HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0_Mariner's Pointe_PA2010-114CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
June 23, 2011
Agenda Item 2
SUBJECT: Mariner's Pointe - (PA2010 -114)
100 — 300 West Coast Highway
• General Plan Amendment No. GP2010 -009
• Code Amendment No. CA2010 -009
• Site Development Review No. SR2010 -001
• Conditional Use Permit No. UP2010 -024
• Variance No. VA 2010 -004
• Parcel Map No. NP2010 -008
• Traffic Study No. TS2011 -001
APPLICANT: VBAS Corporation
PLANNER: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner
(949) 644 -3209, jmurillo @newportbeachca.gov
PROJECT SUMMARY
The applicant is seeking a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to accommodate the
development of a 23,015- square -foot, two -story commercial building and a three -story
parking structure. The following applications are requested or required in order to
implement the project as proposed:
1. An amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to increase the
allowable floor area for the project site from 16,518 square feet (0.5 FAR) to a
maximum development limit of 23,015 square feet (approx. 0.7 FAR);
2. An amendment to the Zoning Map of the Zoning Code to increase the allowable
floor area limitation for the project site from 0.3/0.5 FAR to a maximum
development limit of 23,015 square feet ( approx. 0.7 FAR);
3. A site development review to allow the construction of a 23,015- square -foot, two -
story building and a three -story parking structure that will exceed the 31 -foot
base height limit with a maximum height of 40 feet;
4. A conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a parking structure
adjacent to a residential zoning district, to modify the off - street parking
requirements, allow for the use of off -site parking, and to establish a parking
management plan for the site;
5. A variance to allow the commercial building and parking structure to encroach
five feet into the five -foot rear yard setback;
1
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 2
6. A parcel map to consolidate six lots into one parcel; and
7. A traffic study pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
1) Conduct a public hearing; and
2) Adopt Resolution No. (Attachment No. PC1) recommending that the City
Council:
a. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
b. Find that, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative
record, including Traffic Study No. TS2011 -001, that the Project complies
with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and
c. Approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2010 -009, Code Amendment
No. CA2010 -009, Site Development Review No. SR2010 -001, Conditional
Use Permit No. 2010 -024, Variance No. 2010 -004, and Parcel Map No.
2010 -008, subject to findings and conditions.
INTRODUCTION
Project Setting
The 0.76 -acre (33,036- square -foot) project site is located at the northwest corner of the
intersection of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive. The property consists of six legal
lots and is currently developed with two vacant buildings totaling 5,447 square feet (0.16
FAR combined). The property is currently fenced and is in a state of disrepair. The
project site is narrow and elongated in an east -west orientation. The topography of the
site is relatively flat, with the exception of the hillside located along the northern
boundary of the site that ranges from approximately 40 -50 feet in height. The hillside is
heavily vegetated with ornamental trees, shrubs and groundcover.
The single -unit residential neighborhood of Cliff Haven is located north of the project
site along the hillside above and the single -unit residential neighborhood of Bayshores
is located to the south across West Coast Highway. To the southwest is the Anchorage
Apartments, a multi -unit residential development and marina. To the east is Lower
Castaways, recently donated to the City and currently used for construction staging. To
the west are several commercial retail buildings.
z
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 3
N
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 4
SURROUNDING LAND USES
GENERAL PLAN
ZONING
50
RB
=.]FAN
e %
�e
§
e
�.S, W
/ xeea
JR!.=U/A-
tl C
YY L
canarim+w
e
, a
Y $ RM 21 i85/
g X x 9
— —
5
csrviEw w
LOCATION
GENERAL PLAN
ZONING
CURRENT USE
ON -SITE
General Commercial
Commercial General
Vacant commercial buildings
CG
CG
NORTH
Single Unit Residential
Single Unit Residential
Single -unit residential dwellings
Detached (RS-D)
(R1
SOUTH
RS -D
R1
Single-unit residential dwellin s
Recreational and Marine
Castaways Marina
FEAST
Commercial (CM)
Planned Community (PC-
Construction staging
37
WEST
CG
CG
Commercial retail buildings
The project also includes the use of 20 parking spaces within an off -site parking lot
located at 601 Dover Drive for the use of employee parking in the evenings. The off -site
parking lot is developed with a 12,000- square -foot medical office building and provides
a total of 68 parking spaces. Single -unit residential dwellings are located to the north,
west, and south. Castaways Park is located to the east, above the Lower Castaways
construction staging lot.
Protect Description
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing buildings on -site, merge the lots into
one parcel (Attachment No. PC2- Parcel Map), and construct a 23,015- square -foot
commercial building and a three - level, 50,274- square -foot parking structure (Attachment
No. PC3). Details of the project components are as follows:
Commercial Building
The proposed commercial building will be located on the eastern portion of the site and
would be two levels; the first level would consist of 11,794 square feet of gross floor
0
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 5
area and the second level would consist of 11,221 square feet. The exact tenant mix is
unknown at this time; however, it is anticipated that two large restaurants will serve as
anchor tenants, with the remaining square footage to be used for retail and medical
office uses. Potential tenants, in addition to the restaurants, may include a jewelry store,
clothing stores, spa, and plastic surgeon's office. For the purpose of preparing the
environmental, traffic, and parking analysis, the following land use mix was used:
Proposed Land Use Mix
Land Use
Gross Floor Area
Restaurants
10,493 sf
Retail
9,522 sf
Medical Office
3,000 sf
Total
23,015 sf
The building has been designed with varying roof heights. The majority of the building is
32 feet 4 inches to the top of the parapet, with the exception of two tower elements and
a mechanical equipment enclosure. The octagonal tower element at the southeasterly
corner of the property serves as the building's primary architectural element and
measures 38 feet in height to the top of the cupola. An architectural finial is proposed on
the top of the cupola, resulting in a total height of 40 feet. The second tower element is
located over the middle portion of the building and measures 37 feet 6 inches in height.
All the roof top mechanical equipment of the building will be located along the rear of
the building and enclosed within an equipment enclosure that would measure 35 feet in
height.
A 700 - square -foot outdoor dining patio and 14- foot -high screen wall is proposed to
encroach into the public right -of -way adjacent to Dover Drive. The seating arrangement
is undetermined at this time. The Public Works Department has indicated their support
for an encroachment agreement for these improvements, pending Planning
Commission and City Council review.
Parking Structure
A three -level parking structure is proposed on the western portion of the property,
adjacent to the commercial building. A 755 - square -foot commercial space is located on
the first level of the structure, below the ramp, providing a storefront and retail presence.
The third level of the parking structure is proposed to be partially covered with a solid
roof measuring 35 feet in height. The roof is proposed to be setback 37 feet 5 inches
from the front edge of the parking structure as viewed from West Coast Highway. The
uncovered portion of the parking structure would measure 29 feet 4 inches in height to
the top of the parapet, with the exception of two elevator /stairwell enclosures, an
architectural tower element over the parking structure ramp, and a trellis feature. The
primary elevator /stairwell enclosure measures 35 feet in height, and the secondary
stairwell enclosure measures 33 feet 1 inch in height. The architectural tower element
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 6
over the ramp measures 37 feet in height and the trellis measures 33 feet in height. The
parking structure will have two driveways accessible from West Coast Highway; the
easterly driveway will allow for both ingress and egress and the westerly driveway will
allow for egress only. A total of 136 parking spaces can be accommodated within the
parking structure through a combination of standard, tandem, and valet -only parking
stalls (see Parking Strategy section of report for additional details).
Landscaping
The West Coast Highway frontage and Dover Drive frontage will be improved with
approximately 3,005 square feet of new landscaping that includes a variety of plant
palettes and decorative hardscaping. In addition, a water feature of approximately 280
square feet in area would encompass the southeast corner of the project site. The water
feature and a majority of the landscaping are proposed to be located within the public
right -of -way and will require an encroachment permit and /or agreement from Caltrans
and the City to implement. A three - foot -wide planter area is also proposed along the
westerly side property line.
Infrastructure Improvements
Shoring and a retaining wall ranging from 2 feet to 14 feet in height are proposed to be
along the northern property line. The retaining wall is an integral part of the parking
structure and commercial building. The existing three power poles and overhead power
lines that transverse the northern property line and that currently provide electricity to
the site would be removed. The power lines are proposed to be undergrounded and re-
routed to run around the eastern, southern, and western perimeter of the project site
before reconnecting to the existing overhead lines west of the project site.
Coast Highway Lane Drop Extension
Between Dover Drive and the western property boundary, West Coast Highway abruptly
narrows from three westbound through lanes to two lanes. The applicant is proposing to
extend the third lane for approximately 30 feet to accommodate the egress from the
westerly driveway. The portion of the lane extension that occurs on the subject property
would be dedicated to the City. The applicant will be required to obtain an offer of
dedication or an easement from the adjacent property owner for the small portion of the
lane extension that occurs on the adjacent property. The property owner has indicated
he would be willing to provide the easement. If the easement is not provided, the
western driveway from the proposed parking structure will need to be reconfigured
and /or the parking structure circulation may need to be redesigned. The applicant is
also proposing to restripe and reconfigure the project frontage to create a designated
"Bus Only" loading area between the two driveways to accommodate the existing bus
stop.
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 7
Background
The subject property consists of six of the 17 lots that were originally proposed for the
Be] Mare redevelopment project proposed in 2004 (100 -600 West Coast Highway). In
anticipation of project approval and demolition of the existing structures, the previous
landowner vacated the eight detached retail /commercial structures. Entitlements to
develop a 56,000- square -foot retail center was approved on January 19, 2006;
however, due to difficulties obtaining approvals to install a new traffic signal from
Caltrans and litigation with former prospective tenants, the previous landowner was
unable to implement the approved project. The properties fell into disrepair and the City
worked with the landowner to correct dangerous conditions and public nuisances,
including graffiti, abandoned signs, overgrown landscaping, weeds, debris, broken
windows, and harboring vagrants. One of the City Council's goals in 2010 was to abate
the nuisances and improve these properties. The properties were eventually sold to two
separate buyers in 2010. The applicant purchased the easterly six lots and submitted
this application to redevelop the property. Another buyer purchased the westerly 11 lots
and has rehabilitated and re -used the six existing buildings that occupy the abutting site
to the west for retail and vehicle sales uses.
DISCUSSION
General Plan
General Plan Policies
The project site is located within the Mariner's Mile commercial corridor. The Land Use
Element of the General Plan designates the site General Commercial (CG) with a
maximum allowable floor area to land area ratio (FAR) of 0.3 FAR (9,910 square feet).
Where parcels are consolidated to accommodate larger commercial projects that
provide sufficient parking, Land Use Element Policy LU 6.19.13 permits development
intensity up to 0.5 FAR (16,518 square feet). The CG designation is intended to provide
for a wide variety of commercial activities primarily oriented to serve citywide or regional
needs. The proposed commercial building would be consistent with this designation and
a parking strategy has been developed (see Parking Strategy section of report) to
ensure the development will provide sufficient parking. With regard to the maximum 0.5
FAR limitation, the applicant is requesting to increase the maximum development limit
to 23,015 square feet (approximately 0.7 FAR).
The General Plan includes several goals and policies related to development in the City
and includes a goal (LU 6.19) to improve the Mariner's Mile corridor to reflect and take
advantage of its location on the Newport Harbor waterfront, support and respect
adjacent residential neighborhoods, and exhibit a quality image for travelers on Coast
Highway. During the visioning process for the General Plan update, participants
identified Mariner's Mile as a location that needs revitalization, therefore, Land Use
Element Policy LU 6.19.6 requires projects to be consistent with the Mariner's Mile
7
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 8
Strategic Vision and Design Framework. This plan was prepared to help improve the
visual character of the corridor with new landscaping and streetscape amenities, as well
as improvements in private developments through standards for architecture,
landscaping, and lighting. A complete consistency analysis of each of the applicable
General Plan policies appears within the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration on pages
87 through 99 and concludes that the project is consistent with each of the adopted
goals and policies.
General Plan Amendment — Increased Intensity (FAR)
In considering the proposed GPA to increase the development intensity of the project
site, the Planning Commission should specifically consider the following Land Use
Element policy:
LU 3.2 Growth and Change
Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and
infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character.
Changes in use and /or density /intensity should be considered only in those areas
that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport
Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship
and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values
that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The
scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of
adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable
traffic level of service.
The applicant's primary objective is to construct two successful quality restaurants;
however, the applicant asserts that it is financially infeasible to redevelop the properties
at the currently permitted 0.5 FAR limit with a project that includes a high level of
architectural detail and a parking structure needed to support the proposed restaurant
uses. The construction of the third parking level would still be necessary even without
the additional retail and office space due to the peak parking demands of restaurant
uses during the evening hours. Therefore, in order to make the project feasible from a
financial perspective, the applicant is requesting the additional intensity to offset the
increased costs associated with the proposed architectural detail and construction of the
parking structure. If this is the case, the proposed GPA for increased intensity could be
considered consistent with LU 3.2 as follows:
• The General Plan recognizes the Mariner's Mile corridor as a location that needs
revitalization.
• The increased intensity would provide an economic stimulus needed to
accommodate the redevelopment of six lots into one commercial development.
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 9
• As stated in the General Plan, Newport Beach residents desire high quality
development and have identified the Mariner's Mile corridor is an area that needs
revitalization.
• Redevelopment of the subject property helps implement the goal of revitalizing
the corridor and may encourage the redevelopment of other underperforming
properties within the Mariner's Mile corridor. The projects high quality and distinct
architectural features, such as the corner tower element and cupola, will serve as
a focal point and anchor into the entry into the Mariner's Mile corridor. In addition,
the project's landscaping and water feature within the public right -of -way will
significantly improve the streetscape in the corridor.
• As described in more detail in the Traffic Study section of this report, a traffic
impact analysis was prepared for the project and found that the addition of
project - related traffic would not have a significant impact at any of the study
intersections.
• The project site is served by existing infrastructure and public services. The
proposed increase in intensity will not necessitate any expansion of existing
infrastructure. The proposed lane drop extension on West Coast Highway will
improve safety of westbound traffic, while improving access to the site. The
removal of the three existing power poles and undergrounding of the power lines
will provide a public benefit.
Notwithstanding the redevelopment benefits and improvements to the public right -of-
way, the requested increase in intensity is of concern because the project maximizes
the building envelope and requires several deviations from the development standards
to accommodate the project. With the exception of the balconies and patio space along
the front of the commercial building, minimal open space is provided on -site. A complex
parking strategy is required to provide sufficient parking for the project and includes an
adjustment to the parking requirements based on a shared parking analysis, use of a
parking management plan that utilizes tandem and valet parking, and use of off -site
parking for employees. Although designed to minimize visual and noise impacts to the
resident's located on the hillside above, the bulk of the parking structure and
commercial building remains in close proximity to the residents.
General Plan Table Change
As indicated above, the primary benefit of approving the proposed GPA would be the
resulting redevelopment and consolidation of six lots into one unified development.
Amendments to the General Plan are legislative, and as such, conditions of approval
may not be imposed on the GPA requiring that the consolidation of the three parcels
actually occur. Therefore, should this proposed GPA be approved, staff recommends
that a new anomaly (Anomaly No. 79) be created within the Land Use Element that
N
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 10
limits the project site to a 0.3/0.5 FAR, but which includes provisions for a maximum
development limit of 23,015 square feet, provided all six legal lots are consolidated into
one parcel to provided unified site design. See Attachment No. PC4 for draft changes to
Land Use Element.
Charter Section 423 (Measure S)
Charter Section 423 requires voter approval of any major General Plan amendment to
the General Plan. A major General Plan amendment is one that increases allowed
density or intensity by 40,000 square feet of non - residential floor area, or increases
traffic by more than 100 peak hour vehicle trips, or increases residential dwelling units
by 100 units. These thresholds apply to the total of increases resulting from the
amendment itself, plus 80 percent of the increases resulting from prior amendments
affecting the same neighborhood (defined as a Statistical Area as shown in the General
Plan Land Use Element) and adopted within the preceding ten years.
The project site for which the General Plan amendment is proposed is located within
Statistical Area H4 of the General Plan Land Use Element, and would result in an
increase of 6,497 square feet of non - residential floor area. Based on the trip generation
rates contained in the Council Policy A -18 (blended commercial rate), the proposed
project is forecast to generate an additional 19 a.m. peak hour trips and 26 p.m. peak
hour trips.
There has been one prior amendment approved within Statistical Area H4 since the
adoption of the 2006 General Plan (GP2010 -004), which was adopted on September
14, 2010. This prior amendment involved land use changes for the Holiday Express and
the Balboa Bay Club from mixed -use designations to the Visitor - Serving Commercial
designation and did not involve any changes in density or intensity. Table 1 below
shows the floor area and peak hour trips analysis for the prior amendment and the
proposed project:
Table 1 - Charter Section 423
Area and Peak Hour Trip Calculation
Area
A.M. Peak Trips
P.M. Peak Trips
Prior Amendment
0 sq.ft. (80 %)
0 a.m. trips (80 %)
0 a.m. trips (80 %)
GP2010 -004
Proposed
6,497 sq.ft. (100 %)
19.49 a.m. trips (100 %)
25.99 p.m. trips (100 %)
Amendment
Total
6,497 sq.ft.
19.49 a.m. trips
25.99 p.m. trips
The proposed GPA does not create any new dwelling units and as indicated in the
above table, the proposed General Plan amendment does not exceed the non-
residential floor area threshold, and does not exceed the a.m. or p.m. peak hour vehicle
trips threshold. Therefore, none of the three thresholds that require a vote pursuant to
Charter Section 423 are exceeded. If the proposed General Plan amendment is
10
approved by City Council
percent of the increases
amendments.
Zoning & Site Design
Zoning Compliance
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 11
the amendment will become a prior amendment and 80
will be tracked for ten years for any proposed future
The project is located within the Commercial General (CG) zoning district. The intent of
the CG zoning district is to provide for areas appropriate for a wide variety of
commercial activities oriented primarily to serve City -wide or regional needs. Although
the redevelopment of the project site as a commercial building with retail, office, and
restaurant uses is consistent with the CG district, the development of the project
requires a number of deviations from the developments standards. The following table
provides a summary of the project's compliance with applicable development standards
and deviations requested:
Table 2- Zoning Com 6anc
Development Required Provided
Standards
Lot Size
5,000 square feet min.
33,036 s uare feet re uires arcel ma
Setbacks
Front
0
3 feet
Side
0
3 feet
Rear
5 feet min.
0 feet re uires variance
26 feet for flat roofs or parapet walls
35 feet flat/parapet (requires site
development review)
Height
40 feet pitched roofs (requires site
31 feet for pitched roofs
development review
Floor Area
0.5 FAR with lot consolidation
23,013 sq. ft. (Approx. 0.7 FAR)
Ratio
(16,518 sq. ft.)
(requires a GPA and Zoning Map
Amendment
156 spaces total:
136 spaces on -site (requires a
conditional use permit to modify
157 spaces total (estimate -see Parking
parking requirements, allow for tandem
Parking
Requirements section of report for
and valet parking, and to allow parking
detailed discussion)
structure adjacent to residential zoning
district)
20 spaces off -site (requires a
conditional use permit to allow off -site
parking)
Solid Waste
48 sq. ft. refuse
550 sq. ft. total
and Recyclable
48 sq. ft. recycling
refuse and recycling combined)
Materials
96 sq. ft. total
It
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 12
Zoning Map Amendment
Should the project be approved, staff recommends that a new anomaly (Anomaly No.
79) be created on the Zoning Map that limits the project site to a 0.3/0.5 FAR. The
anomaly should also indicate that a maximum development limit of 23,015 square feet
is allowed provided all six legal lots are consolidated into one parcel to provided unified
site design. See Attachment No. PC5 for draft changes to Zoning Map.
Site Development Review
Pursuant to 20.52.080 of the Zoning Code, nonresidential construction of 20,000 square
feet or more of gross floor area requires site development review by the Planning
Commission. These findings and the facts in support of these findings are discussed
below:
Table 3 -Site Development Review Findings and Facts in Support of Findings
Finding
Facts in Support of Finding
1) Allowed within the
A commercial building with retail, office, and restaurant uses is a permitted
subject zoning district
use within the CG zoning district. The specific restaurants will be required
to obtain separate minor or conditional use permits prior to occupying the
building.
2) In compliance with all
of the following applicable
criteria
a) Compliance with
The proposed commercial building is consistent with the CG General Plan
this Section, the
land use designation and CG zoning district. A GPA and Zoning Map
General Plan, this
Amendment are requested to allow the proposed increase in intensity. The
Zoning Code, any
applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit and variance to allow
applicable specific
for a number of deviations from the zoning standards. These requests are
plan, and other
being reviewed concurrently with the site development review. In addition,
applicable criteria and
Land Use Element Policy LU 6.19.6 requires the implementation of
policies related to the
landscape, signage, lighting, sidewalk, pedestrian crossing, and other
use or structure
amenities consistent with the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design
Framework. Applicable to this project would be the landscape, lighting, and
signage recommendations within the framework. Project signage has not
yet been developed and will be submitted for a subsequent review. The
project implements the landscaping requirements of the framework by
providing the minimum four - foot -wide planter area with continuous hedge
and palms plantings. With regard to lighting, the lighting has been designed
to respect the views from above and to prevent any light spillage beyond
the perimeter of the structure and to eliminate any sources of glare to the
residents and motorists. The framework also includes architectural
objectives that focus on responsible and sensitive design, with an emphasis
on roofs and roof elements to respond to views from above. The proposed
building has been designed with tiled tower elements and clean flat roofs
with all mechanical equipment screened from view within an enclosure. The
third level of the parking structure has been designed with a solid roof that
screens the resident's view of vehicles and lighting.
b) The efficient
. The commercial building is configured in such way to resemble a village
arrangement of
of two-story buildings, with various roof heights, connected to parkin
rz
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 13
structures on the site on each of the two levels.
and the harmonious . Although the project is requesting an increase in height, the building will
relationship of the not block or obstruct any views of the bay or harbor from the residential
structures to one homes located on the 40 to 50 -foot high hillside above the project site.
another and to other . The roof of the commercial building has been designed to respect the
adjacent views of the residences above and consists of a combination of flat and
developments; and sloped roof lines. Roof -top mechanical equipment would be fully
whether the enclosed and would not be visible from the residences above. The
relationship is based
on standards of good
design
enclosure will have louver vents directed away from the residential
properties.
. The rear two- thirds of the parking structure would be enclosed and will
screen the view of the parked vehicles and parking structure lighting
from the residents located above the hillside. The parking structure roof
will also provide an additional sound buffer to the residents above.
The mechanical equipment enclosure has been located at the rear of
the commercial building to minimize the bulk of the building as viewed
from West Coast Highway.
c) The compatibility in
. The building and parking structure includes modulated building masses
terms of bulk, scale,
and rooflines and a variation of building materials and colors that would
and aesthetic
provide visual relief.
treatment of
. To break up the bulk and massing of the parking structure as viewed
structures on the site
from West Coast Highway, a 755 - square -foot commercial space has
and adjacent
been located on the first level of the structure, below the ramp,
developments and
providing a storefront and retail presence in front the of the structure. A
public areas
tower element will extend this storefront along the face of the structure.
• The inclusion of architectural elements such as balconies, tower
features, awnings, trellises, ornamental windows and railings, and the
variation in building elevations and protrusions would also enhance the
visual quality of the buildings and street frontage.
The project's architectural style, with the use of stone, tile and glass
materials, blends in color and form with some development within
Mariner's Mile, will provide a high standard of quality for future
neighboring development, and complies with the Mariner's Mile
Strategic Vision and Design Framework.
• The tower and cupola feature, the tallest portion of the building, is
located at the southeasterly corner of the site, away from the nearest
residential and commercial uses. To minimize the bulk of the parking
structure as viewed from West Coast Highway, the parking structure
roof has been setback 37 feet 5 inches from the front edge of the
structure. The resulting height of the parking structure along the front
fagade is 29 feet 4 inches providing a transition to the commercial
properties to the west.
• The west elevation of the building has been designed as a flat wall with
no openings due to its proximity to the side property line and in
anticipation that the commercial site to the west may be redeveloped in
the future; however, until such time, the west elevation will be visible
from motorist traveling south of West Coast Highway. To soften the
appearance of this elevation and break up the mass of the parking
structure, the applicant is proposing to install three large green screens
separated by columnar evergreen trees. Architectural detailing has also
been added in the form of boarders around the green screens and
columns.
The rear elevation of the building and parking structure has also been
11
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 14
Fin
designed as a flat wall with no openings due to its placement on the
rear property line and will range in height from approximately 20 feet to
35 feet from existing grade. However, the homes located on the hillside
above are located a minimum of 60 feet away and approximately 40 -50
feet above the project's pad elevation with views oriented predominately
over the project site towards the bay and harbor, and therefore, will not
be significant y impacted by the height and bulk of the structures.
d) The adequacy,
• The project would eliminate one existing driveway access off Dover
efficiency, and safety
Drive and would consolidate four existing driveways along West Coast
of pedestrian and
Highway into two driveways. Therefore, the project minimizes the
vehicular access,
number of driveways along West Cost Highway, thereby reducing
including drive aisles,
potential conflicts and increasing vehicular safety. The lane drop
driveways, and
extension of Coast Highway will also enhance the safety of the
parking and loading
highway, while providing safe access from the site, as determined by
spaces
the City Traffic Engineer.
• The project proves adequate sight distance at each driveway, as
determined by the City Traffic Engineer.
• The proposed parking structure has been designed to accommodate
and provide safe access for emergency, delivery, and refuse collections
vehicles, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer.
• The project would include enhanced pedestrian walkways that provide
access between the various uses and areas within the project site, and
to the surrounding public sidewalks and uses.
• The existing bus stop along the project frontage would be relocated and
a new designated "Bus Only' area would be created between the two
driveways.
• See Parking Strategy and Conditional Use Permit Findings section for
detailed discussion on adequacy of parking.
e) The adequacy and
• The project includes the enhanced use of landscaping, including a
efficiency of
variation of ornamental groundcover, vines, shrubs, and trees, to help
landscaping and open
soften and buffer the massing of the parking structure and commercial
space areas and the
building from the surrounding areas and roadways; however, the
use of water efficient
applicant is proposing a 700 - square -foot outdoor dining patio within the
plant and irrigation
public right -of -way along Dover Drive. Staff believes the proposed
materials
project can further benefit from additional landscaping along the Dover
Drive frontage and has included a condition prohibiting the installation
of the patio within right -of -way and requiring additional landscaping
consistent with the proposed plant palette.
• A new water feature would encompass the southeast corner of the
project site.
• The landscape plan includes the requirements of the Mariner's Mile
Design Framework, but also incorporates non - invasive and water
conserving plant types.
• The project is subject to the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
(Chapter 14.17 of NBMC).
iJ The protection of
The portion of West Coast Highway, on which the project is located, is not a
significant views from
designated coastal view road and is not considered a public view corridor
public rights) -of -way
requiring public view protection.
and compliance with
Section 20.30.100
(Public View
Protection).
Fin
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 15
3) Not detrimental to the
• The project has been conditioned to ensure that potential conflicts with
harmonious and orderly
surrounding land uses are minimized to the extent possible to maintain
growth of the City, or
a healthy environment for both businesses and residents.
endanger, jeopardize, or
• The project's refuse area is located within the first level of the parking
otherwise constitute a
garage and will not result in odor impacts to residents above or noise
hazard to the public
associated with refuse collection.
convenience, health,
• To minimize or eliminate odors associated with the restaurant uses
interest, safety, orgeneral
impacting the residents above the site, the project has been conditioned
welfare of persons
to require the installation of Pollution Control Units with odor eliminators
residing or working in the
that take the exhaust from the hoods in the kitchens and filter it for
neighborhood of the
particulates and odor.
proposed development.
• The project is subject to the City's Outdoor Lighting requirements
contained with Section 20.30.070 of the Zoning Code.
• Illumination of the proposed tower and cupola feature has been
conditioned to consist of soft accent lighting so as not to become a visual
disturbance to the views of the adjacent residents.
• The proposed 750- square -foot outdoor dining area located within the
public- right -of -away adjacent to Dover will be screened from view of the
residents above the hillside and is not anticipated to result in a significant
noise disturbance; however, until the specific operation of the restaurants
are better known, staff is recommending that this outdoor patio not be
approved at this time and that the public right -of -way remain landscaped.
The outdoor patio request should be deferred until the review of the use
permits for the future restaurant uses.
Height Increase
The project site is located in the Nonresidential, Shoreline Height Limit Area where the
height of structures are limited to 26 feet for flat roofs /parapet walls and to 31 feet for
sloped roofs with a minimum 3:12 pitch. The height of a structure can be increased up
to a maximum of 35 feet for flat roofs /parapet walls and up to 40 feet for sloped roofs,
subject to the approval of a Site Development Review. Section 20.30.060.0.3 of the
Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make certain findings in order to
allow an increase in the height of a structure above the base height limit. These findings
and the facts in support of these findings are discussed below
1. The project applicant is providing additional project amenities beyond those that are
otherwise required.
The most significant amenity the project provides is the long desired redevelopment of
this highly visible property that serves as a gateway into the Mariner's Mile corridor. This
property is constrained due to its shallow depths and as such has proven difficult to
redevelop and as fallen into disrepair. The building exhibits a high level of architectural
detail and includes design features that enhance the aesthetics of the building and the
area. The most prominent design feature of the building is the octagonal tower and
cupola at the southeasterly corner of the site intended to serve as landmark feature and
an anchor into the Mariner's Mile corridor area of the City. The parking structure has
been designed to incorporate a variety of materials and features (i.e. stone treatment
1f
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 16
and hanging vines) and includes vertical recessed openings and a storefront with a
vertical tower element to break up the massing and monotony commonly associated
with parking structures.
The project includes enhanced landscaping of the public right -of -way along the West
Coast Highway and Dover Drive. In addition to the continuous hedge and palm trees
requirement of the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework, the
landscaping plan incorporates additional ornamental groundcover, vines, shrubs, and
trees, to help soften and buffer the massing of the parking structure and commercial
building and enhance the streetscape of Mainer's Mile. To further improve the
streetscape and improve the entrance into the corridor, the applicant is proposing the
installation of 280 - square —foot water feature that would encompass the southeast
corner of the project site. Water effects are proposed to include a knife -edge water weir
falling towards the street at the center, boarded by low walls at each end of the feature.
The water feature will also include plant material and a combination or eroded, colored
concrete and natural stone.
The design and height of the building benefits the residential properties above and to
the north by providing noise attenuation from roadway noise generated from vehicles on
West Coast Highway and Dover Drive. As illustrated in Figure 14 of the Draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration (Attachment No. PC9), a net decrease in roadway noise of up to 9
dBA CNEL is expected as a result of the noise attenuation effect of the new structures.
An additional amenity proposed by the applicant is to remove the three existing power
poles and overhead power lines located across the rear property line on the adjacent
residential lots. At minimum, City policy requires the applicant to underground their
utilities from the nearest power pole, allowing the power poles to remain in place. In this
case, the applicant is proposing to completely remove the power poles and
underground the power lines around the eastern, southern, and western perimeter of
the project site. An easement to Southern California Edison for the power lines will also
be provided along the westerly property line.
Another amenity includes the elimination of the existing driveway access off Dover Drive
and the consolidation of the existing four driveways along West Coast Highway into two
main access driveways. Therefore, the project minimizes the number of driveways
along West Cost Highway, ensuring that the desired traffic flow along this major road is
maintained and ensuring that the continuity of the street - facing building elevations
would not be interrupted. The extension of the lane drop on West Coast Highway also
serves to enhance the safety of the highway by extending the length of the merge lane,
which providing safe access from the site.
2. The architectural design of the project provides visual interest through the use of light
and shadow, recessed planes, vertical elements, and varied roof planes;
16
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 17
The goal of the architectural design is to simulate the appearance of a small
Mediterranean village of two -story commercial buildings, resulting in modulated building
masses and rooflines. The project consists mainly of flat roofs with heights between 29
feet 4 inches and 32 feet 4 inches. Several vertical elements have been included in the
design such as the tower features and elevator /stairwell enclosures which range in
height from 35 feet to 40 feet. The main elevator and stairwell enclosure has been
integrated into the building fagade as a prominent architectural feature and creates a
transition between the commercial and parking structure components of the project. To
break up the bulk and massing of the parking structure as viewed from West Coast
Highway, a 755 - square -foot commercial space has been located on the first level of the
structure, below the ramp, providing a storefront and retail presence in front the of the
structure. A tower element extends this storefront vertically along the face of the
structure.
The storefronts on both the upper and lower level will be setback from the edge of the
balcony along the street elevation, creating light and shadow effects. Light and shadow
will also be created through the extensive use of awnings and recessed openings. The
massing of the parking structure is also minimized through the use of vertical opening
openings along the street frontage.
3. The increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changes or
relationships being created between the proposed structure(s) and existing adjacent
developments or public spaces. Where appropriate, the proposed structure(s) provide a
gradual transition to taller or shorter structures on abutting properties; and
The tower and cupola feature, the tallest portion of the building, is located at the
southeasterly corner of the site, away from the nearest residential and commercial uses.
The height of the project transitions in height from east to west, minimizing the change
in scale to the adjacent commercial priorities to the west. With the exception of the
tower elements and mechanical equipment enclosure, the height of the commercial
building is 32 feet 4 inches. To minimize the visual height and bulk of the parking
structure as viewed in perspective from West Coast Highway, the parking structure roof
has been setback 37 feet 5 inches from the front edge of the structure. The resulting
height of the parking structure along the front fagade is 29 feet 4 inches providing a
transition to the commercial properties to the west as viewed from the highway.
Although the adjacent commercial property is currently with one -story commercial
buildings, the site has the potential to be redeveloped at heights of 31 feet without
discretionary approvals.
The homes on the residential lots to the north are situated at the top of the hillside that
ranges in height from 40 -50 feet above the project's pad elevation. The homes are also
located a minimum of 60 feet back from the rear property line. These vertical and
horizontal separations between the proposed commercial building and the homes at the
top of the slope minimize the impact of the proposed structure heights to the adjacent
residences.
17
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 18
4. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the
approval of the height increase.
The requested increase in floor area does not drive the need for the increased height.
The need for the third level of the parking structure is primarily driven by the need to
provide parking for the two restaurants that will serve of anchor tenants to the
development. If the project is designed with only the two restaurants at the currently
permitted 0.5 FAR, the third level of parking would still be needed to accommodate the
100 parking spaces anticipated for the restaurant uses. The height of the parking
structure could be reduced from 35 feet to 29 feet 4 inches if the roof was removed;
however, the roof provides a benefit to the residents located above the hillside as it
shields parking structure lighting and glare, and buffers some vehicle noise.
With regard to the height of the commercial building, the need for height is driven by the
need to provide desirable 12- foot -high ceilings for the retail tenants ensuring that these
commercial building will remain marketable to tenants. According to the applicant, in
order to provide 12- foot -high clear ceilings and accommodate space for mechanical
systems and fire sprinklers, a total plate height between 14 feet 6 inches and 17 feet 6
inches is required. Plate heights within the project utilize a minimum 14- foot -8 -inch
dimension. It's also important to note that a majority of the commercial building will
maintain a maximum height of 32 feet 4 inches, with the exception for the tower
elements, designed to enhance the architecture of the building, and elevator /stairwell
enclosures and mechanical equipment enclosure.
Parking Requirements
Since the final land use mix is unknown at this time, the final parking requirements for
the proposed project cannot be determined. However, based on the Zoning Code
parking requirements of the assumed land use mix, approximately 157 parking spaces
would be required based on the following formulas:
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 19
Table 4 - Assumed Parking Requirements
Land Use
Gross
Square
Feet (gsf)'
Leasable
Restaurant
Area
Net Public
Area
(NPA )2
Parking Ratio
Required
Parking
Restaurant
9,522
8,280 sf
4,968 sf
1 per 50 sf of NPA
100
Retail
10,493
n/a
n/a
1 per 250 gsf
42
Medical
Office
3,000
n/a
n/a
1 per 200 gsf
15
Total
23,015
157
An assumption was made with regard to the restaurant parking requirements given that
the specific design (i.e., seating type, arrangement, bar area) and operational
characteristics (i.e. live entertainment, dancing) are not known at this time. Additionally,
since parking requirements for restaurants are based on NPA and not gross floor area,
a conservative assumption of 60 percent of leasable area was used to determine
expected NPA. Pursuant to Section 20.40.060 of the Zoning Code, Food Service uses
(restaurants) are required to provide off - street parking within a range of one space for
each 30 to 50 square feet of NPA, depending on the physical design, operational
characteristics, and location of the establishment. It is the applicant's intent for these
restaurants to be occupied by fine dining establishments, with very low turnover. Other
fine dining restaurants located within Mariner's Mile and Corona del Mar are typically
required to provide parking at the lower ratio of 1 space per 50 square feet of NPA;
therefore, the same ratio was used for the project analysis. The physical design and
operational characteristics that would lead to higher parking ratios include uses with
higher occupant loads, such as bars or restaurants with large bar areas, the operation
of live entertainment and /or dancing, or restaurants with higher turnover rates, such as
a family restaurants or diners.
Section 20.40.040 of the Zoning Code includes a provision that excludes a portion of
outdoor dining area (equal to 25 percent of the interior NPA) from the required parking
calculations. Based on the assumed total interior net public area of 4,968 square feet,
1,242 square feet of outdoor dining would be excluded from the parking calculations
(4,968 x 0.25 =1,242 sf). As shown on the plans, the total outdoor dining area proposed
is 1,230 square feet.
It should be noted that each of the proposed restaurants will be required to apply for a
minor or conditional use permit, at which time the final parking requirements can be
calculated based on the specific design and operational characteristics.
' Gross square feet includes enclosed corridor behind each of the suites
2 Area, Net Public. The total area used to serve customers, including customer sales and display areas, customer
seating areas, service counters, and service queue and waiting areas, but excluding restrooms and offices, kitchens,
storage and utility areas, and similar areas used by the employees of the establishment.
3 Estimated as 60- percent of leasable restaurant area
11
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 20
Parking Strategy
The parking strategy for the project is complex and includes a request to adjust the
parking requirements based on a shared parking analysis, use of a parking
management plan that utilizes tandem and valet parking, and use of off -site parking for
employees. Pursuant to Sections 20.40.110.13.2 and 20.40.100 of the Zoning Code, a
conditional use permit is required for each of these requests. Pursuant to Section
20.40.070.8.3 of the Zoning Code, a conditional use permit is also required to allow the
construction of a parking structure adjacent to a residential zoning district. The following
sections of the report describe each of the parking related requests in detail. The
Conditional Use Permit Findings section of the report summarizes whether the findings
can be supported for each of these requests.
Adjustment to Off - Street Parking Requirements
Based on the parking requirements discussed above, a total of 157 parking spaces are
anticipated to be required. Section 20.40.10.B.2 of the Zoning Code allows required off -
street parking to be reduced with the approval of a conditional use permit where two or
more distinct uses on the same site have distinct and differing peak parking demands. A
shared parking analysis has been prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., (Attachment No.
PC6) that indicates that because of the different hours of operation of the assumed mix
of tenants, not all of the uses within the project will require their full allotment of parking
spaces at the same time. The analysis indicates that the total parking required has two
separate peaks: 1) one peak during the early afternoon with a total demand for 131
parking spaces at 1:00 p.m.; and 2) a second peak in the early evening with a total
demand of 145 parking spaces at 6:00 p.m. The analysis concludes that the parking
demand in excess of the 136 spaces provided on site does not manifest until 6:00 p.m.
(145 spaces). Please see Conditional Use Permit Findings section below for a
discussion of the required findings for approval.
Parking Management Plan
In order to maximize the number of parking spaces that can be accommodated within
the on -site parking structure, the applicant is proposing a total of 136 parking stalls
consisting of 80 standard stalls, 42 tandem stalls, and 14 valet -only specific aisle and
corner stalls. A parking management plan will be required to be implemented to ensure
the parking structure adequately functions. Sunset Parking Services has prepared a
parking management plan entitled "Daily Operational Plan" (Attachment No. PC7) that
illustrates and explains in detail how the parking structure will be managed. In general,
the plan indicates the following:
• Employee Parking- A total of 46 spaces will be reserved as employee parking on
the third level. Tandem stalls on the third level will be assigned to the same
zQ
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 21
tenant. Additional employee parking needed before 5:00 p.m. will be
accommodated by valet. After 5:00 p.m., 20 additional employee parking spaces
may also be provided in the off -site parking lot located at 601 Dover Drive.
• Customer Parking- Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., a total of 32
customer parking spaces will be provided on the first level as self - parking.
Between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., a total of 32 parking spaces will
be provided on the first level as self - parking and an additional 58 spaces will be
provided on the first, second, and third level through valet operations. Between
5:00 p.m. and close, or when the need arises due to actual parking demand, all
guest parking will be managed through valet operations to accommodate the
queuing of vehicles within the first level.
The parking management plan has been reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic
Engineer. Although tandem parking for employees and valet parking within a parking
structure is not ideal, given the design constraints with providing parking in compliance
with City standards on such a shallow lot, staff believes the proposed parking
management plan is a reasonable solution. The approval of a parking management plan
requires the approval of a conditional use permit. Please see Conditional Use Permit
Findings section below for a discussion of the required findings for approval.
Off -Site Parking
To address the nine space parking deficit that is anticipated to occur after 6:00 p.m., the
applicant is prepared to enter into an off -site parking agreement to provide 20 employee
parking spaces. The off -site parking would be provided at the medical office parking lot
located at 601 Dover Drive (see Vicinity Map). Pursuant to Section 20.40.100 of the
Municipal Code, approval of a conditional use permit is required for a parking facility
that is not located on the same site it is intended to serve. In addition to the standard
conditional use permit findings discussed Conditional Use Permit Findings section of
this report, the Planning Commission must also make each of the following findings:
1. The parking facility is located within a convenient distance to the use it is intended to
serve;
2. On- street parking is not being counted towards meeting parking requirements:
3. Use of the parking facility will not create undue traffic hazards or impacts in the
surrounding area; and
4. The parking facility will be permanently available, marked, and maintained for the use it
is intended to serve.
The parking lot is located approximately 1,050 feet (walking distance) north of the
project site at the corner of Dover Drive and Cliff Drive. The lot would be used solely by
.Z1
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 22
employees of the project and not by customers. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices (MUTCD) suggests four feet per second as a normal walking speed; therefore,
it would take an employee approximately 4 minutes and 22.5 seconds to walk from the
off -site lot. This is considered a convenient distance for employee parking.
The use of the parking lot will not create an undue traffic hazard as the proposed project
and subject off -site parking lot are both located on the westerly side of Dover Drive. This
allows employees to walk on the sidewalk and only needing to cross the signalized
crosswalk at Cliff Drive. As indicated in the shared parking analysis, it is only anticipated
that only 9 of 20 parking spaces will actually be needed. The sidewalk leading to the off -
site parking lot is bordered by a hillside with residential uses located along the top of
slope. Residences are also located behind the medical office site to the west; however,
the residences are located at the top of a hillside and buffered from the parking area by
the medical office building. Since the off -site parking will be used by employees only,
typical noise disturbances associated with restaurant patrons loitering in parking lots is
not expected.
The off -site parking spaces will be made available for the use of employees of the
project after 5:00 p.m. on a daily basis, once the medical office tenants are closed for
business. The owner's of the medical office building, 601 Dover LLC, are subject to a
ground -lease that expires in 11 years and have indicated they are agreeable to entering
into an agreement allowing the use of up to 20 parking spaces. If the ground lease is
not renewed and the applicant loses the ability to provide parking on the lot, the
applicant will be required to notify the Community Development Director who will
establish a reasonable time for substitute parking to be provided or reduce the size of
the tenant spaces or change the tenant mix (i.e. less restaurant or medical floor area) in
proportion to the parking spaces lost.
Conditional Use Permit Findings — Parking Structure, Parking Adjustments, Parking
Management Plan, and Off -Site Parking
Pursuant to Sections 20.40.070.8.3, 20.40.110.B.2, and 20.40.100 of the Zoning Code,
a conditional use permit is required to allow for the construction of a parking structure
adjacent to a residential zoning district, to modify the off - street parking requirements
and to establish a parking management plan, and to allow for the use of off -site parking.
Pursuant to Section 20.52.020.F of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission must
make the following findings in order to approve a conditional use permit:
1. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan;
2. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other
applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code;
3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with
the allowed uses in the vicinity;
ZZ
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 23
4. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating
characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and
medical) access and public services and utilities, and
5. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the
harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise
constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare
of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use.
As previously stated, the commercial building and related uses are consistent with CG
General Plan land use designation and CG zoning district. The parking structure is
considered an accessory use that supports of the commercial uses. Parking structures
and the use of valet are commonly associated with restaurant development and
compatible with the other commercial uses located in Mariner's Mile; however, due to its
close proximity to the residential uses to the north, the design and operation of the
parking structure has the potential to impact the adjacent residences.
The parking structure is proposed to be located at the base of the hillside adjacent to a
residential district, where the neighboring residential properties are located along the
top of the hillside approximately 40 -50 feet above the project's pad elevation. The height
of the covered portion of the parking structure is 35 feet at the rear of the property
directly adjacent to the residential district. The residential dwellings will remain
approximately 22 feet higher in elevation than the surface of the third level parking deck
(25 feet 10 inches) and 12 feet 6 inches higher in elevation than the top of the parking
structure roof. The closest residential dwelling is located approximately 60 feet from the
rear property line. These vertical and horizontal separations between the proposed
commercial building and the homes provide adequate distance so that the mass and
bulk of the parking structure should not negatively impact residents.
Parking structures have the potential to generate noise, such as car - alarms, car horns,
car audio systems, people talking, vehicle pass -bys, and engine idling, which have the
potential to disturb the adjacent residences. These individual noise sources last for
short durations and their occurrences are infrequent; however, they can annoy
neighbors. A noise analysis was prepared by The Planning Center as part of the MND
to analyze the potential noise impacts associated with the previously proposed
uncovered parking structure to the adjacent residents using sound modeling. The
analysis concludes that the noise generated from vehicles and service trucks within the
first and second level of the structure will be attenuated given that those levels are
enclosed. With regard the uncovered third level, the analysis indicates that during the
daytime, traffic noise from West Coast Highway and Dover Drive would be audible over
the noise generated from the third level. In the evening, noise generated from the third
level would be less than the City's 45 dBL Leq exterior noise standard at the
residences. In addition, the third level of the parking structure will be reserved for
employee and valet parking only, avoiding potential noise disturbances that may be
z�;
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 24
associated with patrons loitering in the parking area after hours. Although noise from the
third level of the parking structure is not anticipated to violate the Community Noise
Ordinance standards, the applicant has since proposed to partially enclose and cover
the rear two - thirds of the parking structure. This roof will have the effect of further
attenuating noise generated from vehicles on the third level of the parking structure.
Illumination of the third parking level is necessary for safety; however, it also has the
potential to negatively impact the residents above if not properly designed and
controlled. As currently designed, the rear two- thirds of the upper parking level will be
covered and will shield illumination of the parking structure from view of the resident's
above. To illuminate the uncovered portion of the parking structure, light fixtures would
be recessed into the southerly and westerly walls with very low light output and shields
to eliminate glare from views above. In addition, the project has been conditioned to
require a nighttime light inspection to confirm there are no light and glare impacts.
With regard to the modification of the off - street parking requirements, the LSA Shared
Parking Analysis indicated that not all uses within the project will require their full
allotment of parking spaces at the same time, therefore, the adjustment in parking
requirements is justified. When demand for parking within the structure exists, the
applicant's parking management plan should ensure that employees and patrons are
able to park on -site. The parking management plan has been reviewed and approved
by the City's Traffic Engineer. The Traffic Engineer and Fire Department have reviewed
the parking lot design and have determined that the parking lot design will function
safely and will not prevent emergency vehicle access. Although tandem parking for
employees and valet parking within a parking structure is not ideal, given the design
constraints with providing parking in compliance with City standards on a shallow lot,
the proposed parking management plan is a reasonable solution.
With regard to the off -site parking, the location of the off -site parking is convenient for
the use of employee parking. It is not anticipated that the use of the off -site parking lot
would create an undue traffic hazard or result in noise disturbances to the adjacent
residences.
Variance -Rear Setback Encroachment
The proposed project encroaches five feet into the rear five - foot - setback adjacent to the
residential lots to the north. Pursuant to Section 20.52.090 of the Zoning Code, the
Planning Commission must make the following findings in order to approve a variance:
1. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject
property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical
features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical
zoning classification;
z�
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 25
2. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning
classification;
3. Granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights of the applicant;
4. Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with
the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district;
5. Granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of
the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public
convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in
the neighborhood; and
6. Granting of the Variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this Section,
this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan.
The subject property is wide (approx. 340 feet) and shallow (approx. 90 feet avg.)
Although many of the lots along the inland side of the Mariner's Mile corridor consist of
shallow lots, this property in particular is especially shallow given the acquisition of the
property frontage in 1979 to accommodate the Bay Bridge realignment project. The
realignment reduced the property depth approximately 27 feet on the westerly end and
47 feet on the easterly end of the property. In comparison to the adjacent properties to
the west, the subject property is approximately 25 feet shallower. The 60 lots on the
inland side of West Coast Highway and located between the intersection of Dover Drive
and the westerly boundary the Balboa Bay Club are the shallowest commercial lots
within Marine's Mile corridor area. Of these 60 lots, only four lots have lot depths less
than 100 feet (96.47 at its shallowest end). Over half of these lots consist of lot depths
greater than 140 feet. The average lot depth of these 60 lots is approximately 120 feet.
The reduced lot depths do not accommodate an optimal commercial center site
configuration. To design an optimal commercial building, the commercial square footage
has been consolidated on the eastern portion of the site as a two -level design in order
to accommodate the required on -site parking on the western portion of the site where
the lot depth is greater. To accommodate the project (even if developed at a 0.5 FAR
with two levels of parking) encroachment into the rear five -foot setback would be
necessary to comply with City standards for minimum drive aisles, parking stall
dimensions, turning radiuses, and sight distance requirements. If the proposed parking
structure and commercial building were located on the other 54 inland lots within this
portion of Mariner's Mile, it could be accommodated without the need to encroach, and
therefore, does not constitute the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the Mariner's Mile corridor.
Typically, commercially zoned properties are not required to maintain rear setbacks,
except when located adjacent to residentially zoned properties. The intent is to provide
zf
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 26
separation for light, air, and open space adjacent to these residential properties. In this
case, four residential lots abut the project's rear property line; however, the houses are
located on the hillside approximately 40 -50 feet above the project's pad elevation. The
closest residential dwelling is located approximately 60 feet from the rear property line.
These vertical and horizontal separations between the proposed commercial building
and the homes provide adequate buffer equivalent to or superior to a five -foot rear
setback; therefore, the five -foot encroachment should not prove detrimental to the
abutting residences, nor result in a condition where the commercial development will
endanger or create a hazard to those persons residing in the houses above. The
development includes cutting into the toe of the slope; however, the preliminary
geotechnical report indicates that construction of the retaining wall is feasible, subject to
the recommendations within the report and in compliance with Building and Grading
Codes, and will not undermine the stability of the hillside. In addition, the hillside is heavily
landscaped and the applicant has agreed to work with adjacent residential property
owners to further landscape the slope to provide increased landscaped screening of the
rear of the project.
Parcel Map — Lot Consolidation
The property consists of six legal lots, which the applicant is proposing to consolidate
into one unified site. Pursuant to Section 19.12.060 of the Municipal Code, the merger
of five or more lots requires the approval of a parcel map. The approval of the parcel
map is straightforward in the case and staff believes the facts clearly exist to approve a
parcel map. These required findings and facts in support of these findings are included
in the attached draft resolution.
The subject site is located at the intersection of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive
and serves as the gateway into the Mariner's Mile commercial corridor of the City. Given
its location, this site is ideal for the development of a commercial building and the
subject parcel map allows for the consolidation of six shallow lots into one unified site
large enough to accommodate a viable commercial development.
The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tentative map and believes it
is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable
requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. The proposed project accommodates the
future widening of Coast Highway and all utility lines will be undergrounded.
The design of the development will not conflict with any easements acquired by the
public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development
as there are no public easements that are located on the property. An easement
through the site will be retained by the City for sewer and utilities purposes.
zd
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 27
Traffic Study- Traffic Phasing Ordinance
Municipal Code Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance, or TPO) requires that a
traffic study be prepared and findings be made before building permits may be
approved if a proposed project will generate in excess of 300 average daily trips (ADT).
For the purposes of preparing the traffic analysis for this project, the 23,015- square -foot
commercial building was assumed to include 12,722 square feet of quality restaurant,
7,293 square feet of specialty retail, and 3,000 square feet of medical office. Combined,
this land use mix is forecast to generate 1,292 additional trips per day, including 16
additional a.m. peak hour trips and 70 p.m. peak hour trips. It should be noted that this
land use mix yields a higher project trip generation than the actual currently proposed
land use mix of 9,522 square feet of restaurant, 10,493 square feet of retail, and 3,000
square feet of medical office and, therefore, the traffic analysis prepared for this project
is considered to be a conservative as it over - estimates average daily trips by 93 trips.
