Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 - 150 Newport Center - PA2014-213 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT September 1, 2016 Meeting Agenda Item No. 3 SUBJECT: 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) 150 Newport Center Drive • General Plan Amendment No. GP2014-003 • Code Amendment No. CA2014-008 • Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2014-004 • Site Development Review No. SD2014-006, • Tentative Tract Map No. NT2015-003 (County Tentative Tract Map No. 17915) • Development Agreement No. DA2014-002 • Environmental Impact Report No. ER2015-002 APPLICANT: Newport Center Anacapa Associates, LLC OWNER: Newport Center Anacapa Associates, LLC PLANNER: Makana Nova, Associate Planner (949) 644-3249, mnova@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing 8,500-square-foot car-wash, convenience market, and gas station to accommodate the development of a 5-story 45- unit residential condominium building with three levels of subterranean parking. The applicant, Newport Center Anacapa Associates, LLC, requests the following approvals: • General Plan Amendment - to change the land use category from CO-R (Regional Commercial Office) to RM (Multi-Unit Residential) and establish an anomaly (Table LU2) designation for 45 dwelling units. • Zoning Code Amendment - to change the Zoning District designation from OR (Office Regional Commercial) to PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community District) over the entire site. • Planned Community Development Plan - to amend the PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community) to incorporate the project as a portion of the Block 100 sub-area and approve 45 residential condominium units with a maximum height of 50 feet for the subject property. • Site Development Review - to allow the construction of 45 multi-family dwelling units. • Tentative Tract Map - to establish a 45-unit residential condominium tract on a 1.3 acre site. • Development Agreement — to establish a development agreement that would provide public benefits should the project be approved. 1 150 Newport Center Residential Project Planning Commission, September 1, 2016 Page 2 • Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - to address reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts resulting from the legislative and project specific discretionary approvals, the City has determined that an Initial Study and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are warranted for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). • Revoke Use Permit No. UP1461 — revocation of the use permit to allow the operation of a car wash on-site. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. _ (Attachment No. PC 1) and attached Exhibits recommending the City Council approve a reduced project height of 50 feet (4- stories) as measured in the PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community) for Block 100 and: • Certify Environmental Impact Report No. ER2015-002; • Approve Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, General Plan Amendment No. GP2014-003, Code Amendment No. CA2014-00808; Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2014-004, Site Development Review No. SD2014-006, Tentative Tract Map No. NT2015-003 (County Tentative Tract Map No. 17915), and Development Agreement No. DA2014-002; and • Revoke Use Permit No. UP1461. BACKGROUND August 22, 2013, Planning Commission Meeting The Planning Commission received a staff presentation of the proposed project at public hearings on July 21, 2016 and August 18, 2016. The staff reports are available online due to bulk and the draft Planning Commission minutes from these meetings are included as Attachment Nos. PC 3-6. At the August 18, 2016, meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff in a vote (5 ayes, 2 noes) to revise the draft resolution for approval to incorporate the subject Property into the PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community District) as part of the Block 100 sub-area. The August 18, 2016, meeting was adjourned due to the late hour. The project was re-noticed for the September 1, 2016, meeting to allow the Planning Commission to continue their discussion and consideration of the requested approvals. The following analysis responds to the Commission's concerns and includes additional information that was not available at the July 21, 2016 and August 18, 2016, meetings. 2 150 Newport Center Residential Project Planning Commission, September 1, 2016 Page 3 DISCUSSION Analysis Alternative Project Plans The applicant is considering a modified project scope that would incorporate 35 dwelling units at a project height of 50 feet as measured in the PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community). Alternative plans are under preparation and will be distributed with a separate memorandum to the Planning Commission prior to the September 1, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting. Staff is supportive of the changes proposed by the applicant, but has not reviewed the plans at the time of this staff report preparation. Project Height Staff is recommending a 4-story building design within the 50-foot height limit established by the PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community) for the Block 100 sub-area. A 4-story design will ensure that the project can achieve adequate ceiling heights to ensure a high-quality condominium unit as intended. Draft Resolutions The following changes have been reflected and redlined in the revised draft resolution (Attachment No. PC 1) to address the Planning Commission's comments: • Hearing dates have been updated. • Per the direction of the Planning Commission, revisions to incorporate the project site into the PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community) Zoning District Block 100 sub-area. • Revisions to reflect the 4-story building design recommended by staff. • Revisions and additions have been made to the draft PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan) (Exhibit "E" of the draft resolution) to reflect the comments of the Planning Commission and further define the project setbacks in the PC-Text as part of Block 100. • Language has been added to reflect the Section 423 thresholds related to the project scope as directed by the Planning Commission. • Language has been added to clarify the components of the EIR (notice of preparation, initial study, environmental analysis, alternatives analysis, appendices, responses to comments, and errata) in the draft resolution. • Several other minor grammatical clarifications and updates have been made including an updated legal description, which are redlined in the document. The draft resolution for denial (Attachment No. PC 2) has also been updated to reflect a recommendation of denial without prejudice. 3 150 Newport Center Residential Project Planning Commission, September 1, 2016 Page 4 Development Standards Comparison The table of Residential Communities in Statistical Area L1-Development Standards Comparison provided in the August 18, 2016, Planning Commission packet has been updated to reflect the project design as recommended by staff and directed by the Planning Commission (4-stories and 45 dwelling units). Refer to Attachment No. PC 7 for a copy of the updated table. Use Permit Revocation Staff is recommending the revocation of the existing use permit for the car wash, Use Permit No. UP1461. If the project is approved, this revocation would become effective along with the vesting rights of the project applications. Summary Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend certification of the EIR and approval of the project applications at 50 feet (4-stories) and 45 dwelling units to the City Council. Overall, the proposed project would result in the redevelopment of an aging commercial development with a compatible residential development that implements the goals and policies for Newport Center. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within Statistical Area L1 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. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Alternatives 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 suggest specific changes that are necessary to alleviate any concerns such as the unit number/density, unit size, project height, abrupt changes in scale, or architectural consistency with the character of the area. If any additional requested changes are substantial, the item could be continued to a future meeting. Should the Planning Commission choose to do so, staff will return once the applicant has had an opportunity to revise the project accordingly with a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions. 4 150 Newport Center Residential Project Planning Commission, September 1, 2016 Page 5 2. If the Planning Commission believes that there are insufficient facts to support the project, the Planning Commission may recommend denial of the application without prejudice in the draft resolution for denial (Attachment No. PC 2). The applicant may then return with a project that incorporates modifies the project scope and/or design. Prepared by: Submitted by: Maka& N a r n a Wisnesl i,rICP, Deputy Director Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Revised Draft Resolution PC 2 Revised Draft Resolution for Denial PC 3 Planning Commission Packet from July 21, 2016 (available online) PC 4 Planning Commission Packet from August 18, 2016 (available online) PC 5 Planning Commission Minutes from July 21, 2016 PC 6 Draft Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2016 (available as Item 1 of the current Planning Commission Agenda for September 1, 2016) PC 7 Revised Residential Communities in Statistical Area L1 Table :\Users\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2014\PA2014-213\PC 09-01-2016\PA2014-213 PC Rpt.docxo5i26n6 V� QP �P Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions V� QP �P g RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. ER2015-002 AND THE APPROVE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2014-003, ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2014-008, PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. PC2014-004, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SD2014-006, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. NT2015-003, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DA2014- 002, FOR A 45-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 150 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (PA2014-213), AND REVOKE USE PERMIT NO. UP1461. THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Newport Anacapa Associates, LLC, with respect to property located at 150 Newport Center Drive, and legally described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 29-34 (Resubdivision No. 282) being a portion of Block 93 of Irvine's subdivision as per map recorded in Book 1, Page 88 of Miscellaneous Record Maps, records of Orange County, California. 2. The project includes demolition of an existing 8,500-square-foot car-wash, convenience market, and gas station to accommodate the development of a 54-story, 45-unit residential condominium building with three levels of subterranean parking. The applicant requests following approvals from the City of Newport Beach: • General Plan Amendment (GPA) - to change the land use category from CO-R (Regional Commercial Office) to RM (Multi-Unit Residential) and establish an anomaly (Table LU2) designation for 45 dwelling units. • Zoning Code Amendment - to change the Zoning District designation from OR (Office Regional Commercial) to PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community District) over the entire site. • Planned Community Development Plan - to establish a manned G9MMURity d eyelepment plan (PC) ever the entire n est cifp that inn',ides deyelenmenf aRGI Gita CG incil waiver Af the m site area Af 10 a A hoinht limit of 75 foo+ RAIRPS With EIR altheugh a red Ged height is ah.e n 1;irinr,,d amend the PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community) to incorporate the project as a portion of the Block 100 sub-area and approve 45 residential condominium units with a maximum height of 50 feet for the subject property. 9 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 2 of 37 • Site Development Review - to allow the construction of 45 multi-family dwelling units. Tentative Tract Map -_to establish a 45-unit residential condominium tract on a 1.3 acre site. • Development Agreement - foto establish a proposed development agreement that would provide public benefits should the project be approved. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - to address reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts resulting from the legislative and project specific discretionary approvals, the City has determined that an Initial Study and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are warranted for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Revoke Use Permit No. UP1461 - revocation of the use permit to allow the operation of a car wash on-site. 3. The subject property is located within the OR (Office Regional Commercial) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is CO-R (Regional Commercial Office). 4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 5. A study session was held on June 23, 2016, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach to introduce the project to the Planning Commission and review the conclusions of the draft EIR. No action was taken at the study session. 6. A public hearing was held on July 21, 2016, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. The item was continued to the August 18, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting. 7. A public hearing was held on August 18, 2016, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this public hearing. The item was re-noticed for the September 1, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting. 7-.8. A public hearing was held on September 1, 2016, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 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. 03-03-2015 -T Planning Commission Resolution No. ;##1t Page 3 of 37 1. A draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2016011032) (DEIR) and errata havehas been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. 2. The DEIR was circulated for a 45-day comment period beginning on May 13, 2016 and ending on June 27, 2016. The DEIR, comments, and responses to the comments were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project. 3. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse effects on the environment that would be caused by the project. Additionally, there are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Exhibit B") are feasible and will reduce the potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. 4. 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. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. Amendments 1 . Amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code are legislative acts and neither the City nor State Planning Law set forth any required findings for either approval or denial of such amendments. 2. The requested GPA and resulting land use change is-are compatible with the existing surrounding uses and planned land uses identified by the General Plan because the project would introduce additional residential land uses in Newport Center. Additionally, the proposed amendment from CO-R to RM will be compatible with adjacent commercial properties. The Newport Center area has a high demand for additional residential development and additional residential units would support commercial properties within the area. 3. The requested GPA from CO-R to RM does not eliminate existing or future land uses to the overall detriment of the community given the site's size, location, and surrounding uses. Maintaining the site's CO-R land use designation would require redevelopment of the site to accommodate other commercial uses. 03-03-2015 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 4 of 37 4. The requested GPA and resulting land use change is consistent with other applicable land use policies of the General Plan. Consistent with General Plan Goal LU6.14 for Newport Center, the project site is located in an area of Newport Center where multi- family uses are encouraged to produce opportunities to live close to jobs, commerce, entertainment, and recreation. The size, density and character of the proposed dwelling units complement the existing land uses in the project area and include design elements consistent with Land Use Element Policy 5.1.9 (Character and Quality of Multi-Family Residential) that require multi-family dwellings to be designed to convey a high quality architectural character. Consistent with General Plan Policy LU 6.2.1 (Residential Supply), the provision of 45 dwelling units on the site would accommodate Newport Beach population needs and accommodate market demand for residential uses. 5. Council Policy A-18 requires that proposed General Plan amendments be reviewed to determine if a vote of the electorate would be required pursuant to Section 423 of the City Charter. If a General Plan Amendment (separately or cumulatively with other GPA's within the previous 10 years) generates more than 100 peak hour trips (AM or PM), adds 40,000 square feet of non-residential floor area, or adds more than 100 dwelling units in a statistical area, a vote of the electorate would be required if the City Council approves the GPA. 6. This is the third General Plan Amendment that affects Statistical Area L1 since the General Plan update in 2006. The amendment results in 45 additional dwelling units and there is no change in the square footage of non-residential floor area. The 45 additional units result in an overall net decrease in a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips based on the commercial blended rate and luxury condominium trip rates provided in Council Policy A-18. Including 80 percent of prior General Plan amendments results in a total increase of 16.800 square feet of nonresidential floor area, 0 a.m. peak hour trips, 0 p.m. peak hour trips, and 45 residential dwelling units for Statistical Area L1. As none of the thresholds specified by Charter Section 423 are exceeded, no vote of the electorate is required if the City Council chooses to approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2014-003. 5-7. The proposed PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community) District meets the intent and purpose for a PC adept+eRas specified in Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) Section 20.56.010 (Planned Community District Procedures, Purpose) for PC adeptinn when n sidefiRg it in a !aFge GRtext beyond the sitp'c ho,indArips given its location in the Newport Center area which includes a mixture of shopping, hotels, commercial support uses, professional offices, and residential developments that cohesive contain the ingredients of a planned community. The proposed PC District adds to this diversity assisting the City in larger scale community planning. 6-.8 The proposed Planned Gera, ,, nity (PG)PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community) Zoning would apply appropriate site and project specific setbacks, density, and height limits to the project site given the site's urban location and all required parking is provided on-site. The site is fully developed and does not support 03-03-2015 12 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 5 of 37 any natural resources and all potential environmental impacts associated with the project are appropriately addressed through standard building permit procedures and the mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report. 7. The Fequested ; .9RiRg Q; d„ n...,,...d.. PRt tA PStabliPh A PI.,.,Rpd r,,.,,...YRity General Plan and P pese ,.f +h.. ori ,distriet Despite the requ rement that ores be d n aAmi; t. +;;Lo n9._6naI8 n .o +ho 'I 26-ar.o 15(1 UFban standaFds thFERAgh a Planned Community aFe neeessary to better integFate tile N..,.,peFt !-`. Rter has h.,.,.. plishe d +h.. ugh N...+h N.,..,...,.+ /-`.,..+.,. DI.,...,...I inte fer+he n e d n eGt i nide. tl.--- n G61rnstaRGes. 9-.9. The future development of the property affected by the proposed amendments will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan; and will be consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed 150 Newport Center Planned Community (PC) Zoning District of the N",. peFt Beach M RiGipal GG-d-eNBMC. X10. A development agreement is requested by the applicant as the project would add new residential dwelling units within Statistical Area L1 (Newport Center). 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. Height Increase NBMC Section 20.30.060(C)(3) (Height Limits and Exceptions, Required Findings) requires findings to be made to adopt a Planned Community District with an increase in the height of the structure above the previous base height limit: Finding: A. The project applicant is providing additional project amenities beyond those that are otherwise required. Examples of project amenities include, but are not limited to: i. Additional landscaped open space; ii. Increased setback and open areas; iii. Enhancement and protection of public views-; aad_ 03-03-2015 2� Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 6 of 37 Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The building design continues to provide a high level of design with open space, landscape, residential amenities, and building setbacks that are greater than what would be required under the RM standards of the Zoning Code. 2. The site design provides 10,389 square feet of exterior outdoor common open space where a total of 3,375 square feet are required (75 square feet/dwelling unit) under the RM development standards of the Zoning Code. The open space provided complies with the standards set forth in the PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community) Zoning District for Block 100. A total of 8,389 square feet of landscaped area is provided on-site, which will comply with the requirements of Chapter 14.17 (Water- Efficient Landscaping) of the " A_NBMC. 3. The building setbacks provide 24 feet along Newport Center Drive where the RM development standards require 20 feet. The building setback along the Anacapa street frontage provides 22 feet 6 inches where the Zoning Code requires 20 feet 9 inches (8 percent of the average lot width). The southerly building frontage provides a 22-foot building setback where the Zoning Code requires 10 feet. The side setback along the westerly edge of the property provides a reduced building setback of 14 feet to accommodate larger street frontage setbacks on the opposite side where the Zoning Code typically requires a side setback of 20 feet 9 inches. Basement level setbacks occur largely below grade and are not immediately visible from the street frontage along Newport Center Drive and Anacapa Drive. The project design also provides greater building setbacks than are required under the current OR development standards, which require 20-foot street frontage setbacks and 0-foot setbacks along the interior side and rear property lines. The setbacks provided comply with the standards set forth in the PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community) Zoning District for Block 100. 4. The project does not affect existing public views as shown in the view simulations provided on Pages 4.1-15 through 4.1-18 of the DEIR and does not detract from the character of the area. The overall project height is consistent with the height limit and existing building heights on adjacent properties and surrounding blocks. Finding: B. The architectural design of the project provides visual interest through the use of light and shadow, recessed planes, vertical elements, and varied roof planes; Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The exterior is comprised predominantly of a pre-cast concrete fagade, stainless steel finishes, and glass. Massing off-sets, variations of roofline, varied textures, recesses, articulation, and design accents on the elevations are integrated to enhance the building's architectural style. 03-03-2015 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 7 of 37 2. The building fagade is designed to be compatible with surrounding retail and office development in Newport Center. The architectural design provides a significant amount of articulation with its two enclave design to fit with the context of surrounding office buildings in the Newport Center area. The roof profile design is modulated, to reduce the scale of the structure and to provide visual interest and variety. Mechanical equipment and elevator overrides are stepped back to minimize the scale and bulk of these structures from the street view. Finding: C. The increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changes or relationships being created between the proposed structure(s) and existing adjacent developments or public spaces. Where appropriate, the proposed structure(s) provides a gradual transition to taller or shorter structures on abutting properties; and Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The project does not appear out of character and utilizes an overall building height limit (including mechanical appurtenances) similar to those applied to other properties in Block 100 of Newport Center. The resulting building height also fits into the context of surrounding development at the south end of Newport Center, where nonresidential building heights range from 20 feet up to 74 feet 4 inches in height. Finding: D. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the height increase. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed floor area for the project would conform to the dwelling unit and gross floor area limit established through ^4^ f—the amended PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan). Site Development Review A site development review is required for the construction of five or more residential units processed in conjunction with a tentative tract map. The site development review analyzes the project as a whole for compatibility with the site and surrounding land uses. In accordance with NWAIC Section 20.52.080(F) (Site Development Review) of the Zeaiag CedeNBMC, the following findings and facts in support of a site development review are set forth: Finding: 03-03-2015 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 8 of 37 A. Allowed within the subject Zoning district, Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed Site Development Review for a 45-unit condominium project is consistent with the proposed Planned Community Development Plan that allows 45 residential units. Finding: B. In compliance with all of the applicable criteria in (NBMC Subsection 20.52.080(C)(2)(c)]: a. Compliance with this Section, the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure; b. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent development; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design; C. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas; d. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces; e. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials; and f. The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with [NBMC] Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protections); and Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Refer to facts 1 through 9 under Amendments, above that discuss the project's consistency with the proposed Multiple-Unit Residential (RM) General Plan land use designation and the PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan-(P-G) Zoning District. 2. The project has been designed as 45 units within a 5-stery4-story building structure with two enclaves and provides for effective private open space, light, and air for each unit. The project is integrated as a unified development through the use of similar architectural style and design elements, on-site parking, adequate and vehicular and pedestrian circulation with adjacent properties. 3. The building design with two enclaves and a glass and metal linkage, together with the modulated roof profile, are designed to be compatible with surrounding retail and office 03-03-2015 10 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 9 of 37 development in Newport Center. The building architecture provides pre-cast concrete fagade, stainless steel finishes, and glass materials similar to surrounding office buildings in the area. Massing offsets, variations of roofline, varied textures, recesses, articulation, and design accents on the elevation are integrated to enhance the overall architectural style of the building. 4. The front setbacks along each street frontage are appropriate to support pedestrian connectivity within Newport Center. All entry level residential units are oriented toward adjacent streets to maximize the pedestrian relationship of the development to the surrounding Newport Center area. The greater setbacks afford a greater interface with the adjacent rights-of-way to ensure compatibility with the pedestrian environment. 5. The height, bulk, and scale of the residential building is-are comparable to height limits on surrounding properties and existing building heights at the south half of Newport Center. The building is designed to provide variation and modulation between enclaves for visual interest. The front fagades include both vertical and horizontal off- sets and utilize a variation of building materials to provide enhanced visual relief. The massing of the project is broken up into two enclaves, breaking up building massing. 6. Mechanical equipment for the residential units have been located within enclosures at the roof dpr-k level to reduce noise impacts and the enclosures will provide effective screening below the roof deeIFparapet level to minimize aesthetic impacts. 7. The project has been designed to avoid conflicts among uses, such as noise, vibration, lighting, odors, and similar impacts. The podium wall provides a buffer between the proposed residential units and the adjacent commercial development to the south and west of the project site and is designed to maintain privacy and protection for the residential tenants. 8. The units are oriented toward the adjacent rights-of-way to support pedestrian connections in Newport Center. Walkways and egress are sufficient throughout the site as reviewed by the Building Division and the City Traffic Engineer. Existing pedestrian easements will be maintained at an appropriate width along the southern property line and along Anacapa Drive to ensure adequate access across the site. 9. Pursuant to the Zoning Code, Tthe project provides the Bode required 90 residential parking spaces, and 23 residential guest parking spaces, which can be provided entirely on-site. Each residential unit will be afforded a private, enclosed two-car garage. All guest parking spaces are provided in the basement level garage with one parking space at the entry level. 10. Access to the site, on-site circulation, and parking areas are designed to provide standard-sized parking spaces, minimum 26-foot-wide, two-way driveways, and the minimum vehicle turning radius to provide safe access for residents and guests (including the disabled), emergency vehicles, delivery trucks, and refuse collections vehicles, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. 03-03-2015 27 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 10 of 37 11. A-The waiver of Council Policy L-2 is to utilizes a radius curb cut design along Anacapa Drive. Council Policy L-2 specifies that driveway approaches may utilize a curb return design with a maximum curb radius of 25 feet and a driveway approach bottom of greater than 35 feet only if the driveway serves an entrance to a parking area or structure for more than 200 vehicles. Since the proposed parking structure does not serve more than 200 vehicles a waiver of this policy is necessary to utilize this curb return design. Public Works staff has reviewed this request and does not object the applicant's request.- the equestthe City Council shall act on this request at such time the proiect is before the City Council. 12. The project does not change any street parking configurations. The site design provides two new curb cuts with guest ingress and egress access from Anacapa Drive. The project utilizes an existing driveway at the south of the project site for resident access. The project provides adequate sight distance at each driveway, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. 13. Landscaping is provided throughout the site in areas that are not utilized by the existing units or areas for parking circulation. All setback areas are landscaped. A variation of ornamental groundcover, vines, shrubs, and trees are utilized to help soften and buffer the massing of the condominium units and podium at ground level. 14. New street trees will be provided along beth street sides of Anacapa Drive. 15. The project is subject to the City's Water-Efficient Landscape requirements (NBMC Chapter 14.17) and compliance will be confirmed at plan check prior to issuing building permits. 16. The proposed residential development provides a series of common outdoor living areas that includes a dog run, open plazas, and landscaped seating areas adjacent to Newport Center Drive. Half of the units provide private outdoor living space in the form of large balconies and private patios at the entry level. 17. The site is visible from the coastal corridor along MacArthur Boulevard identified by the General Plan. However, this vantage point is oriented toward water views of Newport Bay. The view from the MacArthur Boulevard vantage point will not be changed significantly where the proposed development may be visible beyond existing buildings and trees but will not obstruct coastal views. The project does not affect existing public views as shown in the view simulations provided on Pages 4.1-15 through 4.1-18 of the DEIR and does not detract from the character of the area. The overall project height is consistent with the height limit on adjacent properties and existing building heights on adjaGeRt prepe ties and surrounding blocks. Finding: 03-03-2015 12 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 11 of 37 C. The proposed development is not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The residential project has been designed to ensure that potential conflicts with surrounding land uses are minimized to the extent possible to maintain a healthy environment for both businesses and residents by providing an architecturally pleasing project with articulation and building modulations to enhance the urban environment consistent with development in Newport Center. 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 vehicles and delivery trucks will utilize the guest entry off of Anacapa Drive while refuse collections vehicles will load trash via a scout truck along the south driveway. The size, design, location, and screening of the refuse enclosures will comply with the requirements of NBMC Section 20.30.120 (Solid Waste & Recyclable Materials Storage), ensuring compatibility with the on-site and adjacent uses. 3. The proposed project is forecasted to generate a maximum of 205 average daily trips, assuming the proposed project is a High Rise Residential Condominium/Townhouse (ITE 232), therefore a traffic study pursuant to the Traffic Phasing Ordinance is not required. The existing use generates 819 average daily trips and the proposed development results in a reduction of average daily traffic trips. 4. The project is anticipated to demand a maximum of 10,417 gallons per day (gpd) and generate a maximum of 9,470 gpd of waste water. This result is an overall reduction from the existing car wash use where water demand is 12,395 gpd and waste water generation is estimated at 11,156 gpd. 5. The scale and visual impact to the adjacent commercial property to the west would be minimized with the design of the 910-foot R iRAh podium wall designed with a 3-foot landscape buffer and open guardrail above. 2. The project is subject to the City's Outdoor Lighting requirements contained within NBMC Section 20.30.070. 3. Roof-top mechanical equipment for each unit is fully enclosed within an equipment screen and is not visible from the public right-of-way. 4. The new construction complies with all Building, Public Works, Fire Codes, City ordinances, and all conditions of approval. 03-03-2015 29 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 12 of 37 Tentative Tract Map A tentative tract map is requested for residential condominium purposes, to create 45 condominium units. In accordance with NBMC Section 19.12.070 (Required Findings for Action on Tentative Maps), the following findings and facts in support of a tentative tract map are set forth: Finding: D. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Refer to facts 1 through 4 under Amendments, above, that discuss the project's consistency with the proposed Multiple-Unit Residential (RM) General Plan land use designation. 2. The Tentative Tract Map provides for the development of a cohesive fined eenla#ydevelopment with a pattern of dwelling unit orientations and vehicle circulation that provide a pedestrian-friendly environment with strong connectivity to adjacent commercial and office areas. 3. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tentative map and found it consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (NBMC Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 4. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with NBMC Title 19. Finding: E. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The site has a gentle sloping condition and the building design accommodates this slope with a podium wall at the south and west edge and larger building setbacks above the podium. The site is safe and suitable for development. The site is not located in a flood zone. The geotechnical feasibility study and geotechnical report will provide additional recommendations for construction of the proposed project to ensure the suitability for the proposed development that will be required for construction prior to the issuance of building permits. 03-03-2015 20 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 13 of 37 2. The 1.26 acre site is large enough to accommodate 45 units while providing sufficient landscape setback and open space areas as well as vehicle access and guest parking areas that meet applicable standards. The existing developed site is devoid of natural resources and it is located in an area that provides adequate access to roadways and utilities. 3. The General Plan estimates that future traffic noise exposure will be 65 dB CNEL to the nearest residential facades to Newport Center Drive and identifies that residential uses are normally compatible or compatible with noise insulation features included in the design. With appropriate noise control measures under conventional construction and design of the proposed project (e.g., closed windows, fresh air supply systems or air conditioning), the interior noise levels comply with the City and State interior noise standard of 45 dB CNEL for residential units. Finding: F. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision-making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Under existing conditions, the project site and surrounding land areas are fully developed with urban uses and do not contain sensitive biological resources. The vegetation that occurs on-site is ornamental in nature, including trees and ornamental shrubs, groundcover, and vines growing on the existing building's facades and screen walls. A Mitigation Measure is provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP, "Exhibit B") to ensure adequate protection of nesting birds during the construction process. 2. No drainages traverse the property and no potential jurisdictional waters or wetlands areas are present on or immediately adjacent to the site. 3. An environmental impact report (SCH No. 2016011032) was prepared for the proposed project. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures for biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and noise. The mitigation measures identified in the DEIR are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are applicable to the project through the MMRP (Exhibit "B"). 03-03-2015 21 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 14 of 37 Finding: G. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. At full build-out, air quality and Green House Gas (GHG) emissions associated with construction of the project will be less than significant, as documented in the DEIR. 2. Mitigation measures identified in the DEIR reduce potential impacts associated with biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, and noise to a level that is less than significant. 3. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the planned subdivision pattern will generate any serious public health problems. 4. All construction for the project complies with Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes. Public improvements will be required of the developer per NBMC Section 19.28.010 and Sections 66410 et seq. of the Subdivision Map Act. All ordinances of the City and all conditions of approval will be complied with. Finding: H. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision-making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Public improvements, consisting of the reconstruction of the curb, gutter, and sidewalks, two new driveways along the Anacapa Drive frontage, and street trees along Anacapa Drive will be required of the applicant per the NBMC and the Subdivision Map Act. A common sewer and water connection will be provided for the project as approved by the Public Works Department that will connect to an existing 12-inch main in Anacapa Drive. 2. The tract map will reduce the width of the existing 18-foot wide pedestrian easement at the south edge of the site to 5 feet in width to accommodate the location of new 03-03-2015 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 15 of 37 structures as part of the development. The design of the development will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 3. The tract map will maintain the existing 3-foot wide pedestrian walkway easement at the east edge of the site. Finding: 1. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The project site does not contain prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance and no portion of the Project site is covered by a Williamson Act contract. Finding: J. That, in the case of a "land project' as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project; and (b) the decision-making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Thel California Business and Professions Code Section 11000.5 has been repealed by the Legislature. However, this project site is not considered a "land project" as previously defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code because the project site does not contain 50 or more parcels of land nor is it located within the boundaries of a specific plan. Finding: K. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. 03-03-2015 23 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 16 of 37 Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed Tentative Tract Map and improvements are subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Community Development Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and inspection process. Finding: L. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. There are no existing dwelling units on the project site. Rather, the proposed project includes the construction of 45 new condominium units to contribute to the City's population needs, and 45 units above what is planned for within the General Plan. The applicant will be responsible for the payment of appropriate fair share, San Joaquin Transportation Corridor, park, and development agreement fees for the development of these new dwelling units as conditions of approval. Finding: M. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required from the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for the proposed construction activities. A permit is required for all construction activities that include clearing, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one acre of total land area. Additionally, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared, pursuant to the requirements of the NPDES permit. 2. Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP for construction-related activities, which would specify the Best Management Practices (BMP's) that the project would be required to implement during construction activities 03-03-2015 24 Planning Commission Resolution No. Ott Page 17 of 37 to ensure that all potential pollutants of concern (including sediment) are prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the subject property. 3. Sewer connections have been conditioned to be installed per City Standards, the applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 14.24 (Sewer Connection, Permits), and the latest revision of the Uniform Plumbing Code. 4. There is adequate sewer system capacity to serve the requirements of the proposed project. The proposed project is able to tie into the existing sewer system without adversely affecting the system, causing any water quality affects, or violating existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Wastewater from the project will be generated by residential build-out. There will be a reduction in wastewater from the site with the demolition of the existing car wash and construction of the proposed dwelling units (Refer to Finding G-4). 5. Section 14.24.020 (Dwelling Unit and Business Structure Sewer Connection Required) requires each dwelling unit to maintain individual water meter and sewer connections. The project has received a waiver of this requirement from the Municipal Operations Director since the units are located in one building and will together connect to the existing water and sewer systems. Finding: N. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The project site is not located within the Coastal Zone. Revocation Revocation of Use Permit No. UP1461 is requested for the existing car wash on site. In accordance with NBMC Section 20.68.050 (Review Authority's Action), the following finding and fact in support of the revocation are set forth: Finding: O. The permit or approval was issued in error or circumstances under which the permit or approval was granted have been modified to an extent that one or more of the findings that justified the original approval can no longer be made and the public health, safety, and welfare require the revocation or modifications. Facts in Support of Finding: 03-03-2015 2.5 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 18 of 37 1. The property is subiect to changed circumstances (General Plan amendment to RM) under which the site will no longer be improved with the infrastructure to accommodate a car wash use as authorized under Use Permit No. UP1461 . SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council of the City of Newport Beach certify Environmental Impact Report No. ER2015-002 (SCH No. 2016011032) as depicted in Exhibit "A" aad , which consists of the notice of preparation, initial study, environmental analysis, alternatives analysis, appendices, responses to comments, and errata. 42. The Planning Commission 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. 2-.3. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council of the City of Newport Beach approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2014-003 as depicted in Exhibit "C," changing the General Plan land use designation of 150 Newport Center Drive from CO-R (Regional Commercial Office) to Multiple-Unit Residential (RM, 45 du) and establishing an anomaly (Table LU2) designation for 45 dwelling units. 3,4 The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2014-008 as depicted in Exhibit "D," changing the Zoning designation of 150 Newport Center from OR (Office Regional Commercial) to PC-56 -(North Newport Center Planned Community), 0 Plan No PC-:2014 004 f^incorporating 150 Newport Center into the PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community) Zoning District, Block 100 sub-areathp. 159 nio..,port GeRtG. PIAR ed Text as set forth in Exhibit "E." 45 The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends City Council approval of Development Agreement No. DA2014-002, as set forth in Exhibit "F." 5-.6. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends City Council approval of Site Development Review No. SD2014-006 and Tentative Tract Map No. NT2015-003, as set forth in Exhibit "G", subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit "GH." R. was odepted unless .dfhin -..h fi.v.o aR of filed a 0th the rih, Cie* a.AGAFd.aRr_P ..,ifh the PFGVi6i9RG ..f niannr Title 20 03-03-2015 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 19 of 37 7. This resolution superse revokes Use Permit No. 1461, which upon vesting of the rights authorized by this approval, shall become null and void. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS UT141ST DAY OF AIIGIISTSEPTEMBER, 2016. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Kory Kramer, Chairman BY: Peter Zak, Secretary 03-03-2015 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 20 of 36 Exhibit "A" Environmental Impact Report EIR SCH No. 2016011032 • Notice of Preparation Formatted:Left,Indent:First line: 1.75', Bulleted+Level:1+Aligned at: 0.25'+ • Initial Study Indent at; 0.5^ • Environmental Analysis • Alternatives Analysis • Appendices • Responses to Comments • Errata (Available separate due to bulk) http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?paqe=1347 03-03-2015 22 Planning Commission Resolution No.#/### Page 21 of 36 Exhibit "B" Mitigation Monitoring Report Program 03-032015 �9 ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY STA(ic AFTER MITIGATION Threshold b_The Project would not exceed No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A Less-Them-Significant the SCAQMD Regional Emissions Impact Thresholds for any criteria pollutants during construction. Accordingly, the Project's construction activities would not violate any an quality standard or contribute to a evsting or projected ah quality violation. Therefore, a less-Wan-significant impact would occur from the construction missions sesodmed with the proposed Project. The proposed Project's aperahcaum-source emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance during the operation of the proposed Project Therefore, impacts associated with long-term air emissions would be less than significant. Threshold c Near-term cman oction No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A Less-Than-Significant missions and long-term operational Impact emissions would not substantially contribute to a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which one Project's region is in n-anamment. Impacts would be less Wan significant. Threshold d.The Project would not result in No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A Less-Th.Silamb,am r contribute to a CO "Hct Spot" The Impact Project also would rat result in a sigmficaut adverse health impact to sensitive receptors. Thus a less-than-significant impact to sensitive receptors during both construction and opemm nal activity is expected. Threshold e:The Project does not propose No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A Less-Than-Significant any uses or activities that would resuh in Impact potentially significant operational-source odor impacts. Potential sources of Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-12 3o 73 ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY STA(ic AFTER MITIGATION operational odors generated by the Project would include disposal of solid waste generated by the residents onsite. Trash areas for the Project would be located on parking levels lil through 132, each of which has separate trash areas. Consistent with City requirements, all Project- generated reins,would be stared in covered containers and removed at regular intervals at ompliance with solid are regulations. Accordingly, operational-source odor impacts would be less than significant. 4.3 Biological Resources Summary of Impacts Threshold a No sensitive vegetation No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact communities,special-slams Plant species,or special-stains wildlife species am located on r near the P jest site. The Project would have he substantial impact either directly or through habitat modifications, on any other candidate,sensitive,or special status plant or wildlife species. Threshold b:The Project would have no No Mingadon is Required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact potential to impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in I..[at regional plans,policies,regulations, or by the CDFW and USFWS. No impact would occur. Threshold a No federally protected No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact wetlands are located on the Project site; therefore, no impact to wedends would occur. Threshold d: There is no potential for the MM 4.3-1 Prior to the issuance of a demolition Director ofCommuniConstruction Corrosion, Prior to the issuance of a Less-Than-Significant Project to interfere with the movement of pemilt, the Director of Continually Development Development demolition permit,during Impact fish or impede the use of a native wildlife shall ensure that any tree removal activities occur are minimal acrivitics nursery site. The Project has the potential outside of the nesting season(February I st to August Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-13 31 74 ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY $TA(iL AFTER MITIGATION to dircctly and cumulatively impact nesting 31st). If it is detumined necessary for nee removal bit& pmmcted by federal and State activities to occur between Febmary Ist and August regulations, if tree restrovals during 31x4 the Director of Community Development shall emrar num activities were on occur during require a pre-construction nesting bird survey to be the nesting season. conducted by a qualified biologist within seven(7) days prim any tree removal activities. Any active Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM nests identified shall have a buffer area established 4.3-1 would ensure that a pre-construction wiNw a 100-foot aditus(200 foot for birds of prey) nesting bird surveys conducted to of the active nest. Disturbance shall not occur within determine the presence orabsence of arrive the buffer area until the qualified biologist detertnines nests prior to tree removal. If present,the that the young have fledged. Demolition and mitigation measure mandates a buffer area consuuction activity may only occur within the mound active nests until the young have buffer area at the discretion of the qualified biologist. fledged. With implementation of the required mitigation, potential direct and umulatively considerable impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to below a level of significance. Threshold e:The Project would not conflict No Mitigation is Required N/A N/A N/A No Impact with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Threshold L The Project would not cpnNct No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Natural Communitv Conservation Plan,or other approved local, regional,or state habitat conservation plan, including the Orange County Central and Coastal Orange County NCCPIHCP. 4.4 Cultural Resources summary of impacts Thresholds: Although the Project would No Mitigation is Required N/A N/A N/A No Impact demolish the existing building and remove it from the property,the structure is not a historical resource pursuant to Section Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-14 32 75 ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY STALL AFTER MITIGATION 150645 of the CEQA Guidelines No impact to historic resources would occur mid mitigation is not reputed. Threshold b: Although uNikely,there is a MM 4.4-I Prior to the issuance of grading permits, Director of Community Construction Contractor prior to the issuance of Less-ThumSiguficam more possibility that archaeological the Director of Community Development shall ensure Development grading permits,during Impact resources could be encountered during site that following provision is included on the gmding ground disturbing priding activities. Mitigation is required to plan(s), and the construction courrector(s)shall be activities on. that potential impacts to required to comply with the provision. archaeological resources, if uncombed during coustructioa activities,are reduced "If evidence of subsurface archaeological resources to a level below significance, is found during epnsmucnon, excavafion and ether resurrection activity shalt cease acrd the co struction Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM contractor shall contact the Cie of Neupori Beach 4.4-1 would ensure then potential impacts m CommaNry Develipr-1 Direron, With direcnan archaeological resources, if unearthed jiam is, Community Develapment Outdo,, a during construction activities,are reduced peddiind archeologist meeting Its secreta,,of the to a less Nan significant level. interior been..metal Qualhcadon far.4rcteolog shall he retained to evahmre the disscovery prior to owunding,gradhig in the variations vicuna, of the find. If warrented,the arcboeohnev shall collect she resmrrce and prepare a technical repos describing the results of Me tnvestigaean. The teablow sport shall evaluate Me site including discussion cf the depth,unsure,condition,and extent of the resources, final remediation recommendations, and cost indurates." Threshold c. Although unlikely,there is a MM 4.4-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, Director of Community Construction Connector Prior to the issuance of Laws Th.to,andianni remote possibility that paleontological the Discover of Connally Development shell ensure Development posting pamdts,during Impact resources could be encountered during site that following provision is included on the grading ground disturbing grading activities. Mitigation is repaired to plans), and the construction commuters)shall be activities ensure that impacts to paleontological required to comply with the provision, resources,if unearthed during construction activities, are reduced to a level below "If insulation of subse lao,paleratchwtcol resources significancso is found during cneavolice,es avmian and other construction activity in that area shall cence,and the Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM construction contractor shall contact the Gry of 4.4-2 would ensure that potential impacts to Nevport Beach Contmunin,Development Ditncter. Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-15 33 70 ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY STAfic AFTER MITIGATION poleomologiezl resources, if unearthed Irth direoNon from he Commzmn, Development during construction activities,are reduced Director, a ynaldiled paleenmlogiet meering the to a less than significant level. So ocra,of dm Gnerm,Professional Qualifitcalum Jin Paleontology shall evaluate the find. If warranted, rhe paleontologlsr shall prepare and complete a stmrdard Paleontological Resources Mitigation Program f r the salvage and curation of i&eophiedresaurces." Tlaesholdd In the unlikely event that No Mitigmictris Required. MA NIA N/A Less-Than-goomream human smaurs are discovered during Impact Project grading or other ground disturbing activities,the Project would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of Cahfomia Head and Safety Code§7050.5 and Califomia Public Resources Code § 5097 et seq. Mandatorycompliance with State law would ensure that human remmns, if encountered,are appropriately treated and would preclude the potential for signifienot impacts to human remains. Threshold e: No signiticant tribal cultural No Mitigatmet is Required. NIA N/A N/A Leas-Than-Significant uses were identified at the Project site. Impact Therefore, a less than-significant impact would occur. 4.5 Geology and Soils Summary of Impacts Threshold a:The Project would not expose No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A Less-Than-Significant people or structures to substantial adverse Impact effects from earthquake fault rupture, ,emoric-oclated ground fail., or landslides. As with all properties in the southern California region,rhe Project site is subject to We,seismic ground shaking associated with earthquakes. Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-16 34 77 ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY STAfic AFTER MITIGATION Threshold b_ The Project would not result No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A Less-Than-Significaut in substantial soil erosion or Ne loss of Impact topsoil. The Project Applicant is required to obtain a NPDES Permit for construction activities and adhore to a SWPPP as well as SCAQMD Rule 403-Fugitive Dust during Project construction activities. With mandatory compliance to these regulatory requirements.the potential for soil erosion r the loss of topsoil on the Project site would be minimized,as the areas disturbed during consuvcrion would be landscaped or covered with impervious surfaces and drainage an the Project site would be controlled through the m ns of a surrm drain system. Furthermore,the Project is required by law to implement a WQMP during long-term operation, which would preclude substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during long-term.,.Lou of But Project. Threshold c: During excavation for the MM 4.5-I Slopes created during subsurface Building Official for the Construction Contractor Prior to the issuance ofa Less-Than-Significant subterranean parking garage,there may be excavations associlood with the Project's construction City of Newport Beach grading permit.during Impact local seepage and wet sands within the process shall be shared to accordance with OSTIA (or his/her designee) subsurface excavation filVterrace and terracebedrock contacts. excavated safely regulations (Title 29 Code of activities Locally, Nese slopes could slough or Pedeml Regulath os,Part 1926.650.652[Subpar P]) potentially slump along the contact, and to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach would he subject to instability during Building Official. Prior to the issuance of a grading Project excavation. With implementation of permit,the Building Official or his/her designee shall Mitigation Measure MM 4.5-1 the Project ensure that the grading plan indicates the methods by would result in less-than-signifcant impacts which adequate shoring will occur. The shoring associated with unstable souk during methods most ensure that the subsurface excavation cmnstmetion. will not slough or slump. The Construction Contractor shall implement the shoring requirements The implementation of the mandatory throughout the subsurface excavation period and requirements of the CBSC and the allow inspection of the shoring method by the City of recommendations identified in the Project's I Newport Beach. Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-17 35 72 ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY SIO,L AFTER MITIGATION Oemech o.1 Feasibility Reform (required through City-imposed conditions of appmval oa the P,oect)would ensure that impacts associated with unstable geologic units during long-term Project operation would be less than signitiesi Threshold d: There is a potential for MM 4.52 Expansive soils shall nor be present as fill Building Official for the Construction Contractor Prior to the issuance of a Lela-Than-Significant expected ve soils to be encountered during the material below the building slab and fcatings. City ofNewpon Beach building permit,during Impact Project's grading operation. with the During the property's site preparation and grading (or his/her designee) subsurface excavation incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM phases,expansive soils shall be mixed with other soil activities 4.5-2,as well az the mandatary eamphamce material to provide a uniform blend of material, with CBSC requirements, the impacts compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relevant associated with expansive soils would be compaction,to the satisfaction of the City of Newport reduced to less than significant. Beach Building OfLcisl. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Building Official or his/her designee shall ensure that lite grading plan indicates a subsurface soil correct that is ream-expansive and ompacted to at least 90 percent. The Construction Counsel., shall implement the requmements throughout the site preparation and grading process and allow inspection of grading by the City of Newport Beazh. Threshold e:The Project would not insmli No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact septic taddi or altemative wastewater disposal systems. Accordingly,no impact would occur. 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Summary of Impacts Threshold a and b: Based an the findings of No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A Less-Than-Significant a Phase I ESA and Phase 11 ESA conducted Impact for the Proper site,the property does rut contain any environmental hazards that could pose a significare threat to human health or the environment The existing building that would be demolished and removed from the site as part of the Project Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-18 3� �9 ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY STdcc AFTER MITIGATION could potentially contain asbestos containing materials and lead based paint, but compliance with mandatory regulatory requirements during the demolition and removal process would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Threshold c. The Project would not emit No Mitigation is Required N/A WA N/A No Impact hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or pmposed school. No impact would occur add mitigation is not requved. Threshold d: The Project site is not No Mirigamm is Required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact identified on a list compiled prromm to Goverrmrent Code Section 65962.5; therefore, the P jem has ao potential m create s significant hazard to the public or environment as the result of listed properties. Threshold w The Project site is ant located No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A Lela-ThanSigoifeant in an,airport safety zone;the Project would Impact thus not significantly expose people residing or working in the area to safety hazards associated with operstions at John Wayne Aupo t. Threshold f:No private airships are located No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact in the vicinity of the Project site;therefore, the Preject has no potential to result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area caused by private airships. Threshold aThe Project would not impair No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A Less-Than-Significant implementation of or physically interfere Impact wish an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Thresholdh;The Project site is not located No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact wildladd f hazard area. The P jeer Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-19 37 ga ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY SIbtGP: AFTER MITIGATION ,ould thus not expose people or stmcmres to a significant risk of loss,injury,or death involving wildland fires. 4.7 Land Use Planning Threshold a: The proposed Project would No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact not physically divide an established community. Threshold b: Although the Project would No Mitigation is Required. MA N/A N/A Less-Thaa-Sigoificaut change the [.ad use designation of the Impact Project site fiom commercial to readentisl. the land use change would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts to the environment Thus,the Project would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adapted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating a eovironmental effect. Threshold c: No habitatconservation plans No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact or named co unity co rvati0n plans are applicable to the Project site;thus,am impact would occur. 4.8 Noise Threshold x Noise levels during MM 4.8-1 Construction staging before 7:00 a.m. City of Newport Building Construction Contractor During construction Less-Than-Significant construction would not significantly impact shall only be permitted with the express written Official,Comwction activities Impact off-site properties and construction consent of the Building Official. Residents of the Contractor activities are required at comply with the Granville community shall be notified in advance of provisions specified in Municipal Code § the proposed consrmctiot hours and sound blankets 10.28 (Loud and Unreasonable Noise). shall be installed on-site to minimize noise during However, because construction activities these hours. A sound blanket is a sound-absorbing re proposed to occur in early morning material that can be hung on construction fencing or hours an two days that would fall outside of other surface located between the noise source and the time of day provisions for conswctionrreceiver to duce mise levels at the receiver activities specified in the City's Noise location. reBack-up alarms on construction vehicles Ordinance § 10.28.040 (Consumer. shall be disabled when construction vehicles are Activity-Noise Regulations), potentially I operating on the Projem site before 700 a.m. Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-20 38 82 ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY STA(ic AFTER MITIGATION signiGcnnt impacts could arca, on those two days. Mitigation Measures MM 4.8-1 MM 4.&2 The construction contractor shall inspect City ofNe"M Building Conswction Contractor Duringconstruction Less-Than-Signifcant and MM 4.9-2 would reduce this impact to all motorized construction equipment operating on Official,Construction activities Impact below a level of significance. the site monthly,to ensure the proper installation of Contractor noise-attenuating mufflers. Inspection records shall Operational noise associated with be made available to the Cary of Newport Beach upon residential use of the property would be less request. Nan significant. Also,because the Project would reduce the total number of avemge daily vehicular trips traveling to and earn the site by 614 trips,compared to existing conditions,vehicular-related also would be less Nan significant. Threshold b: Impacts associated wash No Mitigation is Required WA N/A N/A Less-Than-Significant excessive groundbome vibration or Impact groundbome noise levels during Project construction and long-term operation would be less than siguificant. Threshold c: The Project would not result No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A Less-"ahSignificaut in a substantial permanent increase in Impact ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Threshold d: Construction noire would be MM 4.8I and MM 4.8-2 apply(see above) MM 4.8-1 and MM 4.8-2 MM 4.8-1 and MM 4.8-2 h41,14.8-1 and MM 4.&2 Less-Than-Significant generated outside of the hours specified in apply(see above) apply(see above) apply(see above) Impact the City's construction noise ordinance for two days during Be, corsouctaon period, resulting in a potentially significant impam. Threshold e.The Project site is located out No Mitigation is Required. MA N/A N/A No hoped outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour for Jahn Wayne Airport. Thus,the Project would not expose people residing o working an the Project area to excessive airport-related nolle levels. Threshold f:The Project site is not located No Mitigation is Required. MA N/A N/A No Impact nora private airstrip;thus,here would be mpact due to the exposure of people Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-21 39 82 ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY SI ,('L AFTER MITIGATION residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels associated with private airstrips. 4.9 Transportation&Traffic Threshold a:The Project would reduce the No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A Less-Than-Significant total number of average daily vehicular trips Impact traveling to and from the site by 614 trips, compared to existing conditions. Thus,the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy cstabliaNng measures of effectiveness for the performance tithe circulation syatem. Threshold b.The Project would not conflict No Mitigationle Required. NIA WA N/A No Impact with the OCTA CMP's level of service standards or travel demand measures. No impact would occur. Threshold c There are no components of No Mitigation is Required. N/A WA N/A No Impact the Project that would result in an Increase in traffic levels or result in substantial safety risks.No impact would occur. Threshold d: The Project would not No Mitigation is Required. N'A WA WA Less-Than-Significant substantially immerse harands due to a Impact design feature or incompatible uses. There may be the need for temporary lane closures for Anacapa Drive and Newport Cemex Drive to install tie-backs along the Newport Center Drive and Anacapa Drive fromages, however,these temporary impacts would be leas than significant. Threshold e: The Project would result in No Mitigation is Required. NLA N/A N/A No Impact adequate emergency access and would not impact a designated emergency access roux, No impact to emergency access would occw. Threshold f:The Project would not conflict No Mitigation is Required. NA N/A N/A No Impact with adopted policies,plans, or programs Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-22 ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY STd(ic AFTER MITIGATION rsgarding vansiq bicycle, or pedesrrian facilities. No impact would decor. Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-23 41 24 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 20 of 34 Exhibit "C" General Plan Land Use Map Amendment 03-03-2015 42 Q PI ) SAN ��EMENTE v C R /� RM A G > r n Z I > CO-R m MU-H3 CENTER RM CO-R 0 m o5P sAMP -H3 U) c w m J> MU-H3 / co MU-H3 SAN U-H i S �R co- RM W CO-R Z c0- O-R o W U-H3/P C/CYC � CEN OS S CO-G o � PF q 0 500 1,000 04—' . GP2014-003 (PA2014-213) Feet General Plan Amendment 150 Newport Center Drive Document Name:PA2014-213_GP2011-011_Reso_Exhibit " h r— EXHIBIT A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO GP2014-003 Consists of: 1. Amending Table LU2 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to include the following modification to Anomaly No. 35 and one new anomaly: Table Anomaly Statistical Land Use Development Development Additional Number Area Designation Limit(so Limit Other information 35 L-1 CO-R 199,095 190,595 82 L-1 RM 45 dwelling units 2. Amending the Land Use Map of the Land Use Element to identify the locations of Anomaly Nos. 35 and 82 and to change the designation of the existing 1.26-acre project site at 150 Newport Center designated as CO-R (Regional Commercial Office, Anomaly 35) to RM (Multiple Residential, 49 du). 44 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 21 of 34 Exhibit "D" Zoning Map Amendment 03-03-2015 45 PC 19 J^ SAN U P 6 OR PC 56 CENTER C 54 PC 56 PC 8 �G oe P Roy C 56 SPN�P m C D PC 56 / cn PC 56 PC 47 SqN PC 56 ON • • . • 11 C2 Q�OR W � OR PC Z C OR 47 W A (� OR PC 47 OR \ � PC 40 PC 17 �o R 0 500 1,000 //{ CA2014-008 (PA2014-213) Feet 1 SEW PORT °� e Code Amendment �VFORH�P 150 Newport Center Drive Document Name:PA2014-213_CA2014-008 Ord_Exhibit Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 24 of 36 Exhibit "E" Redlined PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community Development Planj 03-03-2015 47 North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan Land Uses, Development Standards &t Procedures Adopted December 18,2007,Ordinance No.2007-20(PA 2007-151) Amended November 24,2009,Ordinance No.2009-28 (PA 2009-111) Amended May 24,2011,Ordinance No.2011-16(PA 2011-017) Amended July 24,2012,Ordinance No.2012-19(PA 2012-020) Amended November 10,2015,Ordinance No.2015-32(PA 2015-109) Amended[DATE HERE].Ordinance No.2016-!