payment of the Mitigation Impact Fee on any ground whatsoever, including without limitation pursuant to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, California Constitution Article I Section 19, the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. ), or otherwise. In addition to any other remedy set forth in this Agreement for Developer's default, if Developer shall fail to timely pay any portion of the Mitigation Impact Fee when due, City shall have the right to withhold issuance of any further building permits, occupancy permits, or other development or building permits for the Project. 3.l .1 Public Benefit Fee and Mitigation Impact Fee Allocation M 14-186 The City Council retains sole and absolute discretion to determine how the Public Benefit Fee and Mitigation Impact Fee shall be allocated and no final decisions have been made as of the Agreement Date. 3.2 Reserved 3.3 Reserved 4. Development of Project. 4.1 Applicable Regulations; Developer's Vested Rights and City's Reservation of Discretion With Respect to Subsequent Development Approvals. Other than as expressly set forth in this Agreement, during the Term of this Agreement, (i) Developer shall have the vested right to Develop the Project on and with respect to the Property in accordance with the terms of the Development Regulations and this Agreement and (ii) City shall not prohibit or prevent development of the Property on grounds inconsistent with the Development Regulations or this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein is intended to limit or restrict the City's discretion with respect to (i) those review and approval requirements contained in the Development Regulations, (ii) the exercise of any discretionary authority City retains under the Development Regulations, (iii) the approval, conditional approval, or denial of any Subsequent Development Approvals that are required for Development of the Project as of the Effective Date, or (iv) any environmental approvals that may be required under CEQA or any other federal or state law or regulation in conjunction with any Subsequent Development Approvals that may be required for the Project, and in this regard, as to future actions in connection with the Subsequent Development Approvals, the City reserves its full discretion to the same extent that it would have such discretion in the absence of this Agreement. In addition, it is understood and agreed that nothing in this Agreement is intended to vest Developer's rights with respect to any laws, regulations, rules, or official policies of any other (i.e., non -City) governmental agency or public utility company with jurisdiction over the Property or the Project; or any applicable federal or state laws, regulations, rules, or official policies that may be inconsistent with this Agreement and that override or supersede the provisions set forth in this Agreement, and regardless of whether such overriding or superseding laws, regulations, rules, or official policies are adopted or applied to the Property or the Project prior or subsequent to the Agreement Date. Developer has expended and will continue to expend substantial amounts of time and money planning and preparing for Development of the Project. Developer represents, and City acknowledges, that Developer would not make these expenditures without this Agreement, and that Developer is and will be making these expenditures in reasonable reliance upon its vested rights to Develop the Project as set forth in this Agreement. Developer may apply to City for permits or approvals necessary to modify or amend the Development specified in the Development Regulations, without amending this Agreement, provided that the request does not propose an increase in the maximum density, intensity, height, or size of proposed structures, or a change in use that generates more peak hour traffic or more daily traffic and, in addition, Developer may apply to City for approval of minor amendments to the existing tentative tract map, if any. or associated conditions of approval, consistent with City H 14-187 of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 19.12.090. This Agreement does not constitute a promise or commitment by City to approve any such permit or approval, or to approve the same with or without any particular requirements or conditions, and City's discretion with respect to such matters shall be the same as it would be in the absence of this Agreement. 4.2 No Conflicting Enactments. Except to the extent City reserves its discretion as expressly set forth in this Agreement, during the Term of this Agreement City shall not apply to the Project or the Property any ordinance, policy, rule, regulation, or other measure relating to Development of the Project that is enacted or becomes effective after the Effective Date to the extent it conflicts with this Agreement or Developer consents in writing. This Section 4.2 shall not restrict City's ability to enact an ordinance, policy, rule, regulation, or other measure applicable to the Project pursuant to California Government Code Section 65866 consistent with the procedures specified in Section 4.3 of this Agreement. In Pardee Construction Co. v. City, of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal.3d 465. the California Supreme Court held that a construction company was not exempt from a city's growth control ordinance even though the city and construction company had entered into a consent judgment (tantamount to a contract under California law) establishing the company's vested rights to develop its property consistent with the zoning. The California Supreme Court reached this result because the consent judgment failed to address the timing of development. The Parties intend to avoid the result of the Pardee case by acknowledging and providing in this Agreement that Developer shall have the vested right to Develop the Project on and with respect to the Property at the rate, timing, and sequencing that Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of Developer's sole subjective business judgment, provided that such Development occurs in accordance with this Agreement and the Development Regulations, notwithstanding adoption by City's electorate of an initiative to the contrary after the Effective Date. No City moratorium or other similar limitation relating to the rate, timing, or sequencing of the Development of all or any part of the Project and whether enacted by initiative or another method, affecting subdivision maps, building permits, occupancy certificates, or other entitlement to use, shall apply to the Project to the extent such moratorium or other similar limitation restricts Developer's vested rights in this Agreement or otherwise conflicts with the express provisions of this Agreement. 4.3 Reservations of Authori Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, the laws, rules, regulations, and official policies set forth in this Section 4.3 shall apply to and govern the Development of the Project on and with respect to the Property. 4.3.1 Procedural Regulations. Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions. applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports. recommendations, appeals. and any other matter of procedure shall apply to the Property, provided that such procedural regulations are adopted and applied City- wide or to all other properties similarly situated in City. 4.3.2 Processing and Permit Fees. City shall have the right to charge, and Developer shall be required to pay, all applicable processing and permit fees to cover the reasonable cost to City of processing and reviewing applications and plans for any required 14-188 Subsequent Development Approvals, building permits, excavation and grading permits. encroachment permits, and the like, for performing necessary studies and reports in connection therewith, inspecting the work constructed or installed by or on behalf of Developer, and monitoring compliance with any requirements applicable to Development of the Project, all at the rates in effect at the time fees are due. 4.3.2.1 Vested Development Impact Fees. All City development impact fees shall be fixed at the rates in place on the Agreement Date as shown on attached Exhibit C. Fees and charges levied by any other (i.e., non -City) governmental agency or public utility company with jurisdiction over the Property or the Project shall not be fixed in place by the Development Agreement. 4.3.3 Consistent Future City Regulations. City ordinances, resolutions, regulations, and official policies governing Development which do not conflict with the Development Regulations, or with respect to such regulations that do conflict, where Developer has consented in writing to the regulations, shall apply to the Property. 4.3.4 Development Exactions Applicable to Property. During the Term of this Agreement, Developer shall be required to satisfy and pay all Development Exactions at the time performance or payment is due to the same extent and in the same amount(s) that would apply to Developer and the Project in the absence of this Agreement; provided except where the extent the timing, value, scope and/or extent of a particular Development Exaction for the Project has been established and fixed by City in this Agreement, the Project's conditions of approval, or the Development Regulations. City shall not alter, increase, or modify said Development Exaction in a manner that is inconsistent with this Agreement, the Project's conditions of approval, or the Development Regulations without Developer's prior written consent or as may be otherwise required pursuant to overriding federal or state laws or regulations (Section 4.3.5 below). In addition, nothing in this Agreement is intended or shall be deemed to vest Developer against the obligation to pay any of the following (which are not included within the definition of "Development Exactions") in the full amount that would apply in the absence of this Agreement: (i) City's normal fees for processing, environmental assessment and review, tentative tract and parcel map review, plan checking, site review and approval, administrative review, building permit, grading permit, inspection, and similar fees imposed to recover City's costs associated with processing, reviewing, and inspecting project applications, plans, and specifications, including CEQA review, (ii) fees and charges levied by any other public agency, utility, district, or joint powers authority, regardless of whether City collects those fees and charges; or (iii) community facility district special taxes or special district assessments or similar assessments, business license fees, bonds or other security required for public improvements, transient occupancy taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, sewer lateral connection fees, water service connection fees, new water meter fees, and the Property Development Tax payable under Section 3.12 of City's Municipal Code. 4.3.5 Overriding, Federal and State Laws and Regulations. Federal and state laws and regulations that override Developer's vested rights set forth in this Agreement shall apply to the Property, together with any City ordinances, resolutions, regulations, and official policies that are necessary to enable City to comply with the provisions of any such overriding federal or state laws and regulations, provided that (i) Developer does not waive its right to challenge or contest the validity of any such purportedly overriding federal. state. or City law or 12 14-189 regulation; and (ii) upon the discovery of any such overriding federal, state, or City law or regulation that prevents or precludes compliance with any provision of this Agreement, City or Developer shall provide to the other Party a written notice identifying the federal, state, or City law or regulation, together with a copy of the law or regulation and a brief written statement of the conflict(s) between that law or regulation and the provisions of this Agreement. Promptly thereafter, City and Developer shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to determine whether a modification or suspension of this Agreement, in whole or in part, is necessary to comply with such overriding federal, state, or City law or regulation. In such negotiations, City and Developer agree to preserve the terms of this Agreement and the rights of Developer as derived from this Agreement to the maximum feasible extent while resolving the conflict. City agrees to cooperate with Developer at no cost to City or Developer in resolving the conflict in a manner which minimizes any financial impact of the conflict upon Developer. City also agrees to process in a prompt manner Developer's proposed changes to the Project and any of the Development Regulations as may be necessary to comply with such overriding federal, state, or City law or regulation; provided, however, that the approval of such changes by City shall be subject to the discretion of City, consistent with this Agreement. 4.3.6 Public Health and Safety. Any City ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, program, or official policy that is necessary to protect persons on the Property or in the immediate vicinity from conditions dangerous to their health or safety, as reasonably determined by City, shall apply to the Property, even though the application of the ordinance, resolution, rule regulation, program, or official policy would result in the impairment of Developer's vested rights under this Agreement. 4.3.7 Uniform Building Standards. Existing and future building and building - related standards set forth in the uniform codes adopted and amended by City from time -to -time, including building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, housing, swimming pool, and fire codes, and any modifications and amendments thereof shall all apply to the Project and the Property to the same extent that the same would apply in the absence of this Agreement. 4.3.8 Public Works Improvements. To the extent Developer constructs or installs any public improvements, works, or facilities, the City standards in effect for such public improvements, works, or facilities at the time of City's issuance of a permit, license, or other authorization for construction or installation of same shall apply. 4.3.9 No Guarantee or Reservation of Utility Capacity. Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, nothing in this Agreement is intended or shall be interpreted to require City to guarantee or reserve to or for the benefit of Developer or the Property any utility capacity, service, or facilities that may be needed to serve the Project, whether domestic or reclaimed water service, sanitary sewer transmission or wastewater treatment capacity, downstream drainage capacity, or otherwise, and City shall have the right to limit or restrict Development of the Project if and to the extent that City reasonably determines that inadequate utility capacity exists to adequately serve the Project at the time Development is scheduled to commence. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City covenants to provide utility services to the Project on a non-discriminatory basis (i.e., on the same terms and conditions that City undertakes to provide such services to other similarly situated new developments in the City of Newport Beach as and when service connections are provided and service commences). 13 14-190 5. Amendment or Cancellation of Avareement This Agreement may be amended or canceled in whole or in part only by mutual written and executed consent of the Parties in compliance with California Government Code Section 65868 and Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 15.45.070 or by unilateral termination by City in the event of an uncured default of Developer. 6. Enforcement. Unless amended or canceled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65868, Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 15.45.070, or modified or suspended pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 15.45 or California Government Code Section 65869.5, and except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b) of Section 65865.3, this Agreement shall be enforceable by any Party despite any change in any applicable general or specific plan, zoning, subdivision, or building regulation or other applicable ordinance or regulation adopted by City (including by City's electorate) that purports to apply to any or all of the Property. 7. Annual Review of Developer's Compliance With Agreement. 7.1 General. City shall review this Agreement once during every twelve (12) month period following the Effective Date for compliance with the terms of this Agreement as provided in Government Code section 65865.1. Developer (including any successor to the owner executing this Agreement on or before the date of the Adopting Ordinance) shall pay City a reasonable fee in an amount City may reasonably establish from time -to -time to cover the actual and necessary costs for the annual review. City's failure to timely provide or conduct an annual review shall not constitute a Default hereunder by City. 7.2 Developer Obligation to Demonstrate Good Faith Compliance. During each annual review by City, Developer is required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Agreement. Developer agrees to furnish such evidence of good faith compliance as City, in the reasonable exercise of its discretion, may require, thirty (30) calendar days prior to each anniversary of the Effective Date during the Term. 7.3 Procedure. The Zoning Administrator shall conduct a duly noticed hearing and shall determine, on the basis of substantial evidence, whether or not Developer has, for the period under review, complied with the terms of this Agreement. If the Zoning Administrator finds that Developer has so complied, the annual review shall be concluded. If the Zoning Administrator finds, on the basis of substantial evidence, that Developer has not so complied, written notice shall be sent to Developer by first class mail of the Zoning Administrator's finding of non-compliance, and Developer shall be given at least ten (10) calendar days to cure any noncompliance that relates to the payment of money and thirty (30) calendar days to cure any other type of noncompliance. If a cure not relating to the payment of money cannot be completed within thirty (30) calendar days for reasons which are beyond the control of Developer, Developer must commence the cure within such thirty (30) calendar days and diligently pursue such cure to completion. If 14 14-191 Developer fails to cure such noncompliance within the time(s) set forth above, such failure shall be considered to be a Default and City shall be entitled to exercise the remedies set forth in Article 8 below. 7.4 Annual Review a Non -Exclusive Means for Determining and Requiring Cure of Developer's Default. The annual review procedures set forth in this Article 7 shall not be the exclusive means for City to identify a Default by Developer or limit City's rights or remedies for any such Default. Events of Default. 8.1 General Provisions. In the event of any material default, breach, or violation of the terms of this Agreement ("Default"), the Party alleging a Default shall deliver a written notice (each, a "Notice of Default") to the defaulting Party. The Notice of Default shall specify the nature of the alleged Default and a reasonable manner and sufficient period of time (twenty (20) calendar days if the Default relates to the failure to timely make a monetary payment due hereunder and not less than thirty (30) calendar days in the event of non -monetary Defaults) in which the Default must be cured ("Cure Period"). During the Cure Period, the Party charged shall not be considered in Default for the purposes of termination of this Agreement or institution of legal proceedings. If the alleged Default is cured within the Cure Period, then the Default thereafter shall be deemed not to exist. If a non -monetary Default cannot be cured during the Cure Period with the exercise of commercially reasonable diligence, the defaulting Party must promptly commence to cure as quickly as possible, and in no event later than thirty (30) calendar days after it receives the Notice of Default, and thereafter diligently pursue said cure to completion. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City is not required to give Developer notice of default and may immediately pursue remedies for a Developer Default that result in an immediate threat to public health, safety or welfare. 8.2 Default by Developer. If Developer is alleged to have committed Default and it disputes the claimed Default, it may make a written request for an appeal hearing before the City Council within ten (10) calendar days of receiving the Notice of Default, and a public hearing shall be scheduled at the next available City Council meeting to consider Developer's appeal of the Notice of Default. Failure to appeal a Notice of Default to the City Council within the ten (10) calendar day period shall waive any right to a hearing on the claimed Default. If Developer's appeal of the Notice of Default is timely and in good faith but after a public hearing of Developer's appeal the City Council concludes that Developer is in Default as alleged in the Notice of Default, the accrual date for commencement of the thirty (30) calendar day Cure Period provided in Section 8.1 shall be extended until the City Council's denial of Developer's appeal is communicated to Developer in writing. 8.3 City's Option to Terminate Agreement. 15 14-192 In the event of an alleged Developer Default, City may not terminate this Agreement without first delivering a written Notice of Default and providing Developer with the opportunity to cure the Default within the Cure Period, as provided in Section 8.1, and complying with Section 8.2 if Developer timely appeals any Notice of Default. A termination of this Agreement by City shall be valid only if good cause exists and is supported by evidence presented to the City Council at or in connection with a duly noticed public hearing to establish the existence of a Default. The validity of any termination may be judicially challenged by Developer. Any such judicial challenge must be brought within ninety (90) calendar days of service on Developer, by first class mail, postage prepaid, of written notice of termination by City or a written notice of City's determination of an appeal of the Notice of Default as provided in Section 8.2. 8.4 Default by City. If Developer alleges a City Default and alleges that the City has not cured the Default within the Cure Period, Developer may pursue any legal or equitable remedy available to it, including, without limitation, an action for a writ of mandamus, injunctive relief, or specific performance of City's obligations set forth in this Agreement. Upon a City Default, any resulting delays in Developer's performance hereunder shall neither be a Developer Default nor constitute grounds for termination or cancellation of this Agreement by City and shall, at Developer's option (and provided Developer delivers written notice to City within thirty (30) calendar days of the commencement of the alleged City Default), extend the Term for a period equal to the length of the delay. 8.5 Waiver. Failure or delay by any Party in delivering a Notice of Default shall not waive that Party's right to deliver a future Notice of Default of the same or any other Default. 8.6 Specific Performance Remedy. Due to the size, nature, and scope of the Project, it will not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its pre-existing condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun. After such implementation, both Developer and City may be foreclosed from other choices they may have had to plan for the development of the Property, to utilize the Property or provide for other benefits and alternatives. Developer and City have invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement. It is not possible to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate Developer or City for such efforts. For the above reasons, except as set forth in Section 8.7. City and Developer agree that damages would not be an adequate remedy if either City or Developer fails to carry out its obligations under this Agreement. Therefore, except as set forth in Section 8.7, specific performance of this Agreement is necessary to compensate Developer if City fails to carry out its obligations under this Agreement or to compensate City if Developer falls to carry out its obligations under this Agreement. 8.7 Monetary Damages. H 14-193 The Parties agree that monetary damages shall not be an available remedy for any Party for a Default hereunder by the other Party; provided, however, that (i) nothing in this Section 8.7 is intended or shall be interpreted to limit or restrict City's right to recover the Public Benefit Fees and Mitigation Impact Fee due from Developer as set forth herein; and (ii) nothing in this Section 8.7 is intended or shall be interpreted to limit or restrict Developer's indemnity obligations set forth in Article 10 or the right of the prevailing Party in any Action to recover its litigation expenses, as set forth in Section 8.10. In no event shall damages be awarded against the City upon an event of default or upon termination of this Agreement. Developer expressly agrees that the City, any City agencies and their respective elected and appointed councils, boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees, volunteers and representatives (collectively, for purposes of this Section 8.7, "City") shall not be liable for any monetary damage for a Default by the City or any claims against City arising out of this Agreement. Developer hereby expressly waives any such monetary damages against the City. The sole and exclusive judicial remedy for Developer in the event of a Default by the City shall be an action in mandamus, specific performance, or other injunctive or declaratory relief. 8.8 Additional City Remedy for Developer's Default. In the event of any Default by Developer, in addition to any other remedies which may be available to City, whether legal or equitable, City shall be entitled to receive and retain any Development Exactions applicable to the Project or the Property, including any fees, grants, dedications, or improvements to public property which it may have received prior to Developer's Default without recourse from Developer or its successors or assigns. 8.9 No Personal Liability of City Officials. Employees, or Agents. No City official, employee, or agent shall have any personal liability hereunder for a Default by City of any of its obligations set forth in this Agreement. 8.10 No Recovery of Legal Expenses by Prevailing Party in Any Action. In any judicial proceeding, arbitration, or mediation (collectively, an "Action") between the Parties that seeks to enforce the provisions of this Agreement or arises out of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall not recover any of its costs and expenses, regardless of whether they would be recoverable under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 or California Civil Code section 1717 in the absence of this Agreement. These costs and expenses include, but are not limited to, court costs, expert witness fees, attorneys' fees, City staff costs (including overhead), and costs of investigation and preparation before initiation of the Action. 