Pursuant to Section 15.04.030.A, the Planning Commission must make the following
findings in order to approve the project:
1. That a traffic study for the project has been prepared in compliance with this chapter and
Appendix A;
2. That, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the
traffic study, one of the findings for approval in subsection (B) can be made:
15.40.030. B.1 Construction of the project will be completed within 60 months of
project approval; and
15.40.030. B. 1(a) The project will neither cause nor make an unsatisfactory level of
traffic service at any impacted intersection.
3. That the project proponent has agreed to make or fund the improvements, or make the
contributions, that are necessary to make the findings for approval and to comply with all
conditions of approval.
A traffic study, entitled "Mariner's Pointe Traffic Impact Analysis dated February 17,
2011" was prepared by RBF Consulting under the supervision of the City Traffic
Engineer pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines (Attachment NO. PC8).
A total of 12 primary intersections in the City were evaluated. The traffic study indicates
that the project will increase traffic on six of the 12 study intersections by one percent
(I%) or more during peak hour periods one year after the completion of the project and,
therefore, these six intersections required further Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU)
analysis. Utilizing the ICU analysis specified by the TPO, the traffic study determined
that the six primary intersections identified will continue to operate at satisfactory levels
of service as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and no mitigation is required.
Z7
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 28
Since implementation of the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an
unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection within the City,
no improvements or mitigation are necessary. Therefore, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission find that the traffic study has been prepared in compliance with
the TPO.
Environmental Review
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by The Planning Center, in
accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The MIND is attached
as Attachment No. PC9 and was routed to the Planning Commission in advance of this
staff report to allow additional time to review the report. A copy of the MND was also
made available on the City's website, at each Newport Beach Public Library, and at the
Community Development Department at City Hall.
The MND does not identify any component of the project that would result in a "potentially
significant impact" on the environment per CEQA guidelines. However, the document does
identify components of the project that would result in effects that are "less than significant
with mitigation incorporated" as a result of construction of the project with regard to the
following five environmental categories: Biological Resources, Cultural Resources,
Geology and Soils, Noise, and Transportation and Traffic. The document recommends
the adoption of 11 mitigation measures to mitigate the effects to a point where no
significant effects would occur. These mitigation measures are identified in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is attached as Exhibit A of Attachment No. PC1.
The MND was made available for public review for a 30 -day comment period from April
11, 2011, to May 11, 2011. Staff has received three comment letters from agencies,
one comment letter from the California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, and
five comment letters from residents who live in the Cliff Haven neighborhood above the
project site. Letters from the residents generally state concern with the size of the
project, private view impacts, potential odors, noise from the parking structure and
outdoor patios, potential lighting impacts, and traffic impacts. Although not required
pursuant to CEQA, written responses have been prepared for each of the comment
letters. The comment letters and responses have been attached as Attachment No.
PC10.
Summary
The proposed project implements the City's goal of abating the dilapidated
improvements on the constrained property, and will redevelop and improve the property
with a new commercial building that exhibits a high level of architectural detail and
amenities. The project will also serve as a prominent entry feature into the Mariner's
Mile corridor of the City. With that said, the project is designed at a 0.7 FAR and would
maximize the building envelope and would require several deviations from development
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 29
standards in order to accommodate the project. The parking strategy for the project is
less than ideal and requires an adjustment to the parking standards based on shared
parking, the use of tandem and valet parking for the parking structure, and off -site
parking to function. Given the constraints of the property, the parking strategy remains a
reasonable solution.
The project has been designed to maintain clean roofs with all mechanical equipment
screened from view within an equipment enclosure to minimize potential impacts to the
resident's above. The third level of the parking deck has been designed within a roof
enclosure that would screen the resident's view of vehicles, parking structure lighting,
and would provide additional noise buffering. Also, the two smaller outdoor dining patios
for the restaurants have been designed to be covered and screened from view from the
residents, minimizing noise and visual disturbances. At this time, staff is not
recommending approval of the larger 750 - square -foot outdoor patio within the right -of-
way, but rather is recommending that the outdoor patio request be deferred until the
review of the use permit for the future restaurant use.
The increase in intensity, proposed land use mix, and required parking has resulted in a
larger, bulkier development and has not allowed the applicant to provide increased open
space to offset the increase in height. However, the project has been designed to a high
quality architectural standard and incorporates a number of amenities beyond what
would normally be required. Primarily the project had been designed with modulated
building masses and roof lines to provide visual relief, vertical modulation in the form of
tower elements with sloping roofs, and the addition of design elements such as
balconies, tower features, awnings, trellises, ornamental windows and railings, that
enhance the visual quality of the buildings and street frontage. To break up the
appearance and massing of the parking structure, the design includes a variety of
materials, the use of recessed openings, and incorporates a storefront with a vertical
tower element. Enhanced landscaping within the public- right -of -way is proposed and
would incorporate a water feature that would improve the streetscape and entrance into
the corridor. In addition to the highway noise attenuation that the building will provide for
the resident's above, the resident's will also benefit from the removal of the three
existing power poles and overhead lines located along the rear of the property on the
residential lots.
Alternatives
Should the Planning Commission conclude that the project as proposed would not be
compatible with the surrounding uses and /or that any increased intensity request is
inappropriate, the project should be denied, or modified to address the issues of
concern. If a redesigned project is the Commission's conclusion, staff recommends a
continuance to allow the applicant time to revise their plans accordingly.
/.I
Mariner's Pointe
June 23, 2011
Page 30
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within
300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a
minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. The
environmental assessment process has also been noticed consistent with the California
Environmental Quality Act. The Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the MND was mailed to
property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways),
posted at the site and at City Hall, and e- mailed to all parties that have signed up to
receive notification of the preparation of environmental documents in the City. Finally,
the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and
on the city website.
Prepared by:
Submitted by:
Ja a Murillo, Associate Planner Ja&s W. Campbel , Principal Planner
ATTACHMENTS
PC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings, Conditions, and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
PC 2 Parcel Map
PC 3 Project Plans
PC 4 Land Use Element Changes
PC 5 Zoning Map Changes
PC 6 Shared Parking Analysis
PC 7 Parking Management Plan
PC 8 Traffic Study
PC 9 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (distributed separately due to bulk)
PC 10 Comments and Responses
FAUSERS\PLN \Shared \PA's \PAs - 2010 \PA2010 - 114 \Planning Commission\PA2010 -114 PC rpl.docz
M
Attachment No. PC 1
Draft Resolution with Findings,
Conditions, and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program
�;1
,�;z
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FINDING TRAFFIC
STUDY NO. TS2011 -001 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRAFFIC
PHASING ORDINANCE, APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. GP2010 -009, CODE AMENDMENT NO.
CA2010 -009, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SR2010 -001,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010 -024, VARIANCE NO.
2010 -004, AND PARCEL MAP NO. 2010 -008, FOR A
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT 100-
300 WEST COAST HIGHWAY (PA2010 -114)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS.
1. An application was filed by VBAS Corporation, with respect to properties located at 100-
300 West Coast Highway, and legally described as Lots 1, 2, 3 ,4, 5, and 6 of Tract No.
1210 requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to accommodate the
development of a 23,015- square -foot, two -story commercial building and a three -story
parking structure The following applications are requested or required in order to
implement the project as proposed:
a. An amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to increase the
allowable floor area for the project site from 16,518 square feet (0.5 FAR) to a
maximum development limit of 23,015 square feet (approx. 0.7 FAR);
b. An amendment to the Zoning Map of the Zoning Code to increase the allowable
floor area limitation for the project site from 0.3/0.5 FAR to a maximum
development limit of 23,015 square feet (approx. 0.7 FAR);
c. A site development review to allow the construction of a 23,015- square -foot,
two -story building and a three -story parking structure that will exceed the 31-
foot base height limit with a maximum height of 40 feet;
d. A conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a parking structure
adjacent to a residential zoning district, to modify the off - street parking
requirements, allow for the use of off -site parking, and to establish a parking
management plan for the site;
e. A variance to allow the commercial building and parking structure to encroach
five feet into the five -foot rear yard setback;
f. A parcel map to consolidate six lots into one parcel; and
W
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 2 of 43
g. A traffic study pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance.
2. The subject property is located within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District and
the General Plan Land Use Element category is Commercial General (CG).
3. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone.
4. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 23, 2011, in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of
time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport
Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and
considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting.
SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION.
1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines,
and City Council Policy K -3.
2. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30 -day comment period
beginning on April 11, 2011 and ending on May 11, 2011. The contents of the
environmental document and comments on the document were considered by the
Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project.
3. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project, with
mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and
there are no known substantial adverse affects on human beings that would be
caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be
compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the
project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and will reduce the potential
environmental impacts to a less than significant level.
4. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
attached as Exhibit A is hereby adopted. The document and all material, which
constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning
Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California.
5. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA
determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In
addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges.
As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate
that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial
challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages
which may be awarded to a successful challenger.
Tmplt: 11/23/09 A
A
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 3 of 43
SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS.
1. The project site is located within the Mariner's Mile commercial corridor. The Land Use
Element of the General Plan designates the site General Commercial (CG), which is
intended to provide for a wide variety of commercial activities primarily oriented to
serve citywide or regional needs. The proposed commercial building would be
consistent with this designation.
2. General Plan Policy LU 3.2 encourages the enhancement of existing neighborhoods,
districts, and corridors, by allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are
complementary in type, form, scale, and character. The policy states that changes in
use and /or density /intensity should be considered only in those areas that are
economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's
share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce
commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish
Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new
development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and
public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service.
The proposed GPA for increased intensity is consistent with General Plan Policy LU
3.2 as follows:
a. The General Plan recognizes the Mariner's Mile corridor as a location that
needs revitalization.
b. The increased intensity would provide an economic stimulus needed to
accommodate the redevelopment of six lots into one commercial development.
c. As stated in the General Plan, Newport Beach residents desire high quality
development and have identified the Mariner's Mile corridor is an area that
needs revitalization.
d. Redevelopment of the subject property helps implement the goal of revitalizing
the corridor and may encourage the redevelopment of other underperforming
properties within the Mariner's Mile corridor. The projects high quality and
distinct architectural features, such as the corner tower element and cupola, will
serve as a focal point and anchor into the entry into the Mariner's Mile corridor.
In addition, the project's landscaping and water feature within the public right -of-
way will significantly improve the streetscape in the corridor.
e. The traffic impact analysis that was prepared for the project found that the
addition of project - related traffic would not have a significant impact at any of
the study intersections.
f. The project site is served by existing infrastructure and public services. The
proposed increase in intensity will not necessitate any expansion of existing
infrastructure. The proposed lane drop extension on West Coast Highway will
Tmplt: 11/23/09 Tj �j
!!
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 4 of 43
improve safety of westbound traffic, while improving access to the site. The
removal of the three existing power poles and undergrounding of the power
lines will provide a public benefit.
3. Charter Section 423 requires that all proposed General Plan Amendments be
reviewed to determine if the square footage (for non - residential projects), peak hour
vehicle trip, or dwelling units thresholds would be exceeded as the means to
determine whether a vote by the electorate would be required to approve the General
Plan Amendment. Pursuant to Council Policy A -18, voter approval is not required as
the proposed General Plan Amendment represents a cumulative increase (including
prior amendments) of 6,497 square feet and an increase of 19.49 a.m. and 25.99 p.m.
peak hour trips. Therefore, the project and prior amendments do not cumulatively
exceed Charter Section 423 thresholds as to require a vote of the electorate
4. Municipal Code Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance, or TPO) requires that a
traffic study be prepared and findings be made before building permits may be
approved if a proposed project will generate in excess of 300 average daily trips
(ADT). For the purposes of preparing the traffic analysis for this project, the 23,015 -
square -foot commercial building was assumed to include 12,722 square feet of quality
restaurant, 7,293 square feet of specialty retail, and 3,000 square feet of medical
office. Combined, this land use mix is forecast to generate 1,292 additional trips per
day, including 16 additional a.m. peak hour trips and 70 p.m. peak hour trips. This
land use mix yields a higher project trip generation than the actual currently proposed
land use mix of 9,522 square feet of restaurant, 10,493 square feet of retail, and 3,000
square feet of medical office and, therefore, the traffic analysis prepared for this
project is considered to be a conservative as it over - estimates average daily trips by
93 trips. Pursuant to Section 15.04.030.A, the project shall not be approved unless
certain findings can be made. The following findings and facts in support of such
findings are set forth:
Finding:
A. That a traffic study for the project has been prepared in compliance with this
chapter and Appendix A.
Facts in Support of Finding:
A -1. A traffic study, entitled "Mariner's Pointe Traffic Impact Analysis dated February
17, 2011" was prepared by RBF Consulting under the supervision of the City
Traffic Engineer pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines. A total of
12 primary intersections in the City were evaluated.
Finding:
B. That based on the eight of the evidence in the administrative record, including
the traffic study, one of the findings for approval in subsection (8) can be made:
Tmplt: 11/23/09
36
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 5 of 43
15.40.030.8.1 Construction of the project will be completed within 60
months of project approval; and
15.40.030. B.1(a) The project will neither cause nor make an unsatisfactory
level of traffic service at any impacted intersection.
Facts in Support of Finding:
B -1. Construction of the project is anticipated to be completed in 2012. If the project
is not completed within sixty (60) months of this approval, preparation of a new
traffic study will be required.
B -2. The traffic study indicates that the project will increase traffic on six of the 12
study intersections by one percent (1 %) or more during peak hour periods one
year after the completion of the project and, therefore, these six intersections
require further Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis.
B -3. Utilizing the ICU analysis specified by the TPO, the traffic study determined that
the six primary intersections identified will continue to operate at satisfactory
levels of service as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and no mitigation
is required.
B-4. Based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the
traffic study, the implementation of the proposed project will neither cause nor
make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary
intersection within the City of Newport Beach.
Finding:
C. That the project proponent has agreed to make or fund the improvements, or
make the contributions, that are necessary to make the findings for approval
and to comply with all conditions of approval.
Facts in Support of Finding:
C -1. Since implementation of the proposed project will neither cause nor make
worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary
intersection within the City of Newport Beach, no improvements or mitigation
are necessary.
5. The project consists of 23,015 square feet of commercial floor area and requires site
development review. In accordance with Section 20.52.080 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set
forth:
Tmplt: 11/23/09 T�
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 6 of 43
Finding:
A. Allowed within the subject zoning district.
Facts in Support of Finding:
A -1. A commercial building with retail, office, and restaurant uses is a permitted use
within the CG zoning district. The specific restaurants will be required to obtain
separate minor or conditional use permits prior to occupying the building.
Finding:
B. Compliance with this Section [20.52.080], the General Plan, this Zoning Code,
any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to
the use or structure.
Facts in Support of Finding:
B -1. The proposed commercial building is consistent with the CG General Plan land
use designation and CG zoning district. A General Plan Amendment and
Zoning Map Amendment are requested to allow the proposed increase in
intensity.
B -2. As required by the Zoning Code, a conditional use permit and variance has
been requested to allow for the off - street parking modifications and the
encroachment into the rear setback.
B -3. Land Use Element Policy LU 6.19.6 requires the implementation of landscape,
signage, lighting, sidewalk, pedestrian crossing, and other amenities consistent
with the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework. Applicable to
this project would be the landscape, lighting, and signage recommendations
within the framework. Project signage has not yet been developed and will be
submitted for a subsequent review. The project implements the landscaping
requirements of the framework by providing the minimum four - foot -wide planter
area with continuous hedge and palms plantings. With regard to lighting, the
lighting has been designed to respect the views from above and to prevent any
light spillage beyond the perimeter of the structure and to eliminate any sources
of glare to the residents and motorists. The framework also includes
architectural objectives that focus on responsible and sensitive design, with an
emphasis on roofs and roof elements to respond to views from above. The
proposed building has been designed with tiled tower elements and clean flat
roofs with all mechanical equipment screened from view within an enclosure.
The third level of the parking structure has been designed with a solid roof that
screens the resident's view of vehicles and lighting.
Tmplt: 11/23/09 z p
/O
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 7 of 43
Finding:
C. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious
relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent
developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good
design.
Facts in Support of Finding:
C -1. The commercial building is configured in such way to resemble a village of two -
story buildings, with various roof heights, connected to parking on each of the
two levels.
C -2. Although the project is requesting an increase in height, the building will not
block or obstruct any views of the bay or harbor from the residential homes
located on the 40 to 50 -foot high hillside above the project site.
C -3. The roof of the commercial building has been designed to respect the views of
the residences above and consists of a combination of flat and sloped roof
lines. Roof -top mechanical equipment would be fully enclosed within an
equipment enclosure and would not be visible from the residences above. The
enclosure will have louver vents directed away from the residential properties.
C-4. The rear two- thirds of the parking structure would be enclosed and will screen
the view of the parked vehicles and parking structure lighting from the residents
located above the hillside. The parking structure roof will also provide an
additional sound buffer to the residents above.
C -5. The mechanical equipment enclosure has been located at the rear of the
commercial building to minimize the bulk of the building as viewed from West
Coast Highway.
Finding:
D. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures
on the site and adjacent developments and public areas.
Facts in Support of Finding:
D -1. The building and parking structure includes modulated building masses and
rooflines and a variation of building materials and colors that would provide
visual relief.
D -2. To break up the bulk and massing of the parking structure as viewed from West
Coast Highway, a 755 - square -foot commercial space has been located on the
1" level of the structure, below the ramp, providing a storefront and retail
Tmplt: 11/23/09
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 8 of 43
presence in front the of the structure. A tower element will extend this storefront
along the face of the structure.
D -3. The inclusion of architectural elements such as balconies, tower features,
awnings, trellises, ornamental windows and railings, and the variation in
building elevations and protrusions would also enhance the visual quality of the
buildings and street frontage.
D-4. The project's architectural style, with the use of stone, tile and glass materials,
blends in color and form with some development within Mariner's Mile, will
provide a high standard of quality for future neighboring development, and
complies with the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework.
D -5. The tower and cupola feature, the tallest portion of the building, is located at the
southeasterly corner of the site, away from the nearest residential and
commercial uses. To minimize the bulk of the parking structure as viewed from
West Coast Highway, the parking structure roof has been setback 37 feet 5
inches from the front edge of the structure. The resulting height of the parking
structure along the front fagade is 29 feet 4 inches providing a transition to the
commercial properties to the west.
D -6. The west elevation of the building has been designed as a flat wall with no
openings due to its proximity to the side property line and in anticipation that the
commercial site to the west may be redeveloped in the future; however, until
such time, the west elevation will be visible from motorist traveling south of
West Coast Highway. To soften the appearance of this elevation and break up
the mass of the parking structure, three large green screens would be installed
and separated by columnar evergreen trees. Architectural detailing has also
been added in the form of boarders around the green screens and columns.
D -7. The rear elevation of the building and parking structure has also been designed
as a flat wall with no openings due to its placement on the rear property line and
will range in height from approximately 20 feet to 35 feet from existing grade.
However, the homes located on the hillside above are located a minimum of 60
feet away and approximately 40 -50 feet above the project's pad elevation with
views oriented predominately over the project site towards the bay and harbor,
and therefore, will not be significantly impacted by the height and bulk of the
structures.
Finding:
E. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access,
including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces.
Facts in Support of Finding:
Tmplt: 11/23/09 AA
iO
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 9 of 43
E -1. The project would eliminate one existing driveway access off Dover Drive and
would consolidate four existing driveways along West Coast Highway into two
driveways. Therefore, the project minimizes the number of driveways along
West Cost Highway, thereby reducing potential conflicts and increasing
vehicular safety. The lane drop extension of Coast Highway will also enhance
the safety of the highway, while providing safe access from the site, as
determined by the City Traffic Engineer.
E -2. The project proves adequate sight distance at each driveway, as determined by
the City Traffic.
E -3. The proposed parking structure has been designed to accommodate and
provide safe access for emergency, delivery, and refuse collections vehicles, as
determined by the City Traffic.
E -4. The project would include enhanced pedestrian walkways that provide access
between the various uses and areas within the project site and to the
surrounding public sidewalks and uses.
E -5. The existing bus stop along the project frontage would be relocated and a new
designated `Bus Only" area would be created between the two driveways.
E -6. The parking strategy for the project includes an adjustment to the parking
requirements based on a shared parking analysis, use of a parking
management plan that utilizes tandem and valet parking, and use of off -site
parking for employees.
F. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use
of water efficient plant and irrigation materials.
Facts in SUDDort of Findin
F -1. The project includes the enhanced use of landscaping, including a variation of
ornamental groundcover, vines, shrubs, and trees, to help soften and buffer the
massing of the parking structure and commercial building from the surrounding
areas and roadways.
F -2. A new water feature design would encompass the southeast corner of the
project site.
F -3. The landscape plan includes the requirements of the Mariner's Mile Strategic
Vision and Design Framework, but also incorporates non - invasive and water
conserving plant types.
F -4. The project is subject to the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
(Chapter 14.17 of NBMC).
Tmplt: 11/23/09
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 10 of 43
Finding:
G. The protection of significant views from public right(s) -of -way and compliance
with Section 20.30. 100 (Public View Protection).
Facts in Support of Finding:
G -1. The portion of West Coast Highway, on which the project is located, is not a
designated coastal view road and is not considered a public view corridor
requiring public view protection.
Finding:
H. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger,
jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health,
interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood of the proposed development.
Facts in Support of Finding:
H -1. The project has been conditioned to ensure that potential conflicts with
surrounding land uses are minimized to the extent possible to maintain a
healthy environment for both businesses and residents.
H -2. The project's refuse area is located within the first level of the parking garage
and will not result in odor impacts to residents above or noise associated with
refuse collection.
H -3. To minimize or eliminate odors associated with the restaurant uses impacting
the residents above the site, the project has been conditioned to require the
installation of Pollution Control Units with odor eliminators that take the exhaust
from the hoods in the kitchens and filter it for particulates and odor.
H-4. Any illumination of the proposed tower and cupola feature has been conditioned
to consist of soft accent lighting so as not to become a visual disturbance to the
views of the adjacent residents.
H -5. The project is subject to the City's Outdoor Lighting requirements contained
with Section 20.30.070 of the Zoning Code.
H -6. The proposed 750 - square -foot outdoor dining area located within the public- right-
of -away adjacent to Dover will be screened from view of the residents above the
hillside and is not anticipated to result in a significant noise disturbance; however,
until the specific operation of the restaurants are better known, the project has
been conditioned prohibiting this outdoor patio and deferring review until the of the
use permit applications for the future restaurant uses are submitted.
Tmplt: 11/23/09
¢z
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 11 of 43
6. The project site is located in the Nonresidential, Shoreline Height Limit Area where the
height of structures are limited to 26 feet for flat roofs /parapet walls and to 31 feet for
sloped roofs with a minimum 3:12 pitch. The height of a structure can be increased up
to a maximum of 35 feet for flat roofs /parapet walls and up to 40 feet for sloped roofs,
subject to the approval of a Site Development Review. In accordance with Section
20.30.060.C.3 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts
in support of such findings are set forth:
Finding:
A. The project applicant is providing additional project amenities beyond those that
are otherwise required.
Facts in Support of Findinq:
A -1. The most significant amenity the project provides is the long desired
redevelopment of this highly visible property that serves as a gateway into the
Mariner's Mile corridor. This property is constrained due to its shallow depths
and as such has proven difficult to redevelop and as fallen into disrepair. The
building exhibits a high level of architectural detail and includes design features
that enhance the aesthetics of the building and the area. The most prominent
design feature of the building is the octagonal tower and cupola at the
southeasterly corner of the site intended to serve as a landmark feature and an
anchor into the Mariner's Mile corridor area of the City. The parking structure
has been designed to incorporate a variety of materials and features (i.e. stone
treatment and hanging vines) and includes vertical recessed openings and a
storefront with a vertical tower element to break up the massing and monotony
commonly associated with parking structures.
A -2. The project includes enhanced landscaping of the public right -of -way along the
West Coast Highway and Dover Drive. In addition to the continuous hedge and
palm trees requirement of the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design
Framework, the landscaping plan incorporates additional ornamental
groundcover, vines, shrubs, and trees, to help soften and buffer the massing of
the parking structure and commercial building and enhance the streetscape of
Mainer's Mile. To further improve the streetscape and improve the entrance into
the corridor, the applicant is proposing the installation of 280 - square —foot water
feature that would encompass the southeast corner of the project site. Water
effects are proposed to include a knife -edge water weir falling towards the
street at the center, boarded by low walls at each end of the feature. The water
feature will also include plant material and a combination or eroded, colored
concrete and natural stone.
A -3. The design and height of the building benefits the residential properties above
and to the north by providing noise attenuation from the roadway noise
generated from vehicles on West Coast Highway and Dover Drive. As
illustrated in Figure 14 of the MND, a net decrease in roadway noise of up to 9
Tmplt: 11/23/09
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 12 of 43
dBA CNEL is expected as a result of the noise attenuation effect of the new
structures.
A -4. At minimum, City policy requires the applicant to underground their utilities from
the nearest power pole, allowing the power poles to remain in place. In this
case, the applicant is proposing to completely remove the power poles and
underground the power lines around the eastern, southern, and western
perimeter of the project site. An easement to Southern California Edison for the
power lines will also be provided along the westerly property line.
A -5. Another amenity includes the elimination of the existing driveway access off
Dover Drive and the consolidation of the existing four driveways along West
Coast Highway into two main access driveways. Therefore, the project
minimizes the number of driveways along West Cost Highway, ensuring that the
desired traffic flow along this major road is maintained and ensuring that the
continuity of the street - facing building elevations would not be interrupted. The
extension of the lane drop on West Coast Highway also serves to enhance the
safety of the highway by extending the length of the merge lane, which
providing safe access from the site
Finding:
B. The architectural design of the project provides visual interest through the use
of light and shadow, recessed planes, vertical elements, and varied roof planes.
Facts in Support of Finding:
B -1. The goal of the architectural design is to simulate the appearance of a small
Mediterranean village of two -story commercial buildings, resulting in modulated
building masses and rooflines. The project consists mainly of flat roofs with
heights between 29 feet 4 inches and 32 feet 4 inches. Several vertical
elements have been included in the design such as the tower features and
elevator /stairwell enclosures which range in height from 35 feet to 40 feet. The
main elevator and stairwell enclosure has been integrated into the building
fagade as a prominent architectural feature and creates a transition between
the commercial and parking structure components of the project. To break up
the bulk and massing of the parking structure as viewed from West Coast
Highway, a 755 - square -foot commercial space has been located on the first
level of the structure, below the ramp, providing a storefront and retail presence
in front the of the structure. A tower element extends this storefront vertically
along the face of the structure.
B -2. The storefronts on both the upper and lower level will be setback from the edge
of the balcony along the street elevation, creating light and shadow effects.
Light and shadow will also be created through the extensive use of awnings and
recessed openings. The massing of the parking structure is also minimized
through the use of vertical opening openings along the street frontage.
Tmplt: 11/23/09 A A
A A
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 13 of 43
Finding:
C. The increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changes or
relationships being created between the proposed structure(s) and existing
adjacent developments or public spaces. Where appropriate, the proposed
structure(s) provide a gradual transition to taller or shorter structures on
abutting properties.
Facts in Support of Finding:
C -1. The tower and cupola feature, the tallest portion of the building, is located at the
southeasterly corner of the site, away from the nearest residential and
commercial uses. The height of the project transitions in height from east to
west, minimizing the change in scale to the adjacent commercial priorities to the
west. With the exception of the tower elements and mechanical equipment
enclosure, the height of the commercial building is 32 feet 4 inches. To
minimize the visual height and bulk of the parking structure as viewed in
perspective from West Coast Highway, the parking structure roof has been
setback 37 feet 5 inches from the front edge of the structure. The resulting
height of the parking structure along the front fagade is 29 feet, 4 inches
providing a transition to the commercial properties to the west as viewed from
the highway. Although the adjacent commercial property is currently with one -
story commercial buildings, the site has the potential to be redeveloped at
heights of 31 feet without discretionary approvals.
C -2. The homes on the residential lots to the north are situated at the top of the
hillside that ranges in height from 40 -50 feet above the project's pad elevation.
The homes are also located a minimum of 60 feet back from the rear property
line. These vertical and horizontal separations between the proposed
commercial building and the homes at the top of the slope minimize the impact
of the proposed structure heights to the adjacent residences.
Findinq:
D. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved
without the approval of the height increase.
Facts in Support of Finding:
D -1. The requested increase in floor area does not drive the need for the increased
height. The need for the third level of the parking structure is primarily driven by
the need to provide parking for the two restaurants that will serve of anchor
tenants to the development.
D -2. Even if the project is designed with only the two restaurants at the currently
permitted 0.5 FAR, the third level of parking would be needed to accommodate
Tmplt: 11/23/09 A
A 1.
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 14 of 43
the 100 parking spaces parking anticipated for the restaurant uses. The height
of the parking structure could be reduced from 35 feet to 29 feet 4 inches if the
roof was removed; however, the roof provides a benefit to the residents located
above the hillside as it shields parking structure lighting and glare, and buffers
vehicle noise.
D -3. With regard to the height of the commercial building, the need for height is
driven by the need to provide desirable 1 2-foot-h igh ceilings for the retail tenants
ensuring that these commercial building will remain marketable to tenants. In
order to provide 12- foot -high clear ceilings and accommodate space for
mechanical systems and fire sprinklers, a total plate height between 14 feet 6
inches and 17 feet 6 inches is required. Plate heights within the project utilize a
14- foot -8 -inch dimension. It's also important to note that a majority of the
structure will maintain a maximum height of 29 feet 4 inches, with the exception
for the tower elements, designed to enhance the architecture of the building,
and elevator /stairwell enclosures and mechanical equipment enclosure.
7. To address the nine space parking deficit that is anticipated to occur after 6:00 p.m.,
the applicant is prepared to enter into an off -site parking agreement to provide
employees of the project access to 20 parking spaces within the parking medical office
parking lot located at 601 Dover Drive. Pursuant to Section 20.40.100 of the Municipal
Code, approval of a conditional use permit is required for a parking facility that is not
located on the same site it is intended to serve. In addition to the standard conditional
use permit findings, additional findings pertaining to the off -site parking request must
be made. In accordance with Section 20.40.100.13 of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth:
Finding:
A. The parking facility is located within a convenient distance to the use it is
intended to serve.
Facts in Support of Finding:
A -1. The parking lot is located approximately 1,050 feet (walking distance) north of
the project site at the corner of Dover Drive and Cliff Drive. The lot would be
used solely by employees of the project and not by customers. The Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) suggests four feet per second as a
normal walking speed; therefore, it would take an employee approximately 4
minutes and 22.5 seconds to walk from the off -site lot. This is considered a
convenient distance for employee parking.
Finding:
B. On- street parking is not being counted towards meeting parking requirements.
Tmplt: 11/23/09
4-b
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 15 of 43
Facts in Support of Finding:
B -1. On- street parking spaces do not exist within close proximity of the project site
and are not being used towards meeting the parking requirements of the
project.
Finding:
C. Use of the parking facility will not create undue traffic hazards or impacts in the
surrounding area.
Facts in Support of Finding:
C -1. The use of the parking lot will not create an undue traffic hazard as the
proposed project and subject off -site parking lot are both located on the
westerly side of Dover Drive. This allows employees to walk on the sidewalk
and only needing to cross the signalized crosswalk at Cliff Drive. As indicated in
the shared parking analysis, it is only anticipated that only 9 of 20 parking
spaces will actually be needed.
C -2. The sidewalk leading to the off -site parking lot is bordered by a hillside with
residential uses located along the top of slope. Residences are also located
behind the medical office site to the west; however, the residences are located
at the top of a hillside and buffered from the parking area by the medical office
building.
C -3. Since the off -site parking will be used by employees only, typical noise
disturbances associated with restaurant patrons loitering in parking lots is not
expected.
Finding:
D. The parking facility will be permanently available, marked, and maintained for
the use it is intended to serve.
Facts in Support of Finding:
D -1. The off -site parking spaces will be made available for the use of employees of
the project after 5:00 p.m. on a daily basis, once the medical office tenants are
closed for business.
D -2. The owner's of the medical office building, 601 Dover LLC, are subject to a
ground -lease that expires in 11 years and have indicated they are agreeable to
entering into an agreement allowing the use of up to 20 parking spaces.
D -3. If the parking spaces become unavailable in the future, the applicant will be
required to notify the Community Development Director who will establish a
Tmplt: 11/23/09
4.7
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 16 of 43
reasonable time for substitute parking to be provided or reduce the size of the
tenant spaces or change the tenant mix (i.e. less restaurant or medical floor
area) in proportion to the parking spaces lost.
8. Pursuant to Sections 20.40.070.B.3 and 20.40.110.6.2 of the Zoning Code, a
conditional use permit is required to allow for the construction of a parking structure
adjacent to a residential zoning district, to modify the off - street parking requirements
and to establish a parking management plan. In accordance with Section 20.52.020.F
of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of
such findings are set forth:
Finding:
A. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan.
Facts in Support of Finding:
A -1. The commercial building and related uses are consistent with CG General Plan
land use designation. The parking structure is considered an accessory use that
supports of the commercial uses. Parking structures and the use of valet are
commonly associated with restaurant development and compatible with the
other commercial uses located in Mariner's Mile.
Finding:
B. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all
other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code.
Facts in Support of Finding:
B -1. The commercial building and related uses are consistent with CG zoning
district. The parking structure is considered an accessory use that supports of
the commercial uses. Parking structures located adjacent to residential districts
requires review and approval of a conditional use permit to minimize impacts to
the residential uses.
Finding:
C. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are
compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity.
Facts in Support of Finding:
C -1. The parking structure is proposed to be located at the base of the hillside
adjacent to a residential district, where the neighboring residential properties
are located along the top of the hillside approximately 40 -50 feet above the
project's pad elevation. The height of the covered portion of the parking
Tmplt: 11/23/09 ,/ p
7'O
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 17 of 43
structure is 35 feet at the rear of the property directly adjacent to the residential
district. The residential dwellings will remain approximately 22 feet higher in
elevation than the surface of the third level parking deck (25 feet, 10 inches)
and 12 feet, 6 inches higher in elevation than the top of the parking structure
roof. The closest residential dwelling is located approximately 60 feet from the
rear property line. These vertical and horizontal separations between the
proposed commercial building and the homes provide adequate distance so
that the mass and bulk of the parking structure should not negatively impact
residents.
Finding:
D. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size,
operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle
(e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities.
Facts in Support of Finding:
D -1. With regard to the modification of the off - street parking requirements, the LSA
Shared Parking Analysis indicated that not all uses within the project will require
their full allotment of parking spaces at the same time, therefore, the adjustment
in parking requirements is justified. When demand for parking within the
structure is exists, the applicant's Parking Operational Plan should ensure that
employees and patrons are able to park on -site.
D -2. The Parking Operational Plan has been reviewed and approved by the City's
Traffic Engineer. Also the Traffic Engineer and Fire Department have reviewed
the parking lot design and have determined that the parking lot design will
function safely and will not prevent emergency vehicle access to the
establishment. Given the design constraints with providing parking in
compliance with City standards on such a shallow lot, the proposed parking
management plan is a reasonable solution.
Finding:
E. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the
harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or
otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety,
or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the
proposed use.
Facts in Support of Finding:
E -1. Parking structures have the potential to generate noise, such as car - alarms, car
horns, car audio systems, people talking, vehicle pass -bys, and engine idling,
which have the potential to disturb the adjacent residences. These individual
noise sources last for short durations and their occurrences are infrequent;
Tmplt: 11/23/09
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 18 of 43
however, they can annoy neighbors. A noise analysis was prepared by The
Planning Center as part of the MND to analyze the potential noise impacts
associated with the previously proposed uncovered parking structure to the
adjacent residents using sound modeling. The analysis concludes that the noise
generated from vehicles and service trucks within the first and second level of
the structure will be attenuated given that those levels are enclosed. With
regard the uncovered third level, the analysis indicates that during the daytime,
traffic noise from West Coast Highway and Dover Drive would be audible over
the noise generated from the third level. In the evening, noise generated from
the third level would be less than the City's 45 dBL Leq exterior noise standard
at the residences. In addition, the third level of the parking structure will be
reserved for employee and valet parking only, avoiding potential noise
disturbances that may be associated with patrons loitering in the parking area
after hours. Although noise from the third level of the parking structure is not
anticipated to violate the Community Noise Ordinance standards, the applicant
has since proposed to partially enclose and cover the rear two - thirds of the
parking structure. This roof will have the effect of further attenuating noise
generated from vehicles on the third level of the parking structure.
E -2. The rear two- thirds of the upper parking level will be covered and will shield
illumination of the parking structure from view of the resident's above. To
illuminate the uncovered portion of the parking structure, light fixtures would be
recessed into the southerly and westerly walls with very low light output and
shields to eliminate glare from views above. In addition, the project has been
conditioned to require a nighttime light inspection to confirm there are no light
and glare impacts.
E -3. The project has been conditioned to require a nighttime light inspection to
confirm there are no light and glare impacts.
9. The proposed project encroaches five feet into the rear five - foot - setback adjacent to
the residential lots to the north. In accordance with Section 20.52.090 of the Newport
Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are
set forth:
Finding:
A. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the
subject property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other
physical features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity
under an identical zoning classification.
Facts in Support of Finding:
A -1. The subject property is wide (approx. 340 feet) and shallow (approx. 90 feet
avg.). Although many of the lots along the inland side of the Mariner's Mile
corridor consist of shallow lots, this property in particular is especially shallow
Tmplt: 11/23/09
fo
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 19 of 43
given the acquisition of the property frontage in 1979 to accommodate the Bay
Bridge realignment project. The realignment reduced the property depth
approximately 27 feet on the westerly end and 47 feet on the easterly end of the
property.
A -2. The subject property is approximately 25 shallower than the adjacent properties
to the west. The 60 lots on the inland side of West Coast Highway and located
between the intersection of Dover Drive and the westerly boundary the Balboa
Bay Club are the shallowest commercial lots within Marine's Mile corridor area.
Of these 60 lots, only four lots have lot depths less than 100 feet (96.47 at its
shallowest end). Over half of these lots consist of lot depths greater than 140
feet. The average lot depth of these 60 lots is approx. 120 feet.
Finding:
B. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an
identical zoning classification.
Facts in Support of Finding:
B -1. The reduced lot depths do not accommodate an optimal commercial center site
configuration. To design an optimal commercial building, the commercial square
footage has been consolidated on the eastern portion of the site as a two -level
design in order to accommodate the required on -site parking on the western
portion of the site where the lot depth is greater. To accommodate the project
(even if developed at a 0.5 FAR with two levels of parking) encroachment into
the rear five -foot setback would be necessary to comply with City standards for
minimum drive aisles, parking stall dimensions, turning radiuses, and sight
distance requirements. The proposed parking structure and commercial building
could be accommodated without the need to encroach on any of the other 54
inland lots previously mentioned within this portion of Mariner's Mile.
Finding:
C. Granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of
substantial property rights of the applicant.
Facts in Support of Finding:
C -1. The reduced lot depths do not accommodate an optimal commercial center site
configuration and in order to maintain a substantial property right of developing
the site for commercial use, the elimination of the rear yard setback is required
to allow for the development of a parking structure that complies with City
standards for vehicular access and parking. The parking structure has been
located on the western portion of the site where the lots depths are greater and
the commercial building has been located on the eastern half of the site where
Tmplt: 11/23/09 �j
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 20 of 43
is the lot depth is narrowest (approx. 85 feet). Without the granting of the
variance, the development of a commercial retail building with adequate on -site
parking would not be feasible on this long and shallow site.
Finding:
D. Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the
same zoning district.
Facts in Support of Finding:
D -1. Granting of the variance would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the Mariner's Mile corridor as it
allows the applicant the ability to develop an optimal commercial center with
adequate parking on -site as could be developed on adjacent lots with greater
lots depths.
Finding:
E. Granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly
growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to
the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood.
Facts in Support of Finding:
E -1. Four residential lots abut the project's rear property line; however, these
residential properties are located up the hillside approximately 40 -50 feet above
the project's pad elevation. In addition, the closest residential dwelling is located
approximately 60 feet from the rear property line. These vertical and horizontal
separations between the proposed commercial building and the homes provide
adequate buffer equivalent to or superior to a five -foot rear setback.
E -2. The five -foot encroachment will not result in a condition where the commercial
development will endanger or create a hazard to those persons residing in the
dwellings above. In addition, the hillside is heavily landscaped and the applicant
has agreed to work with adjacent residential property owners to further
landscape the slope to provide increased landscaped screening of the rear of
the project.
E -3. The development includes cutting into the toe of the slope; however, the
preliminary geotechnical report indicates that the design and construction of the
retaining wall is feasible, subject to the recommendations within the report and in
compliance with Building and Grading Codes, and will not undermine the stability
of the hillside.
Tmplt: 11/23/09
fz
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 21 of 43
Finding:
F. Granting of the Variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this
Section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan).
Facts in Support of Finding:
F -1. Typically commercially zoned properties are not required to maintain rear
setbacks, except when located adjacent to residentially zoned properties. The
intent is to provide separation for light, air, and open space adjacent to these
residential properties. In this case, four residential lots abut the project's rear
property line; however, the houses are located on the hillside approximately 40-
50 feet above the project's pad elevation. The closest residential dwelling is
located approximately 60 feet from the rear property line. These vertical and
horizontal separations between the proposed commercial building and the
homes provide adequate buffer equivalent to or superior to a five -foot rear
setback. Therefore, the five -foot encroachment will not deprive the adjacent
residential properties form the adequate enjoyment of light, air, and open space.
10. The property consists of six legal lots, which the applicant is proposing to consolidate
into one unified site. The merger of five or more lots requires the approval of a parcel
map. In accordance with Section 19.12.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the
following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth:
Finding:
A. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are
consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with
applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code.
Facts in Support of Finding:
A -1. The project is consistent with the CG General Plan designation of the site.
A -2. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tentative map and
believes it is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and
applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act.
A -3. The proposed project accommodates the potential future widening of Coast
Highway and all utility lines will be undergrounded.
A -4. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19.
Finding:
B. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development.
Tmplt: 11/23/09
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 22 of 43
Facts in Support of Finding:
B -1. The existing site is entirely developed and does not support any environmental
resources.
B -2. Portions of the development require cuts into the slope on the northern portion of
the site. The geologic investigation revealed that the portions of this slope which
are not improved by the proposed development may be surficially unstable;
however, mitigation measures have been incorporated, as recommended by the
site - specific geotechnical investigation that will reduce impacts to a less than
significant level.
B -3. The subject site is located at the intersection of West Coast Highway and Dover
Drive and serves as the gateway into the Mariner's Mile commercial corridor of
the City. Given its location, this site is ideal for the development of a commercial
building.
B -4. The subject parcel map allows for the consolidation of six shallow lots into one
unified site large enough to accommodate a viable commercial development.
Finding:
C. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause
substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision -
making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental
impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to
Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
Facts in Support of Finding:
C -1. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and concludes that no
significant environmental impacts will result with proposed development of the
site in accordance with the proposed subdivision map.
Finding:
D. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
Facts in Support of Finding:
D -1. The proposed Parcel Map is for the consolidations of six existing commercial lot
into one commercial development site. All construction for the project will
comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, which are in place to
Tmplt: 11/23/09
IF A
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 23 of 43
prevent serious public health problems. Public improvements will be required of
the developer per Section 19.28.010 of the Municipal Code and Section 66411
of the Subdivision Map Act. All ordinances of the City and all Conditions of
Approval will be complied with.
D -2. All mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined in the Mitigated Negative
Declaration to ensure the protection of the public health.
D -3. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the planned subdivision
pattern will generate any serious public health problems.
Finding:
E. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of,
property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision -
making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access
or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially
equivalent to easements previously acquired by the public. This finding shall
apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of
a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City
Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access
through or use of property within a subdivision.
Facts in Support of Finding:
E -1. The design of the development will not conflict with any easements acquired by
the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
development as there are no public easements that are located on the property.
E -2. An easement through the site will be retained by the City to sewer and utilities
purposes.
E -3. No other public easements for access through or use of the property have been
retained for use by the public at large.
Finding:
F. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision
Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the
California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels
following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their
agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development
incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land.
Tmplt: 11/23/09 �j �j
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 24 of 43
Facts in Support of Finding:
F -1. The property is not subject to the Williamson Act since the subject property is
not considered an agricultural preserve and is less than 100 acres.
Finding:
G. That, in the case of a land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the
California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan
for the area to be included within the land project, and (b) the decision - making
body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for
the area.
Facts in Support of Finding:
G -1. The property is not a "land project" as defined in Section 11000.5 of the
California Business and Professions Code.
G -2. The project is not located within a specific plan area.
Finding:
H. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have
been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the
Subdivision Map Act.
Facts in Support of Finding:
G -1. The proposed Parcel Map and improvements are subject to Title 24 of the
California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum
heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate.
The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through
the plan check and inspection process.
Finding:
1. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act
and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of
the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region
against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources.
Facts in Support of Finding:
1 -1. The proposed Parcel Map is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision
Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the
City's share of the regional housing need. The project does involve the
Tmplt: 11/23/09
fd
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 25 of 43
elimination of residential units and therefore will not affect the City's ability to
meet it share of housing needs.
1 -2. Public services are available to serve the proposed development of the site and
the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project indicates that the
project's potential environmental impacts are expected to be less than
significant.
Finding:
J. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing
sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by
the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Facts in Support of Finding:
J -1. Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with the
existing commercial use of the property and does not violate Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements.
J -2. Sewer connections have been conditioned to be installed per City Standards,
the applicable provisions of Chapter 14.24 (Sewer Connection, Permits), and
the latest revision of the Uniform Plumbing Code.
Finding:
K. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the
subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where
applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the
Coastal Act.
Facts in Support of Finding:
K -1. The subject property is not located in the Coastal Zone.
K -2. The subject property does not have access to any beaches, shoreline, coastal
waters, tidelands, coastal parks or trails.
SECTION 4. DECISION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, on the basis of
the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects
the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Planning
Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt Mitigated Negative
Tmplt: 11/23/09
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 26 of 43
Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as
Exhibit "A ". The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which
this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300
Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California.
2. The find that the Project complies with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, based on the
weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including Traffic Study No.
TS2011 -001.
3. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby recommend that
the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2010 -009, Code
Amendment No. CA2010 -009, Site Development Review No. SR2010 -001,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2010 -024, Variance No. 2010 -004, and Parcel Map No.
2010 -008, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit B.
4. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this
Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance
with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code,
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2011.
AYES:
NOES:
BY:
BY:
Earl McDaniel, Chairman
Micheal Toerge, Secretary
Tmplt: 11/23/09
IFO p
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Page 27 of 43
EXHIBIT "A"
MARINER'S POINTE PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (SCH# 2011041038)
Phase of Responsible Completion
Mitiqation Measure Implementation I Monitorinq Party I Date /Initials
Bioloqical Resources
1. The construction contractor shall comply with
During construction
City of Newport
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. The
grading permit
Beach Community
construction contractor shall do one of the
Development
following:
Department
• Avoid grading activities during the nesting
season, February 14 to September 1; or
If grading activities are to be undertaken
during the nesting season, a site survey for
nesting birds shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist prior to no more than
three days prior to commencement of
grading activities. If nesting birds are found
in trees to be removed, removal shall be
postponed until the fledglings have vacated
the nest or the biologist has determined
that the nest has failed. Furthermore, the
biologist shall establish an appropriate
buffer zone where construction activity may
not occur until the fledglings have vacated
the nest or the biologist has determined
that the nest has failed. If nesting birds are
detected in trees being preserved, the
biologist shall establish an appropriate
buffer zone where construction activity may
not occur until the fledglings have vacated
the nest or the biologist has determined
that the nest has failed.
Cultural Resources
2. The project applicant shall have a qualified
Prior to issuance of
City of Newport
archaeologist conduct a Phase II archaeological
grading permit
Beach Community
investigation and a Phase III investigated if
Development
warranted by the Phase II study. The Phase II
Department
investigation, including trenching and analysis
of any resources found, shall be completed
before issuance of a grading permit by the City
of Newport Beach. A Phase II archaeological
testing program consists of a control subsurface
investigation designed to extract a small sample
of the subsurface deposits, but a sample large
enough to draw a conclusion on the significance
of the site (assuming the site is present). If
intact features of an archaeological site, such as
hearths, living surfaces, or middens, are
discovered in the course of the Phase II
investigation, then the project applicant shall
have the archaeologist:
• Conduct a feasibility investigation to
preserve in place, any significant
archaeological resource that is discovered.
Feasibility can be based on but not limited
to whether the significant archaeological
Tmplt: 11/23/09 FQ
L
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 28 of 43
Tmplt: 11/23/09
dD
Phase of
Responsible
Completion
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring Party
Date /Initials
resource is beneath open space that can
incorporate preservation in place. If
preservation in place is feasible, such
preservation shall be documented with the
City's Planning Division, and no further
mitigation is necessary;
If preservation in place is not feasible, the
applicant's archaeologist shall conduct a
Phase III investigation prior to the issuance
of a grading permit. A Phase III consists of
extracting a larger sample of the site
materials to document the function, age,
and components of the site, allowing for
interpretation and comparative analysis
with respect to the larger area (e.g.,
occupation within the Newport Bay area).
The City's Planning Division shall approve
the report and related actions prior to
grading permit issuance.
3. The Project Applicant shall have a qualified
During construction
City of Newport
professional archaeologist onsite to monitor for
Beach Community
any potential impacts to archaeological or
Development
historic resources throughout the duration of
Department
any ground disturbing activities. The
professional archaeologist shall have the
authority to halt any activities adversely
impacting potentially significant cultural
resources until the resources can be formally
evaluated. The archaeologist must have
knowledge of both prehistoric and historical
archaeology. Additionally, the archaeological
monitoring program shall include the presence
of a local Native American representative
(Gabrielino and /or Juaneno). Resources must
be recovered, analyzed in accordance with
CEQA guidelines, and curated. Suspension of
ground disturbance in the vicinity of the
discoveries shall not be lifted until the
archaeologist has evaluated discoveries to
assess whether they are classified as historical
resources or unique archaeological sites,
pursuant to CEQA.
4. The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified
During construction
City of Newport
professional paleontologist to monitor for any
Beach Community
potential impacts to paleontological resources
Development
throughout the duration of ground disturbing
Department
activities. In the event paleontological resources
are uncovered, the professional paleontologist
shall have the authority to halt any activities
adversely impacting potentially significant fossil
resources until the resources can be formally
evaluated. If potentially significant fossils are
uncovered they must be recovered, analyzed in
accordance with CEQA guidelines, and curated
at facilities at the Natural History Museum of
Los Angeles County, or other scientific
institution accredited for curation and collection
of fossil specimens. Suspension of ground
disturbances in the vicinity of the discoveries
Tmplt: 11/23/09
dD
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 29 of 43
Geology and Soils
5. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a detailed
Phase of
Responsible
Completion
Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Monitoring Party
Date /Initials
shall not be lifted until the paleontologist has
Development
evaluated the significance of the resources
Department
pursuant to CEQA.
During construction
City of Newport
Geology and Soils
5. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a detailed
Prior to issuance of
City of Newport
engineering -level geotechnical investigation
grading permit
Beach Community
report shall be prepared and submitted with
Development
engineered grading plans to further evaluate
Department
expansive soils, soil corrosivity, slope stability,
During construction
City of Newport
landslide potential, settlement, foundations,
Beach Community
grading constraints, and other soil engineering
Development
design conditions and to provide site - specific
Department
recommendations to address these conditions,
if determined necessary. The engineering -level
During construction
City of Newport
report shall include and address each of the
Beach Community
recommendations included in the geotechnical
Development
reports prepared by MACTEC (2010a and
Department
2010b) and included as Appendix E. The
geotechnical reports shall be prepared and
signed /stamped by a Registered Civil Engineer
During construction
City of Newport
specializing in geotechnical engineering and a
Beach Community
Certified Engineering Geologist. Geotechnical
Development
rough grading plan review reports shall be
Department
prepared in accordance with the City of Newport
Beach Grading Ordinance.
Noise
6. The contractor shall properly maintain and tune
During construction
City of Newport
all construction equipment in accordance with
grading permit
Beach Community
the manufacturer's recommendations to
Development
minimize noise emissions.
Department
7. Prior to use of any construction equipment, the
During construction
City of Newport
contractor shall ensure that all equipment is
Beach Community
fitted with properly operating mufflers, air intake
Development
silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective
Department
than as originally equipped by the manufacturer.
8. The construction contractor shall locate
During construction
City of Newport
stationary noise sources (e.g., generators,
Beach Community
compressors, staging areas) and material
Development
delivery (loading /unloading) areas as far from
Department
residences as possible (e.g., eastern portion of
the project site).
