Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0_Harbor Pointe Senior Living_PA2015-21004"O;""t CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT December 6, 2018 Agenda Item No. 4 SUBJECT: 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). 1 • 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. N VICINITY MAP 5 d i pe '• A 11 GENERAL PLAN ZONING O O° l• >4 LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON-SITE General Commercial Office CO -G Bayview Planned Community PC -32 Kita ama Restaurant General Commercial (CG) Newport Place Planned Community Multi -tenant commercial NORTH Mixed -Use Horizontal MU -H2 (PC -11) office buildings and retail SOUTH Multiple Family Residential (RM) PC -32 Ba crest Communit EAST CO -G PC -32 Multi -tenant office buildings WEST CO -G Santa Ana Heights Specific Plan Area Multi -tenant office SP -7 buildings and residential 3 V� QP �. 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 downscaled 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. Protect 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 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 1 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). N 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 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. 0 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) 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 forthe 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. The ALUC will review this project prior to City Council consideration, consistent with this Policy. 0 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. 10 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 11 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 oarkina is provided on-site. If there 12 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 i3 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, 100 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-18. 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. M AB52 and SB18-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-Kizh 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. 15 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 uppermostfloor. 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. 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; 10 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 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. 17 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: im 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. 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. 19 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/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 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 21 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 EIR. 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 LPN 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 Aareement 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 23 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. M 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 2.5 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: MA61 J�/C.,..,,JA Z eba, AICP Jim Campbell ociate I ner Deputy Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions PC 2 Draft Resolution for Denial PC 3 Applicant's Project Description and Justification PC 4 Current Statistical Area J6 Section 423 Table PC 5 Project Visual Simulations PC 6 General Plan Figure NR3 PC 7 Shade and Shadow Simulations PC 8 Appendix G of Technical Appendices — Traffic Memorandum PC 9 Fiscal Impact Analysis PC 10 Correspondence PC 11 Project Plans 01/12118 20 Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions 2� 22 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. 1. 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. 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. 1. 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 30 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. 31 SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. General Plan and Planned Community Development Plan Amendments I. 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). 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. 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 32 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 33 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 M 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 S5 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. so 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 00/100 ($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: 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; 37 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: 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. ON 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 Finding: 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 39 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 FIRE -1 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 LUO 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; iM 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: 1. 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 iM 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. 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: 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: 1. 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. RE 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 6T" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN ABSENT: BY: Ll'� Peter Zak, Chairman Lee Lowrey, Secretary Exhibit "A" Environmental Impact Report EIR SCH No. 2016071062 • Notice of Preparation • Initial Study • Environmental Analysis • Alternatives Analysis • Appendices • Responses to Comments • Revisions to Draft EIR (Available separate due to bulk) www.newportbeachca.gov/cega Kim Exhibit "B" Mitigation Monitoring Report Program 40 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@newportbeachco.gov 949.644.3253 December 2018 -47 42 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 49 50 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program............................................................... 1.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................1 1.2 Mitigation Monitoring Procedures 1.3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 51 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 Environmental Impact Report, 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 52 SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SR State Route T TRAN Transportation and Traffic 53 M, 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. 5.5 • 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. 50 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 stone wall with cap, for the assisted living and memory care residents and their guests. The assisted living courtyard 57 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 ACCESS/PARKING 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. WN 159 Responsible for Timing of Responsibility for Completion Date Mitigation Measures Implementation Mitigation Monitoring (Signature Required) 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 CountyCoroner 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 159 Imp Responsible for Timing of Responsibility for Completion Date Mitigation Measures Implementation Mitigation Monitoring (Signature Required) 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 Imp Mitigation Measures Responsible for Implementation Timing of Mitigation Responsibility for Monitoring Completion Date (Signature Required) Ninyo & Moore (dated December 2015, updated Department - Building April 2016): Division • 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 01 02 Responsible for Timing of Responsibility for Completion Date Mitigation Measures Implementation Mitigation Monitoring (Signature Required) 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. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 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 CaIOSHA) 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 02 O3 Responsible for Timing of Responsibility for Completion Date Mitigation Measures Implementation Mitigation Monitoring (Signature Required) 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 O3 Responsible for Timing of Responsibility for Completion Date Mitigation Measures Implementation Mitigation Monitoring (Signature Required) 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 NO1-1 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 3/4 -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 Mitigation Measures Responsible for Implementation Timing of Mitigation Responsibility for Monitoring Completion Date (Signature Required) Director that construction plans and grading, or any Department - Building specifications require: building permits Division 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 U, 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. 05 00 Responsible for Timing of Responsibility for Completion Date Mitigation Measures Implementation Mitigation Monitoring (Signature Required) 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 N0I-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) in all habitable rooms of the proposed building facing Bristol Street or Bayview Place, The Applicant shall also submit plans and specifications showing that: 00 0-�L Responsible for Timing of Responsibility for Completion Date Mitigation Measures Implementation Mitigation Monitoring (Signature Required) • 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 0-�L Mitigation Measures Responsible for Implementation Timing of Mitigation Responsibility for Monitoring Completion Date (Signature Required) 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. 02 Exhibit "C" General Plan Land Use Map Amendment 09 70 r Land Use Change: General Commercial Office (CO -G) `"` to Private Institutions (PI) • 22 kk ��III► I� p J �t1 • �, . • N 72 "..Cry Sfaflsflaal I Lord Use I Development Noxi Area Desi nation Limit s Develo moot Limes Other Additional Information 1 L4 MU H2 460,095471 Hotel Rooms(not included in total 11,544 sf restricted to general office 2.1 L4 MU -H2 18,810 use only (included in total square footage) 3 L4 CO -G 734,641 4 L4 MU -H2 250,176 5 L4 MIY112 32,500 6 L4 MU -H2 46,044 7 L4 MU -112 81,372 8 L4 MU -H2 442,775 9 L4 CG 120,000 164 Hotel Rooms (included in total square footage) 10 L4 MU -H2 31,362 349 Hotel Rcoms(not Included in total 17 L4 I ML -H2 33,292 304 Hotel Rcoms(not included in total 22 A Pl - - 85,000, _________________ ................. o,. ,. ,,.. „......... ICS --_ ---_______ 23 K2 PR 15,000 24 1.3 IG 89,624 25 1.3 PI 64,585 26 1.3 IG 33,940 27 1.3 IG 86,000 28 1.3 IG 110,600 29 1.3 CG 47,500 30 M6 CG 54,000 31 L2 PR 75,000 32 L2 PI 34,000 33 M3 PI 163,680 Administrative Office and Support Facilitates: 30,000 sf Community Mausoleum and Garden Crypts: 121,680 sf MNewport Beach General Plan Deleted: CO -G Deleted: 70,000 Deleted: Restaurant 80009. or Once. 70.000 at 73 Exhibit "D" Amended PC -32 (Bayview Planned Community) Development Plan 74 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 XXX X, 2019 715 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 S,.RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY (RCFEI. 18 AREA 6, BUFFER 23 Deleted: Deleted: RESTAURANT SITE/PROFESSIONAL AND T ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE . - - 70 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. Bl: 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. 77 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. im 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. 7Q PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 20 E 7 � O O O O � � o td rid n � G � n Nb bs. Q 7'i7 Cb O.� y CC y „, c C..G v '� S '•. c p_2< A m G m? LAI a G C O a, � 7 � O O O O � v � N b MA td rid �ia G � y Nb bs. Q 7'i7 Cb O.� y CC V] � C..G v '� S '•. QOCL U N � N b MA 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. 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 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. 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 privatestreets 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. 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. rem 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 modem 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. NQ 4. Patio covers. 5. Any other accessory use or structure which the Planning Commission finds to be of a similar nature. Development Standards 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. W 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 comer 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. 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. MA 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 modem 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 Deleted: I Permitted Uses Subject to Use Permit 1. Helistop. Development Standards 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. E 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. 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. 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. • Automobile parking lots and structures. • Recreation facilities. • Day nurseries. • Public and private parks and playgrounds. • 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 91 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. Automobileservice stations. 3. Automobile wrecking, junk, and salvage yards. 4. Beverage bottling plants. 5. Cleaning, dyeing, and laundry plants. 6. Ice Production. 92 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 Maximum Height Limits Buildings shall not exceed 90 feet. This height shall be measured from fust 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 From 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. 93 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, containersand trash shall be shielded from view within a building or within an area enclosed by a wall not less than 6 feet in height. 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. 9-/+ Inters 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 t. 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 I Term Permits) or its successor section. Permitted Accessory Uses The following accessory uses pre 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. Rrohibited Usas ����� 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 t 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. Deleted: RESTAURANT PROFESSIONAL AND Deleted: I Deleted: I <#'The Restaurant/Professional and Administrative Office designation provides areas for commercial uses which offer a wide range of goods and services including those facilities fur shopping goods, convenience goods and services, food services, and recreation for the community.'I Deleted: Permitted Uses¶ <#'Restaurants, bars and theater/nightclubs.¶ Temporary Uses Permitted'! <#>Commercial coaches.Ti Deleted: <#>Amannobilewashing.1 <#,Health Clubs.¶ 1 <#>Helistops t <#'Mini-smrage facilities.¶ ¶#>Public utility exchanges and substations.¶ 9 <#>ftetail businesses.¶ 9 <#'Service businesses.¶ 1! <#'Animal clinics and hospitals.¶ T <#>Administrative and professional offices.¶ <#'Automobile parking lots and structures.¶ 9 <#>Cbrnmercial recreation.,{ 9 <#>Nmaeries and garden supply stores provided that all equipment, supplies, rentals, and merchandise other than Deleted: and structures Deleted: Detached buildings. Deleted: Fences and walls. Deleted: <#>Sigos.! 9 <#>Accessory uses and structures which the Planning Commission finds to be of similar nature.¶ Deleted: Automobile repair garages, fender and body repair, and paint shops. Deleted: I <#>Automobile service stations.¶ I <#,Automobile wrecking, junk, and salvage yards.¶ 95 L,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 (Bavview Place): 10 feet Right Side (Bristol Street): 15 feet Left Side: 40 feet Rear: 40 feet 6. Other Development Standards Unless otherwise annroved 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 r\'r Deleted: 2. Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at:1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Indent at: 0.25" Deleted: square feet for restaurant use is 8,000 sq. ft. Deleted: 3... Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Indent at: 0.25" Deleted: Maximum square feet for office use is 70,000 N. ft. Deleted: 4. Deleted: Building Site Area Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ._ + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Indent at: 0.25" Deleted: There are no specifications for minimum building site area. Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at:1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Indent at: 0.25" Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, ... + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0" + Indent at: 0.25" Deleted: ¶ 5. _ Offstreet parking¶ T 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¶ Page Break 6. Structural Setback0l Community Commercial uses which abunl 9 Use Front Yard Side and Rear Yard1 Commercial 5 fees 0 fico' Residential 5 feet 20 feet' Pro+esa cmd Administrative 5 feet 0 feet, T Street setbacks: Front, side and rear yard setbacks shall each be ten feet from the property line. Distances between Deleted: by the Department of Parks, Beaches, and Recreation end Deleted: Dnector of Planning Deleted: and Director of Public Works. 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. 9:7 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 1. 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. Exhibit "E" Draft Development Agreement 99 DRAFT RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: Citv 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 100 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 "Furty." 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 ("Prope "). 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 101 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) ("LIR") 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. I. On enter hearing date, 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 enter date, consistent with applicable provisions of the Development Agreement Statute and Development Agreement Ordinance, the City Council adopted its Ordinance No. insert ordinance number ("Adopting Ordinance"), finding this Agreement consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and approving this Agreement. AGREEMENT 102 NOW, THEREFORE, City and Developer agree as follows: 1. 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. insert ordinance number 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. "CEOA" 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 et 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 103 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 Ii 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 thirty (30) 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 seq., as amended ("RCRA"); the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. Sections 11001 et seg., as amended; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. Section 1801, et sem., 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 sea., 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 seq., as amended; the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 300f et seq., as amended; the Federal Radon and Indoor 105 Air Quality Research Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 7401 et seq., as amended; the Occupational Safety and Health Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 651 et seq., as amended; and California Health and Safety Code Section 25100, et seq. "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 - 1. "Mortgage" 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. "TaM" 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. "PropertX" 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. 100 "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." ZOj 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 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. 3.1.1 Public Benefit Fee and Mitigation Impact Fee Allocation YD9 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 110 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 Authority. 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 shalt 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 111 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 112 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). Zia 5. Amendment or Cancellation of Aereement 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 11.4 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. 8. 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. 225 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. 110 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 Liabilityof 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 Partin 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 117 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. 218 10.3 Environmental Indemnity. 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 seq.) 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. 119 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 120 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 Mortgagee 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 121 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 Parry 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 122 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 123 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 124 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] 12.5 SIGNATURE PAGE TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT "DEVELOPER" HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC Paul Habeeb, Managing Member "CITY" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Insert Mayor's Name, Mayor ATTEST: Leilani L Brown, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Aaron C. Harp, City Attorney Sean Matsler, Attorney for Developer 120 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 truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF On , 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 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) 227 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 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. 122 EXHIBIT B SITE MAP *41%1 O1 Sl N � F A9 �S �O Project Site err V 111 m i � l c f / 1 z' a CQ 12J 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. ISO Exhibit "F" Conditions of Approval (Project -specific conditions are in italics) Planning Division 1. 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 one hundred twenty (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 term 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). b. Change in on-site staffing that creates a deficiency in parking supply or results in a parking impact to surrounding properties. 131 C. Increase in physical capacity of facility and increases in floor area of facility. 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 Municipal Code. 15. The Operator shall provide and maintain public notice of the Regional DSS Office and the Long -Term Ombudsman addresses and phone numbers forreceiving 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. 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. 132 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 twenty (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 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 eleven (11) inches by seventeen (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). 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 "1" or less at all property lines, unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Director. 