9. Force Majeure. No Party shall be deemed to be in Default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused, through no fault of the Party whose performance is prevented or delayed, by floods, earthquakes, other acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes or other labor difficulties, state or federal regulations, or court actions. Except as specified above, nonperformance shall not be excused because of the act or omission of a third person. In no event shall the occurrence of an event of force majeure operate to extend the Term of this Agreement. In addition, in no event shall the time for performance of 17 14-194 a monetary obligation, including without limitation Developer's obligation to pay Public Benefit Fee and Mitigation Impact Fee, be extended pursuant to this Section. 10. Indemnity Obligations of Developer. 10.1 Indemnity Arising From Acts or Omissions of Developer. Except to the extent caused by the intentional misconduct or gross negligent acts, errors or omissions of City or one (1) or more of City's officials, employees, agents, attorneys, and contractors (collectively, the "City's Affiliated Parties"), Developer shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City and City's Affiliated Parties from and against all suits, claims, liabilities, losses, damages, penalties, obligations, and expenses (including but not limited to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs) (collectively, a "Claim") that may arise, directly or indirectly, from the acts, omissions, or operations of Developer or Developer's agents, contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in the course of Development of the Project or any other activities of Developer relating to the Property or Project, or pursuant to this Agreement. City shall have the right, in its sole discretion, to select and retain counsel to defend any Claim filed against City and/or any of City's Affiliated Parties, and Developer shall pay the reasonable cost for defense of any Claim. The indemnity provisions in this Section 10.1 shall commence on the Agreement Date, regardless of whether the Effective Date occurs, and shall survive the Termination Date. 10.2 Third Party Litigation. In addition to its indemnity obligations set forth in Section 10.1, Developer shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City and City's Affiliated Parties from and against any Claim against City or City's Affiliated Parties seeking to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement, the Adopting Ordinance, any of the Development Plan approvals for the Project (including without limitation any actions taken pursuant to CEQA with respect thereto), any Subsequent Development Approval, or the approval of any permit granted pursuant to this Agreement. Said indemnity obligation shall include payment of reasonable attorney's fees, expert witness fees, City staff costs (including overhead), and court costs. City shall promptly notify Developer of any such Claim and City shall cooperate with Developer in the defense of such Claim. Developer shall not be responsible to indemnify, defend, and hold City harmless from such Claim until Developer is so notified and if City fails to cooperate in the defense of a Claim Developer shall not be responsible to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City during the period that City so fails to cooperate or for any losses attributable thereto. City shall be entitled to retain separate counsel to represent City against the Claim and the City's reasonable defense costs for its separate counsel shall be included in Developer's indemnity obligation, provided that such counsel shall reasonably cooperate with Developer in an effort to minimize the total litigation expenses incurred by Developer. In the event either City or Developer recovers any attorney's fees. expert witness fees, costs, interest, or other amounts from the party or parties asserting the Claim, Developer shall be entitled to retain the same (provided it has fully performed its indemnity obligations hereunder). No settlement of any Claim against City or City's Affiliated Parties shall be executed without the written consent of both the City and Developer. The indemnity provisions in this Section 10.2 shall commence on the Agreement Date, regardless of whether the Effective Date occurs, and shall survive the Termination Date. 18 14-195 10.3 Environmentallndemnity. In addition to its indemnity obligations set forth in Section 10.1, from and after the Effective Date Developer shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City and City's Affiliated Parties from and against any and all Claims for personal injury or death, property damage, economic loss, statutory penalties or fines, and damages of any kind or nature whatsoever, including without limitation reasonable attorney's fees, expert witness fees, and costs, based upon or arising from any of the following: (i) the actual or alleged presence of any Hazardous Substance on or under any of the Property in violation of any applicable Environmental Law; (ii) the actual or alleged migration of any Hazardous Substance from the Property through the soils or groundwater to a location or locations off of the Property; and (iii) the storage, handling, transport, or disposal of any Hazardous Substance on, to, or from the Property and any other area disturbed, graded, or developed by Developer in connection with Developer's Development of the Project. The indemnity provisions in this Section 10.3 shall commence on the Effective Date occurs, and shall survive the Termination Date. 11. Assignment. Developer shall have the right to sell, transfer, or assign (hereinafter, collectively, a "Transfer") Developer's interest in or fee title to the Property, in whole or in part, to a "Permitted Transferee" (which successor, as of the effective date of the Transfer, shall become the "Developer" under this Agreement) at any time from the Agreement Date until the Termination Date; provided, however, that no such Transfer shall violate the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410 et seg.) or City's local subdivision ordinance and any such transfer shall include the assignment and assumption of Developer's rights, duties, and obligations set forth in or arising under this Agreement as to the Property or the portion thereof so Transferred and shall be made in strict compliance with the following conditions precedent: (i) no transfer or assignment of any of Developer's rights or interest under this Agreement shall be made unless made together with the Transfer of all or a part of Developer's interest in the Property; and (ii) prior to the effective date of any proposed Transfer, Developer (as transferor) shall notify City, in writing, of such proposed Transfer and deliver to City a written assignment and assumption, executed in recordable form by the transferring and successor Developer and in a form subject to the reasonable approval of the City Attorney of City (or designee), pursuant to which the transferring Developer assigns to the successor Developer and the successor Developer assumes from the transferring Developer all of the rights and obligations of the transferring Developer with respect to the Property and this Agreement, or interest in the Property, or portion thereof to be so Transferred, including in the case of a partial Transfer the obligation to perform such obligations that must be performed outside of the Property so Transferred that are a condition precedent to the successor Developer's right to develop the portion of the Property so Transferred. Any Permitted Transferee shall have all of the same rights, benefits, duties, obligations, and liabilities of Developer under this Agreement with respect to the portion of, or interest in, the Property sold, transferred, and assigned to such Permitted Transferee; provided, however, that in the event of a Transfer of less than all of the Property, or interest in the Property, no such Permitted Transferee shall have the right to enter into an amendment of this Agreement that jeopardizes or impairs the rights or increases the obligations of the Developer with respect to the balance of the Property, without Developer's written consent. 19 14-196 Notwithstanding any Transfer, the transferring Developer shall continue to be jointly and severally liable to City, together with the successor Developer, to perform all of the transferred obligations set forth in or arising under this Agreement unless there is full satisfaction of all of the following conditions, in which event the transferring Developer shall be automatically released from any and all obligations with respect to the portion of the Property so Transferred: (i) the transferring Developer no longer has a legal or equitable interest in the portion of the Property so Transferred other than as a beneficiary under a deed of trust; (ii) the transferring Developer is not then in Default under this Agreement and no condition exists that with the passage of time or the giving of notice, or both, would constitute a Default hereunder; (iii) the transferring Developer has provided City with the notice and the fully executed written and recordable assignment and assumption agreement required as set forth in the first paragraph of this Section 11; and (iv) the successor Developer either (A) provides City with substitute security equivalent to any security previously provided by the transferring Developer to City to secure performance of the successor Developer's obligations hereunder with respect to the Property, or interest in the Property, or the portion of the Property so Transferred, as determined in the City's sole discretion, or (B) if the transferred obligation in question is not a secured obligation, the successor Developer either provides security reasonably satisfactory to City or otherwise demonstrates to City's reasonable satisfaction, as determined in the City's sole discretion, that the successor Developer has the financial resources or commitments available to perform the transferred obligation at the time and in the manner required under this Agreement and the Development Regulations for the Project. Any determination by the City in regards to the second paragraph of Section 11, subpart (iv) (A), (B), shall be documented in writing. 12. Mortgagee Rights. 12.1 Encumbrances on Property. The Parties agree that this Agreement shall not prevent or limit Developer in any manner from encumbering the Property, any part of the Property, or any improvements on the Property with any Mortgage securing financing with respect to the construction, development, use, or operation of the Project. 12.2 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to the lien of any Mortgage. Nevertheless, no breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value. Any acquisition or acceptance of title or any right or interest in the Property or part of the Property by a Mortgagee (whether due to foreclosure, trustee's sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, lease termination, or otherwise) shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Any Mortgagee who takes title to the Property or any part of the Property shall be entitled to the benefits arising under this Agreement. 12.3 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section 12.3, a Mortgagee will not have any obligation or duty under the terms of this Agreement to perform the obligations of Developer or other affirmative covenants of Developer, or to guarantee this performance except that: (i) the Mortgagee shall have no right to develop the Project under the Development Regulations without Q 14-197 fully complying with the terms of this Agreement; and (ii) to the extent that any covenant to be performed by Developer is a condition to the performance of a covenant by City, that performance shall continue to be a condition precedent to City's performance. 12.4 Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Morwagee to Cure. Each Mortgagee shall, upon written request to City, be entitled to receive written notice from City of. (i) the results of the periodic review of compliance specified in Article 7 of this Agreement, and (ii) any default by Developer of its obligations set forth in this Agreement. Each Mortgagee shall have a further right, but not an obligation, to cure the Default within thirty (30) calendar days after receiving a Notice of Default with respect to a monetary Default and within sixty (60) calendar days after receiving a Notice of Default with respect to a non -monetary Default. If the Mortgagee can only remedy or cure a non -monetary Default by obtaining possession of the Property, then the Mortgagee shall have the right to seek to obtain possession with diligence and continuity through a receiver or otherwise, and to remedy or cure the non -monetary Default within sixty (60) calendar days after obtaining possession and, except in case of emergency or to protect the public health or safety, City may not exercise any of its judicial remedies set forth in this Agreement to terminate or substantially alter the rights of the Mortgagee until expiration of the sixty (60) calendar day period. In the case of a non -monetary Default that cannot with diligence be remedied or cured within sixty (60) calendar days, the Mortgagee shall have additional time as is reasonably necessary to remedy or cure the Default, provided the Mortgagee promptly commences to cure the non -monetary Default within sixty (60) calendar days and diligently prosecutes the cure to completion. 13. Bankruptcy. The obligations of this Agreement shall not be dischargeable in bankruptcy. 14. Miscellaneous Terms. 14.1 Reserved 14.2 Notices. Any notice or demand that shall be required or permitted by law or any provision of this Agreement shall be in writing. If the notice or demand will be served upon a Party, it either shall be personally delivered to the Party; deposited in the United States mail, certified, return receipt requested, and postage prepaid; or delivered by a reliable courier service that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery with courier charges prepaid. The notice or demand shall be addressed as follows: TO CITY: City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Attn: City Manager 21 14-198 With a copy to: City Attorney City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 TO DEVELOPER: Mr. Paul Habeeb Harbor Pointe Senior Living, LLC 3333 West Coast Highway, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92663 With a copy to: Sean Matsler, Esq. Cox Castle & Nicholson LLP 3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92612 Any Party may change the address stated in this Section 14.2 by delivering notice to the other Parties in the manner provided in this Section 14.2, and thereafter notices to such Party or Parties shall be addressed and submitted to the new address. Notices delivered in accordance with this Agreement shall be deemed to be delivered upon the earlier of. (i) the date received, or (ii) three business days after deposit in the mail as provided above. 14.3 Project as Private Undertaking. The Development of the Project is a private undertaking. Neither the Developer nor the City is acting as the agent of the other in any respect, and each is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants, and conditions set forth in this Agreement. This Agreement forms no partnership, joint venture, or other association of any kind. The only relationship between the Parties is that of a government entity regulating the Development of private property by the owner of the property. 14.4 Cooperation. Each Party shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other Party to the extent consistent with and necessary to implement this Agreement. Upon the request of a Party at any time, the other Party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgement or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record the required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary to implement this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. 14.5 Estoppel Certificates. At any time, any Party may deliver written notice to the other Party requesting that that Party certify in writing that, to the best of its knowledge: (i) this Agreement is in full force and effect and is binding on the Party; (ii) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing or, if this Agreement has been amended, the Party providing the certification shall identify the amendments or modifications; and (iii) the requesting Party is not in Default in 22 14-199 the performance of its obligations under this Agreement and no event or situation has occurred that with the passage of time or the giving of Notice or both would constitute a Default or, if such is not the case, then the other Party shall describe the nature and amount of the actual or prospective Default. The Party requested to furnish an estoppel certificate shall execute and return the certificate within thirty (30) calendar days following receipt. 14.6 Rules of Construction. The singular includes the plural; the masculine and neuter include the feminine; "shall" is mandatory; and "may" is permissive. 14.7 Time Is of the Essence. Time is of the essence regarding each provision of this Agreement as to which time is an element. 14.8 Waiver. The failure by a Party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other Party, and failure by a Party to exercise its rights upon a Default by the other Party, shall not constitute a waiver of that Party's right to demand strict compliance by the other Party in the future. 14.9 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or more counterparts, each of which shall be identical and may be introduced in evidence or used for any other purpose without any other counterpart, but all of which shall together constitute one (1) and the same agreement. 14.10 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, both written and oral, between the Parties with respect to the subject matter addressed in this Agreement. 14.11 Severability. The Parties intend that each and every obligation of the Parties is interdependent and interrelated with the other, and if any provision of this Agreement or the application of the provision to any Party or circumstances shall be held invalid or unenforceable to any extent, it is the intention of the Parties that the remainder of this Agreement or the application of the provision to persons or circumstances shall be rendered invalid or unenforceable. The Parties intend that no Party shall receive any of the benefits of the Agreement without the full performance by such Party of all of its obligations provided for under this Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Parties intend that Developer shall not receive any of the benefits of this Agreement if any of Developer's obligations are rendered void or unenforceable as the result of any third party litigation, and City shall be free to exercise its 23 14-200 legislative discretion to amend or repeal the Development Regulations applicable to the Property and Developer shall cooperate as required, despite this Agreement, should third party litigation result in the nonperformance of Developer's obligations under this Agreement. The provisions of this Section 14.11 shall apply regardless of whether the Effective Date occurs and after the Termination Date. 14.12 Construction. This Agreement has been drafted after extensive negotiation and revision. Both City and Developer are sophisticated parties who were represented by independent counsel throughout the negotiations or City and Developer had the opportunity to be so represented and voluntarily chose to not be so represented. City and Developer each agree and acknowledge that the terms of this Agreement are fair and reasonable, taking into account their respective purposes, terms, and conditions. This Agreement shall therefore be construed as a whole consistent with its fair meaning, and no principle or presumption of contract construction or interpretation shall be used to construe the whole or any part of this Agreement in favor of or against any Party. 14.13 Successors and Assigns; Constructive Notice and Acceptance. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the Parties to this Agreement. Except for those provisions relating to indemnity in Section 10, all other provisions of this Agreement shall, from and after the Effective Date hereof, be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land. Subject to occurrence of the Effective Date, each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act hereunder with regard to Development of the Property: (i) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every portion of the Property; (ii) runs with the Property and each portion thereof; and (iii) is binding upon each Party and each successor in interest during its ownership of the Property or any portion thereof. Every person or entity who now or later owns or acquires any right, title, or interest in any part of the Project or the Property is and shall be conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to every provision of this Agreement. This Section 14.13 applies regardless of whether the instrument by which such person or entity acquires the interest refers to or acknowledges this Agreement and regardless of whether such person or entity has expressly entered into an assignment and assumption agreement as provided for in Section 11. 14.14 No Third Party Beneficiaries. The only Parties to this Agreement are City and Developer. This Agreement does not involve any third party beneficiaries, and it is not intended and shall not be construed to benefit or be enforceable by any other person or entity. 14.15 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced consistent with the laws of the State of California, without regard to conflicts of law principles. Any action at law or in equity arising under this Agreement or brought by any Party for the purpose of enforcing, construing, or determining the validity of any provision of this Agreement shall be filed and tried in the Superior Court of the County of Orange, State of California. or the United States District Court 24 14-201 for the Central District of California. The Parties waive all provisions of law providing for the removal or change of venue to any other court. 14.16 Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect construction or interpretation of this Agreement. 14.17 Incorporation of Recitals and Exhibits. All of the Recitals are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. 14.18 Recordation. The City Clerk of City shall record this Agreement and any amendment, modification, or cancellation of this Agreement in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Orange within the period required by California Government Code section 65868.5 and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code section 15.45.090. The date of recordation of this Agreement shall not modify or amend the Effective Date or the Termination Date. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS[ 25 14-202 SIGNATURE PAGE TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ATTEST: Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Aaron C. Harp, City Attorney Sean Matsler, Attorney for Developer "DEVELOPER" HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC Paul Habeeb, Managing Member "CITY" 26 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Diane B. Dixon, Mayor 14-203 DRAFT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the buffifulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF On I , before me, (here insert name and title of the officer) personally appeared who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF On personally appeared , before me, (here insert name and title of the officer) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) -27- 14-204 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Lot l of Tract No. 12528, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 551, Pages 38 through 41, inclusive of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. 14-205 EXHIBIT B SITE MAP 49 Al 14-206 EXHIBIT C VESTED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FAIR SHARE FEE Fair Share Fee of $586 per "patient" and/or bed 120 beds * $586 per bed = $70,320 Less the Fair Share Fee of $14,511 per thousand square feet of restaurant use 8.8 thousand square feet of restaurant use * $14,511 = $127,696.80 *There is no Fair Share Fee required, as the credit exceeds the current fee. 14-207 Attachment F Draft Resolution for Denial 14-208 RESOLUTION NO. 2019- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2015- 004, PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. PD2015-005, MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SD2015-007, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. UP2015-047, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DA2018-006 FOR THE HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING PROJECT - A SENIOR CONVALESCENT AND CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY LOCATED AT 101 BAYVIEW PLACE (PA2015-210) WHEREAS, an application was filed by Harbor Pointe Senior Living LLC of California ("Applicant"), with respect to property located at 101 Bayview Place, and legally described as Lot 1 of Tract No. 12528 in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 551 Pages 38 through 41 inclusive of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, Assessor's Parcel No. 442-283-05 ("Property"); WHEREAS, the Applicant proposes the demolition of an existing approximately 8,800 square -foot restaurant ("Kitayama") to accommodate the development of an approximately 85,000 square -foot, three-story senior convalescent and congregate care facility (i.e., memory care and assisted living) as a State -licensed Residential Care Facility for the Elderly ("RCFE") with 120 beds ("Project"), WHEREAS, in order to implement the Project, the Applicant requests or requires the following approvals from the City of Newport Beach ("City"): • General Plan Amendment ("GPA") — The current land use designation is General Commercial Office ("CO -G") which allows 8,000 square feet for restaurant use or 70,000 square feet for office use. The general plan amendment would change the CO -G land use designation to Private Institutions ("PI") and amend Anomaly No. 22 to allow the 85,000 square foot RCFE (Table LU2 and associated figures); • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment (Zoning) — To change the allowed land uses and amend development standards in Area 5 of the Bayview Planned Community ("PC -32") Zoning District; 14-209 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 2 of 5 • Major Site Development Review — To ensure the Project is developed in accordance with the applicable planned community and zoning code development standards and regulations pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews); • Conditional Use Permit— To allow the use of the Property as a 120 bed RCFE (memory care and assisted living facility) with conditions of approval that protect the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding community; • Development Agreement — The applicant has requested a development agreement, which will provide for public benefits as the project is implemented; and • Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") — To address reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of the Project with corresponding mitigation measures that reduce those environmental impacts in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") in 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et. seq. and the California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq. WHEREAS, the Property is located within the PC -32 Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is designated as CO -G; WHEREAS, the Property is not located within the coastal zone; therefore, a coastal development permit is not required; WHEREAS, on February 23, 2017, the Planning Commission held a study session in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, to provide initial direction on the Project. No action was taken at the study session. Although not required, the City mailed a courtesy public notice of this study session to property owners within a 300' radius of the Property; WHEREAS, on September 13, 2018, the Planning Commission held a study session in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, to receive a project update and review the draft EIR. No action was taken at the study session. Although not required, the City mailed a courtesy public notice of this study session to property owners within a 300' radius of the Property; 14-210 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 3 of 5 WHEREAS, on December 6, 2018, the Planning Commission held a public hearing in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with California Government Code Section 54950 et. seq. ("Ralph M. Brown Act") and Chapter 20.62 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC"). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC2018-033 by a unanimous vote of 6-0 recommending approval of the Project, and the land use entitlements referenced above, to the City Council; WHEREAS, on February 12, 2019, the City Council held a public hearing in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and NEMC. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this public hearing; WHEREAS, amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code are legislative acts and neither the City nor State Planning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of such amendments; WHEREAS, the future development of the property affected by the proposed amendments is not consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan; WHEREAS, a site development review is required for the nonresidential construction consisting of 20,000 square feet or more of gross floor area. The site development review analyzes the project as a whole for compatibility with the site and surrounding land uses. The City Council may approve a site development review only after making each of the required findings set forth in NBMC Section 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Reviews). In this case, the City Council was unable to make the required findings based upon the following: 1. The City Council determined, in this case, that the proposed Site Development Review for the RCFE is not consistent with the legislative intent of NBMC Title 20. The proposed project may prove detrimental to the community, 2. The City Council determined, in this case, that the proposed Site Development Review for the RCFE is not consistent with the General Plan policies due to the incompatible land use, architectural style, facade treatments, and height of the proposed project, 14-211 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 4 of 5 3. The City Council determined, in this case, the design, height, location, size, and characteristics of the proposed project are not compatible with the residential and commercial uses in the vicinity. The project may result in negative impacts to residents and businesses in the vicinity and is not compatible with the enjoyment of the nearby residential properties; and WHEREAS, a conditional use permit is required pursuant to the amended PC -32 Zoning District land use regulations. The City Council may approve a conditional use permit only after making each of the required findings set forth in NBMC Section 20.52.020(F) (Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits). In this case, the City Council was unable to make the required findings based upon the following: 1. The City Council determined, in this case, that the proposed Conditional Use Permit for the RCFE is not consistent with the legislative intent of NBMC Title 20. The proposed project may prove detrimental to the community, 2. The City Council determined, in this case, that the design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are incompatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity, 3. The City Council determined, in this case, that the site is not physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities, 4. The City Council determined, in this case, that the operation of the use at the location proposed may be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, and may endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach resolves as follows: Section 1: The City Council has considered the recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission and disagrees with this recommendation; a referral back to the Planning Commission for additional consideration and recommendation is not required. 14-212 Resolution No. 2019 - Page 5 of 5 Section 2: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby denies without prejudice General Plan Amendment No. GP2015-004, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2015-005, Major Site Development Review No. SD2015-007, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-047, and Development Agreement No. DA2018-006 for the RCFE located at 101 Bayview Place. Section 3: The recitals provided in this resolution are true and correct and are incorporated into the operative part of this resolution. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this resolution, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 5: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 15270, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. Section 6: This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall certify the vote adopting the resolution. ADOPTED this 12th day of February, 2019. Diane B. Dixon Mayor ATTEST: Leilani I. Brown City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE S,Q Aar n C. Harp Cit Attorney 14-213 Attachment G Fiscal Impact Analysis 14-214 MEMO TO: Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP City of Newport Beach FROM: Doug Svensson, AICP DATE: November 20, 2018 SUBJECT: Fiscal Analysis for the Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project INTRODUCTION The fiscal analysis uses the Newport Beach Fiscal Impact Model to help calculate revenue and cost impacts of the proposed project. This model was initially developed in support of the General Plan Update, which was adopted in 2006.1 The model has been updated to reflect Fiscal Year 2018-2019 costs and revenues from the Newport Beach City Budget. The fiscal impact model calculates public service impacts for specific land uses that support the residential population, the employment base and the visitor population in Newport Beach. It also calculates the public revenues that each type of land use typically generates for the City, including property taxes, sales taxes and other taxes as well as a variety of user charges and fees. The fiscal impact model is designed to calculate the average cost of public services required by new development, on the assumption that new development affects City services in approximately the same way that existing development does. The model nets out certain costs that are unlikely to change with expansion of City government, such as the number of City Department Directors and Division managers, as well as the City Council and City Clerk expenditures, but otherwise assumes that City administrative support and overhead tends to increase as City government activities grow to provide services to an expanding population and employment base. Over the long term, this is clearly the dynamic that local governments experience. In the short term, development projects may have lower or higher cost impacts depending on the existing capacity of City services to accommodate more 1 A technical description of the fiscal impact model may be found in: Applied Development Economics, Fiscal Impact Analysis and Model, Newport Beach General Plan Update, January 2004. 1756 Lacassie Avenue, Suite 100, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 ■ Tel 925.934.8712 www.adeusa.com 14-215 development, and the level of expenditure needed to expand services incrementally if existing capacity is not available. PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project would redevelop an existing restaurant consisting of 8,800 sq. ft. of building space on 1.5 acres to a 120 -bed residential care facility for seniors, including both senior assisted living and memory care. The project would be 85,000 sq. ft. and is anticipated to employ about 30 workers. The site is located southwest of State Route (SR) 73, less than one-half mile from the intersection of Jamboree Road and Bristol Street. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The fiscal analysis analyzes the same project alternatives as the DEIR. The alternatives include the existing restaurant use on the site and an office building that would be consistent with the existing General Plan designation on the site. No Project: Existing Use. The existing use is an 8,800 building occupied by a restaurant. No Project: Office Use. This alternative assumes the restaurant would be replaced with an 70,000 sq. ft. office building housing administrative and professional offices serving local and regional markets. SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS In order to calculate the fiscal effects of the proposed changes, it is necessary to estimate certain socio-economic characteristics of the land uses, including population and employment, assessed value, spending on taxable retail goods in Newport Beach, and direct sales taxes from the non-residential uses in the alternatives. The DEIR for the project indicates that at full occupancy, the project would house 120 senior citizens and would employ about 30 workers. Sources: Employee densities based on The Natelson Company, Employee Density Study; Market values based on Cushman Wakefield, Market Beat Orange County, Office Q3 2018, Orange County Assessor's Office and Engineering News -Record Square Foot Costbook 2019 Edition. Taxable Sales based on Urban Land Institute, Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, Bureau of the Census, Census of Retail Trade and CA Board of Equalization. Applied Development Economics I Page 2 14-216 ADE estimated employment onsite for the project alternatives based on industry surveys for specific types of land use, as shown in Table 1. Table 1 also shows the factors used in the analysis to estimate the assessed value and taxable sales for each of the non-residential land uses. The assessed value for the proposed project has been derived from estimates of typical costs to build senior residential care facilities as compiled by Engineering News Record. ADE also added a factor for land value. According to the Orange County Assessor, the current assessed value of the site with the restaurant is about $3.6 million. The senior care facility would be substantially higher assessed value at about $34 million. For the office space alternative, ADE reviewed recent sales data for five office buildings in the Airport area in both Newport Beach and Irvine. These projects sold for an average of $345 per sq. ft. of building space. At this rate, the 70,000 sq. ft. office project would be valued at about $24.1 million. The residents of the senior care facility are projected to generate sales tax at about half the rate of typical Newport Beach residents. Some residents of the facility will likely do very little independent shopping while others will frequent local retail centers more often. Some sales tax will also be generated by purchase of medical equipment and other supplies by the facilities and its suppliers. ADE does not have access to the sales figures for the existing restaurant, but has estimated likely sales based on surveys for similar types of restaurants conducted by the Urban Land Institute. Finally, businesses in office space often generate some sales taxes through their own purchases or through sales directly to consumers. This factor is estimated based on previous studies for the General Plan Update in Newport Beach. FISCAL IMPACTS The analysis, summarized in Table 2 below, estimates the current fiscal impact of the proposed project and each of the alternatives. For the senior care project, the primary revenue source generated for the City is the property tax. The City receives about 20 percent of the base property tax that property owners pay, but in addition the City gets a share of property tax from the state in lieu of vehicle license fees, which adds about ten percent to the total property tax revenues for Newport Beach. In terms of costs for City services, the senior care facilities could have a higher than average use of paramedic services. In addition, residents of the facility would make some use of City recreation and senior services, as well as library services, although it is likely the facility would provide a certain level of these programs onsite. Based on the fiscal model estimates of these services, it is projected that the proposed project would have a small positive effect on City finances, and the revenues generated by the project would pay for City services it requires. It is likely that the existing restaurant use on the site has a more positive fiscal benefit for the City. It is certainly a relatively high sales tax generator, as the dining business is 100 percent taxable. In terms of impact to City services, visitor -serving, entertainment uses tend to generate higher levels of police calls for service although ADE does not have any direct evidence that this is the case for the Kitayama restaurant. However, the fiscal model uses a conservative assumption that this use would be similar to other visitor serving uses, and estimates that the facility would require police costs of up to Applied Development Economics I Page 3 14-217 $15,610 per year. Despite this assumption, the restaurant is projected to generate more than $4,000 per year in net revenue for the City, compared to less than $3,000 for the proposed project. TABLE PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 150 NEWPORT CENTER AND THE ALTERNATIVES Annual Revenues/Costs Proposed Existing Office Budget Category Project Use Alternative REVENUES GENERALFUND Property Tax $68,000 $7,269 $48,300 Property Tax in lieu of Vehicle License Fees $6,955 $743 $4,940 Sales Tax $7,464 $36,852 $20,664 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $0 Franchise Fees $3,222 $1,212 $7,521 Business Licenses $1,769 $2,191 $13,596 Other Intergovernmental $293 $363 $2,252 Charges for Service $8,159 $3,396 $21,069 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $1,928 $802 $4,978 Licenses and Permits $195 $81 $503 Use of Property $1,587 $1,966 $12,200 Other Revenue $152 $188 $1,166 Interest Income 463 255 636 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $100 186 $55 321 $137 826 GAS TAX $3,008 $0 $0 MEASURE M 759 3 745 2 100 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $3,766 $3 745 $2 100 TOTAL REVENUE $103,952 59 066 139 926 EXPENDITURES GENERALFUND General Government $8,373 $3,170 $15,435 Police $6,584 $15,605 $50,604 Fire $43,753 $9,949 $62,055 Public Works $6,499 $8,051 $49,954 Community Development $610 $756 $4,689 Community Services $33,304 $0 $0 CIP Streets $387 $4,562 $3,632 Other CIP Projects $464 $575 $3,569 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $99,973 $42,668 $189,937 GAS TAX $542 $6,388 $5,085 MEASURE M 508 5 992 4 766 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $1,050 $12,380 $9,851 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $101,023 $55,048 $199,789 NET (COST)/REVENUE $2,929 $4,017 ($59,863) The office alternative would generate less property tax than the proposed project due to its smaller size, but would house business uses that have some potential to generate sales tax. At times, office - based businesses have a point of sale operation that generates sales tax even though it is not a store front retail operation. Most often, however, professional services, financial offices and other businesses that occupy office space do not provide taxable goods or services. Also, with the more intense business use of the site, there would be other City charges for services and ongoing revenues that would exceed the total revenues generated by the proposed project. However, the office project would employ an estimated 233 workers and the added traffic and potential other demands on City Applied Development Economics I Page 4 14-218 services would increase the cost requirements of this alternative well above the proposed project, based on results from the fiscal model. Therefore, the office use is projected to generate a negative fiscal impact of about $59,900 per year for the City. CONCLUSION The proposed senior residential care use of the site would generate a small positive fiscal benefit for the City due to the building intensity and high value of the proposed development. However, this positive benefit is less than that estimated for the existing restaurant use on the site. The 2006 General Plan designated the site for non-residential use, consistent with the office alternative. The office building would create more jobs and income, as well as revenue for the City, but it also increases the potential for higher services costs, mainly associated with increased traffic levels. As a result, the office alternative would not have a positive impact on the City budget. Overall, the General Plan increased development potential for commercial and lodging uses substantially, in addition to the new residential units it would permit. The net impact of the growth in land uses at buildout of the General Plan compared to existing land uses in 2006 when the plan was adopted, would result in a positive fiscal impact for the General Fund of $21.7 million per year, even though the office building alternative on the 101 Bayview Place site is not positive by itself.z Z Applied Development Economics, Fiscal Impact Analysis Land Use Element Amendment, April 4, 2014. p. 3. Applied Development Economics I Page 5 14-219 Attachment H Current Statistical Area J6 Section 423 Table 14-220 City of Newport Beach Charter Section 423 Tracking Table Statistical Area J6 (Santa Ana Heights) Post 2006 General Plan Amendments Approved Land Use Element November 28, 2018 Project Name Address Date Approved Project/GPA Number Amendment Description Square Footage Change Dwelling Unit Change AM Peak Hour Trip Change PM Peak Hour Trip Change None - - - - - - - 100% Totals 0 0 0 0 80% Totals 0 0 0 0 Remaining Capacity Without Vote 40,000 100 100 100 GPA—General Plan Amendment CLUP —Coastal Land Use Plan 100% Totals — Cumulative increases resulting from approved GPA's. Decreases are not included. 80% Totals - Charter Section 423 requires that 80% of square footage, dwelling unit and peak hour trip increases of "Prior Amendments" be tracked for a period of 10 years and added to proposed general plan amendments located within the same Statistical Area to determine if the 423 GPA Thresholds are exceeded and a vote of the electorate required. Decreases in any category are not tracked. Charter Section 423 Thresholds: 40,000 square feet of non-residential floor area, 100 dwelling units, 100 AM or PM Peak Hour trips 14-221 Attachment I Planning Commission Resolution 14-222 RESOLUTION NO. PC2018-033 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. ER2018-001 AND APPROVE THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2015-004, PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT NO. PD2015-005, MAJOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SD2015-007, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. UP2015-047, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DA2018-006 FOR A 120 -BED SENIOR CONVALESCENT AND CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY (RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY) LOCATED AT 101 BAYVIEW PLACE (PA2015-210) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. An application was filed by Harbor Pointe Senior Living LLC of California ("Applicant"), with respect to property located at 101 Bayview Place, and legally described as Lot 1 of Tract No. 12528 in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map recorded in Book 551 Pages 38 through 41 inclusive of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County ("Property"). 2. The Applicant proposes the demolition of an existing approximately eight thousand eight hundred (8,800) square -foot restaurant building ("Kitayama") to accommodate the development of an approximately eighty five thousand (85,000) square -foot, three-story senior convalescent and congregate care facility (i.e., memory care and assisted living as a State -licensed Residential Care Facility for the Elderly ["RCFE"]) with one hundred twenty (120) beds ("Project"). 3. In order to implement the Project, the Applicant requests the following approvals from the City of Newport Beach ("City"): General Plan Amendment ("GPA") — To change the land use designation for the Property from General Commercial Office ("CO -G") to Private Institutions ("PI"), and amend Anomaly No. 22 to replace the existing allowed development limits of eight thousand (8,000) square feet for restaurant or seventy thousand (70,000) square feet for office with eight five thousand (85,000) square feet for a residential care facility for the elderly ("RCFE") (Table LU2 and associated figures). Planned Community Development Plan Amendment (Zoning) — To change the allowed land uses and amend development standards in the Bayview Planned Community ("PC -32") Zoning District. 14-223 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2018-033 Page 2 of 29 • Major Site Development Review — To ensure site development is in accordance with the applicable planned community and zoning code development standards and regulations pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC") Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews). • Conditional Use Permit -- To allow the operation of a one hundred twenty (120) bed Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (memory care and assisted living facility). • Development Agreement — The applicant has requested a development agreement, which will provide for public benefits as the project is implemented. • Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") — To address reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts resulting from the legislative and project specific discretionary approvals pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). 4. The Property is located within the Bayview Planned Community ("PC -32") Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is General Commercial Office ("CO -G"). 5. The Property is not located within the coastal zone; therefore, a coastal development permit is not required. 6. A study session was held on February 23, 2017, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, to introduce the project to the Planning Commission. No action was taken at the study session. Although not required, the City mailed a courtesy public notice of this study session to property owners within a 300 -foot radius of the Property. 7. A study session was held on September 13, 2018, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California, to provide a project update to the Planning Commission and review the conclusions of the draft EIR. No action was taken at the study session. Although not required, the City mailed a courtesy public notice of this study session to property owners within a 300 -foot radius of the Property. 8. A public hearing was held on December 6, 2018, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code ("NBMC" ). Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. Pursuant to CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq., the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 15000 et seq.), and City Council Policy K-3, it was determined that the project could have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and thus warranted the preparation of an environmental impact report ("EIR"). 2. On July 22, 2016, the City, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of the EIR and mailed that NOP to responsible and trustee public agencies, organizations likely to be interested in the potential impacts, property owners 14-224 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2018-033 Paae 3 of 29 within a three hundred (300) foot radius of the Property, and any persons who had previously requested notice in writing. 3. On August 15, 2016, the City held a public scoping meeting to present the project and to solicit input from interested individuals, organizations, and responsible and trustee public agencies regarding environmental issues that should be addressed in the EIR. 4. A draft Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2016071062) ("DEIR") and errata have been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. 5. The DEIR was circulated for a fifty (50) day comment period beginning on August 10, 2018, and ending on September 28, 2018. The DEIR, comments, and responses to the comments were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project. 6. The Final EIR, consisting of the NOP, Initial Study, DEIR, Responses to Comments, Revisions to the DEIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibits "A" and "B," and incorporated herein by reference, were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project. 7. The Final EIR ("FEIR") does not identify any significant impacts to the environment, which are unavoidable. 8. Based on the entire environmental review record, the Project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse effects 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 anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and will reduce the potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. 9. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. 14-225 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2018-033 Paae 4 of 29 SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. General Plan and Planned Community Development Plan Amendments 1. Amendments to the General Plan and Planned Community Development Plan (i.e., "Zoning Code") are legislative acts and neither City nor State Planning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of such amendments. 2. The requested GPA from CO -G to PI does not eliminate existing or future land uses to the overall detriment of the community given the site's size, location, and surrounding uses. Numerous CO -G designated properties are located throughout the City that could accommodate restaurants and office buildings. Additionally, restaurants and office land uses are allowed in sixteen (16) office, commercial and mixed-use zoning districts. The proposed General Plan and PC text amendment allow only a residential care facility for the elderly and no other institutional uses. 3. The requested GPA and resulting land use change are compatible with the surrounding existing uses and planned land uses identified by the General Plan because the project would introduce an additional nonresidential land use along the Bristol Street corridor, which contains a mix of nonresidential uses abutting residential neighborhoods. The Project would help to ensure adequate accommodations are available to the City's aging population and is in furtherance of the policies set forth in the General Plan Land Use Element. 