(PA2014-2131. Formatted:Highlight 42 [this page intentionally hlank] Land Uses,Development Standards&Procedures Contents 1. Introduction and Purpose of Development Plan.................................................................................I A. Sub-Area Purpose.............................................................................................................................1 B. Relationship to Municipal Code.........................................................................................13-1-3-1-3-}9 C. Relationship to North Newport Center Design Regulations...............................................13111310 11. Land Use and Development Regulations..............................................................................15151511 A. Permitted Uses....................................................................................................................1515-1511 B. Development Limits...........................................................................................................16-1616-12 C. Transfer of Development Rights........................................................................................17-171713 III. Site Development Standards.................................................................................................212-12-1-15 A. Permitted Height of Structures...........................................................................................21312115 B. Setback Requirements........................................................................................................2222221 C. Parking Requirements........................................................................................................24342419 D. Landscaping.......................................................................................................................25232319 E. Lighting..............................................................................................................................252-525-19 F. Signs...................................................................................................................................25252519 G. Residential Compatibility...................................................................................................30392423 H. Residential Open Space Requirements...............................................................................30303024 IV. Planned Community Development Plan Administration......................................................313-13125 A. Process for New Structures................................................................................................313-13-123 B. Process for New Signs........................................................................................................32323226 C. Transfer of Development Rights........................................................................................32323226 V. Definitions.............................................................................................................................3533329 Appendix A—Design Regulations. North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan November 10,2015 SD Land Uses,Development Standards&Procedures [this page intentionally hlank] North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan iv November 10,2015 152 Land Uses,Development Standards 8 Procedures Section I.Introduction and Purpose of Development Plan I. Introduction and Purpose of Development Plan The North Newport Center Planned Community district is comprised of seven sub-areas that include Fashion Island, Block 600, and Block 800; and portions of Block 100, Block 400, Block 500, and San Joaquin Plaza. The sub-areas that comprise North Newport Center shall be governed by the North Newport Center Planned Community (`PC") Development Plan set forth herein, which includes land uses,development standards,and administration. The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code allows a Planned Community Development Plan to address land use designations and regulations in Planned Communities. The North Newport Center PC Development Plan serves as the controlling zoning ordinance for the sub areas identified in the Planned Community Development Plan and is authorized and intended to implement the provisions of the Newport Beach General Plan. A. Sub-Area Purpose Newport Center is a regional center comprised of major retail, professional office, entertainment, recreation, and residential development within the City of Newport Beach. The North Newport Center site comprises approximately 4g44 71.6 acres along San Joaquin Hills Road and Newport Center Dr. The seven sub-areas that make up the site including Fashion Island (75 acres), Block 100 (44-11.3 acres), Block 400 (4 acres), Block 500 (16.3 acres and a 0.4-acre open space area at the comer of MacArthur Boulevard and San Joaquin Hills Road), Block 600 (25 acres), Block 800 (17 acres), and San Joaquin Plaza(23 acres)are shown on Figure 1 and are described below. The General Plan identifies the goal of creating a successful Mixed-Use district that integrates economic and commercial centers serving the needs of Newport Beach residents and the sub-region, with expanded opportunities for residential development. Fashion Island is the primary retail hub within Newport Center and is developed with retail,dining,and commercial entertainment uses.Permitted uses for Fashion Island include uses in support of the existing retail, dining, and commercial entertainment uses. Fashion Island is intended to be a vibrant regional retail and entertainment center and a day/evening destination with a wide variety of uses that will serve visitors,residents,and employees of the area.Figure 2,Fashion Island Sub-Area,shows the boundary of Fashion Island. The Commercial Office blocks include a large nortion of Block 100 (Figure 3), Block 400 (Figure 4), and a portion of Block 800 also referred to as Pacific Financial Plaza. Block 100 geaem4)y rixnarily comprises administrative and professional offices that serve local and regional markets. Other uses permitted in the block include limited accessory retail, financial, service and entertainment uses. Block 400 generally comprises commercial office, with medical related offices and retail use. The Pacific Financial Plaza portion of Block 800 is generally comprised of commercial office and restaurant uses. The Mixed-Use blocks include Block 500 (Figure 5), Block 600 (Figure 6), and San Joaquin Plaza (Figure 7). The Mixed-Use blocks are generally composed of administrative,professional,and financial office uses. Block 600 contains hotel and related ancillary uses. This Development Plan allows for the diversification of land uses in order to encourage new and original uses consistent with the Mixed-Use concept as established in the General Plan. Permitted uses for the Mixed-Use blocks include offices, light general commercial, hotel, residential and other mixed uses in accordance with the General Plan MU-H3 land use designation. The residential portion of Block 100 (Figure 3) at 150 Newport Center Drive allows for multi-familv residential housing uses. The residential portion of Block 800 (Figure 8) allows for multi-family residential or senior citizen housing uses. While not categorized as a mixed-use area, Block 100 and Block 800 contains two distinct uses which are not interchangeable. The norther portion of Block 800 is designated for residential use and the souther portion is commercial office. The boundaries of the Mixed-Use blocks included in this Development Plan are shown in Figure 5, Block 500 Sub-Area,Figure 6,Block 600 Sub-Area,and Figure 7, San Joaquin Plaza Sub-Area,respectively. North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 1 November 10,2015 52 Land Uses,Development Standards$Procedures Section I.Introduction and Purpose of Development Plan O San Joaquin Plaza /SANre CRUZ on. PU E� pQ S 2L Block Block 600 sr�s 800 90 /SANTA ROSH DR. Fashion Island Block Regional Center 500 c� "k Block400 Block 9y 100 cogs g 4�e r ❑ North Newport Center Planned Community North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 2 November 10,2015 53 Land Uses,Development Standards&Procedures Section I.Introduction and Purpose of Development Plan O San Joaquin Plaza PO 0Q s +0 Lc Gti 9"r' lP 9 Block ` Block 600 Soo qo SAMAHOSl.I]H Fashion Island Block Regional Center 500 s Block 400 ve Block 100 �o m �i ❑ North Newport Center Planned Community Figure 1 —North Newport Center Planned Community North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 3 November 10,2015 �T Land Uses,Development Standards&Procedures Section I.Introduction and Purpose of Development Plan O Wport cente,_O �tia oy�a Nicolas Dr Sa U+� I 7 9ue/Dr ae Rd� 9� a� m d2'y ■ Planned Community ° O N Not included in Planned Community �'m O Figure 2—Fashion Island Sub-Area North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 4 November 10,2015 Land Uses,Development Standards 8 Procedures Section I.Introduction and Purpose of Development Plan North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 5 November 10,2015 Land Uses,Development Standards$Procedures Section I.Introduction and Purpose of Development Plan 2� �A C Qty enter Drive i U O � Q z � Civic cPn�er�r�`e ■ Planned Community ❑ Not included in Planned Community North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 6 November 10,2015 Land Uses,Development Standards 8 Procedures Section I.Introduction and Purpose of Development Plan 4a Qt rater Drive Qj c a a 0 a 3 � o� z c Or�ve ■ PLANNED COMMUNITY(BLOCK 100) ❑ NOT INCLUDED IN PLANNED COMMUNITY Figure 3—Block 100 Sub Area North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 7 November 10,2015 Land Uses,Development Standards$Procedures Section I.Introduction and Purpose of Development Plan Q 4 Sam N'c°a i a,V s ~�L �Q �o s w� J0 � ,mc cn P caao �o ■ Planned Community ❑ Not included in Planned Community Figure 4—Block 400 Sub Area North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan B November 10,2015 �9 Land Uses,Development Standards 8 Procedures Section I.Introduction and Purpose of Development Plan O San Joaquin Hills Rd m D o m rc o ���� 5an Nicolas Dr _�� O Planned Community ❑Not included in Planned Community Figure 5—Block 500 Sub-Area North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 9 November 10,2015 00 Land Uses,Development Standards$Procedures Section I.Introduction and Purpose of Development Plan Sen ✓ °a4Uin Hi//S Ror O to \Nport Center O g r ■ Planned Community ❑ Not included in Planned Community Figure 6—Block 600 Sub-Area North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 10 November 10,2015 �2 Land Uses,Development Standards 8 Procedures Section I.Introduction and Purpose of Development Plan San Joaquin Hills Rd CO m � n Q) -� O N e Santa ear a� bayC? ❑ Planned Community Not included in Planned Community I Figure 7—San Joaquin Plaza Sub-Area North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 11 November 10,2015 62 Land Uses,Development Standards$Procedures Section I.Introduction and Purpose of Development Plan i San Clemente Drive R 0 o Q � m � m a G m J` ca CO �c 0 ■ Planned Community ❑ Not included in Planned Community R =Residential CO=Commercial Office Figure 8- Block 800 Sub-.Area North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 12 November 10,2015 Land Uses,Development Standards 8 Procedures Section I.Introduction and Purpose of Development Plan B. Relationship to Municipal Code Whenever the development regulations of this plan conflict with the regulations of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the regulations contained herein shall prevail. The Municipal Code shall regulate this development whenever regulations are not provided within these district regulations. All words and phrases used in this North Newport Center PC Development Plan shall have the same meaning and definition as used in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code unless defined differently in Section V—Definitions. The Municipal Code referred to herein for Blocks 500,600,San Joaquin Plaza,and Fashion Island is the version of the Code in effect on December 18,2007 and specifically includes Title 15 of the Municipal Code (Buildings and Construction), Title 19 of the Municipal Code (Subdivisions) and Title 20 of the Municipal Code (Planning and Zoning) but specifically excluding all other sections of the Municipal Code including Title 5 of the Municipal Code (Business Licenses and Regulations). The Municipal Code referred to herein for Blocks 100 (with the exception of 150 Newport Center Drive),400 and 800 is the version of the Code in effect on June 5, 2012 and specifically includes Title 15 of the Municipal Code (Buildings and Construction), Title 19 of the Municipal Code (Subdivisions)and Title 20 of the Municipal Code (Planning and Zoning) but specifically excluding all other sections of the Municipal Code including Title 5 of the Municipal Code (Business Licenses and Regulations). The Municipal Code referred to herein for 150 Newport Center Drive is the version of the Code in effect on,JINSERT _;- Formatted:Highlight DATE HERE] and specifically includes Title 15 of the Municipal Code(Buildings and Construction), Title 19 of the Municipal Code (Subdivisions) and Title 20 of the Municipal Code (Planning and Zoning) but specifically excluding all other sections of the Municipal Code including Title 5 of the Municipal Code(Business Licenses and Recndations). C. Relationship to North Newport Center Design Regulations Development in North Newport Center shall be regulated by both the Development Plan and the Design Regulations,which is provided as Appendix A. North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 13 November 10,2015 �1 05 Land Uses,Development Standards&Procedures Section II.Land Use and Development Regulations I1. Land Use and Development Regulations A. Permitted Uses 1. General Permitted uses are those uses set forth in this Section for each sub-area as shown on Table 1. The uses identified within the table are not comprehensive but rather major use categories. Specific uses are permitted consistent with the definitions provided in Section V of this Development Plan. Uses determined to be accessory or ancillary to permitted uses, or residential support uses to permitted uses are also permitted. The Community Development Director may determine other uses not specifically listed herein, provided they are consistent with the Commercial Office,Regional Commercial, Mixed- Use, and Residential General Plan districts, the purpose of this Planned.Community Development Plan, and the purpose of the sub-area in which the property is located. Table 1-North Newport Center Land Use Regulation Table Block 600 Fashion Commercial San Joaqui Uses Island Block 100 Block 400 Block 500 Block 600 Office Residential Plaza - — Formatted Table BankslSavin s and Loans P P P P P P P - With drive through services MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP Business,Government and Professional P P P P P P -Eme enc Healtli P' P P P P P -Management and Leasing Offices P P P P P P P -Office,Medical and Dental – P P P P P – P -Public Safety Facilities P MUP MUP P P MUP P Commercial Recreation and Entertainment P UP UP MUP MUP UP MUP Cultural and Institutional UP UP UP P P UP – P Day Care P P P P P P P Day Sas MUP MUP MUP% MUP MUP MUP MUP Eating and Drinking Establishments P. MUP MUP P'" P"' MUP P'" BarslCocktail Lounges MUP UP UP UP UP UP UP Personal Improvement MUP MUP MUP P P MUP P Health/Fitness Clubs MUP P P P P P P+ P Personal Services P P' or P P P, P P Residential –P, P P P P Retail Sales P P P+ P P Pi P+ P - Animal Sales and Services MUPMUP MUP MUP Medical Retail P P" P" P P P" P Visitor Accommodations UP UP UP UP UP UP UP P=Permitted UP=Use Permit MUP=Minor use Permit Issued by the Zoning Administrator 1=Permitted as AccessorylAncillary,Use 2=In accordance with Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code 3=Residential Units oermihed at 150 Newood Center Drive only '=A Minor Use Permit Issued by the Zoning Administrator is required for the sale of alcohol "=A Use Permit is required for the Sale of Alcohol +=Intended for Residential Support Use ++=Accessory and ancillary medical retail,including those in freestanding structures,shall remain subordinate to principal uses –=Not Permitted North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 15 November 10,2015 Land Uses,Development Standards$Procedures Section 11.Land Use and Development Regulations 2. Open Space Corners The passive landscape areas on the following corners shall be limited to landscaping, and permitted signage. San Joaquin Hills Road and Avocado,Avocado and San Nicolas Dr. (northwest and southwest corners), Avocado and San Miguel (northwest), San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Rosa Dr. (southwest and southeast),San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Cmz Dr. (southwest and southeast comers), San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur Boulevard. 3. Special Events The general regional Mixed-Use nature of North Newport Center results in a variety of special events and temporary uses throughout the year. Special community events, such as parades, trade shows, car shows, pageants,community concerts, outdoor displays, recreation/entertainment events and temporary structures are permitted within the North Newport Center Planned Community consistent with the following provisions: a. If the event takes place on private property within Fashion Island the event is not regulated so long as it does not displace required parking. Such events must comply with the City's Municipal Code related to noise control and other pertinent standards. In. If the event takes place anywhere else within North Newport Center or the public right-of- way,such events are permittedas long as they comply with the Municipal Code. B. Development Limits The development limits in this Development Plan are consistent with those established by the General Plan and are identified in Table 2 below.Development limits may be modified through the approval of a Transfer of Development Rights. Carts, kiosks, temporary uses, and support uses are permitted and are not counted towards square footage development limits. Table 2—Development Limits(A) San Joaquin Land Use Fashion Island Block 100 Block 400 Block 500 Block 600 Block 800 Plaza Total Formattetl Table �teglonal 1,523,416 sq.ft. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,523,416 sq.ft. Commercial ovie Theater 680 seats 0 0 0 0 0 0 680 seats r 11,000 sq.ft. 11,000 sq.ft. Hotel (B) 0 0 0 295 0 0 295 Residential 0 945E 0 0 0 245 524 269814 office/ 0 121,114 sqJ. 91,727 sq.ft. 623,525 sq.ft. 1,353,399 sq.ft. 286,166 sq.ft. 95,550 sq.ft. 2,571,481 sq.ft. Commercial (C) I (0) A. Square footage indicated in Table 2 may not m0ect current development limits because of the transfer of development rights provision described in Sections II.0 and li herein.Transfers may result in increased or decreased development limits,so long as the transfers are consistent with the General Plan and do not result in greater intensity than allowed in the Newport Center statistical area.A transfer of development rights must be approved by the City Council and is recorded on the City's Tracking Development Rights table for North Newport Center Planned Community. B. Hotel rooms are permitted in Fashion Island through the transfer of development rights. C. The maximum development for Black 100 may not exceed 121,114 square feet.Transfers of development rights shall be permitted,provided the maximum development limit of 121,114 square feet is not exceeded. D. e development limit for Block 500 reflects the boundary adjustment and incorporation of two existing 12,000 sq.ft.office buildings into North Newport Center Planned Community, esidential dwelling units are only permitted at 150 Newport Center Drive. North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 16 November 10,2015 07 Land Uses,Development Standards 8 Procedures Section II.Land Use and Development Regulations 1. Fashion Island The total gross floor area for Fashion Island is 1,523,416 square feet plus 680 movie theater seats. The movie theater building area is equivalent to and may be converted to 11,000 square feet of retail development. The conversion of the movie theater to retail space shall not require any additional parking. The gross floor area for Regional Commercial development is the total horizontal floor area of all floors of a building within the exterior walls thereof,measured in square feet,exclusive of common areas such as,but not limited to: covered malls and walkways, carts,kiosks,open or roofed patio areas (defined by planters, awnings, shade structures, fences or rails), covered entries, covered parking, driveways or loading areas. 2. Mixed-Use Sub-Areas The Mixed-Use blocks include Block 500,Block 600 and San Joaquin Plaza.Up to 524 residential units and 295 hotel rooms are permitted within the Mixed-Use blocks. Residential and hotel uses are measured on a per unit basis. The gross floor area for all other permitted uses is the total enclosed area of all floors of a building measured to the outside face of the structural members in exterior walls, including halls, stairways, elevator shafts at each floor level, service and mechanical equipment rooms and basement or attic areas having a height of more than seven feet. Excluded are covered porches, walkways and loading docks,service tunnels,and mechanical shafts. Mechanical spaces on roofs,which are inaccessible to tenants, are not counted as square footage. Development limits for residential uses are based on unit counts, and are not within square footage limits. Support uses are not included in the square footage development limits and shall not require parking. 3. Commercial Office Blocks The maximum development limit for the commercial office blocks is specified in Table 2 above. The gross floor area for all permitted uses is the total enclosed area of all floors of a building measured to the outside face of the structural members in exterior walls, including halls, stairways, elevator shafts at each floor level,service and mechanical equipment rooms and basement or attic areas having a height of more than seven feet. Excluded are covered porches,walkways and loading docks, service tunnels, and mechanical shafts. Mechanical spaces on roofs, which are inaccessible to tenants, are not counted as square footage. Support uses are not included in the square footage development limits and shall not require parking. 4. Block 800 Residential The maximum number of dwelling units for multi-family residential use shall not exceed 245. 5. Block 100 Residential — Formatted:Outline numbered+Level:3+ Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+Start at:1+ The maximum number of dwelling units for multi-family residential use shall not exceed 45 and Alignment:Let+Aligned at: 0.5"+Tab after: 131,878 square feet of gross floor area.The maximum number of stories is four. 1"+Indent at: r -[Formatted,Highlight C. Transfer of Development Rights The transfer of development rights among sub-areas of this Planned Community and to/from other areas in the Newport Center/Fashion Island District identified in the General Plan is allowed in accordance with the General Plan. Development rights may be transferred through a change in location of use(s) and/or a conversion of non-residential use to any other non-residential use allowed by the General Plan and this Planned North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 17 November 10,2015 02 Land Uses,Development Standards$Procedures Section II.Land Use and Development Regulations Community Development Plan or applicable zoning at the receiving site(s). Residential use may be relocated,but may not be converted to or from another use. The transfer of development rights shall be approved,as specified in Section IV.0 below, if the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts and will not result in greater intensity than development allowed without the transfer. North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 18 November 10,2015 �9 Land Uses,Development Standards&Procedures Section II.Land Use and Development Regulations [this page intentionally blank] North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 19 November 10,2015 �O 71 Land Uses,Development Standards 8 Procedures Section III.Site Development Standards III. Site Development Standards The following site development standards shall apply to the North Newport Center Planned Community. A. Permitted Height of Structures 1. Standards for Allowable Heights Allowable heights are determined by sub-area. All building heights are measured at finished grade. Rooftop appurtenances and architectural features are permitted and may exceed the maximum building height by up to 10 feet. Rooftop appurtenances must be screened from view; the height of rooftop appurtenances shall not exceed the height of screening. Supports for window washing equipment are permitted, and are not required to be screened from view. No setbacks are required. Architectural features must be an extension of the architectural style of the building in terms of materials,design and color. Fashion Island: The maximum heights of structures within Fashion Island are depicted in Table 3,Fashion Island Height Limits. Table 3—Fashion Island Height Limits Building Type Height Major buildings 125 feet Mall buildings 75 feet Parking structures 55 feel Periphery buildings 40 feet Block 100: The maximum height of all structures shall be 50 feet as measured from finished grade. For 150 Newport Center Drive, podium walls shall be limited to a fe6--,nc.inches 10 feet measured from finished grade. .. Formatted:English(U.S.) Blocks 400,500, and 600:The maximum height of all structures shall be 295 feet as measured from finished grade. Block 800:The maximum height of all structures within the residential portion shall be 200 feet as measured from finished grade. The maximum height of all structures within the commercial office portion shall be 125 feet as measured from finished grade. San Joaquin Plaza: The maximum height of all structures in San Joaquin Plaza shall be 65 feet as measured from finished grade. 2. Standards for Buildings Over 200 Feet in Height a. Aviation Compatibility Prior to issuance of building permits,. the project applicant must demonstrate that the following conditions have been satisfied. New development shall be required to comply with the following conditions related to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan(AELUP)for the John Wayne Airport: 1. For development of structures that exceed 200 feet in height above ground level at a development site, applicants shall file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (FAA Form 7460-1). Following the North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 21 November 10,2015 Land Uses,Development Standards&Procedures Section III.Site Development Standards FAA's Aeronautical Study of the project, projects must comply with conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the FAA. Subsequent to the FAA findings,the City shall refer the project to the Airport Land Use Commission(ALUC)of Orange County for consistency analysis. 2. No buildings within the North Newport Center Planned Community area shall penetrate the FAA Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77 imaginary obstruction surface for John Wayne Airport. 3. Applicants shall file a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the FAA(Form 7460-1)for any construction cranes that exceed 200 feet in height above ground level. b. Shade Standards Prior to issuance of a building permit for a structure over 200 feet in height that has the potential to shade residential areas north of San Joaquin Hills Road,a shade study shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the City. The shade study shall demonstrate that the new development will not add shade to the designated residential areas beyond existing conditions for more than three hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Pacific Standard Time, or for more than four hours between the hours of 9:00 a.m.and 5:00 p.m.Pacific Daylight Time. The shade study shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the Community Development Director shall determine conformance with the standards identified herein as part of the plan review process. C. Rooftop Appurtenances Rooftop appurtenances are permitted and may exceed the maximum building height up to 20 feet. Rooftop appurtenances shall demonstrate compliance with conditions related to the AELUP for the John Wayne Airport, consistent with Section III(A)(2)(a). Rooftop appurtenances must be screened from view; the height of rooftop appurtenances shall not exceed the height of the screening. Supports for window washing equipment are permitted, and are not required to be screened from view. No setbacks are required. The Community Development Director shall notify the Planning Commission and City Council if rooftop appurtenances above the height limit are approved,consistent with Section IV(A)(3). d. Architectural Features Architectural features are permitted and may exceed the maximum building height up to 20 feet. Such features must be an extension of the architectural style of the building in terms of materials,design and color.Architectural features shall demonstrate compliance with conditions related to the AELUP for the John Wayne Airport,consistent with Section III(A)(2)(a). The Community Development Director shall notify the Planning Commission and City Council if architectural features above the height limit are approved,consistent with Section IV(A)(3). B. Setback Requirements Setbacks for the seven sub-areas are listed below. Setbacks for surface parking must be screened using hedges,landscaping or other similar methods. Setbacks are the minimum distance from the property line to building,parking structure,or parking lot,unless otherwise specified. This is not intended to apply to interior lot lines or property lines. North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 22 November 10,2015 73 Land Uses,Development Standards 8 Procedures Section III.Site Development Standards Fashion Island Newport Center Dr.: 10 feet;may be reduced to 0 feet by the Community Development Director through the plan review process. Block 100 Newport Center Dr.: 15 feet Anacapa Dr.: 15 feet Civic Center Dr.: 15 feet 150 NCD - Formatted:Indent:First line: 0.38" Newport Center Dr: 24 feet Basement/podium: 15 feet Macana Dr:22.5 feet Basetnent/nodium: 15 feet Southerly Property Line:22 feet Basement/podium: 7 feet Westerlv Pronerty Line: 14 feet Basement:3 feet Podium: 0 feet at Level 1 Block 400 Newport Center Dr.: 15 feet San Nicolas Dr.: 15 feet Block 500 Newport Center Dr.: 15 feet Santa Rosa Dr.: 15 feet San Joaquin Hills: 15 feet San Nicolas: 15 feet Block 600 Newport Center Dr.: 15 feet Santa Cruz Dr.: 15 feet San Simeon: 15 feet—setbacks for parking structure access points may be reduced by the Community Development Director through the plan review process San Joaquin Hills: 15 feet—setbacks for parking structure access points may be reduced by the Community Development Director through the plan review process Santa Rosa Dr.: 15 feet Center Dr. (e/w):0 feet Center Dr.(n/s):0 feet Block 800 Newport Center Dr.: 15 feet Commercial office buildings shall be set back 15 feet from Block 800 residential North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 23 November 10,2015 Land Uses,Development Standards&Procedures Section III.Site Development Standards Commercial office parking lots and parking structures shall be set back 5 feet from Block 800 residential Santa Barbara Dr.: 15 feet San Clemente Dr.: 15 feet Santa Maria Road:0 feet San Joaquin Plaza San Joaquin Hills: 15 feet Santa Cruz Dr.: 15 feet San Clemente: 15 feet Santa Barbara Dr.: 15 feet C. Parking Requirements 1. General Standards Parking requirements are based on gross floor area (as defined in the Development Limits for Fashion Island)for regional commercial uses,net floor area for office/commercial uses,and unit counts for hotel rooms and residential units. Kiosks for retail sales, covered or uncovered, shall not be included in the calculation of required parking. Accessory, ancillary, mrd support uses for hotel and residential developments shall not be included in the calculation of required parking. Kiosks and sundry shops serving tenants, including accessory, ancillary and support uses less than 5 percent of the gross floor area, are not counted as square footage and do not require parking. Parking management or engineering offices located in puking structures me counted as square footage and require parking, Parking requirements for North Newport Center are shown below on Table 4, North Newport Center Parking Requirements. Table 4-North Newport Center Parking Requirements Land Use Parking Requirement Regional Commercial 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet' Movie Theater 3 spaces per 1,000 square feel Office 1 space per 375 square feel Medical Office Municipal Code Hotel Municipal Code Residential 2 spaces per unit includes 1 covered;plus 0.5 spaces per unit up to 50 units,then 0.25 spaces per unit thereafter for guest parking Other Municipal Code Shared parking among and between sites,lots,blocks, and sub-areas is allowed. Parking for Block 800 Residential shall be provided at 2 parking spaces per unit including 1 covered;plus 0.5 spaces per unit for guest parking. 2. Valet Parking Valet parking and satellite parking with shuttle service that involves use of the public right-of-way shall require approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 1 The parking requirement during the peak seasonal period is 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet per an existing parking management plan. North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 24 November 10,2015 715 Land Uses,Development Standards 8 Procedures Section III.Site Development Standards 3. Parking Management Plan Puking management plans may be prepared if the applicant wishes to deviate from the parking standards identified above. Parking management plans may address issues such as modified parking requirements based upon complimentary peak hour demand of uses, off peak shared parking between sub-areas, drop off and valet services on private property, and tandem parking. The parking management plan shall take into account properties that are not part of the Planned Community district,but that are served by parking located within the district, and shall ensure that no detrimental effects to the existing parking for such properties occur.Parking management plans shall be prepared by an independent traffic engineer at the applicant's expense. Parking management plans shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. D. Landscaping Landscaping shall be installed subject to the following standards and maintained in a healthy,weed-free condition,free of litter and so as not to interfere with traffic safety 1. Surface Parking Lot Landscaping: Parking lots shall be landscaped at a minimum of I tree per 5 parking spaces.The minimum size of trees shall be 24-inch box. 2. Water Conservation: Satellite linked irrigation controllers or appropriate best manage- ment practices shall be incorporated into landscape design for new construction. E. Lighting Parking lots and walkways accessing building and parking areas shall be illuminated with a minimum maintained 0.5 foot-candle average on the driving or walking surface during the hours of operation and one hour thereafter.If the applicant wishes to deviate from this lighting standard,a lighting plan may be prepared by the applicant and submitted to the Community Development Director for review and approval. Indirect,decorative halo banding along the top of buildings is pertnitted. F. Signs 1. General Sign Standards All permanent and temporary signs in North Newport Center that are visible from public right-of-ways and public property shall be consistent with the provisions of these sign standards, unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Director. All permanent and temporary signs that are not visible from public right-of-ways are not limited in quantity, size,location, or design. Sign illumination is permitted for all sign types. Wall signs that are visible from public right-of-ways must consist of individual fabricated letters; or routed-out letters in an opaque background. Enclosed "box" or "can" signs are not permitted, unless they are logos. All commercial uses are permitted to place at each entry an incidental sign located at or below eye level to be visible to pedestrians,and shall not exceed six square feet. In addition to other signs permitted in this section,signs used to give direction to vehicular or pedestrian traffic are permitted.Directional signs oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic within internal drives or North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 25 November 10,2015 Land Uses,Development Standards$Procedures Section III.Site Development Standards walkways of a development block are not regulated.Directional signs oriented to vehicular or pedestrian traffic in the public right of way are regulated as follows. Sign content shall not be Iimited. Signs shall be subject to the review of the City Traffic Engineer to ensure adequate sight distance in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Directional signs are limited to a maximum of 10 square feet in size but are not limited in quantity, location, or design. Temporary signs that are intended to be displayed for 60 days or less are permitted for purposes related to special events,holiday activities,and store openings.Detailed standards for temporary signs are contained below. A comprehensive sign program may be prepared if the applicant wishes to deviate from the sign standards identified herein. Comprehensive sign programs shall be submitted for review and consideration in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Sign programs in place prior to this writing including the Island Hotel and Leasing Sign Programs shall remain in place. 2. Restricted Sign Types Signs visible from public right-of-ways are subject to the following restrictions: a. No rotating, flashing, blinking, or signing with animation shall be permitted on a permanent basis. b. No signs shall be permitted which imitate or resemble official traffic signs or signals. C. No wind signs or audible signs are permitted. Animated signs visible from public streets are not allowed unless otherwise permitted by the Municipal Code. 3. Sign Standards for Fashion Island In addition to the general sign standards identified above, specific sign standards for Fashion Island are provided in Table 6,Fashion Island Sign Standards below. Table 6—Fashion Island Sign Standards Maximum Lefted Sign Type Location Maximum Number Maximum Sign Size Logo Height Shopping Center Each vehicle entry drive location 2 per entry drive(one 100 square feet 9 feet Identification Sign on each side) 10 feet high Major Tenant Sign Exterior walls or parapets of 1 sign per building Determined by name of 10 feet buildings elevation(maximum tenant;letter/logo 4 signs for each major height not to exceed 10 tenant) feet Freestanding Exterior walls or parapets of 1 sign per building Determined by name of 3 feet Commercial buildings elevation(maximum tenant;letter/logo 4 signs for each building height not to exceed 3 or structure) feet Monument Iper building 50 square feet 4.5 feet 5 feet high Tenant Sign Exterior elevations of shopping 1 sign per tenant,per 1 squarefoot per each 10 feet center and parking structures building elevation lineal foot of storefront facing Newport Center Dr. (not to exceed 100 square feet) North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 26 November 10,2015 Land Uses,Development Standards 8 Procedures Section III.Site Development Standards Maximum Letter/ Sign Type Location Maximum Number Maximum Sign Size Logo Height Theater Signs Facing Newport Center Dr. 2 300 square feet Theater name: (exterior wall or parapet of building 20 feet high 5feet which theater occupies,free Each show title: standing,or on adjacent parking 3 feet high structure) 15 feet wide Store Address Each entry to store 1 per store entry 6 square feet 12 inches Entry Marker Signs To be approved by Community 7 signs 36 square feet(with 2- 2 feet Development Director foot overhang) 15 feet high 4. Sign Standards for Mixed-Use and Commercial Office Blocks In addition to the general sign standards identified above, specific sign standards for the Mixed-Use blocks, Block 100, Block 400, and Block 800 are provided in Table 7 below. The location of signs specified below may be changed subject to the review of the City Traffic Engineer to ensure adequate sight distance in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, so long as the total number of signs in not increased. Primary building address numbers shall be visible from the street (and/or pedestrian walkways in the case of necessity), and be located on the building so that they are visible from adjacent frontage roads and designated parking areas, except for the buildings at 500 and 550 Newport Center Dr, which have their primary address numbers on the cubes along Newport Center Dr. Secondary address signs may be located where appropriate for on-site orientation and safety. All address signs shall have a consistent color,design,and material for any given building.A single letter style is recommended. Table 7—Sign Standards for Blocks 100,400,500,600,800 and San Joaquin Plaza Sign Maximum Maximum Maximum Letterl Type Description Location Number of Signs Sign Size Logo Height A Large cube or blade Santa Rosa Dr. 2 15 feet high 24 inches sign located at at San Joaquin Hills Rd. (1 per comer) 15 feetwide entries to Newport Santa Cruz Dr. 2 15 feet high 24 inches Center at San Joaquin Hills Rd. (l per comer) 15 feet wide Block 500: 4 15 feet high 24 inches San Joaquin Hills Rd. 15 feet wide at Avocado Ave. San Nicolas Dr. at Avocado Ave. MacArthur Blvd. at San Joaquin Hills Rd. San Joaquin Plaza: 1 15 feet high 24 inches Jamboree Rd. 15 feet wide at San Joaquin Hills Rd. B Small cube located San Nicolas Dr. 2 5 feet high 5 inches along NewportCenter at Newport Center Dr. (1 per comer) 5 feet wide Dr. Newport Center Dr. 2 5 feet high 5 inches and Santa Rosa Dr. (l per comer) 5fast wide Block 600: 5 5 feet high 5 inches Along Newport Center Dr. 5 feet wide North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 27 November 10,2015 Land Uses,Development Standards&Procedures Section III.Site Development Standards Sign Maximum Maximum Maximum Letter/ Type Description Location Number of Signs Sign Size Logo Height Block 800: 2 5 feet high 5 inches Newport Center Dr. 5 feet wide at Santa Maria Rd. Newport Center Dr. at Santa Barbara Dr. C Other Freestanding Block 100 /per frontage 5feet high 10 inches Signs 10 feet wide Block 400: 2 5 feet high 13 inches Avocado Ave. at San Miguel Dr. Along San Nicolas Dr. 1 6 feet wide 13 inches Between 500 and 550 1 4 feet high 18 inches Newport Center Dr. 12 feet wide Block 600: 2 7 feet high 18 inches Along Santa Cruz Dr. 22 feet wide Block 800: 2 6 feet high 8 inches Along Newport Center Dr. 10 feet wide Along Santa Barbara Dr. 1 4 feet high 5 inchest 6 feet wide 24 inches Santa Cruz Dc 1 15 feet high 24 inches at Newport Center Dr. 15 feet wide San Joaquin Plaza: 1 each 6 feet high 5'/,inches for Tenant ID; Along San Joaquin Hills Rd. (3 signs along San 12 feet wide 18 inches for Project lD Along Santa Cruz Dr. Clemente Dr.) Along San Clemente Dr. San Clemente Dr. 1 5 feet high 18 inches at Santa Cruz Dr. 12 feet wide San Clemente Dr. 1 5 feet high 18 inches at Santa Barbara Dr. 16 feet wide D Signs mounted on Block 400: 1 Determined by name 18 inches landscape walls Facing Newport Center Dr. of tenant;letter/logo (includes ground height not to exceed mounted signs in 18 inches front of landscaping Block 500: 4 Determined by name 26 inches and landscape walls) Facing Newport Center Dr. of tenant;leherllogo height not to exceed 26inches Block 600: 3facing San Determined by name 16 inches Facing streets Joaquin Hills; of tenant;leherllogo 5 facing Newport height not to exceed Center Dr.; 18 inches 1 facing Santa Rosa Dr. Block 800: 2 Determined by name 36 inches At San Clemente Dr.project entry of tenant;leherllogo height not to exceed Winches Block 800: 1 Determined by name 36inches San Clemente Dr. of tenant leherllogo at Santa Barbara Dr. height not to exceed 36inches North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 28 November 10,2015 �Q Land Uses,Development Standards&Procedures Section III.Site Development Standards Sign Maximum Maximum Maximum Letterl Type Description Location Number of Signs Sign Size Logo Height Block 800 1 Determined by name 40 inches Along Newport Center Dr. of tenant;leherflogo height not to exceed 40inches E Building Sign On building elevation,awning or 2 per Primary Determined by name Primary Tenant: parking structure Tenant of tenant;leherllogo 24 inches 1 per Secondary height net to exceed: Secondary Tenant: Tenant Primary:24 inches, 16 inches 3 for restaurants Secondary:16 inches Restaurant:40 inches Restaurant:40 inches F Building Address On building elevation 1 each 24 inches high 24 11-1 Formatted:Not Highlight (additional address signs may be located where appropriate for on- site orientation) G Freestanding Santa Rosa Dr. Building Address at Newport Center Dr. Santa Nicolas Dr. 1 each 8 feet high 18 inches at Newport Center Dr. 6 feet wide Santa Cruz Dr. at Newport Center Dr. San Joaquin Hills Rd. 2 8 feet high 28 inches 6 feet wide H Advisory Signs Parking lots and entries to parking lots As appropriate for 6 feet high As required by Fire safety and Department or Building orientation Code for safety purpose 1_— Formatted;Not Highlight I Drive Through Signs Drive throughs 1per tenant per Sfeet wide 15 inches elevation,up to 2 on walls of structure J Apartment Block 100 and Block 800 1 per frontage 5 feet high by 3 feet 24 Inches LeasinglReal Estate wide panel on post Signs K Office Leasing Signs Blocks 100,400,500,600,800 and 1 per frontage 4.5 feet high by 5 7 inches San Joaquin Plaza feet wide 5. Temporary Signs The following standards are intended to produce consistent sign design for temporary signs within Newport Center.Temporary signs are to identify a future site or project;or a facility under development or offered for lease. Temporary signs that are visible from public right-of-ways and identify new construction or remodeling may be displayed for the duration of the construction period beyond the 60- day limit Signs mounted on a construction fence are allowed during construction and may be rigid or fabric.The top of the sign must be no greater than 20 feet above grade. Maximum Number:One(1)temporary sign is permitted on a site for each frontage street,up to two(2)signs per building,but not at the same comer of the building. Type:Single-or double-faced ground signs or wall signs. Location: If ground signs, they may be parallel or perpendicular to the roadway. If wall signs, they must be located below the sill of second floor windows. North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 29 November 10,2015 20 Land Uses,Development Standards&Procedures Section III.Site Development Standards Design: Rectangular shape;rigid,permanent material;not fabric. Mounting Technique: Flush with building; entirely on glass or entirely on a wall surface; not overlapping glass or wall surface. Duration: Signs may exist from the time of lease or sale of the parcel until the construction and/or leasing of the facility is complete. G. Residential Compatibility In keeping with the purpose of Fashion Island and the Mixed-Use sub-areas, permitted uses in North Newport Center include uses and events that have the potential to generate noise. Due to the day/evening use of Fashion Island in particular, noise generating activities, lighting, odors from restaurants,and similar occurrences are produced and take place during all hours of operation. Such uses and events are required to comply with the City's Municipal Code regulating these uses. Disclosures shall be made to prospective buyers/tenants of residential developments that there is an expectation for noise levels higher than in typical suburban residential areas as part of the Mixed-Use concept within North Newport Center. Additionally, the disclosure shall indicate that there is an expectation for lighting,odors,and similar occurrences in a Mixed-Use setting as compared to suburban residential areas. H. Residential Open Space Requirements The following open space standards shall apply to residential development projects: 1. Common Outdoor Open Space Each project shall provide common outdoor open space either at grade, podium level, or roof level. Common outdoor open space areas shall have a minimum dimension of 30 feet and may contain active and/or passive areas and a combination of hardscape and landscape features, but a minimum of 10 percent of the common outdoor open space must be landscaped. All common outdoor open space must be accessible to all residents. Projects shall provide a minimum of 5 percent common outdoor open space based on the residential lot area. 2. Common Indoor Space Each project shall provide at least one community room of at least 500 square feet for use by all residents of the project. The area should be located adjacent to, and accessible from, common outdoor open space. This area may contain active or passive recreational facilities or meeting space,and must be accessible through a common corridor. 3. Private Open Space At least 50%of all dwelling units shall provide private open space,on a balcony,patio,or roof terrace, with a minimum area of 30 square feet each and an average horizontal dimension of 6 feet. Balconies should be proportionately distributed throughout the project in relationship to floor levels and sizes of units. For any project 8 acres or larger, open space shall be provided in accordance with the General Plan. North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 30 November 10,2015 21 Land Uses,Development Standards&Procedures Section IV.Planned Community Development Plan Administration IV. Planned Community Development Plan Administration A.1 Process for New Structures(with the Exception of 150 Newport Center Formatted:Indent:Lee: 0^,Hanging: 0.5°, Drive) No bullets ar numbering 1. Purpose and Intent The purpose of the Plan Review process is to provide for review of development proposals for new structures within the North Newport Center Planned Community district. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, all development proposals shall be subject to a Plan Review by the Community Development Director for review to determine compliance with the Planned Community Development Plan and North Newport Center Design Regulations. Signs, tenant improvements, carts, kiosks, temporary structures and uses are exempt from this provision. 2. Submittal Contents Each Plan Review submittal or amendment thereof shall contain sufficient details for a thorough review of the relationships between uses on the site and on adjacent sites consistent with the Development Plan and the Design Regulations. At the discretion of the Community Development Director, the requirements for submittal of a Plan Review may be altered from those set forth below when the Director determines that other information will be sufficient to allow a thorough review of the project by the approving authority. Submittals for Plan Review shall include plans that contain the following elements in addition to the City's submittal requirements for plan check: a. Existing Conditions including adjacent structures aid proposed improvements b. Floor plans C. Elevations that clearly demonstrate the architectural theme of each face of all structures, including walls and signs,illustrating the following: I) All exterior materials 2) All exterior colors 3) Building heights d. Parking management plan(where applicable) e. Preliminary Landscape Plan,illustrating: l) General location of all plant materials,by common and botanical names 2) Size of plant materials 3) Irrigation concept f Lighting Plan, including: locations, fixture height, lighting fixture product type and technical specification g. Permitted and proposed floor area,number of hotel rooms,theater seats,and/or residential units h. Statement of consistency with the General Plan, Planned Community Development Plan and Design Regulations i. Any additional background and supporting information, studies or materials that the Community Development Director deems necessary for a clear representation of the projects j. Shade analysis if required k. Open Space Plans for residential projects North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 31 November 10,2015 22 Land Uses,Development Standards&Procedures Section IV.Planned Community Development Plan Administration 3. Review and Action Submittals shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director, and the Community Development Director shall approve the project if he/she makes the following findings: a. The proposed use and/or development is consistent with the General Plan. It. The proposed use and/or development is consistent with the North Newport Center PC Development Plan and Design Regulations. The Community Development Director shall notify the Planning Commission and City Council if deviations from the height limit are approved. The Community Development Director action is the final action unless appealed in accordance with the Municipal Code. X1.2 Site Development Review, 150 Newport Center Drive Formatted:Font: 13 pt Formatted:Font: 13 or,Bold 1. )Purpose and Intent Formatted:Font: 13 pt ' Formatted:Normal, No bullets or numbering The purpose of the Site Development Review(SDR)process is to ensure new development proposal Formatted:Font:13 pt,Bold within the 150 Newport Center Planned Community Development are consistent with the goals and Formatted:Fant:Bold policies of the General Plan,and provisions of the Planned Community Development Plan. Formatted:Font:Bold • , Formatted:Numbered+Level:l+Numbering 2. Application _ Style:1,2,3,...+Start at: 1+Alignment:Left+ Alignedat: 0.25"+Indent at: 0.5" Prior to the issuance o£ building permits for the site development a SDR application shall be- Formatted:Font: 13 pt required for the 150 Newport Center Planned Community Development in accordance with Section Formatted:Indent:Left: o",First line: o" 20.52.080(Site Development Reviews)of the NBMC. Formatted:Indent.Left: 0.25" B. Process for New Signs Formatted:Font. 13 In Formatted:Indent:LeR: 0",First line: 0" Applications for new signs shall follow the process identified in the Municipal Code. Submittal shall be Formatted:Fent:Bold reviewed for consistency with the Development Plan and Design Regulations. Formatted:Numbered+Level:1+Numbering Style:1,2,3,...+Start at: 1+Alignment:Left+ C. Transfer of Development Rights Aligned at: ).25"+Indent at: 0.5" The following procedure shall be used for the transfer of development rights. I Formatted:Fant:13 pt Formatted:Indent:Left: 0",First line: 0" 1. The project applicant shall submit an application to the Community Development . Formatted:Normal,]usdfied,Indent:Left: azs" Director, which identifies the quantity of entitlement (floor area, hotel rooms, theater seats) to be relocated, and the sending and receiving sites. If the requested transfer Formatted:Default Paragraph Font includes the conversion of non-residential uses, the application shall also identify the quantity of entitlement,by use category,before and after the transfer. 2. The City Traffic Engineer shall perform a traffic analysis to determine the total number of PM peak hour trips that would be generated by development allowed with and without the transfer. Trip generation rates shall be based on standard trip generation values in the current version of ITE's "Trip Generation," unless the Traffic Engineer determines that other rates are more valid for the uses involved in the transfer. 3. Depending on the location of the sending and receiving sites, the Traffic Engineer may determine that a more detailed traffic analysis is required to determine whether adverse traffic impacts will result from the transfer. This analysis shall demonstrate whether North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 32 November 10,2015 es Land Uses,Development Standards 8 Procedures Section IV.Planned Community Development Plan Administration allowed development,with and without the transfer,would either cause or make worse an unsatisfactory level of service at any primary intersections for which there is no feasible mitigation. This analysis shall be consistent with the definitions and procedures contained in the Traffic Phasing Ordinance of the Municipal Code, except that"unsatisfactory level of service"shall be as specified in the General Plan. 4. If the transfer request involves the conversion of uses, the Conummity Development Director shall perform a land use intensity analysis to determine the floor area that could be developed with and without the transfer. For purposes of this analysis,theater use shall be allocated 16.1765 square feet per seat.Hotel use shall be allocated the number of square feet per room at which it is included in the General Plan. When the General Plan does not specify intensity for hotel rooms, it shall be as determined by the Community Development Director. 5. Applications for transfer of development rights shall be considered by the City Council as a ministerial action. The City Council shall approve a transfer of development rights if it finds that the transfer will result in no more trips and no greater intensity of land use than the development allowed without the transfer. In addition, if the traffic study in Subsection c. is required, the City Council shall approve the transfer if it results in no greater traffic impact than the development allowed without the transfer. North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 33 November 10,2015 nJ Land Uses,Development Standards&Procedures Section IV.Planned Community Development Plan Administration [this page intentionally blank] North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 34 November 10,2015 8.5 Land Uses,Development Standards 8 Procedures Section V.Definitions V. Definitions All words and phrases used in this North Newport Center PC shall have the same meaning and definition as used in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code unless defined differently in this section. Architectural Features: A visually prominent or formally significant element of a building which expressed its architectural language and style in a complementary fashion. Architectural features should be logical extensions of the massing,details,materials and color of the building which complement and celebrate its overall aesthetic character. Advisory Sign: Any sign that contains directional or safety information; does not contain advertisements. Audible Signs:Any sign that uses equipment to communicate a message with sound or music. Banks/Savings & Loans: Establishments that provide a full range of retail banking and mortgage loan services to individuals and businesses.Includes only those institutions engaged in the on-site circulation of cash money.Also includes businesses offering check-cashing services. Drive-through or drive-up service included. Bars and Cocktail Lounges: Establishments engaged in selling or serving alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises or establishments having any of the following characteristics: - Licensed as a "public premises" by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. - Provides an area for serving alcoholic beverages that is operated during hours not corresponding to regular meal service hours. Food products sold or served incidentally to the sale or service of alcoholic beverages shall not be deemed as constituting regular food service. Building Elevation:The exterior wall surface formed by one(1)side of the building. Building Height: Building height is measured from the corresponding point on the roof to the exterior finished grade. If the building is on a sloping surface,the height measurement is taken from the building entrance. Exceptions include but are not limited to below grade parking structure entrances,motor courts,and retaining walls. See Graphic 1 on page 40484934. Business, Government and Professional: Offices of firms, individuals or organizations that provide professional, executive, management or administrative services (e.g., architectural, engineering, government, insurance, investment, legal, planning). Includes administrative, clerical or public contact offices of a government agency, including incidental storage and maintenance of vehicles. Support retail and service uses also allowed. Carts and Kiosks: Carts and kiosks are small, freestanding structures used for retail sales and services. Generally mobile in terms of ease of relocation, the structures can be seasonal, temporary or for a more permanent use. North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 35 November 10,2015 20 Land Uses,Development Standards&Procedures Section V.Definitions Commercial, Recreation and Entertainment: Establishments providing participant or spectator recreation or entertainment,either indoors or outdoors, for a fee or admission charge. Illustrative examples of these uses include: - arcades or electronic games centers having three or more coin-operated game machines - bowling alleys - billiard parlors - cinemas - ice/roller skating rinks - live entertainment - pool rooms - tennis/racquetball courts - theaters Cultural Institutions: Public or private institutions that display or preserve objects of community,or cultural interest in one or more of the arts or sciences. Day Care: Non-medical care and supervision of children or adults on a less than 24 hour basis, including nursery schools,preschools,and day care centers. Day Spas:Establishments that specialize in the full complement of body care including,but not limited to, body wraps, facials, pedicures, make-up, hairstyling, nutrition, exercise, water treatments and massage which is open primarily during normal daytime business hours and without provisions for overnight accommodations. Department Store: A store selling a wide variety of goods or services arranged in several departments. Eating and Drinking Establishments: Establishments engaged in serving prepared food or beverages for consumption on or off the premises. Emergency Health Care: Establishments that provide emergency medical service with no provision for continuing care on an inpatient basis. Entry Marker Sign: Sign used to provide information on activities and events, as well as advertise stores and shops within a shopping center. Eye Level:The height of 5 feet measured from grade. Freestanding Commercial: Any building with a commercial use which is separated from other commercial uses by parking and/or streets. Internal Pedestrian Street: Any walkway, path, plaza, arcade or corridor, either covered or open to the sky,which is primarily for use by people on foot and is not adjacent to the frontage road or common parking areas. Major Building:A mall building over 50,000 square feet. Major Tenant: A store or restaurant having a minimum of 10,000 square feet of floor space, which is located within or between other commercial buildings. Mall Building: Retail buildings where stores front a pedestrian walkway, which may be enclosed or open. North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 36 November 10,2015 27 Land Uses,Development Standards 8 Procedures Section V.Definitions Medical Retail: Sales of medical goods or services that are retail oriented. Illustrative examples of these uses include: - eye exam,eyeglass/contact lens sales - skin treatments - body scanning - dental enhancement treatments Minor Use Permit:Use permit issued by the Zoning Administrator. Monument Sign: Any sign that is supported by its own structure and is not part of or attached to any building. Parking Structure: Structures containing more than one story principally dedicated to parking. Parking structures may contain accessory,ancillary and resident support uses. Periphery Building: Building located along the ring of Fashion Island adjacent to Newport Center Dr. Personal Improvement: Includes those services that are personal and that promote the health and well-being of an individual. Personal Services: Establishments that provide recurring services of a personal nature. Illustrative examples of these uses include: - barber and beauty shops - clothing rental shops - dry cleaning pick up store with limited equipment - dry cleaning with no on-site equipment - home electronics and small appliance repair - postal services - locksmiths - self-service laundries - shoe repair shops - tailors and seamstresses - tanning salons - printing&duplicating - travel agencies/services - nail salon Podium Level:A superposed terrace conforming to a building's plan, a continuous pedestal; a level of vertical segregation linking separate areas. Primary Tenant:The largest tenant of a building. Project Identification Sign:A free-standing(single or double faced)monument sign containing the project name. Public Safety Facilities: Police,fire,paramedic and emergency service facilities. Regional Commercial Gross Floor Area:Refer to Section II.B.I above. North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 37 November 10,2015 22 Land Uses,Development Standards&Procedures Section V.Definitions Residential: An area within a structure on a parcel that contains separate or independent living facilities for one or more persons, with area or equipment for sleeping, sanitation or food preparation. Retail Sales: Stores and shops which sell various lines of merchandise for profit. This includes the sales of non-dumble and durable goods to customers. Illustrative examples of these stores and lines of merchandise include: - antiques - appliances - artists supplies - automotive accessories(no installation) - animal sales and services - bakeries - bicycles - books - cameras and photographic supplies - carpeting and floor covering - clothing and accessories - convenience markets/stores - department stores - drug and discount stores - dry goods - electronic equipment(including automotive installation) - food and beverages - gift shops -� - handcrafted items 11 - hardware - hobby materials - jewelry - real estate information center - luggage and leather goods - medical supplies and equipment - musical instruments,parts and accessories - office supplies - paint and wallpaper - pharmacies - shoe stores - specialty shops - sporting goods and equipment - supermarkets - tobacco - toys and games Rooftop Appurtenance: Rooftop appurtenances include, but are not limited to, mechanical equipment, stairwell and elevator shaft housing, antennae, window washing equipment, and wireless communication facilities. See Graphic I on page 40494934. Secondary Tenant:A small tenant;not the primary tenant of an office building. North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 38 November 10,2015 89 Land Uses,Development Standards 8 Procedures Section V.Definitions Senior Citizen Housing:Aresidential development for senior citizens(i.e.,persons 55 years of age or older)that has at least 35 dwelling units and conforms to Civil Code §51.3(b)(4). Service Tunnels: A corridor limited to access for building supply and maintenance personnel and equipment including horizontal and vertical tunnels and shafts, and freight elevators, not intended for customer circulation or access,and not for use as storage or office space. Sign: Any media, including their structure and component parts which are used or intended to be used out-of-doors to communicate information to the public. Sign Area: The area enclosed by a rectangle drawn around the working, numbers or images composing the sign. Sign Face:The physical plane and/or surface upon which the working or images are applied. Sign Letter:The individual symbols of the alphabet used in forming the words of a message. Shopping Center Identification Sign:A monument sign identifying a shopping center. Support Uses: Uses designed, oriented, andintended to primarily serve building, block, and proximate sub-area occupants and users. Such uses must be consistent with the pertinent regulations in Table 1. Tenant Sign: Any permanent sign of an establishment that is located on or attached to the storefront elevation, a covered walkway, or an awning for the purpose of communicating the name of the tenant. Temporary Sign: Any sign, banner, pennant, valance, or advertising display constructed of cloth, canvas, plywood, light fabric, cardboard, wallboard or other light materials, with or without frames,intended to be displayed for a limited period of time. Theater Sign:Any permanent sign used to communicate to the public the name of a theater and the show(s)or movie(s)that are offered. Vehicle Entry: Any intersection points along the public right-of-way that provide access for automobiles. Visitor Accommodations: Establishments offering lodging rooms, including bed and breakfasts,inns,hotel,and motels.Incidental support facilities are included within these uses. Wind Sign: A series of similar banners or objects of plastic or other light material more than 2 inches in diameter which are fastened together at intervals by wire, rope, cord, string or by any other means,designed to move and attract attention upon being subjected to pressure by wind or breeze. North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 39 November 10,2015 90 Land Uses,Development Standards&Procedures Section V.Definitions MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE ELEVATOR OVERUN TOP OF PARAPET F OFT QCC,UPIEO SPACE F S r, W S 0 2 J_ co m FINISH GRADE NOTE: In no instance shall any part of the building,including rooftop appurtenances or architectural features, penetrate the FAA(Part 77)imaginary obstruction surface for John Wayne Airport. Graphic 1,Example of Building Height and Rooftop .Appurtenances North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan 40 November 10,2015 9� Land Uses,Development Standards&Procedures Appendix—Design Regulations NORTH NEWPORT CENTER DESIGN REGULATIONS North Newport Center Design Regulations November 10,2015 9� Land Uses,Development Standards&Procedures Appendix—Design Regulations [this page intentionally blank] North Newport Center Design Regulations November 10,2015 93 Land Uses,Development Standards&Procedures Appendix—Design Regulations I. Introduction...................................................................................................................................I A. Purpose of Design Regulations........................................................................................................1 B. Newport Center Design Framework.................................................................................................1 C. North Newport Center......................................................................................................................4 II. Design Regulations........................................................................................................................7 Usingthese Regulations.............................................................................................................................7 A. Building Location and Massing........................................................................................................7 1. Site Planning Elements..........................................................................................................7 2. Building Envelope..................................................................................................................8 3. Building Character and Style.................................................................................................9 4. Building Materials.and Colors........................_..................... ............................................12 5. Parking Structures................................................................................................................12 B. Landscape.......................................................................................................................................13 1. Overall Landscape................................................................................................................13 2. Perimeter and Street Landscape...........................................................................................14 3. Parking Lot Landscape.........................................................................................................16 4. Internal Landscape...............................................................................................................16 C. Circulation......................................................................................................................................17 1. Streets and Pedestrian Activity............................................................................................17 2. Service and Emergency........................................................................................................20 3. Parking Lots.........................................................................................................................21 D. Orientation and Identity..................................................................................................................22 1. Gateways and Entrances......................................................................................................22 2. View Corridors.....................................................................................................................23 3. Landmarks............................................................................................................................24 4. Signage.................................................................................................................................25 5. Lighting................................................................................................................................32 North Newport Center Design Regulations November 10,2015 9-� Land Uses,Development Standards&Procedures Appendix—Design Regulations [this page intentionally blank] North Newport Center Design Regulations November 10,2015 95 I. Introduction A. Purpose of Design Regulations The Design Regulations expand upon the regulations set forth in the Planned Community Development Plan. The Design Regulations are intended to be used for reference by the City of Newport Beach as part of the plan review process.It is recognized that North Newport Center will be built and redeveloped over time and that not all regulations may be achieved nor are applicable for any given project. All new commercial and residential development shall be subject to the North Newport Center Design Regulations. Review for compliance of projects under this section shall occur through the plan review process,as defined in the Development Plan,prior to building permit issuance. B. Newport Center Design Framework Newport Center is a 600-acre master planned area. Development within Newport Center began in the 1960s and generally has followed the following guiding principles: 1. Strong physical urban design framework which provides structure and character yet allows flexibility 2. Synergistic mix of land uses,market driven to insure economic vitality 3. Balanced and dispersed auto access 4. Organized in"blocks"and districts to break down scale and provide identity 5. Pedestrian Orientation 6. Building massing that responds to topography, with taller buildings located along San Joaquin Hills Road 7. Unifying architectural and landscape character Aerial view of bluff(circa 1960) North Newport Center Design Regulations 1 November 10,2015 90 Early Newport Center Planning Diagrams and Sketches(circa 1960) ti. 1 ri" '9 rA \(\ � 0 � ti FY n "! The design regulations provide standards that govern future development so that, to the extent feasible, the initial design framework is carded forward and the design and development policies from the Land Use Element of the General Plan are implemented. North Newport Center Design Regulations 2 November 10,2015 9� General Plan Policies Newport Center The following policies from the Land Use Element are for Newport Center as a whole. Development within North Newport Center should contribute toward the policies whenever possible. • Development Scale. Reinforce the original design concept for Newport Center by concentrating the greatest building mass and height in the northeasterly section along San Joaquin Hills Road, where the natural topography is highest and progressively scaling down building mass and height to follow the lower elevations toward the southwesterly edge along East Coast Highway. • Urban Form:Encourage that some new development be located and designed to orient to the inner side of Newport Center Dr., establishing physical and visual continuity that diminishes the dominance of surface parking lots and encourages pedestrian activity. • Pedestrian Connectivity and Amenity: Encourage that pedestrian access and uses within the district be improved with additional walkways and streetscape amenities concurrent with the development of expanded and new uses. • Fashion Island Architecture and Streetscape: Encourage that new development in Fashion Island complement and be of equivalent or higher design quality than existing buildings. Reinforce the existing promenades by encouraging retail expansion that enhances the storefront visibility to the promenades and provides an enjoyable retail and pedestrian experience. Additionally, new buildings shall belocated on axes connecting Newport Center Dr. with existing building to provide visual and physical connectivity with adjoining uses,where practical. Mixed-Use District and Neighborhood The following policies from the Land Use Element are City-wide in orientation. Development within North Newport Center should contribute toward the policies whenever possible. • Mixed-Use Buildings:Require that Mixed-Use buildings be designed to convey a high level of architectural and landscape quality and ensure compatibility among their uses in consideration of the following principles: - Design and incorporation of building materials and features to avoid conflicts among uses,such as noise,vibration,lighting,odors,and similar impacts - Visual and physical integration of residential and non-residential uses - Architectural treatment of building elevation and modulation of their massing - Separate and well-defined entries for residential units and non-residential businesses - Design of parking areas and facilities for architectural consistency and integration among uses - Incorporation of extensive landscape appropriate to its location; urbanized streetscapes, for example, would require less landscape along the street frontages but integrate landscape into interior courtyards and common open spaces North Newport Center Design Regulations 3 November 10,2015 9 • Mixed-Use Building Location and Size of Non-Residential Uses: Require that 100 percent of the ground floor street frontage of Mixed-Use buildings be occupied by retail and other compatible non-residential uses,unless specified otherwise by policies for a district or corridor. • Parcels Integrating Residential and Non Residential Uses: Require that properties developed with a mix of residential and non-residential uses be designed to achieve high levels of architectural quality in accordance with policies related to the character and quality of multi-family residential and the architecture and site design of commercial districts, be planned to assure compatibility among the uses, and provide adequate circulation and parking. Residential uses should be seamlessly integrated with non-residential uses through architecture, pedestrian walkways, and landscape. They should not be completely isolated by walls or other design elements. • Districts Integrating Residential and Non-Residential Uses: Require that sufficient acreage be developed for an individual use located in a district containing a mix of residential and non-residential uses to prevent fragmentation and assure each use's viability,quality,and compatibility with adjoining uses. S Aerial of Newport Center—2007 C. North Newport Center North Newport Center consists of properties on the higher elevations of Newport Center between San Joaquin Hills Road and the Newport Center ring road(Blocks 400, 500, 600 and 800 and San Joaquin Plaza),as well as the core of Newport Center,Fashion Island,and Block 100. To the northeast is San Joaquin Hills Road,a wide boulevard on the ridge that forms the upper edge of Newport Center. To the south and southeast are office buildings, movie theaters, restaurants, service retail, the Newport Transportation Center, the Newport Beach Central Library, and Corona del Mar Plaza, a community retail center. Adjacent uses within Newport Center are office buildings, an North Newport Center Design Regulations 4 November 10,2015 95 apartment community, a resort hotel, art museum, police station, fire station, auto dealership, service station,and the Newport Beach County Club. North Newport Center is a mixed-use district that features an open-air regional shopping center,Fashion Island; a resort hotel; and a variety of office buildings that help form the skyline of Newport Beach; connected by a network of tree-lined streets and sidewalks, within a master planned environment featuring a consistent landscape. North Newport Center Design Regulations 5 November 10,2015 [this page intentionally blank] North Newport Center Design Regulations 6 November 10,2015 101 Il. Design Regulations Using these Regulations These regulations are intended to be used in conjunction with other applicable codes, documents, and ordinances to assess compliance of proposed projects. Each category of regulations begins with the intent, which describes the overall character that is envisioned and what objectives are necessary to attain the desired effect. A. Building Location and Massing Intent The intent of the building massing and location standards is to ensure that new development has an appropriate scale, is related to its use and location, and is properly integrated with adjoining land uses and features. 