133 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 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 (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. 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. im 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 SOdBA Mixed Use Property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA Commercial Property N/A 65dBA N/A 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 (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. 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. im 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. 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 ten (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 twenty six (26) feet within thirty (30) feet of a hydrant and no vehicle parking allowed. Parking on one side is permitted for streets that are a minimum of twenty eight (28) feet wide. Parking on both sides is permitted for streets that are a minimum of twenty six (26) feet wide. Access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet, six (6) inches. 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 seventy two thousand (72,000) pounds imposed load for fire apparatus, and truck outrigger loads of seventy five (75) pounds per square inch over a two (2) 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 13.5 the Newport Beach Public Works Department's Neighborhood Traffic Management Guidelines. 46. Approved vehicle access for firefighting shall be provided to all construction or demolition sites. Vehicle access shall be provided to within one hundred (100) feet 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 fifty (50) feet from the building. Dispersal areas shall be sized to provide not less than three(3) 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. 51. Fire hydrants shall be provided and located within four hundred (400) feet 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 twenty four (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; 130 d. In public assembly areas larger than one thousand five hundred (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 twenty four (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 ("BACMs") to reduce construction -related air quality impacts: 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 ninety (90) day low-NOx tune-ups for off road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to thirty (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 ten (10) percent soil moisture content in the top six (6) inch surface layer, subject to review/discretion of the geotechnical engineer. 137 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 (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 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 BMPs. 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) BMPs. 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 -B. 132 Attachment No. PC 2 Draft Resolution for Denial 139 140 RESOLUTION NO. PC2018-033 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING 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"). 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. 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). 141 • 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 QUALITYACT DETERMINATION. 1. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves are not subject to CEQA review. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. Amendments 1. Amendments to the General Plan are legislative acts. Neither the City nor State Planning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of such amendments. 2. Code amendments are legislative acts. Neither the City Municipal Code nor State Planning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of such 142 amendments, unless they are determined not to be required for the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare. 3. The future development of the property affected by the proposed amendments will not be consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Major Site Development Review A major site development review is required for the construction of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet or more of nonresidential construction. The Major Site Development Review analyzes the project as a whole for compatibility with the site and surrounding land uses. The Planning Commission may approve a site development review only after making each of the required findings set forth in NBMC Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews). In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings based upon the following: The Planning Commission determined, in this case, that the proposed Site Development Review for is not consistent with the legislative intent of NBMC Title 20. The proposed project may prove detrimental to the community. 2. The Planning Commission determined, in this case, that the proposed Site Development Review is not consistent proposed with the General Plan policies due to the incompatible land use, architectural style, fagade treatments, and height of the proposed project. 3. The design, 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 would not be compatible with the enjoyment of the nearby residential properties. Conditional Use Permit A conditional use permit is required to allow the operation of a one hundred twenty (120) bed RCFE. The Planning Commission may approve a conditional use permit only after making each of the required findings set forth in NBMC Section 20.52.020 (Conditional and Minor Use Permits). In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings based upon the following: 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 denies General Plan Amendment No. GP2015-004, 1-43 Planned Community Development Plan Amendment No. PD2015-005, Site Development Review No. SD2015-007, and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2015-047. 2. This action shall become final and effective fourteen (14) days following the date this Resolution was adopted, unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of NBMC Title 20. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 6T" DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Peter Zak, Chairman AM Lee Lowrey, Secretary 19�Z'7 Attachment No. PC 3 Applicant's Project Description and Justification 145 140 Updated Project Description for Harbor Pointe 9-7-18 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), a Conditional Use Permit (UP2015-047) and a Development Agreement. Approval of these applications would allow for the demolition and removal of an existing restaurant, Kitiyama, surface parking lots, and associated site improvements and redevelopment of the property by the construction of a three-story building containing los assisted living and memory care units (12o beds), ancillary uses, and subsurface parking. Landscaping, drive aisles, and passenger drop-off would also be provided on the property. The owner of the Kitiyama restaurant intends to cease his restaurant operations with the proposed Project or an alternative to the Project. Proposed land uses 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 lol assisted living and memory care units (12o 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. 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. The proposed facility would have a total of approximately to to 20 employees with a maximum of approximately 30 employees at the busiest time (i.e., change of day and night shifts). 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 loo cubic yards would be used for site fill. In addition, 1,294 tons of demolition debris would be exported from the site. Building Articulation and Massing, Setbacks, and Height The modified building height and the proposed setbacks are designed to provide compatibility with the adjacent uses. The proposed building is uniformly three stories, or 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 247 Bayview Planned Community (PC -32) text. Increased setbacks and ample landscaping are incorporated near the southwest property line, adjacent to Baycrest condominiums, to create a buffer and enhance compatibility. Additionally, varied textures and colors, recesses, articulation, and design accents on the elevations would be integrated in order to enhance the building's architectural style. The building facade is designed to be compatible with the surrounding developments in the Bayview area. The building materials include 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. The building as located on the Project site exceeds the minimum required setbacks identified in the Planned Community (PC) text, as summarized below: • 41 -foot setback from the southwest property line, near the Baycrest condominiums (the PC requires 20 feet between commercial and residential uses) • 41 -foot setback from the office building and residential uses to the northwest (the PC requires o feet to the office and 20 feet to the residential uses) • 15400t setback from Bristol Street (the PC requires 10 feet) • 11 -foot setback from Bayview Place (the PC requires io feet) The building would cover approximately 40 percent of the site and would have a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.29. Unit Mix and Ancillary Uses at the Facility The first floor of the facility would house the 20 memory care units, which consist of 13 one -bedroom units and 7 two-bedroom units. The one -bedroom units would be approximately 400 square feet in size, and the two-bedroom units would range in size from 480 to 625 square feet. Additionally, there would be a total of 5 assisted living studios of 400 square feet or 480 square feet. The first floor would also include the main lobby, memory care lobby, living rooms, dining rooms, private dining area, kitchen, courtyards, 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 48o 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 48o square feet in size; the 13 assisted living one -bedroom units range in size between 148 boo 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 53 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. 149 150 Attachment No. PC 4 Current Statistical Area J6 Section 423 Table 151 152 W s N w m C O CL 3 N Z O Y V a a, 0 L CL CL a Y C d E a C N E a C m CL m `w d C7 O O N 00 CL bo N O N co N d a E O 0 2 m y C A � s y a � g a o 0 O 2 m y C IO � N U a � � a O Y_ c m C N 00 d C 3 U O D U , O O �••� N 00 A O O LL v � = 0OQ c N a s O o" C 0 N O E a a C'C y u E m a o , a u d u O a E a Z a 0 I m a m a o 0 O L 3 •u C O CL E U fb Z bbb 0 W a o o E Y ° a a Z boo z > 153 157 Attachment No. PC 5 Project Visual Simulations 155 150 tCp' I YR 1 L t _ ^I >;. r Ali J 010 J 1.'F^ 77�, . ` '- I � 4 View 1 - View North from Baycrest entry (before). View 1 - View North from Baycrest Entry (after). View Simulation Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project (0&05/2018 MMD) Exhibit 4.1-2a pdr View 2 - View North-East from Baycrest Garages (before). View 2 - View North-East from Baycrest Garages (after). View Simulation Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project (0&05/2018 MMD) Exhibit 4.1-2b 4. , i/ 10 View 3 - View East from Baycrest garages (before). View 3 - View East from Baycrest garages (after). View Simulation Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project (0&05/2018 MMD) Exhibit 4.1-2c View 4 - View East from corner of Bayview and Zenith (before). View 4 - View East from corner of Bayview and Zenith (after). View Simulation Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project (0&05/2018 MMD) Exhibit 4.1-2d View 5 - View East from Bayview Avenue (before). View 5 - View East from Bayview Avenue (after). View Simulation Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project (0&05/2018 MMD) Exhibit 4.1-2e 102 Attachment No. PC 6 General Plan Figure NR3 log 170 COSTA MESA NEWPORT PIER r PACIFIC OCEAN UPPER t.I NEWPORT BAY "`'r����l l J) i Ouxe[ \,xy p ISLAND I SLANO � W I 'cy4 rLP2e BALBOA ISLANDT 4 nrvNei wwca m 101 Bayview Place \`w NEWPORT CRYSTAL COVE STATE PARK IRVINE COAST CRYSTAL COVE STATE PARK CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure NIR3 COASTAL VIEWS Legend IS Public View Point 4'%.0 Coastal View Road Shoreline Height Limitation Zone 01i City Boundary 0 County . Project Site I n 0.5 1 Miles Source: CM of Newport Beaeh, 2005 PROJECT NUMBER: 10579-01 Dale: 07/24/06 EIP 2�2 Attachment No. PC 7 Shade and Shadow Simulations 17S 174 G � A QProject Boundary a a ; Shadows of Proposed Structures Note: All times referenced are in Pacific Standard Time (UTC -S) 1 _ L Ama ik�' Shade and Shadow Analysis - 9:OOAM(PST) on the Spring Equinox Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project N w4 YE so as o so Feet Exhibit 4.1-3a -r i ,� _ �► .F . A QProject Boundary Shadows of Proposed Structures. Note: All times referenced are in Pacific Standard Time (UTC -S) f Shade and Shadow Analysis - 1 2:OOPM(PST) on the Spring Equinox Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project N w4 YE so 45 o so Feet -�1;'A;V_ Aerial Source: City of Newport Beach, 2014 Exhibit 4.1-3b dry rSy— 1 Q as - Project Boundary a ; Shadows of Proposed Structures Note: All times referenced are in Pacific Standard Time (UTC -S) Shade and Shadow Analysis - 3:OOPM(PST) on the Spring Equinox Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project N w4 YE 90 45 0 so Feet v Aerial Source: City of Newport Beach, 2014 Exhibit 4.1-3c QProject Boundary a ; Shadows of Proposed Structures Note: All times referenced are in Pacific Standard Time (UTC -S) _ L as IR�ey' i Shade and Shadow Analysis - 9:OOAM(PST) on the Summer Solstice Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project N w4 YE so 45 o so Feet Aerial Source: City of Newport Beach, 2014 Exhibit 4.1-3d r� "O 1 QProject Boundary Shadows of Proposed Structures Note: All times referenced are in Pacific Standard Time (UTC -S) Shade and Shadow Analysis - 1 2:OOPM(PST) on the Summer Solstice Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project N w4 YE 90 45 0 so Feet -SIX.A;V_ Aerial Source: City of Newport Beach, 2014 Exhibit 4.1-3e a QProject Boundary a ; Shadows of Proposed Structures Note, All times referenced are in Pacific Standard jTime (UTC -S) s _ L �s IR�rirciY Shade and Shadow Analysis - 3:OOPM(PST) on the Summer Solstice Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project N w4 YE so as o so Feet Exhibit 4.1-3f X QProject Boundary Shadows of Proposed Structures Note: All times referenced are in Pacific Standard Time (UTC -S) O Shade and Shadow Analysis - 9:00AM(PST) on the Winter Solstice Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project N w4 YE 90 45 0 so Feet -�1;'A;V_ Aerial Source: City of Newport Beach, 2014 Exhibit 4.1-3g a QProject Boundary a ; Shadows of Proposed Structures Note: All times referenced are in Pacific Standard jTime (UTC -S) L s 4 i A Shade and Shadow Analysis - 12:OOPM(PST) on the Winter Solstice Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project N w4 YE 90 as 0 so Feet Aerial Source: City of Newport Beach, 2014 Exhibit 4.1-3h kLq Y Or :!. b A QProject Boundary a ; Shadows of Proposed Structures? Note: All times referenced are in Pacific Standard j Time (UTC -S) s Shade and Shadow Analysis - 3:OOPM(PST) on the Winter Solstice Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project N w4 YE 90 45 0 90 Feet -�1;'A;V_ Aerial Source: City of Newport Beach, 2014 Exhibit 4.1-3i Attachment No. PC 8 Appendix G of Technical Appendices Traffic Memorandum 125 120 OURBAN CROSSROADS February 12, 2018 Ms. Kathleen Brady Psomas 3 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 200 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Ofc: 1001 Dove St. I Suite 260 1 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Main: 260 E. Baker St. I Suite 200 1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 urbanxroads.com SUBJECT: HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING TRAFFIC MEMORANDUM Dear Ms. Kathleen Brady: Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide this Traffic Memorandum for the Harbor Pointe Senior Living ("Project"), which is located at 101 Bayview Place in the City of Newport Beach. Exhibit 1 shows the location of the proposed Project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION It is our understanding that the Project is to consist of demolition of an existing approximately 8,800 square foot, single story restaurant and the development of a three-story building containing 120 Assisted Living and Memory Care beds, with ancillary uses. Exhibit 2 provides an overlay of the Project site plan on the existing roadway system. Access to the Project site is provided via the Project driveway to Bayview Place. An emergency only exit driveway is provided to Bristol Street. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION The purpose of the trip generation calculation is to evaluate the net new trip generation associated with the proposed Project, and determine if additional analysis is required pursuant to the City of Newport Beach's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). Trip generation represents the amount of traffic which is both attracted to and produced by a development. The proposed Project will replace the existing 8,800 square foot restaurant. Traffic generation rates for the existing use and proposed Project have been derived from Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (10th Edition, 2017). Table 1 summarizes the Project trip generation. The existing use is estimated to generate a total of 738 trips per day with 6 AM peak hour trips and 69 PM peak hour trips. The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 312 trips per day with approximately 23 AM peak hour trips and 31 PM peak hour trips. The TPO ordinance allows for trip credit to be applied to all existing uses on the site. Therefore, the trip generation credits are based on the square footage of the existing restaurant. Based on the City's TPO 11356-02 Letter.docx 2g7 Ms. Kathleen Brady Psomas February 12, 2018 Page 2 requirements, a Traffic Study would not be required of any project that generates no more than 300 net new average daily trips. The proposed Project, with credit for existing trips, is anticipated to generate 426 fewer trips per day with approximately 17 net new AM peak hour trips and 38 fewer PM peak hour trips. A summary of Project's trip generation is shown on Table 1. As shown, the Project would not generate more than 300 net new average daily trips, and therefore a Traffic Study is not required for the Project. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY BY PHASE The Project construction activities would include three phases (1) demolition of the existing restaurant on site (2) excavation / grading for the new facility, and (3) construction of the new building and site features. The following discussion has been prepared to address the anticipated construction traffic associated with heavy vehicles and construction workers. Large construction equipment such as bulldozers, loaders, etc. would be required during the three construction phases. A staging area would be designated on-site to store construction equipment and supplies during construction. Throughout construction, the size of the work crew each day varies depending on the construction phase and the construction activities taking place at the time. Parking for workers would be provided on-site during all phases of construction, and construction workers would not park on local streets. The following information regarding construction activities and quantities has been provided by the Applicant: • A 12-14 month construction schedule is anticipated • Cut = 13,000 cubic yards, Fill = 200 cubic yards, Net = 12,800 cubic yards • Employee numbers on-site vary between 2 and 50 workers at any time. Assuming the demolition and excavation phases last for 6 months, with a capacity of 18 cubic yards per truckload, demolition activities will require removal of approximately 712 truckloads of cut and fill. Assuming a two- to three-month period for the excavation/grading phases (approximately 21 workdays per month), this would equate to an average of 12 - 17 inbound and 12 - 17 outbound trucks per day for the duration. The duration of the construction phase (foundation and above -ground) is estimated to be 8 - 10 months. It is estimated that there will be up to four truck deliveries of construction materials per day during the construction phase. Construction related traffic estimates for each phase are presented in Table 2. 11356-02 Letter.dou *URBAN RB" cnosswonos 288 Ms. Kathleen Brady Psomas February 12, 2018 Page 3 Heavy haul vehicles and delivery trucks would arrive and depart the site throughout the construction day, whereas construction workers would arrive in the morning, and depart in the evening. Construction traffic will be required to use arterial roadways to get to and from the site. No residential streets can be used. Approach and departure routes for construction vehicles are assumed to be via Bristol Street and Bayview Place. Exhibit 3 shows the anticipated trip distribution of construction activity. Estimates of project only construction daily trips on adjacent roadway segments are shown on Exhibits 4 through 6. EXISTING CONDITIONS Current average daily traffic (ADT) counts for midblock arterial roadway segments in the study area have been recently conducted. Exhibit 7 presents the existing ADT volumes. Daily traffic volumes based on 3 -day counts conducted between January 23rd and 25th, 2018 range from 4,512 to 4,887 daily trips on Bayview Place and from 31,473 to 32,593 daily trips on Bristol Street (see Attachment 1). PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EVALUATION For each construction phase, the daily construction traffic volumes are anticipated to be less than the current site traffic that will be eliminated when the project construction activity begins, and also less than the future project traffic to be generated by the proposed Project. However, temporary delays in traffic will occasionally occur due to heavy vehicles traveling at lower speeds than general traffic. Such short delays would occur outside the peak hours on an occasional basis. These temporary delays are considered less than significant. The Project construction traffic management plan should include such things as requiring an encroachment permit for work in the public right-of-way, limiting heavy truck activity during peak hours, using flaggers to manage short-term traffic control, requiring a formal traffic control plan for extended street and lane closures, limiting time and duration of closures, and/or requiring a minimum number of lanes to be open for travel during peak hours. If you have any questions, please contact us at (949) 336-5990 for John or (949) 336-5991 for Marlie. Respectfully submitted, URBAN CROSSROADS, INC. ea , John Kain, AICP Principal 11356-02 Letter.dou Marlie Whiteman, P.E. Senior Associate URBAN cwosswonos _T29 Harbor Pointe Senior EXHIBIT 1: LOCATION MAP 11356 - 01 - study area.dwg URBAN ceosBAN 290 Harbor Pointe Senior EXHIBIT 2: PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN R 11356 - 01 - study area.dwg SII r� I -1 "tri I lig G.• r URBAN cRosBAM 292 BRISTOL STREET I.: m` _7 wCE) pp— :' E FMIVEXI tMONLY%It' _ �1�'_ a % se 3STORY .. BUILDING _ . {F=53.50_ - D,I GaURT`(. 3 o 1i Y I'VE ICE.. , ko Ek FIFE D WIT R 11356 - 01 - study area.dwg SII r� I -1 "tri I lig G.