Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTPO75_BALBOA BAY CLUB EXPANSION I IIIIIIII I�191IIIII IIIIIII Ilnl IIIIII pll III III TP075 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACA COUNCIL MEMBERS REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES V PLACE: Council Chambers % TIME: 7:00 P.M. 'dt�l DATE: July 22, 1991 ROLL CALL , INDEX ya Crigliano, Branch Manager for Wells Fargo Ba presented an oil painting by Artist, Fran Kallik 'to Mayor Sansone for the City's penman tart collection. The 19XariNY RAL ARTS GRANTS were present Stockman, Chairperson of the ArtsPresent x x x x x x x A. R Motion I x B. Reading of MinuX- - Motioneting of July 8, All Ayes 1111 1991, was waivved as written, and ordered fil Motion x C. Reading in ful dinances andAll Ayes resolutions usi ation waswaived, and Ciwas ected toread by titles D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Sansonethe continue Ord 91-28 public hearing g: Zoning (94) ORDINANCE NO. 91-28, being, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF 'THE' CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING DISTRICTING MAPS NOS. 6 AND 23 SO AS TO RECLASSIFY PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-4 DISTRICT TO THE P-C DISTRICT; REMOVING THE SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION FROM THE SITE; AND ADOPTING PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BALBOA BAY CLUB, AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT [PLANNING PCA 739 COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 739]; AND USE PERMIT No. 3422 - A request of U/P 3422 the BALBOA BAY CLUB to allow hotel and restaurant uses in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club; AND TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 75 - A request Traffic by INTERNATIONAL BAY CLUBS, INC. , Study No.7' to approve a Traffic Study in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club. Report from the Planning Department. Volume 45 - Page 227 6 CITX OF NEWPORT HEACI* CODICIL MEMBERS MINUTES July 22, 1991 LL. \YLL\\\V\RO INDEX Letters in support from Philip H. McNamee, Mr. and Mrs. A.P. Miller, Ralph Berke, Don E. Olson, John A. Millar, Tom Fleming, Jim Roberts, Nelly Kelly, and Loren K. Wake; and letters in opposition from Dorothy Usedom, Ronald W. and Corrine E. Saurer, Iris M. and W. Glenn White, Susan and Gary Zimmerman, Donald L.' Burdorf, Betty Martin, Mr. and Mrs. Tom Hanks, Gene A. Sullivan, ; and r telephone calls in opposition from Claudette Buckley, and Joleen Hanks. Letter from Mike Soucek, suggesting a ballot initiative for final resolution of the Balboa Bay Club redevelopment. Letter from Joe and Judy Roesner with suggestions for alternative proposals, The City Clerk advised that after the agenda was printed, approximately 25 letters were received in favor of the proposed project, and approximately the same amount in opposition. The City Clerk further reported that a letter had just been received this afternoon from William Ray, Chairman of the Board, Balboa Bay Club, requesting this public hearing be continued to August 12, 1991, in order for the proponents to effectively respond to issues raised by Bayshores and Cliffhaven Community Associations, Dennis O'Neil, Attorney for the Balboa Bay Club, addressed the Council regarding their request for continuance. He stated that while they have diligently met and made specific modification proposals in their attempt to gain the total support of the two affected homeowner groups, the late timing of the original objections raised just prior to the July 8 meeting, and the subsequent delay of two weeks since the last hearing, has proven insufficient to effectively communicate with the association's membership. He summarized the number of meetings and discussions held since the July 8 Council meeting with the homeowner associations representatives, staff and economic consultants, and concluded that the design suggested by Cliffhaven and Bayshores resulting in a loss of 57 rooms was just not economically feasible. He stated that a counter- proposal was presented to the homeowner groups, suggesting a 21-room reduction, moving the service drive over 35 feet onto the Bay Club property, and reducing the height of the free-standing recreation facility at its highest point. However, the counter-proposal was not acceptable to the two groups, and as a result, the Bay Club is requesting a continuance to redesign the project. He urged the Council to not act on the project at this time as many of their technical consultants, and supporters are not in attendance. Volume 45 - Page 228 CITY OF NEUORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES , 7L July y 22, 1991 ROLL CALL INDEX In response to question raised by Mayor Balboa Bay Pro Tem Turner regarding the requested Club date of August 12 for continuance, Mr. O'Neil commented that they have no objection to continuing the hearing for 90 days if that is the desire of the Council. Mayor Sansone advised that he has received a number of telephone calls (in addition to letters) expressing overwhelming opposition to the Bay Club's project, and have asked him why is the project so big, and why does it have to be a 50 million dollar development? He stated these same individuals are also strongly opposed to the City Council extending the lease with the Balboa Bay Club for another 50 years. Mr. O'Neil responded that the proposed project, in order to be a sound economic investment, must remain in size to some degree. He stated they have attempted to work with City staff to come up with a plan that would be acceptable to the City in general, and they thought that by reducing the height of the recreational facility, reducing the number of hotel rooms, and moving the service driveway over, that they had responded to a number of the concerns expressed during their discussions with the two groups. As to their lease with the City, he stated they may not request a 50-year term, it could be for only 30 or 40 years as they are unsure at this point. They are trying to prepare a project that satisfies the City's development standards. Council Member Hart stated that the "discontent" being heard from the public is not just from residents of Bayshores and Cliffhaven. She stated this is not a "well-received" project. She felt the development needs a major redesign because of its bulk and mass being too high and the lack of open space going through the project. She also indicated it needs to be the type of development that will get the voters support to extend the lease over 25 years. Kevin Green, 2451 Marino Drive, President, Bayshores Community Association, addressed the Council and discussed the recent meetings held with the staff and representatives of the Balboa Bay Club, and advised that they have been unable to reach a compromise. He stated that their Board is still opposed to the project; however, they Are not opposed to continuing the public hearing as requested. i Volume 45 - Page 229 CITY OF NEIPI'ORT BEAC% � rc - COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES 22, 1991 ' ROLL CNLI INDEX Bill Hart, 2451 Bayshore Drive, Balboa: Bay addressed the Council and stated that Club the height of the project is one of about eight considerations, ,and the 26 foot height limit is a result of discussions with architectai planners and Bayshore residents. With respect to continuing the hearing, he stated that if this project is ever "going to fly," there will have to be a major redesign. He felt this matter should go back to the drawing board and Planning Commission because the more the public is aware of the details of the project, the more it is disliked. The City Attorney advised that the Council has four options at this time, i.e„ 1) approve the project; 2) deny the project; 3) continue the public hearing; or 4) table the issue. With respect to the lease, and the City's obligation to the Bay Club, he stated the lease provides that the City and Bay Club cooperate in the development of a master plan for the site, providing three pre-conditions are met. Once that has occurred, the City , has the obligation to consider, but not necessarily approve, a request on the part of the Bay Club for an extended lease. Susan Legrander, 507 Kings Place, representing Cliffhaven Community Association, addressed the Council and stated they are not opposed to continuing the public hearing if it will result in addressing all of the issues of concern. They are in , concurrence with the recommendations of the Bayshores Community Association regarding the project. Motion x Following comments by various Council Members regarding the request for continuance, motion was made by Council Member Cox to continue this public hearing to October 20, 1991. Motion x Substitute motion was made by Council Member Hart to close the public hearing and deny the project. Council Member Hart indicated she made the substitute motion, inasmuch as the project has 'not been well-received in the community due to increased traffic, height, bulk and mass. She stated if the substitute motion passes, it will give the Balboa Bey Club an opportunity to continue with the Club portion until the year 2011, or come back to the Council with a smaller project. Discussion ensued, wherein views here expressed by Council Members who were not supportive of the project as presented, as well as those Council Members who favored the request for a continuance. Volume 45 - Page 230 $CITY OF NWORT BEACH MINUTES COUNCIL MEMBERS .T�� `'Sn July 22, 1991 INDEX ROLL CALL The City Attorney commented that the Balboa Bay Council heard testimony on the Bay Club Club proposal for over a span of 3 hours on July 8, as well as additional testimony this evening. He stated that numerous documents have been prepared relative to the project; there have been proposed changes made to the Club's plan due to community input; and as a result, he felt the Council was within their right to take action on the project. He advised that the Bay Club still has the opportunity to go back and redesign the hotel and other structures on the site,, as well as consider other uses. Mr. OfNeil addressed the Council again regarding the substitute motion to deny the project, and stated that even though the last public hearing included over 3 hours of testimony, since that time the project has been redesigned as cited earlier in this meeting, Inasmuch as both affected homeowner groups are not opposed to a continuance, he felt the Bay Clubs request should be granted. He also pointed out that it was only 1- 1/2 months ago that the Planning Commission unanimously approved their project. He stated that if the substitute motion carries, he felt the Bay Club has been denied a fair hearing, inasmuch as they have been unable to present their revised plan. The substitute motion was voted on and Noes x x x x x x x carried. 2 Mayor Sansone opened the public hearing PCA 740 regarding PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT ' Zoning NO. 740 - A request by NEWPORT PLACE, Npt Pl DEVELOPMENT CORP. , to amend the Newport see'. Planned Community District (94) R ulations to reduce the current al cation to retail square footage and incr ase the allocation to office square foots a in Professional and Business Office Site No. 5. Report fr m the Planning Department. It was not d that if approved, the subject app cation will allow the occupancy of m e existing floor area by office uses in P ofessional and Business• . Offices Site No. of the Newport Place Planned Community. On June 6, 1991, the Planning cc issi reviewed this application and reco ended approval to the City Council. Mr. Bob ALleborn, wport Place Development Corporation, ddressed the Council and stated he was a ailable for questions. Hearing no one wishing to add as the Council, the public hearing was osed. Motion was made to adopt Resolution No. Res 91=83 Motion x 91-83, amending the Newport P1 ca All Ayes Planned Community changing the reta and office allocations in Professions and Business Offices Site No. 5. Volume 45 - Page 231 `� • City Council Meeting fly 199 Agenda Item No. D-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A. Ordinance No 91 28 (Amendment No. 739) Request to amend a portion of Districting Maps No. 6 and 23 so as to reclassify property from the R-4 District to the P-C District; removing the Specific Plan designation from the site; and adopting Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan on property known as the Balboa Bay Club, and the acceptance of an environmen- tal document; AND B. Use Permit No. 3422 Request of the Balboa Bay Club-to allow hotel and restaurant uses in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club; AND C. Traffic Study No. 75 A request of the Balboa Bay Club to approve a Traffic Study in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club. INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Applications The applications requested will, if approved, provide the regulatory framework for the redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club. An amendment to the Newport Beach Municipal Code is required for the redistricting and establishment of Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan for the Balboa Bay Club. Also requested is a Use permit to allow the establishment of hotel and restaurant uses on property designated for Recreational and Marine Commercial by the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan and the approval of a Traffic Study. Amendment procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.84 and Planned Community procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.51 of the Newport Beach 0 � . TO: City Council - 2. Municipal Code. Procedures for the approval of a Use Permit are contained in Chapter 20.K of the Municipal Code and Traffic Study procedures are in Chapter 15.45 of the Code and also in Council Policy S-1. Sugggsted Action Hold hearing, close hearing; if desired 1. Adopt Resolution No. accepting, approving and certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 143; 2. Make the Findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report; 3. Find that the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final Environmental Impact Report; 4. With respect to the project, find that although the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies certain unavoidable significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, the mitigation measures identified shall be incorporated into the project, and all significant environmental effects that can feasibly be miti- gated or avoided have been eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level, and that the remaining unavoidable significant effects, when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, giving greater weight to the unavoidable environmental effects, are acceptable; 5. Adopt Ordinance No. 91-28, being AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE BALBOA BAY CLUB AND AMENDING PORTIONS OF DISTRICTING MAPS NO. 48 AND 49 SO AS TO RECLASSIFY SAID PROPERTY FROM THE R-4 DISTRICT TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY (P-C) DISTRICT AND REMOVING THE SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION FROM THE PROPERTY (Pr A*tNANG COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO 7391 6. Approve Use Permit No. 3422 with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A'; 7. Sustain the action of the Planning Commission and approve Traffic Study No. 75. TO: City Council - 3. Bac ¢round The City Council considered these applications at the July 8, 1991 meeting, and continued the public hearing with the direction that the project applicant and the adjacent homeowners association representatives meet in order to resolve some of the outstanding issues. Staff has met with members of the Cliff Haven and Bayshores Community Association boards, and has identified several project mitigations which would resolve a number of the concerns. It is proposed that these be incorporated into the project. Additional Mitigation Noise• 1. The noise attenuation wall on the easterly property line shall be constructed prior to the commencement of other construction unless the applicant can demonstrate to the City Engineer that early construction is infeasible in light of anticipated dewatering or other construction activity. 2. That the same limitations on noisy construction specified in Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for Sundays and Holidays be required for Saturday. 3. That the loading dock area be designed in such a manner as to provide the greatest level of sound attenuation for the Bayshores Community. Design features may include the enclosure of the loading dock if this would not result in the focusing of noise to any adjacent residential dwelling. 4. No outdoor live or amplified music is permitted without the approval of a special events permit. In no event shall the sound associated with live or amplified music be audible from the Bayshores area. 5. No live or amplified music is permitted on any boat docked at the Balboa Bay Club. 6. That all doors and windows shall be closed during any performance of live or amplified music within the buildings. Traffic. 7. The City shall conduct a baseline traffic study on Cliff Drive, prior to installation of the entry traffic signal at the Balboa Bay Club. The City'shall monitor traffic along Cliff Drive, and if a significant amount of traffic results, the City will install new traffic control devices t6 make Cliff Drive less attractive to use than Coast Highway. TO: City Council - 4. Utilities, 8. All new and existing above ground utilities on the Balboa Bay Club site shall be undergrounded. Tgghting,. 9. That an exterior lighting plan for the Balboa Bay Club building shall be prepared. The plan developed shall provide for the subdued lighting of the facility such that a minimal impact to night views in the area is experienced. The City reserves the right to require a reduction in the intensity of lighting approved if it is found that the level of illumination is incompatible with residential uses to the north and east. Aesthetics. 10. That the sound attenuation wall on the easterly property line incorporate the following features: a. A staggered design within the Balboa Bay Club Site to minimize the visual impact of the wall. b. The wall shall be landscaped on the Bayshores side of the wall to give additional visual relief. The landscape plan shall be designed to soften the visual impact of the wall to the greatest extent possible while precluding plants which could be expected to achieve heights which may impact the views from the Cliff Haven area. 11. That the general Mediterranean theme architecture portrayed in the exhibits be implemented. Miscellaneous. 12. All charter boat activities conducted from the Balboa Bay Club site shall be subject to a commercial harbor activities or marine charter permit. ProRsed Modifications to Planned Community Text Modifications to the project have been proposed by the applicant to increase the setback along the easterly (Baysbores) property line, to relieve the mass of the structure on the Bayshores property line and on the Bay,shift the alignment of the service access road to the west, re-orient the athletic facility to perpendicular relative to the Bay, and lower the height to 29 feet maximum. In order to incorporate these changes, modifications to the Planned Community District Regulations and P-C Development Plan are required. TO: City Councif!5. The following modification to section B.2. on Page 9 is suggested to address the easterly property line setback: The minimum setback along the Bayshores property line ftieesfi xtttt shall be li ~ �' `-�- ` The side yard area maybe £yHesi tt S`� t w )fleet for a maximum of tWett t(6 Oe) of the side yard area. The remainder �2i�a}�v.w• of the sideyafd-afea along the ,Bayshores property line shall Rt bad k�e pi�ae£ tlaxee 9 ' fetes p� utitir sbaklfnta3;�is� mt tip*Jax �� Y• 16 of Landscaping, planters, walls {ur p J. T., � g� trellises, pergolas, parking spaces, subsurface parking areas and driveways shall be allowed in the setback area. J k—U` l pattt�xts•cs tfter patt t eases g all allo be aRoWo . to Rica ztc eis W sod a�texftduou ) r►crtaacb into the regttired sid rdrd setback. lurt '• tlte;h00 u hies ! stnxctstrte s1Qes not excied Attached to this report are exhibits which depict alterations to the P-C Development Plan. No. 4 shows the removal of specific top floor rooms to reduce visual mass and bulk. No. 5 shows the realignment of the service access road. No. 6 shows the reorientation of the athletic facility. The redesign of the athletic facility achieves two goals. Parking is.remQved from under the facility, allowing the height of the structure to be lowered to 29 feet maximum. The view corridor is also widened, although the parking for the athletic facility will be allowed in this area. Due to the lower height of the athletic facility which results from the new design, Section A. on page 9 of the P-C Text should also be amended as follows: Height limit shall be 35 feet as measured from existing grade, as defined in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. ie aetx cx'1it�r:shalS be titxii€eo t ;a t�trout bent izt �#tsdt asaastre The reduction in hotel rooms should also be reflected in the P-C Text. The Statistical Analysis on Page 3 should be changed to allow a maximum of 279 units for Area 1 - Club Facilities. Should the City Council desire to incorporate these changes into the Planned Community District Regulations, the Ordinance should be re-introduced and passed to second reading at the next City Council meeting. Requirement for Site Plan Review. It is the opinion of staff that these additional conditions 2arre reasonable and appropriate. Upon final action they will be incorporated into the mitigation measures and the statements of Facts, Findings, and Overriding Considerations. Compliance with some of these conditions will require the.exercise of judgement relative to the final plans of the Balboa Bay Club. It is therefore suggested that the final project design be subject to further review and approval of a Site Plan Review by the Planning TO: City Council - 6. Commission. This review would be limited to the architectural theme, exterior lighting program, design and landscaping of the easterly noise wall, the design of the loading dock area and service access drive and ft siting of the athletic facility and related parking. Ongoing Discussions The Balboa Bay Club and the homeowners association representatives are continuing discussions on issues and solutions relative to the height and mass of the structures. Staff may provide additional analysis via written or verbal reports to the City Council prior to or at the July 22nd meeting. It sbould be pointed out that alternate adjustments to the height limit or building envelope or site plan may also necessitate re-introduction of the Ordinance. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By Patricia L. Temple Advance Planning Manager Attachments: 1. Additional Responses to Comments (Final EIR No. 143) 2. No. 4 BBC Alternative 3. No. 5 BBC Alternative 4. No. 6 BBC Alternative 5. , Proposed Ordinance PL'L%..\CC\AMD\A739SR3 A RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BALBOA BAY CLUB EXPANSION AND REMODELING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #143 • Response to Letter from Jeffrey M. Oderman, Attorney at Law Dated July 5, 1991 Comment Response 1. Many of my neighbors and I will be This letter is made a part of the attending your July 8, 1991, meeting to administrative record for the project. voice our strong objections to the Given the lateness of the comment project. I am writing this letter in (almost three weeks after the close of advance of the meeting to set forth the review period), we believe it is concerns of a legal nature regarding the appropriate to address the issues inadequacy of EIR No. 143 that was raised in the letter by means of prepared for the project. I request that responses, additional mitigation this letter be entered into the public measures, additional staff reports, and hearing record. administrative ' findings rather than preparing supplemental environmental documentation. The Homeowner's Association (Bayshores) of which the commentor is a member was given a notice of preparation of the environmental document and a fairly detailed description of the project, but submitted no response. Bayshores was also given notice of completion and an opportunity to comment on the draft EIR on the date the document was first available to the public, but, again the City received no response from the Association or members during the review period. 2. EIR No. 143 is seriously deficient and This comment is noted for the record. The fails to measure up to the minimum comment appears to represent the opinion standards of adequacy required under or conclusions of the commenter but does CEQA. The EIR fails to adequately not raise any specific environmental issue. describe the project, the environmental We respectfully disagree with the setting in which the project is located, conclusions of the commenter regarding the the significant environmental impacts of adequacy of the environmental document the project,feasible mitigation measures and related analysis.This comment is noted that would eliminate those impacts, for the record. and a reasonable range of alteratives to the applicants proposal. Insofar as the impacts on Bayshores are concerned, EIR No. 143 provides virtually no information or analysis 1 Comment Response whatsoever. Indeed the EIR reads like a sales brochure promoting the project rather than as the "environmental alarm bell"it is supposed to be. 3. I strongly urge the Council to dg{ur This comment is noted for the record. certification of EIR No. 143 and ¢fir Again, the comment appears to the Balboa Bay Club Expansion and express opinions and conclusions of Remodeling Project. If for whatever the author rather than raising any reason the Council wishes to continue specific environmental issue. While consideration on the project in some we respectfully disagree with the modified form that is sensitive to the conclusions of the commentor, neighbors' concern, I request that EIR additional mitigation measures have No. 143 be completely rewritten to been imposed in response to these correct the deficiencies pointed out in comments and others raised this letter (and any others that may be subsequent to expiration of the review brought up by others during the written period. These mitigation measures comment and public hearing process) are specifically designed to modify the and that the EIR then be recirculated project so that it is sensitive to the for public review and comment prior to concerns of the neighbors rather than (re)consideration of the project. mitigating significant environmental Approval of the project based upon impacts. As indicated above, the EIR No. 143 as currently written would lateness of these comments dictate a be a violation of CEQA. course other than preparation of a newer supplemental environmental impact report. These responses, responses to other comments received after the review period, supplemental staff material, and the proposed administrative findings will provide the decision maker with additional information with which to assess sufficiency of the environmental analysis in the EIR. 4. As stated by the court in County of That portion of the comment that discusses T,,,.{r yo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 the holdings of two appellate court rulings CalApp.3d 185, 193, "[ajn accurate, is noted for the record. The City stable and finite project description in recognizes the importance of a stable and the sL g gm non of an informative and finite project description and can find no legally sufficient EIR" evidence of an inconsistency in the project analyzed in the various sections of the EIR. 'A curtailed or distorted project The project description consists oh description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. a. Three diagrams of the site and Only through an accurate view of proposed development, including a site 2 Comment Response the project may affected outsiders plan, landscape plan and construction and public decision-makers phasing plan; , balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental cost, b. Two full-page charts describing, in consider mitigation measures, detail, the extent of proposed development, assess the advantage . of comparing proposed development with terminating the proposal (Le., the existing floor area, and specifying the 'no project'alterative)and weigh amount of proposed development available other alteratives in the balance." to the general public; and (& at 192-193.) C. Ten whole or partial pages of text Accord, Santiago ounly Water District describing the requested approvals, v. County of Orange (1981) 118 components of the project, specific uses Cal.App.3d 818, 829-831 (held. EIR permitted on the site, the public access for sand and gravel mining operation provisions, the development concept, was deficient because of its failure to project objectives and proposed phasing of contain sufficient information describ- construction. ing the facilities that would have to be constructed to deliver water to the In addition, the EIR contains eight project site.) elevations showing the height of proposed structures as compared with existing Measured against the standard applied buildings for purposes of assessing the view in the foregoing cases, EIR No. 143's impacts from various points around the description of the Balboa Bay Club perimeter of the project. The hotel is Expansion and Remodeling Project is described as four stories on Exhibit 3, and deficient. The project description the number of rooms facing Bayshores can consists of a single reduced scale site be determined by reference to Exhibit 3 map with type so small it can barely be (the Site Plan). The mass and scale of the read (EIR,p. 30) and a short narrative proposed hotel along the Bayshores summary (Ld at pp. 35-38) that property line is clearly described in Exhibit provides virtually no information 16 on page 108. For reference, Exhibit 16 needed to assess environmental impacts also compares the proposed structure to and feasible mitigation measures existing buildings on site. The EIR also relative to Bayshores. Nowhere in the states that 'a four-story building containing EIR are any building elevations guest rooms will be located between the provided that would permit a reader of restaurants and the Bayshores the EIR to determine the height of the neighborhood' (See EIR page 90). The buildings along the Bayshores property height of the structure closest to Bayshores line, the mass and scale of those is limited to 35 feet above existing grade buildings, or the extent of view blockage and the number of stories does not appear and invasion of privacy. Nowhere in relevant to analysis of environmental the EIR is there even any indication of impacts., The hotel will be four stories the number of stories or rooms in the high, but the first floor is partially hotel facing Bayshores. (The EIR depressed and does not contain any guest makes vague reference to a 2-to 4-story rooms. Additional information regarding building at pages 30 and 90, although 3 Comment _ Response the project applicant indicates the hotel size and bulk can be found in various would be 3 stories next to Bayshores.). sections of the environmental document. Bayshores did not advise staff or the EIR Consultant of any concerns relative to size, height or bulk of the proposed structure along the Bayshores property line during the review period or in response to the notice of preparation. Staff evaluated the potential impacts preliminary to completion of the initial study and tentatively concluded the impacts would not be significant. Further analysis of the possible impacts, and the absence of any comment from the Bayshores Community Association, confirmed this conclusion. Accompanying this response are 11 photos of the club property taken from various locations within Bayshores, with the proposed structure outlined in black. These photos indicate the extent to which the proposed structure is visible from certain key points on the private streets and private property in Bayshores. The bayside building, which extends bayward of the proposed structure as depicted in Exhibit 3 will be removed in conjunction with the project, improving bay and marina views along east Bayshore Drive near the private beach. The City Council will make the final decision as to the significance of any impact on Bayshores. 5. Nowhere in the EIR is there any The EIR specifies that 'a loading dock definitive information regarding the is situated on the Bay Club property location, orientation, or size of the on the side closest to Bayshores: loading dock for the proposed hotel in This site plan shows a loading dock relationship to Bayshores that would but does not identify the area as such. enable a reader of the document to The EIR acknowledges that loading evaluate noise impacts and the and unloading operations can result in feasibility of measures for reducing or noise, although the significance of the eliminating those impacts. Nowhere in impact of a loading dock for a project the EIR is there any information of this size is questionable. In 1 regarding the elevation of the access response to comments and testimony driveway proposed for trucks and other at the Planning Commission, service vehicles that would apparently ' additional mitigation measures will be 4 r0 1 • Comment Response nun along the Bayshores property line, imposed that insure no significant information necessary to assess noise noise impact on Bayshores. These impacts. conditions include: 1. Noise resulting from outdoor functions such as parties, large gatherings and weddings which include music shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., or as otherwise permitted by the approval of a Use Permit. 2. That all hotel facilities facing the Bayshores area, including guest rooms, be designed to eliminate potential noise spillage which could result from radios, televisions, etc., as well as noisy party activity. This can be accomplished by designing the facility with no operable doors or windows facing the Bayshores property line, and/or through enclosure of the proposed facilities. 3. All parking and loading areas shall comply with the noise criteria set forth below. A. The following noise standard shall be established for all exterior noise-sensitive areas within residential areas located within one hundred (100)feet of a parking or loading area: Noise LevelTime Period 55 DBA7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 50 DBA10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. B. Exterior noise-sensitive areas shall include all yards, decks, patios, terraces, balconies and rooftops and other private open space areas of a residential lot designed and used for outdoor 5 0 ` ,f Comment ResRQnse living and recreation with the exception of driveways and parking areas. C. Noise generated from loading areas shall not exceed: (1) The exterior noise standard for a cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minutes in any hour; or (2) The exterior noise standard plus five (5) DBA for a cumulative period of more than fifteen(15)minutes in any hour; or (3) The exterior noise standard plus ten (10) DBA for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; or (4) The exterior noise standard plus fifteen(15) DBA for a cumulative period of more than one (1) minute in any hour; or (5) The exterior noise standard plus twenty (20) DBA for any period of time. D. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four (4) noise limit categories above, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under said 6 M • Comment Response category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. E. The following noise standard shall be established for all interior noise-sensitive areas within residential areas located within one hundred (100) feet of a parking or loading area: Noise LevelTime Period 55 DBA7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 45 DBA10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. F. Interior noise-sensitive areas shall include any habitable room meeting the requirements of the Housing Code for sleeping, living, cooking, or dining purposes, excluding such enclosed places as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms, garages and similar spaces. G. Noise generated from loading areas shall not exceed: (1) The interior noise standard for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; or (2) The interior noise standard plus five (5) DBA for a cumulative period of more than one (1) minute in any hour; or 7 Comment _ Resgonse. (3) The interior noise standard plus ten (10) DBA for any period of time. In addition, based on concerns expressed by the commentor and others during testimony before the City Council, additional noise mitigation measures will be imposed including the following: 1. The noise attenuation wall on the easterly property line shall be constructed prior to the commencement of other construction unless the applicant can demonstrate to the City Engineer that early construction is infeasible in light of anticipated dewatering or other construction activity. 2. That the same limitations on noisy construction specified in Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code for Sundays and Holidays be required for Saturday. 3. That the loading dock area be designed in such a manner as to provide the greatest level of sound attenuation for the Bayshores Community. Design features may include the enclosure of the loading dock if this would not result in the focusing of noise to any adjacent residential dwelling. 4. No outdoor live or amplified music is permitted without approval of a special events 8 0 Comment Response permit. In no event shall the sound associated with live or amplified music be audible from the Bayshores area. 5. No live or amplified music is permitted on any boat docked at the Balboa Bay Club. 6. That all doors and windows shall be closed during any performance of live or amplified music within the buildings. Based upon the foregoing, the project will not generate noise that could have a significant impact on the environment. Finally, the City has received specific information regarding the elevation of the loading dock and the City's consultant has determined that the noise attenuation wall on or near the easterly property line will be from 8 feet to 12 feet high. In addition, the applicant has modified the project by relocating the service road 35 feet to the west of the original location. 6. Nowhere in the EIR is there any The applicant has agreed to modify the reference to whether or not guests in the project to increase, by 18 feet, the setback upper-story hotel rooms overhanging the originally proposed from the Bayshores Bayshores community would have properly line. With this modification, the access to their balconies or whether the proposed hotel is setback a minimum of 83 doors and windows of those rooms feet from the 5 or 6 residences closest to would be sealed shut, information the project. (Please see photograph of necessary to assess noise and privacy project site from water showing existing impacts. bayside building,line of proposed hotel and the residence on the corner of East Bay Shore Drive and alley adjacent to project site. Incorporate reference to Exhibits showing relationship between east wing of proposed hotel, existing bayside building setback, and large residence on ally 9 0 4 ) 3 Comment _ _ Response adjacent to project site if available.) The Planning Commission imposed a condition on the project that prevents guests from accessing balconies or opening any doors and windows along the Bayshores side of the hotel. In the event doors or windows are capable of being opened, the balconies must be enclosed. Finally, numerous additional noise mitigation measures have been imposed as discussed in response to Comment No. 5. 7. Nowhere in the EIR is there any The lighting anticipated for the Balboa Bay information regarding the lighting which Club is low altitude lighting, below the would have to be operated all night elevation of the top of the wall. It is not long in the parking lot and along the set on tall lighting standards as might be side of the hotel building facing experienced in an industrial parking lot. Bayshores. Nowhere in the EIR is there Therefore, the lighting will not impact the any information regarding the Bayshores community,with the exception of composition or height of the wall that lights from the rooms themselves. This is supposedly would be constructed along no different an impact than if a residential the Bayshores property line or regarding structure were located there. The height of the type or extent of any landscaping the wall will be 8 to 12 feet. that would buffer Bayshores from the visual, noise, and lighting impacts of In response to the comment and the massive commercial hotel planned suggestions during a recent meeting with immediately adjacent to the Bayshores Bayshores community,the City will impose residences. additional mitigation measures relative to lighting and will require the project proponent to incorporate the following conditions into the project: That an exterior lighting plan for the Balboa Bay Club building shall be prepared. The plan developed shall provide for the subdued lighting of the facility such that a minimal impact to night views in the area is experienced. The City reserves the right to require a reduction in the intensity of lighting approved if it is found that the level of illumination is in compatible with residential uses to the north and east. 10 Comment Response 8. All of the foregoing information is It is the City's position that this information readily available. There is no excuse is contained in the EIR or has been made for not including it in the EIR The a part of the environmental process through fact that the information may be imposition of additional mitigation. It is available to the City from other sources noteworthy that the Bayshores community's is irrelevant. if the EIR is to serve its input was solicited during the Notice of dual purposes of informing decision- Preparation process through a Non- makers and the public, the information Statutory Advisement (NSA). This NSA required to be contained in the EIR described the facility in some detail, must be in that document. including the number of rooms and the Site Plan. Additionally, the Planning Commission imposed mitigation measures on the project which addressed these concerns. The impetus behind an adequate CEQA process is in part the imposition of additional mitigation brought forward by review of the EIR. CEQA encourages exactly this type of responsiveness on the part of lead agencies. 9. An adequate EIR must include a That portion of the comment which quotes description of the environment in the from the CEQA guidelines and expresses vicinity of the project, as it exists before the commentor's opinion is noted for the the commencement of the project [in record. In addition to the description of order to provide] an understanding of the Bayshores community on page 88, the the significant effects of the proposed entire community is clearly depicted in the project and its alternatives. aerial photograph depicted in Exhibit 9. (California Code of Regulations, tit. 14, The aerial photograph clearly shows the §15125.) EIR No. 143 completely fails layout of streets within Bayshores and the to satisfy this requirement. number of houses immediately adjacent to the project site. The relationship between The EIR describes the entire Bayshores the project and private streets within community in a single uninformative Bayshores is shown in Exhibits 3, 4 and 5. sentence. (EIR, p. 88.) There is no In. addition, a more detailed map of the information in the EIR regarding westerly portion of Bayshores is attached to Bayshores from which a reader could the Southern California Gas Company get any idea of the extent of project comment. Scaled drawings and view impacts, the feasibility of mitigation diagrams were presented at the City measures, or the possible altematives Council hearing on July 8, 1991, and that would reduce or eliminate project additional documentation accompanies this impacts. response. As indicated earlier, a three- story hotel building is barely visible from most of the property in the West end of Bayshores. The structure is clearly visible from the private beach and portions of East Bayshore Drive, but the building at that 11 i 0 ' Comment Response location simply blocks views of the Terrace Apartments and elimination of the existing structure on the bay side will actually improve views of the bay and bay front. 10. The most overpowering impact of the Please refer to Response Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 9. Bay Club project as proposed would be In addition to the responses incorporated the construction of a massive 35 foot by reference, we have attached a scale high commercial hotel that would tower drawing showing the relationship between over the Bayshores community a mere the proposed east wing of the hotel, the 40-75 feet from our common property setback on the easterly side of the project, line. The EIR nowhere discloses the and the home that would appear to be open areas and the height and scale of most impacted by the project. The structures in the Bayshores community attached picture/diagram objectively adjacent to the common property line. depicts the height and scale relationship of Closest to the water, the proposed Bay this residence and the proposed hotel. Club hotel would hover over what is Finally,the owner of the residence depicted now a small; open, quiet,private beach in the photograph has installed opaque in the Bayshores community. Heading block glass in the openings along the west away from the water, the hotel structure side of the residence, suggesting that the would then be located directly in front current view to the west across the project of the terminus of Bayshore Drive, site is not worthy of preservation. which now has an open view through the Bay Club property which is one of the primary view corridors in all of Bayshores. Further inland the proposed Bay Club hotel would continue in an unbroken 35 foot high wall towering over adjacent one- and two-story residences that are probably no more than 10, 12, 15, or 25 feet in height. Because of the physical layout of the Bayshores community, many residents in the interior community can now look down to the Bay Club side of the property over and through the Bayshores residences (views that would be destroyed by a 3-story hotel). 11. The EIR makes no effort to describe Please see responses to comments 4,5, 6, 7 the unique character of Bayshores. and 9. And to the extent the comment Bayshores is a small private community relates to concerns relative to noise, with no through traffic, an under- lighting and mass, please see Response standing of this fact is necessary to an Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10. appreciation of the magnitude of the impacts on residents'privacy that would 12 • Comment Response result from a 300-room hotel oriented Bayshores is an extremely attractive to look over and into the neighborhood residential community with the density of 9 Bayshores is extremely quiet, a result of dwelling units per net acre. In terms of the lack of traffic and the fact that it is allowable development,the maximum floor now surrounded on three sides by water area ratio permitted on the Club site is 1.35 and the (low-intensity) Bay Club use; including above ground parking, while the this fact is critical to an understanding maximum FAR in Bayshores is 2.0. The of the change that would be perceived FAR for the project, including the Terrace in Bayshores with trucks beeping as they Apartments, is 1.08. Many of the older back up at the adjacent loading dock single story homes in Bayshores are being and the general intensification of the redeveloped with structures at or near the Bay Club use. Bayshores has no street maximum permitted height limit (24 foot lights and it is easy to stargaze on a basic height limit with a 29 foot maximum clear night, an appreciation of that fact ridge height). Redevelopment seems most is important to an understanding of intensive along the bay front where how exterior lighting along the side of a property values are the highest. Since the massive hotel wall and driveway and project is only 6 feet above the highest parking stricture (however screened to permitted ridgeline in Bayshores, the eliminate direct glare) would adversely setback is a minimum 58 feet from the impact the rural feeling in the neighbor- common property line and the closest hood Finally, Bayshores is composed residence would be 83 feet from the of custom homes with a unique small- easterly wing of the hotel, the scale character and charm; under- intensification of the use and the easterly standing that fact is necessary to an wing of the hotel will not impact the understanding of the total inappro- character of the neighborhood or result in priateness of shoving a massive any significant change in the physical commercial hotel immediately adjacent environment. to the community boundary. 12. The EIR does not contain a single Please refer to our responses to Comments picture of Bayshores, any narrative 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 as well as the descriptiory any baseline studies (such documents attached to this response. The as view analyses from various locations attached documents provide the view with Bayshores to and through the Bay impact data requested and confirm the Club property, ambient noise studies, absence of any significant impact on and the studies of the existing night Bayshores. As indicated in an earlier time light levels along the Bay Club response, ambient noise studies will not be property line) that would permit a a helpful analytical tool because of meaningful assessment of the project mitigation measures establishing a noise impacts in comparison to the existing performance standard which insures no environmental setting. impact on residences adjacent to Bayshores. Illumination of the project will be through low altitude lighting that is well below the elevation of the top of the boundary wall that divides Bayshores from the project site. 13 Comment Response Lighting will not be set on tall standards as might be expected in an industrial or commercial parking lot. The lighting mitigation measures will insure that the level of illumination is appropriate for Bayshores and Cliffhaven residences and .the City reserves the right to reduce the lighting at any time if appropriate. 13. The EIR devotes some attention to Please see Response Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 views from Pacific Coast Highway and and 12. The EIR devotes significant the Kings Road area to the north. With attention to view impact from Pacific Coast respect to Bayshores, however, the EIR Highway and Kings Road because those is either silent or positively deceptive. areas have significant sunset, water, and The only statement(s) in the entire EIR harbor views that require protection. that address Bayshores in the context of views claim that the project would The design of the hotel will buffer actually 'enhance" certain Bayshores Bayshores from noises that could come,and views. (EIR, p. 39.) The EIR is currently do, emanate from club activities apparently referring to the slightly and functions. The hotel, in view of increased view corridor that would mitigation measures recommended by the result from moving one small existing Planning Commission and staff, will not be building on the Bay Club property a source of noise to Bayshores or approximately 20 feet further from the Cliffhaven. We cannot envision any Bayshores property line. The EIR significant loss of privacy given the large totally fails to assess the extremely setback on the east side, the noise wall significant LQz of views and privacy that along the perimeter of the site and the would result from the approximately 35- landscaping proposed to buffer the view of foot high 400 foot long hotel "wall"that the wall by Bayshores residents. Any would extend along the balance of the minimal loss of privacy would not appear to Bayshores property line. Incredibly, in affect any physical change to the another place in the EIR (p. 90), the environment. There is no evidence to EIR makes the absurd claim that a 4- suggest that any minimal loss of privacy story hotel building along the Bayshores could result in any physical change to the property line would benefit the environment. Bayshores community by acting as a "buffer" between Bayshores and the restaurant(s) to be located in the interior of the Bay Club property. That statement is so absurd as to require no refutation. Bayshores does not need a 4-story (or even 3-story) hotel towering over its residents as a "buffer" What we need is something to buffer us from the hotell 14 Comment Response 14. The Bay Club property is directly to the With respect to the view impacts, please west of Bayshores. Construction of a see Response Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12, as well 35 foot high hotel along the entire as additional documentation which property line would permanently accompanies this response. eliminate the sunset for all Bayshores residents. The EIR fails to address this Staff can find no evidence of any significant issue entirely. sunset or low sun view across the project site. The existing fence and existing structures on the project site or structures off site, block views to the west by homes immediately adjacent to the property line. As shown in the photos and documents attached to these Responses, there are no significant views across the project site from East Bayshores Drive and existing homes along the property lines block views to the west from interior lots. Elimination of the Tayside" building will improve the 'sunset view' of a few property along East Bayshore Drive. 15. The significant environmental impact of Please refer to previous responses relative loss of privacy to the residents of to view and privacy impacts. Bayshores is not even mentioned in the EIR A minimum of 46 of the The five or six homes immediately adjacent proposed upper-story hotel rooms are to the proposed project are the only ones specifically designed to look into and close enough to the hotel to be impacted in through the private Bayshores terms of privacy. However, these homes community. The prospect of thousands will be more than 80 feet from the hotel of transient hotel guests each year with and the project includes construction of a direct views into our homes is very concrete block boundary wall and related disturbing to Bayshores residents. The landscaping to replace the existing chain security risks inherent in this situation link fence partially covered with are obvious. No EIR that ignores this bougainvillea. #We can envision no subject can be considered adequate significant loss of privacy (which is not an environmental affect) and construction of the more substantial fence should actually increase security. 16. The EIR acknowledges (at p. 6) that The EIR is incorrect to the extent it states: the potential for additional noise in adjacent residential neighborhoo&(i.e., "City does not currently have a noise Bayshores) is one of the issues that ordinance designed to protect residential needs "to be resolved" in the EIR In areas from non-transportation related noise fact, the issue is not resolved. The EIR sources:' The City has a comprehensive admits that the City 'does not currently construction noise ordinance and we 15 f Comment Response have a noise ordinance designed to vigorously enforce other provisions of the protect residential areas from non- Municipal Code and Penal Code that make transportation related noise sources. it unlawful to produce unreasonable noise. . . ." (EIR, p. 68.) The EIR then The City will impose numerous noise proceeds to the blatant non-sepuitur mitigation measures (See other responses that "[njoise from the loading dock on- relative to noise) that will ensure no site will be subject to control according significant noise from the project to the criteria set forth by the Municipal encroaches on the Bayshores community. Code . . . even though the Municipal Finally, the project has been modified to Code does not apply to this type of relocate the service road 35 feet to the west noise source." (EIR p. 95.) The EIR of its original location. and the noise study attached provide absolutely no analysis of the noise impacts from the access driveway for service vehicles and the loading dock that is apparently proposed to be located immediately adjacent to Bayshores. Without proper acoustical analysis, it is impossible to determine the true impacts of the project or to develop meaningful mitigation measures. The only mitigation measure proposed in the end for the loading dock deals with hours of operation. There is no analysis or discussion of mitigation measures such as relocating the loading doc1; re-orienting it away from the adjacent residences, screening it from direct view from the residences, or similar measures. 17 Another major concern Bayshores Please see Responses to other Comments residents have regarding noise is the regarding noise impacts. noise that inevitably would be generated by hotel guests,particularly hotel guests The term 'except to the extent required by in the upper-story rooms directly the Fire Department' means that doors and adjacent to the Bayshores property line. windows will be electronically locked and The project applicant has stated that the locks would be linked to a central fire upper-story hotel windows would be alarm system. In the alternative,individual sealed "except to the extent required by alarms could be installed on each window the Fire Department" (whatever that and door with appropriate warnings that means). The EIR totally fails to opening in the absence of an emergency discuss the subject, however, and fails would sound the alarm. Guests will not be to address any mitigation measure able to open windows or doors without intended to deal with the problem. sounding an alarm. This is an enforceable Bayshores residents are understandably mitigation measure and could not be 16 Comment Response suspicious that, once constructed, the eliminated from the project without rooms would not remain sealed. The Council review and certain findings which rooms are being designed with would not be supported by expectations of a nie facing(overBayshores)to the guests. water. Hotel guests paying high room rates would certainly expect to be able to get a breath of fresh salt air. Management trying to maximize room rates would inevitably want to eliminate the "experiment" of sealed rooms and open them up for the enjoyment of their guests. If rooms are being designed without exterior access, what is the purpose for the balconies? To collect pigeon and seagull droppings? 18. The EIR contains no information The conclusions and opinions of the regarding the environmental impacts of commentor are noted for the record. Our light and glare from the hotel and responses to previous comments relative to adjacent parking structure on adjacent the concerns of the commentor on Bayshore residences. An extremely Bayshores residents are incorporated by vague "mitigation measure" requires reference. exterior lighting to be approved by the Planning. ! and Public Works Departments. (EIR, p. 106.) There is no explanation, however, what impacts are being mitigated and how mitigation would occur. Not surprisingly, since the EIR completely fails to analyze environ- mental impacts, it concludes that most impacts (to the extent they are referenced at all) are "insignificant." Bayshores residents hotly dispute this unfounded conclusion, and contend that impacts arising out of the incompatibility of land uses, mass and scale of the hotel building, loss of views and privacy, noire, and lighting are extremely significant. See, in this regard, State CEQA Guidelines, f§ 15064(b), (c), and (h)(1), and Appendix G thereto, 1ls (a), (b), (p), and (u). 17 0 • t . Comment Response 19 "Mhen an agency is faced with a The reference to decisional and statutory project with significant environmental law is noted. The City Council has the effects, [it] has a duty under CE�A to right to impose, and has been given avoid or minimize environmental adequate information to analyze the impact damage whenever feasible." Sm of, any of the 'mitigation measures' Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. suggested in the comment. Many of the City and Counoof San Francisco mitigation measures proposed by the (1989) 209 CaUpp.3d 1502, 1514, commenter relate to impacts which are citing Public Resources Code§§21002, believed insignificant as indicated in the 21002.1(b), and State CEQA environmental document and earlier Guidelines, §15021. E1R No. 143 responses to these Comments. Specific completely fails to assess feasible additional responses to the measures mitigation measures, including without suggested in the Comment are as follows: limitation. 1. Elimination of the third-story would (1) Removing the upper floors of the reduce hotel height to 26 feet. Many hotel adjacent to Bayshores. of the existing structures on the project are currently at 34 feet and (2) Relocating hotel rooms more to the bayside building, constructed on the center of the project site, the property line and bulkhead line,is 28 feet in height. The hotel would be (3) increasing the 40.75 foot setback 3 feet lower than the maximum height along the Bayshores property line permitted in Bayshores, and 3 feet to a more appropriate distance of lower than at least one residence 200-300 feet. adjacent to the property line. There appear to be no significant effects that (4) Preserving the view corridor along would be mitigated by elimination of Bayshore Drive by pulling the the third-floor adjacent to Bayshores. hotel building along the Bayshores property line back and away from 2. The 18 foot increase in the proposed the water. setback has resulted in relocation of hotel rooms closer to the center of (5) Relocating or re-orienting the the project site. Additional loading dock away from movement of the hotel to the west Bayshores. would impact the view corridor through the center of the project and (6) Requiring installation of dense, alter the view impacts from mature, and tall landscaping Cliffhaven. Again,there appear to be along the entire Bay Club/ no significant impacts that would be Bayshores property line to screen mitigated by relocation. the hotel entirely from Bayshores residents. 3. The creation of a 200-300 foot setback would force all development (7) Eliminating upper floor balconies to an area much smaller than on hotel rooms which are not occupied by existing buildings. Assuming no reduction in allowable 18 Comment Response supposed to have exterior access square footage, structures would anyway. exceed the 35 foot height limit and view impacts would be more (8) Requiring detailed noise studies significant along Cliff Drive. from points within the Bayshores community to monitor any 4. The Council has the option of changes in ambient noise levels requiring additional Bayfront setback and requiring appropriate of the easterly wing of the hotel. mitigation (e.g., elimination or However, little or no view reduction of outside parties, improvement results from a significant removal of loudspeakers,rerouting increase in this setback because the of service deliveries or reduction homes along the property line and in hours of operation, etc.). other structures on the project site would impact what little view exists. (9) Requiring detailed lighting studies Bay views will improve under the to assess the existing levels of current proposed setback since the night time illumination in project calls for removal of the Bayshores and requiring any bayside building. lighting plan for the Bay Club property to not change the existing 5. The loading area is subterranean to condition. minimize noise and remove the activity from hotel occupants. The The few cheap and inadequate project has been modified to relocate "mitigation" measures that the project the service road 35 feet to the west of applicant has offered to Bayshores the location originally proposed. residents are no substitute for an Since the loading dock is adequate EIR and enforceable approximately 9 feet below grade, mitigation measures that are monitored substantial ramp distance is required. in accordance with CEQ4. As things The east side of the Bay Club stand, there is not even an adequate property is the only feasible location. informational basis upon which the Mitigation measures incorporated into City can judge the sufficiency of the the project will reduce any noise minimal mitigation offered (outside the impacts to a level of insignificance. CEQ4 process) such as the offer for an 6. The City is requiring landscaping of 8-foot perimeter wall (which will do the entire Bay Club/Bayshores nothing to shield Bayshores from the property line to screen the hotel and 35 foot high hotel behind it), wall from Bayshores residents. The landscaping to be installed by the height of the landscaping will be project applicant (which assuredly controlled to insure no impact on bay would be designed so as not to impair views from Cliff Drive. Bayshores the hotel guests'views over the wall and and Cliffhaven residents will have an into Bayshores), and the sealing of opportunity to have input on the type upper-story hotel room doors and and extent of landscaping during site windows on the Bayshores property line plan review procedures. (a condition which can be reversed at any time after the hotel is built). 19 0 • . Comment Reslionse CEQA does not contemplate decision- 7. The City Council has the right to makers and the general public being left eliminate upper floor balconies. in the dark regarding true environ- These balconies were incorporated mental impacts and feasible mitigation into the design before imposition of measures and then having to negotiate mitigation measures which prohibit with the project applicant to dole out opening doors or windows on the east partial mitigation measures with no side of the hotel. The balconies will analysis and little understanding of their provide architectural relief and make sufficiency. the hotel design consistent. 8. See response to previous comments relative to noise impacts. 9. See response to previous comments relative to lighting and illumination. 20. An EIR must consider a reasonable The City concurs with the citations to range of alternatives to the proposed authority and the requirement that an EIR project that would significantly reduce include a reasonable range of alternatives. or eliminate the project's adverse environmental impacts. See, e.g., The EIR concludes that the project, as Citizens of Goleta Vagg v. Board of mitigated, will not have any significant &Izervisors (1990) 52 CaUd 553, adverse environmental impact. Since there Citizens of Goleta Vaft v. Board of are no significant effects and the site is &pervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d currently developed, the "no project" 1167,and Laurel Lt ghtsLmUrovement alternative is not necessarily Association v Regents of the University environmentally superior. The commentor RE Calornia (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376. seems to admit that the site is currently less EIR No. 143 fails to include a than aesthetically pleasing and there isn't reasonable range of alternatives and adequate on-site parking because the Club fails to provide sufficient information or was constructed before current Zoning analysis on the alternatives discussed Code requirements. While there is considerable use of the Club by members The EIR's extremely cursory treatment of the public, access is still restricted and of alternatives (in the space of the"No Project"alternative would preserve approximately 4pages)is reminiscent of the essentially private nature of the facility the one and one-half page alternatives for another 20 years. discussion that the California Supreme Court found inadequate in Laurel CEQA guidelines require the discussion of L&dghts. Rather than providing a alternatives to focus on those capable of meaningrttl list of environmentally eliminating any significant adverse superior project alternatives to form a environmental effects or reducing them to valid basis of comparison, as the law a level of insignificance. The discussion of requires, EIR No. 143 sets up vague, alternatives in this EIR is more limited poorly defined alternatives as "straw because the project does not cause any significant effect. Moreover, certain 20 Comment Response men" only to attack them without any alternatives, such as open space/park are evidentiary basis. considered infeasible because the site is currently developed and more than 20 years A good example is the EIR's brief and remain on the current lease. Residential illogical treatment of the required "no uses of the site are in appropriate assuming project" alternative. Obviously, not it consists of tidelands as the State Lands approving the significant Bay Club Commission contends. There are no expansion would eliminate all of the feasible alternative sites for the project for adverse environmental impacts on the reasons specified in the EIR and Bayshores (and other environmental because there is no parcel of land on or impacts referred to in the EIR). close to the bay in Newport Beach Incredibly, however, the EIR's designated for hotel use in the local conclusion is that preserving the status Coastal Plan or Land Use Element. In quo would not provide any significant summary, the developed nature of the site, environmental benefits, nor would it the fact that it is tidelands, and the absence significantly mitigate impacts associated of similar sites in or adjacent to Newport with the proposed project." (EIR, p. Beach somewhat restricts the discussion of 117.) Bayshores residents recognize alternatives. Finally, the commentor has that there are advantages to accurately quoted from the discussion of modernizing the Bay Club facilities and the "no project" alternative in the EIR, but economic benefits to the City in terms then inaccurately characterizes the of increased tax revenues and lease conclusion. The EIR does not conclude payments. To deny that there are that there are no adverse environmental adverse environmental impacts impacts. The EIR discusses project impacts associated with the expansion, however, in detail,but concludes none of the impacts is to deny reality. would have a "significant effect on the environment." Obviously, a smaller hotel would, in all probability, generate less traffic than the proposed project. However, this fact is not inconsistent with the conclusion that the "no project" alternative "would not provide any significant environmental benefits, nor would it significantly mitigate impacts associated with the proposed project. 21. The EIR's brief treatment of the Please see response to Comment No. 20. alternative of reducing the commercial square footage of the expansion project Again, the EIR concludes that the project, is similarly deficient. There is as mitigated, produces no significant absolutely no analysis of how a smaller adverse effect. By definition, the reduction scale project could be designed to in commercial square footage will not alleviate significant environmental mitigate siianifcant effects. The project impacts on Bayshores residents (e.g., proponent has stated that reduction in the elimination of the upper-story hotel commercial development will make the rooms on the Bayshores property line) project infeasible. The applicant has 21 • • , f Comment Response or enhance other environmental provided a detailed discussion of the benefits (eg., increasing view corridors number of hotel rooms required for a from PCH and the Kings Road area). financially viable project, and that Once again,the EIR substitutes illogical information is attached to these responses. promotion of the project for valid We have been advised that the applicant environmental analysis. The EIR has provided similar information to experts argues that reduction in the scope of retained by Bayshores to analyze the the project would not necessarily result financial feasibility of a smaller hotel in less use of the facilities. (EIR, p. project. I18.) How can it be logically argued that a 150-room hotel would receive the The EIR does not contend that a 150-room same extent of use as a 300-room hotel would be patronized to the same hotel? In addition, the EIR does not extent as a 300-room hotel. As indicated address the environmental benefits of a earlier, a 150 room hotel would generate smaller hotel that are independent of less traffic and, in all probability, result in the extent of=such as the benefits of a reduction in the extent of development increased views,preservation of privacy, on site as compared to the current and maintaining compatibility of mass condition. The discussion of the reduction and scale with the adjacent single- in commercial square footage alternative family residential neighborhood. about utilization is simply intended to advise a decision maker that Club members frequently use the site,the frequency of use may go up if the commercial square footage is reduced, and, in any event, a 50% reduction in the commercial square footage will not mean a 50% reduction in overall traffic generated by the facility. 22. The EIR rejects the alternative of Please see Responses to Comments 20 and reducing commercial square footage on 21. The Comment is noted to the extent the basis that "[t]he project proponent that it represents the opinion of the has stated that with less than 250-300 commenter on the project or related court guest rooms, the facility cannot rulings. adequately provide services and amenities to compete in the market- place." (U) The EIR nowhere challenges or analyzes this self-serving statement. The law requires more. The alterative of a smaller, scaled-down project must be thoroughly evaluated. Citizens for OuaUV Growth y. City of Mt. Shasta (1988) 198 Cal App.3d 418. When an alterative is rejected on the basis of economic infeasibility, the public agency cannot simply accept the self serving word of the developer-- the 22 • Comment Response conclusion of infeasibility must be supported by specific information showing that "additional costs or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project." Citizens of Goleta Valley.v. Board Qf Supervisors, supra 197 Cal.App.3d at 1181. 23. CEQA requires a gyan ijged compara- See Responses to Comments 20 and 21. tive analysis of the environmental impacts of a project to the alternatives The impacts of the project described by the discussed. ing Cournty Farm Bureau commentor are not they type of impacts v Cit Qf Hanford (1990) 221 that can be analyzed quantitatively as easily Campp.3d 692 (held. alternatives as emission levels. Documents attached to discussion in EIR for cogeneration these responses provide objective evidence project was inadequate, where the EIR of scale relationships and view impacts stated only that the natural gas from Bayshores. We know of no way to alternative would have lower emission quantitatively analyze privacy impacts, and, levels and less track and train traffic as previously indicated, privacy does not than the proposed cogeneration plant, represent a physical change in the and the EIR failed to include detailed environment. The adoption of performance data on the natural gas alternative and standards relative to noise and light impacts a quantified comparative analysis of the obviate the need for quantitative alternative and the proposed comparisons--these measures insure the cogeneration plant). In order to satisfy project as built will not exceed the CEQA's requirements, EIR No. 143 standards. should define a reduced-scope project and quantitatively assess each of the environmental impacts -- incompati- bility of land use, mass and scale of the buildings, loss of views and privacy, noise, light and glare, etc. -- so that a meaningful decision can be made. By failing to give the City any true options on alternatives, EIR No. 143 drops the ball in the all-important area of focusing decision-makers on the ability to achieve some or all of the project objectives at a lesser environmental cost. 24. EIR No. 143 is also deficient in its Please see responses to Comments 20 and cursory treatment of the alternative of 21. The scope of alternatives is believed changing the mix of project uses. Only proper given the limitations on use a single short paragraph is devoted to permitted of State tidelands, the developed 23 • • , Comment Response this subject. (See EIF, pp. 118-119.) nature of the site, and the provisions of the Once again, there is no definition, no land use plan of our local Coastal Program quantification, and no basis for any as well as the land use element. comparative analysis. 25. Treatment of the off-site alternative is Unlike a vacant site where the developer also grossly deficient. (EIR) p. 121.) might have several vacant sites to consider In a major recent case, the Court of locating a project upon, the Balboa Bay Appeal determined that an EIR for a Club is an existing facility on City-owned coastal-oriented resort hotel was property. To correspond to the Goleta test, deficient for failing to adequately other City properties of similar size and discuss alternative sites on which the characteristics would need to be identified. hotel could be constructed including the It is entirely appropriate to consider possibility of non-coastal locations. waterfront property for this use because the Citizens Goleta Valley v. Board of property is a Bay Club. It is not an inland S pervisors (1988) 197 Cal.App.3d use. The City neither owns nor has 1163. Since the City of Newport Beach available property of a similar size and is the owner of the Bay Club property, situated adequately to place the Balboa the potential for off-site locations for a Bay Club uses on. The Balboa Bay Club is hotel (if the City really wants to an integrated facility, as opposed to a mere promote development of another hotel) hotel, and therefore has special is particularly viable. EIR No. 143 considerations associated with alternatives. does not address any of the other Nonetheless, the EIR addresses off-site locations within the City of Newport locations and explains to the reader why Beach either owned by the City or over these locations have been rejected in favor which the City exercises land use of the proposed location. Finally, under control on which a hotel could be Citizens of Goleta Valley, the reader should developed. be advised that the California Supreme Court exercised deference with respect to the comprehensive planning aspect of a city or a county's adopted plans. Both the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan have Tong shown the Balboa Bay Club property for expansion of public visitor-serving uses. Therefore, the Balboa Bay Club as a primary site is entitled to deference in light of these comprehensive planning programs. 26. There is undeveloped waterfront The fact that there is undeveloped water- property available in a number of front property available is not the question locations on the Bay, including the in considering off-site project locations. property at the northeast comer of PCH The undeveloped waterfront properties and Dover, the Castaways property, and referred to in the commentor's remarks-- the Newporter North property. There is PCH and Dover, the Castaways property, also substantial additional undeveloped and the Newporter North property--are all 24 Comment Response land in Newport Center with water privately owned and not accessible to the views. Since the hotel guests at the Bay Balboa Bay Club or the City (except by Club hotel would not be given beach eminent domain). The owner of those privileges anyway under the project properties has already announced its proposal, there is no necessary reason intention for development of those why the hotel has to be located right on properties. Contrary to the commentor's the water. remark, the Bay Club will be given beach privileges; it is only the casual visitor to the Bay Club who will not be accorded beach privileges because of the small size of the beach and the security necessary. There- fore, the hotel must be located on the water. 27. The statement in the EIR that is used The statement with regard to an expansion to justify the refusal to consider off-site of an existing facility is true. The Balboa alternatives -- that the proposed project Bay Club, while a private facility, also has is merely an expansion of an "existing overnight accommodations. The distinction facility" -- is absolutely false with between the current facility and the respect to the hotel portion of the proposed facility is that the overnight project. Currently, the Balboa Bay accommodations have been limited to Club Club is a private facility with no hotel. members and guests of Club members. There is no necessary reason why a They will now be accorded to the general hotel must be included as part of the public. Bay Club expansion or why such a use cannot be placed on another property that is not immediately adjacent to an established quiet residential community. 