1. Site Planning Elements a. New commercial and residential buildings should respect the existing urban form, which generally consists of buildings that are organized orthogonally to create pedestrian-friendly courtyards and promenades that visually link the buildings into clusters,as seen in the diagrams below. �H 10� Y 4Hn 9 Z - N f{EIIENrE y a' Pedestrian promenade at Pedestrian courtyard at Building interface at Fashion Island 550 Newport Center Dr. San Joaquin Plaza North Newport Center Design Regulations 7 November 10,2015 102 b. In Mixed-Use sub-areas, the development of a complex of buildings is preferable to a single large structure because the varied massing provides visual interest and a human scale.Additionally,the spaces created between the various buildings provide opportunities for pedestrian plazas,courtyards and other outdoor gathering areas. C. New buildings should be oriented to and have features which reinforce and enhance the existing pedestrian experience. Mixed-Use sub-areas should emphasize pedestrian orientation by utilizing features such as plazas, courtyards, interior walkways,trellises,seating,fountains,and other similar elements. d. New retail buildings should be located to enhance tenant visibility and identity, while maintaining compatible relationships with adjacent structures and street frontages. e. New buildings should be arranged to provide convenient access to entrances and efficient on-site circulation for vehicles and pedestrians. Projects should develop a comprehensive open space network that uses plazas and other open space elements to connect uses. Open space areas and the paths that link them should facilitate the integration of adjacent land uses on the site. f New buildings with a strong street presence are encouraged in Fashion Island. g. Residential development shall provide common outdoor open space areas for residents.These areas should be configured and designed so as to address privacy for residential uses while also providing linkages to the public open space components of the project. It. Planning and developing shared facilities such as driveways, parking areas, pedestrian plazas and walkways, with adjoining properties, including those outside of the North Newport Center Development Plan,is strongly encouraged. oil :;Li Example of resident open space Example of office courtyard 2. Building Envelope a. New buildings should respect the existing development scale, which generally consists of high-rise buildings(10+ stories) clustered along the northerly section at the highest point in Newport Center. Mid-rise office buildings (5-10 stories)., low- rise office buildings,and retail development are generally located at lower elevations towards Pacific Coast Highway. North Newport Center Design Regulations 8 November 10,2015 :LL)S 3. Building Character and Style a. The character and style of new buildings located in Fashion Island should be compatible with the classically inspired architecture of the existing buildings in Fashion Island. The character and style of new commercial and residential buildings located in the mixed-use sub-areas should be compatible with the existing contemporary architecture or the classically inspired architecture of the existing buildings. b. New buildings within Fashion Island should continue and enhance the existing pedestrian experience by promoting storefront visibility. C. New buildings should reflect a timeless architecture with straightforward geometry, a unified composition, the expression of floor levels and structure, and solid parapets. Trendy, short-lived, idiosyncratic architectural styles are not appropriate; although retail storefronts may reflect the design theme of the merchant. d. The top of all roof-mounted equipment and communications devices should be below the building parapet or equipment screens in a manner that hides them from the street. The height of rooftop appurtenances shall not exceed the.height of the screening. e. Ground level equipment, refuse collection areas, storage tanks and infrastructure equipment should be screened from public right-of-ways views with dense landscaping and/or walls of materials and finishes compatible with adjacent buildings. f. Above grade equipment, including backflow preventers at domestic water meters, irrigation controllers,and cable television pedestals should not be visible from public right-of-ways,when feasible. g. Chain link fencing is not allowed,except to screen construction areas. h. Avoid long, continuous blank walls, by incorporating a variety of materials and design treatments and/or modulating and articulating elevations to promote visual interest. i. Architectural features should accomplish the architectural goal of extending the design elements of the building. j. New buildings on sites with sloping surfaces should be encouraged to utilize the existing terrain. Entrances to motor courts and parking structures are not included in the measurement of building height. North Newport Center Design Regulations 9 November 10,2015 2�J Example of appropriate high-rise Example of straight forward geometry and architecture expression of floor levels ■ Examples of classically inspired architecture Example of appropriate low-rise form It 5 Example of retail storefront visibility to pedestrians North Newport Center Design Regulations 10 November 10,2015 105 (Not to Scale) _ 11 i 1 � I -----120' 111 it i 1 V4 Example of architectural feature Example of architectural feature MECWWICALFENTIKKISE EIEVRTOR OVERUN / ROOFOFIAETOC IMSF�E �' TOiYER FMSNOR.�DF Example of building height measurement on sloping terrain North Newport Center Design Regulations 11 November 10,2015 10� 4. Building Materials and Colors a. Colors, materials, and finishes should be coordinated on all exterior elevations to achieve continuity of design. Stripes and patterns are not appropriate;although retail storefronts may reflect the design theme of the merchant. b. Clay tile, concrete tile,metal,and fabric are acceptable materials for low-and mid- rise roofs. C. Stone, metal, exterior plaster, exterior insulated finishing systems (EIFS), brick, concrete,wood,and glass are acceptable materials for building walls. d. Stone, metal, exterior plaster, exterior insulated finishing systems (EIFS), brick, concrete,wood,and glass are acceptable materials for railings. e. Service door and mechanical screen colors should be the same as, or compatible to, the adjacent wall colors. Example of appropriate retail finishes Example of appropriate low-rise finishes 5. Parking Structures a. The architecture of new parking structures should be compatible, complementary, and secondary to principal buildings. b. The design of new parking structures in Fashion Island shall incorporate elements (including landscaping)to soften their visual impact. C. New parking structures in Fashion Island shall be located and designed in a manner that is compatible with the existing pedestrian scale and open feeling of Newport Center Dr. d. Simple,regular forms are encouraged. e. Views of parked vehicles should be screened. E The visual appearance of sloping floors should be minimized. g. Interiors should be designed to promote a safe vehicular and pedestrian experience. h. Vehicular entries for non-residential parking structures should be obvious and inviting. North Newport Center Design Regulations 12 November 10,2015 ZOj i. Vehicular entries to exclusively residential structures should be incorporated into the structure so as to minimize the street presence of the parking structure entrance and to avoid interrupting the continuity of the street facing building elevations. Block 600 parking structure demonstrating West parking structure at Fashion Island rectangular form and vines to soften visual demonstrating rectangular form and varied impact landscape to soften visual impact B. Landscape Intent The intent of the landscape standards is to ensure that new commercial and residential development preserves and enhances the existing landscape character of North Newport Center. 1. Overall Landscape a. New development should promote an evergreen plant palette that is appropriate in the Mediterranean climate of Southern California. Plant materials should be of a native or drought-tolerant species where appropriate and provide variety, while being consistent with the existing landscape pattern and architectural design of the building. b. Landscape and site design will incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to address low-flow runoff and storm water runoff. Landscaped areas within the project will be provided and used to treat runoff from impervious surfaces and roof drains prior to being discharged into the storm drain system. C. The landscape palette should consist of two distinct groups of plant materials: - Accent planting,including palms,cypress,and color accents - Background planting,including evergreen canopy trees and shrubs d. The overall landscape should be dominated by background planting with accent planting in key areas corresponding to the land use and development intensity. e. Planting should be organized in layers of plant size and variety such as flowering, cascading, or climbing plants. Contrasts in color and texture should be used to enhance the layering of plants. North Newport Center Design Regulations 13 November 10,2015 102 Example of appropriate landscape variety Example of layering principles complementing the building form i Example of vertical and horizontal plant forms 2. Perimeter and Street Landscape a. The landscape on the perimeter of sub-areas and along streets of new commercial and residential development should complement the street tree pattern, enhance the pedestrian experience, screen parked vehicles, and soften the view of parking structures. b. Existing trees along public streets should be preserved, and new trees should be installed to fill in gaps. C. Evergreen hedges should be used to screen the lower portions of parked cars. d. Evergreen planting should be used to screen parking structures. North Newport Center Design Regulations 14 November 10,2015 pow • ;� � : illll 11, lllalnmamPkIIIlli Pill INII �i��iP uIWW f O Newport Center Dr.landscape variety San Nicolas landscape showing screening aI parked cars i IL ,. .., .Y r San Joaquin Hills Road landscape Landscape adjacent to 888 San Clemente parking structure North Newport Center Design Regulations 15 November 10,2015 110 3. Parking Lot Landscape a. New surface parking lots should have evergreen canopy trees to provide shade. b. A uniform evergreen tree type should be used for parking lot fields,with a different uniform evergreen tree type used to highlight the major parking aisles. C. Evergreen hedges should be used to screen parked can. till Fashion Island parking lot tree placement San Joaquin Plaza evergreen hedges that screen parked cars 4. Internal Landscape a. New courtyards and promenades should continue the existing pedestrian experience by promoting visual continuity,shade and an evergreen landscape. b. Trees should be installed to shade appropriate walkways and cause an interesting and varied pedestrian experience. Example of trees adding variety to Example of landscaping creating strong pedestrian experience visual continuity North Newport Center Design Regulations 16 November 10,2015 111 C. Circulation Intent The intent of the circulation criteria is to ensure that new commercial and residential development enhances existing circulation patterns by maintaining existing, upgrading existing and providing new street and walkway connections. 1. Streets and Pedestrian Activity a. New development should preserve and enhance the existing attractive street scene, promote safe and convenient driving practices,and encourage street level pedestrian activity. b. All buildings should be publicly accessible via a path or walkway from a public sidewalk. C. The crescent walk linking Block 400, Block 500 and Block 600 along Newport Center Dr. and pedestrian connections to/in Fashion Island should be preserved and enhanced where feasible. Connections from the crescent walk into courtyards, plazas, and other gathering areas in Block 400,Block 500 and Block 600 should be provided where possible. d. Each sub-area should demonstrate an internal pedestrian network of walks and paseos that connect to the larger Newport Center pedestrian system. e. Strong pedestrian connectivity, reinforced by protected walkways and landscaping, should occur between Newport Center Dr.and the retail core of Fashion Island. f. Amenities such as benches,plazas and other pedestrian-oriented facilities should be provided at pedestrian destinations. g. To promote the vitality of the public street scene, pedestrian bridges and tunnels which remove pedestrians from the street level are not allowed. h. New benches, street trees, directional signs, trash receptacles, and exterior lighting are encouraged in the public right-of-ways to reinforce pedestrian activity. i. Enhanced paving in crosswalks to highlight pedestrian pathways is allowed if it is compatible with the character of the existing development. >� r _ �vr Pedestrian walkway from Newport Example of pedestrian amenities Center Dr.to Fashion Island North Newport Center Design Regulations 17 November 10,2015 2�� r i 1 Example of pedestrian connectivity to the street Example of the crescent walk design (between 500 and 550 Newport Center Dr.) framework __ — .'� Pedestrian amenities in Fashion Island Example of pedestrian oriented enhancement S Pedestrian amenity in Fashion Island Storefront interface with pedestrians I Example of a strong pedestrian pathway Fashion Island Pasco North Newport Center Design Regulations 18 November 10,2015 2'13 te" - OAQl11N HILLS RGA' ^'^�� t4 ;� W� 1 Y. DesignCrescent Walk Vehicular Circulation Pedestrian Connection to Fashion Island North Newport Center November 1 2015 2. Service and Emergency a. New commercial mid residential development should promote efficient circulation for service and emergency vehicles. b. Major loading docks should be located away from front doors and from residential areas to separate service traffic from other traffic. C. Loading bays should be designed to minimize their visual prominence and any interference with pedestrian and vehicular flows. d. Turf-block may be used in landscape areas where fire access is necessary. e. Truncated domes should be a contrasting color, other than yellow, and should be coordinated with the paving material unless otherwise required by federal or state standards. Y I Fashion Island loading dock Fashion Island loading dock r North Newport Center Design Regulations 20 November 10,2015 22� 3. Parking Lots a. Parking areas should not create a separation between adjacent land uses and buildings. b. Parking lots at new development should promote efficient circulation for vehicles and pedestrians. C. Convenient, well-marked, and attractive pedestrian access should be provided from parking lots to buildings. d. The use of permeable surfaces is encouraged. M � Pedestrian entrance from surface parking at Well-defined pedestrian walkway in 500/550 680 Newport Center Dr.demonstrating flow Newport Center Dr.parking lot from parking to building Well-defined walkway from Newport Center Dr. into Fashion Island at San Nicolas North Newport Center Design Regulations 21 November 10,2015 22 D. Orientation and Identity Intent The intent of the standards for orientation, identity, and safety is to ensure that new commercial and residential development promotes wayfinding for residents and visitors, strengthens North Newport Center's sense of place,and produces a safe environment. 1. Gateways and Entrances a. New development should respect existing entries and, if entry modifications are required, should integrate with the existing vehicular and pedestrian circulation System. b. Key landscape elements at the"landscape comers"should be retained. San Joaquin Hills Road and Jamboree Road San Joaquin Hills Road and MacArthur ASHION CENTER San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Cruz Dr. San Joaquin Hills Road and Santa Cruz Dr. North Newport Center Design Regulations 22 November 10,2015 ll� 2. View Corridors a. New development should preserve views of major retail tenants in Fashion Island from Newport Center Dr. b. New development should capture views of the ocean from windows and decks at new restaurants,offices,and residences,where feasible. Fashion Island major tenant visibility Fashion Island major tenant visibility r Y il a Balconies at 888 San Clemente featuring ocean views North Newport Center Design Regulations 23 November 10,2015 22 3. Landmarks a. As appropriate,major new development may be positioned and designed to serve as a landmark within North Newport Center. b. Landmark elements may be included in building design to distinguish individual buildings and enhance wayfinding. C 63D The Island Hotel as a landmark building Wind chime as a landmark at Macy's Palms as a landmark at the southern entry into Fashion Island North Newport Center Design Regulations 24 November 10,2015 22�' 4. Signage a. New development should have signs that promote identity and wayfmding. b. Signs should be designed to clearly communicate their messages. C. Signs should be designed to complement the architecture and landscape. d. Identification signs should be designed to convey the image of the project or business. e. Wayfmding signs should be unified within each sub-area. f. Simplicity and legibility are encouraged. g. Ample blank space around sign copy is encouraged. h. Animated signs visible from public streets are not allowed unless otherwise permitted by the Municipal Code. i. Signs may be internally-illuminated, halo-illuminated, externally illuminated, or non-illuminated. j. Sign types A-K and their corresponding locations are shown on the following pages. SAN JOAQLAN Pi AZA 00 zi Project identification sign Business identification sign 1" PLAZA NORDSTR0 OPENIN Directional sign Temporary signs mounted on constniction fence North Newport Center Design Regulations 25 November 10,2015 2�� Land Uses,Development Standards&Procedures Appendix—Design Regulations Sign A— Large Cube or Blade Sign (existing signs as of June 2015) V � i A2 A3 A4 A5 FASHION NEWPOpT . � ' ISLAND [ENTEp � NEWPORT Isar. FASHION � � - � �• : FASHION ISLAND Al A6 500-520 Ar500-52 y - 1 Of Ne.poftCentert), �: "WWI . 9' A8 A7 North Newport Center �;v • s Design Sign B — Small Cube (existing signs as of June 2015) 610 7�k� � bhp :°�,,.�r650 � w��;,r� 620 �:«... B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 -k601 8 ;oo;tosoa ti �Soo l N IBon. 1411W L. 1l B8 B6 .>,,,,I . 450 T r, B9 B7 North Newport Center Design Regulations 27 November 10,2015 2�� Sign C - Freestanding Signs (existing signs as of June 2015) 680 MpICMF1GNIRE BANK ISLAND HOTEL w" NEIIIII IE LI C3 C8 C9 C10 ii ° C2 C15 u C1 C14 C _. C20 13 T�� N ��1l41� V C21 C17 C12 C11 North Newport Center Design Regulations 28 November 10,2015 Sign D — Landscape Walls (existing signs as of June 2015) Stradling Yocca Carlson&Rauth D4 D5 location D6 location D8 ,0� � W--�w - n. D3 D9 lCiTYNATIONALBANK as D11 D2 F. D1 D11 450 PACIFIC MERCANTILE BANK OF CALIFORNIA OAN D72 D11 D14 North Newport Center Design Regulations 29 November 10,2015 2�f Sign E, F, G, H, I and J — Miscellaneous Signs (existing signs as of June 2015) Sign E—Building Sign* Sign F—Building Address* Sign G—Freestanding Building Address Sign H—Advisory Signs* 660 660 � � ►� � ® 62. 0 G1 G2 Sign I—Drive Through Signs(none) Sign J—Apartment Leasing Signs f 'Photographs of Sign Types J2 E.F,and H are provided for reference purposes. A full inventory of those signs is not provided herein. 16{111 9 ' J1 North Newport Center Design Regulations 30 November 10,2015 125 Sign Office Leasing Signs (existing signs as of ULE—r r Y 1 KE! K5 K7 K9 .. y id Sl� if 1 1 4= 4 d F ASING 1 !P DesignNorth Newport Center November 1 2015 Land Uses,Development Standards$Procedures Appendix—Design Regulations 5. Lighting a. The exterior lighting at new commercial and residential development should be compatible with and enhance the existing lighting of the sub-area. b. Light fixtures at walkways and parking lots should be coordinated in height, color, and style. C. Light fixtures should not cast off-site glare. d. Building walls may be illuminated by downlights and uplights; light sources should not be visible from public view. e. Tops of buildings may be highlighted with bands of light. f Utilitarian light fixtures, such as floodlights and wallpacks, may only be used in service areas. g. Low sodimn lighting is not allowed. In. ATM lighting shall conform to state code without causing offsite glare, such as through the use of bollards, tree lights, pole lights, and soffit lights, rather than floodlights and wallpacks. i. In pedestrian areas such as courtyards, plazas, and walkways, lighting fixtures should be pedestrian scale. LO&W Appropriate light bollard at Block 600 Non-glare producing lights at 888 San Clemente North Newport Center Design Regulations 32 November 10,2015 2�� Planning Commission Resolution No.#/### Page 25 of 36 Exhibit "I"' Development Agreement 03-032015 128 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: City Clerk (Space Above This Line Is for Recorder's Use Only) This Agreement is recorded at the request and for the benefit of the City of Newport Beach and is exempt from the payment of a recording fee pursuant to Government Code §§ 6103 and 27383. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DA2014-02 between CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH and NEWPORT CENTER ANACAPA ASSOCIATES, LLC, a California limited liability company CONCERNING 150 NEWPORT CENTER 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08/10/16 129 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pase 1. Definitions............................................................................................................................3 2. General Provisions...............................................................................................................7 2.1 Plan Consistency, Zoning Implementation..............................................................7 2.2 Binding Effect of Agreement...................................................................................7 2.3 Developer Representations and Warranties Regarding Ownership of the Property and Related Matters Pertaining to this Agreement. ..................................7 2.4 Term.........................................................................................................................8 3. Public Benefits.....................................................................................................................8 3.1 Public Benefit Fee....................................................................................................8 4. Development of Project. ....................................................................................................10 4.1 Applicable Regulations; Developer's Vested Rights and City's Reservation of Discretion With Respect to Subsequent Development Approvals...............................................................................................................10 4.2 No Conflicting Enactments....................................................................................11 4.3 Reservations of Authority. .....................................................................................11 4.4 Tentative Subdivision Maps ..................................................................................13 5. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement.......................................................................13 6. Enforcement.......................................................................................................................14 7. Annual Review of Developer's Compliance With Agreement..........................................14 7.1 General...................................................................................................................14 7.2 Developer Obligation to Demonstrate Good Faith Compliance............................14 7.3 Procedure. ..............................................................................................................14 7.4 Annual Review a Non-Exclusive Means for Determining and Requiring Cure of Developer's Default..................................................................................14 8. Events of Default. ..............................................................................................................15 8.1 General Provisions.................................................................................................15 8.2 Default by Developer.............................................................................................15 8.3 City's Option to Terminate Agreement. ................................................................15 8.4 Default by City.......................................................................................................15 8.5 Waiver....................................................................................................................16 8.6 Specific Performance Remedy...............................................................................16 8.7 Monetary Damages................................................................................................16 8.8 Additional City Remedy for Developer's Default.................................................16 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08/10/16 1 230 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pm 8.9 No Personal Liability of City Officials, Employees, or Agents. ...........................17 8.10 Recovery of Legal Expenses by Prevailing Party in Any Action..........................17 9. Force Majeure....................................................................................................................17 10. Indemnity Obligations of Developer. ................................................................................17 10.1 Indemnity Arising From Acts or Omissions of Developer....................................17 10.2 Third Party Litigation. ...........................................................................................18 10.3 Environmental Indemnity, .....................................................................................18 11. Assignment. .......................................................................................................................18 12. Mortgagee Rights...............................................................................................................20 12.1 Encumbrances on Property. ...................................................................................20 12.2 Mortgagee Protection.............................................................................................20 12.3 Mortgagee Not Obligated. .....................................................................................20 12.4 Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee to Cure...............................20 13. Miscellaneous Terms. ........................................................................................................21 13.1 Notices. ..................................................................................................................21 13.2 Project as Private Undertaking...............................................................................21 13.3 Cooperation............................................................................................................22 13.4 Estoppel Certificates. .............................................................................................22 13.5 Rules of Construction. ...........................................................................................22 13.6 Time Is of the Essence...........................................................................................22 13.7 Waiver....................................................................................................................22 13.8 Counterparts...........................................................................................................23 13.9 Entire Agreement...................................................................................................23 13.10 Severability. ...........................................................................................................23 13.11 Construction...........................................................................................................23 13.12 Successors and Assigns; Constructive Notice and Acceptance.............................23 13.13 No Third Party Beneficiaries. ................................................................................24 13.14 Applicable Law and Venue....................................................................................24 13.15 Section Headings. ..................................................................................................24 13.16 Incorporation of Recitals and Exhibits. .................................................................24 13.17 Recordation............................................................................................................25 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08/10/16 ii 131 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (Pursuant to California Government Code sections 65864-65869.5) This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is dated for reference purposes as of the day of 2016, and is being entered into by and between the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ("Ciff") and NEWPORT CENTER ANACAPA ASSOCIATES, 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 11P .11 RECITALS A. As of the "Agreement Date" (defined below) Developer holds fee title to that certain real property located in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California commonly referred to as 150 Newport Center, located at 150 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660-6906 (APN #442-231-12), bounded by Newport Center Drive on the north, Anacapa Drive on the east, the existing Gateway Plaza office complex on the south, and a parking lot that services the existing Corporate Plaza office park on the west (the "Prope "). Accordingly, Developer has an equitable interest in the Property and City and Developer are authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65865(a) and City Municipal Code Section 15.45.030. 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. In order 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 in order 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 (the "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" (the "Development Agreement Ordinance"). This Agreement is consistent with the Development Agreement Ordinance. D. Developer has agreed to pay a public benefit fee to City in the sum of Sixty-Seven Thousand Dollars ($67,000) per residential dwelling unit developed as part of the "Project" (as defined herein), including an annual adjustment to the public benefit fee based on the Consumer Price Index ("CPP'). City has determined that Developer's payment of this public benefit fee provides a significant public benefit to City and constitutes adequate consideration for City's entering into and performing its obligations set forth in this Agreement. E. The following land use entitlements for the Project are being adopted and approved by the City Council concurrently with its approval of this Agreement: 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08110/I6 -1- 132 General Plan Amendment No. GP2014-003 proposes to change the existing land use designation for the Property from "Regional Commercial Office (CO-R)" to "Multiple Unit Residential (RM)." This application also designates an anomaly for the site, adding 49 units to Statistical Area L I. Zoning Code Amendment No. CA20 14-008 proposes to change the zoning designations for the Property from Office Regional Commercial (OR) to establish a planned community development plan (PC) over the Property. Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2014-004 proposes to establish a planned community development plan (PC) over the Property (called the 150 Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan), with development standards for 49 condominium units. To establish a PC, a waiver of the minimum site area of 10 acres of developed land is necessary and is requested as part of the Project application. The applicant also is requesting an increase in the building height limit allowable at the site by the Zoning Code from 32 feet (with a flat roof) and 37 feet (with a sloped roof) to 83 feet 6 inches (including mechanical equipment on the roof). Site Development Review No. 502014-006 is requested pursuant to Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code because the Project involves a tentative map and proposes more than five dwelling units. Site development review would allow the construction of 49 multi-family dwelling units. Tentative Tract Map No. 17555 (NT2015-003) proposes to establish a 49-unit residential condominium tract on the Property. Development Agreement No. DA2014-002. Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER2015-002 (SCH#2016011032), including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program prepared and approved in conjunction therewith. F. This Agreement and the Project are consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan, as amended by the City Council prior to or concurrently with its approval of this Agreement in order to establish appropriate zoning 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; (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, City's police power; (iv) is consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), including all criteria, standards and procedures of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines requiring the preparation of an Initial Study and an Environmental Impact Report that has been approved by the City Council, 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) has been approved consistent with 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08110/I6 -2- 133 provisions of California Government Code section 65867 and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code chapter 15.45. H. On 2016, 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 , 2016, 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 , 2016, consistent with applicable provisions of the Development Agreement Statute and Development Agreement Ordinance, the City Council adopted its Ordinance No. (the "Adopting Ordinance'), finding this Agreement to be consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan in approving this Agreement. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, City and Developer agree as follows: 1. Defmitions. In addition to any terms defined elsewhere in this Agreement, the following terms when used in this Agreement shall have the meanings set forth below: "Action" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 8.10 of this Agreement. "Adopting Ordinance" shall mean City Council Ordinance No. approving and adopting this Agreement. "Agreement" shall mean this Development Agreement No. DA2014-002, as the same may be amended from time to time. "Agreement Date" shall mean the date this Agreement is recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. "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 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. 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08110/I6 -3- IS4 "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 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 Newport Center Anacapa Associates, LLC, a California limited liability company, and any successor or assignee to all or any portion of the right, title, and interest of Newport Center Anacapa Associates, LLC, in and to ownership of all or a portion of the Property. "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. GP2014-003; (3) Zoning Code Amendment No. CA20 14-008; (4)Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2014- 004; (5) Site Development Review No. 502014-006; (6) Tentative Tract Map No. NT2015-003; (7) Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER2015-002 for the Project, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program approved in conjunction therewith; and (8) 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 date of the Adopting Ordinance and to the extent they govern or regulate the development 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08110/I6 -4- 13.5 of the Property, but excluding any amendment or modification to the Development Regulations adopted, approved, or imposed after the date of the Adopting Ordinance that impairs or restricts Developer's rights set forth in this Agreement, 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, all other land use and subdivision regulations governing the permitted uses, density and intensity of use, design, improvement, and construction standards and specifications, procedures for obtaining required City permits and approvals for development, and similar matters that may apply to 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, as applicable: (i) the date that is thirty (30) days after the date of the Adopting Ordinance; (ii) if a referendum concerning the Adopting Ordinance or any of the Development Regulations approved on or before the date of the Adopting Ordinance 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 such Development Regulations and becomes effective, if applicable; and (iii) if a lawsuit is timely filed challenging the validity or legality of the Adopting Ordinance, this Agreement, and/or any of the Development Regulations approved on or before the date of the Adopting Ordinance, the date on which said challenge is finally resolved in favor of the validity or legality of the Adopting Ordinance, this Agreement, 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. 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. Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, however, in the event that for any reason the Effective Date does not occur on or before the third (3rd) anniversary of the date on which the City Council adopts the Adopting Ordinance then City shall have the right, exercisable in its sole and absolute discretion, to rescind the Adopting Ordinance and terminate this Agreement, and in such event neither Party shall have any additional rights or obligations hereunder after the effective date of such action(s). "EIR" shall mean Final Environmental Impact Report No. ER2015-002 (including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program) prepared for the Project and certified as fully compliant with the CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines by the City Council. 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08110/I6 -5- 130 "Environmental Laws" means all federal, state, regional, county, municipal, and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations which are in effect as of the date of the Adopting Ordinance, 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 sem., 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 sea., as amended; the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. Section 1801, et SeMc., as amended; the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 7401 et sea., as amended; the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251, et sem., 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 sea., as amended; the Federal Radon and Indoor Air Quality Research Act, 42 U.S.C. Sections 7401 et sea., 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, excluding any amendment after the Effective Date that impairs or restricts Developer's rights set forth in this Agreement, unless such amendment is expressly authorized by this Agreement, is authorized by Sections 8 or 9, 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. "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. "TIM" 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 that Developer is authorized and/or required to construct with respect to each parcel of the Property, as provided in this 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08110/I6 -6- 137 Agreement and the Development Regulations, as the same may be modified or amended from time to time consistent with this Agreement and applicable law. "Prope " is described in Exhibit A and depicted on Exhibit B. "Public Benefit Fee" shall have the meaning ascribed in Section 3.1 of this Agreement. "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 date of the Adopting Ordinance consistent with the Development Regulations and this Agreement, with the understanding that except as expressly set forth herein City shall not have the right subsequent to the Effective Date and during the Term of this Agreement to adopt or impose requirements for any such Subsequent Development Approvals that do not exist as of the Agreement Date. "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 and the Development Regulations applicable to the Property will cause City's zoning and other land use regulations for the Property to be consistent with the General Plan. 2.2 Bindin,e 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 as of 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; (vi) that neither Developer nor any co-owner 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08110/I6 -7- 138 comprising Developer is 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, or affecting Developer's authority or ability to enter into or perform any of its obligations set forth in this Agreement. 2.4 Term. The term of this Agreement (the "Term") shall commence on the Effective Date and shall terminate on the "Termination Date." Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, if either Party reasonably determines that the Effective Date of this Agreement will not occur because (i) the Adopting Ordinance or any of the Development Regulations approved on or before the date of the Adopting Ordinance 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 date of the Adopting Ordinance 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 Parry's rights or substantially increases its obligations or risks hereunder or thereunder, then such Parry, 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 similarly be null and void at such time. 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 13.10 (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. As consideration for City's approval and performance of its obligations set forth in this Agreement, Developer shall pay to City a fee that shall be in addition to any other fee or charge 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08110/I6 -�- -/ 139 to which the Property and the Project would otherwise be subject (herein, the "Public Benefit Fee") in the sum of Sixty-Seven Thousand Dollars ($67,000) per residential dwelling unit developed as part of the Project. Developer shall pay the Public Benefit Fee at the time the City issues the certificate of occupancy for the Project. The amount of the Public Benefit Fee shall be increased based upon percentage increases in the CPI Index. The first CPI adjustment to the Public Benefit Fee shall occur on the third anniversary of the City Council's adoption of the Adopting Ordinance (the first "Adjustment Date") and subsequent CPI adjustments shall occur on each anniversary of the first Adjustment Date thereafter until expiration of the Term of this Agreement (each, an "Adjustment Date"). The amount of the CPI adjustment on the first Adjustment Date shall be the percentage increase in the CPI Index between the second anniversary of the City Council's adoption of the Adopting Ordinance and the third anniversary of the City Council's adoption of the Adopting Ordinance. The amount of the CPI adjustment on each subsequent Adjustment Date shall be the percentage increase between said Adjustment Date and the immediately preceding Adjustment Date. The amount of the percentage increase in the CPI Index on the applicable Adjustment Dates shall in each instance be calculated based on the then most recently available CPI Index figures such that, for example, if the first Adjustment Date occurs on September 1, 2019, and the most recently available CPI Index figure on that date is the CPI Index for July 2019 (2 months prior to the first Adjustment Date), the percentage increase in the CPI Index on the first Adjustment Date shall be calculated by comparing the CPI Index for July 2018 with the CPI Index for July 2019. In no event, however, shall application of the CPI Index on any Adjustment Date reduce the amount of the Public Benefit Fee (or unpaid portion thereof) below the amount in effect prior to that Adjustment Date. Notwithstanding any other provision set forth in this Agreement to the contrary, during the Term of this Agreement City shall not increase the Public Benefit Fee except pursuant to the CPI Index as stated in this Section 3.1. 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 vesting 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 such 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, including any Permitted Transferee, shall fail to timely pay any portion of the Public Benefit Fee when due City shall have the right to (i) withhold issuance of the occupancy permit and any other building, inspection, or development permit or approval for the unit(s) for which the Public Benefit Fee remains unpaid or (ii) withhold issuance of building, occupancy, and other building or development permits for any other portion of the Project that at that time is under common ownership with Developer or Permitted Transferee, as applicable. City shall have the right to spend the Public Benefit Fee on any public purpose that City determines to be in the public interest, as designated by City in its sole and absolute discretion. The Public Benefit Fee is not intended to constitute a Development Exaction, is in addition to the 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08110/I6 -9- 140 Development Exactions applicable to the Project, and is not subject to restrictions on the use of various forms of Development Exactions. 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 City's discretion with respect to (i) review and approval requirements contained in the Development Regulations, (ii) 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 referred to in clauses (i)-(iv) of this sentence, City reserves its full discretion to the same extent City 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 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 date of the Adopting Ordinance. 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, 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 existing tentative tract maps, tentative parcel maps, or associated conditions of approval, consistent with City 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. 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08110/I6 -10- 1J 1 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. 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. Procedural regulations relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals, and any other matter of procedure shall apply to the Property, provided that such procedural regulations are adopted and applied City-wide or to all other properties similarly situated in City. 4.3.2 Processing and Permit Fees. City shall have the right to charge and Developer shall be required to pay all applicable processing and permit fees to cover the reasonable cost to City of processing and reviewing applications and plans for any required 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 Owner, and monitoring compliance with any requirements applicable to Development of the Project, all at the rates in effect at the time fees are due. 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08110/I6 21 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. 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; (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 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 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 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08110/I6 -12- 14S 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). 4.4 Tentative Subdivision Mans City agrees that Developer may file and process new and existing vesting tentative maps for the Property consistent with California Government Code sections 66498.1-66498.9 and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 19.20. Pursuant to the applicable provision of the California Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code section 66452.6(a)), the life of any tentative subdivision map approved for the Property, whether designated a "vesting tentative map" or otherwise, shall be extended for the Term of this Agreement. 5. Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. Other than modifications of this Agreement under Section 8.3 of this Agreement, 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 City of Newport Beach Municipal Code section 15.45.060 or by unilateral termination by City in the event of an uncured default of Developer. 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08110/I6 -13- 1-4' 6. Enforcement. Unless this Agreement is amended, canceled, modified, or suspended as authorized herein or pursuant to California Government Code section 65869.5, this Agreement shall be enforceable by either 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) days prior to each anniversary of the Effective Date during the Term. 7.3 Procedure. The City Council of City 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 City Council finds that Developer has so complied, the annual review shall be concluded. If the City Council 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 City Council's finding of non-compliance, and Developer shall be given at least ten (10) days to cure any noncompliance that relates to the payment of money and thirty (30) days to cure any other type of noncompliance. If a cure not relating to the payment of money cannot be completed within thirty(30) days for reasons which are beyond the control of Developer, Developer must commence the cure within such thirty (30) days and diligently pursue such cure to completion. If 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. 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08110/I6 -14- IL45 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 Parry alleging a Default shall have the right to 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 (ten (10) days if the Default relates to the failure to timely make a monetary payment due hereunder and not less than thirty (30) days in the event of non-monetary Defaults) in which the Default must be cured (the "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) days after it receives the Notice of Default, and thereafter diligently pursue said cure to completion. 8.2 Default by Developer. If Developer is alleged to have committed a non-monetary Default and it disputes the claimed Default, it may make a written request for an appeal hearing before the City Council within ten (10) 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) 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) 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. 8.3 City's Option to Terminate Agreement. 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 with respect to a non-monetary 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 sixty (60)mslo 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 equitable remedy available to it under this 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08110/I6 -15- 1' Agreement, 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) 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 either 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, 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, specific performance of this Agreement is necessary to compensate Developer if City fails to cavy 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. The Parties agree that monetary damages shall not be an available remedy for either 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 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. 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. 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08/10/16 -16- 247 8.9 No Personal Liability of City Officials, Employees, or Agents. No City official, employee, or agent shall have any personal liability hereunder for a Default by City of any of its obligations set forth in this Agreement. 8.10 Recovery of Legal Expenses by Prevailing Party in Any Action. In any judicial proceeding, arbitration, or mediation (collectively, an "Action") between the Parties that seeks to enforce the provisions of this Agreement or arises out of this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall recover all of its actual and reasonable 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 court costs, expert witness fees, attorneys' fees, and costs of investigation and preparation before initiation of the Action. The right to recover these costs and expenses shall accrue upon initiation of the Action, regardless of whether the Action is prosecuted to a final judgment or decision. 9. Force Majeure. Neither 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 Parry 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 a monetary obligation, including without limitation Developer's obligation to pay Public Benefit Fees, 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 active negligence of City or one 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 pursuant to this Agreement. City shall have the right 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 continence on the date of the Adopting Ordinance, regardless of whether the Effective Date occurs, and shall survive the Termination Date. 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08110/I6 -17- 148 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 Regulations 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, and court costs. City shall promptly notify Developer of any such Claim and City shall cooperate with Developer in the defense of such Claim. If City fails to promptly notify Developer 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 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). The indemnity provisions in this Section 10.2 shall commence on the date of the Adopting Ordinance, regardless of whether the Effective Date occurs, and shall survive the Termination Date. 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 date of the Adopting Ordinance until the Termination Date; provided, however, that no such Transfer shall violate the provisions of 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08110/I6 -1�' 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, 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. 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 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 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. 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08/10/16 -19- 160 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 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) days after receiving a Notice of Default with respect to a monetary Default and within sixty(60) 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) 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)-day period. In the case of a non-monetary Default that cannot with diligence be remedied or cured within sixty (60) 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) days and diligently prosecutes the cure to completion. 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08110/I6 -20- 151 13. Miscellaneous Terms. 13.1 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 With a copy to: City Attorney City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 TO DEVELOPER: Newport Center Anacapa Associates, LLC 901 Dove Street, Suite 270 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Attn: Ronald E. Soderling With a copy to: O'Neil LLP 19900 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 1050 Irvine, CA 92602 Attn: Dennis D. O'Neil, Esq. Either Party may change the address stated in this Section 13.1 by delivering notice to the other Party in the manner provided in this Section 13.1, and thereafter notices to such Parry 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 (iii) three business days after deposit in the mail as provided above. 13.2 Project as Private Undertaking. The Development of the Project is a private undertaking. Neither Party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect, and each Party 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. 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08110/I6 'L1_ 152 13.3 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. 13.4 Estoppel Certificates. At any time, either 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 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. Such estoppel certificates may be relied upon only by the Parties, their respective successors and assigns, and, in the event of an estoppel certificate issued by City, a Mortgagee of Developer, including a Permitted Transferee, and its actual or prospective Mortgagee. City shall be entitled to payment/reimbursement for its actual and reasonable costs of investigation and preparation of an estoppel certificate prior to issuing the same. The Party requested to furnish an estoppel certificate shall execute and return the certificate within thirty (30) days following receipt (assuming, in the case of an estoppel certificate to be issued by City, Developer has paid City the cost thereof, as provided above). 13.5 Rules of Construction. The singular includes the plural; the masculine and neuter include the feminine; "shall" is mandatory; and "may" is permissive. 13.6 Time Is of the Essence. Time is of the essence regarding each provision of this Agreement as to which time is an element. 13.7 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. 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08/10/16 -22- 153 13.8 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two 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 and the same agreement. 13.9 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. 13.10 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 neither 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 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 13.10 shall apply regardless of whether the Effective Date occurs and after the Termination Date. 13.11 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 either Party. 13.12 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. All provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land. 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 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08/10/16 -23- 15' 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 13.12 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. 13.13 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. 13.14 Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced consistent with the internal 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 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. 13.15 Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect construction or interpretation of this Agreement. 13.16 Incorporation of Recitals and Exhibits. All of the Recitals are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. Exhibits A and B are attached to this Agreement and incorporated by this reference as follows: EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION DESIGNATION A Legal Description of Property B Depiction of the Property 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08110/I6 -24- 155 13.17 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] 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08110/I6 -25- 1,50 SIGNATURE PAGE TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT "DEVELOPER" NEWPORT CENTER ANACAPA ASSOCIATES, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Ronald E. Soderling, its Manager "CITY" CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH By: Diane B. Dixon, Mayor ATTEST: Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Aaron Harp, City Attorney 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08/10/16 -26- 157 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 Orange On before me, a Notary Public, 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 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 Orange ) On before me, a Notary Public, 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 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08110/I6 -27- 158 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL A PARCEL 1, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 29, PAGE 34, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL B: A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER PARCEL A, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 76 PAGE 32 OF PARCEL MAPS,IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY AND ALL OIL, OIL RIGHTS,MINERALS,MINERAL RIGHTS,NATURAL GAS RIGHTS, AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS BY WHATSOEVER NAME KNOWN, GEOTHERMAL STEAM, AND OTHER MATERIAL RESOURCES AND ALL PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM ANY OF THE FOREGOING, THAT MAY BE WITHIN OR UNDER THE LAND, TOGETHER WITH THE PERPETUAL RIGHT OF DRILLING, MINING, EXPLORING AND OPERATING THEREFOR AND STORING IN AND REMOVING THE SAME FROM THE LAND OR ANY OT14ER LAND, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO WHIPSTOCK OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILL AND MINE FROM LANDS OTHER THAN THOSE CONVEYED HEREBY, OIL OR GAS WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS INTO, THROUGH OR ACROSS THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND,AND TO BOTTOM SUCH WHIPSTOCKED OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS UNDER AND BENEATH OR BEYOND THE EXTERIOR LIMITS THEREOF, AND TO REDRILL, RETUNNEL, EQUIP, MAINTAIN, REPAIR, DEEPEN AND OPERATE ANY SUCH WELLS OR MINES, WITHOUT HOWEVER, THE RIGHT TO DRILL,MINE, STORE, EXPLORE AND OPERATE THROUGH THE SURFACE OR THE UPPER 500 FEET OF THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM THE IRVINE COMPANY, A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, RECORDED FEBRUARY 20, 1992,AS INSTRUMENT NO. 92-099183, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY AND ALL WATER, RIGHTS OR INTERESTS THEREIN, NO MATTER HOW ACQUIRED BY GRANTOR, AND OWNED OR USED BY GRANTOR IN CONNECTION WITH OR WITH RESPECT TO THE LAND, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT AND POWER TO EXPLORE, DRILL,REDRILL, REMOVE AND STORE THE SAME FROM THE LAND OR TO DIVERT OR OTHERWISE UTILIZE SUCH WATER RIGHTS OR INTERESTS ON ANY OTHER PROPERTY OWNED OR LEASED BY GRANTOR, WHETHER SUCH WATER RIGHTS SHALL BE RIPARIAN, OVERLYING, APPROPRIATIVE, LITTORAL, PERCOLATING, PRESCRIPTIVE, ADJUDICATED, STATUTORY OR CONTRACTUAL, BUT WITHOUT, HOWEVER,ANY RIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE SURFACE OF THE LAND IN THE EXERCISE OF SUCH RIGHTS, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM THE IRVINE COMPANY, A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, RECORDED FEBRUARY 20, 1992, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 92-099183, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. APN:442-231-12 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08/10/16 A-1 159 EXHIBIT B DEPICTION OF PROPERTY tvEWPpRT CENTER DRNE S a� � o Ha p o I • I I m �I gp Lr t fi T O YI I 0 } a �p Y WFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE FEATURES Exhibit. 11 Of 2 I"=amns —I 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08/10/16 B-1 1�0 #157783v2 10218.2 B- 112/066751-0108 9650722.2 a08/10/16 B-2 2o2 F IROJECT SUMMARY FLOOR AREA: ALLOWABLE ,058S.F.(3:1 FAR RK97 PROJECT DIPSCRIPTION -TOTAL PROPOSFD FLOOR AREA- MULTI-STORY PROJECT THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF(1)MULT-STORY RESIDENTIAL: 164,058 S.F. (3:1 FAR) RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. 7 STORIES OF RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACEi REQUIRED 3 LEVELS OF UNDERGROUND PARKING BUILDING SHALL BE COMPLETELY SPRINKLERED. COMMON OPEN SPACE L5% F./UNIT 4,425 S.F. BUILDING CODE:CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2013 PRIVATE OPEN SPACE F TOTAL 7,344 S.F. OCCUPANCY TYPE:R-2 TOTAL REQUIRED rFA 11,769 S.F BUILDING TYPE CONSTRUCTIONm TYPE I-FULLY SPRINKLERED COMMON OPEN SPACE 4,425 S.F. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 7,344 S.F. TOTAL REQUIRED 11,769 S.F. LOT COVERAGEi LOT AREA: 54,686 S.F. REQUIRED BUILDING FOOTPRINT:29,800 S.F. LOT COVERAGE: 55%(EXISTING) WPQnlLIR ANACAPA FRONTAGE- BOV 15 FT B 15 FT BUILDING DEPARTMENT GROSS AREA: NEWPORT CENTER DR- 15 FT 15 FT 1ST FLOOR AREA: +/-29,800 S.F. WESTERN PRTY LINE- 0 FT 0 FT 2ND FLOOR AREA: +/-26,236 S.F. SOUTHERN PRTY LINE- 0 FT 0 FT 3RD FLOOR AREA: +/-26,201 S.F. PROVIDED 4TH FLOOR AREA: +1-26,201 S.F. ABOVE PODIUM* BELOW PODIUM 5TH FLOOR AREA: +1-26,201 S.F. ANACAPAFRONTAGE- 20 FT 15 FT 6TH FLOOR AREA: +/-26,201 S.F. NEWPORT CENTER DR- 20 FT 15 FT 7TH FLOOR AREA: +/-16,573 S.F. WESTERN PRTY LINE- 15 FT 0 FT B1 AREA: +/-43,973 S.F. 62 AREA: 43,755 S.F. SOUTHERN PRTY LINE- 20 FT* 7 FT +/- B3 AREA: +/-43.755 S.F. *NOTE: DOES NOT INCLUDE ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS TOTAL +/-308,896 S.F. PARKING GARAGE FLOOR AREA: +/-131,483 S.F. PARKING: REQUIRED RESIDENTIAL 98 STALLS VISITOR 25 STALLS PROVIDED RESIDENTIAL 98 STALLS VISITOR 25 STALLS Exhibit -page 2 of 2 112/0667J1-0108 9650722.2 a08/10/16 B-3 1�� Attachment No. PC 2 Draft Resolution for Denial 10S V� QP �P Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 26 of 37 Exhibit "G" Tentative Tract Map No. NP2015-003 03-03-2015 2�� VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO . 1791510 °p FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES A PO FASHION ISLAND IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE CNEWPORT OUNTRY CUBH A P P STATE OF CALIFORNIA PROJECT r H�. SITE w > ` n SAN MIGUEL DR _ AUGUST 10, 2015 CItgC CENT A / EX:FH PER EX. 12" WATER PER RESUB NO. 282 MAP ae RESUB VICINITY MAP I I II w \ NTS � 3 12"W 12"W 12"W 12"Wx 12"W 12"W 12 1 "W 2"W 1 W 12"W 1 "W pryy _ EX. 4" WATER PER N RESUB N01. 282 12"W 12 12"W SITE ADDRESS ANA_CAPA 3DR -� - � l l I 150 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE i EX 6" SFW � / 1 i/ � NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 � B"SS B"SS B"SS 777--- v"SS B"SS III--- B"SS 8"55 8"55 8"55 8"55 PER RESUB NO. 282 EX. S" SEWER /PER —D (S=0.-01) R-E-SUB-N0. 282 - P_RQP_. 6" SEWER AREA w N (S=0.0380) S=0.02-' EX. ELEICTRIC VA ULT ro PROP. DWY N EX DWY GROSS AREA: 54,687 SF (1 .26 AC) Cl- I PROP. DWY ° •— — _= c�S L)=�a (SL) o E(SC �E( C(SO 0 (SL) o E(S E(SL) — E(SL (SL) E(SL -— — E(SL) —° L'_ GENERAL NOTES o \ \ L=13.09' O I I -� _ _ LNT16'23"W. — -�, __25.._0.0 kn 00 u sC I� r �44.F5=--L_ --------v 2� _ 1 . EXISTING USE: CAR WASH (TO BE DEMOLISHED) p1� so so �- so so so so SD m -- s Ic 2. PROPOSED USE: 7 STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITH 3 STORIES OF II° I Q // — - - 'n - app-mss — 1� UNDERGROUND PARKING 49 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS 1`�� / ///i ,. /////ice/' PROP. 6" SEWER— ( ) B, �� N - S=0,0>2_ PROP. SD S OZ_ 3. NO NEW PUBLIC UTILITIES ARE PROPOSED. SITE TO UTILIZE EXISTING PUBLIC r \ —'S- ,' 7.3' UTILITIES IN PLACE. IIy� I^ c' 4. SEWER DISPOSAL SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED BY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH '! ""'=� PROP. BU.LD:LN G //////////////// </////////////////////////// i J,;'p� �L 5. THERE IS NO PROPOSED PUBLIC AREA 1V4.4' I i UNDERGROU'ND� �� i I Jam' Q O� 6. THERE IS PROPOSED OFFSITE PLANTING ALONG BOTH SIDES OF ANACAPA DRIVE G�pejJ� 1 7. SITE IS NOT SUBJECT TO INUNDATION OR STORM WATER OVERFLOW I 'u PROP. BUILDING PROP. 5' � r p F'> F' ��. 10 I I AT GR DE n�Y Y Y�n WALKWAYP���< G�P LEGAL DESCRIPTION I � EX LDG I I II OLISHED ❑ N Q PROP. FIRE THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE I WATE j i i// EX 18' ❑ I PROP. SD OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 1 WALKWAY ESMT II' EX. 10ACP PER I 1 i O(TO BE REDUCED {� PARCEL 1 , IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF I TRACT NO. 6015 ( TO 5' WIDT CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 29, PAGE 34, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE JOB NO. 65852 I u i °o I OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. N / / PROP. DOMESTIC Q i i °❑ U I _ LOT 1 //////////// //////////// //////i ° o A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER PARCEL A, IN THE CITY EX.. 15" SEWER PER (WATER I I II I� I N 0 3 OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN TRAGI N0. 60 '51 �I I( PROP. SD , °o BOOK 76 PAGE 32 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF JOB N0-6585)21l I I PROP. IRRIGATION i i�d ��� ` s� ❑ �� ❑ SAID COUNTY. (S=0.0328) 11 , N WATER I • `i?x s .�� it l y / r s I I �`.• _ EX. FH PER I II I � � s EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY AND ALL OIL, OIL RIGHTS, MINERALS, MINERAL RIGHTS, ITRACT /NO. 6015 II I I I — l 0 NATURAL GAS RIGHTS, AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS BY WHATSOEVER NAME KNOWN, JOB N0. 65852 \f GEOTHERMAL STEAM, AND ALL PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM ANY OF THE FOREGOING, THAT '1l PROP: 8" SEWER 0 22.3 PROP. DWY�S, MAY BE WITHIN OR UNDER THE LAND, TOGETHER WITH THE PERPETUAL RIGHT OF \ a"s S=0.02 I EX. ELECTRIC VAULT _ ° oo I I .� s \ •� DRILLING, MINING, EXPLORING AND OPERATING THEREFOR AND STORING IN AND II I O ❑❑ ! REMOVING THE SAME FROM THE LAND OR ANY OTHER LAND, INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO S _ 0 00 '! WHIPSTOCK OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILL AND MINE FROM LANDS OTHER THAN THOSE I II� � °O _I �o !/ �� CONVEYED HEREBY, OIL OR GAS WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS INTO, THROUGH OR EX. 8" SEW PER �� - / \ �/ ACROSS THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND, AND TO BOTTOM SUCH WHIPSTOCKED OR TRACT NO./6015 I I I — I / ^ / DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS UNDER AND BENEATH OR /JOB NO. 65852 �-- (S=0.01320 I O 0 I / // / ( BEYOND THE EXTERIOR LIMITS THEREOF, AND TO REDRILL, RETUNNEL, EQUIP, MAINTAIN, � /yam` / REPAIR, DEEPEN AND OPERATE ANY SUCH WELLS OR MINES, WITHOUT HOWEVER, THE C / ! CG RIGHT TO DRILL, MINE, STORE, EXPLORE AND OPERATE THROUGH THE SURFACE OR THE I EX BLDG I , I I / / �e ! UPPER 500 FEET OF THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED BE/DEMO/(SHED . •� I I 50 Il ��II1 N //, //// _ �� � FROM THE IRVINE COMPANY, A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, RECORDED FEBRUARY 20, 1992, RESUB NO. 368 �� ,N / AS INSTRUMENT NO. 92-099183, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. / L yv rn o/EX. PRIVATE CATCH BA51-N Z• h` I /U75. � 0000❑❑❑ 0000❑ ❑❑ ❑0000❑❑❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑❑ ❑❑ II ❑❑❑ ❑ b / 0 PER RESU.B-N0'. �j / 1 / / �J' b o ! /� / / ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY AND ALL WATER, RIGHTS OR INTERESTS THEREIN, NO :p- I, — EX. PRIVATE SD MATTER HOW ACQUIRED BY GRANTOR, AND OWNED OR USED BY GRANTOR IN s '/\P CONNECTION 368 CONNECTION WITH OR WITH RESPECT TO THE LAND, TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT AND y POWER TO EXPLORE, DRILL, REDRILL, REMOVE AND STORE THE SAME FROM THE LAND / } 329?05' - I � 8•W j j Fn �Sr OR TO DIVERT OR OTHERWISE UTILIZE SUCH WATER RIGHTS OR INTERESTS ON ANY / OTHER PROPERTY OWNED OR LEASED BY GRANTOR, WHETHER SUCH WATER RIGHTS EX. PRdUATE 10 SD SHALL BE RIPARIAN, OVERLYING, APPROPRIATIVE, LITTORAL, PERCOLATING, PRESCRIPTIVE, PERRES'JB NO. 368 ADJUDICATED, STATUTORY OR CONTRACTUAL, BUT WITHOUT, HOWEVER, ANY RIGHT TO a Ek. i1'2" WATER PER _ / lj , EX. 2" WATER , . a"W , - / ENTER UPON THE SURFACE OF THE LAND IN THE EXERCISE OF SUCH RIGHTS, AS 1RA'CT NO. 6015METER & RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM THE IRVINE COMPANY, A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, 2 JOB N0. 65852 �§ SERVICE PER / _ . - 6 _ - EX. 8" WATER PER RECORDED FEBRUARY 20, 1992, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 92-099183, OF OFFICIAL ry / / .� i \ •� RESUB N0. 368 s°W RESUB NO. 368 RECORDS. g APN: 442-231 -12 I LEGEND BENCHMARK EXISTING EASEMENTS OWNER/SUBDIVIDER N N PROPERTY LINE BENCHMARK DESIGNATION: ORANGE COUNTY SURVEYOR BENCH MARK "3S-45-79" 1O EASEMENT(S) FOR THE PURPOSE(S) SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL 20' 0' 10' 20' NEWPORT CENTER ANACAPA ASSOCIATES, LLC o EASEMENT LINE ADJ. ELEV. = 281 .761 ' THERETO AS DELINEATED OR AS OFFERED FOR DEDICATION, ON THE MAP OF 2804 LAFAYETTE AVE. MONUMENT RECOVERY: FD. 3 3/4" OCS ALUMINUM BENCHMARK DISK STAMPED SAID TRACT/PLAT; NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 0 CENTER LINE "3S-45-99" SET IN THE TOP NORTHERLY CORNER OF SCALE: 1 " = 20' TEL: 949.723.5854 12 DIRECTION OF FLOW A 4' BY 8' CONCRETE CATCH BASIN. MONUMENT ISo PURPOSE: WALKWAY LOCATED IN THE EASTERLY CORNER OF THE AFFECTS: A PORTION OF SAID LAND AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. CONTACT: TOD RIDGEWAY — —CATV — EXISTING CABLE TV LINE INTERSECTION OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AND SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD, 70' SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE i E EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE CENTERLINE OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AND 135' THE OWNERSHIP OF SAID LAND DOES NOT INCLUDE RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO OR CIVIL ENGINEER OF ESS, a C EXISTING GAS LINE NORTHEASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF SAN JOAQUIN FROM THE STREET, HIGHWAY, OR FREEWAY ABUTTING SAID �o °a oNq` HILLS ROAD. MONUMENT IS SET LEVEL WITH THE LAND, SUCH RIGHTS HAVING BEEN RELINQUISHED BY THE DOCUMENT, �� <1 ss — EXISTING SEWER LINE FUSCOE ENGINEERING yEL SIDEWALK. 16795 VON KARMAN AVE, SUITE 100 - NO. 063451 m SO — EXSITING STORM LINE RECORDING DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1970 IRVINE, CA 92606Exp. 09/30/16 A T EXISTING TELEPHONE LINE RECORDING NO: BOOK 9415, PAGE 743, OFFICIAL RECORDS ,•A W EXISTING WATER LINE BASIS OF BEARING AFFECTS: A PORTION OF SAID LAND AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN CONTACT: ORIANA SLASOR, P.E. CE 63451 SAID DOCUMENT. TEL: 949.474.1960 Sr civl\l BLDG BUILDING FAX: 949.474.5315 qTe or CAO1 z DWY DRIVEWAY THE BEARING N07°16'23"W ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF ANACAPA DRIVE PER PM w 29/34 IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF ESMT EASEMENT CALIFORNIA, WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARING w EX EXISTING z FH FIRE HYDRANT ®®9911 DATE: 02/23/2016 PROP PROPOSED FLOOD HAZARD STATEMENT c VESTING TENTATIVE SCALE: AS SHOWN SD STORM DRAIN ZONE "X" PER FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT MAP NO 06059CO382J JOB NO.: 1317-001 EFFECTIVE DATE 12/03/2009. FUSCOE Ilea®® TRACT MAP NO . 17915 DRAWN: NS w E N G I N E E R I N 6CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CHECKED: OSOL NO. DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION f u l l c i r c l e t h i n k i n g SHEET 1 OF 1 100 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 27 of 37 EXHIBIT "6H" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project-specific conditions are in italics) Site Development Review Conditions 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. The site development review authorizes the approval of a 45-unit condominium development as specified in the adopted Planned Community Development Plan. The project height shall be modified to roof height of 55-50 feet with mechanical equipment up to X60 feet as measured from finished surface in the PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan). 3. The project shall adhere to the development standards established in the adopted amended PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community 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. 2016011032 for the project. 5. Any change in operational characteristics, expansion in area, or other modification to the approved plans, shall require an amendment to this Site Development Review or the processing of a new Site Development Review. 6. This approval shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in NBMC Section 20.54.060 (Time Limits and Extensions), unless an extension is otherwise granted. 7. 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. 8. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 03-03-2015 207 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 28 of 37 9. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this approval. 10. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit "G" shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. 11. 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 project file. The plans shall be identical to those approved by all City departments for building permit issuance. The approved copy shall include architectural sheets only and shall be reduced in size to 11 inches by 17 inches. The plans shall accurately depict the elements approved by this Site Development Review and shall highlight the approved elements such that they are readily discernible from other elements of the plans. 12. 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. 13. Prior to the issuance of building permits, Fair Share Traffic Fees shall be paid for the new dwelling units (currently $1,748.00 per new additional dwelling unit) in accordance with NBMC Chapter 15.38. The applicant shall be credited for the reduction in commercial square footage and the remaining balance shall be charged or credited to the applicant. 14. Prior to the issuance of building permits, San Joaquin Transportation Corridor Fees shall be paid for the new dwelling units (currently $2,398.00 per new additional dwelling unit). The applicant shall be credited for the reduction in commercial square footage and the remaining balance shall be charged or credited to the applicant. 15. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain property owner authorization for any improvements proposed on adjacent private properties (160 Newport Center Drive , APN No. 442-231-14, and 202 Newport Center Drive, APN No. 442-161-17). 16. Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall submit a 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 Planning Division demonstrating compliance with the requirements of NBMC Chapter 14.17 (Water-Efficient Landscaping Ordinance). 17. 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 03-03-2015 102 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 29 of 37 cleaning as part of regular maintenance. Replacement street trees shall be a minimum 36-inch box and shall be replaced at the applicant's cost. 18. The project design shall maintain a 3-foot wide landscaped planter at the western edge of property. Retaining walls along the podium level shall not exceed 10 feet in height measured from existing grade as shown on the title constraints survey. Required guardrails shall be open in design. 19. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, 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. 20. Prior to the issuance of a 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. 21. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the plans shall demonstrate that the exterior fagade shall utilize low reflective building materials and window glazing tint to reduce nighttime light and glare. 22. 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. 23. The exterior of the property shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The homeowner's association shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. 24. The homeowner's association shall ensure that the trash dumpsters and/or receptacles are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of either fully self-contained dumpsters or periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Division. Cleaning and maintenance of trash dumpsters shall be done in compliance with the provisions of NBMC Title 14, including all future amendments (including Water Quality related requirements). 25. All proposed signs shall be in conformance with an approved Comprehensive Sign Program for the project site and provisions of NBMC Chapter 20.42 (Signs). 