4. The requested GPA and resulting land use change is consistent with other applicable land use policies of the General Plan. a. Land Use Element Policy LU2.1 (Resident -Serving Land uses that support the needs of Newport Beach's reside retail, services, employment, social and spiritual activity resources and open space. recreation, education, cultu, that are in balance with tl Uses). Accommodate its including housing, e, entertainment, and e community natural The project would replace the existing restaurant and the possibility to construct a 70,000 -square -foot office building with a residential care facility for the elderly to serve the aging population, which comprises almost 25 percent of the City's total population according to latest available American Community Survey ("ACS") data. At present, there are approximately 685 beds in similar facilities citywide. b. Land Use Element Policy LU3.2 (Growth and Change). Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that 14-226 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2018-033 Page 5 of 29 distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. The Project would enhance the Bristol Street corridor by providing an updated building that complies with all current Building and Fire Codes. The change in use and increase in floor area are appropriate given that the project will provide additional, adequate accommodations for the City's aging population, which is continuing to grow, assisting the City to meet housing goals. Mitigation Measure MM FIRE -1 is included in the DEIR to help ensure emergency medical services are not compromised by helping to furnish an additional ambulance for the nearby Santa Ana Heights Fire Station No. 7. Furthermore, the project would result in a calculated overall decrease of average daily trips ("ADT") by 426, based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (°ITE's") 2017 Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition trip rates for restaurant and assisted living land uses. A restaurant land use of this size generates a calculated 738 average daily trips, while an assisted living facility of this size generates a calculated 312 average daily trips. c. Land Use Element Policy LU3.8 (Project Entitlement Review with Airport Land Use Commission). Refer the adoption or amendment of the General Plan, Zoning Code, specific plans, and Planned Community development plans for land within the John Wayne Airport planning area, as established in the JWA Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County for review, as required by Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities Code. In addition, refer all development projects that include buildings with a height greater than two hundred (200) feet above ground level to the ALUC for review. The ALUC will review this Project prior to City Council consideration, consistent with this Policy. d. Land Use Element Policy LU 5.2.2 (Buffering Residential Areas). Require that commercial uses adjoining residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible and minimize impacts through such techniques as: Incorporation of landscape, decorative walls, enclosed trash containers, downward focused lighting fixtures, and/or comparable buffering elements; Attractive architectural treatment of elevations facing the residential neighborhood; Location of automobile and truck access to prevent impacts on neighborhood traffic and privacy. AND 14-227 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2018-033 Pape 6 of 29 Land Use Element Policy LU5.6.1 (Compatible Development). Require that buildings and properties be designed to ensure compatibility within and as interfaces between neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. The project is designed to be compatible with the adjoining residential neighborhoods by incorporating a perimeter landscaping buffer and site walls, as well as an increased setback of 41 feet from the adjoining residential properties, where the development standards require 20 feet, for a proposed three-story building. Although landscaping will buffer the view of the building from the residences, the architectural treatment will be composed of varied materials including stacked stone columns, stone veneer and smooth stucco, stainless steel metal panels, glass windows, and concrete or composition shingle roofing. Although the drive aisle and entrance into the subterranean parking wraps around the building nearest the residential community to the south, it will be buffered by landscaping and taller site walls. Additionally, all of the day-to-day vehicular activity with employee shift changes and visitors will occur in the subterranean parking area, as well as at the front entrance near the corner of Bristol Street and Bayview Place. e. Land Use Element Policy LU5.6.2 (Form and Environment). Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns. The project's design will be architecturally compatible with the adjoining office buildings to the west and east, which are taller than the proposed building. Building materials consisting of smooth stucco, stainless steel metal panels, glass windows, and concrete or composition shingle roofing have also been selected to blend with and complement the residential neighborhoods to the west and south. The aesthetics of the project were also reviewed as part of the DEIR and no significant impacts were identified. f. Land Use Element Policy LU5.6.3 (Ambient Lighting). Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient lighting of their location. Although a final lighting design has not yet been created, Condition of Approval Nos. 29 and 30 are included to require a photometric survey and to help ensure there are no negative lighting impacts to neighboring uses. This will be reviewed prior to issuance of any building permit for new construction and a final inspection will be conducted to ensure the site is not excessively illuminated. g. Land Use Element Policy LU6.1.2 (Siting of New Development). Allow for the development of new public and institutional facilities within the City provided that 14-228 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2018-033 Paae 7 of 29 the use and facilities are compatible with adjoining land uses, environmentally suitable, and can be supported by transportation and utility infrastructure. The project will replace an existing nonresidential use with a RCFE, which will serve the City's aging population. The new construction will comply with all applicable requirements, as amended, including the maximum height limit currently allowed for a new building at this site. Although the project includes an increase in floor area, the amount of average daily trips (ADT) generated will be reduced from the current restaurant land use or the potential office land use. The Property is located in a nonresidential corridor along Bristol Street, which is developed with office buildings, supporting commercial uses, and a hotel. The proposed use will be compatible with adjoining residential, office, and hotel land uses. No significant unavoidable environmental impacts associated with the project were identified in the DEIR. The DEIR includes mitigation measures through the MMRP that will ensure any potentially significant environmental impacts are mitigated. The proposed land use is considered nonresidential, although it will act more residential in nature given that seniors needing assistance will be living in the facility. The project site buffers residential development from Bristol Street and the SR73 Freeway. Based on the analysis performed for the DEIR, project design and the quasi -residential use, the RCFE is anticipated to be compatible with the surrounding use. All existing streets and utilities are sufficient to support the project, as studied in the Technical Appendices to the DEIR. h. Land Use Element Policy LU6.1.3 (Architecture and Planning that Complements Adjoining Uses). Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure are designed to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with the district or neighborhood in which they are located, following the design and development policies for private uses specified by this Plan. Design impacts on adjoining uses shall be carefully considered in development addressing such issues as lighting spillover, noise, hours of operation, parking, local traffic impacts, and privacy. The project is located adjacent to professional office buildings. It is also near existing residential communities, however, the design maintains a setback of at least 41 feet to the nearest residentially zoned property and approximately 90 feet to the nearest residence. The majority of the building will also be set back approximately 15 feet from the property line abutting the Bristol Street right-of- way and 11 feet from the Bayview Place right-of-way. The project's construction will comply with all current regulatory requirements, including applicable height limits ensuring the scale and mass of construction will be compatible. A lighting plan has not been finalized. Conditions of Approval Nos. 29 and 30 are included to address any potential impacts on adjoining properties related to lighting spillover. Outdoor open spaces for residents of the facility are not proposed adjacent to the adjoining residential areas, which will help provide privacy for occupants of the facility, as well as for the nearby residents. The larger courtyard areas are internal and are buffered by the building, which will help to provide 14-229 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2018-033 Page 8 of 29 sound attenuation. Conditions of Approval Nos. 10 and 11 limit allowable hours for routine deliveries and trash pick-up, as well as visitors to the facility, which will help to ensure the hours are compatible with the adjoining neighborhood. All required parking is provided on-site. If there are any issues with parking in the future; Condition of Approval No. 9 ensures appropriate review by the Community Development Director as needed. The average number of daily trips to this type of facility is determined by the number of beds. When compared to the ITE's trip generation rates for a restaurant land use, there is a calculated reduction of average daily trips to the site and thus, no foreseeable local traffic impact. 5. City Council Policy A-18 requires that proposed GPAs be reviewed to determine if a vote of the electorate would be required pursuant to Section 423 of the City Charter. If a GPA (separately or cumulatively with other GPAs within the previous ten (10) years) generates more than one hundred (100) peak hour trips (a.m. or p.m.), adds forty thousand (40,000) square feet of nonresidential floor area, or adds more than one hundred (100) dwelling units in a statistical area, a vote of the electorate would be required if the City Council approves the GPA. a. This property is within Statistical Area J6. There have been no GPAs in Statistical Area J6 since the General Plan update in 2006. The amendment results in fifteen thousand (15,000) additional square feet of nonresidential floor area. There is no addition of dwelling units. The fifteen thousand (15,000) additional square feet for the proposed facility results in a net decrease of seventy five (75) a.m. peak hour trips and a net decrease of seventy four (74) p.m. peak hour trips. These decrease are based on the trip generation rates for the allowed general office building and a nursing home (i.e., best available comparable use in Council Policy A-18). b. As none of the thresholds specified by Charter Section 423 are exceeded, no vote of the electorate is required if the City Council chooses to approve GPA No. GP2015-004. 6. The proposed amendment to the PC -32 Zoning District meets the intent and purpose for a PC as specified in NBMC Section 20.56.010 (Planned Community District Procedures, Purpose). The property is located in the northern portion of Santa Ana Heights, which includes a mixture of commercial support uses, professional offices, a hotel, and residential developments. The amended PC -32 Development Plan is complimentary to the surrounding development, including the standards and allowed uses of the adjoining Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Area. 7. The proposed amendment to the PC -32 Development Plan would apply appropriate site and Project -specific setbacks, intensity, and height limits to the project site given the site's urban location and all required parking is provided onsite. The site is currently fully developed and does not support any natural resources. All potential environmental impacts associated with the Project are appropriately addressed through standard building permit procedures and the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR. 14-230 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2018-033 Paae 9 of 29 8. The future development of the property affected by the proposed amendments will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the PC -32 Development Plan. 9. A development agreement is requested by the applicant, as the Project would add nonresidential floor area within Statistical Area J6 (Airport Area). The development agreement includes all the mandatory elements for consideration and public benefits that are appropriate to support conveying the vested development rights consistent with the General Plan, NBMC, and Government Code Sections 65864 et seq. a. The public benefit in the proposed development agreement includes the payment of a public benefit fee and a mitigation impact fee in the amount of one million dollars and 001100 ($1,000,000.00). Major Site Development Review In accordance with NBMC Subsection 20.52.080(F) (Findings and Decision), the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. The proposed development is allowed within the subject zoning district. Fact in Support of Finding: The proposed Major Site Development Review for an approximately eighty five thousand (85,000) square -foot residential care facility for the elderly ("RCFE") is consistent with the proposed amendment to the PC -32 Development Plan, which would allow a residential care facility for the elderly, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. The RCFE would be a combined convalescent and congregate care facility. NBMC Chapter 20.70 (Definitions) defines convalescent facilities as establishments that provide care on a twenty four (24) hour basis for persons requiring regular medical attention. In this case, the convalescent facility is in the form of a twenty (20) bed memory care facility for Alzheimer and dementia patients. Congregate care is defined as housing built specifically for the elderly that provides services, such as an on-site meal program, housekeeping, laundry, social activities, and transportation. In this case, there will be one hundred (100) beds for congregate care with various shared amenities and services provided. The total number of beds between the two components will be one hundred twenty (120) within one hundred one (101) rooms. Finding. - B. The proposed development is in compliance with all of the following applicable criteria.- Compliance riteria. Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; 14-231 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2018-033 Paae 10 of 29 ii. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments, and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; iii. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; iv. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; v. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and vi. The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with NBMC Section 20.30. 100 (Public View Protection). Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Refer to above facts under Amendments, which discuss the Project's consistency with the proposed PI General Plan land use designation and the proposed amendment to PC -32 Development Plan. 2. The proposed structure will maintain a similar size and scale to that of the existing adjoining nonresidential buildings to the west and east along Bristol Street. The total gross floor area will be no more than eighty five thousand (85,000) square feet, which will be compliant with the maximum floor area allowed for a RCFE. The Project includes approximately 18,859 square feet of landscape area, which has been designed to meet NBMC Chapter 14.17 (Water -Efficient Landscape) requirements with respect to water efficiency. Although a photometric survey has not been provided, lighting of the building is conditioned to meet the requirements of the NBMC to mitigate impacts to neighboring properties. 3. The proposed structure complies with the pre- and post -amendment maximum height of thirty five (35) feet for this area of PC -32 from finish grade to the top of the uppermost ceiling with an additional ten (10) feet allowed for roofing and mechanical screening. All mechanical equipment on the rooftop will be screened in compliance with NBMC Subsection 20.30.020 (Buffering and Screening). 4. The proposed structure is required to comply with all Building and Fire Codes. The facility is required to obtain a license from the Department of Social Services (DSS) of the State of California for its operation. 5. The Project will be modern in appearance with building materials and finishes that include stone veneer and smooth stucco, stainless steel metal panels, glass windows, and concrete or composition shingle roofing. 14-232 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2018-033 Paae 11 of 29 6. Site access, including the drive aisles, driveways, parking and loading spaces have all been reviewed by the Public Works Department for adequacy, efficiency, and safety. The Project design complies with the required parking ratio of one parking space for every three beds (i.e., one hundred twenty (120) beds divided by three (3) = a minimum of forty (40) parking spaces). 7. The proposed setbacks would be greater than the currently required setbacks in the PC - 32 Development Plan. The Project is designed such that the building is set back a minimum of approximately forty one (41) feet from the adjacent residential properties. The setback area will be improved with parking areas, landscaping, and site walls to help buffer the site from adjacent residential uses. The building will also be set back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the Bristol Street property line and eleven (11) feet from the Bayview Place property line, which exceeds the current ten (10) foot minimum setback requirement. 8. All facility operations including, but not limited to, visiting hours and delivery hours to the facility are limited by the conditions of approval to help mitigate potential impacts to the adjacent residential neighbors. 9. The Project site does not have the potential to obstruct public views from public view points and corridors, as identified on General Plan Figure NR 3 (Coastal Views), to the Pacific Ocean, Newport Bay and Harbor, offshore islands, the Old Channel of the Santa River (the Oxbow Loop), Newport Pier, Balboa Pier, designated landmark and historic structures, parks, coastal and inland bluffs, canyons, mountains, wetlands, and permanent passive open space. The Project is not located near any public view points and there are no designated public views through or across the site. Finding: C. The proposed development is not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor will it endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of person residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Facts in Support of Findinq: 1. The Project has been designed to ensure that potential conflicts with surrounding land uses are minimized to the extent possible to maintain a healthy environment for both businesses and residents by providing an architecturally pleasing project with articulation and building modulations to enhance the urban environment consistent with development along Bristol Street. 2. The proposed building has been designed to accommodate and provide safe access for emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, and refuse collections vehicles, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. Emergency, refuse and delivery trucks will utilize the entry drive off Bayview Place at the easterly side of the Property. The final size, design, location, and screening of the refuse enclosures will comply with the requirements of 14-233 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2018-033 Paqe 12 of 29 NBMC Section 20.30.120 (Solid Waste & Recyclable Materials Storage), ensuring compatibility with the on-site and adjacent uses. 3. Conditions of approval are included to help ensure any potential impacts are limited, including, but not limited to: a. Conditions of Approval Nos. 29 and 30 require all outdoor lighting to meet the requirements of the Zoning Code, prohibiting light and glare spillage from the facility to the adjacent properties. This will be reviewed in more detail as part of the building permit plan check process. b. Condition of Approval No. 10 limits delivery and commercial trash pick-up hours to the facility to mitigate potential impacts to the adjacent neighbors. c. Condition of Approval No. 11 limits visiting hours to the facility to mitigate potential impacts to the adjacent neighbors. d. The noise from a convalescent and/or congregate care facility is typically low. Condition of Approval No. 32 helps to ensure that the use will comply with NBMC Chapter 10.26 (Community Noise Control). 4. The Project would introduce approximately one hundred twenty (120) new residents, which is a nominal increase in the City's overall total population. However, these types of facilities typically require more calls for emergency medical services than a residential community of the same size. Given the Project's location and its adjacency to currently proposed residential projects and projects under construction, the combined projects could impact the ability of emergency services to meet standard levels or jeopardize the ability to meet existing response times. As such, Mitigation Measure MM FIRER has been included in the EIR to ensure the Applicant contributes a fair share amount to the purchase, equipment, and personnel of a new rescue ambulance with patient transport and advanced life support (ALS) capabilities. This new ambulance would be stationed at the nearby Santa Ana Heights Fire Station No. 7 and would serve the Property, as well as the new projects within the airport area and existing development in the Santa Ana Heights area and other nearby communities. 5. The Irvine Ranch Water District ("IRWD") has sufficient water supply to serve the Project and has provided a conditional will -serve letter. Also, the project includes the installation of water -efficient fixtures in each care unit to reduce water use and landscape irrigation systems designed with weather sensors, timers, and low -flow irrigation devices. 6. The John Wayne Airport is located approximately 0.7 -mile northwest of the Property and is the nearest public airport. The Project is within the notification area of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. However, the Project is below the maximum transitional imagery surface heights, and thus the project is within the building height limits of the AELUP. A "No Hazard" determination was provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Property falls inside the Noise Impact Zone "2" — Moderate Noise Impact where uses would be exposed to noise between 60 and 14-234 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2018-033 Page 13 of 29 65 decibels (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The proposed use is considered "normally compatible" where conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice to insulate residents from the negative effects of aircraft noise. The project site is within Safety Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern Zone), where the likelihood of an accident is low. 7. The Project does not involve the use or manufacture of any hazardous substances that could impact nearby development. Moreover, project construction would comply with all applicable laws and regulations governing application and disposal of any hazardous materials discovered during construction. 8. Rooftop mechanical equipment is fully enclosed within an equipment screen and is not visible from the public right-of-way. 9. The new construction complies with all Building, Public Works, Fire Codes, City ordinances, and all conditions of approval. 10. A nonresidential structure has existed at this location since late 1986. The Project will improve the site with construction that complies with all current requirements and will reduce the overall average daily trips ("ADT") by approximately four hundred twenty six (426) per the 2017 Institute of Transportation Engineers ("ITE") Trip Generation Manual. 11. The Project would replace the Kitayama restaurant with a needed service for the aging population, which comprises almost twenty five (25) percent of the City's total population according to latest available American Community Survey ("ACS") data. Conditional Use Permit In accordance with NBMC Section 20.52.020(F) (Findings and Decision), the following findings and facts in support of such findings for a minor use permit are set forth: Finding: D. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; Fact in Support of Finding: The Project is consistent with the General Plan, as proposed to be amended. See all Facts in Support of Findings B and C above. Finding: E. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code; 14-235 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2018-033 Paae 14 of 29 Fact in Support of Finding: The Project complies with all NBMC and PC -32 development standards, as proposed to be amended, including, but not limited to, height, floor area, parking, and landscaping. See all Facts in Support of Findings A and B above. Finding: F. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity; Facts in Support of Finding: The Project will replace an existing nonresidential use with a new nonresidential use. At present, a seventy thousand (70,000) square foot office building could be allowed on the Property. The Project would be of similar bulk and scale, but would have a lesser trip generation. RCFE and similar assisted living facilities have very low ADT and peak - hour trip generation. All improvements will modernize and comprehensively upgrade the general appearance of the site. 2. The Property is located at the corner of Bayview Place and Bristol Street. The existing driveway entrance from Bayview Place will be maintained and used as the primary entry and exit. 3. The Property is immediately adjacent to professional office buildings to the west and east, which are both taller buildings. Also to the west is the Residential Single -Family ("RSF") District of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Area ("SP -7"). RSF properties are permitted to have structures with a maximum height of thirty five (35) feet. The Project is a quasi -residential use and complies with the maximum height limitations currently identified in the PC -32 Development Plan. It has been designed such that it will be compatible with the adjoining land uses. Multi -family condominiums are abutting the Project site to the south. All proposed construction will be set back a minimum of approximately forty one (41) feet from the property lines abutting the residential uses. The main drive aisle, landscaping, and a perimeter site will serve to further buffer those residential uses from the Project. 4. Condition of Approval No. 2 is included to limit the Project to 120 beds, which will ensure the operation does not intensify. 5. See all Facts in Support of Finding C above. Finding: G. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities; and 14-236 Planning Commission Resolution No, PC2018-033 Paae 15 of 29 Facts in Support of Finding: The Property is currently developed with a single driveway approach accessible from Bayview Place. The Project will maintain the existing driveway approach and will add another approach on Bristol Street for emergency vehicle access. 2. The Project site provides adequate parking and circulation including turn -around areas for deliveries. Conditions of approval are included to ensure compliance with all the circulation standards and the final plans are required to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 3. Adequate emergency vehicle access has been incorporated into the Project design. Conditions of approval are included to help ensure compliance with all emergency vehicle access requirements and the final plans are required to be approved by the Fire Department. 4. The IRWD currently services the site with water and sewer via mains that run through Bristol Street and Bayview Place. As part of the Project review, the IRWD issued a conditional will -serve letter, indicating the Project could be adequately served by its infrastructure. The Gas Company and Southern California Edison will continue to service the site through existing connections. Findin : H. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Fact in Support of Finding: See all Facts in Support of Finding C above. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends the City Council of the City of Newport Beach certify Environmental Impact Report No. ER2018- 001 (SCH No. 2016071062), as depicted in Exhibit "A," which consists of the notice of preparation, initial study, environmental analysis, alternatives analysis, appendices, responses to comments, and revisions to the draft EIR. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends the City Council of the City of Newport Beach approve the Mitigation Monitoring Report Program as depicted in Exhibit "B" of this resolution. 14-237 Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2018-033 Paae 16 of 29 3. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends the City Council of the City of Newport Beach approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2015- 004 as depicted in Exhibit "C," to replace the existing allowed development limits of eight thousand (8,000) square feet for restaurant or seventy thousand (70,000) square feet for an office with eighty five (85,000) square feet for a residential care facility for the elderly ("RCFE") (Table LU2 and associated figures), and to change the land use designation for the property from General Commercial Office ("CO -G") to Private Institutions ("PI"). 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends City Council approval of Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2015- 005 (Zoning) as depicted in Exhibit "D" to change the Bayview Planned Community (PC - 32) land use designation and revise the development standards to accommodate the Project. 5. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends City Council approval of Development Agreement No. DA2018-006, as set forth in Exhibit "E." 6. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends City Council approval of Site Development Review No. SD2015-007 and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-047, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit "F." PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 6Y" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018. AYES: Kleiman, Koetting, Kramer, Lowrey, Weigand and Zak NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Ellmore 14-238 Attachment J Planning Commission Minutes, December 6, 2018 14-239 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION ITEM NO. 4 HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING (PA2015-210) Site Location: 101 Bayview Place 12/06/2018 Summary: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing 8,800 -square -foot restaurant building (Kitayama) and construct a new 120 -bed Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (i.e., senior assisted living and memory care). The new facility would be approximately 85,000 square feet with three stories above a subterranean parking garage. The project site is 1.5 acres and is located at the corner of Bayview Place and Bristol Street. In order to implement the project, the applicant requests the following approvals from the City of Newport Beach: • General Plan Amendment (GPA)—To change the land use designation for the property from General Commercial Office (CO -G) to Private Institutions (PI) and to amend Anomaly No. 22 to replace the existing allowed development limits of 8,000 square feet for restaurant use for 70,000 square feet for office use with 85,000 square feet for a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE). • Planned Community Development Plan Amendment (Zoning)—To change the land use allowances and development standards for Area 5 of the Bayview Planned Community (PC -32) Zoning District to accommodate the proposed RCFE use. • Major Site Development Review—To ensure the site is developed in accordance with the General Plan and applicable planned community and zoning code development standards and regulations pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews). • Conditional Use Permit—To allow the operation of a 120 -bed RCFE. • Development Agreement—A development agreement providing development rights in exchange for public benefits. • Environmental Impact Report (EIR)—To identify and mitigate reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts resulting from project approval pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Recommended Action: 1. Conduct a public hearing; 2. Adopt Resolution No. PC2018-033 and attached exhibits recommending the City Council: a. Certify Environmental Impact Report No. ER2018-001; and b. Approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2015-004, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2015-005, Major Site Development Review No. SD2015-007, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-047, and Development Agreement No. DA2018-006. Associate Planner Benjamin Zdeba reported the site is currently developed with the Kitayama restaurant and is located south of the 73 freeway. John Wayne Airport is located northwest of the site, and Fletcher Jones and the Marriott hotel are located southeast of the site. Six -story and three-story office buildings, single -story single-family residences, two-story condominiums, and an eight -story hotel are located around the site. The General Plan land use designation for the site is General Commercial Office (CO -G), and the site is located within Area 5 of the Bayview Planned Community Zoning District. The applicant proposes a 120 -bed, approximately 85,000 -square -foot Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) of three stories over subterranean parking. The structure, as proposed, complies with the maximum height limit of the Bayview Planned Community. The applicant proposes 53 parking spaces, which exceeds the 40 parking spaces required by the Zoning Code, a 40 -foot setback to residential property, a 10 -foot setback to Bayview Place, 7of12 14-240 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 12/06/2018 and a 15 -foot setback to Bristol Street. The project requires a General Plan Amendment to change the land use from CO -G to PI and to increase the development limit from 70,000 square feet to 85,000 square feet; a Planned Community Amendment to allow the RCFE subject to a use permit; site development review; and a conditional use permit (CUP). The applicant proposes a development agreement to provide public benefits of $1 million as the project is implemented. Within the City of Newport Beach, 181 parcels totaling 171 acres have a CO -G designation. Seventy-seven additional parcels totaling 137 acres have a similar designation. With the amendment, the City would lose less than 1 percent of its CO -G inventory. The application was submitted on November 23, 2015, and the project has been revised several times. Employees, visitors, and residents will primarily access the site through the subterranean parking, which should eliminate concerns about noise. Trash collection will occur via the subterranean parking and the south end of the building. The trash collection area is located near the garages for the adjacent residential development. Drop-off and pick- up will occur at the roundabout. Emergency access will be provided by a gated entrance off Bristol Street. The height limit is 35 feet to the topmost ceiling with an additional 10 feet allowed for mechanical screening. The proposed structure will be 39 feet 6 inches to the topmost roof. Materials for the project include smooth stucco, stainless steel, glass, and stacked stone columns for the perimeter wall. A DEIR was released on August 10, 2018, and the comment period ended September 28, 2018. The DEIR includes mitigation measures for cultural resources, geology and soils, land use and planning, noise, and public services. During the comment period, the City received 82 written and 23 verbal comments, and staff provided responses to each comment. The comments did not raise any issues that required significant changes and/or recirculation of the DEIR. Mitigation measures include a fair -share payment for an ambulance to be located at Fire Station Number 7 and measures to reduce construction noise. Condition of Approval Number 9 requires future review of any changes to the project. Condition of Approval Number 10 restricts delivery and trash pickup to the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Condition of Approval Number 11 limits visiting hours to 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Condition of Approval Number 12 requires onsite parking and prohibits parking elsewhere. Condition of Approval Numbers 29 and 30 require a photometric survey to ensure outdoor lighting does not provide glare to nearby residences. Condition of Approval Number 37 requires that a Native American monitor be on-site during excavation. Condition of Approval Number 38 requires a construction management plan be approved prior to the issuance of building permits. Staff believes the project will create a quasi -residential project that will integrate well with surrounding uses. The project will serve the City's large aging population. If the Planning Commission approves staff's recommendation, staff will present the project to the Airport Land Use Commission and the City Council. Commissioners Kramer, Kleiman, Koetting, Secretary Lowrey, Vice Chair Weigand, and Chair Zak disclosed in-person and telephone conversations with the applicant's consultant and the applicant. Commissioner Koetting noted his conversation related to the timing of the hearing. Vice Chair Weigand indicated his conversation pertained to the merits of the application. Carol McDermott, applicant representative, advised that 25 percent of Newport Beach residents are over age 65. Existing facilities are few, were built quite some time ago, and do not represent the current standards. An RCFE is a specialized type of State licensing, is regularly inspected for care and safety standards, is a non- medical facility, and provides residents with personal assistance with daily living activities. Residents are over age 60. An RCFE can include assisted living and memory care services, but it does not provide drug rehabilitation services or nursing and medical care. Area 5 of the Bayview PC contains a mix of uses. The Bayview Planned Community was adopted in 1985, amended in 1987 to allow certain improvements in side yards, amended in 1995 to add land uses for bars, theaters, and nightclubs, and amended in 2010 to add land uses for medical office and outpatient surgery. Proposed changes to the Bayview Planned Community affect only Area 5, eliminate permitted uses other than RCFE, increase the setbacks from residential properties, provide a minimum parking requirement, and provide maximum building square footage. All other RCFE developments in the City are zoned Pl. The General Plan Amendment will change the anomaly table to restrict the site to RCFE use only. With the maximum number of employees onsite during shift change, the project will provide more parking spaces than needed. The project will provide a significant visual buffer from the adjacent residences through enhancements to the perimeter landscaping. In response to Planning Commission comments, the applicant added 1,000 square feet of landscaping area near the entrance for assisted -living residents only. The applicant will request the Planning Commission consider allowing trash trucks to exit the property through the emergency access gate. The project incorporates features that are consistent with the design standards for Santa Ana Heights. Mature landscaping will fill gaps and screen the project site from the garages and parking area of Santa Ana Heights. The nearest Santa Ana Heights home is located 95 feet from the proposed building. The EIR analyzed 13 elements and determined there are no 8of12 14-241 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 12/06/2018 significant impacts. The City's traffic consultant determined that the project will generate 400 fewer daily trips than Kitayama, the existing restaurant use on-site. The two main issues raised during the comment period for the EIR were land use and traffic. The City finds that the project creates no significant environmental effects. The construction phase will be 12-14 months. Construction noise mitigation measures include a 10 -foot noise barrier along the perimeter of the property, an onsite noise disturbance monitor, limits on construction hours and days, and limits on the types and proximity of construction equipment. In response to a question raised during the study session, the State does not have a licensing standard for the amount of usable open space available to residents. The State will evaluate the adequacy of open space stated in a license application. The project proposes 3,700 square feet of open space in the main internal courtyards, 1,200 square feet in the roof deck, and 1,000 square feet around the library patio. The Fire Department retains the right to decide an emergency vehicle route on a case-by-case basis. The emergency access on Bristol can be used as both an entrance and exit to the site. The State requires an emergency evacuation plan as part of licensing, and the applicant will work with the Fire Department and State to obtain it. Emergency vehicles do not normally use sirens in residential areas. An RCFE's license is issued by the Department of Social Services through the State Senior Care Licensing Program. Following the September 13 study session, the applicant worked with staff to draft a development agreement and a $1 million public benefit, to narrow the General Plan Amendment and zoning to RCFE only, to increase the amount of open space, to enhance the architecture, and to enhance landscaping. Ms. McDermott indicated one resident who lives immediately adjacent to the site and who could not be present and could not provide a statement prior to the meeting is not opposed to the project. The applicant agrees to staff's recommended conditions of approval. In answer to questions from the Planning Commission, Ms. McDermott agreed to consider ending visiting hours at 10:00 p.m. Shade in the internal courtyards may extend for a few minutes or a few hours depending on the angle of the sun and the time of year. The internal courtyards will not be shaded all day. The rooftop and library garden are not impacted by shade and shadows. The project will have no impact on neighboring properties. Chair Zak opened the public hearing. Kirk Snyder, 41 Baycrest Court and Bayview Court Homeowners Association (HOA) President, reported the HOA and other HOAs intend to challenge the project in court because a precedent -setting zoning change threatens every community in the City. The vast majority of the community objects to the project because it requires a zoning change that could allow many negative businesses on the site in the future. He explained that according to Mr. Zdeba, the City has never changed a designation to PI for a site located within a Planned Community. Jodi Estwick, Newport Coast and People for Housing, remarked that more care facilities would be good for residents to age in place. Zoning needs to accommodate the aging population. She supported the project. Patti Lampman, 140 Baycrest Court, felt the General Plan should be updated prior to the Planning Commission approving or denying the project. Over the past week, she contacted six memory care facilities in the area, and each one has openings. The need for another facility does not appear to be urgent. She wanted to know the cost for residents of the facility. Vivante is planning an additional 112 assisted living units on a site zoned for the use. If approved, the Vivante project will open in early 2020. Rhonda Watkins, 58 Baycrest, believed the project is wholly incompatible with the neighborhood. The site is a perfect location for an office building. Rezoning the site to PI will result in a daily flood of visitors and congestion in the area. The bulk and size of the project are unacceptable. Dave O'Keefe, 20082 Bayview Avenue, supported the project. Residents of Bayview and Vista will not be able to see the facility and will not drive by it. The community needs this type of facility. Steve Greer, Bayview Terrace, supported the project. The project will be a good business for the community and will provide care for aging residents. The applicant has revised the project in response to community concerns. Mr. Habeeb is a credible, local businessperson and has experience in this type of facility. Tom Dallape, 2532 Vista Drive, supported the project as assisted living and memory care facilities are a necessity. Having facilities in the City will allow residents to care for their relatives. 9of12 14-242 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 12/06/2018 Patrick Moriarty, 3085 Corte Portofino, related that he and his family have not found a facility of the quality proposed for Harbor Pointe for his aging parents. The quality of the project and its location within walking distance of his home appeal to his family. He supported the project. Robert Attia [phonetic] remarked that assisted living facilities provide activities for residents and allow residents of similar ages to live in the same location. These types of facilities are needed in the community. Patricia Blakeney, Zenith Street, did not oppose assisted living facilities but the location of the proposed project. The site is not designed for an assisted living facility. From the appearance of the project, many people cannot afford to live there. The project will use considerably more water than the existing restaurant. She questioned the location of parking should valet parking be needed. Dave Tax supported the project as a quiet and unobtrusive use of the property. The project will provide much- needed services for the elderly and the community. Alternative uses of the site would provide greater noise and traffic impacts. He supported the project. Mike Smith, Bayview Avenue, inquired regarding potential future designations of the site if the project is approved; consequences to the RCFE if the applicant changes or sells the business; the ability to limit the RCFE to a life of 20 or 50 years; and details of the $1 million payment. Lyle Brakob, 6 Baycrest Court, commented that noise from the airport will be a problem for residents of the facility. The traffic survey probably misrepresents the true numbers. He opposed the project. Jim Mosher suggested the Planning Commission should not approve the form of the changes to the table for Anomaly 22 as the Marriott hotel is not listed in any anomaly. In the greenlight analysis, the staff report does not explain who chooses whether a project will be 8,000 square feet or 70,000 square feet. The project does not count as housing toward the green light limit. He questioned whether the City Council had any involvement in negotiating the development agreement and whether staff identified a General Plan policy with which the project may conflict. The project does not provide sufficient sunny open space for residents. Greg Carroll, 20101 Bayview Avenue, indicated the project will not provide enough sunshine for residents and will shade adjacent properties. The emergency access onto Bristol is an issue because of the traffic on Bristol. The existing restaurant does not generate more than 700 trips daily. The project will generate more trips than reported. Ms. McDermott explained that an RCFE designation will run with the land. Any potential future use will have to conform to all conditions of approval. The traffic volume for a restaurant will change depending on the seasons and any specials the restaurant may offer; therefore, average traffic volume is used for traffic standards. The project is compatible with the City's Housing Element and Traffic Element and does not affect the remaining elements of the General Plan. The proposed open space is consistent and appropriate for residents' needs. A pathway around the building will accommodate a walker, a wheelchair, and an aide. The project will generate very little traffic and will not contribute to peak hour traffic. Chair Zak closed the public hearing. In reply to Commissioners' queries, City Traffic Engineer Brine reported staff used the trip generation rates for a quality restaurant and for an assisted living facility contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual. The 732 trips for Kitayama was based on the square footage of the restaurant. The 312 trips for Harbor Pointe was based on the number of beds proposed for the facility. The rate for Kitayama was based on a quality restaurant, not necessarily Kitayama, because another quality restaurant could go onto the site without discretionary approval. A fast food restaurant generates more trips than a quality restaurant. The Fire Department will determine the best point of access to the property at the time access is needed. Associate Planner Zdeba advised that the project is served by the Irvine Ranch Water District. The Irvine Ranch Water District has indicated it can provide sufficient water to the project based on existing infrastructure. A mitigation measure requires the developer to notify potential residents of noise created by airplanes arriving and departing from John Wayne Airport. The project is located outside the noise contours where residential uses are considered incompatible. Deputy Community Development Director Campbell related that the applicant 10 of 12 14-243 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 12/06/2018 requested a development agreement, and staff negotiated the terms of the development agreement. The City Council was not involved in negotiating the development agreement. Public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council are part of the process for considering a development agreement. The site, as currently zoned, can accommodate an 8,000 -square -foot restaurant or a 70,000 -square -foot office building. Changing the use to an office building or a fast food restaurant could require a traffic study depending on the amount of traffic the use would generate based on the ITE manual. A change could be subject to a site development review application as well. City Traffic Engineer Brine added that a 70,000 -square -foot office building would generate 682 trips, which is less than the number of trips generated by an 8,000 -square -foot quality restaurant. Based on the reduction in trips generated, a traffic study would not be required. Ms. McDermott explained that the marketing study indicates the demographics of Newport Beach and the surrounding area over the next few years will justify the investment in the property. The marketing study is on file with the application. Associate Planner Zdeba noted the project is evaluated on its merits and is unique to the site. An RCFE is specified in the development table under Anomaly 22. If an applicant proposes changing the RCFE use in the future, the application would be subject to a public hearing and public process. The proposed use would be evaluated with new traffic counts and trip generation rates based on the new land use. In its review, staff did not identify any General Plan policies that conflict with the project. Vice Chair Weigand stated 13.9 million Californians will be age 60 and older by 2050. As the population ages, the demand for assisted living facilities will increase. The project as a whole is important to the City of Newport Beach and worthy of the Planning Commission's support. One of the goals of the Planning Commission should be to improve the quality of life of residents, which the proposed project does. The applicant has done its due diligence and worked with the surrounding community to provide a project that fits the area. The merits and needs of the project have been fulfilled. He supported the project. Commissioner Kramer remarked that over the three years the application has been pending, staff and the Planning Commission have carefully reviewed the project. The applicant has made numerous changes to the original plan. The General Plan allows amendments, and one of the Planning Commission's duties is to review them. The project does not set a precedent. The site will be conditioned as RCFE only, which severely limits any future use on the site. The EIR found no significant impacts. Demand for the use exists in Newport Beach. One of the Planning Commission's roles is to plan for all segments and ages within the City, particularly those in need of the most care. The design of the facility is intelligent and compatible with the larger area. Motion made by Commissioner Kramer and seconded by Vice Chair Weigand to adopt Resolution No. PC2018- 033 and attached exhibits recommending the City Council certify Environmental Impact Report No. ER2018- 001 and approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2015-004, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2015-005, Major Site Development Review No. SD2015-007, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-047, and Development Agreement No. DA2018-006. Chair Zak commented that the Planning Commission's role is to evaluate zoning standards, consider environmental impacts, and determine whether a project fits the criteria. The proposed project will be less impactful than other uses allowed under the current zoning standards. AYES: Zak, Weigand, Lowrey, Kleiman, Koetting, Kramer NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Ellmore I FOR RECONSIDERATION r --BY THE COMMUNITY. DEME A 'PLANNING ..00-M.MISS.ION 11 of 12 14-244 Attachment K Planning Commission Staff Report, December 6, 2018 14-245 SUBJECT: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT December 6, 2018 Agenda Item No. 4 Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) ■ General Plan Amendment No. GP2015-004 ■ Planned Community Amendment No. PD2015-005 • Site Development Review No. SD2015-007 • Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-047 ■ Development Agreement No. DA2018-006 ■ Environmental Impact Report No. ER2018-001 SITE LOCATION: 101 Bayview Place APPLICANT: Harbor Pointe Senior Living LLC OWNER: Kodaka, Inc. PLANNER: Benjamin M. Zdeba, AICP, Associate Planner 949-644-3253, bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant proposes the demolition of an existing approximately 8,800 -square -foot restaurant building (Kitayama) to accommodate the development of an approximately 85,000 -square -foot, three-story senior convalescent and congregate care facility (i.e., memory care and assisted living as a State -licensed Residential Care Facility for the Elderly [RCFE]). The project site is approximately 1.5 acres in area and is located at the corner of Bristol Street and Bayview Place. In order to implement the project, the applicant requests the following approvals from the City of Newport Beach (City): General Plan Amendment (GPA) — To change the land use designation for the property from General Commercial Office (CO -G) to Private Institutions (PI), and to amend Anomaly No. 22 to replace the existing allowed development limits of 8,000 square feet for restaurant or 70,000 square feet for office with 85,000 square feet for a residential care facility for the elderly (RCFE) (see Page 3-18 of the General Plan Land Use Element, Table LU2 Anomaly Locations and associated figures). Planned Community Development Plan Amendment (Zoning) — To change the allowed land uses and amend development standards in the Bayview Planned Community (PC -32) Zoning District for the proposed facility. Major Site Development Review — To ensure site development is in accordance with the applicable planned community and zoning code development standards and regulations pursuant to Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews). 