28. In summary, EIR No. 143 fails to This comment is simply a summary of the provide an adequate description of the opinion of the commentor which has been Balboa Bay Club Expansion and refuted by the City of Newport Beach. Remodeling Project,fails to adequately assess the environmental setting of the adjacent community of Bayshores,fails to adequately discuss the environmental impacts that the project would have on Bayshores and feasible mitigation measures available to eliminate or reduce those impacts, and fails to set forth an adequate discussion of reasonable alternatives to the project. I urge the City, Council to deny certification of the EIR and deny the project. 25 • * r . CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM July 19, 1991 TO: File FROM: Robert H. Burnham SUBJ: Balboa Bay Club Redevelopment Plan & EIR 1. Comment from Keith Hosfiel and Pearl Sze--does traffic analysis consider possible conversion of Terrace Apartments to shorter term occupancy/hotel to comply with terms of 1986 lease and public trust doctrine? Residential use has more traffic impacts than hotels or motels. Based on standard trip generation factors, 144 apartment units will generate less peak hour traffic than a 144 unit hotel. Accordingly, the traffic analysis and the EIR represents the worst case scenario. Traffic generated by uses on site can be expected to decrease if a portion of the Terrace Apartments are converted to transient occupancy. 2 . Comment from Keith Hosfiel and Pearl Sze--conversion of Terrace Apartments to a lodging facility to satisfy public trust requirements. In 1985, State Lands Commission Staff, for the first time, advised the City that they believed the entire site leased to the Bay Club consisted of State tidelands. Accordingly, the 1986 lease extension contained a provision that requires the use of the Terrace Apartments to be consistent with the public trust imposed on all State tidelands. This consistency is to be achieved no later than 1998. The precise nature of the required change in occupancy of the Terrace Apartments is unclear at this time. The State Lands Commission has permitted residential use of tidelands so long as the properties available to the general public for lease and the term of leases are less than one year. The City, the Bay Club, and State Lands have discussed changes in the criteria for, and term of, Terrace Apartment tenancies, but no agreement has yet been reached. The majority of the units in the Terrace Apartment complex are not likely to be converted into hotel-type occupancies due to their size and configuration. i Balboa Bay Club Redevelopment July 19, 1991 Page 2 . 3 . Comment from Keith Hosfiel and Pearl Sze--is there a need for a hotel expansion given recent evidence of relatively low occupancy rates? The economics of the project are not a consideration unless there is a potential for some change in the physical environment. Staff has contacted the Conference and Visitors Bureau for information regarding the potential impact, if any, of the proposed project on occupancy rates at other Newport Beach hotels. The Bureau does not believe the Bay Club expansion project would have any significant impact on rates of other hotels, and accordingly, there is no evidence of any physical impact on these businesses or their structures. (Evidence of significant impact on other hotel operations could induce business failures, vacant structures and consequent blight. ) 4. General comment re loss of property value. There is no evidence that the proposed project would reduce the value of property anywhere in Newport Beach. However, reduction of property value is not considered an environmental impact unless the reduction could alter the physical environment. Assuming some small reduction in the value of property from which views are slightly altered--nothing suggests that a reduction would be so significant that property would likely fall into disrepair or otherwise change character. 5. Club should remain an essentially private facility with limited public access. The State Lands Commission has taken the position that the property on which the Bay Club is located consists entirely of State tidelands. If this claim is true, the property is subject to a public trust that restricts uses to those which serve the general public. As a general rule, a hotel or visitor serving facility is considered consistent with the public trust, while a private club is not. The State has granted the tidelands to Newport Beach and the City has a legal obligation to insure the property is used in a manner consistent with the grant. If the City fails to do so, the State can revoke the grant and take control of the property. The project would significantly increase the portion of the Club site open to the general public and dramatically reduce the amount, of area devoted to uses which may not be consistent with the public trust. Additionally, the City's Local Coastal Program envisions additional public access on all City leasehold properties. �-1 Balboa Bay Club Redevelopment July 19, 1991 Page 3 . 6. SPON comment--the proposed lease extension should be incorporated into the project description. The 1986 lease between the City and the Bay Club establishes a process for the possible re-development of the Bay Club site. In pertinent part, the 1986 lease calls for the City and Bay Club to "cooperate and work together on a comprehensive plan for re- development of the lease premises. " As a part of that comprehensive re-development plan, the Bay Club is required to: (a) prepare a Master Plan consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan; (b) participate in appropriate public hearings and meetings for the purpose of gaining community input and consensus relative to approval of the Master Plan concept and specific land uses; and (c) review the Master Plan with the California Coastal Commission and obtain approval and concept of the Master Plan from that Commission. (Paragraph 28 of the lease. ) The lease also provides that the Lessee may seek a further lease term extension only after Council and Coastal Commission approval of the proposed re-development plan. Assuming all of these pre-conditions are satisfied, the City is required only to Oconsider" a further lease extension under terms and conditions then to be agreed upon. No new lease agreement is proposed in conjunction with a re- development plan and the Bay Club has not complied with the pre- conditions necessary to Council consideration of a lease extension. Accordingly, the comment is based upon assumptions which are untrue. The EIR recognizes that approval of the re-development plan could result in a long term commitment of the property to the land use and intensity permitted in the approved PC text. The extent of the commitment of the property to these uses represents the only "environmental impact" that could be said to be unique to the lease rather than development of the project. The EIR makes it clear that, aside from short term construction impacts, the effects of the project will be long-term in nature and will extend well beyond the term of the current lease and the economic life of existing structures. In summary, no lease extension is proposed as a part of this project, nor is the Bay Club in a position to even ask for Council consideration of a lease extension. The EIR clearly states that the improvements, if constructed, can be expected to remain on site for at least 75 years and therefore fully informs the Council of potential long term impacts that could be expected if a lease extension were part of the project. Z� C. 1 Ju TYv.use i OKH ( i F�AYSHC '• F t 1o8'-a" G4AtDtj7t�tl( . i f O,EST ADOlrs t t ! I oar_cp POW t �Z i � i _ 4 " WPIC.A - UN nWIre uscu } ; ontVeGrgooM t5 t T OF 6 UNti s wttH TH6 r 4 BBC Alternate Study GATE bq -- I Ln a k I . I PARKING FOR 322 CARS O LOA h .awe ,.• �a.p DDOCI Q T` LINE OF PREVIOUS BLDG. 1 1 1 ' Caro• , a•-r 1 20 5 Alternate Service Drive Proposal First Level Plan Ali Tt� ; LMY � 5UN -r • l • � 1 c • c u 6 Alternate Spa Study ORDINANCE NO. 91-28 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE BALBOA BAY CLUB AND AMENDING PORTIONS OF DISTRICTING MAPS NO.48 AND 49 SO AS TO RECLASSIFY SAID PROPERTY FROM THE R-4 DISTRICT TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY (P-C) DISTRICT AND REMOVING THE SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION FROM THE PROPERTY (PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO 739) The City Council of the City of Newport Beach DOES ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The subject property is the following real property in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California: A portion of Lot 171, Block 54 of Irvine's Subdivision, as shown on Map thereof filed in Book 1, Page 86 of miscellaneous record maps in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California. as shown on the attached Exhibit"A"and hereinafter referred to as"Property." Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to rezone all of the above described Property from the R-4 District to the Planned Community (P-Q District, designate said Property as the Balboa Bay Club Planned Community, and remove the Specific Plan designation from the property. SECTION 2. The Planning Director of the City of Newport Beach is hereby instructed and directed to change Districting Maps 6 and 23,referred to in Section 20.01.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and by such reference is made a part of Title 20, to reflect said change as described in Section 1 hereof,and shown in the attached Exhibit "B" and when said Districting Maps have been so amended,the same shall be in full force and effect and be a part of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SECTION 3. Development of the property,which is rezoned P-C pursuant to i this Ordinance, shall be as specified in the Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan which is also approved and adopted pursuant to this Ordinance, and which specifies the permitted land uses, intensity and density limits and development standards and regulations for the property as set forth in the attached Exhibit"C." 3. ✓�' • 1• k 7 SECTION 4. The Planning Director of the CIty of Newport Beach is also hereby instructed and directed to apply all of the provisions of said Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan to the Property as described herein; the same shall be in full force and effect and be a part of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Cade. SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once In the official newspaper of the City within fifteen(15)days of its adoption. The Ordinance shall be effective thirty days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was Introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,held on the_day of 1991,and was adopted on the _day of . 1991,by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES,COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Attachments: Exhibits"A'',"B", and "C" PLT..\CC\ D\A739.ORD 2 E Exhibit A _ _Il'`i P( z (217g) b Q .R/ o R1 MFR RI - i F to RI (2178) d R( ^. a R1 RI R1 gX RI RI K RI RI RV Zz 113 A I VIIA </ o p RI R: RI RI RI RI RI RI RI aLJ u-rJJ ��UB• Proposed Zoning - Planned Community District (PC) N.T.S. r � 1 4 Balboa Bay Club ® �� � •: t 7 \�✓• SLt NAP I/o,4 SL t- MwP NO. 2f \ ••o. \\ e \ T fr+sy e o \.. e •F'tP C < •G. \\ h� \ .S Ppp \� 14L•� : f , ryF \\ \ •1 C \\\ �� ••" 0.' •a�p••••. 2 4 Y ` •�.MF \\�� e.�ri.vr 'n'.ifw refAsn�r%fn•H•i F/r..a' Ci � ` r. � .v�CCC R a B \ � eaa w sst tar.rmn4 nrfn n<we rr»f. !. \\ \\ P 1 � +f �O i � \ li A..n,nrr .fern.fn-Nr•.>.t rrr.e+�..f.Nr'F".• rr \ ft\•a'L ♦ .> i 4 ' t : y' � \ ret wa ifa-M ew.Nt ur.w en...N-+w eJ r.>-. � W..+.nNfnr(ry�`/�\ L Ie o' ¢L c��,t•' . `> ,r ? \� i..r.n.. aI Inrw »Hr:....✓ \\ i•� ••R 1V� \•.• w.i ,+}T �� • eKL MC"I �( SNf..frYr la..nr✓d F.r re.rwre. \ P•' .. I ? j• H. .,, \\ t...(Ai.a.irJ rOna.f � \ \� 3. � r� * >, a T � oL a •>. �\ era at IKl -vvn rcriiw�qu.��„runt...•' µ.\! r 4r0 ?r '. .�etc:lJV f!! v,cvr..wm,As.•a.nf:niw+..,�m•. \ 4 1' >T t u 4 ♦ tZD.F' IICC P•l w<f""+>'' L...0 h \` \ JL •r - _ c e i o r` a.7f tot.rna.v o., St1oNt vl<I•Ic r.>ru no to.Ia l 9 ~• 0 t � k ` f � \� at\Q •`. � SSE per. ` \\ // ..rcn i•\ awe •Io. fT 71 �\ //SIV f•Je•f1 see NAP Ne. 1 f'•` 1 i' DISTRICTING MAP ir— NEWPORT BEACH — CALIFORNIA , !~a aaft,,LTUSK eCSIGCNTIAU a-S KST9 Ma.TKC fYWRT NCACCNTIrL e-I SINGLE rx x wtNTtAL C-1 LONE COXNCOWL ERCI A-i OYPLtJa SC9FAANUT C-1 GENERAL MAKWCTURTMPCIaI O Xf11 LVLTIKLrWLT CK)IOCNML M-1 IMCLA SIfit0 OS0.N0.Iil SCALE Or JCR `� fOaWNO CISTXICT Y VMCLaSSIJI[0 'C<L it 190 MAP X0. root Yefd a iS. ro Ca + SINewn Tw •-I - a \ UPPER e�y ' PC BAY { 6P „ [ CIO { f.. ✓ f �r 60 ••• r 3:17J a� I.•r�1I1,11 R 1 R•I °"+ R•I1 ' 1VEWPORT <0 +yam• cR•I R'1MIA • BAY ,R I _ R 1 : i R I L R I ft•l NAR»OR m,.`.r.Y,w sayr ruoJtrer.U� ISLAND R•1 o+rrt u/.t[.ax vuvetu..rcvwu �'-• _�.� Ilnea+t rorune owrL mrrwd ���y'ri.r�WRIT Ro ra wr ra a iLy.Gr° far•ar r001To IT DISTRICTING-MAP-CITY-OF-NEWPORT- BEACH-CALIFORNIA OF. YO.J][:;LL•llb---_ )rnuNl I.t[ I REVISIONS )MdvLrv.n.RYOdnA p)nIGT G•v YOaYa0GIg0e CYY[LCI0. IIITL{R ar•.,e. .. »o• ._ p On.at nv�tr ammr c.e untie wYYt+nat•Yutn.0 Loltprot wnwcT e...�°�u. •yn.N a.{.e•:.0': •I .N..+ •,. cwtu alnOpn)t elanlR cn u[YT <eYYnmt aunlcl :p�iii:v::{n'i:+J. • ` � ._.�^�,.� w ylll Yu.Tlht t[rOdnat <•[ tpM)L GOvvMCI)L bITLIR w N La wt _wl .. •n�� wy rw ••a RI.N {IPr.let,rr .I YI�NII 11.11•N N.J. v �.�i y1n1t[ RYO[YTlal MrrIYCT ^•.) L[[TO YYITIRL NYILT 11LI10[IIr10. N'rer uiiiw•� Mtib(' JN+ w• L.i Y»I•�w �111^ n�% SY..�sP •�r[l�t 23 l� {mnaaaln[e eumcr [lww.a)rRutf r••Y-vM \(� � CWiIYt. M •t• GanIR M.a•• A1�741-1{IrR 1•nl.n I.raN R•MI.•. ••IA �� IIO.•r)M°GfIIN.V/_Lr r•°NN/IWr •A•• •` r • Exhibit C� I l The Balboa Bay Club Planned Community District k , i r 1 � ��-r ���-C ,���•����• v�^,',,• '��,,� yy .�•+.+ ram' .� ... r^ T I {■ 89C iSubmitted to: The City of Newport Beach ��� l l f The Balboa Bay Club Planned Community District Submitted to: City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 Contact: Pat Temple I Prepared by: ICYP, Inc. 2955 Red Hill Avenue ( Costa Mesa, CA 92626 l 714/241-1009 Contact: Debby Linn/Andrew Popinski On behalf of.- International Bay Clubs, Inc. and BBC Properties, Inc. 1221 West Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92663 Contact: William Ray February 18, 1990 I . TABLE OF CONTENT'S IPage Number 1 Introduction 1 I Y Statistical Analysis 3 I General Notes 4 I Definitions 5 I ( Balboa Bay Club - Planned Community Regulations 7 IBalboa Bay Club - Development Standards 9 • Area 1 - Club Facility 9 I Area 2 - Lodging Facility 13 Balboa Bay Club - Sign Program 15 i I . i I �Z ILIST OF EXHIBITS ( Exhibit Number Exhibit Name Page Number I 1 Vicinity Map . 2a I2 Land Use Plan 2b I3 Community Development Plan Area 1 and 2 7a I4 Community Development Plan Area 1 . 9a ( 5 Community Development Plan Area 2 . 13a I l ' U• r• I. i i �3 r • � w o 1 INTRODUCTION The Balboa Bay Club (BBC) is a water oriented, multi-use facility located in the City of 1 Newport Beach as shown in Exhibit 1. The BBC has a General Plan/Local Coastal Program land use designation of Mixed Use Recreational and Marine Commercial/Multi- Family Residential. This Planned Community District will allow for a Club Facility located ! in the portion of site referred to as Area 1 and a Lodging Facility to be located in the portion of the site referred to as Area 2. Both Areas are described on the Land Use Plan, Exhibit 2. The Club and Lodging Facilities are discussed in greater detail in the project description. I The purpose of this Planned Community District (PCD) is to implement the goals and policies of the City's General Plan/LCP and all applicable regulatory codes. In this regard, the specifications of this text are intended to provide land use and development standards supportive of the proposed uses, while ensuring City control of a quality development t through the adoption of a comprehensive development program. Whenever the regulations contained herein conflict with the regulations of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the regulations contained herein shall take'precedence. The Municipal Code shall regulate this development when such regulations are not provided , within these district regulations. All development within the Planned Community District boundaries shall comply with all provisions of the Uniform Building Code and various mechanical codes related thereto. LProject Location The BBC is located within the City of Newport Beach at 1221 West Coast Highway. The project is situated between Lower Newport Bay on the south and Coast Highway on the north. The easterly and westerly boundaries respectively abut the Sea Scout Base/OCC Rowing Base and Bayshores residential community. (See Exhibit 1) l Project Description t The Club Facility area (Area 1) is a combination of complimentary uses which includes the following: Guest Facility, Guest Serving Retail Services, Indoor/Outdoor Restaurant, 1 Coffee Shop, Bar and Lounge, Ballroom and Conference Facility, Athletic Facility, Administration Offices, and Marina/Boat Storage and parking. The adjacent Lodging Facility (Area 2) includes: Units in the lodging facility, Parking, Boat Storage, Marina, and Laundry. � -1- �y In accordance with the California Coastal Act, the BBC Planned Community District shall provide access to the general public(guests and casual visitors) by providing visitor serving uses in the form of a guest facility, banquet and conference facility, and restaurant available for use by the public. Pedestrian access shall be provided to harbor and beach view points through a network of pedestrian corridors throughout the grounds. I i { fM U, l t �2� . i m H � S Ate, a� a wFst o- `aJ O0 Lido, ' • y Vlliagt + COAST Clfpp DR. .i �O• e'' �O4t H/ KfN� ROAD ° �asP C wAY SITE 0 3 ' Z Shores O • • LIDO ISLE A wwport Bay I*Wpott Bay VICINITY MAP. EXHIBIT 1 r � CYP,hfe Balboa Bay Club r Newport Beach, California - M%5 °°' __.� .�.._ �.� �_ .�- ..._� �.� ;fir. .-.�� .__ .—. .— ._ —^ '_� `'• NET SITE. AREA CLUB FACILITIES 8.25 Acres jy LODGING FACILITIES 4.40 Acres � .. 12.65 ACRES 15 / V7 /.. N 1 i 1 Y AREA 2 AREA 1 Y : ...........�.. - :I: ........... ::a milp' t e/ 798'� - ? i i zi: 777 'laF:C ,` ...�...........'' c d ♦J .� ♦! 'J.a LJ�AI • �1�J l:. • L_ . y_ a.IJ��A LAND USE PLAN EXHIBIT 2 r . crn,Jnc Balboa Bay Club f (, Newport Beach, California " � � BALBOA BAY CLUB STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Maximum Gross Maximum Units Floor Area Use Acreage Permitted Permitted Club Facilities 8.25 AC 300 Units 275,517 Sq. Ft. { (Area 1) I Lodging Facility 4.40 AC 144 Units 275,517 Sq. Ft. (Area 2) i Total 12.65 AC 444 Units 551,034 Sq. Ft. Total Allowable Building Bulk = 1.35 (Gross Floor Area plus above grade covered parking) t I I I i l 3 r� GENERAL NOTES 1 ( 1. Water service to the Planned Community District will be provided by the City of i Newport Beach. 11 2. Development of the subject property will be undertaken in accordance with the flood protection policies of the City of Newport Beach. 3. Grading and erosion control measures will be carried out within the Planned Community as required by the Newport Beach Building and Planning Departments. 4. All development of the site is subject to the provisions-of City Council Policies K-5 and K-6 regarding archaeological and paleontological resources. 5. Sewage disposal service facilities for the Planned Community will be provided by ( Orange County Sanitation District No. 5. I 6. All landscaping along street rights-of-way shall be installed in accordance with a landscape plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect,which has been reviewed by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approved by the Public { Works Department. f 7. Except as otherwise stated in this text, the requirements of the Newport Beach Zoning Ordinance shall apply. f 8. All new mechanical appurtenances on building rooftops, (i.e. utility vaults and l emergency power generators, etc.) shall be enclosed. Noise associated with said generators shall be attenuated at side property lines adjacent to residential uses to 55 dba. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a licensed engineer practicing in acoustics, and be approved by the Planning Department. Existing rooftop equipment shall be architecturally treated or screened from off-site views in ( a manner compatible with the building materials. i i -4- i 1 1 i J DEFINITIONS All definitions in the City of Newport Beach Zoning Code shall be adhered to with the exception of the following: Banquet/Ballroom shall mean a place of public assembly which may serve food t Conference and beverages for consumption on the premises within a structure that is fully enclosed with a roof and walls. Boat Storage shall mean area designated for dry dock storage. Building Bulk shall mean the total gross floor area of all buildings plus the ( gross floor area of all above grade covered parking as defined l in Section 20.07.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. ` Gross Floor Area shall mean the area included within the surrounding exterior walls of the building or portion thereof, exclusive of vent/elevator shafts and courts. Guard Station shall mean a permanent structure and gate used to screen visitors and Gate temporarily delay automobile entry onto the I site. Marina shall mean a water area where vessels may be stored, or moored. Net Site Area shall mean the entire area of the site between the U.S. Bulkhead line, the ultimate right-of-way line of West Coast Highway and the side property lines. Outdoor Terrace shall be an area which sells or serves food products or beverages for. consumption on the premises which is out-of- doors or partially covered on a patio, deck or terrace that may be partially integrated into building design. -5- t .� I Restaurant shall mean a place of business which sells and/or serves food products or beverages for consumption on the premises either within a structure that is fully enclosed with a roof and walls and/or outdoor dinning to the extent that not more than 75% of net public area of total restaurant dining area is located out- of-doors on outdoor patio, decks or terraces. Rooftop Terrace shall mean an area located above an enclosed occupied space 1 partially or fully open to be used for, but not limited to, circulation, landscape, outdoor terrace, outdoor dining, pool/spa, other forms of recreation and fountains. 1 Seasonal Canvas shall mean a temporary structure for use on a seasonal 1 Structure basis which sells and/or serves food products and/or beverages for consumption on premises. It shall also mean.a temporary structure for recreational beach related uses. Service Entrance shall mean any entrance which is not considered a primary ientrance onto the property but which is used to facilitate the flow of goods, supplies and employee staff. Unit shall mean any area which contains separate or independent living facilities for one (1) or more persons, with area or equipment for sleeping, sanitation and food preparation, and which has independent access. .J 1 -6- lPLANNED COMMUNITY REGULATIONS Location Balboa Bay Club is located adjacent to both lower Newport Bay and West Coast Highway, j as shown on the Planned Community Development Plan. (See Exhibit 3) Intent It is the intent of this Planned Community District Text to provide comprehensive development standards for the project site. These standards as set forth herein will encompass a variety of permitted uses appropriate to the Club Facility (Area 1) and the Lodging Facility (Area 2) such as but not limited to the following: lPermitted Uses Area 1 Area 2 • Guest Facility 144-Lodging Units Guest Facility Support Services Parking Facilities (i.e. Laundry, Dry Cleaning) Administration Offices • Guest Serving Retail Services Marina • Athletic Facility Boat Storage lRestaurant (Indoor/Outdoor) • Administration Offices Marina/Boat Storage Parking Structures, Lots and Facilities • General Public Assembly Facilities (i.e. Ballrooms and Conference Areas) • Clothing/Dress Shops/Proshop • Barber Shop • Jewelry Shop • Car Wash (provided it connects to sanitary sewer system) Beauty Salon • General Retail J Catering • Employee Support Facilities (i.e. Lockers and Cafeteria) • Guest Business Services (i.e. Typing, Xeroxing, Word Processing, FAX Services, etc.) -7 ' Site Access Nwr'i 0 i AREA 2 AREA 1 ..... � LODGING FACILITY 275.517sq,ft. CLUB FACILITY 275,517 sq.ft. ABOVE-GRADE I cJi �J/ ABOVE-GRADE I COVERED PARKING 96,430 sq.ft. COVERED PARKING 96.430 sq,ff. _.�c�� ;�ii::.l I I I �( .I :I I .I . ., i .� .Ili ,� �, „ • -4" COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN — AREA 1 & 2 EXHIBIT 3 Balboa Bay Club , Y "P C .WraanarAimvdp Newport Beach, California ''� � I Accessory Uses Permitted Accessory uses and structures are permitted when customarily associated with a permitted principal use on the same building site. Accessory use shall include but not be limited to the following: Area 1 Area 2 • Maintenance Facilities Swimming Pool and Restroom and Locker Facilities 1 Laundry Facilities Maintenance Facilities IOutdoor/Rooftop Laundry Facilities Terraces • Seasonal Canvas Structure 1 Guard Station and Gate • Swimming Pools and Spas Poolside Concessions (i.e. Food and Beverage Pool Bar) i J l DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - AREA 1 (Club Facility) _l The following development standards shall apply to Area 1 (see Exhibit 4). A. Building Height Height limit shall be 35 feet as measured from existing grade, as defined in the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. I B. Setback Requirements 1. Front Minimum building front yard setback from the ROW line of West Coast Highway shall be fifty-five (55') feet for occupied buildings. • Surface Parking setback shall be a minimum of five (5) feet. • Parking structure setback shall be a minimum of ten (10') feet. 2. Side • Minimum side yard setback along the Bayshores property line shall be twenty-five (25') feet. The side yard area may be twenty-five(25')feet for a maximum of sixty-four(64%)percent of the side yard area. The remainder of the sideyard area along the Bayshores property line shall be forty (40') feet. Landscaping,planters,walls,fencing,trellises,pergolas,parking spaces,subsurface parking areas and driveways shall be allowed within the setback area. J 3. Rear J Building setback from U.S. Bufkhead line shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. ..1 7 -9- ij Site Access = e w,ww AREA 1 CLUB FACWY 275.617 sq.ft. �- ABOVE-GRADE — _" COVERED PARKING 96A30 sq.ft. w _ .._ . . ._. . .- •- -- •—•- • -- •---------� � --I�ii �I i„I -� 11{j I!1 lyd ._II�_� II—I li �1 11 i—II It 'I I� II __ c COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN — AREA 1 EXHIBIT 4 Balboa Bay Club k Newport Beach, California rim-"�w 1 0 f IC. Parking Standards 1 Parking shall-be provided on-site and may occur on surface lots and/or within J parking structures. Parking for the permitted club facility uses shall be provided in accordance with the recommendations of a parking .demand analysis prepared by a certified Traffic Engineer to be approved by the Planning Commission and shall be provided per a demonstrated formula. Valet and Tandem Valet parking shall be permitted. Operational characteristics of any valet parking service and the location of parking areas used exclusively for valet and/or tandem parked cars will be subject to the .) review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. 1 The design and layout of all parking areas shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer and the Public Works Department. The lighting system shall be designed and maintained in such a manner as to conceal light sources and to minimize spillage and glare to the adjacent residential uses. The plans shall be prepared by a licensed electrical engineer, with a letter stating that, in his opinion, this requirement has been met. ` The required number of handicapped parking spaces shall be designed within the on-site parking area and shall be used solely for handicapped self-parking. One handicapped sign on a post and one handicapped sign on the pavement shall be required for each handicapped space. D. Landscaping,Walls and Fencing Landscaping to include softscape and hardscape shall occur in all areas not devoted to structures, parking, driveways, and loading dock areas. All landscape plans, where applicable, shall incorporate a combination of trees, shrubs, berms, fences and planters to adequately screen property from adjacent uses, enhance building exteriors and create a"park like" setting. A minimum of five (5%) percent of surface parking areas shall be devoted to I planting. j A detailed landscaping and irrigation program (prepared by a landscape architect, licensed landscaping contractor or architect) shall be subject to the review of the Parks,Beaches and Recreation Department. The program shall be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments prior to issuance of building permits and installed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Use iJ and Occupancy. :J -10- � 7 1� 0 0 1 Landscaping shall be set back from the property line to along Pacific Coast Highway to provide site distance or in conformance with City standards per 1 Ordinance #110-L Slopes, landscaping,walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirement. Landscaping located within the sight line shall not exceed a height of 24 inches above grade. The sight j distance requirement may be modified at non-critical locations,subject to the j approval of the City Traffic Engineer. E. Loading Areas All loading and unloading operations shall be performed on-site. Loading 1 platforms and areas shall be screened from off site views. 1 F. Refuse Collection Outdoor refuse collection areas shall be screened from adjacent properties and streets. G. Roof Top Treatments All new roofing equipment within Area 1,where applicable,shall be enclosed and screened from off-site views. Landscaping may occur on the roof-top terrace. H. Other Miscellaneous 1 1. Lighting systems where applicable shall be directed away from residential uses and may be used to illuminate parking areas and/or .� structures, walkways, buildings, signs and any public areas. 2. Outdoor paging shall be permitted only in limited, critical circumstances and shall be attenuated in accordance with the recommendations of a study prepared by a certified Acoustical Engineer. 3. All amplified music played after 6:00 PM shall be confined within the interior of a building unless a Special Events Permit approved by the 1 City is obtained. J J I4. The restaurant and all other kitchen areas in the Club Facility shall be subject to the following requirements: 1 a. Kitchen exhaust fans are required and shall be designed to control odors and smoke, unless otherwise approved by the Newport Beach Building Department. b. A washout area or areas is/are required and shall be provided in such a way as to insure direct drainage in to the sewer system and not into the bay or the storm drains, unless otherwise approved by the Newport Beach Building Department. C. Grease interceptors shall be installed on all fixtures in any kitchen area where grease may be introduced in to the drainage systems in accordance with the provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, unless otherwise approved by the Newport } Beach Building Department and Public Works Department. 1 Grease interceptors shall be located in such a way as to be easily accessible for routine cleaning and inspection. 5. The on-site laundry/dry cleaning facilities shall be subject to the 1 following requirements:' a. Any boilers shall be isolated in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. b. The use of chemicals shall be reviewed and approved by the JFire Prevention Bureau of the Fire Department. C. The proposed dry cleaning operation shalt be installed and operated in conformance with the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. �1 -12- IDEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - AREA 2 (Lodging Facility) _I The following development standards shall apply to the Lodging Facility Use (Area 2) as shown on Exhibit 5. A. Building Height • Building Height shall not exceed an average height of fifty-three (53') feet above existing grade. This maximum height limit for roof top screening devices shall be limited to sixty (60') feet which includes mechanical equipment. Elevator shafts may exceed the height limit up to a maximum of sixty-eight (68') feet from existing grade. B. Setback Requirements 1. Front • Minimum building front yard setback from the ROW line of West Coast Highway shall be fifteen (15') feet. Y Perimeter theme wall,landscaping and parking may occur from • I building to property line. 1 2, Side • Building setback from the side property line shall be a minimum of fifteen (15') feet. 3. Rear IBuilding setback from U.S.Bulkhead shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet. JC. Parking Requirements Parking for lodging use shall not be less than 1.5 spaces per unit and shall be provided on-site. -13- 3� ' may •. AREA 2 y LODGING FACILITY 276.517 sq.ft. - w ABOVE-GRADE a COVERED PARKING 96,430 sq.ft. ilk COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN — AREA 2 EXHIBIT 5 Balboa Bay Club ' cmftc _� k4 Newport Beach, California s ID. Landscaping and Walls Landscaping shall occur in all areas not devoted to structures, parking and driveways. Landscaping shall consist of a combination of tree massings, shrubs, groundcover and hardscape improvements, where feasible. I Landscaping within front yard setback area shall be designed to create a"park like" setting,softening off-site views. Perimeter theme walls shall not exceed ten (10') feet in height from existing grade measured at top of curb along West Coast Highway and ten(10') feet in height along the Bayshore property line, and are subject to applicable City codes. A detailed landscaping and irrigation program (prepared by a landscape architect, licensed landscaping contractor or architect) shall be subject to the review of the Parks,Beaches and Recreation Department. The program shall be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments prior to issuance of building permits and installed prior to issuance of the Certificate of Use and Occupancy. i L ' -14- I SIGN PROGRAM The purpose of this program is to address and define all applicable signage located at the Balboa Bay Club as noted below. The terms listed in this section shall apply to the sign program and have meanings which follow: Monument Sign - The term "Monument Sign" means any sign which is supported by its own structure and is not part of or J attached to any building and which is intended to depict project entry or project arrival. Sign - The term "Sign" means any media including their 1 structure and component parts which are used or intended to be used out-of-doors to communicate information to the public. Sign Face - The term "Sign Face" means the physical plane and/or surface upon which the wording or images are applied. Sign Letter - The term "Sign Letter" means the individual symbols used in forming the words of a message. IVehicle Entry Sign - "Vehicle Entry Sign" shall refer to a sign denoting intersection points along West Coast Highway and which denotes access for automobiles into the Balboa Bay J Club. PERMITTED SIGNS Project Identification Signs Monument Signs, identifying the Balboa Bay Club main entry, are permitted at each i vehicle entry drive location. Two (2) Vehicle Entry Signs are allowed at main entry 1 and one (1) sign at the service/secondary entry. The location of the signs.shall be Japproved by the City Traffic Engineer to ensure adequate sight distance. '.1 -15- 3 5�f- The sign area of each sign face shall not exceed 100 square feet and may be a series of panels or other artistic form interpreted by a designer. Sign area shall not exceed 1 a total height of eight (8) feet from West Coast Highway existing grade. Signs may include: illumination, natural moving water features, projections and use of neon when used to artistically enhance architectural features and/or signage. I Directional Signs In addition to other signs permitted in this section, signs used to give direction to vehicular or pedestrian traffic within the project are permitted. Said signs shall not 1 contain advertising messages and shall be subject to review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. JTemporary Signs In addition to other signs permitted in this section, temporary signs, intended to be displayed for sixty (60) days or less are permitted for purposes related to special events and/or seasonal activities. Temporary signs, identifying new construction or remodeling, may be displayed for the duration of the construction period and may extend beyond the sixty (60) day limit. Temporary sings above the first floor shall be subject to review and approval of the modifications committee. SIGN STANDARDS Maintenance Signs, together with all of their supports, braces,guys and anchors, shall be properly j maintained with respect to appearance, structure and electrical features. J RESTRICTED SIGN TYPES J Signs visible from surrounding land uses are subject to the following special :.l restrictions: 1 No rotating, flashing, blinking or signing with animation shall be permitted on a permanent basis. No signs shall be permitted which initiate or resemble official traffic signs or signals. No wind or audible signs shall be permitted. '� -16- iL a CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES REGULARCOUNCIL MEETING PLACE: Council Chambers J �f �!'d`R� TIME: July P.M. S DATE: July 8, 1991 ROLL CALL INDEX yo Sansone presented a Proclamation to Bill i Ba ngton of the Newport Beach Exchange Club in cognition of CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH. Mayor Sans a presented a Certificate of Appreciation o Roy Allen of Riviera Adjusters, who etired June 30, 1991, in recognition of hi 12 years as the City's Claims Adjuster. Present x x x x x x x A. ROLL CALL. Motion x B. Reading of Minutes of Me ing of All Ayes June 24, 1991, was waived, pproved as written, and ordered filed. Motion x C. Reading in full of all ordinance and All Ayes resolutions under consideration s waived, and City Clerk was direct t read by titles only. D. HEARINGS: 1. Mayor Sansone opened the public hearing Ord 91-28 regarding proposed ORDINANCE NO. 91-28, Zoning being, (94) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AMENDING DISTRICTING MAPS NOS. 6 AND 23 SO AS TO RECLASSIFY PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R-4 DISTRICT TO THE P-C DISTRICT; REMOVING THE SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION FROM THE SITE; AND ADOPTING PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BALBOA BAY CLUB, AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (PLANNING pCA 739 COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 739). AND USE PERMIT NO. 3422 - A request of the U/P 3422 Balboa Bay Club to allow hotel and restaurant uses in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club; AND TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 75 - A request by Traffic INTERNATIONAL BAY CLUBS, INC. , to Study No.75, approve a Traffic Study in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club. Report from the Planning Department. Supplemental information from the City Manager. Letters from William L. Thompson and Peter J. Tennyson in opposition, urging that the City Council not approve the Planning Commission's decision to allow the Bay Club to proceed with plans for the vast enlargement of the subject facility. Volume 45 - Page 210 t M CITY OF NWORT BEACO COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES Ju17 8, 1991 ROLL CALL INDEX The City Clerk advised that after the Balboa Bay agenda was printed, approximately 35 Club additional letters were received in opposition to the Balboa Bay Club'a proposed redevelopment plan, as well as 27 telephone calls voicing objections to the plan. Also, approximately 25 letters were received in support of said plan. The City Manager noted that in addition to what was provided by the Planning Department, members of the City Council were given a Copy of Pages 16 and 17 of the current Balboa Bay Club lease approved in 1986, which requires the City and the Balboa Bay Club to prepare a "comprehensive plan for redevelopment of the leased premises." The Balboa Bay Club's EIR, redevelopment plan, traffic studies and other items received from the Planning Commission are the result of the commitment made in the current lease. This does not mean that the City Council has to approve the plan at this time. The Council can change this plan if a majority of the City Council believes the redevelopment plan merits change. However, the agreement does require a redevelopment plan ultimately to be reviewed and approved so that it can be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for the Commission's review. The City Manager also referenced page 94 of the staff report, wherein it was pointed out that the State Lands Commission staff supports the concept of establishing the Balboa Bay Club as a "via itor-serving commercial" facility in furtherance of the Public Trust Doctrine and the provisions of the California Coastal Act. He also referenced page 103 of the staff report advising that the California Coastal Commission in their letter of June 17, 1991, encourages the Balboa Bay Club to provide public access to the bay and waterfront pursuant to the Coastal Act. Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager, outlined the proposed redevelopment plan and the applications to implement that plan as follows, A 300 unit hotel is proposed for Area 1 and a subterranean parking structure. A lodging facility is being proposed for Area 2 which will provide a total of 144 units. The largest component from a nondevelopment point is the inclusion of a very detailed public access program which is in response to the City's Local Coastal Program and the Coastal Act. The property which is now a private club will become far more accessible to members of the general public through both reserved use of banquet and hotel facilities, as well as accommodating casual access to the property, i.e. , Volume 45 - Page 211 CITY OF NWORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS p MINUTES �T July 8, 1991 ROLL CRLL INDEX pedestrian access, use of restaurant Balboa Bay facilities, walking onto the property, Club which presently does not occur. It is estimated that less than 10% of the total club portion of the project will actually be reserved for exclusive use of its members, which is a very significant change. Ms. Temple referenced the Planned Community Text for this project and explained how the square footage was calculated against the property under the provisions of the General Plan, pointing out the Statistical Analysis on page 14 of the staff report, which indicates Total Allowable Building Bulk - 1.35 for Area 1 and 2 (Gross Floor Area plus above-grade covered parking). She stated that the building bulk is 1.08 based on the total proposed plan. She summarized the additional conditions recommended to the EIR following the public hearing by the Planning Commission, and discussed the proposed sound attenuation standards for the Bayshore property line site, as well as the additional landscape plan for the facade of the building that faces toward Pacific Coast Highway, which will help mitigate any reflective noise. Ms. Temple introduced Andi Adams and Kevin Culbertson, the City's Environmental Consultants, Wes Pringle, City's Consultant Traffic Engineer, and Fred Greve, City's Consultant Noise Engineer, who were in attendance to answer technical questions of the City Council. Following a brief question and answer period regarding the height of the proposed sound attenuation wall, floor area ratio, and parking generation rate, the Mayor called for public testimony. Dennis O'Neill, Attorney representing the Balboa Bay Club, stated that they are sensitive to many of the issues raised by the community and staff involving view alterations or impairments, height of the structures, coverage of the project on the site, traffic, proposed traffic signal, and public access, etc. , and believe that the mitigation measures contained in the EIR adequately address those concerns. He added that as a result of those concerns, representatives of the Balboa Bay Club have continued to meet with community leaders to hopefully resolve those issues. Bill Ray, Chairman of the Board, Balboa Bay Club, explained exhibits depicting the existing structures on the site, as well as the proposed redevelopment plan. He stated that the Club Facility area (Area 1) is a combination of complimentary uses which includes the following: Guest Facility, Guest Serving Retail Services, Indoor/Outdoor Restaurant, Coffee Shop, Bar and Lounge, Volume 45 - Page 212 w CITY OF NWORT BEACH , COLWIL MEMBERS MINUTES July 8, 1991 ROLL CRLL INDEX Ballroom and Conference Facility, Balboa Bay Athletic Facility, Administration Club Offices, and Marina/Boat Storage and Parking. The adjacent Lodging Facility (Area 2) includes: Units in the lodging facility, Parking, Boat Storage, Marina, and Laundry. He also discussed setback and height limit requirements relative to their plan. Mr. Ray commented that the subject redevelopment plan has been public for over two years and that meetings have been held with civic groups as well as homeowner associations and neighbors. He distributed a booklet containing additional view studies from certain properties on Kings Road and Bayshore Avenue, and stated that no water views will be impacted. He also stated that as a result of the concerns of Bayshore residents, they are proposing to eliminate seven hotel units and move the building an additional 18 feet away from the Bayshore property line. In addition, they are reducing the height limit of the highest portions of the athletic building to approximately 32.5 feet and other portions of that building to 29 feet. He stated they recognize they have a strong community responsibility which they are attempting to fulfill. They feel they have an exceptionally good plan that meats the criteria of the General plan, and hope it will be approved. In response to Council inquiry, Mr.Ray answered questions regarding the lease extension approved in 1986 and the money borrowed against said lease; who compiled their economic feasibility study; improvements to the Terrace Apartments; the possibility of converting the apartments to "visitor- serving;" the long-term plan for said apartments; and the rooftop terrace referenced on page 17 of the staff report. The following persons addressed the Council in opposition to the proposed redevelopment plan indicating their concerns regarding precedent setting, traffic, pollution, building height, increase in noise (during construction and after project completed), inadequate EIR, increase in water usage for hotel and lodging facility, 24-hour reflective lighting, delivery trucks, size of proposed hotel structure, etc. : Nicholas Yaru, 1210 Kings Road, Cliffhaven Community Association Mary Peikert, 811 Kings Road, Cliffhaven Community Association Jim Adams, 1611 Kings Road, Cliffhaven Community Association Al Beaudette, 401 Kings Place, Cliffhaven Community Association Kevin Green, 2451 Marino Drive, Bayshores Community Association Bill Hart, 2451 Bayshore Drive, Bayshores Community Association Volume 45 - Page 213 OC I TY OF NEIf'PORT BEACH COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES July 8, 1991 ROLL CflLL INDEX Jeffrey Oderman, 2561 Vista Drive, Balboa Bay Bayshores Community Association Club Jack Teal, 2792 Circle Drive, Bayshores Community Association Gordon Glass, 2562 Waverly Drive, Bayshores Community Association Eustace Rojas, 2219 Cliff Drive Mrs. Reed, 1805 Cliff Drive Drew Lawler, 2461 Crestview, Bayshores Community Association Grant Reynolds, 1301 Kings Road Carol Brown, 222 Coral Avenue Allan Beek, 2007 Highland Avenue Terry Buckley, 2592 Vista Drive, Bayshores Community Association John Miller, P.O. Box 1475, Newport Beach John Fellows, 1100 Westcliff Drive Jay Walling, 1113 Kings Road James Svetz, 403 Flagship Road, Newport Beach, employee of Balboa Bay Club, and Angela J. Keefe, Hotel Workers Union, Local 681, addressed the Council expressing their concerns over the low wages paid to the 120 full-time employees of the Balboa Bay Club. The following persons addressed the Council in favor of the proposed redevelopment plan, indicating they felt the project will be an asset to the City, not only aesthetically, but also generate additional revenue; that noise will not be a problem as a result of the hotel; the proposed development will enhance the Balboa Bay Club as a visitor-serving facility, and the project will provide greater .public access to the water than presently exists: Ellen Wilcox, 2027 Deborah Lane Al Smith, 2601 Circle Drive, Bayshores Community Association Jim Dale, 434 Tustin Avenue Joseph Grothu, 419 Belvue Lane William Lusk, 220 Poinsettia Avenue Jackie Heather, 1500 Dorothy Lane, former Mayor and Council Member Stephen Sutherland, 300 E. Coast Highway, Member of Mariners Mile Association Elon Wells, 20 Jetty Drive Donald Olson, resident at Balboa Bay Club Donald Lewis, 440 Lido Nord Motion x At this time Mayor Sansone disallowed any further testimony in view of the late hour, and motion was made by Council Member Hart to re-introduce Ordinance No. 91-28 as revised in Section 3 as follows and pass to second reading on July 22, 1991: "Development of the property, which is rezoned P-C pursuant to this Ordinance, shall be as specified in the Planned Community District Regulations and Volume 45 - Page 214 'M CITY OF NMORT BEAC110 , COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES \\July 8, 1991 ROLL CFlLI INDEX Development Plan which is also approved Balboa Bay and adopted pursuant to this Ordinance, Club and which specifies the permitted land uses, intensity and density limits and development standards and regulations for the property as set forth in the attached Exhibit C." Council Member Watt asked if the City had ever completed an economic feasibility study which would tell the Council what the City could do with the Balboa Bay Club property if the City were to let the lease run out and the property reverted to the public. The City Manager responded in the affirmative and stated he would forward her a copy. All Ayes The motion was voted on and carried. Motion x Motion was made to continue this public All Ayes hearing to July 22, 1991. Mayor Sansone opened the public hearing CP/LUP regarding LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE Amnd 23 PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 23 establishing a policy regarding private oceanfront (68) encroachments on public property. Also included is consideration of amendments o Council Policy L-14, which e tablished administrative procedures fo the implementation of the Local Coa tal Program policy. Repor from the Planning Department. Letter om Robert Todd in opposition to allowing beach front owners "permit encroachm ts." The City C rk advised that after the agenda was printed, a letter was received fro Jerry Cobb, Chairman of the Ocean ron ncroachments Committee, in support of t e proposed policy. John Wolter, P lie Works Projects Engineer, stated at the ocean front encroachment pblic approved by the California Coastal mmission will, if accepted by the City, ke modifications to the policy adopt by the City Council in October, 19 The revised policy and the modific tions are as follows: Ill. Specified a max tIm 10 foot depth of encroac ants from 36th Street to 52 Street. The allowable enc achment of 15 feet from 52n Street to the Santa Ana Ri r and 74 feet from A Stre t to beyond E Street was not changed. "2. A new fee schedule w established. Fees ar based on the depth of the encroachment and range from $100 to $600 per year. Volume 45 - Page 215 ` • City Counc3i Meeting July 8. 1991 Agenda Item No. D-1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A. Ordinance No 91-28 (Amendment No. 7391 Request to'amend a portion of Districting Maps No. 6 and 23 so as to reclassify property from the R-4 District to the P-C District; removing the Specific Plan designation from the site; and adopting Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan on property known as the Balboa Bay Club, and the acceptance of an environmen- tal document; and AND B. Use Permit No. 3422 Request of the Balboa Bay Club to allow hotel and restaurant uses in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club; and AND C. Traffic Study No. 75 A request of the Balboa Bay Club to approve a Traffic Study in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club, INITIATED BY: The City of Newport Beach Applications The applications requested will, if approved, provide the regulatory framework for the redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club. An amendment to the Newport Beach Municipal Code is required for the redistricting and establishment of Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan for the Balboa Bay Club. Also requested is a Use permit to allow the establishment of hotel and restaurant uses on property designated for Recreational and Marine Commercial by the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan and the approval of a Traffic Study. Amendment procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.84 and Planned Community procedures are set forth in Chapter 20.51 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Procedures for the approval of a Use Permit are contained in Chapter TO: City Counc02. • 20.80 of the Municipal Code and Traffic Study procedures are in Chapter 15.45 of the Code and also in Council Policy S-1. Suaoested Action Hold hearing, close hearing; if desired 1. Adopt Resolution No. accepting, approving and certifying Final Environmental Impact Report No. 143; 2. Make the Findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report; 3. Find that the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations are true and are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final Environmental Impact Report; 4. With respect to the project, find that although the Final Environmental Impact Report identifies certain unavoidable significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, the mitigation measures identified shall be incorporated into the project, and all significant environmental effects that can feasibly be miti- gated or avoided have been eliminated or reduced to an acceptable level, and that the remaining unavoidable significant effects, when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, giving greater weight to the unavoidable environmental effects, are acceptable; 5. Adopt Ordinance No. 91-28, being AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE BALBOA BAY CLUB AND AMENDING PORTIONS OF DISTRICTING MAPS NO. 48 AND 49 SO AS TO RECLASSIFY SAID PROPERTY FROM THE R-4 DISTRICT TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY (P-C) DISTRICT AND REMOVING THE SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION FROM THE PROPERTY (PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO, 739) 6. Approve Use Permit No. 3422 with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit "A"; 7. Sustain the action of the Planning Commission and approve Traffic Study No. 75. Planning Commission Recommendation At its meeting of June 6, 1991, the Planning Commission voted (all ayes) to recommend approval of Amendment No. 739 to the City Council. A Traffic Study and Environmental s TO: City Council 3. Impact Report related to this amendment were also approved by the Commission. Copies of the staff report, an excerpt of the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting and the Environmental Impact Report have been previously forwarded to the City Council, and these documents should be brought to the Council meeting. Addition of Use Permit Application Through the Environmental Review process, it has been pointed out that the approval of hotels and restaurants on property designated for Recreational and Marine Commercial are required to receive approval of use permit by the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. A Use Permit is, therefore, being added to the applications under consideration for the redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club. It is important to note that the introduction of the Use Permit at this stage of the process has no effect on the substance of the project being considered, and the project as reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission is conditioned the same as if the Use Permit were included at the outset. Additionally, the review process and public hearing procedures for zoning amendments are more comprehensive than the Use Permit process in that the Amendment must be acted upon by the City Council while use permits can be acted upon by the Planning Commission and are only subject to review by the City Council. The suggested action for this item makes reference to Exhibit "A" which includes the finding required for the Use Permit. Respectfully Submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director Patricia L. Temple AdvancePlanning Manager Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution - EIR 143 2. CEQA Statement of Findings and Facts 3. CEQA Statement of Overriding Considerations 4. Exhibit "A" 5. Response to Comments 6. Plans and Elevations PL11:..\CC\AMD\A739.SR2 ORDINANCE NO. 21- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE BALBOA BAY CLUB AND AMENDING PORTIONS OF DISTRICTING MAPS NO.48 AND 49 SO AS TO RECLASSIFY SAID PROPERTY FROM THE R-4 DISTRICT TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY (P-C)DISTRICT AND REMOVING THE SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION FROM THE PROPERTY (PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO 739) The City Council of the City of Newport Beach DOES ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. The subject property is the following real property in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange,State of California: A portion of Lot 171, Block 54 of Irvine's Subdivision, as shown on Map thereof filed in Book 1,Page 86 of miscellaneous record maps in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California. as shown on the attached Exhibit"A"and hereinafter referred to as"Property." Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to rezone all of the above described Property from,the R-4 District to the Planned Community (P-C) District, designate said Property as the Balboa Bay Club Planned Community, and remove the Specific Plan designation from the property. SECTION 2. The Planning Director of the City of Newport Beach is hereby instructed and directed to change Districting Maps 6 and 23,referred to in Section 20.01.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and by such reference is made a part of Title 20, to reflect said change as described in Section 1 hereof,and shown in the attached Exhibit "B",and when said Districting Maps have been so amended,the same shall be in full force and effect and be a part of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SECTION 3. The entire territory known as the Balboa Bay Club Planned Community, more fully described in Section 1, which is zoned P-C, is hereby amended to adopt Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan,which delineates all permitted land uses,intensity and density limits,and development standards and regulations for the area, as set forth in the attached Exhibit"C". • SECTION 4. The Planning Director of the City of Newport Beach is also hereby instructed and directed to apply all of the provisions of said Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan to the Property as described herein;the same shall be in full force and effect and be a part of Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. SECTION 5. The'Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City within fifteen(15)days of its adoption. The Ordinance shall be effective thirty days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach,held on the_day of 1991, and was adopted on the _day of . 1991,by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES,COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Attachments: Exhibits"A'', "B",and "C' PL71._\CC\AMD\A739.0RD ' 2 • 1 •J} Exhibit A Lial Ze cc y ' Rl Q .Rf o RI U MFR RI RI 7 ' F J �\ !21 g) �D RI o �RI^� RI r RI Rl RI RI. RI Rl RI R1 RC RI' r R I c R4 . ZI • '� t a 'a � = mom -S - A � RI Rf Rl Rl ' RI RI RI � 4 piaz cioo RlOF �a r• fs ••. F ro R I ..+� ,/QCNT v Proposed Zoning - Planned Community District (PC) N.T.s.`«�►/ Balboa Bay Club ®I ®/ J L.:. _ - SZE MAP NO• 2/ See MAP . .4 \ \ 1 /A V R/n �fII �41;�ZlO I te `P t .✓. f Q• I b.• •O. ]_ Ono wa .+ .cr xe /... •r O.•. \ ' \ ..e'• •/ �. �� . .y M \\'DVJ� M•as nn n'.cr no iai(� J OOO.wo. iff la/i/l/•+✓.n/lA IYa KI I.f,,+// !r O O \\ S, P\ •M Q\•Aa` � if � P Qp ` a ?,f,D n 'o\\ i..ar.nn varn.rn.Is/:`..f n:wwr! a.+r...•" Z \\ /. \• . e`\.ONE1•% � I h. 'J Q- i• •y � \ D141.0. rt/ l�Alw.%i•'nO b>Jn/hI MFv'r✓ Q \\ wlfYKlYTf1Y \ . {a p' \' ~q \ • . Q• \\ JJ/ fi/{,I/w.Nl l...n/r r•'...n. nrun.+aorDa \ 1rV R.\,n•Y'y.} �+�r't_a1 �: i �� onrr.w.sY:w1;Hill a.s ldrpnar:.rur rye+ Pcn „�AVfD r ..V � ? i ''• •:, a. lrm �✓lI/Il/S/nsG iYlDivrY.x 4L6 Rw S ♦ 4 n Q � QO ° a .i �\ ,ItaU:LAO Nl •Y myriarnin.x+�w•a.n x�w.n{.. \ • h OaD.M0.f04a AQON( at(DIt IC AAOf IA M1(f.11.10 f0 •n RHO' rya �• d� •+a• A krftrr \\\ //C�f•�•� Sze MAP No. 9 ^�i - W, DISTRICTING MAP NEWPORT BEACH — CALIFORNIA RSA AGNICVLTUNAL NESIDENTIAL N'3 NES"MMV&t fANILT 11ESIOCNTIAL =I SINGLE rAMILY NESIOENTIAL C-1 LIONT MWMENWI '• A—E ' OUfLEE NCSIOC nAL C�1 GCN[SAL CONM[SCIAL O N-1 LAXp IACNRINO OPD.NO.aOf - a1FN INJtTIR[fA311LY AESf0ENT4L MAD N0. SUL( Or FEE _ ��(] COaMINO pISTI1ICT u VNCLASSIf ICO 'Ct4 Sa.11W --� Ioo '^D i°• O°O rent YalYj a 4h C� t hewn to •-1 - ' rrr YY. ,o I+ •• •• \ UPPER 1 t'••�Py o[oe °oct90 i BAY PC cp�t " ell ' • CN 6i�Wl•d I �P o ar: al. It 0 LOV'�P1 t.l R ' .1`\ ✓ x [ `o\ ... 1.17J 0P •_ Cif `'tPtf, 0 lfL �•L� •` •.• 415 R•II \ .l•• .P� R t �S 45 +,\ _ t �'t 1rrJt•d •R,3 R•I Yr rw w�iwM+O W' R' NEWPOR7 ryge ••+ .a R,1 R'1 1 •4•�! `''*ct ° GIV[ ,11 .e• R.I .n.n R•1 • BAY R•I R•I i { R•1 i R 3 aa/`swno.tnwrr.✓emae:3� R•1 AR OR n.l.Ylh ISLAND R•I V n0, • ' a•.Ysryr arwom,Yrawu '� �.' slys. +t DIM 1 I ^tovnear-wr[[er[wes ��v.i 3':T i _ f F Y I 1 pltGr/S✓IO drrfacraCM[ .r 1!! MAP ,0. IJ IJY/s!0 9•71•eJ DISTRICTING—IMAP—CITY—OF—NEWPORT— BEACH—CALIFORNIA en. Yc. uit•u•=t>o___. 1WITO IT . +mlwuw+qI REVISIONS -' C•• IMIYLTW4MtYCpTIIL gttllltt 4Y IIOCMtOYMDDe CgWGWL 4167,10T Ywnf - ...... mt el YTI ••1 nYw[ tWY.T pIDIR CA LIVITCe WWWMIAL-YYLTIKC AC31ONPAL e1CTICCt Y.KIYt In ens lvt.e.Yn• _ 'ii;•1` C•1 LIYMT COYYGCYL e11TRICT n.tn td Rr WIC C.t oYKG Rt110t.n" ow-= yYlMu11.I K.M+YI..t •••� Y.) ve Yrl, MlllrtZ R{YOLYTYL C•t CpC11Rl COYYGCy. gR111R .•V•t1 hC w w N M• ���+Y•, �� RnM Y bt.n=.f Y,l,r. t 1•Y•T _hi�Mn Yt M IM 0 KC IW %C' �,�.. Y1TK[ R[YO[YTI.L pC1Y1C1 •.) •tCTO YYLT10.L IIYILY 11Ct10[IITYL it u..0 Y•IY R i•[[v3 -+-.� I�,� �• ,• ,. 1[.J��'•y�+t f 3 2 Oy V4lrlt edtAltt 1+•VU+•itli•i>i1331.+ii••Y•••N : rK Y;r• St. n�nN tC4l 1Y fttl �cwnrYt a •[' p[TRKT .R tt.t. ��,runY:rt.v+Yr ,•w.w w.:+v+ t17 %�;r3�w• °w•,11 ,iaur taco nrw r![[r ywuo rwJ -A- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING AS COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 143 FOR THE BALBOA BAY CLUB EXPANSION AND REMODELING PROJECT WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 143 provided environmental impact assessment for the proposed Balboa Bay Club Expansion and Remodeling Project; and WHEREAS, the DEIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),the State CEQA Guidelines and Council Policy K-3; and WHEREAS,the DEIR was circulated to the public for comment and review; and WHEREAS,written comments were received from the public during and after the review period; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach conducted a public hearing to receive public testimony with respect to the DEIR; and WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were responded to through Response to Comments and staff reports submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were fully and adequately responded to in the manner set forth in California Administrative Code Section 15088(b); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed all environmental documents comprising the EIR and has found that the EIR considers all environmental impacts of the proposed Balboa Bay Club Expangion and Remodeling Project completely and adequately and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines;and 3/ • WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the certified final EIR in making its decision on the proposed Balboa Bay Club Expansion and Remodeling Project;and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve the project; and WHEREAS,the City Council by this Resolution adopts the Statement of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS,Section 21002.1 of CEQA and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines require that the City Council make one or more of the following Findings prior to the approval of a project for which an EIR has been completed,identifying one or more significant effects of the project, along with Statements of Facts supporting each Finding: FINDING 1-Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR. FINDING 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the Finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR; and WHEREAS,Section 15092 provides that the City shall not decide to approve or carry out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless it has (A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible as shown in the findings under Section 15091,and (B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable under Section 15091•are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in Section 15093; and WHEREAS, Section 15093 (a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the City Council to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the-project;and 2 5.2 WHEREAS,Section 15903(b)of the State CEQA Guidelines requires,where the decision of the City Council allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the EIR but are not mitigated, the City must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the EIR or other information in the record. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that: 1. The City Council makes the Findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR, together with the Finding that each fact in support of the Finding is true and based upon substantial evidence in the record,including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. 2. The City Council finds that the Facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations are true and supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. 3. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. 4. The City Council finds that all significant effects of the project are set forth in the Statement of Facts. 5. The City Council finds that although the Final EIR•identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects that can be feasibly avoided or mitigated have been avoided or mitigated by the imposition of Conditions on the approved project and the imposition of mitigation measures as set forth in the Statement of Fact and the Final EIR. 6. The City Council finds that potential mitigation measures and project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible,based upon specific economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR, 3 �t 7. The City Council finds that the unavoidable significant impact of the project, as identified in the Statement of Facts, that has not been reduced to a level of insignificance has been substantially reduced in impact by the imposition of Conditions on the approved project and the imposition of mitigation measures. In making its decision on the project,the Planning Commission has given greater weight to the adverse environmental impact. The City Council finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impact is clearly outweighed by the economic, social and other benefits of the project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 8. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has described all reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project,even when those alternatives might impede the attainment of other project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the draft EIR and all reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the project. 9. The City Council finds that the project should be approved and that any alternative to this action should not be approved for the project based on the information contained in the Final EIR,the data contained in the Statement of Facts and for the reasons stated in the public record and those contained in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 10. The City Council finds that a good faith effort has been made to seek out and incorporate all points of view in the preparation of the Draft and Final EIR as indicated in the public record on the project, including the Final EIR. 11. The City Council finds that during the public hearing process on the Balboa Bay Club Expansion and Remodeling Project, the Environmental Impact Report evaluated a range of alternatives. The project,as approved by this action,is included in that range of alternatives. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission in its decision on the project. 4 3y NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby certify the Final Environmental Impact Report No.143 for the Balboa Bay Club Expansion and Remodeling Project as complete and adequate in that it addresses all environmental effects of the proposed project and fully complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines. Said Final Environmental Impact Report is comprised of the following elements: 1. Draft EIR and Technical Appendices 2. Responses to Comments 3. Planning Commission Staff Reports 4. Planning Commission Minutes 5. Planning Commission Resolution, Findings and Conditions for Recommended Approval 6. City Council Staff Reports 7. City Council Minutes 8. City Council Ordinance, Resolution and Findings and Conditions for Approval 9. Comments and Responses received prior to final action and not contained in 1 through 8 above. All of the above information has been and will be on file with the Planning Department,City of Newport Beach,City Hall,3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach, California 92659-1768, (714) 644.3225. ADOPTED THIS day of 1991. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Attachments: Exhibits 1 &2 I'M..\ED\E1R\E1R143.RS1 5 .3S RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING AS COMPLETE AND ADEQUATE THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT .NO. 143 FOR THE BALBOA BAY CLUB EXPANSION AND REMODELING PROTECT WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 143 provided environmental impact assessment for the proposed Balboa Bay Club Expansion and Remodeling Project;and WHEREAS, the DEIR was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),the State CEQA Guidelines and Council Policy K-3; and WHEREAS,the DEIR was circulated to the public for comment and review; and WHEREAS,written comments were received from the public during and after the review period; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach conducted a public hearing to receive public testimony with respect to the DEIR;and WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were responded to through Response to Comments and staff reports submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council;and WHEREAS, such comments and testimony were fully and adequately responded to in the manner set forth in California Administrative Code Section 15088(b); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed all environmental documents comprising the EIR and has found that the EIR considers all environmental impacts of the proposed Balboa Bay Club Expansion and Remodeling Project completely and adequately and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and 3� WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the certified final EIR in making its decision on the proposed Balboa Bay Club Expansion and Remodeling Project;and WHEREAS,the City Council desires to approve the project; and WHEREAS,the City Council by this Resolution adopts the Statement of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations as required by Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS,Section 21002.1 of CEQA and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines require that the City Council make one or more of the following Findings prior to the approval of a project for which an EIR has been completed,identifying one or more significant effects of the project,along with Statements of Facts supporting each Finding: FINDING 1-Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the EIR. FINDING 2- Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the Finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR; and WHEREAS,Section 15092 provides that the City shall not decide to approve or carry out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless it has (A) Eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible as shown in the findings under Section 15091,and (B) Determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable under Section 15091 are acceptable due to overriding concerns as described in Section 15093; and WHEREAS, Section 15093 (a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires the City Council to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project; and 2 ,�7 • WHEREAS,Section 15903(b)of the State CEQA Guidelines requires,where the decision of the City Council allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the EIR but are not mitigated, the City must state in writing the reasons to support its action based on the EIR or other information in the record. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that: 1. The City Council makes the Findings contained in the Statement of Facts with respect to significant impacts identified in the Final EIR, together with the Finding that each fact in support of the Finding is true and based upon substantial evidence in the record,including the Final EIR. The Statement of Facts is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. 2. The City Council finds that the Facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations are true and supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the Final EIR. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. 3. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. 4. The City Council finds that all significant effects of the project are set forth in the Statement of Facts. 5. The City Council Hinds that although the Final EIR identifies certain significant environmental effects that will result if the project is approved, all significant effects that can be feasibly avoided or mitigated have been avoided or mitigated by the imposition of Conditions on the approved project and the imposition of mitigation measures as set forth in the Statement of Fact and the Final EIR. 6. The City Council finds that potential mitigation measures and project alternatives not incorporated into the project were rejected as infeasible,based upon specific economic, social and other considerations as set forth in the Statement of Facts and the Final EIR. i 3 7. The City Council finds that the unavoidable significant impact of the project, as identified in the Statement of Facts, that has not been reduced to a level of insignificance has been substantially reduced in impact by the imposition of Conditions on the approved project and the imposition of mitigation measures. In making its decision on the project,the Planning Commission has given greater weight to the adverse environmental impact. The City Council finds that the remaining unavoidable significant impact is clearly outweighed by the economic, social and other benefits of the project, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. S. The City Council finds that the Final EIR has described all reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project,even when those alternatives might impede the attainment of other project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the City Council finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the draft EIR and all reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the project. 9. The City Council finds that the project should be approved and that any alternative to this action should not be approved for the project based on the information contained in the Final EIR,the data contained in the Statement of Facts and for the reasons stated in the public record and those contained in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 10. The City Council finds that a good faith effort has been made to seek out and incorporate all points of view in the preparation of the Draft and Final EIR as indicated in the public record on the project,including the Final EIR. 11. The City Council finds that during the public hearing process on the Balboa Bay Club Expansion and Remodeling Project, the Environmental Impact Report evaluated a range of alternatives. The project,as approved by this action,is included in that range of alternatives. The City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission in its decision on the project. 4 3`4 NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby certify the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 143 for the Balboa Bay Club Expansion and Remodeling Project as complete and adequate in that it addresses all environmental effects of the proposed project and fully complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the State CEQA Guidelines. Said Final Environmental Impact Report is comprised of the following elements: 1. Draft EIR and Technical Appendices 2. Responses to Comments 3. Planning Commission Staff Reports 4. Planning Commission Minutes 5. Planning Commission Resolution, Findings and Conditions for Recommended Approval 6. City Council Staff Reports 7. City Council Minutes 8. City Council Ordinance, Resolution and Findings and Conditions for Approval 9. Comments and Responses received prior to final action and not contained in 1 through 8 above. All of the above information has been and will be on file with the Planning Department,City of Newport Beach, City Hall,3300 Newport Boulevard,Newport Beach, California 92659-1768, (714) 644-3225. ADOPTED THIS day of , 1991. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Attachments: Exhibits 1 &2 PL71..\ED\E1R\EHU43.RS1 5 0 Exhibit 1 CEQA STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS AMENDMENT NO 739 USE PERMIT NO 3422 AND TRAFFIC STUDY NO 75 BAL BOA BAY CLUB EXPANSION AND REMODELING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO 143 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO SAID EFFECTS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF,ALL WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVAL OF A TRAFFIC STUDY AND A REFLECTIVE NOISE STUDY FOR THE BALBOA BAY CLUB EXPANSION AND REMODELING PROJECT,CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA. BACKGROUND The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Guidelines)promulgated pursuant thereto provide: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines)." The City of Newport Beach is considering approval of a request to permit the expansion and remodeling of the Balboa Bay Club. Redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club facilities will increase building square footage from approximately 155,303 square feet to 275,512 square feet on 8.25 acres of the 12.65 total acres of the property; no change in use is proposed. Total building square footage would increase from 402,705 to 522,914 square feet. This includes 247,402 square feet attributable to the existing Terrace Apartments on site,which will not change as a result of the project. The project includes a change of zone from R-4 "Residential/Commercial/Social Club Facilities" to PC 'Planned Community" zoning in order to establish site and project specific standards tailored to the proposed Balboa Bay Club Expansion and Remodeling Project. The proposed actions include the certification of an Environmental Impact Report and approval of a zone change, use permit, and traffic study. Because the proposed actions constitute a project under the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Newport Beach has prepared an Environmental Impact Report(EIR). This EIR has identified certain significant effects which may occur as a result of the project on a cumulative basis in conjunction with other past,present and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Further, the City desires to approve this project and, after determining that the EIR is complete and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines,the findings set forth are herein made: Ultimate development of the project will result in certain significant unavoidable adverse impacts on the environment,as indicated below and in the Final EIR. With respect to those impacts,the City Council of the City of Newport Beach makes the findings as stated on the following pages. yi 2 FINDINGS AND FAM IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT'S OF THE PROJECT' EFFE(7I'S DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT Based of the Initial Study,the Environmental Impact Report,and the substantial evidence contained therein, it has been determined with certainty that no significant impact to the environment will occur in the following areas: EARTH The destruction,covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands,or changes in siltation,deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake. • Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes,landslides, mudslides,ground failure, or similar hazards. AIR • Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality. • Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally. WATER Changes in currents,or the course of direction of water movements,in either marine or fresh waters. • Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body. • Discharge into surface waters,or in any alteration of surface water quality,including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies. PLANT LIFE Reduction of the numbers of any unique,rare or endangered species of plants. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or as a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop. ANIMAL LIFE • Change in the diversity of species,or numbers of any species of animals(birds,land animals including reptiles,fish and shellfish,benthic organisms or insects). • Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals. ya 3�F 3 Introduction of new species of animals into an area,or any resultant barrier to the migration or movement of animals. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat. LAND USE • A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area. NATURAL RESOURCES • Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources. RISK OF UPSET • Risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to,oil,pesticides,chemicals or radiation)in the event of an accident or upset conditions. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan. POPULATION • Alteration of the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area. HOUSING • Effect on existing housing or demand for additional housing. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION • Alteration of waterborne,rail or air traffic. PUBLIC SERVICES • Effect upon,or result in a need for,new or altered governmental services pertaining to schools,parks or other recreational facilities,and maintenance of public facilities, including roads. ENERGY • Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy. • Substantial increase in the demand upon existing sources of energy,or a requirement for the development of new sources of energy. HUMAN HEALTH Any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health). Exposure of people to potential health hazards. /3 3S- 4 EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGABLE TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE Based on the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report(EIR),it has been determined that the following potentially significant impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance with the imposition of the mitigation measures contained in the EIR as enumerated below: LANDFORM AND TOPOGRAPHY Sivnificant Effect • Grading will consist of 40,996 cubic yards of cut and 1,622 cubic yards of fill, resulting in approximately 2,180 truck trips and causing short term traffic impacts on Coast Highway. The project will result in potential impacts to surrounding properties from erosion of exposed soils onsite during grading operations. • Grading and stockpiling of excavated earth will result in erosion and the generation of dust. Findine 1. Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Grading operations shall be performed in a manner intended to protect surrounding properties from impact during the construction period by including dust control and erosion control activities and operation hour restrictions. The Director, Building Department,City of Newport Beach shall ensure the continued enforcement of these measures during construction. 2. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 3. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes designed to minimize traffic conflicts, access points to the site which are safe (including flagmen), and a watering program designed to minimize the dust impacts of haul operations. The applicant shall, subject to the City Traffic Engineer's approval, install the traffic signal at the entrance prior to the commencement of construction to assist in said safety control. 4. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit. A copy of the plan shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 5. Grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a civil engineer incorporating the recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the"Approved as Built" grading plans �iy • 5 shall be furnished to the Building Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 6. Prior to demolition of existing structures,a complete plan for litter and debris control for the demolition, grading, and construction phases to ensure that no debris is permitted to enter Newport Harbor shall be approved by the Planning and Marine Departments. SOILS AND GEOLOGY Significant Effect • The presence of groundwater will make excavation of the site more difficult than normal,requiring a temporary dewatering system to lower the water level to below the planned level of excavation before completing the required excavation. Dewatering activities may generate discharge of water into Newport Bay. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Facts in Support of Findings The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City.Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Treatment of extracted water shall be conducted in a manner and at a location approved by the City of Newport Beach City Engineer and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2. Suspended solids(e.g.,sand) shall be separated from extracted water in accordance with applicable water quality standards and disposed of at a location approved by the Public Works Department and the Grading Engineer. 3. Provision shall be made, as necessary, for the treatment of hydrogen sulfide to comply with water quality standards and to control odors from the dewatering process. 4. If the applicant intends to use an ocean disposal site for excavated materials,the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall be provided with evidence that all appropriate permits from the Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Newport Beach have been obtained. Such evidence shall be submitted to and verified by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 5. The groundwater level shall be lowered to a depth at least five feet beneath the excavation bottom. The dewatering system shall be designed and performed by qualified engineers with previous experience in this type of construction. Selection of the engineer shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. ys 6 6. A detailed preconstruction survey shall be prepared to document the present condition of all buildings and facilities within the zone of influence of the dewatered investigation. Photographs,crack surveys,and installation of a reference benchmark beyond the zone of influence shall be included in the preconstruction survey. Areas within at least 30 feet of the proposed excavation shall be monitored for any settlement and lateral movements due to possible deflection of the shoring system. Groundwater observation wells within the zone of influence shall be installed. The specific parameters of the study shall be provided to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of the grading permit. 7. If found necessary by the City of Newport Beach, based upon the geotechnical information described above,the project applicant will be required to enter into an agreement and post a bond guaranteeing the repair of the public street system, utilities or other public property that might be damaged during the dewatering excavation process and the construction of subterranean improvements. 8. If found necessary by the City of Newport Beach, based upon the geotechnical information described above,the project applicant will be required to enter into an agreement guaranteeing the repair of all damage to private property caused by the dewatering excavation process and the construction of subterranean improvements. 9. Prior to the issuance of grading permits,a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit shalt be obtained from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water extracted from dewatering wells shall meet current Environmental Protection Agency requirements prior to discharging into the Bay. If necessary,the water shall be desilted prior to discharge. Sienificant Effect Any project which intensifies human use/occupancy of an area on or near an active fault will cumulatively add to the potential for property damage/injury if an earthquake or ground acceleration takes place. Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall submit final soils engineering and geologic studies to the Director,Building Department,City of Newport Beach,for approval. These reports will primarily involve further assessment of potential soil-related constraints and hazards such as slope instability,settlement, liquefaction, ground water conditions, or related secondary seismic impacts where determined to be appropriate by the Building Department,City of Newport Beach. The report shall include evaluation of potentially expansive soil and recommended construction procedures and/or design criteria to minimize their effect of these soils on the proposed development. All reports shall recommend appropriate mitigation measures and be completed in the manner specified in the Newport Beach Grading Code and State Subdivision Map Act, In addition to the above criteria, the following specific items shall be required: 7 a. Dewatering induced ground subsidence shall be addressed. A settlement monitoring program shall be designed to identify any settlement before existing area improvements are damaged. b. Buildings shall be designed to resist hydrostatic uplift forces without the use of pumps or other mechanized devices which may fail. C. Shoring designs shall be prepared 2. All new construction shall be inspected by the City of Newport Beach Building Department to ensure compliance with Section 2312(a) Earthquake Regulations, Uniform Building Code, 1988 Edition. Significant Effect • Those areas planned for building floor slabs at grade,adjacent slabs and walks,and for paving consist of existing fill and natural soils which are not suitable for support unless they are excavated and replaced with compacted fill. Findine 1. Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EB2. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Recommendations included in the February 19, 1990 LeRoy Crandall&Associates' Geotechnical Report shall be incorporated into project design where appropriate. The Building Department shall verify the application of the appropriate recommendations prior to the issuance of grading permits. 2. A supplemental subsurface investigation shall be performed subsequent to demolition of the existing buildings to obtain subsurface data in those areas inaccessible during previous studies. 3. The upper ten feet of soil material shall be removed. Remaining soil to a distance at least five feet below and beyond the proposed structure shall be densified as described in the Geotecbnical Report as verified or amended by subsequent subsurface investigation. 4. Light construction equipment shall be used for earthwork operations. No heavy equipment shall be used. HYDROLOGY Significant Effect The project will result in the need to relocate existing drainage facilities and make further drainage improvements. �7 8 Findine 1. Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findin¢ The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. A grading plan, submitted to the Director, Building Department, City of Newport Beach,shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt,debris,and other water pollutants. Prior to recordation of any final parcel map or prior to issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, whichever comes first, said improvements shall be constructed in a manner meeting the approval of the Director,Building Department,City of Newport Beach. 2. All outfalls into the bay shall have flapgates attached to the storm drain outlets to serve as a backflow prevention device, subject to approval of the Director, Public Works, City of Newport Beach. 3., Existing on-site drainage facilities shall be improved to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach City Engineer. A hydrology and hydraulic study and a master plan of water,sewer and storm drain for on-site improvements shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department prior to recording the tract map. Any modifications to the existing storm drain system shall be the responsibility of the developer. 4. A landscape plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect, shall be submitted which includes a maintenance program that controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. The plan shall be reviewed by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. 5. Landscaped areas shall be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface run-off and over-watering. 6. Drainage facilities and architectural features shall be designed to prevent run-off from entering the garage structure,keep the garage floor slab dry from seepage,and remove oil and grease from run-off prior to discharge into the public storm drains. Verification of these design features shall be made by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. A hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department,along with a master plan of water,sewer and storm drain facilities for the on-site improvements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain,water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study and the City shall be the responsibility of the developer. The private water system will have to be upgraded to meet current City standards. 8. A condition survey of the existing bulkhead along the bay side of the property shall be made by a civil or structural engineer, and the bulkhead shall be repaired in conformance with the recommendations of the condition survey and to the 7- .t3 9 satisfaction of the Building Department and Marine Department. The top of the bulkhead is to be a minimum elevation of 9.00 above M.LLW. (6.27 MSL). CLIMATE/AIR QUALITY Significant Effect Project construction activities will result in short-term impacts to air quality as air pollutants are emitted by construction equipment and dust is generated during grading. Findin¢ 1. Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. A dust control program in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 shall be implemented during demolition, excavation and construction. This program shall include such measures as: containing soil on-site until it is hauled away, periodic watering of stockpile soil, and regular vacuum sweeping of streets used for the haul operation to remove accumulated material. 2. Major soil disturbance shall take place between 8:00 am,and 4:00 p.m.when winds are stronger to reduce the amount of dust settling out on nearby receptors, and to obtain better area wide dispersion of any fugitive dust. 3. A fan-assisted ventilation system shall be installed in the venting system for the subterranean garage for use in peak periods when natural ventilation is not sufficient. NOISE Significant Effect • Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers and portable generators can reach levels as high as 105 DBA within fifty(50) feet of the source. Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 10 1. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the project proponent shall produce evidence acceptable to the Director,Building Department, City of Newport Beach that: a. All construction vehicles or equipment,fixed or mobile,operated within 1,000' of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. b. All operations shall comply with the City Noise Ordinance. C. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from dwelling units. I 2. Construction activities will be conducted in accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code,which limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m, to 6:00 p.m,on weekdays and 8:00 a.m,to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting,plastering or any other related building activity,operate any tool,equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity,on any Sunday or on any holiday. ShQnificam Effect • Dewatering will be required to occur constantly as the project site is excavated. This means that dewatering pumps will need to be operating 24 hours per day for approximately 3 to 6 months. Pouring concrete for the foundation slab may be required to be continuous and could last as long as 36 hours. Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Applicant shall apply for a waiver of City noise abatement regulations to allow for dewatering and pouring of the subterranean garage slab. The continuous concrete pour shall be scheduled on a non-summer weekend outside of the peak traffic period. 2. At the time the City approves the requested waiver of City noise abatement regulation to allow for dewatering and pouring of the basement slab, the City Engineer shall determine if it is necessary to require barriers or baffles and distance the electric pumps as far as possible from adjacent residential uses to reduce noise from construction equipment so as not to exceed the mechanical equipment noise standards set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. If required,the developer shall install such measures prior to beginning any activities for which a waiver was granted. �rO Ty- Il 3. Electric pump motors shall be required for dewatering equipment to reduce noise levels. 4. Pouring of the subterranean garage slab shall be scheduled to encompass only one night time period. The schedule for any continuous concrete pour shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Significant Effect • By increasing the size of the Bay Club facilities,it is expected that more people can be accommodated and such an increase may increase noise levels at certain times, or during certain functions. Findin 1. Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findine The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. An improved loudspeaker/paging system shall be installed to direct speakers away from surrounding residential areas. A written evaluation of the proposed system shall be prepared by an acoustical engineer and approved by the Director,Building Department, City of Newport Beach. 2. Noise resulting from outdoor functions such as parties,large gatherings and weddings which include music shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., or as otherwise permitted by the approval of a Use Permit. 3. All non-residential structures shall be sound attenuated against the combined impact of all present and projected noise from exterior noise sources to meet the interior noise criteria as specified in the Noise Element and/or Noise Ordinance. 4. Any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view, and noise associated with said structures shall be sound-attenuated so as not to exceed the mechanical equipment noise standards set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer and approved by the Building Department. The applicant shall present to the City Engineer a written commitment that the loading dock shall be operated only within the hours specified by the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code for construction activities. 5. That all hotel facilities facing the Bayshores area,including guest rooms,be designed to eliminate potential noise spillage which could result from radios,televisions,etc., as well as noisy party activity. This can be accomplished by designing the facility with no operable doors or windows facing the Bayshores property line, and/or through enclosure of the proposed facilities. 6. That the parking structure shall be designed so as to preclude light spillage from automobiles on residences in the Bayshores community. This is to be achieved via the ramp and circulation design of the structure, the installation of screen walls or planting,or a combination thereof. S/ • 12 7. All parking and loading areas shall comply with the noise criteria set forth below. A. The following noise standard shall be established for all exterior noise- sensitive areas within residential areas located within one hundred (100) feet of a parking or loading area: Noise Level Time Period 55 DBA 7:00 am.- 10:00 p.m. 50 DBA 10:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m. B. Exterior noise-sensitive areas shall include all yards, decks,patios, terraces, balconies and rooftops and other private open space areas of a residential lot designed and used for outdoor living and recreation with the exception of driveways and parking areas. C. Noise generated from loading areas shall not exceed: (1) The exterior noise standard for a cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minutes in any hour;or (2) The exterior noise standard plus five(5)DBA for a cumulative period of more than fifteen(15) minutes in any hour;or (3) The exterior noise standard plus ten(10)DBA for a cumulative period of more than five (5)minutes in any hour, or (4) The exterior noise standard plus fifteen (15) DBA for a cumulative period of more than one(1) minute in any hour; or (5) The exterior noise standard plus twenty (20) DBA for any period of time. D. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four (4) noise limit categories above, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category,the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. E. The following noise standard shall be established for all interior noise- sensitive areas within residential areas located within one(100)feet of a parking or loading area: Noise Level Time Period 55 DBA 7:00 am.- 10:00 p.m. 45 DBA 10:00 p.m. -7:00 a.m. F. Interior noise-sensitive areas shall include any habitable room meeting the requirements of the Housing Code for sleeping,living,cooking, or dining purposes, excluding such enclosed places as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars,utility rooms,garages and similar spaces. G. Noise generated from loading areas shall not exceed: (1) The interior noise standard for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour;or 13 (2) The interior noise standard plus five(5)DBA for a cumulative period of more than one(1)minute in any hour; or (3) The interior noise standard plus ten(10)DBA for any period of time. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Significant Effect The proposed project will generate an increase in local traffic volumes,and will alter the existing patterns of circulation affecting Coast Highway. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Facts in Support of Findings The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project These measures include the following: 1. Pursuant to Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code(Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance), the applicant shall contribute funds towards traffic and circulation improvements. 2. A traffic signal shall be constructed on West Coast Highway at the main entrance to the Bay Club prior to the commencement of demolition or construction. 3. The westerly driveway shall be used as a limited access drive only. It is not to be used for access to the residential units, without being reconstructed to provide adequate sight distance and design to be approved by the Public Works Department. 4. The intersection of West Coast Highway and Main Entrance drive and easterly drive shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 50 miles per hour and sidewalk bicycle traffic. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed 24 inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-critical locations,subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. S. The Edison transformer serving the site shall be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110-L. 6. A turnaround shall be provided prior to the guard gate unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. The design of the controlled entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and Fire Department 7. Deteriorated sections of concrete sidewalk shall be reconstructed along the West Coast Highway frontage;the unused drive apron shall be removed and replaced with curb,gutter and sidewalk;the new drive apron shall be constructed per City Standard 166-1,; and curb access ramps shall be provided at the westerly drive entrance on �.3 14 West Coast Highway. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 8. The easterly access drive shall be a minimum width of 26 feet clear. This driveway shall be designed for right turn movements only for ingress and egress. 9. Any widening of Coast Highway to planned major arterial standards is the responsibility of the California Department of Transportation. Significant Effect The project will generate short-term construction traffic. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the fording. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Facts in Support of Findings The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of demolition,grading or building permits. 2. Earthwork hauling operations, major concrete placement and other construction operations requiring more than 32 trips per day or 4 trips per hour by trucks shall be coordinated with the City Traffic Engineer and Caltrans Permits Division. During high peak traffic times or if operations are causing significant traffic congestion,the operations may be restricted by the City Traffic Engineer and/or Caltrans. 3. No construction equipment storage on West Coast Highway or deliveries or off- loading will be made in the West Coast Highway right of way. Sidewalk along West Coast Highway shall be kept open at all times except when being repaired or replaced. 4. Prior to the issuance of grading permits,construction staging,materials storage and a parking plan showing how workers will be able to park without using on-street parking must be submitted and approved by the Public Works Department. 5. Any widening of Coast Highway to planned major arterial standards is the responsibility of the California Department of Transportation. Significant Effect The project will create an increase in parking demand. sy IS in in 1. Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findine The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project These measures include the following: 1. Prior to the commencement of each construction phase and related parking provisions,the project proponent shall notify the Traffic Engineer,City of Newport Beach,of the start date for that particular construction phase. Thereafter,as deemed necessary by the Traffic Engineer, the City will monitor the parking provisions to ensure compliance with the proposed phasing plan. 2. Parking shall be provided on-site or in approved off-site lots for all employees, members and guests, and all employees will be required to park in these provided facilities. 3. The on-site parking,vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer, and sidewalks shall be provided between Coast Highway and the building entrances. SURROUNDING LAND USE Significant Effect • A long-term impact to the surrounding properties occurring as a result of the proposed project includes the potential for food-related odors from the Club's restaurant and coffee shop. Finding, 1. Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Findine The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Food odors shall be controlled through compliance with Air Quality Management Rule 402 which states that a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury,detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. ss 16 RELEVANT PLANNING Significant Effects The project may have an impact on the consistency with the Local Coastal Plan which ensures the preservation of public access. Findin 1. Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. To ensure consistency between the LCP public access policies and the proposed project,public access opportunities will be implemented in the Planned Community Development Plan text for the proposed project. 2. Pedestrian access shall be provided throughout the areas of the Club portion of property identified in the public access plan as available for use by the general public. AESTHETICS Significant Effect The proposed project, together with other development along Coast Highway, incrementally increases the visual intensity of development and potentially alters some views and vistas to the ocean due to the different orientation of the new structures. Finding 1. Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. Facts in Support of Finding The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Prior to issuance of a grading permit,a landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plan will be subject to approval by the Director, Planning Department and the Director, Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department, City of Newport Beach. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit construction plans for the review and approval by the Director, Planting Department. Said review shall be for the purpose of determining substantial compliance of the construction plans with the approved site plan (plans and building elevations), specifically regarding the location of identified view corridors. 51— 17 3. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets, alleys and adjoining properties. 4. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. S. Street signs, benches,planters and other similar features on-site or adjacent to the project site shall be designed with a common theme compatible with the overall architectural style of the project. The design shall be approved by the Planning, Public Works,and Parks,Beaches and Recreation Departments prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. 6. Views of roof-top equipment shall be screened from upslope properties. 7. Existing overhead utilities on the project side of Coast Highway shall be put underground to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 8. A landscape plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect, shall be submitted which identifies the use and placement of plants and materials along and on all building facade fronting Coast Highway. Materials to be considered should include planters and planter boxes which can be incorporated onto balconies. Plant materials should include cascading plants and shrubs. The plan shall be reviewed by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit,a licensed land- scape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES • A number of public services and facilities, including electricity, natural gas, solid waste removal, water, sewer, police and fire protection will experience some increased demands due to the intensification of uses represented by this project. Findings 1. Changes or alterations have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. Facts in Support of Findings The significant effects have been reduced to a level of insignificance by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Based on a fire flow requirement for sprinklered facilities of this nature, the following existing connections shall be upsized to provide for 2,000 gallons per minute fire flow(subject to Fire Department review and approval of design plans): Upsize the connection at Coast Highway from 6 inches to 12 inches and install an 8-inch meter; Upsize the connection at Bayshore Drive from 4 inches to 8 inches and install a 6-inch meter. fik s9 18 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans to determine the adequacy of emergency access. The Department may require indoor fire protection features, such as overhead fire sprinklers, if it determines that such measures are necessary to provide adequate fire protection. 3. Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The Southern California Gas Company has developed several programs which are available and would provide assistance in selecting the most effective application of energy conservation techniques. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall meet with representatives of the Gas Company to discuss applicable energy conservation techniques that are appropriate for incorporation into the project. 5. The facility installation will conform to applicable Public Utilities Commission regulations. The applicant shall comply with adopted State energy conservation standards per Sections 1451-1542 of Title 20 of the California Administrative Code and Sections P 20.1451 through P 20-1452 of Title 24 of the Code. 6. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water-using devices. This shall be verified by the Building Department prior to issuance of occupancy permits. 7. Water improvement plans shall be approved by the Fire Department, the Utilities Department and the Public Works Department, City of Newport Beach, prior to issuance of a grading permit. 8. The water distribution and appurtenances shall conform to the applicable laws and adopted regulations enforced by the Orange County Health Department and the Utilities Department. 9. Drought-resistant vegetation shall be used in landscaping to reduce the demand for irrigation water. 10. The project will be subject to the City Drought Ordinance which requires a 20% reduction in water usage. 11. All proposed sewer improvements shall be approved by the Director,Public Works, City of Newport Beach. 12. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a bus turnout, if determined by the City Traffic Engineer to be necessary based on roadway cross sections,travel volumes or speeds,should be provided at the existing bus stop location. 13. In conjunction with the provision of a bus turnout,the area adjacent to this turnout shall include a paved passenger waiting area complete with a bus shelter and bench. A paved,lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessway shall be provided between this stop and the project buildings. 14. In conjunction with the provision of a bus turnout,a concrete bus pad sufficient to support the weight of a bus(see OCID's Design Guideline=for Bus Facilities)shall be provided at this transit stop if it is determined by CalTrans that the material used to construct Coast Highway is not sufficient to support continued transit use of the bus stop. 15. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. Sd' 19 16. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site,the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works Department and the Director of the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the Orange County Sanitation District and the City's Utilities Department. 17. Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, a master plan of water and sewer facilities shall be prepared for the site. The applicant shall verify the adequacy of existing water and sewer facilities and construct any modification of facilities necessary for the project. The master plan shall include provision for the relocation of existing water and sewer facilities. s-y 20 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS MI CH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED The following effects are those determined by the City of Newport Beach to be significant environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the project is implemented. All significant environmental effects that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened by virtue of mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project as set forth above. The remaining,unavoidable significant effects are acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations made below,giving greater weight to the remaining,unavoidable environmental effect TRAFFIC/NOISE/AIR QUALITY Significant Effect The project will incrementally result in increased traffic,air pollutant emissions,and noise levels in the immediate vicinity. In concert with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the proposed project is expected to incrementally contribute to a significant cumulative adverse impact on traffic, air pollution,and noise levels in the vicinity of the project Findings 1. Changes or alteration have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR(Section 15091 of the Guidelines). Facts in Support of Findings The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Pursuant to Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code(Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance), the applicant shall contribute funds towards traffic and circulation improvements. 2. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of demolition,grading or building permits. 3. Earthwork hauling operations, major concrete placement and other construction operations requiring more than 32 trips per day or 4 trips per hour by trucks shall be coordinated with the City Traffic Engineer and Caltrans Permits Division. During high peak traffic times or if operations are causing significant traffic congestion,the operations may be restricted by the City Traffic Engineer and/or Caltrans. 4. Prior to the commencement of each construction phase and related parking provisions,the project proponent shall notify the Traffic Engineer,City of Newport Beach,of the start date for that particular construction phase. Thereafter,as deemed bo 21 necessary by the Traffic Engineer, the City will monitor the parking provisions to ensure compliance with the proposed phasing plan. 5. A traffic signal shall be constructed on West Coast Highway at the main entrance to the Bay Club prior to the commencement of demolition or construction. 6. The westerly driveway shall be used as a limited access drive only. It is not to be used for access to the residential units, without being reconstructed to provide adequate sight distance and design to be approved by the Public Works Department. 7. Parking shall be provided on-site or in approved off-site lots for all employees, members and guests, and all employees will be required to park in these provided facilities. 8. No construction equipment storage on West Coast Highway or deliveries or off- loading will be made in the West Coast Highway right of way. Sidewalk along West Coast Highway shall be kept open at all times except when being repaired or replaced. 9. The on-site parking,vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer, and sidewalks shall be provided between Coast Highway and the building entrances. 10. The intersection of West Coast Highway and Main Entrance drive and easterly drive shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 50 miles per hour and sidewalk bicycle traffic. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed 24 inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-critical locations,subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 11. The Edison transformer serving the site shall be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110-L. 12. A turnaround shall be provided prior to the guard gate unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. The design of the controlled entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 13. Deteriorated sections of concrete sidewalk shall be reconstructed along the West Coast Highway frontage;the unused drive apron shall be removed and replaced with curb,gutter and sidewalk;the new drive apron shall be constructed per City Standard 166-14 and curb access ramps shall be provided at the westerly drive entrance on West Coast Highway. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 14. The easterly access drive shall be a minimum width of 26 feet clear. This driveway shall be designed for right turn movements only for ingress and egress. 15. Prior to the issuance of grading permits,construction staging,materials storage and a parking plan showing how workers will be able to park without using on-street parking must be submitted and approved by the Public Works Department. 16. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the project proponent shall produce evidence acceptable to the Director, Building Department, City of Newport Beach that: a. All construction vehicles or equipment,fixed or mobile,operated within 1,000' of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. 6l 22 b. All operations shall comply with the City Noise Ordinance. C. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from dwelling units. 17. All non-residential structures shall be sound attenuated against the combined impact of all present and projected noise from exterior noise sources to meet the interior noise criteria as specified in the Noise Element and/or Noise Ordinance. 18. Construction activities will be conducted in accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code,which limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.on weekdays and 8:00 am.to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting,plastering or any other related building activity,operate any tool,equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity,on any Sunday or on any holiday. 19. Any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view, and noise associated with said structures shall be sound-attenuated so as not to exceed the mechanical equipment noise standards set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer and approved by the Building Department. The applicant shall present to the City Engineer a written commitment that the loading dock shall be operated only within the hours specified by the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code for construction activities. 20. Applicant shall apply for a waiver of City noise abatement regulations to allow for dewatering and pouring of the subterranean garage slab. The continuous concrete pour shall be scheduled on a non-summer weekend outside of the peak traffic period. 21. At the time the City approves the requested waiver of City noise abatement regulation to allow for dewatering and pouring of the basement slab, the City Engineer shall determine if it is necessary to require barriers or baffles and distance the electric pumps as far as possible from adjacent residential uses to reduce noise from construction equipment so as not to exceed the mechanical equipment noise standards set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. If required,the developer shall install such measures prior to beginning any activities for which a waiver was granted. 22. Pouring of the subterranean garage slab shall be scheduled to encompass only one night time period. The schedule for any continuous concrete pour shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 23. Electric pump motors shall be required for dewatering equipment to reduce noise levels. 24. An improved loudspeaker/paging system shall be installed to direct speakers away from surrounding residential areas. A written evaluation of the proposed system shall be prepared by an acoustical engineer and approved by the Director,Building Department, City of Newport Beach. 25. Noise resulting from outdoor functions such as parties,large gatherings and weddings which include music shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 am. to 10:00 p.m., or as otherwise permitted by the approval of a Use Permit. 26. A dust control program in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 shall be implemented during demolition, excavation and construction. This program shall include such measures as: containing soil on-site �a 23 until it is hauled away, periodic watering of stockpile soil, and regular vacuum sweeping of streets used for the haul operation to remove accumulated material. 27. Major soil disturbance shall take place between 8:00 am,and 4:00 p.m.when winds are stronger to reduce the amount of dust settling out on nearby receptors, and to obtain better area wide dispersion of any fugitive dust. 28. A fan-assisted ventilation system shall be installed in the venting system for the subterranean garage for use in peak periods when natural ventilation is not sufficient. 29. A landscape plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect, shall be submitted which identifies the use and placement of plants and materials along and on all building facade fronting Coast Highway. Materials to be considered should include planters and planter boxes which can be incorporated onto balconies. Plant materials should include cascading plants and shrubs. The plan shall be reviewed by the Parks, Beachs and Recreation Department and approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. Changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the one making the finding. 1. The State Department of Transportation has the overall responsibility for major roadways and freeways in the region. 2. The State Air Resources Board is responsible for the attainment of national air quality standards. 3. The South Coast Air Quality Management District is responsible for basin air quality. 4. The Southern California Association of Governments in association with the SCAQMD is responsible for the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the airshed. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible,however,specific economic,social,or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the project area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives set forth for the site were rejected for the reasons as set forth below and in the subsequent sections of this statement. The remaining unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in view of the fact that the impact identified is considered significant only on a cumulative basis,resulting from the proposed project in association with other past,present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. NOISE Siunificant Effect • Temporary noise levels related to pouring concrete for the foundation cannot be mitigated to an insignificant level. 6.� 24 Findings 1. Changes or alteration have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR(Section 15091 of the Guidelines). Facts in Support of Findings The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the project proponent shall produce evidence acceptable to the Director,Building Department,City of Newport Beach that: a. All construction vehicles or equipment,fixed or mobile,operated within 1,000' of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. b. All operations shall comply with the City Noise Ordinance. C. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from dwelling units. 2. All non-residential structures shall be sound attenuated against the combined impact of all present and projected noise from exterior noise sources to meet the interior noise criteria as specified in the Noise Element and/or Noise Ordinance. 3. Construction activities will be conducted in accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code,which limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 am,to 6:00 p.m.on weekdays and 8:00 am.to 6:00 p.m.on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting,plastering or any other related building activity,operate any tool,equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity,on any Sunday or on any holiday. 4. Any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view, and noise associated with said structures shall be sound-attenuated so as not to exceed the mechanical equipment noise standards set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer and approved by the Building Department. The applicant shall present to the City Engineer a written commitment that the loading dock shall be operated only within the hours specified by the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code for construction activities. 5. Applicant shall apply for a waiver of City noise abatement regulations to allow for dewatering and pouring of the subterranean garage slab. The continuous concrete pour shall be scheduled on a non-summer weekend outside of the peak traffic period. 6. At the time the City approves the requested waiver of City noise abatement regulation to allow for dewatering and pouring of the basement slab, the City Engineer shall determine if it is necessary to require barriers or baffles and distance • 25 the electric pumps as far as possible from adjacent residential uses to reduce noise from construction equipment so as not to exceed the mechanical equipment noise standards set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. If required,the developer shall install such measures prior to beginning any activities for which a waiver was granted. 7. Pouring of the subterranean garage slab shall be scheduled to encompass only one night time period. The schedule for any continuous concrete pour shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 8. Electric pump motors shall be required for dewatering equipment to reduce noise levels. 9. An improved loudspeaker/paging system shall be installed to direct speakers away from surrounding residential areas. A written evaluation of the proposed system shall be prepared by an acoustical engineer and approved by the Director,Building Department, City of Newport Beach. 10. Noise resulting from outdoor functions such as parties,large gatherings and weddings which include music shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 am.to 10:00 p.m., or as otherwise permitted by the approval of a Use Permit. 11. That all hotel facilities facing the Bayshores area,including guest rooms,be designed to eliminate potential noise spillage which could result from radios,televisions,etc., as well as noisy party activity. This can be accomplished by designing the facility with no operable doors or windows facing the Bayshores property line, and/or through enclosure of the proposed facilities. 12. All parking and loading areas shall comply with the noise criteria set forth below. A. The following noise standard shall be established for all exterior noise- sensitive areas within residential areas located within one hundred (100) feet of a parking or loading area: Noise Level Time Period 55 DBA 7:00 am.- 10:00 p.m. 50 DBA 10:00 p.m.-7:00 am. B. Exterior noise-sensitive areas shall include all yards, decks, patios,terraces, balconies and rooftops and other private open space areas of a residential lot designed and used for outdoor living and recreation with the exception of driveways and parking areas. C. Noise generated from loading areas shall not exceed: (1) The exterior noise standard for a cumulative period of more than thirty (30)minutes in any hour; or (2) The exterior noise standard plus five-(5)DBA for a cumulative period of more than fifteen (15) minutes in any hour; or (3) The exterior noise standard plus ten(10)DBA for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour;or (4) The exterior noise standard plus fifteen (15) DBA for a cumulative period of more than one(1) minute in any hour; or 6S 26 (5) The exterior noise standard plus twenty (20) DBA for any period of time. D. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four (4) noise limit categories above, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category,the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. E. The following noise standard shall be established for all interior noise- sensitive areas within residential areas located within one(100)feet of a parldng or loading area: Noise Level Time Period 55 DBA 7:00 am.- 10:00 p.m. 45 DBA 10:00 p.m.-7:00 am. F. Interior noise-sensitive areas shall include any habitable room meeting the requirements of the Housing Code for sleeping,living, cooling,or dining purposes, excluding such enclosed places as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars,utility rooms, garages and similar spaces. G. Noise generated from loading areas shall not exceed: (1) The interior noise standard for a cumulative period of more than five (5)minutes in any hour;or (2) The interior noise standard plus five(5)DBA for a cumulative period of more than one (1)minute in any hour;or (3) The interior noise standard plus ten(10)DBA for any period of time. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible,however,specific economic,social,or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the project area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives set forth for the site were rejected for the reasons as set forth below and in the subsequent sections of this statement. The remaining unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in view of the fact that the impact identified is considered significant only on a short-term basis,resulting from the proposed construction of the project. AESTHETICS Significant Effect The proposed project will slightly alter some vistas and views to the Bay. �6 27 Fmdmes 1. Changes or alteration have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR(Section 15091 of the Guidelines). Facts in Support of Findings The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit construction plans for the review and approval by the Director, Planning Department. Said review shall be for the purpose of determining substantial compliance of the construction plans with the approved site plan (plans and building elevations), specifically regarding the location of identified view corridors. 2. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets, alleys and adjoining properties. 3. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. 4. Street signs,benches,planters and other similar features on-site or adjacent to the project site shall be designed with a common theme compatible with the overall architectural style of the project. The design shall be approved by the Planning, Public Works,and Parks,Beaches and Recreation Departments prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. 5. Views of roof-top equipment shall be screened from upslope properties. 6. Existing overhead utilities on the project side of Coast Highway shall be put underground to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible,however,specific economic,social,or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the project area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives set forth for the site were rejected for the reasons as set forth below and in the subsequent sections of this statement. The remaining unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in view of the fact that the impact identified is considered significant only on a cumulative basis,resulting from the proposed project in association with other past,present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. �d 28 PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES Sgnificant Effect • A number of public services and facilities, including electricity, natural gas, solid waste removal, water, sewer, police and fire protection will experience some increased demands due to the intensification of uses represented by the project. Findinirs 1. Changes or alteration have been required in,or incorporated into,the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. 2. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (Section 15091 of the Guidelines). Facts in Support of Findings The significant effect has been substantially lessened by virtue of the Standard City Policies and Requirements and Mitigation Measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project. These measures include the following: 1. Based on a fire flow requirement for sprinklered facilities of this nature, the following existing connections shall be upsized to provide for 2,000 gallons per minute fire flow(subject to Fire Department review and approval of design plans): - Upsize the connection at Coast Highway from 6 inches to 12 inches and install an 8-inch meter; - Upsize the connection at Bayshore Drive from 4 inches to 8 inches and install a 6-inch meter. 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans to determine the adequacy of emergency access. The Department may require indoor fire protection features, such us overhead fire sprinklers, if it determines that such measures are necessary to provide adequate fire protection. 3. Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The Southern California Gas Company has developed several programs which are available and would provide assistance in selecting the most effective application of energy conservation techniques. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall meet with representatives of the Gas Company to discuss applicable energy conservation techniques that are appropriate for incorporation into the project. 5. The facility installation will conform to applicable Public Utilities Commission regulations. The applicant shall comply with adopted State energy conservation standards per Sections 1451-1542 of Title 20 of the California Administrative Code and Sections P 20-1451 through P 20-1452 of Title 24 of the Code. 6. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water-using devices. This shall be verified by the Building Department prior to issuance of occupancy permits. 7. Water improvement plans shall be approved by the Fire Department, the Utilities Department and the Public Works Department, City of Newport Beach, prior to issuance of a grading permit. • 29 8. The water distribution and appurtenances shall conform to the applicable laws and adopted regulations enforced by the Orange County Health Department and the Utilities Department. 9. Drought-resistant vegetation shall be used in landscaping to reduce the demand for irrigation water. 10. The project will be subject to the City Drought Ordinance which requires a 2090 reduction in water usage. 11. All proposed sewer improvements shall be approved by the Director,Public Works, City of Newport Beach. 12. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a bus tumour, if determined by the City Traffic Engineer to be necessary based on roadway cross sections,travel volumes or speeds, should be provided at the existing bus stop location. 13. In conjunction with the provision of a bus turnout,the area adjacent to this turnout shall include a paved passenger waiting area complete with a bus shelter and bench. A paved,lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessway shall be provided between this stop and the project buildings. 14. In conjunction with the provision of a bus turnout, a concrete bus pad sufficient to support the weight of a bus(see OCTD's Design Guidelines for Bus Facilities)shall be provided at this transit stop if it is determined by CalTrans that the material used to construct Coast Highway is not sufficient to support continued transit use of the bus stop. 15. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 16. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site,the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works Department and the Director of the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the Orange County Sanitation District and the City's Utilities Department. 17. Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, a master plan of water and sewer facilities shall be prepared for the site. The applicant shall verify the adequacy of existing water and sewer facilities and construct any modification of facilities necessary for the project. The master plan shall include provision for the relocation of existing water and sewer facilities. The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible,however,specific economic,social,or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. 1. The project represents the best balance and mix of uses for the project area, all factors considered. 2. The alternatives set forth for the site were rejected for the reasons as set forth below and in the subsequent sections of this statement. The remaining unavoidable significant effect is acceptable when balanced against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and in view of the fact that the impact identified is considered significant only on a cumulative basis,resulting from the proposed project in association with other past,present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. 6 30 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Findinec 1. The project has been designed in a manner so as to provide the greatest public involvement in the planning and CEQA process. 2. The following provides a brief description of project alternatives. 3. The alternatives were rejected in favor of the current project proposal. 4. The rationale for rejection of each alternative is provided below. 5. The rejection rationale is supported by the public record including,but not limited to, the Certified Final EIR. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The No Project Alternative provides for no new development on the site and would result in the continued use and operation of the Balboa Bay Club as it currently exists. Findings Specific economic,social,or other considerations make infeasible the No Project Alternative described in the Final EIR in that: 1. The No Project Alternative would negate the opportunity to modernize the site in terms of architectural features,energy efficiency,private recreational facilities,and increased on-site parking. 2. The No Project Alternative would not achieve benefits to the City in terns of increased transient occupancy tax,revenues,additional sales tax,and additional lease payments. 3. The No Project Alternative would not provide increased physical and visual public access to Newport Harbor. REDUCTION IN COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ALTERNATIVE The Reduction in Commercial Square Footage Alternative provides for a decrease in the amount of commercial square footage requested. Findines Specific economic,social,or other considerations make infeasible the Reduction in Square Footage Alternative described in the Final EIR in that: 1. The Reduction in Commercial Square Footage Alternative may preclude expansion and improvements planned for the private recreational facilities on site. 2. The Reduction in Commercial Square Footage Alternative would not be consistent with the project objectives and would not provide an economically feasible means to redevelop the property. �O s 31 ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE/SMALLER HOTELALTERNATIVE The Additional Commercial Square Footage/Smaller Hotel Alternative provides for a reduction in the size of the hotel from 300 rooms to 150 rooms and increase commercial square footage an equivalent amount. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the Additional Commercial Square Footage/Smaller Hotel Alternative described in the Final EIR in that this variation does not have any ability to reduce impacts identified in the EIR, and it actually has the potential to increase traffic impacts through the intensification of retail uses. NO PROJECT/PUBLIC ACCESS ALTERNATIVE The No Project/Public Access Alternative provides for no new development on the site,but would provide increased public access via the inclusion of a ten(10)foot-wide public access walkway. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the No Project/Public Access Alternative described in the Final EIR in that: 1. The feasibility of the No Project/Public Access Alternative is doubtful because the Bay Club has an existing, valid lease, and the City cannot require the Club to increase public access as a single element. While an eminent domain action could be considered,the public's access to waterfront in the City is among the best in the state,and a significant public need in this particular area has not been demonstrated. 2. City benefits from the increased revenues and attractiveness of the Bay Club as renovated under the redevelopment/site plan,and since an increase in public access pursued as an independent item present significant practical, economic and legal obstacles, the City has rejected this alternative. OFF-SITE LOCATION ALTERNATIVE The Off-Site Location Alternative would provide for the proposed project either at another site within the City of Newport Beach or at a site outside the City. Findings Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the No Project/Public Access Alternative described in the Final EIR in that: 1. The project is an expansion of an existing facility with established identity for its proximity to adjacent Newport Bay. Sites with existing uses and similar proximity to Newport Bay with similar acreage do not exist; 2. The distinctiveness of its locale is a part of the marketing program and is essential to projected economic viability. As an established and well known recreational facility, its location within the City of Newport Beach is essential. 3. Alternative sites may exist in nearby marinas such as Huntington Harbour or Dana Point Harbor. Since International Bay Clubs is a lessee of the subject property,the feasibility of leasing an alternative site is possible. However, the project objective of the redevelopment of an established facility is not feasible if relocated to another 7/ 32 location. The project objectives are based on the past uses of the site,which are principally derived from the site location on the bay, the aquatic orientation of the uses and the nature of the club's social functions. The primary objective is to provide for a continuation of-the existing uses on the site. Alternative site locations may exist but would not achieve the project objectives and are therefore infeasible. kr �-;z • • Exhibit 2 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The California Environmental Quality Act requires a public agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. The City of Newport Beach has determined that the unavoidable risks of this project, giving greater weight to the unavoidable environmental risks, are acceptable given the benefits of the project as described below. In making this determination,the following factors and public benefits were considered or decisions made: 1. The proposed project is consistent with other existing uses in the vicinity of the project and the community in general. 2. The density and intensity of the project is appropriate. 3. The proposed project will contribute to a fair share of local and regional roadway improvements,specifically the City's Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance. 4. The project will provide additional private recreational opportunities for local residents,as well as increase the opportunity for greater public access. 5. The project will provide increased opportunities for economic return to the City. 6. The project has been designed to be sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood by: including and enhancing a view corridor providing improved ingress and egress,and adequate parking • providing a public access along the bayfront • providing an architecturally aesthetic project that upgrades the area while blending into the existing neighborhood �3 0 • EXHIBIT "A" USE PERMIT NO, 3422 Finding: That the approval of restaurant and hotel uses on the Balboa Bay Club site will not, under the circumstances of the particular case,be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use, or be detrimental to or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, for the following reasons: 1. That hotel and restaurant uses already exist on the property, and no problems have been experienced related to those uses. 2. That specific mitigation measures have been incorporated into the,project through conditions of approval which address noise impacts, visual impacts and aesthetics, geology and soils and construction impacts which are in direct response to comments and issues identified by the neighborhood. 3. That the project, if implemented, will have a specific beneficial effect on the fiscal health of the City. �y .�r FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT #143 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BALBOA BAY CLUB EXPANSION AND REMODELING PROJECT . r of ,RL • • Uc „' Community Development Department U --- City of Irvine One Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 19575, Irene, California 92713 (714) 724.6000 May 6, 1991 Ms. Patricia Temple City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8913 Dear Ms. Temple: RE: Review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report - Balboa Bay Club Expansion and Remodeling Project Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Environmental Impact report for the Balboa Bay Club Expansion and Remodeling Project. The City of Irvine does not have any comments regarding the Draft EIR at this time, however, we would like the opportunity to review subsequent revisions. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Daniel Jung, at (714) 724-6406. Sincerely, PATRICIA SHOEMAKER Principal Planner DJ/ps:temple cc: Timor Rafiq, Principal Transportation Engineer . qr,- ON RF:7•'Ci.ED PAPER �4 Response to Letter from City of Irvine Dated May 6, 1991 Comment Response The City of Irvine does not have any The comment does not raise specific comments regarding the Draft EIR at this environmental issues. Comment is hereby time, however, we would like the opportunity noted and incorporated into the record. to review subsequent revisions. May 16 , 1991 Ms . Patricia L. Temple Advance Planning Manager Planning Department City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92659-1768 Re: EIR - Balboa Bay Club Expansion & Remodeling Project Dear Patty: In the above report a typing error appears in paragraph 35 of the Executive Summary, page 21, as well as paragraph 35, page 97 of the full text. We believe the error probably occured as a result of prior drafts which were orig- inally based upon the former Vested Tentative Map filing and were prepared prior to the devel- opment of a definitive public access plan which is now incorporated in the Project Description (pages 35-38 ) . Accordingly, we request that the above referenced paragraphs be amended in their entirety to read as follows : "35 . An easement for pedestrian purposes shall be provided along the bayfront of Parcel 1 . Such easement shall in- corporate the public access features set forth in Section II E ( Project Description - Public Access provision ) of this report and will be estab- lished by deed restriction. " Parcel 1 should also be identified on the Exhib- it site plan to correspond to Area 1 of the Planned Community District as reflected in the text and maps prepared by CYP, Inc . 1221 WEST CQ45T H01WAY, NEWPORT BEP[H.CAUFORNIA 92660 • 1•ELEM-)ONE 9 4)645x-(= Page Two Ms. Patricia L. Temple May 16, 1991 Thank you for your assistance . Very truly yours, W.D. Ray Chairman of the Hoard WDR:ml cc: Andy'^Adams.a Response to Letter from Balboa Bay Club Dated May 16, 1991 Comment Response A typing error appears in paragraph 35 of the The comment refers to Mitigation Measure Executive Summary, page 21, as well as number 35 of the Environmental Impact paragraph 35, page 97 of the EIR text. The Report. The measure has been amended error probably occurred as a result of prior to the satisfaction of the City to read as drafts which were originally based on the follows: former Vested Tentative Map filing. We request that the above referenced paragraphs Pedestrian access shall be provided be amended in their entirety to read as throughout the areas of the Club follows: portion of property identified in the public access plan as available for use "35. An easement for pedestrian purposes by the general public. shall be provided along the bayfront of Parcel1. Such easement shall incorporate the public access features set forth in Section 11E (Project Description - Public Access provision) of this report and will be established by deed restriction." Parcel l should also be identified on the Exhibit site plan to correspond to Area I of the Planned Community District as reflected in the text and maps prepared by CYP, Inc. . . .DRAFT. . . ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE EIR SUBCOMMITTEE May 20, 1991 Comments on the Environmental Impact Report No. 143 , Balboa Bay Club The comments are grouped by subheadings and are questions to which the committee could not find answers in the EIR. OVERALL: 1. Does the "potential for intensification of Club use" mean greater than that described in the EIR? Does this imply that it could become a more or less public facil- ity with different environmental impact? p61E1 2. What criteria in the geotechnical information will determine whether an agreement guaranteeing repairs of damage to private property will be required? p13 ,F 3 . What is the rationale for the assumption of one third the City's normal a\rate of trip generation and of parking spaces for the dining area needs? p84 WATER: 4 . Is the City considering adopting stricter criteria for landscaping and other water usage under current and future drought conditions? If so, will these apply to this project? p14, 17 5. Should the cumulative impact of water use be included under "Topical areas. . .sensitive to cumulative effects"? NOISE, POLLUTION: 6. Is there an acceptable alternative to the added signal on PCH that would avoid the added pollution and noise that it will bring to the neighborhood? If not, are there signal .control measures that could minimize frequency of operation? p19,p72,p81 7. Will the improved loudspeaker/paging system have a noise level limit imposed at the property line of the adjoining residential area? plSN,p72,p81 S. Since the City does not have a noise ordinance designed to protect residential areas from non-transportation related noise sources (p68) , will there be an enforce- able noise limits protecting the neighboring residents from the loading dock activities? Employee parking? Operating equipment? Eastern access road? p72 9 . Since the de-watering pump or pumps will be continuous, will there be enforceable limits on noise level that will avoid nighttime disturbance to the residential, neighbors? p71 10. Emissions tabulation in Table 7 refers to Receptors by number and had no location reference. The table also relates to orange County rather than to the immediate vicinity. Does this understate the local impact? Since the trip generation study averages 10 miles (5 mile radius) , shouldn't the comparison be made for the affected area? p65,T7 ACCESS: il. Public access is mentioned in several parts but left questions about where the public will park, how the public may be restricted from the beach, relative prominence of signage, etc. p21 12. Who will decide what is a reasonable parking fee for the casual public visitor? Will the City have a voice? p37 VISUAL: 13 . Will the retail facilities of the club be shielded from the public view, ie, not visible from PCH? p36,T2 WASTE DISPOSAL: 14. The state mandates require the recycling of 25% and 50% of the waste stream by the years 1995 and 2000 respec- tively. What programs and facilities are planned by the club to achieve these goals? Mary Lou Zoglin Chairman • Response to Letter from Environmental Quality Affairs Committee, EIR Subcommittee dated May 20, 1991 Comment Response OVERALL: 1. Does the 'potential for intensification of It is assumed that the term "Club" as used Club use mean greater than that in the comment refers to the private club described in the EIR? Does this imply or component uses on the site. The that it could become a more or less Environmental Impact Report (EIR) public facility with different environ- evaluates and discusses the full scope of mental impacts? environmental impacts of the expansion and remodeling of the Club facilities as proposed. This analysis includes the extent to which the facilities are to be utilized as either "public" and "private lu "uses. Any intensification of either use beyond what is currently proposed would require a General Plan Amendment and further environmental review to determine the extent to which impacts would be greater than discussed in the EIR. 2. What criteria in the geotechnical infor- It is not now known if an agreement will mation will determine whether an agree- even be necessary. As identified in Mitiga- ment guaranteeing repairs of damage to tion Measure No. 8, the project proponent private property will be required? will be required to prepare and submit final soils engineering and geologic studies to the City for approval. If any impacts identified in those reports dictate, regardless of criteria (e.g., ground water conditions, settlement, etc.), the Director, Building Department will have the authority for determining if such an agreement is necessary upon the advice of the City Engineering Geologist and City Engineer. 3. What is the rationale for the assumption It is assumed that the question refers to the of one third the City's normal agate City's trip generation rate and parking (sic) of trip generation and of parking generation rate for restaurant and dining spaces for the dining area needs? facilities. The generation rates used in the traffic and parking analysis for the project were determined by the City Traffic Engineer, traffic consultant, and on-site survey, and take into account the unique- ness of the facility, and reflect the non- public condition and on-site/hotel guest Comment Response usage of the facilities. The criteria for determining the generation rates utilized is discussed beginning page 3 of the traffic and parking analysis contained in Appendix F of the EIR. WATER: 4. Is the City considering adopting stricter At this time, no stricter criteria is being criteria for landscaping and other water considered. However;Mitigation Measures usage under current and future drought 16, 17, 18, J have been included in the EIR conditions? If so, will these apply to which, when implemented, will address the this project? amount of water to be used for landscaping and other uses, as well as the manner in which water is applied. Furthermore, the project will be subject to the City Drought Ordinance which requires a 20% reduction in water usage. This includes the require- ment for the on-site private water system to be upgraded to meet current City standards. 5. Should the cumulative impact of water It is assumed that the comment refers to use be included under 'Topical areas the "Cumulative Impacts" section of the . . . sensitive to cumulative effects"? EIR (Chapter VII, page 137). Water use is not identified as a topical area investigated in the EIR for cumulative effect as the initial study process considered this aspect of the project to not pose a potential significant impact. However,the Mitigation Measures identified in the response to comment 4 have been added to the EIR in order to further analyze water and hydro- logic conditions on the site. Comment Response NOISE, POLLUTION: 6. Is there an acceptable alternative to the The results of the project traffic study added signal on PCH that would avoid indicate that a traffic signal is warranted the added pollution and noise that it under existing conditions; i.e. without the will bring to the neighborhood? If not, project. Signal control measures are are there signal control measures that available which would minimize frequency could minimize frequency of operation? of operation. The determination as to the use of such control measures will be made by the City Traffic Engineer in conjunction with the California Department of Trans- portation. Pollution and noise increases, if any, are not expected to be of significance. 7. Will the improved loudspeaker/paging Such restrictions are not currently contem- system have a noise level limit imposed plated. As identified on page 72 of the at the property line of the adjoining EIR, the proposed project is intended to residential area? provide improved services to its member- ship and guest. With the enclosure of much of the existing outdoor activity area into enclosed and expanded facilities, the use of outdoor loudspeakers will be reduced, thus reducing the current related noise impact. Mitigation Measure N requires that a written evaluation of the proposed outdoor loudspeaker system be prepared by an acoustical engineer and approved by the City. Additionally, the loudspeaker system must be installed to direct speakers away from surrounding residential uses. 8. Since the City does not have a noise As identified on page 72 of the EIR, future ordinance designed to protect residential on-site noise impacts will not significantly areas from non-transportation related differ from those which now exist. The noise sources (p.68), will there be an increase in traffic is not of a magnitude enforceable noise limits protecting the that would be discernable to the average neighboring residents from the loading person. Further, it can be expected that dock activities? Employee parking? the removal of buildings which were con- Operating equipment? Eastern access structed prior to the upgrading of standards road? related to sound attenuation, and the replacement of these buildings with new construction which meets these standards will, generally, result in decreased noise impacts on-site. • • Comment Response The hours of operation for the loading dock are controlled by City Ordinance. In addition, Mitigation Measure 24 provides that the applicant shall present to the City Engineer a written Commitment that the loading dock shall be operated only within the hours specified by the City of Newport Beach for construction activities. Further- more, the following conditions have been added to the project which will further minimize impacts from noise and light. • That all hotel facilities facing the Bay- shores area, including guest rooms, be designed to eliminate potential noise spillage which could result from radios, televisions, etc. as well as noisy party activity. This can be accom- plished by designing the facility with no openable doors or windows facing the Bayshores property line, and/or through enclosure of the proposed balconies. • That the parking structure shall be designed so as to preclude light spill- age from automobiles on residences in the Bayshore community. This is to be achieved via the ramp and circula- tion design of the structure, the installation of screen walls or planting, or a combination thereof. • That all parking and loading areas shall comply with the noise control criteria set forth below. A. The following noise standard shall be established for all exterior noise-sensitive areas within residential areas located within one hundred (100) feet of a parking or loading area: Noise Level Time Period 55 DBA 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 50 DBA 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. Comment Response B. Exterior noise-sensitive areas shall include all yards, decks, patios, terraces, balconies and rooftops and other private open space areas of a residential lot designed and used for outdoor living and recreation with the exception of driveways and parking areas. C. Noise generated from loading areas shall not exceed: (1) The exterior noise standard for a cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minutes in any hour; or (2) The exterior noise standard plus five (5) DBA for a cumulative period of more than fifteen (15) minutes in any hour; or (3) The exterior noise standard plus ten (10) DBA for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; or (4) The exterior noise standard plus fifteen (15) DBA for a cumula- tive period of more than one (1) minute in any hour; or (5) The exterior noise standard plus twenty (20) DBA for any period of time. D. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four (4) noise limit categories above, the cu- mulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maxi- mum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. Comment Response E. The following noise standard shall be established for all interior noise-sensitive areas within residential areas located within one (100) feet of a parking or loading area: Noise Level Time Period 55 DBA 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 45 DBA 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. F. Interior noise-sensitive areas shall include any habitable room meeting the requirements of the Housing Code for sleeping, living, cooking, or dining purposes, excluding such enclosed places as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms,service rooms,connecting corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms, garages and similar spaces. G. Noise generated from loading areas shall not exceed: (1) The interior noise standard for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; or (2) The interior noise standard plus five (5) DBA for a cumulative period of more than one (1) minute in any hour; or (3) The interior noise standard plus ten (10) DBA for any period of time. 9. Since the de-watering pump or pumps Mitigation Measures 25, 26, 27 and 28 will will be continuous, will there be enforce- provide the City with the information able limits on noise level that will avoid necessary to establish equipment setbacks nighttime disturbance to the residential for the de-watering activities as well as neighbors? enforce mechanical noise standards as set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Electric pumps will be utilized as s , Comment Response they are quieter than gas or other non- electric pumps. 10. Emissions tabulation in Table 7 refers Local impacts are not understated in the to Receptors by number and had no analysis. Page 64 of the EIR identifies the location reference. The table also projected "sub-regional" emission relates to Orange County rather than to projections. This "sub-regional" are immediate vicinity. Does this understate encompasses most of the City of Newport the L2cgl impact? Since trip generation Beach and a portion of the City of Costa study averages 10 miles (S mile radius), Mesa. The projected "sub-regional" shouldn't the comparison be made for emission increases are all less than 0.1 the affected area? percent. Generally, changes greater than 2.0 percent are considered significant. ACCESS: 11. Public Access is mentioned in several Public parking is provided on-site. Such parts but left questions about where the parking will be limited to those areas not public will park, how the public may be designated as "members only parking area" restricted from the beach, relative and will be restricted during major annual prominence of signage, etc. special events such as Kentucky Derby Day and during the boat parade when the property is operated at peak capacity. Page 38 and 96 of the EIR identifies public access to the beach area of the Club as restricted to the exclusive usage of Club members and hotel guests, and that appropriate signage shall indicate private member restricted areas in conspicuous places on the grounds. These provisions will be further defined and regulated via compliance with Mitigation Measures 34 and 35 and future deed restriction. Mitigation Measure 35 has been amended to read as follows: Pedestrian access shall be provided throughout the areas of the Club por- tion of property identified in the pub- lic access plan as available for use by the general public. 12. Who will decide what is a reasonable The issue of parking fees will be largely a parking fee for the casual public visitor? matter addressed by the Coastal Will the City have a voice? Commission. The City will work with the Coastal Commission to establish a protocol for parking fees. Comment Respgnse VISUAL: 13. Will the retail facilities of the club be Yes. The retail facilities will be contained shielded from the public view, ie, not within the Guest Facility building(s). visible from PCH? 14. The state mandates require the recycling The City of Newport Beach is addressing of 25%and 50%of the waste stream by the solid waste issue in a comprehensive the years 1995 and 2000 respectively. manner City-wide. Resulting policies and What programs and facilities are planed regulations will be applied to the Club by the club to achieve these goals? facilities when adopted. The City has already established a procedure whereby City-collected trash is delivered to a sorting/recycling center. If a private hauler is used, the entity will have to conduct the same sorting activities. 9� J+pYTMERA CRUfORA1R RpOCIRT1011 Of tsOYERAMEATJ' 818 West Seventh Street,12th Floor • Los Angeles,California 90017-3435 ❑ (213)236-1800 • FAX(213)236-1825 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Pntadent r Rw'vmma cnamr Jnhe ply■n,sep.rwaor Fun Vice Proddwt June 11, 1991 Rq, qty d La An{nka noDM" cowtddta..6" Sweet!Vim Praridmt Rep.Imnmd County Ms. Patricia Temple Ab . t,Sapar ' Advance Planning Manager Lee Angelo County rvisor City of Newport Beach Wtana,Sap.&anD Planning Department =W@CV "v,S.parvi+or 3300 Newport Boulevard HwAeLL OYlad Riverside County P.O. Box 1768 Melba Dunlap,S%wrgwr Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 San Bernardino county Jon Mikaer,Sope"W' r Robert Ba�rWMtt.elo Mar icy Monrovia Cities of Imperial Cauuy Steal Mmdma Mayor Ba+ley RE: BALBOA BAY CLUB EXPANSION AND REMODELING PROJECT EIR atir d you Cway Irwle PrNd,Cotuci mb', Yorba Linda adrdRiracde County Dear Ms. Temple: Judy b',av,Mayor Mauro VaB.y ati.d San eemarmoocounty We have reviewed the above referenced project and determined that it is Siam olu Lontadlk,Mayor not regionally significant per Areawide Clearinghouse criteria. adeadvamracouay Therefore, the project does not warrant clearinghouse comments at this Jahn Melton.Coo.cit"Imber S,nup,t,la time. Should there be a change in the scope of the project, we woes ld men yr appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time. atr arl.mte.erdi SWlh,Caaarcrbeewber projectThe title and SCAG number should be used in all correspondence Clwxa roucxcHAiR.s with SCAG concerning this project. Correspondence should be sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. SCAG staff can be Judy wrl{h1.Cweeibwwber reached by telephone at (213) 236-1861. aamtan,Chair,Trwpmution wd Canmuoicatioat Dkan Rlry,Mayar pro r.. Thank you, a .chair.Encgy aad EorkAvisanntmt Robertwaptw,Mayor Lakewood.Cheir,Canmuaky. fMHJATANAKA _// Eaoaanic,and Hurnti Dawtopawt (.�/ RECEIVED BY AT-LARGE DELEGATES PLANNING DEPARTMENT Judy Wrttht.Coeaetwm"r Clearinghouse Official "iTY OF NEWPORT BEACH CLmmau Robert Gmvy,Couuu1,uwbar JUN ln. 1991 L{uaa Beech PM ?Rkhard Nly.Mayor Pro T.ar 71819AA110Ill 112111213141516"Dowt ALTERNATES L Impvul County a Sam Slurp,Srgerviear • laa Melee Caumy a W[daleean.Srperriwr and Ceoeerh Hakn.Srprtiar • lTia{s CotauY.o GadN Vaequen,Saperviwr • Rirrr ado Cwwty o Ihlrkk Lwae,Sapnuor a Sw Bematdino Caunry o Larry wallnr,Srpaviaor a Nomura Couny o Ykkkkyy HawaN,Saprwwr• atiaadingaW Couaay o Vklar Seecha,Jr.,Mryor,Watmarland a Cina dlo Aeadea Carry o Abbe Lasd.CowaaGerwNr,Waa Hdlywood • q'deadOtanae Canqq o RwMtyn Pltanmr,Ceeecilwaeabar,Naw• pan Bash • and of Rireertde County o (Var�at) • Cider d Sw Bunndino Count' o 0mw Dlyneo,Mayor Pro Taw,Irma Linda • Brine d Vmme County o (Vaaeq • City d La Anldn o Rkherd Alelorre,CowerlavwMr oJoy fkue,CoauacrMuwbrr o Mkhad Woq CaamGuwber• Loa.Beeeh Sad podnm o Jtrtrey Kellory CoauaciMeetMr a At Largo o R.my Saurar,Meyorpro T.w,Monmbello o Fred A�akr,Mayor.Clmo o Rat>ert Lewk,Nagar P'o Taw,Thousad Oak+ Response to Letter from Southern Calif. Assoc. of Governments Dated June 11, 1991 Comment Response We have reviewed the above referenced The comment does not raise specific envi- project and determined that it is not regional- ronmental issues. Comment is hereby ly significant per Areawide Clearinghouse noted and incorporated into the record. criteria. Therefore, the project does not warrant clearinghouse comments at this time. Should there be a change in the scope of the project, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time. s� • RE ED 8Y STATE OF CALIFORNIA PLANNIN39EPARTMENT' PETE WILSON,Governor CITY Ur I. STATE LANDS COMMISSION EXECUTIVE OFFICE 1991 1807. 13th Street LEO T. McCARTHY,Lieutenant Governor J UN 17 1?M Sacramento,CA 95814 GRAY DAVIS, Contrulle, AM CHARLES WARREN THOMAS W. HAYES. Director of Finance 718,9110,11,12,11213141516 Executive Officer 4 June 11, 1991 State Projects Coordinator Resources Agency 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento CA 95814 Ms. Patricia Temple Advance Planning Manager Planning Department City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach CA 92659-1768 Dear Ms. Temple: Staff of the State Lands Commission (SLC) has reviewed the Notice of Completion (NOC) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), SCH #89030806, DEIR No. 143. The project involves a change of zoning in order to establish site specific and project specific standards for the proposed Balboa Bay Club Expansion and Remodeling Project. Based on this review, we offer the following comments. GENERAL COMMENTS As general background, the SLC has jurisdiction and authority over all ungranted tidelands, submerged lands, and the beds of navigable rivers, sloughs, lakes, etc. The SLC has limited oversight responsibility for tide and submerged lands legislatively granted in trust to local jurisdictions (Public Resources Code Section 6301). All tide and submerged lands, granted or ungranted, as well as navigable rivers, sloughs, etc. are impressed with the Common Law Public Trust. The Public Trust is a sovereign public property right held by the State or its delegated trustee for the benefit of all the people. This right limits the uses of these lands to waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries, open space, water-dependent recreation, or other recognized Public Trust purposes. The SLC is a Responsible Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for proposed projects which occupy state-owned sovereign lands. At the same time, the SLC is a Trustee Agency for any and all projects which could directly or indirectly y3 State Projects Coordinator Ms. Patricia Temple June 11, 1991 Page 2 affect sovereign lands and their accompanying Public Trust resources or uses. The SLC is a Trustee Agency for lands granted in trust to local jurisdictions. SPECIFIC COMMENTS The proposed project is located on lands which have been legislatively granted to the City of Newport Beach (Chapter 74, Statutes of 1978) and, as such, their use must be consistent with the Public Trust and the statutory provisions of the City's grant. Furthermore, all revenues generated from the lease of the trust properties must be deposited into a trust fund account and expended for trust purposes consistent with Chapter 74, Statutes of 1978. SLC staff supports the concept of establishing the Balboa Bay Club as a "visitor- serving commercial" facility in furtherance of the Public Trust Doctrine and the provisions of the California Coastal Act. With specific regard to Subitem I D Areas of Controversy 3.Extent of State tidelands which would be affected in conjunction with the proposed project. the staff of the SLC and the Attorney General's Office have informed the City and the project proponent that the property is public trust land as adjudicated by the Superior Court in City of Newport Beach v County of Orange and State of California, Case #59376 (1952). Staff of the SLC and the Attorney General's Office have continually maintained that residential use of such property is incompatible with the provisions of the Public Trust. It should be further noted that, in 1986, a condition of the renewed lease entered into between the City of Newport Beach and the Balboa Bay Club, requires that residential uses be discontinued no later than December 31, 1998 and that the property be converted to visitor- serving facilities. The SLC is particularly concerned with maximizing public access and water- dependent recreational opportunities on the public trust lands of the state. To this end, the DEIR should discuss the need to provide additional public access along the waterfront in front of the Terrace Apartments, as a means to ensure continuous public access. Furthermore, public docking facilities for visitors to the premises should also be analyzed. l`� State Projects Coordinator Ms. Patricia Temple June 11, 1991 Page 3 Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions,please contact Curtis Fossum, Senior Staff Counsel, at (916) 322-2277. Sincerely, Csow Dwi ht . Sanders, Chief Divi ' n of Environmental Planning and Management cc: Charles Warren, Executive Officer OPR Nancy Saggese, DAG-LA File Ref.: G-09-02 9.� Response to the Letter from State Lands Commission date June 11, 1991 Comment _ Response 1. The proposed project is located on The comment does not raise specific lands which have been legislatively environmental issues. Comment is hereby granted to the City of Newport Beach incorporated into the record. (Chapter 74, Statutes of 1978) and, as such, their use must be consistent with the Public Trust and the statutory provisions of the City's grant. Further- more, all revenues generated from the lease of the trust properties must be deposited into a trust fund account and expended for trust purposes consistent with Chapter 74, Statutes of 1978. 2. SLC (State Lands Commission) staff The comment does not raise specific supports the concept of establishing the environmental issues. Comment is hereby Balboa Bay Club as a "visitor-serving incorporated into the record. commercial" facility in furtherance of the Public Trust Doctrine and the pro- visions of the California Coastal Act. 3. With specific regard to Subitem I.D. The comment does not raise specific Areas of Controversy 3 Extent of State environmental issues. Comment is hereby tidelands which would be affected in incorporated into the record. conjunction with the proposed project, the staff of the SLC and the Attorney General's Office have informed the City and the project proponent that the property is public trust land as adjudicated by the Superior Court in C it2 f Newport Beach v. County of Orange and State of California Case #59376 (1952). IE Comment Response 4. Staff of the SLC and the Attorney The comment does not raise specific General's Office have continually environmental issues. Comment is hereby maintained that residential use of such incorporated into the record. However, it property is incompatible with the should be noted that the lease negotiation provisions of the Public Trust. It should is independent of the environmental review be further noted that, in 1986, a process and the certification of the EIR is condition of the renewed lease entered not contingent on the renewal of the lease, into between the City of Newport Beach nor is renewal of the lease contingent upon and the Balboa Bay Club, requires that certification of the EIR. residential uses be discontinued no later than December 31, 1998 and that the property be converted to visitor-serving facilities. 5. The SLC is particularly concerned with The comment does not raise specific maximizing public access and water- environmental issues. Comment is hereby dependent recreational opportunities on incorporated into the record. However, it the public trust lands of the state. To should be noted that the topic of public use this end, the DEIR should discuss the and related public facilities will likely be a need to provide additional public access leading item for discussion and resolution along the waterfront in front of the at such time as extension of the lease for Terrace Apartments, as a means to the Terrace Apartments is addressed (see ensure continuous public access. response to comment 4 above). Furthermore, public docking facilities for visitors to the premises should be analyzed • ���',�, 1�l l • PLANNING DEPARTMENT ti :i LJ J W.1 V r,�AFE NEV6iRQPTR13EACP " County of Orange _ JUN j�k ljgfn AM PM DATE: JXR 12 ;;y1 71819110111112111213141516 TO: Joan Golding, Program Manager, Regional Coordination Offic(A FROM: Manager, HBP/Program Planning Division SUBJECT: Balboa Bay Club Expansion and Remodeling 91-75 EIR No.143 Program Planning staff has reviewed the DEIR and offers the following comments: 1. Page 6 of Public Access to the Beach The assumption was made that a small beach frontage of the proposed project would jeopardize public health and safety. Please explain how a small beach front will jeopardize the health and safety of the public and why the project proponent cannot supply sanitation facilities for public use. 2. Page 91, Mitigation Measure 35 Please provide an accurate, graphic representation of the 10-foot pedestrian easement. 3• Land Use Intensification of Proposed'Project 7. The DEIR should provide evidence that the proposed project will not increase the demand on the boat traffic in the harbor. If increased boat traffic is anticipated, or proven to be a project impact, then the project proponent should provide any of the following mitigation measures. Public access to the slips in the Balboa Bay Club Marina. Finance additional Harbor Patrol boats or other equipment needed by the Harbor Patrol to police the additional boats. Or finance public boat slips offsite of the proposed project. 4. Leasing Aspects Please clarify the ambiguities of the lease negotiation and explain if the renewal of the lease is contingent upon certification of the EIR. 5. View Corridor Analysis The View Corridor as depicted on the Site Plan Example 3 and the Bay View Analysis on Example 11 are inconsistent. The obstructions to a clear view to the bay, as shown on Example 11, should be eliminated to provide public view access across the public property (Balboa Bay Club) to public waterway. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Should you have any questions, please call William Stoneking at 568-4983. O�r- Bob Hamilton VS:rmHBM02-232/1162 1061117472857 cc: City of Newport Beach, Planning Department / c onn nen n.0 a� cLttn: Patricia L. Temple �' , • RECEIVED 130 DIRECTOR, EMA MICHAEL M.RUANE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4 r,ITY OF NEVVPORT JOHN W.SIBLEY N-rY O F CHIEF DEPUTY DIRECTOR, EMA 2 I JUG 21991 PIA 12 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA AM FORNIA 5 RAN G E 18i9110►11tS2►1►2►3►415i6 SANTMAIL MAILING ADDRESS: P.O.BOX 4048 SANTA ANA,CA 92702-4048 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY TELEPHONE: (714) 834.5302 FAX#834.2395 JUN 1 9 1991 FILE NCL91-75 Patricia Temple Advance Planning Manager City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 SUBJECT: DEIR for the Balboa Bay Club Expansion Dear Ms. Temple: The above referenced item is a draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project would increase the building coverage of the Balboa Bay Club from approximately 155,303 square feet to 275,512 square feet on 8.25 acres of the 12.65 total acres of the property. A zone change from R-4 "Residential/Commercial/Social Club Facilities" to i PC "Planned Community" zoning in order to establish site specific and project specific standards tailored to the proposed Balboa Bay Club Expansion and Remodeling Project. The Club is located at 1221 West Coast Highway. The County of Orange has reviewed the DEIR resulting in the following comments regarding open space/recreation: 1. Page 96 of Public Access to the Beach The assumption was made that a small beach frontage of the proposed project would jeopardize public health and safety. Please explain how a small beach front will jeopardize the health and safety of the public and why the project proponent cannot supply sanitation facilities for public use. 2. Page 97, Mitigation Measure 35 Please provide a specific, graphic representation of the 10-foot pedestrian easement. 3. Land Use Intensification of Proposed Project The DEIR should provide evidence that the proposed project will not increase the demand on the boat traffic in the harbor. If increased boat traffic is anticipated, or proven to be a project impact, then the project proponent should provide any of the following mitigation measures: Public access to the slips in the Balboa Bay Club Marina; finance additional Harbor Patrol 9y Ms. Temple Page 2 boats or other equipment needed by the Harbor Patrol to police the additional boats; or finance public boat slips offsite of the proposed project. 4. Leasing Aspects Please clarify the lease negotiation process and explain if the renewal of the lease is contingent upon certification of the EIR. 5. View Corridor Analysis The View Corridor as depicted on the Site Plan Example 3 and the Bay View Analysis on Example 11 are inconsistent. The view obstructions to the bay, as shown on Example 11, should be eliminated to provide public view access across the public property (Balboa Bay Club) to public waterway. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the DEIR. We apologize for the tardiness of our letter but still hope these comments will be considered. If you have questions, please call Kari Rigoni at (714) 834-2109. Very truly yours, Joan Golding, Manager Regional Coordination Office By: ari A. Rigoni, Sr anner CH:cv/dv(1169) 1061807491380 /C-9L Response to Memo dated June 12, 1991 and Letter from County of Orange dated June 19, 1991 Comment Response 1. Pare 6 Qf Public Access to the Beach The Club has no obligation to provide sanitary facilities, life guard service, or Please explain how a small beach front public access to an artificial beach they will jeopardize the health and safety of created. The public access opportunities the public and why the project provided are sufficient. proponent cannot supply sanitation facilities. I 2. Paee 91, Mitigation Measure 35 A graphic representation of a 10-foot pedestrian easement is not proposed with Please provide an accurate, graphic the project. The Mitigation Measure has I representation of the 10 foot pedestrian been amended to read as follows: easement. Pedestrian access shall be provided throughout the areas of the Club por- tion of property identified in the pub- lic access plan as available for use by the general public. Also see response to comment no. 11 of the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee- EIR Subcommittee letter dated May 20, 1991. 3. Land Use fnten i tcation of Proposed The proposed project does not include the Proiect expansion of the private boat docks associated with the Bay Club. Therefore, The DEIR should provide evidence that the project is not capable of increasing the proposed project will not increase demand on boat traffic in the harbor. the demand on the boat traffic in the harbor. If increased boat traffic is anticipated, or proven to be a project impact, then the project proponent should provide any of the following mitigation measures. Public access to the slips in the Balboa Bay Club Marina. Finance additional Harbor Patrol boats or other equipment needed by the Harbor Patrol to police the additional boats. Or finance public boat slips offsite of the proposed project. /D, Comment Response 4. Leasing A,Mects There are no ambiguities of the lease negotiation. The EIR must be certified to Please clarify the ambiguities of the approve the zone change and rehabilitation lease negotiation and explain if the project. If the lease is renewed or renewal of the lease is contingent upon extended after 2011, CEQA compliance certification of the EIR would also apply. No lease extension or renewal is considered at this time. 5. View Corridor Analvsis The exhibits referred to are not incon- sistent as they are not necessarily intended The Yew Corridor as depicted on the to identify the same impact on views of the Site Plan Example 3 and the Bay Yzew Bay. The Site Plan exhibit is not intended Analysis on Example 11 are incon- to identify view impacts for the purpose of sistent. The obstructions to a clear view analysis or discussion. However, the oppor- to the bay, as shown on Example 11, tunity to identify the locations along Coast should be eliminated to provide public Highway where a passerby may view the view access across the public property bay has been indicated. The "Public View (Balboa Bay Club) to public waterway. Access" areas have been indicated to identify the locations along Coast Highway where a view of the Bay will be possible after the renovation is complete. Exhibit 11, "Proposed Bay View Analysis" and exhibit 10, 'Existing Bay View Analysis" are the exhibits referred to in discussion and analysis of bay view impacts. Exhibit 10 depicts the existing bay view from the point along Coast Highway which affords the most significant view of the bay. Exhibit 11 depicts the same scenario after the remodeling construction has been completed. Exhibit 11 clearly indicates what these future views will be and where they will be available, and that these views are improved over the existing condition depicted in Exhibit 10. The comment refers to an 'obstruction" to a clear view of the bay depicted on Exhibit 11. As identified on the exhibit, a clear view is provided from view point "A" and an additional view point 'B". A guard control station at the project entrance may infringe upon views from point W. However, such a view impediment is con- sidered slight and insignificant. jDa STATE OF CAUFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETS WIl50N, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION RECEI`1=C+ SY �. SOUTH COAST AREA I` 245 W. BROADWAY, STE. 380 PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. BOX 1450 !'ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LONG BEACH, CA 90802.4416 (213) 5M5071 JUN 18 1991 PM June 17, 1991 7181911011111211120141516 Patricia L. Temple Advance Planning Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92658-8915 Re: Draft EIR Balboa Bay Club Expansion and Remodeling Project Dear Ms. Temple, After review of the Draft EIR for the remodel and expansion of the Balboa Bay Club some questions have arisen about public access and parking. It is not clear what rationale and methods have been used to estimate the additional parking needs for the increase in intensity of use and whether the proposed additional parking will meet these needs. Section 30252(4) of the Coastal Act states: The location and amount of new devlopment should maintain and enhance public access to the by . . .(4)providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation. Are the incremental new hotel and restaurant areas the only identified intensification of use that will need additional parking? The evaluation of the increased parking needs does not clearly indicate the rationale for reducing the parking standard for the restaurant by two-thirds. An analysis of the off-site parking availability should be prepared and the proposed use of the off-site parking indicated, whether for special events or on-going uses. A table indicating all the uses proposed and the specific parking needs for each use would clarify the adequacy of the on-site parking proposed. If a mixed use facility type parking program is contemplated studies supporting the reduced parking will be needed. The report indicates a current deficit parking situation with the use of spaces along Coast Highway for on-site facilities. Will the additional parking proposed correct this deficit situation or provide only for the incremental additionally needed parking? Provision of on-site parking for the general public should be considered. Section 30210 of the Coastal Act states: In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse. Ad Section 30211 of the Coastal Act states: Development shall not interfere with the public 's right of access to the sea where acquired though use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation. In addition the Land Use Plan addresses public access in general and specifically on leased city—owned parcels: "Balboa Bay Club This City—owned parcel is currently developed with many uses . . .and is leased to the Balboa Bay Club, Inc. . . . At such time as the extension of the lease is negotiated, full consideration shall be given to public access to the site. " "Lateral access shall be provided in new development by means of decication of easements for public access along the beach and bay shoreline except where adequate access already exists nearby. . . " "Vertical access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline shall be provided by means of dedication of the easements except where adequate access exists nearby. . ." ' As proposed, the additional development includes a substantial increase in private recreational use in addition to the public visitor-serving hotel and restaurant uses. Approval of the project will allow a project with a usable lifetime extending as much as 50+ years beyond the current lease expiration date. As stated in the certified LUP, "at such time as the extension of the lease is negotiated, full consideration shall be given to public access to the site. " At the most recent extension of the lease, the issue of public access was to be addressed in the future within the context of the intended remodel and expansion rather than at the time of the lease extension. The increased value to the applicant for the proposed increase in intensity of use and the potential longevity of the project requires an equally substantial and significant increase in public access, to meet both the LUP's above stated lease extension provisions for access on city owned parcels and the standard vertical and lateral access policies for new development. The vertical access proposed, for the general public, appears to be through the hotel lobby to an unidentified pedestrian corridor adjacent to the harbor. The location and extent of the proposed lateral access is not clear. Alternatives to the hotel lobby access route should be evaluated. Some members of the general public may be discouraged from using the accessway if it requires passage through an enclosed structure, such as the proposed hotel . It is also proposed that the beach area remain in private use. Clarification and amplification of the public health and safety reasons for excluding the general public should be made. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EIR for this project. Vicky Komi Coastal Program Analyst 0585E %�S Response to Letter from California Coastal Commission Dated June 17, 1991 Comment Response 1. It is not clear what rationale and The rationale and methods used in estimat- methods have been used to estimate the ing parking needs for the site are identified additional parking needs for the increase beginning on page 75 of the EIR, and in in intensity of use and whether the the Traffic and Parking Study for the proposed additional parking will meet project contained in Appendix F of the these needs. EIR. In summary, on-site field observations were utilized to observe existing parking demands. This data was then combined with generally accepted parking generation rates for the additional square footage to be added for all uses on-site. The one exception was to use a one-third parking generation rate for dining area (5,800-sq. ft.) as was used in determining the traffic generation for the same use. This is justified on the basis of the joint use with the hotel. The generation rates used in the traffic and parking analysis for the project were determined by the City Traffic Engineer and traffic consultant, and take into account the uniqueness of the facility, and reflect the non-public condition and on-site/hotel guest usage of the facilities. The criteria for determining the generation rates utilized is discussed beginning page 3 of the traffic and parking analysis contained in Appendix F of the EIR. Page 84 of the EIR states that the proposed' parking supply will adequately serve daily opera- tions. Page 84 of the EIR further identifies that the Balboa Bay Club has 235 off-site park- ing spaces available at the Newport Beach Country Club, Balboa Bay Racquet Club, and Lutheran Church on Dover and 16th Street, that can be used in conjunction with a shuttle service, for special events. These spaces are available for either employee or visitor parking. /DS Comment Response 2. Are the incremental new hotel and Yes. As identified on page 84 of the EIR, restaurant areas the only identified the proposed increases in the remaining intensification of use that will need uses are not anticipated to significantly additional parking? increase parking demand, but, rather, to better serve existing members and guest. 3. The evaluation of the increased parking See response to comment 1 above. needs does not clearly indicate the rationale for reducing the parking standard for the restaurant by two- thirds. 4. An analysis of the off-site parking avail- See response to comment 1 above. ability should be prepared and the proposed use of the off-site parking indicated, whether for special events or on-going uses. 5. A table indicating all the uses proposed Such a table would not be a clarification, as and the specific parking needs for each it would not reflect the reciprocal and use would clarify the adequacy of the conjunctive uses of the facilities. (See on-site parking proposed response to comment #1 above.) 6. If a mixed use facility type parking See response to comment 1 above and the program is contemplated studies Traffic and Parking analysis contained in supporting the reduced parking will be Appendix F to the EIR. needed. 7. The report indicates a current deficit Page 75 of the EIR identifies parking along parking situation with the use of spaces Coast Highway as observed during the field along Coast Highway for on-site operations for informational purposes (see facilities. Will the additional parking response to comment 1). As the avail- proposed correct this deficit situation or ability of parking on Coast Highway is of provide only for the incremental an uncertain nature, the calculations and additionally needed parking? estimations of the additional parking needs of the project did not anticipate that Coast Highway parking would be available. Therefore, the project provides for parking needs to be accommodated on-site or at the available off-site facilities. 8. Provision of on-site parking for the The general public is permitted to park on general public should be considered site as noted in the EIR. Therefore, such parking has been considered and provided. � /off • 0 Comment Response 9. As stated in the certified LUP (Land The comment does not raise specific Use Plan), "at such time as the environmental issues. In addition, it should extension of the lease is negotiated, full be identified that the lease negotiation is consideration shall be given to public independent of the environmental review access to the site." At the most recent process and the certification of the EIR is extension of the lease, the issue of not contingent on the renewal of the lease, public access was to be addressed in the nor is renewal of the lease contingent upon future within the context of the intended certification of the EIR. The applicant will remodel and expansion rather than at be required to secure approval of the the time of the lease extension. project by the California Coastal Commission. It is anticipated that at that time, public access and the provisions for public access will be clarified and approved. Mitigation Measure 35 regarding access easement and public access has been amended to read as follows: Public access shall be provided throughout the areas of the Club por- tion of property identified in the pub- lic access plan as available for use by the general public. 10. The vertical access proposed, for the See response to comment 9 above. general public, appears to be through the hotel lobby to an unidentified pedestrian corridor adjacent to the harbor. The location and extent of the proposed lateral access is not clear. Alternatives to the hotel lobby access route should be evaluated Some members of the general public may be discouraged from using the accessway if it requires passage through an enclosed structure, such as the proposed hotel, /Dj Comment Resuonsa 11. It is also proposed that the beach area Pages 38 and 96 of the EIR identify public remain private use. Clarification and access to the beach area of the Club as amplification of the public health and restricted to the exclusive use of Club safety reasons for excluding the general members and hotel guests. Hotel guests public should be made. are not limited to members only and can be the "general public." The Club has no obligation to provide sanitary facilities, life guard service, or public access to an arti- ficial beach they created. The public access opportunities provided are sufficient. (Please see response to comment#1 of the County of Orange letter dated June 12, 1991.) /D� RECEIVED BY • • PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM JUN 1.8 1991 PM COMMENTS ON BALBOA BAY CLUB 71819110111112111213141516 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Q SUBMITTED BY STOP POLLUTING OUR NEWPORT The following comments on the above-titled draft EIR (DEIR) are submitted by Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) . SPON appreciates this opportunity to comment on the document. General Comments SPON is concerned that City-owned property is being committed to a business oriented hotel, on a prime waterfront property with limited public access. SPON believes the public costs and benefits of the proposed project should be subject to full disclosure and public scrutiny prior to the City taking final action on the project. The DEIR does not provide sufficient disclosure of the project, its impacts or costs and benefits to allow an informed public debate to occur. Significantly more detail about the project and its effects is needed before such public debate can occur. Set forth below are some of the topical areas where more information is needed to complete an adequate EIR. SPON urges the City to make this information available to ' the public as soon as possible and then to recirculate the DEIR for public review. Specific Comments 1. Appropriate Actions/Approvals It is our understanding the Planning Commission has already approved the project. If this is the case, we believe the following observations are appropriate. First, the proposed project appears to require a series of special findings set forth in the General Plan since the proposed project exceeds the base floor area ratio of .50 established for the parcel. Those findings can be- found at pages 5-6 of the General Plan. In order to make those findings, we believe that additional analysis in the EIR is required. For example, the DEIR should include information about the scale and FAR's of adjacent properties, as well as trip information for the proposed facility pursuant to the equation set forth in the General Plan. As the DEIR traffic and land use sections are currently drafted, it is not possible to ascertain whether the evidence supports the required findings. Second, the LCP appears to require a use permit for the "hotel" use. If the LCP has not been amended, the use permit requirement would seem to among the required actions of the Commission and 1 ��j require discussion in the DEIR. Specific questions in this regard can be summarized as follows: Did the Planning Commission make the required findings for the base FAR to be exceeded? On what basis did the Commission make the findings or ignore the requirement? On what basis was the base FAR for the site permitted to be exceeded? - Is a use permit among the required approvals and if not, why not? (See LCP land use section) . 2 . Business Hotel as Permitted Use? The traffic figures for the hotel are based on the hotel as a "business" oriented hotel. We agree that the project description clearly indicates that the project is a business hotel. We question whether a hotel which caters to business and conference interests is an appropriate use under the General Plan and LCP within the coastal zone on City owned property. Please provide additional discussion and evidence ,in the DEIR regarding the reasons why such a use fulfills the City Planning goals, objectives and standards for the site. 3 . Impacts of Another Hotel The DEIR should include an economic analysis of the proposed hotel . CEQA section 15131 indicates that economic or social information may be included in an EIR or may be presented in whatever form the agency requires. The additional hotel rooms and conference facilities may adversely affect existing hotels in the area with the possible result of vacancies and concomitant physical deterioration of some hotels and motels that cannot compete with the new hotel . The DEIR should analyze such potentially significant impacts of the project. In addition, the discussion should include a complete disclosure of the lease agreement with the City to ensure that the Bay Club is not receiving favorable treatment which would give the facility a competitive advantage over existing hotels and motels. SPON believes that this. is{ essential information for the City to make a decision on the project. I 4. Summertime Peak Traffic Data SPON believes that the project may result in significant summer peak hour traffic and parking impacts. The DEIR should analyze these impacts under a worst case use scenario (i .e. all facilities at capacity) . In addition, the DEIR should disclose the number of average daily trips generated by the project in total, as well as for each component. 2 5 . State Lands The DEIR must specify exactly where the public trust lands are on the project site and how those lands are impacted by the project including by drainage and runoff and increased usage. Public access must be provided to these lands, as well as uses restricted in this area to public, trust uses. A complete discussion of the public trust issues must be included in the DEIR. 6. Cumulative Drainage The DEIR includes a very cursory discussion of runoff and drainage from the project site. This discussion should quantify the amount of runoff, the potential contaminants in the runoff and the cumulative runoff in the bay to which this project will contribute. 7. Growth Inducing Effects The project is proposed at its full FAR and includes shared parking. If every parcel in the City were permitted to build out at these extreme intensities the impacts are likely to be significant. The DEIR should include an analysis of impacts if such intense development, above base FAR's and parking standards, were permitted on other "underdeveloped" parcels along Mariners Mile and other areas that contribute traffic to the area affected by the project. Also, the DEIR should describe other projects that have been approved at these intensities as well as other projects where shared parking has been permitted to the same extent as proposed for the project. If there are other such projects, the DEIR should contain a discussion of how well shared parking has worked. 8. General Plan, Zoning and LCP Consistency The DEIR should contain a table which includes each goal, policy and standard that applies to the project and whether the project is in compliance with such applicable goals , policies and standards. Currently it is difficult to follow the DEIR's cursory analysis of project compliance with the General Plan and LCP. It appears that there may be some inconsistencies between the uses and intensities proposed and those permitted under the General Plan, Zoning and LCP. 9. Cumulative Analysis The cumulative analysis fails to meet CEQA requirements for such analyses. A cumulative analysis should be completed at the project level of detail for drainage and water quality, air quality, traffic, public services and facilities and biological resources at a minimum. The DEIR should separate the cumulative 3 impacts from the project related impacts. Cumulative and project related impacts should be quantified where feasible. 10. Grading - Cut & Fill This section of the DEIR should describe in detail the areas to be cut and those to be filled. Cross sections of the proposed work should be provided. Also, if this work will affect public trust lands, this should be noted. 4 Response to Letter from Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) dated June 18, 1991 Comment Response 1. the proposed project appears to The project proposes to increase floor area require a series of special findings set ratio (FAR) for the Club Facilities from an forth in the General Plan since the existing .28 to a proposed .50 (see page 32 proposed project exceeds the base floor of the EIR). Therefore, the project does area ratio of .50. In order to make not exceed the base FAR and additional those findings, we believe that additional findings are not necessary. analysis in the EIR is required The DEIR should include information about In addition, the project applicant is request- scale and FAR's of adjacent properties, ing approval of a Zone Change by the City as well as trip information for the to redesignate the property from R-4 proposed facility pursuant to the equa- 'Residential/Commercial Social Club tion set forth in the General Plan. As Facilities" to PC "Planned Community" the DEIR traffic and land use sections zoning (see page 29 of the EIR). The are currently drafted, it is not possible to purpose of the change in zoning designa- ascertain whether the evidence supports tion is to establish site specific and project the required findings. specific development standards tailored to the proposed development concept. The EIR Surrounding Land Use section does include information on the scale of surrounding land uses. The addition of FAR information on these land uses would not be of great value because of the character of adjacent land uses. For example, the FAR of the Sea Scout base, or the restaurant across Coast Highway, would not be anymore relevant than the description of the land uses themselves. Comment Response 2. the LCP (Local Coastal Program) The comment does not raise a specific appears to require a use permit for the environmental issue. However, see "hotel" use. If the LCP has not been response to comment i above regarding amended, the use permit requirement Floor Area Ratio (FAR). In addition,page would seem to (be) among the required 95 of the EIR includes an analysis of the actions of the Commission (Planning project impacts as they pertain to the Local Commission) and require discussion in Coastal Program/Land Use Plan (LCP). the DEIR. Specific questions in this Among the policies contained in the LCP, regard can be summarized as follows. is a discussion that while it is not reason- able to expect long-established uses to be - Did the Planning Commission eliminated, certain leaseholds policies have make the required findings for the been established to guide the leasing and base FAR to be exceeded? On re-leasing of public properties. The devel- what basis did the Commission opment plan presented in this EIR repre- make the findings or ignore the sents compliance with LCP policies. requirement? A Use Permit is required for the project - On what basis was the base FAR and will be one of the entitlements to be for the site permitted to be considered by the City Council when taking exceeded? action on the project. - Is a use permit among the required approvals and if not, why not? 3. We question whether a hotel which See response to comment 2 above. In caters to business and conference addition, it should be noted that such uses interests is an appropriate use under the are allowed in the General Plan and Local General Plan and LCP within the Coastal program (LCP) and that the Club coastal zone on City owned property. facilities are anticipated to be used more as Please provide additional discussion and a resort as opposed to strictly a hotel type evidence in the DEIR regarding the use. reasons why such a use fulfills the City planning goals, objectives and standards for the site. 0 Comment Response 4. The DEIR should include an economic Only economic and/or social information analysis of the proposed hotel. CEQA having a direct bearing on primary or section 15131 indicates that economic secondary environmental effects is required or social information may be included to be analyzed. Here, no primary or in an EIR or may be presented in what- secondary environmental effects are ever form the agency requires. The precipitated by the economic characteristics additional hotel rooms and conference of the project. The land use impacts are facilities may adversely affect existing discussed in the appropriate section of the hotels in the area with the possible EIR. There are no hotels near the project result of vacancies and concomitant which would compete with it. physical deterioration of some hotels and motels that cannot compete with the new hotel. The DEIR should analyze such potentially significant impacts of the project. 5. In addition, the discussion should The comment does not raise a specific include a complete disclosure of the environmental concern. The lease agree- lease agreement with the City to ensure ment is disclosed and is a public document. that the Bay Club is not receiving favorable treatment which would give the facility a competitive advantage over existing hotels and motels. 6. SPON believes that the project may The rationale and methods used in estimat- result in significant summer peak hour ing traffic and parking needs for the site traffic and parking impacts. The DEIR are identified beginning on page 75 of the should analyze these impacts under a EIR, and in the Traffic and Parking Study worst case scenario (le. all facilities at for the project contained in Appendix F of capacity). In addition, the DEIR the EIR. should disclose the number of average daily trips generated by the project in In summary, on-site field observations were total, as well as for each component. utilized to observe existing parking demands. This data was then combined with generally accepted parking generation rates for the additional square footage to be added for all uses on-site. The one exception was to use a one-third parking generation rate for dining area (5,800-sq. ft.) as was also used in determining the traffic generation for the same use. The generation rates used in the traffic and parking analysis for the project were deter- mined by the City Traffic Engineer, traffic consultant,and on-site survey,and take into account the uniqueness of the facility, and reflect the non-public condition and on- site/hotel guest usage of the facilities. The //s Comment Response criteria for determining the generation rates utilized is discussed beginning page 3 of the traffic and parking analysis contained in Appendix F of the EIR. As with all analysis conducted as part of this EIR, the full scope of potential impacts has been identified and analyzed. Page 84 of the EIR further identifies that the Balboa Bay Club has 235 off-site park- ing spaces available at the Newport Beach Country Club, Balboa Bay Racquet Club, and Lutheran Church on Dover and 16th Street, that can be used in conjunction with a shuttle service, for special events. These spaces are available for either employee or visitor parking. 7. The DEIR must specify exactly where The comment does not raise a specific the public trust lands are on the project environmental concern. Issues relating to site and how those lands are impacted public trust lands are ongoing between the by the project including by drainage and City and State Lands Commission. The runoff and increased usage. Public impacts of the project relative to drainage access must be provided to these lands, and hydrology have no bearing on the issue as well as uses restricted in this area to of public trust lands; i.e.,whether the site is public trust uses. A complete discussion determined to be or not be public trust of the public trust issues must be lands will not change the projects impacts included in the DEIR on drainage and hydrology. Drainage and hydrologic impacts are discussed beginning on page 56 of the EIR. Public access is addressed beginning on page 35 of the EIR. 8. The DEIR includes a very cursory The EIR has a complete discussion of discussion of runoff and drainage from runoff tailored to the degree of impact the project site. This discussion should expected. As the project site is developed quantify the amount of runoff, the now, impacts will not be significantly potential contaminants in the runoff different. The site is currently developed and the cumulative runoff in the bay to and paved. It should also be noted that the which this project will contribute. proposed remodeling of the site will in fact afford the opportunity to further refine and improve the existing drainage by the ability of the City to apply mitigation measures and conditions. In addition, enhanced regulations can now be imposed by such regulatory agencies as the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Comment Response 9. The DEIR should include an analysis of Such an analysis is not necessary as the impacts if such intense development, proposed project does not exceed any of above base FAR's and parking the standards identified. (See response to standards, were permitted on other comment 1 above.) "Underdeveloped" parcels along Mariner's Mile and other areas that contribute traffic to the area affected by the project. 10. Also, the DEIR should describe other Shared parking in this type of facility is a projects that have been approved at well recognized concept endorsed by the these intensities as well as otherprojects Urban Land Institute. Other projects are where shared parking has been not necessarily representative. permitted to the same extent as proposed for the project. If there are other such projects, the DEIR should contain a discussion of how well shared parking has worked 11. The DEIR should contain a table which Such an analysis is more appropriate in the includes each goa4 policy and standard staff report for the project. A point-by- that applies to the project and whether point analysis is unnecessary as the EIR the project is in compliance with such specifically discusses those areas of the applicable goals,policies and standards. General Plan and LCP that present com- Currently it is difficult to follow the pliance issues. DEIR's cursory analysis of project compliance with the General Plan and LCP. It appears that there may be some inconsistencies between the uses and intensities proposed and those permitted under the General Plan, Zoning and LCP. //i r Comment Response 12. The cumulative analysis fails to meet The EIR analysis is adequate under CEQA. the CEQ4 requirements for such Impacts of the project on water quality, air analysis. A cumulative analysis should quality, public services and biological be completed at the project level of resources are neither individually nor detail for drainage and water quality, air cumulatively significant because the site is quality, traffic, public services and presently developed and the additional facilities and biological resources at a increment of impact in this already minimum. The DEIR should separate developed area is minimal. In fact,impacts the cumulative impacts from the project in the existing condition to traffic and views related impacts. Cumulative and are actually improved with project design project related impacts should be and mitigation. It should also be noted that quantified where feasible the proposed remodeling of the site will in fact afford the opportunity to further refine and improve the impacts from the existing project to the topical areas identified in the comment. This can now be accomplished by the ability of the City to apply mitigation measures and conditions. In addition, enhanced- regulations can now be imposed by such regulatory agencies as the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Cumulative effects are completely addressed in the Traffic section of the EIR. 13. The grading section of the DEIR should A complete discussion of this topic is describe in detail the areas to be cut included in the EIR beginning on page 44, and those to be filled. Cross sections of Landform and Tic poeraphv, page 47, &ice the proposed work should be provided. and Geoloev, and again in the LeRoy Also, if this work will affect public trust Crandell and Associates report contained in lands, this should be noted Appendix I, Geotechnical Study. The impacts of the project relative to grading have no bearing on the issue of public trust lands; i.e. whether the site is determined to be or not be public trust lands will not change the projects impacts on grading. While this may be an appropriate comment for an undeveloped site, it is irrelevant where an existing developed site is being redeveloped. Also see response to State Lands Commission letter regarding public trust lands. 116C Response to Verbal Comment Received during Planning Commission Hearing on June 6, 1991 Comment Response 1. What will be the impact of Norse from In response to this comment, the City has traffic on Coast Highway reflecting-off requested the Environmental Consultant to of the remodeled Club facility structures have prepared a Reflective Noise Study. towards and up the residences located This study was prepared by Mestre Greve on Kings Road? Associates, Consulting Engineers, and is hereby incorporated into the record. The analysis considered the impacts of reflective noise both as an existing condi- tion (impacts from the existing facility) and future conditions (after construction and remodeling). Coast Highway traffic noise traveling directly to the residences is the primary contributor to the overall noise levels experienced by these homes. How- ever, Coast Highway traffic noise reflecting off structures, such as walls and buildings on the west side of Coast Highway, also contribute to the overall noise levels at these residences. Building materials and configuration also influence the amount of noise reflected or absorbed. Therefore, the surface area and form of structures, their distance from Coast Highway, and their ab- sorption rate coefficient all determine the noise reflected from the structures to the Kings Road residences. The Kings Road residences closest to the project site currently experience a traffic noise level of up to 66 CNEL. Generally, 65 CNEL is considered acceptable for residential land uses. Therefore, this area currently experiences noise levels that are considered to be undesirable. The reflec- tive noise contribution to total CNEL from the current configuration and building materials of the Club facilities is estimated at about 1 dB. This would bring the total current CNEL to 67. The remodeling of the Club facilities will alter the type and location of surfaces reflecting noise up to the Kings Road t a � • Comment Response residences. All factors considered, the in- crease in reflective noise from the new Club facilities is estimated to be 1.8 dBA. This would bring the total future CNEL level to 67.8 CNEL using worst case as- sumptions. This represents an increase of 0.8 dBA from the existing condition. Dif- ferences of less then 1 dBA are not audible or discernable, and therefore, this is not considered a significant noise impact. However, it is the City's intention to assure that the impact will be as nondiscernable as possible. This can be accomplished via the placement of landscape materials on and along the facade of the structures facing Coast Highway, as well as utilizing planters and planter boxes for cascading plants on the buildings. Therefore, the following condition has been added to the project to further minimize impact from reflective noise: • A landscape plan, prepared by a li- censed landscape architect, shall be submitted which identifies the use and placement of plants and materials along and on all building facade front- ing Coast Highway. Materials to be considered should include planters and planter boxes which can be incorporat- ed onto balconies. Plant materials should include cascading plants and shrubs. The plan shall be reviewed by the Parks, Beachs and Recreation De- partment and approved by the Plan- ning and Public Works Departments. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Depart- ment that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. Kati CITY OF NWORT BEAC£� COUNCIL MEMBERS MINUTES ,p June 24, 1991 ROLL CRLL INDEX 10. PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULING: July 8, 1991 - (a) TRAFFIC STUDY N0. 75 - A re uast Zoning y ERNAT OVAL BAY CLUBS, INC. (94) to approve a Traffic Study in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club (refer to agenda item F-1(a)) . [Report from the Planning Department] (b) F-l(b) - Removed from the Consent Calendar (refer to agenda item G. 3 for Council action). (c) LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE Planning/ PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 23 establishing LCP/LUP a policy regarding private Amnd 23 oceanfront encroachments on public (68) property. [Report from the Planning Department] July 22, 1991 - (d) Request by TA SIDE TOWING SERVICE Lakeside for Certificate Public Towing Convenience and Necessity ssity to (70) operate ten (10) tow trucks. [Report from Business License Supervisor] (e) Request by ORANGE COUNTY TAXI to O/C Taxi increase the taxicabs authorized (27) to be operated in the City by four (4) taxicabs. [Refer to report w/agenda item F-10(d)] (£) WEST COAST TRANSPORTATION NETWORK West Coast - Request to substitute seven (7) Trsnp Ntwrk taxicabs and increase by eight (8) Taxi the number of taxicabs authorized to operate in the City. [Refer to (27) report w/agenda item F-10(d)] (g) PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. PCA 740/ 740 - A request by NEWPORT PLACE Zoning DEVELOPMENT CORP. to amend the (94) Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations to reduce the current allocation to retail square footage and increase the allocation to office square footage in Professional and Business Offices Site No. 5. [Report from the Planning Department] 11. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-2 - If GPA 91-2 desired, sustain the recommendation of (45) the Planning Commission to initiate General Plan Amendment No. 91-2, and direct staff to proceed with the preparation of any necessary environmental documentation and set for public hearing before the Planning Commission, as followsa [Report from the Planning Department] Volume 45 - Page 203 'L -- .Y ` • City Counclikeeting June 24, 1991 Agenda Item No. F-10(a) SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: USE PERMIT NO. 3422 A request of the Balboa Bay Club to approve a Use Permit to allow hotel and restaurant uses in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club. AND TRAFFIC STUDY NO, 75 A request of the Balboa Bay Club to approve a Traffic Study in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club; and the acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report. Applications The applications described above,if approved in conjunction with Amendment No. 739,will provide for the redevelopment of the club portion of the Balboa Bay Club. The Newport Beach Municipal Code contains procedures for Traffic Studies in Chapter 15.40 and procedures for the review of Environmental Impact Reports are in Council Policy K-3. SuEaested Action If desired, set these items for public hearing on July 8, 1991. Background On June 6, 1991,the Planning Commission reviewed the Balboa Bay Club project described above, and recommended certification of the Environmental Impact Report and approval of Traffic Study No. 75 to the City Council. These items are related to Amendment No. 739, which is on this agenda under Ordinances for Introduction. Copies of the Planning Commission Resolutions, Minutes and staff report will be forwarded to the City Council at TO: Plafng Commission - 2. the time of the public hearing. Use Permit No. 3422 is being added for the consideration of the City Council as discussed below. Additional Use Permit Application Through the Environmental Review process, it has been pointed out that the approval of hotels and restaurants on property designated for Recreational and Marine Commercial are required to receive approval of use permit by the Ldcal Coastal Program, Land Use Plan. A Use Permit is, therefore, being added to the applications under consideration for the redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club. It is important to note that the additional application has no effect on the substance of the project being considered, and the project as reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission is conditioned the same as if the Use Permit was included at the outset. Additionally, the review process and public hearing procedures for zoning amendments are considered more stringent than the Use Permit process in that the Amendment must be acted on by the City Council while use permits can be acted on by the Planning Commission. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By Pv,CA-.0 Patricia L. Temple Advance Planning Manager PLT:..\CC\AMD\TW5.SR2 City Counci4eeting June 24. 1991 Agenda Item No. E—ZO (ad. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: City Council FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 75 A request of the Balboa Bay Club to approve a Traffic Study in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club; and the acceptance of an Environmental Impact Report. Applications The application described above, if approved in conjunction with Amendment No. 739,will provide for the redevelopment of the club portion of the Balboa Bay Club. The Newport Beach Municipal Code contains procedures for Traffic Studies in Chapter 15.40 and procedures for the review of Environmental Impact Reports are in Council Policy K-3. Suggested Action If desired, set these items for public hearing on July 8, 1991. Background On June 6, 1991, the Planning Commission reviewed the application described above, and recommended certification of the Environmental Impact Report and approval of Traffic Study No. 75 to the City Council. These items are related to Amendment No. 739, which is on this agenda under Ordinances for Introduction. Copies of the Planning Commission Resolutions, Minutes and staff report will be forwarded to the City Council at the time of the public hearing. Respectfully submitted, PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By Patricia L. Temple Advance Planning Manager PLT:..\CC\AMD\TS75.SR1 t ? COMMISSIONERS • • June 6, 1991 MINUTES n A�1 � �'V�Y•d� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL A Amendment No 739(Public Hearing) Item No.7 Request to consider amending Districting Maps No. 67�d so as a?a9 to reclassify property located in the R-4 District to the P-C District; (Res.1257) removing the Specific Plan designation from the site; and adopting Ts 75 Planned Community District Regulations on property commonly Approved known as the Balboa Bay Club; and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Traffic Study No 7(Public Hearing) Request to approve a traffic study in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club property. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 171, Block 54 of Irvine's Subdivision, located at 1221 West Coast Highway, on the southerly side of West Coast Highway, adjacent to the Bayshores residdntial area. ZONE: R-4 APPLICANT: International Bay Clubs, Inc., Newport Beach OWNER: The City of Newport Beach Robin Flory, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the lease regarding the Balboa Bay Club property will not be addressed by the Planning Commission during the subject public hearing, and concerns with respect to the lease should be referred to the City Council for their consideration. Patricia Temple, Advance Planning Manager, addressed the proposed redevelopment of the property including the height limit proposed for the development,the noise associated with the service access drive and loading dock, and light spillage resulting from -35- COMMISSIONERS June 6, 1991 MINUTES A A n �� sOuO OVA 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL automobiles moving on the parking structure. She stated that the Environmental Impact Report includes detailed visual impact analyses depicting that significant improvement on West Coast Highway will occur because of the view corridor access the property where no views currently exist. She indicated that views from the parks on Cliff Drive and Kings Road will not be affected. Ms. Temple stated that there will be varying impacts to marina and bay views from residences on Kings Road, with some views being diminished and changed, and some improved, as the result of the changed locations and heights of the buildings. The noise impact and light spillage are addressed in the staff report, and Condition Nos. 84 and 85 in Exhibit "A" address said concerns. The development of the club portion of the property will increase the project from 155,303 square feet to 275,512 square feet, an increase of 77 percent. When the Terrace Apartment facility is included in the calculation, the increase in floor area is 30 percent. The development plan includes a public access program which is set forth in detail in the EIR. Ms. Temple advised that 26,600 square feet of the new facility will be reserved for the exclusive use of Balboa Bay Club members, and said square footage represents less than 10 percent of the Club redevelopment. She said that the balance of 248,912 square feet will be accessible to the general public on a reservation or space available basis. Areas of the facility that will be set aside for members use are the athletic facility, and club areas. She said the beach will be available to club members and hotel patrons. Casual use by members of the general public is available throughout the hotel public areas,portions of the restaurants and entertainment lounge, and the general grounds of the club portion of the property, including walkways on thetayside of the property. Ms.Temple distributed copies of a revised Resolution that includes references to the Districting Maps, and it includes findings relative to height. She also requested that Condition No. 36 be deleted inasmuch as the condition is a duplicate of Condition No. 1. Ms. Temple stated that Ms.Jeanne Fobes, 328 Aliso Avenue, Newport Beach, telephoned her opposition to the application on the basis -36- .� • MINUTES COMMISSIONERS June 6, 1991 o F° GO��+•'�Cn CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL "that the property should be used by all the people and not just a few." The public hearing was opened in connection with this item, and Mr. Dennis O'Neil, 18881 Von Karman, Irvine, appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the applicant. Mr. O'Neil stated that the development proposed is within the use provisions of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program. He addressed several issues of concern that had been previously expressed: private view impairment is an issue over which the City does not have jurisdiction;building height of the structures proposed will be no higher than the existing structures on the club portions of the facilities i.e. 35 feet above grade; the project coverage will be increased by less than 29 percent; the traffic generated from the project as proposed will not have a significant impact on the traffic circulation and the project meets all of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance criteria; traffic signal required will be installed in the future regardless of whether the project goes forward; and the public access and public views is enhanced and increased. Mr. O'Neil stated that the applicant concurs with the findings and conditions for approval in Exhibit "A". Mr. Bill Ray, Balboa Bay Club, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Ray reviewed the changes, demands, and needs of the membership and the general public that have occurred during the past years. Mr. Ray presented a brief history of the Balboa Bay Club since 1948 and the development of the property. He indicated that at present the property is dated, inefficient to operate, and it is a gross under-utilization of a valuable community asset. He said that in 1987, the Club commissioned a survey of the membership that resulted in 2,000 hours of work by the members identifying their changing needs of the Club, and those needs have been incorporated in the proposed plan by qualified architects. Mr. Ray stated that the proposed plan was examined by the general membership, Community Associations, Civic Groups, and an attempt was made to be sensitive to the immediate neighbors in Bayshores and the public that would be affected by the proposed plan. Mr. Ray said that an attempt was made to achieve a visual -37- COMMISSIONERS June 6, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL enhancement of the property from West Coast Highway,Bayshores, and sites above West Coast Highway that could view the property. He explained that an attempt was made to maximize the• on-site orientation consisting of a variety of different combinations of building forms and locations. The proposal is the result of a very extensive analysis of how optimum use of the property can be achieved within the limitations of the General Plan. Mr. Ray described from an aerial exhibit on display, the building footprints of the proposed buildings. He explained that presently the entire bay frontage of the property is occupied by buildings which extend to the property line at Bayshores. The proposed plan from Bayshores includes a corridor which varies from 75 feet at the first building setback down to 45 feet at the water; the buildings have been moved back 20 feet from the existing bulkhead which would enhance the water view; an access has been provided from the Bayshores side of the property that starts at the curve of West Coast Highway to a distance of 90 feet and ramps down to approximately 9 feet below the existing grade level; above the grade level a fence is proposed up to 10 feet to conceal service vehicles and noise; where the ramp and the fence commence at West Coast Highway a parking area will be provided that extends below ground and a level that extends 3 feet above ground and the lights from the parking area will not intrude on the Bayshores residents; an access from Bayshores through the subject property was discussed with the Bayshores residents; a view corridor of the water has been created of approximately 100 feet between the proposed buildings; the exclusive club areas of the property include an athletic club, the clubhouse and a portion of the restaurant; the general public may enter the property subject to a reservation requirement; the general public may use a parking ramp to a separate lobby in the proposed guest facility area; a restaurant and bar will be located off of the proposed lobby for the general public; a public walkway will be provided that extends down to the beach along the entire frontage of the club property; the entire frontage of the property will be landscaped and will provide a substantial visual enhancement from West Coast Highway; and he concluded -38- COMMISSIONERS June 6, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL that the applicants have a desire to develop the proposed project before the 21st Century. In response to a question posed by Chairman Debay regarding public access by reservation, Mr. Ray explained that public access depends upon if space is available in the restaurants or hotels inasmuch as the people staying on the property would have first priority. Mr. Ray further explained that the City requires that the traffic signal be installed prior to construction so as to mitigate construction vehicles. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover regarding public access to the restaurants, Mr. Ray explained that the Club will reserve the right to require a reservation. He further explained that the public may pass through the guard gate providing there is parking space available on the property. Commissioner Glover concluded that the meaning of'casual use' would be if a member of the general public parked their automobile and walked on the public access. Mr. Ray concurred that the foregoing would be considered a 'casual visitor', and said visitor would be allowed to drive and park on the property if parking space is available. Mr. Ray further replied to Commissioner Glover that a landscaped plan is in existence so as to buffer West Coast Highway, and the intent is to conceal or soften the proposed buildings. Mr. Ray and Commissioner Pers6n discussed the location of existing buildings and the proposed buildings from the aerial drawing. Mr. Ray stated that the proposed building locations occupy significantly less areas of ground coverage, and he addressed the view corridors from West Coast Highway and Bayshores. Mr. Ray and Commissioner Pers6n discussed the views that would be visible and impacted from the bluff area above West Coast Highway. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards regarding the proposed parking structure adjacent to Bayshores, Mr. Ray explained that the access road adjacent to Bayshores is 26 feet wide, and the underground parking structure also consists of -39- t 1 • • MINUTES COMMISSIONERS June 6, 1991 �0� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL a second 'level that extends 3 feet above the existing grade level. He said the fence on the Bayshore side of the property is an undetermined height; however, an 8 or 10 foot fence is being considered. Mr. Ray further explained that the fence and landscaping will provide noise mitigation. Mr. Tom Deemer, President of the Balboa Bay Club, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he explained that the 15 foot planter area consists of 7-1/2 feet on the Bayshores side and 71/2 feet on the Club side with the fence running down the middle of the property, and extensive landscaping is proposed on both sides of the fence. Mr. Brent Reynolds, a member of the Cliff Haven Homeowner's Association, appeared before the Planning Commission. Mr. Reynolds addressed the redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club, and the proposed 77 percent expansion program. He stated that the residents oppose the rezoning of the subject property;however, he said the residents support a renovation of the apartments. He stated that they oppose the increased density, a higher noise level on West Coast Highway, and increase in traffic. Mr. Reynolds explained that the residents support public access to the restaurant. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Mr. Reynolds explained that he is a Director of the Cliff Haven Homeowner's Association and he represents the Kings Road area of said Association. He said the residents of Kings Road requested that he represent them at the public hearing. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Pers6n regarding the Terrace Apartments, Ms. Temple explained that the Terrace Apartments are a part of the application to the extent that the Planned Community Development Plan provides that the facility that exists is accounted for in the zoning. Additionally, the Balboa Bay Club has indicated that there is an intent to improve the facade so as to unify the theme of the property. She said that the Balboa Bay Club would not be required to come before the Planning Commission to renovate the facade. Mr. John Miller, Box 1475, Newport Beach, appeared before the Planning Commission, and he expressed his concern regarding the -40- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS June 6, 1991 o�.p tsQuo�•0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL lease. Ms. Flory explained that the issue of the extension of the lease is not a consideration of the Planning Commission. She further explained that the Planning Commission can consider the rezoning as a commitment of the property to a long term specific use, but the Planning Commission may not consider a lease. Chairman Debay suggested that concerns with respect to the lease be addressed directly to the City Council. Mr. Miller opposed rezoning inasmuch as it is currently zoned for the present usage, and further usage should be considered when the Balboa Bay Club lease is reviewed by the City Council. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Edwards, Ms. Flory explained that the agreements that are currently in effect makes the issue of the rezoning of the property and the adoption of the Development Plan a condition to be resolved before the City will consider the lease. She stated that the rezoning does not necessarily commit the City to an extension of the lease.Commissioner Edwards concluded that prior to any consideration of the City Council relative to the lease, a determination must be made with regard to the zoning change; however, when the Planning Commission makes a decision with regard to the zoning change, the Commission is required to take into account whether or not long range planning i.e. long range term of utilization of property is taken into account. Ms. Flory explained it is a planning consideration as to the use of the property, and the redevelopment of the property as proposed to be rezoned is a commitment to the continued use as proposed. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover, Ms. Flory explained that approval of the subject proposal would not be a commitment to the extension of the lease. Commissioner Edwards stated that it is a condition preceding the consideration of the extension of the lease. Ms. Flory stated that the City Council will consideration the conditions of the lease. Jim Dale, 434 Tustin Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission, and supported the subject proposal and proposed uses. He stated that the Balboa Bay Club is a good citizen and has been a good steward of the City property over the years. He said that what the applicant is attempting to do is plan for the future, -41- COMMISSIONERS June 6, 1991 MINUTES AAn �, d.d �0� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL and for the positive benefit of the City and the residents. Mr.Dale addressed the rental fees to the City and that the expansion would enhance said income. He stated that as non-members of the Bay Club, the organizations he is a member of benefit from the Bay Club frequently. Ms. Mary Peikert, 811 Kings Road, appeared before the Planning Commission. She explained that her property is situated across from the proposed hotel facility, and she said that her concern would be the noise emitting from the hotel to her property on Kings Road. Ms. Temple explained that an analysis of the noise that would be generated by the redevelopment of the Bay Club was included in the draft EIR, and the main source of long-term noise impact is the increased traffic generation from West Coast Highway inasmuch as the elevation does not change. Ms. Temple explained that a determination was made there would not be a significant change to residents because of the distance from the center line of West Coast Highway. Ms. Temple further explained that the short term noise from construction will be noticeable by the residents. Ms.Peikert emphasized that she was concerned with the noise that would be emitted from the proposed increased height of the hotel building to her property. Mr. Ray reappeared before the Planning Commission, and he explained that the height of the buildings will not increase; however, some of the buildings will have a change in height. Ms. Peikert and Mr. Ray discussed the height of specific buildings from the aerial drawing. Mr. Don Olson, a resident of Balboa Bay Club for 15 years and a member of the aforementioned Balboa Bay Club committee, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed project. He explained that the Bay Club is not currently providing the proper use of the property; that the City is not benefiting from the maximum revenue; and the proposed improvements of the property will benefit not just Bay Club members but also the general public. Mr. J. D. Walling, 1113 Kings Road, appeared before the Planning Commission to state his opposition to any height increase, the 42 COM.pMISSIONEpRS June 6, 1991 MINUTES �0� G � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL increase in traffic, and noise. He supported improvement of the property, but he said not at the expense of the residents on the bluff. Mrs. Ruth Reynolds, 1301 Kings Road, appeared before the Planning Commission to express her opposition to a height increase. She referred to a letter signed by her husband, Charles G. Reynolds, Sr. dated June 6, 1991, to the Planning Commission. Mrs.Reynolds read a prepared statement addressing their concerns that the project would block views of the bay which would reduce the value of their property. In response to a question posed by Chairman Debay, Mrs. Reynolds replied that the residents would agree to meet with the applicants to review the plans of the proposed project. Commissioner Pers6n and Ms. Temple explained that buildings that are currently 35 feet high are proposed to be demolished and new 35 foot buildings will be constructed at different locations; therefore, the view impact from the bluff above West Coast Highway will be different than what currently exist. In response to comments made by Commissioner Pomeroy regarding the impact of views, Ms. Temple explained that the view shed as addressed in the EIR and by staff is considered from West Coast Highway and Kings Road, and because of the proposed orientation of the buildings, some of the residents on the bluff will have their view shed diminished, some views will be shifted,and some views will be improved. In response to Commissioner Pers6n's statements regarding protecting views from private property, Mr. Hewicker explained that the City attempts to preserve or enhance public views from roads,parks and public facilities, and to the extent that public views are enhanced or improved, some of the benefits affect private property. Mr.James Adams, 1610 Kings Road, appeared before the Planning Commission,and he addressed his concerns regarding the proposed increase in building height, the proposed view corridor, the public view that would be affected from Ensign Park, and the noise reverberation to the residents on Kings Road. -43- • • 0 MINUTES COMMISSIONERS June 6, 1991 �0� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T ROLL CALL Mr. Lon Wells, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Commission in support of the project on the basis redevelopment of the property is progress and is needeCity and the community. He addressed the traffic signal be installed on West Coast Highway at the entrance to the Bay Club that will slow the traffic down and reduce the noise on the bluffs. Mr. Peter Man, 2401 Bayshores Drive, appeared before the Planning Commission, is a member of Balboa Bay Club, and in support of the redevelopment of the property. He addressed his concerns regarding the hotel that is proposed to be constructed adjacent to the Bayshores community and the impact that the hotel will have on the area. Mr. Marr indicated that hotel rooms that include patios will be facing Bayshores, and he expressed his concern that noise would emit from said hotel rooms to the residential area. Mr. Frank Eisendratb, Kings Place, appeared before the Planning Commission. He compared Newport Beach with Chicago and he addressed his concerns that the City has a lack of free public parks with access to the Harbor; that the residents on Kings Road would be heavily impacted by any future development of the Balboa Bay Club; and a view corridor is a bad solution for creating a good view. He addressed Exhibit 17 in the staff report stating: "that an increased height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a more appealing visual character of the area , and he commented that said statement would not be indicative of the Terrace Apartment building. Mr. Eisendrath suggested that the proposed landscaping be reviewed by the Kings Road residents. He addressed the proposed 2.0 Floor Area Ratio if the parking structure would be included in the square footage, and he rebuked a statement contained in the staff report regarding the economical and social benefits to the community by stating that approximately one-third of the members are residents of Newport Beach. -44- • • MINUTES COMMISSIONERS June 6, 1991 o d �dudY d`�d CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL Mr. John R. Berton, 2632 Circle Drive, Bayshores, appeared before the Planning Commission. He stated that the Balboa Bay Club committee contacted the residents of Bayshores; however, he pointed out that the height of the proposed wall has not been determined. Mr. Charles Winfield, 1021 Kings Road, appeared before the Planning Commission. He addressed concerns regarding the proposed 35 foot height limit. Mr. Rojas appeared before the Planning Commission and he expressed concern regarding the proposed height limit. In response to Mr. Rojas, Ms. Temple explained that the existing height of the Terrace Apartments of 55 feet will not be reduced when the apartments are renovated. Mr. Rojas addressed the foregoing statements regarding public access of the club facilities, and he questioned if public land should be phased out for private purposes in exchange for public land being used for public purposes. He explained that he has no intent to say that what has been done at the Bay Club has not been done well, or run well, but if it would be left to the voters, a good debate would ensue. Mr. Jim DeBoom, 1743 Bayport Way, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed redevelopment. He indicated the number of public organizations on a pre-arranged basis that use the Bay Club for the service of food, fellowship, and programs. Mrs. Barbara DeBoom, 1743 Bayport Way, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed redevelopment. She stated that the Chamber of Commerce utilizes the Balboa Bay Club for many Chamber events. Mr. Bill Hamilton, 3620 Fifth Avenue, appeared before the Planning Commission in support of the proposed project. Mr. Hamilton referred to foregoing statements regarding the proposed restaurant, and he commented that many public restaurants within the City require reservations. He addressed the public events that -45- COMMISSIONERS • • June 6, 1991 MINUTES �0� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL are held at the Balboa Bay Club, and he commented that the community appreciates access to the facility. Mr. Dennis O'Neil reappeared before the Planning Commission. He concluded that foregoing testimony has been addressed in the documents that have been provided by staff. The applicants are attempting to bring the redevelopment into compliance with the General Plan, and have made every attempt to make the use of the property compatible with the neighbors. There being no others desiring to appear and be heard, the public hearing was closed at this time. Commissioner Pers6n addressed the compliance of the proposed project with the General Plan. He stated that the applicant has attempted to improve the property and to enhance public views Motion * from public places. Motion was made to approve Amendment No. 739 (Resolution No. 1257), Traffic Study No. 75, and Environmental Impact Report No. 143 subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". Commissioner Glover expressed her concern with the view impact that the project located on public property could have on the public driving on West Coast Highway, and she asked if the view corridor is an unfettered view. Ms.Temple explained that landscaping, and a portion of the guard gate will be within the view corridor. In response to a question posed by Commissioner Glover with regard to 'view corridor' are included in the Height Chapter of the Zoning Ordinance that must be made, and one finding that is most commonly associated with the imposition of view corridor acquirement on property is "The increased building height would result in more public visual open spacend views than is required by the basic height limit in any a zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback areas.",meaning that by siting the buildings and locations so as to create public visual open space or view corridor a secondary height limit can be achieved. Commissioner -46- . �COMMISSIONERS • June 6, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL Glover concluded that the public needs to know what will be contained in the view corridor from West Coast Highway. Commissioner Merrill supported the motion; however, he said that the mitigation measures do not address the noise emitting from the hotel as expressed by the residents of Bayshores, and reflective noise from the Balboa Bay Club to the residents on the bluff. Discussion ensued regarding the mitigation of noise that would affect Bayshores and bluff residents. Ms. Temple stated that the only way to address the noise would be to require no balconies, and no openable windows or doors on the Bayshores side of the property. Commissioner Pers6n amended the motion to add the mitigation of noise on the Bayshores side of the property by appropriate measures, such as enclosing balconies and windows. Commissioner Pomeroy requested the maker of the motion to consider reflective noise as the noise impacts Kings Road. The maker of the motion concurred with the request. Commissioner Pomeroy stated that residents of Kings Road will have view impact that will be perceived as negative; however, he said that will be offset by the residents who will have their views improved. He stated that the view impacts, the view corridor, the public access to the property, and removal of the buildings from the bulkhead will improve public views from the bay and from West Coast Highway. He said that the property will be significantly improved and what is proposed is good, long-term planning. Commissioner Glover supported the motion. She requested more precise information concerning the mitigation of noise, and the height between Bayshores and Balboa Bay Club be considered so as to address the publids concerns. Commissioner Di Sano supported the motion on the basis that the project complies with the General Plan; the facilities will be -47- I I COMMISSIONERS • • June 6, 1991 MINUTES 'AAA �f0 O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL improved; there will be more benefit to the public; better utilization of the property; less building footprint on the ground; open space is improved with the view corridors; the buildings are moved back from the bay; and over-all the redevelopment is a well thought out utilization of the property. Chairman Debay supported the motion and the foregoing statements by the Commissioners. In response to a question posed by Chairman Debay, Ms. Temple explained that staff will address the expressed concerns pertaining to reflective noise by contacting an acoustic consultant for recommendations, and said information will be forwarded to the City Council. Motion was voted on to approve Amendment No. 739 (Resolution No. 1257),Traffic Study No.75, and Environmental Impact Report No. 143, deleting Mitigation Measure No. 36 that was a duplicate of Mitigation Measure No. 1 and adding Mitigation Measure No. 36 regarding the effect the noise emitting from the hotel would All Ayes have on the Bayshores community, subject to the findings and conditions in Exhibit "A". MOTION CARRIED. A. Environmental Impact Report No. 143 Findings: 1. That an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. That all potential significant environmental effects which could result from the project have been identified and analyzed in the EIR. That based upon the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report, mitigation measures have -48- COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES June 6, 1991 ,ode soo �0� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL been identified and incorporated into the project to reduce potentially significant environmental effects to a level of insignificance in all areas, and that the only remaining environmental effects are significant only on a cumulative basis. Further, that the economic and social benefits to the community override the remaining significant environmental effect anticipated as a result of the project. 4. That the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report has been considered in the various decisions made relative to this project. Mitigation Measures: 1. Construction activities will be conducted in accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code, which limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting, plastering or any other related building activity, operate any tool, equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday, or on any holiday. 2. Grading operations shall be performed in a manner intended to protect surrounding properties from impact during the construction period by including dust control and erosion control activities and operation hour restrictions. The Director,Building Department, City of Newport Beach shall ensure the continued enforcement of these measures during construction. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit approved by the Building and Planning Departments. -49- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES June 6, 1991 �0� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL 4. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes designed to minimize traffic conflicts, access points to the site which are safe (including flagmen), and a watering program designed to minimize the dust impacts of haul operations. The applicant shall, subject to the City Traffic Engineer's approval,install the traffic signal at the entrance prior to the commencement of construction to assist in said safety control. 5. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit. A copy of the plan shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 6. Grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a civil engineer incorporating the recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the"Approved as Built"grading plans shall be furnished to the Building Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. Prior to demolition of existing structures, a complete plan for litter and debris control for the demolition, grading, and construction phases to ensure that no debris is permitted to enter Newport Harbor shall be approved by the Planning and Marine Departments. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall submit final soils engineering and geologic studies to the Director, Building Department, City of Newport Beach, for approval. These reports will primarily involve further assessment of potential soil-related constraints and hazards such as slope instability, settlement, liquefaction, ground water conditions, or related secondary seismic impacts where determined to be appropriate by the -50- COMMISSIONERS • • MINUTES June 6, 199�, ROLL CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX Building Department, City of Newport Beach. The report shall include evaluation of potentially expansive soil and recommended construction procedures and/or design criteria to minimize their effect of these soils on the proposed development. All reports shall recommend appropriate mitigation measures and be completed in the manner specified in the Newport Beach Grading Code and State Subdivision Map Act. In addition to the above criteria,the following specific items shall be required: a. Dewatering induced ground subsidence shall be addressed. A settlement monitoring program shall be designed to identify any settlement before existing area improvements are damaged. b. Buildings shall be designed to resist hydrostatic uplift forces without the use of pumps or other mechanized devices which may fail. C. Shoring designs shall be prepared 9. All new construction shall be inspected by the City of Newport Beach Building Department to ensure compliance with Section 2312(a) Earthquake Regulations, Uniform Building Code, 1988 Edition. 10. Treatment of extracted water shall be conducted in a manner and at a location approved by the City of Newport Beach City Engineer and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 11. Suspended solids (e.g., sand) shall be separated from extracted water in accordance with applicable water quality standards and disposed of at a location approved by the Public Works Department and the Grading Engineer. -51- • • MINUTES COMMISSIONERS June 6, 1991 N CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL 12. Provision shall be made, as necessary, for the treatment of hydrogen sulfide to comply with water quality standards and to control odors from the dewatering process. 13. If the applicant intends to use an ocean disposal site for excavated materials, the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall be provided with evidence that all appropriate permits from the Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Newport Beach have been obtained. Such evidence shall be submitted to and verified by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 14. Recommendations included in the February 19, 1990 LeRoy Crandall & Associates' Geotechnical Report shall be incorporated into project design where appropriate. The Building Department shall verify the application of the appropriate recommendations prior to the issuance of grading permits. 15. A supplemental subsurface investigation shall be performed subsequent to demolition of the existing buildings to obtain subsurface data in those areas inaccessible during previous studies. 16. The groundwater level shall be lowered to a depth at least five feet beneath the excavation bottom. The dewatering system shall be designed and .performed by qualified engineers with previous experience in this type of construction. Selection of the engineer shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. 17. The upper ten feet of soil material shall be removed. Remaining soil to a distance at least five feet below and beyond the proposed structure shall be densified as described in the Geotechnical Report as verified or amended by subsequent subsurface investigation. -52- COMMISSIONERS • • June 6, 1991 MINUTES �0�ROLL CALL CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH lNOEX 18. A detailed preconstruction survey shall be ,prepared to document the present condition of all buildings and facilities within the zone of influence of the dewatered investigation. Photographs, crack surveys, and installation of a reference benchmark beyond the zone of influence shall be included in the preconstruction survey. Areas within at least 30 feet of the proposed excavation shall be monitored for any settlement and lateral movements due to possible deflection of the shoring system. Groundwater observation wells within the zone of influence shall be installed. The specific parameters of the study shall be provided to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of the grading permit. 19. If found necessary by the City of Newport Beach, based upon the geotechnical information described above, the project applicant will be required to enter into an agreement and post a bond guaranteeing the repair of the public street system, utilities or other public property that might be damaged during the dewatering excavation process and the construction of subterranean improvements. 20. If found necessary by the City of Newport Beach, based upon the geotechnical information described above, the project applicant will be required to enter into an agreement guaranteeing the repair of all damage to private property caused by the dewatering excavation process and the construction of subterranean improvements. 21. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit shall be obtained from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water extracted from dewatering wells shall meet current Environmental Protection Agency requirements prior to discharging into the Bay. If necessary, the water shall be desilted prior to discharge. 2. Light construction equipment shall be used for earthwork operations. No heavy equipment shall be used. -53- , , • � •COMMISSIONERS June 6, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL 23. A grading plan, submitted to the Director, Building Department, City of Newport Beach, shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. Prior to recordation of any final parcel map or prior to issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, whichever comes first, said improvements shall be constructed in a manner meeting the approval of the Director, Building Department, City of Newport Beach. 24. All outfalls into the bay shall have flapgates attached to the storm drain outlets to serve as a backflow prevention device, subject to approval of the Director, Public Works, City of Newport Beach. 25. Existing on-site drainage facilities shall be improved to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach City Engineer. A hydrology and hydraulic study and a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain for on-site improvements shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department prior to recording the tract map. Any modifications to the existing storm drain system shall be the responsibility of the developer. 26. A landscape plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect, shall be submitted which includes a maintenance program that controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. The plan shall be reviewed by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit,a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. 27. Landscaped areas shall be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface run-off and over-watering. -54- MINUTES COMMISSIONERS June,6, 1991 .Q0� G .A� ,�• CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH - " INDEX ROLL CALL 28. Drainage facilities and architectural features shall be designed to prevent run-off from entering the garage structure, keep the garage floor slab dry from seepage, and remove oil and grease from run-off prior to discharge into the public storm drains. Verification of these design features shall be made by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. 29. A hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on-site improvements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study and the City shall be the responsibility of the developer. The private water system will have to be upgraded to meet current City standards. 30. A condition survey of the existing bulkhead along the bay side of the property shall be made by a civil or structural engineer, and the bulkhead shall be repaired in conformance with the recommendations of the condition survey and to the satisfaction of the Building Department and Marine Department. The top of the bulkhead is to be a minimum elevation of 9.00 above M.L.L.W. (6.27 MSL). 31. A dust control program in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 shall be implemented during demolition, excavation and construction. This program shall include such measures as: containing soil on-site until it is hauled away, periodic watering of stockpile soil, and regular vacuum sweeping of streets used for the haul operation to remove accumulated material. -55- COMMISSIONERS • June 6, 1991 MINUTES O d�sl� V�O d�•dcA �0`� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL 32. Major soil disturbance shall take place between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. when winds are stronger to reduce the amount of dust settling out on nearby receptors, and to obtain better areawide dispersion of any fugitive dust. 33. A fan-assisted ventilation system shall be installed in the venting system for the subterranean garage for use in peak periods when natural ventilation is not sufficient. 34. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the project proponent shall produce evidence acceptable to the Director,Building Department, City of Newport Beach that: a. All construction vehicles or equipment, fixed or mobile, operated within 1,000' of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. b. All operations shall comply with the City Noise Ordinance. C. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from dwelling units. 35. All non-residential structures shall be sound attenuated against the combined impact of all present and projected noise from exterior noise sources to meet the interior noise criteria as specified in the Noise Element and/or Noise Ordinance. 36. That all hotel facilities facing the Bayshores area, including guest rooms, be designed to eliminate potential noise spillage which could result from radios, televisions, etc. as well as noisy party activity. This can be accomplished by designing the facility with no openable doors or windows facing the Bayshores property line, and/or through enclosure of the proposed balconies. -56- • • MINUTES COMMISSIONERS June 6, 1991 C'�dip G •� '� �0� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL 37. Any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view,and noise associated with said structures shall be sound-attenuated so as not to exceed the mechanical equipment noise standards set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer and approved by the Building Department. The applicant shall present to the City Engineer a written commitment that the loading dock shall be operated only within the hours specified by the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code for construction activities. 38. Applicant shall apply for a waiver of City noise abatement regulations to allow for dewatering and pouring of the subterranean garage slab. The continuous concrete pour shall be scheduled on a non-summer weekend outside of the peak traffic period. 39. At the time the City approves the requested waiver of City noise abatement regulation to allow for dewatering and pouring of the basement slab, the City Engineer shall determine if it is necessary to require barriers or baffles and distance the electric pumps as far as possible from adjacent residential uses to reduce noise from construction equipment so as not to exceed the mechanical equipment noise standards set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. H required, the developer shall install such measures prior to beginning any activities for which a waiver was granted. 40. Pouring of the subterranean garage slab shall be scheduled to encompass only one night time period. The schedule for any continuous concrete pour shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 41. Electric pump motors shall be required for dewatering equipment to reduce noise levels. -57- COMMISSIONERS • • June 6, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL 42. An improved loudspeaker/paging system shall be installed to direct speakers away from surrounding residential areas. A written evaluation of the proposed system shall be prepared by an acoustical engineer and approved by the Director, Building Department, City of Newport Beach. 43. Noise resulting from outdoor functions such as parties,large gatherings and weddings which include music shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., or as otherwise permitted by the approval of a Use Permit. 44. Pursuant to Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance), the applicant shall contribute funds towards traffic and circulation improvements. 45. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or building permits. 46. Earthwork hauling operations, major concrete placement and other construction operations requiring more than 32 trips per day or 4 trips per hour by trucks shall be coordinated with the City Traffic Engineer and CalTrans Permits Division. During high peak traffic times or if operations are causing significant traffic congestion, the operations may be restricted by the City Traffic Engineer and/or Caltrans. 47. Prior to the commencement of each construction phase and related parking provisions,the project proponent shall notify the Traffic Engineer, City of Newport Beach, of the start date for that particular construction phase. Thereafter, as deemed necessary by the Traffic Engineer, the City will monitor the parking provisions to ensure compliance with the proposed phasing plan. -58- • • MINUTES COMMISSIONERS June 6, 1991 A •d � tiS O,d�p O�r�•P O �+ �+`Y 0� G � CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL 48. A traffic signal shall be constructed on West Coast Highway at the main entrance to the Bay Club prior to the commencement of demolition or construction. 49. The westerly driveway shall be used as a limited access drive only. It is not to be used for access to the residential units, without being reconstructed to provide adequate sight distance and design to be approved by the Public Works Department. 50. Parking shall be provided on-site or in approved off-site lots for all employees, members and guests, and all employees will be required to park in these provided facilities. 51. No construction equipment storage on West Coast Highway or deliveries or off-loading will be made in the West Coast Highway right of way. Sidewalk along West Coast Highway shall be kept open at all times except when being repaired or replaced. 52. The on-site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer, and sidewalks shall be provided between Coast Highway and the building entrances. 53. The intersection of West Coast Highway and Main Entrance drive and easterly drive shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 50 miles per hour and sidewalk bicycle traffic. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed 24 inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 54. A turnaround shall be provided prior to the guard gate unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. The design of the controlled entrance shall be reviewed and -59- • • •COMMISSIONERS June 6, 1991 MINUTES �0� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL approved by the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 55. Deteriorated sections of concrete sidewalk shall be reconstructed along the West Coast Highway frontage; the unused drive apron shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk; the new drive apron shall be constructed per City Standard 166-L; and curb access ramps shall be provided at the westerly drive entrance on West Coast Highway. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 56. The easterly access drive shall be a minimum width of 26 feet clear. This driveway shall be designed for right turn movements only for ingress and egress. 57. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, construction staging, materials storage and a parking plan showing how workers will be able to park without using on-street parking must be submitted and approved by the Public Works Department. 58. Food odors shall be controlled through compliance with Air Quality Management Rule 402 which states that a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury,detriment,nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. 59. The Edison transformer serving the site shall be located outside the sight distance planes as described in City Standard 110-L. -60- COMMISSIONERS • MINUTES June 6, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL 60. To ensure consistency between the LCP public access policies and the proposed project, public access opportunities will be implemented in the Planned Community Development Plan text for the proposed project. 61. Pedestrian access shall be provided throughout the areas of the Club portion of property identified in the public access plan as available for use by the general public. 62. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plan will be subject to approval by the Director, Planning Department and the Director, Parks,Beaches, and Recreation Department, City of Newport Beach. 63. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets, alleys and adjoining properties. 64. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. 65. Street signs,benches,planters and other similar features on- site or adjacent to the project site shall be designed with a common theme compatible with the overall architectural style of the project. The design shall be approved by the Planning,Public Works, and Parks,Beaches and Recreation Departments prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. 66. Views of roof-top equipment shall be screened from upslope properties. 67. Existing overhead utilities on the project side of Coast Highway shall be put underground to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 68. Based on a fire flow requirement for sprinklered facilities of this nature, the following existing connections shall be -61- . .. � •COMMISSIONERS June 6, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL upsized to provide for 2,000 gallons per minute fire flow (subject to Fire Department review and approval of design plans): Upsize the connection at Coast Highway from 6 inches to 12 inches and install an 8-inch meter; Upsize the connection at Bayshore Drive from 4 inches to 8 inches and install a 6-inch meter. 69. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans to determine the adequacy of emergency access. The Department may require indoor fire protection features,such as overhead fire sprinklers, if it determines that such measures are necessary to provide adequate fire protection. 70. Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 71. The Southern California Gas Company has developed several programs which are available and would provide assistance in selecting the most effective application of energy conservation techniques. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall meet with representatives of the Gas Company to discuss applicable energy conservation techniques that are appropriate for incorporation into the project. 72. The facility installation will conform to applicable Public Utilities Commission regulations. The applicant shall comply with adopted State energy conservation standards per Sections 1451-1542 of Title 20 of the California Administrative Code and Sections P 20-1451 through P 20- 1452 of Title 24 of the Code. 73. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories -62- • •COMMISSIONERS June 6, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 7to NDEX ROLL CALL and other water-using devices. This shall be the Building Department prior to issuance of occits. 74. Water improvement plans shall be approvFire Department,the Utilities Department and thorks Department, City of Newport Beach, prior of a grading permit. 75. The water distribution and appurtenances sm to the applicable laws and adopted regulations enforced by the Orange County Health Department and the Utilities Department. 76. Drought-resistant vegetation shall be used in landscaping to reduce the demand for irrigation water. 77. All proposed sewer improvements shall be approved by the Director, Public Works, City of Newport Beach. 78. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a bus turnout, if determined by the City Traffic Engineer to be necessary based on roadway cross sections, travel volumes or.speeds, should be provided at the existing bus stop location. 79. In conjunction with the provision of a bus turnout, the area adjacent to this turnout shall include a paved passenger waiting area complete with a bus shelter and bench. A paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessway shall be provided between this stop and the project buildings. 80. In conjunction with the provision of a bus turnout, a concrete bus pad sufficient to support the weight of a bus (see OCTD's Design Guidelines for Bus Facilities) shall be provided at this transit stop if it is determined by CalTrans that the material used to construct Coast Highway is not sufficient to support continued transit use of the bus stop. -63- • • MINUTES COMMISSIONERS June 6, 1991 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T X ROLL CALL 81. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid pri issuance of any building permits. 82. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works Department and the Director of the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the Orange County Sanitation District and the City's Utilities Department. 83. Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, a master plan of water and sewer facilities shall be prepared for the site. The applicant shall verify the adequacy of existing water and sewer facilities and construct any modification of facilities necessary for the project. The master plan shall include provision for the relocation of existing water and sewer facilities. 84. That the parking structure shall be designed so as to preclude light spillage from automobiles on residences in the Bayshores community. This is to be achieved via the ramp and circulation design of the structure, the installation of screen walls or planting, or a combination thereof. 85. All parking and loading areas shall comply with the noise control criteria set forth below. A. The following noise standard shall be established for all exterior noise-sensitive areas within residential areas located within one hundred (100) feet of a parking or loading area: Noise Level Time Period 55 DBA 7:00 a.m. - 10.00 p.m. 50 DBA 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. -64- ' COMMISSIONERS • • June 6, 1991 MINUTES o� � �o°•r_o0 f'0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL B. Exterior noise-sensitive areas shall include all yards, decks, patios, terraces, balconies and rooftops and other private open areas of a residential lot designed and used for outdoor living and recreation with the exception of driveways and parking areas. C. Noise generated from loading areas shall not exceed: (1) The exterior noise standard for a cumulative period of more than thirty(30) minutes in any hour; or (2) The exterior noise standard plus five(5)DBA for a cumulative period of more than fifteen (15) minutes in any hour; or (3) The exterior noise standard plus ten DBA (10)for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; or (4) The exterior noise standard plus fifteen (15) DBA for a cumulative period of more than one (1) minute in any hour; or (5) The exterior noise standard plus twenty (20) DBA for any period of time. D. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four(4) noise limit categories above, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. E. The following noise standard shall be established for all interior noise-sensitive areas within residential areas -65- COMMISSIONERS • • June 6, 1991 MINUTES �0� CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH INDEX ROLL CALL located within one hundred (100) feet of a parking or loading area: Noise Level Time Period 55 DBA 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 45 DBA 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. F. Interior noise-sensitive areas shall include any habitable room meeting the requirements of the Housing Code for sleeping, living, cooking, or dining purposes, excluding such enclosed places as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors,laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms, garages and similar spaces. G. Noise generated from loading areas shall not exceed: (1) The interior noise standard for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; or (2) The interior noise standard plus (5) DBA for a cumulative period of more than one (1) minute in any hour; or (3) The interior noise standard plus ten (10) DBA for any period of time. B. Traffic Study No. 75. Findings: 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Council Policy S-1. -66- - • COMMISSIONERS 0 June 6, 1991 MINUTES CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH T ROLL CALL 2. That the traffic study indicates that the project will n cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of servi any major, primary-modified, or primary street. C. Amendment No. 739. Adopt Resolution No. 1257, recommending adoption of Amendment No. 739 to the City Council. x x x endment No. 736 Public Hearin Item No.b Request consider amendments to Title 15 and Title 20 of the A736 Newport ch Municipal Code so as to revise noise level Cont d standards for hanical equipment in residential areas. to 6/20/91 INITIATED BY: City of Newport Beach James Hewicker, Planning Di ctor, stated that staff has requested that this item be continued t the June 20, 1991, Planning Commission meeting. Motion * Motion was made and voted on to continue endment No. 736 All Ayes to the June 20, 1991, Planning Commission me 'ng. * x x e Planning Commission recessed at 11:30 p.m. and reconv ed t 11:35 p.m. x x x -67- l f� Planning Commissionwleeting June 6. 1991 Agenda Item No. 7 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: A Amendment No. 739 (Public Hearing) Request to consider amending Districting Maps Nos. 6 and 23 so as to reclassify property located in the R-4 District to the P-C District; removing the Specific Plan designation from the site; and adopting Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan on property commonly known-as the Balboa Bay Club;and the acceptance of an environmental document. AND B. Traffic Study No.,75 (Public Hearing) Request to approve a Traffic Study in conjunction with the redevelop- ment of the Balboa Bay Club. LOCATION: A portion of Lot 171, Block 54 of Irvine's Subdivision, located at 1221 West Coast Highway, on the southerly side of West Coast Highway, adjacent to the Bayshores residential area. ZONE: R-4 APPLICANT: International Bay Clubs, Inc., Newport Beach OWNER: City of Newport Beach Applications If approved, the applications requested would authorize the phased remodelling, reconstruction and expansion of the club portion of the Balboa Bay Club. An amendment is required to rezone the property from the R-4 to the P-C (Planned Community) District and adopt Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plan. A Traffic Study is required of any commercial development which will add 10,000 sq.ft. or more. Procedure to rezone property is contained in Chapter 20.84 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Section 20.51.035 of the Code sets forth the application procedures for a P-C, and Section 20.51.040 describes the required components of'the P-C Development Plan. Traffic Study procedures are set forth in chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code. 1 TO: Plang Commission - 2. • - The applications to be considered at this time do not include the possible extension of the lease between the City of Newport Beach and the Balboa Bay Club. While it is possible that the implementation of the project may require a lengthened lease term, the potential approval of the project does not compel the City to extend the lease,nor would it determine whether the lease is acted on by the City Council or referred to the electorate. Consider- ation of the project and related applications are separate from consideration of the lease. Environmental Significance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and City Council Policy K-3, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the proposed project. Environmental issues evaluated in the EIR are Landform and Topography, Geology and Soils, Cultural/Scientific Resources, Biological Resources, Hydrology, Climate/Air Quality, Noise, Traffic and Circulation, Surrounding Land Use, Relevant Planning, Aesthetics, Public Services and Utilities and Cumulative Impacts. Based upon the information contained in the EIR,it has been determined that the proposed project, as mitigated,will not create a significant impact on the environment. The construction of the Balboa Bay Club Remodelling and Expansion Project will, however, result in cumulatively significant impacts in the areas of Climate/Air Quality,Noise,Traffic and Circulation, Surrounding Land Use, Aesthetics and Public Services and Utilities. Conformance with the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan Both the Land Use Element of the General Plan and the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan designate the site for a mixture of Recreational and Marine Commercial and Multi- Family Residential. The site is allowed a floor area ratio of 0.5, with residential develop- ment allowed in conjunction with commercial development up to a maximum total floor area ratio of 1.0 and 144 dwelling units. The development proposed is within these limitations and is, therefore, consistent with the use provisions of the General Plan and Local Coastal Program, Subject Property and Surrounding Land Uses The subject property is currently developed with the Balboa Bay Club facility, which includes the 144 unit Terrace Apartment Building and the Club facilities. The Club portion of the site currently provides a wide variety of uses, including overnight accommodations, restaurants, meeting and banquet rooms, club member areas, administrative and support facilities, tennis courts, athletic facilities, boat slips and a beach. Westerly of the Club is the Orange Coast College rowing base with the Sea Scout Base beyond. Northerly of the site, across West Coast Highway, is mixed restaurant, retail and office development. The single family area of Bayshores is easterly of the site; and to the south, across the Lido Channel of lower Newport Bay, is the single family community of Lido Isle. • TO: Planng Commission - 3. Statistical Summary The following table describes the existing and proposed development on the Balboa Bay Club property. STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Existine Proposed Terrace Apartments Square Footage 247,402 247,402 Parking Spaces 216 216 Building Height 55 feet 55 feet Floor Area Ratio 0.45 0.45 Club Facilities Square Footage (gross) Guest Rooms 77,410 170,730 (137 rooms) 300 rooms max.) Public Assembly Area 31,507 40,469 Administrative 9,462 10,725 Service Area 21,824 33,588 Athletic Facility 13,244 20,000 Miscellaneous 1,856 0 TOTAL 155,303 275,512 Floor Area Ratio 0.28 0.50 Parking Spaces 376 532 Building Height 35 ft. ave. 35 ft. ave. Grand Total - Building Square Footage 402,705 522,914 Total Site Area 551,034 551,034 Floor Area Ratio 0.73 0.95 Above Grade Covered Parkingl 55;281 70,700 Building Bulk Ratio 0.83 1.08 Covered Parking as % of Site Area 10% 13% 1 Does not include existing open carports which will be removed. TO: Planting Commission - 4. Analysis Amendment No. 739. This amendment will, if approved, rezone the Balboa Bay Club property from the R-4 District to the P-C (Planned Community) District, and adopt Planned Community District Regulations and a Development Plan for the site. The Plan for the site includes both physical site development and the operational characteristics of the Club. This makes the P-C Text a unique consideration for the City. Development Plan. The physical development of the project will involve the phased demolition and reconstruction of the club portion of the property. Only minor fagade changes are proposed for the Terrace Apartment building. Exhibit 5 on Page 43 of the draft Environmental Impact Report depicts the proposed phasing plan. Phase I will include the demolition of the Beach Building,30 guest rooms, 4 meeting rooms and 194 parking spaces. A new athletic facility for club members will be constructed. Phase II will include the demolition of the remaining guest and meeting rooms, existing athletic building,Palm Court,administration building,Bayside Building and the Club House. The main construction of this phase is the parking structure. Phase III will consist of the construction of the new 300 room guest room facility and Club House. There are three primary issues associated with the site development plan: building height and aesthetics (including public visual open space and views),parking and the interface with the Bayshores community. Building Height and Aesthetics, The existing structures on the club portion of the Balboa Day Club property range from one to three stories and up to 35 feet in height. The proposed project will establish a 35 foot height limit, as allowed by Section 20.02.030(C), ! which states: 01n the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone the height limit shall be 26 feet; provided, however, that a structure may exceed 26 feet up to a maximum of 35 feet after the adoption of a Planned Community District, or after the adoption of a Specific Area Plan, or after the approval of a Use Permit." In approving a Planned Community District with a height limit in excess of the basic height limit, the Planning Commission and City Council shall make specific findings which are set forth in Section 20.02.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Each of these findings is stated and discussed below: L The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given • TO. PlaRg Commission - 5. • to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback areas. Exhibits 10 through 17 contained in the draft Environmental Impact Report provide detailed sections and view impact analysis of the proposed project. Exhibits 10 and 11 show the existing and proposed view corridors from West Coast Highway to the Bay. Currently, there is no readily available view through the property to the bay. The proposed project will open a corridor through the middle of the project at the main entrance which will significantly improve public visual access to the Bay.- Additionally, there is a small corridor on the easterly property line which is created by the service road access. While this area is too long and narrow to be considered a useful view from the Coast Highway level, it does serve to set back the building from the property line which lessens the impact of the structure from residences along Kings Road. Exhibits 14, 15, and 16 illustrate view impacts from various locations along Kings Road, with Exhibit 16 showing the view section for the small private park. These exhibits illustrate that there are both diminishments and enhancements to the view shed which will result from implementation of the project, depending on what portion of the project area is being viewed over. This is due to the combination of changes in building heights in combination with changes in the proximity to the bay. In this area, greater impacts to the view of the Bay from the Kings Road area result from lower structures-closer to the bulkhead than from taller structures which are set back from the bulkhead. The reconstruction program of the Balboa Bay Club will shift the greater mass of the buildings closer to Coast Highway, resulting in a minimal impact to the private views from Kings Road. Exhibit 17 illustrates the view from Ensign View Park, which is not affected by construction on the Balboa Bay Club property. As a result of the creation of a significant view corridor through the middle of the property, the siting of the structures back from the bulkhead,and the nominal impact elsewhere,it is the opinion of staff that the project will result in the creation of more public visual open space and views than-is required by the basic height limit. 2. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. The building height facilitates the siting of buildings which are set back from West Coast Highway, and which presents a varied building setback from the bulkhead. The combination softens the impact of the project both from the adjacent roadway as well as from lower Newport Bay. 3. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relation- ships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. l TO: Planning Commission - 6. • Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical elements. The proposed buildings are not substantially higher than portions of the existing development,and are lower than the existing Terrace Apartment building on the site. No significant changes in scale relationship will result from implementation of the project. 4. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the (approval). The project conforms to the floor area limitation of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Parking. In order to assess the required parking for the expanded Balboa Bay Club facility, a detailed survey of existing demand was conducted. The results of the study are included in Appendix F of the draft Environmental Impact Report - the Traffic and Parking Study. In order to assess the parking requirements of the proposed project, the peak demand of the existing club'facilities was determined. This parking requirement, which excludes the Terrace Apartments and includes parking on West Coast Highway, is 384 vehicles. The parking require4 for the expansion was then estimated using standard parking rates at 124 to 172 spaces. Total parking required for the new facility is estimated to be 508 to 556 spaces. The site plan shows a total of 532 off-street parking spaces, excluding the Terrace Apartment area! Since the estimated peak demand brackets the proposed number of parking spaces,it has been determined that the parking supply will be adequate for the daily operations of the Balboa Bay Club. The Bay Club will continue to have off-site parking (in conjunction with shuttle services) at the Newport Beach Country Club, the Balboa Bay Racquet Club and the Lutheran Church at Dover Drive and 16th Street for special event parking. Interface with the Bayshores Community, The Balboa Bay Club shares a common side property line with the single family neighborhood of Bayshores. Currently, the uses of the Bay Club along this property line are of low intensity, and few conflicts occur. The redevelopment of the Bay Club property will significantly intensify the uses adjacent to Bayshores. This could result in adverse impacts to this community. A representative of the Bayshores community has contacted staff and indicated three points of concern to the neighborhood. These are the noise associated with the service drive/delivery dock, potential noise impacts from facing hotel rooms, and light and glare which could spill into residences from cars moving on the parking structure. Staff is also concerned with the potential for noise impacts from the service drive and delivery dock. The problems which can be anticipated are similar to those currently experienced by Villa Balboa from the service drive of Hoag Hospital, although the Balboa < TO: Plafng Commission - 7. • Bay Club's service and delivery activity is likely to be significantly less than that associated with the hospital. There are, however, some specific requirements which can reduce potential problems. These are the installation of a fence or landscape screen along the property line which will result in an acceptable ambient nighttime noise level, or a strict limitation on delivery hours. A condition has been added to mitigation measures in the EIR to require the service access road and delivery dock area to be designed to meet a nighttime ambient noise level of 50 dbA from sensitive locations in the Bayshores community. This approach is favored by staff because there will be noise reduction benefits to Bayshores throughout the day. A simple limitation on late night and early morning deliveries has the potential to be superseded by future regulations of the Air Quality Management Plan which may force delivery functions out of normal business hours. Hotel rooms of the new facility will face the Bayshores area. A concern has been expressed in regards to the potential for noise impacts associated with loud radios, televisions or parties from these rooms. While some occurrences of this nature are likely to occur, it is the opinion of staff that this potential impact is no different ,than that which may be anticipated from any adjacent neighbors, and that it can be handled through the management practices of the hotel and the normal nuisance abatement procedures available through the Newport Beach Police Department. The parking structure is located near the property line of the Bayshores community. A concern has been raised regarding light spillage into residences from automobiles moving on the structure and its associated ramps. Staff agrees that this potential impact should be addressed, and has included a condition of approval which requires the prevention of light spillage from automobiles onto Bayshores residences, which can be achieved through a combination of parking structure design and/or the installation of a wall or landscape screen. Public Access Plan. A key feature of the Balboa Bay Club redevelopment plan is the proposal to open a significant portion of the facility to use and access by members of the general public. Table 2 on Page 36 of the draft Environmental Impact Report describes the various facilities of the Bay Club, the portion designated for public or private use with related hours of operation. The public access program has been specifically designed to meet the provision of the City's Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan in regards to the releasing of public property, which state: ...full consideration shall be given to the public s right of access to the ocean, beach, and bay and to the provision of coastal dependent uses adjacent to the water." The access plan provides for general public usage on a reservation or space available basis of the hotel, banquet and meeting room facilities as well as a substantial portion of the restaurant and entertainment lounge facilities. The athletic facility and club rooms will remain private. TO: Pladhing Commission - 8. • The Local Coastal Program also requires lateral and vertical access to the beach and bay. It is proposed that these policies be complied with through the provision of walkway access through the site, as set forth in the public access plan, along the bayfront of the club portion of the property. The Balboa Bay Club entrance will include signs informing the public of the availability of public access. Traffic Study No. 75 A traffic study has been prepared for the proposed project in conformance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and Council Policy S-1. The proposed project is expected to be completed in 1992. Analyses were, therefore, completed for 1993. The City Traffic Engineer identified twelve (12) intersections which could be affected by the project at full occupancy. The first step in evaluating intersections is to conduct a 1% traffic volume analysis, taking into consideration existing traffic,regional growth, and committed projects' traffic. For any intersection where, on any approach leg, project traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of the projected peak 21h hour volume in either the morning or afternoon, Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) is required. The 1% volume analysis identified nine (9) intersections where traffic exceeded the one percent criteria, in the morning or afternoon peak hour. The following chart summarizes the results of the Intersection Capacity Utilization analysis for the project. TO. Platt Commission - 9. 0 ICU SUMMARY - 1993 - Existing 93 Existing 93 +Committed . PEAK Existing +Committed +Growth Intersection HOUR (1990) +Growth +Project Coast Highway/ AM 0.67 0,81 0.82 Riverside Drive PM 0.72 0.78 0.79 Coast Highway/ AM 0.66 0.79 0.80 Tustin Avenue PM 0.63 .0.70 0.71 Coast Highway/ AM 0.53 0.70 0.71 Dover Drive-Bayshore Drive Coast Highway/ AM 0.72 0.85 0.86 Bayside Drive PM 0.66 0.81 0.81 Coast Highway/ AM 0.72 0.82 0.82 Jamboree Road PM 0.69 0.84 0.84 Jamboree Road/ AM 0.45 0.57 0.57 Santa Barbara Drive PM 0.56 0.69 0.70 Jamboree Road/ AM 0.56 0.67 0.67 San Joaquin Hills Road Jamboree Road/ AM 0.62 0.69 0.70 Eastbluff Drive-Ford Road Newport Boulevard/ AM 0.52 0.59 0.60 Hospital Road PM 0.56 0.67 0.67 In order to meet the criteria of the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, a project must be found to neither cause nor make worse an intersection capacity utilization of 0.90 for the year of analysis which includes all committed traffic and regional growth. As shown by the above chart, the intersections affected by the project operate at an acceptable level. The project meets the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Entry Signal. An assessment of the need for a traffic signal at the main entrance of the Balboa Bay Club was conducted as part of the traffic analysis. Figure 3 of the Traffic Study contained in Appendix F of the EIR provides the Traffic Signal Warrants worksheet for TO: Pla±ng Commission - 10. intersection. This analysis indicates that all signal warrants are satisfied 100% at this location. The Public Works Department has, therefore, required that a signal at the main entrance be installed by the Balboa Bay Club. Since a new signalized intersection will be installed in a busy segment of Coast Highway, a Traffic Phasing Ordinance Analysis of the future intersection was conducted. Based on existing traffic counts, it is predicted that the existing ICU's for the intersection would be 0,67 in the AM and 0.66 in the PM. The 1993 background ICU's are predicted to be 0.79 in the AM and 0.79 in the PM. The 1993 background plus project ICU's are predicted to be 0.88 in the AM and 0.82 in the PM. Therefore, the provisions of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance for the future intersection are met for this project. Main Entrance Stacking Study. The creation of a signalized intersection at the main entrance to the Balboa Bay Club resulted in additional concerns related to adequacy of the stacking distance from the guard gate to Coast Highway. A stacking/queuing study was conducted by the consulting traffic engineer and is included in Appendix F of the EIR. Peak entrance demand during the expected signal cycle was estimated, and it has been determined that the design of the entrance is adequate to serve the normal queuing requirements of the Bay Club. During special events, both entry lanes can be used with guards in order to facilitate orderly ingress to the property. Conclusions and Specific Findings Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code sets forth specific findings which must be made in order to approve a Traffic Study. It is the opinion of staff that the project meets all the specified criteria for approval of this project. While no specific findings are set forth in the Code for the approval of Planned Community District Regulations and Development Plans, it is the opinion of staff that the proposed P-C Text is consistent with the General Plan, and that the mitigation measures and additional conditions of approval address identified concerns of the surrounding community. Should the Planning Commission desire to approve the project, Findings and Conditions for Approval are attached as Exhibit "A." If it is the desire of the Commission to deny the project, Findings for Denial are suggested in Exhibit "B." PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAMES D. HEWICKER, Director By Wb Patricia L. Temple Advance Planning Manager Attachments: 1. Conceptual Technical Site Plan PLT...\PC\AMD\A739.SR1 2. Site Plan 3. Balboa Bay Club P-C District 4. DEIR (previously distributed) t TO: Pla&g Commission - 11 • EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 143 AMENDMENT NO. 739 TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 75 A. Environmental Impact Report No. 143 Findin 1. That an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),the State CEQA Guidelines and City Policy. 2. That all potential significant environmental effects which could result from the project have been identified and analyzed in the EIR. 3. That based upon the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report, mitigation measures have been identified and incorporated into the project to reduce potentially significant environmental effects to a level of insignificance in all areas, and that the only remaining environmental effects are significant only on a cumulative basis. Further, that the economic and social benefits to the community override the remaining significant environmental effect anticipated as a result of the project. 4. That the information contained in the Environmental Impact Report has been considered in the various decisions made relative to this project. Mitigation Measures: 1. Construction activities will be conducted in accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code, which limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting,plastering or any other related building activity,operate any tool,equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday, or on any holiday. 2. Grading operations shall be performed in a manner intended to protect surrounding properties from impact during the construction period by including dust control and erosion control activities and operation hour restrictions. The Director, Building Department, City of Newport Beach shall ensure the continued enforcement of these measures during construction. TO: Pi ing Commission - 12 0 3. Development of the site shall be subject to a grading permit approved by the Building and Planning Departments. 4. The grading permit shall include a description of haul routes designed to minimize traffic conflicts, access points to the site which are safe (including flagmen), and a watering program designed to minimize the dust impacts of haul operations. The applicant shall, subject to the City Traffic Engineer's approval, install the traffic signal at the entrance prior to the commencement of construction to assist in said safety control. 5. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit. A copy of the plan shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 6. Grading shall be conducted in accordance with plans prepared by a civil engineer incorporating the recommendations of a soil engineer and an engineering geologist subsequent to the completion of a comprehensive soil and geologic investigation of the site. Permanent reproducible copies of the "Approved as Built" grading plans shall be furnished to the Building Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. Prior to demolition of existing structures,a complete plan for litter and debris control for the demolition, grading, and construction phases to ensure that no debris is permitted to enter Newport Harbor shall be approved by the Planning and Marine Departments. 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project proponent shall submit final soils engineering and geologic studies to the Director, Building Department, City of Newport Beach,for approval. These reports will primarily involve further assessment of potential soil-related constraints and hazards such as slope instability, settlement, liquefaction, ground water conditions, or related secondary seismic impacts where determined to be appropriate by the Building Department, City of Newport Beach. The report shall include evaluation of potentially expansive soil and recommended construction procedures and/or design criteria to minimize their effect of these soils on the proposed development. All reports shall recommend appropriate mitigation measures and be completed in the manner specified in the Newport Beach Grading Code and State Subdivision Map Act. In addition to the above criteria, the following specific items shall be required: a. Dewatering induced ground subsidence shall be addressed. A settlement monitoring program shall be designed to identify any settlement before existing area improvements are damaged. TO. Plaa k Commission - 13 • b. Buildings shall be designed to resist hydrostatic uplift forces without the use of pumps or other mechanized devices which may fail. C. Shoring designs shall be prepared 9. All new construction shall be inspected by the City of Newport Beach Building Department to ensure compliance with Section 2312(a) Earthquake Regulations, Uniform Building Code, 1988 Edition. 10. Treatment of extracted water shall be conducted in a manner and at a location approved by the City of Newport Beach City Engineer and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 11. Suspended solids (e.g., sand) shall be separated from extracted water in accordance with applicable water quality standards and disposed of at a location approved by the Public Works Department and the Grading Engineer. 12. Provision shall be made, as necessary, for the treatment of hydrogen sulfide to comply with water quality standards and to control odors from the dewatering process. 13. If the applicant intends to use an ocean disposal site for excavated materials,the City of Newport Beach Public Works Department shall be provided with evidence that all appropriate permits from the Army Corps of Engineers and the City of Newport Beach have been obtained. Such evidence shall be submitted to and verified by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 14. Recommendations included in the February 19, 1990 LeRoy Crandall & Associates' Geotechnical Report shall be incorporated into project design where appropriate. The Building Department shall verify the application of the appropriate recommendations prior to the issuance of grading permits. 15. A supplemental subsurface investigation shall be performed subsequent to demolition of the existing buildings to obtain subsurface data in those areas inaccessible during previous studies. 16. The groundwater level shall be lowered to a depth at least five feet beneath the excavation bottom. The dewatering system shall be designed and performed by qualified engineers with previous experience in this type of construction. Selection of the engineer shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of grading permits. 17. The upper ten feet of soil material shall be removed. Remaining soil to a distance at least five feet below and beyond the proposed structure shall be densified as described in the Geotechnical Report as verified or amended by subsequent subsurface investigation. • 3 TO: Pla�Lg Commission - 14 0 18, A detailed preconstruction survey shall be prepared to document the present condition of all buildings and facilities within the zone of influence of the dewatered investigation. Photographs, crack surveys, and installation of a reference benchmark beyond the zone of influence shall be included in the preconstruction survey. Areas within at least 30 feet of the proposed excavation shall be monitored for any settlement and lateral movements due to possible deflection of the shoring system, Groundwater observation wells within the zone of influence shall be installed. The specific parameters of the study shall be provided to the City Engineer for review prior to issuance of the grading permit. 19. If found necessary by the City of Newport Beach, based upon the geotechnical information described above, the project applicant will be required to enter into an agreement and post a bond guaranteeing the repair of the public street system, utilities or other public property that might be damaged during the dewatering excavation process and the construction of subterranean improvements. 20. If found necessary by the City of Newport Beach, based upon the geotechnical information described above, the project applicant will be required to enter into an agreement guaranteeing the repair of all damage to private property caused by the dewatering excavation process and the construction of subterranean improvements. 21. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit shall be obtained from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water extracted from dewatering wells shall meet current Environmental Protection Agency requirements prior to discharging into the Bay. If necessary, the water shall be desilted prior to discharge. 22. Light construction equipment shall be used for earthwork operations. No heavy equipment shall be used. 23. A grading plan, submitted to the Director, Building Department, City of Newport Beach,shall include a complete plan for temporary and permanent drainage facilities to minimize any potential impacts from silt, debris, and other water pollutants. Prior to recordation of any final parcel map or prior to issuance of certificates of use and occupancy, whichever comes first, said improvements shall be constructed in a manner meeting the approval of the Director,Building Department, City of Newport Beach. 24. All outfalls into the bay shall have flapgates attached to the storm drain outlets to serve as a backflow prevention device, subject to approval of the Director, Public Works, City of Newport Beach, 25. Existing on-site drainage facilities shall be improved to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach City Engineer. A hydrology and hydraulic study and a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain for on-site improvements shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department prior to recording the tract TO: Plan*g Commission - 15 map. Any modifications to the existing storm drain system shall be the responsibility of the developer. 26. A landscape plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect, shall be submitted which includes a maintenance program that controls the use of fertilizers and pesticides. The plan shall be reviewed by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Department and approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit, a licensed landscape architect shall certify to the Planning Department that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with the approved plan. 27. Landscaped areas shall be irrigated with a system designed to avoid surface run-off and over-watering. 28. Drainage facilities and architectural features shall be designed to prevent run-off from entering the garage structure, keep the garage floor slab dry from seepage, and remove oil and grease from run-off prior to discharge into the public storm drains. Verification of these design features shall be made by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of building permits. 29. A hydrology and hydraulic study shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Public Works Department, along with a master plan of water, sewer and storm drain facilities for the on-site improvements prior to issuance of any grading or buildingpermits. Any modifications or extensions to the existing storm drain, water and sewer systems shown to be required by the study and the City shall be the responsibility of the developer. The private water system will have to be upgraded• to meet current City standards. 30. A condition survey of the existing bulkhead,along the bay side of the property shall be made by a civil or structural engineer, and the bulkhead shall be repaired in conformance with the recommendations of the condition survey and to the satisfaction of the Building Department and Marine Department. The top of the bulkhead is to be a minimum elevation of 9.00 above M.L.L.W. (6.27 MSL). 31. A dust control program in compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403 shall be implemented during demolition, excavation and construction. This program shall include such measures as: containing soil on-site until it is hauled away, periodic watering of stockpile soil, and regular vacuum sweeping of streets used for the haul operation to remove accumulated material. 32. Major soil disturbance shall take place between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. when winds are stronger to reduce the amount of dust settling out on nearby receptors, and to obtain better areawide dispersion of any fugitive dust. 33. A fan-assisted ventilation system shall be installed in the venting system for the subterranean garage for use in peak periods when natural ventilation is not sufficient. TO: Planning Commission - 16 , s 34. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the project proponent shall produce evidence acceptable to the Director, Building Department, City of Newport Beach that: a. All construction vehicles or equipment,fixed or mobile,operated within 1,000' of a dwelling shall be equipped with properly operating .and maintained mufflers. b. All operations shall comply with the City Noise Ordinance. C. Stockpiling and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practicable from dwelling units. 35. All non-residential structures shall be sound attenuated against the combined impact of all present and projected noise from exterior noise sources to meet the interior noise criteria as specified in the Noise Element and/or Noise Ordinance. 36. Construction activities will be conducted in accordance with Newport Beach Municipal Code, which limits the hours of construction and excavation work to 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No person shall, while engaged in construction, remodeling, digging, grading, demolition, painting,plastering or any other related building activity,operate any tool,equipment or machine in a manner which produces loud noise that disturbs, or could disturb, a person of normal sensitivity who works or resides in the vicinity, on any Sunday or on any holiday. 37. Any mechanical equipment and emergency power generators shall be screened from view, and noise associated with said structures shall be sound-attenuated so as not to exceed the mechanical equipment noise standards set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The latter shall be based upon the recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer and approved by the Building Department. The applicant shall present to the City Engineer a written commitment that the loading dock shall be operated only within the hours specified by the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code for construction activities. 