26. A Special Events Permit is required for any event or promotional activity outside the normal operational characteristics of the approved use, as conditioned, or that would attract large crowds, involve the sale of alcoholic beverages, include any form of on- 03-03-2015 1 O9 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 30 of 37 site media broadcast, or any other activities as specified in the Newport Beach Municipal Code to require such permits. 27. 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 150 Newport Center residential project including, but not limited to, the General Plan Amendment No. GP2014-003, Zoning Code Amendment No. CA2014-008, Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2014-004, Site Development Permit No. SD2014-006, Tentative Tract Map No. NT2015-003, Development Agreement No. DA2014-002, certification of Environmental Impact Report No. ER2015-002. 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 Conditions 28. The new elevator shall be gurney-accommodating in accordance with Article 30 of the California Building Code (2001 edition). 29. Automatic fire sprinklers shall be required for all new construction. The sprinkler system shall be monitored by a UL certified alarm service company. 30. A 2A 10BC Fire Extinguisher will be required for the R-2 Occupancy. The extinguisher must be located so that it is not more than 75 feet travel distance to reach an extinguisher from the front door of each unit. 31. The parking garage is classified as an ordinary hazard occupancy which requires a 2A20BC fire extinguisher. This fire extinguisher will cover 1500 square feet of floor area and the extinguisher must be located so that it is not more than 50 feet travel distance to reach an extinguisher from the garage floor area. 32. A Knox box will be required for the proposed structure. The Knox box must contain keys which will gain entrance to the building in an emergency situation. Also, keys to any mechanical room or equipment room will need to be placed in the Knox box. 33. As per California Fire Code Section 507.5.1, a fire hydrant will be required within 400 feet of all portions of every structure. The number of fire hydrants will be determined 03-03-2015 27L) Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 31 of 37 by the required fire flow for each structure. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a fire flow work sheet will need to be provided for the project and can be obtained from Newport Beach Fire Department Guidelines & Standards B.01. 34. An address shall be placed on all new buildings in such a position that it is plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. 35. Effective emergency responder radio coverage (800 MHz) will be required and shall comply with Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline &Standards D.05 Public Safety Radio System coverage. 36. Stairwell signage shall meet Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline & Standards D.01. 37. The following items will be required and will necessitate a separate plan submittal and permit: NFPA 111333 Fire Sprinkler System, Fire Alarm System, Standpipe System, and 800 MHz. 38. Gurney sized elevator with Phase I recall will be required as per C.B.C. Sec.3002.4a. 39. Smoke detectors will be required for the individual dwelling units as per C.F.C. Sec. 907.2.11.2. 40. Areas with an A" Occupancy will need to meet all requirements for an assembly type occupancy referenced in C.F.C. Section 1028. 41. Dumpster locations will need to meet Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline & Standard A.16 with regard to requirements for locations of dumpsters. 42. Car charging stations will need to be shown on plans and must comply with National Electrical Code 625.5. 43. Emergency power outlets are required as per Newport Beach Fire Department amendment to the California Fire Code. Amendment states: Provide and install electrical outlets (120 volt, duplex) that are connected to the emergency generator circuitry/system when a generator is required by Section 604.2 of the CFC. The electrical outlets shall be provided in the following locations: a. In the main exit corridor of each floor, adjacent to each exit enclosure. b. On every level in every stairwell. c. In each elevator lobby. d. In public assembly areas larger than 1,500 square feet. e. In every fire control room. f. In such other areas as may be designated by the fire code official. 44. An exclusive off-street staging area shall be provided for emergency vehicles. The size of the area will need to accommodate the height and width of a fire engine and medic 03-03-2015 272 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 32 of 37 unit and should be close to the main entrance into the development. The minimum width of the emergency access area is 20 feet to accommodate the ladder truck stabilizers. The access area needs to be designed for ladder use; therefore the access area shall be open from ground to building height with a vertical clearance of 14-feet 45. Exterior walkways must be shown with plan review and designed to accommodate hand carrying of firefighter ladders for use of `ground" laddering of building. The largest ladder utilized will be 35-foot ladder with a storing length of 20.5 feet long. 46. Laddering opportunities must be provided around the perimeter of the structure in areas designated by the Fire Department. Landscape will need to be minimized in these areas and a "laddering pad' (rectangular concrete area) located in the planter area may be necessary for the ladder footing. Building Division Conditions 47. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. Approval from the Orange County Health Department is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. 48. 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 25 mph. Emissions • Require 90-day low-NOx tune-ups for off road equipment. • Limit allowable idling to 30 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment Off-Site Impacts • Encourage carpooling for construction workers. • Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods. • Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. • Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site. • Sweep access points daily. • Encourage receipt of materials during non-peak traffic hours. • Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. Fill Placement 03-03-2015 272 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 33 of 37 • 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 a 10 percent soil moisture content in the top six-inch surface layer, subject to review/discretion of the geotechnical engineer. 49. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the City with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. 50. 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. 51. A list of "good house-keeping" 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. 52. The building shall be designed as a Type I-A construction. 53. Limitations exist on the amount of opening allowed in a Type I building, when the exterior wall is less than 15 feet from the property line and less than 20 feet from the property line. 54. A grading and shoring bond shall be required prior to grading or building permit issuance. The bond shall be based on the total value of excavation, grading and shoring work. 55. A geotechnical report shall be submitted to the Building Division for review prior to permit issuance. The review shall include a study on the potential for liquefaction. 56. A drainage and hydrology study shall be submitted for review prior to permit issuance. 03-03-2015 17S Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 34 of 37 57. Cal Green and Energy commissioning and acceptance testing may be required at the time of permit issuance. 58. All residential units must be compliant for disabled access. Units are to be accessible and adaptable. 59. The subterranean parking garage shall provide 8-foot 2-inch minimum vehicular clearance. 60. A shoring plan shall be submitted prior to building permit issuance. Tentative Tract Map 61. A Tract Map shall be recorded. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAVD88). Prior to the recordation of the Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital-graphical file of said map in a manner described in Section 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual Sub article 18. The Map submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 62. Prior to the recordation of the Tract Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the horizontal control system established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Section 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and the Orange County Subdivision Manual, sub article 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag shall be set on each lot corner unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer). Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of the construction project. 63. Applicant shall establish survey points within the public right-of-way along the project frontages of Anacapa Drive and Newport Center Drive East to monitor movement of City facilities (utilities, sidewalk, street, etc.) due to the construction of the proposed project. Any damage to said City facilities shall be repaired at the project's sole expense. 64. Prior to the recordation of the Tract Map, a Subdivision Agreement shall be obtained and approved by the City Council. 65. Prior to Final Map approval, the applicant shall provide a Faithful Performance Bond and a Labor and Materials Bond, each for 100 percent of the estimated public improvements. An engineer's cost estimate shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer and approved by the Public Works Director. 66. Tentative Tract Map No. 17915 shall expire 24 months from the date of approval pursuant to NBMC Chapter 19.16.010, unless an extension is otherwise granted by the 03-03-2015 1,74. Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 35 of 37 City for the period of time provided for in the Development Agreement pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 66452.6(a). 67. Prior to recordation of the tract map, Park Fees shall be paid for the 45 new dwelling units (currently $26,125.00 per unit) in accordance with City Council Resolution No. 2007-30. 68. City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 17915 is in conjunction with its approval of Development Agreement No. DA2012-003 for the same project (the "DA'). Pursuant to Sections 2.2 and 2.4 of the DA and the terms used therein that are defined in Section 1 of the DA, the "Term" of the DA becomes effective on the "Effective Date"of the DA. Tentative Tract Map No. 17915 and the DA comprise parts of a single integrated action and are not severable from one another. Accordingly, notwithstanding any other provision set forth in Tentative Tract Map No. 17915 to the contrary, in no event shall the owner, lessee, or other occupant or any person or entity holding any interest in the subject property acquire any right to develop or use the subject property as authorized or provided herein unless and until the Effective Date in the DA occurs and the Term of the DA commences. In the event the DA is terminated for any reason before the Effective Date of the DA occurs, including without limitation as a result of the mutual termination of the DA by the Parties thereto, the occurrence of an uncured material default under the DA by either Party and a termination of the DA by the non-defaulting Party, or the failure of the Effective Date of the DA to occur prior to the deadline set forth in the DA, as said deadline may be extended by mutual agreement of the Parties to the DA, then in such event Tentative Tract Map No. 17915 automatically shall become null and void and of no further force or effect, without any need or requirement for the City to schedule any public hearings or take any affirmative action or actions to revoke or rescind the same. 69. A 5-foot wide pedestrian access easement shall be maintained at the southerly property line. Permanent structures shall not be permitted within this 5-foot area. 70. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the modular wetland unit for storm water treatment shown on Sheet 2.0 of the project plans shall be relocated so that it is outside of the 5-foot pedestrian easement at the southern edge of the subject property. 71. The 3-foot wide pedestrian access easement shall be maintained at the easterly property line. Permanent structures shall not be permitted within this 3-foot area. 72. No permanent structural encroachments (i.e. tie-backs, caissons, retaining walls, etc.) within the public right-of-way will be permitted unless otherwise approved by the City Council. 73. Removable temporary tie-backs (only the detached rod-end may remain) will be permitted only if the entire removable temporary tie-back is located a minimum of 20 feet deep (measured from shallowest point) and does not project past the curb face along Newport Center Drive east and Anacapa Drive. 03-03-2015 1715 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 36 of 37 74. The parking garage layout and internal circulation shall comply with City Standard STD-805-L-A and STD-805-L-B. 75. The driveway approach and sidewalk within the public right-of-way and easement areas shall be installed and constructed per City Standard. 76. The two new driveways along Anacapa Drive shall be installed per City Standard STD- 160-L-A or STD-1 61-L or per the waiver of Council Policy Driveway L-2. 77. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the project plans shall be modified to reflect a stop sign at the internal circulation drive-aisle of Block 100 to ensure that vehicles traveling east bound can adequately see vehicles exiting the residential parking structure. 78. Prior to final building permits, the applicant shall reconstruct the curb, gutter, and sidewalk per City Standards along the entire project frontages of Newport Center Drive East and Anacapa Drive. 79. Prior to final building permits, the applicant shall install an ADA compliant curb ramp at the southerly driveway and Anacapa Drive. 80. Anacapa Drive and Newport Center Drive East area on the City's street-cut moratorium list. Trenching/damage to said street will require extensive street repair per City Standard STD-105-L-F. 81. 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 shall be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 82. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance standard STD-110-L. 83. The direct access from the valet/drop-off/pick-up area to the garage shall be one-way inbound to the garage only and the maximum width shall be 18 feet wide. 84. Ingress and egress access shall be maintained along the southerly access drive from Anacapa Drive. Open access over the south driveway shall be maintained at all times during the construction process. 85. Moving vehicle and parcel delivery shall occur at the main building entry off Anacapa Drive. 86. Trash truck service shall occur at the south driveway and shall not block passing vehicles or access to the residential garage. A minimum width of 12 feet shall be maintained for passing vehicles at the south driveway. 03-03-2015 X70 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 37 of 37 87. Should reclaimed water infrastructure be constructed along Newport Center Drive, the site's existing potable irrigation system shall be converted and connected to reclaimed water infrastructure within one year of its availability. 88. All on-site drainage shall comply with the latest City water quality requirements. 89. Prior to commencement of demolition and grading of the project, the applicant shall submit a construction management and delivery plan to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The plan shall include discussion of project phasing; parking arrangements for both sites during construction; 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. 90. During the construction process, truck hauling shall be prohibited during the PM peak hour after 4:00 p.m. 91. Prior to commencement of demolition and -grading of the project, traffic control and truck route plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department before their implementation. Large construction vehicles shall not be permitted to travel narrow streets as determined by the Public Works Department. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagman. 92. Prior to commencement of demolition and grading of the project, an adequate off-site employee parking arrangement shall be finalized. 93. Any lane closures shall be subject to the discretion of the Public Works Department and require a separate Temporary Street and Sidewalk Closure Permit. 94. During construction activities, the project applicant shall allow representatives of cultural organizations, including Native American tribes (i.e., Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians), to access the project site on a volunteer basis to monitor grading and excavation activities. 95. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of any building permits. 03-03-2015 177 RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2014-003, CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2014-008, PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. PC2014-004, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SD2014-006, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. NT2015-003, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DA2014-002, FOR A 45-UNIT MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 150 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE (PA2014-213) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Newport Anacapa Associates, LLC, with respect to property located at 150 Newport Center Drive, and legally described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 29-34 (Resubdivision No. 282) being a portion of Block 93 of Irvine's subdivision as per map recorded in Book 1, Page 88 of Miscellaneous Record Maps, records of Orange County, California. 2. The applicant proposes the demolition of an existing 8,500-square-foot car-wash, convenience market, and gas station to accommodate the development of a 5-story, 45- unit residential condominium building with three levels of subterranean parking. The applicant requests following approvals from the City of Newport Beach: • General Plan Amendment (GPA) - to change the land use category from CO-R (Regional Commercial Office) to RM (Multi-Unit Residential) and establish an anomaly (Table LU2) designation for 45 dwelling units. • Zoning Code Amendment - to change the Zoning District designation from OR (Office Regional Commercial) to PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community District) over the entire site. • Planned Community Development Plan - to amend the PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community) to incorporate the project as a portion of the Block 100 sub-area and approve 45 residential condominium units with a maximum height of 50 feet for the subject property. • Site Development Review - to allow the construction of 45 multi-family dwelling units. • Tentative Tract Map - to establish a 45-unit residential condominium tract on a 1.3 acre site. • Development Agreement - to establish a proposed development agreement that would provide public benefits should the project be approved. • Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - to address reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts resulting from the legislative and project specific discretionary approvals, the City has determined that an Initial Study and Environmental Impact z72 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 2 of 4 Report (EIR) are warranted for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 3. The subject property is located within the OR (Office Regional Commercial) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is CO-R (Regional Commercial Office). 4. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 5. A study session was held on June 23, 2016, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach to introduce the project to the Planning Commission and review the conclusions of the draft EIR. No action was taken at the study session. 6. A public hearing was held on July 21, 2016, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. The item was continued to the August 18, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting. 7. A public hearing was held on August 18, 2016, in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. The item was re-noticed for the September 1, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting. 8. A public hearing was held on September 1, 2016, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 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 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. 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 03-03-2015 179 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 3 of 4 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. Site Development Review A site development review is required for the construction of five or more residential units processed in conjunction with a tentative tract map. The 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 Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Review). In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings based upon the following: 1. The Planning Commission determined, in this case, that the proposed Site Development Review for 45 residential condominium units is not consistent with the legislative intent of Title 20 of the NBMC. The proposed project may prove detrimental to the community. 2. The Planning Commission determined, in this case, that the proposed Site Development Review for 45 residential condominium units 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, height, location, size, and characteristics of the proposed project are not compatible with the residential and commercial uses in the vicinity. The project may result in negative impacts to residents and businesses in the vicinity and would not be compatible with the enjoyment of the nearby residential properties. Tract Map A tentative tract map is requested for residential condominium purposes, to create 45 condominium units. The Planning Commission may approve a tentative tract map only after making each of the required findings set forth in Section 19.12.070 (Required Findings for Action on Tentative Maps). In this case, the Planning Commission was unable to make the required findings based upon the following: 1. The Planning Commission determined, in this case, that the proposed map for 45 residential condominium units and associated improvements of the subdivision are inconsistent with the General Plan and the legislative intent of Title 19 of the NBMC. The proposed project may prove detrimental to the community. 03-03-2015 120 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 4 of 4 2. That the site is not physically suitable for the type and density of development. 3. The design, location, size, and characteristics of the proposed subdivision are not compatible with the surrounding development pattern in the vicinity. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council of the City of Newport Beach deny without prejudice General Plan Amendment No. GP2014-003, Code Amendment No. CA2014-008, Planned Community Development Plan No. PC-2014- 004, Site Development Review no. SD2014-006, Tentative Tract Map No. NT2015- 003, and Development Agreement No. DA2014-002 for a 45-unit multi-family residential development located at 150 Newport Center. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Kory Kramer, Chairman BY: Peter Zak, Secretary 03-03-2015 2 g2 V� QP �P 2g� Attachment No. PC 3 Planning Commission Packet from July 21 , 2016 (Available separate due to bulk) htti)://ecros.newportbeachca.gov/Web/0/do c/850970/Page1.aspx 122 V� QP �P 2g� Attachment No. PC 4 Planning Commission Packet from August 18, 2016 (Available separate due to bulk) httip://ecms.newportbeachca.gov/Web/Br owse.asox?d bid=0&startid=856790&row =1&cr=1 1g6 V� QP �P 2g� Attachment No. PC 5 Planning Commission Minutes from July 21, 2016 127 V� QP �P egg NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7/21/16 n made by Commissioner Dunlap and seconded by Vice Chair Koetting to approve and file the minutes of the Pla 'ng Commission meeting of July 11, 2016, as amended. AYES: Dun Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, Koetting, Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2. TROESH RESIDENCE APPEAL(PA2015-122) Site Location: 336 Catalina Drive and 333 La Jolla D ContinUeto August 18, 2016 under Request for Continuance . O150 NEWPORT CENTER(PA2014-213) Site Location: 150 Newport Center Drive Summary: Community Development Director Brandt introduced the item. Associate Planner Nova presented a PowerPoint presentation outlining the legislative applications, changes since the June 23, 2016 study session, vicinity map of the project site, existing residential development in Statistical Area L-1, Zoning Code Amendment and requested Planned Community Development Plan with 10-acre minimum waiver, proposed project height, existing building heights in the south end of the Newport Center area, building setbacks, view impacts, and public comments. She noted the applicant has decreased the number of units to 45 and reduced the height of the proposed project to 6 stories (65 feet 6 inches to top of roof) from 7 stories (75 feet 6 inches to top of roof). Additionally, staff is recommending a further reduction in height to 5 stories (55 feet to the top of roof). Community Development Director Brandt presented a PowerPoint presentation explaining Charter Section 423, (Greenlight and/or Measure S analysis) with regard to a major General Plan amendment. She discussed the threshold calculation and trigger for voter approval. She stated the primary question before the Planning Commission was whether a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is appropriate for the property. Chair Kramer stated the Commission would be reviewing the legislative issues including, GPA, code amendment and planned community development plan. He explained that the site development review, tentative tract map, Development Agreement (DA) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be considered at the next hearing. In response to Vice Chair Koetting, Associate Planner Nova described the extent of the North Newport Center Planned Community. She explained the application requested by the Irvine Company in 2009 to incorporate the central portion of Block 100 into the North Newport Center Planned Community. Vice Chair Koetting questioned why all of Block 100 was not included. He asked about the vision for Fashion Island. Community Development Director Brandt stated Fashion Island was a regional shopping destination. She explained the concentration and intensity of development in the upper half of Newport Center. Vice Chair Koetting questioned why the City previously approved the height increase for Block 100. Associate Planner Nova explained that this was an individual application request made by the property owner of the middle of Block 100 whereas the other parcels are under a different property ownership. For this application, she explained staff's consideration of height limits and existing building heights in the area as a range of heights in Newport Center when preparing a recommendation as to whether a height increase is appropriate for the area. Chair Kramer stated it was necessary to determine what was best for this Applicant's parcel, Block 100 and Newport Center. He discussed inconsistencies and anomalies in the surrounding blocks. He indicated support for mixed use including residential and suggested the possibility of a Mixed Use (MU) Page 2 of 8 1 eq NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7/21/16 designation. Associate Planner Nova stated the applicant requested RM and MU which could be denser. Chair Kramer expressed concern with the waiver of 10-acre minimum for a planned community district and suggested 150 Newport Center be incorporated into an existing planned community. Associate Planner Nova stated the project could be incorporated as a subarea of North Newport Center. Community Development Director Brandt recommended incorporating it into North Newport Center because it is contiguous. Chair Kramer discussed existing grade and proposed height. Associate Planner Nova stated staff had suggested a 50-foot height limit to the applicant. She explained that by removing one additional floor, the project height would be 55 feet and the overall height would be 61 feet with appurtenances. Chair Kramer expressed concern with the setbacks and driveway issues. He stated it was necessary to determine the appropriate number of units and height. Commissioner Weigand discussed responses to the EIR and read a portion of the Irvine Company letter. He requested copies of the responses. Associate Planner Nova explained that responses were being prepared for CEQA related comment letters and would be available for the August 4, 2016 meeting. In response to Commissioner Dunlap, Associate Planner Nova stated the project was 1.3 acres. She stated the EIR considered 49 units and 7 stories. In response to Commissioner Lawler, Associate Planner Nova explained that the existing 12 planned community waivers in the City ranged from 0.76 acres to 9.63 acres, with half of those under 2 acres in area. She explained the benefits of a planned community which provides more flexible development standards. Community Development Director Brandt clarified the 20 percent reduction in units for prior General Plan Amendments that applies under Section 423. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Community Development Director Brandt stated staff would bring back options for combining 150 Newport Center in other planned communities within Newport Center and a breakdown and background of existing planned communities with a waiver of the 10-acre minimum. Chair Kramer requested historical background on the 32-foot height limit for properties In Newport Center particularly Block 100. Commissioner Hillgren discussed height restrictions in relation to the cascading master plan and view protection. He suggested a taller and thinner rather than a short and wide project. In response to Vice Chair Koetting about the 100 dwelling unit threshold, Community Development Director Brandt clarified that there are only 5 unbuilt/entitled dwelling units remaining in Newport Center and the proposed application requires an increase in units currently allowed under the General Plan. She explained that the 100 unit threshold is tied to Charter Section 423 and the trigger for voter approval. She stated the threshold applies over a rolling 10-year period. Vice Chair Koetting asked if there were any potential residential sites. Associate Planner Nova stated there is a current application at the Orange County Museum House site,which consists of 100 proposed dwelling units. Chair Kramer opened the public hearing. Mike Lutton, representing the applicant, stated the initial project was for a seven-story building with no environmental impacts. He explained the reduction to six stories. Elaine Linhoff stated the opponents had to prove why changing the law was bad. She expressed doubt about the applicant's statement that traffic would be reduced. She stated the only benefit of the project was increased revenue. She suggested the amendment be denied. Enrique Gonzalez suggested implementation of the Specific Plan. He suggested recycled water be required for car washes. Page 3 of 8 190 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7/21/16 Tom Fredericks asked if displacement of car wash customers were included in the car trip calculations. He stated the residents would drive to and from the project. He questioned the less than minimal footprint increase. Jeffery Stephan stated he was the former carwash owner. He stated the carwash recycled water and it was a good business. Dennis Baker, representing SPON, read comments from their letter sent to the Planning Commission regarding the DEIR, highlighting the inappropriateness of a Planned Community Development(PCD) as an egregious example of spot zoning and precedent for relaxing height limitations and use of PCD for small parcels. Beth Kiley expressed concern about setting a bad precedent. She stated the project was a 34-unit per acre development, which would change the lifestyle in Newport Beach. She urged the Commission to retain the General Plan vision. Debbie Stevens expressed appreciation for staff and Planning Commission review of the project. She stated she did not support the waiver for a Planned Community nor the height. She requested the opportunity to review the response to comments on the EIR. Lorian Petry discussed the City Hall location which was initially intended to be a freeway exit. She described the City's General Plan as a desired end through 2025 and urged the Commission to implement the vision. Allan Beek discussed development measures and stated the people did not want the development. He stated that staff had thoroughly analyzed whether the project could be approved but urged the Planning Commission to carefully consider whether the project should be approved. Jean Watt expressed disagreement with the application of prior land use changes toward the current Section 423 thresholds and concern about the "domino effect" of increased project heights. She stated the precedent setting resulted in a different landscape in Newport Center. Sindi Schwartz, owner of Muldoon's, discussed the 200 block of Newport Center. She questioned why the applicant was not sensitive to blocking the views from Muldoon's. She stated the scale, height and width of the development must be considered. She urged the Commission to implement the General Plan and retain the commercial zoning. She suggested two or three stories should be adequate. Jim Warren suggested that the parameters for the property have been set and that the applicant should make the project fit within the rules. Susan Skinner suggested that the project should consider increases due to traffic diverted to other car washes. She expressed concern about the project acting as a tipping point for more intense development characteristic of Los Angeles and requested the Commission deny the proposed development. She stated the project required a Greenlight vote as a result of the 79 dwelling units associated with the San Joaquin Plaza project and emphasized that the ballot box provides residents with a powerful voice and recourse for the bad choices of City leaders. Nancy Skinner commended the Commission for its thoughtful consideration of the project. She expressed concern with development exceeding the 2006 General Plan and impacting the charm and character of the community. She stated the project was too tall and massive. She urged the Commission to deny the exceptions and enforce the General Plan. Carl Cassidy urged the Commission to take a holistic approach with fiscal responsibility. He discussed potential litigation when going against the public. Jim Mosher stated the planning staff did not realize the City's rigid limitations on structure height. He discussed the 50-foot height limits for Block 100. He discussed conversion of units and the Greenlight policy. Page 4 of 8 291 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7/21/16 Chair Kramer closed the public hearing. Mr. Lutton discussed outreach and efforts to benefit the community. He stated they owned and operated the car wash and new carwashes were opening at nearby gas stations. Community Development Director Brandt corrected the typographical error on page 4 stating it should read 69.2% rather than 60.2%. She acknowledged the time needed to review the response to comments on the EIR and recommended continuing the matter to August 18, 2016. Chair Kramer stated the proposed continuance seemed reasonable. Mr. Lutton concurred. Commissioner Weigand stated the Museum House study session was tentatively scheduled for August 18, 2016 as well. Commissioner Lawler discussed existing planned community development waivers of the 10-acre minimum and requested further analysis of these waivers. In response to Commissioner Hillgren, Associate Planner Nova discussed the possibility of incorporating the project into the North Newport Center Planned Community. Chair Kramer stated the issues were height, number of units, and intensity. Vice Chair Koetting thanked the Commission, staff, and public for its input. He stated there was work to be done on the project. Commissioner Dunlap stated he was also impressed with the public comment. He stated he heard the community did not want residential on the site. He discussed alternatives which could be worse. He agreed with looking into the possibility of tying the project into another planned community. Chair Kramer stated he did not see a problem with changing the zoning to residential. He stated the issue was the zoning code amendment and opportunity for a planned community. Motion made by Chair Kramer and seconded by Commissioner Weigand to continue the hearing to August 18, 2016. AYES: Dunlap, Hillgren, Kramer, Lawler, Koetting, Weigand NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Zak RECESS Chair Kramer called a recess at 9:03 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:09 p.m.with all Commissioners present except Commissioner Zak. VIII. CLJ NT BUSINESS ITEM NO. 4 EWPROT MESA STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN (PA2015-138) Site Loca"o . est Newport Mesa Associate Planner Ben Zde ve a brief introduction of the project and introduced the consultant for the Master Plan, Brian a an of RRM Design Group. Mr. Hannegan explained the goals of the Master P treach efforts, and existing and proposed improvements. Page 5 of 8 19� Attachment No. PC 6 Draft Planning Commission Minutes from August 18, 2016 (Refer to Item No. 1 of the September 1, 2016, Planning Commission Agenda for the draft minutes.) 29� V� QP �P �9� Attachment No. PC 7 Residential Development in Statistical Area L1 (Newport Center) 19.E V� QP �P 29� Attachment No. PC 7: Residential Communities in Statistical Area L1 - Development Standards Comparison PC-21 PC-30 PC-47 PC-54 PC-56 PC-56 RM PC-56, Block 100 Sea Island Villa Point Newport Beach Santa Barbara North Newport Center: North Newport Center: Apartments Apartments Country Club Condominiums/ Villas Fashion Island The Colony Granville 150 Newport Center Meridian PC Acreage 28.8 13.7 6.98 4.26 16.05 6.4 12.3 1 .26 Dwelling Units 226 228 5 entitled/unbuilt 79 524 245 67 45 Density (du/acre) 8 16.6 0.7 18.54 32.6 38 5.5 35.71 Floor Area N/A N/A " N/A "" 245,578 873,033 414,328 N/A " 131 ,878 Floor Area Ratio N/A N/A "` N/A "' 1.32 1 .24 1.47 N/A "' 2.41 2 stories (32'/50' 2-3 stories 50' + apurtenances (200' (28'/33 50' (4 stories)+10' Height max. 32'/50' max. Unbuilt (39' max.) 65' (65' max.) 65' (65' max.) max. 18' max.) appurtenances Setbacks: *** Front 20' from rights-of 20' from rights- N/A 15' 15' from rights-of-way 15' from rights-of-way 20' 24' from NCD way of-way Sides 5' S' 3' 7' 0' 0' 8% lot width 22.5' from Anacapa and 14' wester) PL Rear 5' 5' 5' 13' 0' 0' 10' 22' NOTES: Height is measured from finished surface, as opposed to average grade ** Floor area information is unavailable Building setbacks only 29� Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Christopher W.Garrett 12VPW19MIff Aa Additional Materials Received Direct Dial +1 858 523 5458 San Diego.cab`odi�tabvport Center (PA2014-213) Christopher garreft@lw corn Tel:+1.858.5235400 Fax,+1.858.523.5450 www.Woom L AT H A M &W AT K I N S LLP FIRM I AFFILIATE OFFICES Barcelona Moscow Beijing Munich Boston New Jersey Brussels New York Century City Orange County Chicago Paris August 25, 2016 Dubai Riyadh DOsseldorf Rome Frankfurt San Diego Hamburg San Francisco VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Hong Kong Shanghai Houston Silicon Valley Michael Torres London Singapore Assistant Cit Attome Los Angeles Tokyo Y Y Madrid Washington,D.C. City of Newport Beach Milan 100 Civic Center Drive File No.502000-ROOD Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: 150 Newport Center Residential Project (PA2014-213): Proposed Amendments to North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan Dear Mr. Torres: We represent the Irvine Company in matters related to development in the Newport Center area of the City of Newport Beach. We understand that the City Planning Commission voted last week to direct the addition of the proposed 150 Newport Center Residential Project (PA2014-213) ("150 Newport Center Project")into the North Newport Center Planned Community (PC-56) ("NNCPC"). As we discussed in our letter dated August 12, 2016,the Irvine Company is a party to Development Agreement No. DA2007-002, entitled Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company LLC Concerning North Newport Center (Block 600, Fashion Island, and Portions of Block 500, and San Joaquin Plaza) ("2007 Development Agreement"), as subsequently amended and restated in the Amended and Restated Amendment to Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company LLC Concerning North Newport Center Concerning Addition of Properties and Residential Units to Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement (Portions of Newport Center Blocks 100, 400 and 800 and San Joaquin Plaza) (the "Amendment"). The 2007 Development Agreement and Amendment provide for the Irvine Company's entitlement and transfer rights within the NNCPC, and confirm that the version of the NNCPC that the City Council adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 2012-19 shall apply to the portions of North Newport Center covered by the 2007 Development Agreement and Amendment. US-D0CS170745329.l Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Michael Tortes Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received August 25,2016 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) LATHAM&WATKINSLL> We understand that,pursuant to the Planning Commission's direction, the 150 Newport Center Project is likely to include amendments to the NNCPC. However, as we described in our August 12, 2016 letter, in light of the provisions in the 2007 Development Agreement and Amendment described above, any changes to the NNCPC prepared for the 150 Newport Center Project would not apply to the Irvine Company's property covered by the 2007 Development Agreement and Amendment, unless further amendments to the development agreement are agreed to by the Irvine Company. Accordingly,two different versions of the NNCPC will apply to different property owners: (1)the version of the NNCPC that the City Council adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 2012-19 will apply to the Irvine Company; and (2) the proposed 2016 amended version will apply to the owner of 150 Newport Center. Thus, if the City elects to amend the NNCPC to include the 150 Newport Center Project,the City's findings for the proposed amendments to NNCPC should address this non-uniformity in zoning. Further, although we have not seen the current proposed amendments to the NNCPC, we are concerned about the potential for the amendments to infringe upon the Irvine Company's vested rights, particularly those related to the NNCPC's transfer of development rights provisions. Currently, Section ILC of the NNCPC provides that development rights may be transferred among sub-areas of the NNCPC and to/from other areas in the Newport Center/Fashion Island District identified in the General Plan in accordance with the General Plan. Any amendment to the NNCPC to include the 150 Newport Center Project should clarify that the 150 Newport Center Project is not permitted to participate in such transfers of development rights. Otherwise,the 150 Newport Center Project could seek to transfer development rights away from property covered by the 2007 Development Agreement and Amendment, which would conflict with the Irvine Company's rights vested by those agreements. We ask that the City respond to this letter to confirm that the City agrees with our understanding of the Irvine Company's vested rights in the version of the NNCPC that the City Council adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 2012-19, including the transfer of development rights provisions. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, G � istopher W. Garrett of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP cc: Dan Miller, The Irvine Company US-DOCS\70745329.1 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3a - Supplement to Additional Materials ���WPORr 150 Newpott Gerlte[,(PA2014-213) }0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT r f 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach,California 92660 dw 949 644-3200 cgLIFO RN`P newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Kim Brandt, Community Development Director Date: August 29, 2016 Re: Correspondence from Latham & Watkins, LLP Supplemental Information for Agenda Item No. 3a September 1, 2016 Meeting 150 Newport Center Drive (PA2014-213) The City has received the attached correspondence from Latham & Watkins, representing the Irvine Company regarding the proposed inclusion of the project site into the existing North Newport Center Planned Community Plan (PC-56). The letter states that if the project site is ultimately included into PC-56, that there will be two different versions of PC-56 that apply to different property owners because of the City's 2007 Development Agreement and Amendment with the Irvine Company. The City acknowledges that the statement is correct while the 2007 Development Agreement and Amendment remains in effect. Secondly, the letter raises a concern regarding the transfer of development rights within the planned community as it relates to 150 Newport Center Drive. To address that issue, staff is recommending that Section II.C. of PC-56 be amended as shown below in redline: "C. Transfer of Development Rights The transfer of development rights among sub-areas of this Planned Community and to/from other areas in the Newport Center/Fashion Island District identified in the General Plan is allowed in accordance with the General Plan,with the exception of 150 Newport Center Drive in Block 100. Development rights may be transferred through a change in location of use(s) and/or a conversion of non-residential use to any other non-residential use allowed by the General Plan and this Planned Community Development Plan or applicable zoning at the Community Development Dep Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3a - Supplement to Additional Materials 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) receiving site(s). Residential use may be relocated, but may not be converted to or from another use. The transfer of development rights shall be approved, as specified in Section IV.0 below, if the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts and will not result in greater intensity than development allowed without the transfer. For 150 Newport Center Drive in Block 100, the transfer of development rights shall be in accordance with the General Plan and Municipal Code, with the exception that 150 Newport Center Drive may not send to nor receive from development allocations from other sub-areas of this Planned Community." Attachment: Latham & Watkins correspondence dated August 25, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 36 Additional Material Received 150 Newport Ce &ILPA2014-213) Newport Beach Residents Petition: VOTE NO on H�i Density Development @ 150 Newport Center COMMUNITY AUG 2 6 2016 Dear Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council: (� DEVELOPMENT , Please vote to deny the project currently proposed for 150 Newporf/CA@q;@p $ � Drive (the car wash project). Here's why. • This project is inappropriate for its location with regard to height, bulk and use. _ • It requires a major amendment to the General Plan to add development WITHOUT a public vote._ • It would tower above its neighboring buildings and create a "New York" style density, look and feel._ • Approval of a residential building in proximity to restaurants, bars and theaters will result in conflicts over noise and other nuisances caused by patrons, cars and deliveries at all hours. _ • This project would create a dangerous precedent for dense residential development in a low-intensity commercial part of Newport Center. The voter-approved 2006 General Plan laid out a rational blueprint for the development of Newport Center. All of the development allowed under the 2006 General Plan has been built. This project inappropriately uses spot zoning and makes an end run around a zoning process that puts limits on size and bulk. The 150 Newport Center project requires planning commissioners and council members, who are tasked to enforce our voter-approved General Plan, to authorize a major General Plan Amendment for this project to proceed. Our city has reached the tipping point with regard to massive developments such as this project. Your vote determines whether Newport Beach looks like Laguna Beach or like Los Angeles. Please vote NO on the 150 Newport Center project. must have signature. Name, address include zip, email address so you can receive Petition Recap. c 3I5- Co vcoi2_� IN. � Q QT E�cH C) X 60 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Material Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Newport Beach Residents' Petition: VOTE NO on High- Density Development @ 150 Newport Center aECEWEO 9y Dear Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council: COMMUNITY AUG 2 6 2016 Please vote to deny the project currently proposed for 150 Newport Center Drive (the car wash project). o DEVELOPMENT T � G Here's why. OP e�P ^vswPoa, • This project is inappropriate for its location with regard to height, bulk and use. _ • It requires a major amendment to the General Plan to add development WITHOUT a public vote._ • It would tower above its neighboring buildings and create a "New York" style density, look and feel._ • Approval of a residential building in proximity to restaurants, bars and theaters will result in conflicts over noise and other nuisances caused by patrons, cars and deliveries at all hours. _ • This project would create a dangerous precedent for dense residential development in a low-intensity commercial part of Newport Center. The voter-approved 2006 General Plan laid out a rational blueprint for the development of Newport Center. All of the development allowed under the 2006 General Plan has been built. This project inappropriately uses spot zoning and makes an end run around a zoning process that puts limits on size and bulk. The 150 Newport Center project requires planning commissioners and council members, who are tasked to enforce our voter-approved General Plan, to authorize a major General Plan Amendment for this project to proceed. Our city has reached the tipping point with regard to massive developments such as this project. Your vote determines whether Newport Beach looks like Laguna Beach or like Los Angeles. Please vote NO on the 150 Newport Center project. must have signature. Name, address include zip, email address so you can receive Petition Recap. _ Shirley Jane Knutse" 321 Coral Ave. Newport Beach,CA 92 662-114 1 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: PROJECT FILE NO. pa 2014-213 150 Newport Center/ proposed project/ From: ilona fmailto:lucy453(cbaol.com] Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2016 10:13 AM To: Nova, Makana Subject: PROJECT FILE NO. pa 2014-213 150 Newport Center/ proposed project/ 150 Newport Center Project file no. PA 2014-213 Applicant: Newport Center Anacapa Assc., LLC To: Mahana Nova, Assc. Planner for the Planning Commission Thank you for the opportunity to be heard, as a Newport Beach resident of 30 years, my name is Ilona Martin. It has been my pleasure to serve the community as past President of the Hoag 552 Board, and board member for 15 years. A 5,000 plus membership including many strong community leaders. In this volunteer forum I have met many local residents who feel strongly that we protect our local businesses such as Muldoon's from this oversized condo project. I object strongly against this project. Three to four generations of family's have celebrated their most cherished events at Muldoon's. For me, my grandson learned his going out manners at Muldoon's, as have many other children. Muldoon's has been extremely generous to Hoag Hospital and other organizations hosting meetings, building a community and neighborhood one family at a time. We do not want this icon to be put in harms way by a looming building, towering over it and challenging their hours of operation and celebrations. Our voices want to be heard now, while there is still time to put a neighborhood before before allowing a tall of tall structure to be built, looking down at our icon Muldoon's. We must protect our family owned businesses. We have lost too many great places due to greed and lack of courage to say no. Thank you in advance for your mindful decision. Sincerely, Ilona Martin 1 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 Item No. 3e Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) ■ August 29, 2016 ■ RESCO Kim Brandt Community Development Director 100 Civic Center Drive 901 DOVE STREET Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUITE 270 NEWPORT BEACH Re: 150 Newport Center Drive-Planning Commission Continuance CA 92660 949.756.3200 FAX 949.756.5777 Dear Ms. Brandt; Please accept this letter as a request from Newport Center Anacapa Associates,LLC. to continue the Planning Commission meeting of September 1, 2016 regarding the above referenced matter to September 22, 2016. We are reviewing the design of the project and need more time for the partners to review the plans with the architect. In the meantime, if you should have any questions,please do not hesitate to call. Ve lyyours: Ron Soderling, Managing Partner Newport Center Anacapa Associates, LL Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 �rG�WPpR� Item No. 3f Additional Materials Received 0� 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) i COMMUNITY DEVELOI-,. 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach,California 92660 949 644-3200 �411roFL ' newportheachca.gov/communitydevelopment Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Makana Nova, Associate Planner Date: August 29, 2016 Re: Item No. 3 — 150 Newport Center Residential Project (PA2014-213) Public Comments Following are several project updates regarding the proposed 150 Newport Center Residential Project: 1. The attached alternative project plans were received from the project applicant demonstrating a 35 dwelling unit alternative at 50 feet in height (5 stories) as measured in the PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community) Zoning District. Staff is in the process of reviewing these plans and will be prepared to respond to questions regarding this alternative at the upcoming Planning Commission Meeting on September 1, 2016. 2. The applicant has also requested a continuance to the September 22, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. This letter was sent via a separate email. 3. Staff has provided a memorandum response to the letter submitted on behalf of the Irvine Company dated August 25, 2016. Additionally, proposed redline revisions to the PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community) are included regarding the potential for transfer of development rights within the Planned Community. This was sent via a separate email. Attachments: Alternative 35-unit plans Community Development Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 Item No. 3f Additional Materials Received PROJECT SUMMARY 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) RESIDENTIAL. 131 ,878 SF (2.41 x LOT AREA) TOTAL PROPOSED GROSS FLOOR AREA: MULTI-STORY PROJECT � PROJECT DESCRIPTION DWELLING UNITSO 2 Bedroom 5 Units NEwF� THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF (1 ) MULT-STORY oRj- EEN1 ER DRIVE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. -- 3 Bedroom 30 Units ____ _� ('-`0w,p� PUB11 RIGHT OFWAY) ___ �- � — 5 STORIES OF RESIDENTIAL Total 35 Units --- C6 J 2 LEVELS OF UNDERGROUND PARKING OPEN SPACE' BUILDING SHALL BE COMPLETELY SPRINKLERED. zm REQUIRED \ �� BUILDING CODE: CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2013 _-- — 9m 161'•6" ° PROPERTY LINE " o- COMMON OPEN SPACE 75 SF/UNIT 31375 SF � r� p b C5 OCCUPANCY TYPE: R-2 REQUIRED PROPERTY PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 30 SF PER 11350 SF LINE SETBACK EACH UNIT FOOTPRINT — — BUILDING TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION. BASEMENT TYPE I-A - FULLY SPRINKLERED TOTAL REQUIRED 41725 SF o w� PROPERTY LINE GOVERNING AGENCY: PROVIDED o '�1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMON OUTDOOR OPEN SPACE 87351 SF 1 � s _ REQUIRED PROPERTY LINE LOT COVERAGE: COMMON INDOOR OPEN SPACE 3,472 SF , _22'-6' 3g5 SETBACK PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 11 ,963 SF BLDGSET9ACK - LOT AREA (prior to dedications): 54,686 SF 17 UNIT INSTANCESm LOT AREA TOTAL PROVIDED 23,786 SF ' _�� - -- o BASEMENT (after dedications plus setbacks). 47,592 SF ► = FOOTPRINT BUILDABLE AREA: 477592 SF ------- SETBACKS: ❑ ,� BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 30, 115 SF LOT COVERAGE: 55% PROVIDED - o ENTRY/VALET CANOPY 3-0 ABOVE PODIUM BELOW PODIUM w _ o SETBACK FROM PROPERTY LINE V B q �, T ANACAPA FRONTAGE - 22.5 FT 15 FT BUILDING DEPARTMENT GROSS FLOOR AREA: N�- w. rts Zp�qr co m�mm NEWPORT CENTER DR - 24 FT 15 FT 1ST FLOOR AREA: 30, 115 SF WESTERN PRTY LINE - 15 FT 0 FT 1 PORTE-COCHERE CANOPY 2ND FLOOR AREA: 27,815 SF ,°j']-� i ' — � ,''' ENCROACHES BUILDING 3RD FLOOR AREA: 277815 SF SOUTHERN PRTY LINE - 22 FT 7 FT , i - SETBACK BY 12'-0" 'EXISTING 3' SIDEWALK 4TH FLOOR AREA: 27,815 SF *NOTE: ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS ARE ALLOWED TO PROJECT EASEMENT 5TH FLOOR AREA: 187317 SF 30" INTO SETBACK AREAS LANDSCAPE PLANTER p p ALOGARAGE WALL UNDER TOTAL 1317878 SF CANTILEVERED PODIUM ;BLDG SETBACK' t r 1 ' - ,1 ,t GROSSR FLOOR AREA: 1 1 7 F � � � � 00 3 ,O 8 S 6 [] _ _ -._ PROPERTY LINE PARKING GARAGE GBA: 877298 SF O � PROJECT SALEABLE AREA: 1007514 SF PROPERTY LINE �:T NNo , - / s �- -- 12gbo' REQUIRED PROPERTY PARKING: N82` h337"E 161' 6" "LINESETBACK REQUIRED BASEMENT RESIDENTIAL 70 STALLS A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT % FOOTPRINT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS\\-, VISITOR 18 STALLS OVER PARCEL A P.M.B. 76/32 - I PROVIDED RESIDENTIAL 70 STALLS VISITOR 18 STALLS (INCLUDES 1 ADA STALL AT LEVEL B1) TRUE n,nRTH PROJECT 0' 30' 60' 120' NORTH As indicated AO.1 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA SITE PLAN & PROJECT SUMMARY + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 8/24/2016 2:32:07 PM ROOM LEGEND Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 Item No. 3f Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) 0 2 Bedroom 0 3 Bedroom o Concierge 0 Lobby o Lounge 12 11 10 9 8 7 65 3 2 1 A3.2 A3.1 o Mail Room 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" N.011 30'0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30141 A ACALPA DRIV� EXISTING 3' SIDEWALK EASEMENT VISITOR PARKING STALLS 0 PROPERTY o" LINE � � � � - - - -- - -- - ¢ - � - -- - - - NIS - - - - pL - - --- - - -- - - -- - - -- - -- � - - 711 o Valet Drop-off _ — F J C-J / Covered Walkway o o Covered Walkway I II 24'-o' 1 -- i I I 12'-0 (V i 3 Bedroom I FIr 3 Bedroom I IR Q I I 3309 SF 3282 SF Lounge Concierge o j I 1 2309 SFI 1 1 1077 SF I Mail Room I I le I 1233 SFI I Lobby 0 2090 SF II-24.0" —22'-0".- 7 I — BLDG SETBACK BLDG SETBACK A3.3 N Sim a -0 aI O -i Ir-_ r-yl r-_ � 0 3 ' L I - - _� - - C-_ I PL W - - - - - - - - - - - 17- -I DN— – IL - C ' I I W I Bedroom I #2' 2 Bedroo 2 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom I 2185 SF #3 ® #5 #6 I I/ 1 2561 SFI 2327 SF 1 1 2560 SF 1 1 2178 SF 0 1 o II 1 I Mimi I I I I I I I I I I o h o I I I A.7— / U REFERENCE LANDSCAPE - q w DRAWINGS I � - - - - T - - - - T - - - - 1- - - — J — pr — r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T - - - - � � 15'0" 3-0" LANDSCAPE PLANTER ALONG SETBACK GARAGE WALL PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH 0' 16' 32' 64' 128' 1/16" = 1'-0" A1.1 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 8/24/2016 2:32:07 PM ROOM LEGEND Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 Item No. W Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) 0 3 Bedroom �12\I 11 10 9 A3.2 O 7 A3.1 6 5 4 3 2 1 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'0" C7 30'•0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'•0" I I I I I I I I I AAGAPA DRIVE I I I I I I I I I PROPERTY LINE ¢ - � _ -_ _ - - _ -- _ - - �- - _ -- - - - - -- - - - - - �- _ - -- - - _-t — — - - - - -- - -- - - -- - - - I � - - - - - - - - - - - - �F - I 0 I I MEN]I 3 Bedroom I I Q I I ® 3 Bdroom 3 Bedroom 3 Bedroom I 3028 SF WI 19'-9 I 23 8 SF 2319 SF 3019 SF M Z I BLDG SETBACK — — — — I I V BLDG SETBACK BLDG SETBACK I A3.3 A3.5 Sim I _ O I oI I o a IPL I - - - - PL uj Z I I - - - - - - - - - — IL 1 I I / I I I Bedroom I _ 3 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 3 BF om o / I 2585 SF #11 #12 21'-0" I B I /I It I 1 4289 SF 4290 SF 25 0 SF - - 7T ® � / III I c h I 1 A.7 27 1 -117P o - 15'•0" SETBACK PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH 0' 16' 32' 64' 128' 1/16" = 1'-0" A1.2 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 8/24/2016 2:32:08 PM Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ROOM LEGEND Item No. 3f Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) 0 3 Bedroom 1 1 12 11 10 9 A3.2 8 7 A3,1 6 5 4 3 2 1 301•0" 30'•0" 30'-0" 30'•0" 30'•0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'•0" 301•0" 301•0" 30'-0" I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PROPERTY LINE - - - -- - -- -- - - � - -- - - - t - -- - - - t - -- - _PL__ - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - -- - - � I M N I I I I I I I 3 Bedroom 3 6 #16 3 j;om 3 Bedroom 0 3028 SF 1 2318 SIS 1 21319 SF 3019 SO I I� 22'•0". 24'.0" I * — — — — –, – – 1 – – I – – F – – – – – � I – 1 BLDGSETBACK 1 Sim BLDG SETBACK A3.3 A3.5 rj SRE PL I = = IPL M 1 I I 3 Bedroom I I I #21 2557 SF B i o � 3 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 3 Bedroom I 1 2582 SF 4286 SF 4287 SF - � - PC 15'•0" SETBACK I PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH 0' 16' 32' 64' 128' 1/16" = 1'-0" A1.3 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 8/24/2016 2:32:08 PM Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 Item No. 3f Additional Materials Received ROOM LEGEND 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) 0 2 Bedroom 0 3 Bedroom I I 0 Mechanical I I I I I A3.2 A3.1 I I i I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' TL - -- - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- - - -- - -- - - - - F I I I 3 Bedom 3 Bedroo� � Bedom 3 B ;om # I I I #251 #24 1 1 2748 SF 1 3Q12 SF II I i 3021 IF 2747 SF I D 24'.0" BLDGI — —� — BLDG SETBACK BLDG SETBACK A3.3 I � I I � I I � — - - - — - - — � 3Bedroom I I 3 Bedr om 1 ! #29] II I #26 POOL ABOVE 2557 SF 2582 F I I 2 Bedroo L _ _ Mechanical _ � 2 Bedroom I� —2 #27 2597 SF #285 — II - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - r - - - A.7 - � - - � - - � - - � - - -� - - - - - - - - A- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -r r I I I I I I I I I I I I PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH 0' 16' 32' 64' 128' 1/16" = 1'-0" A1.4 150 Newport Center FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 4 Newport Beach, CA + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 8/24/2016 2:32:09 PM ROOM LEGEND Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 Item No. 3f Additional Materials Received 0 3 Bedroom 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) ® Clubroom 0 Fitness 12 11 10 9 A3.2 30'.0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'.0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'.0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" I I I I I I I I I I I I PROPERTY LINE —C � -- - - -- - -- - m - - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - pL - �- - - -- - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - ❑ - - � - - I I ICV � I I I I I I 1 3 Bedroom Fitness Clubroom 3 Bedroom #32 1736 SF 1736 SF #34 I o 2878 SF 2865 SF II " II III I D I�24'-0" i BLDG SETBACK IA3.3 ' BLDG SETBACK � II II IPL i - - - - I I� PL DN 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - IL - - I II II II III I ❑ I I I I I I UP REFERENCE LANDSCAPE UP ° L fi 3 Bedroom D DRAWINGS 3 BedroomM Fri #33 DN DN I 2911 SF I — I o O I I � p I I 2907 SF — I I I� I � � � ❑ �— ❑ ❑ � � � ❑ I A3.4 � III I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 r7 — — ❑ — — — — d — 0 — — — — — 6 — 6 — — — — ❑ — I — — — — M - - III- -�- - - -� - - � - - - - C? PC 15'-0" SETBACK I I I I I I PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH 0' 16' 32' 64' 128' 1/16" = 1'-0" A1.5 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 5 + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 8/24/2016 2:32:09 PM Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 Item No. 3f Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) r 11 A-L I ° a I � I I I I c I i 'w I I --J I I — ' I I - I I • a � I,, I I "� I _ o I I I i d I i y f I I I a p _ 4 I ` I l D y N i I J1 L if • �p II I I i I � - � I I� �I. i, I I l i ' I I I � � I i y � � �� o� 1 � 1 I, — �I'� f f II i �, If _ � -�� Y �." I I �� i N 1 i I -'' I � I 'I a I e �-•: � I .. ' i I I i I'. I _. i �- ��� r ' .. i a -- — —-- 9 1, I R LL s _ r r t A4.2 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA PERSPECTIVE - ANACAPA TOWARDS FASHION ISLAND P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 8/25/2016 3:06:45 PM Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 Item No. 3f Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) _ U o �J 0 O I � 0 A ACAPA ED DRIVE ate, cncn 0' S0 0 .°' 50 Q� ° 0 �� 0 Oh 0. Cvl�tcj O 0 ,y. �° � J� O�0' 0' � ` 00. �0 �0 r- Q 1� QOc� �0�0L c� X n0fro to o ❑ - - 0 0 �4 ro°GF <C Li 0 NOTES: 1. ANACAPA DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS PLANS TO BE 0 FC - - - - --------------------------- 5-_------ .- --- �� ��0 PREPARED DURING CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE g N �q� } �} OAy O�Q `o �� 00QC 00Q� J n �� `0 2. CURB, GUTTER & SIDEWALK ALONG NEWPORT CENTER 0 1Q ^1 Mf o� 00 SGL' � wo 4 m 0, DRIVE AND ANACAPA DRIVE TO BE RECONSTRUCTED 2.57. 437% — o.^- z �r0�00 p09 AS DETERMINED BY PUBLIC WORKS Q �0 Q 3. ANACAPA DRIVE AND NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE EAST 7 ��� a) �t tK f w c� Y BU tx�G� ARE ON THE CITY'S STREET-CUT MORATORIUM LIST. 14.35' M! n 0y. 00. 00F 2 97, P1 r) j ^ N Y_ O 0 0• TRENCHING/DAMAGE TO SAID STREET WILL REQUIRE ` ^ N EXTENSIVE STREET REPAIR PER CITY STANDARD 01��0 OFFCI STD-105-L-F ❑ ��O�FC rx��F x°�� Q� �GQO h�• ti �Q C �G ,Q 4. APPLICANT SHALL ESTABLISH SURVEY POINTS WITHIN I 0.\1��0 �0� 011�0F C� FQ COQQ C pC��G �G ^ �F G �' '� O F F THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG THE PROJECT a� �0 ��O��OQ� x0�` OQpOJ�O- ^� 18' o ^�^�°OoFRONTAGES OF ANACAPA DRIVE AND NEWPORT A OQ .Poo� 0 L� pFQC �O �� �0 Q�G 2225' o ^L�O'j J CENTER DRIVE EAST TO MONITOR MOVEMENT OF CITY TO LVL 1 pOJ�� G FACILITIES (UTILITIES, SIDEWALK, STREET, ETC) DUE Q PG X001 K� J F �`� TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. I 0 EloQ �O GOk�\ ANY DAMAGE TO SAID CITY FACILITIES SHALL BE m E] CQ' J� �0 ❑ Q 3 G� O �F R- O��O - II -I REPAIRED AT THE PROJECT SOLE EXPENSE. C Q G7jr ❑ C III - i C Exls'TING 18' WIDE ❑ 00F G0 SC 3'C ®I •' — FF= 167.50 RESERVATION FOR FUTUREum I of %' LOWER LEVEL GARAGE=134.50 PEDESTRIAN Q COQ JPO\Qj�y ��F I —i �00� OO �PC� 33.. � X601• � P�P�JQ'��, 0 VL 1 22.25' 1110v' G �\'Z� TO O F OJ��POF �� LEGEND: P Jp 1 oQ C O O 2, XC°�ARK a0Q CQ p �01�D 10% \ BLDG BUILDING O I 0 GU TER 5' 1 X001 ❑ °QO�F ❑ OQF C OFF C ❑ ❑ �0 C 7.34' BW BACK OF WALK X. SI '` 6 S' I J QQC OJ�1F XG,0� �� 1� F C of UG �QS�G CF CURB FACE o �0��k0F \• �0 ��1a0Q ��01�0�� EX. EXISTING �GQ 1 2. I ~ L^1, o FL FLOW LINE / OC��OC Q 65' ❑❑❑❑❑® ❑❑CO❑❑❑❑❑ ❑❑❑®❑❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ ❑❑❑❑❑a FF FINISH FLOOR �f Q E � ��, FS FINISH SURFACE QQF� o . - - - _ GB GRADE BREAK ro0� ® 5 H HEIGHT 0 �GQO � > NV INVERT FG O�G� OFC O F O Q O C �o CCS C G O G Q N,\ 001�1 rx �� ro ,b SOF X111 - 001 �� ��O p0�01 / LVL LEVEL ro 1 0 MIN MINIMUM Z CP . 01 0. F OFC �C L OJ��� �0 L h��\� . �h �GC� ^�Cr PD PODIUM G�P�� �GP�Py �r0 JOC�PQ V P PL PROPERTY LINE P 1 POC POINT OF CONNECTION R/W RIGHT OF WAY SMH SEWER MANHOLE TC TOP OF CURB TW TOP OF WALL BENCHMARK TGR TOP OF GUARDRAIL UG UNDERGROUND BENCHMARK DESIGNATION: ORANGE COUNTY SURVEYOR BENCH MARK "3S-45-79" EARTHWORK ADJ. ELEV. = 281.761 ' RAWCUT 51 ,600 CY MONUMENT RECOVERY: FD. 3 3/4" OCS ALUMINUM BENCHMARK DISK STAMPED "3S-45-99" SET IN THE TOP NORTHERLY CORNER OF A RAWFILL 0 CY 4' BY 8' CONCRETE CATCH BASIN. MONUMENT IS LOCATED EXPORT 51 ,600 CY IN THE EASTERLY CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AND SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD, 70' SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF MACARTHUR BOULEVARD AND 135' NORTHEASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD. MONUMENT IS SET LEVEL 20' 0' 10' 20' 40' WITH THE SIDEWALK. SCALE: 1" = 20' C1.0 Natoli -�,,21 F E 16795 Von Newport Center Condominiums CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN IIIE�� UCO Newport Beach, CA tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315 E N G 1 N E E R I N G www.fuscoe.com f " , , c ; r c , e t h ; n k , n 9 + P A R T N E R S Note: Conceptual Design Package Subject To Change Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 I Item No. 3f Additional Materials Received I I I I150 Newport Center (PA20 14-2013) CITY OF NEWPORT UTILITIES EPART� 1 1ENT ° PER FIRE HYDRANT FLOW TEST AMOUNT PAID; 5343.00 DATE: 02/25/2015 O EX. 12" WATER PER RESUB NO. Z85 CHECK NO: N/A TIME: 10:00 AM RESUB NQ TEST NO: N/A WEATHER: CLEAR II � peoJEcr: u W \ PRUIECT LOCATION: ANACAPA DRIVE AND NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE to 3 I I 121w 121w 12•w 121w 121w 121w 121 1 1w - 1w 121'w 12•w 1 w 1w _ TEST CONDUCTED FOR: FUSCOE ENGINEERING EX. 4" W TER PER 21 J TEST PERFORMED BY: BULLMAN,AUGER RESUB NO 282 TEST WITNESSED BY: 121w - 121 - 12•w - I ANACAPA 157.791NV DRIVE 1153.04 V 6"SS t 152.171 ) 8 SS FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND FLOW DATA 3_ - - - - L�I 'a STATIC HYDRANT#: 1288 LOCATION; 143 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE N Z F/H MANUFACTURER: JONES NUMBER&SIZE OF OUTLETS: 2-2.5" 1-4" 1 1 - a•SS - !- alss - - e1SS ss - e ss - B•SS - e•SS - - e•SS - - e1SS - - - e1Ss M Q Q STATIC PRESSURE,(Ps ,psi),PRE-FLOW: 137 w � PER RESUB 0. 282 EX. d SEWER ER RESIDUAL PRESSURE.(Pr,psi)FLOWING: 114 II N � (S=0.01) RESUB N0. 2 2 PROP. 6" SEWER 12 Y S=O.O380 FLOW HYDRANT 0: 1292 LOCATION: 210 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE z J (S=0.0380) 153.651NV-I / S=0.02 IE ELEC VA LT � 3 of 141(8 NV-I 14 I F/H MANUFACTURER: JONES NUMBER&SIZE OF OUTLETS: 2-2.5" 14" 3 I I X f I,58.241NV-OUT) 153.551NV- UT STATIC PRESSURE.PRE-FLOW(INFO ONLY,NOT FOR TEST CALCS): M > _ FM OUTLET SIZE(2.5 or 4.0): 2.5 (d.inches) - < m C FLOW LOSS COEFFICIENT - TUBE C=1.0 I BUTT C=0.9 0.9 O E(SL) (SU o ECSU ( EKSU a (SL) ECS E(SL) E L (SL) -ECSL -E(su- u- PITOT GAUGE READING(p.psi): 94 O O \() I I I I OBSERVED I-LO\Y':In IE OBSERVED TT.OW FROM A I DDRANT OUTLET IS C.U.C.ULATED FROM TI IF / y - - - - - - - - _ m^ ____ -\\-\----- __ - - __- , FOLLOWING EQUATION; Qs=29.83(Cd') - ISO SD • SD SD SD SD SD SD s SD I a o ® 12 _ 6" SEWER 33 12 OP. 6" SEW - "SS WIIFRE; Q ISTIIEORSP.RVFDM.OR'iNGPM;d ISTIIEOLTIITDIAMFTERIN INCHES; p TSTHF,PITOT GAUGE.. I - _ nq PRESSURE IN PSI; AND C IS TI Ri FLOW LOSS COFTFICIP_N'T(C=1.0 FOR II.OW TUBES AND C=0.9 FOR BUTT 4�0f 1 58.551 NV _ FLOW READINGS). 6" • SS • DN lv OBSERVED FLOW(Qs,gpm): IG27 GPM I I 'O .. . • • [ • _NJ CNG- `,tti y I - -- VJ N���� DISCHARGE CALCS: TFIE DISCIIARGE VOR A GIVEN FIRE HYDRANT CAN BE DETERMINED FROM THE FOLLOWING jn I I 33 +�!C(D�Oy�. EQUATION USING T71E INITIAL(STATIC)WATER PRESSURE AND THE RESIDUAL(DYNAMIC) I ■ ■ ■ ° ., - _ _ I �� �� �� NS` WATER PRFSSIRE 3 �/ Q s P -20 054 pp � I I I I bd P Pg� F �P Q,=Q4.-P,l V� IIA iiI� 0 Q QP WHERE„ Q (STATIC OR RESIDUAL)IS TIIE IlAR'IN GPM;AND P (STATIC OR RESIDUAL)IS THE II u PRESSURE IN PSL NOTE A III PSI DROP IS REQUIRED FOR VAT I TEST'. E E. 1 " PER I D I CALCULATED FLOW AT 20 psi(Qr,gpm): 3916 GPM I TAf NO. 6015 Q JOB NO. 65852 > ■ A ■ o II 2 )ej 0 EX. 15" SEWE R I 22 I II I 2 TR T N0. 60 JOB 5 I I uP ni (S=0.0328) y 1R&L V Y I V V EX. FH PER II I I v Y NOTES: TRACT NO. 6015 I ■ IJit LL_I o 1. EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS JOB NO. 65852 N S 33 ARE SHOWN IN THEIR APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS LU ROP NF EXISTING 18' WIDE BASED UPON RECORD INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT L I eSs 13S-0 2 " II I EX. ELECTRIC VAULT RESERVATION FOR FUTURE THE TIME OF PREPARATION OF PLANS. LOCATIONS 155.221N 0 PEDESTRIAN USE TO BE REMOVED �� \ 1 s � � � HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED IN THE FIELD. 8" SEWER PER // 7 O O // / 146.4 NV-IN 2. ALL EXISTING WATER SERVICES THAT ARE NOT BEING I ^ \ 146. 61NV-OUT /a REUSED SHALL BE ABANDONED AT THE MAIN. U RACT NO. 6015 /JOB NO. 65852 1 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ❑ / /m / (S=0.0132) l / 14156.201NV // // \� B• \ � 1(156.101 V- T) 33 151 .331NV- •+ O / I 8„SS I fl , , / / 1� -OU L J J PER // // o X. PRIVATE CA H B !- II II^ • o0 0000000 00000000 00000000 0000000 00 ; 31 / 3 / R 3 LEGEND / s / m PRIVAT SD 151. _ // PE NO. 36 EX. EXISTING / '►L p _ a w � J INV INVERT PROP. PROPOSED EX. PRIV s w = 146.691NV LJJSSLOPE 10" SD l l y. N2 WATER PER EX. 2" WAT R e w _ - RE U 368 / Z CT NO. 6015 M ER & _ - _ _ _, w SD STORM DRAIN B NO. 65852 a / SE VICE ER _ a _ EX. 8' WATER PER SS SANITARY SEWER A / RES B N . 3 8 aw RESUB NO. 368 o m �Z �� 146.831NV SEWER CONSTRUCTION NOTES WATER CONSTRUCTION NOTES STORM DRAIN CONSTRUCTION NOTES T . 1 1 401-L.EXISTINGFIELDE VERIFY REXIST NG SEWER ELATERALO LOCATION &NCCOTV TO CHECK CITYSTHDE 21 EXISTING WATER SERVICE TO BE ABANDONED AT MAIN 31 CONNECT TO EXISTING PRIVATE CATCH BASIN CONDITIONS OF LATERALS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. IF SUBSTANDARD, LATERAL SHALL BE RECONSTRUCTED. 22 PROPOSED 2" IRRIGATION METER & SERVICE 32 PROPOSED MODULAR WETLAND UNIT FOR STORM WATER TREATMENT 12 PROPOSED 6" SEWER LATERAL PER STD-406-L 23 PROPOSED 6" DOMESTIC SERVICE 33 PROPOSED AREA DRAIN 13 PROPOSED 8" SEWER LATERAL 24 PROPOSED 8" FIRE SERVICE 14 MANHOLE PER STD 401 -L 25 PROPOSED 2" IRRIGATION BACKFLOW 26 PROPOSED 6" ABOVE GROUND TRU/FLO COMPOUND METER/BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY 27 PROPOSED 8" DOUBLE CHECK DETECTOR ASSEMBLY 20' 0' 10' 20' 40' 28 PROPOSED POST INDICATOR VALVE SCALE: 1" = 20' 29 PROPOSED FIRE DEPARTMENT CONNECTION C2•0 FUSCOE 16795 Von Korman, Suite 100 Newport Center Condominiums CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN IIIE.. Irvine, California 92606 Newport Beach, Ca tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315 E N G 1 N E E R I N G Www.fuscoe.com full circle thinking + P A R T N E R S Note: Conceptual Design Package Subject To Change Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 Item No. 3f Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) o I ANACAPA mnD DRIVE BUILDING SETBACK LINE ° 0° L3 LEVEL I v 65' 26.4' MIN ° T 60.2' MAX 50' 15' 15' o 10' S' L2 LEVEL � I (E) PARKWAY E SIDEWALK I A 1 1 O NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE rot' c _ PROPOSED L1 LEVEL 2% LANDSCAPE WALL 167.50 • i ° I I _ ° 14.4' MIN : ► 34.2' MAX B1 RESIDENT I I \ PARKING 0 O l ° o - _ _ _ - - - - _ ✓ J SECTION A B2 RESIDENT • -- SCAEL: 1"=10' PARKING3 134.50 63 RESIDENT o , PARKING KEY PLAN 40' 0' 20' 40' 80' ASSUMED 3' FOUNDATION SECTION SCALE: 1" = 40' BUILDING L3 LEVEL I PL L3 LEVEL SETBACK LINE L3 LEVEL 11 I EXISTING 18' WIDE A NON—EXCLUSIVE R/W R/W RESERVATION FOR EASEMENT FOR INGRESS 22.5MIN 77' FUTURE PEDESTRIAN USE AND EGRESS OVER 39.6' MAX I TO BE REMOVED PARCEL A P.M.B. 76/32 _3' (E) SIDEWALK 1 12.5' 26' 26' 12.5' 3' E SIDEWALK L2 LEVEL 1 22.25' MIN 24' L2 LEVEL EASEMENT I EASEMENT 24.0' MAX PL L2 LEVEL 9' 1I 6.5' 6.5' 9' 19' S' E SIDEWALK I PARKWAY E PARKWAY E SIDEWALK 1 1.OTW TGRSIDEWALK p 14.1' MIN 2.3' 24' y<< I L1 LEVEL n 27.8' MAX L1 LEVEL 00' ANACAPA DRIVE 167.50 M z_ x 5.15' n L1 LEVEL 167.50 I 2%- I ��G E LANDSCAPE 167.50 12% PRIVATE DRIVE _ c 3.0' LANDSCAPE BUFFERING 15' B1 RESIDENT z x -- PRIVATE DRIVE w 2% PER LANDSCAPE PLANS B1 RESIDENT I PARKING � 2.3' LANDSCAPE BUFFE IN 61 RESIDENT PARKING PER LANDSCAPE PLANS PARKING "' LO r` 7.3' 3.0' B2 RESIDENT B2 RESIDENT LRESIDENT PARKING PARKING I SECTION g SCAEL: 1"=10' 3 134.50 134.50 B3 RESIDENT B3 RESIDENT IPARKING PARKING I ASSUMED 3' ASSUMED 3' FOUNDATION SECTION FOUNDATION SECTION SECTION D ASSUMED N FOUNDATION SECTION 3. SECTION C SCAEL: 1"=10' SCAEL 1"=10' 3. C3.0 AM- F E 16795Von Karman, Suite 100 Newport Center Condominiums SECTIONS ,9,,, USCG Irvine, California 92606 Newport Beach, CA tel 949.474.1960 fax 949.474.5315 MW E N G 1 N E E R I N 6 www.fuscoe.com f " , , c ; r c , e t h ; n k ; " 9 + P A R T N E R S Note: Conceptual Design Package Subject To Change Plannmn fission - September 1 , 2016 ABBREVIATIONS NOTES: PAVING LEGEND Item No. W Ac ditional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) ABBREVIATION EXTENSION 1. WUCOLS Region Three Plant Factor listings are used for this Document. SYMBOL KEY ITEM MATERIAL COLOR FINISH REMARKS DETAIL SPEC. SEC. ADA AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 2. All plants within a Plant Designation Type; Hedge, Shrub, Groundcover, and ADJ. ADJACENT (LAYOUT, MEASUREMENT) Soft Succulent Mix, will have plant species with similar Plant Factors ENTRY PAVING DIMENSIONAL UNIT TBD TBD DIMENSIONAL UNIT PAVER OVER VEHICULAR RATED BASE MATERIAL. -- -- AM APICAL MERISTEM (PALM TREE REFERENCE) P1 PAVER, MATERIAL ARCH ARCHITECT grouped into Hydro—zones. Plants with different Plant Factors will not be TBD ADJ. ADJACENT grouped within the same Hydro—zone. BS BOTTOM OF STEP 3. The Plant Palette in this Document is a working Plant Palette. The COURTYARD PAVING DIMENSIONAL UNIT TBD TBD DIMENSIONAL UNIT PAVING TO MATCH CONDO UNIT PAVING. PAVING TO MEET -- -- BW BOTTOM OF WALL intention of this Document is to list the possible plants that will be usedP2 PAVER, MATERIAL APPLICABLE EXTERIOR SLIP COEFFICIENTS. CAD COMPUTER—AIDED DESIGN in each Plant Designation Type; Hedge, Shrub, Groundcover, and Soft TBD CIP or C.I.P. CAST—IN—PLACE (CONCRETE APPLICATIONS) Succulent Mix. Not all plants may be used in the final Plan. CIVIL CIVIL ENGINEER PRIVATE WALKWAY ENHANCED C.I.P. TBD TBD ENHANCED FINISH TBD. SAW CUT JOINTS. CL CENTERLINE (LAYOUT, MEASUREMENT) 4. The irrigation system is to be fully automatic and conform to the City of INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE W/ CLS CENTER LINE OF SWALE (GRADIENT) Newport Beach Landscape Guidelines. P3 PAVING CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN THICKNESS. -- -- CLR CLEAR 5. Sub—surface in—line drip tubing irrigation will be used for all planting CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT areas. PUBLIC SIDEWALK C.I.P. CONCRETE GRAY, NO COLOR BROOM PAVING TYPE, COLOR, AND FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK. CONC. CONCRETE ADDED DIA DIAMETER (LAYOUT, MEASUREMENT) 6. The finished Planting Plan will be designed so the Estimated Total Water P4 PAVING EJ EXPANSION JOINT (CONCRETE APPLICATIONS) Use (ETWU) will be less than the Maximum Allowable Water Use (MAWA) as EQ EQUAL (LAYOUT, MEASUREMENT) indicated in the City of Newport Beach Landscape Guidelines. SOCIAL SPACE PAVING DIMENSIONAL UNIT TBD TBD DIMENSIONAL UNIT PAVER OVER PEDESTRIAN RATED BASE MATERIAL. EXT. EXTERIOR 7. The grades and wall heights indicated in this Document are preliminary F.O.B. FACE OF BUILDING P5 PAVER, MATERIAL FG or F.G. FINISHED GRADE (TOP SOIL GRADIENT) and are subject to change. _ TBD FS V. F.S. FINISHED SURFACE (HARD SURFACES) COURTYARD STEPPING DIMENSIONAL UNIT TBD TBD DIMENSIONAL UNIT PAVER OVER PEDESTRIAN RATED BASE MATERIAL. GALV. GALVANIZED -- -- GEOTECH GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER ❑❑❑❑❑ CP6 STONES PAVER, MATERIAL GPM GALLONS PER HOUR (IRRIGATION) LANDSCAPE AREA QUANTITIES. TBD GPM GALLONS PER MINUTE (IRRIGATION) HEX. HEXAGONAL PAVING BAND ENHANCED C.I.P. TBD TBD INTEGRAL COLOR CONCRETE W/ ENHANCED FINISH TBD. SAW CUT JOINTS. -- -- HP HIGH POINT (GRADIENT) GROUND COVER: 169 SQ FT CP7 CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN THICKNESS. HSS HOLLOW STRUCTURAL SECTION SOFT SUCCULENT 836 SQ FT IE INVERT ELEVATION HEDGE 1748 SQ FT LA or L.A. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHRUB 4883 SQ FT TRUNCATED DOMES TBD TBD TBD ADA AND CBC COMPLIANT TRUNCATED DOME WARNING STRIP. -- -- LED or L.E.D. LIGHT—EMITTING DIODE (ELECTRICAL FIXTURE) TURF 753 SQ FT CP8 LOW or L.O.W. LIMIT OF WORK TOTAL: 8389 SQ FT LP LOW POINT (GRADIENT) MAX. MAXIMUM ENHANCED CROSSWALK CONCRETE UNIT TBD TBD VEHICULAR RATED DIMENSIONAL UNIT PAVER OVER VEHICULAR RATED BASE -- -- MIN. MINIMUM pg PAVERS MATERIAL. NAP or N.A.P NOT A PART OC or O.C. ON—CENTER (LAYOUT, MEASUREMENT) x OD or O.D. OUTSIDE DIAMETER (LAYOUT, MEASUREMENT) PA P.A. PLANTING AREA WALL LEGEND PERF.F. PERFORATED POB or P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING (LAYOUT, MEASUREMENT) PL PROPERTY LINE SYMBOL KEY ITEM MATERIAL COLOR FINISH REMARKS DETAIL SPEC. SEC. PSI POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH (IRRIGATION) PTDF PRESSURE—TREATED DOUGLAS FIR PERIMETER RETAINING CMU CORE W/ TBD TBD HEIGHTS VARY. SEE LAYOUT PLAN -- -- R RADIUS (LAYOUT, MEASUREMENT) yV1 WALL CLADDING TBD REF REFERENCE OR REFER TO MAX. REINFORCEMENT SE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER COURTYARD WALL CMU CORE W/ TBD TBD 42" TALL WALL. SPECS CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS S/S STAINLESS STEEL CW2 CLADDING TBD TBD TO BE DETERMINED TC TOP OF CURB (GRADIENT ELEVATION) ENTRY SEAT WALL CMU CORE W TBD TBD 18" TALL SEAT WALL. TG TOP OF GRATE (GRADIENT ELEVATION) / TS TOP OF STEP (GRADIENT ELEVATION) (W`3 CLADDING TBD TW TOP OF WALL (GRADIENT ELEVATION) TYP TYPICAL SOCIAL SPACE SEAT TBD TBD TBD 18" TALL SEAT WALL. -- -- W/ WITH WALL W4 S H E ET I N D EX C.I.P. CONCRETE STAIRS C.I.P. CONCRETE TBD TBD -- -- -- ® W5 WITH ENHANCED GENERAL SHEETS FINISH PLANTER WALL CMU CORE W/ TBD TBD HEIGHT TBD BASED ON FINAL ON—STRUCTURE PLANTING DEPTH AVAILABLE. REFERENCE SHEET NAME CW6 CLADDING TBD 1-0. 0 NOTES & LAYOUT LEGEND LO. 1 PLANTING PALETTE SITE FURNISHING LEGEND LID. 2 PLANTING PALETTE (CONT. ) SYMBOL KEY ITEM MATERIAL COLOR FINISH REMARKS DETAIL SPEC. SEC. MATERIALS AND LAYOUT PLANS (�F� ENTRY BENCH TBD TBD TBD -- o 1 REFERENCE SHEET NAME 1-1 . 0 MATERIALS & LAYOUT PLAN O SF2 LARGE POT TBD TBD TBD PLANTING PLANS SMALL POT TBD TBD TBD REFERENCE SHEET NAME o CSF3 L2. 0 PLANTING PLAN STAIR HANDRAIL TBD TBD TBD -- CSF CSF5 PRIVATE COURTYARD TBD TBD TBD FURNITURE Qo CPRIVATE COURTYARD TBD TBD TBD OBJECT TBD BETWEEN WATER FEATURE, FIRE ELEMENT, SCULPTURE, OR PLANTED SF OBJECT. POT. COURTYARD GATE TBD TBD TBD SF7 -- -- -- TRELLIS TBD TBD TBD SF8 -- -- -- BOLLARD TBD TBD TBD (SF9 LO.0 Laguna Beach 570GIenneyreSt. Sausalito Houston Laguna Beach CA 92651 Fax 949 . 494.7861 Newport Center Condominiums NOTES AND LAYOUT LEGEND San Francisco Dallas 949 . 497 .5471 Newport Beach, CA Los Angeles Shanghai MVE + P A R T N E R S Note: Conceptual Design Package Subject To Change August 7, 2015 TREE PALETTE HEDGE PALETTE Planning Commission - September016 Item No. 3f Additional Materials Rece ved 150 Newport Center - H3) SYMBOL BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME CONTAINER FORM/BRANCHING USE MINIMUM SIZE DETAIL REF. WUCOLS REMARKS SYMBOL BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME CONTAINER FORM/BRANCHING USE MINIMUM SIZE DETAIL REF. WUCOLS REMARKS ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN SILK TREE TBD SINGLE TRUNK COURTYARD TBD N/A MEDIUM FULL, MATCHED, DENSE GROWTH, x x FICUS N. 'GREEN GEM' 'GREEN GEM' HYBRID TBD LOW BRANCHING TALL HEDGE TBD N/A LOW FULL/SYMMETRICAL IN NURSERY AND/OR PREMIUM SELECT GRADE, SPECIMEN x Xr FICUS HEDGE CONTAINER; PREMIUM SELECT GRADE; SPECIMEN TREE QUALITY, SYMMETRICAL, WELL— DENSE GROWTH; WELL—ROOTED; AS ROOTED, AS NURSERY TAGGED AND FIELD—ACCEPTED BY LANDSCAPE FIELD ACCEPTED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. DRACAENA DRACO DRAGON TREE 24" BOX SINGLE TRUNK COURTYARD TBD N/A VERY LOW ARCHITECT. LIGUSTRUM J. 'TEXANUM' HYBRID TBD LOW BRANCHING MEDIUM HEIGHT TBD N/A MEDIUM ACCENT xn "� 'TEXANUM' PRIVET HEDGE HEDGE HYMENOSPORUM FLAVUM SWEET SHADE TBD STANDARD NEWPORT CENTER TBD N/A MEDIUM DR. LANDSCAPE a X MYRSINE AFRICANA AFRICAN BOXWOOD TBD LOW BRANCHING LOW HEDGE TBD N/A LOW 0 BUFFER HEDGE OLEA EUROPEA 'SWAN 'SWAN HILL' HYBRID TBD MULTI—TRUNK COURTYARD TREE TBD N/A LOW 0 HILL' FRUITLESS OLIVE TREE PRUNUS CAROLINIANA 'BRIGHT AND TIGHT' TBD LOW BRANCHING MEDIUM HEIGHT TBD N/A MEDIUM x BRIGHT AND TIGHT HYBRID CAROLINA HEDGE HEDGE LAUREL CHERRY 0 PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR FERN PINE TBD STANDARD NEWPORT CENTER TBD N/A MEDIUM BUFFER UFFERGROUND COVER PALETTE SPATHODEA AFRICAN TULIP TREE TBD STANDARD SPECIMEN / TBD N/A MEDIUM SYMBOL BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME CONTAINER FORM/BRANCHING USE MINIMUM SIZE DETAIL REF. WUCOLS REMARKS CAMPANULATA NEWPORT CENTER BACCHARIS PILULAIS 'PIGEON POINT' TBD SPREADING GROUNDCOVER TBD LOW SYMMETRICAL IN NURSERY DR. LANDSCAPE HYBRID N/A FULL/SYMMETRICAL BUFFER 'PIGEON POINT' DWARF COYOTE BUSH GROUNDCOVER CONTAINER; PREMIUM SELECT GRADE; DENSE GROWTH; WELL—ROOTED; AS TABEBUTA IMPETIGNOSA PINK TRUMPET TREE TBD STANDARD ANACAPA STREET TBD N/A MEDIUM FIELD—ACCEPTED BY LANDSCAPE (AVELLANEDAE) TREE / ARCHITECT. (31 LANTANA 'ALBA' WHITE FLOWERING TBD SPREADING GROUNDCOVER TBD N/A LOW SPECIMENT LANTANA GROUNDCOVER TIPUANA TIPU TIPU TREE TBD STANDARD ANACAPA STREET TBD N/A MEDIUM TREE /SPECIMENT SENECIO SERPENS BLUE CHALKSTICKS TBD SPREADING GROUNDCOVER TBD N/A LOW 0 GROUNDCOVER SHRUB PALETTE VINE PALETTE SYMBOL BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME CONTAINER FORM/BRANCHING USE MINIMUM SIZE DETAIL REF. WUCOLS REMARKS AGAPANTHUS 'SNOW 'SNOW STORM' HYBRID TBD PERENNIAL FROM SHRUB TBD N/A MEDIUM FULL/SYMMETRICAL IN NURSERY SYMBOL BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME CONTAINER FORM/BRANCHING USE MINIMUM SIZE DETAIL REF. WUCOLS REMARKS STORM' LILY—OF—THE—NILE RHIZOMES PLANTINGS CONTAINER; PREMIUM SELECT GRADE; DISTICTIS BUSSINATORIA BLOOD—RED TRUMPET TBD STAKED VINE VINE TBD N/A MEDIUM FULL SYMMETRICAL IN NURSERY DENSE GROWTH; WELL—ROOTED; AS VINE CONTAINER; PREMIUM SELECT GRADE; FIELD—ACCEPTED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. DENSE GROWTH; WELL—ROOTED; AS AGAVE ATTENUATA VARIEGATED FOXTAIL TBD SUCCULENT SHRUB TBD N/A LOW FIELD—ACCEPTED BY LANDSCAPE 'VARIEGATA' AGAVE PLANTINGS ARCHITECT. FICUS PUMILA CREEPING FIG #5 STAKED VINE WALL SCREENING TBD N/A MEDIUM AGAVE 'BLUE FLAME' 'BLUE FLAME' HYBRID TBD SUCCULENT SHRUB TBD N/A LOW AGAVE PLANTINGS TURF � � CALANDRINA ROCK PULSANE TBD SUCCULENT SHRUB TBD N/A NOT LISTED— ? ; 2 GRANDILORA PLANTINGS LOW SYMBOL BOTANIC NAME MFG. CONTAINER FORM/BRANCHING USE MINIMUM SIZE DETAIL REF. WUCOLS REMARKS ARTIFICIAL TURF TBD N/A TURF DOG PARK N/A N/A -- -- COTYLEDON ORBICULATA 'IVORY SHELL' HYBRID TBD SUCCULENT SHRUB TBD N/A LOW 'IVORY SHELL' PIG'S EAR PLANTINGS EUPHORBIA 'CAT TAILS' HYBRID TBD SUCCULENT SHRUB TBD N/A NOT LISTED— LEUCODENDRON 'CAT EUPHORBIA PLANTINGS VERY LOW TAILS' EUPHORBIA TIRUCALLI FIRE STICKS TBD SUCCULENT SHRUB TBD N/A VERY LOW 'ROSEA' PLANTINGS KLANCHOE LUCIAE 'FLAP 'FLAP JACK' HYBRID TBD SUCCULENT SHRUB TBD N/A NOT LISTED— JACK' PADDLE PLANT PLANTINGS LOW LEUCODENDRON SPP. LEUCODENDRON TBD WOODY SHRUB SHRUB TBD N/A LOW PLANTINGS PITTOSPORUM 'WHEERLER'S DWARF' TBD WOODY SHRUB SHRUB TBD N/A N/A 'WHEELER'S DWARF' HYBRID PITTOSPORUM PLANTINGS RAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'CLARA' HYBRID INDIAN TBD WOODY SHRUB SHRUB TBD N/A MEDIUM 'CLARA' HAWTHORN PLANTINGS L0.1 Laguna Beach 570 GIanneyre St. Sausalito Houston Laguna Beach CA 92651 Fax 949 . 494.7861 Newport Center Condominiums PLANTING PALETTE San Francisco Dallas 949 . 497 .5471 Newport Beach, CA Los Angeles Shanghai MVE + P A R T N E R S Note: Conceptual Design Package Subject To Change August 7, 2015 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 Item No. 3f Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) SOFT SUCCULENT PALATTE SYMBOL BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME SIZE FORM/BRANCHING USE MINIMUM SIZE DETAIL REF. WUCOLS REMARKS AEONIUM DECORUM SUNBURST' HYBRID #� SUCCULENT SUCCULENT-MIX TBD N/A LOW FULL/SYMMETRICAL IN NURSERY 'SUNBURST' AEONIUM GROUNDCOVER CONTAINER; PREMIUM SELECT GRADE; DENSE GROWTH; WELL-ROOTED; CAN-FULL, AND FREE OF SCARRING AS FIELD-ACCEPTED BY LANDSCAPE AEONIUM 'KIWI' 'KIWI' HYBRID AEONIUM #1 SUCCULENT SUCCULENT-MIX TBD N/A LOW ARCHITECT. GROUNDCOVER x' ALOE MACULATA SOAP ALOE #� SUCCULENT SUCCULENT-MIX TBD N/A LOW GROUNDCOVER ALOE VARIEGATA TIGER ALOE #1 SUCCULENT SUCCULENT-MIX TBD N/A LOW GROUNDCOVER Al CRASSULA ARGENTEA COMPACT JADE PLANT #1 SUCCULENT SUCCULENT-MIX TBD N/A LOW 'CROSBY'S COMPACT' GROUNDCOVER e COTYLEDON ORBICULATA 'IVORY SHELL' HYBRID #1 SUCCULENT SUCCULENT-MIX TBD N/A LOW 'IVORY SHELL' PIG'S EAR. GROUNDCOVER DUDLEYA BRITTONII CHALK DUDLEYA #1 SUCCULENT SUCCULENT-MIX TBD N/A VERY LOW GROUNDCOVER ECHEVERIA 'BLUE ROSE' 'BLUE ROSE' HYBRID #1 SUCCULENT SUCCULENT-MIX TBD N/A LOW - % HENS AND CHICKS GROUNDCOVER ECHEVERIA 'PERLE VON 'PERLE VON #1 SUCCULENT SUCCULENT-MIX TBD N/A LOW NURENBERG' NURENBERG' HYBRID GROUNDCOVER ECHIVERIA ECHIVERIA CANTE 'WHITE 'WHITE CLOUD' HYBRID #1 SUCCULENT SUCCULENT-MIX TBD N/A LOW ' CLOUD' ECHIVERIA GROUNDCOVER Al GRAPTOPETALUM GHOST PLANT #1 SUCCULENT SUCCULENT-MIX TBD N/A LOW PARAGUAYENSE GROUNDCOVER PACHYPHYTUM MOONSTONES #1 SUCCULENT SUCCULENT-MIX TBD N/A NOT LISTED- OVIFERUM GROUNDCOVER LOW SEDUM RUPRESTRE STONECROP #1 SUCCULENT SUCCULENT-MIX TBD N/A LOW GROUNDCOVER SEMPERVIVUM 'KREBS' 'KREBS' HYBRID #1 SUCCULENT SUCCULENT-MIX TBD N/A LOW v� LIVE-FOR-EVER GROUNDCOVER SEMPERVIVUM 'VORTEX' 'VORTEX' HYBRID #1 SUCCULENT SUCCULENT-MIX TBD N/A LOW LIVE-FOR-EVER GROUNDCOVER LO.2 Laguna Beach 570 GIanneyre St. Sausalito Houston Laguna Beach CA 92651 Fax 949 . 494.7861 Newport Center Condominiums PLANTING PALETTE San Francisco Dallas 949 . 497 .5471 Newport Beach, CA Los Angeles Shanghai MVE + P A R T N E R S Note: Conceptual Design Package Subject To Change August 7, 2015 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 em No. 3f Additionalaterials Received PAVING LEGEN �50 Newport Center (PA2014-213) SYMBOL KEY ITEM ENTRY PAVING w P1 CP2 COURTYARD PAVING CP3 PRIVATE WALKWAY PAVING SF6 CPUBLIC SIDEWALK P4 PAVING TYP. SOCIAL SPACE PAVING P4 P4 EXTENTS OF PODIUM BELOW PS LOW TYP. .._.._.._..—.. .. COURTYARD STEPPING � • • � � • STONES +168.25 00000 CP6 +168.25 +163.50 +16900 � PAVING BAND +169.25 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ----- — — — — — — — — — — — R P4 — — — — + TYP. P7 161. 0 P5 .. TRUNCATED DOMES TYP. s E W-4 a F n P8 m T • ENHANCED CROSSWALK a z z W4 TYP. ✓' � � � P4 _�, • P9 41 • TYP. W2 TYP' TYP' WALL LEGEND P2 \, ■ ■ " ■ SF6 +161.00 SF3 SF9 Typ � SYMBOL KEY ITEM SF5 TYTMP. o TYP. Typ o SF4 PERIMETER RETAINING P. W1 WALL WS SF1 P8 ❑ TYP. SF6 TYP. TMp' NP' SF7 5 0 3 COURTYARD WALL TYP. ' SF4 °N TYP. W3 \ (W2 TYP. i TYP, SF2 P1 )- ❑ _/ SF5 ■ TMp! NP' ■ o ENTRY SEAT WALL TYP. ' p P3 W3 Wz ' FFE: 167.50 o TMP. TMp - c� C� 0 W\ (W74 SOCIAL SPACE SEAT TREE TRUNK WALL UP TYP. TYP. = Y � +166C.I.P. CONCRETE STAIRS +167.50 ■ , , +167.50 TMP. ® CW5 SF6 ❑ I EXTENTS OF PODIUM BELOW ❑ PLANTER WALL TYP. SF2 W6 I SF2/3 TYP. :10I TYP. TMP +159.00 °° > SF6 SF5 SITE FURNISHING LEGEND W2 TYP. TYP. SF5 TYP. _� TMP I SF3 SYMBOL KEY ITEM ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 67.50 TYP. ENTRY BENCH STAIRWELL SFJ (FROM BELOW) D W6 i TYP. 93 LARGE POT W2 DOG PARK • I �� �� W4 0 CSF TYP. �; ❑o❑❑❑❑❑❑ -❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ ,y , ; � ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ � , � T TYP. 156.0 SMALL POT+ 64R.0 065. L.O.W. 165. 0 170 � +167.50 i _.. +167.50 p (7SF3 ._.. .. .. ._.. 0 LOW STAIR HANDRAIL D IL GATEWAY ELEMENT W CSF P3 SF7 \ P2 W2 W3 ' W TYP Trp EXTENTS OF PODIUM BELOW TYP. TYP. .' TYP. J LANDSCAPE UNDER CSF JPRIVATE COURTYARDW6P1CANTILEVERED SF5 W1 W6 > FURNITURE J TMP TYP, ARCHITECTURAL DECK TO BE TYP, : TYP. TYP. COMPRISED OF VINES & PRIVATE COURTYARD L L_ SHRUBS TO SCREEN SF8 Qo SF6 ) OBJECT. ARCHITECTURAL WALL. TYP. 0 COURTYARD GATE O � (SF7 O J TRELLIS � (SF8 W W BOLLARD c/) CSF W W Ln PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH 0' 16' 32' 64' 128' L1.0 Laguna Beach 570GlenneyreSt, Sausalito Houston Laguna Beach 92651 Fax 949 .494.786861 Newport Center Condominiums LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN ' San Francisco Dallas 949,497.5471 Newport Beach, CA Los Angeles Shanghai P A R T N E R S Note: Conceptual Design Package Subject To Change August 7, 2015 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ved TREE PALETTE 1 Center (PA2014-213) SYMBOL BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME SYMBOL BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME ALBIZIA JULIBRISSIN SILK TREE FICUS N. 'GREEN GEM' 'GREEN GEM' HYBRID FICUS DRACAENA DRACO DRAGON TREE LIGUSTRUM J. 'TEXANUM' HYBRID 'TEXANUM' PRIVET HYMENOSPORUM FLAVUM SWEET SHADE 0 M MYRSINE AFRICANA AFRICAN BOXWOOD C) OLEA EUROPEA 'SWAN 'SWAN HILL' HYBRID HILL' FRUITLESS OLIVE TREE PRUNUS CAROLINIANA 'BRIGHT AND TIGHT' 'BRIGHT AND TIGHT' HYBRID CAROLINA LAUREL CHERRY PODOCARPUS GRACILIOR FERN PINE GROUND COVER PALETTE j� < � i.�., <�1;_ K t" ;<'{!,{� �._.; n. 1 -?. `, ,. }-? . �. �r•.`K t�t� ,�, ,..t. �C- 'll ,<.. ;;OSS -:L.,, �, {21 C ;1 .. ?{'�, '_1 _ „'� � �� t; Yil]{r lS� ,r� � - • � �rs;- x - *.,- -�- - �� n S,r +963.50 � -� ', ^ �- '� � SPATHODEA AFRICAN TULIP TREE SYMBOL BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME +168.25 � "� AMPANULATA +961.50 C BACCHARIS PILULAIS 'PIGEON POINT' .00 +169.25 .�- +169R0 - - ,PIGEON POINT' DWARF COYOTE BYBHID AVELLANEDAE "/ �' r_.�� >':t t zi�;i7 t <i�,s> >, �'}t <, >tT • � �Y ?� `�_, � ) � LANTANA 'ALBA' WHITE FLOWERING �s 1 LANTANA +169.50 +IRA 71r. ' • �` D TIPUANA TIPU TIPU TREE 5 J � n • • • DN rPO SENECIO SERPENS BLUE CHALKSTICKS S s S' <L • +167.50 • • N00 ntt t +168.5 • • • • �r 3r r�� SHRUB PALETTE SOFT SUCCULENT PALATTE ������ ■ +161.00 o. SYMBOL BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME +167.50 • • AGAPANTHUS 'SNOW 'SNOW STORM' HYBRID SYMBOL BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME STORM' LILY-OF-THE-NILE � AEONIUM DECORUM 'SUNBURST' HYBRID 'SUNBURST' AEONIUM L o � AGAVE ATTENUATA VARIEGATED FOXTAIL 1' 2�2 o 'VARIEGATA' AGAVE DN • a XL . AEONIUM 'KIWI' 'KIWI' HYBRID AEONIUM Sets^? <� AGAVE 'BLUE FLAME' 'BLUE FLAME' HYBRID FF AGAVE E: 167.0 Y s=N ALOE MACULATA SOAP ALOE � CALANDRINA ROCK PULSANE . � �� I-) `i uP ,� S+ 2t �S GRANDILORA ALOE VARIEGATA TIGER ALOE 50 — +167.50 U +166. 0 +967.50 ■ r( COTYLEDON ORBICULATA 'IVORY SHELL' HYBRID LL 'IVORY SHELL' PIG'S EAR C; � .. 7. CRASSULA ARGENTEA COMPACT JADE PLANT t i 'CROSBY'S COMPACT' EUPHORBIA 'CAT TAILS' HYBRID r +159.00 -�i LEUCODENDRON 'CAT EUPHORBIA COTYLEDON ORBICULATA 'IVORY SHELL' HYBRID • k O v TAILS' 'IVORY SHELL' PIG'S EAR. F77k1 EUPHORBIA TIRUCALLI FIRE STICKS L.JLiROSEA' ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ +16750 „ 1x DUDLEYA BRITTONII CHALK DUDLEYA 77 KLANC OE LUCIAE FLAP 'FLAP JACK' HYBRID JACK' PADDLE PLANT ECHEVERIA 'BLUE ROSE' 'BLUE ROSE' HYBRID HENS AND CHICKS =7 LEUCODENDRON SPP. LEUCODENDRON ``CCS t, RLE VON +167.50 I ! ; I I+167.50 � � ,� ECHEVERIA 'PE PERLE VON 158.0 ��� .��� NURENBERG' NURENBERG' HYBRID +167.50 ECHIVERIA + 64.0 165. 0 ! ; ' R .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. _ _ _ _ _ .. — — — — — PITTOELERSUD �.b.w. .. .. .. L. :w. WHEERLER'S DWARF' _ > ? 'WH DWARF' HYBRID PITTOSPORUM c) ECHIVERIA CANTE 'WHITE 'WHITE CLOUD' HYBRID z CLOUD' ECHIVERIA �L RAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'CLARA' HYBRID INDIAN W Z LANDSCAPE UNDER CANTILEVERED 'CLARA' HAWTHORN (DW GRAPTOPETALUM GHOST PLANT ARCHITECTURAL DECK TO BE J PARAGUAYENSE W COMPRISED OF VINES& J J SHRUBS TO SCREEN VINE PALETTE PACHYPHYTUM MOONSTONES J ARCHITECTURAL WALL. LL y OVIFERUM D SYMBOL BOTANIC NAME COMMON NAME LL DISTICTIS BUSSINATORIA BLOOD-RED TRUMPET O VINE LL X �y h SEDUM RUPRESTRE STONECROP O O LL O O FICUS PUMILA CREEPING FIG 0 A kkk SEMPERVIVUM 'KREBS' 'KREBS' HYBRID J LU LIVE-FOR-EVER W = W W TURF "' _ W �,y ; r,"X SEMPERVIWM 'VORTEX' 'VORTEX' HYBRID � PROJECT W LIVE-FOR-EVER W NORTH SYMBOL BOTANIC NAME MFG. W TRUE NORTH ARTIFICIAL TURF TBD 0' 16' 32' 64' 128' L2.0 Laguna Beach 570GIenneyreSt. Sausalito Houston Laguna Beach CA 92651 Fax 949 . 494.7861 Newport Center Condominiums PLANTING PLAN San Francisco Dallas 949 . 497 .5471 Newport Beach, CA Los Angeles Shanghai MVE + P A R T N E R S Note: Conceptual Design Package Subject To Change August 7, 2015 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3g Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: 150 Newport Center Drive or better known as "The Carwash" From: Margaret Baldwin rmailto:MargaretCa)glamorgall.coml Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 11:01 AM To: Nova, Makana Cc: Margaret Baldwin Subject: FW: 150 Newport Center Drive or better known as "The Carwash" Please add this to the Public Packet for 9/1/2016 City Council Meeting. Thank you. Margaret From: Margaret Baldwin Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2016 6:20 PM To: 'ddixon@newportbeachca.gov'; 'tpetros@newportbeachca.gov'; 'dduffield@newportbeachca.gov'; 'kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov'; 'edselich@roadrunner.com'; 'speotter@newportbeachca.com'; 'keithcurryl@yahoo.com' Cc: Margaret Baldwin Subject: FW: 150 Newport Center Drive or better known as "The Carwash" Dear Mayor Dixon and City Council Members, I attended the Planning Commission meeting on August 1g1h. I am sad to report that the commission failed to take into consideration the views expressed by all of the members of the community to keep 150 NCD commercially zoned.As a matter of fact, if you look at the taped version, you will see Chair Kramer and Secretary Jak holding a private conversation and laughing while two speakers from the community were respectfully giving their views.The only commissioner who wants 150 commercially zoned is Commissioner Weigand, who was outvoted. I felt the evening was a complete waste of my time.The Planning Commission made up their minds that they want residential housing at 150 NCD.They did not consider the viewpoints expressed by the residents of the community.We are clearly not being represented by this group. I tried to think about living in the condos that are being proposed at 150. Here's what I think life is going to be like living at 150. At 11:30 pm when I am trying to sleep, I might hear cheers from Muldoon's patrons enjoying a sporting event. At 1:00 am the Edward's Theater lets out, so there will be car doors slamming and lights and noise from the cars leaving the parking lot across the street at Design Plaza. Muldoon's closes at 2 am so there will be more noise. So far I have not gotten much sleep. At 6am beer and food trucks start their deliveries to Muldoon's. As well,the janitorial staff starts to arrive. I figure by this time, if I lived there, I would have gotten about four good hours of sleep. Obviously, I would not be happy. I think 1 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3g Additional Materials Received the residents of the proposed condos will be very unhappy with the noise coming from 60 gpjtIEIstehi(RA2014-213) successfully served our community for several decades. I think there is a good chance that several complaints will follow to the City Council about the noise from these two fabulous businesses that serve our community. I think lawsuits will follow that will put Muldoon's out of business. I think it is a shame that there is no one looking out for the "watering hole" of local residents where we share birthdays, wedding showers, bachelor parties, retirement parties and where we let our hair down to watch the Olympics and other sporting events. Did you know that Muldoon's was voted one of the top six pubs in America by the Food Network online?What a shame that the Planning Commission cannot see the merit of keeping this family owned business alive. Most of the restaurants in Fashion Island are chain restaurants. Isn't it refreshing to see a family owned business that's been in existence for 42 years thrive! I am concerned for Muldoon's future if the Planning Commission gets their way. I urge the City Council to keep 150 NCD commercially zoned. Very truly yours, Margaret Baldwin 1115 White Sails Way Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949-422-4980 2 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3g Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: 150 Newport Center Project Attachments: kurt's letter copy.pdf -----Original Message----- From: Kurt Armstrong [mailto:kurtarmstrong66@hotmail.comj Sent:Tuesday,August 30, 2016 12:27 PM To: Nova, Makana Subject: 150 Newport Center Project Dear Mrs Nova, Would you please be sure the planning commissioners and the city council members get this letter before Thursday nights meeting,September 1st. Sincerely, William Kurt Armstrong, MD Newport Family Medicine Chair, Dept. of Community Medicine, Hoag Hospital 1 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3g Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) William K Armstrong, MD 520 Superior Ave, #360 Newport Beach, Ca 92663 August 30, 2016 Dear Newport Beach Planning Commission, I am writing in support of Muldoon Irish Pub. Over the past 15 years this establishment has played a prominent role on my social and professional calendar, and has carried the banner of Irish Culture in our community. I am a graduate of Trinity College Dublin, Ireland's premier higher education institution and spent 5 years of my adult life living in Dublin. I can unequivocally state that we have a "Irish Cultural Gem" in the crown of Newport Beach. We should all be proud! Professionally, I hold my medical office Christmas celebration each year in Muldoons' Celtic Bar. Our staff look forward every year to the warm greetings and "Bog Nog". They start talking about it during the summer! Additionally both Hoag's fund raising 552 club (to which I am a former Board Director) and Greater Newport Physicians regularly hold events at Muldoons. It is very rare to find anyone in our town who does not know Muldoons, and when asked always smile. I also regularly meet with colleagues for "strategy meetings"in the Dublin Pub. In my private life, many critical life events have taken place at Muldoons. It was the venue for my Rehearsal dinner when I got married to the boss's daughter! It has been a regular destination for Holiday dinners, times to unwind to lively music and good company.Just this past July we had a wake for my father, the late Dr Charles Armstrong. It was truly a wonderful send off. Please hear me clearly when I say that we need to protect this Newport Beach institution from encroachment by unwanted development. The muting of our "Public House" which would occur due to this overly ambitious residential development would be terribly damaging to our community. Sincerely yours, 4 04-z William K Armstrong, MD Physician Shareholder, Newport Family Medicine Chair, Dept. of Community Medicine,Hoag Hospital Board Member, Greater Newport Physicians Board Member and Past President, Orange County Academy of Family Physicians Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) s3 IRVINE COMPANY Since 1864 RECEIVED 9y August 26, 2016 COMMUNITY AUG 3 0 2016 Ms. Kimberly Brandt, Community Development Director Mr. Kory Kramer, Planning Commission Chairp DEVELOPMENT r G 100 Civic Center Drive �yOF NEWPOR, OtiP Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: 150 Newport Center- Responses to Comments Dear Ms. Brandt, Chair Kramer, and Planning Commissioners: Irvine Company offers the following comments relative to the lack of detail provided in the Responses to Comments (RTC) to the June 24, 2016 comment letter submitted by Irvine Company during the public review period for the Draft EIR prepared for the 150 Newport Center project. Specifically, the responses to the June 24 letter failed to fully address the Irvine Company's concerns related to trash truck activity and street closure during the holiday season, as well as additional comments as noted below. RTC #H-6 details the location, circulation plan, and curb design that would accommodate trash pick-up at the tenant parking garage entrance/exit. We continue to remind the City that the existing easement is for ingress and egress and does not allow for trash truck parking or trash pickup. While we acknowledge that the 150 Newport Center project will be conditioned to ensure adequate vehicular access on the roadway for thru traffic to safely pass trash trucks parked at the south driveway entrance, we have repeatedly requested an exhibit depicting the sidewalk, lane, and median configurations in order to confirm that adequate distance is provided for pass-by traffic. It is unclear why an exhibit depicting this configuration has not been prepared. How has the City's Public Works department confirmed adequate distance for pass-by traffic without such an exhibit? As acknowledged in the Draft EIR, the applicant requires Irvine Company's approval for off-site improvements, including modifications to the existing median at the southerly entry. This request for more detailed information is consistent with the approvals the applicant must secure. When representatives from Irvine Company met with City Staff and the applicant on July 27, 2016, it was suggested that additional information would be provided to ensure there was no conflict between trash collection and office tenants accessing the block during the AM peak hour. It was suggested that a Condition of Approval could be included to identify appropriate hours for trash collection and to ensure that there would not be a conflict with office traffic. No information has been received relative to conditions to address trash pick-up during the peak hours. The RTC does not indicate that any such condition will be implemented. While Condition of Approval #86 details the location for trash truck service, no limitation is placed on the project to minimize conflicts with office traffic accessing the block during the AM and PM peak hours. We hereby request that Condition of Approval #86 be modified to restrict all trash collection so as not to occur during the AM and PM peak hours. 550 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 949.720.2000 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 ' Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Ms. Kim Brandt Mr. Kory Kramer August 26, 2016 Page 2 of 3 RTC #H-8 addresses the question of temporary lane closures during project construction; however, Irvine Company specifically requested that a mitigation measure or a condition of approval be included to ensure that no lane closures would be allowed during the holiday season (specifically between Thanksgiving and New Year's Day). The normal holiday season traffic congestion would be exacerbated by construction delays due to lane closures. We hereby request that Condition of Approval #93 be revised to prohibit any lane closures between Thanksgiving and New Year's Day. The City has received letters from Latham & Watkins dated August 12 and August 25, 2016 (attached), re-stating Irvine Company's vested right in the existing version of the North Newport Center Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement (Development Agreement), which includes the right to transfer development rights within the North Newport Center PC (PC-56). Specifically, the 2007 Development Agreement and subsequent Amendment provide for the Irvine Company's entitlement and transfer rights within the NNCPC and confirm that the version of the NNCPC the City Council adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 2012-19 shall apply to the portions of the North Newport Center covered by the 2007 Development Agreement and Amendment. Accordingly, if the City elects to incorporate the 150 Newport Center project site into PC-56, Irvine Company requests that the following sections of the Planned Community Development Plan be amended to exclude the proposed 150 Newport Center project from PC-56's transfer of development rights provisions and ensure the continued protection of Irvine Company's vested rights. Section II. B. Development Limits - Development limits may be modified through the approval of a Transfer of Development Rights, with the exception of any development at 150 Newport Center, which shall be ineligible for a transfer of development rights. Section II. C. Transfer of Development Rights - The transfer of development rights among sub-areas of. this Planned Community and to/from other areas in the Newport Center/Fashion Island District identified in the General Plan is allowed in accordance with the General Plan, with the exception of any development at 150 Newport Center, which shall be ineligible for a transfer of development rights. Section IV. C. Transfer of Development Rights - The following procedure shall be used for the transfer of development rights, with the exception of any development at 150 Newport Center, which shall be ineligible for a transfer of development rights. Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Ms. Kim Brandt Mr. Kory Kramer August 26, 2016 Page 3 of 3 Conclusion Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft EK responses to comments, and proposed conditions of approval. We reiterate our requests for information and ask that the concerns and issues identified in several letters, meetings, and discussions be more fully addressed as described above. Sincerely, 4.l V& Dan Miller Senior Vice President Entitlement and Public Affairs Attachments: Letters from Latham &Watkins dated August 12 and August 25, 2016 c: Peter Koetting, Planning Commission Vice Chair Peter Zak, Secretary Bill Dunlap, Commissioner Bradley Hillgren, Commissioner Ray Lawler, Commissioner Erik Weigand, Commissioner Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received Jennifer K.Roy 12670 Hlgh Blue*p Newport Center (PA2014-213) Direct Dial:+1.858.523.39M San Diego,California 92130 Jendier.royalw.00m Tel:+1.858.523.5400 Fax:+1.658.623.5450 wwm1w.com L A T H A M&W AT K I N S LLP FIRM/AFFILIATE OFFICES Barcelona Moscow Beijing Munich Boston New Jersey Brussels New York Century City Orange County Chicago Perls August 12, 2016 Dubai Riyadh DOeaeldad Rome Frankfurt Sen Diego Hamburg Sen Francisco VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL Hong Kong Shanghai Houston Silicon Valley Michael Torres London Singapore Loa Angolan Tokyo Assistant City Attorney Madrid Washington,D.C.• City of Newport Beach Milan 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 File No.502000.0000 Re: Relationship Between 150 Newport Center Residential Project(PA2014 213) and the Amended and Restated Amendment to Development Agreement No DA2007-002 for North Newport Center Dear Mr. Torres: We represent the Irvine Company in matters related to development in the Newport Center area of the City of Newport Beach. We submit this letter to clarify the relationship between the proposed 150 Newport Center Residential Project(PA2014-213)("150 Newport Center Project")and the existing development agreement that covers North Newport Center. The Irvine Company is a party to Development Agreement No. DA2007-002,entitled Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company LLC Concerning North Newport Center (Block 600, Fashion Island, and Portions of Block 500, and San Joaquin Plaza) ("2007 Development Agreement"),which the City of Newport Beach adopted by Ordinance No. 2007-21 on December 18, 2007. The 2007 Development Agreement provides for the Irvine Company's entitlement and transfer rights within the North Newport Center Planned Community(PC-56)("NNCPC"). Subsequent to the original adoption of the NNCPC in 2007, Block 800 and portions of Blocks 100 and 400 were added to the NNCPC by amendments. In 2012,the Irvine Company and the City amended the 2007 Development Agreement to include new residential units, and add Block 800 and the portions of Blocks 100 and 400 that were added to the NNCPC. This amendment was memorialized in the Amended and Restated Amendment to Development Agreement No. DA2007-002, entitled the Amended and Restated Amendment to Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company LLC Concerning North Newport Center Concerning Addition of Properties and Residential Units to Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement(Portions of Newport Center Blocks 100, 400 and 800 and San Joaquin Plaza) (the"Amendment'). Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received gt2°Aa,I �e 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Pelle 2 LATHAM&WATKINS«P Sections 1.31 and 1.32 of the 2007 Development Agreement define the"Project"and "Pro e "covered by the Development Agreement(as amended by Section 1 of the Amendment). Section 11 of the 2007 Development Agreement defines its"Development Agreement Effective Date"("Development Agreement Effective Date"), Section 12 of the Amendment defines its"Effective Date"("Amendment Effective Date"). In turn, Section 1.9 of the 2007 Development Agreement and Section 2 of the Amendment define the"Development Regulations'applicable to the Project and specific portions of the Property, asset forth below. • Block 600 and Portions of Block 500 San Joaquin Plaza and Fashion Island: Section 2.1 of the Amendment defines the Development Regulations applicable to Newport Center Block 600 and the portions of Block 500, San Joaquin Plaza, and Fashion Island covered by the Amendment to include the following documents as of the Development Agreement's Effective Date: (1)the City of Newport Beach 2006 General Plan,adopted by the City Council on July 25,2006 (the"General Plan'); and (2)Titles 15, 19,and 20 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Additionally,the NNCPC that the City Council adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 2012-19 applies to these portions of the Property. • Block 800 and Portions of Blocks 100 and 400: Section 2.2 of the Amendment defines the Development Regulations applicable to Newport Center Block 800 and the portions of Blocks 100 and 400 covered by the Amendment to include the following documents as of the Amendment's Effective Date: (1)the General Plan; and(2)Titles 15, 19, and 20 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, Additionally,the NNCPC that the City Council adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 2012-19 applies to these portions of the Property. We understand that the 150 Newport Center Project may include amendments to the NNCPC. However,in light of the provisions in the 2007 Development Agreement and Amendment described above,any such changes to the NNCPC prepared for the 150 Newport Center Project would not apply to the Irvine Company's Property under the 2007 Development Agreement and Amendment, unless further amendments to the development agreement are agreed to by the Irvine Company. Finally, we note that the Irvine Company has not been given an opportunity to review the final proposed amendments to the NNCPC, even though the Planning Commission hearing is scheduled for less than one week from today. Given the complexity of the NNCPC and the extent of the potential amendments, the Irvine Company will need additional time to review the amendments and will not be in a position to adequately respond by the Planning Commission hearing. Further,the Irvine Company has still not received responses to the environmental comments raised in the Company's June 24, 2016, letter. Accordingly, we request that the 150 Newport Center Project be continued to a later hearing date to ensure proper public notice and review of the NNCPC amendments, and to provide an opportunity for the City to respond to the Irvine Company's environmental concerns. US-DOM70600863.1 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received Auger 112,2016 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Pegs 3 LATHAM&WATKI NS - Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, VL ) Jennifer K. Roy U of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP cc: Dan Miller, The Irvine Company Christopher Garrett, Latham & Watkins LLP US-DOCSV0600863 I Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Christopher W.Garrett 126y0iiiph r�p Additional Materials Received Direct Dial.-+1.868.523.04M San Diego,CalAZONewport Center (PA2014-213) Christophergevett@1wcom Tat;+`1,858.623,60D FOX;+1.868.52&5450 www.lw.com _ FIRM/AFFILIATE OFFICES Barcelona Moscow Beiing Munich Boston New Jersey Brussels New York Century City Orange County Chicago Paris August 25, 2016 Dubai Wyadh D6sseldorf Rome Frankfurt San Diego Hamburg San Francisco VIA EMAIL AND U.S.MAIL Hong Kong Shanghai Houston Silicon Valley Michael Torres London Singapore Los Angeles Tokyo Assistant City Attorney Madrid Washington,D.C. City of Newport Beach Milan 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach,CA 92660 File No.602000.0600 Re: 150 Newport Center Residential Project(PA2014-213)• Proposed Amendments to North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan Dear Mr. Torres: We represent the Irvine Company in matters related to development in the Newport Center area of the City of Newport Beach. We understand that the City Planning Commission voted last week to direct the addition of the proposed 150 Newport Center Residential Project (PA2014-213)("150 Newport Center Proiect")into the North Newport Center Planned Community(PC-56)("NNCPC"). As we discussed in our letter dated August 12, 2016,the Irvine Company is a party to Development Agreement No. DA2007-002, entitled Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company LLC Concerning North Newport Center(Block 600, Fashion Island, and Portions of Block 500, and San Joaquin Plaza) ("2007 Development Agreement"), as subsequently amended and restated in the Amended and Restated Amendment to Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement Between the City of Newport Beach and The Irvine Company LLC Concerning North Newport Center Concerning Addition of Properties and Residential Units to Zoning Implementation and Public Benefit Agreement(Portions of Newport Center Blocks 100, 400 and 800 and San Joaquin Plaza) (the "Amendment ). The 2007 Development Agreement and Amendment provide for the Irvine Company's entitlement and transfer rights within the NNCPC, and confirm that the version of the NNCPC that the City Council adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 2012-19 shall apply to the portions of North Newport Center covered by the 2007 Development Agreement and Amendment. We understand that,pursuant to the Planning Commission's direction,the 150 Newport Center Project is likely to include amendments to the NNCPC. However,as we described in our August 12,2016 letter,in light of the provisions in the 2007 Development Agreement and Amendment described above, any changes to the NNCPC prepared for the 150 Newport Center US-DOCSC70745329.1 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Michael Twme Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received Paget 2.%2016 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Project would not apply to the Irvine Company's property covered by the 2007 Development Agreement and Amendment,unless further amendments to the development agreement are agreed to by the Irvine Company. Accordingly,two different versions of the NNCPC will apply to different property owners: (1)the version of the NNCPC that the City Council adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 2012-19 will apply to the Irvine Company; and(2) the proposed 2016 amended version will apply to the owner of 150 Newport Center. Thus, if the City elects to amend the NNCPC to include the 150 Newport Center Project,the City's findings for the proposed amendments to NNCPC should address this non-uniformity in zoning. Further, although we have not seen the current proposed amendments to the NNCPC,we are concerned about the potential for the amendments to infringe upon the Irvine Company's vested rights,particularly those related to the NNCPC's transfer of development rights provisions. Currently, Section II.0 of the NNCPC provides that development rights may be transferred among sub-areas of the NNCPC and to/from other areas in the Newport Center/Fashion Island District identified in the General Plan in accordance with the General Plan. Any amendment to the NNCPC to include the 150 Newport Center Project should clarify that the 150 Newport Center Project is not permitted to participate in such transfers of development rights. Otherwise, the 150 Newport Center Project could seek to transfer development rights away from property covered by the 2007 Development Agreement and Amendment,which would conflict with the Irvine Company's rights vested by those agreements. We ask that the City respond to this letter to confirm that the City agrees with our understanding of the Irvine Company's vested rights in the version of the NNCPC that the City Council adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 2012-19,including the transfer of development rights provisions. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Christopher W. Garrett of LATHAM&WATKINS LLP cc: Dan Miller,The Irvine Company US-DOCS\70745329.1 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3i Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: 150 Newport Center project Attachments: 150 Newport Center project.pdf From: marissaCcbmuldoonspub.com [mailto:marissaCamuldoonspub.coml Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2016 12:38 PM To: Nova, Makana Subject: 150 Newport Center project Dear Ms. Nova, Would you please give the attached letter to the Planning Commissioners and City Council Members so that they can read it before the meeting this Thursday night, September 1st. Many thanks, Marissa Armstrong Marissa Armstrong Muldoon's Irish Pub www.muldoonspub.com t Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3i Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Dear Planning Commissioners and City Council Members, I am Marissa Armstrong and I am the daughter of Ron and Sindi Schwartz. My parents got married when I was 7. They married at Muldoon's. I remember how the varnished oak and polished brass shimmered so beautifully in the candlelight of the wedding ceremony under the dart boards, beside our stained glass bulldog. On that night we became a family at Muldoon's. I began to help out at Muldoon's. Other kids may have been at the park, but I was bussing tables and seating guests. My parents never told me to; never even asked. I just started doing it. Kids like what they like. I knew early on I loved the business. The child of a firefighter wants to be a firefighter, and so forth. I didn't have to wait 'til I was grown up! I loved helping people, loved Muldoon's and believed in our product. I am at the age where some may be beginning their careers, yet I have 30 years of experience. I continued to work for Muldoon's while raising 2 children who are now of school age. This is the time we have all prepared for; when I could take the reigns. One of my roles at Muldoon's is to coordinate private events our patrons host at Muldoon's. People select Muldoon's for their meaningful rites-of-passage because they identify a depth from our 42-year family-run pub; much as one would seek the words of a trusted elder during a time of great import. The night before a wedding there is anticipation; closing a chapter and beginning a new one. It is often the only chance a bride & groom have to visit with their guests, as the "big day" is too busy. At Muldoon's we understand the importance of the rehearsal dinner. As a family business, IT'S PERSONAL! Our customers are our neighbors and friends. My Rehearsal Dinner was at Muldoon's! Kurt and I had no time to eat on our wedding day, but we sure enjoyed Irish Stew at Muldoon's the night before! Our Rehearsal Dinner sustained us! Having lived in Ireland while Kurt attended medical school at Trinity College, Dublin, I appreciated why Muldoon's matters so much to Newport Beach. Muldoon's is a haven for Irish and Celtic culture. The Irish are a beautifully warm people! They are social, tell stories and relish good conversation. The Irish are a musical people! They play instruments, sing and appreciate live music. It is intrinsic to the Irish to "eat, drink & be merry!" Much is always made of the drinking part... but that is the narrow view. The Irish are a beautifully alive people! They know life is for the living, which is why they created the concept of a "public house." No one should sit in a car, at a desk, in an apartment, without mingling and connecting in that home away from home: the Pub. When an Irish person says "Muldoon's is a good `craic'!" it means Muldoon's is where you find the music, the people, the energy, THE LIFE! Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3i Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) The proudly Irish consider Muldoon's their cultural center. We provide free Irish Step Dancing shows. Free courtyard concerts keep the traditional music of Ireland alive. Muldoon's has the official City of Newport Beach Guinness Wall of Fame to honor Irish artists. Bagpiper Eric Rigler, Actress Fionnula Flanagan, Actor John Mahoney, "The Doors" band member Ray Manzarek, Author Ray Bradbury, and other famed Irish artists have to come to Muldoon's to be inducted into our Guinness Wall of Fame. The Ancient Order of Hibernians have taken notice. Just this month, this Society, founded on principals of protecting Irish culture and supporting "the unique art, dance, music, and other interests of the Irish" selected my Dad, Ron Schwartz, as the recipient of the 12th annual Edward Casey Award! Jerry O'Keefe, Danny Murphy, Terry Casey (son of Edward, for whom the award was named, and leader of the acclaimed Irish band The Fenians), and the President of the Los Angeles Police Emerald Society, Thomas Keleher, honored Ron for his "outstanding contribution to the Irish Culture of Southern California, allowing his wonderful restaurant to be a vocal point of Irish events and charity causes." As a custodian of this haven of Irish heritage, I urge you to allow this precious legacy to continue. It is challenging to maintain culture, now more than ever. Please protect what we have built in Newport Beach. The proposed project would actively hasten our demise. Do not put pressure on our ability to conduct business. Please do not place 40 employees in jeopardy, many of whom have been with us 25 to 30 years. Do not allow an ill-conceived zoning change to damage our ability to survive into the next generation as a family business. It is fully expected, within the lifespan of an Irish pub, for there to be 3 generations of "Publicans." My children are now the age at which I first began working at Muldoon's. I fully expect them to have their turn, and for Muldoon's to endure. Please vote NO on this project. Thank you. Sincerely, Marissa Armstrong Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3j Additional Materials Received Newport Beach Residents' Petition: VOTE NO vpgp er (PA2014-213) tatyy Density Development @ 150 Newport Center COMMUNITY Dear Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council: AUG 3 0 2016 Please vote to deny the project currently proposed for 150 Newp2gi°rE" LNT U Drive (the car wash project). n� Here's why. • This project is inappropriate for its location with regard to height, bulk and use. _ • It requires a major amendment to the General Plan to add development WITHOUT a public vote._ • It would tower above its neighboring buildings and create a "New York" style density, look and feel._ • Approval of a residential building in proximity to restaurants, bars and theaters will result in conflicts over noise and other nuisances caused by patrons, cars and deliveries at all hours. _ • This project would create a dangerous precedent for dense residential development in a low-intensity commercial part of Newport Center. The voter-approved 2006 General Plan laid out a rational blueprint for the development of Newport Center. All of the development allowed under the 2006 General Plan has been built. This project inappropriately uses spot zoning and makes an end run around a zoning process that puts limits on size and bulk. The 150 Newport Center project requires planning commissioners and council members, who are tasked to enforce our voter-approved General Plan, to authorize a major General Plan Amendment for this project to proceed. Our city has reached the tipping point with regard to massive developments such as this project. Your vote determines whether Newport Beach looks like Laguna Beach or like Los Angeles. Please vote NO on the 150 Newport Center project. must have signature. Name, address include zip, email aoq ress so you can receive Petition Recap. ,,, Patriciaal Ave. 322 Coral Ave. NewPo Bich.CA 92fi82 >), I Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3j Additional Materials Received Open Letter to The Newport Beach Planning Commission 150 Newport Ce9fWPA2014-213) Commissioners: Kramer; Koetting; Hillgren; Weigand; Dunlap: Lawler; and, Zak Dear Commissioners, On 8/18/16 1 attended the meeting that adjourned at 11:30 PM. I was impressed by the attendees, commissioners and staff who managed to stay awake and keep their wits about them. Personally I was all but delirious from hunger. It was telling to listen to the types of questions posed by the individual commissioners and watch their faces as they listened to each other. I appreciate that the commission is trying to make the "car wash" project somehow work, but here's my gut reaction to what's being done in favor of the developer. Consider with the following scenario: There's a playground in a park that's been part of a city for years. It's well attended and fits into the overall feel of the community. Now, let's say every piece of equipment sitting on small parcels is separately owned. The people of the city take this for granted. However, there's a slide that's a favorite of the children, but it could be replaced. Everyone believes it will be with another piece of equipment because this is a playground, but instead the land under the slide is owned by someone who wants to sell the small parcel. That's fine since everyone knows it will be to a person who knows that this is a playground. A new piece of children's equipment would be welcome. Across the street from the park and playground are restaurants. That's where they naturally fit into the overall plan for the city. They're congregated as are the city's offices and homes. However, the new owner of the "slide" envisions a 'tiny footprint split level hot dog stand' between the swings and climbing bars. Because the area is not zoned for a restaurant the new owner asks the city to waive all the rules that designate this as a playground and zone it for restaurants as well. He knew this was not part of the overall plan when he bought the "slide", but thought he could do better with a hot dog stand in the middle adjacent to the swings and jungle gym. Needless to say, the parents and people who go to playground were shocked when they learned the city was even contemplating this change. They wondered what would become of all the other areas. They believed a hot dog stand would fit well across the street with the other restaurants. They worried the owners of the swings might also put bigger, even taller eateries on the land. That's when the people asked the city to enforce the rules that had been approved by vote or bring the hot dog stand waiver to a vote. It only seemed right. The new owner was fully aware of the rules when he bought the slide. The people felt they deserved a chance to be heard since this was not part of their city's approved plan. The hot dog stand just seemed wrong, and it was. It was forcing a large square peg into a small round hole. Please consider the people of this city because that's who you serve. Please respect the General Plan. It's open for interpretation, but not entire revision. Do not spot zone. The impact will be long lasting and irreversible. Height drops from the top of Newport Center down to the sea. Have a clear vision of the city; do what is right and good. Consider what we, as residents, revere—a city of unparalleled natural beauty. Please honor it. Yours, Lorian Petry 949-721-1922 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3k Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) From: Stop Polluting Our Newport <Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 1:40 PM To: Kramer, Kory; Koetting, Peter;Zak, Peter, Dunlap, Bill; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik Cc: Brandt, Kim; Wisneski, Brenda; Nova, Makana; Biddle, Jennifer; Campagnolo, Daniel Subject: 150 Newport Center Drive (PA-2014-213) Attachments: 150_NC_Comments_PC_160901.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Chair Kramer and Members of the Planning Commission: Please VOTE NO and deny the project currently proposed for 150 Newport Center Drive. This request is being made by SPON, Line in the Sand PAC and 1,420 Newport Beach residents who signed a petition to oppose this project. Details supporting this request are attached. rSinnccerely, /�� / tl/w ;VaAw C� eNCPresident, Stop Polluting Our Newport L/ 4I�tGy 5; CUw Treasurer, Line in the Sand Political Action Committee To: CNB Planning Commission Kory Kramer, Chair Peter Koetting,Vice Chair Peter Zak, Commissioner Bill Dunlap,Commissioner Bradley Hillgren, Commissioner Raymond Lawler, Commissioner Erik Weigand, Commissioner cc: CNB Community Development Staff Kim Brandt, Community Development Director, Brenda Wisneski,Asst. Community Development Director Makana Nova,Assistant Planner Jennifer Biddle Dan Campagnolo 1 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3k Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2O14-213) Still Protecting Our Newport tnspknng Thc NoN firnccui€.n PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island, CA 92662 1 VM/Text 949.864.6616 www.SPON-NewportBeach.or6 Info@SPON-NewportBeach.ore Facebook SPON-Newport Beach 1 Twitter @SPONNewport Line in the Sand Political Action Committee PO Box 15725 1 Newport Beach,CA 92659 1 ID# 1369133 LinelnTheSandPAC.com I Facebook @LITSPAC I VM/Text 949.734.0684 2 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 ed ir. .9. 4 13) S611 Protecting Our b:'^wport nuffm WPM NOR ww� M_ September 1, 2016 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: 150 Newport Center Drive (PA-2014-213) Dear Chair Kramer and Members of the Planning Commission: SPON and LITS (Line in the Sand PAC) partnered to circulate a petition to Newport Beach voters. In less than seven days,we gathered 1,420 signatures supporting the request for a NO Vote by the Planning Commission for the reasons noted below. • This project is inappropriate for its location with regard to height, bulk and use. • It requires a major amendment to the General Plan to add development WITHOUT a public vote. • It would tower above its neighboring buildings and create a "New York" style density, look and feel. • Approval of a residential building in proximity to restaurants, bars and theaters will result in conflicts over noise and other nuisances caused by patrons, cars and deliveries at all hours • This project would create a dangerous precedent for dense residential development in a low- intensity commercial part of Newport Center. The voter-approved 2006 General Plan laid out a rational blueprint for the development of Newport Center. All of the development allowed under the 2006 General Plan has been built. This project inappropriately uses spot zoning and makes an end run around a zoning process that puts limits on size and bulk. The 150 Newport Center project requires planning commissioners and council members, who are tasked to enforce our voter-approved General Plan, to authorize a major General Plan Amendment for this project to proceed. Our city has reached the tipping point with regard to massive developments such as this project. Your vote determines whether Newport Beach looks like Laguna Beach or like Los Angeles. SPON I PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island,CA 92662 1949.864.6616 SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org I Facebook.com/SPON-Newport Beach LITS I PO Box 15725 1 Newport Beach,CA 92659 1949.734.0684 LinelnTheSandPAC.com I Facebook @LITSPAC I ID#1369133 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 ed S611 Protecting Our b:'^wport Wpm M— M P W:7 September 1, 2016 Planning Commission Page Two A recap of the results, supporting details and a copy of the Petition are provided as an attachment to this letter. Please VOTE NO on the 150 Newport Center project. .Siinncerely, / I/(,Gv"/o ;V"A" President, Stop Polluting Our Newport y Treasurer, Line in the Sand Political Action Committee cc: CNB Planning Commission Kory Kramer, Chair kkramer@newportbeachca.gov Peter Koetting, Vice Chair pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov Peter Zak, Commissioner pzak@newportbeachca.gov Bill Dunlap, Commissioner bdunlap@newportbeachca.gov Bradley Hillgren, Commissioner bhillgren@newportbeachca.gov Raymond Lawler, Commissioner rlawler@newportbeachca.gov Erik Weigand, Commissioner eweigand@newportbeachca.gov CNB Community Development Staff Kim Brandt, Community Development Director, kbrandt@newportbeachca.gov Brenda Wisneski, Asst. Community Development Director bwisneski@newportbeachca.gov Makana Nova, Assistant Planner mnova@newportbeachca.gov Jennifer Biddle jbiddle@newportbeachca.gov Dan Campagnolo dcampagnolo@newportbeachca.gov SPON I PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island,CA 92662 1949.864.6616 SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org I Facebook.com/SPON-Newport Beach LITS I PO Box 15725 1 Newport Beach,CA 92659 1949.734.0684 LinelnTheSandPAC.com I Facebook @LITSPAC I ID#1369133 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtftn No. 3k Additional eceived � . ' Ag 150 Newport C r 14-213) Petition to Deny Project September 1, 2016 r " OUR Line in the Sand Sand P PAC Petition Recap Respondent Location # Respondents Zip Code 92660 693 Zip Code 92661 16 Zip Code 92662 56 Zip Code 92663 162 Zip Code 92625 390 Zip Code 92657 77 Zip Code 92658 1 Zip Code 92659 4 Neighboring Cities 21 Comments 479 Total Verified Signors 1420 Duplicates removed and not included in report 59 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 1 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 1 8/23/2016 17:13:31 92625 1 am totally opposed to the project, that area should remain low rise office 2 8/23/2016 17:17:23 92625 How can I circulate this to others!! 3 8/23/201617:22:58 92625 1 vote NO on the 150 Newport Center project! Enough of this Over- 4 8/23/2016 17:31:48 92625 Development! 5 8/23/201617:50:35 92625 6 8/23/201618:01:06 92625 7 8/23/2016 18:02:02 92625 NO on High-Density Development @ 150 Newport Center 8 8/23/201618:03:02 92625 9 8/23/2016 18:03:49 92625 NO on High-Density Development @ 150 Newport Center 10 8/23/201618:09:14 92625 stop adding projects that will impact water usage and housing density that 11 8/23/2016 18:13:47 92625 impacts the quality of life in NB! 12 8/23/2016 18:14:06 92625 NO, NO, NO!! 13 8/23/201618:16:34 92625 14 8/23/201618:20:02 92625 15 8/23/201618:20:20 92625 16 8/23/201618:22:40 92625 17 8/23/201618:26:49 92625 18 8/23/201618:33:27 92625 I'm in favor of living by the Plan, that is our General Plan, passed just 10 years ago. If we aren't going to abide by the Plan, why do we bother doing them. I know the current Planning Commission did not have much, if anything, to do with the approval of'The Prison' in the northwest corner of Newport Center, but that has not even come on line yet, so we don't know the real impact it will have on traffic in the City. But that pretty much used up all the available residential space in Newport Center that was anticipated by the General Plan. Let's not do anything to violate the GP until we can at least evaluate the impact of the already approved and 19 8/23/2016 18:33:55 92625 soon-to-be occupied residential units in Newport Center. Bad precedent violates General plan and opens the door to turning 20 8/23/2016 18:34:10 92625 commercial areas into residential areas with traffic and other pollution. 21 8/23/201618:37:15 92625 22 8/231201618:42:06 92625 23 8/23/201618:44:16 92625 24 8/23/201618:44:43 92625 25 8/23/2016 18:45:30 92625 N 26 8/23/201618:48:31 92625 27 8/23/201618:55:01 92625 Please vote NO on this project. Let the location either remain a car wash or have a new facility that is in harmony with the rest of Newport Center. 28 8/23/2016 18:59:06 92625 This proposed 150 residential building is way out of line! 29 8/23/201619:00:30 92625 30 8/23/2016 19:02:38 92625 No No No on 150 Newport Center project proposal 31 8/23/201619:04:24 92625 32 8/23/201619:07:23 92625 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 2 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 33 8/23/201619:13:18 92625 34 8/23/201619:18:53 92625 35 8/23/201619:19:19 92625 36 8/23/201619:19:32 92625 37 8/23/201619:20:14 92625 38 8/23/201619:22:19 92625 39 8/23/201619:32:08 92625 Do the people who vote for these high density projects actually live in 40 8/23/2016 19:32:41 92625 Newport Beach? Greed shows. 41 8/23/201619:33:06 92625 42 8/23/2016 19:33:53 92625 My former residence zip code is 92663 43 8/23/201619:34:52 92625 Do we really want to destroy this community and make it like any other? 44 8/23/2016 19:36:04 92625 Does our City really need money so much to do this? 45 8/23/201619:38:25 92625 46 8/23/2016 19:41:45 92625 NO-totally inappropriate for the area and it goes against the general plan 47 8/23/2016 19:44:59 92625 over built now 48 8/23/2016 19:47:23 92625 How did those 500+ units on San Joaquin get built 49 8/23/201619:52:43 92625 All buildings in the 100 block are 32' or less. The community does NOT want to see any increase in height nor do we want to see the General Plan changed to allow residential development in a commercial zone. The voters do not want to have to resort to a referendum to stop something that should never be approved in the first place. Please vote 50 8/23/2016 20:02:53 92625 against this proposed project. 51 8/23/2016 20:04:21 92625 52 8/23/2016 20:05:57 92625 53 8/23/2016 20:17:05 92625 54 8/23/2016 20:26:44 92625 55 8/23/2016 20:37:44 92625 Please vote no as promised in the last election 56 8/23/2016 20:38:44 92625 As president/home owner/taxpayer in Newport Beach I strongly object to 57 8/23/2016 20:41:17 92625 the increased density this development will create. Developers and City Hall are ruining the wonderful neighborhoods and lifestyle in Newport Beach. They are turning it into Long Beach. enough is 58 8/23/2016 20:46:40 92625 enough. 59 8/23/2016 20:49:34 92625 60 8/23/2016 20:52:35 92625 61 8/23/2016 20:59:28 92625 62 8/23/2016 21:09:50 92625 No 63 8/23/2016 21:15:04 92625 64 8/23/2016 21:16:28 92625 65 8/23/2016 21:25:12 92625 66 8/23/2016 21:27:21 92625 67 8/23/2016 21:35:02 92625 High Rise = High Density High Impact 68 8/23/2016 21:43:47 92625 69 8/23/2016 21:49:05 92625 70 8/23/2016 21:51:40 92625 71 8/23/2016 22:14:51 92625 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 3 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 72 8/23/2016 22:18:15 92625 73 8/23/2016 22:29:36 92625 74 8/23/2016 22:33:43 92625 75 8/23/2016 23:04:10 92625 76 8/23/2016 23:11:17 92625 No one wants to look at another giant building! No 77 8/23/2016 23:14:55 92625 78 8/23/2016 23:16:57 92625 This is an important issue that the Planning Comission and City Council should vote against. The citizens of Newport Beach told you where they stand when they approved the 2006 General Plan. You must honor the 79 8/24/2016 1:33:30 92625 will of the people and vote no against The 150 Newport Center project. The density in this section of Newport Beach is already changing for the 80 8/24/2016 5:39:45 92625 worse the atmosphere of NB. 81 8/24/2016 7:00:46 92625 82 8/24/2016 7:11:04 92625 83 8/24/2016 7:18:27 92625 84 8/24/2016 7:18:43 92625 85 8/24/2016 7:18:53 92625 86 8/24/2016 7:19:03 92625 87 8/24/2016 7:34:04 92625 The congestion in our area is already unbearable. Another big development would make it worse When does it stop invading our 88 8/24/2016 7:51:01 92625 neighborhood and changing our environment? No!!!!!!!!!!! 89 8/24/2016 7:55:17 92625 Please follow the General Plan and maintain what beach town character 90 8/24/2016 8:00:19 92625 we have left! This is Newport Beach, not Manhattan! 91 8/24/2016 8:03:42 92625 92 8/24/2016 8:04:54 92625 93 8/24/2016 8:17:17 92625 94 8/24/2016 8:18:24 92625 95 8/24/2016 8:29:07 92625 96 8/24/2016 8:29:48 92625 97 8/24/2016 8:37:36 92625 98 8/24/2016 8:40:04 92625 Projects should be compliant with floor to area ratios (FAR). 99 8/24/2016 8:41:18 92625 100 8/24/2016 8:43:29 92625 101 8/24/2016 8:44:13 92625 102 8/24/2016 8:45:41 92625 103 8/24/2016 8:48:30 92625 1 am already on the email list. Thank you for your good effort! 104 8/24/2016 9:15:08 92625 no, no, a thousand times no for Joanne and myself. 105 8/24/2016 9:16:46 92625 1 am Against the building of more buildings in Newport center. We have 106 8/24/2016 9:17:21 92625 enough congestion. More development does not enhance quality living. 107 8/24/2016 9:24:33 92625 108 8/24/2016 9:24:36 92625 Thank you for all your hard work on this issue! This project is out of tune with the surrounding community and should not 109 8/24/2016 9:27:56 92625 be permitted. 110 8/24/2016 9:28:27 92625 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 4 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 111 8/24/2016 9:30:34 92625 112 8/24/2016 9:35:19 92625 113 8/24/2016 9:51:29 92625 This project is simply incompatible with all other structures and buildings currently contiguous to the proposal in Newpirt Center. Must we have 150% building coverage on every lot and unbuilt piece of land in the city before you're happy? Newport Beach voters spoke loud and clear about high density residential in Newport Center in the last election. What does it take to convince you of the residents wants and needs? Please listen to the majority of Newport Beach residents. We don't want this project. 114 8/24/2016 9:58:45 92625 Period. 115 8/24/2016 10:10:27 92625 No to building 150 units. It is getting way too crowded here. 116 8/24/201610:12:07 92625 Thank you for making this a priority. I am happy to sign. Please send this 117 8/24/2016 10:18:22 92625 also to dansalceda@cox.net 118 8/24/2016 10:21:38 92625 Please don't build. 119 8/24/2016 10:27:53 92625 1 vote NO; am strongly opposed to this development I have lived in Newport Beach (Balboa Island and CdM) for nearly 40 years. What has always appealed to me was its unmistakably suburban character, with spacious, low-rise development -- whether retail, commercial or residential -- and refreshing, breathable open space. Please keep denser, more vertical projects under strict and careful control; they are detrimental to the charm of our city and the established quality of life. I don't think anyone chooses to live here longing for Newport to be converted into an L.A. I've seen the plans for 150 Newport Center and feel it would create too much volume for that site. Additionally, if this proposed project requires an amendment to our carefully crafted General Plan, the very appropriateness of the project should be questioned. I hope you will not approve it, even at the reduced 55-foot height. 120 8/24/2016 10:44:58 92625 Thank you for protecting our interests. 121 8/24/201610:46:30 92625 122 8/24/2016 10:48:53 92625 1 am very opposed to this development. 123 8/24/201610:49:53 92625 1 believe the available residential unit quota for Newport Center is already overallocated and further residential building would violate the General 124 8/24/2016 11:00:47 92625 Plan. 125 8/24/201611:02:10 92625 We are a beach community. High rise buildings belong in downtown Los Angeles not Newport Beach . We do not have road surface for more cars, we do not have water to provide, we do not have schools or police for 126 8/24/2016 11:11:40 92625 more people. 127 8/24/2016 11:18:011 92625 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 5 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments I hope that you are also opposing the proposed building of the HUGE condo project where the Museum now sits. That really makes no sense. The traffic in Corona Del Mar and Newport Beach is already at critical mass ! 128 8/24/2016 11:32:40 92625 Thank you. What are they, crazy? The community will have enough trouble trying to absorb the monstrosity on San Joaquin Hills at Jamboree. Make your reservations for your birthday or anniversary now at your Pave restaurant, 129 8/24/2016 12:00:09 92625 because you'll never get in otherwise!! 130 8/24/201612:00:26 92625 131 8/24/201612:22:26 92625 132 8/24/2016 12:51:51 92625 The General Plan is well thought out. Please follow it.Thanks 133 8/24/201612:59:48 92625 134 8/24/201613:14:39 92625 135 8/24/2016 13:27:13 92625 Let's try to keep this City Council rational... 136 8/24/2016 13:48:27 92625 1 vote no!!! 137 8/24/2016 14:16:42 92625 Too many people and too much traffic in Newport Beach already!! 138 8/24/2016 14:30:31 92625 NO vote 139 8/24/2016 14:55:01 92625 Please say "NO" 140 8/24/201615:08:52 92625 141 8/24/201615:13:36 92625 142 8/24/201615:20:11 92625 143 8/24/201615:29:12 92625 144 8/24/201615:39:02 92625 145 8/24/201615:42:37 92625 146 8/24/201616:52:16 92625 147 8/24/2016 16:55:13 92625 Need one for my wife. 148 8/24/2016 16:58:47 92625 Where is green light proposition that was passed by the voters? 149 8/24/201617:01:38 92625 150 8/24/201617:14:41 92625 Our traffic has become horrible overnight. This has got to stop. We are a suburban not an urban area and you are ruining our quality of life by 151 8/24/2016 17:19:59 92625 continuing to build these high density buildings. 152 8/24/2016 17:26:07 92625 No on 150 153 8/24/2016 17:44:00 92625 NOT 154 8/24/2016 17:48:41 92625 No, no, and no!!! 155 8/24/2016 18:42:08 92625 stop all the building 156 8/24/201618:43:30 92625 157 8/24/201618:53:31 92625 Newport is getting too crowded already! My vote is NO on the 150 158 8/24/2016 19:29:59 92625 Newport Center project 159 8/24/2016 19:35:16 92625 Also,too much traffic and we don't want to lose the car wash. 160 8/24/2016 19:41:12 92625 Thank you for doing this. 161 8/24/2016 20:08:08 92625 162 8/24/2016 20:08:09 92625 163 8/24/2016 22:59:15 92625 164 8/25/2016 7:32:23 92625 165 8/25/201612:12:06 92625 166 8/25/2016 13:06:20 92625 Thank you for your action. 167 8/25/2016 13:10:291 92625 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 6 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments Too many essential service businesses are lost because of contractors offering more money to build larger buildings which are inappropriate to the location and do no fit in with the area. Much of the charm ,character and identity of the entire area is lost because of the height and density of these buildings. Instead of being Newport Center we become similar to 168 8/25/2016 14:24:08 92625 LA, Irvine , or any other large city. 169 8/25/201614:29:26 92625 170 8/25/201616:28:11 92625 171 8/25/2016 18:41:11 92625 And, I don't agree with the"Museum House" plan either! 172 8/25/201618:42:00 92625 173 8/25/2016 21:15:38 92625 174 8/26/2016 5:30:18 92625 175 8/26/2016 7:27:50 92625 176 8/26/2016 7:35:35 92625 177 8/26/2016 8:22:51 92625 178 8/26/2016 8:31:01 92625 Keep Newport special You represent the homeowners in this city, not the developers. Please do the job you were elected to do which includes protecting the voter 179 8/26/2016 8:34:11 92625 approved General Plan 180 8/26/2016 8:52:37 92625 Enough is enough. Stop trying to cram more people into the area. When will greed benefit more than a few? Traffic impact may require widening Jamboree and MacArthur a couple of lanes... How do you propose to pay for that? Oh, and there is chapter 12, the noise ordinance when several 1000 additional cars move into the neighborhood. Do you plan to destroy the open ocean views of homeowners in harbor view?We 181 8/26/2016 8:57:18 92625 miss the original Irvine Company's community centered practices! 182 8/26/2016 9:24:19 92625 183 8/26/2016 9:33:15 92625 184 8/26/2016 9:48:09 92625 185 8/26/2016 9:56:00 92625 186 8/26/201610:08:28 92625 187 8/26/201610:09:53 92625 188 8/26/201610:13:19 92625 189 8/26/201610:13:41 92625 190 8/26/201610:14:14 92625 We've been Newport Beach residents since 1998, and are deeply disturbed by the attempts to increase local density and destroy the 191 8/26/2016 10:40:39 92625 character of our community. 192 8/26/2016 10:46:54 92625 Too much traffic as it is now. 193 8/26/201610:58:47 92625 194 8/26/2016 11:18:53 92625 Reject the 150 Newport center development 195 8/26/201611:56:56 92625 196 8/26/201614:40:07 92625 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 7 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments Once again, the Planning Commission is being asked to approve a project from Tod Ridgeway which is particularly offensive to the overwhelming majority of Newport Beach residents. His nearly vacant retail center (two years after completion) on the corner of Dover and PCH is a prime example of development without real benefits. Why the City would even consider allowing his ilk to replace a car wash at 150 Newport Center Drive with a gargantuan high rise is beyond ludicrous. Any amendment of the General Plan to change the land use category for this small parcel from Regional Commercial Office to Multi-Unit Residential is incomprehensible. We don't need 141,013 square feet of gross floor area for 45 condominiums to replace an 8500 square foot car wash, and we don't want it. Proposed exterior landscaping won't hide this massive structure, and only calls to mind the fallacy that putting lipstick on a pig is a viable option. We don't need any more condos in Newport Center, and 197 8/26/2016 15:34:18 92625 most certainly not this megastr count how man 198 8/26/2016 16:24:09 92625 1 vote no on high density development. 199 8/26/201616:27:08 92625 200 8/26/201616:55:51 92625 201 8/26/201617:53:37 92625 202 8/26/201618:12:03 92625 203 8/26/201618:24:01 92625 204 8/26/201618:45:15 92625 205 8/26/201619:21:59 92625 206 8/26/2016 20:08:15 92625 207 8/26/2016 20:09:40 92625 208 8/26/2016 21:18:44 92625 209 8/26/2016 21:44:55 92625 210 8/26/2016 22:00:18 92625 211 8/26/2016 22:56:20 92625 Voting no! 212 8/26/2016 23:30:55 92625 We do not want to become LA The building in Fashion Island is impacting the local residents in too many 213 8/27/2016 7:04:55 92625 ways. The traffic is terrible and the roads can not support MORE people. We don't need anymore high-rise buildings built in our city, enough is 214 8/27/2016 7:14:43 92625 enough!! 215 8/27/2016 7:53:14 92625 Please deny approval for this project. 216 8/27/2016 9:17:38 92625 217 8/27/2016 9:20:59 92625 218 8/27/201610:29:38 92625 219 8/27/201610:44:04 92625 220 8/27/201610:45:15 92625 221 8/27/201610:48:40 92625 222 8/27/201611:27:33 92625 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 8 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments We are NOT downtown Los Angeles, San Francisco or San Diego. If we need to have high rise buildings, let's put them by the SNA Airport, which is a commercial area. Newport Beach is a low-rise, residential community. Once you approve this building and/or the Museum condo project, you open the door to future high rises in our neighborhood. Obviously, more people are going to increase traffic and water usage. I'm always amazed when the environmental reports come back that there is 'no significant impact'. (of course there is!) I plead with you, NOT to approve both these developments. Can't the developers compromise and go smaller? I know the Museum community is trying to get maximum dollars out of the property to fund their new museum by OCPAC, but PLEASE, not at our community's expense! We've lived here almost 50 years, raised our families here, and this makes me very sad to see these high rises reminiscent of large metropolitan areas (which we are not!). Thank you for listening. 223 8/27/2016 12:33:47 92625 Pam Howard 224 8/27/201613:15:31 92625 225 8/27/201613:20:31 92625 226 8/27/201613:38:12 92625 227 8/27/201614:00:21 92625 228 8/27/2016 15:38:02 92625 No to more high density housing 229 8/27/201615:42:48 92625 230 8/27/201616:14:07 92625 231 8/27/201616:15:05 92625 232 8/27/2016 16:32:28 92625 1 vote NO! 233 8/27/201616:51:42 92625 234 8/27/2016 17:49:51 92625 No to densification 235 8/27/201617:57:46 92625 236 8/27/201618:59:25 92625 237 8/27/2016 19:10:04 92625 Voters should have a say in this!! 238 8/27/2016 20:43:33 92625 239 8/27/2016 20:45:39 92625 240 8/27/2016 21:58:26 92625 241 8/27/2016 23:23:45 92625 242 8/28/2016 0:00:47 92625 243 8/28/2016 0:35:01 92625 244 8/28/2016 5:54:47 92625 245 8/28/2016 6:48:58 92625 NO NO NO When are we going to wrestle our town back from developers? We need a new governance process that allows us to control our own destiny and 246 8/28/2016 8:12:10 92625 control the character of the town we want to live in. 247 8/28/2016 9:14:04 92625 248 8/28/2016 9:39:48 92625 249 8/28/2016 9:49:07 92625 250 8/28/201610:14:34 92625 251 8/28/2016 10:35:07 92625 no high density developments! 252 8/28/201610:36:18 92625 253 8/28/201610:37:14 92625 254 8/28/201610:37:59 92625 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 9 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 255 8/28/201610:58:45 92625 256 8/28/201611:17:12 92625 257 8/28/201611:40:25 92625 258 8/28/201612:38:04 92625 259 8/28/201612:58:02 92625 260 8/28/201612:59:46 92625 261 8/28/2016 13:09:52 92625 We are willing to work on this 262 8/28/2016 13:11:29 92625 We are willing to work on this 263 8/28/201613:47:06 92625 264 8/28/201613:51:28 92625 This is more from the greedy Irvine Co. There is TOO much traffic 265 8/28/2016 15:10:20 92625 NOW!! NO to more!! 266 8/28/2016 15:12:05 92625 Totally opposed to high density buildings.. 267 8/28/201616:59:26 92625 268 8/28/201617:34:41 92625 269 8/28/201618:00:03 92625 Please respect the residents of Newport Beach. Good development is appreciated. The precedent this project sets is frightening. Please listen to owners of commercial/office property on the very same block. They, too, have rights. The developers should have been told this the moment 270 8/28/2016 18:17:22 92625 plans were submitted to the planning commission. 271 8/28/201619:28:08 92625 272 8/28/201619:36:55 92625 273 8/28/2016 20:08:48 92625 Traffic is bad already. Mass transit is non- existent. Our community has only Coast Hey, MacArthur and Jamboree for egress. We don't need to 274 8/28/2016 21:44:57 92625 add to traffic. 275 8/29/2016 5:18:30 92625 276 8/29/2016 8:32:11 92625 277 8/29/2016 8:33:00 92625 278 8/29/2016 8:38:04 92625 Thank you. And stop Banning Ranch! 