• r URBAN cRosBAM 292 Project Trip Generation Summary Land Use ITE LU Code Units' I AM Peak Hour I PM Peak Hour I Daily In I Out I Total I In I Out I Total 1 3 1 3 Trip Generation Rates' 1 46 1 23 Quality Restaurant 931 TSF 0.365 0.365 0.73 5.23 2.57 7.80 83.84 Assisted Living 254 Beds 0.12 0.07 0.19 0.10 0.16 0.26 2.60 Land Use Quantity I Units' AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily I In I Out I Total In Out I Total Existing Trip Generation Quality Restaurantl 8.800 1 TSF 1 3 1 3 1 6 1 46 1 23 1 69 738 Existing Trip Generation 3 1 3 1 6 46 23 69 738 Project Trip Generation Assisted Living 120 I BEDS 14 8 23 12 19 31 312 Difference (Project Increase or Decrease) 11 5 17 -34 -4 -38 -426 ' Trip Generation Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trio Generation Manual. Tenth Edition (2017). 2 TSF =Thousand Square Feet 1-92 Table 2: Construction Phase Trip Generation Construction Phase Duration Construction -related Vehicles Inbound Daily Trips I Outbound Total Demolition 1 month Debris Haul Trucks 6 - 7 6 - 7 12- 14 Workers 10 10 20 Excavation / Grading 2 - 3 months Export/Import Haul Trucks 12-17 12-17 24-34 Workers 10 10 20 Construction 10 months Material Delivery Trucks 2 - 3 2-3 4 - 6 Workers 50 50 100 Harbor Pointe Senior EXHIBIT 3: CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY TRIP DISTRIBUTION BRISTOL ST. (EB) 80 J a 11356 - 01 - study area.dwg LEGEND: f10 =PERCENT FROM PROJECT (OUTBOUND) f-10 = PERCENT TO PROJECT (INBOUND) EXHIBIT 4: PROJECT ONLY DEMOLITION PHASE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) BRISTOL ST. (EB) s 14 _ 6 SITE PROJECT DWY. TO 34 14 Harbor Pointe Senior LEGEND: 20 34 TRUCKS TOTAL 14 OTHERVEHICLES VEHICLES PER DAY 11356 - 01 - study area.dwg URBAN CR.SSRoA.S 195 Harbor Pointe Senior EXHIBIT 5: PROJECT ONLY EXCAVATION/GRADING PHASE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) BRISTOL ST. (EB) s �� Ia SITE PROJECT DWY. gq 34 LEGEND: 30 Sq TRUCKS TOTAL 34 OTHERVEHICLES VEHICLES PER DAY 11356 - 01 - study area.dwg URBAN CR.SSRoA.S ego Harbor Pointe Senior EXHIBIT 6: PROJECT ONLY CONSTRUCTION PHASE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) BRISTOL ST. (EB) ao 44 z SITE PROJECT DWY. 700 6 106 LEGEND: 100lob TRUCKS TOTAL 6 OTHERVEHICLES VEHICLES PER DAY 11356 - 01 - study area.dwg URBAN cnossaonos �9� Harbor Pointe Senior EXHIBIT 7: EXISTING (2018) AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC (ADT) 31,473 BRISTOL ST. (EB) 32,022 32,593 11356 - 01 - study area.dwg LEGEND: 1,000 VEHICLES PER DAY (COUNT DATE: 1123118 TUESDAY) 1,000 VEHICLES PER DAY (COUNT DATE: 1124118 WEDNESDAY) 1,000 VEHICLES PER DAY (COUNT DATE: 1125118 THURSDAY) V URBAN crcossaonos 29 ATTACHMENT 1 EXISTING (2018) TRAFFIC COUNTS 199 City of Newport Beach Bayview Place S/ Bristol Street 72 Hour Directional Volume Count Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 Phone: 951-268-6268 email: counts@countsunlimited.com Page 1 NPB001 Site Code: 051-18056 Start 23 -Jan -18 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Tue Momina Afternoon Mornina Afternoon Momina Afternoon Morning Afternoon Momino Afternoon 12:00 0 57 505 1458 1359 1190 1359 1190 1864 2648 0 50 12:15 0 44 2549 4512 Total 1 58 AM Peak - 11:00 12:30 1 43 Vol. - 160 1 67 - - - - - P.H.F. 0.597 12:45 1 39 2 183 1 45 3 220 5 403 01:00 0 47 0.720 1 66 25.7% 74.3% 53.3% 46.7% 01:15 1 32 2 56 01:30 0 38 0 48 01:45 0 26 1 143 1 45 4 209 5 352 02:00 0 37 1 43 02:15 5 27 2 30 02:30 4 30 0 28 02:45 1 23 10 117 0 25 3 126 13 243 03:00 0 29 0 32 03:15 0 16 0 27 03:30 0 22 0 26 03:45 0 19 0 86 1 25 1 110 1 196 04:00 1 49 3 23 04:15 1 42 2 27 04:30 2 51 5 37 04:45 2 48 6. 190 4 27 14 114 20 304 05:00 0 126 2 42 05:15 2 58 6 34 05:30 3 114 6 34 05:45 6 65 11 363 16 25 30 135 41 498 06:00 10 67 12 25 06:15 6 56 17 28 06:30 4 42 28 17 06:45 7 35 27 200 51 15 108 85 135 285 07:00 12 33 38 18 07:15 8 18 57 18 07:30 15 14 73 22 07:45 13 14 48 79 88 18 256 76 304 155 08:00 18 9 106 10 08:15 20 13 114 21 08:30 15 13 85 9 08:45 14 10 67 45 76 12 381 52 448 97 09:00 26 5 72 5 09:15 25 14 74 8 09:30 22 2 45 9 09:45 27 6 100 27 37 6 228 28 328 55 10:00 14 6 44 6 10:15 19 9 45 7 10:30 18 1 30 3 10:45 22 2 73 18 32 6 151 22 224 40 11:00 28 4 41 3 11:15 33 1 42 6 11:30 67 1'111:45 32 11 160 71 46 11 180 131 340 20 Total 505 1458 505 1458 1359 1190 1359 1190 1864 2648 Combined 1963 1963 2549 2549 4512 Total AM Peak - 11:00 - - - 07:45 - - - - - Vol. - 160 - - - 393 - - - - - P.H.F. 0.597 0.862 PM Peak - - 05:00 - - - 00:15 - - - - Vol. - - 363 - - - 230 - - - - P.H.F. 0.720 0.858 Percentag 25.7% 74.3% 53.3% 46.7% e 200 City of Newport Beach Bayview Place S/ Bristol Street 72 Hour Directional Volume Count Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 Phone: 951-268-6268 email: counts@countsunlimited.com Page 2 NPB001 Site Code: 051-18056 Start 24 -Jan -18 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Wed Momina Afternoon Mornina Afternoon Momina Afternoon Morning Afternoon Momino Afternoon 12:00 2 56 554 1458 1400 1198 1400 1198 1954 2656 2 47 2012 2598 2598 4610 Total 12:15 1 54 AM Peak 4 62 - - 08:00 - - - - - Vol. - 193 12:30 1 51 P.H.F. 0.862 2 53 PM Peak - - 05:00 12:45 0 45 4 206 1 43 9 205 13 411 01:00 0 40 72.5% 53.9% 0 64 01:15 2 26 3 37 01:30 0 36 0 42 01:45 1 36 3 138 1 53 4 196 7 334 02:00 0 22 2 39 02:15 2 21 3 35 02:30 3 16 1 29 02:45 0 26 5 85 1 30 7 133 12 218 03:00 0 17 0 28 03:15 0 27 0 34 03:30 0 24 1 43 03:45 1 37 1 105 2 32 3 137 4 242 04:00 0 41 2 31 04:15 1 51 3 32 04:30 4 56 5 37 04:45 1 60 6 208 7 32 17 132 23 340 05:00 2 106 4 34 05:15 4 74 11 36 05:30 4 79 12 37 05:45 2 72 12 331 6 35 33 142 45 473 06:00 8 47 13 32 06:15 6 58 22 25 06:30 15 41 33 12 06:45 17 44 46 190 49 15 117 84 163 274 07:00 9 37 39 13 07:15 9 25 58 11 07:30 16 24 76 15 07:45 12 10 46. 96 93 12 266 51 312 147 08:00 16 12 90 11 08:15 18 13 92 15 08:30 15 6 91 11 08:45 20 10 69 41 100 9 373 46 442 87 09:00 13 16 73 10 09:15 23 3 55 7 09:30 25 5 52 12 09:45 24 4 85 28 65 8 245 37 330 65 10:00 15 9 48 5 10:15 25 2 37 6 10:30 26 5 33 2 10:45 18 2 84 18 26 4 144 17 228 35 11:00 40 2 34 4 11:15 47 5 47 4 11:30 50 2 42 2 11:45 56 3 193 12 59 8 182 18 375 30 Total 554 1458 554 1458 1400 1198 1400 1198 1954 2656 Combined 2012 2012 2598 2598 4610 Total AM Peak - 11:00 - - - 08:00 - - - - - Vol. - 193 - - - 373 - - - - - P.H.F. 0.862 0.933 PM Peak - - 05:00 - - - 00:15 - - - - Vol. - - 331 - - - 222 - - - - P.H.F. 0.781 0.867 Percentag 27.5% 72.5% 53.9% 46.1% e 201 City of Newport Beach Bayview Place S/ Bristol Street 72 Hour Directional Volume Count Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 Phone: 951-268-6268 email: counts@countsunlimited.com Page 3 NPB001 Site Code: 051-18056 Start 25 -Jan -18 Northbound Hour Totals Southbound Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Thu Momina Afternoon Mornina Afternoon Momina Afternoon Morning Afternoon Momino Afternoon 12:00 0 58 562 1571 1452 1 54 12:15 1 50 2133 5 51 Total 12:30 0 55 - 11:00 - 4 44 - - - - - Vol. - 172 - 12:45 4 33 5 196 2 64 12 213 17 409 01:00 0 57 12:00 - - - - Vol. 3 50 - - - 213 - - - - P.H.F. 01:15 2 56 0.832 0 46 73.7% 52.7% 47.3% 01:30 1 42 4 43 ADT 4,670 AADT 4,670 01:45 0 26 3 181 0 37 7 176 10 357 02:00 0 21 2 61 02:15 6 34 2 49 02:30 2 26 2 39 02:45 0 24 8 105 0 30 6 179 14 284 03:00 1 40 2 39 03:15 0 19 0 41 03:30 1 27 2 32 03:45 2 21 4 107 2 34 6 146 10 253 04:00 0 66 1 38 04:15 1 55 2 35 04:30 0 71 3 40 04:45 1 63 2 255 4 34 10 147 12 402 05:00 3 128 0 38 05:15 2 66 8 47 05:30 4 81 10 31 05:45 1 75 10 352 14 26 32 142 42 494 06:00 9 60 18 30 06:15 7 55 20 18 06:30 11 29 27 19 06:45 13 35 40 179 48 32 113 99 153 278 07:00 15 30 53 18 07:15 13 25 56 19 07:30 19 23 90 16 07:45 23 10 70 88 97 19 296 72 366 160 08:00 12 6 90 12 08:15 15 18 93 8 08:30 21 8 94 10 08:45 20 8 68 40 99 9 376 39 444 79 09:00 18 10 68 13 09:15 21 5 70 9 09:30 20 8 56 7 09:45 27 0 86 23 59 5 253 34 339 57 10:00 11 10 38 9 10:15 30 6 50 11 10:30 29 15 31 9 10:45 24 4 94 35 39 6 158 35 252 70 11:00 34 6 28 9 11:15 26 0 43 3 11:30 51 '92 11:45 61 3 172 101 53 6 183 20 355 30 Total 562 1571 562 1571 1452 1302 1452 1302 2014 2873 Combined 2133 2133 2754 2754 4887 Total AM Peak - 11:00 - - - 08:00 - - - - - Vol. - 172 - - - 376 - - - - - P.H.F. 0.705 0.949 PM Peak - - 05:00 - - - 12:00 - - - - Vol. - - 352 - - - 213 - - - - P.H.F. 0.688 0.832 Percentag 26.3% 73.7% 52.7% 47.3% e ADT/AADT ADT 4,670 AADT 4,670 202 City of Newport Beach Bristol Street South W/ Bayview Place 72 Hour Directional Volume Count Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 Phone: 951-268-6268 email: counts@countsunlimited.com Page 1 NPB002 Site Code: 051-18056 Start 23 -Jan -18 Eastbound Hour Totals Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Tue Momina Afternoon Mornina Afternoon Mornina Afternoon Mornina Afternoon Momina Afternoon 12:00 15 479 0 0 12:15 26 483 0 0 12:30 26 523 0 0 12:45 25 548 92 2033 0 0 0 0 92 2033 01:00 8 520 0 0 01:15 8 511 0 0 01:30 15 480 0 0 01:45 9 464 40 1975 0 0 0 0 40 1975 02:00 6 480 0 0 02:15 11 433 0 0 02:30 17 515 0 0 02:45 7 470 41 1898 0 0 0 0 41 1898 03:00 4 492 0 0 03:15 3 527 0 0 03:30 23 536 0 0 03:45 24 515 54 2070 0 0 0 0 54 2070 04:00 31 563 0 0 04:15 40 538 0 0 04:30 93 579 0 0 04:45 94 572 258 2252 0 0 0 0 258 2252 05:00 128 683 0 0 05:15 155 590 0 0 05:30 215 670 0 0 05:45 278 620 776 2563 0 0 0 0 776 2563 06:00 281 543 0 0 06:15 347 529 0 0 06:30 400 448 0 0 06:45 527 381 1555 1901 0 0 0 0 1555 1901 07:00 473 328 0 0 07:15 535 264 0 0 07:30 636 267 0 0 07:45 706 226 2350 1085 0 0 0 0 2350 1085 08:00 680 196 0 0 08:15 682 226 0 0 08:30 685 185 0 0 08:45 647 156 2694 763 0 0 0 0 2694 763 09:00 590 167 0 0 09:15 600 161 0 0 09:30 502 142 0 0 09:45 512 144 2204 614 0 0 0 0 2204 614 10:00 437 146 0 0 10:15 469 129 0 0 10:30 405 75 0 0 10:45 434 68 1745 418 0 0 0 0 1745 418 11:00 418 58 0 0 11:15 462 50 0 0 11:30 534 32 0 0 11:45 509 29 1923 169 0 0 0 0 1923 169 Total 13732 17741 13732 17741 0 0 0 0 13732 17741 Combined 31473 31473 0 0 31473 Total AM Peak - 07:45 - - - - - - - - - Vol. - 2753 - - - - - - - - - P.H.F. 0.975 PM Peak - - 05:00 - - - - - - - - Vol. - - 2563 - - - - - - - - P.H.F. 0.938 Percentag 43.6% 56.4% 0.0% 0.0% e 203 City of Newport Beach Bristol Street South W/ Bayview Place 72 Hour Directional Volume Count Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 Phone: 951-268-6268 email: counts@countsunlimited.com Page 2 NPB002 Site Code: 051-18056 Start 24 -Jan -18 Eastbound Hour Totals Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Wed Momina Afternoon Mornina Afternoon Mornina Afternoon Mornina Afternoon Momina Afternoon 12:00 27 526 0 0 12:15 23 520 0 0 12:30 18 546 0 0 12:45 20 565 88 2157 0 0 0 0 88 2157 01:00 10 509 0 0 01:15 18 531 0 0 01:30 15 493 0 0 01:45 12 515 55 2048 0 0 0 0 55 2048 02:00 10 460 0 0 02:15 23 468 0 0 02:30 14 458 0 0 02:45 10 503 57 1889 0 0 0 0 57 1889 03:00 10 461 0 0 03:15 7 473 0 0 03:30 25 502 0 0 03:45 28 512 70 1948 0 0 0 0 70 1948 04:00 26 566 0 0 04:15 39 575 0 0 04:30 82 559 0 0 04:45 108 608 255 2308 0 0 0 0 255 2308 05:00 124 636 0 0 05:15 147 627 0 0 05:30 193 630 0 0 05:45 270 615 734 2508 0 0 0 0 734 2508 06:00 267 590 0 0 06:15 341 525 0 0 06:30 405 480 0 0 06:45 528 398 1541 1993 0 0 0 0 1541 1993 07:00 493 368 0 0 07:15 608 317 0 0 07:30 656 283 0 0 07:45 640 246 2397 1214 0 0 0 0 2397 1214 08:00 637 202 0 0 08:15 674 227 0 0 08:30 656 218 0 0 08:45 726 158 2695 805 0 0 0 0 2695 805 09:00 623 181 0 0 09:15 583 156 0 0 09:30 487 149 0 0 09:45 466 140 2159 626 0 0 0 0 2159 626 10:00 450 126 0 0 10:15 466 102 0 0 10:30 452 84 0 0 10:45 494 B4 1862 396 0 0 0 0 1862 396 11:00 466 63 0 0 11:15 499 54 0 0 11:30 524 48 0 0 11:45 517 46 2006 211 0 0 0 0 2006 211 Total Combined Total AM Peak Vol. P.H.F. PM Peak Vol. P.H.F. Percentag e 13919 18103 32022 08:00 - 2695 0.928 - 05:00 - 2508 0.986 43.5% 56.5% 13919 18103 32022 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 13919 18103 32022 204 City of Newport Beach Bristol Street South W/ Bayview Place 72 Hour Directional Volume Count Counts Unlimited, Inc. PO Box 1178 Corona, CA 92878 Phone: 951-268-6268 email: counts@countsunlimited.com Page 3 NPB002 Site Code: 051-18056 Start 25 -Jan -18 Eastbound Hour Totals Hour Totals Combined Totals Time Thu Momina Afternoon Mornina Afternoon Mornina Afternoon Mornina Afternoon Momina Afternoon 12:00 25 536 13905 18688 0 0 0 0 13905 18688 Combined 0 0 12:15 30 550 Total 0 0 AM Peak - 07:45 12:30 16 550 - 2722 - 0 0 P.H.F. 0.988 12:45 26 548 97 2184 0 0 0 0 97 2184 01:00 15 533 Percentag 0 0 57.30/6 0.0% 0.0% e 01:15 21 551 ADT/AADT ADT 32,029 0 0 32,029 01:30 12 513 0 0 01:45 10 504 58 2101 0 0 0 0 58 2101 02:00 8 436 0 0 02:15 14 501 0 0 02:30 14 515 0 0 02:45 7 490 43 1942 0 0 0 0 43 1942 03:00 12 541 0 0 03:15 9 529 0 0 03:30 14 529 0 0 03:45 28 501 63 2100 0 0 0 0 63 2100 04:00 43 556 0 0 04:15 44 548 0 0 04:30 76 616 0 0 04:45 116 596 279 2316 0 0 0 0 279 2316 05:00 126 688 0 0 05:15 139 600 0 0 05:30 217 637 0 0 05:45 257 615 739 2540 0 0 0 0 739 2540 06:00 249 561 0 0 06:15 307 503 0 0 06:30 413 392 0 0 06:45 516 419 1485 1875 0 0 0 0 1485 1875 07:00 494 333 0 0 07:15 608 336 0 0 07:30 648 270 0 0 07:45 689 239 2439 1178 0 0 0 0 2439 1178 08:00 686 233 0 0 08:15 686 248 0 0 08:30 661 242 0 0 08:45 678 199 2711 922 0 0 0 0 2711 922 09:00 584 203 0 0 09:15 602 194 0 0 09:30 498 172 0 0 09:45 524 131 2208 700 0 0 0 0 2208 700 10:00 442 169 0 0 10:15 430 174 0 0 10:30 414 139 0 0 10:45 475 117 1761 599 0 0 0 0 1761 599 11:00 473 77 0 0 11:15 550 57 0 0 11:30 499 46 0 0 11:45 500 51 2022 231 0 0 0 0 2022 231 Total 13905 18688 13905 18688 0 0 0 0 13905 18688 Combined 32593 32593 0 0 32593 Total AM Peak - 07:45 - - - - - - - - - Vol. - 2722 - - - - - - - - - P.H.F. 0.988 PM Peak - - 05:00 - - - - - - - - Vol. - - 2540 - - - - - - - - P.H.F. 0.923 Percentag 42.7% 57.30/6 0.0% 0.0% e ADT/AADT ADT 32,029 AADT 32,029 205 200 Attachment No. PC 9 Fiscal Impact Analysis 207 202 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.' 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 '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. 209 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. LAND USE SQ. FT. _ SQ. FT./ EMPLOYEE JOBS ASSESSED VALUE/SQ. FT. ASSESSED VALUE TAXABLE' SALES/ SQ. FT. Senior Care 85,000 2,800 30 $400 $34,000,000 NA Restaurant 8,800 234 38 $413 $3,634,700 $419 Office 70,000 300 233 $345 $24,150,000 $119 Sources: Employee densities based on ine 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. 210 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 211 $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 2: 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 $112,937 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 212 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.2 2 Applied Development Economics, Fiscal Impact Analysis Land Use Element Amendment, April 4, 2014. p. 3. 213 M. Attachment No. PC 10 Correspondence 215 210 From: Paula Hurwitz <paulakhurwitz@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2018 1:36 PM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Subject: Last night's Study Session Mr. Zbeda, After last night's Study Session you may guess that the change in zoning was the most important to the people in opposition to this project. This type of business seems ill suited for the property and a rezone would set a precedent that may open the floodgates for more requests. One thought that I had last night after looking at the schematic, was that what I thought was in ingress from Bristol East for the emergency driveway was an egress. Driving by there today and seeing where the emergency lane would come out is directly where the right hand turn lanes begins. This is where we dodge the Jamboree off ramp people, the 73 Freeway people and begin our turn onto Bayview Ave for home.. Imagine merging into the right hand lane and having a full siren Fire Engine or Ambulance emerge directly on your right as you start your approach. This is the route that I take daily. The idea is quite frightening. If you are able to forward this email to the members of the Planning Commission it would be a great help. Thank you and the members of the Commission for keeping the meeting respectful and on task. Sincerely, PaulaK.Hurwitz 112 Baycrest Court X17 From: Karen Larsen <kalsign@cox.net> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2018 11:39 AM To: Zdeba, Benjamin; Zak, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Dunlap, Bill; Kramer, Kory; pkoeting@newportbeachca.gov; Ikleinman@newportbeachca.gov; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Mark Eubanks; SRL Subject: Re: Rezoning for Bayview Dear Planning Commissioners, As a resident of Bayview Court near the proposed Harbor Pointe senior care facility, I am strongly opposed to rezoning this site from its current CO -G (Commercial Office) purpose of use to a PI (Private Institution). My quiet and safe neighborhood was never intended to include a Private Institution and the significant impact of an unprecedented change of city zoning. It was never intended as part of the Master Community Plan for Bayview. I purchased my property with the expectation that the sanctity of my community and property value would be protected by the current zoning law and affirmed by the Newport Beach City planner and commissioners. I am concerned about the validity of claims made by the builder and the Environmental Impact Report that traffic will not increase as a result of a 24 x 7 business that includes employee shift changes, emergency vehicles and increased holiday visitor traffic. I have resided in Newport Beach in the nearby Belcourt and now current Bayview areas since 1977 and have personally witnessed many accidents at the Bristol/Jamboree intersection which is identified as the highest traffic accident site in the city. As a special education teacher in the Huntington Beach area, I have experienced the significant impact of increased traffic on the 73 freeway and the Jamboree/Bristol entrance and exit ramps due to new building projects in nearby city locations during the past few years. The corner of the proposed building site already poses a very significant traffic accident hazard due to the Jamboree exit from the 73 freeway and immediate right turn onto Bayview Place. I have a personal familiarity with issues related to senior care facilities. I have a family member who resides in a like senior care facility in another location who wandered out of the facility and caused great concern for her safety in a traffic area like our Jamboree/Bristol intersection. I hope that you are responsive to the concerns expressed by myself and neighbors to uphold the current zoning in Newport Beach which were established to protect residential communities like my own. By authorizing an unprecedented zoning change in the city, you open the door for this builder and others to negatively impact the safety and property values of not only my community, but other residential communities, and possibly your own, in the future. Thank you for your thoughtful and responsible consideration. Karen Larsen 46 Baycrest Court 212 Newport Beach, CA 92660 219 From: Andrea Kane <californiakane@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 3:44 PM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Cc: Andrea Kane Subject: Harbor Pointe Senior Living Center / Kitayama Ben Thank you very much for allowing public comment at the study session for the planning commission on the Harbor Pointe Senior Center. The community appreciates our ability to share our point of view and concerns for the re -zoning, I have several additional concerns and questions I would love to understand based on the presentation: Safety of all the area residents -The intersections of Bristol/Campus; Bristol/Birch and Bristol/Jamboree my understanding are among the highest traffic accident rates in the entire county based on the information from TIMS Berkley website. In addition we have the new housing/retail project at 4100 Jamboree, how has the traffic from that project been incorporated into the additional traffic impact on Bristol? How many units and whats the projected traffic amount it will create given many of these folks will exit jamboree off of the 73 south and increase traffic. -this proposed facility would run 24/7 & 365 and multiple entire staff shift changes, as opposed to restaurant lunch and dinner that closes at 9:30pm. On average how many patrons visit Kitayama on a weekday and weekend as compared to the staff/visitors of this facility weekday & weekend? -What are the statistics of patients wandering away from facilities? Do they provide that information to you? Is it required to report how often this happens? How does this impact police resources that then search for the missing patients? -How will the already lack of paramedic services of the local fire station and resources be impacted with the amount of times they are called to the senior center? What are the statistics of the other Newport Beach facilities? And/or other facilities of this many beds? -Santa Ana Heights Neighborhood has received no communication from the developer that I am aware of and my neighbors don't recall receiving anything either and we are concerned about the planning commission moving the meeting date to September 13th as this impacted Back to School nights and many parents could not attend to share their POV. -The staff, ambulances and visitors to the facility are likely to use Bayview and/or Spruce to cut through to the facility, as people from outside the area have discovered this avoids traffic light delays along Birch and Bristol and is the fastest route to the facility. Quality of care for milestone properties —It was mentioned in the presentation the "quality" of Milestone company that would run the facility, there are several websites that collect feedback from employees that is 220 unfiltered that folks use to gauge if they want to work for companies and is used frequently by applicants because its employee generated. The reviews for Milestone on these sites are highly concerning about the work environment and the quality of care then patients receive Indeed : https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Milestone-Retirement- Communities/reviews rating them at 2.4 out of 5 with very recent postings from employees GlassDoor : https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Milestone-Retirement- Communities-Reviews-E1010935.htm rating then 2.3 out of 5 with very recent postings from employees Number of parking spaces -the presentation shared there would be 53 parking spaces and they said they would have 20-25 people on staff so at shift change there might be 25-30 spaces occupied. I would be curious if that is just nursing/health aid employees? Having run similar staffing needs for 25+ years the numbers don't make sense to me but perhaps they are different. Again I don't know but would want to confirm that its 20 total staff and the breakdown or was that just nursing, if its total I would be concerned for the quality of care the residents would perhaps receive. Could you get clarity on the complete total number of staff & support staff? —nursing/health aids for 3 floors of patients **if patients decided evenly 120 for 3 floors 40 per floor perhaps 4-5 nurses/health aids per floor (12-15 total) —housekeeping/laundry/trash collection for 120 beds / clothing of patients & cleaning of rooms and general area **6-8 people security? **1-2 people front desk staff. *1-2 people full service meals / snacks 120 beds 3x per day over 360 meals (special dietary meals per day) food delivery, food prep, cooking, serving, clean up, dishwashers *6-8 people —gym bottom floor observation/manager? **1-2 people groundskeeper/gardening services weekly for a huge facility inside the courtyard/interior and exterior **weekly visitors **varies but if you estimate staff parking of 30, 120 patients and 50% visits on a Holiday or a Saturday about 90 spaces on Saturdays and even more on holidays & all the overflow of parking comes into the Santa Ana Heights neighborhood as BayCrest & BayView are gated Courtyard space what is the sq footage of the courtyard common area? It appears small? On a average