9. The construction contractor shall post a sign,
During construction
City of Newport
clearly visible onsite, with a contact name and
Beach Community
telephone number of construction contractor to
Development
respond in the event of a noise complaint.
Department
Transportation and Traffic
10.Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project
Prior to issuance of
City of Newport
will be required to develop a Construction Traffic
grading permit
Beach Public
Management Plan that includes the following
Works Department
elements:
Restrict construction worker and equipment
delivery trips to occur outside of the
weekday AM and PM peak hours.
• Identify and establish truck haul routes and
restrict haul operations to occur outside of
the weekday AM and PM peak hours.
Tmplt: 11/23/09
61
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 30 of 43
Mitigation Measure
Phase of
Implementation
Responsible
Monitoring Party
Completion
Date /Initials
Provide Traffic Control Plans for detours
and temporary road closures (if necessary)
that meet the minimum Caltrans, City, and
County criteria.
I I.The applicant shall contact OCTA and
Prior to issuance of
City of Newport
coordinate operation of the Coast -Dover bus
grading permit
Beach Community
stop along the project's West Coast Highway
Development and
frontage during project construction. Mitigation
Public Works
as required to suspend operation, or modify or
Department
temporarily relocate the bus stop during project
construction activities shall be negotiated with
OCTA. The applicant shall provide the
plans /mitigation to the City as negotiated with
OCTA for review and approval by the City of
Newport Beach's Planning Division and Public
Works Department prior to issuance of grading
permits. The applicant shall provide OCTA with
a minimum 14 -day advance notice prior to the
start of construction activities by contacting
either the Detour Coordinator or Field
Operations.
Tmplt: 11/23/09
dz
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 31 of 43
I WI:11 :31i iY -7Y
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
(Project- specific conditions are in italics)
PLANNING
1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor
plans, roof plans, and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval.
(Except as modified by applicable conditions of approval.)
2. Site Development Review No. SR2010 -001, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2010 -024,
and Variance No. 2010 -004 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of
approval as specified in Section 20.54.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an
extension is otherwise granted.
3. The outdoor patio and block wall proposed to encroach into the Dover Drive public right -of-
way shall be eliminated, unless this conditional use permit is amended or a new conditional
use permit is approved in conjunction with an eating and drinking establishment that
specifically approves the construction of the outdoor patio and an encroachment or lease
agreement is approved by the Public Work's Department.
4. The final design of the commercial building and parking structure shall provide all the
architectural treatments as illustrated on the approved plans. Any changes to the
architectural treatment shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development
Director and may require an amendment to this Site Development Review.
5. Flat roof portions of the building shall be painted to match the predominate building color.
No mechanical equipment shall be permitted on the roof, except within the designated
mechanical well and shall not be visible from West Coast Highway or the adjacent
residential properties.
6. Uses shall be permitted, or conditionally permitted, within the project consistent with the
provisions of the Zoning Code, so long as they do not increase the approved traffic
generation for the project (TS201 1-00 1).
7. Required parking for this project has been determined based on documentation and a
number of assumptions, including: 1) the shared parking analysis prepared by LSA
Associates, Inc., dated March 30, 2011; 2) a limitation that the maximum Net Public Area
(NPA) of eating and drinking uses be limited to 4,968 square feet, • and 3) the proposed floor
area for eating and drinking uses will be occupied by fine dining establishments with very low
turnover with a parking demand of 1 space per 50 square feet of NPA. Any changes to the
assumed tenant mix or changes in the type of food use that would increase parking
demands may require the preparation of a new shared parking analysis to ensure that
adequate parking can be provided on -site and at the approved off -site parking lot, and shall
be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Department.
Tmplt: 11/23/09
6�
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 32 of 43
8. A total of 136 parking spaces shall be provided on -site as illustrated on the approved plans
and parking management plan for the project.
9. Based on the assumptions contained within Condition No. 7, a parking demand of 145
spaces will exist after 6:00 p.m. A parking agreement, which guarantees the long term
availability of nine off -site parking spaces for the use located at 100 -300 West Coast
Highway, shall be recorded with the County Recorder's Office. The agreement shall be in
a form approved by the City Attorney and Community Development Director. The
Community Development Director may waive this condition if the actual tenant mix or
restaurant NPA results in reduced parking demands that can be accommodated entirely
on -site.
10. The upper level of the parking structure shall only be used for employee or valet parking,
unless an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit and new parking management plan is
prepared and approved.
11. Any minor changes to the parking management plan shall be reviewed and approved by the
Community Development Director and City Traffic Engineer prior to implementation.
Significant changes may require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit.
12. Should the applicant propose to alter the location and /or number of vehicular access points,
or propose to take vehicular access across the adjacent property located at 320 West Coast
Highway, such proposal shall be subject to review and approval by the Community
Development Director and the City Traffic Engineer.
13. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future
owners or assignees shall be notified in writing of the conditions of this approval by the
current owner or leasing company.
14. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless
specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval.
15. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any
of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for modification or revocation of
Site Development Review No. SR2010 -001, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2010 -024,
and Variance No. 2010 -004.
16. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of
itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a
precedent for future approvals or decisions.
17. This Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review, and Variance may be modified or
revoked by the City Council or Planning Commission should they determine that the
proposed development, uses, and/ or conditions under which it is being operated or
maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or
Tmplt: 11/23/09
6�
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 33 of 43
improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute
a public nuisance.
18. Hours of operations for the uses within the project shall be limited to between 6:00 a.m. and
11:00 p.m. daily, unless otherwise permitted to maintain different hours of operation
pursuant to a subsequent Conditional Use Permit.
19. All employees are required to park on -site, unless otherwise approved by the Community
Development Director, and may require an amendment to this Site Development Review
and Conditional Use Permit.
20. Any change in operational characteristics, hours of operation, expansion in area, or other
modification to the approved plans, shall require an amendment to Site Development
Review No. SR2010 -001, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2010 -024, and /or Variance No.
2010 -004 or the processing of new permits.
21. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in
accordance with the approved landscape plan, including the proposed water feature. All
landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall
receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be
kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including
adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance.
22. Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and
irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate
drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be
approved by the Planning Division and the Municipal Operations Department. All planting
areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation
system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected.
The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an
on -site moisture - sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by
a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so
as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer.
23. Prior to the final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the
Code Enforcement Division to confirm that all landscaping was installed in accordance
with the approved plan.
24. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever available, assuming it is economically feasible.
25. Water leaving the project site due to over - irrigation of landscape shall be minimized. If an
incident such as this is reported, a representative from the Code Enforcement Division of
the City Manager's Office shall visit the location, investigate, inform and notice the
responsible party, and, as appropriate, cite the responsible party and /or shut off the
irrigation water.
Tmplt: 11/23/09
df
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 34 of 43
26. Watering shall be done during the early morning or evening hours (between 4:00 p.m. and
9:00 a.m.) to minimize evaporation the following morning.
27. All leaks shall be investigated by a representative from the Code Enforcement Division of
the City Manager's Office and the property owner or operator shall complete all required
repairs.
28. Water shall not be used to clean paved surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways, parking
areas, etc. except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards.
29. Landscaping and plant selections shall be consistent with the applicable landscaping
recommendations set forth by the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework.
30. New utility connections shall be placed underground unless the Public Works Department
determines that undergrounding the connection is physically infeasible. Appurtenant and
associated utility equipment such as transformers, utility vaults, terminal boxes, meter
cabinets shall be placed underground unless the Public Works Department determines
that undergrounding the appurtenant and associated equipment is physically infeasible. If
appurtenant and associated utility equipment cannot be placed underground, the
equipment shall be located in the least visible location practical and screened from public
view on -site and off -site by fencing or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director.
31. The three existing power poles and overhead power lines shall be removed and the power
lines shall be underground.
32. All ground- mounted equipment including, but not limited to backflow preventers, vents, air
handlers, generators, boilers, trash bins, transformers shall be screened from view behind
and fully below the top of a screen wall or a solid hedge. Screen walls shall be of same or
similar material as adjacent building walls and covered with vines when possible. Chain
link fencing with slats is not permitted.
33. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and
adjacent public streets within the mechanical screening equipment enclosure illustrated
on the approved plans, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26
of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control.
34. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter
10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal
Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the
specified time periods unless the ambient noise level is higher:
Tmplt: 11/23/09
dd
Between the hours of 7:OOAM
Between the hours of
and 10:OOPM
10:O0PM and 7:OOAM
Location
Interior
Exterior
Interior
Exterior
Residential Property
45dBA
55dBA
40dBA
50dBA
Residential Property located within
45dBA
60dBA
45dBA
50dBA
100 feet of a commercial property
Tmplt: 11/23/09
dd
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 35 of 43
Mixed Use Property
145dBA
I 60dBA
145dBA
l5OdBA
Commercial Property
I N/A
I 65dBA
I N/A
60dBA
35. No outside paging system shall be utilized in conjunction with this development.
36. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise - generating construction activities that
produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday
and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities are not
allowed on Sundays or Holidays.
37. The operator of the development shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by
the subject facility including, but not limited to, noise generated by tenants, patrons, food
service operations, and mechanical equipment. All noise generated by the proposed use
shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control
requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code.
38. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid
administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning
Department.
39. All trash shall be stored within the proposed trash enclosure located within the lower level
of the parking structure or other approved enclosure. The trash dumpsters shall have a
top, which shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being
collected by the refuse collection agency.
40. Food uses shall be required to provide temporary refrigerated trash storage to control
odors associated with food wastes, unless otherwise approved by the Community
Development Director.
41. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside and outside of the
establishment, however, not located on or within any public property or right -of -way.
42. The exterior of the business shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The
owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the
premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises.
43. The applicant shall ensure that the trash dumpsters and /or receptacles are maintained to
control odors. This may include the provision of either fully self- contained dumpsters or
periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Division.
Cleaning and maintenance of trash dumpsters shall be done in compliance with the
provisions of Title 14, including all future amendments (including Water Quality related
requirements).
44. To minimize conflict within the parking structure, refuse collection and deliveries for the
facility utilizing large vehicles shall be allowed between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00
Tmplt: 11/23/09
67
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 36 of 43
a.m., daily, unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Director, and may
require an amendment to this Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit.
45. Storage outside of the building or the parking structure shall be prohibited.
46. All proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Chapter 20.42 of the
Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if
located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress.
47. The final location of the signs shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and shall
conform to City Standard 110 -L to ensure that adequate sight distance is provided.
48. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on-
site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare
are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance.
"Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut -off
fixtures.
49. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the outdoor lighting standards
contained within Section 20.30.070 of the Zoning Code, or, if in the opinion of the
Community Development Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative
impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Community
Development Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon
finding that the site is excessively illuminated.
50. Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall prepare photometric study in
conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. The survey
shall show that lighting values are "1" or less at all property lines.
51. Any proposed illumination of the cupola and tower features shall consist of soft accent
lighting so as not to become a visual disturbance to the views of the adjacent residences
52. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant
shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control
of all lighting sources.
53. A covered wash -out area for refuse containers and kitchen equipment, with minimum
useable area dimensions of 36- inches wide, 36- inches deep and 72- inches high, shall be
provided for all food uses, and the area shall drain directly into the sewer system, unless
otherwise approved by the Building Official and Public Works Director in conjunction with
the approval of an alternate drainage plan.
54. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be installed /maintained in accordance with the Uniform
Mechanical Code. The issues with regard to the control of smoke and odor shall be
directed to the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Tmplt: 11/23/09
68
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 37 of 43
55. The exhaust systems for any food uses shall be installed with pollution control units to filter
and control odors.
56. The construction and equipment staging area shall be located in the least visually
prominent area on the site and shall be properly maintained and /or screened to minimize
potential unsightly conditions.
57. A six - foot -high screen and security fence shall be placed around the construction site
during construction.
58. Construction equipment and materials shall be properly stored on the site when not in
use.
59. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless
City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and
agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions,
causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses
(including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind
and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or
indirectly) to City's approval of the Mariner's Pointe Project including, but not limited to,
the approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2010 -009, Code Amendment No.
CA2010 -009, Site Development Review No. SR2010 -001, Conditional Use Permit No.
2010 -024, Variance No. 2010 -004, and Parcel Map No. 2010 -008; and /or the City's
related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the certification of the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and /or the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program for
the project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded
against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in
connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred
by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant
shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City
incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant
shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the
indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition.
Fire Department Conditions
60. Elevators shall be gurney- accommodating in accordance with Article 30 of the California
Building Code (2007 edition).
61. Fire flow shall be provided to the property in accordance with Newport Beach Fire
Department Guideline B.01.
62. Fire sprinklers shall be installed throughout the commercial building and parking structure.
63. Fire apparatus access is required onto the property. The first level of the parking structure
shall accommodate an inside turning radius of 20 feet and an outside turning radius of 40
feet. A clear ceiling height of 13 feet 6 inches shall be required.
Tmplt: 11/23/09
6�'
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 38 of 43
64. A manual fire alarms system is required that activates the occupant notification system in
Group "M" occupancies when the combined occupant load of all floors if 500 or more
persons or the Group "M" occupant load is more than 100 persons or below the lowest
level of exit discharge.
65. The proposed fire curtain between the parking structure and the exit corridor shall require
activation by a smoke detector, unless deemed unnecessary by the Fire Marshall. A
smoke detector in this location may be subject to nuisance alarms from car exhaust,
which can result in false alarm fees from the City.
Building Department Conditions
66. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire
Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted
version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable
State Disabilities Access requirements.
67. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction
Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for
approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide
the City with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State
Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in
effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality.
68. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water
Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of
the Building Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements occur.
69. A list of "good house - keeping" practices will be incorporated into the long -term post -
construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used,
stored or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent
parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful
fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of storm water away from potential sources of
pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list
and describe all structural and non - structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also
identify the entity responsible for the long -term inspection, maintenance, and funding for
all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs.
70. The applicant shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements as follows:
Land Clearing /Earth - Moving
Tmplt: 11/23/09
70
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 39 of 43
a. Exposed pits (i.e., gravel, soil, dirt) with five percent or greater silt content shall
be watered twice daily, enclosed, covered, or treated with non -toxic soil
stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications.
b. All other active sites shall be watered twice daily.
C. All grading activities shall cease during second stage smog alerts and periods of
high winds (i.e., greater than 25 mph) if soil is being transported to off -site
locations and cannot be controlled by watering.
d. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials off -site shall be covered
or wetted or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical
distance between the top of the load and the top of the trailer).
e. Portions of the construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three
months shall be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise
stabilized in a manner acceptable to the City.
f. All vehicles on the construction site shall travel at speeds less than 15 mph.
g. All diesel - powered vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and
maintained.
h. All diesel - powered vehicles and gasoline - powered equipment shall be turned off
when not in use for more than five minutes.
j. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or natural gas - powered
equipment instead of gasoline or diesel - powered engines, where feasible.
Paved Roads
k. All construction roads internal to the construction site that have a traffic volume
of more than 50 daily trips by construction equipment, or 150 total daily trips for
all vehicles, shall be surfaced with base material or decomposed granite, or shall
be paved.
I. Streets shall be swept hourly if visible soil material has been carried onto
adjacent public paved roads.
m. Construction equipment shall be visually inspected prior to leaving the site and
loose dirt shall be washed off with wheel washers as necessary.
Unpaved Staging Areas or Roads
n. Water or non -toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied, according to manufacturers'
specifications, as needed to reduce off -site transport of fugitive dust from all
unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces.
Tmplt: 11/23/09
71
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 40 of 43
Public Works Conditions
71. The parking layout and circulation shall comply with City Standard STD - 805 -L -A and
STD - 805 -L -B. The vehicular ramps within the parking garage should be a minimum of
24 feet wide. Ramp slopes shall not exceed 15- percent maximum. The maximum
percent change is 11- percent at a minimum of five -foot intervals. The five -foot interval
shall continue across the entire ramp. Parallel parking spaces shall be 8 feet wide by
22 feet long.
72. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the final parking layout and circulation shall
be subject to the review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer.
73. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, a final valet operations plan is
required to be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Any future changes
to the approved valet plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Director and Traffic Engineer. The applicant shall immediately resolve
any valet operational issues that impact the public right -of -way.
74. The ceiling height of the first level of the parking structure shall maintain an
unobstructed vertical clearance of 14 feet clear.
75. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from the
adjacent property owner for the proposed lane drop extension and sidewalk along West
Coast Highway running through the property and shall obtain an easement/dedication
for the City for Street and Sidewalk purposes.
76. The driveway entrances to West Coast Highway shall be designed to accommodate
vehicular sight distance per City Standard STD - 110 -L. All planting shall be limited to
24 inches in height maximum within the limited use area. Walls or other permanent
obstructions shall be limited to 30 inches in height maximum within the limited use
area.
77. The westerly outbound only driveway shall be narrowed to 20 feet maximum and
appropriate signage shall be installed to discourage vehicles from entering the
driveway, unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer.
78. The proposed striping changes on West Coast Highway shall be reviewed and
approved by Caltrans prior to implementation.
79. The water feature and other non - standard improvements within the West Coast
Highway right -of -way requires approval from the State Department of Transportation
( Caltrans).
80. Water feature along Dover Drive shall require the review and approval of a Building
Permit and requires an encroachment permit and agreement from the City of Newport
Beach Public Work's Department.
Tmplt: 11/23/09
7z
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 41 of 43
81. All landscaping within the public right -of -way shall be reviewed and approved by the
Public Works Department and Municipal Operations Department. An encroachment
agreement is required for all planting within the public right -of -way.
82. No permanent structure shall be permitted within the required 10- foot -wide sewer
easement area, unless otherwise approved by the Public Work's Department. The
applicant is required to replace the 8 -inch sewer main from the manhole located on the
property line between 303 and 311 Kings Road and the manhole located on West
Coast Highway. Knock -out panels or other improvements approved by the Public
Works Department shall be installed along the entire length of the required 10 -wide
sewer easement. The final design of the parking structure shall take into account the
sewer main and shall be subject to further review and approval by the Public Works
Department.
83. Applicant shall bear all cost (design and construction) of the necessary water system
and sewer improvements needed to support the proposed project, including minimum
fire flow requirements. The water system improvements may include installation of a
regulator and water main extension. The final design shall be reviewed and approved
by the Public Works Department.
84. Prior to issuance of demolition and -grading permits, the applicant shall submit a
construction management and delivery plan to be reviewed and approved by the Public
Works Department. The plan shall include discussion of project phasing, parking
arrangements for both sites during construction, and anticipated haul routes. Upon
approval of the plan, the applicant shall be responsible for implementing and complying
with the stipulations set forth in the approved plan.
85. Traffic control and truck route plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public
Works Department before their implementation. Large construction vehicles shall not
be permitted to travel narrow streets as determined by the Public Works Department.
Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of
construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and
flagman.
Parcel Map Conditions
86. This Parcel Map shall expire if the map has not been recorded within three years of the
date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Community Development
Director in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.16 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code.
87. A parcel Map shall be recorded. The Map shall be prepared on the California
coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor /engineer
preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach
a digital - graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337
of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual,
Tmplt: 11/23/09
7;
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 42 of 43
Subarticle 18. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall
comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted.
88. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyor /engineer preparing the map shall
tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the
County Surveyor in a manner described in Section s 7 -9 -330 and 7 -9 -337 of the
Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle
18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless
otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in
place if installed prior to completion of construction project.
89. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works
Department.
90. The sidewalk, curb and gutter shall be reconstructed along the entire project frontage
of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive. The sidewalk shall be a minimum width of 10
feet on West Coast Highway and 12 feet on Dover Drive. Limits of reconstruction are at
the discretion of the Public Works inspector.
91. All unused driveway approaches along Dover Drive and West Coast Highway shall be
replaced with a new driveway plug per City Standards.
92. All new driveway approaches shall be constructed per City Standard STD - 166 -L.
93. All existing overhead utilities shall be undergrounded.
94. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right -of -way.
95. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See City
Standard 110 -L.
96. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by
the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right -of -way could
be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector.
97. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements.
98. All proposed non - standard improvements within the public right of way, are subject to
further review and approval by the Public Works Department and requires an
encroachment permit and encroachment agreement.
99. A 10- foot -wide sewer easement shall be provided through the lower level parking
garage to accommodate the existing sewer main running through the property and
connecting to West Coast Highway.
100. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a 20' by 27' area located at the southwest
corner of the property to accommodate the new transition on West Coast Highway.
Tmplt: 11/23/09
74'
Planning Commission Resolution No. _
Paqe 43 of 43
101. Relocation of the safety lighting on West Coast Highway requires approval from
Caltrans.
Mitigation Measures
102. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures and standard conditions
contained within the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the
adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit A) for the project.
Tmplt: 11/23/09
7!
76
Attachment No. PC 2
Parcel Map
77
rhIl
A PORTION OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 6 INCLUSIVE OF TRACT NO. 12109 IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 40, PAGES 45 AND 46 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS
OF SAID COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
LEGEND FULL LEGAL DESCRIPTION
d —
FIRE HYDRANT
AC
— ASPHALT PAVEMENT
PL
PROPERTY LINE
BR
BIKE ROUTE
RAD —
EDGE PAVEMENT
R/W —
RIGHT OF WAY
SCO —
SEWER CLEAN OUT
BS
— BOTTOM OF STEP
m —
WATER VALVE
MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS UNDER AND BENEATH OR
BEYOND THE EXTERIOR LIMITS THEREOF, AND TO REDRILL, RETUNNEL, EQUIP,
CRB
— CROSS WALK BUTTON
❑ —
METER, PULL BOX
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC COAST
SURFACE OR THE UPPER 500 FEET OF THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND
HIGHWAY, 100.00 FEET WIDE, SHOWN AS CALIFORNIA STATE
HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED, AS CONTAINED IN THE DEED RECORDED JUNE 2, 1969
DR
— DRAIN
-�
SIGN
DIR
— DIRECTIONAL
:o .• —
CONCRETE
EG
— EDGE OF GUTTER
--- - - - - -- —
BLOCK WALL
ELEC
— ELECTRICAL
—
LIGHT STANDARD
FC
— FINISHED CONCRETE
0-� —
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
FF
FINISHED FLOOR
0_ - —
STREET LIGHT
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC COAST
FL
FLOWLINE
—
WOOD FENCE
WIDE, FORMERLY 17TH STREET, AS SAID INTERSECTION IS SHOWN ON SAID
MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SOUTH
FS
— FINISHED SURFACE
n —
CHAINLINK FENCE
POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 79'35'41" EAST 260.18 FEET TO A
POINT IN A CURVE IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF SAID TRACT NO.
N
w
GB
— GRADE BREAK
o- —
WROUGHT IRON FENCE
88'59'27" EAST; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A
WZN
Z
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1'28'12" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 11.29 FEET; THENCE
UJ
GI
— GRATE INLET
O1 —
PARKING COUNT
GP
— GUARD POST
(000) —
EXISTING GRADE
L
— LOT LINE
[ } —
PER TRACT 1291
MH
— MANHOLE
BOOK 38 PAGE 27
I
Lli
z �CD�
W
U
NG
— NATURAL GROUND
BASIS OF BEARINGS
THE BASIS OF BEARINGS USED ON THIS SURVEY IS THE CENTERLINE OF WEST
COAST HIGHWAY BEARING NORTH 8717'00" EAST AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO. 1210
BOOK 40 PAGES 45 -46 RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
BENCHMARK
BENCHMARK NO. 3K- 24A -82
DESCRIBED BY OCS 2002 - FOUND 3.75" OCS ALUMINUM BENCHMARK DISK
STAMPED "3K- 24A -82 ", SET IN TOP OF A CONCRETE BRIDGE DECK. MONUMENT
IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF PACIFIC
COAST HIGHWAY AND NEWPORT BAY CROSSING, 42 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE
CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND 37 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WEST
END OF THE SOUTHERN GUARD RAIL ALONG BRIDGE. MONUMENT IS SET LEVEL
WITH THE SIDEWALK.
ELEVATION: 19.259 FEET (NAVD88)
GENERAL NOTES
0/S —
OFFSET
PB
PULL BOX
PL
PROPERTY LINE
R
RAMP
RAD —
RADIAL
R/W —
RIGHT OF WAY
SCO —
SEWER CLEAN OUT
TC
— TOP OF CURB
TG
— TOP OF GRATE
TS
— TOP OF STEP
TW
— TOP OF WALL
WD
— WOOD DECK
BW
— BACK OF WALK
1. SURVEYOR HAS RELIED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED IN THE CURRENT TITLE REPORT BY
LAWYERS TITLE, REPORT NO. 9701386 -JBE DATED FEBRUARY 17, 2010, TO DISCLOSE
RECORD EASEMENTS THAT BURDEN OR BENEFIT THIS PROPERTY.
2. THIS PLAN AND /OR DATA FILES INCLUDING ALL CONTENTS HEREIN ARE FOR THE SOLE
USES AND PARTIES INDICATED HEREON INCLUDING THEIR SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. ANY
DEVIATION OR MISUSES OF THIS PLAN AND /OR DATA FILES WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN
AGREEMENTS BY ANACAL ENGINEERING IS PROHIBITED AND IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
PARTIES USING SAID DRAWING AND /OR DATA FILES, UPON THE REUSE OF THIS PLAN
AND /OR DATA FILES ANACAL ENGINEERING RELINQUISHES ALL RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE
ACCURACY AND GENERAL CONTENT OF SAID PLAN AND /OR DATA FILES CONTAINED HEREIN.
3. THE EXISTENCE AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OR STRUCTURES
SHOWN ON THESE PLANS WERE DETERMINED BY A SEARCH OF THE AVAILABLE PUBLIC
RECORDS AND ABOVE GROUND OBSERVANCE. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT
THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN
SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE
DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM INFORMATION
AVAILABLE. THE SURVEYOR HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.
4. PURPOSE OF TENTATIVE MAP IS TO CREATE SUBDIVISION OF 6 FULL AND A SEVENTH
PORTION OF LOTS INTO 1.
5. CURRENTLY SITE HAS 2 BUILDINGS AND WILL BE COMPLETELY DEMOLISHED.
6. NEW BUILDING CONSTRUCTION IS REQUESTED.
7. SITE UTILITIES ARE SERVICED BY PUBLIC MEANS AND SERVICE IS AVAILABLE IN FROM THE
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
8. EXISTING ASSESSOR PARCELS NUMBER ARE 049 - 280 -51, 049 - 280 -53, 049 - 280 -55, A
PORTION OF 049 - 280 -56, A PORTION OF 049 - 280 -57, 049 - 280 -71 AND 049 - 280 -73.
9. THE OWNER OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT OWN ANY CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY.
10. SITE HAS DIRECT ACCESS FROM DOVER DRIVE AND COAST HIGHWAY BOTH PUBLIC RIGHT
OF WAYS.
11. CAL -TRANS RIGHT OF WAY MAP NO. 2549 -C 07 -ORA -1 -18.4 AFFECTS THIS PROPERTY.
12. BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ARE RECORD AND MEASURED PER TRACT NO. 1210 BOOK 40
PAGES 45 -46 RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.
13. SITE USE TO BE RETAIL /RESTAURANT.
14. SITE SEWER SYSTEM TO BE PROVIDED BY PUBLIC SYSTEM.
15. FUTURE TELEPHONE AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON EASEMENT TO BE PROVIDED BY
INDIVIDUAL ENTITIES.
16. PROPOSED 10' WIDE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT TO BE PROVIDED.
PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
PROJECT CONSIST OF A PORTION OF AN EXISTING CENTER WITH EXISTING BUILDING
AND PARKING AREAS THAT ARE TO BE COMPLETELY DEMOLISHED.
A NEW TWO STORY RETAIL BUILDING WITH APPROXIMATELY 8 SEPARATE TENANTS
CONSISTING OF 23.016 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACES IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED
ALONG WITH A THREE LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE.
EASEMENT NOTES
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE FOUND IN TITLE REPORT NO. 9701386 -JBE DATED, FEBRUARY 17, 2010 BY LAWYERS TITLE:
OA 5' WIDE EASEMENT FOR SANITARY SEWERS AND APPURTENANCES PURPOSES TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH.
RECORDED OCTOBER 7, 1955 IN BOOK 3237, PAGE 480, OFFICIAL RECORDS. EASEMENT AFFECTS SUBJECT
PROPERTY AND IS PLOTTED HEREON.
OAN EASEMENT FOR AVIGATION PURPOSES TO THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. RECORDED MARCH 17, 1964 IN BOOK
6965, PAGE 721, OFFICIAL RECORDS. EASEMENT AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IS BLANKET IN NATURE..
FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION
ZONE: X
(OUTSIDE 500 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN)
PANEL NO. 06059C 0381J
DATED: DECEMBER 3, 2009
NO FIELD SURVEYING WAS PERFORMED TO DETERMINE THIS ZONE AND AN
ELEVATION CERTIFICATE MAY BE NEEDED TO VERIFY THIS DETERMINATION OR APPLY
FOR VARIANCE FROM THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY.
ZONING INFORMATION
ZONE: CG
COMMERCIAL GENERAL
SETBACKS:
FRONT = 0'
SIDE = 0'
STREET =O'
REAR: 5'
FLOOR AREA RATIO: 0.3/0.5 (APPROXIMATE 0.7 FAR PROPOSED)
HEIGHT: 26'/35'
PARKING RESTRICTIONS:
VARIES
THIS INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, 3360
NEWPORT BOULEVARD, 92663, 949 -644 -3309 ATTN: PUBLIC COUNTER
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE,
ALSO EXCEPT ALL OIL, OIL RIGHTS, MINERALS, MINERAL RIGHTS, NATURAL GAS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
RIGHTS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS BY WHATSOEVER NAME KNOWN THAT MAY BE
WITHIN OR UNDER THE LAND HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED, TOGETHER WITH THE
ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE,
PERPETUAL RIGHT OF DRILLING, MINING, EXPLORING AND OPERATING THEREFROM,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
AND REMOVING THE SAME FROM SAID LAND OR ANY OTHER LAND, INCLUDING
THE RIGHT TO WHIPSTOCK OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILL AND MINE FROM THE LANDS
LOTS 1 THROUGH 6 INCLUSIVE OF TRACT NO. 1210, IN THE CITY OF
OTHER THAN THOSE HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED, OIL OR GAS WELLS, TUNNELS AND
NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN
SHAFTS INTO, THROUGH OR ACROSS THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND
ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 40, PAGES 45 AND 46 OF MISCELLANEOUS
HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED, AND TO BOTTOM SUCH WHIPSTOCKED OR
MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS UNDER AND BENEATH OR
BEYOND THE EXTERIOR LIMITS THEREOF, AND TO REDRILL, RETUNNEL, EQUIP,
EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
MAINTAIN, REPAIR, DEEPEN AND OPERATE ANY SUCH WELLS OR MINES, WITHOUT
HOWEVER, THE RIGHT TO DRILL, MINE, EXPLORE AND OPERATE THROUGH THE
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC COAST
SURFACE OR THE UPPER 500 FEET OF THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND
HIGHWAY, 100.00 FEET WIDE, SHOWN AS CALIFORNIA STATE
HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED, AS CONTAINED IN THE DEED RECORDED JUNE 2, 1969
HIGHWAY- ORA -60 -B, WITH THE CENTERLINE OF DOVER DRIVE, 80.00 FEET
IN BOOK 8974, PAGE 265 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
WIDE, FORMERLY 17TH STREET, AS SAID INTERSECTION IS SHOWN ON SAID
MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SOUTH
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
88'12'17" WEST 296.74 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1047'43" WEST 50.00 FEET
TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND THE TRUE
049 - 280 -51, 53, 55, 71, 72, 73, 049 - 280 -56 (PORTION) 049 - 280 -57 (AS TO A
POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 79'35'41" EAST 260.18 FEET TO A
PORTION OF LOT 6)
CURVE IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF SAID TRACT NO. 1210, WHICH
U
W
D
CURVE IS CONCAVE EASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 440.00 FEET; THENCE
SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY AND
SOUTHEASTERLY LINES OF SAID LOT 1 TO SAID NORTHERLY LINE; THENCE
WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY, 100.00 FEET WIDE SHOWN AS CALIFORNIA STATE
�c
ZW
WS
HIGHWAY- ORA -60 -B, WITH THE CENTERLINE OF DOVER DRIVE 80.00 FEET
WIDE, FORMERLY 17TH STREET, AS SAID INTERSECTION IS SHOWN ON SAID
MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SOUTH
88'12'17" WEST 296.74 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1'47'43" WEST 50.00 FEET
Z Z
TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND THE TRUE
U
POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 79'35'41" EAST 260.18 FEET TO A
POINT IN A CURVE IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF SAID TRACT NO.
N
w
1210, WHICH CURVE IS CONCAVE EASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 440.00
W
FEET, A RADIAL LINE AT SAID POINT OF SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH
..d-
88'59'27" EAST; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A
WZN
Z
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1'28'12" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 11.29 FEET; THENCE
UJ
SOUTH 83'47'36" WEST 306.49 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE
�
EASTERLY 30.00 FEET OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE
Zgw
w
SOUTH 1'47'43" EAST 26.64 FEET TO SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID
Q
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE NORTH
o
88'12'17" EAST 47.64 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
UTILITY STATEMENT
ELECTRIC
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
7333 BOLSA AVENUE
WESTMINSTER, CA. 92683
PHONE: 714 - 895 -0292
rzAa
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
1919 S. STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD
ANAHEIM, CA. 92803
PHONE: 714 - 432 -6021
AT &T
3939 E. CORONADO
ANAHEIM, CA. 92801
PHONE: 714 - 237 -6044
TIME WARNER
7142 CHAPMAN AVENUE
GARDEN GROVE, CA. 92841
PHONE: 714 - 903 -8336
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 NEWPORT BEACH BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92663
PHONE: 949 - 644 -3309
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 NEWPORT BEACH BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92663
PHONE: 949 - 644 -3309
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
3300 NEWPORT BEACH BOULEVARD
NEWPORT BEACH, CA. 92663
PHONE: 949 - 644 -3309
THE EXISTENCE AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OR
STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THESE PLANS WERE DETERMINED BY A SEARCH OF THE
AVAILABLE PUBLIC RECORDS AND ABOVE GROUND OBSERVANCE. THE SURVEYOR
MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL
UTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR
FURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE IN
THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT THEY ARE
LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM INFORMATION AVAILABLE. THE
SURVEYOR HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.
EXISTING PARKING COUNT
REGULAR STALLS — 14
HANDICAP STALLS — 0
TOTAL STALLS — 14
(INDICATES STRIPED STALLS ONLY)
LAND AREA
33,036 SQUARE FEET
0.758 ACRES
ARCHITECT
STOUTEBOROUGH ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS
420 ALISO VISTA WAY STE 100
LAGUNA BEACH, CA. 92651
PH.: (949)- 715 -3257
OWNER /SUB DIVIDER
VBAS PROPERTIES, INC.
18582 BEACH BLVD. STE #226
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA. 92648
PH.: (949) 645 -9000
ATTN:GLEN VENDULT
D
d
d
Q
W
D
V)
0
Z
0
U
W
D
0
z
J
�c
ZW
WS
s
O0
o
Z Z
O
cy)
U
i-
z
N
w
r?
W
~N�
..d-
Z
WZN
Z
Ira
UJ
W
�
U
z
Zgw
w
ul
Q
1--1 C;d
o
r'-
WZ
EJ
Z la
Ld0-owrN
w�?g�
I
Lli
z �CD�
W
U
o
Q
w
�iJ
wz¢
��0 cy)
a �iU�
Z p
Q CL
w
�
00
N
W W
_j Z
C3
¢
o C3
w
w
w
o Lo
En Z
a C9
mu
U
a
z
M
V' d
it
0
U
I
O
m
tE
O
z
M�
W
O
W
Z
1MM-1
W
z
!�1
O
W
E"1
FNN-1
W
�
�
O
W
W
�
O
E4
~
I
H
W
cq
N
0
o
w
F
O
z
w
N
w
a
�
CU
w
d
SHEET NO.
1
OF
W
/ X,
00.4 �// i( )' / /(18. ) <o� ro
A.P.N. 049- 202 -15 (31 .5) r �' ' i �� j N2�.2 i / / x Q . o
A.P.N. 049 - 202 -18 \ 1 I / ` TARBOX LAURA FRANK A - EDRIVE #50 TRUST - ' ;- - _ - j�
RIDGEWAY TOD W - RIDGEWAY KAY M A.P.N. 049 - 202 -16 500 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE 500 �w i i' , i / PLANTER`S
J KINGS PLACE PROPERTY LLC NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 - - - - - - - - - - i ' / o DI �G
311 KINGS ROAD _ _ / / ROUN 2° IP, PER TR.NO.
1065 MARINE DRIVE _ - _ _ WALL 0.6' / ^ /ui T'Z F
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 A.P.N. 049- 202 -17 _ _ - - - ] _ i - vl
z 31. _ - 2'�S�s- ivy '� �� �l
a ( �} _ _ _ _ MAURICE
ROAD C) - - � o p� u5,
�� LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 r� I z �� T J_ - _ % ��� J i ,SOUTH OF� 1219 / 38/26 NO TAG T P
N (32.1) - �- - (- ' f'? 14 1 DESTROYED ACCEPTED A /
,� 5 WIDE EASEMENT TO SOUTHERN - - - - - - - - - ^ 9i ' 15.8 - SE' SAID TRACT 9
J z - ' - - - NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 /J (31.40 4�CA CALIFORNIA EDISON RECORDED MARCH 4, - w
L zu, o!o - - -- -1 - -- w I /
oFO� ° - -_ - - - -- - -_- ---- - - - - -- 1949 IN BOOK 1811 PAGE 17 & 18_O.R_ - - -- -31v W
a
_ - p p _ Q - .40.03 Nc GAS /
- - - - - - -- _� __ -_ �- `cQ ��0>9 ��.���__�w vp �-N (15.8,3)PJd N -� 12. VALVE /
w UH_.�.-__ -_- `������ - - -- (30)��31)----- - - - - - -- -_ -_ - =N � 15.18)F�� / FS ) .`mgl. .o ° 12.02)/
gp�,`- _ -_� _ ���� -- r - - _ x(29 \�- - - - - (29.8)_ -__ -- - - -- ^ - - - -- ^ -i i i mil ��� i r�cow �c9 �_
___ _ l \ \\ S.7 I
.-_ - ` �``- - - -- - - - - -- -2 -__ = \` -� - - - - - -- __� - -�2 (&7.83r�" - -'��' �� �� -��� �� yam, - _ _ ,c 15.08 r )( .93)�V��'T�E40.v (12�3E)TC
3zQ \_ J� \ HfG` NG9.0 -w - - - - - -- (8) - - -- ° -- - - - -- N '�J�-- r.l - �? ..� i i - v 13.1 FS ?40
J NG4° \ - - -- 3 ���. - - -- 6- - - - -- _ - -- - - -- -- _ FL -_'D, _ - ,nl__- - PLANTER (W ) _o.
w oz�o� N \ \ - - - - - -- - -- - - -- - _ _ ^ \ (11.5�)FL
p zo- -(2 - - _ _ 1 -
N.88 °04'39 "E - _ - -- ---------- - - - - -- - - -- {25) _ -_ _ - - -_ _ _ -_ - -- -- -{I,j - -- - - - - - -- -5.25 = w ' -- _ - ��` - "1 c� U)11� -� "' 13.8 _ - - (2d - _ - - - N Fl=D = Z -c�d-� <v z I 158 �8 _ _ _ _ _ - - - - o� co �p _�-F _ \ _ _ G 13.1 .6) (\PIPE - - (23) - - - - -�� - - _ _ -_ - - - - - - - - _ - - - - N a_ - _ - -. - - (17.21) PLANTER AC ELEC B NG - 2 ) " (22)- - - - - -� ro '( 76) - - SETBACK. - - - - - - ��' " `" 4- -� -- VV O PB ® ( - - - - -- /(12..2TC
21 1 - - - -_ _ GN� -n2 I _ - - - -�_- -- _ -� -- -- - -- _� _�� - -- F - _ PLANTER Nom_ )q PLANTER ___ _ _ __ �_- "zc� o<o- �f 3 ,�"S (12.56) , a
(18.7 _ _ _ s.4s 6.2) �� c G
8t' TB bi- -- NG - _(19) ___ -____ -- - 18.3 8 8) -- - 684) W N 46 P
' (18.9) � - - - - - - - - C ) ( ) 18.39 TW - - r - - r - 16.2 J, 7 3 \ STORM /
_ W _ _ - ro �_ _ _ - - - - 1 _TW _ - - - - 8.33 TVV v I 9.94 _ / NO VISIBLE R 1 qC I l p
oo d. �� I ( a ( ) T DRAIN MH
18.03)FS I; 1833) ^ / CF FENCE �' a
�^ _ - 8.38) (18A0)TW 5.77) 5.h1)FS F - (ISg (S PARKING STRIPE SEWER
CROSSES PL
ro (1 .03) `-�- I TA76 78 pWg 68 o�O 5°'�l (H7.20) 03 r co - (18.79 TW (15.80)FS FS TE, o (76 (7 4 C / 4. 7 �i ( ) If
1 S iT (7 3 13.26
l p ) (15.9) �� 16.52 AC S 3g) T `3 qC 7� AC PLANTER (1lp)06)
L7 R M z 16.47 (18.81)TW 9 0 rn I(� �� r7 8> C J / 8 qC
- - -- S _ s -- 1 6.28 6.hs)FS 5.94)FS �� �5. a 6.3�)AC �q / R
3 v in ) ( ) FS G �� v I 1 6.1 s) (1 6.41) C / ) $ 12.39 �c - z
1 (16.32) ^ rC I F �.w
/ (13.09) / 12.74 (11.76) �0) u
A ^� cn ro ( S 149.2' FG (16.)3 FS (16.45) / �\ AC P iS1GN I 12.35) C
5.7 v.'
N / / 16.01 E� TC N / AC PAVEMENT 13.10 O m
-- -- - I s a I .13)' X11.77 FL o
(I6.49)TC A / J I C A ) J �']--
TRASH ,� s / 12. cP;
5 gal /s z� (1s.79)AC / ( 2)
ENCLOSURE A� - _
A PROPOSED 10' WIDE EASEMENT FOR SANITARY SEWERS °. a T s FC-E ) L
p 6.17)TC w I AND APPURTENANCES PURPOSES TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT J C .3 / \ FC -BIN C W T
cv EXISTING BUILDING o6 9J S
1O (15.90)AC' BEACH. 3453 S.F. a0 ° / l O
N 1 J 9' HIGH a ^ (15.66)TC
Lo (15.58)AC
-SE
1 \\J I �6 �� / AC PAVEMENT
IM 1 I I I 7- /
1� 2 73.8' rn w �� \ 25
AC 3.09) 1 15'
I`O I a 54.5' c ( a . (16.34) (16.17)° 6.3' �a �' / (1448) // AC PAVEMENT 4.3�- Q12.95 .° 12.04 IC 8 O�
Fc �Q (I6.657)TC I:e.° I 777'
5 16: 9�. co �' PA 2 .° - (16.27) ° TS - �� A / N - VV (11.96)FL
_-� (15. 4)AC 'tea _ 16..2 C . �¢ °(86.23) (14.78) (15.61)TC / V R W
; °^ ( ) p' ° _a AC / AC PAVEMENT ,- '
�3N / .-m FC 1 (16.19) '° 14.6' TS CG� (15.01 AC
PAVEMENT \ 40
.61of 00, C 1 .° / k (14,60 � / 7 �'- TELEPHONE M
�p /
�� 14.83 TS PLANTER S �'/ /% I F G 5. 7¢ sg�T o DRIVEWAY
/ g0� k� (7S / II (12.93)RIM RAW
(14.85) ,.
n��� 90 �° I c 1 3.1gJ 4
�q AU
PAINTED
°m ¢ 1' D (16.19) (°� 1 (AU(14.83) ( 90) �C // �`/ // F 1 P L 94 C (Y3.97)° ) o I 12.18 T� /
a op I G A "., --� 14 (14.79) (14.80) �'��/ /// / /// J, �G 9p i A I \ a I �, O �] i ^� STRIPING
a m /� I 1 ° I 1- - - - - - - - A14.75) A AC AC / j// 1 (73.37 ) I z i TYPICAL
J / (73 (13.34 tea) 0••_C 0
3 a 1D I I j 6.27) I AC PAVEMENT I J /� 73 42 C GP
awnw I�Q AVEMEID IP _ Z-1) _ qC 43) (13. 0) II
z `� � � � � � l � C13.84) (1 3.48) / �
1 I° % I - - - - --
/ c� `� w I - - - - - - - - - - - - 14. �., + 1 a 9) AC AC / SIGN FC -BW
�-¢ (14.07)TC c� J I W �� AG i qC 8 NG ) a p ( u, (12.22)FL CC IE J AG (7,3 1 3.5
1 (13.96)AC/- _ 1° o w (14.56) (13.90)'° PB
EASEMENT OIRES.,G.E. ��a I / A (7 PLANTER PLA TER
rn m o I \\ �� AC PAVEMENT i� Rl
- - - - / AC PAVEMENT
AND A.T. &T. SERVICES EXISTING BUILDING ° X I I -L - - l 1 4.05 (1 4.38) - - - - - - - - - 1 4.1 5 / V qC `3SS� ) V -'-Q 7� f j� it i�� yl' mow`
/ 1 1994 S.F. . wl 1 1 / (13.82) �\ FS ) AC - ( / (135 ( 3,35) (13.17) o /
FC -GB jj
(1 (13.61) 13.10) /
(14 � 9' HIGH I � AC � i �� � AC .36) / AC � 8) Ltj � I
(13.60) - -I - N.8 125'23 _ ° C O 0 O
% 14.19 i A (13.17) _ - -_1 TC / 0 �
GB (13.47) I (13.83) i / °j) ( 2 •
(13.04) FF - - - (13:36) AC ) i NO VISIBLE (13.68) C -G �1 -I (1 7 3)
_ - - - AC \ - 1 3.65 AC (1 3.64) --- R - - - �WV.
_ _ - PARKING STRIPE
1., (14)� ��' �� �IJ - - - - -- �� (13.69) 7 AG / (13.64 AC CRB / (12.60�! / -Q Z
\
_(12 89) I M ` - - _ - J PLANTER N ^ v a Z
(13.88) (13.77) A FC° �'% W CV
�� �� AC PAVEMENT /� A A (13.70) (13.64) (2571rL
I� AC -FL I 0 PLANTER a (13.70) o:b1) - o
24.7' .° 13.33 - 1 - - w 1� a - W ,� 13.34 (13.23) ) ^ N I\
z (13.99) AC AC 7 cq �. 0 / h�l W
1 2.60) AC- - - - - - - T Y o- - - - - (13.74) 4 = FC -B�.N PB � I / �z w F1 Q W I� Z
f A6 -GB 3.41 I / �,X- z } J C ' MBG� 0 - - - - - - - N.89'53'35 "E.
(12. 1) ( (1191)TW � I FS -WD // /� (13.58) z� I PLANTER �1�� � �3 ( ) _ / II
( / T w 06.49) ° - -RAD F�-yI (J) I
30 3.41)FS -�D , / // A 3.70) QO - `�C-G� a w 1-x-1 w
AC PAVEMENT / / / A 0 13.92 13.55 I° w Z
/ D= 01'28'1 cn w
A) �� N °rn ro \� pcYi O I \ e // / j/j 7 C ��� AC PLANTER PLANTER (13.71 Q'�. .o l R= 440.00'1 // = U 4 iQ Q In J
EXISTING (12.90) "� �'�). z wo (12.93) (13.5 ., / � N I C- ^ 1 L= 11.28' I / > Z Z Q
BUILDING - - ^ -
A - ��.�w \ F_ - -� I A -L -- AC 8" POST `M° N p p .° ° 'i -- -... Mrn ; I (13. 3) co X Q
1 (12.75) 1 w31 I 1 (1 SIGN ��Q`- �i7F7. 1 _ a p .Q ° - - -. -. ___�� c� ^^ i ri c�i 1 1 i/ `° 'GC w !7��! � a Q
(13.49) - (13.63) -C° \ __ - -- --'1 v J 1�) W
8" POS v =- 1) (12.78) CHAINLINK FENCE PL qC ��) (53.54) (1 .61) C-B - _ _ ,� - - _
a 2 'd13.48) v�I � i N > L
N �n SIGN AC- 0.1 SOUTH C'.i \) FGI .� . FC_g ° PB F� - - - - - - - w -N v - - - `- 1 0 N M U
)-- - - - ? (13.43) PLANTER (13.59) SEWER CGP, .° (13.4 ) ❑ _ - 4 �.i- ;v 1 o Cfl
�, -p - -( 3 -- (13.07) j I `7/ Ur
-- -`-(13 Q (13.54) co A (13.55) (C.56� �.`ti a(1�..47)TG - - - -- _ �C,v T M �„� �/� AC I w SD F� z < Q Z
�1L. I'° (12192 FS Q AC -BW = v -'.° -- -(w� - -- �W� / �➢t(J� i z �J Z
O 1 1 . ° l �} _ 13 (w) - ER _ - - - ,�M' `b \� I I -' w
v 22.2' �: I/° I °�� B_ C- W a .o _ O ..�� -- EXISTING �. C� C i 1 < O (n
14.6' / _ _
1• I 280.18') (13.26) i = w z I (C
��(w) � � 7 W P0� 41 "E• AC I n
(13.00 ro V I _ rj2''1"7j WATER LINE (K3 .(G p ') �T2" z-n (1J.79
Z EXISTIN I \ F.2.R i (12.64° I (w) X�.
w J
BUILDIN I �"� q _ L .- EXISTING CURB &GUTTER 66F ' �, EXCEPTION j� \ i i " z N U r- o
PORTIO . a PLANTER 13.10 (13.3 (1 �.15) U? EXC _ - m m PER TITLE J ; _ w W
1 ;C 3w / N a c ,.
13.38 lil J
TO BE I �a _ \ ��' M h cn PER "TITLE ( ) A J I " U J
REMOVE I I'° > » > I o ,�`>, z - w O= Z Q
10 6' N.02 °43 00 W. 26.65 - - (13)- _I A ` `� _ -' J �, I i j o 0 O
' c, v� ti n (13 2) STORM s - w
1 1 26.64') (12.98) \ �� ° a�� J Q i I 00 s0 ° rn z I I
27tX20 AREA G F7 < 1�s0-
OF DEDICATION E. NQ = DAIN MH s��sc U Q W
1 1 TO THE CITY OF ° o N 98 3.05) N,�9 w��4° Aso i
NEWPORT BEACH (11.90) N� 1 Ac , L J s0
j �� Tc(1z17) 2. 2) a w so
�so�SD (13.44) 1 ; O C.9 Cl 00 Lj
2.._02) N X77 N rn FC_ 2,V 12.5 TC (12.76) / sD s0 RIM I LLJ
F 12.76 �s0� w � 1 � � (s)
1 I 8 91 A �SD sO� <c LLJ
s 93 Q (i a 8 )FL �� / Q sD�su
2.51) I q g 30.00' L 5D c) �(e) c) �(s) ��(D) i s)
_ s0� EX. 36° CAL TRANS RC, STORM DRAIN MAIN EX. 3/4" GASH( _ s
SD S° m w (D)� �(s) (s) ' SEWER o vvi o C9 U
w �(s) (D) �(s)
TS -i - s0 s0 r s0 c �� (c) �(D) �(s) EX. 3/4" GAS LINE (c) �(D) (s) (s)� (s)� (s) MH Q
15 R _ .w . 1 , 00 _
d' :W)- G .8-r -SD (G)�( ) (ll (s) Of
(w) - - N88' 12' 47.6 ') w I (G) (c) �(D) (s
WATER LINE .�-sD - �n s0 - (1219), /mow -(c)-� (sue / `� �(s) (s)� r I MH
-s0 'X ' EX. 36' VCR SEWER i�(s)�(s)�(s) �� ; L�
a ti I '� -� C- r (c) x (s) _ i SEWER V' d O
�w TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING w (s)�(s) SLgNp J
w (12.55) - (s) ED SEWER 0
ORB (12.01 T x� A I LEGAL DESCRIPTION (s)�(s)- 5)
�.