279 8/29/2016 8:46:01 92625 280 8/29/2016 8:47:49 92625 281 8/29/2016 8:48:42 92625 282 8/29/2016 8:56:22 92625 283 8/29/2016 9:00:11 92625 284 8/29/2016 9:04:45 92625 285 8/29/2016 9:05:03 92625 No higher density. We are too dense already. Traffic congestion on PCH is horrific already. We do not the roads for more cars on the road or 286 8/29/2016 9:07:59 92625 parking. It's obvious why they don't want these projects to come to a vote by the 287 8/29/2016 9:08:09 92625 residents. 288 8/29/2016 9:16:14 92625 289 8/29/2016 9:20:53 92625 290 8/29/2016 9:21:14 92625 291 8/29/2016 9:31:03 92625 292 8/29/2016 9:42:56 92625 293 8/29/2016 9:46:38 92625 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 10 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 294 8/29/2016 9:49:03 92625 295 8/29/201610:07:46 92625 I am behind this petition 100916 to stop and possibly reverse, if possible, the dire situation of tremendous density of auto traffic that exists in our community. The present congestion has become a nightmare for my neighbors and I in Corona del Mar. We need to address the problem now 296 8/29/2016 10:55:49 92625 and look for solutions before it becomes even worse. 297 8/29/201611:12:08 92625 298 8/29/201611:17:37 92625 299 8/29/201611:18:43 92625 Vote no. If residents are so restricted on water use, it does not make 300 8/29/2016 11:18:45 92625 sense to approve more water usage from additional development. 301 8/29/201611:32:32 92625 302 8/29/201611:35:08 92625 303 8/29/201611:35:43 92625 Of course we dont want the density we see in LA. My concern is that Fashion Island is beginning to become as repugnant as visually repugnant as the drive down Jamboree going north. The density of the condos/apts on San Joaquin and Jamboree is SO horrific. That may be far worse than this high rise. But the high rise is just one more element that degrades our community. Instead of being so focused on profit, might Donald Bran and the Irvine Co. show some concern for our environment? How about supporting efforts to decrease the 100 million people we are adding to the planet every year? And all these people want access to energy resources that means consumption of fossil fuels. How about putting solar on those visually horrible new condos to reduce pollution. If this high rise gets approval how about, at the minimum. putting solar on the roof? How about supporting efforts to increase gov't subsidies for solar and wind?Oil and gas receive billions in subsidies but the cleaner energy resources do not. The Iry count how many"Light Runners"we can find. The addition of any residential high-rises around Fashion Island will only increase the density of people and traffic and it's scary to think City Officials can try and convince the residents of Newport Beach otherwise. End the 304 8/29/2016 11:40:10 92625 Development!--:1 305 8/29/201611:51:32 92625 306 8/29/201612:57:24 92625 Thiis is a bad project which will not be compatible with surrounding area. It most likely will not result in fewer car trips but add to our crowded city 307 8/29/2016 12:58:43 92625 streets. 308 8/29/201613:05:15 92625 309 8/29/2016 13:18:19 92625 Vote no 310 8/29/201613:18:40 92625 311 8/29/2016 13:19:31 92625 312 8/29/201614:24:21 92625 313 8/29/201614:25:41 92625 314 8/29/2016 15:32:421 926251 1 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 11 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 315 8/29/2016 15:38:57 92625 Thanks for all your good work. 316 8/29/201616:01:09 92625 317 8/29/201616:24:26 92625 318 8/29/201616:29:48 92625 In addition to the above, we all use the car wash. There isn't another like 319 8/29/2016 16:32:24 92625 it nearby! Problems which will develop with HIGH density projects: traffic, parking, 320 8/29/2016 16:38:39 92625 more restrictions on our all ready limited water usage. I am fed up with all this hungry growth which ends up to more traffic and more 321 8/29/2016 16:58:08 92625 businesses that we already have enough. Enough! We don't need any more high density housing --we moved here 322 8/29/2016 17:01:01 92625 for the beach community, not a downtown area. 323 8/29/201617:03:39 92625 324 8/29/201617:18:53 92625 325 8/29/201617:26:26 92625 No to Banning Ranch or any coastal development or other development without expansion of infrastructure and extra fees for increased 326 8/29/2016 18:06:26 92625 evaluations because of enhancement by community as a whole. 327 8/29/201618:07:48 92625 328 8/29/2016 19:03:43 92625 Do not build and ruin our view. 329 8/29/201619:28:13 92625 330 8/29/201619:33:15 92625 Enough is enough!!! This project means more traffic, more water use, more congestion and a tall building that will block views of neighboring communities. 331 8/29/2016 19:55:09 92625 Please stand up for the community and vote "NO". 332 8/29/2016 20:04:17 92625 333 8/29/2016 20:51:46 92625 No on 150 newport center project 334 8/29/2016 21:38:11 92625 335 8/29/2016 21:39:10 92625 336 8/29/2016 21:41:20 92625 NO on 150 Newport Center 337 8/29/2016 21:42:58 92625 NO to the massive building project!!! 338 8/29/2016 21:45:12 92625 339 8/29/2016 21:50:38 92625 340 8/29/2016 23:42:31 92625 stop the irresponsible and tasteless overdevelopment 341 8/30/2016 7:03:05 92625 342 8/30/2016 7:04:42 92625 343 8/30/2016 7:31:21 92625 344 8/30/2016 7:32:43 92625 345 8/30/2016 7:43:22 92625 Completely opposed....never zoned for residential.... 346 8/30/2016 8:26:02 92625 347 8/30/2016 8:50:10 92625 stop building and ruining our city!!!!!! 348 8/30/2016 8:59:29 92625 349 8/30/2016 9:32:38 92625 350 8/30/2016 9:56:51 92625 351 8/30/2016 9:57:50 92625 352 8/30/201610:02:35 92625 353 8/30/2016 10:07:101 92625 lWe need to have our voices heard and we are saying NO!!!!! 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 12 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 354 8/30/2016 10:11:33 92625 355 8/30/2016 10:25:04 92625 356 8/30/201611:00:58 92625 Please vote NO. This development will add to much traffic and 357 8/30/2016 11:15:05 92625 congestion to our area. You are allowing commercial companies to take over 92625 locations . Parking impacted, people sleeping in cars, throwing garbage out windows 358 8/30/2016 11:15:41 92625 , it's effecting homeowners right of enjoyment!! 359 8/30/2016 11:27:34 92625 360 8/30/2016 11:32:17 92625 1 dont want Newport Center to be the next Century City. 361 8/30/2016 12:02:31 92625 362 8/30/201612:10:35 92625 363 8/30/2016 12:17:02 92625 No 364 8/30/2016 12:21:07 92625 City Councel should have more respect for the residents 365 8/30/2016 12:22:53 92625 no 366 8/30/2016 12:28:09 92625 NO 367 8/30/201612:28:44 92625 NO!! NO!!!! NO!!! Are you kidding me?? Have you seen the HUGH construction going on in the limited traffic area?? Absurd!!! Can't believe Irvine CO. is allowing this!! $$$$$!!!! They have always been concerned 368 8/30/2016 12:41:41 92625 about developments& regs. until now.Are they running out of$$$???? 369 8/30/201613:22:41 92625 WILL CREATE TOO MUCH DENSITY AND TRAFFIC FOR AN 370 8/30/2016 13:36:47 92625 ALREADY CHALLENGED TRAFFIC AREA. Don't do it! It is already so crowded and no new roads and what about the water shortage? Why is it ok to bring more people here and we have to 371 8/30/2016 13:49:18 92625 ration water and sit in traffic? 372 8/30/201614:10:40 92625 373 8/30/201614:49:42 92625 374 8/30/201614:49:55 92625 375 8/30/2016 15:00:56 92625 PLEASE DON'T APPROVE THIS PROJECT 376 8/30/2016 15:05:11 92625 We are very much opposed to this project Another example of something that's "good for the city." Who is "the city" anyway? Isn't it the residents, businesses and voters. "The city" seems to be defined as developers, and almost every decision plays to their 377 8/30/2016 15:27:35 92625 advantage. 378 8/30/201615:46 92625 379 8/30/201617:27 92625 150 units were never approved. We look to you to protect out city and 380 8/30/2016 19:01 92625 honor what was approved.. 100 units and not one more unit!!!! 381 8/30/2016 20:31 92625 382 8/30/2016 21:29 92625 383 8/30/2016 22:06 92625 384 8/30/2016 22:11 92625 It's too much!!!! Enough already- this city is going to get run down really 385 8/30/2016 22:28 92625 fast without any ability to drive!!!!!! 386 8/31/20167:16 92625 387 8/31/2016 7:17 92625 388 8/31/20167:18 92625 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 13 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 389 8/31/20167:20 92625 390 8/31/2016 7:21 92625 391 8/23/2016 20:03:06 92626 1 vote NO 392 8/24/2016 7:11:49 92626 We don't have the water( they know that!). Also , should lower our property taxes because of over crowding and high water bills. Someone 393 8/26/2016 14:21:39 92626 needs to care about this whose pocket isn't getting filled. !!! 394 8/29/2016 9:45:53 92626 395 8/29/201613:43:23 92626 396 8/23/2016 19:46:18 92627 Enough! 397 8/24/201617:46:50 92627 398 8/25/201610:43:52 92627 399 8/25/201610:44:20 92627 400 8/27/2016 5:24:52 92627 401 8/30/201610:45:10 92627 402 8/30/2016 8:34:03 92635 403 8/29/201610:33:15 92646 404 8/29/201616:18:24 92648 405 8/29/201615:57:55 92650 406 8/23/201617:57:45 92651 407 8/30/201611:29:54 92651 408 8/30/201611:30:39 92651 409 8/30/201611:31:31 92651 410 8/30/201611:46:43 92651 411 8/30/201611:48:44 92651 412 8/23/2016 19:02:28 92657 2 RESIDENT NAMES GIVEN HERE- BOTH VOTE NO 413 8/23/2016 20:51:26 92657 414 8/23/2016 21:35:07 92657 No M 415 8/23/2016 22:05:31 92657 416 8/23/2016 22:31:50 92657 Definitely inappropriate for location. Traffic is already at a stand still. The stress on public services will be far more expensive than the revenue the city thinks it will get. The only difference between the new dense housing that is already being built in 417 8/24/2016 6:26:42 92657 Fashion Island and an inner city ghetto is money. 418 8/24/2016 8:13:17 92657 419 8/24/2016 8:29:39 92657 There is already too much high density building in the Fashion Island area. No one understands the impact because it is all still in process. So no one from this project could have studied or projected anything well. 420 8/24/2016 9:06:42 92657 VOTE NO! 421 8/24/2016 9:23:03 92657 422 8/24/2016 9:36:43 92657 423 8/24/2016 9:37:22 92657 424 8/24/2016 9:40:39 92657 No 425 8/24/2016 9:48:35 92657 426 8/24/201610:23:27 92657 427 8/24/201610:47:12 92657 I'm a 7th generation OC resident - No more high density housing in 428 8/24/2016 11:00:46 92657 Newport!!! 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 14 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 429 8/24/201611:44:08 92657 430 8/24/2016 14:47:41 92657 You can barely drive around Fashion Island now. No more traffic!! I agree with the petition and vote no to more high density living complexes. We are reaching full saturation and do not need to exceed 431 8/24/2016 16:46:35 92657 what already exists. 432 8/24/201617:08:16 92657 433 8/24/201617:09:20 92657 434 8/24/2016 20:23:47 92657 435 8/25/2016 6:30:01 92657 436 8/25/2016 6:30:58 92657 437 8/25/2016 7:46:28 92657 438 8/25/2016 8:22:07 92657 439 8/25/2016 9:41:04 92657 Please vote no. 440 8/25/2016 9:41:40 92657 Please vote no. 441 8/25/2016 9:42:46 92657 442 8/25/2016 9:56:00 92657 NO MORE GROWTH. 443 8/25/2016 9:57:59 92657 NO, on high density development @ 150 Newport center. 444 8/25/201610:58:30 92657 Mixed use of commercial and residential is a flawed idea and has to be stopped. Have you ever seen anybody walk to work. I can't imagine a lady toting two bags of groceries from Whole Foods to her condo in Newport Center let alone all the noise of a commercial center. In addition it would violate height restrictions and could block views of the ocean. This concept needs to stopped in its tracks throughout the city so it maintains its position as a destination city like Paris, London and New 445 8/25/2016 12:33:21 92657 York. 446 8/25/2016 15:29:46 92657 Newport Center is busy enough w all the traffic! NO residential high rises. 447 8/25/201616:58:45 92657 No more developing. Our peaceful beach town is being destroyed by 448 8/25/2016 17:24:24 92657 GREED. 449 8/25/201618:10:51 92657 450 8/25/201619:13:01 92657 451 8/25/2016 20:51:13 92657 452 8/25/2016 22:03:33 92657 453 8/26/201611:42:25 92657 1 vote NO for 150 Newport Center project. 1 dont like the traffic this project 454 8/26/2016 12:23:14 92657 brings to my neighborhood. I do not want this development to go forward because of increased traffic 455 8/26/2016 13:55:07 92657 and resulting, irreversible environmental damage. 456 8/26/201614:41:29 92657 457 8/26/201614:42:30 92657 458 8/26/2016 18:46:11 92657 Same NO about the Art(former OCMA) Residences 459 8/27/201617:02:03 92657 460 8/27/2016 17:31:43 92657 This should never happen 461 8/27/2016 21:52:38 92657 462 8/28/2016 4:49:08 92657 463 8/28/2016 8:59:09 92657 464 8/28/2016 9:41:38 92657 465 8/28/201616:40:26 92657 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 15 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 466 8/28/201616:41:36 92657 467 8/28/201617:36:15 92657 468 8/28/2016 21:08:34 92657 469 8/29/2016 6:04:24 92657 No development! 470 8/29/2016 6:06:31 92657 471 8/29/2016 7:00:28 92657 472 8/29/2016 7:28:01 92657 473 8/29/201610:10:43 92657 474 8/29/201611:16:07 92657 475 8/29/2016 11:36:32 92657 No 476 8/29/201611:54:42 92657 477 8/29/201612:03:21 92657 478 8/29/2016 15:21:32 92657 1 am opposed to changing the General Plan. 479 8/29/201617:12:34 92657 480 8/29/201617:33:03 92657 481 8/29/2016 20:37:13 92657 482 8/29/2016 21:19:55 92657 483 8/29/2016 22:07:32 92657 484 8/29/2016 22:29:43 92657 big traffic concerns I'm very concerned about the traffic flow, with all the new buildings in 485 8/29/2016 22:30:58 92657 Newport Center. 486 8/30/2016 10:29:19 92657 Please don't allow over development of this wonderful are 487 8/30/201611:06:13 92657 488 8/30/2016 21:03 92657 no 489 8/25/201618:09:38 92658 490 8/23/201618:16:24 92659 STOP DEVELOPING OC HAS THE THIRD DIRTIEST AIR IN THE NATION-DONATE TO HOAG IF YOU ARE GOING TO KEEP BUILDING, 491 8/23/2016 23:34:03 92659 AS THEY WILLL NEED TO ENLARGE THEIR CANCER CENTER. 492 8/29/2016 8:07:45 92659 493 8/29/201613:35:55 92659 494 8/23/201617:10:12 92660 495 8/23/201617:13:49 92660 496 8/23/201617:13:49 92660 497 8/23/201617:14:49 92660 Don't turn our wonderful paradise of a city in a nightmare of too much 498 8/23/2016 17:15:58 92660 traffic and overcrowding. Noise pollution, density, visual line of sights, and safety are my primary concerns, not necessarily in that order. We are not Century City. Protect what makes us attractive - lower density means less impact on the 499 8/23/2016 17:16:56 92660 environment and the existing population. 500 8/23/201617:18:34 92660 501 8/23/201617:25:47 92660 502 8/23/201617:26:32 92660 503 8/23/201617:30:50 92660 1 am strongly opposed to this development. The 524 apartments are 504 8/23/2016 17:36:04 92660 enough! 505 8/23/201617:45:48 92660 506 8/23/2016 17:46:161 92660 1 stop turning Newport Beach into a high density city!! 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 16 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 507 8/23/2016 17:54:16 92660 No 508 8/23/201617:55:47 92660 509 8/23/201617:59:15 92660 FORGET THE DEVELOPERS E.R. PLAN; WE CAN HIRE OUR OWN, WHICH WILL GIVE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT OPINION. WE DO NOT WANT TO BE LOS ANGELES; NEW YORK, ETC. ETC. STOP 510 8/23/2016 18:07:06 92660 ALREADY. 511 8/23/201618:08:05 92660 512 8/23/201618:12:11 92660 513 8/23/201618:15:28 92660 514 8/23/201618:19:00 92660 515 8/23/201618:24:18 92660 1 can't believe the level of congestion that recent years of development have caused. Has greed so possessed our leaders they are willing to 516 8/23/2016 18:25:23 92660 cram ever more people into such a limited space, I guess it has! 517 8/23/201618:27:56 92660 518 8/23/2016 18:28:54 92660 1 am against this and all further residential high rises at Newport Center. No citizen of Newport Beach that I have talked to wants this project approved --- we want a low density city !!! Why in the world would you 519 8/23/2016 18:33:50 92660 change the existing zoning for a project NOBODY wants ??!!!! And 520 8/23/2016 18:34:04 92660 Give the General Plan a try ... don't change it! 521 8/23/201618:40:50 92660 1 vote NO on the high density development @ 150 Newport Center Dr. We have too many massive developments already....our beautiful city is 522 8/23/2016 18:42:22 92660 on the road to ruin at this pace of growth. 523 8/23/2016 18:47:32 92660 1 vote NO 524 8/23/201618:47:35 92660 525 8/23/2016 18:54:13 92660 No 526 8/23/201618:59:33 92660 527 8/23/201619:09:41 92660 528 8/23/201619:12:47 92660 529 8/23/201619:13:19 92660 530 8/23/201619:14:23 92660 531 8/23/201619:15:44 92660 532 8/23/201619:16:38 92660 533 8/23/201619:16:54 92660 534 8/23/201619:22:01 92660 535 8/23/201619:25:44 92660 536 8/23/2016 19:43:56 92660 Keep the car wash, not a condo building. 537 8/23/201619:44:20 92660 538 8/23/2016 19:48:30 92660 My vote is a definite NO 539 8/23/201619:51:01 92660 540 8/23/201619:53:05 92660 We are already at grid-lock. Enough already, please stop the over 541 8/23/2016 19:59:15 92660 building. 542 8/23/2016 20:14:14 92660 No more development!! 543 8/23/2016 20:14:271 92660 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 17 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments After seeing the huge 500 apartment complex, we need at least a year to measure the traffic impact in Fashion Island, on Jamboree, San Miguel, Avocado and surrounding neighborhoods. Have been resident for 30 544 8/23/2016 20:28:57 92660 years and I vote. The project at Jamboree and San Juaquin Hills Rd will highly impact parking and traffic in this area. It a definite NO on this newly proposed 545 8/23/2016 20:29:05 92660 project! 546 8/23/2016 20:34:45 92660 547 8/23/2016 20:34:53 92660 548 8/23/2016 20:35:09 92660 549 8/23/2016 20:44:36 92660 550 8/23/2016 20:49:16 92660 551 8/23/2016 20:56:08 92660 No! 552 8/23/2016 20:57:07 92660 553 8/23/2016 20:59:27 92660 554 8/23/2016 21:02:25 92660 vote no 555 8/23/2016 21:02:44 92660 556 8/23/2016 21:03:23 92660 557 8/23/2016 21:05:02 92660 NO - high density! We've got a water issue as it is and don't need additional residential high density bringing in more residents! PLEASE NO 558 8/23/2016 21:10:33 92660 - NO-NO! 559 8/23/2016 21:17:05 92660 NO on the current proposed development plans for 150 Newport Center 560 8/23/2016 21:22:38 92660 Dr. 561 8/23/2016 21:24:51 92660 No on high density development 562 8/23/2016 21:27:36 92660 563 8/23/2016 21:30:05 92660 564 8/23/2016 21:31:42 92660 565 8/23/2016 21:33:23 92660 Please do not permit this project in Newport Center. 566 8/23/2016 21:33:30 92660 567 8/23/2016 21:34:10 92660 568 8/23/2016 21:37:57 92660 569 8/23/2016 21:45:52 92660 570 8/23/2016 21:48:46 92660 571 8/23/2016 21:53:15 92660 572 8/23/2016 21:59:04 92660 573 8/23/2016 22:03:49 92660 NO MORE!!!!!!!!! 574 8/23/2016 22:05:01 92660 575 8/23/2016 22:05:27 92660 576 8/23/2016 22:06:27 92660 Please do not allow these buildings to be built. 577 8/23/2016 22:11:15 92660 578 8/23/2016 22:11:48 92660 579 8/23/2016 22:25:10 92660 We LOVE where we live, as it is! Developers are ruining NB. Please-no 580 8/23/2016 22:32:46 92660 more traffic, or density. Let NB remain the special place it is!!!!! We do not need more people using water, making heavy traffic and 581 8/23/2016 22:35:50 92660 ruining the look of our beautiful city. 582 8/23/2016 22:37:10 92660 clockiechn@cox.net 583 8/23/2016 22:38:17 92660 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 18 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 584 8/23/2016 22:43:42 92660 585 8/23/2016 22:45:05 92660 586 8/23/2016 22:47:26 92660 587 8/23/2016 22:48:51 92660 588 8/23/2016 23:04:29 92660 The citizens of Newport Beach overwhelmingly do not want such an ill conceived 589 8/23/2016 23:44:29 92660 project. Adhere to their wishes. 590 8/23/2016 23:46:18 92660 591 8/24/2016 0:19:18 92660 There is already not enough water for existing residents. Do not 592 8/24/2016 0:35:12 92660 compound the problem by adding more condos in Newport Beach. 593 8/24/20161:42:42 92660 594 8/24/2016 2:27:15 92660 595 8/24/2016 2:42:54 92660 596 8/24/2016 5:54:18 92660 597 8/24/2016 6:21:38 92660 598 8/24/2016 6:26:44 92660 599 8/24/2016 6:27:32 92660 600 8/24/2016 6:29:14 92660 601 8/24/2016 6:33:26 92660 We need to maintain the character of Newport Beach for the future. More 602 8/24/2016 7:03:38 92660 is not better. 603 8/24/2016 7:08:48 92660 604 8/24/2016 7:12:49 92660 605 8/24/2016 7:14:43 92660 606 8/24/2016 7:17:54 92660 607 8/24/2016 7:22:00 92660 608 8/24/2016 7:26:29 92660 609 8/24/2016 7:38:07 92660 We are overpopulated and flooded with tourists. Driving from my home in eastbluff to balboa island can take 30 min now. Born and raised Newport resident that will be moving along with most locals. Get ready to enjoy a 610 8/24/2016 7:38:16 92660 town of tourists and newbies, locals are fed up. 611 8/24/2016 7:43:01 92660 612 8/24/2016 7:43:38 92660 Stop this nonsense. This isn't Newport Beach worthy. 613 8/24/2016 7:44:30 92660 Definitely not happy at all about the high density housing in Newport 614 8/24/2016 7:48:11 92660 Center! 615 8/24/2016 7:56:06 92660 When is enough enough?? 616 8/24/2016 7:56:49 92660 We are all asked/required to cut back on water use. In Apartments/Condos there isn't any control over water use. Driving around town has gotten so bad, with all these new projects it's going to even be 617 8/24/2016 8:02:35 92660 much worse. "Enough is enough" 618 8/24/2016 8:02:37 92660 619 8/24/2016 8:03:17 92660 620 8/24/2016 8:05:02 92660 621 8/24/2016 8:05:11 92660 622 8/24/2016 8:16:051 926601 1 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 19 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 623 8/24/2016 8:21:03 92660 Go LITS! 624 8/24/2016 8:22:41 92660 625 8/24/2016 8:23:34 92660 626 8/24/2016 8:27:15 92660 NO I am supporting The General Plan, Measure Y and Greenlight ... the community has already voted! Planning Commission and Council 627 8/24/2016 8:31:16 92660 Members please listen to your citizens! 628 8/24/2016 8:32:07 92660 What about the Museum House - far more intrusive and visible. If 150 NCD is defeated, won't that permit Museum House to be built because it is not over 100 residential units? Neither of these projects should go forward particularly with the massive condo/apartment developments on San Joaquin - which are making us look more and more like some 629 8/24/2016 8:39:50 92660 version of Irvine. with the 500+ units being built off Jamboree and San Juaquine, traffic will be very difficult when adding another 1000 cars to the roads We are too small a community to handle the influx of cars that will crowd our streets. Also, the increase of water used will far exceed what is asked of us to maintain. what good is it to reduce our water use when mass apartments are being built around us. It makes me believe that adding residents to newport beach is far more important than trying to maintain our water use. Why should we be conscientious when around us is saying we really do not 630 8/24/2016 8:42:10 92660 need to be. 631 8/24/2016 8:57:59 92660 Please listen ! ! 632 8/24/2016 8:58:35 92660 NO.NO.NO 633 8/24/2016 9:05:30 92660 634 8/24/2016 9:07:01 92660 1 grew up in NewporUCDM, went to school and consequentially settled on the East Coast, but returned here to Newport in 2009. 1 couldn't believe the changes and increase in population that had taken place during the time I was away but have witnessed it further spiral out of control in the last seven years and can't believe the lack of foresight and constraint by our City Officials and Planning Commission. The traffic increase alone is maddening! I avoid PCH through CDM when at all possible due to the constant backups and long traffic lights. What used to be a pleasant 10 min. drive with beautiful views from Harbor View Homes to Bayside Dr. through CDM now takes almost twice the amount of time and is far from relaxing and enjoyable. Our area has become so over populated and busy as it is, just take a minute and count how many stop lights you witness not one but several cars running solid red lights, that we are bordering on serious safety issues. It has now become a game for me and my three young kids to count how many"Light Runners"we can find. The addition of any residential high-rises around Fashion Island will only increase the density of people and traffic and it's scary to think City Officials can try and convince the residents of Newport Beach otherwise. 635 8/24/2016 9:10:44 92660 End the Development! 636 8/24/2016 9:17:44 92660 637 8/24/2016 9:20:151 92660 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 20 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments What are they thinking?????? After the disaster on San Joaquin, 500+ units and they want more? Am I the only person in Newport Beach who is aware of the drought? My plants and lawns are dying and we want to move thousands more people into the area? Seriously????????? To say 638 8/24/2016 9:22:43 92660 nothing of the traffic and congestion. 639 8/24/2016 9:34:18 92660 640 8/24/2016 9:38:23 92660 641 8/24/2016 9:45:30 92660 642 8/24/2016 9:46:29 92660 S L O W growth and protect our beautiful resort community. 643 8/24/2016 9:47:13 92660 Thank you for your work on our behalf! 644 8/24/2016 9:50:12 92660 645 8/24/201610:01:40 92660 646 8/24/201610:05:24 92660 647 8/24/2016 10:06:56 92660 1 vote no... also concerned about the 25 story, 100 condo unit project, taking the 648 8/24/2016 10:07:57 92660 place of the OC County Museum across from Fashion Island. 649 8/24/2016 10:08:07 92660 1 vote no... also concerned about the 25 story, 100 condo unit project, taking the 650 8/24/2016 10:09:00 92660 place of the OC County Museum across from Fashion Island. 651 8/24/201610:12:43 92660 NO on the Newport center housing development!! Traffic is already 652 8/24/2016 10:18:31 92660 impossible! 653 8/24/201610:25:57 92660 654 8/24/201610:27:06 92660 Our neighborhood is facing the building of a 5 story Assisted living facility on our property line. Just another contentious project that will continue to lower the quality of life we experience in Newport. The City Council, elected by the support of developers needs to be voted out of office and 655 8/24/2016 10:28:20 92660 the back room deal exposed. 656 8/24/201610:36:38 92660 657 8/24/201610:37:59 92660 658 8/24/2016 10:43:53 92660 No to High Density, No to 150 Newport Center Stop overbuilding our city! It will no longer be an attractive place to live if yet more traffic and congestion are added with poorly envisioned 659 8/24/2016 10:48:40 92660 developments such as this project. 660 8/24/201610:49:53 92660 661 8/24/201610:49:54 92660 662 8/24/2016 10:51:07 92660 A strong no 663 8/24/201610:52:59 92660 664 8/24/201611:00:54 92660 665 8/24/201611:04:32 92660 666 8/24/201611:15:49 92660 667 8/24/201611:16:07 92660 668 8/24/201611:19:21 92660 669 8/24/201611:20:01 92660 670 8/24/201611:20:41 92660 1 am very opposed to this development for reasons too numerous for this 671 8/24/2016 11:32:46 92660 short form. 672 8/24/201611:34:26 92660 673 8/24/201611:36:32 92660 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 21 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 674 8/24/201611:36:33 92660 675 8/24/201611:43:23 92660 Please vote No on the 150 Newport Center project and help us preserve the quality and beauty of the City of Newport Beach as it's been for so many years, thereby preventing it from being overdeveloped and 676 8/24/2016 11:48:05 92660 becoming another Los Angeles. 677 8/24/2016 11:52:27 92660 Great, thorough email made simple! 678 8/24/2016 12:13:27 92660 Please vote NO! 679 8/24/2016 12:14:06 92660 NO on High Density! 680 8/24/201612:18:44 92660 681 8/24/201612:19:14 92660 682 8/24/201612:20:00 92660 Too Big and not appropriate for Fashion Island and Newport Beach 683 8/24/2016 12:23:51 92660 Residents NO MORE BUILDING IN NEWPORT CENTER! TRAFFIC IS ALREADY A NIGHTMRE NOT TO MENTION WATER SHORTAGE! ENOUGH IS 684 8/24/2016 12:31:22 92660 ENOUGH!!!!! PLEASE Newport Beach needs to cap all further residential, retail, and commercial development that are unable to fully mitigate all traffic, light, and noise 685 8/24/2016 12:33:46 92660 impacts resulting from the project(s). 686 8/24/201612:36:39 92660 687 8/24/201612:38:09 92660 688 8/24/201612:41:13 92660 689 8/24/201612:49:22 92660 690 8/24/2016 12:52:03 92660 No on 150 Newport Center Dr. 691 8/24/2016 12:54:46 92660 Noon 150 692 8/24/201612:59:15 92660 693 8/24/201613:03:32 92660 694 8/24/2016 13:04:52 92660 Please please please, no more!!! 695 8/24/2016 13:05:32 92660 Wrong use for that site. Stick to the general plan. 696 8/24/201613:05:55 92660 697 8/24/201613:09:17 92660 698 8/24/201613:10:30 92660 699 8/24/201613:45:10 92660 700 8/24/2016 13:50:11 92660 No on 150 Newport Center project. 701 8/24/201613:52:57 92660 702 8/24/201613:54:08 92660 703 8/24/201613:55:36 92660 704 8/24/201614:03:14 92660 705 8/24/201614:03:55 92660 706 8/24/201614:04:06 92660 707 8/24/201614:06:43 92660 This city council is changing the face of our residential community. 708 8/24/2016 14:07:50 92660 Newport Beach should not be a high-rise, high density city. 709 8/24/201614:11:44 92660 710 8/24/2016 14:13:19 92660 No more large buildings, residential buildings in Newport Center. 711 8/24/201614:13:58 92660 712 8/24/2016 14:14:021 926601 1 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 22 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments I'm against overly cozy relationship of City of Newport Beach and the Irvine Co. and this project does not benefit the residents of NB. It will add 713 8/24/2016 14:19:10 92660 to our traffic and overdevelopment. 714 8/24/201614:22:09 92660 715 8/24/201614:25:53 92660 No more high density development! Traffic and density is already terrible 716 8/24/2016 14:28:14 92660 and there already is no parking! The traffic is horrendous as it is with all the building going on in Irvine. We don't need to add any more to it. Especially a tall building in Newport 717 8/24/2016 14:29:32 92660 Center. 718 8/24/201614:31:40 92660 719 8/24/2016 14:34:40 92660 Ruining the character of the community and there is not enough water I am opposed to any more large buildings in NB; particularly without being able to water my lawn and having to now waste time on crowded roads, such as MacArthur and Jamboree. Making a left at MacArthur around 5 720 8/24/2016 14:35:17 92660 PM now is such a struggle. Please attend to this petition. 721 8/24/2016 14:35:54 92660 Ruining the character of the community and there is not enough water It is unconscionable and unwarranted to continue to crowd our town;there is no water for these large projects and our roads are now like Century 722 8/24/2016 14:38:52 92660 City. 723 8/24/2016 14:38:53 92660 This will be detrimental to our city. 724 8/24/201614:49:46 92660 725 8/24/201614:57:56 92660 726 8/24/201615:05:12 92660 727 8/24/2016 15:08:20 92660 This project is recklessly over-scaled for the situs and location. Too big. Too tall and dangerously located for both drivers and 728 8/24/2016 15:11:04 92660 pedestrians. 729 8/24/201615:18:13 92660 730 8/24/201615:26:05 92660 731 8/24/201615:39:03 92660 732 8/24/2016 15:39:16 92660 N0000000000000000000000000000000000000 733 8/24/2016 15:45:15 92660 i vote no on on high density development @150 newport center 734 8/24/2016 15:49:57 92660 1 strongly oppose this. 735 8/24/201615:53:31 92660 736 8/24/201615:54:55 92660 737 8/24/2016 16:05:41 92660 Enough crowding!! 738 8/24/201616:19:25 92660 739 8/24/201616:22:01 92660 740 8/24/201616:33:53 92660 We already have enough traffic before the new apartments are filled and 741 8/24/2016 16:38:47 92660 not enough water!! This charming beach town is becoming a crowded busy and noisy place to live. It appears that the powers that be are too aligned with the 742 8/24/2016 16:40:29 92660 developers and their desire for more tax revenue. 743 8/24/2016 16:41:15 92660 stop the building and think about what is best for NB 744 8/24/201616:46:06 92660 745 8/24/201616:52:18 92660 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 23 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments when the city (and the state) is mandating water restrictions it seams irresponsible to continue to develop high density housing communities. Further, I'm not sure that the developer/building owner is subject to mello- 746 8/24/2016 16:53:07 92660 roos? Who pays for the impact on our community if they're not? 747 8/24/201616:55:02 92660 748 8/24/201616:56:21 92660 749 8/24/201617:00:14 92660 Not SPON, Not Line in the Sand, not any organization of residents should have to work to stop development that should not be happening in the first place. We believe in a moderate General Plan growth, yet we find 750 8/24/2016 17:04:17 92660 ourselves fighting for this which has already been agreed upon. 751 8/24/201617:05:36 92660 752 8/24/201617:08:24 92660 753 8/24/201617:12:59 92660 754 8/24/2016 17:14:42 92660 This form is poorly designed. 755 8/24/201617:25:33 92660 756 8/24/201617:28:55 92660 757 8/24/201617:35:04 92660 758 8/24/201617:37:37 92660 759 8/24/201617:50:22 92660 760 8/24/201618:16:55 92660 761 8/24/201618:23:46 92660 762 8/24/201618:25:12 92660 763 8/24/201618:43:00 92660 764 8/24/201618:46:44 92660 765 8/24/201618:50:04 92660 766 8/24/201618:57:48 92660 767 8/24/2016 19:31:05 92660 Oppose process more than project 768 8/24/201619:47:55 92660 769 8/24/2016 19:57:48 92660 Yes... we are both so against this project... PLEASE STOP IT... 770 8/24/2016 20:32:42 92660 771 8/24/2016 20:37:48 92660 The sad reality is that irresponsible and remorseless labor unions have saddled ALL cities in CA with growing and un-fundable liabilities. Cities and counties are being asked to bend long standing low/no growth policies in an attempt to fund their growing shortfalls. They have been put in a vise. Developers are promised 30 pieces of silver as these nefarious unions hide in the shadows, afraid of the light of day. Do not go gentle 772 8/24/2016 20:42:24 92660 into that good night! 773 8/24/2016 20:44:20 92660 Do not allow a high rise condo building in Newport Beach 774 8/24/2016 20:45:40 92660 775 8/24/2016 20:56:33 92660 NO MORE HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT!!! Enough is enough. 776 8/24/2016 21:02:15 92660 Please vote NO 777 8/24/2016 21:02:58 92660 778 8/24/2016 21:08:271 926601 1 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 24 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments I sincerely believe Newport Beach should be more aware of the negative impact of overbuilding. Development investment money is valuable, quality of life should be considered equally valuable! One should not overrule the other as was done with the apartments at Jamboree and San 779 8/24/2016 21:23:38 92660 Joaquin Hills Roads. 780 8/24/2016 21:27:56 92660 781 8/24/2016 21:31:19 92660 782 8/24/2016 21:41:02 92660 Please send me all information from SPON and other related topics 783 8/24/2016 21:43:12 92660 784 8/24/2016 22:10:20 92660 785 8/24/2016 22:11:58 92660 Too much! How about low income housing! 786 8/24/2016 22:20:05 92660 787 8/24/2016 22:25:53 92660 788 8/24/2016 22:48:27 92660 789 8/24/2016 22:52:35 92660 790 8/24/2016 23:03:01 92660 this has GREED all over it. !!! We are currently rationing water. Traffic has become congested. Stop 791 8/24/2016 23:05:51 92660 NOW. Why didnt we get a say in the awful project on San Joaquin Hills and Jamboree?. It is hideous! Same thing will happen here. Is this a Donald 792 8/24/2016 23:06:58 92660 Bran project? We don't even have enough water for our own homes and it makes NO sense to add more demand! We also don't have enough parking at the stores nearby. Lets improve Newport Beach not stretch it and pack it 793 8/24/2016 23:15:46 92660 frustrating everyone. 794 8/25/2016 0:04:14 92660 Over built our schools don't even have space for kids or parking as of 795 8/25/2016 0:15:35 92660 now! 796 8/25/2016 0:16:45 92660 797 8/25/2016 5:40:38 92660 Voting no, thanks! The traffic situation around Fashion Island and extending from there has become so much heavier. I don't think that more high rise housing is 798 8/25/2016 6:20:08 92660 beneficial. 799 8/25/2016 7:01:32 92660 No! 800 8/25/2016 7:04:57 92660 801 8/25/2016 7:17:31 92660 802 8/25/2016 7:33:53 92660 It is too much and takes away what is special about Newport 803 8/25/2016 7:37:41 92660 804 8/25/2016 7:41:03 92660 Please do not let this high density pass! I'm appalled at what is going on in our beautiful Newport. Just heard of the restaurant that will be erected where the Ruben E Lee was, tell me where they will put a parking area?? San Joaquin and Jamboree apartments will be a nightmare when it is filled up, I'm totally disgusted 805 8/25/2016 7:43:46 92660 and would like to help. 806 8/25/2016 7:43:48 92660 807 8/25/2016 7:46:19 92660 808 8/25/2016 8:02:49 92660 809 8/25/2016 8:04:14 92660 810 8/25/2016 8:06:25 92660 811 8/25/2016 8:13:381 926601 1 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 25 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 812 8/25/2016 8:21:39 92660 Newport Beach does not need to become another downtown Los 813 8/25/2016 8:25:01 92660 Angeles! 814 8/25/2016 8:37:47 92660 815 8/25/2016 8:37:59 92660 Keep Newport Beach a quaint beach city!!! 816 8/25/2016 8:50:08 92660 817 8/25/2016 9:03:15 92660 818 8/25/2016 9:04:29 92660 819 8/25/2016 9:35:46 92660 No more high rise buildings. We need our water and less traffic. We 820 8/25/2016 9:59:36 92660 want to be a small community city, not another LA 821 8/25/201610:12:00 92660 822 8/25/201610:12:26 92660 823 8/25/201610:23:55 92660 824 8/25/201610:35:03 92660 825 8/25/201610:47:43 92660 826 8/25/201610:49:07 92660 827 8/25/201610:56:34 92660 828 8/25/201611:10:11 92660 Our traffic at Newport Center/Fashion Islands is already terrible. No more 829 8/25/2016 11:13:01 92660 please. 830 8/25/2016 11:22:29 92660 No to major changes to the General Plan without voter approval 831 8/25/201611:57:17 92660 832 8/25/201611:58:21 92660 833 8/25/201612:47:53 92660 834 8/25/2016 12:57:41 92660 Trlyda@gmail.com 835 8/25/201614:04:05 92660 836 8/25/201614:35:48 92660 837 8/25/201614:35:48 92660 838 8/25/2016 14:59:03 92660 Concern over traffic and population density 839 8/25/201615:12:38 92660 840 8/25/201615:22:53 92660 841 8/25/2016 15:28:14 92660 Traffic and noise are already at their limits! Quality of life is diminishing! 842 8/25/201615:32:06 92660 843 8/25/201615:38:59 92660 844 8/25/201616:18:57 92660 Why didn't we hear anythng in the papers about the massive San Joaquin 845 8/25/2016 16:24:06 92660 project???that makes this one look puny. 846 8/25/201616:25:17 92660 847 8/25/201616:34:39 92660 848 8/25/201616:48:45 92660 849 8/25/201616:49:38 92660 850 8/25/201617:21:34 92660 851 8/25/201617:44:14 92660 852 8/25/2016 20:00:44 92660 853 8/25/2016 20:35:36 92660 854 8/25/2016 21:23:29 92660 Can I sign twice? :) 855 8/25/2016 21:41:26 92660 856 8/25/2016 22:05:25 92660 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 26 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 857 8/25/2016 22:17:25 92660 858 8/25/2016 22:28:52 92660 859 8/26/2016 4:19:43 92660 860 8/26/2016 6:54:26 92660 861 8/26/2016 6:56:30 92660 862 8/26/2016 6:57:25 92660 Voting NO 863 8/26/2016 7:16:34 92660 864 8/26/2016 7:41:56 92660 865 8/26/2016 7:42:55 92660 866 8/26/2016 7:44:23 92660 867 8/26/2016 8:02:42 92660 868 8/26/2016 8:10:18 92660 there are already too many residential units going in at Newport Center. 869 8/26/2016 8:49:09 92660 870 8/26/2016 8:50:47 92660 No on high density development at 150 Newport Center Drive 871 8/26/2016 8:50:49 92660 872 8/26/2016 9:10:41 92660 873 8/26/2016 9:11:39 92660 874 8/26/2016 9:21:18 92660 No. No. No. 875 8/26/2016 9:23:24 92660 1 VOTE NO ON THIS PROJECT The Voter approved general Planof 2006 should remain in place as it was executed without being challenged each year.lfs a good plan for the 876 8/26/2016 10:01:43 92660 quality of life in Newport Beach to remain as could be. It is very clear that the majority of Newport Beach residents want our planning commission and city counsel to stop violating the spirit of green light and stop allowing developments which bring more and more traffic 877 8/26/2016 10:09:17 92660 and congestion into our community. 878 8/26/201610:37:03 92660 879 8/26/201611:20:19 92660 880 8/26/201611:43:20 92660 881 8/26/2016 12:06:18 92660 Please stop the building in our beautiful beach community. 882 8/26/2016 12:07:02 92660 Please stop the building in our beautiful beach community. 883 8/26/2016 12:07:49 92660 Please stop the building in our beautiful beach community. 884 8/26/2016 12:21:44 92660 No on Newport Center Project 885 8/26/201612:23:08 92660 886 8/26/2016 12:29:05 92660 Proposed Project is Preposterous! 887 8/26/2016 13:42:51 92660 Isn't the horrible new complex going up on San Joaquin enough already?! 888 8/26/2016 14:03:33 92660 Please, please do not let this happen to Newport Beach Stop! Too much bldg 889 8/26/2016 14:09:05 92660 Don't ruin our city anymore JUST ANOTHER END RUN BY KOLL AND THE COUNCIL! WHAT 890 8/26/2016 14:49:43 92660 HAPPENED TO PROP"Y"? 891 8/26/2016 15:05:31 92660 vote no "PROP "Y" BE DAMNED" HE SEZ, "I'LL JUST DO ANOTHER "END 892 8/26/2016 15:11:11 92660 RUN" TO GET MY FRIEND TODD WHAT HE WANTS! 893 8/26/2016 15:44:52 92660 NO! NO! NO! The population is getting overwhelming. Our beautiful city is turning into a 894 8/26/2016 15:48:58 92660 concrete jungle. 895 8/26/2016 17:04:191 92660 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 27 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments Way too much development in Newport Beach! We don't go out to eat 896 8/26/2016 17:08:53 92660 any more in Fashion island it is too crowded!!!!! Stop it all!!!!! 897 8/26/201618:18:56 92660 Please pay attention to this petition! We are citizens of Newport Beach, whom you all represent, and we would sincerely appreciate your listening 898 8/26/2016 18:40:16 92660 to our voices. Thank you. 899 8/26/201619:21:39 92660 900 8/26/2016 20:57:05 92660 901 8/26/2016 21:34:50 92660 902 8/26/2016 23:44:06 92660 903 8/27/2016 0:04:22 92660 904 8/27/2016 0:23:48 92660 905 8/27/2016 7:52:39 92660 906 8/27/2016 8:41:37 92660 Stop the density in Newport center and uphold the current laws. 907 8/27/2016 9:30:00 92660 908 8/27/2016 9:39:13 92660 909 8/27/2016 9:54:10 92660 910 8/27/201612:16:41 92660 911 8/27/2016 12:54:57 92660 Enough! 912 8/27/201614:15:54 92660 913 8/27/201614:18:42 92660 1 am completely opposed to the 150 Newport Center Project!!! Wrong for 914 8/27/2016 16:31:55 92660 Newport Beach in every way!!!!! 915 8/27/201616:44:39 92660 916 8/27/201617:53:16 92660 This growth is not well thought out and negatively impacts current 917 8/27/2016 17:56:36 92660 residents quality of life. Please vote NO! Over development of this region would only put a strain on our schools 918 8/27/2016 18:18:30 92660 and educational system with overcrowding. 919 8/27/2016 18:54:58 92660 NO 920 8/27/201618:57:39 92660 921 8/27/201619:00:52 92660 922 8/27/201619:21:42 92660 923 8/27/201619:30:31 92660 924 8/27/2016 20:03:12 92660 925 8/27/2016 20:29:50 92660 926 8/27/2016 22:45:46 92660 After the fiasco development of the "city" built at Jamboree and San Joachim Hill Road we are not ready for another monster high rise project 927 8/28/2016 5:18:04 92660 creating major traffic problems for Newport Beach families. We must stop this development. We have a water shortage and they are 928 8/28/2016 7:57:58 92660 adding multiple units???? 929 8/28/2016 8:08:32 92660 Enough! 930 8/28/2016 8:28:52 92660 931 8/28/2016 9:21:26 92660 932 8/28/2016 9:27:07 92660 Density in Fashion Island is already causing a traffic problem. 933 8/28/2016 9:28:30 92660 We don't need any more traffic around Fashion Island 934 8/28/2016 9:52:57 92660 935 8/28/201610:02:18 92660 936 8/28/2016 10:10:061 926601 1 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 28 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 937 8/28/201610:30:59 92660 938 8/28/201610:59:33 92660 939 8/28/201611:00:15 92660 940 8/28/201611:24:55 92660 The traffic impact of new development in an already impacted area will be 941 8/28/2016 11:40:03 92660 bad for all the residents of Newport Beach Newport voted in 2012 to STOP high density development and this high rise proposal is exactly what Newport Beach residents and voters do not 942 8/28/2016 11:43:31 92660 want or approve. 943 8/28/201612:07:40 92660 This type of development needs to stop. Where is the traffic supposed to go. Has anyone tried to go down Jamboree or MacArthur Blvd PCH lately. 944 8/28/2016 12:26:37 92660 Unbelievable that this is even being considered 945 8/28/2016 12:47:54 92660 NO on 150 Newport Center Project-stop building 946 8/28/201612:55:11 92660 947 8/28/201612:56:04 92660 There has been too much massive high-volume development already in this area over the last few years.The impacts on traffic and safety need to be studied before any more projects like this are even considered. Our 948 8/28/2016 13:33:44 92660 quality of life is being diminished by greedy developers. 949 8/28/2016 13:50:00 92660 Please no more density buildings 950 8/28/201615:15:51 92660 951 8/28/201615:19:27 92660 952 8/28/201615:50:00 92660 953 8/28/201616:40:36 92660 954 8/28/201616:41:44 92660 955 8/28/201616:58:38 92660 956 8/28/201617:09:49 92660 957 8/28/2016 18:22:25 92660 NO 958 8/28/201618:37:12 92660 959 8/28/201618:39:18 92660 We need NO more construction until we see what we have post the hundreds of units at Jamboree and MacArthur...adjacent to Park Newport. 960 8/28/2016 18:59:26 92660 We are not Irvine and do not want a corridor on PCH. 961 8/28/2016 23:55:52 92660 962 8/29/2016 5:20:03 92660 We voted against this kind of development already; this kind of 963 8/29/2016 7:33:05 92660 diversionary tactic is terrible! 964 8/29/2016 7:43:51 92660 Our roads are not capable of handling huge increases in the volume of traffic. There are FEW arteries with no alternatives between them in many 965 8/29/2016 8:13:33 92660 cases and most on the east side. 966 8/29/2016 8:17:29 92660 967 8/29/2016 8:29:26 92660 968 8/29/2016 8:31:09 92660 969 8/29/2016 8:31:57 92660 970 8/29/2016 8:34:02 92660 971 8/29/2016 8:34:211 926601 1 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 29 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 972 8/29/2016 8:38:40 92660 973 8/29/2016 8:40:15 92660 974 8/29/2016 8:41:01 92660 Vote No!! 975 8/29/2016 8:44:02 92660 Wish we could un-do the 2006 decision that allowed the monstrous 500+ apt. bldng @ in Fashion Island. It's forever eliminated one of the loveliest 976 8/29/2016 8:45:24 92660 views of the ocean and the coastline looking north. Enough. 977 8/29/2016 8:45:44 92660 978 8/29/2016 8:52:03 92660 979 8/29/2016 8:52:26 92660 980 8/29/2016 8:52:58 92660 981 8/29/2016 8:57:47 92660 We must have our say in this!! Traffic!!! Use of water!!! 982 8/29/2016 9:03:01 92660 983 8/29/2016 9:07:27 92660 984 8/29/2016 9:09:37 92660 Please vote no on the 150 Newport Center project! 985 8/29/2016 9:14:09 92660 986 8/29/2016 9:14:16 92660 1 respectfully request that our City Council proceed cautiously on this expansion. The density is already becoming intolerable with the development of the Villa Fashion Island apartments. Traffic just from that project will make ingress and egress a nightmare. And, what about 987 8/29/2016 9:18:44 92660 the water? 988 8/29/2016 9:21:47 92660 989 8/29/2016 9:22:20 92660 990 8/29/2016 9:27:10 92660 991 8/29/2016 9:28:20 92660 992 8/29/2016 9:34:49 92660 No on 150 Newport project 993 8/29/2016 9:38:46 92660 The rendering on the whole building needs to be displayed over and over. The height of the building will over power all the others in Fashion Island and will bring down to LA into our community. The people that are favoring and supporting this project don't care about the negative impact that this monster will have on the Newport Beach community but are just motivated by the income the sale of the property 994 8/29/2016 9:39:18 92660 will generate for the new proposed museum in Costa Mesa. 995 8/29/2016 9:45:12 92660 996 8/29/2016 9:52:27 92660 1 vote no on this! 997 8/29/2016 9:53:50 92660 998 8/29/2016 9:56:42 92660 999 8/29/2016 9:57:48 92660 We expect you to make responsible decisions about land use. Do not rezone retail space to ever more residential expansion. The monstrosity 1000 8/29/2016 9:57:51 92660 at San Joaquin Hills Road is enough!! 1001 8/29/2016 9:57:52 92660 1002 8/29/201610:02:22 92660 1003 8/29/2016 10:03:50 92660 This project is a very bad idea for the area! 1004 8/29/201610:41:30 92660 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 30 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 1005 8/29/201610:52:46 92660 1006 8/29/201610:53:21 92660 1007 8/29/201611:00:39 92660 1008 8/29/201611:03:27 92660 1009 8/29/2016 11:12:17 92660 1 am against ay more building in/at Newport Center. 1010 8/29/201611:16:05 92660 1011 8/29/201611:18:06 92660 1012 8/29/201611:20:00 92660 1013 8/29/201611:30:11 92660 1014 8/29/201611:36:06 92660 1015 8/29/2016 11:42:52 92660 Thank you for keeping Newport clean and residential! 1016 8/29/2016 11:50:11 92660 Thank you for your efforts. 1017 8/29/2016 11:56:32 92660 Vote no against building housing 1018 8/29/2016 11:57:53 92660 This would be destructive to our community 1019 8/29/201611:58:55 92660 1020 8/29/201611:59:29 92660 1021 8/29/201612:01:43 92660 1022 8/29/201612:04:53 92660 We are already sacrificing with water restrictions and heavy traffic just to survive the size of the city of Newport Beach as it is without adding more 1023 8/29/2016 12:05:01 92660 development. Enough is enough. I am very upset with the Planning Department regarding the proposed development in Newport Beach. Isn't it enough that we have the Ugliest Apartment complex at San Joaquin & Jamboree? Now you want another 1024 8/29/2016 12:07:03 92660 high rise? ENOUGH!!!! STOP! 1025 8/29/201612:12:15 92660 1026 8/29/201612:20:11 92660 1027 8/29/2016 12:25:32 92660 No more building! 1028 8/29/2016 12:31:14 92660 no expansion we voted on it Green light 1029 8/29/201612:40:53 92660 1030 8/29/201612:41:42 92660 1031 8/29/201612:44:06 92660 1032 8/29/201612:50:07 92660 1033 8/29/201612:52:59 92660 1034 8/29/201613:05:32 92660 1 vote NO! The density of the new project on San Joaquin Hills Rd. and 1035 8/29/2016 13:08:26 92660 Jamboree is ridiculous!!!!!! 1036 8/29/201613:13:24 92660 1037 8/29/201613:15:21 92660 If we are trying to conserve water why are building new high density 1038 8/29/2016 13:16:29 92660 housing? 1039 8/29/201613:18:56 92660 1040 8/29/201613:25:02 92660 1041 8/29/2016 13:28:17 92660 no high density developments!!! 1042 8/29/201613:28:45 92660 1043 8/29/201613:30:28 92660 1044 8/29/2016 13:49:00 92660 the letter and the intent of voter desires must be up held 1045 8/29/2016 13:50:401 926601 1 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 31 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments There has already been TOO MUCH development in Newport Beach. We ARE in a drought you know....plus traffic is way too much, no matter what time of day, and Jamboree especially is a dangerous disaster most of the time with too many cars going way too fast. This building has got to 1046 8/29/2016 13:53:26 92660 stop!!!!!!!! 1047 8/29/2016 13:53:36 92660 Too much traffic for another high-density housing project in this area. 1048 8/29/201613:53:44 92660 1049 8/29/201613:53:59 92660 1050 8/29/2016 13:55:34 92660 1 am voting NO This city has gone crazy with high density housing. Enough is enough! 1051 8/29/2016 13:57:11 92660 Stop this nonsense! 1052 8/29/201613:57:37 92660 1053 8/29/201613:58:10 92660 1054 8/29/201614:05:14 92660 1055 8/29/201614:11:37 92660 1056 8/29/201614:13:27 92660 The City Council is not listening to the voices of the people of Newport 1057 8/29/2016 14:16:05 92660 Beach. We don't want the density that has occurred in Los Angeles. 1058 8/29/201614:20:14 92660 1059 8/29/201614:25:07 92660 1060 8/29/201614:26:22 92660 1061 8/29/201614:27:06 92660 1062 8/29/201614:27:07 92660 1063 8/29/201614:40:03 92660 1064 8/29/201614:46:48 92660 We are asked to conserve water here in Newport Beach and the 1065 8/29/2016 14:46:56 92660 additional housing will put yet another strain on our resources.08 1066 8/29/201615:03:30 92660 1067 8/29/2016 15:06:46 92660 NO 1068 8/29/2016 15:08:13 92660 We already have too much building and do not need more. 1069 8/29/201615:14:26 92660 1070 8/29/201615:17:34 92660 1071 8/29/201615:24:47 92660 1072 8/29/201615:25:45 92660 1073 8/29/201615:59:11 92660 1074 8/29/201616:10:26 92660 1075 8/29/201616:11:19 92660 1076 8/29/201616:13:49 92660 1077 8/29/201616:19:35 92660 1078 8/29/201616:21:43 92660 1079 8/29/201616:28:20 92660 1080 8/29/201616:28:54 92660 1081 8/29/2016 16:38:23 92660 No 1082 8/29/201616:47:02 92660 1083 8/29/201616:58:22 92660 Please stop building high rises in Newport. It's becoming more like Irvine 1084 8/29/2016 17:07:52 92660 with the whole traffic situation. 1085 8/29/201617:12:45 92660 1086 8/29/201617:16:35 92660 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 32 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 1087 8/29/2016 17:29:04 92660 Agree with petition Newport will not be Newport with the addition of so many housing units, cars, water usage, etc. The traffic is already excessive. Jamboree and PCH get very backed up. Please stick with the General Plan and submit all projects that do not meet the General Plan guidelines to the public for 1088 8/29/2016 17:35:12 92660 a vote. 1089 8/29/201617:46:52 92660 1090 8/29/201617:54:46 92660 The development at San Juoquin and Jamboree has really impacted this area. Newport Beach doesn't need anymore of this. Where is the water 1091 8/29/2016 18:05:22 92660 coming from for all these units, and traffic is already impacted on PCH. 1092 8/29/201618:16:59 92660 1093 8/29/201618:18:55 92660 Newport Beach, during my lifetime, has greatly changed and the traffic and the population density has become strangling. These new projects can only increase the difficulty of movement , damage the wonderful lifestyle Newport Beach has come to symbolize, and tarnish the image of our wonderful city. These large and towering projects will turn us into a mini New York or LA. 1094 8/29/2016 18:18:56 92660 Not what people come to Newport Beach to experience . Adds to the already crowded city sky line along with crowded road 1095 8/29/2016 18:21:14 92660 conditions. 1096 8/29/201618:28:09 92660 1097 8/29/2016 19:06:49 92660 1 vote no 1098 8/29/201619:27:56 92660 1099 8/29/2016 19:37:49 92660 Against this project! 1100 8/29/2016 19:38:36 92660 Against this project! 1101 8/29/201619:44:09 92660 Traffic is already terrible! More drivers are going thru yellow lights that have turned red while just entering the intersection. What about the need for more sewer&transformer capacity, widening streets to accommodate increased traffic, schools, new &/or enlarged, for the children., etc., etc. it is unreasonable to assume that car usage will be less just because the buyers/renters live closer to shopping, especially for seniors & those with children. Air quality is already getting very poor. Cramming more residents into a confined area is Irresponsible & most certainly unwanted. Are those on the Newport Beach Planning Commision, Council members & any others who are in control of building expansion so spineless that they can not stand up to the few whose pockets will be filled at the 1102 8/29/2016 19:47:14 92660 detriment of the many residents?? 1103 8/29/2016 20:12:46 92660 Please do not approve 1104 8/29/2016 20:26:48 92660 vote YES please build highrise we need these one level newer homes 1105 8/29/2016 20:30:36 92660 1106 8/29/2016 20:32:35 92660 1107 8/29/2016 20:42:33 92660 1108 8/29/2016 20:59:421 926601 1 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 33 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 1109 8/29/201621:01:03 92660 1110 8/29/2016 21:02:18 92660 Newport Beach does not need any more large development projects! The 1111 8/29/2016 21:20:41 92660 residents do not support it and do not want more traffic congestion. 1112 8/29/2016 21:22:12 92660 The new mega apartment complexes in fashion island are horrendous! This community does not want more massive building projects which RUIN our wonderful idyllic Newport Beach with more pollution, traffic, noise and large ugly buildings. Go back to Los Angeles ! NO on 150 1113 8/29/2016 21:36:16 92660 Newport Center! NO on the massive building project. NEwport cannot tolerate or 1114 8/29/2016 21:38:56 92660 accommodate more massive buildings and traffic. 1115 8/29/2016 21:39:39 92660 STOP THE DEVELOPMENT IN AND AROUND FASHION ISLAND 1116 8/29/2016 21:48:28 92660 1117 8/29/2016 22:01:13 92660 1118 8/29/2016 22:14:52 92660 NO! 1119 8/29/2016 22:23:13 92660 Lets keep Newport Beach a desirable place to live No more residential. Too much traffic. Taking away views. What about water? All NB residents have to cut back due to water crisis, there can't 1120 8/29/2016 22:25:07 92660 be enough water for all these additional projects. 1121 8/29/2016 22:37:31 92660 Stop the over crowding!!! 1122 8/29/2016 22:56:58 92660 Stop the building around fashion island. 1123 8/29/2016 23:08:12 92660 No more development of high density housing! The high-rise building has to stop! It is ruining the look and feel of our 1124 8/29/2016 23:49:07 92660 community. 1125 8/30/2016 0:23:00 92660 NO on high density development @ 150 Newport Center 1126 8/30/2016 0:54:26 92660 NO 1127 8/30/20161:29:17 92660 1128 8/30/20161:40:44 92660 1129 8/30/2016 6:04:59 92660 1130 8/30/2016 6:12:51 92660 1131 8/30/2016 7:44:56 92660 1132 8/30/2016 7:53:34 92660 1133 8/30/2016 7:55:06 92660 1 vote NO 1134 8/30/2016 8:02:53 92660 1135 8/30/2016 8:08:19 92660 1136 8/30/2016 8:15:52 92660 1137 8/30/2016 8:19:43 92660 1138 8/30/2016 8:28:24 92660 1139 8/30/2016 8:31:02 92660 1140 8/30/2016 8:37:10 92660 1141 8/30/2016 8:58:27 92660 1142 8/30/2016 9:25:07 92660 1143 8/30/2016 9:30:33 92660 NO!!!! 1144 8/30/2016 9:34:32 92660 1145 8/30/2016 9:56:19 92660 1146 8/30/201610:02:49 92660 1147 8/30/201610:03:00 92660 1148 8/30/201610:04:08 92660 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 34 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 1149 8/30/201610:07:56 92660 With all the new construction currently going on in the Newport Center area, I do not want to lose our community by adding any more condos or apartments in that area. The traffic is already heavy and will only get worse. I have lived in Newport Beach since 1948 when I came here with my parents and siblings. My father was the foreman when Cliff Haven was developed. I lived on Snug Harbor Road until I graduated from Newport Harbor High School in 1960. 1 have seen Newport Beach, the Peninsula, Corona del Mar, Harbor Ridge, Spyglass Hill, Newport Coast, Jamboree Road (named after the Boy Scout Jamboree which I went to with my family in 1950), the business areas and the airport developments and more. High density living is not why people love Newport Beach. The Irvine Company has done much to make Newport what it is today but they are pushing the envelope. Please do not allow any further high 1150 8/30/2016 10:35:18 92660 density development in Newport Center. 1151 8/30/201610:41:22 92660 Our city needs to stick to the general plan and not grant so many 1152 8/30/2016 11:08:59 92660 variances. 1153 8/30/201611:09:21 92660 1 am appalled at the current infill housing under construction on the perimeter of Fashion Island. The ease of shopping, marketing, banking, driving, etc. will be diminished forever once all of those units are 1154 8/30/2016 11:26:53 92660 occupied! 1155 8/30/201611:32:09 92660 1156 8/30/201611:36:34 92660 1157 8/30/201611:46:59 92660 1158 8/30/2016 12:55:13 92660 STOP the nonsense-enough is enough with the over building 1159 8/30/201613:30:08 92660 1160 8/30/2016 14:19:37 92660 No 1161 8/30/2016 14:52:11 92660 1162 8/30/201615:28:45 92660 1163 8/30/201615:29:32 92660 1164 8/30/201615:30:26 92660 1165 8/30/201615:54 92660 1166 8/30/201616:53 92660 1167 8/30/201617:10 92660 1168 8/30/201617:10 92660 1169 8/30/201617:21 92660 1170 8/30/201617:32 92660 1171 8/30/201618:32 92660 1172 8/30/201618:37 92660 1173 8/30/2016 19:36 92660 No Then stop fining the homeowners with water fines..This makes not a drop 1174 8/30/2016 20:21 92660 of sense if we have no water!!! 1175 8/30/2016 20:46 92660 1176 8/30/2016 21:11 92660 1177 8/30/2016 21:29 92660 1178 8/30/2016 21:53 92660 1179 8/30/2016 22:56 92660 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 35 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 1180 8/31/2016 6:10 92660 1181 8/31/2016 9:22 92660 Do we want another Century City at the beach??? NO! 1182 8/31/20169:52 92660 1183 8/31/2016 9:53 92660 1184 8/31/20169:59 92660 1185 8/31/201610:08 92660 It would be potentially supportive of this initiative to deny the project if someone conducted a postmortem on previous traffic studies related to other developments and found that the traffic studies did not accurately 1186 8/31/2016 10:32 92660 identify new traffic patterns. 1187 8/23/201617:54:08 92661 1188 8/23/201617:55:40 92661 1189 8/23/201618:06:18 92661 1190 8/23/2016 21:24:34 92661 1 am voting against the proposed development at 150 Newport Center 1191 8/24/201611:22:41 92661 Drive 1192 8/24/201613:30:05 92661 1193 8/24/201615:35:20 92661 1194 8/25/201614:32:24 92661 1195 8/27/2016 20:21:38 92661 1196 8/28/2016 11:35:48 92661 No More HIGH DENSITY TRAFFIC IS HORRIBLE NOW 1197 8/28/201615:50:11 92661 1198 8/29/201610:29:08 92661 1199 8/29/201616:11:09 92661 1200 8/29/2016 20:15:01 92661 1201 8/29/2016 20:16:46 92661 1202 8/30/2016 10:30:09 92661 1 am voting NO on the 150 Newport Center Project!!!! 1203 8/23/201617:13:35 92662 1204 8/23/2016 18:03:21 92662 What about Jeff Herdman's comments about excess residential units? 1205 8/23/201618:17:46 92662 1206 8/23/201618:46:18 92662 1207 8/23/201619:32:34 92662 1208 8/23/2016 20:01:06 92662 This building would be way out of line with our city 1 All major growth projects need to go before the voting community for 1209 8/23/2016 21:09:24 92662 approval, not circumvent the people's desires. 1210 8/23/2016 21:36:39 92662 1211 8/23/2016 21:37:31 92662 1212 8/24/2016 6:14:29 92662 1213 8/24/201614:36:48 92662 1214 8/24/201615:00:19 92662 Thank you for providing a easy way for concerned citiziens to participate 1215 8/24/2016 20:17:18 92662 and share their opinion. 1216 8/24/2016 20:59:52 92662 1217 8/24/2016 22:57:10 92662 1218 8/25/2016 8:43:59 92662 1 am against it. Newport Center is slowly becoming the Century City of 1219 8/25/2016 9:06:54 92662 Orange County and it is sad. 1220 8/25/201619:41:47 92662 1221 8/25/2016 21:58:191 926621 1 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 36 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 1222 8/26/20161:13:28 92662 1223 8/26/2016 9:45:28 92662 1224 8/26/201610:27:52 92662 IS THERE A PETITION FOR THE MUSEUM PROJECT ALSO? 1225 8/26/2016 13:59:09 92662 IF SO PLEASE SEND IT TO ME. THANKS The major apartment development in Newport Center has got to be 1226 8/26/2016 16:31:17 92662 stopped--the traffic will be horrific--- What happened to Greenlight and voters voting on these projects? Stop the apartment building in Newport Center---before you tum Newport 1227 8/26/2016 16:33:16 92662 into Irvine! 1228 8/26/2016 17:07:25 92662 Keep it commercial!!! 1229 8/26/2016 17:21:31 92662 No on development. 1230 8/26/2016 18:15:04 92662 No 1231 8/27/2016 21:56:08 92662 1232 8/27/2016 22:17:27 92662 1233 8/28/2016 0:19:05 92662 1234 8/28/2016 9:03:41 92662 1235 8/28/201610:13:11 92662 1236 8/28/201610:41:14 92662 1237 8/28/201610:42:25 92662 1238 8/28/201610:46:43 92662 1239 8/28/201616:33:13 92662 How can any resident of NB NOT be concerned with overbuilding. City services required to maintain; more cars on our already overcrowded streets? All because developers want Newport Center be a more 1240 8/28/2016 19:20:54 92662 walkable destination ! Take a bus ! 1241 8/28/201619:31:53 92662 1242 8/29/2016 8:26:31 92662 1243 8/29/2016 10:02:54 92662 8/29/2016 Please do not approve these piecemeal projects. Let the citizens of 1244 8/29/2016 11:52:29 92662 Newport Beach be heard, 1245 8/29/2016 12:10:18 92662 You sure do a lot of favors for a former city councilman turned developer. 1246 8/29/201612:25:10 92662 1247 8/29/2016 13:01:16 92662 we want to save the quality of life in Newport Beach 1248 8/29/201614:03:55 92662 1249 8/29/2016 17:20:52 92662 No more building!!! 1250 8/29/201619:11:00 92662 1251 8/30/2016 0:55:46 92662 No way!!!! 1252 8/30/2016 6:36:31 92662 1253 8/30/2016 6:57:26 92662 1254 8/30/201613:01:42 92662 1255 8/30/201613:43:20 92662 1256 8/30/201617:26 92662 1257 8/30/2016 17:36 92662 Where is all this traffic going. Please 1258 8/30/201619:31 92662 1259 8/23/201617:14:39 92663 Please follow the 2006 voter approved General Plan and zoning rules for 1260 8/23/2016 17:27:05 92663 this block of Newport Center! 1261 8/23/2016 17:39:35 92663 No more High Density in Newport please 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 37 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 1262 8/23/201617:44:34 92663 1263 8/23/201618:01:41 92663 1264 8/23/2016 18:02:57 92663 1 am extremely opposed to this project. 1265 8/23/2016 18:04:49 92663 Please don't WRECK this community! Stop it! 1266 8/23/201618:09:58 92663 Stick to the General Plan (NOT 'Stick it TO the general plan!') No 1267 8/23/2016 18:11:07 92663 development without public vote! 1268 8/23/2016 18:16:56 92663 Traffic and water problems are already WAY too severe! 1269 8/23/2016 18:20:45 92663 This project destroys the character of Newport Beach 1270 8/23/201618:41:42 92663 Please listen to the people who vote! You are expected to listen to us - 1271 8/23/2016 18:41:43 92663 not a few wealthy donors who expect favors. Please do not jeopardize our life style just to accommodate more development. There is already a huge strain on traffic, water, schools, and hospitals in our community. Please do not let greed win out when this project is so far out of the limits of development that the citizens have approved. They should have 10 acres for the size of the development 1272 8/23/2016 18:47:39 92663 and they don't even have 2.....please be responsible when you vote. Please do not jeopardize our life style just to accommodate more development. There is already a huge strain on traffic, water, schools, and hospitals in our community. Please do not let greed win out when this project is so far out of the limits of development that the citizens have approved. They should have 10 acres for the size of the development 1273 8/23/2016 18:47:39 92663 and they don't even have 2.....please be responsible when you vote. 1274 8/23/201618:48:10 92663 1 vote NO on "car wash project" at 150 Newport Center Drive in Fashion 1275 8/23/2016 18:54:09 92663 Island. It's way too much. 1276 8/23/2016 18:55:51 92663 no on car wash 1277 8/23/2016 19:11:13 92663 We have enough building no more 1278 8/23/201619:19:40 92663 1279 8/23/201619:47:35 92663 1280 8/23/2016 20:02:40 92663 1281 8/23/2016 20:15:57 92663 1282 8/23/2016 20:18:24 92663 No 1283 8/23/2016 20:19:38 92663 1284 8/23/2016 20:53:59 92663 1285 8/23/2016 20:56:48 92663 1286 8/23/2016 21:05:39 92663 Please follow the plan the people you represent voted for. You represent us. Please do your job and vote no on this & all massive development. 1287 8/23/2016 21:08:23 92663 Thank you 1288 8/23/2016 21:14:03 92663 1289 8/23/2016 21:37:15 92663 NO on high density! The signs on the freeway keep reminding us that there is a SEVERE WATER SHORTAGE in California. It, therefore, makes no sense to continue building more and more apartments and condominiums. Let us remember that apartments bring more traffic. We have a sufficiency of 1290 8/23/2016 22:05:141 92663 both apartments and cars. Enough! 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 38 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 1291 8/24/2016 1:58:25 92663 voting NO for sure! 1292 8/24/2016 8:44:08 92663 1293 8/24/2016 8:56:39 92663 1294 8/24/2016 9:02:29 92663 1295 8/24/2016 9:26:12 92663 NO! 1296 8/24/2016 9:49:50 92663 1297 8/24/2016 9:52:29 92663 1298 8/24/2016 9:55:57 92663 1299 8/24/2016 10:36:17 92663 Enough already traffic and congestion is becoming unbearable...keep Newport 1300 8/24/2016 10:36:46 92663 environmentally appropriate! 1301 8/24/201610:45:56 92663 1302 8/24/2016 11:08:35 92663 Thank you!!! 1303 8/24/2016 11:10:31 92663 Enough is enough 1304 8/24/201611:43:00 92663 1305 8/24/201611:49:04 92663 1306 8/24/201612:07:18 92663 1307 8/24/201613:12:07 92663 1308 8/24/201613:45:05 92663 1309 8/24/201614:13:51 92663 1310 8/24/201614:24:47 92663 1311 8/24/201614:26:30 92663 1312 8/24/201614:51:29 92663 1313 8/24/201615:06:52 92663 1314 8/24/201615:57:17 92663 1315 8/24/201616:17:57 92663 1316 8/24/201616:33:46 92663 Overdevelopment of NB is not what we want. The infrastructure can't 1317 8/24/2016 18:32:26 92663 handle it! 1318 8/24/2016 22:37:46 92663 1319 8/24/2016 23:57:53 92663 1320 8/25/2016 8:12:53 92663 Please help Newport Beach maintain as much of it's character as possible. Preserve our unique marine-oriented community by following the general plan approved by us. We've had enough large-scale development 1321 8/25/2016 8:33:46 92663 while wrestling with water conservation. 1322 8/25/2016 9:25:40 92663 No more mid or high rise residential in Newport Center!!!!!!!!!!! too much development!! our quality of life is being ruined! too much 1323 8/25/2016 13:07:19 92663 traffic Too many freaking people in SoCal already. Not enough water.... and have you driven in traffic on the 405 recently, it's basically a parking lot. Newport has enough property tax revenue. The city can live without 1324 8/25/2016 18:17:32 92663 additional development. 1325 8/25/2016 20:03:57 92663 1326 8/25/2016 20:05:10 92663 1327 8/25/2016 20:07:24 92663 1328 8/26/20161:15:01 92663 1329 8/26/2016 6:44:14 92663 Enough is Enough. Our quality of life is being compromised. SAVE "CROWDED DEL MAR" PCH is mess, start thinking about 1330 8/26/2016 11:46:501 92663 Public Transit during the summer months. 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 39 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 1331 8/26/201613:00:59 92663 1332 8/26/201613:02:26 92663 1333 8/26/201613:07:34 92663 1334 8/26/201614:41:41 92663 1335 8/26/201616:54:44 92663 1336 8/27/2016 3:52:22 92663 1337 8/27/201610:54:52 92663 1338 8/27/2016 10:56:33 92663 No to this project. Enough! 1339 8/27/201613:28:33 92663 1340 8/27/201614:55:45 92663 1341 8/27/201617:22:20 92663 1342 8/27/201617:34:28 92663 1343 8/27/201619:10:23 92663 1344 8/27/2016 20:17:48 92663 1345 8/27/2016 22:19:45 92663 1346 8/27/2016 23:07:12 92663 1347 8/28/2016 8:45:08 92663 1348 8/28/201614:14:54 92663 1349 8/28/2016 14:26:37 92663 No no no 1350 8/28/2016 16:59:04 92663 please don't build huge in newport center. 1351 8/28/2016 19:21:37 92663 Please slow down on the dense housing projects. 1352 8/28/2016 19:42:22 92663 No 1353 8/28/2016 20:35:05 92663 1354 8/28/2016 21:06:20 92663 Do not plan anymore buildings at this point please. 1355 8/29/2016 7:00:30 92663 1356 8/29/2016 7:12:31 92663 1357 8/29/2016 8:22:09 92663 Please don't ruin this great "beach town" with what you think are 1358 8/29/2016 8:36:26 92663 "amenities!" 1359 8/29/2016 8:36:38 92663 1360 8/29/2016 8:43:13 92663 1361 8/29/2016 8:44:06 92663 1362 8/29/2016 8:45:07 92663 1363 8/29/2016 8:46:35 92663 1364 8/29/2016 8:46:55 92663 1365 8/29/2016 9:01:36 92663 1366 8/29/2016 9:14:26 92663 1367 8/29/2016 9:15:43 92663 1368 8/29/2016 9:38:59 92663 1369 8/29/2016 9:40:54 92663 1370 8/29/2016 10:12:38 92663 THANKS FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK! 1371 8/29/2016 10:18:41 92663 No on high density development at 150 Newport Center fashion island 1372 8/29/201610:32:25 92663 We are already over-crowded on all of our streets and highways. We don't need an more development, especially high density, in Newport 1373 8/29/2016 10:46:03 92663 Beach, 1374 8/29/2016 10:52:54 92663 Thank you for taking action against the destruction of our beautiful area!! 1375 8/29/2016 11:14:161 92663 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 40 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 STOP 150 NEWPORT CENTtRn No. 3k Additional s eceived M 150 Newport C r 14-213) a � Petition to Deny Project i September 1, 2016 Line in the SandPAc Count Timestamp Zip Code Optional Comments 1376 8/29/201611:25:29 92663 1377 8/29/201611:38:03 92663 1378 8/29/201611:38:26 92663 1379 8/29/201611:41:11 92663 1380 8/29/201611:54:07 92663 1381 8/29/2016 11:55:09 92663 Please do not allow this development 1382 8/29/2016 12:02:44 92663 No on the Newport Center project 1383 8/29/201612:25:21 92663 1384 8/29/201614:03:29 92663 1385 8/29/201614:04:44 92663 1386 8/29/201614:06:36 92663 1387 8/29/201614:23:14 92663 1388 8/29/201614:50:03 92663 1389 8/29/2016 15:05:07 92663 No on this project! It's about the traffic... We are already overburdened with itll! Stop the 1390 8/29/2016 15:08:39 92663 high density in Newport 1391 8/29/201615:58:54 92663 1392 8/29/201616:31:45 92663 1393 8/29/2016 16:32:31 92663 No 1394 8/29/201616:59:27 92663 1395 8/29/201617:00:18 92663 1396 8/29/201617:20:13 92663 1397 8/29/201617:32:14 92663 1398 8/29/201618:55:09 92663 1399 8/29/201618:59:26 92663 1400 8/29/201619:08:58 92663 1401 8/29/201619:15:18 92663 .. 1402 8/29/2016 20:02:41 92663 1403 8/29/2016 20:27:28 92663 1404 8/29/2016 22:42:17 92663 1405 8/30/2016 7:52:18 92663 NO to this 150 Newport center project 1406 8/30/2016 9:21:09 92663 1407 8/30/2016 9:35:00 92663 1408 8/30/2016 9:48:29 92663 1409 8/30/2016 9:49:47 92663 Don't kill the golden egg 1410 8/30/201610:10:00 92663 West Newport Beach is congested now and the City has approved a hotel and a block of condominiums at 36th St. and Newport Blvd. Traffic is 1411 8/30/2016 11:06:07 92663 unreal already. 1412 8/30/201611:06:54 92663 1413 8/30/201611:30:47 92663 1414 8/30/201612:04:04 92663 1415 8/30/201612:35:58 92663 1416 8/30/201612:36:38 92663 1417 8/30/201614:15:47 92663 1418 8/30/201614:53:47 92663 1419 8/30/201615:45 92663 1420 8/31/2016 8:381 926631 1 150NC_160901.xlsx Page 41 of 41 As of August 30, 2016 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 ed 4 13) Milli r6i lit Petition to Newport Beach Planning Commission & City Council VOTE NO on High-Density Development @ 150 Newport Center Dear Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council: Please VOTE NO and deny the project currently proposed for 150 Newport Center Drive (the car wash project). Here's why. • This project is inappropriate for its location with regard to height, bulk and use. • It requires a major amendment to the General Plan to add development WITHOUT a public vote. • It would tower above its neighboring buildings and create a "New York" style density, look and feel. • Approval of a residential building in proximity to restaurants, bars and theaters will result in conflicts over noise and other nuisances caused by patrons, cars and deliveries at all hours • This project would create a dangerous precedent for dense residential development in a low- intensity commercial part of Newport Center. The voter-approved 2006 General Plan laid out a rational blueprint for the development of Newport Center. All of the development allowed under the 2006 General Plan has been built. This project inappropriately uses spot zoning and makes an end run around a zoning process that puts limits on size and bulk. The 150 Newport Center project requires planning commissioners and council members, who are tasked to enforce our voter-approved General Plan, to authorize a major General Plan Amendment for this project to proceed. Our city has reached the tipping point with regard to massive developments such as this project. Your vote determines whether Newport Beach looks like Laguna Beach or like Los Angeles. Please VOTE NO on the 150 Newport Center project. SPON I PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island,CA 92662 1949.864.6616 SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org I Facebook.com/SPON-Newport Beach LITS 1 PO Box 15725 1 Newport Beach,CA 92659 1949.734.0684 LinelnTheSandPAC.com I Facebook @LITSPAC I ID#1369133 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 ed 4 13) Petition to Newport Beach Planning Commission & City Council VOTE NO on High-Density Development @ 150 Newport Center Sign online at: https://goo.gi/forms/glDkZu6ygofB2W3D3 Or sign below: CLEARLYPLEASE PRINT*FIRST&LAST NAME *ZIP CODE DATE *SIGNATURE EMAIL ADDRESS STREETADDRESS *FIRST&LAST NAME *ZIP CODE *DATE *SIGNATURE EMAIL ADDRESS STREETADDRESS *FIRST&LAST NAME *ZIP CODE DATE *SIGNATURE EMAIL ADDRESS STREET ADDRESS SPON I PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island,CA 92662 1 949.864.6616 SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org I Facebook.com/SPON-Newport Beach LITS I PO Box 15725 1 Newport Beach,CA 92659 1949.734.0684 LinelnTheSandPAC.com 1 Facebook @LITSPAC 1 ID#1369133 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 6W PO Item No. 31 Additional Materials Received c"®Nitiwport Cehter (PA2014-213) Y COMMUNITY DEVELOPD. 100 Civic Center Drive V )iEFj Z Newport Beach,California 92660 949 644-3200 Gq'Upolk newportheachca.gov/communitydevelopment Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Makana Nova, Associate Planner Date: August 31, 2016 Re: Item No. 3 — 150 Newport Center Residential Project (PA2014-213) Public Comments City staff will prepare a response to the attached comment letter from Bob Rush prior to the Planning Commission Meeting on September 1, 2016. Attachments: Bob Rush Comment Letter dated August 31, 2016 Community Development Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 31 Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: Newport Beach, CA: Planning Commission Study Session at 4:30 p.m. and Regular Meeting at 6:30 p.m. - September 1, 2016 From: RR@USRG.net rmailto:rr@usrg.