Saturday if only 25% residents had a visitor then lets say 30-35 patients plus 1-2 visitors, is that enough space? And what happens on a Holiday when its more than 50% of the patients have visitors? Where do they visit if the space doesn't fit all of them? —the other Centerpoint/Milestone communities what are the allocated open space for residents? what does the geriatric medicine doctor community recommend for allocated open space for patient care? 221 Rezoning rezoning to a PI violates the general and master plan rezoning as a precedent setting decisions will impact other surrounding business to lobby for changing to PI and creating even more mental, drug -rehab, private jail etc to do business in surrounding buildings and throughout Newport Beach. —my understanding is the applicant Mr. Habeeb is "not' the owner of Kitayama? Why is there energy to re -zone and set precedent for the non -owner of the current property? most of the entire community purchased their homes understanding that Kitayama was a CO (restaurant or office) and that it would at some point likely be upgraded and remodeled however had no idea that it would even be considered to be re -zoned. Thank you for answering my questions and listening to my concerns. I am not against upgrading and progress for the property, I am 100% against a precedent setting re -zoning of this property. Andrea Kane 222 From: Donna McMeikan <donnamcmeikan@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 9:50 AM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Subject: Harbor Pointe Senior Center Attachments: Ben Zdeba.docx Dear Mr. Zdeba, Please find attached my comments following last week's meeting regarding rezoning for the Harbor Pointe Senior Center. Thank you in advance for your consideration, Donna McMeikan 223 September 19, 2018 Ben Zdeba, Associate City Planner City of Newport Beach Community Development Department, Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Zdeba, I am writing to thank you and the planning commission for your time on September 14th to hear from the public regarding the proposed zoning change from the current CO -G (Commercial Office) purpose of use to a PI (Private Institution) to accommodate building the Harbor Pointe Senior Facility. I am a homeowner at 20422 Bayview Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92660. The meeting was very informative, and I came away with the following comments. Harbor Pointe (HP) Meeting Location: 101 Bayview Place/ Kitayama site • HP Assured the Planning Commission that, with the zoning change, the land will not be used for anything other than a Sr Care facility. How can they guarantee that? • HP stated that noise and traffic would not increase when compared to that generated by Kitayama restaurant. ■ They will have a minimum of 2 shift changes: 7am and 4pm. Based on their staff estimates of 20-25 people, that will increase traffic through our neighborhood at those times. ■ Unlike Kitayama, Harbor Pointe will be a 24/7 facility. Kitayama serves lunch and dinner and closes at 9:30pm. People will be accessing the Harbor Pointe Facility day and night. ■ There will be an increase in noise from ambulances (day and night) due to the nature of elder care needs. ■ The staff, ambulances and visitors to the facility are likely to use Bayview and/or Spruce to cut through to the facility, as people from outside the area have already discovered that this route avoids traffic light delays along Birch and Bristol and is the fastest way to the facility. • As mentioned many times during the meeting, the added staff/visitors, etc. will increase the already dangerous traffic flow along Bristol with cars maneuvering across lanes to turn left or right onto Jamboree or enter the 73 fwy south. ■ As mentioned, we know that many people from outside the Santa Ana Heights neighborhood currently use this route for quicker access to Jamboree, the freeway, and the local office buildings. • While we were assured that residence at the Senior Care facility would not wander out, based on my experience with my dad, who had dementia and had an ankle detector added following his multiple escapes from a guarded facility, I know that people do get out. ■ The potential of dementia patients wandering into traffic on Bristol could be devastating to both the senior as well as drivers. ■ Dementia patients could also wander into the local neighborhoods. While many are harmless, some do get highly agitated. • Harbor Point developers said that they reached out to the people in our neighborhood (Santa Ana Heights). Those of us at the meeting discussed and agreed that we never received a notification. • Parking: HP said that they are required to have 1 space for every 3 beds, which includes all staff, visitors, etc. ■ It became clear, that any parking overflow would naturally end upon Bayview, Zenith and/or the end of Spruce, as this is one of the only locations for public parking in the area. 22.E ■ This is particularly true during the holidays when the the number of visitors will double or triple, especially on Mother's Day and Christmas. • Rezoning for HP sets a precedent for PI rezoning in Newport Beach and changes the initial Master Plan. Thank you again for your consideration. Sincerely, Donna & Bruce McMeikan 220 From: Laura Minarsch <laura22@mmc-medical.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 7:13 AM To: Zak, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Dunlap, Bill; Kramer, Kory; Koetting, Peter; Kleiman, Lauren; Ramirez, Gregg; Zak, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Dunlap, Bill; Kramer, Kory; Koetting, Peter; Kleiman, Lauren; Zdeba, Benjamin; Ramirez, Gregg Subject: BAYVIEW TERRACE I am a homeowner at 97 PELICAN COURT in Newport Beach, located in the Bayview TERRACE, lam writing to STRONGLY OPPOSE ANY REZONING and in particular the rezoning of Kitayama site that sits at the corner of Bristol and Bayview from CO -G to PI, documented to me in an email from the City of Newport Beach Planning Department as a precedent setting direct zoning change. I did not buy back in 1992 with the notion that rezoning could occur and that an "institutional" business to be included in our quiet and safe neighborhoods here at the top of our city's beautiful upper Newport Bay Ecological Preserve. It is loud and clear that the overwhelming majority of residents would never have purchased their homes if this had been part of the original master community plan. To change the zoning in this precedent setting and radical way, is to undermine the faith that hundreds of homeowners, collectively representing multi -millions of dollars of property, have in our city's leaders to protect and preserve the value of their communities. We all know that if a zoning change is permitted, it paves the way for all types of businesses fitting under the banner of a Private Institution to set up shop on that site. And of course, we also all know that the drug rehabilitation business is currently thriving and a Newport Beach address is worth a great deal of money. Therefore, it is entirely possible that the current developers will sell the site to one of these other types of institutional businesses that would now be sanctioned to operate less than 100 feet from the doors of many hard working, tax paying and voting homeowners. Perhaps this would occur should their proposed senior and memory care business fail or perhaps they would never open their doors and sell it to a drug rehabilitation center once the rezoning occurs. I believe that we will obtain significant opposition to this and would hope that you will support our efforts. If we allow this then we will be allowing other rezoning like this to occur in other parts of Newport Beach. Laura Minarsch, Resident Bayview Terrace 97 Pelican Court 227 From: Schwartz, Cathy <Cathy.Schwartz@PacificLife.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 9:54 AM To: Zak, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Dunlap, Bill; Kramer, Kory; Koetting, Peter; Kleiman, Lauren; Zdeba, Benjamin; Ramirez, Gregg Subject: Opposition to rezoning Kitayama site Dear Planning Commissioners, I am a homeowner at 87 Pelican Court in Newport Beach, located in the Bayview master planned community. I am writing to strongly voice my personal opposition to rezoning the current Kitayama site that sits at the corner of Bristol and Bayview from CO -G to PI, as a precedent setting direct zoning change. Below, I am echoing the sentiments previously expressed by Kirk Snyder, President of the neighboring HOA, as I am strongly supportive of his well stated points. There are many significant issues that I believe warrant the city to refuse this request to change the zoning for the Harbor Pointe senior and memory care facility proposed on this site, but I will focus on only one in this letter. The Bayview master plan never intended for any type of "institutional" business to be included in our quiet and safe neighborhoods here at the top of our city's beautiful upper Newport Bay Ecological Preserve. It is loud and clear that the overwhelming majority of residents, including mvself. would never have purchased their homes if this had been hart of the orieinal master communitv plan. To change the zoning in this precedent setting and radical way, is to undermine the faith that hundreds of homeowners, collectively representing multi -millions of dollars of property, have in our city's leaders to protect and preserve the value of their communities. The Bayview and Santa Ana Heights communities all know that if a zoning change is permitted, it paves the way for all types of businesses fitting under the banner of a Private Institution to set up shop on that site. And of course, we also all know that the drug rehabilitation business is currently thriving and a Newport Beach address is worth a great deal of money. Therefore, it is entirely possible that the current developers will sell the site to one of these other types of institutional businesses that would now be sanctioned to operate less than 100 feet from the doors of many hard working, tax paying and voting homeowners. Perhaps this would occur should their proposed senior and memory care business fail or perhaps they would never open their doors and sell it to a drug rehabilitation center once the rezoning occurs. Of course, this would net the developers a great deal of money based on the rezoned PI status alone. Because this rezoning would be precedent setting, its significance goes far beyond the master community plan of Bayview and should sound a loud warning siren to every homeowner in Newport Beach. If institutional businesses are allowed in one safe, quiet and tranquil neighborhood, they could be coming soon to their neighborhoods once this precedent is set. I am confident that as soon as the entire city knows about how destructive this type of rezoning could be to their own beautiful neighborhoods, creating a myriad of safety and crime issues, noise problems, an on-going influx of people from outside the area visiting the facility, thousands of residents will want to be heard. Let's not kid ourselves with developer propaganda. Homeowners in our communities, myself included, welcome redevelopment on the site that fits within the existing zoning and building parameters. We are ready to work hand in hand to create a win-win project that does not require rezoning and will enhance our beautiful enclave of Newport. A radical 222 zoning change from CO -G to PI would undermine the lives of so many wonderful residents who contribute to the city every day in so many ways. Sincerely, Cathy Schwartz The information in this e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain privileged or confidential information. Delivery to other than the intended recipient shall not be deemed to waive any privilege. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this message or attachment is strictly prohibited. If you believe that you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the e-mail and all of its attachments. 229 From: M. Smith <mws.aspenroyal@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2018 6:00 PM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Cc: Zak, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Dunlap, Bill; Kleiman, Lauren; Koetting, Peter; Kramer, Kory; Lowrey, Lee; Michael W. Smith Subject: 101 Bayview Place/Kitayama site re -zoning issue 9/19/2018 Dear Mr. Zdeba, Re: 101 Bayview Place/Kitayama site re -zoning issue I would like to thank you and all the Planning Commission Members for your time and attention at the 9/13/2018 Planning Commission Meeting. The professional manner in which the meeting was conducted by Mr. Peter Zak, Chairman, allowed my neighbors and I the opportunity to speak out, in person, against the proposed re -zoning change for this site. I respectfully request and urge the Planning Commission Members and the City Council, should it come before them for a vote, to please vote NO on this re -zoning item. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Michael W. Smith 20342 Bayview Ave., Newport Beach, CA 92660 Santa Ana Heights/Bayview Heights 230 From: anne ima <anneima@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2018 9:35 AM To: Zdeba, Benjamin; Zak, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Kleiman, Lauren; Kramer, Kory; Koetting, Peter; Dunlap, Bill; Lowrey, Lee Cc: Craig Ima Subject: 101 Bayview Re -Zoning Dear Mr. zdeba and Planning commissioners, we heard about the re -zoning project at 101 Bayview and are against it as it will greatly impact the neighborhood we live in. unfortunately, we weren't able to make the last city council meeting but wanted to communicate our position. Thank you for your careful consideration on this issue. very truly yours, Anne and Craig Ima 20461 Bayview Avenue (residents for 20 years) 231 From: cara.weichman@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2018 10:23 AM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Subject: Kitayama Hi Ben, I am a NB resident and used to work in development so I am familiar with the work it takes to get a property rezoned. I understand the reason why an owner might wish to maximize their property value by changing the allowed use and on a case-by-case basis I often agree with it. However, in the case of the potential rezone of Kitayama I must let you and the commissioners know I am against it and hope you will consider sending this one back to the owners. I am at the corner of Jamboree and Bristol several times a day due to driving various carpools for my kids. That intersection as well as all of the intersections between Irvine Ave and Jamboree along both sides of Bristol are already heavily congested and frankly, quite dangerous as -is. I have seen and reported more accidents along that stretch than I care to remember. The proposed rezone and more importantly, the proposed structure size, is a use that will add significantly to the traffic numbers, which will already be impacted by the new residential going in by Conexant. Please ask the owners to go back to the drawing board and improve their property within either the current zoning or a more comparable zoning to the existing businesses along the Bristol corridor. Thanks so much for the hard work you and your team do as well as the work put forth by planning commission. I really appreciate the thought that goes into balancing individual property rights and the overall balance needed in Newport. Best, Cara Weichman Sent from my Whone Irvine Ranch vnr ev ens rn icr CDMbIUNIITY DEVELOPPI�61' SEF' 2 6 a..; September 24, 2018 William Blakeney 2422 Zenith Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Dear Mr. Blakeney: Thank you for writing us regarding the City of Newport Beach's Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project. The process for development and the required environmental review forthe Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project is managed by the City of Newport Beach. As a local water provider, IRWD's role in the City's development process is as follows: 1) IRWD may be asked by the City of Newport Beach to certify that It has enough water supply to support a proposed project; and 2) IRWD will have an opportunity to review and provide comment on potential impacts to the water supply and IRWD facilities during the City's environmental review and project design processes. It is important to point out that while IRWD does provide requested water supply information to the City and comments on the environmental document, the approval of the project, including the Draft Environmental Impact Report, is done by the City of Newport Beach not IRWD. We would suggest that you contact Benjamin Zdeba of the City's Community Development Department at (949) 644-3253, who would be able to update you on more specifics about the process. Regarding the recent emergency drought regulations, the recently passed long-term water efficiency legislation (AS 1668 and SB 606) seeks to make "Conservation a Way of Life" for California. IRWD anticipates that we will easily meet the new target objective and the other requirements of the legislation due to our on-going conservation efforts. Additionally, IRWD's planning and investments into a diverse portfolio of supplies, including recycled water and water banking have greatly increased our reliability. We do not expect to be assessed any fines, which would only be incurred by an agency, not individual customers, if itfailed to meet its frrulo Ranch WP.Ur District • 1:5,N0 5ond wenvon Am., I; rine, CA 92618 . Mb11ng Addres_; P.O. 0w 5791n IrvIne [A weoD-1000. 841-453-5300 • vfn••N.YWdcnm 233 target water saving objective and also failed to implement corrective measures designed to meet the objecdve- IRW❑ appreciates you taking the time to contact us regarding your concerns as we understand their importance to you. Sincerely, 49 . Wr Flona M. Sanchez Director of Water Resources cc: Benjamin Zdeba, City of Newport Reach Eric Akiyoshi, IRWD JoAnn Corey, IRWD In11e01tan41s WtOr 9Esiftt . U&M sorC Cmvcn Ave., Ir1112 :A 92(09 . MM 'no Addros6: P.G. Dox 570t)o, I'M is CA U&M-7900 • 949-45;1SS7d . •xwivhw6.:Gtdi 2-21 From: Rodger & Julie Lowery <lowerynewport@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2018 11:17 AM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Subject: Harbor Pointe Senior Living As a longtime resident of Bayview Heights, I would like to express my 100% opposition to the rezoning of the property that currently houses Kitayama restaurant. Julie Lowery Spruce Ave. 2-35 From: Peggy Kerr <peggykerr22@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 9:01 AM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Subject: Senior Living/Re-Zoning Bayview Issue Dear Mr. Zdeba, There has been quite a bit of discussion on the Nextdoor webpage about a re -zoning plan for the Bayview Heights area of Newport Beach - where a new senior living facility may replace a Japanese restaurant on Bristol Ave. I am a homeowner in this neighborhood and am personally UNopposed to this plan. (Frankly it doesn't make a difference to me if it stays as a restaurant, commercial office, or senior living facility.) However I'm writing because I think it's unfortunate and disappointing that residents would be vehemently against a senior living institution. As our community ages and as many of us will have to eventually care for aging parents I think it makes good sense to have living options within our communities that will keep our aging loved ones close by. Please accept this email as a resident, and homeowner as my unopposed vote for this re -zoning to allow for a senior living facility. Peggy Kerr 230 From: Nancy Buck <nitannancy@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 5:00 PM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Subject: Rezoning proposal Dear Sirs, I have lived on Azure Ave since 1973. ]opposed the rezoning proposal for our area! Nancy Buck Sent from my iPhone 237 From: Linda Wooters <lindawooters@me.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 8:11 PM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Subject: Rezoning on Bristol Ave Dear Mr. Zdebra, I live at 20442 Bayview Ave. and I'm opposed to rezoning the Kityama site. This will have negative impacts to our community. There was much consideration when this zoning this area when first developed. Traffic, height limits were all studied and agreed upon years ago. Nothing has changed in this neighbor that should be reconsidered. Just because a corporation wants to change it, it doesn't make it except able. Please listen to the community that lives and votes in this area. Thank you for your consideration, Linda Wooters Sent from my iPhone ®-r From: patmail@moz-art.com Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 10:05 AM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Subject: re -zoning of Kitayama Dear Planning Department I am opposed to the rezoning of The Kitayama property. I believe it will have a negative impact on the surrounding residential area. Pat Peters 2351 Bay Farm PI Newport Beach 92660 2sJ From: Maureen Peters <mopeters@roadrunner. com> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 1:28 PM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Cc: pzak@newportbeachca.gov'; 'ewe igand@newportbeachca.gov'; 'Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov'; 'kkramer@newportbeachca.gov'; 'pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov'; 'bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov'; 'llowrey@newportbeachca.gov' Subject: Kitayama Dear Planning Department I am opposed to the rezoning of The Kitayama property. I believe it will have a negative impact on the surrounding residential area. Maureen Peters 2351 Bay Farm PI Newport Beach 92660 240 From: Jessica Adams <jessicaadams1983@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 3:23 PM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Cc: Zak, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Kleiman, Lauren; Kramer, Kory; Koetting, Peter; bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov; Lowrey, Lee Subject: Re -zoning of Kitayama Hello Ben, I am writing on behalf of my husband and myself to inform you that we are against the rezoning of Kitayama restaurant at 101 Bayview Pl. We live at 20162 Spruce Ave, which is about a 5 minute walk to Kitayama. My husband is a firefighter and I am a registered nurse. My husband bought our house about five and a half years ago and we are just about finished remodeling it. Had we known that the Kitayama location would soon be converted to a senior living facility I think we would have invested our hard earned money elsewhere. Considering the type of work we do, we are both very familiar with senior living facilities and the challenges it would bring to the neighborhood. A facility like this would bring a significant increase in traffic to an already high traffic area, which is a safety concern for the neighborhood and the residents of the facility. Vehicles often speed down Spruce Ave and with an increase in traffic we fear that would get worse. Our plan is to raise a family in this house and we want a safe environment for our children and our neighbor's children. We are also concerned that this re -zoning could decrease our property value and that it could potentially be used for a purpose other than a senior living facility in the future. Thank you for your time and for hearing our thoughts on this matter. Sincerely, Jessica & Ryan Schleiger 20162 Spruce Ave. Newport Beach 92660 241 Zdeba, Benjamin From: Kevin Perry <kevinperryl0@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2018 12:30 PM To: Zak, Peter; Weigand, Erik; bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov; Kramer, Kory; Koetting, Peter; Kleiman, Lauren; Zdeba, Benjamin; Ramirez, Gregg Subject: Why hasn't the planning board