1
2
/ 2
  • Details
  • Annotations
Entry Properties
Modified
12/5/2012 2:19:19 AM
Created
12/5/2012 2:04:31 AM
Path
\Packets/Minutes, Ordinances, Resolutions & Council Videos\City Council\Council Meetings\1923\07/02/1923\Approved Minutes\07/02/1923 - Regular Meeting
Template
Council Meeting Minutes
Fields
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Meeting Date
7/2/1923
HomeMy WebLinkAbout26 - Seashore Village Residential DevelopmentCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 26 June 10, 2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3209, Imurilloa- citv.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving a 24 -unit condominium subdivision Seashore Village Residential Development (PA2007 -100) 5515 River Avenue ■ Mitigated Negative Declaration ■ Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001 ■ Modification Permit No. 2007 -044 • Use Permit No. 2007 -011 ■ Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001 APPLICANT: Seashore Village, LLC APPELLANT: Lennie DeCaro ISSUE: Should the City Council approve, modify, or disapprove a 24 -unit condominium subdivision on a 1.49 -acre site located at 5515 River Avenue? RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a de novo hearing and adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Sch. No. 2008021075) and approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001, Modification Permit No. 2007 -044, Use Permit No. 2007 -011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001, subject to findings and conditions of approval. Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 2 INTRODUCTION: Proiect Description The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing 54 -unit apartment complex and construct 12 detached, single -unit residential structures and 6 detached, two -unit (duplex) residential structures, for a total of 24 units (Attachment 2 - Project Plans). The 12 single -unit structures would front onto Seashore Drive and onto West Newport Park. The 6 duplex structures front onto River Avenue. A total of 63 parking spaces are proposed: 48 dedicated residential spaces in garages and carports; and 15 open guest spaces. Background On April 17, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the applicant's request, and after an extensive discussion on the project and considering the testimony received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to adopt the MND and approve the requested applications. On April 29, 2008, Mrs. Lennie DeCaro, an adjacent property owner, appealed the Planning Commission's approval. Please refer to the attached March 20, 2008, and April 17, 2008, Planning Commission staff reports for a detailed discussion and analysis of the proposed project and requested approvals (Attachments 3 & 4). Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission generally concurred with staffs analysis of the proposed project as presented in the attached staff reports and found that the findings necessary for the project approval could be made. Commissioners commented that the mass and scale of the project were consistent with policies of the General Plan. They also recognized that, although the project is designed to appear as a traditional Single - Family and Two - Family Residential subdivision, maintaining the Multiple - Family Residential zoning classification provides 15 guest spaces that would not be required within the R -1 and R -2 zoning classifications. To reduce the massing and minimize impacts to the adjacent R -2 properties, the Commission required that the roofs be designed with a hip roof feature that slopes the roof planes away from side property line. The proposed project is located in the Coastal Zone and compliance with the Mello Act requires that units occupied by low and moderate - income households be replaced to the extent this would be economically feasible. Discussion took place as to whether or not the recommended condition of approval requiring a $1.35 million commitment to replace six Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 3 units currently occupied by low and moderate - income households was sufficient. Staff clarified that the $1.35 million proposed for this purpose is not intended to cover the entire cost of the replacement units, but rather is intended to cover the subsidy needed to provide the replacement units at a price/rents affordable to low and moderate - income households. The applicant may decide to purchase market rate units and sell them, in which case the subsidy is the difference in cost between the fair market value of each unit and the price a low or moderate - income household could afford to pay (i.e. $479K Market Rate Price - $303K Affordable Price = $176K Subsidy). Another option is for the applicant to purchase units and rent them at rates affordable to low and moderate - income households. Rents would be maintained at affordable rates pursuant to 30 -year covenants required by the City. The Commission agreed that the $1.35 million commitment was sufficient and modified the condition to require that a minimum of six units be provided, in the event that more replacement units can be accommodated with the commitment as follows: Condition No. 8 The applicant shall replace at least 6 affordable units within 3 years of the date of issuance of a demolition permit. The units may be provided off -site at an approved location, or locations, within the City. An amount not to exceed $1.35 million shall be provided by the applicant and the applicant shall use such funds to replace at least 6 affordable units and to achieve a mix of income levels and bedroom counts, as determined appropriate by the Planning Director. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide said units. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and shall be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the project. The Minutes from the Planning Commission hearing have been attached for reference (Attachment 5). DISCUSSION: Appeal The appellant requests that the City Council reconsider and reverse both the Planning Commission's action to adopt the MND and the action to approve the project. Chapter 20.95 of the Municipal Code establishes the procedures for the appeal process. Pursuant to Section 20.95.060 C, a public hearing on an appeal is conducted "de novo," meaning that it is a new hearing and the decision being appealed has no force or effect as of the date the appeal was filed. The appellate body is not bound by the decision being appealed or limited to the issues raised on appeal. Analysis The appellant's appeal application (Attachment 6) specifically cites three main reasons for the appeal: 1) improper notice; 2) improper public hearing; and 3) improper approval. In addition to the brief information provided on the appeal application, the appellant's appeal states that two comment letters (total of 50 pages) and a -mails previously Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 4 submitted by the appellant should be considered for the appeal, as well as other residentttenant letters of objection (Attachment 7). The following discussion summarizes the appellant's reasons for the appeal and provides responses for the City Council's consideration. Improper Notice General Comment: Based on information presented in both the appellant's comment letters and information presented in her a -mails to staff, the appellant believes adequate noticing was not provided as to the availability of the MND for the mandatory 30 -day public review period. The following reasons are cited: • Appellant received a mailed notice of public hearing, but never received a mailed notice indicating the availability of the MND ( "notice of availability "). • Appellant states that the MND was not available for review until 6 days after the start of the 30 -day public review period. • Appellant states that the site was not posted with the notice of availability and even if it had been, the 30-day public review period would have concluded on March 215t, not March 20th as indicated on the notice. • Notice of availability was not mailed to tenants of the apartment building or to the tenants in the neighborhood. Response: As stated in Response to Comment No. C -2 (Attachment 8 — Response to Comments) to the appellant's first comment letter, pursuant to Sections 15105(c) and 15073(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the MND was forwarded to the State Clearing house on February 19, 2008, for distribution to responsible and trustee agencies for the mandatory 30 -day review period. Pursuant, to Sections 15072(b)(2) and 15105, the notice was posted onsite in the area where the project is to be located. Although not required if the site has been posted, the notice of availability was also mailed to all property owners within a 300 -foot radius of the site, using the same list of property owners for which the notice of public hearing was later mailed. The posted notice and mailed notices indicated that the 30 -day review period would begin on February 20, 2008, and conclude on March 20, 2008; however, because the site was posted on February 20th, it was determined by the City Attorney's Office that the public comment period began on the following day, February 21St, with the public comment period ending on March 21St. Accordingly, the public hearing on the project was continued from the March 20th Planning Commission meeting to allow for the full public comment period and allow staff to prepare formal responses to comments received. Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 5 It should be noted that in addition to the notice of availability that was mailed to the appellant, on March 26th, staff directly e- mailed the appellant to notify her that the MND was available for review online. The document was also available for review at City Hall, as indicated on the notices, since the commencement of the public review period. Therefore, staff concludes that adequate noticing was provided in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines. Improper Public Hearing General Comment: The appellant's appeal, implies that the Planning Commission hearing was improperly conducted and that there was an attempt to circumvent the public hearing process for the following reasons: • The Planning Commission did not consider appellant's additional 17 -page comment letter (Comment Letter #2), e- mails, and objection letters submitted prior to taking action on the project. • E -mail and letters objecting to the project were not made available at the hearing. Response: The appellant's first comment letter (33 pages) was submitted the day of the March 20, 2008, Planning Commission hearing date. The Planning Commission continued the item to allow staff to prepare responses to these comments. Responses were prepared for each of the comments and were included in the April 17, 2008, Planning Commission staff report. The appellant submitted a second comment letter (17 pages) on April 17, 2008, just prior to the start of the public hearing. This letter was forwarded to each Planning Commissioner upon receipt via e-mail and hard copies of the letter were made available to the Planning Commissioners and to members of the general public at the public hearing. A letter of opposition from a tenant of the building, Susan Carvalho (included in Attachment 7), was also submitted the day of the Planning Commission hearing on April 17, 2008. A copy of the letter was scanned and e- mailed to each of the Planning Commissioners and hard copies were made available at the hearing for the Commission and the general public. Staff did not receive any other comment letters or a -mails regarding the project that were not already included in the formal response to comments on the MND. General Comment: The appellant's appeal also implies that there was an attempt to circumvent the public hearing process because she was interrupted during her 3 minute presentation and not allowed to rebut the applicant's testimony. Response: The Planning Commission agenda states that speakers providing testimony to the Planning Commission must limit remarks to three minutes on all items. Bob Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 6 DeCaro, appellant's husband, was provided a full 3 %z minutes of public testimony. The appellant was provided 4 % minutes of public testimony, of which 3 % minutes were entirely uninterrupted. Improper Approval The appellant believes the approval of the project was improper based on numerous reasons cited in both of the extensive letters submitted. A detailed response to the appellant's first letter was provided in a formal response to comments prepared for all comment letters received within the MND public comment period. The appellant's second comment letter was submitted on the day of the April 17, 2008, Planning Commission hearing, after expiration of the 30 -day public comment period. The following discussion is a summary of the new and /or reiterated objections to the project presented in the appellant's second comment letter, with the exception of the public noticing issues discussed above. General Comment: The appellant believes that the CRDP application was improperly approved for the following reasons: • Based on her review of a previous application to develop the same site (submitted by another developer in 2006), she discovered information indicating that a 2006 income survey was performed and that there were a total of 13 low and moderate - income households within the building (not 6 households as confirmed in the 2007 income survey). • The income survey evaluation was compromised in that the income surveys were initiated, compiled, and returned to the City by the applicant. • A possible reason for the difference in the numbers of low and moderate- income households between the previous application and the current application is that, prior to conducting the income survey, existing tenants were offered incentives to move and that the property management company changed the rental policy requiring minimum tenant income levels of $66,200 per individual with no co- signers. Response: The information the appellant discovered in reviewing the previous application submittal (withdrawn on February 2, 2007) was contained within a proposal for consultant services by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., to conduct a feasibility analysis of the previous applicant's financial pro forma. The proposal indicated that there were a total of 13 low and moderate- income households within the building; however, occupancy of the 13 units by low and moderate- income households was not subsequently confirmed. Based on the 2006 income survey, it was preliminarily assumed that 13 low and moderate- income households were in residence, based on returned surveys and information found on each tenant's rental application. Upon further review, it was determined that the information on the rental application was unreliable Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 7 as much of the data was out -dated and there was no way to determine whether or not a household's income had increased or decreased during their respective occupancies. In fact, the 2007 income survey information conflicted with rental application information indicating that tenants had incomes at levels above moderate- income. Therefore, in evaluating the 2007 income survey, staff made a determination that occupancy by only 6 low and moderate- income households could be confirmed and the replacement requirement was determined to be a minimum of 6 units. The Mello Act does not provide direction on how to determine the income level of the households; however, it has been the City's practice for the applicant to conduct the income survey utilizing a template provided by staff. The allegations that existing tenants were offered incentives to move and that the income qualifications were raised for prospective tenants are similar to statements contained within Susan Carvalho's April 17, 2008, letter of objections submitted to the Planning Commission. In response to these allegations, the applicant has stated that tenants were not offered money or any other incentives to move. The applicant did confirm that when selecting prospective tenants, the property manger routinely performs credit investigations and requires a minimum income as standard practice to insure the tenant can afford the monthly rent, but denies this was an attempt to preclude low and moderate- income households from renting units. The Mello Act does state that if any tenants are evicted within one year prior to submitting an application, it is assumed the eviction was performed to avoid the replacement requirements of the law; however, the two allegations in the comment letter, even if substantiated, would not constitute evictions. General Comment: The appellant states that the MND failed to include a review of the financial pro forma subsequently prepared by The Natelson Dale Group (TNDG) and that the pro forma should have been made available during the public comment period as it provides mitigation in the form of replacement of 6 affordable units. Response: The applicant has agreed to replace all 6 affordable units and has committed $1.35 million to subsidizing the replacement, in accordance with the requirements of the Mello Act. The replacement of the 6 units is not a mitigation measure, but a requirement of State law. TNDG was hired by the City to evaluate the reasonableness of the applicant's financial projections and the commitment of $1.35 million toward replacement housing. The TNDG analysis confirmed that the applicant could afford to replace the units and still meet the project's feasibility criteria established in the project's original pro forma. General Comment: The appellant states that sufficient documentation was not provided for the financial feasibility analysis and that staff is relying on the applicant's word. Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 8 Response: Typically, applicants requesting the approval of a CRDP to demolish affordable housing in the Coastal Zone argue that it is financially infeasible to provide replacement housing, in which case staff must closely scrutinize and evaluate financial pro formas to determine feasibility; however in this case, the applicant agreed to replace all 6 units and will enter into an agreement with the City to insure their replacement within 3 years from the date of demolition. Therefore, staff believes it is unnecessary to require additional documentation for the applicant's financial pro forma as the applicant has agreed to comply with the Mello Act replacement requirements. General Comment: The appellant states the plans are illegible and accuracy of the 11 °x18" plans could not be verified. Response: The appellant was given full -size plans for review at City Hall. General Comment: The appellant states that the noise analysis contained within the MND inadequately discussed and analyzed noise from heating, ventilating, and air conditioning units (HVAC). Response: Please see Attachment No 9 for a detailed response prepared by The Planning Center for each of the appellant's specific noise comments. General Comment: The appellant states that the applicant does not have the right to take access from Neptune Avenue and based on information contained within the applicant's preliminary title report, any rights that did exist were relinquished upon the City's acceptance of the original subdivision map. Response: The preliminary title report simply states that the property does not currently have access to Neptune Avenue, which is accurate; however, Neptune Avenue is a public street and the City has the authority to grant access, after which time the title information will change accordingly. General Comment: The appellant incorrectly refers to the private driveway through the project site as an alley, and cites a number of City requirements related to the construction of public and private streets, as well as concerns related to the transition /connection of Neptune Avenue to a private alley. She also cites concerns related to the elimination of the Neptune Avenue cul -de -sac. Response: For clarification, access through the site is provided via a private driveway, not an alley or street. The tentative tract map for the project incorrectly identities the access as a private road; however all other drawings within the plans correctly identify the access as a driveway. Prior to recordation, the final map will be revised to correctly identify the access as a driveway. City requirements related to the construction of public and private streets are not applicable to the proposed driveway. As stated in Response to Comment No. C-4 to the appellant's first comment letter, Neptune Avenue is not a cul-de -sac because it does not provide adequate turning radius for vehicles and does Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 9 not comply with City cul -de -sac standards. The Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and does not believe the project will negatively impact the City's right - of -way and circulation system. Additionally, appropriate conditions of approval have been proposed, including further review by the City Traffic Engineer, to ensure that the final design of the driveway complies with all City requirements and Council Policy L -2 (Driveway Approaches). General Comment: The appellant states that the Coastal Act requires maximum access to the shoreline for the public and that new developments must provide public access unless adequate access exists nearby. She contends that the proposed project is removing access to the shoreline. Response: The project site is not located adjacent to the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean and does not currently provide any public access through the site. Adequate public access exists around the site via the surrounding rights -of -way (i.e. River Avenue, 50 Street, Seashore Drive). In addition, the proposed development has been conditioned to require a public pedestrian pathway through the site providing connection from River Avenue to Seashore Drive, thereby creating new access opportunities for the public. General Comment: The appellant states that the View Corridor Analysis prepared for Response to Comment No. C -6 to the appellant's first comment letter was incorrectly prepared because a conforming side yard setback should have been 37.5 feet, not 25 feet as illustrated in the exhibit. Response: The View Corridor Analysis of the appellant's private view to the beach was prepared to analyze how a structure that conformed to the required 25 -foot side yard setback (along the eastern property boundary) and 20 -foot front yard setback (along Seashore Drive) as required per the Zoning Code in the MFR Zoning District would obstruct the current view corridor for her property. The analysis concluded that the proposed project did not impact the appellant's private view any more than a conforming project would. In the appellant's second comment letter, she argues that the View Corridor Analysis was incorrectly prepared because a conforming side yard setback is 37.5 feet; however, the appellant incorrectly calculated the side yard setback. Per Section 20.10.030(G) of the Zoning Code, side yard setbacks in the MFR zone are based on a percentage of average lot width, provided that in no event shall a side vans wider than 25 feet be required. General Comment: The appellant reiterates discrepancies cited in her previous comment letter. Response: The response to comments prepared for the appellant's first comment letter have addressed and corrected the discrepancies. General Comment: The appellant provides several statements disagreeing with the formal response to comments prepared for the appellant's first comment letter. Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 10 Response: No new information has been presented that would cause staff to revise any of the previous responses. Summary Although the proposed project includes a number of deviations from the MFR District development standards, staff believes that findings necessary for project approval were made appropriately by the Planning Commission. It is staffs conclusion that the 24 -unit condominium project, as conditioned, would not prove detrimental to the area and will result in a development that is compatible and consistent with the historic development of the adjacent R -1 and R -2 properties in the immediate vicinity of the site. The objections presented in the appellant's appeal have been provided for the City Council's consideration and, in staffs opinion, have been adequately addressed. Environmental Review A MND has been prepared by The Planning Center for the proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. The MND is attached as Attachment 10. The MND identifies five (5) issue areas with 6 mitigation measures. Those issues are: Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Noise. The MND was circulated for public review between February 21 and March 21, 2008. Comments were received from the Southern California Gas Company, Native American Heritage Commission, Lennie DeCaro, California Department of Transportation, and Department of Toxic Control Substances. Unlike an Environmental Impact Report where formal response to comments must be prepared, comments received on a draft MND must only be considered by the approving body and kept on file; however, formal responses were prepared for each of the comment letters received during the public comment period (Attachment 8). Adoption of the MND by the City Council after public hearing is required prior to approval of the requested applications. Seashore Village June 10, 2008 Page 11 Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. As previously discussed, all mandatory notices for the environmental assessment have been given per the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Prepared by: Jak6e Murillo, Associate Planner Submitted by: v 7 / Attachments: 1. Draft resolution of approval 2. Project Plans 3. March 20, 2008, Planning Commission staff report 4. April 17, 2008, Planning Commission staff report 5. April 17, 2008, Planning Commission hearing minutes 6. Appeal Application 7. Appellant's letters, emails, and Carvalho letter B. Response to Comments 9. The Planning Center noise response 10. Mitigated Negative Declaration n u THIS PAGE LEFT BLAND INTENTIONALLY � Attachment 1 Draft Resolution 'ifils PAGE EFIT BLANK L ltiwolot pttY RESOLUTION NO. _ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH NO. 2008 - 021075) & APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2007 -001, MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2007 -044, USE PERMIT NO. 2007 -011 AND COASTAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 2007- 001 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5515 RIVER AVENUE (PA 2007 -100). WHEREAS, an application was filed by Seashore Village, LLC requesting approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001, Modification Permit No. 2007 -044, Use Permit No. 2007 -011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001, with respect to property located at 5515 River Avenue, and legally described as Lot 105 of Tract 3812, to develop 12 detached, single -unit residential structures and 6 detached, two -unit (duplex) residential structures (24 units total). The site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. Project implementation requires the approval of the following applications: 1) Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001 to create a 24 -unit condominium subdivision; 2) Modification Permit No. 2007 -044 to allow encroachments into the required front and side yard setback areas and a reduction in the required distance between detached buildings; 3) Use Permit No. 2007 -011 to allow each of the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City's base height limit; and 4) Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001 to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act), which regulates the demolition of low and moderate income (affordable) dwelling units in the Coastal Zone; and WHEREAS, at a noticed public hearing held on April 17, 2008, the Planning Commission considered the application, plans and evidence, both written and oral, and adopted a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Sch. No. 2008021075) and approved Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001, Modification Permit No. 2007 -044, Use Permit No. 2007 -011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001, subject to findings and conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on April 29, 2008, Mrs. Lennie DeCaro, an adjacent property owner, appealed the Planning Commission's approval citing three main reasons for the appeal: 1) improper notice; 2) improper public hearing; and 3) improper approval; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 10, 2008, 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 Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting; and 15 City Council Resolution No. Page 2 of 25 WHEREAS, the Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth objectives, policies and limitations for development in the City and designates the general distribution and location of land uses and residential and commercial densities. The Land Use Element designates the project site as Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) with a maximum development limit of 51 dwelling units. The RM designation is intended to provide primarily for multi- family residential development and for development containing attached or detached dwelling units. The proposed subdivision is consistent with this designation; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is consistent with Land Use Policy 5.1.9 that requires multi- family dwellings be designed to convey a high quality architectural character. The project has been designed to be compatible with the development pattern and character of the surrounding neighborhood, which generally consists of two - and three -story, single -unit and two -unit dwellings. Each unit will feature either a "Craftsman" or "Plantation" architectural style. Architectural details and enhancements (i.e. batt and board wood siding, louvered window shutters, decorative trim, and stone veneer) will be provided on all building elevations. The 2 "d floor facades are setback from the 15c floor on the rear elevations and cantilevered over the 15c floor on the front elevations, providing articulation and modulation to the building mass. The 3`d floor of each building is setback from the front and rear elevations, towards the interior portion of each building envelope, to reduce the visual mass of the structures as viewed from the streets; and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision is consistent with Land Use Policy 6.2.9 that requires open space and recreational facilities to be integrated into and preserved in private residential development. A majority of the units have been designed with small (approx. 300 sq. ft.) front patio areas, which are comparable in size to the outdoor living areas of the surrounding residential development within the neighborhood. All units are provided useable and functional 2nd level and 3`d level deck spaces (ranging between 48 and 154 sq. ft.). West Newport Park, an active recreational park, is located immediately west of the project site and the beach is located approximately 120 feet south of the site; both the park and the beach will provide additional recreational opportunities. A condition of project approval has been included that prohibits any floor area additions to the approved building envelopes, which will preserve open patio and deck areas proposed for each unit and the common landscaped and open space areas; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element of the General Plan sets forth goals and policies to facilitate the attainment of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocations and to foster the availability of affordable housing to all income levels to the greatest extent feasible. The demolition of the older, non - conforming, 54 -unit apartment complex and development of 24 condominiums, will result in a total reduction of 30 dwelling units. As discussed in the Population and Housing section of the Initial Study prepared for the project, there are approximately 43,851 housing units in the City, of which approximately 5,462 units are vacant. The rental vacancy rate is estimated at 7.7 1� City Council Resolution No. _ Page 3 of 25 percent with approximately 3,337 rental units vacant (American Community Survey 2006). Therefore, the reduction and change in housing type is not considered significant, as there are sufficient existing rental units available to absorb the displaced rental units. Additionally, Housing Program 1.1.3 requires the replacement of housing demolished within the Coastal Zone when housing is, or has been, occupied by low - income or moderate - income households. A total of 6 rental units have been identified to have been occupied by low- income and moderate - income households, which the applicant will be required to replace at an off -site location with restrictions to maintain their affordability for a minimum of 30 years; and WHEREAS, the Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) of the Local Coastal Program sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone and addresses land use and development, public access and recreation, and coastal resources protection in accordance with the California Coastal Act. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the CLUP for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is located within an existing developed area of the coastal zone and the proposed project density of 16.1 units per acre is below the maximum density limit of 30 units per acre established for the RH -A designation of the CLUP. 2. Public services and infrastructure are currently available and serve the proposed development (8" sewer and water lines are located in both the Seashore Drive and River Avenue rights -of -way), and all applicable improvements required by Section 19.28 (Subdivision Improvements) of the Subdivision Code are required to be constructed by the applicant. 3. The proposed development has been designed to comply with all applicable Multi - Family Residential (MFR) development regulations of the City's Zoning Code, including density, floor area, open space, and parking, to insure design compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Although deviations from the required setbacks and the base height limit are proposed, these deviations will not result in a site plan that is inconsistent with the character and development pattern of the surrounding residential neighborhood. 4. The proposed project will not impact coastal resources nor the ability of the public to reach, use or view the shoreline of coastal waters or inland coastal recreation areas and trails. 5. The project includes 63 parking spaces, which exceeds the minimum parking requirements of the Zoning Code. 6. Gated vehicular access is prohibited, and as a result, the internal roadway will provide unrestricted vehicular access through the project from River Avenue and Neptune Avenue and will not inhibit public access to the beach. k1 City Council Resolution No. _ Page 4 of 25 7. The project site is not located near the vicinity of a designated public view point or coastal view road requiring view protection and will not impact any public views or degrade the visual qualities of the coastal zone. WHEREAS, subject property is located within the Multi - Family Residential (MFR) Zoning District . The proposed detached, single -unit and two -unit residential structures are permitted uses within this zoning designation. With the exception of the increased setback encroachments, reduction in the minimum distance between buildings, and building height increase, all of the applicable development regulations of the MFR zoning regulations have been met; and WHEREAS, Section 20.93.030 (Modification Permits) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires findings and facts in support of such findings for approval of a modification permit for the encroachments into the required 20 -foot front yard setbacks and 25 -foot side yard setbacks, and deviation from the minimum 10 -foot building separation. Such findings and facts to support such findings are as follows: 1. Finding: The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. Facts in Support of Finding: a. While the MFR District permits the proposed single -unit and two -unit residences, the development setback and building separation standards were intended to apply to larger, multiple -unit buildings, such as the 3 -story, 54 -unit apartment building that exists on -site today. The legislative intent of required setbacks is to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling unit. Given that a larger, single structure building would result in more visual and physical massing, a larger setback would be preferred for that development type. b. The applicant has proposed 24 single -unit and two -unit residences designed to appear as if they were situated on individual 30- foot -wide lots and setbacks comparable to surrounding R -1 and R -2 lots. Utilizing the R -1 and R -2 development standards as a guide for determining acceptable setbacks and building separation is appropriate in this case. c. Given that the MFR District permits the proposed detached development, but doesn't provide corresponding development standards, strict application of the Code would result in a physical hardship that is inconsistent with the intent of the Code. 0 City Council Resolution No. Page 5 of 25 2. Finding: The requested modification will be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed project has been designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30- foot -wide lot with setbacks comparable to the surrounding R -1 and R -2 lots. Those reductions in the setbacks and building separation to accommodate the smaller detached, residential units arguably results in a site plan that is more compatible and consistent with the historic development pattern of the area rather than a single, larger apartment - complex. The following facts support compatibility of the proposed project with the existing neighborhood: a. R -1, R -2, and 30 to 40400t -wide MFR lots only require 3 to 4 -foot side yard setbacks. The proposed 6 -foot separation between buildings within the project is consistent with the required 3 -foot side yard setbacks of many of the 30 -foot wide lots in the surrounding neighborhood, which results in a total distance of 6 feet between buildings. The proposed project is designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30- foot -wide lot, the setbacks provided to the east property line are consistent and compatible with the required 3 -foot side yard setbacks of the surrounding 30- foot and 40- foot -wide lots in the neighborhood. The single -unit building fronting Seashore Drive that is proposed to encroach 21 feet into the required side yard setback adjacent to the east property line will maintain a 4 -foot setback. The duplex unit fronting River Avenue that encroaches 17.5 feet into the required side yard setback adjacent to east property line will maintain a 7.5 -foot setback. c. The 6 single -unit structures adjacent to West Newport Park are proposed to encroach 15 feet into the required side yard setback, maintaining a 10 -foot setback to the property line. Due to the orientation of these units, this setback area is equivalent to their front yards and is consistent with the majority of the front yard setbacks in the immediate vicinity of this project that range between 0 and 10 feet. The 6 units fronting Seashore Drive are proposed to encroach 10 feet into the required 20 -foot setback, maintaining a 10 -foot setback to the property line. The proposed 10 -foot setback exceeds the required 0 to 5 -foot front yard setbacks that are required on a majority of the properties fronting Seashore Avenue in the immediate vicinity of this project. e. The 6 duplex structures and 1 single -unit structure adjacent to River Avenue are proposed to encroach between 5 and 10 feet into the required 20 -foot setback, maintaining a minimum 10 to 15 -foot setback to the property line. These proposed setbacks are consistent with, or exceed, the required 5 to 10 -foot front yard setbacks that are required on a majority of the other existing properties fronting River Avenue in the immediate vicinity of this project. N� City Council Resolution No. _ Page 6 of 25 3. Finding: The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The project has been designed to include setbacks comparable to the setback requirements of the surrounding R -1 and R -2 lots. Similar setback and distancing requirements are common throughout the City and have not proven detrimental. b. To minimize the impact of building heights on the neighboring R -2 properties, a condition of project approval has been included requiring the two structures that encroach into the side yard setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line to incorporate hip roof features. WHEREAS, the site is located in the 28132 -foot height limitation zone that permits buildings and structures to exceed the 28 -foot height limit up to a maximum of 32 -feet through the approval of a use permit. Ridges of pitched roofs are permitted to exceed the height limit by 5 additional feet. The proposed project exceeds the 28 -foot base height limit. The proposed roof midpoints of the 6 duplex buildings are at 28 feet 10 inches, as measured from the finished pad elevation. The ridges of the buildings are comforming with a height of approximately 31 feet 4 inches measured from the finished pad elevation. Section 20.65.055 of the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make certain mandatory findings in order to approve a use permit to exceed the base height limit. Such findings and facts to support such findings are as follows: 1. Finding: The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The 6 duplex units that are proposed to exceed the 28 -foot base height limit have been designed with low- pitched gable roof lines, resulting in a maximum midpoint elevation of 28 feet 10 inches (10 inches over the maximum limit) and a maximum ridge elevation of 31 feet 4 inches (1 foot 8 inches under the maximum ridge limit). b. A conforming roof plan can easily be accomplished by designing a taller structure with longer roof spans, thereby lowering the midpoint below the 28- foot limit. This quirk in the City's method of measuring roof midpoints results �p City Council Resolution No. _ Page 7 of 25 in conforming roof midpoints but increases the overall height of the building to the maximum 33 -foot ridge limit. Therefore, the 10 -inch height increase to the midpoint allowance actually results in a 1 -foot 8 inch overall height reduction of the proposed buildings, resulting in increased public visual open space and views than could otherwise be afforded with a conforming roof plan. c. A single, large multiple -unit building that conforms to the minimum setbacks and maximum height could be constructed, which would likely result in a more visually massive and bulky structure. Such a project could result in a 63 percent total maximum lot coverage. The proposed project, with 18 smaller detached single -unit and two -unit structures results in a substantially smaller 36 percent lot coverage. This reduction in lot coverage not only increases the public visual open space and view opportunities through the site, but also allows for increased landscaping of the site, which is proposed at 28 percent of the lot (the existing development of the site provides only 14.4 percent landscaping). 2. Finding: The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The low- pitched gable roof lines result in building heights that are generally more compatible with the heights and architectural styles of the development in the surrounding neighborhood. b. The design of a conforming roof plan results in increased overall building heights and visual massing as viewed from the street elevation and also results in less desirable architectural treatment of the side elevations, with more drastic roof lines that are less visually appealing. 3. Finding: The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The proposed street facing elevations will be scaled down by concentrating the highest portions of the building mass away from the street frontages. Through this design, the front and rear masses of the buildings are minimized and allow more light and ventilation to the immediate neighbors. P City Council Resolution No. _ Page 8 of 25 b. With the exception of the existing R -2 properties to the east, the project site is separated from other uses by River Avenue, Seashore Drive, and the West Newport Park. This separation, in conjunction with the design of the buildings to limit the bulk and mass of the third floor to the center of the lots, eliminates any undesirable or abrupt scale relationships between the project and existing developments. c. A condition of approval has been included to minimize the impact of building heights on the neighboring R -2 properties, requiring the roofs of the two structures that encroach into the side yard setback area, immediately adjacent to the east property line, to slope away from the R -2 properties with use of hip roof features. 4. Finding: The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The proposed floor area ratio for the project is 1.23 FAR, which is below the maximum of 1.75 FAR; therefore the project does not achieve any additional floor area due to the additional height. b. The additional allowance in height only affects roof lines and results in an architecturally superior product than would be achieved through a roof design that conforms to the height limit. WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting the approval of a tentative tract map, for condominium purposes, to create 24 airspace condominium units Pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code, certain findings and facts in support of such findings shall be made for approval of a tentative tract map. Such findings and facts to support such findings are as follows: 1. Finding: That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The project is consistent with the Multiple Unit Residential General Plan designation of the site. b. 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?- City Council Resolution No. Page 9 of 25 c. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19. 2. Finding: That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Facts in Support of Finding: a. The existing site is entirely developed and does not support any environmental resources. b. The site is relatively flat and based on the geologic investigation performed for the site, no signs of unstable or expansive soils are evident, nor is the site subject to erosion. c. The geologic investigation revealed that the underlying soil of the site has a significant liquefaction potential if subject to heavy vibration; however, mitigation measures have been incorporated, as recommended by the site- specific geotechnical investigation, that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. d. The site is currently developed with multiple - family dwelling units at a density greater than that proposed. 3. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision - making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding: 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. 4. Finding: 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: a. The project consists of 24 residential units as permitted by the Zoning Code and the General Plan. a3 City Council Resolution No. Page 10 of 25 b. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the planned subdivision pattern will generate any serious public health problems. c. All mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration to ensure the protection of the public health. 5. Finding: That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision - making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Facts in Support of Finding: a. An easement through the site will be retained by the City to ensure access rights for public emergency and security ingress /egress, public utility purposes, and weekly trash pick -up. b. A 6 -foot sidewalk easement currently exists along the Seashore Drive frontage and the applicant is required to construct full -width sidewalks. No other public easements for access through or use of the property have been retained for use by the public at large. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, if necessary, to serve the proposed project. 6. Finding: That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Facts in Support of Finding: The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. Finding: 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 �A City Council Resolution No. _ Page 11 of 25 body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. Facts in Support of Finding: The subject property is not located within the boundaries of a specific plan. 8. Finding: 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: a. Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department will enforce Title 24 compliance through the plan check and field inspection processes for the construction of any future proposed residences. 9. Finding: 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: To compensate for the demolition of 6 units currently occupied by persons of lower or moderate income, the applicant will be required to replace the units at an off -site location within the City for a minimum period of 30 years. b. 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. 10. Finding: 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: �-5 City Council Resolution No. Page 12 of 25 a. Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with the existing residential use of the property and does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. b. 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. 11. Finding: 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: a. The project has been designed and conditioned for consistency with the City's Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. b. The project site is not located adjacent to the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean and is not presently developed with coastal - related uses, coastal - dependent uses or water - oriented recreational uses. WHEREAS, Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code (Low and Moderate Income Housing within the Coastal Zone) requires the processing of a coastal residential development permit (CRDP) to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (commonly known as the 1982 Mellow Act). The Mellow Act prohibits the City from approving the demolition or conversion of existing housing units occupied by low - or moderate- income households located within the Coastal Zone, unless provisions are made for their replacement with new affordable units. If feasible, all or any portion of the replacement units must be located on the site of the demolished structure or elsewhere in the Coastal Zone. If location on -site or within the Coastal Zone is not feasible, the units must be located within three miles of the Coastal Zone's inland boundary; and WHEREAS, based on an income survey performed in June of 2007 by the Las Brisas property manager, Allen Properties, it was determined that a total of 6 units in the existing apartment complex are occupied by low- and moderate - income households. It has been determined to be feasible for the applicant to commit $1.35 million which the applicant will use to provide a minimum of 6 affordable housing units at an off -site location, or locations, for a minimum period of 30 years; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines; and, City Council Policy K -3. The Draft MND was circulated for public comment between February 21 and March 21, 2008. Comments were received from the Southern California Gas Company, Native American Heritage Commission, Lennie J�D City Council Resolution No. Page 13 of 25 DeCaro, California Department of Transportation, and Department of Toxic Control Substances. The contents of the environmental document, including comments on the document, have been considered in the various decisions on this project; and WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project 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 Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attomeys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger; and NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council 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 City Council's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration SCH No. 2008 - 021075, 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. Section 2. Based on the aforementioned findings, the City Council hereby approves Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001, Modification Permit No. 2007 -044, Use Permit No. 2007 -011 & Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001, all subject to the Conditions of Approval in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made hereof. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10"' DAY OF June, 2008. AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK City Council Resolution No. _ Page 14 of 25 13 City Council Resolution No. Page 15 of 25 Exhibit "A" SEASHORE VILLAGE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (SCH# 2008021075) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Seashore Village Mitigation Monitorfn P ram 11 Phase of Responsible Completion Miti ation Measure Implementation Monitoring Pa rty te/lnitials •, ,:•, -, - +pawciingiU�llli .tt +pll - 1. The construction contractor for the property During construction City's Project owner /developer shall implement additional dust Manager in control measures during demolition as follows: coordination with The project contractor shall apply nontoxic the Project chemical dust suppressants (e.g., polymer Construction Contractor emulsion) to buildings being demolished to reduce fugitive dust from active demolition activities. The project contractor shall prohibit demolition activities when wind speed exceeds 25 miles per hour. The project contractor shall install a temporary construction fence and silt barrier around the construction site as shown in the Construction Staging and Water Quality Control Plan submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. The project contractor shall install construction tire wash areas at the entrance to the project site on River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. All construction clean -up shall be done in construction sediment basins. The construction tire wash area shall be installed in accordance with the Construction Staging and Water Quality Control Plan submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. The contractor will sweep adjacent streets and roads a minimum of once per week. Material haul trucks leaving the project site will have their loads either covered or maintain a freeboard distance of two feet from the stacked load to the top of the trailer. HH'�11II HIM 2. Prior to approval of a grading plan, the property Preconstruction City's Project owner /developer shall submit a letter to the Manager in Planning Department, Planning Division, coordination with showing that a qualified archaeologist has been the Project hired to ensure that the following actions are Construction implemented: Contractor The archaeologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish 11 City Council Resolution No. Page 16 of 25 Seashore Village Mitiqation Monitonnq Program Mitigation Measure Phase of Implementation Responsible Monitonng Party Completion Date/lnitials procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner /developer for exploration and/or salvage. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. • A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. 3. The property owner /developer shall submit a Preconstruction City's Project letter to the Public Works/Engineering Manager in Department, Development Division, and the coordination with Planning Department, Planning Division, the Project showing that a certified paleontologist has been Construction hired to ensure that the following actions are Contractor implemented: The paleontologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of fossils. If potentially significant materials are discovered, the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner /developer for exploration and /or salvage. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological monitor is not present, 36 City Council Resolution No. _ Page 17 of 25 Md' anon Monitoring �k Phase of Responsible Completion Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Party Date/Initials grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted. Upon the completion of the grading, the paleontologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. 4. During+ construction, the construction manager During construction City's Project shall ensure that measures listed in the Manager in geotechnical investigation (EGA Consultants, coordination with 2007) or equivalent measures are implemented the Project to minimize the effects of liquefaction. The Construction measures shall include but are not limited to: Contractor Tie all pad footings with grade beams. All footings should be a minimum of 24 inches deep, below grade. Continuous footings should be reinforced with two No. 5 rebar (two at the top and two at the bottom). Concrete slabs cast against properly compacted fill materials shall be a minimum of 6 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 rebar at 12 inches on center in both directions. The reinforcement shall be supported on chairs to insure positioning of the reinforcement at mid -center in the slab. Dowel all footings to slabs with No. 4 bars at 24 inches on center. ". ._ I ffVw.',' rfwii�) �� ( !., sl? *. .. "' .:' v]t5�i 5. Prior to demolition activity, a certified and Prior to demolition City's Project licensed asbestos abatement contractor shall Manager in perform any removal of asbestos containing coordination with material (ACM). Also, an industrial hygienist the Project must be present to perform engineering control Construction and regulatory asbestos air monitoring during Contractor any abatement activity. 220 _. ., .__ ,. _ —r" E 6. Demolition of the existing asphalt with a During construction City's Project jackhammer within eight feet of the existing Manager in residential structures to the southeast of the site coordination with shall be prohibited. The construction contractor the Project shall utilize alternative asphalt demolition Construction methods such as a concrete saws and other Contractor nonvibratory construction equipment to remove the pavement. �k City Council Resolution No. Page 18 of 25 Exhibit "B" Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001, Modification Permit No. 2007 -044, Use Permit No. 2007 -011 & Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001 (Project-specific conditions are in italics) Planning Department 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans stamped with the date of this approval, except as modified by other conditions. 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 4. Project approvals shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the effective date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Reasonable extensions may be granted by the Planning Director in accordance with applicable regulations. 5. The applicant shall obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit for the project. 6. With the exception of the height modifications required per Condition No. 7, the floor plans and building envelopes for each unit are approved as precise plans and future floor area additions to the building envelopes shall be prohibited. The proposed open patio and deck areas for each unit shall not be permitted to be enclosed and the landscape and open space areas proposed throughout the development site shall be preserved. 7. The two structures that encroach into the side yard setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line shall be modified to incorporate design features (hip features) to minimize building height impacts on the adjacent properties. 8. The applicant shall replace at least 6 affordable units within 3 years of the date of issuance of a demolition permit. The units may be provided off -site at an approved location, or locations, within the City. An amount not to exceed $1.35 million shall be provided by the applicant and the applicant shall use such funds to replace at least 6 affordable units and to achieve a mix of income levels and bedroom counts, as determined appropriate by the Planning Director The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide said units. The agreement shall be reviewed and p, City Council Resolution No. Page 19 of 25 approved by the City Attorney and shall be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the project. 9. Any very-low and low - income units provided in accordance with Condition No. 8 shall be maintained as rental units for a minimum period of 30 years. Any moderate income units should be provided as "for- sale" units with a covenant maintaining the affordability for a minimum period of 30 years. 10. Gated vehicular access through the site shall be prohibited. 11. 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 and light standards shall not exceed 24 feet in height. 12-The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 13. 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 Department. 14. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancv or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in conditions of approval Nos. 12 & 13. 15.AII proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Chapter 20.67 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. 16. Trash container storage for the individual units shall be screened from view of neighboring properties and public places, except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. Trash containers shall not be located within the required parking areas. 17.AII landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds �5 City Council Resolution No. Page 20 of 25 and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 18. 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 Department and. the General Services 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. 19. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever available, assuming it is economically feasible. 20. 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, attomey'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 Seashore Village Residential Development Project including, but not limited to, the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001, Modification Permit No. 2007 -044, Use Permit No. 2007 -011 & Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001; 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, attomeys' 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. Building Department 21.The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all applicable City plan check and inspection fees. City Council Resolution No. _ Page 21 of 25 22. 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. 23. 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. 24. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a NPDES permit. The applicant shall incorporate storm water pollutant control into erosion control plans using BMPs to the maximum extent possible. Evidence that proper clearances have been obtained through the State Water Resources Control Board shall be given to the Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits. 25. 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 Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 26.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. Fire Department 27. The internal roadway shall be marked as a fire lane, per the direction and approval of the Fire Department. Public Works Department 28. A Final Tract Map (Map) shall be filed with the Public Works Department. ?, 5 City Council Resolution No. Page 22 of 25 29.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, 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. 30. Prior to recordation of the 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 Comer unless otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 31. All applicable City fees shall be paid prior to the processing of the Map. 32. Construction surety in a form acceptable to the City, guaranteeing the completion of the various required public improvements, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of the Public Works Department approval of building plans. 33. Easements for weekly trash pick -up by City crews shall be dedicated as part of the Map. 34. Easements for public emergency and security ingress/egress, and public utility purposes on private streets shall be provided to the City. 35.All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 36. A new full -width sidewalk shall be constructed within the limits of the existing Utilities and Sidewalk easements along Seashore Drive fronting the project site. Existing City street trees shall be removed to accommodate the sidewalk construction. 37. New City- designated street trees shall be planted along the River Avenue frontage. All street trees shall be planted per City Standards and guidelines provided by the City General Services Department. 38.A11 existing drainage facilities in the public right -of -way shall be retrofitted to comply with the City's on -site non -stoma runoff retention requirements. 39. On-site runoff shall be retained on -site. � City Council Resolution No. Page 23 of 25 40. Private storm drain piping shall not connect directly to the City's stoma drain catch basin. 41.All on -site utilities shall be owned, operated, and maintained by the community /association. 42. Each unit shall be served by its individual water meter and sewer lateral and cleanout. Each water meter and sewer cleanout in the vehicular traveled -way shall be installed with a traffic -grade box and cover. 43. Individual water services per City Standards shall be provided in lieu of manifolds. 44. All on -site parking, vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. 45. The parking layout shall be in conformance with City Standard 805 -L -A and 805 -L -B. 46. An ADA compliant public pedestrian pathway, from River Avenue to Seashore Drive, shall be provided through the development site. 47. The vehicular pathways shall be designed to support a fully loaded large trash truck. 48. Adequate turning radii and width shall be provided for large trash truck travel paths. 49.All improvements (including, but not limited to, the landscaping in the parking lot area and ingress /egress points to the development site) shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement (City Standard 110 -L). 50. All abandoned driveway approaches shall be removed per City Standard 165 -L. 51.All new driveway approaches shall comply with Council Policy L -2 and constructed per City Standards. 52. Reconstruct any existing broken/damaged sidewalk, curb and gutter fronting the development per City Standards. 53. No permanent structures can be built within the limits of the Utilities and Sidewalk easement. 54. The construction work cannot impact the free flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic between Memorial Day and Labor Day. The staging and parking of all construction- related equipment and vehicles shall take place on -site, and NOT in the public right - of -way or City property. 55. All utility service connections serving this development shall be made underground. hA City Council Resolution No. Page 24 of 25 56. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right -of -way may be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 57.The streets surrounding the project site is on the City's street/alley -cut Moratorium List. Any damage done to said roadways by the project will require substantial pavement repair work to be fully paid for by the Developer. 58.An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right -of- way. 59.An encroachment agreement shall be applied for and approved by the Public Works Department for all non - standard private improvements within the public right -of -way. 60. The intersection of the internal roadways with River Avenue shall be designed to provide adequate sight distance per City of Newport Beach Standard Drawing STD - 110 -L. Slopes, landscaping, walls, signs and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight lines (sight cone) shall not exceed 24- inches in height and the monument identification sign must be located outside the line of sight cone. The sight distance may be modified at non- critical locations, subject to approval by the Traffic Engineer. 61. The internal roadway shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide, unless otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. The internal roadway shall align with Neptune Avenue. The internal roadway curb cut on River Avenue shall be 26 feet wide minimum and modified to comply with current ADA standards. 62. Guest parking stalls shall be 8.5 feet by 17 feet minimum. Parking stalls adjacent to walls or other obstructions shall be 9400t -wide minimum. 63.0n -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation system shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 64. The California Vehicle Code shall be enforced on the private streets and drives, and that the delineation acceptable to the Police Department and Public Works Department be provided along the sidelines of the private streets and drives. 65. Prior to recordation of the Mao, park dedication fees for 24 dwelling units shall be paid in accordance with Chapter 19.52 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. This fee shall be paid at the time the map is submitted to the Public Works Department for plan check. 5� City Council Resolution No. _ Page 25 of 25 Mitigation Measures 66. 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 (SCH No. 2008 - 021075) for the project. �a THIS PAIGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 0 qo Attachment 2 Project Plans AL THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY �-I, . LEGALOWNER lor- LEGALDF.HCRiPffON SEASHORE VILLAGE a :.�. NEWPORT BEACH, CA a�am N Q . OCMMLYbFQV1:' N /41 yW Z � ' WNaIIULlbNN96 . \'.N e O ewm.iuu, em. 6gpbjl �, \w ne�a.a� i. awa - as r.e s ee.c 11aS aWw - n.p ac s nom.+ + . .. Tha •a1Yb0.n .f -1 6 UMA Uw urw 1a�,- fcaaroa a °eg�L— L QWn 6 ee' u..n -1Mye FF„ - . mod 11�rM \YF IMtiL -LA II..Sb- 9961gAt ��tie!,.maLm+n`aNN Wap11 �: QED' nzL�+i.srx . ABBREVIATIONS SYMBOU BESIGNTBAM ° mo 130 . .,a,�. yimowrucamvae� Q6,=: =m.n.x w 3 mm- w ®m M .�aa Lu�rtycMV.dQrJnAmO m e • __ •r. s n.mamvnm emmmgR (c fuesLNNYmpivwav\ NXCQJOi]fYM ® 1YNCYwAMnW\nn\mm0 s j -• +IMLC fie^°""^` °�+ T RYA11n+n1+La00tl<J QtlYAIIYL(Yn Ak- m m o Gi a� m RIVER AVE. _ LEGEND AM - nsaNUi x - mP wwa a -now uxc is - f1M91 aAfA4E iW . i0P WNL N - RP FIAViFA w - w.tm 1¢'1ER $4N - SMR W.4'010.E tt+A . IN ROCi m - EOLE rurwENr rvL . IM NRN 6WYINJ wv - wrtW vu.s ' eW - uawvx rs . awbi aom -rw-sm U u m - J^ Y h u 00 u u" NEPTUNE AVE. SEASHORE DR. I F N.I h Su- TOPOGRAPHIC MAP m �V LOT 104 TRAM N0. m .W£ W+ 5515 RIVER AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA. xvm mvr asnE,m >». osr sr. insmE aria u -- — ham. <, ��_� I��I lw*� 2 l F a 5, l � d I � r if. Ph,^ S[ 'I 54 4 f5 sa i ti 's . : B�0 u: jr I 1 ®h DOnfr a , t f } y . V yf f, w pp rx l � :Z c OY 1 l 4 f5 sa i ti 's . : B�0 u: jr I 1 ®h DOnfr a , t f } y . V i 4 a ass J W G a p �w m...s mm mvo WAT BEINICE ® mmo vamwm� SEWFT C6N^IHIJGIiR1 NOiE3 WMifRW'IiON NOIEB Q m[ mbam ®wroa Qi �vYV sauce �$$v9i39i3 1�3 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 17194 O` lie rb s 5i qa 1't , III P 4 s a t. m S W PLAN A CRAFTSMAN 1 g3Q V J .h . .. >.. ._ . . . . _ �� E� 2 m a u \�� &� � � � a�■ �Ak} � } ) �1�� l d 11� t � At 3 P c i P g VII P d 'Je PLAN B CRAFTSMAN - LVAMENJ - MM�: I _ _ rL _ ��5:. ��f f 4ts: r;: m ffi Y 10 ( O SOUTRkLEVATION fom'S 09 �7T�y�� /h kII11111I111111.�B�;o4 1vs t ,IN V " Tt r. � r°'.°®'�.•oe f -..cam �y,=y� Y�vfrt " � � . -r, � { `6 P /Ali /�. _✓�' .. Sw. 1 ' �' � .f I�����IIIII • Y rw —fR'.. �.J, I '�gpp�ry I•�I.ppj � .... �1�k,.; • � �.... I I ;k � III {v '�' � *,?- y �� .I .;. + /.. v fit'. ✓ .q mmc� �' wn % "cvY�!SfY1�6!�" IY r T Z I -iol —1 111111 lLIIII 5-4 ill hill Ilnij_ 14 ill , 0=14, . . . . . . . . .... ------------ '.I. .(p1(p1 'III 11 it 1!l��,��il�'��11 11.. 11 �. ... _ .. m g a X s a PLAN C CRAFTSMAN �11'lli' �IIIIIIIIII !IIIIIIIIII�IIii���I� =�_7 C- �s FFDNT BA.FV,�TN1N ernomyyg`y�wr.w BAR Jill (( yypp tit �r•. +t �F7 t�a '7 i+ ?• ? cs� Tin i Mfl. � "ri ��Ilk'IIIIh rPi ls� 'i zl •,��.I'.�I � r'i .,ti I i li' rte, Ic'� '!� - �I�� -�I; r i7.r¢R � t1 Fsl L"? 114 �l VIA x jl w RIVER AVE. L — MW 41 •na 'i(vn .rt �iP�f ��` w Sn nrt .rt 3� YP •�f. u — �NEPTUNE AVE. LEGEND .{/C . I5NIitl wz/ �/' \ `Ald4 J/ i tL . rOf 4WR9 IL .non Lwc •"-q. ... - P L, T i5. AMLI5 Am .w 3C mm' `f M+ . NnlrA .vEIU+ sw . sera wmmLE �_ _ ❑ � f q�„,° — E9 rcnnmu. fspnvo aw . 9AP'WAIK �EASHGP.E OR, n - mxs1. ' n - W srzs nnMN J WewfY-Y wMH.s n.mL a �MMwneY.Y�snaiww w ..MrwnnM.wwM '"r L.N.��..NrL macre�cw a►-: ...w.ww..,,w._.,,r.ww,r TOPOGRAPHIC MAP i= 0] LOT I" MACT Na J91J 5515 R?WR AVE, NEWORT BEACH CA 97CIDtTAWiR IW C1 �auMaoiLww u�mxr -we N�wms�i uee . T� i g s lea nwr ax 79 �iw .rr KF I TOPOGRAPHIC 7 � w CO R ....... ....... Attachment 3 March 20, 20082 PC Staff Report THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY I ED CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT March 20, 2008 Meeting Agenda Item No. 6 SUBJECT: Seashore Village Residential Development (PA2007 -100) 5515 River Avenue ■ Mitigated Negative Declaration ■ Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001 • Modification Permit No. 2007 -044 ■ Use Permit No. 2007 -011 • Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001 APPLICANT: Seashore Village, LLC PLANNER: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3209, jmurillo @city.newport- beach.ca.us PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant proposes to develop and construct 12 detached, single -unit residential structures and 6 detached, two -unit (duplex) residential structures (24 units total) on a 1.49 -acre site located at 5515 River Avenue. The site is currently developed with a 54- unit apartment complex that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. Entitlement of the project as proposed requires Planning Commission review and approval of the following applications: • A tentative tract map to create a 24 -unit condominium subdivision. • A modification permit to allow encroachments into the required Multi - Family Residential (MFR) front and side yard setback areas and a reduction in the required distance between detached buildings. • A use permit to allow each of the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City's base height limit. • A coastal residential development permit (CRDP) to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act), which regulates the demolition of low and moderate income (affordable) dwelling units in the coastal zone. RECOMMENDATION Hold a public hearing and adopt the attached resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Sch. No. 2008021075) and approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001, Modification Permit No. 2007 -044, Use Permit No. 2007 -011 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001, subject to findings and conditions of approval. A� Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Description The 1.49 -acre site is relatively flat and trapezoidal in shape. A three -story, 54,739 square -foot, 54 -unit apartment building (Las Brisas Apartments) currently occupies the site. Carports exist on the first level of the apartment building and 4 carport canopies exist at the perimeter of the site. A swimming pool, private common area, and planters also exist on -site. The site is currently accessed via two driveways on River Avenue. Access from and to Seashore Drive is blocked by a wooden fence. Project Description The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 54 -unit apartment complex and construct 12 detached, single -unit residential structures and 6 detached, two -unit (duplex) residential structures, for a total of 24 units (Exhibit 2, Project Plans). The 12 single -unit structures would front onto Seashore Drive and onto West Newport Park. The 6 duplex structures front onto River Avenue. The proposed architecture consists of two styles, "Craftsman" and "Plantation ". Three floor plans are proposed: Plan A (3,248 sq. ft.), Plan B (2,797 sq. ft.), and Plan C (Unit A- 1,836 sq. ft.; Unit B- 1,770 sq. ft.). Each unit would be three - stories in height, with overall roof heights ranging in height from 31 feet to 31 feet -6 inches. Access to the project site would be provided via two driveways on River Avenue and one driveway from Neptune Avenue. The western driveway on River Avenue would exclusively serve one single -unit structure, and all other vehicular access would be provided through a driveway connecting Neptune Avenue to River Avenue. A total of 63 parking spaces are proposed: 24 dedicated residential spaces in garages and carports; and, 15 open guest spaces. ANALYSIS The General Plan Land Use Element The Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth objectives, policies and limitations for development in the City and designates the general distribution and location of land uses and residential and commercial densities. The Land Use Element designates the project site as Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) with a maximum development limit of 51 dwelling units. The RM designation is intended to provide primarily for multi - family residential development containing attached or detached dwelling units. The proposed subdivision is consistent with this designation. The following Land Use Element policies and programs were considered relative to the proposed development: Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 4 LU 5.1.9 Character and Quality of Mufti - Family Residential Require that multi - family dwellings be designed to convey a high quality architectural character in accordance with the following: Building Elevations • Treatment of the elevations of buildings facing public streets and pedestrian ways as the principal fagades with respect to architectural treatment to achieve the highest level of urban design and neighborhood quality. • Architectural treatment of building elevations and modulation of mass to convey the character of separate living units or clusters of living units, avoiding the appearance of a singular building volume. • Provide street- and path- facing elevations with high- quality doors, windows, moldings, metalwork, and finishes. Roof Design • Modulate roof profiles to reduce the apparent scale of large structures and to provide visual interest and variety. The proposed residential development has been designed to be compatible with the development pattern and character of the surrounding neighborhood, which generally consists of two- and three -story, single -unit and two -unit dwellings. Each unit will feature either a "Craftsman" or "Plantation" architectural style. Architectural details and enhancements (i.e. batt and board wood siding, louvered window shutters, decorative trim, and stone veneer) will be provided on all building elevations. The 2nd floor facades are setback from the 1st floor on the rear elevations and cantilevered over the 1St floor on the front elevations, providing articulation and modulation to the building mass. The Td floor of each building is setback from the front and rear elevations, towards the interior portion of each building envelope, to reduce the visual mass of the structures as viewed from the streets. Parkins • Design covered and enclosed parking areas to be integral with the architecture of the residential units' architecture. Each unit has a direct access 2 -car garage or a 1 -car garage and tandem carport space, integrated into the design of each building. Onen Space and Amenitv • 'Incorporate usable and functional private open space for each unit. • Incorporate common open space that creates a pleasant living environment with opportunities for recreation. LU 6.2.9 Private Open Spaces and Recreational Facilities Require the open space and recreational facilities that are integrated into and owned by private residential development are permanently preserved as part of the development approval process and are prohibited from converting to residential or other types of land uses. Flo Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 5 A majority of the units have been designed with small (approx. 300 sq. ft.) front patio areas, which are comparable in size to the outdoor living areas of the surrounding residential development within the neighborhood. Six units (Unit B of Plan C) do not provide front patio areas. All units are provided useable and functional 2nd level and 3'd level deck spaces (ranging between 48 — 154 sq. ft.). Although the project will provide more landscaping and lawn areas than currently exist on -site, no common recreational amenities are provided. It should be noted, however, that the West Newport Park, an active recreational park, is located immediately west of the project site and the beach is located approximately 120 feet south of the site; both the park and the beach will provide additional recreational opportunities. A proposed condition of project approval prohibits any floor area additions to the approved building envelopes, which will preserve open patio and deck areas proposed for each unit and the common landscaped and open space areas. CU 6.2.10 Gated Communities Discourage the creation of new private entry gates in existing residential neighborhoods that currently do not have a gate located at the entrance of the community. A condition of approval has also been included that will prohibit the use of private gates. Housing Element The Housing Element of the General Plan sets forth goals and policies to. facilitate the attainment of the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocations and to foster the availability of affordable housing to all income levels to the greatest extent feasible. The following General Plan Housing Element policies and programs were considered relative to the proposed development: H 1.1 Support all reasonable efforts to preserve, maintain, and improve availability and quality of existing housing and residential neighborhoods, and ensure full utilization of existing City housing resources for as long into the future as physically and economically feasible. H 2.1 Encourage preservation of existing and provision of new housing affordable to very low, low- and moderate income households. The demolition of the older, non - conforming, 54 -unit apartment complex and development of 24 condominiums, will result in a total reduction of 30 dwelling units. As discussed in the Population and Housing section of the Initial Study prepared for the project, there are approximately 43,851 housing units in the City, of which approximately 5,462 units are vacant. The rental vacancy rate is estimated at 7.7 percent with approximately 3,337 rental units vacant (American Community Survey 2006). Therefore, the reduction and change in housing type is not considered significant, as there are sufficient existing rental units available to absorb the displaced rental units. Housing Program 1.1.3 implements Housing Policy H 1.1 and requires the replacement of housing demolished within the Coastal Zone when housing is, or has been, occupied nA Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 6 by low- income or moderate - income households. As discussed in more detail in the Coastal Residential Development Permit section of this report, a total of 6 rental units have been identified to have been occupied by low- income and moderate - income households, which the applicant will be required to replace at an off -site location with restrictions to maintain their affordability for a minimum of 30 years. Local Coastal Program The Coastal Land Use Plan of (CLUP) the Local Coastal Program sets forth goals, objectives, and policies that govern the use of land and water in the coastal zone within the City and addresses land use and development, public access and recreation, and coastal resource protection in accordance with the California Coastal Act. The project site is designated for High Density Residential (RH -A 20.1 - 30 DU /AC). The proposed subdivision is consistent with this designation as the proposed project density is 16.1 d.u. /acre. The following CLUP policies were considered relative to the proposed development: Location of New Development 2.2.1 -1 Continue to allow redevelopment and infill development within and adjacent to the existing developed areas in the coastal zone subject to the density and intensity limits and resource protection policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan- 2- Z 1-2 Require new development be located in areas with adequate public services or in areas that are capable of having public services extended or expanded without significant adverse effects on coastal resources. The subject property is located within an existing developed area of the coastal zone and the proposed project density of 16.1 units per acre is below the maximum density limit of 30 units per acre established for the RH -A designation of the CLUP. Public services and infrastructure are currently available and serve the proposed development (8" sewer and water lines are located in both the Seashore Drive and River Avenue rights -of -way), and all applicable improvements required by Section 19.28 (Subdivision Improvements) of the Subdivision Code are required to be constructed by the applicant. Such improvements include sidewalk construction, street tree plantings, sewer and water connections, utility undergrounding, and a fire hydrant. Residential Development 2.7 -1. Continue to maintain appropriate setbacks and density, floor area, and height limits for residential development to protect the character of established neighborhoods and to protect coastal access and coastal resources. As discussed in more detail within the Zoning Compliance section of this report, the proposed development has been designed to comply with all applicable Multi - Family Residential (MFR) development regulations of the City's Zoning Code, including density, floor area, open space, and parking, to insure design compatibility with the surrounding Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 7 neighborhood. Although deviations from the required setbacks and the base height limit are proposed, these deviations will not result in a site plan that is inconsistent with the character and development pattern of the surrounding residential neighborhood. The proposed project will not impact coastal resources nor the ability of the public to reach, use or view the shoreline of coastal waters or inland coastal recreation areas and trails. Parking 2.9.3 -2. Continue to require all development shall provide adequate off - street parking to serve -the approved use in order to minimize impacts to public on- street and off - street parking available for coastal access. 2.9.3 -5 Continue to require off - street parking in new development to have adequate dimensions, clearances, and access to insure their use. The parking requirement for multiple - family residential development is two spaces per unit, including one covered, plus 0.5 spaces per unit for guest parking for developments of four or more units. The proposed project includes 48 spaces for the residents and 12 spaces for guest parking. The 63 spaces (3 extra guest spaces) proposed exceed the minimum parking requirements of the Zoning Code. The project is conditioned to meet all City requirements regarding parking design standards, including minimum widths, depths, grades, and aisle- turning radii. Private /Gated Communities 3.1.5 -1 Prohibit new development that incorporate gates, guardhouses, barriers or other structures designed to regulate or restrict access where they would inhibit public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs. 3.1.5 -2 Prohibit new private streets, or the conversion of public streets to private streets, where such a conversion would inhibit public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal parks, trails, or coastal bluffs. The applicant has agreed to eliminate gated access that was originally proposed for the project. As a result, the proposed private driveway will provide unrestricted vehicular access through the project from River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. This design will not inhibit public access to the beach. Scenic and Visual Resources Policies 4.4.1 -1 through 4.4.2 -3 of the Coastal Land Use Plan pertain to the design of structures to protect public coastal views and preserve or enhance the visual qualities of the coastal zone. The project site is not located near the vicinity of a designated public view point or coastal view road requiring view protection and will not impact any public views. '1`1� Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 8 Zoning Compliance The subject property is located within the Multi - Family Residential (MFR) Zoning District. The proposed detached, single -unit and two -unit residential structures are a permitted use within this zoning designation. With the exception of the increased setback encroachments, reduction in the minimum distance between buildings, and building height increase, all of the following development regulations of the MFR zoning regulations have been met: Lot Size 15000 sq. ft. 1 1.49 acres 64,904 sq. ft. Min. Lot Size Per Unit 11200 sq. ft. 12704 sq. ft. Maximum Floor Area Limit 11.75 (72,133 sq. ft.) 11.23 (50,706 sq. ft.)' Front Seashore Avenue Side Setbacks West 20' 25' Maximum Height 28' Midpoint/Flat Roof 33' Ridge Plan A (SFR) 25' -6" Midpoint (31' Ridge) Plan B (SFR) 26' -8" Midpoint (31' -4" Ridge) Plan C (Duplex) Minimum Distance 10' Between Buildings 247,313 cu. Ft. Minimum Open Space 675,415 cu. ft. Parkin Resident 2 per unit 48 spaces 48 spaces Guest 0.5 per unit 12 spaces 15 s aces Total 60 spaces 63 spaces ' Per Section 20.10.30(M), 200 square feet of floor area per required parking devoted to enclosed parking shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area. Modification Request The requested encroachments into the required 20 -foot front yard setbacks and 25 -foot side yard setbacks, and deviation from the minimum 10 -foot building separation requirement, require a modification permit, which may be approved if the findings contained within Section 20.93.030 of the Municipal Code can be made as follows: ,�a Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 9 1. The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. While the MFR District permits the proposed single -unit and two -unit residences, the development setback and building separation standards were intended to apply to larger, multiple -unit buildings, such as the 3 -story, 54 -unit apartment building that exists on -site today. The legislative intent of required setbacks is to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling unit. Given that a larger, single structure building would result in more visual and physical massing, a larger setback would be preferred for that development type. The applicant has proposed 24 single -unit and two -unit residences designed to appear as if they were situated on individual 30- foot -wide lots and setbacks comparable to surrounding R -1 and R -2 lots. Staff believes that utilizing the R -1 and R -2 development standards as a guide for determining acceptable setbacks and building separation is appropriate in this case. Given that the MFR District permits proposed detached development, but doesn't provide corresponding development standards, strict application of the Code would result in a physical hardship that is inconsistent with the intent of the Code. 2. The requested modification will be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood. The proposed project has been designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30- foot -wide lot with setbacks comparable to the surrounding R -1 and R -2 lots. Those reductions in the setbacks and building separation to accommodate the smaller detached, residential units arguably results in a site plan that is more compatible and consistent with the historic development pattern of the area rather than a single, larger apartment - complex. The following facts support compatibility of the proposed project with the existing neighborhood: • R -1, R -2, and MFR lots only require 3 to 4 -foot side yard setbacks. The proposed 6- foot separation between buildings within the project is consistent with the required 3 -foot side yard setbacks of many of the 30 -foot wide lots in the surrounding neighborhood, which results in a total distance of 6 feet between buildings. • The proposed project is designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30 -foot- wide lot, the setbacks provided to the east property line are consistent and compatible with the required 3 -foot side yard setbacks of the surrounding 30 -foot and 40- foot -wide lots in the neighborhood. The single -unit building fronting Seashore Drive that is proposed to encroach 21 feet into the required side yard setback adjacent to the east property line will maintain a 4 -foot setback. The duplex tj ` Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 10 unit fronting River Avenue that encroaches 17.5 feet into the required side yard setback adjacent to east property line will maintain a 7.5 -foot setback. • The 6 single -unit structures adjacent to West Newport Park are proposed to encroach 15 feet into the required side yard setback, maintaining a 10 -foot setback to the property line. Due to the orientation of these units, this setback area is equivalent to their front yards and is consistent with the majority of the front yard setbacks in the immediate vicinity of this project that range between'0 and 10 feet (Exhibit 3, Districting Map). • The 6 units fronting Seashore Drive are proposed to encroach 10 feet into the required 20 -foot setback, maintaining a 10 -foot setback to the property line. The proposed 10 -foot setback exceeds the required 0 to 5 -foot front yard setbacks that are required on a majority of the properties fronting Seashore Avenue in the immediate vicinity of this project. • The 6 duplex structures and 1 single -unit structure adjacent to River Avenue are proposed to encroach between 5 and 10 feet into the required 20 -foot setback, maintaining a minimum 10 to 15 -foot setback to the property line. These proposed setbacks are consistent with, or exceed, the required 5 to 10 -foot front yard setbacks that are required on a majority of the other existing properties fronting River Avenue in the immediate vicinity of this project. 3. The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. As presented in discussion above for Finding No. 2, the project has been designed to include setbacks comparable to the setback requirements of the surrounding R -1 and R -2 lots. Similar setback and distancing requirements are common throughout the City and have not proven detrimental. Although staff believes the proposed setbacks of the project are compatible with the development patter in the immediate vicinity of this project, it should be noted that buildings on neighboring R-1 and R -2 lots are limited to a maximum height of 24 feet (24 feet midpoint/29 feet ridge). The proposed project however, is located within the MFR District, and benefits from an increased height limit of 28 feet (28 feet midpoint/33 feet ridge). Based on the rationale that the proposed detached, single -unit and two -unit structures have been designed to conform to the setback requirements of the surrounding R -1 and R -2 lots in the neighborhood and, therefore, warrant deviation from the MFR setback regulations, staff recommends the following condition of project approval: M' Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 11 Condition No. 7 The two structures that encroach into the side yard setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line shall be modified in height to conform to the 24 -foot base height limit. This modification will result in an approximate 2 -foot reduction in ridge height and will ensure complete compatibility with the development standards of the neighboring R -2 units. With this condition, staff believes sufficient facts exist to support the required findings to approve the requested setback encroachments and reduced building separations. Use Permit for Increased Height The site is located in the 28/32 -foot height limitation zone that permits buildings and structures to exceed the 28 -foot height limit up to a maximum of 32 -feet through the approval of a use permit. Ridges of pitched roofs are permitted to exceed the height limit by 5 additional feet. The proposed project exceeds the 28 -foot base height limit. The proposed roof midpoints of the 6 duplex buildings are at 28 feet 10 inches, as measured from the finished pad elevation. The ridges of the buildings are comforming with a height of approximately 31 feet 4 inches measured from the finished pad elevation. Section 20.65.055 of the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make certain mandatory findings in order to approve a use permit to exceed the base height limit. These findings and the facts in support of these findings are discussed below: I. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. The 6 duplex units that are proposed to exceed the 28 -foot base height limit have been designed with low- pitched gable roof lines, resulting in a maximum midpoint elevation of 28 feet 10 inches (10 inches over the maximum limit) and a maximum ridge elevation of 31 feet 4 inches (1 foot 8 inches under the maximum ridge limit). As illustrated in Exhibit 4 (Height Limit Overlay), a conforming roof plan can easily be accomplished by designing a taller structure with longer roof spans, thereby lowering the midpoint below the 28 -foot limit. This quirk in the City's method of measuring roof midpoints results in conforming roof midpoints but increases the overall height of the building to the maximum 33 -foot ridge limit. Therefore, the 10 -inch height increase to the midpoint allowance actually results in a 1 -foot 8 inch overall height reduction of the proposed buildings, resulting in increased public visual open space and views than could otherwise be afforded with a conforming roof plan. % Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 12 The Planning Commission should also consider that a single, large multiple -unit building that conforms to the minimum setbacks and maximum height could be constructed, which would likely result in a more visually massive and bulky structure. Such a project could result in a 63 percent total maximum lot coverage (Lot Coverage is defined as the percentage of a site covered by roofs, soffits, or overhangs and by decks more than 30 inches in height). The proposed project, with 18 smaller detached single -unit and two - unit structures results in a substantially smaller 36 percent lot coverage. This reduction in lot coverage not only increases the public visual open space and view opportunities through the site, but also allows for increased landscaping of the site, which is proposed at 28 percent of the lot (the existing development of the site provides only 14.4 percent landscaping). 2. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. The low- pitched gable roof lines result in building heights that are generally more compatible with the heights and architectural styles of the development in the surrounding neighborhood. As previously discussed, a conforming roof plan can be designed that results in increased overall building heights and visual massing as viewed from the street elevation. A conforming roof design also results in less desirable architectural treatment of the side elevations, with more drastic roof lines that are less visually appealing. 3. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. The proposed street facing elevations will be scaled down by concentrating the highest portions of the building mass away from the street frontages. Through this design, the front and rear masses of the buildings are minimized and allow more light and ventilation to the immediate neighbors. Furthermore, with the exception of the existing R -2 properties to the east, the project site is separated from other uses by River Avenue, Seashore Drive, and the West Newport Park. This separation, in conjunction with the design of the buildings to limit thk bulk and mass of the third floor to the center of the lots, eliminates any undesirable or abrupt scale relationships between the project and existing developments. Staffs recommended condition requiring the reduction in heights of structures adjacent to the existing R -2 properties to conform with a 24 -foot base height limit should result in a project that is compatible in scale to the adjacent R -2 properties and will help ease the transition of the project's increased heights to the existing neighborhood. �a Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 13 4. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. As previously mentioned, the proposed floor area ratio for the project is 1.23 FAR, which is below the maximum of 1.75 FAR; therefore the project does not achieve any additional floor area due to the additional height. The additional allowance in height only affects roof lines and results in an architecturally superior product than would be achieved through a roof design that conforms to the height limit.: General Use Permit Findings In addition to the required findings for the increased height request, the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make certain findings for use permits. These findings and facts in support of findings are listed and discussed below. I. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of this code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. As previously mentioned, the Multi - Family Residential (MFR) Zoning District is intended to provide for medium -to -high density residential development, including single - family, two- family, and multi - family residential structures. The proposed detached single -unit and two -unit residential structures are permitted uses within this zoning designation. 2. That the proposed location of the use permit and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the district in which the site is located; will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or welfare of persons residing or working in or adjacent to the neighborhood of such use; and will not be detrimental to the properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city. As noted in the previous sections, the project is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed use permit request for increased height should not prove detrimental as the project includes a significant increase in public and visual open space and the small increase to the average height of the roofs actually allows for a more significant reduction in overall height of the buildings (1 -foot 8- inches below the 33 -foot maximum ridge height limitation). 3. That the proposed use will comply with the provisions of this code, including any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located. The Municipal Code does not provide any specific conditions for this type of use; however, the project has been reviewed and conditioned to ensure that conflicts with surrounding land uses are minimized to the greatest extent possible or eliminated. Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 14 Subdivision — Tentative Tract Map The applicant is requesting the approval of a tentative tract map, for condominium purposes, to create 24 airspace condominium units. Pursuant to Section 19.12.070 of the City Subdivision Code (Title 19), the following standard findings must be made to approve the tentative tract map. If the Planning Commission determines that one or more of the findings listed in relation to either map cannot be made, the tentative parcel map or tract map must be denied. 1. 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. As noted in the previous sections, the project is consistent with the General Plan. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tentative maps and believes that they are consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19. 2. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The existing site is entirely developed and does not support any environmental resources. The site is relatively flat and based on the geologic investigation performed for the site, no signs of unstable or expansive soils are evident, nor is the site subject to erosion. It should be noted that the geologic investigation did reveal that the underlying soil of the site has a significant liquefaction potential if subject to heavy vibration; however, mitigation measures have been incorporated, as recommended by the site- specific geotechnical investigation, that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The site is currently developed with multiple - family dwelling units at a density greater than that proposed. As previously discussed in the report, the proposed project is below the applicable maximum floor area limit and maximum residential density for the site. Due to these factors, the site is suitable for the type and density of development proposed. 3. That the design of the subdivisiob or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision - making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. s Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 15 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. 4. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The project consists of 24 residential units as permitted by the Zoning Code and the General Plan. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the planned subdivision pattern will generate any serious public health problems. All mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration to ensure the protection of the public health. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision- making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Although the access road through the project will remain private, a 24- foot -wide easement through the site will be retained by the City to ensure access rights for public emergency and security ingresslegress, public utility purposes, and weekly trash pick- up. A 6 -foot sidewalk easement currently exists along the Seashore Drive frontage and the applicant will be required to construct full -width sidewalks. No other public easements for access through or use of the property have been retained for use by the public at large. Public utility easements for utility connections that serve the project site are present and will be modified, if necessary, to serve the proposed project. 6. 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 9965 (Wiffi'amson 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. The site is not subject to a Williamson Act contract; therefore, this finding does not apply. C,1 Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 16 7. 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. The subject property is not located within the boundaries of a specific plan. 8. 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. Title 24 of the Uniform Building Code 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 field inspection processes. 9. 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. As previously noted in the Housing Element discussion, the demolition of the 54 -unit apartment complex and development of 24 condominiums will result in a total reduction of 30 dwelling units; however, given the rental vacancy rate of 7.7 percent in the City, sufficient existing rental units available to absorb the displaced rental units. Also, as discussed in more detail in the Coastal Residential Development Permit section of this report, 6 of the 54 existing apartment units proposed for demolition are occupied by persons of rower or moderate income. To compensate for this loss of affordable housing, the applicant will be required to replace the units at an off -site location within the City for a minimum period of 30 years. 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. 10. 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. Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with residential use of the property which does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. As of writing this report, the RWQCB has not provided any comments related to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration during the 30 -day review period. Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 17 11. 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. Although the proposed subdivision is located entirely within the coastal zone, the project site is not located adjacent to the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean and is not presently developed with coastal - related uses, coastal-dependent uses or water- oriented recreational uses. As noted previously, staff believes that the proposed project is consistent with the City's CLUP and the Coastal Act. Coastal Residential Development Permit Chapter 20.86 of the Zoning Code (Low and Moderate Income Housing within the Coastal Zone) requires the processing of a coastal residential development permit (CRDP) to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (commonly known as the 1982 Mellow Act). The Mellow Act prohibits the City from approving the demolition or conversion of existing housing units occupied by low- or moderate - income households located within the Coastal Zone, unless provisions are made for their replacement: If feasible, all or any portion of the replacement units must be located on the site of the demolished structure or elsewhere in the Coastal Zone. If location on -site or within the Coastal Zone is not feasible, the units must be located within three miles of the Coastal Zone's inland boundary. Based on an income survey performed in June of 2007 by the Las Brisas property manager, Allen Properties, it was determined that a total of 6 units in the existing apartment complex are occupied by low- and moderate - income households. The income distribution is as follows: Two very-low- income households; and Four moderate - income households Feasibility Analysis The Mello Act states that replacement affordable units must be provided if "feasible". The Mello Act defines feasibility as "capable of':being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technical factors ". The City utilized a pro forma provided by the applicant to analyze the project and determine if it was financially feasible for the applicant to fulf ill all, or any portion, of the replacement requirements of the Mello Act. For the purpose of the feasibility analysis, the pro forma estimates development costs and revenues for the project based on the following: Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 18 1. Site Acquisition Cost ($25,500,000) 2. Total Development Costs ($28,434,500) 3. Total Sales Revenue ($58,950,000) 4. Developer Profit (8.5 percent of Sales revenue= $5,015,500) The applicant has agreed to commit $1.35 million to subsidizes the rents and /or purchase price of off -site replacement housing. After committing $1.35 million towards replacement housing, the applicant's profit is expected to decrease to approximately 6.2 percent. Specific candidate properties for the replacement units have not yet been identified as of this writing. The City retained the real estate development consulting firm, The Natelson Dale Group, Inc (TNDG) for the purposes of evaluating the reasonableness of the applicant's financial projections. After reviewing the applicant's pro forma dated November 2007 and an appraisal letter prepared by CB Richard Ellis, Inc (CBRE) dated January 5, 2008, TNDG has concluded that the applicant could afford to subsidize replacement housing in the amount of at least $1.8 million to $2.0 million and still meet the project feasibility criteria established in the applicant's original pro forma (8.5 percent developer profit). The TNDG Memorandum is attached as Exhibit 5. The basis of this conclusion is that the CBRE appraisal (prepared subsequent to the applicant's November 2007 pro forma) indicates a total revenue potential for the project of $60.9 million, or $1.95 million more than sales revenue indicated on the applicant's pro forma. Based on the revised revenue expectation, the applicant's development costs and revenues for the project would be revised as follows: 1. Site Acquisition Cost ($25,500,000) 2. Total Development Costs ($28,434,500) 3. Total Sales Revenue ($60,900,000) 4. Developer Profit Before Replacement Housing Fee (11.4% or $6,965,500) 5. Replacement Housing Costs ($1,950,000 million) 6. Net Developer Profit (8.5 percent of Sales revenue = $5,015,500) On -Site Replacement Replacement of the 6 affordable units on -site is infeasible, given the land costs and proposed product types; however, based on the applicant's sales revenue projection, it appears that it would be feasible to retain one of the duplex units on -site as a moderate - income 'for- sale" unit. The 3- bedroom unit could be sold at a maximum price of $283,200 to a moderate income household, resulting in a loss (subsidy) of $1,250,800. Staff does not recommend this option. �l� Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 19 Off -Site Replacement The most practical way to replace the units would be through the acquisition of an existing, off -site apartment project and /or condominium and subsidizing the rents and /or purchase price of the units to lower or moderate- income households. To determine whether the applicant's $1.35 million commitment was sufficient to subsidize 6 off -site replacement units, staff relied on the analysis contained within the Draft Technical Memorandum dated October 11, 2007 (Exhibit 6), prepared by Economic and Planning Systems (EPS), for the calculation of the City's affordable housing in -lieu fee. Based on the information contained within the memorandum, the net cost to subsidize 6 replacement units is estimated at $962,134. It should be noted that these calculations were intended to generally illustrate the subsidy amount that is required for the City to create new affordable units; however, actual subsidy costs could vary depending on the number of units that are created and whether they or new or converted units. were used 2For subsidy calculations, the value of the affordable unit (as calculated through sale values or capitalized rental operating income streams) is compared to the casts to develop the unit, tnoiudh9 "direct: costs (fabor and materials), nniltracr costs (design, permits, financing, etc.) and land acquisition costs. Site Acquisition Costs The CBRE appraisal estimates the "as is value of the property as an apartment complex to be $15.95 million and the potential land value (if entitled per the applicant's request) to be $25.5 million. Staff believes the site acquisition costs (entitled land value) included in the applicant's pro forma is overvalued as it does not include the cost to replace the 6 units in accordance with the Mello Act ; therefore, it does not represent entitled land value. Although the applicant has committed $1.35 million towards the replacement of the 6 units, staff believes this informatioilJs pertinent when considering the feasibility of this project. CRDP Summary Based on the above discussion, the applicant's commitment of $1.35 million is sufficient to subsidize the replacement of the 6 affordable housing units and still provide a developer profit that is acceptable to the applicant (ranging between 6.2 — 9.2 percent depending on total sales revenue). The Mello Act does not specify whether the replacement units must be like -for -like in terms of affordability and bedroom count; Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 20 however, given the City's adequate supply of moderate income rental units in the City, staff recommends that any very-low and low income units proposed be maintained as rental units and any moderate income units proposed be sold as "for -sale' units. Staff has included a condition ensuring an appropriate mix of affordable units is provided that efficiently utilizes the applicant's $1.35 million commitment. Traffic Phasing Ordinance Based on trip generation rates calculated using the Institute of Traffic Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual Wh edition, 2003), occupancy of the proposed 24 single -unit and two -unit residences is anticipated to result in a net reduction of 178 average daily trips (ADT) in comparison to the number of trips estimated to be generated by the existing 54 -unit apartment complex (178 ADT — 363 ADT = -178 ADT). Per Section 15.40.030.C.1 of the Municipal Code (Traffic Phasing Ordinance), the project is exempt from having to prepare a traffic study as it generates fewer than 300 daily trips. Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by The Planning Center for the proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND is attached as Exhibit No. 7. The MND identifies five (5) issue areas with 6 mitigation measures. Those issues are: Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Noise. The MND was circulated for public review between February 20 and March 20, 2008. As of the date of staff report preparation, staff has only received two standard MND comment letters from the Gas Company and the Native American Heritage Commission (Exhibit 8). Staff will prepare responses to any subsequent comment letters, if received, and present them to the Planning Commission at the March 20th hearing. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property 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 in a similar manner and all mandatory notices per the California Environmental Quality Act have been given. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. In addition to the City's public noticing requirements, the applicant has been proactive in meeting with surrounding neighborhood and has provided a summary of their community outreach efforts, which is attached as Exhibit 9 Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 21 SUMMARY Although the proposed project includes a number of deviations from the MFR District development standards, staff believes that findings necessary for project approval can be made. It is staffs conclusion that the 24 -unit condominium project, as conditioned, would not prove detrimental to the area and will result in a development that is more compatible and consistent with the historic development of the adjacent R -1 and R -2 properties in the immediate vicinity ofithe site. ALTERNATIVES Should the Planning Commission conclude that the project as proposed would not be compatible with the surrounding uses and /or that the project would not be appropriate for the MFR District, the project should be denied, or modified to address issues of design or density. If a redesigned project is advisable, staff recommends a continuance to allow the applicant time to revise their plans accordingly should this course of action be sought. Given the deviations from the MFR development standards necessary to accommodate the single -unit and two -unit product type proposed for the site, staff considered the appropriateness of alternative zoning designations; however, for the following various reasons, the MFR designation proved to be most appropriate: 1. An R -1/R -2 is most suitable for the proposed product type; however, the benefits of the MFR guest parking, open space and increased landscaping would be lost and potentially replaced with two additional units (Exhibit 10, Zone Change Study). 2. The Planned Residential Development (PRD) Overlay allows for project - specific development plan and flexibility with development standards; however, given the large parking requirement that cannot be waived, this option was not considered feasible. 3. The Planned Community District is intended to provide for the classification and development of parcels of land as coordinated, comprehensive projects so as to take advantage of the superior environment which cari4esult from large -scale community planning; however, the proposed project does not achieve these objectives and does not meet the minimum land area requirements of 10 acres. 0 Seashore Village March 20, 2008 Page 22 The following table provides a comparison of the various zoning district alternatives: Discretionary Modification General Plan Code Amendment Code Amendment Approvals Permit Amendment Use Permit Development Plan Use Permit Code Amendment Subdivision deviations from minimum lot size (5000 sq. ft. minimum Units 24 proposed Potentially 26 lots Unknown; Per Dev. Plan due to loss of guest significant parking requirement reduction anticipated due to increased parking requirements Parking 2 per unit, plus .5 2 per unit, no guest 2 per unit, plus 2 Per Dev. Plan guest per unit parking guest per unit 60 spaces) 24 spaces) 96 spaces total Minimum 1200 sq. ft. per 1000 sq. ft. per unit 1200 sq. ft. per unit 10 acres Land Area unit Height 28' midpoint/flat 24' midpoint/flat Up to Up to 33' ridge 29' ridge 32' midpoinUflat 32' midpoint/flat 37' ride 1 37' ridge Prepared by: Submitted by: mime Murillo, Associate Planner David LeporPla g Director EXHIBITS 1, —D—W i" SSE hTTM FMEUT 1 2. i2papW Qlarnc se, �+ti rxt « E t 2 3. Districting Map 4. Height Limit Overlay 5. TNDG Memorandum 6. EPS Memorandum; In -Lieu Fee Study 7. PAkiliaWd Wgiiiiiiiiiii see �+'nwCxw�er"r �� 8. DA Q r,.,.........rt,' Q-W. Q SSE �T.+exMrr.+T $ 9. Applicant's Community Outreach Summary 10. Zone Change Study F:IUsers1PLMShared1PA'sIPAs - 20071PA2007- 1001Starf Reports and ResoluUonslPA2007 -100 PC Staff Report 3.20.0&doc qa 5EE ATTAO+.k6AEM' I �5 G 'Jef: AnAoi4Mr.Nr Z l;l� i *%-, Exhibit a Districting Map ffil 4 arP � GG �j h Gam/! 'O Fs c. •q�a O c ° f� i� o` an 0 /TY BOUNDARY ti I PAN+I+SNV. 5•i4POOCN Swnu,PNe W C55 MO •p. N9 •i) / ./d @.erd /.NrIX.6nyr/uy.ly F M MA j�p••pO���aaF / wra+lJfA// /IMI CT X41bP N5e16 A9N 011111E 50ud 'OIf61PC4YE XV50 ✓EST 4,Ao B � S O CogsT ppIti 4 00 b} iwdyTCJ 1 9 0 � e -0�O • �''2dOP •�^y aM�� p9 �S �,� �s DISTRICTING MAP NPORT BEACH — CALIFORI • ti SY/3 @ /O@ 9` 6 RSr >g M 4I 2 4 h SCALE OF FEET Irvu:ri.0 nvnn. RCtl1UCNTIPL OYI S.WNVI'PVTummu _ OR0. NO. B88 0 eee po 89° - CCMBININ6019TRIGT$ U. IIHpA881F1E0 OsC: %Iefio MAP NO. O ran! and DOP"!� in Feet Stewn Tj1V6: ae- 1 oC N, RF, R -f rOb.. idol AO R'lm M.ZWV1b`+S a50.NY.1� -jY P0.KaRflu KlvA Bw.epn PAN+I+SNV. 5•i4POOCN Swnu,PNe W C55 rqQ 801F. g- SM/C PROPEdEE O Yq 628- 9 OW 4A-P6 16. S/ inn PROPCRr,FS m RK +- I _" 0".94-4 L0101-8, 6LN. 44 RWIR 880 , VR Ro' re 10, G(SexX SgRO g05CA•f, y -f6 -94 dt4. 5000 -52 Ba6m EtT Owlry -.Vl alyv NepMVtld OMH. m Nu Wle. MnNmda Ynl b. vBJM MO.a�I R90eMw aMeSed M'M. Bobes 310. deo. moE -51 Mep/. K. SSwM. zo.aT �9 N WMx wS MeB .O...Ip.V Rcv. fbvrmbRO �, i00S (LYP 3l0}zz)35f Xan M6 d.RIMg Mq, 9 -S) -5000 ✓EST 4,Ao B � S O CogsT ppIti 4 00 b} iwdyTCJ 1 9 0 � e -0�O • �''2dOP •�^y aM�� p9 �S �,� �s DISTRICTING MAP NPORT BEACH — CALIFORI • ti SY/3 @ /O@ 9` 6 RSr >g M 4I 2 4 h SCALE OF FEET Irvu:ri.0 nvnn. RCtl1UCNTIPL OYI S.WNVI'PVTummu _ OR0. NO. B88 0 eee po 89° - CCMBININ6019TRIGT$ U. IIHpA881F1E0 OsC: %Iefio MAP NO. O ran! and DOP"!� in Feet Stewn Tj1V6: ae- 1 oC E xhibit 4 Height Limit Overlay ql. RL WIN IIII -1 �J t5 Exh TNDG Memorandum I K\` ^ MEMORANDUM TO: City of Newport Beach DATE: March 10, 2008 ATTN: Mr. David Lepo Planning Director FROM: The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG) FILE: #3918 SUBJECT: REVIEW OF FINANCIAL PRO FORMA FOR SEASHORE VILLAGE Per your request, The Natelson Dale Group, Inc. (TNDG) has conducted a limited and brief review of the following financial information regarding the proposed Seashore Village project: The "Seashore Village Detailed Pro Forma" dated November 2007 and prepared by Todd Schooler & Associates, Inc. (the project applicant); and • An appraisal letter prepared by CB Richard Ellis, Inc. (CBRE) and dated January 5, 2008. This letter provides a summary of a detailed appraisal (which was not included in the documentation provided by the applicant). The purposes of TNDG's review were: a) to evaluate, in the limited sense described above, the reasonableness of the applicant's financial projections, and b) to determine the extent to which it would be feasible for the applicant to subsidize "replacement housing" in fulfillment of Mello Act requirements. In particular, we understand that the applicant has offered to invest $1 million in the replacement of affordable housing units. The City has requested TNDG's opinion regarding the ability of the developer to commit to a higher amount. Summary Conclusion TNDG estimates that the project could afford to subsidize "replacement housing" by an amount of at Least $1.8 million to $2.0 million and still meet the project feasibility criteria established in the developer's pro forma. These calculations, and TNDG's commentary on the developer's financial projections, are provided below. Comments on Reasonableness of Aimlicant's Financial Projections The applicant's November 2007 pro forma indicates a "net revenue return" of $5,015,500, representing a profit margin of 8.5% of projected gross revenues from sale of the developed homes. According to City staff, the applicant represents the project summarized in this pro forma as feasible and attractive from an investment perspective. Thus, TNDG has assumed that the above numbers — $5,015,500 in net revenues and an 8.5% profit margin — represent the developer's acceptable feasibility thresholds for this project. The profitability indicated in the applicant's November 2,007 pro forma is based on three basic components 24835 E. La Palma Ave., Suite T. Yorba Linda, Califomia 92887 10, Phone: (714) 692-9596. Fax: (714) 692-9597 Mr. David Lepo March 10, 2008 Page 2 • Total sales revenue of $58,950,000 • Land purchase price of $25,500,000 • Total development costs of $28,434,500 Of the above items, only the development costs are documented in any detail on the pro forma. The basis of the $58.95 million in sales revenue is not indicated, and the land purchase price is apparently based on the CBRE appraisal (per City staff, the applicant has confirmed that the site is in escrow for $25.5 million, contingent on project approval). Given the limited documentation and the short timeframe available for this assignment, it has not been possible for TNDG to independently evaluate the financial feasibility of the project. However, based on a cursory review of the indicated development costs (the only information provided in any detail in the submitted financial analysis), TNDG believes that they are generally reasonable. TNDG has not independently evaluated the reasonableness of the anticipated land value or the project's revenue (i.e., sales price) potentials, although further comment on these topics is provided below. Comments on Project's Ability to Subsidize "Replacement Housing" The CBRE appraisal — which was prepared subsequent to the applicant's (November 2007) pro forma — indicates total revenue potential for the project of $60.9 million, or $1.95 million more than the sales revenue indicated on the applicant's pro forma. Based on this revised revenue expectation, TNDG has recalculated the amount the project could afford to commit for "replacement housing" and still remain feasible (based on the thresholds defined above). Two feasibility thresholds have been considered: 1) achieving a "net revenue return" (i.e., gross revenues minus land and development costs) of $5,015,500, and 2) achieving a profit margin of 8.5% of gross sales revenue. Based on the first method, the project could afford to commit $1,950,000 for replacement housing. Based on the second method, the project could afford to commit $1,789,000 Comments on Land Value The CBRE appraisal estimates the "as is" value of the property at $15.95 million. CBRE estimates the potential land value (if entitled pursuant to the applicant's request) at $25.5 million. Thus, re- entitlement of the property would increase the site's value (to the current owner) by nearly $10 million. Although neither TNDG nor the City has access to the detailed appraisal calculations, it is presumed that the $25.5 million is a residual land value based on certain assumptions about the profitability of redeveloping the site. That is, it is the maximum amount a developer could afford to pay for the site and still achieve an acceptable rate of return given the expected value of the "end product" According to City staff, the applicant reports that there are 24835 E. La Palma Ave., Suite 1. Yorba Linda, California 92887 Phone: (714) 692 -9596 . Fax: (714) 692 -9597 1 Mr. David Lepo March 10, 2008 Page 3 a number of developers interested in buying the property for approximately $25 million based on the anticipated profit potential. It should be pointed out that the "expected profit potential" (on which the $25.5 million value is based) quite likely does not reflect the expectation that a developer would need to pay for "replacement housing" pursuant to the Mello Act. (Although if it does, this means that there is potentially more money available for the replacement housing.) Implementation of the Mello Act is somewhat problematic given the provision for exempting projects that would become infeasible if required to provide replacement housing. If the provision of replacement housing (either on site or via subsidization of offsite units) is not a "given" in a developer's financial calculations, the resulting land costs (if determined via a residual land value) will always be biased towards making it "infeasible" to provide replacement housing. In contrast, if every prospective developer interested in a given site were presented with an "amount certain" necessary to fulfill Mello Act requirements, this known cost would be factored into every developer's profit expectations and cause the residual land value to be adjusted accordingly (i.e., the property would be appraised at a lower value, allowing the developer to pay for the required replacement housing and still achieve an acceptable rate of return). Finally, we should note that TNDG has not evaluated the degree to which the proposed replacement housing commitment (whether the $1 million offered by the applicant or the higher amount indicated by TNDG's calculations) would in fact be sufficient to provide affordable housing comparable to the numbers of units that would be lost with the development of this project. In fact, the very content of this letter reveals only a few of the subtleties involved in attempting to arrive at the "truth" in these matters, given that the developer effectively has control of much of the relevant information. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions about our conclusions. Roger A. Dale Managing Principal 24835 E. La Palma Ave., Suite I. Yorba Linda, California 92887 164 Phone: (714) 692 -9596. Fax: (714) 692 -9597 x Exh,,iWt-- 6 EPS Draft Memorandum DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM To: Sharon Wood, David Lepo and Brandon Nichols, City of Newport Beach From: Darin Smith and Melina Raffin Subject: Inclusionary Housing In -Lieu Fee Study; EPS #17062 Date: October 11, 2007 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) was retained in 2004 by the City of Newport Beach to conduct an analysis of the City's inclusionary housing program, with specific focus on the calculation of an appropriate fee that housing developers may pay in lieu of providing affordable units within their development projects, Since EPS's initial study, the City has revised their inclusionary policy, thus requiring a revised analysis of the in- lieu fee, This Technical Memorandum presents an update of the findings of EPS's analysis and documents the methodology used to calculate the in -lieu fee. STUDY OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The key findings of EPS's analysis are as follows: 1. Through the Housing Element of the General Plan, the City of Newport Beach has an inclusionary housing program that requires residential developers to either provide 15 percent of the total units in their projects as affordable housing units, or pay a fee in lieu of providing those units. The City proposes to limit the inclusionary ordinance requirement to projects of at least 11 units. 2. The City's inclusionary housing policy does not require that the affordable units be of the same type or quality as the market -rate units in any given project. Thus, it is likely that some developers will elect to provide affordable units as rental apartments, even if the market -rate units in their projects are for sale. 3. The City has indicated that developers should have the choice of providing units for households of very low- income, low- income, or moderate income. Because units for lower - income households require higher construction subsidies, the percentage of units required varies by income category. BERKELEY SACRAMENTO DENVER 2501 Ninth St- ,Suite 200 Phooe: 510 - 8419190 Phooe: 916 - 649 -8010 Phane: 303 - 623 -3557 Retktky, CA 94710 -2515 Fax: 510 -841 -9208 Fax: 916,649 -2070 Fax: 303 -623 -9049 wwwxpsys.cam IO1 Sharon Wood, David Lepo and Brandon Nichols October 11, 2007 Draft Technical Memorandum Page 2 4. EPS has determined that the following percentages would have essentially equivalent financial impacts on residential development projects (see Table 1): 10% Very low- income rental units, or 15% Low - income rental units, or 20% Moderate- income for -sale units 5. Using these equivalencies, the-lnclusionary Housing In -Lieu fee has been calculated at a maximum of $26,500 per market -rate unit REVIEW OF THE CITY'S INCLUSIONARY HOUSING POLICIES CURRENT INCLUSIONARY POLICY The 2000 -2008 Housing Element for the City of Newport Beach established a policy that reads as follows: Policy 2.2 Encourage the housing development industry to respond to housing needs of the community and the demand for housing as perceived by the industry, with the intent of achieving the Regional Housing Needs Assessment construction goals within five (5) years. The program set forth to accomplish this policy is Housing Program 2.2.1, which states that the City will: "Require a proportion of affordable housing in new residential developments or levy an in -lieu fee. The City's goal over the five -year planning period is for an average of 15 percents of all new housing units to be affordable to very low —, low -, and moderate - income households. The City shall either (a) require the payment of an in -lieu fee, or (b) require the preparation of an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AMP) that specifies how the development will meet the City's affordable housing goal, depending on the following criteria for project size: 1. Projects of 50 or fewer units shall have the option of preparing an AMP or paying the in -lieu fee. 2. Projects where more than 50 units are proposed shall be required to prepare an AHIP." 1 In determining the number of whole affordable units required, the City proposes that any decimal fraction less than 0.50 shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number, and any decimal fraction greater than or equal to 0.50 shall be rounded up to the next whole number. B: \17000s \17062NempoaBeach \Comes\ 17062mm101107.doc Q 1 l to Sharon Wood, David Lepo and Brandon Nichols October 11, 2007 Draft Technical Memorandum Page 3 Furthermore, this housing program allows the affordable units to be provided at an off - site location approved by the City, and is silent and thus flexible about the types of affordable units that must be provided. While some jurisdictions require that the affordable units be of the same type, size, and /or quality as the market -rate units in a given project, the Newport Beach policy allows the developer to provide their affordable units in the most efficient product types possible. This allowance of flexibility is important in calculating the in -lieu fee. PREVIOUS IN -LIEU FEE STUDIES The City commissioned a study in 1999 for the formal establishment of an in -lieu fee program; however, that study did not result in a formalized in -lieu fee program. In addition, EPS was retained by the City in 2005 to conduct an in -lieu fee analysis of the City's then - current inclusionary housing policy, which required residential developers to provide 20 percent of the total units in their projects as affordable housing units. That study also did not result in a formalized in -lieu fee program, because the City has since reduced the inclusionary requirement from 20 to 15 percent. However, despite not having a formal in -lieu fee program to date, the City has negotiated in -lieu fees with several developers in recent years. Examples of in -lieu fee received from past projects include the following: Development Project Date Market -Rate Units Fee er Unit Total Fees Ford 1995/96 404 $5,000 $2,020,000 Sailhouse 2000 90 $6,000 $540,000 Cannery Lofts 2002 22 $6,359 $139,898 15"' St. Townhomes 2003 42 $8,000 $336,000 Total orAvera e2 558 $5,441 $3,035,898 The City committed $1.8 million of the in -lieu fee reserve to the Bayview Landing senior affordable housing project. For future in -lieu fee expenditures, the City's Affordable Housing Task Force has created a program that identifies preferred options for the use of the funds. AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBSIDY CALCULATION METHODOLOGY The calculation of an appropriate fee in lieu of the development of inclusionary housing units requires the estimation of the subsidy required to develop an affordable unit. For this subsidy calculation, the value of the affordable unit (as calculated through sale values or capitalized rental operating income streams) is compared to the costs to 2 This amount may not represent the complete amount that has been received by the City to date. PA17000s \17062Nmpof&.e hl Cores\ 17062.101107.dx tf� r Sharon Wood, David Lepo and Brandon Nichols October 11, 2007 Draft Technical Memorandum Page 4 develop the unit including "direct" costs (labor and materials), "indirect" costs (design, permits, financing, etc.), and land acquisition costs. KEY ASSUMPTIONS EPS sent the preliminary development cost, revenue, and valuation assumptions to numerous developers of market -rate and affordable housing in Orange County and Southern California (see Appendix A), and conducted telephone interviews with representatives of several companies. EPS made several adjustments to the original assumptions based on these groups' input. Based on information and direction received from City staff, market -rate and affordable housing developers, and EPS research, EPS has determined that the following assumptions shall be used to calculate the affordable housing'§Ubsidy. Type of Unit To accurately reflect market conditions and calculate required development subsidies, it is important to ensure that the rent assumptions for affordable units are in fact below market rates. Staff from the City of Newport Beach conducted a survey of 13 market - rate apartment complexes in July 2007, and found that no units were affordable to very low- income households and very few were affordable to low- income households, but most were affordable to moderate - income households (see Appendix B). For this reason (and another discussed in the "In -Lieu Fee Calculation" section below), EPS has assumed that moderate-income households would occupy for -sale units. All very low- and low- income affordable housing units developed with subsidy from the in -lieu fee are assumed to be multifamily rental units, while moderate - income units are assumed to be multifamily condominiums. These assumptions are consistent with the letter of the Housing Element which does not require that inclusionary affordable units built by the developer be the same type of unit as the market -rate units. EPS has further assumed that the inclusionary units would be mixed by number of bedrooms, with 40 percent of all units as one -bedroom units (for two- person households), 40 percent of all units as two -bedroom units (for four- person households), and 20 percent of all units as three- bedroom units (for six - person households) .3 While any given development project may have a different mix to serve specific market niches (e.g., families, singles, seniors, etc.), the unit distribution described above is a simplifying assumption that is similar to the distribution of rental units within the City as found in the 2000 Census. For purposes of cost estimation, one - bedroom units are assumed to be 725 square feet while two - bedroom units are 1,050 square feet and three- bedroom units are 1,250 square feet. These unit sizes are generally in the lower half of the size ranges discovered in a survey of Newport Beach apartment complexes, which showed one - bedroom units 3 The City's Housing Element establishes that the maximum household incorne for a given affordable unit shall assume two people per bedroom, except for efficiency units (one person). P. \17000s \17062NeuwpcKBe"h \Cones \17062m 101107.drc Ibq R. Sharon Wood, David Lepo and Brandon Nichols October 11, 2007 Draft Technical Memorandum Page 5 ranging from 626 to 1,152 square feet two- bedroom units from 926 to 1,546 square feet, and three- bedroom units from 1,160 to 1,700 square feet The unit sizes and the distribution of units by number of bedrooms are assumed to be the same regardless of the income level being served. Development Value The value of each unit is determined either by its sale price (for homeownership units) or the capitalized value of its net operating income stream (for rental units). Rental Development Value Monthly Rent The Housing Element states that for each income category, monthly rent is assumed to equal 30 percent of gross monthly household income. Moreover, EPS has assumed that inclusionary units within each category will be affordable at the maximum income within that category. For instance, a 'low-income" household may have an income anywhere from 51 percent to 80 percent of Orange County's Median Family Income (MFI). EPS has assumed that the maximum monthly rent in this income category will be based on 80 percent of MFI, rather than 51 percent or some other middle figure (such as 65 percent). This assumption has the result of minimizing the housing production subsidy; however, the language of the Housing Element appears to allow for this possibility for those developers who would produce inclusionary units, so the same allowance is made for those who would pay the in lieu fee. Table 2 shows the income levels and associated allowable monthly rents for rental units of different sizes. It is also necessary to assume a certain amount of vacancy for calculating the effective gross income stream from a rental project EPS has assumed at stabilized operations an affordable multifamily apartment complex in Newport Beach would have 5 percent annual vacancy. Operating Expenses Annual operating expenses for rental apartments are assumed at $4,200 per one- bedroom unit $4,500 per two - bedroom unit and $4,800 per three - bedroom unit, regardless of income level. These operating expenses cover property management, common utilities, marketing, maintenance, taxes, and similar expenses. Capitalization Rate A rental unit's net operating income (effective gross income less expenses) is converted to a unit value through use of a capitalization rate. The capitalization rate reflects an investor's perceived risk, as well as the investor's opportunity cost. For a multifamily rental project in the City of Newport Beach, the capitalization rate is assumed to be 7.0 percent This rate may be slightly higher than what might be achieved under present market conditions, but reflects a somewhat longer term rate that should be robust through market fluctuations. The calculations for apartment development values are shown on Table 3. PA17 0005 \1706ZNewp¢ri BeaM \Cores \17062- .101107dx 1(0 n Sharon Wood, David Lepo and Brandon Nichols October 11, 2007 Draft Technical Memorandum Page 6 For -Sale Development Value City policy dictates that the price of a for -sale affordable home cannot exceed three times the annual income of the occupying household. The Year 2007 income limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for Orange County are shown on Table 4, as are the maximum allowable home prices. It is worth noting that not all jurisdictions limit the affordable home prices to three times the annual income, and that Newport Beach's policy results in lower prices than might be allowed in other jurisdictions for similarly sized households. However, this effect is offset somewhat by Newport Beach's allowance of two persons per bedroom. Many jurisdictions base income levels on households of sizes equal to the number of bedrooms plus one (e.g., three- person household in a two- bedroom unit, four - person household in a three- bedroom unit), but Newport Beach allows four people in a two- bedroom unit and six in a three bedroom unit. The corresponding income limits are higher for larger households; thus, the affordable price allowed for a three - bedroom unit is higher for a six - person household than it would be for a four - person household. Development Costs The cost of development must be compared to the development value to determine if there is a need for financial subsidy. EPS has made a variety of cost assumptions, as detailed below. One overarching assumption is that development costs are the same regardless of the income level being served The calculations for development costs are shown on Tables 5 and 6 for apartments and condominiums, respectively. Direct Construction Costs Direct construction costs include the costs for labor and materials for the buildings and standard site improvement (surface parking, landscaping, etc.) as well as contractor fees. EPS has assumed that direct construction costs would equal $140 per gross square foot of each apartment building, and $150 per square foot for condominiums because of the higher level of finish typical of for -sale development. These figures account for slight cost variations among unit sizes. Indirect Costs Indirect costs include architecture and engineering costs, financing costs, permits and fees, and other development expenses beyond those required for actual labor and materials. For both apartments and condominiums, EPS has assumed that indirect costs will equal 35 percent of direct construction costs. Land Costs Development costs must account for the price of the land underlying the apartment building. EPS has assumed that land entitled for multifamily housing in Newport Beach P: \ 17000, \ 17062NmportR.n h \ Comes\17062mm101107.dx !1 Sharon Wood, David Lepo and Brandon Nichols October 11, 2007 Draft Technical Memorandum Page 7 would cost $3,250,000 per acre.4 EPS has further assumed that both apartments and condominiums would be built at 20 dwelling units per acre, resulting in a land cost of $162,500 per unit. Developer Profit As is standard for rental apartment development, developer profit is accounted for in the development value calculations through the capitalization rate and is thus not included as a separate line item for development costs. For condominiums, however, developers must realize their profit at the time of sale, as there is no ongoing revenue stream. EPS has assumed a 10 percent profit margin for developers of for -sale units affordable to moderate - income households. ... 6 CALCULATIONS Detailed calculations of development values and costs for each unit size and income level are shown on Tables 7 and 8, for apartments and condominiums, respectively. The indusionary housing development subsidy is calculated by subtracting the development costs from the development value. If the result is negative, a subsidy is required in the amount shown. Those tables also show the "weighted average' subsidy by income level, assuming the units are distributed among one -, two -, and three - bedroom units as discussed above. As shown on Table 7, rental units for very low- and low -income households require subsidy regardless of the unit size, as the costs of development exceed the value of the units. Table 8 shows that affordable condominium units require greater subsidy than apartment units. This result is because the construction costs are slightly higher, the developer profit adds an additional cost, and the City's policy -based method for calculating allowable unit prices for for -sale housing (three times household income) yields lower unit values for condos than does the method for rental prices (30 percent of income on rent). 4 This $3,250,000 per acre land value was delved from EP9s conversations with market -rate and affordable housing developers. P.\ 17000S%17062Nrwp dB.,h \Comes\ 17062,mn101107.dm ,r Sharon Wood, David Lepo and Brandon Nichols October 11, 2007 Draft Technical Memorandum Page 8 IN-LIEU FEE CALCULATION METHODOLOGY To calculate the in -lieu fee, the total cost that would have been incurred by the developer to produce the affordable units is divided by the number of units produced. Fof instance, a developer of a 20 -unit project would be required to build three inclusionary emits to achieve the City's overall goal of "an average of 15 percent of all new residential development... affordable to very low –, low -, and moderate- income households." If each inclusiornary unit required a subsidy of $100,000, the developer who builds the units would have borne a total subsidy of $300,". If the developer opts to pay the in -lieu fee instead of producing the units, and thus produces 20 market -rate un.4 w, the total subsidy of $300,000 would be divided by 20 market -rate units to result in an in -lieu fee requirement of $15,000 per masker_ -rate unit The ar -Mal assumptions and calculations are discussed below. CALCULATIONS The primary assumption required to calculate the in -lieu tee is the proportionate income distribution of the households to be served by affordable llousing units. Wtw -real SoMe jurisdictions require that inclusionary units be provided to a mix of income - levels within the same project, the City of Newport Beach has suggested that developers Should be given the option of providing affordable units for very low -, low -, or moderate- income households. As such, it is imperative that an economic equivalency be established among these income levels, so that developers will not simply provide 15 percent of units for moderate - income households (that require the least subsidy) and do not produce any housing affordable to low- or very low- income households. The City has determined that the basis for the economic equivalency shall be an inclusionary requirement that 15 percent of new units be affordable to low- income households. As shown on Table 7, the subsidy required to produce an apartment unit affordable to low- income households is roughly $171,000. Thus, a 100 -unit development providing 15 apartments affordable to low-inc(mv hauselutlda would bear artimptied subsidy of $2,560,000. If no such affordable units are produced and the developer builds 100 market -fate units, the cost of the implied subsidy spread over 100 units would be $25,600 per market -rate unit. Because the subsidies per unit are greater for very low- income units, fewer very low - income unity would generate the same overall economic impact to the development project. Similarly, moderate - income units require less subsidy, so more moderate - income unit3 are required to generate the equivalent economic impact. On Table 9, EPS has calculated the economic equivalencies, which are summarized as follows: r:�. Izae2» �m m1am.a« Sharon Wood, David Lepo and Brandon Nichols October 11, 2007 Draft Technical Memorandum Page 9 Income Level Average Subsidy per Unit Percent of Units In -Lieu Fee per Market -Rate Unit Very Low rental $272,000 10% $27,200 Low (rental) $171,000 15% $25,650 Moderate (for -sale ) $133,000 20% $26,600 Average $177,000 15% $26,500 Using thin methodology, the in -lieu fee to be paid by developers choosing not to construct affordable units within their projects would be $26,500 per market -rate unit. Please note that EPS has evaluated the equivalency if a developer chose to provide moderate income rental units. As discussed earlier, many market -rate apartments in Newport Beach are actually affordable to moderate inco*re households. In addition, because of the method required by the City to calculate the maximum affordable for -sale price (three times gross household income), the maximum price of a moderate income for -sale unit is actually lower than the capitalized value of a moderate income rental unit (compare those values on Tables 3 and 4) while the development costs are higher for condominiums than for rental apartments (see Tables 5 and 6). Thus, the subsidy required for moderate income rentals is lower than the subsidy for moderate income for - sale units ($36,000 versus $133,000). To provide the equivalent subsidy of a project providing 15 percent low income units, a developer would have to provide about 75 percent of total units in a project as rentals affordable to moderate income households. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS SETTING THE FEE AMOUNT This study calculates the maximum fee that can be charged to developers for whom the City approves fees instead of the provision of inclusionary units. The City does have legal leeway to set the fee at any level up to the maximum allowable fee. FEE ESCALATION The Inclusionary Housing In -Lieu Fees calculated herein reflect current income levels, allowable rent rates, unit values, and development costs. Each of these items is likely to change over time. In the past, the City of Newport Beach has adjusted its negotiated in- lieu fees according to an annual inflation measure, such as the Consumer Price Index. Other jurisdictions use similar measures, such as the Construction Cost Index or the rate of increase in the Median Family Income. Such a measure avoids the need to re- calculate the fee over time. However, the City may wish to consider a regular re- calculation of the fee every few years to ensure that the fee continues to capture the full subsidy required to produce affordable housing units in the City of Newport Beach. In either case, the method and frequency of re- calculation should be written into the Inclusionary Housing In -Lieu Fee ordinance. P: \I 700Wk17062NmportBeach\Carm\ 17062mm101107.dw ,r i f 'L Sharon Wood, David Lepo and Brandon Nichols October 11, 2007 Draft Technical Memorandum Page 10 PARTIAL SATISFACTION OF THE INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENT Through City approval of the AHIP, some developers may propose to provide some portion of the required inclusionary units within their own project, while paying the In- Lieu Fee for the remainder of their required units. In such instances, the City should determine the total amount of the subsidy required for the project, and charge the difference between the subsidies associated with the units provided in the project and those�that will be required offsite. Thus, a 100 -unit development providing 10 apartments affordable to low- income households would need to provide five additional low - income affordable units off -site, or a total subsidy of $854,000 ($171,000 per affordable unit not built). APPLICATION OF CALCULATIONS IN THE COASTAL ZONE Consistent with State law, Section 20.86 of the City's planning and zoning code ( "Low and Moderate Income Housing within the Coastal Zone ") states, "When demolition or conversion activities involve low- and moderate -income units, replacement units shall be provided on a one for one basis." This requirement is intended to be met through the actual provision of units, preferably on -site, but under certain circumstances, the developer can pay a fee in lieu of providing the affordable units. The per -unit subsidies calculated on Tables 7 and 8 of this document can be used to determine the in -lieu fees required of developers whose projects result in a loss of units in the Coastal Zone occupied by lower- income households. For example, if a proposed Coastal Zone project would result in one fewer two- bedroom rental unit occupied by a low -income household, the developer would pay a fee of $178,100 in lieu of replacing that emit on site or off site. P:\17 000, \17062Nevpo,t&a,h\ Cana% 17062mm 101107.do 5 ia:T_laI Table 1 In -Lieu Fee per Market -Rate Unit by Income Level City of Newport Beach Affordable Housing In -Lieu Fee Study; EPS#17062 Income Level (1) Average Subsidy Per Unit Percent of Units In -Lieu Fee per Market -Rate Units Very Low (50% of MFI) Rental $272,000 10% $27,200 Low (80% of MFI) Rental $171,000 15% $25,650 Moderate (120% of MFI) For -Sale $133,000 20% $26,640 Weighted Average $177,000 15% $26,500 (1) Median Family Income (MFI) as defined by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Year 2007 annual incomes are set at maximum within each category. Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10!122007 P: 1170ws117062Newpor tseacMMoMM17062MOdellO1107 xis n DRAFT Table 2 Annual Incomes and Monthly Rents by Income Category City of Newport Beach Affordable Housing In -Lieu Fee Study; EPS 917062 Unit Size 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR Income Level (1) (2- person HH) (4- person HH) (6- person HH) Very Low (50% of MFI) Annual Income $34,650 $43,300 $50,250 Monthly Income $2,888 $3,608 $4,188 Monthly Rent (2) $866 $1,083 $1,256 Low'(Bb% of MFO Annual Income $55,450 $69,300 $80,400 Monthly Income $4,621 $5,775 $6,700 Monthly Rent (2) $1,386 $1,733 $2,010 Moderate (120% of MFI) Annual Income $83,175 $103,950 $120,600 Monthly Income $6,931 $8,663 $10,050 Monthly Rent (2) $2,079 $2,599 $3,015 (1) Median Family Income (MFI) as defined by HUD:., Year 2007 annual incomes are set at maximum within each category (2) Monthly Rents are calculated at 30% of gross monthly income. Sources: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc Economle & Plannft System& Inc. 10/12/2007 P. tl7000.s{ 17062Newpa faeachLNodeAI7062MOde /101107.W Nil Table 3 Affordable Apartment Value by Income Category and Unit Size City of Newport Beach Affordable Housing In -Lieu Fee Study; EPS #17062 (1) Median Family Income (MFI) as defined by HUD. Year 2007 annual incomes are set at maximum within each category. Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. I M212007 DRAFT P: 117000s1 1706MewporBeavN Wodefl17062Mode110f 107.x(s 1L`6 Unit Size 1 B 2 B 36R Income Level (1) (2- person HH) (4- person HH) (6- person HH) Very Low (50% of MFI) Monthly Rent $866 $1,083 $1,256 Annual Rental Income $10,395 $12,990 $15,075 less Vacancy at 5% a520 650 754 Effective Gross Income $9,875 $12,341 $14,321 less Operating Expenses ($4,200) ($4,500) ($4.800) Net Operating Income $5,675 $7,841 $9,521 divided by Capitalization Rate 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% Unit Value $81,075 $112,007 $136,018 Low (80% of MFI) Monthly Rent $1,386 $1,733 $2,010 Annual Rental Income $16,635 $20,790 $24,120 less Vacancv at 5% dKQ ($1,040) ($1,206) Effective Gross Income $15,803 $19,751 $22,914 Lass Operating Expenses ($4,200) ($4,500) ($4,800) Net Operating Income $11,603 $15,251 $18,114 divided by Capitalization Rate 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% UnitValue $165,761 $217,864 $258,771 Moderate (120% of MFI) Monthly Rent $2,079 $2,599 $3,015 Annual Rental Income $24,953 $31,185 $36,180 less Vacancv at 5% ($1,248) ($1,559) ($1,8091 Effective Gross Income $23,705 $29,626 $34,371 less Oper tins ExDanses ($4,200) ($4,500) ($4.800) Net Operating Income $19,505 $25,126 $29,571 divided b�LCaNtalization Rate 7.00% 7.00% 7 00% Unit Value $278,641 $358,939 $422,443 (1) Median Family Income (MFI) as defined by HUD. Year 2007 annual incomes are set at maximum within each category. Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. I M212007 DRAFT P: 117000s1 1706MewporBeavN Wodefl17062Mode110f 107.x(s 1L`6 Table 4 Annual Incomes and Allowable Home Sale Prices by Income Category and Unit Size City of Newport Beach Affordable Housing In -Lieu Fee Study; EPS #17062 Unit Size 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR Income Level (1) (2- person HH) (4- person HH) (6- person HH) Very Low (50% of MF1) Annual Income $34,650 $43,300 $50,250 Home Price (2) $103,950 $129,900 $150,750 Low (.80% of MR) Annual income $55,450 $69,300 $80,400 Home Price (2) $166,350 $207,900 $241,200 Moderate (120% of MR) Annual Income $83,175 $103,950 $120,600 Home Price (2) $249,525 $311,850 $361,800 (1) Median Family Income (MFI) as defined by HUD. Year 2007 annual incomes are set at maximum within each category. (2) Home prices are calculated at three times gross annual income, per City policy. Sources: U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Sysfems, Inc. 1011212007 P: 117 000s11706 2NewporfBeachwlodel117062Modell 01107.0s l 11 IF Table 5 Rental Apartment Development Costs by Unit Size City of Newport Beach Affordable Housing In -Lieu Fee Study; EPS#17062 Item 1 BR (2- person HH) Unit Size 2 BR (4- person HH) 3 BR (6- person HH) Unit Size Net Square Feet per Unit 725 1,050 1,250 Gross Square Feet per Unit (1) 853 1,235 1,471 Direct Costs per Gross Square Foot $140 $140 $140 per Unit $119,412 $172,941 $205,882 Indirect Costs as percent of Direct Costs 35% 35% 35% per Gross Square Foot $49 $49 $49 per Unit $41,794 $60,529 $72,059 Improved Land Costs per Acre $3,250,000 $3,250,000 $3,250,000 Units/Acre 20 20 20 per Unit $162,500 $162,500 $162,500 Total Costs per Gross Square Foot $380 $321 $300 per Unit $323,706 $395,971 $440,441 (1) Gross square footage is calculated assuming an efficiency ratio of 85 %. Sources: Market -rate and Affordable Housing Developers; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10/12/2007 DRAFT P:117000sl 17062NewpalBeachU Aode1117062ModN101107.xis �aa DRAFT Table 6 For -Sale Condominium Development Costs by Unit Size City of Newport Beach Affordable Housing In -Lieu Fee Study; EPS #17062 Total Costs per Gross Square Foot $432 $367 $344 per Unit $368,743 $453,912 $506,324 (1) Gross square footage is calculated assuming an efficiency ratio of 85 %_ Sources: Market -rate and Affordable Housing Developers; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 112/2007 P: 117000s117062NewpWBeachMode ri17062Mode1101 WAS 1 Unit Size 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR Item (2- person HH) (4- person HH) (6- person HH) Unit Siz e Net Square Feet per Unit 725 1,050 1,250 Gross Square Feet per Unit (1) 853 1,235 1,471 Direct Costs per Gross Square Foot $150 $150 $150 per Unit $127,941 $185,294 $220,588 Indirect Costs as percent of Direct Costs 35% 35% 35% per Gross Square Foot $53. $53 $53 per Unit $44,779 $64,853 $77,206 ImQLOy-ed Land Costs per Acre $3,250,000 $3,250,000 $3,250,000 Units /Acre 20 20 20 per Unit $162,500 $162,500 $162,500 Developer Profi t Total Other Costs per Unit $335,221 $412,647 $460,294 % of Total Other Costs 10% 10% 10% per Unit $33,522 $41,265 $46,029 Total Costs per Gross Square Foot $432 $367 $344 per Unit $368,743 $453,912 $506,324 (1) Gross square footage is calculated assuming an efficiency ratio of 85 %_ Sources: Market -rate and Affordable Housing Developers; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10 112/2007 P: 117000s117062NewpWBeachMode ri17062Mode1101 WAS 1 DRAFT Table 7 Affordable Apartment Subsidy by Unit Size and Weighted Average City of Newport Beach Affordable Housing In -Lieu Fee Study; EPS #17062 (1) Weighted averages assume the following unit mix, based on 2000 Census. 1 SR 40% 2 BR 40% 3 BR 20% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10/12/2007 P: 117000s117062Ne wport BeachkModeA17062MOde1101107.xis 13'?, r Unit Size 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR Weighted Income Level (2- person HH) (4- person HH) (6- person HH) Average (1) Very Low (50% of MFI) Value per Unit $81,075 $112,007 $136,018 $104,436 Cost per Unit $323,706 $395,971 $440,441 $375,959 Subsidy per Unit - $242,631 - $283,963 - $304,423 - $271,522 Low (80% of MFI) Value per Unit $165,761 $217,864 $258,771 $205,204 Cost per Unit $323,706 39 971 $440,441 $375,959 Subsidy per Unit - $157,945 - $178,106 - $181,670 - $170,755 Moderate (120% of MFI) Value per Unit $278,641 $358,939 $422,443 $339,521 Cost oer Unit $323,706 $395,971 $440,441 $375,959 Subsidy per Unit - $45,065 - $37,031 - $17,998 - $36,438 (1) Weighted averages assume the following unit mix, based on 2000 Census. 1 SR 40% 2 BR 40% 3 BR 20% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10/12/2007 P: 117000s117062Ne wport BeachkModeA17062MOde1101107.xis 13'?, r DRAFT Table 8 Affordable Condominium Subsidy by Unit Size and Weighted Average City of Newport Beach Affordable Housing In -Lieu Fee Study; EPS #77062 Income Level 7 BR (2- person HH) Unit Size 2 BR (4- person HH) 3 BR (6-person HH) Weighted Average (1) Very Low (50% of MFI) Value per Unit $103,950 $129,900 $150,750 $123,690 Cost oer Unit $368,743 $453,912 $506,324 $430,326 Subsidy per Unit - $264,793 - $324,012 - $355,574 - $306,636 Low (80% of MFI) Value per Unit $166,350 $207,900 $241,200 $197,940 Cost per Unit $368,743 $453,912 $506,324 $430,326 Subsidy per Unit - $202,393 - $246,012 - $265,124 - $232,386 Moderate (120% of MFI) Value per Unit $249,525 $311,850 $361,800 $296,910 Cost.oer Unit $368,743 $453,912 $506,324 $430,326 Subsidy per Unit - $119,218 - $142,062 - $144,524 - $133,416 (1) Weighted averages assume the following unit mix, based on 2000 Census: 1 BR 40% 2 BR 40% 3 BR 20% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc Economic & Planning Systems. I=. 1011212007 P.'11700Qsll7062Ne%portaewhV fodeRI7062ModeH01107.x1s 2 la Mq Table 9 Inclusionary Housing In -Lieu Fee Calculation City of Newport Beach Affordable Housing In -Lieu Fee Study; EPS #17062 Item Total Number of Units in Project (illustrative) x Percent Inclusionary Number of Affordable Units Required x Weighted Average Subsidy by Income Level-0) Total Subsidy Required to Build Affordable Units Required tnclusionary Housing In -Lieu Fee per Market Rate Unit DRAFT Income Category Total or Moderate Weighted Very Low Low Rental For-Sale Average 100 100 100 100 100 10% 15% 74% 20% 15% 10 15 74 20 15 $272,000 $171,000 $36,000 $133,000 $177,000 $2,720,000 $2,565,000 $2,664,000 $2,660,000 $2,650,000 $27,200 $25,650 $26,640 $26,600 $26,500 (1) Subsidies per unit are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars, and are based on rental apartments for low and very low income, for -sale units for moderate income. Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, lnc. 10111/2007 1 P9 770003V7062NewportBeachV dodeA17062MOdeV7of107.zis APPENDIX A 1315 ix Append A Development Industry Contacts City of Newport Beach Affordable Housing In -Lieu Fee Study; EPS #17062 DRAFT Company Contact Website Affordable Developers Jamboree Housing Laura Archuleta www.iamboreehousing.com National Community Renaissance (National CORE) (1) Byron Ely www.schdc.oro Olson Company John Reischl www.theolsonco.com Related Companies (1) Gino Canod www.related,com The Irvine Company (1) Dan Milier _ www.irvinecomoany.com Market Rate Developers Brookfield Homes John O'Brien www.brookfieldhomes.com Centex Homes (1) David Hutchins www.centexhomes.com Fieldstone Homes -- Ralph Debbisch www.fieldstone- homes.com -- -._... - - - -. John Laing Homes (1) _ ................` Jennifer Shirk -- -- www.lohnlaincihomes.com Lennar Homes (1) Donna Kelly www.lennar.com Pardee Homes Kristy Scott www.i)ardeehornes.com Richmond America Homes Jeff Hollenbeck www.6chmondamerican.com Shea Homes (1) Bob Gillis www.sheahomes.com Standard Pacific Homes Kathie Villari www.standardpacifichomes.com Warmington Homes (1) Jared Knickmeyer www.werminglonhomesca corn William Lyon Homes (1) Pat McCabe WM_Wyonhomes.com Other Building Industry Association of Orange County Brian Starr www,bia_oc.com (1) EPS conducted phone interviews with the representatives of these companies regarding the preliminary development cost, revenue and valuation assumptions. Source: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. EOOnomic&R3 M9SYSfeMS,G6. 10/12,2007 P; 117000s117062NeaporlBeachlMOde11f7062MOdelfOlf07 . #s la APPENDIX B 10 Appendix B Rental Rate Survey City of Newport Beach Affordable Housing In -Lieu Fee Study; EPS #17062 Monthly Rents 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR Apartment Complex (2- person HH) (4- person HH) (6- person HH) Baypointe $1,899 $2,229 - Bayport $1,590 $1,880 $2,425 Bayview $1,590 $1,880 $2,425 Baywood $1,590 $1,880 $2,425 Mariner's Square $1,790 $2,240 $2,485 Newport Bluffs $1,815 $2,295 $3,040 Newport North $1,516 $1,845 - Promontory Point $2,195 $2,395 - The Colony $2,705 $3,015 - Newport Ridge $1,905 $2,215 - Coronado at Newport South $1,099 $1,679 - Coronado at Newport North $1,199 $1,649 - Fairway at Big Canyon $2,150 $3,400 - Average $1,773 $2,200 $2,560 Low $1,516 $1,649 $2,425 High $2,705 $3,400 $3,040 Income Level (1) Very Low (50% of MR) $866 $1,083 $1,256 Low (80% of MR) $1,386 $1,733 $2,010 Moderate (120% of MR) $2,079 $2,599 $3,015 (1) See Table 2 Sources: City of Newport Beach; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 10/12/2007 DRAFT P:V 7000s117062NewpmtaeachModel117062Mode110 1107.xts K I�V ATM�'�� am& so (Distributed separately due to bulk) sT,.E ,,-mow v4msw-r 10 i-,�. SIF, E �;"IkC+IM €NT R SEASHORE VILLAGE NEWPORT BEACH A Chronicle of Community Outreach For Proposed Residential Community Located at 5515 River Avenue, Newport Beach, CA Prepared For Newport Beach Planning Commission Meeting March 20, 2008 13?, SEASHORE VILLAGE NEWPORT BEACH Table of Contents A. Project Information Sheet B. Listing of Community Outreach and Meetings C. Letters to Las Brisas Apartment Residents, Neighbors, Owner's Association J33 A. Project Information Sheet THIS PAGE LEFT FLANK INTENTIONALLY 1� SEASHORE VILLAGE NEWPORT BEACH ._ ,—�-. A proposed residential community of 24 homes just steps from the sand in West Newport Beach at Seashore Avenue and River Avenue. PROJECT DETAILS • 24 luxury for -sale homes comprised of 12 single - family residences and 6 duplex units (12 homes), all with attached garages • Features three plan types & four distinct floor plans with private patios and decks ranging from 1,770 to 3,248 square feet • Features Craftsman and Plantation style architecture designed to complement the area and surrounding homes • Provides extensive landscaping that will beautify the entire neighborhood PROJECT BENEFITS • Project will reduce current density of 54 apartments to 24 for -sale homes • Provides a variety of new home ownership opportunities in the City of Newport Beach • Improves property values for surrounding neighbors • Improves infrastructure, including the under- grounding of utilities on the property • Improves street frontages along Seashore and River Avenues with new attractive homes • Managed by the owners through a homeowner's association that will oversee the maintenance and landscaping of the property • Revitalizes and enhances the existing neighborhood and maintains a sense of community with new home owners Please watch your mail for project updates and information. In the meantime, you may contact a project representative by phone at (714) 656 -6021. o �) B. Listing of Community Outreach and Meetings l36 SEASHORE VILLAGE NEWPORT BEACH Listing of Outreach and Meetings Community Correspondence May - Present Numerous telephone conversations with representatives from West Newport Beach Owner's Association & Lido Sands Community Association* June 22, 2007 Letter of meeting invitation to Las Brisas tenants October 2, 2007 Thank you letter to Bob Rush, Director, West Newport Beach Owner's Association February 19, 2008 Letter of community -wide meeting invitation to property owners and Las Brisas tenants within 300' radius of site Community Meetines July 10, 2007 Meeting with Las Brisas tenants at apartment complex poolside September 25 2007 Individual neighbor in -home meetings (DeCaro) September 26, 2007 Meeting/presentation at West Newport Beach Owner's Association monthly meeting at Newport Beach City Hall March 5, 2008 Community-wide meeting with neighbors & tenants (wh 300' radius) at West Newport Community Center * Note that Lido Sands Community Association had indicated their support for the project in May 2007 and did not feel a community association meeting/presentation was necessary (since they had been briefed in a meeting on prior occasion). We attempted to meet on numerous occasions; they had a change in their association president and no meeting transpired Contact was made with John Walker, Karen Jordan & Mel and Ruth Ross. 13l C. Letters to Las Brieas Apartment Residents, Neighbors, Owner's Association IV SEASHORE VILLAGE NEWPORT BEACH June 22, 2007 Dear Resident, As the upcoming new owners of Las Brisas Apartments, we would like to introduce ourselves and share with you our plans for this exciting area. We have recently submitted a proposal to the City of Newport Beach that would allow us to build single - family and duplex homes where the Las Brisas Apartments are currently located. We are in the initial planning stages and there is plenty of time before construction would begin. As such, we invite you to an informational meeting to learn more about our proposed project. Please join us on Tuesday, July 10, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. at the Las Brisas poolside. We will have light refreshments for you to enjoy while we discuss this project and answer your questions and concerns. We look forward to seeing you on Tuesday, July I0`s. S> Karen Sully Project Representative Seashore Village Residential Community (714),656-6021 A Residential Development at Seashore Drive and River Avenue, Newport Beach c/o 301 East IT' Street, Suite 204, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 c/o 161 Fashion Lane, Suite 116, Tustin, CA 92780 CCdd 1�_1 SEASHORE VILLAGE NEWPORT BEACH October 2, 2007 W. Bob Rush, Director RivedNeptune West Newport . Beach Association P.O. Box 1471 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Bob and Members of the West Newport Beach Owner's Association, It was a pleasure meeting with you and members of your association last Wednesday evening to present our plans for the Seashore Village project. Thank you for your time and attention to our proposal; we appreciate your interest. We are excited to bring this beautiful development to the West Newport Beach area and to your community. Our goal is to create the most positive impact on the surrounding area with a high- quality residential project and to be a good neighbor. We would greatly appreciate your group's support for the project A letter to the City decision makers would be great as well as having a representative testify in support of the project before the Planning Commission and City Council at their upcoming meetings. We do not yetknow when those meetings will be, but will lot you know in advance as soon as we are scheduled. Should you have any more questions or comments.on the project, please feel free to contact either Todd Schooler or Karen Sully at (949) 646 -8805 or (714) 665 -1101, respectively, Sincerely, 4r Todd Schooler Project Architect Seshore Village Karen Sully Project Representative Seashore Village A Residential Development at Seashore Drive and River Avenue, Newport Beach C/o 301 Fast I r Street, Suite 204, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 c/o 161 Fashion Lane, Suite 116. Tustin, CA 92780 l kka SEASHORE VILLAGE NEWPORT BEACH February 19, 2008 Dear Neighbor, We would like to introduce you to Seashore Village, a planned residential development of 24 new single - family and duplex homes located at 5515 River Avenue at Seashore Drive and River Avenue in West Newport Beach (currently where the Las Brisas Apartments reside). We are excited about the opportunity to be a part of your community and as such we would like to invite you to join us at an informational meeting to learn more about Seashore Village. We will have light refreshments for you to enjoy while we discuss this project and answer your questions and concerns. The meeting will take place on Wednesday, March 5, 2008, at 6:30 p.m. in Room 1 at the West Newport Community Center located at 883 W. 15`h Street, between Monrovia and Placentia near Hoag Hospital. (From Superior Avenue, take a left on to Placentia Avenue, and then take a left on to W. 15d Street. Go to ahnost the end of the street. The community center building is on the left hand side. A map is provided on the back of this letter.) We look forward to meeting you on Wednesday, March 5a' Sincerely, 911 H._ Karen Sully Project Representative Seashore Village Residential Community (714) 656 -6021 A Residential Development at Seashore Drive and River Avenue, Newport Beach c/o 301 East 17" Street, Suite 204, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 c/o 161 Fashion Lane, Suite 116, Tustin, CA 92780 Yahoo! Maps, Driving Directions, and Traffic 'W1400.1 LOCAL Page 1 of 1 vv L 5-�- NG�v�°ra�- fje2GLrr http: / /maps.yahoo.comf 2/19/2008 Exhibit 10 Zone Change Study 03 "z h� Attachment 4 April 17, 2008, PC Staff Report �A5 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY 1 4 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT April 17, 2008 Meeting Agenda Item No. 4 SUBJECT: Seashore Village Residential Development (PA2007 -100) 5515 River Avenue • Mitigated Negative Declaration • Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -00.1 • Modification Permit No. 2007 -044 • Use Permit No. 2007 -011 • Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001 APPLICANT: Seashore Village, LLC PLANNER: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3209, jmurillo @city.newport- beach.ca.us Hold a public hearing and adopt the Declaration (Sch. No. 2008021075) Modification Permit. No. 2007 -044, Development Permit No. 2007 -001, DISCUSSION attached resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative and approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001, Use Permit No. 2007 -011 and Coastal Residential subject to findings and conditions of approval. As stated in the March 20, 2008, Planning Commission staff report, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by The Planning Center for the proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND is attached as Exhibit 7 to the March 20, 2008, staff report package. The MND was circulated for a 30 -day public review period from February 20, 2008, to March 20, 2008; however, the MND notice of availability was posted on the site February 20, 2008, and it was determined that the public comment period began the following day, February 21, 2008, with the public comment period concluding on March 21, 2008. As such, the item was continued to the April 3, 2008 Planning Commission hearing, where it was again continued to this meeting date to allow staff additional time to prepare responses to comments received on the MND. Comments were received from the Southern California Gas Company, Native American Heritage Commission, Lennie DeCaro, California Department of Transportation, and Department of Toxic Control Substances. Responses to these comments have been prepared for consideration (Exhibit 2). Adoption of the MND by the Planning 1`1 N Seashore Village April 17, 2008 Page 2 Commission after public hearing is required prior to approval of the requested applications. Revised Resolution Based on comments received on the draft conditions of approval, staff has revised the resolution to include a number of corrections and clarifications. The following changes were made to the draft conditions of approval: Condition No. 8 The applicant shall replace 6 affordable units within 3 years of the date of issuance of a demolition permit e #e Gti v^ date of this appFeval. The units may be provided off -site at an approved location, or locations, within the City. An amount not to exceed $1.35 million shall be provided by the applicant and the applicant shall use such funds to replace the 6 affordable units and to achieve a mix of income levels and bedroom counts, as determined appropriate by the Planning Director. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide said units. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and shall be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the project. Condition No. 46 An ADA compliant public pedestrian pathway, from River Avenue to Seashore Drive, shall be provided througheut the development site. Condition No. 61 The internal roadway shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide, unless otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. The internal roadway shall align with Neptune Avenue. The internal roadway curb cut on River Avenue shall be 26 feet wide minimum and modified to comply with current ADA standards. Prepared by: JAme Murillo, Associate Planner Submitted by: .r�cEUalsc. 1. ii�elwtieri� 5-ce +E�Tnc�+•.� -•,�3 2• Sv-z ttTTACNM&E ,F FAUSERSIPLMSharedVXs \PAs - 2007\PA2007- 1001Staff Reports and Resolutions\04_17_08\PA2007 -100 PC Staff Report 041708.doc fA Attachment 5 April 17, 2008, PC Minutes \AC THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Planning Commission Minutes 04/17/2008 Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO.4 PA2007 -100 Seashore Village (PA2007 -100) 5515 River Ave. Approved applicant requests approval of a Use Permit for building height exemption iification Permit for setbacks and building separation; Tentative Tract Mal Wished for condominium purposes; Coastal Residential Development Permi compliance with CA Government Code Section 65590 and Chapter 20.86 o City's Municipal Code; and adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. ntinued from April 3, 2008). ime Murillo gave an overview of the staff report. He clarified that the Respon Comment, No. C5, should have stated CEQA does not require the evaluation Dject alternatives for projects which all impacts can be mitigated to a less th Inificant level. Referencing an exhibit, he noted the ingress and egress of t Dject, private driveway, and signage. missioner Eaton noted his concern of the change to Condition No. 61, and to access Neptune Avenue noted by Ms. DeCaro. sgarding Condition No. 61, Mr. Brine answered that there is an angle point ar the one location where the driveway width may be less than 26 feet where tf st of the internal roadway would be a minimum of 26 feet. Regarding cro: lhts, Mr. Brine answered that unless there is something in a property title of M 3Caro, Neptune Avenue is a public street and access can be taken from a publ reet to a private property. er Toerge asked about the setbacks on Neptune Avenue; the heights of the buildings. Murillo answered the side yard setback in an MFR Zone with the current lot figuration is 25 feet; however, if this project was subdivided into 30 -foot lots, i the setbacks would be 3 feet. The view simulations represent what a forming MFR project could be built to. The March 20, 2008 staff report on e 10 describes the specific heights called out in the Zoning Compliance Table. d Schooler, project architect, noted the following: • Pictures of surrounding buildings to the existing building that is 36 years old, • Perfect access opportunity at Neptune Avenue; • Proposed construction will be compatible with the pattern and character of the surrounding neighborhood that consists of two and three -story, single unit and two -unit dwellings; • Project is designed with internal facing garages with a center road; • All public improvements will come off this internal road; • Modification Permit is requested for encroachments into the required setbacks and deviation from building separation requirements; http: / /www. city.newport- beach. ca.us /P1nAgendas/mnd04l72008.htrn 05/30/2008 0 Planning Commission Minutes 04/17/2008 . Use Permit is requested to exceed the 28 -foot height limit up to a maximu of 32 feet due to the ridge of the pitched roof; Referring to Condition No. 7, the encroachment to the side yard setback minimal and this happens only to a home on Seashore that is 4 feet aw and the majority of the proposed building is only twenty feet high and the is such a small amount of encroachment; we could cut this down, but i don't think we should; a possible solution would be to take the roofs and t it away from the neighbor so that it slopes away from this neighbor to cle up any impact; A large building that could be built on this property would detract from view corridors of the neighbors; this proposed project will enhai somewhat, the view corridor; . This is a unique opportunity to make a positive impact in this area; . He noted the license taken on the artist renderings of the buildings. blic comment was opened. DeCaro, local resident, noted that Neptune Avenue has a fence and met ier and dead ends in front of his house. There was quite a bit of privacy and r from his second story. The proposed project will be 20% more dense; loss i space; loss of public access; park will look like a part of this complex at discourage visitors from using this area; 63 parking spaces are beir osed while there currently are 101 parking spaces. e DeCaro, local resident, noted she has a title policy that states they do access; the number of low income housing has changed from 13 to 6 I, why; the Lido Sands Association is not in support of this application; are not consistent with the fire access driveway (not public access) and 3tion needs to be reviewed. comment was closed. imissioner McDaniel noted a title policy that indicates no access doesn't me are not able to get access. It means that at this point that piece of land do have access but through proper channels you can get access for whate, act may take place. The current title policy is accurate but that doesn't me title policy won't change with any amendments or changes on a piece Schooler noted the building next to the DeCaro residence steps back their property and is the furthest away from that side property line. ene Radson, attorney for the developer, noted that the late filing by h ;aro, to the extent any new issues have been raised, is inappropriate if it h impact of delaying an approval. Ms. DeCaro has made it clear she will app( decision and to the extent her material filed today, staff will have I ortunity to review, but the material should have been included at the time original comments, rather than waiting until today. Page 2 of 4 http: / /www.city.newpott- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas/mnd04l72008.htm 05/30/2008 t 5 Planning Commission Minutes 04/17/2008 comment was closed. iissioner Eaton noted the correspondence from Ms. Carvalho that the affordable housing replacement. Lepo answered, in terms of Coastal Residential Development Permits, the ate statute is vague. It is up to each city to deal with. A prior example was an omaly to the set of regulations as that property had been owned by the plicant for many years and the value to him was to be able to build his iirement home there and was not a matter of maximizing a return on that onomic asset. He was willing to tear down a 10 -unit building and replace it with ly three units to allow him to live on that property. If you were looking to aximize your economic return on that property, you wouldn't have torn it down. this case, under the Mello Act there is a provision that if a city has 50 or fewer res of developable land, than all bets are off with requiring a strict one to one )lacement. With fewer than 50 developable acres we did a feasibility analysis d looked at the proforma provided by the developer to see if it is realistic to )lace any of the units. In this case, with a tenant survey, we identified only six cants, so we are requesting that six affordable replacement units shall be )vided within the coastal zone. The analysis that was performed corroborated )lacement cost of approximately $235,000 each, for a total of $1.35 million. r. Harp added that feasibility is determined by economic and social factors and complex statute. missioner Hillgren asked if it was $1.35 million or replacing six units? buy units? Lepo answered the condition is to replace six units up to $1.35 million and ject to an agreement that will be worked out. The developer could buy un I retain the asset with the provision of six units at the income levels directed City covenanted for 30 years to maintain that affordable rent level. This has accomplished within three years of the issuance of a demolition permit. Th also go to an owner of an apartment building and pay that person to maintc is at levels that make units affordable for a period of six years and to the exte re is money after that buy -down to provide and pay for improvements to tho :s to the extent the $1.35 million would allow. We can edit the condition tP se six units have to be provided. Discussion continued on the contrc nulation with number of units, dollar value and maintenance and repair, ;ioner Toerge noted this project has been before us twice; he the plans and the mass and scale of the project is consistent with Plan. The property design provides for 15 guest parking spaces would not be provided; and, heights in the design features on was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner lopt the resolution adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH. 021075) and approving Tentative Tract Map NT2007 -001, Modifics it MD2007 -044, Use Permit, UP2007 -011 and Coastal Reside lopment Permit CR2007 -001, subject to the findings and conditions as with the following changes: . Condition No. 7 shall be re- worded to read that the two structures Page 3 of 4 http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PinAgendas /mndO4l72008.htm 05/30/2008 l53 Planning Commission Minutes 04/17/2008 Page 4 of 4 encroach into the side yard setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line shall incorporate design features (hip feature) to minimize the impact of the building heights on the adjacent property. • Condition No. 8 shall be modified, an amount of approximately $1.35 million shall be provided by the applicant and the applicant shall use such funds to replace the six affordable units and to achieve a mix of income levels and bedroom counts, as determined appropriate by the Planning Director. • Renderings depicting units along River Avenue shall be modified to accurately reflect the presence of the sidewalk and street improvements for clarity. ommissioner Toerge noted the key component in Condition No. 8 is not arbitrary id is the direction asked for by the Planning Director. He noted that he could Id a range of 10% either way. r. Lepo noted that we allowed latitude in this dollar amount and we are confident at will get the six units. To modify that condition we would say, at least six pits and an amount not to exceed $1.35 million. This will be part of a contract at needs approval prior to demolishing. If this does not work, we will come back the Planning Commission. ommissioner Toerge modified his motion to make the change to replace, at least x affordable units and the amount not to exceed $1.35 million. 5mmissioner Hillgren asked if it was possible to prohibit group occupancy? r. Lepo answered there is no way to do that. iairperson Hawkins asked about requiring CC &R's to prohibit group :cupancies and was told, no. iairperson Hawkins proposed to strike the reference to the renderings, as it is )t part of the conditions. )mmissioner Toerge agreed to delete reference to the renderings and repeated s motion with the changes. yes: Eaton, Peotter, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None bsent: None otion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner Approved Ilgren to hear the next item as it was past the hour to accept new deliberations. les: Eaton, Hawkins, Cole, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Des: Peotter 3sent: I None http: / /www.city.newport- beach. ca .us /PlnAgendas /mnd04l72008.htm 05/30/2008 1L� Attachment 6 Appeal Application \ � THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY it -1 t CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. 00 . CR?oo -06 T2G2� -ice) .V c[JU /- u(rlh) APT MNfl- r�Setu td� APPR0�I�16 I�e�t_s Name of Appellant yy or person filing: L'GrJWIC- (��I Phone: tl���� 1���a��� Address: i� )K-6, 59(}b NEPT0 rJe- 4 5(4o� N�,3 1'� Date of Planning Commission decision: R l 4 20 Regarding application of N'k for (Description of application filed with Planning Commission) I evttr,+1 e '(1L00 --r vn�? P vvrrr�,�t c� k cn CAS use- GOfvn CoQs-raI QeS t)pi (ca gm�,s!_ VQLM vemNe -Q` AST ,ipi' LI\s 226SR') fWT !aAb eEr `r PkC1%c-P t..)1,;;!{4 1'114 Cd`AODS. CAti Ci)) > c6w tom. Reason fq appeal: - Improper Notice/Public Hearing. Improper approval. Planning commission did not consider additional 17 pg. comments, emails, & objection letters submitted prior to tulingon entire project that included discretionary permits. (P.C. Eaton stated he did not finish reading my objections). Email & letters objecting to project not available/included at 4/17/08 hearing. Interrupted during 3 min. speech, allowed applicant rebuttal, refused my rebuttal. Appears to been attempt to circumvent public hearing process: Appellant comment letters I & 2 (total 50 pa_gesl are considered part of this appeal, as well as the emails. & resident/tenaat letters of obiectiou. City has rewtd of these letters. Several emails & letters of objection were not part of the public hearing and were not available for public review. lent requests copy of P.C. audio meetings 3/20/08 & 4/17M and city to retain. 1y— 2cy— CV-- �_- Date 4 -a9 -off FOR OFFICE USE ONLY }. Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: �Q� �' a°� 20b0 . Hearing Date. An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing before the City Council withitnsi)ty (60 . ys of the firing of the appeal unless both applicant and appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date IC Vic. 20.95.060) Ta 1 ca Appellant - a i . / Fliinning (furnish one ad of mulling lags for mailing) APPEALS: Municipal Code Sea 20.95.050(6) Appear Fee: $340 pursuant to Resolution No. 2006 -4 adopted on 1- 10-06, . ` (Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #2700 50001 of THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Afth,.,m t 7 Appellant's letters, emails, and Carvalho letter t�l THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Comment Letter #2 5515 River Avenue Objections MND 3 -25 -08 Continuation of objections I have spent numerous hours reviewing documents and files through a public records act request and have had my earlier suspicions confirmed. I am asking that the commission deny this project application based on the numerous objections I have raised. I am concerned at what I have discovered and hope to shed light on this in the belief that the planning commission will protect the city's residents and issue a denial of the proposed project. There are so many errors and inconsistencies it begs the question, if we can't trust the numbers, why should we, trust this project? Planning Commissioners are the gatekeepers for the integrity of the process for land development. I intend to bring to light what I believe to be manipulation of the process that has taken place over the past three years. I believe the applicant/investors have viewed this project solely by profit potential, ignoring that it comes at the expense of the residents and possibly the reputation of the city staff. Inconsistencies with low income housing surveys: • Project reconnaissance began 2005 (Schooler letter 11/9/05) • App.initiated: 3 -2006 (survey required 13 replacement/ low income units) • App. withdrawn: 1 -29 -2007 • App. resubmitted: 5 -2007 (survey required 6 replacement/ low income units) TENANT INCOME MATRIX (June 2007) compiled/forwarded by applicant 0 54 units' • 13 units vacant • 27 no response • 14 responses: (1) disqualified due to being out of country? (7) above income requirement 0 3 claimed identical income of $688,258 ( ? ?) 