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 7:38 AM To: Nova, Makana Subject: Re: Newport Beach, CA: Planning Commission Study Session at 4:30 p.m. and Regular Meeting at 6:30 p.m. - September 1, 2016 August 31,2016 Makana Nova City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach,CA 92660 Via Email:mnova@newportbeachca.eov Re: Newport Center Villas Final EIR Dear Ms.Nova, You have heard from our group before,first in September of 2015 when you attempted to push this project through in a wholly inadequate environmental review process. Next,during the comment period of the Draft EIR, we wrote to you in a letter dated 6/22/2016 about the flaws still present in the review of the project. THE MAJOR FLAWS OUTLINED IN THE EARLIER COMMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED AND NEW ENVIRONMENTAL FLAWS HAVE BEEN CREATED. We are a group of Newport Beach residents concerned with the obvious and significant environmental impacts of the 150 Newport Center project ("Project"). As discussed in our previous letters, the draft environmental impact report ("Draft EIR") prepared for the Project failed to appropriately and adequately analyze the Project's significant environmental impacts. Having reviewed the Final EIR, including the responses to comments ("RTC") prepared in response to our June 22, 2016 letter, we now have additional comments that identify both continuing and new deficiencies in the Draft EIR. THESE FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS REQUIRE REVISITING,REVISING,AND AMENDING THE ANALYSIS IN THE FINAL EIR, WHICH NECESSITATES RECIRCULATION UNDER CEQA. The Possibility of Transfer of Development Rights Within PC 56 Must Be Analyzed As the Staff Report notes,there are two"options"that would incorporate the project site into PC 56. However,this possibility was not analyzed in the EIR, represents a fundamental change in the Project, and cannot escape the required analysis under CEQA. Particularly, by including the project site within PC 56,the Project would be subject to the transfer of development rights provisions contained in Section IV of PC 56. Those provisions allow for the transfer of development rights within PC 56, and states that such transfers"shall be approved"if the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts and will not result in greater intensity than development allowed without the transfer. PC 56 at 26- 27. Thus, approval of a transfer of development rights under PC 56 is a ministerial decision not subject to CEQA. Because such approval is ministerial, and therefore would not be subject to future environmental review, the possibility of transferring the development rights created through approval of the Project must be analyzed in the recirculated EIR. This change in the project was recommended by Commissioners at the last hearing and the City Staff failed to inform them that this change would necessarily require additional study and a change to the project requiring recirculation. The EIR studied the creation of a new Planned Community. It did not consider the incorporation into an existing PC which has a recorded Development Agreement. This project must analyze the effects of inclusion on the entire PC area. Refusal to Modify the Baseline Is Fatal to the EIR The EIR still relies on a misleading baseline —the continued operation of the existing car wash —that is not supported by substantial evidence. As noted in the EIR,the existing car wash will close in late 2016 regardless of the status of the proposed Project. EIR at ES-6. The EIR 1 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 31 Additional Materials Received nevertheless uses a baseline that assumes continued operations of the car wash,which allows the EIR toM@yNe*Ti5PthGewW X044-213) as a credit against the Project. This is inappropriate, as the impacts of the car wash, particularly traffic and water usage, will not exist in late 2016. RTC L-4 attempts to respond to this issue by stating that a baseline that assumed no car wash operations would be misleading because(1) the site has historically been used as a car wash,and (2)that it is unlikely that the site would remain unused when the car wash closes and while it is awaiting redevelopment. This response is inadequate, and fails to acknowledge that a proper baseline is one that measures "the environment's state absent the project...." Communities for a Better Environment v.South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010)48 CalAth 310,315(emphasis added). Under CEQA,the baseline normally constitutes the existing environment at the time of the notice of preparation. However, a departure from this norm is justified if an analysis based on existing conditions would tend to be (1) misleading or (2) without informational value to the public and decisionmakers.Neighbors far Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority(2013) 57 Cal.4th 439, 445. Further, under CEQA, administrative agencies should adjust the baseline that is clearly erroneous. Citizens for East Shore Parks v. California State Lands Com. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 549, 563 [agencies "not only can, but should, make appropriate adjustments, including to the baseline, as the environmental review process unfolds"]. Here, the use of the car wash's operations as the baseline, despite the fact that the operations will cease regardless of the Project, is inappropriate. To illustrate, applying the rationale of RTC L-4, a lead agency could issue a notice of preparation for a project the week or day before existing operations at a project site will cease, and use those operations as the baseline. This scenario presents a situation rife with potential for abuse, encouraging lead agencies to strategically time its notices of preparation to capture phantom "existing" operations. Any analysis based on such a baseline would be without informational value and would misrepresent the impacts of the project. Here,no speculation is required—the car wash's operations will cease in late 2016—and the use of car wash operations as the baseline is fundamentally misleading. EIR's Responses to Scenic View Impacts Are Inadequate RTC L-7,which responds to our previous comment that there were scenic views that would be impacted by the Project, is inadequate under CEQA because it fails to meaningfully respond to the identification of an alternate locations showing the obstruction of a scenic view. Ballono Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles(2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455,475 [A response cannot be a mere conclusory statement unsupported by factual information, but rather must articulate a "good faith, reasoned analysis in response"]. As presented in our original comment,the Project would significantly impact views of the Pacific Ocean from the intersection of Newport Center Drive and San Miguel Drive. To support this conclusion,we provided an image showing the existing view,and explained that it was more representative of existing views from the intersection. RTC L-7, quite simply,fails to respond to our comment. Rather than providing a specific response to the evidence presented,the RTC merely reiterates the analysis contained in the EIR. This does not respond to the new information presented in our comment, a violation of CEQA. Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea(2012)202 Cal.App.4th 603,615[if a comment raises a significant environmental issue,a lead agency must address the comment "in detail giving reasons why"the comment was "not accepted"]. Alternatively,the RTC provides that the intersection of Newport Center Drive and San Miguel Drive "does not include any roadway segments identified as designated Coastal View Roads or Public View Corridors." This response is not in accordance with the threshold identified in the EIR,which does not identify a scenic vista as only potentially occurring at either a designated(1)Coastal View Road or(2)Public View Corridor. See EIR at 4.1-11[a scenic vista may include a public road, park, and/or other publicly-owned property]. Moreover, it evidences an intent to adopt a threshold (even if unstated) that precludes consideration of all potential impacts, specifically by failing to consider the evidence we presented. An EIR's use of a threshold that precludes meaningful consideration of all of a project's environmental impacts violates CEQA's informational disclosure requirements. Berkeley Keep lets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Comrs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1381-1382 [A CEQA violation occurs when an EIR applies an ironclad threshold that eliminates important analysis and fails to account for a project's true environmental impacts]. The Vacillating Project Description Renders the EIR Analysis Invalid CEQA emphasizes the importance of an accurate and complete project description. Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of EI Dorado (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1171 (an accurate and complete project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the agency's action]. Also, the stability of a project description is paramount. It is well-settled that "an accurate,stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient" environmental document. County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles(1977)71 Cal.App.3d 185, 199(emphasis added). Without an "accurate,stable and finite" project description,CEQA's fundamental purposes of public participation and informed decisionmaking are undermined. City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1454 ["only through an accurate view of the project may the public and interested parties and public agencies balance the proposed project's benefits against its environmental cost, consider appropriate mitigation measures, access the advantages of terminating the proposal and properly weigh other alternatives"]. Alternatively, "[a] curtailed, enigmatic or unstable project description draws a red herring across the path of public input"and violates CEQA. County of Inyo,supra,71 Cal.App.3d at 197-198. 2 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 31 Additional Materials Received Here, as evidence by the August 18, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report's ("Staff Report") djWP r4oe 4v "' 201,4-213) the Project's description cannot be considered accurate,stable and finite. The Staff Report itself includes a robust discussion of various'land use options" for 150 Newport Center, including a general plan mixed-use option and planned community zoning options. Staff Report at 5- 12. However, this discussion does not represent the full range of possible zoning options, and Attachment No. PC 5 identifies seven zoning possibilities,all with differing numbers of dwelling units,maximum heights,and development standards. These"options"would clearly result in development substantially different than originally proposed and analyzed in the EIR. For example, with respect to required setbacks, the North Newport Center PC Separate Sub-Area Redline option includes a specific setbacks governing the building, basement, and podium from various property lines (e.g., building= 24 feet from Newport Center Drive, while basement podium= 15 feet from Newport Center Drive). Staff Report PC 7 at 169-170. These are different, however, than the setbacks proposed under the North Newport Center PC Incorporate Into Block 100 option,which requires setbacks within Block 100(within which the Project would be incorporated) generally restricting all "building, parking structures, or parking lots" setbacks of 15 feet from Newport Center Drive, Anacapa Drive, and Civic Center Drive. Staff Report PC 8 at 252-253. Because these numerous zoning "options" create enormous confusion as to the exact nature of the Project, the public is unable to meaningfully participate in the environmental review process. The Project's description is clearly curtailed, enigmatic or unstable and violates CEQA. County of Inyo,supra,71 Cal.App.3d at 197-198. EIR's Noise Analysis and Response Violates CEQA The EIR's construction noise analysis is invalid because it concludes that construction-related noise would be less than significant because(1)construction is exempt under the City s Noise Ordinance and(2)construction-related noise would not occur for a period long enough or loud enough to cause hearing damage(90 dBA or greater for more than eight hours). RTC L-11 further expands on this conclusion,noting that the "90 dBA threshold is identified for this project in order to establish that the Project will not generate noise is excess of the noise ordinance." Thus,the EIR's analysis is fundamentally tied to the Noise Ordinance. RTC L-12 also notes, correctly,that CEQA gives a lead agency discretion to establish thresholds of significance. While this is generally true,such discretion is not unlimited. It is well-settled that an EIR's use of a threshold that precludes meaningful consideration of all of a project's environmental impacts violates CECA's informational disclosure requirements. Berkeley Keep lets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Comrs. (2001)91 Cal.AppAth 1344,1381-1382[A CEQA violation occurs when an EIR applies an ironclad threshold that eliminates important analysis and fails to account for a project's true environmental impacts]. Through application of the Noise Ordinance as a threshold,that is precisely what the EIR does here. As an example,under this plagued rationale,the City could conclude that construction activity that occurs adjacent to a residence and results in an 45 dBA increase above ambient noise for seven plus hours is not significant because it does not violate the Noise Ordinance. This is not in accordance with CEQA. Also, as a brief aside, RTC L-12 notes that the EIR treats construction noise impacts as potentially significant "out of an abundance of caution." This creates a fallacy. Treating construction noise as a "potentially significant impact" essentially means nothing — the analysis concludes it would be less than significant without mitigation. EIR's Water Use Analysis Is Misleading As RTC L-5 acknowledges, it is reasonable to assume that"customers of the existing car wash will likely get their cars washed at other car wash locations." However, despite this recognition, the EIR still assumes that the car wash's closure will eliminate all existing water usage. This is fundamentally inconsistent with RTC L-5. The plain fact is that as the car wash's existing patrons travel elsewhere to wash their cars, the water used by the exiting car wash will simply be reallocate to those car washes. Thus, the EIR cannot reasonably take credit for a reduction in water use simply because car wash operations will cease. CEQA requires that an EIR analyze all impacts of a project, including both direct and indirect impacts. CEQA Guidelines§ 16064.5(d)(3) [an indirect physical change in the environment is to be considered if that change is reasonably foreseeable]. As discussed in RTC L-5, it is reasonably foreseeable that individual car washes,and the water use associated with such washes,will be reallocated,not eliminated. Conclusion The Final EIR's analysis of the 150 Newport Center Project remains inadequate under CEQA. There are serious deficiencies in the analysis,including with respect to the baseline(which implicates the entire document),as well as the possibility of the City Council approving a project that is vastly and fundamentally different than the one analyzed in the EIR. These deficiencies must be remedied before the City, whether the Planning Commission or City Council,takes any further action on the Project or Final EIR. APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT WITH THIS FLAWED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COULD SUBJECT THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO LEGAL ACTION WHICH COULD BE EASILY AVOIDED BY SLOWING THE PROCESS DOWN AND COMPLETING IT IN THE PROPER, REQUIRED MANNER. IT IS INCUMBENT ON EACH PLANNING COMMISSIONER TO PROTECT THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FROM ITSELF AND TO DENY OR CONTINUE THIS PROJECT WITH A REQUIREMENT TO RECIRCULATE THE EIR AND STUDY THE TRUE IMPACTS OF THE NEW PROJECT. 3 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 31 Additional Materials Received Signed on behalf of a Committee of Concerned Residents, 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Bob Rush Homeowner 5205 River Ave. and 29 year resident of Newport Beach From: "Nova, Makana" <MNova@newportbeachca.gov> Date: Friday,August 26, 2016 at 4:29 PM Subject: FW: Newport Beach, CA: Planning Commission Study Session at 4:30 p.m. and Regular Meeting at 6:30 p.m. -September 1, 2016 Good Afternoon, Thank you for your continued interest in the project application for 150 Newport Center Drive (150 Newport Center residential project, PA2014-213). I am contacting you to inform you that the next Planning Commission Public Hearing is scheduled for September 1, 2016. The staff report for the Planning Commission Meeting on September 1, 2016 is now available online through the link in the email news splash below. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like to submit public comments regarding this item. Thank you, Important Notice-Civic Center Parking Advisory for September 7-9,2016: The California Coastal Commission will be holding their public hearings in the Newport Beach City Council Chambers on Wednesday,September 7—Friday, September 9, 2016.The meetings will begin each day at 9:00 a.m. and typically last the entire business day. We are expecting a high demand for parking throughout this event, especially on Wednesday, September 7`n Therefore, if you have business at the City on any of these three days,it may be best to arrive early in the day. Our business hours are from 7:30 a.m.—5:30 p.m. Monday—Thursday,and 7:30 a.m.—4:30 p.m.on Friday. We apologize for any inconvenience. MoAA#%A Novs I ASSOCIATE PLANNER, AICP Planning Division I Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive I Newport Beach, CA 92660 P. 949.644.3249 m nova Col new oortbea chcaa ov www new portbeach ca gov From: Newport Beach News [maiIto:noreplyCobnewportbeachca.gov] Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 12:45 PM To: Nova, Makana Subject: Newport Beach, CA: Planning Commission Study Session at 4:30 p.m, and Regular Meeting at 6:30 p.m. - September 1, 2016 Planning Commission Study Session at 4:30 p.m. and Regular Meeting at 6:30 p.m. - September 1, 2016 AGENDA Post Date:08/26/2016 12:02 PM 4 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 31 Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Planning Division News Splash: The current Planning Commission Agenda for the meeting on Thursday, September 1, 2016, is now available. The Study Session for the Museum House Residential Project will begin at 4:30 p.m. The regular Planning Commission meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. The complete agenda packet, including staff reports, can be accessed HERE. For more information please call (949) 644-3200 or visit the Planning Commission Information Page. Please note: This is an automated message from the City of Newport Beach. Subscription preferences may be changed by accessing your News &Alerts account from the City website. Having trouble viewing this email?View on the website instead. Change your eNotification preference. Unsubscribe from all Newport Beach.CA eNotifications. 5 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3m Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: 150 Newport Center Proposed Residential Project Attachments: 150 Newport Center Proposed Residential Project.pdf From: Barbara Hinshaw fmailto:barbara@aitkenlaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 3:28 PM To: Nova, Makana Subject: 150 Newport Center Proposed Residential Project Dear Ms. Nova: Attached please find a letter regarding the 150 Newport Center proposed residential project. Thank you, Wylie Aitken Barbara Hinshaw Executive Assistant to Wylie A. Aitken it AITKEN • AITKEN • COHN 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 800• Santa Ana,CA 92707 Tel: (714)434-1424 •Fax:(714)434-3600 barbaraLaitkenlaw.com•www.aitkenlaw.com PLEASE NOTE:The information in this e-mail is privileged,confidential and protected from disclosure. If you have received this e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient,you may not use,copy or disclose this message or any information contained in it to anyone. Please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Thank you. 1 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3m Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) AITKEN •AITKEN . COHN WYLIE A.AITKEN August 31,2016 DARREN O.AITKEN Reference: 150 Newport Center Proposed Residential Project CHRISTOPHER R AITKEN RICHARD A.COHN Dear Planning Commissioners and City Council Members: CASEY R.JOHNSON My name is Wylie Aitken. I am a resident of the Balboa Peninsula. I'm the founding MICHAEL A.PENN partner of Aitken Aitken Cohn in Santa Ana.I am a graduate of Marquette University Law School, where I was a St. Thomas More Scholar and Associate Editor of the ATL7CU5 N.WEGMAN Marquette Law Review. I also received the Marquette University "Lifetime MEGAN G.DEMSHKI Achievement Award." I am a Trustee and Past President of South Coast Repertory ASHLEIGH E.AITKEN Theater and Chair of the Board of Visitors of Chapman University Law School and a Of counsel Trustee of Chapman University. I am the recipient of the "Franklin G. West Award", Orange County Bar Association's highest award. I am a Founding Member of the Celtic Bar Association which is comprised of several 3 MacArthur Place,Suite 800 y y age County hundred attorneys who meet monthly to the "Celtic Bar" at Muldoon's Irish Pub. 3 M P.O.Box 2555 This official affiliate of the Orange County Bar Association is in its 15th year and Santa Ana,California 92707 thriving. I am also recognized as one of the Top 100 Irish Lawyers in America. My Tel:(714)4341424 firm hosts an annual St.Patrick's Day party on the Monday night before St.Patrick's Fax:(714)4343600 Day. It is a festive and musical evening for all to enjoy. Ind Empire 7Magnolia Avenue,Suite A What the city knows or should know is that Muldoon's is clearly recognized as one Riverside,CA 92504 of the great Irish pubs in our country. Tel:(951)5344006 The problem with the proposed residential project is its proximity to Muldoon's. It is just too close! It will inevitably create tension between the Pub and the residents Email:mailbox(a:aitkealaw.com Which places pressure on the city to limit Muldoon's hours and celebrations after 42 www.aitkcnlaw.com years of problem free coexistence with surrounding uses. Put another way, assume the residences were in existence at 150 Newport Center TERRENCE 1.AITKEN Drive and Muldoon's came along and said they have a wonderful idea to place a Case Admimst ator great Irish pub with live music,open 7 days a week with hours as long as 6am to 2am next door. What type of reception would that proposed pub receive from city staff DEBORAH L.MILLER and/or planning commissioners?We all know the answer. Office Administrator I urge you to v e NO on the proposed 150 Newport Center project. Thank you for your col si In Very ly yours AIT N+A N ♦CO AITKEN waa: Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3n Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: 150 Newport Center-Planning commission Hearing of September 1, 2016 From: Nova, Makana Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 4:23 PM To: Biddle, Jennifer Cc: Mackinen, Traci Subject: FW: 150 Newport Center-Planning commission Hearing of September 1, 2016 Please distribute as comments received for 150 Newport Center, Item No. 3. MkkkroL Navk i ASSOCIATE PLANNER, AICP Planning Division I Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive I Newport Beach, CA 92660 P. 949.644.3249 m nova Ca new port bea chcaa ov www.new port be a ch ca.go From: Wisneski, Brenda Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 4:08 PM To: Planning Commissioners Cc: Nova, Makana Subject: FW: 150 Newport Center-Planning commission Hearing of September 1, 2016 Please see below from the applicant for 150 Newport Center. From: Ridgeway Development [mai Ito:tridgeway(asbcgloba1.netl Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2016 4:00 PM To: Brandt, Kim; Nova, Makana Cc: Ronald E Soderling; mlutton(a)tiebackholdings.com Subject: 150 Newport Center-Planning commission Hearing of September 1, 2016 Dear Kim: Newport Center Anacapa Associates, LLC hereby is sending this notice to rescind the previous request for a continuance.We will be making a presentation on September 1, 2016. Tod W. Ridgeway for Ron Soderling. Tod W. Ridgeway Ridgeway Development Company 2804 Lafayette Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 (949) 723-5854 cell (949)422-3932 1 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received Poq� 150 Newport Center,(PA2014-213) 0 COMMUNITY DEVELO1- 'J3 ! 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach,California 92660 949 644-3200 �411roFL ' newportheachca.gov/communitydevelopment Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Makana Nova, Associate Planner Date: September 1, 2016 Re: Correspondence from Committee of Concerned Residents Item No. 3 — 150 Newport Center Residential Project (PA2014-213) The City has received the attached correspondence from the Committee of Concerned Residents regarding the EIR Response to Comments. To address the concerns raised, staff has provided the following responses: 1. The Possibility of Transfer of Development Rights Within PC-56 The commenter's concern has been addressed through the supplemental staff memorandum dated August 29, 2016. 150 Newport Center will be excluded from the transfer of development rights provisions within PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community) as included in the current draft redline version of the document; therefore, this issue does not need to be addressed further in the EIR. II. Baseline to the EIR The CEQA Guidelines indicate that an EIR "must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the notice of preparation is published... [t]his environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). Accordingly, the EIR used the baseline land use at the time that the notice of preparation was published for the environmental analysis. It would not be appropriate to consider a vacant site since the site was not vacant at the time that the notice of preparation was published or during the timeframe the DEIR was prepared. Furthermore, it would be highly speculative to consider another commercial use (or vacant use) on the site for the baseline condition as discussed in detail in the EIR Response to Comment L-4. Community Development Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) III. Scenic View Impacts As discussed in the DEIR and Response to Comment L-7, scenic view impact thresholds are established based on specific Coastal View Roads and Public View Points as identified in the General Plan policies and exhibits. The analysis contained in the EIR is consistent with the analysis provided in the General Plan EIR. The DEIR has evaluated project views appropriately from these locations and City policies do not explicitly protect private views. IV. Project Description The EIR does not become final until it is certified by the City Council. To date, the reduced project scope (number of units and building height) currently being discussed by the Planning Commission only reduces the environmental impacts identified in the DEIR, as the original building footprint including the areas of physical disturbances such as access, setbacks, and parking location remain unchanged. V. Noise Analysis As discussed in the DEIR and Response to Comment L-11 and L-12, the construction-related noise thresholds are based on the General Plan EIR thresholds and Municipal Code, which exempt construction-related noise within specific hours. The threshold used in the EIR for construction-related noise was consistent with the threshold used in other CEQA documents in the City. Mitigation measures are included in the DEIR to address construction-related noise that may occur outside of the construction hours identified in the Municipal Code. The DEIR goes further than the Municipal Code to establish an additional construction-related noise threshold of 90 dBA over an 8-hour period as a standard for human health and harm and concludes that construction-related noise for the project will not exceed this threshold. VI. Water Use Analysis As discussed in Response to Comment L-5, customers may utilize different car wash locations following the closure of the location at 150 Newport Center. It is speculative to analyze how and where current customers may choose to have their vehicles washed in the future and any resulting water use changes. The DEIR focuses on the net changes to water use needs on the project site, which results in a net reduction of water demand on site. Attachments: • Committee of Concerned Residents Comment Letter Dated August 31, 2016 • Committee of Concerned Residents EIR Comment Letter Dated June 22, 2016 • DEIR Responses to Comments from Committee of Concerned Residents DEIR Letter Tmplt:-02/05/15 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Nova, Makana From: RR@USRG.net Sent: Wednesday,August 31, 2016 7:38 AM To: Nova, Makana Subject: Re: Newport Beach, CA: Planning Commission Study Session at 4:30 p.m. and Regular Meeting at 6:30 p.m. - September 1, 2016 August 31,2016 Makana Nova City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach,CA 92660 Via Email:mnova@newportbeachca.gov Re: Newport Center Villas Final EIR Dear Ms.Nova, You have heard from our group before,first in September of 2015 when you attempted to push this project through in a wholly inadequate environmental review process. Next,during the comment period of the Draft EIR,we wrote to you in a letter dated 6/22/2016 about the flaws still present in the review of the project. THE MAJOR FLAWS OUTLINED IN THE EARLIER COMMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED AND NEW ENVIRONMENTAL FLAWS HAVE BEEN CREATED. We are a group of Newport Beach residents concerned with the obvious and significant environmental impacts of the 150 Newport Center project ("Project"). As discussed in our previous letters, the draft environmental impact report ("Draft EIR") prepared for the Project failed to appropriately and adequately analyze the Project's significant environmental impacts. Having reviewed the Final EIR, including the responses to comments ("RTC") prepared in response to our June 22, 2016 letter, we now have additional comments that identify both continuing and new deficiencies in the Draft EIR. THESE FUNDAMENTAL FLAWS REQUIRE REVISITING, REVISING,AND AMENDING THE ANALYSIS IN THE FINAL EIR, WHICH NECESSITATES RECIRCULATION UNDER CEQA. The Possibility of Transfer of Development Rights Within PC 56 Must Be Analyzed As the Staff Report notes,there are two "options"that would incorporate the project site into PC 56. However,this possibility was not analyzed in the EIR, represents a fundamental change in the Project, and cannot escape the required analysis under CEQA. Particularly, by including the project site within PC 56,the Project would be subject to the transfer of development rights provisions contained in Section IV of PC 56. Those provisions allow for the transfer of development rights within PC 56, and states that such transfers "shall be approved" if the transfer will not result in any adverse traffic impacts and will not result in greater intensity than development allowed without the transfer. PC 56 at 26- 27. Thus, approval of a transfer of development rights under PC 56 is a ministerial decision not subject to CEQA. Because such approval is ministerial, and therefore would not be subject to future environmental review, the possibility of transferring the development rights created through approval of the Project must be analyzed in the recirculated EIR. This change in the project was recommended by Commissioners at the last hearing and the City Staff failed to inform them that this change would necessarily require additional study and a change to the project requiring recirculation. The EIR studied the creation of a new Planned Community. It did not consider the incorporation into an existing PC which has a recorded Development Agreement. This project must analyze the effects of inclusion on the entire PC area. Refusal to Modify the Baseline Is Fatal to the EIR The EIR still relies on a misleading baseline —the continued operation of the existing car wash — that is not supported by substantial evidence. As noted in the EIR,the existing car wash will close in late 2016 regardless of the status of the proposed Project. EIR at ES-6. The EIR nevertheless uses a baseline that assumes continued operations of the car wash,which allows the EIR to apply the car wash's existing operations as a credit against the Project. This is inappropriate,as the impacts of the car wash,particularly traffic and water usage,will not exist in late 2016. RTC L-4 attempts to respond to this issue by stating that a baseline that assumed no car wash operations would be misleading because(1) the site has historically been used as a car wash,and(2)that it is unlikely that the site would remain unused when the car wash closes and while it is awaiting redevelopment. This response is inadequate,and fails to acknowledge that a proper baseline is one that measures"the environment's 1 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3(n�o��Additional ppMaterials Received state absent the project...:' Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality MorlrtrrrleSTf'DISt:j20TCT)"'48'c:aA4tfi`310131s213) (emphasis added). Under CEQA, the baseline normally constitutes the existing environment at the time of the notice of preparation. However, a departure from this norm is justified if an analysis based on existing conditions would tend to be (1) misleading or (2) without informational value to the public and decisionmakers. Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439, 445. Further, under CEQA, administrative agencies should adjust the baseline that is clearly erroneous. Citizens for East Shore Parks v. California State Lands Com. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 549, 563 [agencies "not only can, but should, make appropriate adjustments, including to the baseline, as the environmental review process unfolds"]. Here, the use of the car wash's operations as the baseline, despite the fact that the operations will cease regardless of the Project, is inappropriate. To illustrate, applying the rationale of RTC L-4, a lead agency could issue a notice of preparation for a project the week or day before existing operations at a project site will cease, and use those operations as the baseline. This scenario presents a situation rife with potential for abuse, encouraging lead agencies to strategically time its notices of preparation to capture phantom "existing" operations. Any analysis based on such a baseline would be without informational value and would misrepresent the impacts of the project. Here, no speculation is required—the car wash's operations will cease in late 2016—and the use of car wash operations as the baseline is fundamentally misleading. EIR's Responses to Scenic View Impacts Are Inadequate RTC L-7, which responds to our previous comment that there were scenic views that would be impacted by the Project, is inadequate under CEQA because it fails to meaningfully respond to the identification of an alternate locations showing the obstruction of a scenic view. Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 475 [A response cannot be a mere conclusory statement unsupported by factual information, but rather must articulate a "good faith, reasoned analysis in response"]. As presented in our original comment,the Project would significantly impact views of the Pacific Ocean from the intersection of Newport Center Drive and San Miguel Drive.To support this conclusion,we provided an image showing the existing view,and explained that it was more representative of existing views from the intersection. RTC L-7, quite simply,fails to respond to our comment. Rather than providing a specific response to the evidence presented, the RTC merely reiterates the analysis contained in the EIR. This does not respond to the new information presented in our comment, a violation of CEQA. Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea(2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603, 615 [if a comment raises a significant environmental issue, a lead agency must address the comment"in detail giving reasons why"the comment was"not accepted"). Alternatively,the RTC provides that the intersection of Newport Center Drive and San Miguel Drive "does not include any roadway segments identified as designated Coastal View Roads or Public View Corridors." This response is not in accordance with the threshold identified in the EIR,which does not identify a scenic vista as only potentially occurring at either a designated(1)Coastal View Road or(2)Public View Corridor. See EIR at 4.1-11 [a scenic vista may include a public road, park, and/or other publicly-owned property]. Moreover, it evidences an intent to adopt a threshold (even if unstated) that precludes consideration of all potential impacts, specifically by failing to consider the evidence we presented. An EIR's use of a threshold that precludes meaningful consideration of all of a project's environmental impacts violates CEQA's informational disclosure requirements. Berkeley Keep lets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Comrs. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1381-1382 [A CEQA violation occurs when an EIR applies an ironclad threshold that eliminates important analysis and fails to account for a project's true environmental impacts]. The Vacillating Project Description Renders the EIR Analysis Invalid CEOA.emphasizes the importance of an accurate and complete project description. Center for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County of EI Dorado(2012)202 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1171 [an accurate and complete project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of the agency's action]. Also,the stability of a.project description is paramount. It is well-settled that"an accurate,stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient"environmental document. County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 199 (emphasis added). Without an "accurate, stable and finite" project description, CEQA's fundamental purposes of public participation and informed decisionmaking are undermined. City of Santee v. County of San Diego(1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1454 ["only through an accurate view of the project may the public and interested parties and public agencies balance the proposed project's benefits against its environmental cost,consider appropriate mitigation measures,access the advantages of terminating the proposal and properly weigh other alternatives"]. Alternatively, "[a] curtailed, enigmatic or unstable project description draws a red herring across the path of public input"and violates CEQA. County of Inyo,supra,71 Cal.App.3d at 197-198. Here,as evidence by the August 18,2016 Planning Commission Staff Report's("Staff Report")discussion of numerous approval options,the Project's description cannot be considered accurate, stable and finite. The Staff Report itself includes a robust discussion of various "land use options" for 150 Newport Center, including a general plan mixed-use option and planned community zoning options. Staff Report at 5- 12. However, this discussion does not represent the full range of possible zoning options, and Attachment No. PC 5 identifies seven zoning possibilities,all with differing numbers of dwelling units,maximum heights,and development standards. These"options"would clearly result in development substantially different than originally proposed and analyzed in the EIR. For example, with respect to required setbacks, the North Newport Center PC Separate Sub-Area Redline option includes a specific setbacks governing the 2 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. r,3no(�IAdditional Materials Received building,basement,and podium from various property lines(e.g., building=24 feet from Newport CentPf'grNe lt�l�b�s'€r�f t7ro�lu(n�2i51 e?1 3) from Newport Center Drive). Staff Report PC 7 at 169-170. These are different, however, than the setbacks proposed under the North Newport Center PC Incorporate Into Block 100 option,which requires setbacks within Block 100(within which the Project would be incorporated)generally restricting all "building, parking structures, or parking lots" setbacks of 15 feet from Newport Center Drive, Anacapa Drive, and Civic Center Drive. Staff Report PC 8 at 252-253. Because these numerous zoning "options" create enormous confusion as to the exact nature of the Project, the public is unable to meaningfully participate in the environmental review process. The Project's description is clearly curtailed, enigmatic or unstable and violates CEQA. County of Inyo,supra,71 Cal.App.3d at 197-198. EIR's Noise Analysis and Response Violates CEQA The EIR's construction noise analysis is invalid because it concludes that construction-related noise would be less than significant because (1) construction is exempt under the City's Noise Ordinance and (2) construction-related noise would not occur for a period long enough or loud enough to cause hearing damage(90 dBA or greater for more than eight hours). RTC L-11 further expands on this conclusion, noting that the"90 dBA threshold is identified for this project in order to establish that the Project will not generate noise is excess of the noise ordinance." Thus,the EIR's analysis is fundamentally tied to the Noise Ordinance. RTC L-12 also notes, correctly, that CEQA gives a lead agency discretion to establish thresholds of significance. While this is generally true,such discretion is not unlimited. It is well-settled that an EIR's use of a threshold that precludes meaningful consideration of all of a project's environmental impacts violates CEQA's informational disclosure requirements. Berkeley Keep lets Over the Bay Com. v. Board of Port Comrs. (2001) 91 Cal.AppAth 1344, 1381-1382 [A CEOA violation occurs when an EIR applies an ironclad threshold that eliminates important analysis and fails to account for a project's true environmental impacts]. Through application of the Noise Ordinance as a threshold,that is precisely what the EIR does here. As an example, under this plagued rationale,the City could conclude that construction activity that occurs adjacent to a residence and results in an 45 dBA increase above ambient noise for seven plus hours is not significant because it does not violate the Noise Ordinance. This is not in accordance with CEQA. Also, as a brief aside, RTC L-12 notes that the EIR treats construction noise impacts as potentially significant "out of an abundance of caution."This creates a fallacy. Treating construction noise as a"potentially significant impact"essentially means nothing—the analysis concludes it would be less than significant without mitigation. EIR's Water Use Analysis Is Misleading As RTC L-5 acknowledges,it is reasonable to assume that"customers of the existing car wash will likely get their cars washed at other car wash locations." However,despite this recognition,the EIR still assumes that the car wash's closure will eliminate all existing water usage. This is fundamentally inconsistent with RTC L-5. The plain fact is that as the car wash's existing patrons travel elsewhere to wash their cars, the water used by the exiting car wash will simply be reallocate to those car washes. Thus,the EIR cannot reasonably take credit for a reduction in water use simply because car wash operations will cease. CEQA requires that an EIR analyze all impacts of a project, including both direct and indirect impacts. CEQA Guidelines § 16064.5(d)(3) [an indirect physical change in the environment is to be considered if that change is reasonably foreseeable]. As discussed in RTC L-5, it is reasonably foreseeable that individual car washes,and the water use associated with such washes,will be reallocated,not eliminated. Conclusion The Final EIR's analysis of the 150 Newport Center Project remains inadequate under CEQA. There are serious deficiencies in the analysis,including with respect to the baseline(which implicates the entire document),as well as the possibility of the City Council approving a project that is vastly and fundamentally different than the one analyzed in the EIR. These deficiencies must be remedied before the City, whether the Planning Commission or City Council,takes any further action on the Project or Final EIR. APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT WITH THIS FLAWED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COULD SUBJECT THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO LEGAL ACTION WHICH COULD BE EASILY AVOIDED BY SLOWING THE PROCESS DOWN AND COMPLETING IT IN THE PROPER, REQUIRED MANNER. IT 15 INCUMBENT ON EACH PLANNING COMMISSIONER TO PROTECT THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH FROM ITSELF AND TO DENY OR CONTINUE THIS PROJECT WITH A REQUIREMENT TO RECIRCULATE THE EIR AND STUDY THE TRUE IMPACTS OF THE NEW PROJECT. Signed on behalf of a Committee of Concerned Residents, Bob Rush Homeowner 5205 River Ave. 3 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received and 29 year resident of Newport Beach 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) From: "Nova, Makana" <MNova@newportbeachca.gov> Date: Friday,August 26, 2016 at 4:29 PM Subject: FW: Newport Beach, CA: Planning Commission Study Session at 4:30 p.m. and Regular Meeting at 6:30 p.m. - September 1, 2016 Good Afternoon, Thank you for your continued interest in the project application for 150 Newport Center Drive (150 Newport Center residential project, PA2014-213). I am contacting you to inform you that the next Planning Commission Public Hearing is scheduled for September 1, 2016. The staff report for the Planning Commission Meeting on September 1, 2016 is now available online through the link in the email news splash below. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like to submit public comments regarding this item. Thank you, Important Notice-Civic Center Parking Advisory for September 7-9,2016: The California Coastal Commission will be holding their public hearings in the Newport Beach City Council Chambers on Wednesday, September 7 — Friday, September 9, 2016. The meetings will begin each day at 9:00 a.m. and typically last the entire business day. We are expecting a high demand for parking throughout this event, especially on Wednesday, September 7th.Therefore, if you have business at the City on any of these three days, it may be best to arrive early in the day. Our business hours are from 7:30 a.m.—5:30 p.m. Monday—Thursday,and 7:30 a.m.—4:30 p.m. on Friday. We apologize for any inconvenience. Mri4ot4,/. NavoL i ASSOCIATE PLANNER, AICP Planning Division I Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive I Newport Beach, CA 92660 P. 949.644.3249 m nova(an ewoortbeachca gov www.newportbeachca.gov From: Newport Beach News [mai Ito:noreply(anewportbeachca.gov] Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 12:45 PM To: Nova, Makana Subject: Newport Beach, CA: Planning Commission Study Session at 4:30 p.m. and Regular Meeting at 6:30 p.m. - September 1, 2016 Planning Commission Study Session at 4:30 p.m. and Regular Meeting at 6:30 p.m. - September 1, 2016 AGENDA Post Date:08/26/2016 12:02 PM 0 '- Planning Division News Splash: The current Planning Commission Agenda for the meeting on Thursday, September 1, 2016, is now available. 4 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) The Study Session for the Museum House Residential Project will begin at 4:30 p.m. The regular Planning Commission meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. The complete agenda packet, including staff reports, can be accessed HERE. For more information please call (949) 644-3200 or visit the Planning Commission Information Page. Please note: This is an automated message from the City of Newport Beach. Subscription preferences may be changed by accessing your News &Alerts account from the City website. Having trouble viewing this email?View on the website instead. Change your eNotifcation preference. Unsubscribe from all Newport Beach,CA eNotifications. e: 5 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) .■ 160 NEWP[3RT CENTER ■ ENVIRommENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.O FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENT LETTERS June 22,2016 Mahana Nova City of Newport beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach,CA 93660 He: Newport Ce Filer Villas Study Session Dear Ms.Nova, We, a group of concerned Newport Beach residents, originally commented on the Mitigated Negative Declaration published by the City of Newport Beach on behalf of the Newport Center Villas on September 9, 2015 In a letter to this Commission dated September L-1 25, 2015- We incorporate those comments by reference- There are many specific problems and insufficiencies with this project,few of which have been dealt with by this study. The environmental impact report prepared for the 150 Newport Center project ("EIR'l fails to appropriately and adequately analyze thatproject's significant environmental Impacts. Its many serious flaws cannot be resolved without recirculation. The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires thorough analysis of a Project's potentially significant environmental impacts and, If scrupulously followed, will provide the public with meaningful information about an agency's consideration of a project. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of Collfornla 11988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. To promote its public disclosure requirements, CEQR must be interpreted to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of statutory language. Friends of Mammoth v. Beard of Supervisors 11972)8 Cal.3d 247, 259. CEQA contains an array of procedural and informational disclosure requirements-not L-22 suggestions. If an EIR fails to meet CECtA's standards, the lead agency responsible for its preparation (here, the City of Newport Beach) has prejudicially abused its discretion and any approval of that document constitutes a violation of law, Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 CalAth 412, 426 [an abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if its factual determinations are not supported by substantial evidence]. As discussed in this letter, the EIR fails to comply with the requirements of CEQA in the following key ways: • The EIR omits crucial ano"s, Including examination mandated by the EfR's own thresholds of significance. i'aer I Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) .■ 160 NEWPORT CENTER ■ EwRommENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.O FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENT LETTERS • Discussion and analysis of reasonably foreseeable significant environmental Impacts is absent from the EIR. • The project would result In significant environmental impacts that are not identified in the EIR. L-2 Because the EIR must be revised to include the new significant impacts identified in this letter, (cont,) it must be recirculated under California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Chapter 3 I"CEQA Guidelines") Section 15088.5. Mount Shasto Rioreoional Ecology Center v. County of Shkiyou (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 184, 217 [CFO.A mandates recirculation when significant new information is added to an EIR after public comment has finished]. Otherwise, the EIR is fundamentally flawed and its certification would constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion by the City. In addition to the identified non-compliance with CEQA, any approval of the proposed project would also constitute Improper spot zoning because it would create a small (1..26 acre) L-3 residential island surrounded by zoning that expressly prohibits residential uses. 1. The EIR Relies on a Misleading Baseline That Is Not Supported By Substantial Evidence The determination of whether a project's environmental impacts are likely to be significant requires that a lead agency "use some measure of the environment's state absent the project, a measure sometimes referred to as the 'baseline' for environmental analysis-" Communities for a Better Environment v.South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010)48 CalAth 310, 315. The utilization of a proper envlronmental baseline Is essential to the meaningful assessment of the project's Impacts. It. at 320. A lead agency may normally use the environmental setting at the time that environmental analysis is commenced as the baseline physical conditions against which a project's impacts are measured. CEQA Guidelines 4 15125. However, the baseline conditions cannot be arbitrarily selected, and instead should be "reali.stically' measured.. Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority(2013) 57 CalAth 439,449. Furthermore,the lead agencys selection of the baseline conditions must be supported by substantial evidence. Id. In fact,the California Supreme Court L-4 has held that the use of an environmental baseline that is misleading or without Informational value to the public or decisionmakers constitutes an abuse of discretion In violation of CEQA. id. The EIR is legally inadequate due to its use reliance on a baseline that Is unrealistic, m lsleading,and not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically,the EIR uses a baseline that assumes the continued operation of the existing car wash, which was presumably intended to reffect the physical conditions at the commencement of EIR preparation. However, this baseline fails to properly account for the fact that the existing car wash "will close in late 2016 regardless if the Proposed Project goes forward." EIR at ES-6,6-1,6-7,6-12 (emphasis added), Given the acknowledged cessation of car wash operations in the immediate future, it Is Improper and misleading to analyze the project's Impacts against a baseline that assumes Page I Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) .■ 160 NEWP[317T CENTER ■ EwRommENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.O FINAL EWRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENT LETTERS continuedoperation. Instead, the EIR's baseline must reflect the absence of car wash operations. The EIR's reliance upon a misleading baseline obfuscates the analysis of the projeck'5 Impacts and project alternatives and is not supported by substantial evidence. As Indicated above, the car wash will cease operations in 3016 regureffess of whether the project fs developed. €IR at ES-6,6.1,6-7,6.12. However,because construction of the project will not be complete,and project operations will not commence,until 2019(EIR at 4.2.16),the measure of the"envimnment`s state absent the proje&r should properly account for the closure of the car wash. Communities for a Better Environment, supra, 48 Cal.4th at 315. The EIR's. Impact analyses for the following areas unrealistically and misleadingly evaluates the project's net operatlonal Impacts above and beyond the existing car wash: • Aesthetics: The project's impacts resulting from new sources of substantial Ilght or glare are evaluated in comparison to the operating car wash.FIR at 4.1-24. In real lty,the car wash wlll be shuttered In late 2016 and wl11 emit no Ilght. • Air Quality: The project's air quality Impacts, which am directly tied to vehicle emissions, are only evaluated in comparison to the operating car wash and as vehicle trips. FIR at 4.2.10, 4.2-16, 4,249, 4.2.23. The appropriate comparison should assume aero emissions from the car wash,which will dose in late 2016. • Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The project's impacts on the implementation of, or physical interference with, an adopted emergency response plan or L-4 emergency evacuation plan are based on a comparison to traffic generated by (cont.) the exiting car wash.FIR at 4.6-15. Again,given the impending closure of the car l 1 wash.,zero traffic should be as fromthe existing car wash. • Wile: The project's noise impacts are analyzed in comparison to the existing car wash operations and vehicle traffic related to the same. EIR at 48-8, 4.8-9,4.8- 11, 4.8.12, 4.8-14. Neither assumption is accurate. The EIR's operational and vehicle noise should both be revised to reflect a closed car wash. • Transportation and Traffic: The EIR's traffic analysis only evaluates the project's net Increase above the assumed trlps generated by the car wash,thereby taking. credit for 819 daily trips. EIR at 4.9-5, 4.9-7, 49-8, 4.9-9,4.9-10, 4.9-15, 4.9-16, This Is Inaccurate,as a closed car wash generates no trips—much less 819 trips. • I1tIIRles and Service Systems: The project's Impacts on domestic water and wastewater are evaluated by comparing the proposed project's demands to those of the rarwash. This false comparison underestimates wastewater generation and domestic water usage by 9,470 gallons per day(gpd) and 10,417 gpd, respectively. EIR at 5-16. All of the car wash's existing domestic and wastewater generation figures must be revised to reflect a dosed car wash. In short, although the EIR unambiguously states that the existing car wash will cease operations reQardfess of whether the proposed project proceeds,the EIR assumes its continued Page 13 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) .■ 160 (titEWPt017T CENTER ■ EwRommENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.O FINAL EWRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENT LETTERS operation and only evaluates the project's net impacts. This methodology deceives the public about the project's impacts because the project is essentially given "credit" for eliminating operational features of the car wash (e.g., emisslons, noise and traffic Impacts from vehicle trips to and from the car wash,water usage from the car wash,etc.)that waif cease even In the absence of the project. This Is fundamentally misleading to declsionmakers and the public L-4 because it results in the understatement of—or failure to identify—significant project impacts (cant.) as well as applicable mitigation measures. Moreover,this grossly distorts the EIR's alternatives analysis, which is based on mitigating impacts that the EIR fails to identify, Accordingly, the EIR's failure to support the selection of this baseline with substantial evidence constitutes an abuse of dlseretlon and renders the entire EIR legally deficient. Wholesale revisions to the EIR's. baseline assumptions are required in a recirculated EIR. In faitr there is substantial evidence that cessation of the car washoperations at the project site will not wholly eliminate car washing by the customers of the existing faei ty, but will instead only shift such car washing activity to other commercial or residential locations. Thus, there Is no basis for the EIR's assumed reductions in the impact areas discussed above. L-5Moreover, the EIR fails to evaluate the Impacts of this reasonably foreseeable shirk of car washing to other locations, which could have significant adverse environmental impacts. The reasonably foreseeable potential impacts resulting from the redistribution of these activities must be analyzed in the EIR. It. The EIR's Concimlom Regarding Aesthetic Impacts Are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence a. The Nelght of the Project Would Degrade the Existing Environment The EIR's aesthetics analysis is fundamentally flawed because, despite overwhelming substantial evidence to the contrary, it unreasonably concludes that the project will not degrade the existing environment. This conclusion Is based largely on the assertion that the project's height will be consistent with other nearby high-rise developments. However, to reach this conclusion, the EIR mistakenly compares the proposed 83 foot tall project to developments outside the Immediate vidnity of the pmject,and fails to acknowledge that the project's height is fundamentally inconsistent with existing development standards surrounding L-6 the project site. To assess the project's potential to degrade the exi st Ing a nvlronment,the EIR analyzes whether the project's 83-foot he light would be cons!ste nt with the height of existing bulldings and height limits within Newport Center, EIR at 4,1-22(acknowledging that,although the project would be taller than existing buildings on Immediately adjacent properties, the project would be comparable with heights elsewhere in Newport Centerl. This analysis artificially minimizes the Impact of the project's height,which should be Judged relative to the height of other projects In the immediate vicinity only, The height of"the existing office towers 21 stories (300 Feet}in height located along San Joaquin Hills Road;' for example, Is Irrelevant to the project. EIR at Page 14 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) .■ 160 NEWPt317T CENTER ■ EwRommENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.O FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENT LETTERS 4.1.22.. That building,the tallest in Newport Center, is approximately 2,000 feet northeast of the project site and has no bearing on the project's aesthetic impact- €IR at 4.1-22. There is no reasonable basis for expanding the existing environment to include high-rise buildings outside the project's vicinity, especlally when applicable development standards prohibit similarly sized projects in the area surrounding the project site. Son Francisco 6eautifui v. Gty and County of San Francisco (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1027 [significant impacts should be measured in light of the context in which it occurs and aesthetic impacts should be analyzed to determine whether a project "would degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or Its surroundings"](emphasis a dded). The inappropriateness of the €IR's methodology Is exacerbated by the project's inconsistency with the General Plan. General Alyn ADACy EU 6.14.14 State£that development of Newport Center shouaid concentrate the greotesr building mass and height in the northeasterly Section along San Joaquin Hills Road and prolvessiveiy scale down budding mass and lielght reword fast Coast Highway. The project site is located in the southeasterly portion of Newport Center where the General Plan requires"scale[d] down building mass and height" The project site Is bordered to the west and south by Planned Community 56 iNorth Newport Center), which governs a large portion of Newport Center. The development standards in Planned Community 56 implement Policy LU 6.14.14 by restricting the height of L-6 structures Imrredfarely adjacent to the project site and by allowing for greater heights In areas in the northeaster section of Newport Center ($locks 400, 500, and 600). However, the designated blocks with greater building heights ]l.e., similar to the proposed project) are located more than 1,000 feet from the project site and do not represent the development standard applica ble to the project site or its surrounding areas.' The development standards applicable to the area surrounding the project site limit heights to 50 and 32 feet, depending upon the zoning designation. Block 100, which borders the project site to the south and west, Imposes a 50,foot height maximum, See Planned Community 56 at 15. Similarly, the property to the east across Arecapa Drive to San Miguel Drive (approximately 900 - 1,000 feet from the project site), mandates a 32 foot height maximum. Newport Beach Municipal Code ij20.20.030. Thus,the existing building heights and height limitations governing not just the"immediately adjacent"properties,as represented by the EIR, but properties extending significant distances In various directions arc limited to approximately 32—50 Feet,depending on zoning designation. It Is against these height limits that the project should be judged,"they best represent the aesthetic characteristics and quality of the site and its surroundings. The height of "the Islorcover,u is caoucoin to uaulyn the impacts of the proposed prow uilh reference m the lapxr buildings lmiiiW nwre[ton Lauf,leer away lrccxwse[he projM'I site is lnn;rly obsnxvxl from dw arms ul:Vewporl Center dui ltuvc)ugh-nse buddmigs. Thur,the projecs sue arca is visually distlucl lium the ureas of 4ewport Center dwl we desipmucd for grewcr building hpgims. Page 15 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) .■ 160 NEWP[3RT CENTER ■ EwRomlVENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.O FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENT LETTERS existing office towers 21 stories(300 feet) In height located along San Joaquin Hills Road," for L-6 example, is irrelevant to the project. EIR at 4.1-22. Because the project would introduce a buildings substantially inconsistent with existing building heights, It would be "demonstratively (Cont.) inconsistent"with the character of the surrounding area.' EIR at 4,1-11. b. The Project Would Have a 5ignifocant Adverse fmpoct on 5certic Wiews The EIR includes a limited number of carefully-selecteci images of viewpoints at various public vistas in the surrounding area that do not adequately demonstrate the projects impact. For Instance, View 3 (Figure 4.1-7) appears strategically positioned to misrepresent the expansive ocean views looking south along Newport Center Drive (near the intersection between Newport Center Drive and San Miguel Drive). The view from the intersection of Newport Center Drive and San Miguel Drive provides a more accurate representatian of how the project would severely Impact ocean views From Newport Center Drive. Attached Exhibit A shows the southerly views of the ocean from near that intersection, As evidenced by that exhibit, the ocean is highly visible along Newport Center Drive and San Miguel Drive,and thus constitutes a scenic viewpoint. The Natural Resources Element of the General Plan states that the "City of Newport Reach is located in a unique and dynamic physical setting and enjoys...spectacular ocean views to the southwest,including those of the open waters of the ocean and the bay._" General Plan at 10-16. Because the project would introduce a building that would significantly obscure a view of the "open waters" of the Pacific Ocean, It would have a significant Impact on a scenic vista. General Plan at 10-16; Ocean View Estates Homeowner`s Assn v. Montecito Water Dfst. (2004) 116 Gal.AppAth 396, 400 ["Any substantial negative effect of a project on view and L_7 other features of beauty could constitute a significant environmental impact under CEC1A"]. That Impact must be discussed and, to the extent such discussion is omitted, the EIR's conclusions regarding impacts to scenic vistas is without substantial evidence. Tracy First v. City of Tracy 120091 177 Cal.App.4th 912, 934 [substantial evidence must support a lead agency's conclusions). The EIR also concludes that impacts to View 3 would be less than significant partially because the proposed building"is not out of scale with existing commercial buildings" located near the project site. As discussed in detail above, this is factually incorrect. The existing buildings near the project site are substantially smaller(32—50 feet)than the proposed project (93 feet). Furthermore, the conclusion that the proposed building would be only partially visible from View 3 is based largely on the positioning of the view along the northern side of Newport Center Drive. The building would have a much greater Impact, and would be The FIR'S nawed xmhclics analysis tirrics over Io fhe No PmlecvDffke Development Alterairht. In IIIc 41MUszroo Of 4IWI abenallvY's Khdhelk implkts, Ilk EIR notes Out "Jalldrough urltao"Is couldbe m11dc ibr N'hotkr a ark-or mo-story building or the proposed Nciect's wwou-story building mould be mate in"Ing with Ilic ext Slit¢}visual clianie r and gUnlity of lie mtr atld a=l'tknikr In pniiec1iwr the alkriumw%vuW msull III significrut impucts. Thar is simply no jurlifkalian for 111c cakhNions ONE a aoc-or two-story buddiog and a wwa•swry bldlding haw the same level of axitisl¢ocy wish a surrounding oivirunnreril contprised or buildings priuourily in the 204fl loot rmge, Page 16 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) .■ 160 NEWP[317T CENTER ■ EwRommENTAL IMPACT REPORT ED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENT LETTERS significantly more imposing,when viewed from the other side of the Newport Center Drive/San L"] Miguel Drive intersection. (cont.) C. The EIR's Analysis of Giore impacts rs Oevord of Meaningful informotion and Substantlol Evidence The EIR concludes that the project would not result In any signiRcant Impacts associated with glare because the building would not include comments that would generate substantial amounts of reflective surfaces. EIR at 4.1-26- This condusion, however, Is curious given the that the project's elevations(EIR Figures 3.5 and 1.6)show that the building's exterior will be comprised largely of glass. The EIR attempts to dispense with this fact by stating that the windows "would not be mirrored and would have similar low-potentlal glare characteristics as do other" windows in the surrounding area. This factually-devoid analysis does not comply with C€OA.Association of imitated Residents v. County of Madera(2003)1017 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1390 [CECA does not demand exhaustive analysis or perfection, but does require a factual analysis and a good faith effort at disclosure]. Simply put, the introduction of a substantial number of glass windows up to seven stories high will introduce a significant source of glare in the project area. This impact must be analyzed,bath for possible safety and aesthetic impacts. AJ III. The EIR's Analysis of Traffic Impacts Fails to Comply With CERA a, EiR Materfaliy Underestimates Traffic Genemrion and Lacks Substantial Evidence to Support its Trip Generation Assumptions ilk#the MND, the EIR analyzes traffic Impacts using an erroneous designation and trip generation rates from the Institution of Transportation Engineers{"ITE"}. To calculate project vehlcular trips, the Elft utilizes the High-Rise Residential Condominium designation, which It states was applied based on"review of land use categories and trip generation rates"of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. Appendix Gl at 2 (emphasis addedh. This designation was applied without explanation. We can only guess that the High-Rise Residential Condominium designation was applled L-9 to the project because it would exceed three stories, since the EIR is devoid of a coherent explanation as to why that is an appropriate designation? EIR at 3.2. That designation is convenient because R has the lowest trip generation rate of any potentially-applicable condominium category,4 ' The FEE "Trip Gcnenitio, Hmdbnnk dclines High-Rise CondnmmininTownM1n,ise as "Ngti-rise residcwial condommumw'rouvlwi eco arc ualls Imated in buildings dnr have ihrcc or more levels illaorsl-" ' Fou cxmnplc, the R�idcnluil rondmieiahmsTowalhmm dcsignldion lima Trip Rcncnuion nine or appmninnlely 5.81 tips pct dwelling unit,while the Laxun'i'orulaueniwn'Townilwuac designation%vuW genauic pcuk hour hips altrose daubic Ow HigltRiu CauWnlninimri dsvipnaiion. Page 17 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) .■ 160 NEWP[3RT CENTER ■ EwRommENTAL IMPACT REPORT EO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENT LETTERS The High-Rise Residential Condominium designation does not accurately represent the project,which would include (1I10 residential townhomes ranging from 3,581 to 5,371 square feet, (2) 35 residential flats ranging From 1,645 to 3,605 square Feet, 13)four penthouse units ranging from 2„285 to 3,6M square feet, and (41 various amenities available for resident use, Including a club room and appointed kitchen for catering,a Rtness room,and a swimming pool. CIR at 3-5. Because these attributes and unit sizes are typically associated with luxury condominiums,the ITE Luxury Cortdominlum designation better representsthe project.' Moreover,the project objectives explicitly describe the project as consisting of luxury condominiums. Section 3.2,Statement M Objectives, provides that the underlying purpose of the project is to "redevelop an underutilized property in the Newport Center area with multi- family, Far-sale luxury high-rise {three + stories[ residential units...” EIR at 3-2 (emphasis added). The project objectives also state that the project is intended to Ili "[r]espond to the demand for luxury,multl-famliy'housing, and(2)"[Ijntroduce a luxury,multi-family residential development in Newport Center...."W. (emphasis.added). The EIR's lack of substantial evidence explaining why the High-Rise Condominium designation is appropriate for the project is itself a violation of CEQA. Federation of Hillside& L-9 Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 ral.App.4th 1252, 1259 [substantial (Cont,) evidence must support the agency's conclusions]. CEClA defines substantial evidence as "facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts." CELLA Guidelines § 15384(b). Here, there are rap facts that support application of the High-Rise Condominlum designatlan. Furthermore,as discussed above,there if substantial,evidence that the Luxury Condominium designation is more appropriate for the project. Tlse table below identifies the trip generation rates for High-Rise Condominiums and Luxury Condomin lums,respectively: Nish-Rise Condominium Luxurt Condominium AM Peak Hour 0.34 0.65 PM Peak Hour 0.38 0.55 The table above demonstrates that the luxury Condominium designation would generate approximately twlre the number of trips as the High-Rise Condominium designation. Because there is substantial evidence supporting the application of the Luxury Condominium designation, the EIR's analysis must be revised to appropriately assess the traffic Impacts associated with the project. b. EiR's Conclusions About Construction Traffic Arc Based on Inconsistent Information L-10 TLc ITE Trip CCIWFAL6013 Handbook defines Luxury CmaWnminiiumTnwtdwusc as"units in buildings milk luxury Whiies or sTKo, Page 18 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) .■ 156 NEWPt317T CENTER ■ Ewito MENTAL IMPACT REPORT ED FINAL ENARONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENT LETTERS The construction traffic analysis notes that the project would require the export of demolition and earth material,which would generate approximately 24-26 round trip haul trips per day. EIR at 49.7. These trips, the EIR concludes, would not result in a significant traffic impact. However this analysis gmady underestimates the number of truck trips associated with grading of the project site, and wntradfots the ElIrs prior statements on the topic. As noted in the Project Description, project grading would excavate 51,EW cubic yards of cut during a ane-mantis period, generating approximately 2,580 haul trips during grading (172 round trips per day). EIR at 3-9. 177 round trips is substantially greater than the 24-76 L-1 D o mrd In the construction anofysls and, because truck trips have a larger impact on traffic (Cont. than do standard vehicular trips,the Impact of these truck trips must be analyzed. fvlareover, the EIR concludes that there would be no slgniflcant construction traffic impact because the number of construction trips generated by the project would he less than those associated with car wash's existing operations. As discussed above, this conclusion Is based upon a fundamentally inadequate baseline and must be re-evaluated. The appropriate baseline for existing operations is zero given the pending closure of the car wash. IV. The Noise Analysis Omits Required Information and Analysis a. EiR Faris to Identify and Address Noise impacts on Nearby Seri Receptors The EiR's noise impacts analysis falls short because it fails to identify nearby sensitive receptors. It concludes that there Isonly one sensitive receptor that could be Impacted by the project—the Newport Center Women's Health Center,located approximately 100 meters south of the project site. EIR at 4,8,4. This assertion, however, falls to account for the broader definition of sensitive receptors used in the EIR, which requires characterization of additional nearby uses,particularly three restaurants with outdoor seafing,as sensitive receptors. The EIR specifies that sensitive land uses are generally those "where people reside or where the presence of noise could adversely offer[ the use of land." EIR at 4.8.4 (emphasis added). Consistent with this definition,the EIR notes that"Is]ensitive land uses include but ore L.I I not limited to uses such as schools, hospitals, residences, libraries, and recreation areas." Id. (emphasis added).. Thus, in determining whether a given land use should be considered sensitive, the EIR provides that the pertinent question is whether the presence of noise could adversely affect the use. Coiifornro Native Piont Sac. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cat App.4th 957,986[a lead agency Is entitled to define the scope of analysis and methodology so long as it is supported by substantial evidence]. Here, the EIR has defined what uses should be considered"sensitive"and must apply that definition appropriately. Red O, Fig& Olive, and Muldoon's Irish Pub are all restaurants located directly across either Anecapa Drive or Newport Center Drive from the project site. Unlike most restaurants (which are generally are not considered sensitive recaptorsj, all three restaurants have significant outdoor dining areas. These outdoor dining areas are sensitive receptors because the presence of noise—particularly doting construction activities—could adversely affect their Page 19 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) .■ 160 NEWP[NfT CENTER ■ EwRommENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.O FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENT LETTERS use. See FIR at 4.8.4. The existence of these outdoor dining areas also undermines the assumption in the construction noise impact analysis that surrounding uses are primarily Indoor uses. EIR at 4.8.12 1"—due to the commercial character of surrounding properties,persons on adjacent properties would spend a majority of their time indoors with windows closed and not be exposed to loud constru ctlon not se"]. In addition to failing to properly account for Impacts at nearby sensitive receptors,the EIR also fails to appropriately analyze construction noise impacts, instead generally asserting that there would not be any significant impacts because (1) construction-related noise would only occur for approximately eight hours a day,and (21 the surrounding uses are predominantly commercial, As discussed above,the latter assumption is wrong and there are nearby sensitive receptors. Moreover,the EIR makes this conclusion without any meaningful analysis of actual noise impacts despite the acknowledgement that construction equipment could produce periodic noise levels nearing 90 d8A at adjacent property lines. EIR at 4.8-12. Such analysis fails to adequately address noise threshold(d),which asks whether the project would result in a substantial temporary or periodic Increase in ambient noise. To properly assess the impact under this threshold, the ambient noise must (obviously) first be quantified. The EIR fails to undertake this fundamental analysis,instead providing a general quafftarfve discussion of noise In El Section 4.8.2° This fa llu re undermines CECA's informational dlsdosu re requirements, and constitutes a failure to proceed as required by law. Assocrutron of fmiroted Residents v. Coarrty of Modern(2003)107 Cal-App-4th 1383,1390[when assessing the legal sufRciency of an environmental document, a court focuses on adequacy, completeness,and a good faith effort at disclosure]. (Cont, The EIR apparently tries to alleviate the need to quantify ambient noise (despite the EIR's stated thresholdsl by stating that under threshold (d) the project would only have a significant short-term Impact if construction operations would generate noise levels experienced by persons at off-site locations of 90 dEA or greater for more than eight hours. According to the EIR, this is an appropriate standard because only such exposure can affect human health.' EIR at 4.8-8. In so doing,the EIR fundamentally misapplies the threshold:the question Is not whether construction noise would result in hearing loss, but whether there would be a temporary or periodic increase in ambient levels above existing levels without the projects Melia u. City of Las A,apefes (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 342 [a lead agency cannot apply a threshold of significance in a way that forecloses the consideration of substantial evidence showing there may be a significant impact].To comply with the mandates of CEQA, a standard that more accurately represents potential noise Impacts —for example, whether the ambient noise would be increased by 3 If SA(which represents a doubling of noise)—should be applied to assess whether noise would have an adverse impact on nearby uses. the viscssnient of opem MnL1 wiv:Inlpmo al wffMS rrMll flits f uidJii l al nnw 5x also EIR uL 4.8-12.conchsdhLg[hal Wading,andexcavation anisInea xssald nn[MULL m u siLadflci m impav because "caasmLnioniCWLgI noise would ml occur for a period long enough or loud enough to nage hearing 6mmw to rcwivcrs at orr4lc prup"lics." 'A rer urcLnral la glumify mise gcovaied by she pwimi is also mharcndy required by this t3vcsbold. Page i 10 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) .