E o . ^o� 5 42� _��(s) EXCEPTIONS �(s) CURB MH w rl
(s)- EX. 8" VCR S� (s) (s)� (s)
° __ )- s) / 2. 8) I O� (s) s)� (s) 0
po
-s� z / SEWER SEW R _� s)� (s) s) _ _ (s)� (s) �, O m
EXISTING CURB & I GUTT �N� -�� co `? / 0 1�J (s)� (s) / (s)� (s)� (s)� s I I I �' O �l / /
0` m ) M� (s) (s) O i' Ir
I _ V~ > () (S)� -� 0 `\T RIM.43) I O I '
I / EX. 30" VCP SEWED (e)� (s)- PAINTED - 0 00 s) 52�1F� > ACS 3 Y SST I� p s) (s)� (s)
- / STRIPING _ U
C\ 11.98) SEWER (s)��s) -� TYPICAL ' I ! - - - - - - - - - Ld
LtJ I ° AC MH - (s)� (s)� (s)� / �,- -� Z
O -� (s)� (s)� (s) (12.38) I /
(s) O RIM Ig w
I� // 0 I POINT OF BEGINNING Q [--�
o° ol- - LEGAL DESCRIPTION Z x
Z N I� AIM '' AC PAVEMENT EXCEPTIONS 1�1
iv FOUND CAL TRANS (PUBLIC) L I s
_ o C-I
I ZIP / rp � � CENTERLINE REALIGNED PER BRASS DISC WELL -
I Ib / / / g l 'HIGHWAY NO. 25492- CH07 -O AA 1 -1^8 4 C.R. 2 08T 0152B
C, WEST _ _ -
I__ - s °
MONUMENT i II - ' 29674' 1392.37'} 1391.74' 7
2008 -0151B , . _ I
67.6
�
N.8T17'00 "E. 1 5.63'5 1095.01' --------- -- - - --
17'601�'E
I
-------- - - - - --
i �
W I
' o
� o
[--1
N a_
I
W 04
N
O
GRAPHIC SCALE
10 8 6 4 2 0 8 10 20 30 W Z
J
H
w U
I IN FEET ) = O W
1 INCH = 10 FT. cn a 0
SHEET N0.
Im 2 2
OF
Attachment No. PC 3
Project Plans
WA
Rm
rA=
O d _
Future SCE
Easement
Sal
of
a
N a
i 10
See Landscape -H-
Plans far details
Existing ing
to be demorisolis hetl i
L- -I.
?I
�I
j O
J
17• -0^
Remove Existing -
ODfFY -Qj -- _ - 3' Swole &Dram to Dower Drive —
_ - Overhead Lines _
-- fx45i1 12OPP€ -- -_ 24' Retaining WAIF — _ __ _ -- - __.- 4 1 — — r — — — — — — — — — —
�ver
Fire Exit -
�
- - - � Exit Stair 2
=Fx _ - _ lec.
� Service
Elevato r uP
--
- -
o
Aa.a
- - -
- -- - -
455-
I
Provide knock -out
0
Edge of 9' -0" 8' -6" 8' -6 9' -0" Edge of 5$$
Ground Level
panelrforaccess
Column TYP CAL Column
Second Level
°
—
a PARKING LEVEL 1 GREASE
NTER_CEPTOR
Existing Buildings a
ent
N
z 35 PARKING SPACES j 11
to be demdiishad
0
9,522
❑ L-
1
I
J�
r � /
5' -0. 91-13' -01 B -0^ 1 26'.0• 1 1
26' -0"
DRIVE AISLE
T
14' -D"
J Clear Height
FL= . +1' -6'
ExitExit -B
Area to b
dedicat
to the gi
NEW
CURS
NOTE:
Level 0' -0"= +12' -6' above sea "level "
r"' • ^o -
-- Backflow
Preventer
EXISTING CURB
TO BE REMOVED
ent
10" SEWER LINE
EXISTING
Location Map Notto Scale
NORTH Ground Level Plan on Site May25,2011
O0 ' 10' 20' 30' 40' 50, 60' 70'
DRIVE OLE I
4SS '� _ _ 1 C
HC HC o L J
Van 4 0
o, o _ Clear Height -
r HC P<ih oP iraval
Ore
IL = 0
R404
�- ' -- 755SQFT ,
STOP
J
)Restaurant operator to provide I
temporary refrigerated trash storage) I
-l"" ICs y
R -101 R -102 R -103
3230 SQ FT 2685 SQ ELI 3250 SQ FT
O O
i
i
0
O
I
I _
a l0 O
O O
Ilne of Deck Ad ve b -L = f a1 eatur
a a - ac lne
et _ _/
plc &Coke -----
-
EAR - intro -- Underground Liners 112,000VOItsJ
E S T C O A S T H I G A Y
H W
CODE INFORMATION:
Project to comply with new code to be adapted by
the City of Newport Beach - January 2011
Parking Structure:
Type I Construction
Fully sprinklered with smoke detectors
Commercial Building:
Type V Construction
1-Hour with 4-Hour Separation at Property Line
Road Striping
TABULATION SUMMARY
0
14' Gme
- Screen
Aa.a
33,036 sf
Building Area
a�
Ground Level
9,940 sf 11,794 sf
Second Level
9,795 sf 11,221 sf
i
Q
ppti- ¢ 1 11•-10112•
Existing
W
19,735 at 23,015 sf
d
O
0
9,522
J
Gross Retail Area
10,493
J�
r � /
Gross Medical Area
3,000
r
Net Site Area
33,036 sf
Building Area
Gross Leasable Gross Building
Ground Level
9,940 sf 11,794 sf
Second Level
9,795 sf 11,221 sf
Total
19,735 at 23,015 sf
Gross Area
Gross Restaurant Area
9,522
.®
/ W
Gross Retail Area
10,493
„a
Gross Medical Area
3,000
Total
23,015 sf
IN
f 1
MEN
Parking Provided On -Site
®
Level HC Standard Tandem Valet Total
'
Stalls
Stalls Stalls Only
Ground Level P1 2
33 0 0 35
^ -
Second Level P2 1
24 16 5 46
-'°
Third Level P3 2
18 30 5 55
Total 5
75 46 10 136
�=
Mariner's
Pointe
West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA
WINSTON'S JEWELERS
c/o VBAS Properties, Inc
HattaSmle
185820each Boulevard,Suite22fi
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
S T 0 U T E N
B 0 R 0 U G H
A r c h i t e
c t s a n d P l a n n e r s
420 Alfa Vista Way, Suite 100, Laguna 8 l to 92651
T 949 715 3257 1 F 949 715 32 S6 1 w w.s l a B91,kifo r o u 9 hi n r. r om
C A S T
n�
Location Map Notto Scale
NORTH Second Level Plan on Site May 25,2011
O0 ' 10' 20' 30' 40' 50, 60' 70'
H I G H W A Y
TABULATION SUMMARY
Net Site Area
Gross Retail Area
king Provided On -Site
33,036 sf
Gross Leasable Gross Building
9,940 sf 11,794 sf
9,795 sf 11,221 sf
19,735 sf 23,015 sf
Level
HC
Standard
Tandem
Valet
Total
Stalls
Stalls
Stalls
Only
Ground Level P1
2
33
0
0
35
Second Level P2
1
24
16
5
46
Third Level P3
2
18
30
5
55
Total 5 75 46 10 136
Mariner's Pointe
West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA
WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc
18582 Beach Boo levard, Suite 226 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
S T 0 U T E N B 0 R 0 U G H
A r c h i t e c t s a n d P l a n n e r s
420 Alto V i s f a Way, Suite 100, Laguna B La 92651
T 949 715 3257 1 F 949 715 32 S6 1 www.slaV rwo r 0 u 9 hi n C. 10 m
w�
?I
L
�II L
I
i I
OI L__
W E S T
Location Map Notto Scale
NORTH Lower Roof Plan on Site May25,2011
O0 ' 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70'
C O A S T H I G H W A 7
TABULATION SUMMARY
Net Site Area
Gross Restaurant Area
Gross Retail Area
Gross Medical Area
33,036 sf
Gross Leasable Gross Building
9,940 sf 11,794 sf
9,795 sf 11,221 sf
19,735 sf 23,015 sf
Total
23,015 sf
king Provided On -Site
Level
HC
Standard
Tandem
Valet
Total
Stalls
Stalls
Stalls
Only
Ground Level P1
2
33
0
0
35
Second Level P2
1
24
16
5
46
Third Level P3
2
18
30
5
55
Total 5 75 46 10 136
Mariner's Pointe
West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA
WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc
18582 Beach Boulevard, Suite 226 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
S T 0 U T E N B 0 R 0 U G H
A r c h i t e c t s a n d P l a n n e r s
420 Alto Vista Way, Suite 100, Laguna 8C 92651
T 949 715 3257 1 F 949 715 32 S6 1 www.slauI or 0 u 9 hi n C. rom
Future SCE Roof above
6 Easement parking
..�. I /�bevond Q35' -0"
Parking Exltooly
14' -0 "Clear Height
South Elevation - West Coast Highway
2
8
H
a
roof slope: 3 in 12
Existing Buildings v " —� > 35 PARKING SPACES
to be demolished p
c c
HC HC a
TL J
Van " 14'-0"
o — o - -Clear Height
-1 HC P.1h of Tr ,el Fire Cur
tL 0 0
Pump
_R-104 aoom { -
- 755 SQ FT _.
Parking Entry /Exk
0 "Cleat Height tit
Ia t
❑RIVE AISLE
LS
iT
C
O
J i o t o
a
See Landscape -} LL
Plansfordetails 14 -1"
Clear Height
Existing Building
to be demolished I
�— I FL- +1' -6"
1
ZI
-3 LInC 1
2IITRA J�SFOgMERI -- _
o I �T
d r Exit-Only—,C
L
' -� Area to be' L
dedlcat. d
_ to the dty
NEW
— - -� CURB i
NOTE:
Level 0' -0" _ +12' -6" above se0.level
Partial Ground Level Plan on Site
NORTH Elevation
O0 ' 10' 20' 40« 50'
0
Sh ar
o Mech. Roon
I Stair 1
1p Up o
15% n
Prevei
r
EXISTING CURB
TO BE REMOVED
en
- 10 'SEWER LINE
EXISTING
MANHOLE
May25,2011
60' 70' 80'
STOP _ _ _ Exrf -_€ ❑try
T C O A S T
R -101
Ex,f 3230 SQ Fr
L"T 0—
R -102
2685 SQ FT
0 0 a-
- -.
It, o olJ ¢A«ve i c
In ME,
Underground Lines i 12,OW V UO
H I G H W A Y
4114
View
ME
2
12
R -103
3250 SQ FT
O O
i
i
IO
I
l0
0 0
0
O
o,I I -Ill
�far�
Marine -r's Pointe
West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA
WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc
18582 Beach Boulevard, Suite 226 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
S T 0 U T E N B 0 R 0 U G H
A r c h i t e c t s a n d P l a n n e r s
420 Alto Vista Way, Suite 100, Laguna BA�, Co 92651
T 949 715 3257 1 F 949 715 32S6 I www.sla roughinr.rom
Top of Bluff
Beyond - «60' -9'
_
_
:.bove sea level
_
Top of Parapet
JI Level +29' -4"
OF
d LvI 114 _e
NOTE:
Level 0'A "= +12' -6" above sea
level
0
O
o,I I -Ill
�far�
Marine -r's Pointe
West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA
WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc
18582 Beach Boulevard, Suite 226 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
S T 0 U T E N B 0 R 0 U G H
A r c h i t e c t s a n d P l a n n e r s
420 Alto Vista Way, Suite 100, Laguna BA�, Co 92651
T 949 715 3257 1 F 949 715 32S6 I www.sla roughinr.rom
Top of Bluff +60' -0-
-`---- -'-level
Top of Parapet
(ti
�I
East Elevation - Dover Drive
a
R -102
2685 SQ FT
x,
R -103
0 03250 SQ FT
=III I
I I
0 0)
0 OJ. \\ ILF6F
7 ate- �Ine 0 =e
x
e�
1
D O V E R
Partial Ground Level Plan on Site
Elevations May25,2011
0 ' 10' 20' 40' 50' 60' 70' 80'
1,
tel
Level +
Level c' -o^
NOTE:
Level 0'-0" = +12'fi "above sea level
a f„
N o \\
W
G
b
D R �
-- 7
View
Top of Bluff +6o' -a'
above; —Ite e,f_
1S h Sal PROPERTY LINE N
qCI❑ El 1:10 Cqq ❑O❑
tineof Retaining Walll Existing
West Elevation
19
Green Screen Ilyp.1
Top of Parapet ^
P3 _ +25'_W.
W
P2 +16' -2' m 4 4
P1 V 6"
Ground Level o' —o"
NOTE:
Level 0' -0" = +12' -6" above sea level
Mariner's Pointe
West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA
WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc
18582 Beach Bou levard, Suite 226 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
S T 0 U T E N B 0 R 0 U G H
A r c h i t e c t s a n d P l a n n e r s
420 Alto Vista Way, S u i I 100, Laguna 8�e�, La 92651
T 949 715 3 157 1 F 949 715 3256 1 www.slo a aroughiar.tom
Z Z
Future SCE Easement
Tap of Parapet
Roof Level 29• -4•
LH - A
+zs - IO^
-- - - -- -
4 T -
to
4hrratea wall __- __�__, - -_ -_= _ ;�- - -t P2 116-2"u'
Seeor Lvl +14• -e•i
14'Green
29 Guntl Llnne n utlinj- retaining waly. — Pr o. Fill Line
Screen AFFCCI CLI I ro
Wall AAfFI
FF41 9
H�I±I
Ground L ,I P7 +1' -6•
_,— - --------- ou
�1---
------ - - - - -- �nd Lvl tp
NOTE
Level P1P - +12' -6" above sea level
North Elevation - Bluff Side
W 6'
> (4
0 IE
r ;
U I
I
r %
%
0
o
i
o'
-- i_ --
=- _ -._ _ - -_ _
- - —— ——
_ = --
=_ = =t --
c%
§a
Ipi
C
PPP
01
I
I
I
OJ
i
O O
R -103
3250 SO FT
R -102
2685 SO FT
,a']
R -101 —k—�°
3230 SO FT TsRavE A+SLa`T
I I
u GREASE
INTERCEPTOR
5$$
C
0 Mech. Room
HC I HC
PARKING LEVEL 1 0 <
35 PARKING SPACES =
TYPICAL -
{-
Service El
ElevatorM Elec. -- _- - - - _
ROOM fx.— storm. min to e relocat tl - �-c c_a Van I1 ar
4s V.
Partial Ground Level Plan on Site
NORTH Elevation May 25,2011
O0' 10' 20' 40' 50' 60' 70' 80'
DRIVE AISLE
isfing Butlbinga
be demolished
8SS
(,9T
------- _ - ---
- -
-- = -_= - _ _ _
-- i_ --
=- _ -._ _ - -_ _
- - —— ——
_ = --
=_ = =t --
—
§a
Mariner's Pointe
West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA
WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc
18582 Beach Boulevard,Suite226 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
S T 0 U T E N B 0 R 0 U G H
A r c h i t e c t s a n d P l a n n e r s
420 Alto Vista Way, Suite 100, Laguna 8C 92651
Or T 949 715 3157 1 F 949 715 3456 1 www.sla r o u 9 h t n c. r om
Roof Level +29' -4"
4 v
Second Level +14' -s"
°7
Ground Level 0' -0"
NOTE
Level 0'-0"- +12' -6" above sea level
Section A - A
Too of Bluff <, _n
PROPERTY LINE— ° FuneSCE
Easement
4 -
P3 +29'
s1 4hrrated wall -t-
o m P2 - +1 0 0 0 0
re
W Green Screen o
I ° u
26' -0"
Pl 1' -6' o o DRIVE AISLI
L Ground Level
Section C - C
Building Sections
0 ' 10' 20'
P3
a
- 7 P2 +16' -2'
n - -
Pi -1' -6"
a LGround Level o' - o'
NOTE:
Level 0' -0 "= +12-6 abovesea level
Section B - B
roof slope: 31n 12
III
WALK
--- RAMP- - - --
WALK
=T, R
26'0"
DRIVI EAISLE
10
Top of Bluff +60•.0•
above sea
PROPERTY LINE -4�4'-
May 25, 2011
30' 140' 150' 160' 170'
R -104
— PARKING GARAGE SLOPES 1% DOWN —
R -101
R -102
R -103
AN
rated
Ground Level 0' -0"
Top of Bluff
Beyond_ +60' -0' _
above sea level
Roof Leber _29 - 4°
� m
� v o
Second Level +14-s' m
v
Ill ICI TlR �
c?
NOTE:
Level 0' -0"- +12' -6 "above sea level
Mariner's Pointe
West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA
WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc
18582 Beach Boulevard, Suite 226 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
S T 0
roof slope _3 in 12
4Nrflre Separation —
roof slope:3 in 12 roof slope:3 in 12
26-0"
m '- `.
m
d P l a n n e r s
410 Alta
Vista
Way, Su Ile 100,
Laguna
DRIVE AISLE
T 949 715
3257
I F 949 715 3256
1 www.slauQ.n1ooroug
26' -0"
o
DRIVEAISLE
o 0 o 0
RAMP
- -
o�
26' -AI
`s
°
�
°
DRIVE AISLE 11
1
R -202
R -203
R -204
___________15
_ ____�
II% DRIVEAISLE
o 0
%_____
RAMP
May 25, 2011
30' 140' 150' 160' 170'
R -104
— PARKING GARAGE SLOPES 1% DOWN —
R -101
R -102
R -103
AN
rated
Ground Level 0' -0"
Top of Bluff
Beyond_ +60' -0' _
above sea level
Roof Leber _29 - 4°
� m
� v o
Second Level +14-s' m
v
Ill ICI TlR �
c?
NOTE:
Level 0' -0"- +12' -6 "above sea level
Mariner's Pointe
West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA
WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc
18582 Beach Boulevard, Suite 226 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
S T 0
U
T E N B
0 R
0 U G H
A r c h i t e c t
s a n
d P l a n n e r s
410 Alta
Vista
Way, Su Ile 100,
Laguna
ESP Ca 92651
T 949 715
3257
I F 949 715 3256
1 www.slauQ.n1ooroug
hi nt.rom
w I Top of Parapet II
?I 29'-4!'
--
0I Y
W EST
C q S T
Level 0'-(7'= +12' -6" above
Location Map Notto Bale
NORTH Upper Roof Plan on Site
O0 ' 10' 20' 30' 40'
May25,2011
50' 160' 170'
TOP of Pafd PeT
35• - a.
OVER MECHANICAL AREA
FL' -33'. - 6'
R
Top oF parapet
-
FL =r29 4'
TOP of Ridge
/- 6"
Lo est Point of Roof
33' -9'
Top of Parapet
— +32' -4'
+29' -10
III +21 9' -70" wesit
kL +3n' -6"
Top of R'
38' - U
Top of Pi
0' 3'
TABULATION SUMMARY
Net Site Area
W
a
T
W
O
a
J
sf
ilding Area
Gross Leasable
Gross Building
Ground Level
9,940 sf
11,794 sf
Second Level
9,795 sf
11,221 sf
Total
19,735 sf
23,015 sf
Gross Area
Gross Restaurant Area
9,522
Gross Retail Area
10,493
Gross Medical Area
3,000
Total
king Provided On -Site
23,015 sf
Level
HC
Standard
Tandem
Valet
Total
Stalls
Stalls
Stalls
Only
Ground Level P1
2
33
0
0
35
Second Level P2
1
24
16
5
46
Third Level P3
2
18
30
5
55
Total 5 75 46 10 136
Mariner's Pointe
West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA
WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc
18582Beaeh Boulevard,Suht 226 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
S T 0 U T E N B 0 R 0 U G H
A r c h i t e c t s a n d P l a n n e r s
420 Alto Vista Way, Suite 100, Laguna Aer/I,, (a 92651
T 949 715 3257 1 F 949 715 32S6 I www.slaul oroughinr.10M
ASYMMETRIC FLOODLIGHT AT ROOF FASCIA
f X11 f ,_'�I I L__ —_A n a �oql--2
RECESSED LIGHTS AT SOUTH WALL
NORTH Garage Deck Lighting Plan June 10, 2011
(�) � I � I I I I I Scale:
0' 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 1/16" = T -0"
0
FF,
FLUORESCENT LUMINAIBE TO BE
MOUNTED BELOW GAflAGE ROOF
i
OF IP
Al
-HALIDE FLOOOOGHT
T, MOUNTER TO ROOF
FASCIA(TVPIOAL OF a)
FEGESS TYPES-11'MINAIRE AT I
ABOVE DEGM.(IYP.)
01 0 I ID
FF, FF, FF,
'FF1 I -1 FFA -N�) I0 'FF,
Dr—A�
FFR
`I
THE 2 Executive Circle, Suite 290
ENS DRAWING RELATES TO UGHTNG DESIGN INTENT ONLY. THE RUZWA COMPANY
DOES NOT ASSUME RESKNS&LIry FORSTR- CLURAL INTEGAnY, WIDIING, RIGGING,
NInE, California 92614
O]NSTAUCTICN, FABRIGTION, MATERIEL, OR EQUIPMENT
( 949) 253 -3479
R A
THE RUi COMPANY WILL NOT BE HEM RESPONSIBLE MR THE INMILIry CE
camncraas OR aulLDERS TO EXKLIR THE DESIGN PANS.
(949) 2500181 fax
info @ruzika. cam
ALL EECIRKAL INFO*N"MEN AND .00a ENERGY CODE COMRUNCE FORMS TO BE
PROVIIIEOBYALIFN¢D9 fflG ENCwEMOR fflGLCgJTMCOR,
COMPANY wwW.ruzika.com
A r c h i t e c t
s a n
ALL 1 M N A AC MEN CE NDSTRUCTURALLOADCAMU krONSM ST
P I a n
BE ROVIDED BY A LICENSED STRUCNRN ENGINEER.
Lighting Designers + Theatre Consultants
FOR WNnBW DESIGN INTORMAipN ONLY
FF,
FFI
Mariner's Point
West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, C
WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, 1
18582 Beach Boulevard, Suite 226 Huntington Beach, CA 9:
S T 0
U
1 E N B
0 R
0
U G
H
A r c h i t e c t
s a n
d
P I a n
n e
420 Alta
Vista
Way, Suite 100,
Laguna
Be
, Ca
926
T 949 715
3257
1 F 949 715 3256
1 ww w. s
to ut
TI,
h i nt.l
.A3
IC
_I
wI
?I
�I
w
OI
d!
1 -
Top of Par000t
35' - 0"
Top of Ridge
+33' -9"
31n 12 Roof Pitch I
Para Pet X -' A2
35 -0 ���� lifj Top of Parapet
Top. of Ridge +35' -O'
+37i -T
Top of Parapet , 33 - Point of Roof
F
+33 I +33' -3' •
Topef Parapet ' • • '. FL- +33 6
+2F 10'
C O A S T
S
1
NOTE:
Level 0' -0' = +12' -b" above sea level
Top of Parape}
+ 29' -4"
Story
Location Map NonoScale
NORTH Staking Plan May25,1011
O0' 10, 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70'
Pole Construction Noes Table
Ome: MAY 18, 2011
SXe Atltlre93: MARINER'S POINTE IA WEST COAST HIGHWAY
Daum Point SEWER MANHOLE n
DOVER ELEVATION 1306'
Name of Surveyor or Engineer: LAZAR VIVAT
Xanm of Stwv Pole Pmmaea Ne[MUm
Pak lLrt4pr OMe[HYb EI¢vYlon' Nom HYb EI¢vatbn EbvaMen
At 35.00'
A2 35.00'
A9 35.00'
81 35.00'
B2 35.00'
83
•rc sfanaem aurvev hubs are na feesiae bemuse or ma a[iaenca m rmka, paNng pr e.gnng avucwral
Improvemen6, month e survasocial ....... annnau�e memoaar esmaiahmg hnmomw one verlcal
comrm to arory poke mm can m cbaenaa m he vela. me aarvayor or ammaer atoll aeaQ�ma the control
mellwa use¢ eo-ediy on ma musi:e rmf pion. sum anrnanae metres core moues peimm markings or mail
Imormaam roes �aanea.
H I G H W A Y
' al
TOP of Pfi Pet -
35 -0
R OF OVER MECHANICAL AREA
- FL=- 33'-6 - -.
Q
I W
0
Top of Parapet
lop or Ripgo M.
Lowest Par i of Roof C I
S Hill
par
like
N.
.113IaIIL° ° _� LLLL�'
��� • .' �� �. � yam/ -
enon
Please memp a s;an Belo.
SlgnaWre at naglateea t¢na 6urval or Carl
Engineer
Name Iwimeaertypeet
LlcenSe NO /Expi2fion 0a@
13,
STORY POLE HEIGHT AND LOCATION CERTIFICATION
Inslmdicre: The SWry Pola Height and Location Carlilimlian and SYOry Pola ConAmNm Notes Tabk must be
1a00ya reglata'ea Jana awayor wreglaWaacrvil anginearryrec lly pne copy of lfp Ml -ska cool plan. the
�exam mletetl cenincaam mum be submitted m me city aueast ze says prior to the aesgn revrew aumonryg rust
oucea public neamg mte .
installed CerlNlcatlon5htemenL
I heresy carlity, Ihel the any page located on ma abuse relarm¢ea We care mnslruaea most my impression
and surrey, and the any saI¢ are in conbrmdnce vent the tlesrypi, M1eght and location as sM1Own on the apprwetl
sbkina plan. I wnler cMiry that the anmhaa table iaenHnag t) the carry pda iaamifigficn numMrs, z)
egvanere of ma top of the aurreyee afsm nose, m eg•mlom of me, +opal me arory poles and at the negNS of
the mnrr wka as meaaurea from trump of me nnaa hubs k o-ae and mrred. I acknawleage and maerafane
manna rapmraa prged a.kind is her ma parpwa of informing the Winne, architect aaaignar. cnv stem, cosign
ertaauthority em Ifre public se to me accuate location and eaa amaiwgna a ma pmpa smdure or
Mariner's Pointe
West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA
WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc
18582 Beach Boulevard, SUIte 22fi Huntington Beach, CA 92648
S T O U T E N B O R O U G H
Arc If i It e c t s a n d P l a n n e r s
4211 Alto Vista Way, Suite 100, Laguna 1& 0, Co 92651
T 949 715 3157 I F 949 715 3156 I ww w.slo roughinr.Igfin
3
35.00'
B4 3
35.00'
C7 3
32.33'
C2 3
32.33'
D7 4
40.00'
D2 3
39.00'
E1 3
3].50'
E2 3
37.50'
F 1
17.65'
G 3
35.00'
H1 2
27.93'
H2 2
29.33'
J 3
33.08'
X: 3
37.00,.
Imormaam roes �aanea.
H I G H W A Y
' al
TOP of Pfi Pet -
35 -0
R OF OVER MECHANICAL AREA
- FL=- 33'-6 - -.
Q
I W
0
Top of Parapet
lop or Ripgo M.
Lowest Par i of Roof C I
S Hill
par
like
N.
.113IaIIL° ° _� LLLL�'
��� • .' �� �. � yam/ -
enon
Please memp a s;an Belo.
SlgnaWre at naglateea t¢na 6urval or Carl
Engineer
Name Iwimeaertypeet
LlcenSe NO /Expi2fion 0a@
13,
STORY POLE HEIGHT AND LOCATION CERTIFICATION
Inslmdicre: The SWry Pola Height and Location Carlilimlian and SYOry Pola ConAmNm Notes Tabk must be
1a00ya reglata'ea Jana awayor wreglaWaacrvil anginearryrec lly pne copy of lfp Ml -ska cool plan. the
�exam mletetl cenincaam mum be submitted m me city aueast ze says prior to the aesgn revrew aumonryg rust
oucea public neamg mte .
installed CerlNlcatlon5htemenL
I heresy carlity, Ihel the any page located on ma abuse relarm¢ea We care mnslruaea most my impression
and surrey, and the any saI¢ are in conbrmdnce vent the tlesrypi, M1eght and location as sM1Own on the apprwetl
sbkina plan. I wnler cMiry that the anmhaa table iaenHnag t) the carry pda iaamifigficn numMrs, z)
egvanere of ma top of the aurreyee afsm nose, m eg•mlom of me, +opal me arory poles and at the negNS of
the mnrr wka as meaaurea from trump of me nnaa hubs k o-ae and mrred. I acknawleage and maerafane
manna rapmraa prged a.kind is her ma parpwa of informing the Winne, architect aaaignar. cnv stem, cosign
ertaauthority em Ifre public se to me accuate location and eaa amaiwgna a ma pmpa smdure or
Mariner's Pointe
West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA
WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc
18582 Beach Boulevard, SUIte 22fi Huntington Beach, CA 92648
S T O U T E N B O R O U G H
Arc If i It e c t s a n d P l a n n e r s
4211 Alto Vista Way, Suite 100, Laguna 1& 0, Co 92651
T 949 715 3157 I F 949 715 3156 I ww w.slo roughinr.Igfin
enon
Please memp a s;an Belo.
SlgnaWre at naglateea t¢na 6urval or Carl
Engineer
Name Iwimeaertypeet
LlcenSe NO /Expi2fion 0a@
13,
STORY POLE HEIGHT AND LOCATION CERTIFICATION
Inslmdicre: The SWry Pola Height and Location Carlilimlian and SYOry Pola ConAmNm Notes Tabk must be
1a00ya reglata'ea Jana awayor wreglaWaacrvil anginearryrec lly pne copy of lfp Ml -ska cool plan. the
�exam mletetl cenincaam mum be submitted m me city aueast ze says prior to the aesgn revrew aumonryg rust
oucea public neamg mte .
installed CerlNlcatlon5htemenL
I heresy carlity, Ihel the any page located on ma abuse relarm¢ea We care mnslruaea most my impression
and surrey, and the any saI¢ are in conbrmdnce vent the tlesrypi, M1eght and location as sM1Own on the apprwetl
sbkina plan. I wnler cMiry that the anmhaa table iaenHnag t) the carry pda iaamifigficn numMrs, z)
egvanere of ma top of the aurreyee afsm nose, m eg•mlom of me, +opal me arory poles and at the negNS of
the mnrr wka as meaaurea from trump of me nnaa hubs k o-ae and mrred. I acknawleage and maerafane
manna rapmraa prged a.kind is her ma parpwa of informing the Winne, architect aaaignar. cnv stem, cosign
ertaauthority em Ifre public se to me accuate location and eaa amaiwgna a ma pmpa smdure or
Mariner's Pointe
West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA
WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc
18582 Beach Boulevard, SUIte 22fi Huntington Beach, CA 92648
S T O U T E N B O R O U G H
Arc If i It e c t s a n d P l a n n e r s
4211 Alto Vista Way, Suite 100, Laguna 1& 0, Co 92651
T 949 715 3157 I F 949 715 3156 I ww w.slo roughinr.Igfin
I
I
1.8
1.9
2.2
1.3
1 C-I 1
'1.3
1.4
1.6
1.0
[7
1.7 2.0
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.
Lnn
.4
2.3
2.3
1.]
1.
088
085
2.3 .1
'7 0
4.1
jj1.1
'r.5�L5
4.
O
.0
6.1
�A
*5.1
�1.
0'
3.6
4
.2 '8.0 3.8
3.4
3.0 ]4.9 3.3
����15.0
�4.1 DE 1A '4L 3 F
4.1 �.8 5.7 ..
JJ3.9
3.3
3.8
37
3.5 '4.0 3.7 3.6 4.2
3.6 4.3 _5 .9
3.6 1.9
R 11.4 4.5.e
8.5
'9.0
0.0 �'IE.3 .9 3 '.6
c 'r.5 �« 15.8 4.9 0. .,,
11.4 2.4
.5 '4.0 2.9
4.1
3J
2.2
3.0
4.
'.4
2.2
.0
2.1
2.9
33 3.9 2.8 3.1
3.0 1.5
T 8 2 5
11.6
2.7
O
3,2 1.8
'6.3 1.1
.1 2.9 2.7
3.1
.8 2.2 2.0 3.8
1.9
3.3 'S.1 2.8 1.5
8 1.7 1.7
1.6
1.4
3.9 3.8 2.1 1.0
f
la-
6.1 3.0 2
UA '
4 1.3 1.3 1.4
' 1.9
1.3
1.9
4.4 2.2 ,8 '
1.2 1.4
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.
Lnn
]
1.7
1.7 1.8
1.]
1.
088
085
BB2
3 0
3.0
p0
'S.4'��5.4
3.
O
,r1�
4.4
'4�1 rt(���10.8
3.7
'5.
0'
.8
3 '
.8 '4.3 2.8 44.6
FB
3.0 ]4.9 3.3
33� �
3.0 D.4 '4.1
12.8
2.4 2.7
2.7
2.5 2.9L 2.7
2.8 3.0
2.6 3.1 2.5 .8
2.6 1.3
.2 33 13
8.5
3.6 �11 8 110
'4 ',0
c 3.6 11.4 3.5 '7. R,
3.3 1.7
.5 2.9 2.1 3.0
2.7
2.2
3.
.5
2.2
2.1
24 2.8 2.D 2.2
2.1 1.1
A 1.8 ��R8.6
2.0
e
o T
2.3 1.1
.
4.4 0.8
.8 2.2 2.0 3.8
1.9
"
3.9 3.8 2.1 1.0
,\ ,
4 1.3 1.3 1.4
1.0
§
4.4 2.2 ,8 '
1.4 0.8
1.3
NORTH Preliminary Garage Deck Lighting Calcs June 10, 2011
Scale:
0' 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' V= 20'
Initial Illuminance
Lunnaile Schedule
Label
neStnDtiOn
Lumens
LLF
Lnn
LLD
PA1
Ellipt M102 -70MH
6300
0,748
088
085
BB2
BEBB BM 820_821_822_823d0MV_D %_MED(8_ ROUND LOUVER BOLLARD)
5500
0701
0.825
0.85
FFi
Beta BLF -0GW-= 2- 032TBF -A
2950
0.723
0.05
OBE
SL1
I B -28E2F 32W
2400
0]01
0.825
085
Maintained Illuminance
THE 2 Executive Circle, Suite 290
TMB DRAWING RELATES TO "TING DESIGN INTBJr ONLY. THE RUUKA COMPANY
DOES NOT ASSUME AESKN581LnY FORSTRuCTU PI INTEGRITY, WADING, RIGGING,
NInE, California 92614
CONSTRUCTION, FPBRIGTION, NATERM, OR EQUIPMENT
( 949) 253 - 3479
R A
THE RUi COMPANY WILL NOT BE HEM REMNSIBIE MR THE INABILIry OF
Came Oi OR auILDERE TO ExE(MR THE DESIGN FIANS.
(949) 2500181 fax
info @ruzika. cam
XLEECIRI INFOPMATpN AND L0 ENERGY CODE COMRUNCE FORMS TO BE
PROVIF BYALI ENSN)eE ..ENCwEMOR fflwCONTRACTOR.
COMPANY W .ruzika.com
s a n
d P l a n
AITACHME URALIOPD CALNLATIONS M.'JSL
NLROVIDED
420 Alta
BY
SRUCIRANDGINEE
BE PROVIDED BY A LICENSED SIRUCNRN ENGINEER.
Lighting Designers + Theatre Consultants
FOR WNnBW DESIGN INTORMAipN 171JLY
Mariner's Point
West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, C
WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, 1
18582 Beach Boulevard, Suite 226 Huntington Beach, CA 9:
S T 0
U
1 E N B
0 R
0 U G
H
A r c h i t e c t
s a n
d P l a n
n e
420 Alta
Vista
Way, Suite 100,
Laguna
B , (a
926
T 949 715
3257
1 F 949 715 3256
1 www.stout
oioug
hi nt.l
GROUND LEVEL PARKING
GARAGE
90EENFDveIPWVET IIFD(E
1 SGIEETJDSIDES
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
r- – 7 F
xuA
NaRn
'
–FT–
FAxr
--
10' 15'
20' X
Av.vr.H
S C A L E: 1••10'
\�
A.aabn..w..•+m..�b
m. PN.. a,•
xr
L – J L – _ I I
..
lyabwaa.r
r.i a...
]mr.NOa.
xr
W=
abw,Rr'pp�nm M!
5..rd..�•tl
Vr
b,r.Nu
ryu)�
xr
irNPb4YY
r.,.r,ara
W � -,s
.n.rc�
fbISW
xr
Y
I II LLJ
NuusrYb9YM W TM
CRYb MM1
baftla�bal•
pb.11Otlf�Oa
Wrnp M,
Ia,�s�,MF�Y
YYw.
nnaYOw
Y!•Y
Ha,aaP.�r
JL
--T-F[
GROUND LEVEL PARKING
GARAGE
90EENFDveIPWVET IIFD(E
1 SGIEETJDSIDES
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
ENTRY
1. .
W I ,,; COAST HIGHWAY
Preliminary Planting & Irrigation Concept Statement
1. PlobeNaFl6. fiobam mw m.��le.a.�i.,eac�Pi.,a�.y e.ay. wn,�,
Xfa6aewmNn „m,...waa.m wam, m.e..ivN Pbal]Paa �.+we
NNrlbww1mmvw
NW; P Dwn wwwn w.PwNmuFn
rtl.kw a FN tlh,FM1 NM vpIF r•Nwah In6opF agetlF.b.
]. ExA IWNAI•wa•Nuiil MPIMI,71YYwa1FY,W,MfY1mP.m1,NYf
6 Pm.+a.FwmnapN+ba . wwa..a«.romnW..Wbmr
.�w•NI.X an•aml..m p..wmmXN p,.nf.
mr N11�IXYbtl.N6Me mYNbIYbpN Wlp ft ~O flW,
aI NlriPm PA b wNr mN•5mlm.
5 NYbFNpFY1peN1eNYNfANh npNNrbmlbYMmp
HFwP011•F fNI1 fAY CfFipi FNNMgY•N N8YC.11 17 N
EMNIN W NiIIII q
6 iM WbpOML.,mePFRnIwbYIPiNFE M. nVNNFE LNtleP.
A91NC
Water Feature Nametive:
tI• IPPpaa6w•W tiA].. wa•mAaner I.WmbaDUaPr O,ln•tl Wa1
Car HW Nw. wr INw a ,urNwe rmn wn mNNroPrm M�erms
aNPNw N, n uu+lFmX• Mn•.
1M mvamaPnwrtlapn N 1e•. wsaambsee f aNn. m•ffPpPbPltl
NY4iV Mes O.Nr NOnt.r Nb. M,u1tlK, bw wrlW N
PWNary
TMMp.S. dIN.EN'tln tlNuN WN mN.W xi b. mrMU•n ct
f i66Pa. aAXa aaJaN •N irwFl am.f
1M ,.aa W Ilq wrr nNSn ww.N. ws ee m.uw6 b a.un m 6N
INMUP. N...
TIN rfo w a r rltl Awbw N f wa.6 b PN Iw...r uw I.p®..
wNMwNw >i6Pleb/Nbn.
I . i.?_
WEST CC HIGIMAY
LANDSCAPE AREA
APPROX. 2450. R
WITH VARIES. MW. 9 R. J NAX. 2D w.
Plant Patella
� weu,w
N,AT FwF•n
xuA
NaRn
'
.
FAxr
0' S.
10' 15'
20' X
Av.vr.H
S C A L E: 1••10'
\�
ENTRY
1. .
W I ,,; COAST HIGHWAY
Preliminary Planting & Irrigation Concept Statement
1. PlobeNaFl6. fiobam mw m.��le.a.�i.,eac�Pi.,a�.y e.ay. wn,�,
Xfa6aewmNn „m,...waa.m wam, m.e..ivN Pbal]Paa �.+we
NNrlbww1mmvw
NW; P Dwn wwwn w.PwNmuFn
rtl.kw a FN tlh,FM1 NM vpIF r•Nwah In6opF agetlF.b.
]. ExA IWNAI•wa•Nuiil MPIMI,71YYwa1FY,W,MfY1mP.m1,NYf
6 Pm.+a.FwmnapN+ba . wwa..a«.romnW..Wbmr
.�w•NI.X an•aml..m p..wmmXN p,.nf.
mr N11�IXYbtl.N6Me mYNbIYbpN Wlp ft ~O flW,
aI NlriPm PA b wNr mN•5mlm.
5 NYbFNpFY1peN1eNYNfANh npNNrbmlbYMmp
HFwP011•F fNI1 fAY CfFipi FNNMgY•N N8YC.11 17 N
EMNIN W NiIIII q
6 iM WbpOML.,mePFRnIwbYIPiNFE M. nVNNFE LNtleP.
A91NC
Water Feature Nametive:
tI• IPPpaa6w•W tiA].. wa•mAaner I.WmbaDUaPr O,ln•tl Wa1
Car HW Nw. wr INw a ,urNwe rmn wn mNNroPrm M�erms
aNPNw N, n uu+lFmX• Mn•.
1M mvamaPnwrtlapn N 1e•. wsaambsee f aNn. m•ffPpPbPltl
NY4iV Mes O.Nr NOnt.r Nb. M,u1tlK, bw wrlW N
PWNary
TMMp.S. dIN.EN'tln tlNuN WN mN.W xi b. mrMU•n ct
f i66Pa. aAXa aaJaN •N irwFl am.f
1M ,.aa W Ilq wrr nNSn ww.N. ws ee m.uw6 b a.un m 6N
INMUP. N...
TIN rfo w a r rltl Awbw N f wa.6 b PN Iw...r uw I.p®..
wNMwNw >i6Pleb/Nbn.
I . i.?_
WEST CC HIGIMAY
LANDSCAPE AREA
APPROX. 2450. R
WITH VARIES. MW. 9 R. J NAX. 2D w.
Plant Patella
� weu,w
N,AT FwF•n
xuA
I I—
i�Ry
FFt, \p
FAxr
1n�a.tl Nba
Av.vr.H
r6wbwN..,ir
xr
A.aabn..w..•+m..�b
m. PN.. a,•
xr
..
lyabwaa.r
r.i a...
]mr.NOa.
xr
W=
abw,Rr'pp�nm M!
5..rd..�•tl
Vr
b,r.Nu
ryu)�
xr
irNPb4YY
r.,.r,ara
W � -,s
.n.rc�
fbISW
xr
Y
NuusrYb9YM W TM
CRYb MM1
baftla�bal•
pb.11Otlf�Oa
Wrnp M,
Ia,�s�,MF�Y
YYw.
nnaYOw
Y!•Y
Ha,aaP.�r
f kawaF
•eaA.subatlw.
Ny..e=•
h
R
O O
W
L ` Q
O O
O O
MATCHING HEIGHT KING PALMS
a±ITOc
SETBACK LANDSCAPE
SEE PLWT PALETTE THIS EXHIBIT
Landscape Documentation Package Note:
A 4MNaPF 0oenwlYtlm pFrAq e] tlm qqw epplav N 160�•r n a
m.mmpNa]a rJfwrleNla p,fNOXbatlbn z.f ax. wrtl
EIM1YNIt G'M1wu 81NNNh
Landscape Areas:
WEST CMBT HKIIMAY : 213U 3F.
DOPER DRIVE 9s 3F.
WATER FEATURE 2SII SF.
APPROXIANTETOI 3PDS SF.
GNOSCAPE AREA EXCEEDS 2,560 SE. art IS SUBJECT W
MONO
f 11 IYATFA EFFlCIENT LW DSCAPE OPOINAMCE•
Water Quality Best Management Practices (B.M.P.)
1 P15.P.2 mCb MlLiOn.mppr.YU Yq)POlugya4 IMm. MFMOPF
Pa.bp me:. nm an INb®P. Ner.nNe.> PmenH.
]. $WYGaN.BxatiltlMYbW WENIMYW bMM .Dania xM.IN
a ww mm
9. Rr aNw•Pw•aapalla p.wnm lNmuPPamwrb.PPmP.
ux a mw w.N. mN,a.o6w d•w .•le.a Na PPPN ..pP6P. N +wa•. w
.. Mlr1}6MLLbnIHbNabf. w,.,b aI,PP.aNrwn Ntl app lyFM.
WATER FEATURE
6 TINUETS' sm XNIFE EDGE' FALLS
APPROX. 250 S. F.
14' H.'GREEN SCREEN WALL
Aei FLOWERING NNE
RESTAw OUTDOOR
PATIOb LMINA1LaN
GLASS SCREEN
PAM APPROX 750 SF.
5' w. tANDSLAPE AREA
DOVER ORNEIANDSrIPE
APPRGX 21S S F.
Mariner's Pointe
West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA
WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc
165q •rAfbbna. $WNTlfi IYMpIm BSaT G9]Ba6
REVISED: 6.9.2017
PROPERTY LINE
Ml IA1TC MMIMI ( MRAMK
I LINE OF SIGHT
— _ —
— — — — — — _ — — — _ _ _ C — — — — — —
- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
P3 _
0
I
P2
v v
P1
Line of Sight Exhibit - 311 King's Road May 12,2811
0 20' 60' 120' 200'
AVERAGE
PERSON'S
HEIGHT Top of Bluff
7 60' -0"
above sea level
Sea Level 01-01,
Pola��n ,
Mariner's Pointe
West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA
WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc
18582 Beach Boulevard, Suite 226 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
S T 0 U T E N B 0 R 0 U G H
A r c h i t e c t s a n d P l a n n e r s
420 Alto Vista Way, Suite 100, Laguna 81 A, La 92651
T 949 715 3257 1 F 949 715 32 S6 1 www.slau It or o u 9 hi nr.rom
PROPERTY LINE -{
10/ 11.I7C I MIMI I MIRAMKM
I LINE OF SIGHT
- - - - -- �
— - -
— — — _ — — — — — i4.
ij \ \jv��iv�i
P2
�4
v v
P1
Line of Sight Exhibit - 303 King's Road
0' 20' 60' 120'
May 12,2011
200'
AVERAGE
T E N B
PERSON'S
0 U
HEIGHT
Top of Bluff
A r c h i t e c t
60' 0"
d P l
above sea level
Sea Level o' - o^
Mariner's Pointe
West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA
WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc
18582 Beach Boulevard, Suite 226 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
S T 0 U
T E N B
0 R
0 U
G H
A r c h i t e c t
s a n
d P l
a n n e r s
420 Alta Vista
Way, Suite 100,
Laguna
8IIn
(a 92651
T 949 715 3257
1 F 949 715 32 S6
1 www.slau,
44
roughinr.rom
— — Tom: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — —
PROPERTY LINE
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY L PROPOSED MARINER'S POINTE DEVELOPMENT 1. 50' -0"
° Roof Level
C?
Second Level
N rb
Ground Level
Line of Sight Exhibit -100 King's Place
0' 20' 60' 120'
May 12,2011
200'
I LINE OF SIGHT I AVERAGE
- -___ - - - - - -- 4 el'0"" Top of Bluff 160'- 0"
— — — — — — move sea fever
Sea Level o -o°
PROPERTY LINE
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY P1iOPOSEn MMNER'S POINTEnEVE_C4M FM `50'V'
TapufRuff
ILUe OF SIGH=
n
e�
Roof revel
E — 5acuna ls�el �� t
te.el
Mariner's Pointe
West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA
WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc
18582 Beach Boulevard Suite 226 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
S T 0 U
T E N B
0 R
0 U G H
A r c h i t e c t
s a n
d P l a n n e r s
420 Alto Vista
Way, Suite 100,
Laguna
A, La 92651
T 949 715 3257
1 F 949 715 32 S6
1 www.slaui
n ar a u 9 h n r.10m
- jp�
VV
pi 1
o 0
�CbA�T HWY Vll
NORTH Striping Plan November 17, 2010
O0 ' 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70'
Mariner's Pointe
West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA
WINSTON'S JEWELERS do VBAS Properties, Inc
18582 Beach Boulevard, Suite 226 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
S T 0 U T E N B 0 R 0 U G H
A r c h i t e c t s a n d P l a n n e r s
420 Alta Vista Way, Suite 100, Laguna Ayyr, La 92651
T 949 715 3257 1 F 949 715 32 S6 1 www.slaut�aor oug h i nr.lnm
V
i' i�i�
(315) i(2?2 �i //Y
'A�. �'_�'_��'__ - -' ' � i � i
: 039--202 -i-5- - �� ' i' 20 2 PA
_ T-AR80 C�,LAURA FRANK -A - €ISENDRATH TRUSST'Iu i ��' /.0, / / �- /
r F' \ �" r\ (-` r')- (' - - - v X500 NEWPO &T- CENTER -DRIVE-#500-
�w /
J TSr)C J J Jai JL� J� -- - - - - -- Nc� r' i'NE -WPC YBEACH CiV9 -2660 �-
_-- - - - - -- (32.1) r� ----------- - - - - -- `- - --- ��� i �i(23:3 I == '^ ZvJ- 'i���'/ - (158)�N o� /� (14.71) p (11.78)FL NG
_ (31.4) % (31.7) J _ _ _ _ _ _ - IzL! NG
- A.P.N. 049 - 202 -18 ------ - - - - -- _ - -- _ _ _ °
- _` �RIDGEWAY�-0D- W_ = RIDGEWAY KAY M J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - rN- _ `�I /�' '' kv�i �' / 2" (1 1.1,91)
- �- - � � � / �f � �7 -�)� -�' �- -+') (' Jam' - � YS 8) v �
1 KINGS ROAD - - - - - - - - - - A.-N. 049- 202 -16 °° - - - - - - - I _ '�� I '
-- G - _ s� �J 3 cam% P o (i1.9i> /
- -- ------------- -------- - - - --- ` -(31)- - - -- o> =` '��- =L - �o�� UU .-,n 105803 (1285)1 GV
- - - - - -(30)� KINGS PLACE PROPERTY LLC - -- - - - - - - - N ,� - PP`s .18 FS (12.02) 7/
1065 MARINE DRIVE- - - - - -^ - - - - - -N �- o G
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AF: IS 049- 202 -17 - -(29)- (29.8) - - - - - - - 9 _ (lam / (14.93) g
\ \ \ - - - - -- - -_- - - - - -- - - - - -- - -- __ X27.9) - -- _ �' �'l �' ��--f `- v
- - - - -_ -- \ \ \\ \(213.9)- (29.0) --- -- ------ - - - - -- DEWALD MAURICE J -- (28) - - -_\ �� - TAGTINTA BEACH, CA 92651 -_ - -°` _- - -2 }03 - - -- _PP- w. _ - �� `-
_ _
- - - -- -303 KINGS READ------- '- (27) -_ -- - - - -- ' - - - - -- - - - - - - -- -_ -�^. ( r _ - - - - -2i (15.08) (73.10 .° (12.36)TC /
_----- (24- 4)/'_- - __J \ \^\�\ F\ " - - -- NEWFORTBEACIi, C1c926S3 - - -- - -_ -- __ - -- _ - - -- I - -- L3D -- - -� _ = -tom -_�� ----- - - - - -- - °° Z °o(11.52)FL/
--- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- __- (26) -_- -- _ - (277) -- - - -- - _ - - - -'' - {25.25) - - -=- _ N- �.,�� �i J _� PA (13.Q7) ��
- -(25)_ - N d. - \ M; m r' ' _ -' ( �1) 13.76 m .
_ a _ _ _ _ FL 3'DR r N / / �q- - )
_ _ ---- -� - - - -�� _ �os'- - -5\ s�`� T uu N 13.39): C(13.32� _ S /
PPo - - -- - - -- -- (23) -2- - -- _ - -- - - - - - -- _ - -- _ ' -- - - _
- - n- -b��- 1.8.76 - -- SET18_ACK_ = == _ -- N tea: N o- - _�'�`�3' _ �' �� A EC
8 - - - - (23.0) - _ (21.4) - - - - -(22)- - - - - _ _ - - - -
5' BUILDING r
PIP€-- -,^�
_ _ ___ �; x(17.21) PA EL \ PB 3 >+
---- -- -_°._° GP �.z SIG
^N �- - - - - - - - - - rn � (17.93) P,Q ~ / 0 l \l�j N (12.56) a /
==o� i(l ro � - aj.i " -- - -- - -_ �8.7L -- - -( - - -- - (18.3) - -- - ` - �(16.84) (18.48) (Y6.2) G � f�� F -- - TFT(18.39)TW - -- 1838j`�- - - -- d 19.94) (16.2) PA .-...(12.42)TCi � (18'79)TW 18.03 FS I .I oNO VISIBLE CHAINLINK FENCE � �i a ' (11.54)Fl 6.36) - - - - - - - - `� - - - - - - - - ? PARKING STRIPE \ (11.90)
�? \ (15.94 FS - - 18 38 (18.40)TW (15.94) �, U CROSSES PL �I
(17.20) _ v I ( ) W /
(18.04) (18.03) (17.85) I :? l �", .o -- ( ) (15.80)FS (15.77) .�.� PA °
15.9 .S TE. / (15.43)." II /
_ - - 15.9 .- (18.81)TW I (16.01) •. (1 ) 15.89 I(16.52)TC� .,o A M °2v / (13.26) J
-FS-
�5.- (15.93)- - (16.28) (16.47) (16.45)FS „' „' / I AC
(16.32 ^ X16) - \ C I(16.32)AC)n - )*r-- (13.06) (12.39)TC )
U ^ Q - v / I PAVEMENT / IM- MH
AC 1 49.2' (16.53) (16.15) (16.45) / (11.75)FL
(13.09) / (11.87)EG /
/ I (13.10) A GP SIGN (12.74) 02.35)TC /
_ N _ - ( ) / J I AC - (11.77)FL
oD . FS - . S e v 16.49 TC (1 .13) /
(i6�i7)TC ' 21.3' a, "
N (15.79)AC
o -
(12.98) (11.88)EG
- AC
(15.90)AC
N ( )
N m
s
00
\
C
04
v
B
\°
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
(11.91)
d
FIRE HYDRANT
(11.85)FL
i
SHEET N0.