0 1 listed as apt. manager suite (per internet rental listing) • (4) moderate • (2) very lo�v When I reviewed files at the city I informed staff that there are missing documents that particularly relate to the rental surveys and was told the records are in a confidential file based on personal tenant info and I was not allowed to review. I stated personal tenant information could be redacted, however, l was informed that I would have to make a request of the city attorney and time does not allow this. I had been requesting the Keyser Marston study'for months, as I was aware it contained information regarding replacement housing and had been told it was unavailable, l�V\ I was however able to ascertain much of the information in its most generic form from letters contained in the files that substantially illustrates what I believe to be an inappropriate process by the applicant. The records I reviewed indicate that it is primarily the same applicants that have been involved in this project since 2005. Original project was withdrawn 1/29/07 after being on hold, per Brandon Nichols, planner. Applicants withdrew, (1129/07) their original project application to the city after their surveys determined that 13 units were occupied by (3) very -low, (7) low, & (3) moderate- income households, triggering Government Code Section 65590, replacement - housing requirements. Rental surveys were submitted to city prior to August 2006, as evidenced in a letter dated 8 -7 -2006 from Keyser Marston that stated total replacement housing obligations of 13 units was based on data provided by the city. I do not have the number of respondents, (confidential file ?) which is important, as non - responders are not even counted as low or moderate income. Applicants re- applied with same project, w/ minor revision & replacing one of the initial applicants (05/ 2007). The low- income survey submitted by applicant was re -done again, only this time survey resulted in only 6 units occupied by (2) very low, low, or (4) moderate - income households. Applicant requested tenants return survey to them by June 15, 2007. The process of income survey evaluation was compromised in that the income surveys were initiated, compiled, and returned to the city by the applicant. The applicant has a direct conflict of interest as replacement of low- income housing can amount to millions of dollars in direct costs to the developer. Allowing the process to be governed by those that would substantially profit by a survey showing the least amount of low - income residents is a flawed process. There is an obvious conflict of interest that arises when the applicant is responsible for submitting rental income surveys and receiving the responses. There is an inherent likelihood of underreporting low- income tenants when survey results indicate the level the investor /applicants are responsible for with regards to replacing these units. It is indeed troubling that the low- income housing survey matrix was resubmitted for the same project by the applicant, and the numbers changed drastically from one year to the next. I believe the true low- income figures are considerably higher than reported. There is no way of verifying the validity of what the applicant submitted, however, the ability to question the prior /current tenants to find the "truth' still exists, additionally shedding light on "incentives" to move. Las Brisas Apartments replaced the prior property manager with the current property management company months before the June 2007 survey completion. Current property management changed rental policy that would require applicant income level of a minimum of $66,200 per individual with no co- signers. This policy went into effect prior to the rental survey of June 2007. Numerous units became vacant during the income verification period, in part as a result of tenants being told continually that project is going through, and stayed vacant as a result of the policy. I have been informed that 1v2- many tenants have already moved as a result of the "done deal" or "incentives" previously offered. I believe the city needs to have an established program in place regarding developer -in -lieu fees paid for by the developer for fulfilling replacement- housing obligations on site. No financial feasibility analysis of developer would be required if there were an established program. Financial feasibility studies can favor the developer since much of the information analyzed originates and is held by the developer. A bonded, neutral escrow company should be in charge of entire rental survey process whereby results are potentially worth millions. Additionally mailing CEQA noticing with labeling coming from applicant should be avoided as well. In this project case, I believe labels should have been updated as labels were from previous year and several owners did not receive notification due to incorrect address. Finally, condo conversions require noticing of tenants. Many cities require noticing of tenants within 100' of any coastal project. In this case, there was no noticing of tenants at all. The effect of demolishing units and displacing them is a more serious effect to the tenants than condo conversion, yet tenants of Las Brisas were not notified, nor were the surrounding tenants in the neighborhood. The majority of owners live out of town, so it is crucial that the tenants affected be noticed. Apparent lack of transparency regarding applicant's pro -forma MND failed to have the review of the financial pro forma submitted by The Natelson Dale Group, (TNDG) available, as it was dated March 10, 2008. Since the conclusions of this report offer mitigations for replacement housing in the amount of at least 1.8 million to 2.0 million, this report brings forth new evidence that should have been available as part of the MND during the comment period. Further TNDG stated they "conducted a limited and brief review ", to analyze the pro forma based on three basic components that included total sales of $58,950,000; Land purchase of $25,500,000; and development costs of $28,434,500. TNDG found that "only the development costs are documented in any detail on the pro forma ". TNDG went on to state, "the basis of $58.95 million in sales revenue is not indicated, and the land purchase price is apparently based on the CBRE appraisal (per City staff, the applicant has confirmed that the site is in escrow for $25.5 million, contingent on project approval). " Underscore added. It is inconceivable that there is no proof of escrow instructions, good faith deposits, loan commitments, etc.. I am concerned that the MND and staff project review is relying on the applicant's word instead of requiring adequate documentation. TNDG appropriately raised many troubling issues in their report. They further stated, "given the limited documentation and the short timeframe available for this assignment, it has not been possible for TNDG to independently evaluate the financial feasibility of the project." 1k.v3 Staff appropriately ordered a review of the pro forma by The Natelson Dale Group, (TNDG) regarding the amount the applicant could afford to pay. I was satisfied that it appeared obvious to this consultant that "the truth" could not be apparent if the applicant holds all the information. The following quote from TNDG, should resonate with the board in keeping with the tenets of being the gatekeepers for the ethical adherence to land use decisions. TNDG pro forma review stated: "In fact, the very content of this letter reveals only a few of the subtleties involved in attempting to arrive at the "truth" in these matters, given that the developer effectively has control of much of the relevant information." Underscoring added. The following are some additional points not fully covered in previous comment letter. There are so many errors that I have found, that it should cause the planning commission to deny this project based on errors and inconsistencies alone. Conflict of Interest & inclusion of General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan As stated in my previous comment letter, I generally object to the inclusion of architect/applicants on any city board where the applicant is reviewing and offering opinion on policies that can directly impact his clients or investors. There is more than adequate experience on this committee without bringing in architects as advisors. I specifically object to Mr. Schooler's inclusion on this committee. A more appropriate use of architects would be to serve on a design review committee that doesn't include giving input to municipal codes or policies. I have viewed:the video regarding the establishment and resolution passed for this committee. Although it may be well intentioned, the unintended consequences are obvious when architects may have projects that are coming before the city, and residents concerns are not equally represented. It would also be naive to think that friendships and trust do not become a component of serving on boards together. Having the ability to interface with the decision makers on a regular basis could be seen as an unfair advantage. Inclusion on this committee would allow applicant to become involved in the inner workings of the process as well as possibly gaining the trust of those serving on this committee. Numerous previous issues with the MND defined further: • MND was released prior to the majority of staff input (requested 2- 26-08). Majority of staff responses were released in March 2008. • Inability to read even the 11 x18 plans to check for accuracy. This is a requirement of CEQA that project is clearly defined. �kDA • Noise levels inaccurate MIVD inadequately analyzes noise levels and implies reductions of dBA levels without substantiating or analyzing the impacts. "HVAC systems are proposed for all units within the project site. Therefore, standard building construction would achieve the interior noise requirements for new building construction In the state of California. " New construction requires interior noise of 45 dBA (MND p. 84). MND claims noise is reduced by 24dBA if all windows and doors are closed. Exterior noise level is 59 — 24= 35dBA. (provided that all windows and doors are shut). This is a faulty assumption since plans do not show any placement or inclusion of air conditioning units. Homes in this area typically do not include air conditioning due to the proximity to the beach. The faulty assumption is that the windows will he closed because they will use air conditioners. Yet HVAC units contribute to dBA level increases for both interior and exterior. These results have not been addressed at all in the MND. There are vast differences in the dBA levels that HVAC units create. MND, (p 84) states that if windows are open, dBA levels are only reduced by 12. This would make interior noise level of new units beyond acceptable. Project area that includes direct line of sight to the highway, including the second and third story building facades facing the highway, have reported exterior noise levels of 67.3 dBA CNEL per the NMD. This would be far beyond noise requirements with 55.3 dBA if windows were open. MND claim that it would comply if windows were shut, fails to address the increase from the HVAC unit noise itself The MND ignores the obvious, there is no HVAC unit on the market that can deliver at 1.7dBA or less. This is the number that would be necessary for noise compliance. MND wants to assert that windows will be kept shut in order to comply with noise requirements and states HVAC units are planned Additionally, the placement and running of air conditioning units would add to the exterior noise levels for the surrounding neighbors and there is inadequate information as to the size, location, and motor /fan specs. MND gave inadequate information in analyzing HVAC impacts. Newport Beach has interior noise levels of 40 dBA in the evening from 10 p.m to 7a.m.. Windows would be open during this time in the summer, while the new project would have them shut using the HVAC. MND inadequate analysis of noise impacts is evident. There are no plans depicting location of HVAC units, nor any analysis to exterior noise levels. Each condenser unit needs to reflect location, cooling capacity relating to tons, effect of all 24 units running concurrently and the effect to the surrounding neighbors. Interior and exterior noise levels for both project and surrounding neighbors will not meet ordinance level. City of Newport Beach /Notes per Noise Element; Mechanical Equipment Noise (p. 7 city noise element) Various Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) installations and occasional pool and spa pumps can be noise intrusions. Noise intrusions t (05 from HVAC equipment has been a problem in the past, especially in areas such as Balboa Island, Lido Island, and the Peninsula where the homes are very close together, and in commercial areas as well when abutting residential areas. However, the City's Municipal Code now requires a permit before installation of new HVAC equipment. Pen-nits are only granted when a sound rating of the proposed equipment does not exceed standards, or is installed with a timing device that will deactivate the equipment during the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. if the standards are exceeded. Just because HVAC equipment sound ratings are reviewed during plan check, as well as tested in the field after installation, it can still be problematic over time. As equipment ages and sometimes suffers from lack of maintenance, noise from the equipment can increase. Because of this, the City still deals with HVAC equipment noise on a complaint basis, in order insure ongoing compliance with the standards of the Code. Stationary Noise Sources Policy N 4.1 (p 29 Noise element) Enforce interior and exterior noise standards outlined in Table N3, and in the City's Municipal Code to ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning� equipment (Imp 7.1) • There is no "right" to have Neptune extended The Planning Center claims the applicant has a "right" to have Neptune be extended. They are incorrect. Although Neptune doesn't fit the technical term for a "cul- de- sac ", it is nevertheless a street that terminated at 5406 Neptune. Terminus is signed, fenced, blockaded and has never allowed road access to the adjacent apartment building. Further the setback required of the apartment building was 50' at the time. Current MND statements show that the setback is "at least" 25'. However, based on the 8% setback rule for MFR'S based on property line, the front property line on River is prox 465', which would be about 37' for the setback. Planning center counter comments that the side setback for project goes from 7 to 11.5'. This is the first time those numbers were mentioned. Question, why then is the modification permit asking for, (MND p 25) "3 foot sidevard setback where the MFR zone requires approximately 25 feet sidevard setback based on lot width. "? Further, this is misleading based on the geometries narrowing as lot reaches Seashore Ave., and would be unacceptable as proposed. Preliminary title report dated 2 -28 -06 used the ALTA survey from 1998. Item 6 in title policy (order no 9836049) for 5515 River Ave. states "The fact that the ownership of said land does not include right of access to or from the street highway or freeway abutting said land, such rights having been relinquished by the map of said Tract." Noted: "Affects seashore drive, except at street intersections ". This is important as it would have been obvious to the surveyor there is a curb cut on seashore. (]previously stated that people had accessed this throughway from River to Seashore supporting a )'P � prescriptive rights easement). It would be important to note the apartment/project has "no ri t" to access Seashore. Apartment building has "no right" to access Neptune as it was obvious through the constructed barrier and termination of the street as shown on the tract map. The right of access is what they have shown on the original tract, showing sole access from River Avenue. To reiterate, project lot does not include right of access to or from Neptune Avenue that abuts their property, any rights of access were relinquished during the acceptance of the Tract. Additionally, per the tract map #3813 that includes subject property, (my property is NOT part of tract). Map clearly shows the delineated area of 37.51' that provided access for the ingress/egress on River Avenue. This is directly abutting my property and provides for the current opening for the driveway access. Maintaining this access area instead of using Neptune would alleviate many issues. It should also be noted that my title policy for 5406 Neptune shows property line "most westly cor lot 7 block 54 of River Section encompassing Neptune Ave. and terminating at back edge of Seashore propert y. My title policy does not give access rights to the abutting property. 13. 01.010 Findings and Purpose G. The City must exercise control over the design and construction of public streets, as well as intersections between City streets and roadways serving development located outside of the City, to ensure that traffic on City streets is not undulv impaired. and, to ensure, to the maximum extent feasible, that streets and intersections are designed and E29 The Public Works Director shall approve a permit if, after investigation, it is determined., A. That the proposed improvement conforms to all applicable City plans, ordinances, resolutions, policies, rules, standards and specifications; and 8. That permittee has the ability to comply with all conditions imposed upon the permit; and C. That the proposed improvement will not unreasonably interfere with vehicular or pedestrian traffic; and D. That the proposed improvement, as designed, will not create any significant risk of injury to persons using the roadway, adjacent roadways, or proverty adiacent to the roadways,; and E That the health, safety and welfare of persons using the roadway to be improved, adjacent roadways, or Property adjacent to the roadways, will not be adversely affected. (Ord. 85-9 § 1 (part), 1985) Neptune is specifically deeded as a street. This provided for the safety of the Seashore residents ingress/egress providing for enough space to safely pull out of garages. If project site is allowed to remove Neptune as a cul -de -sac to become effectively an alley, it will be negating the intention of this road. Project proposal for Neptune to become an alley is also showing road to be narrower than the existing 30' street. Proposed alley is further impacted by project having garages on both the North 10 and South side of road, unlike the current configuration of existing homes entries facing Neptune Avenue, without garage access. It also appears that fire trucks or trash trucks could easily clip the buildings. Alteration of Neptune Avenue from a terminating street to transition to an alley will adversely impact the health, safety and welfare of the citizens who live on Neptune or whose property backs Neptune Ave, yet only homes within 300' are notified of this impact. Further, no noticing is given to resident tenants. Noticing was only given to property owners, which inhibits public comments as many property owners live too far to come to hearings, and probably are unaware of the consequences of the impacts if they are only given information from the applicant with a vested financial interest in having the project proceed. 13.01.080 Appeal. Any applicant aggrieved by a decision of the Public Works Director shall have the right to appeal the decision to the City Council by riling written notice of appeal, the appeal must be riled with the City Clerk within ten days from the date on which notice of the decision is deposited in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid and addressed to the parties as provided on the application for permit. The City Council shall, within thirty (30) days from the date on which an appeal is received, schedule a hearing on the appeal within a reasonable period of time. The City Council may preside over the hearing on appeal, or may designate a hearing officer to take evidence and submit a proposed decision, together with findings, to the City Council within fifteen (15) days from the date of the hearing. The City Council shall render its decision within thirty (30) days from the date of the hearing, and the decision of the City Council shall be final. (Ord. 85-9 § i (part), 1985) I hereby notice that I will appeal any approvals for connection from Neptune Ave to project and request notification of Public Works Director be informed of my objections. Public Works Director correctly stipulated in his conditions that the on -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation system shall be subiect to further review by the City Traffic Engineer, (dated 2- 28 -08). Engineer additionally noted plans do not scale correctly, ADA parking stall is incorrect, carports need to be pushed back two feet to ease access into and out of parking stalls, internal roadway minimum of 24' wide, clearly identify pedestrian paths throughout site, columns need to be aligned wider than garage doors, etc. There would need to be even further revisions as the fire access lane must be 26' and this wasn't taken into account in prior memorandums. Pathways are not marked and would appear that entry to and through the alley is the promoted path to the beach access. This would be dangerous and would require additional comments from public works. 13.06.050 Standards for Issuance of Permit. The Public Works Director shall issue a permit hereunder when he finds: 1. That the work will conform to the requirements set forth in the driveway approach policy adopted by the City Council, as well as the Standard Specifications of the City for public work of like character, 2. That the project as proposed will not unreasonably interfere with vehicular and pedestrian traffic, the demand and necessity for parking spaces, and the means of ingress and egress to and from the property affected and adjacent properties; V 3. That the health, welfare and safety of the public will not be unreasonably impaired. (Ord. 1320 § 1 (part); December 8, 1969) (2)Project as proposed unreasonably interferes with the means of ingress and egress to and from the adjacent properties. Adjacent properties on Seashore Drive have their double garages facing Neptune Avenue. Said properties must back out onto Neptune Ave for ingress/egress. This ingress /egress will be unreasonably impaired as the current street is 30' wide with on street parking and a sidewalk. The addition of over 100 cars using this as access to the new alley portion will cause unreasonable hardship on existing property owners. Currently drivers can easily see if there is parking available prior to entering into the small cul -de -sac area. If the alley is put through, numerous cars will drive through this street in search of parking in addition to the Project residents accessing their garages on both_ sides of the alley. This will encourage an endless parade of cars. Mitigation: Provide the access to Project residents as it currently exists, (both driveways from River and additionally add access to and from Seashore.) This driveway approach is not infeasible and was used as ingress /egress for this property in this manner in the past. This is the most reasonable and equitable approach. (3) Health, welfare, and safety of the public will be unreasonably impaired. Properties that purchase lots on cul -de -sacs are paying a premium to pay for the added safety by insuring there will be no drive - through traffic. This provides for a safer roadway for children as well an increased public safety location. Cul -de -sacs or dead end streets are well known for the safety benefits. LOS at morning and evening rush hours will add to the pollution in front of the existing residences as it is likely the project related traffic will back up and cars will idle directly in front of the front facing Neptune Avenue properties, especially in the morning and evening traffic. A previous Newport Beach project similar to this (8- 18 -05) required applicant to dedicate property. In that situation, the developer provided reasonable mitigation by reducing density to equivalent of 10 homes per 1.5 acres and dedicated a lot for public access. Public Access: The Coastal Act requires "maximum access" to the shoreline for the public. New developments must provide public access unless adequate access exists nearby. Proposed project is removing access not creating it. City Council Policy L -4 requires that private streets be constructed to the same standards as public streets and including sidewalks. The project internal road is inadequate to provide sidewalk and fire access lanes without complete revision of plans. 20.03.030 Definitions. Alley" means a public or private way permanently reserved primarily for vehicular service access to the rear or side of properties which otherwise abut on a street. An alley shall not be considered a street. "Driveway" means a designated passageway providing vehicular access between a street and a garage or carport, a designated parking area or other driveway or street. A drivew -al -shall not be considered a street. Street' means a public or private vehicular right -of -way, including local streets, commuter streets and arterial highways, but not including alleys, driveways or off -road bikeways. 19.24.010 Streets and Highways. Local Streets. Local streets with on- street parking on both sides shall have the following miriiinum widths: fifty -six (56) feet of right -of -way and thirty -six (36) feet of curb -to -curb pavement Streets with parking on one side or no parking shall have fifty-two (52) feet of right -of -way and thirty-two (32) feet of curb -to -curb pavement. 3. Private Streets. Private streets may be approved at the discretion of the tentative map decision - making body. Such streets shall be designed and constructed to the same An alley cannot be a street. You cannot transition from street to alley. How do you delineate Neptune Ave. from Neptune Alley? Alley can't be a fire lane. Fire lane requires 26 feet. Where will the sidewalks be that are required? Where do you paint no parking? How to enforce no parking if not gated? Street sweepers paid for to go through Neptune, will they turn off their sweepers at alley entrance? This entire project is so full of conflicting information and spin; it appears to be an attempt to later "utilize" the errors. Inconsistencies with turning Neptune into an alley: • Plans show extension of Neptune as both "private road" and "driveway ". • Plans show road easement as 24'. • Fire department requires it to be an access lane 26' wide, with no parking, painted and with signs. • City Council Policy L-4 requires that private streets be constructed to the same standards as public streets, including sidewalks. 10 More problems & Inconsistencies: • Confirmation of facts: Stamped demolition plan by surveyor shows existing bldg is 48,743 (DP -1). I also had proof from title company the apartment is 48,744, yet the MND used square footage from old building permit (inflating existing apt. by prox 5,000 square feet). I was only able to confirm this information by personally reviewing documents at city hall. Misstatement of existing bldg appears to be an attempt to mislead, as the argument is that this project is less dense. Clearly by exaggerating the square footage of building, one wouldn't realize the proposed project is considerably more dense. • Drawings do not show adequate dimensions of streets, setbacks, and public right of way. Drawings are not stamped by Schooler. Drawing dimensions are inconsistent • MND (p27) says 60 parking spaces. Other par €s state parking is 63 spaces. I have reviewed the plans, it appears to only have 60 spaces, but plans are illegible for detail. • Evaluation of parking spaces at existing complex are 101 spaces and should have been stated in the MND as I pointed out, since removing 41 spaces while adding residents will have significant impacts. • MND states landscaping as 32.2% (p. 40), yet C -1, A -1 site plan both show landscaping to be 28.24% (shown on page 53 from Staff packet). • 2006 city required trees on Seashore be maintained • 2007, city required trees be removed. • Expired stamp (5/30/05) from topographic from. South Coast Surveying. This would require new plans in order to be wet stamped due to the age of the documents. • FAR, lot size; current apartment square footage, setbacks, etc. are incorrect in various areas of the MND. • 30 day noticing for CEQA was inadequate. Proof exists MND was not completed until 2/26/08. Notification was emailed to me evening of 2/27/08. There is proof of improper notice on the apartment building, no noticing of resident tenants within 100 feet of project. I objected to the noticing being inadequate and made the request (3/20/08) for public hearing to be continued, it was motioned, seconded, but we were then told public comment would be heard. We were informed of ex -parte communication that the applicant would be late as he had some bugs in his power point presentation. Some residents waited for 4 hours to speak only to be told the item had been continued. When I asked about this, I was told that it was confusing and that they didn't vote on it. }/1 \ COMMENTS TO MND COMMENTS: C -2: I never received the mailing for public review, only the public hearing notice. It was sent to public hearing house before it was released to public. It was sent as a Negative Dec, not a MIND. "Occupants" were NEVER notified. Staff confirmed that only homeowners were notified. The MIND was not available until after 2/26/08. The site wasn't posted on the 20'h, but even if it had been, 30 -day review would end on 3/21/08. Therefore, your notice was incorrect and therefore invalid. I asked for an extension of time for the public comment period from the lead agency. They did not respond that they would extend public comment period. The fact that the hearing was postponed does not obligate you to accept public comment, nor is that what you have done. Documents state public comment has been closed. Planning commission hearing was ultimately continued, although I asked for its continuance based on improper noticing. No action to renotice was taken. C -3 Disagree C -4 Neptune may not fit the "cul -de -sac" term, however, this is a moot point. The point is that Neptune terminates at 5406 Neptune. It has never provided vehicle access for apartment building. Please see prior notes regarding title policy that proves that the project has no right to extend Neptune, as they have no access rights. You fail to consider or analyze my initial point that traffic is a result of number of bedrooms or square footage. You have increased square footage of property from 48,744 to 57,906, increased bedroom count from 68 to 84, which will obviously increase tenants and traffic. You refer to a "connection" to Neptune. You admit that there will be no convenient beach access created to Seashore or any other street. It appears applicant would prefer to dump all the traffic for this project in front of the Neptune homes. You state project connection site would be clearly marked and appear as a private property to discourage public from entering and using the driveway as a pass -thru. How will this be accomplished? How will applicant make it appear private? Again, do the existing residents supply the sidewalks and parking for the public while applicant enjoys "private parking status "? All 12 spaces of visitor parking will be marked clearly as "residents only ". Again, applicant wants to enjoy "private" parking status even though project is directly adjacent to our city park, while all of us that have owned property for years are to supply the parking demands for the city. Comment that states that creating a circular traffic rttem would be minimal, including beach traffic are arguable. The area between 54` and 56`" is renowned for its fantastic surf. We have always accepted the surfer's need to use and park in our area, and we are fine with that, but this will create the early morning search for parking. If Neptune is opened up numerous visitors will drive down the road to loop around in a search for parking. As it stands, one can look from 54th and determine easily if there is 12 �1 parking in front of the three homes, if not, they don't bother going down the street. This will not be the case if this street is opened. You state that it is inaccurate that project will force over one hundred cars from the development. This is not inaccurate. It is common sense, 84 bedrooms, 84 tenants, throw in a few visitors and you are there. C -5 There are significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant C -6 You assumed that 25 feet was the maximum side setback. It is not. The lot width of prox 465' x's 8% is the setback. 25' is used as a minimum. Therefore, based on 37.5', my view would be maintained. Further the setback originally demanded 50' from the side. Maintaining the 20' setback from Seashore and 37.5' side yard, would preserve my view. You refer to a conforming project; however, a conforming project based on MFR would allow setbacks that would provide ocean views. This project is not conforming, it is going for modifications, use permits, etc. You refer to that social information can be in any form the agency desires. This project effects low income renters and as such per CEQA, needs to be evaluated under "environmental justice ". One of the criteria for evaluation would be if there were any high or adverse Project impacts that would disproportionately affect minority or low - income populations? According to rent survey in 2006 13 of the 54 units were low income. The numbers were addressed earlier in this letter. C -8 "The applicant has concluded ". Herein lies the problem, this is obvious spin put forth by a developer that is looking to change the character of the neighborhood. The developer may not realize that his vision may not be what the tenants envision, it may not be what the surrounding residents envision, the vision applicant promotes is one that maximizes profit potential at the expense of the surrounding tenants and neighbors. Three years of construction noise, loss of thousands of dollars in rents, loss of the only stable apartment rentals for low and moderate income professionals, and loss of our market values is apparently a vision this applicant won't open his eyes to see. C -9 General plan did not set out to have one type of building. They specifically allowed for areas of SFR, R -2, MFR and reflected this in the zoning. These surrounding homes purchased knowing the existing zoning. Applicant would like to have the benefit of the MFR for height, the benefit of SFR for the setbacks, and increase the footprint, height, density while reducing parking spaces by 41, completely inhibiting public access to the beach through the "private" community. Adjacent to the project, Neptune properties are 34' wide and Seashore properties are 40' wide. The apartment was compatible with the generous setbacks and is the reason we purchased our home where we did. The project is not compatible. C -10 Applicant states setbacks are comparable with R -1 and R -2. The issue is that this project is in MFR Flawed logic, you state, "similar setback and distancing requirements are common throughout the City and have not proven detrimental". Given this logic, one 13 113 could just pick and choose zoning as long as it is common throughout the city. The zoning was put in place with a particular long -term vision for the city that was an attempt to be inclusionary. Removing the apartment building is a blatant attempt to remove lower income residents. C -11 According to staff, they consider any floor space above the second story to be 3 stories. This is not a universal definition. I was referring to true three story buildings, which the apartment is. Three stories are not the norm and they are not the buildings directly adjacent to this project. Three stories by definition require prox. 28' for a flat roof, as such. 28/32, appears inconsistent with area as current bldg is prox 28'. Again, the appearance that going 5' over the 28' with a use permit is too massive for the area given the close proximity to the adjacent neighbors. Although allowed, the drawings don't show ;measurements for the additional height of the chimney that would add further to increased height. C -12 Another different setback number, going from 71/2 to 13. The setback modification that is being asked for is 3'. 13' is not adequate, but I don't trust that plans wouldn't be revised later to take advantage of 3' setback. C -15 I do not trust the numbers, as there are numerous discrepancies. I would like to see the worksheets substantiating the numbers. As previously stated, landscape area is reported in MND as 32.2 %, whereas on the plans (C -1 & A -1) it states proposed landscape as 28.24 %. Numbers you quote in your comment for proposed landscaping of 18,390 square feet represent 28.24% are again, inconsistent with the MND page 40, wherein it shows 32.2% 20,987 square feet. Plans do not adequately reflect public right of way. Existing grass area shows planned trees. These trees would be on public right of way with the expense of maintenance landing on the city. 10 trees for city to maintain could average $10,000 per year. C -16 There was not a named street, but this area was accessed from River to Seashore many years ago. It was on private property, but it was used to access Seashore, proof still exists, as there is a curb cut where it was once used. Property owner fenced off this area many years ago to stop access from the public. Neptune is not a defined cul -de -sac, but is a dead end street and never intended for adjacent property access. C -17 Faulty Logic. 54 units consisting of less square footage, less bedrooms, less height, with far larger setbacks cannot be considered to be more dense than proposed. Assume you have a 4- unit apartment complex that is 4,000 square feet and you replace it with a 10,000 square foot single family home, does that make the home project less dense because it is 3 units less? Of course not! Charts may indicate less traffic, but common sense tells a different story. 14 ��,j. C -18 It was the MND that used the FAR in the first place. This is still an effective way to compare the two, and once again, the numbers on the MND were way off. MND presented FAR as .76 when in fact it was .91. Further, how can you do the floor area limit when you don't know what setbacks you will be using? Stating the obvious that the large setback are not typical for surrounding development fails to take notice that this is an apartment building, specifically zoned for this purpose. As far as stating the park will remain public, unfortunately, you have already stated that your applicant will try to discourage public entry through your development, leading one to believe that this will further the public opinion that the park belongs to the applicant project. C -29 Health risks to the young & elderly with exposures of up to three years during construction, asbestos in the air, dirt and lead as a result of vacant land all have an effect. C -31 Commenter was not confused. I was stating that the model that was used can have questionable results and gave an example of such. C -33 2006 Public works required retention of the city trees in the sidewalk off Seashore, then required in 2007 removing them. Questionable certainly. C -39 Typographical errors cannot be ignored when they lead to confusion and obfuscation of project details. This is contrary to CEQA guidelines. C -41 More typos lead to more confusion C -43 You state lead paint is only a concern when ingested. However, lead paint can be inhaled and ingested through construction activities. C -49 Parking spaces are 101 of which, these spaces were never mentioned in the MND. Again, it appears to be more spin. Using parking spaces per unit, regardless of size or bedrooms is disingenuous. I know what is required; I am stating what the reality of reduced parking spots will be. Our city council direction is to require more parking and beach access. This is a step backwards. Further, once again we have inconsistencies in the numbers, wherein you state there are 63 parking spaces. MND states 60, layout plans show 60, but this discrepancy continues. C -50 There are numerous mistakes that lean favorably and falsely toward the project being presented in a more favorable light. You didn't address all inconsistencies. C -51 This should be broken down for a transparent picture, combining numbers appears deceptive. C -52 Restated, with appropriate conforming setbacks for MFR my view would not be impacted. Issue ignored was that the view corridor was known for a number of years, yet MND failed to address. 15 I.0 C -60 Missed my point. There never has been vehicular access to Neptune and should not have been included in this statement. C -61 Seashore village has no right to use Neptune ave. See above title policy notes. It is not less intense and will increase traffic and exacerbate parking problems. C -62 This design alternative is only infeasible if applicant determines it is not profitable enough for him and his investors. Cramming the lot full of square box condos as the only feasible project is short sighted. This is a wide flat lot, there are no physical restrictions, and given that this is not a remodel, there is no excuse for this line of reasoning. Unfortunately, this appears to be all about maximizing investor potential at the expense of Newport Beach residents and tenants. Again, you have stated inconsistencies regarding the roadway width. The comment states internal roadway will be 26 feet. This is inconsistent with plans showing 24' and other areas referenced above. Further, the assertion that it would actually improve the mobility of large emergency vehicles serving Neptune is untrue. The three homes on Neptune are all on River Ave. as well and fire access and fire hydrant is on the corner of River. River is 60 feet and Neptune is 30 feet less sidewalks. There is nothing positive about opening up Neptune. C -64 City could still be held liable if found there was willful negligence causing harm to parties. C -67 Plans fail to show where trash receptacles will be (or mail service). C -69 Fire department required fire hydrant in 2006 and in 2007 was not required. C -71 There appear to be only 60 parking spaces on plans. Parking space should be per sq. ftg. or bedrooms C -81 Noise analysis was inadequate regarding the use of air conditioners and is addressed in detail in this letter C -82 TNDG stated applicant could pay up to 2 million. However, no analysis can be assured as the applicant has the documentation that pro formas are based on. C -83 What difference would lowering the height be on just one home on both streets when those directly adjacent are taller? This makes no sense at all. It is more important for the setbacks to be maintained, making the height differential less obvious. C -85 I already guessed this applicant would leave the public area open to the residents as it is a benefit to them and again appears that the park is private. The applicant is effectively inhibiting access to the only public parking for the park as project residents (who can afford to feed the meters) will simply access these spots as well. C -99 There are no marked walkway or pathways through the project on plans except where there is private parking. Walking through a private complex alley, that you 16 116 admittedly state will try to discourage public accessing the road, will indeed inhibit public access to the beach. View Corridor Analysis photos (page 2) are incorrect. They are taken from the ground floor levels. The view is only from the upper unit balcony & living room as previously stated. Page 6 Setback deceptive. Why would drawing show a line from garage at 20' when that is not the footprint? It also shows height limit at 29, yet item C -83 states that two structures will be at the 24 -foot base height limit. This is still 29', still 11 feet taller than my building. Page 10 phasing map shows alley access as 24' I didn't have the time to go through to correct inconsistencies in Staff Report with the MND and late filed documents. I am not implying fault with the staff. I am aware that the report is only as good as the information given to staff. However, the following inconsistencies should be pointed out: Staff report (p 5) states existing apartment building is 54,739, however plans DP- 1 shows existing building as 48,743. This is the correct number. Report incorrectly calls extension from Neptune a "driveway ". This was confirmed from public works not to use alley. However, plans also show it as driveway, private road, and is referred to in documents as the alley. It also has to be consistent with a 26' fire access road, yet none of the plans show this. Easement on plans shows 24'. Nowhere are setbacks addressed from the required fire access lane. Surrounding neighborhood requires setbacks from Neptune. This would be inconsistent to have Neptune become an alley /fire access requiring sidewalk on one side without setbacks. Plans, MND and staff report are inconsistent throughout. Staff report (p 5) project description states 63 parking spots. Page 2 MND states 60 parking spaces. Plans show on C -1 63 parking spaces, yet A -1 & PL -1 plans appear to show only 60 parking spaces. The lack of required numbers and the illegibility of the plans prove inadequate for CEQA. I ask for this project to be denied. It is too dense, too tall, will exacerbate parking problems, not aesthetically pleasing, harm adjacent property values, and remove the apartment building for moderately low income renters. Any "in- lieu" fees, will do nothing to help the people this project will displace. Please deny this project. Lennie DeCaro for public hearing 4 -17 -08 17 ��1 Page 1 of 2 Murillo, Jaime From: justice4l Uustice4l @cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 10:24 AM To: Murillo, Jaime Subject: Re: Request information as to the Notice of Determination for 5515 River Ave. (Seashore Village) Hi Jaime, Thanks for the info., although this should have been immediately sent to me. Please note that after speaking to my attorney, it was confirmed that the NOD doesn't count because we filed a timely appeal. Therefore, the 30 day statute of limitations for filing our CEQA challenge begins afterwe have exhausted all administrative remedies through the final decision from our appeal to the City Council. To reiterate again, we are objecting to the entire project consisting of all applications, the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the resolution and the Notice of Determination. We believe that an EIR is required and oppose the project as well. Council will need to specifically address all issues. Please forward any additional information that may be pertinent to this project. Please advise us prior to "confirming" the hearing date as well. Thanks again, Lennie DeCaro - -- Original Message - -- From: Mudlo. Jaime To: jus c e41 Cc: Lepo _Davi..d.. ; AL.ford Patrick_. Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 7:28 AM Subject: RE: Request information as to the Notice of Determination for 5515 River Ave. (Seashore Village) Good Morning Lennie, A copy of the NOD is attached. Jaime From: justice4l [mailto:justice4l @cox.net] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 5:22 PM To: Murillo, Jaime Cc: Lepo, David; Alford, Patrick Subject: Re: Request information as to the Notice of Determination for 5515 River Ave. (Seashore Village) Hi, Please provide the copy of the NOD, as the challenge needs to be filed by this week. Thanks, Lennie 05/29/2008 � 1Y Page 2 of 2 -- Original Message - -- From: Murillo _Jaime To: iustick Cc: Leo David ; Alford, Patrick Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 3:00 PM Subject: RE: Request information as to the Notice of Determination for 5515 River Ave. (Seashore Village) Lennie, Notice of Determination for the project was filed on April 18, 2008. , thank you for clarifying your appeal. We will be preparing a staff report addressing your appeal for the Council's review. The City Council hearing has been tentatively scheduled for June 10, 2008. you, e Murillo ,ciate Planner of Newport Beach 644 -3209 644 -3229 Fax m: justice4l (mailto:justice4l @cox.net] t: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 2:34 PM Lepo, David; Murillo, Jaime jest: Request information as to the Notice of Determination for 5515 River Ave. (Seashore village) Hi David, I just wanted to get the information as to whether you filed a Notice of Determination on this project and if so, when was this filed. Please provide complete information. This would be a major concern if this has been filed and I have not been notified. I have a limited amount of time to appeal so I will need your response on this. today. I am sure you have been notified that I am appealing planning commission decision on the entire application, which of course includes the 50 pages of objections that include objecting to the adoption of the mitigated negative declaration. Just for clarification so there is no confusion, I am appealing the adoption of the mitigated negative declaration as well as all of the items iterated at the top of my appeal. This includes the adoption of the MND, the resolution approving the CR2007 -001, NT2007- 001, UP2007 -011, MD2007 -01, any and all issues pertaining to PA2007 -100. so much for your time. Lennie 05/29/2008 11� Page 1 of 3 Murillo, Jaime From: justice4l oustice4l @cox.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 2:51 PM To: Alford, Patrick; Clauson, Robin Cc: Murillo, Jaime Subject: Re: public records act request for Newport Beach applicant 5515 River documents ( sent to Lepo, Alford, city clerk) Attachments: Per Ceqa Notice Requirements 3- 18- 08.doc To the city of Newport Beach attorney, et al, I am very troubled by the numerous issues regarding this project. I have included an attachment that addressed my concerns regarding invalid notice and demand for continuation and extension of public comment with new notification. An immediate response from the attorney and planning director are required. Regards, Lennie DeCaro - -- Original.Message — From: Alford. Patrick To: justice4l Cc: Murillo. -Jaime Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:35 AM Subject: RE: public records act request for Newport Beach applicant 5515 River documents ( sent to Lepo, Alford, city clerk) Dear Ms. DeCaro, Extending the public comment period will require that the public hearing for project be continued to a later date. The project is on the Planning Commission agenda and has been noticed. Only the Planning Commission can approve a continuance and they can only do so at the March 20 meeting. Therefore, you will need to make your request to the Planning Commission. If you send a letter, fax, or email to the Planning Department, we will see that it is delivered to the Planning Commission. I should point out that the Planning Commission has a particularly heavy agenda for this meeting. There is a good chance that this project will be continued due to time constraints. Incidentally, I checked.with the State Clearing House. Their records show that the public review period for the MND started on 02/19/08; therefore, it will end on 03/20/08. As for the documents you would like to review, they are all contained in the project files. They are available for you to review at the Planning Department during normal business hours. Copies can be made upon request. Patrick J. Alford I Planning Manager 05/29/2008 l b Page 2 of 3 City of Newport Beach I Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. ( Newport Beach, CA 92658 (949) 644 -3235 1 (949) 644.3229 (FAX) I nalfordP-city.newport-beach ca.us From: justice4l [mailto:justice4l @cox.net] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 3:51 PM To: Alford, Patrick Subject: Fw: public records act request for Newport Beach applicant 5515 River documents ( sent to Lepo, Alford, city clerk) -- Original Message - - -- From: lustice41 To: dlePo(c'bcity.newport-beach rz us Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 3:45 PM Subject: public records act request for Newport Beach applicart 5515 River documents Hi Patrick Thank you for your time today. As lead agency. I requested an extension of time for public comment on the MND and provided a copy of the letter sent to city clerk and Mr. Nichols (below in italics) demanding such. You stated that Jaime Murillo wrote the staff summary and that David Lepo assigned Mr. Murillo to take over for Brandon Nichols handling of the Seashore Village Project. Could you confirm who would have approved staff report! what planning staff members will be at the hearing this week? I also am still requesting the documents described in my public records act request As for the extension, please consider the following 15201. Public Participation Public participation is an essential part of the CEQA process. Each public agency should include provisions in its CEQA procedures for wide public involvement, formal and informal, consistent with its existing activities and procedures, in order to receive and evaluate public reactions to environmental issues related to the agency's activities. Such procedures should include, whenever possible, making environmental information available in electronic format on the Internet, on a web site maintained or utilized by the public agency. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21000, 21082, 21108, and 21152, Public Resources Code; Environmental Defense Fund v. Coastside County Water District, (1972) 27 Cal. App. 3d 695; People v. County of Kern, (1974) 39 Cal. App. 3d 830; County of1hyo v. City ofLos Angeles, (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 185. Discussion: This section declares the importance of public participation as an element of the CEQA process. This section encourages agencies to provide notice on the internet when possible. Internet posting offers the public yet another means of being informed about a project. In Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd District Agricultural, Assoc. (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929, the court emphasized that the public holds a "privileged position" in the CEQA process "based on a belief that citizens can make important contributions to environmental protection and on notions of democratic decision making." I request an extension of time for the public comment or a postponement of hearing, I will need to have an answer by tomorrow. Thanks very much for your time, Lennie(949)240 -2606 1 am requesting an extension of time to respond to the MND, based on over 1.000 pages of documents to review and the shortened time period doesnt give the fu1130 days for all the available documents to review. Documents were not made available online unfit February 28, 2008 and the 10 exhibits referenced in agenda are not included nor are they available as part of the MND. 1 request the 10 exhibits be put online and emaited to me. 1 request a response to my request for the extension of time for MND response. The following are public records and subject to review. I request the following documents that were submitted on this project in 2006, CR2006 -001, M02006-045, NT2006 -001, UP2006-007, PA2006-091 submitted in 2007; CR2007 -001, MD2007 -044, NT 2007-001, UP2007 -011, PA2007 -100, K200700508. 05/29/2008 `S 1 Page 3 of 3 I request the environmental information forms submitted on 5515 River, for both sets of applications (2006 & 2007) to be emailed back to me prior to Wednesday, due to the public hearing on March 20, 2008. 1 will be utilizing this information for my response to the MND. Lennie DeCaro 05/29/2008 i� a RE: Seashore Villaee, LLC To the City attorney, et al, Newport Beach has violated the noticing requirements per CEOA (15072 & Section 21092.3), rendering notice invalid. I request a continuation of hearing (3- 20 -08) and new noticing for public comment time period to be extended. Please respond immediately as to your decision. Staff response, was that State Clearinghouse notice was February 19, 2008, therefore, deadline is 3- 20 -08. This has no bearing on city responsibility to adequately notice the public. State Clearinghouse notification is required because project requires a Coastal Permit, etc. Public notice was mailed Mar 7, 2008 and documents for MND were not complete until Mar 17, 2008, 3 days before public hearing. Staff responded that only planning commission can continue the hearing and not until the actual hearing. I request lead agency (Newport Bch) grant extension of time period for public comment, based on invalid noticing procedures. I further demand confirmation that this hearing will be continued. This can be done through the staff stating in the agenda that it is set for continuation to a future date and they would additionally announce this at the planning commission meeting and inform that new noticing is required. CEQA re uires 30 -day review period. Notice was mailed Mar 7, 2008 and is entitled as "Notice of Public Hearing"; it is not noticed as a "notice of intent" ( "NOI ") to adopt a mitigated negative declaration. However, notice states: "It is the present intention of the City to accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. In either classification, 30 days notice is required. Notification does not provide for full 30 -day review and invalidates the Notice. A request for an extension of review period is appropriate due to the volume of documents to review. Further, documents weren't completed until 3- 17 -08, a clear violation. Staff response to my document request addressed the "exhibits ", that became available 3 -17 -08 and referenced above as not being completed prior to the public comment hearing. The following additional documents I requested are not included in the project file, they have been requested through the "Public Records Act Request ". I have not received an adequate response, or the documents. They should be made available via email and the city has a fiduciary responsibility to respond to this request. Again, documents requested per the PRA are: The following are public records and subject to review. 1 request the following documents that were submitted on project in the following years: • 2006; CR2006 -001, MD2006 -045, NT2006 -001, UP2006 -007, PA2006 -091 • 2_007; CR2007 -001, MD2007 -044, NT 2007 -001, UP2007 -011, PA2007 -100, K200700508 I request the environmental information forms submitted on 5515 River, for both sets of applications (2006 & 2007) to be emailed back to me prior to Wednesday, due to the 1�3 public hearing on March 20, 2008. I will be utilizing this information for my response to the AND There are numerous problems with "Notice of Public Hearing" that render it invalid: • The starting and ending dates for the review period during which the lead agency will receive comments on the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration are not included in notice. • Documents were not available for review until March 17, 2008. (Proof is 3/10/08). These were in the body of the document proving documents were not available for review within time period. Further, I had written objecting to the fact they were not available online. Staff stated they are not required to be online, however, dates prove documents were incomplete and not available at the city until 3/17/08. I am still awaiting response as to which staff approved the report. The CEQA requirements are provided below for clarification. Time is of the essence and I would appreciate an immediate response to the aforementioned requests. Thanks in advance for your time, Lennie DeCaro 15072. Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration (a) A lead agency shall provide a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration to the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the county clerk of each county within which the proposed project is located, sufficiently prior to adoption by the lead agency of the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration to allow the public and agencies the review period provided under Section 15105. (b) The lead agency shall mail a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative decimation to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing and shall also give notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration by at least one of the following procedures to allow the public the review period provided under Section 15105: (1) Publication at least one time by the lead agency in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. If more than one area is affected, the notice shall be published in the newspaper of largest circulation from among the newspapers of general circulation in those areas. (2) Posting of notice by the lead agency on and off site in the area where the project is to be located. (3) Direct mailing to the owners and occupants of contiguous property shown on the latest equalized assessment roll. (c) The alternatives for providing notice specified in subdivision (b) shall not preclude a lead agency from providing, additional notice by other means if the agency so desires, nor shall the requirements of this section preclude a lead agency from providing the public notice at the same time and in the same manner as public notice required by any other laws for the project. (d) The County clerk of each county within which the proposed project is located shall post such notices in the office ofthe county clerk within 24 hours of receipt for a period of at least 20 days. (e) For a project of statewide, regional, or area wide significance, the lead agency shall also provide notice to transportation planning agencies and public agencies which have transportation facilities within Iheirjuusdictions which could be affected by the project as specified in Section 21092.4(a) of the Public Resources Code. 'Transportation facilities" includes: major local arterials and public transit within five miles of the project site and freeways, highways and rail transit service within 10 miles of the project site. (f) A notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration shall specify, the following: (1) A brief description of the proposed project and its location. (2) The starling and ending dales for the review Period during which the lead agency will reCCiVe Comments on the Proposed neeative declaration or mitigated negative declaration. This shall include starting and ending dates for the review period. If the review period has been is shortened pursuant to Section 15105, the notice shall include a statement to that effect. J0 l (3) The date, time, and place of any scheduled public meetings or hearings to be held by the lead agency on the proposed project, when known to the lead agency at the time of notice. (4) The address or addresses where copies of the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration including the revisions developed under Section 15070(6) and all documents referenced in the proposed negative deelaration or mitigated negative declaration are available for review. This location or locations shall be readily accessible to the public during the lead agency's normal working hours. (5) The presence of the site on any of the lists enumerated under Section 65962.5 of the Cmvemment Code including, but not limited to lists of hazardous waste facilities, land designated as hazardous waste property, and hazardous waste disposal sites, and the information in the Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement required under subdivision (f) of that section. (6) Other information specifically required by statute or regulation for a particular project or type of Project- Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Sections 21091, 21092, 21092.2,21092A, 21092.3, 21092.6, and 21151.8, Public Resources Code. Discussion: Section 15072 prescribes the notice requirements for a Negative Declaration. Although most of these requirements are contained in Section 21092 of the statute, the Guidelines provide additional explanation and interpretation. In the interest of clarity, the requirements are combined in one place. Subsection (a)(1) explains what is required by the cross - reference in Section 21092 to Section 6061 of the Government Code. Section 6061 requires publication of a notice at least one time in a newspaper of general circulation. Public Resources Code section 21092 requires that the notice specify the period during which comments will be received, the date, time, and place of any public meetings or hearings on the project, a brief description of the project and its location, and the address where copies of the negative declaration and all documents referenced in the negative declaration are available for review. Section 210923 of the Public Resources Code establishes additional requirements for the filing of notice with the County Clerk for posting during the review period. �� J RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARFMEWf APR 17 2000 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH April 11, 2008 SUSAN CARVALHO 5515 River Avenue, #215 Newport Beach, CA 92663 949 - 515 -0313 CITY OF NEWORT BEACH PLANNING DEVELOPMENT DEPT. ATTN: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner REGARDING: Seashore Village Development (PA2007 -100) Demolition of Las Brisas Apartments This letter is one of challenge to the above- mentioned proposal. I have many concerns regarding this project and ask the Commission to take into account that there is a greater need for rentals in this area than sing- le- family residential units. I ask the PC to please review the past projects that I have noted below. I disagree with the Migiated Negative Declaration and provide information from .past projects to show this project will have a great effect on the community. I hope you will review the past actions of the Planning Commission and reconsider demolishing this much - needed structure. NOTIFICATION OF PROJECT I just wanted to state that for such a grand project, the postings are not sufficient. I have spoken with neighbors of the LB apartment complex, and most were unaware of the project. They had not received mailed notices and didn't notice the postings which were small and located in obscure areas. Being this project would have a great impact on those residing in this area, the Developer should have been more genuine in relaying that a public hearing had been scheduled. (1) ELIMINATION OF VERY LOW AND LOW - AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, AND RENTAL UNITS IN WEST NEWPORT I have reviewed reports, surveys, newspaper articles, etc., regarding Newport Beach and the lack of affordable housing. I personally experienced the lack rentals in Newport, especially studios and one - bedroom units being I methodically searched for them. Nothing in this area compares to Las Brisas Apartments. This building consists of studio apartments,.one bedroom, and two bedroom apartments. It would be a great loss of rental housing (including affordable housing) in the Newport Coastal Zone if you were to approve this project. I truly find it hard to believe the CNB Planning Commission Is actually considering leveling this much needed 54 -unit apartment building in favor of 12 single -unit residential units plus 6 duplex units! I would like to note the many duplex . conversions to condominiums over the past few years. Just months ago, another 10 -unit apartment building @ 1703 Balboa Blvd., was approved for demolition. Note that the 10 -unit building consisted of very low, low - income households. Only to be replaced by 3 single- family units. I do not have an exact count of duplexes that were converted, nor am I aware of the income status of those units. I did notice there were more than 20 units. Those "developments" displaced over 40 Newport Beach residents! Now, this project wants to displace another 54 -plus Newport Beach residents! The count is now above 100 displaced people! When is this going to stop? I am asking ask the Newport Beach Planning Commission to consider the impact these projects are having the renters in this city. Almost seems as though renters, especially those in the lower income range of Newport Beach are being run out of town? As per the Planning Commission Staff Report - January 170, 2008 Agenda Item No. 4: To Summarize and quote a few items... The 10 -unit apartment complex, also in th e 3 very low, 3 low, and 2 moderate - income was not responsible for replacement of the was he responsible for any in -lieu payments housing obligation as per the Mello Act. (2) Coastal Zone, consisted of households. The applicant tow - affordable units, nor to fulfill the replacement tai The reason for this... is that it was not profitable for the applicant/ developer? This is ludicrous, quite shocking, and seemingly in favor of the one with the assets. Is this the way we want Newport Beach to be portrayed? 'If you have the assets, NB will bend the laws, etc., so that you will be profitable in whatever endeavor you choose in NB? "General'Pian... Demolition of the building will result in a new loss of 7 units and the loss of 8 affordable units; however, given the small size of the existing 10 -unit project, the age and poor condition of the existing building, and the fact that the building is non - conforming to the underlying zoning and inconsistent with the General Plan, it is staffs determination that demolition of the building represents a minor impact to the City's overall and affordable housing stock. It should be recognized, however, that future demolitions of apartment projects could result in a negative cumulative impact on the City's overall supply of market rate and affordable dwelling units" * "...future demolitions of apartment projects could result in a negative cumulative impact on the duty's overall supply of martet rate and affordable dwelling units." This was approved just months ago, January 17"'. How could CNB override this just months later, what if any changes occurred that would Ignore this report and future plans? Please, Please review the above report statements before you decide the fate of Las Brisas Apartments. How could this be said and months later CNB Planning Commission approve a project to demolish a 54 -unit apartment building? * *Q.uote from Page 6 of the above - mentioned report: "Summary... Based upon the KMA analysis, it is not feasible . for the applicant to replace the affordable units lost through demolition of the building, nor is it reasonable to assess an in -lieu fee to replace the units. Staff concurs with the analysis and recommends that the applicant be relieved of the replacement obligation under Exemption No.1 discussed earlier in this report (less than 50 acres of vacant, privately owner land available for residential development). Given this conclusion, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Coastal Res. Dev. Permit No. 2006 -003 thereby pennitting the demolition of the 8 existing affordable units." (3) ** All I can comment on this is it appears that CNB is making new codes and /or updating many past city requirements to appease developers. I just cannot believe the discrepancies and conflicts of information I noticed when reviewing the many documents, reports, and studies regarding the Planning Department. * / * *I attached a copy of these pages and the front page of this report to maWeil eaiet^YorVouto'revi@wJwhlch I truly hope you will). III MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS, I have been a resident at Las 60sas for about 8 years. Up until a few years ago we had more units that were considered low income, . affordable housing. There are a few reasons as to why the occupancy level has declined (I believe the number of affordable units is now down to 6). We were informed via meetings at our pool, both last year and this year about the "inevitable" project/demolition of Las Brisas Apartments. Some tenants moved and some were offered money ($10,000 - $18,000) by the Developers to vacate. The households that were given the offers were low to moderate households. This practice seems quite questionable if not fraudulent. Another reason for the high vacancy level is due to the change in the income qualification for prospective tenants. The amount is quite high and was put into effect within the past 1 -1.5 years. This truly narrows the number of tenants that would have normally been considered for tenancy. If you look back prior to the property being in escrow, Las Brisas was always full. This new policy seems to deliberately keep the vacancy level high, thus given the illusion that the need for rental units is low in this area which is definitely not the accurate! One more thing I'd like to add, there have been many articles on how Newport Beach has neglected affordable housing and is out of state compliance laws. I attached one of the more recent news articles indicating this. (4) FINAL STATEMENT I have reviewed many of the correspondence between The CNB, The State of CA, The Coastal Commission, as well as the studies that were.done by both CNB city employees and outside corporations to analyze the City's Housing Codes, Policies, Updates, etc. Frankly, I find it contradicting; CNB seems to be working with these Developers by updating their policies to suit the needs of the Developers, the ones with the assets verses the needs of the community. I love this city and have lived here over 30 years; I grew up here. This is where I hoped to raise my family, and ultimately retire. I was a renter, homeowner, and employee in Newport Beach. I love the people and the many treasures the city has to offer. Unfortunately, due to unplanned events, things have changed for me. I am totally disabled, depend on Social Security Income. Now with the approval of new developments, lack of Newport's compliance with State Housing Needs, etc., I may be forced to leave my home. At the beginning of my disability, I was having great difficulty doing things for myself as I had always done. I was no longer able to drive, cook, or do the many things we all take for granted. I called the City of Newport Beach to ask if there were any programs for people such as myself. They were great and connected me with the organizations I needed to continue to live on my own; which I am extremely and eternally grateful. Because of my disability, I am having much difficulty trying to convey and right what I believe is wrong with our beautiful City. Which, seems to be in "cahoots" with the Developers? Unfortunately, and I hope it won't come to this, I may have to resort to outside assistance to aid in my struggle to live in the place I grew up. Note I am still quite young for Social Security and have a genuine concern for others. I am aware of the many others who have this concern, the seniors, disabled, and so many others live here and plan on living out their lives in this beautiful city. I ask you please review this proposal to demolish Las Brisas Apartments as well as the prior approved projects and reconsider the removal of more rental and affordable units in Newport Beach. Sincerely, Susan Carvalho 949 -515 -0313 5515 River Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 (5) M CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT January 17, 2008 Meeting Agenda Item No. 4 SUBJECT: Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2006 -uus (PA2006 -278) 1703 W. Balboa Boulevard APPLICANT: C. FrankZavala PLANNER: Brandon Nichols, Associate Planner (949) 6443234, bn ictwlsOcitv.newoort- beach.ca.us PROJECT'SUMNARY The, applicant Is, requesting approval of a Coastal Residential Development Pemmt (CRDP) to.ailow.:the demolition -of a 10-und apafinent building located at 1703 W. Beb Boulevard, 6 the CKYs Coastal Zone. The apartment building is projposed m be replaced by three detached single -unit residential strui�ures. The purpose of the CRDP is to 'snsuht hxrr fiatx 'hNidi' Governriient,Coda 'Section '65590 (Mello Ad}, which regulates the,dembtdion of low and moderate income (affordable) dwelling units in the Coastal Zone. In. accordance t with the provisions of the Mello Ad, it has been determined that 8 of the 10 existing units are considered affordable. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Coastal Residential Development Pemmt No 2007-W3. Proiect Sattkho The project site is located on the Balboa Peninsula at the southwest comer of W. Balboa Boulevard and 174' Street. The 10 -unit apartment building straddles three legal lots, within the Two - Family Residential (R -2) zone diistrict. The 10 -unit apartment building is therefore non- conforming to the underlying zoning designation and inconsistent with the property's General Plan designation of Two -Unk Residential (RT). Properties to the east west, and south of the site are also zoned R,2, and developed with :single- and two -unit detached residential structures. The Marina Park Planned Community (PC -51) is located to the north of the property across W. Balboa Boulevard. J'� I E5 Coastal Residential Development Permit Ho. 2008-083 January 17, 2008 Page 3 cost to provide 8 replacement units in an ofi-elte location at $3.05 million ($382,000 per unit). To determine whether or not it would be reasonable for the appkM to pay the in -lieu fee, KMA estimated the value of the existing 10 -nark apartment complex (by capitalmng the projects net operating Income) and compared fhis figure to the value of the property If developed with 3 single -unit detached residential structures (the applicant's proposed project). Basedon the WM anslysis;.the' -value of the property as a 10 -unit apartment building Is $2.1 miglon. To calculate the value of the property if developed with three single -unit detached residential structures, KMA calculated the foibwing: 1. -Estimated construction costs ($3.97 noon) 2. Projected sales. revenue ($821 miWon) 3. Thretlmld developer profit of to% of sales revenue ($821,000) After subtracting construction costs and threshold WUM from saiss revenue, KMA oonduded that the value of the property as 3 single -unit detached structures ($1.82rrllion)-is actually less them the value of the property as developed with a 10-unl airarmteot complex. ($2-1 mlllon). Because the financial. analysis Indicates that the WOPosed PrOIed W111:9enera%e.a lower realm than the eMsling apartment building, KMA concludes-thik the A0"Want cannot feasibly make any kn -lieu payment to fu1811 the re ;nlacemeritliousin9'obligation. The foHOW rg General Plan Housing Element policies and programs were considered relative to tleproposed development: Demolition of the building will resin in a net loss of 7 units and the loss of 8 a8ordable units; however, given the small size of the existing 10-unit projsd, the age and poor condition of the existing buildiing, and the fad that the building is noncocdonnirg to the underlying zonmg and Inconsistent wit the General Plan, it Is staffs determination that demolition of the bulidIng represents a minor impact to the City's overag and affordable ta Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2008,003 January 17.2008 Page 6. housing.stocIL It should be recognized, however. that future demolitions of aparmend projects could result In a negative cumulative impact on the City's overall supply of market rata and affordable dwelft units. Based upon the KMA analysis. it is not feasible for the applicant to reirlsoo the affordable units lost through demolition of the building. nor Is It reasonable to assess an iMlau fee to replace the units. Staff concurs with the analysis and recommends that the applicant be refieved of the replacement obligation under Exemption No. 1 discussed canter In fns report (less than 50 some of vacant privately owner faro available for residential development). Given this conclusion, staff recommends the Planning Corrunission approve Coastal .Residential Development Permit No. 2006-003 thereby parmtling the demolition of the 8 e)"I ng affordable units. Alternatives The Planning Commission has the following alter aitNw: 1. Determine that replacement of all or a portion of the odsl'mg affordable units is fswJbI% and require the applicant to provide for their replacement Based upon the KMA analysis. this would result in a cost to the applicant of apprordmafey $382.000 par unit This assumes the applicant would choose to acquire and rehabilifata the unit(s). 2. Deny the Coastal Residential Developmem Permit. thereby Preventing demolition of the aperMant building and the 8 axlsft affordable unrls. ErrvironmentalrReNew Staff has reviewed the proposed project, and has determined it to be exempt from the requirements. of the California Environmental Quality Act under Class 32 (In -Fill DsveloPMant Projects). This exemption applies to environmentally benign in-101 projects which are consistent with local :general plan and zoning requirements. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice Of this hearing was published in the Daly Plot mailed to property owners within 300 fast of the property and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city webaite. Lzs-i P*s,� f.�mtarns Fatlatusrtn, . Pz�e7 1 f'ep_Pe.a hv: SUbntr}°CC�'bq -S.g oxivre - - lot v�Z "tune, ^ Grand n}�tGN(LS FiSswla e ,henna ° 3VK7 }1 _LE,oe+,�)ciR ?�"r. a!��G�i ?5" J - n��iJi it 1. l�MA f;narc;ak �easlbFliy AnaitlsiL 2, i'� MA Zn- Llev fee Analysis 31 r—o m�eprH Cabe. �ec�'ri:1 &615 Tb �iy,�.1��� -1!o lac ° ?') . C ` Iva,, �� n' a*n� t��^ +F Pita✓ n ZV� I 'r H' �.G') '� ri s reppr-! Jot- X13 7 DAi .-2-0(::>7 Comment Letter Phone: (949) 433 -4827 Lennie DeCaro Owner: 5406 & 5408 Neptune Newport Beach, CA 92663 March 13, 2008 Via email ( BNichols&city .newnort- beach.ca.us) (949) 644 -3309 Original mailed to: City of Newport Beach Attn: Brandon Nichols 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca 92663 Email: iustice4l@,cox.net RE: 5515 River Ave. Mitigated Negative Declaration (Seashore Village, LLC) Dear Mr. Nichols, planning department, & planning commissioners, Lennie DeCaro, (DeCaro), in opposition to this project provides the following comments on the mitigated negative declaration (MND) for the 5515 River project, (Seashore Village, LLC). The opposition considers this project to have numerous significant adverse environmental impacts on the applicant, surrounding area, and city of Newport Beach. The project will adversely impact residents public access to the beach, negatively effecting environmental justice with displacement of low income tenants, project will increase traffic on Neptune Ave. through the expansion and density of project, it will negatively impact privacy, sunlight, increase noise, reduce on- street parking, and is contrary to the goals of Newport Beach general plan. Project will heavily impact nearby residents during the construction phase of the project in terms of air quality, noise, traffic, and negative fiscal impacts will fall on the residents, as it will be nearly impossible to rent property to anyone that would have to put up with at least two years of construction. There is no mention of any mitigation to property owners for loss of rents, there is no mention as to a performance bond to the city to ensure that work would be completed within their "goal" timeframe. Currently, "large" builders are facing having bonds called, inability to pay subcontractors and are having projects stopped in midstream. This is a likely scenario with this ill thought out project and the residents will ultimately pay the price. This project would also lead to a diminution of property values, negatively impact homeowners whose patios and frontage are on Neptune Avenue, as project seeks to turn this street into an alley. The aesthetics of the area will be negatively affected, specifically injured are the immediate surrounding neighbors. There is also an invalid assumption of "less traffic" based on formula using "housing type" instead of "room count ". This incorrect assumption allowed exclusion of traffic study based on less than 300 trips per day. Project is inconsistent with stated goals of the cities, inconsistent with character of neighborhood, study has not been presented to prove that added residents would not negatively impact services including police, school, and library. There is an incomplete water plan that was submitted, invalid income survey done by sellers own management company, (recently hired within the past year), this study lacks impartiality and is doubtfully certified, but unable to review as it was not included in eq5 this MND. There is further potential project bias from involvement with applicant architect on General Plan/LCP implementation committee, which was intended to primarily include public input. This committee, addressed some of the very issues challenged in this MND, and was to involve the public, utilizing architects only as a subcommittee. Instead, this committee changed and became contrary to the original stated intended purpose and city council resolution and included numerous architects (or related fields); absent are detailed minutes and public input. Further, this project is contrary to Coastal Commission goals of public access to the beach. There is inadequate study of the alternatives to this project, which were suggested by DeCaro in the spirit of compromise. These suggestions by DeCaro would solve the majority of the negative impacts. Noticing was also inadequate as documents were not released online until February 28, 2008 and further, none of the 10 exhibits that are listed in the Planning Commission Agenda were attached or available online as of 3- 16 -08. 30 Days from 2 -20 -08 would also have deadline incorrect for review period, this would conclude on 3- 21 -08. DeCaro asserts an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared, circulated and ultimately certified, instead of the proposed MND, because there is substantial adequate evidence to support a fair argument that the project may, and in fact will have significant adverse environmental impacts to traffic, land use, noise, aesthetics, air quality, and safety amongst the other aforementioned issues. CEQA requires only one issue to support a fair argument to demand an EIR; this project contains numerous factual arguments that support a demand for an EIR. Further, the failure of the applicant to indemnify the city for CEQA challenges to this project, will leave the city in the position of having to absorb costs for legal challenges to the MND that may result in substantial damages awarded to a successful challenge to the MND. The city should uphold it's fiduciary responsibilities to the citizens and city and not grant the discretionary approvals for said project to the applicant and demand an EIR for any subsequent project revisions. This would be the most appropriate action that would responsibly act in a manner that is protective of the residents and city from cost of potential litigation in a challenge to the MND. DeCaro further asserts the MND does not adequately analyze the impacts and fails to clearly describe the numerous impacts the project will create. AN EIR IS REQUIRED I request this project complete an Environmental Impact Report as the mitigated negative declaration has not addressed the numerous issues that were raised to staff prior to release of the MND, nor do they adequately address the issues that have been raised in the following objections to the MND. There is no doubt that a fair argument can be made that numerous potential significant effects remain that have not been addressed nor disclosed in the mitigated negative declaration. The CEQA guidelines equate fair argument and substantial evidence as one in the same. Substantial evidence consists of facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts and expert opinion supported by facts. The MND's analysis of impacts is legally inadequate, as it fails to clearly describe the projects impacts, and offers no mitigation for the unstated impacts. CEQA requires preparation of an EIR whenever a project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code 21151.) "If there is substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary does not dispense with the need for an EIR when it can still be "fairly argued" that the project may have a significant impact." (Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106Cal.App.3d988, 1001.) Therefore, the appropriateness of an MND is only when, due to the nature of the project or the mitigation measures that have been accepted by the project proponent before the CEOA review process begins, there is not a fair argument that there may be adverse impacts. "Mitigated negative declaration" means a negative declaration prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment." Per Public Resources Code section 21064.5 Additionally, "the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. "(CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 (b).) As an example, the threshold for finding negative impacts to be "cumulatively significant" can be found, because the nature of this area and the Neptune Avenue cul -de -sac have been a consistently quiet area and street for decades. The intense amount of traffic, noise, and air pollution generated on Neptune avenue as a result of this project attempting to turn Neptune into an alley, and potentially forcing over one hundred cars, (just from the development), coupled with additional beach traffic that would use this to loop through neighborhood in search of parking, make this an extremely significant finding. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 718 -721.) Further the projects impact on traffic analysis depends upon the existing setting. (City of Orange v. Valenti (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 240, 249.) The Projects significant impacts must be adequately addressed, as well as address the identified mitigation measures that can reduce impacts and describes and compares the impacts of the potentially feasible alternatives. If the only reason the alternative is not studied is due to a prospective developer's profit potential, then clearly outside interests are being protected over long.time residents quality of life. (3.1) AESTHETIC IMPACTS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT "Any substantial, negative effect of a project on view and other features of beauty could constitute a "significant" environmental impact under CEQA." (Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4a' 1597,1604.) According to the California Court of Appeal, lay opinions that articulate the basis of the opinion can constitute substantial evidence of a negative aesthetic impact. (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assoc., Inc. v. Montecito Water District (2004) 116 Cal.App.4a' 396, 402.) Expert testimony on the matter is not required because the overall aesthetic impact of a project is a subjective matter for loll which personal observations are sufficient evidence of the impact. (Id.; Oro Fine Gold Mining Corp. V. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App3d872, 882.) One of the effected properties, 5408 Neptune Avenue, has a direct view of the ocean from the living room & balcony. This view has a straight line of sight directly to the public access opening for the beach. View corridor map (exhibit 2 p. 75 from MND) illustrates the view corridor to my property was substantiated; yet no mitigations or discussions addressed this issue. The current apartment building legal height is of no consequence as the building is setback from 5408 Neptune by at least 60'. This large unencumbered parking lot offers the uninterrupted view and is evidenced in applicant picture 11 a, where the large setbacks are obvious. Our property was purchased nearly 30 years ago based in part on the understanding of the benefits of living next to the building with the current zoning and setbacks and we paid a premium for this additional space next to our home. I have objected to applicant(s) and city regarding the numerous negative impacts, yet the MND doesn't address my ocean view, nor does MND address any mitigation. Our view is a direct line of sight to the (prox 50') open space on the sand. However, with rooftop decking, the view would be even greater. It is inarguable that there is a significant value placed on ocean views, amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars in difference between view and non -view properties. If the discretionary approvals for modifications are approved, I would lose the ocean view in its entirety, suffer an extreme loss in marketability and enjoyment of property, lose the privacy from new unit proximity and incur safety, traffic, runoff drainage, and noise issues through the prospect of turning our cul -de -sac into an alley. Plans for extension of "the sunset view park" will also have public views impacted that were not addressed in the MND. The modification permit (Chapter 20.93 establishes findings required for approval of a modification permit. To approve the modification the following three findings must be made: 1. "The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that strict application of the zoning code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning code." Clearly this doesn't exist, there is no practical difficulty that revising plans couldn't accommodate. The only physical hardship would be that the project would transfer hardships to adjoining properties as the result of granting of this modification permit. The project has no practical difficulty; modification need is created solely by applicant's choice of design, rather than any innate characteristic of the lot. Adequate space exists for a scaled down version. This is new construction and there are a number of design alternatives that could provide full utilization of the lot while maintaining the required setbacks. The height modification can also be realized by a:different design as well. Units are not marginal in size; in fact they are quite large, easy to scale down. 2. "The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood" !qY This finding cannot be made. Existing neighborhood consists of two story buildings with majority 24' or less. Proposed project exceeds this considerably. Reducing side yard widths will create the appearance of a huge mass project that will tower over the existing residences. The "existing" neighborhood included the current apartment building for nearly forty years and was to provide for a mix of uses that were planned to include an apartment building, duplexes and single - family areas. This modification allows for buildings that are too tall, too close to existing residences and too dense. NOT compatible. 3. "The granting ofsuch an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or improvements in the neighborhood." This finding cannot be made either. This development is directly adjacent to neighbors and directly negatively will impact them. This development is in direct view of the public. This development will obscure views to the beach and its massing will overwhelm the area and take away the open area that is felt with the existing setbacks of 60' and more for the current apartment. Other properties will also be affected by the height of the proposed buildings and the expansion of the building envelope. MND incorrectly states surrounding area residential units are of similar height (three stories). This is incorrect. The surrounding properties are one and two stories. 5408 Neptune, directly bordering proposed project is less than 20' ht and typical of many homes. There are NO three -story units as the surrounding area is zoned for max. 24'.Current listings for this area, available online, all consist of one and two story units, and aerial photos supporting that the current apartment building at prox 27'is the only building zoned for 28'and erected in the vicinity and surrounding area units do not exceed 24', (except possibly from a couple of homes where the architect was jailed for falsifying the heights and Newport allowed building heights to remain). The aesthetics of this height differential will become obvious and very negative if the height differential is accentuated due to the granting of the side yard setback and height modifications. This side yard modification puts project too close in proximity to the older units, intensifying the differences in height and style. Planning commission should not allow the discretionary approval for the setback modifications, most egregious would be to allow encroachment into the minimum 25' setback. The building proximity from 25' to 3' will accentuate this differential and will be obvious that it is not in keeping with the existing neighborhood. We purchased the property in the 1970's due to the large setback from the apartment building, the quiet, privacy, and view this entailed. The apartment building is currently approximately 60' to 100' feet from our house and the modification is seeking to reduce the minimum setback requirement of 25' by 88 %, (a change from required minimum of 25' to an inappropriate 3'). Properties are purchased knowing the existing zoning and setbacks, so any modification that would be improved would be a significant impact to the rest of the neighboring community that has abided by the restrictions. The MND omitted mentioning this Modification permit (25' setback reduced to 3') information altogether (p 39) under the environmental analysis and therefore, neither mitigation nor their impacts were addressed. It should have read, "a modification permit is also requested for a 3 -foot side yard setback where the MFR zone requires approximately 25 feet side yard l(�q setback based on lot width, (under discretionary approvals pg. 25). This is clearly a significant impact and will negatively affect all surrounding properties, losing the feel and look of open space that the reduced footprint the apartment had on the property. The omission of this modification permit on page 39 is a significant impact that the lack of analysis of which, is legally inadequate. Applicant appears to want the best of both types of zoning. They would like to not only have the building height currently 28' for MFR, but don't want the setback restrictions that comes with this zoning. More troubling is that they appear to be trying to have it both ways. They are looking to go even further on both height and setback through the modification requests. These are discretionary approvals; the city should follow the vision that these restrictions sought to protect and disallow the modification permits. If these height restriction modifications are approved it will create a domino effect of other residences requesting the same. The MND incorrectly asserts that the proposed project would allow for more public visual open space. There is no question that the density of the project removes visual open space. The existing apartment unit has a private pool area and an L- shaped building that is deeply set back from River (north) as well as Neptune and Seashore (east). The setbacks are a minimum of 60' (possibly 100'). Page 47 in the MND accurately depicts the enormous open space between the buildings. This picture also illustrates that one can see the ocean between the buildings. In the 1980's there was no fence blocking the view at all. In fact the street was open from River direct through to Seashore. Again, this can be proven by the applicant's very own documents. Please reference page 373 of Appendix D; this is an example of a historical map that proves the area adjacent to 5408 Neptune was open as a road that was originally used to access River Road to Seashore. It also proves that Neptune has always been a cul -de -sac. Again, in the spirit of compromise, I have suggested a win -win for the community that deserves serious consideration if this project wants to proceed. The opportunity for the city to create a more pedestrian friendly development with sidewalks, on street parking, public access, visually more open space, more aesthetically appealing than buildings sandwiched together, and a better fit for the neighborhood is an opportunity for everyone to have their concerns addressed, while removing many objections should be seriously considered. The total square footage for the existing apartment building is only 48,744 square feet (per title search, or 48, 753 p. 57 WD). This proposed project will actually increase to 57,906. This equates to proposed project being roughly 19% larger than the existing apartment building footprint. This does not take into consideration that current apartment is approximately 27' and proposed units will be taller by an average of approx. 20 %. There is no way MND can claim that this project is less dense, will generate less traffic or will be in any way beneficial to our community if accepted as proposed. MND states project as grossJloor area of 57,906 with a floor area ratio of .78. Again, these calculations are incorrect. Entire lot area is approx 63,597 square feet (orig. bldg. Permit p.408 appendix D in MND document), which equates to .91 FAR. Again, the MND is factually incorrect in its assertion that it would give more open area, when the facts are contrary to this. �,Jb The MND combines both building and parking of existing apartment and is misleading. The floor area is what should be referenced when discussing the visual open space. This project will significantly reduce the visual open space area. The current open parking space areas, not only allow a feeling of open space, they actually have ample parking for tenants and their guests without the need for the tenants to use the street. This frees the street up to visitors wishing to use the recreational amenities and park at the west side of this property that taxpayer dollars were spent to maintain for the public enjoyment. If this development is allowed to go forth as presented, it will be "giving" this developer the park and courts that belong to the city. The massing will give the impression that this is a private facility and the lack of parking this development will create will be the final straw. 3.3 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT The MND incorrectly asserts that implementation of the project would result in lower density residential land uses than currently exist on site and emissions from construction and operation of the project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. MND states emissions would be a net reduction due to a net reduction in residential units. The MND fails to analyze the footprint is approximately 19% larger than existing unit and the square footage of building goes from 48,744 sq ft to a development encompassing 57,906 square feet. Nor has the MND factored in that the existing apartment building has had a vacancy factor during this past year of at least 30 %, even if you were to base it on Newport Beach average vacancy, one could safely assume that at any given time rental units are conservatively at 10% vacancy rate. Compound this with the fact that the majority of units (40) only have one tenant, and remaining 14 units are for two adults. Therefore, the number of people residing at current apartment building (10% vacancy) would be approximately 49 as a maximum number. 24 residences with 12 four bedrooms and 12 three bedroom equates to 84 residents, or 71 % more impact on the environment. I used bedroom numbers based on their presentation, as MND drawings are illegible for detail. These additional residents from this project will not only be using more resources, but will add to the traffic volume and this added volume would result in an increase in air pollutants, which is not acknowledged in the MND. Neptune Avenue is a cul -de -sac and is narrow (30 ") compared to River (60'); it is unable to handle traffic turning around in this narrow road. This project is suggesting Neptune as the alley to the new development; however, this street was not designed to accommodate this and would result in backups of the additional traffic. Further, the original ingress /egress (on River) for the existing site was removed in order to densify this project by putting in condos where cars had previously accessed the site. In 1981, the public accessed Seashore through this area adjacent to 5408 Neptune, (Appendix D map.373) this route was blocked to through traffic with the addition of a fence, likely to avoid a prescriptive action by the public, since public had used this access for years. The MND has not studied the negative impact of trying to turn the established Neptune Avenue into an alley, and how this would impact traffic. The MND should study the alternative I �L0` suggested which is to utilize the current parking lot/setback to accommodate the developments ingress/egress by requiring it be a road. This would put the problem that applicants are creating, back to a more equitable solution. The project as presented puts the entire negative impacts onto the neighbors. MND states 42% of project would be paved, but doesn't analyze type of pavement nor mitigations. Will alley that accesses resident driveway be comprised of asphalt? These air quality impacts are not adequately analyzed. Asphalt batch plants emit PM, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, methane and hazardous air pollutants. These impacts must be properly studied in the MND and then adequate mitigation must be included. MND states there will be short- term generation of air pollutants during construction, primarily including exhaust from construction, dust from demo, and motor vehicle trips. The MND claims exemption because SCAQMD has yet to establish regional emissions. Analysis is inadequate; modeling was for a site at 82 feet from construction. This site is closer than 82 feet to a number of adjoining residents and these figures are not adequately studied, nor mitigations offered. In using URBEMIS2007 modeling, inputted assumptions for this modeling are not included. MND incorrectly asserts that the model run is included in Appendix B. Appendix B is listed as "archaeological record search ". Short -term impacts also negated to mention the release of asbestos and lead paint. Property has confirmed asbestos and due to age of construction, lead is assumed as well. MND states: CO2 emissions are likely not to be considered substantial enough to result in a significant cumulative impact relative to GHG emissions and climate change impacts. This was not studied adequately, and they are using assumptions instead of studies. Long term impacts are based on faulty short term impacts and incorrect assumptions of reduced vehicle trips as MND use ITE 2003, which has substantial variability. Further, because MND is using the assumption there are no short -term impacts, therefore there are no long -term impacts are incorrect. There are short -term impacts; therefore long -term impacts need analysis as well. MND presumes operational emissions would be reduced because the number of units are reduced. They fail to analyze based on the total square footage of buildings as compared to the apartment, or room count. There is an obvious connection to an increase in residents and traffic, based on size of home and rooms. This project would result in an increase not a decrease in traffic. Construction LSTs are not based on any grading plan, so the amount of disturbed soil is an unknown. Further, and once again, MND inadequately studied construction LSTs and provided the assumptions for the modeling in Appendix A. In reviewing the modeling, it appears that in order to comply, construction was extended to 18 months and removed trenching for utilities as well as mass grading. "Phasing" of the project was used as a tool to gain compliance, however, cumulatively; surrounding residents are exposed to the same amount of pollutants, only over a longer period of time. Modeling also assumed construction would take place in the winter with 60- degree weather. Additionally, to lower emissions, model removed the ,6�- trenching for utilities. This would be inaccurate, as each unit will need under- grounding of utilities, trenching for foundations etc.. Additionally phasing is a poor idea, a likely scenario is that project ends up sitting for much longer and the MND has no mitigations to guarantee this won't happen. There are 2 areas where emissions would exceed the LSTs, PM 10 and PM2. Mitigation measure state they will bring down pollutants to an acceptable level, however, Rule 403 measures need to be called out specifically in the mitigation, and the table is based on incorrect assumptions. Included below is excerpt from the Newport Beach draft EIR (5 -22 -2006) from the Environmental Quality Affairs report, that addresses this URBEMIS modeling, (same model used in this MND) and the associated problems. " recommends that "projects generating or attracting vehicular trips, especially heavy -duty diesel vehicles, perform a mobile source health risk assessment" in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA') Guidelines published on the CEQA website. The final EIR should include a mobile source health risk assessment and provide the results of the analysis. Appendix B contains Air Quality Data based on computer analysis from a modeling program titled "URBEMIS 2002 for Windows 8.7.0. " Although Pb and PM2.5 have been previously noted as potential health hazards, they are not included in the modeling. The final EIR should identify how the proposed Project would deal with these hazards, and identify other possible analysis tools that could be utilized. In this same Appendix B, the URBEMIS modeling results are potentially confusing and contradictory, Compare the results front Appendix B, sheet 41 (marked page:], 31812006, 2:36 pm) and sheet #5 (also marked page: 1, 31212006, 2:37 pm). The titles on these pages are identical regarding on -road motor vehicle emissions summarized in pounds /day for summer. The final EIR should explain the difference, for example, in ROG from 2937.541bs /day to 359.521bs 1day, and state how the City can assure that the correct numbers are used in subsequent analyses. Also, ROG is not defined. Is this related to the volatile organic compounds (VOC's) defined on page 4.2 -2 of the DEIR? If so, the final EIR should fully explain. If not, the analysis of VOC's should be included in the final EIR? " underscoring added. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - INADEQUATE STUDY ANALYSIS MND relies on only a site survey, yet doesn't provide field data sheets, nor even a written report, signed and certified by Senior Biologist, nor is Phil Brylski listed on pg. 101 as a preparer with The Planning Center. Data regarding biological resources on the project site should have been obtained through a literature review that would include data on biological resources in the 9 � a3 project vicinity, and applicable reference materials, with the objective of assessing and documenting existing conditions of the onsite biological resources that may not be immediately obvious with merely a site review. Sensitive biological resources present, or potentially present, onsite should have first been identified and documented through a literature review using the following resources: California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG2007), California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 2007), and the California Native Plant Society (Tibor 2001 and CNPSEI 2007). A biological assessment survey to document existing conditions and to determine potential impacts to sensitive biological resources based on current site plans should have included notes of biological resources, such as plant and wildlife species, on field data sheets that would also notate date, time and conditions notes were taken under. These data sheets are not included. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) administers the state Endangered Species Act. The State of California considers an "endangered" species one whose prospects of survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy, a "threatened" species is one present in such small numbers throughout its range that it is likely to become an endangered species in the near future in the absence of special protection or management, and a "rare" species is one present in such small numbers throughout its range that it may become endangered if its present environment worsens. "Rare" species applies to California native plants. State threatened and endangered species are fully protected against take, as defined above. Species of Special Concern is an informal designation used by CDFG for some declining wildlife species that are not state candidates. This designation does not provide legal protection, but signifies that these species are recognized as sensitive by CDFG and no determination of impacts can adequately be assessed by on hearsay. Because the community is near to wetlands and dunes, further confirmation from the CDFG is required. The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has developed an inventory of California's sensitive plant species (Tibor 2001). This inventory summarizes information on the distribution, rarity, and endangerment of California's vascular plants. The inventory is divided into four lists based on the rarity of the species. In addition, the CNPS provides an inventory of plant communities that are considered sensitive by the state and federal resource agencies, academic institutions, and various conservation groups. Determination of the level of sensitivity is based on the number and size of remaining occurrences as well as recognized threats. Sensitive habitats are natural communities that support concentrations of sensitive plant or wildlife species, are of relatively limited distribution, or are of particular value to wildlife (CNDDB 2007). Sources used for the classification of sensitive resources that should have been notated and reviewed are as follows: Plants - California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG 2007), California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 2007), and California Native Plant Society (Tibor 2001 and CNPSEI 2007);Habitats - CNDDB (2007), Holland (1986) Wildlife - CDFG (2007), CNDDB (2007). Sensitive plant communities occur near the vicinity of the project site. 4.0 of Newport Beach Coastal Resource Protection, 4. 1.1 There are terrestrial, (non - marine) natural communities that are known to occur within the coastal zone in the city of Newport Beach and its sphere of influence. MND offered inadequate analysis. 10 6A There also appear to be large trees, species and potential nesting of birds not addressed. MND states trees are classified as "small ", however photographs suggest otherwise. No photos are included in the MND classifying landscaping. Historical research photos (2004) illustrate three large palms. Page 41 of Appendix D you can also see the tops of the trees including one of the palms. MND appears to have purposefully omitted pictures that show the apartment in a positive light. This is quite contrary to pictures that I have. Further, page 46 shows different trees behind the parking. This entire area behind the wall is landscaped. The project may violate the city of Newport's tree ordinance as it fails to identify if the existing trees are covered by this G -1 -G -3 policy. Newport Beach defines landmark trees based on size, age, and type. Historical photos of subject site show three extremely large palm trees that could qualify based on size, age or species. However, the MND has no documentation presented, except to state two small ornamental pine trees exist on property. This is ambiguous and clearly inaccurate based on photo from 2004, and there is no study to confirm if this would be .a negative impact to the community to remove trees that have been in the community since 1972. Mitigation for removal of the trees are uncertain. The MND does not provide any mitigation for the loss of the mature palm trees. The MND must analyze how trees would be replaced. MITIGATIONS ARE IMPROPERLY DEFERRED. The courts have held it is a violation of CEQA to approve a project based on a negative declaration without first resolving how adverse impacts will be mitigated. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d296.) The courts found that the development and implementation of mitigation measures after project approval was a violation of CEQA. (Id. At 306 -308; see also Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.41h 1359, 1396.) Courts have prohibited the deferral of mitigation because "There cannot be meaningful scrutiny of a mitigated negative declaration when the mitigation measures are not set forth at the time of the project approval." (Oro Fino Gold mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872,884.) There are a number of mitigation measures for potentially significant effects that are mitigated only by statements that future plans would provide mitigation, without specifying the mitigation measures or requiring that the plans be submitted prior to project approval. This issue is throughout the MND. Plans need to be completed and submitted as part of the CEQA review process, and prior to the approval of any environmental review document. (Pub. Resources Code Section 21080(c)(2).) MND states that it will provide more landscape than existing and this will make it more pleasing than the existing building because landscaping is doubled, but without a detailed plan, the mere coverage of area doesn't make it more attractive. The project could be removing many large shrubs or tall trees only to be replacing them with small planters, but that use more area. The impact would be substantial and negative to have the mature landscaping removed. The numerous trees surrounding the property, (neighborhood trees) could be considered "special trees" giving character to the community. Per city code, Special Trees shall be retained, unless there are overriding problems. Prior to consideration for any removal of a Special Tree(s), �6S the General Services Director, or designee, shall prepare a report identifying and implementing specific treatment to retain the tree(s). If specific treatment is unsuccessful or impractical in retaining a tree(s) then a full staff report shall be made to the Commission before any further action considering removal is taken. Prior to any removal of Special Tree(s), the City must comply with the noticing provisions of the Removal of City Trees section set forth in this Policy, unless a Special Tree is considered hazardous that necessitates an emergency removal. Any such removal must be recommended by the General Services Director and the Risk Manager and approved by the City Manager. Special Trees may be considered for removal under the provisions of this Section provided a special report by the General Services Director is provided to the Commission detailing the necessity of removal and any specific previous treatment of the tree. After receipt of the application, a Tree Inspection Report shall be prepared by the City's Urban Forester (Attachment 2) to determine if the tree(s) meets the criteria outlined in the above All Other City Trees section for consideration for removal. Simultaneously, -the Urban Forester shall provide a notice of the proposed tree removal to the adjacent property owner (if not the applicant), the private property owners immediately adjacent to the applicant's property, and the appropriate community association if applicable, (not applicable to the emergency removal of hazardous trees under Item C nor to trees that meet the criteria of Item E in the preceding All Other City Trees section). The Urban Forester shall determine whether in his/her judgment additional specific treatment can be initiated to retain the tree provided the costs are reasonable. If a tree(s) is to be removed, the tree(s) will be posted at least 30 days prior to the removal with a sign notifying the public that they have the right of appeal. The sign shall also note a staff contact. Once a recommendation is made by the Urban Forester and the Parks and Trees Maintenance Superintendent to the General Services Director and the General Services Director or designee concurs, then the applicant, the adjoining owners, private property owners on either side of the street within 500' in each direction of the tree location and a legally established community association, if applicable, shall be notified of the decision to remove or retain the tree within 30 days of the proposed removal. A legally established community association is responsible for notification of all association members pursuant to their established procedure. The General Services Director, or a designee, shall prepare a staff report for a regularly scheduled PB &R Commission meeting of all trees recommended for removal, except for those trees categorized in Paragraph C. (dead, diseased, or dying trees) or Paragraph E (claims and safety issues) in the preceding section on All Other City Trees. Only an applicant, an adjoining property owner, or a legally established community association, the City Manager, a PB &R Commissioner, or a Councilmember may appeal the decision of the General Services Director not to remove a tree to the Commission. The Commission, in considering any appeal, shall determine whether the removal meets the criteria outlined in this Policy, as well as any unique factors which maybe pertinent to the removal or retention of tree(s). The decision of the Commission will be considered final unless called up by at least one Councilmember or the City Manager. 12 �6� The General Services Department will delay any tree removal(s) for at least 14 calendar days following the date of the Commission decision in order to allow time The General Services Department will delay any tree removal(s) for at least 14 calendar days following the date of the Commission decision in order to allow time for a Councilmember or the City Manager to call the item. 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES - INSUFFICIENT STUDY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS MND misrepresents the importance of findings from Archaeological data. MND states records search was conducted and no archaeological evidence on or near the site was found. The MND neglected to state that the prior studies that were done did not include this area; therefore there were no sites that could be found if they were never studied. Of the areas studied, including within one - quarter mile, records check found a minimum of I I archaeological sites within one mile of project. MND states sites are not "expected" to extend into project area. However, study further states that area and surrounding properties were developed without the benefit of an archaeological investigation and therefore, no data is available to ascertain the general level of sensitivity for similar resources to be present. The McKenna study concludes, the Newport Coastal area is generally considered sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources, and should be considered moderately sensitive for both historic and prehistoric archaeological resources. MND admits only a limited archaeological records search was conducted by McKenna et al. However, the findings are significant. It continues to state area is moderately sensitive for historic archaeological resources regarding the historic railroad alignment. MND has not been surveyed for cultural resources and potential for subsurface evidence remains. Mitigations must include defined archaeological monitoring program. Archival research has indicated it is sensitive for the presence of prehistoric period archaeological resources within the project area. Surface survey is an inadequate method for defining and evaluating these resources, and even that wasn't performed. Mitigations for this potential impact would be to implement a program of subsurface testing, utilizing traditional or remote sensing methods, designed and implemented by a Registered Professional Archaeologist. Testing would determine the nature and extent of archaeological deposits. If deposits were located, they would be evaluated according to the eligibility criteria of the California Register of Historical Resources. If eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, measures to mitigate the effects of the project on archaeological resources would be designed and implemented. Avoidance is the preferred method of mitigation. If, however, avoidance is not feasible, alternative methods may be developed. If alternative mitigation includes data collection excavations, these must be conducted according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4. Per notice from the Native American Heritage Commission dated March 5, 2008 and received Mar 10, 2008 (available at city 3- 17 -08), they recommended that a records search of recorded sites be done (CHRIS) and that the record search would determine: if a survey is required to 13 P, determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present. Study consultant performed search but did not state whether a survey would be required. The NAHC also recommends that project applicant contact the Native American Heritage commission for a Sacred Lands file search of the project. MND study shows no evidence of contact or results of this recommendation. I contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and confirmed that the project site is in close proximity to previously discovered prehistoric burial sites and is believed to hold numerous Native American cultural resources. They suggest early consultation with Native American tribes in the area as the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries once a project is underway. They also state that lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude the existence of archeological resources. Lead agencies should consider avoidance, as defined in Section 15370 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when significant cultural resources could be affected by a project. (3 -19 -08 Dave Singleton) The existing paved area currently in the setback of 60', if used as the driveway, as it presently is used, could help to mitigate the impacts by avoiding the excavation for foundation footings that will be required in order to support the three story condos. 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS - INSUFFICIENT STUDY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS MND states EGA consultants prepared an investigation included in Appendix B. This mislabeling of where to find the documents is confusing. Appendix B addresses archaeological Records Search. Geotechnical Investigation is found in Appendix C. This document also has been marked with purple highlighter. It is unclear if this is to emphasize or to delete. As stated in McQueen v. Board of Directors of the Mid - Peninsula Regional Open Space District (202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143; 249 Cal.Rptr. 439), "An accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of potential environmental effects of a proposed activity" A vague or ambiguous project description will render all further analyses and determinations ineffectual. It is critical that the project description be as clear and complete as possible so that the issuing agency and other responsible agencies may make informed decisions regarding a proposed project. While an MND provides a general description of the project, key elements are either missing or yet to be decided. For example, there is no indication as to how much grading will occur. This is a key factor in addressing other impacts including, but not limited to, traffic on haul routes, noise, vibration, and air pollutant emissions. Vibration will occur to the land immediately adjacent to the property during construction. Mitigation measures that could be used include: using augers and providing buffer zones between residences and the use of vibratory equipment. Mitigation could also include alternative ways of compaction within these buffer zones that does not create excessive vibration. 14 �b EGA completed a preliminary investigation. They requested grading and foundation plan be reviewed and approved prior to construction. There is no mention of the appendix C in their contract or study and may not be site specific. There is also an issue for inadequate drainage runoff could impact surrounding properties as water table is found at 6' -8" below grade. There is no grading/specific drainage plan to determine depth and disturbance of soil. Soil records also show water table at P below surface on records check for area soils. 3.7 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Study found 17 of 44 samples testing positive for asbestos. No lead based paint was tested for. 1972 was during time when lead was commonly found in paint. Study stated that prior to demolition, it may require a lead based paint survey to be performed. Again, MND is deferring possible mitigations, because they have not done a conclusive study. New development could "uncover previously undiscovered soil contamination as well as result in the release of potential contaminants that may be present in building materials (e.g. mold, lead, etc.). This could result in a significant impact. Lead was not tested for, and the mitigation is therefore deferred, mold and other toxics were not addressed. Mitigations should include detailed means of enforcement and the agencies/departments of enforcement of the City's proposed policies should define the timelines and response times for enforcement of each regulation and policy. Most importantly, all impacts — whether potential or definite — should be analyzed in light of the response, clean up, and remediation times attendant to the regulations /policies and enforcement cited by the City as the factors that render all impacts less than significant. 3.8 HYDROLOGY/ WATER QUALITY IMPACTS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT The plan as submitted appears as an incomplete boilerplate report. Plan describes that by filtering directly into the ground, this avoids the need for regular maintenance, however acknowledges that drains would require general property maintenance. The long -term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs are not defined adequately as they state that there will be no common maintenance control, that instead, individual investors will be caring for their individual areas. It doesn't identify the entity that will be responsible for long -term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPS, and does not describe the mechanism for funding the long -term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. 15 Section VI is entirely missing, as well as language either omitted or accentuated by use of colored marker. Page 10 is blank, Page I I checks box for common area landscape management as both "included" and "N /A ". States "N /A" regarding a spill contingency plan based on "Small SFD development" (sic). Plan is inadequate as it states common area litter control is N/A as "common areas minimal and maintained by individual home owners ". There is guest parking, alley way and paved walkways that are private and shared by the development. They identify no one being in charge to clean or maintain these areas, nor do they state who will be responsible for street sweeping of parking lots or maintenance of broken irrigation systems that would be used for the trees they have depicted in artist rendering of proposed development. These trees will require pesticides, fertilization and watering, far greater than zeroscape plantings. The application is inadequate in that it does not state who will provide common area catch basin inspection. It has marked both included and "N /A" under Uniform fire code implementation. Plan should also consider sand filtration prior to release of treated water into storm drain if individual percolation would be inadequate during heavy rains, considering the high water table in Newport Beach. Plan does not address actions for the construction phase that should include how demolition debris is disposed of or stored, covered, transported and does not include grading and drainage plans to prevent flooding of other properties. Design objectives that need to be addressed would include: All surface runoff and subsurface drainage being directed to the nearest acceptable drainage facility, via sump pumps if necessary, as determined by the Building Official. Drains cannot discharge onto neighboring properties, all roof drains shall be required to connect into a tight -line drainage pipe or concrete swales that drain to the nearest acceptable drainage facility. Water runoff needs to address landscape plans that would utilize only native, drought- tolerant landscape materials. Plans appear to show drain trench in front of 5408 Neptune Avenue, instead of on their property, transferring maintenance responsibilities to the city. Drainage appears to be designed to go directly into the ground but not called out in sufficient detail as to location, size, etc. Pollutant concerns should be addressed due to the water table at approx. 5' below surface, possibly at 1', and soil is class D, subject to saturation, poor drainage, etc. New project will exacerbate water use and runoff, thereby increasing pollution. Current apartment parking doesn't have access to wash cars at the premises. Existing landscaping is well established and appears to consist primarily of zero-scape plantings. Project would increase water usage and subsequent pollution due to increased watering of planted areas and fertilizing, numerous residents washing their cars in their driveways, and numerous residents hosing off prior to entering the condos. Much of this water would be on impervious surfaces, increasing pollution in the runoff There is no plan for a common maintenance district to control landscape areas, so possibilities of broken sprinkler heads are much more likely to go unattended to. It is also much more likely that each individual unit will supply hoses to shower off prior to coming into their new homes, causing a continual runoff of water. The MND claim that the new project will result in less surface runoff are incorrect as there will be an increase in water usage. Increases will be 16 primarily in the impervious areas due to hosing off and washing of cars. There is also a real potential of flooding neighbors if grading is toward surrounding residences. This is in an area that has flooded significantly. If runoff is put back into the ground, relying on a filtering system, this could over saturate the grounds and potentially impact surrounding properties as well. There is also no discussion of the Clean Water Act that would limit the amount of runoff or limit the percentage of increase a project generates on the amount of runoff. 3.9 LAND USE /PHYSICALLY DIVIDE AN ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY The introduction of such a dense massing of homes may create a distinct community whereby rehab facilities could proliferate. The potential is already rumored and there is nothing that the city could do because as individually owned condos, each residential unit could house 6 people and be within the law. My research uncovered that one of the primary rehab house owners is listed as a tenant in the existing building. The directories search in the MND would have shown this but they only show directories up to 2002. It is a reasonable conclusion one could draw, that someone who owns several rehab homes in Newport Beach, yet decides to become a tenant, may possibly be part of this investor group. There is evidence to suggest that this exact type of thing is happening in other cities at this moment. There are areas currently in California that have been redeveloped and taken over by rehab facilities. This potential outcome may be in the fixture for West Newport. Densification of this site and the lack of parking spaces to accommodate the additional owners will physically divide the community. Residents and visitors will no longer be able to find parking on the street to use the park. Further, the dense development will give the appearance that the park is part of "their own private community ". The MND fails to address that the number of cars are directly related to the number of bedrooms. There is only one area in the MND that describes the fact that the current site has only eight (8) studios, (32) thirty-two one- bedrooms, and only fourteen (14) two bedroom units. Nowhere in the entire MND do they address the amount of parking spaces that the apartment currently has. It appears this is not addressed because it would accentuate the difference between the abundance of parking currently, compared to what it will become if this area is allowed to become over developed. The issue that needs to be addressed is that the current parking accommodates current residents with parking to spare. Proposed parking with increased residents will not provide adequate parking. It may be technically within guidelines, but this is a public resource and every reasonable attempt to provide adequate parking must be demanded. I believe current site has more parking spaces than proposed site and current site has fewer residents. MND doesn't state apartment number of existing spaces and analysis doesn't cover this aspect. MND states project will only have 63 total spaces. New development has minimum of 83 bedrooms compared to existing total of 68 bedrooms. 17 �\1 MND incorrectly describes the floor area Ratio for said project as .78 FAR. It is miscalculated, the proposed project is 57,906 square feet with the lot size 63,597, and the actual FAR is .91. Lot size is also incorrectly stated in parts of the MND as 1.49 (prop. description 3.0), it is actually 1.46 and MND consultant/McKenna documents stated this correctly in their study (Exhibit B). However, where the description should be absolutely correct, the MND is inaccurate. MND also incorrectly stated on the same page, under the property description of existing apartment building square footage, wherein it inflated the square footage to 64,885. The actual square footage of existing building, confirmed by original building permit and county recorder is 48,744 with a floor area ratio of.76. MND also appears to be trying to have apartment building appear it the worst light possible. MND, again under property description (3.2 of 466 page environmental assessment report) states: estimated % of property covered by buildings and/or pavement at 97 %. There is no reason to combine the two except to imply that the existing structure is massive and envelopes nearly the entire property. At the beach parking equates to a better standard of Iivizsg. This was one of the reasons that the,apartment building was such a good neighbor. MND appears to continually ignore major negative impacts, or spins descriptions to imply something other than the real facts suggest. The building mass of existing apartment is considerably less. (.76FAR to proposed .91 FAR ). Another interesting MND omission that was just revealed (available 3- 17 -08) is on page 75 of 128, entitled "Exhibit 2 _project plans ". Apparently someone did take notice of my complaints for the past two years on this project and illustrated that 5408 Neptune does in fact have an ocean view and they were aware of it. However, this map that shows the view corridor is not addressed, no mitigation, no discussion, period. The PR team for the past two years has ignored any attempt to compromise or address neighbors concerns. There was never any attempt to mitigate the many issues when there has been two years during this process where applicant could have changed the siting and reduced the density. The MND should consider the option of purchasing the site for the city to extend the existing park for the residents of West Newport. At least one council member has stated that increasing park space was a goal, as well as sidewalks. Certainly, allowing anything close to the densification this project is asking for is contrary to the city's best interests. Photos already show how tall the apartment looks in contrast to the other homes, but because of the generous setbacks of over 60', it is much less obvious and obtrusive. There isn't the stark contrast that the new development will have. However, if one puts this massive grouping of condos together, the height differential will be obvious. 5408 Neptune, which is on a double lot, is less than 20' in height and will be dwarfed by a bldg nearly double its height. The Seashore building also appears to be approximately the same height as 5408 and will also suffer the same disproportionate look. This project will result in a complete lack of privacy, shadows will be cast over the patios and aesthetics will be compromised in this neighborhood. Newport should not be supporting 3 story homes in West Newport; these larger homes with more bedrooms will just create more of the traffic that makes the quality of life at the beach decline. 18 Documents on the Agenda and part of the MND were not released until March 17, 2008 Documents /plans for project are illegible as far as detail determining dimensions on floor plans. However it appears one model could easily convert to add an additional bedroom. There are no conditions to limit the number of bedrooms. The number of rooms does in fact have a definite impact on quality of life and densification of this area and needs analysis. I have been told the apartment building was at one time 30 -40% vacant, even assuming a 10% vacancy rate; you have very few occupants that live there based on the preponderance of one - bedroom units. Apartment area is extremely quiet and they have always had ample parking to accommodate all the tenants and their guests within the confines of their site. This has allowed the public and neighbors to enjoy the park and the public beach. The MND omits references to the number of existing parking spaces, therefore inadequate analysis is derived. MND is stating there will be less impacts based on a formula for daily trips, that (ITE) admits is extremely variable_ A study should compare the likely number of residents driving, based on number of bedrooms. The study also needs to address the demographics of this area of Newport Beach. Primarily this area will draw more teenagers or adults, based on the popularity of this area in that age group. A direct correlation exists between number of bedrooms, number of tenants and number of cars. It has also been rumored that there is already a rehab unit(s) in the apartment. If this were true, it appears contrary to the recorded message that states in order to qualify for a one- bedroom apt., you must make $66,200 per year and no co- signers are accepted. If it is not true, then one must wonder why a rehab owner is listed as a tenant. It is also likely that in order for investors to recoup their investment that this area will become primarily weekly summer rentals. There are.potential severe impacts that will further divide this community if this area becomes a primarily a rehab area. The MND offers no mitigations to protect the community. The same potential exists for this proposed development. Further, there appears to be a need for CC &R's and a homeowner association to manage and control this area; MND suggests none. Further, MND basically states there will be no one in charge of maintaining common areas, that the individual will be responsible for their own area. This will clearly create significant impacts that have not been addressed adequately. 19 The following is an article that appeared in the Boston Banner on 12/13/2007. http://www.b4ystatebanner.com/issues/2007/12/13/news/local 12130711.htm `Sober houses' under legal review by city By Kenneth I Cooper The Roxbury development that has become Safe Haven Sober Houses started quietly enough a decade ago when a one -man real estate company based in Hull bought an undeveloped parcel on the eastern foot of Fort Hill. That was about the last quiet moment. The ongoing saga has seen the project shift from single-family townhouses for sale to multiple- occupancy bedrooms for weekly rent sober houses. Some neighbors and their elected representatives have criticized the development — in both its forms — as too dense. The original plan was to erect 22 modular townhouses on a little more than an acre and a half. The courts have been kept busy with lawsuits, appeals and a criminal prosecution that the city is now pursuing against Safe Haven's operators on charges of converting garages and basements into bedrooms without building permits. The permits the developers did have were issued in 2003 on a unanimous order from the State Building Code Appeals Board after the Boston Redevelopment Authority sat on the application for more than four years. More than 100 tenants recoveringfrom substance abuse live in 11 or 12 townhouses on Washington, Juniper and Guild streets, Safe Haven stales in a recent court filing. "The development went up as a condo development, not a sober house, " said City Councilor Chuck Turner when asked to distill his concerns about Safe Haven. "Another concern is the quality of services." Turner, state Sen. Dianne Wilkerson and state Rep. Gloria Fox, in separate interviews, recited a litany of concerns: fatal overdoses on site, residents' purchases at a liquor store a block away, serious sex offenders among the tenants and, as Wilkerson puts it, "such a high concentration " of recovering substance abusers. Unlike residential treatment programs, sober houses by definition provide only housing — not services to help tenants move beyond their addiction. The staff is supposed to collect rents, assure safety and enforce rules, but is not charged with monitoring individual behavior. Support and peer pressure from other former addicts is supposed to keep residents on track Because they do not provide treatment, sober houses are not licensed or regulated by any level ofgovernment. They enjoy the protection of state and federal anti - discrimination laws, which define recovering substance abusers as disabled. 20 ,tt ��y Some sober houses in other states, reacting to bad publicity or proposed regulation, have banded together to impose quality standards on themselves. California has two such groups: the Sober Livine Networlti based in Santa Monica, and the statewide California Association of Addiction Recovery Resources (CAARR) in Sacramento. The Banner asked the directors of both organizations, and Douglas Polcin, a national expert on sober houses, about the concerns cited about Safe Haven. Though they disagreed on some points, all three characterized most of those concerns as worrisome and inconsistent with a well- managed sober house. Overdoses Sgt. Bruce Smith, a community services officer with the Boston Police Department's Area B station, said at least three fatal overdoses have occurred at Safe Haven. Told at least three fatal overdoses have occurred at Safe Haven, which opened last year, Polcin groaned an4,muttered: "No, no." Ken Schonlau, director of the Sober Living Network said, "it happens, " but could recall only one fatal overdose on the premises of its 320 member houses. (Underscore added). The same potential exists for this proposed development. Further, there appears to be a need for CC &R's and a homeowner association to manage and control this area; MND suggests none. Further, MND basically states there will be no one in charge of maintaining common areas, that the individual will be responsible for their own area. This will clearly create significant impacts that have not been addressed adequately. 1.2.1 EXISTING LAND USE /DESCRIPTION INADEQUATE. Defines current access via two driveways on River, but states access to and from "Seashore Street and Neptune Avenue is blocked by a wooden fence ", implying "access" to Neptune Avenue. Fact: There has never been any access from subject site to or through Neptune Avenue The significance is that this project proposal is attempting to turn Neptune Avenue from a cul -de -sac into an alley, using Neptune as the primary access to all of its units. Meanwhile, applicant is requesting to use one of the two existing driveways on River as their own private driveway for the sole benefit of only one of their proposed condos. This proposal to use one of the two existing River Avenue driveways for the benefit of just one of the proposed single - family condo units is unfair to existing homeowners. Applicant is attempting to effectively "take" from the cities existing residents that have purchased property on Neptune, requiring us to give our street over to the developers to further accommodate their economic gains at our economic loss. There is no valid reason they cannot use the existing driveway with current ingress/egress. This is purely to maximize their profits at the existing taxpayers expense. There are no physical constraints that would make this infeasible. It is not the role of the city to provide for the most profitable investment opportunity for investors. The role of the city is to protect and enforce existing code and to maintain the community vision and standards through fair application of code. 21 a0 While the apartment building originally had open access to Seashore Drive from an opening to the street from the apartment parking area, Neptune Avenue never was accessible. The apartment owner put up a fence years ago to discourage the public from walking through the complex to access the beach and to stop public from using this access road and parking in their guest parking spots. Neptune however, has never been open for through- traffic or pedestrian access to the apartment bldg.. Neptune has always had a permanent blockade erected by the city, as well as postings of "no parking" signs. Neptune has always had terminus at 5406 Neptune Ave. Seashore on the other hand was used at one time to access the beach and verified through maps found in the MND, mentioned previously. Mitigations that should have been studied and presented are absent. An obvious mitigation would be to reduce the project density, while maintaining a portion of the open space of the current footprint. Utilizing the current driveway on River Avenue and continuing this directly through to Seashore Avenue effectively eliminates the majority of objections that residents have and the city should have. The city encourages use of sidewalks and public parking. Coastal commission encourages public access. Neptune residents do not want their cul -de -sac turned into an alley. I have numerous issues with loss of ocean view, privacy, safety, traffic, noise, etc. If this area adjacent to my home had a standard 30'road put in, this would solve nearly all of the issues. I offered this as a compromise, as I would still be giving up privacy and safety with the added adjacent traffic, but discussed this with the applicant and was told they can't afford financially to give up any properties. Absent a compromise, I informed them this would likely result in litigation, and this didn't concern the applicant. Based on this, I would request information as to if the applicant has or will sign a letter that would indemnify the city from potential CEQA lawsuit. This mitigation I have suggested is a compromise that would not only solve many issues, it would actually benefit the look of the development as a defined community. Placing this huge block of taller condos crammed next to older duplexes does not fit in with the character of the community. However, an appropriate approach is found in the adjacent Lido Sands community. This community serves as an excellent example of a well -done community of single - family homes, that are decidedly different and defined it its own small grouping, but in keeping with the community aesthetics. Setting apart of the new development would be in keeping with the transitional changes one expects when transitioning to different types or styles of housing. An inclusion of a new street would appeal aesthetically as it would give the distance needed to accommodate the break in design styles. Our community and the development would be better served with this approach. The proposed project could have the opportunity to benefit the surrounding neighborhood and the developer at the same time, if applicant would agree to compromise. The project needs to be scaled down and to include the suggested road improvement. This road requirement would utilize the area that is currently within the required minimum setback. The apartment is currently set back at least 60'. The required setback to accommodate 30' road with sidewalks could be provided, with the majority of the road being within the required 25'setback. However, applicants are asking for a modification to this setback from the current minimum of 25' to reduce it to 3', (min. 88% reduction of setback). 22 SAFETY: Public dedication of right of way should be required due to the impact on the area. River Avenue is 60' geometric and clearly able to handle larger volume of traffic as it is wider and does not intersect with pass through traffic. Neptune is a 30' geometric that has always had terminus at 5408 Neptune. It is reasonable to assume a serious negative impact would result during any emergency requiring immediate evacuation, as there is the potential of 100 or more cars from this new development that would be attempting to access out from the narrower Neptune Avenue. Neptune Ave. currently has sidewalk and on street parking, further narrowing this road. Inability to adequately turn vehicles around will prove to be a safety trap during an emergency. Current driveway access on River Avenue that would extend access as a new street to Seashore is the appropriate, safe alternative that should have been studied. Homes effected on Neptune currently face toward the ocean, trash pickup is on River Avenue. Project proposal would have trash trucks traversing through Neptune Avenue, as it would become the alley for both sides of their development. There appears to be no area in the MND that shows where units would store all of the trashcans. So many trash receptacles to accommodate so many large condos could create a health and safety issue with harboring of rodents and insects. There are no mitigations for assuring property owners will clean this section of the road. Neptune is a city street. The city is responsible for street sweeping. The city cannot legally sweep the private driveways within this development and therefore, the cleanliness of their "alley portion" is contingent upon them cleaning this themselves. They present the city with allowing trash trucks to enter upon a private driveway to pick up trash. There are challenges to the turning an established street effectively into an alley, with inconsistent geometries. It appears that by calling it a "driveway" is simply a way to avoid the requirements of a street. However, the intent for a driveway is to serve one home, not the manner that they are intending to use this definition. Fairness dictates that this "driveway (x 24) not be allowed. If the suggested road from River straight to Seashore is put back in, they can call the area behind the units the alley that it is and grant an easement for trash pick up only. It is neither the city nor the resident's responsibility to ensure profitability for developers, nor would it even be logical for this developer to claim that it would not be profitable if he were required to remove the units to make way for the road improvements. Since the property hasn't even been sold, and this is for discretionary approval, they have nothing at stake. This is contrary however to the existing Newport residents that this project will negatively impact. As a property owner for 30 years, I hope the planning commission takes the concerns of the resident impacts into consideration over the potential developer concerns for investor profitability. Positive impacts from inclusion of new road, would be enhanced safety utilizing access for emergency vehicles using road instead of alley, fire hydrant accessibility, pedestrian safety with sidewalks allowing for appropriate drainage, defined public walkway and roadway, direct public access to beach that occurs at 55 Street at Seashore, aesthetically more suitable to neighborhood Issues regarding applicant attempt to turn Neptune Avenue into an alley include: diminution of property value, traffic, noise, safety, air quality, inconsistent with vision for the city, and modification permit, etc. It is an inappropriate demand on existing homeowners to benefit a developer that hasn't 23 ��1 even purchased the property to date. Orange County fire authority has not addressed the adequacy of ingress/egress into a.private driveway that has overhanging structure, etc. If they intend to use the existing fire hydrant, this too would be inadequate based on location. 1.2.2 SURROUNDING LAND USE: DESCRIPTION INADEQUATE Applicant states: "site is surrounded by residential uses, such as "vacation rental units" to the north, south, and east and a city park to the west". This would give one the impression this area is primarily a "weekly rental area ". Instead, this is primarily owner occupied or yearly rental units in the area. Current apartment bldg is the major source of rentals for this area, allowing for affordable housing to the residents of Newport Beach. The "city park to the west" is directly adjacent to the existing site. If this overly dense project proceeds as presented, it will effectively be a taking of city park space, as the appearance and marketing of property will be to the sole benefit of these new condos. Currently, mazy residents and visitors have access to the park because of the apartment building's adequate parking for its own residents, which allows for plenty of off street parking on River Avenue. Because the apartment building primarily serves just one tenant per unit, they have always had adequate "on site" parking. The parking lot is never full and adds to the city's open space through its current footprint. If applicant is allowed to have this overly -dense project with inconvenient tandem parking to accommodate numerous additional bedrooms, (which correlates to additional residents), then it is reasonable that these additional residents will be using River Avenue to park in front of their units. This will effectively discourage visitor use of the city park because this will create inadequate parking to service this need. Further, the public parking lot on Seashore, which is intended for public parking to access the park and beach will be further burdened by the additional need for parking that the additional residents would require. Again, with each additional bedroom that increases the number of residences, it also increases the likelihood of numerous, guests as well. Applicant has presented that they intend to market units for 3.3 million. With this price tag, (completely unrealistic), the likelihood that investors will need to turn to weekly rentals or sober living homes is a much more likely scenario. This will further burden the city of Newport Beach with the demand it will place on parking, as well as the other police and enforcement needs that will be required. After a marketing/lobbying group canvassed residents concerns, it appeared the presentations of this plan had been specifically tailored to give "opinion" that the PR team felt would favor existing residents concerns. I was told this will increase property values and will get rid of "those tenants" in favor of homeowners. This is not based on fact. I had also been told it would be used primarily for wealthy seniors using these homes as second homes, when in fact; marketing statistics do not bear this out, as seniors are not looking for three story buildings with narrow hallways. I won't comment further on the numerous falsehoods I was told, because they are not in writing. But I will state that any presentation based on what it can do for the community, needs to be critically evaluated. 24 CEQA demands public involvement, yet this "public outreach" by PR lobbying firms, serves to discourage the intent of CEQA, through attempts to "inform" residents that most likely won't feel it necessary to read the full documentation presented to the city on the project. If I felt this was a positive for our community and for the nearby residents, I would be in favor, but as presented, I am adamantly opposed. I believe this is a potential nightmare in the making. This project is too dense and comes at the expense of nearby homeowners and tenants, who the city should be looking to protect. 3.11 NOISE IMPACTS WILL HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACTS MND claim impact would be less than significant because the project - generated noise during the operations phase of the project would be from project generated traffic (mobile- source noise) and on -site operations. They state that project would result in net reduction of trips; therefore, level is reduced to insignificance because it would result in a decrease in traffic noise. This is incorrect. First, the daily trips are based on highly variable study, secondly, these are not cars, and these are eigb ± ren- wheelers, trucks, large equipment and power tools. One eighteen wheeler, (per FHWA) is the equivalent to the noise generated from 19 cars. Noise impacts will be increased due to homeowners use of gardening equipment, such as lawn mowers, leaf blowers, additional cars directly adjacent to the front of our building from the access using Neptune as the projects alley. 5408 Neptune will not only be affected by one side of street with access to their garages, but both sides of the street will access garages through Neptune "Alley ". Trash trucks will spill their exhaust and the additional noise from 24 additional stops. Currently trash is picked up on only the west side of property. Current apartment bldg uses no regular gardener, no lawnmowers or leaf blowers. MND doesn't address restrictions or mitigations for project's resulting increase of additional noise felt by residents due to project proximity to existing buildings and increase of additional noise sources, including additional cars, people, television, radios, etc. Project wishes to have a permit to have 3 feet side yard setbacks. Currently, the existing building primarily has the apartment over garage space and so there is typically no living area on ground floor. This adds to the peacefulness of the neighborhood. Current site has small balconies. Typically very small, and they aren't large enough for entertaining. Project will have ground floor patios that will encourage much larger gatherings and more noise. The quality of life for the surrounding neighbors will be impacted. To visualize the impact, stretch out your arms from side to side; this will be the difference between buildings. The MND doesn't address that this is not the vision for Newport Beach when given an opportunity to have a more aesthetic development put in instead. Construction noise would exceed db levels, vibration etc. The excessive noise and vibration will exceed standards, but an exemption is claimed based on city standards. However, nearby homeowners will be unable to rent their units for a minimum of two years due to the construction noise, dirt, vibration, etc. and the MND has not address the financial mitigations to accommodate existing residents. 25 �,1A Analysis and mitigations are inadequate. Noise levels are measured at 50 feet; vibrations have not addressed ways to mitigate the vibrations through different methods of construction, etc. Note that the range of 70db to 90 db at distances of 50 feet are for one piece of construction equipment. This area is directly adjacent to residential properties within 50 feet and the receivers would be at least 70 to 90 DBA, which is in violation of the exterior NAC criteria for residential properties. MND lists sound levels on PCH from 1971,Society of Automotive Engineers for use in studies of aircraft flyover noise, uses PCH hwy pavement, traffic levels, roads, and receivers all pertaining to PCH. It appears this was from another study or the information is unclear as to its relevance. It appears study was done for the noise for the new units, such as planning for noise attenuation for new construction, not analysis based on harm to existing residents. CEQA demands that the documentation be put forth in a language and manner that is understood. What is apparent is that this noise study offers no mitigations, nor is it adequately studied. 3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS One of the most troubling aspects is that the MND claims to not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. This MND states it will need to replace housing for 6 units based on a survey, yet it states this as a less than significant impact. The MND had a pro -forma to include what the developer could afford for "in- lieu" fees. This is inappropriate. The in lieu fees are not enough to replace the units and are based on limited data that study admits could not verify all information. Further, the pro -forma is not included, nor were the rent surveys. A firm was hired to study the adequacy of the pro -forma with out being able to verify the information. The escrow papers would have been the first most obvious set of documents. This should be required to understand exactly how much "profit' and who is claiming this now. The MND looks at this project in terms of profit potential, instead of what is fair and equitable to the community. It is obvious to the neighborhood that the majority of the tenants would have been considered lower to moderate income. Yet, since the project was attempted in 2006, it was removed. Laws prohibit evicting tenants within 24 months of application, and it gives the appearance and it is my opinion that there was an intentional removal of low- income tenants in an effort to avoid the costs associated with low- income housing compliance laws. Since this application resurfaced a year after the identical project was withdrawn, the property owner hired a new property management company, (who did the rent survey that the low income housing replacement is predicated upon). The apartment owner is also now requiring property management to enforce a "specific" income requirement of $66,200 and not allow a co- signer. It is my:belief that there were some "tenants" that were making in the six figures while the survey was being done. One listed tenant owns several rehab homes in Newport Beach. 26 pp Newport is a special town that deserves protection. The coast and its resources are too important to squander, just to benefit the financial gain of a group of investors. I believe that some of this original team are still involved in this limited partnership. This original team made no effort to mitigate or compromise. The team solution was that they could get it through. Had I not had my background and not understood the process, I too would have resigned myself to the inevitable. As a property owner that has handled rentals for years, it would be extremely difficult to find tenants that could qualify without a co- signer but had to additionally verify income requirement of $66,200, yet this is what the apartment building has enacted within the past year. I have complained to the city to verify this, stating I felt this was an obvious attempt to circumvent the law to get rid of the lower income tenants. Inclusionary housing is expensive for developers and it would benefit them if this weren't an issue. I believe prior to the developer application, majority of low- income tenants have "moved out ". There has appeared to be a purposeful eviction of low income housing tenants, but without the original rent studies, this is speculation. I do not accept however, any study wherein it is conducted by the property manager who works for the owner who is purportedly in escrow trying to close the deal. Keyser Marston study requested in PRA was never made available to me. The project is presented in a light that gives it a misleading depiction through use of "artist renderings" that are not to scale. MND (p15) architectural renderings won't be able to look like the pictures. Most buildings benefit substantially from landscaping, and these renderings look nice because of the 45- degree angle, mature abundance of landscaping, wide planted walkways, beautiful towering trees with canopies the width and height of the condos. Then there is the reality. The MND shows the front and rear of the actual individual view (p27); this is in stark contrast, and more in line with what this dense development would actually look like. There appears to be little difference between the two styles, but couple that with exact same style home side by side with such density and this doesn't appear to be the type of vision Newport had in mind. Is Newport's vision to put as many homes jammed next to each other and towering over the existing residences on a lot that should have been maintained as an apartment building as one of the few areas in Newport to actually accommodate tenants? This development will not have the large canopied trees as depicted in the "renderings ", because there is no room to accommodate them. The reality will be 6 feet shared walkway between homes with no apparent walls between them for privacy. The design and density doesn't make sense. Newport wanted to have articulated interesting sides to the buildings, but these units are primarily flat on the entire length of buildings because they are put too closely together, with too many units for the lot. They don't fit in with the city vision for new development; they don't fit in with the neighborhood. This area has been undergoing some nice changes with well -done remodels, but this opportunity to let this development go in will do a disservice to the entire area and the people that have invested in rebuilding new homes. 27 ��l The proposed development is too dense for the property. Feasible alternatives exist which include siting the homes using setbacks that were originally intended in this zone, and reducing the size of the development. These are viable alternatives that haven't been studied because the investors want to make more money. If it isn't feasible, then the investor should use their contingency as an escape clause. These applicant/investors don't yet own the property; they don't have the vested interests in protecting the neighborhood that the residences do. The investors won't be living in these units. Applicant has already submitted a pro -forma to determine how many millions he would be satisfied with making. The applicant only has the advantage if the residents don't feel they have a voice. Having a planning commissioner attend a private hearing and speaking in a manner that appeared positive was probably not encouraging to some that showed up. The priority for the planning commission who must review these objections is to protect our coastal resources over the construction of residential development. 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES & 3.14 RECREATION There exists a moderate impact to libraries and schools and a potential major impact on police services. Without knowing how property will be used, absent CC &R's restricting their use, and lack of a homeowner association it is deferring any potential mitigation as it isn't considering the consequences that land use changes may encompass. MND failed to study new ways development might be used and provided for no mitigations. West Newport Park effectively would be taken over by this development, most will assume it is private, city should have entertained idea of purchasing this as city has stated West Newport is in need of park expansion. There is metered parking directly in front of the single - family units. It appears there is no block wall. Absent a continuous block wall, it will be too convenient for residents to park directly on the street in front of their house, when this property is intended for visitors to the beach/park. 3.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC IMPACTS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT Incorrectly states project qualifies for an exemption under the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance. However the definition under exemption (C.) states: "The following projects are exempt from the provisions of this chapter: 1. Any project that generates no more than three hundred (300) average daily trips. This exception shall not apply to individual projects on the same parcel or parcels of Property, such as chanties in land use or increases in floor area that in any twenty four (24) month period cumulatively generate more than three hundred (300) average daily trips "15.40.030 Standards for Approval -- Findings — Exemptions) Further, Trip generation was calculated using the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (7 'h edition 2003). An article by traffic consultants Nelson/Nygaard opined on the variability of ITE and stated: "Even where there is a strong correlation between the amount of development and trip generation rates, there is still considerable variation in the rates observed in different surveys. For the land use type "Single 28 a3, Family Detached Housing", for example, ITE reported rates ranged from a low of 4.31 daily trips per dwelling unit, to a high of 21.85 daily trips. The Trip Generation manual reports that, "This land use included data from a wide variety of units with different sizes, price ranges, locations and ages. Consequently, there was a wide variation in trips generated within this category." APPENDIX / ISSUES FOR CLARIFICATION OR CORRECTION (466 P doc) I previously described errors regarding (p8 & 13) property description. Existing bldg, acreage etc. Hydrogeology states soil is Class D, states (p 125) depth to water table is less than one foot. This differs with other areas in the MND, (p 15) states that geotech investigation found ground water at depth of six to eight feet below. Soil listed as hydric (pl5) with slow infiltration rates. This is a concern for the proposal to have water return to the ground instead of filtered and sent into storm drain. Additional environmentally appropriate mitigations need to be studied further. (p341) City directories don't include residents from the past six years. (page 373, (128 1) page372 (1972 revised from 1965) These historical topographic maps show that the existing site had the road connect from River to Seashore. This is the same road that should be put back. The public had used this paved access for years before property owner fenced it off. PUBLIC ACCESS MND is not consistent with the Coastal act. The following are pertinent as to the negative impacts this project will have as it relates to public access. As stated earlier, public had at one time directly access the beach from River to 55a' Street opening. This is the same opening that 5408 enjoys its view corridor from. The public has been deprived of access based on property owner fencing in entire property. However, the pedestrian public would still access occasionally. One could still see a small area of ocean between the houses on the sand as evidenced in MND picture showing how wide the parking area is. It encompasses the views of three buildings as seen on page 43 (figure I I site photographs) in the MND. The opened area between the houses on Seashore beachfront & 55th is intended for public access. The proposed project has not provided for any permanent access to the public. Project also effectively removes the access to the public to utilize the park. The park will appear to belong to the new development and the more convenient access to the beach will be cut off and force people to all go to the 54th street opening. Again, this appears to be an attempt to have this area be private. This area already is afforded privacy by the lack of the pedestrian sidewalks. People will not walk through an area that clearly are private home side yards that are only 3' wide. The city has one opportunity to afford the public access to the beach that was intended from the 50's. The city should not miss this opportunity to ensure that our beach access serves all, not only the rich. The following coastal act sections are particularly 29 �a3 relevant to this property and public access. This road should be dedicated, returned as a roadway, include sidewalks for access to the public, fire hydrant and large enough area to turn large vehicles around in the event of a fire or emergency. Mitigation should have studied this possibility. The city of Newport Beach has determined that Coastal Act policies are relevant to Newport Beach. Section 30210 of the Coastal Act states: In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 ofArticle X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse. This project does not provide maximum access. Section 30212 ofthe Coastal Act states, in relevant part: (a) Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where: (2) adequate access exists nearby... This project would remove existing access and provide for access only to the condo owner, not the public. The opening to the beach for this area is 55h st., providing a near direct access (line of sight) to the beach. Section 30213 of the Coastal Act states: Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. This project actually removes recreational facilities effectively because the existing park and tennis courts will appear as private and parking will be severely impacted with this development. Section 30240 (b) of the Coastal Act states: Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas. This project severely effects this provision in the overly dense design that will make it appear that park is part of the open space for this development. The City's recently updated certified Land Use Plan (LUP) also contains the following policies that would apply to the proposed development: Public Access and Recreation/Shoreline and Bluff Top Access, Policy 3.1.1 -1 states, Protect, and where feasible, expand and enhance public access to and along the shoreline and to beaches, coastal waters, tidelands, coastal parks, and trails. Access road next to property would accomplish this stated policy. 30 �a� Policy further states under "shoreline access ", that the city will require all new development causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts, to provide easements or dedications in areas where public access is inadequate. All beach access openings serve specific homes. 55 street created the vertical access that was created specifically to serve this area. The public should not be deprived of access to 556' Street opening. One of the main tenets of the Coastal Act is preservation of coastal access. City of Newport Beach stated goals include under the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Land Use Plan: (I objected to staff that the applicant is on this committee, during processing of his application and should have been removed due to conflict of interest.) 3.1.1 -2 Protect public street ends providing access to the beach Project removes protection 3.1.L -7- protect public right of access. Where substantial evidence ofprescriptive rights exists, actively pursue public acquisition or require access easements as a condition of development. Project area could pursue prescriptive rights based on history of access through area adjacent to 5408 Neptune 3.1.1 -8 ...prescriptive rights... parcel must be designed or conditions imposed to avoid interference with prescriptive rights.... 3.1.1- 9..protect expand coastal access... 3.1.1 -12 Protect public access through setback and other property development regulations of the zoning code that control building placement. This would directly stop the modification permit. If the committee for which the applicant is on, has sought to change the above policies in a manner that would be favorable to this particular development, then the policy revisions should be looked at again, as the intentions of protecting our coast should not change. 3.1.1 -14 REQUIRE an offer to dedicate (OTD) an easement for vertical access in all new development projects causing or contributing to adverse public access impacts ... sufficient size to accommodate two way pedestrian passage... landscape buffer... sited along the border or side property line of the project site or away from the existing or proposed development to the MAXIMUM FEASIBLE EXTENT Placing vertical easement away from both existing and proposed project is easily accomplished with a road and sidewalk in side area. This is the fitting solution that complies with city and coastal acts and removes most of the objections, allowing Neptune to remain the cul -de -sac, and if buildings are sited properly, maintain my ocean view. 3.1.1 -19 ... develop long -range plan for public trails and walkways 31 �aS Policy 3.1.5 -2 PROHIBITnew PRIVATE streets, or the CONVERSION OFPUBLIC STREETS TO PRIVATE STREETS, WHERE SUCHA CONVERSION WOULD INHIBIT PUBLIC ACCESS TO .... SHORELINE This is exactly what the project is intending to do and is contrary to this policy. This would be converting a private road, (Neptune) to turn into a "private driveway ". This project seeks to have "the individual driveways" going in the opposite direction to be called a "driveway" that hooks up into the established city street, Neptune Ave. They wish to have the "driveway" to be treated as a private road for emergency and city services. This does not qualify in any manner for conversion without being out of compliance with said policy. Conclusion Other neighbors and tenants have had this project presented in a manner to appeal to their "perceived" individual likes while consistently implying that nothing can be done to stop this project. Public outreach conducted by applicant at a non -city facility this month, where a planning commissioner appeared to favorably answer some questions redirected from applicant, could lead one to believe nothing can be done, even though this was probably not the intention. Troubling is that none of my tenants have had any notifications to date at all from applicant. The intention of applicant appears to utilize the public relations firm to market to the neighborhood to avoid upset residents writing in to object to projects. We all know this is how developers operate, it is just smart business and this isn't to fault them, but there is a point where the process is no longer fair and this is bordering on this precipice. The planning commission and council are there to protect the city from land use decisions that will affect the quality of life for its residents forever. This is the type of project that demands an EIR, if not an outright rejection as presented. Most PR firms will try to market the development in advance through "coffee chats" and informal friendly meetings, in order to tailor the project to their perceived specific interests. I was told, (based on my age I presume) that these units would be primarily second residences for retired people that would seldom be there. I was also told they would be marketing the units for 3.3 million, again to appeal to the thought of increased property values. Instead, I recognized the sales pitch. However I was most insulted when a "proponent" tried to state it would be getting rid of "those" tenants. I informed him "those" tenants had never been a problem, always quiet, and the fact that tenants are controlled by a manager, you don't have the problems associated with "rehab facilities" or weekly vacation rentals, which is by far, a much more likely scenario when investors try to recoup their money for a condo. It is my belief through my research that this investor group is primarily the same group from two years ago. I am troubled by the inclusion of the applicant to participate within committees that could affect the outcome of this project for which I believe he would benefit and would certainly be in violation of the Brown Act for conflict of interest concerning financial interests. I spoke to staff and expressed my objections, yet applicant is still on the committee. Committee was intended to have public input, and not to consist primarily of developer related members. I had a Public Records Act refused by planning department, after I was told I initially 32 could receive the Marston Keyser rent study, as I felt this would prove that tenants were being evicted or offered incentives to move if they were low income. I felt this study would validate this. I expressed my concerns, yet this MND has accepted a pro -forma without seeing the escrow papers, determining how many investors, in which to spread the profit/risk. I submitted numerous letters to planner addressing detailed concerns, yet none of my objections were included in the MND. None of my objections were taken into account in studying my suggestions as alternatives. I have asked for an extension of time to respond from Newport Beach, the lead agency. I have been told this will likely be continued, however, I am still required to submit objections to the MND to protect my interests during this comment period. In closing, this is the wrong project for Newport. It is too dense, too tall, and too close to other residences, it doesn't fit in, it is benefiting the developers to the detriment of the existing citizens, just to name a few concerns! I request this project be denied, or at the very least demand an EIR. Regards, Lennie DeCaro Owner of adjacent property 33 � a1 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY �a� Attachment 8 M N D Response to Comments P11 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY SEASHORE VILLAGE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS VD prepared far: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Contact: Jaime Muri/lo, Associate Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER Contact: Elizabeth Kim, Environmental Planner APRIL 2008 a -51 3300 Newport Boulevard PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Tel: 949.644.3234 SEASHORE VILLAGE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS MIN WIM prepared for. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Contact: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER 1580 Metro Drive Contact: Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Elizabeth Kim, Tel: 714.966.9220 • Fax: 714.966.9221 Environmental Planner E -mail: costamesaga planningcenter.com Website: www.planningcenter.com CNB -10.0E APRIL 2008 a. 3 - Table of Contents Section Paqe RESPONSE TO COMMENTS .................................................................... ............................1 -1 2. REVISIONS TO THE INITIAL STUDY ........................................................ ............................2 -1 2.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... ............................... 2 -1 2.2 REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ................... ............................2 -1 APPENDICES A. Air Quality Model B. Draft Conditions of Approval Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page i X33 Table of Contents List of Figures Figure Page Figure 1 View Corridor Analysis ................................................................ ............................... 1 -65 Figure 2 Photo of Existing View Corridor .................................................. ............................... 1 -67 Figure 3 Surrounding Area Photographs .................................... .............. ............................... 1 -69 Figure 4 Site Photographs ........................................................................ ............................... 1-71 Figure 5a Side Setback (Plan A: Plantation) ................................................... ...........................1 -73 Figure 5b Side Setback (Plan C: Craftsman) .............................................. ............................... 1 -75 Figure 6 Aerial Photograph ....................................................................... ............................... 1 -77 Figure7 Landscape Plan .............................................................................. ...........................1 -79 Figure 8 Preliminary Grading Plan ............................................................ ............................... 1-81 Figure 9 Construction Staging & Water Quality Control Plan ..................... ............................... 1-83 Page ii • The Planning Center Apri12008 u� -bl 1. Response to Comments The following provides all written comments received on the Initial Study prepared for the Seashore Village project and the City's responses to each comment. The project site is located at 5515 River Avenue in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. The project site is generally bordered by River Avenue to the north, Seashore Drive to the south residential units, including vacation rentals, to the east, and a City -owned park to the west. The Mitigated Negative Declaration /Initial Study (MND /IS) was forwarded to the State Clearing House on February 19, 2008 for distribution to responsible and trustee agencies for a 30-day review period and the notice was posted on -site in the area where the project is to be located and also mailed to the owners :.nd occupants of contiguous property. The posted and mailed notices indicated that the 30 -day review period would begin on February 20, 2008 and end on March 20, 2008; however, because the site was posted on February 20, 2008, it was determined by the City Attorney's Office that the public comment period began the following day, February 21, 2008 with the public comment period concluding on March 21, 2008. The project was continued from the March 20, 2008 Planning Commission hearing to allow for the full public comment period. 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 text are shown in boi&and double ... underline for additions and strikeaut 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, PersonlAgency Bate of ommenr a e o. 75-55—ern7alffomia Gas gaoy February v a --fa–g– mm a me mencan ee sion arc enure ecaro arc 1 -13 a i omia Department of ranspor a ion March 13, 1008 epa en o oxic u s ances Control March 8 Searhore Village Reipowe to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -1 335 1. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 1-2 # The Planning Center Apri12008 a 3 (° LETTER A— Southern California Gas Company (1 page) " 1 Saataem Glaomia Gas Company A FA�Sempra Energy misty' February 21, 2008 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 Attention: Brandon Nichols 1. Response to Comments P44 - sg M @M FE@ 2� 1PdB CllyQfNEWP%rS6JCti rorosstmecmiesa am. N fte., CA MOO -sa. Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration for Proposed Seashore Village Project. This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but only as as information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas facilities within the service area of the project could be altcred or abandoned as necessary without any significant impact on the enviromnent. Information regarding construction particulars and any costs associated with initiating service may be obtained by contacting the Planning Associate for your area, Dave Baldwin at (714)634 -3267. Sincerely, Wl Sim Technical Supervisor Pacific Coast Region - Anaheim asim. miNegde.dcc A -1 Seashore Village Pesponse to Comments City of Newport Beach a Page 1 -3 rv, 11 Uv X31 1. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -4 The Planning Center Apri12008 1. Response to Comments A Response to Comments from Paul Simonoff, Technical Supervisor, Pacific Coast Region — Anaheim, Southern California Gas Company, dated February 21, 2008. A -1 The letter notifies the City that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area and provides contact information. No further response is necessary. Seashore Mage Response to Comments City of Newport Beacb *Page 1 -5 �-),C\ 1. Response to Comments This page intentionally !eft hiank. Page 1 -6 • The Planning Center Apri12008 Is 1. Response to Comments LETTER B — Native American Heritage Commission (4 pages) March 5, 2006 CITY Of NEWPORT BEACH Mr. Brandon Nichols, Associaste Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92650 Re: SCH82008021075 CEOA Notice of Completion_ proposed Neaadve Declaration for the Seashore Viilaae Residential Pralert City of Newport Beach' Canine County California Dear Mr. Nichols: ..arm vas If a ps If any If the If a SL J a an OR the fimsna Immediately m the planning depadr remains, and associated fulhmery o available for pudic disclosure. The final written report should be at regional archaeological Information J Contact Me Native American Herts7, A Sacred Lands File (SLF, vidnay that may have eddtiont citation format to assist with the • The NAHC advleea the use ofNsti: resources that may be discovered.. Contaeffi on the attached list to get a Native.Amerkan miNral resqurpt ,J Leck.ofsurface evidence of,aMheob„l Lead agendes e, hould Indmde,16 t¢! •:.:.dcdQ@nSaf y CBgpvereil ardhedpgic Seashore Village I nevleusly surveyed for cultural rese urces. already, been recorded in or ad)eoentto the APE. high . that'waural macurces are located in the APE. bather previously unrecorded cultural resources are present 'required, the final stage is the preparation of a profeselmal report detailing records search an field survey. site,eigMficance, and mitigation measurers should be submitted 1nt Alt information regarding she locations, Native American human ects should be Ins separate corfidemal addendum, and not be made ati0ed within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate :enter. :ommtsdon (NAHC) for. - warch of the pmjecitarea and information an tribal contacts In the project cultural reaoume information. Please provide this office with the following Sacred Lands Fla search request USES 7.5 -minute quadrangle diction to ensure proper fdentifipgon and care on n.v.wvyv In American ah hemurea be th a my sou au greunooation b ut a Sacred Iturated'N�ve American aibe.meypa the only source of iMOrmation about a Sacred SaeMaWe hafet resource. ' es shotdd include In their mitigation plan provlslons for the dhspaddon of recovered arfifacl% in vAh culturally affiliated Native Anterimns. . - to Comments B -T City of Newport Beach *Page 1 -7 �A,\ NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION msaaHraLStau.,aaaaasa RECEIVED BY mga,warrg, cnereta PUNNING DEP AR (916)6 t mE .men: a_rrenc�eahl.ge MAR 1020 March 5, 2006 CITY Of NEWPORT BEACH Mr. Brandon Nichols, Associaste Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92650 Re: SCH82008021075 CEOA Notice of Completion_ proposed Neaadve Declaration for the Seashore Viilaae Residential Pralert City of Newport Beach' Canine County California Dear Mr. Nichols: ..arm vas If a ps If any If the If a SL J a an OR the fimsna Immediately m the planning depadr remains, and associated fulhmery o available for pudic disclosure. The final written report should be at regional archaeological Information J Contact Me Native American Herts7, A Sacred Lands File (SLF, vidnay that may have eddtiont citation format to assist with the • The NAHC advleea the use ofNsti: resources that may be discovered.. Contaeffi on the attached list to get a Native.Amerkan miNral resqurpt ,J Leck.ofsurface evidence of,aMheob„l Lead agendes e, hould Indmde,16 t¢! •:.:.dcdQ@nSaf y CBgpvereil ardhedpgic Seashore Village I nevleusly surveyed for cultural rese urces. already, been recorded in or ad)eoentto the APE. high . that'waural macurces are located in the APE. bather previously unrecorded cultural resources are present 'required, the final stage is the preparation of a profeselmal report detailing records search an field survey. site,eigMficance, and mitigation measurers should be submitted 1nt Alt information regarding she locations, Native American human ects should be Ins separate corfidemal addendum, and not be made ati0ed within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate :enter. :ommtsdon (NAHC) for. - warch of the pmjecitarea and information an tribal contacts In the project cultural reaoume information. Please provide this office with the following Sacred Lands Fla search request USES 7.5 -minute quadrangle diction to ensure proper fdentifipgon and care on n.v.wvyv In American ah hemurea be th a my sou au greunooation b ut a Sacred Iturated'N�ve American aibe.meypa the only source of iMOrmation about a Sacred SaeMaWe hafet resource. ' es shotdd include In their mitigation plan provlslons for the dhspaddon of recovered arfifacl% in vAh culturally affiliated Native Anterimns. . - to Comments B -T City of Newport Beach *Page 1 -7 �A,\ 1. Response to Comments d Lead agendas should include provisions for discovery of Native American human remains or unmarked cemeteries in their mitigation plans. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15054.5(d) requires the lead agency to vmrk with the Native Americana identified emane, within the APE. CEQA Guidelines provide for agreements With Native American, IderNtied by the NAHC, toaesure the appropriate and digrdtind treatment of Native American human remains and any associated grave Irons. 4 Heeth'and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.98 and Sac. §15084.5 (d) of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Gudeines) mandate procedures to be followed, including that construction or excavation be stopped In the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery, until the county coroner or madmal examiner can determine Whether the reins are Umse of a Native American. . Note that §7052 ntthe Health 8 Safety Codo states Mat disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony. U you have any questions. Program Attachment UA of Native A(neiican Contacts Co: State Clearinghouse B -1 Cont'd Page 1 -8 1 The Planning Center Aprt12008 Native American Contacts Orange County March 5, 2008 duarere Band of M isalm Mdians Acjad emw Nafi i David Belardes, Chairperson 31742 Via Belardes Juaneno san JUSncaolsUaa , CA 92675 DavidBelardes @ hotmail.com (949) 493-0959 (949)493.1601 Fax 1. Response to Comments Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Aciachemen Nation Joyce Perry, Tribal Manager & Cultural Resources 31742 Via Belardes Juaneno sen Jaaocraia , CA 92675 (949) 4993 -0959cet (949)293 -8522 Cell (949) 493 -1601 Fax Gabrielino/rongva Council /Gabrierino Tongva Nation Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Sam Dunlap, Tribal Secretary Alfred Cruz, Culural Resources Coordinator 761 Tenrdnai street, Bldg 1, and floor Gabrielino Tongva P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno Los Angeles , CA eno21 Santa Ana , CA 92799 office @to atribe.net (213)4891 -Officer a8 "fxuz @sboglobal.net (909) 262 -9351 -cell 714-988-0721 slfredgcruz @sboglobal.net (213) 489 -5002 Fax Jumler Mal of Miasbn Yegane Agahaean Netlon Anthony Rivera, Chairman 31411 -A La Matanza Street Juaneno sen JUSaCapbbrw' CA 92975 -2874 aNvera�:uaneno.com 949 488 949 - 488 -3294 Fax Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Adolph "Bud" Sepulveda, Chairperson P.O. Box 25828 Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 basepul4@, ahoo.net 714 -83, 70 714 -914 -1812 - CELL bsepul(Pyahoo.net Gabdeiim Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council Sonia Johnston, Tribal Vice Chairperson Robert Dorame, Tribal Chair/Cultural Resources Juaneifo Band of Mission Indians 5450 Slauson, Ave, Suite 151 PMB Gabrlelino Tongva P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno Culver City , CA 90230 Santa Ana , CA 92799 gton va,@vedzon.net (714)323 -6312 5 62 - -9 - ice 562 - 925 789 -fa x sonia.johnston @ sbcglobal.net me IW IS euneat Mir ea of N date of mla doewnm,r. DISMISSBSD at, MW IM does not relieve any Pelson of slatulary reePonsWalry as de0aed M SWIM 7959.SOt ale Neaaa and a u'ry Coda, ascrb" 50"7.91 age Peale eeeourcee CWSMidl SMIlm 9097.99 of the Pubk aeaoureee Coda Tills IM Is Mir aWilcable for conIwor, 10MI aaaya A Sft yditl, USA m cldtural rCagn Wtle PrapWBll aCN11211WO M975; cEcA 1109oe of CoePle9 M; Negeava DWIMmUon for tie awOme 9111age aealdea9N Pmjac% located et 5515 FUSES Avenue In McDPat BmM Orange County, Celaomla. Seashore (pillage Response to Comments City of Newport Beach *Page 1 -9 WAI X43 1. Response to Comments Native American Contacts Orange County March 5, 2008 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Anita Espinoza 1740 Concerto Drive Juaneno Anaheim , CA 92607 (714) 779 -8832 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Joe Ocampo, Chairperson 1106 E. 4th Street Santa Ana , CA 92701 (714) 547 -9676 (714) 623 -0709 -cell Thla IW k CWnM only es& the date or this dwtun . OlshVxRbn of this Re0 does not Wl any pneon M etatamry rospMWRtyasdalhwd. In 600ticn]050.50lth Readh and Salety Code, Sdcdan 504/.90 of dw PuhSc Resom Cade and SectIon bW7M dtde PUN. Raou. Cade. This Ilethonly appOeehN ro, mnmcthgtoeol Na6w 4madean MIN ro4sld to.RUrol,e6Dlamailc, mProposed SCRla0M WI&R:cIAvnueInof Com Beac;M9 Oeunty,.en hN Rre Seeshma VIOe4e ReshleMblProled4 'totaled et 6515'RNe, Avenue In Newport Beach; e,alge County, CeRbmla. Page I -10 w The Planning Center April 2008 .-� AA 1. Response to Comments B Response to Comments Dave Singleton, Program Analyst, Native American Heritage Commission, dated March 5, 2008. B -1 This letter identifies various recommended actions to assess project impact on historical resources and has no specific comments on the Initial Study. The Initial Study acknowledged potential historical resources impact and provided appropriate mitigation measures. No response is necessary. Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beacb • Page 1 -11 I. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -12 • The Planning Center Apri12008 �,Ab 1, Response to Comments LETTER C — Lennie DeCaro, Owner 5406 and 5408 Neptune Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (33 pages) Cortumud 1,augr .Lorhie DeCaro Owner. "06 &.5409 Neptune Phone (449) 433.4927 Newport Beach, CA 42663 Email: iustiw4l'titcoxnet .March 13, 2008' Viaemail (.}}N cholatai:ag.raswpo t- beaclimival (944) 6443309 'Otigivalmailedto: 'City ofldew(tprt;Poch Mn: Brandon Nichols .3300 Newport Blvd; .Netpurt ibaed4;_ Ca92663 RE:. 4915 Ri}til,'r Aver Mitigated Negative Detilar@tion (Seashore Village, LLC). Dear ktr_ Nshots., planning: department, & planning eormnissioners, access to ro,(AeCvvA in opposition to this ptojeelprovides the %lIgWing comments on the w1aratiop (MND) forthe 5$15 Riyerproject, (Sesvhora Vdkage, LLC) The this' Project to Lave . numerous sign�cam ad?'etse l;r virpnmetttal impacts on.the ig-ama, and ayofNewpar't Beach The pmjectwill adversely impact residents To the construction lihase of the project in terms of air. quality, noise traffic, and negative fiscal impacts will 'full an the residents, as it #191 be nearly impossible to.rehtprapedylb anyone that would have to put up withal leastrwo year%pfconstructiun, There isuo mention of any mitigation lo.pmperty owners for loss pf rents; there is torn?ntion as to a perlbrmance,bond to the city to ensure that work would be completed within them "goal'*timefrarne. Currently; "large" builders im,feeing.having bonds called, inabildyto pay subcontractor's and aeehaviug projects stopped in midstream. This is a.likely scenario With this if th'oughl out project and the.residenls will uN i marely pay the price. "this p'ralett would also lead.lo a diminution of property values,: negatively impact homeowners whose patio's and iromago'are on Neptune Avenue, as :project seeks to Tom this street into an alley. The aesthetics- of the be negatively affected, specifically injured are the immediate surrounding neighbors. There is also air invalid assumption of less traffic' based - onj'ormula' using "horning type" instead of "room count ". This mcdrreptassumptton allowed e%eluslom oftmfiic studybased on less that 3001nps par day. Proleet . is mconsistemw&h stated goals oflhe eitles, inconsistent with character of neighborhood, study haa'act been presented to prove that added residents would not negatively impact . services including police, school, and library. There is an incomplete water plan lhatwas submitted; invalid ineome,survey dent by sellers own managernientcompany, (recontlVhbed within the past ,year), this study lacks impartiality add nt doubtfully certified, but unabl, . to review as it was not included in Seashore Village Response to C4 City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -13 OWWIM 1. Re.rpon.re to Commentr this MND: �Tnet>. is further potential project bias from involvement .welt applreamaechneC[ on General .Planlf•4'P implemonttatien cotntruttee, wluplt was intended to primarily include public input. Ibis. C6r€llndtce, addresaed same, of the very issues chal[ettged in this MND, and was to layolve the public, -1 ut0¢ing;architectsarrly as a,subcommittee, Instead, this committee changed and became contrary to the C obt origlnals[a[ed imeileii,purpose and c'dy council resolution and. hncluded rnrmercaiwarchnects-(or:related f;elds);.abB.eht:are detailed minutes ail public input. Further," project is contrary to Coastal 'Comntissiml goals of Public: access W the; peach. lberg is inadequate study of the alternatives to this project, which werasuggested by DeCaro in the spirit:.of compromise. These suggestions by'DeCam would solve the majority of the negative impacts. Noticing was also inadequate as documents were not released online umd February 28, MIS .I and fa C =2 rther, none of the 10 exhibits that are N-Ace i in the. Planning Commission Agenda were attached or aviilablq online n of-3-16-09. 34 Dpys ffom.2 20 O%would also have deadline hicofrect for review period, this W0014 conclude mi 3 -21 -4$ DeCam asserts an: envitorttttetltal3mpact report (ETRI must heprgpated, circulated and uitmatel.; :eect$r red „inatead:ofthe proposed'MND, because there isanbsfantial.adequate evtdepce to support a fair argurnerrtthat the pmlecumay;.and in fact will have significant adverse.environmentsl impacts totraffic, fetid use, anise, aosthotics „air quality, and safety amatot the other afor mioned issues. CEQA regpags oniy.one issue m support a faQ argument to 4ermnd an EI&; this .[trpJat mrilgrrrs numerous .faejual argumcn sthat supportea demadd for an EIR. C-3 Futtlier, the failure of the applreantto indemnify the city £or,CEQA challenges to.ttusproject, will leave the,eiEyaa the positron ofhaving to absorb costs forlegal challenges to the MND that may w §utt in subs'ttitiai darnages.awarded to 4 successful challenge to the MIND. The city should uphold it's .fidnetazY respodAilihcs to the citizens acid citya i'd,got'grard the disetetionary approvals fur said ,project m the applicant and demand an EIR. for any subsequent project revisions. - Ii* would be the most appropriate action that would) responsibly act in a manner that is protective of the residents and city from eostofpotential litigation in a challenge to the MND. D°Caro further asserts the MND does not adequately analyze the impacts and fads to clearly describe.the.numerous impacts theproject willcreate. AN EM IS REQUMD I request this project complete. an Environmental Impact Report as the mitigated negative declaration has not addressed the numerous issues that were raised to staff prior to release'of the, MND, nor do they adequately address the issues that have beentaised in the following objections to the MND. 'There is no,doubt that a fair argument can be made numerous potential significant effects . remain that have not beelr addressed nor disclosed.in the. mitigated negative declaration. The. CEQA.guildines equate fair argument and substantial evidence as qne in the same. Substantial evidence consists of facts, re.&sonable.assumpfions prediriited'upon facts and expert opinion supported byfwts. The MNB'.s analysis of impacts is legally inadequate, as it fails to clearly describe the projects impacts, and offers no mitigation forlhe.unstated impacts. Page I -14 •ThePlanttingCenter Apri12008 h �,b 1. Response to Comments CEQA.requrtes preparation ofan k'kIR whenevera project mey have a signifcant adverse 'impact on the eaviramned,: (Puh, R-eso"s Code'21.15.1.) 'If there :is substantial evidence ofa. sigttificad environmental impact, evidence. to the contrary dots not dispense witjr(lte heed for an EiR• when -it. can still be "fairly argued" that the-pmject may haw aaigniircant fntpacl." (Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 10"App,3088, 11141.) Therefore) the nplimpriateuess of an MND is only when,:due to the nature of the prgja� otthe:mitigatik measures that have been accepted by dieproject proponent before rho MPA revieW process begins, there is not a.Wr argumerd thatthere may be adverse itnp".. "Mitigatednegative declaration" meanaa negative declaration prapared:fbi a. project when.the initial study has identified potatkially dfoifieant effegs on'th'e enkiibtutieht, but (1), revisions in the project plans: or, proposals roade by or to by, tbwa Acallt before the proposed negative declaration and initial shady are Co., ased�for puUGc review .would avoid the effects or muigalethe effects: to a point when clearly no significant effect on the davitoinnerd would occur, and (2) there ii no substantial evidence In light of- the whole record before thepdblie agency thstthe project, as raGisad, may have a significant effect on the edv0oranent, "Per Aul1licj(esources (;ode sanhon ZI t7Q4.5 .Additionally, "the significance; of an activity may vary with the settfti& -(CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 . (b).) Ra an exarnpla, the threshold £or find rig negativ2 impacts robe "cumulatively aighificant" tali be £ound,.tiecatrse the tiatuta Aittds� area and the N.@ptuge Avenue cul -de -sac have been a consistently guict area and street for decades. The intense'atttogat of traffic, noise;: and au pollution generated on Neptune avenue as a mu It project attempting to tun, Neptune into an alleu.. and potentially forvingover one hundred cars, (just from the: development), coupled with additional beach traffic that would use this to loop through nPighboibioad in search of garhfng, make this an extremely significant '£utding (kings County Fattn'8uteau v, City of llariford ( 1990) 221 Cal App.ldtfl2, 718 721.) EPthrrthe _pre. Jects - impact ontratftc- analysis depends upon the existing setting: (Cityof Orange v "Videnti (1974) 37 Cal. App3d 240, 349;) G -3 Cont'd CA The Projects significant impacts must be adequately, addresged,;as well as address the identified mitigation ino4sures that can reduce impacts and describes aunt compares the frnpacts. C -5 of the potentially feasible alternatives If the only reason the alternative is not studied is due to a prospective developers profit potential, then clearly outside interests are beingpmtected over long time residents quality of life. .. .. �(3d)'AESTiIETiC1MPACTS WOULD BE SiGNiFiCAPiT "Any substantial, negative effect of a project on view and.othar features of beauty could constitute a `§ignineane, environmental impact uder CEQA, "(Quail 73utanical Gartleds Foundation, Inc v City of Encinitas (1 11994) 29C I a] Appea 1597,10K) According iii tiro C -S California Court of Appeal; lay opinions that.articulate the basis oftheopinloncan constitute ,substantial evidence: of negative aesthetic impact. (Ocean View Estates Homeowners: Assoc., 'Inc,v_.Montecito Water District (2044) 116 CalApp.4'h 396, 40'2.) - Eitped testtiibfly on the matter is not required because the overall aesthetic impact of a project is a subjective matter for Seashore Village Rerponse to Comments of Newport Beach •Page 1 -15 1. Response to Comments Which persodal observatioiis are auhlcient evidence of the impact. (Id.; taro Five .1391d Mining Corp V County of El Dbrado .(1990 }x25 CsdApp3d871,$91.) :One of the effected properties; 5408: Neptune. Avenue, has a direct view, of the•.ocean from the living:room.& balcony.. This view has a. straight line 9Esight directlgrt9 the public access opening forge beach. View cbnador map (exhilit:3p 75 from MND)alilietratss.ine view corriAOrto:my property was substantiated; yet no inNgations. or discussions Wrossedfir s issue- The currant, apattment.building legal heightuafno consequence m the biifiingjs setback from -5408 Neptune by at least 60'. This large unencumbered parking lot otters the uninterrupted view =it is evidenced in applicant picture 11 a, where the large setbacks ese obvious. OUT propeT[Y Was:Purehased pearly 30 years ago based m partan the undersiant)ing of the benefits of living next to the budding with the..currert,.zoning and setbacks and we:paid a ptetnium.fot this :. additionalspacb neat lo: ow hbrrre. 3 have. objected Id ap`phoaai(s) snd arty .itgarit,mg the numerous negative impaM% yetthe ,l&]) doosdt address my onEaifview; nordoes MIRD address any. mitigation. Ogir view is a direct fire of sight to the (prrix Sll'3 open space oti the sand However; with rooftop decking, the view would be evemgceater. n is inarguable that there is a significant.value.placed on an oce views, amcurding to hundreds of thousands of dollars in dillerenee between view, and non- vleW,pttipenies Iftife:discretiouaiy approvals. for modit'rcations:are _. . appmved,.I wonld 'bsetlte ocean view in:its entitety, suffer an extreme 705s in marketability and enjoyment of property, .lose the privacy from ocwunit proximity and incur sat'ety,traffiq runoff drainage; and noise issues through the prospect oftiuving otvc&de -sac 0.6 Cont ?d Plans for eslensNa of "the sunset view park "will also have public views impacted that I G+7 werenot addressed in i IvIN1} The modification permit (Chapter 20.93 establishes fmdurgs required for approv-al.ofa modification permit. To approve the modification the following fine findings must.be made: I. "The granting of the;applicotlon is necessary due to prachcal:d ff enh-fes associated with the properry and that strict application of the zoning code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent iWth the purpose and intent of the zoning:cade." Clearly this doesn't exist, there is no practical difficulty t hat hmvising pans could nT accommodate. The omy physical hardship would be that the project would transfer hardships to adiommgproperdes as the result of graningof this modification pormit.'Ihe project leas no :practical difficulty, modification need is created solely by applicurCs choice.of design,.rather than any innate characteristic of the lot, Adequatespace exists for ascaled down version: This is new construction and there are a number of design a@ematives lhatcould pmvide full "utilization Ofthe,lot while inamtaining the required setbacks The height modification canAiso be rea}izad by a different design as well: Units are not'marginal in size; in fact they are quite huge, . easy to scale down. :2. "The requested modificdtion Will 'be- edtnpdtible with existing develepment:fn the neighborhooif' -10 • 1 he Planning Center C:B C_9 Aprit 2008 X50 This: fnd'mg CamSot be m$dc y 24' or less Pmpo"sed projoi 1. Response to Comments with win C -9 Cont'd to provide fora mix ofuses that wercplavned to include an apartment building, duplexes and sh*te family areas, This modification Alewsforbuildmgs that are too tall, too •closeto existing :residences and too dente. Mitt eosfapahi le. 3. "T'kegraving of such as gpp4camoo m11 no adversely affect the heat III or safety of persons residing or worktirg in the neighborhooil.of the. property and will nai be detrimental to the,getwvkl welfare or improwonbuts inthe neighborhood" This finding ,cannot be made aither: This development is dueefly adjacent to neighbors and directjy negatively Win,inllraet than. This beyolppment is in direct view ofihe public. This developmetn,will obocute view's"[ ibb beach and its massing will overwhelm the §Yea and take awapthe open area that is feh;wnh the o*t ngsetbacks;of6O' and mom For he.current spartment are of similar height;(jitme ;iderrtial units are one Arid two Ltypical of and for28'and ere'c'ted m'thew. inityandsunmunding area -units do not7exceed 24r1 (except possibly from a couple of hornes where The architect was jailed for falsifying the heights and Newport kllauud briiGli'rig heigho t47emalrs). She aeslheUcs ref tlis heighldit'ferential will becohte obvidus and 4eryneg4ive if the height differential's accentuated dub the granting': of the side :yard setback and height nbdif'icatims, This +.side yaid rhodification,p ns project too close in ptoximitylo the older units, ihtensifyidg ''thcdiffemnces,in,hoigbt and style. Planning commission should,not allow the discmiiouary',emmuval for the setbankmodifrcatjobs,.moist egregious would be to allow neighborhood. •Wa purdnased the proptuty in the 1970's due tc the largesetback firm m the apaftmdrd building, the quiet, privacy, and view this entailed. The apartment buitding is currently approximately W to 100' feet from our house and the modification i seeking to reduce the mmmmrnsetbe requirement of 25' by$8% (a change from required: minimum of 25' to an• inappropriate 3'); Properties areputehased knowing:lhe- existing.zoning and.setbadks, ad any modificatiom that would'beirirproved would be a $ignificant:impact to tlasxestofthe neighbor'gtg community [liar has abided by the restri4tions. CAD C -11 C-12 ,, „ C -13 i"iem"tionahogethar (p.39) under the eu,%6ronmental analysis amt `therefore, neithermi[igalion nor their impacts were aildre§4bd. 9shoull have read; "a modification',permit is also requested. `fora 3-foot side;yard toibeok'.vhere'the MFR zone requires appmximaieLy 25 feet aide yard Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -17 55� I . Response to Comments setback based On lot width, (under discretionary approvals pg 25) This is deafly a signiticam C -18 imp,9ot and wiU:degatitely a'13?ast all swrowding ptopetties,. losing the fed and look of open ConVd sRacetbatther ncodf ostprirdthoapaxmtenthadontheproperty Theomiasiorr,oftbis madd7cation perm¢ on page 39's a sigmfieant.impact that,the lackof analysts of which; is legally inadequate. Applicant .appeaft4o wad the best. of btrifti es-of oning_ They would'like to notualy have the hpilding beight currently 28' for MFR, but don't ward the aetb- restrictions that g.Y 4 comes with-this zoning. Morettoubl'iig is= that they appearto. betryingto:have@ Itoth-ways. They are lodkingto go even fiuther on bothheight and Whack through the modit- iaation mquests. TliesLtare- diacreTiouaryapprovals the'ciky should followfhe viSiod that iWe restt/ctibm Ought t6proteotaud.d(sall�w. 'Iramodlification permits, Ifthese hciphrre$tr ction. modifications arew4ppmyed itwiil create a domino effect ofother residenixg requesting.the:5ame:. Deeply seGmlaK1*om#4%s'er (nostu) as welt as` NePttmB ann aeasucue (eagt). due. %etbacdcs a;e a minimum of60! (possibly 100'l.'Page 47 in the MND accurately depicts the enormous. open -sp$ee hettKaeti the bulidutg's.Ttils picture also iliustrate5-[iat one dart see the ocean between the buildings. Tithe 19$0rs'.[hake izNas.no fence bI6Ckutg the View stall. Infsat the street was'npen frzrXn t ;iver'di eM:througinfo 3eastrore Again, this can he proven by the applicant's very own. documoms. Plemerofet'angepagc373ofAppmdix D; �tliis. isanexarnpleo fabistorkaimap'ihat proves the area adjacent to 5408 Neptune was open:as a road that was originally media access River Road to Seashore. '.It alsd proves that Neptune has always been a cul.d"W. Again, inthe spirilof compromise;I have suggested a W ut- winTor the commubily that deserves seriouscoreideration if this project wards.toproceed. The<oppoitunity for the city to .create amore pedestrian friendly development with sidewalks, on.streetpmking, publioaccess, visually more open space, mote aeathetidelly appealing than bunldings;saMwiched.togother, and a`batter fit for the neighborhood is an opportunity £oreverWme to have thcir coneerus addressed, white removing many ohjections;should be seriously considered_, C -15 C -16 Ttietow square footage for the msung. apartment building is only 48,744 square feet (per title soarcb,. or 48, 753p.37MND). This proposed project will amallyuase to 57,906. C -17 This equates - to proposed project being roughly 1961. larger than the existing spartment building footprint: This does not take into consideration that current apartment is approximately 27' and proposed units will be:tiller by an aveiage of approx -. 20 %. Theie:is no way MND can claim that this project is IeSS detiso;'will gouatate less traffic or will be in anyway beneficial to our commuaey if accepted as proposed.. MND states project as gross,floor area of 57,906 with a floor area ratio of 78. Again; these caloulatmns amincotrect Entire: lot area s approx 63,597 aquae tom (ong, bldg, permit I C -18 }4.4,Fdte appendix D to MND'documeffi), whiph-ognates to :9'1 FAR. Again, the MND is factually incorrect m its assertion that it; vtbgld give more open area, when the facts are contrary to this. Page 1 -18 •The Planning Center Apri12008 pa 1. Response to Comments life AfNI7.comnirtes both building and parking of exist mg spa inept '.. rid is inislead 4g The floor a[ea.0 wliaishyuld: be reiarettced zvkAen discnsaingttte visual gpep space. Thjs Mjict will significantly reduce the.visual:opea space area The•cinrem�open parking spaceatoas ,not only allow a feeling of open -space, iboyactually have ampIcImikufg: for tenants and their guests without Ute need:fnr the teaaritsto naothe;srreek This frees the street up to visitors wishing tin use the recreational anreadies and park afthe we0aide oftllis propetty;tltattaxpayg .AdllaiS were speattA rnairrtabt orthe'public enloy]uenk IFfhss'develoirmeatisallowedfagoforthas- presented, it will be giving" this developerilie park: and.caurts,thaf Wong to the city. 'the :massing will give tlic,impreasfoa thatthis ic.a: private facility and thelaclt_ofparking this dev?eldpment will create will tie the final straw. 33 ADI:QUALITY:IM1"ACTS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT eperehon ofthe. protect- would aorexoeed Ow SCAQMD ttues)m. *. WD States emissions would he a net reduction due to anefreduction in "residential units. The.MND fails :to analyze - the 'footprint is apprbXhuatelyyl9°/a 14W than crusting tint aad the sghare fbofdge.af building .goes4nm48,144 sqI to tit engdmpassi rg 5T,966 square feet. Nor has: the MNDT- actored in that the existing apartment buildingltas had a vacancy factor during this.past year of at least 3(Mb; even. if you werelo base it onNewpodl' Beach average vacancy,:orwo6uld, safely assume that at any given time rental units are conservatively at 10% vacahfoy.. rate. Compound this vytW.ihe fact that the •majority.ofunits (40) only have:gne ieasnt, and remainnig lsl upifs'arC fortwo adults, Therefore; the munbet'ofpeoptates ding`at current-apartment bui1ding,(10% vacancy): would be approximately 49 as aniaximum number. 24 resideaces:with 12 faunbedrooms. and 12 threc.hedroom equates. to 94 residents, or 71% more .impact on the:enviroameat. I used bedrootwourribbrs 1rasedAa their prescutatibn, as MND drawings are illegible for detad. 'Chose additionalsesidedtsfrom this project will not only be using more resources, but will add to-thetrafi;c volume. and this addled. volume would result in an increase in air pollutants, which is not acknowledged in the MND. Neptune Avenue is a cal-de- Site and s narrow (30) compared-to River (60);. it is unable to handle traffivurming- around in this narrow road. This project is suggesting Neptune as the alley to the new development; howaveri this street was not; designed to accommodate this and would result in backups of the additional traffic. Further,: the original ingrass /egress (on River) for the existing site was removed in order to densxfythis project.by putting in condosivhere cars had previously accessed the site. In f981, the public accessed Seashore through this are adjacent.to 5408 Neptune, (Appendix➢' map.M)-this�mute was blocked to through traffic with the addition of a. fence, :likelyto avoid aptescril tivi action by the public, since putilic:had used this access for years. The MND has not studied the negative nnpact of trying to'tum the established Neptune Avenue into an alley, and how this would impact Yiatrc The MND should studyThe aXtrnative I Seashore Village Respome to Comments C -18 Cont'd 'C49 C-20 C -21 of Newport Beach • Page 1 -19 X53 1. Response to Comments spggesfed which is to utilize the current parking lot/setback to secommodate the development ingress/etneas by requiring A be a road. This would put the problem that applicants are crealmg; C•21 back.to amore.egrirtabk solution. The,proje n as presented puts the entire negative impacts ordv ;Conftd the neighbors. 'MND states 420% ofprojeet would be paved, but doesn't analyze type of pavement nor - mitigations Will alley that aeceases resident driveway be'eomprised of asphalt j These au quality I C-22 utrpaets are net adequately analysed Asphalt batch plants emit PM, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides, sulfrtr oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, . methane and hazardous air pollutaW These impacts muatbe'properly studied in the MND and then adequate mitigation Yq{ist rye; included. MND states there will be short. tetun,generation of air pollutants; during construction, primarily including exhaust from construction,. dust from dema, and motor vehicle trips. The .C43 MND claims c9cmption loeame SCA,9MD has yet to establish regional emissions. Artily* is inadequate, modeling was for a site at $,2 feet fom #giistnmhooO This site is closer than 82 feetta anumber nfadjomingxestdent and these figures are noltadequately C.24 studied nor mitigations offered. In using URBFMTS2007 modeling, tnputtedassuriiplians for this modelnig are tnot included.` M'ND'iiicdrrob$y asserts that the model run is includrsl -rli appendix B. Appendix,B.ts tisledas'!aroliasological record seareH". Short termJinpacts. also tiogated to mention the release of aabostos'and :lead.paint .C•25 'Property,hass.confirmed asbestos and due to age ofconstmction .lead is assumed as well: MND - states: ;CO2 emissions &e likely not to ti considered substantial enough, to result in a significant curriulatiye'imp2ct relative to:GHCr. eriiissltins and climatechange impacts This was true studied adequately, snd theyare using: assumptions instead ofstudies. Long term impacts.are based on faufty short term impacts and incormet assumptions of reduced vehicle trips as MNV use 1TF 2003, winch has subslamrat variability. Fudber, because. MND is using the assumption there are no short-term unpack, therefore there are no long -teem .impact are incorrect, There are short-term impact; therefore long -tens irnpacts'need analysis as well MND .presumes operational emissions would be reduced because the number ofunits are-reduced. They fail to analyze based on the - total - squarefootage of buildings as cbngtared to the apartmmentor -mom wunt. There is an obvious connection to an increase in residentsand traffic, based on size of home and rooms -. This limiecr would result in an increase not a decrease in traffic. :Construction LSTs are not based on any grading plan, so the amount of disturbed soil is an unknown Further, and ohm again MND inadequately studied construttionl.3TS and Provided the - assumptions for the modeling in Appendix. A hs reviewingthe modeling 4 appears that in order to comply; construction was extended to 18 months and removed trenching for utilities as well as mmsgrading. 'Thasing" of the project was used as =a tool to gain compliance, however, cumulatively; surrounding resident are exposed.tn`the satire amount of pollu[ ant, Doty over alongerperiod. oflirne. Modeling, also assumed construction would take place in the, winter. with 60- degree weatbor. Additionally, to lower emissions, model removed;th'e C -26 C•27 Page 1 -20 •The Planning Center Apri12008 a5`, 1. Response to Comments trenehmg1ot,utii'dies. This *ould be uraccunne, hi ehA,unit wiIl need uni 0.91ounM40f utilities, trenching for foundations.ete.. C-87 Golit'd. Additionally phasing is a poor idea, a likely scenario is that prxyecf ends -up sitliltg;fdr much longer and the MND has no mitigations to guarantee this'won1,happen There are 2 areas where emissions would exceed the LSTa, PM10 and Mfg Mitigation TMAS re91atetheywdlbangdown. poff iaitas 'toanabeeptall'leleve7,however Rule40. C-26 measures need to be ca W ftol specifically in thd idh94ion„ and thirWo, is bowdon; gicorrect assumplrons. Included below is ezcetpt.fromth@,Newpon H@ R -26) 4m the Environnrenal.QQualdy Affairs report, that addresses this UR13EMIS rrmdeling,(same rimdel 'use& in this MND) and the assoclaWd problem. " rgeommendsthud `prNke IS 9e7e141109 or attrPaing VA14WNr't{lps, Orpaciauy accordance with Cal, fomia;Envrrc on the CEQA website..Tiwfina E. ,assessment -and provide the rmlts have beenpreWmYly noted its potential.hea&h hdza'rda, they are n&r tnduded.rn the modeling- The�ndFEtTL:shouFdtdentify holy t)reprapasai7'rojeel'tvwtkl dais{; ij!tth:lhese -. hazards, and identify other pfissible analysis tools that could be rai'ltzed. In this same Appendix B. the URBETvfIS modeline rasazlts are polenh'atty confusing a ndconlradiaory. Compare the msultsymoiAppeildix6?, sheet AI (marked page: 1. 31812".. 2 36 pbo amt sh"t #5 falsa marked page; ), ?'/ 6 2:17 pmJ The noes on. thew pdg€a are identical regarding on roadaOtWoehicl0 ein ssrons s¢irnmarized in poundVdayfar summer, ThefinalEiR should e;pfain thodii ferenee,for example, in RbG from 2931.54 lbslday to 352S2Ibs/day, and slats how, the City can assure that the correct mtmbers'are used in subsequenranalyses. Also, ROG is Vol ,defined. Is this mlated,to The volattle,organia-eompaunds (.IrOC'); defined on'page 4.2.2 of the DEIR7 If so,,lbefinal MR should folly inplain, If not, the analysts ofVOC's should be included in the final EIR7" undancoring.added, 3A BIOLOGICAL. RESOURCES,- INADEQUATE STUDY ANALYSIS C -2Q eao C -31 MND relies on only a site survey, yet 'doesn't provide fie)d data wbaets, nor caretl:'a wr¢t8n �C-32 report, signed and certified by Senior Biologist, por is Phil BrylaU hated oil pg l01 as a prepare( with The Plaunmg'Cenlcr. Data regarding biologicalresources on "the project site Should have been obtained through a literature review that would include data on biological msowces in the Seashore Village Response to Comments of Nettiport Beach • Page 1 -21 X55 1. Response to Comments - project vicinity; and applicable reference mulertais, with the objective of assessin &and documeritmgexisting conditions of the onsite. biological resources that may not beguniediately chvioua whh,morely a site review. Sensitive biological res oumes present, orpotentially present;, onsrte should have funCbeen'.identified and-documented through a literature review using the following resources: California Department of Fish and Game: (CDFG20M California'Nalural Diversity DaInBase (CNDDB2-007), and the California. Native Plant Society (Tibor -2001 and - CNPgFl 2007). A biological assessment survey to document existing conditions and to detemtine potential impacts to sensitive biological resources based on current site plans should have included dotes of biological resources, such as plant, aid wildlife species, on field +data she$ts would also notate date, time and ne,itions notes were taken under. These data shouts are not included. The California - Department; of Fish and Garre;(CDFG) administers the state Endangered Species Act.: The SlatevofCalifornia considers an "endangered "specie's one whose:pros&ds; of mirrival do i reprodutfo'n;am, in irnmedime jeopardy, a "threatened" species is one present'i t, suchsmaU nu7i*s throughout its rang, that it s hkelyto lieuome ar ,nda gored species nil e: 'near future in tlre:absenee:of'spucial protection or management, and a "rare" species isone present in such smatittuimbers Il mughout =its rangethat it may: bce insoendangered if its present: enviroruaain worsens. "l are'i species applies to Calif mianative plains. State thtesteued,and endangered species are fully protected agaivattake,.as delined.above..Spcaies ofSpepial Concern is an iri 1portal designation used by Cl)PG:forsome decliuing'wildlifespecies that are not state candidates. This designation does not provide legal protection, butsignifies that these species.ars recognized as wrisitive.byCDFG and no determination of impacts - eariadequately be assessed by on.lieazsay. Because the cotnmuhityis near to wetlands -and dunes, further confaniaiton frornthe CDFG: is re?ptired. The California Native' Plant Society (CLAPS) has developed an inycntory. of California's sensitive plant species (Tibor '2001t This inventoryy summarizes information on the distribution, rarity, and endangerurent of£Caldomia's vascular plants.. The inventory is divided into four lists based on the rarity of the species. In addition -the CNPS provides.an> inventory of plant con munities that are considered sensitive by'the state and federal resource agencies, academic institutions, and various conservation groups. Detontruation of the level of sensitivity is based on the number and size of remaining occurrences as well, as meognized threats. Sensitive habitats are natural communities that support concentrations ofsensitive`plant or wildlife species; are of relatively limited distribution,,or are of particular value to wildlife (CNDDB 2007). Sources used for the classification of sensitive resources that should have.bectinolatva and reviewed are as follows: plants - California Departaent of Fish.and Game (CDFG- 2007), Califon is Natural Diversay Data Base (CNDDB 2007)„ and California Native Plant:Society (Tibor 200:1 and CNPSEI 2007);14abitats - CNDDB_(2007), Holland (19M) Wild life. - CDFG(2007.),. CNDDB(2007). Sensitive plant comrnuni ties -occur near the vicinity ofthe praje t silt- 4 0 ofiNewport Beach Coastal Resource Protection,. 4:1:1 There arc terrestrial, (non marine) natural communitiesthat are known to occur within the coastal zone in the city of Newport.P,each and its sphere of influence- MND offered inadequate analysis. Ib Cord'd Page 1 -22 • The Planning Center Ap612008 ��(D 1. Response to Comments There also appouF to lie huge treQs,apecica and poUsntiAYnestnig of birds; nbt addrisssed, MNDstatcs'bess are classillod as " smsdM however phow$rmpW auggest-othorwise. No photos C33 c iftchulod landscaping, Historical fps, " - 6 . h pbot a 20 ( 4) ilhistnate three large;palm& page 4l of-AppondixD you van also seethe tops ofthelrees including one.of (bapalms. MNUappcm a have - purposefully omitted pictures that show the apartment in a positive light. This it quite contrary to pictures that I havc. Auther, Page 46 shows different tMes behind the parking. llfis,entke area behind the :wallas; Imulsoaped. Tho,project nay violate the city of Newport'& tree ordinaries as it fails to identify if-the existing trees are co, �-d hy'this:G -1-G -3 po ficy. Newt art Beach4cfaim landmark treds based on iuk ate, andtoc: Historical photos of subject site show three, 'Qxtr'qnWiy'ia*' trahn trees that could qualify based on size „ age or *ecics. However, the MNb hasno, documentation prormr4, excep j to state two small ornamental pine tress exist on property. This is ambiguous , and. clearly: inaccurate based an photo from 2004, and them is no studylo corrItarrif this would bc;ajaogativer imindl to:thccommimity;a r6mow trees that haW,:bee& in the community since 1972. Mito.aioa for mmovat ofthm trees are uncertain. 'Me M&D does; put pfovide any C-” mitigation forfhe loss of the mature palin trees.ne MND most analyze how trees would be replaced; I MITIGATIONS ARE IMPROMLY DEFERRED. The courts have hold it is a vialstign.of CFQA,tp apprayoa project based on;a negative declaration without first resolving how adverse , atW4 (Sunds" m v� County , Mendocino (1988) 202 C45 .. , i fw% Cal. App,!IA296.) The courts found that the. development and implomemation.ef mitigation W-UM", measures after prqject.appr.oValwm! a violation of CEQA. (Ia. At M6-30t see also Gentry v. CRY Opmurrieta (l¢9}) 36 Cal-App-4 ffi 1159. f396,j Courts have prohibited the doferrAl of 010 mitigation because -rheteeannot he meaningful smurry of a Mitigated negative tteclamtion wheirthe miagation measures are not set forth at the time of the project approval �'.(Oro Fine Gold mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) MCA App. 3 d,872,884.) 'there area number ofmitigation - measures for potentiiQly significaM effects that are mitigated only bystatements tbat,finure plans wouldprovide miligationwithout specifying the mitigation measuresorrequiring that the plans be submitted pTiortoproject approval. This issu is throughout ths MND. Plans needle be comipleted mod,submitted as part bfthe CEQA review process, and prior to the approval of any environmental review document (Pub.Resources Cod Section 21090(c)(1)) UND states: thatit will provide more landscape thari-existing mid this will make it more pleasing than the existing building because landscaping, is doubled, but without a d6tafled plan, the mere,coverage of area doesn't make it: hanaottractivc. The project could .bc removing many Ia gt shru j priah trees 6 lyta be replaciig t en with small planters, brt, that "se.more area. The inipact-wokild bemibatanti.alan4 negative to have the mature landscaping removed.. The numerous traes, suirroundingtheproperty, (heighborhood,trees) could be considered C-36 "*Ociul trees" giving chista,4er to the:ootirmhunit Per city cmde, Special'Troes . shall be retmiudd, unless there are overriding problems. Prior to consideration for arty removal of a Speciiil.Tree(s), 11, Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach #Page 1-23 ��l 1. Response to Comments the General Services mectut, or designee, aliall preliare, aseport idbid16-Ing and ihipleiiteliti fg specific treatment to retain the tree(s) If speFdjc troahnem isilnsucoeaslul or`imprnetical in ir. SaWit! g' aiFee{ R)$ henafuFlsts$` repnrt shall-be made: to the Connriis5ionbeforeauy ;futihr C -36 action considering:removal is taken. Prior to any removal of Special: Tree(4, the City.must ;Cw t'.d comply wnhihc;noticingprovisions oftheRemoval'ofCity Treesacotion set Forth urthis Policy, 'unless a Spoeial.Tmb m considered haaardaua thatneceasTates an emctgcncy removal, Any sock ream mlinuat Ue':tccommended by the Qeneral Services Director aiid the ltisk Mapagot•and approved bylhg:Chy Manager. be considered Ion re'nroiW under the,provistons of this Section Iy. ihe-,"cral Services Director is pmvfded td the Coimrdssion emov?i rod any speciao previous imatmeilt,.ofThe tree. Atfer're Trees sectio eonurpo. ayasgociation_7£'applicaWe, (not applicable to tlho enrergegcY remova�offivArdous trees under-Item Cnortoms- that rueefthe criteria of:Item E infhe preceding All Other City frees scam). removed,' the - trees) Will bo:posted &least30 days prior-to - the;temoval with a sign .notifying the public thatihey havethe rrghltif appeal..T}iesign'sha11. also noted staff'contact. Oita a reaoinmirtdation is trade by, the Urban Forester and thcParks and Trees Maintenance: Superintendent to the .Genetal- Services Dweptor and the Crenorzaerviees I)ireeforor designee concurs, then theappikarrt,the.adjoining —,,private property owners on either side ofihe street within. 500' in each direction of the :tree location. and '.a legally established community association,:1 applicable, s1*0 be notiiie i of the decicionto removo or ietaht the'tme Within 30 days of the proposed retanvat plegaldy'estdWished eommwtity association es responsible for notirmatton of. all': assooiatign members pumuagt To their established procedure. The General Services Director, or .a designee, shall prepare a staffreport fdr aregularly schedukd :P$&R- Cotnmissioia:rt/eeting of all trees recoininended for.remctval, exoept for those trees categorized .m Paragraph C. (dead, diseased, or;dyiMtrees) or Paragraph-13 (claims and safety issues) m.the preceding section on All {Other CityTrees. Only an applicant, an adjounngpro perty owner, or a legally established- eomnrnnity association, the City Manager, a PB &R Cominissioner, or a Cc meil'memher- may appealthe decision of the GeneialServices Director not to remve a tree to the "R3nntissiom The Conunfssion, in consideting any appeal, shall determ ne.whether the retttoval meets ibo eriterla.optltned it, jh sjPolicy, as wall M. any unique factorswhieh may he perthter¢to the removal orretention oftree(s). The decision of the Commissionwill be.co�dered -final unless called.up by at least one Cotmcilmember orthe City - Manager:, - 12 Page 1 -24 • The Planning Center April 2008 �'5Y 1, Refponfe to Commentf The General Services Department will delay anytime removals) for at least.14 calendar days following the dameofthe Commission decision in orderto allow time The General Services C -36 Departmenfwill delay any1ree rcmoval(5) for at least 14 calendar days followmg.the date of tha (confd) Commission decision in order to allow time for a Councilmember or the City klanager to call [he item 3:5 CULTURAL RESOURCES - INSUFFICIENT STUDY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS MIND misrepresents the importance of findings from Archaeological data MND states records search was conducted and no archaeological evidence on ornear the site was found The MND neglected to state that the prior studies that were done did not include this area; therefore there were no sites that could be found if they were never studied. Of the areas studied, including Within One-quarter mile, records checkfound a minimum of 11 archaeological sites within one mile of projeoL MND states sites are not "expected" to:estend. into project area. However, study further states that area and soumunditig'piopei'ties were developed without the beifelitof au archaeological. investigation and therefore,.no data is available to ascertain the general level of sensitivity for similar resources to be�pmsem. The McKenna study concludes; the Newport Coastal area is generally considered.:sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources and should be eowidered moderately sensitive for both: historic and prehistoric archaeological resources. .UND admits only 'a limited archaeological records search was conducted by McKenna et al. However, the findings arm significant. I[ continues to state area moderately sensitive for historic arehaeol9gical'resourcesm?g riling the historiq raihoad alignmem. MND has mitbeen surveyed for cultural resources and potential for subsurface evidence remains. Mitigations must include defined mchaeological monrtoring.program. Archival research has, indicated it is sensitive for the presence 9f prehistoric period archaeological resources within the project area. Surface survey is an inadequate method for defining and evaluating these msoumea,'and even that wasn'tperfamed. Mitigations for this potential impact would he to implement: a. program of subsurface testing, utilizing traditional or remote sensing methods, designedand implemented by a Registered Professional Archaeologist. Testing would determine the nature and extent ofarchaeological deposits'. If depegits wete located, they would be evaluated according to the eligibility criteria ofthe California Register of flistorical Resources. If eligible for listing on the Qdifomia Register of Historical Resources, measures to mitigate the effects of the project on archaeological resources would be designed and implemented. Avoidance is the prcfeaed.method of mitigation. If,.'howevey. avoidance is notfessible, alternative methods may be developed: rf alternative mitigation includes data collecfion excavations,1hese must be conducted according to CEQ'A Guidelines Section 15.126.4, C -37 Per notice from the Native :American Heritage Commission dated March 5, 2609 and ' received Mar 10, 2008 (available. at city 3- 17 -08), they recommended that a records search of C38 m recorded sites be done (CHRIS) and that the recoM search would - determine: if a survey is required to 13 Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -25 L ��l 1. Response to Comments fletermiue wbefher previously unree¢rded culfipal eaources era prescaL Study oonsultant.perfomled seamb but did not state whether a.survey would'he required. The.NAHC aiso.recornmends that project applicant contact the Native American Heritage commission for a Sacred Lands file searoltofthe project. KIND study Shows no evidence of contact or results ofthis reeommendation. I contactedthe Native American Heritage Commission and confirmed thatthe project site is in close proximity to previously discovered prehistoric burial.sites and is believed to hold numerous Native American cultural resources They suggest early consultation with Native American tribes in the area as. ihe-besl way to avgtC uruwieipatod iaiaeoveries once a prujecl.''is underway; They also state that lock o fsurfi+ee evidence of archeological resources docs:not preclde the existence of archeological resources. Leadagon eies:shoutd:wmideravoidance,.w defined in:S'ection 15370 of the California Environmental Quality Act::(CEQAy* hen signirmin, cuhwal iesources dould beaffectedbya:picjeOL (3 -19 -Utz Dave Singleton) The existing paved area currently m 6e setback of 60, if used as. the drtvewa);:as it presently is used „could help to mitigate the. impacts jtyavoidWg the esleayatmon forfnun tenon footings that wrll be required in order to suppod. the three; story condos. 3.6 GEOLOGY AND'SOIIS - INSUFFICIENT STUDY. OF POTENTIAL. IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS e-se CPIWd MND state§ EGA consultants prepared an investigation included In Appendix B. This I Ps9 mislabeling of where to fmdlhe documems is confwhig. Appendix iI addre4ses archaeological Records Search. Geptechhical Investigation is found jn Apperdix C. This documenta(so hes been marked with purple highlighter. It is unclear if-this is to emphasize or to delete. As aimed: in McQueen v. Hoard of Directors of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District (202 Cal.App.3d. 1.136; 1143; 249 Ca1:Rptr. 439), "An.accurate project description is necessary for an intelligeld evaluation of potential environnientaLeffegts of a proposed. activity ", .A vague or ambiguous project:descriprion will render all further analyses, and determinations ineffectual It is ethical that the project description be as clear and complete as.possibleso that the issuing agency and other responsible agencies may make informed decisions regarding a. proposed project. While an MND p nvides.ageneral description of the project, key elements are either missing or yet to be decided. for ax. mple, there is no indication as to haw much grading will occur. This is a key factor in ;addressing other impacts iaohteling, but uot,limited te; ltalGe on haul rotten, noise, vibratiom and air pollutant: emissions: Vibration willoecurto tliel land. immediately adjacent to the property during construction. Mitigation measures thed could be used .include: using angers and prdviding'buileer zones between residences and the use of vibratory equipment Mitigation could also'rnclude:ad'ernative ways'o£compactiomi:within these priff. er zones that. does not create excessive: vibration. 14 C' -40 Page 1-26 • The Planning Onter Apri12008 a�� 1. Response to Comments F,,GA comphled,aprelimmary i6vestigatba. They requested gradingand fouHd'ation plan I.G-41 be reviewed and approved prior to comstructiom There is m mentton, of the appendjz E in their contract pr atu€ly and may not be site specific. There walso an issue for inadequate drainage runoff could impact surroundirtgptuperties I C *42 as water table is found at 6' -8" below grade. There is no gradmg/speciti¢rhamage plan to determine depth and disturbance ofsoil. Soil records also show wa[er'table at 1' below surface on records check for area soils. 35 IIA2'A"OUS MATERIALS Study found 17 of 44 samples testing ; positive . for: asbestos: No load, based paird:was testedfor, 19.72 Was •during time When lead was comma yfound iu paint. StudystatiAthat prior to demolition, d mny Yegawei 81eaA1saseA paint survoyto he perfdrfned Again, MND.is deferriog Possible mitigatious;:bepau4etlrey+ have not'dorie:a uonetttsive study. New development could ` uncove,pmviowly undiscovered .soil.contamieratimi as w5 ll as result iim:the release of potential contaminants that may be present in.building "materials. (e.g, mold, lead, eta.). This 4ma result in a sighf usurt impact. Lead was not tegted.for,' and the mitigation is.. therefore deferred, mold raiothokloxies were not addressed Mitigations should include detailed means of enforcement and the agencies /departments of enforcereent of the City's proposed.policies should:define the timelines and response times for enforoement nfeach regulation and policy. Most importantly „all, itnpakts— whelherpotemial or definite — should be analy ed'in fight of the response, clean up, and remedial ion times attendant to the regulations /policies and enforcement cited by the City as the Factors thatrender all imp puts less than significant. 3.8 HY'DROLOG'Y! WATER QUALITY IMPACTS R'OUL.DBE SIGNIFICANT The plan as submitted appears as an ircomplete'fxY`tlerplate report. Plan describes that by filtering directly into the. ground, this aVaids.the need Far regular maimanance „however acknowledges that drains would require general property m intenafiee, The tong•temt operation and maintenance requ"i means for the Treatment Control .BMPS'are not defined adequately as they slate tbat there will be no common maintenance control;; that instead, individual investors will be caring fpr than mdirfdual areas. It doesm`fidemiijrthe entitytliat. willl7.e responsible For long -term operation and maintunance of the Treatment CdnbV t BMIrS, and does nbt describe the nmeuhanism for.funciing the long -tenn operation and maintenance ofthe Treatment Cordrol' BMPa. 13 C-43 C -44 Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beacb • Page 1-2 7 Ov X61 1. Response to Comments Section VI is entirely missing, as Well as language either ornittednr aet@ffiude l by% use : of colored marker. Page 10 is.blatd5 Page 11 checks box fo'roommarl arealaudatia anaSetnuut as both "included" and "NW' Slates "WN' regarding a;spill cot,[hkgeney plan based on "Smart SFD.developmentr (sic). " Plan is inadequate as iterates wntmon arealater control is NIA,ns "common areas minimal and maintained by:indiwdual homeowners ". There is guest parking„ alleyway and pavedwalkways that ace private and shared.by the development. 'They idemtfy tuk one being in charge to clean or mstrilmu these areas, nor do they state who will be.resp nsible'for street sweeping'ofparking lots orat.intenance of broken irtipaiion systems th at would hp used for the. treesthey have depicted in artistrendermg of proposed.Aevelapmernt. Theselmeswilfrequire pesticides, fertilization.a; nd watering, Far greater than zeroscapeplantings. The-application is ituutequate in that rt does not state-WI will pro. fide corriniitnarea catchGflSin.iusjledioiL It has marked both meluded anal "NIX, under Uniform fire, code implernenita !',lanshon7d-als'o consider sand filtmtion,priortcvmlease of treated wateritua stoundraitk if hidividualpercolation would be inad durequate ing heavy rams, considering the high water table in Newport Beach Plan Boca not address;actions for the construction phase thatahould include how denhotition debris is disposed. ofol stored, covered, tmnsported add does'ttot include giadmg and drainage plaris to prevent flooding of other properties. I)eai n obtedivea:thig need W tic addressedwould,inclgdr.<_ All surface rnnotfand auhsurfacc drainage, lieing titreMedtortlle nearest:acceptable drainage facility; viasumppumps ifnecessary,.as determined by the.l3udifing Qffneiai.:Drains cannot discharge omoneighborung, pmpeities;,akl- roofdraiw slmll`berequiredto connect into a,tkghL tine dteinage pipe 8r,00 terefe swales that *46 to the neareat aeoe`ptabic . drainage facility. Ulater'rumir needs to address laadseape.plaus that 'woold utilize only native, drought- teleran[ landscape materials. Plans appear to, show tram trench in from of 5468 Neptune - verge, Instead pf on their property, transfenrnng maintenance responsibilities to the city. Drainage appears to be designed to go directly into the ground but not called out in sufficient detail as to location, size, etc. Pollutant coneerns: Should be addressed due to the water table at approx. 5' below surface, possibly at 1', and soil is class D, subject to saturation, poor drainage; etc. New, project wiliexacerbate weer use and into$ thereby inemasing.,pollution. Current aparttuent parking doesn''t }iave access to'wmh cars at the ptomises. Existing landscaping is wellestablished.and appears to consist primarily ofzono -scape plantings. Pmjeefwould inerense wafer usage and subsegnent.pollution due to irumased.watering of plamgO areas agd.fetu}izing, numerous residents washing their cars intheir driveways.; and numerous residents hosing off prior to entering: the condos. Much.ofthis water would be on impervious surfaces„ increasing Pollution in the runoff. There is no platy fora commonmaimenanee distrii4tto Control landscape areas, so possibilities of broken sprinkler heads are much more tritely to go unattended to. It'is also much ' more likely that each individual unit wilt supply hoses to showeroffpriortA mming,imo their. newhomes, causing a continual mrmff ofwater. The.MNDctaimthat the new project will,resuh in less surface runoff are incorrect as thcm will be an increase in waterusagc. lircieases: will be 16 C -44 ColtUd 'C45 0.46 Page 1 -28 • The Planning Center Apri12008 1. Response to Comments primartiytrt (he:hpperviaus areas due to bosing offend washmgof Ors. There is also a real C.46 potepial of floo'dmg riejghbors ifgmdatS is toward surronrldrug residences Thrs is man area Cb0t'd. that hasflodded signdipanlly ):frunoff is put back into thcground relying on afiher ngsyslein, this could oversmumte the grounds and potentially impact.surrounding properties as well. There isalsomo discussion ofthe Clean Water 'Na that would limit the amount. ofwooff I ,C -47 of Inuit the percentage of mcroase a project generates do the amount of tunOtY' 19 EAND USE /YIiF"SI 1,1W DIVIDE AN ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY The introduction.ofsuch a.densemaaeing of homes may' create:a:distinct.comnrmity whereby rehab facilities could pre ferate,.The polemist is ealreadyrumored and thervs nothing thatthe citycould do because as;ftulivirWlly owned'condps, each residential unit ebtlld house :6 'people snit be within tbelaw. Mycewmch-t ovemd that one ofthe primary rehab house owners isli,,Udgs a fenant'jat1re existing building:. The: directories search in the MND Would haveshownths'but theyonlyshow directories up 101002. It s, areasormble conclusion one could draw,:llst spriieone wliir'owns sceeral.rehabhomes: iu Nev[ppti;B'each, yet deciAes to bcWtneatetla t, may possibfy be partofthis investor group. There is evidence to suggest that tW,woacttylie orviulg ishgpponjua io-6ther cities at this moment Tkere,are areas_curtemly.M Cal. ifornia that have beewredeveloped and taken over by rehab facilities; Thus potential outcome -may be mthe future for West Newport. Dentiifl�oaltan ofthia site and the lack ofparking spaces, to accommodate the additional owners will physically divide the Doi ummity. lsddents and visitors will no longer be able to find parkhpg ondhe sireet tp }rse tbe Park. Fu!tl er; the dense devolophtent willgive the appearance that the parks part of `their own private community'. M fail The ND s to address that the tiotabef.of cars are directlyTelmedto,the.. number ofbedrootms. There is only one great in the .MNDIbat describes the'£aptthat the eurrerd site has only eight (8 studios, (32) thirty -two one - bedrozonx grid only fourteen (f4) two bedroom units. Nowhere mthe eru re MND do they address the amount of packing spaces that the apartment currently has. It appears this is not addressed because: if would. : accentuate the difference between the abundance of parking .curtenfly,. compared to what it will become .if this area is allowed lo. become over developed. The issue that needs to be addressed is that the current parking accommodates current residents with parking to spare. Proposed parknrg with htcreased.Tesidents will not provide adequate parking, 'It may, be.teehdicallywithin guidelines, but this is apublic resource and every ,reasonable attempt to provide adequate parking must be demanded. I believe current into has more parking spaces Than proposed'she god :cumenl site has fewer residents, :MND doesn't state apartment number of existing spaces and analysis doesn't cover this aspect, MND states project will drily have 63 total gpacea ,New'development has minimumof83 bedrooms compared to existing- total:of 68 bedrooms. 17 iD 48 G -09 Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -29 ,��O3 1. Response to Comments lv1Nl? fkorvedtty'des6Trbes the floorarea,Ratio forsa d project; m .7t3 AR. It is :miscalculated, "the lsropese project is, 57;90b square feettl'itM the lotsim 61,5P7, .441.the actual. TAR J9.91; Lot sim,is also irtootteckly stated in parts of the MND,as 1:44 (prop. AesexipticL :3Ax it is•actua1iy 1.46 and NMI). consuhantUcKemna documents stated-this:correctly-in their study (Exh bit B)1. However, wherethe:deseription should be absolutely con ect,-Ahe MND is :ivaecrtrate. MNA 46,Worrectl Y nateciouthe mum, page;vnder - the pr0pertydeacrrption of existing apaRmetrt bu118img':s4nsae'faut4gc, wherein it mjFmed the square- fobtagetp64,g85. The geixal square fbtttagkaCex stimgbuilAuig; gonfumedbyoriginal building permit and Bounty recorder is 4$;744 withta:ftoorma ratio of..76. 8950 one: of the.rO. Mons that the �ontinuallp�gytpre nlajar 4 ftrr, real facts suggest The proposed..91F1R). Rttot w imere" parlmeM: 6mldmg-zpliear it flie worst light. a (3.2 of 466 page grvvonmeatal ass ssmera ay buillings andfor- paverrent at 97%: There is no he existingmructure is.massive and envelopes equates to a better staridAtd.dF living. 3'liia way asuch a MND appears to uns Aesoripiwns,to implysoti e}lullg other than. Singspartmem is considerably less. (;;76FAR to was justrevealed (avai(alile 3-17.69tis on page tparemly sRme4tte did take notice pf my mvean oeean.vrew +and;tlteywere aware. of.*, However, this mapibat shows the view cnrridor'rs tidtaddressed, no mitigatie ...- team for do diseussron;�perrgd. The pit team:forthe past two years Lai i9nored3n3ratt"t to compromise otAJdress neighbors concerns. There wag never any attempt. to W agate the many issues wl1W therebas hpntwo years during this process where app Gcartt could have ohanged :the sitingmand reduced the density: The :N ND should•cpntider the option of pu=Uiir>o- the'Sile foe,the city to extend the ekistipg park.for the rmidegts:of West- Nowport At least one cotm¢ilmember has'; staled.that ine ;easing p91t,4pscolwas 4.goal, as well ws dowulks: Certainly, allowing apythtng cluse4otlu; deusfcation ll a project is asking.for-is enntrary�tothe city's best interests, photos alreadyshow 'how tall the apartment Iooks:uh untrsstto the other hoines, but because ofthe generous setbacks ofover 6Q', it is much less bbJ ous amt obtrusive. There isn't the!stark:mrtrast that the new developtncm wilfhave. However, Wane puts this;massive.grouping ofeondostogetbeq:the height dtt%teht al will be obvious. 440 &Neptune; which is on a double lot, i§-less than 20' in heightand:will be dwarfed by abldg nearly double its height, The Seashore building also appears to he appmxhn4taly the :same height as 5405 and will also sdfferthe same dispropor[ignale look, This pGojectwill result ;tin a complete laok ofpnyacy, shadows 'Wit be cast over the patios and.aesthetirs,will be .comprorm3ed in this neighborhood 'Newpodshould hot, be supporting 3 storyhomeg'ur West. ;Newport;, these latgee borheslivith rhore bedrooms will jost create tvorc:of the traffic thEU makes the 4'Mitypf life atthe' beacltdecliite. I$ C50 C -51 C!52 C53 Page 1 -30 • The Planning Center Apri12008 �' j 1. Response to Comments Mcumems on the Agenda and part of the MND:were not released umil March 17, 2008. Doomnents/plansfor protect:am illegible as: far asdetail determining dimensions on floor plans. I C -54 FToWever ilappeata onCmodel could easily convert to add an additional bedroom 'Ilnere are no :conditions to limn the number ofbedrooms. 11te number of rooms does in fact have a.definite :impact on quality of life and densification ofthis ama and needs analysis. 1 have beenlpld the apartment building was 'atone time 30 -40%. vacant, even assuming a 10 % vacancy rate; you havevery few occupants that live there based on the preponderance of- one= bedroom units. Apartment area: is extremely quiet and they have always had ample parking to accommodate all the tenants and. their guests within the confines of their site. This has C -55 all owedIhe public and neighbors to enjoy the park and the public heath. The MND omits re£emuces to the nturiber of existing parking spaces,, thereforeinadequate analysis is derived. A4ND is statiagthem will be less impacts based-on a formula for daily trips, that (1TF) adri & is.extremely variable. A study should oampare.the likely number of residerusArivinig, based onpamhar pfbedtpoiiss The study also needs to address the demographics.of this area of C -56 Newport Reach- Primarilythi5 amawill draw. more teenagers oradults, based on the popularity of[his area in that age gro up,: A diirect correlation exists. between number of bedrooms, number of tenants and number of cans. 11 It has also been rut omdthatrhen is already a rehab unit(s) in the apartment. If this were true, it appears contraryto the recorded message that states in:orderto quality fora ow :40,t, roust ntakx $66,200 per:year and no co- signers are accepted. If A is not tine, then one must:wonderrwhy a:rehab owner is listed as atemut. It is also likely that in order-for mvestors'to recoup: their investment that this area will become primarilyweekly summer rentals- Ther e we pommialsevere impacts that will furtherdivide this coamamityif this area becomes a: primarily a -rehab area. The.MND offers no mitigations to protect the community. C -57 The-same potential exists for this proposed development. Further, "there appears to be a need for CC &$'s and a homeowner association to manage and control this area; M aD suggests none Further, MND basically states there will be no one in cltarge of maintaining common C-58 areas that the individual will be responsible Pon their own area. This will clearlycreate significam impacts that have not been addressed adequately. 19 Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -31 c 1. Response to Comments The jr0f16FVing re ari article that appeared mtho Boston Barmer on.12 V20.g7. htw: t/www.bayatotebmnu.pom/Lssuds/2007/IZ'l3Mewsliecall2i3'011 Lbtm `Salist;ltoMw •under legal rev owby city- 1.1 SY'$FA`NETHJ. COOPF,R Th'eR.oxhury development that has become Safe Haven S,oberHouses started quietly enough', a decade a$o When q one man real estate company bast m Hu11 hou& an. undeveloped parcel on !!le eas(em foe! afFgr`t'HliL That was�about the last -quiet moment. The ongoing saga has. seen the prefect shlttkom sngte fdmrly toumfiousesforsale'ro multiple- oteupamoy bed rooms for weekly rent sober, houses. Some ftdghbors arw':thefeelecied repreYemanvgs Have criticized the devekipmeitt— in both - #is fiv" its — o; (p.0, dense. M or pfnal plan was to erect 22 madutar lq"fHbus�-s en a little more than omacre andPa hay". The courts hale bgen,kV busy with larysurts, appeals and a criminal prosggOQn that the :rity;is'towpursuing against Safe.Havan's apara(ors an charges ofcomrerting garages and basenments:into bedrooms without building permits :'The permits.ihe dOdleper4-did hMwivere issued in, 2003 on a uniormottymrderfrom the S0te7Ruildhg CodeJippeals 6a+)d-o%ter the Boston RedevelopmemAuttiopitp sat on lire application for more than fuur}legrs, More than 200 tenonts;reroveriHt from substance abuse live in H or 12 towiiliouses on W.ashOtgton, Jutdpar and Guild streets, Safe Flaveit states in a scent courrPIN "T'he developmetn. •wetn vp as a condo development, not a sober house, " said City Councilor Chuck Punter when asked to distill his concerns about Safe FTaven. "Another concern is the quality of wrvices." Turner, . state See. Dianne 4i!ilkeryon and slate Rep. Gloria Fox.id separate interviews recited a litany of c0todros: fatal ovardoses.on sitE,, residents' purchases at.a liquar $ton a block awgy. sericgs sex o&adars among the fenanls and as Wilkerson puts it, "such a, high concentration" of recovering: substance abusers. Unlike residential treatment programs,sober houses bydef ition provide only housing — not services to help tenants move bey»nd'their addiction.. The staff is supposed to collect rents, assure saf4ty and errforce rules„ but is nat charged with monitoring individual behavior.: Support and peer pressure frgm other former addicts is supposed to keep residents on:frack Because the .ndt provide,treatrnenl, sober houses are not licensed or regulated by i level efgovernment. Thep ehloy the proiectfoh of state and federal anti- discrimination lows, which define recovering substance abusersor di:rabled 20 C -$9 Page 1 -32 •The Planning Center Apri12008 �6� 1. Response to Comments Same:sober houses Mt zaher skites reacting to bad publicity. or propOw rage ration; )love batidedtogether'to impose qua{i'tystgrglards on cham$eltws� tirvsuch groups: the &bee Living Network, based, in Soma Monica, and ire slatewide California Association ofAddicdonRecovery Resources (CAARR) in Sacramento. The Banner askedthe directors afboth.organizations,andDouglas Potcin,.,ana ort. ot :expert on sober houses about the:eoneerns.cited about S* Hawn. Though they disagreed an some Points, all three characterized most of those concerns as worrisome and inconsistent with-a welt- irtpm?gad.;obethouse, overdoses Sgt. �truee SmiiFt, aci?mmazmry services of{mer wiihfiheBoston police Depariment'sA+ea B station, said at leas{:three fatal ove(� doses have occurred at.S`afe Ffpverc. Told at least three fatal overdoses have occurred arWe Haven; which- :opaned Iasi year, Polcin groaned anrlTnitttored. 4N-o,. no. " Ken Sct ontou: d(ceclorgfthe, Sahel =Liih gNo woYk said "it bajipens," butcouid recall onlyo nefataloverd oseou,thepreimsesofits 32o member houses (Undei'score,addod} The�sam6 potential exsts -%r i$ifi;proposed develtipment. F9rtlic[, there appears to be a need for CC &IC's and a homeotvoer assaeiafion tgsnatiage and comrpl hki areal MN- D`sagg"O 'norm Further, fy D basicaLy states there will be no ono -in charge' afmattnahtfug common areas, thatthe individual will he responsible fortheir own area This wdl clearlycreite significatd.impacts that have not been addressed adequately.. 12A =$TINE I,ANWOSIy -OV% CPIVFION IINADJEOUAM C49 COIW,d. Defnes current access via two driveways on River, but states access: to and from "Seashore Street and Neplune.4verrue is blocked by a waodenfence , impfying "access "fo tVeptune Avenue. Farb Therehas C-60 never been env access from,aliNeatsde to orthtough Nootune- A*=tee. T'he signifiemc is that this pmjec{ proposal is attempting io turn Neptune Avenue from.a cul de sae: into an alley. using Neptune as the primary access to all.of its units Meanwhile, applicant is requesting I C -¢1 to use one of the exist -nie d'tiveways on River as their own orivate:driyewav forthe'sale benefd of only one of their proposed condos. This proposal to use onc'of the two existing River Avenue driveways for the benefit of justone ofthe proposed single - family condo units is unfair to existing homeowners. Applicant isattetmting,to C,82 effecY,ively `Make" from the : cities eXisfingcsigepts thathave purchased prDpertytti Neptune, requssing us fi give our street over to the devn�npetsto ftuther accommodate the r'economic gains at b T economic loss. �:Tlesc is no valid reason tltgyeamFt wn the,exisdng driveway W Bh rule! @At 'ingresslegress. This is pu ly to maximize their profits it:the existing tWayera expense. There we.no physical:eonstrainfs that would- makellim infeasible. It is not thorole,ofthe city: topmviderfir the most profitable investment opportunity for investors The role otthe city. is to protect and enforce existing code and to roaititainthe community vision and standards through fair application of code. 21 Seashore Village Response to Comments Newport Beach • Page 1 -33 OWSIOM h0 1. Response to Comments While the apartment building.4iigntally had open accessYo Seashore Drive from an opening tb the street front the aparu» alit parking area, Neptuna t?yenm=ver was amessrble. The apartiment 9w, ar put4 a C -62 fence years ago :to discourage the public froti walkurg through the complex to acceaxthe basalt and to Cont, stop public from using this.access mad. and parking in the irguest parking spots. I d Neplrtne however, has never been open far thrdngh- traffic or pedestrian aeeess to Yhe.Apattment bldg.. .I C. Neptune has - always had a permanent blockade erected by the city, as well as postings _of "no parking" signs. Neotunebus always had terminus at6406 Neptune Ave. Seashore on fhe otherhand was used at owfitm tb access the :beabh and veriticd thruugh.tims found in the WIA memibned previously k3itrgattons i+atsrwuld have heensmdred `audpresented are absent Anohvrousmdigetion would .beto reduce the pntje'e[ dens Y While mamfaming a portion offlte open space of Me emraml',foolprinC, Lltilizmgthe current driveway on River Avenue and conlimmgtlns aaectly through to Seashore Avenu effectively all minstes the majority of objecli6ro that residents have 4",the a{fpahbuldhave: The city.eneoumges use ofai4ewalks and public parking Qoastal commission enotitveges, public .aa aess. Naptirua residents do;neit wamtheir cul -deem turned into .an alley I hayenxunerous "issues.with. loss of ocean view, privacy; safety, hattic;.noise, etc. Ifil is:area adjacent lo,my home hada standard, 36'mad,put:in, this -would solVenearly all d£the issum fbffetedthis,as a eompIbrAise;. as lwould: still 'be giving up privacy and safetywith'dre'. aIddea adjacerttlraffic, butdisCassed this -with the i pplicaut and- was told they can't afford, financially to. give up any properties. Abserrt-a compromise, I n tbiru d them.this would likely result in litigation, and this didn't concernthe. I C -64 applicant Based on this, I would request information as to if the applicant has or will:aign a letter that Would indemnifythe cny.frbin potetrttal CEQA lawsuit. - This mitigation Thave suggested is a compromise -that would.notonly solve many issues, it would actually benefit the.look ofthe developmental a defined community. Placing this huge block: of'talle r :coiidoscriminted next to bider duplexes does not fit in with the character? tftheeummunity. However, .an:apptoprjale approach is found in the adjaCem Lido Sands cori niluiitY this oommunity serves as an exceilant example of a w0bdone community of single- family homes, that are decided{y different and defined it its own small grouping, but in keeping with the community:aesthetics; Setting apart of the new aeve lopment wouldbe in keeping with the trans itionalchanges one expects when transitioning to different types or styles, of housing. An.luclusion of new sitael wouldtappeal aestheltcallyas it would give the distance needed to accommodate the�brgak in design, styles.�Ozir community and the development would he better served with this approach. The'propirsed piojeol could: have the opportunity to benefit the surrounding neighborhood and .the developer at. the same tune; if applicant would agree to compromise, Th'epeaJect ne'ada to be sealed: down and to include the suggested road improvement. This rogd requirement would�.utillze the area:that -isorurentlywithinthe, required minimum setback: The apartment is currently set back at least60'. The required setback to seenmmodate 30' rbadwith sidewalks could beprovided, ,VQA the:majority.of the :road being Within the required M'setback. however, applicants are Asking for a mod_ifrealion to this setback from the current minimum of 25' to reduce it to 3', (mm . -8r /o reduction of setback). 21 C_" Page 1 -34 *The Planning Center Apri12008 '�b 1. Response to Comments SA)?Pa7`]'. Public dedreatiott of -right of wayslteuld 6't rohrii'red dub iotlie impact datlie' area. River Avenue r9 6Q' geameti'(n a>;8 alearlyable to!ltarN4lelarger volum4 ofi rrt& as itis Wider and does not ' intersect with pass;thrargh 1rii iC. Neptune. is a 9tk' geometric dtatllas iMays hadtelpiiiiaa At 5469 .Neptune. It is reasonable to:assume wserious negidw impact would�msrift during any emergency .requiring immediate evacuation, as there potemia16f 100 or more ears lioruthis new development that would lie: attempting to access'out from the harrower Neptune Avenue. Neptune Ave. cutrentiy bag sidewalk and an street- parking; further narrowingthia'roed. Inability to adequatelyturrr xehicles,aroundwill prove to boa saf4ytrap during an emergency. Cumern driveway-Access ea River Avenue that would exterrd access as anew slreetto Seashore is the appmFhom, safeall mauve that: shouldInEw bcen.studied. Homes btfected dd Nephmp-eduddly face towardtha opejn, hash Pickup is un River Avenue. Proldot proposal WmAd have trash rucks traver;,_iris through Neptune r4venrle, as. it would become thealleyforboth sides oftlren development. There �"'7 appears to be.m area.in Ihe,:b4NL1 that:shows where units would store all of the'trashoans. So many trush,mooptacles:to aocomutodate so malty large condos cmr.1dcreatea9roalth and safoty.issue.with luirboYing of rodents and insects. There are nbimitigations for`assuririg property owners will aleaai this sect pn'Ofttie coati. Neptuneis a city street The cdy'is responsible for street sweeping. TherciLy cannot legally swee G68 fhepnvato driveways wrtWf tkrsdevelopntei t andiberefore, the cleanhnass.of'theu "a1leY pn lion >is contingent uponthern eWarrog this themsolvcs. Theypresentthe city with allawrtrg trash tnrcksta edter upon a privste; driveway m pickup hash. There are challenges to the turning an established street effectively into an alley; wf[h roqu m ms- ofa&ttreet Howe er,the intent for driveway Ism serve one home, not the a 0 e manner that. they are inWMing'to usethis.def'uiitton.. Faittkss dictates that this" driveway (x 14jnot be altowedlf the suggested. from River straight to Seashore is put ;back in, they eancall.the area behind the units the alley that:it. is and grant an easement for hash pick up only: It is, eitkerthe city : not the resident''gresponsibilityw erra(myrol'itabdr?y for:deve lop ers not would it even be 4ogical for this develogerto claim that it would not be profitable jf be Were rvquimd to remove the units to make way for the road improvements. Since the property hasn't even been sold; ane this kafordiwretionaryapproval, they have nothing at stake, This is coiitraryhowever tothe existing Newport residents that this project uoll negatively impact. Asa property Owner for 30 years, I hope the platmmg cermi issiontakes the concerns of the resident impacts into consideration over the potential developer concerns for investor profitability. Positive_ impacts from inclusion of new road, would be enhanced safety utiliziag :access for emergency vehicles using road instead of alley, fire.hydrattt accessibility,, pedestrian safety with sidewalks allowing for ap ropriI drainage, defined public w'alkwayand.madway direct publiq. access. to ,6eaGh that occurs at 55 :Street at Seashorc, aesthetically more suitable to neighborhood Issues,regardhu:spplicant attempt to turn Neptune. Avenue -unto an alley mcludc:'.daninutibn. of property value, traffic, noise, safety, au.girality, mconsisteut.withvisian for the city, and moddleation permit, etc It is an inappropriat@ demandan existing homeowners to benefit a deV.elaper'that hasn't 23 Seashore Village Perponse to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -35 ko 1. Response to Comments eveispurchased .the`propeltyto'dhtc Orange Coimtyfue�authordyhas'mt addressed the adequacy oft iw.eas /egress ittwupow dtiveway that has overhanging: sknreture , etc, Tfthey jntehd,ta use the Cdl1t'd existing fire hydrant, this tco woutdbe inadequate based on location: 1.2,2 SURROUNDINfr LAN.D'USE. DESCRIPTION INADEQUATE Appticartr states. "site is surroyntjed by residentialuses, such as "wivation rental units "m _the northsouth andeastanducityporkto the West" Tha; would give one the imprassiomdiis areaus C-70Q primarily a "weekly rental area% instead, :this is primarily awner occupied or.'vmiyreMal imhs inehe area C6rrem apar'Gfiein bldg isthe major wiiree of rentals forthis atea, allowing foraffordable housing. to the residents Ofdvewpoit Beach, The`crlypprtt to the wesP'isd'nectly- adtaceuttothe existing site; If this overly dense project ,C -77 pmceeds.as presented, it will effectively be a- taking of city park space,_ as the appearance and marketing. ofpropetty'Will Wto the able bchefnofthese,new condos. Curcehtly,.ivanyrosidents and visitors have acceks t9 the park lreawae'of'the aparttnekt j uildntg's adequate parking . for its ownsesigents, wfiich :al101vsfgrp }etrty ofv$`Stt'eEt;Pilrk'mgvn River Avdhue, ljecause the apartment:buit4jn8 Primarily serves just one:tenant,per unrt;;ihey have always fiad adequate "on site" parking. The parking lotus never Hill and adds to the city's open space through its current footprint, IPagpl cant is allowed .to!Avethiv overly dense project with indonveniehltanGem padma to arcomrtrodge ra tneruus additional bedrooms (which correlates to adSlifional'reBiJents), then 0 i :reason'able thaftheseadditional residents will 6e using River Avenue to park in front of their units. This wiDeffectively discourage, visitor useeof the citypark because this will create inadequate parking to ser'4ice his:,deed.. Further, thepublic parking lot on Seashore, whichis intended lbr publmparkingtoaccess the park and beach will be farther burdened by the additional need forparkng that the additional residents C -72 would require Again, with each,additional bedroom that increases the number of residences, it also increases the likelihdod of numerous guests_as well. 1. Applicant, has presented thatthey intend toiniarket units for _3.3 million.. With this price tag, (coui*telyunrealislic), the:likeldrood that investors.wrll need to'tumlo weekly rentals or sober. living 'horrimis a:rnub'b more likely scenario. This will further burden the city of Newport Beach with the dern ud it will place on parking, as wellae the other police and enforcement needs that willbc required.. After a rnarketing4obbyhig group canvassed residents.concents, it appeared the presentations of this plan had been specifically tailored to give "opinion" that the PR team felt-would favor existing residents concerns. 1 was.told'this will increase property values and will get rid of"those tatimite' in favonof hbrhedwnets. This is not based on Pact 1 had also.been told it would be- used.phimarily far wealthy sencarsusing thesehomes as second.homes, whegin fact; Ynarketuig statistics: do not bearlthis outi as seniors are not lookrug,�forthree story buildings with narrow hallways. I won'- tconimem further on the numerous falsehoods.l was told, because they are -.not in writing. Bull will.stafe that any presentation based on whet if can do for the community, needs to be critically evaluated. 24 C -73 Page 1 -36 • The Planning Center Apri[ 2008 hl,b 1. Response to Comments CEoA deiiudui§ public inyolvemerd; fret Brie "public outreach" by PR lobbying fums,'serves t dj comap the .intent of CEQA, Shrgugh>menlpl's to inform" residents.' that most likely won't feel if C4'3 rtecgssar}rto re8i{•Ylteinll dacumerrtstron_preserried to the city on the project If7 fen ilvs wasa.positi Cont`d for our-community and for the nearby residento would -tie' in favor, but as.preseMed, .l ani adamantly .opposed. I believe this is a pnterrtial'rdghtmazerartke nnldng. This project istoo dense and comes at the expense of neasby homeGwners and.ledants, who the city should be looking to protect. 3,11 NOISE IMPACTS WILL HAVE SUBSTANTIAL IMPACTS hiND claim impact would lid less than significant because the project- generated noise during the operation's phase of the project would-be from project generated traffic (mobile- C•74 source noise) and on -site operations They'stale that project would result in net redaction trips; therefore,.level is reduced to vrsignificancet because it would result in a decrease u traffic noise. This is vrconect:.First, the daily'hipss are based.:on highly variable study, . secondly; these are not cars, and "these are eigMeerrwheelets, [nooks, large equipment And power tools. One eighteed wheeler, (per FAW A).is the NMvdlent to the Boise generated1rom 14 cats. Noise mnpaets willbe ^increased due to.homeowners use of gardening equipment, suck as 1 C -75: lawn mowers, leafblowamaddi't`ional cars d reody adjacent to the from of our budding 'from the access using; Nephme as the projects alley 5408 Neptune will not only be.affected by one side of streetwdh access fo their garages but both sides of the street will access garages through I C•76 Neptune Alley . Ttashtruckg Wrll.spYll their exhaust and the adddional.nose from 24 11 '► . a4iiional stops. Currerdly trash is picked up on ortlythe west side of property. Current apamnorit bldg uses noregular gardener, no:lawmnawers :or leaf blowers. MND. doesn't addiess,teetrictions onmifigationafor project's tesultingincrease of additional noise felt C -77 by residents due to pmjeet pmximhy to�efi sting buildings and incase of addhional noise sources, including additional cars, people; television, radios,. etc.. Project wishes [obave a pennit to haw 3 feet side yard. setbacks. Ouffently, the existing building primarily has theapart'ment over garage spaxeand.so there is typically no living area on: ground floor. This adds to the peacefulness of the neighborhood. Current site has small balconies. Typically very small, and they aren't large enough for I C -78 entertaining Project will have ground floor patios that will encourage much larger gatherings and.memnoise. Thequatdyof lifeforthe surrourdmg neighbors will be impacted. Tovixualivc the impact, stretch out yrour :amu from side to 'srd&, this will be the difference between buildings. rho jv1ND doesn'l,address that this is not the vision for Newport Beach when given ari opportum iryto,haw a more aesthetic development put. in instead. Construction noise would exceed db levels vibration etc. 11 a excessive noise and I C-70 vibration will exceed standards, but an exertotlnn is claimed based on city standards. However, nearby bomeowners will be unable td renttheir Lints for a,mimimum of two years One to thu construction noise; dirt, vibration, etc and the MND has not address the financial mitigations to accommodate existing residents. as Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -37 R Al 1. Response to Comments -Analysis and mitigations are madequste. Norse levels are measumd at 50 feet vtbratiems Have-not addressed ways to tnitigate the vibrations through different me thuds of aoosTtttaiaq C-8 elc, Note tbat the range of 7,0& to 90 db A Distances of SO feet ate for one piece of agnslmaiion equipment This area as- directly adtacent.to: residential properties within 50 feet and the receivers would be at least 70 to 9.0 DBA, whichis in violation of the.extarror NAC criteria. %t residerttial properties. IyfND lists sound levels on PCH from'l971,Sooiety of Automotive.Engineers for use is studiewairera$ flyover ' noise, uses PCHhwypaveinent, traffic levels, reads,'aul receivers C-81 all pertaining to PCH It appears this was from another study prthe information is unclear as to its.relevanwAtappears studywas done for the noise for the new units; such as planning -for .naiseaftenuation for new construction, not analysis based on.liarm to existing residicros..CE4A ,do the 4kinnentatiad be pdLfoith.ina language: and aiarmertbatis unde0tool What siapparer rs trial this ndrse; study ofi'era no m' ut ations,: nor is it adequatelystuddied. 3.12 FOPIILAirIOiN AND HORSING WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS One of the most troubling-aspects :is that the ?AND claims to not displace substantial nulilbets oftxistmg houam' g, nacessitatiug the Owgiitchon.of rep lacement housing elsewhere. This UND slates tt will heed to replace hous'mg far 6' unitsbased dn:a kt'wvey, Yet d matesihisi�as a :less than significant impagt. The MND -.had a pro- hbruraO include what the developer could afford for 'b; -lieu" fees. This is inappropriate. The in lieu fees are not enough to replace the units and are based:on Ihnhed data that study admils :cmId :not verify all infornistion. Further; the pro -16mut Is itot included, nor ware IW, lent surveys. .Afirm was hired to study the adequacy afthepro:fQnM Wth out beitrg able _lo verify the mfonnation The esaow papers Would have been the A st most obvious set of doaanents, This should be required to understand exactly bow much "'profit" and who is claiming this now. The MN.D looks at this prolect.Intenrm of profit potential, instead of what is fair and equitable to the commumty. It is obvious to the neighborhood that the malortty:of the lenams would have been considered lower to moderate income. Yet, since the project Evan attempted in 2006, it was removed. Laws prohibit evicting tenants within 24 months of application; and it gives: the appearance rand -it is my opinion that there was an intentional removal of low - income tenants in an effort to avoid the costs associated 'with low- income housing compliance laws. Since this application resurfaced a: year, after the identical project was withdrawn, the Property owner hired a new property management company, (who did.the rent survey that the low income .housing replacement is predicated upon). Tlivapadinenl ownor is: also now requiring properly matragementio enforce a `gpeciflc "income requirement of $66,200'and: lot allow a co- signer. it 1s my belief that there were soma `.tenants" that were making in the six figures while'the survey was being done. One listedtenaM..owns several rehab homes in Newport Beach. 20 C -82 Page 1 -38 *The Planning Center Apri12008 00 1. Response to Comments Newport is a special tOWn that deserves protection. Tae coaStau :its tesouPces AM000, important to.squandey justto henefd the firiatcral gain:of a group of iuviors. I believe that some ofihis original team 2restiq involved fnilus.lithfied 'partaersliip� This W.19inal tears made no effort to miligre or-compromise. The team solution was that they could get ittlirawgh. Had:I not had my background andnot understood the.process, itoo.would.have resigned myself'tothe inevitable. As- apruperty owner.that has handled: rentals foryears,.twould be extremelydifficult'lo find remits that could qualifywithout a co- signer but had to additionally verify income mquirement of $66,206, yAthis is what the apartment building heavriaded withintho past year. I have complained to th'e city -to verify this ",:Stating I feirthis was an obvidus attempt to cucumvom thc.law to get rid of the lower itteome tenants. lnclusrdnary housing s izpetlsive fen;. ,deve loom so it-wouM benefit them if this .wemn'ten issue: I believe prior tam developer application, .rnlortyof low�mcome termAs. have "moved out.'. There has ;uppeareil to be a purposetut evictAOri of Iow income Ihou§mg lenatdS';..but without the origirnd ##studies, this is speculation Edo :not accepthowever, any slutly Wherein. it is conducted bythe property manager who works for fh'e owner who is purportedIrinesctow trying.to close the deal::Keyser Marston study requested in P.&A.wasmever made available to Md. Theprojeet is presented in a light that gives ilia misleading depictionthtongh.use of `artist renderings that are not to scale. MNI1(p IS) architectural renderings won't be Able to look h ke the pictures, Most buildings beneflC substanliallyfrom landscaping, and thew renderings look nice because of.the 45- degr"ee angle, mature abundance of landscaping, wide . planted wakways, beautiful towertag trees with cpnoptes the width aW latiglrt of the condos. Then the ivlhetWity, The MNnshaws idra frout and e 7 * this is in stark contrast, and more in lure with what this dense- development would actually look like. There appears to be little difference betWeeu the two styles, rant couple that with exact same style bome:side byside with such density andthis:" "doesn't appear'tb_be the type-ofvision. Newport had In mind Ts - Newport's vision to put as many homesjammed nest to eaeh'other and towering_ovcr the existing residences on a lot that tshould: have been mandaired as an apartment Building as one of the few areas in Newport to actually accommodatefenarW This development w ill nol have 'the large canopied trees as depicted in the `renderings'' because there is no room to accommodate them. The realty will be 6 feet shared walkway between homes with no apparent walls between them for privacy. The design and density doesn't make sense. Newport wanted -to have articulated irderesling,sides to the buildings, but these units are prim silly flat on the entire length of buildings because they are put too, closely together, With too many units for the lot They don't fit m with the city vision for new development; the, don't fit it with the neiAhbothood. This etas has been undergging some nice change9 with welt -done remodels, but.fhis opportunity to letthis.development go-in will do a.disservicoto the, . entire area and the people that have investedln.rebuilding.newhomes. 27' Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport C -82 Cont'd *Page 1 -39 OWWM X13 1. Response to Comments The proposed developinent is too dense rorthe property. Feasd leAhemattve's exist which iriClude shipg the homes using setbaCksthat were.originallyiptended M. zone, and C'�' reducing the size of the development. These are viahkaltorgaiivest6 iavCn'tbeau. studio ContV because the investors want to make more money. Ifit'im ,-Peasibie „then the investor - should we their contingency as- an.escape clause. These appliciarvinvestors don't:yetownthe.;property; they don't have the vested interests in protecting the noighborhood that the re3ideuees'.ib. The micstomwon't -be -living inthese units. Applicent.has already - submitted apro -femur to deteiynlne how m?ny millions be would be satisfied with makmg The - applicant only has'the, advantage if fbe residents doet fecl:they have ,a voic Having aplarming�cm mrissioner attend a private hearing and speaking in: a manner that appeared positive was probably not encouraging to some that showed up. The priority for the planning coimnSssioit avho or” review .these objections is to protect Grp Coastal CesoWces overthe constrelion of Nsidernial development, 3.13. PUBLIC SERVICES & 3.14 RECREATION There existsa,muderste impact tolitirarleg and:sdhools and a pete"tmajor impact ' on -C-84 police services. !?ti, crurknowing how property will be'used, absent CL.ffidt's restrict ngtNea use, and - lack ^ ofahomeowner-associa�ron iris deter ringrany polearial mitigation as A isn't considering the consequences that land use changes may encompass.:MND fatledto study new way's devclepment might Ue used and provided for no mitigations. C -85 West Newport is in need of;paik expansion. There is metered parking -directly- in- froottt-of the single- fsmily'units. it appears there is no block wail. -A%ent acenthiuous block w48, it be -too convenient for residents to park directly on the street inn out oftheirhouse, when, this property is intended for visitors to the beach/park, ,3..15 .TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC IMPACTS WOULD BE: SIGNIFICANT Incorrectly states project qualifies for an exemption under the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance. However the definition under exemption (C) states: `The following prcye'cIs are -8¢ exempt fmm.the provisions of this chapter: L.Any project'thatgenerates no more than three hundred (300) average daily (ripS.:T}ns for Further, Trip generation was calculated: using the Institute of Traffic' Engineers C$.� (I1'li) Trip Generation Manual .(7a' edition 2003).. An article by tra€flc :consudtams Nelson/Nygaard opined on the variability e`l'ITE and stated `ga n wryerether s is a strong: correlation between the amount of deivtopment and irip :generation. rats, there; is still considerable variation in the rates observed.m. different surveys For the land use type "Angle 4 Page 1 -40 •The Planning Center Apri12008 �� 1 Consequently, category,,, 7100 1. Response to Comments rraex APPENDIX/ ISMS FOACLARIFICATION OR CORUCfION(46541-doc) I Pre 11 Uslydescilbed errors fegacdmg (p8 & J3) property description Pxwbt ,likig;; acreage etc: Hydrogeology staies;soil. is Clas9 D;: states (p 125) depth to water table is teas than one foot Tnisdiffra5 Wi[[i othorateas in.the M111), ('p15)xWes that ll owch investigation found'grotald watet.at liepthaf six to eight feet below. Soil lasted gs'hydrie(pl5j with akrw.ini'i1t[ationTates. Tins itaconoern for die proposal 'to- bave.water retuvnta the ground instead of hredaud avaTinta corm drain. Ad litional enutrotanOrtalIyapPiapi ate== mitigations need to l e- studied fuither. (p341J'Citjxdnectoriea d'en't 7tycliitie residents from tie past six Years. 1ltese: hi,4toriCaltopographe.maps road that PIMLIC ACCESS MND is not consstent with the Coastal act. The following are perfineht as to the neg2tive- vilp$c4s this project will page as R relates to-publtc access.. As statetf eatlier, public had at one tithe c[imotly aceemft bbach from River to 55°1 Street opening. -this is the same openingthat 5408 enjoys its view eorridorfrom. Thu: public has been deprived of access based on property owner fencing in entire property: However, the pedestriin:pubhc wonki One could still.we a small area of ocean between the houses on the sand•as evidenced in MNID picture showing how wide the pa kibg areais. It encompasses tlie:views of three buildings as seen on page 43 ;(£gore I I sdephofographs) in the MND, the opened area between the houses on Seashore beachliont & 556 is intended Tot public access, The proposed project has hot provided for any permanent -access to the public; Project a lso- effectively mmovos the access to the public to-utib2e the park The park will appear 3o belong to the:ncw development and the more convenient access to the beach willbe cut-off'and.force people to all go to the850 street opening. .Apia this appears to be nu -Mempt to 1'i$Qe this area be private. Thus area already is atf MO priv* ybytho lackofthepgoestriWgidewalks People wiflnotwaikthroughariarea that clearly are, private.home side yardsthat are only 3' wide. The cityhas one opportunity to affordthi public access: to th.beach that was intended fromihe 50's. The city should act miss this opportunity to ensure that.our beacli acces §'serves all, not only thexich- The following eoastalaef sections are particularly 29 C -8p eent'd C -88 C -89 C -90 Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -41 �,15 1. Response to Comments 'relevant to this proPert} and:pablie ac.oeas. This road should be dedicated; taurned as a taa lwa !mcluda sidewalks Pot,acca$s to the Public, Sre hydriadand large enough ,irea,to C-90 turn lW90 vehicles atolihd'm the event of a fire or emergency. Mitigatroh should have Cont'd studied.ibis:possibility. The city of Newport Beach has determined that Coastal Act policies are relevant to ,Newport Beach. Section:30210 ofthe Coastal Act states: In cdrYyiirg out#herequtrement of&ction 4 of Article Xofthe Calrfdrma Consntunon, I C.gt inaxtmuinbedesk, which Add be ebitspiduduslyp6sted, and.recreatsanal dpportumttes si,nll Ire provided for ail the pedpie c psistetit wi'tth public .safety pewit and pie need to protect public rights, lights 0fprtvate property owpers, and natural resource areas from overuse. This' project does not provule enaaxinluin access. Section 36212 of the Coastal Aetatates, in relevant pan. ,(a) pumlc ilo e=from the nearestp tiI& rtladway'to the shoreline and alat<gthe C-92 crgrat'shutl be provided= tmnemveuelopmentproJects except where: f2) adequate: access e;usts:rrearby.,. This project woald:remove ekisting accoss and provide for access otily to the.cottdo owner,: aot.the public. llre uperungto'the beach for this area is.55' st, providing a near direct access (line of sight) to the beach. Section30213 ofthe Coastal Act states: Lower cost vtsitorand recreatonal fdeditiesshall he protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, Provided. DA lopments. providing .public recreational opportunities are preferred. .. nns project.actuallyremove, recreational facilities effectively because the existing park and tennis courts : will appear as private and parking will be severely impacted with this :develapineut, Saclion 30240 (a) of the Coastal Act states: Development in areas adjacent to ertviromnentally sensitive Habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impaets which would signoricantlp degrade. those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreationareas. This'projeot severely effects this provision in they overly dense design that will make it appear that park is part of the open space for this development. The City`s recently updated certified Land Use Plan,(LUP) also contents the fallowing policies that would applyto.the proposed development: C -93 Public Access and Recreation/Shoreline and Bluff Top Access, Policy 3.1.1 -1 states, C-94 Protect, and where feasible, enunudandeuhance public aces to widalane the 'shdrdkheFdnd to beeiehcs, coastal Waters, tidelands coastal parks, and trayls. Access toad nest to property would accomplisltthis stated policy.- 30 Page 1 -42 *The Planning Center Apri12008 a ,) `p 1. Response to Comments Policy further states udder "shoreline acoess , that the city will Yea uets WI new C -94 development causing or, watributing to adverse public access impacts, to provide eeseti>ems Q d m tro .areas where public access is inadequate. All beach access Openings serve specific :coried fi im street createdthe vertical aceess=that was created specifically to serve this area The public should not be deprived of accesato 55" street opening. One -of the main:teuets of the Coastal Ativis preservation of coastal access.. "City of Newport Beach stated goals include under the Local Coastal Program and Coastal I C -95 Land Use Plan: (I objected to staff that the.applicant is on this committee,, dtving;processing of his- appltcation:and should have bectimmovbd due to conflict of interest.) 3.1.14 Project public street ends,providing access to the beach Project removes protection 31.1- 7 "pratectpublic: rightofacaess.. Whedmbsiannal evldeneeofpreseliptivenghts I0-95 ensts, actively pursue public acgvistilon or require access easements as a condition of development. Project area could pursue prescriptive rights based oft history oCaccess ibrough area. adjacent to;5408 Neptune 3.1.1-8 ....prescriptive rights parcel niMSt be designed or conditions imposed to avoid interference wit$ prescriptive rights..... designed 3:1- 1- 9.,prouict etpand coastal access... 11,1 -13 Peotect.pablic access through setback and otb'er prcpertydevelopment regulations of the wiftng code thatconttiat building placement. This would directly stop the modification permit. If the couunittee for which the applicant is on,, has sought to change -the above policies in a manner that would he favorable to this:particulai development, then the policy revisions should be looked at 'again, as the munitions of protecting our coast should not change. 3.1.1 -14 REQUME an offer to dedicate (©TD) .an easement for vertical access in all new development projects causing or contributing to adverse public access .impacts... sufficient size to accommodate two wdy,pedestrian:possage_.. laridsca buffer sited aloag the border or side proNtry tine olth e orotect site ar awav from the exisli e'orargW.ed development to the AXPdUMFEAMLF FX'1FN7' Placing vertical easement away from both: existing and proposed project is easily accomplished with a road and sidewalk in side area. This is the fitting solution that complies with city and coastal acts and removes invest of the objections, allowing Neptune to remain thecul- de- sac,.and if buildings are sited properly, maintainmy ocean view, 3: L 1.19 _. develop -long-range plan for public trails and walkways 31 C -97 G -98 Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -43 �R r 1. Response to Comments Policy This is exactly what the projectis -intending to do and: is contrary ta this policy. This would be converting a private road. (Neptune).to turn into a "private driveway" . This project seeks to have "the ihdivid 4d drrveWays" going in the opposite duedtion'fo be ,caJle a °driveway"ahat hooks uli iota the e§fablts�fad Chy stiee},.ivletFtnrfaAve, 111tey . wish to have the "driveway" to be treated as a private road for emergency and city serviees. This does not-qualify in- mymanner for conversion without being outof compliance with said policy. Conc{ggion . 'Other,ncighbots and tenants have had this project presented in a manner to appeal'lo their "perceived "Jir ividtual likes: While consistdxuly implying that nothing can be done to stop thin project. Public outroaclx conducted by appticardat. anon -pity facility this maffi11,. wherd a •planningtomomrsioner appeared to fivoialily answer souse questions tedireeted tio'm:Applicant,. could lead one to- beft've opthing can be dam, even though, this was probahlynot1ha intention. - Tmubtmgis that none of my tenants: have 'had any notifications to date at all from appkcam. T'tie intention of nppl cam appears io utilize tFM publicrelations firm to.market to the neigbborhood'to avoid upset resatents wr$tng In to object to projects. We ail kngw this j3 how developers operate, it.isjustsmartbusiness and-this isn't to fault them, butthere isapohd where the process is no longer fair and this is bordering on this.precipice. The planning commission and com:uU are thereto protect the city from land use decisions that will affect' the quality of life fra'As tesidents forever, This is the type ofjfmject that demands:art EIR, ifnot:anbutright rejection as presented. . Most PR tams will try to market the development in advance through "coffee chats" and - informal friendly meetings,: in order to tailor the project to their perceived apecifiamlerests. 1 Was told, (based on myage 1 presume) that these units would be primarily second residences for retired people that would seldom be (here. I was also told they would be marketing the units for 3.3 million; again to appeal to the thought of'ameased property values. Instead, I recognized the sales pitch. However I was, mast insulted when "proponent" tried to state it would be getting rid of `those" tenants. 1 informed trim - "those" tenants had never been a f roblem, always quiet, and the faetthattenams are;controlled by a.maua$er, you don't have the prohlems�assoeiated with "rehab:facilfti s" or weekly vacationreMals, which, is-by far, a much more likely scenario when investors tryAo recoup their money fora condo. It is my bellef through myresearch that this investor group is primarily the same group hbmtwo years age 1 am troubled by the inelusion ofthe applicant to participate within committees that could affect the outcome of this project for which I believe he Would bmefrt'and Would certainly be in violation of the Bmwn Act for conflict o€ interest. conceming financial interests. Ispoke to staffandexpressed mybbjections, yet applicant is still on the committee Committee was intended to have public input, and not to consist primarily of developer related members. l had a Public kecords Act refused by planning department, after .1 was told I initially 32 C -99 G•ttid Page 1 -44 a The Planning Center April 2008 d' `W 1. Response to Comments cool'd ircoive the Marston Keyser r¢pt:sttuiyr, as I felt this evicted or offered incentives ta-ipaxe iftheywere IOW-Jac this, I extWOsed my concerns, yet this MNO has ocveptcd papers, deteaninii g how many investors;,ia which to spn I submitted numerous.leuera to pkafier addieas"nig detailed 'concerns, yetnonc o£ihy objections were inch" in the MNM7 None ofmy objeetious weretakeh into aoconut:in studying my suggestions as aliernatives. I have asked for an extension oftime'to respemdf nn Newport Beach,. the lead agency, .I .We been told this will lt'koly be continued, however, I:anistdlre Wed to su6mitobjectidus:to the MNDYo protect ray interests dW np:thia comment pound. Snclosing, this lathe sezpngpmlectfor- Newport Ilia ton dema; toolax and too close to other residencek it doesn't fit irk it 0 benefitingthe developors to the detriment of the existing citizens, just to name a low cancer og! I request this project be denied, or'at the very least demand as EIR. Rcgards, Lennie Ddbaro Owner of adjacent P.rl WOY 33 0.10'0 COMM Searbore Village Retponte to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -45 �J1 1. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -46 •The Planning Center Apri12008 t,u 1. Response to Comments C Response to Comments from Lennie DeCaro, Property Owner of 5406 & 5408 Neptune Avenue, Newport Beach, California, Dated March 13, 2008. C -1. This comment contends that the proposed project will have numerous significant adverse impacts in the areas of public access to the beach, displacement of low income housing, traffic, privacy, sunlight, noise,' parking, air quality, noise, loss of rents, etc. The issue of performance bond is also mentioned. The comment summarizes those topics that are to be discussed in the rest of the letter with no specific comments. Please refer to appropriate response in the following section. C-2. The comment suggests that inadequate noticing was provided. Pursuant to Section Sections 15105 (c) & 15073 (b ) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Mitigated Negative Declaration /Initial Study (MND /IS) was forwarded to the State Clearing House on February 19, 2008 for distribution to responsible and trustee agencies for a 30day review period. Pursuant to Section 15072(b) and 15105, the notice was posted on -site in the area where the project is to be located and also mailed to the owners and occupants of contiguous property. The posted and mailed notices indcaied that the 30-day review period would begin on February 20, 2008 and end on March 20, 2008; however, because the site was posted on February 20, 2008, it was determined by the City Attorney's Office that the public comment period began the following day, February 21, 2008 with the public comment period concluding on March 21, 2008. The project was continued from the March 20, 2008 Planning Commission hearing to allow for the full public comment period. Therefore, adequate noticing has been provided and no further response is necessary. C-3. The commenter contends that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared for the project because there is substantial adequate evidence to support a fair argument that the project will have significant adverse impacts. The commenter also /'�, . concludes that the Initial Study fails to clearly describe or offer mitigation for potential OR significant impacts. As detailed in responses to this comment letter, the Initial Study prepared for the project, does substantiate that project- related impacts will be less than significant or will be reduced to a less than significant level upon implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. There are no conditions which require the preparation of an EIR for this project. Comments regarding applicant indemnification of the City are not within the purview of the environmental review for this project. C -4. The comment claims that the proposed project would result in a cumulatively significant impact due to the intense amount of traffic, noise, and air pollution generated on Neptune Avenue. The comment inaccurately describes Neptune Avenue as a cul-de-sac. Neptune is not a cul-de -sac because there is not an adequate turning radius for vehicles and does not comply with City's Standards STD -102 -L and STD -103 -L (cul -de -sac standards) to safely turn around. In addition, as shown in Table 17, Project- Generated Traffic, of the Initial Study, the proposed project would result in a net decrease in traffic volumes by 178 average daily trips. Although the proposed project would create a new connection from Neptune Avenue to River Avenue, River Avenue terminates at the project site and a new vehicle access to Seashore Drive or any other streets for convenient beach access would not be created. The project site would be clearly marked and appear as a private property to discourage public from entering and using the driveway as a pass -thru. All visitor parking would also be clearly marked as residents only. Since this new access would only connect River Avenue and Neptune Avenue, where River Avenue terminates at the site, any changes to the circulation pattern in the area would be minimal, including beach traffic. The comment that the proposed project would force over one hundred cars from the development is inaccurate. C -5. The comment asserts that project's significant impact must be adequately addressed and mitigation measures should be identified. it also asserts that the Initial Study should compare the project impacts to feasible alternatives. The Initial Study was prepared in compliance with the appropriate section of the CEQA Guidelines, and concludes that potential project- related impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. CEQA Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -47 I. Response to Comments does require evaluation of project alternatives for projects for which all impacts can be mitigated to less than significant and Mitigated Negative Declarations can be processed. Aesthetic Impacts C -6. The comment asserts that any substantial, negative effect of a project on view and other features of beauty could constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA and that lay opinions that articulate the basis of the opinion can constitute substantial evidence of a negative aesthetic impact. The comment also asserts that the proposed project would result in the obstruction of the ocean views from the living room and balcony of the property at 5408 Neptune Avenue. The commentor further indicates that the view would be greater with rooftop decking. However, there is no rooftop decking. The existing apartment building has a side setback of approximately 60 feet near the River Avenue site boundary and narrows toward Seashore Drive by approximately 15 feet. The property at 5408 Neptune Avenue currently has an ocean view from the second floor living room and the patio via the open - parking area of the existing apartment complex and the approximately 30- foot -wide open area between the three -story buildings on 55th Street (see Figure 1, View Corridor Analysis). Figures 1 and 2, View Corridor Analysis and Photo of View Corridor, respectively, show the view corridor from 5408 Neptune Avenue. As proposed, a modification permit is being requested by the project applicant to reduce the minimum building- separation distance required by the MFR Zoning District from 10 feet to 6 feet, to reduce the minimum front- setback distances along Seashore Drive and River Avenue from 20 feet to a minimum of 10 feet, and to reduce the minimum side setbacks from 25 feet (which is based on the lot width) to a minimum of 4 feet. As shown in Figure 1, a structure that conformed to the specified 25 -foot side setback (along eastern property boundary) as required per the zoning code in the MFR Zoning District would obstruct the current view corridor of 5408 Neptune Avenue. This would impose a negative visual impact to the existing residence, as it would obstruct the existing private view afforded to it. Although the City does not have private -view protection policies or regulations, when a deviation is requested from what is normally permitted by the Zoning Code, it is reasonable to take into consideration the resulting private view impacts the deviation creates. However, the proposed 4 -foot side setback along the eastern project boundary would not negatively impact the private view to the existing residence anymore than a conforming project would. Additionally, as shown on Figure 1, a structure which conformed to the specified 20 -foot street setback along Seashore Drive as required per the zoning code would obstruct the current view corridor of 5408 Neptune Avenue. Similar to the reasoning provided above, the proposed 10 -foot front setback along Seashore Drive would not negatively impact the private view to the existing residence anymore than a conforming project would. The City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan focus on the protection of public views. As stated in the Initial Study, Policy 4.4.2 -2 of the Coastal Land Use Plan states, "preserve public views through the height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, and building bulk regulation of the Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005 that limit the building profile and maximize public view opportunities" (emphasis added). Additionally, pursuant to General Plan Policies NR 20.1 to NR20.4 and Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.4.1 -6, the emphasis is on the protection of public views. Since the reduced setbacks would not negatively impact the private view to the existing residence anymore than a conforming project would impact the view, and because the project would not obstruct public views, the proposed project would not result in a significant view impact. The commentor is also concerned over the degradation of property values. CEQA does not require an MIND to address economic impacts associated with a proposed project, which by themselves do not cause or contribute to physical impacts on the environment. Specifically, the CEQA Guidelines state that "Economic or social information may be included in an EIR or may be presented in whatever form the agency desires" (emphasis Page 1 -48 • The Planning Center April 2008 I . Response to Comments added, CEQA Guidelines, Section 15131). Further, the Guidelines state that the "Economic and social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment" (Section 15131 [a]). The intent of CEQA is to evaluate and mitigate physical impacts on the environment. In conclusion, the comment regarding project impacts on property values is acknowledged. This issue, however, is not within the purview of the environmental review of the project per CEQA, and therefore, this comment will be forwarded to the appropriate decision - makers for their review and evaluation. C -7. CEQA requires analysis of project- related impacts in comparison to existing conditions. Sunset View Park is approximately 0.5 mile east of the project site and existing intervening multi -story residential development precludes ocean views in the direction of the project site. Development of the proposed project will not alter potential views from Sunset Park. C-8. The commenter correctly notes the findings that must be made to approve the requested Modification Permit. These findings must be made by the decision - makers (City Planning - Commissioners). In the application for the permit, the. applicant has concluded that development of the same type of building that currently exists on the project site would not be compatible with the changing character of the area and would not result in a marketable residential product. The proposed development, 24 single - family homes and duplexes situated on individual pads, are designed to represent individual homes similar to development in surrounding R -1 and R -2 zoned areas. Although the MFR codes allow the proposed use, strict application of this zoning designation would preclude this type of development because of the required large setbacks. Ultimately the City's decision - makers are charged with making the finding that the proposed project would be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code C -9. As noted in the previous response, the required finding referenced in this comment el would need to be made by the City's decision - makers. The Modification Permit WN application concludes that the proposed development is "highly compatible with the WIM existing neighborhood and the general West Newport area" and that the proposed homes and duplexes would be "similar in size, proportion and separation to the buildings along Seashore Drive and River Avenue." The project has been designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30 -foot wide lot, and the side setbacks provided are consistent and compatible with the required 3 -foot side yard setbacks of the surrounding 30- and 40 -foot -wide lots in the neighborhood. The City's decision- makers will consider the application and the specifics modifications requested and determine whether they agree with this finding. C -10. Based on the analysis in the Initial Study, the proposed project would not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or detrimental to property or improvements in the neighborhood. As stated in response to Comment C -9, the project has been designed to include setbacks comparable to the setback requirements of the surrounding R -1 and R -2 lots and similar setback and distancing requirements are common throughout the City and have not proven detrimental. This finding, however, is a specific finding that will be required by the City's decision - makers with respect to the requesting zoning requirement modifications to approve the proposed project. Additionally, as concluded in response to Comment Cf, the proposed project would not obstruct or prevent public views of the ocean. C -11. As shown in Figure 3, Surrounding Area Photographs, existing residential units along the ocean side of Seashore Drive include three -story buildings and three -story buildings also exist on the north side of Seashore Drive, River Avenue, and Neptune Avenue. Under the R -1 and R -2 districts, a 24 -foot base height limit with an additional 5 feet in height to the ridge is permitted and 3 -story structures are commonly designed and constructed. The site is in the 28/32 -foot height - limitation zone that permits buildings and structures to exceed the 28 -foot height limit up to a maximum of 32 feet through the approval of a use permit. Ridges of pitched roofs are permitted to exceed the height limit by 5 additional feet. The six duplex units that are proposed to exceed the 28 -foot base height limit have Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -49 I. Response to Comments been designed with low- pitched gable roof lines, resulting in a maximum midpoint elevation of 28 feet 10 inches (10 inches over the maximum limit) and a maximum ridge elevation of 31 feet 4 inches (1400t 8- inches under the maximum ridge limit).. C -12. The commenter's objection to modifying the MFR required setbacks for the project are noted and will be forwarded to decision - makers. The sideyard setback reduction would place the proposed residential units in close proximity to the existing units along the eastern boundary. However, as discussed in response to Comment C-6, the proposed pro act is designed to appear as 4 the units were situated on individual 30- foot -wide lots an� setbacks comparable to surrounding R -1 and R -2 lots. Using the R -1 and R -2 development standards as a guide for determining acceptable setbacks and building separation, the proposed setbacks would not intensify the difference in height or style of the surrounding development. Additionally, the duplex proposed closest to the 5408 Neptune Avenue property maintains a minimum setback of 7 1/2 feet and increases to a setback of 13 feet, providing a significantly increased sideyard setback area than that of comparable R -1 and R -2 lots with 3 -foot sideyard setbacks. C -13. The commentor also stated that the MND omitted mentioning the modification permit component of the reduction of the required 25 -foot sideyard setback to 3 -feet. Pursuant to this comment, the third paragraph provided in question a) on page 39 of Initial Study has been modified to include all the components of the modification permit as shown in Section 2, Revisions, of this to Comments. Additionally, for consistency, the second bullet point provided in Section 1.5, Discretionary Approval, on page 25 has also been modified as shown in Section 2. However, as concluded in response to Comment C-6, these modifications would not alter the conclusion of the visual - impact analysis and no mitigation measures are required as a result of the modification. C -14. Please refer to response to Comment C -8. C -15. The proposed project may appear to remove visual open space as commented. However, the proposed project would provide 675,416 cubic feet, which would exceed the open space requirements of 247,313 cubic feet as required under the MFR Zoning District. The proposed open space areas also exceed the existing open space, which is 590,072 cubic feet. Additionally, as stated in the response to Comment C -13, as developed, the project site consists of minimal landscaping areas, which includes the landscaped lawn area and trees located around the pool area of the L- shaped apartment complex. As proposed, the project would provide more landscaping areas (approximately 18,390 square feet) than currently exists on -site (approximately 9,393 square feet). As such, the project would not result in a significant aesthetic or visual impacts and no mitigation is required. C -16. A street that connected River Avenue and Seashore Drive did not exist. The street referenced in the historic map shown in page 373 of Appendix D that connects River Avenue to ocean front is actually 54th Street and there was never an access from River Avenue to Seashore Drive immediately east adjacent to the project site. In addition, Neptune Avenue is not a cul -de -sac, as it does not provide adequate turning radius required for a cul -de -sac. The commenter's suggested revisions to the project are forwarded via this Response to Comments document to decision - makers for consideration. C -17. The square footage comparison of the existing apartment to the proposed development is noted. The MND refers to residential densities based on the number of units per acre. The project site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex. The proposed project would reduce the existing density to 24 single - family units, a decrease in 30 units. The reduction in the number of residential units would directly result in a reduction in traffic generation in comparison to the existing use. C -18. The lot area for the project site is 1.49 acres (64,904 square feet). The City of Newport Beach uses floor -area limit, not floor area ratio to evaluate residential development. Page 1 -50 •The Planning Center Apri12008 �1�14 1. Response to Comments Floor Area Limit is calculated based on the net acreage of the site after subtracting the setbacks. The maximum floor -area limit for the project is 1.75, which equates to 72,133 square feet. The proposed project would result in a floor -area limit of1.23, or 50,706 square feet. In accordance with the provision outlined in Section 20.10.30(M) of the Municipal Code, the 200 square feet of floor area of required parking devoted to enclosed parking was not included in the floor -area limit calculation. Additionally, the comment incorrectly references the paved parking area as open space. The existing development has approximately 9,393 square feet of landscaping and open space, while the proposed project would result in 18,390 square feet of landscaping and open space area. The current large setbacks do provide visual openness in some angles as commented. However, as shown in Figure 4, Site Photographs, the existing building has 48,744 square feet of building area under one roofline, which is significantly larger than all other structures in the area. Additionally, the existing large setbacks for the site are not typical of the surrounding development. As shown in Figure 3, Surrounding Area Photographs, and Figures 5a and 5b, Side Setbacks, adjacent ,buildings in the area have approximately three- to four -foot side setbacks. Aesthetic impacts are subjective and one aspect of visual character cannot be the sole basis of finding visual impact as significant. The proposed project would provide required tenant and guest parking. The comment regarding "giving" the developer the park is not based on any factual data and is speculative only. The park wilt remain as a public park and there would be no design treatment to suggest that it is a private facility. Air Quality C -19. Emissions associated with the proposed project have been calculated to respond to the comment and are shown in Table. 1 below. As demonstrated within Table 1, total emissions from both stationary and mobile sources are a small fraction of the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds. These emissions assume that all these emissions are based on new project- related vehicle trips without subtracting the emissions associated with the existing uses. The comment regarding the footprint of buildings being 19 percent larger than the existing uses would not change the fact that emissions from the proposed project are still far below the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) CEQA significance thresholds for all analyzed pollutants. Stationary Sources 2 < 1 2 0 1 < 1 < Mobile Sources 2 3 <1 3 1 Total Project 3 < 3 1 mefglonal inres olds ignificam? No o o No No No Froposea Uses Stationary Sources 5 1 11 0 2 1 Mobile Sources 2 3 22 <1 3 1 o rolect t 4 SS 0 eglona nres olds bb SS Signill ab . No No I No I No No No C-20. As shown in Table 1, the emissions attributable to the proposed project with 100 percent occupancy and without deducting the emissions occurring under the existing uses Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -51 �0 1. Response to Comments would still not result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds and would consequently not result in a significant air quality impact. C -21- Please see Response C -16. C -22. The comment is incorrect in its assertion that asphalt emissions were not accounted for within the air quality analysis. The air quality analysis did model emissions associated with paving. Emissions associated with paving equipment and evaporative emissions from asphalt were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 model and included within Table 5 of the Initial Study. C -23. To clarify, the Initial Study stated that there were no thresholds established for greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions of criteria pollutants were calculated compared to the SCAQMD significance thresholds and a finding of less than significant air quality impacts was presented. A finding of less than significant greenhouse gas emissions was also presented due to the small scale of emissions associated with this project. The Localized Significance Threshold (LST) analysis followed the protocol established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) of using the closest distance between the air pollutant source and the receptor of 25 meters (82 feet). This approach is also consistent with the closest distance analyzed of 25 meters for health risk assessments per Rule 1401. The LST screening approach is also considered by the SCAQMD to be conservative because it applies worst -case wind direction and speeds. In addition, the project is under mandatory compliance with Rule 402 and Rule 403 which apply to nuisance and dust emissions from construction activity as they occur. Lastly, 'rf there is a problem with dust plumes or air pollution, the sensitive residences proximate to the project site can call the code enforcement division of the SCAQMD to ensure that excessive emissions resulting from construction activities do not occur. C -24. There were four references within the air quality section to Appendix A for the modeling output. There was a typographic error in another reference to Appendix B, which did not have the air quality modeling. The air quality modeling assumptions had been provided in Appendix A of the Initial Study, The typographic error in page 57 of the Initial Study has been revised and is reflected in the Revisions to the Initial Study Section. C -25. Demolition activities that involve Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) are required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403. Mandatory compliance with this rule will result in less than significant air quality impacts related to ACM. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, in June 18, 2003, established a lead paint rule, which allows landfills to accept residential lead -based paint waste at municipal landfills. This Rule was enacted to accelerate the removal of lead based paint from residences so that people, especially children, would not be exposed to ingested lead. The existing structures may or may not contain lead -based paint. Demolition of structures that may potentially contain lead paints is beneficial to the environment because it removes a substance that can cause central nervous system disorders. Unlike asbestos, lead is only a concern when ingested. Demolition of the existing structures would remove the potential for oral ingestion of lead paints.Demolition debris would be loaded and removed from the project site to be disposed of-at a local landfill. Greenhouse gas emissions were quantified per recommendations of the SCAQMD, which currently does not have an established threshold for evaluating greenhouse gas emissions. The SCAQMD does have significance thresholds for criteria pollutants to identify substantial pollutant emitters. As shown in Table 1, the project emissions are far below the significance thresholds established for criteria pollutants, due to the minimal amount of development associated with the proposed project. The rationale that the SCAQMD significance thresholds are an indicator of whether the project results in substantial quantities of the emissions was also applied for greenhouse gases. Because the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, it was surmised that the project would likewise not Page 1 -52 *The Planning Center Apri12008 T� 1. Response to Comments result in substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. This project is minimal in scale relative to other development pro acts. Based on the SCAQMD significance thresholds, it is not the intent of the SCAQMD to identify projects with such a small scale as substantial pollutant emitters. Consequently, it is unlikely that the SCAQMD or any other regulatory agency would determine that the greenhouse gas emissions from the project would result in a significant impact relative to global climate change. C-26. As discussed previously, Table 1 shows that project related emissions are far below SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds even if all of the vehicle trips . were considered new and without deducting the existing trips. The finding and significance would not change and the proposed project would not result in significant air quality impacts. C -27. The evaluation of construction LSTs is based on SCAQMD modeling methodology. The project is not anticipated to involve mass grading. Trenching emissions are quantified an shown in the attached appendix. Trenching emissions were found to be less than that which would occur during the fine grading phase and would not result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds for construction activities. Projects are constructed in phases. The phases used within the air quality analysis were developed by the SCAQMD. The construction schedule was estimated to follow an 18- month schedule. This duration is not unreasonable for a project of this scale. The temperature of 60 degrees used in the analysis for winter conditions is a SCAQMD recommended default. Deviation from this default value would not result in a meaningful change in air pollutant emissions nor change the finding of significance. C -28. Project compliance to SCAQMD Rule 403 is mandatory. The commentor's assertion that it is a mitigation measure is incorrect. A mitigation measure goes beyond regulatory requirements. Rule 403 is a regulatory requirement of the SCAQMD. Consequently it O, OV does not need to be "called out specifically in the mitigation." 2 C -29. A health risk analysis is only necessary for projects that have prolonged usage of diesel - fueled vehicles. Diesel exhaust is the primary cause of respiratory cancer risk in the South Coast Air Basin. The SCAQMD does not require nor recommend a health risk analysis for construction activities of such a short duration as necessary for the proposed project. Health risk analyses are conducted for diesel exhaust exposure over a lifetime (70 years). Consequently, a health risk analysis for construction activities of such a short duration would not result in a significant health risk impact. Diesel- fueled vehicles would be used intermittently at the project site during construction and would not constitute a major source of diesel exhaust exposure. The operational phase of the project would not result in a daily use of diesel vehicles. Consequently, no health risk analysis is warranted for the proposed project. C -30. The analysis of lead emissions generated from the proposed project is not required nor recommended by the SCAQMD. The South Coast Air Basin has been in a state of attainment for lead for at least two decades. With the banning of lead -based paints and lead in gasoline, lead emissions are only of concern from stationery industrial sources whose processes involve lead emissions. Consequently, the air quality analysis of project related emissions does not need to evaluate lead. The commentor's assertion that PM,,, was not evaluated is incorrect. It was evaluated within the Initial Study and found to result in less than significant air quality impacts. C -31. This comment pertains to the commenter's confusion of the interpretability of the air quality appendix of a different project and, as such, does not relate to the proposed project. It is not the responsibility of the CEQA analysis for the proposed project to clarify confusion on another project. If the commenter is implying that the apppPendix is confusing for both the proposed project as well as the Newport Beach DEIR, this is standardized output that the SCAQMD had developed for the URBEMIS model. Seasbore Village Response to Comments of Newport Beach • Page 1 -53 �0 1. Response to Comments In regards to the comment that ROGs is not defined, reactive organic gases are those comppounds that have high enough vapor pressures that under normal atmospheric conditions leads to vaporization. The SCAQMD considers ROGs and VOCs to be synonymous. ROGs are Reactive Organic Gases and VOCs are Volatile Organic Compounds. Biological Resources C -32. As shown in Figure 6, Aerial Photograph, the project site is a completely developed site with very limited landscaping. There is no need to conduct a literature review to include data on biological resources in the project vicinity. A field visit by the staff biologist indicated that on -site plants are ornamental landscaping materials and are not of any significant biological importance. As indicated, no potential habitat for special status species exists on- or off -site and no additional investigation was deemed necessary. Per your comment, Phil Brylski has been added to the list of preparers. C -33. The City of Newport Beach does not have any tree ordinance concerning on -site trees. . Council Policies G -1, Retention or Removal of City Trees, is applicable only to City trees and G -3, Reservation of Views, deals with views lost due to excessive plant growth. These policies are not applicable to the proposed project Removal of all on -site landscaping, including mature palm trees, would not conflict with these City policies. C34. As part of the Condition of Approval N. 36, two City trees ( Cajeput trees) on Seashore Drive would be removed to accommodate the sidewalk construction on Seashore Drive. However, these are not designated as special trees by the City and they would be removed in compliance with the tree ordinance. Additionally, draft Condition of Approval No. 37 stipulates that new City- designated street trees will be planted along River Avenue frontage. All street trees would be planted per City stan dards and guidelines provided by the City General Services Department and Art analysis or mitigation measures are necessary. The Draft Conditions of Approval is contained in Appendix B of this document. C -35. Condition of Approval No. 17 states that All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance." The Initial Study states that the existing apartment complex provides approximately 9,393 square feet of landscaping area and the proposed project would provide approximately 20,987 square feet. Figure 7, Landscape Plan, has been provided. C -36. It is the City's policy to retain City threes categorized as Landmark, Dedicated, or Neighborhood trees, which have historical significance, and /or contributed to and give character to a location or to an entire neighborhood. Landmark, Dedicated, and Neighborhood trees are identified by species by Attachment 1 of Retention or Removal of City Trees ordinance (Council Policy G -1). The proposed project would require removal of two city trees on Seashore Drive. these two trees are identified as Cajeput trees (Melaleuca quinquinervia) and are listed under Attachment 1. The proposed project would not impact any special trees as defined by the City Code. Cultural Resources C37. As stated, the entire project site is already developed, which means the project site is underlain by engineered soils that have been disturbed previously. Therefore, although the project area may be potentially sensitive for cultural resources, the on -site potential would be minimal. No confirmed artifacts have been reported near the project site. In the absence of a confirmed artifact, implementation of Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 have been deemed an appropriate site - speck level of response based on the analysis and recommendations, as is typical industry practice. Because the lead agency recognized Page 1 -54 • The Planning Center Apri12008 _, b 1. Response to Comments the potential for discovery upon deeper excavation beyond previous development, Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 have been incorporated to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. C38. The Native American Heritage Commission has reviewed the Initial Study and has responded in a standard response letter dated March 5, 2008. The Initial Study recognizes the potential for discovery of subsurface cultural resources and provided Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Geology and Soils C -39. It was a typographical error and it does not alter the conclusion of the analysis. Pursuant to your comment, the title page for the geotechnical investigation has been revised. The text with purple highlighter was not intended to emphasize or delete the text. C-40. The project description indicates that the project site will be balanced, which indicates that there would be no significant import or export of :;oils. Construction impacts during the grading phase were addressed in the traffic, noise, and air quality sections of the Initial Study. Vibration impacts have been addressed in the noise section of the Initial Study. Please refer to Noise for vibration impacts. C-41. As indicated in the Initial Study, the proposed project is required to comply with the criteria and seismic design parameters of the Unriorm Building Code, California Building Code, and the Structural Engineers Association of California. All grading and foundation plans are required to be reviewed and approved prior to any site disturbance. There has been a typographical error in page 65 of the Initial Study. The Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by EGA Consultants dated June 13, 2007 is included in Appendix C of the In tial Study instead of Appendix B. The typographical error has been revised in Section 2, Revisions to the Initial Study. C-42. The project subsurface exploration consisted of the excavation of six exploratory borings to a maximum depth of 10 feet below grade. No seepage or surface water ponding was noted on the project site and groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 6 to 8 feet below grade. Groundwater was encountered at 4 feet below grade at the River Avenue sidewalk elevation, which is approximately 2.5 feet below the project site area elevation. The soils investigation report also acknowledges that the perched groundwater encountered is subject to tidal fluctuations. Whereas area soil records may show the water table at 1 foot below surface, the on -site subsurface exploration presents more accurate description of the site condition. Based on various elements considered in the geotechnical report, including tidal fluctuation, the report concluded that there are no significant geotechnical constraints on -site that cannot be mitigated by proper planning, design, and sound construction practices. The engineering properties of the soil and native materials and the surface drainage offer favorable conditions for construction of the proposed project. All on -site runoffs are required to be contained within the site and would not drain to surrounding properties. Pursuant to this comment, Figure 8, Preliminary Grading Plan, has been included as part of this response. Hazardous Materials C-43. The Initial Study discloses that existing structures on -site are required to be surveyed for lead -base paint prior to demolition. In June 18, 2003, the United States Environmental Protection Agency established a lead paint rule, which allows landfills to accept residential lead based paint waste at municipal landfills. This Rule was enacted to accelerate the removal of lead -based paint from residences so that people, especially children, would not be exposed to ingested lead. The existing structures may or may not contain lead -based paint. Demolition of structures that may potentially contain lead paints is beneficial to the environment, because it removes a substance that can cause central nervous system disorders. Unlike asbestos, lead paint is only a concern when ingested. Demolition of the existing structures would remove the potential for oral ingestion of lead paints. Demolition debris would be loaded and removed from the Seasbore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beacb • Page 1 -55 �� 1 1. Response to Comments project site for disposed at a local landfill. Therefore, lead -base paint survey and removal will be administered through the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health as required. The Initial Study is not deferring possible mitigation. Hydrology and Water Quality C-44. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will need to be prepared and approved by the Building Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP will provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. The WQMP included in Appendix E of the Initial Study would be supplemented and refined to the satisfaction of the Building Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. Ongoing property maintenance of common areas including maintenance of the Best Management Practices (BMPs) as set forth in the WQMP would be the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association (HOA). An HOA would be established and Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (OCR's) adopted that identify the association's common area and responsibilities, explain the obligation of the association to collect assessment, and the obligation for owners to pay the assessments. For clarification, the Project Description as been supplemented to include this information (please see Section 2.2 of this Response to Comments). As included in Condition of Approval No. 41, all on -site utilities shall be owned, operated, and maintained by the community /association. Condition of Approval No. 26 also specified that 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 that could impair water quality would be used, stored, or spilled on the site. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck seeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers of pesticides, and the diversion of stormwater away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). Also as part of this condition of approval, preparation of Stage 2 WQMP is required; this lists and describes all structural and non - structural BMPs. The Stage 2 WQMP must also identif the entity responsible for the long -term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and, if applicable, treatment-control) BMPs. Draft Condition of Approval No. 23 requires that prior to issuance of grading permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Notice of Intent are prepared and submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board approval and made part of the construction program. This plan will detail measures and practices that would be in effect in during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. The Initial Study identifies these required procedures for the proposed project to follow and implement. Detailed actions for the construction phase that include how demolition debris is disposed of or stored, covered, and transported would be addressed in the SWPPP. No grading permits will be issued without the evidence that proper clearances have been obtained through the State Water Resources Control Board. C-45. As required under the draft Condition of Approval No. 39, on -site runoff will be retained on -site prior to entering the underground stormwater drainage system. The open bottom trench which the commenter is referring to is located within the project site prior to entering the underground stormwater drainage system. As shown in Figure 9, Construction Staging and WQCP, the open bottom trench which the commenter is referring to is located within the project site. The proposed project would not transfer any maintenance responsibilities to the City. C-46. Please see Response C-44. Figures 8 and 9 show proposed drainage concept for the project, including perforated drain trench detail. The geotechnical investigation conducted on -site borings and determined that ground water table is at 6 to 8 feet below ground, not at 1 foot. The comment regarding soil class D subject to saturation and poor drainage is inaccurate. The native soils consists generally of moist, medium dense, non - cemented, fine- to medium-grained, beach sand, subject to percolation and good drainage. Page 1 -56 •The Planning Center Apri12008 a` b 1. Response to Comments Automated irrigation system will ensure that heavy watering of the landscaped area does not occur. All landscape materials and landscaped areas will be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape and irrigation plans 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 Department and the General Services 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 will be adjustable based on either a signal from a satellite or an on -site moisture - sensor. Furthermore, as indicated in the WQMP, the proposed BMP's are designed to filter pollutants naturally back in the ground on -site. The Figure 8, Preliminary Grading Plan, shows the location of stormwater pipes and details of perforated drain trench and groutless paver system. The asphalt paving at driveways with areas of groutless paver systems would allow filtering of first flush runoff from the driveway. In addition, patios and walks would be constructed with concrete that flows to the 6- to 8 -inch drainage system equipped with an inline perforated drain_trepch, which would allow the pollutants to fifter through the gravel bed back into the "sod. As discussed, the underlain soils generally consist of beach sand with high infiltration rate. Additionally, the site will be graded so that all runoff water is retained and treated on -site and that neighboring properties are not affected by the proposed development. The combination of paver system, erosion - resistant plants that absorb water, gravel side yards, and gravel trench drains will contribute to retain runoff water on -site without flooding the project site or the surrounding properties. C-47. Section 3.8 Hydrology and Water Qualit , on page 70 of the Initial Study, discusses regulations under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and its requirements under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting program. Land Use C-48. The concern regarding rehabilitation facilities is speculative and is also a socio- economic issue which is beyond the scope of CEQA unless it would result in a physical impact. C-49. The proposed project would result in a less dense project with 24 single - family residences than the current 54 -unit apartment complex. The 54 -unit apartment complex currently provides a total of 100 parking spaces, 26 in carports, 29 under the building, and 45 open. This results in a parking ratio of 1.85 per unit. The proposed project would provide a total of 63 parking spaces, with 48 dedicated residential spaces in garages and carports and 15 open guest spaces. Therefore, the proposed project would have a parking ratio of 2.62 per unit. The City does not require the parking spaces to be calculated based on the number of bedrooms and the proposed project provides adequate parking per the City guidelines. The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 20.66.040 Parking Standards for Residential Districts requires 2 spaces per unit plus 0.5 guest space for each dwelling unit. The comment that the proposed project would give the appearance of a private community park is inaccurate and speculative. The park would remain as a public park and there would be no design treatment to give it the appearance of a private facility. C -50. The project site has a lot size of 65,108 square feet, which is 1.49 acres. Pursuant to this comment, the following text has been revised. This change would not alter the conclusion of the impact analysis. Page 2 of the Initial Study has been modified as follows: The current permitted density at the site is 51 units per acre and the proposed project would yield 16 units per acre. The project proposes a gross floor area of 67;996 5J7SIfi square feet and a floor area t'afie limit of 048:L23. Seashore ViAtge Response to Comments City of Newport Beath • Page 1 -57 1. Response to Comments C -51. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report states that the estimated percentage of property covered by buildings and /or pavement is 97 percent. It merely describes the existing site condition without any value judgment. C-52. Figure 1, View Corridor Analysis, show the view corridor from 5408 Neptune Avenue. However, this plan shows that the view corridor from this address is very narrow and even with the conforming side setback, the view would be obstructed. As stated in the Initial Study, the proposed project would not impact the public views. Please refer to Response C -6, C -7, and C -11 for additional discussion regarding project - related view impacts. C -53. The proposed project is a private project which, based on the findings of the Initial Study, would not result in significant environmental impacts. Consideration of project alternatives, such as City purchase of the site for public park use, is not required by CEQA. Please refer to Responses C-6 through C -18 with respect to the potential visual impact and compatibility with surrounding development. C -54. The Mitigated Negative Declaration /Initial Study was released for public review on February 20, 2008. The comment refers to the Planning Commission Report, which is separate from the CEQA noticing requirement. The project description as included in the Initial Study is sufficient to address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. As noted, project implementation would replace an existing 54 -unit apartment building with a total of 24 housing units, resulting in a net reduction of 30 housing units on the property. Potential future modifications of the individual units would be subject to City permits, are speculative, and are not within the realm of the CEQA analysis. C -55. Please refer to Response C -49. C -56. The traffic analysis has been prepared in accordance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The use of ITE Trip Generation Manual for trip generation is the widely accepted industry standard of traffic analysis. C -57. Please refer to Response C-48. C -58. A Homeowners Association will be formed and appropriate Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &R) adopted. Condition of Approval No. 41 requires that all on -site utilities to be owned, operated, and maintained by the community /association (see Appendix B for list of draft Conditions of Approval). The HOA will also be responsible for maintenance of common areas. C -59. The commentor's submittal of the 'Sober Houses' article is acknowledged and this information will be forwarded to decision - makers. The potential for the proposed project for this use is speculative and beyond the scope of CEQA review. As noted above, formulation of an HOA will be required for the project. Existing Land.Use /Description Inadequate C-60. Pursuant to this comment, the following text has been revised. This change does not alter the conclusion of the impact analysis. Page 1 of the Initial Study has been modified as follows: Vehicular access from and to Seashore SNeet.DdYQ and Neptune Avenue is blocked by as w fence. PedestrIam2=sBJram . N of Av enue to the prolect siteis blocked by a w000en fence. C-61. Neptune Avenue is not a cul -de -sac and it does not have an adequate turning radius for large emergency vehicles. Neptune Avenue is a public right-of -way, which the future Page 1 -58 • The Planning Center Apri12008 9� 3L_ 1, Response to Comments residents of the Seashore Village project have the right to use. In addition, the traffic generated by the proposed project would be minimal, with 14 AM peak hour trips and 18 PM peak -hour trips. Furthermore, Neptune Avenue is not the only access roadway to the project site; there is access from and to River Avenue, which may be more convenient for some of the future residents. The proposed project would actually result in a net reduction in traffic by 178 average daily trips. The proposed project has less development intensity and less project related traffic compared to the existing use and no mitigation measures are necessary. C-62. The comment that one of the two driveways on River Avenue for use of just one single - family unit is unfair and that the proposed project should retain the existing ingress /egress for the proposed project is not a feasible design alternative and would impose undue restriction in development of the project site. The current site plan allows for use of both Neptune Avenue and River Avenue for access. The internal roadway would be a minimum of 26 feet. Neptune Avenue is not a cufde -sac and it terminates at the project site.:.npening Neptune Avenue to connect to River Avenue would actually improve the mobility of large emergency vehicles serving Neptune Avenue. All on -site parking, vehicular, and pedestrian circulation systems would be constructed in accordance with the City's standards and reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. C -63. Please refer to Responses C -16. Indemnity C -64. Draft Condition of Approval No. 20 stipulates that "to the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnity, 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 Seashore Village Residential Development Project including, but not limited to, the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001, Modification Permit No. 2007 -044, Use Permit No. 2007 -011 and Costal Residential Development Permit No. 2007-001; 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 limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney's 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 brining such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnity the City for all of City's costs, attorney's 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." C -65. Please refer to Responses C-8 through C -11. C -66. Please refer to Responses C- 61-and C -62. C -67. Draft Condition of Approval No. 16 requires that trash container storage for the individual units are to be screened from view of neighboring properties and public places, except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies, and that trash containers are not to be located within the required parking areas. The type and volume of solid wastes generated by the proposed residential development would be comparable to other residential use in the surrounding area and would not create unusual health and safety hazards. (See Section 2, Revisions to the Initial Study, of this Response to Comments) Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -59 a a3 1. Response to Comments C-68. As part of long -term post construction operation of the site to minimize the water quality impact, a list of good housekeeping practices would be incorporated, including, but not limited to frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping. C -69. As spaded in Response C -62, the internal roadway would be a minimum of 26 -feet and all onsite parking, vehicular, and pedestrian circulation systems would be required to comply with City standards and reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. Additionally, the City of Newport Beach Fire Department has reviewed the proposed plans and location of existing fire hydrant and has determined that additional fire hydrants would not be necessary. The project is not within the jurisdiction of the Orange County Fire Authority. Surrounding Land Use C -70. Pursuant to this comment, page 1, Surrounding Land Use has been modified as follows: The project site is surrounded by residential uses, sueh as including vacation rental units, to the north, south, and east, and a city park Immediately to the west. C -71. As noted in this comment for the existing apartment building, the proposed protect would provide adequate parking for its residents and visitors. The proposed protect would comply with the Citys parking requirements. The Municipal Code Section 20.66.040 Parking Standards for Residential Districts requires a minimum two parking spaces for each dwelling unit, plus 0.5 space for guest parking spaces per unit. The project is designed to provide a total of 2.62 parking spaces per unit, thereby exceeding the 2.5 s acelunk requirement. The project would provide a total of 63 parking spaces, with 48 dedicated residential spaces in garages and carports and 15 open guest spaces The existing 54 -unit apartment complex currently provides a 1.85 spaces per unit (100 spaces total) consisting of 26 in carports, 29 under the building, and 45 open.. The City does not require the parking spaces to be calculated based on the number of bedrooms. C -72. The proposed project provides more parking spaces than required by the City and project- related paring is not anticipated to overflow into the public parking lot on Seashore Drive. C -73. This comment expresses a personal opinion and is speculative. The commentors concerns and opposition to the project are noted and will be forwarded to decision - makers. Noise C -74. Based on industry- accepted methodology for the calculation of project - related vehicle trips, the proposed project would result in a net reduction of trips as compared to existing uses. Project- related vehicles during the operational phase would consist of light -duty automobiles and trucks as well as motorcycles. Because the project is a residential development, no 18- wheeler trucks are anticipated to access the site. Noise generated from large equipment and power tools are regulated through the City's municipal code limits established through Chapter 10.26. C -75. Noise associated with property maintenance is governed under municipal code section 10.28.045. The City allows for the creation of noise associated with property maintenance but limits occurrence based on the aforementioned municipal code section. Due to the short duration of noise generated by property maintenance activities as well as the restrictions on the time of occurrence to the least noise - sensitive portions of the day, noise associated with property maintenance is not considered to result in a significant noise impact. Page 1 -60 •The Planning Center April 2008 �61, A 1. Response to Comments C-76. Noise associated with trash trucks is regulated relative to time of occurrence. The City does not consider noise from trash trucks to result in a significant noise impact due to the brevity and infrequency of occurrence. C -77. Noise associated with the operation of the project is regulated through the Citys ni Mucipal Codes. These Codes include Chapter 10.26 - Community Noise Control, and Chapter 10.28.010 - Loud and Unreasonable Noise. Project occupants and landscapers are required to comply with these Municipal Code limits. Compliance with these Municipal Code limits would minimize noise generated by the proposed Project to level is considered acceptable by the City and consequently would not result in a significant noise impact. C -78. Noise associated with balcony use is also subject to the municipal code limits for noise. Consequently, noise associated with the operation of the proposed project would not result in a significant noise impact. C -79. Noise and vibration associated with conmina..tion activity is unavoidable. The City has allowed the creation of noise and vibration from construction activity but restricted the hours of occurrence to the least noise - sensitive portions of the day, as specified under municipal code section 10.26.035. Construction- related noise and vibration will intermittently occur through the day until the project is completed. Subsequent to project buildout, construction noise and vibration will cease. CEQA requires an analysis of physical environmental impacts only and does not require provision of financial mitigations. C -80. The assertion that noise levels were assessed for only a single piece of equipment is incorrect. Construction related noise was evaluated by construction phase and included typical equipment used for each construction phase. Construction of the proposed project would involve standard construction techniques and equipment. The statement that no alternative methods of construction or recommended is not accurate To minimize vibration generated from jackhammering in close proximity to the existing residential uses, concrete saws would be employed during demolition of the existing pavement on the project site. The City of Newport Beach does not use Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) for the assessment of noise impacts under CEQA. The assessment of noise impacts from the proposed project were based on the Municipal Code limits and industry standards. C -81. The noise analysis also required an evaluation of site suitability for the proposed noise - sensitive residential use. Consequently, compatibility for the proposed residential use relative to noise from aircraft and PCH was assessed. Population and Housing C -82. The Initial Study states that the proposed project would result in displacement of approximately 122 residents based on average household size of 2.25. Also as documented in the Initial Study, the City currently has a rental vacancy rate of 7.7 percent. The Initial Study analysis concludes that, based on available rental units at comparable rates, the City's commitment to providing affordable housing units in the City, and project compliance with the Government Code Section 65590 and 65590.1, impacts related to displacement of residents would be less than significant. Based on an income survey performed in June 2007 by the Las Brisas property manager, 6 of the 54 apartment units are occupied by persons of lower or moderate income. Therefore, to compensate for the loss of affordable housing, the applicant will be required to replace those 6 units at an off -site location within the City for a minimum period of 30 years. The applicant has agreed to commit $1.35 million to subsidize the rents and /or purchase price of off -site replacement housing. The net cost to subside 6 replacement units is estimated at $962,134, based on the City's Draft Technical Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -61 ��5 1. Response to Comments Memorandum dated October 11, 2007, prepared by Economic and Planning Systems for the calculation of the City's affordable housing in -lieu fee. C-83. Per draft Condition of Approval No. 17, all landscape materials and landscaped areas are required to be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas are required to be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Please see Figure 7, Landscape Plan. Therefore, adequate landscaping will be provided. The proposed project has been designed to be compatible with the development pattern and character of the surrounding neighborhood, which generally consists of two- and three -story, single -unit and two-unit dwelling. Each unit would feature either a Craftsman or Plantation architectural style. Architectural details and enhancements (i.e., batt and board wood siding, louvered window shutters, decorative trim, and stone veneer) would be provided on all building elevations. The 2"" floor facades would be setback from the 1" floor on the rear elevations and cantilevered over the 1" floor on the front elevations, providing articulation and modulation to the building mass. The 3r° floor of each building would be set back from the front and rear elevations, towards the interior portion of each building. envelope, to reduce the visual mass of the structures as viewed from the streets. In addition, draft Condition of Approval No. 7 states that, "The two structures that encroach into the side yard setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line shall be modified in height to conform to the 24 -foot base height limit." The proposed project is designed to appear as if the units were situated on individual 30 -foot -wide lots with setbacks comparable to surrounding R -1 and R -2 lots. Using the R -1 and R -2 development standards as a guide for determining acceptable setbacks and building separation would not intensify the difference in height or style of the surrounding development. Under R -1 and R -2, the project site potentially allows 26 units due to loss of guest parking requirement. The project site is designated as Multiple -Unit Residential (RM) with a maximum development limit of 51 dwelling units. Public Services and Recreation C -84. The Initial Study has studied the impact of the land use change from multifamily residential to single and duplex residential units. Development density on -site would decrease as result of the proposed project and subsequently, public services demand would also be reduced. Furthermore, a homeowner's association and associated CC &Rs would be formulated. C -85. The proposed project provides adequate parking per the City code. Construction of a continuous block wall to discourage residents to use the meter parking would not be necessary. In addition, the Applicant is required (draft Condition of Approval No. 46) to provide pedestrian walkways from River Avenue to Seashore Drive. Restricting access from Seashore Drive to the project site would also limit the public access to the pedestrian walkway. Please refer to Response C -52 with respect to potential City purchase of site for park expansion. Transportation and Traffic C-86. The said provision guards against piecemealing a project on the same parcel or parcels of property and does not apply to the proposed project. The proposed project alone is anticipated to generate approximately 185 trips, not considering the net reduction in trip from the existing use. C-87. Using ITE Trip Generation Manual for trip generation rates is required per the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and is widely accepted industry standard. Although there is a wide variation in trip generation rates, the rates used for the project are comparable to all other similar developments in the City and the proposed project does not present exceptional circumstances whereby the use of specialized trip rates would be necessary. Page 1 -62 •The Planning Center Apri12008 Akk 1. Response to Comments Appendix C -88. Please refer to Response C -42. C-89. Please refer to Response C -16. Public Access C -90. Please refer to Responses 16 and 6. The proposed residential development is not a gated community and public access from River Avenue to Seashore Drive would be provided. C -91. Development of the proposed project would provide improved public access to the beach compared to the existing apartment complex by allowing public walkway from River Avenue to Seashore Drive. C -92. Please refer to Responses C -61 and C-62. ` C -93. The comment that the proposed project would give the appearance of a private community park is inaccurate and speculative. The park will remain as a public park and there would be no design treatment to give it the appearance of a private facility. C-94. Please refer to Responses C -16 and C -62. C -95. Please refer to Responses C -92, C -62, and C -71. C -96. Please refer to Response C -16. /OL0'% C-97. Please refer to Responses C -62, C -71, and C -6. `:'�• C-98. Please refer to Responses C -92, C -62, and C -71. C -99. The proposed project does not conflict with this policy since Neptune Avenue currently does not provide vehicular or pedestrian access to the beach. Additionally, there is no proposal to convert Neptune Avenue to a private street. Instead, the propose project would improve the shoreline access for pedestrians through walkways. C -100. CEQA requires analysis of physical environmental impacts. This comment expresses a personal opinion and is beyond the scope of the Initial Study analysis. Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beath • Page 1 -63 �C1A I. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -64 0 The Planning Center Apri12008 Response to Comments View Corridor Analysis (if Developed in Conformance with MFR Setback Requirements) 0 Existing View corridor -----Extent of Building Edge Per 20 -Foot Setback Requirement of MFR Zoning Designation - - -- Extent of Building Edge Per 25 -Foot Setback Requirement of MFR Zoning Designation Photo Source: Google Earth Pro 2007 Searhore Village Initial Study a oo Stele (Feet) The Planning Center • Figure 1 1. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -66 The Planning Center Apri12008 �p6 Response to Comments Photo of View Corridor Looking southwest toward beach from 5408 Neptune Avenue Seasbore Village Response, to Commend The: Planning Center 0 Figure 2 7b\ 1. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -68 • The Planning Center Apri12008 �6a 1. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -70 • The Planning Center April 2008 130 1. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -72 •The Planning Center Apri12008 Response to Comments Side Setback (Plan A: Plantation) Source: Todd Schcoler & Associates, 2007 norrosu� e Seashore Village Response to Comments The Planning Center • Figure Sa 1. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -74 • The Planning Center Apri12008 Response to Comments Side Setback (Plan C Craftsman) Source: Todd Schcoler & Associates, 2007 Seashore Village Response to Comments a s I3 The Planning Center • Figure 5b 1. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank Page 1 -76 *The Planning Center Apri12008 1. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -78 *The Planning Center AP612008 Response to Comments Landscape Plan Source: Todd Schooley & Associates, 2007 Seashore Village Response to Comments ti J Normscue Ov The Planning Center • Figure 7 1. Response to Comments This page intentions y left blank. Page 1 -80 • The Planning Center Apri12008 �YA �...vonovbr AVrev iaumo wa Aam kM6 taM vays rasa -.a. Source: totla&h.oW BAs.<oeieies. lop) SrwSnrr rVU, Rupa. m C,n.t, C 1� Il V Gott Sec Response to Comments Preliminary Grading Plan [l SFAfFIif3 WATM S[NJM:E ..�- 9EWGNEW18iFlW'110NiW2S WE Owl �. UA aN� rt�wt Gott Sec Response to Comments Preliminary Grading Plan [l SFAfFIif3 WATM S[NJM:E ..�- 9EWGNEW18iFlW'110NiW2S WE Owl 1. Response t0 Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -82 • The Planning Center April 2008 KnUanw�fOUtl6t YKa weeh T45 maw p.. 1. M^ mm rv� p6<Yr.' y;L'li�'G -5 SIN KMee � 'u'- lw4p,pesn Resp ose to Comments Construction Staging & Water Quality Control Plan m@ S■NN ■q1: INM KMM6NP1 �+ �KN �-.! @Yfgbq KpAa )ax" ,M �a. w ^...�.._.»......,.,..m_,...�.. SEASHORE OR. 44j■ Sw+ce: oOtl Scneaie.spawcierxs, ZODi � S,,A,,n vdkg< P"p., <c 6.wm ,, ■ 7& Flsnxmg &ar Figufe 9 � V• ��(•gy(������. `�; fi�q� � 16 .NNM ��LI L Leal, � i�✓A�l. e�s '�G'�� I �..f1 P�p I� S � �� tom. K' � �����li � �'� �° ���tlj) ... J ■fie w� y�p��. ..0 `:339�5�5 -•- _ %�slK a ■a'� �Mede �'� f�f�� a�' °wf sw ` i " d +�-- e.oaa1 cur st � ��I��g ����� �.. ,M �a. w ^...�.._.»......,.,..m_,...�.. SEASHORE OR. C}T Sw+ce: oOtl Scneaie.spawcierxs, ZODi S,,A,,n vdkg< P"p., <c 6.wm ,, R. 7& Flsnxmg &ar Figufe 9 C}T 1, Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -84 • The Planning Center Apri12008 �1 b 1. Response to Comments LETTER D - California Department of Transportation (1 page) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DiArkt 12, Dive.Sih380 lrviae, CA 97612$894 Tel: (949) 7244267 ee 9 FMXW9)72W592 'rl .. ec.wurlp�gfyml JO3 March 13.,1008, . Mr. Brandon Ncholas . City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 Subject: Sea Shore Village Dear W. Nelson, File. IGR/CEQA SCIW:2008021075 Log #: 2009 PCH Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative on far the Sea Shore Village project. The project proposes to construct 12 single - family detached units and 6 duplex units, on a 1.49 acre- site. The project is located on 5515 River Avenue in the City of Newport Beach The nearest State route to the project she is Pacific Coast FBghway (PCH). Caltraas District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and has an comment at this tune. However, in the event of my activity in Caltrans' right -of-way, an encroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could Potentially, impact State transportation facItiea If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to all Matyam Molavi at (949) 724 -2267. Sin/c1erely, -1IaI 1)i .JIfCtfMII 6ri Ryan Chamberlain, Branch Chief Local DevelopmenvNergovernmatal Review C: Terry Roberts, Office or Planning and Research °coo- e,�n�prow. �oeludaWe„cdymnm^ D -1 Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -85 WIM �( 1 I. Response to Comments This page intentionally left Wank. Page 1 -86 • The Planning Center Apri12008 3ab 1. Response to Comments D Response to Comments from Ryan Chamberlain, Branch Chief, Local Development /Intergovernmental Review, Department of Transportation, Dated March 13, 2008. D -1 The comment indicates that Caltrans District 12 has no comment at this time. No response is necessary. Seasbore Millrtge Response to Comments City of Newport Beach *Page 1 -87 'P) 1, Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -88 *The PianningCenter Apri12008 p?- 1. Response to Comments LETTER E — Department of Toxic Substances Control (5 pages) Department of Toxic Substances Control Maureen F. Gorsen, Director Unda S. Adams 5796 Corporate Avenue Nnold 8�.nsnegger Environm r lo[emon Cypress, California 90630 RECEIVED BY Gowmor FIANNNG DEFARTMEW March 19, 2008 MAR 212888 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Brandon Nichols Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SEASHORE VILLAGE PROJECT, NEWPORT BEACH, ORANGE COUNTY (SCH #2008021075) Dear Mr. Nichols: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted Initial Study QS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND) for the above - mentioned project. The following project description is stated In your document: 'Development and operation of 12 single - family detached units and 6 duplex units, for a total of 24 units, on a 1.49 -acre site. Access to the project site would be provided by two driveways on River Avenue and a driveway from Neptune Avenue. The western driveway on River Avenue would exclusively serve one single - family unit, and all other access would be provided through River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. The existing 54 -unit apartment complex would be demolished:' DTSC has the following comments: please address if applicable. 1) The ND should identify the current or historic uses at the project site that may have resulted in a release of hazardous wastes/substances, and any known or potentially contaminated sites within the proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the NO should evaluate whether conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment. Following are the databases of some of the pertinent regulatory agencies: National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA). Envirostor: A Database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, accessible through DTSC's website (see below). ® Nnted on Recydmi Paper E -1 Seashore Village Response to Comments City r f Newport Beach • Page 1-89 tommll WMA p3 L Response to Comments Brandon Nichols March 19, 2008 Page 2 • 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. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST)! Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups (SLIC): 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). 2) The ND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If necessary, DTSC would require an oversight agreement in order to review such documents. Please see comment No. 14 below for more information. 3) All environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation for the site should be conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The flndings'of 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 should be dearly summarized in a table. 4) Proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions overseen by the respective regulatory agencies, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to the new development or any construction. All closure; certification or remediation approval reports by these agencies should be included In the ND. E -1 Cont'd Page 1 -90 • The Planning Center Apri[ 2008 Via` 1. Response to Comments Brandon Nichols March 19, 2008 Page 3 5) If any property adjacent to the project site is contaminated with hazardous chemicals, and if the proposed project is within 2,000 feet from a contaminated site, then the proposed development may fall within the "Border Zone of a Contaminated Property." Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to construction if the proposed project is within a Border Zone Property. 6) If buildings or other structures, asphalt or concrete -paved surface areas are being planned to be demolished, an investigation should be conducted for the presence of other related hazardous chemicals, lead -based paints or products, mercury, and asbestos containing materials (AGMs). If other hazardous chemicals, lead -based paints 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. 7) 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 backfilt the areas excavated, sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil Is free of contamination. 8) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during the construction or demolition activities. If it is found necessary, a study of the site and a health risk assessment overseen and approved by the appropriate government agency and a qualified health risk assessor should be conducted 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. 9) 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. Seashore Village Response to Comments E -1 Cont'd City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -91 p5 1. Response to Comments Brandon Nichols March 19, 2008 Page 4 10) 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. 11) If the project plans include discharging wastewater to a storm drain, you may be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the overseeing Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 12) If during construction /demolition of the project, the soil and /or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. 13) 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. 14) EnviroStor is a database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, and is accessible through DTSC's website. DTSC can provide guidance for cleanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight Agreement (EOA) for government agencies, or a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) for private parties. For additional information on the EOA or VCA, please see www. dtsc .ca.gov /SiteCleanupBrownfields, or contact Maryam Tasnif- Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 484 -5489. 15) In future CEQA documents please provide the contact person's email address. Also, if the project title changes, please provide historical project title(s). E -1 Cont'd Page 1 -92 • The Planning Center Apri12008 -lP 1. Response to Comments Brandon Nichols March 19, 2008 Page 5 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Tong Qiao, Project Manager, at tglao(dldtsc.ca.gov or by phone at(714)484-5470. Since Greg Holmes Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress Office cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812 -3044 state.cleadnghogse@opr.ca.gov CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control Office of Environmental Planning and Analysis 1001 1 Street, 22nd Floor, M.S. 22 -2 Sacramento, California 95814 gmoskat@dtsc.ca.gov CEQA #2080 Response to Comments E -1 Cont'd City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -93 ffl- 3a, 1. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -94 •The Planning Center Apri12008 1. Response to Comments E Response to Comments from Greg Holmes, Unit Chief, Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Dated March 13, 2008. E -1 As contained in Appendix D of the Initial Study, Shaw Environmental, Inc., conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in January 2008 to evaluate environmental conditions on the project and in the surrounding area. The Phase 1 included a site inspection, review of federal and state environmental records, review of historic uses. No adverse environmental conditions requiring regulatory action or further Investigation were identified by the Phase I other than potential for asbestos containing materials (ACMs) and lead -base paint (LBP ). There are existing regulations in place to remediate hazards from these materials (page 68 of the Initial Study). The listed comments are not applicable to the proposed project. No further response is necessary. Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -95 � x.01 1. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -96 •The Planning Center Apri12008 2. Revisions to the Initial Study 2.1 INTRODUCTION This section contains revisions to the Initial based upon (1) additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; (2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of Initial Study publication; and /or (3) typographical errors. This section also includes additional mitigation measures to fully respond to commenter concerns as well as provide additional clarification to mitigation requirements included in the Initial Study. The provision of these additional mitigation measures does not alter any impact significance conclusions as disclosed in the Initial Study. Changes made to the Initial Study are identified here in 1 to indicate deletions and in bold and double underline to signify additions. 2.2 REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS The following text has been revised in response to comments received on the Initial Study. Page 1, Section 1.2.1 Project Description Existing Land Use, is hereby modified as follows: Vehicular Raccess from and to Seashore Street D va is blocked b a woo en once. Pedestrian - across from- fJeotunMliue to the nroiectsite i by wooden fence. Page 1, Section 1.2.2, Surrounding Land Use, is hereby modified as follows The project site is surrounded by residential uses, sueh as including vacation rental units, to the north, south, and east, and a city park immediately to the west. Page 2, Section, Proposed Land Use, is hereby modified as follows: The current permitted density at the site is 51 units per acre and the proposed project would yield 16 units per acre. The project proposes a gross floor area of 6;z9065D�Zm square feet and a floor area ratie Unlit of G-.M JM. Page 2, Section 1.3.1 Proposed Land Use, is hereby modified as follows: Homeowner's Association and CC &R C&R will Page 25 is hereby modified as follows: Modification Permit. Request to reduce the minimum building separation distance required by the MFR zoning designation from 10 feet to 6 feet, and to reduce the minimum front setback distances Sea hore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 2 -1 �5nD \ 2. Revisions to the Initial Study along Seashore Drive and River Avenue required by the MFR zoning designation from 20 feet to 10 feet. A modification permit is also requested for a 34foot side and setback where the MFR zone w requires approximately 25 feet sideyard setback based on lot width. Page 39 is hereby modified as follows: A modification permit is requested to reduce the minimum building separation distance required by the MFR zoning designation from 1.0 feet to 6 feet, and to reduce the minimum front setback distances along Seashore Drive and River Avenue by from 20 feet to 10 feet..and.tO reduce the minimum side :setback from 25- 8tati -` o' . e4 I he current building designs are simi ar i�'I n Srze, proportion, and separation to existing buildings in the neighborhood. Typical building separation in the neighborhood is approximately 6 feet and has a minimum setback of 10 feet along River Avenue and 5 feet along Seashore Drive. A modification permit is requested to reduce the minimum building separation distance required by the MFR zoning designation from 10 feet to 6 feet, minimum side setback fro m 25 feet to 4 and to reduce the minimum front setback distance along Seashore ore Drive by 20 feet to 10 feet. TF-e-current building designs are similar in size, proportion, and separation to existing buildings in the neighborhood. Typical building separation in the neighborhood is approximately 6 feet and has a minimum setback of 10 feet along River Avenue and 5 feet along Seashore Drive. Pages 57 through 1 -29, Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, are hereby modified as followsis hereby modified as follows: The typographic error in page 57 of the Initial Study has been revised and is reflected in the Revisions to the Initial Study Section.These construction emissions were estimated using the SCAQMD's URBEMIS2007 and are included in Table 5; the model run is included in Appends a& Page 65, Section 3.6 Geology and Soils is hereby modified as follows: The below analysis is based on result of the Geotechnical Investigation report dated June 13, 2007, prepared by EGA Consultants, included as Appendix BQ. Per your commentPage 101, Phil Brylski has been added to the list of preparers as follows:, Phil Brylski has been added to the list of preparers. Phil Bryiski Page 2 -2 • The Planning Center Apri12008 Appendix A. Air Quality Model Respowe to Comments Appendices City of Newport Beach Appendices This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center Apri12008 Page: 1 Duet EN2514lbW 1141200911:59:32 AM PM2.5 Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 26.86 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) 1.72 File Name: P:1CNB•10.OEITechnlcal StudiesW ASeashoreVlllage.urb9 4,171.01 Project Name: Seashore Village 6.00 Project Location: Orange. County 6.72 On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfao2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 ' Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 1.86 Summery Report: 2,725.05 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES 0.01 wa NOx 92 PM10 Duet P1010 Exlmuet 1.68 2008 TOTALS(Ibstday ummldgated) 3.37 33.87 16.55 0.03 23.99 1.87 2008 TOTALS (lbslday mitigated) 3.37 38.97 16.65 0.03 23.99 1.87 2009 TOTALS (Ibelday unmitigated) 13.27 24.45 17.93 0.01 0.04 1.81 2009 TOTALS(Ibelday mitigated) 13.27 24.45 17.93 0.01 0.04 1.81 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES PM10 PM2.5 Duet EN2514lbW PM2.5 CO2 26.86 5.00 1.72 6.72 4,171.01 25.86 6.00 1.72 6.72 4.171.01 1.85 0.01 1.86 1.88 2,725.05 1.85 0.01 1,66 1.68 2,725.05 ROG NOX 22 §¢7. PM70 FAA TOTALS iIwday, unmitigated) 1.54 0.33 2.29 0.00 0.01 0.01 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES E= PM10 Pi TOTALS(Ibartlay, unmIdgetetl) 2.02 239 22,99 0.02 3.24 0.64 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG vQA 22 8?2 EE14 Pw TOTALS (lbWelay, ummitigated) 3.56 3.02 25.26 0.02 3.25 0.85 lJ' 403.33 &ffi 1,968.34 2,361.67 Page:1 11412008 11:59:32 AM Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated M ROG b& Time Slice3/3/2008-01412008 Active 1.37 36,97 DemolAtM 031032009 -041048008 3.37 38.97 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 Demo O8 Road Diesel 1.31 8.68 Demo On Road Diesel 2.02 28.22 Demo Worker Trips O24 0.07 Time Slice 417P100B- 5152008 Active 3.35 28.07 Fine Grading 041052008- 05/052008 3.35 28.07 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading 08 Road Diesel 3.31 28.00 Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 Time Sit. %G8009- 1213112009 Active 1.54 11.35 Buffeting 0510612008-09/072009 1.54 11.35 Building O8 Road Diesel 1.39 10.47 Building Vendor Trps 0.06 0.70 Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.18 Time SBca 1112009. 7132009 Active 1.44 10.61 Bulltllrg 051062008-0&072009 1.44 10.61 Building 08 Road Diesel 1.30 9.79 Building Vendor Tripe 0.05 0.68 Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.16 Time Slice 71812009- 711412009Active 18.27 ZM, Asg6t 0710612009. 0711412009 2.4T 13.81 Paving O8-Gas 0.25 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.08 1255 Paving On Road Diesel 0.08 1.15 Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 SuBGing 051084008 -081072009 1.44 10.61 Building Off Road Diesel 1.30 9.79 Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.66 Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.16 Coating 071082009-088172009 9.36 0.03 Architectural Coating 9.35 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.01 0.03 M PM100ust PM1Q Exh euet PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM25 Exhaust PMP.5 16.55 00.03 23.99 Maz 2516 510 ja La 4A71,01 18.55 0.03 23.99 1.87 25.88 5.00 1.72 6.72 4.171.01 0.00 0.00 23.87 0.00 23.87 4.97 OAO 4.97 0.00 4.91 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.82 0.62 700.30 10.51 0.03 0.11 1.19 1.30 0.04 1.09 1.13 3,346.17 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.55 14.69 0.00 3.71 1.41 5.12 0.77 1.30 2.08 2,371.86 14.69 0.00 3.71 1.41 5.12 0.77 1.30 2.08 2,371.86 0.00 0.00 3.70 0.00 3.70 0.77 0.00 0.77 0.00 13.56 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.30 1.30 2,247.32 0.00 0.00 OA9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.55 6.54 0.00 0.02 0.70 0.72 0.01 0.65 0.85 1,329.07 8.54 0.00 0.02 0.70 0.72 0.01 0.65 0.65 1,329.07 5.09 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.61 0.61 893.39 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 112.86 2.94 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 322.82 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 (162 1.328.91 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.62 1,328.91 4.B4 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.58 893.39 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 112.86 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 322.66 17.93 091 94 Y91 185 991 1:.66 im 2.725.05 9.32 0.00 0.02 1.14 1.15 0.01 1.05 1.05 1,342.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.05 0.00 0.00 1.09 149 0.00 1.00 1.00 979.23 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 145.62 1.95 0.00 0.01 0.01 O.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 217.85 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.81 0.62 1,328.81 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.58 893.39 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.03 112.86 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 322.68 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.44 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0100 0.00 045 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.44 Page: 1 'IN200811:59:32 AM Tlme Slice 7t152009W712009 Active 10.80 10.63 8.61 0.01 0.02 0.67 0.69, . 