38. Applicant shall apply for a waiver of City noise abatement regulations to allow for dewatering and pouring of the subterranean garage slab. The continuous concrete pour shall be scheduled on a non-summer weekend outside of the peak traffic period. 39. At the time the City approves the requested waiver of City noise abatement regulation to allow for dewatering and pouring of the basement slab, the City Engineer shall determine if it is necessary to require barriers or baffles and distance the electric pumps as far as possible from adjacent residential uses to reduce noise from construction equipment so as not to exceed the mechanical equipment noise standards set forth in the Newport Beach Municipal Code. If required,the developer TO: Planing Commission - 17 • shall install such measures prior to beginning any activities for which a waiver was granted. 40. Pouring of the subterranean garage slab shall be scheduled to encompass only one night time period. The schedule for any continuous concrete pour shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 41. Electric pump motors shall be required for dewatering equipment to reduce noise levels. 42. An improved loudspeaker/paging system shall be installed to direct speakers away from surrounding residential areas. A written evaluation of the proposed system shall be prepared by an acoustical engineer and approved by the Director, Building Department, City of Newport Beach. 43. Noise resulting from outdoor functions such as parties,large gatherings and weddings which include music shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., or as otherwise permitted by the approval of a Use Permit. 44. Pursuant to Chapter 15.45 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance), the applicant shall contribute funds towards traffic and circulation improvements. 45. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. A traffic control plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or building permits. 46. Earthwork hauling operations, major concrete placement and other construction operations requiring more than 32 trips per day or 4 trips per hour by trucks shall be coordinated with the City Traffic Engineer and Caltrans Permits Division. During high peak traffic times or if operations are causing significant traffic congestion, the operations may be restricted by the City Traffic Engineer and/or Caltrans. 47. Prior to the commencement of each construction phase and related parking provisions, the project proponent shall notify the Traffic Engineer, City of Newport Beach,of the start date for that particular construction phase. Thereafter, as deemed necessary by the Traffic Engineer, the City will monitor the parking provisions to ensure compliance with the proposed phasing plan. 48. A traffic signal shall be constructed on West Coast Highway at the main,entrance to the Bay Club prior to the commencement of demolition or construction. 49. The westerly driveway shall be used as a limited access drive only. It is not to be used for access to the residential units, without being reconstructed to provide adequate sight distance and design to be approved by the Public Works Department. S TO: Planning Commission - 18 50. Parking shall be provided on-site or in approved off-site lots for all employees, members and guests, and all employees will be required to park in these provided facilities. 51. No construction equipment storage on West Coast Highway or deliveries or off- loading will be made in the West Coast Highway right of way. Sidewalk along West Coast Highway shall be kept open at all times except when being repaired or replaced. 52. The on-site parking,vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation systems shall be subject to further review by the Traffic Engineer, and sidewalks shall be provided between Coast Highway and the building entrances. 53. The intersection of West Coast Highway and Main Entrance drive and easterly drive shall be designed to provide sight distance for a speed of 50 miles per hour and sidewalk bicycle traffic. Slopes, landscape, walls and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight line shall not exceed 24 inches in height. The sight distance requirement may be modified at non-critical locations, subject to approval of the Traffic Engineer. 54. A turnaround shall be provided prior to the guard gate unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. The design of the controlled entrance shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and Fire Department. 55. Deteriorated sections of concrete sidewalk shall be reconstructed along the West Coast Highway frontage; the unused drive apron shall be removed and replaced with curb,gutter and sidewalk;the new drive apron shall be constructed per City Standard 166-L; and curb access ramps shall be provided at the westerly drive entrance on West Coast Highway. All work shall be completed under an encroachment permit issued by the California Department of Transportation. 56. The easterly access drive shall be a minimum width of 26 feet clear. This driveway shall be designed for right turn movements only for ingress and egress. 57. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, construction staging, materials storage and a parking plan showing how workers will be able to park without using on-street parking must be submitted and approved by the 'L ublic Works Department. 58. Food odors shall be controlled through compliance with Air Quality Management Rule 402 which states that a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. • TO: Plating Commission - 19 • 59. The Edison transformer serving the site shall be located outside the sight.distance planes as described in City Standard 110-L. 60. To ensure consistency between the LCP public access policies and the proposed project, public access opportunities will be implemented in the Planned Community Development Plan text for the proposed project. 61. Pedestrian access shall be provided throughout the areas of the Club portion of property identified in the public access plan as available for use by the general public. 62. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a landscape and irrigation plan for the project shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. The plan will be subject to approval by the Director, Planning Department and the Director, Parks, Beaches, and Recreation Department, City of Newport Beach. 63. All mechanical equipment and trash areas shall be screened from public streets, alleys and adjoining properties. 64. Signage and exterior lighting shall be approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments. 65. Street signs, benches, planters and other similar features on-site or adjacent to the project site shall be designed with a common theme compatible with the overall architectural style of the project. The design shall be approved by the Planning, Public Works, and Parks,Beaches and Recreation Departments prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit. 66. Views of roof-top equipment shall be screened from upslope properties. 67. Existing overhead utilities on the project side of Coast Highway shall be put underground to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 68. Based on a fire flow requirement for sprinklered facilities of this nature, the following existing connections shall be upsized to provide for 2,000 gallons per minute fire flow (subject to Fire Department review and approval of design plans): Upsize the connection at Coast Highway from 6 inches to 12 inches and install an 8-inch meter; Upsize the connection at Bayshore Drive from 4 inches to 8 inches and install a 6-inch meter. 69. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Fire Department shall review the proposed plans to determine the adequacy of emergency access. The Department i TO: Planning Commission - 20 ' may require indoor fire protection features, such as overhead fire sprinklers, if it determines that such measures are necessary to provide adequate fire protection, 70. Fire Department access shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to the issuance of building permits. 71. The Southern California Gas Company has developed several programs which are available and would provide assistance in selecting the most effective application of energy conservation techniques. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall meet with representatives of the Gas Company to discuss applicable energy conservation techniques that are appropriate for incorporation into the project. 72, The facility installation will conform to applicable Public Utilities Commission regulations. The applicant shall comply with adopted State energy conservation standards per Sections 1451-1542 of Title 20 of the California Administrative Code and Sections P 20-1451 through P 20-1452 of Title 24 of the Code. 73. Final design of the project shall provide for the incorporation of water-saving devices for project lavatories and other water-using devices. This shall be verified by the Building Department prior to issuance of occupancy permits. 74. Water improvement plans shall be approved by the Fire Department, the Utilities Department and the Public Works Department, City of Newport Beach, prior to issuance of a grading permit. 75. The water distribution and appurtenances shall conform to the applicable laws and adopted regulations enforced by the Orange County Health Department and the Utilities Department. 76. Drought-resistant vegetation shall be used in landscaping to reduce the demand for irrigation water. 77. All proposed sewer improvements shall be approved by the Director, Public Works, City of Newport Beach. 78. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a bus rurnout, if determined by the City Traffic Engineer to be necessary based on roadway cross sections, travel volumes or speeds, should be provided at the existing bus stop location. 79. In conjunction with the provision of a bus turnout, the area adjacent to this turnout shall include a paved passenger waiting area complete with a bus shelter and bench. A paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian accessway shall be provided between this stop and the project buildings. TO: Planning Commission - 21 • 80. In conjunction with the provision of a bus turnout, a concrete bus pad sufficient to support the weight of a bus (see OCTD's Design Guidelines for Bus Facilities) shall be provided at this transit stop if it is determined by CalTrans that the material used to construct Coast Highway is not sufficient to support continued transit use of the bus stop. 81. County Sanitation District fees shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits. 82. That prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works Department and the Director of the Planning Department that adequate sewer facilities will be available for the project. Such demonstration shall include verification from the Orange County Sanitation District and the City's Utilities Department. 83. Prior to issuance of building or grading permits, a master plan of water and sewer facilities shall be prepared for the site. The applicant shall verify the adequacy of existing water and sewer facilities and construct any modification of facilities necessary for the project. The master plan shall include provision for the relocation of existing water and sewer facilities. 84. That the parking structure shall be designed so as to preclude light spillage from automobiles on residences in the Bayshores community. This is to be achieved via the ramp and circulation design of the structure, the installation of screen walls or planting, or a combination thereof. 85. All parking and loading areas shall comply with the noise control criteria set forth below. A. The following noise standard shall be established for all exterior noise- sensitive areas within residential areas located within one hundred (100) feet of a parking or loading area: Noise Level Time Period 55 dBA 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. 50 dBA 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. B. Exterior noise-sensitive areas shall include all yards, decks, patios, terraces, balconies and rooftops and other private open areas of a residential lot designed and used for outdoor living and recreation with the exception of driveways and parking areas. S TO: Planning Commission - 22 C. Noise generated from loading areas shall not exceed: (1) The exterior noise standard for a cumulative period of more than thirty (30) minutes in any hour; or (2) The exterior noise standard plus five (5) dBA for a cumulative period of more than fifteen (15) minutes in any hour; or (3) The exterior noise standard plus ten dBA(10)for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; or (4) The exterior noise standard plus fifteen (15) dBA for a cumulative period of more than one (1) minute in any hour; or (5) The exterior noise standard plus twenty (20) dBA for any period of time. D. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds any of the first four (4) noise limit categories above, the cumulative period applicable to said category shall be increased to reflect said ambient noise level. In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise limit category, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. E. The following noise standard shall be established for all interior noise- sensitive areas within residential areas located within one hundred (100) feet of a parking or loading area: Noise Level Time Period 55 dBA 7:00 a,m. - 10:00 p,m. 45 dBA 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. F. Interior noise-sensitive areas shall include any habitable room meeting the requirements of the Housing Code for sleeping, living, cooking, or dining purposes, excluding such enclosed places as closets, pantries, bath or toilet rooms, service rooms, connecting corridors, laundries, unfinished attics, foyers, storage spaces, cellars, utility rooms, garages and similar spaces. G. Noise generated from loading areas shall not exceed: (1) The interior noise standard for a cumulative period of more than five (5) minutes in any hour; or ' TO: Plamung Commission - 23 • (2) The interior noise standard plus (5) dBA for a cumulative period of more than one (1) minute in any hour; or (3) The interior noise standard plus ten(10) dBA for any period of time. B. Traffic Study No. 75. Findin 1. That a Traffic Study has been prepared which analyzes the impact of the proposed project on the morning and afternoon peak hour traffic and circulation system in accordance with Chapter 15.40 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and City Council Policy S-1. 2. That the traffic study indicates that the project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of service on any major, primary-modified, or primary street. C. Amendment No. 739. Adopt Resolution No. , recommending adoption of Amendment No.739 to the City Council. F.\...\PLT\PC\AMD\A739.F&C V TO: Planning Commission - 24. • s RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF AN AMEND- MENT RE-ZONING THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BALBOA BAY CLUB FROM THE R-4 DISTRICT TO THE P-C (PLANNED COMMUNITY) DISTRICT AND ADOPTING PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS (PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDMENT NO. 739) WHEREAS, as part of the development and implementation of the Newport Beach General Plan the Land Use Element has been prepared; and WHEREAS,the Newport Beach Municipal Code provides specific procedures for the implementation of Planned Community zoning for properties within the City of Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, the proposed Planned Community District Regulations are consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan; and WHEREAS, implementation of the project will increase public access and usage of the site consistent with the policies and intent of the Local Coastal Program, Land Use Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed project meets the criteria of the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, and the information contained therein has been considered by the Planning Commission in making its recommendation to the City Council. TO. Planning Commission - 25. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend to the City Council an amendment to rezone the property known as the Balboa Bay Club from the R-4 District to the P-C (Planned Community) District and adopting Planned Community District Regulations described as Planning Commission Amendment No. 739 as shown on Exhibit 1 attached. ADOPTED this _ day of , 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES NOES ABSENT BY Jan Debay, CHAIRMAN BY Thomas C. Edwards, SECRETARY PL7:2C\AMD\A739.RS1 TO: Plan�nmg Commission - 26. ` EXHIBIT "B" FINDINGS FOR DENIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 143 AMENDMENT NO. 739 TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 75 A. Environmental Impact Report No. 143. Finding: 1. That an environmental document is not needed for a project which is denied. B. Amendment No. 739. Fines 1. That the intensification of the Balboa Bay Club property will have adverse effects on the surrounding community in that undesirable service access uses are located adjacent to a single family area. 2. That the intensification of the development is not in the best interest of the community in that it further commits the use of public-property for the use of Balboa Bay Club. 3. That the project design will result in undesirable and abrupt scale relationships in the area, particularly as the project relates to the Bayshores area. C. TraMc Study No. 75. Finding: 1. That a Traffic Study is not needed for a project which is denied. PL1%...\PC0MD\AM9.MW I 1 AuUwlaad to Publish A*erdsemirtts of III Weds induding public nod= by Dome of the Supwior Court of Oraope Cotnty.CWhIMI116 Number AbZ14ti Seoembw 29. 1961.and , A-24831 June 11.ISM STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC NOTICE ��,�},� n - NOTICE OF - Cow••) of Q�n7e PUBO'HNotidoi Isher�eb Ngiven that the Planning Commis. sion of the City of NeWport am a Citizen of the United States and a 'Beach will'hold a public hearing on the application Of Intematlonal Bay Clubs resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the for,AMENDMENT NO. 739 being a request to consider age of eighteen years, and not a party to or amending Dlstri•cling�MaFs Nos:6 and 23 to reclassify interested in the below entitled matter i am a property located in the R-4 principal Clerk of the ORANGE COAST-DAILY District mooviing he specific ' Plan designation, and PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, adopting Planned Com- munity District Regulations printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, on probe ty located at 122, West Coast Highway com- County of Orange, State of California, and that boaly known oay Clubs the Bin- attached Notice is a true and complete copy as cluded is a request to up- rove No. 75 F, conjunc Ion with he en. was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, vironmental document. NOTICE IS - Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain THE GNEN thatBanF En. vlronmental Impact Report Velley, Irvine, the South Coast communities and has been prepared in con. Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper to wit n noted with the application .above. It liis the present intention bf the City the issue(s) of: to a accept the En. vironmental lImpabt Report and supporting documents. The City encourages main. May 24, 1991 bars of the-gederal public `.bd review and comment on !this documentation.Copies )of-,the Environmental Im- :"pact Report and supporting 'documents are available 'for public review and in- spection at the Planning Department, City' of New. port Beach, 1300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92669-1768 (714)644.3225. , Notice is hereby•further ggiven that said public hear- Ing'will be,held on the 6th day.of JggB'^1M,•at the hour of 7:30.,p.m.�in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach,City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at�•whkh time. and place anyand all persons Inter ested may appear and be heard thereon. If you chal- lenge this project In court, 1 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the re Only thosie;ssuesraou foregoing is true and correct the or opublic hearinne bled ig del scribed in this riolice or In written correspondence de. Executed an May 24 1 livered'to the City at, or . 199. prior to,the public hearing. For information call (714) at Costa Mesa Califomiaia. 644-32w. wTho�a.l.[� n /-s✓ ;sIon, C C.ty Edwards, port retary, Planning Commis. ision, City of. Newport Beach NOTE Tho expense of his Signature t notice is paid from a g ifllingdoe collected from the applicant. I j?ubhshed Orange''Coast :gaily Pilot May 24.1991 F612 PROOF OF PUSUCATION � 7 June 2, 1994 Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd P.O. Box 1768, Newport Beach, Ca 92659-1768 Re: Public Hearing Notice Redevelopment of Balboa Bay Club Atten; Anne Gifford; Secretary; Dear Anne; Please submit the following to the Planning Commisission at the public hearing on June 9th,regarding the proposal of the Balboa Bay Club which includes Amendmednt no 787, a request to redesignate said property from R-4 (Multiple Residential District) to PC (Planned Community District): approval of a Planned Community Development Plan: approval of Use Permit 3524 which includes a request to allow structures to exceed the 26 ft. basic height limit up to 35 feet average roof height: approval of Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study No. 100 & extension of the ground lease at fair Market value for a period of up to 50 yrs. Let it go on record that both my husband and I are unequivicably opposed to this. First of all it is unbelievable to even think of increasing the height of any existing buildings. Already there are too many high buildings obstrucitng the views of all citizens and of any and all visitors to our fair city. Does this mean that if this passes all of us will then be allowed to go up an additional 9 ft average roof height than is currently allowed to compensate for the view loss we'll be getting? Will this then have a domino effect and all buildings and business's alike be allowed additional heights.Just where does this all end? We are senoir citizens who moved here 12 yrs ago at which time we paid dearly for our home. We treasure our home, our view, the view from the parks and streets. Now arbitrarily you can take away people's views and destroy what they've strived for this does not seem right. Lastly, to now grant a 50 year lease to the BBC is ludicrous. Always before a lease of this magnitude was put to the people to vote on. Someone said recently that this might have something to do with Measure M but I can't believe that, as we were told in no way would that measure effect our rights as far as The Balboa Bay Club Lease was concerned. In fact this very question was brought up at a City Council Meeting by the then President of the Cliff Haven Association, Sue La Granduer. I certainly trust we were not all mislead in this regard. Many of us here in Newport Beach have grave concerns in all of these regards. I know in the past you have weighed these issues carefully and pray you will continue to do so. Sincer ly ; RECEWED Fly PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NElPORT 8EACi Ruth & Charles(Tex) Reynolds j11N41 8 1994 1301 King's Road AA9, FM Newport Beach, Calif 92663 718191101111121112A4016 cc: City Council Members; Mayor of Newport Beach ! Joan S. Petty 1720 Kings Road Newport Beach, California 92663 June 7, 1994 Chairman and Members Newport Beach Planning Commission Dear Commissioners, I am opposed to the proposed re-development planned by the Balboa Bay Club. Specifically I oppose any increased square-footage of development on this publicly-owned waterfront property. Further, I oppose any increased obstruction to the open vista of sky, sea and bay from either Coast Highway or Kings Road. It is my belief that all facilities on this city-owned property should be opened to public access and use. I see no necessity for construction of additional facilities to serve the public while maintaining the private use of existing facilities. Private facilities are inappropriate on this publicly-owned property. Thank you. Sincerely, qo I. Petty RECENED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MY OF NEWPORT BEACP AM JUN 8 1994 PM 71819110111112111213141516 June 2, 1994 Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca 92659-1768 Public Hearing Notice Redevelopment of Balboa Bay Club Atten; Anne Gifford; Secretary; Dear Anne; Please submit the following to the Planning Commisission at the public hearing on June 9th. This is in reference to the proposal of the Balboa Bay Club which includes Amendmednt no 787, a request to redesignate said property from R-4 (Multiple Residential District) to PC (Planned Community District) : approval of a Planned Community Development Plan: approval of Use Permit 3524 which includes a request to allow structures to exceed the 26 ft. basic height limit up to 35 feet average roof height: approval of Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study No. 100 & extension of the ground lease at fair Market value for a period of up to 50 yrs. I am definately oppossed to all of the above. However I am most adamantly oppossed to the fact that this includes plans for extension of the height limit up to 35 feet average roof height , from 26 feet. This is ludicrous. One can then envision all other parties along the bay wanting additional footage given to them. Then they' ll want it across the street & up the hill this craziness will never end. The Balboa Bay Club is already robbing the community & public at large of much of the bay & ocean view, let's not now add insult to injury. I am also against the redesignation of the property from R-4 to PC and have written to the Coastal Commission expressing my concerns.Lastly, to now grant a 50 year lease to the BBC is outrageous. Always before a lease of this magnitude was put to the people to vote on as it should be. I represent many concerned Newport Beach Residents. Please weigh this decision very carefully as it is of paramount importance both today & for the future. Sincerely Frank Eisendrath ;offla# King's Place Newport Beach, Calif 92663 RECEIVED BY cc: City Council Members; Mayor of Newport Beach PLANNING DEPARTMENT r:I T Y OF NEWPORT BEAM' JUN 81994 PM 70011DA14112131 A6 JUN 03 '94 06:53 CENTURY MONTEBELLO P.2/7 DAVID N. SCMTZ INCORPORATED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS•PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 715 North Central Avenue,Swie 300 a GleudaMe,Wforuia 91203•(SIB) 240-1070 April 28, 1994 Mr. Gary J. DiSano Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach 1840 Leeward Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. D1Sano: This letter is being sent to you to show our support for the current redevelopment plans being submitted by the Balboa Bay Club. We have been members of the Balboa Bay Club for 25 years, having joined before moving to Newport Beach. We are very proud of our membership in the Club and have shared many wonderful times with friends from out of town, and local acquaintances, at the Club. We feel it would be a devastating loss if the Club could not expand, modernize and continue with the feeling of warmth to the community of a wonderful, hospitable environment in which both business and pleasure can be facilitated. The public relations for Newport Beach is enhanced when members such as ourselves can bring various business groups to which we belonginto-the-Club for meetings, etc. This past year, we arranged to have the Board of the Los Angeles Master Chorale - a resident Company at The Music Center in Los Angeles - to have their annual Retreat at the Club. It was a tremendous success and resulted in several Board members inquiring about spending the summer there, obtaining memberships, eta Also, each year we hold our Company party at the Club,where we obtain rooms for our staff and hold an evening dinner party. Our Company looks forward to this each year with great enthusiasm. We have noted that the Club has offered many civic minded events to the community in the years we have belonged, and found that its reputation among private clubs is known even in London, where we have a flat in Sloane Gardens, and have found reciprocal privileges there in private clubs. In these difficult economic times, we cannot believe that the City is unaware of the financial contributions of the Bay Club and The Terrace Apartments not only in rent and taxes - which must amount to millions of dollars by now, but also to the other revenues as they relate to jobs, suppliers, goods, etc. AN ACCRRATrRtI MANAGEMENT ORGANIUTIONO JUN 09 194 06:53 CENTURY MONTEBELLO P.3/7 Page -2- Obviously, the Bay Club needs a long term lease (66 years) in order to attract the best financing possible for their redevelopment. Seventeen years is not enough time to attract any sort of a lending institution to help with this project. Having seen their plans, one cannot help but become terribly excited about the potential of this beautiful piece of property becoming modernized to enhance the rest of the forward looldng community of Newport Beach and its environs. As you can see from this letterhead, our business is in Glendale,and yet we do much of our personal .and business entertaining in Newport Beach - at the Balboa Bay Club. Our primary-residence is at 218 Via Lido Nord, Lido Tslarid. The Balboa Bay Club had a very strong influence on our decision to move to Newport Beach, due to the proximity of the Club to our home on Lido. We sold a large home in Pasadena and now maintain a condo there. Though we are members of the Jonathan Club in Los Angeles, the University Club, are Founders at the Los Angeles Music Center, and are on several business and philanthropic Boards in the City, we find that we would rather bring our friends and clients to the Bay Club to enjoy the fabulous view, the clean air, and the pleasure of the friendly and courteous atmosphere at the Club. We urge you to make it possible for Newport Beach to continue to enjoy the privilege of having the Bay Club in its midst by granting them their request for a long term land lease. Sincerely yours, Mr. and Mrs. David N. Schultz JUN 08 '94 06:54 CENTURY MONTEBELLO n / P.4/7 w \ t O��G . • . xaraa.+•taaiMOaDai,l uoo Maria Drive N"Pnrt B'ao6, GaliEtuaia w000 June 6; 1994 Mr. Clary J. Dishno 1840 Leeward Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear'Mr. DiSano: By way,of introduction I am a long Bute member of this community, having moved to Newport Beach some 34 years ago. In the ensuing period, I .have- managed a 22,000 plus employee firm and havo been actively lnvolvexl to numerous business and community organizations. Local board memberships include the Chautber of Commerce, the Girl Scout Council, the 552 Club. the Dover Shores Community Association, the Marsden School, Hoag Hospital and Hoag Hospital foundation. By virtue of my participation in many-levels of community and business activities, I fool qualified to comment on an important matter before this commission. The issue involves the-Balboa :Day Club. The BBC's need to upgrade and modernize its facility is a reasonable and coonsible business judgement. Broader public access and beautification of the property will provide a greatly enhanced community asset. Obviously the economic viability of this endeavor will also require a new long-terns lease and your support seems most sensible. JUN 08 '94 06.54 CENTURY MONTEBELLO P.5/7 In an era in California where we need increasingly positive support of business by government, C urge you to consider the economic contributions to this community by the BBC, 1. Employmard of approximately 230 people. 2. The 1.2 million in taxes, rents, ate., paid last year. 3. The minions of dollars of goods and services purchased locally. 4; The. strop$ public support of proposition M providing for 66 year leases. S. The unique .nature of the BBC= its history, its Fnchive impact in attracting visitors to our city from all over the world. Thank you for your consideration. Norman M. Dahl .41 Omer W. Long, 'Lia. 'I elepl one Five Upper Newport Plaza (714)851-2460 �e�olopment Proporty 1 California 92660 F4%851-9126 lnredment ProprrGy Newport beach, June 9, 1994 VIA BROADCAST 644-3250 Mr, Harry Merrill, Chairman Planning Commission Members of the Planning Commission 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Ladies & Gentlemen: Balboa Bay Club Cliff offer you the 01 Kings i igstg Cad ov comments: a portion of the proposed a. I was vehemently opposed to the original plan as submitted last year, b, Having spent time reviewing the new plan both with city staff and with the Bay Club I am wholebearted7Y in favor of its approval as drafted. It would appear the ADT issue is almost not an issue. I informally polled several of my neighbors including Fred Howser and Phil^foxier, both of Things Road and both adamantly favoring passage of the new plan. If you have any questions, please call me at the a�ovt7-phone number. truly ours, mer W. Lo g OWL-.lb APR 04 194 06:31 CENTURY MONTEBELLO P.2/2 _ — --- TO: City Planning Members - : - From:Nicolas and Ruth Clemence Re: Balboa Bay Club My husband and T are homeowners on Rings Road and in these times of over building, masses of tali- buildings, excessive traffic and traffic lights, and concrete we hope that our children will continue to look out our windows to see the ocean, blue sky and the beautiful horizon. NOT THE BALBOA BAY CLUB! ! ! We hope that those of you who have the power to stop the over building of the Balboa Bay Club will respect the owners ' of homes who enjoy and have paid for the view from King's Road. We vote and we will not vote for any Council members who support the oversized expansion of the Balboa Bay Club. You can run but you can not hide! ! S cer y, 12u h P. Clemence - cc: All City Planning Members REchivED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT '"TY OF NEWPORT BEACP AM APR 41994 pM MAIII!ll!12! A3!4!5!6 bA4C;�— U,9,r�CA.— rR MRRa30 '94 14,44 CENTURY_OMTEBgILLO TO 12i37234177 P.62 . P.1/1 • FA%'MEMO 9Co: GARY J. 01 SANO FROM" 6%m(;01iY V. RVhcu . RE, BAY CLVB MPANSYON DAU2 'MARCH so, ,1994 t Daar Mr. D3. Sam'. st appears the deteriorattng otandard of living in Neb$ort 1040h i3 again under attack. Tha Balpoa Say Club, the: •aesthstic "bI&OX Aya" of Newport Beach again wants to' oXpand its facilities to the airoot dotzimant of Clio Maven in partyGular, and Newport Beach iv general. 1 x implore You to bot put our.standard of living UP Por Competitive Did again. This city neads an additional. 4s 000 fset,of Bag Club like it naedt a gang invasion. For a retraohinq change, 18t'uC 'aut our mutual long 'term interests aS aMMOft whichtiZetS of appaars do Newport a Virtual l very aspect 9f aurBeach abiad of e all yfai'r city' "k yourself candidly, ii Newpozr Beach as nice a place to live sa it was to 1970? 'then vote Y=r aonacious�' wYMixt the 'Bay Club *%p#Agion comes baZote you.. ReBPOJC,tPully', . `"toom '7. ace 1620 1Kings' acR Newport SaaCh, CA 92B$3 714-548-3809 1 1 TOM P_02 APR 07 '94 06:05 CENTURY MONTEBELLO P.2/2 8 APRIL 94 TO; MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL & THE PLANNING COMMISSION DEAR MEMBER, I AM A REAL ESTATE AGENT AND A LONG TIME RESIDENT OF NEWPORT BEACH, AND AM CURRENTLY RESIDING IN THE CLIFF HAVEN AREA. I AM VERY CONCERNED BY THE BAY CLUB S EFFORTS TO HAVE THE 20NING CHANGED TO ALLOW HIGH RISE STRUCTURES TO BE ERECTED ON THAT BAY FRONT LOCATION. THE RESIDENTS OF CLIFF HAVEN, WATERFRONT PROPERTY OWNERS, AND RESIDENTS OF,NEWPORT BEACH IN GENERAL, HAVE A REAL INVESTED INTEREST IN THEIR HOMES. THIS IS BASED ON THE LOCATION AND THE STABILITY OF THIS AREA. AN ERUPTION OF HIGH RISE BUILDINGS ON THE WATERFRONT, WHILE IT MAY BENEFIT THE BAY CLUB FINANCIALLY, WOULD HAVE NO REAL BENEFIT TO ANY OF THE RESIDENTS OF NEWPORT BEACH. HIGH RISE STRUCTURES WOULD LIMIT THE VIEWS OF FROM BOTH CLIFF HAVEN AND LIDO ISLE. THE VIEW FROM THE WATER BY PEOPLE TRAVELING IN BOATS AND FROM THE LAND BY PEOPLE DRIVING AND WALKING ALONG THE COAST HIGHWAY WOULD BE MORE RESTRICTED, THE TRAFFIC AND THE ACCOMPANYING NOISE LEVEL WOULD SURELY INCREASE. THE PROPERTY VALUES OF ADJACENT AREAS WOULD DEFINITELY DECREASE, THAT DEVALUATION WOULD CAUSE A RIPPLE EFFECT THAT WOULD WIDEN THE EFFECTIVE AREA. AND INVOLVE MANY MORE HOMEOWNERS, IF THE COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION WERE TO APPROVE SUCH PROPOSAL FOR THE BAY CLUB, YOU WOULD BE SETTING AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE SPECIAL INTEREST ENDEAVORS, THE LINE HAS TO BE DRAWN NOW. I DON'T WANT FUTURE SPECIAL INTERESTS TO DEMAND THE SAME EXEMPTIONS TO ZONING, CITING THIS ILL CONCEIVED PRECEDENT, WERE IT TO BE APPROVED, A VERY CONCERNED CITIZEN PETER WEIGAND . 3. W.e..da -�•o-•-�-C�vCIF,v�.� ,L,,,„•�.,,..x-�'n.�su... RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT �!TV OF NEWPORT BEACH AM APR 121994 PM 71819IM111114112131 A6 (714) 548-0769 P.O. Box 15396, Newport Beach, CA 92659 Lic. *406022 April 7 , 1994 Mr. John Douglas City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Douglas, I have lived at 1211 Kings Road since 1989, and approximately 45% of my bay view is obstructed by the six story terrace building. The latest plan offered by the Bay Club takes another 30% . Every time a new plan is .revealed by the Bay Club, the buildings get higher. I 'm sure with all the money and knowledge they have they can develop the Bay Club within the height limits that are in place now. Those limits were established for a reason and it doesn' t do any good to have them if every time somebody wants to break or bend them it is allowed. I would hate to see a precedence set by the Bay Club and have high rise buildings built all along Coast Highway. I have no objection to the Bay Club redevelopment, as a matter of fact, I encourage it, but within the limits of the codes developed and put in place by responsible city officials to stop high rise buildings from marring the Newport Bay skyline. I am strongl gainst any permits issued with any variances to the es- tablished d s in place now. I have a considerable investment in my home, of h' h a large percentage is view. I don't like the idea that my inv tm it is diminished while the Bay Club' s is enhanced. Sin ref , 1 Robe Whitney A Concerned and Worried Resident �" APR, 25 '94, 07.t3 CENTUFy MQUTBBELLO 531 f'0i/0,i • P•2/2 Gary & Pam Woodward 1421 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 22 April 1994 Dear City Counoii/Planning Commission: I have lived in Newport Beach since 1968. What first attracted me to move here was the very special charm and character that has been unique to Newport and its beautiful harbor. I currently .live on Kings Road. I invested. every.- thinq I had to purchase my ocean and bay view property with the expectation that the value associated with the views would not be deteriorated by higher buildings. 'With the one embarrassing exception of the Terrace Apartments, I felt that the city government had demonstrated a long history of preserving the character and charm of Newport by not allowing panoramas to be destroyed. Every neighbor I have spoken with is adamantly opposed to any building height increase in the Balboa Bay Club or Mariner' s Mile a$ well , Please do •not obliterate the efforts of your city predecessors in maintaining the_uni4ueness of Newport. WE DO NOT WANT THIS TO BECOME A MINI-WAKIKI where all you see is buildingst ! ! Thank you for your . consideration. Sincerely 0ary W Mdva)zo JUN 06 '94 06:25 CENTURY MONTCEELLO P.1/1 454M DflffTWOOD Di11VE • PALM OFS5PT,CAU FOMN1A OMW May 31, 1994 Mr. Gary J. DiSano 1840 Leeward Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. DiSano, As Corona del Mar property owners and Balboa Bay Club members,we are urging you to pass the B.B.C.'s new Redevelopment Plan. This plan will increase City tax revenue,greatly expand public access to the property, increase water view corridors,mitigate traffic problems, and increase the appearance of the property from all points of view. The new plan for the B.B.C.is necessary to ensure the availability of first class meeting and social function space for all of Newport Beach's citizens. For over 40 years the B.B.C. has met this challenge fairly and effectively. Increase the quality of life in our city. Increase the City's revenues. Increase access to the Bay. Approve the Balboa Bay Club's new Redevelopment Plan please! Thank-You. Respeectffally, Mark D. Simon Mary Bard Simon L `%%C � (�� LAW OFFICES PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 2603 MAIN STREET ANGELO J. PALMIERI' JOEL P KEW EAST TOWER - SUITE 1300 P. O. BOX 19712 ROBERT F.WALDRON' MICHELLE M.FUJIMOTO IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714-6228 IRVINE, CA 92713-9712 ALAN H.WIENER' ELINOR J.VOTAW ROBERT C. IHRKE' NORMAN J RODICH (714) 851-9400 JAMES C.WILHELM' GARY C.WEISBERG WRITER'S DIRECT DENNIS G.TYLER' MICHAEL H. LEIFER DIAL NUMBER MICHAEL J. GREENE' MICHELE D. MURPHY FRANK C. ROTHROCK' SCOTT R. CARPENTER DENNIS W. OMAN' RICHARD A. SALUS (714) 851-7203 DAVID D. PARR' DOUGLAS M.STEVENS CHARLES H. KANTER' D.SUSAN WIENS TELECOPIER (7141 851-1554 GEORGE J.WALL BEVERLY A CHIN (7141 85I-3844 L RICHARD RAWLS RONALD M. COLE (7141 757-I225 PATRICK A. HENNESSEY CYNTHIA B. PAULSEN June 1 1994 (714) 651-2351 DON FISHER KELLY R. KIMBROUGH GREGORY N WEILER SEAM P. O'CONNOR WARREN A WILLIAMS SUSAN T. SAKURA JOHN R. LISTER TIMOTHY S. GALUSHA BRUCE W. DANNEMEYER KEYVAN SAMINI REFER TO FILE NO. CYNTHIA M.WOLCOTT 'A PROFES]IONAL CORPORATION OP COUNSEL MON THOMAS J. UMBERS E 1 yr 1V nTE IF MEMBER OF THE CALIPORNIA ASSEMBLY EP , PPLANNINGG DEPARTMENT Jim Hewicker :iTY OF NEVIPORT BEAGi1 Planning Commission A City of Newport Beach AM JUN 6 1994 PM P.O. 1768 NewportxBeach, CA 92659-1768 718i9iAJ1i12j1i2i3A5i6 Re: Balboa Bay Club Dear Mr. Hewicker: It is my understanding that the Planning Commission is holding a public hearing on June 9, 1994, at which time the application of Balboa Bay Club for, among other things, a height variance and extension of the ground lease will be heard. As a resident of the City of Newport Beach, I feel that it is in the city's best interest to attempt to work with the Balboa Bay Club in its modernization plans so as to modernize the facility and generate additional revenue income for the city pursuant to the ground lease. Thank you for your careful consideration of the foregoing. Very truly yours, G rg J Wall GJW:lp F:\CORP\580\CORRESP\REWICKER.LTR 06/01/94 1614 Galaxy Drive Newport Beach CA 92660 May 31, 1994 RECE. •W� Mayor Clarence J. Turner Juh, City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. crtrr a� P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach CA 92658-8915 /;. Dear Mayor Turner, Personally, the Balboa Bay Club has been a great help to me in recovering from a tragedy because of the kind of place it is. Countless others have also experienced its sunny character. It certainly is an integral part of Newport Beachfs history as well as its present. It has been and continues to be a happy and safe place where hundreds of people in this community build memories as they come to enjoy this special spot an the bay. This club provides the city with income, provides many people with jobs and provides families with great happiness. It would be difficult to expect more from any business. The Balboa Bay Club has had such tradition in this community and deserves to become all that it can be within its boundaries so that it can continue to serve the city, its members and its employees. Thank you for your consideration. Please share this letter with your council. Sincerely, Mary Dell Barkouras RECEIVED BY Z4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH nor JUN 71994 ts ':r,;xM,.;ger AM PM ci A.,)Wmey 71819110AIUA3141516 �!!,,. ,...u7rl Clr. inlet 3~i is_ . sir G Oilier June 1, 1994 Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca 92659-1768 Re: Public Hearing Notice Redevelopment of Balboa Bay Club Atten; Anne Gifford; Secretary; Dear Anne; Please present to Planning Commisission at the public hearing on June 9th, regarding the proposal of the Balboa Bay Club which includes Amendmednt no 787, a request to redesignate the propert from R-4 (Multiple Residential District) to PC (planned Community District) : approval of a Planned Community Development Plan: approval of Use Permit 3524 which includes a request to allow structues to exceed the 26 ft. basic height limit up to 35 feet average roof height: approval of Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study No. 100 &extension of the ground lease at fair Market value for a period of up to 50 yrs. I am stronly opposed to the all of the above. Primarily due to the fact that it includes extending the height limit up to 35 feet average roof height. To even consider this is absolutely outrageous. It would be devastating to me personnally and negatively affect many of my neighbors and friends. I bought my home almost 20 yrs. ago. I love it and I love my view. How can you without consideration take away all that I have worked and planned for. I am also against the redesignation of the property from R-4 to PC, and to extend the 50 year lease is unquestionably the most unjust decision you can make. Always we were assured that a lease of this length would be put to the people to vote on. Sinc "' C Catcch/herineWhipple RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ''IY OF NE►NPORT BEACH JUN ,� 1994 PM 7�g�gilUill►]2�1�2t3i41516 1 June 2, 1994 Planning Commission 3300 Newport Blvd ry� RUN P.O. Box 1768, c Newport Beach, Ca 92659-1768 ';_� 07 �s Re: Public Hearing Notice Redevelopment of Balboa Bay Club Atten; Anne Gifford; Secretary; Dear Anne; Please submit the following to the Planning Commisission at the public hearing on June 9th,regarding the proposal of the Balboa Bay Club which includes Amendmednt no 787, a request to redesignate said property from R-4 (Multiple Residential District) to PC (Planned Community District): approval of a Planned Community Development Plan: approval of Use Permit 3524 which includes a request to allow structures to exceed the 26 ft. basic height limit up to 35 feet average roof height: approval of Traffic Phasing Ordinance Study No. 100 & extension of the ground lease at fair Market value for a period of up to 50 yrs. Let it go on record that both my husband and I are unequivicably opposed to this. First of all it is unbelievable to even think of increasing the height of any existing buildings. Already there are too many high buildings obstrucitng the views of all citizens and of any and all visitors to our fair city. Does this mean that if this passes all of us will then be allowed to go up an additional 9 ft average roof height than is currently allowed to compensate for the view loss we'll be getting? Will this then have a domino effect and all buildings and business's alike be allowed additional heights.Just where does this all end? We are senoir citizens who moved here 12 yrs ago at which time we paid dearly for our home. We treasure our home, our view, the view from the parks and streets. Now arbitrarily you can take away people's views and destroy what they've strived for this does not seem right. Lastly, to now grant a 50 year lease to the BBC is ludicrous. Always before a lease of this magnitude was put to the people to vote on. Someone said recently that this might have something to do with Measure M but I can't believe that, as we were told in no way would that measure effect our rights as far as The Balboa Bay Club Lease was concerned. In fact this very question was brought up at a City Council Meeting by the then President of the Cliff Haven Association, Sue La Granduer. I certainly trust we were not all mislead in this regard. Many of us here in Newport Beach have grave concerns in all of these regards. I know in the past you have weighed these issues carefully and pray you will continue to j so. RECEIVED BY -� IT DIMPLANNING DEPARTME Sincerely ; CITY OF NFWPORT BEACH�,E-� JTTOG199 rciImen JUP! pµ 6,Eriager uth & Charles ex) Reynolds AM 2 $ 4 5 6" ;ftwnoy 1301 King's Road "118t91�I�1�111 t 1 1 1 ci VA. Dir. u;:,enSery Dir. Newport Beach, Calif 92663 0 T�' & R Dir. cc: City Council Members; Mayor of Newport Beach l a ir.it:t{ Dir N, ice Chief v P.',V. 13ir Ci 04oher RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT fNTY OF NEWPORT BEAU .�...� AM JUN 71994 PM NEWPORT HARBOR AREA 718191101BI1211,12131415i6 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MAY 23 , 1994 WHEREAS, the current lease between the City of Newport Beach and the Balboa Bay Club requires the Balboa Bay Club to submit a modernization plan for their facilities, and WHEREAS, the Balboa Bay Club has submitted plans for the complete modernization of the Club' s facilities, dramatically enhancing its aesthetic appearance and increasing the property value, and WHEREAS, this modernization plan falls well within the scope allowed in the City of Newport Beach General Plan, and WHEREAS, the modernization plan provides for greater setbacks from neighboring residential communities than previously considered alternatives, and WHEREAS, the proposed modernization plan also provides for increased public access to the Newport Bay and accompanying views and vistas, and WHEREAS, the proposed modernization plan will result in greater use by more people generating more gross revenues and in turn more tax revenues for the City of Newport Beach, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Newport Harbor Area Chamber Board of Directors does enthusiastically support the proposed modernization plan presented by the Balboa Bay Club to the City of Newport Beach and encourages the Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council to support this plan. ADOPTED, signed and approved this 23rd day of May, 1994 at the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Newport Harbor Area Chamber of Commerce. NEWPOR BOR AREA CHAMqiER OF COMMERCE r ; Dennis D. O'Neil Chairman of the Board 1470 JAMBOREE RD.•NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660•(714)729-4400•FAX(714)7294417 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEINPDRT BEACH AM MAY 41994 PM 718191MIU112111213141516 8 9/.5' Lru . 27 �,17 Goy a a�� O a� �P r G 47 ./I/1� ✓'✓�a�CoGr�.��7�ioin�so�� >60,2 nd&&tf&eetl fantal✓lw .mil", 0a01w,6 ,,92707-630(9 (714) 545-5904 April 24, 1994 The Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Attention: Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Commissioners: As you consider the plans for the rebuilding of The Balboa Bay Club I urge you to keep in mind both its historic as well as its present-day significance to the life-style of Newport Beach. It's very existence is both the symbol and the bedrock of our community; without it we would lose both and "Newport Beach" would cease to exist. On a more practical vein, The Balboa Bay Club now provides good revenue to the City of Newport Beach. Upon completion of the rebuilding with the addition of the hotel new revenue sources will be generated, and income to the city will increase right along with it (helpful for buying back the services of those police officers the city can no longer afford). The Club management seems to have put forth great effort and considerable expense to accommodate those valid voices of opposi- tion by modifying the building plans as to heights, set-backs, and views, among other things. Of course, there are always those who are "sour grapes", jealous, anti-anything. The Balboa Bay Club is really quite egalitarian, easy to join with just a couple of recommendations required -- no more than a landlord renting his home out in Newport Beach would request from a prospective tenant. If you can't afford the rent you can't afford to rent the house. My real estate broker asks more questions of a potential tenant for my former home (in Newport Beach) than the Membership Committee of the BBC asks of prospective members. So much for accusations of elitism. Besides, when was Newport Beach supposed to be your average, every-day type of city? Is that why ,its residents are here? Is that why you're here? I hope you will approve the plans of The Balboa Bay Club, for the redevelopment of an enterprise benefiting all our city's cI} I gll into the 21st Century. Thank you. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Sincerely yours, "'ry OF NEWPORT BEACF' W. AM APR 27 1994 Milena W. Thompson (Mrs. Malcolm F. ) 7�8�9��IllI�i112t3�415 6 7 e"t"�-,�� C'a4pctotl Clarwp alp , /99� RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM APR 27 1994 PM 718191WIH11211121314016 :Y CHARLES M. JOHNSON 1319 Santanella Terrace Corona del Mar, CA 92625 May 2, 1994 The Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Attention: Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Gentlemen: As a longtime member of the Balboa Bay Club and also a member of their Board of Governors, I would like you to favorably consider the building plans for the Club' s renovation which will be presented to you on May 5th. I am also a resident of Corona del Mar, so the enhancement of my community is of personal interest to me. A lot of planning and effort on the part of the Balboa Bay Club has gone into this project to make it both beneficial to them as well as to the City of Newport Beach. Your approval will be appreciated by all . i cerely, c : Ms . Beverly Ray, Chairman of the Board Balboa Bay Club RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACP AM MAY 31994 PM 71819110111112111213141516 k MARH EVANS --,$?d 26, fqq¢ Pie �anning eommtsston �fy �l�ea,�iocE l�eaa�z �zfton: J�°.nning Lne�iaa6nenE 3300 tau =%df �xt -Beam CfaPlfoanta, 9a558-89,5 �aa e7�emliers cf tPie � g �mmlttlom �s an mKve me�nriex cf tPie'l�a�oa as and aament 2mldenE cf dVclar�wxE aali, t7 stxon A Ewouwgs 7Joux endorsement G f 44 t.Lu4.mPht#fwa fox C'L 12LS. 1�t'iase fa.�e �i� fo�ewln9 �i�Latt Info aon.fl�evnflon w�nn tie _ _ _ lair- .nining (?ommist(on mnvenm: • e�telr �'ias alravl LG dig of GYe<u mt �eaaCi Ln ttt y as a °eaocvn aeweCr among bre alflet cf dA f6nfa; • new ais G Ab g �au1L fid and acst�iefLaa�� aonommti ote4 fate atfrfi • &Ve fsmf6d(i.(ntnts "b h t f. 1"to aontlderatlon; • d"%vEw— D&e"geneaatm Is lno=fant to auxaent and fu&axe a l=waflon #Togaams to our ally; and • M o %sff eNew(io2t ar#i lmw ��e lixovlrfes is rc�ua�y Onfionf..nf to Laing laLtmi to ga aommenlfy aat4re.. gfwar¢ you fm t�aAV Kme mt of your f sy tallea & b aonttdex tPie xedevefo�zt/"`"'v of d. JEU6m ay as. RECEIVED BY �L'ae ✓� PLANNING DEPARTMENT 'rY OF NEVPORT BEACH ax� r�vant AM MAY 21994 PM 31 Ba�a Clampp eoT q 71819Iuhll11Z11121314151Q C�eew/iozE �eaan, c: Q RECEIVED BY Norman Madison Dahl PLANNING DEPARTMENT f rY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1100 Polaris Drive MAY 121994 Newport Beach, California 92660 AM PM 7igi9ilU11111Gt1t%��314i5i6 �: r:ti 4 May 71 1994 Mayor Clarence J. Turner 11Ay �1 1994 qTY gJRK City Hall jOfgFACti 3300 Newport Blvd. '= P.O. Box 1768ii Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Mayor Turner: By way of introduction I am a long time member of this community, having moved to Newport Beach some 34 years ago. In the ensuing period, I have managed a 2,000 plus employee firm and served on numerous boards of di- rectors. Locally, these include the chamber of com- merce, the girl scout council, the 552 club, the Marsden School, and Hoag Hospital and Hoag Hospital foundation. . By virtue of my participation in these many levels of community and business activities, I feel quali- fied to comment on an important matter before this council. The issues involve the Balboa Bay Club. First, I urge you to support the bill removing the BBC Terrace apartments from "Tidelands" restrictions. Your support will avoid tremendous cost and disruption to this long established facility.. "� a.�?��•- ii as �- '-�� `'_�_ .''"• _)fit�Cc:L� �'• ` :� is,'�.!?❑ AL Second, The BBC's need to upgrade and modernize it's facility is a reasonable and responsible business judgement. Broader public access and beautification of the property will provide a greatly enhanced community asset. obviously the economic viability of this endeavor will require a new long-term lease and your support seems most sensible. In an era in California where we need increasing positive support of business by government, I urge you to consider the economic contributions to this community by the BBC: 1. Employment of approximately 250 people. 2. The 1.2 million in taxes, rents etc. , paid last year. 3. The millions of dollars of goods and services purchased locally. 4. The stong public support of proposition M providing for 66 year leases. 5. The unique nature of the BBC, its history, it's positive impact in attracting visitors to our city from all over the world. Thank you for your consideration, Non . 2khP STATE OF CALIFORNIA • • PETE WILSON, Governor GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 April 25, 1994 JOHN DOUGLAS CITY- OF NEWPORT BEACH P.O. BOX 1768 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92659-1768 Subject: BALBOA BAY CLUB EXPANSION AND REMODELING SCH #: 93101052 Dear JOHN DOUGLAS: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call Mark Goss at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Si c el f�I a U ° r � Michael Chiriat i, Jr. Chief, State Clearinghouse RECEIVED BY pLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 28 1994 eM AM 1911gIU1jz11i213I4A6 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH v NOTICIOF COMPLETION and Environmental Document Form To: State Clearinghouse From: Cityof Newport Beath 1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 3300 Newport Blvd.-P.O.Box 1768 Sacramento,CA 95814 NC•apnrtBads,CA 92659.1768 (Orange County) (Tel.No.:916/445-0613), Contact Person John FL Douglas,AICP,Principal Plana 5CH dk - off) 4t-_ - — TcL No: 7141644-3225 lr*dl,.UM 1221 West Coast Highway - Cmnsu,,S, West Coast Highway and Bayshore/Dover Drive TOWAaa 12,59 A3lla Secdoe 27 TeA 6S R W low Bec, Newport Beach vltdnr A0lm ShmHy# 1 W...yr Newport Bay and Pacif z Aimmte R-A-*J= Praaenlitdvae/lwelglGerrd rhalhe Private Club/R-4 Multi le Resi �tia rsd Vine C ent pL cj 6 PmJt"Daatpmn Expansion and remodeling of Balboa Bay Club cil ke a n '" tiation of ground lease with the City of Newport Beach. 5{p1E r,10 CEQA. tl}pe NEPA 0A ❑ N I ❑ JatetDomsat 0 wy� ® (�MdoorrsSCHNN.) ❑ EA ❑ Pta.tDuwmtat ® �DtoM 13 Cuba 0806 O 17 NS1 ❑ Otitr Revised I.AACBt*T)pe ❑ GeaNplan Updoc ❑ SpetilkMa 19 Rnmae ❑ AnaaoNw ❑ Geaad Plu Amadmcat ❑ Mm Phe ❑ Psemne ❑ RedexAoPmat ❑ GmerdtrMEkm a ❑ rtamedUokDc% 9 Use Pamk ❑ ca"tap emit CnmmudtyriLs 0 simpun 13 (aadlahhtoa($w00i.kypp 50 Oth rPlanned pa-4 M&A Troa hUP,etc.) CGmmunity Development Plan tlentepereellype ❑ Red&AdSk Udt_ ces_Aea; wat❑ "FS shks Type MGDOffice:Office:❑ O Sg4t. Aces_Bmgya— 11 Tnegartwom Tyi- ® eommetdatsq.& Aac E=p1q = ❑ Miainp Mtaent ❑ Indu9not SqR_Ana Emplayers 13r.rowe Typo warn ❑ PA.dond ❑ wa Tnatmene type ❑ Rraatiaad ❑ Haardoa Wane ® titter. R t 1 f- ili ti (IL5 t a) rnleel lrasea Dl+covadO DacemeW - - ® Aenhedr/VCud ❑ flood Plan/Floodlag ❑ SehooltRlnrveaida ® Wateraudity, ❑ Avkwtunt land ❑ Faretlar4Fh:Hmrd ❑ Septiesystemt ® WanuSupply/Ground.[" ® AUC)"irf ❑ Geolop/Sehmk ❑ sewercapatiy ❑ wcammptr as ❑ AaheokpaVHhtorlal ❑ W..Is Cl Sed F.tanon/CompaabNGndinr ❑ VA14ire ® Coate Mne I4oise ❑ Solid wane 69 Growth inducing 54 DvdutOZorption Populatlon/H&Alnl;B x ❑ Tc dH=,do" ® land Use ❑ Fmncmic/loa ® PutlkSenitWFm9Ek, ® Tafriaci iatkn N C[muhC.EHem ❑ Feat ® RaaeattoMhdSs ❑ vc&mdon O. Oth" CLLARJMCHOUSS CONTACTS NARK GOSS (916) 445-0613 l71'1' NR Qli' Pitt • rw llssouross state/oonatrer Svcs STATE RLVILW BEGABS 3 - 11 -9t( + soatinq general services �ooAatal Caen _ OLA (schools) • C£PT arV TO AGLNCY1 4 - _ Coastal Conev Cal/iPA Colorado Rvr ad !_ARD AGIMCY M TO !CH i y- ��Z —:Conservation / CA *tests Ngwt id +rlah i Oere_S _ _RNRCrr--Grants SCN L/COMPLIANCE 1 / -� -� _forestry __ _MWRCs1--Delta -_Perko i Mc/Our fiMRcer--Wtr Quality _ _AsclYdion _swacat--Mtr Rights - sCDC _ -Xasg. MQCS I �.:;.7 mR _DT7C/CTC Yth/Adit Correction p[e,At IIOTi s(7 tOf{II a1 ALL l%i�-Ts sus Traaur Moea Corrections Aeronautics �Imlganaent Cur P[a*r POrYRQ tJ-Ts O01YstT9 DIRICTLP ——cup _ __.Ansrgy Come zo :a LYD , NO OQ.1C _XCaltrans 0 _. MAHC -Trans Planning ^PUC —eRouslnq a onval _ _Santa Mn Mtns AQn/APCD1 33 (Resourceat 3 / 12) a"It► a IIelrAre _,• Xstat* Land* Cotrm __Drinking U20 191 Platt _ _Medical Haste i —TahoeOthers _ RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH MICHAEL M.RUANE 4 �NTY O F DIRECTOR,EMA 2 .I, APR 2 41994 THOMAS B.MATHEWS q^� AM PM DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 5 (` // RA N G E 718191IDIu1u111213t41516 �Lf/ AA LOCATION ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGEI CY 300 N.FLOWER ST. PLANNING THIRD FLOOR SANTA ANA,CA MAILING ADDRESS: APR 2 01994 P.O.BOX 4048 SANTA ANA,CA 92702-4048 TELEPHONE: V14)834.4643 John Douglas NCL 94-26 PDPC:834-4772 Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659-1766 SUBJECT: Revised DEIR for the Balboa Bay Club Expansion Dear Mr. Douglas: + The above referenced item is a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of Newport Beach. The project site is located at 1221 West Coast Highway. The proposed project would increase the Balboa Bay Club house facilities from 155,303 square feet to 189,000 square feet. The County of Orange has reviewed �- theDEIR resultiiq i� following comments: CIRCULATION 1. The County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) includes the following arterial within the project study area which is not currently built to its MPAH designation: Pacific (West) Coast Highway; between Newport Boulevard and Dover Drive, The project planning and development should address implementation of this facility consistent with its MPAH designation (Major, 6 lanes divided) . 2. Our previous bikeways comment on the revised NOP has not been addressed in the revised draft program EIR. As noted before, the Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways (MPCB) identifies Route 25, a Class I (paved off-road) bikeway along West Coast Highway. 3. A City "sidewalk bikeway" currently exists along the south side of West Coast Highway adjacent to the project site. We suggest this sidewalk be modified to meet County Class I standards per the MPCB. In addition, safe bicycle access to the project site should be provided. WATER QUALITY 4. Although the mitigation measures #6 and 11-14 on Pages 64-65 seem appropriate to address long-term stormwater runoff quality issues, there is no discussion of the existing conditions or project impacts that logically lead to such measures. 51 John Douglas Page 2 5. The existing water quality in Newport Bay serves a wide variety of beneficial uses, including such uses particularly sensitive to pollution as aquatic life. However, these waters are already officially designated as "impaired" and any further increase in pollutants from new development or more intensive redevelopment could further impact these existing conditions. 6. The mitigation measure for demolition, grading and construction activities associated with the project which have the potential for polluting surface runoff which may contribute to groundwater pollution is listed as item #6, of Section 4.2.3, Mitigation Measures, page 64. The mitigation states that a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be prepared prior to the issuance of a precise grading permit. However, it does not state who shall be the clearing authority. The plan will have to be reviewed and approved by someone. it is important that this mitigating condition be amended to include an approving authority from the City. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the DEIR. If you have questions, please call Kari Rigoni at (714) 834-2109. Very truly yours, r � r ari A. Rigoni, Sr. Pl er FOR: Robert W. White, Manager Environmental Planning Division CH:tk/sah 4042008091859 �iJ P.00R QUALITY ORIGINAL ( S ) e&R2"(34-11:32 CENTURY MbNTEBELLOD1CAL TO 120722417 01 I Ronald 8.Culler 63D xtngs Road infewpaf Beach, CA 92663-5107 ry J. Oi5ano lannlny commission ti40 Leeward Lane lilewport Seach,CA 91WO �. Apd)22, 1994 Clear Mr. 01$ano, As"(Janis of longs Road,my wife and 1 strongly support the new isttx�a�ay Club rEdevelopment plan. We feel that managemeru's new plans carefully take nto consideration Public views as well as concerns of neighbors by maintaining setbacks and ew plains. The Bay Club's rebuilding will provide a greatly improved revenue source on City property. We are Informed by the"Daily Pilot"that property and sales tax revenues provide more than 50%of Our citys income. We think this new plan will be an asset to our neighborhdod and the City as a Whole. This is one very practical and appropriate way to halp avoid the lay L"o1 police and firemen we are presently facing. II 11 would seem,to me,that to discourage a plan such as proposed by the B�'0,at the same time we are cutting police and firemen,is taking a short cut to fiscal and safety SUtoide. An added advantage of approving the BBC project Is the short term amployKaent of hundreds of People and the purchase of millions of dollars in goods and services during construction. It would provide a real shot in the arm for West Coast Highway and for the rt Beach area. here are very few residents of Newport Beach that have not benefited and continue to benefit flom the services and faoilities provided by the Balboa Bay Club. As I understand it the BBC request involves a height request only ane srorvlhraherthen w�is rbw pgrmitted anvwtrere on the bhitf on IGnoa Road, i.e., g fet P,WW demonstrate your common sense and leadership by approving this win-win plan proposed *the$alboa Bay Club. incerely j i I Ii lionald S. Luther y3 TOTAL P.01 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PETE WILSON,Governor EXECUTIVE STATE LANDS COMMISSION APR 281994 1807-13thStreetE LEO T.McCARTHY,Lieutenant Governor AIA Phi Sacramento,CA 95814 GRAY DAVIS,Controller %8AMIU11211121314151B CHARLES WARREN THOMAS W.HAYES,Director of Finance Executive Officer April 25, 1994 File Ref.: G 09-02 SCH 93101052 James T. Burroughs Projects Coordinator The Resources Agency 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1311 Sacramento CA 95814 Attention: Nadell Gayou John H. Douglas, AICP Principal Planner City of Newport Beach P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach CA 92659-1768 Dear Mr. Burroughs and Mr. Douglas: SUBJECT: Revised Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR), Balboa Bay Club Expansion and Remodeling,,EIR N-o,. 152, SCH 93101052 Staff of the State Lands Commission (SLC) has reviewed the subject document. Under the California Environmental Quality Adt'(CEQA), the City is the Lead Agency and the SLC is a Responsible and/or Trustee Agency for any and all projects which could directly or indirectly affect sovereign lands, their accompanying Public Trust resources or uses, and the public easement in navigable waters. The PEIR acknowledges our December 8, 1993 comments to the Notice of Preparation (NOP). The following additional comments are provided to supplement our response to the NOR 1.1.2 Brief Project Description , . r This section states that the Club is located on land leased from the City of Newport Beach. More specifically, the facility is located on sovereign lands which were originally granted to the City of Newport Beach pursuant to Chapter 494, Statutes of 1919, since repealed, and are now held pursuant to Chapter 74, Statutes of 1978. As such, the granting statute is the primary provision of law on the legal uses of the property. C�+� James T. Burroughs John H. Douglas, AICP April 25, 1994 Page Two In addition, the document states that the City is evaluating the extension of ground leases for up to 66 years at fair market value. This is in direct conflict with the granting statute which states that the City ... may lease the lands, or any part thereof, for a period not exceeding 50 years for purposes consistent with the trust ..:.. 2.3 Areas of Controversy/Issues to be Resolved The extent of State tidelands which would be affected by the proposed project is included within those areas of controversy and issues to be resolved. As previously stated on several occasions, the entire area is State public trust lands under the trusteeship of the City of Newport Beach pursuant to Chapter 74, Statutes of 1978. 3.4.1.b. Project Components This section identifies that 4.42 acres leased by the Club are currently occupied by 144 residential apartment units (Terrace Apartments) and states that no changes to those apartments or associated parking are proposed by the project. This area is held under the same lease as the proposed redevelopment area and the City has resolved to convert use of the apartments to visitor-serving lodging no later than December 31, 1998. Given the fact that this project is proposed to be phased in during this time, we question the ability of the Club and the City to deal with issues of public access, land use, and traffic, which for the entire property, are not addressed in this revised draft PEIR. On page 35, the document states that "With the exception of the Terrace Apartments, the entire project site is proposed to be landscaped to enhance the Classical architectural themes of the proposed project." This again points to the failure to deal with the need to integrate the Terrace Apartments in any redevelopment plan for this leasehold. Failure to do so is not consistent with the requirements of CEQA. 4.4.1.b. Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan The PEIR states that in January, 1990, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) re-certified the City's LCP/LUP. It should also be stated that the area of the proposed project remains under the CCC's original permit jurisdiction and, thus, requires a coastal development permit as identified in Table 4 on page 45. 5y James T. Burroughs John H. Douglas, AICP April 25, 1994 Page Three 4.4.2.b.2 Public Access Policies It is stated on page 93 that the existing Terrace Apartments would remain private for exclusive use by Club members. This statement is in conflict with the agreement by the City of Newport Beach and the lessee that this use will be phased out by December 31, 1998. 4.4.2.b.3 Public Property Leasehold Polices Of particular concern among the leasehold policies listed is the one identified in the document on page 96 as Policy 4, Page 8 of the LCP/LUP. This policy states "When tidelands leases are renegotiated, they shall be at full market value and the monies shall be segregated in a separate fund and shall be used for maintenance and related visitor- generated services ..:.. Both the monies and the land uses must be consistent with Chapter 74, Statutes of 1978. Revenues are to be used for purposes consistent with the public trust which includes, but is not limited to, water-related visitor-serving facilities, open space and other authorized trust uses. While the document states that conversion of the Terrace Apartments may not be considered financially feasible, the City and the lessee have obligated themselves to remediate this inconsistent use of trust property and convert it to an appropriate trust use by December 31, 1998. 4.5 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION The PEIR considers impacts to the environment of the project as described. It does not take into consideration the necessity of converting the original Terrace Apartments, which must transpire prior to December 31, 1998. This must be addressed in the EIR for this project due to proximity in location and timeframes for development. 4.8.1 Environmental Settine Again, the document identifies the lands as being owned by the City of Newport Beach without relating its role of trustee pursuant to Chapter 74, Statutes of 1978. James T. Burroughs John H. Douglas, AICP April 25, 1994 Page Four 4.8.2 Project Impacts Prior to Mitigation With regard to the discussion under Local Coastal Program/Land Use Plan on page 126, item number 2 states, "At the time the leases are negotiated or renewed, careful consideration shall be given to the consistency of the proposed use with the public interest. ..". Inasmuch as the City will be looking at the entire property and not just the project site for renegotiating this lease, a resolution of the inconsistent use of the Terrace Apartments must take place. Page 126 contains another reference to a 66-year lease. Please refer to our previous comments above. 9. Inventory of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts The document only inventories those impacts for the limited project and fails to deal with the remainder of the leasehold (Terrace Apartments) which require conversion to public use by December 31, 1998. This failure to consider the Terrace Apartments seriously impacts potential issues relating to traffic, as well as other potential adverse impacts. 11. Bibliography We suggest that a citation be made to Chapter 74, Statutes of 1978, under which the title to this property is held by the City of Newport Beach. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Curtis L. Fossum, Senior Staff Counsel, Southern California Region, at (916) 445-7738. Sincerely tMARiGGS Environmental Services Section Division of Environmental Planning and Management cc: Curtis L. Fossum Nancy Saggese, DAG/LA CPR Z� STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SOUTH COAST AREA ° A 245 W. BROADWAY, STE. 380 ��iJte•IV�.I��1� r P.O. BOX 1450 April 27, 1994 LONG BEACH, CA 90802-4416 PLANNING DEPARTMENT (310) 590.5071 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM APR 291994 PM John Douglas 7A9i11)i1h12i1j2A4A6 Environmental Coordinator City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Beach Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 SUBJECT: Comments on the Revised Draft Program Environmental Impact Report Number 152 (SCH No. 93-101052) for the Proposed Balboa Bay Club Expansion and Remodeling. Dear Mr. Douglas: Coastal Commission staff has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 93-101052) and has prepared the following comments. These comments focus on the conformity of the proposed project with the policies of the Coastal Act, the certified Land Use Plan for the City of Newport Beach, and on the adequacy of the information contained in the DEIR. The Coastal Commission itself has not reviewed the DEIR and the comments reflect the opinion of staff. Our priority concern is that the conversion of the Terrace Apartments from a private residential structure to a public visitor serving facility should have been evaluated in the DEIR. Full conversion of the site to a public visitor serving facility would be a priority use encouraged by the Coastal Act. Additionally, DEIR has not adequately demonstrated that the project proponent has fully mitigated project impacts. Project impacts not reduced to a level of insignificance include public access, public views, and adequate parking to support the expansion. Further, Coastal Commission staff is also concerned that the range of alternatives is too limited. Coastal Commission staff recommends that the final environmental review document address each of the concerns raised below. 1. Description of the Proposed Project The project proponent, as described in the DEIR, proposes to expand the existing Balboa Bay Club facilities from approximately 155,303 square feet to 5V Page: 2 189,000 square feet. The expanded facilities would consist of up to three floors of construction, an increase in the number of guest rooms from 128 to 145, and an increase in on-site parking from 376 spaces to 466 spaces. The total site area is 551 ,034 square feet. No alterations to the types of uses are proposed. The proposal also includes the remodeling and re-landscaping of the existing facilities. No changes to the existing Terrace Apartments or its associated parking are proposed in conjunction with this project. Page three of the DEIR notes that the project also includes the extension of the ground lease for a period of sixty-six years at fair market value. II Coastal Commission Standard of Review When evaluating the proposed project, Coastal Commission staff will use Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act as the standard of review. Under the California Coastal Act the Coastal Commission was established as the State agency for coastal management and regulating development. The project site is located on land held by the City of Newport Beach as public trust lands. Therefore, the Coastal Commission has permitting jurisdiction over the proposed Balboa Bay Club Expansion and Remodeling. The Newport Beach Land Use Plan was certified by the Commission on May 19, 1982. Coastal Commission staff will use the certified LUP as guidance when evaluating the project. III Terrace Apartments The project description in the DEIR notes that the Terrace Apartments were not included in the DIER since the proposed project would not involve any changes to the Terrace Apartments. Yet the DEIR notes that the project also includes the extension of the ground lease for a period of sixty-six years. Coastal Commission staff is concerned that the lease extension is being considered without planning for public use of the residential site. The certified Land Use Plan for the City of Newport Beach states: "At such time as the extension of the lease is negotiated, full consideration shall be given to public access to the site." Therefore, the Terrace Apartments should be considered part of the proposed action and its future use should have been evaluated in the DEIR. This project will be subject to a coastal development permit issued by the Commission. Section 13053.4 of the Coastal Commission's Administrative Regulations states, in part, that: "To the maximum extent feasible, functionally related developments to be performed by the same applicant shall Page: 3 be subject of a single permit application." Therefore, the Terrace Apartments should be considered part of the proposed action and should have been evaluated in the DEIR. The FOR should include the Terrace Apartments. Further, the environmental review process recognizes that known future projects potentially affecting the environmental analysis should be evaluated. The DEIR notes that: "The Balboa Bay Club is transitioning , as a result of the proposed project from being a private membership facility to a visitor-serving commercial" type of land use." The State Lands Commission noted in their letter of December 8, 1993 that "... the Club has agreed by contract with the City to convert use of the apartments to visitor serving lodging no later than December 31 , 1998. .... Since only five years remain to convert this facility, which encompasses almost half of the total area of the Club, the Draft EIR should address this future conversion and its associated environmental impacts as it relates to a major restructuring of the recreational facilities of the Club." Since the conversion of the Terrace Apartments to visitor serving lodging can be expected in the near future, the impacts of this conversion should be addressed in the FEIR. Addressing the Terrace Apartments at this time will permit the development of a comprehensive plan for the entire site. IV Mitigation Concerns A. Parkino: At the Notice of Preparation Stage, Coastal Commission staff identified a potential deficiency of 308 parking spaces based on strictly applying the Commission's parking standards. Commission staff is aware that this figure could be considered inflated based on such factors as shared use and time of day. Parking studies which analyze adjustments to parking demand based on shared use and time of day have been accepted. According to the DEIR, field studies were conducted by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. in 1988 to observe parking characteristics. The parking study indicated that peak parking demand (including curb parking) was 384 vehicles. The site, excluding the Terrace Apartments, currently contains 376 spaces which implies a parking deficiency during peak parking demand. The cited 1988 parking study did not note if the curb parking used was on-site or on Pacific Coast Highway. Coastal Commission parking policies require that new development supply sufficient on-site parking to meet anticipated demand. WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. estimates that the increased parking demand resulting from the project would total 81 spaces. The parking 6d Page: 4 requirement is expected to total 465 spaces, 466 spaces are proposed which would leave an apparent surplus of one space. Coastal Commission staff, however, is still concerned that the parking report of November 10, 1993 by WPA Traffic Engineering, Inc. has not provided an evaluation sufficient to address the on-site parking requirements. Square footage increases in the Administrative, and Athletic Facility have been identified in the DEIR as having only a negligible impact on parking demand. This does not appear appropriate considering the increase in square footage for these two uses. The increase in square footage for the administrative use amounts to approximately 18%. The DEIR did not indicate if the number of employees would or would not increase, but based on the Commission's standard of one space for each 250 square feet, the increase of 1,738 square feet of administrative space could generate demand for an additional seven spaces. The increase in the size of the Athletic Facility will be approximately 33%. The DEIR did not indicate if usage of the athletic facility would or would not increase, however, based on the Commission's standard of one parking space for each 150 square feet, the increase of 4,356 square feet would generate demand for an additional 29 spaces. Though the parking demand of these two facilities has been identified as negligible in the DEIR, it is possible that these facilities could generate the combined demand for an additional 36 spaces. This would leave a potential deficit of 35 on-site spaces using the Commission's parking guidelines. Additionally, Coastal Commission staff notes that one of the project goals is improved public access. This implies that there be sufficient parking to accommodate the general public on-site. Therefore, the potential parking demand created by the general public should be considered To ameliorate parking impacts the DEIR notes that the Balboa Bay Club has 235 off-site parking spaces at the Newport Beach Country Club and 150 spaces at the Balboa Bay Club Racquet Club which could be utilized in conjunction with a shuttle service for special events. Additionally, 185 spaces have also been identified as being available at the Lutheran Church on Dover at 16th Street. These spaces may be adequate to ameliorate parking impacts from the intensification of use, however, the FEIR should document that the off-site parking is surplus parking not committed to other uses and that the use of the off-site parking would not create a parking deficit at the off-site locations. 