^
v'v
I
M
ao' �
m
30.00'
/
(16.07)TC
)-
N
-(I5.24)AC
(13.09)
/
15'
GP
AC
PAVEMENT
%
19 (/
a p
(12'95)°
(12.04)TC
8 O'
AND REMOVING THE SAME FROM SAID LAND OR ANY OTHER LAND INCLUDING
THE RIGHT TO WHIPSTOCK OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILL AND MINE FROM THE LANDS
\
WATER VALVE
(11.96)FL
R W
OPB
\
(12.93)
(12.12)EG40,
�3N
�
FD
/ �w =U
R/W
1
N
n
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CAUFORNLA, AS SHOWN
O J =
aNOU)0U
Q
�¢
°
o,0 °m
(14.07)C'
o�w,
(E �(N88
tz.z
(13/) AC
Zw3p
a
\
-o-
/
/
3owz
(13.31)
/
'SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA' AS DEFINED BY FEMA AND THE NFIP AND
(
((13.42)
(13.34)
GP
nc
(12.18)TC
'/'00"E.
N.87'a
A13.43)
(13.30)
av
U t.a5)
AC -G
-�
-
V
(12.89)
(13.15) A
B
A
. p
WITHIN ZONES A OR V OF SAID MAPS.
16. IF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OR OTHER STRUCTURES, ZONES, SETBACK
24'
v U I EXISTING
J BUILDING 06
N
U I 3 S.F. (15 66)TC
/ /
4T N 9 9' ' HIGH oN^, (15.58)AC AC / PAVEMENT
o'p co co
73.8' PA i' / (13.77)
A 54.5 v p (16.34
(1. ) a 6.3' i (14.48)
. /
/
co rn ^ (16.27) A /
(16.32) a 'p. (16.25) 'p. 14.6' "¢PA Q (46.23). o (14(15.61)TC PAVEMENT
(15.01 AC /
(16.19) (14.60)
° (14.80) ( )
PA (14.85) 4 0 v AC
e (16.19) (14.86) (14.83) (14.90)
m L3.97
A� AC (14.83) % (14.79) (1.80)
'° I (14.75) AC
vV V` C
A AC
AC /
PAVEMENT
(16'27) PAVEMENT J (1�4.31)
S J `_ 114 09) (13.84) (13.48)
N
�`� J (15.37) J (74.50) �' A (13.48) (13.5) SIGN ) (12.22)FL /
((14.56) �� C�% 1k1� / (13.90) PAVEMENT PA p PB W/
` (12.36)EG ✓r /
ro I \
PA
EXISTING (14.38) /
.
BUILDING ° I / ` (13.82) A �l (14.05) AC (14.15) // (13.55) 13.35 /
19' S.F. A� \ \ O (14.36) AC / (13.59) (C ) (13.17) / r1
9' HIGH (13.47) I�3 v _ v v / / (13.55) (13.61)
I 6 (C 96� v v (14.79) v v 3 i NO VISIBLE (13.68) (13.64) (13.60) - - (73.17) - - N.88'25'48"W. (C 73)
PARKING STRIPE (1 .65) A A
o I v v / R RAD W
(13.69) A � (13.64) � a' CRB (12.60) /
I o \ / A A (13.70) r (13.64) PA O e p (12.57)FL /
a p I ^ I (13.29) \ _ _ - - - - - z J ) (1 �8) (13.77) i PA (13.74) .o (13.70)306. (13.51) (13.51) 3.34) ( ) \ (12.75)EG / /
_ _ _ _ z A p. c 49 (3 13.23 (12so) /
.° (13.33) - _ - - \ w (13.99 �-
Iv Y N - - / - A - J C M G _ _ N.89----- '59'41 "W. RAD/
\ (13.91)TW FS -WD AC Z N 13.92) (13.55) - - - A= 01'34'33" /
\ (13.41) JN *� J PA a p (N.8859'27 "E.)
(13.41)FS -WD '' (13.70) J PAVEMENT =0 ( PA a p /
w 2 \ (12.93) J A J ° - R= 440.00 /
°\ U AC U U
\ N rn .A' z o � (13.54) N PA _ - - L= 12.10'
3.57 .
(12.90) \ _ N U J~ AG N , n ° _ _ - - (A= 01'28'12 i
AC (O ��.� \ mo I w PAVEMENT (13.58) n "47 36 W.) (,3.7,)' a p' � - -- m 11 // (13.03)
N wo I U i (13.51) (S. J - a M (L= .29') /
12.75 r� Z i-i p .° N v cn I N N
A �$ W
(13.63) x (.)
' 1 z� 34 . WM PBO -- ^
-- > - - N N
A 13.45) (13.54) (13.61) (13.62) (13.4 O p -
- .
.--
-
_ -
- -
0 d: M �✓I, o v, AC .
- Z % - / -
;- 1
307
_ (13.43) 359) 347 � ( c) C A
-S O N 1. -13 )- - - - - (1 (13.49) ( 13.56 ) \N U o (13.54) PA (13.26) (13.55) N
O N ° (192) A 0 B p
c� 113".28)
.�(1C3. 38IT ) � ° J EXISTING CUR
cm - (13i- - J ) `� w - - ° - ` •N- E• ."E_ 2
13.116)
22.2' 1` 6/ )
22.2' 13 .28) (
14.6' 13.2 (13.26)
(12.93) - - - . AC
(12.74) A ( N
B & GUTTER E XCEPTION EXCEPTION
(1 10)
\/ 5
"
PER TITLE (13.38) PER TITLE ,y.�
N I H J / yy
v p M N N V A Oq
EXISTING I 10.6' PA (12.98) -(13) _ m N
BUILDING (13.12
^ Ac _
(13.05) � -TC7 •'
(11.86) N � (1 1.90) Ac L / (13.44) O
N U 24 "E �R R -s M N
^E2
(12
(12.17 '>72 / tJ.7t3 ITT" d:
M O
N
SURVEYOR HAS RELIED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED IN THE CURRENT TITLE
N ( )
N m
s
04
\
C
(11.92 /
> Zj
B
\°
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
(11.91)
d
FIRE HYDRANT
(11.85)FL
GRATE INLET CRB - CROSS WALK BUTTON
SHEET N0.
^
v'v
I
FD
1" IF
ao' �
30.00'
f \ 25'
)-
N
(12.49) °,o
(13.09)
/
15'
GP
AC
PAVEMENT
%
19 (/
a p
(12'95)°
(12.04)TC
8 O'
AND REMOVING THE SAME FROM SAID LAND OR ANY OTHER LAND INCLUDING
THE RIGHT TO WHIPSTOCK OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILL AND MINE FROM THE LANDS
\
WATER VALVE
(11.96)FL
R W
OPB
\
(12.93)
(12.12)EG40,
OTHER THAN THOSE HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED, OIL OR GAS WELLS, TUNNELS AND
a v (17.84)
FD
IP WM
R/W
1
1 7"
(13'17)\
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CAUFORNLA, AS SHOWN
DESCRIPTION /
(I2.49)TS
°
A \
DRIVEWAY
THE PHRASE 'FLOOD HAZARD' WITHIN THE CERTIFICATION HEREON REFERS TO
(E �(N88
tz.z
O
(1zs5
-o-
(12.15)13S
PA
(13.31)
'SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA' AS DEFINED BY FEMA AND THE NFIP AND
NECESSARY UTILITIES REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN NORMAL OPERATION.
((13.42)
(13.34)
GP
nc
(12.18)TC
'/'00"E.
N.87'a
A13.43)
(13.30)
av
U t.a5)
(12.26)EG
-
V
A
(13.15) A
(12.85)TC
PROPERTY LINE - WROUGHT IRON FENCE
�`� J (15.37) J (74.50) �' A (13.48) (13.5) SIGN ) (12.22)FL /
((14.56) �� C�% 1k1� / (13.90) PAVEMENT PA p PB W/
` (12.36)EG ✓r /
ro I \
PA
EXISTING (14.38) /
.
BUILDING ° I / ` (13.82) A �l (14.05) AC (14.15) // (13.55) 13.35 /
19' S.F. A� \ \ O (14.36) AC / (13.59) (C ) (13.17) / r1
9' HIGH (13.47) I�3 v _ v v / / (13.55) (13.61)
I 6 (C 96� v v (14.79) v v 3 i NO VISIBLE (13.68) (13.64) (13.60) - - (73.17) - - N.88'25'48"W. (C 73)
PARKING STRIPE (1 .65) A A
o I v v / R RAD W
(13.69) A � (13.64) � a' CRB (12.60) /
I o \ / A A (13.70) r (13.64) PA O e p (12.57)FL /
a p I ^ I (13.29) \ _ _ - - - - - z J ) (1 �8) (13.77) i PA (13.74) .o (13.70)306. (13.51) (13.51) 3.34) ( ) \ (12.75)EG / /
_ _ _ _ z A p. c 49 (3 13.23 (12so) /
.° (13.33) - _ - - \ w (13.99 �-
Iv Y N - - / - A - J C M G _ _ N.89----- '59'41 "W. RAD/
\ (13.91)TW FS -WD AC Z N 13.92) (13.55) - - - A= 01'34'33" /
\ (13.41) JN *� J PA a p (N.8859'27 "E.)
(13.41)FS -WD '' (13.70) J PAVEMENT =0 ( PA a p /
w 2 \ (12.93) J A J ° - R= 440.00 /
°\ U AC U U
\ N rn .A' z o � (13.54) N PA _ - - L= 12.10'
3.57 .
(12.90) \ _ N U J~ AG N , n ° _ _ - - (A= 01'28'12 i
AC (O ��.� \ mo I w PAVEMENT (13.58) n "47 36 W.) (,3.7,)' a p' � - -- m 11 // (13.03)
N wo I U i (13.51) (S. J - a M (L= .29') /
12.75 r� Z i-i p .° N v cn I N N
A �$ W
(13.63) x (.)
' 1 z� 34 . WM PBO -- ^
-- > - - N N
A 13.45) (13.54) (13.61) (13.62) (13.4 O p -
- .
.--
-
_ -
- -
0 d: M �✓I, o v, AC .
- Z % - / -
;- 1
307
_ (13.43) 359) 347 � ( c) C A
-S O N 1. -13 )- - - - - (1 (13.49) ( 13.56 ) \N U o (13.54) PA (13.26) (13.55) N
O N ° (192) A 0 B p
c� 113".28)
.�(1C3. 38IT ) � ° J EXISTING CUR
cm - (13i- - J ) `� w - - ° - ` •N- E• ."E_ 2
13.116)
22.2' 1` 6/ )
22.2' 13 .28) (
14.6' 13.2 (13.26)
(12.93) - - - . AC
(12.74) A ( N
B & GUTTER E XCEPTION EXCEPTION
(1 10)
\/ 5
"
PER TITLE (13.38) PER TITLE ,y.�
N I H J / yy
v p M N N V A Oq
EXISTING I 10.6' PA (12.98) -(13) _ m N
BUILDING (13.12
^ Ac _
(13.05) � -TC7 •'
(11.86) N � (1 1.90) Ac L / (13.44) O
N U 24 "E �R R -s M N
^E2
(12
(12.17 '>72 / tJ.7t3 ITT" d:
M O
N
SURVEYOR HAS RELIED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED IN THE CURRENT TITLE
N ( )
N m
s
04
(12.51)TC
(12.76)
B
(11.93) I-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
(11.91)
d
FIRE HYDRANT
(11.85)FL
GRATE INLET CRB - CROSS WALK BUTTON
SHEET N0.
^
v'v
I
FD
1" IF
_._.
30.00'
(12.01)EG
)-
N
(12.49) °,o
(11.93)
/
EDGE PAVEMENT
GP
GUARD POST AC ASPHALT PAVEMENT
2.
BUILDING SETBACK LINES SHOWN HEREON REFLECT THE INFORMATION AS
14. THIS PLAN DOES NOT CONTAIN SUFFICIENT DATA FOR DESIGN PURPOSES AND
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
AND REMOVING THE SAME FROM SAID LAND OR ANY OTHER LAND INCLUDING
THE RIGHT TO WHIPSTOCK OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILL AND MINE FROM THE LANDS
D4
WATER VALVE
(11.96)
FINISHED SURFACE T.P.O.B. TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING
OPB
EXPLAINED BY THE CITY REPRESENTATIVE INDICATED HEREON.
I
TPOB OF LEGAL /
OTHER THAN THOSE HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED, OIL OR GAS WELLS, TUNNELS AND
a v (17.84)
FD
IP WM
C N.8
1
1 7"
4 .64') 47.62'
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CAUFORNLA, AS SHOWN
DESCRIPTION /
(I2.49)TS
°
o/s
3.
THE PHRASE 'FLOOD HAZARD' WITHIN THE CERTIFICATION HEREON REFERS TO
(E �(N88
tz.z
/
(1zs5
-o-
(12.15)13S
PA
FD 1" IP
'SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA' AS DEFINED BY FEMA AND THE NFIP AND
NECESSARY UTILITIES REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN NORMAL OPERATION.
MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
/
nc
EXCEPTIONS
'/'00"E.
N.87'a
2' D/a
av
U t.a5)
a 'p _
-
/
:o
- CONCRETE
PL -
PROPERTY LINE - WROUGHT IRON FENCE
. p
WITHIN ZONES A OR V OF SAID MAPS.
16. IF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OR OTHER STRUCTURES, ZONES, SETBACK
EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
MAINTAIN, REPAIR, DEEPEN AND OPERATE ANY SUCH WELLS OR MINES, WITHOUT
-,
1
/
20.00 '
°
°
°
- - - - -
-- - BLOCK WALL
R/W -
of
4.
°
�
ONLY, HAVING BEEN OBTAINED FROM A GENERAL REQUEST AT THE LOCAL
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC COAST
SURFACE OR THE UPPER 500 FEET OF THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND
//
o
PROPERTY.
AGENCY'S PUBLIC COUNTER AND /OR OTHER SOURCES NOT CONNECTED WITH
HIGHWAY, 100.00 FEET WIDE, SHOWN AS CALIFORNIA STATE
HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED, AS CONTAINED IN THE DEED RECORDED JUNE 2, 1969
- LIGHT STANDARD
SCO -
SEWER CLEAN OUT FD - FOUND
Q, (12.38)
^I
/
CURB & GUTTER
3
v w
cz
H
O
G -SCO
MI
/
EXISTING
��
SIC SIGNAL
TE
TRASH ENCLOSURE DR DRAIN
(12 43)
CONDITIONS NOT REFLECTED IN THE STANDARD RESEARCH PERFORMED FOR
MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SOUTH
GENERAL NOTES
w I /
v w ovo- i'`Tl/ - H `I /
(11.94) m v) ' /
AC '(\ 11.98) ? I / O IY
(12.38)
R -S 01 /
of /
ZI /
I /
I /
I
I
N.87" 17'00 "E. (S.88-12'17"W.) I
1095.63'
4WA4- 1 �-
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
HIGHWAY
[BASIS OF BEARINGS]
LEGEND
296.74'
AC PAVEMENT
1.
SURVEYOR HAS RELIED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED IN THE CURRENT TITLE
13. THROUGH RESEARCH DONE AT THE CITY'S & /OR COUNTY'S PUBLIC WORKS
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE,
ALSO EXCEPT ALL 014 OIL RIGHTS, MINERALS, MINERAL RIGHTS, NATURAL GAS
04
O
O
REPORT BY LAWYERS TITLE, REPORT NO. 9701386 -JBE DATED FEBRUARY 17,
DEPARTMENTS THERE ARE NO CHANGES IN THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY LINES
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
RIGHTS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS BY WHATSOEVER NAME KNOWN THAT MAY BE
d
FIRE HYDRANT
GI -
GRATE INLET CRB - CROSS WALK BUTTON
SHEET N0.
2010, TO DISCLOSE RECORD EASEMENTS THAT BURDEN OR BENEFIT THIS
AS SHOWN HEREON. FURTHERMORE THERE IS NO OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE OF
WITHIN OR UNDER THE LAND HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED, TOGETHER WITH THE
PROPERTY.
ANY RECENT STREET OR SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION OR REPAIRS.
ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE,
PERPETUAL RIGHT OF DRIVING, MINING, EXPLORING AND OPERATING THEREFROM,
EDGE PAVEMENT
GP
GUARD POST AC ASPHALT PAVEMENT
2.
BUILDING SETBACK LINES SHOWN HEREON REFLECT THE INFORMATION AS
14. THIS PLAN DOES NOT CONTAIN SUFFICIENT DATA FOR DESIGN PURPOSES AND
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
AND REMOVING THE SAME FROM SAID LAND OR ANY OTHER LAND INCLUDING
THE RIGHT TO WHIPSTOCK OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILL AND MINE FROM THE LANDS
D4
WATER VALVE
FS
FINISHED SURFACE T.P.O.B. TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING
EXPLAINED BY THE CITY REPRESENTATIVE INDICATED HEREON.
IS NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.
LOTS 1 THROUGH 6 INCLUSIVE OF TRACT NO. 1210, IN THE CITY OF
OTHER THAN THOSE HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED, OIL OR GAS WELLS, TUNNELS AND
❑
METER, PULL BOX
L
LOT LINE SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
NEWPORT BEACH COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CAUFORNLA, AS SHOWN
SHAFTS INTO THROUGH OR ACROSS THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND
3.
THE PHRASE 'FLOOD HAZARD' WITHIN THE CERTIFICATION HEREON REFERS TO
15. BASED ON VISUAL OBSERVATION, THE SUBJECT SITE IS SERVICED BY ALL THE
ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 40, PAGES 45 AND 46 OF MISCELLANEOUS
HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED, AND TO BOTTOM SUCH WHIPSTOCKED OR
-o-
SIGN
PA
PLANTER AREA P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING
'SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA' AS DEFINED BY FEMA AND THE NFIP AND
NECESSARY UTILITIES REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN NORMAL OPERATION.
MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
DIRECTIONALLY DRILLED WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS UNDER AND BENEATH OR
ONLY REFERS TO THOSE AREAS ON FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS AS BEING
BEYOND THE EXTERIOR LIMITS THEREOF, AND TO REDRILL, RETUNNE4 EQUIP,
:o
- CONCRETE
PL -
PROPERTY LINE - WROUGHT IRON FENCE
WITHIN ZONES A OR V OF SAID MAPS.
16. IF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES OR OTHER STRUCTURES, ZONES, SETBACK
EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
MAINTAIN, REPAIR, DEEPEN AND OPERATE ANY SUCH WELLS OR MINES, WITHOUT
-,
AND /OR STREET WIDENING DATA ARE SHOWN HEREON, IT IS FOR INFORMATION
HOWEVER, THE RIGHT TO DRILL, MINE, EXPLORE AND OPERATE THROUGH THE
- - - - -
-- - BLOCK WALL
R/W -
RIGHT OF WAY TMH - TELEPHONE MANHOLE
4.
BY OBSERVATION NO CEMETERIES ARE KNOWN OR FOUND ON SUBJECT
ONLY, HAVING BEEN OBTAINED FROM A GENERAL REQUEST AT THE LOCAL
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC COAST
SURFACE OR THE UPPER 500 FEET OF THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND
PROPERTY.
AGENCY'S PUBLIC COUNTER AND /OR OTHER SOURCES NOT CONNECTED WITH
HIGHWAY, 100.00 FEET WIDE, SHOWN AS CALIFORNIA STATE
HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED, AS CONTAINED IN THE DEED RECORDED JUNE 2, 1969
- LIGHT STANDARD
SCO -
SEWER CLEAN OUT FD - FOUND
THIS COMPANY. NO REPRESENTATION IS MADE AS TO THE ACCURACY,
HIGHWAY -ORA -60-B, WITH THE CENTERLINE OF DOVER DRIVE, 80.00 FEET
IN BOOK 8974, PAGE 265 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
5.
NO MONUMENTATION WAS FOUND OR SET AT THE PROPERTY CORNERS UNLESS
CURRENCY OR COMPLETENESS OF SAID INFORMATION DUE TO CHANGED
WIDE, FORMERLY 17TH STREET, AS SAID INTERSECTION IS SHOWN ON SAID
��
SIC SIGNAL
TE
TRASH ENCLOSURE DR DRAIN
NOTED OTHERWISE.
CONDITIONS NOT REFLECTED IN THE STANDARD RESEARCH PERFORMED FOR
MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SOUTH
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
THIS PROJECT. ANY USER OF SAID INFORMATION ARE URGED TO CONTACT THE
88'12'17" WEST 296.74 FEET., THENCE NORTH 1'47'43" WEST 50.00 FEET
- WOOD FENCE
WM -
WATER METER TP - TOP OF DRAIN
6.
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER FOR THIS PROPERTY ARE 049 - 280 -51, 53,
UTILITY COMPANY OR LOCAL AGENCY DIRECTLY.
TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND THE TRUE
049 - 280 -51, 53, 55, 71, 72, 73, 049 - 280 -56 (PORTION) 049 - 280 -57 (AS TO A
- CHAINUNK FENCE
PB -
PULL BOX EG - EDGE OF GUTTER
55 -57 AND 71 -73.
POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 79'35.41" EAST 260.18 FEET TO A
PORTION OF LOT 6)
17. ALL FIELD MEASUREMENTS MATCHED RECORD DIMENSIONS WITHIN THE
CURVE IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF SAID TRACT NO. 1210, WHICH
O1
PARKING COUNT
RAD -
RADIAL NG - NATURAL GROUND
7.
BEARINGS AND DISTANCES ARE RECORD AND MEASURED PER TRACT NO. 1210
BOOK 40 PAGES 45 RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, UNLESS NOTED
PRECISION REQUIREMENTS OF ALTA /ACSM SPECIFICATIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE
CURVE IS CONCAVE EASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 440.00 FEET; THENCE
BASIS OF BEARINGS
-46
NOTED.
SOUTHERLY AND SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EASTERLY AND
GV
- GAS VALVE
PP -
POWER POLE BS - BOTTOM OF STEP
OTHERWISE.
SOUTHEASTERLY LINES OF SAID LOT 1 TO SAID NORTHERLY LINE; THENCE
18. SURVEYOR DOES NOT ASCERTAIN OWNERSHIP OF FENCES AND PERIMETER
WESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF
THE BASIS OF BEARINGS USED ON THIS SURVEY IS THE CENTERLINE OF WEST
FH
- FIRE HYDRANT
SMH -
SEWER MANHOLE FC - FINISHED CONCRETE
8.
SURVEYOR TAKES NO RESPONSIBILITY OF ITEMS OMITTED DUE TO A RESULT
WALLS.
BEGINNING.
COAST HIGHWAY BEARING NORTH 8T17'00" EAST AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO. 1210
OF VISUAL OBSTRUCTIONS, SUCH AS AUTOMOBILES, EQUIPMENT & THICK
BOOK 40 PAGES 45 -46 RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.
TS
- TOP OF STEP
R -
RAMP TG - TOP OF GRATE
SHRUBBERY.
ZONING INFORMATION
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
TC
- TOP OF CURB
DR -
DRAIN ELEC - ELECTRICAL
9.
THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE INDICATED ON THIS PLAN IS BASED ON
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC COAST
BENCHMARK
EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS AT GROUND LEVEL ONLY.
ZONE: RSC -MM (RETAIL- SERVICE COMMERCIAL)
HIGHWAY, 100.00 FEET WIDE SHOWN AS CALIFORNIA STATE
FLOWLINE
WD
WOOD DECK SP SIGN POST
HIGHWAY -ORA -60-B, WITH THE CENTERLINE OF DOVER DRIVE 80.00 FEET
BENCHMARK NO. 3K- 24A -82
GB
- GRADE BREAK
FF -
FINISHED FLOOR (000) - EXISTING GRADE
10.
THIS PLAN AND /OR DATA FILES INCLUDING ALL CONTENTS HEREIN ARE FOR
SETBACKS: FRONT, SIDE & STREET =O' REAR: 5'
WIDE, FORMERLY 17TH STREET, AS SAID INTERSECTION IS SHOWN ON SAID
DESCRIBED BY OCS 2002 - FOUND 3.75" OCS ALUMINUM BENCHMARK DISK
THE SOLE USES AND PARTIES INDICATED HEREON INCLUDING THEIR
MAP; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SOUTH
STAMPED "3K- 24A -82 ", SET IN TOP OF A CONCRETE BRIDGE DECK. MONUMENT
TW
- TOP OF WALL
TR -
TRAFFIC DIR - DIRECTIONAL
SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. ANY DEVIATION OR MISUSES OF THIS PLAN
BULK: 0.3:1 F.A.R. HEIGHT: 26'
88'12'17" WEST 296.74 FEET, THENCE NORTH 1'47'43" WEST 50.00 FEET
IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF PACIFIC
AND /OR DATE FILES WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AGREEMENTS BY ANACAL
PARKING RESTRICTIONS: 1 STALL PER 250 SQUARE FEET
TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND THE TRUE
COAST HIGHWAY AND NEWPORT BAY CROSSING, 42 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE
BR
- BIKE ROUTE
0/S -
OFFSET
ENGINEERING IS PROHIBITED AND IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PARTIES
POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 79'35'41" EAST 260.18 FEET TO A
CENTERLINE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND 37 FEET EASTERLY OF THE WEST
USING SAID DRAWING AND /OR DATA FILES, UPON THE REUSE OF THIS PLAN
THIS INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, 3360
POINT IN A CURVE IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF SAID TRACT NO.
END OF THE SOUTHERN GUARD RAIL A;ONG BRIDGE. MONUMENT IS SET LEVEL
EASEMENT NOTES
AND /OR DATA FILES ANACAL ENGINEERING RELINQUISHES ALL RESPONSIBILITIES
NEWPORT BOULEVARD, 92663, 949 -644 -3309 ATTN: PUBLIC COUNTER
1210, WHICH CURVE IS CONCAVE EASTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 440.00
WITH THE SIDEWALK.
OF THE ACCURACY AND GENERAL CONTENT OF SAID PLAN AND /OR DATA FILES
FEET, A RADIAL LINE AT SAID POINT OF SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH
ELEVATION: 19.259 FEET (NAVD88)
CONTAINED HEREIN.
FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION
88'59'27" EAST; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE FOUND IN TITLE REPORT
NO. 9701386 -JBE DATED FEBRUARY 17, 2010 BY LAWYERS TITLE:
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1.28'12" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 11.29 FEET; THENCE
LIST OF ENCROACHMENTS
11.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF EARTH MOVING WORK, EXTERIOR BUILDING
SOUTH 83'47'36" WEST 306.49 FEET TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE
O
AN EASEMENT FOR SANITARY
SEWERS AND APPURTENANCES
PURPOSES TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH.
CONSTRUCTION OR BUILDING ADDITIONS OBSERVED THAT HAVE BEEN DONE
ZONE: X (OUTSIDE 500 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN)
EASTERLY 30.00 FEET OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE
O BUILDING ENCROACHES ONTO ITEM NO. 2 PER TITLE REPORT.
RECORDED OCTOBER 7, 1955 IN BOOK 3237,
PROPERTY AND IS PLOTTED HEREON.
PAGE 480, OFFICIAL RECORDS. EASEMENT AFFECTS SUBJECT
WITHIN RECENT MONTHS.
PANEL NO. 06059C 0381J DATED: DECEMBER 3, 2009
SOUTH 1'47'43" EAST 26.64 FEET TO SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID
12.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF SOLID WASTE DUMP, SUMP OR SANITARY LAND
NO FIELD SURVEYING WAS PERFORMED TO DETERMINE THIS ZONE AND AN
ELEVATION CERTIFICATE MAY BE NEEDED TO VERIFY THIS DETERMINATION OR APPLY
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE NORTH
BO BUILDING ENCROACHES ONTO PROPERTY UNE.
O
AN EASEMENT FOR AVIGATION
PURPOSES TO THE COUNTY OF ORANGE. RECORDED MARCH 17, 1964 IN BOOK
FILL USE.
FOR VARIANCE FROM THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY.
88.12.17" EAST 47.64 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
6965, PAGE 721, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
EASEMENT
AFFECTS SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IS BLANKET IN NATURE..
I
Q W
O
O
N
CV
vi
GRAPHIC SCALE
( IN FEET )
1 INCH = 20 FT.
33,036 SQUARE FEET REGULAR STALLS - 14
0.758 ACRES HANDICAP STALLS - 0
--------------- --
TOTAL STALLS - 14
DESCRIPTION
EXCEPTIONS
SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE
THE UNDERSIGNED, BEING A REGISTERED SURVEYOR OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA CERTIFIES TO (1) LAWYERS TITLE (11) (III)
AS FOLLOWS:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP OR PLAT AND THE SURVEY ON WHICH IS
BASED WERE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH "MINIMUM STANDARD DETAIL
REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTA /ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEYS," JOINTLY ESTABLISHED
AND ADOPTED BY ALTA AND NSPS IN 2005, AND INCLUDES ITEMS 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7(A), (19)(1), 7(C), 8, 9, 10, 11(A) (LOCATION OF UTILITIES PER VISIBLE,
ABOVEGROUND, ON -SITE OBSERVATION) 13, 14, 16, 17 AND 18 OF TABLE A
THEREOF. PURSUANT TO THE ACCURACY STANDARDS AS ADOPTED BY ALTA AND
NSPS AND IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION, UNDERSIGNED
FURTHER CERTIFIES THAT IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION, AS A LAND SURVEYOR
REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THAT THE RELATIVE POSITIONAL
ACCURACY OF THIS SURVEY DOES NOT EXCEED THAT WHICH IS SPECIFIED
THEREIN.
THE SURVEY MEASUREMENTS WERE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 'MINIMUM
ANGLE DISTANCE, AND CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS FOR SURVEY MEASUREMENTS
WHICH CONTROL LAND BOUNDARIES FOR ALTA /ACSM LAND TIRE SURVEYS.
THE PARTIES LISTED ABOVE ARE ENTITLED TO RELY ON THE SURVEY AND THIS
CERTIFICATE AS BEING TRUE AND ACCURATE.
NOTE: SECTION 8770.6 OF THE CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
STATES THAT THE USE OF THE WORD CERTIFY OR CERTIFICATION BY A LICENSED
LAND SURVEYOR IN THE PRACTICE OF LAND SURVEYING OR THE PREPARATION
OF MAPS, PLATS, REPORTS, DESCRIPTIONS OR OTHER SURVEYING DOCUMENTS
ONLY CONSTITUTES AN EXPRESSION OF PROFESSIONAL OPINION REGARDING
THOSE FACTS OR FINDINGS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE CERTIFICATION AND
DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE, EITHER EXPRESSED OR
IMPLIED.
0
w
w
i
N
Z
O
N z
� o
U
w
0
1°
z
60 o
O U
L)zZ
Lu
�� CV W
IG-1 Ld I� z
F--1 V) I U
� Z ui
W -J
w Z U
�gLu �Z
Q
0--1 aj w C
Q In U
7 CO Q
F-1 Z Q Q Z
W1�lz I Q
w LL 0 r, VJ VJ
Ld
L5 o-4?g�
z 0 U
z LLJ Q Q
trl W :2 J
`VV
w Z LLJ
Q
L� > O Q O
O O
J o C3
I w
L�
Y
Q e ¢ w
o IM cr) o
z
Of
0
J
Q
U
Q
W
W m
(� O
w
Z
W �
x
E-4
L--L
A �E--4
O
�� U
W E-I
O
v 1 (\2
T l• m
V
O
•
•
•
Q
I
00
04
O
O
w
J
O
Z
H
~
U
U
i-
w
w
o Li
c=n
Ca-
SHEET N0.
1 1
OF
100
Attachment No. PC 4
Land Use Element Changes
101
loz
LU9_NP_Heights.mxd June /2011
CITY of NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
Figure LU9
STATISTICAL AREAS
H1 - H4
Residential Neighborhoods
RS-0 Single -Unit Residential Detached
RS-A Single -Unit Residential Attached
RT Two -Unit Residential
® Multiple -Unit Residential
_ Multiple -Unit Residential Detached
Commercial Districts and Corridors
0 Neighborhood Commercial
cc I Corridor Commercial
- General Commercial
- Visitor Serving Commercial
-Recreational and Marine
Commercial
- Regional Commercial
Commercial Office Districts
- General Commercial Office
- Medical Commercial Office
- Regional Commercial Office
Industrial Districts
= Industrial
Airport Supporting Districts
= Airport Office and Supporting Uses
Mixed -Use Districts
Mixed Use Vertical
FOR Mixed Use Horizontal
Mixed Use Water Related
Public, Semi - Public and Institutional
0 Public Facilities
= Private Institutions
=Parks and Recreation
0 Open Space
7S: Tidelands and Submerged Lands
4wt - City of Newport Beach
�C+ Boundary
Statistical Area H1
Boundary
Land Use Delineator Line
• Refer to anomaly table
Table
Anomaly
Number
Statistical
Area
Land Use
Designation
Development
Limit (so
Development Limit Other
Additional Information
1
L4
MU -H2
460,095
471 Hotel Rooms (not included in
total square footage)
2
L4
MU -H2
1,052,880
2.1
L4
MU -H2
18,810
11,544 sf restricted to general office use only
(included in total square footage)
3
L4
CO -G
734,641
4
L4
MU -H2
250,176
5
L4
MU -H2
32,500
6
L4
MU -H2
46,044
7
L4
MU -H2
81,372
8
L4
MU -H2
442,775
9
L4
CG
120,000
164 Hotel Rooms (included in
total square footage)
10
L4
MU -H2
31,362
349 Hotel Rooms (not included in
total square footage)
11
L4
CG
11,950
12
L4
MU -H2
457,880
13
L4
CO -G
288,264
14
L4
CO- G /MU -H2
860,884
15
L4
MU -H2
228,214
16
L4
CO -G
344,231
17
L4
MU -H2
33,292
304 Hotel Rooms (not included in
total square footage)
18
L4
CG
225,280
19
L4
CG
228,530
21
J6
CO -G
687,000
Office: 660,000 sf; Retail: 27,000 sf
CV
300 Hotel Rooms
22
J6
CO -G
70,000
Restaurant: 8000 sf, or Office:
70,000 sf
23
K2
PR
15,000
24
L3
IG
89,624
25
L3
PI
84,585
26
L3
IG
33,940
27
L3
IG
86,000
28
L3
IG
110,600
29
L3
CG
47,500
30
M6
CG
54,000
31
L2
PR
75,000
32
L2
PI
34,000
10*
Table
Anomaly
Number
Statistical
Area
Land Use
Designation
Development
Limit (so
Development Limit Other
Additional Information
33
M3
PI
163,680
Administrative Office and Support
Facilitates: 30,000 sf
Community Mausoleum and Garden
Crypts: 121,680 sf
Family Mausoleums: 12,000 sf
34
1-1
CO -R
484,348
35
L1
CO -R
199,095
36
L1
CO -R
227,797
37
L1
CO -R
131,201
2,050 Theater Seats (not
included in total square footage)
38
1-1
CO -M
443,627
39
1-1
MU -H3
408,084
40
L1
MU -H3
11426,634
425 Hotel Rooms (included in
total Square Footage)
41
L1
CO -R
327,671
42
L1
CO -R
286,166
43
1-1
CV
611 Hotel Rooms
44
L1
CR
1,619,525
1,700 Theater Seats (not
included in total square footage)
45
L1
CO -G
162,364
46
1-1
MU -H31PR
3,725
24 Tennis Courts
Residential permitted in accordance
with MU -1-13.
47
1-1
CG
105,000
48
1-1
MU -H3
337,261
49
L1
PI
45,208
50
L1
CG
25,000
51
K1
PR
20,000
52
K1
CV
479 Hotel Rooms
53
K1
PR
567,500
See Settlement Agreement
54
if
CM
2,000
55
H3
PI
119,440
56
A3
PI
1,343,238
990,349 sf Upper Campus
577,889 sf Lower Campus
In no event shall the total combined
gross floor area of both campuses
exceed the development limit of
1,343,238 sq. ft.
57
Intentionally
Blank
58
J5
PR
20,000
59
H4
MU -W1
247,402
144 Dwelling Units (included in
total square footage)
60
N
CV
2,660,000
2,150 Hotel Rooms (included in
total square footage)
61
N
CV
125,000
62
L2
CG
2,300
lOf
Table
Anomaly
Statistical
Land Use
Development
Number
Area
Designation
Limit (so
Development Limit Other
Additional Information
63
G1
CN
66,000
64
M3
CN
74,000
65
M5
CN
80,000
66
J2
CN
138,500
67
D2
PI
20,000
68
L3
PI
71,150
69
K2
CN
75,000
70
D2
RIM-D
Parking Structure for Bay Island (No
Residential Units)
71
L1
CO -G
11,630
72
L1
CO -G
8,000
73
A3
CO -M
350,000
74
L1
PR
35,000
City Hall, and the administrative
75
L1
PF
offices of the City of Newport Beach,
and related parking, pursuantto
Section 425 of the City Charter.
1.0 FAR permitted, provided all four
76
H1
CO -G
0.5 FAR
legal lots are consolidated into one
parcel to provide unified site design
77
H4
Cv
240,000
157 Hotel Rooms (included in
total square footage)
78
B5
CM
139,840
Development limit of 23,015 sq. ft.
permitted, provided all six legal
79
H4
CG
0110.5 FAR
lots are consolidated into one
parcel to provide unified site
design
TOd
Attachment No. PC 5
Zoning Map Changes
T07
NJ
Anomaly Development Limit
Number (Square feet)
i� MEN �.
Existing Zoning:
Commercial General (CG) 0.3/0.5 FAR, _
,I Proposed Zoning:
Commercial General (CG) 23,015 s.f.
(Approximately 0.7 FAR)
RUN,
_ + 79
. 11 11111111111111111111111111: -
I� II
N
I I MR. � �i
110
Attachment No. PC 6
Shared Parking Analysis
fit
11,Z
LSA
March 30, 2011
RIVERSIDE
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. BERKELEY FRESNO ROCKLIN
20 EXECUTIVE PARK, SUITE 200 949.553.0666 TEL CARLSBAD PALM SPRINGS SAN LUIS OBISPO
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92614 949.553.8076 FAX FORT COLLINS POINT RICHMOND SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Tod Ridgeway
Ridgeway Development
2804 Lafayette Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: Shared Parking Analysis: Mariner's Pointe
Dear Mr. Ridgeway:
LSA Associates Inc. (LSA) is pleased to submit this analysis of the parking availability and demand at
Mariner's Pointe, which is located on West Coast Highway at Dover Drive in the City of Newport
Beach (City). The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the on -site parking supply versus the demand
that will occur for parking throughout the day. The Mariner's Pointe site is proposed to contain a mix
of retail stores, a medical office suite, and restaurants in 23,015 square feet (sf) of building area with
an attached three -level parking garage. LSA evaluated the parking demand generated by each of these
uses and compared that demand to proposed on -site parking spaces, valet parking spaces, and potential
off -site parking spaces.
Parking Supply
The site plan for Mariner's Pointe includes plans for a proposed three -story parking garage. The
parking garage plans include 33 standard stalls and 2 handicapped stalls on the ground floor (total of
35 spaces). On the second floor of the parking garage would be 24 standard stalls, 1 handicapped stall,
8 tandem stalls (16 spaces) to be used by employees or valet operations, and 5 valet only stalls during
valet operations (total of 46 spaces). The third floor of the parking structure provides 18 standard
stalls, 2 handicapped stalls, 15 tandem stalls (30 spaces) to be used by employees or valet operations,
and 5 valet only stalls during valet operations (total of 55 spaces). Valet operations are planned to
begin at 10:00 a.m. and continue until 11:00 p.m. Prior to beginning valet operations, 78 parking
spaces are provided on -site. During valet operations, 136 parking spaces are provided on -site. It should
be noted that the applicant's valet parking service can park additional vehicles on the second and third
floors. However, the 136 -space limit was determined using the City's "move one to get one" rule for
valet parking plans.
In addition to the parking spaces available on site, the applicant is seeking an agreement to provide up
to 20 off -site parking spaces. The parking spaces would be located at the intersection of Dover Drive
and Cliff Drive. Mariner's Pointe employees would utilize the off -site parking spaces after 5:00 p.m.
It should be noted that two Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus lines operate in the
vicinity of Mariner's Pointe. Route 1 operates along Pacific Coast Highway between San Clemente
and Long Beach. Service on Route 1 to /from the project is provided approximately once an hour
between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Northbound Route 1 stops immediately adjacent to the project site.
Route 55 operates between Fashion Island and the Santa Ana Civic Center and serves the property on
3129/11 4AVBA1001 \Shared Parking4.doc»
PLANNING 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 1 DESIGN
1117
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC.
Dover Drive. Service is provided approximately every 20 to 30 minutes between 5:00 a.m. and
10:00 P.M.
Parking Demand
The City established minimum parking requirements in Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC)
20.66.030. The City requires 1 parking space for every 200 sf of gross area for medical and dental
offices and 1 parking space for every 250 sf of gross area for retail sales. Mariner's Pointe does not
qualify for the reduced parking provisions for shopping centers found in NBMC 20.40.050. Parking
requirements for eating and drinking establishments are set by the City Planning Commission using
criteria identified in NBMC 20.40.060. Unlike parking requirements for most land uses that are
dependent on gross square feet, parking requirements for eating and drinking establishments are
dependent on net public area. Requirements can range from 1 space per 30 sf of net public area to 1
space per 50 sf of net public area, depending on the number and arrangement of tables, presence of
live entertainment, etc. For the purposes of this analysis, a parking requirement of 1 space per 50 sf of
net public area was used.
LSA conducted an initial analysis using size calculations found on the Mariner's Pointe site plan dated
February 24, 2011. As a result of this initial analysis, the applicant reduced the gross area designated
for restaurant use and increased the area designated for retail sales. Table A provides the revised
allocation of restaurant, retail, and medical/dental office space. The table also provides the number of
spaces each land use would require if it were in separate parcels.
Table A: Parking Requirements
Land Use
Gross
Square
Feet'
Leasable
Restaurant
Area (sf)
Net Public
Area' (sf)
Parking Rate
Required
Parking 4
Restaurant
9,522
8,280
4,968
1 per 50 sf s
100
Retail
10,493
n/a
n/a
1 per 250 sf
42
Medical Office
3,000
n/a
n/a
I per 200 sf
15
Total
23,015
157
Gross square feet of restaurant includes enclosed outside area behind R -103 and R -204.
Estimated as 60 percent of net restaurant area consistent with the project description.
' From NBMC 20.40.040.
a NBMC 20.40.030.E requires fractional spaces to be rounded up.
NBMC 20.40.060 allows the Planning Commission to adopt a parking rate between 1130 sf to 1150 sf for
restaurants.
sf = square feet
Shared Parking
Because of different hours of operation and different offsetting parking activities, not all of uses at
Mariner's Pointe require their full allotment of parking spaces at the same time. LSA used
methodologies found in Shared Parking, Second Edition 2005 (Urban Land Institute) to identify the
daily variations in parking demand for each of the Mariner's Pointe land uses. The time -of -day factors
3/29 /I1 ,P: \VBAIOOI \Shared Parking4A.cn 2
It
LSA ASSOCIATES. INC.
found in Shared Parking are based on empirical studies and result from multiple parking accumulation
counts.
Table B (attached) applies these time -of -day factors to the required parking for each land use. The total
parking required for all three uses has two peaks: (1) one peak in the early afternoon with a demand for
131 parking spaces at 1:00 p.m., and (2) a second peak in the early evening with a demand of 145
parking spaces at 6:00 p.m. The Mariner's Pointe parking garage can accommodate 136 parking
spaces on site with valet operations. The applicant is committed to providing valet operations from
10:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Therefore, the site will be able to accommodate the demand for 131 parking
spaces that occurs at 1:00 p.m. Demand for parking in excess of the 136 spaces on site does not
manifest until 6:00 p.m. (145 spaces). Per an off -site shared parking agreement, after 5:00 p.m.
Mariner's Pointe employees would have access to 20 off -site parking spaces. With those off -site
parking spaces, the total parking demand for Mariner's Pointe can be accommodated.
Conclusion
The shared parking analysis reveals that 10,493 sf of retail sales, 3,000 sf of medical/dental office, and
approximately of 5,000 sf of net public restaurant area can be provided in the 23,015 sf Mariner's
Pointe without exceeding available parking. However, at least 9 off -site parking spaces will need to be
maintained for employees during the evening hours.
Sincerely,
LSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
#enW71hem,
Principal
Attachments: Table B: Time -of -Day Parking Requirements
3/19/11 ,P: \VBAIOOI \Shared Parldng4A.c» 3
V
Table 6: Shared Parking Analysis
Shared Parking Time -of -Day Factors
Time of Day Forto2s
6:00 a.m.
7:00 a:m.
8:00 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
10:00 a.m.
11:00 a.m.
12:00 p.m.
1:00 p.m.
2:00 p.m.
3:00 p.m.
4:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m.
6 :00 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
8:00 p.m.
9:00 p.m.
10:00 p.m.
11:00 p.m.
estarman2
159E
40%
75%
75%
65%
40%
50%
75%
95%
100%
100%
100%
95%
75%
Medical Office
90%
90%
100%
100%
30%
90%
100%
100%
100%
100%
67%
30%
15%
Retail
1%
5%
15%
35%
65%
85%
95%
100%
95%
90%
90%
95%
95%
95%
80%
50%
30%
10%
Time of Day Puking
estauraut 100
0
0
0
0
15
40.0
75.0
75.0
65.0
40.0
50.0
75.0
95.0
100
100
100
95.0
75.0
Office 15
0
0
13.5
13.5
15
15
4.5
13.5
15
15
15
15
101
4.5
2.3
0
0
0
Retail 42
0.42
2.1
6.3
14.7
27.3
35.7
39.9
42
39.9
37.8
37.8
39.9
39.9
39.9
34
21
126
4.2
Total 157
0
2
20
28
57
91
119
131
120
93
103
130
145
144
136
121
108
79
n,ws:
ri —fDey Faz s mfemx.M hum Sh,,M P,o, g Se<.vnd Edili, Ulx l W Ls ,2005.
'FmeC —w a-; .
IWBA1001 eR-u ,Pmling3."ITime ofnay aeyuixementgy25 /2011)
1l6
Attachment No. PC 7
Parking Management Plan
V
1T8
LAZSUNSET
Family of Companies
April 13, 2011
Tod Ridgeway
Ridgeway Development
2804 Lafayette Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Mariner's Pointe Parking. Operational Plan Version 5
Dear Mr. Ridgeway,
Thank you for allowing Sunset Parking to consult on the parking for the Mariner's Pointe development.
The following is a revised "Daily Operational Plan" for submission to the City of Newport Beach. If there are any
questions or requested changes, please contact me at anytime.
If there is anything we can help you with in the approval process, please let us know.
Respectfully,
Kynn Knight
Executive Vice President
Kynn.knight@sunsMarkiniz.com
Cell 760 -815 -6193
Office 760 - 7534004x205
11?
aKr@
s14vi
amity 01
Daily Operational Plan
Emnlovee Parkin
Monday — Friday 6am — 5pm 46 Stalls Level 3
Monday — Friday After 5pm, Saturday and Sunday 46 Stalls Level 3 + 20 Offsite Spaces after 5pm (65 Stalls)
Employees are typically the first to arrive and the last to leave in a restaurant/retail setting. For this reason, we
would have the staff of all the businesses in Mariner's Pointe, on the 3nd level of the parking structure with the
following operational plan:
1. Stalls would be assigned to all suites.
2. Tandem stalls would be assigned within the same suite (26 total).
3. On Level 3, 3 Aisle spaces would be valet spaces and a valet would be stationed with vehicles until
removed from the aisle. There would also be 4 tandem stalls and 2 angled stalls used for valet for a total of
9 valet use spaces on Level 3.
4. 2 Handicap spaces would be located on Level 3. The valet spaces in the lane would be the last used by the
valet stab keeping blockage of the handicap spaces to a minimum. At such times that valet spaces in the
lane are used, Valet will post an attendant with any vehicle(s) in the lane and move the vehicle(s) necessary
to allow vehicle entering or leaving the handicap space room to safely enter or depart the handicap parking
stall.
5. While Level 2 or 3 valet Lane Spaces are in use, any exiting employee vehicles would be driven from
Level 3 to Level 1 by a valet attendant and retrieved by the employee on Level I by the west garage exit.
6. An additional 20 employee parking stalls would be offered at an offsite lot on nights after 5:00 p.m. and
weekends. Before 5pm if additional employee parking was needed, employees would be valet parked.
7. Signs on wall and striping on ground would label stalls as "Employee Parking". Signs would state
municipal code to allow towing of vehicles if necessary.
Level 3
2
rzo
Guest Parking
Self- Parking 7am -5pm:
Handicap Parking All Operational Hours
30 Standard and 5 Handicap (2 Handicap Stalls Level 1,1 Level 2,2 Level 3) 35 Stalls total.
1. Parking on Level 1 would be dedicated to Guest Self - Parking during weekday daytime hours.
2. There would be three parking stalls in the north east corner of the garage for valet greeting
3. Total stalls available on Level 1 = 30 regular Stalls + 2 Handicap Stalls + 3 Valet Greeting Stalls.
4. At 4pm each day, valet attendant would place a cone or vehicle in each empty stall on the first level to
reserve for evening valet.
5. Drive lane would be kept clear until all self - parked vehicles have excited, expected between 5pm and
5:36pm.
6. Each daytime self - parking stall on the first level would be signed for 7am -5pm use and valet after 5pm.
Level l
Tz1
Valet Parkin
Monday — Friday l Oam -5pm: 3 Greeting Stalls Level 1 + 45 Storage Stalls Level 2 + 9 Storage Stalls Level 3
(57 Stalls)
After Guest Self- Parking fills on Level 1, guests would be valeted from Parking Level 1 and valet vehicles stored on
parking level 2 & 3. Signs and striping on ground would label stalls "Valet Parking". Signs would state municipal
code to allow towing of vehicles if necessary.
Monday — Friday After 5pm and Weekends: 33 Stalls Level 1 + 45 Storage Stalls Level 2 + 9 Storage Stalls
Level 3 (87 Stalls)
After Guest Self - Parking fills on Level 1, guests would be valeted from Parking Level 1 and valet vehicles stored on
parking level 2 & 3. Signs and striping on ground would label stalls "Valet Parking". Signs would state municipal
code to allow towing of vehicles if necessary.
Level 2 & 3 Plan for Lane spaces use: The valet spaces in the lane would be the last used by the valet staff,
keeping blockage of the handicap space to a minimum on Level 2 and 3. At such times that valet spaces in the lane
are used, Valet will post an attendant with any vehicle(s) in the lane on each level and move the vehicle(s) necessary
to allow a vehicle entering or leaving the handicap space room to safely enter or depart the handicap parking stall.
While Level 2 valet Lane Spaces are in use, any exiting employee vehicles would be driven from Level 3 to Level 1
by a valet attendant and retrieved by the employee on Level 1 by the west garage exit.
Level 2 — Primary Valet Storage
Valet parking !
�I I. C
�I
T-- fi- --------
--- - - - - rp
8'X42' I 8'X 22 I I 8'X22'
i IIII—
` r"king
'-VaTet-Parldng+ - - -j -i aP 4 j
l . a et larking P „rx
j-__— d 131a67 i
- .-- -_'-”' `
in
14Z
Level 3 —
w
7
Level 1— After 5pm
r � Tl iCJ_,! Valet Parking PAr adg
I
s - PARKING LEVEL 1
-Valet
Parking
177— - f
t• 'I f Y r
ndicap { � i�
—V I Par g � I
�ark*
-.
CIGr -.r
y�_'i5Y -J� 1755.E.ia'F
15, =tom -r, w '�'�pY i�rA• �P, {. :4 gctC'A �!'l fi - ._ -__. '�- --
5
Tzz
Guests would be greeted and vehicles parked in the following manner for the valet parking operation:
Guest Experience
1. Guest is greeted by valet attendant on Parking Level 1 in Level 1 Valet Greeting Stalls in the Northeast
corner Monday — Friday 10am -5pm and in spaces on Level 1 in the Southwest corner of the garage after
5pm and on weekends.
2. Guest is issued a valet claim check by valet attendant.
3. Guest leaves parking garage via elevator or sidewalk and enters Mariner's Pointe Shops & Restaurants.
4. Guest returns to Parking Level 1 and presents valet claim check to valet attendant.
5. Valet attendant retrieves guest's keys, runs to vehicle and pulls the vehicle up in the exit lane on Parking
Level 1.
6. Valet attendant opens all doors for guest, thanks the guest and hands the driver the vehicle keys.
7. Guest departs in their vehicle through east exit.
Double - Parkins Procedures
I. A self - locking key box . will be located on a wall or column in each row where vehicles are double - parked.
Keys are stored in these boxes for vehicles that are double- parked.