0.01 0.82 0.62 1.382.35 BuilEirg 05mano0 -cam72009 1A4 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.62 1.328.91 Building OB Road Diesel 1.30 9.79 4.94 090 0.00 0.63 093 OAO 0.58 0.38 893.39 Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.68 OAS 090 0.00 093 093 090 0.02 0.03 112.86 Building Worker Trips 0.09 OAS 2.74 090 0.02 0.01 092 091 0.01 091 322.66 Dealing 07/06/2009 -0&072009 8.36 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 090 0.00 63A4 Architelaaal Coating 8.35 0.00 0.00 090 0.00 0.00 0.00 090 0.00 0.00 0.00, Coating WodwTdpe 0.01 0.03 OAS 090 0.00 090 090 090 0.00 0.00 53A4 Phase ume peons Phase: Demolition 3132008 - 4142008 - Defaum Dealcilian Description Building Volume Total ( cubic fast: 1708342 Building Volume Deily (cubic fee); 68843.15 On Road Truck Travel (VM7): 789.49 OffoRaad Equipment 1 Concrata8ndustbal Save (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 food factor for 8 hours par day 1 Rubber Tied Dozens (367 hp) operating at a 0.59 bad fectn for 1 hours per day 2 TractnraAOadamMackMee (l 08 hp) Operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day Phase: Fine Grading 4/5/2008 - 5/5/2008 - Default Fine Site Cxadirg/Excevadon Description Total Acres Disturbed: 1AS Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.37 Fugrdve Duet Leval of Detail: Default 10 [be per am -day On Road Truck Tn l(VMT):0 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Grtden (174 tp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 Mum per day 1 RubberTled Dozer, (357 hp) operating at 8 0.59 load factor for a Mum per day 1 TractoralLoadwaffladdeea (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 noun per day 1 Water Tnuka (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 bad factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Paving 7/82009 - 7/14/2009 - Default Paving Desciption Agee to be Paved: 097 O0 -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Kura (10 hp) operating al a 0.56 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Paver, (100 hp) operating at a 0.92 bed factor br 7 Mum per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating al a 0.58 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 TrectomAzadera/Barkhoss (108 hp) operating at a O.SS load factor for 7 hours per day CT5 Page: 1 11412008 11:59:32 AM Phase: Building Construction 516/2008.8/72009 - Default Building Construction Description OR -Road Equipment 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 bad factor far 4 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 bad factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tmctors/Loadens/Backhcae (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coaling 7/8/2009 - 8172009 - Default Architectural Coating Description Rule: Residential Manor Coatings begins 1/112005 ands &3012008 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 7112008 ands 12/312040 specifies a VOC of 50 RNs: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1112005 ends 61302008 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatngs begins 71120 W ends 12/3112040 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/312040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/12005 ends 12/312040 specifies a VOC of 250 Construction Mitigated Defell Report CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Mitigated ROO NOX PQ SS02 PM10 Dust PM70 Exhaust E1.L PM2.5 Dust PM25 Me Ew Time Slice 313120084/412008 Active 3.37 3697 1655 0.03 am in 25`6 5.00 ],jZ i" 4,171.0,1 Demolition 03103/20013- 04/0412008 3.37 36.97 16.55 0.03 23.99 1.87 25.86 5.00 1.72 6.72 4.171.01 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.87 0.00 23.87 4.97 0.00 4.97 0.00 Demo Oft Road Diesel 1.31 8.88 4.91 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.62 0.62 700.30 Demo On Road Diesel 2.02 28.22 10.51 0.03 0.11 1.19 1.30 0.04 1.09 1.13 3.346.17 Demo Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.55 Time Shea 4172008- 5/5/2008 ACtive 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 0.59 1.41 2.00 0.12 1.30 1.43 2,371.88 Flne Grading 04/052008 -0510512008 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 0.59 1.41 2.00 0.12 1.30 1.43 2.371.86 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.58 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.00 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 3.31 28.00 13.56 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.30 1.30 2.247.32 Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.55 Time Slice V62008- 12/312008 Active 1.54 11.35 8.54 0.00 0.02 0.70 0.72 0.01 0.65 0.65 1,329.07 Bulldlrg 051062008-0 &0712009 1.54 11.35 6.54 0.00 0.02 0.70 0172 0.01 0.85 0.65 1,329.07 BWltling Off Road Diesel 1.39 10.47 5.09 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.61 0.61 893.39 Building Vendor Trips 0.08 0.70 0.51 0.00 0100 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 112.86 Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.18 2.94 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 322.82 Page: 1 11412008 11:59:32 AM Time Silos 11120Q9.7=039 Active Building 05108200848/0712009 Building Off Raw Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Tdps Time Silos 7162009 - 711412009 ACOve Asplmli 071OW009 -07114/2009 Paving OB•Gas Paving OB Red Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker True Building 050t2008- 081072009 Building O8'ROad Diesel Building VeMOr TdPs Building Worker Tripe Casting 07IMMO9 -0SM717009 Architectural coating Cca9ng Worker TOP% Time Slice 71152009.8,712009 Active Building OSMO12008 -0820712009 8u8d9g 0% Pbad Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Czstng 0710612009 481072009 AnchBecturai COaun9 Cca9ng Worker Trips IA 10.61 8.18 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.82 1,328.91 1.44 10.81 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 OAt 0.81 0.62 1,328.91 1.30 9.79 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.58 893.39 OAS 0.88 0A8 040 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 112.86 0.09 0118 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 041 322.86 13127 24.45 17-93 01 QQ4 7.51 1x50 0.01 L 1..60 272505 2.47 13.81 9.32 0.00 Q.02 1.14 1.15 0.01 1.05 146 1,342.70 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.08 12.55 7.05 0.00 0.00 1.09 1.09 0.00 1.00 1.00 979.23 0.08 1.15 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.90 0.04 0.04 145.82 0.06 0.11 1.85 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 217.85 1.44 10.81 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.82 1.328.91 1.30 9.79 4.80. 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.83 0.00 0.58 0.56 893.39 0.05 0.86 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 112.86 0.09 0.16 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 322.66 9.36 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53A4 9.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0100 0.00 9.00 0.01 0.03 0.45 0.00 040 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.44 19.80 10.83 8.61 O.Ot 042 OAT. 049 0.01 0.62 0.62 1.382.35 1.44 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.69 0.01 0.81 0.62 1.329.91 1.30 9.79 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.58 893.39 0.05 OAS 0.48 0.00 "a 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 112.88 0.09 0.16 2.74 0.00 0A2 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 322.66 9.36 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.44 9.35 0.00 ODQ QDO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Q.QQ 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.44 Page: 1 11412889 11:68:32 AM Construction Related Mitioatlon Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 4/52008- &511008- Default Flne Site GredlrglExcavadon Description For Soil Stebliz)ng Measures, the Replace ground cover In d[aturbad areas qulddy mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5 %PM25:5% For Soil Stabllzing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x dally watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 65% PM25: 55% For Soil Stabllzing Measures, the Equipment loading /unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 69 %PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by. PM10: 44 %PM25: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul mad dust 2x dally watering mitigation reduces emissions by. PM10! 55 %PM25:55% Area Source Unmitigated Detail RePOn: AREASOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmidgated aSource ROG NNOx 0 S43 EMM PM25 Sc42 Nahuel Gas 0.02 0.31 0.13 OAO 0.00 0.00 399.13 Heats - No Summer Emissions CO2 Single family housbg 1.23 1.67 14.26 0.01 2.01 0.40 1.214.60 Landscape 0.23 0.02 2.16 0.00 0.01 0.01 3.80 Consumer Products 1.23 OB4 ;= 1,858.39! Architecture] Coatings 0.06 TOITALS (Ibar ily. uamltigated) T:54 _:0.33 2.29 0.(0 P.PY -- 10.01.: 4P333. Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Par Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM70 PM25 CO2 Single family housbg 1.23 1.67 14.26 0.01 2.01 0.40 1.214.60 Condoltaommuse general 0.79 1.02 8.73 0.01 1.23 0.24 143.14 TOTALS(lbafdeg imikilaated) 7;02 259 22,99 002= =- 329 ` =r OB4 ;= 1,858.39! Operational Settings: Does not Include correction fir passby trips Does not Include double counting adpattmem for Irriamel trips Analysis Year. 2009 Temperature (F): 80 Season: Summer Emfec: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 d Page: 1 114!200811:59:92 AM Lend Use Type Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT Single family housing 1.00 9.57 dwelling units 12.00 114.84 1.180.21 CondodowMowe general 0.49 5.86 dwelling units 12.00 70.32 710.43 185.18 1,570.64 Vehicle Type VehWa, F M Percent TWO All Non Catslyst Catalyst Olwel Light AulO 49.0 2.0 97.6 0.4 Light Truck <3760 lbs 10.9 3.7 90.8 5.5 LtgM TNCk 3T51dT501ba 21.7 0.9 95.8 0.5 Mad Truck 5751-8500 lbs 9.5 1.1 98.9 0.0 LA Heavy Truck 8501- 10,0001bs 1.6 0.0 75.0 25.0 UN-Heavy Truck 10,001 - 14.000 Its 0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0 Mad -Heavy Truck 14,001 -33.000 lbs 1.0 0.0 Z0.0 80.0 Heavy -Heavy Truck 33.00140,000 lbs 0.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motorcycle 3.5 77.1 22.9 0.0 School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motor Home 1.0 10.0 80.0 10.0 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home -Work. Rome-Shop Home -Omer Commute Non -Went Customer Urban Tdp Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 9.5 13.3 7.4 8.8 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 Tdp spaces (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 %of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 % of Trips - Commercial (by land we) Ooemhonal Changes to Refa Its s Page: 1 1211811007 04:33:38 PM G°S y PM10 PM2.5 Dut P . PM2.5 Exhaust Urbemia 2007 Version 92.2 1C0 25.86 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: P:1CNB- 10.OEITechnical StudiesWASeashoreVillage.urbl) 25.86 5.00 1.72 6.72 Project Name: Seashore Village 1.85 0.01 1.88 1.68 2,725.05 1.85 Project Location: Orange County 1.68 2,725.05 PM2.5 CO2 On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Em1ac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 920.42 OR- -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAO2O0T ss2 0.57 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOX S 502 PM10 Duet PM10 Exhaust 2006 TOTALS ob./day unmi8gated) 3.37 36.97 16.55 0.03 23.99 1.87 2008 TOTALS (I1,91dey m9lgated) 3.37 36.97 16.55 0.03 23.99 1.87 2009 TOTALS (tbs/day um tigated) 13.27 24.45 17.93 0.01 0.04 111 2009 TOTALS Qbstday melgated) 13.27 24.45 17.93 0.01 ON 1.81 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NO. CA $02 PMIO TOTALS (9m /day. umnl0gMd) 5.07 0.62 10.56 0.03 1.62 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES HOG NOX 91 go PFbt14 TOTALS PWd y, unmMgM.d) 1.92 2.82 19.71 0.02 2.65 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG if xO P2 502 EM TOTALS (I]Wday. unmitigated) 6.99 3.44 30.27 0.05 4.47 G°S y PM10 PM2.5 Dut P . PM2.5 Exhaust EM2.5 1C0 25.86 5.00 1.72 6.72 4,171.01 25.86 5.00 1.72 6.72 4,171.01 1.85 0.01 1.88 1.68 2,725.05 1.85 0.01 1.66 1.68 2,725.05 PM2.5 CO2 1.56 920.42 PM2.5 ss2 0.57 1,562.01 PM2.S S@2 2.13 2.382A3 Page: 1 a92 PM10 Dust P 1211812007 04:33:38 PM .14,55 473 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: 1$Z 16.55 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated 23.99 ROC ho The Slice 39/2008-41412008 Acdve 3„0j 30-,97 Demoidkm 03103!2008 - 0404!2008 3.37 36.97 Fuglive Duel 0.00 0.00 Demo lM Road Diesel 1.31 8.68 Demo On Road Diesel 2.02 28.22 Demo Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 Time Slice 4772008-5/5/2008 Active 3.35 28.07 Flew Gradng 041052110 &0510512008 3.35 28.07 Fine Gredi g Dust 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 3.31 28.00 Fine Grading On Read Diesel 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading Worker Tripe 0.04 0.07 Time SIIne 518/200 &1213112008 Active 1.54 11.35 Bulltlllg 051062006 -0BM7200g 1.54 11.35 Budding Off Road Diesel 1.39 10.47 Budding Vendor Tripe 0.06 0.70 Buildup Worker Trips 0.09 0.18 Time Slice 1111200 9.713/2009 Acdva 1.44 10.81 Building 05/moog- 081072009 1.44 10.61 Building Off Road Diesel 1.30 9.79 Building Vendor Trips 0.05 OAS Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.16 The Slice 7IW2009- 71142009 Active 3].yj27 24.45 Asphalt 071062009- 071142009 2.47 13.81 Paving OB -Gee 0.25 0.00 Psvin9 Off Rood Diesel 2.138 12.55 Paving On Road Diesel 0.08 1.15 Pavug Worker Trips 0.138 0.11 Building 05/0 &2008-081072009 1.44 10.61 Building Off Road Diesel 1.30 9.79 Building Vendor Tripe 0.05 0.66 Bulking Worker Tripe 0.09 0.16 Casting 0710612009- 0810712009 9.36 0.03 Archdecturel Costing 9.36 0.00 Coatug Worker Trips 0.01 0.03 1� 1 fPiGl ]S$3 a92 PM10 Dust P IO EKhm .14,55 473 23.44 1$Z 16.55 0.03 23.99 1.87 0.00 0.00 23.87 0.00 4.91 0.00 0.00 0.68 10.51 0.03 0.11 1.19 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 14.69 0.00 3.61 1.41 14.69 0.00 3.61 1.41 0.00 0.00 3.60 0.00 13.56 0.00 0.00 1.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.13 0.0 0.01 0.00 8.54 0.00 0.02 0.70 8.54 0.00 0.02 0.70 5.09 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.03 2.94 0.00 0.02 0.01 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 4.94 0,00 0.00 0.63 0.48 0.00 0100 0.03 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 17-93 001 4,44 0.01 9.32 0.00 0.02 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.05 0.00 0.00 1.09 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.05 1.85 0.00 0.01 0.01 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 4.94 MOO 0.00 0.83 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.03 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 fPiGl ]S$3 5100 la 25.86 5.00 1.72 23.87 4.97 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.82 1.30 0.04 1.09 0.01 0.00 0.00 5.02 0.75 1.30 5.02 0.75 1.30 3.50 0.75 0.00 1.41 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.01 0.65 0.72 0.01 0.85 0.87 0.00 0.61 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.69 0.01 0.81 0.63 0.00 0.88 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 130 4141 154 1.15 0.01 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.09 0.00 1.00 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PM2.5 51n 6.72 4.97 0.62 1.13 0.00 2.06 2.06 0.75 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.85 Des 0.61 0.03 0.01 0.62 0.62 0.58 0.03 0.01 1417 1.05 0.00 1.00 0.04 0.01 0.62 0.56 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.171.01 4,171.01 0.00 700.30 3,348.17 124.55 2.371.86 2,371.06 0.00 2.247.32 0.00 124.65 1.329.7 1,329.07 893.39 112.88 322.82 1.328.91 1.328.91 693.39 112M 322-66 1.34270 0.00 97923 145.62 217.85 1,328.91 993.39 112M 322-68 53.44 0.00 53.44 Page: 1 1211812007 0 4:33:38 PM Time Sloe 711512009- 87/2009 Active 10.80 10.63 8.61 0.01 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.82 0.62 1,382.35 Bull4lrg 05/062006-08/072009 1.44 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.62 1,328.91 Building 06 Road Diesel 1.30 9.79 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.58 893.39 Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.66 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 112.88 Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.16 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 322.66 Coating 07MW2009-08/072009 9.36 0.03 ORS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.44 Architectural Coaling 9.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 atta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Tripe 0.01 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.44 Phase Assumotbns Phase: Demo011on 3/12008.4/4/2008 - Default Demolition Description Building Volurtre Total (cull. feet): 1706342 Building Volume Daly (cubic foot} 56843.15 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 789.49 08 -Road Equipment: 1 Cerwrete/nduslial Sawa (10 hp) operedng at a 0.73 load factor for 8 houm par day 1 Rubber Tired Dozen (357 hp) operathg at a 0.59 load factor for i hours per day 2 TracWrrLoaderslBeckhoee (I D8 hp) operating at a 0.55 load radar for 6 hours per day Phase: Fine Grading 418/2008 - 5/5200B - Default Fine Site Gredlrg /Excavation Description Total Acres Disturbed: 1.45 Maximum Deity Acreage Disturbed: 0.36 Fugitive Duet Leval of Detail: Default 10 b per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 O8 -Road Equipment: 1 Dre ter (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 bad factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozer (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 TractorsA.0aders/Backhoea (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 bad factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 bad factor for 8 hour Par day Phase: Paying 7/82009 - 7/142009 - Default Paving Descripton Acres to be Paved: 0.67 O8 -Road Equipment: 4 Camara and Mortar Moors (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Paver (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 bad factor for 7 lours per day 1 TracbrrLoader/Backhoss (108 hp) operating at 8 0 .55 load factor for 7 hours per day Page: 1 1211&2007 04:33:38 PM Phew: Building Construction 5/802008 • W12009 - Defend Bu8dN9 Carsbaew Daacnpllua OB -Road Equipment: 1 Cmres (399 hp) 0130111111119 at a OA3load fads for 4 house per day 2 POW& (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor tor 8 Creme par day 1 TraMrN.osdarelBecldnae (108 hp) opemtrg at a 0.55 bad factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural COON 7812009 - 817/219 - Debu6 Amrwat.al Coaling DeaOdption Rift Residential IMar or COeega books Imams ends 8130218 spe tres a VOC of 11 Rule: Reeklaalal Irdarlor Coatings beplre 7111118 ends 1213112040.p.ci6w a VOC of 50 PAft ReelderNel Eaterbr Coatings been 111215 ende 820/2008 sped8w a VOC a no Rule: Residential Exterior Costal. 6.91,11 MIMS ands 12/312040 specMeo a VOC a 11 Rub: Norwaideafal Interior Coatrg3 begins 111215 ends 1221/2000 epwm"a VOC of 2w Rub: Nwrftk alal edwbr CceOngs begins 111215 ends 12/3112040 sWMa3 s VOC of 250 Corvdnction MOgaled DWI Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESnMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mtigaad ROG ma m 13Z PM10 Diet PM10 E4 We PMIQ PM250rW `J ffm nmo Seca 3WO084M /2008 AXON 3,$Z Im 10 `dal+ LU an 19 NA An Lm 4,TM.01 Demo67lon 1/p32180G04201 137 36.07 18.58 0.03 23.99 1.87 25.68 8A0 1,72 6.72 4,171.01 Pullen Owl 0.1 011 0.1 0.1 23.87 0.1 23.87 4.97 040 4.07 OAO Dare O8 Road Diesel 141 8.68 4.81 OAS GAS 0.66 0.68 OAO 0.82 0.82 7150 Demo On Road Dissed 2.02 28.22 10.51 0.1 0.11 1.19 1.30 0.04 its 1.13 3.346.17 Demo Worker Tripe 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.1 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.1 am 0.1 12455 Time Slice 472008-SWOOB AaW6 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.1 0.57 1.41 1.99 0.12 1.30 Ma 2,371.88 FkteOmdial 04W52=f.DM2008 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.1 0,57 1.41 1.99 0.12 1.30 1A2 2,371.88 Fkre OmdkV Dust 011 0.1 0.00 0100 0.57 0.1 0.57 0.12 0.1 0.12 0.00 Fare OmyalO@ Road Obeel 3.31 28.1 13.58 0.1 0.1 1.41 1.41 0 .00 140 1.30 274752 Fire Omdlrg On Road Diesel 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.00 0.00 0.1 011 0.00 Fine Oradkg Worker Tripe OA4 0.07 1.13 0.1 0.01 0.1 0.01 0.00 0.1 0.1 12455 Tlmo Slice 5182006 - 1201201 Active 1.54 11.35 8.54 a1 0.02 0.70 0.72 0.01 0.85 0.65 1,329.07 Buallnp OM61200808/071219 1.54 11,35 8.54 0.1 0.02 0,70 0.72 0.01 0.65 0.65 1,329.07 Building O8 FROM Dbnel 1.39 10A7 SAS 0.1 0.1 D.87 0.67 on 0.61 0.81 883,39 Su6dbg Venda Trips 0.1 0.70 0.51 0.1 0.1 0.03 0.03 111 0.1 0.1 11286 Bu9dbg Worker Tripe 0.09 0.18 2.94 0.1 O02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 377.82 Page: 1 1211812007 04:33:38 PM Time Slice 17172009 - 7!3!2009 Active Building 08/08/2008- 0810712009 Building Off Flood Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Time Slice 7/612009 - 7!1412009 Active AspheB 0710&2009 -07/14/2009 Paving O16Oes Paving Off Road Diesel Paving On Road Diesel Paving Worker Trips Bulldog 05/082008 - 08/0712009 Bulking Off Road Diesel Bulking Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Costing 0710612009-081072009 AmNtecturel Coating Coating Worker Trips The Slice 7/15009 - 8/7/2009 Active Busrding 05MB/2008-081072009 Building O8 Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Bulldog Worker Trips Coating 07/0612009-0 81072009 Am"tectuial Coating Costing Worker Trips f 1.44 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.62 1.328.91 1.44 10.81 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.62 1,328.91 1.30 9.79 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.58 893.39 0.05 0.88 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 11286 0.09 0.18 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 322.68 13,97 U45 17_93 2.01 2,3 1$1, Lli5 9-011 is 168 2725 2.47 13.81 9.32 0.00 0.02 1.14 1.15 0.01 1.05 1.05 1,342.70 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OAO 2.08 12.55 7.05 0.00 0.00 1.09 1.09 0.00 1.00 1.00 97923 0.08 1.15 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 145.82 0.06 0.11 1.85 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 217.85 1.44 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.87 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.62 1.328.91 1.30 9.79 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.58 893.39 0.05 0.66 0.48 0100 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 112.86 0.09 0.16 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 322.58 9.36 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.44 9.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.44 10.80 10.63 8.61 0.01 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.62 0.62 1.382.35 1.44 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.87 0.69 0.01 0.81 0.82 1.328.91 1.30 9.79 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.58 893.39 0.05 0.88 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 112.86 0.09 0.16 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 322.66 9.36 0.03 O.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.44 9.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.44 Page: 1 1211812007 04:33:38 PM Cormbrcfbn Related Mitlae ltimi Masnursa The fe5nwing mitigation measures apply a Phase: Flee GrodMg q VMN - 5152008- Default Fln , SM Gredi glExesvellon Description Fw Soil StaMfarg Maw usa, the Replace ground cover N disturbed areas gulcky MIdgalbn reduces missions by PM10: 5% PM25; 5% For Soil Stablidrg Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x dally watering megetbn reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM26., 55% For Soil Stablizi g Measures, the Equipment badlngluNoedbg mitigation reducm ennbsbm by. PM70: 69 %PM25: 49% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved made to less than 15 mph mi gation reduces emissions, by: PM10: 41% PM25:44% For Unpaved Roads Masseuses. the Menage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by. PM10: 55% PM26: 55% Area Source Unmiitli Dete3 Repad: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Umnillgated TOT ALR (IDS/day„unpiHgabd),. 5.9F 082 !:1056 ;':.I D03 163 158 020A2 Operational Unmegemd Deati Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winder Poends Par Day. Unmitigated Sovca ROG NOX CO S02 PM10 PM25 CO2 Single family housing 1.00 1.53 10.71 0.01 1.65 0.31 84854 ConamnowNpuae general 0.88 1.29 9.DD 0.01 1.30 026 713A7 TOTAi8i(Ne7 ya lgsry )<• "1,92 2< 91St ^.''. R02 j„ g.^9k., . „p.0 Does not Wade correction M paseby trips Does not include doutls minting odimbnem for Internal trips Analysis Year: 2009 Temperature (F): 80 Season: Winter EmW: Version : Emfae20D7 V2.3 Nov i 2D06 Cis Page: 1 Percent Type Non- Cefelyat 12!18/2007 04:33:38 PM Diesel Ligm9 49.0 Land Use Type aummm of LBnd Uses Asraage Trip Rate Un t Type No. UnN Total Trips Total VMT Single family housing 1.00 7.35 dealing units 12.00 8820 691.07 CondoRawnhousegeneral 0.45 6.18 dwelling units 12.00 74.16 749.22 98.6 0.5 182.36 1.640.29 Vehicle Rest Mu wwoe Type Percent Type Non- Cefelyat Cate" Diesel Ligm9 49.0 2.0 97.6 0.4 Light Tnxk <3750 be 10.9 3.7 90.8 5.5 Light Truck 3751 -6750 tba 21.7 0.9 98.6 0.5 Mod Truck 57514500 be 9.5 1.1 98.9 0.0 LBe -Heavy Truck 8501 - 10.000 [be 1.6 0.0 75.0 25.0 Lfle -Heavy Truck 10.001 - 14.000 has 0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0 Med -Heavy Truck 14.001 - 33.000 ICS 1.0 0.0 20.0 60.0 Heavy-Heavy Tuck 33,001460.000 Its 0.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.1 OA OA 100.0 Motercyde 3.5 77.1 22.9 0.0 Shcool BUS 0.1 0.0 0.0 1DO.0 Motor Home 1.0 Travel Conditions 10.0 80.0 10.0 Residarslel Commercial Home -Work Home -mop Home-Od. Commute NorvWOrk Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 9.5 13.3 7.4 8.9 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 15A 9.6 12.6 Trip speade (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 % of Tripe - R..W.n isl 32.9 18.0 49.1 % of Trips - Commercial (by and use) Page: 1 1/3/200812:02:55 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) Fi%Name: P: \CNB- 10.0E \Technica1 Studies\Air\ExistingUses.urb9 Project Name: Existing- SeashorOVillage Project Location: Orange County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmated AREA SOURCE EMfSSfON ESTIMATES PM10 PM2 55 92 Source PM10 PM2.5 C? 0.00 aQ^ 3.03 NOX 0.55 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 BT8.81 TOTALS Qbs/daY, unmitigated) 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.75 0.13 0,02 1.60 OPERATIOW- (V£FIICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES P9 � PM10 PM2.5 34.G 4.00 1� 5.27 45.05 0.04 6.36 1.28 3,837.99 TOTALS (IDs /day, unmitigated) 0.00._ : -- d.00 671);611 TOTALS (Ibs/day, UnmBtgatad) 3,03._ d.55, ,. SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES 4 10 PM2.5 CO f 6.36 1.26 4,516.60 TOTALS Ilbslday, unmitigated} 7,03 6.82 46.88 0.04 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmated PM10 PM2 55 Source 00 S02 0.00 0.00 0.00 675.86 Natural Gas 0.04 0.53 0.23 Hearth - No Summer Emissions 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.75 0.13 0,02 1.60 Landscape Consumer Products 2,77 Arehitectural Coatings 0.09 0.00._ : -- d.00 671);611 TOTALS (Ibs/day, UnmBtgatad) 3,03._ d.55, ,. .. Page: 1 11312008 12:02:55 PM Area Source Chances to Defaults Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX Co SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 Apartments low rise 4.00 527 45.05 004 6.36 126 3,837.99 0. 9 44 y� uh i it sad 4, da`— 50: P "T Operational Settings: Does not Include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for Internal trips Analysis Year. 2009 Temperature (F): 80 Season: Summer Ernfec: Version : EmNc2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Land Use Type Apartments low rise Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type 1.45 6.72 dwelling units No. Units Total Trips 54,00 362.88 362.88 Total VMT 3,806.10 3,666.10 page; 1 1/3/2008 12:02:55 PM Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 375D lbs Light Truck 3761 -5750 ibs Mod Trick 5751 -8500 ibs Lite -Heavy Truck 850 1,10,000 lb s Ute -Heavy Truck 10,001 - 14,000 Ibs Mad4isavy Truck 10.001 -3 DM)bs Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001. 60,000 fbs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle S0001[ Bus Motor Home Home -Work Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 Rural Trip length (miles) 17.6 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 y of Trips - Residential 32.9 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Vehk;ie fleeiMAix Percent Type 49.0 10.9 21.7 9.5 1.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.1 CA 3.5 0.1 10 TMel Coadlknla Residential Hoe- catalyst 2.0 3.7 0.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 D.D 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.1 0.0 10.0 Home-Shop Home -Other 7.0 9.5 12.1 14.9 30.0 $0.0 18.0 49.1 Catalyst 97.6 90.8 98.6 98.9 75.0 50.0 200 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.9 0,0 80.0 Commercial Commute NonNYork 13.3 7A 15.4 9.6 30.0 30.0 Diesel 0.4 5.5 0.5 0,0 25.0 56.0 80.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 10.0 Customer 8.9 Q.6 30.0 Page: 1 11312008 12:08:02 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds /Day) File Name: P:\CNB- 10.0E\Technical Studies\Air\ExistingLIses.urb9 Project Name: Existing- SeashoreVillage Project Location: Orange County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES EM NOX M S02 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 CO2, TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 11.36 1.17 23.66 0.07 3.63 3.50 1,541.41 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES Consumer Products ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 4.29 6.30 44.06 0.03 6.36 1.26 3,491.15 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES 77,38,•- 4;17 23,68 0.07.1 3,63 3.50, -;: 1,547' P ROG NOx CO §Q2 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 15.65 7.47 67.72 0.10 9.99 4.76 5,032.56 Area Source Unmitigated Detail Report AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source EM NOX M S02 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 Natural Gas 0.04 0.53 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 675.86 Hearth 8.46 0.64 23.43 0.07 3.63 3.50 685.55 Landscaping - No Winter Emissions Consumer Products 2.77 Architectural Coatings 0.09 TOTALS(Ibslday unmltlgated):,' 77,38,•- 4;17 23,68 0.07.1 3,63 3.50, -;: 1,547' P CTS CT Page: 1 1/3/200812:03:02 PM Area Scums Ch2ncles to Defaults Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX CO S02 PM10 PM25 CO2 Apartments low rise 4.29 6.30 44.06 0.03 6.36 1.26 3,491.15 TOTALS qg Operational Settings: Does not include correction for passby trips Does not Include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year. 2009 Temperature (F): 80 Season: Winter Emfac: Version : Em1ac2007 V2.3 Nov I 2006 Land Use Type Apartments low rise Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Typo No, Units Total Trips Total VMT 1.45 6.72 dwelling units 54.00 362.88 3,666.10 362.88 3,666.10 Page: 1 1/3/2808 12:83:82 PM Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck K 3750 lbs Light Truck 3751- 5750lbs Mad Truck 5751.8500 Ibs Lite -Heavy Truck 8501 - 10,000 Ibs Lite-Hesvy Truck 10,001 - 14,000 Ibs Med -Heavy Truck 14,001 - 33.000 Ibs Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001 - 60,000 Ibs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Home -Work Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 % of Trips - Residential 32.9 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) c:r t' Vehicle F1est Mix Percent Type 49.0 10.9 21.7 9.5 1.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.1 0.1 3.5 0.1 1.0 Travel Conditions Residential Non - Catalyst 2.0 3.7 0.9 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.1 0.0 10.0 Home -Shop Home -Other 7.0 9.5 12.1 14.9 30.0 30.0 18.0 49.1 Catalyst 97.8 90.8 98.6 98.9 75.0 50.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.9 0.0 80.0 Commercial Commute Non -Work 13.3 7.4 15.4 9.6 30.0 30.0 Diesel 0.4 5.5 0.5 0.0 25.0 50.0 60.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 10.0 Customer 8.9 12.6 30.0 Construction Phasing Assumptions Construction Defaults for Ufbemis 2007 Phase Start Month Year Duration (Months) Demolition March 2008 0.5 Mass Grading March 2008 3 Fine Grading June 2008 1.5 Trenching August 2008 0.25 Paving August 2008 0.25 Construction September 2008 9 Architectural Coatings April 2009 1 Demolition Assumptions Building Square -Feet Height Feet For Urbemis2007 cTs l.J� 48,743 35 LengthMIdth Total 220.8 feet LengthMidth Per Day 40.3 feet Modified Construction Phasing - Based on 18 month schedule provided by the project applicant which lab{utlas a 30 -day demolition, 30 -days of grading and no trenching for utilities because Its and eAsting sIte, and overlap of phases Start Month Year Duration (Months) Demolition March 2008 1 Fine Grading April 2008 1 Paving July 2009 0.25 Construction May 2008 16 Architectural Coatings July 2009 1 overlap of Paving, Construction and Architectural Coatings Total Cubic Feet Total Daily Cubic Feet 1,706,005 56,867 Source Receptor North Coastal Orange County Distance (meters) 25 NOx 191 CO 406 PM10 1 PM2.5 1 Acre Below Acre Above SRA No. Acres SRA No. Acres 18 1 18 2 Distance Increment Below 25 Distance Increment Above 50 , 5 k Acres 25 50 100 200 500 NOx 1 158 164 189 244 382 2 226 226 244 288 408 191 194 216 266 395 CO 1 333 500 929 1785 5870 2 481 692 1247 2216 6405 406 594 1085 1996 6132 PM10 1 1 3 19 34 50 2 2 5 21 36 52 1 4 20 35 51 PM2.5 1 1 2 3 6 19 2 2 2 3 7 20 1 2 3 6 19 :h Coastal Orange County 1.49 Acres 25 50 100 200 500 NOx 191 194 216 266 395 CO 406 594 1085 1996 6132 PM10 1 4 20 35 51 PM2.5 1 2 3 6 19 Acre Below Acre Above SRA No. Acres SRA No. Acres 18 1 18 2 Distance Increment Below 25 Distance Increment Above 50 , 5 k SRAcNo. Acres Receptor Receptor Distance Distance (meters feet Source Receptor Area North Coastal Orange. County Distance (meters) 25 PM10 NOx 191 Grading CO 406 Exhaust PM70 5 PM2.5 4 PM2.5 NOx. CO PM10 PM2.5 Demollllon ° 31tp Site Preparation /Grading , Building: Construction" Demolitlon • With Mitigation North Coastal Orange County 1.49 Acres 200 25 NOx 191 Co Demolition 9 5 25 4 Acres 25 50 100 200 500 Site Preparation/Grading 28 14 2 NOx 1 156 164 189 244 382 Building Construction 22 12 2. 2 226 226 244 288 408. Demolition -.With Mitigation 9 5 4 191 194 216 266 395. LST Thresholds 191 406 5 CO 1 '333 500. 929 1785 5670 Amount: Exceeding Thresholds 0 0 20 2 461 692 1247 2216 6405 406 594 '1085 1996 6132 PM10. '1 4 13 77 142 206. *With Mitigation Assumes 84 percent controll efficiency of fugitive dust. 2 7 21 86 150 215 5 17 81 146.. 210 PM2.5 1 3 5 9 22 76 '2 5 7 12 26 83 '4 6 10: 24 79 North Coastal Orange County So 1.49 Acres 200 25 NOx 191 Co 406' PM10 5 PM2.5 4 So 100 200 Soo 194 216 266 395'. 594 1085 1996 .6132 17 61 146 210. 6 10 24 79 Acre . Below AC110 ove SRA No. Acres SRA Nc. Acres 16 1 18 2 Distance Increment Below 25 Distance Increment Above 50 .CTS Appendices Appendix B Draft Conditions of Approval Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach l I� Appendices This page intentionally left. Center rr: 0 Draft Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001, Modification Permit No. 2007 -044, Use Permit No. 2007 -011 & Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001 (Project- specific conditions are in italics) Planning Department 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans stamped with the date of this approval, except as modified by other conditions. 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. The applicant shall comply witEi all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use maybe cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 4. Project approvals shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the effective date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Reasonable extensions may be granted by the Planning Director in accordance with applicable regulations. 5. The applicant shall obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit for the project. 6. With the exception of the height modifications required per Condition No. 7, the floor plans and building envelopes for each unit are approved as precise plans and future floor area additions to the building envelopes shall be prohibited. The proposed open patio and deck areas for each unit shall not be permitted to be enclosed and the landscape and open space areas proposed throughout the development site shall be preserved. 7. The two structures that encroach into the side yard setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line shall be modified in height to conform to the 24 -foot base height limit. 8. The applicant shall replace 6 affordable units within 3 years of the date of issuance of a demolition permit. The units may be provided off -site at an approved location, or locations, within the City. An amount not to exceed $9.35 million shall be provided by the applicant and the applicant shall use such funds to replace the 6 affordable units and to achieve a mix of income levels and bedroom counts, as determined appropriate by the Planning Director. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide said units. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and shall be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the project. 9. Any very -low and low- income units provided in accordance with Condition No. 8 shall be maintained as rental units for a minimum period of 30 years. Any moderate income units should be provided as `for- sale" units with a covenant maintaining the affordability for a minimum period of 30 years. 10. Gated vehicular access through the site shall be prohibited. 11. 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 and light standards shall not exceed 24 feet in height. 12.The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that.the site is excessively illuminated, 13.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 Department. 14.Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in conditions of approval Nos. 12 & 13. 15.AII proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Chapter 20.67 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. 16. Trash container storage for the individual units shall be screened from view of neighboring properties and public places, except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. Trash containers shall not be located within the required parking areas. 17.A1i landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 18. 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 Department and the General Services 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 vehicu{ar sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 19.Reclaimed water shall be used. whenever available, assuming it is economically feasible. 20. 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 Seashore Village Residential Development Project including, but not limited to, the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001, Modification Permit No. 2007 -044, Use Permit No. 2007 -011 & Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001; 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. Building Department 21.The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all applicable City plan check and inspection fees. 22.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. 23.Prior to the issuance of gradinq permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for �cta 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. 24.Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a NPDES permit. The applicant shall incorporate storm water pollutant control into erosion control plans using BMPs to the maximum extent possible. Evidence that proper clearances have been obtained through the State Water Resources Control Board shall be given to the Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits. 25. 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 Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 26.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. Fire Department 27. The internal roadway shall be marked as a fire lane, per the direction and approval of the Fire Department. Public Works Department 28. A Final Tract Map (Map) shall be filed with °the Public Works Department. 29.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, Subarticle 18. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shalt comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 30 30. Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyortengineer preparing the Map shall be 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. 31. All applicable City fees shall be paid prior to the processing of the Map. 32.Construction surety in a form acceptable to the City, guaranteeing the completion of the various required public improvements, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of the Public Works Department approval of building plans. 33. Easements for weekly trash pick -up by City crews shall be dedicated as part of the Map. 34.Easements for public emergency and security ingress/egress, and public utility purposes on private streets shall be provided to the City. 35.All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 36.A new full -width sidewalk shall be constructed within the limits of the existing Utilities and Sidewalk easements along Seashore Drive fronting the project site. Existing City street trees shall be removed to accommodate the sidewalk construction. 37. New City- designated street trees shall be planted along the River Avenue frontage. All street trees shall . be planted per City Standards and guidelines provided by the City General Services Department. 38.A11 existing drainage facilities in the public right -of -way shall be retrofitted to comply with the City's on -site non -storm runoff retention requirements. 39. On-site runoff shall be retained on -site. 40. Private storm drain piping shall not connect directly to the City's storm drain catch basin. 41.All on -site utilities shall be owned, operated, and maintained by the community/association. �(oi 42. Each unit shall be served by its individual water meter and sewer lateral and cleanout. Each water meter and sewer cleanout in the vehicular traveled -way shall be installed with a traffic -grade box and cover. 43. Individual water services per City Standards shall be provided in lieu of manifolds. 44. All on -site parking, vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. 45. The parking layout shall be in conformance with City Standard 805 -L -A and 805 -L -B. 46. An ADA compliant public pedestrian pathway, from River Avenue to Seashore Drive, shall be provided through the development site. 47. The vehicular pathways shall be designed to support a fully loaded large trash truck. 48.Adequate turning radii and width shall be provided for large trash truck travel paths. 49.All improvements (including, but not limited to, the landscaping in the parking lot area and ingress /egress points to the development site) shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement (City Standard 110 -L). 50.AII abandoned driveway approaches shall be removed per City Standard 165 -L 51.A11 new driveway approaches shall comply with Council Policy L -2 and constructed per City Standards. 52.Reconstruct any existing broken /damaged sidewalk, curb and gutter fronting the development per City Standards. 53.No permanent structures can be built within the limits of the Utilities and Sidewalk easement. 54. The construction work cannot impact the free flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic between Memorial Day and Labor Day. The staging and parking of all construction - related equipment and vehicles shall take place on -site, and NOT in the public right - of -way or City property. 55. All utility service connections serving this development shall be made underground. 56.1n case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right -of -way may be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 30 57.The streets surrounding the project site is on the City's street/alley -cut Moratorium List. Any damage done to said roadways by the project will require substantial pavement repair work to be fully paid for by the Developer. 58.An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right -of- way. 59.An encroachment agreement shall be applied for and approved by the Public Works Department for all non - standard private improvements within the public right -of -way. 60. The intersection of the internal roadways with River Avenue shall be designed to provide adequate sight distance per City of Newport Beach Standard Drawing STD - 110 -L. Slopes, landscaping, walls, signs and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight lines (sight cone) shall not exceed 24- inches in height and the monument identification sign must be located outside the line of sight cone. The sight distance may be modified at non- critical locations, subject to approval by the Traffic Engineer. 61. The internal roadway shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide, unless otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. The internal roadway shall align with Neptune Avenue. The internal roadway curb cut on River Avenue shall be 26 feet wide minimum and modified to comply with current ADA standards. 62. Guest parking stalls shall be 8.5 feet by 17 feet minimum. Parking stalls adjacent to walls.or other obstructions shall be 9- foot -wide minimum. 63.0n -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation system shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 64. The California Vehicle Code shall be enforced on the private streets and drives, and that the delineation acceptable to the Police Department and Public Works Department be provided along the sidelines of the private streets and drives. Mitination Measures 65. 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 (SCN No. 2008 - 021075) for the project. 3�� C i I z - 11 � t01 THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY iG THE PLANNING CENTER E -mail Memorandum Date: May 27, 2008 To: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner From: Elizabeth Kim, Environmental Planner Subject: Response to Comments from Lennie DeCarro's 2ntl Letter Concerning Noise — Seashore Village Project No.: CNB -10.OE No. Pgs.: 3 (including this cover sheet) Attachment(s): n/a Governmental Services Planning & Urban Design Environmental Studies School Facilities Planning 1580 Metro Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 714.966.9220 Fax: 714.966.9221 costamesa@planningcenter.com The Planning Center has prepared a written response to Ms. Lennie DeCards comment letter #2 concerning noise issues contained in the Initial Study /Mitigated. Negative Declaration for Seashore Village. Below shows excerpts from Ms. DeCards comment letter #2 in italics followed by our response in bold. "MND inadequately analyzes noise levels and implies reductions of d8A levels without substantiating or analyzing the impacts. "HVAC systems are proposed for all units within the project site. Therefore, standard building construction would achieve the interior noise requirements for new building construction in the state of California." New construction requires interior noise of 45 d8A (MND p. 84). MND claims noise is reduced by 24dBA if all windows and doors are closed. Exterior noise level is, 59 — 24= 35dBA. (provided that all windows and doors are shut). This is a faulty assumption since plans do not show any placement or inclusion of air conditioning units. Homes in this area typically do not include air conditioning due to the proximity to the beach. The faulty assumption is that the windows will be closed because they will use air conditioners. Yet HVAC units contribute to d8A level increases for both interior and exterior These results have not been addressed at all in the MND. There are vast differences in the d8A levels that HVAC units create. MND, (p 84) states that if windows are open, d8A levels are only reduced by 12. This would make interior noise level of new units beyond acceptable. Project area that includes direct line of sight to the highway, including the second and third story building facades facing the highway, have reported exterior noise levels of 67.3 d8A CNEL per the NMD. This would be far beyond noise requirements with 55.3 d8A if windows were open. MND claim that it would comply if windows were shut, fails to address the increase from the HVAC unit noise itself. The MND ignores the obvious, there is no HVAC unit on the market that can deliver at 1.7dBA or less. This is the number that would be necessary for noise compliance. MND wants to assert that windows will be kept shut in order to comply with noise requirements and states HVAC units are planned." The State of California's noise insulation standards are codified in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Building Standards Administrative Code, Part 2, California Building Code. These noise standards are applied for new construction in California for the purpose of interior C:M] menu and SoningsWun#61_ t SeltingWent onary internal File5101-K79WOise Memo to City 5- 77 -08121.noc �In 6 May 27, 2008 Page 2 noise compatibility from exterior noise sources. New residential buildings must be constructed to meet the acceptable interior noise limit of 45 dBA CNEL. All residential proposed residential buildings would be constructed with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. Based on the Society of Automotive Engineers 1971 publication, standard exterior -to- interior noise attenuation provided by standard building construction in warm- weather climates is 24 dBA with windows closed. New HVAC systems would be required to be chosen and installed to meet the existing building requirements accordance with Title 24 of the California Building Code. Noise from HVAC units would not significantly elevate noise levels at second and third story windows. The commenter is incorrect in their statement about increase in noise levels from HVAC units. Noise is logarithmically additive, meaning that noise from two sources. generating equivalent noise levels will only increase noise levels by 3 dBA. Consequently, to achieve interior noise levels of 45 dBA CNEL with standard building construction, exterior noise levels would have to exceed 69 dBA CNEL. To achieve these noise levels, the HVAC would have to be designed to have noise levels of 64 dBA or less at the second and third story windows. However, air conditioning units typically achieve noise levels significantly lowerthan this. In the City of Newport Beach, HVAC systems are required to comply with Chapter 10.26.025 of the Municipal Code which limits noise from air conditioning units to no more than 50 dBA L252. Compliance with this existing regulation ensures that new structures would achieve interior noise levels that are compatible for residential uses. Furthermore, new single - family residential uses would replace the existing multi family residential uses onsite, and therefore new uses would be no more or less compatible with the existing noise environment. Additionally, the placement and running of air conditioning units would add to the exterior noise levels for the surrounding neighbors and there is inadequate information as to the size, location, and motodfan specs. MND gave inadequate information in analyzing HVAC impacts. Newport Beach has interior noise levels of 40 dBA in the evening from 10 p.m to 7a.m.. Windows would be open during this time in the summer, while the new project would have them shut using the HVAC." For noise produced from HVAC units at the project site, the more stringent noise standard is the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.26.025, which requires that noise at the residential property line from an HVAC unit not exceed 50 dBA 1-25. Because interior noise levels would be attenuated by a minimum of 12 dBA with windows open, interior noise levels would never exceed 38 dBA 1-25. 3. °MND inadequate analysis of noise impacts is evident. There are no plans depicting location of HVAC units, nor any analysis to exterior noise levels. Each condenser unit needs to reflect location, cooling capacity relating to tons, effect of all 24 units running concurrently and the effect to the surrounding neighbors. Interior and exterior noise levels for both project and surrounding neighbors will not meet ordinance level." Compliance with the City's noise ordinance is mandatory. Installation of HVAC systems would be required by the City to be installed to reduce noise at adjacent properties either through site design or through use of enclosuresimufflers designed for HVAC units. "(p. 7 city noise element) Various Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) installations and occasional pool and spa pumps can be noise intrusions. Noise intrusions from HVAC equipment has been a problem in the past, especially in areas such as Balboa Island, Lido Island, Manufacturers are required to limit the noise level of the air conditioners they produce. A maximum ARI (Air conditioning and Refrigeration Institute) Standard sound rating of 8.0 bels applies to air conditioning devices built during 1991, and 7.6 bels applies to air conditioning devices built after January 1, 1992. When an air conditioning unit is installed, it is required to comply with both the sound level limit in dBA and the manufacturers sound emission rating in bels. L25: noise levels can not exceed 50 dBA for more than 15 minutes in an hour. C MO ment6 and BegingsW will %LL l Setnng6Rempor,, Imemet 1i1e61OLPGMNoise Memo to City 5-27 -0B (2tdoc May 27, 2008 Page 3 and the Peninsula where the homes are very close together, and in commercial areas as well when abutting residential areas. However, the City's Municipal Code now requires a permit before installation of new HVAC equipment. Permits are only granted when a sound rating of the proposed equipment does not exceed standards, or is installed with a timing device that will deactivate the equipment during the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7.'00 A.M. if the standards are exceeded. Just because HVAC equipment sound ratings are reviewed during plan check, as well as tested in the field after installation, it can still be problematic over time. As equipment ages and sometimes suffers from lack of maintenance, noise from the equipment can increase. Because of this, the City still deals with HVAC equipment noise on a complaint basis, in order insure ongoing compliance with the standards of the Code." Compliance with the City's noise ordinance is mandatory. The commenter references older HVAC units. Older units constructed prior to 1991 were constructed to lower noise standards. Newer equipment is constructed to newer Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) standards. Long -term maintenance of HVAC is in the purview of the property owners and must continue to achieve the noise standards of the City's Municipal Code. an Vow CADomments and SettingsITemporary Intemet r GSWLK791NOise Memo to City $.27-08 (2(.doe -) l THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY Ou Response to Comments Preliminary Grading Plan . MX Source: Todd Schooler & Associates, 2007 Seashore Village Response to Comments Cross Section Trench Drain Vr:; M EMEWS ! t< Om @Dr TEA SERVICE Cpl'® 9ORaO W Mmi NEH CONSTRUCTION NOTES Ib11K1 � SB CfOIP� � 91Q 4ipra R OM1 O JOn (YM fR lFl (�/IYrR IJm TF10. NSTRUCRON NOTES �m+.ualama am uu slo wi. onrm nree !a o� iemi 'J6fC1 S t6a Old'. Mld r0 RM 19Hw TIElO101W1 - -1� wr m uw![ ROUlESS PAVER OEfAI r u v mm Construct Open bottom Trench Drain Per Detail Hereon The Planning Center • Figure 8 �� I I I I 1 I 1 I I I I i I I I IM b pY. Muor. F�. io.. E.rtra jfOutlet Tire Wash TC -3 r m FMe Nm 6 . � a Source: Todd Schooler 8 Associates, 2007 Seashore Village Response to Comments Stlt Fence F 166.4 SEC170N A Response to Comments Construction Staging & Water Quality Control Plan sao Drain Inw P.etactim st-S SandbM s.r[w SIn H.AN s E)Ti0 s w�Y . IrTW w.,•�! r.1rr ,i K.FI�w�Y. rYSws The Planning Center 6 Figure 9 ..nrs v.ur •`— tnsvr ❑ v9ur nn rs - -� SEASHORE DR. z. tabu = eN�Y.mz1 �a°9.m�wm.m Y�.vn� a�Yw+e+m.� ILak+sirb�..W .,.� .RY(OLIY1. <NwMMMOP�4,I,CWYP.a.ol Iw.1e o. ,eu+•+.nme.Wan.,�oF,Ynr,reww•rne :.mr awr ra wwrvnavane.00•eaacnun + r+a 9M A W.6�� [I91q.614,4% �6tl�.HY.aRm sslloq it 5 NmyYYWeY. POY ViaYNmen e cmtw�,vF�w.uee.Ymwnnomnwirw rt4� yvy� Zpgn q,ft )1.194 11MIwgWq OYmpwaYmvw�o�mvnao.e o.�..mrewea e Cua.c'M.o.F tlY mp,MggpYnm Y+ rtl�w7¢.ioe F.(m Mlll q.A bqe *o W Wnm u Y 6h,n AMeYgY.P-T 110.6'.18'. 6'� 1[•661 sell rq tress yYe •613.416 mfg. The Planning Center 6 Figure 9 Attachment 10 Mitigated Negative Declaration (Distributed separately due to bulk) '1� SEASHORE VILLAGE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Contact. PO Box 1768 Jaime Mudilo, Associate Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Planner Tel: 949.644.3234 prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER 1580 Metro Drive Contact: Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Elizabeth Kim, Tel: 714.966.9220 • Fax: 714.966.9221 Environmental Planner E -mail. costamesa @planningcenter.com Website: www.planningcenter.com CNB -10.OE APRIL 2008 Table of Contents Section Page 1. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS .................................................................... ............................1.1 2. REVISIONS TO THE INITIAL STUDY ....................................................... ............................2 -1 2.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ ............................... 2 -1 2.2 REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS ..................... ............................2 -1 APPENDICES A. Air Quality Model B. Draft Conditions of Approval Seasbore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Bearb • Page r Table of Contents List of Figures Figure 1 View Corridor Analysis ................................ ............................... Figure 2 Photo of Existing View Corridor .................. ............................... Figure 3 Surrounding Area Photographs .................. ............................... Figure 4 Site Photographs ........................................ ............................... Figure 5a Side Setback (Plan A: Plantation) ............... ............................... Figure 5b Side Setback (Plan C: Craftsman) .............. ............................... Figure 6 Aerial Photograph ....................................... ............................... Figure 7 Landscape Plan .......................................... ............................... Figure 8 Preliminary Grading Plan ............................ ............................... Figure 9 Construction Staging & Water Quality Control Plan .................. Page ii • The Planning Center April 2008 1 Response to Comments The following provides all written comments received on the Initial Study prepared for the Seashore ' Village project and the City's responses to each comment. The project site is located at 5515 River Avenue in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. The project site is generally bordered by River Avenue to the north, Seashore Drive to the south residential units, including vacation rentals, to the east, and a City -owned park to the west. ' The Mitigated Negative Declaration /Initial Study (MND /IS) was forwarded to the State Clearing House on February 19, 2008 for distribution to responsible and trustee agencies for a 30 -day review period and the notice was posted on -site in the area where the project is to be located and also mailed to the owners ' and occupants of contiguous property. The posted and mailed notices indicated that the 30 -day review period would begin on February 20, 2008 and end on March 20, 2008; however, because the site was posted on February 20, 2008, it was determined by the City Attorney's Office that the public comment period began the following day, February 21, 2008 with the public comment period concluding on March ' 21, 2008. The project was continued from the March 20, 2008 Planning Commission hearing to allow for the full public comment period. 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 text are shown in bold and double underline for additions and stfikeeut for deletions. ' The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the Initial Study during the public review period. 1 1 Num er a erence Commenting Pwon[Agency Date o 'omment Page o. Southern Califorma t,as Company brua 1,2008 1-3 abve mecan ertge ommission rc 2008 , 1-1 Lennie Decaro March 13, 2008 -1 California a artment of cans ortation March 1 -85 Department o 10YJC ZiUDstances Control March Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beath • Page 1 -I 1. Response to Comments ' This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -2 • The Planning Center Apri12008 ' 1. Response to Comments LETTER A - Southern California Gas Company (1 page) 1919 i Slate College aw. KsCwipagy t A C!eSempra Energy utiiW ' p�VNrRryGCFQ � 9y February 21, 2008 Nr City of Newport Beach % 2'; 1008 ' 3300 Newport wport CA 92658 C�Qf N��RI ft8 ' Attention: Brandon Nichols Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration for Proposed Seashore Village Project ' This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is ' proposed. Gas facilities within the service area of the project could be altered or abandoned as necessary without any significant impact on the environment. Information regarding construction particulars and any costs associated with initiating ' service may be obtained by contacting the Planning Associate for your area, Dave Baldwin at (714 )634-3267. ' Sincerely, ao Paul Paul Sim Technical Supervisor Pacific Coast Region- Anaheim 1 PSI. 1 1 1 1 A•1 ' Seashore Village Refponje to Co➢)dmvtf City of NewPort Beach • Page 1 -3 I 1. Response to Comments , This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -4 •The Planning Center Apri12008 , ii ' 1. Response to Comments ' A Response to Comments from Paul Simonoff, Technical Supervisor, Pacific Coast Region — Anaheim, Southern California Gas Company, dated February 21, 2008. A -1 The letter notifies the City that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in ' the area and provides contact information. No further response is necessary. 7 i Seasbore Village IZerponse to Comments City of Newport Beacb • Page 1 -5 C� I . Response to Comments , This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -6 •The Planning Center Apri12008 ' I r1 1 1 it 1 F 11 11 LETTER B - Native American Heritage Commission (4 pages) NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 976C�UALL,RCCM66a MCruM (X CA 96914 ("a) 6s6651 Fax (816)65)8180 1wae8W 1pRal.eWCffia91r 6NMI: 66,,.r6Mp.6aa66..aM Mr. Brandon tfictmis, Assocleata Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92655 1. Response to Comments r 5:• MAR 10 2888 March 5, 2005 CITY Of NEWPORT BEACH Re: 80 21075: CEQA Notice of completion- Residential Project Chv of Newoort Beach: Orange County. Cafifomla ' Dear Mr. Nichols The Native American Heritage Commission is the stare agency designated W protect CaUlcro s Native American Cultural Reaouress. The Caltfonia Em tronmental Quality Act (CEQA) rewires that any pro)actthat causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, that includes archaeological resources, is a'signifcant efect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) per the California Code of Regulations §15064.5(bMc (CEQA gukwln es). Section 15382 of the 2007 CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as •a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse charge in any of physical gom9tlom witidn an area affected by the proposed project Including... objects of. historic or aesthetic significance! In order to comply with this prevision, the lead agency is required to sees ss whether the project will have an adverse Imuad on these resources within the'area ofcatentni effect (APEI'. and ifso..to mideate rhat etfea To edequatey J carhmct the. .. . apprepdatc:Ca,IHp IsHlsWde Resources, bNonjwpon 'Ceruer(CHti(S),forpga, idC1redarded alter' in locations where the developmentwiller might occur., CordactinfamalWnfortlre IMwma§oOCenterrrearadyouis evageble from the Smut Office of.Historic Preservation (9161653 -7278Y lAmw oho caras.m.aov. The record search will detamdne: • f a part or the entire APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. • If any known cultural resources have already beau recorded in or adjacent W the APE. • If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. If a away is required W determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present J If an archaeological Inventory survey Is required, the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detalling the findings and recommendatons of the records search and field survey. • The fired report containing site forma, she significance, and mitigation measures should be submitted Immediately to the panning department All information regarding sire locations, Native American human remains, and associatedtunemry objecm should be in.a separate conficiendal addendum, and not be made awaimblo for pubic disclosure. • The final wdtmn report should be submittedlwithln 3 months arm work has been rompkted W one appropriate regional archaeological Information Center. J Contact the Native American Hedmge Commission (NAHC) for. A Sacred Lands File (SLF) search of the project area and Information on tribal contacts In the projeer vicinity that may have additional cultural resource information. Please prey this office with the following citation format W assist with the Sacred Lands File search request USGS 7,5-minute euadrenole citation with name. township. once and section: . • The NAHC advises the use of Native American Monitors to ensure proper Identification and care given cultural! Resources that may be discovered. The N W C rawmmerMs Mat contact be made with Native A Contacts on the attached fist W get 9ieirinput on poten dal project impact (APE). In some cases, the existence of a Nathvo;Amedcan.cultural resources may. be._known only to a.local tribe(s). wrenuarymmr?IUmwge,Amerira tribe ma 3: be the my aouaegrwunwwamui.N�auw Satre ,. AccWursly- affilmtad Native Amedcanblbe,maybe Me only souroe of�iRhtomretian aboRMa Sacrad.5aeMam American eribrrel rest's. . • Lead agencies should include In their miggallon pan prwlsions for the dsposltion of recovered artifacts, in B -1 ' Seashore Village Response to Comments City ofNemport Beech • Page I -7 V� 1. Response to Comments ' J Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American human remains or unmarked cemeteries . in their mitigation pans. CEOA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(d) requires the lead agency to work with the Native Americans identified by this Commission if the initial Study identifies the presence or likely presence of Native American human remains within the APE CEOA Guidelines provide for agreements with Native American, identified by the NAHC, to assure the appropriate and dignified treatment of Native American human remains and any associated Wave Sens. J Health and Safety Code §7050.5, Public Resources Code §5097.96 and Sec. §15064.5 (d) of the California Cade of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) mandate procedures to be followed, Including that construction or "Metion be stopped In the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains In a location other than a dedicated cemetery until the county, coroner or medical mour lner can determine whether the remains are Nose of a Native American. . Note that §7052 of the Health & Safety Code states that disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony- me at(916) 653 -6251 if you have any questions. Program Attachment LM of Native American Contacts Ca State Clearinghouse I M.1 , Cont'd I, 1 1 1 Page 1 -8 • The Planning Center April 2008 , ' 1, Response to Comments ' Native American Contacts Orange County ' March 5, 2008 wsnanosend m Mission lnd,sA nenNolwn Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation David Belardes, Chairperson Joyce Perry, Tribal Manager & Cultural Resources ' 31742 Via Belardes Juaneno 31742 Via Belardes Juaneno sen Jaen caWeuane , CA 92675 San Jeen ca*t eno . CA 92675 DavidBeiardes@hotmail.com kaamalamOoox.net (949) 493 -0959 (949) 493 -0959 (949) 493 -1601 Fax (949) 293 -8522 Cell (949) 493 -1601 Fax Gabriebnotrongva Council! Gabrielino Tongva Nation Juaneno Band of Mission Indians ' Sam Dunlap, Tribal Secretary Alfred Cruz, Culural Resources Coordinator 761 Terminal street, sag 1, 2+a Door Gabrielino Tongva P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno Los Angeles . CA 90o21 Santa Ana . CA 92799 office Qtongvatribe.net (213) 48951101 - Officer atfredgxuz@sticglobai.net 714-998-0721 ' (909) 262 -9351 - cell sltredgcruzQsbcglobal.net (213) 489 -5002 Fax Junnag Band dMl. InSensAgaclmnanNatbn Juaneno Band of Mission Indians ' Anthony Rivera, Chairman Adolph -Bud' Sepulveda. Chairperson 31411 -A La Matanza Street Juaneno P.O. Box 25828 Juaneno am Juan capsuano . CA 92675-2574 Santa Ana . CA 92799 ' o.com do -488183 -- 949468-3484 71714 -838 327h0oo.net 44 331 84-1812 22 949 -488 -03344294 Fax 4-898 7 1 - CELL bsepulGyahoo.net ' Gabrielino Tongva Indians of CapfomiaTribal Council Sonia Johnston, Tribal Vice Chairperson Robert Dorame, Tribal Chair/Cultural Resources Juaneno Band of Mission Indians 5450 slarrsan, Ave, Suite 151 PMB Gabrlelino Tongva P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno Culver City . CA 90230 Santa Ana , CA 92799 ' gt r_Tj @verizon.net 562 -7Ci1 - (714) 323 -8312 -6417 voice sonia.johnston(Psbcglobal.net 562- 925 -7989 fax 1 1 1 ' TWS list is anent only na of to Gab of the document Dbddbuticn of this list does not relieve wW Poem of stslatory rssponSWIlty as dannM In Section 765" of the HUM end Safety Cade, section 5WM of tie Public rbunaces code and section 6WM of do Pubes Rovaneees cone. We fist Is only a)pHo We for contaotlng loosl Native American wM regent In cultural resonsces for go proposed ' SCNY"IMOrS; 02" 14"ce of Cootl legmi NagaBve Declaration I" the Send. Village Aesldentlel Protect, . located ct 5515 River Avenue In Newport Beach: omnge County, CeSfomla, 1 Searbore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beacb *Page 1 -9 J 1. Response to Comments 1 Native American Contacts Orange County March 5, 2008 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Anita Espinoza 1740 Concerto Drive Juaneno, Anaheim , CA 92807 (714) 779 -8832 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Joe Ocampo, Chairperson 1108 E. 4th Street Santa Ana . CA 92701 (714) 547 -9676 (714) 623 -0709 -cell ThN iet la earrem atly as of me data of Nb daaumenL Dl WWWn ofOft Iht does nut rtlbve arty PW80A aafaluEOry &Yp deftned In &eefbn 705&5 of the NsBh artl Badly Cade, Seem 50§794 of UW PVidlc flesmacea LbdearafSaOOn8 m of Uw Pu6ft HeaourcesCade. TMs Ilst Is oFdy aPPikade for conpa&np Io 1Nffdw Mclean tal0f Cam to cu%WW namaoes for fie PMPwed ';C:ip100aD2f&7&: aEOA Nodae 01 Conpb&cq Ne0a0vc Deck"don for the 3eaelnre V[Ha" Reeldeollef PMIWk lonted at55f59itwr Avenue M tbaport Bepebp 0anye Cotwdy, CelR*K" I 1 1 Page 1 -10 • The Planning Center Apri12008 ' I I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I 1. Response to Comments B Response to Comments Dave Singleton, Program Analyst, Native American Heritage Commission, dated March 5, 2008. B -1 This letter identifies various recommended actions to assess project impact on historical resources and has no specific comments on the Initial Study. The Initial Study acknowledged potential historical resources impact and provided appropriate mitigation measures. No response is necessary. Seashore Village Respwse to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -11 Q:C I 1. Response to Comments 1 This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -12 • The Planning Center April 2008 1 1. Response to Comments LETTER C — Lennie DeCaro, Owner 5406 and 5408 Neptune Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92663 (33 pages) Comment Letter Lennie Decam Owner 5406 AF 5468 Neptune Me= (949),433-4817 Newport Beach, CA 9260 Email:, iusfice4laooKnet March 13, 2008 Via email Fj4lFicholir&citv.�ort-beach Lcxim) (949� , I . Boach Attn: JN�Niqfiqk '3300 Newport SM, NeWport B&ob .92663 , Ca RE- SW, River Ave: kore . <&M Viflago, J14Y Dear Mr. Nichols, pbnT&V,.depmftent,,&plarwingconmuissibners, bo withatkOt two N,q*WP AVO. Projedwill lu Imo village, 11no The w*dm,qvptal.i,mpa ,. qp aoithe Hadversely impact residents. Wd4666mel-A of low imbrW I s si5ft and 4brigity d"tfroi6tt 1 it y residems durirqthe ea pure thatwcmc wood be efacing1mvingbonds calhxl, Price- ThiaprojeA *Mfa, a tso lw�vq W&W410fiork of property valots, Waawy itvao bomeowft"S wvsepanos arafmmawi arawiNeptMe, Aven"4 as project seeks to UuM" street into on alley. 04y, aesthetes oftbc,=wilbcmgatv"el'y,aML44spetg'icatlyinjwedare dwfin=.diaiesuffondng ws4 m Iionj6f'lWUAMc" bae& mfo using `.`housing type, aw&F!50 on la's.0-A 300*4sver (4y.. Pv*ot is'i"twot.,with 4" OA;offt cities, irozonsisit'i wlflClc"Piardcter of F-j&prlieoLL stud y hag not been pfq-me4 to prove resi4otgWqoo.00f, qegaW* impact; services inciudirrg pnlioe, school, and Ibiary: There -is aaineernplete water pian:hait »was sutim3teU'y. .invalid nleeme sW.W . y do n a by iiads OW11" damio zwkia- to fi, q' (r ecerii: ly W, a Wit hk., tbe past yea )i fW "-M4yWWmpir(WhyafidNdmbt ly-oft&jod,4 - 4 it� inxiodotuff Seashore Village Response to Comments I City of Newport Beach • Page 1-13 QQ1 M 1. Response to Comments this MND. Tiitire•is fuither'pote tial project bias &bin involvement with applicant architect on General. PlanILCP implementation cothinittee which wo..intended to primarily include public input Thus committee, addressed' some of the very issues challenged in this MjI , and,was to utvalve the public, 1 utilizing,archhects only as a subcommittee. Instead, this committee changed and became contrary to the G ont original stated.intended purpose and city council resolutionand included numerous architects (or related Yields); absent am,detailed minutes and public input, Further; this project is. contrary to Coastal -COmin ssion goals; of public access to the beach. There is inadequate studyofthe alternatives to this 'project, Which wgmIstlggested by DeCaro in the spirit of compromise,: These suggestions byDeCaro would solve the majority of the negative impacts. Noticing was also inadequate as documents were not released onhne.until February2g, ^�U48 I C:2 afid'ftiither rwne.oftlie 10 eXtnbrts:fhat are listed inihe Planiting Corrunission Agerda wereattadhed.4r availa]rye online ardf�• 15-A$. g(71)ayss&otti 22 © -08 wd61d `alfio have deadline mcocreet forrediety pern;'d,.ihiswodd conclude on3= 2148:" DO'Caro asscrts an envir omenta%umpact report (.E1R),must be,prepamd, crcouhned ani/uhitnaml ce¢itaextindead oftbe propesed,WD; wausethere issubs;nfial adequate evidence tusupport a- faire argumerit4that the project may; and in factvwill have significant.adverse environmentalirnpactsAo, traffic; 4wd usi;Y Horse ,aestheYYt , avgtfa$fy, and safety amongst the other afol'emzhtiorled ssud& CEQA tequires only one issue to'support a fait:ar tmtetd;ta dema!d sit EIR; iLts protect comatns:rium"Otis factual are umems that sunned ademand'for an EiR. 043 Furtttey.the failure ofttte appheam k indemnify the airy for CEQA ehallenges:to44ts�prgjeets. willieave the cdy insihe position of`havingio:.absorb costs Parlega.challengewto the Iv'M, thatanay rest At1hiubstanerald* a %gesawatdedfaasucoess�lchallerag totheMMD. ThecrtysWulduplitildit's �duatarrj�:responsflulites fo' She• et'iizens and adJ�saildnot graufthe d ?seretioiiarynlrprOVa15' "fdr. sayd prpeY'tt}`the applicant and dematd:'aaERt for aaty subseggetlt�pmiact revisrong. 'Thus would be the .most 71?roprsate aalF2ii tltaS3c'du'J ;respnnslbly act in a mandgrthat is'p'OteSiive of the residents and eDly from cestvfpomnIialAthgation an cGRongeto - the, MR DeCazo furtherassertathe Madam met.adequaiely analyzesthe impacts and *failsto clearly desahltie'tlte mtmel•.oustimpacts lhe:proileat will<ixeaie. AN EIR IS REQUIRED I'.rs quest this (tfujeet oomplete,an Ehvirpnutantal Impact Report as the mitigated negative deelaratnh;4s mid #?ltlres5edthe mtmerous Issues That wene'raisedio stalipiiorto relgase'pf the Mlr?D; nordo t5ey adeguately address.theiwues hA'' have, been-raised'<iathe following:otije :'tions:la the WD: " f9tereis ne,detnlrt that a faVr argatrientaan' made lilac nuineritus potential siguiftaanteffeets .remain _tliat'haya fiof tie�enaddi�essed.fiai dlsalased.mx the mttigiltcd negative declaration. ` to CA'OA gtiriztelines cgpate fair argquierd and sri'hstahtial evideride' as vile irriao same. fiubstagtigl cuirietice consists ol`faa€s, reasuttnKie:assuntprtons pretlicateij upon fkis and "expert opirrionsuPPOO 00 by /acts. ofimga U-,m legally- madequam, as it fails to clearly describe'the prqjects mtpacts; and afters no mit gatioal:orthe-unstated. impacts. Page 1 -14 • The Planning Center Apri12008 I I I 11 1 i I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1. Response to Comments I I I I I I I I I Ll I I I I I I COA-re4tAires preparation of an Eik-whenever Firoject may have a . slArahczut adverse impact on the environment. � (Pub. Reg &_Op4e 11151.) "If there is submartial ovi ce of.1a: ource, : significant environmcritatimpact; evidence tit contrary does.nadiappmd-with-bio need for an EIRwhen it can still be'Taifly argued" thautheproject may have asignifimm impact.?'(Friends of-B'1 Street vz City of Hayward (1980).106CaLApp.3099, 1001.) Therefore, the appropriateness of an MND is only when, du6Ao the nature-0 theproject ortbb:mitigation. measures that haw been accepted by the - project pmpooenxbafbra the aQA.r0vf8Wprocess begpis,.there is nova fair argurned that there,maybe adverse impacts. gepipy thatthe 0r.>Ject, zis,pMsexl, m* have 4 sigh.,iflow effect an.tNc znvirpnm Additionally; :'Yffiv,significaoce of an activityrna.y.vary. Withthe settin&^(CEQA Guide I iunz s gbct : i!�964 (b).) As ad - e 5aff 4 le,- the An es hoi ta �io r fina i fig, nezaaw -UW- a ets 10 be `curdujp&v1ysigmfc= can W-found, because theitanne of this area saw the Neptune Avelale cuj-Aczsac haveb" a.consi5teatlyycid area and StfGe1 for decades. TNe inienae A;jopnt of traffic, anise, and air pQ1fqtioASejw4Won NqPtuneavePqe as resq1tathisprpiept attempting totem Neptune into.anAlley at from the% , and one hundred cars;, do -development), 6666M with additional beach "White thatWouid uselhislo 160D thrb4sh 240;149-) (City of Orange v- Valemt(1904) 37 !D-3 pont'd CA hddressed, as welt as addrosa the. tz altemativaisnot studwid -04belo a, interdgtt are J66ing!protededSW PsJME$T1.'):FiiIQ.IAIUMW( ULO Bt $"WW&W -Afty" WiA negativeeiiesst of `QA 4n, tiiewantl QYher Aft0its of warty could 134W" Gardens JFOWXW'Nn, fic - V: Oyntt-upm W,1'0* '1 04 wd . the ,),19 C#LA04a� 159% 1 Ac� b"I Jay b opmtons4ha vsq f "PiOlOncan constitute substartialrevi& of amegaiwe wsihAirAmpact, (Oceon'View Eadtas Hmnemw ers Assoc, MoWdito Water Y�Qtv tlfe m is nou000�t ove"Ahetic Impact of's dikawcotm azttex fbf atw 0046 ld-,61' Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach *Page 1-15 1. Response to Comments 1 I Mining wliicli,perSOnal oliservatio'iis aiesufficient evidence of the impact. (Id.; Oro Fine Gold Corp, V. Ctmnty of Et Dorado (1940) 225 CaLApp3,d872„ 882.) One of, the effected properties, 5468 Neptune Avenue,.has a direct viewof3he:ocean from the living room & balcony. This view has astraight line of sight directly W the public Cont'd access opening foe the beach. View corridor map:(e>Jxibit 2.0- 75 from. MND) illustrates the view eorridorto my property was substazrtiated; yet no mitigations or discussions addressed this issue. The�curreiu apartment- building legal height . is of no consequence as the building is setback tiom 5408 Neptune by at least 60'. Ibis large unencumbered parking lot offers the 6ninteinipted. View and9`s evidenced in applicant picture I la, where the large setbacks :am obvious. Our property was - purchased -nearly Al years ago based.: in part on the undcrstandingx& the benefas ofkving- nextto the building with the eurrent=zoning and setbacks and we paid a premmm for this additional space ne& toouz tome. I have objected to appGCanl(s) and city tegardmg'the numerous::nagatve'i npacts yet the MNDdoesn't address my oeeatr view; nor does MND address any mitigation. Our view is-4 direct, line ofsigbtlo the (prox 5W open space on the sand Agwever, with rooftop decking, the view, would lieseven;greater, it is ivarguable'tbaL there vs a 4mficaidvatua.placed on.ocean views, amounting to hundreds ofthousands of dollars . m diffef t6 betWeed View and non =VieW pcdpettWs Ifthodiscretionaryapproxials :&T ' uro3ltfreStiaivs are approved, I would lose the ocean view in its entirety, suffer an exeretiie'Joss iii: "marketability and enjoyment of property, lose the privacy from new unit proximity and incur safety Rr is ruuoffdramage, and no issues tlirough the prospect of °iur'niiigour eu>-Ae -sac .into an alley ply fdr ektensron a£" ihesdbset View PA Will Idsp hoepublte views im(t Wi,that 4 were not atLcpssad mthe.IiD I I The-modification (Chaptef,20-93 establishes AWdings-required for appmvalofa permit .hiodft`icat3iin permit. To approve tilie,ntpdtficatiurihe Fallowing three'firrduigs'must,be niade; L "Thr?.grgn{itrg due;o'prfrctlsul.dif, cuWes associated xvth the property and tfiat str.%t gpplicanvn ojihezoning code,resu{ts in.pHysica! hardships That :mz rneairsi7tiettt Wtitthe,purpase and rntent ofth"e zomng; code. " Iearfylliis ddesn't exist,'them is no pta cai dit'ficuhytiw rev3sing plans ouidh'.t aocnin nodate. Me only pltys-I&FIa tislrp Would Tic, tWthe p)tgWOV would ttaosfcr hardships to 3d. Migmg'prgl�stis5s, a5 f#�Y€suft'o%, catt4ing of this modit'tcaiiou PetRtft. The pro}ed.has tlo Rraetical diH'oultty modification need is created sole3.y bynpplicarrt s.ehoice of design, :rather than any if"te L eharact¢rastre due ldt ABequatitapace ext'sts;far asealed down version: 31ns is. Aew cousTtuakin and there are a mm b of design akene;tiSxves,that couldp'ioWde 1611 umdizatioif ofthe lot, WN19 tnatntatitmg the regtiked setbacks. The helghtmo 'dSieatton can also be kcalized. by a dttfererd deyrgn as well Anita are not marginal in size;?n;faettireyare qudelargeF easy`iv 'scale down: 2. be C[±»ipatib ?e roi¢tfi':e0sttMg,;l R1gpraeriA4n fU C'-S . nerghberhood" I , 1 1 1 Page 1 -16 *The Planning Center Apri12008 ' 1. Response to Comments !his finding 4niu I at be Made. Existing neighborh6od-consists.oftwo story .buildings with C-9 majority 2W at less. Proposed project exceeds this corisiderably', kedming side yard widths will ---------- - existiug" neighborhood includedthexurrent, apartment building fornemly forty =iindwiis ,ye to provide for. a mix of uses that.were planned to include an apartnunit building, duplexes.md single - family areas: This inaitiflaafiari allows for buildings that are tootafL too close to existing, tesidefteeg and too dense - WT compatible. 3. `The. granting of such an application will not adversely :qffeO (hq.Aqalth or safety 0f .persons residing or woribng in -:the neighborhood-,q(Ae.property and x4lLnot be-detrimentat to the general welfare or rmbrbvehient!4n the 4 and directl yxiv­&Aively will irnpiA thern. Ibis develcipinobt.will, obsciO views v the boach-itud. its hitissing,'will overwhelm the area andItake awayy tthe, op an area that: is felt w pf',GO! and rno refidr thecurreitt apartment'. Other properties will also he:,affectedby'the,HCrght iiftheptogoseii buibimgsandtie: expansion (?f*ebq XijOingenvelopo. UNDfine a Trecflvxtates, iesidontiA p. r a u`_ arc qf,.;s i1wheight *jrtos)� jbs isla The e r4 corr�ect uqquqJ, g,pip . �a in ppftiq ow ow (three stories. 540 el'unie, dZ homes Nq rrout - f � -24' lis a, "or phatos 7 it W pq f, OrS8,zud et"t'd :a firont a emple a disiffi f homes where &e archft�t ii,a�jialkdprfi Wgfiie heights andmempari 446wa, i*A heights "ll'i; 'alqstl*tjcs, of Uu§ t dfitslitiilis #WWI* doe to We, if the twight side, yard sejbark ots and mbrl ther" impacts wide T4* 3-foot side yphl S ISeashore Village Response to Comments G-lo C -11. ttooelbsio the olileuflits,, . Punting =Wkliol WOW the d-12 aeons 'rust agvegm,us wouOuclo, glow that to S°W.jll no I kw , 16keeping witivthoeidstiag ge,setWk Ahe, Jon is se"glo Fky$9% , t4ul"geft o r, a Wi(ed iiiii Mun.91 intsadlutawingithe-exisfing, zoning and :setbacks,. WUIW 6 A gighi6cant zkoijotet to the xesWfIbe L feaii, _C43 6imiio requested, feet , side y" City of Newfim Beach *Page 1-17 1. Response to Comments setback based on lotwidth, (under discretionary approvals pg. 25). Phis is clearly asignirsant C -13 mapact aria will negatively altect all surrounding properties, losing the feel and look of open Cont'd space that the reduced footprint the apartment had on'the property. The omission of this modification permit on page 39 is a significant impact that the, lack of analysis of which, is legally inadequate. Applicant appears to want,tbe best:-of both types cf zoning They would like to not only have the building height - currently 28' for MFR, but don't want: the setback restrictions that. comes with this zoning: More troubling is that they appearaz obe trying to have it both ways. They:are ooking;tn.go even further on both height and setback through the modification requests: These are discretionary appidvals, the city should follow'the vision that these restrictions sought to,p6),tect and disalidw the modification perndg. lftl ese beighh reltriilio4r, modifications are approved'it will create a domino effectof otherresidences requesting the'.same. The:MND incorrectly asserts that the proposed _ project would-allow for more public visdalopen space. There isno quesfiun.that'the',der¢rtydthe project reritoves visual Open s ace. The existing apartment inn liar a,priyaIt 11- arc8'and.:ait Ushap§d bifildmg tt at'is deeply setback from River (north) as well as Neptwne and Seashore (east)' The setbacks, are a, minimum of .W '(possibly I00'); Page A7 in the SJII�ID accurately depicts the :enormous open space between the buildings, 'fins p' Gture alsb:tllusttates that one Gan see the ooean.betwWm the buildings, .lnthe IJ$Oss:theie was ?no'letrce`lifoek'ing the viewatall. Iii fs_cl.Yhe street wasopen from River direct through to Seashore Agars this:can be prowa by the applicant s very own doctmne>tts:_. Please rafarence page 373 of`xlppendFx D ihrs'is,ap ezarnplelpf a htstpricpIrnap hat proves the area adjacent to NbiXeptuno -was opowas a.road:thatwas Driginallyusedto.access River R6aif'to S4' ashore. H also lrcoves thatTteptune has always been a•cfilde =sac. Aeserws serious consideration= ifth'is :create amore pedesfrian:t iendly4evi venally more opeti space, more aestli abetter `fit for the ueighborhood as ant while removing many-otnections:ahol C -14 C -15 C -16 - Metotal. square footage Tor the Wsttngap`arthte'nLini dingisolily4$744squaze % et; { poi`titlo search, or4&,733p`39i1) This, pEStp€+ sedprAjectanilatttlaily ,,increas�"¢. C -1T this egitaies to pmposed project being rougrly;l9a,�e �Idr$FR thanthe etttcLUtg apattrnent)gti_ktmg footprint: This doesnot take into-. rnideration current apartment is approxtmately27':and proposed ttnrts will betallet byan:average of atljtC.6K, 209"a 'Tliere s no ivay =MND Gan diann that thi P4 Cos; leas deose, will generate l t c or viiltie m anY way Uertefictal.to =our' corgh}u�i[y/fay�ePtzdnsproposed. - NM states project asgross, ioor iron of 57 06,with a':floor area-raiio of 7&, . ahr, -these caleuiatroas are incorrect 'Fiilife. [ot areais,approx 6g,397 square feet (oitg bldg, Permit I C =I p.408 appeirdtx D m MNDd ixiinentj which equates to 91 FAR. Again, the \'f1+ID >s factually . incorrect in its assertidnthat d would give more'open aria, wheatthe facts are cont-w-, to this. Page 1 -18 • The Planning Center I 1 1. Response to Comments 1 1 C -16 coriVd. C -19 43-20: Chi Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -19 �� -`Ibe mN4acoinbines.butb bolding 4nd parking of existing =apartment.and is iri sleadiag The floor area:is what should be referenced when discussing4br, visual open space. 'Reis projePt. will.significantly reduce the visual openspace area The current open parking space areas, not ' only allow a feeling of open space, theyactually haveample parking for tenants and their guests withoufthc need "for the 'tenants to'use the street.. This frees the street up, :to visitors wishing to use AbeYecreMional amenities and park atthe, wresrside of this : property that taxpayer dollars were spent.,to maintain for the public enjoyment. If thisrdevelopment is allowed to goa forth as ' presented;, it will be "giving this developer the park and.eoudsAhat belong toathe city. The massing: will give iheamprPSSionthat this is a private facility anti the lack of parking this developmenf.will:create Will.be iheYfuial straw. 33 AIR, QUA' LITY� I1MPACCSNVO'ULD;BESIGNIFICANT 1$e MND ideoimotl5' ".acs#'#Sthat unplomcrtatrcm.bfE6e project would resuh in.lowet ' dens-4 residergial land uses,tt�at, t,gytrerltly yXist on ste and emtssiorts frorri ?.conatructjoaand.. o,44ion`ofthe project would note teeed WGAWD #aesbdIds. MND states emissions would be a net reduction due to �an&,redustioninresMuntial'unim Tbe. MND fails:Io. anaLyze 41ie fndtpriru as approz'nr+ately 19% larger than eidstmg unit grid the square footage of building 1 ,goespfioiti 4$,�J�14 sq ft;W a developrueM anednipasamg 57 >9[)G.square Feet.. Nor ha$ the,Mj�TD factgred in-that the'existrttg apaitment 6uilding�has had a vac9tnG•y factor duringffim past-3earofat leatiKAWz!,ev ifyuuweretobase don Newport Heath average vaoartey one:bauld safely assume thaiat:arry grved silos rental un i% t art Conserva£nlely at L09b u'a y fate. 0''"oudA th_4s kvrth the;fad thatthe:ttraalotity ofunts (4(!) #hly,have ono tetµgf;- stldrefnaji} iag7�L44ttsat�'fQr'tivoadctl[s; 1lrereforz'tbonwrtbei".afpeople [ eSiding^ap. curserdispartn�N. -bui filing( IfW /arvac ncy,) avouid 'beappcoromately49msa:marnmum number ' gd residences with 12 four bedroom and lt"t}xee bedroom equates io 84 residents, or?l %more imp b"ntho engiioivtrert' I useil''ti@dYbouinuntitiets based dil; tbest pi¢seh atwn,. as UND .drawings are illegible tbi; iletalL'if esl: atldifibnsTiositl8iitsFrPm thus Projectwill rtuetaaiylje nsiag'..tnet;e�Irsp3uGe5; br*+* iI add {rrlblk� Wd;tltrs added volume would r Solt HL ' an srcrease mair poll itmr i adhich is'nat acknowledged m the MND. Itiepmirg.Aveiiue rs a euhda�sac atuiS4'tiQi3mv {Q eiiMpazadtoRiver (6b'} ;iii:ilnahle to Wil'a irafliaYUmtng az4nnd' iq. Rl ticc.] magi?"}.i.?atl. 3hrs pkojeeC rs'Srr e$t,mg,Plepturre as fie•:• allay to the mewdevelopmerd h4weper, Yhrs gtYeei^syas notdesigned to accommodate ilds and ' would aesult�.rs'ba&u,ps nftheaddiliormltralSe. Furtherihoso rigind,ingresstegm=(bnitiver) kMhd'aS Akkgsitewaa iii: order tiisdeiWOthrspWjectbyputtiiigsin .condos- wliene. cars ' haitlptBiGUUst�a�s3ed the site. tIn Mh the,pubho accessed 88aa}>•osz'tlrcouginihis aresadjaceat^;to 5408 Neptune, :4Appendix D' +map 3 .ihisxoute�was blockedto Through tmffic with the addition' of a,lbuce; likclyto�avoid a,preseripttve actrdli'hy the publk;.smea public.�had used this .aces for yea's. The MND has na# stu'�ied the hf:gaEr`rW4&pactdf rry+hg to iuinthe estabhstiedlleptune Avenue ' into analley, an4pgW! till9'vydgid;irtyT,a4t'txn'fl'ic.'Ch6, Xoshouldstpdytbo'attie " S 1 C -16 coriVd. C -19 43-20: Chi Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -19 �� 1. Response to Comments &ugges.ted.which is to utilize the current paAmIgAot/setback to accommodate;the:dey6lopments C-21 ingressfegress by requiring 0 be a road This would pig the problem that applicants me creating, baActc; a• more,equitahWsolution, The prejectres' presented puts the erdiMne&ive impacts onto the neighbors. MND states 42% of project w6ul0o paved, but doesn't - analyze type of pavement nor. ,mitigations. Will alley that accesses resident drivewaybe comprised of asphah?'fbese air quality C,22 impacts,arc not edequatelyanalyzed. Asphalt balch.ojants cmii.PM, carbon dioxide nritrous oxides, suffbioxides, carbon%monoxidc;�.volatfle organic:compoundsj methane and hazardous air pollutants. These impacts must be proVWystudiedidthe MND multben adequate nihigatimi. mwt Lit' meluded. NWD staies.thervwill be short- terrrr generaiton of air pqlhPm& during construction; primarily indluding exhaust from can5ttuchoo, dust from demo, and motor vehicle hipv., The CN23 MND,clairfis.cxemptiofi because SCAQMD h as4yet tooaahiish4egibna Leihi sgions. J� inadequate modeling s for A sit Oat.82jbei:*q poush- ci0n This s telit closeYthau $2 feet to at!umber of adjotnmgtesWenie and these figures are not. adequately studie d,,nor mitigations offerrd. in using URBEMISYttr7 modelinp, inputted.,assumptions for. the rrn&lruh is included in Appoddik 9, Appemdik�B is iistiedeg "amhawwg.icaj rebculi, Propedychas confmued asbestos and due W�q;g oftonstruction, lead* assumed;as welt NMD 'a, e tkd)40 canig*ffts and ban$- 0. ffhpactv. lio . was , . not studied adequately, kNi Long term impacts,= based ondautty—short of J"404 vehicle ",as use_, ilitY.: Mt b is WiaWthV Are no 8 hdrOWpi impAcU, VWrelbrc tWe ft ho long-term as, . the a Aktm2ht 61 ��W ft wto an idaaaso:iii fesideuts;,aila, ,p 0 ;Qr,m M cotmt� - e am GU CO &WO trgfficx 6Wd size ofhumo and roonis. IIW prqjed would a decrease In traffie, Coinbluctiou LSTs am not.bosed Wanyjx4dhik Plan, Vollie atnbtuti- oTti�stirirtied" °'soil. is uppew,that in �fbr Utilities W., Pouipliance, lit pollutants, old, place zuthowl E-11 A. gain Of C,27 Page 1-20 • The Planning Center April 2008 I 1 1. Response to Comments I I 11 I I trenching forutilities. This would be inaccurate, as each unit wined urider7gmunding of utilities, trenching for foundations dc.. C-27 GoWd Additionally phasingis a poor idea, a likely scenario is thatproject ends up sitting for =cb longer and the NIND has no mitigations to guarantee this won't happen, Them are .2 areas where emissions would exceed tbz. LSTs, RMI 0 and PM2. Mitigation xaeasurcgate they will bring down pollotams to. an ro,-Ice We 403 C-26 treasures need to be called out speci�jaaAy in the mifigation, and 1he table is'base.d.. onjnoorred assuraptior• Included below is excerpt Jkqrn the.Nqwlyart Beach draft f�jlk (5-22�()00.fi0FWthP; Environmental Quality Affairs report ,Ahat.addrossesthis URBMS modeliagj (sainennodol C-29 used in this,MT413) end the asskiatedtirablerns. `°r4c(nmends; 041'' Sri a'4c-C- heavy -duty ,die. 4e1 vqhig(es;.per &m accordanoe- with Cal forma ,fihidn oftah8 CEOA web&a The fihaiE the rekift qr S. eipeerAtrr in 'Y front Appge,4 B containrAir Qu C-30, modeqq war& 7.0 mthoisghpb andPAfx5 tg.�M,ramfitled"URBEMIS2002 rVind6 have beeh ted & potiotkidthe4b fky,dne not maht".. in the bagards, and WWO other passible analysts tools, thatWzM WidthZ04 In fhissame,Appen,*xB, the URBEMIS nwdwhnM. results are 22amfia 11m 6onfusi0g.and6 tra&" Comp6re'tkeresudPq,(F'e » z , dppendik$,.sheet;iFl (marked Om Pa #ie. .3 U3 juiez pp thWpages are id, pe gy . pzgnttiamed.tnpoundd¢ayjor summer hou'4 example, jmRDGTmtn 293 7.94 1b&Mqy4a,3J9.52 1bff/dcq4. and state how-the City can quen4ana, IYW :A li4Rboonat gpot , 0, A* W's) d*hM d' -P.. �M , an-P so d'Wha ixthsto'law, to the volduk 6 r,- -& 4 " -U , of the,k2E1LtP ft�o,,theffiwl should ax 4 rok IA? att*#� qTod's , _M W 1 should,be-Inchided Mf the fmalEWF� undersearing added, 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RFSONRCES,INADEQUATE aTUDYANALYMS IvfAID relies Q ilya.s -with 'MeTlanning,'Gernw. Data regaining 'biologibalmsources; on'the project site should have beeft4tW"4i;agli a literatiatc m0w fluttVduld ifiJbie 1 9 I I Seasbore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1-21 QQQ M 1. Response to Comments 1 project vicinity, and "applicable reference materials, with the objective of assessing and documentutgexisting conditions of the onsite biological.resourtes that may�not,bc immediately obvious WA rturely a site review.. Sensitive biological resources present, or potemiallyprescm, onsite should have first been identified and documented through a literature review using�the following resources: California Depommeatof Fish and Game (CDFG2007)i Califomia Natural. Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 2W7), and the CaliformaNative plant Society.(1'ibor- -2001 and CNPSE.120". A�biologicat assessment survey to document existing conditions and to determine potential :impactg to seas$rvi: biological Olatis should }rani included hbtes of bWegicai "resources, such as plant shd wildlife species,,on fielddata sheets that would aIS'o notate date, time and.coiidrtions ttoyes yvere taken.under. '171esedata sheets ate not included, The Cah forma :D'epartme .of Fish and Game (CDFG.) administera.thastate Endangered Species; Aot. The 5tatezilGabiamia' iottarders arr"atidahgered"species due whose'prospects oF' stwrval and reposdoclim,are in inimeduRe leopardy,;a." eateiieci" speoies:ts one Preserrt'rn sueh'smallAmmbers'throgghout its rangeoat it is likely t9 bccotne aa'.enAutgered specieA in the. near, A#W inthe;absence of special protection'or mattagemerd :anti a `iare*`,spxies'ts one. envirotmieitt Worsen9. "`,Rare" sptioies appbes tb'CaliformaatafiVe plantsc :State itaeatetiedanil. endangered species ate _frtlly pro$eCtail against,iake; as defured'.above. Species afSpeci$1, Concerti i .an pfo t(ral dcsi nati ati aged 6y El?$t3 #or solve doolming Wildlife species that are -not state candidates. ihls designation does not provide legal proledUon, but signifiesthatthese spccies;am recognized as'sensirwo- by�CDFG.and,no defemrmation.of'impacts• camadegpateiy'be assesaad by on bearsay. Beca6sethe Wfum tnity Is deal to wetlands and doriog_ A.nthO coidWhationt=fahs,tlie C15FC'is kequir'ed. The 0ald`dritia'"Nat'we A Socid9 (NP S) has developed'an idved cry ofdafifoEhi'a's' sAtsitive pleat specles.('Lrbor 20b`3) :1bisJdvehtoty suxanaddz¢s mfomlat'tort tbu the distri4nttott, caul ftdankertnerii•of % alifoxntu's yasentar vtants. Ttte inyentorvia divided itto,,four fists :4n,il* number . and concentrations arenf OSEI2007;}Aahitats CMDDB(2007), Holland (1'.,M) 5007), CNDDB (2007j. Sensitive plaid eoitaituntties"acciat' hob the vicinity 4.0 of:Newgort Ba9W iase'11 ouir a FmtedCii, 41:1 '11*0 aYe '10 6 -32 Cont'd 1 Page 1 -22 •The Planning Center Apri12008 I ' 1. Response to Comments 71 I I L� 1 1 LJ 'there also appear to be large trees, species and potential nesting of birds not addressed. MND states trees are classdiedas ` -small", however photographs suggest.ctherwise. No photos C633 are included in the MNI) classifyinE; Landscaping. Historical research photos (2004) illustrate three large palms. Page 41 of Appendix D you can also see the tops ofibe trees including one of the palms. MND appearsto.have: purposefully.omitted pictures that show the apartment in a positive light. Thia is qude. contrary to pictures "tbat 1 have: Further,. page 46 shows different trees behind the parking. Thts'ent re area beU'int? -the vrall;is landscaped. The project may violate'the city of Newport's4we ordinance as d fiils,to identify if the existing" "trees are covered by this,& I -G -3 poficy: N4wpbrt Beach- defines:fandaiarktrees based on size, age, and type.:Historical ph6tas,6f subject s'rte'U64 three extremely Iatgepihh trees that could quaUfy'bas�ed on srGe,agc yr species. #ioweve[' „the.ivfN]) has,ne docrtmerdaton presented, exeeptto state two srrl] ornamentaljtine trees exist on property This is amliigoous and clearly inaccurate based on photo firom 2004, and thereris.uastudy to confirrn if this would be.a uegatrve impact[ t6.the coritlnuiiitxta "remove rites fhitUave beeil�nith'e aontrrrimit5'since. 1972. Nrttgatton for emoval eftlie t'eees are pncertahi. The I�ND doss mat provide any �,� mrtfgation forthe Ipss:oftht maturepajttrtrees, TUe NND`must analyzm how twes.wordd be .replaced. MTI'IGATIOIYS ARE INLRliOp. 'TiI.1"'Pt] kR-RF,D. Tfte court 9l ve held it is a violationof CEQA t9 approve a ptpject°haaad oltay negative declaration without first resolving hew adverse in pwts-wrll be mrt ga ed, (Sgrldstrom y,.Cunnty of Mendoc pa.(1.9%8) 202 .CwM CaL App3d2961 The: courtsfonndthatthtdevelopment :aad. impiementation.ofmdigalion tneasdres after pmtteti;approval w4a§',h vta�lr4mt"af'ti:EQ21. (Id. At 308 -30 &, see also (36— tky, of Murrieta.(1995) 38 Ca1.Api e 133,0 139 &) (he de%rtat.'of' '�ari'tigation because "'Ihete cannot tngattlagful. He4tfjLtty$f argitiga ;etanegatrvedec,.kJFatwt 'whenthe mitigation measures�are noiset f ©rtU etRlre Struev €tUa projec$ approval�;(EhotEuro ,Gold mining Corp: v: C'aun(y, of.El Dora&,, - ;199$) 225 CaLApp.3d,% 8g4:j' Them aN a.train'Wof.rAigatiodIrWi cs for 175it44ia'lly Sig -AOU-44 cWthat, are mdagatelndly t y statelnettts that fuhrre plans: wotddtwYt4e tnt4tgattor wyh out specify ng iUe A. m4igation mcasuras or cequrrmgdUit the plans 6e submdteel pnortopraject approvaL 'this issuo as.tlu+n'iig6o+it tUeMND PG'tns heedto be LorYip'letCx] aisdsi rifted astpait 6fftht CEQAteviFNr prowess, arrdprtortii the approvals£ any aYtuliuiaitentdl;ieai6SVd�urtlel t. (FtrB.'Resouices'f oAs Section 21080(e).y MND states."I wilt ro;dde most landscape than�xisting and thiswill make it mom, pNasdtgthahtbe ezis[idg,bual Mg. iearise `fartdscapnriss doiibleA,'but w66ut a detailed plan, the mere cni�Crageroi"a0a' down t tttakk i tore atltractive. Tkeproje4t could be rert72+iisig;n7a`fiy 1. W& shrubs or i4trees only tQ"kIO..#4.*p then wiih small plahters, but ?ibat use.maie The rtnpad would be suhslvrtral and negative to have;the tnafu_le landscaping removed,. trees gtarrSgAa-a- 'dr to tha a- winoik.. 114 r, Wwoiiaae Spectal "frees shall bins iere arjovetridrng plobunia” hbor tiidtupstdpt'atioit for aO�temov§t 4f a Special zz Seasbore Village Response to Comments City ofNetuport Beacb • Page 1 -23 868 I - Response to Comments the General Soivides.Directiiiur designeoshall prepare a report identifying and implementing speciffe treatment to retain the tree(s). If specific. treatment at pTacticalift, retaining- a treje(s) thm:a full staff report shot] bearade to the Commission bcfbTe, any further action considering removal is taken- Prior to any removal of Special .Troe(s),jthe-C4, must empty with,the noticing provisions of theRemoval of C ity Trees section set forth in this Policy, unless a Special Tree is considered hazardo49 that necessitates an effiergenoy'renuiVAL Any such 'removal must be 'recommended by the General Se m-ces Director and the Risk Manager and approveil by the City Manager., Special Trees may be considered for removal under the provisions ofthi"getibn Provideif•S&Oial report by-the General Services; Director is,providoil'to-thu Commission P the appliqabion, aTrepImptetionReport shall be preparedbythetit 'sVTbaoForester Y, (Attachmi:dt.a) toAetermine ifthe tree(s),mects the criteriaumlined intheabove All Other'City Tiem section for d6in4krahoh-for rmniivA Sfifiultjfteougjy, the UrbanTonesterlhall Provide a notice 6ftf$pt0pqNdUe&removaJ-W the adjacent prooWylowner (ifft6t t1wapPlicant), the 'trees under Item C nor to,troes that meet the criteria of Item E 'Trees gewon), The Urlign IFOrq*cr Shall determine t % %hethor in Mks),W direction ofthe-tree " be ridtined aft Sermelg Director , ocadesigiiee, shall ) mmissiOu-'Miletift Rar;igmph 0. (dead,diseued,-,or 4vitut Or unique fz4ors vvbidh pay, be pertinent to the Commissionwill Manager: 12 am be the iontadt. Ma a Maintwo'cii S DwO4q-Q—r designee: m on either side, of-ithe '404 C-36 ConVil Page 1-24 • The Planning Center April 2008 I I 1 1 I. Response to Comments The General Sersnces Ddt ditmeat wdl,delaynny free ieimoYal(s) far, at least 14 calendar days following the date offhe S:gmmtssiori de¢tsion inorderioallowtimelire;General Services C -36 Departmentwill May any tree retnoval(s) for atleast 14 calendar days followingthedate ofthe (cont'd) Commission decision in order to allow time for a Councilmember or the City Managerto.call -the item, 3S CULTURAL MOMCES -- INSUFFICIENT STUI)V OF POTENTIAL I I CJ 1 r}owever, the tuinrngs are son �isco>c� �ttaeiotvglvalkesourc. suuveyzdforae [il€uralsrc�cources ,in d4i",;iir'pliaeoLapiCa'F Mazefinaetw, must survey is required' 13 G-37 1W Seasbore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beacb a Page 1 -25 �� IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS MND misrepresents the impbAaWe of'fgglinga from Archaeological-Oats. MN. Dstates mecords seareh-was condncted. -andmo awhaeological evidence on onnear the sifewas found Them, MND negleetedto statelltat the prior Aadie§":Iltat were done did not include this area therefore, they mem nb sitlsthatcpuld he totmrd d'they were never studied, Ofthee areasstudied including, 'within one +iynatter:mile, rcaords,pi' kfound a mininusm,of l archaeological sites withinone mile vfp5oj4C ' sites aremot "expected- to-extend into area. However, study further states .MND.states emlect that area and surrbyrildidg -properties we?e d$�otit the benefit of anhrchaeukyg u.41 inv4figation and therefnre 'nb data is availa7oYe to ascer+ain ate general ievetof seiuitivlty for siimddat`resoury tots prgsertt, The 'loq'yj(;oadludcs, be,Nfwpoit C4?sraIarpAjs generallyconsidewdsensitive for prehistoric - archaeological resoiseea and should be considered anader4ely,scnsit ve for both:Listwic and prehistoric archacologiealres<oucces. I I CJ 1 r}owever, the tuinrngs are son �isco>c� �ttaeiotvglvalkesourc. suuveyzdforae [il€uralsrc�cources ,in d4i",;iir'pliaeoLapiCa'F Mazefinaetw, must survey is required' 13 G-37 1W Seasbore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beacb a Page 1 -25 �� I 1. Response to Comments I dctctruinc whet(w previously unrecorded qahuM resources are .present Study. consultard.p6rIbrnred scamh but did not state whether a survey would be required. T-h6NAHC:A&0 recammends that project applicant cordact the Native American. Heritage coirvniagion for a Sacred Lauds file search of the project. MND study shows no evidence of contact or results of this reconun§addion. I contacted the Native American Heritage Ckumission and confi med that the project site ,is,in close proximity to previously discovered prehistoric burial,sites and is believed to hold nuwn"Om Native ArncricaO cultu.-ral resources. They suggest early consultation %Witb*akiMc AmIrIcoAttt16cs in thepreg a&ftbeq.-way.tq aVqid unanticipateddi q VO4 es once r cj ec(is uodqrway; They aJsoaWq,*t'*k--qf su—fqoq crogoog of *he,*9ic4I Fes * ources, does not preclude the existmco.of archeological� Le ources:. ad agenciesshouldconsider avoidwee, as defined inSection-15370, of the, is Environmental Q4&lfty' Act ,(CEQA) when significaxit cultural resourceacendA be affected by aproje4t. The ekisting p" area ouncutly in.ft setbadic of 6Q.', if used. as 16 driVevva),,., as it presently is used ing "Win f da lon. -aoul4 help tp.nudigste the im the oma" orfow f , impacts by avoiding 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 4INSUFFICfFNT STUDY OF POTENTUL IMPACTS AND MyrIGPITIONS UNI) states EGA wnsuiWtspm=iW.aniu eStig*tjoni&kWedioAppehdmB. This U Wrosao Asstated--iaMuoijew v,-BbudofDiredarsofthe,Wd-P.Oninmia noise, zones wirrof these 14 Will. C118 Cont'd CAA I Page 1-26 • The Planning Center April 2008 I 1. Response to Comments ,EGA completed .apreliminary investigation. They requested gradingandfounda0an plan C41 be reviewed and approved prior to coustruction. There is no mention of the: appendix Q in their Contract or study and may not be site s pecifif.o. Them is also an issue for inadequate drainage ranoff cou d in ies 042 as water tab) , a .1 . V.jad surrounding propert is found.at 6'-8" below grade. There is no grading/specific drainage plan to determine depth and disturbance of.sdiL Soil records also show water. table at 1' below sm on records Ph,e* for area soils. I 3.7'HAMf"fJ$ MAT.EMLS Study fbundIA-7. of-.44�sampus it�sting7positi.ve.f6nasbcAos N6,Jead'ba: tested for: 1472 ivas,;airrmg,timowhBn leadx�i"ss cnntrrtonLy found m,paiM:. S PrIor'lo p4# survey to W perlbinnod: ."Wng 6*0 n-t*iwuAOftwWe sfoy!: New developmenitcould 'uncover,pr.o.AioWlyundisroseredsoil.coiftaiinaz;.,.nw?wcUm �x�.egblf ifilhe.telease of potential contaromants "-inivy be pftseht iniwaibguhateriais4(6.g. �dtcfld, read, etc.). Ais could fegult at a not ,tested lot's andAts defetTed, retold and a40 ioijo were niA gdke4*d- Most aw4wo-zatiouid be anayzea-in, lio,ofrtp T,osponsk Bleats up, and perinaliaimitures *ft Wit 'OiqaaAd e.Ob -ityastbef ots, ,W, r ja ul� roemenk *0 by the C act less•thansignificA& 3,.8'HYDROL(IG-YtWAT,ER,Q,UAIXrY IMPAUrS WOULDSE SIGNMCANT they sf: long-tami,operatimi and iminteminge iBMN� Seasbore Village Response to Comments 13 rt,;Y;lwdosariFios'Utat by Maoce" however definedadequidelyiisr 4 individual inVes(kift at-wWlbe reVousible Tot and doesmpj dOmIWflw-O Q,A3 C-44 City of Newport Beewb • Page 1 -27 WARWA %W#%j I 1. Response to Comments I - SeclJobVI is entirely missing, as welLas language either entitled or accentuated by.useed colorO.markor. Page 10 is bhuil-, Page I I checks box for oommonwt4landscapic management as both "included" and "N/A-. States "NfX'regarding a spill contingency: plan based on "Small SFD developmenf, (sic). Plan isdriad e quate as it.states commentarea litter control is N/Aus'"compron areas I . miniindtand maintained by individual home - owners". There is guest parking, alley way and paved*Awitys that am privateAnd:shaed,by-,t6ldoyetop=nt: They' chaf&'to d4li ormaintain these areas, nor 46.&Y state who will heraponsible.for street swepping of parking lots Or mid -that would be used for the intenance,of brokeui irrigation syst trees-th4--haw:depicted imartist rendering:of propose&development. Ibese trees will require -pesticides, fertilization and watering; far greater than zeroscape plantings. The application is inAdb4OW in that it ddes� not state who Will provide co r r I iateivcatdh it 69 marked both included and %,V� under Uniform tire code implementat I im. PIsif shoU14,also consider sar4filtraiiao priorid release of trvatodwaterinto storm -dragn if iridividualp"Polatibn would be inadequawduring heavy rains, considering the high waier-table in Newport Y=h. .Plamdoes, not address actions for the conkructioriThase thatshouid include how ilerridlit6d debris is 6-0 I'll & licise .4 9 or stored, bdVW6(tArarisp0rIud aria does not ificludIC grading And drainage plans io.prewrit"ftPooding of'other propfw�ties. Des . tgrricibjectives that neM to be :AA"s94 Would include. Ml surface runolr-anda sm e74rainag&, being dirp�ted.tq the nearest acceptable drainage facility; via sump -pumps if necessary, as determined by-the wilding Officiat,Drains cannot discharge antonieighborinn- monertiec all roof drams 4h.Tl hoxpmtim&to te-sWaks-thal, drain to the nearest limAseap&.p1dris that would Wliz C-44 Cont'd PI" appear -tv show draintreoclihi front of 344 Neptune Averity;; jostgatl "5 'pMe4,Itran&&mwt&mahftan anc e to the Ay. y go diriid ; inlo,the groitfidlut.ficit ceded cenk `Drama_ge appears to be designedto WriciontAnAit. 2.9 16.16cidW n, s b e, Wc,.- Nflutat a ecutcof iu% -s bb 61d'he iuldre saza -dm to. the, UW, 'table, of to�gajnr )Oor, New pro7eat twill exaGesbate watir.tik and faiot'th6bby mict-ea-sugpo'llixtiom Cnrr fit. silt .arkirt ds+raniiiave access wwa-66 cars at the jitemiaes, E)ddft-Iaud§d aping u;, numerous residerits washingftircsusintheirdriveways�, residents hosing off r. I In 04W I olus gurflieea", afficreas" pollutltii lit the "rurto ,P"kiPM pq t6kM spri"ilteads are' AftlefrVoOlUelyto go Wtattendedto, hisalsp moh �more likelyAntpach individualunit will fyhqsksto,shQWcrrr -i9r in We their sum ffp Ovam -g, ,mwbGmes,;causing-acontinual ff,.ofwater. The.]VINDclaimthat the new project wiltresult, :iii ifibafteot asthebe will be an increase in walernsago, Increaseswillbe is C-46 I I I I I I I I I 11 I 11 I I I I Page 1-28 • The Planning Center Apri12008 I I r— L 1. Response to Comments priin4rily ifithe impervious areas due to hosing . off and washing,dfcm§. Ilenris ftq a r un mg residences. Ibis potential of flooding neighbors if grading i$ :WNyard.surro di 1 enCe& , u C that has flooded sign��Vmtly. if run &'Is prj,. baok into thegmund, relying ons, fiftering system, =ntid this could over saturate the grounds and potentially impact surrounding.properties as well There is also no discussion of the Clem Water- Act that woulflimit, the.amount of runoff or limit the percentage of increase .a project generates onthemurturtofrunoff R9 LAND UNFRHYSIACALLY'DWIOR AjN OTABLISR910k COMMIWr" I I v*00 I I I I coup wh The issue tliaG�tt�eds tope addresseiljstb:. is alptffilic remurce and�.ery 'JU44 he 4ernaiwea bas C47 ISeasbore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beacb • Page 1 -29 The introduction ofsucha.der�s massing ufhomes maymate a distinct community Whereby rehabficifitiesicould prolifurale,'The potential is akeady.�.od and there,is nothing that the city Wdd-j6 beaWe 45:fiidM"Ay 0[%rned condos, each txsrdemhj unit could bduse'O �oiyjnem is-listed as a teumijintbeaxi�iog h-gitding, -, 'have shownthmbut they only show upio'2002. could dravt, thit someone who dais hab homes in Nowpoh-Belub, yet decides to UC64-14AItehavd. 660 po$gibly % part of thisirl �— geov. Thoki - 9 suggest-that OrMP19 ISA;Oyp,eft'g itt"Al Orvikim, 4 this rnomoot, Tuicame, areas.Gatl`entr it hxvq beerrredexelop�t imd taken, verby rahqb T�mi(lt�S This poteutial outcome maybe inAe fmm:,&rWe&t Newport: D.cW&W* of1his Site and additibW d:v Itto lo go qbcamot o appearanow.ftt-the, par" part ofAheir-o.%m privatezrmuumnityy'.,'The WD-fails-to addreswthat, are 449 the gunzqt sJ10 has only o*,0,Mdios, (A thinty-tw4-one- we I I v*00 I I I I coup wh The issue tliaG�tt�eds tope addresseiljstb:. is alptffilic remurce and�.ery 'JU44 he 4ernaiwea bas C47 ISeasbore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beacb • Page 1 -29 I 1. Response to Comments , MND inaomectly describes the floor area Ratio forsaid project m .78 FAR- It is miscalculated, the proposed project is 57,906 square feet •viiih the lot sire 53,597, andiheactual. FAR,ie.:91. Lot size is, also inoorrectly stated m p"ofthe. MND as 1.49 "(prop. description 3.0), it is actually 1.46 and MND eonsultant/MeKenna documents stdcdthiseorrectlyrin their study (Exhort- y. However, where the description should be absolutely correct, the MND is inaccurate. M14D also, ncorrectly stated 6n the same page, under the property description of existing apartment building.square footage, wherein 9 infrared the s4uare'footage- to.54,895. The aetuol square faotage:ofexisting building, confirmed by pdginal buildingpennft•and county recorder is.'48,744 with :a floor area-rafm of,76. MND also appears to be try ave' ing to h apsttmefit building appear, it The w6rst light possible: MND, again under propetry descripii6w(3 2 of 466 page envuon nemal assessment report) states. estimated A of property covered by buildings and/or pavement at 97 %. 'I9Tere is no reasonto combine the. two except-to imply'that the existing - structure is massive.and envelopes near": the entire ro eft . At.the.lieach Y _ 'p ,P Y aPartm parking ii9uatestog hatter stairdafdof living. 77ris was one oitli$ reasons that the ant build clan such a ooduteighbot UND,appears to continually ignore major negative Unpacts, or spies des' V4o-As to itrOy;some,Ming outer tliarr thereat facts suggest. The bwtding mass o£ existing apartm d is considerably less. (,76FAR to. proposed 91FAR } A tother interesting MND oiffission ll at'n as }ustrevealed (aYaitafile 3 17.69)'is tiq page: 750 2 emit jqJ "Exlubn 2Lpruj plans . Apparently someone did fA narice ofmy cstvp)aints for thg pasttwo years on;this project and tllustt4eii44hat SA08TFepttme does - in'fset. 'have an:oceao vkw:andhhey were aware of iL However, this map fliat shows the view, corridor is mot addressed no, mhjidibk no disgirsston, pentad Tbe, 2Md akn -f6r thei past tvi& Y, e'sis has ignorttiil.'Mt '.aYfempt to focrripromise Araddre ss ne igh y W baits GQileelps. There titaYn @YOr air atte to mitigat rho m§ny' 9sges'whim fitte has been two years d!?tYUB ihrs PbA)•;ess wberp applicagt .could have changedAhe siting- md;reduced'1h6Iensify, tie M� oonsidertlie parkspape; was a goal; a4 well aa'sidewallis �erEainly, allowjrrganyfftigg' el4ge.ta cadion ihrsproject rs asking:.furis eomraryta'Fha city ?s hest irrteresfs, Photos aheadys Il %6. apartrrierit.looks m dGMrastto tau other.hoiW hht becmrse oftfle 1 11 geuerwis sett rtis: muotf less ubvwusiand obtrusive, ;;e; isii'1 the new pmapt wdl bAvei llo'kevyr; if out puts'tli s,,nas~ ire grouft -, feo QS tagetiitir „t k differeritisl�)l4fl it3 Abyiow .. SikD,;CNeptl ne,, which s oil A double kit, . isles§ than:20' in hetght:andwill W loft fieaklydotible' Ai he gltY 1i a $easlro c. building &Igo appears Yo)t �ppmxinfdl samC height as SIIpB�atd will also suffer the sartie.drspro poifiolate fel0tc'Cui§ project m w golppJ,cW lack. of;prrvacy, Sbadawg will be east ewer fhe'patios aad aesthetits'w t M CSQ C-51 C-112: CAS I I 1 1 1 I Page 1 -30 •The Planning Center Apri12008 , `1 I 1 I 1 1 11 1 7 J [1 1. Response to Comments ➢ocunW tts on the Agenda and part:of"the MNI) were not released =,:"-7,=- h 17 boeumonts/Plans for pro)ectare illegibLe as far as detal detemunmg dimen on:floor p l C -54 However d appeals one model could easily convertto add an addnwnal,bedroom. ?here are no conditions to Z,7t enumberofbedroorrrs Thenumberofrooms does in laut havea.defmite impact on quality aflrfe and dens cation of this area:and.needs. analysis. Ihwe':been'told'ihe apartment building was at onetime 30 -40°!o vacant, even asstumaga lW - vacancy rate you have very-fm occupants that live there bas -&,on the preponderance of one- bedroorn units, Apadment area is wdti. ely,quiet and they have always had ample parking to accommodate all the teriauts and their guostswithm ..[kie.eonfines�oftheir site. Th-%has C -55 allowed the publican 'neighbors to enja' %.fl a park attAittte'pu$lic lie'acli. "the MND muits references to tlienurit'lrar a"F;eR%s'IgYg'Parkidg spaces, these %re.inadcquato analys` is derived.. IvM -is statmgihere,will be Less simpacts:basedon alommla .icki.1 s isextroble N.ariable,. A stud, should eomparethe, likely nom ba ed+ mlm6er'i ftyadrdzlvts. The study also rscods to- address the 4 Ncwpoxt.11tzch. Krunarll th(aar�alvi�.de moreaeena rsur,*It of`tfiisa're'atnt}mlage.g(oup, A0iod 'corcelatron- 4ps($&etweegmu :oftenauts and mrmber of ear. It has A,o been rumored dad there isaheady a tehab griit(s) �yere'tNe, tS cormraryto'tt'e reoerdedan@ssagetlwt status vi al bkom� !mstmake&20 PerYar anda ea- signers arc . 'then one vnvd wonder why wrehab owner is.7isted;as a4enaut. It is'ab CITE) Srig; areao£' C -56 ularAy WOW wait dfIbis d n is not true, it inucder,&r snii'vner'%iftital4. T are arg przSe seBera 1Aa six t4a44 �vi1! f#tl ale dlvrdo this cmmgrmrjty 4f th,'A Wes becomes a prirnar p:a vehab area .Tire.M�dffors no mifigatrons ta:protect the eommun ty. C�7 TPr# saate:.oiengal exists for'ihisgx5ipos4 deuel3pment PurtF er thft appoarato Lie it SnEed x(ik G� s'atid a hdmao.(vne[ ass driulohW,.Aahg * ii,md ooldt17l.2hL5 aYea,, luJkT)T &u8gest5 gems: #1 sly, AIIf3 iaasially skates lllewtTl try na »fse mcharge olglu$;p; moron C-58 areas A th*11m indrviduaf•willbe responsible forthe r awmarea i7ris will clearly ^e1eaie' sight €eanY °siipttst§ lltat "Isave.nnt been a3die "sisal d15a'tely. SeaJhore Village Rerporne to Comments City of Newport Beath • Page 1 -31 �� I 1. Response to Comments I '17 a following is an, articlethat appeared in the Boston Banner an 1211312007. bttgsl/. wiu.baystatebannu. cony / issuesi 2967 612773/aews/loca112130111.htm `Sobeir houses' under 1'eg4l,review by city III' BYKENNETHJ. COOPER The Rmf6ury4emelopinent that hasbecome Safe Haven Saber Houses started quietly enough a decade ago when a one man: real estate conipany based in Hull bought an undewlopedparcel an the eastern Joni of-Fort Hill. That was about the last quiet moment The ongoing saga has seen the protect -shiftfiont ,iihkie-faknil_p'toiWhoitses f6F sale tomultiple occYipdY Gybe Fooms far weekly riifif sober houses wo,v',toetVcj22 nto&W rownPiovsO on 'T'he :courts have fieen pt. busy 0A lawsu4 byal -;;,i%,ppcaIsqnd a erim o tifiron that pros r the" -ious.nowpursuing against Safe H en!yojwajars. on chargesofconver?Tng garages and basements into bedrooms - without building permita 'neperinits.the, 'developers 444hve wren issued t92003 an 001uzhandas, order fron; fft StateBuflaung Code App, e als I? oo rd P�fte r 140 Boston "W*P- aw I A urbor, ly. sot ov: the eppiteoug no I Afbmr rhan IwIenanisr1o'c'o-yarz .... ji-gfrknn' st bstaitceabi sa=lve rh 11 a 12 krwnlunlsa an *Whingron, Athiper and Ouild M&et3,. Si a Ravenna attim a recent counjUing. CM, :}pother vonvemis?ihe:qualiiy of mrWwsz UrW &WS09 Dianne WUWrsoHiMd sai(Map QlQno 8Y M ?VciMd a Wafty of f concerns: fetal ant shA residwiW ' p%m ab*k-'awpy, se»aussex nlendersnmongthe tenants and, 44W44 W4KluP tehalor -,-Skiu keep reAidentspii,track 0**M-1-9 Bwaug moddriot h=- asara not fidepv UY, 4 ofiowrfton t AqvVjpyt of s(M a0dfqderat kftivVch define recqvernqg=,Wqkm rltiusers as4%AW 26 0-59 I Page 1-32 • The Planning Center April 2008 1 r I I [] 11 n AO,: 1. Response to Comments Some sober houses in other states, reacting to bad publicity or proposed regulation: have banded.together to impase:gualtiystandards on themselves. Caliiftnia has twa.such groups:: the,Sober Living Network, based in Santa Monica, and the sratewtde�iaeitefornia Association ofAddtca'on Recovery Resources (CAARR) in Sacramento. The Banner asked the directors ofboth organiTnaor[ci and D'ouglgs Poking a notional expert on sober houses, about the concerns'.cited about SafeBove. Though they disagreed: an some points, all three characterized mm gfrhose c."diicerns as worrisohe . and inconsistent witho well - managed sober house. OVerdOs2Q Sgt. Brute Smith, a coTmk? €ty serylces o�cer witA!the BostRn Police xlepari vent's Area B station, said aNeast three fatdF overdoses have'aceurmV at Safe Haven:, Told aiHeastthreefdtakaverdoses have occurred'aESgf Haven;, whickopenedlastyear. Fokin groanffid and muherad "No, no.." Ken Sc ttfii4k, dire `eYOrop'fhe.SoberLFvinzNetwork "said. "it h'appen's, bur,vaitldeetali onlyona�aral'ovradoseoir (hepremtsefof its .?i0irtelnber hoii'ser, (Undersboi�:.aildeBl.. ex sts,for this proposed dav'C,loptuett4 ytx t} er, there "pears to W A This ll olcarlyereate 1' :; EX(STIt�'G)• zYNb tfSEtfitE-5CRY1 O-X INADEQUATE: G-59 eom'd Dcfines curr at access via two driveways on Riveri but states access to and from `tSeashcFe Street and Neptune AWrite is black ld by a waodcnfence ", 6plyUdg; "ejouci u N4&fie Aveia%. Fact'Ttlet'� -liar II C'QO .It ve�bked and ae :s:from 3ri...... - -- tb ortFitea>gli Sleo4uYte Aversue: Thesigni$ can is thatthisprojeetproposal :is- attemptingta-- lustNeptune:• Avenue,ffornacul3e -sac: into an. la ley " .giNcptuneas the primaryaccess to al nfits units kfe While, app5cantas requesting e�61 td ttseoAe,o'fthetwu:exrstnfe drveways on ki'der as thefr iriyi€ r+nvate driver�uAd'fdtrtlte stile henetA`:of onlym!ot°tfieirTfoposed condos:. FWM rer Avenue driveways for the benefit ofjust -ow ofthe dxistirig fio'itteowgeis, ApPmatit t�zstteiGjitipg to ' J aYi+ vauW YRMl. $ 9�44Y19A us;4e give our *et oyer tothe,davctoperq,to, furtho econalme loss: Thyre':s uovalidroaapnilieycsitnot mgresskgress. ThMspurelytummirnae- theirpro ' physiealcotstraiuts that would. make thisinfeasible, profdable mvestmetd..opporiunity fot u5fix'sto[g. Ile Code and to maint:i ifie cupitrmnity vKen and stab 23 There are no Searbore Village Response to Comments City of NeitPort Beach *Page 1 -33 �� 1. Response to Comments While the apartment buildhig,origmaIlyhad open access to Seashore Drive from an opening to tlu sheet from the apw mint parking at'ea, Neptune Avenuetie :er was accessible: 77re apartuienl owner put up, a C-62 fence years�ago to discourage the public from walking throug4the complex to aecess•the beach and to 'Coot' stop public from wing.this-aecess mad and parkmgnn.their guest parking spots. d Neptune however, has never been open for 'through = traffic: or pedestrian access to tho �apaArnertt iildg. - Neptune has always had a permracgblockade.ereucted by the city, as well as postmgs,of`to parking" 1. signs. Neptune has alwaysihad terminus,at 5406 Neolune Ave. Seashore on- the:otherhand:was used at onetime to..acoess the_beach and Verified through maps Sound in the MND,, mentimied-previously. ve 1?e'en studied and presented areabsPrd Attobvious mitigatiVri yyoutd beto� wA7e maintaining apor(iorr ofIhe'open space of the current... otprint. Nay, onRivw,Ayerruo and contmuine .;ihis.dtirectlyEthrouRjr;to� Seashore Aveuue Coastal eolianistion edoourages'public ned inwagahey: S have.-twmarous issues will iis: "ad jaceni.vMy horn had.a standard . o$'etkdthu:as�a,coi6Proiiiise, as'l would'spll'. up;any'pmperties, binformed them:tliis would C.63: and floe didn=l conem8te C64 'a or wtll sigp'.a lenotfhat; 'Tis mitigation Xhave'miAgested ns a compromise:Yhaf would :not':only solve marry; issues, it would aA u" ybeneftihelookof rthedevelopmentasadefined,wo iiiy?lacngthis huge blockofialkr cdnidds!.$f3hvned ne8pto older iNiplexes deas nqf fit m 4rdirthe character df'Uis•copuSiunHy However; C'§?; an approptipta approa.ia 4 found of the Kajaoeut Lido Sands gorimunRy This colt rr undY':serves as an ex$aellept eaariytle °P -g'gi� -long enpimunr alsingle family tigAtes,'iitat,agetiecutedly tl,ffereut ari_d defaced- it'jisown small grouping, butdia1 epiogwith U ecornnonity .aesthetics:: sal . inadpMoki, neX:r.deVeloprnatlt would bean ceepSng WIIh3tjfetratisinoria 'Lehange's one expenYs, Whentratisitionmgto differerd typesbr sfyles g`.housmg. ,An;incfus�nkF,ltgvY streeJ;iy9iild:appeal aesth@t>eally as 6 would give t'Ite diglarice neadsrl!t,4 accolfltnotQe akin design style4• : :Dur- cpnrmaniCy and`the developmeutwould be better :served- withtitiis• approach Ud pi'dposed -dwdlopei At tl iWAP< 22 88% at be scaled Page 1 -34 • The Planning Center Apri12008 I 1 1. Response to Comments I I I L. I I I I I I I I I I I I SAVETV.: Public dedication of right ofwayshould be required due to the inipact on the area River Avenuejs:6W geometric and clearly able to handle larger Volume oftraQic.as #.is wider and does not intmect with pass through traffic.:Neptune isia,30' geometric that' , always at 40 has yshadtomomus 5 8 Neptune. Itisreasmableto assume a serious: negative impactwould.result during any emergency requiring immediateevacuation, asthere is the potential of:100ormore cars from-this new development that would,be attempting to Access out from the naarnwer Neptune Avenue. Neptune Ave. currently has sidewalk and on ,.meet parking, #q*r narrowing this road. Inability to adequately turn vehicles: around.will prove to be asak y trap during an emergency. Current ;ctdvewayaccessonRiv&AwiiuctWwoulaexteixda�!�shsa. new strea',tu Seashore is'the appropriate, . safe,ahernative that should have been studied.,flomesettected mi'Neptune cutwerdly fare tow4ftheocean, trashTiclatp is-on River Avenue. project propo&A�wpruldlaave trash'irpeU traversing through Neom, Avenue, as itwould beoqme the oalloy :for both sidles QfOqir development, There al,Tears,to be no area in 1be-MND that-shows where urifts would store all of-the "heans. Sotatuy trash,x6deptacks to ,accommodate 4ojnaily ift6.0fidos could creatcA h", and iiirtboriiig of rodents arid imects. 'Adroare nkmifigdti6ns for asgur* propMy Ownets k0l clean this socil"', f, t 190,9 -hem ad C-66 C'-67 Neptune,is -a.aity street. The city is responsible for street. sweeping. 7becity cannot legally 'swee C-60, thisdevelopment and1beT&rQ, the citailinds:Of Their "alli v-,porliae is, C I &VOCIO&W, upft'them-Oleafilng Ofis, themsel,�es., lboy mt.the city v Omer to upona Private driveway There are cballengestothe street effectively into analley, with flieisuggested -road from River straii&-toSeashore is pwback,, 'the alleylbat,A�is.and:grantan oasemerkifortrashpictup only. -6m6f9eocy yewles Oil 30eWAS allowing for to beaelathat recurs at an -43 luu*-owrieft for hasaft of 0-0, 20 M Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Ntwport Beach • Page 1 -35 1. Response to Comments even purchased the property to date. Orange County fire authority bas not addressed the ,adequacy of Cw t ingress /egress into a pnVate driveway that has overbanging structure, etc. if they intend:to use the Cont'd existing fire, hydrant, this too would be inadequate. teased on location. 82. 2 SURROUNDINGLAND. USE: DESCRIPTION INADEQUATE Rpphca[rtstates:. "sire is surrounded by msidersiol uses, such ks "'vacarion renral un£rs`' ro:the . north, sortih, untt east and a wry park to ;rhe west'.. This would give one the impression this 'area is G_70 primarilya, "weeklyrentalareP. Instead,this isprimarily, owner occupied: oryearlyrental units in the - area. C k eut apartment bldg is the:nia}or'soaireofaoirtaCs fate is area, allowing.for affordable housing to the residents of NeWport ,Beack. TheW"cirypork< ro the west' is directly adjapentto the existing ,site, Iftbisoverly:de.aseproje.pt meeeds:as presented, it. will effective! be atakin ofc8 arks ace as they arance andnnarkefin G =7I P lx Y. g Y P P � appe g', ofpropet[y^will bo to tbesole lienett3ofthese holy :condos: Coliently,, many resdents" sitid ursiidrshave aca`ess;t'o;tt a park'.t>ccause ofthe aparttrrera buititing's adequate, parking for'.it9pwu`residehts,lw to .allows f4 p arir prmariAy a gtt p serves justune tenantper unity2hey b"ave,.always had adequate "on site ",parl<igg The park' rug lofris . ;never full and addsfo the city's open space through. its�current.fontpriot. Ifapplrcaat:; s :allowed to'have3hisoverly -.dense projeetwith mcouvenkirttandem oarkinety at�ointltodate rrurrtermts add'gionat bedtogms, fwhich correlates to addit or alresi lent;s then t;js rgascpAletbat those AddRaoual residona will housing Riyer Avenue to parkin front of then units, This . wild aff6etively, discourage visitor use -ofthe city park because this will creme: madequate:parkingito aset'z?Iactiris�iteed'. Nolier, the ppblfp P4.0ug lgtor< Semboso,. W ch w intended for public the, parkandbeachwrtlbefurtherbr 'dened byV addi'tiaualneeEi6rparking thattheadditional residents 0.7-2 would requite Again witheachadditional bedroom that increasesthe numberofresideneea,# also utcroaw ;*dlikelihoodothumerorrs;guesuiii "yell +'kpFiicantlie.,s Preserted,UlaktaY imend to marlmt units for 3:3'm'illary wait this ppue''lag,: :(oonrpleteljumealrstiq, -the bkehhoodtbat investor$ swRneed to turnto weeldy rernals wsober>Yi ft, buttes 1 "..fiarchm4re7rketysaenar'iu.. This" iFillfGcthetlrurdeut] i8citydflJewportBeaelr'Widitlic. 4dehiW itivdlpdace on paAdti&zs:wellaa the'o"dldrpolicz and enforcement tteerls :ItatwAlbe fequtrer1. ,A ft a Mark itjgl(fitshymg group cartvassff� )4grdsnts'concoma, it app A&,plan had been specifically tarlored-to give "- opth%aw#hakfhe;PRteam'feN: ieaiderif4': roncerrrs, I vuastold Ykis" aysli utrctease pri ?pertjr Values and willget' i Avaraf ho'rneo'wnera, Thi§ is not based on fads, t:had:alsa beentofrl 4 would :noibe numesom falsehoods I was;7uld,became Z4, i vory t,coannc* further c.ra Page 1 -36 • The Planning Center April 2008 ' 1. Response to Comments I ' CEQA demands public involvement, yet this "public aoutreach" by PR lobbying tirms, serves to "inform" C.73 discourage the intent of CEQA, through attempts Iq residems that most likely won't feel it Cone ne €essaryto read the full documentation presented to the city on the project: If I.fch this was a po¢R v for our•community and-for the nearby residents„ I would be in;favor, but as presented;, I am adamantly opposed I believe this is a potential nightmare,in4he making. This project is too deme,and:comes at the expense of nearby homeowners and tenants,: who the city sbould, be looking to protect. 3 1) NOISE IMPACTS WILL HAVE SUBSTANTIi1L IMPACTS' MND claim impact would be less tharr sngxrificam because the project generated. notise,during the operations;phase of the project would be from project generated traffic (mobile'- C•74. scares nose) and on dt: operations. They, sta e.- ,, project woub. re'suh in. ne. reductYOn. 6f ' trips; 4herefore, level;is redwed,vo insigmScance because it would result in a decrease in traffic nose. Thisis incorrect Fhrt,' the: daily trips are.based'an highly. variable study,, secondly,zthese are not cars, and these are e`ghteen wgheeleis,.'t.ucks, larg ,cquipment and power tools. One ' eighteen`wheeler filer, FfllW Li Ylie a urvaledt'to the nelse "enerated,&oin - , ,. Noise impacts wdl bomcreaseddue.o +, homeowners use'afgardening.equipment, such as'. Lawnmowers is, addnronalcazs diiectLy a¢Jacent to the froMofpurbuilding f;om.he I ' access using Neptime.as the proJects alley 5408 Neptune will +,not only ba affected by one side ofstreet vrtklaeeess- io,'iheu gaYgg ,but ltodi sides.ofYbe stic'et wilIacctss garages through C_76 .Neptune "Alley Trulttruckswiq,spill their oliaust and the addifional,nose from 24 I adddio'nZl stgps QtarOntly trash is v". uI?"on onlythk west safe of propoty. ' G*mrent aparfrrrant bldg uses;rw•reg�larigandener, no;lawnmowens o¢ leaf- blowees: MND. do'; it i a3dressY+estrictrolls ortltrr %gahov&Yar'prn)eGts ce?:ujtrngiq eaSC iiffiddRwnril Boise felt C-77 Cresitleiitsduetopr4ijeckpmxflni€ yitiexrs SWlgtWd. 8iug3and�utEraaseofaJddtottalnoiyB 'b} n'so.rfe s e s ' ti ehtlieh7ve seuxoirg ns,t, wl. s�Yia:p4neiorcepaYmleLy t'r;e3gda..b1.o9uhst, l•y er nert 3 twaid a ka s yi':SIhbbaeis t r t nr l+. eece gdiQuig u R1p'dmrm,tJlacriaSod trahn„fe r0.OdamcS eovgaa aayidaiirdld?'dssotoe,tnthbae7 atltnde'thiasap'yta'a sm se : ixs ivi s peace ulness o£theiie ghGerlCooil. ' Liuveut sdE has sfna[I(balc,4ures iypi ll)^vWy. srJAtJ ltrid "theyalet!'t LazSF enoi!'$LI: CM, entertaining. ProJeci�ill have ground floor patios {hat will encourage much larger gatherings anfl mdremorsC The gtraldy of Irfe::forahe�aurxriUndmguer 7itiars will be iivpaeted Ta VuWafiM the im ai.3 sGztch auk your aro5s $'4trXatdetto iidn, - tw VAILke the a'ereniv bet en buildings. T*"(joflsntadikessthatthinis leitheV ?sEOnforR"ottBeachwiton given an, %Wppc?rt4u. iY tq•havoaimore Nest tie- deve)oplgpStt Inillk ind . %onstrwetroffinorsewoultleiceeddb Is vrbretibneto Theexc=tvcw6and ' vibtaltt n Will! exeoed galiBards, bvt an eke MPYtofi tsc'fa 4Yed based ntt crty standards Htiwevo , nearby hcwroogq oas,,v lR be unable to rent iheir!ihilts'f4k atainimnin ufLvto wan di gio the uoLtstiuei on more, dirt, sjbLaiiti!i, ¢?c and thrt- iyA'ID hae notaddeessil af m iaimi[igafiions to 'accommodate existing residents. ' 25 Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -37 88 I 1. Response to Comments I Analysis and mitigations are inadequate. No4,,,t�levels jar�i.fti �umdat5Of�t,.vibrations have hot addressed Ways , to mitigate the vibrations though different methods of constructior4. eta Note that the range of 70A to 90 db at d iatarmqs of 56 feet are .for one piece of construction equipment. This area is directly adjacent to residential properties within3o feet and the receivers would be at least 70 to 90 DBA, which is,mviolation of the exterior NAC criteria for residential properties. MND lists sound lewb on ?CH from 1971,Society of Automotive.Engineerslor use -in studies, of aircraft flyover poise, uses J`QH,hwypavement, traffic levds, roads, 40 receivers all pertainin to from mother study -or the, information'is unclearlas to its - relevance It�apPears g U study wn,done for the noise-for,the new•units, such • as planning•for noise ancrnation for be* constpicLibi" mot analysis based on harm to existin&residefits. CEQA j VAt the docunjefiW140 tie 1pit,forth 1 A laggusgeaied>rnaMer that;is Aniderstoo& What is,app,iprefit is (bat.this poise study oft M 0-9 mitigathop U-,por �' it adequately :studied. O"ULATJQN AND.11OVISING WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ,(hie of the most troubling-mpects. is thatthe,-MND claim to not dh imiffiberi df-existing hoti§ing, nocessitatitig the dmistrudiond rdpla-deincift This MND states, it Will -need to.ceplace.housingfo7 b uruts based _opA sun a less than significant iupprL ThcMND,haO app a-:fmmqto _ include wted afford for "ip lieu" fees: This is*1eppropriau; The in Nev Dees: are not eni tipixsnd are based,= lfinite&datit that study adrnits:could not.veeo all -in hired IM cirma, mridt in C'(m6% nor mete the rent surveys. Xfirrii WAS' the idibhna� (ni-1 The evro y IWAoutdberequWtou much ,proW, and who la claiming-this-mow. The WD 1044. id.1his proje-din.-terms iihateaa of what k*wtr and ,tquilablO to' fheFp6bmWdty..1tj& Aviip%s; to_thene4 that the majoritvnftbe tenants 'would have b"n cons awit lowero mokppe%mcpma; )(etsblpetheprojqpt=wasage,!nyted 2M6, itwas removed, .Lmvs-prohibit eviofinglenarits4ithin 24montbscofapplicatiop, and if gives . , the"AN , e , "Weahil it Iviny bp imbnlhdlfiere was an i4teirtibmilpithdVdIM 16W-iricom tattant§'lp no e&" A-voia, 66 low- income hot'% ing cdrwum�c laws. -4. Oethixapp Wat, io a M'Kbio.ed' :ayo gr 40 pr1he, i d-Opt ja 4, proje ar was wialtdrawA[ the property owner hired irnew.property management comcparty.; (who did thereat survey'thati'du low, iWonl8housifig re Wcmant isoreAcataupon), The,apaitiftehit owner is also hiklk to offorcea "4pedi&" income requitement of$Ok20U _amlp One listed tenantowris several whab hpmes in.'Kewport 26 C-80 C-81 C-W I Page 1-38 • The Planning Center Apri12008 I i ' 1. Response to Comments I ' Newport is aspecial towrilhat de "serve's protection The coast and its resources are,too important to squander, lust to benefit'the.fmanei8l gain of a group o6tivestors. I beheVe that some:ofthis original team are still`involved in this Imlited,partnerahip. Ais original team made no effort-to mitigate or compromise 7'heteam solulionwas thatthey.could get it through Iiad.I ' not had my background and not understoodthe_process, I too would have resigned.myselfto the inevitable. As a property owner that has handledrenAais for years; it would.be extremely diffitutt-to ' find- tenatdsfhaStcould qualify without aco- signer but had'fa adddionally. verify income raqunement of $(x6,2,00, yet this is what the apartment bbilding has: enacted within the pest year. I haze ci)'mplamed'to "the city toveetfy this,.st2iitg I felt"tlu's. wasan otvious attempt to cirwmveuttfh law to get rid ofthe lower income tommis. htalusionary housing'us exportive'foi ' developers and. irwould benofttthemif this weren't an issue, I believe prior to-Ow developer application, ma oritylof low- income ter ants have "moved outs. ' 7Yhet>; has appeazed to be a porposefnl eviction o£low income hogsing tenatris,.but .vti[roui'the ou9gdralyeru studies,tl7h cs speotr7AtJbn Itlo rrof accept hoyvever any studyv'iliere¢I! tt is conducted by the propetty t!7anager who v?piics forithebl?er who is purportediriiVeserow 1 1 11 1 1 tr}utgto c /osethe:Aeal. itcyser.Rfarslon stud; me. The projece's presWgd,�in -alight that `art ?sk renderv)gs at are not to4cale, MNE dooklike.= the,pichrres. Most buildings benefit xeaderings look nice because d,1&45-dcgra p'lauted Walkways, Iyeatlldui't$yVtRi3rg tiYes.'iW 7'hen3l ete,g lhereality, Tfiie &INJ shows tb, this is;in stackcontrast and -more in.lure,with like. Mere app w tj be Imle:differeticc f !ame style Home =side ]xysa}C wieltsuch.deiis literxpgrt:had mmlgJ< IslUawporf`s visiontF 'towermg,overthe existl�resiaiencea:on a lol utg >as om of the 1"ew azeas, in Newpo`fta Will aot.ihave,tlie larch tlatnxpieil trees as.d aF om nodatetllem Tire rHalAl' will be 6 &0 w4s bgweenIAem forpdvaep The desigaa !0-82 Coda %ding depiction througli;ltse of turaldq*s won'[ be 611 100 C1'83: 1. om landscaping, and these 'abundance ofialring;:fvxAe: >.'Wtdth,aud height oi'tbelxitiirdds. of the �actua<. �nddtvidnal vteW a(p337f,' ::development would actually look styles, but eot�ple t7tatwiifi exact irilt appeartcbetlu;.type ofvtsiont utesiamrsteQ nexlto caoh�011ler ar?Il ve been.maintamed asarwaparmaettt, iruno6tittenauts7 TItla:develgpment dermgsr,bccause there iwho rboUfto �betweeula4rep wtthna sppatrtit: Newpoii wanYedlo have aviiedlated int�estmgsidesto the buildings, bxu theseunifs are pcmiarrlyflatun .lheehtirelengtii:ofbu becausethaj: ate' putt000ioselytogether;,witlitoer "idany units for the 1bf.: ilolt'tid inlcuy vasiaq,ft+r.nety $owek3prnen4,ty'idoirsl!`rt inwili;thc.trergltbitt�Ood This atea has 11�n'u5dergying soiiaettiee e}iBnges with'iyelbdutte vm0iietS, .butthisatlxpcxrtunity to ?I@tthis dave_iopment goiinwill do adi5se[gice to the` eut¢E area antl'the.people that;have itrvasted,in reMaddmg +new homes.. ;V Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beacb • Page 1 -39 �� I 1. Response to Comments ' I The; proposed development is too dense for the property:. Feasible ahematives exist which include sitingthe homes using setbacks that were originally intended in this zone, and reducing -Oe size ofthe development. These are:viable alternatives that haven't beenstudied because the investors want to nuke more.moncy. If it isn't ?feasible, then the investorshould:use theircontingency,as an escape: clause. These applicantiinvesters don't yet own the property, they don'.t }have the vested •ioterests in protecting the neighborhood that the residences,do_ The investors won't belying in these units. App Iicatrt has already submitted a pro -fortm8 to determine how many'milliong he loin 1, be-satisfied.-with malting:. The applicant only has the advantage; if the r"idents don't feyl.they have .avm= Having a pLanning,eomnussioner attend a private homing and speaking in a- manner that appeared positive - .was -- probably. not encouraging to some that showed up. The,piiority for the plarfnivambmmission who miiSt review these objections into protect out': coastal res6urces over the rdvstruction of residemi*LdevelopmenL C_W Ctaftl'd 3i1,3_PUW!CSERUICES 43.14UCREATION' There 06sls a meArate, mrpzcno liksnes and;schaols and vpobaftud major mloot on C-34 pblice W.Vitles Without.khowmg:how property will be used „absent &R's restrui' their use, and lack of shomgawuer assI ciaf -ton it is defefring anypotenttal mitigationas it ian',t considering the consequences that land use changes may encompass. MND:fWed to study new ways development rdiglrt lia used an iprovide'd for no mitigations: West Newport Balk- e$eclively would ld betaken avor by this,development, Qd wilt assutpc t[ ra rjva e,,c4y stem%'' have' enterfa ned.idea.'of'pvrchaging this:as city hassbded' C=85 West Newport is in need ofpark expansion. Tliere-ismetered parking directly in from of the smgie- fahiFy unitA.lt agpearsliiere. i3�no 6looli w�[l Ahsenta oommddusllocic wall, _ityvr7l lia too lOmmeniout for residents to Bark direWy oti Oic sheet in f oitt.of War house, wheri.Yl 'S property is intended ibr vis#t us tu'th, bo*Mpaik: 3,15 TRA; I+ ISPOItT ;A;CTOLr!/,CRe1FF.IC.iMY�eG"fS WaIII✓D $E SIGNIFIC'rtiNT hrcorrectlysimes pmject guali -tas for an exernption underthe CityTroffic Phasing Ttrdivaace, H4weverthe- dAhitirrrt`under exemWton(C.) states: "The 6%ft Wft or& This "Further; Trip generation was calculated usmg;the'InAitute:of Traffic Eng neers (1.TF) Rip GeneraUm'Manual{;7*' edition 2003). An article bytraffic consultants. .NelsowNygaard opined'on the variatiildy o£ITE aitd stated: "EWn wilere:Yfere is a Strome:. ,correlcov Aetween the amount of d_eielo Irr.pir lnp ganpfq$rrn ra-W, . theM is set }1 constderobla varfutron_ in the rarer observed ur different survays: For the'4xud¢ s¢ type 1`mg6 28 Page 1 -40 • The Planning Center Apri12008 L7- I I 1 1 1 1 1. Response to Comments PaintlyDefachid Housing for example, HT'Ereparted raves rdnged from. a lbw of 4L. daily, frips�per dwetling:un t, toohigh of 21.85daliu arlvi The Trip, Generation nuinual reports that, �C -87 "This land use included dpra frpm a wide barely of units with different sizes, pnce ranges, Cont,'d :locations and ages. Consequently, there was a wide variation in.trlpsgenerated withtn:.thi's category." APPENDIX,t ISSUES FOR CI 4RIFICATION O$ CORRECTION W6 :P doc) I previously described:ertors regarding (p8-. 4 I3ly;property description. Ex sfjng bldg,.. acreage etc. Hydregeoiogystates .soil:is':Class D, states (pt25)'depth to,watertable.is less than. one foot This.di$ers wiYti b {her -areas ut.theMilD, (pts)ss[atas'tii"at geotech intiestigation: found ground water at depth' ofsixjp ei$ht fecf below. Sail Wed asdrydrio (p15) withslow int ltration raves. Min is i concern for the preposal to have w4mTeturnto-'the ground instead offfilteredand sentinto dormAmim Additional leavn i, Eal arandlyapprbpiiate tnn i&af1om heed. toy fie::stiidied further. (p$43,) F,itf- deeototies dotr't inoluakwres. ehts RvM the past -S years.. (page 373;.1r sal)papV- 2(1272 revised show tlie:road c[ toad'that sl find be ptit"wic. The pubic I pfQ" awmr, feneed it. off. PPOW ACOINS for 111 C-88 lopognapllrq Maps C. "9 e. Mw is:the same Coastal:aet.. The f6116wingarmperiiiietrf:as'lb ifie enjoys itsview coiriderfromm. , °.en`theh}itlseaorilift mdas azaaas. It eflcantpgsses(1wv are 29 Howeves;ihe, small ales of as seen.on page bta'airftiiat &.';3d` :is:'iHt�ideti' d foY?rry-jlermauaht e¢.Gesslo Elie` e,ppblio W'unitze'ihe park. `1Jte them m convenierd access•to the t° street opening ,figain'; th Nis aft alr9a$yYS affoY+iecl. vx1ll,aot wal&'tivoddli au area wide. areess;'to the b hA,4ttiat wag D40 1 Sex bm Village Response to Cmrmlenu City of Neffpon Beach • Page 1-41 1. Response to Comments relevant to this property and public access.'Mis road.should be dedicate¢, returned..as a roadway, include sidewalks for access to thepublic, fire hydrant and Large enough area to C-90 turn large vehicles around io the event ofa;fwe or emergency. Mitigation should have Cart'' -d studied this possibility. The city of Newport Beach has deteimined'that Coastal Act policies am relevant to Newport Beach. Section 3MIO ofthe CoasWActstates- In carrying aui:the.requirement of,&dtiori4 ofAr.Vcte X'ofthe Ca[ifornia Constitixnom G.91 titaximuntaccm,, i0ka h shal);be canspicaoaaLYPo9t @rl and recreaiionol apporturrlties' ehali be providarlter all rhepepple vo azstenr w+rh public safetyneeds ana rho need r& protect pvblipnghta,' rights afprivaig property owners,, and natural resource areas from o9er , Thin project does not provide ow6nium access.. Section 3.0212 ofthe CoastalLAct3lates, in relevant part: (a 1'ttblrc access fram the rwaresr pnblic roadway-ta the shoreline and oldng,the C' coaseshall be providod m neiV develapmerit praiecls,ercepC where;: (a) adegaater. ccessadsis nearby.. '1'bts pro of wou'Id ternove Existing access and pkovii3e for accessronly to the;oontlo owner, not thE;piiblic. The operimg Ya the Beach for Yids. area is SS`^ st„ providing a bear dirdct access(iiae ofsight) o:(he'b @Aelk Serxion30213 of the Coastal Act-states:. rawer c+stCww,tor and reereonanaY ,(dcd8ties shall bepr.'oteated enemfra*Oahil where _ .. feasrbie,llraxtded. per? eiopiientx�tzovrdin$ publicyeeietdxana lepgaituriaDes_gre C'�` pr¢ferzed This, projedaduallyremovesrreereatiorral�facflifles effectively ybecause the eras €utg;park and ennis courts:will appearas •private:and.,parking- wilfbe severely impacted with:this detil'o�tiTefAt S'eetton30940 (t'rj nfthe Coaslairtat states;: Developmentlaareas adfacem io.environmentafly.& stave habdat areasandparkr and reereatir"nt areas 0011 be sited acrd designed Ca preveirt trnpaets ivladh waulcisign;rl, degfade thaw breds, and'Aa l baca7_paYtble with !ha cona ma; ee of thofe habitat and 'ra47'eQtdh'P_'r @As.. This project evecelyp$'ecfs,2Jiis provisio9'iu;dlEovgrly, dense des gv'that will mil e` -i< app,ear'thatpark:is partoffhe openspacefor ihistdevelopment. Ttie >a)es:receWS, updated certifled lditdat'9 §'E Plan tl;UP) aiso coutainsore following -, al ctes fbat'Would apIp Y'lp tme-prop9seli'ae-elopment Pn'Ww Aceess and RecreationtShorelme and Bluff, T- Access Policy 3 T U1 Mates ;2 pr}zCee+, and whgrefeastble, exaandandehhmese>,dbRcac7xssta diidad6ng ._ sharelare dnd'to beaeha3.s, adastal watery fiaelands. soasKt! parks, and ttvhl3.. Access t`osd'n$xCto prq&ttyw.wld aocomplrshllus stated_pDl cy- Page 1 -42 • The Planning Center April 2008 1 ' 1. Response to Comments I ' policy furtherAates under "shoreline access", that thocity-will reguim all new 6'9A aiew del* proem ,projeets:cd"ilgiircontr+'b+IItim to azivefsepumc. octal o development causing or contributing to adverse public access unpacta to:prvvide ea'semerds or itttpWets., s"t�iclpttsazE• to aeeam»tadate tfva wa}spedesmanpitsa�age 1k» sd ao deli ttons m arm Whem public access is inadequate. All'beaeh access openings serve specific GoM -'d enstrng _»rprataasezl'der�e?firrntent to Yi1e �X.+LYIS�i/A>f I3T8i'E+�P homes: 55 street created.the vertical access dhat was created specifically to serve thisarea. The Placing ver1icalaasemeut awa3r from 6othsnnsting�andproposed pm)ect`fs easily ' public should not be deprived of access to 551 Street opening. One of the main tenets of the oortph@,s.wl hcry add cda",W.ts and :temov¢stuost:ofthe o%0dio4s, allowing Neptune Coastal.Acf is preservation of coastal access; taremgin the ctrl ,'and tf bgtklLrgstare= s`ded'prgparl3, niguitaYh m jr oceai view, City of Newport Beach stated goals include underthe Local Coastal program and Coastal C.95 ' Land -Use Plan. (f olijectedto staff that4lre applicant is on this commitweyduring-processing of l is application and.should have back relnOV.d due fo Donfllct of mterbkt )••' 3.1.14 ProtectpoWc. street ends provydingaeeessrathebeach ' Project muoves protection 3_I17 prolectpubd' ar�ghtofceces, 9. lYheresubStan4o2 ¢videriseafpresciipttverights C96 Exists octivelj�pwsne publta aGgitis{tfbh or regwre ace easements ds a co"Oon q ' i�veiopmet4[: Project seea�oould.pursuaprescriptivg rights based mrMistony €tf'accesg thrP7!gltteL'ea a djacent.toa540& -Neptune ' 3 1 l -g .- 0esarip0ve rights l poree mu3t'be r74signe for eo"'tions imposed to;diod C•97' jnteoAmnog 14 tlitpresM.plaw rrghgs:: -.: ' '3 I 1 9 ;protect expand coastal access — I1ll ProtecrPublic.dscesatbWn s- rbaotcattil6titerpropenr yaevelGpNe0& t¢gttaf,#onsr�ihewmr�'¢ode t, 6ghcpatrot .(rittiu'ingplacenienr ' `%his would directly stop the mcdtlrcationpsmit. Ifthe r onunitlee for which the appinvanfis,im has soughtto be '!'avorable to tiirs particnlaF velo'pme4t; then Yh..gtitieyrovisions should be IoolccAst again, as the int m4onApfprotectiigg our= Cdaskslioulil.not change. ' 3 1 1 l4- REQfJI E an o* r iv�dedwate. f©M),an easement jbr�vertrcol access mull aiew del* proem ,projeets:cd"ilgiircontr+'b+IItim to azivefsepumc. octal o itttpWets., s"t�iclpttsazE• to aeeam»tadate tfva wa}spedesmanpitsa�age 1k» sd ao E,uulfef sired96ne thehorter orsidavmt3 m16n¢aft &eJiXdte site 0aw rmin..the enstrng _»rprataasezl'der�e?firrntent to Yi1e �X.+LYIS�i/A>f I3T8i'E+�P Placing ver1icalaasemeut awa3r from 6othsnnsting�andproposed pm)ect`fs easily 3cc"otiSpGshed ivdli.a. %zad and si8ewalk in side area::Plns is Ihe'fdtiiitg.sofit`flti+n that. oortph@,s.wl hcry add cda",W.ts and :temov¢stuost:ofthe o%0dio4s, allowing Neptune ' taremgin the ctrl ,'and tf bgtklLrgstare= s`ded'prgparl3, niguitaYh m jr oceai view, 3 1 l 19 ^,::develop' long -range pdanfor public trailsand walkways ' 31 I 1 'St5 +98 ISearbom Village Rerponse to Comments City of Neurport Beacb • Page 1 -43 C� I 1. Response to Comments I would be converting a private road,,(Neptune).to turn into a "private drivmwy!% This prq$ot seeks to have "the individual driveways' going in the opposite direction johe called A Idriveway"that books up Into the.establishO city street, Neptune Ave,. They W44 to have the 'driveway" to be treatc& as a privatwroad f" enter d I 11 emergency an ety services, 11M docs-not'TWify in: my manner for conversion without being outof tDoncht a"I m this answer some ,could 11.4 one to believe nothing can be Tnublintts thatenone.ofniytenants haN a nmmr to appealto their. cfin'bcc,dode to sop tw.§ this ing^'Whdro 0: 'The intentjonof applicant appeals to utilize the pull id fdr4 to rnaftt to fk 'nwgbbOjhooA-tq avo4ppwt.Tesidents rigan to ol�jwi to,pro .develops operate, lit l,i,s,',j4gA,sniartbmine_ss and this isiet-to fault them, lw Alk isap*fwhere thaprocess -is no longer fair andthis is bordering on,this ' precipice. Ibe-planning conunismos. and coitncl are iitere'ta p I r . utect tk 60 fivoi laud use debwousAhat wftatte6vtIfe qdAdYojru6 M I oA RR faxs wllby to-narket the development. in advance thr.oqgb%off" chas!"and ,dA OM Aotglor the project"Ad"th4t, inWats'. f: perceive spec Was told, (W4�6-n piy-g-gq Dpfesafile) OW these units WOuId'&VpWffiiriTy. lerc pe4?plet$atwouf"CIAQM*iftm rIAw also t ol&,jjhqy,woqjd be unb JL 3' sales 0-4 the It ism Y lWIiOhhrdUg6,AyreabarchIhal this iiivestdii, gtd is priftii* the satnegroup IKPM "TOInlyho in Y04j0p o(f4ff*wvM A# for mteves". I spoke to staffand,=Vnessed my objedtions,, yet applimtis Cm!jnfiit(b6,*EW 60fiddil t(Y, P'Mi ffifInt ando-d W consist prMw xxternbcft. thaWublic Accords Art refusztl by-plalunng department, j2 C-99 C.'.Job: Page 1-44 • The Planning Center Apri/2008 ' 1. Response to Comments 1 1 I 1 1 1 ' 33 1 1 G-T" Cana ' Seashore V.11age Response to Commits City of Neuport Beach • Page 1 -45 MON could receive the lvfarston Keyser rem study, as I felt this would prove that tenants'were being; eytcted: or otfered;incemives to moye if they were low income. I felEthis:study would validate this I expressed my caneenrsi yet this HIND bas ;accepted.a,pro -forma without seeing:the,escrow papers,.detemmining how manybvestors, in which to spread the profiUrisk. [submlticii numerous, letters to plvuter:addressing:detailed cborns;.:yet none of my objections were included in the MND. Nonc,ofmy objections were taken into account in studying my suggeFiions as alternatives. I have asked for an extension of time respond frorn'Newport Boa*, the lead sgency.;I have ,been :told this will likely be contimfd,i However, I.am still required to'subiait objectionst6 'the, M.NDto prutect;my interests during dtis- commant period. In closing this is =the wmgg,project.for Newport. It is too: dense; too tall, and tooelose,to other re3tdehees it doesn't'frt vi it is'benefdingthe developers to the detriment of Me w6sting caizens; just to natiii a I'eiv i:oneerns! I requeslihis p'roje6t'be denied, ohatthe•dery, least, ' demand an EIIL Regards; 1 Lonnie I7JC *O 0— Mr4adjacem property 1 I 1 1 1 ' 33 1 1 G-T" Cana ' Seashore V.11age Response to Commits City of Neuport Beach • Page 1 -45 MON I 1. Response to Comments i This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -46 • The Planning Center April 2008 1 I ' 1. Response to Comments IC 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 Response to Comments from Lennie DeCaro, Property Owner of 5406 & 5408 Neptune Avenue, Newport Beach, California, Dated March 13, 2008. C -1. This comment contends that the proposed project will have numerous significant adverse impacts in the areas of public access to the beach, displacement of low income housing, traffic, privacy, sunlight, noise, parking, air quality, noise, loss of rents, etc. The issue of performance bond is also mentioned. The comment summarizes those topics that are to be discussed in the rest of the letter with no specific comments. Please refer to appropriate response in the following section. C -2. The comment suggests that inadequate noticing was provided. Pursuant to Section Sections 15105 (c) & 15073 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Mitigated Negative Declaration /Initial Study (MND /IS) was forwarded to the State Clearing House on February 19, 2008 for distribution to responsible and trustee agencies for a 30-day review period. Pursuant to Section 15072(b) and 15105, the notice was posted on -site in the area where the project is to be located and also mailed to the owners and occupants of contiguous property. The posted and mailed notices indicated that the 30 -day review period would begin on February 20, 2008 and end on March 20, 2008; however, because the site was posted on February 20, 2008, it was determined by the City Attorneys Office that the public comment period began the following day, February 21, 2008 with the public comment period concluding on March 21, 2008. The project was continued from the March 20, 2008 Planning Commission hearing to allow for the full public comment period. Therefore, adequate noticing has been provided and no further response is necessary. C -3. The commenter contends that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared for the project because there is substantial adequate evidence to support a fair argument that the project will have significant adverse impacts. The commenter also concludes that the Initial Study fails to clearly describe or offer mitigation for potential significant impacts. As detailed in responses to this comment letter, the Initial Study prepared for the project, does substantiate that project - related impacts will be less than significant or will be reduced to a less than significant level upon implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. There are no conditions which require the preparation of an EIR for this project. Comments regarding applicant indemnification of the City are not within the purview of the environmental review for this project. C-4. The comment claims that the proposed project would result in a cumulatively significant impact due to the intense amount of traffic, noise, and air pollution generated on Neptune Avenue. The comment inaccurately describes Neptune Avenue as a cul -de -sac. Neptune is not a cul-de -sac because there is not an adequate turning radius for vehicles and does not comply with City's Standards STD -102 -L and STD -103 -L (cul -de -sac standards) to safely turn around. In addition, as shown in Table 17, Project - Generated Traffic, of the Initial Study, the proposed project would result in a net decrease in traffic volumes by 178 average daily trips. Although the proposed project would create a new connection from Neptune Avenue to River Avenue, River Avenue terminates at the project site and a new vehicle access to Seashore Drive or any other streets for convenient beach access would not be created. The project she would be clearly marked and appear as a private property to discourage public from entering and using the driveway as a pass -thru. All visitor parking would also be clearly marked as residents only. Since this new access would only connect River Avenue and Neptune Avenue, where River Avenue terminates at the site, any changes to the circulation pattern in the area would be minimal, including beach traffic. The comment that the proposed project would force over one hundred cars from the development is inaccurate. C -5. The comment asserts that project's significant impact must be adequately addressed and mitigation measures should be identified. It also asserts that the Initial Study should compare the project impacts to feasible alternatives. The Initial Study was prepared in compliance with the appropriate section of the CEQA Guidelines, and concludes that potential project- related impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. CEQA ' Seashore Village Reaponte to Comments City of Neuport Beach • Page 1 -47 Mn do 1. Response to Comments does require evaluation of project alternatives for projects for which all impacts can be mitigated to less than significant and Mitigated Negative Declarations can be processed. Aesthetic Impacts C -6. The comment asserts that any substantial, negative effect of a project on view and other features of beauty could constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA and that lay opinions that articulate the basis of the opinion can constitute substantial evidence of a negative aesthetic impact. The comment also asserts that the proposed project would result in the obstruction of the ocean views from the living room and balcony of the property at 5408 Neptune Avenue. The commentor further indicates that the view would be greater with rooftop decking. However, there is no rooftop decking. The existing apartment building has a side setback of approximately 60 feet near the River Avenue site boundary and narrows toward Seashore Drive by approximately 15 feet. The property at 5408 Neptune Avenue currently has an ocean view from the second floor living room and the patio via the open - parking area of the existing apartment complex and the approximately 30- foot -wide open area between the three -story buildings on 55th Street (see Figure 1, View Corridor Analysis). Figures 1 and 2, View Corridor Analysis and Photo of View Corridor, respectively, show the view corridor from 5408 Neptune Avenue. As proposed, a modification permit is being requested by the project applicant to reduce the minimum building- separation distance required by the MFR Zoning District from 10 feet to 6 feet, to reduce the minimum front - setback distances along Seashore Drive and River Avenue from 20 feet to a minimum of 10 feet, and to reduce the minimum side setbacks from 25 feet (which is based on the lot width) to a minimum of 4 feet. As shown in Figure 1, a structure that conformed to the specified 25 -foot side setback (along eastern property boundary) as required per the zoning code in the MFR Zoning District would obstruct the current view corridor of 5408 Neptune Avenue. This would impose a negative visual impact to the existing residence, as f would obstruct the existing private view afforded to it. Although the City does not have private -view protection policies or regulations, when a deviation is requested from what is normally permitted by the Zoning Code, it is reasonable to take into consideration the resulting private view impacts the deviation creates. However, the proposed 4 -foot side setback along the eastern project boundary would not negatively impact the private view to the existing residence anymore than a conforming project would. Additionally, as shown on Figure 1, a structure which conformed to the specified 20 -foot street setback along Seashore Drive as required per the zoning code would obstruct the current view corridor of 5408 Neptune Avenue. Similar to the reasoning provided above, the proposed 10 -foot front setback along Seashore Drive would not negatively impact the private view to the existing residence anymore than a conforming project would. The City's General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan focus on the protection of public views. As stated in the Initial Study, Policy 4.4.2 -2 of the Coastal Land Use Plan states, "preserve public views through the height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, and building bulk regulation of the Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005 that limit the building profile and maximize public view opportunities" (emphasis added). Additionally, pursuant to General Plan Policies NR 20.1 to NR20.4 and Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.4.1 -6, the emphasis is on the protection of public views. Since the reduced setbacks would not negatively impact the private view to the existing residence anymore than a conforming project would impact the view, and because the project would not obstruct public views, the proposed project would not result in a significant view impact. The commentor is also concerned over the degradation of property values. CEQA does not require an MND to address economic impacts associated with a proposed project, which by themselves do not cause or contribute to physical impacts on the environment. Specfficaily, the CEQA Guidelines state that "Economic or social information may be included in an EIR or may be presented in whatever form the agency desires" (emphasis Page 1 -48 •The Planning Center April 2008 J I 1 i 1 I I 1. Response to Comments added, CEQA Guidelines, Section 15131). Further, the Guidelines state that the "Economic and social effects of a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment' (Section 15131 [a]). The intent of CEQA is to evaluate and mitigate physical impacts on the environment. In conclusion, the comment regarding project impacts on property values is acknowledged. This issue, however, is not within the purview of the environmental review of the project per CEQA, and therefore, this comment will be forwarded to the appropriate decision - makers for their review and evaluation. C -7. CEQA requires analysis of project - related impacts in comparison to existing conditions. Sunset View Park is approximately 0.5 mile east of the project site and existing intervening multi -story residential development precludes ocean views in the direction of the project site. Development of the proposed project will not alter potential views from Sunset Park. C -8. The commenter correctly notes the findings that must be made to approve the requested Modification Permit. These findings must be made by the decision -makers (City Planning Commissioners). In the application for the permit, the applicant has concluded that development of the same type of building that currently exists on the project site would not be compatible with the changing character of the area and would not result in a marketable residential product. The proposed development, 24 single - family homes and duplexes situated on individual pads, are designed to represent individual homes similar to development in surrounding R -1 and R -2 zoned areas. Although the MFR codes allow the proposed use, strict application of this zoning designation would preclude this type of development because of the required large setbacks. Ultimately the City's decision - makers are charged with making the finding that the proposed project would be consistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code C-9. As noted in the previous response, the required finding referenced in this comment would need to be made by the City's decision - makers. The Modification Permit application concludes that the proposed development is "highly compatible with the existing neighborhood and the general West Newport area" and that the proposed homes and duplexes would be "similar in size, proportion and separation to the buildings along Seashore Drive and River Avenue." The project has been designed to appear as if each unit is situated on a 30 -foot wide lot, and the side setbacks provided are consistent and compatible with the required 3 -foot side yard setbacks of the surrounding 30- and 40 -foot -wide lots in the neighborhood. The City's decision -makers will consider the application and the specifics modifications requested and determine whether they agree with this finding. C -10. Based on the analysis in the Initial Study, the proposed project would not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or detrimental to property or improvements in the neighborhood. As stated in response to Comment C -9, the project has been designed to include setbacks comparable to the setback requirements of the surrounding R -1 and R -2 lots and similar setback and distancing requirements are common throughout the City and have not proven detrimental. This finding, however, is a specific finding that will be required by the City's decision -makers with respect to the requesting zoning requirement modifications to approve the proposed project. Additionally, as concluded in response to Comment C-6, the proposed project would not obstruct or prevent public views of the ocean. C -11. As shown in Figure 3, Surrounding Area Photographs, existing residential units along the ocean side of Seashore Drive include three -story buildings and three-story buildings also exist on the north side of Seashore Drive, River Avenue, and Neptune Avenue. Under the R -1 and R -2 districts, a 24 -foot base height limit with an additional 5 feet in height to the ridge is permitted and 3 -story structures are commonly designed and constructed. The site is in the 28132 -foot height - limitation zone that permits buildings and structures to exceed the 28 -foot height limit up to a maximum of 32 feet through the approval of a use permit. Ridges of pitched roofs are permitted to exceed the height limit by 5 additional feet. The six duplex units that are proposed to exceed the 28 -foot base height limit have S"bore pillage Respomre to Comments City of Newporl Beach • Page 1 -49 (3V 1. Response to Comments been designed with low- pitched gable roof lines, resulting in a maximum midpoint elevation of 28 feet 10 inches (10 inches over the maximum limit) and a maximum ridge elevation of 31 feet 4 inches (I400t 8- inches under the maximum ridge limit).. C -12. The commenter's objection to modifying the MFR required setbacks for the project are noted and will be forwarded to decision - makers. The sideyard setback reduction would place the proposed residential units in close proximity to the existing units along the eastern boundary. However, as discussed in response to Comment C-6, the proposed project is designed to appear as if the units were situated on individual 30 -foot -wide lots and setbacks comparable to surrounding R -1 and R -2 lots. Using the R -1 and R -2 development standards as a guide for determining acceptable setbacks and building separation, the proposed setbacks would not intensify the difference in height or style of the surrounding development Additionally, the duplex proposed closest to the 5408 Neptune Avenue property maintains a minimum setback of 7 1/2 feet and increases to a setback of 13 feet, providing a significantly increased sideyard setback area than that of comparable R -1 and R -2 lots with 3 -foot sideyard setbacks. C -13. The commentor also stated that the MND omitted mentioning the modification permit component of the reduction of the required 254cot sideyard setback to 34eet. Pursuant to this comment, the third paragraph provided in question a) on page 39 of Initial Study has been modified to include all the components of the modification permit as shown in Section 2, Revisions, of this to Comments. Additionally, for consistency, the second bullet point provided in Section 1.5, Discretionary Approval, on page 25 has also been modified as shown in Section 2. However, as concluded in response to Comment C-6, these modifications would not alter the conclusion of the visual- impact analysis and no mitigation measures are required as a result of the modification. C -14. Please refer to response to Comment C -8. C -15. The proposed project may appear to remove visual open space as commented. However, the proposed project would provide 675,416 cubic feet, which would exceed the open space requirements of 247,313 cubic feet as required under the MFR Zoning District. The proposed open space areas also exceed the existing open space, which is 590,072 cubic feet. Additionally, as stated in the response to Comment C -13, as developed, the project site consists of minimal landscaping areas, which includes the landscaped lawn area and trees located around the pool area of the L- shaped apartment complex. As proposed, the project would provide more landscaping areas (approximately 18,390 square feet) than currently exists on -site (approximately 9,393 square feet). As such, the project would not result in a significant aesthetic or visual impacts and no mitigation is required. C -16. A street that connected River Avenue and Seashore Drive did not exist. The street referenced in the historic map shown in page 373 of Appendix D that connects River Avenue to ocean front is actually 54th Street and there was never an access from River Avenue to Seashore Drive immediately east adjacent to the project site. In addition, Neptune Avenue is not a cul -de -sac, as it does not provide adequate turning radius required for a cul-de -sac. The commenter's suggested revisions to the project are forwarded via this Response to Comments document to decision -makers for consideration. C -17. The square footage comparison of the existing apartment to the proposed development is noted. The MND refers to residential densities based on the number of units per acre. The project site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment_ complex. The proposed project would reduce the existing density to 24 single - family units, a decrease in 30 units. The reduction in the number of residential units would directly result in a reduction in traffic generation in comparison to the existing use. C-18. The lot area for the project site is 1.49 acres (64,904 square feet). The City of Newport Beach uses floor -area limit, not floor area ratio to evaluate residential development. Page 1 -50 • The Planning Center Apri12008 ' 1 I C -20. As shown in Table 1, the emissions attributable to the proposed project with 100 percent occupancy and without deducting the emissions occurring under the existing uses Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -51 1. Response to Comments ' Floor Area Limit is calculated based on the net acreage of the site after subtracting the ' setbacks. The maximum floor -area limit for the project is 1.75, which equates to 72,133 square feet. The proposed project would result in a floor -area limit of1.23, or 50,706 square feet. In accordance with the provision outlined in Section 20.10.30(M) of the Municipal Code, the 200 square feet of floor area of required parking devoted to Additionally, the enclosed parking was not included in the floor -area limit calculation. comment incorrectly references the paved parking area as open space. The existing development has approximately 9,393 square feet of landscaping and open space, while the proposed project would result in 18,390 square feet of landscaping and open space 1 area. The current large setbacks do provide visual openness in some angles as commented. However, as shown in Figure 4, Site Photographs, the existing building has 48,744 square feet of building area under one roofline, which is significantly larger than all other structures in the area. Additionally, the existing large setbacks for the site are not typical of the surrounding development. As shown in Figure 3, Surrounding Area Photographs, and Figures 5a and 5b, Side Setbacks, adjacent buildings in the area have approximately three- to four -foot side setbacks. Aesthetic impacts are subjective and one aspect of visual character cannot be the sole basis of finding visual impact as significant. The proposed project would provide required tenant and guest parking. The comment regarding "giving" the developer the park is not based on any factual data and is speculative only. The park will remain as a public park and there would be no design treatment to suggest that it is a private facility. ' Air Quality C -19. Emissions associated with the proposed project have been calculated to respond to the comment and are shown in Table 1 below. As demonstrated within Table 1, total emissions from both stationary and mobile sources are a small fraction of the SCAQMD regional emissions thresholds. These emissions assume that all these emissions are based on new project - related vehicle trips without subtracting the emissions associated ' with the existing uses. The comment regarding the footprint of buildings being 19 percent larger than the existing uses would not change the fact that emissions from the proposed project are still far below the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) CEQA significance thresholds for all analyzed pollutants. 1 I C -20. As shown in Table 1, the emissions attributable to the proposed project with 100 percent occupancy and without deducting the emissions occurring under the existing uses Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -51 1. Response to Comments would still not result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds and would consequently not result in a significant air quality impact. C -21. Please see Response C -16. C -22. The comment is incorrect in its assertion that asphalt emissions were not accounted for within the air quality analysis. The air quality analysis did model emissions associated with paving. Emissions associated with paving equipment and evaporative emissions. from asphalt were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 model and included within Table 5 of the Initial Study. C -23. To clarify, the Initial Study stated that there were no thresholds established for greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions of criteria pollutants were calculated compared to the SCAQMD significance thresholds and a finding of less than significant air quality impacts was presented. A finding of less than significant greenhouse gas emissions was also presented due to the small scale of emissions associated with this project. The Localized Significance Threshold (LST) analysis followed the protocol established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) of using the closest distance between the air pollutant source and the receptor of 25 meters (82 feet). This approach is also consistent with the closest distance analyzed of 25 meters for health risk assessments per Rule 1401. The LST screening approach is also considered by the SCAQMD to be conservative because it applies worst -case wind direction and speeds. In addition, the project is under mandatory compliance with Rule 402 and Rule 403 which apply to nuisance and dust emissions from construction activity as they occur. Lastly, if there is a problem with dust plumes or air pollution, the sensitive residences proximate to the project site can call the code enforcement division of the SCAQMD to ensure that excessive emissions resulting from construction activities do not occur. C-24. There were four references within the air quality section to Appendix A for the modeling output. There was a typographic error in another reference to Appendix B, which did not have the air quality modeling. The air quality modeling assumptions had been provided in Appendix A of the Initial Study. The typographic error in page 57 of the Initial Study has been revised and is reflected in the Revisions to the Initial Study Section. C -25. Demolition activities that involve Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) are required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403. Mandatory compliance with this rule will result in less than significant air quality impacts related to ACM. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, in June 18, 2003, established a lead paint rule, which allows landfills to accept residential lead -based paint waste at municipal landfills. This Rule was enacted to accelerate the removal of lead based paint from residences so that people, especially children, would not be exposed to ingested lead. The existing structures may or may not contain lead -based paint. Demolition of structures that may potentially contain lead paints is beneficial to the environment because it removes a substance that can cause central nervous system disorders. Unlike asbestos, lead is only a concern when ingested. Demolition of the existing structures would remove the potential for oral ingestion of lead paints. Demolition debris would be loaded and removed from the project site to be disposed of at a local landfill. Greenhouse gas emissions were quantified per recommendations of the SCAQMD, which currently does not have an established threshold for evaluating greenhouse gas emissions. The SCAQMD does have significance thresholds for criteria pollutants to identify substantial pollutant emitters. As shown in Table 1, the project emissions are far below the significance thresholds established for criteria polutants, due to the minimal amount of development associated with the proposed project. The rationale that the SCAQMD significance thresholds are an indicator of whether the project results in substantial quantities of the emissions was also applied for greenhouse gases. Because the proposed project would not result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants, it was surmised that the project would likewise not Page 1 -52 •The Planning Center April2008 I 1. Response to Comments ' C -29. A health risk analysis is only necessary for projects that have prolonged usage of diesel - fueled vehicles. Diesel exhaust is the primary cause of respiratory cancer risk in the South Coast Air Basin. The SCAQMD does not require nor recommend a health risk analysis for construction activities of such a short duration as necessary for the ' proposed project. Health risk analyses are conducted for diesel exhaust exposure over a lifetime (70 years). Consequently, a health risk analysis for construction activities of such a short duration would not result in a significant health risk impact. Diesel- fueled vehicles would be used intermittently at the project site during construction and would not constitute a major source of diesel exhaust exposure. The operational phase of the project would not result in a daily use of diesel vehicles. Consequently, no health risk analysis is warranted for the proposed project. C -30. The analysis of lead emissions generated from the proposed project is not required nor recommended by the SCAQMD. The South Coast Air Basin has been in a state of attainment for lead for at least two decades. With the banning of lead -based paints and lead in gasoline, lead emissions are only of concern from stationery industrial sources ' whose processes involve lead emissions. Consequently, the air quality analysis of project related emissions does not need to evaluate lead. 11 Seashore The commentor's assertion that PM,, was not evaluated is incorrect. It was evaluated within the Initial Study and found to result in less than significant air quality impacts. C -31. This comment pertains to the commenter's confusion of the interpretability of the air quality appendix of a different project and, as such, does not relate to the proposed project. It is not the responsibility of the CEQA analysis for the proposed project to clarity confusion on another project. If the commenter is implying that the appendix is confusing for both the proposed project as well as the Newport Beach DEIR, this is standardized output that the SCAQMD had developed for the URBEMIS model. Response to Comments City of Newport Beacb • Page 1 -53 result in substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. This project is minimal in scale ' relative to other development projects. Based on the SCAQMD significance thresholds, it is not the intent of the SCAQMD to identify projects with such a small scale as substantial pollutant emitters. Consequently, tt is unlikely that the SCAQMD or any other regulatory agency would determine that the greenhouse gas emissions from the project would result in a significant impact relative to global climate change. C -26. As discussed previously, Table 1 shows that project related emissions are far below SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds even if all of the vehicle trips were considered ' new and without deducting the existing trips. The finding and significance would not change and the proposed project would not result in significant air quality impacts. ' C -27. The evaluation of construction LSTs is based on SCAQMD modeling methodology. The project is not anticipated to involve mass grading. Trenching emissions are quantified and shown in the attached appendix. Trenching emissions were found to be less than that which would occur during the fine grading phase and would not result in an exceedance of the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds for construction activities. Projects are constructed in phases. The phases used within the air quality analysis were developed by the SCAQMD. The construction schedule was estimated to follow an 18- I month schedule. This duration is not unreasonable for a project of this scale. The temperature of 60 degrees used in the analysis for winter conditions is a SCAQMD recommended default. Deviation from this default value would not result in a meaningful change in air pollutant emissions nor change the finding of significance. C -28. Project compliance to SCAQMD Rule 403 is mandatory. The commentor's assertion that it is a mitigation measure is incorrect. A mitigation measure goes beyond regulatory requirements. Rule 403 is a regulatory requirement of the SCAQMD. Consequently it does not need to be "called out specifically in the mitigation." ' C -29. A health risk analysis is only necessary for projects that have prolonged usage of diesel - fueled vehicles. Diesel exhaust is the primary cause of respiratory cancer risk in the South Coast Air Basin. The SCAQMD does not require nor recommend a health risk analysis for construction activities of such a short duration as necessary for the ' proposed project. Health risk analyses are conducted for diesel exhaust exposure over a lifetime (70 years). Consequently, a health risk analysis for construction activities of such a short duration would not result in a significant health risk impact. Diesel- fueled vehicles would be used intermittently at the project site during construction and would not constitute a major source of diesel exhaust exposure. The operational phase of the project would not result in a daily use of diesel vehicles. Consequently, no health risk analysis is warranted for the proposed project. C -30. The analysis of lead emissions generated from the proposed project is not required nor recommended by the SCAQMD. The South Coast Air Basin has been in a state of attainment for lead for at least two decades. With the banning of lead -based paints and lead in gasoline, lead emissions are only of concern from stationery industrial sources ' whose processes involve lead emissions. Consequently, the air quality analysis of project related emissions does not need to evaluate lead. 11 Seashore The commentor's assertion that PM,, was not evaluated is incorrect. It was evaluated within the Initial Study and found to result in less than significant air quality impacts. C -31. This comment pertains to the commenter's confusion of the interpretability of the air quality appendix of a different project and, as such, does not relate to the proposed project. It is not the responsibility of the CEQA analysis for the proposed project to clarity confusion on another project. If the commenter is implying that the appendix is confusing for both the proposed project as well as the Newport Beach DEIR, this is standardized output that the SCAQMD had developed for the URBEMIS model. Response to Comments City of Newport Beacb • Page 1 -53 1. Response to Comments In regards to the comment that ROGs is not defined, reactive organic gases are those compounds that have high enough vapor pressures that under normal atmospheric conditions leads to vaporization. The SCAQMD considers ROGs and VOCs to be synonymous. ROGs are Reactive Organic Gases and VOCs are Volatile Organic Compounds. Biological Resources C -32. As shown in Figure 6, Aerial Photograph, the project site is a completely developed site with very limited landscaping. There is no need to conduct a literature review to include data on biological resources in the project vicinity. A field visit by the staff biologist indicated that on -site plants are ornamental landscaping materials and are not of any significant biological importance. As indicated, no potential habitat for special status species exists on- or off -site and no additional investigation was deemed necessary. Per your comment, Phil Brylski has been added to the list of preparers. C -33. The City of Newport Beach does not have any tree ordinance concerning on -site trees. Council Policies G -1, Retention or Removal of City Trees, is applicable only to City trees and G -3, Reservation of Views, deals with views lost due to excessive plant growth. These policies are not applicable to the proposed project. Removal of all on -site landscaping, including mature palm trees, would not conflict with these City policies. C -34. As part of the Condition of Approval N. 36, two City trees (Cajeput trees) on Seashore Drive would be removed to accommodate the sidewalk construction on Seashore Drive. However, these are not designated as special trees by the City and they would be removed in compliance with the tree ordinance. Additionally, draft Condition of Approval No. 37 stipulates that new City - designated street trees will be planted along River Avenue frontage. All street trees would be planted per City standards and guidelines provided by the City General Services Department and not further analysis or mitigation measures are necessary. The Draft Conditions of Approval is contained in Appendix B of this document. C -35. Condition of Approval No. 17 states that 'All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance." The Initial Study states that the existing apartment complex provides approximately 9,393 square feet of landscaping area and the proposed project would provide approximately 20,987 square feet. Figure 7, Landscape Plan, has been provided. C-36. It is the City's policy to retain City threes categorized as Landmark, Dedicated, or Neighborhood trees, which have historical significance, and /or contributed to and give character to a location or to an entire neighborhood. Landmark, Dedicated, and Neighborhood trees are identified by species by Attachment 1 of Retention or Removal of City Trees ordinance (Council Policy G -1). The proposed project would require removal of two city trees on Seashore Drive. These two trees are identified as Cajeput trees (Melaleuca quinquinervia) and are listed under Attachment 1. The proposed project would not impact any special trees as defined by the City Code. Cultural Resources C -37. As stated, the entire project site is already developed, which means the project site is underlain by engineered soils that have been disturbed previously. Therefore, although the project area may be potentially sensitive for cultural resources, the on -site potential would be minimal. No confirmed artifacts have been reported near the project site. in the absence of a confirmed artifact, implementation of Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 have been deemed an appropriate site - specific level of response based on the analysis and recommendations, as is typical industry practice. Because the lead agency recognized Page 1 -54 • The Planning Center April2008 1. Response to Comments ' the potential for discovery upon deeper excavation beyond previous development, Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 have been incorporated to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. ' C -38. The Native American Heritage Commission has reviewed the Initial Study and has responded in a standard response letter dated March 5, 2008. The Initial Study recognizes the potential for discovery of subsurface cultural resources and provided Mitigation Measures 2 and 3 to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. ' Geology and Soils C -39. It was a typographical error and it does not alter the conclusion of the analysis. Pursuant ' to your comment, the title page for the geotechnical investigation has been revised. The text with purple highlighter was not intended to emphasize or delete the text. C-40. The project description indicates that the project site will be balanced, which indicates ' that there would be no significant import or export of soils. Construction impacts during the grading phase were addressed in the traffic, noise, and air quality sections of the Initial Study. Vibration impacts have been addressed in the noise section of the Initial Study. Please refer to Noise for vibration impacts. ' C-41. As indicated in the Initial Study, the proposed project is required to comply with the criteria and seismic design parameters of the Uniform Building Code, California Building Code, and the Structural Engineers Association of California. All grading and foundation plans are required to be reviewed and approved prior to any site disturbance. There has been a typographical error in page 65 of the Initial Study. The Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by EGA Consultants dated June 13, 2007 is included in Appendix C of 1 the Initial Study instead of Appendix B. The typographical error has been revised in Section 2, Revisions to the Initial Study. C -42. The project subsurface exploration consisted of the excavation of six exploratory borings ' to a maximum depth of 10 feet below grade. No seepage or surface water ponding was noted on the project site and groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 6 to 8 feet below grade. Groundwater was encountered at 4 feet below grade at the River Avenue sidewalk elevation, which is approximately 2.5 feet below the project site area elevation. The soils investigation report also acknowledges that the perched groundwater encountered is subject to tidal fluctuations. Whereas area soil records may show the water table at 1 foot below surface, the on -site subsurface exploration presents more accurate description of the site condition. Based on various elements considered in the geotechnical report, including tidal fluctuation, the report concluded that there are ' no significant geotechnical constraints on -site that cannot be mitigated by proper planning, design, and sound construction practices. The engineering properties of the soil and native materials and the surface drainage offer favorable conditions for construction of the proposed project. All on -site runoffs are required to be contained ' within the site and would not drain to surrounding properties. Pursuant to this comment, Figure 8, Preliminary Grading Plan, has been included as part of this response. ' Hazardous Materials C-43. The Initial Study discloses that existing structures on -site are required to be surveyed for lead -base paint prior to demolition. In June 18, 2003, the United States Environmental ' Protection Agency established a lead paint rule, which allows landfills to accept residential lead based paint waste at municipal landfills. This Rule was enacted to accelerate the removal of lead -based paint from residences so that people, especially children, would not be exposed to ingested lead. The existing structures may or may not ' contain lead -based paint. Demolition of structures that may potentially contain lead paints is beneficial to the environment, because it removes a substance that can cause central nervous system disorders. Unlike asbestos, lead paint is only a concern when ingested. Demolition of the existing structures would remove the potential for oral ' ingestion of lead paints. Demolition debris would be loaded and removed from the Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Neuport Beach • Page 1 -55 do 1. Response to Comments project site for disposed at a local landfill. Therefore, lead -base paint survey and removal will be administered through the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health as required. The Initial Study is not deferring possible mitigation. Hydrology and Water Quality C -44. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a final Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) will need to be prepared and approved b the Building Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP will provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. The WQMP included in Appendix E of the Initial Study would be supplemented and refined to the satisfaction of the Building Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. Ongoing property maintenance of common areas including maintenance of the Best Management Practices (BMPs) as set forth in the WQMP would be the responsibility of the Homeowners Association (HOA). An HOA would be established and Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CCR's) adopted that identify the association's common area and responsibilities, explain the obligation of the association to collect assessment, and the obligation for owners to pay the assessments. For clarification, the Project Description as been supplemented to include this information (please see Section 2.2 of this Response to Comments). As included in Condition of Approval No. 41, all on -site utilities shall be owned, operated, and maintained by the communitylassociation. Condition of Approval No. 26 also specified that 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 that could impair water quality would be used, stored, or spilled on the site. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck seeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers of pesticides, and the diversion of stormwater away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). Aiso as part of this condition of approval, preparation of Stage 2 WQMP is required; this lists and describes all structural and non - structural BMPs. The Stage 2 WQMP must also identfy the entity responsible for the long -term inspection, maintenance, and funding for ail structural (and, if applicable, treatment - control) BMPs. Draft Condition of Approval No. 23 requires that prior to issuance of grading permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Notice of Intent are prepared and submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board approval and made part of the construction program. This plan will detail measures and practices that would be in effect in during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. The Initial Study identifies these required procedures for the proposed project to follow and implement. Detailed actions for the construction phase that include how demolition debris is disposed of or stored, covered, and transported would be addressed in the SWPPP. No grading permits will be issued without the evidence that proper clearances have been obtained through the State Water Resources Control Board. C-45. As required under the draft Condition of Approval No. 39, on -site runoff will be retained on -site prior to entering the underground stormwater drainage system. The open bottom trench which the commenter is referring to is located within the project site prior to entering the underground stormwater drainage system. As shown in Figure 9, Construction Staging and WQCP, the open bottom trench which the commenter is referring to is located within the project site. The proposed project would not transfer any maintenance responsibilities to the City. C-46. Please see Response C-44. Figures 8 and 9 show proposed drainage concept for the project, including perforated drain trench detail. The geotechnical investigation conducted on -site borings and determined that ground water table is at 6 to 8 feet below ground, not at 1 foot. The comment regarding soil class D subject to saturation and poor drainage is inaccurate. The native soils consists generally of moist, medium dense, non - cemented, fine- to medium - grained, beach sand, subject to percolation and good drainage. Page 1 -56 • The Plannnrg Center Apri12008 I F I F I I 1 I 1 F-1 u 1. Response to Comments Automated irrigation system will ensure that heavy watering of the landscaped area does not occur. All landscape materials and landscaped areas will be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape and irrigation plans 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 Department and the General Services 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 will be adjustable based on either a signal from a satellite or an on -site moisture - sensor. Furthermore, as indicated in the WQMP, the proposed BMP's are designed to filter pollutants naturally back in the ground on -site. The Figure 8, Preliminary Grading Plan, shows the location of stormwater pipes and details of perforated drain trench and groutless paver system. The asphalt paving at driveways with areas of groutless paver systems would allow filtering of first flush runoff from the driveway. In addition, patios and walks would be constructed with concrete that flows to the 6- to 8 -inch drainage system equipped with an inline perforated drain trench, which would allow the pollutants to filter through the gravel bed back into the soil. As discussed, the underlain soils generally consist of beach sand with high infiltration rate. Additionally, the site will be graded so that all runoff water is retained and treated on -site and that neighboring properties are not affected by the proposed development. The combination of paver system, erosion - resistant plants that absorb water, gravel side yards, and gravel trench drains will contribute to retain runoff water on -site without flooding the project site or the surrounding properties. C-47. Section 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality, on page 70 of the Initial Study, discusses regulations under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act and its requirements under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting program. 0 Land Use C� C-48. The concern regarding rehabilitation facilities is speculative and is also a socio- economic issue which is beyond the scope of CEQA unless it would result in a physical impact. C -49. The proposed project would result in a less dense project with 24 single - family residences than the current 54 -unit apartment complex. The 54 -unit apartment complex currently provides a total of 100 parking spaces, 26 in carports, 29 under the building, and 45 open. This results in a parking ratio of 1.85 per unit. The proposed project would provide a total of 63 parking spaces, with 48 dedicated residential spaces in garages and carports and 15 open guest spaces. Therefore, the proposed project would have a parking ratio of 2.62 per unit. The City does not require the parking spaces to be calculated based on the number of bedrooms and the proposed project provides adequate parking per the City guidelines. The City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 20.66.040 Parking Standards for Residential Districts requires 2 spaces per unit plus 0.5 guest space for each dwelling unit. The comment that the proposed project would give the appearance of a private community park is inaccurate and speculative. The park would remain as a public park and there would be no design treatment to give it the appearance of a private facility. C -50. The project site has a lot size of 65,108 square feet, which is 1.49 acres. Pursuant to this comment, the following text has been revised. This change would not alter the conclusion of the impact analysis. Page 2 of the Initial Study has been modified as follows: The current permitted density at the site is 51 units per acre and the proposed project would yield 16 units per acre. The project proposes a gross floor area of 57,906 & square feet and a floor area ratie limit of G:78 IM. Searbore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beacb • Page 1-5 7 I 1. Response to Comments , C -51. The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report states that the estimated percentage of property covered by buildings and /or pavement is 97 percent. It merely describes the existing site condition without any value judgment. C -52. Figure 1, View Corridor Analysis, show the view corridor from 5408 Neptune Avenue. ' However, this plan shows that the view corridor from this address is very narrow and even with the conforming side setback, the view would be obstructed. As stated in the Initial Study, the proposed project would not impact the public views. Please refer to , Response C -6, C -7, and C -11 for additional discussion regarding project - related view impacts. C -53. The proposed project is a private project which, based on the findings of the Initial Study, would not result in significant environmental impacts. Consideration of project alternatives, such as City purchase of the site for public park use, is not required by CEOA. Please refer to Responses C -6 through C -18 with respect to the potential visual impact and compatibility with surrounding development. C -54. The Mitigated Negative Declaration /Initial Study was released for public review on February 20, 2008. The comment refers to the Planning Commission Report, which is separate from the CEOA noticing requirement. The project description as included in the Initial Study is sufficient to address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. As noted, project implementation would replace an existing 54 -unit apartment building with a total of 24 housing units, resulting in a net reduction of 30 housing units on the property. Potential future modifications of the individual units would be subject to City permits, are speculative, and are not within the realm of the CEOA analysis. C -55. Please refer to Response C-49. , C -56. The traffic analysis has been prepared in accordance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. The use of ITE Trip Generation Manual for trip generation is the widely accepted industry standard of traffic analysis. C -57. Please refer to Response C -48. ' C -58. A Homeowners Association will be formed and appropriate Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC &R) adopted. Condition of Approval No. 41 requires that all on -site utilities to be owned, operated, and maintained by the community /association (see ' Appendix B for list of draft Conditions of Approval). The HOA will also be responsible for maintenance of common areas. C -59. The commentor's submittal of the 'Sober Houses' article is acknowledged and this , information will be forwarded to decision - makers. The potential for the proposed project for this use is speculative and beyond the scope of CEOA review. As noted above, formulation of an HOA will be required for the project. Existing Land Use /Description Inadequate ' C -60. Pursuant to this comment, the following text has been revised. This change does not alter the conclusion of the impact analysis. Page 1 of the Initial Study has been modified ' as follows: Vehicular access from and to Seashore Sheet Ddye and Neptune Avenue is blocked by a7wooen fence. Pedestrian access from Neptune Avenue to the oroiect site is , blocked by a wnndan f r.= C -61. Neptune Avenue is not a cul -de -sac and it does not have an adequate turning radius for large emergency vehicles. Neptune Avenue is a public right -of -way, which the future , Page 1 -58 • The Planning Center April 2008 , ' 1. Response to Comments residents of the Seashore Village project have the right to use. In addition, the traffic generated by the proposed project would be minimal, with 14 AM peak hour trips and 18 PM peak -hour trips. Furthermore, Neptune Avenue is not the only access roadway to the project site; there is access from and to River Avenue, which may be more convenient ' for some of the future residents. The proposed project would actually result in a net reduction in traffic by 178 average daily trips. The proposed project has less development intensity and less project related traffic compared to the existing use and no mitigation measures are necessary. I I i Ij �.J I 1 1 I I� 1 C -62. The comment that one of the two driveways on River Avenue for use of just one single - family unit is unfair and that the proposed project should retain the existing ingress /egress for the proposed project is not a feasible design alternative and would impose undue restriction in development of the project site. The current site plan allows for use of both Neptune Avenue and River Avenue for access. The internal roadway would be a minimum of 26 feet. Neptune Avenue is not a cul -de -sac and it terminates at the project site. Opening Neptune Avenue to connect to River Avenue would actually improve the mobility of large emergency vehicles serving Neptune Avenue. All on -site parking, vehicular, and pedestrian circulation systems would be constructed in accordance with the City's standards and reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. C-63. Please refer to Responses C -16. Indemnity C -64. Draft Condition of Approval No. 20 stipulates that "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 Seashore Village Residential Development Project including, but not limited to, the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001, Modification Permit No. 2007 -044, Use Permit No. 2007 -011 and Costal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001; 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 limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorney's 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 brining such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorney's fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnif ication 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." C -65. Please refer to Responses C -8 through C -11. C -66. Please refer to Responses C -61 and C -62. C -67. Draft Condition of Approval No. 16 requires that trash container storage for the individual units are to be screened from view of neighboring properties and public places, except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies, and that trash containers are not to be located within the required parking areas. The type and volume of solid wastes generated by the proposed residential development would be comparable to other residential use in the surrounding area and would not create unusual health and safety hazards. (See Section 2, Revisions to the Initial Study, of this Response to Comments) Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -59 1. Response to Comments 1 C -68. As part of long -term post construction operation of the site to minimize the water quality , impact, a list of good housekeeping practices would be incorporated, including, but not limited to frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping. C -69. As specified in Response C -62, the internal roadway would be a minimum of 26 -feet and all onsite parking, vehicular, and pedestrian circulation systems would be required to , comply with City standards and reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. Additionally, the City of Newport Beach Fire Department has reviewed the proposed plans and location of existing fire hydrant and has determined that additional fire hydrants would not be ' necessary. The project is not within the jurisdiction of the Orange County Fire Authority. Surrounding Land Use , C -70. Pursuant to this comment, page 1, Surrounding Land Use has been modified as follows: The project site is surrounded by residential uses, saeh as inCluilin vacation rental units, to the north, south, and east, and a city park immediately to the west. ' C -71. As noted in this comment for the existing apartment building, the proposed project would provide adequate parking for its residents and visitors. The proposed project would comply with the City's parking requirements. The Municipal Code Section 20.66.040 Parking Standards for Residential Districts requires a minimum two parking spaces for each dwelling unit, plus 0.5 space for guest parking spaces per unit. The project is designed to provide a total of 2.62 parking spaces per unit, thereby exceeding the 2.5 space /unit requirement. The project would provide a total of 63 parking spaces, with 48 dedicated residential spaces in garages and carports and 15 open guest spaces The existing 54 -unit apartment complex currently provides a 1.85 spaces per unit (100 spaces total) consisting of 26 in carports, 29 under the building, and 45 open.. The City does not require the parking spaces to be calculated based on the number of bedrooms. C -72. The proposed project provides more parking spaces than required by the City and project- related parking is not anticipated to overflow into the public parking lot on ' Seashore Drive. C -73. This comment expresses a personal opinion and is speculative. The commentor's concerns and opposition to the project are noted and will be forwarded to decision - makers. Noise ' C -74. Based on industry- accepted methodology for the calculation of project - related vehicle trips, the proposed project would result in a net reduction of trips as compared to existing uses. Project - related vehicles during the operational phase would consist of , light -duty automobiles and trucks as well as motorcycles. Because the project is a residential development, no 18- wheeler trucks are anticipated to access the site. Noise generated from large equipment and power tools are regulated through the City's municipal code limits established through Chapter 10.26. ' C -75. Noise associated with property maintenance is governed under municipal code section 10.28.045. The City allows for the creation of noise associated with property maintenance but limits occurrence based on the aforementioned municipal code , section. Due to the short duration of noise generated by property maintenance activities as well as the restrictions on the time of occurrence to the least noise - sensitive portions of the day, noise associated with property maintenance is not considered to result in a significant noise impact. 1 1 Page 1 -60 • The Planning Center April 2008 1 1 ' 1. Response to Comments C -76. Noise associated with trash trucks is regulated relative to time of occurrence. The City does not consider noise from trash trucks to result in a significant noise impact due to the brevity and infrequency of occurrence. C -77. 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 landscapers are required to comply with these Municipal Code limits. Compliance with these Municipal Code limits would minimize noise generated by the proposed project to level ' is considered acceptable by the City and consequently would not result in a significant noise impact C -78. Noise associated with balcony use is also subject to the municipal code limits for noise. ' Consequently, noise associated with the operation of the proposed project would not result in a significant noise impact C-79. Noise and vibration associated with construction activity is unavoidable. The City has allowed the creation of noise and vibration from construction activity but restricted the hours of occurrence to the least noise - sensitive portions of the day, as specified under municipal code section 10.26.035. Construction - related noise and vibration will intermittently occur through the day until the project is completed. Subsequent to project buildout, construction noise and vibration will cease. CEQA requires an analysis of physical environmental impacts only and does not require provision of financial mitigations. C -80. The assertion that noise levels were assessed for only a single piece of equipment is incorrect. Construction related noise was evaluated by construction phase and included typical equipment used for each construction phase. Construction of the proposed project would involve standard construction techniques and equipment. The statement ' that no alternative methods of construction or recommended is not accurate. To minimize vibration generated from jackhammering in close proximity to the existing residential uses, concrete saws would be employed during demolition of the existing ' pavement on the project site. The City of Newport Beach does not use Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) for the assessment of noise impacts under CEQA. The assessment of noise impacts from the proposed project were based on the Municipal Code limits and. industry standards. C-81. The noise analysis also required an evaluation of site suitability for the proposed noise- sensitive residential use. Consequently, compatibility for the proposed residential use ' relative to noise from aircraft and PCH was assessed. Population and Housing ' C-82. The Initial Study states that the proposed project would result in displacement of approximately 122 residents based on average household size of 2.25. Also as documented in the Initial Study, the City currently has a rental vacancy rate of 7.7 percent. The initial Study analysis concludes that, based on available rental units at ' comparable rates, the City's commitment to providing affordable housing units in the City, and project compliance with the Government Code Section 65590 and 65590.1, impacts related to displacement of residents would be less than significant. ' Based on an income survey performed in June 2007 by the Las Brisas property manager, 6 of the 54 apartment units are occupied by persons of lower or moderate income. Therefore, to compensate for the loss of affordable housing, the applicant will ' be required to replace those 6 units at an off -site location within the City for a minimum period of 30 years. The applicant has agreed to commit $1.35 million to subsidize the rents and /or purchase price of off -site replacement housing. The net cost to subside 6 replacement units is estimated at $962,134, based on the City's Draft Technical 1 Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -61 1. Response to Comments Memorandum dated October 11, 2007, prepared by Economic and Planning Systems for the calculation of the City's affordable housing in -lieu fee. C -83. Per draft Condition of Approval No. 17, all landscape materials and landscaped areas are required to be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas are required to be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Please see Figure 7, Landscape Plan. Therefore, adequate landscaping will be provided. The proposed project has been designed to be compatible with the development pattern and character of the surrounding neighborhood, which generally consists of two- and three -story, single -unit and two -unit dwelling. Each unit would feature either a Craftsman or Plantation architectural style. Architectural details and enhancements (i.e., batt and board wood siding, louvered window shutters, decorative trim, and stone veneer) would be provided on all building elevations. The 2nd floor facades would be setback from the 1"' floor on the rear elevations and cantilevered over the 1"' floor on the front elevations, providing articulation and modulation to the building mass. The 3'd floor of each building would be set back from the front and rear elevations, towards the interior portion of each building envelope, to reduce the visual mass of the structures as viewed from the streets. In addition, draft Condition of Approval No. 7 states that, "The two structures that encroach into the side yard setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line shall be modified in height to conform to the 24 -foot base height limit." The proposed project is designed to appear as if the units were situated on individual 30- foot -wide lots with setbacks comparable to surrounding R -1 and R -2 lots. Using the R -1 and R -2 development standards as a guide for determining acceptable setbacks and building separation would not intensify the difference in height or style of the surrounding development. Under R -1 and R -2, the project site potentially allows 26 units due to loss of guest parking requirement. The project site is designated as Multiple -Unit Residential (Rd) with a maximum development limit of 51 dwelling units. Public Services and Recreation C -84. The Initial Study has studied the impact of the land use change from multifamily residential to single and duplex residential units. Development density on -site would decrease as result of the proposed project and subsequently, public services demand would also be reduced. Furthermore, a homeowner's association and associated CC &Rs would be formulated. C -85. The proposed project provides adequate parking per the City code. Construction of a continuous block wall to discourage residents to use the meter parking would not be necessary. In addition, the Applicant is required (draft Condition of Approval No. 46) to provide pedestrian walkways from River Avenue to Seashore Drive. Restricting access from Seashore Drive to the project site would also limit the public access to the pedestrian walkway. Please refer to Response C -52 with respect to potential City purchase of site for park expansion. Transportation and Traffic C -86. The said provision guards against piecemealing a project on the same parcel or parcels of property and does not apply to the proposed project. The proposed project alone is anticipated to generate approximately 185 trips, not considering the net reduction in trip from the existing use. C-87. Using ITE Trip Generation Manual for trip generation rates is required per the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance and is widely accepted industry standard. Although there is a wide variation in trip generation rates, the rates used for the project are comparable to all other similar developments in the City and the proposed project does not present exceptional circumstances whereby the use of specialized trip rates would be necessary. Page 1 -62 •The Planning Center April 2008 1. Response to Comments ' Appendix C -88. Please refer to Response C-42. C -89. Please refer to Response C -16. Public Access C -90. Please refer to Responses 16 and 6. The proposed residential development is not a gated community and public access from River Avenue to Seashore Drive would be provided. ' C -91. Development of the proposed project would provide improved public access to the beach compared to the existing apartment complex by allowing public walkway from River Avenue to Seashore Drive. ' C -92. Please refer to Responses C -61 and C -62. C-93. The comment that the proposed project would give the appearance of a private ' community park is inaccurate and speculative. The park will remain as a public park and there would be no design treatment to give it the appearance of a private facility. C -94. Please refer to Responses C -16 and C -62. ' C -95. Please refer to Responses C -92, C -62, and C -71. C -96. Please refer to Response C -16. C -97. Please refer to Responses C-62, C -71, and C -6. 88 C -98. Please refer to Responses C-92, C -62, and C -71. C -99. The proposed project does not conflict with this policy since Neptune Avenue currently does not provide vehicular or pedestrian access to the beach. Additionally, there is no proposal to convert Neptune Avenue to a private street. Instead, the propose project would improve the shoreline access for pedestrians through walkways. C -100. CEQA requires analysis of physical environmental impacts. This comment expresses a ' personal opinion and is beyond the scope of the Initial Study analysis. 1 [1 11 ' Seashore Village Response to Commmts City of Newport Beach • Page I'. 1. Response to Comments , This page intentionally left blank. Page l- 64•The Planning Center Apri12008 , 1 1 1 i ! 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 Response to Comments View Corridor Analysis (if Developed in Conformance with MFR Setback Requirements) ` T L� i4 Existing View Corridor Extent of Building Edge Per 20 -Foot Setback Requirement of MFR Zoning Designation Extent of Building Edge Per 25 -Foot Setback Requirement of MFR Zoning Designation Photo Source: Googfe Earth Pro 2007 Seashore Village Initial Study 0 100 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center ° Figure 1 I 1. Response to Comments ' This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -66 • The Planning Center April 2008 1 1 Response to Comments Photo of View Corridor Looking northeast toward 5408 Neptune Avenue from 55th Street. Looking southwest toward beach from 5408 Neptune Avenue Seashore Village Response to Comments The Planning Center a Figure 2 I 1. Response to Comments I This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -68 • The Planning Center Apri12008 ' 1 1 i Response to Comments Surrounding Area Photographs iilW A -.�M Seashore Drive looking west. Seashore Drive looking southeast. Seashore Village Response to Comments The Planning Center • Figure 3 II 1. Response to Comments ' This page intentionally felt blank. Page 1 -70 • The Planning Center Apri12008 ' 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 Response to Comments Site Photographs View of the site looking south toward the ocean. View of the site looking northwest. Swhore Village Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 4 1. Response to Comments 1 This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -72 • The Planning Center Apri12008 , Response to Comments Side Setback (Plan A: Plantation) Source: Todd Schooler 8 Associates, 2007 Seashore Village Response to Comments PLAN A PLANTATION rm*oscul: 00 The Planning Center • Figure Sa I 1. Response to Comments 1 This page intentionally left blank. 1 1 u 1 1 1 L� 1 1 Page 1 -74 • The Planning Center April 2008 1 Response to Comments Side Setback (Plan C Craftsman) Source: Todd Schooler & Associates, 2007 Seashore Village Response to Comments The Plannnuq Center • Figure 5b PLAN C IT -P IS! CRAFTSMAN F _ N S BL M14HT 910E EI.E \'ATIOY ... Source: Todd Schooler & Associates, 2007 Seashore Village Response to Comments The Plannnuq Center • Figure 5b I 1. Response to Comments ' This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -76 • The Planning Center April 2008 1 1 f —••— Site Boundary Source: MSN Maps 2008 Response to Comments Aerial Photograph 125 Scale (Feet) ,Y Seashore Village Response to Comments The Planning Center • Figure 6 Cv I 1. Response to Comments ' This page intentionally left blank. I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page 1 -78 • The Planning Center April 2008 1 Response to Comments Landscape Plan 14 (MYMI \IN lull I - RY \Illlr.lYlI11P1, Mnr... - ' `[ TWIII @ifAM \plP, rN lr. r.I .r �.l x,x •I c / RWRI/V E xi If'w1Y 4Rn ILn Xfa1 �.. \rM A ll�r•1•I ,. uoYWrPU1". .11,.r�.nxna. .IXIxYTYI I@ VrM 11.I NIMIi nM.\n.xlMrx��rnnrxnnrrn- xrrr.rrr MMl. ` -. r,a4. L. Source: Todd Schooler 8 Associates, 2007 NOTTOSCAIE Ov Seashore Village Response to Comments The Planning Center p figure f 1. Response to Comments ' This page intentionally left Blank. I i 1 1 1 I 1 Page 1 -80 •The Planning Center Apri12008 1 — - --ok Outlet thru curt) - OWA T. 8" drainage pipe _j I vj�. MAIL cosittm 0m � . U IF 11 LEGEND T/ M Tffw M MW PA n7ralpaernpipe 41* Response to Comments Preliminary Grading Plan EASEMENTS E] WATER SERVICE W, SEWER CONSTMICTM NOTES .......... 4 t t CONSTRUCTION NUrM F! �;l{ SIMI'M @ I-Of FAYM DR& (D F 11 AVE ho 'M "M Sri i k AN&' ME W�A � Z W��a� it cm w � w r: 0000•1111W FEW 8 PRIUM AM ALL KNK AC111M � ME �-GF-W. it DMAL PEIFORM UM TOM @ Wrrms Source: Todd Schooler &Associates, 2007 6" Drainage pipe Construct Open bottom Trench Drain Per Detail Hereon J_ M r M ro _T . . . . . . . . Groullm Paver tails Cross Section Trench Drain Seashore Village Response to Comments The Planning Center • Figure 8 0v M? 1. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -82 o The Planning Center April 2008 1. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -84 o The Planning Center Apri12008 1 ' 1. Response to Comments LETTER D — California Department of Transportation (1 page) ' Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Sturdy and Mitigated ' Negative Declaration for the Sea Shore Village project. The project proposes to construct 12 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12. 5515 River Avenue in the City of Newport Beach The nearest State route to the project site is 1 3337 Michelson Dhivq Suite 380 Caltrans District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and has no comment at this time. hvme. CA 926124894 . required... .. ' Teti (949).7242267 F=.( 90) 724-2592 .. potentially, impact State transportation fn tities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, . ' please do not hesitate to call Mary+am Molavi at (949) 724 -2267. 9?�� Sincerely, ' ;.. Ryan Chamberlain, Branch Chief Local Development4atergovermnentai Review ' Mareh 13.,.2008... .. . _ . W. Brandon Nicholas, Fite: IGR/CEQA City of Newport Beach SCH#: 2008021075 ' 3300 Newport Boulevard Log #: 2009 Newport Beach, California 92658 PCH Subject: Sea Shore Village Dear Mr. Nelson, .. ' C: Terry Roberts, Olfhce of Plaoniog and Research 1 ' "C-W— -fir- n•oNUo,—c4 nve' D -1 Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newpw Beach • Page 1 -85 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Sturdy and Mitigated ' Negative Declaration for the Sea Shore Village project. The project proposes to construct 12 single-family detached units and 6 duplex units, on a 1.49 acre- site. The project is located on 5515 River Avenue in the City of Newport Beach The nearest State route to the project site is 1 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). . Caltrans District 12 is a commenting agency on this project and has no comment at this time. . However, in the event of any activity in Caltrans' right-of-way, an encroachment permit wig be ' required... .. ... Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could' potentially, impact State transportation fn tities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, . ' please do not hesitate to call Mary+am Molavi at (949) 724 -2267. Sincerely, ' halairk Aafaai for, Ryan Chamberlain, Branch Chief Local Development4atergovermnentai Review ' C: Terry Roberts, Olfhce of Plaoniog and Research 1 ' "C-W— -fir- n•oNUo,—c4 nve' D -1 Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newpw Beach • Page 1 -85 I 1. Response to Comments ' This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -86 • The Planning Center Apri12008 , 1. Response to Comments D Response to Comments from Ryan Chamberlain, Branch Chief, Local Development /Intergovernmental Review, Department of Transportation, Dated March 13, 2008. D -1 The comment indicates that Caltrans District 12 has no comment at this time. No response is necessary. Searimre Village Retponfe to Commentr City of Newpw Beach • Page 1 -87 I 1. Response to Comments ' This page intentionally Left blank. Page 1 -88 • The Planning Center Apri12008 , ' 1. Response to Comments ' LETTER E - Department of Toxic Substances Control (5 pages) I 1 I I CJ 1 iSa Lag Wq sevarary fn Environmental Pmleaion March 19, 2008 Department of Toxic Substances Control Maureen F. Gorsen, Director 5796 Corporate Avenue Cypress, California 90630 RECEIVED By RMNING DEPARTMW Brandon Nichols Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92658 MAR 212008 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SEASHORE VILLAGE PROJECT, NEWPORT BEACH. ORANGE COUNTY (SCH#2008021075) Dear Mr. Nichols: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted Initial Study (IS) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND) for the above - mentioned project. The following project description is stated in your document "Development and operation of 12 single - family detached units and 6 duplex units, for a total of 24 units, on a 1.49 -acre site. Access to the project site would be provided by two driveways on River Avenue and a driveway from Neptune Avenue. The western driveway on River Avenue would exclusively serve one single - family unit, and all other access would be provided through River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. The existing 54 -unit apartment complex would be demolished." DTSC has the following comments; please address if applicable. 1) The ND should identify the current or historic uses at the project site that may have resulted in a release of hazardous wastes/substances, and any known or Potentially contaminated sites within the proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the ND should evaluate whether conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment Following are the databases of some of the pertinent regulatory agencies: National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S,EPA). Envirostor. A Database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, accessible through DTSC's website (see below). ® Pnnwdonae,,WPaper E -11 Searbom Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1 -89 Uw 1. Response to Comments Brandon Nichols March 19, 2008 Page 2 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 (SW IS): 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. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST)/ Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups (SLIC): 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). 2) The NO should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and /or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If necessary, DTSC would require an oversight agreement in order to review such documents. Please see comment No. 14 below for more information. 3) All environmental investigations, sampling and /or rerediation for the 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 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 should be clearly summarized in a table. 4) Proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions overseen by the respective regulatory agencies, if necessary, should be conducted at the site prior to the new development or any construction. All closure, certification or remediation approval reports by these agencies should be included in the ND. E -1 Cont'd Page 1 -90 • The Planning Center Apri12008 ' I 1 1 I. Response to Comments 1 C] I E -1 Cont'd ' Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page CO Brandon Nichols March 19, 2008 ' Page 3 5) If any property adjacent to the project site is contaminated with hazardous chemicals, and if the proposed project is within 2,000 feet from a contaminated ' site, then the proposed development may fall within the "Border Zone of a Contaminated Property." Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to construction if the proposed project is within a Border Zone Property. t6) If buildings or other structures, asphalt or concrete -paved surface areas are being planned to be demolished, an Investigation should be conducted for the presence of other related hazardous chemicals, lead -based paints or products, mercury, and asbestos containing materials (ACMs). If other hazardous chemicals, lead -based paints 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. 7) 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. 8) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during the construction or demolition activities. If it is found necessary, a study of the site and a health risk assessment overseen and approved by the appropriate ' government agency and a qualified health risk assessor should be conducted 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. ' 9) 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. 1 C] I E -1 Cont'd ' Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page CO I 1. Response to Comments ' I I Page 1 -92 • The Planning Center April 2008 ' Brandon Nichols March 19, 2008 Page 4 ' 10) Certain hazardous waste treatment processes or hazardous materials, handling, storage or uses may require authorization from the local Certified Unified E -1 , Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the requirement for authorization Cont'd can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA. 11) If the project plans include discharging wastewater to a storm drain, you may be t required to obtain an NPDES permit from the overseeing Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 12) If during construction /demolition of the project, the soil and/or groundwater , contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area should cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. 13) 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. 14) EnviroStor is a database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, and is accessible through DTSC's website. DTSC can , provide guidance for cleanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight Agreement (EOA) for government agencies, or a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) for private parties. For additional information on the EOA or VCA, please see www. dtse .ca.gov/SiteCleanupBrownfields, or contact Maryam Tasnif- , Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 4845489. 15) In future CEQA documents please provide the contact person's email address. Also, If the project title changes, please provide historical project title(s). ' I Page 1 -92 • The Planning Center April 2008 ' I I 1 Cis 1 I 1 1. Response to Comments Brandon Nichols March 19, 2008 Page 5 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Tong Ciao, Project Manager, at toiao0dtsc.ca.gov or by phone at (714) 484 -5470. Sincerely, re Greg Holmes Unit Chief Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress Office cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812 -3044 state.clea dnghouse @opr.ca.gov CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control Office of Environmental Planning and Analysis 1001 I Street, 22nd Floor, M.S. 22 -2 Sacramento, California 95814 gmoskat@dtsc.ca.gov E -1 Cont'd Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Neuport Beach • Page 1 -93 1 QQQ 1. Response to Comments ' This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -94 • The Planning Center Apri12008 ' E LJ 1 I II 1. Response to Comments Response to Comments from Greg Holmes, Unit Chief, Southern California Cleanup Operations Branch, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Dated March 13, 2008. E -1 As contained in Appendix D of the Initial Study, Shaw Environmental, Inc., conducted a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment in January 2008 to evaluate environmental conditions on the project and in the surrounding area. The Phase I included a site inspection, review of federal and state environmental records, review of historic uses. No adverse environmental conditions requiring regulatory action or further investigation were identified by the Phase I other than potential for asbestos containing materials (AGMs) and lead -base paint (LBP). There are existing regulations in place to remediate hazards from these materials (page 68 of the Initial Study). The listed comments are not applicable to the proposed project. No further response is necessary. Searhore Village Rerponfe to CommenaJ City of Newpon Beach • Page 1 -95 I 1. Response to Comments ' This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 -96 • The Planning Center Apri12008 ' ' 2. Revisions to the Initial Study ' 21 INTRODUCTION ' This section contains revisions to the Initial based upon (1) additional or revised information required to prepare a response to a specific comment; (2) applicable updated information that was not available at the time of Initial Study publication; and /or (3) typographical errors. This section also includes additional mitigation measures to fully respond to commenter concerns as well as provide additional clarification to ' mitigation requirements included in the Initial Study. The provision of these additional mitigation measures does not alter any impact significance conclusions as disclosed in the Initial Study. Changes made to the Initial Study are identified here in sni t "^eut t2 ^a to indicate deletions and in bold and double underline to signify additions. 2.2 REVISIONS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS r 1 1 1 1 The following text has been revised in response to comments received on the Initial Study Page 1, Section 1.2.1 Project Description Existing Land Use, is hereby modified as follows: Vehicular Aaccess from and to Seashore Street Drive alld PvleptuFie Avenue is blocked by a woo en fence. Pedestrian access from Neptune Avenue to the protect site is blocked by a wooden fence. Page 1, Section 1.2.2, Surrounding Land Use, is hereby modified as follows The project site is surrounded by residential uses, sueh as iasludin� vacation rental units, to the north, south, and east, and a city park immediately to the west. Page 2, Section, Proposed land Use, is hereby modified as follows: The current permitted density at the site is 51 units per acre and the proposed project would yield 16 units per acre. The project proposes a gross floor area of 67:;906 5St square feet and a floor area fatie Iiplit of 948 JIM. Page 2, Section 1.3.1 Proposed Land Use, is hereby modified as follows: Homeowner's Association and CQ&B As part of the proposed promect, a Homeowners Association will be formed and the I rule .s or the ��U rules IQ[ the operation of the assoofflat maintenance of common amaq and improvements designated BS private. such a but not automatic with the purchase otth"roppft n n Page 25 is hereby modified as follows: Modification Permit. Request to reduce the minimum building separation distance required by the MFR zoning designation from 10 feet to 6 feet, and to reduce the minimum front setback distances Seashore Village Response to Comments City of Newpoti Beach • Page 2 -1 2. Revisions to the Initial Study along Seashore Drive and River Avenue required by the MFR zoning designation from 20 feet to 10 feet. A modification permit is also requested for a 34foot sideyard setback where the MFR zone requires approximately 25 feet sideyard setback based on lot width. Page 39 is hereby modified as follows: A modification permit is requested to reduce the minimum building separation distance required by the MFR zoning designation from 10 feet to 6 feet, and to reduce the minimum front setback distances along Seashore Drive and River Avenue by fatm 20 feet to 10 feet, and to reduce the minimum side setback from 25 feet to 4 feet. The current building designs are simil— ar in size, — proportion, and separation to existing uildings in the neighborhood. Typical building separation in the neighborhood is approximately 6 feet and has a minimum setback of 10 feet along River Avenue and 5 feet along Seashore Drive. A modification permit is requested to reduce the minimum building separation distance required by the MFR zoning designation from 10 feet to 6 feet, minimum side setback from 25 feet to a faeL and to reduce the minimum front setback distance along Seashore Drive by 20 feet to 10 feet. The current building designs are similar in size, proportion, and separation to existing buildings in the neighborhood. Typical building separation in the neighborhood is approximately 6 feet and has a minimum setback of 10 feet along River Avenue and 5 feet along Seashore Drive. Pages 57 through 1 -29, Table 1 -1 Summary of Environmental Impacts, Mitigation_ Measures and Levels of Significance After Mitigation, are hereby modified as followsis hereby modified as follows: The typographic error in page 57 of the Initial Study has been revised and is reflected in the Revisions to the Initial Study Section.These construction emissions were estimated using the SCAQMD's URBEMIS2007 and are included in Table 5; the model run is included in Appends BA. Page 65, Section 3.6 Geology and Soils is hereby modified as follows: The below analysis is based on result of the Geotechnical Investigation report dated June 13, 2007, prepared by EGA Consultants, included as Appendix Bg. Per your commentPage 101, Phil Brylski has been added to the list of preparers as follows:, Phil Brylski has � i been added to the list of preparers. jL@y Page 2 -2 • The Planning Center Apri12008 1 Appendix A. Air Quality Model Appendices nil LOMUMP &4 b e Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beach I Appendices ' This page intentionally left blank ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 11 1 The Planning Canter Ap612008 , Page:1 4/2/2008 04:24:39 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: C: \Seashore Vil lage\SeashoreVill age. u rb9 Project Name: Seashore Village Project Location: Orange County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO 2-09 PM10 Dust PM10 E *aust 2008 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitlgatem 3.37 36.97 16.55 0.03 23.99 1.67 2008 TOTALS (Ibs/day mitigated) 3.37 36.97 16.55 0.03 23.99 1.87 2009 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 13.27 24.45 17.93 2009 TOTALS (Ibs/day mitigated) 13.27 24.45 17.93 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES 1.81 1.85 0.01 1.66 1.68 9OG NOx TOTALS (lbs /day, unmitigated) 1.54 0.33 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES 0.00 0.01 0.01 ROOD NOx TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 2.02 2.69 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES 22.99 0.02 PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 E *aust 25.86 5.00 1.72 25.86 5.00 1,72 PM2.5 6.72 6.72 0.01 0.04 1.81 1.85 0.01 1,66 1.68 0.01 0.04 1.81 1.85 0.01 1.66 1.68 COQ S02 PM10 PM2.5 CC002_ 2.29 0.00 0.01 0.01 403.33 QQ S02 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 22.99 0.02 3.24 0.64 1,958.34 Page:1 4/2/2008 04:24:39 PM I TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) Time Slice 3/3/2008- 414/2008 Active nays' 7F Demolition 0310312008- 04/04/2008 Fugitive Dust Demo Off Road Diesel Demo On Road Diesel Dema W orker Trips Time Slice 4!7/2008- 5/14/2008 Active nave• 9A Fine Grading 04 /05/2008 - 05/14/2008 Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 5/1512008- 5/30/2008 Active nnw 19 Trenching 05 /15/2008 - 05/30/2008 Trenching Off Road Diesel Trenching Worker Trips - Time Slice 6/212008. 12131/2008 Active nAVA• 1FA Building 06/02/2008- 08/07/2009 ROG NOX CO S022 PM10 PM2.5 3.56 3.02 25.28 0.02 3.25 0.65 2,361.67 ROG NOX CCD SS02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust FIV12.5 9.37 36.97 16.55 0.03 23_99 1.87 25_86 5.00 1.72 6.72 3.37 36.97 16.55 0.03 23.99 1.87 25.86 5.00 1.72 6.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.87 0.00 23.87 4.97 0.00 4.97 1.31 8.68 4.91 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.62 0.62 2.02 28.22 10.51 0.03 0.11 1.19 1.30 0.04 1.09 1.13 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 3.61 1.41 5.02 0.75 1.30 2.06 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 3.61 1.41 5.02 0.75 1.30 2.06 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.60 0.00 3.60 0.75 0.00 0.75 3.31 28.00 13.56 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.30 1.30 0.00 0100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.36 20.19 9.60 0.00 0.01 1.00 1.01 0.00 0.92 0.92 2.36 20.19 9.60 0.00 0.01 1.00 1.01 0.00 0.92 0.92 2.33 20.12 8.46 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.92 0.92 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.54 11.35 8.54 0.00 0.02 0.70 0.72 0.01 0.65 0.65 1.54 11.35 8.54 0.00 0.02 0.70 0.72 0.01 0.65 0.65 Page: 1 4/2/2008 04:24:39 PM Building Off Road Diesel 1.39 10.47 5.09 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.61 0.61 Building Vendor Trips 0.06 0.70 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.D3 Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.18 2.94 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Time Slice 1 /1/2009 - 7/312009 Active 1.44 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.62 r)aw. IR9 Building 06/02/2008 - 08/07/2009 1.44 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.62 Building Off Road Diesel 1.30 9.79 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.58 Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.66 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.16 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Time Slice 7/612009. 7/14/2009 Active 13_„27 24.45 17_93 4.01 U4 1.81 1.85 0.01 1.66 1.68 r)w - 7 Asphalt 07 /06/2009- 07/14/2009 2.47 13.81 9.32 0.00 0.02 1.14 1.15 0.01 1.05 1.05 Paving Off -Gas 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.08 12.55 7.05 0.00 0.00 1.09 1.09 0.00 1.00 1.00 Paving On Road Diesel 0.08 1.15 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 1.85 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 Building 06102/2008- 08/07/2009 1.44 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.62 Building Off Road Diesel 1.30 9.79 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.58 Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.66 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 . Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.16 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Coating 07/06/2009.08/07 /2009 9.36 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 9.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.01 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Time Slice 7 /15/2009 - 8/7/2009 Active 10.80 10.63 8.61 0.01 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.62 0.62 rUw I Building 08/02/2008 -0 8/07/2009 1.44 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.62 Building Off Road Diesel 1.30 9.79 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.58 Page: 1 412/2008 04:24:39 PM Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Coating 07106/2009. 0810712009 Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips 0.05 0.66 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.09 0.16 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 9.36 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.35 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0,03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase Assumptions Phase: Demolition 3r3/2008 - 41412006 - Default Demolition Description Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 1706342 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet): 56843.15 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 789.49 Off-Road Equipment: 1 ConcreteAndustrlal Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 1 hours per day 2 Tractors/LoadersBackhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day Phase: Fine Grading 4/512008 - 5/1412008 - Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation Description Total Acres Disturbed: 1.45 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.36 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 10 Ibs per acre -day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off -Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/LoadersBackhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Trenching 511512008 - 513012008 - Type Your Description Hen: Page: 1 4/212008 04.24:39 PM Off -Road Equipment: 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day Phase: Paving 7/612009 - 7/14/2009 - Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 0.67 Off -Road Equipment: 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/LoadersBackhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 6/212008. 8!7/2009 - Default Building Construction Description Off -Road Equipment 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day 2 Forklifts It 45 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/LoadersBackhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coating 7/6/2009. 877/2009 - Default Architectural Coating Description Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 50 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/3012008 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specif lea a VOC of 250 wNO 'i,�8 >�P `t '.c�?+� t "'• , YNI'Tn, TL CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day Mitigated Page: 1 4/212008 04:24:39 PM BM NOx CO PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Time Slice 3/3/2008. 4/4/2008 Active 3.37 36.97 16.55 f�03 23_99 1.07 25_86 ,5 40 .7 6.72 nava- 25 Demolition 0310312006- 04/04/2008 3.37 36.97 16.55 0.03 23.99 1.87 25.86 5.00 1.72 6.72 Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.87 0.00 23.87 4.97 0.00 4.97 Demo Olt Road Diesel 1.31 8.68 4.91 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.62 0.62 Demo On Road Diesel 2.02 28.22 10.51 0.03 0.11 1.19 1.30 0.04 1.09 1.13 Demo Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Time Slice 4/7/2008- 5/14/2008 Active 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 0.57 1.41 1.99 0.12 1.30 1.42 nave, 2A Fine Grading 04/05/2008 - 0511412008 3.35 26.07 14.69 0.00 0.57 1.41 1.99 0.12 1.30 1.42 Fine Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.57 0.12 0.00 0.12 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 3.31 28.00 13.56 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.30 1.30 Fine Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1A3 0.00 0.01 0.00 OA1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Time Slice 5/15/2008- 5/30/2008 Active 2.36 20.19 9.60 0.00 0.01 1.00 1.01 0.00 0.92 0.92 n, - 12 Trenching 05 /15/2008 - 05/30/2008 2.36 20.19 9.60 0.00 0.01 1.00 1.01 0.00 0.92 0.92 Trenching Off Road Diesel 2.33 20.12 8.46 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.92 0.92 Trenching Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Time Slice 6/2/2008- 12!31 /2008 Active 1.54 11.35 8.54 0.00 0.02 0.70 0.72 0.01 0.65 0.65 nam. iS9 Bullding 06/02/2008.08/07 /2009 1.54 11.35 8.54 0.00 0.02 0.70 0.72 0.01 0.65 0.65 Building Off Road Diesel _ 1.39 10.47 5.09 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.61 0.61 Building Vendor Trips 0.06 0.70 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.18 2.94 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Time Slice 1/1/2009 - 713/2009 Active 1.44 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.62 nave. 1R2 Page:1 4/212008 04:24:39 PM Building 06/0212008.08 /07/2009 1.44 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.62 Building Off Road Diesel 1.30 9.79 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.56 0.58 Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.66 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.16 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Time Slice 7/6/20097/14/2009 Active 13.27 24.45 17_93 0.01 0.04 181_ 1185 0.01 1.66 1.68 Nvn- 7 Asphalt 07/06/200907/1412009 2.47 13.81 9.32 0.00 0.02 1.14 1.15 0.01 1.05 1.05 Paving Off -Gas 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.08 12.55 7.05 0.00 0.00 1.09 1.09 0.00 1.00 1.00 Paving On Road Diesel 0.08 1.15 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 1.85 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 Building 0610212008. 08/07/2009 1.44 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.62 Building Off Road Diesel 1.30 9.79 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.58 Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.66 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.16 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Coating 07/06/2009.08/07 /2009 9.36 0.03 0.45 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 9.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.01 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Time Slice 7/15/20098/7/2009 Active 10.80 10.63 8.61 0.01 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.62 0.62 Ilays- 18 Building 0 6(02/2008.08107/2009 1.44 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.62 Building Off Road Diesel 1.30 9.79 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.58 Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.66 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.16 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Coating 07/06/200908/07 /2009 9.36 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 9.35 0.00 0.00 0100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page: 1 4/2/2008 04:24:39 PM Coating Worker Trips 0.01 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Construction Related Mitidaton Measures The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 4/5/2008 - 5/14/2008 • Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation Description for Sal Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover M disturbed areas qulcklymifigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5016 PM25: 50% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55016 PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loadinglunloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 690% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by PM10: 44% PM25: 440% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 55% PM25: 55010 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day Unmitigated source JO SO2 PM10 FIM2.5 CO2 0.02 0.31 0.13 0.00 0 -00 0.00 399.73 Natural Gas Hearth - No Summer Emissions Landscape 0.23 0.02 2.16 0.00 0.01 0.01 3.60 Consumer Products 123 Architectural Coatings 0.06 Area Source Chances 19 Defaults Page: 1 4/2/2008 04:24:39 PM i4 a„€Yin FI , {til�l�,} °t IM "I OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX CO S02 PM10 PM25 CO2 Single family housing 1.23 1187 14.26 0.01 2.01 0.40 1,214.60 Condotlownhouse general 0.79 1.02 8173 0.01 1.2a 0.24 743.74 Operational Settings: Does not Include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for Internal trips Analysis Year: 2009 Temperature (F): 80 Season: Summer Err+fac: Version . Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Land Use Type Single family housing CondMownhouse general Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 Ib8 Light Truck 3751.5750 Ibs Med Truck 5761.85001bs Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 1.00 9.57 dwe(fing units 12.00 114.84 1116021 DA5 5.88 d»'eNmg units 12.00 70.32 710.43 185.15 1,870.64 Vehicle FlealMix Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 49.0 2.0 97.6 0.4 10.9 3.7 90.8 5.5 21.7 0.9 98.6 0.5 9.5 1.1 98,9 0.0 I A 04:24:39 PM rvy Truck 8501-10,000 (bs 1.6 0.0 7510 25.0 wry Truck 10,001- 14,000)bs 0.6 010 50.0 50.0 nv9 Truck 14AQ1- 33,000 be 1.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 Heavy Truck 33,001 -60.000 Ibs 0.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 Sus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100A Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 =Yle 315 77.1 22.9 0.0 A Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Home 1.0 10.0 80.0 10.0 Travel CQadRions Residentfat Commercial Home-Work Home-Shap Home -Other Commute Non-Work Customer an Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 9.5 13.3 7.4 8.9 W Trip Length (mles) 17.6 1211 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 speeds (mph) 30,0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 of Trips - ReskiwA f 32.9 18.0 49.1 of Trips - CommereW (by fend use) Operational Chances Cc DetauRs mm m m = mm m w = =! m mm m m i i 893.39 112.86 322.82 1,328.91 1,328.91 893.39 112.86 322.66 2.725.05 1,342.70 0.00 979.23 145.62 217.85 1,328.91 893.39 112.86 322.66 53.44 0.00 53.44 1,382.35 1,328.91 893.39 w = = = = == r w= w m m m m = gy m •7. 4,171.01 0.00 700.30 3,346.17 124.55 2,371.86 2,371.86 0.00 2,247.32 0.00 124.55 1,839.18 1,839.18 1,714.64 124.55 1,329.07 1,329.07 893.39 112.86 322.82 1,328.91 1,328.91 893.39 112.86 322.66 2.725.05 1,342.70 0.00 979.23 145.62 217.85 1,328.91 893.39 112.88 322.66 53.44 0.00 53.44 1,382.35 1,328.91 893.39 112.86 322.66 53.44 0.00 Page: 1 4/212008 04:24:49 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds/Day) File Name: CASeashore Village\SeashoreVillage.urb9 Project Name: Seashore Village Project Location: Orange County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES f� NOx 00 S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust 2008 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 3.37 36.97 16.55 0.03 23.99 1.87 2008 TOTALS (Ibs/day mitigated) 3.37 36.97 16.55 0.03 23.99 1.87 PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust 25.86 5.00 1.72 25.86 5.00 1.72 EMUS 6.72 6.72 2009 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated) 13.27 24.45 17.93 0.01 0.04 1.81 1.85 0.01 1.66 1.68 2009 TOTALS (Ibs /day mitigated) 13.27 24.45 17.93 0.01 0.04 1.81 1.85 0.01 1.66 1.68 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx 00 S02 PM10 PM2.5 002 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 5.07 0.62 10.66 0.03 1.62 1.56 820.42 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES g NOx CO S02 PM 10 PM2.5 002 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 2.18 3.21 22.48 0.02 3.24 0.64 1,781.37 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES M111111MIM = w man MM M M r 0111111 MM M M w Page:1 4/212008 04:24:49 PM P� TOTALS pbs/day, unmitigated) 7.25 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Time Slice 3/3/2008. 4/4/2008 Active Davao 9fi Demolition 03103/2008. 04/04/2008 Fugitive Dust Demo Off Road Diesel Demo On Road Diesel Demo Worker Trips Time Slice 4/7 /2008. 5/14/2008 Active Daw 98 Fire Grading 04/05/2008 - D5/14/9D08 Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 5/15/2008- 5/30/2008 Active Daum 19 Trenching 05115!2008. 05/30/2008 Trenching Off Road Diesel Trenching Worker Trips Time Slice 61212008- 12131/2008 Artiva Dava: 1RR Building 06/02/2008. 08107/2009 3.37 36.97 3.37 36.97 0.00 0.00 1.31 8.68 2.02 28.22 0.04 0.07 3.35 28.07 3.35 28.07 0.00 0.00 3.31 28.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.07 2.36 20.19 2.36 20.19 2.33 20.12 0.04 0.07 1.54 11.35 1.54 11.35 OX fQ SS02 PM10 PM2.5 CO2 3.83 33.04 0.05 4.86 2.20 2,601.79 fQ S022 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 1655 0_03 23_99 1.87 25_86 5_00 1_72 8.7? 16.55 0.03 23.99 1.87 25.86 5.00 1.72 6.72 0.00 0.00 23.87 0.00 23.67 4.97 0.00 4.97 4.91 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.62 0.62 10.51 0.03 0.11 1.19 1.30 0.04 1.09 1.13 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.69 0.00 3.61 1.41 5.02 0.75 1.30 2.06 14.69 0.00 3.61 1.41 5.02 0.75 1.30 2.06 0.00 0.00 3.60 0.00 3.60 0.75 0.00 0.75 13.56 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.30 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.60 0.00 0.01 1.00 '1.01 0.00 0.92 0.92 9.60 0.00 0.01 1.00 1.01 0.00 0.92 0.92 8.46 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.92 0.92 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.54 0.00 0.02 0.70 0.72 0.01 0.65 0.65 8.64 0.00 0.02 0.70 0.72 0.01 0.65 0.65 Page: 1 412/2008 04:24:49 PM Building Off Road Diesel 1.39 10.47 5.09 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.61 0.61 Building Vendor Trips 0.06 0.70 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.18 2.94 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Time Slice 1/1/2009- 7/312009 Active 1.44 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.62 rlava: 1q5) Building 06/002006 -08 /07/2009 1.44 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.62 Building Off Road Diesel 1.30 9.79 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.58 Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.66 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.16 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Time Slice 7/6/2009.7/1412009 Active M2727 24.45 77.93 0.01 0.04 1.81 1_85 0.01 1.66 1.68 navy 7 Asphalt 07 /0612009- 07/14/2009 2.47 13.81 9.32 0.00 0.02 1.14 1.15 0.01 1.05 1.05 Paving Off -Gas 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.08 12.55 7.05 0.00 0.00 1.09 1.09 0.00 1.00 1.00 Paving On Road Diesel 0.08 1.15 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 1.85 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 Building 06102/2008 - 08/07/2009 1.44 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.62 Building Off Road Diesel 1.30 9.79 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.58 Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.66 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.16 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Coating 07/0612009 - 06/07/2009 9.36 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 9.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.01 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Time Slice 711512009-817/2009 Active 10.80 10.63 8.61 0.01 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.62 0.62 r)ays: 1R Building 06102/2008.08107 12009 1.44 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.62 Building Off Road Diesel 1.30 9.79 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 .0.56 0.68 M M M M M M= M M M w i r M M w w M M Page:1 41=008 04:24:49 PM Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Coating 07/06/2009 -06107 /2009 Architectural Coating Coating Worker Trips 0.05 0.66 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.09 0.16 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 9.36 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase Assumptions Phase: Demolition 3/3/2008.414=08 - Default Demolition Description Building Volume Total (cubic feet): 1706342 Building Volume Dally (cubic feet): 58843.15 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 789.49 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Conorete/Industrial Saws (10 hp) operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 bad factor for 1 hours per day 2 Tractorslf-oaders/Backhoss (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 6 hours per day Phase: Fine Grading 41512008.5/14/2008 - Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation Description Total Acres Disturbed: 1.45 Maximum Dally Acreage Disturbed: 0.36 Fugitive Dust level of Detail: Default 10 Ibs per acre -day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 0 Off-Road Equipment 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (106 hp) operating at a 0.55 bad factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Trenching 5/1512005.580/2008 - Type Your Description Here Page: 1 4W2008 04:24:49 PM Off -Road Equipment: . 2 Excavators (168 hp) operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment (238 hp) operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day Phase: Paving 7/6/2009.7/14/2009 - Default Paving Description Acres to be Paved: 0.67 Off -Road Equipment 4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Pavers (100 hp) operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers (95 hp) operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (106 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day Phase: Building Construction 6/2/2008.817/2009 - Default Building Construction Description Off -Road Equipment 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating at a 0.43 load factor for 4 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 bad factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 bad factor for 8 hours per day Phase: Architectural Coaling 7/8/2009.8/7/2009 - Default Architectural Coating Description Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30/2008 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 1 2131 /2 040 specifies a VOC of 50 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 6/30 /2008 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Nonresidential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 12/31/2040 specifies a VOC of 250 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Mitlgated M w M M w M M ' M M M = M M w w IM = M M� s ■■s s M r r M w w M M w M Page:1 41212008 04:24:49 PM Time Slice 3/3/2008.414/2008 Active Mva: 9M Demolition 03/03/2008.04/04 /2008 Fugitive Dust . Demo Off Road Diesel Demo On Road Diesel Demo WorkerTrips Time Slice 417/2008. 5/14/2008 Active nary - 98 Fine Grading 04105/2008• MM4/PnnA Fine Grading Dust Fine Grading Off Road Diesel Fine Grading On Road Diesel Fine Grading Worker Trips Time Slice 5/15/2008.5/30/2008 Ar.6va M) : 19 Trenching 05/15/2008- 05130/2008 Trenching Off Road Diesel Trenching Worker Trips Time Slice 6MO08. 12/31/2008 Active Mvs: 1 Mi Building 08/02/2008 -08/07/2009 Building Off Road Diesel Building Vendor Trips Building Worker Trips Time Slice 111/2009 - 7/3/2009 Active DaW: 1.V Building 06/02/2008 - 08/07/2009 Q 4 M SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 33 36_97 16.55 0.03 23.99 1.87 25.86 6.00 1.72 6.72 3.37 36.97 16.55 0.03 23.99 1.87 25.86 5.00 1.72 6.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.87 0.00 23.87 4.97 0.00 4.97 1.31 8.68 4.91 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.62 0.62 2.02 28.22 10.51 0.03 0.11 1.19 1.30 0.04 1.09 1.13 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 0.57 1.41 1.99 0.12 1.30 1.42 3.35 28.07 14.69 0.00 0.57 1.41 1.99 0.12 1.30 1.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.57 0.12 0.00 0.12 3.31 28.00 13.56 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.30 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.36 20.19 9.60 0.00 0.01 1.00 1.01 0.00 0.92 0.92 2.36 20.19 9.60 0.00 0.01 1.00 1.01 0.00 0.92 0.92 2.33 20.12 8.46 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.92 0.92 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.54 11.35 8.54 0.00 0.02 0.70 0.72 0.01 0.65 0.65 1.54 11.35 8.54 0.00 0.02 0.70 0.72 0.01 0.65 0.65 1.39 10.47 5.09 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.67 0.00 0.61 0.61 0.06 0.70 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.09 0.18 2.94 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.44 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.62 1.44 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.62 Page :1 4!212008 04:24:49 PM Building Off Road Diesel 1.30 9.79 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.58 Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.66 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.16 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Time Slice 7/8/2009. 7114/2009 Active 13.27 24_45 17.93 0101 004 1.81 1_85 0.01 1,66 tsa flava- 7 Asphalt 07106/2009. 07114/2009 2.47 13.81 9.32 0.00 0.02 1.14 1.15 0.01 1.05 1.05 Paving Off -Gas 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 2.08 12.55 7.05 0.00 0.00 1.09 1.09 0.00 1.00 1.00 Paving On Road Diesel 0.08 1.15 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 1.85 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 Building 08/02/2008- 08/07/2009 1.44 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.62 Building Off Road Diesel 1.30 9.79 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.58 Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.66 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.16 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Coating 07106/2009 -0810712009 9.36 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 9.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.01 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Time Slice 7 115/2009. 8/7/2009 Active 10.80 10.63 8.61 0.01 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.62 0.62 Mvs! 1 R Building 06/02/2008 -0810712009 1.44 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.01 0.61 0.62 Building Off Road Diesel 1.30 9.79 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.58 Building Vendor Trips 0.05 0.66 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.16 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 Coating 07108/2009 - 08/07/2009 9.36 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coating 9.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coating Worker Trips 0.01 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 M M M M w� M M M M M M M M M M ■i M a M r= M� M M M r Mr r r M r" M r M Page:1 41=008 04:24:49 PM Construction Related Mitloation Measures_ The following mitigation measures apply to Phase: Fine Grading 4/5/2008.5114/2008 - Default Fine Site Grading/Excavation Description For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 6% PM25: 6% For Soil Stabl'rzing Measures, the Water exposed surfaces 2x dally watering mitigation reduces emissions by: PM 10: 650/6 PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 89% PM25: 69% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Reduce speed on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 44% PM26: 44% For Unpaved Roads Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x dally watering mitigation reduces emissions try: PM10: 55% PM25: 55% AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source Q NOx CO S02 PM10 PMT CO2 ,g Area Source Change$ to Defau k 'age: I 11212448 04:24:49 PM )perational Settings: )oes not include correction for passby trips )oes not Include double counting adjustment for Internal trips analysis Year: 2009 Temperature (F): 60 Season: Winter Emfao: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2008 and Use Type Single family housing rondo/townhouse general Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 ibs Light Truck 3751- 5750lbs Med Truck 5751.8500 Its Ute -Heavy Truck 8501 - 10,000 The Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips )PERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day Unmitigated 1.00 9.57 dwelling units 12.00 Source ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM25 CO2 'Ingle family housing 1.34 1.99 13.94 0.01 2.01 0.40 1,104.84 )ondcltmnhouse general 0.84 1.22 8.54 0.01 1.23 024 676.53 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non - Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 48.0 2.0 97.6 0.4 10.9 3.7 90.8 5.5 21.7 0.9 98.6 0.5 9.5 1.1 98.9 0.0 1.6 0.0 76.0 )perational Settings: )oes not include correction for passby trips )oes not Include double counting adjustment for Internal trips analysis Year: 2009 Temperature (F): 60 Season: Winter Emfao: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2008 and Use Type Single family housing rondo/townhouse general Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 ibs Light Truck 3751- 5750lbs Med Truck 5751.8500 Its Ute -Heavy Truck 8501 - 10,000 The Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 1.00 9.57 dwelling units 12.00 114.84 1,160.21 0.45 5.86 dwelling units 12.00 70.32 710.43 185.16 1,870.64 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non - Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 48.0 2.0 97.6 0.4 10.9 3.7 90.8 5.5 21.7 0.9 98.6 0.5 9.5 1.1 98.9 0.0 1.6 0.0 76.0 25.0 Page: 1 4/212008 04:24:49 PM Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001 - 14,000 Ibs 0.6 0.0 50.0 50.0 Mad -Heavy Truck 14,001. 33,000 Ibs 1.0 0.0 20.0 80.0 Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001.60,000 Ibs 0.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motorcycle 15 77.1 22.9 0.0 School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motor Home 1.0 Travel 10.0 80.0 10.0 Conditions Residential Commercial Home -Work Home -Shop Home -Other Commute Non -Work Customer Urban Tdp Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 9.5 13.3 7.4 8.9 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 % of Trips - Residential 32.9 18.0 49.1 % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Operational Chanftes to Defaults 4,171.01 4,171.01 2,725.05 2,725.05 m= m m= m m m r s r m == r= m m r m= m m = = == m r s m m == m m 4.171.01 4,171.01 0.00 700.30 3,346.17 124.56 2,371.66 2,371.86 0.00 2247.32 0.00 124.55 1,839.18 1,839.18 1,714.64 124.55 1,329.07 1,329.07 893.39 112.86 322.82 1,328.91 1,328.91 893.39 112.86 322.66 2.725.05 1,342.70 0.00 979.23 145.62 217.85 1,328.91 893.39 112.86 322.66 53.44 0.00 53.44 1,382.35 1,328.91 893.39 srsa 4.771.07 4,171.01 0.00 700.30 3,346.17 124.55 2,371.86 2,371.86 0.00 2,247.32 0.00 124.55 1,839.18 1,839.18 1,714.64 124.55 1,329.07 1,329.07 893.39 772.86 322.82 1,328.91 1,328.91 893.39 11286 322.66 2.725.05 1,342.70 0.00 979.23 145.62 217.86 1,328.91 893.39 112.86 322.66 53.44 0.00 53.44 1,382.35 1,328.91 893.39 112.86 322.66 53.44 0.00 53.44 Appendix B i Draft Conditions of Approval I I I nII �J i 1 1 J I- L ' Seasbore Village Response to Comments City of Newport Beacb Appendices ' This page intentionally left , I 1 1 rte, The Planning Center Apri! 2008 ' Draft Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001, Modification Permit No. 2007 -044, Use Permit No. 2007 -011 & Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001 (Project- specific conditions are in italics) Planning Department The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plans stamped with the date of this approval, except as modified by other conditions. 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 4. Project approvals shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the effective date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050A of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Reasonable extensions may be granted by the Planning Director in accordance with applicable regulations. 5. The applicant shall obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit for the project. 6. With the exception of the height modifications required per Condition No. 7, the floor plans and building envelopes for each unit are approved as precise plans and future floor area additions to the building envelopes shall be prohibited. The proposed open patio and deck areas for each unit shall not be permitted to be enclosed and the landscape and open space areas proposed throughout the development site shall be preserved. 7. The two structures that encroach into the side yard setback area immediately adjacent to the east property line shall be modified in height to conform to the 24 -foot base height limit. 8. The applicant shall replace 6 affordable units within 3 years of the date of issuance of a demolition permit. The units may be provided off -site at an approved location, or locations, within the City. An amount not to exceed $1.35 million shall be provided by the applicant and the applicant shall use such funds to replace the 6 affordable units and to achieve a mix of income levels and bedroom counts, as determined appropriate by the Planning Director. The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to provide said units. The agreement shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney and shall be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the project. 9. Any very-low and low - income units provided in accordance with Condition No. 8 shall be maintained as rental units for a minimum period of 30 years. Any moderate income units should be provided as "for -sale" units with a covenant maintaining the affordability for a minimum period of 30 years. 10. Gated vehicular access through the site shall be prohibited. 11. 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 and light standards shall not exceed 24 feet in height. 12.The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 13. 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 Department. 14. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in conditions of approval Nos. 12 & 13. 15.AII proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Chapter 20.67 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. 16. Trash container storage for the individual units shall be screened from view of neighboring properties and public places, except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. Trash containers shall not be located within the required parking areas. 17.AII landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 18. 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 I incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Department and the General Services ' 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 1 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. ' 19. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever available, assuming it is economically feasible. ' 20. 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 Seashore Village Residential Development Project including, but not limited to, the approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001, Modification Permit No. 2007 -044, Use Permit No. 2007 -011 & Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001; 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 t 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. ' Buildina Department 21.The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of all applicable City plan check and inspection fees. ' 22.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. ' 23. 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 1 1 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. 24. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall obtain a NPDES permit. The applicant shall incorporate storm water pollutant control into erosion control plans using BMPs to the maximum extent possible. Evidence that proper clearances have been obtained through the State Water Resources Control Board shall be given to the Building Department prior to issuance of grading permits. 25. 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 Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 26.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. Fire Department 27. The internal roadway shall be marked as a fire lane, per the direction and approval of the Fire Department. Public Works Department 28. A Final Tract Map (Map) shall be filed with the Public Works Department. 29.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, 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. 30. Prior to recordation of the 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. 31. All applicable City fees shall be paid prior to the processing of the Map. 32.Construction surety in a form acceptable to the City, guaranteeing the completion of the various required public improvements, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of the Public Works Department approval of building plans. 33. Easements for weekly trash pick -up by City crews shall be dedicated as part of the Map. 34. Easements for public emergency and security ingress /egress, and public utility purposes on private streets shall be provided to the City. 35.All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. ' 36.A new full -width sidewalk shall be constructed within the limits of the existing Utilities and Sidewalk easements along Seashore Drive fronting the project site. Existing City street trees shall be removed to accommodate the sidewalk construction. ' 37. New City- designated street trees shall be planted along the River Avenue frontage. All street trees shall be planted per City Standards and guidelines provided by the ' City General Services Department. 38.All existing drainage facilities in the public right -of -way shall be retrofitted to comply ' with the City's on -site non -storm runoff retention requirements. 39. On-site runoff shall be retained on -site. ' 40. Private storm drain piping shall not connect directly to the City's storm drain catch basin. 1 41.All on -site utilities shall be owned, operated, and maintained by the community /association. 1 1 42. Each unit shall be served by its individual water meter and sewer lateral and cleanout. Each water meter and sewer cleanout in the vehicular traveled -way shall be installed with a traffic -grade box and cover. 43. Individual water services per City Standards shall be provided in lieu of manifolds. 44. All on -site parking, vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. 45.The parking layout shall be in conformance with City Standard 805 -L -A and 805 -L -S. 46.An ADA compliant public pedestrian pathway, from River Avenue to Seashore Drive, shall be provided through the development site. 47. The vehicular pathways shall be designed to support a fully loaded large trash truck. 48. Adequate turning radii and width shall be provided for large trash truck travel paths. 49.All improvements (including, but not limited to, the landscaping in the parking lot area and ingress /egress points to the development site) shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement (City Standard 110 -L). 50. All abandoned driveway approaches shall be removed per City Standard 165 -L. 51. All new driveway approaches shall comply with Council Policy L -2 and constructed per City Standards. 52. Reconstruct any existing broken/damaged sidewalk, curb and gutter fronting the development per City Standards. 53. No permanent structures can be built within the limits of the Utilities and Sidewalk easement. 54. The construction work cannot impact the free flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic between Memorial Day and Labor Day. The staging and parking of all construction - related equipment and vehicles shall take place on -site, and NOT in the public right - of -way or City property. 55. All utility service connections serving this development shall be made underground. 56. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right -of -way may be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. I fl 1 I I 11 1 I I 1 L_ 57.The streets surrounding the project site is on the City's streetfalley -cut Moratorium List. Any damage done to said roadways by the project will require substantial pavement repair work to be fully paid for by the Developer. 58.An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right -of- way. 59. An encroachment agreement shall be applied for and approved by the Public Works Department for all non - standard private improvements within the public right -of -way. 60. The intersection of the internal roadways with River Avenue shall be designed to provide adequate sight distance per City of Newport Beach Standard Drawing STD - 110-L. Slopes, landscaping, walls, signs and other obstructions shall be considered in the sight distance requirements. Landscaping within the sight lines (sight cone) shall not exceed 24- inches in height and the monument identification sign must be located outside the line of sight cone. The sight distance may be modified at non- critical locations, subject to approval by the Traffic Engineer. 61. The internal roadway shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide, unless otherwise approved by the Traffic Engineer. The internal roadway shall align with Neptune Avenue. The internal roadway curb cut on River Avenue shall be 26 feet wide minimum and modified to comply with current ADA standards. 62. Guest parking stalls shall be 8.5 feet by 17 feet minimum. Parking stalls adjacent to walls or other obstructions shall be 9-foot-wide minimum. 63.0n -site parking, vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation system shall be subject to further review by the City Traffic Engineer. 64. The California Vehicle Code shall be enforced on the private streets and drives, and that the delineation acceptable to the Police Department and Public Works Department be provided along the sidelines of the private streets and drives. Mitigation Measures 65. 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 (SCH No. 2008 - 021075) for the project. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY FOR: SEASHORE VILLAGE prepared for: THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Contact: Brandon Nichols Associate Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER Contact: Elizabeth Kim Associate Planner FEBRUARY 2008 I I I I 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration Pursuant to the procedures of the City of Newport Beach for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City has completed an Initial Study for the project described below: Project Information: IProject: Seashore Village Residential Project Project Location: 5515 River Avenue, Newport Beach, California. Project Proponent(s): Seashore Village, LLC. Project Description: The project applicant, Seashore Village LLC, proposes to develop 12 single - family detached units and 6 duplex units, for a total of 24 units, on a 1.49 -acre site at 5515 River Avenue in Newport Beach. The proposed project would be completed in three phases with two building styles: Plantation and Craftsman. Single- family units with Plantation and Craftsman architectural styles would front Seashore Drive alternately, and duplex units with Plantation and Craftsman architectural styles would front River Avenue alternately. The current permitted density at the site is 51 units per acre and the proposed project would yield 16 units per acre. The project proposes a gross floor area of 57,906 square feet and a floor area ratio of 0.78. The development proposes three plan types —Plan A during Phase I, Plan B during Phase Ii, and Plan C during Phase III —and four floor plans ranging in size from 1,770 square feet to 3,248 square feet, including attached garages, patios, and decks. For Plan A, the maximum ridgeline height would be 31 feet and the maximum midpoint height would be 25 ' feet and 6 inches. For Plan B, the maximum ridgeline height would be 31 feet and 4 inches and the midpoint height would be 26 feet and 8 inches. For Plan C, the maximum ridgeline height would be 31 feet and I 4 inches and the maximum midpoint height would be 29 feet and 6 Inches. The site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex. The existing apartment complex would be demolished in preparation for development of the proposed project. The existing apartment complex has been surveyed for asbestos containing materials (ACMs) and all ACMs would be abated prior to demolition. The site would be balanced and no import or export of soils would be required. I Access to the project site would be provided by two driveways on River Avenue and a driveway from Neptune Avenue. The western driveway on River Avenue would exclusively serve one single- family unit, and all other access would be provided through River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. The proposed project would provide a total of 60 parking spaces. These parking spaces would include spaces within attached garages and 13 guest parking spaces, including one handicap space. Existing Conditions: The approximately 1.49 -acre project site (APN No. 424 - 471 -03) is relatively flat and has a trapezoidal shape. The project site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex (Las Brisas Apartments). The main building of the Las Brisas Apartment is an L- shaped, three- story building with carports on the first level. Other associated uses include a swimming pool, paved parking area, and planters. The project site is currently accessed via two driveways on River Avenue. Access from and to Seashore Street and Neptune Avenue is blocked by a wooden fence. Summary of Impacts: Attached is the Initial Study prepared for the proposed project. The Initial Study reviews potential environmental effects associated with the proposed project. Please review the Initial Study for more information. Discretionary Approvals: Seashore Village LLC is seeking approvals for the implementation of the proposed project. The intent of this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is to enable the City of Newport Beach, other responsible agencies, and interested parties to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project, thereby enabling them to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements. The proposed project would require the following entitlements from the City of Newport Beach: Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 17194 (TfM 17194). Request to approve TTM 17194 for condominium purposes, creating 24 airspace condominium units. Modification Permit. Request to reduce the minimum building separation distance required by the MFR zoning designation from 10 feet to 6 feet and to reduce the minimum front setback distance along Seashore Drive required by the MFR zoning designation from 20 feet to 10 feet. A modification permit is also requested for a 3 -foot sideyard setback where the MFR zone requires approximately 25 feet sideyard setback based on lot width. Use Permit. Request to exceed the midpoint height requirement of 28 feet for the duplex structures by 1 foot and 6 inches, whereas the maximum permitted ridge height of 33 feet would not be exceeded. Coastal Residential Development Permit (CRDP). Required to ensure compliance with California Government Code Section 65590 et. Seq. and Chapter 20.86 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code for .projects located within the Coastal Zone. Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Coastal Development Permits are obtained through the California Coastal Commission and are generally required for improvements, demolition, or construction of any structure located within the Coastal Zone boundary. I I lJ 1 I 1 1 1 1 II 1 All impacts with the exception of air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise were determined to be less than significant. The following impacts required implementation of mitigation measures to be reduced to a less than significant level. Availability of Documents: Complete copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study are on file at the City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. Mitigation Measures: The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce project - related environmental impacts to a less than significant level: Air Quality The construction contractor for the property owner /developer shall implement additional dust control measures during demolition as follows: • The project contractor shall apply nontoxic chemical dust suppressants (e.g., polymer emulsion) to buildings being demolished to reduce fugitive dust from active demolition .activities. • The project contractor shall prohibit demolition activities when wind speed exceeds 25 miles per hour. • The project contractor shall install a temporary construction fence and silt barrier around the construction site as shown in the Construction Staging and Water Quality Control Plan submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. • The project contractor shall install construction tire wash areas at the entrance to the project site on River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. All construction clean -up shall be done in construction sediment basins. The construction tire wash area shall be installed in accordance with the Construction Staging and Water Quality Control Plan submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. • I The contractor will sweep adjacent streets and roads a minimum of once per week. Material haul trucks leaving the project site will have their loads either covered or maintain a freeboard distance of two feet from the stacked load to the top of the trailer. Cultural Resources 2. Prior to approval of a grading plan, the property owner /developer shall submit a letter to the Planning Department, Planning Division, showing that a qualified archaeologist has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: The archaeologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to.permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner /developer for exploration and /or salvage. Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. • A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. 3. The property owner /developer shall submit a letter to the Public Works /Engineering Department, Development Division, and the Planning Department, Planning Division, showing that a certified paleontologist has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: • The paleontologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of fossils. If potentially significant materials are discovered, the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner /developer for exploration and /or salvage. • Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. • Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted. Upon the completion of the grading, the paleontologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted Geology and Soils 4. During construction, the construction manager shall ensure that measures listed in the geotechnical investigation (EGA Consultants, 2007) or equivalent measures are implemented to minimize the effects of liquefaction. The measures shall include but are not limited to: • Tie all pad footings with grade beams. • All footings should be a minimum of 24 inches deep, below grade. • Continuous footings should be reinforced with two No. 5 rebar (two at the top and two at the bottom). • Concrete slabs cast against properly compacted fill materials shall be a minimum of 6 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 rebar at 12 inches on center in both directions. The reinforcement shall be supported on chairs to insure positioning of the reinforcement at mid - center in the slab. Dowel all footings to slabs with No. 4 bars at 24 inches on center. ' Hazards and Hazardous Materials ' 5. Prior to demolition activity, a certified and licensed asbestos abatement contractor shall perform any removal of asbestos containing material (ACM). Also, an industrial hygienist must be present to perform engineering control and regulatory asbestos air monitoring during any abatement activity. Noise ' 6. Demolition of the existing asphalt with a jackhammer within eight feet of the existing residential structures to the southeast of the site shall be prohibited. The construction contractor shall utilize alternative asphalt demolition methods such as a concrete saws and other nonvibratory ' construction equipment to remove the pavement. 1 11 1 Lead Agency Determination: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Brandon Nichols Printed Name 2/14/08 Date Title Associate Planner INITIAL STUDY FOR: SEASHORE VILLAGE owmCwt prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER 1580 Metro Drive Contact. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Elizabeth Kim Tel. 714. 966. 9220 • Fax. 714.966.9221 Associate Planner E -mail: costamesa @pianningcenter.com Website: www.planningcenter.com CNB -10.OE FEBRUARY 2008 prepared for: CRY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Contact: PO Box 1768 Brandon Nichols Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Associate Planner 949.644.3234 prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER 1580 Metro Drive Contact. Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Elizabeth Kim Tel. 714. 966. 9220 • Fax. 714.966.9221 Associate Planner E -mail: costamesa @pianningcenter.com Website: www.planningcenter.com CNB -10.OE FEBRUARY 2008 I 1 I I 1 Cl rJ 11 1 1 11 11 I' 1 ITable of Contents 11 1. INTRODUCTION .........................................----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- I 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION ........................................................................... ..............................1 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................ ..............................1 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................... ..............................2 1.4 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN .......................................... .............................25 1.5 DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS ........................................................... .............................25 2. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ............................................................... .............................27 2.1 BACKGROUND .................................................................................... .............................27 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .................. .............................29 2.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) .... .............................29 2.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS .................................. .............................30 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .................................................................. .............................39 3.1 AESTHETICS ........................................................................................ .............................39 3.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES .............................................................. .............................49 3.3 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................ .............................50 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................. .............................61 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................... .............................62 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................ .............................65 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ......................................... .............................67 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .................................................. .............................70 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING ................................................................ .............................75 3.10 MINERAL RESOURCES ....................................................................... .............................76 3.11 NOISE ................................................................................................... .............................76 3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................. .............................88 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES .............................................................................. .............................89 3.14 RECREATION ....................................................................................... .............................91 3.15 TRANSPORTATION/ TRAFFIC .............................................................. .............................91 3.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ................................................... .............................93 3.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ..................................... .............................97 4. REFERENCES ............................................................................................ .............................99 4.1 PRINTED REFERENCES ...................................................................... .............................99 4.2 WEB SITES ........................................................................................... .............................99 5. LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................... ............................... ............................101 THEPLANNING CENTER ................................................. ............................... ............................101 APPENDICES A. Air Quality Modeling Output B. Archaeological Records Search C. Geotechnical Investigation D. Phase I Environmental Assessment E. Water Quality Management Plan F. Noise Modeling Output ' Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page i mn Table of Contents List of Figures Figure Page Figure 1 Regional Location .............................. ............................... Figure 2 Local Vicinity ...................................... ............................... Figure 3 Aerial Photograph .............................. ............................... Figure 4 Proposed Site Plan ............................ ............................... Figure 5 Architectural Renderings .................... ............................... Figure 6 Plan A Single - Family Building Elevations ......................... Figure 7 Plan B Single - Family Building Elevations ......................... Figure 8a Plan C Duplex Building Elevations (Craftsman) ................ Figure 8b Plan C Duplex Front & Rear Elevations (Craftsman) ........ Figure 9a Plan C Duplex Building Elevations (Plantation) ................ Figure 9b Plan C Duplex Front & Rear Elevations (Plantation) ......... Figure 10 Coastal Views ..................................... ............................... Figure 11a Site Photographs ............................... ............................... Figure 11 b Site Photographs ............................... ............................... Figure 12 Plan C Duplex Conforming Structure . ............................... Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 List of Tables ................... .............................45 ................... .............................47 Ambient Air Quality Standards for Criteria Pollutants ............ ............................... Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary ................... ............................... SCAQMD Significance Thresholds ............................. ............................... Localized Significance Thresholds ............................. ............................... Maximum Daily Construction Emissions .................... ............................... Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Compared with the LSTs .......... Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Compared with the LSTs - With ..........52 ..........54 ..........55 ..........56 ................... 57 ................... 59 Page ii • The Planning Center February 2008 1 Mitigation.............................................................................................. .............................60 Table 8 Change in Sound Pressure Level ........................................................ .............................77 Table 9 State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards .................... .............................78 Table 10 Community Noise and Land Use Compatibility ................................... .............................79 Table 11 City of Newport Beach Incremental Noise Impact Criteria for Noise - Sensitive Uses..................................................................................................... .............................80 Table 12 City of Newport Beach Exterior Noise Standards ................................ .............................81 Table 13 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria - Human Annoyance ........................82 Table 14 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria - Structural Damage .........................82 Table 15 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment at Nearest Residences .................85 Table 16 Average Construction Noise Levels ..................................................... .............................87 Table 17 Project - Generated Traffic ..................................................................... .............................92 Page ii • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I I I ' 1. Introduction Seashore Village LLC seeks City approval for a tentative tract map, modification permit, use permit, and Coastal Residential Development Permit to construct a 24 -unit residential community on approximately ' 1.49 acres in the City of Newport Beach. Development of the proposed project also requires the approval of a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission to construct in the Coastal Zone. The site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex and associated uses. ' The City of Newport Beach, as Lead Agency for the project, is responsible for preparing environmental documentation in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended, to determine if approval of the discretionary actions requested and subsequent development could have a ' significant impact on the environment. This Initial Study will provide the City of Newport Beach with information to document potential impacts of the proposed project. 1 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located at 5515 River Avenue in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. The project site is generally bordered by River Avenue to the north, Seashore Drive to the south residential units, including vacation rentals, to the east, and a City -owned park to the west. Figure 1, � Regional Location, and Figure 2, Local Vicinity, show the location of the project site in the regional and VV local context of Orange County and Newport Beach, respectively. 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1.2.1 Existing Land Use The approximately 1.49 -acre project site (APN No. 424 - 471-03) is relatively flat and has a trapezoidal shape. The project site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex (Las Brisas Apartments). ' The main building of the Las Brisas Apartment is an L- shaped, three -story building with carports on the first level. Other associated uses include a swimming pool, paved parking area, and planters. The project site is currently accessed via two driveways on River Avenue. Access from and to Seashore Street and ' Neptune Avenue is blocked by a wooden fence. See Figure 3, Aerial Photograph. 1.2.2 Surrounding Land Use The project site is surrounded by residential uses, such as vacation rental units to the north, south, and east, and a city park to the west. The West Newport Park is located immediately west of the project site and is equipped with a play area, water fountains, tennis courts, racquetball courts, a basketball half ' court, and restroom facilities. The Pacific Ocean is one block to the southwest, less than 200 feet from the project site, and the Pacific Coast Highway runs adjacent to the residential properties to the north, behind an alley and an approximately nine -foot tall block wall. 1 Seashore Village Initial Study City of New port Beach • Page I 1. Introduction 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.3.1 Proposed Land Use The project applicant, Seashore Village LLC, proposes to develop 12 single - family detached units and 6 duplex units, for a total of 24 units, on a 1.49 -acre site at 5515 River Avenue in Newport Beach. See Figure 4, Proposed Site Plan. As shown in Figures 4 and 5, the proposed project would be completed in three phases with two building styles: Plantation and Craftsman. Single- family units with Plantation and Craftsman architectural styles would front Seashore Drive alternately, and duplex units with Plantation and Craftsman architectural styles would front River Avenue alternately. The current permitted density at the site is 51 units per acre and the proposed project would yield 16 units per acre. The project proposes a gross floor area of 57,906 square feet and a floor area ratio of 0.78. The development proposes three plan types —Plan A during Phase I, Plan B during Phase II, and Plan C during Phase III —and four floor plans ranging in size from 1,770 square feet to 3,248 square feet, including attached garages, patios, and decks. Figure 6 shows Plan A building elevations, Figure 7 shows Plan B elevations, and Figures 8a through 9b show Plan C building elevations. For Plan A, the maximum ridgeline height would be 31 feet and the maximum midpoint height would be 25 feet and 6 inches (see Figure 6). For Plan B, the maximum ridgeline height would be 31 feet and 4 inches and the midpoint height would be 26 feet and 8 inches (see Figure 7). For Plan C, the maximum ridgeline height would be 31 feet and 4 inches and the maximum midpoint height would be 29 feet and 6 inches. The site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex. The existing apartment complex would be demolished in preparation for development of the proposed project. The existing apartment complex has been surveyed for asbestos containing materials (ACMs) and all ACMs would be abated prior to demolition. The site would be balanced and no import or export of soils would be required. Access and Parking Access to the project site would be provided by two driveways on River Avenue and a driveway from Neptune Avenue. The western driveway on River Avenue would exclusively serve one single - family unit, and all other access would be provided through River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. The proposed project would provide a total of 60 parking spaces. These parking spaces would include spaces within attached garages and 13 guest parking spaces, including one handicap space. 1.3.2 Project Phasing Development of the Seashore Village project would be completed in approximately 18 months, as listed below. • asbestos abatement (2 weeks to 1 month) • building demolition (approximately 30 days). • site grading (approximately 30 days). • building construction in three subphases, as shown in Figure 4. (approximately 16 months) Page 2 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. I 1 11 1 1 I J lI 1 i Page 4 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 6 • The Planning Center February 2008 f L If 6 ItleVVrJOfC 0 Beach Ile ` ♦5T Site Boundary Seashore Village Initial Study �r y 1, y 1. Introduction Local Vicinity 9� y` 0GO m Scale (Feet) The Planning Center ^ Figure 2 RD 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. r v 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IF Page 8 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 jf f. 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE To: Hank Audi (USA) Attention: Kenneth V. Brooks, Senior Vice President 19 E. 50 Street New York City, NY 10022 Re: Harbor Marina: Newport Arches Marina -- 3333 Pacific Coast Highway, Newport Beach, CA Golden Hills Properties, LLC, a California limited company ( "GHP") owns certain real property located at 3333 Paufc. Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California (the "GHP Property "). Harbor Marina, LLC, a California limited liability company ( "Harbor Marina ") currently ground leases the GHP Property under a ground lease between GHP, as Ground Lessor, and Harbor Marina as Ground Lessee (the "GHP Property Lease "). There is a marina facility known as the Newport Arches Marina located adjacent to and west of the GHP Property (the "Marina ") - The tidelands and submerged lands on. which the Marina is located are within a part of the California State tidelands and are legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the " "Marina Tidelands Property'). The Marina Tidelands Property (as well as all other tidelands in Newport Bay) is held in a trust originally created by State legislation in 1927 (the "Enabling Act"). This trust is administered by the City of Newport Beach ( "City"), pursuant to the Enabling Act The GHP Property Lease includes the Marina Tidelands Property. The Marina Tidelands Property has been leased by the City to the County of Orange (the "County") under that certain Lease Agreement dated March 5, 1958, as amended by the First Amendment to Lease Agreement dated August 26, 1993 (collectively, the Marina Tidelands Lease "). The Marina Tidelands Lease expires in 2018. On July 16, 1997, the County (a) conveyed the GHP Property to GHP by a Grant Ce60 ieccrQft as i- Istrumenp .4a. ... the Cf*rcial Records and (b) assigned IS$ E`r+ilie :" _ , ,Itic :in., oii_le$i a$ LcaE...': u'�-f n-- Lease G Lilt'. Harbcir Mar ^3 dasi*s to obta %n a ?oan (the '`I.oan ") fron'i Bank Audi (USA) secured by a deed of trust encumbering Harbor ^:iii :aase':oid interest under the GHP Property Lease (the "Leasehold Interest'). The documents securing, evidencing or otherwise related to the Loan are hereinafter called the "Loan Documents." As part of the inducement to Bank Audi (USA) to make the Loan to Harbor. Marina, the City hereby.rep resents and warrants to Bank Audi (USA), and its affiliates, successors and assigns (collectively hereinafter called 'beneficiary ") that, as of the date heieof: 1. The Ci V has entered into no amendment, modification or supplement to the Marina Tidelands Lease, and the Marina Tidelands Lease is in full force and effect. Page 1 of 3 0 0 2. Except as provided in Paragraph 5 below, there is no known default by GNP in the performance of any covenant, agreement or condition contained in the Marina Tidelands Lease, and the City does not have, as of the date hereof, any known defenses or offsets to the performance of the Marina Tidelands Lease, nor has any event occurred or failed to occur with which the giving of notice, the passage of time, or both, would constitute a default under the Marina Tidelands Lease or give the City a defense or offset to GHP's enforcement of the Marina Tidelands Lease. 3. There are no actions, whether voluntary or otherwise, pending against the City under any bankruptcy or insolvency laws. 4. Except as provided in Paragraph 5 below, all rent due as of the second quarter (April — June) of 1998 has been paid. 5. The current rent payable under the Marina Tidelands Lease is equal to 35% of all monies GHP received under the GHP Property Lease. During fiscal year 1996/1997 all payments except payment for the 1997 April — June quarter, which were due and payable under the Marina Tidelands Lease have been paid . Payments received under the Marina Tidelands Lease for fiscal year 1996/1997 were $43,486.38 and payments received for the fiscal year 1997/1998 were $67,588.96. 6. Consent to Encumbrance. The City hereby consents to the encumbrance by Harbor Marina, of the Leasehold Interest to secure the Loan. Notice, j?) i 6 C�e1et (i_iy. Tito wit; $^ail give i.'iien .. : :'fe tC . - I — =1aly of (i) achy default by the GHP under aha terms of the l`rarina Tidelands Lease of (ii) Pny litigatir r. or arbitration proceadings between th? Ciiy and the GHP to f3elht?fiCiary by rLy stered or certified maii, at the ft2ilowing address cr to slid. other address as the Beneficiary may notify th- City in writing from time to time: Bank Audi (USA, Attn: Kenneth V, Brooks, Senior Vice President 19 E, 54th Street New York, NY 10022 (b) To City. The Beneficiary shall give written notice to the City of (i) any default by l;arbor Marina under the terms of the GHP Property Lease or any of the Loan Documents when the same is, or becomes known to Beneficiary or (ii) any litigation or arbitration proceeding between the Beneficiary and Harbor Marina involving the Loan, by registered or certified mail, at the following address or to such other address as the City may notify Beneficiary. The missed payment occurred prior to transfer of the property from County to GHP. City intends to pursue payment from the County, or documentation that payment has been made. Page 2 of 3 City of Newport Beach AIM;, Manager 3300 Newport Blvd. P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92668-8915 E a. The City acknowledges and agrees that this Estoppel Certificate may be relied upon by Beneficiary and any other person or entity designated by Beneficiary in connection with the Beneficiary's loan to Harbor Marina being sought at this time. Dated: 9 —/6, 9a THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A Municipal carporafio sy: nnis Danner, interim City Manager The foregoing is acknowledged and confirmed: Dated: Dated: `l Dated: tC F:ICaRShoredlAgWe porta=bwT=,wppefCertdoo da109-16M GOLDEN HILLS PROPERTIES, LLC. A California limited liability company By: Eatollah Delgani, Manager BANK AUDI (USE) A bank organized under the laws of the State of New York By: � nnethV. Brooks, Senior Vice Preskler t APP TO FORM: 1 Robin L Clauson, Assistant City Attorney Page 3of3 mm TnTp- Dore 12-� ." Attn: Cl*anager . 3300 Newport blvd. P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach. CA 92658 -8915 8. The City acknowledges and agrees thal Ihis Estoppel Cerlifrcale may be relied upon by Beneficiary and any other person or entity designated by Beneficiary in connection with the Beneficiary's loan to Harbor Marina being sought at this time. THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, n Mu r.icipal corporation 06finis Danner. interim City Manager The foregoing is acknowledged and conl4med By: Dated: 0 Dated: / 4 GOL A Co * Ezat, liability LLC. BANK AUDI (USA) A bank organized under the laws of the Slate of New York Kenneth V. Brooks, Senior Vice President APPF�V OAS TO FORM: Robin L. Clauson, Assistant City Attorney F: %C a 11S har e d V5y W ew por 4UcheMEs IoppoIC a rldoc dati09•16.98 r By signing this estoppel certificate Golden Hills Properties is only acknowledging the City's estoppel statement, and is not consenting to your loan. Golden Hills Properties is not allowed to consent to any leasehold financing without permission from Orange County and at this time we do not have permission from orange County to give such consent Paqe 3 of 3 • , Parcel No. 2 A parcel of land situated in the City of IJewport Peach, being a.. portion of Section 28, `E 6 -S, a -10 -w, s.B.p.t'{. and more particularly described as follows, to wit: All that parcel of land lying between the southerly line of Paz`cel No. 1 as described herein and the U.S. u] lchead Line bet-vieen Stations 126A and 227)1 as said .�. Bullmeal Lines and Ctati.ons are laid out and shot-in upon a map titled "Harbor Lines, Nevrport 22-ay 11,rbor ", approved by the Secretar' of the Army, Rebruary 15, 1951, and on file in the U.S. District Engineer's Office, Los nngele,, California, and lying westerly of. the westerly line of Lot L of Tract I.1c. 919, Ms shovrn upon a map recorded in ri3cellaneous [tau rook 29, .Pages 11, 32, _•�, 54, oi'ficial Aecords of i Uranl;e Covrlty, Cv- 1- 1fornia.. P ?.reel Ilo. 3 A parcel of land sit:c.tated in the City-of Ilewport Leach, being a portion of Section 28, T -6 -S, i- 10411 S,L.B.[•I. ;P.n!i more Dart! described ^i1_sr„ to writ: 51:..f:h @�.� .:es and Sta UTSS are laid Out zrtl ai3ub.'n Uron -,m D :.fled ":1arbor 1.,1 6'=, Nei-iport ?ay- :jarbcr ", apipv ved yby the Secretary of the l'.rmy, Febru- ary 15, 1,51, rnd on file in the U.". District Engineer's Office, Los Angeles, California; thence northwesterly along the northwesterly prolongation of the U.S_ Eulk}cead Line between U.S. Bulkhead Stations No. 227A and 22 "(3 to an lntersection with the northeast corner of that certain parcel cf land described in deed to the State of California from the cat,: •)f Newport Beach, recorded in Doak 3111, Page 125, and dated June 12, 1955, Official records of Oruuge County, California; thence Generally soutilvieste_`1y along the boundary of said parcel to the most Southerly corner thereof; thence southwesterly along the southwesterly prolongation of the northwesterly line of szid parcel of land to an intersection with the North Channel reservation Line as recorded in Book 162, Page 1, Official .records of said Orange County; thence south- easterly along said C =cannel 'eservation Line and its southeasterly orolon &ation to the U. S. Bulkhead :,cation Ito. 226A as said L-ulichead Stations are laid out and shovrn upon a map titled "Fla.rbor Tines, Neviport Day Ilarbor "; thence northeasterly along U.S. 3ullrhead Line bet:eeen U.S. L'ulldcead 3ta.tions ilc. 22CA and 227f•. a distance of 37 feet; thevice ncrthaas;.erly .along a straight line to U.S. ?-,l.!Y.head Station Ito.. 2278; thence northwesterly along U.S. Bulkhead Line to U.S. Bulkhead Station 1•io. 227A, the point of begin - nirlg _ EXHIBIT A Mm Tnl o- =Cl= 1c — t � -533 COUNCIL MEETING: 09 -14 -98 AGEND .r,rvr Nru CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY September 14, 1998 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Robin L. Clauson, Assistant City Attorney RE: City /County Dock Property 3333 Pacific Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California Recommended Action Authorize interim City Manager to execute Estoppel Certificate in substantially the form attached. Background In 1958, the property located at 3333 Pacific Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California was owned by the County of Orange (the "Property "). Adjacent to the Property, the City owns Tidelands pursuant to State grant. In 1958, the City entered into a lease agreement with the County whereby the.City leased the Tidelands to the County and authorized the County to lease both the Property and the Tidelands as a single parcel (the "1958 Lease "). The single parcel was to be made available for lease through public bidding. The successful lessee would be required to construct a bulkhead and extend existing stormdrains. Pursuant to the 1958 Lease, the City was to be paid rent equal to 35% of all monies received by the County. The County entered into a lease with Thomas A. Cox in 1964. The Cox lease has been assigned many times over the years and is currently held by Harbor Marina L.L.C. In 1997, the County sold the Property and assigned the 1958 Lease to Golden Hills Properties, L.L.C., a California Limited Company. The 1958 Lease expires in 2018. Harbor Marina has sought financing from Bank Audi (USA) which will be secured by a deed of trust encumbering Harbor Marina's leasehold interest in the Property and the Marina. Bank Audi (USA) has requested that the City execute an Estoppel Certificate. The Estoppel Certificate represents the following to the bank: 0 0 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Robin L. Clauson, Assistant City Attorney RE: City /County Dock Property September 1, 1998 page z That the City consents to the encumbrance of its interest in the Cox Lease; 2. That there has been no amendment, modification or supplement to the 1958 Lease; 3. That there is no default by GHP in the performance of any provisions of the 1958 Lease and that rent due under the Lease has been paid and is current; 4. The Certificate also agrees that notice will be provided to the lender in the event of default under the 1958 Lease. When researching the payments under the lease, staff discovered that there was no record for a payment being received from the County for the second quarter (April - June) of 1997. The Estoppel Certificate reflects this fact and indicates that the City is pursuing the County for either certification that the payment was made, or payment as required by the lease. Therefore, it is recommended that City Council authorize execution of this Estoppel Certificate. Please give me a call if you have any que tions or concerns. &I K"�— ROBIN L. CLAUSON Assistant City Attorney RLC:krs Enclosure F:\CaMharedAgW ewporL4chesWemoW &CC090198.doc CJ 0 0 i 0 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE To: Bank Audi (USA) Attention: Kenneth V. Brooks, Senior Vice President 19 E. 50 Street New York City, NY 10022 Re: Harbor Marina: Newport Arches Marina — 3333 Pacific Coast Highway, Newport Beach, CA Golden Hills Properties, LLC, a California limited company ( "GHP ") owns certain real property located at 3333 Pacific Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California (the "GHP Property'). Harbor Marina, LLC, a California limited liability company ( "Harbor Marina ") currently ground leases the GHP Property under a ground lease between GHP, as Ground Lessor, and Harbor Marina as Ground Lessee (the "GHP Property Lease "). There is a marina facility known as the Newport Arches Marina located adjacent to and west of the GHP Property (the "Marina "). The tidelands and submerged lands on which. the Marina is located are within a part of the California State tidelands and are legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the " "Marina Tidelands Property). The Marina Tidelands Property (as well as all other tidelands in Newport Bay) is held in a trust originally created by State legislation in 1927 (the "Enabling Act"). This trust is administered by the City of Newport Beach ( "City"), pursuant to the Enabling Act. The GHP Property Lease includes the Marina Tidelands Property. The Marina Tidelands Property has been leased by the City to the County of Orange (the "County') under that certain Lease Agreement dated March 5, 1958, as amended by the First Amendment to Lease Agreement dated August 26, 1993 (collectively, the Marina Tidelands Lease'). The Marina Tidelands Lease expires in 2018. On July 16, 1997, the County (a) conveyed the GHP Property to GHP by a Grant Deed recorded as Instrument No. 19970335011 in the Official Records and (b) assigned its entire right, title and interest as Lessee under the Marina Tidelands Lease to GHP. Harbor Marina desires to obtain a loan (the "Loan ") from Bank Audi (USA) secured by a deed of trust encumbering Harbor Marina's leasehold interest under the GHP Property Lease (the "Leasehold Interest "). The documents securing, evidencing or otherwise related to the Loan are hereinafter called the "Loan Documents." Page 1 of 3 0 0 As part of the inducement to Bank Audi (USA) to make the Loan to Harbor Marina, the City hereby represents and warrants to Bank Audi (USA), and its affiliates, successors and assigns (collectively hereinafter called "Beneficiary") that, as of the date hereof: 1. The City has entered into no amendment, modification or supplement to the Marina Tidelands Lease, and the Marina Tidelands Lease is in full force and effect. 2. Except as provided in Paragraph 5 below, there is no known default by GHP in the performance of any covenant, agreement or condition contained in the Marina Tidelands Lease, and the City does not have, as of the date hereof, any known defenses or offsets to the performance of the Marina Tidelands Lease, nor has any event occurred or failed to occur with which the giving of notice, the passage of time, or both, would constitute a default under the Marina Tidelands Lease or give the City a defense or offset to GHP's enforcement of the Marina Tidelands Lease. 3. There are no actions, whether voluntary or otherwise, pending against the City under any bankruptcy or insolvency laws. 4. Except as provided in Paragraph 5 below, all rent due as of the second quarter (April — June) of 1998 has been paid. 5. The current rent payable under the Marina Tidelands Lease is equal to 35% of all monies GHP received under the GHP Property Lease. During fiscal year 1996/1997 all payments except payment for the 1997 April — June quarter, which were due and payable under the Marina Tidelands Lease have been paid. Payments received under the Marina Tidelands Lease for fiscal year 1996/1997 were $43,486.38 and payments received for the fiscal year 1997/1998 were $67,588.96. 6. Consent to Encumbrance. The City hereby consents to the encumbrance by Harbor Marina, of the Leasehold Interest to secure the Loan. 7. Notice. (a) To Beneficiary. The City shall give written notice to Beneficiary of (i) any default by the GHP under the terms of the Marina Tidelands Lease or (ii) any litigation or arbitration proceedings between the City and the GHP to Beneficiary by registered or certified mail, at the following address or to such other address as the Beneficiary may notify the City in writing from time to time: Bank Audi (USA) Attn: Kenneth V. Brooks, Senior Vice President 19 E. 54" Street New York, NY 10022 The missed payment occurred prior to transfer of the property from County to GHP. City intends to pursue payment from the County, or documentation that payment has been made. Page 2 of 3 a • (b) To City. The Beneficiary shall give written notice to the City of (1) any default by Harbor Marina under the terms of the GHP Property Lease or any of the Loan Documents when the same is, or becomes known to Beneficiary or (ii) any litigation or arbitration proceeding between the Beneficiary and Harbor Marina involving the Loan, by registered or certified mail, at the following address or to such other address as the City may notify Beneficiary. City of Newport Beach Attn: City Manager 3300 Newport Blvd. P. O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 8. The City acknowledges and agrees that this Estoppel Certificate may be relied upon by Beneficiary and any other person or entity designated by Beneficiary in connection with the Beneficiary's loan to Harbor Marina being sought at this time. Dated: Dated: Dated: THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, A Municipal corporation By: Name: Title: The foregoing is acknowledged and confirmed: F: 1Cat\ SharecPAg \NewportArches\EstoppelCert.doc 0 10 GOLDEN HILLS PROPERTIES, LLC. A California limited liability company Ezatollah Delijani, Manager BANK AUDI. (USA) A bank organized under the laws of the State of New York Kenneth V. Brooks, Senior Vice President Page 3 of 3 -f WWC:mec 2/18/59 I. lY� II. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY SUMMARY OF CITY'S COUNTY DOCK LEASE GENERAL INFORMATION Parties to Lease City of Newport Beach, Lessor County of Orange, Lessee Date of Lease Apr--1-1, 1958 City Council approval Original lease 4762 March 10, 1958 Res, o. (Date adopted) Approved by electors at general municipal election, April 8, 1958 Land Location South of U. S. Highway 101, easterly of Newport Boulevard Source of City's Title Tide and submerged lands Frontage Approximate Area 35,000 sq. ft. Water" - `street 713' None LEASE DURATION No. years: 50 From: July 1,- 1958, to June 30, 2008. III. LEASE PROVISIONS Rental: Lessee to pay Lessor 35% of all moneys received by Lessee Prom this property and County -owned property adjoining this property not later than 30 days subsequent tv'`the receipt thereof by Lessee. Lessor to pay Lessee 358 of the cost of advertising for bids for the leasing of the property. Purpose: To be offered for lease to a third party by the Lessee by public bid as a single parcel with adjoining property of Lessee, Lessee to serve as contracting agent in deal- ing with the property. Lessee has called for bids and is in the process of executing a lease to George P. Carver as Newport Tower Development, which calls for the development of the property with buildings contain- ing motel units, offices, apartments, stores, clubhouse and other facilities. Repairs: No provision. Assignability: No provision. Renewal: No provision. Terms of default: No provision, except Lessee to call for bids on the =ease within 6 months and to execute a lease with the successful bidder within 1 year or an additional year thereafter, if extended by the parties. Taxes: No provision. Insurance: Requires that both City and County be protected by public liability bond in the amount of $100,000/500,000 for personal injury and $50,000 property damage. 2 22 ae€dtiva� 1. TAa�t btrtlu vca► t bst ti" "Los". MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA October 23, 1968 i C �FZe IN RE: BONDS AND CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE T ORANGE -OLIVE ROAD ORVILLE E. HENDERSON, CONTRACTOR On motion of Supervisor Hirstein, duly seconded and unanimously carried, Bonds Nos. B 550322 in the sum 3f $8,482.00 each, to guarantee labor.-and material and faithful performance with Orville E. Henderson as Principal and the United Pacific Insurance Company as Surety, Certificate of Insurance submitted by the United Pacific Insurance Company with Orville E. Henderson as the insured and Certificate of Workmen's Compensa- tion Insurance submitted by the State Compensation Ir.�-urance Fund with O.E. Henderson Construction Co. as the insured, to cover the contract for construction on Orange -Olive Road between 195' north of Lincoln Avenue and the Orange City limits with Orville E. Henderson, contractor, are approved. IN RE: CONSENT TO hYPOTHEGnTION OF LEASEHOLD ESTATE BY DEED OF TRUST CITY- COUNTY DOCK PROPERTY. On mc.:ion of Supervisor Allen, duly seconded and unanimously carried., the '.`:carman is authorized to sign the Consent to Hypothecation of Leasehold :state by Deed of Trust, dated October 23, 1968; pertaining to hypothecat_.:n by Everett S.M. Brunzell and Robert E. Harris, and Newport Arches Marina, Inc., lessees of the City- County Dock Property, of the leasehold estate created by the lease by a deed of trust to Union Bank, a California Corporation, as Trustee, and Williamsburg Leasing Corporation, a California Corporation, as Beneficiary. IN RE: SUPERVISOR BAKER TO WASHINGTON, D.C. On motion of Supervisor Allen, duly seconded and unanimously carried, .'upe_,visor David L. Baker is authorized to spend an extra day on County bu:.ine.s in Washington, D.C., with the County of Orange to pay the necessary expo -nses, including lodging and meals, following the meeting of the National Gammission on Urban Problems to be held October 26 and 27, 1968. j couroclI le -3i— (- aZ F 1019 -2f2 .2 -& CONSENT TO HYPOTHECATION OF LEASEHOLD ESTATE B D RUST Reference is hereby made to that certain Lease, dated May 13, 1964, wherein the COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of California, is the Lessor ( "Lessor" herein), and EVERETT S. M. BRUNZELL and ROBERT E. HARRIS, and NEWPORT ARCHES MARINA, INC., are Lessees ( "Lessees" herein) covering and affecting certain real property situated in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, which property is more.particularly described in said Lease ( "Lease" herein), a copy of which was recorded in Book 7270, Page 203, Official Records of Orange County, California. Lessees propose to hypothecate the leasehold estate created by the Lease by a deed of trust ( "Deed of Trust" herein). A copy of the Deed of Trust is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A ", and by this reference incorporated herein as though set forth in full. The Deed of Trust is further described as follows: A Deed of Trust to be given by Lessees in favor of UNION BANK, a California Corporation, as Trustee, and WILLIAMSBURG LEASING CORPORATION, a California Corporation, as Beneficiary. Deed of Trust to file executed by vestee to secure one Rental Agreement /Lease No. 8- 648 -68, dated September 11 1968, in favor of Williamsburg Leasing Corpoation, payable to Sherman Oaks, California according to the terms and.conditions contained therein: said Deed of Trust is to secure the full and faithful performance of the terms and conditions of said Rental Agreement /Lease # 8- 648 -68. Lessor hereby consents to the hypothecation pursuant to the Deed of Trust upon the condition that the same is given and accepted subject to the following covenants and conditions, to wit: A. Except as herein otherwise provided, the Deed of Trust and all rights now or hereafter acquired thereunder, are, and shall be subject to each and all of the covenants, conditions and restrictions set forth in the Lease, and to all rights and interests of the Lessor therein, none of which are or shall be waived by this Consent. B. Should there be a conflict between the provisions of the Lease and the provisions of the Deed of Trust, the former shall control: C. Williamsburg Leasing Corporation may assign the Rental. Agreement /Lease secured by the Deed of Trust, together with the Deed of Trust, without the prior consent of Lessor to any bank, insurance company (or correspondent thereof), savings and loan assocation or other institutional lender. Williamsburg Leasing Corporation must obtain the written consent of Lessor prior to any assignment of the promissory note secured by the Deed of Trust to any other person or entity not otherwise described in this paragraph. Lessor agrees that it will not arbitrarily or unreasonably withhold its approval of such assignment. D. Lessor agrees that it will not terminate the lease because of any default or breach thereunder.on the part of Lessee if the holder of the Rental Agreement /Lease secured by the Deed of Trust ( "Holder" herein), within thirty (30) days after the service of written notice from the Lessor of its intention to terminate the lease for such default or breach, shall either cure such default or breach if the same can be cured by the payment of money, or if otherwise, shall undertake to, and shall keep and perform all of the covenants and.conditons of the Lease, including proceeding in a timely and diligent manner to cure the default or breach if the Holder shall proceed in a timely and diligent manner to (i) perform the.act or acts required under the Lease to cure the V default or breach; or (ii) to foreclose or exercise its power of sale under the Deed of Trust. If said foreclosure or sale proceedings shall be subject to the leave of any court (as in the case of bankruptcy proceedings) and such leave shall have been applied for, but not obtained by the IIolder, or if the foreclosure or sale proceeding shall have been enjoined by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Holder shall be deemed to be proceeding in a timely and diligent manner to cure the default or breach, nevertheless, if the Holder shall have made every reasonable effort to obtain such leave or to resist said injunction. Provided, however, that if for any reason a sale or foreclosure is not completed within one hundred eigNy (180) calendar days after the date of the aforesaid service upon IIolder of the written notice from Lessor of its intent to terminate the Lease for default or breach, said Holder shall proceed in a diligent and timely manner to cure the breach or default as required by subparagraph (i) of D. above. The obligation of the Holder to perform the terms of the Lease shall terminate upori the assignment of the Rental Agreement /Lease secured by the Deed of Trust, or at such time as the leasehold estate of the Lessees shall be sold upon foreclosure or by exercise of power of sale under the Deed of Trust, or at such time as the leasehold estate shall be released or reconveyed thereunder. Provided, however, that if a default or breach of the Lease has not been cured at the time of said assignment of the Rental Agreement /Lease or, sale or foreclosure, or release or reconveyance of the leasehold estate, the assignee or purchaser or-other transferee as the case may be shall, without further notice from the Lessor, proceed in a timely and diligent manner to perform the act or acts required under the Lease to cure the default or breach. If the Holder �r its assigneed, purchaser, transferee or 'successor shall fail or refuse to comply with any and all the conditions of this paragraph D, thereupon, the Lessor shall be released from the covenant of forebearance contained herein. Any notice provided for in this paragraph D shall be delivered or directed to the Holder at its address as last shown on the records of the Lessor. E. Any foreclosure sale, sale under power of sale or other sale under the Deed of Trust (except by assignment as provided in Paragraph C above) shall be, and hereby is, conditioned upon approvial in writing of the purchaser or transferee by Lessor. Lessor hereby approves Williamsburg Leasing Corporation, in the event that Williamsburg Leasing Corporation shall be the purchaser at any foreclosure sale under the Deed pf Trust. Lessor agrees that he will not tarbitrarily or unreasonably withhold its approval of any other purchaser or transferee provided that said purchaser or transferee shall evidence to Lessor financial ability and experience in the operation of a comparable or analogous facility, as well as good repute. After said approval, the transferee or purchaser of the leasehold estate shall thereupon and immediately assume the performance of and shall be bound by each and all of the covenants, conditions and obligations provided in the Lease to be performed and observed by the Lessees thereunder. In the event that Williamsburg Leasing Corporation shall be the purchaser, at the foreclosure or sale under the power of sale, Lessor agrees that it will not arbitrarily or unreasonably withhold its consent to Williamsburg Leasing Corporation's transfer of the leasehold estate created by the Lease to a third party, providing that said third party meets the standards set forth above in this paragraph for a purchaser or transferee. Lessor further agrees that Williamsburg Leasing Corporation automatically will be released from any obligation under said Lease upon the assumption of said obligations by the third party. F. Upon and immediately after the recording of the Deed of Trust, Williamsburg Leasing Corporation, at its own expense, shall cause to be recorded in the office of the Recorder of Orange County, California, a written request, executed and acknowledged by the Lessor, for a copy of any notice of sale under the Deed of Trust as provided by the statutes of the State of California relating thereto. Concurrently with the execution of this consent, Williamsburg Leasing Corporation shall furnish to the Lessor a complete copy of the Deed of Trust and the-Rental Agreement /Lease secured thereby, together with Williamsburg Leasing Corporation's address. (Z) a G. This Consent shall be recorded contempor�,,neously with the recordation of the Deed of Trust in which event the copy of the Deed of Trust attached hereto shall not be recorded. This Consent is conditioned upon the execution by Williamsburg Leasing Corporation of the Acceptance and Agreement attached hereto and made a part hereof. DATED: OCTOBER 2 2.-, 1968 COUNTY OF ORANGE 'BY _Z State of California i ss. County of Orange Supervisors oar On October � 1968' before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared known to me to be the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the Co my of Orange, California, said Board acting as the governing bod� of the County of Orange, California. �%, �j 4 / is known to me to be the person described in and whose name is subscribed to the within Instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf.of the said County of Orange and such officer thereof. WITNESS my hand and official seal. 0 MARILYN F. RECORD NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA ® PRINCIPAL OFFICE RD m ORANGE COUNTY ]EFlCIAL SEAL %AY Commission Expires Aug. 29, 1972 J ACCEPTANCE AND AGREEMENT WILLIAMSBURG LEASING CORPORATION, a California Corporation, as Beneficiary under the Deed of Trust mentioned in the foregoing Consent to Hypothecation of Leasehold Estate by Deed of Trust in its own behalf and for its successors in interest, and with and for the benefit of the Lessor named therein does hereby approve, accept and agree to be bound by each and all of the conditions, covenants, and acknowledgements set forth therein. DATED: At Los Angeles, California on October , 1968. WILLIAMSBURG LEASING CORPORATION 03 By State of California ) ) ss. County of Los Angeles) On October , 1968 before me; the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared and known to me to be the Vice President and p the respectively, of the corporation that executed the within Instrument, (known to me to be the persons who executed the within Instrument on behalf of the corporation therein named), and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by -laws or a resolution of its board of directors. WITNESS my hand and official seal. n 15233 Ventura Blvd., Suite 21L2•,_Shern6n (Oaks, Calif. 9194x03~^ 783 -4825 . 872 -3660 �,••, ,o�• L� o`�i AL 4"d'G^i.c L:sm".eurilM LEASE NO r NAME -AND ADDRESS OF LESSEE I— SUPPLIER OF EQUIPMENT (COMPLETE ADDRE!51t) _a:C. 'r;i "L. .'. !'it)1F.... ., 3'!' :i,a, � ?.C:, F:. � I i.i ii.LL :�i :, J.': :. •. - .�1. ;s 1'J.";sr :i :i7.!`.. :1 1:,': is i:•:..:J t, "s.J. �i T.<'c .�i ".. i Y QUANTITY DESCRIPTION: MODEL NO. SERIAL NO. OR OTHER IDENTIFICATION Q U . E7 5'i}i :(T nrj r•�a `'.. �`T : :�T t: x: +_fa Ta_' IT . .J...is '1 1 .. P M F N T TOTAL LIST x ` _ FED. EXCISE TAX E u IIF ANY) A ,. TRANSPORTATION $ •' (IF ANYt F OTHER D SALES TAX LOCATION OF,EQ4I PMENT: STREETAUDRESS ""'i "' " - - - �' +, -i ' "� TOTAL COST re•:. +. .::: STATE CITY L TO LESSOR :. - :.., •;:' =• ': - TERMS OF PAYMENT OF LEASE RENEWAL RENTAL MONTHLY RENTAL PAYMENT NO, MONTHS INITIAL FIRST MONTH RENT IN ADVANCE ADDITIONAL "RENTAL AOvANCE" ANNV/.L RENTAL PER TERM OF LEASE [I� �PARAGRAPH NO.] r. �Ott v %�.s TertsTs and Condi ^.inns of Lease 1. LEASE. Lessee hereby leases from Lessor, and Lessor leases io Lessee, the personal property described above and in any schedule made a part hereof by the parties hereto (herein called "equipment "I. THIS 15 A NON - CANCELLABLE LEASE FOR THE TERM INDICATED ABOVE EXCEPT AS HEREIN PROVIDED. 2. SELECTION OF EOUIPMENT. Lessee has requested equipment of the type and quantity specified above and has selected the supplier named above. Lessor agrees to order such equipment from said supplier, but shall not be liable for specific performance of this lease or for damages if for any reason the supplier delays or fails to fill the order. Lessee shall accept such equipment if delivered in good repair, and hereby authorizes Lessor to odd to this lease the serial number of each item of equipment so delivered. Any delay in such delivery shall not affect the validity of This lease. 3. WARRANTIES. Lessor makes no express or implied warranties as to any matter whatsoever, including without limitation, the condition of equipment, its mer- chantability or its fomss far any particular purpose. No defect or unfitness of the equipment shall relieve Lessee of the oblication to pay rent or perform any other obligation under this lease. 4. INITIAL TERM. This (case shall become effective on the execution hereof by Lessor, and the initial term of this lease shall be deemed to commence on the 1611h day of the month in which Lessee executes and delivers to Lessor the equipment acceptance notice hereinafler mentioned and ends on Ihe`15th day of the last month of the number of months menlioned above as the initial term of this lease. Any one of the individuals signing on the face of rhis lease on behalf of Lessee is hereby avlhorized to execute said equipment acceptance notice for and on behalf of Lessee and to bind Lessee thereby. Execution of the equipment acceptance by any Lessee shall be birding on all Lessees, and all Lessees hereby waive any and all rights provided by California Civil Code Sec. No. 1511 (11. S. RENT. Lessee agrees to pay for the initial term of this lease, total rent equal to the amount of the monthly rental payment specified above multiplied by the number of months of the initial term of this lease as specified above. The first months rent Pad rental advance deposit are due when this lease is signed by Lessee. Subsequent rental payments shall be due monthly, in advance, commencing on the 16th day of the calendar month after the month in which Lessee executes and delivers to Lessor said equipment acceptance notice. All rent shall be paid to Lessor at its address set forth herein or as otherwise directed by Lessor in writing. a. ADDITIONAL "RENTAL ADVANCE." The Additional "Rental Advance" shall be payment of rent for the last month, months, or pert thereof and will not be used to cure any default hereunder and is non-refundable. 7. RENEWAL. If the space headed "Renewal Rentals" hersinbefore set forth specifies an annual rental omounq Lessee shall have the option to renew this lease for consecutive one year terms at the annual rental are so specified. The right ID exercise sold options shall be dependent on the performance of all the follow .nil conditions; Lessee roust give Lessor written notice of Lessees intent to exercise the option at least sixty 160) days before the expiration of the applicable preceding tern; and Lessee must have at all times fully and complelely performed all of the terms and conditions of this lease. If Lessee fails to exercise any such option, this lease shall Continue, after the explrolion of the preceding term, from month to month at the "Monthly Rental,Payment" specified above until terminated by thirty (301 days prior written notice from either party to the other. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the continuance and /or renewal of lease shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions set forth in this lease. 8. LOCATION. The equipment shall be delivered and thereafter kept at the location specified above or, if none is specified, at Lessee's address as set forth above, and shall nor be removed rherefrom without Lessor's prior written consent. 9. NOTICE OF DEFECTS. Unless Lessee gives Lessor written notice of each defect or other proper objection to an item of equipment within five 15) business days after receipt thereof, it shall be conclusively presumed, as between Lessee.and Lessor, that the item was delivered in good repair and that Lessee accepts it as an item of equipment 'described in rFlis lease. Lessee's execution of Lessor's form "Acceptance Notice" shall be conclusive as between the parties to the effect that the items leased were received in Good order and condition and occeoted as such by Lessee. 10. USE. Lessee shall use the equipment in a careful manner and shall coroply with all laws, ordinances, regulations reloting to its possession, use or moinlenonce. 11. LABELS. - If Lessor supplies Lessee with labels stating that thg equipment is owned by Lessor, Lessee shall affix and keep the some in a prominent place on each item of dquipmenl. 12. REPAIRS: Lessee, at its expense, shall keep the equipment in good repair and furnish all parts, mechanisms and devices required therefor. 13. ALTERATIONS Lessee shall not make any alteralians, additions or improvements to the equipment without Lessor's prior written consent, All additions and im provements made to the equipment shall belong to Lessor. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS WHICH ARE P'-'- O T iS L The undersigned agree to all the terms and conditions set forth above and on the reverse side hereof, +nd in Witness thereof hereby execute this lease. LE�,SC1f� I LESSEE WIL'LIAMSBURG LEASING CORPORATION .r. BY BY ITITLEI DATE _ IFULL LEGAL N.NEI ity Clerk June 11, 1968 TO: JOINT HARBOR COMMITTEE FROM: Public Works Director and Harbor Engineer SUBJECT: REQUEST OF NEWPORT ARCHES MARINA, INC. FOR ADDITIONAL FLOAT AND RAMP AND BOAT LAUNCHING CRANE AT THE CITY - COUNTY DOCK PROPERTY RECOMMENDATIONS: That the request be denied. DISCUSSION: On May 14, 1968 the Joint Harbor Committee considered the request of Newport Arches Marina, Inc. to construct a float and ramp channelward of the seawall fronting on the channel leading to the Arches bridge. The matter was tabled for one month for further study. Denial of the application is recommended for the following reasons: 1. The approved Harbor Permit Policies do not permit floats in this area. 2. A similar request for a float in front of a building on the opposite side of the channel has been denied. 3. No Pierhead Line has been established by the U.S., Corps of Engineers for this area. 4. The proposed float and crane would require dredging at the toe of the wall which could endanger the stability of the wall. (A portion of the seawall in this area had to be replaced due to a failure caused by dredging near the toe of the wall). 5. The float would occupy an area that is outside the permit area defined in the original lease documents. A ' , / r TO: JOINT HARBOR COMMITTEE FROM: Public Works Director and Harbor Engineer SUBJECT: FLOATING DRYDOCKS RECOMMENDATIONS: i a June 11, 1968 to That floating drydocks be considered as shore - connected structures. 2. That the City be made responsible for regulating floating dry docks. DISCUSSION: On May 14, 1968 the Joint Harbor Committee considered the matter of floating dry docks. The item was held over for one month to permit a ,point study by City and District staffs. Before an activity may be regulated, it must be defined. Because a floating dry dock is not a vessel, and because normally it remains in one place, it is recom- mended that it be considered as a shore - connected structure and treated as such. Council: The following regulations are intended to be recommended to the City 1. That each floating dry dock installation require a use permit from the Planning Commission. 2. That each floating dry dock installation require a Harbor Permit from the City Council. 3. That each floating dry dock installation require a City Business License. 4. That floating dry docks be permitted only in waters over or bayward of property zoned commercial, manufacturing, or unclassified. 5. That each floating dry dock be permanently moored at one location. The Harbor Permit would control configuration, mooring, setbacks, parking requirements, signs, and sanitation requirements, as is customary for fixed piers and floats. The Use Permit would control the use of the facilities, including height, length, hours of operation, noise control, rubbish and pollution control, appearance,, safety, etc. sepi ev in mes E. _ailing' er— P blic res Director Harbor Engineer /ldg i 1 0 CERTIFICATION OF EXCERPT FROM DRAFT MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF 'THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Lle Meeting held April 10, 1967 Regular, pedal, or Adjourned) � Nate COUNCILMEN PRESENT Rogers, Parsons, Marshall, Gruber, Cook, Forgit, Shelton COUNCILMEN ABSENT None EXCERPT "A memorandum was presented from the City Attorney dated April 69 1967 regarding modification of City - County Dock property lease, with attached copy of letter fran Robert E. Harris dated March 27, 1967, and proposed Modification of Lease. The Council expressed consent'to that certain document presented in draft form designated Modification of Lease, which amends certain provisions of the City - County Dock Property Lease." The above action was taken on motion of Councilman Marshall and carried unanimously. STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, Laura Lagios, City Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office In Witness Whereof, I.have hereunto set my hand and seal this 8th day of December , 19 67 City Clerk of the City of - Newport Beach, Orange County, California It 10 -6 OF NEWPORT BEACH 7x ^�C ITY ATTORNEY DERMA Toe The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 6, 1967 10 From: City Attorney Subject: Modification of City - County Dock Property Lease The Lessees of the City- County Dock Property have requested that the Newport Beach City Council and the Orange County Board of Supervisors approve certain minor changes in the language of their lease with the County. (See attached letter from Robert E. Harris dated March 27, 1967.) The changes being requested are set forth in the enclosed document designated "Modification of Lease" which has been prepared by the County Counsel's office. The proposed changes may be briefly described as follows: 1. Under the existing language of the first paragraph of paragraph 5(a), the Lessees are required to keep "complete books, records and accounts of all financial transactions" relating to the leased property during the entire 44 -year term of the lease. As revised this provision would require that such records be retained for a period of 10 years. Comment: This change is for the purpose of relieving the Lessees oT T— burden of providing for the storage and preservation of financial records for a lengthy period of time. The interests of the Lessors would be adequately protected by the 10-�year storage record retention requirement. 2. The language to be added to paragraph 7(a) guarantees to Us- sees the right to contest taxes levied against their possessory interest under the Pease and against improvements and personal property existing on the leased premises. Comment: The Lessees probably have this right anyway, but this T nguage ties it down. 3. The language to be added to paragraph 8(c) relating to insur- ance would permit a beneficiary under a deed of trust on the property to be named as an additional insured and establish a procedure for the distribution of insurance proceeds in the event of loss. Comment: This added language would not adversely affect the City's nntterests. 4 - 0 0 To; The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council -2- April 6, 1967 The letter from Robert Harris dated March 27, 1967, states that the proposed changes in the lease were requested by the lender, Union Bank, After reviewing the proposed changes I can find no reason why they should not be acceptable to the City. It is anticipated that the matter will be considered by the Board of Supervisors on April 11th, It is recommended that the City Council express its consent to the amendments by adopting the following motion, The City Council expresses its consent to that certain document presented in draft form designated Modification of Lease, which amends certain pro- visions of the City- County Dock Property Lease. THS:mec Atts, cc - City Manager City Clerk Tu1Zy . Se City ttorney NEWPORT HUB MARINA, INC. Post.Office Drawer 1817. NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Code 714 — 642 -4644 March 27, 1967 Tully H. Seymour, Esquire City Attorney City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California RE: Newport Arches Marina Dear Mr. Seymour: At long last, we have arrived at the final phase of concluding the development program of the Newport Arches Marina and the construction of our building. However, before concluding our loan escrow with the Union Bank, it has become necessary that certain minor modifications be made in the lease in order to satisfy the lender, Union Bank. En- closed is the proposed modification of the lease which is currently being processed by the County Counsel's office of Orange County through Adrian Kuyper, and Bill McCourt. It will be extremely helpful, if after reviewing the enclosure, you will indicate whether the proposed changes meet with your approval, and if there is any question regarding any provision thereof, will you please contact Mr. Kuyper or Mr. McCourt directly. Because of the time element involved, we would appreciate the matter being processed in order that it may be-presented for approval at the next City Council meeting on April 10, 1967: REH /cm cc: Wm. J. McCourt encls 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 w� 14 m p]o 15 U� �U 16 °z -, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 1.091.1 13' MODIFICATION OF LEASE THIS AGREEMENT, dated this day of between the County of Orange, a political subdivision of the State of California (herein called "Lessor "), and Everett S. M. Brunzell and Robert E. Harris, individuals (herein together called "Lessee "), is made with reference to the following recitals: R C I T A L S: A. Reference is made to that certain Lease Agreement entered into May 13, 1964, between Lessor and Thomas A. Cox, as Lessee. B. Thomas A. Cox's interest under said Lease was subsequently assigned to Lessee under that certain Assignment of City - County Dock Property Lease dated December 21, 1964. C. Lessee desires to hypothecate said leasehold interest to secure a loan from Union Bank. Said bank has requested that certain provisions of said Lease be modified to set forth procedures under the Lease which are not now specified. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants of Lessor and Lessee hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree, and said Lease is hereby modified, amended and supplemented as follows: 1. The following language shall be added to the first full paragraph of paragraph 5(a). "Said books, records, accounts and documents shall be kept and preserved by Lessee for a period of ter, (10) years immediately subsequent to the date of the furnishing to Lessor, pursuant to paragraph 5(c), of the annual statement of income to which they relate." 2. The following language shall be added to paragraph 7(a): ";- provided, however, that Lessee may make such payment under protest, and may, in good faith and in a lawful marr:e contest the propriety or legality o:: :_,y z.ax, assessment or cla:_ >6ainst said premises but all cos, :_ c,_. expenses incident to such c :....:-est shall be paid by Lessee." 1. 1 • • ; i i 1 3. The following language shall be added at the end of para- i 2 graph 8(c): "All policies covering said insurance shall name Lessor, 3 Lessee, and the City of Newport Beach as named insureds as their 4 interests may appear. Said insurance may name, in addition, as an 1 5 additional insured, as its interest may appear, any beneficiary under 6 a deed of trust to which the Lessor has given its consent; provided, 7 however, that neither this provision nor the naming of said bene- 8 ficiary as an additional insured shall create any rights in said 9 beneficiary to the loss or proceeds of said insurance, but shall merely 10 recognize the rights, if any, of said beneficiary to such loss or 11 proceeds as such rights may exist under the Lease or as the result 12 of the Lessor's consent to hypothecation." Said insurance shall.be 13 in such.form that the loss,,if any, shall be payable to Title Insurance 14 and Trust Company, Orange County Office, as trustee. Said trustee oo 15 is made and constituted a trustee to hold such insurance policies `_ 16 and to receive any money that may become due or paid thereunder and U' 17 is authorized to do any and all acts necessary for collection, said i 18 moneys to be held by said trustee as security for the performance by 19 Lessee of its agreement to repair, rebuild and reconstruct said . 20 premises. All insurance moneys collected by said trustee shall be or other ad itional insured causing repairs to be made, 21 paid to Lesseelin instalments as the injury done by any casualty 22 insured.against is repaired laXkRauxxa and the repairs are paid for. 23 All such repairs or reconstruction shall be made upon the supervision 24 of a licensed architect and no instalment of said insurance moneys other additional insured 25 shall be paid to Lessee or /xxxxa=dEm until there has been filed with 26 said trustee a sworn statement of said architect to the effect that 27 the acquired pro rata proportion of such repairs as above provided 28 has been made. If after applying such insurance proceeds as aforesaid i 29 there remains any surplus insurance moneys, it is agreed they shall 30 belong and-be paid to Lessee, provided, however, that in the case i 31 where Lessee has failed to procure and renew such insurance, and i i 32 Lessor has procured such insurance and has not been repaid by.Lessee nos�.ti j 2. i u. 1 2 3 4. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 W` N Z 15 �'a �u uW u OZ 16 130 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31; 32 0 as required hereinabove,prior to the loss, then said surplus insurance moneys shall belong to and be paid to Lessor." IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day, month and year above written. ATTEST: . W. E. ST JOHN, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of said Board of Supervisors By Deputy COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political sub- division of the State of California By Chairman of its Board ot Supervisors LESSOR �WRIPM,WMf T . i - 3. ROBERT E. LESSEE . Tt To: From: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY ATTORNEY DEPAR NT The Honorable Mayor and City Council City Attorney Subject: Improvements to County Dock property I M 18, 1962 The question of completion of the bulkhead a backfill on the County Dock property has previously been bef re the City Council. It was indicated that the City shou pay 3 % of the cost and the County pay 65 %, which is the proportiold nate ownership set out in the 1958 City - County agreement. The Coun y has suggested a written contract setting out the agreeme of the City and the County for sharing the costs of complet' n of the bulkhead and backfill. Transmitted herewith is a r olution which, if adopted by the City Council, will authorize th execution of the contract. The contract as written calls for coqbletion as shown on Plans and Specifications designated N-10 date April 1962 which are on file in the office of the Orange County arbor District. The contract calls for the City to pay 35% of t e cost of the improvements not to exceed $7000. It also calls f the City to pay 35% of the cost of advertising for bids. I requires the County to pay the remainder of the cost. If this meets with the approv mended that the resolution be WWC:mec Enc:. cc s City Manager City Clerk Director of Works of the City Council, it is recom- 1VV ' Walter W. Chara City Attorney . WWC -mec 4/18/62 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach and the CoU7ty of s,{ Orange entered into a lease in 1958 under which the Couty Dock C property was to be leased for commercial development; /'and WHEREAS, said contract required the lessee for that purpose to complete s bulkhead along the entire wat%rfront area; and j/ WHEREAS, said lease has subsequently een terminated and the bulkhead left incomplete; and WHEREAS, it would be to the mutua advantage of the City and County to have said bulkhead complete and backfilled; and WHEREAS, a contract has been County would have said work done and thereof not to exceed $7000; and WHEREAS, the.City Council // found the same to be fair and equii NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT Clerk be and are hereby of the City. ADOPTED this 23rd ATTEST- under which the City pay 35% of the cost reviewed said contract and s OLVED that the Mayor and City to execute the same on behalf of April, 1962. Mayor L. B. WALLACE. COUNTY CLERK P, O. BOX 89e 0 0 COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA January 9, 1962 Margery Schrouder, City clerk City of Newport Beach City Hall Newport Beach, California Dear Miss Schrouder: (C- PHONE KI 7 -9911 I am enclosing two copies of Resolution No. 62 -27, which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Orange County on January 3, 1962, pertaining to the termination of the lease between the County of orange and George P. Carver.. Very truly yours, L. B. WALLAUE, Uounty Clerk and ea- orricio clerk of the Board of Superviscm of Or a County, California By c ti Deputy Clerk JA Eno. _1 ('7 ,,s to cm CLrW r fs ��sz NE}yp�ry OF R7 g� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111 121 13! W 15i a> Zi UUO 16'. 0 z 4 Z z. 0o 17 u 18 191 20 21 22 i 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Y� C RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA January 3, 1962 On motion of Supervisor Warner, duly seconded and carried, the following Resolution was adopted :. WHEREAS, George P. 'Carver, Lessee in that certain Lease entered into with the County of Orange on the 15th day of May, 1959, as amended February 28, 1961, is in default in the performance of the terms of said Lease in the particulars set forth in the Notice of .Default dated November 16, 1961, and WHEREAS, more than fifteen (15) days has elapsed since service of said Notice of Default upon said Lessee, and WHEREAS, said Lessee has failed to cure said defaults, or any of them, and is now in default of the terms of said Lease. NOW, THEREFORE, BE.IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that pursuant to the provisions of paragraph XII of said Lease, the County of Orange, as Lessor, does hereby elect to terminate said Lease and to enter upon the leased premises and take possession thereof, all in accordance with the terms of said Lease. Lessee shall have no further rights there- under and all improvements are the property of Lessor. The Clerk of this Board is directed to serve a copy of this Resolu- tion on George P. Carver, Lessee, by mail providing for return receipt, addressed to Lessee as follows: Mr. George P. Carver C/o Ashton, Drohan and Marchetti 3345 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California AYES: SUPERVISORS WILLIS H. WARNER, C. M..NELSON AND WM. HIRSTEIN NOES: SUPERVISORS WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS ABSENT: SUPERVISORS C. M. FEATHERLY Resolution No. 62 -27 1. 1 2 3 5 B 7 8 9 10 11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) . ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of.the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of January, 1962, and passed by a,three- fourths vote of said Board members present. IN WITNESS.WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 3rd day of January, 1962. 2. 14 J , mF 15 2 o Oo 0 0 16_ w >o oZi' go 17 u 18 19 20 21 j . 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 2. I l l RESOLUTION OF THE BO.n OF SUP RVIS61CS -OF OP'A' E wOUNTY , i ri IFORNIA I 31i Jfumary 3, 1962 4' On.motion of.Superviser Warner, duly seconded and carried, the 5' .._::;2_�;wim Resolution was aenpted: 6 :1ES.:S�EU, that the withdrawal; �y Y. L. Elzea of his name as 1 7 z:s' - *see of the Newp:? +_-t Towers Project lease be accepted, and that z, i,ryr negotiations in connection therewith be terminated..':_' SUPERVISORS WIL�IS h. ;- iAM Ali:'; C: M. NELSON, WM iiIR TI ANO WILLIAM J. PFILLM I is _.ove and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly a&-pted by the lgii said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of J,snuj,,ry, 20 y5?, and passed t ;y a unazr_imous vote c4 said Board mumbers present. I: P3 ' IN :SIT, .." vrrTEREOF, I have, hereunto set � ±y Band wed eal this s 3rd day of January, 1962. 26 x 611.+++ooa 1 26{ I 27 28 29: v. y :. lution _..... 62 -26 L . _ B-. WALLACE Coun(Y" Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of trc Board of Supervisors of Orange Courity, California 9 SUPERVISORS NONE �p . IS �BSENQT: SUPERVISOR$ C. M. FEATHERLY � Jgr�'F�£ltrEO is l �� 9 1go2 14': STLTE OF CALIFORNIA 1144% or -_' JliN"Y OF ORANGE ) ss. �~ 16' T, L> B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex -o£fic erx of ti?c Board of S'upervisors of orange . °ounty;-- California, hereby certify that t'r is _.ove and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly a&-pted by the lgii said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of J,snuj,,ry, 20 y5?, and passed t ;y a unazr_imous vote c4 said Board mumbers present. I: P3 ' IN :SIT, .." vrrTEREOF, I have, hereunto set � ±y Band wed eal this s 3rd day of January, 1962. 26 x 611.+++ooa 1 26{ I 27 28 29: v. y :. lution _..... 62 -26 L . _ B-. WALLACE Coun(Y" Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of trc Board of Supervisors of Orange Courity, California i L L tbA'Wi. U, CountV Nirk Orange County Board of Supervisors Orange County Court House Santa Ana, California Gentlemen: George P. Carver 2294 Channel Road Balboa, California December 26, 1961 I am submitting with this letter the names of another group for your consideration and investigation as assignees of the County Dock Lease. This consideration is only asked in the event that Mr. Elzea's backers are not acceptable to you and that he is rejected. I have had several discussions of the project with Mr. Jackson and Mr. Alberding subsequent to the enclosed letter and they are very interested in proceeding subject to your approval. Mr. Alberding who is a fine gentlemen that I know you will like is the fourth largest hotel owner and operator in the country. Most of his operations are in the South and Midwest, although he has several deluxe resort hotels in Pheonix, Arizona. He is presently building a hotel at La Jolla with Mr. Jackson and they will be here the first week in January if you should wish to meet with them. I am sending a copy of this letter and the enclosures to Ken Sampson to save time if you wish an investigation to be made. Sincerely yours, George P. Carver GPC:m1 Enclosure cc: Mr. Kenneth Sampson i RE J JflC�S00, J�. _r. GeorSe P. Carver 2294 - Channel Road Balboa, California Dear Mr. Carver: • RENO: FA 9.1117 • CONTRACTORS • FINANCING LEASE PURCHASING • LEASEBACK RUSS BLDG., ROOM 1201 235 MONTGOMERY STREET SAN FRANCISCO 4, CALIFORNIA EXbrook 2 -7920 September 14, 1961 I ftmt ;S•�d JAN =1962 L I WALLWF, County G—" Re: Development of Waterfront Property �Yr— "�OOPury Newport Beach, California With reference to our many discussions in developing your property in Newport Beach, let me say we are ready, Trilling and able to build, develop and finance this complete project. Ue further would like to enter into a joint venture with you for the joint development; our contractor, the Brunzell Construction Co. would be builder, I would be responsible for financing, and Mr. Alberding, the president of Alsonett Hotels, would be the operator. If you are still interested in this offer we would be very happy to meet with you at your convenience so we can bring this project to a reality. I am enclosing a copy of the properties presently owned and operated by Mr. Alberding, along with a copy of building projects completed or in progress by the Brunzell Construction Co. If this offer is acceptable to you, let me hear from you at your earliest. Best personal regards. SinceXely, ,II `I JR r _ ON 1 �✓/ ^JJ:jc / r , JAN 2 -1962 �B �R u nz EI L L C O n STR U CT'I O rl C O., 111 C� �• gY�► titEl , County oterk ' —•OF NEVA OA•— GENERAL CONTRAOTORS 30 itp.�`. il 19 61 Mgr OFFICE ®ox IsaY ' RENO.NEVATIA .' FAIWIEW 0 -1117. TO, t=-., IT M"I Cw rC ' -*. .j P,eoux _ of work coLTIeted or in progress by Everett S, 11, ikunzell end Associates, C0: 121.t T-A J0:I__3 Alf,2 r KDtel Hoopitnl 8: VAsc, Buildi22 es inisa, California . {•.•aores Islands, Azores Archipelago P.rchi act - . Frank Xi. Green Contract (Joint vent:ar ) Our Portion of Segregated Contract ;;4,500,000 1 460 030 Loyola ColleLe Dormitories Lindberg School Loa Enr,;eles, California' Ares_tect - Albert C, P`as.tin Contract $0390500 Lo , Beach City College Lonr- _'each, .C:.liforaia Contract U,150,000 Keynar Fig. Company Warehouse Loa Angles, California Contract- 275,0 La Fear" High Gcnool La California .. A cFxi`✓ ct, Fr. Lt. Frrison Contract $1,200,000 ilc;,:; ca .'sdical Center F;af:o, itevada Architect - U.. Loy and Crow Contract $659,000 . Auditorium Lt=b,m%, California Cont.:ci $ 25,000 Iarstcn, Intermediate 9chhol. Earstow, California Contract .850,000 Long P,each,,Californie Contract W7,ODD Holiday Hotel Rcno, IL-vada Architect,Frank W. Omen Contract y` p000j 0 P3uo .4gae.cs "Nuaget Casino" Nova,da ArcIIIt'ect - L7eak We Green Cur Portion of segregated Contract a.00 , 000 V- tu.J'i: riiOlLiE' i ::yCl P.eno, Gcvada Arcl Itect - crank W.: Green Contract y330,000 . State of Nevada Hospital . arkaj i,evuds Contract $500,000 Plus 14ae Male school Vonrulk, C liforain Contract Yk7;a,ODD First Baptist Church:: Deno, Hevada Contract y160poo0 A E $RU1lZELL COTISTRUCTIOn CO.,11K. ' —• OF N EVA DA•^ GENERAL CONTRAOTORS REPLY Tb+ ' POSY OFFICE BOX 1627C RENO.NEVAOA '- .. Try FAIRVIEW ! ^1117 C0.`21 ' =—D JO ' � ; Library Buildin ; I CU.aiasium Building ricsno, Cralifo -Amia Uaivcreity of California Cr st:rct (Joint Venture) ::.•oroice Car vu3, California :l,l�:p,(:pp Cc:utract w1,p5p,000 Football Stadium i:icro-aave Station ror: *alias C il.ifornia Sono, 11owda # Contract $350,000 Contract �,-:1E4,0o0 r Ne°lth and Welfare Buildiag AIr Taxminal Building Fcno Yie rada eno, StwadW i Contract I`226s000 Contract y2,000,000 Police Academy Concord Librar,) Concord, California Concord, CzLlifornia w CCL trnct .",•31,000 Contract X360,*= I Ssa Benito County. Library iclard r. Byrd Jr. iii School Hoilistcr, Califorxiis DM valleys California Contract ¢,200,030 2,12 >,000 Union Federal. Savings & Loan Assn. Ho.^.: Vurniture. Cow Office Wilding Store wilding ii - no, rovada. r :':::'YO, Pevada . .Contract 0� 2,5�p' ++tIII'vT'73C:t Pon American YYiCiiway Brides ^w Ysrtel Costa Rica, Central t=rica Dick Graves Cont•_aL;t (Jv xt Ventme) »r. ti, Yiarcda Contract asloo,CQO Contract ti1,p0o,ocp MM. T"feW 1-I41'. rol.euax tiDl + r' "et Casino Addition. .. Bono, Ibvaca 4"mo, ive`Jadla Coatrzct. YC5,000 C=,,vact ti's 4 D 000 Sota,L of California Msaintai ana' S', a;,ion Soda Saringa, California contract Y6o0,U00 Y&J notel StatelIM, NbVada F xvcy' c 6 +ax nn. M=l Ci nS_�ct ?5,500,000 Area: mall: Greco C<a,=nnity Apt. Fiauza j 5t-ancinco, California Contract "1,200,000 Arch# Alta EaLncere a 0 Crw �• A11r�. »tv�. P.¢aCidsaat . E=cutive 3= 105, Tulsa 1, Okla. =1 1 ic?sa7sa Zen p, „sdLsa Ina royal Patles Ina Brach Cltb &atel C-tril &each Hotel uoiie4y hotel & Villas e0boottiaa Borsch Howl k' rioa Hotel ftz -m-:3 Q®hsl Tides Hotel vivo, Park Hotel 7 :uridca Natal Grady Hotel Ring A Prince Hotel Fact Aruetr=g Hotel IndU.-aa lintel ,Ta7ma* Hotel dsyLsaak 3vmaior HIShway noraa coo. D. Eigler Frame, charleston Patel l4aje4ti4 Hotel. . Wads t**- Yourrs !rota: Gant Bay Lodge Oceid,s --w HOtei Groorwills WA41 Ca=ter :fatal . o. Henry Notel eEaersy rMul Liascals Lodge 01cat.rnv inn Aldrich;* Hotel Aldridv.ge !Hotel Ifteei Hotel Aldricte HOW Ring Cottoo Hotel PNO1047 Hotel nendt .ge Hotel notael Dense UaMima Hotel cey -t%c ROX-6l 1%1ceo1=,fk Rouss ceo,dhtle tl¢te l 2aabine 11vtol (iris, Patci zals ujh irate! +ltamaxxl.l Joe-arm Hotel triebard h®tal Lorntf_ee; i s a sis, Aria. (1.41 5 -6301) Aria. F`=— .ir, Aric. Fort Lan-dsrdala, Fla. tort i..AuderL,als, Fla. Fore Lt,V-dvr4ald. Fin. port Landardale, Fla. Ocala, Fla. Ft. i'stnrszrurg. Fla. St. aFesteraburg. Fla. St. Far:arctmriz, Fla. Tallaha%see, 81n. Ta1LstK,ad, Fla. St. Simons Island, Ce. Reek Iglaud, 1114 !'art Wnyno, Ind. 1'opak4, Kan. TappaLu, ".Han. B%'.RiTeg+&; La. Lake Charlea, t.A. Hake Girurlrs, 'a. ;.hrar•aport, La, i„ eatereille, '+aaas. M.u6krCaan, 111ch. c7m;.ville, MOP. wilfi , sec. rc .ud u8, Ohio Calcsziup, Ohio A de, 'v`Uet. MAlcaatur, Okla. Kiwi, Okla. gbavv'we, oj�.l tr�,r$ia, 'L'aa=. numphi ®, Tenn. NaTtville, Tom. DrA1 tts, Texas TAeuiam, Tmcas Lr bock, TrMs Paris, To=& Pevt Arttaar, resew P,4t arth=, TVV48 T,saarku=, oSxrs t%co, Teams Cie.C'aabarr$, avaYf:. 17q�.. L JAN 2 -1962 100 100 50 150 50 60 zm. S 30 apts. 38 100 300 185 395 120 35 so 250 250 300 50 5ai 175 110 60 330 14+ 600 9ce 135 120 117 200 1O 134 185 623 250 110 NO 200 100 200 250 a W. rwula ,i ;3 w Cr. as A.lbz a °ictg, rMaid"t imt- ea+tive Ottieeas. P. C. 8cs 1€ 5,, T'ulsm 1. Ohl&. JAIL 2 -1962 4 4' EW YN W .a..y LQCdSt�.f ^• f.�... Jo:".?�k =� it&3 Pi.�i«s, Aria. (s�'Ei 5 -dlAl) 100 paradiva 8.= p.. T;A sz, Aru. 100 @aryal Paris Inn Fi ^iii, Aric. 50 Repels Cl%5 Hotel Boat Laedardtsla, Fla. ISO C-•rr.1 tsadm Hotel port 1...U&rtdle, Fla.. 50 )10114ay Ratal 6 Vill" For.: LA!mdvrdcsls, r1s. 60 Zoom. & 30 opts. eotusottia 8eaah Howl Part Lauderdale, Fla. 38 srioa Hotel stale, Fls. 104. C4 u-a Hotel ft. PBt.nS9lfkirs. Fla. 300 Ticks Patel St. Poteraburr, Fla. 185 Vlsvag frig Hotel St. Fattarob1tx9, Fla. 375 r.oridrm Natal Tmllmbz%asee. Flo- 120 Ceaady Yc11QI�x lax, Flat. 35 .i3ctsl King 6 :+rtrnaa'Hotel St. Siawae relimd, Ga. Bo Fort Arcatron actol hark IIlasad, Ill. 250 Iad9.a.0 Ronal fort unyne. Ind. 250 Jaydalck hotel S'c peke, Kan. 35D0 Jayhevk 3tmior HLgbtmy Ronal `topcka, ".en. 50 a". a. Etglar NOW :er<atc,gs: ±s. s0 Charleston Patel Lake Charles, La. 175 Kajontic Natal ieD<e cbkrlr®, _%. 110 Waahingtoo- YaureR, Rate' .T KR vrprt. La. err Au4 East Bay Lodge uuaerville, +dxs. O"Umastal Hotel muakccrrm, gich. 330 croonvilla Hotel C:e„a:willt, xxae. 144 Co=c r Hotel 3oplia, ?o. 400 0. Henry Hotel xtanstswsrs. s7.C. ?00 Caaxay E'sutml ai2r;a, A.C. 200 Lincoln Lo4V Goias 135 Olcmtsnw Iam C01t ?aua, 01ALa 120 Aldrid3o 8c al ?.d . 0418. 117 Lldrtd" Hotel mcAlcuter. Gkla. 200 Miami Plotel m xr_$. Okla. 4ldrid3a Hotel 0l:ia. 134 Kung Cotten Hotel mewy;1da 'rR =. 185 Pma`w47 Hotel :lcrilxim, Tear. 525 II XM4ta,V4 HOWL )1avLville, Toam. 259 ratol Amllas Do,) lab, Tmsae 400 Rewire Hotel DaaIRCrO, TRxam 110 carlmzk razal Lrleaartl, ;GF.BS 2fYJ ftcbolaiu Boise Perim. Taamm b0 O*Odhra U*tel Pact Artlsxsr. ' o"& 200 ' ?8btsrm' Not,al P <rz Arthsx, T.W40 100 tisinti ltcr&cl '�'•?aerk , eexae9 2053 R,ala s,h R ta:l Warn, Terss 250 Stns n'.1 lacUx%m Hoth1 C1Aeku3xurp, slamx, Va.. 200 rms. & l.7 ar't'?. tric3aard Hotel t.uatfzzrrn, j' i.S... J 6 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGECOUNTY, CALIFORNIA .''December 20, 1961 A �Zular meeting of the Board, of Supervisors of Orange County, California, was hold DeC4014b6r,20o at 9:30 &X. The following named, members being present: Wx. HIrsteins Chairman; C.M. Weatherly, William is Phillips, a.m. Nelson, "A the clerk. Absent: Willis H, Warner IL NE: NEWPOHT TOWE" PROPOSED ASSIGNMM OF LEASE On motion of Supervisor Nalsons duly seconded and unanimously carried by Board members present, the matter, of the proposed assignatent of the Newport Towers Lea" is continued to January 3s 1961 at 200 P.M. with request that Mr. Mel L. Elsea.submit the names and qualifications of those interested in the Towers Lease to Kenneth Sampmaj, Harbor Manager, for Investigation ,as to the financial stability and character of said persons. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Orange 1, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. W WITNESS V91M6EOF, I have bereuut* at my hand and sea 04220th .'W of December, 1961 /L/. WALLACE .OM 4-61 County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California (Woman II C: Vil-3 1'eaguz of ew`zo%t =#a%6o% Box 1039 Newport Beach, Calif. City Council of Newport Beach City Hall Newport Beach, California Honorable Sirs: IN .; December 1, 1961 Re: County Dock Site �f e CfY" The Woman's Civic League of Newport Beach wishes to express . to your Honorable Body their unanimous opinion as contained in the following motion, the result of the Membership Meeting of Nov. 21st. It was moved: 'That the Woman's Civic League request your Honorable Body to do everything, in your power to preserve the County Dock Site, Newport 3each, as a view site of the harbor.' "!e strongly urge that the natural beauty of this area be pre- served; we believe this to be the last possible access for the public to 'the Bay; not only for residents of Newport Beach, but for allthe citizens of Orange County and the Mate of California as well. %,poor L EACH �� Irery truly tire. Corr s I -Ll, :iub er, Secretary FILE: e --C" 2e.� X33 C's November 30, 1961 Board of Supervisors Court House Santa Ana, California Attention: Mr. Claire Nelson Gentlemen: Copies of the Resolutions adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Orange County on November.l5, 1961, dis- approving the Assignment of the George P. Carver Lease to James L. Fallon.and declaring George P. Carver to be in, default of the terms and.conditions'of the said Lease', were presented to the Council of the City of Newport Beach . on November 27. On Motion of Councilman Somers unanimously carried, the Council concurred In the action of the.Board of Super- visors as indicated.in subject Resolutions; directed that the Board of Supervisors be notified of the action taken by the Council. and directed that the copies.of.the Board of.Supervisors Resolutions be filed.. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 'zz 15 , ». „og 1 "6 4�u z Apo 17 U 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 C' J 0'� RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA November 27,1961 'yr`\ CRY Of pner W SLV On motion of Supervisor Nelson, duly seconded and carried, the following Resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, George P. Carver has agreed to assign all his right, title and interest in and to the Lease between the County of Orange and George P. Carver covering the Dock property, to Mel L. Elzea, and WHEREAS, this Board is interested in the proposal made by Mel L. Elzea, NOW,•THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board .defer a definite finding on the termination of said Lease to December 20, 1961 at the hour of.2:00'P.M. AYES: SUPERVISORS C. M. NELSON, WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS, C. M. FEATHERLY, WILLIS H. WARNER AND WM.HIRSTEIN NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE .STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board at an adjourned meeting thereof held on the 27th day of November, 1961, and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set. my'hand and seal this 27th day of November, 1961: - WAi:LACE Count y;,Clerk. and ex- officio Clerk j' of. he ;Boar pf.Supervisors of Orange Count ifornia 4.5� , eputy Resolution No. 61 -1210 _a, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 D» 'U °m 16 4rD OZ4 0 0 17 V m 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF nFUpoar ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA November 27, 1961 On motion of Supervisor Nelson, duly seconded and carried, the following Resolution was adopted: BE IT RESOLVED that the Superintendent of Building and Safety report to this Board on the plans and specifications on file in that office regarding Newport Towers, said report to be made prior to December 20, 1961. AYES: SUPERVISORS C. M. NELSON, WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS, C. M. FEATHERLY, WILLIS H. WARNER AND WM. HIRSTEIN NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the. above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board at an adjourned meeting thereof held on the 27th day of November, 1961, and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 27th day of November, 1961. Resolution No. 61 -12.27 uIty nark and iiscreation ;.epurtmont +ewport beach, ualiforniu City Council of Newport Oeucn Newport Boachp Gallforti -a Claire x; . Nelson Board of aupervisora <anta ,,na, California sirs: Al ' i:lii'r > =r1vL ,lewport teach hoVlj::it)er du, 1SDt1 Resent public dissuasions of high rise buildings � have shown the intense interest the people of this om=unity have toward preserving a scenic view of our beautiful waterfront. 1 suggest that if the original lease for the county dock laud and the aujacent city land which was to become tine "Towers" were to be considered today, the great majority of the residents oft.-As oorimunity would be in favor of leaving this land as a window to VA bay rattler than filling the last public panorama with a building. Our indifference at the original signing of this lease should not be used as a gage at this time of public sentiment for the beat use of this land which is so ideally located to be enjoyed by residents and visitors. If recent newspaper quotes are correct in stating that the present leaso is, or will bes delinquents I wish to go on record as favoring that this land be converted to a public green areas tins that will preserve a picture window in tuts area for every city and county resident and for every passing visitor to this area for generations to comma. This would not be without precedent in our comrmnity to have a park which is to be enjoyed principally for its scenic view alone. I know of no more beautiful spot in our city than the green area along the Corona .Del Uar bluff overlooking the jetty, i'he argument that income could land with une other than a par: existing or potential park In many the question is simply, picture wortli` " `Ptmis truly 1s should be deutroyed only if it interest oun be better served. be obtained from this s is valid for every Sur city or county. To hat is a priceless a picture window that can be shown the public `.ours truly, L. B. WALLACE. COUNTY CLERK P. O. BOX 686 COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA November 20, 1961 Margery Schrouder, City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Dear Madam: c� PHONE KI 7.8811 C - S 33 f ,Y :• �4 I am enclosing a certified copy of Resolution No. 61 -1174 adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Orange County on November 15, 1961, disapproving the assignment of the George P. Carver Lease to James L. Fallon, et al,; a certified copy of Resolution No. 61 -1175 also adopted on November 15, 1961, declaring George P. Carver to be in default of the terms and conditions of said Lease, and an extra copy of the Notice of Default. mka Enc.:3 0101'1 :' is 1 e Very truly yours, L.B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California By 12 deputy Clem i Pitt a ' - NEWPORT BEACH Y 1 2 3 4 5 B 7 8 . 9 10 11 12 13 14 d z 15 00 8 ,e3 16 .e oz< $e 17 18 19 20!, 211 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 29 30 311 32 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF,ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA November 15, 1961 On motion of Supervisor Nelson, duly seconded and carried, the�� following Resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, George P. Carver has proposed that Wonderbowl- Downey, Inc., and Vandenburg Inn and Hotel, Inc.,'become assignees of that Lease entered into on May 5, 1959, and amendments thereto, between the County of Orange, Lessor, and George P. Carver, Lessee, said Lease commonly known as the Newport Tower Lease, and WHEREAS, under the terms of said Lease such assignment must first be approved in writing by this Board, and WHEREAS, this Board finds the terms and conditions for the pro- posed assignment as presented by Mr. James L. Fallon on behalf of the proposed assignees, are not acceptable to this Board, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND IT IS SO ORDERED that the assignment of said Lease is not approved. AYES: SUPERVISORS C. M. NELSON, WILLIS H. WARNER, C. M. FEATHERLY, WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS AND WM. HIRSTEIN NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE i ABSENT:. SUPERVISORS NONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) as. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) i I, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board it a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of November, 1961, and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board. IN.WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 15th day of November, 1961. L. B. WALLACE County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California Resolution'No. 61 -1174 1�11�Oi►t1W 2 3 November 13, 4 ..: of up tim Of O Nt r. Awly secaded a" carried, . the $ following ftwwlvtlm aaa AACP ardt as, Lesma r.. entmomw i*0 a Lease 7 VAtk G80qP P. ' CarverO to LON*ae$ on the .3th day of mays MOO . s X15, Paragraph 11 of said Leese was smosiw by of s t bm Partiestmrstolo dated Grp ip, 196I 10 IWOUS, by the term of Said Wit,. s exreadviltbis ow 11 bwadnA testy, *ya from, the data Of said smandawk to prepay or 12 eaysa to be prepared amd 4WUVUVV4 to Lssaor, data "A plaea 6" spsciw 13 f iaatioes far rtll ot. S&o '%dld w a w m to be 14 ceeatTgated . y Less"O AM ar 15 OWUMS , the tiaas for submittAM 4614 detailed p'larde tad speaifi- U ° a 16 eatleej aaxad tbre Marl:. fee- ,eb osau Ut%t ou ss" improvements has ' .. 'oz 00 fi7 ... 1xAAX *ad u 1a 0,10y'00 teats of ftrapaph x12 of the Less" : 19 44r4sd, to'Ae w IMPathly remtal Payments !an the. aseust Of Bier 20 D011aars (600. D) per for ! first ItM ty"sis ��hs Of Cite 21 tare Of, said Lassa: amd :22 wmn", lots": is iu 4sfevjS Oa said e�shthly sootal peyarwte i>s 23 the amt of OYe. 9j&t:Jja&drall Dollars (010800.00)1 punts 24 Ott .8a► dit . foa�th YO�Iar 0113$. �'Y76i1 1a�h 1x1, .tad la additiare 25 therete the 4%jr1 "eat aaoath• l leaatal boa, not been vacei. 26 FASO by the term of Paragraph dll of the LeeOe, 1eas4e 27 afire" to pay, s11 tests prior to tbs. deliapawy thsxeaf, 494 28 the Lessee Is Is 40ia%dt Ou the psyaae st Of the lq"1 , z9 1+f 2 property tax" on, his poe$*"Dry, Igterart is the Umseheld in 30 the -of Two lbummamo One wandred Fifty -SIX Sollars and Thirty- 31 Taxes s (41, M, 331) > Pharr► the peaatlty in the s Of QUO 32 ds�nraty- 'Trio�pi�O►lla^�rrs a�+}" Fifty tianrts 172 30) Resolution, ft. 61 -1175 1. 'lhlat Ilstt4 rlt aaadt is, �► 4"Um" to hat 1u dofmtt 2 . Ia. ttaa oft" 't~aw"`sod aea>+Lt .of. "o"4 4"a 1' . . 3' 2. T��r t : the C uk. of tM4 g"„rda►f��ovo�s!irr�ir+�tate bqa be i/s��..�.�y'� Sao% tit"W*y - atlT"t" to: �'� $Ae aio' #PIWi �iht rA tors �tp 0 B 7 '' , "04060 Qrr%/M0 A,M�4pt0�h VV�PUU: *tub �iOp3�h�tLC�y �q��t.ii. C ��t�e�3. 8 �� � _ � .. � Tex'' t� iixia o bFy = "19 t o said. Los"* - uOt of d/�1to g StdAb mot:u a Rhali br tilab4t 4Kt$AlIY At feLbwot. 1p *VUX at UWASS 11 1 $R. Irasa" . La t� fiilgL"totA moo' 4� in" 12 vit h the of tlwtga an tba .13th ilty" of : l l89. ,1rs lebromw 280 14. To V= r u .tau i .17hRt . sa4s is doewt in perfanowe . oC18.. yZ2 OHO 4t' tho t+ ow of "tA Law1�+a1e sad. �.. i� t:b3�ts, " nom 18 �/ j afj� ��yy. li tl of O&W e � � thou 3` 17 tba ti "S" to Umsor eM,oafw " #]AM ftd at"*Lfl.*dk* 18 tiesi of tho s *bra t"WAA by i wrs 19 M#.$� ai11 btYd twOL7 ,. >raebrgsat�rr X961. 20 You bm ftilad to aaawly With said pf"tou" of "I'd 21 >rAt11N� as AIa1 , pad :harm Boiled to the :.. 22 ". fall s 411 i►fd. 23 24 2. )ti&Ittt" ati aillid I;eaaee �t . 25 SOW >" 1 18 t hO 8 t * 6tx iced. 26. ibilaro per : moth for the firit thirty -ox Moth* 09 ' 27 : the tors. *&.I . 'Yen 4:'w t.*, 28 $&AA p llIM of motel Los" is tbss :giJA reilktal OW 29 seats tttia 401,1*0 st for thaw umothi $A the aaovat all 30 tifleaitVstt:1,.�). rlhleii 31 chat: itee ljolwk9 the curxeft tm aath ftt VIkJAU A: 32 solttaI PWN=t hat ;olso not bash lfatoablva4. x. 7 3 4 6 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 z 16 8 17 18 19 201 27. 22 23 24 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 0 0 AYES : SUPERVISORS Willgat ' C , )L Y,. NOES: SUPERVISORS � d., IS� MK" Bt �I ABSENT: SUPERVISORS STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE I, L. B..WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and,regularly adopted by the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the ' is j4j -. day of , 19, a and passed by a 3lWolumma vote of said Board a IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this day oftsa ► 1261• L.,B. WAIIACE County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California B 1 Deputy 44 Via' Laryaiwe, fin 'agr mer aril LaKei emntar" ifto vita 3 . the a# . an lit. of: s ��� ie' ?IiYY'g. 4 B Ye MILL UP JOIRM191 tit 7� ale , fa etaset�tt is �a►ce_,. ; @ vi' 00 tares of mafd Lagos and s timsss to, in is 7 1. Nta XI of "Id Lem,, , $ti1�"ed the riaisk► Laeaur deledie! apaeffioa- 9 tom► of thwwmntj� tos aatsvate�t 11W Laa 10 vim* twooty date froo rewrusry 12 , YOU bows 6ailait t0 m jjji4 of said 12 tar 46auda4 iod Neva SiRiI� t® corks tea 13 eta as xirad. 