followed process of notice in Newport Beach Statutes?? Dear Commissioners Zak, Weigand, Dunlap, Kramer, Koetting, Kleiman and Lowrey, As a homeowner at 46 Cormorant Circle, I would like to know why homeowners were not given notice of the proposed Harbor Pointe facility on Bristol St. and Bayview. I only learned about this project recently, and have received nothing from the City on this proposed project. It is clear that two large developments, Bayview Crest ans Bayview Terrace are hugely impacted by this proposal. Is it too much to expect that the City and the Planning Board would proactively reach out to taxpayers???? After reading the DEVELOPER'S EIR, it is clear that numerous issues have been not addressed, obfuscated, or omitted. Why hasn't the City worked with neighborhood associations to solicit feedback and an independent environmental study? Is this yet another example of developer money corrupting Planning Board members? I strongly oppose this project and wish to remind each of you that elected officials are held accountable for actions, especially in today's environment of citizen distrust and dislike of government at all levels. Please reach out to proactively work with the residents you represent in the neighborhood, and not just the developers who "grease the skids" of projects. The last thing we need is another fiasco like the Peotter recall or the Banning Ranch mess, but 1 fear the neighborhood mobilization against this project will gain momentum until the Planning Commission pays attention to the people who elect them. Sincerely, Kevin Perry 46 Cormorant Circle Newport Beach, CA 92660 i 242 Zdeba, Benjamin From: Malcolm Strohson <mstrohson@me.com> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 11:52 AM To: Zak, Peter; Zdeba, Benjamin; timstoaks@sbcglobal.net Cc: Matt Holder Subject: Assisted Living Center - YES To the Chairman of the Newport Beach Planning Commission: As a resident of Newport Beach, I want to express my support for assisted living and memory care at the current Kitayama restaurant site. Our community needs high quality care for our aging residents and we want them close by, and near to their doctors, family and friends. I have been briefed on the project and think this is the most beneficial use of this site. Thank you. Malcolm Strohson 1847 Port Abbey Place Newport Beach, CA 92660 243 Zdeba, Benjamin From: Shannon Strohson <sstrohson@me.com> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 12:20 PM To: Zak, Peter; Zdeba, Benjamin; timstoaks@sbcglobal.net Cc: Holder Matt Subject: My Support for the Assisted Living Project YES To the Chairman of the Newport Beach Planning Commission: As a resident of Newport Beach, I want to express my support for assisted living and memory care at the current Kitayama restaurant site. Our community needs high quality care for our aging residents and we want them close by, and near to their doctors, family and friends. I have been briefed on the project and think this is the most beneficial use of this site. Thank you. Shannon Strohson 1847 Port Abbey Place, NB CA 92660 949.413.3685 sstrohson@me.com Zdeba, Benjamin From: Heidi Brandl <hbranc11949@gmaiI.com> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 9:32 AM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Subject: Fwd: Kitayama site To the Newport Beach Staff Planner: As a resident of Newport Beach, I want to express my support for assisted living and memory care at the current Kitayama restaurant site. Our community needs high quality care for our aging residents and we want them close by, and near to their doctors, family and friends. I have been briefed on the project and think this is the most beneficial use of this site. Thank you. Heidi Brandl 24.E Zdeba, Benjamin From: Jenifer Cabo <jenifercabo@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2018 9:03 PM To: Zak, Peter Cc: matt.hoIder@alumni.usc.edu; Zdeba, Benjamin Subject: Assisted living and memory care center To the Chairman of the Newport Beach Planning Commission As a resident of Newport Beach, I want to express my support for assisted living and memory care at the current Kitayamarestamant site. Our community needs high quality care for our aging residents and we want them close by, and near to their doctors, family and friends. I have been briefed on the project and think this is the most beneficial use of this site. Thank you. Jenifer Cabo Sent from myiPhone 240 Zdeba, Benjamin From: Jack <Jakdangelo@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2018 4:08 PM To: Zdeba, Benjamin Subject: Conversion of the Kitiyama Restaurant Site to an Assisted Living Facility Mr. Zdeba, As a resident of Newport Beach, I want to express my support for assisted living and memory care at the current Kitiyama restaurant site. This property is ideal for the proposed use. It will replace one of my favorite restaurants with a facility that by its very nature is quiet, licensed and focused on providing quality care for its residents. Our community needs high quality care for our aging residents and we want them close by, and near to their doctors, family and friends. I have been briefed on the project and think this is the most beneficial use of this site. Thank you. Thank you, Jack Dangelo Managing Member GDC Urban Partners, LLC Tel 949-336-8156 M 949-293-3822 Email jakdangelo@cox.net Please consider the environment before printing this email. This message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential or proprietary. If you are not the intended recipient of this email or believe that you have received this correspondence in error, please contact the sender through the information provided above and permanently delete this message. 247 Zdeba, Benjamin From: Brandy Valdez <villavaldez@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 12:32 PM To: Zak, Peter; Zdeba, Benjamin Cc: timstoaks@sbcglobal.net; matt.holder@alumni.usc.edu Subject: Newport Planning Commission To the Chairman of the Newport Beach Planning Commission: As a resident of Newport Beach, I want to express my support for assisted living and memory care at the current Kitayama restaurant site. Our community needs high quality care for our aging residents and we want them close by, and near to their doctors, family and friends. I have been briefed on the project and think this is the most beneficial use of this site. Thank you. Brandy Valdez 242 November 27, 2018 Mr. Ben Zdeba Senior Planner City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Newport Beach, CA 92660 By email: bzdeban.newportbeachca.,ov RE: HARBOR POINTE Dear Mr. Zdeba: Milestone Retirement Communities will be the management company and co -licensee for the Harbor Pointe Assisted Living and Memory Care facility. We understand there is some concern in the adjoining residential community about our use affecting their property values. For the record, we operate 86 seniors housing communities in 18 states, comprising over 7,900 units, of which 10 communities totaling nearly 1,000 units are in California. Our communities often are located near or adjacent to existing residential communities as that is where our residents wish to be. Most of our residents last lived within 2 to 5 miles of our community, allowing them to remain near family, friends, doctors, churches or synagogues and shopping that are important to them. We have never had a complaint that our communities have adversely affected our neighbors' property values, and to the contrary, our communities have proven to be an enhancement of and a welcome addition to the area. We had the same experience in the Denver, Colorado area on another seniors housing community we co -developed with Mr. Paul Habeeb in a transitional location between retail and residential. We believe that the neighbors' concerns are unfounded and that a seniors housing community will be a much better neighbor than regular multi -family, restaurant or retail use. Do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions. Sincerely, 11 IJ, Paul W. Dendy I Chief Executive Officer A I Paul Habeeb 249 250 Attachment No. PC 11 Project Plans 251 252 PROJECT TEAM OWNER CENTERPOINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC. 3101 WEST COAST HIGHWAYSUITE 150A NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 C 949-212-2901 T 949-791-8431 PAUL@CENTERPOI NTESL.COM ARCHITECT DOUGLAS PANCAKE ARCHITECTS 19000 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD, SUITE 500, IRVINE, CA, 92612, T:949-720-3850 F:949-720-3843 W: PANCAKEARCHITECTS.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@ENTITLEM ENTADV ISORS.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 11.50 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 -2B ASSISTED LIVING - 2 BED 2 2 870 1,740 p Douglas Pancake ,-.WA 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 CENTERPOINTE SENIOR LIVING, I.I.C. 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 A(SF)ea 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 -1B 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 -2B ASSISTED LIVING - 2 BED 2 2 870 1,740 AL -2C ASSISTED LIVING - 2 BED 2 2 844 1,688 AL -21D 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 -2B 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 GROSS BUILDING AREA Occupancy Area (SF) Basement GROSS 5,566 BUILDING 5,566 sq ft First Floor GROSS 26,287 NOTES 26,287 sq ft Second Floor GROSS 26,917 BUILDING 26,917 sq ft Third Floor GROSS 25,747 NOTES 25,747 sq ft 84,517 sq ft PARKING SUMMARY BUILDING ZONING CODE PROVIDED NOTES READ. READ. 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 BE 53 EXCESS PARKING OF 13 SPACES PROJECT DATA SF e�,s 9,Q�sT TO<'S'T O� ST • ,1, PROJECT AREA 10,n 03 C p r I co �O o I U Lu _W Q m .NP VICINITY MAP Title T PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 -�3 LU Q LU m A& EXISTING RESIDENCE EXISTIN RESIDEN EXISTING RESIDENCE ^p Douglas Pancake LII 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 nqw HARBOR POINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC 101 BAYVIEW PLACE, NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660 BY: CENTERPOINTE SENIOR LIVING, LLC. F REFERENCE NORTH O,Q Ty a� Site Plan Al PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 �,? 5.4 ^p Douglas Pancake LII 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. REFERENCE NORTH BasementD SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-O" Basement Plan 'A PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 255 ^p Douglas Pancake LII 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. First Floor Plan A3 PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 250 ^p Douglas Pancake LII 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. REFERENCE NORTH Second Floor18'. D Second Floor Plan ME PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 257' L_ ^p Douglas Pancake LII 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. 1 I I I REFERENCE NORTH Third Floor D SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" Third Floor Plan A5 PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 252 ^p Douglas Pancake LII 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. REFERENCE NORTH Roof D Roof Plan •. PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 259 pq p Douglas Pancake �.WA 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. 2View from 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 N67- O:ROOF ROOF R-1 MANUF: TYP E: COLOR: BROWN ASPHALT SHINGLES ICBO NO.: .� View from Bayview PI SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" Elevations A7 PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 '?0D ^ p Douglas Pancake AWA 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. )or r)View from Condominiums L 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 N67- O:ROOF ROOF R-1 MANUF: TYP E: COLOR: BROWN ASPHALT SHINGLES ICBO NO.: .� View from Santa Ana Heights SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" Elevations PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 2 01 ^p Douglas Pancake LII 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. .1 Section A SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" ADJACENT Sections PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 L Roof Q'-0" Third Fioor i 0" Sec�loor ADJACENT 12'-0" Ba 2C2 ORIGINAL CUP SUBMITTAL ORIGIN 2View from SE Bristol St SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" p Douglas Pancake CONI 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. )or 1 View from Bayview PI SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" Elevation Study A10 PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 263 ORIGINAL CUP SUBMITTAL ORIGINAL f'"n 01 IMRAITTA 1 2View from Condominiums SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" ^p Douglas Pancake LII 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. )or 1 View from Santa Ana Heights SCALE: 1/8" = V-0" Elevation Study A11 PROJECT NO: 15025.00 PLOT DATE: 11/20/2018 204 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 FOR CENTER POINTE SENIOR LIVING I� UTILITY/ GOVERNING AGENCIES CONTACTS WATER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC EARTHWORK QUANTITIES WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL, 100 CIVIC CENTER DR. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PHONE: (949) 644-3311 ELECTRIC STORM DRAIN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC Z WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL, 100 CIVIC CENTER DR. NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 PHONE: (949) 644-3311 SEWER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PUBLIC J Z 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 INCLUDE SPOILS RESULTING FROM UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS. IJ J PO BOX 1768 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR BIDDING A COMPLETE JOB WITH THEIR OWN 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 I Ilo NEWPORT BEACH I ° ORANGE COUNTY, CA BRISTOL STREET BRISTOL STREET S EXISTING x I l� LLJ U w I �x oua"iaao .� 0-1 A �""anAxo I Y I 7 z W LIJ L P"P"sE eo m,xc _ h J \I ASEENGER II> I< s I � m \ 1Pp5xE - I �iEEa S D _ � - S D \I I 11` SITE MAP N.T.S. \ 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 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROPERTY DATA APN:442-283-05 TRACT: 12528 LOT: 1 PROJECT AREA EXISTING: 1.5 ACRES PROJECT AREA: 1.5 ACRES N 0 w 0 Z O 0 O) E AD 00 0 C o a PLAN CHECK: PAS -212 G U 0 m M t 0 a 3 m Z I m N 0 c m a rn C T n E 0- 00 rri I 00 0 N N T 0 M EARTHWORK QUANTITIES CUT: 10,300 CUBIC YARDS Z FILL: 100 CUBIC YARDS > J Z NET: 10,200 CUBIC YARDS o *QUANTITIES SHOWN HEREON FOR BONDING PURPOSES ONLY. ESTIMATION DOES NOT 1- Jw Q INCLUDE SPOILS RESULTING FROM UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS. IJ J Z v, 0 U, CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR BIDDING A COMPLETE JOB WITH THEIR OWN LLI uJ < v Z }¢ v QUANTITIES. _ C/) a- W //1 V/ �UU)�U W j ;57.15TC) FIRE ACCESS EXIT JOIN EX. - 13 (57.33TC JOIN EX. FH EX. SCE EASEMENT BIO -FILTRATION PLANTER UA WALL A BRISTOL STREET PROPOSED SCREEN PER ARCHITECTURE L 2.0% l� BFP( G10 (57.03FL) (57.09EP) 55 t 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 / \ 11.2 57.90FS. 56.411NU< S1 58.,72TC , 32 S \ 58�22FS 51.01 58.25ITS 5 V S \ 6 \ J F, �5T.88T.0 / 7 . / 3 5 6 57.36FS 58.69TC 58.19FS 3 57.32FL ANDSCAPE 30 40 CONSTRUCT 6" CURB & GUTTER PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD -182-L, TYPE A. (5 JOIN EX. (56.25TC) .771NV 14 (55J5FL) (56.34TC) (55.861NV 14 (55.84FL) i) (56.74TC) (56.07FL) (56.22EP) 57.89TC 57!39FL 6 -� ® SO SD I\""�(55 ( 56.86FS (56.86 '31 © CONSTRUCT DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD -181 -L -D. O7 l5 v� 7 CONSTRUCT STANDARD DUTY PAVEMENT PER DETAIL 1 SHOWN HEREON. 1 CONSTRUCT HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT PER DETAIL 1 SHOWN HEREON. 10 p.. 2 57.7 TIC EXISTING 11 INSTALL 16'X32' CUDO UNDERGROUND STORMWATER STORAGE SYSTEM PER BLOCK WALL I TO REMAIN TSPBO e 56.67FL) 56.86EP) 0%Vv owv EX. 3 I I J SCREEN WALL 1ITECTURAL (56.01 EP) IN FEET 20 30 40 CONSTRUCT 6" CURB & GUTTER PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD -182-L, TYPE A. O 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". © SEE S'EC HEREON D FION DETAIL 1 I I I I I EXISTING BLOCK WALL TO REMAIN PROP. BLDG. PROP. BLDG. PROPOSED PAVEMENT SECTION A -A N.T.S. SECTION B -B N.T.S. NL'Y R/W ADD GRAVEL PAD OF 1 TO 1.5 IN. DIAMETER AND TO OVERLAP OPENING BY 6' SECTION E -E N.T.S. PRECISE GRADING CONSTRUCTION NOTES O PROTECT IN PLACE. O CONSTRUCT 6" CURB & GUTTER PER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH STD -182-L, TYPE A. O 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. EXISTING 11 INSTALL 16'X32' CUDO UNDERGROUND STORMWATER STORAGE SYSTEM PER BLOCK WALL MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. SEE SHEET 3 FOR DETAILS. TO REMAIN THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, PIPES, AND/OR 12 INSTALL JENSEN TRIPLEX LIFT STATION PER MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. SEE SHEET 3 z 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 © 24 INCHES THICKNESS DEEMED NECESSARY BY INSPECTOR. LEGEND JOIN EX. EDGE OF PAVEMENT ,wvOVE EX. CURB & GUTTER NL'Y R/W PROPERTY LINE STANDARD DUTY PAVEMENT HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT CONCRETE BIO -RETENTION PLANTER 65' PROP. SIDEWALK LANDSCAPE EX. C&G EX. LANDSCAPE EX. C&G _________I =' SECTION C -C TO N.T.S. 6" CF FL�GUTTER (TYP.) r LIP LIP X12" CURB CUT N.T.S. S7.29FL ( ) _ TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 TRAFFIC INDEX 6.0 . ., 1 INCH = 20 FEET N fF- J ° a- CL O PHALT SURFACE OURSE ® ASPHALTOURSE SECTION DETAIL 1 it z 3IN HES THICKNESS THICKNESS UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES &USES 1 - 10'ENGINEERS NOTE TO CONTRACTOR O CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE* 10 INCHES THICKNESS CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE* O 12 INCHES THICKNESS 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 L Q z 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 GC OR APPROVED EQUAL FLUID 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 Z o w ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL LOCATION OF THOSE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES TO BE USED �J/ LL *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 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 PAVEMENT SECTION ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTING LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF DESIGN PROFESSIONAL. FROM THIS PLAN. OAC N.T.S. EL'Y R/W 44' Q U u W Z O W -> O W F_ 0� a - it U Lu w 0 ti a a W * ExP-.1'2/pp31 2018 * o ®I�vP 00 ±0.5' 8' ±25.5' 10' PROP. LANDSCAPE SIDEWALK EX. C&G _ - I -----I-- EX. MEDIAN _ EDF Cq`F�� o N o d Zm�z_¢� o U N fF- J ° a- CL Z 1-====_------ 00 CL it z WaiW�� 6 `-I SECTION D -D II Z W> w W= w LU < LU d Z a N.T.S. L Q z H U GC OR APPROVED EQUAL FLUID LLJ �- APPLIED WATERPROOFING z MEMBRANE. a Z o w Z �J/ LL j U 24"X24" INLET GRATE CURBS CUT PER PLAN PER PLAN 9" PONDING - 2" -3" MULCH LAYER 6" PVC RISER - FILTER FABRIC PIPE BIO -FILTRATION DETAIL N.T.S r n _ O W o O Zm�z_¢� o U N W O N ° a- CL Z / L.L Lu Z w W Z 00 CL it z WaiW�� a Z 11J EXISTING BLOCK WALL W W> w W= w LU < LU d Z 24" BIO -FILTER MEDIA WITH MIN. 8 IN/HR PERCOLATION RATE PERVIOUS FILL SPPWC TABLE (PER �/ �/�300-3.5.2(A) \\\�\ 6' PERFORATED PIPE IN 8" GRAVEL JACKET JACOB VANDERVIS RCE �rmI.-_ m 00 m rn O Zm�z_¢� o U N O Q a- CL Z / L.L Lu Z w W Z 00 CL it z N Z 11J Y U W p 11J Z SIDES AND BOTTOM OF BASIN TO Q F 0 Q= W L BE LINED WITH TEMP PROOF 250 J H U GC OR APPROVED EQUAL FLUID LLJ Z APPLIED WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE. a 0 o 24" BIO -FILTER MEDIA WITH MIN. 8 IN/HR PERCOLATION RATE PERVIOUS FILL SPPWC TABLE (PER �/ �/�300-3.5.2(A) \\\�\ 6' PERFORATED PIPE IN 8" GRAVEL JACKET JACOB VANDERVIS RCE Kel 0 C2N I � DATE I 2 OF 3 I� PLAN CHECK: PA�c�-212 00 m rn O O U Q00� 00 ~moo it z Z 11J Y U O llJ p 11J Z £ a Q F 0 Q= W F W > Q WQ F m U N Kel 0 C2N I � DATE I 2 OF 3 I� PLAN CHECK: PA�c�-212 Y VARIES 10' OR TOP DIAMETER U 3/8' EXPANSION JOINT °s NOTES W 1I MIN. 50% of base P' MATERIAL (TYP) O s ~_ ¢ �'y o - o MAX. 65% of base o 03 =ol 1. IF DISTANCE FROM CURB TO BACK OF SIDEWALK IS T00 SHORT TO ACCOMODATE RAMP N3 da d x x o .E g `II �' � AND 4 ft. PLATFORM (LANDING) AS IN CASE A, THE SIDWALK MAY BE DEPRESSED >_ h �. � �o �d x� o a� o LONGITUDINALLY AS IN CASE B OR C OR MAY BE WIDENED AS IN CASE D. C0 - Smm (0.2 ) BASE DIAMETER Q o ai w''�` Q .o ` n 3 m - a z 2. IF SIDEWALK IS LESS THAN 6 ft. WIDE, THE FULL WIDTH OF THE SIDEWALK `�3 o q v m y E w' >. i 23mm MIN. 0.9'r 4'3 5 ' . R=15' FOR LOCAL STREETS AND N v. ` G£E'9 ` - _ I Q o SHALL BE DEPRESSED AS SHOWN IN CASE C. ( ) z m- w o ¢ W z 5 25' FOR ARTERIAL STREETS m E a w o 36mm MAX. (1.4") UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED xD o ,;, = ,�, 3. WHEN RAMP IS LOCATED IN CENTER OF CURB RETURN, CROSSWALK CONFIGURATION MUST } BE SIMILAR TO THAT SHOWN FOR CASE E TO ACCOMMODATE WHEELCHAIRS. c�p�E vlw .t �Ll a N _ T_ 10' FOR MAJOR, 10' FOR PRIMARY, o E 4. FOR CASES F AND G, THE LONGITUDINAL PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK MAY NEED TO BE 0. AND 8' FOR SECONDARY STREETS v c 3 �Q) UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN "x�w_ Us, --� �` DEPRESSED AS SHOWN IN CASE B. �z w,r aIgDIBoA J god" 5. IF LOCATED ON A CURB THE SIDES OF THE RAMP NEED NOT BE PARALLEL, BUT THE O Z ti �o oa2o 6u' Do o CONCRETE SHALL BE 560-C-3250 ow d �o3a MINIMUM WIDTH OF THE RAMP SHALL BE 4 ft.. O o %Z CURB ACCESS RAMP SHALLwm ao T,°�0 6. TRANSITIONS FROM RAMPS TO WALKS, GUTTERS, OR STREETS SHALL BE FLUSH AND z COMPLY WITH CURRENT a d 9 6 E° v a FREE OF ABRUPT CHANGES. O ADA REQUIREMENTS o = = W 7. SIDEWALK AND RAMP THICKNESS, "T SHALL BE 4 in. MINIMUM. RAISED TRUNCATED DOME aof CURB FACE �� o o 3 ow _ �a 0 8. THE RAMP SHALL HAVE A 12 in. WIDE BORDER WITH 1/4 in. GROOVES 41mm (1.6") Min. U CURB RETURN AREA d �z �� z I I�� _" APPROXIMATELY 3/4 in. ON CENTER. SEE GROOVING DETAIL. 61mm (2.4") Max I ►1 0 ` Center to Center VI N L O D y C N .o w Q W 10' TYPICAL ° - �= I'� �` h 9. WHEN DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE IS NOT REQUIRED ON A CURB RAMP, THE R y CONCRETE FINISH OF THE RAMP AND ITS FLARED SIDES SHALL HAVE A TRANSVERSE spacing 2' OR 4' MINS i" ' (� I P ¢ R. y BROOMED SURFACE TEXTURE ROUGHER THAN THE SURROUNDING SIDEWALK. MATCH SLOPE 2Z MAX. l Blw'b a o o cc 0 10. RAMP SIDE SLOPE VARIES UNIFORMLY FROM A MAXIMUM OF 10% AT CURB TO O O O EXIST, LANDSCAPE PARKWAY WITH M F I CONFORM WITH LONGITUDINAL SIDEWALK SLOPE ADJACENT TO TOP OF THE RAMP, ..a. ..: e: .. `oo o 0 I `° w M � EXCEPT IN CASE C. STREET TREES REQUIRED WHEN DISTANCE FROM CURB Mio v d �I 11. UTILITY PULL BOXES, MANHOLES, VAULTS AND ALL OTHER UTILITY FACILITIES WITHIN 4' MIN, RCL', TO PROPERTY LINE EXCEEDS o s o 6 FEET IN RESIDENTIAL9 o THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CURB RAMP WILL BE RELOCATED OR ADJUSTED TO GRADE TYPICAL SECTION AREAS. CONCRETE SIDEWALK o o BY THE OWNER PRIOR TO, OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH, CURB RAMP CONSTRUCTION. IN COMMERCIAL AREAS WITH" 12. MAXIMUM SLOPES OF ADJOINING GUTTER, THE ROAD SURFACE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT Z STREET TREES. s BDy1 ssaT - TO THE CURB RAMP AND CONTINUOUS PASSAGE TO THE CURB RAMP SHALL NOT V a o v c WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS Be8 I EXCEED 5 PERCENT WITHIN 4 ft. OF THE TOP OR BOTTOM OF THE CURB RAMP. , 3/8' EXPANSION JOINT MATERIAL " o b x o; z % o rylDIAssaO 13. CONCRETE SHALL BE 560-C-3250. IL I JI o� Cyd 4" o z dgN ¢ 14. RETROFITS - WHEN A WHEELCHAIR RAMP IS ADDED TO AN EXISTING FACILITY, THE O O O ` o Q o vd" d v o CHANGES ARE PERMITED: o= z s �` N /+ 4 (� (A) RAMP GRADE IN CASE "C" MAT BE INCREASED TO 4%. a �° (B) OTHER RAMP GRADES MAYBE INCREASED TO A MAXIMUM OF 11.1% a Se GO P s 3 °° (NEVERTHELESS, THEY SHOULD BE AS FLAT AS FEASABLE, o m nlw ti4gr.