14-246 • Conditional Use Permit — To allow the operation of a 120 -bed Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (memory care and assisted living facility). Development Agreement — The applicant has requested a development agreement, which will provide for public benefits as the project is implemented. • Environmental Impact Report (EIR) — To address reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts resulting from the legislative and project specific discretionary approvals pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) Adopt Resolution No. PC2018-033 (Attachment No. PC 1) and attached Exhibits recommending the City Council: a) Certify Environmental Impact Report No. ER2018-001; and b) Approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2015-004, Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2015-005, Major Site Development Review No. SD2015-007, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-047, and Development Agreement No. DA2018-006. 2 14-247 VICINITY MAP ro M1 � t C GENERAL PLAN ZONING P 4 LOCATION GENERAL PLA F ZONING CURRENT USE ON-SITE General Commercial Office CO -G Bayview Planned Communit PC -32 Kita ama Restaurant NORTH General Commercial (CG) Newport Place Planned Community Multi -tenant commercial Mixed -Use Horizontal MU -H2 PC -1'i office buildings and retail SOUTH Multiple Family Residential RM PC -32 F Ba crest Community Multi -tenant office EASTF -_ CO -G PC -32 buildin s WEST CO -G Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Area Multi -tenant office IFSP-7 buildin s and residential S 14-248 4 14-249 DISCUSSION Background The project application was submitted in November 2015. The original proposal was a 144 -bed, approximately 110,000 -square -foot Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) with five stories and subterranean parking. Initially, staff expressed concerns with respect to the building's bulk and scale, as well as the requested change to the allowable height. As part of the CEQA process, a scoping meeting was held in August 2016, and was attended by approximately 30 nearby residents. Many commenters expressed similar concern with the building's mass and the institutional land use being adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The City also received a petition with over 500 signatures opposing the application. In an effort to address concerns, the applicant redesigned the project with 121 beds, approximately 90,000 square feet and four stories. At a Planning Commission study session held in February 2017, the applicant presented the revised project and received feedback from both the Commission and the public. Staff also reiterated concerns about the building's bulk and scale. In June 2018, the applicant submitted a revised project with 120 beds, approximately 85,000 square feet and three stories. A major component of the redesign included lowering the building height to be compliant with the site's current height limit. On September 13, 2018, another Planning Commission study session was held and the downsca led project was re -introduced. In response to some of the feedback received, the applicant created an additional open space amenity for residents of the facility. The project is described in detail in the following section. Project Description The applicant proposes to demolish the approximately 8,800 -square -foot, single -story Kitayama restaurant and replace it with an 84,517 -square -foot, three-story building over a basement parking level. The new building will be occupied by a RCFE with senior assisted living and memory care (i.e., congregate care and convalescent facility). The structure will be 33 feet to the top of the roof; however, mechanical equipment behind screening elements will be up to 39 feet, 6 inches in height. The exterior will include varying wall planes to provide building modulation on all fagades. The structure will maintain a setback of 41 feet to the southwest property line near the Baycrest condominiums, as well as 41 feet to the northwest property line adjacent to an office building and single-family residences. The proposed setbacks are larger than the currently required setbacks thereby resulting in greater separation between the proposed facility and residential properties than required. A setback of 15 feet will be provided from the Bristol Street property line to the north and a setback of 11 feet will be provided from the Bayview Place property line to the east. All areas within these setback areas that are 5 14-250 not used as vehicular access will be landscaped to provide a buffer from the street (See Sheet Al — Site Plan in Attachment No. PC 11). The new facility will operate as a twenty -four-hour RCFE and will be licensed by the State Department of Social Services (DSS). As proposed, there will be 81 assisted living care units (42 "studios," 27 single -bed rooms, and 12 two -bed rooms) and 20 memory care care units (13 single -bed rooms and 7 two -bed rooms) with 120 total beds. Each floor of the building will have support spaces, such as laundry, kitchen, and dining areas. Several amenities will also be provided to residents including a theater, community store, fitness room, spa, salon, library, copy room, computer lab, grill/cafe, quiet room, and an activity room. In addition, the project design includes 5,406 square feet of outdoor gardens for residents, which are surrounded by walls such that they are private and secure. The proposed building will be a modern design with architecture that includes stacked stone columns at the entry, stone veneer and stucco at the exterior of the building, stainless steel metal panels at accent areas, glass windows, and concrete or composition shingle roofing. While many of the existing mature trees surrounding the site will be protected and retained as part of the project, the entire site will be upgraded with approximately 18,859 square feet of new landscaping. Visiting hours would be limited to between 7 a.m. and 11 p.m., seven days a week. No special events will be held at the facility. As proposed, the facility will operate with 10 to 20 employees working staggered shifts between the daytime business hours. Only during shift changes could a total of 30 employees be present at the facility. Although only a rough estimate over one 24-hour period, it is anticipated that there will be three shift changes per day, each lasting approximately 30 minutes. The employees will serve residents by providing personal care, medication management, dining, activities, housekeeping, maintenance, transportation, and management services. Personal care and medication management services are provided twenty-four hours per day. On-site parking is provided for residents', employees, visitors, and deliveries with adequate circulation and turn -around areas based upon staff's review of the proposed plans. A total of 53 on-site parking spaces will be provided to serve the facility, all contained within a proposed subterranean parking structure beneath the building. The proposed design exceeds the Zoning Code required parking ratio of one parking space for every three beds (i.e., 120 beds / 3 = a minimum of 40 parking spaces) with a surplus of 13 parking spaces provided on-site. Parking ratios, such as this, are a blended rate that take into account the entire operation, including residents, visitors and employees. The facility is anticipated to receive up to two scheduled food deliveries per week, which would be received at the front of the building off Bayview Place. Loading, unloading, and ' Memory care residents do not drive. Based on the operator's experience, only up to five percent of the assisted living residents may own a vehicle and drive (i.e., between four and five residents considering 93 assisted living beds). 0 14-251 other deliveries would also occur in this same location. Refuse collection would occur at the southerly portion of the building in front of the trash enclosure and within the 41 -foot buffer to the residential neighborhood. Refuse collection vehicles would use the emergency access gate on Bristol Street to exit the site, which would eliminate potential circulation conflicts and limit the use of a truck's backing signal. In the event of an emergency, emergency services personnel would have the option of using a Knox Box to access the vehicle entry on Bristol Street. The applicant's complete project description and justification are included as Attachment No. PC 3. Existing Land Use/Setting The 1.5 -acre project site is located in the northernmost portion of the Santa Ana Heights area and just south of the Airport Area, across the 73 freeway (SR -73). The site is immediately bound by Bristol Street and SR -73 on the northeast, Bayview Place and a six -story office building complex on the southeast, Baycrest condominiums on the southwest, and a three-story office building with parking below and the Santa Ana Heights residential neighborhood to the northwest. Currently, the project site is accessed by a driveway on Bayview Place, located along the southeastern boundary. Access to Bayview Place is provided by Bristol Street to the northeast and Bayview Way to the south. Jamboree Road is approximately two-tenths of a mile east of the project site. SR -73 is located approximately 175 feet north of the site. The property is presently developed with an approximately 8,800 -square -foot restaurant (Kitayama). The Kitayama building is a single -story structure with a 111 -space surface parking lot, based on research of City records. The parking lot extends from the restaurant building and immediately adjoins the residential properties to the southwest and northwest. The General Plan land use designation for the property is General Commercial Office (CO -G). The property is designated as Anomaly No. 22, and the maximum development capacity is either 8,000 square feet for a restaurant or 70,000 square feet for an office. The CO -G designation is intended to provide for administrative, professional, and medical offices with limited accessory retail and service uses. Hotels, motels, and convalescent hospitals are not permitted. It should be noted that the existing restaurant building exceeds the allowed floor area based on the most recent site survey. Implementation of the proposed project would eliminate the inconsistency. The site is located in the Area 5 (Restaurant, Professional and Administrative Offices) Subarea of the Bayview Planned Community (PC -32) Zoning District, which allows a variety of uses from restaurants, bars, theaters, and nightclubs to animal hospitals, welding shops, and wholesale bakeries. 7 14-252 Legislative Amendments — GPA and PC Text Prior to considering project specific design, the Planning Commission should consider whether the project site is appropriate for the proposed use and development intensity. Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Plan, as well as the amendment to the Bayview Planned Community Development Plan are legislative acts. Neither City nor State Planning Law set forth required findings for approval or denial of such amendments. However, when making a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission should consider whether the proposed amendment meets applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. The subsequent sections analyze consistency with the General Plan goals and policies, Charter Section 423, SB -18, and AB -52 (Tribal Consultation Guidelines), and the proposed amendment to the Planned Community Development Plan. General Plan Amendment (GPA) The City's General Plan, approved in 2006, describes the City's overall vision and what the community hopes to have achieved by 2025. The General Plan establishes goals, policies, and development limits. Increases in development intensity beyond these limits require a review and recommendation from the Planning Commission and City Council approval through a General Plan amendment. The proposed GPA is from General Commercial Office (CO -G) to Private Institutions (PI) with a maximum development limit of 85,000 square feet for a RCFE. If approved, Anomaly No. 22 would be amended to only include the proposed land use. The amendment also increases the allowed floor area from 70,000 square feet to 85,000 square feet (Refer to Attachment No. PC 1, Exhibit C for an exhibit of the proposed land use change). Land Use Goals and Policies The General Plan's Land Use Element includes policies, which directly affect the maintenance of the neighborhoods, districts, corridors and open spaces that contribute to Newport Beach's livability, vitality, and image. Several of these policies are applicable to the proposed project and are analyzed in Table 1. Overall, the proposed land use amendment is in furtherance of many policies, which is a major consideration for any General Plan amendment. There are no area -specific policies that affect the project site, as the site is not located in an identified planning area. Q 14-253 General Plan Policy Land Use Element Policy LU2.1 (Resident -Serving Land Uses) Accommodate uses that support the needs of Newport Beach's residents including housing, retail, services, employment, recreation, education, culture, entertainment, and social and spiritual activity that are in balance with the community natural resources and open space. Land Use Element Policy LU3.2 (Growth and Change) Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. Land Use Policy LU3.8 (Project Entitlement Review with the Airport Land Use Commission) How does it comply? The project would replace the existing restaurant and the possibility to construct a 70,000 -square -foot office building with a residential care facility for the elderly to serve the aging population, which comprises almost 25 percent of the City's total population according to latest available American Community Survey (ACS) data. At present, there are approximately 685 beds in similar facilities citywide. The project would enhance the Bristol Street corridor by providing an updated building that complies with all current Building and Fire Codes. The change in use and increase in floor area are appropriate given that the project will provide additional, adequate accommodations for the City's aging population, which is continuing to grow, assisting the City to meet housing goals. Mitigation Measure MM FIRE -1 is included in the DEIR to help ensure emergency medical services are not compromised by helping to furnish an additional ambulance for the nearby Santa Ana Heights Fire Station No. 7. Furthermore, the project would result in a calculated overall decrease of average daily trips (ADT) by 426, based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE's) 2017 Trip Generation Manual, 1011 Edition trip rates for restaurant and assisted living land uses. A restaurant land use of this size generates a calculated 738 average daily trips, while an assisted living facility of this size generates a calculated 312 average daily trips. The ALUC will review this project prior to City Council consideration, consistent with this Policy. 9 14-254 Refer the adoption or amendment of the General Plan, Zoning Code, specific plans, and Planned Community development plans for land within the John Wayne Airport planning area, as established in the JWA Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP), to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County for review, as required by Section 21676 of the California Public Utilities Code. In addition, refer all development projects that include buildings with a height greater than 200 feet above ground level to the ALUC for review. Land Use Element Policy LU5.2.2 (Buffering Residential Areas) Require that commercial uses adjoining residential neighborhoods be designed to be compatible and minimize impacts through such techniques as: • Incorporation of landscape, decorative walls, enclosed trash containers, downward focused lighting fixtures, and/or comparable buffering elements; • Attractive architectural treatment of elevations facing the residential neighborhood; • Location of automobile and truck access to prevent impacts on neighborhood traffic and privacy. Land Use Element Policy LU5.6.1 (Compatible Development) Require that buildings and properties be designed to ensure compatibility within and as interfaces between neighborhoods, districts, and corridors. The project is designed to be compatible with the adjoining residential neighborhoods by incorporating a perimeter landscaping buffer and site walls, as well as an increased setback of 41 feet from the adjoining residential properties, where the development standards require 20 feet, for a proposed three-story building. Although landscaping will buffer the view of the building from the residences, the architectural treatment will be composed of varied materials including stacked stone columns, stone veneer and smooth stucco, stainless steel metal panels, glass windows, and concrete or composition shingle roofing. Although the drive aisle and entrance into the subterranean parking wraps around the building nearest the residential community to the south, it will be buffered by landscaping and taller site walls. Additionally, all of the day- to-day vehicular activity with employee shift changes and visitors will occur in the subterranean parking area, as well as at the front entrance near the corner of Bristol Street and Bayview Place. 1-0 14-255 Land Use Element Policy LU5.6.2 (Form and Environment) Require that new and renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open spaces, or adversely modify wind patterns. Land Use Element Policy LU5.6.3 (Ambient Lighting) Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient lighting of their location. Land Use Element Policy LU6.1.2 (Siting of New Development) Allow for the development of new public and institutional facilities within the City provided that the use and facilities are compatible with adjoining land uses, environmentally suitable, and can be supported by transportation and utility infrastructure. The project's design will be architecturally compatible with the adjoining office buildings to the west and east, which are taller than the proposed building. Building materials consisting of smooth stucco, stainless steel metal panels, glass windows, and concrete or composition shingle roofing have also been selected to blend with and complement the residential neighborhoods to the west and south. The aesthetics of the project were also reviewed as part of the DEIR and no significant impacts were identified. Although a final lighting design has not yet been created, Condition of Approval Nos. 29 and 30 are included to require a photometric survey and to help ensure there are no negative lighting impacts to neighboring uses. This will be reviewed prior to issuance of any building permit for new construction and a final inspection will be conducted to ensure the site is not excessively illuminated. The project will replace an existing nonresidential use with a RCFE, which will serve the City's aging population. The new construction will comply with all applicable requirements, as amended, including the maximum height limit currently allowed for a new building at this site. Although the project includes an increase in floor area, the amount of average daily trips (ADT) generated will be reduced from the current restaurant land use or the potential office land use. The Property is located in a nonresidential corridor along Bristol Street, which is developed with office buildings, supporting commercial uses, and a hotel. The proposed use will be compatible with adjoining residential, office, and hotel land uses. No significant unavoidable environmental impacts associated with the project were identified in the DEIR. The DEIR includes mitigation measures through the T- L 14-256 Land Use Element Policy LU6.1.3 (Architecture and Planning that Complements Adjoining Uses) Ensure that the City's public buildings, sites, and infrastructure are designed to be compatible in scale, mass, character, and architecture with the district or neighborhood in which they are located, following the design and development policies for private uses specified by this Plan. Design impacts on adjoining uses shall be carefully considered in development addressing such issues as lighting spillover, noise, hours of operation, parking, local traffic impacts, and privacy. MMRP that will ensure any potentially significant environmental impacts are mitigated. The proposed land use is considered nonresidential, although it will act more residential in nature given that seniors needing assistance will be living in the facility. The project site buffers residential development from Bristol Street and the SR73 Freeway. Based on the analysis performed for the DER, project design and the quasi - residential use, the RCFE is anticipated to be compatible with the surrounding use. All existing streets and utilities are sufficient to support the project, as studied in the Technical Appendices to the DEIR. The project is located adjacent to professional office buildings. It is also near existing residential communities; however, the design maintains a setback of at least 41 feet to the nearest residentially zoned property and approximately 90 feet to the nearest residence. The majority of the building will also be set back approximately 15 feet from the property line abutting the Bristol Street right- of-way and 11 feet from the Bayview Place right-of-way. The project's construction will comply with all current regulatory requirements, including applicable height limits ensuring the scale and mass of construction will be compatible. A lighting plan has not been finalized. Conditions of Approval Nos. 29 and 30 are included to address any potential impacts on adjoining properties related to lighting spillover. Outdoor open spaces for residents of the facility are not proposed adjacent to the adjoining residential areas, which will help provide privacy for occupants of the facility, as well as for the nearby residents. The larger courtyard areas are internal and are buffered by the building, which will help to provide sound attenuation. Conditions of Approval Nos. 10 and 11 limit allowable hours for routine deliveries and trash pick-up, as well as visitors to the facility, which will help to ensure the hours are compatible with the adjoining neighborhood. All required parking is provided on-site. If there 12 14-257 are any issues with parking in the future; Condition of Approval No. 9 ensures appropriate review by the Community Development Director as needed. The average number of daily trips to this type of facility is determined by the number of beds. When compared to the ITE's trip generation rates for a restaurant land use, there is a calculated reduction of average daily trips to the site and thus, no foreseeable local traffic impact. Analysis of the Potential Loss of General Commercial Office Designated Land Staff considered the impact of the proposed land use change on the ability to maintain and continue to provide for appropriate commercial office uses in the Santa Ana Heights area, as well as the adjacent airport area and the broader community. The General Plan indicates the following for the CO -G land use category: The CO -G designation is intended to provide for administrative, professional, and medical offices with limited accessory retail and service uses. Hotels, motels, and convalescent hospitals are not permitted. Citywide there are approximately 181 parcels totaling over 171 acres with the CO -G designation. There are also 77 additional parcels that are designated similarly (Medical Commercial Office "CO -M" and Regional Commercial Office "CO -R") totaling over 137 acres. As indicated in the description, the main land use intended for these areas is commercial office with supporting commercial uses. In addition to the CO -G designated properties with a corresponding office zoning district, office and restaurant land uses are allowed either "by right" or by use permit in 16 zoning districts and several planned communities, including the Bayview Planned Community (PC -32) Zoning District. Additionally, staff believes the loss of 1.5 acres from the CO -G inventory (less than one percent) is acceptable and the remaining CO -G properties, as well as the multiple other commercial designated properties, provide sufficient opportunities for office and supporting nonresidential land uses throughout the City. Charter Section 423 (Measure S) Analysis Pursuant to City Charter Section 423 and Council Policy A-18 (Guidelines for Implementing Charter Section 423), an analysis must be prepared to establish whether a proposed GPA (if approved) requires a vote by the electorate. The amendment would be combined with 80 percent of the increases in traffic, dwelling units, and non-residential 1S 14-258 floor area allowed by previous CPAs (approved within the preceding ten years) within the same statistical area. The following thresholds are applicable: 100 dwelling units, 100 a.m. peak hour trips, 900 p.m. peak hour trips, or 40,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area. If any of the thresholds are exceeded and the City Council approves the requested GPA, it would be classified as a "major amendment" and be subject to voter consideration. Approved amendments, other than those approved by the electorate, are tracked for ten years and factored into the analysis of future amendments within the same statistical area as indicated. The project site is located within Statistical Area J6 of the General Plan Land Use Element and would result in an increase of 15,000 additional square feet of nonresidential floor area. There have been no prior amendments approved within Statistical Area J6 since the 2006 General Plan Update. As the project is nonresidential and does not include an increase in floor area over 40,000 square feet, staff evaluated the project's trip generation rates to determine whether a vote of the electorate is required. Since a 70,000 -square -foot office building is presently allowed by the General Plan at the project site, the general office rate (1.56 a.m. peak trips and 1.49 p.m. peak trips per thousand square feet of floor area) was used for the analysis along with the nursing home rate (0.40 a.m. peak trips and 0.36 p.m. peak trips per thousand square feet of floor area). The nursing home rate was identified and accepted by the City's Traffic Engineer as the best available comparable use in Council Policy A-1$. The analysis is summarized in Table 2. The current Section 423 tracking table before the proposed Amendment is provided as Attachment No. PC 4. Table 2: Charter Section 423 Analysis Summary Statistical Area J6 Increase in Increase in Increase in P.M. Increase in Allowed Floor A.M. Peak Hour Peak Hour Trips Allowed Area (sq. ft.) Trips Dwelling Units GP2015-004 (PA2015-210) 15,000 -75 -74 0 101 Bayview Place Prior Amendments (80%) 0 0 0 0 None TOTALS 15,000 -75 -74 0 Section 423 Thresholds 40,000 100 100 100 Vote Required? No No No No As indicated in Table 2, the proposed amendment does not exceed any applicable thresholds to require a vote of the electorate if the amendment is approved by the City Council. if approved, this amendment will become a prior amendment; however, as there are no increases, the prior amendments row would remain as zeroes. 