14 cot Is 2, �+asa�ea�& of 'said L so resgniV94 that Ids ;» o08 18 salts searal a in tins ,og ASIX d 0 17 a9ellsra per tat tl�r '1°31'9$ ik'ty�'s3z a t%e tE! l 18 tie AGIM Of said Lae4Ye . You' Mve gall": fo 19 aiiid pst ►3aioa' of Sold Lee" Ma t ilt X36 real pgy , 20 saints `ars dsli £air t�ta ae ice: tbb:SUVAkt off. 21 11@liali;,(�1,�Q•t� }� 22 s4ea faeluda the CUM."t > tot iWah a, 23 1 paywat ties a1RO aat ' been resolved, 24 25 1. fifes ep Y i. of`. said Lesse M:.tlfl4t tha Laiaaaa as s, PrY *11'. towas prior to doluNquafty. Yft. have lstlad.. to comply �ly .ntra r.id oivisiaa : geld 7�.ea 'ito that the 28 1961 -186! o artg i , an the p s .. gate a+sit bne 29 not P&JA it► the . mumn og 3�e' r ffsae Bred 30 Fifty -oft Bonn", eP4 rA C),N*Tk " Amato ': � s.� • s '. 31� the pomalty 9Y : .:M 32. �blltlle. sad Y3Yty a (I�i7$.�): City Clerk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PARKS, BEACHES & RECREATION COMMISSION F Ca 3� City Council City of Newport Beach Gentlemen: November 22, 1961 Re: COUNTY DOCK PROPERTY At the regular meeting of the Parks, Beaches & Recreation Commission held Tuesday, November 21, 1961, letters were read from D. J. MacLean, 801 Cliff Drive, Mrs. Stuart D. Baird, and the Woman's Civic League of Newport Harbor, relating to the County Dock property. Each of the three letters strongly urged that this area be preserved for a scenic view of the Bay. A motion was made by Commissioner Pease, seconded by Commissioner MacKay, and carried, that the Commission urge the City Council,to take immediate and strong steps in every possible thing that can be done to see that this property is preserved for park purposes, Very truly yours, MIL�C. SHEDD, CHAIRMAN PARKS, BEACHES & RECREATION COMMISSION CCS:h `COUYCII: ATT: Copies of letters from MacLean and Baird • vo Chairman of the Parks Commission City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, Calif., Tuesday November 21, 1961 Dear Sir, I wish to add my voice to the chorus of farsighted citizens who are requesting that the county dock area be converted to public park. There is no other city in the world that can boast a view such as the one that greets the visitor as well as the homecomer when whey reach the arches. It is unthinkable that this should be commercialized for the benefit of a few at the unmeasurable expense of the entire community. Very truly yours A Jeannette G. Baird (Mrc. Stuart D. Baird) .. 8C@Cliff Drive Newport tseach Nevember 200 1861 City Park and Recreation Department Newport beach, California City Council of Newport Beach Newport Beach, Californiba Claire N. Nelson board of Supervisors Santa Ana, California Sirs: Recent public discussions of high rise buildings have shown the intense interest the people of this community-have toward preserving a scenic view of our beautiful waterfront. Q. - REEE��'E� a. do I suggest that if the original lease for the county dock land and the adjacent city land which was to become the "Towers" were to be considered today, the great majority of the residents of this community would be in favor of leaving this land as a window to the bay rather than filling the last public panorama with a building. Our indifference at the original signing of this lease should not be used as a gage at. this time of public sentiment for the best use of this land which is so ideally located to be enjoyed by residents and visitors. If recent newspaper quotes are correct in stating that the present lease is, or will be, delinquent, I wish to go on record as favoring that this land be converted.to a public green area. One that will preserve a picture window in this area for every city and county resident and for every passing visitor to this area for generations to come. This would not be without precedent in our community to have a park which is to be enjoyed principally for its scenic view alone. I know of no more beautiful spot in our city than the green area along the Corona Del Mar bluff overlooking the jetty. The argument that income could be obtained from this land with use other than a park is valid for every existing or potential park in our city or county. To many the question is simply, "What is a priceless picture worth ?" This truly is a picture window that should be destroyed only if it can be shown the public interest can be better served. `0 7-61 Yours truly, 0 �, lh� f., e' City Clerk November 22, 1961 Councilman Harvey Somers City Clerk M. Schrouder County Dock Lease The office of Supervisor Nelson telephoned today and requested that i get in touch with you to inform you that the Board of Super- visors will meet in the Board Room in the Court House at 2:00 P. M. on Monday. November 27, to talk with a Mr. Elzea regard- ing the Newport Towers lease. Copies of Resolutions adopted by the Board of Supervisors on November 15, 1961, disapproving the assignment of the George P. Carver lease to James L. Fallon, and declaring George P. Carver to be in default of the terms and conditions of said lease are attached for your information. I am also enclosing a copy of a letter from D. J. MacLean, re- questing preservation of the County Dock property for a picture window. MS:mv Ence. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA November L, 1�61 f A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, was held November 1 -�l at 9:30 A.M.. The following named members being present: Wm..Hirstein, Chairman; C. Hf. Featherly, Willis H. Warner, William J. Phillips, C. M. Nelson and the Clerk. IN n-: PROPWED ASSIGNMNT Oy LEASE 1JEt PORT TOUIERS C0=141IEII Jn rn t-lon of SUInervisor Nelson, duly seconded and vrialllwusly Carried, the matter of the Proposed aaal6nmenL of the lease Between the County or orange and George Carver, (Newport Towers) to Sautes L. Fallon, `i7u05 ,Sunset Boulevard, ,Los Angeles 46, California, is continued to November 15., 19 1 at 10:30 A.M.. aw 6, s STATE OF CALIFORNIA, sa. County of Orange L L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set nkv hand and seal this 6th day of November, 19;6'1.. L. B. WALLACE County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of _ '�" 8-81 Supervisors of Orange County, California MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ;> OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA November 1, V'-161 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County,. California, was hold November 1, 1)ail at 0:30 A.M.. The following named members being present- Wm. ifir$tgino Cl.air.wan, C.m. peati-erl}r, Wililam Ji :piiillips, C.Y. Nelaon and t.e Clerk.. Absent t Willis 111. Warner Iii E t PROPOSED AS.SIONRfi NT OF UWE NKWPORT TOMM CONTI iii Pi on motion of Supervisor Nelson, duly seconded and unanimously carried by Board aftibers present, the ratter of the proposed assignment of tl,.e Yeas- between the County of Orange. and G-orge Carver, (Newport Towers), to James L. Pillory 7805 Sunset Boulevard,Los AnZeles 46, California, is continued to November Fs, 1961 at 2 :00 P.M.. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Orange 1, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entiy on record in this office. IN vpirXMS ►BSESEOF, I have berommto net my hand and seal tma ' m�'rr '1/Y of NovtlIIlb@r, 196I L'5.---WALLACE lea . -m County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California /V- MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA October 3, 1961 -tq*�T'°�ular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, rras held October 3,, +:r`�'+ at 9:30 A.M.. The following named members being present: 11111e lilrStVln, Chairman; C.H. Featherly, lv`LII13 R. Starner, C.N. Nel on and I;he Clerk. Abce4r:: William J. PhIlli'ps :supervisor Phillips arrives at the meeting and assumes his duties;. 'supervisor Featherly is called from the meeting. 114 FIE: HEAR= CONTIMMI) PRUPOSED AS310UM T OF LEAZE NEWPORT T{iW.�`fiS On motion of Supervisor Pelson, duly seoonded and unanimousli, carried by Board members present, the matter of the proposed ass: Gasmen. oi' the lease betaieen the County or Orange and George Carver, (Newport cowor:s) to Jas L. Fallon, 7605 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles 46,, Califoimi.u, is continued to October 17, 1961 at 3 :00 P.M., 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, r County of Orange j 1, L B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. I¢4 MTNEW V VBW=F, I have hereunto eat my hand and seat Guts ' /(,, ( y /,Q�sy�at� Oo tober, 1-961. L B. WALLACE ,ox . -sl County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California sir MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Z �y�r OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA L14eoter: ber ` 1-,, V-r "al IV S.'. Se°i+:�fdb�Zti'` ��r meeting o2 the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, was held j�.- r � Ai " :Tf 8:3 h foll ed a ber es a tell ���I ai.' ^..t, F;ea4:1eI'" 4A It I �� `S� l �i t3 the Clerk. Absent- Willialli j. Phillips C :lw CLS.C3LS. ,u,ma t'1.fs a a �i, dr5 n IN PROPDSED ASSIfiIMENT OF LEASE hMWPORT TCl1d. M C€71�"i'IiVtsp On not-Lon of Supervisor Nelson, duly seconded and unanimovzly° ctaxbried, t re ifladter of tte proposed assiEra nt of the lease between the County of JraneLe and George Carver (Neleport Towers) to Janes L. Fallon, 7"05 D5 Sunset i3oultrrerd, Loa Aiw eles 4i , California, isi continued to Detober r `; ?'mil at 3,30 P.M.. .1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, a. County of Orange 1, L: B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. IN WITNESS WBEREOP, I have hereunto set my hand and seal thl�- ot. L. B. WALLACE 10M 4-61 County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA < , t Li A re�lar meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, was held Sept enl �Pr i -ft at 9:30 A.M.. The following named members being present:'. ,.Fi'. a,:. "t,Flli3. i°1i9F331 . `'t !.'V -ha :a!er1'1j, 'atll,l 0 , rj ^.M. 'lkfl3t; n and CAD Clark. k r A k,ipz 2' S.rE'1'.,VR'"`vt -f';A the Ifl&'C°?'InE. rant a0 sLum3".'� 13 Uis:�.�.6$• 6 L Il Y PE"OpcZ ! =1G1izE1W 3F LEASE tIf tdPORT TOINEIIS CON'TINUUDD )n t- ..,otlon of Supervisor i'ielson, duly seconded tnd unanitr,::xLesly w�trra'w+i; the lsattesr >, >I' t - . rot)Xled eeaier gat of ` ;e lease between Y.e e01A.ty of Oran�'e a „ tQeorEQ carver (I;eefport -a."owemi) to jams L. zrtllon, j..:05 ,vmzet, Boulevard, Los Angeles California,, :is continued to iXtJ:l at ,^,:30 F.l'.. . STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ) ty es. County of Orange 1, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ea- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. IN WITNESS WJIEBZ0F, I have hereunto set my hand and seal L 1�)',/ day of :;'e'Utemi er x L. B. WALLACE ,on, s a, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California IN RE: NEWPORT TOVERS PROPOSED ASSIGNMENT, OF LEASE CONTINUER on motion of Supervisor Nelson, duly seconded and unanimously carried., the matter of the proposed assignment of the lease between the County of Orange and George Carver (Newport Towe -re) to Jame L.' Fallon, 7$05 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles 46; California.. is continued to September 26, 1961, at,3.30 P.M. COUNCIL: DiSPOSiT10N: y _ 2" STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Orange I..L_ B. WALLACE; County Clerk and -es- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County,. California, hereby, certify the foregoing' to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seat this 19th "Y of Re'ptember, 1961. L. g. WALLACE - County Clerk and ex- offieio Clerk of the Board of - sy Supervisors of Orange County,:California 301. inug Harbor COUNCIL: Newport Beach'. q'-1 b September 3,Z-0, z Rd. Tamea B. Stoddard, Mayor, 1� " 1,��o New ort Beach, Cal. . .. N 011-k 0"F P V Fof . y * a� Po _ Dear Mr. Stoddard, We have recently returned from through many many of the beauty spots of the country, Glacier Rational Park, the Cascades, the Rain Forest, the Redwood Highway and the superb coastline along the way. We returned to Newport Beach with joy at seeing again the beauty of our own community. As you are no doubt aware, many of the residents of this city feel a great sense of loss atithe threat of having the view of the channel, little by little, shut off for all except those who own frontage property. Re- cognizing that change and progress are in- evitable and, for the most part, good, it still seems reasonable that the bulk of the taxpayers should have some areas reserved so that they can get glimpses of the beauty that is such a distinguishing mark of this community. At this time I have in mind the long view of the channel as seen from the Arches. I had heard that a building was going up on this property. Yyhen I read that there was some difficulty about the arrangement and that the property belongs to the municipality and the country, I decided to write in the hope that something may yet be done to reserve it for the countless thousands, residents of the area and hhose passing; through, who will tra- vel down ewport Blvd. and the Coast Highway now and in the future. I wish that I could have made this the ost convincing letter that you have read* erhapds it will serve in some small part to have consideration given to reserving some view property that can forever be enjoyed by all in their dad ly rounds. sinc ely yours$..,r 9 �t- t SUBJECT: GEORGE CARVER C -533, CA 15, R 4909 DATE* 9/11/61 RE* *See --- previous documents and correspondence in File #1 SEE SUBJECT* C -533 Orange County County Dock MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Aupot 29, 1961 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, was held AuKust 2 1961 at 9:50 A.M.. The following named memhers being present: Wm Hirs ln, Chairman; C. M. Featherly, Willis H. Warner, William J. Phillips, C. M. Nelson and the Clerk. IN RB: HAMM MANAGER AND COUNTY COUNSBL.AUTHMRI M TO INVESTIOATE QUALIFICATIONS OF PROPOSW ASSIGNS OF ERASE NXPORT TOVWS' SAMON TAXURA On motion of Supervisor Nelson) duly seconded and unanimously, carried, Ttnnsth.Sampeon, Harbor Manager and Stephen R. Tamura, County Counsel, or his repreeentative,.are authorized to travel outside of the County of Orange to investigate the qualifications of the proposed Assignee of the Lease between the County of Oraneo and George Carr (Newport Towers) with the County of Orange to pay the necessary expenses. Ube of County car Is authorized. County of Orange STATE OF CALIFORNIA, a 1, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ea- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this th of A uSUS t) .t,JWl Y ALLACE ,ua ,b, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange.County, California . • •COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK L.8. WALLACE, COUNTY CLERK OF THE P. O. BOX 888 SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA September 1, 1961 PHONE KI 7 -3811 I L. Margery Schrouder S City Clerk CON �'i' �fiCIO rA 3300 W. Newport Blvd. DISPOSITION: 14� Newport Beach, Calif. Dear Madam: I am enclosing herewith two separate Minute Orders adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors at their meeting held on August 29, 1961, pertaining to the proposed assignment of the lease of the Orange County Dock Property from George Carver, (Newport Towers) to James L. Fallon, together with documents presented by Mr. Fallon. Other documents, to be submitted by Mr. Fallon, will be furnished to you by the Orange County Harbor Manager. Very truly yours, L.B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California lyiJc@% Deputy LBW;dk \� Encl. % ° d .r' �a ., ;i0✓ ' /��!:4 s.%. -•G-� �; CETI CLERK N �1ra..- .,— �C.•..�'�� ;�,, CITY OF C DISPOSITION: NEWPORT BEACH.. FILE :��o_ ®- ��.., ,/ L•. -rte- �c�...d.,....W4; der �cG /G� _ O.- c+sal.li zw ..a .:� GC ✓ •JS�-- vJ.'/ii 21 �.. i•..- I�LK/z /aG.. Li4l - C.e.L.� �..•.rG�s -»..may .•.;sue- -��'eL _�-;.. .�.c....� L.- �� ... .. -....t 'Z=.v ss.r�- .. -l.P- M�"� G% L i. -.+iC tdGli.1 - �••-9' pe yy.. L% - ..GIYAIU'.re..r..� ✓l. P-N/ w....' "'�a�"f �i� l �.lrr -.=+y� .- .y„- .. -..�- .2.oG,�i t.C:.• �a.+��.eJ ...-w- �4a �L-G 2S ��l a.-` .�-G/ iG- Y�.'�jj ......y� '- �L't.�..�a:y - 4'�a.. .SL ��� d. � � I�•."C �• Co- +• -a�ci �- first,/ all- ;;t7 .;,- "tre.! F C0.PY r Newport Beach City Council Newport City Nall, Newport Beach. Gentlemeno i COPY Newport Beach August 22, 1961 Rea Newport Beach dock Having settled here only a few months ago, I was unaware that the county -owned dock property had been made available for private development and a lease given to one George Carvers for this purpose, two years ago. I have only now learned of his non - performance and your action in respect to this. This is inexcusable. In the event that said Carver does not comply with the demands of the county by August 29th deadline date, I wish to go on record as being extremely interested in such a project ... and that I can develope this pro- perty into a world showplace and memorial worthy in every respect, of this splendid and beautiful community. Both architecturally and functionally, I visualize a multi - million dollar project with unique features that would be favorably publicized and talked about around the world...and would be an engineering marvel .a beacon of beauty visible at night from at least twenty-five miles out to sea, and from much further away in the air. Back east, I've had over thirty yyeeare experience as a (and with) prcmotor, organizer and developer of worthwhile projects, both in cons- truction and commercial propositions, and in their successful management. I have many contacts. I was extremely active in civic development and improvement, Having now adopted this area as the place to live out my years, I am anxious and will be proud to bring into being such a great asset to our city. The conditions of the lease are unknown to me, nor exactly what property environic.to the dock is included. I would.make two stipulations in any case. 1. A substantial adjacent area to the dock must be made available... both shore and water rights. This, for the dual purposes of (a) providing a substantial park- ing area restricted to the users of the dock facilities, m -m(b) and for providing additional area over and in the ocean for construction and facilities to serve the project with boat slips and service docks a,-- .an oceanside marina for those using our facilities. 2a The various authorities involved must grant permis- sion to construct a breakwater so that the above marina facility will be in its lee...in turn, the breakwater itself, in part, will be a recreational facility. If and when I can be officially permitted to enter into active negotiations and work, respecting this development, I will present a major plan (master) for this project in the form of an architectural rendering within sixty days time for approval. When actual leases have been exe- cuted, final plans wild be submitted within another 60-90 days, and cons- truction will begin almost immediately thereafter, when plans are ap- proved ... a project worthy of the largest city in the land, unlike anything elsewhere on earth, m of inestimable value to Newport Beach as a facility, as an asset, as a publicizer, and probably the producer of the largest tax revenue in Orange County, plus lease revenue. ,I estimate the entire project can be completed in 12 ®1 months, but it will be so planned and executed (in "stages ") as to make certain facilities open to the public as each "stage` is completed. Please put me on record wherever necessary, regarding my interest and desire to perform. Sincerely yours, 213k- 42 Street. /S/ L John Lee C 0 P Y ` I COUNCIL: C 0 P Y i Newport Beach City Council Newport City Nall, Newport Beach. Gentlemen: Newport Beach August 22, 1961 Rea Newport Beach dock. Having settled here only a few months ago, I was unaware that the county -owned dock property had been made available for private development and a lease given to one George Carvers for this purpose, two years ago. I have only now learned of his non - performance and your action in respect to this. This is inexcusable. In the event that said Garver does not comply with the demands of the county by August 29th deadline date, I wish to go on record as being extremely interested in such a project ... and that I can develope this pro - perty into a world showplace and memorial worthy in every respect, of this splendid and beautiful community. Both architecturally and functionally, I visualize a multi - million dollar project with unique features that would be favorably publicized and talked about around the world ... and would be an engineering marvel...a beacon of beauty visible at night from at least twenty -five miles out to sea, and from much further away in the air. Back east, I've had over thirty years experience as a (and with) promotor, organizer and developer of worth -while projects® both in cons- truction and commercial propositions, and in their successful management. I have many contacts. I was extremely active in civic development and improvement. Having now adopted this area as the place to live out my years, I am anxious and will be proud to bring into being such a great asset to our city. The conditions of the lease are unknown to me, nor exactly what property environic to the dock is included. I would make two stipulations in any case. to A substantial adjacent area to the dock must be made available...both shore and water rights, This, for the dual purposes of .(a) providing a substantial park- ing area restricted to the users of the dock facilities, -m(b) and for providing additional area over and in the ocean for construction and facilities to serve the project with boat slips and service dockage,- - an Oceanside marina for those using our facilities. 2. The various authorities involved must grant permis- sion to construct a breakwater so that the above marina facility will be in its lee „ vin turn, the breakwater itself, in part, will be.a recreational facility. If and when I can be officially permitted to enter into active negotiations and work, respecting this development, I will present a major plan (master) for this project in the form of an architectural rendering within sixty days time for approval. When actual leases have been exe- cuted, final plans wild be submitted within another 60 -90 days, and cons- truction will begin almost immediately thereafter, when plans are ap- proved . „ a project worthy of the largest city in the land, unlike anything elsewhere on earth, - of inestimable value to Newport Beach as a facility, as an asset,; as a publicizer, and probably the producer of the largest tax revenue in Orange County, plus lease revenue. I estimate the entire project can be completed in 12 -18 months, but it will be so planned and executed �in t °stages ") as to make certain facilities open to the public as each "stage, is completed. Please put me on record wherever necessary, regarding my interest and desire to perform. Sincerely yours, 213'x- 42 Street. /S/ L. John Lee 33 COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK L. B. WALLACE; COUNTY CLERK OF THE P. O. BO% B9B SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY PHONE K, -sa„ SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA August 21, 1961 City of Newport Beach MUNUIL. I Margery Schrouder, City Clerk 3300 West Newport Boulevard plgpq$IT Newport Beach, California �e+� Dear Mrs. Schrouder: Enclosed herewith are two Resolutions Nos. 61 -853 and 61 -854 of the Orange County Board of Supervisors dated August 16, 1961 regarding the extension of time requested by George P. Carver for filing the Plans and Specifications for Newport Towers. Enc . Cc 1 ,96l Pc �' NcCrycRK ry Very truly yours, L.B. WALLACE County Clerk and ex- officio Clerki of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California By �G�Deputy Clerk • VU N C" � L le 4i '1 ' I I �r RESOLUTION'OF niE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF I ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 4 : Vugust 16, 1961 4 On motion of Supervisor Nelson, duly seconded and carried, the S following %seolution was :adopted; 6� I WHEREAS, under the terms and conditions of that certain Lease made 7il and entered into on May 5, 1959, as amended, between the County of Bps Orange, as Lessor, and eo:.ge F. Carver, as Lessee, the Lessee was re� I 9; quired to file with this Board within 120 days after February 28, 1961, ' 104 detailed Plans and Specification for all of the buildings and improve- ments, including landscapingy, requ -..red to be constructed or performed 1211 by the Lessee under the terms =nd -_=:!itiors of the aforesaid Lease, 'j 13 %! WHEREAS, Said Plans and ha ve not been filed or .144 delivered to the Lessor. 1� NOWTO °?PEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED that unless aaid George tm i t S. Carver has by August 29, 1961, at ?:00 P.M. cc #lied with the terms g 12i and conditions of the aforesaid Lease, or produced an assignee acceptable IM! to the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach, who Can comply 191 with the terms and conditions of the Lease, it is the intention of this 201 Board at said time to declare Lessee in default and to give 21 him formal notice thereof. 22 is BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the County Counsel be and 4 b3 he is hereby authorized and directed to prepare and ,submit to this Board i 24'f for its consideration on August 29, 1561, at 3.00 P.M., the appropriate 25 form of Resolution aiad Notice. of Default. �I +3 26 27! AYES- C. M. NELSON, C. M. FEATHERLY AND Ward. HIRSTEIN rye] I! ti NOES- SUPERVISORS WILLIS H. 6:AELNER � 29 !i ?3 ABSENT-. SUPERVISORS WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS 3011 31;3 s! 321, i Resolution No. 61 -554 . r STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) as. COUNTY. OF ORANGE ) I, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above.and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of August, 1961, and passed by a majority vote of said members of the Board. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 16th day of August, 1961. L. B. WALLACE County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California c.. By Deputy 9 i Ali 12 14': `+f,S yes P� P'16 �B1 q9 28 29 30 31 32 LESOLLMON OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNT"I, CALIFORNIA August 16, 1961 On Motion of Stapervisor Warne t, duly seconded and carried, the fallowing Resolution was adopted- '+.AEREAS, by Resolution adopted July 12, 1961,. this Board did con - sent. to the exte:tsiar. of time fur ttie filing of detailed Plans and Specifications by George P. Carver according to the terms and condl- ti.ons wf that cartain base between the County of Orange, as Lessor, and George P. Carver, as Lessee, dated May 5, 1959, for 121 days beyond. June 25, 1961, to Wednesday, October 25, 1961, at 11-700 A.M. subject ao the approval of the City of Newport Beach, €TIEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach did on July 12; 1961, . and again: on Auzost lea, 1961, disapprove the extension of time proposed to be granted to George P. Carver ry the aforesaid Resolution. of this Board., adopted July 12, 1961, WHIEREA:S by reason of disapprosaal of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, the extension proposed to be granted by this Board by the aforesaid Resolution, of July 12, 1961, is ineffective, ,'eOTRA VAEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED .ND ORDERED tlat° said Resolution of July 12, 1961, grating to George P. Carver an extension cf Lime for the filing of detailed Plants and Specifications to Tzednesday, Octobe.;. 25, 1961; it 3.1 -00 A,M. be and the same. is hereby rescinded, AYES SDPERN'ISORS WILLIS H. 'WARNER, C. M WILSON, C. M. FEATHERLY, AND WM. H.IRSTEIN NOES; SUPERVISORS NONE ABSENT: SUPERVISORS WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS Res-olution No. 61-853 a. i I STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) as. 2 COUNTY OF ORANGE �) 3 I, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board 4 of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the 5 above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adodted by the 18 said Board at a regular meeting thereof.held on the 16th day of August, 7 1961, and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board members present. 8 IN WITNESS'WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 16th . 9 day of August, 1961. 10 11 L. B. WALLACE County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of 12 the.Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California 13 14 By i �� Z ay .z6 16 e� puty op$ 1 - °r 1g I7 18 19 20 21 22 �3 45 i 26 27 I I 28 t. 29 30 ' 31 32 2. August 15., 1961 Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange Court House Santa Ana, California Gentlemen: Attentions Supervisor Claire Nelson The Council of the City of Newport Beach, on August 14, 1961, unanimously adopted the following motion made by Councilman Lorenz: "it was directed that the Board of Supervisors be advised as follows: "1.. The: city Council reaffirms its disapproval -of the July 12 resolution of the Board of Supervisors: in which the ex tension of 120 days to October 25, 1961, was granted. 112. The City Council approves the terms of the duly 25 : resolution of the.Board.of Supervisors setting out the conditions under which an assignment would be favorably considered. "3. Mr. Carver's letter<of'Augguust 2, 1961, to the Board of Su ervisors, being : inconsistent with the Board's.reeolution of July 25, is unsatisfactory and the terms are not acceptable to the City. 4. it is the recommendation of the City Council that the Board of Supervisors take action when the matter is considered on August 16, 1961, . to advioa'Mr. Carver that he must comply with the terms of the ,lease by August 30,. 1961, or produce an acceptable' assignee that can comply with the terms of the lease and, if he has not done, so it would be the intention of the Board of Supervisors to give notice of default at that time." Very.truly yours, Margery Schrouder City Clark' City of Newport Beach MStmv cc: Harbor Manager`Keaneth Sampson CERTIFICATION OF EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DATE 14y X COUNCILMEN PRESENT e AtUNOMs CQ0k9 11Ms MISTER IMMI UnTZ ON y _7;W & ITZ ,... f,.. V*S* lie• �ie� � 2 1, 0 fo a s the . oat MY* STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS COUNTY OF ORANGE 13 ra*be C40 obw► so somw %e 40 WVW Oft 10 WSW +mil ,g ot Indow as a I, Margery Schrouder, City Clerk and ex- officio the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy minute entry on record in this office. &.Witness Whereof, hereunto set � hand this day of , 19 H 0 �C Clerk of hereby of the and seal Large' ry Sc rou r, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California August 119 1961 Tot Councilmen brows I survey IN -10 Subjects Comty Seek Lem* The follswimg items we an do agmads for MmsmAsyts Council mosel"I 10 Copy of resoluelm of the, hoard of supervisors dated July 25, 1961. 2. Copy of a letter dated AuV at 2 1961, free Goemse P. Carver to the Board ok 814"W"Mors I have Some into detail an all the action is the Lot ddxty 41670 the Comty Seek. I have discussed it with Claire Charlie Unto and. the MY AttManyo and it 0 to my recommendation that the attached notice be approved by the City. Counitil Monday alghto It YM have OUY qNSOUGG T*8MTd1Mg tbig I WOdd appreciate it if You *MIA call me Owes: the LZris assume oa City meafter City Attorney City Clark -i HARM," 'V. 'POO A zi rao see" of supoxviews be advised as faMmus 1. The City Cotmil reaffirms its disappmmol of the July 12 vosolutles of the Board of Sveoxvisam Is ublak tk* extension of UO days to 1lctmb-.9 25o 1961. um Sr=*sd6 2. The City com"Ll the term, of the Jody 25 resolution of the Dowd, of *"tl% aft the eoadftiom under which an o"I a gove: 1* S. Mr. Carver's letter of, t 18, 1?610, to aw Dowd of Ompervisors, belM Imaousistima witmh naiad 0 issolution, of Ady 250 to us"tiffigbary and the Deese are not asompublis to the 4, it is the retodatiart of the City COLMLL that the Dowd of a tabo actles wbas the mttw is oemsidered OnAusust 160 Tv"Isit"O"advice Mr, Carver that be must comply wilbs. th the tares of the lease by Augmt 94, 1261 or I as It Amigmes that am somply wUA the terms of tho Isms* and,, if he boa vAt daw so It would- bo dw lutontles of the SOW4 of Superelows to Siva souse of defmdt at dwt time OV r L. B. WALLACE, COUNTY CLERK P. O. BOX 896 • COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK • OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA August 7, 1961 PHONE KI 7.8811 Margery Schrouder, City Clerk 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Calif. Dear Miss Schrouder: I am enclosing a certified copy of Resolution No. 61� -802 adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on Audust 2, 1961. Very truly yours, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Orange County, California. By��� -j� Deputy Clerk me Gorge P. Carver 2294 Channel Road Balboa, California August 2, 1961 Board of Supervisors County Court douse Santa Ar.a, California Gentlemen: I received the following telegram from the Corporation Attorney yesterday: '71116 is to confirm that Newport Towers as a California Corporation has been formed." 4k have found the recommendations in the county counsels report to be generally acceptable with the following minor deviations: a. Completely acceptable as previously agreed in writing. b. Completely acceptable. C. A firs, loan commitment cannot be obtained until the lease has been assigned to the Corporation and the approved plans are available. However, the best possible indication of commit- ment will be obtaired and submitted to the Board. d. This is acceptable if the Board will act to approve or dis- appruve aiy request for change within 1^ days of submission. 6. Complec =ly acceptable. It is hoped that this report wets with the approval of the Board of Supervisors, if so we will proceed to make the necessary arrangements and report back to the Board in two weeks. Sincerel /y,, iCworge P. Carver GPC:m1 L. B. WALLACE. COUNTY CLERK P. O. Box E8B • COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK • OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA - July 28, 1961 `1 Margery Schrouder, City Clerk City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 W. Newport Blvd., Newport Beach, California Dear Madam: � <- '? -(0-) PHONE KI 7.3311 'P JUL JZ 19L CITY CIERx CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH tb = 1 l I am enclosing a certified copy of Resolution No. 61 -768 which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, on July 25, 1961, per- taining to the proposed assignment of the Lease between the County of Orange and George P. Carver (Newport Towers) and setting the matter.for hearing on August 2, 1961, at 2:00 o'clock P.M.. mka Enc. v ./ �Y 'a Very truly yours, L.B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County; California By eeZL` e,6 _ Deputy Clerk 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 W: 15 o» $ 16 z Apo 17 U 18 19 20 21 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 4= 15 oD =. r ozi $8 17 u 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. 26 27 28. 29 30 31 32', CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA July. 26, 1%1 ? y: �.. The Honorable ]board of Supervisors* of Orange County oranga County Courthouse Sixth and North Broadway Santa Ana, California Caxitlamen:: _ I understand the. request of Mr. Carver -for an . extension -of time.uader his Lease on the County Dock property will_be.before the Board of Super - visors . again on August 2,1961. The City' Council considered the extension of time at its meeting on July 17 ®.1961, and again at its rig ular meeting on July 24, 1961. At the meeting an July 17, the Council disapproved the 124 -day axtension of time under the contract. At:the meeting of July 24, the Council heard Mr. Carver and then clarified the action takers on July 17. The City Council disappproves.any.blanket extension o£. time to Mr. Carver becauae of the history of long delays and lack of satisfactory performance. However, the City Council does not oppose an exten- sion of time reasonably necesaaryto permit an assignment to a corporation that is.satislactorilyy constituted and meets reasonable standards that the Board may impose and the City Council approve. Time to prepare t e plans that should have been submitted months ago should be kept at an absolute minimum. Strict compliance with the terms of the lease should be raquired.in the future. Very truly yours, Charles B. Hart Mayor Pro Tam of Newport Beach 0. July 26, 1961 r' ✓ 4'�' C.:df r The Honorable Board of Supervisors of Orange County Orange County Courthouse Sixth and North Broadway Santa Ana, California Gentlemen: Pursuant to your request, there is enclosed a copy of an excerpt from the Newport Beach City Council minutes of their meeting of July 24, 1961, concerning the Carver lease. This is a draft of the Council minutes and has not been approved by the City Council. It will be before them for consideration and approval at the regular meeting of August 14, 1961. This, along with the letter by Charles E. Hart, Mayor Pro Tem, I hope will be adequate to state the position of the City in regard to this matter, Very truly yours, Walter W. Charamza WWC :mec City Attorney Encs. cc - City Clerk_.' IF f HARRY ASHTON LAWYER POST 011IOE 80% 1428 NEWPORT BEACN� CALIFORNIA LIBERTY 8 -6818 July 24, 19610 Hon. Mayor and City Council, City of Newport Beach, City Hall, Newport Beach, California. He: George P. Carver County Dock Lease d+entlemen: 1\ L \r COUNCIL: -^ DISPOSITION Due to a mis- understanding my client, Mr. George P. Carver was not aware that the matter of the action of the County Board of Supervisors in extending his time under the lease, was to be considered by your body on July 17th. Consequently neither Mr. Carver or myself felt the necessity of attending this meeting of the Council, and were therefore unable to present our reasons for requesting the delay and to answer any questions you might have. We had also been advised that the matter would probably be on the agenda for the 24th of July. In view of these circumstances I, on behalf of my client respectfully request.that you re- consider your action of the 17th and permit us to advance our arguments Justifying this extention of time, and permit us to answer any questions that you may have. Very sinoerely yams, HA HS Ztorney or� George a P. Carver. y COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK L. B. WALLACE. COUNTY CLERK OF THE P. O. BOX 098 SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA July 18, 1961 Margery Sohrouder, City Clerk Newport Beach, Calif. Dear Miss Schrouder: I am forwarding herewith two certified copies of a Resolution adopted by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on July 12, 1961. mo PHONE KI 7 -8811 �- I Very truly yours, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Orange County, California. By t aq � `Deputy Clerk 901 1� 21 31 al 5 611 I 7 Si 9 16 11 12 13 14; 1 �,. 15 dZz VGV =��tl is ail 00 171 u 131 1911 20 2111 22 23 24 I 25 26 271 281 291 30I 31 3211 � L RESOLUTION OF TI UPERVISORS OF O,; cm, OF NEWPORT BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA July 12, 1961 On motion of Supervisor Nelson, duly seconded and carried, the following. Resolution was adopted: RESOLVED that this Board consents to the extension of time for filing detailed plans and specifications according to conditions.of the existing lease between the County of Orange'as lessor and George P. Carver as lessee for one-hu_zdred twenty -one days beyond June 28, 1961 to [,Tednesday, October 25, 1961, at 11:00 A.M., all subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. AY::S: SUPERVISORS C. M. N2LSON, `rLLIAM J. PHILLIPS, C. M. FEATHERLY, T,&IILLIS 'r. aF',d' : .'dJ L +I. HIRSTEIN NOES: SUPEPVISORS NO? ABSENT: SUPERVISORS STATE OF CALIFORNL4 COUNTY OF ORANGE I, L. B. W �_: _­ -lerk of the Board of Supervisors of Or�_nge Cou__Cy, CE- lifornia, h.�reby certify that the `:c.ve and foregoing Resolution. was duly and regularly adopted by the said B and at a regular meeting th:r of held 'on the 112th day of July, 1961, and passed by a unarir-_:,uc votC of said Board. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have her-,: ,.unto set my hand and seal this 12th day of July, 1961. L. B. WALL_ ?CE �ws rk and cx- offieiU Clerk of the �,A.., "• _.o =. -,'-ci ,,_ .;::•ewisors c Ors.: :� County, Califor t is � -" • i;eputy solution No. -723 61 *uly 14, 1961 10 Mr. J. M. Miller brought seven sets of the attached. documents to my office at about 4:00 P. M. today. He. requested that a set of the documents be forwarded to each.member of the Council. (kA, lv� Excerpt from the Minutes of the adjourned regular Council Meeting held on July 17, 1961: "Correspondence which had been furnished the Council by J. M. Miller, on behalf of George F. Carver, in connection with. the County Dock lease, was presented by Mayor Stoddard. "Mayor Stoddard reported that the Board of Supervisors.had approved the request of Mr. Carver: for a 120 day extension of time under the contract, subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. "Based upon the report of the Mayor regarding a hearing held by the Board of Supervisors, it was directed that the Board of Supervisors be notified that the Council feels that no further delay should be granted, due to the fact that no 'good faith' in performance of the contract has been shown to date. "Ben Reddick spoke from the audience. " The motion was made.by Councilman Lorenz, with Councilmen Hart, Lorenz, Kingsley, Atkinson and Stoddard voting yes. Councilmen Somers and Cook were. absent. George P;: Carver #' 2294 Cbannel. Road R' Balboa, California ;. July 11, 1961 0kia"'County Board of Supervisors Ormap County Court Rouse Santa Ana, California Gent 1smen: - Submitted.with this letter are the following data: . 1. Biographical information on J. M. Miller. 2. Biographical information on Allan F. Zalk. 3. Letter from Allan F. Talk describin g the assets of the proposed ' corporation. 4. Letter from Lge G. Marrs of the Mortgage Finance Corporation stating their continued willingness to finance the Newport. Towers Project. 5. A note from the contractor, Mr. Foerstel, of the Foerstel -Neal Company stating their willingness to clean up the property and erect a chain link fence with sign.. 6. A note concerning the bonding capability of the contractor from the Ellis P. Schmidt Agency. 7. A letter from the senior architect, Mr. Lester R. Schwager, as to why the 110 foot height is in the best interests of the County, the City, and the Project. I would like to add to this data the statement that I have neither asked nor expected any relief from my personal liability under the terms of the lease by virtue of the assignment to the corporation. The steps needed to move forward in a constructive manner as I see them are as follows: 1. Approval of my request of February 27, 1961, concerning the assignment { of the lease to the corporation. 2. An ammendment to Page 2,.line 1, of the lease ammendment of February 28, 1961, to read as follows: Unit C- A tower building of a height in accordance with the. City. of Newport Beach building regulations, but in no case to exceed 110 feet plus appurtenances. First floor club and bar, rental area and coffee shop.. 3. A 90 day extension of time be granted for submission of the plans to the County, said extension to become effective from the date that the Charles Bennet Zoning Plan is either adopted or rejected by the City of Newport Beach. Thank you for your consideration of these matters. Sincerely �y�ourrs?,� �* Geor a P. Carver. J. M. MILLER CO. . P. o. BOX 301 BANTA AN" CALIFORNIA July 10, 1961 PNONH KIMBERLYMM 3-1131 BUSINESS AND EXPERIENCE MUM On J. M. MILLER P.O.Box 301' Santa Ana, California Age: 56 years. Resident of California since 1910. Entered the construction business (General Contractor) in Southern California in 1931, with main office at Nswport Beach and branch offices at Santa Ana and Los Angeles. Construction covered housing, rail way stations and commercial buildings in California.and Se ada. Organisation contained finance and design departments to facilitate construction. During World War II, I was engaged in U.S, military construction projects throughout Southern California and the Mid -west. In 1945 I left construction work and entered the field of real estate development. This was centered in Southern California and particularly in Orange County. In connection with real estate development activity I also engaged in real estate financing dealing with banks, insurance companies and savings.and loan associations. Since 1956 I have engaged in the, field of real estate and construction finance exclusively. I have negotiated financing and loans for private enterprise with the following. houses: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Prudential Life Insurance Company, The Newport - Balboa Savings and Loan Association, The California Bank, The Bank of America and The Union Bank and Trust Company of Los Angeles. Such financing covered the construction of industrial structures, office buildings, shopping centers and professional buildings; medical centers and motels. I hold heal Estate and Loan Broker's license and . a Securities Brokers license for the State of California. For business references the following are respectfully submitted: Robert F. Maguire, Assistant Vice President, Union Bank, 12140 Victory Blvd., North Hollywood, California. Edgar Hill,, Vice President, California Bank, Newport Beach, Calif. John Lutz, Vice President, Orange County Title Company, Sante Ana, Calif. Robert Sheehan, Vice President, California Federal Savings & Loan Association, Los Angeles, California. aLW � uru AA.:� Rasa. Duluthe AMOS S009 230 1918 Owdrkted� U.C.L. ►� 1938. �► 8e Narrisdo 1939 Tye daugatersa Llada 30.• Jesies IN Resids. 901 S. Bawrlj Oily Los AngelOy Ca1Sfe . Coomgetioa, vim rressdsl sad D:*eetmr of Triowu Steel a Shy Co., vsrasaa Calir. since Jew Iwo$ prier to. Je» 190 we VIM President and In of laib4owpm.coo* Dnlsth► YAm. Steel ►rose Jetirm► yAmbw eta v rm cbmbw or Ca merso VW [iwnis Club 9.91 COSA Owed Reserve U.3. Pews squadron (0uiuth. xim.) Served in U.E. Bav: dswiag W.+'..2 was director of 1- ,terstato tnOnsaring Corpsf Aaahni% Cmlif.v 1'350 - lW4 Outside of Carpoft"m ootivitiosg developed and built rarisaw real estate properties - resideatia4 commercial mud ladesm."I is "bus - ssta. mud CallfWaiao It should be obvious to you that we cannot go any farther than this. It would be a waste of time as well as quite costly taxwise and in a number of other respects for us to effectuate the actual transfer of this property into the Corporation before we know definitely whether or not you,are prepared to go ahead with the company. As soon as we have this .definite word from you the Corporation will be activated and will be prepared to go forward with any financing required to complete the Newport Towers project. I trust that I may.hear from you regarding this matter as soon as possible. a' A LLA -N F. ZALK iF P.C. 00% 50662,VCRN6N \RANCH LOf ANOCLCB 61. CALIFORNIA July 6, 1961 Mr., George P. Carver 2294,Channel Road Newport Beach,_ California Dear Der. Carvers We have not yet heard from you regarding the assignment of your lease with Orange County to our Corporation. As you know we have taken all of the steps that we can to.this point to form this Corporation, Newport Towers, Inc. The name has been approved by the Secretary of State, and our attorney is ready and can complete the balance of the required legal work in a matter of one week; ` however, until the Orange County Board of Supervisors has approved the transfer of your lease to this Corporation we Pelt that there p was no necessity of going any Panther with this legal work. As, you know, you and your associates were to be.substantial stock - " holders in this Corporation, and it was agreed that you were to be president of the Corporation. We concluded that it would be simpler to work through a corporate entity rather than as individuals. We are prepared to put into this Corporation a parcel of land located along the Colorado River,.near Blythe., California. .This land of approximately 2200 acres is fully developed for agricultural pur- poses as well as having over 4 miles of water, frontage. We value this property in excess of $3,000,000 and feel that with this proper- ty in the Corporation that we have a sound and substantial Corpora- tion to move forward in the development of the Newport Towers project. It should be obvious to you that we cannot go any farther than this. It would be a waste of time as well as quite costly taxwise and in a number of other respects for us to effectuate the actual transfer of this property into the Corporation before we know definitely whether or not you,are prepared to go ahead with the company. As soon as we have this .definite word from you the Corporation will be activated and will be prepared to go forward with any financing required to complete the Newport Towers project. I trust that I may.hear from you regarding this matter as soon as possible. 7W.7.. ELL19 Po SCHMIDT INSURANCE AGENCY. - 672 SOUTiI.LA'FAYETTE PARK PLACE ' LOS ANGELES 57, CALIFORNIA .. DUNKIRK, 7-4,777. . July 10, 1961 i+ a S c>or`�. C.IT,N•,,,f, President .. 'alifornia. Corporation \eh'hprt Be.IC';.CaJifornia . ?e: Newport fosers J ':r Mi'. Carvvrt f i i.c to tnl'orm you that.the general contracting firm:of 'eicr: >tel -��eal Company, Inc., 1095 ' 4�ist G1,eell. Street, d na,. California is car.able of 'obtaining a surety er•f o rma: lice bon it covering your project. .. .. 'li'his Surety Lund.wi.11 guarantee faithful performances. pay- .; lent of all ,'.;zlls. and construction,of the project accord in- to a.l.in.� +quid sueci.ficati�ons, all "in accordance with condi.ti.ons of pren:,ared by County of Orange. Very., truly.your•s, f, :.� LL1, CiAI34C i; i j a+' eLt #T 611 N fFCNWA0 &A409il4CT 2 8 1 3 n a w p o i f b u u l e r'tt t .ln �" p'e ✓r T. ,b n R a� d+i+e i•,p �:`'# 8- ZB'D S Y i JULY 11, - 1961 - - ViR. CEORGE P. CARVER 2294 CHANNEL ROAD - - BALBOA,.CGALIFORNJA- O.E Aft AS PER YOUR REQUEST, -.1 AM 3 U MMA R 121 N G MY- 'OPIN'I ONS REGARDING THE'. DESIRABILITY - OF MAINTAINING THE.; - -1101 HEIGHT Of THE, NEWPORT- TOWERS STRUCTURE 'VERSUS:. LOWERING. THE H_; IGMT TO .AS YOU KNOW, PRI.OR TO BENNET#$ STUDY AND .REPORT TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT. BEACH' AND THE u`V95EQUENT- RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE - `PLANNING 'C CUM 85 I ON, '4 N.ARS I.TRARY HEIGHT OF 851 WAS ESTABLISHED AS A LI- MI'T -. THE:. PL ANN I. NG. C OMM I SSI. ON' NOW FEELS' THAT LAND BVLK.,C- ONTROL WITH NO HEIGHT - LIMIT -WOULD SER.VE,AS A -'B U. I T -1 N.'CHECK TO THE' - INDISCRIMINATE. ,ERECTION O:F':TAL4 SUI'LDI NGS.AND.WOULD PE:R M;I:T THE FREEDOM OF LOGICAL ARCHITECTURAL DEVELOPMENT OF. PROPERTY..- - - - THE ORANGE. COUNTY DOCK PROPERTY 18 NOW ZONED, C -2+ -WHICH WOULD PERMIT THE CON- -- STRVCTION OF A SUILDING:.WITH NO HEIGHT LIMIT AS LONG AS THE BUILDI -NG AREA - - CONFORMED TO THE BULK, CONTROL FORMULA WHICH IS -F I'VE TIMES-THE BUILDABLE BUILDABLE AREA - OF.THE.SITE. THE BUILDABLE AREA OF - -THE ORANGE COUNTY DOCK.PROPERTY CONTAINS - 68,112 SQUARE FEET .'AND THE NEWPORT TOWERS :STRUCTURE - CONTAINS A TOTAL`OF 105,000 SQUARE FEET,'- WHICH IS WELL WI.THIN.' THE'' Of M I TS OF THE ,FORMULA. _ T'ti S: INCREAS!_D -GHT WOULD OFFER MAN" ADVANTAGES TO YOURSELF' - AS :WELL -AS TO THE COUNTY OP UPAN G7 AND T,HC CITv0F -NF WP Olt T BEACH. FIRST, 11 WOVLC 'P R 4 1 T - G GREATER FLOOR 70 CEILING HEIGHT WHICH WOULD' PRESENT',A' MORE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING 0E SPACE TO RAOSOECTIVE LESSEES.- IT WOULD GIVE OR'-ATER ATITJDE TO AA •'H. TECTURAL- DESIGN WHICH W.0 UID IN. TURN ENHANCE THE POSSIBI.LI TY. OF- .GP: :ATER RE•iU71i TO ALL.INVOLVED.- IT WOULD PEA671T MORE FLEXIBILITY IN CON_ VERTING FROM ONE USE TO - ANOTHER' IF, - -IN TH.E FUTURE,, IT WAS FOUND THAT A PARTICULAR 13F WAS MOPE IN - DEMAND.', IT WOULD'- AVOID -TO AN EXTENT THE - ROSSI- - _ - BILITY.OF- THE .STRUC :TUBE BEING DWARFED BY. OTHER -TALL BUILDINGS IN .THE ..AREA. THIS IS A VERY REAL POSSIBILITY AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AN *NY LONG RANGE PROGNOSTICATION. OF WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN HERE IN THE: .HARBOR AREA -j. THE, VI,EM FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY DOCK: PR:OP£RTY, ORIENTED AS IT IS W 1' TH'�, THE '.FULL PANO.RA' -MA OF Tl'L NEWPORT HARBOR, IS A NATURAL, RESOURCE AND - SHOVL:D. BE FULLY UTILIZED. - THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROJECT IS, IN•.A SENSE, A ;J:OINT VENTURE BETWEEN YOURSELF, THE COUNTY OF. ORANGE AND THE CITY OF NEW P. OR T BFAC H AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN TERMS OF, THE BEST POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THE' PROBLEM W I THOU T' UNDUE 'EMPHASIS "ON HEIGHT LIM IRS ''AS -lON6 A6IT'IS CONCEDED THA.T.SOVND PRIN - CIPALS OF PLANNING, ARE NO '.T VIOLATED. " 2 8 1 31 n• w'y:o r -I b o u 1• V a. T d, n, a w P o r I b• a.c ro i o I e' 3 MY PERSONAL FEELINGS AS AN 'ARCHITECT. CONCERNING BUILDING HEIGHT .L IM.I TS HAVE EVOLVED NOT ONLY FROM CITY.PLANNINO STUDIES AS.A BASIC . BACKGROUND. FOR ALL TRAINED.ARCHIT£CTS, BUT FROM AN INVOLVEMENT IN THE NATURAL TREND TO HIGH— RISE BUILDINGS IN AN.AREA WHERE THE ONLY DIRECTION T0.90 16 UP. 1 BELIEVE THAT TO ARBITRARILY ESTABLISH BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITS .IB TO. IMPOSE UNNE'CESS'ARY .. RESTRICTIONS ON THE LOGICAL GROWTH OF AN AREA. IF THE UPWARD EXPANSION OF A CITY,I6 PERBUED WITH CAUTION AND AN AWARENESS OF 89UND PLANNING PRINCIPLES, THE VERTICAL DIMENSION WILL GIVE TO THE.CITY A NEW SCALE THAT WILL BE PLEASING AS WELL AS FUNCTIONAL. SINCERELY, SCHWAGER, FERNAL D, BALLEW LESTER H. SCHWAGER ARCHITECT, A.I.A. LHS:DG .. i y L. B. WALLACE, COUNTY CLERK P. O. BOX 898 l it COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA March 6, 1961 3 - ✓3 -6r FILE: City of Newport Beach Attln: Margery Schrouder 3300 W. Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California PHONE K1 7.8811[ J Dear Madam: Enclosed herewith is Resolution No. 61 -218 of the Orange County Board of Supervisors and the Amendment to the Lease between the County of Orange as Lessor and George P. Carver as Lessee. V Pc• �r Enc. �• c51r.p ;$ ry c, rvy � Very truly yours, L.B. WALLACE County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California By v Deputy Clerk FFCFiI��Q 7 J6i CITY CLERK CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 s 10 ZZ 12 13 14 J ,Z2 Z5 o 16 D ozi o0 17 U 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 .., 0 -1 j MUM C Yt CALVOMM x NEWYO &7 BEACH February 28, MI on motion of It Wiser 11e190a14 daily s tialtdt tollOwint, 20841utleaoa wto adapted: RXIMM that the ComatF.of Ormage ester Into affi Asieudimmiat to Lease aneadIP4 Harags+4ph If of that certain Loa" sit" and aatersd into by sad betwosaa the Comaty of OrmjW as Lesser and GoOrde . Garver as lassoes dated May 8, 19390 4Aioh to ksis+s was submitted to this Bawd of Supervisors on Yak 8, 1961. BE IT FURTMM RESOLVED that the Chairmen of this Board of visors be and he Is. hereby authorised and direated to mmoute said Amendment to Lease and the Clerk of this board ip hazaby:a r m;44 and directed to attest the same. AY9S1 SUPWISM C. M, BWOM WILLIS B, WhRM C. X. PUTH==# pp//��pppp @�,}p� .® it�iL IAM J, AIMIP.S AND riffs, FAIRIii NVa9.7i .p1�V�}i,.ya��4YpIWS/V�RS itt1/Rlw STATE OF CALITMIA )) sao Comm or ORANGE 11, L. B. M& ACID County Clerk and es- offiaia Clerk of the Noard of Supervisors of Ovate County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing ae olvtiou was duly amt regularly adapted by the said Board at a regular >.serti>tg thereof hold an the 28th day of rebruiryt 1961,1 nand pass" by a mamnimo s vote of said Hoard. is zmms W=WV I have beraeunto am IF imad and soil this 280 ally of February, 1961. Cowaty Clerk and aw�io Clerk of trio td of lh�ees"a►iso�es loll` e Caamaaty, California Resolution No. 61 -218 Deputy 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 0:8 -U 16 ¢fid y 0 Dz 00 17 U 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 THIS AST made and entered late this .X day of 1961, betwaen, the COMM (W GRAM , a political. . subs division of the grate of California, hereinafter referred to.as., "ISSSWI0 and G&WWE F. CARVER hersix4fter referred to as "18SSEr W i.T M 1'S S 1 T Ha IT 16 AMXED tint Paragraph II: of that certain Lease made and entered into by and between the parties boreto oa the 5th day of May, 1959, be amended as follows: LISSEE covenants and agrees Ahat.it will, at its sole cost Gaud wipsn a and within the .time and in the mower hereafter set forth, con- . struct the following improvements: 1. Construct a bulkhead from the east line of the subject prop- arty to the went end of the cut -off gall, wsterly of the State Highway bridge in accordance with plans and specifications therefor.acted.by the Hoard of Supervisors and am on file in the of #lee cE the ,County Clark. Said work to be commenced within 120 days and shall be dilLgeatl; prosecuted to completion. L$SS11 to construct,equip and operate or cause to be comotructed, equipped sad operated the.following improvesiAmts. 1. trait A » A 5 -sta ry Motel HuildImS,.co.asisting of, S motal reams. per flo#r with a total of roomis. unit H - A 5 -story )Wtel Rui.ldiug' consisting of. 5 metal rooms per floor with a total of 25 rooms: 2. Sas,�,pa►ted Cost $ 17111220.00 171,220.00 s 1 2.. Unit.0 • An 85 -foot Taaex AULIMM16 First OIL .811,:Y0000 floor, .Club and Barr, rea area 2 mad fee Step. 3 Second and Thiird floors: -S offices psr floor, A total it iC prnfessleeatl ¢ efffoets. 5 Fourth x1oax,thrmAgh.sext to top flour . floor* _. To floor har sad.. 7 .. sp Arssestaurant, 8 1 Glass el.vatar. s 3. Unit D "First 202,6",09. j1� a Sesad floor 7 10 " aces. j 4. Brat Slips Aulk'haad 1160308.6Q. °. 11 S, around a rrs►ssts 133,8BS.t .. 12 parking tarrssoat i gromd leaol) 13. ' WSW - Yatits, Decks, otc, 14 "b TOW $2.bg4,928.0E►` ::. o 15 �U08 16 SS I&M +psi cF # ... `sz= 17 1. Volt A: " A story Notal Building aoww"tisB of .3 motel Z%KMs per ` flow With Is 18 total of 23 roans . = is Vait B " A S -story Kotal Building consis. tiag of 5 imatel robots per floor vith:s total Of 25 ro®ms.< 20 21 2. Unit C - An 85 -foot '£or�sr Du1ldiXa$ - pi�rst $Z,.i9Q floor.Club and Dot, raata .'area and Coffsa 22 23 Second and 11►ird $loorst 5.o..fliaes or floor, a atai of i ®,proiesafeoal i 24 Offices. 25 fourth floor fly S wpastssssts. Par.::lieer...:.: 28 .. ?op.floert Dar. and . 27 ..Rostaerant, Alasambly Ares. Blass elevator. 28 3. Unit D » A 2�-stom build .. rust flows " 7 stores.. secornd nor - 7 offices.. 29 Total 2 776r56✓ VO` 30 31 32 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 s 10 11 „12 13 14 6> 15 ,:Z' OQ.D. Zo 16 o :: po 17 v 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 271 28 29 30 31 3211 Said furnishings, equipment and description of the busine" to be can- ducted are more specifically described on plane as submitted by Lam, which plans are now an file in the office of the County Clark of Orange county and by this reference made a part of this Lease. USSEE agrees to 4Ai Ci the. construction of the improvements,, other than the construction of the bulkhead, within 60 days from'. and after ths;appwa"l.of the detailed plans and specifications by LESSOR. 2. Peta Aja __4 Plana a:s4 Spa�g,�,i�icatiops. The L WAM covenants and agrees that within 12_ days after the execution sf this Amend- meet to ieesa, it will, at its.own expense, prepare or cause to be prepared, avid delivered to the LESSOR detailed plans coed specifications for all of the buildings and improvements, including landscaping, herein required to be constructed or performed by the LEA,. Before commence- mant of construction or .performance of the work, the detailed plans and specifications must be approved by the LESSOR. 3. Strict Ceeaaliance with flans and 3eificstiona. All of said buildings and improvements, including landscaping, Shall be coa- strutted,-equipper and performed in strict accordance with the,detailed plans and specifications approved by LESSM, and within the time here - inbefore specified. if the LESSEE be delayed in the construction and coapletion of said buildings and improvementa by acts of God, strikes or other causes beyond the control of the LESSEE, the time for comple- tion shall be extended by the length of such delay or delays. Said buildtass, improvements and landscaping shall be con- atructed and performed is compliance with the applicable laws, ordi- nances, ,rules and regulations of the State of Califernia, County of Orange, and City of gewpert Beach and.other lawful authority havift jurisdiction. 4. Imlammt I Victor, LESSEE agrees to employ at its expense a qualified inspector whose qualifications are satisfactory to the Superintendent of Building and Safaety, +county of Orange, and the 3. 1 2 31I 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14 ii 15 o» so 16 Aso 17 18 19 201 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 4. '> c:1Ui�C L MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ! 3 OF, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA !i February 28, 1961 q , . f„itiCl "meeting of the Board of Supervisors of orange County, California, was held b' "* ``i1��'�t at 9:50 A.M.. The following named members being present: Wm: Hirstein, Chairman Q M. Featherly, Willis H. Warner, William J. Phillips, C. M. Nelson and the - Clerk. IN RZI REQUEST ASgMNXW OF LEASE OWFO a P. CARER (NOPOR2 Towns) On lotion of Supervisor +darner, duly seconded and unmimusly oarried,:the regaest of George P. Carver, dated February 27, 1961, for an assignment of the leiase dated May j, 1959s bOt the County of Orange and George P. Carver, to a CaliforrdA adrporatien knew as Newport Towers., is ordered referred to the County Couaasel for study and reconaftidation to the Board of Supervisors. STATE OF CALHORMA Comb of Orange j} a 1, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and e:- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be 'a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. . IN WITNESS WEMZWF, I have bererma net my hand and aeal tms�28th /� ru pt FeD&M t 1961. ..r ✓� %!tea- f?o...c -e_.. L. B. WALLACE ,ey s. County Clerk and ex -officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange,County, Californla COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK L. S. WALLACE, COUNTY CLERK OF THE P. O. BOX 83B SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA February 16, 1961 City of Newport Beach 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California Dear Madam: PHONE KI 7 -8811 S _ c, -:- rttax Cry OF NEWPGRT BEACH Enclosed herewith is Resolution No. 61 -139 of the Orange County Board of Supervisors dated February 7, 1961, approv- ing the proposed amendment to the lease,between the County of Orange and George P. Carver, subject to the approval of the City of Newport Beach. Very truly yours, L. B. WALLACE County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County California By 4bw!., — / Deputy Clerk ii Enc. 2 or 15 px! t., stomil di PIMS mdi Ifs4atiow to tus s md tbkt the Nzz 0:0. 8.16 ° Upro"Waft W be 4l Mttfttod Ab&U be not tAjo* tbft �t 0 17 �? i Af. tit g1{ttwaw cost tba=oot alb. W 0 'Au * to, 18 I"Set all 1Rt to . the vvmval of tho a:Y o. o s SUMM DRS mug 21 A � ammvmn. WUSAM .i. INILLM 22 . $T`AS W, CALMMU.. , 23 24 Gomm w tip II I 2 3i 41 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 121 131 141 °zL 15 DD °08 "0 16 dzn Oo0 17 U 181 191 201 AiiNUDWW TO 1'iiis Amman ame and entered into this , day of . 1961, bet mmft tine CQWM OF GRAi , a political sub - division of the State .of Catlifox"A. hereinafter referred tqe +� "MSSi'st ", and MUM P. CARM, hereiaaft *r referred to as. "USSW. W ITM2;SBATkit IT 1S AIIBi3 that Paragraph ii of that certain Los" wade and entered into by and between the parties bersto an the Sth dry of iday, 1959, be amended as f*IL rs: 3i �4i�pNl2f6� 'Y„ +� Gil+iS'�E LIMIKE its and agrees that it will, at its sole cost and and Within the tun and in the m"Wer bareaftet set forth, con- struct the following, improwe"Utsa 1. Codnstruet a bWkbesd frase the Seat line of thk subject prop - arty to tkA west and of the cut-off well westerly of the .State highway bridge in accordance with plans and specifications therefor adopted by the Board of Supervisor$ "d now an file in the office d the Covaty . 21. Clark. Said want to be cow within 120 days and shall be diligentl 22 prosecuted to completion. 23 LLSM to construct *quip and operate or cause to be censtruat*d 24 *Vg"" and *pWated the following IAVVOVMMMptii 25 26 �ar 27 jlstie�stad. Erb 28 1. emit A - A S-st"y motel Building consisting, S 171,220.00 2s of 5 motel rooms per flow with a total of 25 room. 30 Unit b - A 5 -stony hotel Suj.ldiag consisting of 171,220.00 31 5 imtel row's per floor with a total of 25 rooms. 32 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 �C 15 `zz 000 ao 16 4 e $0 17 U ' 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ,$, Wit C - Att11il, at 'fir WALldift First il,lp;l,a0f�.tki ++w C LT. Z . sres, mad Coffee 8bwp. _a" Third floors � 0�fises a tatal of 16 "pro"O"anal. fourth flown tkww 42 Ninth flaeos: apes is per floor for a toil. *9 30 aeparts. Tenth flow 1, Ptestawant., C and Assembly AT". 1 Glass flovotor. 3. ilnit - A a$ tilry buildf ag 102,60a 8irst floor - 7 stores.. $aacend flows - 7 offices. 4. Boat blips & D%dkh"d 130,306.E 5, tired ws 193, 895.00 Forking (basement #► womad lewl3 Walks - Patio, Docks, etc. Total 93!(ilQ,9ai.ib 1. Unit A • A $ -story Hotel ftildU*, snnsi,atif Of 32,500.00 5 motel roamer por flow with a tOCA of 15 roams. Wait B - A 5 -story motel WAilding consiating of 24,500.00 55 am"I seams ' floor with a teal of 25 room*. a. unit C - A 10-8 Tower f~ri.lding, Hirst floor 31,,$40.90 clab andBar, rental area as, d Coffee Map., Becoad sad Muxd floors; 5 offices p�pc floor, a total of l0 profosal offices. Fourth flow thTOw it t�► floor: 5 spart - seats per floor f+ar �► tota►i e�E 3fl apa�rtaeeats. Tenth, flows. B,oftaarer►t, Bsr aged Assembly Area. l 61ass elaarstor. 3. Vait 01 - A 2 - story buildiMA. first floor - 7 stozoa. Second floor - 7 offiofs. Total $2077e05dia400 2.. 3. 1 Said furn4shimps aiquipmr�imat, and description Of the busiaese to be am- 2 dmaocted are mmmare specifically described on plans as submitted by LUM O 3 which plans are now an file is the .office of the Gwnty. Clark of m .4 County and by this reference mode at part of this Lease. 5 LESMS awe" to commonce tine construction of t&@ Imp rcvemats, 6 abler Chant the construction of Om bulkheads within tf ° dam framee 7 said after the syPre I of the detailed plane and specifications by 8 LBSSM. 9 2. aaatd sec; fgeatt %e. The LBSM 4@V is 10 and agses that W tMn !y 0_ days after the execution of this Amad- 11 =mt to Losses it gills at its moan egos prepare err cause to be 12 prepared, and delivered to the LUStSt detailed plans and specificattoos 13 for all of the buildings and improvemieats, faeludi tg loodscaepieSs herein 14 required to be constructed or performed by for US=. Deform - u� it 15 aiemRt of asanetsvctiasa: or performance of tit's ta�marks the detailed plamma<s and coo'o UU m oz. 16 .' specifications not be approved by the LUSM. a:. .00 17 3. #SKJ" Sgopl"M MU& JIM md, &MUAMLAMA All of V 18 said. buildiAp and i #as, includfiim& loodsompings, *hall be nett- 19 structeds..guipped and performed :in strict accordance with the detail" 20 plans and speeifiestiens approved by LSSSM0 end within the times bare - 21 immtbefors specified. If the LSE be daelayewd is that construction. and 22 cagpietion of said buildings and is by acts of hods strikes 23 or other uses bayend. the control. of Cane !�, the time for cagp1s- 24 tiop e"11 be Onanded by the lemegth of such delay or delays. 25 Said boil d$s tmat►rovaeamnts and laetdoeapift aha►.i.l be am- 26 structed and performed in compLimuce ' with the lieable lawn orda- app s 27 n4mcoo, rules and regulaetifts. of tbe State of Califearam"s County my of 28 Cramps and, City of Newport . ieaoh and outer lawful Authority haav*imaig 29 jurisdiction. 30 9 - - 4. . -, agrees to eattloy at ims. 31 e a qualified inspector whose qualifications are Oatistact@ry to 32 the smalasrixttondemat of #hail diiag aRUI siafBtT, County of f3range, and the 3. M 2 3 4 5 e 7 1 Director, of Oil ad #afetyl City of Nowport Sasebo vhs grill nUst- tats on-site inspection A%Wixkg the iorl" of toostmru ction sad irdia► report fty doviaticmn Prow the plans end specileWotiea# am sppliosiao laws to. the L or any aa>tbosity wwivs jurrisactianan, S. eractiami Emu. L8S►M at ,Mnt# : and brat the uteotl evato,of the builduws 1"Provemots so& 140""Flift baoftin required to be coa #trusted mad perforaod by the Lads Null be not I*" thmAtbe estimated tbs"Ofa exaludU% .asehit*ct too angLueer • , Inspector or att«oraey I# tow or any other coati tmatt Involved in the A direct cowtVinti#a +mat powformace of Work hot*" required, &%dwtt with its kid. %ed3atel7 WM eaVlnt =our Lam` slbal2 ffttai" LKSM., as ite"Xod a`tatemost of the actml cesta of construction of all build- it ys, "Wrav s M%d laand#+c Plag work bowels required of th# loo ilne erat#areat *bail: be subscribed end swore to by as eutbarlmd oflLcer, � etw Lam. d• it AMM ftwwx M MUM. All buildimpt Uvrov"outs and fixtures sx�lusiive of ,trade lux It u esr cosstaruat" or placed ups the tsstwnd promises by =ate upon cowplotien b# . fm anal :cleft of ALI Uji tst claim -or IiabLLLty for labor at I sworial. ud #ball becows the property, att tho ood"aw at, time "Wirs►tiaa of this, Lose as SOMMOV t yo"ati"LIM thersoc W OLd►lW a p*Uti*&L d vision of . tin t+tto at. califo rsiae sy is Noft4 of s . LSWAR L. A. WAU ACZ =C,oautlr �Claatk � +Nt.�atfie:te Itt a# said met#trat of Super- visors by Deputy . -w,- -- o n CERTIFICATIRN OF E)CCERPT FROM IRAFS RfIMME Ss O IMP F E CITY C01rNCIl. OF tHE:CITY OF NEWORT BE4CH DATE_ February .,14, 1963. COLT. cJIMBN PRESPNt Kin slew Atkinson nnk, c 9dr! r i w -r ute_a y COUNCILMN AB'SEiPT Nave EXCERY c 'An Excerpt from the Minutes of thw Eojr4 of Supe. visors of a meeting held F ^brevey 1, 19t , staring that the or )° posed ameodmenc to the lease 'between the County A 0T&PP,e and, aeorge P.. Carve-, Newport, Towers, t,r the Oro,nre 41ea,r� ° "1 dock pr -operty, is taken under submission to FebrTiary +, 1961, at 2 :00 P.X. Servicing of the Noz,tee of Default is deferred until Fdbruary 7, 1961.` Said Fxcerpt was ordered filed. (Notion Councilman Somers, unanimously carried.) "A letter was presented addressed to the 'Icy Ctcrk fr,T the County Counsel's Office e--' -stno, a 4 p of a pr�apisee Amendment to the lease Metwee" Coa:1v of Ota,je and George P. Carver', covering tt.e "c;nty lv k property, stat;,,q that the board of Supervisors at a xeeclans, on Fetruary %. approved the proposed amendment, r> hlec c, to the approval by the Council of the CiLy of Newport Bea -h. A diseisslor was had. Councilman Lar>ent pnirrtrd out chat approval of the 'Lrendment might . be construed to he approval of a [en -story building even thuuah the hefgh. l.imis, stipulated 1 ii 'the Use Ptirmit previously granted was si feet, aid he was theref:)rc apposed to the proposed ""dnrnr, •Lr, ,eorge V. Carver, iessce,€ar. Lester H. Schwager„ sr,_hlte..t, and R Az Glenn of 'tho luilding Department spzxe from c" audicnn.;e "Subject Arendment was apprave^, °ondita,,nei that all reference to a ten -floor 'ovcr bu,tdln be ahans;ca. to an hS £cot high cover building and that all Lr,.Fuoge ",c deleted which may, consttue to oath z Je a i',. ,i lding 't4i,+ +her thug 95 feet (Motion Ca."tei: man i n" ear, ur inimausIv carrieJ l STATE Of CALYFOSKIA ). MUM OF OH1t1Gi1 1, Margery Sehroudar, City Cleric and ex- officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Newport leach, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and cor -rot!r copy of the t^rnf, minute entry on record In this office. In 01 -tnes■ Whereof, I have hereunto set my. hand and seal this _l'th .. day a:£ _ FenraarY —' .Gr —%ery c roudjr, ty er oi� the City of Newport leach, Orange county, California r] CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY ATTORNEY DERARTMENT To: City Clerk From: City Attorney PJ February 16, 1961 Subject: Proposed amendment to County Dock lease Transmitted herewith are the original and one copy of a proposed redraft of page 2 of the proposed amendment submitted to the City by Orange County. In this proposed redraft, we have removed all reference to a ten - story building and all language from which it could be inferred that a building higher.than 85 feet is being contemplated. It is suggested that this page may be suitable as a substitute for page 2 in the proposed amendment as transmitted to the City. WWC :mec Encs. cc - City Manager Planning Director Director of Public Works Walter W. Charamza City Attorney \ NEWPORT BCACH 2. Estimated Cost 2. Unit C - An 85- foot.Tower Building, First $12811,200.00 floor Club and.Bar. rental area and Coffee Shop. Second and Third floors: 5. offices per floor, a total of 10 professional offices..., Fourth floor through to top . ,next floor: .5 apartments per floor. Top floor: Restaurant, Bar and Assembly Area. z, 1 Glass elevator.: 3. Unit D. - A 2 -story building 202,680.00 First floor - 7 stores. Second floor -.7 offices.' 4. Boat Sl.ips.& Bulkhead 116,308.00 ..5. Ground improvements 193,895.00 Parking (basement & ground level)' Walks; - Patio, Decks, etc. 28;405.00, Sub Total $2,694,928.00 ESTIMATED COST OF FURNITURE & FIXTURES 1. Unit A - A 5 -st6ry Motel 'Building consisting. $ 22,500.00' of 5, motel rooms per floor with a total of 25 rooms. Unit B - A 5- story Motel Building consisting 22,500.00 of 5 motel.`rooms per floor with a total of 25 rooms. 2.• Unit C - An 85 -foot Tower Building, First. .32,840.00 floor Club and Bar, rental area And Coffee Shop. Second and Third.floors: 5 offices per floor., a total of 10.professional offices. Fourth floor through next.to top floor: .5 apartments per floor. Top floor: Restaurant,.Bar. and Assembly Area.. 1,Glass elevator: 3. Unit - A 2 -story building.. First'floor - 7 3,800,00. ,D 1 stores. Second floor - 7 offices. I Total 2,776,568.00 2. STEPHEN K. TAMURA . . COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY OF ORANGE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL ooty4CIL. [ 808 HALL OF RECORDS SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA — „ ;�enC1T1ON: PHONE KIMSESLY 7.9311 February 8, 1961 Mrs. Margery Schrouder City Clerk City of Newport Beach City Hall Newport Beach, California Dear Mrs, Schrouder: C -533 ASSISTANTS GEORGE F. HOLDEN ROBERT J. SWITZER ADRIAN KUYPER C. F. GALLOWAY ANGELO J. PALMIERI CLAYTON H. PARKER HAYWARD P. LECRONE JOHN C. SAMPLE. JR. DEPUTIES ALEXANDER BOWIE SEYMOUR S. PIZER f�u�) Cll'{ CLARK i- `t C11-( Of a.. - NEWPUT BEACH. _1 We enclose herewith a copy of a proposed Amendment to the Lease between the County of orange and George P. Carver covering the Dock property. The Board of Supervisors at the meeting of February 7, approved this proposed Amendment subject to the ap- proval thereof by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach. Will you kindly present this to the City Council at your earliest convenience for its consideration. If Very truly yours, STEPHEN K. TAM URA , COUNTY COUNSEL By'Y.� �. George F.OHolden, ASSIStant GFH:ft Enc. 1 2 3 4 5 e 7 8 9 10 11 12 tells MRAMOW made- and mixed Etta this „_ � ,,, -„f_ day of . 131 1y bwtme n tim CQaM Or , a political erg divLzi n *f the state Tt caufamiat hereAMAfterr xslaa>xrod to as Paid6i352W; Oad CE F. 'CANER, heroizatter referred to as, "XXSSW bd' 1, T X 8 SATHi IL j i e rg tit le w agr4h it of that corteia L40" mWe and ant»4tZ'ed J<uw.by and betwon . tba parties tatrat<to an th* 5th day Of Maas, 19YOO be amended as Arml3dwvab 13 14 U:A 4oviman I ts jwA a resRas ihAt it mvL11i Nt its sale cost Obd ,,z: 15 O ac within t Amd is the i dinar `safrL" .:got �ttb, wm- oo 6O$ 18 Struct". the iE4110oviAg ;(,7VISI anwata; ;zo D0 1T t, :°<stimat'ruct a3, bulk frONS tbae A(d t UAC Of, tIM sasbjeCt Prop.. 18 easy to the c u aw of the CuC--aff Wall, Westerly of tkie state Riomay i9 bridga in a4a"daP>w:* v th pl and *pecifteatims therefor adopted by 20 the Soard 69 $u"rvi*ma and *L'1 fLIA In the affi" of the coa inc 21 CLor k. Said work to be *=mum& vita 120 days +mid small be dtllgentl 221 prosecuted tO aoixplot.* . 23 Iusu to carestx=t e"ip and �era" or cowe to be coustructod 241 ,q»s pp" aud operated rbe folloaift to : 25 .28 27 28 29 30 31 32 1l Wit A - A S -acewy Motel: ,fui1 , eamalai ift of 5 wtol r0 .tleaesx with.,& tatal Of 25 room. [wit is A Sa-st ry motel 3"lldIAS 41110 istins Of uatel room per floor with a totaaX of 1,' —JIM P P: 1719220.00 2. Pat C • A 10-story ' owe l ftrat AAA p�� ry' lit. ;FLv8Ll *20G4Q0 floor Club and Bar. 2 reatai area And Cott" sbopl. Second and Third flown; 5 offices ppar floor, a total of 10 professional Fourth floor ttbwwjgh Ninth flows 5 apartments per floors for a� total of '30 p . ." V Tenth flsxr. Restaurant, Behr and ly Area. 1 Guess elevator. 3. .€hAt 0 - A 2- sta►ry balding 2020660.00 first floor 7 store*. Second floor - 7 offices. 4i Boat Slips. fit. Bulkiwad lla�,3�tti.iitl 5. Ground i bra is 193, 595.00 parking emmat & ground level) W l - Pa4a Lov Meeks, ate. 1,00 Sub Total ,: Qe d�Rg�ffiyy.kppt 42 6694 s 928.0 ' 1. Unit A A 5 -otary 'Mote1.16wt.1Qitn$ consisting of 22,304.00 5 Motel roams per floor with a. total of 25 groom.. t A - A 5-story Motel, fui.ldiiag consisting of 22,500.00 5 Motel room per floor with a total of 25 roome. 2. Unit C o A 10 -ssuo Tower Buildings First flavor :32RU0.00 Club and ice, rental aer" and Coffee Shop. 9cond and TI-Oxd floorst 5 offices ]'��W floors yak ii.otal. of 10 �Prog"Olonal VIA4.6". Fear th flow �titATa�tsta Xinth floc h 5 &pa - rUts per tloor :Eases a total of :30 sparta mtas . T*utti . floor Rest*1Ar s nt, Bar and Assembly Areaa. 1 Glass elevator. 3. iftit A A 2 -stexy building. First floor b 7 starves. Secoasd floor 7 offices. 3,680.00 Total $2,776,368.00 2 -. N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 141 mj 15 o »p U 16 u m azz OZ< $0 17 U 181 Mel t 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Said fumi:shUtOP aeturtPNMt Sad descr pptlaa of WA tbus1=84 to be 4m. ducted are mod$ opecifically described on plane " kftdtted by LL.3g8, Whi4b }sly are Yww an file AtQt the office at Ow i:omo Clark of araw Camty and by this rdafdsraaamce wmk as Part of thi a Lem". AFA ftmes to the emstt r wtion, of this Uvrovements, other tuba the cd ti Of x be battlbit ly within d ayg fra= siad after the ay rov*l of the detailed platxas sad ec7fftrsat.3O is by !„ ..l3e oiled 'D aB sad aldierwrtwo� The L&SUZ cevenftts mw agrees ta3laG wiinta$b /Z 0, 'loge &ttst the mceecttim OR tbis A id rt to Lease, it will,, l , dat its "n + ,Pry .arc emu" to die.. prepared, and deU, vared ato, cbe iMOR douil,aed plans m specifications ftrx 8,111 Of the buildings spd fmvYacrvdstoarAt:s, i t la uhuz spimso *in required to be construccod or ;wmforn" by the Imsm. fi effty cord=s» went of construct vm or perforasttaca of +t%n work* the detailed .planed. and sp"44cations rat be B�lTaMoved by the Imo. ims AMU"AkLffik, All Of said ld$9mII twit , ntlY be C�! sscs�, aet t"t Q"%pped : $id pwfvtmd in nriat assaacdmas with the ddBrtaatil a8 Plans sp if3saa €1mn8a by I "M# and wtthia>i the tiros - inbefore "Iliad, 112E tk IImz be in the com#'ructioui tatd completion sit eai said bdail.d3att68 dP improve0ents by acts of .ate, strikes or o sees kFeyOiyi the caatsaal of tbm: per, Ow. time for. cycle:.: eia ishalL ba *=emdded by t e Ungth. of such deity or d9@}.+ y . Said ld3ingsP i=PrQvwz't% And Umd0aapiu$ shall-be cma OtTmted and rmformed in CoW with the applicable. lazes., death aftc es, rultai3 aaad rtgul.astl6ns ofthe fits of CAI II etia, GdMty of OMASO, a i.ty of Newport Beagh, .and. of la4ful dsts#.iaority bavaug . . 1ua'is4iyttea2. 4. brmo'+___ gZM Tfl222S.Um' Lag= awe" to aeeploy at its eqpftso a quiaified: ituspiector who" quajj�U aatiauaai ride a 4ti;afdicVWy to thesuperintandmat of Ba-L hang and Safety, Camty of Or"Aa, and the . 1 I Director of Build.WS mod Safety, city mf NOWPmt heat h, Wh* will maiea- 2 take on-alto .ln"ction dialft the period of construction and iaaaaeiateI 3 repent any deviation from the plans said. 09094fic atioaes or applicable'. 4 Uwe to th+a .S or any eutbarity laves waar etdicti�. 5 h (<astae.: l CE,Yir4nants arad aVees that the actual costa of tbol buildingas, JW g watts asaad. lera4scap1m bfiradA 7 re fixed to bo eonstim=t*d. and rfonmed � by the z.IsUS shall ba net lase tasb , aaee' 4ha a t 9 ixu;pactor'1,s or.. a+ttematyos Ues or any pthmm costs .not £mrw ved u tlaa io direct ao trutstior► or performance of work hare0a required, as. submitta 11 With its bid._ 12 lumdie#tely t coWlaetio n, LNsms shall lu raL slh USSOR 18 au i iaed stAfl r of the. Actual casts of canstructim of all build -, 14 ids is*raysmftts.and .laradacalping work harein req"%,iW of the rsIM.. Z€ 15 iaae stsieaa3axt 6ltsi.l be subscribed and sworn tt► by an authorized officer 000 16 oZz of that S". o 0 17 d. a jLOftPW DAMAL Of I ., Ali. "bulldCw ; 18 {.Wxowfin ste aad ,fiat% =ea, nxc Usivae of trsda fixtutes,: crostaructed or 19 placed l� caper+ the l egad promises by aauast, tpeta emplottom.,be Era 20 and clear of ail liems, clam. or liability for labor at material and 21 shah 'becom the property of tba landowner at the eapi,ration of thLs 23 1 Lease or sOMer. t �Etation therI&�of. A MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS i1;OP0 : OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Ppbruary 10 11 inlar meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, was held at 9:50 A.M.. The following named members being present: 117m. Hirstein, haMnan; C. M. Featberly, Willis H. Warner, William J. Phillips, C. M. Nelson and the Clerk. IN FM a PROP(M ANOMMM TO MGM XBVPMT TOW,4r, f 0;;W',GZ Po iiARM) ,On motion of S a rvloor ftnwr t. 40r "AaAl:„%i4ly se "Ieds. the matter of a proposed amendwat to the least dated Sw 5a 1 i p betmen the County of Onwas and Otomp its Carver,, Mwp*rt Toro" t for the Ore 0owAy Cock property, Is town under euba9.sf lon to Ihribruw7 To 1961, at 2100 P.M.. serwimim of 1961. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, se. County of Orange the Ibtloo of De tult iii defftred until i bru*27 To I, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ea- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Br plot day of jlybruv7* i9 ft L. B. WALLACE County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of ' °"'- "` Supervisors Orange ange County, California 1 2 3 A 1] 10 lli 12 13' 141 W zi 0 U °tl 16 dau OZ•Fz tl po 17 U 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 fly of the exisstiat, bridge piling *s she on a sketch Witted by the g i"Ger with his art, which emtch it entitled "Revised Bulkhead Location %nstarly of U. S. 22WI , Subject to the In, the maadificatio n by the folliowIvg mien: 1. U. S. a Of Z0&jAGAnr6 2. .City of art Bmmb on the sketch submitted by the an ter Engineer, entitled " Rovissed Bulk- Resolution Wo 60 -1112 VL UN ,7..:, s VMS, immaru s TAEfl� q i1ErAwr 8~1 8 STATE ' OF CA3. rlxxu 4F. a" . lo ... i, ..i.0 t.: VALLACE W+MM4* CiI.*Fk mi3O ef"Yf Owk ! t I! .caP #Kits of Sril t . �a ' 1L a Eby 4% 14.'ont tho 22;j a6awe aad t o RSGO%t K dU17 amd vouldoewoftPiad by i i$ Iba" sand at a v0*4 Yr im it $ tharoof bold on %I*, lift ds�r Oft, so Paso" by o: vote of, ".d bas". U { *u NY " $ A . S soft h6# t set � : ! "is . 00 . 16 Z4 { 1st .91/sIKMltt, 19� .27 .: .. 5..,�r�� 18 shy �,L,�+{s� �,a �, p Clsrk mrofftaU R left tand yof the. l6owd 19 C��3ti'r 21 DOPW 22 23 24 25 26.. 2Z 28 29 30 31 3E f �a L. B. WALLACE. COUNTY CLERK P. O. BOX 836 COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY PHONE KI 7 -3311 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA November 3, 1960 Margery Sohrouder, City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, Calif ornia Dear Miss Sohrouder: ,j SID T1OF1NoWpo B�A� CI I am enclosing a copy of Resolution No. 60 -1092, which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Orange County on October 25, 1960, authorizing the return to George P. Carver of the $25,000.00 Cashier's Check which he submitted with his bid for lease of the County Dock Property. JA Eno. Very truly yours, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and es- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Ora a County, California By Deputy Clerk 1 2i 3', 4 5 8 7 8 9 101 I Ll 121 13': 141 w> 15N.t z o» muu u° 18 Oza D, 1711 u 18I 19' 2011 21, 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 ' 4C g t. s.,t Yiy.. y. ..,f �. n °Y" I: '•Y,�T �r ok "MV A y UMMMO s . afeh Ida mu nOdX" to Y A of M100*00 +w w WA beaL o. of M100*00 +w w WA beaL o. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA October 25s 1960 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County,'Caluornia, was held October 25, 1960, at 9:,30 A.M.. The following named members being pr.°s -nt: C. M. i "eatherly, Chairman; Willis H. Warner, William I. Phillips, Wm. H. Hirstoin, C, M. Nelson and theClork. IN RE; PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO LEASE FOR MODIFICATION IN PLANS NEWPORT TOWERS CARVER On motion of Supervisor Nelson, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the matter of a proposed amendment to the lease dated May 51 1960s between the County of Orange and George P. Carver, for modification in the plans for Newport Towers, is ordered referred to the County Counsel for preparation and processing and present to the Board of Supervisors for approval, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Orange 1, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to 6 a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 25t day of October, 1960. L. B. WPft:LACE County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California � s 1 COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK L. B. WALLACE, COUNTY CLERK OF THE P. O. BOX 838 SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA September 23, 1960 City of Newport Beach Margery Schrouder, City Clerk 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California Dear Mrs. Schrouder: RHONE KI 7.3311 it SIV FD SEP 26'60 CITY GLBaK Aa oq,Y OF E WJ'UjjT BB I am enclosing a certified copy of Resolution No. 60 -957, adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, on September 20, 1960, regarding a proposed realignment of the concrete bulkhead, being constructed under the terms of that certain Lease dated May 5, 1959:; between the County of Orange and George P. Carver. tjb, 3 C� JV r Jr Y C7 v Very truly yours, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California. �puty Clerk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 10 11 12) 131 J W 15 mF 2 0 0 a� Yo' 'o 2 , _` 0a 17 0 V' 18 IMi■ 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 &&SOLUTION OF xRE 10AF6 Of SUPUVISO S OF ORAW1 C€ U1M# CALIFMIA pstembar' 1960 On motion of Supervisor Nelson duly sseanded and carried, the following Resolution was adopted: Wif am, under the tome of that certain Leas dated FA S.o 1959. between, the County of Orsuge as Lsseer and George P. Carron: as Lewes,. the Lessee covenanted and agreed to construct a 4omrste bulkhead in aeeordauas with the pleats and Specifications therefor adopted by the Board of supervisors and an file in the Office of the County Clark. WHEREAS, the Harbor Ingimeer.has by letter dated September as 19601, addressed to this Boards reeaamatded approval of a reallve"t of the bulkhead wader the state tt40"msy Bridge to a location Immediately southerly of the existing bri4ge piling as share on a skatch submitted by the Engineer with his report,wbich sketch is entitled "kwLsed .Bulkhead Location Westerly of O.S0 2M6 "y subject to the aonaurrenae in the modification by the follovigg agencies 1. U.S. May Corps of Engineers 2. city of Newport Beach 3, State Vivisioss of Rigbea ys . WHEUMS this Board approves said realignment In principle, provided the concurrence of the aSmaiee show amatalched are first obtained. no s, rmaum, BE IT RESOLVd09 Am omm that the Rarbor Manager he need he is ere y authorised and disoot.d tO submL t the prom posed realgnseaett at' osid bulkhead to the abovo. mentioned aSOosies and to report to thin.Board the action taken•by said agasaios. AYES3 SUPERVISORS C. M. NELSON. WILLIS H. WARNER, WILLIAM J.. PHIL,•LI S.; WM. H. HIRST.EIN AND C.M..FEATHERLY NOES; SUFZRVISctS NONE ASSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE Resolution No. 60 -957 1. I STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. 2 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 3 I, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the 4 Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify 5 that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly e adopted by the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the q 20th day of September , 1960, and passed by a unanimous vote of 8Ii said Board. 91 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 10 20th day of September , 1960. 11� 121) L. B. WALLACE County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk 13 of the Board of Supervisors of u, Orange County, California W I! < K'z _ 131i B�� .V 8 l0 eput -Yu 'i oFZ �i pu 17 U 18 I 20 21 22 23111 241 25 2n 27 28 2Q �� n 30''I 31 32 I i i !i 2. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF,SUPER I V SORS: OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. September 23*-, 1960 Ar lar meeting of the Board of supervisors of orange County, caivernia, was bald Sept" bor 13, UK 19M. AL , at 9:30 A.., The following named members present- C.9. Peatharly, Chairman; Willis R. Wa_n*lrx WA# H. Hirateins the Clerk,;. Absent, William J Phi lips �2 Zl ILL. d t4 N RZ ROOPOSIM ALIOC F AD cI; PPRPMY : X-MMAM RVOIR MC= On, motion of Supervisor Warner, duly second" and Usly carrion by Board, members preen ent,,the.mattOr of the Proposed r0-alignment of the bulkhead uader,the State Highway Eridgo,to a location immediately southerly of 'the wdstift bridge piling at the Comty.Doek property, is orders4reforred to the county, Counsel to prepare a Resolution eencernift the proposed roco nondatioes, oP .them Ilsrbor Manage o mo r :dification to the Bulkhead alignme at, siAbjebt to concurrence by the Army Corps of ftin"roo City of Newport Beach end; State Division of sighways, for PrONGINtatien to the:,Boiid Of Supervisors. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Orange 1, U B. WALI-ACE, County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.,of Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. IN WITNESS V*`H1=0F,, 1, have herenatu set my hand and -seal September, 1960. L. B.: WALLACE ION 0-50 County Clerk.and ex-officio Clerk of the Board.of Supervisors of Orange County, California !A MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF,SUPER I V SORS: OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. September 23*-, 1960 Ar lar meeting of the Board of supervisors of orange County, caivernia, was bald Sept" bor 13, UK 19M. AL , at 9:30 A.., The following named members present- C.9. Peatharly, Chairman; Willis R. Wa_n*lrx WA# H. Hirateins the Clerk,;. Absent, William J Phi lips �2 Zl ILL. d t4 N RZ ROOPOSIM ALIOC F AD cI; PPRPMY : X-MMAM RVOIR MC= On, motion of Supervisor Warner, duly second" and Usly carrion by Board, members preen ent,,the.mattOr of the Proposed r0-alignment of the bulkhead uader,the State Highway Eridgo,to a location immediately southerly of 'the wdstift bridge piling at the Comty.Doek property, is orders4reforred to the county, Counsel to prepare a Resolution eencernift the proposed roco nondatioes, oP .them Ilsrbor Manage o mo r :dification to the Bulkhead alignme at, siAbjebt to concurrence by the Army Corps of ftin"roo City of Newport Beach end; State Division of sighways, for PrONGINtatien to the:,Boiid Of Supervisors. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Orange 1, U B. WALI-ACE, County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.,of Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. IN WITNESS V*`H1=0F,, 1, have herenatu set my hand and -seal September, 1960. L. B.: WALLACE ION 0-50 County Clerk.and ex-officio Clerk of the Board.of Supervisors of Orange County, California ss L. ®. WALLACE. COUNTY CLERK P. O. EOX 888 vw' COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA August 25, 1960 Mrs. Margery Schrouder, City Clerk City of Newport Beach 3300 West Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California Dear Mrs. Schrouder: 4E�,660 oi,ft eo�,T GITY of N�a I am enclosing a copy of Resolution No. 60 -651, which was adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Orange County on August 17, 1960, disapproving the plans and specifications submitted by George P. Carver for the construction of Newport Towers and instructing the Clerk to give notice of default to Mr. Carver. JA Eno. Very truly yours, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California By �cC It t% a -- 7 � Deputy Clerk PHONE KI 7 -9911 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 p=� e0o 16 PTO Ozt 6 _` 17 po 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 RESOLUTION 08 THE BOARD OF SUM VISORS Of ORS =)XTY, CALUORMIA August 17, 1964 4n motion of' supervisor. Nelson, duly seconded and carria4l the following Resolution was asdopteds j Wes, the County of Orange as Lessor entered into a,Leass. with George P. Carver as Lessee on the 5th dap of my, 1954 -, and WHEREAS, said Lease provided that the detailed plans and specifics- tiona for said improvement were to be delivers to Lessor within '210 days after the signing of said Lease, or.Deeeubear 1.,'1939, sod' WHYS, the time for submitting said detailed plans and specifics- tione was on, the first day of December,; 1959,, extended for an additional 180, days from and after December 1,. 1959; and WHEREAS, on .Tune 1, 1960 Lessees .filed. with this .Board of '9Wera visors four (4) sets.of plans. and specifiestions, and WHEREAS, this .Beard braving reviewed said plans and specifications and it appearing frmm said examination that said plans and specifica- tions do not conform to the r+eepiremects of said Lease, HOW2 THEREFORE, BE. IT RESOLVED: 3. That the plane and epescs fieat40". submitted by George P. Carver as Lessee, pursuant to the Lease bereinabom referred tm, be and the same are isareby disapproved; 1. That said Leseos.bea and be is bereby declared to be In default in the peerforaueee of the terms anal condition# of said Las"I 3. That the Clark of this Board of B visava be and he is. ersby directed to.give'notica'of''such default to Mr. George P. Carver, Lasses, C/o Ashton, Drohft and Marchetti, 3345 Swogwrt Boulevard, "art Reecho. California, W"Allif to said i essea notice of default, which notice shall .be' Mibstantially ea follows:; Resolution No. 60 -831 1. 11 21 31 4 6 8 7 8 9 10 11 12� 13 14 W> t 15 W Z p]], 00 °° 18 O o: '=a 0o 17 O. ' U 18 39. 20 21 44, 1 231 241 25 29 30 31 32 I 2. 1 2 3 4 5 I 8', 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 J w� 15PF 2 S 000 eau °„ 18 ozi po 17, U r' j IR 3 Ij 411 5 11 12 13 14 J m'; 15. zz 0 Y '° 16 �. pro Z. p`o 17 u 19 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERIORS ' i OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1i July 1% 1960 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, was held July 190 1960 at 9:30 A.M. The following named members being present: C.M. Featherly, Chairman; Willis Ifs Warner, Wm. H, hirstein, C.M. Nelson and the Clerk. Absent: William J. Phillips IN RE: REPORT REVIEW OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS NEWPORT TOWERS SUPERINTENDENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY On motion of Supervisor Nelson, duly seconded and unanimously carried by Board members present; the report dated July 13, 1960, from the Superintendent of Building and Safety, on the review of the plans arr, specifications submitted by Newport Towers for compliance with the Lease Agreement, is received and ordered filed. The Matter is ordered referred to the County Counsel for an opinion on the legal rights of the County of Orange. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Orange I, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ea- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and seaL'tbia "]Z day of duly, 196o. �. -- — L. B. WALLACE County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of ioac —r q Supervisors of Orange County, California STEPHEN 9. TAMURA WUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY OF ORANGE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL 308 HALL OF RECORDS SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA PHONE KIMBERLY 7 -3311 June 29, 1960 Honorable Board of Supervisors Court House Santa Ana, California Gentlemen: ASSISTANTS GEORGE F. HOLDEN ROBERT J. SWITZER ADRIAN KUYPER C. F. GALLOWAY ANGELO J. PALMIERI CLAYTON H.PARKER DEPUTY ALEXANDER BOWIE By your minute order of June 10 1960, you referred to this office four sets of plans and specifications of the Newport Towers project for study and report as to whether the plans and specifications comply with the terms of lease. The plans and specifications submitted are the detailed plans and specifications required by the lease to be pre- pared by Leases and submitted to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Paragraph II of the lease required the Lessee to construct certain improvements. We have made a casual examination of the plans and are unable from such examina- tion to determine whether or not all of the required improve- ments are covered by the plans. These plans must be approved by the Board of Supervisors as are other plans for county construction. We therefore recommend that the plans be re- ferred to the Building Department for checking and to deter- mine whether or not the detailed plans conform to the purposes required to be conducted by Lessee which are more specifically described in the proposal of Lessee submitted to the Board and which is now on file with the County Clerk. By the terms of the leas% as amended, the Lessee has ten days after the approval of the detailed plans to file a bond to guarantee the construction of the improvements. The improvements required by the lease are estimated to cost $1,624,960.00 and consist . of the following: Estimated 1. Motel - 36 modern units with Cost approximately 400 sq. ft. each $ 2989800.00 2. Tower Building - consisting of a. Coffee Shop 190 000.00 b. Sky Room Restaurant & Bar r c. 12 Professional Offices 1689400.00 d. 16 Apartments 3899000.00 e. Commercial Area 73,600.00 f. Glass Elevator 609000.00 Honorable Board of Supervisors June 23, 1960 Page 2 3. Commercial Building consists of 5 stores $ 490000.00 4. Boat Slips & Bulkhead 89.420.00 5. Clubhouse consistin of Service Bar (food & drinkl 959360.00 Assembly Hall Pool & Recreation facilities 109000.00 6. Ground Improvements Parking (basement & ground level) 190,260.00 Walks - Patio, Decks, etc. 11.100.00 $106240960.00 Very truly yours, STEPHEN K. TAMURA, COUNTY COUNSEL By eorge F. HnIden, sa s GFH: ft MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 6 13 ^.�.. °. pI5P4�1514N'• OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA o- f7' .Tune 8, 1960 8Q A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, was held June ' , 1960 at 9:30 A.M. The following named members being present: C. M..Featherly, Chairman; Willis He Warner, William J. Phillipsy Wm. H, Hirsteid, C. M, Nelson and the Clerk. I IN RES PROGRESS REPORT CONSTRUCTION OF BULKHEAD CUUNTY : DOCK PROPERTY 02OR03 P. C ARM On motion of Supervisor Nelson, duly .se eonded and unanimously carried, the Progress Rapport from Trautwein Brothers* Contra00"*— ,44te May 25. 1960, (submitted by Kenneth Sampson, Harbor Manager, on constructing the bulkhead at the County Dock property, under the texms of the lease between the County of Orange and G OOrgO Y. Case r* is re4e1ved and ordered fileedi ems•. „- , r^Y p�. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Orange 1, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand d a $t day of rime, ig6o L. B. WALLACE County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of ,Supervisors of Orange County, California _ MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 0?cw OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA �1 t1il2 1y 1j)60 _ c A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, was held June 1 D 1963 at 9:30 A.M. The following named members being present: C. M. Featherly, Chairman; Willis H. Warner, William J. Phillips, Wm. H. Hirstein, C. M„ Nelson and the Clerk. IN 1 3 WI X A10, SPECIFICATI7 M ITEW71RT TOWERS FAIR COURVY D)CK M OPE iTY CAR17r, On motion of Supervisor Nelson, gulf seconded and unani- mously carried, °our sets of plans and specifications of the Newport Towers project proprssee to be guilt on the County Dock property by George P. Carver under lease dated. May 5s 1959 and amended December 1, 19590 are receives: finis Ordered reterrec to the C(-iunty f:0iknsel to make kA �.tudy and report tc tsl :e roar, d of Supe: vizors on tIZe compliance w th tije terms of Et&j(j STATE OF CALIFORNIA, l sa County of Orange 1, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this lit day of , jun--, - .1...)66. L. B. WALLACE County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California pox —�rto � �1 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING T0: .TAMES B. STODDARD CHARLES E. HART CLARENCE A. HIGBIE' HARVEY SOMERS J. FRANK ATKINSON HANS J.: LORENZ KENNETH C..KINGSLEY You and each of you will please take notice that a' Special Meeting of.the City Council of the City of Newport Beach has been called 'for :and.will be held on Wednesday, the 7th day of January, 1959,, at.the hour of 8:30 A.M. of said day at the City :Hall of Newport"Beach and in the Council.Chanbers thereof. Said. meeting is called_ and will be held for the purpose of considering.. a Resolution of the Board of Supervisors dated January 2, 1959, stating that the Board proposes to accept the bid of George Carver ..for the lease of County Dock property and to review the other bids submitted. Dated and signed, Newport Beach, California,.this 5th day of January, 1959. yor CONSENT AND WAIVER The undersigned. City Councilmen of the City :of Newport Beach hereby consent to the holding of the meeting mentioned in the within and foregoing notice for the time herein mentioned and at the place herein mentioned, and we do hereby further waive any further notice thereof, and we do hereby ratify and confirm all matters and business whatsoever transacted at said Special Meeting NAMES DATE OF SIGNING FK1UR _v' 11 0 0 Jasze swy 5, 11159 Haaaorabl+e Xavv and City CouneLlimm City of wort bomb California xubject: Orange County Dock t4s o GentisoasraI You hom tman adviaagW that there viii be a 9pecial Maeting of the Counci.l at ik 3O A.M. an Wednesday J Its. TIM rcasern for this ial v ing is than the Ioarcdo *uVdndsars, here asked us to ae}vise thew by 2:00 on m' afteeermoml ocher or not %a approve of their cns+clusi ar that the proposal wibmitted by Geavgg p, cawses, as art Tower slopwnt, is U bast bids I am emelaa3a the folloeritr.: 1. Revolution of `oard of Si4wwvisoraz dated JaMUM::j2v 1959. . 2. Report to komv4 of Smpam isurs of Scott Brobner, dated ;' ember 19. 19516. 30 Report to Bosse! of ftpwvi soars of Joan Williamim, Harbor r4mineer, dated loca boar 291 29560 _- 4o itsparrt to board of sub isevrs of Kenneth Ban mw s bor der, dated r -ecember ii, 1958, ,also, on file i ,, % rciety office am copies of all Was If them are any further details you raamt to Unow about it, I Would su est yoga ask ie to shoe you the file, and please Call me if yc f'imv any addi iopml questions. Yours very truly$ ITS! mo ..,row . Harvey Smers Ch&IZTAM OraanZa Comty Teak Committee :e 59-1 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF 1 ORANGZ :COUNTI, I CALIFORNIA .. 2 denvary 2,:1959 3 WHEREAS$ by. he, aolntion adopted September ll, 1958s this 4 Board declared its intention to lease certain properties situated in the pity of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of California, 5 commonly referreU to as .the "Dock Pro perty ",.the description of 6 which is more speclfloally set forth in said Resolution of September 7 ll, 1955. 'WHEREAS , said a ®solution set forth the terms and conditions 8 under which said property would.be: leased, .and the...guaranteed mini- 9 mum rental which would, be required.. :1WHEREA8, said Resolution Sized December 15, 1958 at 10:00 A.M. 10 as the time and date when sealed proposals to lease said property, 11 which have been received, will be publioly. opened, examined and de 12 Glared by this Board, and at which time call for oral bids will be made in accordance with the requirements of the law. 13 WHEREAC, on:Deoember 15, 1.955 at l0:oo A.X., the following 14 proposals were reosived, opened, examined and declared; by this Board: 1. ;Atkins & Wiggine Inc. 15: 2.- Magner Development'Company 16 3. K. W. Boat 8alee, Ina. 17 4. Newport Tower Development The foregoing constituted all of the bids received. 18 WHEREAS, at said time and place, after the bids were opened, 19 examined and declared, call for oral bids was made, and no one 20 having submitted any oral bids, the written bids were .taken, under submission for further examination and..study. 21 WHEREAS, this Board had carefully reviewed each and every- 22 written proposal submitted.to this Board, and having concluded that 23 proposal submitted:by George P. Carver as Newport Tower Development Is the best bid and that its acceptance would be is the best;interew 24 of the County of Orange and`the City of'Newport Beach, and would 25 provide the greatest revenue and benefits.to the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach., 26 NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved and ordered that this Board 27 hereby finds and determines that said bid as submitted by George P. Carver as Newport Tower Development is the best bid and that its . 28 acceptance, would be in the best.intereat.of the County of Orange and 29 the City of Newport.Beaoh, and would provide tkw greatest revenue 30 and benefits to the.County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach. Be it further resolved that this Board therefore proposes.to 31 accept:. -said bid from aeorge.P. Carver as Newport Tower.Development, 32 subject.to the approval of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach. 1 COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK L. B. WALLACE. COUNTY CLERK OF THE P. O. BOX 888 SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA January 5, 1959 City of Newport Beach Margery Schrouder, City Clerk 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California Dear Mrs. Schrouder: PHONE KI 7.3311 RECEIVE® JAN '59 C(Y'i' Qi:AA CMr*F At H'F�B2'BEdCH I am enclosing a certified copy of a Minute Order dated January 2, 1959, from a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, regarding the proposed lease of Orange County Dock property. Very truly yours, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California. M Encl. 4. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA :.January 2, 1959 An adjourned WHOM meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County,- California, was held January . 2, .1959 at -10:00 RMIN A. M. The.following�nasmd members being present: Willis H. Warner, Chairman; - C. M. Featherly, William J. Phillips. Wm H. Hirstain, _. Ben Reddiek and the Clerk: IN IRE. PROPOSED LEASE ORANGE COUNTY DOCK PROPERTY On motion of Supervisor Reddiek, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the Board of Supervisors signifies its intent of accepting and approving the nature of the reports. of Scott W, Brebnero Administrative Assistant to Supervisor Willis Ha Warner,_ and Kenneth Sampson, harbor Manager, on the four bids submitted for proposed leasing of the.County Dock property. The County Counsel was instructed to prepare the proper resolution of the Board's intent as required under the agreement with the City .of Newport Beach and the lease terms and to make a recommendation to the City of Newport Beach preliminary to a final aeceptance.of, the lease with Newport Towers, with its recommendation that the Board of Supervisors finds the Newport Towers to have presented the best proposal. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange, 1, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the' Board of Supervisors of Orange . County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1, have horeanto set toy bond ° y "y^j 'is .2nd day of Januarys 1959- .. L. B.. WALLACE County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of 3aw 'mss 'Supervisors of Orange County, California To: From: 6 CITY OF NEWPORT $EACH CITY ATTORNEY City Clerk City Attorney n� Date January 6, 1959 Subject: Proposed resolution for the approval of the County's accepting the bid of George P. Carver on the County dock property. Forwarded is a proposed resolution which, if adopted by the City Council, will approve the acceptance of the bid of George P. Carver as Newport Tower Development by the Board of Supervisors. I believe Councilman Somers will want a certified copy of the resolution to present to the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday. Walter W, Charam$a WWC:mec City Attorney Encs. December 31, 1958 The Honorable Board of Supervisors Court House Santa Ana, California Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is a tabulation and analysis of the bids received for the lease of the County Dock property. it should be -noted that all of the bids received contain Informalitles or irregularities of one sort or another. We have not attempted to make a legal analysis of the significance of these various Items, but assume that prior to making a final award the effect of these informalities will be referred to legal counsel. Assuming that the legal matters referred to above can be adequately re- solved, the analysis indicates that the bid of Newport Towers, submitted by Mr. George Carver, represents the highest development of the property and the maximum guaranteed return to the County. Respectfully submitted, KENNETH SON, Harbor Manager KS:mp See file for Summary of Bids for the Orange County Dock Lease COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK L. B. WALLACE, COUNTY CLERK OF THE P. O, BOx 888 SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA PHONE KI 7.9911 December 29, 1958 R E C E I V E D DEC 30'58 CITY CLERK Margery Schrouder, City Clerk CITY OANEWP0RTREACH 3390 W. Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, California Dear Mrs. Schrouder: I am enclosing a certified copy of a Minute Order dated December 2,, 1958, from a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, authorizing Kenneth Sampson, Harbor Manager, to negotiate agreements as directed by the Board of Supervisors in regard to proposed lease of Orange County Dock property in Newport Beach. Very truly yours, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California JB Encl. 7 December 22, 1958 Mr. Clark of Wagner Development, telephoned on December 22d and stated that the Board of Supervisors had continued the discussion of the bids for the County Dock to December 26th at 10:00 A.M. Mr. Clark, Dunkirk 4 -4211, wants to be informed of the time when the Council will discuss the proposed use of the County Dock property and the bids which have been received. M. S. J. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA December 23, 1958 A regal" meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, Calif ornia, was hold December 23, 1956 at 9:30 A. hL The following named members being present: Willis H. Warner, Chairman, 141111am J. Phillips, Wm. H. H.irstein, Ben Reddick and the Clerk. Absent: C.M. Featherly IN RE: HARBOb: MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AGREEMENTS DOCK PROPERTY NEWPORT BEACH On motion of Supervisor ,eddick, duly seconded and unanimously carried by Board members present, Kenneth Sampson, Harbor Manager, was authorized to negotiate any agreements the Board of Supervisors may direct in regard to proposed lease of Orange County Dock property in Newport Beach. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of orange, 1, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ea- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and seal dal of December, 1958 L. BB. WALLACE County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the ..Board of 16M -6 -68 Supervisors of Orange County, California - t 9 December 29, 1958 The Honorable Board of Supervisors Court House Santa Ana, California Gentlemen: Pursuant to your order of December 26, 1958, the Financial statements presented by t_-.e bidders for the lease of the County Dock property have been studied by the imu'ersirnpd. Of the four oriF;irml bidders Atkins & ? ignins of Long Beach was the only one failing to submit the financial information recuested. On the basis of the information supplied by the romsini.n; bidders, all three appear to be financially responsible to a lease of the type contemplated. In evaluating; the financial statements submitted b-; ':ir. Car'vgr and his associates under tote Newport Towers bic., it should be pointed out that the letter of intent com.,ittinf seven individuals to enter into a joint venture to finance and operate the proposed facility is actually signed by only four of the seven parties. The three parties not signing represent over 85% of the combined assets. It is therefore suggested that written evidence be obtained substantiating the partici- pation of air. Metzdorf and Drs. Garter and Friedman in the joint venture referred to in the letter transmittikry, the financial information for Newport Towers, Respectfully submitted, KETT,:ETH SAUSON, Harbor Manager h3� Harbor Engineer a3mm L. B. WALLACE, COUNTY CLERK P. O. BOX e30 0 COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA December 23, 1958 City of Newport Beach Margery Sohrouder, City Clerk 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California Dear Mrs. Schrouder: all PHONE KI 7.8311 I am enclosing two Minute Orders from a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, dated December 22, 1958, Very truly yours, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California JB Encl. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, as. County of Orange, 1, L..B.'WALLACE, County Clerk and ea- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of.Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office IN WITNESS WHEREOF,, f have hersunto .get my hand And seal this day day of 'l}@rr+ Vii_.. / C. M. FEATHERLY Santa Ana First District WILLIS H. WARNER, Chairman Huntington Beach Secand Dish — WILLIAM I. PHILLIPS F.Rsnlon Thlyd.,Rishict Honorable County of Courthouse Santa Ana, Gentleman: e Sir OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ROOM 205 — COURTHOUSE SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA December 19, 1958 Board of Supervisors Or~ California WM. H. HIRSTEIN Orange Fourth District llBrXiYii�YG. L. B. WALLACE, Clerk BEN_REDDICK Newport Beach ,Fifth District OnHanday, December 15, 19580 the bids were opened for the proposed lease of the property owned in portions by this City of Newport Beach and the County of Orange and commonly known as "The Arches." On that date your Honorable Board appointed me to mane an analysis of the four bids received. The analysis is as follows: 1. The first bid opened was submitted by Atkins and Wiggins Inc. of Long Beach. This bid complied with the Resolution calling for bids in so far as suggested minimum rental. The proposal, however, does not contain sufficient preliminary plans or specifications and estimates in such a fora' as to permit an intelligent evaluation of the proposed uses and improvements and the bid contains conditions one of which would require that Article IIV of the lease be eliminated. This Article pertains to the easements, trusts and warranties under which the property is jointly held. 2. The second bid opened was from the Wagner Develop- =mt Company. This bid also offered the same bass in{ni+um rental as provided for in the basolution..The bidder failed to indicate in his bid the size, capacity or expected revenues from any of the proposed improvements. The bidder failed to submit any plans, specif cations or estimates sufficient to permit an intelligent evaluation of the proposed uses and improvements or the revemes to be derived therefrom. 3. The third bid to be opened was submitted by K. W. Boat Sales, Inc. This bid complied with the Resolution in so far as stag the minimum rental. However, the percent- age payments as indicated in the bid do not comply with the Resolution since in the business referred to as Marina Hard- ware Store the percentage is based on a rental to be obtained from subleasing of the building. Mw method of bidding rentals used by the bidder is such that an intelligent evalua- tion of percentage rentals of gross receipts cannot be ._' I App - Honorable BoarAf Supervisors December 19, 1958 Page 2 determined from the proposal. The bid further deviates from the Resolution in that the bidder proposes to locate the bulkhead line in an alternate location which is not consistent with the lease proposal. 4. The fourth bid to be opened was submitted by Newport Tower Development. In this bid, the bidder bid $600.00 per month for the first 36 months of the lease and $2,500.00 per month thereafter during its tenon. This is in excess of the minimum basic rental required by the Reso- lution. The proposal of this bidder does describe the improvements to be constructed, the size and type of con- struction and method of construction, and does state the estimated revenues to be expected based upon purported competent authority. However, this bidder proposed the extension of the deck beyond the lands described in the Resolution and the U. S. Bulkhead line. The proposed ex- tension beyond this line would require a permit from an agency other then the City of Newport Beach or the County of Orange. The figures were calculated on this bid as follows: Base Rental First 36 months $ 219600.00 Remaining term of lease 19395,000.00 Total minimum to be expected by the County of Orange through Base Rental ................... $ 194160600.00 Total estimated by bidder to be expected by the County of Orange through Base Mental plus percentage rental ............. $ 108810600.00 The above stated figures are determined from an analysis of the bid and information submitted by the bidder. I did not deers it necessary to completely check all the estimates of purported competent authority submitted by the bidder in support of his estimates since this bid was the only bid to allow any figures of a satisfactory nature to be calculated. SWB:a Respect ly submitte Scott W. Brabner Administrative Assistant L. B. WALLACE, COUNTY CLERK P. O. BOX BOB 9 0 COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA September 12, 1958 City of Newport Beach Margery Schrouder, City Clerk 330 W. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California Dear Mrs. Schrouder: �4✓ PHONE KI 7 -8911 IV "I RED';°' "�'° f' C1TYCd :iaYIP� =•i :,1;31:11 2 am enclosing a certified copy of a Resolution dated September 11, 1958, adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, pertaining to the lease of certain property situate in the City of Newport Beach. Very truly yours, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, Californla JB Encl. 1 to an ift+sss+ection With the adoatoraent mr�ed U. s, sai, Ito , 2 bead Line l brpMO+�n Li.#3. Bulkhead Startioato M►. 128 and 23 eme norkbweateav a"" sold U. s. , 3 Bulkhead Lino ,& distom" of 49.!27 tort seam as leas to the southoastosly comer of Pones its. 3 of that sox+- 4 taro Gamomment doicalb" is dead to the State of 110a- Ala fps the City of Newport Beach soswrd" in seek 5 z drape 64 and dated fktebes t(ficlal i4eca>"ds � swat # panty thesoe sheaatesly 6 s1 tl►a oaetotM of sold last aoiatiar►et 4►as+e fo. Z to an lateaerction with the southeasts"Y Lino 7 of polmel Hoii :1e desaaribed in deed to the state of Callf"Ido txm the Gout or tae * anaes>rded in Beek 6 3Mj Page p0* arid fisted t9tobw i?, 1 "69 Ota"al Afteacds 61Orange Countyl thence► nostheastasly a"" 9 tho ssaatl►eaatasly lino it said Pcsoel W6 I to the seat eaatosly ��cetnos of +said puteli theme OW%kear�ly 4100 10 the caster! Year of said Daseol *Y. 1 to an Messac- ties with Uo southerly lira of that oettain panel of 11 !arid. ""xibed la deod to the State of Calitaku" fats the Canty of om aecosdod in Belk "30 P 0 1 "* 12 Arid dated June 29* 1929* ciffialal iteee7ds #f raregs Countyl thence easterly aseag the southerly line it 13 said seat mamtf y3a 14" to on AktarsectLon with the Wester! y lilac of the ad Lot L* od 14 said Traet No. 4194 thence . S. li #61 35" WO 4800 041 o omety lLne, of sand Lot L* to the point of beginning. 15 16 pascal No* 2 . 17 A ponies GU ISM ottaatod iaa the City of mart Deaths be a portion of Section 28, T•6«S* i4.10.u• a.f*D.ia. 19 '720 Sleek 1`. isrti.no Sabaaatr# ear sd"n on. a 80 rece dad SAM" ; I sa�s f,, (11f asl Res>aarde � 19 maan�a County and gore iaulasrly dskasibed as toit rrs* tsawita 20 A that pasoo of land,% L between the aoulkenty 21 lino of Parcel Nos � as doessibed herein and the J.S. Bulkhoarad Lift betmo n Stations UTA aid 227A ae said 22 U.1. Bulkhead Liters and Stations asps .laid cart sued shame ups, a titled "B"ber Linos* t Day Barber" 23 apprsved y the BfCta^�s�y of the „ F 1!►* grid OR file IA the t�.3. t�4staLat ��ef Ise tom 24 ngelso• Gelfifhersiae and lyir wostssly of tko +rsa esiy Lima of Lot L of Tsa+Et too. 01 * as sbswn ,a cap av 25 aamiied la 14isaollansous Alimp Bash no vagims Uo 32* 33, 34* Official itosss+ds of shearsse CVJR*y* +dal "otnia►. 26 zr Parcel Wool 26 �► aK+Ql of lain itwled in 1e City of tpaar� poach* be a pottitrn of SratloA 3B� T+i•St s•1dW�. S�f.$.Rt. 29 aH71d m0�a pa�sticaslasly described as foliears io ait� - 30 fit"i t aninq a t U tb* .So OuLkho". Station #o* 227A as a U.. suiltheed Lisoo, saki WAtioss are laid out and a 31 upon a titled "Havbov Line; Newpemrt Boy Hesbssr", ed r the Sessetory at ties - Awmv tr� 16* 1951* 32 and on file in the U.S. 14staeiei ;W eats fiae* Los Angeles, California8 thence des early alm* the novth- wastorly pW19""ien of . the t4s. Bulkhead Jrae between 3. .i west. e0ntt44od pan" to . tRo+r�s noxstesrl�r. . of the afttwwoatpo to an Intowsectlea With N as Ari ended to DOok M ,,Mo. x"AAAMP�. mo land out twwt of 87 tests therkeo """SsWay Is a dtsoot lifts to N.S. moo" Stt Hka 227k �StWIT bens v0sw � tttro to V*36 Station NO* 227A* the potat ot b"Lama". 2* Tho teemfe of the la ► Sh011 be for a #d g tAV . so, the date of exowtum t+bes'eet OW o oft June 301 2046 b. The f4ft of louso to be entered. IVA* It "m off f tle In tM offLee of the CAv rAy Cl a* of tho County of QftM#i is Which 90 o Is he #oMde Este tail pf sttevl"%* di Tom► saPetoslf%4 bloder, shl U om*UUgt tt AulkboW frae the "St liar of the subject prop WtY to tho b+eO and of the ",60011 :10811 wrslw eslr of the, at&U hj*Amy ,• said .#wwtswUoa to be fa #UU aide- pl&om# with pis .WW LJUstifte ha Core fisted by ohs board of &Jpeariessn on fUs in the effiae of tM County C&4*k, ek4 shall balwill to tho, t" of %be . bulkhead Moft its eottue leffrth« Tks asap. . eossf ml bi ddetr *1411 :6160 tefftand thmio t* proposed bulidwad ' tbA oxtatino *torn 40"06 adtich ft"A W. thMOVO the p tr. StCh Coss» at*Wtt" to bo In aaeo, a With slid moo. ;and srostfL."tiome o ts+rt by tho board of rsafVtSMS on fut So the offue .of the cow"W ci*$ t of 6x 1 county# The etuassslsl hiddow miust o to use the Property : for Nw. or wAg* se the usos pormiittod by the psstrisiots of Aa t +tle Xe Section 0t$S,:i3. of the *04"Val cods of the City of N%Vwa lloaeh aind *Poo to c 't upon s." x ww a: one V the ftG, sttti itdd 3. 1 by said section of said municipal Code and by Use`Permit No. 431", issued 2 by the City Planning Commission of the City of Newport .Bee►oh on the 3 26th day of May, 19580 A copy-'of said Article X, b6inicipal Code, 4 together with`s copy of said Use Permit, is on; file in the office of 5. the County Clark of the County of Orange to which reference is hereby: 6 made for full particulars. All IA prove meats to be constructed must q comply with all applicable,.laws governing 'construction in the City of 6 Newport Beech. The successful bidden must agree to commence the con- s struction of the bulkhead hereinabove described within 120 calendar day 10 from the execution of the lease and thereafter diligently prosecute to 11 completion together with the backfill hereinabove referred to. The 12 other improvements described 'in the proposal shall be commenced within 13 270 calendar days after the execution of the lease and thereafter 14 diligently. prosecuted to completion. At 15 5." Ali £ixturee and improvements oonatruoted, *rooted and plaaed 16. on said property shall become the property of the owner, of the land O $0 17 upon the termination of the lease. is 6., The bid shall specify a rental based on a percentage of the 19 gross receipts.of any and all eases maintained, established and conduats 20 on said property with a guaranteed minimum monthly•rental commeneing on 21 the first day of the month `next succeeding. the execution of. the lease 22 and payable an the first day o each month thereafter during the term 23 of the lease. Su-4h guaranteed minimum monthly rental shall not be less 24 than 5010.00 per month for a pariod of 36 months and $1,800#00 per month. 25 .,..thereafter fdr.the full term of the 10+s6e6 .: 26' 7. Each bidder shall submit with his bid preliminary plans and 27 specifications of the proposed improvements showing-the uses: intended 28 and the improvements contemplated to be oonstrvcted in sonformi.ty with 29 the requirements hereof and - showing the estimated 'cost thereof :excluding 30 architect's, engineerts, inspscter's.:or . attorney ! s fees or any other 31 costs not involved in the direct construction or performance of the work. 32 proposed. Such plans, specifications and estimates shill be in. suffix cleat form to permit an intelligent .evaluation. of the pro posed: vies,and improvements' and the revenue to be.antidipated,therefrom 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9' 10 11 12 13 14 =z 15 ut)� 16 o oz.� $o 17 18 19 20' 21 22 ' 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 911 10 11 12 13 14 J 15 oDm 16 o= po 17 u 18 19 20, 21 22 23 24 25 26 27�28 29 . 30 31 32 6. September 17, 1958 Mrs. Mabel L. Casteix Deputy County Clerk County of Orange P. 0. Box 838 Santa Ana, California Dear Mrs. Casteix: In compliance with your request of today, I am enclosing the copy of the resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 11, 1958, which was sent to my office on or about September 15th, regarding the plans and specifications for the development of County and City properties located in the City of Newport Beach. Very truly yours, Margery Schrouder City Clerk MS: em Enc. The attached resolution has been corrected to conform With the original on file in this office. L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk by dune Alexander, Deputy RmLuriom OF TmH "WARD OF suPERvism, OF OIRANGS COUNTY. CALVORNIA September, 11. 1958 On motion of tuperviser Roddick, duly, seconded and carried, the following Resolution was'adopt*d; RRWLVED that the plans and specifications for the dwalopmont of County and City properties located in the City of Newport Beach cons sisting of e 1. "Adopted Plan of Bulkhead at County WW City Properties. West Turiting Basin, Nowport Bay$ California." 2.. Fore of Lease. 3. Zoning Ordinance, City of Newport Beach* 4, Use Vasiance No. z432 adopted by the City of Newport September 17, 1958 :ors. Mabel L. Casteix Deputy County Clerk County of Orange P. 0. Box 6L 4L, Santa .Ana, California Dear Mrs. Casteix: In compliance with your request of today, I am enclosing the copy of the resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 11, 1958, which was sent to my office on or about September 15th, regarding the plans and specifications for the development of County and City properties located in the City of Newport Beach. MS: am Enc. ti Jn.' Very truly yours, Margery Schrouder. City Clerk REIMXIAN UP TNS DOARD OF SWEIMS LS OIL ObMM COWMO CALIlOMIA septembae lie 19" ca,mt1An K Overview R6ddlsk. Mir seceded and sasrl6da tMa 9*11941" sev"MU" was adpted$ UNUAD %A the Plans and "itisatiens fox the NveLepo It K Coos" VA City Properties last" LA the City of Nowpert baaak ssno aLdLN Kt 1. "Adapted Plan of sulkhosd at County and City Prperti669 Oast Turning Basin. Newport say. California: IQ 16am of Lease. So Zoning OrdiAwwoo City of Newport Beach. 1• U" variance No. 432 adopted @y the City of Newport bay* asst as 1116 With the County Clerk of the County of grange be and aw seals we beweby approved ad adopted. AYaa SUPONISORS SAN REMICK WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS. C. U. FLOMYa woo H. MBF$fKIM AND WILLIS E. WARNER s 8 WDERVVISCItS NWM AMWl SUPO VISMS M)m _ i ,. ODOM 4 CRAWK t so. U L• be tALLACIS. County Clark ad ox•efficio Clerk K tM send s/ gl+mtases K Ora"a County. Califeralao hereby certify tkat the aMNI W 1oloping Reo6lution was duly and rogularlr adopted by 04 said bead at a apilar moetLq thereof hold on the filth day of iafbara $ lobe Ow P"mm by a mania"• vote of said beard. = CZM= OUR". I kappa bor6wate set my band rid seal this Uo dw K barn mbar. 19th. L. B. wALLMCE Op ky C1art and see -off lei* Claet al t#6 K *4*40vt sox a st • Orisalga County. California Kay 69 3958 Mr. George Lind Plmnning Commission City of Newport Beach, California Dear Biro In accordance with memorandum from Mayor Stoddardq dated April 24, 1958 and approved by the City Council on April 28t 19589 attached hereto is copy of City - County Joint Lease pertaining to County Dock Property. Very fly yd's r Evelyn MoAl.evy Deputy City Clerk U., Attachment • 0 May bi 1958 Mr. Walter LO, r Planning Comma,ssion City of Newport Beacht California Dear Sirs In accordance with memorandum from Mayor Stoddard, dated April 249 1958 and approved by the City Council on April 28, 1958, attached hereto is copy of City - County Joint Lease pertaining to County Dock Property, Very truly yours) Evelyn McAl.evy Deputy City Clerk XMs mb Attachment May 69 1958 Councilmen d. Frank Atkinson City Connell City ,of Newport Beacht California Dear flirt In accordance with memorandum from Mayor Stoddardl dated April 24# 1958 and approved by the City Council on April 28, 1958, attached hereto is copy of City - County Joint Lease pertaining to County Dock Property. Very truly yoursq Evelyn MoAlevy Deputy City Clerk BMssb Attachment 0 0 May 6p 1958 Councilman Charles Be Hart City Council City of Newport Beach, California Dear Sire In accordance with memorandum from Mayor Stoddard/ dated April 241 1958 and approved by the City Council on April 281 19581 attached hereto is copy of City - County Joint Lease pertaining to County Dock Property. Very truly yours/ Evelyn McAlevy Depuiy City Clerk SMssb Attachment may 6r 1958 Couneil'an Harvey Somers City Council City of Newport Beach, California Dear Sir= In accordance with memorandum from mayor Stoddard, dated April 249 1958 and approved by the City Council on April 289 1958, attached hereto Is copy of City - County Joint Lease pertaining to County Dock Property. Very truly yours, Evelyn mcAlevy Deputy City Clerk Mob Attachment OFFICE OF THE MAYOR CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH TO: MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL FROM: MAYOR JAMES B. STODDARD April 24, 1958 SUBJECT: CITY - COUNTY JOINT LEASE (COUNTY DOCK PROPERTY) The following is submitted for Council approval at the regular Council meeting to be held April 28: With the advice and approval of Mr'. Longmoor in re Planning Commission representation, the following members of the City Council and`Plannng Commission' are designated for service as a Steering Committee for the City- County Joint Lease (County Dock property,.): Harvey Somers, Councilman., Chairman Charles E. Hart, Councilman J. Frank Atkinson, Councilman Walter Longmoor, Planning Commission George Lind, Planning Commission This committee will be active immediately and represent the City in all matters in connection with the leasing of the County Dock area for commercial enterprises. The City Clerk is instructed to supply all members with a copy of the City - County agreement recently ratified by the voters. CC: Heinz Kaiser Ken Sampson City Manager City Attorne City Clerk ✓ Public Works Director Planning Commissioners Planning Assistant 1. 0 A A F...,T SPECIAL IIEMOK, dO11K 11AAR MlttfEC , j., A *octal "sting 01'tl� ntlY+ k►r' i Id "r� aMt 11i<rWr' Owlsslon offl Mambsrs ►rMr�ilt ' 1 lalbn Hirt t 1 Stoddard, ., 1, t6 fplrY Onui+ci�Mn, MtOblir IWO rs AbsOnti 1prbgr Lommissiow , Othjn ►ersurt' tl��d�r, VI Id4i NEt 4or A gar S so +A City vai ic8n Il�rbor ERgiAesr Mptf10, .' : " City Englf*r Webb ' :y :i , Pyrswnt to tits a�lnuta* p"f to% rop Iat rNtfl§'Of tf» Norbor ComIselon, hold October 14, 195%, i splkl�l. vtit of the ;ICI ttllarbl Coaslcaae was I+Fid to •Isruss the )pint l ty 0, C1ty 60A 1pw�l►t` PrOp4rty in. tits vicinity .af Lfrlt county 041 • . A�z�r prASU+catfeh "ef �e�jsl dsrta sn+1 d��i`tseutrhie, tIM Mil laei+ro lotion, moved Ily biolici14n mart aW sscd%A1 lI rbbr I6"IsslOftf E64rdt". was unen l mous l y sw;vvbd. The Jo►•+t hierbor Conslttss aal+te• Oft fbOP"If4 four rmcoimaandstlons to this and City Council • ?" 1. Tt+at the bulkh9sd location. as shown on ttsi Or•ngs tovnty !arbor p. stri ct' Pian. Ifidsx No. 3210, dated sot slb+r 130+1957, bs estab► l shed for tt«ase properties frm tar asst llfw 0 -t Obuoty Oock prwsrty to the wext add of the cut -Off wall nhiCh It lgti.w surly Of it* Stat* 14E 910+ Y • trl a' - 2. That it% 41441+0 of . *I I rsva * fY� 116 14AS1,4 of this evolgw . . Y proorty bM 7�a Ot • s►d 35 pr'p1t ".�c�'aQ`LMb`ctyl° PRELIMINARY SP CIF.1CAT.IONS F'OR NEWPORT TOWER Prepared By SCHWAGER- FERNALD- BALLEW Lester H. Schwager, Architect GEORGE J. :,IND (�aaoriate Architect 2813 Nsvport Blvd. Newport Beach, Zalif. TO This 'building-will be of steel frame constraction with light waight concrete floors. The structure is a basic twenty foot module, with Intermediate eteel columns from the first floor through the se enth floor, Exterior materials will consist of pre - assembled. pro:el<ain enamel panels and masonry. Necessary shear will be 'taken through end walls and intermediate walls. Foundation will- �be supported on concrete pilings. Mechanical equipment *17). be provided to adequately heat and ventilate the building as required by use. Other equipment will be included.to air condition the apartnent floors, Skyroom, Coffee Shop and Lobby. An electrical ayetem will!be provided to adequately handle the building, with Potential ,requirements being of prime importance. CONA,'RCIAL A2LQ_ NQ :' This building will be of steel frame construction on a ten foot module. Construction of roof will be steel decking; exterior materials will, be masonry, stucco, and glass. Equipment will'be.included in each unit to adequately heat, light, and ventilate this building. CLUBHOUSE: This building will be of steel frame construction. Structural system Is basically a tat foot module. The property line wall on the east side of the building will be of four hour construction. Other exterior materials will be masonry, stucco, and Slane. An adequate heating, vertllating, and lighting system will be provided to supply the required needs of this building. This building will be of lift slab concrete construction with supporting columns located on a twenty foot nodule. Exterior wall■ will be of masonry, stucco, and glass. ., •:� { 4 Bid iroposal ; ../ Wagner Dstrslops<e$t Co. Dacssiber 1Se 1l An. intonairo survey 'has bean mads by our eaginoers or-. sbitasrts sad the Ohio" National `Ina uranas.f3ompaay Theatter " has caused an indepoadsnt "appraisal of the property to. be -made to lstablish baaia> values upea which to prsdicata "the economic -teas- ibility.et what we prapoae.to do. 9uftica it to say that this survey took into consideration tho;unigus nature. and locations of t" the..,propertyE the.recraational area in which it:, is located, its proxitaity,to the :Newport Dun4i Davelopment.to the southe its :prox -" im1Cy, to: Disneyland sad the growth pattern at Uranga County,; " parL16aarly an, such growth has a' direct bearing'.npen, the area %Adsr eoniidoration. "'.The seasonal ;ate year - around potasttial tics were not oVsrlocked. In short in anticipation of im #sting well, in -excess of halt a mi];lion dollars on a -term rental or not ao exceed forty -nano years, qe considered every pisy0 44 , pap Cholagic- al, amahstio .and ea®nomi o aspect- to arriys at what we . aubmit , o he" the ?Highest and 'best Uss.`ot the property. :To do less would ran ther ba iiA to eur`selves nor to the E ty o1 Oraaga. "Without gotta intea "detail•in. presenting this phase"of. '., our :proposal we asliift�, hI9 :following" as tae hlghsst sad best ties No -the, Orange.,Oonnty;Dock ort y= .. S`he srtdtien.ets T. A modern stru4ture.4Xf multiple buildings to • U.C.Qm odatc from tort to' fittr :deluxe apartuant units in apprepr #ate division of sues between one and two b.drvoma with suits arrangements-; A;apaciouq restaurant andosktail lounge to > inolwda.ontdoor dining: and dancing facilities. . IIIt "Improvement of the satire dater lZOnt aria to "accomme�dat'e approximately fart slips for the use of teiaa is and athors including floe age"irrangemeut t© at -.. ford . rater access; o the;:.�alare' Newport Bay, adequately spa iocta swimming pool tteget h er With,. cabanas and a sun bathln�'area.for the exclusive ass -or the.tenanta. V. Parkin; tarilities en the preperty to allow is parking space for both "the tenants and the patrons' of . tits restaurant - and' cocktait;loUnge. ' It is our ' considered 4 pittien that thrt deXrlopwsnt ea> brief -" ly- outlined. above reprosentip the highest and best . use of the` propertyy at,"tho present time and it:ls, upon such.nse that our prop "al ie herewith submit<tod. ire are not untniadittl of tiia vary real growth factor involved` daring :tae to of the:contem- • plated lease and ' "have made provisloi in our thiakiag atui pfanning for an upward expansion of all improvements noted excopt items .III: :sad iV. Bid Proposal.. ? : Ytagnor Decalopme nt Co. Decembar,3,..1958 rescue stork of life guards .and, harbor patrol affording -the ready'accesa to: Hoag Memorial Hospital from any part of New- Port. Baye t __al Area mlithin the, perimeter of ;the apartment. "its (aol4k,. hibite and +Bp) we rill construct a apactOus.swimmia po ©l. It will be ir► keeping with the deluxe nature "oP the. appartments :ano ,. will be for the exclusive usa`of the tenants'and their guests. 'This area will include a group of cabanas, a,suabath 0j- aection and such.other' kindred play and relauatioa facilities as apace will permit. The pool it,aelf will ;add to :the beauty ,and charm .' oP'the ant re project.' The entire ,.area of the project,erill,bea appropriately-,'and, adequately; landscaped in keeping wl.th this' :architectural decor �f� Facilities . On -site parking.is planned which will not only acgomm6daae the tenants but the.patrons of the; restaurant and cocktail. . louage ae well. We anticipate the.necissity of. securing park- ing rights upon: neighboring,. property prior to, the. expansion of .' any of the facilities beyond what is originally contemplated.. Such additional. parking will ,. be taken of:bsfore the need • .care beoomes acute..' , ;_ Estimated Cost • . � : ,,, , In the preliminary state, of planning it is impossible to give as accurate cost estimate of improvements. To rsSlect. our. thinking and °to giver your.Honorabble'Board abetter idea''of the type of .:imgrovemeiat'we plsn wa,shall attempt a a ,accu.rate:;an, , estimate as passible. :Such estimate must, in t3ie nature of tae . project, be revised upon the completion of detailed plans and agecifications. Our estimate of the oost of improvements in the conatruc- Lion or performance of the work piopomed is $!W 000.00. As far as we can calculate, the returns from th; operations propposed mill far exceed the minimuei; rst�tal iearrolired'asd we rill do a *orythfng in our poser to.maka.:tbis a realitye Aid propnaal.` Wagner. Development'. Cd. Deasmbar -,15, 90 `- b. We agree to pay a aiirlimum rental of $506 per seonth the first, 36 mant4d, and ,,jS0o a.month. thereafter daring for the term of this lease. 7. fide agree to pay a percentage rental af'6jo of the "s recaipta;aa the,aems' are defined ih ,•� Bros aale:a.or gross -arid for Of lsasa an file in the offigs of said C0*untp. Clerk to the extent that. Suri total: excaeaa the aiini�anm rental $et forth in 6, above'' Seapoctfully submitted, Wagner Develapmsat CO tt , wagner -04vslopmout Co. "N, I " I I I " %-,, " u yyy TrK.&OZ110 eyo I ..... l it "PC! 143 —Two WN rr`5 ;RORK gqq in No 0 SC_ 3S' - I 'On. A-4' 41;j' i7:4 0=2S cO 0 600-1 -3,&M MAI Its 1:1. �p f .^c , - Q­ 0 K pc=L F_ E -R:Jp I;-,,. 78L"" �,OA-r, `6 Q P A, % 4on; 'cd� Q MIAH p TT 1 4 1 .1 1 11 ... ENT CO 1W %all Io fig 14 I. 12 rj, Oo, 17 A). zoo WIN 14t' +IW.o� 7- ;,os a � 1 1: , a." Al now, G CA 0; A Al A. ; � : .., , 1, �S I i,s. - ­ I I IL . Y�I a ,e QQ I on, styli '41 2air 04, V 9 ;::'L G I"A ::,(,y, ., . -1111) * ".!" -fill '1 0 N1615WIN .,I; IA.IJ 1 11 1 A Aviv NIAN 4,Y r A I I I A 1, ;1 11, 1 I 1 1- tame 41 IT, Q If I I 'L - SIT T�, 'I� 01 .1 pact ` T WIN K. A I rM 1',, 1, 0' ti T1 .... ... 1 19 4ILM-1 -AA/ AQ 1 Pay IV NOW W-l"MY0, A At 5, AYAW :. Vol ,0­ �4' "I ILI, W, � I 1- 71. W7 r War q, 42 I', t I U�!A 7,7? 1 "� o� I,." 1� �.o_ GGG 3. Tr"I T', W� rR I _IW .-.T; T, ,n R Wp ARNM Foil 1�� 16 " 1 f I p ..'.,.1 � n".00M puizww� 1 Aviv Qmgu,�� K-6 -iVA . . I I I I I See File for Proposed Development by Bob Yeakel & Associates April 24, 1958 Mr. Joel R. 0610 County Counsel Court House Santa Ana, California Dear Mr. Ogle: The voters of the City of Newport Beach, at an election held.April 8, 1958 approved the Lease Agreement between the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach for that certain parcel of land commonly known as the County Dock property. I am returning to you three executed copies of the Lease Agreement which bear the notation "Return to County Clerk." I am also enclosing a copy of the Lease Agreement which bears the notation "Please complete and return to County Counsel's office." Very truly yours, Margery Schrouder City Clerk - Treasurer We Att. k, ORANtOUNTY ROY EDWARDB. CHAIRM -W- ORANGE ELMER J. HUGHES _y- REAL BBACN DON D. HILLYARp -• - - "� - . -. BANTA ANA TED KUCHEL _ •- - - -�5 q 1 ANAHEIM WALTER S. $PICER NEWPORT BEACH C February 14, 1958 The Honorable City Council City Hall Newport Beach, California Dear Madam Mayor and Gentlemen. RARBdk",iCoIVIIVI ISSION Lr � � T J KENNETH SAMPSON HARBOR MANAGER H. MORGAN NOBLE HARBOR ENGINEER RUSSELL E. CRAIG HARBOR MASTER ADDRESS, 1901 BAYSIDE DRIVE, NEW BSAGY, CALIF. LEPX pp! \� `'J On October 17, 1957 a joint meeting was held between represent _Q'!�% the Harbor Commission and City Council concerning the development of and City held properties just east of the Arches overpass, commonly referred to as the County Dock properties. This committee made a four -point recommenda- tion which was favorably acted upon by your Honorable Body, RK, 3� Mr. Kaiser, Committee Chairman of the Board of Supervisors for the Harbor Q� Commi.ssion, requested a memorandum opinion from the County Counsel on the r program as outlined. This opinion requested certain legal findings by the. City. On January b a conference was held between Mr. Robert Shelton, City �,,J(, -/ Manager, Mr. Wafter Charamza, City Attorney, and Mr. Kenneth Sampson, Harbor Manager, at which time it was agreed that these legal questions would be given top priority by the City Attorney. The results of this conference were reported to the Harbor Commission on January 13. During the month of January several calls were made from this office to the office of the City Manager and to the City Attorney in order to emphasize the necessity for prompt action. The last such call was made on the morning of February.10, at which time this office was again informed that this matter held a position of first priority in the City Attorney's office. Again such fact was reported to the Harbor Commission at its regu- lar meeting of that date. The Commission instructed the Harbor Manager to communicate directly with the City Council requesting Immediate action to solve these legal questions In order that a program that has been pending for several years might be satisfactorily resolved. Your active support for an early determination is respectfully requested. KS:mp Respectfu)4y submitted; KtNNETH SAMP5UH, maroor.4tanager an Secretary to the Harboe Commission See File for Exhibit A Adopted Plan of Bulkhead at County & City Properties West Turning Basin December 12, 1,958 Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California Gentlemen: In accordance with the Resolution of the Board of Super- visors of Orange County, California, made on September 11, 1958, . concerning that certain property situate in the City of Newport t *ach, County of Grange, '3tate of California, more particu- larly described in the Resolution' attached hereto, made a part hereof by reference and narked "Exhibit A ", the undersigned, K. V. Boat Sales, Inc., a California corporation, hereby makes the following bid or proposal, and does declare and stipulate that this bid is made in pursuance of and subject to all of the terms and conditions of the Resolution aforesaid, and that it is made in good faith., without collusion or connection with any other person or persons bidding for the same Lease. 1. The undersigned agrees to construct, in accordance with the plans and specifications adopted by the Hoard of Supervisors, a bulkhead, as required in paragraph 4 of said Resolution, at a cost of ;90,000.00. The undersigned further agrees to use tl' property in accordance with the one or more uses permitted by the provisions of Article X. Sec. 9103.51 of the Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach, and., further, the undersigned agrees to construct upon the property one or more of the improvements contemplated by said Mudeipal Code and by Use Permit No. 432 issued by the City Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach on the 26th day of May, 1958. All improvements to be constructed will comply with all applicable laws concerning the construction of improvements in the Cittyy of Newport Beach. Further, the undersigned will commence tlee construction of the bulkhead within 120 days from the execution of the Lease, and other improvements will be commenced within 220 calendar days after the execution of the said lease. 2.. Enclosed herewith are the preliminary plans and specifications for the proposed improvements to be constructed upon the aforesaid property, referred to as "Exhibit B ", said AMProvements to be constructed at a total cost of $400,000.00. Attached hereto and made a part bersof by reference is an expense sheet entitled "Exhibit CiP said expense sheet contain" ing the total estimated cost of construction of the improvements on the .property. Board of Supery sore 3. The undersigned agro frond and a construction bond times provided in paragraphs Lion marked "Exhibit A". .2- • 12- 1.2-5d ' %as to furnish as public liability in t1w amounts and within than 8 and 9 of said attached Resolu -, 4. Attached hereto, and made a part hereof by reference is a document entitled 'Uticipat.ed Income" and marked "Exhibit V. Said "Exhibit DII states than anticipated income that the undersigned expects to receive from this property in the event it is the successful bidder and basiuu� its bid upon that anticipated income submits the following rental, based upon a percentage of the gross recpipta as is required by paragraph 6 of the aforesaid Resolution- (a) The undersigned covenants and agrees to pay each month to the County of Grange s mininum rental of $500.00 per month for the first 36 months and $1,800.00 per manna thereafter during the term of the Lease, (b) For each "accounting year ", as defined in the Lease an .file in the Office of the County Counsel, Or- ange County, California, and referred to in -'Exhibit A ", of the term of the Lease, the undersigned agrees to pay to the County of Orange, at the ti:rm and in the manner provided in the aforesaid Lase, an amount equal to the total of the following peree:ntag" of gross sales or grass receipts from: (1) The 'business referred to in the attached 'Exhibit 9" as the Mariana, an amount equal to 25% of the total Marina incoma- (2) The business referred to as the Marina Hardware Store on the attached °°Exhibit E", 25% of the rental obtained from the sub- leasing of this building to other parties; (3) The business referred to in the attached 'Exhibit V as t1w- Liquor and Deli- catessen Store., 25% of the amount receiver a3 rental from the sub- leasing of this business to other parties;. (4) The tusiness referred to in the attached "Exhibit V as Boat Brokerage or Sales, an amount nt equal to 25% of the amount received as rental from ti* sub - leasing of this property to other parties. Board of Supervisors -3- • 12 -12 -58 (5) In addition, the undersigned agrees to pay to the County of Orange 25% of all monies received by it from its agents, sub - lessees, con- cessionaires or licensees for the use and oper- ation of any coin operated machines or devices maintained on the said premises. (c) The percentages referred to above shall not in- clude any monies received for sales or excise taxes levied b}}vv the State, County, Federal Government or Municipa3. Government, or percentage or receipts for goods returned, (d) If the amount of the percentage rental computed as above exceeds the minimum rental required in sub- paragraph (a) to be paid during the accounting year, as defined as aforesaid, the undersigned will vay the amount by which the percentage rental exceeds the minimum rental required to be paid together with any minimum rental due and unpaid for said accounting year. 5. Attached hereto is a Cashier's Check or Bidder's Bond equivalent to $25,000.00, to guarantee that the undersigned will enter into the proposed Lease in the event that it is awarded to him under the aforesaid Resolution. K. W. BOAT SALES, INC., a Cali - fornia corporation, °7i • , 7F - Bulk head` Camp2etelyy installed including blackfill and grading, 850 1 ft. $123.00 ..................$106,200.00 Boat S19jps: Precast lightweight concrete floats, allowance ............................5 900000000 70 electrical outlets for boat con- venience @$50.00 .......:............. 3,500.00. 70 water outlets for boat cmv"a Lou" @$25.00 ...................:.... 1,730,20 f 95,250,00 Paving-, Paving and curbs 3,500 sq. yd* @$ 2. 20 ..............................$ 7,700.00 Outside floodlights.... .............. '0 ,...15, 700.00 Boat Gar 5 stories total 20,000 sq. ft. @$ 3. 50 .. ..............................$ 70,000.00 Elevators .,.:........................ 50,01-22 1209000.00 Marina Hardwares, Floor space 6,000 4q,:ft. @$10.00... $ 601000.00 Toilet facilities ................... 8.000.00 "68.000.00 i.ockers :....... .. ...... 0..0.90090000091.00.00$ 6,000.00 TOTAL ...............$411.150.00. IMiBxT C . 62 slips @$60.00 per mouth ....... $ 33,720.00 80 boat garages @$25.00 per mo.... 2,000.00 180 lockers @$4.00 per mouth.;...'. 720.00 $'6,440.00 Per year... «...........8 779280.00 Z >_ Gas sales expected: '500 000 gal.' per year, % expected $.61 per ;al. (500,000 x $. O1) .. .................•............$ 50000.00 !% $QA'd BBORE 6 $ALgS Boat brokerage and display $300.00 Oar month flat. 3.6.00 TUML•••..._$ 85,880.00 MMIBIT D, MUM PAMM STORE Marina Hardware 4 700 sq..ft. expected sale @$8.00 per sqq* ft* per year - $272,000.00 at 5% of sales ($272,000.00 x 3%)............$ 13,600.00 L UM 8TOU, .Liquor sales $140,000.00 @4T....,..$ 5.600.00 to TOTAL ..................$19,200.00. I IPA 3 4 S 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 g�15 A 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 e RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA rc Sgptembg; ,11 , 1958 On motion of Supervisor Reddick , duly seconded and carried, the following Resolution was adopteds WHEREAS, the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach are the owners of the real property hereinafter described, and WHEREAS,. the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach have by lease agreement agreed that said real property should be leased as a single unit, and WHEREAS, by the terms of said lease agreement the County of Orange has been designated and authorized to lease,said property, and WHEREAS, it is in the Judgment and determination of this Board of Supervisors that it is for.the best interest of the County of Orange to lease said property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED= 1. That it is the intention of-this Board of. Supervisors to lease the following described property situate in the City of Newport. Beach,. County of Orange, State of Californian Parcel No, 1 A parcel of land situated in the City of Newport Beach, being a portion of Section 28, T -6 -S, R -10 -W, S.B.B.M. and. Lot 172, Block 1, Irvine Sub - Division as shown on a reap recorded in Map Book 1, Page 88, Official. Records of Orange County and more particularly described as follows to wit: Beginning at a point on the westerly line of Lot L of Tract No. 919. as said tract is laid out and shown Won a map recorded in Miscellaneous Map Book 29, Pages 31, :32, 33 34, Official Records of Orange County, Cali- fornia, said westerly line bears N. 11 0571135" E. said point being distant 60000 feet measured along said west- erly line of .Lot L.and northerly of U.S. Bulkhead Line between U.S. Bulkhead Station No. 128 and 128A, as said U.S. Bulkhead Lines and Stations are laid.out and shown upon a map titled "Harbor Lines, Newport Bay Harbor" approved by the Secretary of the Army, Februaxy 15, 1951, and on file in the U.S. District Engineer's Office Los Angeles, California, a radial line through said points bears N. - 25 000' E; thence westerly along a curve concave to the South, and having a radius of 480 feet and a cen- tral angle of 46 016146" an arc distance of 387.71 feet 1. '1 74 /I 1 2 3 4 S e 7 B 9 10 it 12 13 14 18 1e 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 28 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 to an intersection with the aforementioned U.S. Bulk head Line lying between U.S. Bulkhead Stations No.. 128 and 2278; thence northwesterly along said U.S. Bulkhead Line a distance of 49.27 feet more or less to the.southeasterly corner of Parcel No. 2 of that cer- tain easement described in deed' to the State of Califor- nia from the City of Newport Beach, recorded in Book 3680, Page 54, and dated October 17, 19560 Official Records of said Orange Countyi thence northeasterly Along the easterly line of sad last mentioned Parcel No. 2 to an intersection with the southeasterly line of Parcel No, 1, described in deed to the State of California from the County of Orange, recorded in Book 3680, Page 50, and dated October 17, 1956 Official Records of Orange Countyi thence northeasterly along the southeasterly line of said Parcel No. .l to the most easterly corner of said parcel; thence northerly along the easterlyy line of said Parcel No. 1 to an intersec tion with the southerly.line of that.certain parcel of land described in deed to the State of California from the County of Orange recorded in Book 2930 Page 158, and dated June 29, 19299 Official Records of Orange County; thence easterly along the southerly line of said last mentioned parcel of land to an intersection with the westerly line of the aforementioned Lot L, of said Tract No. 919; thence S. 11057135" W. along the westerly line of said Lot L, to the point of beginning, Parcel No, 2 A parcel of land situated in the City of Newport Beach, being a portion of Section 280 T -6 -S, R -10 -W, S.B.B,M. or Lot 172, Block 10 Irvine Sub - Division, as shown on.a map recorded in Map Book 19 Page 88, Official Records of Orange County and more particularly described as follows, to wits All that parcel of land ,lying between the southerly line of Parcel No. l as described herein and the U.S. Bulkhead Line between Stations 128A and 227A as.said U.S. Bulkhead Lines and Stations are laid out and shown upon a map titled "Harbor Lines, Newport Bay Harbor" approved by the Secretary of the Army, Februa 15, 1951, and on file in.the U.S. District Engineer's Of ice, Los.. Angeles, California, and lying westerly of the westerly line of Lot L of Tract No. 919, as shown upon ,a map re- corded in Miscellaneous Map Book 29, Pages 31,, 32, 330 34, Official Records of Orange County, California. Parcel No, 3. A parcel of land situated in the City of Newport Beach, being a portion of Section 28, T -6 -S, R -10 -W. S.B.B.M# and more particularly described as follows to wit: Beginning at the U.S. Bulkhead Station No. 227A as U.S. Bulkhead Lines and Stations are laid out and shown upon a map titled "Harbor Lines, Newport Bay Harbor ", approved by the Secretary of the Army, February 15, 1951,, . and on file in the U.S. District Engineer's Office, Los Angeles, California; thence northwesterly along the north- westerly prolongation of the U.S. Bulkhead Line betwoen 2. 1 2 3 4 5 e 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 $ 15 1e 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25, 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 • - • U.S. Bulkhead Stations No, 227A and 227B in a direct line to the northeast corner.of that certain parcel of land described in deed to the State of California; from the City of Newport Beach, recorded.in Book 3111 Fage.1259 and dated June 12, 1955, Official Recoid;.61',.., Orange.County,.Cali.fornia• thence generally southwest- erly along the boundary of said last mentioned parcel,to the most southerly corner thereof; thence northeasterly along the southwesterly prolongation of the northwest- . erly line of said parcel of land to an intersection with the North Channel Reservation Line as recorded in Book 1629 Page is Official Records of said Orange County] thence southeasterly along said Channel Reservation Line and its northeasterly prolongation to the U,S. Bulkhead Station No. 266A as said Bulkhead Stations are laid out . and shown upon a map titled "Harbor Lines Newport Bay. Harbor'"; thence northeasterly along U.S. Bulkhead Line between U.S. Bulkhead Stations No, 266A and 227A a dis- tance of 87 feet; thence northeasterly in a „direct lime to U.S. Bulkhead Station No. 227B; thence: northwesterly along U.S. Bulkhead Lind to U.S. Bulkhead Station No'. 227A, the point of beginning. _ 2. The term of the lease shall be for a period commencing on the date of execution thereof and ending on June, 30, 2008. 3. The form of lease to be entered into, is now on file in the office of the County Clerk of the County of Orange to which reference' is hereby made for'full particulars. 4. The successful bidder shall construct a bulkhead from.the Bast line of the subject property to the,Wast.end of the cut -off wall west- erly of the state highway bridge, said construction to be in full ` com - pliance with plans and specifications heretofore adopted by the Board of Supervisors and now on file in the office of the County Clerks and shall. backfill to the top of the bulkhead along its entire length, The suc- ce.esful bidder shall also extend through the.proposed bulkhead the existing storm drains which drain over.or through: the property.5uch con- struction to be in accordance with said plans and specification a adopted by the Board of Supervisors on file in the office of,the County Clerk of Orange County. The successful bidder must agree to use the property for one or more of the uses permitted by the provisions of Article X, Section 9103.51 of the Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach and agree'to construct upon said property one or more of the improvements authorized 3. i 2 3 4 S' e 7. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Hie 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 !I 31 32 by said section of said Municipal'Code and by Use Permit No, 432 issued by the City Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach on the 26th day of May, 1958. A copy of said.Article X, Municipal Code, together with a copy of said Use Permit, is on file in the office of the County Clerk of the County of Orange to which reference is hereby made for full particulars. All improvements to be constructed must comply with all applicable laws governing construction in the City of Newport Beach. The successful bidder must agree to commence the con- struction of the bulkhead hereinabove described within 120.calendar d from the execution.of the lease and thereafter diligently prosecute to completion together with the backfill hereinabove referred to, The other improvements described in the proposal shall be commenced within 270 calendar days after the execution of the lease and thereafter diligently prosecuted to completion. 5. All fixtures and improvements constructed, erected and placed on said property shall become the property of the owner of the land upon the termination of the lease. 6. The bid shall specify a rental based on a percentage of the gross.receipts of any and all uses maintained,:established and on said property with a guaranteed minimum monthly rental commencing on the first day of the month next succeeding the execution of.tha lease and ,payable on the first day of each month thereafter during the term of the lease. Such guaranteed minimum monthly rental shall not be less than $500.00 per month for a period of 36 months and $1,800800 per month thereafter for the full term of the lease. 74 Each bidder shall submit with his bid preliminary plans and specifications of the proposed improvements showing the uses intended and the improvements contemplated.to be constructed in conformity with the requirements hereof and showing the estimated cost thereof excluding architect's, engineerts, inspector's or attorney's fees or any other costs not involved in the direct construction or performance of the work proposed. Such plans, specifications and estimates.shall be in suffi- cient form to permit an intelligent evaluation of the proposed uses and improvements and the revenue to be anticipated therefrom. 4. 1 2 3 4 5 e 7 8', 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 E is I 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 29. 30 31 32 8, The successful bidder shall furnish, at the time of signing said lease, and maintain during the term of the lease, a public .liabi.l- ity bond running jointly and severally to the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach in the amounts of not less than $100,000/500,000 . for personal injury and $50,000 fox property damage, 9. Bidder shall agree that if his bid is accepted he will erect and construct the proposed improvements and will furnish a faithful performance bond in an amount equal to the estimated cost thereof to assure the construction thereof in conformance with final plans and specifications, and a labor and materialmen bond to hold the County and City exempt and harmless from any claim, demand or suit on account of any labor performed or material furnished in the erection and construc- tion of said improvements. 10, That a public meeting of this Board will be held at 10 :00 o'clock A M, on the 15th day of December , 1958, in the Chambers of this Board of Supervisors in the County Court House, Santa Ana, California, at which time and place sealed proposals to lease said property which have been received will be publicly opened, examined, and declared by this Board. At said time and place this Board will, before accepting any written.proposal, call for oral bids and if any responsible person offers to lease the property upon the terms and con- ditions specified in this Resolution, for a rental exceeding by at least 5% the highest written proposal, then such highest oral bid will be accepted, 11. That notice of the adoption of this Resolution and of the time and place for the holding of said meeting of this Board shall be given: By posting copies of this Resolution, signed by this Board or a majority thereof, in three (3) public places in the County of Orange, not less than fifteen (15) days before the date of the meeting. By publishing a copy of this Resolution once a week for three (3) successive before raid meeting, the first publication to be more than trienty -onp (21) days prior to the date herein fixed for said 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 d 16 $4 17 u 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 meeting in the SANTA ANA REGISTER , a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the County of Orange. 12. Each bidder must agree in his proposal that the proposal may be accepted by the Board of Supervisors.at any time within thirty (30) days after the opening thereof. Each bidder shall submit with his proposal a cashier's check or bidder's bond equal to $25,000.00 to guarantee that he will enter into the lease in the event it is awarded to him. 13. That this Board hereby reserves the right, should it deem such action to be for the best public interests, to reject any and all bids, either oral or written,.,and to waive any informality in any bid received, and to withdraw said property from lease. The County of Orange shall submit to the City of Newport Beach for review and recom- mendations all bids received for the lease of the property, together with a statement in writing as to the bid which it proposes to accept and a draft of any lease it proposes to execute. Any lease and any proposal or plan for the development of the property shall be subject to the approval of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach. AYES: SUPERVISORS NOESs SUPERVISORS ABS "ENTt SUPERVISORS BEN REDDICK, WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS, C.. M. FEATHERLY, WM. H. HIRSTEIN AND WILLIS H. WARNER NONE NONE the county of Orange, State of California 60 1 2 3 4 5 e 7 a 10 11 12 13 14 z 15 0 �$ 16 �8S 17 18 19 20 21' 22 23 24 25 26 27. 28 29 30 31 32 STATE OF C ALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE I, L.B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County', California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 11th' day of _September , 1958, and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 11th day of _ :September , 1958. L. B. WALLACE County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California 7. �0 " TY OF NEWPORT BEACH OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER June 4, 1981 T0: CITY ATTORNEY FROM: Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: CITY - COUNTY DOCK LEASE (NEWPORT ARCHES MARINA - 3333 COAST HIGHWAY) , x_533 Attached is a letter from Jordan Wank, an attorney representing the Newport Arches Marina, requesting a 6 -year extension of the above referenced lease. In addition to requesting an extension of the lease, Mr: Wank has verbally inquired about the possibility and /or procedures associated with purchase of the property by his client. Also attached is a lease summary and map, the :Waster lease between the City and the County and the sub -lease between the County and the sub - lessees. Certain important sections have been highlighted. Could you review these matters and relative to procedures which would extension or sale. Is such an ext the lease terms and any applicable provisions? Any relevant comments the advisability or feasibility of ated. provide me with an advisory be involved in any such lease snsion or sale possible, given statutory, Charter or Code you may have with respect; to these requests would be appreci- By the way of background information, Mr. Wank has indicated that a minimum 6 -year extension would permit his client to attract potential funding sources for further improvements on the property. Without such additional time on the lease term, however, he feels that no investors would be interested. No favorable commitment or inference of favorable commitment, with respect to Mr. Wank's requests, have been made by either the under- signed or, to my knowledge, the County. GE �Uvil As istant GJB;mm attachments e City Manager. r LAW OFFICES OF LTOR13AN M. WANK A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION JORDAN M. WANK IBOO NORTH H�GHLANO AVENUE. SUITC JOO HARRY n B. COVVSEL: HARRY B. WANK HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA 9002 G. MICHAEL PCLLCCK TELEPHONE 464 -7535 LT, COL. ALAN ROBBIN5 May 14, 1981 Mr. Jerry Bolint C/o City Hall 3300 Newport Beach Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 F RE: CITY- COUNTY DOCK LEASE (Newport Arches Marina -3333 Coast Highway) Dear Mr. Bolint: Please be advised that this office represents Newport Arches Marina with regard to the above matter. With regard to your recent discussion with Debbie Gray, please be advised that we would appreciate your consideration for a 6 -year extension of the aforementioned lease. Thank you for your immediate attention and cooperation in this matter. JMW:ep Very truly yours, "VORDAN M. WANK { I i t MAY 1 g 1991>ti- j MANAGER �� OF N`AU04T, 6EACM• See file for Summary of Bids for the Orange County Dock Lease WWC ' J .l • • _ ,t m d ' .. 8 (12) 1 LEASE AGREEMENT 2 3 THIS LEASE AGREEMENT, made and entered into 4 BY AND BETWEEN 5 COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the 6 State of California, hereinafter . referred to as "County ", 71 AND 8 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, 9 a municipal corporation, herein after referred to as "City" 10 11 RECITALS 12 A. County is the fee owner of that certain parcel of 13 land commonly known as the County Dock Property, situated on the 14 South side of West Coast Highway, at The Arches, in the City of 15 Newport Beach, California. 16 B. City holds in trust for the uses and purposes and 17 upon the express conditions as provided in "An Act granting 18 certain tidelands and submerged lands.of the State of California 19 to the City of Newport Beach upon certain trusts and conditions" 20 approved April 5th, 1927 (Statutes 1927, page 125), as.amended 21 by "An Act relating to the granting of franchises upon, and 22 leases of, certain tidelands heretofore granted.to the City of 23 Newport Beach by the State of California ",. approved May 29th, 24 1929 (Statutes 1929,`Jpage 1704), certain tidelands and submerged 25 lands lying southerly and southwesterly of the said parcel of 26 land owned by County. 27 C. The exact boundary between the land owned by 28 County and that held by the City has not been determined and the 29 following descriptions are for the purpose of this lease agree- 30 ment only: 31 (1) The land owned by the County is described 32 as follows as Parcel No. 1: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Parcel No. 1 A parcel of land situated in the City of Newport Beach, being a portion of Section 28, T -6 =S, R -10 -W, S.B.B.M. and more particularly described as follows to wit-. Beginning at a point on the westerly line of Lot L of Tract No. 919,:as said tract is laid out and shown . upon a map recorded.in Miscellaneous. Map Book 29, Pages 31,,32, 33, 34, Official Records of Orange.CountP California, said westerly line bears N, 11457135 , ' E. said point being distant 60.00 feet.measured along said westerly line of Lot L and northerly of U.S. Bulkhead Line between U.S. Bulkhead Station-No. 128 and 128A, as . said U. S. Bulkhead Lines and Stations are laid out and shown upon a map titled "Harbor Lines, Newport Bay Harbor ". approved by the.Secretary of the Army, Febru- ary 15, 1951, and on file in the U.,S. District Engineer's. Office, Los Angeles, California; a radial, line through said points bears N..27020'E; thence westerly along Ia curve concave to the South, and having a'radius of 480 feet and a central angle of 46016146" an arc.distance of 387.71 feet to an intersection with the aforementioned U.S. Bulkhead Line lying between U.S. Bulkhead Stations No, 128 and 227B; thence northwesterly along said U,S. Bulkhead Line a distance of 49.27 feet more or less to the southeasterly,corner of Parcel No, 2 of that certain easement described in deed to the State of California from the City of Newport Beach, recorded in Book 3680, Page 54, and dated October 17, 1956, Official Records of said Orange County; thence northeasterly along the easterly line of Parcel No. 2 to an.intersection with the southeasterly line of Parcel No. 1, described in deed to the State of California from the County of Orange, recorded in Book 3680, Page 50, and dated Octo- ber 17, 1956,, Official Records of Orange County; thence; northeasterly along the southeasterly line of said. Parcel No. 1 to the most easterly corner of said parcel; thence northerly along the easterly line of said Parcel No. 1 to an intersection with the southerly line of that certain parcel of land described in deed to the State of California from the County of Orange recorded in Book 293, Page 158, and dated June 29, 1929, Official Records of Orange County; thence easterly along.the southerly line of said last mentioned parcel of land to an inter- section with.the westerly lire of the aforementioned Lot L. of said Tract No. 919; thence S.11057'35" W. along the westerly line of said Lot L,.to the point.of beginning. (2).. The portion of the land.so held by the City under the aforesaid trust that is hereby being leased to the County is described as.follows as,Paroels Nos„ 2 and 3 :'. Paroel.No, 2 A parcel of land situated in the City of Newport Beach,., being a portion of Section 28, T -6-.S R -10 -W, S.B.B.X$ and more particularly desoribed as follows, to wit: All that parcel of land lying between the southerly line of Parcel No, l as described herein and the U.S. 2.. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8'' 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25', 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 UuS 9ulkFieaed Lines andtStations2arre and id2butaandaid shown upon a map titled "Harbor Lines, Newport Bay Harbor ", approved by the.Secretary of the Army, February 15, 1951, and on file in the U.S. District Engineer's Office, Los Angeles, California, and lying westerly of the westerly line,of Lot L of Tract No. .919,:as.shown upon a map recorded,in Miscellaneous Map Book 29, Pages 31, 32, 33, 34, Official Records of Orange County, California. Parcel No. 3 A parcel of land.situated in the-City of Newport Beach, being a portion of Section 28, T -6 -5, R -10 -W, S.B.B.M. and more particularly described as follows to wit: Beginning at the U.S. Bulkhead Station No. 227A as U.S. Bulkhead Lines and Stations are laid out and shown, upon a map titled "Harbor Lines, Newport Bay Harbor ", approved by the,Secretary of the Army, Febru- ary 15, 1951, and on file in the U.S. District Engineer's Office, Los Angeles, California; thence northwesterly along the northwesterly prolongation of the U.S. Bulkhead Line between U.S. Bulkhead Stations No. 227A and 227B to'an intersection with the northeast corner of that. certain parcel of land described in deed to the State . of California from the City of Newport Beach, recorded in Book 3111, Page 125, and dated June 12, 1955, Official Records of Orange County, California; thence generally southwesterly along the boundary of said parcel to the most southerly corner thereof; thence southwesterly along the southwesterly prolongation of the northwesterly line of said parcel of land to an intersection with the North Channel Reservation Line as recorded in Book 162, Page 1, Official Records of said Orange County; thence south- easterly along said.Channel Reservation Line and its southeasterly prolongation to the U. S..Bulkhead Station No. 226A as said Bulkhead Stations are laid out and shown upon a map titled "Harbor Lines,. Newport Bay Harbor'.; thence northeasterly along U.S. Bulkhead Line between'U.S. .Bulkhead Stations No. 226A and 227A a distance.of 87 feet; thence northeasterly along a straight line to U.S. Bulkhead Station No. 227B; thence. northwesterly along U.S. Bulkhead Line to U.S. Bulkhead Station No. 227A, the point of begin- ning. D. It is deemed to be to the mutual advantage,of the County and the City and in the public interest to treat the.above described parcels of land as a single parcel for the purpose of leasing the same to a third party and it will be advantageous and attractive to the prospective Lessee in that such Lessee will have but one entity with which to deal in all matters relating to the. leasehold. 3. 1 E. An equitable arrangement for the.sharing of the 2 receipts derived from the leasing of said parcels of land will be 3 to share such receipts in.the proportion that each party's 4 holdings bears to the total area of said parcels. 5 NOW, THMEFORE, subject to and in consideration.of the 6 following terms, conditions, and covenants it is agreed that- 7 1. The City hereby leases to the County the land 8 heretofore described in paragraph C(2) for a term beginning 9 July 1, 1958, and ending June 30, 2008, for the purposes herein.. 10 set out. 11 2.r All of the land - described above in paragraph C(l) 12 and (2) and hereafter referred to as "the property" shall, 13 irrespective of ownership, be considered as,and shall be offered 14 for lease by the County as if it were a single parcel in one 15 ownership. The lease shallobe made by public bid in accordance 16 with the provisions of Sections 25520.through 25536 of the Govern- 17 ment Code. Unless all bids submitted preclude the possibility of 18 a lease of the property as a single parcel,.the property shall be 19 leased as a single parcel. 20 3. The County shall serve as the contracting agent in 21 dealing with the property and shall take all necessary and proper 22 steps to effect a lease thereof and shall be the sole entity with 23 whom and through whom both the bidders and the successful bidder 24 shall deal on all matters concerning the property. The County, 25 shall have the power to execute a lease of the property with the 26 successful bidder as Lessee. 27 4. County shall call for bids,on the lease within 28 six (6) months from the date hereof, and shall execute a lease 29 with the successful bidder within one year from said date; 30 provided, however, that the City Council and the Board of Super - 31 visors may extend for an additional year the time within which 32I the lease must be executed. 4. 1 2 3 4 5'' 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14' 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 5. The resolution of intention by the Board of Super- visors, the notice to bidders and any lease of the property shall include these terms: (a) The successful bidder shall construct a pre- cast concrete slab bulkhead from the East line of the County dock property to the West end of the cut -off wall :westerly of the state highway bridge as shown on Orange County Harbor District Plan, Index No. 324A, dated September 13, 1957, on file in the office of the Harbor District Engineer, and shall backfill to.the top of the bulkhead along its entire length. The successful bidder shall also extend through the proposed bulkhead the existing storm drains which.drain over or through the property. (b) All fixtures and improvements constructed, erected and placed on said property shall become the property of the owner of the land upon the termination of the lease. (c)... The lease shall be for a term not to exceed fifty (50) years, and in any event shall terminate not later than June 30, 2008. (d) The rental shall be based on a percentage of the gross receipts of any and all uses maintained,. established and conducted on said property with a guaranteed minimum rental. (e) Plans and specifications showing the uses intended and the improvements contemplated. (f) The successful bidder shall furnish, at the time of signing said lease, and maintain during the term.of the lease, a public liability bond running jointly and severally to the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach in the amounts. of not less than $100,000/500,000 for personal injury and .. $50,000 for property damage. (g) Bidder shall agree that if his bid is accepted he will erect and construct the proposed improvements and will furnish a faithful performance bond to assure the construction 5. 111 2 3 4 5 6' 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19' 20 21 22 231 24 25 i 26 27 28 29 30 31' 32 thereof in conformance with final plans and specifications, and a.labor and materialmen.bond to hold the.County:and.Gity exempt and.harmless from any claim, demand or suit on account of any lab or performed or material furnished in the erection and con- struction.of said improvements. .(h) The Board of Supervisors reserves •the'.right to reject any or all bids and to waive any informality.in any bid received. (i) The development, use and occupancy.of the property shall be in compliance with the Ordinances of the City of Newport Beach and all.other laws applicable thereto. (j) The development, use and occupancy of the property shall meet.the planning and zoning requirements set out in the Municipal Code of the City applicable to:C -2 -H Districts at the time the initial development occurs. 6. The foregoing provisions concerning the.lease of the property shall apply with equal force to the lease of all or any part thereof in the event of termination of any lease made hereunder for any reason or at any time. 7. County shall submit to City for review.and recom- mendations all bids received for the lease of the property, together.with a,statement in writing as to the bid.which it pro- poses to accept and a draft of any lease it proposes to execute. Any lease and any proposal or plan for the development of the property shall be subject to the approval of the City Council of the City. 8. County shall pay to City of all moneys received by.Caunty from a soon as practicable, but not later than to the receipt thereof by County. 9. City.shall pay to County of the cost of advertising for bids for 6. thirty -five Ll uses of t; thirty (30) thirty -five the leasing per cent (35%) ze property as days subsequent per cent (35 %) of the property 1 2 3 4 5! 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15! 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 10. This-agreement between the.County.a.nd City shall be- submitted to the electors of the City for approval at the municipal election on April 8, 1958, and is subject to such approval. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereby executed this Agreement on the .5th day of .Xaroh, 1958. COUNTY OF ORANGE a political subdivision of the State of California By Chairman or its Board or Supervisors` ATTEST: L. B. WALLACE County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of said cBooardd of Supervisors BY Deputy ATTEST: C erx CITY OF.NEWPORT BEACH a municipal corporation 7• Mayor T STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss 2 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 3 On the 5th day of Msnat.,,1958, before me, a Notary 4 Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared 5 Willis H. Werner and Mabel L. Castel& 6 known to me to be the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors and the 7 Deputy County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of 8 Supervisors, respectively, of the COUNTY OF ORANGE, the political 9 subdivision of the State of California that executed the within` 10 instrument, and.acknowledged to me that said political subdivision 11 executed the same. 12 WITNESS my hand and official seal. 13 , 14 Notary Pu `or 15 said County and State My Commission Expires Marea 28, i?64 16 17 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } SS 18 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 19 On the /5/� day of April, 1958, before _me, :a Notary 20 Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared 21 DORA 0. HILL and MARGERY SCHROUDER, known to me to be the Mayor 22 and the City Clerk, respectively, of,the CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, 23 the municipal corporation that executed the within instrument, 24 and acknowledged to me that said municipal corporation executed 25 the same pursuant to a resolution of its City.Council. 26 WITNESS my hand and official seal. 27 28 - "Vary 'Public 37h and for r said County and State 29 MY Commission En.res iJov. y-;,1960 30 31 32 8. 1 2 3 4 5 I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20' 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 RESOLUTION N0.. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE AND THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RELATING TO.CITY -OWNED WATERFRONT AND SUBMERGED LAND AND THE COUNTY DOCK PROPERTY.. WHErMS,, that certain contract entitled "Lease Agreement." between the County of Orange and the City of Newport Beach,.dated April 1, 1958, has previously.been before the Council and received tentative approval on February 24, 1958; and WHEREAS, the City Council ordered that said Lease Agree- ment be submitted to the electors of the City at the general municipal - election on April 8, 1958; and WHEREAS, said Lease Agreement has been approved by the Board of Supervisors of Orange.County arid its execution by the County authorized; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and.City' Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Lease Agreement on behalf of the City of Newport Beach. This iesolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach at a regular meeting on the 10th day of March, 1958, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCILMEN: / ��7_if - -� l�.t 7 /,Ifw NOES, COUNCILMEN: ABSENT COUNCILMEN: V! . c A� Yr ,: N. � 4ILLIL city Clerk Mayor FVER,ETTP S.11 BR,UNZELL CORP. RECE B POST OPFICE BOX 1827 RENO, NEVADA GENERAL, CONTRACTOR, FAIRVIEWa -M7 December 29, 1967 City of Newport Beach City Hall 3300 West Newport Blvd:, Newport Beach, Calif. Reference: Newport Arches Marina Newport Beach, California Gentlemen:- s The 1965 General Session of the Legislature added Section 7018.: to the Contractors License Law, (B & P Code, Div.-3, Chap. 9) which provides as follows: "7018. On or.before June 30, 1966, the board shall prescribe a , form entitled "Notice" which shall describe the pertinent. provisions of this state's lien laws. Each contractor licensed l under this chapter,'prior to receiving from the owner of property or his agent any payment for work for which a contractor's license . is required, shall give a copy of this "Notice" to the payor.(Added 1965)" Pursuant to the requirements of Section 7018, we herewith serve upon you the following; i NOTICE, "Under the Mechanics' Lien Law (California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1181 et seq.), any contractor, sub - contractor, laborer, supplier or other person who helps to.improve your property but is not paid for his work or supplies,.has a right to enforce a claim against your property. This means that, after a court hearing, your property could be sold by a court officer and the proceeds of the.sale used to satisfy the indebtedness. This can happen even if you have paid your own contractor in full, if the sub- contractor, laborer, or supplier remains unpaid." The foregoing "Notice" refers to the contruction of: An Office Building, "A located at 3330 West Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California, City County Dock Property. . See attached property description. Exhibit A This is not a "Notice that the undersigned has not been or does not expect to be paid, but a notice required by law that the undersigned may, at a future date, claim a lien as provided by law against the property if the undersigned is not paid. . V truly yours, � ►� Pte. -,,.�, � �d lua,�. �, . - e ne 1e orpora a ecre ary ° `• it1:Y2Z'i "fill 1 Ian '!.n t1.0 (:l tv of i^ J i +� .TjC.' ch' : County Four Paa cc o2 z -' ®� �:A LIPSfC, �L2t.:.ei. f3 �`,.'. 1', rt rJl +Ix'ia, d)CLtl :1 tJOYt7C,l? `e1 ^O,c on ^1'...(j e•c,,A. g�._l !) rtr ^7SJ �, 1; a_ foZICJC.'S,, r, ." �e3rn3n ni .n p�oti:slt on t2ark x ° ^te.Zy p-ne of }rciL Tr o Fi ct_ Pdoe 9Z9r no sai.d tract ali I 1°tazx utTo11 a t,aP , es of c ?nu ar_, iH3ec €Silnn °ota r,4at1 Boot, '"c1, P affes ^z , n ^., 9, ,; Si cj ni I:ecorcd .T. snid,plo'lnt 13o.i.r9 d1� :t,a..t (30.0) foot r.aeasweed aa1ong S, _L t1 westerly Zino of ' 0I p b { ,Oc Bull, Z,Di Y, �lrl no llea.a ` Stn Von No 1,I., nrcl 1.?�li; .ra^ •aic? AJ t,, 1u1''1)Pild ?, nc^ n?`' stations caul: :9a11 �,.i10': ?n ta'lOn a tT4a li t' 1'.}e,:l 'Ma2'T•)C)_ *s.l ne:= y :de �JT)Or"t pity, - A9 5l narbnr41, -aplox vod by the tSocretal. "y ®:�. tile Army, I'•C ;JT:'r1c i �•t, ,. . 73. S. Di. 9't.r i.et A;lI` @�. ^>t_ Caltarn ila a ; a rn +di aA;4 1. ? a1a .'L'h) <?urj 11!:1 not nts� 1J0 21 Pi h- 00' a; them ®.t,© ^tea 1y nl rPfv a rurrro c onca o to 3) k .:ra a'rh, ancJ- ha =rir. a rndiws of da).:Jent and n Ce)at':ca 1. anr,�.e cr$ 3{,° 7. ' dC„ it, ar.c :distanca of ",7',71, f1e1: to an 1rt:e- ej-Ani'*?.0n I-1 I:h 1:1.o a ^n; °0rlr.).atiO.SC +] Zl, : �, i3ulfs- hoacj 1•,inr.. 1y.1n; ;Se9;vJee *n JJ, 't; p ulMlo•I't thenco' nortltsirrxlc.cl.y al.ors;' :l,t 1c3 [J'; 13xt?PChe ad 7,1110 a c73.stttnCe o1 :.27 tee more or lem:,3 to the snnthoa ;terly COrnOr °A i3trcel No. . 9 ,. c�P. t }in1; , roa t . i to °a ;nrn0nt rde.:lt x•1.i)ocl x11 cleecl to t}e St.j e or Californi a from 1:47e '(.;1ty np Nrx'lk)c,xt a °r:lcdt, rocolcic.d iat ;300'.. °G "0, Page :A, and dated oc•!;obcr 17, 11.)5 , (lj.' i +.a1:l.a l p2ecD:'<d : rxi f':1 t cl ornngo County; thenco n0!tfxo+eatea °AYF n10n; 'd 0 0a ^,cri °il 3'n° o ^iicd1� ,acntioiied. Parc ©l'Jdo, ? to laa izltez:;oct +.nn:xt' th i:he ,()rthen�te :.,,� i,nee .ParcaZ No, 'A; described in doed 1:0 the St:;to of C 13 R 'o = is fron the County o)er' Z7, 1956Jntod c, :1 l Page 50, in - of Oz nn e, 1 eeo� do , Official }ioeorcih Df.Otnno,e f'mnty; thow,0 northonster' a'1 "0r the an7a4,hear:tntAy ., 17' of tar; ,.cj' ;'ax'r,OA PIO. A to t1z0 no st' era . csx ^7 y` c °rnvr , 01 a;1. -.rd p�nl'TC11.; th.Pnce nnl i:f,n,•Ay.'nl0ztr tr:re ca= ;torly `11.kio of 9, of1,. A PTe), 1" '90 an ixztr.r0c2;t .oal x +rpth 9:Pxr1• sout1wr dy Jille oS'' tf,at certain pnrrol'n� lanil:adescribnd in r'.lCcd to t:'ae „tare o" (a11. 0, "•p a -.from the CoRinty 'oh (lTangc ^orcdocj- 'itl Boad:: .'"1:1, Pages 153, and in l.ec =: ,3kkne. ?,9, 1929, O:P?icla7. nocor-" }s 0.9 Coro -0 County; td ekxre. easterly along, the i a ? inter o fgij 1,st motlllod natCOA Of nn t+ sOlG 1 ®r°y �: ?ie e ^ i Section V f:h tk,o tvo>torly 11.110 OR the a: ° <>re•"•r�ealil nrzecP Lot 1 , , o.t saick Z'.rnc't' PJo. 9Z9; 1:Yaence i;.; 110 571 15!' 7. alonf the JestcTl.y line of said ,Lot F.,'to'the'poi.nt °1 °.'}>oTMakxn7.nn:', j Pnrcal '' that ilnra o1 0l' 1aa1 d 1 y1 i1 leetvIcen . the mnktherl,y l.lne of I'arco2 kdo; 1 nr� detrrr 1.Ftoe1 hor. eJ l n an 7 tJxo iJ. S. Flultcheac] L1ine :Jetr:een e i r_ : ions Z2F E1 ancd ?..7t! n 'said U, `}, 21aAt:PxeJ a<1 l.1ne a and `rtati xe are Znid out rand sho: n tij a map t: }4:1.eci ' °J ?ard)or l.ikke,, Now port t r):,y P°al:uor ", , apn°civoci hy.tlacs ^ar:xetnry Of tho army, rej)rnary 13, '0 ",., and on f;].e I In the. IT. ^.,, ]7i�tr.lrt rnrinrcr'n i)1i'iee, Zol; Al'c1es, Cn7.9 "ori3a,.and' '.yin;.*, westo'11117 a,f the vJC ;ier 7y Lino of loot: 1, o; T t t'io. 019, n's zlltocJn>apon a rnapl roc01 <lcid in 811. ;Collalxo�snl Man Cool, ? 33,. 34, Oa?'i.ca.axl. dtecol•d;; of ()1 arl{j 't rc; (:1)Skaxty, Caok ni.a. SUBJECT: rFnRr.F r.euyt DATE; 9/11/61 RE- *SEE -- additional documents and cosr�+cnnnrlrane+p� January 1. 1960 and subseauent._in Ejig #9 SEE SUBJECT: Orange County Dock (File #2) -C- 533... MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA December 22, 1939 A regular mooting of the Board of Supervisors, of Orange County, California, was hold December 22, 1959 at 9:30 A. M. The following named members being present: Willis H. Warner, Chairman; C. M Featherly, William J. Phillips, Win. H. Hiratein, C. M. Nelson and the Clerk. IN REZ. APPROVAL OF EXTENSION OF TIME GEORGE P. CARVER (NEWPORT. TOWERS) CITY OF KMRORT BEACH On motion of Supervisor Nelson, duly seconded and unani- mously carried,, the letter from the City of Newport Beach dated December 17, 1959, approving the extension of time granted George Pe Carver (Newport Towers) by the Board of Supervisors on December 1. 1959, for filing of the surety bond, etc, required under Lease dated May 59 1959, was received and.ordered filed* STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of 1, L. R. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I lisivre hereunto set my hand and seal tW 22u4L day of December, 19594 L. B. WALLACE County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of 6M 9-59* Supervisors of Orange County, California I December 17, 1959 Board of Supervisors County of Orange Courthouse Santa Ana, California Attention: Supervisor Claire Nelson Gentlemen: The resolution of the Board of Supervisors.of Orange County adopted on December 1, 1959, granting George P. Carver an extension of time for filing the surety bond, required under the Lease.dated May 5, 1959, to not more than 10 days.after approval of the detailed plans by Lessor, extending the time for the start of construc- tion to.within 60 days after said approval of said de- tailed plans, and the tim to present detailed plans and specifications to the Board for approval.to 180 days from and after December 1, 1959, was presented to the Council of the City of Newport Beach at its meeting held December 14i 1959. The extension of time granted by the Board of.Supervisors was approved by said Council. Very truly yours, Margery Schrouder City Clerk MS:mv COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK L. B. WALLACE. COUNTY CLERK OF THE P. O. BOX e8B SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY PHONE KI ]•8811 SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA December 7, 1959 City of Newport Beach Margery Schrouder, City Clerk 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California Dear Mrs. Schrouder: I,1' AC8 �Al vg T OF 60 t QTY I am enclosing a certified copy of Resolution No. 59-1300, adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, at a regular meeting on December 1, 1959, granting George P. Carver an extension of time for filing the surety bond, required under the Lease dated May 5, 1959. bi IV �c �o jb Enol. Very truly yours, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officlo Clerk of the board of Supervisors of Orange.County, California. My uty Clerk�. i i u 1 sa c* or, ta DO&W cw suffixmils (w !LIB WilNi• Ct1t ice' RMA i 3. depot 238 ion 4i1 % satim of is is" amtsiny filly se did and l"t the 511 folUming iesolution was adoptadz 8 Add LVig that the Wplr�ivsd of the 'Q ty C ll the Ir' .tty of .. 7 .4�►f r XGW* Vt l�l to tbo . .im Of tJM � 3rs S&Mted to @iO� L * 81 Carver for the filing of a surety bond be received and fLUA. 9 vu. l . f 'fft , 1i. m An WILLIS f. 10 WAS wAsurwas am 11 ���r}q AS$=, dl� di C, C iOATHLIL AM i11ILLIAH J. 12 13i 141 i SUN Or Ci LIMMIA 15 COMM of OAAAW ._ oZ' s °0 A. VAUACR;O CowmV Cloft and ew-ol + CIO* at the Z. 0 17 of �r. of O Comtys C��y ..bo ossUfy �t the U 18 A" f+ io ip1wWtJAM we dnlp !ad harry adopted by the 19 said Dowd at a xavLw of thereat balol an the 23" 4w of 20 Sap s 0590 WA by a umudwom vo of •aid lewd membtra 21Lt. 22 iAi Vrm= VHm"y I ban bamewmm Mtoy head end. meat t'"s 23rd 23 dgw of t mbery 19"V 24 25 CUrtkLmad an Elleto Clerk of the, Dowd of rrisovs of ormovP 28 i 27 28 29 l41q 30 31 32 wo%tum lb, ,5q -1wa September 18, 1959 Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange Court House Santa Me, California Gentlemen: The Council of the City of Newport Beach, on September 140 1959, appproved the extension of time requested by George V Carver, lessee for the filing of a surety bond for a period o one hundred days from September 2, 1959 as set forth in your resolution of September 1, f959. Very truly yours, Merger y Schrouder City Clerk City of Newport Beach MOM Ashton, Drohan and Morgan LAWYERS���' .HARRY ASHTON SUITE 206f; y. (LING 'ADDRESS FRANCIS E. DROHAN 3314j5 NE.PORTj v BOULEVARD \ P. O. BOX 426 NTED C. MORGAN "Tort B,aLC, , EUGENE J. LANDAU ORIOLE 3 -7160 September 1, 1959 RECEIVED Honorable Mayor and City Council SEP 1 '59 City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California CITY CLERK Gentlemen: CITY OF IV 6 vvp0RT BEACH The following letter was submitted to the County Board of Supervisors today: "Gentlemen: We are happy to inform you that Trautwein Brothers was the successful bidder on the bulkhead and will start work tomorrow in accordance with the schedule established in the lease agreement. The plans and_speoifications on the other improvements are being prepared and will be submitted for approval per the ebhedule called for in the lease. We have determined that the surety bond required cannot be obtained until the complete plans and specifica- tions are approved by all parties concerned. Therefore, we request that we be given ten days after the plans and specifications are approved to submit the surety bond and that we not be-hold in default on the lease as regards the bond until after that time. kened; George P. Carver" Hpon consideration the Supervisors extended the time for filinp of this surety bond one hundred (100) days, sub- ject to the approval of your body. We would appreciate this approval at your next meeting. 