�-. 0 o (C) WHERE THE 4 FOOT PLATFORM IS NOT FEASABLE, THE WIDTH MAY BE DECREASEDno 2¢ � 16mm (0.65) o P w Q Dw< ¢ < TO 3 FOOT ► ► N Min. Base To N �z (D) THE PLATFORM MAY BE ELIMINATED IF THE GRADE DOES NOT EXCEED 8.33% GDw m Dw 15. RASIED TRUNCATED DOMES SHALL BE DARK GREY IN COLOR AND SHALL BE "TERRA PAVING" Base Spacingoo �zioz AS MANUFACTURED BY WAUSAU TILE, INC. OF WISCONSIN OR EQUAL.PLANTING OR ` I�" °'w S3"°^ " 16. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACES SHALL EXTEND 36 INCHES MINIMUM IN THE DIRECTION RAISED TRUNCATED DOME PATTERN x CONCRETE WALK o Dw > F OF TRAVEL AND THR FULL WIDTH OF THE CURB RAMP. e o w ° o WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS E �zz o �� o z IN-LINE See Notes 9, 15 and 16 7 ° N 0CD AD R EXPANSION JOINTS FL so NOTE: ADAPTED FROM CALTRANS CURRENT STANDARDS PLANS FOR UP-TO-DATE REQUIREMENTS. a o 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVED: APPROVED: APPROVED+ APPROVED /l/ v 0 U o a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH _ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH /�1��� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT d o PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT R 7H�� R < G. ¢ CURB ACCESS lel IMP RCE N0.36106 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR 00 CURB ACCESS RAMP RCL N0.36106 WORKS UII2EC'I'Oli O c ` RICE No. 36106 LI WORKS DIRECTOR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS yawn: R. OKADA Scale: N.T.S. (/ / R A C Drawn: R. Okada 7 3 HABIBRS�PRNISM1VM!CA D IIIA �"' /� ' ``/ ESS RAMP R.CE NO. 36106 Scale: N.T.S.o a00 SIDEWALK DETAIL Drawn: M.Cracia S1R.W1O.T.S. Dale: 11/2005 STDDama:¢onsslm DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE Date:ll/2005 n h Q 3 Date: Sep 1994 B:,DBsroo��U0 3r=5a; GTO, DETAILS I p /� / Te DATE 11/17/06 SCALE N. 1 Q 1 DRAWING NO. STD -181 -L-A NOTES DRAWING NO. STD -181 -L -D DRAWING NO. STD -180-L DRAWN R. OKADA STD -181 -L -C H 7 C U DO -DT -0001 6 24' 46" ICL 96" X 48" ALUMINUM, TRIPLEX ACCESS �.- r---.-�� HATCH FOR PEDESTRIAN 30OPSF LIVE LOADING I WIDE BY 1 DEEP HDPE STORM INLET 7--112' R INVERT EU: � / ' � � 20 19 3/8' LIP AC PATCH BACK r P 6' OR 8' R CONTRACTOR MUST q' CURB FACE \. F i- o --_1 V ,y 3;72 PIPE MATERIAL, LOCATION, SIZE ,..., I,/ z I ; W3 -n ; U V BAT TER4 4 PIPEINVERTSIGNED BY OTHERS TPIPING. 7 \� K: .`, 4 4 _: 1/2' R PIPE DESIGNED BY OTHERS (I•',.,., VI 4 -- MOUNT 6" STILLING WELLTO WALL y;g. Iy 1' R WITH SS WALL BRACKET AMD SS ' \ i ^=[I y WEDGE STYLE ANCHORS, - d /- -FO CONNECTION LEVEL �` -,.% � ---J '`'' DESSIGNDCE AB'Y OTHERS �ID+-0" WET WELL LD.\�w /' TYPE A P.C.C. CURB AND GUTTER 011'-30"WET WELL O.D. / -// PLAN SECTION ANTI -FLOTATION COLLAR (CURB FACE SHALL BE 6' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) FG/RIM EL: O 1/2' R 1-1/4' SAWED, QUICK -JOINT OR EQUAL 8' 8' 8' 8' 8' 8' 8' 8' PARTS LIST , I I 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 ROMA NON CLOG PUMP 6" DISCHARGE W/ AUTO COUPLING SYSTEM, 21.SHP, THERMAL SENSORS, EXTERIOR COATED WITH HIGH SOLIDS POLY -AMIDE EPDXY, SEAL PROBES, 50 R CABLE 5 3 2" 304SS UPPER GUIDE RAIL BRACKET 6 6 2" 30455 GUIDE RAIL 7 1 SS FLOAT BRACKET W/ CORD GRIPS " o b x o; z % o rylDIAssaO 13. CONCRETE SHALL BE 560-C-3250. IL I JI o� Cyd 4" o z dgN ¢ 14. RETROFITS - WHEN A WHEELCHAIR RAMP IS ADDED TO AN EXISTING FACILITY, THE O O O ` o Q o vd" d v o CHANGES ARE PERMITED: o= z s �` N /+ 4 (� (A) RAMP GRADE IN CASE "C" MAT BE INCREASED TO 4%. a �° (B) OTHER RAMP GRADES MAYBE INCREASED TO A MAXIMUM OF 11.1% a Se GO P s 3 °° (NEVERTHELESS, THEY SHOULD BE AS FLAT AS FEASABLE, o m nlw ti4gr.�-. 0 o (C) WHERE THE 4 FOOT PLATFORM IS NOT FEASABLE, THE WIDTH MAY BE DECREASEDno 2¢ � 16mm (0.65) o P w Q Dw< ¢ < TO 3 FOOT ► ► N Min. Base To N �z (D) THE PLATFORM MAY BE ELIMINATED IF THE GRADE DOES NOT EXCEED 8.33% GDw m Dw 15. RASIED TRUNCATED DOMES SHALL BE DARK GREY IN COLOR AND SHALL BE "TERRA PAVING" Base Spacingoo �zioz AS MANUFACTURED BY WAUSAU TILE, INC. OF WISCONSIN OR EQUAL.PLANTING OR ` I�" °'w S3"°^ " 16. DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACES SHALL EXTEND 36 INCHES MINIMUM IN THE DIRECTION RAISED TRUNCATED DOME PATTERN x CONCRETE WALK o Dw > F OF TRAVEL AND THR FULL WIDTH OF THE CURB RAMP. e o w ° o WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS E �zz o �� o z IN-LINE See Notes 9, 15 and 16 7 ° N 0CD AD R EXPANSION JOINTS FL so NOTE: ADAPTED FROM CALTRANS CURRENT STANDARDS PLANS FOR UP-TO-DATE REQUIREMENTS. a o 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVED: APPROVED: APPROVED+ APPROVED /l/ v 0 U o a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH _ CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH /�1��� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT d o PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT R 7H�� R < G. ¢ CURB ACCESS lel IMP RCE N0.36106 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR 00 CURB ACCESS RAMP RCL N0.36106 WORKS UII2EC'I'Oli O c ` RICE No. 36106 LI WORKS DIRECTOR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS yawn: R. OKADA Scale: N.T.S. (/ / R A C Drawn: R. Okada 7 3 HABIBRS�PRNISM1VM!CA D IIIA �"' /� ' ``/ ESS RAMP R.CE NO. 36106 Scale: N.T.S.o a00 SIDEWALK DETAIL Drawn: M.Cracia S1R.W1O.T.S. Dale: 11/2005 STDDama:¢onsslm DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE Date:ll/2005 n h Q 3 Date: Sep 1994 B:,DBsroo��U0 3r=5a; GTO, DETAILS I p /� / Te DATE 11/17/06 SCALE N. 1 Q 1 DRAWING NO. STD -181 -L-A NOTES DRAWING NO. STD -181 -L -D DRAWING NO. STD -180-L DRAWN R. OKADA STD -181 -L -C H 7 C U DO -DT -0001 6 24' 46" ICL 96" X 48" ALUMINUM, TRIPLEX ACCESS �.- r---.-�� HATCH FOR PEDESTRIAN 30OPSF LIVE LOADING I WIDE BY 1 DEEP HDPE STORM INLET 7--112' R INVERT EU: � / ' � � 20 19 3/8' LIP AC PATCH BACK r P 6' OR 8' R CONTRACTOR MUST q' CURB FACE \. F i- o --_1 V ,y 3;72 PIPE MATERIAL, LOCATION, SIZE ,..., I,/ z I ; W3 -n ; U V BAT TER4 4 PIPEINVERTSIGNED BY OTHERS TPIPING. 7 \� K: .`, 4 4 _: 1/2' R PIPE DESIGNED BY OTHERS (I•',.,., VI 4 -- MOUNT 6" STILLING WELLTO WALL y;g. Iy 1' R WITH SS WALL BRACKET AMD SS ' \ i ^=[I y WEDGE STYLE ANCHORS, - d /- -FO CONNECTION LEVEL �` -,.% � ---J '`'' DESSIGNDCE AB'Y OTHERS �ID+-0" WET WELL LD.\�w /' TYPE A P.C.C. CURB AND GUTTER 011'-30"WET WELL O.D. / -// PLAN SECTION ANTI -FLOTATION COLLAR (CURB FACE SHALL BE 6' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) FG/RIM EL: O 1/2' R - ±TBD Q m INLET � � �' ® ±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 0) OR SAND. (TENSAR'" BX1200 OR QROFESS/pN : BACKFILL, 12" MINIMUM ABOVE CUDO'" SYSTEM, COMPACTED EQUIVALENT) 12" MAXIMUM BELOW QUI='v vN A AS REQUIRED BY PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. FINISHED GRADE AT SHALLOWEST POINT. BACKFILL MATERIAL PER CUSTOMER BEDDING/BACKFILL SPECIFICATION. SEE NOTE 1. - w;• LN.`Q'0j6I1I FYI 024.00" MAINTENANCE INSPECTION ACCESS COVERS TYPICAL. 3.00' IAL FROM "] MINIMUM F TANK. � W MAINTENANCE/INSPECTION OR MATERIAL FROM EDGES OF TANK. * Exp.1Z�31 ZO78 N FIELD POURED CONCRETE COLLAR REQUIRED, BY OTHERS. - # O ASPHALT PAVEMENT. � S� � �OIII (� ® 00 12.00 �F CA1-�j N MINII UM -2 TYPICAL CATCH BASIN OR OTHER INLET \ ,; \�-\\\- ,::�, b \. \. \\ MINIMUM. 7 STRUCTURE PER PLAN. - 1f" _. j P WIDE BY 1' DEEP -o III \ \ O ■ \ WRAP ENTIRE SYSTEM WITH v 1VIM Q Q AC PATCH BACK � 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 ROMA NON CLOG PUMP 6" DISCHARGE W/ AUTO COUPLING SYSTEM, 21.SHP, THERMAL SENSORS, EXTERIOR COATED WITH HIGH SOLIDS POLY -AMIDE EPDXY, SEAL PROBES, 50 R CABLE 5 3 2" 304SS UPPER GUIDE RAIL BRACKET 6 6 2" 30455 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 FUG 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 HROWR 16 3 DIP FLG x PE SPOOL X-0" 17 3 DIP FLG x FLG SPOOL Y-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 2 SS PIPE WALL CLAMP - ±TBD Q m INLET � � �' ® ±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 0) OR SAND. (TENSAR'" BX1200 OR QROFESS/pN : BACKFILL, 12" MINIMUM ABOVE CUDO'" SYSTEM, COMPACTED EQUIVALENT) 12" MAXIMUM BELOW QUI='v vN A AS REQUIRED BY PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. FINISHED GRADE AT SHALLOWEST POINT. BACKFILL MATERIAL PER CUSTOMER BEDDING/BACKFILL SPECIFICATION. SEE NOTE 1. - w;• LN.`Q'0j6I1I FYI 024.00" MAINTENANCE INSPECTION ACCESS COVERS TYPICAL. 3.00' IAL FROM "] MINIMUM F TANK. � W MAINTENANCE/INSPECTION OR MATERIAL FROM EDGES OF TANK. * Exp.1Z�31 ZO78 N FIELD POURED CONCRETE COLLAR REQUIRED, BY OTHERS. - # O ASPHALT PAVEMENT. � S� � �OIII (� ® 00 12.00 �F CA1-�j N MINII UM -2 TYPICAL CATCH BASIN OR OTHER INLET \ ,; \�-\\\- ,::�, b \. \. \\ MINIMUM. 7 STRUCTURE PER PLAN. - 1f" _. j P WIDE BY 1' DEEP -o III \ \ O ■ \ WRAP ENTIRE SYSTEM WITH v 1VIM PUMP CHARACTERISTICS Q Q AC PATCH BACK � SINGLE PUMP PARALLEL DESIGN FLOW 1. INSTALL GEOGRID LAYER, (TENSAR T. BX1200 OR EQUIVALENT) IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS. PRESSURE TRANSDUCER SHALL 1 STATIC HEAD 22 15 HORSE POWER 'I FORCEMAIN POWER SUPPLY � Lt U rq ry I NUMBER OF PUMPS FREQUENCY z w z REMAIN IN STILLING WELL FOR i'.' NORMAL OPERATION 2. PREFORMED 3/8 THICK EXPANSION FILLER SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL L ;_:' _ 01fiF s ,l \ 2. SYSTEM ENCASED ENTIRELY WITH 36 MIL REINFORCED POLYETHYLENE IMPERMEABLE LINER OR EQUIVALENT AS REQUIRED. INVERT EL: BATTER CO BAT '"" TYPES DF CURB AT THE B.C. AND EC. OF RETURNS, AT INTERVALS OF 60' \-\ ONE TO FOUR :l a 16 co LU cn C) a ` b \ M MAXIMUXIMU 3. FIELD POURED CONCRETE COLLAR REQUIRED AROUND ALL ACCESS COVERS -..i J ¢ w 17 JOINTS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL GUTTERS ADJOINING CURB. WEAKENED 2) JENSEN PRECAST ASSUMES NO RISK FOR DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS DRAWING AND THE ACTUAL ELEVATIONS/DIMENSIONS IN THE FIELD. CUDO-0008 & CUDO-PIPE-0001. - �ns�n.GC Dp 4 \ CUDO" z >o 61 3 THE SPECIFIED PUMPS ARE DESIGNED TO OPERATE AT THE DESIGN POINT SHOWN BUT THE SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY JENSEN PRECAST. `"^'°°,b MECHANICAL DETAILS ENGINEERED J STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY OF CONSULTING ENGINEER TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE ALL R GULATORY AND DESIGN RELATED REQUIREMENTS. NRISTAR HAS NOT AUTHORIZED AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ALTERATIONS BY OTHERS TO THE NRISTAR STANDARD DETAILS, 4 A . (APPLIES TO TYPES 'A', B, AND 'C' CURBS). J t O SYSTEMS \/ U� i ws mm eco oPAvnne No. DO NOT SCALE DRAWING cNONE �JPR 7 21 OB 0005 JPR 3/20/12 CUDO-DT-0001 pw6 SHEE 1 OF 1 PERFORATED PARTITION PANELS ON THREE SIDESORE 17 ~ 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 o„re. ch O o PUMP 3 ON /HIGH LEVEL EL: /^q FOR OPTIONAL GROSS POLLUTANT FILTER (GPF). \\ J / 1 a2 sssl oras ao W N Q N m LAG PUMP 60Hz EL: �.:.I 4. SMOOTH TROWL THE TOP 4 -INCH OF THE BACK OF CURB. GROSS POLLUTANT FILTER (GPF) \ .. :1'�: <i'1 ,' S:^ - . - ^*:' :.:i: .- W Z U Q - } Q t LEAD PUMP 60Hz EL: OPTIONAL ON CUDO 2 THRU 4,\- NOT AVAILABLE IN CUDO'" 1 SYSTEMS. \ \ \ \ \�\ \ \ \ OUTLET PIPE, s < U z ¢ U LU � �7� (� (� CURB TYPE B P.C.C. 1JRB �\ \\ \\ \ \\ �\ \\. \\ \ \\ \\ \ \\ �\ \\ .\" � 018.00" MAXIMUM. FOR CONNECTION ��LL�1J1 vJ =ORATED 3 ` LEAD PUMP 40 Hz EL: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT m RCE NO. 36106 BLIC WORKS DIRHCTOR STANDARD CURB SECTIONS 2 (CURB FACE SHALL BE 6' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) SIDE PLUGS MAYATBTHEUDISCIED AS O O OF M.Gracia Scale: N.T.S. CONFIGURATION REFERENCE, W < Z 11 AND 117711 Date: Nov. 1993 s ucRiUom� RIR STD, TYPES "All L� B RETION OF KRISTAR PUMPS OFF EL: J -- DRAWING NO. STD -182-L NOTE' S: VARIABLE ��o � - 12.00 MINIMUM LOW ALARM EL: m K z CO K - Z Y U O LuU � Lu Z NOTES: SECTION / CUTAWAY VIEW_ O - 00 o0- 0 C 00 C4 N PUMP CHARACTERISTICS DESCRIPTION SINGLE PUMP PARALLEL DESIGN FLOW 1. INSTALL GEOGRID LAYER, (TENSAR T. BX1200 OR EQUIVALENT) IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS. TOTAL DYNAMIC HEAD STATIC HEAD MANUFACTURER MODEL NUMBER HORSE POWER FULL LOAD AMPS MAX PUMP SPEED POWER SUPPLY POWER SUPPLY NUMBER OF PUMPS FREQUENCY 1, GUTTER SURFACE WITHIN 4' OF FLOWLINE SHALL BE GIVEN A STEEL TROWEL, (APPLIES TO TYPE 'A' CURB) o P FOUNDATION, SUBGRADE AND T. -� BACKFILL DESIGNED BY OTHER i 1. INSTALL GEOGRID LAYER, (TENSAR T. BX1200 OR EQUIVALENT) IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS. SCALE: NONE IMPERMEABLE LINER.Z O ?> D- I- ?> W W O w U ` - Q z w z \ SEE NOTE 2. 2. PREFORMED 3/8 THICK EXPANSION FILLER SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL L ;_:' _ 01fiF s ,l \ 2. SYSTEM ENCASED ENTIRELY WITH 36 MIL REINFORCED POLYETHYLENE IMPERMEABLE LINER OR EQUIVALENT AS REQUIRED. KriStar Enterprises, inc. eUDO'M Stormwater Detention System KRISTAR N INLET PIPE, 018.00" MAXIMUM, \ FOR CONNECTION CONFIGURATION REFERENCE \ '"" TYPES DF CURB AT THE B.C. AND EC. OF RETURNS, AT INTERVALS OF 60' \-\ ONE TO FOUR / o Z Z LU cn C) W ` DISCLAIMERS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: 1) ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS WERE PROVIDED BY OTHERS. ANY CHANGE GREATER THAN 0.1 Fr. REQUIRES ENGINEER APPROVAL. \ M MAXIMUXIMU 3. FIELD POURED CONCRETE COLLAR REQUIRED AROUND ALL ACCESS COVERS Ph: 800.579.8819, Fax: 707.524.8186, www.kristar.com Impermeable Pavement Area P J ¢ w JOINTS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL GUTTERS ADJOINING CURB. WEAKENED 2) JENSEN PRECAST ASSUMES NO RISK FOR DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS DRAWING AND THE ACTUAL ELEVATIONS/DIMENSIONS IN THE FIELD. CUDO-0008 & CUDO-PIPE-0001. - �ns�n.GC & HATCHES, BY OTHERS. \ CUDO" z >o 61 3 THE SPECIFIED PUMPS ARE DESIGNED TO OPERATE AT THE DESIGN POINT SHOWN BUT THE SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY JENSEN PRECAST. `"^'°°,b MECHANICAL DETAILS ENGINEERED INLET CUDO'" SHOULD USE\ STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY OF CONSULTING ENGINEER TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE ALL R GULATORY AND DESIGN RELATED REQUIREMENTS. NRISTAR HAS NOT AUTHORIZED AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ALTERATIONS BY OTHERS TO THE NRISTAR STANDARD DETAILS, MODULE STACKS. A . (APPLIES TO TYPES 'A', B, AND 'C' CURBS). J t O SYSTEMS \/ U� i ws mm eco oPAvnne No. DO NOT SCALE DRAWING cNONE �JPR 7 21 OB 0005 JPR 3/20/12 CUDO-DT-0001 pw6 SHEE 1 OF 1 PERFORATED PARTITION PANELS ON THREE SIDESORE 17 ~ 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 o„re. ch O o FOR OPTIONAL GROSS POLLUTANT FILTER (GPF). \\ J RUBBER. NUTS AND BOLTS M WET WELL TO BE STAINLESS STEEL. 1 a2 sssl oras ao W N Q N m 4. SMOOTH TROWL THE TOP 4 -INCH OF THE BACK OF CURB. GROSS POLLUTANT FILTER (GPF) \ .. :1'�: <i'1 ,' S:^ - . - ^*:' :.:i: .- 4.00 TO 6.00 MINIMUM. W Z U Q - } Q t OPTIONAL ON CUDO 2 THRU 4,\- NOT AVAILABLE IN CUDO'" 1 SYSTEMS. \ \ \ \ \�\ \ \ \ OUTLET PIPE, s < U z ¢ U LU 0 �\ \\ \\ \ \\ �\ \\. \\ \ \\ \\ \ \\ �\ \\ .\" � 018.00" MAXIMUM. FOR CONNECTION ��LL�1J1 vJ =ORATED 3 a PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT m RCE NO. 36106 BLIC WORKS DIRHCTOR STANDARD CURB SECTIONS 0-U (D U SIDE PLUGS MAYATBTHEUDISCIED AS O O OF M.Gracia Scale: N.T.S. CONFIGURATION REFERENCE, W < Z 11 AND 117711 Date: Nov. 1993 s ucRiUom� RIR STD, TYPES "All L� B RETION OF KRISTAR CUDO-0008 & CUDO-PIPE-0001. J Uj > m LU � m DRAWING NO. STD -182-L VARIABLE ��o � - 12.00 MINIMUM m K z CO K I Z Y U O LuU � Lu Z NOTES: SECTION / CUTAWAY VIEW_ O - 00 o0- 0 C 00 C4 1, GUTTER SURFACE WITHIN 4' OF FLOWLINE SHALL BE GIVEN A STEEL TROWEL, (APPLIES TO TYPE 'A' CURB) o P FOUNDATION, SUBGRADE AND T. -� BACKFILL DESIGNED BY OTHER i 1. INSTALL GEOGRID LAYER, (TENSAR T. BX1200 OR EQUIVALENT) IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS. SCALE: NONE W O ?> D- I- ?> W W O w SUMP EL: ;I Q z w z N 2. PREFORMED 3/8 THICK EXPANSION FILLER SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL L ;_:' _ 01fiF s ,l 2. SYSTEM ENCASED ENTIRELY WITH 36 MIL REINFORCED POLYETHYLENE IMPERMEABLE LINER OR EQUIVALENT AS REQUIRED. KriStar Enterprises, inc. eUDO'M Stormwater Detention System KRISTAR N l o Z a TYPES DF CURB AT THE B.C. AND EC. OF RETURNS, AT INTERVALS OF 60' J 1 X/pJ 360 Sinton Place, Santa Rosa, CA 95407 Typical Installation Detail LU cn C) W BETWEEN RETURNS AND AT THE ENDS OF DRIVEWAYS SIMILAR EXPANSION DISCLAIMERS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: 1) ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS WERE PROVIDED BY OTHERS. ANY CHANGE GREATER THAN 0.1 Fr. REQUIRES ENGINEER APPROVAL. 3. FIELD POURED CONCRETE COLLAR REQUIRED AROUND ALL ACCESS COVERS Ph: 800.579.8819, Fax: 707.524.8186, www.kristar.com Impermeable Pavement Area P U JOINTS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ALL GUTTERS ADJOINING CURB. WEAKENED 2) JENSEN PRECAST ASSUMES NO RISK FOR DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THIS DRAWING AND THE ACTUAL ELEVATIONS/DIMENSIONS IN THE FIELD. ... *..«.•A+++m+.. PROJECT: �® a' �ns�n.GC & HATCHES, BY OTHERS. Rl Aa s sTa o ao D als DEuoN RATE REcouuENonnous Faa INSTALurION ANo/oa sTANOAao oluENslous of ual Aa Preoouc . NreISTAR's o Aa oo NOT suPERseoE ANr FEDENAL, REGULATIONS. R IS THE RESPONSIDUTY THE VST z to PLANE JOINTS SHALL BE FORMED AT INTERVALS OF 20' BETWEEN RETURNS, 3 THE SPECIFIED PUMPS ARE DESIGNED TO OPERATE AT THE DESIGN POINT SHOWN BUT THE SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY JENSEN PRECAST. `"^'°°,b MECHANICAL DETAILS ENGINEERED 4. ALL EXTERNAL PIPING & ANGLES BY OTHERS. REFER TO PLANS. STATE OR LOCAL AGENCY OF CONSULTING ENGINEER TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE ALL R GULATORY AND DESIGN RELATED REQUIREMENTS. NRISTAR HAS NOT AUTHORIZED AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ALTERATIONS BY OTHERS TO THE NRISTAR STANDARD DETAILS, I 1 I ' , , A . (APPLIES TO TYPES 'A', B, AND 'C' CURBS). 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. SYSTEMS \/ U� i ws mm eco oPAvnne No. DO NOT SCALE DRAWING cNONE �JPR 7 21 OB 0005 JPR 3/20/12 CUDO-DT-0001 pw6 SHEE 1 OF 1 17 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 o„re. Nm Y,: s"sn:+a: 825 STENERI WAY, SPARRZA NV fi8O1 JensenEn9inc mdSYete"sxo" 3. CONCRETE SHALL BE 560 -C -325O. RUBBER. NUTS AND BOLTS M WET WELL TO BE STAINLESS STEEL. a2 sssl oras ao 4. SMOOTH TROWL THE TOP 4 -INCH OF THE BACK OF CURB. Y s CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVED: °o a PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT m RCE NO. 36106 BLIC WORKS DIRHCTOR STANDARD CURB SECTIONS Go O O O OF M.Gracia Scale: N.T.S. 11 AND 117711 Date: Nov. 1993 s ucRiUom� RIR STD, TYPES "All L� B 00 Q DRAWING NO. STD -182-L ��o � £ Z Y U O LuU � Lu Z d 11J ¢ I- W F 5:H- DO N W ¢ 2 ¢ W ¢ U W C-3 N T 3 OF 3 JACOB VANDERVIS RCE DATE PLAN CHECK: PA2M-212 FH PROPOSED BIO -FILTRATION #1 AREA = 299 SF GV SD A 0.25 PROPOSED CUF WITH 12" CUTS TSP8 BRISTOL STREET TSPB SD z�-SD SD PROPOSED STORM DRAIN PROPOSED 3 STORY BUILDING PROPOSED WALL SID RAMP TO PARKING oe�f TSPO owv RUUUM I T/AMU 7 o PAVED II P' R/W ROAD R roc FH owv PROPOSED BFP STORM DRAIN N 0 &�NA PROPOSED CURB WITH 12" CUTS i IMPORTANT NOTICE TRASH ENCLOSURE PROPOSED CUDO DETENTION SYSTEM O SD — (D) SD � =�11111I li 121.6' PROPOSED BIO—FILTRATION #2 AREA = 861 SF PAVED ROAD SD SD PROPOSED )RM DRAIN SD G10 SD PROPOSED CURB - WITH 12" CUTS SD— PROPOSED D— PROPOSED RATION #3 = 1151 SF C � 0.70 'OSED PUMP_�\� 4' "V" f II PROPOSED C SQ SD PROPOSED DISCHARGE 24"X24" INLET GRATE CURBS CUT PER PLAN PER PLAN 9" PONDING LU I 2"-3" MULCH LAYER I—I —I —I I - 11-1 1-1 1- III III—� III III DCV (FT) Code requires a Dig Alert identification Di d IIA I —I Q ENGINEERS NOTE TO CONTRACTOR 6" PVC RISER III III III III III J �� THE ENGINEER PREPARING THESE PLANS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED FILTER FABRIC —III— I — -III— - - III III III Permit to Excavate will be valid B CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THE PLANS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST BE WI For your Dig Alert ID Number Call > o 0 0 0 0 0 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 0.70 1454 WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO PIPE UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT Z 3 Z ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF 120 J LL.I z 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, BIO -FILTRATION DETAIL Section 4216/4217 of the Government DA AREA (AC) DCV (FT) Code requires a Dig Alert identification Di BMP UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES & USES ENGINEERS NOTE TO CONTRACTOR Number be issued before a 411 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 Permit to Excavate will be valid B 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 For your Dig Alert ID Number Call 2 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 0.70 1454 WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO EXCEPT AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASCERTAIN THE TRUE UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT Z 3 Z ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL LOCATION OF THOSE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES TO BE USED J LL.I z 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, Z 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 1-800-422-4133 U 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 For Underground Locating ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTING LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF DESIGN PROFESSIONAL. FROM THIS PLAN. 2 Working Days before You Dig N.T.S LEGEND PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED BIO -TREATMENT PLANTER X DRAINAGE AREA X.XX ACREAGE DRAINAGE AREAS PROPOSED STORM DRAIN EXISTING BLOCK WALL n I SIDES AND BOTTOM OF BASIN TO BE LINED WITH TEMP PROOF 250 ,\ GC OR APPROVED EQUAL FLUID APPLIED WATERPROOFING Z N MEMBRANE. u1j �. � \ 24" BIO -FILTER MEDIA WITH YX\ MIN. 8 IN/HR PERCOLATION RATE \ /\ /\\12" PERVIOUS BACKFILL \K\\�� (PER SPPWC TABLE /\\� 300-3.5.2(A) 6' PERFORATED PIPE IN 8" GRAVEL JACKET SUMMARY TABLE DA AREA (AC) DCV (FT) REQUIRED AREA (FT Z) BMP BMP PROVIDED AREA (FT Z) A 0.25 411 299 1 317 B 0.55 1183 861 2 1117 C 0.70 1454 1057 3 1496 0 20 30 40 (IN FEET) 1 INCH = 20 FEET JACOB VANDERVIS RCE DATE z O U) w tY 00 O N O a00 00 v z o Y nz LIJ w > m o- ¢ x ¢ w ¢ p o 0 0 0 of 0 WQMP 1 of 1 PLAN CHECK: PA�'k�-212 rn 3 IL 2 0 a I m N 0 ro o_ N N 0 0 a U c 0 00 z z w s 'a d M t 0 Q. 3 d z I 00 N O 00 a_ N a N N C 3 0 0 Y t m 7 O i w E a N I 0 N U D Z Xa J U ^ LL z J � L a 0 zL)Mo-M 0-_ �UU)iSU LLI> w Lu = w 1 �}m�� m Q Zm�zU) _ o00 OO 0 03:0- Z as C G Z 3 Z �y w o J LL.I z ILL! o Z ^�^ 11. W U o m 00 0 N 00 u c o a h 0 0 0'0 j 0 w 0 N a rn 20 0 U U O i O p U p c o 0 Q6 0 Z 3 mo a c 3 0 O° a3 00 a= U N 00 O N O a00 00 v z o Y nz LIJ w > m o- ¢ x ¢ w ¢ p o 0 0 0 of 0 WQMP 1 of 1 PLAN CHECK: PA�'k�-212 rn 3 IL 2 0 a I m N 0 ro o_ N N 0 0 a U c 0 00 z z w s 'a d M t 0 Q. 3 d z I 00 N O 00 a_ N a N N C 3 0 0 Y t m 7 O i w E a N I 0 N U D Z z J U ^ LL z J � L 0 �~M 0 zL)Mo-M aCszaQ U) 2 Lu 3: 2 �UU)iSU LLI> w Lu = w 1 �}m�� m Q Zm�zU) _ o00 OO 0 03:0- Z 3: Lu U C G Z 3 Z �y w o J LL.I z ILL! LLI U Z ^�^ 11. W U 00 O N O a00 00 v z o Y nz LIJ w > m o- ¢ x ¢ w ¢ p o 0 0 0 of 0 WQMP 1 of 1 PLAN CHECK: PA�'k�-212 rn 3 IL 2 0 a I m N 0 ro o_ N N 0 0 a U c 0 00 z z w s 'a d M t 0 Q. 3 d z I 00 N O 00 a_ N a N N C 3 0 0 Y t m 7 O i w E a N I 0 N U D MEMORY CARE COURTYARD PLANT PALETTE SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME WUCOLS SIZE & HIGH WALL, SHRUBS AND GROUNCOVERS REGION 3 - SEATING - WAY FINDING - SENSORY PLANT MATERIAL PER ARCHITECT'S PLAN ASSISTED LIVING LIBRARY PATIO SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME WllcOLS SIZE QUANTITY MAIN ENTRY & PERIMETER - WATER FEATURE - FLOWERING TREES - DECORATIVE POTS WITH TREES REGION-3 AEONIUM A, °ZWARTKOP BLACK ROSE AEONIUM LOW 5 GAL. - ENHANCED PAVING - EASE OF CIRCULATION ACCENT (PLANTS SEE ENLARGEMENT C, - TABLES AND CHAIRS - OVERHEAD TRELLIS SHEET 2 - LOUNGE SEATING DECORATIVE FENCE AGAVE SPECIES AGAVE LOW 5 GAL- SEEENLARGEMENT B, BRISTOL STREET - ENHANCED PAVING WITH GATE CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS WESTERN REDBUD LOW 36" BOX 2 ALOE SPECIES ALOE LOW 5GAL. SHEET 2 UI[ l I CARISSA M.'GREEN CARPET DWARF NATAL PLUM MOD 5GAL, _ s DIETES VEGETA FORTNIGHT LILY MOD 5 GAL. i',, / ERIOBOTYA JAPONICA LOQUAT TREE MOD 48" BOX 1 LANTANA VEW GOLD' NEW GOLD LANTANA LOW 5 GAL. Ik• �` COPP€FYfONE° MYOPORUM PARVIFOLIUM MYOPORUM LOW T GAL. IF EXISTING SIDEWALK �� MYRTUS COMMUNIS •COMPACTA' DWARF MYRTLE LOW 5 GAL. PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA MOCK ORANGE MOD 5 GAL, LAGEi35TROEMIA'NATCHET CRAPE MYRTLE MOD 24" BOX 3 MERGEfNCY SALVIA SPP SAGE LOW 5 GAL. I RIVE EXIT SENECIO S. '''BLUE CHALKSRCKS' BLUE CHALKSTICKS LOW T GAL. t. STRELI ZIA NICOLAI GIANT BIRD OF PARADISE MOD T' 5 GAL. ONLY _ LAGERSTROEMIA'SEMINOLE PINK' CRAPE MYRTLE MOD 36" BOX 5 STRELRZIAREGINAE BIRD OF PARADISE MOD 5 GAL. --- WESTRINGIA'BLUE GEM' BLUE GEM COAST ROSEMARY LOW 5 GAL. J s ' PINUS ELDERICA MON DELL PINE LOW 36` BOX 9 DECORATIVE ROCKI COBBLE b r. rt :r h� MEMORY CARE AND ASSISTED LIVING COURTYARD ACHILLEAM°'PAPRIKA' YARROW LOW T GAL, LOPHOSTEMON CONFERTUS BRISBANE BOX LOW 36m BOX 17 C PENTERIA CALIFORNICA BUSH ANEMONE LOW 5 GAL. CLIVIA MINIATA KAFFIR LILY LOW I GAL. DIGITALIS PURPUREA COMMON FOXGLOVE MOD T GAL. GARDE NIA JASMINIOD ES VEITCHII' EVERBLOOMING GARDENIA MOD 5 GAL, w SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME WUCOLS SIZE QUANTITY IRIS DOUGLASIANA DOUGLAS IRIS LOW 5 GAL. I PALMS REGION 3 I I j LAVANDULA A. 