6t Page: 5 The FEIR provide should a time of day parking demand evaluation, re-examine the negligible parking impact designation for the administrative facility and athletic facility, and take into account the anticipated parking requirements generated by the general public. Coastal Commission staff anticipates that this information will be required when the project is evaluated for a coastal development permit. B: Visual Iml2acts: Visual impacts of the proposed project on public views do not appear to be mitigated. The DEIR has provided an analysis of private views from the homes on the bluffs on the landward side of Pacific Coast Highway. However, the Coastal Act requires that public views be protected and enhanced. Coastal Commission staff is concerned that street level public views from Pacific Coast Highway have not been fully considered and should be further evaluated. The DEIR notes that: "Views from the Coast Highway toward the Bay are primarily blocked by the existing structures and offer only a "peek" view corridor through the project entrance to the bay." The DEIR then goes on to state that: "As illustrated in Exhibit 24, the proposed project will open up views of the Bay from Coast Highway, both at the project entrance and along the easterly boundary of the property. The sitting of the new facilities will increase water view corridors along Coast highway by over 300 feet." Coastal Commission staff is not cpnvinced the proposed visual mitigation will be effective for promoting public views. First, the proposed view corridors appear to be minor openings which let persons traveling in cars or pedestrians have only limited momentary peeks toward the bay. Second, the DEIR in Exhibit 24 appears to indicate that public views toward the bay would still be obstructed and not ameliorated by intervening: vegetation, parked cars (on- site), and an intervening structure (the existing guardhouse). Coastal Commission staff would recommend that the FEIR further evaluate public views from Pacific Coast Highway and further evaluate the visual resource mitigation measures that benefit the public. The DEIR notes that that: "At such time as the extension of the lease is negotiated, full consideration shall be given to public access to the site." With this in mind, public view impacts could be mitigated through a program to encourage public use of the site, removal, reconfiguration, or relocation of the structures blocking views, and re-examining the need for a solid five foot high wall. by Page: 6 V. Range of Alternatives The range of alternatives analyzed in the DEIR do not explore a full range of feasible options. Alternative 2 is the "Reduction in Commercial Square Footage Alternative". Reducing the commercial square footage would result in a reduction of revenues to the City. However, this alternative could also be modified to reduce visual impacts, increase on-site parking, and improve public access to and recreational use of the site through the creation of a beach park and public boating facility. Alternative 3 is the "No Project/Public Access Alternative". This alternative was inappropriately dismissed in the DEIR "since the Balboa Bay Club cannot be required by the City to provide for public access unless new development is undertaken." This statement overlooks two major points. First, that by 1999 the Terrace Apartments are required to be converted to visitor serving residential units. Second, that a new lease is being renegotiated. The Newport Beach Land Use Plan, certified by the Commission, states that: "At such time as the extension of the lease is negotiated, full consideration shall be given to public access to the site. The City which is the trustee for the property should be in a position to modify the lease to promote public access opportunities. Renegotiation of a new lease has been identified as part of the project description for this DEIR. Alternative 4 is the "Off-Site Location Alternative". This alternative has been dismissed as: "The primary objective is to provide for a continuation of the existing uses on the site." However, the current use of the site will be changed in the near future. As noted previously, the Terrace Apartments are required to be converted from private residential use to public visitor serving residential use by 1999. Both the Coastal Commission and the State Lands Commission have requested that this conversion be evaluated in the DEIR since it is expected to occur in the near future. The entire site is publicly owned with the understanding that public use of the site will be promoted. Evaluating an off-site location for the club facility and the Terrace Apartments would be a viable alternative since the project proponent is not the landowner. VI Additional Points Table 4 on Page 45 is a matrix of project approvals. From the manner in which Table 4 is organized it appears that permits from State Lands Commission, Caltrans, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board would be obtained after the coastal development permit issued by the Coastal Commission. The e3 Page: 7 Coastal Commission requires that local and State approvals be obtained prior to submitting the application for the coastal development permit. The DER notes that according to policy four of the certified land use plan that: "When tidelands leases are renegotiated they shall be at full market value and the monies shall be segregated in a separate fund and shall be used for maintenance and related visitor-generated services and acquisition of coastal properties to provide uses consistent with the Coastal Act, such as small boat launching facilities, acquisition of environmentally sensitive habitat areas, and other uses which may be consistent with the tidelands trust provisions." Coastal Commission staff would recommend that this policy be incorporated into the project description for the FEIR and that a discussion of how the funds received from this development could be used in the future to enhance public access and enjoyment of this coastal resource. VII. Conclusion This project contains many positive elements that will promote public access and use of the site. The Coastal Act promotes the establishment of visitor serving recreational projects. The assessment of environmental impacts is a critical step in obtaining a coastal development permit the Coastal Commission. We hope that these comments have been helpful. Should you have any questions, please give me a call at 310-590-5071 . We look forward to receiving this project. Stephen Rynas, AICP Orange County Supervisor b C'm,p-za d-a RaV Ca 9,tG�s '7 - 3—le2 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ITY OF NEWPORT BEACR APR 27 199-1 PY 7I8,gIWIll11211i21314A6 i bti Ilalcoln S7701orr15sorz 10,2 YWIrs Erect cfarr&r .,'r'izrr ,���/zts, �rr�riva9.2707-d"30d' (714) 545-5904 April 24, 1994 I The Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Attention: Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Commissioners: As you consider the plans for the rebuilding of The Balboa Bay Club I urge you to keep in mind both its historic as well as its present-day significance to the life-style of Newport Beach. It's very existence is both the symbol and the bedrock of our community; without it we would lose both and "Newport Beach" would cease to exist. i On a more practical vein, The Balboa Bay Club now provides good revenue to the City of Newport Beach. Upon completion of the rebuilding with the addition of the hotel new revenue sources will be generated, and income to the city will increase right along with it (helpful for buying back the services of those police officers the city can no longer afford). The Club management seems to have put forth great effort and considerable expense to accommodate those valid voices of opposi- tion by modifying the building plans as to heights, set-backs, and views, among other things. Of course, there are always those who are "sour grapes", jealous, anti-anything. The Balboa Bay Club is really quite egalitarian, easy to join with just a couple of recommendations required -- no more than a landlord renting his home out in Newport Beach would request from a prospective tenant. If you can't afford the rent you can't afford to rent the house. My real estate broker asks more questions of a potential tenant for my former home (in Newport Beach) than the Membership Committee of the BBC asks of prospective members. So much for accusations of elitism. Besides, when was Newport Beach supposed to be your average, every-day type of city? Is that why its residents are here? Is that why you're here? I hope you will approve the plans of The Balboa Bay Club, for the redevelopment of an enterprise benefiting all our city's cAMg1%go 1 into the 21st Century. Thank you. PLANNING DEPARTMENT Sincerely yours, :TY OF NFWPORT BEACF' ` O i AM APR 2 7 jygI Mi.lena W. Thompson (Mrs. Malcolm F.) 7���91ID,u��t1i213�4i5i6 bb National Education Corporation 18400 VON KARMAN AVENUE JOHN J McNAUGHTON Founder-Director IRVINE,CA 92715.714/474.9400 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT %iTY OF NFWPORT BEACH April 26, 1994 AM APR 211994 PM 71819PIll1IM121MA6 The Planning Commission 4 City of Newport Beach Attn: Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: Balboa Bay Club Rebuilding Dear Planning Commission: As a member of the Balboa Bay Club, I support the clubs rebuilding plans you are considering. This club has been the center of Newport Beach activities since the 1940s. The city should be proud to have such a fine facility. The current plans were carefully designed to consider the public views of the neighbors from every direction. I support the approval of this wonderful project. Sincerely, o J. aughton JJM:dr THE WORLD'S LEADING TRAINING COMPANY 61 L. FEELEY & ASSOCL4TES, INC. MANUFACTURERS REPRESENTATIVES 5702 ENGINEER DRIVE HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92649 (714)891-2335 FAX(714)898-9112 April 28 , 1994 The Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Attn: Planning Dept. 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA. 92658-8915 RE: The Balboa Bay Club Re-development Gentlemen: We have been residents of Newport Beach for over twenty years. We live in an area with views of the ocean as well as Fashion Island. We are very aware of our community as well as view "etiquette. " My wife and I firmly believe that the new plan for rebuilding the Balboa Bay Club takes into consideration public views. The plan carefully considers the concerns of the neighbors by maintaining set backs and view plans . The Balboa Bay Club adds so very much to our community, not to mention a very strong and dependable revenue source to our City. Sincerely, Laurence P F y REI;EiVI;D BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT '!TY OF NF.WPORT BEACP LF: cjb AM APR 29 1994 PM 718190,11112111z1314A6 k 6� MARK EVANS LJ'e Ltd 26, 199¢ i� RECEi V F pPR ,, ' 1994 C(1Y CLERK � o�rnoxafi� C`���Cuxenae�. �uznee '� kEWpO 1 BE7�CH .Mayor of l4ee n,"'y of tAw#=t aaaP ••�• &.A"" of W. City Caunad SP. 0. Box r768 (}�ecvfsozE Bran 4 C4owla. 9a558-Sgf5 q Yv nn rn v f III o7s an=11 us membsz cf tlss Baflioa. CG.G a ¢ux%rnt 4esLd,�nL c f l�uu/w2t Beaan, J stxodgL Fnaouwgs you% enc&ASMEnt cf LL xeaEv4m 1 gw s fox r7fse 66.G. 9&is a. Erse fo&wzV I—Iub lnb ao"wDem -fZ Epic Yya ntng Commaston mnvznz4: n' • M Cl" nas a .ys 1)eefx an aative I .2tnax W19 LG 4 of OYtIA>�OTt Bean&ire Its m/iaatty as a 'Ctawn wrt' among L4z attle of Cafifomta; • M mew/scan is si4 GeauBfid and o L&11 mMIAn is out fat% airy; • �J gPi otf d di /,owl f vc teen taken into Oat-AL& ation; • Ci LE.venue rM CLb gelsetates Is Lmli henL to au%%znt and)u&u mnsevvatton #zofams In OUT dbj; and • r7f. c7f. C&S#tovidcs Is rqua4 t}n/sart-al 1 II In LjiLng Interest to LL aonmunLty aattve. r7f.ky you foe takig &nm out of you% fwsy sA.Lf.. bo aanst,&% W. %e Lo/isnrnt A., of Lg.. irms . Bay d". rSGsaztsCy, �� I I rJb(a2 Evans - F a nno G. r G '3f Baffma CAves �; •i `~ iU Y?�+7• w S.. :L,�'.•. y dVuvhott Beaa y al ".e:;. b4 M LAW OFFICES TIMOTHY J. SALYER 18300 VON KARMAN,SUITE 700 IRVINE,CA 92715 TELEPHONE(714)955.3200 FAX(714)955.3003 April 27, 1994 RECEIVCD BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APR 2 9 1994 PIA Planning Commission City of Newport Beach �'�8i�i10�111t112131a1518 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Attn: Planning Department Dear Sir: This letter is written in support of the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Balboa Bay Club. ' I have been a member of the Harbor area community since 1963. I have also been a member of the Balboa Bay Club since 1977. I am currently serving on the Board of Governors of the Balboa Bay Club. In addition, I have participated as chairman and co-host of several fund raising events including Children's Hospital of Orange County, the ATSC, Orangwood Home for Abused Children that have sponsored their fund raising activities at the Balboa Bay Club. In addition, I have been a member of the business community for many years and have utilized the services and facilities of the Balboa Bay Club in that capacity over the years. In short, I feel that the Balboa Bay Club is an intricate part of the history of Orange County and more particularly Newport Beach. I have reviewed the Proposed Redevelopment Plans in detail. It is my opinion that the plans provide the best alternatives for all parties involved. Obviously, with any development, there will be impact upon the surrounding community. However, the current redevelopment plane appear to address and resolve the interests of the Ba'lbo'a Bay Club, the Bayshores residents,' the residents im the surrounding cliff areas, and the city itself. More specifically, the plan takes into consideration a method of maximizing public view corridors. The plan alsq respectfully considers the concerns of the Bayshore residents by allowing for a 150 foot 10 The Planning Commission City of Newport Beach April 27, 1994 Page 2 setback and a landscaped "buffer zone. " The plan also provides for public which I understand is required by the Coastal Commission, yet still provides the club members with a designated private area to maintain the integrity of the membership. As most people are aware, the Balboa Bay Club generates an enormous amount of revenue for the City of Newport Beach. I do not see any reasonable objection to the current redevelopment plan. The Bay Club has invested a lot of money and time in attempting to provide a plan that considers the interests of all parties concerned. I do not believe that there is a legitimate objection that can be made to this plan. Therefore, I wholeheartedly endorse the plan, and I urge that the City Council approve it without any major modifications. Sincerely, Timot J. alyer TJS:tm clwpSllrJsllearrslrrdrvrlo.l V CHARLES M. JOHNSON :+ M RE CE'Vrzt'r`\.•. AI d 1994 _ CIYCIENK HBYPoRI BEECN 1319 Santanella Terrace Corona del Mar, CA 92625 May 2, 1994 The Honorable Clarence J. Turner Mayor- of the City of Newport Beach and Members of the City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard i P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Gentlemen: As a longtime member of the Balboa Bay Club and also a member of their Board of Governors, I would like you to favorably consider the building plans for the Club' s renovation which will be presented to you on May 5th. I am also a resident of Corona del Mar, so the enhancement of my community is of personal interest to me. A lot of planning and effort on the part of the Balboa Bay Club has gone into this project to make it both beneficial to them as well as to the City of Newport Beach. Your approval will be appreciated by all . S 'ncerely, c: Ms . Beverly Ray, Chairman of the Board"ti$ �` �°] �+ Balboa Bay Club t:, ,:liil;Efl ID L`I +'�i�?ri1Ry � =': DirWr i Cam+ i 4 }i� . �y May 3 , 1994 John Douglas City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 re: Revised Draft EIR--Balboa Bay Club Dear Mr. Douglas, EQAC, the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee of the City of Newport Beach, has reviewed the revised draft EIR for the Balboa Bay Club and finds it insufficient in a number of areas. WATER QUALITY The swimming beach within the project is adjacent to a large number of boats which may impact the water quality. To insure the safety of swimmers, the following steps should be mandated: 1 . A regular system of water testing 2 . Regular monitoring of the area for illegal disharge from boats. 3 . The skirting of boats when their hulls are being cleaned so that the detritus from the process does not contaminate the area. Mitigation measure #8, p. 64, discusses permanent drainage. It is unclear whether this includes a program to deal with seepage in underground parking, something that should be included. Also, mitigation measure #12 , p. 65 , is insufficient. The City of Newport Beach has a weekly schedule of street sweeping, and a construction site should meet at least that minimum. AIR QUALITY Mitigation measure #3 , p. 60 , lists discretionary actions that "may" be taken. #3a is a requirement, per Mestre Greve Associates Report #93-143 . In the same report, it is noted that #3c, suspending grading operations during first and second stage smog alerts, would have a substantial impact. For these reasons, the discretionary mitigation measures should be mandatory. NOISE LEVELS Mitigation measure #15b, p. 84, states that all operations shall comply with the City Noise Ordinance . The noise ordinance of the City of Newport Beach was enacted so long ago as to make it obsolete. Rather than referring to an obsolete measure, specific maximum noise levels should be listed. Also, given the length of the construction process for this project, mitigation measure 13 BBC-EIR, page 2 419, p. 86 , referring to baffles should be made mandatory. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The public walkway should be extended to the property boundaries on both sides of the property to provide better visual access to the marine environment. (A minority on the committee also takes the position that the beach should be open to the public, ) PROJECT DESCRIPTION The vagueness of the phrase "open fence" makes it difficult to ascertain how effective the proposed view corridors will be from the Pacific Coast Highway. Without an assurance that the views from that corridor will be substantially enhanced, there should be no approval of an increase in building height. WASTE REDUCTION The draft EIR makes no mention of any waste reduction practices recommended for the project. LONG TERM ACTIONS The response to the NOP from the State Lands Commission, 12/8/93 , references the Terrace Apartments conversion in five years and requests that the impact of this be included in the EIR. This issue was not addressed and should be. Finally, because the requested lease period of the project is so long (66 years) , there should be a provision that allows the City of Newport Beach to require future accomodations that may be necessary to mitigate possible unseen future impact of this project. /f Cordially, arbara Shelton Chair, EQAC Iq RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT i h47 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM MAY 41994 pm 7181911di111121112131446 9a6 '58 -8f45- �o� Cam. ..�� ��..� /���z-�-� PAUL T. SALATA 3100 AIRWAY AVENUE, SUITE 124 COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626 (714) 556-0353 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT :ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AM MAY 41994 PM 71819AU02i1i2j3i4i5i6 May 3, 1994 The Planning Commission CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Atlas: Planning Department It is my hope that you will favorably consider the plans for rebuilding the Balboa Bay Club. The Club has been particularly sensitive to public views and the concerns of their neighbors in preparing these plans. The Balboa Bay Club has always been an integral part of Newport Beach, providing a strong and dependable revenue source. Your consideration of this proposal is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Paul T. Salata PTS:pt -fib MAY 04 '94 10:29 CENTURY MONTEBELLO P.2i2 all Kings Road Newport Beach, CA April 50, 1994 Gary J. Disano Planning Commissioner 1040 Leeward Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Aisanoo 1 would li4.e to comment on the Balboa Bay Club 's redevelopment plan. The proposed plan was presented -to us at a meeting -For the Club 's neighbors„ My wife and ! live on Kings Maud overlooking the site. Although we are not Balboa Bay Club members,, we feel the project would have a very positive affect by opening ttp views of the bay. The bay view corridors would be Striking not only from our livirigroom but also -to the many residents who walk Kings Road and view the bay from the space between Our houses. _ With a second story restaurant open to the publics greatly oxpanded bay v:ieiom, and rent from -this City properly, the facility will be a ww•icome impretvr_'inent along Mariner 's Mile. please support the project to modernize the Balboa Bay Club. rler�y truly yours, REur.NED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ;ITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1-rank Pei kert f� AM MAY 41994 PM 71819110111112111213141516 , a A. �J LAW OFFICES PALMIERI, TYLER, WIENER, WILHELM & WALDRON A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 2603 MAIN STREET ANGELO J PALMIERI' ELINOR J VOTAW EAST TOWER - SUITE 1300 P. O. BOX 19712 ROBERT F.WALDRON' BRUCE W DANNEMEYER IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 927WG228 IRVINE, CA 9 2 713-9 712 ALAN H.WIENER' CYNTHIA M.WOLCOTT ROBERT C. IHARE' JOEL P MEW (714) 851-6400 JAMES E.WILHELM' MICHELLE M. FUJIMOTO WRITERS DIRECT DENNIS G TYLER' NORMAN J. RODICH DIAL NUMBER MICHAEL J GREENE' LORI M. DAVIES FRANK C. ROTHROCM' GARY C WEISBERG (714) 851-7203 DENNIS W. GHAN' KEITH A. LAUFER DAVID O. PARR' MICHAEL H. LEIFER CHARLES H KANTER' MICHELE D. MURPHY TELECO PIER 17141 851-1554 GEORGE J. WALL SCOTT R. CARPENTER (714) 8SI-3844 L RICHARD RAWLS RICHARD A.BALLS May 2, 1994 (714) 757-1225 PATRICK A HENNESSEY DOUGLAS M.STEVENS (714) 851-2351 DON FISHER D.SUSAN WIENS GREGORY N WEILER RONALD M. COLE WARREN A.WILLIAMS ROLAND P REYNOLDS JOMN R. LISTER CYNTHIA S. PAULSEN REFER TO FILE NO. 'A PROFESSIONAL CORPOR..TIBN OF COUNSEL MON. THOMAS J. UMBERO MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MY OF NEWPORT BEACH Hon. Clarence Turner Mayor, City of Newport Beach AN MAY 41994 PMP.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92659-1768 718191MIllQ2111213141516 Re: Balboa Bay Club Dear Mayor Turner: As a longtime resident of the City of Newport Beach, I would like to urge that the expansion plans for the Balboa Bay Club be approved as rapidly as possible. For a number of years I lived in Bayshores and have recently moved within the last year to Galaxy Drive in Dover Shores. I feel that both Beverly Ray and Dave Wooten have attempted to address the various concerns which have been raised by various homeowners and that the compromise development plan which they are now submitting represents a good faith attempt on their part to address the concerns which were previously expressed. The Balboa Bay Club has been one of the principal landmarks and symbols of Newport Beach over the years and the present owner of it should be afforded the opportunity to modernize the facility. Any modernization will also be a direct benefit to the city and to adjacent property owners as a result of the increased property values which will result. Additionally, since the Bay Club is located on leasehold land from the City of Newport Beach, it is important from my standpoint as a resident of the City of Newport Beach that the city do everything it possibly can to maximize the value of that leasehold interest and I feel this would best be accomplished by allowing the Bay Club to redevelop and modernize its facility. 7� PALMIERI,TYLER,WIENER,WILHELM &WALDRON Hon. Clarence Turner May 2, 1994 Page 2 Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the above matters. Very truly yours, Wes` GA Wall GJW:lp cc: im Hewicker, Newport Beach City Planning Department P. O. Box 2990 Newport Beach, California 92658 April 25, 1994 RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ',l I Y OF NEWPORT BEACIJ AEI MAY 21994 PM 7i8A10111112111213A5i6 The Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92658 Attention: Planning Department Dear Chairman and Members of The Planning Commission: I have lived in the city of Newport Beach for 24 years and have been pleased with just about everything the city has had to offer throughout the years. During this time I have been a member of the Balboa Bay Club for approximately 20 years. I have reviewed the proposed plans of The Balboa Bay Club for rebuilding and am very impressed with what they are proposing to do. I think the buildings will be an asset to the city as well as the club. It is another nice feature that makes our city so distinctive. Having been in the building business for approximately thirty years, I can honestly say I am very impressed with the care and empathy they have exhibited in taking the publics' view into consideration as well as set-backs in other sensitive areas. There is no way a program of this nature is going to make everyone happy, but the benefits in revenue to the city and the club should be an overwhelming factor in your support of this fine project. ahothat ou will see yourself in approving this excellent project. anulias and Marilyn H. Gianulias JCG/jw g� APR 25 '94 12:17 CENTURY.MONTEBELLO g 714 966 1829. OMC 'CRANE P.2/2 01 April 256 1994 Dear Council Person: As residents al Newport Beach, we want to any rezoning allowing increaood heights on Pacific Coast Highway, STOP the rezoning 01 the terrace building and STOIC these catastrophic changea that will bene3lt few and hurt many, We want our view corridors preserved. Th you, Da ielle d Richard Dorris 1201 , r, Newport Beach 92663 646-7145 �i) Pat Michaels 816 Gardenia Way Corona del Mar, California 92625 (714) 76"048 April 27, 1994 Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 Dear Members of the Commission: I first joined the Balboa Bay Club while a young journalist in 1956. Over the years, I have seen it occupy a principal, central role in our community. It is the nucleous of our commercial and social life. I know of no local charity that has not benefited from its functions at the Bay Club. Today, as a businessman, who is active in the community, I still attend at least two and sometimes more community or service club events or meetings at the Bay Club each week. This has been true for the past twenty years and more. Where the Bay Club is the heart of our business and social life, it is my hope and request you will give approval to its rebuilding plans. The current Club needs the face-lift, redesign and new facilities proposed. Our community needs it as well. Your consideration is deeply appreciated. Sin y, / P Michaels RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 'iTY OF NEWPORT BEACN AM MAY 21931 PM 718191101911211121314A S CONSULTING SCIENTIST & ENGINEER 801 Kings Road Newport Beach, CA 92663 (714) 650-5379 Newport Beach Planning Commission May 4, 1994 Newport Beach City Hall Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Planning Commissioners: I am writing to express my support for the recently proposed expansion and remodeling plan for the Balboa Bay Club, which is currently under review by the Planning Commission. As a Newport Beach resident, who will be impacted by the proposed plan, I applaud the Balboa Bay Club for providing the expanded view corridors for the viewing pleasure of those of us who have permanent residences overlooking the bay, as well as for providing a second-story restaurant for the dining pleasure of the public. S' cerely yours, W ' W. Gary Sokolich �3 W.F. Bonner 11282 Butte Falls Highway Eagle Point, Oregon 97524 (503) 865-3373 ripe 'a '�%AN; MAY 5, 1994 THE HONORABLE CLARENCE J. TURNER MAYOR OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL 3300 NEWPORT BLVD. NEWPORT BEACH CA. 92658 DEAR MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS: AS FORMER NEWPORT BEACH RESIDENTS WHO NOW LIVE IN OREGON AND WHO STILL VALUE THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN THE BALBOA BAY CLUB, PLEASE BE WHENDWESED ARETHAT WE VI'SITINGLWAYS MAKE IT A SO. CALIFORNIA.POWET TO ENJJOYTAY THEAHOSPITALITY BAY LUB AND THE LOCATION AND HOPE THAT YOU WILL ALLOW THE BAY CLUB TO RENNOVATE AND IMPROVE THE BUILDING STRUCTURES. WE HAVE REVIEWED THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS AND CANT UNDER- STAND WHY ANYONE WOULD LOGICALLY DISAPPROVE OF SUCH UPGRADING FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE COMMUNITY. THE GENERAL PUBLIC SHOULD APPRECIATE WHAT THE BALBOA BAY CLUB HAS PROVIDED TO THE NEWPORT BEACH AREA AND ITS CITIZENS WITH ITS STRONG AND DEPENDABLE REV- ENUE SOURCE TOGETHER WITH A NICE CONVENTION AND FAMILY_ORIENTED FACILITY. PLEASE TAKE THIS AS A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE REDEVELOP- MENT OF THE BALBOA BAY CLUB . THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. S,IjN,CERELY, %r y y� n� 60-7,r tA C1 c.'.c' N'T Tfk- W. F. BONNER ;/ayar. PEGGINS BONNER Cciundinerr Ca I�cin�uer CC: THE BALBOA BAY CLUB C.; A.rttrney El Bids Dir. ry Dir. ❑ ' , & RDir. PIS„tti;:2 Dir• � f'o'r;,Ce Chief• Cfi P.iV..D Ir 0 Wier 4.-:)Nazi4yn 4:5:1NOWSTY 2221 Marselina Tustin CA • 92680 P(7 k27,716�I r co RECEIVED MAY 12 1994off COK �- May 6, 1994 CRY OF Clarence Turner _ P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 Dear Mr.Turner: As a member of the Balboa Bay Club, I am requesting that you vote for the approval of the new long-term lease which will allow the Club to make the necessary additions and improvements that are so badly needed. Newport Beach has gradually, over the years, made a name for itself all over the world as a world class resort destination. In order to maintain this reputation it is imperative that the city planners show a progressive (not regressive) attitude with regard to the quality of establishments that line its very special coast line. Yes, there is a need for accessibility for the general public to the beaches, etc.(which the new Club plans address very well). There is also a need for a quality private Club which adds to the prestige of the city. As you know, most every city in this country has one or more private clubs, not for the purpose of excluding others but for the purpose of giving those who wish, a place to gather in a relaxed manner and also for the use and pleasure of out of town visitors. I would also remind you of the employment it provides as well as the millions of dollars of goods and services that are used locally. I'm not sure of the dollar amount of the rent, city tax and sales tax that the City benefits from, but it would have to be significant. It is hard to imagine that the Planning Commission would be willing to lose this revenue. I believe the new plans for the Club have been very sensitive to the objections and needs of the nearby residents. It is hoped that these residents will realize that the new Club will be an asset to their community and that the Planning Commission will allow the Club to proceed with the improvement and beautification of that part of Coast Highway. Sincerely yours, { ; >k yocttmen lt-C ' �a na�er C3 �torney Marilyn(Mowery C �' Dit, [j ia`wiY✓a 9tC. LSput;c� � PM- 0(Mier G GROWERS &SHIPPIERS C ��r /0- lir� p 6 P.O.BOX 226 RIVERSIDE,CA 92502.0226 (909)686.2422 P� P a MA ft�CIEftK �� May 6, 1994 Mr. Clarence J. Turner Mayor City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Mayor Turner: As a member of The Balboa Bay Club, I respectfully ask for your consideration and support of the Club's redevelopment plan. The Balboa Bay Club is respected the world over as a first class facility. The Club provides over 250 jobs and is a significant financial contributor of taxes to the city. I believe the continued success of The Bay Club is extremely important to the entire area. Sincerely, Thomas L. Mazzetti xv G i' JR Dir. in, nir:gDif Poll,ce chi Wer g (° 'tiwP '''.,""fit� `�S"�'�"�C/�.L Cu.x-cU U•ZJL4y �C�-ti-�� t'''-�-�' • 1) - v'C'-'%^�-�-� ,LwG't2-a.,a�. "ViJC.e-e<X, ✓2.Q,1-w4 i !r v.... u J rTa �, F ror i'*-!'�tcllns en RECEIVED MAY 111994 t i :,iiOrtley ply t= nen'4kry Dir. R Dir. RECEIVED BV Qc" �. Piazlr.irg Dir Chief PLANNING DEI NI` ' .1 . €air rITY OF NEWPORT BEACH a Giber AMMAY 12 1994 p� 71S191�Iu11�►112f3141516 8� May 6 , 1994 Thi letter is being written to ask for your positive thinking and support for the B.B.C. 's modernization plan. I would also ask you to understand this letter is coming .from someone who, never thought of becoming a member, until I had the opportunity to join. I also believe it is one of the best investments I personally have made. It is a very real source of pleasure, daily, for me, my family, and my friends. I believe, after fourty years of residence in Balboa, the B.B.C. , like the Irvine Co. , has always been a first class facility for our city, for all to enjoy, at a minimum cost. I know you are aware of the guaranteed revenue the B.B.C. annually brings to our city, and this will continue to increase as the years pass. Also the number of people the B.B.C. employs. Is there any other organization, of any size, that enhances our city' s financial picture as much? For so little, for years to come! Somethina I have never understood is; how, any property owner, lessee or renter can have a voice in "Visibility Obstruction" from another owner, lessee or renter, as long as the person who occupies, said property, fulfills city code requirements. Suppose, this visibility thinking was in effect, when the inside owners of property on Lido, or the Balboa peninsula was being developed. The owners of the unobstructed views pay for themr,, initially through revenue to the city, in purchase price or high lease cost, with the city' s blessing. If you have any questions I am available at (714), 675-3391 Thank you for listening in e r e 1 y qi 2 o Joseph R. Grothus MAY 11 '94 09:13 CENTURY WHEEL- W/S P.1/1 • ew 1 Il I CORONA DFL MAR ANIMAL HOSPI1'A1. (H4b E.COAOT HIOIIWAv CORONA OBL MAR,rAWMAT.'IA s:0as A Tl6grnun[044.41E0 ASSOCIA �J Oft.W n,MANCV.RK � v9tenlnAA1AN MRY 11 '94 09t13 CENTURY WHEEL W/S P.2/1 NSOuDATCD <OW4 jNSU COUN ANCEA Y INSURANCE AG£NClFSr INC.. CORPORATE OFFICES MAY 61 1994 16253 Laguna Canyon Road $00190 Irvine,California 92718 GARY U. DISANO PAX71414S 1840 LEEWARD LANE FAX71414590601 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 • MEMBER AGBN= •:.-:.._:--.:...,•:......._ -C'tElauetflYYt7rBan'i.-- ❑Freraran&Feared I ❑Gelker G Rohrer am writing to you because you 'are a member Of the 0McFarlannd&Aesoelates Newport Beach Planning Commission. While my name may not 0RobertD.swank 6 be too familiar to you, I am a lifetime (over 60 years) Aesac ales resident of Orange County. I started living in Newport Beach in Iv7Z. x have 1rGGl'l inouring Newport buainsagoo since 1959. My son was born at Hoag in 1975. I stayed here because I love it here as, I am sure, you do too. One of the many amenities and great traditions of the area is the Balboa Bay Club. The "Bay Club° is scheduled to have it's lease extension and redevelopment plan considered by you in the next few weeks. My purpose here is to urge a positive response to their requests. I want to preserve and improve the tradition that is the Balboa Bay Club. Class is a tough word to properly define, but I feel the Bay Club epitomizes the tradition and the class that is Newport Beach; not only locally but internationally. dial , f William R. Atkinson BRANCH OFFICE 2920 E.17dn Street Saite240 5antaAna,California 92701 7141541.5595 (1 b FAX 7141541.5597 RECEIVED BY Norman Madison Dahl PLANNING DEPARTMENT ':rY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1100 Polaris Drive AM MAY 121994 PM Newport Beach, California 02800 7i819j1U11111L1112131415i6 :. May 7, 1994 �` j RECEI9 99 Mayor Clarence J. Turner City Hall %a xEw a0�0 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Mayor Turner: By way of introduction I am a long time member of this community, having moved to Newport Beach some 34 years ago. In the ensuing period, I have managed a 2,000 plus employee firm and served on numerous boards of di- rectors. Locally, these include the chamber of com- merce, the girl scout council, the 552 club, the Marsden School, and Hoag Hospital and Hoag Hospital foundation. . By virtue of my participation in these many levels of community and business activities, I feel quali- fied to comment on an important matter before this council. The issues involve the Balboa Bay Club. First, I urge you to support the bill removing the BBC Terrace apartments from "Tidelands" restrictions. Your support will avoid tremendous cost and disruption to this long established facility. 5 r Second, The BBC's need to upgrade and modernize it's facility is a reasonable and responsible business judgement. Broader public access and beautification of the property will provide a greatly enhanced community asset. Obviously the economic viability of this endeavor will require a new long-term lease and your support seems most sensible. In an era in California where we need increasing positive support of business by government, I urge you to consider the economic contributions to this community by the BBC: 1. Employment of approximately 250 people. 2. The 1.2 million in taxes, rents etc. , paid last year. 3. The millions of dollars of goods and services purchased locally. 4. The stong public support of proposition M providing for 66 year leases. 5. The unique nature of the BBC, its history, it's positive impact in attracting visitors to our city from all over the world. Thank you for your consideration, A", ,eP Norman M. qv MAY 12 '94 07:58 CENTURY MONTEBELLO P.3/4 t RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ^1TY OF NF.WPORT BEACH post Office Box 8226,Newport 8each,California9-5m •(714)956.3033 THE TARNUTZER COMPANIES , INC . MAY 121994 FN 71819 i014112111213AA6 Mayo, 1904 Mr.Tod Ridgeway 1400 West Say Avenue Balboa, Calltornla ami Dear Tod: I am writing this letter to you in support of the now redevelopment plan submitted by The Balboa Bay Club Hot will soon he considered by the planning commission. As you know,I have spent virtually all of my adult 190 as a resident of Newport Beach and members of my family have been long term members of the Balboa Bay Club. We believe this plan shows a strong sensitivity to both the raskwnm of Newport Beach as a whole and to Hie neighbors In particular. As residents of Sayehores we are very appreciative of this, particularly,in Ilgnt of what we Consider to be the very positive changes that have been made to the plan. My wife Shannon and I feel very strongly about the contributions the club makes to the community In the form of community aorvioea,employment,and r¢vcnuc,all of whloh will bo groatly ont,anood bythe design and format cif the new facilities wax Italy are completed and operational. our opinion is that something must be worked out as to the club's future development. Converssly we believe the alterimlive of either doing nothing or ultimately turning the property into a park are completely unacceptable from a Socio- economic viewpoint Insofar as the city and its residents are concerned. The commissions favorable consideration given in a timely manner wottld be very much appreciated. Thanks for your help,and I hope all is going well with you. L Qroly yotire, Byron M.Tarnutm cc: Clarence J.Turner Thomas Edwards Norma Glover Jean H.Waft Harry O, Merrill Gary J. DISano Anne Gifford Gary W.Pomeroy Kevin J.Murphy John C. Cox,Jr. Jarrioe A. Debay Phil Sansone Evelyn R. Han John W.'Hrdges �3 .MAY'12 '94­07 58 ZifNYURY Mb ftbtLL '';'r"'n':5; , r!. • r n g .Y:• iel�iJ nS l r, ••P.2/4 May 9, 1994 RECEIVED BY Mr. Harry 0. Merrill, Chairman PLANNING DEPARTMENT Newport Beach Planning Commission "TY OF NEWPORT BEAU 25 Montecito Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Al MAY 1 21994 PM Dear Mr. Merrill: 718191w1IM411Z13A1516 I am writing in sincere, unrestricted support of the present expansion plans of the )� Balboa Bay Club. To validate my qualifications for doing so, please accept that: I am a licensed architect whose practice has been located in Newport Beach for over 20 years. I have been a homeowner in Newport Beach for over 13 years. I am greatly aware of-and concerned about- the overall environment and design quality of my City as evidenced by my recent participation irk the Balboa Island Citizens Committee that.succeeded in greatly uPgrading the design of the now Island fire station (which, by the way, is looking great and will be a real asset to the Island and the City). • My family, my business and I have utilized the facilities of the Bay Club for many years, both as members and non-members. To get back to the subject, I have reviewed the plans being proposed and find them to be a sensitive,very well designed solution to the much needed upgrading and renovation of the Ray Club. The Ray Club has long been a community asset, and as a homeowner,I much appreciate the significant tax contribution and job base the Club provides to the City. I have viewed the site from the Kings Road neighborhood and see no potential for view impact, if anything, an onhanced aesthetic overview with much enhanced landscaping, It is essential,that the Bay Club be permitted both to carry out this program and to obtain an extended lease if it is to remain a viable, contributing asset to the City of Newport Beach. I urge the Planning Commission to give favorable,consideration us the Club's redevelopment plans in their entirety when they come before you in the near future_ Sincerely, Walter J. Richardson PAIA 107 Crystal Avenue Balboa Island, CA 92662 WJR1alh CC" Members of City Council Members of Planning Commission City Manager ftle 46 it Teller Beach AV,� RHun a alphrJ Martin,AICPFAIA Cal Newport 92660 Avenue Ladle 0.Pcmohn,AIA 714 • 752 • 1a00 ARCHITFCTtIRF• PI ANNINC Maureen L. Rtwd FAX 714.833.960.9 _l THE Chilay JERRY F.MURDOCK COAPOAATIAN Chalrman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer May 10, 1994 �� I ^�� , The Honorable Clarence J. Turner W-A L ` . City Hall ��• � ,�r_., PO Box 1768 �' �•' Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Mayor Turner: I am writing to you in response to The Balboa Bay Club' s redevelopment plan. I would like to share with you that my company, Chilay Corporation, based in Orange County, has used the club for business purposes for many years. We have always arranged for our customers and business associates to stay at the club, which they seem to enjoy since it is a more relaxed atmosphere from most hotels. We also use the facility for business meetings and special functions. In summation, the club has been a very big part of the growth and success of Chilay Corporation. So many people see the club as an important land mark as well as a very vital part of many businesses in the community. I hope you will keep this in mind when it comes time to study the lease extension and building permits needed for the redevelopment plan for The Club. Thanks so much for taking the time to read my letter. Have a great day! i ,,, Sincerely, r• rZ:-AC f:���T1`E3: _.. u ayv( t , u :�recfl:ey L: iC4i(el. O1(. er}y >�r1dock R Mr. "rl�rf.�f;1 Dir Mot c Beverly Ray (��, Br CORPP[�TE��T7�c17 f��r�j T(j�711�ENUE/ANAHEIM,CALIFORNIA 92807/7 !6 332 Gy May 10, 1994 Honorable Clarence J. Turner _3 Mayor ° City Hall `-'� 3300 Newport Boulevard ;,4 PO Box 1768 crrrc�h> Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 ue+Ciro?1poln Rcu Dear Mayor Turner, As a concerned California citizen, and neither a resident of Newport Beach nor a member of the Balboa Bay Club, I became aware, recently, of a redevelopment plan being proposed by the Balboa Bay Club for the site that it leases from the city of Newport Beach. I was impressed by the substantial balance that plan exhibits between the needs of the public and private entities . In addition to the significant revenue, employment and local purchase dollars that accrue to the benefit of Newport Beach, the plan continues a substantial business enterprise that contributes to the image and prosperity of Newport Beach. Failure to extend the lease to the Balboa Bay Club would, in my mind, present the city of Newport Beach with many problems of land management, maintenance and cost at a magnitude now unknown to the city. I would urge the city to renew the lease for the Balboa Bay Club, consistent with the interests addressed in the Club' s redevelopment plan, in a manner equitable to all parties . As a resident of Oceanside, California I have had the privilege of being a guest at several Balboa Bay Club functions. Sincerely, Peter H. Kaufmma� 3863 Cornell Drive Date Oceanside, CA CA 92056 C )V;ES, SMTTOt V.1 Sf.J.!V ; -Pr, n-„,ci!men i:i F.ttcrney Cs „;;r:�ary Dir. Q y° • R Dir. IV, filr Dir rt YeiiiCs'. l:i•i8f Cl Mer FLETCHER JONES LEASING NEWPORT BEACH May 10, 1994 REUIVED Mayor Clarence Turner MAYW 1LP K1994 P. O. Box 1768 NlraOF ,, Newport Beach, CA 92658 c < Dear Mayor Turner: — Soon the Newport Beach Planning Commission is scheduled to consider the new redevelopment plan as well as an extension of the The Balboa Bay Club's land lease with the city., As a long-standing friend of The Bay Club, I wish to voice my strong support for its adoption. This excellent plan will provide both financial and aesthetic benefits to our community. Some of which are as follows: * The Balboa Bay Club has a rich history of service and giving to our community. * Provides over 250 jobs directly. * Plus uses, locally, millions of dollars in goods and services. * Has a world-wide recognition and a first-class reputation. * Attracts visitors to Newport Beach from all over the world. * Contributes 1.2 million in revenue to the city in taxes, rent, and percent of sales. * Adds to the revenue of other businesses, suppliers, restaurants, automobile dealerships, etc. in the area, thus generating more tax dollars for the city. The Club is a very important part of our lives in Newport /'// Beach and with all of its rich history, it is a tradition wortli.- preserving. I again urge you to support the plan. L j E8 MTV. ! yur Respectfully, VCmmilmen 0 Manager tt f kticrney Uir. Cf ii 'a`0ry Dir. Kirk Dawson c� & i{ Dir. Leasing Manager Piannh: Dir 0PcSse Chief q1 1301 Quail Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660 0 714/833.9300 800/927-3'576 • FAX 714 ,CQI57 JOHN C. PETRY ATTORNEY AT LAW 1, 2699 WHITE ROAD, SUITE 150 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 TELEPHONE (714) 222-5775 FAX 17141 560-e008 �• y _�1,�a '� 1��� _May 10, 1994 Dear Planning Commission/City Council Member: This letter is intended to confirm my strong support for the Balboa Bay Club's new Redevelopment Plan which will be presented to the Newport Beach Planning Commission in a few weeks. I believe the Plan as modified represents a project that is both reasonable in scope and a strong asset to the City. I have been a member of the BBC for approximately 20 years and have enjoyed it along with my family and friends a great deal. I respectfully request that you vote affirmatively for the Plan when it is presented to you. If you have any questions please feel free to call me. V trul y tf7, yJn . Petry JCP:sr cc: Kevin J. Murphy Beverly Ray Lw. ;^ �-14 Oki ';M,fs NarTO: �r .,• �r ;���:;c;!men i� i::�larer � �tt;xrnay Ci 23�g. Cyr. ['] yJr is Dir. r flinrin. clic° Chief ?!;a. air Caner REGEV',' ray " �.4 ♦Y CITY Cu• CITY ti' •� NEWP It May 11, 1994 Clarence J. Turner, Mayor City of Newport Beach P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach CA 92658-8915 Dear Mayor Turner: The City of Newport Beach and the people living in and around the City need the business generated by the Balboa Bay Club. It is under excellent management and needs to be refurbished and updated. Therefore, I urge you to vote "yes" on their proposal and extend their lease. We already have the best beaches and parks and should not give up the CityIs income from this property for more beaches that we do not need. VerV yyyuly yours, Philip H. McNamee 3612 Ocean Boulevard �r3 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Nptre .,. ._ V TO: PHM:at U Avorlicy Rini"). air. V Dir. py7 i; Dir. Piarn;:�yi fir S:1 Fa;i ; Chiof Ct P.W. ; ir t i 0h1 er IN1\ f' O MAY i6 '94 005:556 CENTURY MONTEBELLO P.3/6 1�f' Cplt/.FY/Aj Co?�Aldl� 0/�s06 May 120 1994 Mr. Gary J. DiSano 1840 Leeward Lane Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. DiSano: I am writing this letter on behalf of the Balboa Bay Club's redevelopment plan which the Planning Commission will be considering in the near future. I have had a summer-weekend home in Newport Beach for many years and regularly use the Club' s exer- cise facilities as well as its fine dining-room which is ideal for entertaining business clients. The Balboa Bay Club is extremely attractive, em- ploys a considerable number of people and must contribute substantially to the City in amounts of goods and services used. I think it is a great asset to the City of Newport Beach and believe it merits your approval of the redevelop- ment plan. Sincerely, JA IQ� May 12, 1994 C(Pf CLERK cITY oP NEWPORT BEAD• Mr. Clarence J. Turner, Mayor City Hall 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Mr. Turner: I would like to take this opportunity to appeal to you to support The Balboa Bay Club's new redevelopment plan. As you know, the redevelopment plan is scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission in a few weeks. The City of Newport Beach benefits greatly from the operation of the Club through an annual land rental fee, sales tax, property and sewer fees. Last year alone, the City received over $1.2 million in revenue from these sources. Based on preliminary studies, under the redevelopment plan the City of Newport Beach would stand to gain even more financially. Please don't forget that currently The Club provides over 250 jobs. Additionally, this redevelopment face lift will beautify a major focal point in the City of Newport Beach. This will also contribute to the tourist and business conference industry which adds valuable tax dollars to our city. I urge you to support the redevelopment plan. Best Regards, -I'L JA/ Mike Veloz 1941 Windward Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 t��zr�J C✓L'iti1�V a�iUb�ren ;M1.ttarsteY MV/ly =,&Wi :3 policeeir otter 101 U 1912 Leeward Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 May 13, 1994 ' Hon Clarence J. Turner yJVT _ Mayor, Newport Beach, CA MAY City Hall, 3300 Newport Blvd L'r`OF" NEWPORT?611 P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Dear Mr. Turner: I urge you and the members of the Newport Beach City Council to look favorably upon the Balboa Bay Club's new redevelopment plan. I also urge all of you to actively work toward early acceptance and full approval of a plan which will enable the Balboa Bay Club to initiate remodeling and building as soon as possible. The Balboa Bay Club plan represents the kind of entrepreneurial activity which all cities and communities want to attract. This is not an untried start-up of an organization, with high financial risks and untried'identification of a viable market. The Balboa Bay Club has already demonstrated its ability so succeed throughout ups and downs of business cycles. The financial risks to Newport Beach in encouraging the expanded use of the land appear to be minimal. This organization has provided Newport Beach with a unique attraction for more than thirty years. The Balboa Bay Club business brings benefits to many more of the people of the Newport Beach community than those within its immediate visual surroundings. It has long demonstrated that it is a "good neighbor" for the city and local environs. The facilities have attracted to Newport Beach political and business leaders from throughout the country for high level meetings, very special parties, weddings, special business conferences, and many other social affairs. The fact that such meetings can and are held in Newport Beach instead of a fine hotel in another community has contributed to the choice of Newport Beach for a family home and businesses. I urge the City Council to act affirmatively and energetically to quickly consummate all the approvals necessary to enable the Balboa Bay Club to proceed with their remodeling and building plans. �.r�� Respectfully �:ycr ,Q ��� ;• ;;;;c�:cilmeo ohn S. Kerr �• tcrney rry pif: 1A 0if. a ss. Bk ;� F•�ic: : tst �D t.E�lia�r MAY 19 '94 06:08 CENTURY MONTEBELLO P.1/1 )OW W. 74.53 EBFMR,M. OtNtR.L N901mNt 1041 WGST XUN'INCYON 6e1V4 914000RINOLOOY NXGA0u,GA4VOXmw •mao N00LIMIR Nf01GINi wnaee May 16, 1994 , Dear rj2r/y I am writing to you as an-intarested individual. I aw not a _ rosidenx,o.£_Nexport. 8+ach, •however !--have ratukarly-vssi•ted- your city many times a year for the past 30 years. For the first 10 years as ,a guest of members of the Balboa Bay Club and since 1912 as a member. I would like to encourage you t'o work with the Balboa Bay Club to keep this treasured tradition which is so wall known in the western world. Since the plans gs presented opens more to the public, it seems to me that there is a definite effort on the part of the club leadership to want to move into the 21st century. I hope your views will reflact my suggestion. - Sincerely, F ted citisen sleeter, M.A. 103 MAY 18 194 06:07 RGGL CORPORATION P•2 May 161 1994 Mr. Gary DiSano 1840 Leeward Lane Newport Beach, California 92660 Dear Mr. DiSano: As a resident of Newport Beach and a member of The Balboa Bay Club who has enjoyed the benefits and services of this organization, I am writing you to strongly encourage that you support Balboa Bay Club's new redevelopment plan. My request for your support certainly' is personal based upon the enjoyment and benefits that I. think that myself and my family will derive from such redevelopment plan, but it also is a plea to support the plan because of the benefits that will be derived by the entire Newport Beach City and Community. Specific points that you might consider in evaluating the plan are as follows: 1. The Balboa Bay club has been an integral part of the community that has attracted thousands of visitors to our area from all over the world. 2: •.": ' The :Bay club •and the Terrace Apartments provide substantial ' ••financial_contributions to the city in rent, city tax and percentage of sales revenues. Additionally, The Bay Club offers employment to as many as 250 employees which in turn ..will provide further economic benefit to the community to the trickle down spending of these employees. 3. '"the community has demonstrated their support for Balboa Bay Club by the overwhelming passage of Measure M .which grants the council the authority to negotiate a lease with the club of up to 66 years. I strongly encourage you to extend the term for the full authorized period to ensure that Balboa Bay Club has a long ,enough lease term that will allow them to secure attractive financing for their redevelopment project and thereby assuring its financial feasibility. I strongly support Balboa Bay Club and its expansion plans and I hope you will too. sincerely, KITCHELL CONTRACTORS, �Ip.NC.('� pr 'dent •• ... . , . . .' . . .. .. . .. .. . . ., '• .. .. , Kitchell'Contractors t� 26 Exe'cutive Park Suite 100 Irvine, 61ifornia'92714.6779' D Fax (714) 261-1614 Phone (714) 261-1227 MAY 23 '94 06:20 CENTURY MONTEBELLO P.1i1 CAPITAL CONSERVATION CO)ZPORATION 1524 E.M44 U *jr4m Calibmk 92667 (114)7T1.3990 990A292 May 18, 1994 Gary J. DiSano ,184 VLe.Pw.a,za Lane. . . . . .. .. -' .. ... . . • Newport 'Beach, CA 92660 planning Commission Member: The Bay Club is a fine institution and a landmark in the community. I have been a membor and re61ded in Bayshore:, for ovor 25 years. My desire ,is to bee the Day Club remain as status quo as possible in the same flavor established over the years. In my opinion this does not include any kind of massive building program. In eaS%nea I would liko to con the existing structures maintained-. . .re-modeled, and upgraded without adding any now square footage. The acquisition of good financing does requira. a lease term that exceeds the loan flue date by dt least 5 years Or more. . . .there should be a lease oxteneion but I believe the granting of a 66 year extension is a IiLLle excessive, not in Newport's best interest, and is simply a vehicle to increase the value and Palo ability of the Bay Club. Sincerely, ' Gene A. Sullivan, CLU,ChBC 2571 Crestview Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92663 CAB/pi 1�� RECEIVED 4M MAY 10 1994 y.n' _ .�:%r.,t y+(�: SP•;r L`i�ire��:: ri;:.'jS`' '.4a:�4Y4c.1`:•:�:�s.^.i.)A e`er"+:Zj" JUNE ECKENWEILER 132 Via Havre Newport Beach, California 92663 i , We think the new redevelopment plan for the Balboa Bay Club is worth doing, i The Balboa Bay Club attracts visitors to our City, provides revenues, jobs and millions of dollars in ' food and services, j SAinc el R,E,ECKENWEILER i J M EC ENYE I LER { \ �kI9gQ '.«?;:. _ J': -` i•.c` _ _ '•R�•1-:irf-.,u, v�'lc�'µl:' s'^4:�R5.-i.�i2-f� � I ,Mr ra or G„ Aftornoy Rl:'•.2. Dir. G: ,-!Sury Dir. 0 ' RDir. �, t 4u�rriL. Dir C3 N, Ica Ghief C P,IX 42 r Ca i;aier job ,\ 5!` JAMES H. KINDEL.JR. TWENTY-NINTH FLOOR SSS SOUTH FLOWER STREET !ti!• //��y� 1 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 ��I P/A/ �• kFrF'�"�r�• � . 1 a r I - ( L.r C(mac � l`s• Gi• L� y� � �� ���' :, r°, -.3'Z14T TO: c: W;l'"*la-c_:.--'j1%,,j Dir chlof .:i c..L• I C^�\' � U� `r� Gam(, fiu�-�L'o�= G 'L, l �1 Ll b'mar VI/ y7 )-•%f.'SYIZ�c-�..•cr�/` k �'"L-� � `G'l � b�t,� `�,l c Terrance Moran, M.D. ""� ) 214 Via Lido Nord Newport Beach, Ca 92663 Mayor Clarence J. Turner RECEME MAY ijaN Newport Beach City Hall - cmCLZRF ` Box 1768 NEWp'O BEAck Newport Beach, Ca 92658-8915 Dear Mayor Turner: I have lived in Newport Beach since 1960 and have been a member of the Balboa Bay Club and its affiliate Racquet Club since 1965. The Club has served me well during this time for business, pleasure, and athletic activities as it has for the rest of the Newport Community. It would be a shame to tear it down to build a park for the satisfaction of a small vocal portion of the community. We are in a serious recession the duration of which is unknown; the State is steadily taking money from cities and counties and eroding their tax base; people, particularly non-taxpayers, are demanding more and more services at higher costs; and the City deficit is steadily rising despite stopgap measures such as taxing alarm systems and harbor boat excursions. Under Measure M the city council is authorized to renew the lease for the land upon which the BBC rests. I implore you to proceed with this vote and extend the lease for the following reasons: I. The club needs repairs and a face-lift. It's reworked plans have scaled down tremendously the original projections and will greatly improve the appearance without detriment to the owners along King's Road. Without extension of the lease, financing for the upgrade will not be available. 2. Can the city afford the loss of lease revenue, jobs for employees, business taxes, and revenue from tourists staying at or visiting the Club via meetings, etc.? a i1 : L : Terrance Moran, M.D. 214 Via Lido Nord Newport Beach, Ca 92663 - 2 - 3. Can the City afford to build a park in place of the Balboa Bay Club, and pick up the expenses of cleaning, toilets, life-guards, landscape maintenance, and high cost insurance premiums. In turn for this perhaps only a small number of citizens from Newport may use the facility the majority coming from outside Newport. We already support the beaches--do we now need a new park to support? 4. The proposed upgrade of the Club facilities will provide 128 rooms to be opened to the public along with dining facilities which will increase tourist activity hopefully with in turn additional local business and tax revenues. 5. It is unlikely that I'll be here in 2011 when the present lease expires , but I would like to know that my children and their families living in Newport will be able to enjoy the benefits of the BBC, as I have over the last 29 years. Respectfully yours, T. Moran 1Oq APR 25 '94 07:13 CENTURY MONTEBELLO P.i/2 NOR MAN ASMLD Mr. Gary J. Di Sano NEWPO14 AUSRT SUCH, CA QM 1840', Leeward Lane Newport Beach, Ca 92660 i I have been a resident of the Orange Coast since 1946 and a resident of Newport Beach since 1975. I love this area' and pray that our city will always retain its uniqueness and charm. As one concerned _citizen I want to express my strong opposition to -any. expansion of the Balboa Bay Club, How can this expansion benefit the thousands of Newport Beach residents?' There might be some peripheral benefits to a few local merchants and restaurants, but the rest of us will have to live with this intrusion into our lives every single day . Every time I pass that monstrosity of a hotel in Huntington Beach it makes me sick. I think this Balboa Bay Club expansion is just as bad . Let the rest of the world Miami—ize their shores . Let us keep Newport Beach the wonderful place it is . Sincerely , Orman Rothschild vr.258894 1/0 ' EDWARD A. NAHIGAN 18002 IRVINE BOULEVARD L TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 714-544-2175 RECEIVED t MAY 26 1994 CnYCIeRK j. ca OF My Of May 23, 1994 Mayor Clarence J. Turner P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, Ca. 92658 Dear Mayor Turner: This letter is to voice my support for the Balboa Bay Club's new redevelopment plan due to be considered by you in the next few weeks. Some of the things I would like you to consider in making your decision are: 1. The Club has world-wide recognition and has a positive impact in attracting visitors to the City from all over the world. Date 5= 6 2. The Club and the Terrace Apts. have both made significant financial Da DaEync S SENT T0: contributions, not only in rent and City tax and percentage of sales, but also in "trickle down" revenues to other business in the area. FAttorney rnen gier 3. The Club and Apartments employee over 250 people. ❑Bldg.Dir. 4. The millions of dollars in goods and services locally used by the Club. ❑GO Sery Dir. ❑P &RDir. Planning Dir 5. The strong community backing of the Club as shown by the overwhelming ❑Police Chief passage of "Measure M" which grants the Council the authority to negotiate ❑P.W.Dir a lease with the Club of up to 66 years. ❑Other I would also urge you to vote to extend a long-term land lease to the Club in order that we might be able to secure financing for the redevelopment effort. Thank you for your consideration of these matters and I hope I can count on your support of the Balboa Bay Club. Sincerely, Edward A. Na9figan 111 MAY 27 '94 06 18 C,E�N(�TUURRYYj1MONTEBELLO P.3/4 7680 xINGS ROAD � 4 NL^WV0Wt BEACM, CALIFORNIA 02003 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 142WPORT BEACH, CALIF. May 23, 1994 in spite ,of objections from a few of us ,living on Kings Road, the City Council should approve the Balboa Bay Club's new redevelopment plan. Such approval is legal, it is in the City`s best financial interests, the Council has the authority to do so, and it is the Council's responsibility to work for the benefit of the great majority of people living in Newport Beach and it's surrounding communities . The perceived small disadvantage by the few is totally and persistently outweighed by the great advantages for the many. For nearly fifty years the Bay Club has effectively served the community's needs as its flagship provider of facilities for handling a broad range of social functions for our residents. People moving onto the over-lookingbluf-€-had to accept the Bay Clubs existence prior to their moving there and that it would periodically be renovated and even upgraded to better serve the community.. Having lived at .1520 Kings Rd. for thirty eight years we've witnessed first hand the symbiotic relation of the Club and our City. Certainly we residents on the heights can expect concern for our interests by the Bay Club. The present management has shown their concern through their efforts in dramatically revamping their concepts of redevelopment to where the impact on our views is very minor. Our ox will not be gored or, relatively, even shaken up by the new redevelopment plan. Having served four years on the Parks, Beach, and ( l� MAY 27 '94 66:19 CENTURY MONTEBELLO P•4/4 Recreation Commission and as its chairman for one of those years, I believe it important to protect the ambience and recreational values that the Bay Club brings to our community. Sincerely• Milton C. Shedd MAY 31 '94 06:05 CENTURY MONTEBELLO P.3i3 !J. JJM'•v •l.'.V. f J•1J '- � Ja" • u INTERNATIONAL Distribution Specialists RAOUL DEDEAUX 1430 South Eastman Avenue, P.O. Box 23931, Los Angeles, California 90023 * USA Chairman of ern 8aard May 23, 1994 RE: BALBOA BAY CLUB - REDEVELOPMENT PLAN As I am sure you are aware, it is a matter of grave concern that there has been an attempt to foster a negative' reaction to the redevelopment plans of the Balboa Bay Club. We have been privileged to be apprised of the CIub's great performance, prior to and since becoming a Member. The world traveled persons whom we have been privileged to entertain at the Club have, I am sure, spread much goodwill, not only about the Club, but about our Community. It is our hope that you, the Council, and the Planning Commission are giving deep thoughts to the many benefits that appear to be apparent to so many of us. Sincerely, _ Rod Dedeaux RD/hr GARY J. DISANO 1840 Leeward Lane Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (213) 264.1011 TWX: 910-321.2443 DART LSA FAX: (213) 262.0655 11'[ ===A �� F ( V E S TA R platNNiNG DEPAKI A JrY 0 NErAJP0RT &vA INSURANCE COMPANY t; 4M t'M � GEORGE MCNAMEE RECE1� � Pwidnd nHA�/pry�CLERK994 ; May 25, 1994 ;n N O Ri BEACH Mr. Clarence J. Turner Mayor 3300 Newport Boulevard P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 RE: Long Term Lease for the Balboa Bay Club Dear Honorable Mayor: I wish to go on record in favor of the redevelopment of the Balboa Bay Club. Our community needs to support this very important club. The Balboa Bay Club has been good for the community both in service as well as providing jobs and paying taxes. I'm tired of city functions and parks that cost the tax payers more and more money. Let's get back to realty and improve the community and its tax base. Sincerely, George McNamee C PJESSENTTO. 3329 Ocean Boulevard Im Mayor Corona del Mar, CA ounclimen Since 1976 ❑Manager Attorney ❑Bldg.Dit cc: Balboa Bay Club ❑GenServDlt Aln DU. ing Dir ❑ Police Chlel ❑F.W.Dir ❑Other 2400 MAIN STREET, SUITE 200, 1RVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 714.474.7500 APPENDIX F tTRAFFIC AND PARKING STUDY arza/9i 1 . WjP Joel Weston Pringle & Associates 013-1 A 1; 9 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING ' December 4, 1990 ' Mr. Kevin Culbertson Culbertson, Adams & Associates 85 Argonaut, Suite 220 ' Ali-so Viejo, CA 92656 Dear Mr. Culbertson: ' This letter summarizes our analysis of traffic factors related to the proposed Balboa Bay Club expansion in the City of Newport Beach. The study has been ' conducted to satisfy the - -cements of the C•:y's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. This study is based upon information provided by you, City Staff ' and previous studies. ' PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of an expansion of existing facilities at the Balboa Bay ' Club on Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach. Guest rooms are to be expanded !arm a total of 137 to 300 and other areas including assembly, administrative service and athletic facilities are to be enlarged. Table 1 ' summarizes the planned improvements and quantities of each. The public and private areas are also identified in Table 1. Private areas would be for club ' members only. Figure 1 illustrates the project location. EXISTING CONDITIONS ' The streets in the area of the project are fully developed. Coast Highway is a -our lane street with a median which is the only vehicular access to the ' site. This street is planned to be a six lane arterial in the future. Parking is permitted on Coast Highway in the site area. The site access is not sianalized. Coast Highway connects with various north-south arterials which provide regional access. 680 Lanusdori Drive • Suite 222 • Fullerton. CA 92531 • (714( 671-2931 • FAX:(7 14( 871.0389 1 Table 1 LAND USE SUMMARY ' Balboa Bay Club , QUANTITY ' PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED LAND USE EXISTING PUBLIC PRIVATE TOTAL INCREASE ' Guest Rooms 137 300 - 300 163 ) Assembly Area Conference/Ballroom & ' Meeting Areas 14,896 SF 18,600 SF - 18,600 SF 3,704 SF Eating/Drinking 4,500 SF 4,840 SF 3,050 SF 7,890 SF 3,390 SF ' Totals 19,396 SF 23,440 SF 3,050 SF 26,490 SF 7,094 SF ' Administration Offices 7,885 SF - - 9,845 SF 1,960 SF Service Area (Utchen, Employee area, housekeeping, laundry, receiving, ' engineering) 26,707 SF - - 35,588 SF 8,881 Sr Athletic Facilities 12,790 SF - 20,448 SF 20,448 SF 7,658 SF ' Retail 2,494 SF 3j000 SF - 3,000 SF 506 SF ' • f -3- Existing daily traffic volumes and 1990 ICU values at major intersections are ' illustrated on Figure 2. These data were provided by the city of Newport Beach. ' TRIP GENERATION In order to evaluate the potential traffic impacts of the project, it is ' necessary to estimate the number of trips that would be generated. Trip generation rates for various land uses have been established by the City Traffic Engineer. These rates are summarized in Table 2. Due to the uniqueness of the facility, the City Traffic Engineer agreed to accept ' business hotel trip generation rates for the guest rooms. Due to the type of facility, the rates for restaurant uses were also modified in conjunction with discussions with the City Traffic Engineer. The AM peak hour rate was assumed to be half of that for a high turnover restaurant and the PM was assumed to be half of a quality restaurant. These rates were utilized to reflect the non-public condition and on-site/hotel guest usage of the facilities. By applying these rates to the land use data, estimates of trip generation were ' obtained and are listed in Table 3. The trip generation estimates for the conference/ballroom/meeting room uses are based upon a specific set of data and assumptions as no standard reference data are available. Usage data provided by the Balboa Bay Club indicate that ' approximately 206,650 persons attend 2,575 events at these facilities per year. This is approximately 80 persons per event on an average. Also, based ' upon a 365 day year, there are an average of seven events per day. On this basis, 560 persons per day attend events in the ballroom/meeting room facilities. Discussions with the City Traffic Engineer resulted in an assumption of 1.0 person per vehicle and 10 percent of the trips occurring during the AM and PM peak hour. These assumptions result in 1,120 daily trip ' ends with 112 during both the AM and PMpeak hours. Since the added area is 25 percent of the total, the increase would be 280 daily trip ends and 30 peak hour trip ends. These estimates are reflected in Table 3. Table 2 TRIP GENERATION RATES ' Balboa Bay Club ' TRIP ENDS PER DESCRIPTOR ' LAND USE DESCRIPTOR AM In AM Out PH In PH Out Guest Rooms(1) Room 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 ' Restaurant 1,000 SF 5.3 4.2 2.6 1.1 Athletic Club 1,000 SF 0.7 0.5 1.5 2.0 ' Office 1,000 SF 2.0 0.4 0.6 1.7 , (1) "Trip Generation, 4th Edition," Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1987, Business Hotels. ' Table 3 ' TRIP GENERATION ' Balboa Bay Club TRIP ENDS LAND USE QUANTITY AM Peak Hr. PM Peak Mr. AM 2.5 Hr, PH 2.5 Mr. , In Out In Out In Out In Out Guest Rooms 163 50 50 65 35 100 100 130 35 ' Restaurant 3,390 SF 20 15 10 5 40 30 20 10 Meeting Rooms(l) 3,704 SF 30 0 0 30 60 0 0 60 ' Administrative 1,960 Sr 5 0 0 5 10 0 0 10 Athletic Club 7,658 SF 5 5 10 15 10 10 20 30 ' TOTALS 110 70 85 90 230 135 170 145 (1) Sea narrative for basis of estimates. ' As indicated in Table 3, the project would generate 180 AM peak hour trip ends ' and 175 PM peak hour trip ends. The AM 2.5 hour period would be 365 trip ends and the PM 2.5 hour period, 315 trip ends. ' TRIP ASSIGNMENT In order to assign project traffic to the street system, it is necessary to ' develop a trip distribution pattern. A pattern for this site was developed based upon residence zip codes of the existing membership. That distribution ' pattern has been utilized to assign project traffic to the road system and is illustrated on Figure 1. The estimated trips from Table 3 were then assigned to the street system in conformance with these distribution patterns. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ' The traffic analysis has been completed to conform to the criteria of the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A total of 12 intersections were ' identified by the City Traffic Engineer for inclusion in the analysis. The first required analysis is the "One Percent" test. An intersection is defined ' as critical by the Ordinance when the project traffic exceeds one percent of existing plus committed project plus regional growth traffic on any approach ' to an intersection during the AM or PM 2.5 hour peak period. A list of committed projects was provided by the City for inclusion in this study and these projects are listed in Table 4. Since the project is scheduled for ' completion in 1992, the analyses were completed for 1993 as required by the Ordinance. aAppendix A contains the "One Percent" analysis sheets for the 12 intersections ' an and the results are summarized in Table 5. Review of Table 5 indicates that all intersections passed the "One Percent" test except Coast Highway and Riverside Avenue, Coast Highway and Tustin Avenue, Coast Highway and Dover Drive/Bayshore Drive, Coast Highway and Bayside Drive, Coast Highway and Jamboree Road, Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara Drive, Jamboree Road and Eastbluff Drive/Ford Road and Newport Boulevard and Hospital Road. -6— TABLE 4 COMMITTED PROJECTS Hoag Cancer Center Mariners Church Expansion ' Civic Plaza Big Canyon Villa Apts. Corporate Plaza 1400 Dove Street ' Newport Place 1100 Quail Street Valdez McLachlan-Newport Place Koll Center NPT No. 1 Koll Center TPP Amend. 4A ' 1501 Superior Medical Villa Point Newporter Resort Expansion Rosan's Development Amendment No. 1 North Ford Fashion Island m2 ' Newport Dunes Newport Aquatics Center Bayview Taco Bell Cih• or Irvine Development Newport Retirement Inn Sholaian Newport Classic Inn Edwards Newport Center Newport Lido Medical Center Villa Point U Big Canyon 10 ' Zonta Club Residential YMCA Calty/Tovota Expansion Amendment No. 1 Ford Aero Ambrosia Restaurant Amendment No. 1 MacArthur ' 2Sth St. Marina Restaurant 3500 Campus Dr. 15th Street Apartments 3760 Campus Dr. Rockwell Expansion Andrew Restaurant ' Balboa• Vashington Newport Imports Restaurant Table 5 ' CRITICAL INTERSECTION IDENTIFICATION Balboa Bay Club LOCATION 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGES NB SB EB WS AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM Coast Highway & orange St. - - - - 0.1/0.1 0.1/0.1 Coast Highway & Prospect St. - - - - 0.1/0.1 0.1/0.1 Coast Highway & Balboa Blvd. - 0.3/0.2 - - 0.1/0.1 0.3/0.2 ' Superior Ave. Coast Highway & Riverside Ave. - - - - 1.2/1.0 1.2/0.8 Coast Highway & Tustin Ave. - - - - 1.4/1.1 1.1/0.8 Coast Highway & Dover Dr. - - - 1.4/0.9 1.9/2.1 2.3/1.2 Bayshore Dr. Coast Highway & Bayside Dr. 0.5/0.3 - - 1.0/1.1 2.9/1.1 Coast Highway & Jamboree Rd. - - 2.2/0.8 1.0/1.3 1.7/0.7 Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara Dr. 0.8/1.0 1.6/0.9 - - - - Jamboree Rd. & San Joaquin Hills Rd. 0.8/0.9 1.2/0.7 - - - - Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr. - Ford Rd. 0.7/0.7 1.5/0.9 - - - - ' Newport Blvd. & Hospital Rd. 1.0/1.0 2.1/1.1 - - - - -8- In conformance with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, ICU analyses were completed for the eight intersections for those periods that were found to be critical. ' These analyses are contained in Appendix B and included existing, existing plus regional growth plus committed project and existing plus regional growth plus committed project plus project traffic conditions. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 6. Review of Table 6 indicates that all intersections are projected to have ICU values of less than 0.90 or not made worse for the critical periods with the project and committed project traffic. SITE .ACCESS Principal vehicular access to the site is at a single location on Coast Highway. The need for traffic control at this entrance was examined. Warrants for the installation of traffic signals have been developed by ' CalTrans for use in California. For this application, Warrant 1, Minimum Vehicular Volume and Warrant 2, Interruption of Continuous Flow were utilized and are included as Figure 3. Since traffic speeds on the major street (Coast Highway) are 40 MPH or greater the aural conditions were utilized. Machine traffic counts were conducted at the Coast Highway/Balboa Bay Club entrance to , determine current volumes on August 15, 1989, These counts are contained in Appendix C and provided the volume data indicated on Figure 3. With these ' data, both Warrants would be satisfied. AM and PM peak hour traffic counts were also conducted at the entry to ' determine turning volumes. These volumes were obtained on November 28, 1989, and are indicated in Appendix E and summarized in Table T. ' "One Percent" and ICU analyses were completed for the intersection of Coast Highway and the Balboa Bay Club entrance for the AM and PH peak hours. These analyses were based upon the same procedures utilized in the Traffic Planning Ordinance described above. The analyses are contained in appendix D and E are ' summarized in Tables 8 and 9. Review of Table 9 indicates acceptable conditions during the AM and PM peak hours with ICU values less than 0.90. ' Table 6 ICU SUMMARY Balboa Bay Club INTERSECTION PERIOD ICU VALUES Existing Existing Existing Existin (1990) +Regional +Regional +Regions +Committed +Committed +Committe +Project +Projec W/Imcrov Coast Highway & Riverside Dr. AM Peak 0.67 0.81 0.82 - PM Peak 0.72 0.78 0.79 - Coast Highway & Tustin Ave. AM Peak 0.66 0.79 0.80 - PM Peak 0.63 0.70 0.71 ' Coast Highway & Dover Dr./ AM Peak 0.53 0.70 0.71 - Bayshore Dr. PM Peak 0.62 0.72 0.74 - ' Coast Highway & Bayside Dr. AM Peak 0.72 0.85 0.86 - PH Peak 0.66 0.81 0.81 Coast Highway & Jamboree Rd. AM Peak 0.72 0.82 0.82 - PH Peak O.69 0.84 0.84 Jamboree Rd. & Santa Barbara A.M. Peak 0.45 0.57 0.57 - ' PM Peak 0.56 0.69 0.70 - Jamboree Rd. & San Joacuin AM Peal: 0.56 0.67 0.67 - Hills Rd.Jamboree Rd. & Eastbluff Dr./ AM Peak 0.62 0.69 0.70 - Ford Rd. Newport Blvd. & Hospital Rd. AM Peak 0.52 0.59 0.60 - PM Peak 0.56 0.67 0.67 - • FIGURE 3 • 1 Traffic Manual TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND LIGHTING 9-6 12-ills Figure 9.1 A TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTS ' CALL /.f4E DATE .9/2Z414 DIST 00 R,E //pM CHK DATE I Major St: -,/ �? Critical Approach Speed mph Minor St: l Approach Speed mph ' Critical speed of major street traffic>40 mph -----•---•----•••-- � RURAL(R) In built up area of Isolated community of< 10,000 pop. ---•-•--- ❑ ❑ URBAN (U) WARRANT 1 - Minimum Vehicular Volume 100% SATISFIED YES �K NO ❑ 80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 100%SHOWN IN BRACKETSI X 4r '\ I�; U I R I U R �Q ;i \Q ` \ , APPROACH t ( I 2or more v �� / \N ti 'J ^j `C Hour LANES AQ .,.�Q MaorS nest I(4 00)1 12801 . I14801 (336113/!3 i?Gzr 33r'r/ 3Z:y0 3f//6 3&47-1 V 3y' Highe ApptohJ 150 105 00 140 - IzIseat I101I(11116I/!I!