1-4 14-259 AB52 and S1318 -Tribal Consultation Guidelines Pursuant to Section 65352.3 (SB18) of the California Government Code, a local government is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) each time it considers a proposal to adopt or amend the General Plan. If requested by any tribe, the local government must consult for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to cultural resources. The City received comments from the NAHC indicating that eight tribal contacts should be provided notice regarding the proposed amendment. The tribal contacts were provided notice on April 19, 2016. Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code requires notification 90 days prior to Council action to allow tribe contacts to respond to the request to consult. The City was not contacted by any tribal contacts during this 90 -day period. Pursuant to Section 21080.3.1 (AB52) of the California Government Code, a local government is required to consult with California Native American tribes that have requested in writing to be informed of proposed project in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe. As a result, a letter was later received from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians -Kith Nation requesting that a monitor from their tribe oversee ground -disturbing construction work. Staff consulted with their representative, Mr. Andy Salas by phone and in writing regarding the matter. During consultation with Mr. Salas, staff discussed City Council Policy K-5 which requires a qualified archaeologist be present during ground breaking, and General Plan Policy, Historical Resources HR 2.3 (Cultural Organizations) which required notification of cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources and to allow representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites. Mr. Salas expressed concern of the project's location being an area with potential tribal cultural resources, but did not produce substantive evidence of such potential resources. Staff reiterated the aforementioned City policies and reached an impasse with Mr. Salas. In response to the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR, Mr. Salas submitted a comment letter again expressing concern. In response, and out of abundance of caution, the applicant has agreed to retain a tribal monitor in the unlikely event any resources are found. Condition of Approval No. 37 has been included to ensure the monitor is retained. Planned Community Amendment The property is currently located in Bayview Planned Community (PC -32) Zoning District, which was adopted August 15, 1985. The PC is comprised of 64.2 acres developed with single- and multi -family residential, professional and administrative offices, retail commercial, a hotel, and open space. The stated land uses intended for PC -32 are residential, commercial, professional, institutional, hotel, and office uses, which is consistent with the existing development. The project site is designated "Area 5" allowing an 8,000 square -foot of restaurant or up to 70,000 square feet of office development. 1-5 14-260 The applicant requests to amend the PC to accommodate the proposed RCFE development. The requested PC amendment is for the project site (101 Bayview Place) only, which is Area 5 of the development plan. As drafted, the proposed amendment would: 1. Only allow a RCFE, subject to approval of a conditional use permit and would remove all other allowed uses; 2. Increase the maximum allowable non-residential development from 70,000 square feet of office to 85,000 square feet of RCFE; 3. Increase required setbacks to match those of the proposed structure; and 4. Change the parking requirement to match NBMC Title 20 (Planning and Zoning). There would be no change to the allowed height, as the proposed building complies with the current standard of 35 feet to the ceiling elevation of the uppermost floor. An additional 10 feet is currently allowed to accommodate and screen mechanical equipment. The proposed PC is included in underline/strikeout format as Exhibit "D" to Attachment No. PC 1. Project Entitlement - Discretionary Applications Major Site Development Review Findings Due to the proposed construction of a nonresidential building of more than 19,999 square feet in floor area, a major site development review is required per NBMC Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews). In accordance with Section 20.52.080(F), the Planning Commission may approve or conditionally approve a site development review application, only after first finding that the proposed development is: 1. Allowed within the subject zoning district; 2. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria identified in 20.52.080(C)(2)(c) below.- i. elow. i. Compliance with this section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure ii. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; 1-0 14-261 iii. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; iv. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces,- V. paces; v. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and vi. The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with Section 20.30. 100 (Public View Protection). 3. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, nor endangers, jeopardizes, or otherwise constitutes a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. In summary, the project proposes to replace the existing single -story Kitayama restaurant building with a three-story RCFE with 120 beds. Off-street parking exceeds Zoning Code requirements and is provided on-site. The design includes a multitude of interior and exterior resident amenities including a theater, community store, fitness room, spa, salon, library, copy room, computer lab, grill/cafe, quiet room, an activity room, and private open spaces. As discussed in the Legislative Amendments section above, the proposed project will comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan and PC Development Plan requirements, as amended. Without the approval of the proposed legislative amendments, the findings for the site development review cannot be made. The proposed structure and use will comply with all current Building and Fire Codes. The facility is required to be licensed by the Department of Social Services (DSS) and meet all the requirements to obtain and maintain this license. Although a photometric survey has not been provided, lighting of the building is conditioned to meet the requirements of the Zoning Code to minimize and mitigate impacts to neighboring properties. Compliance would be addressed during the review of the construction drawings for building permits. Although taller than the existing building, the height, bulk, and scale of the proposed building is comparable to existing and allowed height limits on surrounding properties. It further complies with the current height limit of 35 feet from finish floor to the top of the uppermost ceiling with an additional 10 feet allowed for mechanical equipment screening. The adjoining properties to the west and east are developed with taller three- and six - story office buildings. The Residential Single -Family (RSF) district of the Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Area (SP -7) to the west allows structures up to 35 feet in height. --7 14-262 The proposed project will not appear out of scale along the Bristol Street South corridor. The applicant has provided photographic visual simulations of the proposed project and they are attached (Attachment No. PC 5). Multi -family condominiums are abutting the project site to the south. All proposed construction will be set back a minimum of approximately 41 feet from the property lines abutting the residential uses. The main drive aisle, landscaping, and a perimeter site wall serve to further buffer those residential uses from the project. Mechanical equipment for the facility will be located within enclosures at the roof level to reduce noise impacts, and the enclosures will provide effective visual screening. Access to the site, on-site circulation, and subterranean parking areas are designed to provide standard -sized parking spaces, adequate drive aisles and the minimum vehicle turning radius to provide safe access for residents and guests, employees, emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, and refuse collections vehicles, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. The project includes approximately 18,859 square feet of landscape area, which has been designed and must meet NBMC requirements with respect to water efficiency. Landscaping is provided throughout the site in areas that are not used for site access and for parking circulation. The project's perimeter and street landscaping will complement the existing street tree pattern, enhance the pedestrian experience, and soften the view of the building fagade. The project site does not have the potential to obstruct public views from identified public view points and corridors, as identified on General Plan Figure NR 3 (Coastal Views), to the Pacific Ocean, Newport Bay and Harbor, offshore islands, the Old Channel of the Santa River (the Oxbow Loop), Newport Pier, Balboa Pier, designated landmark and historic structures, parks, coastal and inland bluffs, canyons, mountains, wetlands, and permanent passive open space due to the location of the project site in relation to vantage points and roadways. Please refer to Attachment No. PC 6 showing General Plan Figure NR3 and the project site. The proposed project is not located near any public view points and there are no designated public views through or across the site. Staff believes facts to support the required findings exist to approve the Major Site Development Review, and they are included in the attached draft resolution for approval (Attachment No. PC 1). Conditional Use Permit Findings In accordance with NBMC Section 20.52.020 (Conditional Use Permits and Minor Use Permits), the Planning Commission must make the following findings for approval of a use permit: 12 14-263 1. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; 2. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and the Municipal Code,- 3. ode, 3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity; 4. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities, and 5. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Staff believes sufficient facts exist in support of each finding. The amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and zoning designations of the project site would allow for the proposed use. The proposed building complies with the development standards of the amended PC Development Plan, as well as the Zoning Code. The project is designed to be compatible with the adjoining residential neighborhoods by incorporating perimeter landscaping and site walls, as well as an increased setback of 41 feet from the adjoining residential properties. Although the landscaping will buffer the view of the building from the residences, the architectural treatment will be composed of varied materials including stone veneer and smooth stucco, stainless steel metal panels, glass windows, and concrete or composition shingle roofing. Although the drive aisle and entrance into the subterranean parking wraps around the building nearest the residential community to the south, it will be buffered by landscaping and site walls. Additionally, all of the day-to-day vehicular activity (e.g., unloading and loading) will occur under the building and away from the residential neighborhoods, as well as at the front entrance near the corner of Bristol Street and Bayview Place. Conditions of Approval Nos. 29 and 30 are included in the Resolution for approval to ensure that lighting of the facility will not create excessive glare and light spillage onto the adjacent neighbors. Conditions of Approval Nos. 10 and 11 are included limiting delivery, visiting, and commercial trash pick-up hours to minimize vehicular traffic and noise the evening and early morning hours. Approval of the proposed project would provide an opportunity for the property owner to revitalize the project site while providing a needed service for an aging population. 14-264 CEQA, Traffic and Other Impacts Analysis The Final EIR includes a comprehensive study and analysis of the entire range of CEQA topics. The following is a summary of the EIR analysis and its conclusions followed by more detailed discussion of aesthetics and shade and shadow, public services, transportation and traffic, utilities and service systems (specifically water), and alternatives to the proposed project. Environmental Review - CEQA Prior to making a recommendation of approval on the proposed project, the Planning Commission must first review, consider, and recommend City Council adoption of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), SCH No. 2016071062. The Final EIR is comprised of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), Initial Study (IS), Environmental Analysis, Alternatives Analysis, Appendices, Reponses to Comments, and Revisions to the Draft EIR. The City contracted with Psomas, an environmental consulting firm, to prepare an Initial Study and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed project in accordance with the CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The DEIR was routed to the Planning Commission in advance of this staff report to allow additional time to review the report. The draft EIR was completed and circulated for a 50 -day public -review period that began on August 10, 2018, and concluded on September 28, 2018. A total of 82 comments were received from interested parties. The consultant and staff prepared written responses to each of the comments received on the adequacy of the DEIR, which are included in Attachment No. PC 1, Exhibit "A." A copy of the Final EIR was also made available on the City's website at http://www.newportbeachca.gov/cega, v/cepa, at each Newport Beach Public Library, and at the Community Development Department at City Hall. The following environmental topics were identified as potentially affected by the implementation of the proposed project: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Public Services, Transportation and Traffic, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Sewer Services. These topics were the subject of the DEIR analysis, and potential impacts were identified. The document includes mitigation measures to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level related to Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, and Public Services. All mitigation measures are identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which is included as Attachment No. PC 1, Exhibit "B." 20 14-265 Section 4.1 Aesthetics The proposed project would alter views of the existing site by replacing an approximately 8:800 -square -foot, single -story building with an approximately 84,517 -square -foot, three- story building. The proposed structure will comply with the allowed building height identified within Area 5 of the Bayview PC Development Plan and will appear compatible with the adjacent office buildings. The proposed setbacks, which double the current requirement of 20 feet to a residential property, and increased landscaping buffers will help to enhance compatibility with the adjacent residential communities. As part of the CEQA analysis, a shade and shadow study of the proposed project was prepared to determine if the shadow cast by the building would create a significant impact on the adjacent residences. Since the area of shadows cast vary from season to season the winter solstice presumes the worst case scenario because this is when the longest shadows are cast due to the tilt of the earth and corresponding location of the sun. The City does not have an established citywide threshold for shade or shadow impacts. In summary, the study concluded that a shadow would be cast on the backyard of the adjacent single-family residence during the spring equinox (March 21), fall equinox (September 21), and winter solstice (December 21). The shadow during spring and fall equinoxes would cover a small portion of the backyard, adjacent to the block wall and away from the residence and detached garage. The duration of the shadow during this time would be approximately four hours between 5:58 a.m. and 9:45 a.m. (Pacific Standard Time) with a peak at 9 a.m. The shadow during winter solstice would cover a majority of the backyard, but would not cast a shadow on the residence. The duration of the shadow during this time would be approximately four and one-half hours between 6:52 a.m. and 11:35 a.m., also with a peak at 9 a.m. Based on this analysis, shadows would not be cast on the adjacent Baycrest condominiums at any time. The shade and shadow analysis demonstrated no shadows or shade would be cast on any adjacent structures that would cause adverse impacts. Therefore the shade and shadow impact was determined to be less than significant. For the more detailed analysis, see Section 4.1 Aesthetics of the Final EIR. The simulations are attached as Attachment No. PC 7. Section 4.10 Public Services The proposed project is anticipated to increase calls for emergency medical services over the existing demand for the restaurant. As an estimate, implementation of the project would increase the overall calls for emergency medical services by approximately 1.72 percent based on call data for similar facilities and uses. While this increase will place additional demand on Fire Station No. 7 in Santa Ana Heights, as well as the emergency medical services unit at Fire Station No. 2 in Newport Center, it will not create the need to construct or alter any fire station facilities. There would be, however, a potential cumulative effect (not a CEQA impact) on fire protection, specifically emergency medical 211 14-266 services, when the project is reviewed with other projects proposed to occur in the surrounding area. In order to offset a negative impact to service in the area, as part of the Development Agreement, the applicant is willing to pay a fair share of the cost for purchasing and equipping a new rescue ambulance with patient transport and advance life support capabilities. This new vehicle would be housed at Fire Station No. 7, which is located closest to the project site. It will serve the site as well as the surrounding area. For additional information, reference Section 4.10 Public Services of the Final El R. Section 4.11 Traffic Analysis Urban Crossroads performed a trip generation evaluation of the current restaurant use to determine if an analysis pursuant to NBMC Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) is required. Urban Crossroads found that, using ITE trip rates, the restaurant land use generates about 738 average daily trips (ADT) while the proposed project is expected to generate about 312 ADT using the "assisted living" trip rate. Since the difference does not exceed a net increase of 300 ADT a traffic study under the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance is not required. The entire Traffic Memorandum is attached as Attachment No. PC 8. Section 4.13 Utilities and Service Systems Ongoing water supply issues across most of California has resulted in adoption and implementation of state and local mandates intended to reduce water consumption and make water use more efficient. These regulations are not intended to stop growth and development; they are intended to make appropriate development more sustainable. State officials recognize that population and demand for more housing and related services will likely increase; some experts predict a dramatic increase in the future. Overall, the project will result in a net increased water consumption of about 2,571 gallons per thousand square feet of building area per day. The project site is located within the service area of the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD). Correspondence from the IRWD has indicated the water demand of the proposed project could be accommodated with existing IRWD infrastructure, and the IRWD has sufficient capacity to meet the anticipated increase in demand. As such, the applicant received a Conditional Water and Sewer Will Serve letter, which indicates the agency's infrastructure and supply will adequately serve the proposed project, subject to upgrades to the existing connection points. Section 5.0 Alternatives The EIR included an analysis of two project alternatives. The first is the "No Project" Alterative, which is the continuance of the existing site conditions and land use policies and regulations. The environmental setting would remain unchanged. The existing restaurant could continue operating and the site could be developed with up to a 70,000 square foot, non-medical office building. This alternative was rejected because, although impacts would be generally less without any development, the restaurant would continue 22 14-267 to generate more operational vehicle trips than the proposed project. This could result in greater traffic, worsened air quality, greater noise due to long-term traffic and on-site noise generation, and greater greenhouse gas impacts than the proposed project. Furthermore, this alternative would only meet three of the seven identified project objectives (See Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR on page 3-1). The second alternative the "Office Development" alternative, which includes 70,000 square feet of commercial office. This alternative has similar impacts as the proposed project; however, the impacts associated with air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, construction noise, and transportation and traffic would all be greater. This is due to the number of average daily trips (ADT) that would be generated by the commercial office development (about 682 ADT), the amount of excavation required for parking, and an overall greater energy and water use. For more information on both alternatives refer to Draft EIR, Section 5.0. Other Considerations Development Agreement The term of the Development agreement will be 10 years. The short duration is appropriate because the project will be implemented in one construction phase. The term is sufficiently long to account for changing market conditions. The applicant will pay $1,000,000 to the City to secure development rights. Payment will be within 60 -days of the City's issuance of building permits. A portion of the fee will satisfy the fair share obligation pursuant to MM FIRE -1 to provide a new ambulance unit at Fire Station No. 7. The remainder of the funds will be available to the City for any purpose. While not part of the Development Agreement, the applicant will also make available a total of $150,000 to nearby entities such as, but not limited to, the Newport Bay Conservancy, Bayview Court HOA, and the Bayview Terrace HOA for unspecified future programs, activities and/or improvements. Staff believes the $1,000,000 public benefit fee is adequate. Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) John Wayne Airport is located approximately 0.7 -mile northwest of the project site and is the nearest public airport. The project is within the notification area of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport. However, the project is below the maximum transitional imagery surface heights, and thus the project is within the building height limits of the AELUP. A "No Hazard" determination was provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Property falls inside the Noise Impact Zone "2" — Moderate Noise Impact where uses would be exposed to noise between 60 and 65 decibels (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The proposed use is 2S 14-268 considered "normally compatible" where conventional construction, with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice to insulate residents from the negative effects of aircraft noise. The project site is within Safety Zone 6 (Traffic Pattern Zone), where the likelihood of an accident is low. Since the proposed project includes a General Plan and PC amendment, review for consistency with the AELUP is required by Section 21676(b) of the Public Utilities Code. If the Planning Commission acts to recommend project approval to the City Council, the General Plan and PC amendment will first be forwarded to the ALUC for their review prior to the City Council consideration. The ALUC meeting is likely to occur in January 2019, if the Commission recommends approval before the end of December. Should the ALUC find the project consistent with the AELUP, the project can proceed to the City Council without further delay. If ALUC finds the project inconsistent with the AELUP, the City Council would have to initiate a process to potentially override ALUC by a two-thirds vote of the Council if they choose to approve the project. Fiscal Impact Analysis The City's consultant has prepared an independent fiscal impact analysis (Attachment No. PC 9) in accordance with General Plan Implementation Policies 12.1 and 12.2. The City's fiscal impact model is designed to calculate the average cost of public services required by new development, on the assumption that new development affects City services in the same way that existing development does. The proposed project is expected to have a slight negative impact from the existing restaurant use of about $1,088 per year ($4,017 for the restaurant use versus $2,929 for the RCFE use). This is due to the fact that restaurant uses are relatively high sales tax generators. The office alternative would result in a larger negative impact of about $59,863 for the City since most of the tenants would likely not provide taxable goods or services. Correspondence Received Several public comments have been received since the Planning Commission study session on September 13, 2018. They are attached as Attachment No. PC 10. ALTERNATIVES Although staff believes that the findings for approval can be made for the proposed project as recommended and the facts in support of the required findings are presented in the draft resolution (Attachment No. PC 1), the following alternatives are available to the Planning Commission: 1. The Planning Commission may recommend approval to the City Council with suggest specific changes that are necessary to alleviate any identified concerns. 