'BUENA VISTA' LAVENDER BUENA VISTA LOW 5 GAL. I LIGUSTRUM JAPONICA TEXANUM' TEXAS PRIVET MOD 5 GAL. •, #° • KING PALM MOD 3 LOMANDtA L. 'BREEZE' DWARF MAT RUSH LOW T GAL. ARCHONTOPI�LOENIX 16'BTO CUNNINGHAMIAN,A Y I — SALVIA CLEVELANDII CALIFORNIA BLUE SAGE LOW 5 GAL. I� PHOENIX DACTYLIF ERA DATE PALM LOW 18' 8TH 16 jN{ J I STACHYS BYZANT[NA LAMB'S EARS MOD 5GAL. 'DEGLET NOOK' - VINE EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN PROTECT IN PLACE � LONICERA JAPONICA JAPANESE HONEYSUCKLE LOW 5 GAL. r ` PERENNIALS FOR POTS I r —C CUPPANIOPSIS CARROTWOOD TREE AGAVE ATT€NUATA'KARA STRIPES, VARIEGATED AGAVE LOW 5 GAL. w r® p 0 ANACARDIOIDES 1WAEON IUM'SUI NBURST' AEONIUM SUNBURST LOW T GAL. w ry T I I CORDYLINE AUSTRALIS'RED STAR' FLAMING GLOW MEXICAN LILY LOW 5 GAL. II — EXISTING PALMS TO REMAIN - PROTECT IN PLACE CRASSURIA'AFTERLGLOW ECHEVERE CRASSULA LOW i GAL. ECHEVELA CA MPFIRE' CAMPFIRE I RIR LOW 1 GAL. LU ! � � `� I LJJ U PHORMIUM BRONZE BABY' NEW ZEALAND FLAX MOD 5 GAL. I - SYAGRUS ROMMZOFFI'ANUM QUEEN PALM SANSEVERIA T. 'LAURENTII SPORT STRIPED MOTHER-IN-LAW TONGUE LOW 5 GAL. I r, • SEDUM MORGANIANUM BURRO'S TAIL LOW 1 GAL. ` WASHINGTONL4 FILIFERA CALIFORNIA FAN PALM - - 1 LU NOTES: { PLANT MATERIAL NOT LISTED MAY BE USED, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY. ALL LANDSCAPE PLANS AND INSTALLATIONS SHALL ADHERE TO CITY DESIGN GUIDELINES, CODES AND REGULATIONS. TREES r PALMS SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVERS ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL RECEIVE AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM. UNDER 1 `HEIGHT ALL LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION SHALL BE PERMANENTLY MAJNTAINED. r1xrr B"�_LosLrpe x � Y '`� - n• I _ n . �I Cercls Occidentalis LoWshoeania Canssa m. 'Green Carpet' Crasserla capitella Myoponim parvilatium- Sedum-STachys LWantlna A, 1&2aHx10.1s's Hybrids 1'-2'H'EIGHT 'CompEre' Morgranianum SEE ENLARGEMENT , .,.I_., ! IL}25'Kx 15-26's - - SHEET 2 I` EXISTINTtURB kkkk 1 PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFER 7EXISTING SIDEWALK PERIMETER LANDSCAPE BUFFER v r Ph A 1 la•^ — e Erfo ootrya ja apoNca C ppertone forum Aeaniu n 5unuuast C1iv!a min ac is la After Glav lr cb aglasan�a Lantana 'Now Cold' Lrnandufo Buerro Vista' Sedum s. 'Blue CCI a� sFcks' aa 2'-3' HEIGHT F ' -y ASSISTED LIVING COURTYARDS ADJACENT PROPERTY MAIN ENTRY SEE ENLARGEMENT D, _ - TABLES AND CHAIRS - FIRE FEATURE - ENHANCED PAVING SHEET 2 Lophosteman Pinus elderica contedus 30.55 H x 25-35'5 Agave attenuota'Kara stripes' Agave species Aloe species Lemandra leleeze $alNa spa ry FOR OUTDOOR DINING - WOOD DECK PAVING - CIRCULAR PLANTER 42" HIGH WALL, PER so•45 H x25'5 3'-4' HEIGHT - WATER FEATURE - DECORATIVE POTS WITH WITH SPECIMEN PALMS A'RCHITECT'S PLAN - ENHANCED PAVING ACCENT PLANTS - DECORATIVE WALL PERIMETER LANDSCAPE - - LOUNGE SEATING - LARGE SPECIMEN TREE IN - ACCENT PLANT MATERIAL - - OVERHEAD TRELLIS RAISED PLANTER' CONCEPTUAL IRRIGATION NOTES: Or Pucl!Iq Wq. cm x.i r ALL LANDSCAPE PLANS AND IN SHALL COMPLY WITH CITY TREES HALL BE IRRIGATED SEPARATELY FROM SHRUBS AND Archontopta®nix Pr oen€x A"niurn Z�Wc rtkop oietes vegeta ¢>tgltaBs purprrea Slavla clevelandil Myrius con !rnJns'Campadta' 50nYeve110 t. Si a T[a eglnae S O S U cunni ha'rniana dacMiLera °Louren1li Sport' Q ! � OF NEWPORT BEACH DESIGN GUIDELINES, CODES AND REGULATIONS. GROUND COVERS. 5d Hx{12-Is's 80'Hx20.4o's 4'-6' HEIGHT 3 s SITE °pry �T LOW VOLUME DISTRIBUTION IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH WEATHER BASED SPRINKLER HEADS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS WHERE F rn AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION CONTROLLER SHALL BE USED IN COMPLIANCE IRRIGATION WATER IS CONTAINED WITHIN PERVIOUS SURFACE. ps „P WITH THE CITY WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE GUIDELINES. QUICK COUPLING VALVE SHALL BE LOCKING TYPE. �C< RAINBIRD SQ, � � 1, STREAM BUBBLER, AND HUNTER MP ROTATOR DRIP BUBBLER, r „!:_,• 3o IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE MONITORED FOR p Y NOZZLES SHALL BE USED FOR LOW VOLUME IRRIGATION WATER DISTRIBUTION. LEAKS AND Bux�laponrca Green Beaul'y+ Carpentefia Garder�t jpsminiodes YrlW�raum onus Pharmlum tenax Weshingia 'Blue Gem' l3 BREAKAGE WEEKLY, camfornlco Vstchlr 'Sprang Bouquet' 'BNxve Baby § Q ABOVE 6' HEIGHT IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL BE EQUIPPED WITH MASTER VALVE AND PRESSURE WATERING SCHEDULE SHALL BE REVIEWED QUARTERLY, '-' REGULATOR TO PREVENT WATER WASTE. - " Up`N""" = SPRINKLER HEADS SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH PRESSURE REGULATOR68% OR MORE PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE LOW OR VERY LOW WATER USEAND USE MATERIAL. 4 r' CHECK VALVE TO PREVENT MISTING AND HEAD DRAINAGE. ` VICINITY MAP N,T,S = Cardytlne australis L',gustrum japonicum Lonicera japonica PMosposa m totbira St4ftia nicotai CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN Red Star' 3195-C Airport Loop Dr, Studio One, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 g T:949.399.0870 F: 949,399,0882 www.cdpcinc;com HARBOR POINT S LIVING, LLC 01 BAYVIEW PLACE, NEWPORT BEACH, ICA 92660 SHEET T OF 2 °'10' 20' 40' 6°' 6659 Morro Road. Atoscadero, CA 93422 T: 805.466.3385 F: 805.466.3204 DATE I I _13_ T g75 E. Santa Clara St., 6th Floor, San ,lose, CA 95113 3 NEWPORT BEACH, CA ���L�: � "���' - cDPc JOB#: 15083 II r 4 1 1 I r • a. ti — - h �I _ a i i y�'A• ♦ P 5 1 r � ! x - mal.' .�- � �• r • a • • r � - � - ,-� • r r I _ — I � �[ �f wf� �=fir _ — - � '— ��'`" '� � �.'"�• _ �.,., WIN 211 RAF k 7 1211,111 u ,_ -. �"-may �� • I Y -.I 1I j Jf f a • 1 I I+�j I - �. III ar- � ,.•.f a —°• p!� `��Ff ~;. .-' � j. W a 1, l Pa p � F a a_ RI • r • i r �'',` ,gyp �-yy r ■ ■ I ..�' � .n. -- �yd:'�a ' I�' �,a1� TT._ Tvr,�! ;�.r'. a , i � � •' sa .. � �' ! � a �y. . 1 1 1 r I r y •! r' s •� ti ENHANCED CONCRETE PLANTING AREA V_ PAVING AREA�� DECORATIVE WALL WITH COBBLE BASIN (BOTH SIDES OF ENTRY) - - PASSENGER DROP-OFF AREA MEMORY CARSEAT WALL BENCH SEATING COURTYARD � WATER FEATURE - r' DECORATIVE BOLLARD BENCH ENHANCED PAVING f • �"� PLANTING AREA DECORATIVE POT . ! PLANTER WALL — _ WITH ACCENT PLANTING U LU _ : : I - � � - TRELLIS � u � � >,• r z _ m r - LOUNGE CHAIRS -_ - -7117 DECORATIVE STONE WALL DECORATIVE WALL WITH CAP / WITH CAP PLANK PAVING LOUNGE SEATING f OUTDOOR DINING TABLE AND CHAIRS �_--". ; - ASSISTEDIVIDECORATIVE POTS WITH ROUNDABOUT WITH CENTER ��� ACCENT PLANTING ISLAND ACCENT PLANTING: V F MAIN ENTRY LANDSCAPE - - r� FOUNTAIN PLANTER POT OPTIONS WATER FEATURE CALF MAIN ENTRY p 1 rl = 20' DECORATIVE WALL u i SCALE: 3116- = 1:-0°I WITH COBBLE BASIN DECORATIVE GUARDRAIL s s 3 R i 5 i POINT NEWPORT DY ICONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN — ENLARGEMENTS3195 Airport Loop Or, Studio One Costa Mest. CA 9 2626 T: 949.399.0870 F: 949.399,0882 www.cdpcinc;com 6659 Morro Rood, A,a�aderQ: CA 93422uALB SCLIVING,LLC101 B YVIEWPLACE, BELCH, CA92660 SHEET 2 OF 2 : ,.: . . 3204b DATE: 1 1 -13-18 75 E. Sonic Clara St., 6th Floor, Son Jose, CA 95113 NEWPORT BEACH, Cir 91 CDPCJ013#:15083 Planning Commission - December 6, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) From: Zdeba, Benjamin w Sent: Monday, December 03, 2018 4:12 PM ' To: Lippman, Tiffany Cc: Ramirez, Brittany Gy`w�J Subject: FW: Support Letter - Kitayama Redevelopment Attachments: Senior living support letter- John Santry.docx Importance: High Hi Tiffany, Please see below and attached received in reference to the Harbor Pointe Senior Living project (PA2015- 210) on the Commission's agenda this Thursday. Thanks, Ben Z. BENJAMIN M. ZDEBA, AICP Community Development Department Associate Planner bzdeba5ne woortbeachca. oov 949-644-3253 From: John Santry <JSantrv@sh000ff com> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2018 10:56 AM To: Zak, Peter <pzak@newoortbeachca.¢ov> Cc: Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdeba@newportbeachca.eov>; matt.holder@alumni.usc.edu Subject: Support Letter - Kitayama Redevelopment Importance: High Mr. Chairman, Please find the attached letter regarding my support of the redevelopment of the Kitayama restaurant site. Regards, John Santry Executive Vice President—Acquisitions & Development SH0POFFR IM 7ranslua,or 0)Aatun:y we YWW Shopoff Realty Investments, L.P. 2 Park Plaza, Suite 700, Irvine, CA 92614 M (949) 417-1396 1 D (949) 417-1867 1 C (949) 636-2232 1 F (949) 417-1399 Planning Commission - December 6, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) This email, including attachments, may include confidential and/or proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient or his or her authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and delete this email immediately or call Shopoff Realty Investments, L.P. at (949) 417-1396. This is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of an offer to buy any security. Such an offer may only be made by means of an offering document that must accompany or precede this information. All investments have risk including loss of investment; please see the risk factors section of the offering document. Past performance and/or forward looking statements are not an assurance of future results. Securities offered through Shopoff Securities, Inc., Member FINRA/SIPC, (844) 4-Shopoff. Planning Commission - December 6, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) December 3, 2o18 Peter Zak Chariman, Newport Beach Planning Commission Dear Mr. Chairman: As a resident of Newport Beach, I want to express my support for the proposed assisted living and memory care facility at the current Kitayama restaurant site. Our community requires appropriate housing product for our seniors to age in place, as well as high quality care for these elderly residents. Long time citizens of Newport Beach desire to remain in their community and we want our parents and our children's grandparents close by their family and friends. These residents also need to be near their doctors and care providers in order to continue the years of medical support. I have been briefed on the project and think this is a most appropriate use of the site and a use that is highly beneficial to the community. Thank you, John Santry 400 Carlotta Newport Beach, CA 92660 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Importance: Hi Tiffany, Planning Commission - December 6, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) Zdeba, Benjamin Monday, December 03, 2018 4:12 PM Lippman, Tiffany Ramirez, Brittany FW: Harbor Pointe Residential Care Facility - Time Sensitive - Please Review Prior to December 6, 2018 Planning Commission Hearing M 754 n_20181203_140123. pdf High Please see below and attached received in reference to the Harbor Pointe Senior Living project (PA2015- 210) on the Commission's agenda this Thursday. Thanks, Ben Z. BENJAMIN M. ZDEBA, AICP Community Development Department Associate Planner bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov 949-644-3253 -----Original Message ----- From: David Rosenberg <Rosenberg(@SchumannRosenberg.com> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2018 1:08 PM To: Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Harbor Pointe Residential Care Facility - Time Sensitive - Please Review Prior to December 6, 2018 Planning Commission Hearing Importance: High Dear Mr. Zdeba: Please review the attached at your earliest possible opportunity. It concerns the Harbor Pointe Residential Care Facility Proposed Development at 101 Bayview Place in Newport Beach. As this project is the subject of a December 6, 2018 Planning Commission hearing, the attached letter is time -sensitive and should be reviewed on the very short term. Very Truly Yours, SCHUMANN I ROSENBERG ATTORNEYS AT LAW David R. Rosenberg, Esq. Planning Commission - December 6, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) Managing Partner 3100 Bristol Street, Suite 100 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (714) 850-0210 Fax: (714) 850-0551 Rosenberg@schumannrosenberg.com E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, copying or storage of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. Planning Commission - December 6, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) SCHUMANN I ROSENBERG A t t o r n e y s a t L a w Sender's [mail: Rosenberg@SchummnRosenberg.com December 3, 2018 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS & EMAIL bzdeba@nenortbeachca.gov City of Newport Beach Community Development Department Attention: Mr. Benjamin Zdeba, AICP 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Harbor Pointe Residential Care Facility Proposed Development — PLEASE REVIEW PRIOR TO DECEMBER 6, 2018 HEARING To Whom It May Concern: This office represents the Bayview Court HOA ("HOA" herein) with regard to the proposed Harbor Pointe Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) currently proposed at the corner of Bristol Street and Bayview Place located at 101 Bayview Place, Newport Beach, California. A Planning Commission hearing is scheduled for December 6, 2018, and it is the understanding of the HOA that the Commission may put this matter to a vote at the conclusion of said hearing. You are hereby nut on notice of the intent of the HOA to pursue all legal action available by law to protect the homeowners' rights and maintain the value of their property their personal safey, and continue to enjoy the lifestyle that currently exists in the Master Planned Community of Bayview. Should such legal action prove necessary, this office would intend to join with other HOAs, area businesses, and other currently unnamed entities with an interest in protecting the Bayview community in a joint effort to stop this project. Ultimately, however, the HOA would prefer to work with the City in a cooperative mariner towards the most logical conclusion — i.e., that the project should not be approved. There are many meaningful arguments against the project. The most salient are as follows: The project is highly unpopular among the constituency, poorly conceived, and is inappropriate for the property in question. It confers no benefit on the local community, constitutes a nuisance to local residents, will result in unnecessary parking and traffic issues, violates certain representations and agreements made by the City to the HOA, and is not supported by the City's General Plan. As a result, it would be highly inappropriate 3100 Bristol Street • Suite 100 • Costa Mesa • California 92626 714.850.0210 telephone • 714.850.0551 facsimile • www.SchumannRosenberg.com Planning Commission - December 6, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) City of Newport Beach Coimnunity Development Department December 3, 2018 Page 2 for the Commission to recommend such an unprecedented amendment to the Master Planned Conununity of Bayview. Further, this project violates the representations the City made to the homeowners though the Bayview Planned Comi n unity Development Plan including, and not limited to, zoning designations. Any development agreement between the Harbor Pointe project's developer and the City wrongfully circumvents the legal planning process and violates the representations and assurances the City made to homeowners through the Bayview Planned Community Development Plan that was in place when homeowners purchased their properties. Additionally, the Draft EIR dated August 2018, and known as Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Draft Enviromnental Impact Report (PA2015-210) SCH No. 2016071062, contains grossly misrepresented facts and inaccurate information as well as violates CEQA guidelines and NBMC requirements. The HOA has brought this to the attention of the Planning Conmiission in a timely manner and is prepared to further discuss them at the Commission's invitation. This is further support for a reasonable delay of a recommendation so that the issues may be fully understood before putting the matter to a vote. A second, independent Draft EIR should be conducted by another firm to address the misrepresented and inaccurate findings before any further public discussions on this project. A Firm should be mutually agreed on by both the City of Newport Beach and the HOA to prepare a new Draft EIR. In the absence of a new Draft EIR, the HOA reserves the right to legally challenge the integrity of the August 2018 Draft EIR known as Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Draft Environmiental Impact Report (PA2015-210) SCH No. 2016071062. There is little doubt that a vote on December 6, 2018, would be premature given the above issues. Before the Planning Commission would potentially take the extraordinary measure of voting to recommend a precedent setting zoning change, it should be fully informed and advised on the subject. An amendment of this magnitude is a very serious matter. As a further basis for a delay in the vote, the HOA requests that any amendments be tabled until the anticipated new General Plan for the City is in place. It is imperative that the Commission, City Council, and all affected parties, including the homeowners, be fully briefed and understand the inaccuracy of the August 18 EIR and what we contend are inaccurate responses to homeowner concerns posted on the City's website on November 28, 2018. The failure to do so will lead to expensive and time-consuming litigation which will, no -doubt, expose the considerable efforts by lobbying and consulting entities to Planning Commission - December 6, 2018 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) City of Newport Beach Community Development Department December 3, 2018 Page 3 achieve the vote that they have been seeking on the project. To the extent it can be demonstrated that these efforts have swayed the vote of elected officials to any extent, it will likely be viewed very poorly by the City's constituents. We remain hopeful that a necessary pause will ensue to allow for all involved to fully understand the issues prior to putting this matter to a vote of the Planning Commission. Very truly yours, SCHUl ERG DAVID R. ROSENBERG DRR/cfs Planning Commission - December 6, 2018 Item No. 41b Additional Materials Received Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) From: Zdeba, Benjamin OpSent: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 4:47 PM To: Lippman, Tiffany Cc: Ramirez, Brittany Subject: FW: Assisted Living Support Newport Beach Hi Tiffany, Please see below received in reference to the Harbor Pointe Senior Living project (PA2015-210) on the Commission's agenda this Thursday. Thanks, I:�4 BENJAMIN M. ZDEBA, AICP Community Development Department Associate Planner bzdebaO_ne wPortbeachca. oov 949-644-3253 From: Grant Garbers [mailto:ggarbers@isicap.coml Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 10:34 AM To: Zak, Peter <pzak@newportbeachca.gov>; Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: carol@entitlementadvisors.com Subject: Assisted Living Support Newport Beach To the Chairman of the Newport Beach Planning Commission: My name is Grant Garbers, and as a long-time resident and investment banker in Newport Beach, I want to express my support for the proposed assisted living and memory care facility, Harbor Pointe. It has been my experience that quality senior care projects like Harbor Pointe have no impact on adjacent homes property values and are in fact, a needed amenity for our community. My mom recently entered an assisted living facility and have found that her quality of life has improved significantly based on people interaction, activity and security. My in-laws will soon be in need of care and our family would love for them to be in Newport Beach close to family and the best medical care around. Please recommend approval to the City Council. Thank you, Grant Garbers Planning Commission - December 6, 2018 Item No. 41b Additional Materials Received Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) Grant Garbers Managing Director ISI Capital Partners, LLC 949-285-8080 faarbers@isicap.com From: Zdeba, Benjamin w Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 3:15 PM ' To: Lippman, Tiffany Cc: Ramirez, Brittany G4rw�J Subject: FW: Harbor Pointe response to Baycrest HOA President Attachments: 2018-11-09 Response to Kirk Snyder_ docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Tiffany, Planning Commission - December 6, 2018 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) (b) Please see below and attached received in reference to the Harbor Pointe Senior Living project (PA2015- 210) on the Commission's agenda tomorrow. Thanks, Ben Z. BENJAMIN M. ZDEBA, AICP Community Development Department Associate Planner bzdeba onnewcortbeachca.00v 949-644-3253 From: Carol McDermott <carol@entitlementadvisors.