� /f7 ; I ,MmarStreet• 127 //q /C6 •NOTE:Heavier left turn movement from Major Street included when LT-phasing is proposed ❑ WARRANT 2- Interruption of Continuous Traffic 100% SATISFIED YES NO ❑ 80% SATISFIED YES/❑ NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ' 1 1U aIsHO R 1 W i'B CKET9 R) AP N SH ✓LAc 2or more �� HourI strelf042 720 630 1 /9 ,z933Malo I(60 ) 101I I( 1 15041 7 Y/ yells Hl1tlatlaorcl (67051 ' L1 798 r.i M norSeet • 142 *NOTE., , Heavier left turn movement from Major Street Included when LT-phasing is proposed ❑ WARRANT 3- Minimum Pedestrian Volume 100% SATISFIED YES JZ NO ❑ 80% SATISFIED YES ❑ NO ❑ MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS il0%SHOWN IN BRACKETS) U R ,Both AOP(Cha. No Modish e00 420 Hour Melor Slreet I I I(4e01 (3301 ) Volume Ren 7 o 1000 00 4' u ' Maon 1 00) 101 Pea's On Hltlneat Volume 150 105 1 X•Walk XInOMuor Strasl 0201 (641 IF MIDSLOCK SIGNAL PROPOSED ❑ MIN.REQUIREMENT IDISTANCE TO NEAREST ESTABLISHED CRWLKj FULFILLED ' 150 Feet I N/E—ft S/W_tt I Yes ❑ No ❑ The satisfaction of a warrant Is not necessarily justification for a signal. Delay,congestion,confusion or other i evidence of the need for right of way assignment must 5e shown. TS•10A ' Table 7 EXISTING VOLUMES - COAST HIGHWAY/BALBOA BAY CLUB Balboa Bay Club ' AM PEAK PM PEAK AM 2.5 PM 2.5 MOVEMENT HOUR HOUR HOUR HOUR NL 29 19 59 47 NR 42 41 99 92 ET 1975 1558 4440 3748 ER 25 42 62 85 WL 40 27 95 102 WT 1440 2009 3093. 4975 0 • 1 Table 8 ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS - COAST HIGHWAY/BALBOA BAY CLUB Balboa Bay Club 2.5 HOUR PERCENTAGE ' APPROACH AM PH Northbound 85.4 104.3 Eastbound 3.0 1.2 Westbound 1.9 2.0 1 Table 9 ICU SUMMARY - COAST HIGHWAY/BALBOA BAY CLUB Balboa Bay Club , ICU EXISTING EXISTING +REGIONAL EXISTING +REGIONAL +COMMITTED ' PERIOb 1( 990) +COMMITTED +PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR 0.67 0.79 0.88 PM PEAK HOUR 0.66 0.79 0.82 ICU - Intersection Capacity Utilization i • • -�z- A second access is proposed at the easterly property boundary. This will be for service/delivery vehicles and controlled by a card-gate for use by members and/or guests. It is intended to be limited to right turns at Coast Highway. PARKING Field studies were conducted on Thursday, September 1S, 1988, and on Saturday, September 17, 1988, to observe parking demands. These days were selected to represent typical, active days at the facility. Observations were made at 8:00 AM, 10:00 AM, Noon, 2:00 PM, 6:00 PM and 9:00 PM. The area was subdivided into seven areas for this study. Areas and their description are listed in Table 10. Table 11 Lists the observed parked vehicles and percent of spaces occupied at the various times of field studies. Occupancy data were not calculated for Area 7 which is the Coast Highway curb, as available space was not quantified. Review of Table 11 indicates that the peak demand occurred at 8:00 AM on Thursday with 487 narked vehicles. Any future expansion should provide on-site parking for the vehicles currently parked on Coast Highway. Review of Table 11 indicates that the maximum observed on Coast Highway was 51 parked vehicles. The proposed expansion plan does not affect the parking provisions for the Terrace Apartments or Area 2 as described in Table 10 or Table 11. Without Area 2 and including the on-street (Area 7) , the total peak demand would be 384 vehicles for existing conditions. This peak occurred on Thursday at 2:00 PM (See Table 1:.) . The site plan indicates a total of 532 off-street parking spaces excluding the Terrace Apartment area which is an increase of 148 spaces over the observed peak. Due to the type of project, it is difficult to estimate the increase in narking demand that will occur. Hotel parking rates are generally in the 0.5 to 0.8 parking spaces per room range. If this is applied to the 163 rooms increase for guests, a need for 82 to 130 parking spaces would be required. -13- Table 10 EXISTING PARKING AREAS Balboa Bay Club NUMBER OF AREA PARKING SPACES DESCRIPTION 1 14 Marina Parking immediately west of main gate. 2 257 Terrace Apartments parking included surface and subterranean. 3 17 Apartment Parking between Terrace Apartments and main building. 4 89 Valet parking area including , subterranean. 5 181 Employee and other at north- east corner of site. 6 54 Apartment parking east side ci site. 7 - On Coast Highway - adjacent to facility. man r MI i m m mw � mm m r a r m mw m " ,,. Table 11 PARKING SURVEY SUMMARY Balboa Bay Club PARKED VEIIICLES/PERCENT OCCUPANCY DATE DAY TIME 1 2 3 4 5 6 7(1) Total(" 9/15/88 Thursday 8:00 AM 9/64 119/46 20/118 71/80 164/91 51/106 47 487 10:00 AM 9/64 89/35 15/88 70/79 158/87 48/89 50 439 • NOON 9/57 84/33 14/82 77/87 144/80 54/100 51 432 2:00 PM 12/86 88/34 15/80 85/96 173/96 53/98 46 472 6:00 PM 6/43 103/40 9/53 50/56 107/59 39/72 28 342 9:00 PM 9/64 134/52 8/47 53/60 80/44 43/80 16 343 9/17/88 Saturday 8:00 AM 8/57 150/58 15/88 32/36 61/34 46/85 25 337 10:00 AM 4/29 130/51 12/71 34/38 83/46 48/89 47 358 NOON 2/14 110/43 6/35 52/58 68/38 39/72 47 324 • 2:00 PM 9/64 114/44 8/47 61/69 75/41 41/76 39 347 6:00 PM 14/100 128/50 6/35 49/55 95/52 38/70 35 365 9:00 PM 12/86 135/53 8/47 84/94 93/51 45/83 27 404 (lumber of Spaces 14 257 17 89 181 54 - 612 i t- i (1) Percent occupancy not calculated due to no space delineation on Coast Highway. -is- The increased dining area would also increase the potential parking demand. City parking requirements for restaurants are one space per 40 SP of public area. If we assume half of that rate as was done for trip generation, the 3,390 SP would require 42 parking spaces. The combined guest room - restaurant parking need would be 124 to 172 spaces which brackets the planned increase of 148 spaces. On this basis, the proposed parking supply would be adequate for the daily operations of the facility. Other increases in assembly areas, offices, service areas and athletic facility are not anticipated to significantly increase parking demand but to better serve existing members and guests. The Balboa Bay Club has off-site narking available at Newport Beach Country Club (235 spaces) and Balboa Bay Club Racquet Club (150 spaces) which Can be utilized in conjunction with a shuttle service for special events. spaces are also available (185) at the Lutheran Church on Dover at 16th Street. These off-site facilities can be used for either employee or visitor parking for special events. Construction will be phased to accommodate parking needs. All construction workers will be required to park off-site and be shuttled to the site. A phasing plan has been developed for the construction so that adequate on-site parking will be provided for the activities that remain in operation. The proposed plan is summarized in Table 12. SUMMARY This study has reviewed traffic factors related to the Balboa Bay Club Expansion as required by the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing ordinance. Estimates were made of trips to be generated by the project and the impact of these trips evaluated in terms of the Ordinance. No intersections were found to be imparted by the project. Parking provisions during construction and upon completion were reviewed and found to be acceptable. -16- Table 12 CONSTRUCTION PARKING PLAN Balboa Bay Club PARKING FACILITIES REMAINING PARKING PHASE REMOVED REMOVED FACILITIES PROVIDED I 142 30 Guest Rooms Marina Restaurant/ 234 4 Meeting Rooms Athletic Facility Employees Guest Rooms (194 Spaces) (201 Spaces) 1 II 206 All Meeting Rooms Restaurant 121 All Guest Rooms Athletic Facility Marina ' (110 Spaces) -17- Principal findings of the study are the following: 1. The project will generate 180 AM peak hour and 175 PM peak hour trip ends over that generated by existing development. 2. Of the 12 intersection■ evaluated, eight did not pass the "One Percent" test required by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 3. Of the eight critical intersections, all were found to have ICU values less than 0.90 or unchanged with project traffic. 4. The intersection of coast Highway and the Balboa Bay Club entry will operate with an ICU value less than 0.90 with regional and committed project traffic during both the AM and PM peak hours. S. The planned off-street parking supply of 532 spaces would be adequate to accommodate parking needs along with the use of off-site parking for special occasions. MITIGATION MEASURES , The following measures are recommended to mitigate potential traffic impacts of the project. 1. Install a traffic signal on Coast Highway at the project entrance with separate left turn phasing. 2. The easterly access should be restricted to right turn in and out , only on Coast Highway. 3. The proposed construction phasing plan and related parking provisions should be implemented. 4. The availability of off-site parking should be maintained to ' accommodate special occasions. fi fi fi fi fi fi r We trust that this study will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE & ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle, P.E. Registered Professional Engineer State of California Numbers C16828 & TR565 r WSP:hld 0880841 r i i r r r r r APPENDIX A ' ONE PERCENT ANALYSES 0 10A Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection COAST HIGHWAY ORANGE ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on AVerage inter pang 9 90 AM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach ( Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak Hour Peak VolumeHour I Pe Project Volume volume Volume ! ' Northbound I 228 I I `" I ��� I E ,/ southbound I 218 / ' I , J r, Eastbound '7 T i 153 9 �! 4471 { , : West Dun I 2534 ! T ! Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected !� Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 110 of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. r DATE: PROJECT: FORM I �t 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/ORANGE ST (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 9o)PM , Peek 24 Hour Approved Projected I 1: of Projected Project Approach Existing Regienat Projects Pee Direction Peak Ph Hcur Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour k 2h Hour. Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Northbound 204 I I ✓ ��C/{/ J Southbound I 124 Eastbound I 3339 i I Z-Z, / Q I T/Q 3 I ~' 61 westbound 13l0 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected 0 Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. r DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1A Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection COAST HIGHWAY PROSPECT ST (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average inter pring 19 �o AM Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1- of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2k Hour Peek 2+1 Hour peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I ' Northbound I 163 Southbound I 422 Eastbound �q 0.IC? Westbound 2586 I I I I ��5 050 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 104 of Projected Peak 21-2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PRDJECT: FORM I ..q • • i 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/PROSPECT ST PM (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon Average Winter/Spring 19 Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach I Existing Regional Projacts Projected 1% of Projected Projeet Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 28 Hour Peako21Hour Peak2h Hour1 PeeVolueour volume volume volume volume Northbound I 160 0 A�o ' Sorthbound I 262 I p•. I W Eastbound I 3323 '�`�6 I �0 �� westbound i ..n .7—I 611-1 I lL' / (G4. �. 117, Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization ' (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. i DATE: PROJECT: FORM I r r1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY BALBOA BL—SUPERIOR AV r (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on Average inter pring 9 90 AM Peak 24 Hour Approved Approech Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Drowth Peak 2y Hour Peak 2h Hour PenVolumeour I PeeVotumeour Volume Volume I Volume VVoo/lumeLf/ r Northbound I I I 7 I l I I ' / I ✓ C'- 1717 � Southbound I 1231 Eastbound westbound 1795 I �$ 7C C17 all r Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected rPeak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1A of Projected r Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. r t 1 r 1 1 1 DATE- PROJECT: FORM I 1 1% Traffic Volume Analysis , Intersection COAST HIGHWAY BALBOA BL—SUPERIOR AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter pring 19 90 PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach I Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peek 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume volume Northoound I 1788 Southbound I 2811 Eastbound I 3638 I 980 ¢.�� nS(Ofc' Nestoound I 3448 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected , Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: { FORM I , 1 ' 10M Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/RIVERSIDE AV (Existing Traffic VolUm—esbased on Average Winter/Spring 19 O) AM Peek 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Direction Penk Z Hour Growth Peak 2> Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour Peek 2>f Hour Volume Volume ' Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound 12 I i Southbound 824 nth- 5'7 Eastbound 49 / 2'7 G G 7 Westbound �056 I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 10A of Projected ❑ Peak 21: Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than lA of Projected ❑ Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. ' PROJECT: DATE: 3� FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection o (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verageWinter/Spring 9o) PM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach I Existing itegional Projects Projected 10, of Projected Project ' Direction Peek 2h Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume � Volume d' r '>L Horthoound I 6 6 ' Southbound 128 Eastbound �I 'Westbound I 4872 148 I ' Z I Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2;: Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ® Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/TUSTIN AV (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Rverage Winter/Spring 19 90).AM Peak 24 Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project Direction Peak 24 Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour I PeaVolume 211 bur Peak VolumeHour I PeaVolumeour Volume Volume Volume Northbound I —� I �� I O I Q I , 10 ^ Sout ound I I ^ hb / Eastbound 4335 � ��" p p Westbound I 3262 I �� `* "(f 138v f �0 1 , ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' ❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 11A of Projected ® Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: rPROJECT: FORM I 40 ix Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection ^' T (Existing Traffic Volumes ased on verage inter pring 19 24) PM Peak 2is Hour Approved , [[Northbound pproach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project irection Peako24 H ur Growth Volume Peakolunat ur Peak 2h Hour PeeValume ur heaVotume Hour t o I a3 I 1 I 23 n South bound I 270 I A 01 14 Eastbound I 4252 (( I�� i •Ql i 5022 Westbound 4944 i 1 J7� Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' ❑ Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I,C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: ' PROJECT: 4b FORM I 1 1 1A Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST IiIGFiWAY DOVER — r (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average inter prang 19 90 AM Peak 2y Hour Approved 1 Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2�S Hour PenYolumeour I PeeVolumeour Volume Volume Volume Volume 1 I o Ndr:hoound 337 3�^I , Southbound I 2508 Eastbound I 4156 Westbound 4646 I I `r1 �J / I 525 A7, 1 Project Traffic is estimatea to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. 1 1 DATE: 1 PROJECT: FORM I 99 1% Traffic Volume Analysis , Intersection COAST HIGHWAY/ROVER DR—BAYSHORE DR (Existing Traffic Volumes basea on Average YlInTerjapring 19 90 PM Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1S of Projected Project Direction Peak 1 Hour Growth ( Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2h Hour I Peak 2h Volume Volume Volume volume Volume Northbound I 297 I ( o�v 317 I ✓ `� Southbound I 2994 I —{ } i 7 i a5n - �J i oQ a 0.9 Eastbound I 410() / P I i fGT� i �D i /�Q e�.��c ' Nerthound I 6780 I a o S I Y,: .�� /&S5 i / '/ Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2)1 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 104 of Projected ' ® Peak 2; Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. OATS: ' PROJECT: FORM I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis intersection COAST HIGHWAY/BAYSIDE DR (Existing Traffic Volumes base on verage WlnEer pring 19 99T M Peak 24 Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1�Peak of Projected i Project Direction Peak 211 Hour Growth I Peak 2k Hour Peak 211 Hour PeaYolumeour PenVolumeo� Volume Volume Volume Volume 2 � n Northbound I 1296 _ I / /: I ' �� I /✓ / 0.� southbound I 145 I i ! �y I 304 - - r7�87 Eastbound I 6635 i 10 ) �✓ f Westbound i 3397 ��'� ��S I ✓ �> I / f, Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2�, Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: � PROJECT: FORM I L� 1 1%% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY BAYSIDE DR (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon verage nter pang 94 PM Peak 1y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Protected 10. of Projected Project Direction Peak 2% Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hot Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I �^ Northbound I 1496 I '�' I 1500 / 5 Southbound ! 180 I ' . 5 . Q ' n Eastbound 6412 I R� ! (6 I r7a ! 7 i westbound 1 6989 ��" ! Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1+ of Projected ❑ Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2�-, Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1» Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY JAMBOREE RDIn 1990 AM (Existing Traffic Volumes oase on verage Winter p 9 ' Peak 24 Hour Approved I-, of Projected Project II Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2k Hour Peak 2h Hour Peak Hour Peak lu Hour i Yolume Volume Volume Volume Volume I � Northbound I 1514 I 34- 15L41Q I ' Sorthbound 2242 I 6V I ^,•J I �� °•2 n I � �' CGX �•d �c Eastbound I 5690 �.� Westoound 2762 i �R i �� 3173 i 32 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1p of Projected ❑ Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis intersection COAST HIGHWAY JAMBOREE RD (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage nter pring 90TM ' Peek n Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1: of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 29 Hour Peek 2y Hour Peak 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume I Volume Northbound I 1009 I d /0 7 Southbound 4522 / -b 7 1 G96 I 53100 I 54 Eastbound 5780 t59 173 /•3a I 4918 'I I / ' I li westbound ' 4526 °�� 7 /�•^^ I `.� �25" ! I 0.7: Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATA• I%c" FORM 1 0 ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD sAN ' (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage inter pa ng 19 9a) AM Peak 2y Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Protects Projected 1: of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2y Hour Peak Zk Hour Peayolumeour I PeaVo;umeour Volume Volume ooYoluaK Volume Q Northbound I 3758 ' Southbound I 3202 I I �� I �~ I �0 o J Eastbound I 0 i pC) I ' I Westbound ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' ❑ Peak 2Z Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 10A of Projected t Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: ' PRDJE-7: � FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMSOREE ' (Existing Traffic Volumes basedverage on nter pr ng 9o) PM Peek 211 Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1S of Projeesed Project Direction Peek 2h Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2k Hour Peek 2k Hour Peek 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume r ry I ,^ Northbound I 2942 I 8 ( i0a� �(0��2 I l.Ory ' Southbound I 4129 4I4 25 I O 7 `T I Eastbound 0 Westbound I 2168 ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' ❑ Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ' Peak 231 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DATE: ' PROJECT: FORM I ' lA Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection JAMBOREE RD SAN JOA UIN HILLS ID (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon verage inter pring 9 90 AM Peek 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1:Peak Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour I Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2>f Hour Peayotumeour Pearolumeour Volume Volume Volume Volume 2 Northbound 3400 44 I 1 � J I p Southbound I 4268 I 'Z I !�✓ I o9� I 51 r.�,� . Eastbound I n n 2 i Hestoound I 1179 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than I'm of Projected ❑ Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. r ' DATE: PROJECT: FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD/SAN JOAQl7IN HILLS RD (Existing Traffic Volumes�sedon Verage nter -ring 19 90) PM Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1P. of Projected project Direction Peak Z it Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour Peek 2§ Hour volume Volume Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound ( I 3295 Q 0 I 7� 4-/z C Southbouhd I 5124 `� 1t�• / Eastbound I 419 Westbound ( 2183 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ' Peak 2' Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1OP of Projected Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: ' PROJECT: FORM I ' 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection JAMBOREE RD EASTBLUFF DR-F (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 2D) AM Peak 2k Hour Approved ' Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1: of Projected Project Direction Peak 2k Hour Growth Peak Pk Hour Peak 211 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Volume 4oOlume Volume Volume Volume i volume Northbound I 3904 I �� b G-/ ��/� I �� I '1� 0•�` southbound I 3361 ( ld 2 Eastbound 1081 Westbound I 998 Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 11 of Projected ❑ Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 10 of Projected Peak 22 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PRGJ`C ' FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis ' Intersection JAMBOREE RD/EASTBLUFF DRY-FORD RD (Existing Traffic Volumes based on Average Winter/Spring 19 _) M Peak 211 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project ' Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak Zy Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour volume V�ol/w�ne I Volume Volume Volume i Volume Northbound ( 4812 I I � � 5�92. 57 Southbound 4040 I �a�' I ��G? �a5¢- I �✓ `>`� C,9"� i Eastbound I 1194 westbound I S0o I I / I 5 J Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 10A of Projected Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume Q Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2;1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. DAT=: PROJECT: FORM I 1 0 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NE ON BL HOSPITA RD (Existing Traffic Volumes ase on verage toter Spring AM Peak 24 Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Projects Projected i% of Projected Project Direction Peak 2� Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 2y Hour PedVolumeour I PeaVo2umeour Volume Volume Volume Volume �L A 2/ No 3412 rthbound ( i/� I i-r- J(1:P � { i southbound , 2580 I / S I 22 l �gp / I G� 0 °`" � Eastbound I 1 04 i I e II r! ' Westbound i 903 I ( 37 0 1 l v Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1A of Projected ❑ Peak 2z Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than lb of Projected ® Peak 2: Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: ' PP,CJEi': FORM I 3 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection NEWPORT BL92SP-TT RD (Existing Traffic Volumes basedon verage Inter pr ng 90 PM Peak 2k Hour Approved Approach Existing Regional Protects Projected 10. of Projected Project ' Direction Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peak 2h Hour Ptak 2h Hour Volume Volume Volume Vol umre� Volume Volume Northbound F 3316 I I O Southbound I 384.1 I /�(0 I / 5 6 4/17 I 4-1 Eastbound I i J ✓ 2007 Westbound 989 ^� I ���3 IT ! Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 211 Hour Traffic Volume 1 Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1S of Projected ® Peak 2� Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U.) Analysis is required. 'PROJECT: DATE: FORM I 1 � • 1 APPENDIX B i INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSES 1 1 0 rCH2630AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS .r INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 AM ..___-••___•.............•___..............-___..•........_•_............_.......__--.__..... I IEXIsTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio VVolume I V/C I I lCapaeitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I VOLUME lw/o Project) I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I r ________________•_____----- .___--_•••-_•-------_ 1 0_ 1 i' I-•----•-) ----------- ) ................... ........................•_-I l NT 1600 1 1 2 0.00 l I Q I 0. O J 10.01 I�C r I > ------------------ ---- I MR I I 0 I I �. I I _ _•_--•••-•--__I 1 sL I I 1 761 1 1 /:5O . Q(o _ I0.061 • S ----------' I ---------------I-------I I SR 1600 1 1 256 0.16 I I / 1 ---------------------•------------------------------------------ EL 1 1600 I 1 310 l 0.19 1 1 � 1 I--------------------------------------------------------------------.................... I ET 1 I 1946 I �R l �/ �'� ", /i 24 jv i -R I I 1 ( I .... .._ ---•-------I _---13 I- - ---- ` ---------_-•_-0 '0 - 14 10. - - __-•... _6 -1 uT I•__4800 1 1 1191 1 0.25 I I I 0.7t7 IL/ ---------------------------------------------- -- I I WR 1 ---- i 1 60 l ---- l i ----1 J . '---- .. 1EXISTIHG 1 0.67 1 1 . .... (EXIST • REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PRCPOS-cD IMPROVEME4TS I.C.U. 1 6. 2J I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------- -----I (EXISTING - COMMITTED - REGIONAL GROWTH - PROJECT I.C.U. ----------------1 a:? I .................................................................... •=-" YProjec:ee - project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wiLL be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected • project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less then or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project --_----.----.------.................................•___....._._.._.........._......____• Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 CH2630AM � 37 CH2fi3tlPM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 6 RIVERSIDE AVENUE 2630 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES EASEO ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 PM ..................................................................................0.......... 1 IEXISTINCIPROPOSEDIEXISTINCIEXiSTINGIREGIONALICOMMtTTED] PROJECTED ]PROJECTIPROJECTI , IM*Ymnt] Lane$ 1 Lars 1 PK OR 1 V/C 1 GROWTH I PROJECT 1 V/C Ratio IVOLum 1 V/C 1 I 1Capacity1capecity] Volu a 1 Ratio I Voltma 1 VeLuae ]w/o Project] 1 Ratio 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 voluna 1 1 I . .. .....................1 .11-.19 .......1—..........i....................... . 1 ......_� .................. .......... .......................1 ] NT 1600 ] ] 9 0.02 ] ] / l n, Q 1 d.h i ` . .NR .? i................y �............o ..t. .................�..• —j 1•• ST •? 1600 j..__....i....._`D 0.06 i........i.. ... 1 �1 .._ .. . .SR...i...1600 1,.......i..-•476 i.,.0.30 1 .......i..� ..i.c;3_...,i.......�..�3 1. .EL...1•--1600 i . .. . 1. . 236 1 ..0.18 ....._.i../7�[ ...L�,j ./.. ......1e- - 1]........> 3200 . ... ER I I 1s 1 � 1 I • 'WL'-'--•160o I .......f._...1a i...0.01-I--'-....'.-•�•---10,0 7..,.......' •!-` ............................................................WT 14800 1990 0.42 _! l5 ................. a ;O.�i.i , ].. WR. .1.. 1600 1........i._....0 i...o.00 i. ..1 2- ..1 0..0 % - 1 '10.0 1 1 ]........ ................................................ ........................ .... .I EXISTING 1............................................................................ r (EXIST + REG ORCWTH • COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0,�b I I i...........................................................................................1 ]EXISTING + CCNMtTTED + REGIONAL GROWTH - PROJECT I.C.U. •------•--••-•---.,...I �.�q) .......................•--..................................., 11 Projected - project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1'Projeeted - project traffic I.C.U. Witt be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected - project traffic I.C.U. W/systems imoroveamint Wilt be Less than or egwt to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less then I.C.U. without project Description of systant (nprovaaunt: L PROJECT FORM It CH263OPM CH2635AX INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY i TUSTIN AVENUE 2635 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 AM .-••--.-•---- ...•'- I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICCMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I I ICapacitylCaparityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume ]w/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume __I_._..._I____.__I I----------------------------•-••'••--•_.-----•----------.•-•.--.----. I xL ) I 1 2 ) I 1 0 � I I \I I ---------•-------- -----------------------------------------------I I NY > 1600 I 1 13 0.00 1 1 0 a. dl I 1•;V.CJ�i ' 1 ----------------2> I I z ) I 1 0 ----- --------------- - ------------- I I sL > I I 43 > I 1 0 I I ------•-•-•---•---- ----••----••-..__... •-------•-t--•--•-••- ••.--. I--------- 1 ) 0.04 • I O I I } I�[1 1 I SR ) I I 14 ) I I I 1 1 ..............."'i ._.E. 1600 ._ i. .i.._.._..i_.___37 0.02 i__ .�"__..._i_..t._. •i__u , tol•7 I I .CAI I•--•------------------------------ ------------//.__.-------_—-----------—--..---.......... I I ET I I 1978 �•'.a +._!�.. �� �� J ��•^^I ) 3200 - -•-----•-) 0.62 ------------ E R I-•----•-I o I I w I I Y 1 -•--------------------- -------------------------------------- - /-^ -I WL I I 1 0I 1 1 0 I �4 I l j ----------------• -- ° I WT 1 4300 '1274 0.27 I I G J ' - --a--- - WR I 1600 I i �.... 85 1 0.05 1 I -----------•-•----- ------•----•----•------------- -----I (EXISTING 1 0.66 1 1 I------••••-•-•-----------------------•----- r i (EXIST • REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I O• I____---••-•---. 1----•-------•--------------•--------------------------- ----------•----- - (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH - PROJECT I.C.U. .......................1 9:,?j ...............................'---......_......_..._.._..... ' Projected - project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_I Projected * project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with prof met improvements wilt be less than I.C.U. without project -----•-----••-•----'•'••-•-•----•---_•---------------------------•----•----•--••----.---- Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 CH2635AX 1 91 CH2635PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION. COAST HIGHWAY t TUSTIN AVENUE U33 t EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES RASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 PM ............................................................................................. I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTIHGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMevementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I WC Ratio IVolume I V/C I I ICapacitylCapsoityl Voluas I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I -- I I I 1 I 1 I I volume I I I . .X.............i........i......;.i........i........i..O....1...........i.......i..... . 1600 i........1......a , D.DD ...,.....i--O... Q:Q.� ... . Q:01i . f. .XR ., ................. I----.......... .i.....a.. . 1 . _St. ............i._..._..i....-63 .........i..._....i...�....+I ..---.....i..... 11 ... . jST ? 1600 i........i......5 0.06 .......1..0.. .l\;O..�� ..........4;:�!'ol �f ........) .................., (........... 7 ....... ... i.......`r .......EL .I...1600 i._......i.....7......0.05 ...._..i..�..__i �:.^✓.i.......i �. �7 I . .�T_.....__...i.__..._.i...1653 .........l.�o I� 1 .......O L.......) 3200 ................... 0.52 .................... I 1 ER 1 I 9 1 1 Q 1� I /� I i.................................................•_-. _----....... u- I I 1 D ................. i ur ceaD i i 2060 I 0.43 I 1 i`7 1 0, ��:�Rj jWR .i...1600 ....i_....90 1 0.06 i._......i.._./...1 C-• 1:o I .. ..... •.... -- - ......................i...0. 1 ....... ...... ... --------- IEXI 1............................................................................ (EXIST - AEG GROWTH - COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS LC.U• I G• /V I I 1:.......................................................................................� [EXISTING - COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH - PROJECT I.C.U. ............................................................................................. Projec:d + project traffic will be less than or equal to 0.90 ' I.I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected+ project traffic t.C.U. w/systmu improvement will be less than or equal to 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less then I.C.U. without project ...•_-•-........... .--------------- ................................••_-.._....._-----.-.. Description of system Improvement: PROJECT fORM It CH2635PM CH3060AM ' INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY 3 DOVER DRIVE/BAYSHORE DRIVE 3060 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING '.-----.-.1990 AM ________ _-• IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICCMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolune I V/C I I 1Capacitylcapacityl Voluae I Ratio I VoLmm I Votume )w/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I i votume _I- -_ I I i -_._.-.-. - -----------I I NL I 16CO 1 1 43 1 0.03 1 1 2___1• •-----•-------•--•••-- - •................... 1 NT 1 1 72 1 12 --- 0 : ?�------.`l0,0 J1-y— •---- --- --- _ MR I 1 35 I I O I I I I.............................. --.................................................:.......I SL 1 4800 1 1 1052 1 0.22 • 1 16 2 i>y IO, ST 1 1600 1 1 41 1 0.03 1 1 I 0,0� I ................. .-•--"------------------ ..._-.C..._! .........._.I.d__..�.3.I1 II SR 1600 1 - I 4s i o.03 1 1 1, I0 - a. -"...__....__...__...__..._"_". . ------------------------ EL o5I1 I 3200 I I 92 1 0.03 14 .--.---• -------•------ ---••- ----l-I-J........ ET I 1 1696 15) 1 rO p7 .... -----------------•----------...................... ...I WL 1 1600 1 1 35 1 0.02 • 1 0 1 0 .P-� -#- 10 a� 1`�— I I...WT.__1-".4800 1 1 1160 i..-a.24 1 ?•-i--o0to 1_0_ �7 17 Q_l ti,� o I -•------------------------------------- ------_-- I 1 wit 1 N.S. 1 1 71--31 1 1 /7 1 0 1 1 1 1 ------------------- 1EXISTING ! 0----I•---- --- " -••-----•---••--- I (EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I Q . 7 0 1 1 • - -----_-_--""-------------I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U.............. .C.U.--..--•••...................I 7/1 ........................................................ V1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. witl be less than or equal to 0.90 1_I•Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. W/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected - project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be less than I.C.U. without project ....................... Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 1 as CH3060PH INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY i DOVER DRIVE/BATSHORE DRIVE 3060 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 PH ............................................................................................. I I EXISTING[PROPOSED I EXISTIMGI EXISTING IRECICNAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI MovuantIc�pec tyanas iCapa it'/1 Voltme I Ratio I Volueee I Volume iW/ECT I o Project Ratio iYoluae i Ratio 1 i I I I I I I I Valuma I I I .....................1600 -••-.L....27 o.02 L i..- .......i...J�....h.�,O ......I 0� ........ 3200 ...............HT ...) 0.03 ........ .. . �.. ... .Q._0......._ .. 3 1 NA I I 29 I I Q I � ....................................................................... ... .._............i 1 SL i 4800 I 1 1003 1 0.21 • 1 i5 I (�� �,.....,10-V I� .................................I..............-•--_..... ..... I 1 ST 1 1600 I [ 94 1 0.06 1 1 5 10, 0 (o 1 1 O.0�p 1 ........................................................ .... I 1 SR 1 .... 1 [ ... I ..07 1 i .. I Q, 0 7.i..........a.I I• EL. .1 3200,'........i....115 1• 0.04 • ...._..1 1.............. "1 0. �'/*• ! . I J.0 1�. . ........) ..4800 ..................) •0.31.1•� ..............� J,...j..... I ER 1 1 30 1 1 (p Y I V i ....................................................... 1 WL 1 1[ 53 . • I i�ue II ......................................................... . + VQ,..-V WT 4800 17E9 0.37 ............................................................................................ . . 1 . I ) 1 ....................................................................--................--f .(c�. Il EXISTING I . I . .. [EXIST * REG GROWTH + CCMMITTEO W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 0 . I� i [ I.......................................................................-:................i IEXISTtNC + COMMITTED * REGIONAL GROWTH * PROJECT I.C.U. 10.7v I .../.................................................................................••...--•- `M Projected * projec: traffic I.C.U. Witt be less than or equal to 0.90 ' 1_[-Projectec * project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement Witt be Less than or a"( to 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements Witt be less than I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Description of system improvammt: PROJECT FORM It CH544DAM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & BAYSIOE DRIVE 5440 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 AM -----•-------------------•-------•-----------------------------------•---•------------•------ '� I 1EXISTINGI PROPOSED]EXISTING IEXISTINGIREGIONAL I COMMITTED I PROJECTED ]PROJECT]PROJECT] [Movement[ Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio ]Volume I V/C I ICapacity[Capacityl volune I Ratio I VoLume I Volume Iw/c Project[ I Ratio I 1 I I I I I I Volume 1 ] I NL 1 1 563 IL I HT 4800 1 1 5 0.12 - I �• t�Q:1 I--------I ------------------ MR I 1 30 ---------!- I -----------------I• 1 1...... I .................. ----------- L.............. 1 I i 5T 3200 1 1 6 0.02 1 1 Q I Q.0� �1 `� 0.0 i I �` 1 -SR -D ------.-.i---..---) i--------i--`---•-\ --- --i------�........ 36 r 1 EL I 1600 1 i 12 ] 0.01 I 1 I---------------------------------------------------- 42. 1 3, 1"t4 1 10.C,41 I---••------•---------------------------------•-.....-----..._..__....._..........--.-_..... I ET 1 4800 I I 2846 I 0.59sl1 I !: n [--------------------------------------------- I I ER 1 1600 1 1 497 1 0.31 1 1 2 1 0. � ] I ;. I d•?J 1----------•----------------------------------------------------••- ----- .--_---_____I 1 WL 1 1600 1 1 14 1 0.01. - 1 -# 10.01 1}L- I I--------> 6400 ----------------- WR I I 7 I I �---------------I --------i 1EXISTLNG 1 0.72 1 I I..:................................................................. `./.... [ 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEYE4T5 I.C.U. I �, E 7 I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------i 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10•00GI ............................................................................................. } Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be Greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems imorovement WILL be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project inprovements will be less than I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 # % 1 CNSG40PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY L BAYSIDE DRIVE 5440 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1"0 PN ............................................................................................. I I EXIST INGIPROPOSEDI EXISTING I EXISTING I REGIONAL ICCMMITTEDI PROJECTED I PROJECT IPROJECTI IMov~tl Lanes I Lana I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVOLLM I V/C I Icapacity1capooftyl VOLUME I Ratio I VOLUME I VOLUME Iwo Projectl I Rod* I I I I I I I I I 1-1 1.... I I I [ • .I i........i..... i ................... • •MY 4800 20 0.14 * O `'L........I .................. �............ ....... . . ..` `�r- I NR 38 I I I........................... -•-..................... ......._...._.................-I SL I I t3 I ST 3200 I 1 10 0.02 I SR I I ....5o I ..... .EL ..1.- 1600.1...._...1. 61 1 '0.04 - ...._........................................ 3 I 1 tC. -0�+h I••........................ ............................. ��... .. .._........ .. ET I .... I i .... I .... I / f_.I.-�G-.-/••-'I.... ER ( 1600 I I 668I 0.42I I 4f..10,-JJ 1.................................................. ......................... I WL I 1600 ( ( 45 i 0.03 I I 0 ..1.Q:Q+�.'._..... .O 11 ----•-------.---: ... .... WR I I 30 I I .. 1. . ]EXISTING I 0.66 I 1----------- ------------•------.._.. ----................................. 1EXIST + RED GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 1) • ?I I � I................----------.........----.....-----------.........._............_..----------I [EXISTING - COMMITTED - REGIONAL GROWTH - PROJECT I.C.U. 1 O-,?/ I ................•--..................._..............................................._._.... t1 Projected - project traffic I.C.U. Witt be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 •projected - project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected - project traffic I.C.U. w/systems Improvement Will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project l"Frovements will be less than I.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Description Of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 CH5055AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY & JAMBOREE ROAD 5055 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 AM ............................................................................................. I [EXISTING[PROPOSED I EXISTING[EXISTING IREGIONAL[COMMITTED I PROJECTED [PROJECT I PROJECT IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio [Volume I V/C I I lcapacitylcapacityl Volune I Ratio I Volume I Volune Iw/o Projec:l I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volune I I I I---------------------------------------------------------.^ --- ----------J I NL I 16CO I 1 4 1 0.00 I I V .I_0:.o I I 0 _a --- - - 3 t=rl 1 MR I 1 65 ----•----! I O-------------------------------------I I----- ---.-------I - ---I--- 85-I-----------------i-------..�_- - ---A-I� I ST 1 3200 1 1 283 1 0.09 1 1 12 1 m 9 1 I0 .01 1 I -1- SR I N.S. ( 1 721 1 1 1 ? 1 0 1 1 1 I-""-....___--•-----•--------•-----•--•--------------- -- -----._"--------- -- -i- EL 1 4800 1 1 1321 1 0.28 - 4/0 1 e,;2 14 10 .------------------------------------------------------------------- ! -. —i' ET 1 1 1534 "- •'_) 8000 i..-.__..i_.-_._fi) 0.19 i........j.. .... ..........:s.....7._.... c WL I N.S. I 1 521 1 1 /2 1 Q 11 1 1 -----------•"""-----""---......"""-------------------"""------"•--._".-.-__-------""-I -I- WT 1 6400 1 1 1050 1 0.16 • ' ' 1104 1 0. / %� �7 1 o./iI 1 a./— I-------------------------------------------------"----------------�—-------------------I 1 -R I N.S. I I 78 1 1 I I 1 -•--_� I I IEXISTING ____! I _ 0.72 I ..__ (EXIST • REG GROWTH - COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1 Q- 2 1 1 -----------------------------------------------------------""----A""---I IEXISTING • COMMITTED - REGIONAL GROWTH • PROJECT I.C.U. I v.SJ .`./........................................................................................... IX1 Projected - project traffic I.C.U. will be less -.-.an or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected - project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected • project traffic I.C.U. w/systems inprovement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected - project traffic I.C.U. witn project inprovements will be less than I.C.U. without project ..".".---"......_.__.•................................................................... Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 CHSOSSPM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: COAST HIGHWAY i JAMBOREE ROAD 5055 MST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 PM ............................................................................................. -- I IEXISTINCIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINCIREGIONALICOWITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMoven«,ntl Lams I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I Icapecityleapecityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I VOLLme lw/o Projectl I Ratio I l I I I I I I I VO(Ume I I I •ML ' I -•i600 1 .......1.....30 1...0.02•• .......i..O...1 0 .02_i.......i�:��. '. .NT...........1.................................................................306 '•.n.•. ' �.1-) ryc I. .... .� 0.12 •............. ._ I MR 3200 I I 70 ' 1 1 1' 'SL"'1..-1600 1........1_..•161•l• •0.10.1. .. . .1.-7...1.6..• I(S-...4 IQ• �)� vt' . _ST..1..•3200 1........1...•560 1...G.18•".......i••R _•-i 0:/.W) !.......16,1 . I--------------------------•------.----.---------•-•---- h5-- . _I. SR I N.S. 1 I 1338 1 1 //� I ,299 1 C I I ;' I i. EL - 4E00•l" .....1....726 1•• 0.IS•- - I � Q Q•2� -� 1� =' 11- I--------------•---------------------•--•---•- ---- -- ------ -- - I ET 1 1 1236 1 J 1 1 O(Q �.. 0 . ; �' c if a.;y� ► 1 -- -) 8000 1 1 28----------------' 1 0.16 ............ - ......_....... ... .1 l - 'cR 1 1 p 1 1......................................................................... .............. l M.S. 1 3200 1 1 t29 1 1 1 p 10, Q�/ 1 10•0={I .Wr I caoo 1...'• .1_..163T 1.. o.s . Ir J.i.. �4 i.a;oe* a0 ^v, 1-------- 1--..........................................:..... .. WR N.S. 98 G � 1 ........ .................................. ............ _ ........................... . 1EX 1..............................................I........................ . I 1EXIST - REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 1.................................-------------------------------- ........... IEXISTINO - COMMITTED - REGIONAL GROWTH - PROJECT I.C.U. IU- AA .��.//....................................................................................«...... (LC Projected - project traffic I.C.U. OIL be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected - project traffic I.C.U. will x greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected - project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected - project traffic I.C.U. with Project faorovements WILL be less than L.C.U. without project ..... ....................................... .---------------- ....------ .............•---- Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM It 1 Jas3lopM • • INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTER ECTION: • XIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES8BASEDROADAVERAGE DAILY DRIVE ---•SINTER----'---••--------••-••--•••- E%IS7 TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 PH I IEXISTINCIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICCMMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I V/C I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I ----___.I_ Volume -- -----------------1 I .xL --I---_..--I- I I I i O I . I i i --------------•-•-•-•-•--•__-_--------------- -•_..- I p 1 I.-••-.•••_----- - 1048 0.22 16, 1 � Id,2 I 1 HT I 4800 1 I I 132 12$$ rj L f -- •I •_--_--__•--_--_•_•.__._•.................•_..-_.-. .-•_.•- I NR 1 1600 1 1 183 1 0.11 1 1 n5 10. 13 -___•__.-_..__.._1 SL I 3200 I I 304 1 0.10 1 10 I Q . (O I ST I 4800 i I 1599 I 0.33 T d ,_�_^0� I �. q�'7c'i............ SR I I I I I 1 Q 1 1 1 I •--•-•------------------- -- __...._._. --•------_.-••-I I EL i I I I I I Q I I I I I I ET I I I I i I Q I I I I -----•- _______I I----------------- ------ I ER I I I I I 1 ---�----------•I---------------I u� 1 uoo I I ssz I 0.23 • I A 1 1 f).��� I A,?� I-------------------------------------------- --- -- - I I I I I I I I I I I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I I 1 wR 1 2400 1 1 sot I 0.21 Q. -------------------------------------------------------------- - -- ------ I I-- 1 -------- I ---- 1E%IST - REG GROWTH + COMMITTED w/PROPOSED IMPROVEM-4TS I.C.U. 1 0. (o 5 1 I I-•-----• - ___ ______________________________I 1EXISi:NG * COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH • PROJECT I.O.U. I C•'`J I `..........................................................•._..__.._....__..__.._...._....... , 7( I Projected • project traffic I.C.U. wilt be less than or equal to 0.90 I_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I=1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems irrovenw:nt will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will ba less than I.C.U. without project Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM II JA5310PX INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD i SANTA BARBARA DRIVE 5310 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1"0 AN ............................................................................................. I IEXISTINCIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGI"ISTINGIREGIONALICCMMtTTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovwwtl Lan" I Lanes I PK BR 1 V/C I GAWK I PROJECT I V/C Asd* IVoluse I V/C I I II Capacity'Capaeityl Volueae I Ratio i Votuee i Voluae Iw/y `ru "t] i Ratio I............................................I--------I--..................i....QQ..i...../. I MT . . I.....__.I 1255 1 0.26 • 1, 1... • . 1 4800 qe5 10 -V;i� ...............1a00 L.......1 316 i...0.20 i. 4 1• 9�. .I O•, Z/ jSL I - 320D L_..................519 •0.1a ................................................�. 1141b.l - .................................................. ..... .-- - I i ST I 4a0D 1 1 927 I 0.19 1 � I a. I Q, '�(p I IQ,Q ....---.-.-.?4................•--......-- I SR I I I I I 1 0 I 1 1 I ..........•-•..............................................................................I I EL I I i I I 1 Q 1 1 1 I .............. '---I--------I--------+I-------.I--'.O -...I.V........Y............._l.o...V.. .IEr � . . ...I........I...................................... ...I...........................E. � I WL..I..- _....._.I._... 7.I_.. ..._...I f ^ .... 240C 7 0.03 . . ..I........I._......I.............................. ..... . .I-.-----I - -I.. .. ...........................................0.0I--------.I. .-_I-...I ..6� ..*......ID,d--I 1.......................................0.................._ .._.... . I............................................................................ IEXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 10 i................................................................... 1EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. i............... ......................................................................... . �[I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be greater than 0.90 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less then or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improVnents will be less then S.C.U. without project ......................................................................................... Oeserfpeion of system tnprovemenc: PROJECT FORM It JA5045AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMBOREE ROAD 8 SAN JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD 5045 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING 1990 AM --.....--•---....---.•....--•-------------••--......-•-....-•-.....---............-------_.-- I IEXISTINGIPROPOSED[EXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED 1PROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH l PROJECT I V/C Ratio IVolune I V/C I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume 1w/o Project[ I Ratio I i I I I I I I i --tune I I i ------ ------- I NL 1 1600 1 1 42 1 0.03 1 1 0 1 0. p?j I I Q,Q3 1-----------•-----------------•------- ---------. .........._.•.--Q-......... I I HT I 4a00 1 1 1308 1 0.27 • �'Q 1 41-7 _1_�:3d_ _�./._�Q•"J6 �X_ NR 1 1600 1 1 96 I 0.06 1 1 E 10 07 1 10.071 I---------•----•------ ----------------•-----•------------...............................I SL 1 3200 1 1 $99 1 0.19 • 19 1 Q, l -, 10.1 I-------------------------------------------•------------• _. .--� .---9 I 1 ST 1 4800 1 1 1293 1 0.27 139 1 3.'�1..� 0 :?� 1 3Q 10,E 5,1 ------------------- ...... ........I 1_..SR_..1...1600 I 1 45 1 0.03 1 I Q Q 3 1 1 0.0, )[ I EL I I 212 ... 0.06 4800 •----•••--..._. � ..-.._..___.. •. _ / _...1 I.____.._? I i I 1 1 I ET I I 57 I ER I H.S. 1 I 43 I I I .....p 1 0 I I I------------------------------------------- ...... WL I 1 155 I--------> 4800 -------•-•--------> 0.04 ••--------- WT 1 I 23 I I I 1 .........---r--•-••............ WR...VJJ i. I 351 1 I I �' 1 I I 1 I--------------------------------------------- .--..__....1 -------- - 1EXISTING 1 0.56 1 1 1-------------------------------------------------------------------- /-._--- I 'EXIST � REG GROWTH CCMMITTED W/PROPOSEE-D IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. •-•---------------------•__-•-----••••----•---•----•-_•--------•-------1 1EXISiING - COMMITTED . REGIONAL GROWTH • PROJECT I.C.U. •-•-•0 471 .................•.__.._.._.__....._._.......__............____....._.._..._.._ 4I Projected • project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 '_'.Projected • project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/sysce= improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected . project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be Less than I.C.U. without project -..----.----•------_--------•.................................................•.__....... Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM 11 JA4980AN INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: JAMEOREE AM i EASTBLUFF DRIVE/FORD ROAD 4980 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES USED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTIN/SPRING ...1"0 AN .................................................................................. .... _ I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMITTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovemantl Lanes I Lanes I PC MR I VIC I GROWTH I PROJECT I WC Ratio IVolums I V/C I I leswitylCapecityl Volume I Ratio I Values I Values IN/o Projeatl l Ratio I I I I I I I I I Votuse l I I .......... ................ ..................i...$. /..i. ------ MI. 3200 2930.09 . . ...........i........i•-' .........i. i• •i, [ I•.....• Nr 1519 `.. l t /9 ........> 40 ..................0 0.33 .... :...T�., 0.Z.7...........�- I i MR1 1 52 1 l (p ..1. 1 ............1600 I_...........*-35 i....... i..................3 0.02 i .......QAZp I . . . . . .L.............. ...... ... ....... ................................... .. i' •STl4W0 [ 1469 0.31 '?8 i0. Q 30 ..................... ._.. . . . . • . . • .S1600 1 13 1 0.01 1 1 1b 10. 027- I �I • .......i... i... i....__._1 . ... . .. . . EL 1 1600 I 103 0.06 1S10• 01 110 tQ7'6`0 O2/ II ...............................................,........................................... ET [ 1600 86 0.12 Q2 ( 1 . . •.. . . •.••• . ..l.....-• _ ER 1600 295 0.1d 0.rqlQ•1C - -----•-•-•------------.,-- ..................L . .- .•. .........� .. -- -< .3 . . ...a 4aao i---------------- ) 0o ....... .. I1 C` ..... 156........... .............. ...... . .. I....-•--. .. 1600 .. ..... ............10.10.1 jExIST1HG ..........................I...0.52•i._._............._........................._ [............................................................................ 1EXIST + REG GROWTH COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. 10 •64 . I r7 l [EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWN + PROJECT I.C.U.•-•-••- •• •••- ••-•-•••1 .701 ............................................................................................. 1ZProjected + project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected - project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be less than or "wet to 0.90 l_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements wilt be.Less-than-I:C.U: without project...................................................... Oneripcian of system: ieprovamant: ` PROJECT FORM II t S ME2480AM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD i HOSPITAL ROAD 2480 -EXIST-TRAFFIC VOLUMES.BASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WINTER/SPRING -------•----1990 AN • ---.....-•---------------------------••------ I IEXISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTED( PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI IMovementl Lanes I Lanes I PK HR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio lVolune I WC I I ICapacitylCapacityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume lw/o Projectl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Volume I I I I-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I .- XL...1_ 1600 1 1 152 1 0.10 l ----------------------•-- -----••-""-. --'-..-• - -.----- -----1-"'..._- '-.•-_p 12Z4 NT I i ---- 137 I �� �.1GJ .l-I- ' - } I I..'NR -) 4800 i•"'_...i. ) 0.27 i........i_. 0 - - 1 I 74 I--------------------------------------------------------.------.------- --------;-�I SL 1 1600 1 1 25 I 0.02 • 1 0_ 1 0.0 z 1 I p 91 I---S------------•---------i----so2-- ------i-a ---i---- -u----------------I I 2 I--------) 4800 ------------------- 0.21 ---._1---_---------... SR 1 I 220 1 g r----------__1_ I I---------------------------------------------- I I EL I 1600 I i 184 I 0.12 1 1 / io' I�I F I----------•-------------------------- ----------- - -------------------_-- I ET 1 1600 1 1 165 1 0.10 I I TIo .1/ I loll I .._ _ -------------'----I I ER 1 1600 1 1 206 1 0.13 • "..-"I- I Q./V I 10./d I I-•---------•--- ----------------•---- ------------•-----------------I I WI. 1 16001 1 771 0.051 1 0 10.0 1 1a0- 1 •-----------------------------I I WT I 1 297 1 1 I Q• IC I- 10•101 --------) 3200 ------------------) 0.10 •-----------"'----- -- --------I WR I 1 t5 ----•----I' 1 O '___..---I- I I I--------STING I I 1.......................................0.52.-.__._______.__..____...___.._.. 1 1EXIST + REG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOS-eD IMPROVEMENTS I.C.U. I U .5te/ 1 I -•-_-•-----__•_•-_•------------------------------------------------•--------------------I (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I.C.U. 10.(�o .... IXI Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wiLL be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 l_I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. w/systems improvement will be Less than or equal to 0.90 I_l Projectec + project traffic I.C.U. with project improvements will be Less than I.C.U. without project ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM it µ.4 0 1 NE2480PM INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION: NEWPORT BOULEVARD L HOSPITAL ROAD 2480 EXIST TRAFFIC VOLUMES RASED ON AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC WIMTER/SPRING 1990 PM ............................................................................................. _. I IEXISTIMOIPROPOSEDIEXISTING(EXISTtROIREOIONALI CCMMtTTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJECTI 18evwmrl Lanes I I~ I PK MR I V/C I GROWTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio (Volume I WC I lCapacitylCapaeityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Volume Iw/o Projettl I Ratio I I I I I I I I I Veluma I I I j- •HL .�1 1600 1........1...-171.1•••0.11•*....--............ 57 I.0 j. .NT.-.........1....,...1.--1056...........0.24,f- ? 1........) 4900 ..................) I Nit I I % I I f -�• I I •SL .... .... .................1_...... .........1--0-•---1-^.... ............0 12I. .ST....._.....1........1._ 1367 .......1..�� I. ._.. .} 4800 ..................y A.32 ._. ...... ...... i i SK 1 1 149 �. ,E`...1.."1600 1........1..- ;E1 1.. 0.11.1.......,1 .................................... 0 1 -ET ---I_. ----- ;--------1 -.;�1---D.10.1..........y�...1�.1�...........10.,3.� 1- ER • 1 - 1600 1........1....349.1`- 0.22 - .......1'15 -I .2 r i.......10,a7 0 .a v- .................1 ...................................... .1 I WL 1 1600 I 1 166 1 0.10 t I C-10 I I Q . /0 M I--------) 3200 ------------------) 0,08 ......___.... .. ..I I WR 1 I 27 I I �;f I I I EX-S---1......... ................1 a: .1.............. ..........._.-----...._.---- -I r NG 75 1.............. .. ........................................................ I IEX357 + 0.EG GROWTH + COMMITTED W/PROPOSED IHPRCVEHENTS I.C.U. 1 y 7,57 1 1 . 1................................................................. ....:............... ...1 (EXISTING + COMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT :.C.U. 10.00tpl ............................................................................................. 1�(I Projected + project traffic I.C.U. wilt be less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 I_1 Projected + project traffic I-C-U- w/systems isorovement Will be Less than or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project Inprovuwnts Witt be-less-than.--C U--m ImproWithout project...................................................... Description of system Improvement. r PROJECT FORM II r r APPENDIX C TRAFFIC COUNT COAST HIGHWAY/BALBOA BAY CLUB i 1 i i ! •?4 HOUR INTERSECTION' VOLUM• NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES NEWPORT BEACH , CA NORTH-SOUTH LEGS : - BALBOA BAY CLUB E EAST-WEST LEGS : - PACIFIC COAST HWY DATE : 08-15-89 ----------- ; ------------ ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ----------- TOTAL TIME ; NORTH SOUTH ; EAST ; WEST ; ----------- ; LEG ; LEG ; LEG ; LEG 12 : 00 i ------------ i ----------- 1 ----------- 1 ----------- ; - --- ' 12 ; 305 ; 240 ; ---- ---557 1 : 00 ; ------------ ; ----------- ; ----------- ----------- ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ; 3 ; 139 ; 116 ; 258 2 : 00 ----------- ' ----------- ' ----------- ' ----------- ' ----------- ; ; 1 63 ; 80 ; 144 3 : 00 ; ------------ ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ; i 34 ; 46 81 ; 4 : 00 ----------- ' ------58--- ' ----------- ' ----------- ----------- ; ; 6 ; 43 107 5 : 00 ; ------------ ; ----------- ; ----------- ----------- ; ----------- ----------- ; ; '16 196 229 ; 441 ; 6 : 00 ; ------------ ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ----------- ----------- ; 47 ; 638 826 ; 11511 ; 7 : 00 ; ------------ ; ----------- i ----------- ; ----------- ; - ------- ; ; ----------- ; 91 ; 1 , 145 ; 1 , 748 2 , 984 8 : 00 ; ------------ ; ----------- ; ------------ ; ----------- ; --- ------- ; ----------- ' 163 1 , 338 ; 1 3 , 356 9 : 00 ----------- ' ----------- ' ----------- ' ----------- ' ----------- ' 169 ; 1 , 338 ; 1 , 368 ; 2 , 875 ; 10 : 00 ; ------------ ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ----------- ----------- 155 1 1 3 , 052 11 : 00 ; ------------ ; ----------- ; ----------- --- ------- --- ------- ; ----------- ; ; 144 ; 1 , 682 1 , 547 ; 3 , 373 12 : 00 ------------ ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ------------ ----------- ; ; i19 ; 1 , 743 ; 1 , 631 ; 3 , 493 1 : 00 ; ------------ ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ----------- ----------- ; ; 147 ; 1 , 386 ; 1 , 645 ; 3 , 178 ; 2 : 00 ; ------------ ; ----------- ; -- ---- ; ------ ,----- ----- ---------- - ; ---------- ; --1 , 745 ; 3 , 352 ------------ ' -----147- ------ ' ---1------- ' ----------- ' 3 : 00 -- ; - - --•--------- ; ; 182 1 , 744 ; 1 , 672 3 , 598 4 : 00 ------------ ----------- ' ----------- ' ----------- ' ----------- -- ' 119 ; '1 , 961 1 , 721 ; 3 , 801 5: 00 ' ------------ ' ----------- ' ----------- ' ----------- ' ----------- ; li6 ; 2 , 021 ; 1 , 807 ; 3 , 944 ------------ ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ----6_00--- ' 106 ; 1 , 842 ; 1 , 623 ; 3 , 571 ; 7 : 00 ; ------------ ----------- ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ----------- ----------- ; 129 ; 1 , 349 ; 1 , 304 2 , 782 ; 8 : 00 ; ------------ ; ----------- ; ----------- ; - -- - -- ; ; ----------- ; ; 123 ; 1 , 108 ; 1 , 055 2 , 286 ; 9 . 00 ; ------------ ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ----------- ----------- ; ; 76 890 ; 903 1 , 869 ; 10 : 00 ; ------------ ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ----------- ; ----------- ----------- ; ; 44 ; 772 ; 761 ; 1 , 577 ; ' ----11 : 00 i ------------ i ----- --- ; --- ---- ; ----------- ; ----------- ; '-- 30 549 453 ; 1 , 032 - -- - --- - --- ; ; 2 . 111 ; 25 , 471 ; 25 . 640 53 . 222 - -- - - - - --- -- - ' - - - - - - - - - - ' - -- - - - - - - - - ' --- - - -- -- -- ' INTERSECTION TURNING COUNT NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES- NEWPORT BEACH, CA. , NORTH-SOUTH STREET: PAC COAST HWY EAST-WEST STREET: BALBOA BAY CLUB TIME: 7:00-8: 00 A DATE: 11-28-89 NORTH LEG _ _ I 27 : 1757 ; 0 ; Total 5 : 361 : ; 1st : 4 : 378 : : 2nd � ---9 : 486_� : 3rd - 9 ; 532 1 4th ----;---- Rt. Lt. V EAST LEG - ------ ----- 1 Rt. : 0 : <--- I 1 ; I 1 Total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Lt. : ; ; : : 0 : ------------------------ --------------------- : 17 : ; 3 : 4 : 6 : 4 : Lt. 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total 0 ; ; __ 1 I 1 1 1 -> 32 ; :---5 ; ---4 : 10 : 13 : Rt. ------------------------- WEST LEG Lt. : Rt. : ----------------- : 1st : 14 : 220 : : 2nd ; 12 : 218 : : 3rd : 9 264 i ' 4th : 7 : 329 : Total : 42 :1031 : 0 ----------------- SOUTH LEG INTERSECTION TURNING COUNT NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES- NEWPORT BEACH, CA. NORTH-SOUTH STREET: PAC COAST HWY EAST-WEST STREET: BALBOA BAY CLUB TIME: 8: 00-9: 00 A DATE: 11-28-89 NORTH LEG- ---- 25 ; 1975 ; 6 Total 6 541 ; 1 1st 8 532 ! 2 ; 2nd ---6 1 I -6 391 2 3rd 5 511 1 4th Rt. ; Lt. G EAST LEG : -------------------------- 1 Rt. l 11 3 ; 51 611 15 Total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Lt. : ; ; ; 0 � ------------------------- -------------------------- ! 29 ; , 61 6 : 7 ; _10 : Lt, 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total 0 ; 1 01 0 : . 01 01 ---> 42 ; ; 191 91 7 ; 71 Rt. WEST LEG 1 Lt. 1st I 9 ; 374 ; 0 2nd ; 10 1 368 1 1 3rd 1 9 ; 307 3 1 4th 1 12 ; 391 1 Total 40-_14405 SOUTH LEG INTERSECTION TURNING COUNT NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES- NEWPORT BEACH, CA. NORTH-SOUTH STREET: PAC COAST HWY EAST-WEST STREET: BALBOA BAY CLUB TIME: 9: 00-9:30 A DATE: 11-28-89 ' NORTH LEG ----------------- 10 f 708 1 0 1 Total 5 1 383 0 1 1st 1 5 1 325 1 0 ; 2nd I I I 3rd 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 4th Rt. 1 Lt. V EAST LEG 1 ------------------ ; I Rt. 1 I 1 I I I 1 ; <--- ; ; ; ; ; ; '0 ; Total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Lt. ; ; ; ; 0 ; 1 ------------ ---------- 1 ----------- --------- -13 ; ; 11 ; 2 ; ILt. 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total 1 I I 1 _ I I I 1 I 1 I --> 25 ; ; --11 ; 14 :----- Rt. - - -- ; WEST LEG Lt. ; Rt. ' 1 1 1st ; 9 363 ; 1 1 2nd 1 4 1 257 1 0 1 3rd ' '1 4th '1 I I I Total ; 13 ; 620 1 1 1 ----------------- SOUTH LEG INTERSECTION TURNING COUNT NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES- NEWPORT BEACH, CA. ' NORTH-SOUTH STREET: PAC COAST HWY EAST-WEST STREET: BALBOA BAY CLUB TIME: 3 : 30-4 : 30 P DATE: 11-28-89 NORTH LEG- ---- - 28 : 1488 ; 9 Total 5 324 1 ; 1st 9 406 ; 2 12nd -10 1385 I 4 3rd 4 ; 373 2 14th --------- Rt. ; Lt. V EAST LEG -------------------------- ' Rt. ; 0 : 1 ; 4 : 3 ; ; 8 ; <-- 0 : 0 : 0 : 01 ; 0 : Total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Lt. : 1 : 1 : 0 : 01 ; ' -------------------------- -------------------------- 11 ; : 1 :1 ; 7 � 61 4 : Lt. 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total 01 : 0 ; 0 : 0 ; 0 : ---> 36 ; 1 8 ; 9 ; 9 : 10 ; Rt. WEST LEG ^ ' --------------- lst 6 478 2 2nd 8 481 ; 1 3rd ; 22 ; 477 1 4th 11 511 ; 1 Total 47 : 1947 ; ---5 SOUTH LEG INTERSECTION TURNING COUNT , NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES- NEWPORT BEACH, CA. NORTH-SOUTH STREET: PAC COAST HWY EAST-WEST STREET: BALBOA BAY CLUB TIME: 4: 30-5: 30 P DATE: 11-28-89 NORTH LEG 1 - I : 37 :1500 1 0 1 Total : 9 381 1 b : 1st : 6 : 321 1 0 : 2nd : 8 : 374 : 0 : 3rd : 14 424 1 0 1 4th ' 1 _ 1 Rt. 1 Lt. V EAST LEG : -------------------------- : , Rt. 1 41 01 0 : 2 : : 6 : !-- 0 ; 0 : 0 : 0 : : 0 : Total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Lt. : 0 : 0 : 0 ; 0 : 1 --0 : : -------------------------- ------------------------- : , 19 : ' 4 : 6 : 8 : 1 : Lt. 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total 1 0 : : _-> I , I 1 , I I - : I 43 : : 5 : 10 : 12 : 16 : Rt. -------------------------- WEST LEG Lt. - : Rt. ----- ----------- : 1st it 496 : 2 2nd 1 17 : 523 1 1 3rd 1 5 : 503 1 0 ' 4th I 5 1 505 1 2 1 Total : 38 : 2027 : 5 ----------------- SOUTH LEG INTERSECTION TURNING COUNT NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES- NEWPORT BEACH, CA. ' NORTH-SOUTH STREET: PAC COAST HWY EAST-WEST STREET: BALBOA BAY CLUB TIME: 5: 30-6: 00 P DATE: 11-28-89 NORTH LEG ----------------- 20 ; 760 ; 2 Total I --7 I 384 ; 2 ; 1st 13 ; 376 I 0 2nd 3rd 4th ----------------- ' Rt. Lt. V EAST LEG ---------------------- Rt. ; 0 : 2 ; ; ' Total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Lt. ; 0 ; 0 ; ; 0 ; ------------------------- ; ---------------------- 10 ; ; 5 ; 5 ; Lt. 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total 0 --> i ---13__- 8 : 5 ; WEST LEG -Lt. ; ----Rt_- 1st 5 ; 480 ; 0 2nd ! 12 521 ; 2 3rd ' 4th Total ; 17 ; 1001 ---2 ; SOUTH LEG INTERSECTION TURNING COUNT , SELECTED PEAK HOUR NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES- NEWPORT BEACHi CA. NORTH-SOUTH STREET: PAC COAST HWY ' EAST-WEST STREET: BALBOA SAY CLUB TIME: 08: OOAM DATE: 11-28-89 NORTH LEG ' 1 25 11975 1 6 1 Total 1 6 1 541 ; 1 ; 1st 8 ; 532 ; 2 ; 2nd 6 1 391 I 2 1 3rd 5 ; 511 ; 1 ; 4th Rt. ; Lt. V EAST LEG ------------------------ Rt. ; 1 ; 3 ; 51 6 ; ; 15 ; <__ 0 ; Total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Lt. ; ; ; ; 0 ; ----------- - 29 ; � 6 ; 6 ; 7 : -10 : Lt. 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total 0 ; ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; 0 ; ---> --------------------WEST LEG Lt. I Rt.----------------- , 1st ; 9 ; 374 ; 0 2nd ; 10 368 ; 1 3rd ; 9 ; 307 ; 3 ' 4th ; 12 ; 391 1 1 Total ; 40 ;1440 ; 5 ; ----- SOUTH LEG INTERSECTION TURNING COUNT SELECTED PEAK HOUR NEWPORT TRAFFIC STUDIES- NEWPORT BEACH, CA. NORTH-SOUTH STREET: PAC COAST HWY EAST-WEST STREET: BALBOA BAY CLUB TIME: 05: OOPM DATE: 11-28-89 NORTH LEG ---------------- 42 ; 1558 2 Total ---8 ; 374 0 1st 14 424 0 ; 2nd --7_ 384 2 3rd 13 ; 376 0 4th ----------- ; Rt. Lt. 4 EAST LEG ------------- Rt. ; 0 ; 2 : 0 : 2 ; 1 C <-- 0 ; 0 ; ; ; 0 : Total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Lt. ; 0 : 0 : 0 : 0 : ; 0 -------------------------- -------------------------- ' 19 : ; 8 ; 1 : 5 ; 5 : Lt. lst 2nd 3rd 4th Total 41 : I 12 ; 16 ; 8 ; 5 : Rt. WEST LEG Lt. 1st 5 503 ; 0 2nd 5 ; 505 ; 2 3rd 5 480 0 4th 12 521 2 Total 27 ; 2009 ; ---4-; SOUTH LEG APPENDIX D ONE PERCENT ANALYSES COAST HIGHWAY/BALBOA BAY CLUB 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection COAST HIGHWAY & BALBOA BAY UB (Existing Traffic Volumes basso on verage Hinter, pring 19 9o,AM ' Peak 2% Hour I APDroved Approaen Existing Regional Projects Projected 1� of Projected Project Direction Peak 2y Hour Growth Peak 2ss Hour Peak 2k Hour Peak 2y Hour 1 Peak 2k Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume ' Northbound I sauihoound I �- Eastbound I y�Dz// I /O,3/; `J—ZZp Westbound I G 7 b ?15 '3 7 7z ' Project Traffic is estimated to be less than 1% of Projected ❑ Peak 2%: Hour Traffic Volume Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 114 of Projected ❑ Peak 234 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DAT' PROJECT. FORM I 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection AS�Q THY i BALBOA BAY CLUB (Existing Traffic Volumess a—sea on Average nter pr ng T�9oTPM Peak Zy Hour Approved Approach I Existing I Regional Projects Pro ad 1 of Projected Projee: Oirectioo Peak 2h Hour Growth Peak 2h Hour Ptak 24 Hour Peak 24 Hour Peat 2y Hour Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume �39 Hor:hocund j j southbound --- Eastbound i ��✓3 ��G j S� j ��S�B i �� 1 ]S37 westbound • Project Traffic is estimated to be less than is of Projected Peak 2;, Hour Traffic Volume ❑ Project Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected Peak 2h Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (I.C.U. ) Analysis is required. DATE: PROJECT: FORM I APPENDIX E ICU ANALYSES COAST HIGHWAY/BALBOA BAY CLUB INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZA71OM ANALYSIS INTERSECTION COAST HIGHWAY & BALBOA BAY CLUB AM ...............................................................---------•-------------------- I IE%ISTINGIPROPOSEDIEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREGIONALICOMMITTEDI PROJECTED ]PROJECT I PROJECT] Movement lVIC Capscsty]Capaestyl VolumeI Ratio ] Volume ] VOOIJuaeT ]w/oCProjecti Ratio Yolume i Ratio ] I I I I I I I I Volune I ] ----------------------------------------•-------- I NL I /600 I I 29 i 0.04 --------••---------•-----•----- -- --- -------------------- HT I — I I I 1 I I I I 1 NR 1 �6�0 1... 1 yZ_ 1__0_.0-31 1_-.•_..-.�- i --- - I I-------- __. I -_.----I I ............... I I I I ._._..•. ._.._..._...--.•_.I I ST I I I I I I I I I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ] SR I I I I I I I I I------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I ] EL I I I I I I I I I I _---.---_•-----•------------•-••••••--•••••-------•-•-•••----------•--...._.] j ET 3zaa 1075_�o.bZ� S9 1 Z9� L,2. �aF1 I - ------------------ ---- --•------------ -- ......_� ------ I I Z�I I 1 13 1 1 I•----------------•-----••--- ------••-•-—••-_-------.--••-----------------I 1 WL I /b001 1 y0 1 0.02.* 1 1 0.0 Z.1" 7( 10.07 I`✓ i 'IT 1 3z00] I /yS�D ] 0.y5 I i�5 1 �23 1 c.s3 1 1 S 1 11 ------------------------------ -------------•------• ---------¢: 1 I WR I I I I I- I I I I I---------------•---------------------------------•-------------------•---------------------I I-------- I-- -'----------------•-------------- ]EXIST - REG GROWTH - CCKMITTED W.�MPOSED IMPRCVEMENTS I.C.U. I e9,7 9 I I I-------------------------•---------•------------••-------------------•--•-----•-•---�,�J--� (EXISTING - CCMMITTED + REGIONAL GROWTH + PROJECT I-C.U. -••----------•------••-•--••--•---------•----••---..••-•-•-•-•---•-•--•...--•-•-•-•-----••--- •• ASSUMCS M thru traffic in optional lane ]_] Project - project traffic I.C.U. will be less than or equal to 0.90 I_I Projected - project traffic I.C.U. will be greater than 0.90 i_i Projected - project traffic I.C.U. w/system iaerovement will be Less than-or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected + project traffic I.C.U. with project i=rovements will be less than I.C.U. without project ....---•---••-•-•-----•-•----•-•-•----...----••-----•--•-----------------•-.._.--•-••---• Description of system improvement: PROJECT FORM It ' 3 INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION ANALYSIS INTERSECTION COAST HIGHWAY 3 BALBOA BAY CLUB pM t ............................................................................................. I I EXISTING I PROPOSED IEXISTINGIEXISTINGIREDIONALICCMNtTTEDI PROJECTED IPROJECTIPROJilal lRovementl Lanes I Lams I PC HR I V/C I MOUTH I PROJECT I V/C Ratio IV.Lume I V/C I I Ieapocitylcapoeityl Volume I Ratio I Volume I Valuer Iw/o Projea:l I Ratio I i I I I I I I I Volume I I I I HT �_ _."R•_!1J�4o!........!..Yl._!.o c3........!...........J�_o'>? 1.6Z-! Op6 I • SL I I I I ._...._I. I I I I i.............................................. ....................................I I ST I i I I I 1 I 1 I I - -sA--------....i.....,.-i••------I-•---...L.......i.....---.L..........i.......'..... . i.......----------..........................................................................I I EL I I I I I I I I I I I. .�...i_3 ...........~i./5"_°..��:�t.....y8..!.z�9..!.o.bZ_,! Z6„!o63_i , ------ ...............I 1 ER - I I yZ............. I i I I I I ULD,o2 I I I p.o2 I Sp ..... I wit IEXiS:ING ..........................i0 G(?�.i..._.....,..............................._.. (EXIST-- AEC GACVIN --C"tTTED-wyROPOSED IMPXCVE.MENTS {.C.U. I. 0�79-.I I (EXISTING --COMMITTED•• REGIONAL. GROWTH. - PROJECT I.C.U.-•• •• •• ••- ••---Io.S ZJ ... .... . ••••••......•••••------------------------------- Assumes to traffic in ...tonal lane 1_1 Project • project traffic I.C.U. will be Less then or *Wet to 0.90 1_1 Projected - project traffic I.C.U. wilt be greater than 0.90 1_1 Projected - project traffic I.C.U. w/systoms iapravoment wilt be less then or equal to 0.90 1_1 Projected - Project traffic I.C.U. with prole.: improvements wilt ' be Less then I.C.U. WOW; proleot ......................................................................................... Description of systems improvaa"r: PROJECT FORM It 2 'VV gi-, I- -i b Weston Pringle 8. Associates ' TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING ' February 28, 1991 0�^/�2345618 �tl� Mr. Kevin Culbertson ' Culbertson, Adams & Associates m w 1 85 Argonaut, Suite 220 r Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Zt' SUBJECT: BALBOA HAY CLUB 1 Dear Mr. Culbertson: In response to a request by the City of Newport Beach,we have completed a stacking or queuing analysis for the Balboa Bay Club entrance on Coast Highway. This study has been based upon ' data contained in our traffic analysis summarized in a letter report to you dated December 4, 1990, and the proposed site development plan. ' Estimates of traffic conditions at the entrance were analyzed in our previous study. Appendix ' E of that report included AM and PM peak hour traffic data for the Coast Highway/Balboa Bay Club entrance intersection. Estimated inbound traffic volumes with the completed project were ' the following. AM Peak Hour Eastbound Right = 59 Westbound Left = 116 ' — 175 PM Peak Hour Eastbound Right — 68 ' Westbound Left = 86 154 680 Langsdorf Drive • Suite 222 • Fullerton, CA 92631 0 (714) 871-2931 • FAX:(714) 871-0389 Since the entrance intersection is proposed to be signalized, the westbound left turn movement ' will be controlled by the signal operation and timing. For purposes of analysis, it has been assumed that the signal would operate on a 90 second cycle. The estimated left turn volume ' during a 90 second cycle was calculated to be eight or less with a probability of 0.99. This calculation is contained on the attached sheets. ' The right turn volume during a 90 second period was calculated to be five or less with a 0.98 , probability as indicated on the attached sheets. The total peak demand during 90 seconds would then be 13 vehicles. With the proposed entry design, one lane will be provided for members and one lane for guests/visitors. The Club management estimates that the trips are approximately equally divided between these two classifications. On this basis, it is estimated that six vehicles would be members and seven visitors/guests. The Institute of Transportation Engineers publication, "Transportation and Land Development," provides methodology to estimate queuing. Specifically.Table 8 -9 of that publication provides expected vehicles in a queue with given conditions. For the member entrance, it was assumed that the control would be similar to a card operated gate. This type of operation can accommodate 10.1 vehicles per 90 second period based upon a paper prepared by Robert W. Crommelin, P.E., for presentation to the Los Angeles Parking Association in 1972. For the ' visitor/guest entrance, a cashier operation rate of 9.8 vehicles per 90 seconds was assumed. The analyses are contained on the enclosed sheets. An expected queue of one vehicle is ' indicated for the member entrance and two vehicles for the visitor/guest lane. Since a distance ' of 73 feet is proposed between the curb line of Coast Highway and the entry gate, these queues can be accommodated with no backup onto the public street. ' These are felt to be very conservative analyses as probability was applied twice. The estimates ' of volumes during the 90 second period and entry operation analyses both Include probability and Poisson type distributions. As a result we have a worst case of a worst case. ' During special events with high vehicular arrivals, both entrance lanes can be utilized with guard control. This allows increased flow through the gate and ensures that the length of the queue ' can be controlled. ' In summary, these analyses have indicated that the proposed design is adequate and queues would not be expected to form on Coast Highway. The assumptions are felt to be conservative and represent a true worst case condition. * s • ■ * s : We trust that this analysis will be of assistance to you and the City of Newport Beach. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, WESTON PRINGLE &ASSOCIATES Weston S. Pringle;P.E. Registered Professional Engineer C16828 & TR565 ' WSP:ca #880841A 1 I i d 90 2 I N 00/-5 l/ 12,vri da7- 0,/O Z J W ® /� E �iy/G /r✓ O z o cr D, o D U W I f /d 7re ,eA E' I /W PE.. ,iI i2 c ✓9 dE CGS x90 .► � I 3 I ST �sJE /mod/ O,�/ f✓ / /O 7' 3 I i Q 9a c'o - �»l N W u La LL W - a,530 ff L l0 l/Wz, /�i�/E Vr - - ` — xAr-reo = 2