1`kr CPC: jh cN Ott,: J` Ss � 1 Sincerely, George P. Carver COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK L. B. WALLACE.COUNTY CLERK OF THE P. O. BOX 8s8 SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY PHONE KI 7.99H BANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA September 11, 1959 �- 10 59� City of Newport Beach ,. Margery Schrouder, City Clerk �,w,�Npyttr 3300 W. Newport Blvd. �s~ Newport Beach, California Dear Mrs. Schrouder: I am enclosing a certified copy of Resolution No. 59 -961, adopted September 1, 1959, at a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, granting the request of Mr. George P. Carver, for an extention of time to file the surety bond, as required by the Lease. The above request is granted subject to the approval by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach. Very truly yours, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California. 01 jb Encl. Deputy Clerk. 1 2 3 41 5'. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 J W' 15 2i ODD a °° 16 iau 62 OZZ` =U 17 0 18 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 32 #t880[.mcm Or THE Dom or SOPEMSM tr flRAME c mm, CAL2ITCWU September 10 M9 Lin smtion Of SmparvisW Nelson, duly woman& A and 'carried, the following Resolution Was adopted: Mums the County of Orange, as Lessor -q anteered Late the Lease with Caorgs P. Carwr, as Lessee, on the Sth day of May, 1939, and won"a me of the terms of said Lease yrovid" that do surety bond sheuid be filed within 120 days gram► the data of said Lease, and WWWO the Les"S in "IA Leafs has requested that the time. few filing said bond be eateedrd for a period of 100 days free September 2,' 1939, aced WSOM", it appears that goad cause exists for amah extension of time, 1'83W, TAE, U IT RLSCLVZDt 1, That Gear" P. Gtwr, Lossoe, be and be is hereby granted a period of 100 days for am extension of time from and after Septamber 21 19399 within. which to file said surety bond with this Soard of SUPW- viaera;. 2. 2Mt the extension of time heroin granted shall beeamis off" tive.enly if the sans is qWravod by the City Council of the City of Newport Brach.. AYSga SUMVISM C. K...IRLSONO C. M. FUTIMLY, WILLIM J ■.��a Mau"S, WK. R. hiiRSTSZti An WITJ.IS S. �� IMBSI ShtMVISM tICQOi ASSdt s SUPOMSM STM CIS CAUFUUTTA ee.. Caum . C19 CIRAMM 19, L. B. WALLAeC6, Ceuaty Clark Sud *X- afficio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Creme C ants, California, hereby certify.:tbat the abow and foregoing Romalutioa rwSr &dy and regtisrly adopted by the Resolution no. 59-%l 1 >, J V 2 3 4 5? 6' 7 0! 10 11 12 13 14 J mt 15Z mF `o m00 �� 16u >su oZi go` 17 V- 18 19 20 21 25 26 Ij j) Mss. COW11 618 GRA NO h 'L, 5, NAWAC3, County Clark sad ex-off#aiO Clark of the Board. of ftpwmLsort of Oraass Camtys Cslifosaias b wrsby eartify that do above ssA forapIft Usolutlaw ves, dinar add raglarly adopted by the said soaud .a as adjourned ■ostjis, thereof bold ge the 24th dayr.of Auggats 29599 sad passed by a '"aalasas vats.of seLd Board. IN WrI 80 S .2 have bereviato Rat or head asrd seal this 14" day of AvBwt, 1959. T' s 7 8 9 10 11 12 13� 14 �J 15 mF 0000 mU m ' 18 �Zi 00 17 U. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2s 27 28 29 30 31 32 r 1. .I 11 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 13',. 14' J ' `> 180f z o» muu UV 18 6Yp O=4 ao 17 U 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 28 28 27 28 29 30 31 �r COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK L. B. WALLACE. COUNTY CLERK OF THE P. O. BOX 888 SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY`�9U101: �9 SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA July 27, 1959 City of Newport Beach Margery Sohrouder, City Clerk 3300 W. Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California Dear Mrs. Sohrouder: PHONE KI CITY CIA41l: QITX OF NOw: °r�,zT sp' --'Uv: / ply ,\ 1LE• _ Aim I am nclosing certified copies of v c^ Res -792 dated July 14, 19591 Resolution No- 59802_) dated July 15 . , 1959, Resolution�No. 59 -816,� dated July 211 1959 and is _ copy-of i Minute Order,,' ted July 21, 1959, adopt and passed at a regular meeting o Board of ervisors of Orange County, California. Ve truly yours CAI C�0'a/� ,ao jb Encl. ry , L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ea- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California. BY Deputy Cle r- 2 ,3 4 5 8 7 9 10 11 12 13 J W' 15 m� Z Q0 0 rV .. �° 18 csz Viz' 00.0 17 U 18 19 21 23 24 25 28 W 28 29 30 31 ' Al WOO 2w OeN v, 44OR: 1 co ir wow wiJ ilm fell Iq 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .: 11 12 13 14 J m' 15 m Zi p]] . Oo uutl 16 'uIz Oz ' 0 17 0 u I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 11 W� August 11, 1959 Ronorable Mayor @ City Counoil Newport Beach, California. F �• Gentlemen: I am submitting n of the lease Dock property. REt " : 1 V F D 4 ,Z AUG 11'59 6r; :J CITY 9F tv6 yt k QR7' 9PACH herewith a modification of Clause Of May 5, 1959, of the County This modification merely,clarifies the rights of a mortragee or beneficiary of a Trust Deed riven as security for a building and is essential to ob- taining such loan, County Counsel advises that City Council approval should be had before approval by Supervisors. They approved the same in principal on August 4g 1959. Your early action will be appreciated. EA: me Sincerely. AS By c .s33 Aston, Drown and Morgan L A W V E R S HARRY ASHTON SUITE 206 MAILING ADDRESS FRANCIS E. OROHAN 33�4T5 NEWPORT BOULEVARD P. O. BOX 428 TED C. MORGAN 7 ��L'EVARD NF�DDAB EUGENE J. LANDAU _ r __ ..h,Gd1l,.a ORI.LC 30160 11 W� August 11, 1959 Ronorable Mayor @ City Counoil Newport Beach, California. F �• Gentlemen: I am submitting n of the lease Dock property. REt " : 1 V F D 4 ,Z AUG 11'59 6r; :J CITY 9F tv6 yt k QR7' 9PACH herewith a modification of Clause Of May 5, 1959, of the County This modification merely,clarifies the rights of a mortragee or beneficiary of a Trust Deed riven as security for a building and is essential to ob- taining such loan, County Counsel advises that City Council approval should be had before approval by Supervisors. They approved the same in principal on August 4g 1959. Your early action will be appreciated. EA: me Sincerely. AS By c .s33 KrRIF RSI off ITAt"ItITY, 4 GU..0 CIS , �a]katdG3�LM�:N' AB&SNP , ,y_ , WP.Ft SrATE of a:AFaORl A ) ss cout y OF dt W, —E 1,, Margery Sehroude€ i City Clark and ex -affcio Clexh of the City Co4v it of 'the City of Neupc:rt 8cach., tokifornia+, herohy certify the foregoing too be a fuli,, true aAd Correct cap. 010 y of "e mineto entry an, rocord id. this office. th 'Witness Whereof, X ,have hereutito sec tv hand' and aeal this � w'' day of Margery' Sohraudkr,, ZCy e st C the 'City of Negport Beach, Orange County, Califat -da I 11 I , a LJ 12 ut 14 15 Liu 17 po V LN 3z 31 32 -A KZ "nAZIl Cif WZv�= C� "-',;GO -GO I, C47 Mf a"n -.9 in R-lTJ' It 14] iii' II ar� 2.`d,. 2S 26! 27 29 3211 • + y *COUNTY CLERK AND CLERK CS 3 L. B. WALLACE, COUNTY CLERK OF THE P. o. sox sae. SUPERIOR COURT, ORANGE COUNTY PHONE KI 7-8811 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA May 8, 195 9 REC��v ED Mph 11 `fig City of Newport Beach Margery Schrouder, City Clerk c11'f (;L`'I K ;,ex� rr 3300 W. Newport Blvd. CITY of N, k V Newport Beach, California Dear Mrs. Schrouder: I am enclosing a copy of the Lease dated May 5, 1959, between the County of Orange and George P. Carver, for that certain property situated in the City of Newport Beach, known as the "Dock Propertyl, together with a certified copy of Resolution No. 59 -533, giving notice of the execution of said Lease. Very truly yours, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California. Deputy ib Encl. nn y Q ,ay 2 couil CAUPORM <f 3 3t $ 4 €5161, NMI= ag ampervtow **loan* &AY Md i"t the 5 I+ul tom tai: 6 in N&ftb 20 19 "t a Jmdpmt,uw >f md Gotaxod is 7 CCAp6yUfou" t $A #" AM "o At��6y1 W t 8 ;t1�6�6.� `Q rt jj Of IS ULN 'Ot lift MUM" 4 �. 9 .10 0400 Xo* 0376# S" XQOAft the o 11 i *UAw".by gUs bowd of •. awt"s 12 pbir' SjoMtM& ,A kko City of ,. gaaWaay kXWM " %ho .13 TM $ . Carvw um tp161," miA pv"wt md 14 ',t $Imp"&a yof J Z15 m i ad .4 � W iii O00 .0 v 16 ; iwtW W7.�' oft z'o 0 17 > b rp I1pY1R .> A + 11136 to AML4 bobalf 18 of no ewjuq of a t :all the 6= bwoft `+N by 19 this t a OW of 16bA" f6 = ILla ladt the Clock of tug sestdo 20 09.011 those Eowtais i Lo"a t8'. Oooqp P Ca9vow, ► 21 gg Ir 'A AMOLWO A th" QW Cif *A 22 be be i 11 bwaby ' ! Awd "X** to $Ivo wiltsm ofts" of 23 of wAd . to Gooqp Pp cArv"t addr o" " fallo"a 25 c/o Asul.004 ftob" and NorabWAL 3AS AIVC 26il>#. 27 TkW 64tUW iull be by rasist4wed =;t rows* covo4u . 28 Ayes: SUM VIN" . • M. UAAWO co r MAMUY WULUX J. AM 29 30 i1GS% Si* ,S 31 . AA&LXT: Spay 32 As"JutLaD le. 1"33 1. 19 !4! 23 24 25 26 3. sun of t4 j A 2 QTY OF { 3 1* L. S. WAUA", OWAMW Glwk Aid to Clark of ttm B 4 of ftperAamrg, of 09~ err, c &iii, UWAby 5 AWW =4 Ali/ @I"U0 W* &Aly d d ressuff3y by d 6 "lA at a versUw mast "I b*IA on Cb ,$%b dw es s 7 1$ 4s mid " by a wa=Lmftw Vote of Hid. 9 3L9� of Aws ISS99 10 11 Cousaw Z OW 90410 (;Lwk of the be d of amparvLws of Otsav 12 I CemmWj C$U" 13 14 J m 15 i' Z Z 000 muu V W 16 •Y o 2Z 0 2l 00 17 U 18 19 !4! 23 24 25 26 3. "7 1 2 3' 4 5 e 7, 8 9 10 11 12 1$ 14 15 is 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 I- 6 0 THIS LEASE, made and entered into this 5th day of may , 1959, between the COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "LESSOR ", and GEORGE P. CARVER,' hereinafter referred to as "LESSEE ", W I T N E S S E T H s In consideration of the rents herein reserved and of the covenants and agreements herein contained to be kept and performed by the LESSEE, the LESSOR hereby leases to the LESSEE, for the pur- poses hereinafter.set forth, the following described lands situated in the County of Orange, State of California: Parcel No, 1 A parcel of land situated.in the City of Newport Beach, beang a pportion of Section.28, T -6 -S, R -10 -W, S,B.B.M. and Lot 172, Block 1, Irvine Sub - Division as shown on a map recorded in Map Book l., Page 88, Official Records of Orange County and more-particularly described as follows to wits Beginning at a point on the westerly line of Lot L of Tract Noe 919, as said tract is laid out and shown upon a map recorded in Miscellaneous Map.Book 29, Pages 31, 32, 33, 34, Official Records of Orange Countyy, Cali- fornia, said westerly line bears N. 11° 57' 35" E., said point being distant 60.00 feet measured along said west- erly line of Lot L and northerly of U.S. Bulkhead Line between U.S. Bulkhead Station No. 128 and 128A, as said 'U.S. Bulkhead Lines and Stations are laid out and shown upon a mapp titled "Harbor Lines, Newport Bay Harbor"- approved by the Secretary of the Army, February 15. 951, and on file in the U.S. District Engineer's Office, Los Angeles, California, a radial line through said.points bears N. 250 00' E; thence westerly along a curve concave to the South, and having a radius of 480 feet and a cen- tral angle of 46" 16' 46" an arc distance of 387.71 feet to an intersection with the aforementioned U.S. Bulk- head Line lying between U.S, Bulkhead Stations No, 128 and 227B; thence northwesterly along said U.S. Bulkhead Line a distance of 49..27 feet more or less to the southeasterly corner of'Parcel No. 2 of that cer- tain easement described in deed to the State of Califor- nia from the City of Newport Beach, recorded in Book 3680, Page 54, and dated October 17, 1956, Official Records of said Orange County; thence northeasterly along the easterly line of said last mentioned Parcel e 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 18 17 18' 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 6 • No. 2 to an intersection with the southeasterly line of Parcel No. It described in deed to the State of California from the County of Orange, recorded in Book 3680, Page 50, and dated October 17, 1956,.Official Records of Orange County; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly line of said Parcel No. 1 to the.most easterly corner of said parcel; thence northerly along the easterly line of said Parcel No. 1 to an intersec- tion with the southerly line of that certain parcel of land described in deed to the State of California from the County of Orange recorded in Book 293, Page 158, and dated June 29, 1929, Official. Records of Orange County; thence easterly along the southerly line of said last mentioned .parcel of land to an intersection with the westerly line of the aforementioned Lot L, of said Tract No. 919; thence S. 110 57' 35" W, along the westerly line of said Lot L. to the point of beginning. Parcel No, 2 A parcel of land situated in. the City of Newport ,Beach, being a portion of Section 28, T -6 -S, R -10 -W, S,B.B.M. or Lot 172, Block 1, Irvine Sub - Division, as shown on a map recorded in Map Book 1, Page 88, Official Records of Orange County and more particularly described as follows, to wits All that'parcel of land lying between the southerly line of Parcel No; l as described herein and the U.S.: Bulkhead Line between Stations 128A and 227A as said U,S. Bulkhead Lines and Stations are laid out and shown upon a map titled "Harbor Lines, Newport Bay Harbor" approved by the Secretary of the Army, February 15,1951, and on file in the U.S. District Engineer's Office, Los' Angeles, California, and lying westerly of the westerly line of Lot,L of Tract No. 919,.as shown upon a map re- corded in.Miscelloneous Map Book 29, Pages 31, 32, 33, 34, Official Records of Orange County, California. Parcel No. 3 A parcel of land situated in the City of Newport Beach ", being a portion of•Section 28, T -6 -S, R -10 -W. S.B.B.Mo and more particularly described as follows to wits Beginning at the U.S. Bulkhead Station No. 227A as U.S. Bulkhead Lines and Stations are laid out and shown'' upon a map titled "Harbor Lines,.Newport Bay .Harbor" approved by the Secretaryy of the Army, February 151 19516 and on file in.the U.S. District Engineer's Office, Los Angeles, Californiai thence northwesterly aiong'the north - westerly prolongation of the U,S. Bulkhead Line between U.S. Bulkhead Stations No, 227A and 2278 in a.direct line to the northeast corner of that certain .parcel of land described in deed 'to the State of California from the City of Newport Beachg recorded in Book 3111, Page 125, and dated June 12, 1955, Official Records of Orange County, California; thence generally southwest- erly along the boundary of said last mentioned.parcel to 2. 1 2 3 4 B 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 18 I'I is 17 1$' 19 20 211 22 23' 24 28 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 i • the most southerly corner thereof= thence northeasterly along the southwesterly prolongation.of the northwest- erly line of said parcel of land to an intersection with the North Channel Reservation Line as recorded in Book 162, Page 1, Official Records of said Orange County= thence southeasterly along said Channel Reservation Line and its northeasterly prolongation to the U.S.Bulkhead Station No. 266A as said Bulkhead Stations are laid out and shown upon a map titled "Harbor Lines, Newport Bay Harbor"; thence northeasterly along U.S. Bulkhead Line between U.S. Bulkhead Stations No. 266A and 227A a dis- tance of 87 feet= thence northeasterly in a direct line to.U.S. Bulkhead Station No. 227Bi thence northwesterly along U.S. Bulkhead Line to U.S. Bulkhead Station No. 227A, the point of beginning. I This Lease shall be for a term commencing on the date of execution thereof and ending-on June 30, 2008. ■ �Ll J; t�17�u11��F7iT�a�w�1� i�[= 7��•c�.+ia•J BY THE LESSEE LESSEE covenants and agrees that it Will, at its sole cost and expense and within the time and in the manner hereafter set forth, construct the following improvements: 1. 'Construct a bulkhead from the east line of the subject property to the west end of the cut -off wall westerly of the State Highway bridge in accordance with plans and specifications therefor adopted by the Board of Supervisors and now on file.in the office of the County Clerk. Said work to be commenced within 120 days and shall be diligently prosecuted to completion. LESSEE to construct equip and operate or cause to be constructed, equipped and operated the following improvementst 3. I, 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 141 18 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 28 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Said furnishings,,equipment and description of the business to be conducted are more specifically described in the proposal submitted by LESSEE, which .proposal is now on file in the office of the County Clerk of Orange County and by this reference made a part of this Lease. 4. �(uj�,�jOVEMENTS Estimated 1. Motel - 36 modern units with approximately oat 400 sq, ft, each 298,800.00 2. Tower Building - consisting of a. Coffee Shop b. Sky Room Restaurant 8 Bar 1901000.00 c. 12 Professional Offices .1680400.00 de 16 Apartments 389,000.00 e. Commercial Area 73,60U.00 f. Glass Elevator 609000.00 3. Commercial Building consists of 5 stores 490000,00 4, Boat Slips $ Bulkhead 890420.00 5. Clubhouse '.consisting of Service Bar 95.360.00 (food 8 drink) Assembly Hall Pool & Recreation facilities 100000.00 6. Ground Improvements. Parking (basement 8 ground level) 190,260.00 Walks - Patio, Decks, etc. 11.100.00 Sub Total $ 1,6240960.00 ESTIMATED COST OF FURNITURE 8-FIXTURES Cost 1. Motel - Comp. Furnishing 390600.00 2, Tower Building - Furniture 8 Kitchen facilities - Coffee Shop 1500000,00 - Furniture 8 Kitchen facilities - Sky Room 650000.00 Professional Office $ ('12) - F oor cover 8 drapes for t and (d 270700.00 Lobby 26000,00 5. Clubhouse - Furniture 8 Service facilities 4,500.00 Rental Equipment X5.000.00 $ 168,800.00 Said furnishings,,equipment and description of the business to be conducted are more specifically described in the proposal submitted by LESSEE, which .proposal is now on file in the office of the County Clerk of Orange County and by this reference made a part of this Lease. 4. 1 LESSEE agrees to commence the construction of the improvements. 2 other than the construction of the bulkhead, within 270 days and to 3 diligently prosecute said work to completion. 4 2. Lretailei Plans and Snecificat.19M. The LESSEE covenants 5 and agrees that within 210 days after the execution of this Lease, 6 it will, at its own expense, prepare or cause to be prepared, and 7 delivered to the LESSOR detailed plans and specifications for all of 8 the buildings'..and improvements, including landscaping, herein required 9 to be constructed or performed by the LESSEE. Before commencement of to construction or performance of the work, the detailed plans and speci- 11 fications must be approved by the LESSOR. 12 30 Strict Comnlianc :ith Plans an�_SreCif. bons. All of 13 said buildings and improvements, including landscaping, shall be con - 14 strutted, equipped and performed in strict accordance with the detailed 15 plans and specifications approved by LESSOR, and within the time here - g16 inbefore specified. If the LESSEE be delayed in the construction and 17 completion of said buildings and improvements by acts of Clod, strikes 18 or other causes beyond the control of the LESSEE, the time for comple- 19 tion shall be extended by the length of such delay or delays. 20 Said buildings, improvements, and .landscaping shall be con - 21 strutted and performed in compliance with the applicable laws, ordi- 22 nances, rules and regulations of the State of California, County of 23 Orange, and City of Newport Beach and other lawful authority having 24 jurisdiction. 25 4.J9Yl1>i.9fiLfi�i1 °ors LESSEE agrees to employ at its 26 expense a qualified inspector whose qualifications are satisfactory to 27 the Superintendent of Building and Safety, County of Orange, and the 28 Director of Building.and Safety, City of Newport Beach, who will 29 maintain on -site inspection during the period of construction and 30 immediately report any deviation from the plans and specifications 31 or applicable laws to the LESSOR or any authority having jurisdiction. 32 g, f 1 2 3 4 5 e 7 8', 9', 10i 11 12 13 14 €� 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 5. Construction Costs, LESSEE covenants and agrees that the actual costs of the buildings, improvements and landscaping herein required to be constructed and performed,by the LESSEE shall be not less than the estimated costs thereof, excluding architect's, engineer's, inspector's or attorney's fees or any other costs not involved in the direct construction or performance of work herein required, as sub- mitted with its bid. Immediately upon completion, LESSEE shall furnish LESSOR an itemized statement of the actual costs of construction of all buildings, improvements and landscaping work herein required,of the LESSEE. The statement shall be subscribed and sworn to by an author - ized officer of the LESSEE, 6. -Imgrogm -nts_ o Bgggme p1;gDBrty of LESSOR, All buildings and improvements constructed or, placed upon the leased premises by LESSEE must, upon completion, be free and clear of all liens, claim or liability for labor or material and shall become the property of the landowner at the expiration of this Lease or sooner termination thereof. III 1. LESSEE covenants and agrees to pay each month to LESSOR during the term hereof, a minimum rental of $600.00 per month for the first 36 months, and $2,5UU.UU per month thereafter during the term of this Lease. 2..R.arealtaae Rer tale For each "accounting year ", as herein- after defined, of the term hereof, LESSEE covenants and agrees to pay to LESSOR, at the time and in the manner hereinafter provided, an amount equal to the total of the following percentages of the gross sales or gross receipts from any and all businesses, operations, concessions, or activities conducted on or from the leased premises to the extent that such total exceeds the minimum rental herein reserved. 6, 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 it 15 leg 18 17 181 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 DESCRIPTION OF.BLISINESSES CONDJCTED A. Motel Apartments, Offices (based on rent, not on gross business), Boat Slips, Boat Rentals, Club membership, etc. - 3% B. Bars, Restaurant, Coffee Shop, Liquor Store, Delicatessen,. etc. - 3% C. Gift Shop, Florist, Berber Shop, etc. - 2% D. Men's and Women's Clothing, Sporting Goods, Marine Hardware, etc. - - 2% E. Drugs, Notions, etc. - 1% 3. Definition of Gross SSales or Gross Receigtg. The term "gross sales" or "gross receipts" upon which the percentage rentals are to be based schall includes (a) The sale price of all goods, wares, merchandise or products sold on or from the leased premises, whether sold by the LESSEE, its agents, sublessees, concessionaires or licensees, or whether for cash or on credit, and in case of sales on credit, whether payment is actually made or not. (b) The charges made by the LESSEE, its agents, sublessees, concessionaires or licensees for the sale or rendition on or from the leased premises of services of any nature or kind whatsoever, whether for cash or on credit and in case of credit, whether payment is actually made or not. (c) All admission, entry and other fees of any nature-or kind charged by LESSEE, its agents, sublessees, concessionaires or licensees. (d) .,.Sums received by LESSEE, its agents, sublessees, con- cessionaires or licensees from any coin- operated machines or devices maintained on said premises. The term "gross sales" or "gross receipts" shall not include any sales or excise taxes levied by Federal, State, County or municipal governments which are paid by the consumer. or receipts for goods returned. 7. r. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9', 10', 11 i2 13 14 d 15 E88 16 " 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 4. Definition of "Accounting Year ". The term "accounting year" as used herein, shall mean a period of twelve (12) consecutive calendar months, the first "accounting year" commencing concurrently with the execution of this Lease and ending on December 31, 1959; thereafter the "accounting year" shall be the consecutive twelve (12) calendar months from January 1 to December 31 of the ensuing year. 5. Payment of Pe=can age RBDtals. LESSEE covenants and agrees that on or before the 15th day of January of each year during the term hereof, it will render.to the LESSOR, a full and correct statement of all gross sales and gross receipts for the preceding accounting year (the first report to be filed on or before January 15, 1960, for the period commencing with execution of the Lease to December 31, 1959) showing: (a). The total.grose sales and gross receipts itemized as to each of.the separate categories of gross sales and gross receipts upon which the percentage rental herein reserved is based. (b) The total amount of percentage rental computed as herein provided. (c) The total rental paid by LESSEE during the accounting year. (d) The total rental due the County computed in accordance with the provisions of this Lease, whether minimum rental or percentage rental. If the amount of the percentage rental computed as herein provided exceeds the minimum rental herein required to be.paid during . the accounting year, LESSEE covenants and agrees to pay, concurrently with the rendering of such statement, the amount by which the percents rental exceeds the minimum rental required to be paid, together with any minimum rental due and unpaid for said accounting year. 8. M M 11 12 13 14 ;� 15 o >> €$ 16 o $0 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 29 30 31 32 60 Place of Payment and Filing. All rentals shall be payable at and all statements and reports herein required shall be filed with the office of the Clerk of the Hoard of Supervisors of the.County of Orange, Court House, Santa Ana, California. Rentals shall.be made payable to the County of Orange. 70 nauent Installment. Any installment of rental which shall not be paid when due shall bear interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the day'when the same is PaYable hereunder until the same shall be paid, 9. 1 IV 2 RECORDS AND ACCOUNTS 3 1. Accounts and Records. LESSEE covenants and agrees that it 41 will, at all times during the term of this Lease, keep or cause to be 5 kept true and complete books, records and accounts of all financial e transactions in the operation of all businesses, concessions, services, 7 and activities of whatever nature conducted on or from said premises, 8 The records must be supported by documents from which the original 9 entry of the transaction was made, including sales slips, cash register 10 tapes, and purchase invoices. 11 All sales and charges shall be recorded by means of cash 12 registers which display to the customers the amounts of the transac- 13 tions and automatically issue receipts certifying the amounts recorded. 14 The registers shall be equipped with devices which lock in sales total, d It 15 transaction records, or counters which are not resettable and which E� "$ 1s shall record on tapes the transaction numbers and sales details. Cash 17 register readings shall be recorded at the beginning and end of each 18 day, 19 LESSEE covenants and agrees that it will comply with and 20 require all of its sublessees, concessionaires, licensees, agents and 21 employees to comply with the foregoing requirements. 22 2. Monthly Reports. LESSEE covenants and agrees to deliver 23 to the LESSOR, not later than the 15th day of each month, a true and 24 correct statement of all gross sales and gross receipts for the pre - 25 ceding calendar month, showing separately: 28 (a) The gross sales and gross receipts from each business, 27 concession, service or activity conducted on or from said 28 premises. 29 (b) The total gross sales and gross receipts itemized as 30 to each of the separate categories of gross sales and gross 31 receipts upon which the percentage.rentals herein reserved 32 are based. 10. 1 3. Inspection of Records. All books, records and accounts of 2 every kind or nature kept by the LESSEE, its sublessees, agents or 3 employees, licensees or concessionaires relating to the operation of 4 any business, concession, service or activity conducted on or from 5 said premises shall, at all reasonable times, be open and made avail - 6 able for inspection or audit by the LESSOR, its agents or employees, 7 upon request. 8 4, Audit. LESSOR shall have the right to audit any or all 9 such books, records and accounts for the purpose of verifying the 10 percentage rentals required to be paid to the LESSOR hereunder. If 11 such audit shall show that the percentage rental required to be paid 12 the LESSOR is greater than the amount reported or paid by LESSEE, 13 LESSEE covenants and.agrees to pay the costs of the audit; otherwise 14 such coats shall be borne by the LESSOR. LESSOR reserves the right to aZ 15 install any accounting devices or machines, with or without personnel, p$8 0Z: 16 for the purpose of accounting or audit. 0 17 18 V 19 BOND 20 1. Bond to be Filed. LESSEE covenants and agrees that it will 21 within 120 calendar days after the execution of this Lease by both 22 parties, deposit with the LESSOR the following bond which has been 23 approved by LESSOR: 24 (a) Bond for Construction of Improvements. A good and 25 sufficient corporate surety bond in favor of the County o 26 Orange in the sum of $1,800,000.00 conditioned that the 27 LESSEE will construct and equip the building and improve - 28 ments herein required to be constructed by the LESSEE, all 29 in strict accordance with the plans and specifications there - 30 for, and within the time herein required, and to pay all 31' costs of labor and materials therefor. The bond shall remain 32 in full force and effect until final completion of all of 11 i 1 the buildings and improvements which LESSEE has covenanted I 2 to construct and until all costs therefor have been fully 3 paid. The form of the bond and the surety shall be subject 4 to the approval of the LESSOR. 5 2. Lease Ineffective Until Bonds Filed. This Lease shall be 8 of no force or effect and LESSEE shall acquire no right, title or 7 interest in or to the lands herein described or any part thereof, or 8 any right or privilege hereunder unless the LESSEE shall have deposited 9 the bond. 10 11 VI 12 MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING AND IMPROVEMENTS. 13 1. LESSEE to Maintain all Landscaping, Buildings and Improve - 14 ments. LESSEE covenants and agrees that during the term of this Lease 15 it will, at its own cost and expense, maintain the.grounds, landscaping. 18 and all buildings, and any other improvements of any kind or nature 17 constructed or installed on the leased premises by the LESSEE, at a 18 high standard of maintenance and repair. Maintenance shall include 18 painting. 20 2. LESSOR May Elect to Repair and Maintain at Expense of 21 LESSEE. If, in the judgment of the LESSOR, such standards of main - 22 tanance and repair are not being maintained, it may.st its option, 23 after written notice thereof to the LESSEE and LESSEE'S failure 24 to commence in good faith to remedy the same within the time herein 25 provided and thereafter diligently.prosecute the same to completion, 28 elect to correct any deficiency, whether it be.in reference to grounds, 27 landscaping, building or improvements. LESSEE covenants and agrees to 28 pay to the LESSOR on demand any and all sums expended by it in correct - 29 ing any such deficiency together with an equal sum as liquidated 30 damages by reason of LESSEE'S failure to perform and keep this covenant 31 1 If, in the judgment of the LESSOR, the disrepair or lack of maintenance 32 constitutes an emergency, the notice herein provided shall be a 12. 1 0 9 24- hours" notice to remedy; in all other cases it shall be a 5 -days' 211 notice. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 s� 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 3. LESSOR'S Right of Inspection. LESSOR reserves the right by its authorized agents, employees or representatives to enter the leased premises to inspect the same or any part thereof at any time and to attend or protect the LESSOR'S interest under this Lease. 4.. Compliance with Laws, Ordinances and Regulations. LESSEE covenants and agrees to comply with all rules, regulations, statutes, ordinances and laws of the State of California, County of Orange, the City of Newport Beach, or any other governmental body or agency having lawful jurisdiction over the leased premises or the business, enterprises, or activities conducted thereon. VII• LESSEE TO PAY ALL TAXES UTILITIES ETC. 1. Taxes. LESSEE covenants and agrees to pay, prior to delin- quency, all taxes and assessments upon the possessory interest created by this Lease and on all improvements, fixtures, furniture, and other property owned by LESSEE. 2. Utilities. LESSEE covenants and agrees to pay, prior to delinquency, all charges for sewer refuse collection, water, gas, electricity and other utilities which may be used by LESSEE, its agents, sublessees, concessionaires or licensees, as well as all costs and expenses incurred in the installation thereof. 3. Mechanics Liens. LESSEE shall pay all costs of any alters- tions or additions to any building, structure or improvement located' on the leased premises, and shall keep the leased premises and the improvements located thereon free and clear of mechanics-liens., LESSEE shall indemnify and save the LESSOR harmless from any and all mechanics liens or claims of lien, costs and expense which may accrue, grow out of or be incurred by reason of or on account of such lien or claim of lien. 13. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 to 11 12 13 14 .ti 15 �88 16 DI1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 LESSOR shall have at all times the.right to post and keep posted on the leased premises such notices provided for under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California for the protection of the leased premises from mechanics liens or liens of a similar nature. VIII INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE 1. Indemnitx. LESSOR shall not be liable at any time for loss, damage or injury to the property or person of any person whomsoever at any time occasioned by or arising out of any act or omission of the LESSEE, or of anyone holding under the LESSEE, or the occupancy or use of said leased premises or any part thereof by or under the LESSEE, or directly or indirectly from any state or condition of said premises or any part thereof during the term of this Lease. Notwithstanding.anything to the contrary herein contained and irrespective of any insurance carried by LESSEE for the benefit of LESSOR under the terms hereof., LESSEE agrees to protect, indemnify and hold LESSOR and said leased premises harmless from any and all damages or liabilities of whatsoever nature arising under the terms hereof or arising out of or in connection with the operation carried on by LESSEE or by anyone holding under the LESSEE on, or the use or occu- pancy of, the leased.premises. 2. Liability Insurance. LESSEE agrees: (a) To procure and maintain a policy or policies of public liability and property damage insurance in a good and solvent insurance company or.companies for the benefit of LESSEE an a.,.,,t LES3OR',''in amounts not less- than -•that set forth below, and under and by the terms of which LESSOR is protected from an insured against any and all loss, damage or liability of whatsoever nature arising out of or in connection with the use of or operations on the leased premises during the term hereof. The limits of liability on any policy of public 14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 LIE 15 1 M8, 18 M 1 17 is I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 liability insurance shall be not less than $100,000.00 for injury or death of one person, $500,000.00 for injury or death of more than one person, and $50,000.00 for property damage. (b) To deliver to LESSOR policies evidencing the insurance procured by LESSEE under the terms hereof, or to deliver in lieu thereof certificates of coverage from the insurance company or companies writing said policy or policies of insurance, which certificates shall among other things ' designate the company writing the same, the number, amount and provisions thereof. (c) To pay any and all premiums or other expenses arising in connection with the furnishing of the insurance by LESSEFW. to-LESS0& as herein provided. 3. Fire Insurance. LESSEE agrees to take out fire and extended coverage insurance with an insurance carrier satisfactory to the LESSOR to protect from loss the interest of the LESSEE in any improvements or installations on the leased premises. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than 80% of the sound and insurable value of the im- provements. Certificates of such insurance shall be filed with the LESSOR and shall be satisfactory in form to the LESSOR. Said policies shall have a non- cancellation - without - notice clause and shall provide that copies of all cancellation notices shall be sent to LESSOR. If the LESSEE fails to procure or renew such insurance, LESSOR may, in its discretion, procure or renew such insurance and pay any and all premiums in connection therewith. All moneys so paid by the LESSOR shall be repaid by the LESSEE to the LESSOR upon demand, with interest of 7% per annum from date of payment by LESSOR and until repaid. 15. 1 IX . 2 EMINENT DOMAIN OR DESTRUCTION OF PREMISES 3 1. Eminent Domain. If the whole or a substantial part of the 4 premises hereby leased shall be taken by any paramount public authority 5 under the power of eminent domain, then the term of this Lease shall 6 cease as to the part so taken, from the day the possession of that 7 part shall be required for any public purpose, and the rent shall be 8 paid up to that day, and from that day the LESSEE shall have the right 9 either to cancel this Lease and declare the same null and void or to 10 continue in the possession of the remainder of the same under the terms 11 herein provided, except that the minimum rental shall be reduced in 12 proportion to the value of the amount of the premises taken. It is 13 understood and agreed that, from any damages awarded, the LESSEE shall 14 be entitled to such amount as may be allowed by the law then in force. k 15 2. Destruction of Buildings or Improvements. OU 16 (a) Partial destruction: If there be a partial destruction j0 iS 17 of any of the.buiidings or improvements of any nature located 18 on the leased property, the LESSEE shall as soon as reasonably 19 possible commence to repair and restore said damage, and shall 20 continue diligently to complete said repairs. Such partial 21 destruction shall not in any way cancel or annul this Lease, 22 but LESSEE shall have a reduced proportionate minimum rental 23 during the repairing period, in accordance with and based upon 24 the actual interference which is caused by the making of said 25 repairs. 26 (b) Total destruction: In the event of the total destruc- 27 tion of any building, structure or improvement, LESSEE shall as 28 soon as reasonably possible commence the construction, recon- 29 struction and restoration of said building and shall prosecute 30 the same diligently to completion. Any such total destruction 31 shall in no wise annul this Lease except that the LESSEE shall 32 be entitled to a proportionate reduction of the.minimum rental 16. 1 while such restoration or rebuilding is in process to the 2 extent to which the rebuilding or restoration of said build - 3 ing, structure or improvement shall interfere with the 4 business carried on by LESSEE on said leased premises. 5 6 X 7 ALIENATION OR ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHTS 8 OR INTEREST IN THE LEASE 9 Neither this Lease nor any interest therein, whether legal or 10 equitable, shall be assigned or sublet, in whole or in part, alienated, 11 pledged, mortgaged or hypothecated, voluntarily or by operation of law, 12 without the prior written consent of the LESSOR; nor shall this Lease 13 be subject to garnishment or sale under execution in any suit or 14 proceeding which may be brought against or by the LESSEE. If the 15 LE55EE, without ,.- ruxi..ng prior written approval of the LESSOR, attempts g X30 16 to effect such a transfer, assignment, sublease, mortgage, or hypothe- �f 17 cation, or a transfer occurs by operation of law, or this Lease or any 18 interest therein is subjected to garnishment or sale under any execu- 19 tion in any suit or proceeding brought against or by. the LESSEE, and 20 the same is not released within 15 days, or if the LESSEE. is adjudged 21 bankrupt or insolvent by any court or upon the LESSEE "S making an 22 assignment for the benefits of creditors, the LESSOR may, at its option 23 forthwith terminate this Lease upon written notice thereof to the 24 LESSEE and thereupon the LESSEE shall have no further rights hereunder, 25 No consent by the LESSOR to any assignment or hypothecation of 26 this Lease or any part thereof or in the subletting of said premises 27 or any part thereof or to the granting of.any concessions or licenses 28 by the LESSEE shall be held to waive the covenants contained herein 29, without the written consent of the LESSOR as to any further assignment 30 or subletting in whole or in part or hypothecation or the granting of 31 any further concessions or licenses. 32 17. XI 1 HYPOTHECATION 2 If LESSOR should give its written consent to the hypothecation 3 of the LESSEE'S interest hereunder by mortgage or trust deed no mort- 4 gagee or trustee, nor anyone who claims by, through, or under such 5 mortgage or deed of trust thereof, shall by virtue thereof acquire any e greater or more extended rights than the LESSEE under this Lease and 7 any such mortgagee or trustee and all persons who claim by, through 8 or under such mortgage or deed of trust shall in every respect be sub - 9 ject to all of.the conditions, covenants and agreements of this Lease 10 and the rights, powers and privileges of the LESSOR. Each and every it person acquiring title under said mortgage or deed of trust to the 12 leasehold interest granted by this Lease, either by foreclosure or sale; 13 under power of sale, shall expressly accept and assume all the terms, 14 covenants, conditions and agreements of this Lease, to be kept and z 15 performed by the LESSEE, and shall become personally bound to comply 18 therewith and perform the same, 18 ado 17 If the leasehold interest hereby created shall, with the written if 18 consent of LESSOR be mortgaged or conveyed by deed of trust by LESSEE, 19 and if the LESSOR shall be notified in writing thereof and of the name 20 and address of the mortgagee or trustee, LESSOR agrees that notice of 21 default in the performance of the covenants, conditions and agreements 22 of this Lease, of the same kind and in the same manner, and for the 23 same length of time as are hereby required to be given the LESSEE, 24 shall also be given to such mortgagee or trustee. 25 26 XII 27 DEFAULT AND TERMINATION OF LEASE 28 1. Default. Time and each of the terms, covenants and condi- 29 tions hereof are expressly made the essence of this agreement. 30 If the LESSEE shall fail to comply with any of the terms, 31 covenants, or conditions of this Lease, including the payment of the 32 rentals herein reserved at the time and in the amounts herein required, 18. " 1 and shall fail to remedy such default within fifteen (15) days after 2 service of a written notice from LESSOR so to do if the default may 3 be cured by the payment of money, or commence in good faith ro remedy, 4 any other default within fifteen (15) days and thereafter diligently 5 prosecute the same to completion, or if LESSEE shall abandon or vacate 8 the leased premises, LESSOR may, at its option, and without prior 7 notice or demand, terminate this Lease and enter upon the leased 8 premises and take possession thereof and remove all persons therefrom 9 with or wit:l:nout process of law. Upon such termination, LESSEE shall 10 ray a sum of money equal to the amount, if any, by which the cash 11 value of the rent reserved hereunder for the balance of the term 12 exceeds the then cash value of the premises for the balance of the 13 term. In the event of such termination, LESSEE shall have no further 14 rights hereunder, and all improvements shall become the property of d 15 the LESSOR. g 18 LESSOR may, at its option, elect to re -enter and take possession �0 17 of said premises and re -let said property or any part thereof for the 18 account of the LESSEE, for such rent and upon such terms as shall be 19 satisfactory to the LESSOR, without such re -entry working a forfeiture 20 of the rents to be paid and the covenants to be performed by the LESSEE: 21 during the full term of the Lease. For the purpose of such re- letting, 22 the LESSOR is authorized to make any repairs, changes, alterations or 23 additions in or to said premises that may be necessary or convenient 24 and if a sufficient sum shall not be realized monthly from such re- 25 letting, after paying all of the costs and expenses of such repairs, 28 changes, alterations or additions and the expense of such re- letting 27 and the collection of the rent accruing therefrom each month to satisfy 28 the rental herein required to be paid by the LESSEE, then the LESSEE 29 will satisfy and pay such deficiency each month upon demand therefor. . 30 2. Removal of Fixtures. All trade fixtures, equipment and signs 31 installed by the LESSEE and any sublessees or holders or owners of any 32 concessions or licenses agreement shall be and remain the property of 19. 1 2 3 4 S e 7 e 9 10 111 12 13 14 18 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 the person, firm or corporation installing the same, and shall be removable at any time during the term of this .,Lease, or within sixty (60) days after expiration or sooner termination hereof, provided the LESSEE is not then in default hereunder. The removal of such fixtures, equipment and signs shall be at LESSEE'S expense and LESSEE shall re- pair any damage.or injury to the leased premises or any building, structure or improvement located thereon occasioned by the installation or removal thereof. In the event this Lease shall be terminated before the expiration of the term hereof by reason of a breach by the LESSEE of any of the terms, covenants, conditions or agreements of this Lease, all such fixtures, equipment and signs then owned by LESSEE shall be- come the property of the LESSOR and no compensation shall be allowable or paid therefor. 3. Surrender of Possession upon Termination. LESSEE covenants and agrees that upon. the expiration or sooner termination of this Lease the LESSEE will peaceably surrender the leased premises with all build- ings and improvements, in the same condition as when received or con- structed, reasonable use and wear thereof, and damage by fire, act of God, or by the elements excepted. Any improvements built, constructed or placed upon the leased premises by the LESSEE, or anyone holding by, under, or through it, shall remain on the leased premises and become the property of the LESSOR without any coat to LESSOR upon the termina- tion of this Lease, whether by lapse of time or by reason of default. 4. Remedies Cumulative. The rights, powers, elections and , remedies of the LESSOR contained in this Lease shall be construed as cumulative and no one of them shall be considered exclusive of the other or exclusive of any rights or remedies allowed by law,.and the exercise of one or more rights, powers, elections or remedies shall not impair or be deemed a waiver of LESSORS right to exercise any other. 5. Waiver. No delay or omission of the LESSOR to exercise any right or power arising from any omission, neglect or default of the 20. ` 1 LESSEE shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed as 2 a waiver of any such omission, neglect or default on the part of the 3 LESSEE or any acquiescence therein. 4 No waiver of any breach of any of the terms, covenants, 5 agreements, restrictions or conditions of this Lease shall be construed 6 as a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same or any of the terms, 7 covenants, agreements, restrictions or conditions of this Lease. 8 6. Holding Over. It is mutually agreed that if the LESSEE 9 shall. hold over after the expiration of this Lease for any cause, such 10 holding over shall be deemed a tenancy from month to month only, at 11 the same rental per month and upon the same terms, conditions and 12 provisions of this Lease, unless other terms, conditions and provisions 13 be agreed upon in writing by the LESSOR and the LESSEE. 14 XIII 15 NOTICES 18 It is mutually agreed that any notice or notices provided for by '$ 17 this Lease or by law to be given or served upon the LESSEE may be given 18 or served by mail providing for return receipt addressed to the LESSEE 19 as follows: 20 Mr. George P. Carver C/o Ashton, Drohan and Marchetti 21 3345 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 22 23 deposited in the United States mail, or may be served personally upon 24 any person hereafter authorized by it in writing to receive such 25 notice; and that any notice or notices provided by this Lease or by 28 law to be served upon the LESSOR may be given or served by mail 27 providing for return receipt addressed to the LESSOR as follows: 28 Board of Supervisors of the 29 County of Orange Court House Santa Ana, California 30 31 deposited in the United States mail, or may be served personally upon 32 the Chairman of the Orange County Supervisors and that any notice or 21. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 pG 16 E� 17 18 1 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 notices given or served, as provided herein, shall be effectual and binding for all purposes. XIV EASEMENTS, TRUSTS AND WARRANTIES 1. Lease Subject to Easements and Trusts. It is expressly understood and agreed that this Lease and alllights and privileges hereunder granted are subject to all easements and rights of way now existing or heretofore granted by the LESSOR, in, to, under or over leased premises for any purpose whatsoever. It is further understood and agreed that this Lease and any of the rights and privileges herein granted shall be subject to any trusts upon which said lands are held by the LESSOR, and LESSEE coven- ants and agrees, any provision in.this Lease to the contrary notwith- standing, that it will not use or permit said premises to be used for any purpose or purposes inconsistent with any of the trusts upon which said lands are held by LESSOR. 2. LESSOR Makes No Warranties. In the event that this Lease or any provision thereof shall be declared null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction, neither the LESSOR nor any member of the Board of Supervisors or any officer, agent or employee of the LESSOR or of the City of Newport Beach shall be liable to LESSEE or to any person holding under or through it for any loss or damage of any nature whatsoever suffered or claimed to be suffered by LESSEE or such person by reason of such determination. 3. LESSEE accepts the premises in its present condition and assumes all risks incident to the use or occupation thereof. XV MISCELLANEOUS 1. It is expressly understood and agreed that LESSOR does not in any way nor for any purpose become a partner of LESSEE, or a joint venture with the LESSEE. 22. a � ' 1 2 3 4 5 s' 9 10 11 12 13 14 H15 1 16 o §0 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29, 30 31 32 1 2. Inurement. Each and all of the covenants, conditions and. agreements herein contained shall in accordance with the context inure to the benefit of LESSOR and apply to and bind LESSEE, its respective heirs, legatees, devisees, executors, administrators, successors, assigns, sublessees, concessionaires, licensees, or any person who may come into possession or occupancy of said premises or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. Nothing in this paragraph shall in any way alter the provisions herein contained against assignment or subletting or the granting of licenses or concessions. 3. Captions. The captions of articles and paragraphs of this Lease are for convenience only and.do not in any way limit or amplify terms and provisions hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the.parties hereto have executed this Lease the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of California ATTEST: L. B. WALLACE County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of said Board of Supervisors By T eputy 23. LESSOR rge P. carver' LESSEE u cm OF NEWPORT BEACH M:6 :6Ii To: The Honorable Mayor and . City Council From: City Attorney Subject: County Dock lease February 20, 1959 On January 16, 1959, at a special meeting of the City Counol.1, it was ordered that the City of Newport Beach become a party to a proposed action by George P. Carver, the successful bidder on the lease from the County on the County Dock. property. It was ordered that the City should intervene or advise that we will not intervene in time to give the plaintiff an opportunity to make the City a defendant. An action was filed by Mr. Carver, the successful bidder, in which he sought an order to compel Mr. Warner, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, to execute the lease on behalf of Orange County. On February 11, 1959, we filed a complaint in inter- vention in which we united with the petitioner and requested that the Court order Mr. Warner to sign the lease on behalf of the County. The matter was heard by the court on February 13, 1959, and subsequently the court granted the writ of mandate compelling Mr. Warner to sign the lease. Although I have not discussed the case with the County Counsel's office since the writ was granted, it is not expected that an appeal will be taken from the court's judI'_44 g,m . ent W W. Charanza WUdC:mec City Attorney cc - City Manager HARRY ASHTON FRANCIS E.DROHAN 'MILO MARCHETTI,JR. EUGENE J. LANDAU u�l Ashton, Drohan and Marchetti L A W Y E R S SUITE 206 3345 NEWPORT I BOULEVARD Ne,T,rt B... A,Cali[pOmi, ,ORIOLE 3 -7160 January Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Newport Beach City Hall Newport Beach, California Re: George P. Carver -- County Lease Gentlemen: :4 , 1✓--r V � V MJ- �D Its JAS ('ji [ ULw t.1' COyOF In connection with the Lease between George P. Carver and the County of Orange, as contrasting agents for it- self and the City of Newport Beach, this office is ins formed that, notwithstanding the resolution of the County Board of Supervisors accepting the bid of Mr. Carver on this Lease and directing the County Coune6l to prepare such lease, Willis Warner, Chairman of said Board, has indicated his intention of refusing to sign the Lease on behalf of the Board on advise of counsel* In order to early out the intention of the Board's res- olution it will be necessary for Mr. Carver to institute an action for a Writ of Mandate in the Superior Court seeking to require Mr. Warner as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to sign said Lease on behalf of the County Board of Supervisors. In our opinion the City of Newport Beach, because of It's partial ownership of the real estate involved is a desir- able party to this action and could well join with Mr. Carver as plaintiffs therein or could intervene in said action as an interested party. The law provides that such a party who refuses to join as plaintiff or inter► Tone in the action may be made a defendant therein and in our opinion this is desirable. In the interests of conserving tine, and in the event that such Writ is granted, we would like to get it filed as soon as possible and respectfully request that you take such action as the Council deems advisable at as early date as possible. We understand that your next rego Hon. Mayor and 01ty Counoil -2- January 13, 1959 ular meeting is not until the 26th of January and we would definitely prefer to have your decision within the neat two or three days, Processes of the court are slur enough in any ease and our client is anxious to get started on this project and if possible, complete it In time for the summer season. We will appreoiate your advise of your decision in the matters Yours very truly. ASHTON, MORAN & MMORETTI HA:jh eei Robert Shelton Walter Charamaa 11 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS E OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA January 7, 1959 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, was held January 7, 1959 at 9:30 A. hL The following named members being present: Willis H . Warner-, Chairman; C.M. Featherly, William J. Phillips, WM. r', Hirstelr, C.M. Nelson and the Clerk. IN Fig: Fi` 'OI,UTION OF Tian: CITY OF 4'WPOF_T. BEACH APPROVE:' AWARDING OF BID ORANGE COUNTY DOCK PROPERTY N: WPORT 'IO[aRR DF V 'ts'L O.P M1 H,N T On motion of Supervisor F'eatherly, duly seconded and unanimously carried, the Resolution from the City of Newport Beach dated January 7, 1950, approving the acceptance of the bid of George P. Carver as Newport Tower Development for the lease and development of Orange County Dock property' was received and ordered filed. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Orange, }� 1, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ea- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and seal this 7th day of January, 1959. L. B. WALLACE County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California loM -6 -68 To: Frown: 0 CITY ATTMNEY City Clerk City Attorney January► 6, 1959 Subject: Proposed resolution for the approval of the County's accepting the bid of George P. Carver on the County dock property. Forwarded is a proposed resolution whioh, if adopted by the City Council, will approve the acceptance of the bid of George P. Carver as Newport Tower Development by the Board of Supervisors. I believe Counoilman Somers will want a certified copy of the resolution to present to the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday. WWC:mee Enos, Walter W. Charamsa City Attorney nC- i 1 2 3 4 5 6 I. 7 ,I 81 91 101 i 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29. 30 } 31 32 1 s Ate' WM UZI AOC £' UMOE B'. dpi", 4' IE ' Tun -; z O TRE Ri*PMA V'v VIM i , 2x. '; .� aM�i6rliyY¢M 3 .� +.+..mss 4 c t 5 AMM, 0040CILUM ov tc 6 7 Al 9 io 11 12 13 14 15 � 16 17 I 1.8 i9 20. 21 . 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 e I 2 E I OPERATION SCHEDULE ESTIMATED COST OF LAND IMPROVEMENTS & BUILDINGS ESTI_MA_T_E_D COST OF Description Cost Description Motel - 36 modern units with approx- Comp. Furnishing imately 400 sq. ft. each 298,800.00 Tower Building - consisting of a. Coffee Shop 190,000.00 OC e I 2 E I OPERATION SCHEDULE ESTIMATED COST OF LAND IMPROVEMENTS & BUILDINGS ESTI_MA_T_E_D COST OF Description Cost Description Motel - 36 modern units with approx- Comp. Furnishing imately 400 sq. ft. each 298,800.00 Tower Building - consisting of a. Coffee Shop 190,000.00 Furniture & kitchen facilities b. Sky Room Restaurant & Bar Turniture & kitchen facilities c. 12 Professional Offices 168,400.00 Floor cover & drapes for (c) &.(d) d. 16 Apartments 389,000.00 e. Commercial Area 73,600.00 Lobby f. Glass Elevator 60,000.00 Commercial Building consists of 5 stores 49,000.00 Boat Slips & Bulkhead 89,420.00 Clubhouse consisting of Service Bar (food & drink) 95,360.00 Assembly Hall Pool & Recreation facilities 10,000.00 Ground' Improvements Parking (basement & :ground level,) 190,260.00 Walks Patio, Decks, etc. 11.100.00 Sub Total $1,624,960.00 Plus Resident insp. 21,000 Arch fee 6 3/47 121 500 . , j Permit & License 1,400 Bond 1k% 19,300 Lawyer fee 3,000 i Survey 300 166,500.00 TOTALS $1,791;460.00 Furniture & Service facilities Rental Equipment & FIXTURES Cos 39,600.00 150,000.00. 65,000.00 27,700.00 2,000.00' 4,500.00 1°5 , 0,00.00 Service('food & drink)59,568.00 Club membership 25,000.00 Boat Rentals 26,400.00 ' Misc. rental equip. 5,000.00 gift shop,etc. 20,000.00 Sub lease at 10% of 53,611.00 gross Administ. Mat'ls, 500.00' Maint.Repairs -cost to 15,700.00 operate =50% of gross 60% of gross 12,000.00 General Operating Costs a.Comp. Maint.Land & 90,000,00 Bldg. b.Labor -1 Manager 12,000.00 1 Asst. Mgr. 6,000.00 1 Gen.Maint, 4,800.00 2 Desk Clerks 10,000.00 2 Sales Clerks 5,500.,00 c.Office Materials 1,200.00 d,.Advertising 2,500.00 e.Taxes on improvements 33,000.00 f.'Insurance 12,000.00 $1,195,399.00 1 $893,531.00 Total Income less operating cost = $301,868.00 NOTE: The above estimated gross income is based on fixed rent for the stores. On a percentage basis, assum- ing an average gross sales per store of #50,000.00, the total would be increased by 0308,000.00 to #1,503,399.00. ESTIMATED GROj SS I PER YEA ESTIMATED OPERATING COST PER YEAR ___- -- Description ost Description Cost 36 Unit's 147,831.00 65 covers- Coffee Sub lease at 10% of Shop 142,350.00 gross 128,115.00 170 covers- P,es'tr. 558;450.00 Sub lease at 10% of gross 502,605.00 10,000 sq. ft. 52,800.00 16 Apartments 96 „000.00 2 Comm. stores 12,000.00 5 Comm. stores 30,000.00 20 - 50 ft. slips 20,000,00 I Repairs & Maint. 20% 4,000.00 Service('food & drink)59,568.00 Club membership 25,000.00 Boat Rentals 26,400.00 ' Misc. rental equip. 5,000.00 gift shop,etc. 20,000.00 Sub lease at 10% of 53,611.00 gross Administ. Mat'ls, 500.00' Maint.Repairs -cost to 15,700.00 operate =50% of gross 60% of gross 12,000.00 General Operating Costs a.Comp. Maint.Land & 90,000,00 Bldg. b.Labor -1 Manager 12,000.00 1 Asst. Mgr. 6,000.00 1 Gen.Maint, 4,800.00 2 Desk Clerks 10,000.00 2 Sales Clerks 5,500.,00 c.Office Materials 1,200.00 d,.Advertising 2,500.00 e.Taxes on improvements 33,000.00 f.'Insurance 12,000.00 $1,195,399.00 1 $893,531.00 Total Income less operating cost = $301,868.00 NOTE: The above estimated gross income is based on fixed rent for the stores. On a percentage basis, assum- ing an average gross sales per store of #50,000.00, the total would be increased by 0308,000.00 to #1,503,399.00. U � NEWPORT TOWER JUSTIFICATION OF OPERATION SCHEDULE ESTIMATED COST OF LAND IMPROVEMENTS AND BUILDINGS Contractors, Millie & Severson, and, Paulin & Starling provided an estimate of cost for the 'buildings and land improvements. Their Individual estimates varied only 2 %. Mr; Paul Trautwein was con- sulted as to the feasibility of basement parking and provided an estimate of cost for the Bulkhead and Slip construction. The total estimated cost, of land improvements, buildings, slip and bulkhead totaled $1,624,960.00 Which we felt represented a fair and realistic budget figure. It is the leasers intent to erect and have in operation the 36 unit motel, bulkhead and slip construction by July 1, 1959, all other land improvements and buildings to be completed and' in operation by mid - summer of 1960, contingent upon lease agvment, building permits, etc. ESTIMATED COST OF FURNITURE AND FIXTURES Areas to be furnished either all or in part are as follows: 1. 36 Unit Motel Building - completely furnished 2. Tower Building a. Lobby completely furnished b. Coffee.Shop - completely furnished with exception of expense items, silverware, dishes, etc. c, Sky Room Restaurant and Barr completely furnished with exception of expense items,, silverware, dishes, etc. d. 12 Professional Offices - floor covering only e. 16 Apartments - floor covering, kitchen and utility area only EWA- 3. Club House- completely furnished with exception of expense items, silverware, dishes;, etc. Mr. Giles, Sales Manager for Barker Brothers Hotel Division and several other interior design and decorator firms were consulted to arrive at an estimated cost of the required furnishings. The average estimated cost of $168,800.00 was used for our budget figure. KSTIWED GROSS INCOME PER YEAR The general basis of operation used in estimating the gross income was that the leaser and, /or his agents would manage the development. The restaurants and bars would be leased at a percentage of gross income. Commercial areas, the apartments, offices, and boat slips would be individually leased at a fixed monthly rate; motel and other recreational activities would be operated by the management.. Basis of Income 1. Motel Building - (36 units) The basis of gross income was based on an average rate of $15.00 per unit /day, at an occupancy factor of 75% per year. Comparable motel developments in the area ;rent for an average price of about $18.00 per unit /day during the summer season and about $12.00 per unit /day during the winter. our assumption of $15.00 per unit /day is believed to be conservative as there are usually additional charges for more than two people per room, etc. The occupancy factor is comparable with the Disneyland Hotel, Jansca Inn, and hotel average for Southern California. 2. Tower Building a a. Coffee Shop - basis of income was established that 65 covers at an average of $1.50 per cover would be turned over 4 times per day. This figure was checked by customer counts at the Snack Shop in 'Corona del Mar and the Blue Dolphin in the Lido Shopping Center, as these are considered a comparable type of coffee shop. .b. Sky Room Restaurant and Bar - basis for gross income was established that 1`70 covers at an average of $3.00 per cover would 'turn over 3 times per day. Mr. J. Drulner, Mr. E. Dunkin, and Mr. W. Holder, successful restaurant operators, were consulted in arriving at this figure. There are other methods of estimating the gross income but all parties agreed that the total would be essentially r the same. C. Professional Offices - the office space represents a total of 10,000 square feet. We used a base rate of $.44 per square foot per month which is the present rate of the Bay Lido Building, just across the bay from this location and has only a few offices with a view comparable to ours. The Lido Professional Building, with only partial view offices, charges $.40 per square foot and has a waiting 1 -1st.. a Ip `f d. Apartments - there will be 16 apartments which we have .• estimated to bring an average of '$500.00 per month each, The Balboa Bay Club, which has the only apartments in this area which can be considered comparable, charges $650.00 per month, including maid service for a two bedroom apartment. We feel that we are some what conservative in estimating'$400.00 per month for a two bedroom apartment and $600.,00 per month for a three bedroom apartment with maid service. e. Commercial Area - the Tower Building would contain two commercial stores at an average monthly rental of $500.00 each. Similar stores in the Lido Shopping Center rent for $25.00 per front foot per month. We reduced our rental charge to approximately two - thirds of this figure because our stores do not have great depth.. 3, Commercial Building - There are -five stores which we would rent at $500.00 per month each. (See 2 e above). 4.a. Boat Slips -Boat owners and slip owners were contacted in the Newport Harbor area as to the requirements and price per foot. The average price today is $1,50 per foot, however, with the increasing demand, this price is rapidly being bid up to $2.00 per foot. It is our opinion that first class slips, including lockers & shower facilities for the boat owners and additional lockers for their boating gear, will bring $1.75 per foot per -F month. The slips would be constructed to accommodate 50 foot boats, maximum. 5. Miscellaneous Income a,. Club Membership - a club would be organized for a maximum of 250 members who's interest would be in boating,, swimming and other recreational activities suited to the Newport area. 'Membership fee $100.00 per year. b. Boats., swimming Suits, towels, water skis;, etc. would, be rented. c,. Service Bar located in the Clubhouse would cater to club parties, and /or residents of the motel. d. Gift Shop - a souvenir type gift shop would be located in the lobby. ESTIMATED OPERATING COST PER YEAR Description Cost Coffee Shop,, Sky Room Restaurant and Clubhouse service facilities leased at 107 of gross, _sales $684.331.00 Cost of sales for rental equipment and gift shop & boat slips $ 31,700.00 Administration, includes maintenance of land & buildings, advertising, taxes, insurance, etc. $177,500.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST PER YEAR $893,53'1.'00 Ira R ,t MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA April 22, 1958 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, was held Apr 11 229 1958 at 9:30 A. M. The following named members being present:. Willis H. Warner, Chairman; C. M. Featherly, William J. Phillips, Wm. H. Hirstein, Heinz Kaiser and the Clerk. PBOPOSEED 111,,.."E AGf3;:EM-L.".NT USE C cc, NH'.00PT BEACH On motion of Supervisor Kaiser, duly carried, fenneth Sampson, Harbor Ennager, wr4s with the City of Newport Beach for a proposed Dock property. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, .1 r_L Ci seconders euthor.1 z lease of 3v ' F; "iY CITY OF ?n c`• unanimously =d to neFpotiate the Orange County r, ti if Y u )es. County of Orange, j 1, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify the foregoing to be a full, tAe and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my band and sea} this 22nd day of - April, 1958 L. B. WALLACE County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of ,om , -se Supervisors of Orange County, California CITY OF NE1TPORT REACH CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT Date March 26._1958 To: City Clerk- Treasurer From: City Attorney Subject: Lease Agreement -- County Dock Property On March 21, 1958, we received from the County Counsel's office these seven copies of.the proposed lease agreement, all of which have been executed and six of which contain the acknowledgment, of the signatures of Willis H. Warner and Mabel L. Casteix. The date of execution has been changed from the lst day of April to the 5th day of March, which is the date indicated on the acknowledgment. You will note that four of these copies have been retyped. The original has been proof -read against the original typed in this office and is satisfactory. All seven copies are in proper form to be executed by the City, and the four copies which have been retyped in the County Counsel's office should be returned to the County Counsel, or three should be returned to the County Clerk and one to the County Counsel as indicated. WWC:mec Walter W. Charamza Encs. City Attorney CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY ATTORNEY To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council From: City Attorney March 6, 1958 Subject: City - County Lease on County Dock Property Forwarded with this memorandum is a copy of the Lease Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and County of Orange,on the County Dock Property, and a Resolution which, if adopted by the City Council, will authorize the execution of the agreement. 'We are advised by the County Counsel's office that the Board of Supervisors approved the Lease Agreement on Wednesday, March 5, 1958, and authorized its execution by the County of Orange. WWC:med Encs. cc - City Manager (Enc.) 611r'il.191�1 I�YA4� Walter W. Charamza City Attorney Director of Public Works (Enc.) To From: Subject: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH. CITY ATTORNEY City Clerk - Treasurer City Attorney RECEIVE FEB 28 'S8 CITY CLERK - TREASURER CITY OF NEWPORT BEACa Date Feb. 28, 1958. County -City lease on County Dock Property Forwarded with this memorandum are three copies of the proposed lease between the County and the City by which the City leases to the County certain submerged and waterfront land in the vicinity of The Arches. In the resolution of the Council ordering this to be placed on the ballot, it was stated that three copies should remain on file in your office. This should go before the Council for final approval of its contents and its execution at the Council meeting of march 10, 1g58. Three copies are being forwarded to the County Counsel's office for final approval of the contents and execution by the County. �rr�rYr WWC:med Walter W. Charamza Encs. City Attorney cc - City Manager (1 enc.) Director of Public Works (1 enc.) •- - =aaYS3. a.,. HEMWCX 2-)921 December 12, 1958 To the Board of Supervisors, County of.Orange, Santa An*, Calif. 707 WEST SIXTEENTH STREET P. O, ■OX 027 LONG SEACH.CALIFORNIA He: 3301 Kest Pacific Coast Highway Newport Beoch,.Colifornia (Portion of Lot L, Tract 919) Gentlemen: The undersigned hereby submits the+ following bid for leas• of the above described property pursuant to Hesolutimn dated September 11. 1958: 1, BASE RENTAL_ $500..00 per month for first 36 months $18,000.00 $18W.00 per month for balance of.564 months of term 1,015,200.00 2. PERCENTAGE RENTAL: (a) For first 20 years 0 2% gross (per month) 600.00 (b) For last 30 years 0 2% of gross (ESTIMATE) per month 200.00 (a) $144,000.00 (b) $72,000.00 3. TEAL RENTAL BID• J. First 36 months (base) $ 18,000.00 2. Last 564 months (base) 19015,200.00 3. First 20 year percentage (Estimate) 144,000,00 4, Last 30 year percentage (6Stlmate) _ 72.000.00 IOTA1 $ 249.200,UU s�ryt�w+s: "Erwca 2-79e1 y, Im *auemens: 707 WEST SIXTEENTH sTRECT LONG BEACH. CALIFORNIA 24 unit apartment house. store, 24 slips for soto.r driven boats and pa-a ng for 156 automobiles. P.61-mated cost of imprevement is $1.750.COG.00. CONDITIONS i. Lease term t� ::matr,(e '40 days after stceptance of plans ar.d spr.rtl:(rt. ors tF Mtriipsi and Ca rty authorit!es and issuance by r u o agencies or any other authority of permits, licenses .. aranchises or approval requi.�ed by law or contrac- tual earr.eac ^t. 2.. Ail publir utilities must be available at site, including water„ sewer, 44i, eJectricity, telephone, wharf access and satisfectGry hegrway easement for ingress and egress. i.. Bulkhead tOnatrUtttor and other improvements to be commenced in 120,1eys end ` �0 oeys - espectire :y. from effective date of leas"... C)-mp :etitn .f. velar 2moroveme ^t will require le or more merits sub ,.rr.i to the tLsta?mary "force Majeur" conditions. 4. Use penm)t rc. 4 :?2 31 C:.ty of Newport Beach issued dune 4, 1951 must remair� in e'!ec` end unrrvored for Multiple rssldeat,a: c:cucsrcy nerein cor.tesplated inn its included business purposes, ARTICI.f li: ei,eg *apt. 6, lines 21 and 22 of proposed lease Must delete wows "or socner termination thereof." c.. ARTICLE IV; Pa•agraph 4. line 23 of proposed lease must spec.'y s p•e.ise percertage of error. Lines 26 to 27 in- s 1ustve to !je de,etPd,. 7.. ARTICLE Xf to be deletea "in toto" from proposed lease. e. A rr("U XIl, Pa•a.grapn 3,. tine 30 of proposed lease, delete `;wtether by laps-i of time or by reason of default. ". cZwIpUf ': HEMLOCK 2-7921 9. ARTICLE XIV, paragraph 1, 2 from proposed lease. Attached Exhibit• 707 WEST SIXTEENTH STREET P. O'DOK 927 LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA. and 3 to be deleted entirely w r. t Atkins A vivo-.t , 140.,0: If- By.` �T:��i ck . -: ' •1 Oa Na Y � Bond number _1521782 of Continental Casualty oapany STATE .OF CAL1FORtVIA, County of Orange 1} aw 1, L. B. WALLACE, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of,. Orange County, California, hereby: certify, the foregoing to be a full, true and correct copy of the minute entry on record in this office M w»g weEmwF, .I have bwenuto set my band and moh# ��l August, 1961.., L. B. WALLACE County Clerk and exofflcio Clerk of the Board as Supervisors o[ Oranye:County. California WONDffi BNlUMISIM 7505 Sunset Boulevard Los Angeles 46, California September 1, 1961 may. Mr. Kenneth Sampson, Manager Orange County Harbor District 1901 Bayside Newport Beach, California „ i Dear Mr. Swanson: Attached herewith are exhibits and financial statoments which you requested. Here are further pertinent feets which you may require. Mr. George Carver °a lease will be assigned to WonderLodge, Ina., if this corporation 1a an approved assignee. WoederLodge is a Calif- ornia corporation with the authorized capital of #5,000,000. The Officers and Directors are Mr. James L. Fallon, President; Mr. Herbert H. Meyer, Treasurer; Mr. Stanley Sevilla, Secretary. WorderLodge, Inc., will be a wholly owned subsidiary corporation of Vandenberg Inn and Hotel, Inc., VanderBowl Downey, Inc., sod eventually hooderBowl, Inc, Any enterprises of WouderlAdge, Inc., will be.fnlly guaranteed and supported by the financial resources of the parent corporations. We have not added WonderBowl, Inc., into this eambia- ation because we are in the process of applying for a permit to issue additional stock and we cannot at this time sake any fundamental add- itions or ehanges in YooderBowl, Ind.'s corporate structure. With respect to the value of the stock of these corporations, the book value as of July 31 of Vandenberg was 42.07 and of VooderBowl Downey, 42.14 per share. If you require any further information, please don't hesitate to call on ae. JLIFA 9 hh'- ae-srs>,y yours, ores L. Fallon_ President WONDER ENTERPRISES L WonderLodge Vandenberg,Inn & Hotel, Inc. 137 unit deluxe motor hotel complete with restaurants, cocktail lounges, banquet facilities. Corner Hiway 101 and Stowell Road in Santa Maria. . WonderLodge of Salinas 173 room deluxe motor hotel, complete with restaurants, cocktail lounges, banquet facilities.. 800 North Main Street, junction of the freeway and Hiway 101. WonderLodge- Jamaica Inn,.Bakersfield 120 room deluxe motor hotel complete with restaurants, cocktail lounges, banquet facilities. On motel row, Hiway 99, 333 South Union Street. Wanderlust Motel. Anaheim 21 unit deluxe motor hotel adjacent to Disneyland Hotel. i WonderBowl- Downey The largest - 64 -lanes - bowling house in the West, with perhaps the largest and most lavish restaurants, snack -bars, cocktail lounges. At the corner of Firestone Boulevard and Rives Avenue in Downey, California. WonderBowl- Anaheim 48 -lane bowling house, the only one in the Disneyland area, with restaurants, cocktail lounges, retail shops. On Katella Road at Walnut, just 600 -feet from Disneyland. LJ 0 • S3t8CVTIVE PERSONNEL James L. Fallon - Chairman and President Stanley Sevilla - Vide- presidennk, Secretary Herbert H. Meyer - Vice = president, Treasurer Thomas E. Dougherty - Vice - president, Customer Relation James Carey - Vice- president, General Manager Hotel Division Baxter Crowe - Vice - president, General Manager Food.and Beverage Clarence Crowley - Vice- president, Comptroller Art Baker - Vice- president, Director of Public Relations N. Richard Lewis - President, N. Richard Lewis 6 Associates, Consultant John J. Cox - President, International Hotels, Inc., Consultant Lee Linton - President, Lee Linton, Architect, and Associates Vice - president and Consultant 0 James L. Fallon - Chairman and President 42 -year old graduate of Regis College, Denver, Colorado. He is President and Chairman of the various "Wonder" enterprises, in addition to owning controlling interest in a stock brokerage firm and advertising agency. Mr. Fallon began his business career in 1945 in a national advertising agency and developed the deep and thorough knowledge of merchandising and promotion that has enabled him to successfully promote his various enterprises successfully. His.original enterprises were financed through public stock sub- scriptions for which he set up his own securities selling and mer- chandising organization. In.less than 2 years of active selling, Mr. Fallon's company sold nearly $8,000,000.00 worth of these se- curities and successfully launched four major companies - two bowl- ing houses, the Vandenberg Inn and Filmaster, a TV and motion pic- ture producing company. Since that time these enterprises have grown, prospered and expanded to those enterprises listed, in addition to one other "Wonder" di- vision called "WonderFair", a one -stop shopping center which will open October 15th in West Covina. The success of these enterprises has depended largely on three factors, which form the basis of • Mr. Fallon's business philosophy: extensive promotion, precise cost controls and top personnel. Stanley Sevilla - Vice - president, Secretary and Counsel 41 -year old Harvard law graduate, who is a partner in the law firm of Axelrad and Sevilla and house Counsel for all "Wonder" enter- prises. Mr. Sevilla specializes in corporate securities law, tax law and business law matters for a wide range of real estate, co -op- erative apartments, and housing tract developments. Herbert H. Meyer - Vice - president, Treasurer 38 -year old Los Angeles State College graduate with a`degree in accounting and finance. In addition to maintaining his own company as an independent business advisor, Mr. Meyer also functions as an officer and member of the Board of most of the "Wonder!' corporations. • • Baxter Crowe - Vice- »resident, General Manager Food and Beverages 48 -year old Mr. Crowe is the vice - president and general manager of, the food and beverage division of the WonderLodges. His background includes four years as general manager of the E1 Adobe Restaurant in San Juan Capistrano, two years in Long Beach at Francois Manhat- tan. His most recent experience was as general manager of the East- land Huddle for three years which operation turned in the best gross and ratio of net to gross in the Huddle chain. He also operated as general manager of the Caribbean Restaurant at the Los Angeles Air- port for Art Williams. Clarence Crowley - Vice - president and Comptroller 49 -year old Mr. Crowley is a graduate of Texas University and law graduate of the Los Angeles University Law School. He is the comp- troller for the 4onderLodge division of the "Wonder" enterprises. For three years he was senior auditor in the Los Angeles office of Price - Waterhouse and president and owner of Washington Evergreen Shippers, Inc:, for eight years. His background also includes three and one -half years as vice - president and treasurer of the Huddle Restaurants and for five years, vice - president and comptroller of the Albert Sheetz Restaurant chain. • Art Baker - Vice- president, Director of Public Relations "Mr. Entertainment" himself is in charge of public relations for the "Wonder" enterprises and lends his great personal charm and appear- ance to the various functions and promotions staged at the Lodges. Mr. Baker is known and beloved the country over. His famed "Art Baker's Notebook" has been heard on network radio for 20 -years and '"Lou Asked For It" was one of TV's top -rated shows for seven con- secutive years. N. Richard Lewis - President N. Richard Lewis & Associates - Consultant Public relations counsel for all of Wonder enterprises, Mr. Lewis who head Lewis & Associates, a public relations agency with assoc- iates in San Francisco, Chicago, New York and Washington, D. C.., is staffed to plan and implement fully integrated public relations pro- grams, agency services include financial public relations functions, publicity, shareholder and employee communications and military and governmental liaison. The agency represents some $200. - million of private and publicly - owned industry and real estate developments headquartered in South- ern California. In addition to Wonder enterprises, agency client • list.include. Rossmoor, a 3,500 -home community near Long Beach, California, the largest residential development in the west. Contact: Ross W. Cortese, developer; William G. Brangham, vice - president for marketing. Ador Corporation (a subsidiary of Poly Industries), the nation's lead- ing manufacturer of aluminum sliding glass doors and windows. Contact: B. J. Morris, general manager; Robert Baggott, general sales manager. Bayside Village, an $8- million mobile home community in Newport Beach. Contact: Marshall Duffield, executive vice - president. Lewis' broad experience in institutional and promotional public rela- tions stems from a varied background as a daily newspaper reporter, International News Service correspondent, news bureau chief of the Automobile Club of Southern California and public relations director for Fallon and Company, one of Southern California's leading adver- tising agencies. A graduate of Ohio University School of Journalism, the 35 -year old public relations executive served as a merchant marine deck officer during World War II and was an Army artillery lieutenant in the Korean War. John J. Cox - President. International Motels. Inc. - Consultant Mr. Cox is one of the best -known executives in the hotel -motel field. Starting with a chain of small motels throughout California, Mr. Cox then became the co -owner and manager of the 78 -unit Lamplighter Motel in Visalia, the manager of the 58 -unit Vagabond Motor Hotel in Sepul- veda, California, and the co- developer of the 100 -unit Skyways Hotel and Coffee Shop at the Los Angeles International Airport. A special- ist in the leasing and selling of hotel and motel properties, Mr. Cox has negotiated leases all over the United States for such companies as Hi -way House, Ramada Inn, and the Lee Hotel chain. He estimates that in the last nine years alone, he has been personally responsible for more than $20,000,000. in hotel -motel sales. Mr. Cox is in charge of site selection and expansion of the WonderLodge chain. Lee Linton - President, Lee Linton, Architect & Associates - Vice - president and Consultant 39 -year old Mr. Linton is a graduate of the University of Illinois, Beaux -Art, School of Architecture. For the past ten years he has been designing a diversified group of projects such as school and church architecture, hotels, manufacturing plants, shopping centers, bowling alleys, restaurants, residential tracts and high -rise office and apartment buildings. All building projects of Wonder enterprises are supervised by Mr. Linton. His extraordinary forte is his ability to build, design and decorate facilities in a manner that effectively attracts customers. • s • VANDENBERG INN & HOTEL, INC. Current Assets Cash on Hand and in Banks Accounts Receivable - Trade Inventories - Food and Liquor Prepaid Expenses Total Current Assets Fixed Assets Building Leasehold Improvements Hotel, Bar, and Building Equipment and Furnishings Automobile Less: 'Reserves Other Assets Liquor License Deposits Investments - Subsidiaries Organization Expense Financing Expense Total Assets Current Liabilities Accounts Payable Payroll Tax Accrual Sales Tax Accrual Insurance Accrual Payroll Accrual Balance Sheet May 31, 1961 ASSETS $ 164,319.18 20,671.33 12,191.05 25,271.22 $ 222,452.78 $ 1,382,452.31 67,346,67 $ 1,449,798.98 LIABILITIES AND NET WORTH Contract Payments Due Within One Year Mortgage Payments Due Within One Year Total Current Liabilities Long Term Liabilities Lease Deposits Contract Payments After One Year Mortgage Capital and Surplus Authorized - 2,500,000 Shares $2. Par Value Issued and Outstanding 2,223,248 Shares Promotional Common Stock Held in Escrow 1,111,624 Shares 499,684.19 5,547.51 $ 1,955,030.68 1,209.13 1,953,821.55 $ 22,541.75 12.00 215,000.00 505,789.58 17.394.00 76D.737.33 $ 2,937,011.66 $ 40,002.89 10,480.01 2,690.59 556.93 12, 642.60 $ 66, 373.02 $ 4,914.00 64,728.00 69,642.00 $ 136,015.02 $ 490.00 8,358.89 535,272.00 $ 4,446,496.00 2,223,248.00 $ 2,223,248.00 544,120.89 Earned Surplus - September 30, 1960 $ 520.43 Profit - October 1, 1960 - May 31, 1961 33,107.32 33,627.75 , Total Capital and Surplus $ 2,256,875.75 Total Liabilities and Net Worth $ 2,937,011.66 LiONDERBOWL- DOWNBY, INC. Dowasy, California Nesa Rental Shoe! . Balance Sheet Replacement Parts - cost As at July 31, 1961 Bowling Alley Pins - Net 23,205.71 ASSETS 679,384.66 Current Assets 6,785.00 Deposits - Refundable Cash: Due From Employees 257.54 Cashier's Funds $ 29451.00 Portion Bank Accounts 471.875.91 $ 474,326.91 Accounts Receivable: 582,051.47 Total Assets Patrons Accounts $ 734.18 Sundry Accounts 28,702,05 290436.23 Inventories: Merchandise for Resale (at cost) $ 190302.66 Trophies and Supplies (at cost) 1.715,41 219018.07 Prepaid Expenses: Unexpired Insurance $ 5,233.79 Licenses 20762.26 Advertising 12,500.00 20,496.05 Total Currant Assets $ 545,277.26 Fixed Assets • Lend $ 5120228.59 Building and Improvements $ 950,535.80 Less: Accumulated Depreciation 40,978.98 909,556.82 Furniture and Equipment $103519271.27 Less: Accumulated Depreciation - 191,117,11 1,160,1%.16 Total Fixed Assets 2,581,939.57 Investments Covina Property S 663,442.11 Scottsdale Property 10002,269.09 Bakersfield WouderLodge 15,000.00 Salinas WonderLodge 57,000.00 Lang Beach Property _ 5.825.00 Total Investments 1,743,536.20 Other Assets Caaea Nesa Rental Shoe! 3,542.05 Replacement Parts - cost 4,407.53 Bowling Alley Pins - Net 23,205.71 Unamortized Loan Expense 679,384.66 Restricted Funds 6,785.00 Deposits - Refundable 30.00 Due From Employees 257.54 Construction Escrow . Organizational Expense - Oumartized 1,458.00 Portion 474.980.98 Total Other Assets .' and Deferred Charges 582,051.47 Total Assets $5,452,804.50 yea - WONMR80WL- DOWNEY9 INC. Downey, California Balance Sheet $ 711,063.70 As at July 31, 1961 LIABILITIES AND CAPITAL 214,393.74 Current Liabilities Accounts Payable $ 14,926.69 Short Term Notes - Bank of America 11,020.00 Dividends Payable 55,209.35 Accrued Payroll 80910.01 Tries Accrued and Collected 80921.26 Accrued Insurance 1,344.17 Sundry Liabilities 371.15 League Trust Funds 7 171.71 Total $ 0 ,874. Long Term Contracts - payments due within 1 year: Due within 90 days $ 502240.25 Balance due within 1 year 239,783.41 290.023.66 Total Current Liabilities $ 3979898.00 Loaf Term Indebtedness Contracts: G, M. A. C, $ 12600.00 Brunswick Corp. 190,261.26 Automatic Pinsetter Corp, 4479558.00 Bank of America 1,298.00 Farmer Bros. 25,000.00 Bank of America 450.000,00 $10055,717.26 Mortgages: Lytton Savings & Loan Assn, $ 711,063.70 R. W. & E. Cleghorn 214,393.74 Nassau Land Corp, 190,256.93 First National Bank of Arizona 895,800.00 2 0111,514s37 Total Long Term Indebtedness $3'.067,231.63 Less: Amount due within 1 year 290,023.66 (shown as current liability) Long Term Indebtedness - due after 1 year $2,777.20747 Other Liabilities Construction Escrow - (see other assets) `; $ 19458.00 Refundable Deposits 27,716;69 Total Other Liabilities 299174.69 Capital and Surplus Capital Stock (cow►) - par value $2.00 Issued and Outstanding: Shares issued - 2,208,374 $404169748.00 Promotional common stock held In escrow - 1,104,187 shares 24208,374,00 $20208,374.00 Earned Surplus: Balance September 30, 1960 $ 77,893.47 Plus: Net Gain October 1, 1960 thru July 31, 1961 72,675,07 Total $ 150,568.54 Deduct: Dividends: Paid $55,209.35 Payable 55,209.35 110.418.70 40.149.84 Total Capital and Surplus 2,248,523,84 Total Liabilities, Capital and Surplus $5,452,804.50 JAMES L. FALLON Statement of Financial Condition As of 6/30/61 ASSETS Current Assets Cash in Bank & On Hand $ 51,081.58 Loans & Notes Receivable - Business 83.163.81 Total Current Assets Securities Newport Productions $ 110,000.00 ConventionLand- U.S.A., Inc: 825,537.00 Fallon and Company 25,000.00 Standard Securities Corp. 100,000.00 Nassau Land Corporation 225,000.00 *WonderBowl, Inc. 843,816.00 *WonderBowl- Downey, Inc: 1,637,974.00 *Vandenberg Inn & Hotel, znc: 683,300:00 Fallon, Kelly & Co. 50,000.00 Surety Development Corp. 51000400 Total Securities Other Investments Partnership Interest - MF Enterprises Other Assets Residence 205,000.00 Vacant Lot 87,500.00 Residence Furnishings 20,000.00 Total Other Assets Total Assets LIABILITIES AND NET WORTH Current Liabilities Accounts Payable Notes Payable Other Liabilities Mortgages Payable - Residence $ 153,967.08 Mortgage Payable - Vacant Lot 45,000.00 Loans 8,500.00 Total Liabilities Net Worth - 6/30/61 Total Liabilities and Net Worth *Promotional shares, for which there is no established market • value, and carried thereon at the stated par value thereof. Remaining securities, residence and lot at market values. $ 134,245.39 4,505,627.00 3,500.00 312.500.00 $$ 4,955,872.39 $ 638.54 50,000.00 207,467.08 $ 258,105.62 4,697,766.77 4,955,812.39 Newport Productions: The principal asset of Newport is its stock in U. S. A. Motel Corporation, which owns and operates the Wanderlust Motel adjacent to the Disney- land Hotel in Anaheim. U. S...A. Motel was independently appraised last year at $489,150.00. Newport also owns interest in various TV sports shows. The $110,000.00 shown here represents Newport's interest in U: S: A. Motel stock and its various TV sports shows. ConventionLand -U. S. A., Inc.: This corporation owns a 27,5 -acre plot adjacent and contiguous to the U. S. A. Motel 5 -acre development at Walnut and Katella Streets in Anaheim. In February, this land appraised at approximately $1,800,000. It is currently under major development for a 400 -room hotel and convention center. Fallon and Company: This is.an advertising agency which services several accounts, primarily those of our corporations which we Control. It is a service company and the asset is primarily in its earning ability. Standard Securities Corporations This corporation is the basic stock selling cor- poration which provided the $8.5- million plus capital that started our various enterprises. This asset is represented by its earnings capacity plus its interest in a 40 -acre plot at Scottsdale and McDowell Road in Scottsdale, Arizona. Nassau Land Corporation: The primary, asset of this corporation is a note in the amount of $225,000.00 due from WonderBowl- Downey, Inc.. • WonderBowl, Inc., WonderBowl - Downey, Inc. and:yandenber , Inn & Hotel, Inc.: These assets are represented by my stock ownership at par value, It may be of interest that WonderBowl, Inc. has paid its second consecutive cash dividend covering its first two years of operation. WonderBowl- Downey paid a cash dividend at the end of its first year of operation. Vandenberg has not yet been in operation for a full year. Fallon, Kelly & Company, Inc.: This asset represents a capital investment of $25,000.00 and capitalized earnings capacity. This is an NASD brokerage house set up for the purpose of establishing a market for our various securities. Surety Development Corporation: This is a real estate brokerage company and the asset represents accumulated surplus. M -F Enterprises: This represents my interest in a motion picture entitled "The Bob Mathias Story" of which I was the producer. Residence: This is my personal home at its actual cost of which I have an equity interest of $50,000.00 plus, in addition to residence furnishings in excess of $20,000.00. Vacant Lot: This is a lot in the Trousdale Estates, Beverly Hills, originally pur- chased for the purpose of building a home. This lot has since been sold for cash. - ,s- f-�, tir �I 1- I I i I - r' I � I I I ,s- . K .. f.a.rv: 1 � Personal • Born May 18, 1918; Denver, Colo. Schools; at Mary High School, Colorado Springs, Colo.; Aegis College, Deaver, Colo, Military Service - US Naval Air Corp, Lt. I Business Vandenberg Inn 6 Hotel, Inc. - President WonderLodge of Salinas 173 Yonderlodge of Santa Maria i17 WonderLodge of Bakersfield /10 " WunderLust of Anaheim tj WonderBowl, Inc., Anaheim - President WonderBowl- Downey, Inc., Downey - President WonderFair, Ino. - Covina - President 5 i 'E,.x+`ii'. � °YtY '.. �_'sT. {'P F� ^.�J$K°h. �n..�"0.^+I+�°F nv.:.']' FtaF.c. ..✓F wF:' ..Jr 9 -5 -61 RE: COUNTY DOCK LEASE < d The documents presented by James L. Fallon, 7805 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles 46, the proposed assignee of the lease between the County (t of Orange and George Carver (Newport Towers), were ordered referred to the Harbor Manager, and the County Counsel for study and report to the Board of Supervisors on September 19,. 1961 at 3:00 P. M. Mr. Hart had a business card of James L. Fallon, indicating that he.is President of Standard Securities Corporation, Hollywood 4 -0171, at the �y Sunset Boulevard address., ' 32 LEASE DOCUMENTS CITY - COUNTY DOCK PROPERTY NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA [.4eF igf•�. CITY - COUNTY DOCK COMMITTEE ORANGE COUNTY SUPERVISOR, ALTON E. ALLEN, CHAIRMAN ORANGE COUNTY SUPERVISOR, WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS ORANGE COUNTY HARBOR COMMISSIONER, RICHARD C. HONER NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCILWOMAN, DOREEN MARSHALL NEWPORT BEACH CITY .COUNCILMAN, JAMES B. STODDARD NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCILMAN, DEE COOK JANUARY 1964 \' r` LEASE DOCUMENTS CITY-COUNTY DOCK PROPERTY Newport Beach, California CONTENTS LEASE DOCUMENTS PAGE Notice of Intention to Lease N 1 -4 Lease Map M 1 Lease Proposal P 1 Bidder Qualification Form Q 1-3 Contents of Lease L Lease Document L 1 -31 Resolution of Board of Supervisors R 1 -5 SPECIFICATIONS Contents of Construction Specifications S Special Provisions s 1 -63 Plans for Lease Improvements (N12.5-1) 12 Sheets (Other than Buildings) January 1964 111 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO LEASE REAL PROPERTY ON COMPETITIVE BIDS 3 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Supervisors of 4 the County of Orange intends to lease the 2.43 acre tract of 5 land known as the "City- County Dock Property ", owned'by the e County and the City of Newport Beach, located on the southerly 7 side of the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Newport n Fl l0 11 12 13 14 M � i$ � 18 j 17 Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach, and between said inter- section and the waters of Newport Bay. This property is more particularly described in the lease form attached-to Resolution No. 64-83 of this Board, dated January 21 , 1964, which is on file in the office of the County Clerk for Ipublic inspection, and copies of which will be mailed on request. The lease shall be for a term of approximately 44k, years, expiring June 30, 2008. A public hearing will be held by the Board in its Chambers in the Court House, Santa Ana, California, on the 181125th day of March , 1964, at 11:00 o'clock ? M. 19 for the purpose of considering sealed bids thereon, which shall 20 be made on Proposal forms obtainable from the Orange County 21 Harbor District as stated below. 22 The rental shall be various fixed percentages (listed 23 below) of gross receipts from various kinds of business con - 24 ducted on said property, payable monthly, with a specified 25 annual minimum rental beginning in the second year of the lease. 28 Competitive bids are invited in terms of said annual minimum 27 rental, and the lowest acceptable bid which will be considered 28 2911 N 1 1 2 3 4 NCI 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 a� 1S 17 18' i 191 20 21 22 23 24 25 261 27 28 29 30 is the sum of $25,000 per year: The actual and minimum rental rates shall be subject to periodic revision as specified in the lease. Oral bids at least 5% over the highest written bid shall be received upon bid opening as provided by law. All bid proposals shall be binding for 30 days, and this Board reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any informality therein. Bid proposals must be accompanied by a deposit of $25,000 by cashier's or certified check, or a bidder's bond in that amount, to guarantee the deposit of the bond mentioned below, and the execution of the.lease, within 14 days after award. Prior to execution, the lessee must present a performance bond covering construction of the required improvements described below. Among the terms of said lease form are the following additional salient provisions: 1. Certain improvements, including 64 boat slips, parking for 145 cars, landscaping, a small office building, and restroom buildings required for use in connection with the boat slips, costing an estimated $221,700.00, are re- quired to be built by.lessee within 1 year; and the monthly minimum rental during the first year is specified as $600 per month. 2. An additional building at lessee's option in whole or part is to be located, if built, on a 37,000 square .foot site along the southeasterly side of the tract, and must cost N 2 at least $18.00 per square foot. 3. All improvements become the property of lessor upon termination of the lease. 4. The percentages of.gross receipts which will constitute the rental from uses expressly permitted under the lease, subject to monthly payments and an annual accounting, are as follows: (1) Boat Sales - New and Used 1k% (2) Restaurant 2% (3) Bar.(On Sale) 37 (4) Retail Stores, Clothing, Gifts, etc. 3% (5) Motel., Hotel Rentals 6% (6) Apartment Rentals 10% (7) Barber & Beauty Shops 5% (8) Package Liquor (Off Sale) 31/ (9) Ship Chandlery 37 (10) Service & Labor Charges 37. (11) Coin Vending Machines 5% (12) Office Rentals 12% (13) Insurance & Brokerage Commissions 10% (1.4) Club Dues & Initiation Fees 10% (15) Pay Telephones 10% (16) Boat Slip and Related Rentals 22% (17) Parking Fees 22% N 3 �z Rentals from any other uses approved by the County shall be as agreed upon with the County. Copies of the lease form, plans and other documents. may be obtained upon request from the Orange County Harbor District, 1901 Bayside Drive, Newport Beach, California, phone 673 -6440. BY ORDER OF THE BARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA DATED: January 21 , 1964; % E. ST JOHN County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk (SEAL) of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California Publish By''17, Orange Coast Daily Pilot January 31, February T and 14, 1964 N4 i 00 i i Q V I I 1 I U tl � ly A _8 Q zo W Q m V.. L QQ Jm W z a C Q V zO N a u • o . u o N F V W V 2 2 O N F J Y d 7 M3 U. � E n W rc a V 2 Y K a a W u Z < u O d J Cc, V o Z } 4 W 0 0 0 0 0 D 8 N N N N N N N W W W W W W W C C C C C 6 C Q Q Q Q Q S Q < O 1� b M O 10 W W Of Y O Jt N N I n U� Q 4 F- S_ K W d p W W W • N m Iti W W W 4 T W 4 W W M i N W T W 4 6 2 0 W J Z K J W< T} N m F C W • O 1'• T N W W 3 V Z W Z q O f • 4 C O O W J Q N O < N •} S N Y M • W U F• W m N W ¢ f O ,J K S J } y O W 4 4 W Y 4 7 W T J O~ W a Y W W J 2 4 0 co W 4 Z W ^ Z J Z J 0 q V Z 2 V N O j 6 u O W u W Z V} q J q J d < J S 4 N N J 4 V 6 W N V O W O W 4 0 N 7 < •- Q �- Y m m L � O C J W J Z '- a Iv N W VI O C i Z} W Z N U Z 4 i O C S Z m w Z Z F O W f W- 2 0 !- 0 W C Z N W 6 W Z Z O w O - V m N U V> O O W N S C} f W w O U • 'j Z 4 W O C O ti S W} W d C `a } = N O h m O Y W W O 4 C 3 Y} .J C O • C O a d L 4 O 6 W O: Z V W N= o 11 O W Y W w S 6 N O C O J Y J J J— 3 S S ' t Z 4 •- O W < Q W W O Q K 4 w 1' !- Z} o W W 0 2 W O- N m L } Z>> 0 0 K 4 O O Z v V N x V T, O N 4• w W 6 0 0 O } W 4- W W W X 2 p J 4 �- Y O C¢ 6 Y 4 0 0} m V O V N N 6 } Z f u 0 N W U 1 •. V N Z N Z -I Y W 2 W 1: w < W< R. - H W N m 6 g a Z U f Y- J F- } W J Z w W 2 0 T 4 Z Z W W 6< O< 4 Z O C •- J O N d W U t J O m} Z O W S} C O U O W K d 4 W f C O J 4 C M S !1 J 0 O} 4 < W N T T• W h 4} ,W O V O N I• W N O 4 U 4 O L D S< O • T `. C Y G} m E W= W C} C d C W O- O O d d 4 Z d =? O I--. W 4 0 O S 7 Z T 2 N K 3 W O W 3 Y a 3- O C Z 4 2 4 S U— 6 N O< d Z H m} Z} m J W J K V 4 W 0 0� Z O J Z W] O 'Dt - Z V- W 2 W 6 Z E} O N w W d 0 } J Y W O} Z W -= p 0 C 6; O L Z J 4} N (,) d < d 1 Z U i • 2 C W 4 6 a Z W V W 0 • 1- < V< W m 0} W N Y C W 2 F• O O Z< C- W V> W W W W C Z J Y i W Z O W 6 S J N- O Q N W �� O W C J_ S U }< W Z W O< N a w J N r N< W H t}- Z W} U Y 9 N N G N N W W 4 C W 0< N S W }- a--- L m 2 <- O U Q 6 U W- w J vl (- O D U V 4 r O W 3 O J 0.C,6.`e7E -v /- 3i -4V- LEASE PUPOSAL For LEASING "CITY-COUNTY DOC :, PIMPCRTY" NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Name of Bidder Business Addres Business Telephone Individual, partnership or corporation If a corporation, incorporated in which state The undersigned bidder hereby proposes to lease from Orange. County, acting in behalf of itself and the City of Newport Beach as owners, the 2.43-acre tract of land known as the "City- County Dock Property" located on the southerly side of the intersection of the Pacific Coast Highway and Newport Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach, California, as more particularly described in the lease form approved by Resolution No.6SF^-eF3 of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange dated .4^ lrl' 1964, and on file as an attachment thereto in the office of the Counnty Clerk of said County, under said lease form, and according to the other provisions of said Resolution. The undersigned hereby bids a minimum rental therefor in the sum of Dollars $ ) per FR§Ht k (at least $ � * and agrees that this bid shall be binding for a period of 30 days after the date of opening. This bid is accompanied by (indicate whether a deposit by cashier's or certified check, or a bidder's bond) in the amount of $25,000.00, payable to the County of Orange, guar - anteeing'the deposit of the bond described in Paragraph 6 of said Resolution, and the execution of th) lease on said form, within 1L, days after award. 1/44r C r4z t'/ F l GHT7E Off' .'cPYJD typed or printed name of bidder By (typed or printed name and title of signer) P 1 BIDDER RUALI FI CATI ON FOA14 FULL NAME BUSINESS ADDRESS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA BUSINESS TELEPHONE NO. RESIDENCE ADDRESS RESIDENCE TELEPHONE NO. HOME OWNERSHIP? YES NO MARITAL STATUS LIST IN ORDER, STARTING WITH TIME MOST RECENT, THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON BUSINESS IN WHICH YOU WERE EMPLOYED OR HAD AN INTEREST DURING THE PAST 15 YEARS. (use additional sheets of paper, if necessary) Name of Business Dates Address of Business Type of Business Interest or position Number of employees Number supervised by you Business Bank Annual Gross If a service business, the maximum number served in a day If not still affiliated, reason for leaving HAVE YOU EVER BEEN ARRESTED? YES NO IF YES, STATE WHERE, WHEN, REASON, AND DISPOSITION OF MATTER. DO YOU CONSENT TO BEING FINGERPRINTED? YES NO Q1 A recent and complete financial statement is attached, Dated , 19 WITNESS: doing business as BY. BY. (CORPORATE SEAL) By President ATTEST: Secretary IMPORTANT NOTICE: If the proposal is by a corporation, the above information must be supplied for the president, secretary, treasurer, and general manager; if by a partnership, for all partners; and, if by an individual, for the in- dividual. Additional information may be required as to all such persons and as to others interested in the proposal. (use additional sheets of paper, if necessary) Q 2 LIST FIVE CHARACTER REFERENCES: NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE LIST FIVE CREDIT REFERENCES: NAME ADDRESS CITY STATE STATE SPECIFICALLY AND IN DETAIL THE SOURCE OR SOURCES OF CAPITAL YOU IN- TEND TO INVEST: IN THE FOLLM41 NG SPACE, OR ON ADDITIONAL PAPER; STATE THE REASONS YOU FEEL QUALIFIED TO CONDUCT THIS BUSINESS AND SUPPLY ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOURSELF, YOUR BUSINESS, OR YOUR PLANS FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE LEASE- HOLD WHICH YOU FEEL WILL BE HELPFUL TO THE COUNTY IN EVALUATING YOUR PRO- POSAL FOR THIS LEASE AND THE OPERATION OF THE BUSINESS ON THE CITY - COUNTY DOCK PROPERTY - NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA. Q3 1 2 3 4 S B 7 8 9 10 11, 12 13 141 S� 1B $0 17 181 191 j 20 21 221 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 City- County Dock Property Lease C O N T E N T S Sub ect Page L- 1. Descri tion of Premises i p (a Lanus included 1 b Submerged land 4 2. Term 3. Improvementpt s (a escr on: time limit (b) Plans and Specifi- cations (c) Strict compliance M Statement of costs Become Lessor's property (f) Space for Harborbigt -t (g) Short-term dock space 4. Rentals a ercentage Rental b) Minimum Rental (c) Accounting year (d) Payment of rentals (e) Place of payment and filing (f) Definition of Gross Receipts (g) Permit & license fees (h) Delinquent install- ments (i) Revision of % rental (j) Adjustment of Mini- mum Rental 5. Records & Accounts (a ) Bookkeeping (b) Inspection �c) Annual statement d) Audit 6. Maintenance (a essee o do (b) Lessor may elect to do (c) Right of Inspection (d) Compliance with laws 7. Lessee to Pay All Taxes, Utilities, etc. .7 0 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 11 12 12 13 14 15 15 15 16 16 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 O F L E A S E Par. Subiect 7,(b) Utilities (c)Mechanics liens 8. Indemnity & Insurance (a) indemnity (b) Liability (c) Fire 9. Eminent Domain or De- struction ot Premises a). .Eminent domain b) Destruction 10. Alienation or As- S1 nmen a essor's consent (b) Effect of attempt (c No waiver , 11. Default & Termination (b) Terminatirn settlement (c) Subtenants continue (d Re -entry (e) Removal of fixtures (f) Surrender of possession �g) Remedies cumulative h) No waiver (i) Holding over 12. Notices 13. Easements Trusts & arranties a ease subject to easements & trusts (b) Lessor makes no warranties 14. Miscellaneous (—aT7o partnership or joint venture (b) Inurement (c) Captions Execution Page L- 18 18 19 19 20 20 21 21 22 W*1 23 23 24 24 24 25 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 29 30 30 30 30 L III 2 3 41 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 141 d 18 t Im 16 18 17 181 19 20 21 22 23 24 281 261 27 28 2911 30' L E A S E THIS LEASE, made and entered into this day of , 1964, between the COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "LESSOR ", and hereinafter referred to as 'USSEE ", W I T N E S S E T H: 1. Description of Premises. (a) Lands included in leasehold. In considera- tion of the rents herein reserved and of the covenants and agreements herein contained to be kept and performed by the LESSEE, the LESSOR hereby leases to the LESSEE, for the purposes hereinafter set forth, the following described lands situated in the County of Orange, State of California: Four parcels of land situated in the City of Newport Beach, being a portion of Section 28, T -6 -S, R -10 -W, S.B.B.M. and more particularly described as follows, to wit: Parcel No. 1 Beginning at a point on the westerly line of Lot L of Tract No. 919, as said tract is laid out and shown upon a map recorded in Miscellaneous Map Book 29, Pages 31, 32, 339 34, Official Records of Orange County, California, said westerly line bears N. 11° 57 35" E., said point being distant L 1 1 60.00 feet measured along said westerly line of Lot L and northerly of U.S. Bulkhead Line between U.S. 2 Bulkhead Station No. 128 and 128A, as said U.S. j Bulkhead Lines and Stations are laid out and shown 3 upon a map titled "Harbor Lines, Newport Bay Harbor ", approved by the Secretary of the Army, February 15, 4 1951, and on file in the U.S. District Engineer's Office, Los Angeles, California, a radial line 5 through said points bears N. 25° 00' E; thence westerly along a curve concave to the South, and e having a radius of 480 feet and a central angle of 46° 16' 46" an arc distance of 387.71 feet to an 7 intersection with the aforementioned U.S. Bulkhead Line lying between U.S. Bulkhead Stations No. 128 8 and 227B; thence northwesterly along said U.S. Bulkhead Line a distance of 49.27 feet more or less 9 to the southeasterly corner of Parcel No. 2 of that certain easement described in deed to the State of 10 California from the City of Newport Beach, recorded in Book 3680, Page 54, and dated October 17, 1956, 11 Official Records of said Orange County; thence north- easterly along the easterly line of said last mentioned 12 Parcel No. 2 to an intersection with the southeasterly line of Parcel No. 1, described in deed to the State j 13 of California from the County of Orange recorded in Book 3680, Page 50, and dated October 1% 1956, Official 14 Records of Orange County; thence northeasterly along the southeasterly line of said Parcel No. 1 15 to the most easterly corner of said parcel; thence northerly along the easterly line of said Parcel No, 1 8 18 to an intersection with the southerly line of that certain parcel of land described in deed to the 6 17 State of California from the County of Orange recorded in Book 293, Page 158, and dated June 29, 1929, 18 Official Records of Orange'County; thence.easterly along the southerly line of said last mentioned parcel of 19 land to an intersection with the westerly line of the afore - mentioned Lot L, of said Tract No. 919; 20 thence S. 11° 57' 35" W. along the westerly line of said Lot L, to the point of beginning. 21 22 23 Parcel No. 2 24 All that parcel of land lying between the southerly line of Parcel No. 1 as described herein and the U.S. 25 Bulkhead Line between Stations 128A and 227A as said U.S. Bulkhead Lines and Stations are laid out and 28 shown upon a map titled "Harbor Lines, Newport Bay Harbor ", approved by the Secretary of the Army, 27 28 29 L 2 30 o � o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. 9'. 10''. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 February 15, 1951, and on file in the U.S. District Engineer's Office, Los Angeles, California, and lying westerly of the westerly line of Lot L of Tract No. 919, as shown upon a map recorded in Miscellaneous Map Book 29, Pages 31, 32, 33, 34, Official Records of Orange County, California. Parcel No. 3 Beginning at the U.S. Bulkhead Station No. 227A as U.S. Bulkhead Lines and Stations are laid out and shown upon a map titled "Harbor Lines, Newport Bay Harbor ", approved by the Secretary of the Army, February.15, 1951, and on file in the U.S. District Engineer's Office, Los Angeles, California; thence northwesterly along the north- westerly prolongation of the U.S. Bulkhead Line between U.S. Bulkhead Stations No. 227A and 227B in a direct line to the northeast corner of that certain parcel of land described in deed to the State of California from the City of Newport Beach, recorded in Book 3111, Page 125, and dated June 12, 1955, Official Records of Orange County, California; thence generally southwesterly along the boundary of said last mentioned parcel to the most.southerly corner thereof; thence southwesterly along the southwesterly prolongation of the northwesterly line of said parcel of land to an intersection with the North Channel Reservation Line as recorded in Book 162, Page 1, Official Records of said Orange County; thence easterly along said Channel Reservation Line and its northeasterly prolonga- tion to the U.S. Bulkhead Station No. 226A as said Bulkhead Stations are laid out and shown upon a map titled "Harbor Lines, Newport Bay Harbor "; thence northeasterly along U.S. Bulkhead Line between U.S. Bulkhead Stations No. 226A and 227A • distance of 85.88 feet; thence northeasterly in • direct line to U.S. Bulkhead Station No. 227B; thence northwesterly along U.S. Bulkhead Line to U.S. Bulkhead Station No. 227A, the point of beginning, Parcel No. 4 That certain parcel of land described as parcel 2 in deed to State of California from the County of Orange recorded in Book 3680 page 54, L 3 1 Official Records of Orange County, and containing .06 acres, more or less. 2 3 Parcels No. 1, 2, and 3 are owned in fee by the LESSOR 4 and the City of Newport Beach, and are being leased by the S LESSOR pursuant to the Lease Agreement between the LESSOR a and the City dated March 5, 1958. Parcel No. 4 is owned 7 in fee by the LESSOR, subject to a slope and drainage 8 easement held by the State of California, Division of 9 Highways. 10 (b) Submerged land adjoining leasehold. The 11 improvements shown on the plans mentioned below to be located 12 in the water area outside the leasehold, will be constructed 13 on the water and on submerged lands owned in trust by the 14 City of Newport Beach under a permit issued by the City 15 Council of Newport Beach, and have heretofore been S� 18 authorized by the United States Corps of Engineers. The $0 17 construction and maintainance of such structures are not now IS subject to any annual or periodic fee for the occupancy of 19 such water area and submerged land. Should the policy of the 20 City of Newport Beach change and a fee for such occupancy 21 be imposed by said City, LESSEE would become subject to such 22 fee and with respect thereto would be in the same position 23 as any owner or lessee of uplands fronting on tide or sub - 24 merged lands owned by said City, and using same for piers, 25 26 27 �u L 4 30 II 1 wharves or floating docks. 2 2. Term. 3 This Lease shall be for a term commencing on the date 4 of execution thereof and ending on June 30, 2008. 5 3. Imprcvements to be Constructed by the Lessee. 6 (a) Description; time limit for construction. 7 LESSEE covenants and agrees that it will, at its sole cost g and expense and within the time and in the manner hereafter 9 set forth, construct the improvements described in the plans 10 entitled "Lease Improvements for City - County Dock Property ", 11 Drawing No. N 12.5 -1, consisting of 12 sheets, and Specifi- 12 cations consisting of pages S 1 through S 68, attached 13 hereto and made a part hereof, with the exception of "Building 14 A". LESSEE may, at his option, omit all or any portion of A15 Building A; provided, that if he so omits or delays its V16 construction he shall nevertheless build restroom facilities 17 for the boat slips on the site of Building A or B or both, 18 sufficient to meet standards prescribed by LESSOR and the 19 City of Newport Beach, and provided further that if Building 20 A or any portion thereof is built, its cost of construction, 21 exclusive of trade fixtures and architect's and engineer's 22 fees, shall be at least eighteen dollars ($18.00) per square 23 foot of total gross floor area within the building. 24 LESSEE agrees to complete the construction of the 25 required improvements within one year from the date hereof. 26 No other buildings may be built without written 27 approval of the LESSOR. 28 29 30 L 5 I (b) Detailed plans and specifications. The 2 LESSEE covenants and agrees that within 180 days after the 3 execution of this lease it will, at its own expense, prepare i4 or cause to be prepared and delivered to the LESSOR detailed 5 plans and specifications for all of the buildings and other 6 improvements herein required to be constructed and made by 7 the LESSEE. Before commencement of work on improvements, 8 the detailed plans and specifications must be approved by the 9 LESSOR. 10 (c) Strict compliance with plans and specifications. 11 All of said buildings and improvements, including landscaping, 12 shall be constructed, equipped and made in strict accordance 13 with the detailed plans and specifications approved by LESSOR, 14 and within the time hereinbefore specified. If the LESSEE 115 be delayed in the construction and completion of said buildings 59 B 16 and improvements by acts of God, strikes or other causes 17 beyond the control of the LESSEE, the time for completion shall 18 be extended by the length of such delay or delays. 19 Said buildings, improvements and landscaping shall 20 be constructed and performed in compliance with the applicable 21 laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of the State of 22 California, County of Orange, and City of Newport Beach and 23 other lawful authority having jurisdiction. 24 .(d)- Statement of construction costs. Immediately 25 upon completion, LESSEE shall furnish LESSOR an itemized 26 statement or statements of the actual costs of construction 27 of all buildings, improvements and landscaping work on the 28 29 30 L 6 1 premises. The statements shall be subscribed and sworn to 2 by an authorized officer of the LESSEE. 3 (e) Improvements to become property of LESSOR. 4 All buildings, improvements and fixtures; exclusive of trade 5 fixtures, constructed or placed upon the leased premises by e LESSEE must, upon completion, be free and clear of all liens, 7 claims or liability for labor or material and shall become 8 the property of the LESSOR at the expiration of this Lease 9 or sooner termination thereof. 10 (f) Maintaining space for Harbor District. The 11 finger slip on Dock No. 1 marked "Harbor District" as shown 12 on sheet 6 of the attached plans, and the water area on each 13 side thereof shall be kept free and clear for use by the 14 Orange County Harbor District for the docking of vessels g 15 and for the loading and unloading of persons and property. 18 Space for the parking of one vehicle of the Orange County 17 Harbor District or an emergency vehicle shall be maintained I8 on the land area near said Dock No. 1. i 19 (g) Dock space for short -term use. LESSEE shall 20 maintain 10% of the total lineal distance of dock space 21 constructed hereunder to provide space for vessels on a short- 22 term basis. Vessels regularly berthed at other harbors and 23 temporarily visiting Newport Harbor shall be given priority 24 for use of said space. Within said space LESSEE shall make 25 provision for not less than two (2) such vessels with the 28 maximum beam which the widest slips constructed hereunder 27 will accommodate. Such dock space may be rented for a period 28 29 L 7 30 1 or for consecutive periods not to exceed 5 days each, and 2 upon termination of any such period, as to any vessel, such 3 space shall be made available for use by a visiting yacht 4 not previously occupying said space if application therefor 5 is pending, or secondly to a local yacht not previously e occupying the space if application therefor is pending. 7 Application for use of such space may be made either by the 8 owner or operator of any such vessel or by the Harbor Manager. 91 4. Rentals. 10 (a) Percentage rental. LESSEE covenants and 11 agrees to pay to LESSOR as rental, at the times and in the 12 manner hereinafter provided, an amount equal to the total 13 of the following percentages of the gross receipts from any 14 and all businesses, operations, concessions or activities 15 conducted on or from the leased premises: 6� $ 18 (1) Boat Sales - New and Used 1'k% 1117 (2) Restaurant 2% 18 (3) Bar (On Sale) 3% 19 (4) Retail Stores, Clothing, Gifts, etc. 3% 20 (5) Motel, Hotel Rentals 6% 21 (6) Apartment Rentals 10% 22 (7) Barber & Beauty Shops 5% 23 (8) Package Liquor (Off Sale) 3% 24 (9) Ship Chandlery 37. 25 (10) Service & Labor Charges 3% 28 (11) Coin Vending Machines 5% 27 (12) Office Rentals 12% 28 29 3011 L 8 1 (13) Insurance & Brokerage Commissions 107, 2 (14) Club Dues & Initiation Fees 10% 3 (15) Pay Telephones 10% 4 (16) Boat Slip and Related Rentals 227. 5 (17) Parking Fees 2290 6 Percentage rentals of gross receipts from any other business 7 activities desired to be conducted on the premises and allowed e by applicable city ordinances, shall be as agreed upon by 9 the parties. 10 (b) Minimum rental. LESSEE covenants and agrees 11 to pay to LESSOR a monthly minimum rental of six hundred 12 dollars ($600) per month for the first twelve months, and 13 one- twelfth of the annual minimum rental specified below 14 per month thereafter until the commencement of the next 15 accounting year; and an annual minimum rental per accounting 8 16 year during the balance of the term thereafter in the sum of 17 18 dollars ($ ), subject 19 to adjustment as provided in sub- paragraph (j) below. 20 (c) Accounting year. The accounting year shall 21 be from October 1st to September 30th; except that if LESSEE 22 chooses to have it coincide with LESSEE'S income tax year, 23 it may so determine within one year after date hereof, upon i 24 notice to the County Auditor. 25 (d) Payment of rentals. LESSEE covenants and 26 agrees that on or before the 10th day of each month hereafter 27 it will render to LESSOR a full and correct statement of all 28 29 30 L 9 lI gross receipts for the preceding calendar month. 2 As long as a monthly minimum rental applies to 3 such month; the statement shall show items (1) and (2) below, 4 and the payment shall be the total percentage rental or such 8 monthly minimum, whichever is the greater. e Beginning with the statement for the first month 7 in the first accounting year to which the annual minimum 8 rental applies, the statement shall show: 9 (1) the total gross receipts, itemized as 10 to each of the separate categories thereof upon which 11 the percentage rental herein reserved is based; 12 (2) the itemized amounts of percentage 13 rental computed as herein provided, and the total 14 thereof; 18 (3) the total rental previously paid by 16 LESSEE for prior months of the current accounting 8' 17 year; and 18 (4) the rental due for the preceding 19 month; 20 and LESSEE covenants and agrees to pay, concurrently with 21 the rendering of each monthly statement, whichever of the 22 following two amounts is the greater: (a) the total per - 23 centage rentals for the preceding month [item (2),.above]; 24 or (b). one - twelfth of the annual minimum rental, times the 25 number of months which have elapsed in the current accounting 28 year, less the total rental previously paid for prior months 27 therein [item (3),. above]. 28 29 30 L 10 I (e) Place of payment and filing. All rentals 2 shall be payable at and all statements and reports herein 3 required shall be filed with the office of the Auditor- 4 Controller of the County of Orange, 630 North Broadway, 8 Santa Ana, California. Rentals may be paid by check made e payable to the County of Orange. 7 (f) Definition of gross receipts. The term 8 "gross receipts" upon which the percentage rentals are to be 9 based shall be defined as: 10 (1) including the sale price of all goods, 11 wares, merchandise, and products sold on or from the 12 leased premises, whether sold by the LESSEE, its 13 agents, sublessees, concessionaires or licensees, or 14 whether for cash or on credit, and in case of sales 18 on credit, whether payment is actually made or not; 9 16 (2) including the charges made by the LESSEE, 17 its agents, sublessees, concessionaires or licensees 1s for the sale or rendition on or from the leased 19 premises of services of any nature or kind what - 20 soever, whether for cash or on credit, and in case of 21 credit, whether payment is actually made or not; 22 (3) including all admission, entry and 23 other fees of any nature or kind charged by LESSEE, i 24 its agents, sublessees, concessionaires or licensees; 23 (4) including all sums deposited in any pay 28 telephone or coin - operated vending machines or other 27 devices maintained on said premises, regardless of 28 29 30 L 11 I ownership of the machines or whether such sums are 2 removed and counted by LESSEE or by its agents, 3 sublessees, concessionaires or licensees, and regard- 4 less of what percentage thereof LESSEE is entitled o to receive; e (5) including the rental value of comparable 7 facilities for boat slips, office space, and other 8 facilities used by LESSEE or his employees per - 9 sonally; 10 (b) excluding all sales and excise taxes paid it by LESSEE or its agents, sublessees, concessionaires 12 or licensees to Federal, State, County or municipal 13 governments. Refunds for goods returned shall be 14 deducted from current gross receipts upon return, ` 18 Bad debt losses shall not be deducted from gross 16 receipts * 1117 (g) Permit and license fees. Rentals due hereunder 18 shall not be diminished by the amount of any fee or fees paid 19 by LESSEE or its agents, sublessees, concessionaires or 20 licensees for permits or licenses issued by the City of Newport 21 Beach for the slips and other facilities to be maintained on 22 the city -owned water of submerged land area adjoining the 23 premises, nor shall the amount of such fees be deducted from 24 gross receipts. 25 (h) Delinquent installments. Any installment of 26 rental which shall not be paid when due shall bear interest 27 at the rate of 7% per annum from the day when the same is 28 29 30 L 12 1 payable.hereunder until the same shall be paid. 2 (1) Revision of percentage rental. Any one or 3 more of the above - specified percentages, or of those which 4 may be agreed upon for other businesses, shall be subject a to revision to be effective as of the beginning.of the g accounting year which commences in 1968, and every five years 7 thereafter during the term hereof, upon written demand of . e either party made within six months prior to any such date. 9 Any such revision determined after the beginning of the 10 accounting year shall be retroactive to the beginning thereof. 11 Such revision shall be made by negotiation; but if agreement 12 is not reached within two months after such demand, it shall 13 be made by arbitration under Part 3, Title IX of the California 14 Code of Civil Procedure. i�15 The purpose of such revision and the instructions 16 to the arbitrators, if necessary, shall be as follows: 17 ( ) to adjust the percentages in 1 j p g question to take account 29 of changed relative price levels in various businesses, and 19 changed property values and business conditions since the 20 date hereof or the next preceding such revision; (2) to 21 allow LESSEE a fair return on his invested capital after 22 rent, assuming straight line depreciation of improvements 23 made by LESSEE over the remainder of the term of the lease; 24 (3) to consider such return to be over and above reasonable 26 management costs, assuming prudent management of the premises; 26 and (4) to correct any disproportions between the various 27 percentages in order to provide'LESSEE with equal financial 28 29 3011 L 13 I incentive to conduct the various types of business or sub - 2 lease for them. 3 (j) Adjustment of annual minimum rental. The 4 annual minimum rental specified in subparagraph 4 (b) above g shall be subject to adjustment in proportion to changes in 6 the Consumer Price Index for Los Angeles promulgated by the 7 Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U. S. Department of Labor# e in the following manner: 9 (1) Such adjustment shall be made auto - lo matically and without notice every five yeaw, effective for 11 rental payments due for the accounting year beginning in 12 1968 and every five years thereafter, based upon the average 13 monthly index for the 12 calendar months ending with and 14 including the fourth month prior thereto, and in proportion all18 to the change therein from the average monthly index for the 16 12 calendar months ending with and including the month in �@ 17 which this lease is executed, or the average index upon which 18 the next previous five -year adjustment shall have been based. 19 Such five -year adjustment shall be made regardless of any 20 intervening adjustment made pursuant to the following.paragraph. 21 (2) Either party shall have the right to 22 adjust said annual minimum rental effective as of the begin - 23 ning of any other accounting year, provided said index for 24 the average of the three months ending with the fourth month 26 prior thereto shall have changed at least two percent from 26 the index or average of indexes upon which the then current 27 minimum rental shall have been based. Such adjustment shall 28 i 29 L 14 30 I be made only upon written notice dated on or before the 15th 2 day of the month prior to the beginning of the accounting 3 year, and the adjustment shall be computed as in paragraph (1). 4 5. Records and Accounts. 5 (a) Bookkeeping. LESSEE covenants and agrees that a it will, at all times during the term of this Lease, keep or 7 cause to be kept true and complete books, records and accounts a of all financial transactions in the operation of all businesses, g concessions, services, and activities of whatever nature con - 10 ducted on or from said premises. The records must be sup - 11 ported by documents from which the original entry of the Z2 transaction was made, including sales slips, cash register 13 tapes, and purchase invoices. 14 All retail sales and charges except boat sales 15 shall be recorded by means of cash registers which display is to the customers the amounts of the transactions and auto - �8g 17 matically issue receipts certifying the amounts recorded. 18 The registers shall be equipped with devices which lock in 19 sales total, transaction records, or counters which are not 20 resettable and which shall record on tapes the transaction 21 numbers and sales details.. Cash register readings shall be 22 recorded at the beginning and end of each day. 23 LESSEE covenants and agrees that it will comply 24 with and require all of its sublessees, concessionaires, 25 licensees, agents and employees to comply with the foregoing 26 requirements. 27 (b) Inspection of Records. All books, records and 28 29 L 15 . 30 1 2 3 4 al e 7 a 9 10 11 12, 13I 14 1 16 $� 18 �a 17 18 j 19 20! 21 23, 24'. 231 28 27I, 28 29' 30 accounts of every kind or nature kept by the LESSEE, its sublessees, agents or employees, licensees or concessionaires relating to the operation of any business, concession, service or activity conducted on or from said premises shall, at all reasonable times, be open and made available for inspection or audit by the LESSOR, its agents or employees, upon request, (c) Annual statement of income. Within two months after the end of each accounting year, beginning with that ending in 1965, LESSEE shall furnish LESSOR a statement of income, certified by a certified public accountant who is satisfactory to the LESSOR, showing all gross income re- ceived and accrued from the premises during the previous accounting year, and separately showing that which is in- cluded and that which is excluded or deducted from gross receipts as defined in paragraph 4 (f) above. If such state- ment differs from the total of LESSEE's monthly statements for the year, the necessary adjustment shall be made and paid with or deducted from LESSEE's next monthly payment due after the date of the annual statement. (d) Audit. LESSOR shall have the right to audit any or all such books, records and accounts for the purpose of verifying the percentage rentals required to be paid to the LESSOR hereunder, If such audit shall show that the percentage rental required to be paid the LESSOR is greater than the amount reported or paid by LESSEE, LESSEE covenants and agrees to pay the costs of the audit; other- wise such costs shall be borne by the LESSOR. LESSOR L 16 I reserves the right to install any accounting devices or 2 machines, with or without personnel, for the purpose of 3 accounting or audit. 4 6. Maintenance of Landscaping and Improvements. 6 (a) LESSEE to maintain all landscaping, buildings e and improvements. LESSEE covenants and agrees that during 7 the term of this Lease it will, at its own cost and expense, a maintain the grounds, landscaping, and all buildings, and 9 any other improvements of any kind or nature constructed or 10 installed on the leased premises by the LESSEE, at a high 11 standard of maintenance and repair. Maintenance shall 12 include painting. 13 (b) LESSOR may elect to repair and maintain at 14 expense of LESSEE. If, in the judgment of the LESSOR, such X8119 standards of maintenance and repair are not being maintained, 28 it may at its option, after written notice thereof to the 8 17 LESSEE and LESSEE's failure to commence in good faith to 18 remedy the same within the time herein provided and there- 19 after diligently prosecute the same to completion, elect to 20 correct any deficiency, whether it be in reference to grounds, 21 landscaping, building or improvements. LESSEE covenants and 22 agrees to pay to the LESSOR on demand any and all sums . 23 expended by it in correcting any such deficiency together 24 with an equal sum as liquidated damages by reason of LESSEE's 25 failure to perform and keep this covenant. I£, in the 28 judgment of the LESSOR, the disrepair or lack of maintenance 27 constitutes an emergency, the notice herein provided shall.be. 28 29 L 17 30 I a 24 hours'notice to remedy; in all other cases it shall be. 2 a 5 days' notice. 3 (c) LESSOR'S right of inspection. LESSOR reserves 4 the right by its authorized agents, employees or represeuta- 5 tives to enter the leased premises to inspect the same or B any part thereof at any time and to attend to or protect 'i the LESSOR's interest under this Lease. 8 (d) Compliance with lews� ordinances and reule 9 tions. LESSEE covenants and agrees to comply with all rules. XO regulations, statutes, ordinances and laws of the State of 11 California, County of Orange, the City of Newport Beach, or 12 any other governmental body or agency having lawful juris- 18 diction over the leased premises or the business, enterprises, 14 or activities conducted thereon, 18 7. LESSEE to pay_ all taxes, utilities, etc. '� 18 (a) Taxes. LESSEE covenants and agrees to pay, 17 prior to delinquency, all taxes and assessments upon the I 18 possessory interest created by this Lease and on all improve - 19 ments, fixtures, furniture, and other property owned by 20 LESSEE and used on the premises. 21 (b) Utilities. LESSEE covenants and agrees to 22 pay, prior to delinquency, all charges for sewer, refuse 23 collection, water, gas, electricity and other utilities 24 which may be used by LESSEE, its agents, sublessees, con - 25 cessionaires or licensees, as well as all costs and expenses 28 incurred in the installation thereof. 27 (c) Mechanics liens. LESSEE shall pay all costs 28 29 L 18 30 I of any alterations or additions to any building, structure 2 or improvement located on the leased premises, and shall 3 keep the leased premises and the improvements located thereon 4 free and clear of mechanics liens. LESSEE shall indemnify 8 and save the LESSOR harmless from any and all mechanics liens 6 or claims of lien, costs and expense which may accrue, grow 7 out of or be incurred by reason of or on account of such 8 lien or claim of lien. LESSOR shall have at all times the i 9 right to post and keep posted on the leased premises such 10 notices provided for under and by virtue of the laws of the 11 State of California for the protection of the leased premises 12 from mechanics liens or li.eiis of a similar nature. 13 8. Indemnity and Insurance. 14 (a) Indemnity. LESSOR shall not be liable at 15 any time for loss, damage or injury to the property or person 8 16 of any person whomsoever at any time occasioned by or arising 8 17 out of any act or omission of the LESSEE or of anyone holding 18 under the LESSEE on the premises, or the occupancy or use of 19 said leased premises or any part thereof by or under the 20 LESSEE, or directly or indirectly from any state or condition 21 of said premises or any part thereof during the term of this 22 Lease. 23 Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein con 24 tained and irrespective of any insurance carried by LESSEE 26 for the benefit of LESSOR under the terms hereof, LESSEE 26 agrees to protect, indemnify and hold LESSOR and said 27 leased premises harmless from any and all damages or 28 29 L 19 30 I liabilities of whatsoever nature arising under the terms 2 hereof or arising out of or in connection with the opera - 3 tion carried on by LESSEE or by anyone holding under the 4 LESSEE on, or the use or occupancy of, the leased premises; 5 (b) Liability insurance. LESSEE agrees: e (1) To procure and maintain a policy or 7 policies of public Liability and property damage insurance a in a good and solvent insurance company or companies for the 9 joint and several benefit of LESSEE and the County of Orange 10 and the City of Newport Beach, in amounts not less than set 11 forth below, and under and by the terms of which LESSOR is 12 protected from and insured against any and all loss, damage 13 or liability of whatsoever nature arising out of or in 18 rence, and $50,000.00 for property damage. 20 (2) To deliver to LESSOR copies of all 21 policies and endorsements thereto evidencing the insurance 22 procured by LESSEE under the terms hereof. 23 24 (c) Fire insurance. LESSEE agrees to take out 25 fire and extended coverage insurance with an insurance carrier 26 satisfactory to the LESSOR to protect from loss the interests 27 of the LESSEE and LESSOR in any improvements or installations 28 23 30 L 20 14 connection with the use of or operations on the leased premises 1 15 during the term hereof. The limits of liability on any policy a8 1 18 of public liability insurance shall. be not less than �8 17 $100,000.00 for injury or death of one person, $500,000.00 18 for injury or death of more than one person in one occur- 18 rence, and $50,000.00 for property damage. 20 (2) To deliver to LESSOR copies of all 21 policies and endorsements thereto evidencing the insurance 22 procured by LESSEE under the terms hereof. 23 24 (c) Fire insurance. LESSEE agrees to take out 25 fire and extended coverage insurance with an insurance carrier 26 satisfactory to the LESSOR to protect from loss the interests 27 of the LESSEE and LESSOR in any improvements or installations 28 23 30 L 20 E4 3 4 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 is 14 de 16 tl�d 18 a $ 17 00 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 28 26 27 28 29 30 on the leased premises. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than 80% of the sound and insurable value of the improvements. Certificates of such insurance shall be filed with the LESSOR and shall be satisfactory in form to the LESSOR. Said policies shall have a non - cancellation - without- notice clause and shall provide that copies of all cancel- lation notices shall be sent to LESSOR. If the LESSEE fails to procure or renew such insurance, LESSOR may, in its discretion, procure or renew such insur- ance and pay any and all premiums in connection therewith. All moneys so paid by the LESSOR shall be repaid by the LESSEE to the LESSOR upon demand, with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from date of payment by LESSOR until repaid. 9. Eminent Domain or Destruction of Premises. (a) Eminent domain. (1) If all or any part of the premises are taken under the power of eminent domain, this lease shall terminate as to the part taken and rentals shall be adjusted as provided below, and all sums awarded by the Court or sums paid under a settlement prior to trial shall be apportioned between the County and the LESSEE as provided in (3) below. (2) In the event of condemnation of a por- tion of the premises, the minimum rental for the remaining property shall be reduced in proportion to the lessening, if any, in the income- producing potential of the land, assuming it to be vacant, but subject to the terms of this Lease. (3) The division of the condemnation award L 21 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 8g 18 D '01 17 1811 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 26 271 28 29 30 or agreed settlement shall be in proportion to the respective values of the LESSEE's and LESSOR's interest in the premises; however, the LESSEE's share of any award shall not include any payment for land taken or for any damages to land not taken. The LESSEE's interest in improvements taken, and in compensation for damages to any particular improvements not taken, shall not exceed the replacement cost of such im- provements, or of all improvements in case of a full taking, as of the date of value, less straight -line depreciation computed over the life of the lease. (b) Destruction of buildings or improvements, (1) Partial.destruction: If there be a partial destruction of any of the buildings or improvements of any nature located on the leased property, the LESSEE shall as soon as reasonably possible commence to repair and restore said damage, and shall continue diligently to com- plete said repairs. Such partial destruction shall not in any way cancel or annul this Lease, but the requirement of minimum rental shall not apply during the repairing period. (2) Total destruction: In the event of the total destruction of any building, structure or improve- ment required to be built under paragraph 3 above, LESSEE shall as soon as reasonably possible commence the con- struction, reconstruction and restoration of said building and shall prosecute the same diligently to completion. Any such total destruction shall in no wise annul this Lease L 22 1' 2 3 4 5 s 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 J 16 }F�}$ 16, 0 fig °017 18 19I 20'' 21', 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 except that the minimum rental requirement shall not apply while such restoration or rebuilding is in process. 10. Alienation or Assi &nment, (a) LESSOR's consent required. Neither this Lease nor any interest therein, whether legal or equitable, shall be assigned or sublet, in whole or in part, alienated, pledged, mortgaged or hypothecated, voluntarily or by opera- tion of law, without the prior written consent of the LESSOR; nor shall this Lease be subject to garnishment or sale under execution in any suit or proceeding which may be brought against or by the LESSEE; provided, however, that subleases to business tenants with a term not exceeding five years may be approved by the administrator of this Lease in behalf of LESSOR. (b) Effect of attempt. If the LESSEE, without securing prior written approval of the LESSOR, attempts to effect such a transfer, assignment, sublease, mortgage, or hypothecation; or a transfer occurs by operation of law; or this Lease or any interest therein is subjected to garnish - ment or sale under any execution in any suit or proceeding brought against or by the LESSEE, and the same is not released with 25 days; or if the LESSEE is adjudged bankrupt or in- solvent by any court, or upon the LESSEE's making an assign -. ment for the benefit of creditors; the LESSOR may, at its option, forthwith terminate this Lease upon written notice thereof to the LESSEE and thereupon the LESSEE shall have no further rights hereunder, except as set forth in paragraph 11 L 23 1 below. 2 (c) No waiver. No consent by the LESSOR to any 3 assignment or hypothecation of this Lease or any part thereof 4 or in the.subletting of said premises or any part thereof 8 or to the granting of any concessions or licenses therein by e the LESSEE shall be held to waive the covenants contained 7 herein without the written consent of the LESSOR as to any 8 further assignment or subletting in whole or in part or 9 hypothecation or the granting of any further concessions 10 or licenses. 11 11. Default and Termination of Lease, 12 (a) Default. Time and each of the terms, 13 covenants and conditions hereof are expressly made the 14 essence of this agreement. W 18 If the LESSEE shall fail to comply with any of the Ile terms, covenants, or conditions of this Lease, including 8 17 the payment of the rentals herein reserved, at the time and 28 in the amounts herein required, and shall fail to remedy 19 such default within fifteen (15) days after service of a 20 written notice from LESSOR so to do if the default may be 21 cured by the payment of money, or to commence in good faith 22 to remedy any other default within fifteen (15) days and 23 thereafter diligently prosecute the same to completion, or 24 if LESSEE shall abandon or vacate the leased premises, 23 LESSOR may, at its option, and without further notice or 2$ demand, terminate this Lease and enter upon the leased 27 premises and take possession thereof and remove any and all 28 29 L 24 30 M Pal 3 4 5 e 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 �° 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 persons therefrom with or without process of law. (b) Termination settlement. Upon termination, LESSEE shall pay to LESSOR a sum of money equal to the amount, if any, by which the current cash value of anticipated rent hereunder for the balance of the term exceeds the current market value of the remaining leasehold estate. Anticipated rent shall be deemed to be equal to either the current rate of minimum rental, or the average of the above- specified percentages of gross receipts for all past accounting years beginning with the first to which the annual minimum rental applies, whichever is the greater. (c) Subtenants continue. Upon termination, all sub - leases of portions of the premises shall remain valid, with LESSOR substituted in place of LESSEE thereunder; and any further principal lease of the premises shall be subject thereto. (d) Re- entry. LESSOR may, at its option,.elect to re -enter and take possession of said premises and re -let said property or any part thereof for the account of the LESSEE, for such rent and upon such terms as shall be satisfactory to the LESSOR, without such re -entry working a forfeiture of the rents to be paid and the covenants to be performed by the LESSEE during the full term of the Lease. For the purpose of such re- letting, the LESSOR is authorized to make any repairs, changes, alterations or additions in or to said premises that may be necessary or convenient, and if a sufficient sum shall not be realized monthly from L 25 1 such re- letting, after paying all of the costs and expenses 2 of such repairs, changes, alterations or additions and the 3 expense of such re- letting and the collection of the rent y accruing therefrom each month to satisfy the rental herein 5 required to be paid by the LESSEE, then the LESSEE will e satisfy and pay such deficiency each month upon demand 7 therefor, g (e) Removal of fixtures. All trade fixtures, 9 equipment and signs installed by the LESSEE and any sub - 10 lessees or holders or owners of any concessions or license 11 agreements shall be and remain the property of the person, 12 firm or corporation installing the same, and shall be re- 13 movable at any time during the term of this Lease, or within lg sixty (60) days after expiration or sooner termination hereof, d� 15 provided the LESSEE is not then in default hereunder. The 6� 18 removal of such fixtures, equipment and signs shall be at 1127 LESSEE's expense and LESSEE shall repair any damage or injury 18 to the leased premises or any building, structure or im- 19 provement located thereon occasioned by the installation or. 20 removal thereof. In the event this Lease shall be terminated 21 before the expiration of the term hereof by reason of a 22 breach by the LESSEE of any of the terms, covenants, conditions 23 or agreements of this Lease, all such fixtures, equipment and. 24 signs then owned by LESSEE shall become the property of the 25 LESSOR and no compensation shall be allowable or paid therefor. 26 (f) Surrender of possession upon termination. 27 LESSEE covenants and agrees that upon the expiration or 28 29 L 26 30 1 sooner termination of this Lease, the LESSEE will peaceably 2 surrender the leased premises with all buildings and im- 3 provements, in the same condition as when received or con - 4 structed, reasonable use and wear thereof, and damage by 5 fire, act of God, or by the elements excepted. Any improve- 6 ments built, constructed or placed upon the leased premises 7 by the LESSEE, or anyone holding by, under, or through ft, g shall remain on the leased premises and become the property 9 of the LESSOR without any cost to LESSOR upon the termina- to tion of this Lease, whether by lapse of time or by reason of 11 default, 12 (g) Remedies cumulative, The rights, powers, 13 elections and remedies of the LESSOR contained in this Lease 14 shall be construed as cumulative and no one of them shall be 15 considered exclusive of the other or exclusive of any rights Iz f 18 or remedies allowed by law, and the exercise of one or more s 17 rights, powers, elections or remedies shall not impair or be 18 deemed a waiver of LESSOR's right to exercise any other, 19 (h) No waiver, No delay or omission of the 20 LESSOR to exercise any right or power arising from any 21 omission, neglect or default of the LESSEE shall impair any 22 such right or power or shall be construed as a waiver of any 23 such omission, neglect or default on the part of the LESSEE 24 or any acquiescence therein, 251 No waiver of any breach of any of the terms, covenants, 26 agreements, restrictions or conditions of this Lease shall be 27 construed as a waiver of any succeeding breach of the same 28 29 L 27 30 1 1 or any of the terms, covenants, agreements, restrictions 2 or conditions of this Lease. 3 (1) Holding over. It is mutually agreed that if 4 the LESSEE shall hold over after the expiration of this 5 Lease for any cause, such holding over shall be deemed a 6 tenancy from month to month only, at the same percentage 7 rental, and a monthly minimum rental of one - twelfth the final ' 8 annual minimum rental, and upon the same terms, conditions and 9 provisions of this Lease, unless other terms, conditions 10 and provisions be agreed upon in writing by the LESSOR and 11 the LESSEE. 12 12. Notices. It is mutually agreed that any notice 13 or notices provided for by this Lease or by law to be given . 14 or served upon the LESSEE may be given or served by mail d m 15 providing for return receipt addressed to the LESSEE at the 11816 address shown below LESSEE's execution hereof, deposited �0 17 in the United States mail; or it may be served personally 18 upon any person hereafter authorized by'LESSEE in writing 19 to receive such notice; and that any notice or notices pro - 20 vided by this Lease or by law to be served upon the LESSOR 21 may be given or served by mail providing for return receipt 22 addressed to the LESSOR as follows: 23 Board of Supervisors of the County of Orange 24 Court House Santa Ana, California 25 26 deposited in the United States mail, or may be served person - 27 ally upon the Chairman of the Orange County Supervisors; and that 28 29 L 28 30 I any notice or notices given or served as provided herein 2 shall be effectual and binding for all purposes. 3 13. Easements Trusts and Warranties. 4 (a) Lease subject to easements and trusts, It g is expressly understood and agreed that this Lease and all g rights and privileges hereunder granted are subject to all 7 easements and rights of way now existing or heretofore 8 granted by the LESSOR and,the City of Newport Beach, in, to, 9 under or over the leased premises for arty purpose whatso- 10 ever. It is further understood and agreed that this Lease 11 and any of the rights and privileges herein granted shall 12 be subject to any trusts upon which said lands are held by 13 the LESSOR and the City, and LESSEE covenants and agrees, 14 any provision in this Lease to the contrary notwithstanding, a 15 that it will not use or permit said premises to be used for 18 any purpose or purposes inconsistent with any of the trusts 17 upon which said lands are held, 18 (b) LESSOR makes no warranties. In the event 19 that this Lease or any provision thereof shall be declared 20 null and void by a court of competent jurisdiction, neither 21 the LESSOR nor any member of the Board of Supervisors or any 22 officer, agent or employee of the LESSOR or of the City of 23 Newport Beach shall be liable to LESSEE or to any person 24 holding under or through it for any loss or damage of any 25 nature whatsoever suffered or claimed to be suffered by 26 LESSEE or such person by reason of such determination. 27 LESSEE accepts the premises in its present condition and 28 29 L 29 30 I assumes all risks incident to the use or occupation thereof. 2 14. Miscellaneous. 3 (a) No partnership or ioint venture. It is 4 expressly understood and agreed that LESSOR does not in any e way nor for any purpose become a partner of LESSEE, nor a 8 joint venturer with LESSEE. 7 (b) Inurement. Each and all of the covenants,. 8 conditions and agreements herein contained shall, in 9 accordance with the context, inure to the benefit of LESSOR 10 and apply to and bind LESSEE, its respective heirs, legatees, 11 devisees, executors, administrators, successors, assigns, 12 sublessees, concessionaires, licensees, or any person who 13 may come into possession or occupancy of said premises or any 14 part thereof in any manner whatsoever. Nothing in this para- �, 18 graph shall in any way alter the provisions herein contained 18 against assignment or subletting or the granting of licenses 17 or concessions. 18 (c) Captions. The captions of paragraphs and 19 subparagraphs of this Lease are for convenience only and 20 21 22 23 24 26 28 28 30 1{ L 30 do not in any way limit or amplify the terms and provisions hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Lease the day and year first above written. COUNTY OF ORANGE, a political subdivision of the State of California ATTEST: W. E. ST JOHN County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of said.Board of Supervisors By puny By Chairman —of—Its oar of Supervisors LESSOR By LESSEE Address L 31 1 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 3 January 21, 1964 4 On motion of Supervisor Allen , duly seconded 3 and carried, the following Resolution was adopted: 8 WHEREAS, the County of Orange and the City of Newport 7 Beach are the owners of a tract of real property known as. 8 the "City- County Dock Property ", located at the intersection 9 of Pacific Coast Highway (U.S. 101, Alternate) and Newport 10 Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach, California, and between 11 said intersection and the waters of Newport Bay, consisting of, 12 2.43 acres, more or less, which is more particularly described 13 in the lease form attached hereto and made a part hereof; and 14 WHEREAS, the County of Orange and the City of Newport 18 Beach, by Lease Agreement dated March 5, 1958, have agreed 16 that said tract should be leased as a single unit; and 5 17 WHEREAS, by the terms of said Lease Agreement the County 18 of Orange has been designated and authorized to lease said 19 tract; and 20 WHEREAS, it is in the ,judgment and determination of this 21 Board that it is for the best interest of the County of Orange 22 to lease said tract, 23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED as follows: 24 1. That it is the intention of this Board to lease the 28 above described property. 26 2. That the terms under which it shall be leased are 27 those set forth in said lease form attached hereto, which is 28 29 R. 1 30 I Resolution No. 64 -83 i hereby approved, and which shall remain on file in the 2 office of the County Clerk of the County of Orange. 3 3. That the highest bid within the meaning of Section 4 25530 of the Government Code of the State of California a shall be the proposal which offers the highest annual minimum 8 rental for said tract, to be set forth in paragraph 4 (b) of 7 said lease form; and the lowest acceptable offer therefor 8 shall be the sum of Twenty -five Thousand Dollars 9 ($25,000.00). 10 4. That on the 25th day of March , 1964, at 11 11:00 o'clock A . M., a public meeting of this Board will 12 be held in its Chambers in the County Court House in Santa 13 Ana, California, at which time and place sealed proposals to 14 lease said property.which have been received will be publicly is opened, examined and declared by this Board. At said time and 18 place this Board will, before accepting any written proposal, 17 call for oral bids pursuant to Government Code Section 25531; 18 and if any responsible person offers to lease the property 19 upon the terms and conditions specified in said lease form for 20 a minimum rental exceeding by at least five per cent (5 %) that 21 of the highest written proposal, then such oral bid will be 221 considered. 23 5. That each bidder must agree in his proposal that it 24 may be accepted by this Board at any time within thirty (30) 28 days after the said opening of bids. Each bidder shall submit 28 with his proposal a cashier's or certified check, or bidder's bond, in the sum of $25,000.00 to guarantee that he will deposit 28 2911 R 2 30 1 the hereinafter mentioned bond and enter into the lease, 2 in the event it is awarded to him, within fourteen (14) 3 days after such award., 4 6. That before the execution of said lease by the 8 County, the lessee shall deposit with the County Clerk a 8 certificate of insurance as to the indemnity coverage re- 7 quired by paragraph 8 (b) of the Lease and a good and 8 sufficient corporate surety bond in favor of the County of 9 Orange in the sum of two hundred twenty two thousand dollars 10 ($222,000.00) conditioned that the lessee will, within one 11 year after execution of the lease, construct the building 12 and improvements required by the terms of said lease form 13 to be constructed by the lessee, all in strict accordance 14 with the plans and specifications therefor, attached to said 16 lease form and hereby approved by the County, and with the S 18 detailed plans and specifications to be approved, and to pay 17 all costs of labor and materials therefor. The bond shall 18 expressly remain in full force and effect until final com- 19 pletion of all of the buildings and improvements which the 20 lessee has covenanted to construct, and until all costs there - 21 for have been fully paid. The form of the bond and the surety 22 shall be subject to the.approval of the County. 23 7. That this Board hereby reserves the right, should it 24 deem such action to be for the best public interests, to reject 28 any and all bids, either oral or written, and to waive any in- 26 formality in any bid received, and to withdraw said property 27 from lease. The County of Orange shall submit to the City of 28 29 R 3 30 A Newport Beach for review and recommendations all bids received for.the lease of the property, together with a statement in writing as to the bid which it proposes to accept. 8. That notice of the adoption of this Resolution and of the time and place for the holding of said meeting of this Board shall be given: (a) By posting copies of this Resolution signed by the Chairman of this Board, with the attached lease form, in three (3) public places in the County of Orange, not leas than fifteen (15) days before the date of the meeting; and (b) by publishing the notice approved by this Board concurrently herewith once a week for three (3) successive weeks before said meeting, the first publication to be more than twenty -one (21) days prior to the date herein fixed for said meeting, in the Orange Coast Daily Pilot , a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in.the County of Orange. AYES: SUPERVISORS ALTON E. ALLEN, C.M. FEATHERLY, DAVID L. BAKER, WM. HIRSTEIN AND WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS NOES: SUPERVISORS NONE ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE R 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, W. E., ST JOHN, County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of January 1964, and passed by a unanimous vote of said Board.. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have'hereunto set my hand and seal this 21st day of January 1964. W. E. ST JOHN County Clerk and ex- ,,of ficio Clerk of the Board of Supet,vi4brs of Orange Cqx ri y, Cali for 4i-a, . R 5 75 LEASE DOGUM, ENTS GAITY�GPOUNTY DOCK PROPERTY av-) NiEWPORT SEACMD GALIFORNIA -f 14'r I 0,11 CITY-COUNTY DOCK COMMITTEE ORANGE COUNTY SUPERVISOR, ALTON E. ALLEN CHAIRMAN ORANGE COUNTY SUPERVISOR, WILLIAM J. PHILLIPS ORANGE COUNTY HARBOR COMMISSIONER, RICHARD C. ;MOWER NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCILWOMAN, aOREJEN MARSHALL NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCILMAN, JAMES B. STODOARD NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCILMAN, DEE COOK JANUARY 1964 m for s LEASE IMPROVEMENTS (Other than buildings) -' z ( CITY- COUNTY -DOCK PROPERTY Newport Beach, California Section Special Provieinns' S 1. Section 9 Excavation and Grading S 4 Section 11 Timber Piles S 7 Section 14 Prestressed Concrete Piles S 9 Section 15 ' Handling and Driving .Timber Piling;. S 12 Section 19 Steel Pipe Piles S 17 Section 20 Aggregate Base S20 „.Section 21 -'Asphalt Paving S 21 Section .22 Concrete Masonry S 23 Section 23 ,Portland Cement Concrete Section 24 Forms. for Portland Cement Concrete S28 Section 25 Portland Cement Concrete Construction S 33 Section 26 Concrete Curbsj'Gutters, Sidewalks y S la driveways and Cross Gutters Section 27 Reinforcing Steel S44 'Section 28 Lumber for Structures S47 • Section 29 Preservative Treatment of Timber and.Piling. S48 ' Section 30, Rough Carpentry S491 Section 31 Rough Hardware S52 Section 32 Zinc (Hot Galvanized) Castings S 53'. Section 33 Pipe Hand rail S 54 Section 34 Structural. Steel .and Miscellaneous Iron S55 Section 3$ Precast Concrete Manholes S56 'Section 36 Clay Pipe Sanitary Sewers S57 Section 37 Cast Iron Sewers and Force Mains S 60 Section .39 Corrugated Metal Pipe � ` S 61 Section 40 Electrical Systems ' : S62 Section kl. Water Systems 564 Section 43:' Painting ... S66 Section 44 Landscaping S67 Plana tl ^Lease Improvements,City- County Dock Property" 112.5-A 12 sheets ! r , Prepared byi ".i', ORANGE COUNTY HARBOR DISTRICT 1901 Bsyside Drive Newport. Beach, California `• ' ti May, 1963 -S_ SPECIAL PROVISIONS 1. SPECIFICATIONS: THE WORK INCLUDED HEREIN SMALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE -: WI TN THE DETAIL SPI CIf ICAT I DNS OF THE' CI TY OF NEWPORT BEACH; THE ORANGE _ COUNTY HARBOR DISTRICT] THE UNIFORM BUI LDiNG. C00 E; AND THE STATE STANDARD -,; SPECIFICATIONS; INSOFAR AS THE SAME MAY .APPLY.AND.401 ACCORDANCE*WITH THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL PROVISION.. IN CASE OF CONFLICT-BETWEEN THE SPECIAL PROVI , SIGNS AND THE DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS# THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS SHALL TAKE -,PRE - ''CEDENCE OVER AND' BE USED IN LtEU.OF SUCH CONFL ICTI NG PORTIONS* - 2. PRETENSIONED CONCRETE PILES: THE GENERAL DESIGN OF THESE PILES ARE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 14 OF THE DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS, -AND ON SHEET ND. 11 OF - .f.THE ,DRAWINGS. --THE CROSS SECTION OF THE�PILE.$HALL BE SQUARE AND SMALL HAVE :A, MINIMUM AREA or 144 SQUARE INCHES. THE MINIMUM OFFINAL*PRESTRESS SHALL BE 800 P.S.I. AND INITIAL PRESTRESS SHALL NOT EXCEED'70% OF MINIMUM ULTIMATE _ ' •STRENGTH - FORSTRESS- RELIEVED STRAND.-THE MINIMUM CONCRETE COVER SHALL BE THREE (3) INCHES. THE DEPTH OF SURFACE VOIDS SHALL NOT EXCEED ONE -HALF (Z) .INCH. V010 DEPTH IN EXCESS OF THIS WILL FURNISH REASON FOR PILE REJECTION 3. JETTING OF'PILES: JETTING WILL BE PERMITTED DOWN TO THE LAST FIVE (5) #FEET OF PENETRATION, IF DRIVING OF THE ;LAST FIVE (5) FEET PROVES EXCEPTION- ALL 111 IS DANGER'TO THE PILE IN FURTHER.. DRIVING #.TN EH JETTING - ;{ WILL BE PERMITTED UPON APPROVAL OF THE INSPECTING*AGENCY. 4. :.SECURING PILE CAP TO PILES: THE ONE -AND ONE -HALF (I ) INCH BAR SHOWN `'. AT THE TOP Of THE PILES SHALL BE CENTERED AS'NEAR AS POS S ;BLE TO THE CONCRETE - CAP AND FULLY GROUTED FOR THE SPECIFIED. LENGTH IN'EACH PILE. IF THE CONCRETE ..CAPSARE "PRESENT# AMPLE TIME AFTER GROUTING SHALL BE ALLOWED BEFORE PLACING THE, PILE CAP TO ALLOW THE GROUT TO DEVELOP. SUFFICIENT. STRENGTH TO KEEP THE -:`ROD FROM MOVING. THE VOIDLIN THE PILE CAP $HALL BE FULLY GROUTED BEFORE THE _ .. PIER DECK IS PLACED AND THE GROUT SHALL -BE GIVEN TIME TO HARDEN SUFFICIENTLY TO HOLD THE CAP IN ITS PROPER PLACE: IF THE CAPS ARE TO BE POURED IN PLACE THE BARS SMALL BE THOROUGHLY GROUTED PRIOR TO POURING THE 'CAPS. 5. NOTIFICATION OF PILE MANUFACTURER: AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME AFTER SIGNING THE CONTRACT AND BEFORE COMMENCING ANY WORKS THE .CONTRACTOR SHALL 'NOTIFY- THE-INSPECTING AGENCY IN WRITING OF THE NAME'AND.ADDRESS OF THE FIRM THAT WILL MANUFACTURE AND SUPPLY THE PRETENS "IONED, CONCRETE PILES- FOR THIS WORK. - 6., SEWAGE LIFT STATION AND APPURTENANCES: THE WORK COVERED BY THIS SEC- TION INCLUDES ALL PLANTS LABORS MATERIALS# EQUIPMENTS EXCAVATIONS BACKFILL - AND ALL INCIDENTAL WORK AND SERVICES REQUIRED- -IN CONNECTION WITH THE CON- -. STRUCTION OF THE SEWAGE LIFT STATION HEREIN SPECIFIED AND SHOWN IN THE DRAW 1 HGS. - (A). VAULT AND WETWELL - THE CONCRETE PUMP VAULT AND'WETWELL SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO .ECTION 35, "PRECAST CONCRETE MANHOLES", AND SEC- T16N 23# "PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE ". CONCRETE FOR S B y A AS PREVIOUSLY DEFINED. MANHOLE COVER SHALL SE .MODEL A-1264 AND SAFETY STEPS SMALL BE A -3330 AS MANUFACTURED" BY ALHAMBRA FOUND -RV.OR APPROVED EQUAL•' (B} SEWAGE EJECTOR - FURNISH. AND, INSTALL ONE "PACKEX" SEWAGE EJECTOR AS MANUFACTURED BY YEOMANS, MELROSE PARKS ILLINOIS, OR APPROVED EQUAL, EJECTOR SHALL HAVE CONTINUOUS CAPACITY NOT TO- EXCEED' -2O, G�P.M. AGAINST A ". `TOTAL DISCHARGE HEAD NOT`TO:EXCEED 20,FEET ":INCLUD'ING PIPE FR,ICT_ION WHEN i MEASURED FROM BOTTOM OF EJECTOR PIT ;TO MtGN,POINT "JN DISCHARGE ,LINE. THE .UNIT.$HALL BE COMPLETE WITH: - 8 -63 S (B) STRUCTURAL STEEL — IN ADDITION TO SHOP COAT TO RECEIVE TWO COATS OF PURE PREPARED PAINT, (C) BOAT SLIPS AND RAMPS - ONE COAT OF PURE PREPARED PRIMER AND TWO FINISHED COATS OF PURE PREPARED PAINT. ALL DECK SURFACES SMALL HAVE AN APPROVED NON -SLIP ADDITIVE APPLIED WITH THE ,FINAL COAT OF PAINT. (0) EXTERIOR NATURAL WOODWORK - ALL NATURAL WOODWORK SMALL BE COVERED WI TM SHELLAC SEAL COAT AND TWO COATS OF EXTERIOR SPAR VARNISH. 9. FLAGPOLE AND RAILING: THE CONTRACTOR SMALL FURNISH AND CONSTRUCT TWO . (2) GALVANIZED PIPE FLAGPOLES AS HEREIN SPECIFIED AND SHOWN ON THE PLANS* TYPE I POLE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH TOPMAST. YARDARM, AND GAFFS AND SMALL BE LOCATED DIRECTLY BAYWARD OF THE ENTRANCE DRIVEWAY. TYPE II POLE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH WARNING LIGHTS AND TOPMAST ONLY AND SHALL BE LOCATED AT THE '? SOUTH END OF THE PARKING LOT. POLE BASE SMALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF CLASS "All ' CONCRETE AS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 23 OF THE DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS. ALL PIPE SHALL BE OF THE STANDARD GALVANIZED TYPE. ALL FITTINGS AND APPURTENANCES NECESSARY FOR PROPER OPERATION OF THE FLAGPOLES SHALL BE STANDARD GALVANIZED :'.MARINE HARDWARE AS APPROVED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY. ` THE CONTRACTOR SMALLIFURNISH AND INSTALL AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS FOR TYPE' II POLES ALL ELECTRICAL SWITCH BOXESS WIRING AND NAUTICAL WARNING .CONDUITi LIGHTS IN ACCORDANCE WIT" SECTION 40 OF TME-DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO FURNISH AND INSTALL THE HARDWOOD NAUTICAL "RAILING AROUND EACH FLAGPOLE. SHOP DRAWINGS OF THE RAILING .SHALL BE SUB- MITTED TO THE HARBOR MANAGER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO. CON ST RUCTI ON. ALL PAIN7- + ING•AND FINISHING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PAINTING SCHEDULE HEREIN ., 'AND WITH SECTION 43 OF THE DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS, 10. CONCRETE WHEEL GUARDS: CONTRACTOR $HALL FURNISH AND INSTALL SIX (6) FOOT PARKING BUMPERS AT LOCATIONS SHOWN'ON SHEET42:OF THE DRAWINGS. THE BUMPERS. SHALL BE AS MANUFACTURED BY CONCRETE FLOATS CORP.y TORRANCE. CALI- FO.RNIAs OR APPROVED EQUAL. EACH BUMPER SHALL SECURED BY�TWO 3/4 "x21 -611 ••`.STEEL RODS DRIVEN INTO THE EARTH AND FLUSH WITH THE TOP SURFACE OF THE i.'. BUMPER. II. SPECIAL MARINE HARDWARE: ALL ITEMS OF MARINE. HARDWARE SHALL BE OBTAIN- ..: ED, FROM REPOT ABLE DI OOUCTS. STRIBUTOR OF NAUTICAL PR TYPE AND MODEL OF SPEC- ' -.IAL ITEMS SHALL BE SUBMITTED.TO THE HARBOR MANAGER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO PUR-• - CHASE. 12.. BOAT SLIPS: BOAT SLIP CONSTRUCTION SHOWN ON SHEETS OF THE i- ''DRAWINGS ARE'OF_ TIMBER DESIGN. THE HARBOR MANAGER; MOWEVERs REALIZES THE '.'EXISTENCE OF MANY.VARIOUS TYPES OF FLOAT CONSTRUCTION AND WILL EXAMINE ANY REASONABLE ALTERNATE CONSTRUCTI ON' SUBMITTED BY THE .. CONTRACTOR. .ALTERNATE DE, , '. SIGNS WILL BE BASED ON GEOMETRIC 'EQUIVALENC Em, ':DEAD LOAD FREEBOARD OF L8 INCHES -.'. AND.;LIVE LOAD CAPACITY OF 20 P.S.Fe S 8 -63 i S3 SECTION 9 EARTHWORK AND GRADING: ` I. SCOFEi THE WORK COVERED BY THIS SECTION SHALL CONSIST OF PERFORMING ALL OPERATIONS NECESSARY TO EXCAVATE ROADWAYS, PARKWAYS, SLOPES, BENCHES, DITCHES, CHANNELS OR OTHER, ITEMS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, AND TO CONSTRUCT EMw BANKMENTS AT THE LOCATIONS AND TO THE ELEVATIONS AND FORM SHOWN ON THE PLANS . AND TO SHAPE AND. COMPACT ALL SUBGRADE. UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE PROPOSAL AS SEPARATE PAY ITEMS, GENERAL SITE PREPARATION, CLEARING AND GRUB- '. DING, REMOVAL OF EXCESS GRASS AND WEEDS SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THIS ITEM. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL :FURNISH ALL LABOR] MATERIALS, TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, TRANSPORTATION, WATERING, COMPACTING'AND ALL INCIDENTAL WORK AND SERVICES RE- QUIRED FOR THE SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF THE.ABOVE MENTIONED ITEMS IN ACCORD- . ANCE WITH THE PLANS, THESE SPECIFICATIONS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS. THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE STATE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRAD - ` ..ING AND EARTHWORK SHALL PREVAIL ON ANY ITEMS NOT SPECIFICALLY COVERED IK TMIS .SECTION. _ .. TRENCH AND STRUCTURE EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL ARE DESCRIBED IN SECTION 36 OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS. 2. CLEARING AND GRUBBING: EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, ALL TREES, STUMPS, LARGE ROOTSy BURIED LOGS, DECAYED VEGETABLE MATTER, BURIED JUNK PILES, HEAVY GROWTH OF GRASS AND WEEDS AND ALL OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL SHALL BE RE- 'MOVED FROM THE SITE OF THE WORK OR RIGHT -OF -WAY. NONE OF THE ABOVE MATERIALS SHALL BE PERMITTED TO REMAIN IN OR UNDER EMBANKMENT AND FILL AREAS. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, ALL SHADE TREES AND SHRUBBERY SMALL BE 'PRESERVED, AND SUCH TREES AND SHRUBBERY SHALL BE FULLY PROTECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT HIS - OWN EXPENSE. 36 REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF MATERIAL: EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, ALL OF THE ABOVE MATERIALS ALSO ANY EXCESS EXCAVATION, SHALL BE REMOVED FROM.THE SITE OF THE WORK. NO BURNING OF ANY MATERIAL WILL BE PERMITTED ON THE SITE, .'WHICH VIOLATES ANY CITY FIRE, OR COUNTY AIR.POLLUTION ORDINANCE. 4• EXCAVATION: EXCAVATIONS SMALL CONFORM TO THE LINES, GRADES AND CROSS- .SECTIONS SHOWN, ON THE PLANS. WHEN SOLID ROCK, SHALEy.HARDPAN OR LIKE MATER -; IALS ARE ENCOUNTERED, IN EXCAVATIONS 17 SHALL BE EXCAVATED NOT LESS THAN 6 INCHES BELOW SUBGRADE AND REPLACED WITH SELECT MATERIAL, APPROVED BY THE ;.INSPECTING AGENCY. SAID SELECT MATERIAL SMALL BE COMPACTED TO NOT LESS THAN 90 PERCENT STANDARD DENSITY. (WHENEVER IN THESE SPEC F ICAT I DNS REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE PERCENTAGE OF COMPACTION, IT REFERS TO THE COMPACTION AS OETERMIH ED BY THE CALIFORNIA IMPACT TEST, 5 LAYER METHOD). ALL SOFT OR UNSUITABLE MATERIAL THAT WILL NOT READILY COMPACT TO 90 PERCENT SMALL BE REMOVED TO THE ,DEPTHS SHOWN ON THE PLANS OR ORDERED BY -THE INSPECTING AGENCY AND DISPOSED OF AS DIRECTED. EXCAVATION IN AREAS NOT SHOWN ON THE PLANS OR AUTHORIZED SMALL NOT BE PAID FOR, AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL�'AT HIS OWN EXPENSE, BACKFI LL AND COMPACT UNAUTHORIZED EXCAVATED AREAS TO THE ORIGINAL GROUND ELEVATION, r AND-NO COMPENSATION WILL BE ALLOWED FOR SUCH WORK. ALL ROCKS OR LUMPS OVER 21 INCHES IN SIZE, WHICH WILL NOT BREAK UP UNDER THE OPERATION OF GRADING EQUIPMENT, SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE UPPER 3 INCHES OF THE SUBGRADE AND THE'RESULTING SPACE REFILLED AND COMPACTED WIT" SELECTED .`MATERIAL.. 5. EMBANKMENT: THE WORK CONSISTS OF`PLACINGS WETTING OR DRYING AND COM- `PACTING IN EMBANKMENT AND IN FILL AREAS# THE SUITABLE MATERIAL FROM THE Ek. 8-63' $ 4 I CAVATION OR IMPORTED BORROW AS SPECIFIED OR APPROVED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY, ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE LINES GRADES. AND CROSS- SECTIONS SHOWN ON TME - PLANS.. PRIOR TO PLACING EMBANKMENT OR -FILL, THE AREA SMALL BE CLEARED OF ALL TREES STUMPS# LOOSS DECAYED VEGETABLE MATTER,' HEAVY GROWTH OF GRASS AND - - WEEDS OR OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL AND SHALL BE DISKEOt PLOWEDo BENCHED ' ANO/OR COMPACTED AS DIRECTED, TO INSURE PROPER BONDING AND COMPACTION. NO .. VEGETABLE MATTER OR PERISHABLE MATERIAL SMALL BE PLACED IN OR UNDER FILLS OR "- EMBANKMENTS. 6. PLACING EMBANKMENT? EMBANKMENT SHALL BE PLACED IN SUCCESSIVE HORIZON- . TAL LAYERS OF NOT MORE THAN 8 INCHES IN DEPTHS LOOSE* EACH LAYER SMALL BE - - SPREAD UNIFORMLYO WETTED OR DRIED AS REQUIRED AND ROLLED .WITH .AM APPROVED TAMPING OR APPROVED POWER. ROLLER UNT IL -THOROUGHLY COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT STANDARD DENSITY• WHERE SEWER OR DRAINAGE PIPES ARE.TO BE INSTALLED IN NEW EMBANKMEKTp - THE EMBANKMENT SHALL FIRST BE CONSTRUCTED TO MINIMUM ONE FOOT ABOVE THE PRO- POSED TOP OF PIPEp AFTER WHICH THE TRENCH SHALL BE EXCAVATED AND THE PIPE INSTALLED BEFORE THE REMAINDER OF THE EMBANKMENT IS CONSTRUCTED._ THE MAXI -- MUM HEIGHT-TO WHICH EMBANKMENT MAY SE'PLACED PRIOR TO INSTALLING THE PIPE* - - -- MAY BE VARIED DUE TO THE LOCATION AND TYPE OF PIPE AND AS DIRECTED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY• 7. SUBGRAOE PREPARATION.i THE SUBGRADE PREPARATION SHALL CONSIST OF CON- . STRUCTING A CLASS A SUBGRADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 21 OF THE STATE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. SUBGRADE -IS THAT PORTION OF THE ROADBED ON WHICH - .CLASS -2 AGGREGATE BASE WILL BE PLACED• ` THE FINISHED SUBGRADE IMMEDIATELY- PRIOR TO PLACING CLASS 2 AGGREGATE , BASE THEREON SHALL HAVE A RELATIVE COMPACTION OF NOT LESS THAN 95 PERCENT FOR A DEPTH OF 0.5 FEET. THE FINISHED SUBGRADE SHALL NOT VARY MORE THAN 0.05 FEET ABOVE OR 0.10 FEET BELOW THE PLANNED GRADE. THE SUBGRADE SHALL BE FREE OF SEGREGATED MATERIALS AND SHALL BE SMOOTH AND TRUE TO THE RE- , - QUIRED GRADE AND - CROSS— SECTION. - 8. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT AND REQUIREMENTS:, EQUIPMENT To Bf USED.FOR CoM- PACTING EMBANKMENT AND SUBGRADE SHALL CONSIST OF POWER ROLLERS TAMPING ROLLERS OR PNEUMATIC ROLLERS OR 'A COMBINATION OF SAME. - - AT LOCATIONS WHERE IT WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL TO USE POWER EQUIPMENTS THE EMBANKMENT AND SUBGRADE SHALL BE COMPACTED' TO'THE SPEC.IFIED- REQUIREMENTS -BY ANY METHOD THAT WILL OBTAIN THE SPECIFIED COMPACTION• - - 9. FINISHING SLOPES AND SURFACES: THE SURFACES OF ALL AREAS OR EARTH AND . OTHER MATERIALS SMALL BE FINISHED TO A REASONABLY SMOOTH AND COMPACT SURFACE ��,SUBSTANTIALLY -IN ACCORDANCE.WITH THE SURFACE LINES AND CROSS— SECTIONS SHOWN*.. :. -ORL THE ELEVATIONS INDICATED ON THE PLANS$ OR AS DIRECTED. THE DEGREE OF - -_ FINISH FOR GRADING SLOPES SHALL BE THAT ORDINARILY OBTAINABLE FROM EITHER .- BLADEGRADER OR SCRAPER OPERATIONS OR BY. �HANOSHOVEL OPERATIONSi AS THE CON - TRACTOR MAY ELECT, 10. SUBGRADE ANO EMBANKMENT PROTECTION:. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION AND UNTIL FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORKS EXCAVATIONSs EMBANKMENTS AND SUBGRADES SMALL' -- BE KEPT SHAPED AND EFFECTIVELY DRAINED AT ALL TIMES.- STORAGE OR STOCK PIL- - A NG OF MATERIALS ON THE SUBGRADE WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. NO BASE COURSE OR ASPHALT PAVING SMALL DE PLACED UNTIL THE .SUBGRADE HAS BEEN CHECKED AND APPROVED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCYj s.6s p' S 5' - - --I WATERING: UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ALL MATER USED FOR COMPACTING SECTION 11 TIMBER PILES: . I. GENERAL: UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THE SPECIAL "PROVISIONS, ALL TIMBER PILES SHALL 8E EITHER DOUGLAS FIR PILES OR SOUTHERN YELLOW PINE .. PILES MEETING ONE OR THE OTHER OP THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS. 2. DOUGLAS FIR PILES: A QUALITY: ALL PILING UNDER THIS ARTICLE SHALL BE DOUGLAS FIR, CUT ABOVE THE GROUND SWELL FROM SOUND, LIVE, OLD 'GROWTH TREES, CLOSE GRAIN- - ED, AND SMALL BE FREE FROM ROT, BARKS LOOSE OR UNSOUND KNOTSp KINKS, - TWISTS, FELLING OR WIND SHAKES, DECAY AND ALL OTHER DEFECTS WHICH, IN THE OPINION OF THE INSPECTING AGENCY, MAY IMPAIR IT.S STRENGTH OR DURA- BILITY, OR, INTERFERE WITH PROPER.DRIVING. THE BARK AND INNER SKIN SHALL - - - - BE REMOVEDj AND ALL KNOTS SHALL BE SMOOTHLY DRESSED CLOSE TO THE BODY OF THE PILE, AND BUTTS AND TOPS SHALL BE CUT .SQUARELY ACROSS. WHERE TREAT- . - MENT IS SPECIFIED, ALL PILES SHALL BE PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE " STANDARD REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICAN WOOD PRESERVERS ASSOCIATION MAN - UAL OF RECOMMENDED PRACTICES AS SUPPLEMENTED OR REVISED- AT THE DATE OF - RECEIVING BIDS. ALL PILES SHALL HAVE AT LEAST. THREE- QUARTERS (3/4) - INCH OF SAPWOOD. PILES .SHALL BE FREE FROM DAMAGE BY INSECTS AND SEA - BORERS, ANO.SHALL BE FREE FROM BARNACLES OR OTHER RELATED MARINE LIFE. -- _ .. - (8) STRAIGHTNESS AND SIZE OF TIMBER P.ILES: ALL TIMBER PILES TO BE _ ACCEPTABLE TO THE INSPECTING AGENCY SHALL NOT'SHOW IN ANY TEN (10) - -FEET LENGTH, TAKEN AT RANDOM AND AT ANY LOCATION ON THE PILE, A DEVIA- TION FROM A STRAIGHT LINE OF MORE THAN ONE (1) INCH, NOR SMALL ANY PILE SHOW, FROM A STRAIGHT LINE MEASURED BETWEEN EXTREMITIES Of THE PILE, A TOTAL DEVIATION OF MORE THAN ONE -(I) INCH FOR EACH TEN (IO) FEET OF LENGTH OF PILE. - - - (C) DIMENSIONS: ROUND PILES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DIAMETER AT THE TIP, MEASURED UNDER THE BARK, AS FOLLOWS: LENGTH OF PILE - TIP DIAMETER LESS THAN 40 FEET .................. :. F INCHES - :.. 40 FEET TO 60 FEET ................. 701 1 ... OVER 60 FEET ....................... 611 11 - . THE MINIMUM DIAMETER OF PILES AT ,A - SECTION 3 FEET FROM THE BUTT, MEASUR4 '. ED UNDER THE. BARK,.SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: - - - - LENGTH OF PILE. DIAMETER IN INC "ES 'DOUGLAS FIR AND ALL OTHER SOUTHERN PINE - - SPECIES- .. 20 FEET AND UNDER ..... II" INCHES III INCHES . -21 FEET TO 30 FEET..... 121. "If 121 It 31 FEET To 40 FEET..... 12'l ° - 1311 OVER 40 FEET........... 1311 n. 141 n THE DIAMETER OF THE PILE AT THE BUTT SHALL NOT EXCEED 2011 INCHES. THE DIAMETER OF, A PILE IN- CASES -WHERE THE TREE IS "NOT EXACTLY ROUND SMALL BE DETERMINED EITHER BY MEASURING THE CIRCUMFERENCE AND DIVIDING THE - - ... NUMBER OF INCHES BY 3.14 OR BY TAKING THE AVERAGE MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM - - DIAMETERS AT THE LOCATION SPECIFIED. SQUARE PILES SMALL HAVE THE - -" 8 -63 s7 .. DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. NO PILE WITH A SPIRAL GRAIN WHICH MAKES ONE COMPLETE TURN IN LESS THAN FORTY (40) FEET.WILL BE ACCEPTED. - (D) ANNUAL RINGS$ PILES, WHICH SHOW LESS THAN SIX (6) ANNUAL RINGS PER INCH IN THE THIRDS FOURTH AND FIFTH INCHESs MEASURED ON A RADIUS FROM THE CENTER LINE OF PILESs WILL BE REJECTED. (E) TOLERANCES A TOLERANCE OF ONE (1) FOOT OVER OR UNDER THE LENGTHS OF;PILES AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS IS PERMISSABLE AND WILL BE ACCEPTED AS CONFORMING TO THESE SPECIFICATIONS• ' SECTION 14 PRESTRESSED CONCRETE PILES: 1. 'GENERAL: PRETENSIONED PILES TO BE USED SMALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS, BUT IN CASE OF DLSCREPARCI.ES WITH THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS A.ND- - DRAWINGS, THE LATTER TWO SMALL APPLY. THE CONTRACTOR SMALL SUBMIT SHOP - DRAW- INGS AND CALCULATIONS FOR APPROVAL BEFORE MANUFACTURING PILES. - 2. CONCRETE: THE PILES SHALL BE CAST AS MONOLITHIC UNITS OF HOMOGENEOUS CONCRETE WITH 'A MINIMUM 28 DAY STRENGTH OF 5,000- P.S.I. THE CONCRETE SHALL CONTAIN BETWEEN. SIX (6) AND EIGHT (8) SACKS PER CUBIC YARD OF TYPE 11 PORT- LAND CEMENT. CONCRETE SHALL CONTAIN NO CALCIUM CHLORIDE OR OTHER ACCELERA- TORS EXCEPT AIR ENTRAINING ADMIXTURES IF DESIRED BY THE CONTRACTOR. THE - LATTER ADMIXTURE SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE INSPECTING AGENCY FOR APPROVAL -- PRIOR TO USE. AGGREGATES SHALL WEIGH AT.LEAST 140 POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT AND THE MAXIMUM SI2E SHALL BE 3/411. THE WATER CEMENT RATIO SHALL NOT EXCEED FIVE - (5) GALLONS OF WATER PER SACK OF CEMENT. THE RANGE OF SLUMP AS OBTAINED BY ASTM PROCEDURE SHALL BE BETWEEN ONE (I) AND THREE (3) INCHES. THE CONCRETE SHALL.BE VIBRATED INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY, OR BOTH, AS _ REQUIRED TO CONSOLIDATE THE CONCRETE. THE VIBRATING SHALL BE CONE WITH CARE AND IN SUCH A MANNER THAT DISPLACEMENT Or REINFORCEMENT, ENCLOSURES,. AND PRE- - - -- STRESSING STEEL WILL BE AVOIDED. - -_ AT LEAST THREE STANDARD TEST SPECIMENS-SHALL BE PREPARED AT THE TIME THE - - CONCRETE IS' DEPOSITED FOR EACH - PRODUCTI ON LINE TO DETERMINE THE CONCRETE STRENGTH OF THE CASTING AT DIFFERENT AGES* - - 3. DESIGN FACTORS: THE INITIAL PRESTRESS IN STRANDS SHALL NOT EXCEED _.SEVENTY 70 PERCENT OF THE ULTIMATE STRENGTH -Of THE STRANDS AND THE LOSS -- . OF PRESTRESS DUE TO CREEP OR SHRINKAGE SHALL BE ASSUMED TO BE TWENTY PERCENT- - -� (20 %). MINIMUM CONCRETE COVER SHALL BE THREE (3) INCHES WITH CLEAR SPACING BETWEEN WIRE STRANDS OF NOT LESS THAN ONE-AND ONE -HALF (I'f INCHES. i 4. PRETENSIONING STRAND: STRAND SHALL BE OF THE UNCOATED SEVEN (7) WIRE HIGH TENSILE STEEL COLO DRAWN TYPE, STRESS RELIEVED AFTER THE WIRES HAVE BEEN FORMED INTO A STRAND* STRAND SHALL HAVE AN ULTIMATE . STRENGTH OF NOT LESS THAN 250,000 P.S.I. AND AN ELONGATION AT RUPTURE Of NOT LESS THAN FOUR (4) PERCENT IN TEN (10) INCHES. THE STRAND SHALL CONFORM TO A.S.T.M., SPECIFICATIONS - - A416 -57T, UNCOATED SEVEN -WIRE STRESS RELIEVED WIRE FOR PRESTRESSED CONCRETE. ALL STRANDS SHALL BE FREE OF DIRT, RUST, OIL, GREASE OR OTHER. DELETERIOUS .` SUBSTANCES AND SHALL BE ACCURATELY POSITIONED AND HELD IN PLACE BEFORE CON- ' CRETE IS POUR -E0. ALL STRANDS SHALL BE STRESSED UNIFORMLY TO DESIGN LOAD BE- - - FORE CONCRETE IS. POUREDP BY MEANS OF A HYDRAULIC JACK EQUIPPED WITH AN ACCUR� - ATE PRESSURE GAUGE TO PERMIT THE STRESS TO BE COMPUTED AT ANY TIME. ELONGA- TION OF THE STRANDS SHALL BE MEASURED AT THE COMPLETION OF T E TENSIONING - - - - OPERATION AND SHALL CONFORM TO ELONGATION TABLES FURNISHED BY THE MANUFACTURER THE STRAND, TRANSFER OF PRESTRESS SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY THE SIMULTAN- EOUS GRADUAL RELEASE OF ALL STRANDS.BY -THE - HYDRAULIC JACK. STRANDS SHALL NOT BE CUT AND ,PRESTRESS TRANSFERRED TO THE CONCRETE UNTIL THE LATTER HAS ATTAIN -.- - - ED A STRENGTH OF 3500 P.S.I. 5. SPIRAL REINFORCING AND DOWELS: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW THE DRAW - ING -FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SPIRAL REINFORCING AND DOWELS. - - i 6. CURING: PILES SHALL BE CURED EITHER BY WATER, AN APPROVED MEMBRANE PROCESS OR BT THE USE Of CONTROLLED STEAK..CHAMBERS....IF -WATER CURING IS USED, 8 -63 S9 s _. THE PILES SHALL BE COVERED WI.TH HEAVY BURLAP WHICH SHALL BE KEPT SATURATED WITH WATER DURING THE ENTIRE CURING PERIOD. IF STEAM CURING IS USED, SUFFIC- IENT RECORDING THERMOMETERS AND AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE REGULATORS SHALL BE USED TO INSURE. EVEN TEMPERATURES THROUGH THE CURING OPERATION. CURING TEMP- ERATURES SMALL NOT EXCEED 1500 F. AND SMALL NOT B8 APPLIED UNTIL FOUR (4) HOURS AFTER THE INITIAL SET OF THE CONCRETE. 7. HANDLING.AND DRIVING: PILES MAY BE REMOVED FROM THE PRESTRESSING BED FOR STORAGE OR TRANSPORTATION AFTER CONCRETE HAS ATTAINED A'STRENGTM OF AT LEAST 40000 P.S.I. PILES SHALL BE LIFTED, HANDLED, DRIVEN AND SECURED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO AVOID EXCESSIVE BENDING STRESSESP CRACKING, SPALLING OR OTHER INJURIOUS RESULTS. SPECIFICATIONS FOR DRIVING OF PILES.AS CONTAINED . IN THESE SPECIFICATIONS SHALL ALSO APPLY TO THE PRETENSIONED PILES. 8. DRIVING PILES: PILES SHALL BE DRIVEN WITH A SINGLE- ACTING OR DOUBLE- ACTING STEAM HAMMER. THE BEARING VALUE, P, WI LL BE DETERMINED BY THE FOLLOW- ING FORMULAS, EXCEPT THAT. WHERE PILES ARE TO BE SUBJECTED TO LOADING TESTS, THE FORMULA MAY BE MODIFIED AS NECESSARY TO CONFORM TO THE DATA OBTAINED BY' SUCH TESTS. P = 2 E FOR DOUBLE�ACT'ING. HAMMERS; OR P = 2WN'% FOR SINGLE- ACTING HAMMERS] . S 0.1 IN WHICH E EQUALS THE ENERGY IN FOOT- POUNDS PER BLOW, BASED ON AN ACCEPT- ABLE CERTI.FIED STATEMENT FROM: THE MANUFACTURER OF THE HAMMER, W EQUALS THE WEIGHT OF THE RAM IN POUNDS, H.EQUALS THE FALL OF THE RAM IN FEET, AND S . EQUALS THE AVERAGE PENETRATION PER BLOW FOR THE LAST THREE BLOWS IN INCHES. THE VALUE OF E SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 8,700 OR MORE THAN 21,000 FOOT - POUNDS; EXCEPT THAT PRECAST. PILES WEIGHING LESS THAN 10,000 POUNDS AND FOR WHICH THE ,. SPECIFIED BEARING. VALUE IS .80,000 POUNDS OR MORE, THE MINIMUM E SHALL BE 13,000 FOOT- POUNDS AND EXCEPT THAT FOR PRECAST PILES WEIGHING MORE THAN, 10,000 POUNDS AND MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM E SHALL BE 19,000 AND 36,000 FOOT. .. - -- . POUNDS, AND THE TERM 0.1111 THE FOREGOING FORMULAS SMALL BE CHANGED TD 0.3. - . THE VALVE OF WH FOR SINGLE- ACTING HAMMERS.SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN THE WEIGHT OF THE PILE. THE CAPACITY OF ALL DRIVING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE NUMBER OF HAMMER BLOWS PER MINUTE, DURING AND AT THE COMPLETION OF DRIVING -- , 'A PILE,,CAN BE MAINTAINED AT APPROXIMATELY THE NORMAL RATE GIVEN. BY THE MANY - FACTURER OF THE,MAMMER, AN ALLOWANCE SHALL BE MADE FOR REDUCED PENETRATION CAUSED BY SHOCK ABSORPTION OF DRIVING CAPS AND FROM MATERIAL PENETRATED WHICH .WILL BE REMOVED AFTER THE PILE IS DRIVEN. - SHOULD THE BEARING VALUE BE OB - - -- TAINED BY HAMMER DRIVING BEFORE SPECIFIED PENETRATION IS REACHED, A WATER JET SHALL BE USED AND AN ENDEAVOR 'SHALL BE MADE TO SECURE THE SPECIFIED PENE- TRATION. JETTING OF PILES WILL BE PERMITTED AS SPECIFIED IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. THE PILE SHALL BE DRIVEN.TO FINAL BEARING, HOWEVER, WITH THE HAMMER. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO AVOID INJURY TO PRECAST PILES; A CUSHION OF 'APPROVED DESIGN SHALL BE USED AS A DRIVING CAP WHICH SHALL PRECLUDE STRIK•I.NG- . THE ENDS OF THE REINFORCING STEEL. .DRIVING CAPS ANO/OR FOLLOWERS SHALL BE - - - SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT THE HEADS OF THE PILES AND SHALL BE DESIGNED TO REDUCE - ABSORPTION OF THE ENERGY OF THE BLOW -TO.A MINIMUM. - PILES SHALL BE SPACED- - ACCURATELY AND SHALL BE DRIVEN PLUMB OR, FOR BRACE PILES, TO THE ANGLE INOI - - - : CAT£D. PRECAST PILES SHALL BE HELD DURING DRIVING. BRACE PILES HAVING LONG - 8 -6.3. S 10, SECTION 15 HANDLING AND DRIVING TIMBER PILINGS 1, GENERAL: THE PROVISIONS OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS SHALL APPLY SPEC,IFI- .. CALLY TO THE HANDLING AND DRIVING OF UNTREATED OR CREOSOTE TREATED TIMBER PILING. INSOFAR, AS THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OR PLANS.MAY CONFLICT WITH THIS SECTION, THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND PLANS WILL TAKE. PRECEDENCE. 2. . LOCATION, NUMBER, LENGTH, ETC.: . THE PLANS WILL SHOW THE LOCATION of ..ALL PILING, A SCHEDULE OF THE ESTIMATED NUMBER, SIZE AND LENGTH OF PILING AS WELL AS ANY SPECIAL DETAILS APPLICABLE TO THE WORK. THE LENGTHS OF PILES, 'AS SHOWN OR IINDICATED ON THE PLANS, ARE THE MOST PROBABLE LENGTHS THAT WILL BE REQUIREOj BUT THE ACTUAL LENGTHS SHALL BE DE- TERMINED BY DRIVING TO THE REQUIRED PENETRATION INDICATED ON THE PLANS AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS, BY THE REQUIRED BEAR- ING CAPACITY AS NOTED IN PARAGRAPH 15-09. IF INCREASED OR CHANGED LENGTHS OF PILES ARE REQUIRED I.N THE OPINION OF THE INSPECTING AGENCY, THE CONTRAC- TOR WILL BE NOTIFIED TO EITHER SPLICE THE PILES AS SPECIFIED ELSEWHERE, PUR- CHASE AND DRIVE LONGER PILES OR SUBSTITUTE SHORTER PILES, AS MAY BE INDICA- TED. SPLICING OF PILES OR THE PURCHASE AND DRIVING OF LONGER PILES WILL BE "PAID FOR AS.SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 15 -17. IN DETERMINING LENGTHS OF PILES FOR ORDERING AND FOR FOOTAGE TO BE IN- CLUDED IN THE CONTRACT, THE LENGTHS GIVEN IN THE ORDER LIST SHALL BE BASED ON THE LENGTHS WHICH ARE ASSUMED TO REMAIN IN THE COMPLETED STRUCTURE. THE. CONTRACTOR SHALL, AT HIS OWN EXPENSE, INCREASE THE LENGTHS GIVEN TO PROVIDE FOR FRESH HEADINGS AND FOR SUCH ADDITIONAL LENGTHS AS MAY NECESSARY TO SUIT THE CONTRACTOR'S METHOD OF OPERATION. 3. SUB -SOIL CONDITIONS: SUB -SOIL CONDITIONS ARE DESCRIBED EITHER IN THE . SPECIAL PROVISIONS OR ON THE PLANS, ALTHOUGH THIS INFORMATION .15 BELIEVED TO BE ACCURATE, IT IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS.A GUARANTEE THAT THESE CONOI TIONS EXIST. - �{. PILING TYPE: PILING SHALL BE DOUGLAS FIR AND SHALL CONFORM TO SECTION 11 OF THESE. SPECIFICATIONS, ' ..ANY VARIATION FROM THIS WILL BE SPECIFIED'IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OR SHOWN ON THE PLANS• 5.: HANDLING PILES: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CAREFULLY HANDLE CREOSOTED PIL- ING WITHOUT SUDDEN DROPPING, AND SHALL'TAKE CARE THAT THE PROTECTIVE SHELL . IS NOT BROKEN OR PUNCTURED WITH SHARP TOOLS. GOGS, PEAVIES, PIKE POLES, AND SIMILAR SHARP TOOLS SMALL NOT BE USED IN -THE. HANDLING OF CREOSOTED PILING* WIRE ROPE SLINGS MAY BE USED IN HANDLING PILING PROVIDED THEY BE APPLIED ONLY ON THE ENDS OF THE PILE WITHIN RANGES OF -THREE (3) FE'ET FROM THE LARGE .,END AND SIX (6) FEET FROM THE SMALL ENO OF PILING. ANY PILE DAMAGED SO AS TO SHOW OR EXPOSE UNTREATED INTERIOR WOOD, THEREBY OPENING THE WAY FOR THE ENTRY OF LIMNORIA, TEREDO OR OTHER BORERS, SHALL BE TREATED AS FOLLOWS: NAIL HOLES OR PUNCTURES PRODUCED FROM OTHER SOURCES SHALL BE BORED ROUND, -THE HOLE FILLED- WITH'HOT CREOSOTE AND THEN PLUGGED WITH TIGHT FITTING, TURNED PLUGS WHICH HAVE BEEN TREATED IN BOILING 'CREOSOTE OIL FOR A PERIOD' OF THREE" (3). HOURS. - - -- SHOULD THE PILES BE DAMAGED BY IMPROPER HANDLING OR IN ORIVI NO OR SHOULD .. THEY BE INJURED IN ANY OTHER MANNER BY THE CONTRACTOR'S EMPLOYEES OR THROUGH ACTS OF OTHERS BEFORE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE, AND IF THE INJURY, IN THE OPINION OF THE INSPECTING AGENCY, IS 8 -63 S12 SUCH THAT IT CANNOT BE PROPERLY REMEDIED AS HEREIN .PROVIDED,, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO REPLACE THEM WITM.NEW PILES AT HIS OWN EXPENSE, 6. PREPARATION OF PILES FOR ORIVINGI THE TIMBER PILING SHALL BE PREPARED FOR DRIVING BY THE CONTRACTOR AS FOLLOWS: BOTH THE BUTT AND TIP OF EACH PILE SMALL BE SAWED SQUARE ACROSS" IF NOT ALREADY SQUARE. THE BUTTS OF EVERY PILE SHALL BE PROPERLY - - - HEADED. BANDING OF PILES WILL ORDINARILY BE REQUIRED IF A STEAM HAMMER IS. USED, BUTt SHOULO.IT DEVELOP THAT ANY DAMAGE WHATSOEVER _ OCCURS TO THE PILING UNDER SUCH DRIVING, THE-INSPECTING AGENCY.WILL REQUIRE THE STOPPAGE OF WORK UNTIL, PROPER HEAVY WROUGHT IRON BANDS ARE FURNISHED AND USED TO PREVENT BROOMING. AND "SPLITTING• THE TIPS OF THE PILES SHALL NOT BE POINTED UNLESi SPECIFICALLY AUTHOR - ., IZED. ,EXCEPT AS MAY BE OTHERWISE .STIPULATED IN SPECIFIC LOCATIONS, IT IS . NOT ANTICIPATED THAT STEEL SHOES WILL BE NEEDED. IN THE EVENT THAT SHOES ARE NEEDED AND ORDERED IN WRITING, THEIR DESIGN SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE PLANS. AND THEY WILL BE PAID FOR. AS EXTRA WORK." 7. SPOTTING. PILES IN POSITION: THE PILES SMALL BE SPACED ACCURATELY AS SHOWN ON THE LANS USING A TEMPLATE IF NECESSARY AND SHALL BE DRIVEN VERTI- CALLY OR ON THE BATTER SHOWN WITH REASONABLE ACCURACY IN THE POSITIONS IN01 CATED, SO THAT-THEY NEED NOT BE UNDULY PULLED INTO LINE. A DEVIATION OF NOT MORE THAN THREE (3) INCHES OFF CENTER OF'THE BENTS AND OF NOT MORE THAN SIX' (6) INCHES OUT OF POSITION ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE BENT WILL BE PERMITTED. ANY PILES THE FINAL POSITION OF WHICH DEVIATES MORE THAN THE LIMITS REFERRED TO MAY BE REJECTED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY, AND, IF SO ORDERED, SMALL BE PULLED AND REORIVEN, OR CUT OFF AND A NEW PILE DRIVEN AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 8. METHODS OF DRIVING: A HAMMERS TO BE USED: GRAVITY HAMMERS FOR DRIVING TIMBER AND STEEL PILES SHALL WEIGH NOT LESS THAN 20000 POUNDS. PREFERABLY NOT LESS THAN 3,000 POUNDS AND IN NO CASE SHALL THE WEIGHT OF THE HAMMER BE LESS THAN THE COMBIN- ,ED WEIGHT OF THE DRIVING HEAD AND PILE. THE FALL SHALL BE SO REGULATED AS TO. - AVOID INJURY TO THE PILES AND IN NO CASE SHALL EXCEED 15 FEET. WHEN A STEAM HAMMER IS'USEO, THE TOTAL ENERGY DEVELOPED BY THE HAMMER SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 6,000 FOOT POUNDS PER BLOW, (B) ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT: IN CASE THE REQUIRED PENETRATION IS NOT OB- TAINED BY THE USE OF A HAMMER COMPLYING WITH THE ABOVE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A HEAVIER HAMMER, OR RESORT TO JETTING AT HIS OWN EXPENSE. _ (C) LEADS: PILE DRIVER LEADS SMALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO AFFORD FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT.OF THE HAMMER,'AND THEY SHALL BE HELD IN POSI- TION BY GUYS OR STIFF BRACES TO INSURE SUPPORT TO THE PILE OUR146 DRIVING. EXCEPT WHERE PILES ARE DRIVEN THROUGH WATERS THE LEADSp PREFERABLY, SMALL BE OF SUFFICIENT LENGTH SO THAT THE USE OF A FOLLOWER WILL NOT BE NECESSARY. PREFERABLY, INCLINED LEADS SHALL BE USED IN DRIVING BATTERED PILES. (D) JETTING PILES: PARTIAL JETTING OR JETTING IN 'COMBINATION WITH DRIVING, UNLESS OTHERWISE ORDERED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCYS, WILL BE AUTHORIZ- ED. THE OBJECTIVE OF THESE SPECIFICATI.ONS IS TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED BEARING OF THE PILE WITH A MINIMUM OF INJURY THERETO AND JETTING WILL BE PERMITTED ACCORDINGLY. HOWEVER, IN ALL CASESV THE PILE SHALL BE DRIVEN FIRMLY TO ITS FINAL POSITION WITHOUT THE USE OF JETS* IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH I5-09 AND JETTING SHALL BE RESTRICTED IN AMPLE TIME TO PERMIT THIS RESULT. - 9..63 S13• 9. DRIVING PROCEDURES PILES SHALL BE DRIVEN ONLY I'll THE PRESENCE OF THE INSPECTING AGENCY OR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. - PILES SHALL BE DRIVEN TO THE MINIMUM PENETRATION INDICATED IN THE SCHED- ULE OF PILE LENGTHS, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY ORDERED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY. THEY SHALL BE DRIVEN WITH A HAMMER OF SIZE ADAPTABLE TO THE DRIVING CONDITIONS ON SITE, AND TO THE SIZE AND LENGTH OF THE PILES. THE DRIVING OF EACH PILE SMALL IN GENERAL,' CONTINUE UNTIL THE AVERAGE UNIFORM PENETRATION PER BLOW IN INCHES, FOR AT LEAST TWENTY (20) CONSECUTIVE BLOWS, DOES NOT EX- . CEED THE PENETRATION PER BLOW AS INDICATED BY THE FOLLOWING FORMULASS .EXCEPTING HOWEVER THAT THE INSPECTING AGENCY MAY,WAIVE THIS REQUIREMENT. IF, AS A RESULT OF STATIC LOAD, TESTS, THE REQUIRED SAFE CAPACITY OF THE PILES MAY BE ATTAINED WITHOUT ADHERENCE TO THE FORMULAS. IN ANY EVENT, THE TOTAL PENETRATION OR FIXED PILE LENGTHS AS SHOWN ON THE .PLANS SHALL BE THE MINIMUM TO BE ATTAINED,. IRRESPECTIVE OF BEARING VALUES COMPUTED FROM UNIT PENETRATION. FOR DROP HAMMERS - - - - - -S PLUS 1.0 = 2W H R FOR SINGLE ACTING STEAM HAMMERS - S PLUS 0.1 2 W H' R FOR 'DOUBLE ACTING STEAM HAMMERS -.S PLUS 0.1 = Y H (W PLUS A P) . R WHERE S = AVERAGE PENETRATION PER BLOW A N INCHES OF LAST TWENTY' BLOWS, NOT TO BE, EXCEEDED. . R = ALLOWABLE LOAD VALUE PER PILE POUNDS. . (TO BE SPECIFIED IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS BUT NEVER LESS THAN PO TONS. H = DROP OR NORMAL STROKE OF HAMMER OR RAM IN INCHES. W = WEI GHT, IN POUNDS, OF RAM OR STRIKING PARTS OF HAMMER. A = AREA OF PISTON IN SQUARE INCHES. P = STEAM PRESSURE IN POUNDS PER. - SQUARE INCH AT HAMMER. - - i THE ABOVE FORMULAS ARE APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN - (A) THE - HAMMER HAS -A FREE FALL. - - - - - (B) THE HEAD OF THE PILE IS NOT BROOMED OR CRUSHED. - (C) THE PENETRATION IS,REASONABLY QUICK AND UNIFORM. (D) THERE IS NO SENSIBLE BOUNCE' AFTER. THE BLOW. - �(E) A FOLLOWER 1 -S- NOT USED•. - - - - - - 'TWICE THE HEIGHT OF THE BOUNCE SHALL BE DEDUCTED FROM MHl' TO DETERMINE ITS .VALUE IN THE FORMULA. - - - 10. DEFECTIVE PILES: THE PROCEDURE INCIDENT TO THE.DRIVING OF PILES SHALL NOT SUBJECT THEM TO EXCESSIVE AND _UNDUE ABUSE . PRODUCING INJURIOUS SPLITTINGj. - - SPLINTERING AND.BROOMING OF THE WOOD.. - MANIPULATION OF PILES TO FORCE THEM - - 8 -fi3 S14 INTO PROPER POSITION CONSIDERED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY TO BE EXCESSIVE WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. ANY PILE DAMAGED BY REASON OF INTERNAL DErECTSp OR BY IMPROPPER DRIVING OR DRIVEN OUT OF ITS PROPER LOCATION OR DRIVEN BELOW THE ELEVATION FIXED BY THE PLANSO SHALL BE CORRECTED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE BY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS APPROVED BY THE'INSPECTING.AGENCY FOR THE PILE IN QUESTIONS , (1) THE PILE SHALL BE WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED BY A NEW AND IF NECESSARYs.A LONGER PILE. (2) A SECOND PILE SHALL BE DRIVEN ADJACENT TO THE DEFECTIVE OR LOW PILE.. (3) THE PILE SMALL BE SPLICED OR BUILT UP AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED HEREIN ON A SUFFICIENT PORTION OF THE FOOTING EXTENDED TO PROPERLY IMBED THE PILE. TIMBER SHALL NOT BE SPLICED.WITHOUT SPECIFIC PER' ISS:ON OF THE INSPECTING AGENCY. ALL PILES PUSHED UP BY THE DRIVING OF ADJACENT PILES OR BY ANY OTHER CAUSE SHALL BE DRIVEN DOWN AGAIN* 11. OBSTRUCTIONS: ANY OBSTRUCTIONS ENCOUNTERED IN THE DRIVING OF PILES SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE INSPECTING AGENCY. OBSTRUCTI ONS9 IN GENERALS SHALL BE REMOVED. THE USE OF JETTING WILL BE PERMITTED FOR.VERY MINOR OBSTRUCTIONS ONLY. ALL OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE REMOVED BY BUCKET OR OTHER MECHANICAL DEVICE SATISFACTORY TO.THE INSPECT- ING AGENCY. THE REMOVAL OF MINOR OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE CONSIDERED A PART OF THE _ WORK INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACT, PROVIDED THEY ARE NOT TOO NUMEROUS. WHEN EX- CESSIVE IN NUMBER THE DEVELOPER WILL SHARE IN THE EXPENSE OF THEIR REMOVALS AND AT A PRICE TO BE DECIDED UPON BY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND . THE DEVELOPER. LARGE OBSTRUCTIONS9.WHERE DISCOVERED DURING THE OPERATION OF DRIVING . WILL BE PAID FOR BY THE DEVELOPERS AND ALL MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE : SERIOUSNESS OF THE OBSTRUCTION SHALL BE DECIDED UPON BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY. .. . 