2. When a blocked -in vehicle is requested, the valet attendant will retrieve the keys for the vehicle in the front
tandem stall from the key box located on the row where the car is parked. The front vehicle will be pulled
out and re- parked on a neighboring tandem stall and the keys hung in the key box. The rear vehicle will be
pulled out and taken to the guest on Parking Level 1.
3. If the garage is completely full, the valet that pulls out from the front space of a tandem stall will pull out
into the lane while a second valet pulls out the rear vehicle and proceeds to Level 1. The first vehicle will
be re- parked in the rear tandem stall and the keys hung in the key box.
4. Vehicle keys will be locked in the locking key boxes at all times when parked.
6
Tz¢
Valet Vehicle Arrival and Departure Staging on Level 1
There would be two staging setups used in operating the valet parking operation. The first setup would be for non-
peak times. The second is for peak business times. Both configurations are described in the following pages.
Vehicles would be parked from the rear of the line first, so that the line of staged vehicles would quickly get shorter.
Non -Peak Valet Operations
11 am — 5pm Monday — Sunday
5pm — lam Sunday — Thursday (October — March) or until restaurants close
5pm —1 am Sunday — Tuesday (April — September) or until restaurants close
" Lunch or Dinner shifts during events, holidays, or periods of good weather may change to Peak Operation.
Arrival: Vehicles would be greeted head -in via the spaces in the northeast comer of Level 1. We could
greet 3 arriving vehicles at a given time.
Departure: Departing guests' vehicles would be pulled up in front of the wall located on the south wall of
Level 1, paying special attention not to pull up vehicles in the lane behind the parking stalls.
Guests' vehicles would exit through the east exit.
nArriving n Departing ❑ Valet Stand
fzj
Peak Valet Operations
5pm —1 am Friday - Saturday (October — March) or until restaurants close
5pm —1 am Wednesday — Saturday (April — September) or until restaurants close
Traffic would become one way on Level 1, going east to west while operating in this configuration.
Arrival: Vehicles would be greeted in -line in the lane, stacking from the west lane before the ramp and
following back along the north and east walls all the way to the entrance. 7 vehicles could be
greeted at one time.
Departure: Departing guests' vehicles would be pulled up in the three stalls at the southwest comer of the
garage, as seen below. A traffic director /exit greeter would be stationed in the lane at peak times
to coordinate the movement of vehicles out of the garage.
Arriving n Departing EI Valet Stand
Roll Away Valet Podium Example for Use on Level I
20" deep x 29" wide x 47" high
1,26
Attachment No. PC 8
Traffic Study
Tz7
Tz8
MARINER'S POINTE
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Prepared for
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Prepared by
■ .
CONSULTING
14725 ALTON PARKWAY, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92618 -2027
CONTACT: BOB MATSON 949.855.5736 bobmatson @rbf.com
February 17, 2011
A 10- 107807
rz�
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................ ..............................1
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ ..............................2
StudyArea ..................................................................................................... ...............................
2
AnalysisMethodology ..................................................................................... ..............................3
City of Newport Beach Performance Criteria .................................................. ..............................3
City of Newport Beach Threshold of Significance ........................................... ..............................4
EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................................................ ..............................4
RoadwayDescription ...................................................................................... ..............................4
Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................................. ..............................6
Existing Conditions Peak Hour Level of Service ............................................. ..............................6
PROPOSEDPROJECT .................................................................................. ..............................7
Project Trip Generation ................................................................................... ..............................7
ProjectTrip Distribution ................................................................................... ..............................9
ProjectTrip Assignment .................................................................................. ..............................9
FORECAST EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS ............................... ..............................9
Forecast Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes .............................................. ..............................9
Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions Level of Service ........................... .............................10
FORECAST YEAR 2013 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS ..................... .............................10
Forecast Year 2013 Without Project Conditions Level of Service .................. .............................12
FORECAST YEAR 2013 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ............................ .............................13
Forecast Year 2013 With Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ..... .............................13
Forecast Year 2013 With Project Conditions Level of Service ...................... .............................13
FORECAST CUMULATIVE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS ................ .............................14
Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................15
Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions Level of Service... ..........................................
15
FORECAST CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS ........................ .............................16
Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .... .............................16
Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions Level of Service ..................... .............................16
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS ............... .............................17
SITEACCESS ............................................................................................. .............................18
130
ORANGE COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ................ .............................18
STATE HIGHWAY INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ...........................................
.............................18
State Highway Intersection Analysis Methodology ........................................
.............................19
State Highway Intersection Thresholds of Significance .................................
.............................19
ExistingConditions ........................................................................................
.............................19
Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions .....................................................
.............................20
Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions ...........................................
.............................21
Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions ................................................
.............................21
MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................................. .............................22
CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................. .............................22
APPENDIX A EXISTING COUNT DATA
APPENDIX B LOS ANALYSIS SHEETS
APPENDIX C APPROVED /CUMULATIVE PROJECT INFORMATION
APPENDIX D ONE PERCENT TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1
V/C & LOS Ranges ........................................................................ ..............................3
Table 2
Existing Conditions AM /PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS .............. ..............................6
Table 3
Proposed Project Trip Rates .......................................................... ..............................7
Table 4
Proposed Project Trip Generation ................................................. ..............................8
Table 5
Existing Project Site Trip Generation Displaced by Proposed Project .........................8
Table 6
Net Forecast Project Trip Generation Utilized in TPO Analysis ..... ..............................9
Table 7
Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions AM & PM Peak Hour LOS .......................10
Table 8
One Percent Volume Analysis Forecast Year 2013 With Projects ............................12
Table 9
Forecast Year 2013 Without Project Conditions AM /PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS
................................................................................................................
.............................13
Table 10
Forecast Year 2013 With Project Conditions AM /PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS...
14
Table 11
Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions AM /PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS
................................................................................................................
.............................15
Table 12
Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions AM /PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS.
16
Table 13
Incremental Increase in Square Footage Per Proposed Project Site FAR Increase..
17
Table 14
Proposed Project Trip Rates ......................................................... .............................17
Table 15
Incremental Increase in Trips Per Proposed Project Site FAR Increase ...................18
Table 16
State Highway Intersection LOS & Delay Ranges ........................ .............................19
07
Table 17 State Highway Existing Conditions AM & PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS ..............20
Table 18 State Highway Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions AM & PM Peak Intersection
HourLOS ..................................................................................... .............................20
Table 19 State Highway Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions AM & PM Peak Hour
IntersectionLOS ........................................................................... .............................21
Table 20 State Highway Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions AM & PM Peak
IntersectionHour LOS .................................................................. .............................22
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Follows Page
Exhibit 1
Regional Project Location ....................................................... ..............................2
Exhibit 2
Project Site Location ............................................................... ..............................2
Exhibit 3
Study Intersection Locations ................................................... ..............................2
Exhibit 4
Existing Conditions AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes ................... ...............................
6
Exhibit 5
Existing Study Area Geometry ................................................ ..............................6
Exhibit 6
Proposed Project Site Plan ..................................................... ..............................7
Exhibit 7
Forecast Proposed Project Trip Distribution ............................ ..............................9
Exhibit 8
Forecast Proposed Project AM /PM Peak Hour Trip Assignment Utilized for
Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions and Forecast Cumulative With Project
Conditions.............................................................................. ..............................9
Exhibit 9
Forecast Proposed Project AM /PM Peak Hour Trip Assignment Utilized for TPO
Analysis (Forecast Year 2013 With Project Conditions) .......... ..............................9
Exhibit 10
Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes .............10
Exhibit 11
Forecast Year 2013 Without Project Conditions AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes....
11
Exhibit 12
Forecast Year 2013 With Project Conditions AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes .........
13
Exhibit 13
Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes..
15
Exhibit 14
Forecast Cumulative With Project AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes .........................16
Exhibit 15
Proposed Project Site Access Recommendations ................. .............................19
0Z
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study analyzes the forecast traffic conditions associated with the proposed Mariner's Pointe
Project in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project site is located at the northwest
corner of the West Coast Highway (SR -1) /Dover Drive intersection. The project applicant
proposes to construct a 23,015 square foot commercial center that includes a 7,293 square foot
specialty retail component, a 12,722 square foot quality restaurant component, and a 3,000
square foot medical office component. The proposed project includes a three -story parking
structure that will provide both self parking and valet parking. Project site access is planned via
one right -in /right -out driveway and one right -turn out only driveway on West Coast Highway
(SR -1).
The proposed project is expected to open in 2012; therefore, in accordance with the City of
Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), traffic conditions are measured during
forecast year 2013 conditions.
The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 1,292 net new daily trips, which
includes approximately 16 net new a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 70 net new p.m.
peak hour trips as analyzed in the TPO analysis. The proposed project is forecast to generate
approximately 1,533 daily trips, which includes approximately 48 a.m. peak hour trips and
approximately 84 p.m. peak hour trips as analyzed in the cumulative analysis.
Based on City of Newport Beach established thresholds of significance, the addition of project -
generated trips is forecast to result in no significant TPO impacts at the study intersections for
forecast year 2013 with project conditions.
Also, based on City established thresholds of significance, the addition of project - generated
trips to the study intersections is forecast to result in no significant impacts for forecast existing
plus project conditions or forecast cumulative with project conditions.
No traffic mitigation measures are required for the proposed project since no significant traffic
impacts are forecast to occur based on agency thresholds of significance.
133
INTRODUCTION
This study analyzes the forecast traffic conditions associated with the proposed Mariner's Pointe
Project in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project site is located at the northwest
corner of the West Coast Highway (SR -1) /Dover Drive intersection. The project applicant
proposes to construct a 23,015 square foot commercial center that includes a 7,293 square foot
specialty retail component, a 12,722 square foot quality restaurant component, and a 3,000
square foot medical office component. The proposed project includes a three -story parking
structure that will provide both self parking and valet parking. Project site access is planned via
one right -in /right -out driveway and one right -turn out only driveway on West Coast Highway
(SR -1).
The proposed project is expected to open in 2012; therefore, in accordance with the City of
Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), traffic conditions are measured during
forecast year 2013 conditions.
Exhibit 1 shows the regional project location. Exhibit 2 shows the project site location.
Study Area
City of Newport Beach staff identified the following twelve signalized intersections for analysis in
this study:
1. Newport Boulevard (SR -55) Southbound Off - Ramp /West Coast Highway
(SR -1);
2. Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway (SR -1);
3. Tustin Avenue /West Coast Highway (SR -1);
4. Balboa Bay Club Driveway/West Coast Highway (SR -1);
5. Irvine Avenue /Seventeenth Street;
6. Irvine Avenue /Dover Drive;
7. Dover Drive/Westcliff Drive;
8. Dover Drive /Sixteenth Street;
9. Dover Drive /Cliff Drive;
10. Dover Drive/West Coast Highway (SR -1);
11. Bayside Drive /East Coast Highway (SR -1); and
12. Jamboree Road /East Coast Highway (SR -1).
Exhibit 3 shows the location of the study intersections, which are analyzed for the following
study scenarios:
• Existing Conditions;
• Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions;
• Forecast Year 2013 Without Project Conditions; and
• Forecast Year 2013 With Project Conditions.
2
13;
ORPARK —
SIMI
VALLEY
I
THOUSAND
OAKS VENNRA CO
��/ LOSANGELES CO
IIOURAFIILLS CALABASSAS
MALBU
SANTA
MONICA
PACIFIC OCEAN
0
Not to Scale
H: \pdaMa 1010]80] \Tr ci Exhibits \ExhOi.al
AN FERNANDO
/ 15
1
ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST I �
w s
w
BURBANK /
5 GLENDALE % 15
PASADENA
SAN RANCHO CUCAMONGA
W AZUSA DIMAS /
i
WEST HOLLYWOOD 60 1
ALHAMBRA EL MONTE / FONTANA
BEVERLY
HILLS 101 10 10
WEST COVINA POMONA
ONTARIO
10 WALNUT
LOS MONTEBELLO
110 ANGELES ,, / CHINO INGLEWOOD 5 WHITTIER / /
71 L I RIVERSIDE
SOUTH Las FlNGECO CO _
GATE OWINGE CO . r J
10 . t oOo"v NORCO
HAWTHORNE PARAMOUNT YORBA
LINDA
J FULLERTON
" p CORONA
PON
r
15
Z�o`o
REDONDO 0 60 PRESS 5 ORANGE b,
BEACH CARSON
ANAHEIM
RANCHO
PALOS CLEVELAND
VERDES LONG NATIONAL
BEACH SANTA FOREST
0 ANA _
SAN IRVINE
PEDRO HUNTINGTON
BEACH COSTA 40 >
MESA
MISSION
VIEJO /
NEWPORT
PROJECT BEACH
SITE LAGUNA /
LAGUNA NIGUEL
`
BEACH
J
SANJUAN
5
CAPISTRANO
Regional
Project
Location
FEB12011 '%ZFhibit 1
IRIEW
Not to Scale •••••• Project Site Boundary
WF Project SiterLocation
H: \pdata \1010]8077ra 6Exhibits \Exh0l.ai / 7� Exhibit 2
FEBI2011 I ` VVV
IRIEW
Not to Scale
Study Intersection Locations
H: \ptlata\ 1010]80] \Traffic \Exhibits \Exh03.ai 1/7 Exhibit 3
WF
�
FEB/2011
• Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions; and
• Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions.
Analysis Methodology
Level of service (LOS) is commonly used as a qualitative description of intersection operation
and is based on the capacity of the intersection and the volume of traffic using the intersection.
The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis method is utilized by the City of Newport
Beach and in the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) to determine the
operating LOS of signalized intersections. The ICU analysis methodology describes the
operation of an intersection using a range of LOS from LOS A (free -flow conditions) to LOS F
(severely congested conditions), based on the corresponding Volume /Capacity (V /C) ratios
shown in Table 1.
Table 1
V/C & LOS Ranges
Signalized Intersections
V/C Ratio
LOS
< 0.60
A
0.61 to < 0.70
B
0.71 to < 0.80
C
0.81 to < 0.90
D
0.91 to <1.00
E
> 1.00
F
Source: City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing
Ordinance, Chapter 15.40.
In accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), the ICU
analysis assumes a capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) for each travel lane (including turn
lanes) through an intersection, with no factor for yellow time included in the lane capacity
assumptions. The City of Newport Beach TPO methodology calculates the ICU value to three
decimal places, and then reports the resulting ICU value rounded down to two decimal places.
City of Newport Beach Performance Criteria
The City of Newport Beach target for peak hour intersection operation as stated in the
Circulation Element of the General Plan is LOS D or better except at the following locations
where LOS E or better is considered acceptable:
• Intersections in the John Wayne Airport Area shared with the City of Irvine;
• Dover Drive/West Coast Highway (SR -1);
• Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway (SR -1);
• Goldenrod Avenue /East Coast Highway (SR -1); and
• Marguerite Avenue /East Coast Highway (SR -1).
//O
The criteria for assessing a proposed project, as defined in the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance,
is to achieve LOS D or better at any impacted primary intersection within the City.
City of Newport Beach Threshold of Significance
To determine whether the addition of project - generated trips at a signalized study intersection
results in a significant impact, the City of Newport Beach has established the following threshold
of significance:
• A significant impact occurs when the addition of project - generated trips
causes the level of service at a study intersection to deteriorate from an
acceptable LOS (LOS D or better in most cases) to a deficient LOS (LOS
E or F); or
• A significant impact occurs when the addition of project - generated trips
increases the intersection capacity utilization at a study intersection by
one percent or more of capacity (V /C ? 0.010), worsening a projected
baseline condition of LOS E or LOS F.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Roadway Description
The characteristics of the roadway system in the vicinity of the project site are described below
West Coast Highway (SR -1) in the project vicinity trends in an east -west direction, and is
designated State Route 1. East of Dover Drive, West Coast Highway (SR -1) changes names to
East Coast Highway (SR -1). Between Balboa Bay Club Entry and Dover Drive, West Coast
Highway (SR -1) is a four -lane divided roadway, with a continuous left -turn lane and some non -
metered on- street parking permitted. From Tustin Avenue to Balboa Bay Club Entry, West
Coast Highway (SR -1) transitions from a four -lane to five -lane divided roadway (three lanes in
the westbound direction and two in the eastbound direction), with a continuous left -turn lane and
both metered and non - metered on- street parking are permitted. Between Riverside Avenue and
Tustin Avenue, West Coast Highway (SR -1) is a five -lane divided roadway (three lanes in the
westbound direction and two in the eastbound direction), with a raised median and metered on-
street parking permitted. From Newport Boulevard (SR -55) Southbound Off -Ramp to Riverside
Avenue, West Coast Highway (SR -1) is a five -lane divided roadway (three lanes in the
westbound direction and two in the eastbound direction) with a continuous left -turn lane and
metered on- street parking permitted on the north side only. The posted speed limit on West
Coast Highway (SR -1) ranges from 40 to 45 miles per hour.
East Coast Highway (SR -1) is designated State Route 1. Between Dover Drive and Bayside
Drive, East Coast Highway (SR -1) is a seven -lane undivided roadway (four lanes in the
westbound direction and three lanes in the eastbound direction) with on- street parking
prohibited. Between Bayside Drive and Jamboree Road, East Coast Highway (SR -1) is an
eight -lane roadway, with a raised, landscaped median and on- street parking prohibited. The
posted speed limit on West Coast Highway (SR -1) in the study area ranges from 35 to 45 miles
per hour, with a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour adjacent the project site.
4 qzp
J! L
Riverside Avenue between West Coast Highway and Avon Street is a four -lane undivided
roadway, trending in a north -south direction, with on- street parking prohibited. North of Avon
Street, Riverside Avenue is a two -lane undivided roadway. The posted speed limit on Riverside
Avenue is 30 miles per hour.
Tustin Avenue is a two -lane undivided roadway trending in a north -south direction that
terminates on the south at West Coast Highway (SR -1). Metered on- street parking is permitted
on Tustin Avenue.
Dover Drive is a four -lane divided roadway with a raised landscaped median, trending in a
north -south direction with on- street parking prohibited between West Coast Highway (SR -1) and
Westcliff Drive. Between Westcliff Drive and Irvine Avenue, Dover Drive is a two -lane undivided
roadway. On- street parking is permitted on Dover Drive, east of Irvine Avenue. South of West
Coast Highway (SR -1), Dover Drive changes name to Bayshore Drive. Bayshore Drive is a two -
lane undivided roadway with on- street parking prohibited. The posted speed limit on Dover
Drive ranges in the study area from 25 to 40 miles per hour.
Bayside Drive is a two -lane undivided roadway trending in a north -south direction, north of East
Coast Highway (SR -1), with on- street parking permitted. The posted speed limit on Bayside
Drive north of East Coast Highway is 25 miles per hour. South of East Coast Highway (SR -1),
Bayside Drive is a four -lane divided roadway with a continuous left -turn lane and on- street
parking prohibited from West Coast Highway (SR -1) to Harbor Island Drive. The posted speed
limit on Bayside Drive is 40 miles per hour.
Jamboree Road north of East Coast Highway (SR -1) is a six -lane divided roadway trending in a
north -south direction with a raised landscaped median and on- street parking prohibited. South
of East Coast Highway (SR -1), Jamboree Road is a four -lane undivided roadway with a painted
median and on- street parking prohibited. The posted speed limit on Jamboree Road is 50 miles
per hour.
Cliff Drive is a two -lane, undivided roadway trending in an east -west direction with on- street
parking prohibited. The posted speed limit on Cliff Drive is 30 miles per hour.
Sixteenth Street is a two -lane undivided roadway trending in an east -west direction with on-
street parking prohibited from Dover Drive to Seagull Lane. The posted speed limit on Sixteenth
Street is 35 miles per hour.
Westcliff Drive is a four -lane divided roadway trending in an east -west direction with a raised
median and on- street parking prohibited. The posted speed limit on Westcliff Drive is 35 miles
per hour.
Seventeenth Street is a four -lane undivided roadway trending in an east -west direction with a
continuous left -turn lane and on- street parking prohibited. The posted speed limit on
Seventeenth Street is 35 miles per hour.
Irvine Avenue is a four -lane divided roadway trending in a north -south direction with a raised
median and on- street parking prohibited between Seventeenth Street and Dover Drive. The
posted speed limit on Irvine Avenue is 35 miles per hour.
1*0
Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
To determine the existing operation of the study intersections, this study utilizes 2009/2010 a.m.
and p.m. peak hour intersection movement counts provided by City of Newport Beach staff.
Additionally, a.m. and p.m. peak hour intersection movement counts were collected at the
following two study intersections:
• Dover Drive /Cliff Drive; and
• Balboa Bay Club DrivewayANest Coast Highway (SR -1).
An annual growth factor of 1.00% on primary roadways, based on the City of Newport Beach
TPO, was applied to 2009 traffic counts as appropriate to reflect growth from the count year to
year 2010 conditions. The counts used in this analysis were taken from the highest hour within
the peak period counted. Detailed traffic count data is contained in Appendix A.
Exhibit 4 shows existing conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes at the study intersections.
Exhibit 5 shows existing study intersection geometry.
Existing Conditions Peak Hour Level of Service
Table 2 summarizes existing conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour LOS of the study intersections;
detailed LOS analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B.
Table 2
Existing Conditions AM /PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS
Int.
No.
Study Intersection
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C —LOS
V/C —LOS
1
Irvine Ave /Dover Dr
0.543
—A
0.661
— B
2
Irvine Ave /17" St
0.496
— A
0.690
— B
3
Dover Dr/Westcliff Dr
0.368 — A
0.414 —A
4
Dover Dr /16" St
0.588
— A
0.493
— A
5
Dover Dr /Cliff Dr
0.545
— A
0.492
— A
6
Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.839
— D
0.646
— B
7
Riverside Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.658-8
0.715
— C
8
Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.660 — B
0.580 —A
9
Balboa Bay Club Dwy/w. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.659
— B
0.694
— B
10
Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.639
— B
0.718
— C
11
Bayside Dr /E. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.601
— B
0.571
—A
12
Jamboree Rd /E. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.560
— A
0.679
— B
Note: V/C = volume to capacity ratio; SB = southbound.
As shown in Table 2, the study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS
D or better) according to City of Newport Beach performance criteria.
14.1
/
e `58/66 2 v �Coo �25fi/25fi
� 106/149
x27/98 1 \ \ /
I `19/37 1- - - - - - mm \
/ / fO a`o
1 201/310, 53163--"
478/577 -� m u> m ! 1
omv 135/129 -� omm
\ 198!233 meg \
\ 7 /
568/547 m /
/
�n \
! N" `352/492
/ f 820/1841 1 O / °' _ y _
2103/1274 -+ 168/71
I\ 190/161 (� ( m °en �- 1135/2177
r 17111
153151 \\
\ / / 1 315/246
\ 1912/1387+ o —c� / / Nm C� /p I '^I� x'13/11
_ \ 4/5, o'o— / I 1 'c�� J r + ` r62/21 1
I
154/, /116 �$ / ' 1 19/23, !
�m / \\ 1711121^ /
A
16/40
3,5/53
35/53 ` / m w 149312810 /
1233/2252 1 `x �J + x56/85 1 \
1 1 42/95% I CUFFDR` I / _mo
2012/1390 / > 1 47/44) R } GNP `77/145 \
2223,1968 -� o ^ 1 / N - '953/1896
A 1/20, o o / G)Q � \ 350/390 ° r � / I � + ` r1001197 1
\ Q2 \ m m
CO ° \ / 1 ass /743, `� }
TC \ / / j \ / / \ 156011277�� !
0.95 m�O \ _ _ 20/19-N is /
_ _ J
\ T
i.......... /
`11/13
1405/2046
J +� ,r60143 1_ - ----_
1 5/4,
\ 1882/1731 -+ Mn / / NNm \ � 3 1
39/33 NS / $i�� `474/1031 \ O R -1) 1
�-- 1224/2175 >�
r42/51 I Q
Q _ _ I 1181146,
Legend: \ 1931!1283+
Le
j 25/25
\ /
Not to Scale XX/XX AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes \
JIMF ...... Project Site Boundary \ n — _ ' / /
Existing Conditions AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes
. . .
H: \pdata \10107807 \Traffic \Exhibits \Exh04.ai FEa12011 14.Z Exhibit 4
1\ nf fl,
F /
/
\ F
iI \ STC I 1 `` \
A4
1 \
A
CO
�Az
t �
�► ,4`.
CLIFF \
SO I tiJ 1 .� 2UDR` 1 —14 1�� I l/ 1F ~ \
Q0 :!4- `off'
J v ` 1\ /
T
Ly
/ .......... o �
\ -- 4D o Ey — o
1------ -- — — ,' o STC o
�`
I ��
\ N � qST �
80
Legend:
f Existing Lane 1 f fV, I m
Q � / 2U = 2 -lane Undivided roadway SD = 5 -lane Divided roadway (3 West, 2 East)
'k—F Free -Right Turn Lane \ / 2D = 2 -lane Divided roadway 6D = 5 -1ane Divided roadway
�v Overlap Right Turn Lane \ / 4U = 4 -lane Undivided roadway 7D = Nane Divided roadway (4 West, 3 East)
Not to Scale \ /
•••••• Project Site Boundary � _ — � � 4D = 4 -lane Divided roadway 8D = 8 -lane Divided roadway
MF Existing Study Area Geometry
H: \pdata\ 1010]80] \Traffic \Exhibits \Exh05.ai 1*,� Exhibit 5
FEB12011 `
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed project site is located at the northwest corner of the West Coast Highway (SR-
1) /Dover Drive intersection. The project applicant proposes to construct a 23,015 square foot
commercial center that includes a 7,293 square foot specialty retail component, 12,722 square
foot quality restaurant component, and a 3,000 square foot medical office component. The
proposed project includes a three -story parking structure that will provide both self parking and
valet parking. Project site access is planned via one right -in /right -out driveway and one right -
turn out driveway on West Coast Highway (SR -1).
The proposed project is expected to open in 2012; therefore, in accordance with the City of
Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) traffic conditions are measured during forecast
year 2013 conditions.
Exhibit 6 shows the proposed project site plan.
Project Trip Generation
To calculate trips forecast to be generated by the proposed project, Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates were utilized. Table 3 summarizes the ITE trip generation
rates used to calculate the number of trips forecast to be generated by the proposed project.
Table 3
Proposed Project Trip Rates
Land Use
Units
AM Peak Hour Rates
PM Peak Hour Rates
Daily
Trip
Rate
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Specialty Retail
tsf
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.19
1.52
2.71
44.32
Quality Restaurant
tsf
0.66
0.15
0.81
5.02
2.47
7.49
89.95
Medical Office
tsf
1.82
0.48
2.30
0.93
2.53
3.46
36.13
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8 Edition
Note: tsf = thousand square feet
The ITE trip rates shown in Table 3 do not account for applicable trip reduction factors such as
pass -by trips, and hence present a conservative condition for trip generation. Therefore,
adjustment to trip generation estimates were made to the proposed project as appropriate in
accordance with ITE trip reduction rates.
Pass -by Trip Reduction
A pass -by trip reduction is applicable to some retail and restaurant land uses located along busy
arterial highways attracting vehicle trips already on the roadway; this is particularly the case
when the roadway is experiencing peak operating conditions. For example, during the p.m.
peak hour, a motorist already traveling along West Coast Highway (SR -1) between work and
home could stop at the restaurant component of the proposed project. A pass -by discount
diverts an existing through trip into and out of the project site. While the total project site trip
numbers are not reduced, the new trips generated off -site on the surrounding roadway system
0
Not to Scale
Proposed Project Site Plan
H: \ptlata\ 1010]80] \Traffic \Exhibits \ExhOB.ai 1*,f Exhibit 6
WF
. FEB/2011
by the project site, or the net project trips, are reduced. Pass -by trips are always included in the
site driveway movements.
For the project site land use assumptions contained in this analysis, a pass -by discount is only
applicable for the restaurant land use component of the proposed project in the p.m. peak hour
according to ITE published research data.
Table 4 summarizes the trips forecast to be generated by the proposed project utilizing the ITE
trip rates shown in Table 3.
Table 4
Proposed Project Trip Generation
Land Use
AM Peak Hour Trips
PM Peak Hour Trips
Daily
Trips
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
7.293 tsf - Specialty Retail
0
0
0
9
11
20
323
12.722 tsf - Quality Restaurant
8
2
10
64
31
95
1,144
Pass -by Discount (44% in p.m.)
1 0
0
0
-28
-14
-42
- 42*
3.000 tsf - Medical Office
5
1
6
3
8
11
108
TOTAL
1 13
3
16
48
36
84
1,533
Source: Pass -by discount determined using ITE Trip Generation Manual, 2"6 Edition
Note: tsf = thousand square feet; *Daily trip reduction assumes total p.m. peak hour trip reduction.
As shown in Table 4, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 1,533 daily
trips, which includes approximately 48 a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 84 p.m. peak
hour trips.
Since the project site is currently occupied by 5,447 square feet of specialty retail planned to be
displaced by the proposed project, trips associated with the displaced land use are subtracted
from the project site trip generation forecast shown in Table 4 to determine the number of net
new trips forecast to be generated by the proposed project. In accordance with City analysis
methodology, the net trip generation accounting for the displaced land use is only utilized for the
TPO traffic analysis (forecast year 2013 with project conditions), not for forecast existing plus
project conditions or forecast cumulative with project conditions.
Table 5 summarizes the existing project site trips forecast to be displaced by the proposed
project utilizing the ITE trip rates shown in Table 3.
Table 5
Existing Project Site Trip Generation Displaced by Proposed Project
Note: tsf = thousand square feet
14.6
AM Peak Hour Trips
PM Peak Hour Trips
Daily
Land Use
Trips
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
5.447 tsf — Specialty Retail
0
0
0
6
8
14
241
Note: tsf = thousand square feet
14.6
As shown in Table 5, the existing project site land use that will be displaced by the proposed
project is estimated to generate 241 daily trips, which include approximately 0 a.m. peak hour
trips and approximately 14 p.m. peak hour trips.
Table 6 shows the net new trips forecast to be generated by the proposed project utilized in the
TPO analysis (forecast year 2013 with project conditions).
Table 6
Net Forecast Project Trip Generation Utilized in TPO Analysis
Land Use
AM Peak Hour Trips
PM Peak Hour Trips
Daily
Trips
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Existing Site (displaced)
0
0
0
-6
-8
-14
-241
Proposed Mariner's Pointe Project
13
3
16
48
36
84
1,533
TOTAL
13
3
16
42
28
70
1,292
As shown in Table 6, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 1,292 net new
daily trips, which includes approximately 16 net new a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 70
net new p.m. peak hour trips as analyzed in the TPO analysis.
Project Trip Distribution
Exhibit 7 shows the forecast trip percent distribution of project - generated peak hour trips.
Project Trip Assignment
Exhibit 8 shows the forecast assignment of project - generated a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips
utilized for both forecast existing plus project conditions and forecast cumulative with project
conditions assuming the trip percent distribution shown in Exhibit 7.
Exhibit 9 shows the forecast assignment of net project - generated a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips
utilized for the TPO analysis (forecast year 2013 with project conditions) assuming the trip
percent distribution shown in Exhibit 7.
FORECAST EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS
Forecast existing plus project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes were derived by
adding forecast project - generated trips to existing conditions traffic volumes.
Forecast Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes
Exhibit 10 shows forecast existing plus project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes at
the study intersections.
M-7
NEW
Not to Scale XX% Trip Percent Distribution
M
...... Project Site Boundary
Forecast Proposed Project Trip Distribution
H: \ptlata\ 1010]80] \Traffic \Exhibits \ExhO].ai / *][ Exhibit 7
WF
� FEB/2011 / V
`0/2
1y —0/4
IS
\ J
1 1/5+
\ as
\ / ¢ 4/14
112
^ /
—1/13 —2/7 / \
5/17.+ I CLIFF DR`
----A / m�Z \ / I � —1/5 1
\ Q 2 \
m J o \ / 1 0 /2J
0/4— /
CIO T i \
LU
\ \ `u
/ ............
I `2/23
1 5/17
Q
—3/12 1 me
5117-) 5/1 /
Legend: \ 1/14
XX/XX AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes /
Not to Scale ...... Project Site Boundary \ , - , , ' Forecast Proposed Project AM /PM Peak Hour Trip
Assignment Utilized for Forecast Existing Plus Project & Forecast Cumulative With Project Analysis
H:\pdata \10107807 \Traffic \Exhibits \ExhOB.al FEB/2011 14- Exhibit 8
� � �
/ ry `0/1
1l \
I 114y f0 /3 I I ��t011 1___ - --
\ J
/ vm /
00
l /
1 114
\ / O I �f7 /8 1
\ / ¢ 4/13 I / _
7/4 1 112
I
A /
—1/10 x-2/6 / \
5/15+ 1 CLIFF DR`
0/3
A / m�Z \ / I � f1 /4 1
\
Q 2 \
CO ° o \ / 1 0/3
�J \ � 0/3— /
to
/ ............ \
I
2/18
1 5115 / \ Q ST 71
Lu
f3/11 1 me
1
5115-) Q Legend: vn�
XX /XX AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes /
Not to Scale ...... Project Site Boundary p
Forecast Proposed Project AM /PM Peak
\ � _ _ �
Hour Net Trip Assignment Utilized for TPO Analysis
H: \pdata\ 1010]80] \Traffic \Exhibits \Exh09.ai FEa12011 t ,FO Exhibit 9
/
`58/68 2 m e (�256/258
x27/98 1 1061149
I `19/37 1- - - - - - mm \
1 201/310, } ! I 1
53163--" 479!582+
m u> m !
a 135/129 -� o-m
R
\ 198!233 met \ I
\ 7 oro
1
570/554 rn� !
( N" `352/492 �co / \ 71> , _ -
/ f 82011845 1 O
2104/1279 -+ I / : X68/73
I\ 190/161 (� ( m °vn �- 1136/2186
r 17111 52
153151 \
\ / / 1 315/246
\ 1916/1401+ o - N / / Nm C� //. ' ' / mI ��i � -13/11
o'o / I 1 RO� , - J r + L` r 62/21 1
109149 } I ' 1 43/21, 1
155/121, N / 19/23 N r !
ib T / \ 1721123 /
A \
�Ez! \ / mQ'n 16/40 \\
35/53 ` / m m 149512817 /
1234/2265 r 56/85 1 m \
1 1 42/95% I CLIFF DR` I / _mo
2017/1407 r / > I 47144) } mN� `77/145 \
2223/1973 -- ^ 1 ! '� N f 954/1901
A 5
1/20, o o z \ 350/394 ° r iz: / I + ` x100/197 1
\ Q2 \ n m
m j o \ 7 1 859/745--" } r
\ / 156011281+ e� /
= i \ 20/19-N
/ \ T
X1406/2059
r62/66
\ 1887/1748 -+ M o lO
39/33 `47411031
\ ( 1nm �-- 1227/2187 }tiJ
x42/51 I end: Q
C1
Q _ n: --, 1 1241177, 1 N r
Le \ 1932/1292 NNE /
g 25/25
Not to Scale XX/xX AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes \
...... Project Site Boundary \ — — /
� H: \pdata\ 10107807 \Traffic \Exhibits \ExhlO.ai Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes
. . . FEB/2011 If/ Exhibit 10
Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions Level of Service
Table 7 summarizes forecast existing plus project conditions a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour
LOS of the study intersections; detailed LOS analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B.
Table 7
Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions AM & PM Peak Hour LOS
Int.
No.
Study Intersection
Existing Conditions
Forecast Existing Plus
Project Conditions
Increase in
WC
Significant
Impact?
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
WC - LOS
VIC - LOS
VIC - LOS
VIC - LOS
AM
I PM
1
Irvine Ave /Dover Dr
0.543 -A
0.661 - B
0.544 - A
0.663 - B
0.001
0.002
No
2
Irvine Ave /17" St
0.496 - A
0.690 - B
0.496 - A
0.692 - B
0.000
0.002
No
3
Dover Dr /WestcliffDr
0.368 -A
0.414 -A
0.369 -A
0.419 -A
0.001
0.005
No
4
Dover Dr /16" St
0.588 -A
0.493 - A
0.590 -A
0.497 - A
0.002
0.004
No
5
Dover Dr/Cliff Dr
0.545 -A
0.492 -A
0.547 -A
0.502 -A
0.002
0.010
No
6
Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.839 - D
0.646 - B
0.839 - D
0.648 - B
0.000
0.002
No
7
Riverside Ave /W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.658 - B
0.715 - C
0.660 - B
0.717 - C
0.002
0.002
No
8
Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.660 - B
0.580 - A
0.661 - B
0.583 - A
0.001
0.003
No
9
Balboa Bay Club Dwy/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.659 - B
0.694 - B
0.662 - B
0.698 - B
0.003
0.004
No
10
Dover Dr /W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.639 - B
0.718 - C
0.639 - B
0.730 - C
0.000
0.012
No
11
Bayside Dr /E. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.601 - B
0.571 -A
0.601 - B
0.573 - A
0.000
0.002
No
12
Jamboree Rd /E. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.560 - A
0.679 - B
0.560 - A
0.680 - B
0.000
0.001
No
Note: WC = volume to capacity ratio; SB = southbound; Deficient intersection operation shown in bold.
As shown in Table 7, with the addition of project - generated trips, the study intersections are
forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) for forecast existing plus
project conditions according to City of Newport Beach performance criteria.
As also shown in Table 7, based on City - established thresholds of significance, the addition of
project - generated trips to the study intersections is forecast to result in no significant impacts for
forecast existing plus project conditions.
FORECAST YEAR 2013 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
The proposed Mariner's Pointe Project is planned to open in 2012. In accordance with the City
of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), the analysis year is 2013. Forecast year
2013 without project conditions are analyzed first to measure potential project impacts against.
Forecast year 2013 without project traffic volumes were increased by an annual growth factor of
one percent per year as directed by City staff to account for ambient traffic growth in the project
vicinity at study intersections.
10
rfz
Additionally, trips were added from sixteen (16) approved projects in the project vicinity
identified by City staff, which have already been approved, but have not yet been constructed.
These approved projects are expected to be built and generating trips by year 2013. Approved
project trip generation and assignment data was provided by the City of Newport Beach and is
contained in Appendix C.
The sixteen (16) approved projects identified by City staff consist of
•
Fashion Island Expansion;
•
Temple Bat Yahm Expansion;
•
Ciosa- Irvine Project;
•
Newport Dunes;
•
Hoag Hospital Phase III;
•
St. Marks Presbyterian Church;
•
OLQA Church Expansion;
2300 Newport Boulevard;
•
Newport Executive Court;
•
Hoag Health Center;
•
North Newport Center
Santa Barbara Condo;
•
Newport Beach City Hall;
•
328 Old Newport Medical Office;
•
Coastline Community College; and
•
Bayview Medical Office.
Exhibit 11 shows
forecast year 2013 without project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour
volumes at the study
intersections.
The initial stage of the TPO analysis consists of a one percent analysis at each study
intersection. The one percent analysis compares proposed project traffic with the projected
forecast year 2013 without project peak hour traffic volumes. If forecast peak hour traffic from
the proposed project is less than one percent of the projected background traffic on each leg of
the intersection then further ICU analysis is not required. If the proposed project is forecast to
add more than one percent of the background traffic on any leg of the intersection then ICU
analysis is required.
Table 8 summarizes the results of the one percent analysis for forecast year 2013 with projects
conditions. Detailed one percent analysis worksheets are contained in Appendix D.
11
1 �!
`60/68
265/264 \
322/699 110/155
�- 110/155
r + 281101 1 r S `20139 I_ _ — _ — _ NM
1 208/326,
4951610'+ 1 54165--A
m m / 1
7
205!24 e v 139/1139/133— e m
\ 0 m e \ sn m I
\ NeN / 59/70, nC�
5851567
/ Ze \ h
`365/518 / \ /1> - -
/ 1. f
891/1946 A/ S
N — _ '
1 2197/1399 -+ I m� / ^NO `70176
\ 200/172 / / ;;4w r 18 1263/2391
�ca
1 \ 3251245/45� , oo} r /
'
`58/56
2095/1560+ N ' 16/12
\
%64/22 1
112/50, � } I 1 45/22---4
159/120, R / 20/2
°j / \ 177/125 D10
16/41
36/54 1600/3017
1364/2470 1 I + r58/88 1 `� \
} r I CLIFF DR` 1 83171,
1 44/98) } r 801160 \
2202/1563— N / �' 2385/2108 — -Mw 1 / f 1030/2070
"\ 1121, o o / G)Q Iz 361I402-,� ° m / I J + ` r 104/208 1
�O 4/ \ m / 1 937/859, } r
J \ / 1692/1375 -o O /
\ 22/20-N
/ T ........... .
/
/ mow �11I73 \ .•...
.i +�. ♦624 2280 —— — " _ /! — _ `• ,' �STC 11 Q
R I . oy
1 5/4, 1 r .
2072/1940 -+ � / / P2 O
\ U ' " ✓Y 1
\ 40/34 izz / , n O r`n `497/1088
1344/2381
r44/52 I Q
/
I m
Q _ n: I 126/157, w} r
2109/1439+ v /
Legend: \ 26/26--A ��M �
Not to Scale xX/xx AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes `, Forecast Year 2013 Without Project
•••••• Project Site Boundary � _ —' /
Conditions AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes
H: \pdata\ 10107807 \Tra c \Exhibits \Exhll.ai 1 fsF, Exhibit 11
FEB /2011
Table 8
One Percent Volume Analysis Forecast Year 2013 With Projects
Int.
No
Study Intersection
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
NB
SB
EB
WB
NB
SB
EB
WB
1
Irvine Ave /Dover Dr
2
Irvine Ave /17`" St
3
Dover DrNVestcliff Dr
X
4
Dover Dr /16th St
X
X
5
Dover Dr /Cliff Dr
X
X
6
Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
7
Riverside Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
8
Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
9
Balboa Bay Club Dwy/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
X
10
Dover Dr /W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
X
X
11
Bayside Dr /E. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
X
12
Jamboree Rd /E. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
Note: NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound.
X = Project peak hour traffic volume greater than one percent of projected background traffic.
As shown in Table 8, the following City of Newport Beach intersections exceed the one percent
test and thus require further ICU analysis for forecast year 2013 with projects conditions:
• Dover Drive/Westcliff Drive;
• Dover Drive /16th Street;
• Dover Drive /Cliff Drive;
• Balboa Bay Club Driveway /West Coast Highway (SR -1);
• Dover Drive /West Coast Highway (SR -1); and
• Bayside Drive /East Coast Highway (SR -1).
Forecast Year 2013 Without Project Conditions Level of Service
Table 9 summarizes forecast year 2013 without project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour LOS
of the study intersections. Detailed LOS analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B.
12
1ff
Table 9
Forecast Year 2013 Without Project Conditions
AM /PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS
Int.
No.
Study Intersection
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C —LOS
V/C —LOS
3
Dover Dr/Westcliff Dr
0.38 — A
0.43 — A
4
Dover Dr /16`h St
0.61 — B
0.51 —A
5
Dover Dr /Cliff Dr
0.57 — A
0.51 —A
9
Balboa Bay Club Dwy/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.72 — C
0.77 — C
10
Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.69 — B
0.77 — C
11
Bayside Dr /E. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.65 — B
0.64 — B
Note: V/C = volume to capacity ratio.
As shown in Table 9, with the addition of trips forecast to be generated by the approved
projects, the TPO study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or
better) for forecast year 2013 without project conditions according to City of Newport Beach
performance criteria.
FORECAST YEAR 2013 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
Forecast year 2013 with project conditions were derived by adding the proposed project -
generated trips to forecast year 2013 without project conditions.
Forecast Year 2013 With Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Exhibit 12 shows forecast year 2013 with project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic
volumes at the study intersections.
Forecast Year 2013 With Project Conditions Level of Service
Table 10 summarizes the forecast year 2013 with project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour
LOS of the study intersections; detailed LOS analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B.
13
IN
60/69 / m Z6 /
;E :T —322002 mIm°' 110/155
r + 281101 1 r `20/39 I— — — — — — N M
1 208/326, 1 54/65,
4961614+ .1m m !
ev 139/133—
\ 205!240 m e \
\ 7 59/70,
587/573 0 /
vm
/ ' n
`3651516 \ ` 7 CO
/ f 891/1949 1 / o \ - A/
I 2198/1403 -+ I mvO / �NO `70177 \ \``
200/172 / / m e m —1264/2399
\ ~ , O
1 \ 325/254--o' } �a O o
~`58156
2099/1573+
4/5-X oo- % 64/22 \\
1
160/124112/50- } I ' 45/2z
I
, f� / 1 \ 20/25, } /
o� / 178/127 Nod /
E3 A
,A/ e
16/41 \ /
1364/ 1602/3023
1364/2480 1 `` + x58/88 1 \
/ oeinv \
I CLIFF DR` } I /
1 44/98- } (� 1 83/71 - } ! �M `80/160 \
8— N / Q IN- 1031/2074 Mw
" 1/21
361/40 n n `w' / I + ` r 104/208 1
\ Q 2 \ m
yp o \ " M / 1 937/860--J' } r
J \ / 1692/1378+
\ 22/20
............
N \ �........... /
1548/2290
I - - - - - -
- --- -- / _—� .
- R
I / e pq
1 5/4 1 r , m w \ Q
2077/1955 -+ � / :t \ 1
\ 40/34 n n / , iO rn `49717088 O SR -1) 1
\ NN 1 `N"�m �-- 1347/2392 \ }�
r44/52 I Q
1321183- 1 } r
2110/1446+ W4v 1
\ 26/26--,
Legend: \ /
Not to Scale
xwxx AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes \ , _ _ _ . Forecast Year 2013 With Project
Project Site Boundary Conditions AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes
HApdata\ 10107807 \Tratfi6Exhibits \Exhl2.ai FEB/2011 IR Exhibit 12
� � �
Table 10
Forecast Year 2013 With Project Conditions AM /PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS
Note: V/C = volume to capacity ratio.
As shown in Table 10, with the addition of project - generated trips, the TPO study intersections
are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) for forecast year
2013 with project conditions according to City of Newport Beach performance criteria.
As also shown in Table 10, based on City of Newport Beach established thresholds of
significance, the addition of project - generated trips is forecast to result in no significant TPO
impacts at the study intersections for forecast year 2013 with project conditions.
FORECAST CUMULATIVE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
Forecast cumulative without project conditions were derived by adding cumulative projects
identified by the City of Newport Beach to forecast year 2013 without project conditions.
Cumulative project trips were added from twelve (12) other projects in the project vicinity
identified by City staff that are considered foreseeable, but have not yet been constructed and
therefore are not currently generating trips. This section analyzes the impact of adding trips
forecast to be generated by these nine cumulative projects to forecast year 2013 without project
conditions to reflect cumulative without project conditions. Cumulative project trip generation
and trip distribution data was provided by the City of Newport Beach for use in this analysis and
is contained in Appendix F.
The City of Newport Beach provided data for the following twelve (12) forecast cumulative
projects:
• Newport Beach Country Club;
• Mariner's Medical Arts;
• WPI- Newport, LLC;
• Banning Ranch;
• Sunset Ridge Park;
14
IOU
Forecast Year 2013
Forecast Year 2013
Without Project
With Project
Int.
Conditions
Conditions
Increase in
Study Intersection
V/C
Significant
No.
AM Peak
PM Peak
AM Peak
PM Peak
Impact?
Hour
Hour
Hour
Hour
WC - LOS
WC - LOS
WC - LOS
VIC - LOS
AM
PM
3
Dover Dr/Westcliff Dr
0.38 - A
0.43 - A
0.38 - A
0.43 - A
0.00
0.00
No
4
Dover DO6`hSt
0.61 -B
0.51 -A
0.61 -B
0.52 -A
0.00
0.01
No
5
Dover Dr/Cliff Dr
0.57 -A
0.51 -A
0.57 -A
0.52 -A
0.00
0.01
No
9
Balboa Bay Club Dwy/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.72 - C
0.77 - C
0.72 - C
0.77 - C
0.00
0.00
No
10
Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.69 - B
0.77 - C
0.69 - B
0.78 - C
0.00
0.01
No
11
Bayside Dr /E. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.65 - B
0.64 - B
0.65 - B
0.65 - B
0.00
0.01
No
Note: V/C = volume to capacity ratio.
As shown in Table 10, with the addition of project - generated trips, the TPO study intersections
are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) for forecast year
2013 with project conditions according to City of Newport Beach performance criteria.
As also shown in Table 10, based on City of Newport Beach established thresholds of
significance, the addition of project - generated trips is forecast to result in no significant TPO
impacts at the study intersections for forecast year 2013 with project conditions.
FORECAST CUMULATIVE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
Forecast cumulative without project conditions were derived by adding cumulative projects
identified by the City of Newport Beach to forecast year 2013 without project conditions.
Cumulative project trips were added from twelve (12) other projects in the project vicinity
identified by City staff that are considered foreseeable, but have not yet been constructed and
therefore are not currently generating trips. This section analyzes the impact of adding trips
forecast to be generated by these nine cumulative projects to forecast year 2013 without project
conditions to reflect cumulative without project conditions. Cumulative project trip generation
and trip distribution data was provided by the City of Newport Beach for use in this analysis and
is contained in Appendix F.
The City of Newport Beach provided data for the following twelve (12) forecast cumulative
projects:
• Newport Beach Country Club;
• Mariner's Medical Arts;
• WPI- Newport, LLC;
• Banning Ranch;
• Sunset Ridge Park;
14
IOU
• Marina Park;
• Pres Office Building;
• Conexant;
• Koll Conceptual Plan;
• Aerie;
• Dolphin Striker; and
• Newport Coast.
Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Exhibit 13 shows forecast cumulative without project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour
volumes at the study intersections.
Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions Level of Service
Table 11 summarizes forecast cumulative without project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour
LOS of the study intersections; detailed LOS analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B.
Table 11
Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions
AM /PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS
Int.
No
Study Intersection
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C —LOS
V/C —LOS
1
Irvine Ave /Dover Dr
0.561 —A
0.682 — B
2
Irvine Ave /17t "St
0.514 —A
0.718 —C
3
Dover Dr/Westcliff Dr
0.391 —A
0.461 —A
4
Dover Dr /16'h St
0.613 — B
0.523 —A
5
Dover Dr /CliffDr
0.575 —A
0.530 —A
6
Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.973 — E
0.867 — D
7
Riverside Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.735 — C
0.791 — C
8
Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.739 — C
0.654 — B
9
Balboa Bay Club Dwy/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.738 — C
0.805 — D
10
Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.702 — C
0.809 — D
11
Bayside Dr /E. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.664 — B
0.670 — B
12
Jamboree Rd /E. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.664 — B
0.841 — D
Note: V/G = volume to capacity ratio; SB = southbound; Deficient intersection operation shown in bold.
As shown in Table 11, with the addition of cumulative project - generated trips, the study
intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) for forecast
cumulative without project conditions according to City of Newport Beach performance criteria
with the exception the Newport Boulevard Southbound Ramps/West Coast Highway (SR -1)
study intersection during the a.m. peak hour which is forecast to operate at LOS E.
15 q p
IfL
`60/68
265/264 \
( eN ♦331804 / m1m°l' �- 156/183 \ /
r + 281101 1 r y `20/39 1- - - - - - m m \
1 208/326,
4981619'+ 1 54/65,
M m !
\ \ 205!240 N @ N / 152/183 -
59/70-N esn n o C m m 3
/ 1 85/119) ' 1 I
}
588/576 0 /
/ n
7 370/520
1 k, 100412026 )T A/
2364/1607 + `70176
206/176 —1434/2509
/
M \ \
\ / O I /r r18 /11 1 /
n rn `58/56 \ \
1 3251255- ~
} (� / ° o \
\ 2152/1732+ N` 1 C,�. ,'�' 64/22 1
4/5 as /zz-
I
20/25--
°2 / \ 177/125 D1O
Pc, A
16/41 \ /
36154 1614/3154
1527!2588 1 `` �J + x58/88
1 1
CUFF D \ _
1 M
`44199 - 83/71 -110 192/253
2259H734 > Q 121712202
A 1/21 361/406 104/208 \
1
CID c2 937/880--J' } r I
.3 / 1763/1567+
25/26 N
/
............. M /
�........... /
/ 'm7 1711/2398
J +� x62144 1- - - - - --
I . . oy
1 5 /4-
\ 21240/34 —X ( // gym° ` \ IUD "VY SR -1) `7
nN / m n 549/1119 \ O
�-- 1508/2494 }e
x44/52 I m 'z
/
I
129/159- } r
2162/1608-- tO�v 1
Legend: \ 26/26 ,` /
\ �mm /
Not to Scale XX/XX AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes `\ — Forecast Cumulative Without Project
Project Site Boundary \ — — /
Conditions AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes
H: \pdata\ 10107807 \Traffic \Exhibits \Exhl3.ai
M 0 FEB/2011 1d D Exhibit 13
FORECAST CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS
Forecast cumulative with project conditions traffic volumes were derived by adding proposed
project generated trips to forecast cumulative without project conditions scenario. As previously
noted, forecast cumulative with project conditions do not account for the displaced existing
specialty retail land use as assumed in the TPO analysis.
Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Exhibit 14 shows forecast cumulative with project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes
at the study intersections.
Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions Level of Service
Table 12 summarizes forecast cumulative with project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour LOS
of the study intersections; detailed LOS analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B.
Table 12
Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions AM /PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS
Int.
No.
Study Intersection
Forecast Cumulative
Without Project
Conditions
Forecast Cumulative
With Project
Conditions
Increase in
VIC
Significant
Impact?
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
V/C - LOS
V/C - LOS
VIC - LOS
VIC - LOS
AM
PM
1
Irvine Ave /Dover Dr
0.561 -A
0.682 - B
0.562 - A
0.684 - B
0.001
0.002
No
2
1 Irvine Ave /17`h St
0.514 - A
0.718 - C
0.514 - A
0.720 - C
0.000
0.002
No
3
Dover Dr /Westcliff Dr
0.391 - A
0.461 - A
0.392 - A
0.466 -A
0.001
0.005
No
4
Dover Dr /16th St
0.613 - B
0.523 -A
0.614 - B
0.521 -A
0.001
-0.002
No
5
Dover Dr/Cliff Dr
0.575 -A
0.530 -A
0.577 -A
0.540 -A
0.002
0.010
No
6
Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.973 - E
0.867 - D
0.973 - E
0.869 - D
0.000
0.002
No
7
Riverside Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.735 - C
0.791 - C
0.737 - C
0.794 - C
0.002
0.003
No
8
Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.739 - C
0.654 - B
0.740 - C
0.657 - B
0.001
0.003
No
9
Balboa Bay Club Dwy/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.738 - C
0.805 - D
0.741 - C
0.809 - D
0.003
0.004
No
10
Dover DrM/. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.702 - C
0.809 - D
0.702 - C
0.822 - D
0.000
0.013
No
11
Bayside Dr /E. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.664 - B
0.670 - B
0.664 - B
0.672 - B
0.000
0.002
No
12
Jamboree Rd /E. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
0.664 - B
0.841 - D
0.664 - B
0.843 - D
0.000
0.002
No
Note: V/C = volume to capacity ratio; SB = southbound; Deficient intersection operation shown in bold.
As shown in Table 12, with the addition of proposed project - generated trips, the study
intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) for
forecast cumulative with project conditions according to City of Newport Beach performance
criteria with the exception of the Newport Boulevard Southbound Ramps/West Coast Highway
(SR -1) study intersection during the a.m. peak hour which is forecast to continue to operate at
LOS E.
16
Td 1
`60/70 \ / w t 265/266 ' \
( IeN
♦331/708 / mIm°l' �- 156/183
r + 281101 1 r y `20/39 1- - - - - -
1 208/326, 1 54/65,
7
499/624 — v m m ! 1
e 152/183 -� emm
\ 205!240 m e \ sn m I
\ NeN / 59/70,
( "/ `370/520 \ `� ` 7�j,
/ ♦1004/2030 1 / o \ — _ A/ _
2365/1612 -+ I mvO ! ° `70 /78 \ \`
206/176 N' /
—1435/2520 �n \
\ / O I Ir r \ r18/11
Q
1 325/255--o' `58/56 \ \
\ \ /
\ 2156/1746— OWN / ! N` 1 C� /T,c ,' ! m Se ~64/22 1
112/56, 45122
1fi0/125, \ 20/25,
t - o` / \ 1781127
A �^ /
\
Now 16/41 \ /
t JCO / �^��' X36/54 \ ` / ��� 181613161
—1528/2601 1 `` ,i + � x58/88 1 \
1 1 �/99J I CLIFF DR\ I ^ M
22644751— } r / > �- 1 83/71) } r nIZa `192/253 \
N 2448/2332— a m 1 / " N N — 1218/2207
A 1/21, o o / zr r \ 361/410 m / I � + ` r 104/208 1
Qo j e \ m / 1 937/882, } r
1763/1571—
_ / \ 25/26-N
�..........e /
/ ' M 1712/2411
r64/67 1- — — ,'
I . oy
1 5/4,
\ 2134/2128— I ' \, S `
40/34 / / M'o m o $ `549/1119 O R -1) `
\ NN ( N_,MnM ,1511/2506
l \ }vi
/
, x44/52 I Q
I m
Q - I 1351190, } r
2163/1617—
Legend: \\ 26/26ti
Not to Scale XXM AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes \\ _ '/ Forecast Cumulative With Project
Project Site Boundary \ — � /
Conditions AM /PM Peak Hour Volumes
H: \pdata\ 10107807 \Traffic \Exhibits \Exhl4.ai 1d,Z Exhibit 14
M 0 FEB/2011
As also shown in Table 12, based on City - established thresholds of significance, the addition of
project - generated trips to the study intersections is forecast to result in no significant impacts for
forecast cumulative with project conditions.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS
The project site currently permits a 0.50 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) maximum. The project
proposes to increase the maximum FAR on the project site to 0.68. This section calculates the
proposed incremental increase in trips associated with the proposed increase in FAR at the
project site.
Table 13 summarizes the incremental increase in square footage based on the proposed 0.68
FAR and the permitted 0.50 FAR.
Table 13
Incremental Increase in Square Footage Per Proposed Project Site FAR Increase
Land Use
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Land Use Square Footage
Based on FAR
Proposed
0.68
23,015 square feet
Permitted
0.50
16,923 square feet
Proposed Net Incremental Square Footage Increase
6,092 square feet
As shown in Table 13, the total net incremental square footage increase associated with the
increase of 0.18 in FAR at the project site to accommodate the proposed project is 6,092 square
feet.
To calculate trips forecast to be generated by the net incremental square footage increase,
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates were utilized. Table 14
summarizes the ITE trip generation rates used to calculate the number of trips forecast to be
generated by the net incremental square footage increase.
Table 14
Proposed Project Trip Rates
Land Use
Units
AM Peak Hour Rates
PM Peak Hour Rates
Daily
Trip
Rate
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
Specialty Retail
tsf
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.19
1.52
2.71
44.32
Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8 "' Edition
Note: tsf = thousand square feet
Table 15 shows the incremental increase of trips forecast to be generated by the proposed
project assuming the proposed increase in FAR of 0.18 at the project site.
17
1173
Table 15
Incremental Increase in Trips Per Proposed Project Site FAR Increase
Note: tsf = thousand square feet; *Zero a.m. peak hour trips since ITE a.m. peak hour rate for specialty retail is
zero.
As shown in Table 15, based on the trip generation rates contained in Table 14, an increase in
FAR of 0.18 at the project site is forecast to generate approximately 270 new daily trips, which
includes approximately 0 new a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 16 new p.m. peak hour
trips.
Therefore, the proposed increase in FAR of 0.18 at the project site to accommodate the
proposed project is not anticipated to cause any significant traffic impacts due to the small
incremental increase in daily and peak hour trips.
SITE ACCESS
The proposed project plans to consolidate the project access locations at West Coast Highway
(SR -1) from the three current right -in /right -out access locations to one proposed right -in /right -out
driveway access location and one right -turn out only driveway access location. Striping is also
proposed along West Coast Highway (SR -1) to guide westbound through traffic away from the
project access locations and to provide a refuge for buses at the relocated bus stop between the
two project access locations. Exhibit 15 shows recommendations for the proposed site access
to further reinforce one access location is for entering /exiting and one location is for exiting only.
ORANGE COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) states that if a project generating
1,600 or more trips /day will directly access, or is in close proximity to, a CMP Highway System
link, a CMP traffic impact analysis is required. The proposed project is forecast to generate
1,533 trips per day; therefore, no CMP traffic impact analysis is required for the proposed
project.
STATE HIGHWAY INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
This section evaluates the forecast impact of project - generated trips at the following State
Highway study intersections:
Newport Boulevard Southbound Ramps/West Coast Highway (SR -1);
• Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway (SR -1);
18
16�
AM Peak Hour Trips
PM Peak Hour Trips
Daily
Land Use
Trips
In
Out
Total
In
Out
Total
6.092 tsf — Proposed Specialty Retail
0`
0`
0*
7
9
16
270
Square Footage Increase
Proposed Incremental Trip Increase
0*
0*
0*
7
9
16
270
Note: tsf = thousand square feet; *Zero a.m. peak hour trips since ITE a.m. peak hour rate for specialty retail is
zero.
As shown in Table 15, based on the trip generation rates contained in Table 14, an increase in
FAR of 0.18 at the project site is forecast to generate approximately 270 new daily trips, which
includes approximately 0 new a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 16 new p.m. peak hour
trips.
Therefore, the proposed increase in FAR of 0.18 at the project site to accommodate the
proposed project is not anticipated to cause any significant traffic impacts due to the small
incremental increase in daily and peak hour trips.
SITE ACCESS
The proposed project plans to consolidate the project access locations at West Coast Highway
(SR -1) from the three current right -in /right -out access locations to one proposed right -in /right -out
driveway access location and one right -turn out only driveway access location. Striping is also
proposed along West Coast Highway (SR -1) to guide westbound through traffic away from the
project access locations and to provide a refuge for buses at the relocated bus stop between the
two project access locations. Exhibit 15 shows recommendations for the proposed site access
to further reinforce one access location is for entering /exiting and one location is for exiting only.
ORANGE COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) states that if a project generating
1,600 or more trips /day will directly access, or is in close proximity to, a CMP Highway System
link, a CMP traffic impact analysis is required. The proposed project is forecast to generate
1,533 trips per day; therefore, no CMP traffic impact analysis is required for the proposed
project.
STATE HIGHWAY INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
This section evaluates the forecast impact of project - generated trips at the following State
Highway study intersections:
Newport Boulevard Southbound Ramps/West Coast Highway (SR -1);
• Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway (SR -1);
18
16�
O
Not to Scale
W. F. H- .\pdata\ 1010]80] \TraRlc\Exhibits\Exh l 5.ai
FEB/2011
Proiect Site Access Recommendations
• Tustin Avenue /West Coast Highway (SR -1);
• Balboa Bay Club Entrance/West Coast Highway (SR -1);
• Dover Drive/West Coast Highway (SR -1); and
• Bayside Drive /East Coast Highway (SR -1).
State Highway Intersection Analysis Methodology
Caltrans advocates use of Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) intersection analysis methodology
to analyze the operation of signalized intersections. The HCM analysis methodology describes
the operation of an intersection using a range of LOS from LOS A (free -flow conditions) to LOS
F (severely congested conditions), based on the corresponding stopped delay experienced per
vehicle as shown in Table 16.
Table 16
State Highway Intersection LOS & Delay Ranges
LOS
Delay (in seconds)
Signalized Intersections
A
< 10.0
B
>10.0to <20.0
C
>20.0to <35.0
D
>35.0to<55.0
E
>55.0to <80.0
F
> 80.0
Source:Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, HCM 2000
Edition (Washington D.C., 2000).
Level of service is based on the average stopped delay per vehicle for all movements of
signalized intersections. The Caltrans target for peak hour intersection operation is LOS C or
better.
State Highway Intersection Thresholds of Significance
While Caltrans has not established traffic thresholds of significance at State Highway
intersections, this traffic analysis utilizes the following traffic threshold of significance:
• A significant project impact occurs at a State Highway study intersection
when the addition of project - generated trips causes the peak hour level of
service of the study intersection to change from acceptable operation (LOS A,
B, or C) to deficient operation (LOS D, E or F).
Existing Conditions
Table 17 summarizes existing a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour LOS of the State Highway
study intersections; detailed LOS analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B.
19
Ab
Table 17
State Highway
Existing Conditions AM & PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS
Int.
No.
Study Intersection
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Delay -LOS
Delay -LOS
6
Newport Blvd SB Ramps /W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
15.6 - B
18.0 - B
7
Riverside Ave /W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
12.3 - B
16.0 - B
8
Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
3.4 - A
6.4 - A
9
Balboa Bay Dwy/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
4.5-A
4.8 - A
10
Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
20.6 - C
22.1 - C
11
Bayside Dr /E. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
12.2 - B
12.6 - B
12
Jamboree Rd /E. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
27.3 - C
28.2 - C
Note: 313 = southbound.
As shown in Table 17, the State Highway study intersections are currently operating at a
acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) according to Caltrans performance criteria.
Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions
Table 18 summarizes forecast existing plus project conditions a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak
hour LOS of the State Highway study intersections; detailed LOS analysis sheets are contained
in Appendix B.
Table 18
State Highway Forecast Existing Plus Project
Conditions AM & PM Peak Intersection Hour LOS
Int.
No.
Study Intersection
Existing Conditions
M
AM Peak Hour P Peak Hour
Forecast Existing Plus
Project Conditions
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Significant
Impact? ?
Delay-LOS
Delay-LOS
Delay-LOS
Delay-LOS
6
Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
15.6 - B
18.0 - B
15.6 - B
18.0 - B
No
7
Riverside Ave /W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
12.3 - B
16.0 - B
12.3 - B
16.0 - B
No
8
Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR-1)
3.4 -A
6.4 -A
3.4 -A
6.4 -A
No
9
Balboa Bay Dwy/W. Coast Hwy (SR-1)
4.5 -A
4.8 -A
4.6 -A
5.3 -A
No
10
Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
20.6 - C
22.1 - C
20.7 - C
22.7 - C
No
11
Bayside. Dr /E. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
12.2 - B
12.6 - B
12.3 - B
12.7 - B
No
12
Jamboree Rd /E. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
27.3 - C
28.2 - C
27.3 - C
28.2 - C
No
Note: SB = southbound.
As shown in Table 18, with the addition of project - generated trips, the State Highway study
intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) according to
Caltrans performance criteria for forecast existing plus project conditions.
20
A7
As also shown in Table 18, the addition of project - generated trips is forecast to result in no
significant impacts at the State Highway study intersections for forecast existing plus project
conditions.
Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions
Table 19 summarizes forecast cumulative without project conditions a.m. peak hour and p.m.
peak hour LOS of the State Highway study intersections; detailed LOS analysis sheets are
contained in Appendix B.
Table 19
State Highway Forecast Cumulative Without
Project Conditions AM & PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS
Int.
No.
Study Intersection
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Delay —LOS
Delay —LOS
6
Newport Blvd SB Ramps /W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
23.3 — C
23.9 — C
7
Riverside Ave /W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
12.7 — B
16.6 — B
8
Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
3.7 —A
6.5 — A
9
Balboa Bay Dwy/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
5.0 —A
5.7 —A
10
Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
21.0 — C
23.7 — C
11
Bayside Dr /E. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
14.1 — B
15.1 — B
12
1 Jamboree Rd /E. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
29.0 — C
32.6 — C
Note: SB = southbound.
As shown in Table 19, the State Highway study intersections are forecast to operate at an
acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) according to Caltrans performance criteria for forecast
cumulative without project conditions.
Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions
Table 20 summarizes forecast cumulative with project conditions a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak
hour LOS of the State Highway study intersections; detailed LOS analysis sheets are contained
in Appendix B.
21
l68
Table 20
State Highway Forecast Cumulative With Project
Conditions AM & PM Peak Intersection Hour LOS
Int.
No.
Study Intersection
Forecast Cumulative Without
Project Conditions
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Forecast Cumulative With
Project Conditions
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Significant
Impact?
Delay — LOS
Delay — LOS
Delay — LOS
Delay — LOS
6
Newport Blvd SB Ramps /W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
23.3 — C
23.9 — C
23.3 — C
24.0 — C
No
7
Riverside Ave /W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
12.7 — B
16.6 — B
12.7 — B
16.6 — B
No
8
Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
3.7 — A
6.5 — A
3.7—A
6.5 — A
No
9
Balboa Bay Dwy/W. Coast Hwy (SR-1)
5.0 —A
5.7 —A
5.0 —A
6.3 —A
No
10
Dover Dr/w. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
21.0 — C
23.7 — C
21.1 — C
24.4 — C
No
11
Bayside Dr /E. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
14.1 — B
15.1 — B
14.2 — B
15.2 — B
No
12
Jamboree Rd /E. Coast Hwy (SR -1)
29.0 — C
32.6 — C
29.0 — C
32.6 — C
No
Note: SB = southbound.
As shown in Table 20, with the addition of project - generated trips, the State Highway study
intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) according to
Caltrans performance criteria for forecast cumulative with project conditions.
As also shown in Table 20, the addition of project - generated trips is forecast to result in no
significant impacts at the State Highway study intersections for forecast cumulative with project
conditions.
MITIGATION MEASURES
No traffic mitigation measures are required for the proposed project since no significant traffic
impacts are forecast to occur based on agency thresholds of significance.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 1,292 net new daily trips, which
includes approximately 16 net new a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 70 net new p.m.
peak hour trips as analyzed in the TPO analysis. The proposed project is also forecast to
generate approximately 1,533 daily trips, which includes approximately 48 a.m. peak hour trips
and approximately 84 p.m. peak hour trips as analyzed in the cumulative analysis.
Based on City of Newport Beach established thresholds of significance, the addition of project -
generated trips is forecast to result in no significant TPO impacts at the study intersections for
forecast year 2013 with project conditions.
Also, based on City established thresholds of significance, the addition of project - generated
trips to the study intersections is forecast to result in no significant impacts for forecast existing
plus project conditions or forecast cumulative with project conditions.
No traffic mitigation measures are required for the proposed project since no significant traffic
impacts are forecast to occur based on agency thresholds of significance.
H: \pdata\ 10107807 \Traffic\Ad mi n \7807_trf.doc
22
16q
UO
Attachment No. PC 9
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
(Distributed Separately Due to Bulk)
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration is available the City's Projects / Environmental
Documents Download Page http:// www .newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =1347
171
17Z
Attachment No. PC 10
Comments and Responses
17,�;
U*
RESPONSE TO
COMMENTS
MARINER'S POINTE
PROJECT
prepared for:
CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH
Contact:
Jaime Munllo
Associate Planner
prepared by:
THE PLANNING
CENTERIDC &E
Contact.
JoAnn C. Hadfield
Director Environmental
Services
JUNE 2011
17,5
176
3300 Newport Boulevard
PO Box 1768
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915
Tel: 949.644.3209
1580 Metro Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Tel: 714.966.9220 • Fax: 714.966.9221
E -mail: information @planningcenter.com
Website: www.planningcenter.com
RESPONSE TO
COMMENTS
MARINER'S POINTE
PROJECT
prepared far:
CITY OF NEWPORT
BEACH
Contact:
Jaime Murillo
Associate Planner
Prepared by:
THE PLANNING
CENTER IDC &E
Contact:
JoAnn C. Hadfield
Director, Environmental
Services
CNB -11.OE
JUNE 2011
177
178
Table of Contents
Section Page
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ ............................1 -1
1.1 PROJECT SUMMARY ...................................................................
............................... 1 -1
1.2 PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT ..........................................................
............................... 1 -1
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF DOCUMENT .................................................
............................... 1 -2
2. PROPOSED PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
................................................ ............................2.1
2.1 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS ............................................................
............................2 -1
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ..........................................................
............................2 -1
3. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ....................................................................
............................3 -1
List of Figures
Figure Page
Figure1 Upper Roof Plan ........................................................................... ............................... 2 -3
Figure 2 Revised South Building Elevation ................................................. ............................... 2 -5
COO
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Neuport Beach • Page i
17�
Table of Contents
This page intentionally left blank.
Page ii • The Planning Center I DC &E June 2011
!OV
1. Introduction
1.1 PROJECT SUMMARY
The project applicant proposes to construct a two -story building that would provide 23,015 square feet of
high end retail and restaurants in addition to office uses on an approximately 0.76 -acre site in the City of
Newport Beach. A new three -story parking structure would provide up to 136 parking spaces with valet
service. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan designation of General Commercial (CG)
for the project site. However, development of the proposed project would require a General Plan
Amendment to allow for the floor area ratio (FAR; building floor area divided by land area) to be
increased. As described in this Response to Comments document, minor modifications to the project
description have been proposed subsequent to public circulation of the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS /MND) and are disclosed in this document.
The project site is in the northwest corner of the intersection of Dover Drive and West Coast Highway in
the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. The project site is surrounded by single- and
multifamily residences to the north and south. Single- family homes abut the project site to the north, and
single- and multifamily land uses are south of the project site across West Coast Highway. One -story
commercial buildings are adjacent to the west of the project site. East of the project site is Newport Bay
and undeveloped open space to the northeast.
1.2 PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT 88
As lead agency for the project, the City of Newport Beach has prepared and circulated an IS /MND for the �p••�/
Mariner's Pointe project. The IS /MND was forwarded to the State Clearinghouse on April 11, 2011, for
distribution to responsible and trustee agencies for a 30 -day public review period. Notice was sent to the
Orange County Clerks Office for posting and also mailed to owners and occupants of the surrounding
area in addition to other stakeholders. The posted and mailed notices indicated that the 30 -day review
period would begin on April 11, 2011, and end on May 11, 2011. However, because the Orange County
Clerk's Office did not post the notice until April 12, 2011, comment letters were accepted through at least
May 12, 2011.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15074(b):
"Prior to approving a project, the decision- making body of the lead agency shall consider the
proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration together with any comments
received during the public review process....."
Although not required by CEQA, this document includes a formal response to comments received on the
IS /MND.
This document also provides a description of modifications to the project proposed by the applicant
subsequent to public circulation of the IS /MND. To assure that none of the proposed changes would
result in environmental impacts that would warrant recirculation of the IS /MND, an analysis of the
potential impacts resulting from the project modifications is provided.
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -1
W
1. Introduction
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF DOCUMENT
This Response to Comments document has been organized as follows:
Section 1. Introduction. This section provides a brief summary of the project and the CEQA
process to -date. It also describes the purpose, contents and organization of this document.
Section 2. Proposed Modifications to the Project. This section provides a brief narrative and
exhibit to describe the proposed changes to the project subsequent to public circulation of the
IS /MND and includes a topic -by -topic review of potential environmental impacts associated with
those changes.
Section 3. Response to Comments. This section includes a copy of each comment letter
received on the IS /MND and a response to each comment.
Page 1 -2 • The Planning Center June 2011
TSz
2. Proposed Project Modifications
2.7 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS
This section outlines changes to the project as proposed in the IS /MND submitted for public review.
Proposed modifications include:
• A partial roof over the parking structure. The applicant is proposing this improvement to further
minimize potential aesthetic and noise impacts per the concern of neighboring residents. These
impacts, however, determined to be less than significant in the IS /MND would remain less than
significant with or without this improvement.
• Height reduction in cupola and tower features. The original project includes these features at a
maximum height of 44 feet. Based upon City staff review of the application, it was determined
that the appropriate findings to approve a Modification Permit to exceed the allowed 40 foot
height could not be made. Therefore, the applicant has agreed to reduce the height of these
elements to a maximum 40 feet and withdrew their request for a Modification Permit.
Figure 1, Upper Roof Plan, shows the proposed partial enclosure of the rooftop parking level as
submitted by the project applicant. The partial enclosure would cover approximately the rear two- thirds
portion of the rooftop parking level and would be setback 37.5 feet from the face of the parking structure.
As shown in Figure 2, the top of the rooftop enclosure would be approximately 35 feet in height. 88
Figure 2, Revised South Elevation, has been updated to reflect the parking structure roof and the lowered
maximum height of the cupola and tower elements from 44 feet to 40 feet.
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This section has been prepared to review the potential environmental impacts associated with the
proposed project modifications and to substantiate that the changes do not warrant recirculation of the
IS /MND. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, Recirculations of a Negative Declaration Prior
to Adoption, a lead agency must recirculate a negative declaration when the document must be
substantially revised after public notice of its availability, but prior to its adoption. In accordance with
Section 15073.5(b):
(b) A "substantial revisions" of the negative declaration shall mean:
(1) A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions
must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or
(2) The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will
not reduce potential effect to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be
required.
In accordance with Section 15073.5(c), recirculation is not required under the following circumstances:
(1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section
15074.1.
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 22 -11
g
/0/
2. Proposed Project Modifications
(2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's
effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable
significant effects.
(3) Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative
declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant
environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect.
(4) New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or
makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration.
The new changes to the project as proposed in the IS /MND meet CEQA Guidelines Sections
15073.5(c)(2) and 15073.5(c)(3). Inclusion of the rooftop parking level enclosure was in response to
concerns of the surrounding residents regarding potential lighting and noise impacts from operation of
the proposed parking structure. As discussed in Sections 3.3 and 3.12 of the IS /MND, lighting and noise
impacts were determined to be less than significant. Therefore, the rooftop enclosure and lowering of the
cupola and tower are not required by CEQA. Furthermore, as described below, the proposed project
changes would not result in new avoidable significant effects on the environment.
Aesthetics
Project modifications would be limited to the partial rooftop parking level enclosure and lowering of the
cupola and tower elements As shown in Figure 2, the rooftop addition would not result in major
changes to the aesthetics of the proposed parking structure. The height of the parking structure would
be increased in comparison to the previous plan, but it would not exceed the height of the commercial
building. The change would not alter the view from Dover Drive, and the view of the roof over the parking
structure to the south would be limited due to the 37.5 -foot roof setback. The height reduction of the
cupola and tower would reduce potential view impacts. Therefore, no new significant impacts on a
scenic vista or scenic resources would occur. The overall project design including the rooftop enclosure
would still be subject to review by the City's Planning Commission and City Council. Additionally, the
partial rooftop enclosure would eliminate some of the rooftop lighting fixtures and would further minimize
any light and glare from the rooftop parking level. Therefore, no new significant aesthetic impacts would
occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required.
Agricultural and Forest Resources
Aside from the addition of the partial rooftop parking level enclosure and lowering of the cupola and
tower elements, the remainder of the project would be the same compared to the project as proposed in
the IS /MND. Therefore, no new significant impacts to agricultural and forest resources would occur and
no new or additional mitigation measures are required.
Air Quality
Inclusion of the partial rooftop parking level enclosure and lowering of the cupola and tower elements
would not result in use of additional heavy construction equipment or additional construction or
operation phase vehicle trips generated compared to the project as proposed in the IS /MND that would
affect daily emissions. A nominal increase in material delivery and construction time would not result
insignificant construction- or operation - related air quality impacts. No new or additional mitigation
measures are required.
Page 2 -2 • The Planning Center June 2011
/ O7'
15.5
Top of Parooet
Top of Porapat
ROOF OVER PARKING
`
+35 V
1 '
Toc of2doo
JI
Cw1
Gross Building
Ground Level
—Tap of Poiapel
�I
+29' -r
Second Level
7
wI
- _
a.
al
Total
1 ,, 5/1'
of-35
MECHANICAL AREA _
R—= e
12,7 13,4
IE —
el O'- r +174' above se
Source: Stoutenbourough Architects and Planners 2011
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments
Top of Paapet
+32. q'
1. Introduction
Upper Roof Plan
W
4r
Top of W
Paow ,
1 +2V -iV
O
1 C
— J
Top
+4V
TABULATION SUMMARY
Not Site Area
Top of Parooet
ROOF
ROOF OVER PARKING
`
4
FL Ja' -d"
Toc of2doo
Topor Ri
Gross Building
Ground Level
9,940 at
31n 12 Roof P,IN (yPrr)1
11,794 at
12,7 13,4
IE —
el O'- r +174' above se
Source: Stoutenbourough Architects and Planners 2011
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments
Top of Paapet
+32. q'
1. Introduction
Upper Roof Plan
W
4r
Top of W
Paow ,
1 +2V -iV
O
1 C
— J
Top
+4V
TABULATION SUMMARY
Not Site Area
33,036 of
Building Area
Gross Leasable
Gross Building
Ground Level
9,940 at
11,794 at
Second Level
9,795 at
11,221 sf
Total
19,735 of
23,015 sf
Gross Area
Goss Restaurant Area
9,522
Gross Retail Area
10,493
Gross Medical Area
3,000
Total
23,015 sf
Parking Provided On -Site
Level
HC
Standard Tandem
Valet
Total
Stalls
Stalls
Stalls
Only
Ground Level P1
2
33
0
0
35
Second Level P2
1
24
16
5
46
Third Level P3
2
18
30
5
55
Total
5
75
46
10
136
0 30
Scale (Peet)
The Planning Center I DC&E a Figure 7
18f
2. Proposed Project Modifications
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 2 -4 • The Planning Center ,June 2011
M
1. Introduction
Revised South Building Elevation
South Elevation - West Coast Highway
p I EX4BnB BmltlYgs .uquq.
O r., EemolieME
N d
n i d
IT-7
wF
� ',unusroBmE� - b
Ol -
EIBi I
d — erlly I
J e�
Y
C
I
-
Area to be
– dedicated
f --
—
_ ________-
-
NEW
CURB
_ -__
to the city
—! jam/
"
IT
o
Sea LandIdet.P1
l
Level a-a' = +12-6" above Sea level
Plar�sfa
ld-0'Clear
Height
e d a oe dam
FL = +I' it
wF
� ',unusroBmE� - b
Ol -
EIBi I
d — erlly I
J e�
Partial Ground Level Plan on Site
35 PARKING SPACES
L
$ I DRIVE, S E
C �� O I
HC HC
Van I H 14 -0'
R o Clear Height
u Mech. Room _ q nc PaM1 of nr. +el ' rlre Curtc
Exit Stair 1 - r o o'
Pump
R -104 t Loom
a Up b 755 SQ FT
S1
1\ b
r> e
�.., RELOCATED BUS STOP
- BockBOw - Op E S 1
Preven,er !I y�
I. EXISTINGCURB
TO BE REMOVED
�Easernori
I- - I SEWER LINE
IAIJ• E%ISIING
MANHOLE
Source: Stoutenbourough Architects and Planners 2011
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments
1—
Exit
C A S T
b
UP�ol
a O oJDC�k Pn e
o ro
31
s � _
R -102 R -103
685 SO FT 3250 SQ FT O I
f I O
a I
10 O I
C
0 O ,
I I � l�
ill0 a I i � r
�I
O o '
e C
Underground lines hq,00pVOBs) Q '-- -__' --
H I G H W A Y
View
4%
sw level
f POropet
C
4
\ Y
d "abovo sea level
0 40
Scale (Feet)
The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 2
187
0
I
I
-
Area to be
– dedicated
f --
—
_ ________-
-
NEW
CURB
_ -__
to the city
—! jam/
NOTE:
l
Level a-a' = +12-6" above Sea level
Partial Ground Level Plan on Site
35 PARKING SPACES
L
$ I DRIVE, S E
C �� O I
HC HC
Van I H 14 -0'
R o Clear Height
u Mech. Room _ q nc PaM1 of nr. +el ' rlre Curtc
Exit Stair 1 - r o o'
Pump
R -104 t Loom
a Up b 755 SQ FT
S1
1\ b
r> e
�.., RELOCATED BUS STOP
- BockBOw - Op E S 1
Preven,er !I y�
I. EXISTINGCURB
TO BE REMOVED
�Easernori
I- - I SEWER LINE
IAIJ• E%ISIING
MANHOLE
Source: Stoutenbourough Architects and Planners 2011
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments
1—
Exit
C A S T
b
UP�ol
a O oJDC�k Pn e
o ro
31
s � _
R -102 R -103
685 SO FT 3250 SQ FT O I
f I O
a I
10 O I
C
0 O ,
I I � l�
ill0 a I i � r
�I
O o '
e C
Underground lines hq,00pVOBs) Q '-- -__' --
H I G H W A Y
View
4%
sw level
f POropet
C
4
\ Y
d "abovo sea level
0 40
Scale (Feet)
The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 2
187
0
2. Proposed Project Modifications
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 2 -6 • The Planning Center june200111
M
2. Proposed Project Modifications
Biological Resources
Aside from the addition of the partial rooftop parking level enclosure and lowering of the cupola and
tower elements, the remainder of the project in regards to both construction and operation would be the
same compared to the project as evaluated in the IS /MND. The site disturbance area and proposed
landscaping plan would not be modified. No new significant impacts to biological resources would occur
and no new or additional mitigation measures are required.
Cultural Resources
Aside from the addition of the partial rooftop parking level enclosure and lowering of the cupola and
tower elements, the remainder of the project in regards to both construction and operation would be the
same compared to the project as evaluated in the IS /MND. The site disturbance area and ultimate
footprint of the project would be the same. No new significant impacts to cultural resources would occur
and no new or additional mitigation measures are required.
Geology and Soils
The partial rooftop parking level enclosure would be designed and built to comply with the seismic
design criteria contained in the California Building Code as with the rest of the proposed parking
structure and commercial building. In addition, the proposed development would still be subject to
Mitigation Measure 5, which would require the project to be designed and built to comply with the
recommendations of the project geotechnical report(s). No new significant geological impacts would W/
occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As with Air Quality, inclusion of the partial rooftop parking level enclosure and lowering of the cupola and
tower elements would not result in use of additional heavy construction equipment or additional
construction or operational phase vehicle trips in comparison to the project as evaluated in the IS /MND.
Any GHG emissions related to these changes would be negligible and no new significant GHG impacts
would occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Addition of the partial rooftop parking level enclosure would not change the commercial /retail nature or
operation of the proposed project. The remainder of the project would remain unchanged to the project
as proposed in the IS /MND. Therefore, no new significant hazard impacts would occur and no new or
additional mitigation measures are required.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Aside from the addition of the partial rooftop parking level enclosure and lowering of the cupola and
tower elements, the remainder of the project in regards to both construction and operation would be the
same compared to the project as evaluated in the IS /MND. In addition, the parking enclosure may
reduce the amount of oil and grease from motor vehicles in the project's stormwater runoff as vehicles
and the area underneath would be better protected from rain. Therefore, proposed project modifications
are anticipated to result in beneficial impacts to water quality. No new significant impacts to hydrology
and water quality would occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required.
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -7
IF?
2. Proposed Project Modifications
Land Use and Planning
Land use and planning impacts were determined to be less than significant in Section 3.10 of the
IS /MND. Aside from the addition of the partial rooftop parking level enclosure and lowering of the cupola
and tower elements, the design of the remainder of the project would be the same compared to the
project as evaluated in the IS /MND. The partial rooftop parking level enclosure has been designed in
coordination with City staff to ensure compliance with City's design standards. Furthermore, lowering of
the cupola feature from 44 feet to 40 feet would eliminate the need for a Modification Permit. Therefore,
no new significant land use and planning impacts would occur and no new or additional mitigation
measures are required.
Mineral Resources
Addition of the partial rooftop parking level enclosure would not change the location of the proposed
project. The remainder of the project would be the same compared to the project as proposed in the
IS /MND. Therefore, no new significant impacts to mineral resources would occur and no new or
additional mitigation measures are required.
Noise
Construction noise and vibration impacts in addition to operation - related noise impacts were determined
to be less than significant in Section 3.12 of the IS /MND. The addition of the partial rooftop parking level
enclosure would not introduce any new construction noise or vibration impacts different from the project
as proposed in the IS /MND. The rooftop enclosure would not result in additional vehicle trip generation
relative to the project as evaluated in the IS /MND., The partial rooftop parking level enclosure is
anticipated to further minimize noise impacts, and therefore result in a beneficial impact. No new
significant noise impacts would occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required.
Population and Housing
Aside from the addition of the partial rooftop parking level enclosure and lowering of the cupola and
tower elements, the remainder of the project would be the same compared to the project as evaluated in
the IS /MND. No new significant impacts to population and housing would occur and no new or
additional mitigation measures are required.
Public Services
Addition of the partial rooftop parking level enclosure would not increase the need for additional fire or
police services compared to the project as proposed. The remainder of the project would be the same
compared to the project as evaluated in the IS /MND. No new significant impacts to public services would
occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required.
Recreation
Addition of the partial rooftop parking level enclosure would not change the nature of the project and the
remainder of the project would be the same compared to the project as evaluated in the IS /MND. No
new significant impacts to recreational facilities would occur and no new or additional mitigation
measures are required.
Page 2 -8 a The Planning Center June 2011
ITO
2. Proposed Project Modifications
Transportation and Traffic
Addition of the partial rooftop parking level enclosure would not result in additional vehicle trip
generation compared to the project as evaluated in the IS /MND. The partial rooftop parking level
enclosure has been designed in coordination with City staff to ensure compliance with the City's design
standards. Therefore, no new significant traffic impacts would occur and no new or additional mitigation
measures are required.
Utilities and Service Systems
Addition of the partial rooftop parking level enclosure would not result in additional water demand or
generation of solid waste. Therefore, no new significant impacts to utilities and service systems would
occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required.
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 2-9
1 T1
2. Proposed Project Modifications
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 2 -10 •The Planning Center ,June 2011
if/.
3. Response to Comments
3. Response to Comments
This section provides written responses received on the Initial Study prepared for the Mariner's Pointe
Project and the City's responses to each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given
letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the Initial Study are excerpted in this
document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the Initial Study text are shown in bold and
double underline for additions and st#keetrf for deletions.
The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the Initial Study during the
public review period.
Number Reference
Commenting Person /Agency
Date of Comment
Page No.
Al
Orange County Sanitation District
April 15, 2011
3 -3
A2
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
May 6, 2011
3 -7
A3
California Department of Transportation
May 10, 2011
3 -13
A4
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
May 16, 2011
3 -17
A5
Orange County Transportation Authority
May 11, 2011
3 -21
01
California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance
April 26, 2011
3 -25
R1
Neighborhood Letter
May 3, 2011
3 -29
R2
Cameron Merage
May 9, 2011
3 -35
R3
Jack M. Langson
May 9, 2011
3 -39
R4
Mike Hilford
May 10, 2011
3 -43
R5
William R. Steel (on behalf of Laura Tarbox)
May 11, 2011
3 -47
A: Agency
0: Organization
R: Resident
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -11
IV; V/
3. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3 -2 • The Planning Center ,June 2011
IT4-
LETTER Al — Orange County Sanitation District (2 pages)
3, Response to Comments
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
We.. dram Dublin healdl and be emimnra.M by ufnNdllla. eileellve WaMeweer COIIeCVnn. Vea"ant, and raeyrlird.
April 15, 2011
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
d,rbs Linde
APR 21 2011
.Also, please note that any construction dewatering operations that involve
Jamie Murillo, Associate Planner
casts A4asa
sanim, Miriaa discharges to the local or regional sanitary sewer system must be permitted
City of Newport Beach C1Ty 0F 1`fER'PORTBEACH
by OCSD prior to discharges. OCSD staff will need to review /approve the
3300 Newport Boulevard
Midway 01y
sannsry osa:at water quality of any discharges and the measures necessary to eliminate
Newport Beach, CA 92658
saramq
Ansbain,
SUBJECT: Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Declaration for Mariner's
Gd.rinaoranpe
Pointe Project City of Newport Beach
eras
9'. Park
Qpress
This letter is in response to the above referenced Notice of Intent to Adopt
Fountain v a,
Mitigated Declaration for Mariner's Pointe Project City of Newport Beach
(NOI), for a project within the City of Newport Beach (City). The project site is
r0armn
located near the intersection of Dover and West Coast Highway, within the
Go,drsn Grove
City.
Al -1
HuoWgum oaeab
,rme
The proposed project involves the construction of 50,274 square feet of
commercial /retail space with a parking structure. The project site is within the
La Habra
jurisdiction of the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The density of
La Palma
development is higher than current OCSD planning projections.
Laa AltlTiud,
Nawpart Gaanl,
OCSD records show that this area has a sewer system that eventually
connects to an OCSD sewer in West Coast Highway, near the project site.
Grans
This is a 30 -inch sewer that will collect the project's sanitary sewer flows.
ala`nnaa
Please indicate if the project will require any modifications to city sewers, or
Santa Aaa
provide corrected information about our records . on the city sewers. This
seal Sena?,
could be done by a figure to display how wastewater will be routed to the
Al -2
OCSD system. It should also be noted that OCSD anticipates the lower two
Stanton
floors of the parking structure may need to be connected to the sanitary
r a °n
sewer system. OCSD has a fee structure for these types of facilities and they
wlo Pnrk
should be included in the sanitary sewer flow analysis.
d,rbs Linde
.Also, please note that any construction dewatering operations that involve
casts A4asa
sanim, Miriaa discharges to the local or regional sanitary sewer system must be permitted
by OCSD prior to discharges. OCSD staff will need to review /approve the
Midway 01y
sannsry osa:at water quality of any discharges and the measures necessary to eliminate
At 3
1,,vina Ran, materials like sands, silts, and other regulated compounds prior to discharge
w cerD;surat to the sanitary sewer system.
Gd.rinaoranpe
PC 10244 Ellis 4aaue • Fountain Volley, CA 92708-7018 • 1714) 952 2411 • ..ocad.dnm
Mariner's Pointe Pi-oject Response to Comments City of Neloport Beach • Page 3 -3
1`tf
��
3. Response to Comments
j1V SR11)q �I
O 3j�,},iyV10
00
JC INS IH fNVIP
Jamie Murillo
Page 2
April 15, 2011
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed. development. If
you have any questions regarding sewer connection fees, please contact
Wendy Smith at (714) 593 -7880. For planning issues regarding this project,
please contact me at (714) 593 -7335.
ames L Bur r, Jr. P.E.
Engineering Supervisor
!! JB:sa
EOMS:003035155/1.12a
Page 3 -4 • The Planning Center J ne 2011
M
3. Response to Comments
Al Response to Comments from James L Burror, Engineering Supervisor, Orange County
Sanitation District, dated April 15, 2011.
Al -1 The project applicant will coordinate with the Orange County Sanitation District
(OCSD) to verify to verify adequate sewer capacity for the project prior to issuance
of grading permits.
At -2 The project site has three existing 6 -inch sewer laterals that feed into the existing 8-
inch main in West Coast Highway. This existing 8 -inch main flows into a manhole
located on the western end of the project site that feeds into the 30 -inch main that
runs along West Coast Highway. Commenter is correct in noting that the two lower
floors of the parking structure would be connected to the sanitary sewer system. The
project applicant will coordinate with Orange County Sanitation District in preparing
the sewer flow analysis to include the calculation of applicable fees.
Al -3 Comment acknowledged.
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -5
ITT
3. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3 -6 • The Planning Center ,June 2011
ITY
3. Response to Comments
LETTER A2 — California Department of Toxic Substances Control (4 pages)
Mr. Jaime Murillo, Associate. Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92658'
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
MARINER'S POINTE PROJECT, (SCH #2011041038), ORANGE COUNTY
Dear Mr. Murillo:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted. draft
Initial Study (IS) and a draft. Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the above -
mentioned project. The following project description is stated in your document: " The
project applicant proposes to construct a two -story commercial /retail building totaling
23,015 gross building square feet and a. three -level parking structure totaling 50,274
gross building square feet on the 0.76 -acre project site in the northwest quadrant of the
intersection at Dover Drive and West Coast Highway. The development would include
various commercial /retail uses such as restaurants, specialty retail and medical office.
The project site is surrounded by single - family and multifamily residences to the north and
south. One -story commercial buildings are adjacent to the west of the project site. East of
the project site is Newport Bay and undeveloped open space to the northeast. The project
site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection at Dover Drive and West Coast
Highway in the City of Newport Beach. The project site consists of six legal lots. The site
is currently enclosed by a chain -link fence and includes two vacant buildings on the
western portion of the site and a paved . surface parking lot ".
Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has the following comments:
1) The MND should evaluate whether conditions within the Project area may pose a A2 -1
threat to human health or the environment. Following are the databases of some
of the regulatory agencies:
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -7
1q.?
��
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Linda S. Adams
Leonard E. Robinson
Acting Director
HDdaa Edmund G. Brown Jr.
ZBDdA�,aN
Acting Secretary for
Environmental PrelecUon
5796 Corporate Avenue
Governor
do, {,yj0
Cypress, California 90630
Cypress,
uoa a z enw
1"t4"';NVd3f1 DNINN Wirt
May 6, 2011
_
Aft UOAI3on
Mr. Jaime Murillo, Associate. Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92658'
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
MARINER'S POINTE PROJECT, (SCH #2011041038), ORANGE COUNTY
Dear Mr. Murillo:
The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted. draft
Initial Study (IS) and a draft. Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the above -
mentioned project. The following project description is stated in your document: " The
project applicant proposes to construct a two -story commercial /retail building totaling
23,015 gross building square feet and a. three -level parking structure totaling 50,274
gross building square feet on the 0.76 -acre project site in the northwest quadrant of the
intersection at Dover Drive and West Coast Highway. The development would include
various commercial /retail uses such as restaurants, specialty retail and medical office.
The project site is surrounded by single - family and multifamily residences to the north and
south. One -story commercial buildings are adjacent to the west of the project site. East of
the project site is Newport Bay and undeveloped open space to the northeast. The project
site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection at Dover Drive and West Coast
Highway in the City of Newport Beach. The project site consists of six legal lots. The site
is currently enclosed by a chain -link fence and includes two vacant buildings on the
western portion of the site and a paved . surface parking lot ".
Based on the review of the submitted document DTSC has the following comments:
1) The MND should evaluate whether conditions within the Project area may pose a A2 -1
threat to human health or the environment. Following are the databases of some
of the regulatory agencies:
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -7
1q.?
��
3. Response to Comments
Mr. Jaime Murillo
May 6, 2011
Page 2
• National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA).
• Envirostor (formerly CalSiles): A Database primarily used by the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control, accessible through DTSC's
website (see below).
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A
database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA.
• Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS): A database of CERCLA sites that is
maintained by U.S.EPA.
• Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the
California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both
open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and
transfer stations.
• GeoTracker: A List that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control
Boards.
'Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup
sites and leaking underground storage tanks.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard,
Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452 -3908, maintains a list of
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS).
A2 -1
cont'd.
2) The MND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation
and /or remediation for any site within the proposed Project area that may be
contaminated, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory A2 -2
oversight. If necessary, DTSC would require an oversight agreement in order to
review such documents.
3) Any environmental investigations, sampling and /or remediation for a site should
be conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency
that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of A2-3
any investigations, including any Phase I or II Environmental Site Assessment
Investigations should be summarized in the document. All sampling results in
which hazardous substances were found above regulatory standards should be
Page 3 -8 • The Planning Center J ne 2011
zoo
3. Response to Comments
Mr. Jaime Murillo
May 6, 2011
Page 3
clearly summarized in a table. All closure, certification or remediation approval
reports by regulatory agencies should be included in the MND.
4) If buildings, other structures, asphalt or concrete -paved surface areas are being
planned to be demolished, an investigation should also be conducted for the
presence of other hazardous chemicals, mercury, and asbestos containing
materials (AGMs). If other hazardous chemicals, lead -based paints (LPB) or
products, mercury or ACMs are identified, proper precautions should be taken
during demolition activities. Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated
in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies.
5) Future project construction may require soil excavation or filling in certain areas.
Sampling may be required. If soil is contaminated, it must be properly disposed
and not simply placed in another location onsite. Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDRs) may be applicable to such soils. Also, if the project proposes to import
soil to backfill the areas excavated, sampling should be conducted to ensure that
the imported soil is free of contamination.
6) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected
during any construction or demolition activities. If necessary, a health risk
assessment overseen and approved by the appropriate government agency
should be conducted by a qualified health risk assessor to determine if there are,
have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk
to human health or the environment.
7) If the site was used for agricultural, livestock or related activities, onsite soils and
groundwater might contain pesticides, agricultural chemical, organic waste or
other related residue. Proper investigation, and remedial actions, if necessary,
should be conducted under the oversight of and approved by a government
agency at the site prior to construction of the project.
8) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the
proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the
California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code,
Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations
(California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). If it is determined that
hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should also obtain a United
States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting
(800) 618 -6942. Certain hazardous waste treatment processes or hazardous
materials, handling, storage or uses may require authorization from the local
Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the requirement for
authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA.
A2 -3
cont'd.
A2-4
A2 -5
A2 -6
��
A2 -7
I_11M.
Mariner`s Pointe Pi-oject Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -9
zo1
3. Response to Comments
Mr. Jaime Murillo
May 6, 2011
Page 4
9) DTSC can provide cleanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight
Agreement (EOA) for government agencies that are not responsible parties, or a
Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) for private parties. For additional
information on the EOA or VCA, please see A2 -9
www.dtsc .ca.gov /SiteCleanup /Brownfields, or contact Ms. Maryam Tasnif-
Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 484 -5489.
10) Also, in future C.EQA document, please provide your e-mail address, so DTSC I A2 -10
can send you the comments both electronically and by mail.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Rafiq Ahmed, Project
Manager, at rahmed0citsc.ca.gov, or by phone at (714) 484 -5491.
Sincerely,
Greg Holmes
Unit Chief
Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program
cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California 95812 -3044
slate. clea ri n g hou se(g70Dr.ca, goy.
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Office of Environmental Planning and Analysis
P.O. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812
ADelacrl (Ldlsc.ca.gov
CEQA # 3195
Page 3 -10 •The Planning Center Jnne 2011
zoz
3. Response to Comments
A2 Response to Comments from Greg Holmes, Unit Chief, Department of Toxic Substances
Control, dated May 6, 2011.
A2 -1 Potential project impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials were analyzed
in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the IS /MND. This section was
based on the Phase I report (a copy is available with the City for viewing) prepared
for the proposed project which utilized the databases listed by the commenter, such
as Geotracker, RCRIS, and CERCLIS.
A2 -2 The Phase I report identified a former Arco service station onsite. However, the
former use is considered a historical recognized environmental condition (HREC)
because records indicate the underground storage tanks have been removed and
the case was closed on May 11, 1998. Therefore, the Phase I report does not
recommend any further action.
A2 -3 See response A2 -2. The Phase I report does not recommend any further action.
A2 -4 The proposed project would result in demolition of the existing buildings onsite. As
discussed in Section 3.8(b) of the IS /MND, the Phase I report prepared for the
project identified the presence of asbestos - containing material (ACM) in the existing
buildings. Removal of ACM would be conducted in accordance with SCAQMD Rule
1403. The existing buildings were also observed to contain lead -based paint (LBP).
However, the suspected LBP is considered to be a de minimis environmental
condition and no further action is recommended.
A2 -5 See response A2 -2. If contaminated soil were encountered during grading and
construction activities, the soil would be profiled and shipped to an appropriate
permitted disposal facility. Should the need for imported soil arise, care would be
taken to ensure that the soil is not contaminated with hazardous substances.
A2 -6 See response A2 -4. Removal of ACM would be conducted to comply with SCAQMD
Rule 1403, which would minimize any potential health impacts. Suspected LBP is
considered to be a de minimis environmental condition and no further action is
recommended. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 3.9(a), Hydrology and Water
Quality, of the IS /MND, best management practices as required under the federal
Clean Water Act would be implemented to eliminate sediment and construction
debris runoff into area storm drains during the construction period.
A2 -7 The project site has not been used for agricultural, livestock, or related activities.
There are no agricultural resources on the site, and the site is not listed on any of the
State Farmland maps. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the soil or groundwater
would contain pesticides, agricultural, chemical, organic waste, or other related
residue.
A2 -8 As the project would consist of restaurants, office, and retail use, long -term
operations of the proposed project would not involve routine transport, storage, use,
and disposal of substantial amounts of hazardous materials.
A2 -9 Comment acknowledged.
A2 -10 Comment acknowledged.
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -11
zo7
3. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3 -12 •The Planning Center ,June 2011
1.04-
3. Response to Comments
LETTER A3 - California Department of Transportation (1 page)
11'5ALQfLC6I.1EORNIA --J GSS_rRnatiiMlrt "hl'ON pND11111111NG A(IENC1• 1,ItN „ULDS .II \Vn13'/,ppbapfR tim�nxn
DF I'AXI'M ENT OP TRANSPORTATJON
District 12
3337 Michelson Drivc, Sunc 380
hvinc. CA 92612-88V---
(949) 724 - 1267
Fax: (949)724 -2592
May 10, 2011
Past•it' Fax RIM. 7671
Date $.47- l( 4l 0' u I
rtr J` ,ma
Fran, p;'�FIitS
Cc "'a"l. i'1,41+�tn
Co. CAf- 1ftnHS
Phone i'
PhoneN Cl H4o -3Hg7
Faxk S `,(,t _ rt ej
Fex it �l 7 56—'M
Jaime Mtuillo
City ofNewpori Beach .
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Subject: Mariner's Point Project
Dc rr Mr. Murillo
W
Flex1•mapo,uer'
ea e,rarly meronr:
rile: JGR/CEQA
SCH #: 2011041038
Log 4:. 2704
SR -I
Thank you For the opportunity to review and comment on the Mitigated Negative Dectaratiun for the
ildariner's Pointe Project. The project proposes to demolish the existing building and construct the
proposed two -story commercial/retail building and three -level parking lot. The gross square footage of
the proposed project would: be 23,015. The uses would consist 10,493 gross square feet of restaurants,
9,522 gross square feet of retail, and 3,000 gross square feet of medical /office. Additionally, the project
would construct a three -level parking structure that would provide 136 valet and self parking stalls. The
nearest State route to the project site is SR -1.
The California Department of Transportation (Department), District 12 is a commenting agency on this
project and we have no comment at this time, However, in the event of any activity within the
Department's right -of -way, an enctoachment permit will be required.
Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could
potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please
do not hesitate to call Damon Davis at (949) 440 -3487.