■ 160 NEWPORT CENTER ■ EwRCNJMENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.O FINAL ENARONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENT LETTERS b. OR Lacks Anolysis of Ambient Noise as Required by CEQA and Applied Thresholds Finally, the EIR fails to provide any meaningful analysis of the noise created by the project's operatlon or analyze whether such noise would result in a. significant Impact. Far example, under noise threshold (a), the OR lists the applicable noise standards, but then concludes the project would not result In any exceedence of these standards because the L-12 project wouldrepresent an overall decrease in the amount of stationary noise that would he generated at the project site. EIR at 4.9-10. This conclusion Is unsupported and without any meaningful, factual analysis, and does not represent a good faith attempt at full dlsclosure.g Federation of Hillside &Canyon A55acrattons v. City of Los Angeles (2000}93 Cal-App-4th 1251, 1259 [a lead agency's conduslons most be supported by substantial evidence];Associatlon of Imitoted Residents v.County of Modem(2063}167 Cal-App.4th 1383,1390- V. El A's Land Use Conclusions Are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence With respect to consistency with the General Plan,the EIR's cond usi on that the project would be consistent with the General Plan Is not supported by substantial evidance and fails to satisfy the standard for General Plan consistency outlined by[ase law. A project is consistent with the general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the abjectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attal ument. Clover Volley Faundotlon v. City of Rocklin (20111 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 239. However, general consistencies with plan policies cannot overcome specific, mandatory and fundamental inconsistencies with plan pollcies, id. at 239; Spring Valley Lake Assn- v. City of Victomille (2016](DO59442) IOrdered Published on June 15, 2016) [a "project's consistency with a general plan's broader pollcles cannot overcome a Project's inconsistency with a general plan's more specific, mandatory and fundamental policies"]. Of particular Importance, the EIR states that the project would be consistent with General Pian Policy LU 6.14.4, which presents the general height and massing vision for L-13 Newport Center. Policy LU 6,14,4 provides,In Its entirety: Development Scale. Reinforce the original design concept for Newport Center by concentrating the greatest building mass and height in the northeasterty section along San Joaquin Road,where the natural topography Is highest and progressively scaling down building mass and height to follow the lower elevations toward the southwesterly edge along East Coast Highway. °As fimlm evidirace of the F.IR's failure w coniply with CEQA,Section 4.30 concludes IIYt rmxber Tlvesimlds as and d).Ihm-would be a'polcramlly sigoil'tcael impact" This is an jnHpP riatc conclusion rn mr EIR,which is soppmed. In comahr inromwion snfficicnl to make a doer imlim %ticdior a nor a projecl. would have a sign)`rerun impacl or not. Page i I I Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) .■ 160 NEWPCtfIT CENTER ■ ENVIRohimENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.O FINAL EWRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENT LETTERS Policy LU 6.14.4 Is, without a doubt, a "specific, mandatory and fundamental" policy of the General Plan,as it unequivocally identifies the development vision of Newport Center. Spring Valley Lake Assn., supra, DD6S442.]a project's noncompliance with a Polley that required new projects to generate on-site to the maximum extent feasible was a specific, mandatory, and fundamental policy]. As with the policy In Spring Valley Lake Assn., Palley LU 6.14.4 requires ("by concentrating the greatest mass and height"I height to be scaled down within Newport Center. Thus,any Inco nslstency with Policy LU 6.14A requires a finding of overall general plan Inconsl5tency, Like the (flawed) aestheticsanalysts, the EIR concludes that the project is consistent with Policy LU 6.14.4 largely based on the heights of buildings located aver 1,400 feet away in the northeastern section of Newport Center. EIR at 4.7-11. This onalysl5 is Inappropriate because it fails to account for the explicit direction of Polity 116.x4.4,namely conceatrirting the greatest building mass Along Son Jooqu)n Rood and progres h"scaling down height toward East Coast Jlighway. The General plan also reinforces the general policy of scaled development in Newport Canter,stating that"jh]igh-rise office and hotel bulldings to the north of[Newport]Center form a visual background for lower rise buildings and uses to the South and west." General Plan at 394. The EIR's analysis actually highlights the inconsistency. For example, the EIR first states that the height of the proposed project would be less than the existing office towers located along San Joaquin Road. EIR at 4.7.11. The EIR is correct in this regard, but the analysis fails thereafter as it then notes that the project would be L-1 consistent with other bulldings located closer to the project site, such as 264 Newport Center (Cont.) Drive,that extend to approximately 74 feet in height. This statement is also true,but it cannot be relied upon to support a concluslon of consistency with Polley LU 6.14,4 because a comparison with 260 Newport Center Drive, an anomaly within the southwestern portion of Newport Center, Is inapproprlate. The existence of a wrong„ does not make adding another wrong.a right. The project would still be inconsistent with Policy LU 6.14.4 because it would tower over nearby uses and would no longer progressively scale down development toward East Coast Highway. It would,in fact,do just the opposite. The EIR concludes that it the project would be consistent with Polity LU 6.14.4 because even if the project was constructed "the greatest building mass and height would remain concentrated in the northeasterly section of Newport Center along San Joaquin Road." This argument is a red-herring and illogical, and does not constitute substantial evidence. Applying this rationale,the City could reasonably conclude that a single building with a maximum height of 200 feet(which is shorter than the buildings concentrated in the northeasterly section of Newport Center) could be constructed along East Coast Highway and still be consistent with Policy LU 6.14.4 because the greatest building mass and height would still be concentrated along San Joaquin Road." Clearly,that sort of tortured logic Is not the Intent of Policy LU 6.14.4, which expressly 1O The same logic could also be applied to multiple 200 fool buildings uimig Eaul Cowl Highxay as low as the number of building did not exceed the rumbet and Leight existing along San Joaquin Road- Pagel U. Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) .■ 160 (titEWPt7l7T CENTER ■ ENVIRomlVENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.O FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENT LETTERS requires "progressively sealing down bullding mass and height' towards East Coast Highway. Because Policy LU 6.14,4 represents the General Plan's height and massing (,-1 vision for Newport. Center and, as such, Is a "specific, mandatory and fundamental" policy, the proposed project's Incon5mtency with Policy LU 6.14,4 is also an inconsistency with the General Plana ftd as Ignifica nt aesthetics Impact.sr Vt. 011's Water and Wastewater Analysis IS InSvNicient and Based an Faulty Assumptions With respect to water demand,which ultimately Implicates wastewater generation,the EER concludes that the project would demand approximately 10,417 gallons per day {"gpd"). EIR at 5-16. This figure was reached through a reverse engineering analysis based upon a projected wastewater generation of 9,470 gpd,which was based on a wastewater flow factor of 7,526 gpd/acre. Appendix at 80. This analysis artificially and severely underestimates both the water demand and amount of wastewater generated by the project, Aforeciver, it JS fnconsfstent with water assessments conducted for other similar projects In the City. For instance, the Ebb Tide Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration anntyled water demand based upon a per capita water use of 178.9 gpd. This figure represents the baseline water usage (in daily per capita gallons) contained in the Mesa Consolidated Water Dlstrlct's 2016 Urban Water Management Plan." While water for the project is not supplied by the Mesa Consolidated Water District,the City of Newport Reach, which would supply water to the project,also has a Urban Water Management Plan("Newport UWMP"). Like the Mesa Consolidated Water District's UWMP, the Newport UWMP identifies water demand figures. For 2015, the City's interim water use target Is 228.1 gallons per capita per day ("gpcd"). Newport UWMP at 2. Using this figure as a realistic estimate of the water L-1 4 demand generated by the project, the 150 Newport Center would create a demand for approximately 22,091 (110 residents x 228.1 gpcd = 22,091), which is over twice the water demand assumptions used in the EIR. This analysis presents a far more realistic expectation of water demand, and is consistent with water demand analyses presented in other environmental documents. For example, the Ebb Tide MND and Lido Villas MND have significantly higher water demand estimates. For the 23 multifamily dwelling units proposed by the Lido Villas project, the MND analysis concluded that there would be a wastewater generation of approximately 172,800 gpd. This, like the water demand numbers contained in the Ebb Tide MND, is significantly higher than the water demand and wastewater generation numbers for 150 Newport Center. Thus, to adequately understand the potential impacts " Also, ilm prolccl's propoacd Ptamwd Cotumunily, which would sm'c as the relcrtatl eoniRg dcgigrmrierl and provide domloinocul sandnnls, uould be immisisical with Ilm Gcnmil Plmt. ('try'r+f trine r. Irvine Oma y Agwimi rhxrtknMnlrxrewr t19AP 25 Cal.App,4ih NCB, 979 la ming ordinance is ronsistem with a city's general plan whcrc,considering all its expects,the ordinance fluff hers the obloeuves a+d Policies of the peocral plan and docs not obsmsct dtcir mmu niont 1. ATsnn,boeuose dre bright of the proposed project uvuld be t'undmnonwlly IncoosNau web the height and mussing vision for Ncwpon Cmwr in Policy LU 6.14.4,the Phsuned Commurmity world be htcunsistatu wills dm General Plun. The writer fordle Ebb Tide pwjeelwas supplied by the Meta Censolidaled Waler Disincn. Page I I Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) .■ 160 NEWPCiRT CENTER ■ ENVIRommENTAL IMPACT REPORT ED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENT LETTERS associated with water demand and wastewater generation, including whether new L-14 infrastructure would be required, a new water analysis based upon realistic expectations must (con},) be conducted. VII. The Alternathres Analysis Does Not Contribute to a Reasonable Range of Alternat Ives a. The Project Objectives Arc Written Arnfklalfy Narrow and Preclude Meaningful Consideration of a Reasonuble Rouge ofRltematrves An EIR must "describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project,which would feasibly obtain most of the basic project objectives of the project,but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project,and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." CEgA Guidelines § 15126AIal. As discussed below,the EIR's analysts of project alternatives falls to comply with this directive. first,the EIR's stated project objectives are written so narrowly that consideration of a reasonable range of altematives Is not possible. CEOA,makes Clear that the project objectives should drive the agencys selection of alternatives for analysis an approval and a lead agency may use its discretion when identifying particular objectives. Cohfarnio Native Plant Soc. u. City of Santa Cruz 120091177 Cal.App..4th 957,991. However,that discretion is not unlimited,and a lead agency may not draft objectives or the project's underlying purpose so narrowly to preclude meaningful consideration of a reasonable range of altematives. North Coast Rivers Alliartre v. A-G. Kawamura 12016) 243 Cal.App.4th 647, 654. Here, the project objectives are crafted intentionally narrow to preclude the consideration, and approval, of any potential alternatives. The objectives include, among other things, 11j redevelop an underutllized L-15 property in Newport Center,(2)add for-sale,owner-occupied housing units in Newport Center, (3I Introduce a luxury, multi-family resftfenNal development in Newport Center, (41 provide new multi-jamify residential development in Newport Center,and 15) implement a residential devefopment that provides for on-site amenities for its residents. EIR at 6-6. These are all consistent with the underlying purpose of the project,which is to"redevelop an underutilized property in the Newport Center with multi-famlly, for-sale luxury high-rise (three + stories) residential units located within walking distance to employment,shopping,entertainment,and recreation." EIR at 6-6. The primary purpose and objectives are clearly written to foreclose meaningful analysis and consldomtion of non-residential alternatives. Predictably, and based on these narrowly drafted alternatives, the EIR states that the nonresidential alternatives would notmeet the project objectives. for example,the EIR concludes that the No ProjectfOfflce Redevelopment Alternative would only meet 4 of the 11 project objectives. EIR 6-19. Of course,the EIR can make this conclusion because 5 of the 11 project objectives include some reference to the provisions of residential uses." The duplicative nature of the objectives strongly wggests that " This docs nor 'include Objective U. which addresses liminchd rnasibihily. which appeurs la be upplied io discdnunatcly to concbtde Ilul any non+csidcenial ahcrnai jams arc Cawti:blly inrCnIble. Page 1 14 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) .■ 160 NEWP[3RT CENTER ■ ENVIRomiVENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.O FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENT LETTERS they were drafted with the Intention of refecting alternatives for non-compilan.ce with a majority of the project objectives.ss This runs afoul of CEQA's requirements, and such gaming of the system Is not permitted. Likewise, consideration of alternative sites is rejected because there arc no available sites `in or near"Newport Center, This rationale, however,fails to consider the passibility that L-15 alternative sites within the City of Newport Beach generally are available for development and (Cont.) would reduce the project's significant environmental impacts, Moreover,there is no evidence that any alternative locations were aver actively sought out or considered. Flanders Foundation v. City of Cormel-by-the•Sea (2012) 202 Cal,App.4th 503, 622 [sufficient evidence of economic infeasibility when there was evidence that similar properties were looked for,but unable to be found]. Thus, the ElWs consideration of alternatives based upon the narrowly drafted objectives is inappropriate and precludes consideration of a reasonable range of altematives. b. EOR Does Not Include Evidence of Finonrial infeasibility Objective B of the project objectives states that the project is Intended to "[r]edeveiop an underutilized property with a use that is financially feasible to construct and operate." EIR at 6.6. Applying this objective, the EIR. concludes that two alternatives — the No Project/Commercial Office Alternative and the Commercial/Restaurant Redevelopment Alternative — would be Infeasible. These conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence, however, as required by CEQA. Laurel Heights improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 CaL3d 376, 406 [If an agency flnds an alternative to be infeasible, the reasons and fads that the agency claims support its conclusion must be explained In meaningful detail]. With respect to economic Infeasibility, the burden on the lead agency Is equally as significant and it must include factual evidence supporting its conclusion. The EIR relies solely on a verbal communication between Ronaid Soderling, Managing Member of Newport Center Anacapa Associates, UC and Tracy Zinn,Vice President of 7&6 Planning. See EIR Reference to L-16 Soderling, 20164. Reliance on this verbal communication as the sole justification for economic Infeasibility Is wildly inappropriate and runs afoul of CEQA's Informational mandates. SPRAWLDEF v. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Deveiopment Commission (2014) 226 Cal.AppAth 905 [holding that a determination of economic infeasibility must be supported by .some context" that allows for economic comparison such as, for example, providing side-by- side comparative figures showing cost, capacity, and life of project, and explaining why an alternative is not financially viable]. Furthermore, a lead agency preparing an EIR may not simply accept the project proponent's assertions about aro alternative; the agency must independently participate, review, analyze and discuss the alternatives In good faith. Sierra Club v. Tahoe Regime;Planning Agency (2013) 916 F.Supp.2d 1098, 1159, citing Save Round Volley Ailiance v. County of inyo, 157 Cal.Ap pAth 1437,1460. Therefore,to comply with CEQA, the EIR's alternative section must be revised to provide evidence of economic infeasibility. " If ihctc usre only one objcetiuc regarding the pmvisimt of residential uses, rdr exunsplc, the No ProwcKa nierciul Orr=Altemati.e uvuld satisfy a orb obieoivm. Page 1 15 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) .■ 160 (titEWPCrifT CENTER ■ ENVIRommENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.O FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENT LETTERS VIII. Project Approval Would Result in Impermissible Spot Zoning The City's approval of the project approvals would constitute improper spot zoning. An Impermissible"spot zaning' occurs when a small parcel of land Is subject to either more or less restrictive zoning than surrounding properties. Foothifis Communities Coalition v. County of Orange 12014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1312. It is now well-settled that an "amendment to a zoning ordinance that singles out a small parcel of land for a use different from that of the surroundine properties and for the benefit of the owner of the small parcel and to the detrlment'of the surrounding owners Is Impermisslble spot zoning, td.at 1314. The essence of spot zoning is irrational discrimination, and a property may not be arbitrarily singled out for special treatment separate and apart from surrounding properties. Avendia San luau Partnership v. City of Sort Clemente (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1255, 1268. Nevertheless, even if spot zoning omurs, courts recognlze that such zoning may be justifled If a substantlal public need exists, even if the property will also benefit. Foothills Communities CooWon, suprc, 222 Cal,App.4th at 1314. The relevant question is whether the zoning ordinance is arbitrary and discriminatory. Reynolds v. Barrett (1938) 12 Cal.2d 244,250[holding that a zoning ordinance that would have zoned one lot completely surrounded by non-residential uses as residential was arbitraryand discriminatory]. Without a doubt, approval of the project would result In spot toning. The proposed project site is surrounded by zoning (and existing uses) that are uniformly commercial and office oriented. The project site does not border any zones that would allow residential uses L-17 like the proposed project. The surrounding zoning is as follows: • West and South: Block 100 Sub-Area of the North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan ("NNCPC"), a "Commercial Office" block that is generally comprised of administrative and professional offices and permits uses such as limited accessory rata ll,financial,service and entertainment. NNCPC at 1, 11.It does not allow residential uses. • North: Fashion Island Sub•A rea of the NNCPC, a primarily retail hub that permits uses such as retail, dining, and commercial entertainment uses.. NNCPC at 1, 11. It does not allow residential uses. • East: Office Reglonal Commercial toning, which Is intended to provide for areas appropriate for corporate office,administrative and professional offices that serve local and regional markets, with limited accessory financial, retail, services, and entertainment uses. It does not allow residential uses. NBMC §§ 20.20.010 and 20.20.020. The project approvals would,if approved by the City Council,result in an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance that would single out a small Island parcel 11,26-acre}for resldentlal development while keeping the adjacent properties zoned for commercial and office uses. Page I If, Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) .■ 160 NEWP[3RT CENTER ■ EwRmmENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.O FINAL ENARONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENT LETTERS fuothiils Communities Coolition, supra, 222 Cal-App.4th at 1314- This constitutes arbitrary special treatment for the project site. Avendia Son Juan Partnership,supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at 1269[spot zoning exists when a parcel is being singled out for special treatment]. Moreover, although the project could conceivably serve the public Interest by expanding residential uses within the City, the project's inconsistency with the vision for Newport Center would render any public Interest finding arbitrary. The General Plan states that Newport Center is a "master planned mixed-use development" consisting of retail, professional offlce,entertalrlment,recreation,residentlal uses. General Plan at 3-95.. However, asa planned development, these uses have been allocated to various areas within Newport Center consistent with the overall vision for Newport Center, For example, the NNCPC notes that the sub-areas It created are Intended to Implement the General Plan's goal of creating a successful mixed-use district that integrates economic and commercial center; and expands opportunitles for residential development. NNCPC at 1. with respect to expanded opportunities for residential development,the NNCPC allocated all residential uses to specific blocks located in the northern portion of Newport Center. NNCPC at 11. The other blocks, located In the southern portion of Newport Center (and located adjacent and nearest to the project site), are reserved for commercial and office uses. W. Slmilarty,the Zoning Ordinance, which designates the project site and other nearby property as Office Regional Commercial, L-1 reserves the area for commercial and office uses. NBMC420.20.020. (Cont.) Furthermore,the proposed project would allow for the development of an over-height, resldentlal building lnconslstant with the surrounding environment and General Plan Polley LU 6.14.4. As discussed above,Policy LU 6.14.4 provides that development within Newport Center should reinforce the original design concept by locating high-rise development In the northeastern section along San Joaquin Road and progressively scaled down toward East Coast Highway. Polley LU 6.14.4. The project would be fundamentally inconsistent with this policy, further demonstrating how the project's special treatment is to the detriment of the surrounding properties which are limited by existing zoning and development standards. Finally, the City currently does not have a significant need for additional housing that would justify spot zoning the project site. As noted in the Initial Study,the City only needs a total of flea new units to meat its Southern California Association of Governments projected regional housing needs. Initial Study at 66. Thus, because the project would be inconsistent with the development vision and standards of Newport Center and is not necessary to meeting housing needs within the City, any approval of the project based upon serving the public interest would be arbitrary. foothills Communities CoolWan, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at 1314 [finding that a new senior residential housing zone was in the public interest,as supported by references to state law and the housing element,and as consistent with the general plan]. I%. The Project's Proposed Use of the Anacapa Drive Right-of-Way Is Not Permitted by the Underlying Easement and Would Result in Traffic Safety Impacts L-1 8 Pagel ]' Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) .■ 160 NEWP[3RT CENTER ■ Ewito MENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.O FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENT LETTERS The project's proposed Site Circulation Plan, Appendix G2, appears to state that the project will utilize the Anacapa Drive rightof-way,for both Ill staging of moving trucks,and i2) trash trucks. Appendix G2 at 2. With respect to trash, Appendix G2 notes that pick-up and loading is not permitted in the Anacapa Drive right-of-way: !d. It is unclear how such activities will be avoided, however, given the conceptual site plans for the project show little, If any, additional property near the parking structure entrance (where trash will be stored)that could handle such activities. See EIR Figures 3.3 and 3-7. The EIR appears to try and dispense with this issue by notinjs.that the project would include rolled curbs along the Anacapa Drive right- Df-way to allows waste disposal trucks to move partially outside the paved driveway to avoid Impeding vehicular access. EIR at 4.9.11. First, It is unclear if the sidewalk along the right-of- way is sufficiently large to accommodate disposal trucks. If not,the parked disposal trucks will still Impede vehicular access along Anacapa Drive, which will Jeopardize traffic and pedestrian safety. I_`1 Moreover, as noted in the Irvine Company's September29, 2915 letter attached as (cont.) Exhibit B, the proposed uses—moving trucks and disposal trucks—are Inconsistent with the 1 easement that dictates the use of the Anacapa drive right-of-way. According to the Irvine Company,Anacapa Road is for the exclusive purpose of providing vehicular oecess to and from Me properties within 8fack 100 of the NNCPC. Thus,the uses proposed by the project for the Anacapa Road right-of-way are not only not permitted by the underlying easement, but the right-of-way's design Is not sufficient to accommodate such uses las it was designed for vehicular ingress and egress only). The EIR must analyze potential traffic safety impacts associated with such uses within the right-of-way,and cannot simply rely on the statement that "vehicular access though the southern access drive" would not be blocked. There is still a potential for traffic safety Impacts associated with vehddes using the Anacapa Drive right-of- way and forced to maneuver around trucks that are temporarily parked inlblocking the right-af- way. Also,if such activities cannot be accommodated in the fight-of-way,the EIR.must analyze the impacts associated with disposal and moving trucks at another location. K. The Project Violates a Recorded Declaration In connection with the Irvine Company's conveyance of the project site In 1992, a Declorateon of Specdal tend Use Restrictions, Mortgage Lien and Option to Repurchase (the "Declaration')was recorded in favor the Irvine Company. The Declaration, attached as Exhibit C, requires all successive owners of the project ute to comply with specific covenants, conditions and restrictions that limit development and uses on the project site, including the following: L-19 • Permitted Uses: Car wash,auto related services (e.g., minor service/repai r),and the incldontal sale of gasoline,car accessories and auto-related products. • Maximum Gross Floor Area: 25,000 square feet • Height Limitation: Not to exceed helght of then-existing bullding in 1992. Pagel lg Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No, 2016011032 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) .■ 160 NEWP[3RT CENTER ■ EwRommENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.O FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT COMMENT LETTERS The proposed project violates each of these express use and development limitations. First,the project proposes an unpermitted change in use to luxury residential,which is a radical deviation from the car wash at auto-related service uses that are allowed under the Declaration. In addition,the project's proposed gross floor area of 163,250 square feet is more than 6.5 times the Deciaratlon's maximum permitted gross Floor area.EIR at 4.2.17. Finally,according to the EIR, the existing car wash building located on the project site is approximately 12-5 feet high. EIR at 4.1-21. However, In clear excess of the height of the existing building, the proposed project consists of a seven-story,75.5 foot high building. In addition to the use and development restrictions,the Declaration also prop Wtsthe owner of the project site from pursuing discretionary entitlements, including. subdivisions and lone changes,without the prior approval of the Irvine Company. However,the applicant Is pursuing a broad range of entitlements,including,a General Plan Amendment,Zoning Code Amendment L-1 9 and Tentative Traci Map,among others,without having provided sattsfactory evl dance that the Irvine Company has given its approval to these requests- In fact, the Irvine Company's comments on the MND and the Notice of Preparation suggest that such approval has not been granted. If that Is the case,It would constitute a clear violation of the Declaration. Although the City Is not responsible for enforcing the Declaration, neither can It ignore the Declaration. Among other things, the Deoiaratfon's mandatory provisions fundamentally change the scope of the project as well as Its erwlronmental Impacts. The project must be re- imagined to be consistent with the Declaration's restrictions. The Declaration constitutes "significant new InFormatlon" under CERA Guidelines Section 15466.5 and therefore the EIR must be recirculated. Without recirculation, meaningful public review and comment were precluded (Mountain Uon Coalition v. fish and Gome Com. (1489) 214 Cal.App•3d 1043)) and the public would be deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon the project's substantial adverse environmental effects and feasible ways to mitigate or avoid such an effect. Conclusion: The EIR is wholly insufficient to analyze the Impacts of this Project. As stated above, The City of Newport Beach MUST recirculate the environmental review with the additional Issues above properly studied before attempting to hold any hearings on this project. Failure to comply with State Environmental Law will subject the City and the applicant to a legal challenge of the sufficiency of the environmental determination. Additional comments will be forthcoming if the City insists on holding public hearings without L-20 further study. Signed on behalf of a Committee of Concerned Residents, Bob Rush Page i 19 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) ■■ 1$0 NEWPORT CENTER ■ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.0 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Bob Rush—Comment Letter L L-1: The City of Newport Beach acknowledges that the commenter submitted prior comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), which the City considered and addressed during the preparation of the DEIR. Comment letters received by the City on the MND are part of the Project's administrative record. Comment letters received by the City on the DEIR's Notice of Preparation (NOP) are included as part of DEIR Technical Appendix A and also are part of the Project's administrative record. L-2: The City of Newport Beach acknowledges the commenter's citation of legal precedent regarding CEQA. The responses to each of the commenter's specific comments are provided in Responses L-4 through L-20, below. The DEIR does not need to be recirculated based on §15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. As summarized in the responses provided herein, there were no public comments or changes to the text or analysis of the DEIR that resulted in the identification of any new significant environmental effect requiring mitigation. In addition,based on all comments received on the DEIR, only minor, non-substantive revisions that merely clarify or amplify information presented in the DEIR were required (as described in the Errata included in the Final EIR). The DEIR circulated for public review was fundamentally and basically adequate, and all conclusions presented in the DEIR are supported by evidence provided within the DEIR and/or the administrative record for the proposed Project. Based on the foregoing, recirculation of the EIR is not warranted according to the guidance set forth in §15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. L-3: Please refer to Response J-5. L-4: An FIR is required to include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the Project site as they exist at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) is published (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)). The City acted reasonably in setting the environmental baseline as the condition that currently exists and has existed on this site for the past 50+ years. To use a future baseline of a closed car wash operation would be misleading given that the site has been used as a car wash for more than half a century and its operations are a long-established existing condition at the Project site. Further, it would be unlikely that, when the car wash closes, the site would sit vacant and not be used for some other, yet unknown, temporary purpose allowed by the City's Municipal Code while it awaits redevelopment. The commenter's assertion that the site would remain unoccupied when the car wash closes is unfounded. Refer to Response L-2. L-5: The DEIR does not imply that customers of the existing on-site car wash will no longer get their cars washed. The Commenter's assumption is reasonable that customers of the existing car wash will likely get their cars washed at other car wash locations. However, because there is no data to Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 201601 1032 Page FEIR-82 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) ■■ 1$0 NEWPORT CENTER ■ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.0 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT indicate where the existing car wash customers are traveling from (point of origin) to reach the Project site, or where these customers will choose to get their cars washed once the on-site car wash is closed, an analysis of trip displacement would be highly speculative and not based on any fact- based information. Even if it is assumed that all of the existing car wash's customers would use the nearest car washes to the Project site (near Jamboree and San Joaquin Hills Road, approximately 0.9- mile to the northwest of the Project site), it cannot be known with any degree of certainty if this location is actually closer or further from the customer travel trip's origin. Making a reasonable assumption about car wash customer behavior, based on consumer convenience, it is probable that people seeking to have their car washed would utilize a car wash location that is most convenient to them, and predicting which other location would be most convenient to a wide spectrum of customers would be nothing more than a wild guess. The DEIR properly evaluates the Project's traffic and vehicular-related air pollutant and noise emissions based on a comparison of the Project to the Project site's existing condition (a car wash with ancillary gas station and convenience market). The mere fact that the on-site car wash would be removed from the site would eliminate all of the existing traffic trips traveling to and from the site under the existing condition. Thus, the net trips (existing car wash trips minus the Project's projected trips) utilized in the analysis is an appropriate basis for the evaluation of environmental impacts. L-6: Please refer to Responses G-2, G-3,and G-4. L-7: As disclosed on pages 4.1-12 and 4.1-13 of the DEIR, the City of Newport Beach selected the locations for the view simulations (Figures 4.1-6 through 4.1-8 of the DEIR) in order to provide representative views of"the expected appearance of the proposed building from various locational perspectives that offer a public view" of the Project site. Moreover, the views were selected to "represent simulated views that would be experienced by a pedestrian looking toward the Project site in daytime hours at 6 feet above the ground surface." The range of photographs and simulations is appropriately representative. View 3 (DEIR Figure 4.1-7) is consistent with the City of Newport Beach's selection criteria because it depicts the view of the Project site from a pedestrian area adjacent to Newport Center Drive near the intersection with San Miguel Drive. View Simulation— View 3 depicts the screening of a partial view of the Pacific Ocean that occurs from the representative viewing location in the existing condition. Please refer to response G-2. The Project's aesthetic impact as would be seen from public view corridors, including those that are designated as Coastal View Roads or Public View Corridors in the Newport Beach General Plan are disclosed throughout DEIR Subsection 4.1.4. The intersection of Newport Center Drive and San Miguel Drive does not include any roadway segments identified as designated Coastal View Roads or Public View Corridors. While the photograph supplied by the commenter depicts a view from an additional location, the conclusions reached by the DEIR remain accurate based on the significance criteria presented in the DEIR. Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 201601 1032 Page FEIR-83 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) ON 1 SO NEWPORT CENTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.0 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT L-8: Impacts associated with potential glare are discussed thoroughly on pages 4.1-23 through 4.1-26 of the DEIR. The DEIR discloses on page 4.1-25 that the proposed building would introduce a new source of glare in the form of the windows, concluding that these new sources of glare would be similar to other buildings in the surrounding areas. The windows that would be installed on the building would not include any large expanses of glass, nor would any other highly reflective building materials be used that would create a source of atypical levels of glare that would support a conclusion that significant impacts would result from the implementation of the proposed Project. To ensure that low reflective building materials would be used, the City will include a condition of approval that will require that the proposed PC Text be revised to require low reflective materials. L-9: Please see Response K-14. L-10: The short term construction traffic analysis in the DEIR (pages 4.9-7 through 4.9-8) disclosed an average number of truck trips that would occur based on both demolition and grading phases. For consistency, the haul trips referenced on 4.9-7 have been updated in the Errata of the final EIR to reflect 86 haul trips and 172 round-trip haul trips. As disclosed on page 3-9 of the DEIR, 172 round- trip haul trips would occur during the 30 days of grading. The 172 round-trip haul trips would still represent a net reduction in the daily vehicular trips when compared to the existing car wash use. Furthermore, in applying a passenger car equivalent (PCE) factor of 3 passenger vehicles per 4-axle haul truck (note that Orange County and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) do not have readily available PCE factor recommendations; as such, the PCE factors used are based on recommendations from San Bernardino Association of Governments (SANBAG) which is consistent with standard engineering practice throughout the Southern California region), the 172 round-trip haul trips would be equivalent to 516 passenger vehicles (172 x 3 — 516). Therefore, even when considering the haul trips after applying PCE factors, the proposed Project's construction traffic would result in a net reduction compared to the existing vehicular trips generated by the car wash. Also, see Response L-4. L-11: Noise-sensitive land uses, or sensitive receptors, are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where individuals expect quiet to be an essential element of the location. Residential dwellings are considered sensitive receptors because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise and potential sleep disruptions. Schools, libraries, heath-care facilities, nursing homes, retirement residences, and other places where low interior noise levels are essential are also considered noise-sensitive land uses/sensitive receptors. Quiet noise levels are not an essential element of outdoor dining on properties surrounding the Project site. Restaurants, as the commenter points out, are generally not considered sensitive receptors, because the ambient noise levels are generally higher than land uses like residences, libraries, nursing homes, etc. As stated in the City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element (page 12-7), referenced in DEIR subsection Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 201601 1032 Page FEIR-84 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) NO 1 SO NEWPORT CENTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.0 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4.8.3, restaurants are specifically listed as "Stationary Noise Sources" because of the "high noise levels that these establishments are able to produce. The presence of outdoor dining does not change a potential noise source into a sensitive receptor. The DEIR accurately identified the nearest sensitive receptor as the Newport Center Women's Health Center, located approximately 100 meters south of the Project site. Also see General Plan Noise Element Table N-2 (Community Noise Equivalent Level ("CNEL") of 75-80 dBA"normally compatible" for restaurants, vs CNEL of 60-65 dBA"normally compatible" for residential.) Construction noise is addressed in Section 4.8.5 of the DEIR. Noise would be produced from construction activity associated with the Project throughout the construction period from demolition of the gas station through final Project completion. Municipal Code Section 10.26.035 exempts construction noise from quantified noise standards and impacts associated with short-term construction noise would be considered significant only if the construction activity violates the standards contained in Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity — Noise Regulations). The DEIR fully discloses that the Project would require certain activities that would occur outside of the standards contained in Municipal Code Section 10.28.040. Although construction noise that occurs within the standards specified in Municipal Code Section 10.28.040 is regarded by the City as a less than significant impact, the DEIR provides additional analysis in order to indicate that the construction noise from the Project would comply with the Exterior Noise Standards of the Municipal Code and would not result in harm to human health. See Keep Our Mountains Quiet v. County of Santa Clara (2015) 236 Cal.AppAth 714. The 90 dBA threshold is identified for this project in order to establish that the Project will not generate noise in excess of the noise ordinance. The analysis under Threshold d acknowledges that construction noise would be a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. The question is whether that increase is "substantial." As the commenter pointed out earlier, CEQA gives lead agencies discretion to establish thresholds of significance, and the City has done so. Accordingly, if construction noise generated by the project were to violate the noise ordinance, then the increase would be substantial. Out of an abundance of caution, the DEIR concludes that this is a potentially significant impact (though not anticipated to result in adverse effects to sensitive receptors) and suggests mitigation measures to address it. See pages 4.8-11 to 4.8-15 of the DEIR. L-12: As discussed on pages 4.8-9 through 4.8-10 of the DEIR, the operational noise generated by a residential building is typically limited to noise "associated with mechanical ventilation/air conditioning components." Additionally, that the Community Noise Equivalent Level and Allowable Noise Levels for Residential uses are typically lower in comparison to Commercial (Regional, Village District, Special, etc.) uses. Due to the Project's distance from any sensitive receptors, and due to the limited nature of the operational noise that would be generated by a residential building, the City of Newport Beach determined that a qualitative evaluation of operational noise is sufficient. L-13: Please see Response G-1 and G-4. Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 201601 1032 Page FEIR-85 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) ON 1 SO NEWPORT CENTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.0 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT L-14: Water and wastewater facilities are discussed under the topic of Utilities and Service Systems on page 5-16 of the DEIR, "Effects Found Not to be Significant as Part of the Initial Study Process." The Project site is served by the City of Newport Beach for water service. The sewer and water service demand studies that were relied on in the DEIR utilized the Orange County Sanitation District flow factors based on input provided by the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department. The 150 Newport Center Drive project is not subject to SB610 and SB221 requiring a Water Supply Assessment as it falls short of the 500 dwelling units. Developments of this size must provide demand calculations from the current and proposed use. The City has design criteria which is used to compare and approve assessments. Using sewer flows is one way to estimate average usage. The developer must provide information to assure water connections are of adequate size and provide sufficient pressure to meet average use, fire suppression and peak demand. Criteria is different throughout the city due to differing water lines, pressures, and supply. Using the Urban Water Management Plan(UWMP) GPCD is not the preferred method for estimating individual development use. UWMP's take the total water agency demand divided by the residential population to get to GPCD for forecasting citywide use. This takes in account City use, landscaping, commercial, single and multi-family residential and other use like boat docks, public pools, schools, and mixed use. The State Department of Water Resources uses GPCD in the SBx7-7 (reduction of 20% by 2020) regulations. As a side note our 2015 UWMP identified a SBx7-7 goal of 228 GPCD by 2015 and the City's actual use was 176 GPCD. The MESA Water 2015 UWMP plays no part in estimating demand in Newport Beach. In summary, the City finds that there is adequate water supply to meet fire suppression and domestic needs. L-15: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15124(b), the DEIR's Project Description includes a list of the objectives sought by the Project. A Lead Agency has broad discretion to formulate project objectives. Further, CEQA does not restrict a Lead Agency's discretion to identify and pursue a particular project designed to meet a particular set of objectives. The list of project objectives is appropriately based on the underlying purpose of the project. Neither the project's underlying purpose nor the list of objectives identify the Project site, which allows the consideration of alternative sites in and around Newport Center. Further, as shown in DEIR Table 6-2, the consideration of on-site alternatives was not precluded. The No Project/Office Redevelopment Alternative and the Commercial/Restaurant Redevelopment Alternatives meet 4 of the 11 project objectives even though those alternatives consider a non-residential use. The Multiple Unit Residential Alternative meets 8 of the 11 project objectives although 3 are met to a lesser degree. The Reduced Dwelling Units and Building Height Alternative meets all 11 of the project objectives although 4 are met to a lesser degree. Thus, the project objectives were not overly narrow and were Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 201601 1032 Page FEIR-86 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) ON 1 SO NEWPORT CENTER ■f— ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.0 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT appropriately identified in accordance with CEQA. DEIR Section 6.0 provides meaningful analysis and promotes informed decision-making by presenting a range of five alternatives. The City of Newport Beach selected the range of on-site alternatives analyzed in the DEIR from a wider set of potential alternatives because they were determined by the City to be potentially feasible, reasonable and realistic, as well as have the potential ability to substantially reduce or avoid a significant environmental impact of the Project and attain some or most of the Project objectives. The range of alternatives evaluated in the DEIR includes five potential alternatives that satisfy these criteria. Although the DEIR is required to describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project or to its location, CEQA does not require that the DEIR discuss every conceivable alternative to the Project. CEQA does not establish ironclad rules relating to the range of alternatives to be discussed in an EIR Citizens of Goleta Valley v Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 C3d 553; CEQA Guidelines §I5126.6(a). Instead, the nature and scope of the alternatives to be studied in an EIR is governed by the rule of reason. See Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 C4th 1143, 1163. Under the rule of reason, an EIR need discuss only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. See CEQA Guidelines §15126.6 and California Native Plant Society v City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 CA4th 957. Accordingly, the City of Newport Beach selected a reasonable range of alternatives that it had determined would provide enough variation to facilitate informed decision-making and public participation. Moreover, the commenter does not suggest any additional on-site alternatives or alternative sites that City should have considered. L-16: Regarding the No Project/Commercial Office Alternative and the Commercial/Restaurant Redevelopment Alternative, the Project Applicant provided information to the City which indicated that the development with either an 8,500 square foot office building. restaurant, or multiple-unit (RM) residential project would not be economically feasible after consideration of the cost of developing the uses, including land acquisition and construction costs. In evaluating the Applicant's information, the City applied a "prudent person" standard; meaning, that the Applicant's statements about the economic infeasibility associated with selling or leasing the property as an office building or restaurant is so great compared to the developing the project site with 49 residential units, that a reasonably prudent person or property owner would not proceed with a either of the respective alternatives. See Response J-2 for information related to analysis of the economic feasibility of the No Project/Commercial Office Alternative, the Commercial/Restaurant Redevelopment Alternative, and the Multiple Unit Residential (RM) Alternative. Also see Responses I-7 and 0-12. L-17: Please see Response J-5. L-18: Please see Response H-6. Moving and delivery vehicles would access the site through the main building entrance off of Anacapa Drive, not utilizing the right-of-way or the south driveway as described in the DEIR. Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 201601 1032 Page FEIR-87 Planning Commission - September 1, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) ON 1 SO NEWPORT CENTER ■F- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT F.0 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT L-19: Please see Response H-2. The commenter raises issues that represent a civil matter between the property owner and the Irvine Company. The Declaration of Special Land Use Restrictions restricts the land use and height of the property for a term of 25 years, expiring on February 20, 2017. The Project Applicant will not record the tract map or commence construction until this Special Land Use Restriction has expired, consistent with the proposed construction schedule contemplated in the DEIR. L-20: Responses to the commenter's specific comments regarding the adequacy of the analysis in the DEIR are provided in Responses to Comments L-1 through L-19. As explained in Response L-2, recirculation of the DEIR is not warranted according to the guidance set forth in §t5088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 201601 1032 Page FEIR-88 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Thursday, September 1, 2016 PROTECTION OF VIEW EQUITY & THE MULDOON'S BUILDING 202 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE To: Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council and Staff From: Sindi Schwartz Re: 150 Newport Center Residential Proposal Dear Planning Commissioners, This proposed project places a burden on our ability to conduct business at Muldoon's Irish Pub. It also jeopardizes our property value by eliminating our ocean views. As you know, we strongly object to a residential development of the car wash parcel. In the event you continue to consider a residential development, it is only fair and reasonable to protect our view equity. For example, we currently enjoy a view corridor over the south end of the 150 property. To date, we've seen no evidence of any consideration of that subject. Sincerely, A,4 �� Sindi Schwartz f,21" I 15o Newport Center sir i�i� l -mss 1 pmtAL ' rte. ;`� 4 �• .•I - _ sdi4.. 1 it a r. h vq Irl •� IuuIII la £ � I. ® `� ai �'' IIII_ i 1 ■ '� i 11� !l I�' I� =�1 i 'l� I ill`''�i 3�� diel �i n,l I�� I Planning Commission Public Hearing .• (PA2014-213) Septembers, 2os6 r Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 13) Introduction � ? a a.C'dt/FORN' iso Newport Center (PA2014-213) ■ General Plan Amendment No. GP2014-003 ■ Code Amendment No. CA2014-008 ■ Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2014-004 ■ Site Development Review No. SD2014-oo6 ■ Tentative Tract Map No. NT2015-003, County Tentative Tract Map No. 17915 Development Agreement No. DA2014-002 Environmental Impact Report No. ER2015-002 Location: Newport Center area Southwest corner of Anacapa Drive and Newport Center Drive 15o Newport Center Drive Community Development Department - Planning Division 2 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 13) ..E• / J,� ' �"�'s.;, ! �� � :Lai d� ,�_ i� r � a y �1 may[ 202 '$.: ' •t00 r} f e - ° £ few ! ' j > i Y' f i r ' A f Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 13) Pr • Oo pt • 35 condo dwelling units (38.8 du/acre) He�aht: 50 feet in height to top of roof (5-stories) 6o feet to top of mechanical appurtenances Setbacks: ■ Building 24' NCD, 22.5' Anacapa, 22' south, 15' west ■ Podium: 14' NCD, 15' Anacapa, A" south, o' west ParkLDc_ ■ All code required parking is provided on-site in a 3-level basement Units: ■ Range from 2,185 sq ft to 3,309 sq ft 09/01/2o16 Community Development Department- Planning Division 4 I East Elevation . ■.,��II11::1�11::1111�=; � sl:IIII:l�21111:�IIII:'��� �!� I !■.Iltill l..S15 5�ib Illluit.l �!� i�l � yi'tu:'�—'.�:� :�: : tf� ' y9�� 56 pp. 1 I ii�i� i'i�i�i.! ��i'�i i �F d ■I!_ I! ! ■•_ •■ �lnl�����l���ll�� i � �... ■�.. 11 !1, _ S .! ■�_ir:;� ,� 11���- r �� .moi■.... �I ���.r Ill�l! _ � �= iii = �i iii i = i��� __� �Ini�l����l���l��il � i�ie����,�i✓l;gyFi ggI[�)� ; I �� � N= t 1 li t..t...t t. �!D .• I6t ! �6EIPl��fl�e-� ,/ Development09/01/2o16 Community Department Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ECHA ICALP H ting ELEVATOR ov4F50 Newport Center (PA2014-213) % ROOF OF LAST OCCUPIED SPACE i H W i 2 O 7 m TOWER �k: 40 MUTORUDURPPARIp SYR--- - - - UREE FINISH GRADE STREET Example of building height measurement on sloping terrain Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 13) Comparison of Residential Communities Attachment No. PC 7: Residential Communities in Statistical Area L1 -Development Standards Comparison PC-21 PC-30 ;Newport PC-54 PC-56 PC-56 Rj" l 6 Block 100 Sea Island Villa Point ach Santa Barbara North Newport Center: North Newport Center:Apartments Apartments ub Condominiumsl Villas Fashion Island The ColonyGrawport CenterMeridianPC Acrea a 288 13.7 426 16.05 6.4 121.26Dwellin Units 226 228 built 79 524 245 635Densit dulacre 8 16.6 18.54 32.6 38 527.8 Floor Area NIA" N/A"` WA'" 245,578 873.033 414,328 W131,878Floor Area Ratio N/A"" N/A" N/A" 1.32 1.24 1.47 N! 2.412 stories(32'!50' 2-3 stories 50'+apurtenances(200' stories)+10'Height max. 32'!50'max. Unbuilt(39'max.) 65'"(65'max.) 65'- (65'max.) max. 18'(28'! urtenancesSetbacks:"` 20'from rightsof 20'from rights- Front wa of-wa N/A 15' 15'from rights-of-way 15'from rightsof-way 2 'from NCDSides 5' 5- 3' 7' 0' 0' 8%lot width . from Anacapa and 14'westerlPL Rear 5' 5' 5' 13' 0' 0' 10' 22' NOTES: Height is measured from finished surface,as opposed to average grade " Floor area information is unavailable Building setbacks only 0g/01/2o16 Community Development Department- Planning Division 7 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 13) Presentation Outimine 1. Environmental Impact Report 2. Development Agreement 3. Site Development Review and Tract Map 09/01/2o16 Community Development Department- Planning Division 8 I Draft Environmental Impact Report 09/01/2016 Community Development Department- Planning Division 9 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 13) CEQA Review Environmental Impact Report No . ER2015 -002 Public comment period May 13, 2016, through June 27, 2016 . Public comments ongoing . ■ Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology & Soils, and Noise are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program . Community Development Department - Planning Division 10 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 13) EIR Alternatives No project-existing carwash to remain 2 . No project-8, 500 sq . ft . office building developed on -site 8, 500 sq . ft . restaurant developed on - site Reduced 25 dwelling unit residential alternative Reduced project alternative -45 du, 6 stories at 70-foot 5 - inch maximum Community Development Department- Planning Division 11 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 13) Water/Wastewater Demand Water Existing car wash : 12, 395 gpd Proposed residential use : 10,417 qpd Net Decrease in water demand : -1, 978 gpd Wastewater Existing car wash : 11, 156 gpd Proposed residential use : 8, 470 gpd Net Decrease in sewer generation : -1, 536 gpd Community Development Department- Planning Division 12 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 13) Traffic = Average DailyTrips Existing car wash generates 81g daily trips based on traffic counts in the field Proposed : high - rise residential condo (3 -10 stories) generates 205 daily trips . Based on ITE trip rate No daily trip rate in ITE for luxury condos Overall reduction of 614 daily trips . Community Development Department - Planning Division i3 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 13) EIR Responses to Comments ■ 27 comment letters were received on the EIR including five agency comments . Formal responses to 18 letters that included CEQA related comments are provided in the staff report packet . 09/01/2o16 Community Development Department- Planning Division 14 I Site Development Review and Tentative Tract Map 09/01/2016 Community Development Department- Planning Division 15 ► �• Na f ,=—� �'�ti 1111 ♦♦j♦ // �► It - , •'r'1 ♦III♦I♦�� WM ��-- +• lira , y1 ry� ,i ww C1t+ 1 I 1 it y� t � \\� L''I...r-� w� artx€^rte Rk ' �� 9� � I � -•- • •- r r 1 All omit tt ab �� i Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 13) Setbacks Building : 24' NCD, 22 . 5' Anacapa, 22' south, 14' west Podium : 15' NCD, 15' Anacapa, 74" south, o' west 09/01/2o16 Community Development Department- Planning Division 17 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 f1te�r . . - Ad 4jon _P ting f 13) swltF p,• dam" '4„nku° `"9."i"�.'_a^ FO gS.l Z y w 4 r= ct R Y Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting _ _ I — 0 Newport C 13)PROPERr> It It jl'ij 4" 21I I 2f-V ter 12'-0" (7F I I II I I I I I Switch it Storage I Gear 54 SF 640 SF 14^ BLDG SETBACK I � - —v .� — I I 24 A3a Generator 9 I L 570 SF I I " {��I I I s^ — L - � — — C I VISITOR I Z 4 PARKING DNI C m I LuB 07113/2012 + 19 � A3.4 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 Atem-Nome{-Additional M ting Figure 9 150 N 13) Trash Truck Path of Travel Newport Center0 - Ve o s r' 4 a. A� IL Legend Inbound Trash Truck = 07/13/2012 _Outbound Trash Truck 20 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 13) Open Space ■ Common Open Space Required : 2, 625 sq ft (75 sq ft/du) Provided : 8, 351 sq ft Private Open Space RM Requirement : 5% of gross floor area/unit, 6, o19-sq -ft PC Requirement: 30 sq ft/du (50% of units) 11, 963 sq ft provided 09/01/2o16 Community Development Department- Planning Division 21 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 13) Parking Residential Unit Parking : ■ 7o required go provided in private basement level garages Guest Parking : 18 required 25 provided ( z at grade) Required ADA parking is included in the project design 09/01/2oi6 Community Development Department- Planning Division 22 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 113) Floor Area Requested/Recommended 131, 878 square feet ( 2 . 41 FAR) Dwelling Units 21185 to 3, 309 square feet/ dwelling unit 09/01/2o16 Community Development Department- Planning Division 23 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 13) Construction Management Plan To comply with construction hours of Municipal Code 2 days include construction staging beyond typical construction hours in Municipal Code All equipment staging to occur on - site, haul trucks to stage at County Landfill off Newport Coast Drive Lane closure at Anacapa for a maximum z -week duration . No full street closures are proposed . Temporary street and sidewalk closure permit required at the discretion of Public Works (ex. not during holidays) 09/01/2oi6 Community Development Department- Planning Division zq Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 Item No. 3q Additional Materials Presented at Meeting University 150 Newport Center (PA2O14-213) f;\ of California tine MHa �/M 1 WW.. ...,..... uw. mai.. • 1 !`. f - � l t \ County 'f (1 Landfill C Site t `� l.,, o H, is„ 1 1 Go qle HAUL ROUTE FROM NCC SITE TO 73 ROUTE FROM LANDFILL 016Google l000ftL Left on Anacapa Right on Newport Coast Drive from Landfill Right on Newport Center Drive Right on San Joaquin Hills Road Right on San Miguel Left on San Miguel Drive Left on MacArthur Blvd to The 73 Left on Newport Center Drive Left on Anacapa Drive Date: 3-25-2016 09/01/2oi6 Community Development Department - Planning Division 25 Landscape Planting Plan AN ap IP gi!li PRO 0 Li 1. ..... .JW1 aim WINA=W- ------------------- ---------------- - - -- -- --------------------------------- ---------------------------- Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 13) Tentative Tract Map VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17915 FOAEWPM BEAC nUFfVSES OMM N hE CITY OF NE1VPOtiT BEACH,COUHfY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALFOFM AUGUST b,2015 i i ANAdJA M SNE ADDRFBS L=win`m DESCNFTION� ""'"°"" ^ - LOT 1 / tl. . _ m' :.a"=-U�� ..r,.�•, v r I .s« i \� J'� FM r lime LEGEND BENCHMMR EMMNG EASOn v� OWNER/SUBDMDER ''=y mr vsm. m u re v.n�e aurum.u a v v ® wom'�^rae."�n nlw er uw.n.K ® ams<avaa s�anno�nimvr. ne CMLE'NGINEE0.�a va 61SI50F BEARING �v��we su ue qrm rumrrr vv�• r�on+� ' a/vgw_L i mrt v FLOOD HA OD STAEEMENT _ CITY OF NVESTING TENTATIVE r FUSCOE TRACT MAP NO. 17915 EWPORT BEACH z� Rm qa r I Development Agreement 07/21/2016 Community Development Department- Planning Division 28 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 13) Development Agreement Public Benefit Fee : s63, 000/unit + CPI increase adjustment = approximately s67, 000/unit = $3 . 283 million Term : lo years Payment prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy Community Development Department- Planning Division 29 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 13) Conditions - Suggested Modificationc.- • Condition No. 83, "Trash truck service shall occur outside of AM peak hours (7:3o a. m. to 9:oo a. m.) and PM peak hours (5:00 P. m. to 7:00 P. m.). " ■ Condition No. 93, "Lane closures shall not occur during the holiday season (Thanksgiving through New Year's Day). " ■ Add Condition No. 96, "Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Planning Commission shall review the final exterior building materials, landscaping, and resident site amenities for substantial conformance with the project plans as approved ." 07/13/2012 Community Development Department - Planning Division 30 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 13) Next Steps oz a a.C'dt/FORN' To-date, 13 public comment letters have been received since the prior Planning Commission meeting on August 18, 2016. Proposed addition to Condition Nos. 86 (trash service outside of peak hours), 93 (lane closures outside of holiday season), and 96 (PC review of building materials, etc.) . Staff memorandum and redline PC-56 regarding prohibition of transfer of development rights within the North Newport Center Planned Community. Provide a recommendation to the City Council for the requested applications. Community Development Department - Planning Division 31 I I r 46 I *i N # a ti 4 M I _ For more information contact: - Makana Nova,Associate Planner 949-644-3249 — mnova(a new port beach ca.gov www.newportbeachca.gov Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 13) Newport GPGoal - 14 1 ■ "A successful mixed - use district that integrates economic and commercial centers serving the needs of Newport Beach residents and the subregion, with expanded opportunities for residents to live close to jobs, commerce, entertainment, and recreation, and is supported by a pedestrian - friendly environment . " Community Development Department- Planning Division 33 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 13) General Plan Analysis a a.C'dt/FORN' LU 6 . 14.4 Development Scale ■ "Reinforce the original design concept for Newport Center by concentrating the greatest building mass and height in the northeasterly section along San Joaquin Hills Road, where the natural topography is highest and progressively scaling down building mass and height to follow the lower elevations toward the southwesterly edge along East Coast Highway. (Imp 2 . 1, 3. 1, 4 . 1) " Community Development Department - Planning Division 34 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 13) • breenfight � z 423 = a a.CSC/FORN' Increase in Increase in Increase in Increase in Allowed Floor A.M. Peak P.M. Peak Allowed Area (sq. ft.) HourTrips HourTrips Dwelling Units • • Newport213) o O O 35 Drive PriorAmendments : •% O O O 1. . . : . . • 0. 211000 O 0 O 2. . . . . . 'A • • : • 16,800 0 0 35 ThresholdsSection 423 y0,000 3.00 Zoo 100 - 15 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 ting 13) Basement Level Floor 241p 74-0' TVP 'tl '6' -0' W6 3pJ' 9.IC Mein va&a wb "> VaOa vHa 1 ?� II Gat Motor 5N 66 I 68 66 IMNar I 4%8f ' ' ' Iran —,I W-K -- S7 RS Tp' 17d' 1 I2'6 176 123I7f I26' OF 176 96 II I 4 GIL�����wJl 5\Mtd� b I_____�nHioEarnw IM I ���nfsil>EnTAOA Gaal I ST LL IT fJ' 1'J' TJ' STA gesl0enl Mg l TJ' I fJ' rB f! F-6126 I f6 4B f{ Bd' fd' fB fd' 46 BB storage BIW SETBACK _ s I - I 1 Lobby I 1 1 ItSevato I L.Deer y¶I' I Prl I ! I_ Lobby 1i .� Meehs 1 i «� L `7 Ma Iry I 1 m B'P' f6 BE' do' Bf 12 fd' 'P'E' W77L B6 yl Gqg •ASITOa qJ• I'J' IB' I:1' 1'J' PMKMG oAMINe I I I culcwwoac Amon MA I _ srAnae_ b N au a+ -TM 178 41. RB 176 ITB 11B IRf 12{• ITS 128 1l6 17C 17B 126 ITB Iftl IT{• I 1 I 1 I I I I I s . I.M.Ti — a rT I I T I Meeh ed BF _ _ _ Mfi SE --14BSF— _ 9B6 Sr— - -946^r- _ va t _ _ ;w w _ _ ]n7l w _I 1 I I I 2TIP 1 2!4' 346 3TT 33'6 33{' 3M 306 3FT i I I I 1 311'.5' 09/01/2o16 Community Development Department- Planning Division 36 I Entry Level Floor Plan T r iii:.°.::: �.. 1110 Y q.ou Ill !■I M�• Ilh'�III' I Roof Deck Level I ■ilr�ii - ��rt� �I Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 Item No. 3r Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) 230' MID HT. OF ROOF — 2-20'Fr TOP OF ROOF Lu C? III o coco "' o �— — — — — — — — 18 4-51 _PODIUM 17 MEASURED GRADE AF MEASURED GRADE — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — 158' STREET LEVEL (LOWEST POINT) STREET LEVEL 150 Newport Center Drive 875 San Clemente Drive (The Colony) • Height = 50' (65' Max per MU-H3 or 50' Max per block 100) • Height 1 = 50' (200' Max) • Unit Count = 35 • Height II = 64'-6" (From Street Level) • Lot Area = 54,686 SF (1 .26 Acre) • Unit Count = 245 • Density = 28 DU/AC • Lot Area = 278,784 SF (6.4 Acre) • Density =38 DU/AC _229'. — MID HT. OF ROOF 238'. 11 HT. OF ROOF — — — — — — — 0 0 LU - w w 6J 0 LU 25W 0 C IY —171 EASURED GRADE B Z:::t1591 1683 EASURED GRADE A — — — — — — — — EA URED GRAD 159' STREET LEVEL 126 STREET LEVEL 1101 San Joaquin Hills Road (Villas at Fashion Island) Santa Barbara Condominiums/Meridian • Height 1 = 60'-0" (65' Max) Height 1 = 69'-6" (65' Max) • Height II = 105'-0" (From Street Level) Height II = 79'-0" (From Street Level) • Unit Count = 524 Unit Count = 79 • Lot Area = 699, 138 SF (16.05 Acre) Lot Area = 186,001 SF (4.27 Acre) • Density = 32.6 DU/AC Density = 18.5 DU/AC BUILDING HEIGHT + DENSITY 1150 mNffi NEWPORT CENTER + P A R T N E R s Lq >"s '�, s>a:" Y x'+r . -_ _ � _ , ��: { r;•-. '- ."'1 .''p � +�_ '.- _ M' .' Z` � r pv � _-.(0. r �-`- - .: '.,» , _ -c-` '-'�-_._ - •' _ .. 7 _ ." _ 'i ..rai .# '.z,=:� !" 3aA7iU.+Ir. _ '�--� � � _ - . _ A° -:., ; -moi ,:ter'. <- •.r .c..-.\rr9 _ _ :s4.:_, n: t,; �"2 C.ef ✓•i �<';z. +c: .a.GS /. .}f(! -.,L...rs:i. -y,e. .:...Y. ,'..pr:.^_ s+ vxrt M * G`Iw IN- _10 }V _ _ - - -. ..'3_ ._ +q..� .. ��,.11 ...* _ ., \.�...y _ , - ,•; � 1 _ �- _ _ p .i- s$�>-._+GIA __ _ � - :, - . . -"+, ''� X � e. .�nl.Y -. ,. � � • .. ,. i - '_vT _. - I�� . '`yy�_ .1�:'�� r ,_'s _... _ -. , , �_. p � :� 4-• ..r° "' �` f.' �' r '.'r'sG'^' .t. - - "'�:-._MnG. � � < i.4'!"kY .r• �-� qs, 0 -�. r. . _. -� . 'max � ..:, . � _ 5b _ ,,• --"t o�$f `�,,._ _ - - -- ,. of` low . LI, Ys" _ - . . Tt •. -. .. - - r - — p IN a . �:.. :�. • �.,1 � ` -m^ a � ` �j ! >• - - s- .: ? / -.-. re �_:.. .c � � �>r,. - - - �� +1._r- (t ,:3'>r �-' y� ai.:S � '�"a`r' ' tv� 4L r s � y r � �. _ _ _"�- v -s.�y,-yam✓ .,� _ - _ - Y _ � r .ilaq - ro "-'L=t.= '�+(eu,,l s, - - Y.. �. l— � .. .. {.._. ,.. - !�m�. _ ;, � ��t-.. - � Z--�*.. .._ _s-:n`Y- G -"y'L'l_> • �ti\<- - ,. �r ar 41„ q �,..,. i+a��tp .e:_q ,al�'� '.. � � • � -G, , $ } at ,r-• f, ­ Aw Y-.,' -;"`Y'q ,-� ;,L _. .,rte°. ,.. --.. - �'< L^'7 '':"'4%�' _ .r 'e•1. ..',V] s'- .., J W-. -t_.f- - . . > rT, ��<ep' `> •- . .,.i'..v. .: M.� .._=^'�`L - "Y ' ?-. - ?i;. a. '�: - .���'e` _ '4. JWI � >� � '4 '�. � -3 �• � LIQ r e ''¢ ^ a b:. ;.. \�. •. t. �`,' _- t. � .;y. � .' :*� -e_ _ e, ,..`t` - _ . iib `"a _ `� - .. r .,,L �G$� ,� Y•-•.{�.,. r� ��' - ...... '.... ' ..'- --L�-:._L--: � J//.-v ity 1�', 'F J��1_ a �-'Tp s. ♦ .I-v y • .. -arc^T. ti+— . _ .A,- r _ •aL s 47-1 1 y /�'✓ ., . II ; AL Ifa • ` r r q _ y _ 1 O .>,§- 40 , r Y .r p �• j_' va• r,- - _ it. '�, - ./f Xt' � ` a , • , h - ,J ^ .-.: ;' •_•� \� .-. , � r:., � 1' .fir *, 71 q J 71' % /a•mr] ��` � �\ . .. l\� O '�l� _e,�f 'e i �\/�/�//��^®'(�'�(/^�Q�G''l'gL t - - s ,' i"/'`_ r,I r i _ - t� I\ Ar NOW rI j •„ a , 1 r. e',/ -. ._: � •y \\ R I _i ;e, _ - � / �\ 5... � 4 - � .,F.c :d "`� -` i r i- a-Is- •�h y Ji yU9 /�. \\ � yy -A° fir' \'✓s - Y +, �'�'( I r - a � _: . Int--.; ., ' �,.,, r ;,�'�. ,. , iMg:�,.,' ,.aJ' e +/.. �1 � - - _ mss` � r<, � "%"o s` _ ./ 'Q „` •�.y�.. y (. :u i' I '': ✓ ,... _ ,Mn � '' .�+ " . � - ^ ., .n,,. A - e4-. >/ f. �r J:� y+Tr� "t3 o li , w « a • ,��� MMM ; _.,QY. �' .. .; „ t{ ., - � / .. '. ^wa ,..• ,_., im ,. . _aP. _ -., Y .c � t. I. �Jr v . I '.1,. A .- k . :, J :. .. `. x ; (\._. .• - w..+ t` ,✓ +,e. n ,`>t 1 - �Y' y.,,/ 1 - i .j _ ,>.. .._ /�� :-. ,� . ,< .y y�'s eS . .� '- -..,: •-� - ' cam, '�' ' '�.. � -- , Y f V / « f4 , _ y q� - ) . II s AA ,�°'Q,a :� .. f- „� ,., '_-_ �+:1►,;� � .. .:..1. � .. <� .r--- ..,-'-.. � \.:. . �: ....e r / F Vis.. y" '�� . e - _ 1 � "- v la a.. ..v. ,:i:: � / ,:- ....,, pe. F. J, .S\.\ ' fv. ••f^�! ,'�.- `u.. �c.�i t' _ �/�� ; / v i -.: ..y 19 ']J r / / ., �,a.F +. .: \ ,.. ♦ .ice, ;., a 1 A - � 'I i ._� a .. ��! ,Y: vv}4� 'Ilk " r t ll w ' J,• 71 ILL rlNe ,' , \. .. I: .YEYYVI - /C__ + aw eel ILI 40 - u ,.; �_j.. ,J ,/-l_1 _ . I ' �� _ S-_- - - ._''\,__'.•� '• � 11.' 11 _ -� .-,:,+ '-• � '�� _, Yf '1�-�-:, '_� _ ___ . .. _ , I ;,�. ��, /:,. � f - �, - i. -.. � .♦ 'r i. l 4 l ..A \ 'Cd..f ..;� �f/' £{ems 7 �5� r. --�,_ r � :~ W.t� / {� `fir 1S_ / 'roti �\ % i-""�-�ry k� '� ••,� / �/' Goo leearth ., ri 1•. _ �' _ iat. y _c L. -� , -- I V J La; \ l W ImaS.ae♦ro.. � m � l `r -. .. / '+`� ♦...c1, ♦ tg y`t -Y 'i � �I oye[©CQ�'Q w>X,IIfGf Y: !� � �_// :• f DTaso,]Ja „ J. 1i e,/ � ' �• yi - -. �l �i` .}/ � t�,i r�. � i urJ- � "-s _ ci � Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 Item No. 3r Additional Materials Presented at Meeting _ 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) MID HT.OF ROOOF'- - — - - - - - - - — - — - — - — - - — - HT.OF ROOF~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- 230' MID HT.OF ROOF- - TOP OF ROOF ' 4 � & 4 f - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17E, 4 EASURED GRADE B -1i, _ _ 168.3' EASURED GRADE A - - - - - - - - - - - EA UREO GRADE - - - - - - - - - - - - - — - - - - PODIUM _ 1 180' - STREET LEVEL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -- - _ _ - -- _ — _ _ — _ - — _ _ _ _170,:, MEASURED GRAM MEASURED GRADE 158' — - - - - - 165.5,5, STREET LEVEL(LOWEST POIN-T� STREET LEVEL -r-- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - STREET LEVEL 150 Newport Center Drive 875 San Clemente Drive(The Colony) 1101 San Joaquin Hills Road(Villas at Fashion Island) Santa Barbara Condominiums/Meridian Height= 50'(65'Max per MX-H3 or 50' Max per block 100) Height 1 = 50' (200'Max) Height 1 = 60'-0"(65'Max) Height 1 = 69'-6"(65'Max) • Unit Count= 35 Height 11 = 64'-6" (From Street Level) Height II= 105'-0"(From Street Level) Height II = 79'-0" (From Street Level) Lot Area = 54,686 SF (1.26 Acre) Unit Count= 245 Unit Count= 524 Unit Count= 79 Density= 28 DUTAC Lot Area= 278,784 SF(6.4 Acre) Lot Area= 699,138 SF(16.05 Acre) Lot Area= 186,001 SF(4.27 Acre) Density=38 DU/AC Density= 32.6 DUTAC Density= 18.5 DUTAC - CITY of NEWPORT BEACH Newport Center: MU-H3 (General Plan/Housing Element, Section 5.52): GENERAL PLAN Figure H9 The General Plan identifies the goal of creating a successful mixed-use district that integrates economic and commercial centers NEWPORT CENTER/ 9 9 g ` © r. FASHION ISLAND serving the needs of Newport Beach residents and the sub-region, with expanded opportunities for residential development, The CO- C56 Sub-Area -PF MU-H3 Land Use Element creates a new residential land use designation of Mixed-Use Horizontal 3 (MU-H3) on the northern portion of the 6 � Element c� �-= - ' � � subarea. The MU-H designation provides for the horizontal intermixing of regional commercial office, hotel, multi- family residential, j Land Uses P Housing Ooportunities and ancillary commercial uses. - MU-H3-Mixed Use Horizontal RM-Muni-Unit Residential / Other Land Uses " �, � — CndUsesralCommemial The Irvine Company (TIC) is the main land owner/developer in the Newport Center area. A Planned Community Development m ` 245 du � ,o _ CV-VsRor Serving Commercial Plan North Newport Center PC for TIC owned property within the Newport Center area was approved in December 2007. The MU-H3 p\ �' _ CR-Regional Commercial ( p ) p p Y p pp CO-R . 6 _ CO-G-General Office North Newport Center PC area comprises approximately 158.4 acres along San Joaquin Hills Road and Newport Center Drive, R �� - CO-M -Medical Office and consists of seven sub-areas. This Development Plan allows for the diversification of land uses in order to encourage new and ° _ CO-R- Regional Office original uses consistent with the Mixed-Use concept as established in the General Plan, including the development of 430 of the 79 d ; _'.i �� - PI -Private Institutions g p g p O -Public Facilities permitted 450 mixed-use units within Block 500, 600 and San Joaquin Plaza The development Ian and accompanyingtext sets p ( q )' p p �t OS -Open Space PR-Parks and Recreation forth the property development standards that govern development within the PC area. These standards include requirements for CV _ I / • Refer to Table LU2 Mu-H3 site coverage, building heights, setback line designations, off-street parking, vehicular access, signage, lighting, storage, screening PIC-560and Iandscaping.To facilitate the development of the housing and provide considerable flexibility, maximum building height is set at PR 65 feet and no maximum density limit was established, but rather maximum development limit of 524 dwelling units was set. PF l G RM 0 67 du \ CO-M n Sin Jo.�qun � a Plnv n COR ® OS s Q CO_R PC-21 PC-30 PC-47 PC-54 PC-56 PC-56 RM New Proposed PC Santa Barbara Sea Island Villa Point Newport Beach North Newport Center: North Newport Center: U-h13�PR \ Apartments Apartments Country Club Condominiums!Meridian Villas Fashion Island The Colony Granville 150 Newport Center ` N PC Acreacie 28.8 13.7 6.98 4.26 16.05 0 4 12.3 1.26 "" """" Dwelling Units 226 228 5 entitled/unbuilt 79 524 245 67 49 0 CO-r, OS Density du/acre 8 16.6 0.7 18.54 32.6 38 5.5 38.8 et Floor Area N/A " N/A " N/A " 245,578 873,033 414,328 N/A " 163,260 0 250 500 1,000 Floor Area Ratio N/A " N/A " N/A " 1.32 1.24 1.47 N/A " 2.99 CO-R 2 stories (32'/50' 2-3 stories 50' + apurtenances (200' " F Source: City of Newport Beach and EIP Associates Height max. 32'150' max. Unbuilt (39' max.) 65" (65' max.) 65" (65' max.) max 18' (28'/33' max.) 69' 6" PROJECT NUMBER: 10579-01 Setbacks: 7 Q PF Date: 20' from rights-of 20' from rights- Front way of-way N/A 15' 15' from rights-of-way 15' from rights-of-way 20' 24' from NCD 9°hWgy - pa ' FSP Sides 5' 5' '' 7' 0' 0' 8% lot width and 14�westerl aPL Table'y LL12 Anomaly ++N'' wr Rear r' S' 13' 0' 0' 10' 22' a ''^ Anomaly Statistical Land Use Development o E 111 Number Area Desi nation Limits Development Limit Other NOTES: Additional Information ° NOTES: ht is measured from finished surface, as opposed to averse rade North Newport Center Planned Residential ermitted in accordance 9 PP 9 9 Elcommunity 46 L1 MU-H3/PR 3.725 24 Tennis Courts with MU:HTI Floor area information is unavailable Figure_H09_Newport_Center.mxd August/2010 Building setbacks only BUILDING HEIGHT + DENSITY 150 NEWPORT CENTER + PARTNERS t ie - r - i MIN r ANIL .. � � �'�W� -�;. 1�, � ���aCChM• - . lkIlf a r tl ti R � 4 Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 Item No. 3s Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) ~ j! t * l u rte icti iq a 111 IHI ` 'r A +i THE TRUE NEED y' Urbanization Planning Commission - September1 • Item No. Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 1 Newport Center (PA2014-213) the ultimate oxymoron i; I ii r � le C• � --n �!'YP1P'�" � � .-� Y � y � �-- .` w.w ..ti . JJ�� ^�. . '•+�, Y�� _ u, •I J - ��9�1 1 Irl••' - _ "� i'� i ( - T._�.. A 4 f .�L. � ^I,1. r �� 'u'' � •�n�� �t �ii� r' � � � / ■ r I i i I 1 brand new historical landmark I THE PROJECT r -�� f •t Planning Commission - September 1 , 2016 Item No. 3s Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) L� Jtl J�4.` � � - 1 ' til pr' • the secret traffic environmental is out implications impact THE REALITY Respecting • Developers ' 111I s I I 150 NEWPORT Addressing Concerns