24 14-269 If the requested changes are substantial, staff will return with a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions. 2. The Planning Commission may recommend approval to the City Council one of the project alternatives discussed in the Final EIR. These include the "No Project" alternative and the "Office Building" alternative. Should the Planning Commission choose to do so, staff will return with a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions. 3. If the Planning Commission believes the change in land use is inappropriate, or if there are insufficient facts to support the project, the Planning Commission may recommend denial to the City Council of the application without prejudice in the draft resolution for denial (Attachment No. PC 2). PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this application was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways) including the applicant and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. A courtesy notice of the hearing was also emailed to the interested parties list for this project. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. SUMMARY Staff believes that the proposed project is consistent with the applicable General Plan polices for the City. The loss of 1.5 acres of CO -G designated property is not expected to preclude the development of commercial office and supporting nonresidential uses elsewhere in the City. Additionally, although the project site is not currently zoned for an institutional land use, the land use change in the Bayview PC would create a functional quasi -residential project that integrates well with the surrounding residential, office, retail and service uses located throughout the Santa Ana Heights area, as well as the Bayview Planned Community and adjacent Airport Area. The proposed General Plan and PC development plan amendment allow only a residential care facility for the elderly and no other institutional uses. The project provides residential care for the large elderly population in the City. The project exhibits high quality architectural treatment. The overall design including the large setbacks to the residential uses results in a development that is compatible and consistent with the surrounding allowed and existing development. The proposed project will be no taller than an office building that could otherwise be developed at the site under current regulations. Traffic increases are below the threshold for requiring a traffic study and are a less than significant impact. Additionally, based on the conclusions in the Final EIR the project will not interfere with any long-term environmental goals nor create any 25 14-270 long-term significant impacts. The Development Agreement requested will provide public benefits through a monetary contribution that will provide the necessary capital to purchase a new rescue ambulance with advanced live support capabilities to serve the community. Therefore, staff recommends Planning Commission recommendation for project approval to the City Council. Staff believes that the RCFE land use for the site is appropriate and that all the findings for approval of the Major Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit can be made. Prepared by: Submitted by: AICP Jim Campbell YZEe b a, Aociate ner Deputy Community Development Director 61112/18 2C_ 14-271 a • 61112/18 2C_ 14-271 Attachment L ALUC Determination Letter, January 17, 2019 14-272 ORANGE COUNTY -��- :r1L January 23, 2019 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY 3160 Airway Avenue • Costa Mesa, California 92626 - 949.252.5170 fax: 949.252.6012 Gregg Ramirez, Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: ALUC Determination for City of Newport Beach Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Dear Mr. Ramirez: During the meeting held on January 17, 2019 the Airport Land 1..1se Commission (ALUC) for Orange County considered the subject project. The matter was duly discussed, moved, seconded, and carried unanimously by the Commission to find the proposed Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project to be Consistent with the Commission's Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for John Wayne Airport (JWA) and the AELUP for Heliports, with the modification of noise mitigation measure NOI-4, and addition of a condition of approval requiring outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft Please contact Lea Choum, at (949) 252-5123 or via email at Ichoum@ocair.com if you require additional information or have questions regarding this proceeding. Sincerely, Kari A. Ri oni Executive Officer 14-273 Attachment M Public Comments 14-274 From: Taria Parris <tariaparris30@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 8:07 PM To: Dixon, Diane; Avery, Brad; Duffield, Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin; Herdman, Jeff; Brenner, Joy; O'Neill, William Cc: Zdeba, Benjamin Subject: Against Harbor Pointe Project Dear Council Members, As a homeowner at 88 Baycrest Court, Newport Beach, CA 92660, I am writing to you to request that you do not approve the Harbor Pointe project at the corner of Bayview Place and Bristol. Below are the reasons why I am strongly against this project: The approval of this project would violate the Master Community Plan of Bayview, where I am a homeowner, changing the zoning from commercial office (CO -G) to Private Institution. I do not understand why it would be OK to make a zoning change this drastic starting on this site in my neighborhood. If it happens here in Bayview, then it would no doubt be a change that every resident in Newport Beach needs to know about because their neighborhood may be next too be rezoned. A zoning change of this nature would forever change the fabric of my neighborhood—the neighborhood I bought into based on the already city approved master community plan. It was created with the current CO -G designation for this site for a reason. I am for development that fits in with the neighborhood and for change that does not negatively impact homeowners and their tranquility, safety and property values. If a project of this magnitude, zoning designation change and purpose was proposed to be built just feet from your front door, ask yourself how would you react? Since none of the planning commissioners or current council members live in the master community of Bayview, it might be easy to look the other way. But all of the neighborhoods are connected and what harms one community, harms all communities. I do not believe the EIR fully addresses the density of the project over the current usage. This development is virtually wall to wall with only a small vehicle lane immediately adjacent to the Baycrest condominiums (Bayview Court). Imagine the nonstop nuisance and pollution that the truck traffic noise in this small lane within mere feet of homes will cause including beeping backup noises associated with trucks delivering supplies for the kitchens as well as all of the other services required 14-275 for this immense facility. The EIR does not seem to fully address this potentially devastating impact to my neighborhood or the sound of emergency vehicles coming and going in addition to the Harbor Pointe bus. • As of this writing, there are multiple beds available at existing facilities in the city. There is also a lack of qualified care givers to staff these facilities and it is a significant problem in California. I feel the only reason this project is being developed on this site is because the current property owner is (based on my understanding) putting up the land in return for on-going partnership status to generate a regular revenue stream. Because this is certainly not the ideal site for a senior care facility, particularly when any patient with memory illness wanders outside of the facility onto Bristol. The result would be deadly and certainly open up the city to lawsuits when this very concern has been expressed in writing in many different forms on multiple occasions. • While the developers have promised that the city would only allow a senior care facility on this site, once this zoning change to Private Institution occurs, further incarnations of the Planning Commission and City Council could change this, opening up the site for all types of businesses that would impact our safety and property values. • The developer does not specialize in senior facilities and has to my knowledge never developed this type of project in California. The senior care project he developed in Colorado was quickly sold and he cashed out. There is no evidence that this project would be any different, and there would be no penalty should he do so once the project is approved and built. • The EIR reports that 10,200 CY of soil are to be exported from the site. The EIR in my opinion provides an inadequate evaluation of seismic impacts to the neighborhood that will lead to cracking and damage to our roads, walls and roofs. The seismic evaluation performed was specific to the structure only. I believe that this removal of soil and excavation for underground parking so close to our homes needs to be investigated much further. 14-276 • I do not believe a nearly 40 foot building is designed to exist adjacent to residential properties so close to the property line of neighboring homes. The small traffic lane in the proposed plan is not nearly enough of a separation. We knew the office buildings were there because they were already part of the master community plan. • I do not believe that the traffic study in the EIR accurately addressed the traffic from the 73 offramp and distance to the project. I thought this intersection was already outside of standardized limits and a waiver was provided when the 73 was constructed. This waiver was not to benefit a development of this magnitude or purpose. Further, I strongly believe the traffic study finding that this project, with 24 X 7 shift changes, visitors and service vehicles would ever reduce traffic. I believe the counting of cars on the days that the study was conducted has flawed accuracy. • I am very concerned about the lighting issue. I feel as though I will now be living next to a facility more like a baseball stadium due to the light pollution. This is a 24 X 7 business. It is not an office building or a restaurant. I believe the CEQA planner reviewing these items and suggesting they are "less than significant" is in error as this major issue has neither been mitigated and/or considered as anything less than significant. Is this in compliance with CEQA? Our community is beautiful. We have undergone a complete facelift from top to bottom and our community has invested nearly 1.5 million dollars in the last few years to make the community a beautiful and serene place to live. If you have not visited our community in the past, or since our renovation has occurred, please come by before you vote. We have invested in making the city better by making our community better. As a result, homeowners are investing a lot of money completely re -doing and updating the inside of their homes. We love where we live and take great personal pride in our homes and neighborhood. Please do not approve this project that would take away so much of what I and so many others have worked so hard to achieve. Approve a re -development project that keeps the fabric of our neighborhood intact by voting down this drastic change in zoning for a facility that should never be located on this site. Last, I respectfully request that no zoning changes be approved until the new General Plan for the City is in place so growth can happen that will enhance and not diminish our community and city. Sincerely, Taria Parris 14-277 88 Baycrest Court Newport Beach, CA 92660 310-487-2999 14-278 From: Lyle Brakob <Imbrakob@cox.net> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 4:09 PM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Cc: Kirk Snyder; Jeannie Burzan; patti@plampman.com; petemarcek@hotmail.com; mell@apimanagement.net Subject: Assisted Living Facility Dear Ben, We appreciate your duties at City Hall—also your prompt response to the many past inquiries -thanks Since the City Council hearing on this matter is tentatively scheduled for Feb 12, Margaret and I feel it important to provide further input for consideration before the meeting. I as a HOA Board member over 10 years and we having lived here over 20 years encouraged everyone in the neighborhood to make their thoughts known by writing city officials, making an appointment to discuss the matter and attend the Hearing on Feb 12 As we know it the City Staff, Planning and Airport Land Use Commissioners have determined the project complies with requirements, (even though some results are questionable) or that exceptions can be approved to make it work. It is also clear that personal opinions of some officials are that the location is not suited for a senior facility but apparently find no regulatory or significant compliance items not to officially oppose it. Two airport land use commissioners openly expressed opposition to the location and the Chair added such a facility would definitely generate more noise complaints to deal with In spite of many reasons for not supporting the project we wish to address just three that deserve further consideration. First— how the overwhelming majority of next door owners and residents at Baycrest Court and the surrounding neighborhood feel Secondly—the health, safety and security of the patients and Three: To a anyone's knowledge has any Newport Beach property ever had a zoning change from CO -G to PI ? Please provide this email about our observations, questions, comments, and suggestions to the City Council members, developer, owner and all others that have, will or could be involved with this project start to finish. We also urge everyone to read 1) the minutes of the December 6 Planning Commission meeting and 2) the correspondence between the City and Airport officials—also, when available, the Minutes of the January 17 "Airport" meeting. Those documents contain a wealth of project information. We request the specifics for each of the below concerns be addressed: 1. Neighborhood Concerns 14-279 a. Three minutes per person is not adequate to make inputs. Moreover, further input or rebuttal is not allowed once a person has spoken. b. After the December 6 meeting many people we know said they believed that the owner, developer, city staff and planning commissioners had already agreed to move the project forward, yet needed to go through the formalities of covering their A to Z duties. It was also clear that the item would not be addressed until 6 p.m. as that was when the developer arrived—yet the notice said the meeting started at 4p.m.—prior to the meeting, I had previously specifically asked if it would be addressed later, (as there were folks who would be still at work), the answer was it was best to arrive at 4p to be safe! Apparently the developer was notified but not the residents c. Is it correct, or right, that City Planning Commissioners talk with project folks but not to effected residents except to listen for 3 minutes during public input time?Commissioners, when asked, stated they had talked to the developer, (some more than once), about the project. They were not asked if they had personally talked to residents nor did they offer that they had done so. d. Have any of the decision makers actually looked at the project area? We believe this is important e. Many residents we've talked to feel that, so far, money and politics have prevailed at the expense of the people. Their concerns were numerous at meetings yet mostly ignored or briefly addressed as insignificant f. The location proposed for this type facility is simply not compatible. Neither we nor anyone we know are against a place to live for seniors or opposed to making money. However, it is wrong nor right that the concerns of neighbors and considerations for patients be secondary to money, politics or personal agendas. g. Certainly there are other locations that would be more suited for seniors. Has/did/will/can city officials assist the owner/developer to consider other locations or opportunities? 2. Concerns For Facility Residents a. Many ask why would anyone want to subject senior loved ones to safety, noise and pollution issues from John Wayne airport? We feel the answer is that it is not about seniors rather it is about primarily about money. The nearby chopper crash into a home and other recent aircraft mishaps are reminders of safety concerns associated with aircraft at JW. Then there are the many private small noisy prop driven aircraft, (noisier than the commercial jets), that use the short runway and pass directly over the site! Is that a location where one would want to spend the remainder of their lives or a place family would want their loved ones to be? We think not even with noise level and monitoring requirements or a sign warning of airplane noise or even if it were to be a S star facility! On Saturday, January 19 during the period of an hour or so when the HOA's Town Hall Meeting was being held at the HOA pool several small planes flew over or near the area proposed for the assisted living facility—not pleasant! Again the location is simply not suited for seniors nor for the surrounding neighborhood b. There are no safe nearby places for those residents able and wanting to go to places like stores, restaurants, cafes or even a nearby park to enjoy. 14-280 c. Vehicle traffic remains a big concern in spite of data to the contrary. We live near the entrance to Bayview Court. We see and hear associated traffic problems daily. They include volume, loud engine noise, speeding, by-passing Bristol by using Bayview Place as a short cut to Jamboree, unsafe U turns at the Bayview Place/Bayview Circle intersection and then the many using the HOA's private entrance area to turn around and using it as a temporarily stop for various reasons. d. Emergency exit and evacuation plans for the site and surrounding area are inadequate. The unacceptable delay in exiting the area a couple years ago when folks in Bayview Circle were notified to evacuate because of a fire situation could have had serious consequences. The vehicles leaving the parking structure quickly backed up and were unable to exit timely or safely e. Parking will not always be adequate for the proposed 24/7, (168 hours versus 36 that Kitayama is open plus closed on holidays as well!), facility of 120 beds—considering shift change periods, holidays and other special occasions. The developer states no parking will be allowed other than on the site! Certainly there will times when additional parking will be needed requiring special parking along Bayview Place or in the parking structure at Bayview Circle f. We urge the entry and exit for the location be reviewed and reconsidered, (once more). First, reconsider a left turn only permitted onto Bayview Place when exiting the facility. Also consider one way traffic into the facility off Bayview Place with exit onto Bristol —exiting as is currently planned for emergency entry or exit. A third option would be to establish one way traffic that would exit onto Spruce or Orchard street and then onto Bristol as currently done by vehicles entering or exiting the next door office building's parking area. While there is no ideal option, any of the 3 would be safer and more efficient overall than no change to what is planned now. 3. Please advise whether or not there has ever been a like zoning change. One answer we've received is never and the other is yes there has. What is correct and if there has what are the details? We would like the great relationship with our neighbor Kitayama over the past 20 years to continue. between. It has been perfect. We look forward to a response and respectfully ask this project be disapproved. Sincerely, Lyle and Margaret Brakob 6 Baycrest Court Newport Beach 92660 949 769 1558 Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone 14-281 From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 8:32 AM To: Nelson, Jennifer; Lippman, Tiffany Cc: Ramirez, Brittany; Rieff, Kim; Zdeba, Benjamin Subject: RE: Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project PA2015-210 That would be Ben Zdeba and he is cc'd. Thanks. ROSALINH M. UNG Community Development Department Senior Planner rung(a)newPortbeachca.gov �+ 949-644-3208 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 100 Civic Center Drive, First Floor Bay B, Newport Beach, California 92660 newportbeachca.gov vW From: Nelson, Jennifer Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 8:30 AM To: Ung, Rosalinh <RUng@newportbeachca.gov>; Lippman, Tiffany <TLippman@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Ramirez, Brittany <bramirez@newportbeachca.gov>; Rieff, Kim <KRieff@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: FW: Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project PA2015-210 Ladies, I realize this is not a Koll project comment but assumed you would know whom in CDD this would go to. Thank you, Jennifer Nelson Assistant City Clerk City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-644-3006 inelson(&,,newportbeachca.;; ov 4 Y� 14 x Y From: CHRISTINE OSAKI [mailto:cosaki@cox.net] Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 8:14 PM To: Dept - City Council<CityCouncil@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project PA2015-210 14-282 As a homeowner at 100 Baycrest Court, 1 am writing to you to request that you do not approve the Harbor Pointe project at the corner of Bayview Place and Bristol. Below are the reasons why 1 am strongly against this project: The approval of this project would violate the Master Community Plan of Bayview, where I am a homeowner, changing the zoning from commercial office (CO -G) to Private Institution. I do not understand why it would be OK to make a zoning change this drastic starting on this site in my neighborhood. If it happens here in Bayview, then it would no doubt be a change that every resident in Newport Beach needs to know about because their neighborhood may be next too be rezoned. A zoning change of this nature would forever change the fabric of my neighborhood—the neighborhood I bought into based on the already city approved master community plan. It was created with the current CO -G designation for this site for a reason. I am for development that fits in with the neighborhood and for change that does not negatively impact homeowners and their tranquility, safety and property values. If a project of this magnitude, zoning designation change and purpose was proposed to be built just feet from your front door, ask yourself how would you react? Since none of the planning commissioners or current council members live in the master community of Bayview, it might be easy to look the other way. But all of the neighborhoods are connected and what harms one community, harms all communities. I do not believe the EIR fully addresses the density of the project over the current usage. This development is virtually wall to wall with only a small vehicle lane immediately adjacent to the Baycrest condominiums (Bayview Court). Imagine the nonstop nuisance and pollution that the truck traffic noise in this small lane within mere feet of homes will cause including beeping backup noises associated with trucks delivering supplies for the kitchens as well as all of the other services required for this immense facility. The EIR does not seem to fully address this potentially devastating impact to my neighborhood or the sound of emergency vehicles coming and going in addition to the Harbor Pointe bus. As of this writing, there are multiple beds available at existing facilities in the city. There is also a lack of qualified care givers to staff these facilities and it is a significant problem in California. I feel the only reason this project is being developed on this site is because the current property owner is (based on my understanding) putting up the land in return for on-going partnership status to generate a regular revenue stream. Because this is certainly not the ideal site for a senior care facility, particularly when any patient with memory illness wanders outside of the facility onto Bristol. The result would be deadly and certainly open up the city to lawsuits when this very concern has been expressed in writing in many different forms on multiple occasions. 14-283 • While the developers have promised that the city would only allow a senior care facility on this site, once this zoning change to Private Institution occurs, further incarnations of the Planning Commission and City Council could change this, opening up the site for all types of businesses that would impact our safety and property values. • The developer does not specialize in senior facilities and has to my knowledge never developed this type of project in California. The senior care project he developed in Colorado was quickly sold and he cashed out. There is no evidence that this project would be any different, and there would be no penalty should he do so once the project is approved and built. The EIR reports that 10,200 CY of soil are to be exported from the site. The EIR in my opinion provides an inadequate evaluation of seismic impacts to the neighborhood that will lead to cracking and damage to our roads, walls and roofs. The seismic evaluation performed was specific to the structure only. I believe that this removal of soil and excavation for underground parking so close to our homes needs to be investigated much further. • I do not believe a nearly 40 foot building is designed to exist adjacent to residential properties so close to the property line of neighboring homes. The small traffic lane in the proposed plan is not nearly enough of a separation. We knew the office buildings were there because they were already part of the master community plan. I do not believe that the traffic study in the EIR accurately addressed the traffic from the 73 offramp and distance to the project. I thought this intersection was already outside of standardized limits and a waiver was provided when the 73 was constructed. This waiver was not to benefit a development of this magnitude or purpose. Further, I strongly believe the traffic study finding that this project, with 24 X 7 shift changes, visitors and service vehicles would ever reduce traffic. I believe the counting of cars on the days that the study was conducted has flawed accuracy. • I am very concerned about the lighting issue. I feel as though I will now be living next to a facility more like a baseball stadium due to the light pollution. This is a 24 X 7 business. It is not an office building or a restaurant. I believe the CEQA planner reviewing these items and suggesting they are "less than significant" is in error as this 14-284 major issue has neither been mitigated and/or considered as anything less than significant. Is this in compliance with CEQA? Our community is beautiful. We have undergone a complete facelift from top to bottom and our community has invested nearly 1.5 million dollars in the last few years to make the community a beautiful and serene place to live. If you have not visited our community in the past, or since our renovation has occurred, please come by before you vote. We have invested in making the city better by making our community better. As a result, homeowners are investing a lot of money completely re -doing and updating the inside of their homes. We love where we live and take great personal pride in our homes and neighborhood. Please do not approve this project that would take away so much of what I and so many others have worked so hard to achieve. Approve a re -development project that keeps the fabric of our neighborhood intact by voting down this drastic change in zoning for a facility that should never be located on this site. Last, I respectfully request that no zoning changes be approved until the new General Plan for the City is in place so growth can happen that will enhance and not diminish our community and city. Sincerely, Christine Osaki 14-285