Sinccr:l�f
Chris Herne, Branch Chief
Local Development /Intergovemmental Review
C: Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research
"Calm"; DrrP"m,"'0ilirp err...” calylm of,,
A3 -1
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -13
ZOf
��
3. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3-14 • The Planning Center ,June 2011
zo6
3. Response to Comments
A3 Response to Comments from Chris Herre, Branch Chief, Caltrans, dated May 10, 2011.
A3 -1 Comment acknowledged. The proposed water feature would encroach upon
Caltrans right -of -way along West Coast Highway. The project applicant will
coordinate with Caltrans to obtain an encroachment permit.
��
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -15
,Z07
3. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3 -16 •The Planning Center ,June 2011
zo8
3. Response to Comments
LETTER A4 - State Clearinghouse (1 page)
o0�EOG�NN,0
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9° *.
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT
��4rfaF CM1W
JERRY BROWN RECEIVED BY
GervERNOR
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MAY 1'6 2011
JainreMurillo
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Subject: Mariner's Pointe Project
SCH #: 2011041038
Dear Jaime Murillo:
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
The Slate Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state
agencies for review. The review period closed on May 10, 2011, and to state agencies submitted
comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied will, the State Clearinghouse
review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act.
Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the
environmental review process. If you have a queslionabout the wove -named project, please refer to the
ten -digit Stale Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.
Sincerely,
Send neon
Director, Slate Clearinghouse
1400IOth Street P.O.Box3044 Sacramento, California 95812 -3044
(916) 445 -0613 FAX(916)323-301B wvm.opcca,gov
A4 -1
Mariner`s Pointe Pi-oject Response e to Comments City of Newport Beach * Page 3 -17
zol
��
3. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3 -18 •The Planning Center ,June 2011
z10
3. Response to Comments
A4 Response to Comments from Scott Morgan, Director, State Clearinghouse, dated
May 16, 2011.
A4 -1 Comment acknowledged.
FOX)
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -19
/W
3. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3 -20 • The Planning Center ,June 2011
/. 1z
3. Response to Comments
LETTER A5 - Orange County Transportation Authority (2 pages)
M
OCTA
p�ii7RD BV
PLaM(PI iNa' tiEi'.nt�P�EH4
9OaPOOFDIFECr
May 11, 2011
PamnalW
MAY 17 2011
cne�
PBUIGaeo
Wrn cw,
Mr. Jaime Murillo
Associate Planner OF NEWPORT BEACH
�m+r,�Mlm
CITY
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
�* + «•,
Newport Beach. CA 92658
veW 8W4
Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mariner's Pointe Project
&x GmPMN
Dear Mr. Jaime Murillo:
caavn ca....
The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has reviewed the above
referenced document. The following comments are provided for your consideration:
N lxxm -
• On Page 132, it is suggested that an existing bus stop would be
relocated to an area slightly west of its current location on the north side
-
of Pacific Coast Highway, west of Dover Drive. Please note that a 12' by
Per=
80' concrete bus pad should be placed adjacent to the proposed
relocation area.
A5 -1
• Place a shelter at the proposed bus stop boarding area. This will give
passengers a centralized location in which to wait for the bus and would
minimize any potential impacts to adjacent businesses if passengers
,arlel Hpryw,
°I+aaa
were to use the building awnings during inclement weather.
MpW n ao
The developer will need to work with OCTA staff to identify an alternate
r. ran
bus stop location to be used during the construction project.
Dirarne
c+ro INrIINOaIhxn
Provide OCTA with a 14 -day advance notice prior to the start of the
A5 -2
°rew
project by calling the Detour Coordinator at (714) 265.4359 or Field
CintlyOUOn
Operations at (714) 265 -4497.
Ex -0aleb MmmLe+
If you have any questions or comments, please contact Carolyn Mamaradlo by
CHIEFEN WIV OFFICE
phone at (714) 560 -5748 or by email at cmamaradlo @octa.net.
WIO NwI{don
pW Fxeamv Oavr
orange county rifer p lalian A ,Wty
SW Soum Wm Sl/eel / PO. Su 11 IM /Orange /(:alRgrua WW3 1580 /(/14) S68.0LTA (MV)
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -21
zT�;
If 5�
3. Response to Comments
m
OCTA
SOMPOFOIPECTr
Pelrira C•.(- Sincerely,
vme -c
Jwryai,r,rr
ar Charles Lanvood
Manager, Transportation Planning
°i c: Bill Batory, OCTA
Pe Mr de
Orr.
NYI Cdupn
Crr.
LarwVn La.n..
k4ximJ o.,.
ari..r
Can t'arr:
nrr.,
Peer iWr
prr-
.farm Mo;in...
9nawa mro,.
C",
Jm,eltl,
Ou,
moil, Pal.'
w,
orn
OPen
D.7 VlnNeibnllwn
Oiregw
ChoyO a
(avemws
Ex -0Ifioo MeniOer
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE
waxempon
Chrol Eracuare 011ker
Omnge County Transporfenon Aulbomy
550 South Main S1roel /PO ear 14104 /Oranpe /C8100MI8 92863-1584 / (714) 560 OCTA (6282)
Page 3 -22 • The Planning Center June 2011
Z[4-
3. Response to Comments
A5 Response to Comments from Charles Larwood, Manager, Transportation Planning, Orange
County Transportation Authority, dated May 11, 2011.
A5 -1 Comment acknowledged. Project applicant will coordinate with the Orange County
Transportation Authority (OCTA) regarding the configuration of the relocated bus
stop.
A5 -2 Mitigation Measure No. 11 requires the applicant to contact and coordinate with
OCTA to modify or relocate the Coast -Dover bus stop during construction activities.
This mitigation also specifies that such plans as negotiated with OCTA shall be
submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. In
response to this comment, Mitigation Measure No. 11 is supplemented as follows:
11. The applicant shall contact OCTA and coordinate operation of the
Coast -Dover bus stop along the project's West Coast Highway frontage
during project construction. Mitigation as required to suspend operation,
or modify or temporarily relocate the bus stop during project
construction activities shall be negotiated with OCTA. The applicant shall
provide the plans /mitigation to the City as negotiated with OCTA for
review and approval by the City of Newport Beach's Planning
Department and Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading
permits. The applicant shall provide OCTA with a minimum 14 -dhu
advance notice prior to the start of construction activities by
contacting either the Detour Coordinator or Field Operations.
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -23
z1f
��
3. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3 -24 • The Planning Center ,June 2011
z1d
3. Response to Comments
LETTER 01 — California Cultural Resources Preservation Alliance (1 page)
ccRPA
P.O. Box 54132
Irvine, G 926194132
April 26, 2011
California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, inc.
An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working fee-
the Preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources.
Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Dear Jaime Murillo,
M ANNINO DEdARTMENT
APR 2 8 toll
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mariner's Pointe
Project. We agree that the proposed project has a high probability for the presence of prehistoric cultural
deposits beneath the current modern ground surface and that they may be impacted by eartlimoving and
demolition activities. The mitigation measures appear to be appropriate, however we would like to see a
requirement that if significant cultural deposits such as intact midden or features and especially human
remains are located during Phase 11 studies, rather than going directly to Phase III data recovery
mitigation, a determination will be made as to whether preservation in place is a feasible option. This may
be feasible if the cultural deposits are within areas designated for parking or landscaping. Site burial
beneath parking lots and open spaces is recommended in California Public Resources Code 21083.2 (b)
(3) and (4). This can also save the developer money as Phase III data recovery mitigation is labor
intensive and expensive.
01 -1
In addition, since the project involves a General Plan Amendment, SB 18 requires that prior to the
adoption of an amendment of a city's general plan, (lie city conduct consultations will] California Native 01 -2
American tribes.
Finally, the City of Newport Beach is to be commended for their diligence in addressing environmental
concerns, including cultural resources. If you have any questions, please contact me at (949) 559 -6490, or
p.Inartz@cox.net.
Sincerely,
Patricia Martz, Ph.D. �S
President
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -25
Z17
5�
3. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3 -26 •The Planning Center ,June 2011
ZIF
3. Response to Comments
01. Response to Comments Patricia Martz, President, California Cultural Resource
Preservation Alliance, dated April 26, 2011.
01 -1 Comment acknowledged. Per the commenter's suggestion, Mitigation Measure 4
has been revised to the following:
The project applicant shall have a qualified archaeologist conduct a Phase II
archaeological investigation and a Phase III investigation if warranted. The Phase II
investigation, including trenching and analysis of any resources found, shall be
completed before issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach. A
Phase II archaeological testing program consists of a control subsurface
investigation designed to extract a small sample of the subsurface deposits, but a
sample large enough to draw a conclusion on the significance of the site (assuming
the site is present). If intact features of an archaeological site, such as hearths, living
surfaces, or middens, are discovered in the course of the Phase II investigation, then
the project applicant shall have the archaeologist .
I
1
.... .. ,.. �• �i a .. .
01 -2 Pursuant to SB 18 requirements, on October 13, 2010, the City of Newport Beach
submitted a written request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
requesting a list of whom to consult. On October 19, 2010, the City received the
Native American Tribal Consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural
places within the project planning area from the NAHC. The City sent out letters on
October 20, 2010 to each of the tribes on the list inviting each to consult and declare
the importance of their tribe's participation in the planning process of an amendment
to the City's General Plan as required by Government Code Section 65352. The City
did not receive any responses or requests for consultation. The Tribes listed on the
NAHC's consultation list were also included on the distribution list for the Notice of
Intent for the IS /MND and will be provided Planning Commission and City Council
public hearing notices.
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -27
z1�
FRVTT.3MW"T.4T.TFr.ff
M W" I'm
••. .i . ri. .n• -
• M-WH MU-M-1
a -� �- � .� ,�. .u.•�-�
�- •, �• •�
01 -2 Pursuant to SB 18 requirements, on October 13, 2010, the City of Newport Beach
submitted a written request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)
requesting a list of whom to consult. On October 19, 2010, the City received the
Native American Tribal Consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural
places within the project planning area from the NAHC. The City sent out letters on
October 20, 2010 to each of the tribes on the list inviting each to consult and declare
the importance of their tribe's participation in the planning process of an amendment
to the City's General Plan as required by Government Code Section 65352. The City
did not receive any responses or requests for consultation. The Tribes listed on the
NAHC's consultation list were also included on the distribution list for the Notice of
Intent for the IS /MND and will be provided Planning Commission and City Council
public hearing notices.
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -27
z1�
3. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3 -28 • The Planning Center June 2011
.Z ZD
LETTER R1 — Neighborhood Resident Letter (4 pages)
May 3, 2011
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
Attention: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner
Subject: Mariner's Pointe Project
City of Newport Beach
3. Response to Comments
RECEIVED BY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
MAY 10 2011
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Reference is made to your Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Declaration for Mariner's
Pointe. Project, a copy of which is attached hereto. Wenote the City Staff has concluded
that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment and therefore has
recommended a negative declaration.
However, we homeowners in Newport Beach, mainly on the ocean side of Kings Road,
are strongly opposed to the project as presented. It is way overbuilt for the size of the
property! The existing zoning, and the requirements therein, are presently fair to the
homes on the rim and to the business properties below. As far as we can tell, all other
businesses along the North side of the highway have complied. Why should there be an
exception in this case?
R1 -1
We are most concerned about the Parking Structure: massive size, way over the 31 foot
height limit, parking on the roof., lights on the roof, noise from car doors shutting, hom
sounds, etc. Of even more concern is the fact that the entrance and exit are close to the
comer of Dover and PCH. There have been many accidents on this corner and in the R1 -2
vicinity thereof. The ingress and egress to the Parking Structure are in an area where
three traffic lanes merge into two. Traffic going East. on PCH would have to make a U-
turn at the comer to enter the parking structure.
Furthermore, if you accept these radical changes to the zoning requirements for this
project, you probably will set an unwanted precedent. Also, we believe such massive
structures will reduce the property values of homes directly above PCH. The property in R1 -3
question warrants a more reasonable development which complies with existing zoning
and is more compatible with the neighborhood.
HOMEOWNERS ADDRESSES
i
-117 K
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -299
�/
��
3. Response to Comments
%_c
ADDRESSES
32 I k '•��s.
39 3 Rio
10 It K;k�-s plke- e,
Page 3 -30 • The Planning Center June 2011
zzz
3. Response to Comments
Notice.of Intent to Adopt
Mitigated Declaration for Mariner's Pointe Project
City of Newport Beach
Notice is hereby given that the City of Newport Beach has completed a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
construction of a new commercial building at 1T00 - 300 West Coast Highway at the intersection. of West Coast
Highway and Dover Drive, Newport Beach, California. The 0.76 acre project site consists of two existing connected
one -story buildings and a surface lot. The project applicant, Glenn Verdult, proposes.to demolish the existing
structures and pavement . onsite and construct a two -story commercial structure of- 23,015 gross building square
feet and a three -story parking structure. The development would include various commercial /retail uses such as
restaurants ('10.493 so, specialty retail (9,522 so, and medical office (3,000 so..
Development of the proposed project would require the following entitlements from the City of Newport Beach.
• General Plan Amendment: increase the allowable floor area to land area ratio (FAR) for the project site
from 0.5 FAR to 0.68 FAR
• Zoning Code Amendment: change the specific floor area limitation for the project site on the Zoning Map
from 0.3/0.5 FAR to 0.68 FAR
• Site Development Review: to allow the construction of a 23,015- square -foot, two -story building and a
three -story parking structure, that will exceed the 31 -fool base height limit with a maximum height of 40 feet
• Modification Permit: to allow architectural feature. (cupola and finial) to exceed the 40 -foot maximum
height limit (proposed height of 44 feet)
• Conditional Use Permit: to allow rooftop parking, to modify the off - street parking requirements-, and to
establish a parking management plan for the site
• Variance: to allow the building to encroach 5 feet into the 5 -foot rear yard setback
Parcel Map: to consolidate six lots into one parcel
On the basis of the Initial Study, City staff has concluded that the project would not have a. significant impact on the
environment and has therefore recommended preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The MND
reflects the independent judgment of City staff and recognizes project design features, previous environmental
evaluations, and standard construction and engineering practices, requiring review and reevaluation of future
projects as contributing to avoidance of potential impacts. The project site does not include any sites on an
Environmental Protection Agency hazardous waste site list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5.
The MND is available for a 30-day public review period beginning April 11, 2011 and ending May 11, 2011. Copies
of the document are available for review at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport . Beach, CA 92658 between the hours
of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The document can also be accessed online at
http:// www .newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =942. Additionally, copies of the document are also available for
review at the following City public libraries:
Newport Beach Public Library
Newport Beach Public Library
Corona del Mar Branch
Mariners Branch
420 Marigold Ave.
1300 Irvine Avenue
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Newport Beach Public Library
Newport Beach Public Library
Balboa Branch
Central Library
100 East Balboa Boulevard
1000 Avocado Avenue
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -311
�
!
V�
3. Response to Comments
.�;k
ri 11
M
). q-J.-
x
1
�� _ a —1 ♦ f-
XO.ii
t i -_ 4'
MYyI�(
I/
I
r
8
` V
it
I�M
4Y
A
J i
3 �
TV
0
7
ieu n �
PA
h i-
h
o
F €: -- �-
Page 3 -32 • The Planning Center June 20111
A
/
M
°'
°yhll
p G
it
I�M
4Y
A
J i
3 �
TV
0
7
ieu n �
PA
h i-
h
o
F €: -- �-
Page 3 -32 • The Planning Center June 20111
A
3. Response to Comments
R1. Response to Comments Neighborhood Residents Letter, dated May 3, 2011.
R1 -1 The commenter's opposition to the project as proposed is acknowledged. As
described in the IS /MND project description, project implementation as proposed
would require a General Plan Amendment to increase the floor area ratio (FAR),and
a Site Development Review to exceed the building height limitation of 31 feet. The
Aesthetics section of the IS /MND provides a description and graphic representation
of the project as proposed, and concludes that the development would improve
visual and aesthetic conditions of the site and surrounding area, and would not
result in significant impacts. Subsequent to the preparation of the IS /MND, the
applicant has revised the project reducing the heights of the proposed cupola and
tower elements, and has added a roof structure over the rear two- thirds portion of
the parking structure to screen the vehicles and associated activity from the
residents above (See Section 2.0 of this Response to Comments document).
Aesthetic impacts, including the scale of the project, are, however, subjective by
nature. The discretionary power to either grant or deny the requested entitlements
lies wholly with the City. These comments will be forwarded to decision makers for
their consideration.
R1 -2 As summarized in the previous response, the scale of the project requires a General
Plan Amendment as requested by the project applicant to increase the allowable
FAR for the project site. Similarly a Site Development Review is required for the
building to exceed the 31 foot height limit. The discretionary power to either grant or
deny the requested entitlements lies wholly with the City. These comments will be
forwarded to decision makers for their consideration. 88
The original project design included uncovered rooftop parking, access and lighting.
The impact analysis for uncovered rooftop related impacts are analyzed in IS /MND
sections 3.1, Aesthetics, and 3.12, Noise, respectively. Figure 9, Third -Level Parking
Structure Lighting Plan, shows the various types of lighting that would be installed on
the parking structure's rooftop level. As shown and noted on the figure and as
discussed in Section 3.1(d), the design, arrangement, and orientation of the lighting
fixtures would prevent light spillover into the areas beyond the parking structure.
Additionally, as shown in Figure 10, Third -Level Parking Lighting Analysis, the lighting
fixtures would be directed inward to the parking structure. Therefore, lighting
impacts were concluded to be less than significant in the IS /MND.
Potential rooftop parking noise was analyzed in Section 3.12(a). As shown in Figure
15, 3rd Level Parking Structure — Generated Noise Contours, noise generated from
the rooftop parking level would be less than the City's nighttime exterior noise
standard of 45 dBA Leq. Therefore, in accordance with the CEQA significance
threshold, noise impacts from the parking structure were concluded to be less than
significant.
Subsequent to the preparation of the IS /MND, the applicant has revised the project
reducing to add a roof structure over the rear two- thirds portion of the parking
structure to screen the vehicles and associated activity from the residents above,
which would further minimize noise and lighting impacts. The environmental analysis
and conclusions related to the proposed project modifications are included in
Section 2.0 of this Response to Comments document.
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -3 3
Z04f
3. Response to Comments
Regarding the commenter's concerns over potential traffic safety impacts, as
discussed in Table 12, General Plan Consistency Analysis, of the IS /MND, the project
would be consistent with policy CE 2.2.4, Drive and Access Limitations, of the City's
General Plan. This policy states that driveways and local street access on arterials
should be limited to maintain a desired quality of traffic flow and also that driveways
should be consolidated wherever possible. The proposed project would eliminate
the driveway access off of Dover Drive and would consolidate the four driveway
accesses along West Coast Highway into two main access drives. The proposed
plan and circulation has been reviewed by the City's traffic engineering department.
The design, including ingress and egress to the parking structure meets City
standards. The commenter is correct in noting that traffic going east on West Coast
Highway would be required to make a U -turn at the West Coast Highway /Dover
intersection. This turning movement has a dedicated left -turn light.
R1 -3 Please see response to comment RI-1 regarding commenter's concern that
approval of the proposed project and granting of the requested entitlements would
set an unwanted precedent. Regarding the commenter's concern that property
values of homes above the project site may be affected, per CEQA Guidelines
Section 15382, "an economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a
significant effect on the environment" and therefore is outside the purview of CEQA.
These comments will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for their
consideration.
Page 3 -34 •The Planning Center June 2011
.Z.Z6
LETTER R2 — Cameron Merage Letter (2 pages)
May 9, 2011
3. Response to Comments
RECEIVED BY
'PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Jaime Marino, Associate Planner MAY 0 ® 2011
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 WY OF NEWPORT BEACH
Subject: Comments on the Initial Study
Mariner's Pointe, West Coast Highway at Dover Drive
Newport Beach, California
As Use owner of the residential property adjacent to Ore subject development site, this
letter is submitted to state my concerns and objections in reference to this development's
potential impacts to illy property. I purchased my property, 100 Kings Place, which is
located immediately north of the subject commercial development site years ago for its
high value in terms of location acrd view in hopes of building a residence that, similar to
my neighbors' homes, would enjoy the panoramic views of Balboa Island, Lido Isle, and
the Pacific Ocean. However, upon review of the plans and per the Initial Study dated
April 2011, my family and I are extremely concerned that the value of our property and
quality of life would be significantly impacted by the proposed project, due to the
following reasons:
1.
Scenic View /Privacy: The height of the proposed two -story building and three -stray
parking structure, including the rotunda and cupola, would partly obstruct our views
R2 1
of Balboa Island, Lido Isle, and the Pacific Ocean. In addition, employees and
customers parking, walking, and /or loitering on the rooftop parking structure would
decrease the privacy of our backyard;
1
Aesthetics /Lighting: The rooftop parking and lights rising above the parapet walls
would create an unpleasant view, with sunlight reflecting in the day through the
R2 -2
parked cars and lights installed above the parapet wall generating night time glare;
3.
Air Quality: The odor and fumes of food from the kitchen exhaust of two restaurants
I R2 -3
operating from 9:OOAM to 1:00AM daily would constantly blow onto our property;
4.
Native Vegetation: Aside from its unpleasant aesthetic, this project will create a
significant shadow over the rear end of our property, making it nearly impossible for
R2-4
native vegetation and ground cover to grow and would result in an unusable area;
5.
Zero Lot Variance: The developer proposes to encroach 5 feet into the 5 -foot rear
yard setback and build a. retaining/shoring wall and 3 -foot wide drainage swale on our
property. Due to this we would lose 3' x 110' (330 Sq. Ft.) of our property. In
R2 -5
addition, the retaining wall under - pining world extend about 40` to 50' into our
property at 8' on center. This would limit the future development of our rear lot; and
6.
Noise: There will be an increase in noise for a prolonged period of time due to the
proposed project's commercial /retail uses including restaurants operating from
9:OOAM until 1:00AM. Noise will taiginate from the restaurants' kitchens, dining
R2 -6
patios, and bar areas, with music playing overhead and patrons talking, laughing; and
yelling, especially while alcohol is being served. In addition, the noise source would
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -35
ZZ7
��
3. Response to Comments
be 5 feet closer to our property due to the the proposed zeta lot variance. Also, with
die addition of rooftop parking, cat's would be driving approximately 26 feet higher R2-6
than on PCH, and furthermore the 15' wide x 140' long mechanical area located on
the north end of the proposed rooftop along our property line at 35' height would cont'd.
significantly elevate the noise level.
As a good neighbor, T would like to offer the following suggestions:
1. The height of the building and parking structure shall be no taller than the permitted
31 -foot base height limit, including any architectural features, as stated in the current
zoning ordinance;
2. No roof top cars acid associated structure lighting shall . be exposed to the sky. A tiled
roof over the parking structure (within the above slated height limit of 31') would be
acceptable. This may reduce die noise, lighting, and privacy issues associated with
parking as previously mentioned. Therefore; we request that the developer shall not
receive a. Conditional Use Permit to allow rooftop parking;
3. The restaurants' operation shall be limited to 10:00PM as most commercial
businesses in the neighborhood close by then;
4. The retaining wall shall be built higher and include back fill to raise the grade to an
appropriate love] so the vegetation call grow to screen the noise and view of the
structure and to prevent the ground cover vegetation from dying;
5. The structures shall not be built within the 5 -foot rear yard setback; and
6. The current FAR of 0.3/0.5 for the project site as designated on the Zoning Map shall
not be amended. This world decrease the number of cars and traffic congestion on
and around the property,
i appreciate your consideration of the above. if you have any questions, you can reach me
at (714) 321 -2668.
Cameron Merage, Owner
100 Kings Place
Newport Beach, CA 92663
R2 -7
Page 3 -36 •The Planning Center Jane 2011
ZZY
3. Response to Comments
R2. Response to Comments Cameron Merage, Owner of 100 Kings Place, Newport Beach,
California 92663, dated May 9, 2011.
R2 -1 The commenter currently owns the property at 100 Kings Place and is concerned
that development of the proposed project would partly obstruct views of Balboa
Island, Lido Isle, and the Pacific Ocean. As shown on Figure 6a, Figure 6c, and
Figure 7 of the IS /MND, the majority of the proposed buildings' rooftop lines
including the rotunda and cupola would be below the top of the bluff. Subsequent to
the preparation of the IS /MND, the applicant has proposed modifications to the
project including the addition of a partial parking structure rooftop and height
reductions in the cupola and tower elements (See Section 2.0 of this Response to
Comments document). The proposed rooftop would screen the vehicles and
associated activity from the residents above. Any encroachment into the
commenter's view would be minor and likely limited to landscaping (tall trees).
Moreover, the City of Newport Beach view protection policies are limited to public
views. Private, residential views are not protected. As discussed in Section 3.1(a) of
the IS /MND, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts on public
views.
The commenter believes that the rooftop parking level would decrease the privacy of
his backyard. As shown on Figure 6a, the top of the bluff is at 60 feet, and the
maximum height of any part of the structure is 56 feet. Employees and customers of
the project would not be able to view the commenter's property and privacy would /
not be affected. However, with the addition of the partial enclosure over the rear
two- thirds portion of the rooftop parking, resident's view of activities in the parking `.
structure would be screened.
R2 -2 Lighting related to the previously proposed uncovered rooftop parking was
discussed in Section 1.3.1 and analyzed in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, of the IS /MND.
Figure 9, Third -Level Parking Structure Lighting Plan, shows the various types of
lighting that would be installed on the rooftop level of the proposed parking
structure. As shown and noted on the figure and as discussed in Section 3.1(d), the
design, arrangement, and orientation of the lighting fixtures would prevent light
spillover into the areas beyond the parking structure. Additionally, as shown in
Figure 10, Third -Level Parking Lighting Analysis, the lighting fixtures would be
directed inward to the parking structure and shielded from view above. Therefore,
the IS /MND determined nighttime glare to be less than significant. Regarding
sunlight reflecting off of the vehicles on the rooftop level parking, as noted in the
previous response, the parking structure is below the top of the bluff. There would
not be a direct line of sight from the property to the proposed rooftop level parking.
Note also that the project has been revised to enclose the rear two - thirds portion of
the rooftop parking that would further minimize potential impacts associated with
parking on the top level of the structure.
R2 -3 Comment acknowledged. As discussed in Section 3.3(e) of the IS /MND, the
proposed project would not develop the type of the facility that would be considered
to have objectionable odors (e.g., wastewater treatment plants, dairy farms,
chemical manufacturing, etc.), and odor impacts were determined to be less than
significant. In response to commenter concerns, however, the applicant is
proposing, and the project has been conditioned, to install a pollution control unit
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -37
ZWZG
3. Response to Comments
that would filter odors generated from any restaurant kitchens. To report any future
potential odor issues, the commenter should contact the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) at 1- 800 - 288 -7664.
R2 -4 The proposed project would be built in an east/west orientation. The Commenter's
property is directly north of the project site. As the path of the sun generally moves
in an east to west direction, the slope face would still receive sunlight for portions of
the day throughout the year.
R2 -5 The swale is designed to capture runoff from the slope and help with slope stability.
It is the applicant's preference to negotiate easements to accommodate minimal
encroachments into adjacent properties as required to construct the retaining wall
and facilitate site drainage. These improvements would ultimately require the
approval of each adjacent property owners. If easements cannot be negotiated,
alternative construction methods are feasible to avoid the encroachments.
R2 -6 Any restaurants that operate within the proposed project would be mostly enclosed,
which would attenuate interior -to- exterior noise transmission. The planned ground -
floor outdoor patio areas along West Coast Highway and the patios along Dover
Avenue would be shielded by the proposed commercial building. The outdoor patio
areas would not have a direct line of sight to the northern residences above the
project site, and the proposed commercial /retail building would provide noise
attenuation. Operation of any uses at the project site would be subject to the City of
Newport Beach noise ordinances and nuisance laws. Additionally, subsequent
approval of a use permit will be required to permit the operation of any food uses
within the project, at which time the specific operational characteristics, hours of
operation, seating plans, etc, will be reviewed and conditioned.
The commenter is concerned that having the proposed project five feet closer in
addition to rooftop parking and rooftop mechanical systems would significantly
elevate noise. As shown in Figure 15, 3rd Level Parking Structure — Generated Noise
Contours, the noise from use of the rooftop parking level would be less than the
City's nighttime exterior noise standard of 45 dBA Leq. Therefore, the IS /MND
determined lighting and noise impacts from the parking structure would be less than
significant. Additionally, as discussed in section 3.12(a) of the IS /MND, all
mechanical systems would be fully enclosed, any vents would be oriented toward
the highway, and the systems would have to comply with Section 10.26.025 of the
City's Municipal Code, which regulates noise. Therefore, noise impacts from
mechanical systems were also determined to be less than significant. Although
these impacts were determined to be less than significant in the IS /MND, the
applicant has since designed a partial enclosure over the rear two - thirds portion of
the rooftop parking that would further minimize impacts associated with the rooftop
parking.
R2 -7 See Comment R2 -6. The commenter's suggestions have been noted and forwarded
to decision- makers for consideration. As noted above, the applicant has designed a
partial enclosure over the rear two- thirds portion of the rooftop parking level, which
would reduce noise and lighting impacts from the rooftop parking level even further
and shield the resident's view of activity within the parking structure.
Page 3 -38 •The Planning Center June 2011
zoo
3. Response to Comments
LETTER R3 — Jack M. Langson Letter (1 page)
From:
Jack Langson
To:
Murillo, Jaime:
Subject:
Mariner "s Point draft MND
Date:
Monday, May 09, 20115:56:42 PM
Mr. Murillo,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Mariner's Point project. As I understand it, City Staff is taking
public comment into consideration in determining whether to recommend the
currently proposed project without further mitigation and without a full EIR.
TRAFFIC IMPACT: It seems to me that the transportation /traffic impact has
NOT been adequately mitigated to justify the requested scale of this project on such
a small parcel. While the amount of traffic from this small parcel will be a tiny share
of the traffic at this very busy intersection, I request that City Staff uphold the
principle of adhering to the existing FAR specified in the General Plan regardless of
the parcel size. Since there are 3 proposed building uses (i.e. restaurant, retail, and
medical office), there apparently is no compelling need for the proposed exception
to the General Plan specified FAR which will result in increased traffic at the site.
R3 -1
R3 -2
BUILDING MASS: The requested variance in allowable building height from the
31' existing zoning to 40' (plus 44' at the architectural cupola) will introduce a new
standard for buildings so close to the highway in our neighborhood. Again, I R3 -3
request that City Staff adhere to the exiting zoning regulations.
PARKING STRUCTURE STALL COUNT: The parking structure has been
"engineered" to the limit to meet the requested project size. There will definitely
need to be a valet/garage traffic manager around whenever a delivery truck is
parked on the ground floor given the tight turning radius of the driveway and the fact
that the valet cannot take a car out to PCH to get back to the valet station due to
wrong -way traffic flow. It will be interesting to see how the developer engineers the
transition from the level parking stalls to the 15% grade on the ramp without
scraping the bottoms of cars or encroaching on the level handicapped path of
travel. Finally, counting "tandem" parking stalls as fully usable is optimistic. Hence,
this awkward parking facility seems to need further review.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to have my comments considered.
Cordially,
Jack M. Langson, neighbor
2616 Bayshore Drive
R3-41
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 --3399
Z
If 5�
3. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3 -40 • The Planning Center ,June 2011
z5z
3. Response to Comments
R3. Response to Comments Jack M. Langson, Owner of 2616 Bayshore Drive, Newport Beach,
California, dated May 9, 2011.
R3 -1 The commenter is correct. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15074 (b):
(b) Prior to approving a project, the decision - making body of the lead
agency shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated
negative declaration together with any comments received during the public
review process. The decision - making body shall adopt the proposed
negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the
basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any
comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project
will have a significant effect on the environment and that the negative
declaration or mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency's
independent judgment and analysis
R3 -2 Based on the analysis included in the technical traffic study (IS /MND Appendix F) as
summarized in Section 3.16(a), Transportation /Traffic, project - generated traffic in
addition to forecast cumulative conditions would not significantly impact traffic. As
shown in IS /MND Tables 23 and 24, area intersections would continue to operate at
acceptable levels of service.
The commenter's request that the City uphold the existing FAR (not grant the
General Plan Amendment) is acknowledged.
R3 -3 As described in the IS /MND project description, project implementation as proposed
would require a Site Development Review to exceed the building height limitation of
31 feet in addition to a General Plan Amendment to increase the floor area ratio
(FAR). The Aesthetics section of the IS /MND provides a description and graphic
representation of the project as proposed, and concludes that the development
would improve visual and aesthetic conditions of the site and surrounding area, and
would not result in significant impacts. Subsequent to the preparation of the IS /MND,
the applicant has revised the project reducing the heights of the proposed cupola
and tower elements, and has added a roof structure over the rear two- thirds portion
of the parking structure to screen the vehicles and associated activity from the
residents above (See Section 2.0 of this Response to Comments document).
Aesthetic impacts, including the scale of the project, are, however, subjective by
nature. The discretionary power to either grant or deny the requested entitlements
lies wholly with the City. These comments will be forwarded to decision makers for
their consideration.
R3 -4 Delivery trucks would not be scheduled during the peak usage times of lunch and
dinner. During peak usage, a valet/traffic director would be on the ground floor to
direct traffic flow as necessary. Also, valet vehicles would not be taken onto West
Coast Highway at any time. When returning vehicles to guests during daytime hours,
two -way traffic flow would be maintained on Level 1 and vehicles would exit to the
east. During the peak dinner hours, when there is one -way traffic flow on Level 1,
vehicles would come down the ramp and be dropped off for guests in the spaces
directly in front of the ramp so that traffic flow is maintained.
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -41
z37
0
3. Response to Comments
Regarding the 15 percent grade of the ramps, the design of the ramp would comply
with City's Parking Layout Standard STD - 805 -L -A and STD - 805 -L -B, which allow a
maximum ramp slope of 15 percent. As shown on Figure 7, Site Plan Cross - Section,
of the IS /MND, the first and last five feet of the parking structure ramps have an 11
percent slope.
All of the tandem stalls would be utilized either by valet or by employees. The valet
service would maximize all parking spaces (single and tandem) as needed. The
tandem parking stalls reserved for employees would be assigned to specific tenants,
which would prevent a scenario where employees would not park in a tandem
parking stall for fear they would be closed in.
Page 3 -42 • The Planning Center June 2011
z5¢
3. Response to Comments
LETTER R4 - Mike Hilford Letter (1 page)
From: mhilrord
To: Murillo. Jaime
cc: Mike Hilford
Subject: Mariner's Pointe Project Variances
Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 2:02:19 PM
I find no mention of the Mariner's Pointe Project at the suggested website:
htto:// www. newi)ortbeachca .aov /index.aspx ?oaae =942. R4 -1
Developers of the project, located at 100 -300 PCH, have requested some
code variances that includes building height & roof -top parking that will, if
approved, set a precedent and standard for all PCH buildings in this area.
It would be naive to believe that the variances, if allowed, will be limited to
100 -300 PCH.
For example, years ago, building height limits at 530 Kings Rd., were
increased, or ignored, and now the street is lined with three & four story
high- mega- houses that are incompatible with the neighborhood's scale.
Noise & commotion related to parking on these high structures, built in
close proximity to many residences on Kings Rd., will negatively
impact home - owner's quality of life and property values.
Therefore, I recommend the requested variances be denied.
Thank you,
Mike Hilford
511 Kings. Rd.
949/548 -1495
R4 -2
R4 -3
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -43
zAf
0�
3. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3 -44 • The Planning Center ,June 2011
z1�;6
3. Response to Comments
R4. Response to Comments Mike Hilford, Owner of 511 Kings Road, Newport Beach,
California, dated May 10, 2011.
R4 -1 The Mariner's Pointe Project IS /MND can be accessed through the following website
address: http:// www .newportbeachca.gov /index.aspx ?page =1347. Upon receiving
this comment letter, staff called Mr. Hilford to assist him with accessing the
document on the City website.
R4 -2 The potential impacts for the proposed project, including requested entitlements
have been analyzed in the IS /MND. The potential that granting such entitlements
would set up a precedent is speculative and beyond the realm of environmental
documentation for the project under the California Environmental Quality Act. The
commenter's concerns are acknowledged, however, and will be forwarded to the
appropriate City decision makers for their consideration.
134 -3 Noise related to the previously proposed uncovered rooftop parking was discussed
in Section 3.12, Noise, of the IS /MND. As shown in Figure 15, 3rd Level Parking
Structure — Generated Noise Contours, the noise contours generated from use of the
rooftop parking would be less than the City's nighttime exterior noise standard of 45
dBA Lam. Therefore, the IS /MND determined that noise impacts from the parking
structure would be less than significant. However, subsequent to the preparation of
the IS /MND, the applicant has revised the project by adding a roof structure over the
rear two- thirds portion of the parking structure to screen the vehicles and associated
activity from the residents above (See Section 2.0 of this Response to Comments
document), which would further minimize noise.
Regarding the commenter's concern that property values of homes above the
project site may be affected, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15382, "an economic or
social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the
environment" and therefore is outside the purview of CEQA. These comments will be
forwarded to the appropriate City decision makers for their consideration.
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3- -45
Z!7
0
3. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3 -46 • The Planning Center junee 20011
Z 8
3. Response to Comments
LETTER R5 —William L. Steel Letter (4 pages)
Seen R. Albrecht
Stephen S. Chang.
Loren A. Deters
Mamrew A. Goldstein**
Philip W. Orcen
Jenny S.Grider
Magmr G. Mayor
Joanna V. McKee
.lerodic, A. Needs
Anal Piete,
Herbert N. Samuels-- -
Hugh A. Sanders
William L. Sleet
Martin J. Stein
*Also admined in Colorado
-*Also ndmilted in Arizona
** *Also admitted in New York and Plorida May 11, 2011
VIA EMAIL JMurillo rr newnorlbeachcaeov
Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, CA 92658
RE: Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration
for Mariner's Pointe Pro ject
Dear Mr. Mmillo:
Otcormsel
Orlando P. Cabanday
Cmest Mooney
File No. 5657 -001
This law firm represents Laura Tarbox, Trustee of the Frank A. EisendratIt Trust, the
owner of the home at 104 kings Place, Newport Beach ( "Home "). The Homc is located directly
above the proposed project. The owner believes the proposed project will have a significant
impact on the environment and that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration ( "MND ") is
insufficient mid flawed in many respects.
The owner acknowledges the ]ionic is located adjacent to a commercial zone and that
development of the subject property for commercial uses is appropriate. However, lire owner
believes the proposed project is too massive for the subject properly and that the requested
amendments to the General Plan, Zoning Code, height limits and encroachment restrictions
should not be granted.
The owner's principal environmental concerns are as follows:
Noise.
a. Roo Roo Onen -Air Parkine Lo l. The MND at Section 3.12 admits that
noise will emanate from proposed rooftop open -air parking lot from slamming doors, car alarms
and beeps, horns, loud talking, ctc, but the MND offers no mitigating solutions other than a R5 -1
statement that only autos of employees and that are valet parked will be allowed on that level, .
which is no solution at all because all of the same noise issues are likely to occur even with that
19800 MacArthur Boulevard • Suite 1000 * Irvine, CA 92612 -2433
Telephone: (949)263 -0004• Facsimile: (949) 263 -0005
Mariner's Pointe Pi-oject Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3- -477
4! 1
��
3. Response to Comments
Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner
City of Newport Beach
May 11, 2011 .
Page 2
restriction. Also, Section 3.12 says that there are only 20 rooftop parking spaces but the plans
show 47 spaces. The owner also does not believe the applicant will limit rooftop parking only
to employees and valet parking. The applicant's representative, 'rod Ridgeway, told the owner
and me yesterday that the applicant proposes at least two alcohol serving restaurants, at least
one of which will only be accessible from the rooftop parking level. It seems unlikely patrons
of such a restaurant would tolerate not being allowed to park on the sane level as the
restaurant's entry. The proposal for open -air parking for patrons of alcohol serving restaurants
located below many residences is already in practice with disastrous consequences in Crystal
Cove. The exiting patrons of Javier's and Maestro's restaurants and their cars are extremely
loud and insensitive to the adjacent: homes, and most Wrier all of those homeowners hate living
there.
The owner requests that the City not allow open -air rooftop parking, and that if
rooftop parking is allowed that the City require it to be totally covered with appropriate noise
attenuation material, and that a gate system or other access barrier be required as a condition to
restaurant use that allows access to the rooftop level only by valet parking attendants and
employees.
b. Restaurant Outdoor Seating Areas. The applicant's plans currently call for
outdoor restaurant seating areas on the east side of the project on both the ground level and rime
second level, directly below the I:Iome. The likely noise front those areas is not addressed in the
MND. The owner requests that the City not allow any outdoor restaurant seating areas, and that
if such seating is allowed that the City restrict the hours of access to those areas to prevent their
use after 10 pm, require screening walls or other appropriate noise attenuation solutions, and
prohibit any music (live or otherwise) or other amplified noise within these areas.
2. Odors.
a. Food. The applicant intends to have at least two restaurants in the project,
which will require cooking facilities with appropriate rooftop ventilation. The food odors
appear likely to rise directly into the residential area including the Home. The MND is silent
about the likelihood of food odors emanating from the restaurants and therefore offers no
mitigating solutions. The owner requests that the City require the applicant to prevent food
odds from emanating into die residential area as a condition to restaurant use.
b. Cigarettes and Cigars. 'fire applicant intends to have at least two alcohol -
serving restaurants, one on each level, and both of which have proposed outdoor seating
areas. It can be expected that a significant number of patrons of these restaurants will be
smokers, but the MND is silent about the likelihood of cigarette and cigar smoke and odors
emanating from the project, including from the outdoor seating areas, the areas between the
proposed elevator and the restaurant enhances, and the proposed open -air rooftop parking lot.,
and therefore offers no mitigating solutions. 17ne owner requests that the City prohibit cigarette
and cigar smoking everywhere within and around the project, including without limitation in
any outdoor seating areas, walkways and parking areas.
R5 -1
cont'd.
R5 -2
Page 3 -48 •The Planning Center Jane 2011
z¢o
3. Response to Comments
Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner
City of Newport Beach
May 11, 2011
Page
3. Light Pollution. The applicant's plans provide for many lights in the rooftop
open -air parking area and glass elevator area that will be located within the parking area's
southern and western boundary walls, which will be shining in the Home's direction and
therefore can reasonably be expected to have a material adverse impact on the Home's nighttime
environment. The owner requests that the City require the top level of parking be covered to
prevent such glare and if the City does not require such cover (bat the City require lighting that
will not be shining in the Home's direction or will shine in that direction with minimal glare.
4. Views.
a. Proiect's Rooftop. The Home will look down directly onto the
commercial structure's rooftop. Therefore, to minimize view degradation from the Home the
owner requests that the City prohibit the placement of any vents, heating and air conditioning
equipment, or similar fixtures or equipment on the roof and that the City require appropriate
roofing materials.
b. Cupola. The proposed cupola will be the highest point of the stricture and
will be about 44 feet above the ground level (not including its proposed spire, which may extend
several feet above that). This requires a modification permit because it will be located above the
maximum allowable height. While it does not appear that the cupola will block tie Home's view
of Newport Bay, it will he the most visible part of the commercial building from the Home and
the spire may interfere with the Home's view of Newport Bay. Therefore, the owner requests
that the City not approve a modification pennit and instead require that any cupola including its
spire be built within the 40 foot maximum height limit.
C. Landscaping. The applicant's renderings of the project in the MND show
about 10 proposed palm trees in the front of the project along Coast Highway, all of which are
shown as extending substantially above the highest points offhc proposed buildings. The owner
believes that the height of these palm trees as shown in the drawing will extend into the Home's
view corridor of the Newport Bay and ocean, and therefore the owner requests that the City
require all landscaping within the project to at no time be higher than any of the buildings within
the project.
In addition . to the owner's environmental concerns, the owner has these aesthetic
objections:
I. Rear Wall. The applicant's representative Tod Ridgeway indicated to the owner
and me yesterday that the northern boundary of the project, which will be facing the Home, will
be a long mid very high . solid block wall (which will be over 300 feet long and about 30 feet
tall. The massiveness of this wall will be very unattractive in appearance from the Home and
neighboring homes, and the Owner requests that the City require that the side of this wall facing
the Home have an attractive design or other covering, and /or that the applicant be required to
R5 -3
R5 -4
R5 -5
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -49
z¢T
��
3. Response to Comments
Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner
City of Newport Beach
May 11, 2011
Page 4
place tall landscaping between the wall and the Homo within the applicant's property (and not
within the owner's property).
2. Privacy, The applicant proposes two outdoor restaurant seating areas on the east
side of the project, both of which will be located directly below the home. In addition, the
rooftop elevator's doors will open directly toward the Home. It appears likely that patrons in
those areas will be able to look directly into the owner's rear yard and into the Home's proposed
second floor. The owner requests that the City require appropriate view screening from the
outdoor seating areas and from the elevator access area so that patrons cannot see into the
Home's proposed second floor or its rear yard.
3. Overall Mass. The overall mass of the project appears to the owner to be too
large for the available space and will be very out of character with existing commercial uses in
the area and as will have too many negative impacts on the Home and adjacent homes.
Lastly, the owner believes the project as proposed will only be possible if the applicant is
able to use adjacent property, including the owner's property and property owned by adjacent .
homeowners, because it appears the proposed project may require encroachments into the
owner's property for retaining wall footings and /or tiebacks, drainage swales and /or
landscaping. The owner does not intend to grant to the applicant any easements or other rights to
use the owner's property for any purpose, and the owner therefore requests that the City require
the project to be located entirely within the applicant's property and that no physical
cncroaclunenls occur within any adjoining properties.
Sincerely,
6,&,
William L. Steel
WLS:ld
cc: Client
5657\00Ilj. wrillo Iv 5.1 MIA=
R5 -5
cont'd.
R5E
R5 -7
R5 -8
Page 3 -50 •The Planning Center J ne 2011
Z. *Z
3. Response to Comments
R5. Response to comments by William L. Steel, Attorney, SG &S Lawyers, on behalf of Laura
Tarbox, owner of 104 Kings Place, Newport Beach, California, dated May 11, 2011.
R5 -1 As analyzed in Section 3.12(a) of the IS /MND, noise impacts from the rooftop level
parking lot was determined to be less than significant. Therefore, per CEQA,
incorporation of mitigation is not required. The commenter's assertion that Section
3.12 of the IS /MND states there are only 20 rooftop parking spaces is incorrect.
There is no reference to the exact page, but on page 113, the "20 spaces" is in
reference to the existing offsite parking lot that would be utilized as an employee
overflow lot.
Regarding potential noise issues from patrons accessing the rooftop level parking,
these parking spaces would be marked "employee only." Additionally, valet service
would begin at 10:00 AM until closing of all businesses, thus preventing patrons
from parking on the rooftop level, which would minimize potential noise issues.
Furthermore, the project has been revised to include a partial enclosure for the rear
two- thirds of the rooftop parking, which would further minimize noise. Comments
regarding the circumstances at the other restaurant establishments are
acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate City decision makers for
their consideration.
Regarding noise from the proposed outdoor seating areas, the planned ground -floor W/
outdoor patio areas along West Coast Highway and the patios along Dover Avenue
would be shielded by the proposed commercial building and would be consistent
with the commenter's suggestion of requiring screening walls. The outdoor patio
areas would not have a direct line of sight to the northern residences above the
project site, and the proposed commercial /retail building would provide noise
attenuation. Furthermore, noise associated with the operation of the project is
regulated through the City's Municipal Codes. These Codes include Chapter 10.26,
Community Noise Control and Chapter 10.28.010, Loud and Unreasonable Noise.
Project occupants and patrons would be required to comply with these municipal
code limits, which would minimize noise generated by the proposed project to a
level considered acceptable by the City, and consequently would not result in a
significant noise impact. Additionally, subsequent approval of a use permit will be
required to permit the operation of any food uses within the project, at which time
the specific operational characteristics, hours of operation, seating plans, etc, will be
reviewed and conditioned.
R5 -2 As discussed in IS /MND Section 3.3(e), the proposed project would not be the type
of the facility considered to have potentially significant objectionable odors (e.g.,
wastewater treatment plants, dairy farms, chemical manufacturing, etc.). Potential
project - related odor impacts were therefore determined to be less than significant in
the IS /MND. Moreover, the potential odor from patrons smoking in the outdoor patio
areas would not meet the SCAQMD Rule 402 Nuisance threshold as reproduced in
the IS /MND, page 64. Smoke odors would be anticipated to dissipate due to the
horizontal and vertical separation between the project and residences at the top of
bluff. Potential project - related odor impacts were therefore determined to be less
than significant in the IS /MND.
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -51
Z,4,5
3. Response to Comments
The applicant is also proposing, and the project has been conditioned to require, the
installation of a pollution control units to filter odors generated from any restaurant
kitchens. To report any future potential odor issues, the commenter should contact
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at 1- 800 - 288 -7664.
R5 -3 Lighting related to the previously proposed uncovered rooftop parking was
discussed in Section 1.3.1 and analyzed in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, of the IS /MND.
Figure 9, Third -Level Parking Structure Lighting Plan, shows the various types of
lighting that would be installed on the rooftop level of the proposed parking
structure. As shown and noted on the figure and as discussed in Section 3.1(d), the
design, arrangement, and orientation of the lighting fixtures would prevent light
spillover into the areas beyond the parking structure. Additionally, as shown in
Figure 10, Third -Level Parking Lighting Analysis, the lighting fixtures would be
directed inward to the parking structure and shielded from view above. Therefore,
the IS /MND determined nighttime glare to be less than significant. Note also that the
project has been redesigned to enclose the rear two- thirds portion of the rooftop
parking that would further minimize potential impacts associated with parking on the
top level of the structure (See Section 2.0 of this Response to Comments
document).
R54 Mechanical systems would be within enclosures that would be designed to be
consistent with the architectural theme and style of the rest of the project. The
project has been designed to be within the design guidelines of the City Zoning
Code, General Plan, and Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework and
would be reviewed by the City's Planning Commission for consistency and
compliance.
Regarding the comment on the cupola and spire features and the planned palm
trees along West Coast Highway, as shown on Figure 6a, Figure 6c, and Figure 7 of
the IS /MND, the majority of the proposed buildings' rooftop lines including the
cupola would be below the top of the bluff as noted by commenter. Any
encroachment into the commenter's view would be extremely minor, and likely
limited to landscaping (tall trees). Subsequent to the preparation of the IS /MND, the
project applicant has revised the project design reducing the height of the cupola
and tower by 4 feet, and thus eliminating the need for the Modification Permit (See
Section 2.0 of this Response to Comments document). Moreover, the City of
Newport Beach view protection policies are limited to public views. Private,
residential views are not protected. As discussed in Section 3.1(a) of the IS /MND, the
proposed project would not result in significant impacts on public views.
R5 -5 The project has been designed to be within the design guidelines of the City Zoning
Code, General Plan, and Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework and
would be reviewed by the City's Planning Commission for consistency and
compliance. This comment will be forwarded to the appropriate City decision
makers for their consideration.
R5 -6 As shown Figure 6a, Figure 6c, and Figure 7 of the IS /MND, while it may be possible
for a person to have an unobstructed view of the face of the bluff from the rooftop
Page 3 -52 • The Planning Center June 2011
z¢¢
3. Response to Comments
level of the parking structure, that person would not be able to see onto the plateau.
Additionally, the project applicant has revised the design to include a partial
enclosure over the rear two- thirds portion of the rooftop parking that would minimize
the resident's view of activities in the parking structure.
The planned ground -floor outdoor patio areas along West Coast Highway and the
patios along Dover Avenue would be shielded by the proposed commercial building.
Therefore, the outdoor patio areas would not have a direct line of sight to the
northern residences above the project site.
R5 -7 As described in the IS /MND project description, project implementation as proposed
would require a General Plan Amendment to increase the floor area ratio (FAR), a
Site Development Review to exceed the building height limitation of 31 feet.
Subsequent to the preparation of the IS /MND, the applicant has revised the project
reducing the heights of the proposed cupola and tower elements, and has added a
roof structure over the rear two - thirds portion of the parking structure to screen the
vehicles and associated activity from the residents above . The Aesthetics section of
the IS /MND provides a description and graphic representation of the project as
proposed, and concludes that the development would improve visual and aesthetic
conditions of the site and surrounding area, and would not result in significant
impacts. Aesthetic impacts, including the scale of the project, are, however,
subjective by nature. The discretionary power to either grant or deny the requested
entitlements lies wholly with the City. These comments will be forwarded to decision
makers for their consideration.
R5 -8 It is the applicant's preference to negotiate easements to accommodate minimal
encroachments into adjacent properties as required to construct the retaining wall
and facilitate site drainage. These improvements would ultimately require the
approval of each adjacent property owners. If easements cannot be negotiated,
alternative construction methods are feasible to avoid the encroachments.
Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3 -5 3
z¢f
3. Response to Comments
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3 -54 • The Planning Center ,June 2011
z¢6