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 10:14 AM To: Zak, Peter <pzakCa@newoortbeachca.gov>; Weigand, Erik <eweigand@newportbeachca.gov>; Koetting, Peter <pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov>; Kleiman, Lauren <Ikleiman@newportbeachca.gov>; Kramer, Kory <kkramer@newportbeachca.gov>; Lowrey, Lee <Ilowrev@newportbeachca.gov> Cc: Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov>; Campbell, Jim <JCampbell@newportbeachca.gov>; Jurjis, Seimone <siuriis@newportbeachca.gov> Subject: Harbor Pointe response to Baycrest HOA President (b) Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission: it has always been my hope as a planner, as a community outreach specialist and as an advocate of quality development to achieve community support for my projects. I have almost always been able to achieve common ground. In this case, we have tremendous community support but the leadership of our immediate neighbors in the Baycrest condo community has been resistant to dialogue. We have undertaken numerous methods to communicate but have not found a receptive audience. There have been no responses to our multiple requests give us a chance to answer questions from the community. In a brief meeting with the HOA this past week there was no notice to the community of our non- agendized visit and there was little dialogue with the few residents present permitted under the 3o -minute limit. As a result, we wish to resend to you a letter we sent to the President of the Baycrest HOA in response to his letter to us. It is indicative of our efforts to communicate and to Planning Commission - December 6, 2018 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) discuss possible benefits to their community but were never give a chance. We continue to remain open to discussions with the community but respectfully request Commission action at the hearing this Thursday to forward your recommendation to the City Council of this worthy project. Sincerely, Carol McDermott Planning Commission - December 6, 2018 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) November 9, 2018 Dear Kirk: Paul Habeeb asked me to respond on his behalf to your letter and we hope the following answers to your questions are helpful. Please feel free to forward this and contact me again with any further comments or questions. I have labeled the answers according to the subjects in your letter as shown below. Request that we send every resident our notice by registered mail We specifically sent your copy of our letter to the community via certified mail because we wanted verification that you, as President of the Baycrest HOA, did receive our mailing. As you know, I have reached out to you on several occasions to set up meetings, and hear the community's concerns directly — all to no avail. Although we did not send our letter to everyone in this same manner, please rest assured the we did send our communication to over Soo neighbors. To date, I have heard from only three residents including yourself. As the HOA President, I would again ask and would be very appreciative if you could provide a forum during one of your Association meetings or at a separate time that would allow us to present and hear the community concerns directly. Please reconsider allowing us to do that. Availability of Responses to Comments on the DEIR The State CEQA guidelines provide a 45 -day review period for comments on the Draft FIR due to the size of most environmental documents. For our project, the City actually provided a 5o -day period of time for the public review and comment. State law dictates the minimum ten-day notice prior to any public hearings. All project documents, including the Response To Comments (RTC) document are made available prior to the certification of the Final FIR by the City. The RTC document is prepared for the City's Planning Commission and City Council to be able to review the public's comments/questions on environmental issues outlined in the Draft EIR, and the responses or explanations addressing them before they take any action on the project. The RTC document is not subject to another round of a public review and comment time period. Most agencies determine that since there are multiple ways for the public to participate in the review of a project through the public hearings at both the Planning Commission and City Council, they follow the State guidelines. However, it is in the City's purview to decide on this issue, not the applicant. Clarification of the Zoning and General Plan categories being requested In response to the community concerns regarding the possibility of drug rehab uses being allowed on the site, we proposed to the City that we narrow the zone change request in the Planned Community (PC -32) regulations to only allow one type of use — Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE). When the public hearing is scheduled, and the City prepares the staff reports, you will see that the text of the PC -32 document will be edited to remove all other types of uses, precluding a drug rehab use from occupying the site/building. Also, even though the proposed Land Use designation in the General Plan is still proposed to change from CO -G to PI (Private Institution), we Planning Commission - December 6, 2018 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) have asked the City to again narrow the allowable uses by changing the Anomaly Table in the General Plan, removing both the uses (restaurant or office) and the allowed square footage for each. Instead this Table, which governs what is allowed under a General Plan Land Use designation, will allow only for an 85,0oo square feet RCFE. Because these proposed changes are more restrictive than originally described at the Study Session, they do not result in any additional environmental impacts that need to be analyzed. Regarding your concern about an arbitrary zone change by the City, in my experience and observation, the City is never arbitrary in their decisions or deliberations on such matters. Requests for rezoning are responded to and the same extensive review as for this project is conducted, including the appropriate environmental review and public hearings allowing for adequate public input. Licensing of an RCFE by the State The reason we mentioned that the State licenses RCFE's is because we wanted the community to know that once the City approves an RCFE, the applicant must also apply to the State for an RCFE license which is an additional level of approval. The operator of the facility cannot prepare the RCFE application for either Section A or Section B, nor will the State review the application until the City approval is granted. The State will then review the building plans and the proposed staffing levels based on the plan, the intended acuity of the residents, the security plan and the proposed levels of service. Given the surplus of required parking and the anticipated number of employees as shown in the EIR, as well as the security measures for the Memory Care residents, neither traffic impacts nor tragic events are anticipated. The RCFE application will be provided to the City at the appropriate time and can be shared with interested parties as well. Deleting certain uses allowed in the CO -G designation I appreciate your comments regarding the deletion of certain uses currently allowed by both the PC -32 zoning document, and under the CO -G Land Use designation. It was not intended to be perceived as a "scare tactic" by anyone on our project team. We heard from many residents and members of the Planning Commission that were surprised to learn that some of the uses, particularly the one's in bold in our letter, were allowable at the site. I believe that it is because the PC -32 document is very dated, and we had hoped to demonstrate the positive results of our Zone Change and General Plan Amendment to the community at large by removing many of the allowable, but likely incompatible to neighboring residential types of uses. The other uses may be unlikely, but at this time remain as possible and should be deleted. How the City can limit the use of the subject site to only an RCFE In response to the community concerns we have offered to limit the zoning to only an RCFE. Should the City Council approve the rezoning of the site to allow only an RCFE, they do so by adopting an ordinance, which then becomes the "law" governing the use Planning Commission - December 6, 2018 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) on the site. This type of approval runs with the land, and we or any future owners would have to comply with all the limitations of this Zoning and General Plan action, as well the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. There are no circumstances we are familiar with that would cause the City to reverse the Zoning or General Plan approval once the City Council takes its action. Increase in Open space for the project The increase in project open space is in response to an issue raised by both the community and comments by the Planning Commission. The additional open space is an additional trellised and gated patio area with small seating arrangements and gardens. This area is accessible as an extension of the interior library amenity and is only for the assisted living (AL) residents. This area is anticipated to provide a quiet, outdoor space related to AL residents use of the library, and will not be used for organized gatherings that might be perceived to be noisy. The memory care (MC) residents are limited to use of a separate internal courtyard space specifically designed for their needs and would not have direct access to this new patio area. We believe the repurposing of a portion of the landscaped area is a benefit to both our residents and the neighboring residential communities because it provides an additional outdoor space opportunity on site, reducing any perceived increase in use by our residents of existing City open space/parks, Development Agreement Development Agreements are now being used for many of the new projects in the City as a way to protect not only our right to develop the site as proposed, but to also provide benefits to the larger community that might not otherwise occur. Our proposed agreement is intended to cover the mitigation for fire and paramedic services and the other allocations outlined in our letter are just suggestions. Oasis seemed like a natural connection for our senior resident population and the proposed animal shelter in Santa Ana Heights was a suggestion from a Santa Ana Heights resident who has been willing to meet with us. However, we are most open to suggestions from you as to what might be a meaningful contribution to your community. I look forward to hearing from you on the possibility to help address community priorities. In closing, we will note that we are happy to have you share this response with your neighbors just as we are happy to hear from any of them with additional questions. Thank you for taking the time to make us aware of your thoughts. Please contact me to set up a meeting with you and/or your neighbors at your convenience. Sincerely, Carol McDermott Planning Commission - December 6, 2018 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) From: Zdeba, Benjamin Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 5:03 PM To: Lippman, Tiffany Cc: Ramirez, Brittany Subject: FW: Agenda Item #4: Harbor Pointe (PA2015-210) Attachments: Applicant Response to HOA Attorney Letter - December 5 2018.pdf Hi Tiffany, Please see below and attached received in reference to the Harbor Pointe Senior Living project (PA2015- 210) on the Commission's agenda tomorrow. Thanks, Ben Z. BENJAMIN M. ZDEBA, AICP Community Development Department Associate Planner bzdeba annewaortbeachca.00v 949-644-3253 From: Matsler, Sean <SMatsler@coxcastle.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 4:59 PM To: Planning Commissioners<PlannineCommissioners@newportbeachca.aov> Cc: Paul Habeeb <paul@cpsldev.com>; Jurjis, Seimone <siuriis@newportbeachca.aov>; Zdeba, Benjamin <bzdeba@newoortbeachca.¢ov>; Harp, Aaron <aharo@newoortbeachca.eov>; Komeili, Armeen <AKomeili@newportbeachca.eov>;'Carol McDermott' <carol(o)entitlementadvisors.com> Subject: Agenda Item #4: Harbor Pointe (PA2015-210) The attached letter relates to Agenda Item #4 (Harbor Pointe PA2015-210) on the Planning Commission's December 6, 2018 agenda. Sean Matsler I COX CASTLE )C�* ki NICHOLSO `iiiIIIII1111" Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 3121 Michelson Drive I Ste 200 1 Irvine, CA 92612 direct: 949.260.4652 main: 949.260.4600 1 fax: 949.260.4699 smatsler@coxcastle.com I vcard I bio I website This communication is intended only for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain Information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the addressee, or someone responsible for delivering this document to the addressee, you may not read, copy or distribute it. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please callus promptly and securely dispose of it. Thank you. 11 COX CASTLE NICHOLSON December 5, 2018 Planning Commission - December 6, 2018 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP 3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, Califomia 92612-5678 P: 949.260.4600 F: 949.260.4699 Sean Matsler 949.260.4652 s matsler@coxcastle. com File No. 081382 VIA E-MAIL: PLANNINGCOMMISSIONERS@NEWPORTBEACHCA.GOV Chairman Zak and Honorable Planning Commissioners City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Aizenda Item #4: Harbor Pointe (PA2015-210) Chairman Zak and Honorable Commissioners: This Firm represents Harbor Pointe Senior Living LLC ("HPSL"), the applicant for the proposed residential care facility for the elderly facility ("Project") before this Commission as Agenda Item #4. Earlier this week, City staff received a letter from an insurance defense and civil/business litigation attorney representing the Bayview Court Homeowners Association ("HOA"). That letter requests a continuance of the Planning Commission's action on the Project for several years until the City's General Plan has undergone an update. For the reasons set forth in this letter, HPSL respectfully disagrees. The Project has been thoughtfully designed (and redesigned to respond to community concerns, including those expressed by HOA) over a three year timespan and deserves this Commission's consideration. Each of the HOA attorney's substantive points is copied and responded to below. None motivate HPSL to request a delay of the City's public hearing process. HOA letter: "You are hereby put on notice of the intent of the HOA to pursue all legal action available by law to protect the homeowners' rights and maintain the value of their property, their personal salty, and continue to enjoy the lifestyle that currently exists in the Master Planned Community of Bavview. Should such legal action prove necessary, this office would intend to join with other HOAs, area businesses, and other currently unnamed entities with an interest in protecting the Bayview community in a joint effort to stop this project." (Emphasis in original.) a. HPSL response: Over the course of the past three years, HPSL and its representatives have reached out to the HOA, its Board members and directly to the residents no less than four times to engage in a dialogue regarding the Project. Those efforts only received written objections. Nonetheless, in an effort to address the HOA's concerns, HPSL reduced the Project's scale from 144 -beds and approximately 110,000 -square -foot in five -stories to the current Project www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles I Orange County I San Francisco Planning Commission - December 6, 2018 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) December 5, 2018 Page 2 configuration of 120 -beds and approximately 85,000 -square -foot in four -stories. HPSL has also narrowly tailored the proposed General Plan and zoning redesignations such that only RCFEs will be allowed In light of its past overtures and concessions, HPSL was disappointed to see that the HOA hired an attorney who, rather than offering to facilitate a dialogue, begins his letter by threatening litigation against the City. The HPSL team remains open to conversation with the HOA and hopes that its saber rattling will give way to more a reasoned dialogue. If litigation is unavoidable, the HOA should understand that it could be financially liable for (1) payment of the prevailing party's attorneys' fees (Code Civ. Proc., § 1021.5); (2) payment for the cost of preparing the administrative record (See, e.g., Coalition for Adequate Review v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 229 Cal.AppAth 1043, 1055); and (3) other recoverable costs as are generally awarded to a prevailing party (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032(b); Chaparral Greens v. City of Chula Vista (1996) 50 Cal.AppAth 1134, 1151-1154; see also Wagner Farms, Inc. v. Modesto Irrigation Dist. (2006) 145 Cal.AppAth 765.) 2. HOA letter: "The project is highly unpopular among the constituency, poorly conceived, and is inappropriate for the property in question. It confers no benefit on the local community, constitutes a nuisance to local residents, will result in unnecessary parking and traffic issues, violates certain representations and agreements made by the City to the HOA, and is not supported by the City's General Plan." a. HPSL response: There is a lot to unpack here. First, it is simply not true that the "project is highly unpopular among the constituency." The HOA may not support the project, but many Newport residents see it as an important public benefit allowing aging seniors to reside in their community. The Planning Commission has already received supportive written comments and will hear from other Project supporters on December 6th. Second, with respect to local benefits, HPSL has agreed to a $1,000,000 community benefit payment to the City as part of its Development Agreement, with the potential for an additional $150,000 in direct benefit to entities such as the Newport Bay Conservancy, Bayview Court HOA, and the Bayview Terrace HOA. If the HOA had a specific local benefit in mind, it should have accepted HPSL's invitation to engage in a productive dialogue. Third, with respect to "parking and traffic issues," the Project's Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") concludes that the Project will not have significant circulation impacts. In fact, as demonstrated in the EIR, the Project would result in 312 daily trips compared to 738 daily trips for the existing restaurant for a net reduction of over 400 daily trips. Planning Commission - December 6, 2018 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) December 5, 2018 Page 3 Finally, the Project will be consistent with the General Plan as amended. This conclusion is supported at length in the EIR, particularly in its Table 4.8-1 (Project Comparison To Applicable City Of Newport Beach General Plan Elements) which concludes that the Project would not conflict with any of the General Plan objectives or policies that the City considers to be applicable to the Project. 3. HOA letter: "Further, this project violates the representations the City made to the homeowners though the Bayview Planned Community Development Plan including, and not limited to, zoning designations. Any development agreement between the Harbor Pointe project's developer and the City wrongfully circumvents the legal planning process and violates the representations and assurances the City made to homeowners through the Bayview Planned Community Development Plan that was in place when homeowners purchased their properties." a. HPSL response: The HOA incorrectly asserts that it has some vested right in the existing Bayview Planned Community Development Plan. It does not. (See, e.g., Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Commission (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785, 796 ["It is beyond question that a landowner has no vested right in existing or anticipated zoning."].) It is unclear exactly what "representations and assurances" were made by the City. One interpretation of that phrase is that oral or written statements were made by City staff or even public officials to the HOA. I highly doubt this. Nevertheless, assuming that to be true, case law tells us that such statements cannot and should not be relied upon by property owners (See, e.g., County of Los Angeles v. Berk (1980) 26 Ca1.3d 201, 221 [estoppel did not apply where county planning had advised that a project complied with applicable local codes, but then turned around and brought an implied dedication claim].) It is possible that the reference to "representations and assurances" is meant to suggest that the Bayview Planned Community Development Plan cannot be amended. Wrong again. Not only does Chapter 20.66 of the City's Municipal Code allow for such amendments, but three such amendments to the Bayview Planned Community Development Plan have occurred over the years in 1987 (Resolution No. 87-24), 1995 (Resolution No. 95-115) and most recently in 2010 (Ordinance No. 2010-12). The two most recent amendments added new land use categories not previously included within the Bayview Planned Community Development Plan, as the Project proposes to do. The final assertion by the HOA's attorney in this passage is most troubling. He writes that the proposed Development Agreement "wrongfully circumvents the legal planning process." In other words, the attorney is alleging that the Development Agreement is illegal and that the City and HPSL are engaged in Planning Commission - December 6, 2018 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) December 5, 2018 Page 4 unlawful activities. That statement is as inaccurate as it is irresponsible. The Development Agreement before this Commission has been vetted by the City Attorney, City staff and myself. It fully complies with California Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5 and Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 15.45. The HOA's attorney crossed a line with this statement and should be asked to retract it. 4. HOA letter: "Additionally, the Draft EIR dated August 2018, and known as Harbor Pointe Senior Living Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (PA2015-210) SCHNo. 2016071062, contains grossly misrepresented facts and inaccurate information as well as violates CEQA guidelines and NBMC requirements. The HOA has brought this to the attention of the Planning Commission in a timely manner and is prepared to further discuss them at the Commission's invitation." a. HPSL response: City staff and the City's environmental consultant (PSOMAS) have prepared responses to 82 written comments and 23 verbal comments as part of the Efl2's Responses to Comments document, consistent with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines. Most of the written and verbal comments were from HOA members. None of the comments result in a substantial change to the Project, create new environmental impacts, or result in an intensification of an impact already identified in the Draft EIR. 5. HOA letter: "A second, independent Draft EIR should be conducted by another firm to address the misrepresented and inaccurate findings before any further public discussions on this project. A Firm should be mutually agreed on by both the City of Newport Beach and the HOA to prepare a new Draft EIR." a. HPSL response: The EIR was prepared by PSOMAS under the direction and supervision of City staff, as allowed by CEQA (Pub Res C §21082.1(a)). As the lead agency, the City is required by CEQA to independently review and analyze the EIR and certify that the EIR reflects its independent judgment (See Mission Oaks Ranch, Ltd. v. County of Santa Barbara (1998) 65 Cal.AppAth 713, 723, overruled on other grounds in Briggs v. Eden Council for Hope & Opportunity (1999) 19 CalAth 1106 [finding that "the final responsibility and final authority as to the quality and the content of the FIR lies in the sole discretion of the [lead agency]"]; see also Pub. Resources C § 21082.1(c) [providing that final CEQA document must reflect the lead agency's independent judgment].) For obvious reasons, the City does not allow third parties (e.g., HOAs or applicants) to direct the selection of the City's EIR consultants. Planning Commission - December 6, 2018 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Harbor Pointe Senior Living (PA2015-210) December 5, 2018 Page 5 HPSL remains open to productive dialogue with the HOA and other community members. In the interim, we respectfully request this Commission's positive recommendation on the Project at Thursday's hearing. Sincerely, gy__� Sean Matsler of COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP cc: Paul Habeeb (via e-mail: paul@cpsldev.com) Carol McDermott (via e-mail: carol@entitlementadvisors.com) Seimone Jur is (via e-mail: sjurjis@newportbeachca.gov) Ben Zbeda (via e-mail: bzdeba@newportbeachca.gov) Aaron Harp, Esq. (via e-mail: aharp@newportbeachca.gov) Armeen Komeili, Esq. (via e-mail: akomeili@newportbeachca.gov) 081382U0250703v1