12. SPLICING PILES: SPLICING OF TIMBER PILES WILL NOT BE PERMITTED EX- CEPT UPON WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE INSPECTING AGENCY, AND THEN ONLY AFTER THE . METHOD OF SPLI.CING HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THEM. ' NOT 'MORE THAN ONE (1) SPLICE PER PILE WILL BE PERMITTED. THE LOWER PORTION OF SUCH SPLICED PILE SHALL O£ . SNORTERS AND,ORDINARILY NOT :LESS THAN TWENTY (20) FEET IN,LENGTH. 13. DRIVING RECORD: THE INSPECTING AGENCY WILL KEEP A DETAILED RECORD OF ALL PILE DRIVING OPERATIONS FROM THE TIME THE PILE IS PICKED UP UNTIL IT IS COMPLETELY DRIVEN. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL.. AT ALL TIMESS, RENDER SUCH ASSIST- ANCE AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY IN KEEPING RECORDS OF ALL PILES DRIVEN. 14. CUTTING OFF PILES: THE PILES SHALL BE SAWED OFF TRUE ON A HORIZONTAL PLANE AT THE CUT —OFF ELEVATION GIVEN,. WHICH SHALL BE SO COMPUTED AND, DETER -, MINED THAT THE FINISHED STRUCTURE WILL BE AT THE ELEVATIONS SHOWN. THE ALLOWABLE CUT —OFF LENGTH OF BENT PILES SHALL NOT. EXCEED TWO (2) FEET UNLESS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY. ALL TIMBER PILESp AFTER BEING CUT OFFS SMALL SHOW A SOUND MEAD. 15. TREATMENT OF PILE HEADS OF' CREOSOTED PILING: AFTER THE BEARING PILES HAVE BEEN DRIVENi CUT OFF TO THE PROPER ELEVATION AND FRAMED FOR CROSS CAPS 6 -63 S15- THE HEADS SHALL BE TREATED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER. THE SAWED OFF SURFACE SHALL BE TH'OROUGHLY AND FREELY COATED WITH TWO INDEPENDENT APPLICATIONS OF A HALF AND HALF MIXTURE NO. I CREOSOTE OIL AND COLD TARO APPLIED HOT.. THIS SHALL BE FOLLOWEOi WHEN DRY# BY THE APPLICATION OF A COAT OF A HEAVY GRADE ASPHALT APPLIED MOT WITH A COTTON MOP. A COVER- . ING COMPOSED OF THREE (3) SHEETS Of FIFTEEN (I5) POUND TARRED IRISH FLAX FELT WITH A LAYER OF ASPHALT BETWEENS SHALL. BE PLACED OVER THE ASPHALT COAT- . ED PILE TOP. THE FELT SHALL BE BENT'DOWN AT LEAST THREE (3) INCHES OVER THE SIDES OF THE PILE. THE TOP.OF THE FELT. COVERING SHALL THEN BE GIVEN 'A UNI- FORM COAT OF HEAVY GRADE ASPHALTv APPLIED NOT. .16. HEATING CREOSOTE AND ASPHALT: ALL CREOSOTE OIL, COAL TAR AND ASPHALT SHALL BE HEATED AND APPLIED AT A TEMPERATURE BETWEEN ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY (170) DEGREES AND TWO HUNDRED (200) DEGREES F. THE HEATING SHALL BE DONE AT SOME DISTANCE FROM INFLAMMABLE CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO MINIMIZE THE FIRE RISK. 17. EXTRA LENGTH OF PILES: SHOULD IT BE DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE INSPECT- .. ING AGENCY IN ANY INSTANCE TO DRIVE. ADDITIONAL PILES OR USE LONGER PILES THAN INDICATED ON THE PLANS OR IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONSt THE.CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH AND DRIVE SUCH ADDITIONAL LENGTH OF PILING. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE PAID FOR SUCH ADDITIONAL . LENGTH OF PILING AND/OR.ORIVING AS EXTRA WORK AT A UNIT PRICE TO BE AGREED UPON. IN THE EVENT-THAT PAYMENT IS TO BE MADE FOR, DRIVING ADDITIONAL TIMBER PILES ON A UNIT BASIS$ THE PAY LENGTH OF PILE DRIVEN SHALL BE TAKEN AS THE TOTAL LENGTH BELOW CUT -OFF ELEVATION, MEASURE- . MENT TO BE MADE TO THE NEAREST FOOT.' 18. PILE TESTS: IF DEEMED ADVISABLE BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY: A TEST BEAR- ING CAPACITY MAY BE REQUIRED ON ONE OR MORE PILES. THESE TESTS SHALL BE MADE .. BY THE CONTRACTOR IN SUCH A MANNER AS WILL BE OUTLINED BY THE INSPECTING , AGENCY. FOR THE WORK OF CARRYING ON THE LOADING TESTS THE CONTRACTOR WILL PAID THE ACTUAL COST TO HOMO EXCLUSIVE or SUPERINTENDENCE AND PLANTS PLUS FIFTEEN (1.5) PER CENT. 19. LOADING TESTS: WHEN REQUIRED, THE SIZE AND NUMBER OF PILES, SMALL BE DETERMINED BY ACTUAL LOADING TESTS. IN GENERAL., THESE TESTS,SHALL CONSIST OF.THE APPLICATION OF ,A TEST LOAD PLACED UPON SUITABLE PLATFORM SUPPORT- , .ED BY THE PILE, WITH SUITABLE APPARATUS FOR ACCURATELY MEASURING THE TEST LOAD AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THE.PILE UNDER EACH INCREMENT LOAD. IN LIEU ... THEAEOF. HYDRAULIC JACKS WITH SUITABLE YOKES AND PRESSURE GAUGES MAY BE USED. THE SAFE.ALLOWABLE LOAD SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS FIFTY (50) PER CENT OF THAT LOAD,, WHICHl AFTER A CONTINUOUS APPLICATION OF FORTY -EIGHT (48) HOURS PRO- DUCE A PERMANENT SETTLEMENT NOT ;GREATER THAN INCH MEASURED AT THE TOP OF THE PILE. THIS MAXIMUM SETTLEMENT.SHALL NOT BE INCREASED BY A.CONTIN000S APPLICATION AF.THE TEST LOAM FOR A PERIOD OF SIXTY. (60 ) . HOURS OR LONGER. SECTION 19 STEEL PIPE PILES' 1. GENERALt THE PROVISIONS OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS SMALL APPLY SPEC.IFI- CALLY TO THE HANDLING A W DRiVI -NG OF STEEL PIPE PILES. INSOFAR AS THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND PLANS NAY CONFLICT. WITH THIS SECTION, THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND PLANS WILL TAKE PRECEDENCE* 2. MATERIAL: (A) THE PIPE PILE SHALL HAVE A,WALL THICKNESS AND.DIAMETER AS CALLED FOR ON THE PLANS OR SPECIAL PROVISIONS. (B) THE STEEL PIPE PILES SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICAN ,SOCIETY FOR TESTING MATERIALS.SPECIFICATION P-252," LATEST REVISION, 3. HANDLING PILES: ALL STEEL PIPE.PILES SHALL BE HANDLED IN SUCH.A MANNER THAT NO IMPAIRMENT OF THEIR STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OR STRENGTH SHALL OCCUR* THE INSPECTING AGENCY SHALL .BE THE SOLE JUDGE AS TO EXTENT OF ANY DAMAGE TO THE PILES. ' -ml IMPAIRMENT OF STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OR STRENGTH SMALL INCLUDE THE FOLLowl NG: ' (1) LARGE DENTS. (2) TEARS OR RIPS. (3) PERMANENT BENDING OVER ALLOWABLE MILL TOLERANCE. (4) PUNCTURE OF PROTECTIVE COATING ABOVE GROUND LINES IF SUCH PROTECTIVE COATING IS CALLED FOR IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. SHOULD THE PILES BE DAMAGED BY IMPROPER. HANDLING OR IN DRIVING, OR SHOULD .. THEY BE INJURED IN ANY OTHER. MANNER BY THE CONTRACTOR'S EMPLOYEES OR THROUGH ACTS OF OTHERS BEFORE FINAL ACCEPTANCE OF TME.WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE, AND IF THE INJURY, IN THE •OPINION OF THE INSPECTING AGENCY, IS SUCH THAT IT CANNOT BE PROPERLY REMEDIED AS HEREIN PROVIDED, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO REPLACE THEM WITH NEW PILES AT HIS OWN EXPENSE. 4. PREPARATION OF STEEL PIPE PILES FOR DRIVING: THE STEEL PIPE PILES SHALL 'O EPREPARED FOR DRIVING BY THE CONTRACTOR' AS - FOLLOWS: . (A) THE ENDS OF THE PILE SHALL BE CUT SQUARE ACROSS, IF NOT ALREADY SQUARE. (B) THE TOP OF EVERY PILE SMALL BE PR:OPER.LY HEIRDED TO PREVENT EXCESS- IVE UPSET OF THE PIPE PILE. (C) THE PROTECTIVE COATING. IF CALLED; FOR IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS, SHALL *BE APPLIED SUFFICI ENTLY IN. ADVANCE OF DRIVING TO INSURE ITS COMPLETE DRYING BEFORE. DRIVING. 5. SPOTTING PILES IN.POSITION: THE PILES SHALL BE.SPACED ACCURATELY AS SHOWN.. ON THE PLANS USING A TEMPLATE IF NECESSARY ANO .SHALL BE DRIVEN VERTICALLY OR ON THE BATTER SHOWN WITH REASONABLE ACCURACY IN THE POSITIONS INDICATED, SO ... THAT THEY NEED NOT BE UNDULY PULLED INTO LINE.. A DEVIATION OF NOT MORE THAN THREE (3) INCHES OFF CENTER OF THE BENT, AND OF. NOT MORE THAN SIX (6) INCHES . OUT OF POSITION ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE BENT WILL BE :PERMITTED.' ANY PILE, THE FINAL POSITION OF WHICH DEVIATES MORE THAN THE LIMITS REFERRED TO MAY BE REJECTED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY AND NOT PAID FOR,. AND, IF .SO ORDERED, SHALL , BE PULLED AND REDRIVENS OR CUT OFF AND A.. NEW PILE .DRIVEN, AT THE CONTRACTOR'S , EXPENSE. 8 -63 S1 %, 6. METHODS OF DRIVING: A HAMMERS TO BE USED: , GRAVITY HAMMERS FOR DRIVING TIMBER'. AND STEEL .PILES SHALL WEIGH NOT LESS THAN 2,000 POUNDS, PREFERABLY NOT LESS THAN 30000 POUNDS AND IN NO CASE SHALL THE WEIGHT OF THE HAMMER BE LESS THAN THE COMBINED WEIGHT OF DRIVING MEAD AND PILE: THE FALL SHALL BE SO REGULATED AS TO AVOID INJURY TO THE PILES AND IN NO CASE SHALL EXCEED IS FEET. WHEN A STEAM HAMMER IS USEDO THE TOTAL ENERGY DEVELOPED BY THE HAMMER 'SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 6,000 FOOT POUNDS . PER BLOW. (B) ADDITIONAL EQUI'.PMENT :. IN CASE THE REQUIRED PENETRATION IS NOT OBTAINED BY THE USE OF A HAMMER COMPLYING WITH THE ABOVE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS; THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A HEAVIER HAMMERO OR RESORT TO JETTING AT HIS OWN EXPENSE. (C) LEADSt ., PILE DRIVER LEADS SMALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO AFFORD FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT OF THE HAMMERS AND THEY SHALL BE HELD IN POSITION BY GUYS OR STIFF BRACES TO INSURE SUPPORT TO THE PILE DURING DRIVING. .EX- 'CEPT WHERE PILES . ARE ORIVEN THROUGH WATER o. THE LEADSo PREFERABLY, SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT LENGTH SO THAT'THE USE OF'A FOLLOWER WILL NOT BE NECESSARY. PREFERABLYs INCLINED LEADS SHALL. BE USED IN DRIVING BATTERED PILES. 7. DEFECTIVE PILES: THE PROCEDURE INCIDENT TO THE DRIVING OF PILES SMALL NOT SUBJECT THEM TO EXCESSIVE AND. UNDUE ABUSE, MANIPULATION OF PILES TO FORCE THEM INTO PROPER POSITION CONSIDERED BY' THE INSPECTING AGENCY TO BE EX- CESSIVE WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. ANY PILE DAMAGED BY REASON . OF INTERNAL OEFECTSO OR BY IMPROPER DRIVING'. OR DRIVEN OUT OF ITS PROPER LOCATION OR DRIVEN BELOW THE ELEVATION FIXED BY THE PLANS, SHALL BE CORRECTED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE BY. ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS APPROVEO.BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY FOR THE PILE IN QUESTION. ., ". _(A) THE PILE SHALL BE WITHDRAWN ''AND REPLACED BY A NEW ANDS IF NECESSARY .A LONGER PILE. (B) A SECOND PILE SHALL BE DRIVEN ADJACENT TO THE DEFECTIVE OR LOW . ... .PILE. „ (C) THE PILE SHALL BE SPLICED OR BUILT UP AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED HEREIN OR A SUFFICIENT PORTION OF THE FOOTING EXTENDED TO PROPERLY IMBED THE PILE. 'THE PILES SHALL NOT BE SPLICED WITHOUT SPECIFIC PERMISSION OF THE INSPECTING AGENCY.. ALL PILES PUSHED UP BY THE DRIVING OF ADJACENT PILES OR BY ANY OTHER CAUSE SHALL BE DRIVEN DOWN AGAIN, 8. OBSTRUCTIONS: ANY OBSTRUCTIONS ENCOUNTERED IN THE DRIVING OF PILES SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE INSPECTING AGENCY. OBSTRUCTI DNS,, IN GENERALo SHALL BE REMOVED. THE USE OF JETTING WILL BE _ PERMITTED FOR VERY MINOR OBSTRUCTIONS ONLY. ALL OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE - REMOVED BY BUCKET OR -OTHER MECHANICAL DEVICE SATISFACTORY TO THE INSPECTING AGENCY. THE REMOVAL OF MINOR. OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE CONSIDERED A PART OF THE WORK INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACTp PROVIDED THEY ARE NOT TOO NUMEROUS. WHEN EX -- CESSIVE IN NUMBER THE DEVELOPER WILL SHARE IN THE EXPENSE OF THEIR REMOVALS . AND AT A PRICE TO BE DECIDED UPON BY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND - THE INSPECTING AGENCY, LARGE OBSTRUCTIO,NS,:WHERE DISCOVERED DURING THE .OPERATION OF DRIVING WILL BE PAID FOR BY THE .DEVELOPER, AND ALL MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE SERIOUSNESS OF. THE OBSTRUCTION SHALL BE DECIDED UPON BY.THE INSPECTING_ AGENCY, 8 -63 S18 - 9. SPLICING PILES: SPLICING OF STEEL PIPE. PILES.WILL NOT BE PERMITTED EX- CEPT UPON WRITTEN APPROVAL, OF THE.INSPECTING AGENCY, AND THEN ONLY AFTER THE _- METHOD OF SPLICING HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THEM. Not MORE THAN ONE (1) SPLICE . PER -PILE WILL BE PERMITTED., THE LOWER PORTION OF SUCH SPLICED PILE SHALL BE SHORTER* AND ORDINARILY NOT LESS THAN TWENTY -(20) -FEET IN LENGTH. - 10. DRIVING RECORDS THE INSPECTING. AGENCY WILL KEEP A DETAILED RECORD OF ALL PILE DRIVING OPERATIONS FROM THE TIME THE 'PILE` -IS- PICKED. UP UNTIL IT IS COM- PLETELY DRIVEN, THE CONTRACTOR SHALLi AT- ALL.TIMESS RENDER -SUCH ASSISTANCE AS MAY BE RE- _ QUIREO IN KEEPING RECORDS OF ALL PILES DRIVEN. - -. 110 CUTTING OFF PILES,. THE PILES SHALL BE CUT OFF TRUE ON A HORIZONTAL PLANE -AT THE CUT -OFF. ELEVATI.ON GI -VENj, WHICH SHALL BE SO COMPUTED AND DETERMINED- - - THAT THE .FINISHED STRUCTURE WILL BE AT THE ELEVATION$ SMOy1N. THE "ALLOWABLE CUT -OFF LENGTH OF BENT PILES SHALL NOT EXCEED TWO (2) FEET UNLESS - OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY.. - - _ - - ALL -STEEL PIPE PILES# AFTER BEING CUT-OFF.. SHALL. SHOW A SOUND HEAD. -- - - - 12. TREATMENT OF PILE HEADS: AFTER THE BEARING PILES HAVE BEEN DRIVEN# CUT OFF TO THE PROPER ELEVATION AND FRAMED FOR CROSS CAP# THE HEADS SHALL BE - - - .TREATED AS SPECIFIED IN THE SPECIAL PROVISI.ONS OR ON THE PLANS. - 13. EXTRA LENGTH OF PILES: SHOULD IT BE DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY IN ANY INSTANCE TO DRIVE ADDITIONAL PILES OR USE LONGER PILES THAN INDI - -- CATED ON THE PLANS OR IN THE SPECIAL P'RDVISIONS# -THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNIS -H- AND DRIVE SUCH ADDITIONAL LENGTH OF PILING. THE - CONTRACTOR WILL BE PAID FOR SUCH ADDITIONAL LENGTH OF PILING AND/OR DRIVING -. AS EXTRA WORK AT A UNIT PRICE TO BE AGREED UPON, IN THE EVENT THAT PAYMENT IS TO BE MADE FOR DRIVING ADDITIONAL STEEL - _PILES ON A UNIT BASIS, THE PAY.LENGTH OF PILE DRIVEN SHALL BE TAKEN AS THE _ TOTAL LENGTH LENGTH BELOW CUT -OFF ELEVATION#- MEASUREMENT TO BE MADE TO THE NEAREST FOOT. 14. PILE TESTS:" IF DEEMED ADVISABLE BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY# A TEST BEAR- - 1NG CAPACITY MAY BE REQUIRED ON ONE OR MORE PILES. TESTS SHALL BE MADE ..THESE BY THE CONTRACTOR IN SUCH A MANNER AS WILL BE OUTLINED BY -THE .INSPECTING - f _ .. AGENCY. - - FOR THE WORK OF CARRYING ON THE - LOADING TEST..THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE - -PAID THE ACTUAL COST TO HIM# EXCLUSIVE OF SUPERINT- ENDENCE AND PLANT, PLUS - `FIFTEEN (15) PER CENT, 15. LOADI NG. TESTS: WHEN REQUIRED, THE SIZE AND NUMSEII OF PILES SHALL BE. DETERMINED BY ACTUAL LOADING TESTS: IN GENERAL#. THESE TESTS SHALL CONSIST -- - OF THE APPLICATION OF A TEST LOAD PLACED UPON A- SUITABLE PLATFORM - SUPPORTED - I .' BY THE PILE, - WITH SUITABLE APPARATUS FOR ACCURATELY MEASURING THE TEST LOAD - -_.- AND THE SETTLEMENT OF THE PILE UNDER EACH, INCREMENT LOAD. IN LIEU THEREOF' �- - HYDRAULIC JACKS WITH SUITABLE YOKES AND PRESSURE' GAUGES MAY BE USED, - THE SAFE ALLOWABLE LOAD SHALL DE CONSIDERED AS FIFTY (50) PER CENT OF - - -THAT LOAD, WHICH, AFTER :A CONTINUOUS APPLI - CATION. OF FORTY -EIGHT (48) HOURS,, -. - PRODUCE A PERMANENT SETTLEMENT NOT' GREATER THAN I/4 INCH ,- MEASURED - -AT THE TOP - - OF THE PILE. - .-- THIS- MAXIMUM SETTLEMENT SHALL NOT. BE: INCREASED BY -A - CONTINUOUS - APPLI CA -, - - - - TION OF THE TEST LOAD. FOR A PERIOD .00 SIXTY -(60) HOURS - -OR- LONGER• - - - 8 -63 - S19 SECTION 20 AGGREGATE BASE: 1. . SCOPE: THE WORK'COVERED BY THIS SECTION SHALL CONSIST OF FURNISHING ALL PLANT# LABORS MATERIALS9 TOOLS# EQUIPMENT* TRANSPORTATION AND ALL IN- CIDENTAL WORK AND SERVICES REQUIRED IN CONSTRUCTING THE AGGREGATE BASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS, THESE SPECIFICATIONS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS. THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE .STATE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR AGGREGATE BASE SHALL PREVAIL ON ANY ITEMS NOT SPECIFICALLY COVERED IN THIS SECTION. 2. SUBGRADE: THE SUBGRADE SHALL BE PREPARED AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 9 OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS* BEFORE PLACING THE AGGREGATE RASE,, - 3. MATERIALS:, THE AGGREGATE BASE SHALL CONFORM TO SECTION 26 OF THE .STATE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, THE AGGREGATE FURNISHED SHALL BE CLASS 2 AND SHALL CONFORM TO THE 12 INCH MAXIMUM GRADING* THE AGGREGATE BASE SHALL BE FREE FROM VEGETABLE MATTER AND OTHER BE- SUBSTANCES AND SHALL BE OF SUCK NATURE THAT IT CAN BE COMPACTED READILY UNDER WATERING AND ROLLING TO FORM A FIRMS STABLE BASE. SECTION 21 ASPHALT PAVING: I. SCOPE: THE WORK COVERED BY THIS SECTION SHALL CONSIST OF FURNISHING ALL PLANT, LABOR, MATERIALS, TOOLS, EQUIPMENT, TRANSPORTATION AND ALL IN- CIDENTAL WORK AND SERVICES REQUIRED IN CONSTRUCTING THE COMPLETED ASPHALT :PAVING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS, THESE SPECIFICATIONS AND SPECIAL PRO- . VISIONS. THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE STATE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS SHALL PREVAIL ON ANY ITEMS NOT SPECIFICALLY COVERED IN THIS SECTION. - 2. BASE: THE BASE SHALL BE PREPARED AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 20 OF THESE' SPECIFICATIONS BEFORE PLACING THE PRIME COAT AND ASPHALT PAVING. 3. PRIME COATI AT,LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF PLACING THE ASPHALT CON- CRETE SURFACING OVER THE AGGREGATE BASE, THE BASE SHALL BE PRIMED WITH MC -1 OR SC -I LIQUID ASPHALT SPREAD AT A.RATE OF APPROXIMATELY 0.25 GALLONS PER SQUARE .YARD. A PAINT. BINDER OF ASPHALTIC EMULSION SMALL BE APPLIED TO ALL VERTICAL EDGES AND EXISTING ASPHALTIC PAVEMENTS AT A. RATE OF FROM 0.02 GALLONS TO 0.10 GALLONS SQUARE YARD OF SURFACE COVERED. LIQUID ASPHALT SHALL NOT BE APPLIED WHEN THE BASE IS APPRECIABLY DAMP OR WHEN THE ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURElS BELOW 500 F. THE EXACT RATES OF APPLICATION WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY. 4. PAINT BINDER: PRIOR TO PLACING ASPHALT CONCRETE ON AN EXISTING PAVE- . MEATS THE EXISTING PAVEMENT SHALL BE THOROUGHLY CLEANED OF ALL OUST,OR OTHER MATERIAL THAT COULD PREVENT THE ADHERENCE OF THE PAINT. BINDER. IF NECESSARY, POWER SWEEPING, SUPPLEMENTED WITH HAND BRODMING AND COMPRESSED AIR, WILL BE REQUIRED. IMMEDIATELY IN ADVANCE OF PLACING THE ASPHALT CONCRETE, PAINT BINDER . SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE EXISTING SURFACE AT A RATE OF 0.05 GALLON TO 0.10 GALLON PER SQUARE YARD. THE EXACT RATE OF APPLICATION WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY. PAINT BINDER SHALL CONSIST OF PENETRATION TYPE ASPHALTIC EMULSION. AFTER APPLICATION OF THE PAINT BINDER, ALL POOLS OR UNEVENLY OISTRI- . BUTED AREAS SHALL BE REDISTRIBUTED BY MEANS OF HAND BROOMS. IN ADVANCE OF PAVING, ADDITIONAL PAINT BINDER SHALL BE APPLIED, AS DIRECTED BY THE HNSPEG- . TING AGENCY, TO AREAS WHERE THE BINDER HAS BEEN DESTROYED AND NO ADDITIONAL-,. COMPENSATION WILL BE ALLOWED FOR SUCH WORK. 5. ASPHALT CONCRETE; THE ASPHALT CONCRETE SHALL CONFORM TO SECTION 39OF THE STATE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, THE ASPHALT .CONCRETE SHALL BE TYPE B, THE MINERAL AGGREGATE SHALL BE J INCH MAXIMUM MEDIUM, AND THE ASPHALT BINDER SHALL DE 85 -100 GRADE PAVING ASPHALT, . 6: PLACING.ASPHALT CONCRETE; 'IMMEDIATELY IN ADVANCE OF PLACING AS CONCRETE, ADDITIONAL PRIME COAT OR PAINT BINDER SHALL BE APPLIED AS OIRECIED. BY THE ,INSPECTING AGENCY TO AREAS WHERE THE PRIME COAT OR PAINT BINDER HAS BEEN .... DESTROYED.' ASPHALT CONCRETE SHALL BE SPREAD AT A TEMPERATURE OF NOT LESS THAN _.2250 F. AND ALL INITIAL. ROLLING OR 'TAMPING SHALL DE PERFORMED WHEN THE - - - TEMPERATURE OF THE MIXTURE' IS SUCH THAT THE SUM OF THE AIR TEMPERATURE PLUS' THE TEMPERATURE OF THE MIXTURE IS BETWEEN 3000 F. AND 3750 F. - - -' IF THE TEMPERATURE OF ANY MIXTURE LEAVING THE PLANT DROPS MORE THAN. 209 F. BETWEEN THE TIME OF LEAVING THE PLANT AND PLACING ON THE:ROADi THE _CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH AND USE TARPAULINS TO COVER THE LOADS. 8 -63 S21 ASPHALT CONCRETE SHALL BE SPREAD AND COMPACTED IN LAYERS NOT TO EX- CEED 0.17 FEET IN COMPACTED THICK -NESS. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, ALL ASPHALT PAVING, EXCEPT LEVELLING COURSES, SHALL BE SPREAD WITH AN .ASPHALT PAVER. ASPHALT PAVERS SHALL BE OPERATED IN SUCH AMANNER AS. TO ASSURE CONTINUOUS AND UNIFORM MOVEMENT OF .. THE PAVER. .. 7. ROLLING ASPHALT CONCRETE: INITIAL OR BREAKDOWN ROLLING SHALL CONSIST OF ONE COMPLETE COVERAGE OF THE ASPHALT MIXTURE AND SHALL BE PERFORMED WITH . A TANDEM OR ,3 -WHEEL ROLLER. SUCH .ROLLERS SHALL WEIGH NOT LESS THAN 12 TONS• ROLLING SMALL COMMENCE AT THE LOWER. EDGE AND SHALL PROGRESS TOWARD THE HIGHEST PORTION. .UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL THE CENTER BE ROLLED FIRST, ROLLING SHALL BE PERFORMED WITH THE DRIVE WHEEL OF THE TANDEM ROLLER FORWARD WITH RESPECT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE SPREADING OPERATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE : PERMITTED, THE INITIAL OR BREAKDOWN ROLLING SHALL BE FOLLOWED BY ADDITIONAL ROLL- ING CONSISTING OF THREE COMPLETE COVERAGES WITH PNEUMATIC -TIRED ROLLER OR TANDEM ROLLER WHILE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE MIXTURE IS AT OR ABOVE 1500 F. THE FINAL ROLLING. OF THE UPPERMOST LAYER OF ASPHALT CONCRETE SHALL BE PERFORMED WITH AN 8 TOH 2-AXLE TANDEM ROLLER.' ROLLING SHALL EE PERFORMED IN SUCH A MANNER THAT CRACKING, SHOVING OR DISPLACEMENT WILL BE AVOIDED. . THE COMPLETED SURFACING.SHALL. BE THOROUGHLY COMPACTED SMOOTH, AND TRUE TO GRADE AND CROSS- SECTION, AND FREE FROM RUTS,'MUMPS, DEPRESSIONS, OR IRREGULARITIES. WHEN A STRAIGHT.' EDGE IO FEET LONG IS LAID ON*THE FINISHED SURFACE, THE SURFACE SHALL NOT VARY.MORE THAN 0.01 FEET FROM THE LOWER EDGE OF THE STRAIGHT EDGE. ANY RIDGES, INDENTATIONS OR OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MARKS LEFT IN THE SUR- FACE OF ASPHALT CONCRETE BY BLADING INS OTHER EQUIPMENT SHALL BE ELIMINATED EITHER BY ROLLING OR OTHER MEANS, THE USE OF ANY EQUIPMENT THAT LEAVES RIDGES, INOENTATIONSSi OR OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MARKS IN THE ASPHALT CONCRETE SMALL BE DISCONTINUED AND OTHER ACCEPTABLE EQUIPMENT SHALL BE FURNISHED BY.' THE CONTRACTOR DURING ROLLING OPERATIONS,. WHEN DIRECTED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCYy THE . .ASPHALT CONCRETE SHALL BE COOLED BY APPLYING WATER. .8. HEADERS: WHENEVER THE PAVEMENT DOES NOT TERMINATE AGAINST A CURB, '.CUTTER OR OTHER IMPROVEMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL. NATURE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND LAY UPON THE LINE OF SAID TERMINATION A 2 X 4 INCH REDWOOD HEADER, HELD IN PLACE BY T X 4 INCH STA KESp NOT LESS THAN (Z INCHES LONG. SAID HEADERS AND STAKES SHALL REMAIN 'IN PLACE AFTER, THE COMPLETION OF THE WORK AND SHALL NOT BE REMOVED BY THE CONTRACTOR•' - - 9. MANHOLE AND VALVE .BOX COVERS: 'UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, THE. PAVING CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED, TO ADJUST ALL MANHOLE, VALVE BOX, CLEAN -OUT AND " MONUMENT COVERS. TO FINISHED- GRADE, AND THE COST SMALL BE INCLUDED IN THE PRICE' BID FOR THE PAVING IN PLACE -. - ALL COVERS SHALL BESET. 1%8.. .INCH BELOW FINISHED STREET GRADE.' THE PAV, E- MENT AROUND THE COVER. SHALL BE NEATLY AND SYMMETRICALLY TRIMMED AND REPLACED WITH A MINIMUM COMPACTED- THICKNESS. OF I INCH GREATER,THAN THE EXISTING PAVE- 4_ „ MENT THICKNESS.- - - BASE MATERIAL SHALL BE REPLACED IN KIND AND COMPACTEO'BEFORE PLACING THE PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT. -ALL PATCHING WORK SHALL BE DONE SO. AS TO INSURE AGAINST.ANY SUBSEQUENT SETTLEMENT AND TO LEAVE A.PATCH THAT IS CLEAN, UNI- _FARM, AND NEAT IN APPEARANCE, ..- 8 -63 S22 SECTION 23 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE I . DESCRIPTION: PORTLAND CEM.ENT CONCRETE SHALL BE COMPOSED OF PORTLAND CEMENT, FINE AGGREGATE, COARSE AGGREGATE, AND WATERS PROPORTIONED AND MIXED ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 90 OF THE STATE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND AS HEREIN SPECIFI ED." CLASS A CONCRETE SHALL CONTAIN 564 LOS. (6 SACKS) OF PORTLAND CEMENT PER CU. YD. CLASS B CONCRETE SHALL CONTAIN 475 LBS. ($SACKS) OF PORTLAND CEMENT PER CU. YD.., CLASS C CONCRETE SHALL. CONTAIN 376 LOS. .(4 SACKS) OF _ PORTLAND. CEMENT PER CU. YD. CLASS D CONCRETE SHALL CONTAIN 656 LOS. (7 SACKS) OF PORTLAND CEMENT PER CU. YO. SHOULD THE QUANTITIES OF INGREDIENTS DESIGNED TO PRODUCE A CUBIC YARD . OF CONCRETE RESULT IN A YIELD GREATER,OR LESS THAN ONE - CUBIC,YARO, THE AMOUNTS OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATE SHALL SE CHANGED AS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE CONSTANT QUANTITY OF PORTLAND CEMENT IN EACH•CUBIC YARD OF CONCRETE. 2. MATERIALS: THE MATERIALS FOR MANUFACTURING PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS: (I .PORTLAND CEMENT: PORTLAND CEMENT, INCLUDING PORTLAND CEMENT USED IN PRECAST PRODUCTS SHALL BE Type 'II CEMENT. ALL CEMENT USED IN THE MANUFACTURE OF CONCRETE FOR EXPOSED SUR- FACES OF A STRUCTURE SHALL BE OF THE SAME BRAND, . (2)' WATERi WATER FOR WASHING AGGREGATES FOR MIXING WITH CONCRETE,' SHALL BE FREE FROM OIL AND OF DOMESTIC QUALITY. WATER ,FOR CURING CONCRETE SHALL NOT CONTAIN'IMPURITI ES IN SUFFICIENT AMOUNT. TO CAUSE 01 S COLORAT ION OF THE CONCRETE OR . PRODUCE ETCHING OF THE SURFACE AND SHALL BE OF DOMESTIC . . QUALITY. . (3) COARSE AGGREGATE COARSE AGGREGATE SHALL CONSIST OF GRAVEL, . CRUSHEO GRAVEL, CRUSHED ROCKS OR COMBINATIONS THEREOF. IT SHALL BE FREE FROM DELETERIOUS COATINGS ROOTS, BARKS STICKS- .. RAGS, AND OTHER EXTRANEOUS MATERIAL. .'REGARDLESS OF SOURCE, ALL COARSE AGGREGATE SHALL BE THOROUGHLY AND UNIFORMLY WASHED BEFORE DELIVERY ON THE WORK. (4) FINE AGGREGATE: FINE AGGREGATE, SHALL BE NATURAL 'SAND OR A COMBINATION OF NATURAL AND MANUFACTURED SAND. FINE AGGREGATE - SHALL BE COMPOSED OF NOT .LESS THAN 50 PER CENT NATURAL SAND:: IT.SHALL BE FREE FROM DELETERIOUS COATINGS, ROOTS BARKS STI CKS, RAGS AND OTHER EXTRANEOUS MATERIAL. REGARDLESS OF SOURCE, 'ALL FINE:AGGREGATE SHALL BE THOROUGHLY . AND UNIFORMLY WASHED BEFORE DELIVERY. ON THE WORK: GRADING LIMITS OF COMBINED AGGREGATES. SIEVE SIZE - PERCENTAGES PASSING SIEVES 2;" MAX. ig" Max. 3/41' MAX. 3 .. .................... 100 2'- z" ................... 95 -100 - - - 2...................... 80- 95 100 - - . 1Z".................... 65- 87 90 -100 I'I ................... 50- 75 50- 86 100 3/4 "....c ............. 45- 66 45- 75 90 -100 3/811 .................. 38- 55 38- 55 60- 80 . No. 4 ................. 30- 45 30- 45 40- 60 ND, 6 ................. 23- 35 23- 35 30- 45 No. 16................. 17- 27'. .17- 27 20- 35 No. 30 ................ 10- 17 10- 17' 13- 23 No. 50 ................ 4- 9 . 4- 9 5- 15 . No. 100 ............... I- 3 1- 3 No. 200 ............... 0- 2 0 2.. 0- 2' THE COMBINED AGGREGATE SIZE USED IN THE WORK SHALL BE THE IZ" MAX, SIZE FOR CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS AND CROSS- GUTTERS. THE 21 MAX. SIZE SHALL. BE USED IN STRUCTURES EXCEPT WHEN THE THICKNESS OF THE MEMBER IS 700 SMALL, OR THE SPACING OF REINFORCEMENT IS TOO CLOSE TO PERMIT PROPER PLACEMENT AND CON-- SOLIDATIom, THE 3/4" MAX. SIZE SHALL BE USED ONLY UPON WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE INSPECTING AGENCY. CHANGES FROM ONE SIZE TO ANOTHER SHALL NOT BE MADE OUR - : ING THE PROGRESS OF THE WORK UNLESS PERMITTED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY. 4. READY -MIXED CONCRETES. READY -MIXED CONCRETE SHALL BE MIXED AND DELIVER- ED TO THE SITE OF THE WORK IN TRUCKS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR THE PURPOSE. EACH MIXER AND AGITATOR SHALL HAVE ATTACHED THERETO IN A PROMINENT PLACE A METAL PLATE OR PLATES ON WHICH 15 PLAINLY MARKED THE VARIOUS USES FOR WHICH THE EQUIPMENT IS DESIGNED, THE MANUFACTURER'S GUARANTEED CAPACITY OF THE DRUM OR CONTAINER IN TERMS OF THE VOLUME OF MIXED CONCRETE AND THE SPEED OF ROTA- TION OF THE MIXING DRUM OR BLADE. TRUCK MIXERS SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH ELEC- TRICALLY ACTUATED COUNTERS BY WHICH THE NUMBER. OF REVOLUTIONS OF THE DRUM OR 6CADES,,MAY READILY BE VERIFIED. THE COUNTERS -SHALL BE OF THE RESETTABLE, . RECORDING TYPE AND SHALL BE MOUNTED IN THE DRIVER'S CAB.. THE COUNTERS SHALL . BE ACTUATED AT THE TIME OF STARTING MIXING AT MIXING SPEEDS. THE TRUCK MIXER WHEN LOADED TO THE MANUFACTURER'S GUARANTEED CAPACITY .. " SHALL BE CAPABLE OF COMBINING THE INGREDIENTS OF, THE CONCRETE INTO'A THOROUGH- LY MIXED AND UNIFORM MASS.'ANO OF DISCHARGING THE CONCRETE WITH A SATISFACTORY . DEGREE OF UNIFORMITY. . EACH BATCH OF CONCRETE SHALL BE MIXED IN A TRUCK MIXER FOR NOT LESS THAN 70 -NOR MORE THAN 100 REVOLUTIONS OF THE DRUM OR BLADE$ AT THE RATE OF ROTA - . TION DESIGNATED BY THE MANUFACTURER OF THE EQUIPMENT ON THE METAL PLATE ON THE MIXER AS MIXING SPEED. ADDITIONAL MIXING,, IF ANY, SHALL BE AT THE SPEED DESIGNATED BY THE MANUFACTURER OF THE EQUIPMENT AS AGITATING SPEED. ALL - MATERIALS INCLUDING MIXING WATER. SHALL BE IN THE MIXER DRUM BEFORE ACTUATING - THE REVOLUTION COUNTER FOR DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF REVOLUTIONS OF MIXING. CONCRETE SHALL BE DELIVERED TO THE SITE OF.THE WORK AND DISCHARGE SHALL ... BE.COMPLETED WITHIN ONE HOUR AFTER ADDITION OF THE CEMENT TO THE AGGREGATES OR . BEFORE THE DRUM HAS BEERREVOLVED.250 REVOLUTIONS, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST. 8 -63 . S25 IN HOT WEATHER OR UNDER CONDITIONS CONTRIBUTING TO QUICK STIFFENING OF THE . CONCRETE OR WHEN THE TEMPERATURE OF THE CONCRETE is 850 F. OR ABOVEy THE TIME BETWEEN THE INTRODUCTION OF THE CEMENT TO THE AGGREGATES AND DISCHARGE SHALL NOT EXCEED 45 MINUTES. CONCRETE WHEN DISCHARGED SHALL BE OF THE CONSISTENCY AND WORKABILITY REQUIRED FOR THE JOB WITHOUT THE USE OF ADDITIONAL MIXING WATER. TRUCK MIXERS SHALL BE OPERATED WITHIN A CAPACITY NOT IN EXCESS OF THE MANUFACTURER'S. GUARANTEED CAPACITY AND AT A SPEED OF ROTATION FOR MIXING OR AGITATING AS DESIGNATED BY THE MANUFACTURER OF THE EQUIPMENT. EACH BATCH OF CONCRETE DELIVERED AT THE JOB SITE SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A TICKET SHOWING VOLUME OF CONCRETES THE WEIGHT OF CEMENT IN POUNDS AND THE TOTAL WEIGHT OF ALL INGREDIENTS IN POUNDS.. THE TICKET SHALL ALSO SHOW THE TIME OF DAY AT WHICH THE MATERIALS WERE BATCHED. 5. HAND- MIXING: HAND -MIXED CONCRETE SHALL BE MADE IN BATCHES OF NOT MORE THAN ONE -THIRD CUBIC YARD AND SHALL BE MIXED IN A WATER - TIGHTS LEVEL PLAT -. FORM. THE PROPER AMOUNT OF COARSE AGGREGATE SHALL BE MEASURED IN MEASURING BOXES AND SPREAD ON THE PLATFORM AND THE,FINE AGGREGATE SMALL BE SPREAD ON THIS LAYER, THE TWO LAYERS BEING . NOT MORE THAN ONE.F00T IN TOTAL DEPTH. ON THIS MIXTURE SHALL BE SPREAD THE DRY CEMENT AND THE WHOLE MASS TURNED NOT .«?LESS THAN 2 TIMES DRY; THEN SUFFICIENT CLEAN WATER SHALL BE ADOEOI EVENLY.. DISTRIBUTED AND THE WHOLE MASS AGAIN TURNED NOT LESS THAN 3 TIMESI, NOT IN- . CLUDING PLACING IN THE CARRIERS OR FORMS, " 6. ADMIXTURES: NO ADMIXTURES SHALL BE USED WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION ' FROM THE INSPECTING AGENCY OR UNLESS ELSEWHERE PROVIDED FOR IN THESE SPECI- FICATIONS OR IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. SUBJECT TO SUCH PERMISSIONS ADMIX - TURES, TO MINIMIZE SEGREGATIONS TO IMPROVE WORKABILITY' TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF MIXING.WATERS TO RETARD OR ACCELERATE. SETTING. TIMES OR TO ACCELERATE DEVELOPMENT OF STRENGTH MAY BE USED IN THE RATE OF DOSAGE SPECIFIED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY. ADMIXTURES SHALL NOT BE USED TO REPLACE CEMENT. ADMIX- TURES CONTAINING CHLORIDES CALCULATED AS CALCIUM CHLORIDE IN 'EXCESS OF ONE PER CENT BY WEIGHT SHALL NOT BE USED IN PRESTRESSED CONCRETE. 7. AMOUNT OF WATER AND SLUMP TEST: THE PROPER CONSISTENCY OF CONCRETE SHALL BE DETERMINED BY TEST METHOD No. CALIF. 520." THE ALLOWANCE FOR SLUMP SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS:. - CURBS, GUTTERS SIDEWALKS, CROSS- GUTTERS..:..... NOT MORE THAN 4 IN. REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES, HEAVY SECTIONS.. NOT MORE THAN 3.IN. REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES, THIN SECTIONS AND COLUMNS.... ..... .......................... NOT MORE THAN 4 IN. CONCRETE PLACED UNDER WATER ....... ............. NOT LESS THAN 6 IN. NOT MORE THAN 811 THE AMOUNT OF WATER ADDED AT THE MIXER SHALL BE REGULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FREE WATER IN THE AGGREGATES AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WORKABILITY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF SLUMP SET FORTH ABOVE. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CONCRETE PLACED UNDER WATER. -THE AMOUNT OF WATER, INCLUDING THE FREE WATER IN THE AGGREGATES SHALL NOT EXCEED 52 POUNDS PER SACK OF CEMENT IN CLASS A CONCRETE ,NOR 60 POUNDS PER SACK IN CLASS B CONCRETE. FREE WATER IN AGGREGATES IS DE- FINED AS THE TOTAL WATER MINUS THE WATER ABSORBED BY THE AGGREGATES IN A .SATURATED, SURFACE -DRY CONDITION. 8. CUP I NG: THE ENTIRE EXPOSED AREA OF THE CONCRETE WORK SHALL BE CURED FOR NOT LESS THAN 72 HOURS BY THE CURING COMPOUND METHOD. SHOULD THE SIDE 8 -63 S� FORMS BE REMOVED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF 72 HOURS FOLLOWING THE START OF CURING, THE EXPOSED EDGES SHALL ALSO B.E CURED. CURING SHALL COMMENCE AS. SOON AS THE FINISHING PROCESS HAS BEEN COM- PLETED. THE ENTIRE SURFACE OF THE CONCRETE SHALL BE SPRAYED UNIFORMLY WITH A CURING COMPOUND WHILE THE SURFACE STILL RETAINS A VISIBLE FILM OF WATER. IF THE FINISHING PROCESSES HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLETED PRIOR.TO THE LOSS OF A VISIBLE FILM. OF. WATER FROM THE CONCRETE SURFACE, ADDITIONAL WATER ,SHALL BE APPLIED BY MEANS OF A NOZZLE WHICH WILL ATOMIZE THE FLOW SO THAT MIST, NOT A'SPRAY, IS FORMED. THE SURFACE SHALL BE MAINTAINED WITH A VISIBLE FILM OF WATER UNTIL JUST PRIOR TO THE APPLICATION OF THE COMPOUND. ' CURING COMPOUND SHALL BE APPLIED AT A UNIFORM RATE OF ONE GALLON PER 150 SQUARE FEET OF AREA.. _ CURI NG' COMPOUND' SHALL.MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS OF AASHO DESIGNATION:'' M146, TYPE II. CURING COMPOUND SMALL BE DELIVERED TO THE WORK IN READY -MIXED FORM. AT THE .TIME OF USE, THE COMPOUND SHALL -BE IN A THOROUGHLY MIXED CONDITION. SPRAYING EQUIPMENT SHALL BE OF THE FULLY ATOMIZING TYPE. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO INSURE AMPLE COVERAGE OF THE COMPOUND AT EDGES, CORNERS AND ROUGH SPOTS.- SHOULD THE FILM OF*COMPOUNO BE DAMAGED FROM ANY CAUSE BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF 72 HOURS AFTER ORIGINAL APPLICATION, THE DAM- ..' AGED PORTION SHALL BE R EPAI RED IMMEDIATELY Wi TH ADD IT.I DNA COMPOUND. 8 -63 $ 27 r SECTION 24 FORMS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE: I. GENERAL CONDITIONS: ALL FORMS FOR CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE BUILT TO THE EXACT SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE CONCRETE MEMBER OR PART SHOWN OR SPECIFIED, AND ANY FORM DEPARTING FROM THIS RULE SHALL BE.TORN DOWN AND REBUILT. IN GENERAL, THE FORMS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF DOUGLAS FIR.OR PORT OR- FORD, CEDAR OF A GRADE SUFFICIENTLY HIGH TO MAINTAIN TRUE SHAPE AND ALIGNMENT DURING CONCRETE POURING OPERATIONS. FORMS SHALL BE SO CONSTRUCTED AS TO BE UNYIELOINGj TRUE,TO LINE AND LEVEL, SUFFICIENTLY,TIGHT TO PREVENT ESCAPE OF MORTAR AND SHALL BE PROPERLY' . AND EFFECTIVELY BRACED JO PREVENT :COLLAPSE OR DEFORMATION OF THE MEMBER BEING CAST. FORMS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE SPECIFICATIONS.AND WITH SECTION 51 -1.05 OF THE STATE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS* 2. DELAYS IN POURING: WHEN FORMS ARE BUILT TO RECEIVE CONCRETE THE GENERAL RULE WILL BE THAT THE CONCRETE SHALL BE POURED IMMEDIATELY OR NOT,TO EXCEED SIXTEEN (16) HOURS THEREAFTER. HOWEVER, FOR CAUSES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE .CONTRACTOR, OR BY EXPRESSED, SANCTION OF.THE INSPECTING AGENCY, SHOULD THE INTERVAL BETWEEN THE COMPLETION OF THE FORMWORK AND THE BEGINNING OF THE POUR EXCEED FORTY-EIGHT .(48) HOURS, THE FORMWORK SHALL BE QUICKLY CHECKED FOR TRUE POSITION IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE POUR. SHOULD THE DELAY EXTEND BEYOND .. .SEVENTY -TWO (72) HOURS, A MORE CAREFUL CHECK FOR TRUE POSITION OF THE :FORMWORK SHALL BE MADE... AFTER EACH CHECK, HOWEVER, SHOULD THE TRUE POSITION OF THE FORMWORK BE FOUND DEFECTIVE, REALIGNMENT AND READJUSTMENT SHALL BE MADE BEFORE POURING IS BEGUN. 3. SCAFFOLDS. AND STAGING: SCAFFOLDS AND STAGING SHALL BE ERECTED INDE PENDENT OF.ALL FORMWORK. THE USE OF.FORMWORK TO PROVIDE ANY KIND OF, SUPPORT, . . ..STABILITY OR FIXITY FOR THE SCAFFOLDS OR STAGING WILL NOT BE PERMITTED, NOR . SHALL FORMWORK RECEIVE SUPPORT FROM SCAFFOLDS OR STAGING UNLESS THE SCAFFOLD OR,STAG:NG HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY DESIGNED FOR THIS PURPOSE. .4. PLYWOOD AND PRESDWOOD FOR FORMS: PLYWOOD USED FOR FORMS SHALL BE MA NU- 'FACTURED WITH WATER -PROOF GLUE AND SHALL NOT BE LESS IN THICKNESS THAN FIVE EIGHTHS (5/8) INCH UNLESS BACKED BY BOARDS OR SHEATHINGS AND NEVER LESS THAN ., FIVE- EIGHTHS (5/8) INCH WHERE A fINISHED CONCRETE SURFACE IS CALLED FOR UN- LESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED OR SANCTIONED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY. PRESOWOOD, WHERE CALLED FOR, SHALL IN ALL,CASES BE BACKED BY BOARDS OR SHEATHING. PRESOWOOD OR PLYWOOD LESS THAN ONE- FOURTH(1/4) INCH IN THICKNESS SHALL BE BACKED BY SOLID SHEATHING WITH THE INDIVIDUAL BOARDS NOT WIDER THAN SIX (6) INCHES AND ALL SHEATHING SURFACES TO A UNIFORM THICKNESS WHEN A FINISHED CONCRETE SURFACE IS SPECIFIED. WHEN AN UNFINISHED CONCRETE SURFACE IS DESIRED OR WHERE ANOTHER KIND OF SURFACE FINISH IS SPECIFIED TO BE APPLIED OVER THE CONCRETE, OR.WHERE CON- .. CRETE SURFACE WILL BE HIDDEN BY ANOTHER TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION' OR MATERIAL, AND THE CONTRACTOR PREFERS TO USE PLYWOOD OR PRESDWOOD, THE THICKNESS SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN ONE- FOURTM(1/4) INCH AND,THREE- SIXTEENTH (316) INCH RESPECT- : IVELY; HOWEVER, A BACKING.OF OPEN SPACED BOARDS ,SMALL BE USED, IN EACH CASE. THE SPACING BETWEEN BACKING SMALL NOT EXCEED SIX (6) INCHES. . ALL PLYWOOD USED FOR FINISHED CONCRETE SURFACES SMALL BE CLEAR, ALL HEART DOUGLAS FIR, G I S, AND SHALL BE OILED AT THE-FACTORY BEFORE DELIVERY AND RE- OILED AT THE SITE BEFORE CONCRETE IS POURED. :NO OILING SHALL BE DONE, HOWEVERt UNLESS 'SO AUTHORIZED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY,; WHERE CONCRETE SURFACES ARE 8_63 S n SPECIFIED TO BE FINISHED WITH EITHER OIL - MIXED -OR WATEIR -MIXED PAINTS OR WITH FINISHED - STUCCO; BUT THE PLYWOOD SMALL. BE DELIVERED AND ERECTED UNTREATED -- - WITH OIL OR OTHER SEALING MATERIAL -OR COMPOUND. - - ALL PRESDWOOD,, NO MATTER WHERE USED AS A. FORM FOR CONCRETE WORKS SHALL BE TEMPERED PR,ESOW000 ANDS UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRE'Dg, SHALL BE-GREASED BEFORE . - ERECTION WITH A PARAFFIN BASE OIL (MIN. VISCOSITY -154 SAYBOLT) FREE FROM VOLA- TILE CONSTITUENTS. 5. MATCHED SHEATHING FOR FORMS: IN SPECIAL CASES, WHERE SHOWN OR SPECIFIEOA FOR FINISHED CONCRETE SURFAC -ES, DRESSED AND HATCHED TONGUL' AND GROOVED. CLEAR - DOUGLAS FIR SMALL BE USED, LAID HORIZONTALLY OR VE- RTICAL AS CALLED FOR. - - -. 6. COMMON SHEATHING FOR FORMS: IN ALL CASES* EXCEPT WHERE SANCTION OF THE 1NSPEC,TING AGENCY IS OBTAINED TO USE PLYWOOD OR PRESDWOODV AND EXCEPT WHERE - - - '- OTHERWISE SPECIFIED FOR FINISH N0. I SQUARED EDGED SHEATHING SHALL BE USED". - - - - NOT EXCEEDING SIX (6) INCHES IN WIDTH- NOR-LESS THAN ONE (1) INCH IN THICKNESS# - - - NORMAL SIZES Of THE SPECIES OF W600_ CALLED FOR IN SECTION 23-01, LAID - HORIZON- -- - _ TALLY. WITH TIGHT JOINTS TO PREVENT THE ESCAPE OF. CONCRETE MORTAR. -KNOT HOLES - - OR LOOSE KNOTS SHALL BE EFFECTIVELY COVERED WITH TIN OR OTHER :FLAT METAL TACK - -- - -. ED IN PLACE. ALL I" X 6" FORMS FOR THIS SUB- S -ECTI ON SMALL 'BE SURFACED FOR - - - . - ..THICKNESS AND THE SURFACED SIDE. OF EACH BOARD SHALL BE LAID ADJACENT TO THE CONCRETE. IN NO CASE SMALL -RE -SAWN LUMBER BE USED. 7. SURFACE TREATMENT OF WOOD FORMS: IN GENERAL,' BUT SUBJECT TO THE OISCRE -- ! -TION OF THE INSPECTING AGENCY, ALL WODD.FORMS, EXCLUSIVE OF FORMS FOR F.INISNED- - -. - I CONCRETE SURFACES, SHALL BE GIVEN TWO (2) COATS OF COLORLESS NON - STAINING, - FORM OIL; FOR EACH RE -USE OF THE FORMS.WHEN' REQUIRED AFTER CLEANING, ONE ADDI -. -- -- 1 - - - TIONAL- COAT. - - - - - - FORM OIL MAY BE APPLIED EITHER BY BRUSH OR BY SPRAY AT THE CONTRACTOR'S - CHOICE, EXCEPT THAT STEEL REINFORCEMENT OR OTHER CONCRETE ENCLOSED MEMBER OR - - -.`. -,- DETAIL SHALL BE KEPT FREE OF OIL UNLE.SS SPECIFIED TO BE OILED OR GREASED. - - -- HOWEVER. ALL OILING OF WOOD FORMS .SHALL BED IN GENERALS ACCOMPLISHED BEFORE THE - - -- -_��� -- _ FORM IS SET IN PLACE. FORM OIL SHALL SES OR EQUAL Too THAT MANUFACTURED BY .- - - -- - - - THE A. C. HORN COMPANYS• LONG ISLANDS NEW YORK.. - - - 8. METAL FORMS: METAL FORMS FOR WALLS MAY BE USED ONLY WHEN SPECIFIED FOR USE OR BY EXPRESSED SANCTION -OF -THE INSPECTING AGENCY. . WHEN SPECIFIED OR - - -i - SANCTIONED FOR USE, BLACK IRONS UNGALVANIZED, OF TWENTY' -FOUR (24) OR TWENTY- - - - -. SIX (26), GAUGE SHALL BE USED IF SUITABLY BACKED .BY SOLID SHEATHING OR SPACED - -. - BOARDS.- .- - - RIBBONS OR BELT COURSE MOULOS# -WHEN APPROVED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY. MAY - -. -- - BE CASED IN METAL. FORMS. SH OULD THE CONTRACTOR CONSIDER THEIR USE ECONOMICAL.__- - OR WHEN THE. USE OF, METAL FOR SUCH WORK IS SPECIFIED OR CALLED FOR. - - - - CONCRETE JOIST CONSTRUCTIONS WHERE CALLED FOR, MAY BE FORMED OF STANDARD METAL JOIST FORMS OR PANS O'F SUITABLE GAUGES TRUE TO SHAPES PROPERLY SPACED _ AND SUPPORTED' AGAINST DEFORMATIONS AND.TN.IS SHALL: APPLY ALSO TO FLAT SLAB -- - . -FLOORS AND ROOFS p -OR TO COLUMNS AND COLUMNS CAPITALS. IN FLAT SLAB CONSTRUCTION - _IF SUITABLY MADE, ST- IFFENED AND BRACED _. AGAINST DEFORMATION AND APPROVED BY.THE`. INSPECTING AGENCY. METAL FORMS, IN GENERALS SHALL BE OILED WITH NON-STAINING OIL BRUSHED ON TO A THIN COATING. IF OILING OF FORMS IS -DONE PRIOR-TO ERECTIONS TOUCHING UP - - - _ - WITH OIL MAY.BECOME NECESSARY - AND - -THIS SHALL -'B EACCOMPLISHED GENERALLY BEFORE _ - .REINFORCEMENT STEEL. -IS PLACED.. WHERE TOUCHING UP IS REQUIRED AFTER PLACEMENT- - OF REINFORCEMENT STEED CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO .- PROTECT THE STEEL REINFORCEMENT - - - -. \ FROM BEING TOUCHED OR SPATTERED WITH OIL.. REINFORCEMENT STEEL STEEL SPATTERED. WITH -- - 8 -63 is S29 s OIL OR GREASE SHALL BE THOROUGHLY CLEANED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE INSPECT- . ING'AGENCY BEFORE ANY CONCRETE IS PLACED. 9. INSPECTING AGENCY APPROVAL: BEFORE THE PLACEMENT OF ANY CONCRETE IN FORMS, THE FORMS AND THE FORMWORKS INCLUDING ALL SHORING AND BRACINGO SHALL HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE INSPECTING AGENCYp AND ANY PART OR PARTS HE CONSIO- ERS UNSATISFACTORY SHALL BE MADE GOOD TO HIS SATISFACTION. HOWEVER, THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SATISFACTORY COMPLETION OF ALL CONCRETE WORK SHALL BE SOLELY THAT OF THE CONTRACTORS AND.ANY AND ALL CONCRETE WORK FOUND UNSA'TIS- FACTORY SHALL.BE MADE GOOD BY THE CONTRACTOR AT HIS OWN EXPENSE AND TO THE ' SATISFACTION OF THE INSPECTING AGENCY.. 10. DEFINITICNS: REFERENCES To FINISHED CONCRETE SURFACES SHALL MEAN CON - .. CRETE SURFACES DESIGNED FOR ARCHITECTURAL EFFECT TO BE LEFT NOT OTHERWISE :TREATED OR ,SURFACED EXCEPT. FOR A COAT OR COATS OF PAINTS IF SUCH PAINTING IS SPECIFIED; OR TO ALL SURFACES, UNLESS OTHERWISE DEFINED, THAT ARE FORMED BY . THE USE OF WASTE, MOULDSo OR FORMED BY THE USE OF METAL OR WOOD FOR ARCHI- TECTURAL TREATMENT OF CONCRETE STRUCTURE. ,. REFERENCE TO UNFINISHED CONCRETE SURFACES SHALL MEAN CONCRETE SURFACES „ WHERE ARCHITECTURAL EFFECT IS DEEMED NOT ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT, AND WHERE THE CONCRETE SURFACE IS TO BE COVERED OR HIDDEN BY ANOTHER TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION., IN ALL CASES WHERE THE FINISH OF THE CONCRETE SURFACE IS NOT CLEARLY SPECIFIED OR MADE KNOWN, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT WITH THE INSPECTING,. . i; AGENCY. TO OBTAIN CLARIFICATION BEFORE THE FORMS AND FORMWORK IS BEGUN. 11. SHORING FOR FORMWORK: ALL SHORING OR SUPPORTS FOR BEAMS, SLABS LIN- TELS, STAIRS AND OTHER MEMBERS REQUIRING SUPPORT FOR THE FORMS, SHALL BE DES- I - IGNED FOR THE LOADS TO BE SUSTAINED AND 'TO PREVENT "DEFORMATION OF THE CON -, .CRETE MEMBER BEING CONSTRUCTED. RIGIDITY OF ALL SHORING IS ESSENTIAL. No. RELIANCE' SHALL BE PLACED ON OBTAINING PARTIAL SUPPORT FROM CONCRETE THAT HAS . NOT .HADA SET OF AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS,.AND THEN ONLY AFTER ,A SEVEN (7) DAY.. .. . SET CONCRETE. HOWEVER, NO SHORING SHALL BE REMOVED UNTIL THE CONCRETE IT SUPPORTS SHALL HAVE HAD A SET OF NOT LESS THAN-TWENTY-EIGHT (28) DAYS SEE SECTION 23 -23. SHORING SUPPORTED ON THE 'GROUND SHALL BE BUILT WITH SUITABLE BASES TO PROPERLY DISTRIBUTE, THE LOADS TO BE CARRIEDS INCLUDING THE WEIGHT OF THE SHOR- ING AND FORMWORK, AND SO AS TO EFFECT NO SETTLEMENT OF THE .SHORING. IN ADDITION THERETO ALL POSTS. , COLUMNS AND THE LIKE SHALL BE SUITABLY. 'TIED AND STRUTTED AT THE BOTTOM TO THE BOTTOM OF OTHER POSTS AND COLUMNS OR .. .. ELSEWHERE TO PREVENT DISPLACEMENT. CROSS - BRACING SHALL ALSO BE RESORTED TO . WHERE NECESSARY TO PREVENT.. SIDE SWAY AND DISPLACEMENT OF BOTH FORMWORK AND ' .,SHORING AND TO GIVE RIGIDITY THERETO. DETAILED: DRAWINGS GIVING DESI_CN LOADS AND STRESSES FOR ALL MEMBERS OF - - THE SHORING AS WELL AS THE MANNER. OF - BUILDING OR CONSTRUCTING THE SHORING IN- . CLUDING JOINT DETAILS AND THE METHOD. OF DISTRIBUTING THE LOADS TO THE ,GROUND - . -, OR OTHER SUPPORTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED IN TRIPLICATE TO THE INSPECTING AGENCY - - FOR HIS APPROVAL BEFORE CONSTRUCTION OF. CONCRETE WORK IS BEGUN. HOWEVER THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SATISFACTORY _ CONSTRUC -, _ TION., SAFETY AND OPERATION OF THE SHORING AND FORMWORKS AND ANY AND ALL DAM - AGE TO THE CONCRETE WORK, DUE TO SETTLEMENT, DISPLACEMENT, DEFORMATION AND ANY AND ALL OT -HER CAUSES, SHALL BE MADE GOOD TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE INSPECTING- - AGENCY AND AT THE EXPENSE OF THE „CONTRACTOR.- -- -. ALL SHORING AND FORMWORK SHALL BE DESIGNED ALSO TO .RESIST WINO AND EARTH -' QUAKES' AND INDEPENDENT'. MEMBERS O:R. PARTS DESIGNED TO RECEIVE SUPPORT TO BE .. CONSTRUCTED LATER SMALL BE - SUITABLY BRACED AND THE "BRACING MAINTAINED,UNTIL -�, - - 8 -63 S30 THE DESIGNED SUPPORT IS INSTALLED AND MADE S'ECUR'E.. I2. ERECTION OF.FORMWORK: ALL EDGES OR CORNERS. OF BEAMS, LINTELS, COLUMNS, -. POSTS, STRINGERS, GIRDERS, ETC., WHETHER INTERIOR OR "EXTERIOR EDGES OR COR -.,- - -. NERS,,SMALL DE CONSTRUCTED WITH CHAMFERS ONE (I) INCH, IN GENERAL, ON"THE - - FACE OF THE CHAMFER, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. OR - ,SHOWN ON THE PLANS, -. .FORMWORK TO RECEIVE CONCRETE SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUCTED TOO FAR IN AD= - VANCE OF POURING-OPERATIONS. THE CRITERION SHALL BE THAT AS SOON AS THE FORMWORK FOR ANY ONE POUR OR RUN IS COMPLETED, INSPECTED AND APPROVE, THE POURING OPERATIONS SHALL BE"BEGUN AND CONTINUED WITH UNTIL THAT ONE"POUR OR. ' - -' RUN IS COMPLETE. THE BUILDING AND ERECTION Or FORMS SHALL DE SUCH THAT STRIP- _ - PING MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHOUT, DAMAGE TO THE CONCRETE SURFACES AND CONCRETE - .. - DETAILS* . THE ERECTION- OF FORMWORK SHALL CONTINUE PROGRESSIVELY AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, -- OR UNLESS, FOR PURPOSES PECULIAR TO THE WORK BEING DONE, THE-INSPECTING AGENCY - - - MAY DIRECT'A - CERTAIN AMOUNT OF INTERMITTANCY.., HOWEVER, BEFORE ANY FORMWORK IS - 'BEGUN, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT WITH THE INSPECTING AGENCY TO DETERMINE -TNE' - REQUIRED POURING PROCEDURE, UNLESS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE OPERATIONS SHALL . - HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED OR DULY SET FORTH. - - - WHERE JOINTS IN THE FORMWORK MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE .INSPECTING AGENCY �! - AS BEING TOO WIDE OR CONDUCIVE TO THE ESCAPE'OF MORTAR, OR WHERE DAMAGE TO THE ! - -. SURFACE OF THE FORM DURING CONSTRUCTION OR ERECTION MAY HAVE OCCURRED, OR FOR - - _ OTHER CAUSES, AN UNDESIRED MARRING OF'THE SURFACE OF THE CONCRETE MAY RESULTO I•. - THE INSPECTING AGENCY MAY REQUIRE THE USE.OF CASTING PLASTER OR CEMENT TO . - - CORRECT THE IMPERFECTION. CASTING PLASTER OR CEMENT MAY BE REQUIRED FOR USE _ Y FOR KNOT -HOLES WHERE THE USE OF TIN::OR FLAT SHEET METAL WOULD BE UNDESIRABLE. APPROVED METAL COLUMN CLAMPS MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF WOOD CLAMPS AND - `! . BOLTS SHOULD THE CONTRACTOR SO DESIRE.. THE CONTRACTOR IS REFERRED TO SECTION 23 -01 FOR OTHER REQUIREMENTS . PER- - - TAINING TO THE ERECTION.-OF FORMS, AND TO OTHER REQUIREMENTS *OF THIS SECTION'- - - - - AND THESE SPECIFICATIONS. " i. 13. REMOVAL OF FORMS: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE EVERY CARE DURING STRIPPING OPERATIONS 70 PREVENT DAMAGE TO CONCRETE MOULDS, CORNERS, SURFACES,- - - OR ORNAMENTAL DETAILS. ROUGH HANDLING AND DROPPING OF FORMS AND FORMWORK SHALL BE AVOIDED. UNLESS OTHERWISE SANCTIONED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY, THE STRIP- -' } " - PING OF FORMS SHALL BE COMMENCED ONLY AFTER THE LAPSE OF THE FOLLOWING NUMBER OF DAYS FROM THE COMPLETION OF POURING OPERATIONSy AND THEN ONLY AFTER DUE PRE- _ - 'CAUTIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO GUARD THE CONCRETE MEMBER OR PART FROM.DAMAGE DUE' - TO OTHER CONSTRUCTION PROCESSES, OR FROM WIND AND EARTHQUAKE. - -- FOR WALLS AND OTHER VERTICAL SURFACES _ _4 DAYS. - - FOR THE SIDES OF BEAMS, GIRDERS, STRINGERS, BUTTRESSES, PILASTER - •' AND POSTS 4 DAYS " FOR COLUMNS WHEN.THE DEAD LOAD DOES NOT INDUCE "A STRESS IN THE GROSS COLUMN. -- - SECTION EXCEEDING 400 POUNDS PER. SQUARE INCH, % DAYS - -; FOR COLUMNS WHEN THE DEAD LOAD INDUCES A STRESS IN THE GROSS COLUMN -- SECTION EXCEEDING 400 POUNDS' PER SQUARE "INCH, 1$ DAYS FOR THE SUPPORTS FOR BEAMS, GIRDERS, JOISTS,*SLABS$* STAIRS AND OTHER - ENS 0 INCLUDING COLUMNS, SUBJECTED TO DEFINITE'BENDING STRESSES 28 DAYS - ,MEMB ... .. OR UNTIL - " DESIGN STRENGTH . IS DEVEL- OPED. '. 8 -63 $ 31 I SECTION 25 PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION: T. GENERAL: THIS SECTION PERTAINS SPECIFICALLY TO THE POURING OR PLACING AND CURING OF.CONCRETE. OTHER SECTI DNS THAT SHOULD BE USED IN CONJUNCTION WI.TH THIS SECTION ARE 'SECTION `27 "REINFORCING ST£EL110 SECTION 23 - "PORT- , LAND CEMENTCONCRETE'', SECTION 24 - !FORMS FOR CONCRETE". IN CASE OF DIS= CREPANCY BETWEEN THIS SECTI ON' AND THE PLANS OR SPECIAL PROVISIONS# THE PLANS OR SPECIAL PROVISIONS WILL TAKE PRECEDENCE. CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE SPECIFICATIONS AND WITH SECTI ON 51 OF THE STATE STANDARD SPECIFICATI OHS. 2. POURING CONCRETE:" THE METHOD OF PLACING CR POURING CONCRETE ADOPTED BY THE 0NTRACTOR SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE INSPECTING AGENCY,.. AND SHALL BE BASED UPON MAINTAINING THE PHYSICAL MIXTURE OBTAINED IN THE MIX- ING MACHINE OR MIXER. THE USE OF ANY METHOD or POURING WMI CH PERMITS UN- WARRANTED SEGREGATION OF THE MIX WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. LOCATIONS OR PARTS OF THE STRUCTURE WHERE THE HEIGHT OF THE FALL OF PLASTIC CONCRETE EXCEEDS SIX (6) FEET MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE INSPECTI.NG AGENCY TO BE POURED BY THE USE OF AN APPROVED TREMIE. PLACING CONCRETE BY PUMPING (PUMPCRETE) SHALL NOT BE USED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN SANCTION OF THE INSPECTING AGENCY. NO GIRDER# BEAM, JOISTS SLAB, OR OTHER CONCRETE. MEMBER OR PART WHICH IS SUPPORTED IN A COLUMN OR A WALL OR OTHER SUPPORTING MEMBER OR PART SHALL BE POURED PRIOR TO, POURING THE SUPPORTS AND ALL COLUMNS AND WALLS AFFORDING SUCH SUPPORT: SHALL BE FULLY POURED.AND THE CONCRETE ALLOWED TO SETTLE FOR NOT LESS' THAN TWO (2) HOURS BEFORE. THE WORK OF POURING SUPPORTED MEMBERS OF PARTS IS .. BEGUN. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN IN POURING A MEMBER HAVING STEEL REINFORCEMENT TO INSURE THE COMPLETE EMBEDMENT OF THE REINFORCEMENT.. ALL CONCRETE SHALL 'BE THOROUGHLY COMPACTED BY, SUITABLE , MEANS' DURING THE OPERATION. OF PLACING# AND .SHALL BE THOROUGHLY WORKED AROUND REINFORCEMENT/ EMBEDDED FIXTURES AND INTO. THE CORNERS OF THE FORMS. JOIST AND SLABS OR OTHER 'rr" -REAM CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE POURED, INTEGRALLY OR AS A WHOLES AND THIS APPLIES WITH EQUAL FORCE AND EFFECT TO THE POURING OF GIRDERS AND COLUMNS. THE STOPPING OF POURS AND THE LOCATION, AND PLACEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION JOINTS. SHALL NOT BE MADE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE INSPECTING AGENCY.' IN THE ABSENCE OF DEFINITE AND SP ECIFI ED INSTRUCTIONS RELATIVE TO THE SEQUENCE OF POURING OPERATIONS# THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN THE APPROVAL' OF THE INSPECTING AGENCY PREPARATORY TO BEGINNING THE POURING, AND IN EVENT OF UNFORESEEN CIRCUMSTANCES INTERRUPTING THE POURING OF 'A MEMBER OF PART REQUIR- ED TO BE POURED INTEGRALLY, IMMEDIATE RECOURSE SHALL BE TAKEN 'TO CORRECT THE INTERRUPTION., TO PREVENT INJURY TO THE STRUCTURE AS A RESULT OF SUCH INTER- RUPTIONS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN ON THE SITE, IN GOOD WORKING CONDI- TION, AN AUXILLARY CONCRETE MIXER, OF NOT LESS THAN ONE -CUBIC YARD CAPACITY. AND SUFFICIENT CEMENT AND AGGREGATE PROPERLY, STORED AND PROTECTED AGAINST DETERIORATION AND CONTAMINATIONS WHICH SHALL•BE USED BY THE 'CONTRACTOR WHEN AND AS'THE INSPECTING AGENCY DIRECTS.. ' SHOULD THE CONTRACTOR FAIL TO CONTINUE POURING, OPERATIONS AS A RESULT OF ANY INTERRUPTION OR FROM INADEQUACY OF HIS PLANT OR. INSUFFICIENCY OF LABOR' OR NEGLECT ARISING-FROM, ANY CAUSE:. THE,INSPECTING AGENCY MAY ORDER THE WORK STOPPED, PARTIALLY POURED. CONCRETE REMOVED, 'STEEL REINFORCEMENT AND FORMS CLEANED AND REPREPARED AND THE WORK OF POURING NOT BEGUN 'AGAIN UNTIL ALL .. C,ORRECTI,ONS HAVE BEEN MADE, AND PROPER POURING PROCEDURES..ESTABLI SHED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONDUCT HIS POURING OPE RATIONS IN SUCH A WAY AS TO M . AINTAIN INTACT THE ASSIGNED POSITION OF ALL FORMS,' FORMWORKS SHORING, AND 0 -63 $ 33 STEEL REINFORCEMENT. AND ANY AND ALL DISPLACEMENTS OF FORMS, FORMWORK, SNOR- ING AND STEEL REINFORCEMENT ,DUE TO CARELESS AND IMPROPER POURING SHALL BE MADE GOOD AT HIS EXPENSE. 3. RATE OF POURING: THE RATE OF, SPEED IN WHICH CONCRETE IS POURED SHALL DE- PEND UPON THE CHARACTER AND PURPOSE OF THE MEMBER OR ITS USE IN THE STRUCTURES THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S CREW, THE NUMBER OF VIBRATIONS OR TAMPERS HE PROVIDES, AND THE EXPERTNESS OF HIS FOREMAN AND WORKMENp AS WELL AS THE DESIGNED ABILITY OF HIS FORMS TO WITHSTAND RAPID POURING. HOWEVER., THE RATE OF POURING SHALL BE SUCH AS TO INSURE PROPER VIBRATION OR TAMPING OF THE PLAS- TIC CONCRETE�AND EMBEDMENT OF STEEL REINFORCEMENT• 4. MASS CONCRETE: UNREINFORCED CONCRETE OR WHERE THE CONCRETE IS ONLY SPARSELY REINFORCED AND IN BLOCKS NOT LESS THAN THREE (3) FEET IN THICKNESS,� THREE (3) FEET IN DEPTH ANO.TH REE.(3) FEET IN LENGTH SHALL BE CALLED MASS CON - CRETE. . THE CLASS OF CONCRETE FOR THIS TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL RE SPECIFIED, .EXCEPT THAT, WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE INSPECTI NG AGENCY p THE CONTRACTOR MAY USE CLEAN, UNFRACTURED, DURABLE COBBLES, WELL DISTRIBUTED IN THE MASS, PROVID- ED ALL COBBLES WILL PASS A SIX (6) INCH. RING AND BE RETAINED ON THE MACHINE, MIXED CONCRETE. COBBLES SHALL BE OF A ROCK -TYPE HAVING THE APPROVAL OF THE INSPECTING AGENCY, AND BEFORE.USING IN THE CONCRETE THEY SHALL THOROUGHLY BE DRENCHED WITH FRESH WATER. MASS CONCRETE MAY BE PLACED IN THE SAME MANNER AS OTHER CONCRETE, BUT IN. . CASE OF UNUSUALLY LARGE VOLUMES OR MASSES THE USE 'OF BOTTOM -DUMP BUCKETS WILL BE REQUIRED. 5. CONUETE BLOCKS FOR SPACING REINFORCEMENTS: CONCRETE BLOCKS OF A DEPTH SUITABLE TO THE CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE-STEEL REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE OF THE SAME CONSISTENCY AND .MIX AS THE MEMBER IN WHICH THEY WILL BE USED. THE 'WIDTH OF THE BLOCKS SMALL NOT EXCEED TWO (2% INCHES NOR THE LENGTH EXCEED TWICE THE WIDTH. BLOCKS SHALL BE BUILT WITH A SLIGHT .BEVEL ON EACH SIDE OF THE DEPTH AND BE PLACED WITH THE GREATER ADJACENT TO THE STEEL REINFORCEMENT. 6. LICHTWEIGHT CONCRETE: LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE WHERE SPECIFIED SHALL BE COM- POSED.OF A MIXTURE OF PORTLAND CEMENT, EITHER PUMICE AND/OR BURNT CLAY AGGRE- GATES AND FRESH WATER, GRADEDO.MIXED, AND TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STAN . DARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR LIGHTWEIGHT AGGREGATES FOR CONCRETE OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR.TESTING MATERIALS, DESIGNATION IICII -130. THE RESULTING CONCRETE SHALL BE PLASTIC AND WORKABLE AND A SMALL AMOUNT OF SAND IS PERMISSABLE TO .. EFFECT THESE QUALITIES. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH SHALL BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD METHOD OF THE A.S.T.M.S DESIGNATION IICII -39. THE ULTIMATIVE COMPRESSIVE ; STRENGTH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN TWENTY-ONE 'HUNDRED (2,100) POUNDS PER SQUARE F INCH. THE TIME OF MIXING FOR LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE.SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN THREE (3) MINUTES, AND THE PROPORTIONS OF CEMENTS AGGREGATE AND WATER SHALL BE DE- TERMINED BY LABORATORY TESTS$ AS SPECIFIED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY. THE USE OF CINDERS OR COKE BREEZE FOR AGGREGATE IS NOT PERMISSABLE. %. POROUS CONCRETE: POROUS CONCRETE WHERE SPECIFIED SHALL BE COMPOSED OF N ONE PART PORTLAND CEMENT TO FIVE PARTS..PEA'GRAVEL. THE PEA GRAVEL SHALL PASS .,,A STANDARD THREE- EIGHTRS ".(3/6):OF AN INCH SQUARE MESH SCREEN AND BE RETAINED ..8 -63 . .S 34 i .O N.A STANDARD THREE - SIXTEENTH (3/16) OF, AN INCH SQUARE MESH SCREEN# OR THEIR EQUIVALENTS IN CIRCULAR MESH, THE . SCREEN OF THE AGGREGATE SHALL BE ACCOM- PLISHED WITH CARE TO INSURE GREAT UNIFORMITY IN GRADING BETWEEN THE TWO SIZES#- . AND TO INSURE AGAINST TOO HIGH A PORPORTION OF FINE$ TENDING TO REDUCE THE EFFECTIVE POROSITY. THE MIX SHALL BE PROPORTIONED BY WEIGHT,' USING NINETY-FOUR (94) POUNDS OF PORTLAND CEMENT TO FOUR HUNDRED SEVENTY (470) POUNDS SCREENED AND CLEAN PEA GRAVEL. THE PROPER AMOUNT OF FRESH WATER USED .1N MIXING SMALL BE DETERMINED BY . - TESTS MADE AT THE LABORATORY SPECIFIED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY., AND SHALL# IN GENERAL, BE LI'MITED.TO A WATER - CEMENT RAT16 OF APPROXIMATELY 0,33 BY WEIGHT. APPROXIMATELY SEVENTY -FIVE (75) F'ER CENT'OFTHE GRAVEL AND THE WATER .� SHALL BE PLACED FIRST IN THE MIXER AND REVOLVED FOR ABOUT ONE MINUTE# AFTER . WHICH. THE CEMENT SHALL BE ADDED #.THEN FOLLOWED.WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE GRAVEL AND WAT.ER. .. CARE SHALL BE EXERCISED TO AVOID EXC.ESS TAMPING WHEN POROUS CONCRETE IS . BEING PLACED #'AS POROSITY CAN IN THIS WAY BE GREATLY REDUCED. AS SOON AS THE CONCRETE HARDENS SUFFICIENTLY SO THAT NO CEMENT CAN BE WASHED AWAY, IT SHALL BE SPRINKLED WITH FRESH WATER AND KEPT MOIST FOR.NOT, LESS THAN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS. THE INSPECTING AGENCY MAY COLLECT SAMPLES OF THE MIX AS DESCRIBED UNDER SUB- SECTION 22 -07 (D) AND. AFTER PROPER CURING, WILL SUBJECT THEM TO COMPRESS- IVE AND POROSITY TESTS. THESE SHALL SHOW NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND (1 #000):. POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH AT SEVEN (7) DAYS FOR COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH, AND A POROSITY :AT SEVEN (7) DAYS.. NOT LESS THAN SEVEN.(7), GALLONS OF WATER PER.MIN .. UTE THROUGH A TWELVE.(12) INCH DEPTH OF CONCRETE WITH A MAINTAINED HEAD OF WATER ABOVE THE TOP OF THE CONCRETE EQUAL TO FOUR (4) INCHES. 8. NAILING CONCRETE:; CONCRETE •NAILING BLOCKS, WMERE`REQUIREO# SHALL. BE COMr POSED OF EQUAL PARTS OF PORTLAND CEMENT, AND CLEAN, WELL GRADED SAND. AND ONE AND ONE -HALF (I1) PARTS OF SUGAR OR . VIMITE'.PINE . SAWDUST. MIXED WITH WATER TO A, ..SLUMP NOT IN EXCESS OF TWO (2) INCHES, AND CURED WITH WATER FOR THREE (3)l DAYS AFTER SETTING. M THE SAWDUST SHALL PASS A STANDARD AGGREGATE SCREEN OF ONE- QUARTER INCH SQUARE MESH AND BERETAINED ON,A N0. 14 STANDARD SCREEN. WHEN.SAWDUST FROM SUGAR PINE OR WHITE PINE IS NOT AVAILABLE# OTHER SAWDUST MAY BE USED, PROV I.DED ITS USE IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE SETTING OF THE MIX NOR TO NAILING .- QUALITY AND IS STRONGLY RESISTANT TO THE WITHDRAWAL OF NAILS. 9. GUNITE: PNEUMATICALLY" P LAC ED. CONCRETE OR GUNITE SHALL BE COMPOSED OF A MIXTURE OF ONE PART PORTLAND CEMENT TO FOUR AND ONE -HALF (42 PARTS OF CLEAN# WELL GRADED SAND., BY.VOLUME # THE' MO.ISTURE CONTENT BEING LIMITED .TO' NOT LESS THAN,THREE (3) PER CENT BY WEIGHT, AND NOT EXCEEDING FIVE (5) PER CENT AND SHALL BE FRESH WATER. THE SIZE GRADING OF SAND SHALL BE SUBSTAN- TIALLY AS FOLLOWS: STANDARD SCREEN NUMBER CUMULATIVE PERCENT RETAINED - 4 0 8 12 14 29 28 60 . 48 90 100 98 THE FINENESS MODULUS FOR AG GREGATE:,SH ALL NOT B LESS TH AN. 2, 60 NOR MORE THAN 3:10, 8-63 S35 'THE MATERIAL FOR GUNITE SHALL BE MEASURED ACCURATELY BEFORE BEING PLACED IN THE MIXER AND THEN MIXED CONTINUOUSLY FOR AT LEAST ONE AND ONE -HALF (11 MINUTES. GUNITE SHALL BE MIXED IN APPROVED BATCH MIXER, AND ALL GUNITE MIXED SHALL BE USED IN NOT TO EXCEED FORTY -FIVE (45) MINUTES. THE WATER - CEMENT .RATIO OF THE PLACE MIXO IN GENERALS SHALL BE BETWEEN 0.54. AND 0.57. IN PLACING GUNITE THE MIXED MATERIAL SHALL BE DELIVERED AT THE NOZZLE IN ' A CONSTANT AND STEADY STREAK AT A VELOCITY OF BETWEEN THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY- FIVE (375) AND FIVE HUNDRED (500) FEET PER SECOND. WHEN, FOR ANY CAUSES THE STEADY FLOW IS INTERRUPTED, THE NOZZLE SHALL BE TURNED AWAY FRDM THE WORK .UN- . Tit THE STEADY FLOW IS RECOVERED., GUNITE DEPOSITED ON VERTICAL SURFACES SHALL BE APPLIED AS NEAR AS PRAC- TICABLE AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE SURFACE. ALL REBOUND SHALL BE 'REMOVED AS THE WORK PROGRESS ES, AND ANY REBOUND POCKETS OR OTHER POOR GUNITE SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY CUT OUT AND REPLACED WITH FRESH GUNI T.E. ONLY SKILLED OPERATORS SHALL BE USED AT THE GUN AND AT THE NOZZLES AND NO DISCHARGED OR UNUSED GUNITE SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE MIXER FOR RE-USE. CEMENT GUNS USED BY THE. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE IN FIRST CLASS CONDITIONO AND OF A CAPACITY SUITABLE TO THE WORK. CEMENT GUNS, HOSEV NOZZLES SHALL BE MAI NTAINEO IN PROPER WORKING CONDITION AND ANY SUCH EQUIPMENTV INCLUDING THE AIR COMPRESSOR, FOUND UNFITTED OR UNABLE TO FUNCTION PROPERLY SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND REPLACED WITH SUITABLE EQUIPMENT. GUNITE WHERE THE THICKNESS 13, SPECIFIED TO BE MORE THAN ONE (L) INCH SHALL BE BUILT UP IN LAYERS,' EACH SUCCEEDING LAYER PLACED BEFORE THE PRECED- ING LAYER HAS SET. 10... VIBRATING CONCRETE:, . A PLACING: CONCRETE SMALL BE PLACED LN LAYERS NOT OVER EIGHTEEN (IH) INCHES DEEP AND EACH LAYER SHALL BE VIBRATED INTO PLACE BY METHODS WHICH 'WI LL NOT PERMIT THE INGREDIENTS TO SEPARATE. SURFACES SHALL BE SMOOTH AND FREE FROM VOIDS CAUSED BY STONE POCKETS. WHERE NECESSARY: VIBRATION SHALL BE SUPPLEMENTED BY HAND SPADING TO SEC.URE THESE :RESULTS. (B) TYPE OF VIBRATORS: FORM VIBRATORS SHALL BE USED WHEN SECTIONS ARE . TOO SMALL FOR THE INTERNAL TYPE. INTERNAL VIBRATO RS SHALL 8E U$.EO IN ALL SECTIONS WHICH ARE SUFFICIETJTLY LARGE AND SHALL BE SUPPLEMENTED BY PLATFORM OR $CREED TYPE VIBRATORS IN THE .EV ENT THAT SATISFACTORY SURFACES. CANNOT BE OBTAINED WITH INTERNAL TYPE ALONE. - �C� NUMB ER AND SIZE OF 'VIDRA TORS: VIB RA70 R5 SMALL BE STURDY CONSTRUC- TION, ADEQUATELY POWERED AND CAPABLE OF TRANSMi TTI NG TO THE CONCRETE NOT LESS THAN THIRTY -FIVE HUNDRED (3,500) IMPULSES PER MINUTE. THE V13RATION SHALL BE -.SUF F I C I E NTLY INTENSE TO CAUSE.THE - CONCRETE TO FLOW OR SETTLE READILY INTO . PLACE AND TO VISIBLY AFFECT THE CONCRETE OVER A RADIUS OF AT LEAST EIGHTEEN - - - (13j .INCHES WHEN USED IN CONCRETE HAVING ONE,�Ij INCH SLUMP. • A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF VIBRATORS SHALL BE.EMPLOYED SO THAT AT THE REQUIR- ED RATE OF PLACEMENT VIBRATION'THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE VOLUME OF EACH LAYER CON- ' 'CRETE ANO,COMPLETE COMPACTION ARE SECURED. AT LEAST ONE EXTRA VIBRATOR SHALL BE ON HAND FOR EMERGENCY USE. - - - (D) MANIPULATION . OF VIBRATION: FORM - VIBRATORS -SHALL BE ATTACHED TO OR - -HELD ON THE FORMS IN SUCH A MANNER- AS EFFICIENT -LY TRANSMIT THE VIBRATION . TO THE CONCRETE AND SHALL. -BE RAISED IN LIFTS AS- FILLI -NG OF THE FORM PROCEEDS., EACH LIFT BEING NOT MORE THAN'THE HEIGHT OF CONCRETE. VISIBLY AFFECTED BY THE . VIBRATI.ON. THEY SHA'LL'BE PLACED HORI- ZONTALLY AT .DISTANCES NOT GREATER - APART: THAN THE RADIUS THROUGH WHICH THE CONCRETE IS VISIBLY. AFFECTED. - INTERNAL VIBRATORS SHALL BE MOVED ABOUT IN THE CONCRETE AND SHALL BE APP - LIED.AT POINTS UNIFORMLY SPACED NOT FURTHER APART THAN TH E. RADIUS OVER WHICH S -b3. I S36 THE VIBRATOR IS VISIBLY EFFECTIVE. THEY SHALL BE APPLIED CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE FORMS TO EFFECTIVELY VIBRATE THE SURFACE CONCRETE. WITH FORM OR INTERNAL VIBRATORS, THE VIBRATION SHALL RE SUCH THAT THE CONCRETE BECOMES UNIFORMLY PLASTIC.AND.THERE SHALL BE AT LEAST TWENTY (20) SECONDS V13RATION PER SQUARE FOOT OF SURFACE, COMPUTED ON THE, BASIS OF THE - ::VISIBLY AFFECTED RADIUS' AND TAKING OVERLAPPING INTO CONSIDERATION. SURFACE SHALL BE APPLIED ONLY LONG ENOUGH TO EMBED THE COARSE AGGREGATE AND BRING ENOUGH MORTAR TO THE SURFACE FOR SATISFACTORY FINISHING. VIBRATION SHALL NOT BE. CONTINUED, IN ANY ONE SPOT TO THE EXTENT THAT POOLS OF GROUT ARE FORMED. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO AVOID ANY BUT SLIGHT Of STURBANCE OF. CONCRETE WHICH HAS - BECOME TOO STIFF TO REGAIN PLASTICITY WHEN VIBRATED. - VIBRATION SHALL NOT BE APPLIED DIRECTLY TO STEEL WHICH EXTENDS INTO PARTIALLY .'HARDENED CONCRETE. _ - (E): ADJUSTMENT OF MIXI TRIAL BATCHES SMALL.BE PLACED FROM WHICH A MIX SHALL BE SELECTED HAVING CEMENT AND WATER CONTENTS WHICH WILL MEET THE SPECI- FICATIONS AND WHICH BECOMES PLASTIC AND COMPACTED UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF PLACEMENT. THE AMOUNT OF WATER AND THE PROPORTION OF MORTAR TO COARSE AGGREGATE_ SHALL AT ALL TIMES BE THE LEAST WHICH WILL PRODUCE UNIFORMLY DENSE CONCRETE FREE FROM AGGREGATE POCKETS OR HONEYCOMB. IF EXCESSIVE FREE WATER IS BROUGHT TO THE SURFACE, THIS SHALL BE CORRECTED BY USING LESS WATER, ADJUSTING THE PROPORTIONS. OF AGGREGATES OR SY INCREASING THE, PROPORTION OF FINE PARTICLES: PASSING -THE FIFTY (50.) AND ONE HUNDRED (IO.0) MESH SIEVES. 11. WALLS: 14HEN POURING PLASTIC CONCRETE 1.11. WALL FORMS THE DEPOSITED CON -. CRETE SHALL. BE BUILT IN HORIZONTAL LAYERS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ANTICIPATE _ THE EXTENT OF HIS POURSO AND, WHERE NECESSARY AND AS SANCTIONED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY; CONSTRUCT. VERTI. CAL BULK - HEADS TO LIMIT THE EXTENT OR RUN OF THE POUR. - - BULKHEADS, WHERE BUILT SHALL BE CONSIDERED- AS CONSTRUCTION JOINTS, AND BE ERECTED WITH KEYS OR FOLLOW THE DETAILS -FOR CONSTRUCTION JOINTS -WHEN SHOWN _ ON THE DRAWINGS. - - - - 12: CEM ENT GROUT: WHEN SPECIFIED OR REQUIRED TO RESIST BEARING, GROUT SHALL` BE COMPOSED OF ONE PART STANDARD .PORTLAND CEMENT AND TWO PARTS OF CLEAN, WELL GRAD.EO SAND, AND WELL MIXED TO.A CONSISTENCY HAVING A SLUMP NOT EXCEEDING TWO (2) INCHES, HOWEVER THE NIGH EARLY STRENGTH PORTLAND CEMENT IN LIEU OF STAN- DARD - .PORTLAND CEMENT IS PERMISSADLE.. - - GROUT FOR FILLING OF EXPANSION JOINTS AND CONSTRUCTION JOINTS WHERE _ .SPECIFIED OR REQUIRED, SHALL BE COMPOSED OF PORTLAND CEMENT, SCREENED TO PASS A STANDARD ND. 200 SCREEN WITH NOT MORE THAN TWO (2 ).,PER CENT RETAINED TH.ERE- -ON, AND FRESH WATER, WELL MIXED TO .A PASTY CONSISTENCY, AND APPLIED EITHER BY -- '. -HAND OR A - CAULKING -GUN AS THE INSPECTING AGENCY DIRECTS. 13. CURING OF CONCRETE: THE CURING OF CONCRETE IN STRUCTURE SHALL BEGIN AS '.SOON AS TH.E CONCRETE HAS HARDENED, AND SHALL CONTINUE FOR SEVEN (7) DAYS FOR ALL PAP.TS.OF THE STRUCTURE_ EXPOSED TO THE SUN AND CONTINUED FOR FIVE (5) DAYS ,.IN ALL OTHER CASES. - - - - FOR CURING REINFORCED CONCRETE SHEET PILING SEE SECTION I2 75 OF THESE - SPECIFICATIONS. THE METHOD OF CURING SHALL BE THAT OF SPRINKLING WITH FRESH WATER AND OF THE CONCRETE BEING MAINTAINED IN A MOIST CONDITION FDR -THE' - SPECIFIED NUMBER OF M YS.' THE SPRINKLING SHALL BE COMMENCED AND CONTINUED WITH, REGARDLESS OF THE PRESENCE- OF FO RMS, EXCEPT THAT IN SUCH .CASES THE. EX -1 TENOR FACES OF THE FORMS SHALL BE.- SPRINKLED AND MAINTAINED IN A MOIST COND1.- TION. - - - 8 -63 S37 FLOOR SLABS SHALL. BE SPRINKLED AND MAINTAINED IN 'A MOIST CONDITION FOR _ THE SAME SPECIFIED LENGTH OF TIME. HOWEVER, THE CONTRACTOR, MAY, IF HE _ CHOOSES, COVER THE SLAB.WITH TWO (2) INCHES OF SAND AND MAINTAIN THE SAND IN -A MOIST CONDITION, AND THIS SHALL APPLY ALSO TO THE TREADS OF CONCRETE STAIRS_ AND STEPS. WHERE THE TREADS OF CONCRETE STAIRS AND STEPS ARE FINISHED AS POURED, THE TREADS SHALL BE COVERED WITH TIMBER SHEATHING IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CURING, AND THE SHEATHING ON THE TREADS MAINTAINED UNTIL THE JOB IS COM- PLETEO.AND THE STRUCTURE CLEANED UP PREPARATORY.TO TURNING IT OVER TO THE - -_- OWNER.. THE CURING OF CONCRETE IS C- ONSIDERED A NECESSARY PART OF THE CONTRACT, AND ANY FAILURE OF THE CONTRACTOR TO COMPLY WITH THI'S SPECIFICATION MAY COM- PEL THE OWNER TO .HIRE THE WORK OF CURING DONE BY OTHERS AND TO DEDUCT THE COST -FROM ANY MONIES DUE THE CONTRACTOR OR TO BECOME DUE HIM. THE PERIOD OF CURING - GUNITE SHALL BE LIMITED TO-THREE (3.) DAYS FOR.EXPOS- ED WORK AND TWO (2) DAYS FOR UNEXPOSED WORK. _ 14. CONCRETE INSERTS: IT SHALL BE NECESSARY ON THE PART OF THE CONTRACTOR TO EXAMINE THE DRAWINGS AND DETERMINE THE LOCATION OF ALL INSERTS FOR FIXING OR SECURING OF OTHER TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION TO THE CONCRETE, WHETHER OR NOT THE LOCATION AND SPACING OF INSERTS IS DEFINITELY SHOWN OR SPECIFIED. UNTREATED WOOD ENCLOSED IN CONCRETE SHALL NOT BE USED. . CREOSOTEO. WOOD, WHERE STAINING OF, - OTHER AND ATTACHED FORMS OF CONSTRUCTION WOULD OCCUR, SHALL BE COVERED WITH ALUMINUM FOIL PRIOR TO ATTACHMENT. PRESSURE TREATMENT WOOD - - .. USED FOR SUCH PURPOSES IS NOT NECESSARY, BUT WOOD. BLOCKS WEIGHTED AND SUNK FOR A PERIOD OF TWENTY -FOUR (24) HOURS IN CREOSOTE OIL, WOLMAN SALTS, OR CHROMATIC - - - ZINC CHLORIDE, AND PERMITTED TO DRY BEFORE USE, WILL BE CONSIDERED SATISFACTORY. HOWEVER, WHERE GALVANIZED NAILS ARE SPECIFIED, THE USE OF ZINC CHLORIDE IS NOT PERMISSABLE. - - .. IN GENERAL, AND.WHERE THEIR USE ENTERTAINS- NO GREAT DIFFICULTY, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THEIR BEING SPECIFIED OR REQUIRED, THE USE OF GALVANIZED METAL - - WALL PLUGS WILL BE PERMITTED, OR THE CONTRACTOR MAY USE BLOCKS MADE OF NAILING CONCRETE AS SPECIFIED IN SUB- SECTION 24 -7. HOWEVER, FOR ALL FORMS OF CONCRETE - . INSERTS NOT SPECIFIED OR CALLED FOR SHALL HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE INSPECTING AGENCY BEFORE USE. BOLTS. AND ANCHORS SHALL BE PLACED CAREFULLY FOR LOCATION AND PROJECTI.ON TO INSURE THE PROPER ATTACHMENT FOR OTHER TYPES OR FORMS OF CONSTRU.CTION.- ' STRUCTURAL STEEL ENCASED IN CONCRETE SHALL BE MADE CLEAN AND FREE OF OIL, GREASE AND RUST SCALE OP. OTHER SUBSTANCE INTERFERING WITH THE ADHESION OF THE CONCRETE TO THE STEEL, AND THIS SHALL REFER WITH EQUAL FORCE AND EFFECT TO -CURB NOSI NGS, ANGLES AND OTHER FORMS OF PROTECTION TO CONCRETE EDGES AND COR- - NERS, -AS WELL AS TO THE INSERTION PIPES, PIPE, SLEEVES, AND OTHER NECESSARY - PARTS - OF THE WORK, OF CONSTRUCTION.- - - 15. EXPANSION JOINTS: EXPANSION JOINTS WHERE . SPECIFIED OR REQUIRED SHALL BE . CAREFULLY AND STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. COPPER AND ZINC,.WHEN SPECIFIED FOR USE, SHALL BE MADE CLEAN OF ALL SUBSTANCES.- - WHICH MAY, IN ANY WAY INTERFERE WITH PROPER BONDING. 16. ._ PRECAST CONCRETE: WHERE''PRECAST UNITS ARE SPECIFIED, THE MATERIALS USED, THE MANNER OF FORM.ING THE POURING.ANO. CURING] SHALL COMPLY ESSENTIALLY WITH THE VARIOUS SECTIONS OF -THIS - SPECIFICATION, EXC €PT'THAT VIBRATION,OF THE CON- CRETE DURING POURING OPERATIONS MAY BE. EFF ECTE 0 1BY THE USE.OF _A SHAKING TABLE - OR OTHER RAPIDLY VIBRATING DEVICE ON WNLCH THE INDIVIDUAL UNITS ARE CAST. - - - 8 -63 $ 36 THE INTERSECTION: OF THE SEVERAL UNITS WHEN PLACED IN THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE PROPERLY SUPPORTED AND HELD IN TRUE POSITIONS AND THEN THEIR INTERSECTION . SOLIDLY BUILT TO FORM A UNION BY THE USE OF GUNITE AS DESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 24 -9. CURING OF GUNITED CONNECTIONS OR INTERSECTIONS SHALL BE PERFORMED IN THE SAME MANNER AND FOR PERIODS SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 24 -13. REINFORCEMENT STEEL SHALL BE HELD FIRMLY AND MAINTAINED IN TRUE POSITION. THROUGHOUT THE.ENTI.RE OPERATION OF CASTING* THE HANDLING OF PRECAST CONCRETE UNITS SHALL BE CONDUCTED CAREFULLY TO . AVOID UNDUE STRESSING AND DAMAGE TO THE UNIT AS A WHOLE ANO.ALSO TO EDGES OF PRECAST UNITS. ROUGH HANDLING FOLLOWING CASTING OPERATIONS OR WHEN PLACING THE UNITS'IN THE STRUCTURE MAY BE CAUSE FOR THE INSPECTING AGENCY TO CONDEMN THE UNIT SO ASU3ED# AND ORDER IT REMOVED IMMED I ATELY -FROM THE, SITE OF THE WORK. - 17. STA INS t WHEN/ DURING .CO NSTRUCTI DN AND BEFORE ACCEPTANCE OF THE STRUCTURE BY THE OWNERy STAINING OF CONCRETE 0 1 CCURS# DUE TO MANY CAUSE# AND THE STAIN IS DEEMED UNSIGHTLY AND .OBJECTIONABLE TO THE OWNERS *HE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RE- QUIRED TO REMOVE THE BLEMISH AT HIS OWN EXPENSES LEAVING THE CONCRETE, SURFACE CLEAN.AND To THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER. 10. CRACKS. CHECKS. ROCK POCKETS OR OTHERWISE UNSAT IS FACTORY.. CONCRETE I WHERE CRACKS# CHECKS. ROCK POCKETS OR OTHERWISE UNSATLSFACTORY CONCRETE OCCURS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL, BCFDRE ACCEPTANCE BY.THE OWNER AND AS.DEEMED ADVISABLE OR NECESSARY BY THE INSPECTING AGENCYj .MAKE CORRECTION BY CHIPPING OUT THE UN- SATISFACTORY CONCRETE ANO FILLING THE AREA WITH GUNITE OR AS OTHERWISE DIRECT- ED. 19, DEPOSITING. CONCRETE UNDER WATER$ A THEN -IT `IS NECESSARY TO DEPOSIT CONCRETE UNDER WATER/'THE METHOOSj EQUIPMENT,. MATERIALS AND.PROPORTIONS OF THE MIXTURE TD BE USED SHALL.. BE SUB- . MITTED TO AND BE APPROVED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY, BEFORE THE WORK IS STARTEDs (B) THE CONCRETE SHALL CONTAIN NOT -LESS THAN SEVEN.(7) SACKS OR SIX HUNDRED FIFTY,— EIGHT.(658),POUNDS OF CEMENT PER CUBIC YARD.. THE VOLUME OR.' WEIGHT OF THE COARBE AGGREGATE SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN ONE AND ONE -HALF, NOR MORE THAN TWICE THAT OF THE FINE AGGREGATE. THE CONCRETE SHALL BE MIXED WITH SUFFICIENT WATER TO PRODUCE A CONCRETE HAVING A SLUMP OF NOT LESS THAN FOUR (4) INCHES AND HOT MORE THAN SEVEN (7) INCHES. (C) COFFERDAMS OR FORMS SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY TIGHT TO REDUCE THE FLOW OR CURRENT OF WATER THROUGH THE SPACE INTO WHICH CONCRETE IS TO BE DEPOSITED SO AS NOT TO EXCEED TEN (10) FEET PER MINUTE. COFFERDAMS OR FORMS IN STILL WATER SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY TIGHT TO PREVENT LOSS OF MORTAR THROUGH . THE . WALLS•. PUMPING WILL NOT BE PERMITTED WHILE CONCRETE IS BEING PLACEBO NOR SOONER THAN TWENTY -FOUR (24) HOURS.AFTER THE PLACING OF CONCRETE HAS BEEN STOPPED. (E) CONCRETE SHALL BE DEPOSITED CONTINUOUSLY UNTIL IT IS BROUGHT TO THE REQUIRED HEIGHT. WHILE DEPOSITING0 THE TOP SURFACE SHALL . BE KEPT AS NEARLY LEVEL AS POSSIBLE AND THE FORMATION OF SEAMS AVOIDED. THE METHODS TO BE USED FOR DEPOSITING CONCRETE UNDER WATER SHALL BE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING AS NOTED IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS: ( I ) TREMIE: THE TREMIE SHALL BE WATERTIGHT AND LARGE ENOUGH TO ALLOW A FREE FLOW OF CONCRETE, IT SHALL BE KEPT FILLED WITH CONCRETE AT ALL TIMES WHILE DEPOSITING. THE CONCRETE STALL BE DISCHARGED AND SPREAD BY SO ,MOVING THE TREMIE TO MAINTAIN AS NEARLY AS PRACTICABLE A UNIFORM FLOW AND AVOID DRO "PING. THE CONCRETE. THROUGH WATER. IF THE CHARGE IS LOST WHILE DEPOSIT - ING, T;HE TREMIE SHALL BE WITHDRAWN AND REFILLED. THE SLUMP OF CONCRETE SHALL B -63 S39 SECTION 26 CONCRETE CURBS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS & CROSS GUTTERS: .1. DESCRIPTION: THIS WORK SHALL CONSIST OF CONSTRUCTING CURDS, GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, AND CROSS- GUTTERS OF THE FORM AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, AND AS SPECIF1 6 IN THESE SPECIPICATIONS AND THE SPECIAL PROVI- SIONS. THEY SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF CLASS B CONCRETE. 2. SUBGRADE PREPARATION: THE SUBGRADE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TRUE TO GRADE .. - AND CROSS - SECTION, AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS; AND SHALL BE THOROUGHLY COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION* WHENEVER,.SOFT SPONGY MATERIAL_IS EN- COUNTERED IN MAKING THE SUBGRADE, SUCH MATERIAL SHALL BE REMOVED TO A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 6 INCHES BELOW SUBGRADE AND FILLED WITH GOOD SOUND EARTH OR SAND, WHICH SHALL BE THOROUGHLY COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION, THE SUBGRADE AND FORMS SHALL BE WET IMMEDIATELY IN ADVANCE OF PLACING .. CONCRETE* 3. .JOINING EXISTING WORK: WHEN THE PLANS PROVIDE FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF AN EXISTING CURB, GUTTER, SIDEWALKS DRIVEWAY OR CROSS- GUTTER, THE EXISTING SECTION SMALL BE CUT TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF I',.-INCHES WITH AN ABRASIVE TYPE SAW AT THE FIRST SCORING LINE AT OR BEYOND THE PLANNED JOINT# AND THE ENTIRE SECTION TO BE RECONSTRUCTED SHALL BE REMOVED. THE NEW WORK .. SHALL JOIN THE OLD WORK AT THIS, LINE. .. 4. FORMS: FORMS SHALL BE TRUE AND SHALL HAVE A SMOOTH, STRAIGHT UPPER EDGE... TIMBER FORMS SHALL BE SURFACED ON THE SIDE PLACED NEXT TO THE CONCRETE, AND SHALL HAVE A TRUE SURFACED UPPER EDGE AND.SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN INCHES THICK AFTER BEING SURFACED* ' ALL FORMS SHALL BE THOROUGHLY C.LEA NED AND COATED WITH FORM OIL TO PRE - VENT THE CONCRETE FROM ADHERING TO THEMo . THE DEPTH OF F 01114S FOR a ACK OF CURBS SHALL BE EQUAL TO THE FULL DEPTH . OF THE CURB. THE DEPTH OF FACE FORMS FOR CONCRETE CURBS SHALL BE EQUAL TO THE FULL FACE- HEIGHT OF THE CURB, FORMS SHALL BE CAREFULLY SET TO ALIGNMENT AND GRADE AND SHALL CONFORM. TO. THE REQUIRED DIMENSIONS. FORMS SHALL BE HELD RIGIDLY 1N PLACE BY STAKES PLACED AT INTERVALS NOT TO EXCEED 4 FEET. CLAMPS, SPREADERS, AND BRACES SHALL BE USED WHERE REQUIRED TO INSURE RIGIDITY IN THE FORMS. ' BENDERS OR. THIN PLANK FORMS MAY BE USED ON CURVES, GRADE CHANGES, OR FOR CURB" RETURNS, BACK FORMS FOR CURB RETURNS MAY BE MADE OF 1/2 -INCH THICK., ..BENDERS CLEATED TOGETHER FOR THE FULL DEPTH. OF THE CURB, THE FORM ON THE FRONT OF CURBS SHALL NOT BE REMOVED IN LESS THAN 2 'HOURS NOR MORE THAN 6 HOURS AFTER THE CONCRETE HAS BEEN PLACED.. IN NO EVENT SHALL FORMS BE REMOVED WHILE THE CONCRETE IS SUFFICIENTLY PLASTIC TO SLUMP. SIDE FORMS FOR SIDEWALK, GUTTERS, DRIVEWAYS AND CROSS— GUTTERS SHALL NOT. at IN LESS THAN 12.HOURS AFTER THE FINISHING HAS BEEN COMPLETED, . S. JOINTS: UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED,`ALL JOINTS AND JOINTING MATERIALS .. .IN CURBS, GUTTERS, AND SIDEWALKS SHALL BE INSTALLED. VERTICALLY AND AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE CURB LINE. EXPANSION JOINTS: TRANSVERSE EXPANSION JOINTS IN CURBS, GUTTERS, AND SIDEWALKS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT ALL RETURNS AND SHALL BE SPACED AT INTER- .• VAL$ NOT TO EXCEED 60 FEET BETWEEN.J.OINTS. AN.EFFORT SMALL BE MADE TO SPACE AND PLACE ALL JOINTS IN SUCH A MANNER SO AS TO CREATE. AN APPEARANCE OF.UNI- 8 -63 S41 FORMITY.- EXPANSION JOINTS SMALL BE FILLED WITH JOINT FILLER STRIPS INCH .. THICK AND SHALL EXTEND THE FULL W16TH AND DEPTH OF CURB, CUTTER, AND SIDE -. WALK. THE JOINT FILLER SHALL BE TYPE V, CONFORMING TO A'STM DESIGNATION: D544.' THE JOINT FILLER STRIPS SHALL BE IN ONE PIECE, SHAPED TO TRUE CROSS-, SECTIONs AND INSTALLED 1/4 INCH BELOW CONCRETE SURFACE, EDGES OF EXPANS . ION JOINTS SMALL BE ROUNDED WITH AN APPROVED EDGING TOOL HAVING A RADIUS NOT TO EXCEED 1/4,INCH AND ALL EXCESS CONCRETE SHALL BE REMOVED FROM AROUND THE JOINT• (2) WEAKENED PLANE .JOINTS: WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS SHALL BE INSTALLED AT INTERVALS OF 20 FEET. WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS SHALL BE AT LEAST ONE INCH. IN OEPTH,'BUT NOT MORE THAN 2 INCHES IN DEPTH. WEAKENED PLANE .JOINTS IN CURBS AND COMBINATION CURBS AND GUTTERS SMALL BE FORMED BY CUT PLATES CONFORM - ING TO THE SHAPE OF THEIR CROSS- SECTIONS. ALL WEAKENED PLANE JOINTS SMALL' BE'FORMED WITH 1/4 INCH STEEL. PLATE, AND SHALL,BE PROPERLY EDGED. NO JOINTS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN FRONT OF DRIVEWAY APPROACHES* 6• CURB AND GUTTER CONSTRUCTION; I PLACING CONCRETE: CONCRETE SHALL BE SPREAD AND GAUGED TO SUCH A .. .THICKNESS THAT, WHEN TAMPED AND FINISHED# THE THICKNESS OF THE GUTTER POR- TION SHALL IN NO PLACE BE LESS THAN SPECIFIED.' THE CONCRETE SHALL BE THOR . .,.OUGHLY. SPADED WITH A STRAIGHT SPADE OR SIMILAR TAMPING TOOL, AS PLACING " PROGRESSES UNTIL THERE ARE NO ROCK POCKETS AT EITHER FORM. -- (2) FINISHING: IMMEDIATELY AFTER STRIPPING THE FORMS, GROUT COMPOS- ED OF ONE PART' OF CEMENT TO ONE.PART OF PLASTER SAND SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE: 'FACE OF THE CURB BY: MEANS OF 'A BRUSH. THE FACE OF THE CURB SMALL BE TROWELr ED SMOOTH AND GIVEN STEEL TROWEL FINISH USING A ,ROTARY.MOTION. THE TOP SHALL BE EDGED AND GIVEN A STEEL TROWEL FINISH, THE GUTTERS SHALL BE FINISH -. 'ED TO A TRUE EVEN GRADE AND A SMOOTH, SURFACE AND GIVEN A STEEL TROWEL FIN - ISH. ALL SURFACES AFTER BEING. TROWELED SMOOTH SHALL BE GIVEN A FINAL FINE BRUSH FINISH WITH BRUSH STROKES PARALLEL TO THE.LINE'OF THE CURB* THE TOP AND FACE OF THE 'FINISHED CURB AND GUTTERS SHALL BE TRUE AND STRAIGHT, AND THE TOP SURFACE OF CURBS SHALL.BE.OF. UNIFORM WIDTH, FREE FROM :HUMPS, SAGS, OR OTHER IRREGULARITIES. WHEN A STRAIGHT EDGE 10 FEET LONG IS LAID ON TOP OR, FACE OF THE CURE OR ON THE SURFACE OF GUTTERS, THE SURFACE .SHALL NOT. VARY MORE THAN 0.01 -FOOT FROM THE EDGE OF THE STRAIGHTEDGE EXCEPT - .AT GRADE CHANGES OR CURVES• REPAIRS SHALL BE MADE BY REMOVING THE ENTIRE UNIT. BETWEEN SAW CUTS OR JOINTS AND REPLACING SAME, 7• CONCRETE CROSS- GUTTERS SIDEWALKSx AND DRIVEWAYS: I PLACING CONCRETE: CONCRETE SHALL BE SPREAD AND GAUGED TO SUCH A - THICKNESS THAT, WHEN TAMPED AND FINISHED, THE THICKNESS SHALL AT NO PLACE BE LESS THAN SP ECIFIED. A TEMPLATE, CUT TO FIT THE FINISH£D.SHAPE OF THE CROSS GUTTER SHALL BE USED IN GAUGING ITS SURFACE* THE CONCRETE SHALL BE TAMPED UNTIL ITS SURFACE IS COVERED WITH ENOUGH MORTAR TO PERMIT PROPER FINISHING, (2) FINISHING: THE CROSS- GUTTERS, SIDEWALKS] -AND DRIVEWAYS SHALL BE 'FINISHED TO A TRUE, EVEN 'GRADE FREE FROM HUMPS, DEPRESSIONS OR OTHER IRREGU- :LARITIES•- ALL SURFACES .SHALL BE FINISHED TO GRADE AND CROSS - SECTIONS WITH A `.FLOAT AND THEN TROWELED SMOOTH WITH A STEEL TROWEL AND FINISHED -WITH A FINE- - HA IR BROOM, GROOMING SHALL BE TRANSVERSE TO THE LINE OF TRAFFIC. ,- '- (3) SCORING: THE SURFACE:OF' SIDEWALKS SHALL BE MARKED 'INTO 'SQUARES WITH A SCORING TOOL WHICH WILL _LEAVE THE EDGES ROUNDED. _MARKED SQUARES SHALL - -__ NOT EXCEED 25 SQUARE FEETIM.AREA. - - - - 8 -63 . $ 42 � � CO.L OR ING: CONCRETE COLORING FOR SIDEWALKS AND DRIVEWAYS SHALL SECTION 27 REINFORCING STEEL: I. GENERAL: REINFORCEMENT SHALL CONFORM TO THESE SPECIFICATIONS AND BE OF THE SHAPE AND DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS OR SPECIFIED IN THE SPECIAL PROVI "SI DNS. - 2. MATERIALS: THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS SET FORTH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR - BAR REINFORCEMENT, MESH REINFORCEMENT, AND BLACK ANNEALED WIRE. 3. BAR REINFORCEMENT: ALL BAR REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE OF STRUCTURAL OR INTERMEDIATE GRADES ROLLED FROM NEW BILLET STOCK AND SHALL CONSIST OF DE- "FORMED BARS. NO RE- ROLLED MATERIAL SHALL BE USED.' IN TESTING BAR REIN- FORCEMENT, ONLY THE THEORETICAL CROSS - SECTIONAL AREA SHALL BE USED IN ALL COMP.UTATIONS. BAR REINFORCEMENT SHALL CONFORM T.O .ASTM SERIAL DESIGNATION ' A15 -50 AND A305 -50 WITH SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS: .4. MESH REINFORCEMENT: SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ASTM SERI AL E-D SIGN AT ION Al 85-37, WITH SUBS -EQUE NT AMENOM ENT S. THE GAUGE OF WIRE' - AND THE DIMENSIONS OF THE MESH WILL BE. SHOWN ON THE PLANS. - 5. BLACK ANNEALED WIRE: ALL WIRE USED AS REINFORCING STEELS BUT NOT IN- CLUDING TIE WIRES IN STRUCTURES AND CONCRETE PILES AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, SHALL BE BLACK- ANNEALED WIRE . OF THE GAUGE . DESIGNATEDO THE GAUGE TO BEAMERI- CAN STEEL AND WIRE GAUGE. 6. STEEL LISTS: REINFORCING STEEL LISTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE ENGIN- -- -£ER FOR APPROVAL WHEN REQUESTED -. SUCH APPROVAL IS INTENDED AS ADDITIONAL PRECAUTION - AGAINST' ERRORS AND SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED AS RELIEVING THE CON- TRACTOR OF FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ACCURACY OF THE LISTS. 7. SAMPLING: REINFORCING STEEL MAY BE SAMPLED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY AT THE SOURCE OF SUPPLY, OR ON THE WORK OR BOTH. STEEL SUBMITTED FOR SAMPLING - EITHER AT THE MILL OR ON THE WORKS SHALL BE IDENTIFIED -BY HEAT OR MELT NUM- _ BERS AND ACCOMPANIED BY MILL ANALYSIS AND TEST REPORTS. TWO OR MORE SAMPLES, EACH 24 INCHES LONG., SHALL SE TAKEN AT RANDOM FROM EACH SIZE IN EACH MELT OR HEAT.' ALL TEST SAMPLES SHALL BE FURNISHED BY THE CONTRACTOR, WITHOUT CHARGE TO THE OWNER. - 8. CLEANING: BEFORE, BEING PLACED,.REINFORCING STEEL SMALL BE THOROUGHLY CLEANED OF LOOSE MILL AND RUST SCALES MORTARS OIL, DIRT, AND OF COATINGS OF . ANY DESCRIPTION WHICH -;WILD IN ANY WAYS DESTROY THE BOND. - 9. BENDING: REINFORCING STEEL SHALL ACCURATELY CONFORM TO THE DIMENSIONS " SHOWN ON THE PLANS. THE MINIMUM RADIUS OF BENDS SHALL BE 4 .TIMES THE LEAST DIAMETER OF THE BAR. BARS SHALL NOT BE BENT OR STRAIGHTENED IN A MANNER THAT WILL INJURE THE MATERIAL. BARS WITH KINKS OR SHARP BENDS SHALL NOT .BE USED. 10. PLACING: REINFORCING BARS 'SHALL BE ACCURATELY PLACED AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND FIRMLY HELD IN POSITION SY.WIRING AT. INTERSECTIONS WITH NO. 14 OR ,. No. 16 WIRE AND BY USING CONCRETE OR METAL CHAIRS SPACERS METAL HANGERS, SUPPORTING WIRESS AND OTHER APPROVED DEVICES OF SUFFICIENT STRENGTH TO - RESIST CRUSHING .UNDER FULL LOAD. -ALL SUCH SUPPORTING DEVICES SHALL BE FUR- NISHED BYE AND AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CONTRACTOR. METAL SUPPORTS WHICH EXTEND. I 8-63 $ TO THE SURFACE OF THE CONCRETES EXCEPT WHERE SHOWN ON THE PLANS, AND WOODEN SUPPORTS SHALL NOT BE USED. PLAC ING BARS ON LAYERS OF FRESH CONCRETE AS THE WORK PROGRESSES, AND ADJUSTING BARS DURING THE PLACING OF CONCRETE SMALL NOT BE.PERMITTED. THE MINIMUM SPACE BETWEEN PARALLEL BARS SHALL BE 2 INCHES AND IN NO CASE SHALL THE EMBEDMENT IN THE CONCRETE BE LESS THAN SHOWN ON THE PLANS.' THIS LATTER REQUIREMENT WILL BE RIGIDLY ENFORCED, AND SHOULO,TEST :SHOW THAT REINFORCEMENT IS NEARER THE SURFACE THAN SPECIFIED, THE CONTRACTOR. WILL, AT HIS 'OWN EXPENSES BE REQUIRED TO REMEDY THIS DEFECT. 11. SPLICING: GIRDER:BARS SHALL NOT BE SPLICED EXCEPT AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. SPLICES OF TENSIBLE REINFORCEMENT AT POINTS OF MAXIMUM STRESS SHALL BE AVOIDED, WHERE BARS ARE SPLICEDO THEY SHALL BE LAPPED AT LEAST 24 BAR OIAMETERSO BUT NOT LESS THAN 12 INCHES.WHEREFABRIC IS SPLICED THE LAP . SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN ONE MESH." i 12. INSPECTION: NO CONCRETE SHALL BE .PLACED UNTIL THE INSPECTING AGENCY HAS INSPECTED THE PLACING OF THE REINFORCING AND GIVEN PERMISSION TO PLACE CONCRETE. ALL CONCRETE.PLAC:ED IN VIOLATION OF THIS PROVISION SHALL BE RE- JECTED.. 13., MEASUREMENT OF QUANT I TI ES :. ' QUANTITIES OF BAR REINFORCING STEEL AND BLACK ANNEALED WIRE NOT INCLUDING TIE'WIRE) PLACED AS.REINFORCEMENT AS SHOWN ON THE PLA.NS OR.AS DIRECTED BY' THE INSPECTING AGENCY WILL BE DETERMINED FROM COMPUTATIONS BASED UPON THE CALCULATED WEIGHTS OF THE SAID STEEL AND 141. REI ACTUALLY, PLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE SPECIFICATIONS. THE WEIGHTS. CALCU -; LATED SHALL BE BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING TABLES: BAR REINFORCING STEEL DEFORMED BAR UNIT WEIGHT IN NOMINAL DIAMETER, DESIGNATION No., POUNDS. PER FOOT IN INCHES, j 3 0.376 0.375 4 0.668 0.500 5 . 1..043 6 1.502. 0.750 7 2.044' 0.875, ' 8 2.670. 1.000 9 3.400 1.128 10 ?+.303.:. 1.270 II 5.313 1.410 BLACK ANNEALED REINFORCING WIRE .. .'AMERICAN STEEL AND WIRE. GAUGE.. 'WEIGHT- POUNDS PER LINEAR FT. .. ' No. 4 WIRE 0.1354 No. 5 WIRE 0.1143 NO. 6 WIRE 0.0983 No. 7 WIRE 0.0835 No..B WIRE 0.0700. No. 9 WI RE . '. 0.0586.. i No.10 WIRE '0.0486. 843 t S45 QUANTITIES OF MESH REINFORCEMENT PLACED AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS OR AS SECTION 28 LUMBER FOR STRUCTURES: I. 'GENERAL': ALL WOOD USED SHALL BE SELECT STRUCTURAL GRADE DOUGLAS .FIRM AS DEFINED IN THE STANDARD GRADING AND DRESSING RULESs, ND. 15,9 FOR DOUGLAS FIR,, WEST COAST HEMLOCK,, SITKA SPRUCES WESTERN RED CEDAR LUMBER AS PUBLISH- ED BY WEST,COAST LUMBERMAN'S ASSOC.IATIONj, JANUARY 19560 AS REVISED, UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN OR DESIGNATED ON THE, PLANS OR IN THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS. .2. GRADE, MARKS: ALL LUMBER FURNISHED IN COMMERCIAL LENGTH SHALL BE PROPERLY AND EFFECTIVELY GRADE MARKED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD PRAC- TICES OF THE WEST COAST LUMBERMANIS ASSOCIATION OR THE CALIFORNIA REDWOOD ASSOCIATION. LUMBER FURNISHED WITHOUT GRADE — MARKING THEREON# WILL BE RE- .. JECTED AND SHALL NOT BE .USED UNTIL CLEAR EVIDENCE OF GRADE CAN BE OBTAIMID .. AND SUBSTANTIATED. ALL COST RELATIVE TO OBTAINING AND SUBSTANTIATING THE GRADE OF THE LUMBER NOT PROPERLY MARKED SHALL BE BORNE BY THE CONTRACTOR.. 3. SEASONING: UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN OR INOICATEDs ALL LUMBER SMALL BE DRIED AS CLOSELY AS PRACTICAL TO THE FOLLOWING: 3•i AVERAGE WHEN USEOp 10% TO 18% WITH.90% OF LOAD LESS THAN 12%. .. 3.2 INCLEMENT WEATHER OR AFTER SHIPMENT 25% BUT NOT USED UNTIL DRIED TO 18% OR LESS. 4. HANDLING AND STORING: ALL LUMBER SHALL BE HAHOLEO.IN A MANNER THAT WILL CAUSE NO DAMAGE TO THE LUMBER., THE TEARING OF LUMBER EDGES BY SLINGSt CHAINS*.ROPESq ETC, OR.THE DESTRUCTION OR RUPTURING OF WOOD FIBERS OR OF PROTECTIVE COATINGS OR TREATMENTS BY PEAVEYS OR CANT HOOKS OR THE OTHER SHOP TOOLS WILL BECAUSE -FOR REJECTION, ALL LUMBER SHALL BE STORED IN SUCH A WAY THAT AIR CAN CIRCULATE UNDER THE STACK; AND EVERY PRECAUTION TAKEN TO .� PREVENT TWISTINGs WARPING OR OTHER DAMAGE RESULTING FROM CARELESS STORING. STORING SHALL ALSO FACILITATE INS PECTI ON. OF THE LUMBER PRIOR TO USE. S47 SECTION 29 PRESERVATIVE.TREATMENT OF TIMBER AND PILINGc i. GENERAL: ALL TIMBERS AND PILING SHALL BE CONDITIONED AND TREATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICAN W000- PRESERVER S ASSOCIATION STANDARDS WHICH ARE MADE A PART OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS.. THE STANDARD FULL -CELL PROCESS _ SHALL BE USED FOR THE APPLICATION OF ALL PRESERVATIVES.. WHEN PERMITTED BY STANDARDS C2 OR, C3, AN EXPANSION BATH, SHALL BE APPLIED. THE FOLLOWING IS - A LIST OF AMERICAN WOOD- PRESERVERls ASSOCIATION STANDARDS TO BE USED WHEN- EVER APPLICABLE IN TREATMENT , OF TIMBER :OR PILES: .. MI - "STANDARD FOR THE PURCHASE AND PRESERVATION OF FOREST PRODUCTS ". M2 - "STANDARD INSTRUCTION FOR THE INSPECTION OF PRESERVATIVE TREATMENT . OF WOOD. M4 — "STANDARD INSTRUCTION FOR THE CARE OF PRESSURE- TREATED WOOD AFTER TREATMENT.. ..' PI - "STANDARD FOR CREOSOTE ". PS "STANDARD FOR WATER -BORNE PRESERVATIVES"... CI - "STANDARD FOR THE PRESERVATIVE TREATMENTS BY PRESSURE PROCESSES ". .. (GENERAL • REQUIREMENTS) C2 - "STANDARD FOR THE PRESERVATIVE TREATMENT OF LUMBERp TIMBER BRIDGE TIES,. AND.MINE TIES BY PRESSURE PROCESSES ". C3 "STANDARD FOR THE.PRESERVAT'IVE TREATMENT OF PILES BY PRESSURE PROCESS .. ES ". CIB— "STANDARD FOR PRESSURE TREATED PILE AND TIMBER IN MARINE CONSTRUCTION ". 2. PRESERVATIVES:. CREOSOTE SHALL BE USED FOR ALL TIMBER USED IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS 'A. PILES .. . B. SUB- STRUCTURE TIES C. PILE CAPS .. D. ANY OTHER MEMBERS DESI GNATED� ON . THE PLANS OR IN.THE SPECIAL PROV I SI DNS. FLUOR CHROME ARSENATE PHENOL (WOLMAN SALTS) SHALL BE USED FOR ALL T 114 ER USED IN.THE FOLLOWING WAYS. A. DECKING B. STRINGERS C. BLOCKING .. . .0. ANY OTHER MEMBER DESIGNATED ON THE PLANS OR IN THE SPECIAL PRO . VISION. 3. PRESERVATIVE RETENTION AND PENETRATION: THE FOLLOWING ARE THE REQUIRE - ED PRESERVATIVE RETENTION AND PENETRATION: 3.I CREOSOTE - 16 POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT' OF TIMBER WITH A MINIMUM OF 'ONE (.1) INCH OF PENETRATION. 3.2 FLUID CHROME ARSENATE PHENOL (WOLMAN SALTS 0:50 POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT' OF TIMBER WITH A MINIMUM OF ONE -HALF INCH PENETRATION. ' k. CERTIFICATES: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY THE HARBOR.MANAGER WITH CERTI- FItCATES ATTESTING TO THE GRADE OF THE TIMBER USED AND THE ADEQUACY OF THE.TREAT- . MENT METHODS. THE ACCEPTANCE OF: SUCH CERTIFICATES BY. THE HARBOR MANAGER DOES . NOT WAIVE THE OWNER'S RIGHT TO REJECT SUCH CERTIFIED MATERIAL IF SUBSEQUENT . INSPECTION SHOWS THAT ANY PORTION OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN MET. 8 -63 S48, SECTION 30 ROUGH CARPENTRY (PIER CONSTRUCTION) REFERENCE HEREIN TO CREOSOTED MATERIALS WILL ALSO APPLY TO MATERIALS TREAT - ED WITH CHROMATED- ZINC - CHLORIDE, OR WITH WOLMAN SALTS, IF USED. 1, HANDLING CREOSOTED LUMBER: THE CREOSOTED TIMBER SMALL RE CAREFULLY HANDLED WITHOUT SUDDEN DROPPING, OR OTHER MISTREATMENT WHICH WILL IN ANYWAY SPLIT THE TIMBER OR BREAK THE OUTER FIBRES. CANT HOOKS, DOGS, PIKE POLES OR SHARP TOOLS WHICH MIGHT PENETRATE THE CREOSOTED PORTION OF THE TIMBER SMALL NOT BE USED. NO CUTTING INTO TREATED, TIMBER, EXCEPT TO SAW PIECES TO THE 'EX ACT LENGTH TO FIT, AND OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY WILL BE ALLOWED. ANY TIMBER DAMAGED SO AS TO SHOW. OR EXPOSE UNTREATED INTERIOR WOOD, THEREBY OPENING TH E WAY FOR ENTRY* OF DRY ROT OR FUNGUS SHALL BE TREATED AS FOLLOWS: NAIL HOLES, OR PUNCTURES PRODUCED FROM OTHER CAUSES,, SMALL BE BORED ROUND, THE HOLES'FILLED WITH HOT CREOSOTE AND THEN FITTED WITH TIGHT FITTING TURNED PLUGS WHICH HAVE BEEN TREATED IN BOILING CREOSOTE OIL FOR A PERIOD OF THREE HOURS.' 2.. BORING HOLES FOR BOLTS, ETC: ALL HOLES IN TIMBER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOT- . "E0, SHALL BE BORED ONE - SIXTEENTH (1 /16) INCH SMALLER IN DIAMETER THAN THE SIZE OF THE BOLT, PIN OR DOWEL, TO REQUIRE A DRIVING FIT. HOLES NEAR THE ENDS,. OF THE TIMBERS SHALL BE BORED THE SAME DIAMETER AS THE BOLT, PIN OR DOWEL. .HOLES FOR THE THREADED PORTION OF LAG SCREWS SHALL BE BORED NOT LARGER IN DIA- METER THAN THE BASE OF THE THREAD. IN SMALL TIMBERS WHICH ARE IN DANGER OF SPLITTING, HOLES FOR BOAT OR WIRE SPIKES SHALL BE BORED OF THE SAME DIAMETER ASTNE SMALLEST DIMENSION OF TH E'SPIKE.. .. BEFORE BORING BOLT HOLES, TIMBERS TO BE BOLTED SHALL BE HELD IN CLOSE CONTACT BY NAILING OR OTHER EFFECTIVE MEANS. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN TO BORE BOLT HOLES PERPENDICULAR TO THE FACE OF THE TIM- BERS., EXCEPT WHERE PLANS CALL SPECIFICALLY FOR DIAGONAL BORING. WHEN TIMBERS ARE JOINED BY FABRICATED STEEL STRAPS IN PAIRS,_ THE TIM - BERS SMALL BE SHAPED AND HELD SECURELY IN PLACE IN THEIR FINAL POSITION. U.SI NG THE STRAPS AS A TEMPLET, BOLT HOLES OF THE SAME NOMINAL DIAMETER AS THE BOLTS SHALL BE BORED ONE -HALF THE DISTANCE THROUGH THE PILE OR TIMBER FROM .: EACH DIRECTION UNTIL THEY JOIN, SO AS TO SECURE. THE PROPER ALIGNMENT WITH THE HOLES IN THE STRAPS AND TO FACILITATE DRIVING OF THE BOLTS. .. BEFORE DRIVING BOLTS OR PINS, THE HOLES SHALL. BE SWABBED AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED. 3. FRAMING: ALL FRAMING, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, SHALL BE DONE AT THE SITE OF THE WORK BY COMPETENT CARPENTERS EXPERIENCED IN THE TYPE OF WORK UNDER .SWAY, AND ALL WORK MUST BE FIRST CLASS IN EVERY RESPECT. ALL TIMBERS CARRYING LOADS MUST HAVE UNIFORM AND EVEN BEARING ON THE SUPPORTING MEMBERS. NO _ BLOCKING OR SHIMMING OF ANY DESCRIPTION WILL BE ALLOWED IN MAKING JOINTS, ,NOR ' WILL OPEN JOINTS BE PERMITTED. - 4. DAPPING: DAPS WHERE PERMITTED SHALL BE MADE TRUE AND SQUARE, AND THE BEARING TIMBER _SHALL BE CUT ACCURATELY TO SHAPE AND LENGTH $O AS TO HAVE A FULL AND,TIGHT- BEARING.. - - .5. TIMBERS BELOW HIGH WATER: IN PLACING ANY CREOSOTED TIMBERS BELOW THE ELEVATION OF HIGH WATER,- CARE SHALL BE TAKEN THAT THE ENDS THEREOF ARE NOT _ -- CUTS.' SPLIT OR INJURED, WHEREBY UNTREATED WOOD.WILL BE EXPOSED TO THE ATTACKS - .. 8 -63 S49 . OF MARINE BORERS. IT IS INTENDED THAT NO CUTTING OR BORING SO AS To EX- POSE UNTREATED TIMBER BELOW HIGH WATER BE PERMITTED, BUT IN THE EVENT BOR- ING IS ALLOWED, DUE TO UNUSUAL CONDITIONS ANY SUCH BORING PERFORMED AFTER CREOSOTING SHALL BE CAREFULLY TREATED WITH HOT NO. I CREOSOTE UNDER FIFTY (50) POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH PRESSURE. . 6. TREATING BOLT HOLES: THE SIDES of ALL HOLES AND COUNTERBORES FOR BOLTS AND PINS IN CREOSOTED AND UNTREATED TIMBERS.ABOVE HIGH WATER SHALL BE SWABBED THOROUGHLY AND FREELY WITH -A HALF AND HALF MIXTURE OF COAL TAR' - AND CREOSOTE .OIL, APPLIED HOT. PARTICULAR CARE MUST BE TAKEN TO COVER ALL UNTREATED WOOD IN AND 'AROUND HOLES THROUGH CREOSOTED WOOD. 7., APPLICATION OF PRESERVATIVE, UNTREATED TIMBER: THE SAWED ENDS OR FACES OF UNTREATED TIMBERS, IF ANY, SUCH AS JOINTS AND DECKING, SHALL BE SWABBED THOROUGHLY AND FREELY WITH A HALF AND HALF MIXTURE-OF COAL TAR AND 'CREOSOTE, APPLIED HOT, BEFORE THEY ARE.PLACEO. ALL CONTACTS OF WOOD ON WOOD OR METAL ON WOOD SUCH AS STRINGERS AT BEARINGS* THE ENTIRE TOPS OF JOINTS OR STRINGERS, THE DECKING UNDER CURBS AND LOWER SURFACES OF CURBS ETC., SHALL BE THOROUGHLY AND FREELY PAINTED WITH TWO INDIVIDUAL COATS OF. THE HOT MIXTURE DESCRIBED ABOVE FOLLOWED BY A COAT Or NOT ASPHALT; THE LAST COAT APPLIED JUST BEFORE CONTACT IS MADE* S. APPLICATION OF PRESERVATIVE, CREOSOTED TIMBER: WHEREVER NECESSARY TO CUT CREOSOTED PILES OR TIMBERS, A HALF AND HALF MIXTURE OF COAL TAR AND CREOSOTE OIL SHALL. BE APPLIED HOT IN TWO INDIVIDUAL COATS TO THE EXPOSED WOOD] WHICH SHALL BE FOLLOWED, AFTER THE TAR AND OIL MIXTURE HAS PENETRA- TED, BY A COATING OF HOT ASPHALT OF.A, HEAVY GRADE. THE ASPHALT SHALL BE ,. .'APPLIED HOT WITH A COTTON MOP, THIS WORK MUST BE DONE CAREFULLY TO IMPREG- NATE THE WOOD 'AS. MUCH AS POSSIBLE, ALL TIMBERS IN CONTACT AFTER ASSEMB- LINGSNAIL NAYS THEIR CONTACT SURFACES WELL SWABBED WITH NOT ASPHALT BEFORE ." THE CONTACT IS MADE. THIS APPLIES TO PILE CAPS BEARING ON PILES, GRILLAGE .TIMBERS, STRINGERS, ESC., BEARING ON PILE CAPS OR BLOCKING, SPLICES, TIES OR DECKING BEARINGS AND SIMILAR POINTS. i 9. FILLING POCKETS WITH ASPHALT: ALL COUNTERBORES IN PILE AND IN TIM —. BERG CREOSOTED OR UNTREATED, FOR. COUNTERSUNK BOLT OR SPIKE', HEADS WHETHER ON ,HORIZONTAL, INCLINED OR VERTICAL SURFACES, AS WELL AS ALL POCKETS. LIKELY TO HOLD WATER, SHALL BE FILLED WITH NOT ASPHALT OF HEAVY GRADE, AFTER BEING TREATED AS SPECIFIEO,FOR BOLT HOLES. 10. EXPOSED CRACKS IN UNTREATED TIMBER: THE TOPS OF ALL EXPOSED CRACKS BE- TWEEN UNTREATED TIMBERS BOLTED TOGETHER AND THE EXPOSED SPACES BETWEEN ENDS OF.UNTREATEO. TIMBERS AND THE ABUTTING PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE, FILLED. OR COVERED WITH HOT ASPHALT OF HEAVY GRADE,' II, HEATING CREOSOTE AND ASPHALT: ALL CREOSOTE OIL, COAL TAR AND ASPHALT' SHALL BE HEATED AND APPLIED AT TEMPERATURES BETWEEN ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY (170) AND TWO HUNDRED ,(200) DEGREES F. THE HEATING 'SHALL BE DONE AT SOME DISTANCE FROM INFLAMMABLE-CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO MINIMIZE THE FIRE RISK* 12. TIGHTENING NUTS: ALL NUTS SHALL BE WELL TIGHTENED AT THE TIME THE BOLTS ARE DRIVEN, AND SMALL BE AGAINTIGMTENED UPON COMPLETION OF THE WORK TO TAKE UP ANY SHRINKAGE OF THE TIMBERS, ' S50 13: PREFRAMING OF 16 -POUND CREOSOTED TIMBERS: FOR ALL TIMBERS SPECIFIED SECTION 31 ROUGH HAROWAREi I. GENERAL: I.I. HARDWARE SHALL CONSIST OF BOLTS WITH THE NECESSARY NUTS . AND WASHERS, TIMBER CONNECTORSO DRIFT PINS* DOWELS$ .NAILS$ SCREWS$ SPIKES AND OTHER METAL FASTENINGS.. 1.2 - THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH AND INSTALL ALL NECESSARY AND,REQUIR- ED HARDWARE TO COMPLETE EVERY DETAIL OF CONSTRUCTION. WHERE DETAILED, DESIGNS FOR FITTINGS OR . CONNECTIONS ARE'. NOT INCLUDED IN THE PLANS OR THE SPEC'IAL.PRO- ,VISIONS# IT WILL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO FURNISH STANDARD MARD -, :WARES WITH DESIGN LOAD CAPACITY SUFFICIENT TO CARRY THE MAXIMUM LOADS ENTERING SAID FITTING OR CONNECTIONS. ASSUM'ING.EACH MEMBER TO BE CARRYING ITS . .. :MAXIMUM SAFE DESIGN LOAD. IF THE CONTRACTOR FAILS OR REFUSES TO PROVIDE ,AND INSTALL ALL SUCH HARDWARE, THE OWNER MAY ORDER SATISFACTORY HARDWARE TO, BE FUR- NISHED AND INSTALLED BY OTHERS AND DEDUCT THE COSTS INCURRED THEREIN FROM ANY MONEY OR MONIES DUE OR TO BECOME DUE THE CONTRACTOR AS SET FORTH IN THE GEHER -. AL PROVISIONS. 2. MACHINE BOLT HEADS AND NUTS: MACHINE BOLT HEADS AND NUTS SMALL SE AMER1- CAN STANDARD REGULAR. THREADS SHALL BE AMERICAN NATIONAL FORM$ COARSE THREAD# CLASS 2 FREEFIT. WHEN BOLTS AND NUTS ARE GALVANIZED# THE THREADS IN THE NUTS SHALL BE RETAPPED AFTER GALVANIZING. 'BOLTS AND NUTS SHALL CONFORM TO THE .•REQUIREME:,NTS OF; THE A.S.T.M.-DES IGNATIO.NS: A307. �3. WASHERS: WASHERS SHALL BE CAST IRON O- GEEy.MALLEAWLE.IRON$ PLATE,OR. CUT WASHERSp.AS SPECIFIED. ' 4. TIMBER CONNECTORS: .TIMBER CONNECTORS SHALL BE OF THE TYPE AND SIZE' SHOWN ON THE PLANS OR SPECIFIED. . 5. NAILS: NAILS SHALL BE OF STANDARD SIZE AND FO RM. 2 8-63 S52 SECTION 34 STRUCTURAL STEEL AND MISCELLANEOUS IRON:. 1. GENERALS THE WORK OF TN.IS SECTION SHALL INCLUDE ALL LABOR, MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT. AND APPLIANCES REQUIRED TO COMPLETE ALLOF THE STRUCTURAL STEEL ' .. WORK AND MISCELLANEOUS IRON SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS OR HEREIN SPECIFIED* 2. MATERIALS: STRUCTURAL STEEL SHALL BE MADE EITHER THE OPEN- HEARTH OR ELECTRIC- FURNACE PROCESSES ONLY AND SHALL CONFORM TO THE 11STANDARD SPECI- FICATIONS FOR.STRUCTURAL STEEL FOR BRIDGES AND BUILDINGS", ASTM A7 -58T. 3. WORKMANSHIP: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT TRIPLICATE CHECKED PRINTS OF ALL SHOP DRAWINGS FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL TO THE INSPECTING AGENCY FOR REVIEW. .. THESE DRAWINGS SHALL BE BASED ON.TME WORKING DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL INDICATE IN DETAIL ALL THE STRUCTURAL STEEL' FORMING . A PART OF THIS DIVISION OF THE WORK. THE INSPECTING AGENCY WILL RETURN TWO'(2) DRAWINGS', APPROVED OR CORRECTED. .. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF ALL SHOP DRAWINGS AND FOR ALL -SHOP FABRICATION, THE APPROVAL OR CORRECTION OF ANY . DRAWING SHALL NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DRAWINGS OR THE STRENGTH OF ANY DETAILS ALL WORK SMALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCEPTED STANDARDS FOR ALL GOOD WORKMANSHIP OF THE BUILDING TRADES AND.CONSTRUCTION PRACTICE. PORTIONS OF STRUCTURAL STEEL EMBE D1)ED. IN CONCRETE SHALL NOT BE PAINTED, 'A CL STEEL WORK SHALL BE THOROUCMLY.CLEANED, BY .EFFECTIVE MEANS, OF ALL LOOSE MILL SCALE, RUST AND FOREIGN MATTER. EXCEPT WHERE ENCASED IN CONCRETE, ALL. , STEEL SHALL BE.GIVEN ONE SHOP COAT, OF RED LEAD AND OIL PAINT, APPLIED . THOROUGHLY AND EVENLY AND WELL WORKED INTO THE JOINTS AND OTHER OPEN SPACES•, .. ALL PAINT SMALL BE APPLIED.,TD DRY SURFACES. CONTACT SURFACES SHALL BE CLEAN - 'ED'.BEFORE ASSEMBLY,.BUT NOT PAINTED. AFTER ERECTION.WELOS AND BOLTS, ALL ABRASIONS TO THE SHOP COAT, SHALL.BE SPOT- PAINTED WITH THE MATERIAL USED F.OR� THE TOP COATy OR AN EQUIVALENT, AND ALL FOREIGN MATTER SHALL BE REMOVED* FINISH PAINTING SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED UNDER PAINTING. '.ALL.BOLTEO CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE WITN.'ORD IN ARY MACHINE BOLTS AND OF SUCH LENGTHS AS TO PROVIDE FULL GRIP BETWEEN NUT AND BOLT, AND THERE SHALL BE NO BEARING ON THE THREADED PART OF THE :BOLT# ALL MASONRY WALLS AND CON - CRETE BEAMS, ETC..SUPPORTING STEEL MEMBERS 'SMALL BE POURED UP TO THE POINT - OF SUPPORT WITH ALL ANCHOR BOLTS, METAL FITTINGS, ETC. IN PLACE BEFORE THE START OF STEEL ERECTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL TEMPORARY CON- - - STRUCTION BRACING, SNORING, ETC. NECESSARY TO HOLD ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL IN PLACE DURING THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION. AS THE ERECTION. PROGRESSES, THE - WORK SHALL BE SECURELY BOLTED -UP TO TAKE CARE-OF ALL DEAD LOAD, LATERAL FORCES AND ERECTION. ALL WELDING IN CONNECTION WITH FABRICATION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL SHALL - -- BE BY ELECTRIC SHIELDED -ARC METHOD, AND SHALL CONFORM TO THE PRACTICE- , 'RECOMMENDED BY CODE OF FUSION WELDING AND GAS CUTTING IN BUILDING CONSTRUC- TION OF THE AMERICAN WELDING SOCIETY. ALL WELDING RODS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 8ISPECIFI- - - CATIONS.FOR MILD STEEL ARC - WELDING ELECTRODES ", A.S.T.M...A233 -58T. ALL - DEFECTIVE WELDS OR UNSATISFACTORY PARTS SHALL BE CUT OUT AND REPLACED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE.- S55 SECTION 35 PRECAST_ CONCRETE MANHOLES: - 1. GENERAL: AT THE LOCATION SHOWN ON THE PLANS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL - - CONSTRUCT PRECAST CONCRETE MANHOLES APPURTENANT TO.SEWERAGE AND STORM -. - DRAINAGE FACILITIES OR AS OTHERWISE NOTED BY THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS, 2. MATERIALS: ' A PRECAST CONCRETE RINGS, CONES AND COVERS THE PRECAST CONCRETE - '- SECTIONS SHALL BE OF THE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND SHALL - - BE MANUFACTURED BY ASSOCIATED CONCRETE PRODUCTS, INC., COSTA - -- . MESA, CALIFORNIA, OR APPROVED EQUAL. - - - - - (B) MANHOLE FRAMES AND COVERS - MANHOLE FRAMES AND COVERS SHALL BE OF` ` - THE TYPE AS SHOWN BY THE PLANS OR AS NOTED IN THE SPECIAL PRO- PRO- -: - - VISIONS VISIONS AND SHALL BE MANUFACTURED BY THE ALHAMBRA FOUNDRY CD., .. ALHAMBRAS CALIFORNI,AS OR APPROVED EQUAL-AND SHALL CONFORM TO _ -- . - - - 'SECTION 36 OF THESE 13ETAIL SPECIFICATIONS. - - -- . - (C) CEMENT.GROUT -- CEMENT GROUT SHALL BE COMPOSED OF ONE (1) PART BY - - - - -' - - VOLUME OF PORTLAND CEMENT AND TWO (2) PARTS BY VOLUME OF FINE. - - '- - - AGGREGATE MIRED IN ACCORDANCE TO.THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CEMENT MOR- TAR IN SECTION 22 OF THESE DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS. - - 3. CONSTRUCTION: THE REQUIRED PRECAST CONCRETE SECTIONS SHALL BE PLACED IN SUCH A COMBINATION OF -SIZES AS TO REQUIRE THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF CEMENT GROUT TO RAISE THE MANHOLE. FRAME AND. COVER TO FINISH GRADE AT EACH LOCATION. -, - THE CONCRETE BASE PAD SHALL BE CLASS A CONCRETE .•AS SPECIFIED IN SECS - _ TION 23 OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS. - INVERT -CHANNELS SHALL BE SMOOTH,'ACCUR- -. ATELY SHAPED AND SHALL CONTAIN,NO - DEPRESSIONS - CAPABLE OF RETAINING WATER *. - THE INVERT MAY BE FORMED DIRECTLY IN THE CONCRETE OF THE MANHOLE BASE* E i t 1 i is S56' SECTION.36 CLAY PIPE SANITARY SEWERS: .. 1. . SCOPE: THE WORK COVERED BY THIS SECTION INCLUDES ALL PLANTS LABOR - MATERIALS* EQUIPMENTS EXCAVATION., BACKFILLp PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT AMC ALL IN- CIDENTAL WORK AND SERVICES REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWERS AND APPURTENANCES SHOWN ON THE PLANS9- AND AS SPECIFIED IN. THESE SPECIFICATIONS AND SPECIAL PROVIS16NSI 2. PIPE.AND. FITTINGSt ALL- PIPE'AND FITTINGS SHALL BE OF THE SIZE AND KIND SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIEDV THE COST OF FITTING SHALL SE.IMCLUDEO IN THE PRICE 810 PER FOOT FOR PIPE IN PLACE. - ALL.SA'NITARY SEWERS SHALLs, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, BE CONSTRUCTED WITH BEST QUALITY VITRIFIED, CLAY PIPE (V.C.P.), BURNED ENTIRELY THROUGHs FREE - FROM WARPS CRACKSs BLISTERS OR OTHER DEFECTS, SMOOTH ON THE EXTERIOR AND IN -. TERIOR SURFACEV AND HAVING A METALLIC RING WHEN STRUCK WITH A HAMMER. THE PIPE SHALL, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIEDS BE EXTRA STRENGTH, BELL AND SPIGOT - - TYPE IN STANDARD COMMERCIAL LENGTHS. THE PIPE SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CLAY PIPE INSTITUTE STANDARD EXTRA STRENGTH . CLAY PIPE AMC ASTM DESIGNA- TION: C -200. . .PRIOR TO-STARTING WORK OR AT ANY TIME DURING CONSTRUCTION# THE MANU- FACTURER SUPPLYING THE PIPEp IF REQUESTED BY THE INSPECTION AGENCYt SHALL FUR- NISH CERTIFIED TEST REPORTS THAT ANY AND ALL PIPE FURNISHED MEETS THE REQUIRE MENTS. OF THIS SECTION. - - 3. PAVEMENT _REMOVAL: ALL EXISTING PAVEMENT. CURBSS. GUTTERSo DRIVEWAYS AND S. ID EWALKS TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE CUT PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO CENTER LINE OF IMPROVEMENT. ALL PAVEMENT TO BE REMOVED SMALL BE CUT SO AS TO LEAVE A STRAIGHT UNIFORM EDGE FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE PAVEMENT. CONCRETE MATER- - - IALS SHALL BE CUT WITH A CONCRETE SAW TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF I INCH. BITUM- INOUS MATERIALS SHALL BE CUT WITH TOOLS THAT HAVE A STRAIGHT TRUE EDGE AND . IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE ADJACENT PAVEMENT NOT BEING REMOVED IS NEITHER, RAISED OR DEPRESSED. - CONCRETE OR BITUMINOUS MATERIAL THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED SHALL NOT BE USED AS BACKFILL IF GREATER THAN 3 INCHES IN SIZE. 4. EXCAVATION: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL PIPESo TREES, STONESp ' DEBRIS AND OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS THAT MAY BE ENCOUNTERED IN MAKING THE EXCAVA- TION. THE EXCAVATION SHALL BE MADE TRUE TO LINE AND GRADES AND. SHALL BE MADE' A SUFFICIENT DISTANCE BELOW THE DEPTH INDICATED BY THE GRADE LINE ON THE PRO- - Fi LE TO ALLOW FOR THE PLACING OF THE PIPE INVERT. (THE GRADE SHOWN ON THE . PROFILES IS THE FLOW LINE OF THE PIPE). -- - ALL TRENCHES SHALL BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES WIDER THAN.THE OUTSIDE DIAMETER OF THE PIPE.' EXCEPT AS ALLOWED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY, THE TRENCH AT THE END . OF EACH DAY SHALL NOT BE EXCAVATED MORE THAN 100 FEET IN ADVANCE OF THE PIPE LAYINGo NOR LEFT UNFILLED FOR MORE THAN 100 FEET WHERE THE PIPE HAS BEEN LAID, EXCEPT WHERE SAID TRENCH DOES NOT RUN IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THE TRENCH BOTTOM SHALL BE GRADED TO PROVIDE A. SMOOTH$ FIRM AND STABLE FOUNDATION TO FIT THE BOTTOM OF THE PIPE AT EVERY POINT THROUGHOUT THE LENGTH OF THE PIPE, EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE MADE FOR THE BELLS TO INSURE THE PIPE RESTING FOR ITS EN- TIRE LENGTH UPON THE FIRM FOUNDATION. WHERE THE EXCAVATION HAS BEEN MADE DEEP- ' ER THAN NECESSARY, CRUSHED STONE OR SAND, WITH A SAND EQUIVALENT VALUE OF NOT LESS THAN 30, SHALL BE COMPACTED ON THE SOLID TRENCH BOTTOM PRIOR TO LAYING THE - PIPE. ALL SOFTp SPONGYp AND UNSTABLE MATERIAL IN THE BOTTOM OF THE TRENCH SHALL BE REMOVED TO A DEPTH NOT EXCEEDING 2 FEET AND REPLACED WITH SAND OR GRAVEL. ROCK, WHERE ENCOUNTERED IN THE TRENCH BOTTOM, SHALL BE REMOVED TO A 8 -63 S57 DEPTH OF AT LEAST 4 INCHES BELOW THE BOTTOM OF THE PIPE AND REPLACED WITH SAND OR GRAVEL. ALL REPLACEMENT MATERIAL UNDER THE PIPE SHALL HAVE A SAND EQUIVALENT' VALUE OF NOT LESS THAN 30 AND SHALL BE MOISTENED AND TAMPED TO PROVIDE A FIRM AND STABLE FOUNDATION. THE COST, OF THE LABOR AND MATERIAL TO PROVIDE THE FIRM,, STABLE FOUNOA� TION HEREIN SPECIFIED SMALL BE INCLUDED -IN THE UNIT PRICE,810 FOR THE SIZE OF PIPE LAID THEREON. - ALL EXCAVATION SHALL BE SUPPORTED IN THE MANNER SET FORTH IN THE RULESP ORDERS AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY. THE CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COM- MISSION. WHERE .SHEET PILING IS USED. IT SHALL BE WITHDRAWN IN SUCH A. MANNER AS TO AVOID ANY DISTURBANCE OF THE PIPE OR STRUCTURE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH INSTALL AND OPERATE SUCH PUMPS,, WELL POINTS OR OTHER DEVICES AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO REMOVE ANY SUB - SURFACE WATER SEEPAGE,, STORM WATER OR SEWAGE THAT MAY BE ENCOUNTERED DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE TRENCHES AND OTHER EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE KEPT FREE FROM WATER WHILE CON - CRETE OR PIPE IS BEING INSTALLED, WATER SHALL BE DISPOSED OF IN SUCH A - MANNER AS TO CAUSE NO INJURY TO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY,, NOR BE A MENACE TO PUBLIC HEALTH. UNLESS OTHERWISE - SPECIFIED,, ALL DEWATERING SHALL BE IN- CLUDED IN THE UNIT PRICES 810 FOR THE PIPE IN PLACE* 5, PIPE LAYING AND JOINTING: ALL SEWERS SHALL BE LAID TRUE TO LINE AND GRADE WITH BELLS UPGRADE ,,. AND IN .ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE ENGINEERING HANDBOOK PUBLISH - ED BY THE CLAY PIPE INSTITUTE.- - - - IN ORDER TO INSURE A TRUE LINE AND GRADE,, GRADE STAKES SHALL BE SET EVERY 25 FEET,, AND THE POPE SHALL BE LAID THROUGH THE MANHOLE WHENEVER POSS- I8LE. EACH PIPE SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR DEFECTS. BEFORE BEING LOWERED INTO THE TRENCH. THE PIPE SHALL BE THOROUGHLY CLEAN SO THAT JOINTING COMPOUNDS WILL ADHERE. - - - UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED,, THE JOINTS FOR ALL VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE SHALL BE EITHER HOT - POURED - BITUMINOUS COMPOUND JOINTS OR FACTORY FORMED PLASTIC JOINTS. HOT- POURED JOINTS SHALL BE �KOP -PERS BITUMASTIC JOINT COMPOUND CPI -2,, ATLAS.JC -60 COMPOUND,, OR APPROVED EQUAL. JOINT PRIMER AND COMPOUND ARE TO . BE APPLIED IN STRICT CONFORMITY WITH THE 'DIRECTIONS OF THE MANUFACTURERS. _. HOT- POURED COMPOUND JOINTS. SHALL HAVE A SUITABLE,, CLOSELY TWISTED HEMP OR OAKUM GASKET PLACED AROUND THE PIPE AND LAPPED AT THE TOP. THE GASKET SHALL BE RAMMED SOLIDLY INTO THE ANNULAR- SPACE - WITHIN THE SOCKET OF THE PIPE WITH A CAULKING TOOL. THE DEPTH OF JOINT OCCUPIED BY THE GASKET SHALL NOT EXCEED 25 PERCENT OF THE'SOCKET. 'OR BELL DEPTH, A- SUITABLE RUNNER SHALL BE. PLACED AROUND THE PIPE TO CLOSE THE SOCKET OPENING. THE JOINT.COMPOUND SHALL BE HEATED TO APPROXIMATELY 4500 F. AND POURED INTO THE JOINT IN SUCH MANNER THAT THE ANNULAR SPACE WILL BE COMPLETELY FILLED*: PLASTIC JOINTS SHALL BE AN APPROVED TYPE.,OF'INTERLOCKING* RES.ILIENT, MECHANICAL COMPRESSION JOINT,, FORMED ON:THE PIPE AT THE FACTORY$ AND MADE OF PLASTISOL,(POLYVINYL CHLORIDE) TO SPECIFICATIONS ESTABLISHED. BY THE NATIONAL CLAY PIPE RESEARCH CORPORATION. 6: BACKFILLING: ALL SACKFILLING SHALL BE DONE IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO NOT DISTURB THE PIPE OR, ADJACENT STRUCTURES,, -AND TO INSURE WORK.AGAINST SUBSE- QUENT SETTLEMENT. IN ALL CASES THE BACKFILLING AROUND THE PIPE SHALL BE CARRIED UP TO A DEPTH OF ONE FOOT ABOVE THE TOP OF THE PIPE BY MANGO WITH EARTH OR SAND FREE - FROM STONES, BOULDERS# OR LUMPS. THIS MATERIAL SMALL HAVE A SAND EQUIVALENT OF NOT LESS THAN 30 AND SMALL BE SOLIDLY COMPA: TED BY TAMPING# OR OTHER APPRCV- ED METHODS, BELOW THE SPRING LINE OF PIPE• - - COMPACTION OF BACKFILL BY PONDING AND JETTING WILL-BE PERMITTED WHEN THE MATERIAL HAS A SAND EQUIVALENT OF AT LEAST 30.. ' If LESS THAN 300 PONDINO A'ND _ JETTING WILL BE PERMITTED BY THE INSPECTING.AGENCY WHEN IT DETERMINES THAT THE - MATERIAL. IS OF SUCH CHARACTER THAT IT WILL BE SELF- DRAINING WHEN COMPACTED AND THE FOUNDATION MATERIALS WILL NOT SOFT£N_OR BE OAMAGED.BY THE APPLIED WATER. WHEN PONDING AND JETTING.IS PERMITTEO# MATERIAL FOR USE AS BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED AND COMPACTED IN LAYERS -NOT EXCEEDING 4_FEET IN THICKNESS. ALL BACKFILLING SHALL BE PERFORMED WITHOUT DAMAGE TO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND EM- BANKMENT. PONDING AND JETTING METHODS SMALL BE SUPPLEMENTED BY THE USE OF VIBRATORY OR OTHER COMPACTION. EQUIPMENT WHEN NECESSARY TO OBTAIN THE REQUIRED COMPACTION. WHEN THE BACKFILL MATERIAL HAS A SAND EQUIVALENT OF LESS THAN 30 AND IS NOT DEEMED SATISFACTORY FOR COMPACTION BY PONDING OR JETTING, THE BACKFILL -SHALL BE COMPACTED MECHANICALLY IN LAYERS. NOT EXCEEDING 8 INCHES. IN DEPTH. EACH LAYER OF BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A RELATIVE COMPACTION OF NOT LESS THAN 90 PER CENT. AS DETERMINED. BY-THE CALIFORNIA. IMPACT TEST# 5 LAYER METHOD. FOR ALL EXCAVATIONS WITHIN STREET RIGHTS -OF -WAY THE TOP 30 INCHES OF - 'BACKFILL SMALL BE COMPACTED TO .A RELATIVE COMPACTION OF NOT LESS THAN 90 PER - . - ..CENT. THIS OPERATION SHALL INCLUDE ANY SCARIFYING# RESHAPING# ROLLING WETTING - - - OR DRYING OF THE BACKFILL MATERIAL REQUIRED TO OBTAIN THE SPECIFIED COMPAC- - 7. PAVEMENT REPLACEMENTS .IMMEDIATELY AFTER BACKFILLING# THE .CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL A TEMPORARY.I INCH OR MORE BITUMINOUS SURFACE IN AREAS WHER.E - - EXISTING PAVEMENT HAS BEEN REMOVED. THE TEMPORARY RESURFACING SHALL BE MAIN- TAINED IN A SAFE AND NEAT CONDITI.ON UNTIL THE PERMANENT REPLACEMENT HAS BEEN - -. CONSTRUCTED. - -- - BASE. MATERIAL SMALL BE REPLACED IN KIND. WITH CLASS 2 AGGREGATE CONFORM- ING TO SECTION 12 OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS BEFORE PLACING THE PERMANENT PAVE- MENT. - - - CONCRETE PAVEMENT SHALL BE REPLACED IN KIND WITH CONCRETE CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 23 OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS. BITUMINOUS PAVE- MENT SHALL BE REPLACED WITH ASPHALT CONCRETE CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS- OF SECTION 21 OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS TO A COMPACTED THICKNESS I INCH GREAT- - ER.THAN THE ADJACENT PAVEMENT. UNLESS OTHERWISE. PROVIDED# THE.COST OF PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT. SMALL BE - - -. INCLUDED IN THE PRICE 810 PER FOOT FOR PIPE IN PLACE. - - 8 -fi3 ` S59 SECTION 37 CAST IRON SEWERS AND FORCE MAINS: I. GENERAL: THE WORK.COV£RED BY THIS SECTION INCLUDES ALL PLANTS, LABOR MATERIALSO EO,UIPMEMTv EXCAVATIONS BACKFILLS, PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT AND ALL INCIDENTAL WORK AND SERVICES REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF SANITARY SEWERS AND FORCE MAINS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, AND AS SPECIFIED IN THESE SPECIFICATIONS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS. .. 2. PIPE AND FITTINGS. CAST IRON BELL AND SPIGOT SOIL SHALL MEET THE SPECIFICATION OF A.S.A. DESIGNATION A40.1. CAST IRON FORCE MAIN SHALL BE "ROLL ON JOINT PIPE" OF A TYPE APPROVED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY. . .. ALTERNATE TYPES OF PIPE WILL BE CONSIDERED,BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY IF EQUAL IN PURPOSE AND RESULTS IN SAVINGS TOTHE OWNER. 3. JOINTS: JOINTS IN CAST IRON SOIL PIPE SHALL CONSIST OF BEST QUALITY LONG FIBRES CLEANS DRY JUTE OR OAKUM AND SOFT PIG LEAD CONFORMING TO SPECI- FICATIONS OF A.S.T.M. -B29 (LATEST REVISION). THE JOINT SMALL BE CAULKED AND THE LEAD POURED IN A WORKMANLIKE MANNER AND TO THE APPROVAL Of THE INSPECTING AGENCY. JOINTS FOR CAST IRON FORCE MAIN SMALL BE OF THE ROUND RUBBER GASKET TYPE AND SHALL BE CAULKED WITH BRAIDED JUTE AND SEALED WITH BITUMINOUS .JOINT COM- POUND. .. 4. PAVEMENT REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT: ALL PAVEMENT REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED# SHALL. SE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 36 OF THESE DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS. 5. EXCAVATION AND BACKFILLs ALL EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL SMALL, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPEC,IFIED� BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 36 OF THESE 'DETAIL SPEC K FICATIONS. i 8 -63 S60 SECTION 39 CORRUGATED METAL.PIPE: . I. GENERAL: THE WORK COVERED.BY THIS SECTION INCLUDES ALL PLANTS LABORS MATERIALSp EQUIPMENTS EXCAVATION* BACKFILL AND ALL INCIDENTAL SERVICES RE- QUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF CORRUGATED MBTAL'PIPE DRAINS SHOWN ON THE PLANSv AND.AS NOTED BY THESE DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS AND SPEC- IAL PROVISIONS. - 2. MATERIAL: ALL CORRUGATED METAL PIPE SHALL CONFORM TO AASHO OESIGHA- TION M -36 AND UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED SHALL BE COATED 'WITH AN ASPHALTIC . PIPE DIP AT THE PLANT BEFORE BEING SHIPPED. THE QUALITY AND CHARACTER OF THE DIP AND THE METHOD OF APPLICATION, SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE COATING ON _ THE PIPE WILL BE TOUGH AND PLIABLE AND ADHERE FIRMLY TO THE SPELTER. CORRUGATED METAL PIPE SHALL BE FABRICATED FROM GALVANIZED SHEETS MADE FROM ANY ONE OF THE BASE METALS LISTED IN AASHO DESIGNATION M-36, THE GAUGE OF - - SHEETS$ UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED,, SHALL CONFORM TO SECTION 66 OF THE STATE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. 3. INSTALLATION: AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATIONS METAL SECTIONS SHALL BE . NEWS FULL - CIRCLED AND FREE FROM DEFECTS CAUSED BY MISHANDLING. THE SECTIONS SHALL BE LAID WITH THE SEPARATE SECTIONS_JOINEO FIRMLY TOGETHERs WITH OUT SIDE LAPS OF CIRCUMFERENTIAL - JOINTS.POINTING UPSTREAM AND WITH LONGITUDINAL LAPS ON THE SIDES* ANY METAL IN THE.JOINTS WHICH IS NOT PROTECTED THOROUGH -- _ - - `.LYS SHALL BE COATED WITH 'A SUITABLE ASPHALT PAINT. - - TRENCHES SHALL BE PREPARED TO REQUIRED LINE.AND. GRADE AND PROPER FACILI— _ TIES SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR LOWERING THE PIPE INTO THE TRENCHES. PIPE SHALL- - -- BE CONTINUOUSLY SUPPORTED ON THE TRENCH BOTTOM AND BLOCKING WILL NOT BE PER MITTED. DURING INSTALLATIONS THE PIPE SHALL BE HANDLED WITH CARE. COUPLING - - - BAND BOLTS AND OAMAGEO.AREAS OF THE COUPLING BANDS AND -PIPE SMALL BE GIVEN .A COATING OF APPROVED ASPHALTIC MATERIAL PRIOR TO PLACING OF BACKFILL. ALL - BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO .906 OF MAXIMUM DENSITY IN, ACCORDANCE WITH . . SECTION -9 Of THESE DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS.. S61 SECTION 40 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS: 1. GENERAL: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH AND INSTALL THE FOLLOWING ELEC TRICAL WORK AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ANO/OR SPECIFIED .HEREIN: (A) POWER AND LIGHT SERVICE CONDUITS AND WIRES. (B) POWER AND LIGHT SWITCHBOARDS, PANEL BOARDS, FEEOERS,.SUB- FEEOERS,. . CIRCUITS AND DISTRIBUTION. (C) CONNECTIONS TO MOTOR EQUIPMENT. (D) WIRING DEVICES AND PLATES.' (E) LIGHTING FIXTURES AND LAMPS. 2. PERMITS, ORDINANCES AND RULES: ALL WORK _INSTALLED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE RULES OF THE NATIONAL BOARD OF FIRE UNDERWRITERS, CALIFORNIA STATE. INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COM.MISSION,. AND THE LOCAL AUTHORITY .. HAVING JURISDICTION. OBTAIN AND PAY. FOR ALL PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS. 3. MATERIALS: ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE OF THE QUALITY HEREIN SPECIFIED* ALL MATERIAL SMALL BE NEW, OF THE BEST QUALITY AND FREE FROM DEFECTS, AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY ARE TO BE USED. EACH TYPE OF MATERIAL SHALL BE OF SAME MAKE AND QUALITY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT.' 4. RESPONSIBILITY: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAFETY AND GOOD CONDITION OF ALL MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT OF THE ENTIRE INSTALLATION UNTIL FINAL ACCEPTANCE BY THE OWNER. 5. LOCATIONS: THE LOCATION OF. CONDUITS, OUTLETS AND EQUIPMENT INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS IS APPROXIMATE ONLY AND SHALL BE CHANGED TO SUIT .CONDITIONS, ON THE JOB, OR REARRANGEMENT OF EQUIPMENT AS DIRECTED. 6. CUTTING AND PATCHING: DO ALL CUTTING. AND PATCHING OF ROUGH AND FINISH CONSTRUCTION; APPROVED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY, AND WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE ELECTRICAL WORK. PATCHING SHALL MATCH THE SURROUND - ING MATERIAL AND FINISH. ALL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE LEFT IN A CLEAN CONDITION. 7. RECORD DRAWINGS: PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN ONE (1) COMPLETE SET OF BLUE- PRINTS OF ALL ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS WHICH FORM. A,PART.OF THIS CONTRACT. IMMEDIATELY AFTER WORK IS INSTALLED, CAREFULLY DRAW ON THESE PRINTS, .,IN INK, . ANY AND ALL WORK WHICH IS INSTALLED. DIFFERENTLY FROM THAT INDICATED. 8. SHOP DRAWINGS: SUBMIT TO THE OWNER FOR APPROVAL FOUR (4) COPIES OF SHOP DRAWINGS FOR SPECIAL EQUIPMENT, SWITCHBOARDS, PANELBOAROS, "ANDAS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED HEREIN. 9. EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DO ALL EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL REQUIRED TF INSTALL THE WORK. UNDERGROUNO.CONDUITS SHALL BE NOT LESS. THAN 18 INCHES BELOW FINISH GRADE. ALL EXCAVATION AND BACKFILL SHALL. BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 9 OF THESE. DETAIL SPECIFICATIONS., 10, CONDUIT AND FITTINGS: ALL ELECTRICAL CONDUIT FOR USE IN UNDERGROUND AND EXPOSED INSTALLATIONS SHALL BE OF A TYPE APPROVED FOR USE IN CORROSIVE ATMOSPHERES AND SHALL HAVE WATERTIGHT COMPRESSION TYPE FITTINGS. CONDUIT SMALL. BE CONNECTED WITH DOUBLE LOCKNUTS AND BUSHINGS. 8 -63 f s ,; WIREd ALL WIRE SHALL BE 1W COPPER WIRE OF NOT LESS THAN 98% CON000- i SECTION 41 'WATER SYSTEMS: 1. GENERAL: THE WORK COVERED BY THIS SECTION INCLUDES ALL PLANTS=LABOR, MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, EXCAVATION, BACKFILL, PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT, AND ALL .. .INCIDENTAL WORK AND SERVI CES REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION. OF WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND SPECIFIED HEREIN. 2. PIPING MATERIALS: ALL LINES.211 OR SMALLER•SNALL BE STANDARD COPPER PIPE OR POLYVINYL CHLORIDE PLASTIC PIPE. ALL LINES OVER 211 INCHES SHALL BE CLASS 150 CAST. IRON PIPE, FEDERAL, SPECIFICATION WW- P -421A, STANDARD WEIGHT, THIN CEMENT -LINED WITH BELL AND SPIGOT END CONNECTIONS, OR CLASS 150 ASBESTOS - CEMENT WATER Pint AWWA -0400. . 3. FIRE HYDRANTS: WHARF TYPE FIRE HYDRANTS SMALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT THOSE LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS - IT" HYDRANTS SHALL BE MODEL ii119 AND 411 HYDRANTS SHALL BE MODEL #124o AS MANUFACTURED BY THE 11GREENBERG CO." *OR APPROVED EQUAL. 4. VALVES, FITTINGS AND MISCELLANEOUS APPURTENANCES: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT TO THE OWNER FOR APPROVAL, SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS OF THE WATER DISTRIBU- TION SYSTEM .AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, INCLUDING SPRINKLER SYSTEM AND DOCKSIDE WATER FACILITIES, SHOWING TYPE AND MODEL OF ALL VALVES, VALVE .BOXES, VIC- TAULIC COUPLINGS, BACKFLOW PREVENTERSO HOSE BIBBS, ANGLE VALVES AND SPRINK- LER HEADS. BACKFLOW PREVENTERS SMALL BE 11FEDC011 #792 OR APPROVED EQUAL, ! i 5.. PIPE LAYING AND JOINTING: PIPE SECTIONS SHALL BE LAID IN THE TRENCH TO TRUE ALIGNMENT AND GRADE. PIPE SHALL BE SO LAID THAT ALL HIGH OR LOW ''POINTS ARE LOCATED AT FIRE. HYDRANTS OR AIR RELEASE VALVES. CONCRETE THRUST BLOCKS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN EVERY INSTANCE WHERE THE. DIRECTION OF THE PIPE CM ANGES 15 DEGREES OR MORE AT ANY JOINT OR FITTING, AT ALL FIRE HYDRANTS, AT STUB ENDS OF PIPES., BEARING AREAS OF THRUST BLOCKS SHALL BE COMPUTED ON BASIS OF 225 P.S.I. INTERNAL PIPE PRESSURE. AT ALL TIMES WHEN THE WORK OF INSTALLING PIPE IS NOT IN PROGRESS, ALL OPENINGS INTO THE ENDS OF THE PIPE SMALL BE KEPT TIGHTLY CLOSED TO PREVENT ENTRANCE OF FOREIGN MATTER., THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN THE INSIDE OF THE PIPE IN A CLEAN AND . SANITARY CONDITION UNTIL ITS ACCEPTANCE BY THE OWNER. . ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPELINES SHALL BE' PROVIDED "WITH'NO. 14 AWG BARE COPPER WIRE LAID ALONG THE -TOP. OF THE PIPE AND HELD IN PLACE WITH TIES OR HITCHES OF THE SAME KIND OF WIRE.:, THE TIES OR HITCHES SHALL BE SPACED NOT MORE THAN 13 FEET APART. THE.COPPER WIRE IS TO BE USED.IN THE FUTURE AS MEANS OF LOCATING THE PIPE WITH AN ELECTRONIC TYPE PIPE LOCATOR. ALL JOINTS SHALL BE INSTALLED.IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFAC- TURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. - - - 6. TEST FOR LEAKAGE: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TEST ALL PRESSURE PIPING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE INSPECTING AGENCY. THE PIPE SHALL BE% CENTER LOADED AND ALL JOINTS EXPOSED DURING THE.TEST. THE TEST SHALL CONSIST OF HOLDING THE - TEST PRESSURE IN EACH SECTION OF THE LINE TESTED FOR A' PERIOD OF TWO HOURS* _ THE TEST PRESSURE AT THE LOWER END OF EACH LINE TESTED SHALL B.E 225 P.S.1.�� UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED. THE WATER NECESSARY*TO MAINTAIN THIS PRESSURE - SMALL BE MEASURED THROUGH A METER OR BY OTHER MEANS SATISFACTORY TO THE ' INSEPCTING AGENCY. .ANY NOTICEABLE LEAKS SHALL BE STOPPED, AND ANY DEFECT- IVE PIPE SHALL BE REPLACED WITH NEW SECTIONS• - - 8 -63 S64 7. DISINFECTING PIPE LINES: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DISINFECT THE LINES BY CHLORINATION AFTER THE LINES HAVE BEEN TESTED FOR LEAKAGEp FLUSHED AND BE- FORE THEY.HAVE BEEN CONNECTED TO THE EXISTING SECTION. - CHLORINATED WATER SHALL BE RETAINED IN THE PIPE LINE LONG ENOUGH TO ". DESTROY ALL NON SPORE - FORMING BACTERIA. THIS PERIOD SHALL BE AT LEAST 24 - HOURS. AFTER THE CHLORINE- TREATED WATER HAS BEEN RETAINED FOR THE REQUIRED TIMES THE CHLORINE RESIDUAL, AT PIPE EXTREMITIES SHALL BE -AT LEAST 25 P.P.M. ALL OISINFECTI*NG PROCEDURES UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED SHALL BE IN ACCORD- ANCE NITH AWWA DESIGNATION C601 -54. FOLLOWING CHLOR.INATIONS ALL TREATED' ,.WATER SHALL*BE THOROUGHLY FLUSHED FROM THE PIPE LINE AT ITS EXTREMITIES. 8. CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING MAINS: THE CONTRACTORM BEFORE CONNECTING TO EXISTING MAINSS'SHALL INSURE AT THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH WATER DEPARTMENT" .. FOR ANY REQUIREMENTS REGARDING THE TAPPING OF THEIR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. WET CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE BY TAPPING,.THE EXISTING LINES WHILE THEY ARE UNDER PRESSURE, AND THE TAPPING PROCEDURE "SHALL BE SCHEDULED SO AS NOT TO INTERFERE WITH THE NORMAL OPERATION OF THE EXISTING LINE. THE DRY CONNECTION TO EXISTING FACILITIES SHALL BE MADE AT TIMES WHICH WILL CAUSE THE LEAST INCONVENIENCE. TO THE WATER CONSUMERSO AND SHALL BE PLANNED IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE . DURATION OF ANY SHUTDOWN WILL -BE KEPT TO -A MINIMUM. WHEN A DRY CONNECTION TO EXISTING MAIN IS MADE ABOUT TWO OUNCES OF HTH SHALL BE- PLACED IN THE PIPE AT EACH POINT WHERE THE EXISTING MAIN IS CUT. ALL N €W PIPE AND FITTINGS AT THE CONNECTION SHALL BE SWABBED INTER- -. RALLY WITH AN APPROVED CHLORINE SOLUTION. ALL CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE IN '. THE PRESENCE OF THE INSPECTING AGENCY. - 8 -63 S65 SECTION 43 PAINTING: 1. GENERAL: ALL MATERIALS AND WORKMANSHIP SHALL BE THE BEST IN THEIR GRADE IN STRICT ACCORDANCE•WITH MODERN PRACTICE, AND ALL WORK SHALL 'Be DONE UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A CAPABLE FOREMAN. NO EXTERIOR PAINTING SMALL BE DONE UNDER CONDITIONS WHICH JEOPARDIZE THE APPEARANCE OR.QUAL.ITY OF THE PAINTING OR FINISHING IN ANY WAY, AND THE . INSPECTING AGENCY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO REJECT ALL MATERIAL OR WORK THAT IS UNSATISFACTORY AND SHALL RESERVE THE RI GMT. AT ALL TIMES TO REPLACE EITHER, OR.BOTHj AT THE EXPENSE Of THE CONTRACTOR. IT IS THE INTENT OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS TO INCLUDE ALL PAINTING OF . .METAL AND TIMBER SURFACES AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS OR NOTED IN THE SPECIAL PRO- VISIONS. SPECIFIED PAINT FINISHES ARE IN AODITIION TO SHOP COATS OF PRIMERS MEN- . TIONED IN OTHER SECTIONS OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS. THE WORK INCLUDES THE PAINTING OF ALL EXPOSED METAL WORK AS CALLED FOR HEREIN AND NOT ESPECIALLY INCLUDED AS A PART OF OTHER SECTIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INCLUDE IN HIS WORK THE FURNISHING OF LABOR, MAT- ERIALS, APPARATUS, SCAFFOLDING,.ERECTION AND CARTAGE NECESSARY TO SUPPLY, 'MIX AND COMPLETE THE PAINTING SHOWN ON THE PLANS OR CALLED FOR HEREIN. 2. MATERIALS: ALL MATERIALS USEDp EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED SHALL BE AS MANUFACTURED BY W.P. FULLER COMPANY, NATIONAL LEAD COMPANY, SHERWIN- WILLIAMS COMPANY OR 'APPROVED EQUAL. ALL MATERIALS SPECIFIED SHALL BE DE- LIVERED UNOPENED AT THE JOB IN THEIR ORIGINAL CONTAINERS. NO PAINT, VARNISH OR STAIN SHALL BE REDUCED OR APPLIED IN ANY WAY EXCEPT AS HEREIN SPECIFI- CALLY CALLED FOR OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE MANUFACTURER. 3. PREPARATION OF SURFACES: ALL SURFACES SHALL BE IN PROPER CONDITION TO RECEIVE FINISH., WOODWORK SHALL BE MANOSANDED AND DUSTED CLEAN. ALL KNOT HOLES, PITCH POCK.ETS OR SAPPY PORTIONS SHALL BE SHELLACKED OR SEALED WITH KNOT.SEALER. NAIL HOLES, CRACKS OR DEFECTS SHALL BE CAREFULLY PUTTIED AFTER FIRST COAT. WITH PUTTY MATCHING COLOR OF STAIN OR PAINT. METALS SHALL BE CLEAN, DRY AND FREE FROM MILL SCALE AND, RUST. REMOVE ALL GREASE AND OIL FROM SURFACES. UNPRLI MED GALVANIZED METAL SHALL Be WASH - ED WITH A SOLUTION OF "GALVATEK" AND ALLOWED :TO DRY. 4. . COLORS ANO SAMPLES: ALL COLORS SHALL BE SELECTED BY THE HARBOR MANAGER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT TO THE HARBOR MANAGER FOR HIS APPROVAL FINISHED ., SAMPLES. WORK SHALL MATCH APPROVED COLORS AND SAMPLES. 8 -63 SECTION 44 LANDSCAPING. I. GENERALS WORK UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL INCLUDE ALL LABOR, EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, SPECIFIED HEREIN OR INCIDENTAL TO FULLY COMPLETE ALL WORK OF SITE PREPARATION, ,GRADING AND PLANTING OF LAWN, GROUND COVER, SHRUBS AND TREES, AND PROPER SITE CLEAN UP AFTER COMPLETION OF CON- STRUCTION. - THIS WORK SHALL BE TIED TO EXISTING CONTROLS SUCH AS PAVEMENT, FENCES, WALLS AND STEPS AND FINISHED GRADES SMALL BEAR PROPER RELATIONSHIP TO SUCH, CONTROLS. THE ,CONTRACTOR SHALL ADJUST THIS WORK AS NECESSARY, AND AS DIRECT- ED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY, TO MEET THESE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TO FULFILL THE INTENT OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. - - 2. MATERIALSI SAMPLES OF SOIL, LEAFMOLD, AND 'PLANTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR INSPECTION, AND SHALL BE STORED ON THE SITE UNTIL FURNISHING OF MATER - fAL IS COMPLETE. DELIVERY MAY BEGIN.UPON.APPROVAL OF SAMPLES,.OR AS DIRECT- . ED. IN ALL AREAS WHERE BEACH SAND IS FOUND AND WHICH ARE INDICATED ON THE PLANS AS PLANTING AREAS, THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURE SHALL BE USED* THE SAND SHALL BE EXCAVATED TO A DEPTH 6" LOWER THAN FINISHED GRADE. WHERE PLANTING IS INDICATED. IN ADDITION, WHERE SHRUBS AND TREES ARE IN- MORE ARE TO'BE EXCAVATED IN DEPTH AND IN LATERAL EXTENT TO THE -- DRIP LINE OF THE.CONTEMPLATED SHRUBS AND TREES. 'ONE- NALF(1/2) OF THE EXCA- VATED SAND IS TO BE DISCARDED: THE REMAINING ONE -HALF SHALL BE MIXED - 'THOROUGHLY WITH. AN EQUAL PORTION OF A SOtL- LEAFMOLD MIXTURE OF WHICH ONE- FOURTH (1/4) SHALL CONSIST OF OAK LEAFMOLD AND THREE FOURTHS (3/4) OF FRIABLE LOAM SOIL. THE THOROUGHLY MIXED SAND- SOIL- LEAFMOLD MIXTURE IS THEN TO BE USED FOR.FILL AND SETTLED BY APPLICATION OF SUFFICIENT WATER TO PREVENT FUR- THER SETTLING. SURPLUS SAND EXCAVATED FROM THE SITE SHALL BE REMOVED BY THE .. CONTRACTOR AT HIS EXPENSE. _.STAKES SHALL BE AT LEAST 21'X2° ACTUAL DIMENSION AND NOT LESS THAN NINE (g% FEET LONG, OF SOUND REDWOOD AND UNIFORM SIZE, POINTED AT ONE END. BRACES SMALL BE AT LEAST- I"x3l' ACTUAL DIMENSIONS AND OF SOUND LUMBER. QUALITY AND SIZE OF ALL PLANTS SHALL CONFORM TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRADING.CODE OF NURSERY.STOCK AND SHALL BE NOM GRADE. THEY SHALL BE FRESH, . VIGOROUS, AND OF'NORMAL GROWTH, FREE OF..OIS EASE, INSECT EGGS AND LARVAE. SIZES OF PLANTS SHALL BE- STATED ON THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, SHEET N0. 4 OF THE ,DRAWINGS. PRUNING SHALL NOT'SE DONE PRIOR TO DELIVERY, EXCEPT BY SPECIAL . APPROVAL. PLANTS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO INSPECTION.AND APPROVAL OR REJECTION' AT PLACE OF GROWTH AND ON THE PROJECT SITE AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING PROGRESS OF THE WORK, FOR SIZE, VARIETY, CONDITION, LATENT DEFECTS AND IN- JURIES. REJECTED PLANTS SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE PROJECT.SITE IMMEDIATELY.' INSPECTION OF PLANT MATERIALS REQUIRED BY CITY, COUNTY, STATE OR FEDERAL AUTHORITIES SHALL BE .A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR ANO*HE SHALL HAVE SECURED PERMITS OR CERTIFICATES PRIOR TO DELIVERY OF PLANTS TO SITE. LEAFMOLD. SHALL BE WELL ROTTED, REASONABLY FREE FROM ROCKS, SOIL, STICKS] AND OTHER IMPURITIES. THE INSPECTING AGENCY SHALL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO INSPECT SAME UPON ARRIVAL,,AND BEFORE UNLOADING. - 3: PLANTING AND INSTALLATIONS, PLANT ALL MATERIALS AS SOON AS SITE'IS AVAILABLE, SOIL IS PREPARED, AND WEATHER CONDITIONS ARE SUITABLE, AS APPROVED . AND DIRECTED BY THE INSPECTING AGENCY. DO NOT PLANT WHEN SEASONS OR TEMPERA -. - TRRES ARE UNCONGENIAL TO SPECIAL VARIETIES OF PLANTS. (A) TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING - STAKE PLANT LOCATIONS AND SECURE APPROVAL BEFORE EXCAVATING PITS* MAKING NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS WHERE AS DIRECTED, EXCAVATE 'PITS WITH VERTICAL SIDES FOR ALL PLANTS AS DIRECTED., TREE.P.ITS SMALL BE LARGE ENOUGH TO PERMIT HANDLING AND PLANTING WITHOUT IN- JURY TO BALLS OF EARTH OR ROOTS AND SHALL-BE OF SUCH DEPTH THAT WHEN PLANT - .ED AND SETTLED* THE CROWN OF THE PLANT SHALL DEAR-THE SAME RELATION TO FIN- ' ,ISHED GRADES THAT IT DID TO SOIL SURFACE IN PLACE OF GROWTH. SET PLANTS IN CENTERS OF PITS* IN VERTICAL POSITI.OM* SO THAT CROWN OF PLANTS WILL BE LEVEL WITH FINISHED GRADE AFTER ALLOWING FOR WATERING AND SETTLING OF SOIL* AND.BACKFILL WITH THE'S.OIL PREPARED AS ABOVE SPECIFIED. FORM SHALLOW BASIN AROUND EDGE OF PLANT BY DEPRESSING SOIL SLIGHTLY BELOW FINISHED GRADE* AND BUILDING UP BASIN RIM NOT MORE THAN SIX (6) INCHES AND NOT LESS THAN FOUR (4) INCHES.. MULCH PLANTS WITH A MIXTURE OF .MANURE AND LEAFMOLD PLACED IN BASINS AT THE DEPTH OF ONE (1) INCH. SIFT TOPSOIL OVER MULCH SUFFICIENTLY TO KEEP IT FROM BLOWING IN WIND OR IGNITING FROM CIGARETTES. GRADE AREAS . AROUND PLANTS TO FINISH GRADES AND DISPOSE OF EXCESS SOIL. PRUNE PLANTS .A000RDING'TO STANDARD HORTICULTURAL PRACTICE OR AS DIRECTED. TRIPLE STAKE ALL TREES* SETTING STAKES VERTICALLY WITH THREE FEET OF THEIR LENGTH IN THE GROUND* IN A MANNER TO AVOID INJURY TO BALLS OF EARTH AROUND ROOTS., USE THREE STAKES PER TREE SET IN GROUND £QUi- DISTANT FROM EACH OTHERS BUT NEVER LESS THAN TWO FEET APART. BRACE STAKES AT TOPS WITH WOODEN BRACES AS SPECIFIED* NAILING THEM TO STAKES. IN HORIZONTAL POSITION, TIE TREES TO STAKES ANO/OR BRACES WITH Ij INCH CANVAS STRIPS• TIE TREE IN SUCH A MANNER THAT NO PORTION OF TRUNK OR BRANCHES TOUCH EITHER STAKES OR BRACES AND SO THAT THERE WILL BE NO ABRASIONS OF DARK* (B) ICE PLANT - PLANT ROOTED CUTTINGS* AT LEAST 10" LONG* NEVER MORE - THAN 18° APART* AND PLACING AT LEAST 5" OF SAME IN VERTICAL HOLE. FORM SHALLOW DEPRESSION ABOUT. PLANTS; BUILD.BASIN RIMS NOT LESS THAN 3.I14CHES AND NOT MORE THAN 4 INCHES; LEAVE AREAS IN NEAT AND CLEAN CONDITION. WATER WITH FREE FLOWING STREAM OF WATER* FILLING BASINS AND PERMITTING MELTING AND SETTLING w SOIL LUMPS. IF SETTLING OCCURS* FILL IN WITH FRIABLE SOIL AND WATER AGAIN AS BEFORE, 4. MAINTENANCE: MAINTENANCE SHALL BEGIN IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH PLANT. IS .PLANTED* AND SHALL CONTINUE FOR AT LEAST THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF.PLANTING* AND AS MUCH LONGER* PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF PROJECT AND ACCEP -. TANCE BY OWNER AS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH ACCEPTABLE AND THRIVING PLANTS. . MAINTAIN TREES AND PLANTS IN VIGOROUS* THRIVING CONDITION BY WATERING* . CULTIVATING* PRUNING* SPRAYING AND OTHER NECESSARY OPERATIONS, PROTECT ALL PLANTING AGAINST DAMAGE,, INCLUDING EROSION AND TRESPASS* AND PROVIDE PROPER SAFEGUARDS AS NEEDED, REPLANT DAMAGED AREAS PROPERLY AND PROMPTLY. FINAL INSPECTION OF LAWNS AND PLANTINGS WILL BE MADE AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE MAINTENANCE PERIOD. WRITTEN NOTICE* REQUESTING SAME* SHALL BE SUBMITTED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT LEAST SEVEN (7) DAYS BEFORE ANTICIPATED DATE. 5, GUARANTY AND REPLACEMENT :; GUARANTEE GRASS* SHRUBS AND GROUND COVER j UNTIL END OF MAINTENANCE PERIOD." GUARANTEE TREES TO LIVE IN A HEALTHY CON- ! DITION FOR ONE (1) YEAR AFTER PLANTING: DEAD TREES SHALL BE REPLACED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER THEIR CONDITION HAS . BEEN DETERMINED WITHIN THIS PER- .... IOD. REPLACE AS SOON. AS WEATHER. PERMITS ALL DEAD PLANTS AND ALL PLANTS NOT IN A VIGOROUS CONDITION AS NOTED AT END_ OF MAINTENANCE PERIOD. PLANTS USED FOR REPLACEMENT SHALL BE. SAME KIND AND SIZE AS SPECIFIED. THEY SHALL BE FUR - NISHED* PLANTED AND FERTILIZED, AS SPECIFIED* .. S 68 J I i ti9 sans ieoa 4161 0os B. emo11n9 +ubs o0o'ln X...gNtQ11ne 6013149A SVI iCn eNIHtPGF1 S1N3 W3AOtddW I lop- • Jl'dMH�JIH Pr , - Ir�/ N` F 5-1 x'"IlAO d'O� 1971W N/Cd'O Y:7 7C;rMIZ % �i Fr 4• F . �+..• 'u+..x OCJhwmw -*1'C9M n'o /1711' 70, i /diF �'- sNm <ai .x/ rerr+ 10-f 'WO +.ia'OY✓ H�NAB �'•— � � 1 �a /, bib3 ���� ih 'a . ' I�J (9 ,� / •I� . w9y(„iY .y.9s v ryn` P'l' '�°/Q ®°'Y77^9 !J^© Y:•'C�Z �' Sd;'- )lJ �i d wo /uI � /�Y 4/�' �O/df SrdTl% i v..•" find 4/bvs/� r d f z y •�q�� �. " y/y. rd� a �i 777 "f a.� /adr N l; ; 0 L_�-I s.,. � �,1�/ / /-l� _J _ - z s 'Q �`!. ICI a q •� y/i 9dY7J Od'YONB'Lf.J f7 Q ��� / / � J�'Y1 wit /� a {> u''•'T — _ `� q,• _ �_m .,,: 1. • ��� �'� /�_ , s. , i f vpo / "• it ', �:.. j' l grobw66y*t a rvv r / /L.�y .l .v Lwf�e i i- • Od'dY �A /ci'O - o /r <ep - �A C e+ �I f ..f.W Sr /'faP, �i I r P c \\.sr..... _i. �ti•'.r _ '��� —I 6'S`ws"'1/ t r d dy \ AVMHOIH +.wd r sw.6P'a'd My M' mod' /.f • F xrC �' -`v .i F' 11'"' a uu..M' .' y y .fi'.� Y r'Jye / J d tz*r 9' ..�,ay/p'P.+9.•�y � - �,. vdF. rd _ dY ,..row js 9P+d dNr�n/f /VA- 7.11 . . ........ -- Ill ,00 1 . `1/ 41 AVMHOIH h. 'AIVIS f /// /I if .0 sxsrem OPP ---------- ------ AO zlll'� Ilk 00 snow= qW-W xw-w /my -'W Ilk 00 qW-W xw-w /my -'W /109 6V 4�t? 131 �IVV -V/V- Ilk 00 AVMHE)IH N&VO "Al 'yo tv-! -LVOV )rT a. 9J-V-LS Ad AVMHE)IH N&VO "Al 'yo tv-! -LVOV )rT a. 9J-V-LS a ,00 1 = „/ Boa Ale >D•. 270•Mf ARYNA7 - A172 INO&Y I 4k i -N IIN ,001 Ile 9N/PNd� C!✓Na' /Ob3lvl'7iZa No /1Ylf' 9N /dG/npr d'dM3s' 57/6'1 �7 Q 'l /Y1dQ 3p9H /f/ a /y./rny� -yi ly' � i✓'ApOffYtl 71V130 y- 7VNPlH, tl diYVtl IM /17H1N35SV d391VVH ..V d P& �'J e aZUU q go-n• -�' ,a i aa./ .F'qY '•' s Ile �OVMyY lrirJ /°' :J 1J (ytU�yS /+Y'JJ � %arS dump' a6tvnaS 0,� J.F L 4f YL .' %C vas v�x}y a /✓ad7 J Prm B�Nfi ✓[l% i / F ev T97 �it as+Ya' 9 "Ag r.O 9Nla+ r7 aesNXWW 7rWl At -Nb'7C �,. /»,�. ✓ -y - » / - r -aF- m;mow� 1,11w'r Mi� Ub�Q/ u ,'rvn tFF'Y °'rf are r? f 6wj.A.c„ r�!r l^?li lS dum0 v6orraj' _.� a4d /�✓ � N�y�efi I F 3 ' V '^O9U.F .FrF.F vv9yq/r >r<< "'Ylf 4a/9F v f•.F 110.1 c i - F a ,F L 4f YL .' %C vas v�x}y a /✓ad7 J Prm B�Nfi ✓[l% i / F ev T97 �it as+Ya' 9 "Ag r.O 9Nla+ r7 aesNXWW 7rWl At -Nb'7C �,. /»,�. ✓ -y - » / - r -aF- m;mow� 1,11w'r Mi� Ub�Q/ u ,'rvn tFF'Y °'rf are r? f 6wj.A.c„ r�!r l^?li lS dum0 v6orraj' _.� a4d /�✓ � N�y�efi I F 3 ' V '^O9U.F .FrF.F vv9yq/r >r<< "'Ylf 4a/9F v f•.F dWb'd• ONY tF�07� ==If 45e.2 rvp hv.,> a ,n,w'r°�gw•�•a "y,,,y',a�n�,_,_p ... ?131N3A3bd.:- a7LVANn'V9 CAW NIVPV rY31VM' OV.,0,Y7nB HO/70&Nl .- 'gwmllzo O J'+'p '%` eaUCK r99 mV / s� °>^U"Yw✓ P135 /C Al 17Un - 7 /V1 .70 6cwlpa.q -ya -J - . 6'•+p.P .fxd p , i xwr "✓ dyy/ y -av .my -m.7 r of '+19 y rnr No /19pd1JJYC7 1Y07� 7r. ^ /dJLL-Ne'7C rgUyd we.yp �oAf � /JOJ.aw —N fro A' 1fMJ JJ(N pFj�jlr��/ //b ✓ODUne � I �l�q! . trwPY ibT'S'a VlP I 1 1}� 1 '°MUM �fi-•W .t /Mfv// P �9Y� { � �� � • I ` J'+'p '%` eaUCK r99 mV / s� °>^U"Yw✓ P135 /C Al 17Un - 7 /V1 .70 6cwlpa.q -ya -J - . 6'•+p.P .fxd p , i xwr "✓ dyy/ y -av .my -m.7 r of '+19 y rnr No /19pd1JJYC7 1Y07� 7r. ^ /dJLL-Ne'7C rgUyd we.yp �oAf � /JOJ.aw —N fro A' 1fMJ JJ(N pFj�jlr��/ //b ✓ODUne � I �l�q! . trwPY ibT'S'a VlP wocrr»vrrvi - r - ski• +a x. ' w /� �f.y9yp' 1/�a�rogya J'+'p '%` eaUCK r99 mV / s� °>^U"Yw✓ P135 /C Al 17Un - 7 /V1 .70 6cwlpa.q -ya -J - . 6'•+p.P .fxd p , i xwr "✓ dyy/ y -av .my -m.7 r of '+19 y rnr No /19pd1JJYC7 1Y07� 7r. ^ /dJLL-Ne'7C rgUyd we.yp �oAf � /JOJ.aw —N fro A' 1fMJ JJ(N pFj�jlr��/ //b ✓ODUne � I �l�q! . trwPY ibT'S'a VlP / 'ad'Oev � aro�aPe�ro.. rvl'`sal� S7 /d130 S/IOdNO'773JS /N' I � asr s�.�I ' ' 9/Vr'I /VL/ 3dld- 'dYly °.�N /1S /�lypd/ SJSI WJ 7Co� M C^'�Jao vtr�v� .vx r ,00Wi..+.y3 11/14 - CvJ =0 RS �NO/10/1377 �� ..v/3 //W wv NYC —.Q'Jro aepy`Af' ,.9 °JN/07//79 d'O7 1/701d7 9Y79,S17 1.f-M3 14 Nd7d ,wvss'�y[ i r o a's 'am L o������ "SEES 11 ■o Y i I 1 ins - -- IE -- -- iM ME =MEN .. i m'Jma qe •moo., . A dr',7 77/0' My /n N6'7o' a r:r. (7/ -7sn) -77�d 2Z- 7&..21Y07 67NO /SN -7Z7&d r I I anasµq✓ V-V, - ,e VpoNnV)'xan�lwwax 'LMB1Yl0 tlO3YVX A1Nn= 3ONV30 91YO117/13773716 WN,ZM -7111 1VO/1111777 . nr)6- TT- 1147111 1V0UM-777 4 � 4 ✓� ✓q »yi wn.. witA 1'ro /> 4 /„ N (f anl,�r %'%-v X/ u�.o .,.aa,) �e.y: ?s•.G:t•�re.,r �� 1. wL. f 61 r, SNOIZV -777. 370,4 6Ib'7S ,IIM-7111 N011VA.777 T „ O� OW -77/o'- 114-7111 /VV7d . Ir -- . d+ I(T)III I II � ,L I . may •P°"IjYS' JlML3Adx +ws5 __ -- — —__ —__ _ -_- cq'ui•wu'/v -ya !r'we.e.J 1'e A'tL �••» 1. Introduction This page intentionally IeR blank. Cl 1 Page 10 • The Planning Center Pebruary 2008 1 4 `'A b • � 4�t b 5, ^4 r f 'e Ct� 1 � 1 w yI ( s Mod �t III, 4 `'A b • � 4�t b 5, ^4 r f 'e Ct� 1 � 1 w �t III, 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 12 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 1. Introduction Plan A Single - Family Building Elevations Craftsman (Left Side Elevation) Plantation (Left Side Elevation) Source: Todd Schooler & Associates, Inc., 2007 Seashore Village Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 6 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. 11 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 Page 14 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 �� °'a. �, p..; ,�. I�fili ii 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 16 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 1. Introduction Plan C Duplex Building Elevations (Craftsman) Right Side Elevation li�'I II�V ICI If�il 11iV III j = R 'iai Vii I!-1j�l li�lln'i Ili!! Ir!j!i v �Ill��i��lllllllllllllllllllll � �oo�_ �;� ��II ®__ Left Side Elevation Source: Todd Schoolar & Associates, Inc., 2007 Seashore Village Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 8a 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 18 • The Planning Center 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 71 F u 1 I I 11 Pebruary 2008 1 1. Introduction Plan C Duplex Front & Rear Elevations (Craftsman) Rear Elevation - Driveway View Front Elevation - Street View Source: Todd Schooier & Associates, Inc., 2007 Seasbore Village Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 8b eMN 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. I I Page 20 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 ��l�� 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 22 • The Planning Center February 2008 I ps Lei Le IV I1�!'�► ''� 01 Fill 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. I i Page 24 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 1. Introduction I1.4 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN The General Plan designation for the project site is RM (Multiple Unit Residential) and the project site is zoned Multiple - Family Residential (MFR). The project site is located in the Coastal Zone and is designated as High Density Residential (RH -A) in the Coastal Land Use Plan. 1.5 DISCRETIONARY APPRO VALS Seashore Village LLC is seeking approvals for the implementation of the proposed project. The intent of ' this Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is to enable the City of Newport Beach, other responsible agencies, and interested parties to evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project, thereby enabling them to make informed decisions with respect to the requested entitlements. iThe proposed project would require the following entitlements from the City of Newport Beach: • Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 17194 (TTM 17194). Request to approve TIM 17194 for condominium purposes, creating 24 airspace condominium units. • Modification Permit. Request to reduce the minimum building separation distance required by the MFR zoning designation from 10 feet to 6 feet and to reduce the minimum front setback ' distance along Seashore Drive required by the MFR zoning designation from 20 feet to 10 feet. A modification permit is also requested for a 3 -foot sideyard setback where the MFR zone requires approximately 25 feet sideyard setback based on lot width. • Use Permit. Request to exceed the midpoint height requirement of 28 feet for the duplex structures by 1 foot and 6 inches, whereas the maximum permitted ridge height of 33 feet would not be exceeded. • Coastal Residential Development Permit (CRDP). Required to ensure compliance with California Government Code Section 65590 et. Seq. and Chapter 20.86 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code for projects located within the Coastal Zone. • Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Coastal Development Permits are obtained through the California Coastal Commission and are generally required for improvements, demolition, or construction of any structure located within the Coastal Zone boundary. I I I I 1 I ISeashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beath • Page 25 WIN 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 26 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I I f_1 1 2. Environmental Checklist I2.1 BACKGROUND ' 1. Project Title: Seashore Village 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: ' Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Brandon Nichols, Associate Planner 949.644.3234 4. Project Location: The project site is at 5515 River Avenue in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. The project site is bordered by River Avenue to the north, Seashore Drive to the ' south, existing residential units to the east, and a City -owned park to the west. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Seashore Village, LLC c/o Grant Lane 1550 North 40"' Street, #10 Mesa, AZ 85205 6. General Plan Designation: RM (Multiple Unit Residential) 7. Zoning: Multiple- Family Residential (MFR) 8. Description of. Project: The applicant proposes to develop 12 single - family detached units and 6 duplex units for a total of 24 units on a 1.49 -acre site at 5515 River Avenue. The site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex. This existing use would be demolished and removed in preparation for development of the proposed project. The proposed project would yield 16 units per acre, within the permitted density of 51 units per acre. The applicant proposes a gross floor area of 57,906 square feet. The applicant proposes three plan types and four floor plans ranging in size from 1,770 square feet to 3,248 square feet, including attached garages, patios, and decks. Access to the project site would be provided by two driveways on River Avenue and a driveway from Neptune Avenue. The western driveway on River Avenue would exclusively serve one single - family unit, and all other access would be provided through River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. The proposed project would provide a total of 60 parking spaces. These parking spaces would include spaces within attached garages and 13 guest parking spaces, including one disabled space. 1 Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 27 2. Environmental Checklist I 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is surrounded by residential uses, such as vacation rental units, to the north, south, and east, and a city park to the west. City -owned West Newport Park, with a play area, water , fountains, tennis courts, racquetball courts, a basketball half court), and restroom facilities, is immediately west of the project site. The Pacific Ocean is situated one block to the southwest of the project site and Pacific Coast Highway runs adjacent to the residential properties to the north behind an alley and an approximately nine -foot tall sound wall. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required: • Regional Water Quality Control Board - Issue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for construction activities. • South Coast Air Quality Management District - Permit to Construct • California Coastal Commission - Permit to construct within the Coastal Zone boundaries Page 28 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I I 2. Environmental Checklist 1 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTEN77ALLYAFFECTED 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology / Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology/ Water Quality ❑ Land Use/ Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation / Traffic ❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 2.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) On the basis of this initial evaluation: F] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there Will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. RI find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has 'been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. F] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. IRT-A &,*J �, �.. tic s t ln► Printed Name Seatbore Vitlage Initial Study City of Neapott Beach • Page 29 �►V Signature Date IRT-A &,*J �, �.. tic s t ln► Printed Name Seatbore Vitlage Initial Study City of Neapott Beach • Page 29 �►V 2. Environmental Checklist 2.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a °Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specs is conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. I Page 30 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 2. Environmental Checklist 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, I any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. I' Searbore Village Initial Study City of NeuPort Beatb • Page 31 d) ?. Environmental Checklist rarc a suosranbal adverse effect an a scenic vista? Substantia!!y damage scenic resources, including but iimrted to, trees, rock outcroppings, an4 Mstotk , bu ldFi the site an 'ate a new or glare whi views in the Statewide Importance (Farmland). as shown an grelrr�p0 prepared pursuant to ft Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the Caltlomla Resources Agency to non - agricultural use? , 'ontUct with existing zoning for agriculural use, or a tnrui�.., - -._.__ ._ due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmhand, to rrwr- agricultural use? a.T LO wm or obstruct !mplementation of the applicable airguality plan---- ? wwM a any air quality standard.or co —n--W a substantially to an ex stfrrg or m ected air qua' valatlon? Result in a cumulatively considerable netlncrease of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air Quality standard (nciuding releasing em scions which exceed uanitia8ve ffirnshalds for ozone ecursohi ? Expose sensitive recenmrs ro srtl,cn nor ti uuuf3 arrecong a of oeonte? nave a subsfanliaf adverse effect &MW dveclfy or ffuougi habitat madm7cation5, on any species identified as a caratidate, sensitive, or spec al States sfrecles fn local or regional plans, Policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fah and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Lest man Significant PoteaNaiiy Wth Less TAan Signifcanf Mitigation Significant X No X X X �r ■ No X X X 2. Environmental Checklist Less Than Sign"caM Potentially With Less Than Issues Significant Impact Mitigation Incorporated Significant I act No Im d b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the Calffomia X Deparhnent of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, X etc.) through direct removal, tilting, hydrological Interruption, or other means? (1) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, X or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or X ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat X Cause a substanfal adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.59 X Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.59 X Dtrectiy or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X ise people or structures to potential substantial adverse tts, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recentglquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? X Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking? X Seismic - related ground failure, including liquefaction? X Landslides? X R in substantial soil erosion or the loss of tnncn717 v Seashore Village Initial Study City of NeUPOrt Beacb • Page 33 �� 2. Environmental Checklist Page 34 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and X potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction orcollapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18.1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks X to fife or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems X where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous X materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident X conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- X quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code X Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project X result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or X working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere wlth.an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X evacuation Ian? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where X wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Page 34 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 F] 1 i I I I H I 2. Environmental Checklist a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of X pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially after the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a X stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or sihation on- or off -site d) Substantially after the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount X of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage X systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100 - yearflood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood X Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 1 00-year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? 1) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a X result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X rf a) Physicalty divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, X local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X natural community conservation Ian? ' Seashore Vittage Initiat Study City of Newport Beacb • Page 35 88 Less Than Significant Potentially W With L Less Than Significant M Mitigation S Significant N No Issues I Impact I Incorporated I Impact I Impact F ' Seashore Vittage Initiat Study City of Newport Beacb • Page 35 88 2. Environmental Checklist Less Than Signilican► Polentially Kith Less Than Signilican► Millgallon Signilican► No a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the X residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general X plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or X noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X roundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the X project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has rat been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project X expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project X area to excessive noise levels? a) Induce substartal population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and X businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of Page 36 • The Planning Center February 2008 construction necessitating the C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewh re? i9 r1K `lr i�l\0.1 �lti tyIlKl 1 '� ^4 hlr J lri,111iIXy �4y,Dt�[µl a(ya w. wi ,�iJ^ijf w1 rt• 1 ii \lyyY!Itt,C.1iti "+y.,,I 7 t 'i' I JiWl�iif l��q,°�A ,TJ If `�r r i r ��}� J1 11 � {d Y�+?��IL� v •� i. t/ A � i I tit, �' y� Y I i. t 1�' � h I r' J i�l� r " +> Iti /rl" t< ''�hS ff�> J. ✓k '�w�}� sw)y. L n � il: rid y `•_�sL� l \Lhl•).l.lA`ZH`xaa i.I.j.•�G'I Ci bi.�'S_'Y,I y i ; {ill�l LL1 p1 p �'Jl 1 ,ii (� �'�� 1 6 '�'�"�`!G?�i''Ul hnll'::I 1 b J� l � l.u✓vYt_ I na Aga „1 . d - -© Other - -© Page 36 • The Planning Center February 2008 a) Would the project increase the use or exisuog c yll -11- and regional parks or other recreational facil'uies such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which ...:_u k— nn ndioamn nhveiral effect on the environment? ' a) Cause an increase in traffic Which is substantial in relrabon traffic load and capacity of the street system to the existing (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections) ? h) Exceed, either IndIMUally or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion mana ement a enc for designated roads or hi hwa s? C) Result in a change in air iranic patterns, including either an increase in Vatflc levels or a charhge in location that results in substantial safe risks? d) Substantially Increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g,, farm equipment)? — e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or Program supporting alternative transportation (e.g., burs turnouts, bi cue racks ? a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the ' a licable Re lionall Water Quality COMM[ Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water Veatmenttacilities or expansion of existing hactRes, the construction of which could cause significant ' environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion at existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Water supplies available to serve the project dj Have sufficient from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment Pfovidef, which ser+es of may serve the project that It has adequate capacity to serve the project' s projected demand in addition to the providef's existing commitments? Seashore Village Initial Study 2. Environmental Checklist Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Signtfcant P F4 X X X P R 91 X x No X Ciry of Newport Beach • Page 31 2. Environmental Checklist Page 38 • The Planning Center February 2008 Less Than Significant Potentially INIIh Less Than Significant Mitigation Signmcant No Issues Impact Incorporated impact Impact f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? NONNOWN "O .... , ft a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or X animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively considerable" means trial the incremental effects of a X project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future project.) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either x directly or indirectly? Page 38 • The Planning Center February 2008 i i 1 1 LI 1 I i 1 1 3. Environmental Analysis Section 2.3 provided a checklist of environmental impacts. This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the checklist and identifies mitigation measures, if applicable. 3.1 AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not part of a scenic vista. The project site is located in a coastal area. Newport Beach is located in a unique physical setting that provides a variety of spectacular coastal views, including those of the open waters of the ocean and bay, harbor, sandy beaches, rocky shores, wetlands, canyons, and coastal bluffs. As shown in Figure 10, Coastal Views, the project site is not located in the near vicinity of designated public view point or coastal view road. The nearest public viewpoint is located approximately 1,000 feet to the northwest and the proposed project would not directly obstruct its view of the ocean. While the proposed project would not substantially after the visual character of the project area from designated public view points, viewing perspectives from the neighboring residents would be changed. However, as shown in Figures 11 a and 11 b, Site Photographs, the project site and its surrounding area are developed with residential units of similar height (three stories) and there is no direct full view of the ocean. Existing views of the ocean are already compromised by these residential units on Seashore Drive. A modification permit is requested to reduce the minimum building separation distance required by the MFR zoning designation from 10 feet to 6 feet and to reduce the minimum front setback distance along Seashore Drive by 20 feet to 10 feet. The current building designs are similar in size, proportion, and 1 separation to existing buildings in the neighborhood. Typical building separation in the neighborhood is approximately 6 feet and has a minimum setback of 10 feet along River Avenue and 5 feet along Seashore Drive. ' The project site is located within the shoreline height limitation zone, which limits residential development height to 28 feet. However, the ridges of pitched roofs are permitted to exceed the height limit by 5 feet, provided that the midpoints of the roof planes are at 28 feet. The new building heights 1 would range from approximately 31 feet to 33 feet. While the 12 newly proposed single - family units along Seashore Drive would comply with the midpoint requirement of 28 feet, duplex units along River Avenue would exceed this requirement by approximately 1.5 feet. 1 Under the MFR zone, a single multifamily structure of over 50 units for the project site is allowed. The existing apartment building is a single, 54 -unit structure, approximately 28 feet tall (three stories), with no breaks in building massing. The intent of the height limitation zone is to regulate the visual and physical 1 mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach. As shown in Figure 11 b, typical buildings in the area are three -story, rectangular buildings, and they already obstruct views of the ocean. The proposed visual and physical massing of structures would be compatible with 1 the character of the neighborhood. The proposed project would allow for more public visual open space, 1 Seasbore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beacb • Page 39 M 3. Environmental Analysis and 24 single - family and duplex units situated on individual pads would be more compatible with the existing neighborhood than the single apartment complex with multiple units under one roof. As stated, a minimal encroachment into the 28 -foot height limitation is requested only for the duplex units along River Avenue. The Craftsman and Plantation styles proposed for the project require low pitched -gable rooflines and conforming to the height limitation would result in a more massive structure than currently proposed. Figure 12 compares the conforming design to the current project. As shown, an alternative to exceeding the height limitation by 1.5 feet would be to construct taller structures with longer roof spans. The proposed project results in shorter overall structure design that provides more visual open space. Furthermore, as stated in Policy 4.4.2 -2 of the Coastal Land Use Plan, the bulk and height limitation is to .preserve public views through the height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, and building bulk regulation of the Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005 that limit the building profile and maximize public view opportunities" (emphasis added). The proposed project would not substantially obstruct or block the public view opportunities of the ocean. Although the height limitation would be exceeded, the new development would not conflict with the intent of the shoreline height limitation as the development would be compatible with the existing visual scale of the neighborhood. The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on a scenic vista. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. State Route 1 (Pacific Coast Highway) is designated as Eligible to be a state scenic highway. The designated segment starts east of Newport Avenue, approximately 1.5 miles east of the project site. An approximately 1,000 -foot segment of Superior Avenue between Pacific Coast Highway and Hospital Road is designated as a Coastal View Road by the City of Newport Beach General Plan. However, the project site is currently developed with an apartment complex and does not contain any visually unique resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The project area is primarily residential except for the city park to the west. As shown in Figures 5 through 9b the proposed development would have two building styles: plantation style and craftsman style. Single - family units with plantation and craftsman architectural styles would front Seashore Drive alternately, and duplex units with plantation and craftsman architectural styles would front River Avenue alternately. As shown in Figures 11a and 11 b, Site Photographs, the exiting neighborhood generally displays two- to three -story residential units, including vacation rental homes, with various architectural styles. There are no uniform building characteristics and construction of 24 units with a combination of two architectural styles would not have a substantial degrading impact to the area's aesthetic quality. Furthermore, the existing multifamily complex provides a minimal landscaping area of 9,393 square feet (14.4 per cent). The proposed project would more than double the on -site landscaping area to 20,987 square feet (32.2 per cent), especially along the two street frontages. Therefore, the proposed project is anticipated to complement rather than degrade the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings. No mitigation measures are necessary. Page 40 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 3. Environmental Analysis Coastal Views Umitofion Zone City Boundary Q County Source: CO of Newport Beach General Plan Seashore Village Initial Study Scale (Miles) The Planning Center • Figure 10 I 3. Environmental Analysis 1 This page intentionally left blank. I 1 1 I 1 1 1 Page 42 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 3. Environmental Analysis Site Photographs View of the site looking south toward the ocean. r View of the site looking northeast. Seashore Village Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 11a rMON 3. Environmental Analysis 1 This page intentionally left blank. i 1 l_.J i 1 1 1 1 1 i F 1 1 1 1 Page 44 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 3. Environmental Analysis Site Photographs iWl A_ Seashore Drive looking west. Seashore Drive looking southeast. Seashore Village Initial Study The Planning Center • Figure 1 l 3. Environmental Analysis 1 This page intentionally left blank. 1 1 I 11 [1 I I I Page 46 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 ' N z ti V Z .a �7 "I V •N s d x o a 0 O a VL x N L r a 0) c O W ca Er c 0 2 ®W 0 L t m x N co d a Ir c of c US N ui IIL > No pn I U N c 0 m CD W a LL -c 0 m 0 W 0 N J n N (l ti M d U �I m O Z U a 0 ti ui a N o� C V c a �A h w v ti u v a i 0 3. Environmental Analysis 1 This page intentionally left blank. Page 48 • The Planning Center February 2008 ' I ' 3. Environmental Analysis ' d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ' Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is developed with an apartment complex and associated uses. Minimal light sources exist on the project site. No elevated parking lot lighting is provided within the project site, as a fair amount of ambient lighting from surrounding land uses already exists. Sources ' of light in the project area consist of lighting from the residential uses north, south, and east of the project site, the City -owned park to the west, and from street lights. Daytime glare sources include glass and other reflective building materials from the existing apartment complex. The City of Newport Beach does not have a lighting ordinance defining the maximum light intensity. The proposed project would not include any flashing lights or high - intensity nighttime lighting that would adversely affect nighttime views in the area. It is anticipated that on -site lighting would be typical of residential development and no unusual types or number of lighting fixtures have been proposed. The proposed project would not generate greater levels of light and glare than currently exist on -site. The impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. ' 3.2 AGRICULTURE RESOURCES ' In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. 1 a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? No Impact. The proposed project site is located in a developed area and is not currently used for agricultural purposes. The site is not designated Prime, Unique, or Farmland of Statewide Importance according to the State Farmland Maps. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract*? No Impact. The project site is not currently zoned or used for agricultural purposes and does not fall under a Williamson Act Contract. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result In conversion of Farmland, to non - agricultural use? No Impact. The project site is not currently used for agricultural purposes; therefore, the project would not result in the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. No impacts to farmland would occur. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. ' Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 49 do 3. Environmental Analysis 3.3 AIR QUALITY The Air Quality section addresses the impacts of the proposed project on ambient air quality and the exposure of people, especially sensitive individuals, to unhealthful pollutant concentrations. Air pollutants of concern include ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and oxides of nitrogen. This section analyzes the type and quantity of emissions that would be generated by the construction and operation of the proposed project. Climate /Meteorology Air quality is affected by both the rate and location of pollutant emissions and by meteorological conditions that influence movement and dispersal of pollutants. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients, along with local topography, provide the link between air pollutant emissions and air quality. The City of Newport Beach is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB) which is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SoCAB incorporates approximately 6,645 square miles within four counties —San Bernardino, Riverside, Los Angeles, and Orange — including some portions of what was previously known as the Southeast Desert Air Basin. In May 1996, the boundaries of the South Coast Air Basin were changed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to include the Beaumont- Banning area. The distinctive climate of the SoCAB is determined by its terrain and geographic location. The SoCAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains around the rest of its perimeter. The general region lies in the semipermanent high - pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SoCAB is hampered by the presence of persistent temperature inversions. High - pressure systems, such as the semipermanent high - pressure zone in which the SoCAB is located, are characterized by an upper layer of dry air that warms as it descends, restricting the mobility of cooler marine - influenced air near the ground surface, resulting in the formation of high -level subsidence inversions. Such inversions restrict the vertical dispersion of air pollutants released into the marine layer, and together with strong sunlight, can produce worst -case conditions for the formation of photochemical smog. The atmospheric pollution potential of an area is largely dependent on winds, atmospheric stability, solar radiation, and terrain. The combination of low wind speeds and low -level inversions produces the greatest concentration of air pollutants. On days without inversions, or on days of winds averaging over 15 mph, smog potential is greatly reduced. Air Quality Regulations, Plans, and Policies The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) was passed in 1963 by the US Congress and has been amended several times. The 1970 Clean Air Act Amendments strengthened previous legislation and laid the foundation for the regulatory scheme of the 1970s and 1980s. In 1977, Congress again added several provisions, including nonattainment requirements for areas not meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. The 1990 I 1 I 1 1 Page 50 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 ' 3. Environmental Analysis Amendments represent the latest in a series of federal efforts to regulate the protection of air quality in the United States. ' In 1988, the state legislature passed the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), which established California's air quality goals, planning mechanisms, regulatory strategies, and standards of progress for the first time. The CCAA provides the state with a comprehensive framework for air quality planning regulation. The ' CCAA requires attainment of state ambient air quality standards by the earliest practicable date. Attainment plans are required for air basins in violation of the state ozone (00, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SOO, nitrogen dioxide (NOO, and particulate matter (PM,, and PM2.0 standards. ' Preparation of and adherence to attainment plans are the responsibility of the local air pollution districts or air quality management districts. State and federal agencies have set ambient air quality standards for certain air pollutants. NAAQS have been established for the following criteria pollutants: CO, %, SO,, NO2, lead (Pb), and respirable particulate matter (PM,, and PM2 -j. The state standards for these criteria pollutants are more stringent than the corresponding federal standards. Table 1 summarizes the state and federal standards. ' Areas are classified under the FCAA as either attainment or nonattainment areas for each criteria pollutant, based on whether the NAAQS have been achieved or not. The SoCAB is designated by both ' the state and the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as a nonattainment area for 0„ PM,o, and PM,.,. 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Searbore Village Initial Study City of Newport Bearb • Page 51 do L� 3. Environmental Analysis Table 1 Ambient Air Quatitv Standards for Criteria Pollutants Source: GARB, Updated February 2007. The nitrogen dioxide AAOS was amended on February 22, 2007, to lower the 1-hr standard to 0.18 ppm and establish a new annual standard of 0.030 Pat ppm: pads per million; pg/m': micrograms per cubic meter * Standard has not been established for this pollutanilduration by this entity. Page 52 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 Federal Averaging California Primary Pollutant Health and Pollutant Time Standard Standard Atmospheric Effects Major Pollutant Sources 1 hour 0.09 ppm NA High concentrations can directly affec Motor vehicles. Ozone (0') lungs, causing irritation. Long -term 8 hours 0.07 ppm 0.08 ppm exposure may cause damage to lung tissue. Carbon 1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Classified as a chemical asphyxiant, Internal combustion engines, Monoxide CO interferes with the transfer of primarily gasoline- powered (CO) 8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm fresh oxygen to the blood and motor vehicles. deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen. Nitrogen Annual Irritating to eyes and respiratory tract Motor vehicles, petroleum - Dioxide Arithmetic 0.30 ppm 0.053 ppm Colors atmosphere reddish - brown. refining operations, industrial (N0d Mean sources, aircraft, ships, and 1 hour 0.18 ppm railroads. Annual Irritates upper respiratory tract; Fuel combustion, chemical Sulfur Arithmetic * 0.03 ppm injurious to lung tissue. Can yellow thE plants, sulfur recovery plants, Dioxide Mean leaves of plants, destructive to marble and metal processing. (SO2) 1 hour 0.25 ppm * iron, and steel. Limits visibility and reduces sunlight 24 hours 0.04 ppm 0.14 porn Respirable Coarse Annual 20 µg/m' 50 µg/m' Dust and fume - producing Particulate Arithmetic industrial and agricultural Matter Mean May irritate eyes and respiratory tract operations, combustion, (PM'a) 24 hours 50 /m' 150 decreases in lung capacity, cancer atmospheric photochemical Respirable Annual and increased mortality. Produces haze and limits visibility. reactions, and natural activities Fine Arithmetic 12 µg/m' 15 µg/m' (e.g. wind raised dust and Particulate Mean ocean sprays). Matter PM 24 hours * 35 µg/m' Monthly 1.5 m' * Disturbs gastrointestinal system, and Present source: lead smelters, Lead (Pb) causes anemia, Iddney disease, and battery manufacturing & Quarterly * 1.5 µg/m' neuromuscular and neurologic recycling facilities. Past source: dysfunction In severe cases). combustion of leaded gasoline. Decrease in ventilatory functions; Industrial processes. aggravation of asthmatic symptoms; Sutiates 24 hours 25 µg/m' aggravation of cardio - pulmonary (SOJ disease; vegetation damage; degradation of visibility; property damage. Source: GARB, Updated February 2007. The nitrogen dioxide AAOS was amended on February 22, 2007, to lower the 1-hr standard to 0.18 ppm and establish a new annual standard of 0.030 Pat ppm: pads per million; pg/m': micrograms per cubic meter * Standard has not been established for this pollutanilduration by this entity. Page 52 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 ' 3. Environmental Analysis ' Global Climate Change Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding ' large amounts of heat - trapping gases, known as greenhouse gases (GHG), to the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHG is from fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHG —water vapor, CO2, methane (CH,), and ozone (0)—that are the ' likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed within the 200 and 21"` centuries. Other GHG identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming effect to a lesser extent include nitrous oxide (N,O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF.), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and ' chlorofluorocarbons. Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act, was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006. AB 32 requires the state's global warming emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by year 2020, and to 80 percent of 1990 levels by year 2050. Pursuant to the requirements of AB 32, the state's reduction in global warming emissions will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on global warming emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. To effectively ' implement the cap, AB 32 directs CARE to develop appropriate regulations and establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor global warming emissions levels by January 2008. By January 1, 2009, CARE must prepare a plan demonstrating how the 2020 deadline can be met or bettered. However, as immediate progress in reducing GHG can and should be made, AB 32 directed CARE and the newly created California Climate Action Team (CAT) to identify a list of "discrete early action GHG reduction measures" that can be adopted and made enforceable by January 1, 2010. CAT is a consortium of representatives from state agencies that have been charged with coordinating and implementing GHG ' emission reduction programs that fall outside of CARB's jurisdiction. To address GHG emissions and global climate change in general plans and CEQA documents, Senate ' Bill 97 (Chapter 185, 2007) requires the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop CEQA guidelines on how to address global warming emissions and mitigate project - generated GHG. OPR is required to prepare, develop, and transmit these guidelines on or before July 1, 2009. ' Existing Air Quality Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the vicinity of the proposed project, are best documented by measurements taken by the SCAQMD. The City of Newport Beach is located within Source Receptor Area (SRA) 18 – Metropolitan (Southeast Los Angeles County). The SCAQMD air quality monitoring station in the SRA 18 that is closest to the proposed project site is the 1 Costa Mesa monitoring station, located at Mesa Verde Drive, Costa Mesa. As this monitoring station does not monitor PM, or PM,,, data was supplemented from the Mission Viejo Station for these criteria pollutants. Data from these stations are summarized in Table 2. ' The data show occasional violations of both the state and federal ozone standards. The data also indicate that the area occasionally exceeds the state PM, standard and federal PM,., standard. Neither the CO nor the NO2 standard has been violated in the last five years at this station. I 1 Seasbore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beacb • Page 53 3. Environmental Analysis Table 2 � Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary Number of Days Threshold Were Exceeded and Maximum Le Is Durina Such Violations Pollulant/Standard 2 002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Max 1-HourConc. (ppm) 0.087 0.107 0.104 0.085 0.074 Max. 8-HourConc. (pp 0.070 0.088 0.087 0.072 0.062 Max 8-HourConc. (ppm 4-29 5.90 4.07 3.16 3.01 Max. 1 -Hour Conc. PPM 0.106 0.107 0.097 0.085 0.101 Max 24-Hour Conc. ppm 0.011 0.012 0.008 0.008 0.005 Max. 24-Hour Conc. (ut&j 80 64 47 41 57 Federal 24-Hour > 654 pg/& Source: GARB. Ambient AirQualfty Monitoring Data. Obtained January 2007. pprrr. parts per million:,ug/m3. or Micrograms per cubic meter Data obtained from the Costa Mesa Monitoring Station. The NOx standard was amended on February 22, 2007, to lowerthe 1 -hr standard to 0.18 ppm. Data obtained from the Mission Viejo Monitoring Station. 4 The USEPA revised the 24-hour PM2 5standard from 65,ugW to 35 PW in December 2006. Sensitive Receptors m� Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved. Sensitive population groups include children. the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill, especially those with cmodiorespiratorydiseases. Residential areas are considered to be sensitive receptors to air pollution because residents (including children and the elderly) tend to be at home for extended periods of dnne, resulting in sustained =" exposure to any pollutants present. Schools are also considered sensitive receptors, aschildren are present for extended durations and engage in regular outdoor activities. Recreational land uses are considered moderately sensitive to air pollution. Afthough exposure periods are generally short, exercise places a high demand on respiratory functions, which can be impaired by air pollution. In addition, noticeable air pollution can detract from the enjoyment of recreation. Industrial and commercial areas are considered the least sensitive to air pollution. Exposure periods are relatively short and intermittent, as the majority ofthevvorkerstendtostayindoorwnnostofdlednne.|naddidon'thevvorkingpopu|o1ionis Page 54 a The Planning Center }ebrw«ry2000 I ' 3. Environmental Analysis ' generally the healthiest segment of the public. Sensitive receptors within the vicinity of the project site include the residences and recreational facilities located adjacent to the project site. tMethodology Projected air emissions are calculated using the SCAOMD's Urban Emissions (URBEMIS2007) ' emissions model6. The URBEMIS2007 compiles an emissions inventory of construction, stationary, and vehicle emissions sources. The URBEMIS2007 model uses EMFAC2007 emissions factors for vehicle traffic. The calculated emissions of the project are compared to thresholds of significance for individual ' projects using the SCAOMD's CEOA Air Quality Handbook. Thresholds of Significance CEQA allows for the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district to be used to assess impacts of a project on air quality. The SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for regional air quality emissions for construction activities and ' project operation. In addition to the daily thresholds listed above, projects are also subject to the AAQS. These are addressed though an analysis of localized CO impacts and Localized Significance Thresholds (ISTs). ' Regional Significance Thresholds The SCAQMD has adopted regional construction and operational emissions thresholds to determine ' project- specific and cumulative impacts on air quality within the SoCAB, as shown in Table 3. 1 Table 3 SCAQMD Sionil"cance Thresholds Air Pollutant Construction Phase Operational Phase Volatile Organic Gases (VOC) 75 Ibs /day 55 Ibs/day Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 Ibs /day 550 Ibs/day Nitrogen Oxides (NOO 100 Ibs /day 55 Ibs/day Sulfur Oxides (SOO 150lbs/day 150lbs/day Coarse Inhalable Particulates (PMJ 150 Ibs /day 150 Ibs /day Fine Inhalable Particulates (PM2.5) 55 Ibs /day 55lbs/day CO Hotspot Analysis The localized CO impacts are based on the California one -hour and eight -hour CO standards, which are: • 1 hour = 20 parts per million • 8 hour = 9 parts per million 1 The SCAQMD requires the assessment of CO "hotspots" at congested Intersections for which project traffic would travel. Ecceedance of the one- and eight -hour ambient air quality standards would constitute a significant air quality impact. Seashore Village Initial Study City of Neruport Beach • Page 55 ffl 3. Environmental Analysis Localized Significance Thresholds The SCAQMD developed LSTs for emissions of NO,, CO, PM,c, and PMZ,generated at the project site (off -site mobile- source emissions are not included the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions at a project site that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent federal or state AAQS. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within the project SRA and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LST analysis for construction is applicable for all projects of five acres and less; however, it can be used as screening criteria for larger projects to determine whether or not dispersion modeling may be required. The construction LSTs for a 1.49 -acre project site within SRA 18 for sensitive receptors located within 25 meters (approximately 82 feet) are shown in Table 4. Projects larger than five acres can determine the localized significance for construction by performing dispersion modeling for emissions that exceed the California AAQS. Table 4 Localized Significance Thresholds AirPollotant Threshold Ibs/da Construction Operation Carbon Monoxide (CO) 406 406 Nitrogen Oxides (1402) 191 191 Coarse Particulates (PM,,) 5 1 Fine Particulates (PMZ,S) 4 1 Source: SCAOMO, Localized Significance MedWology, July 2007, and Append'a A., Based on LSTs fur a project site in SRA 5 for a 1,49 -Acre Ske at 25 meters (82 feet). PM,, Localized Significance Threshold Look -up Tables. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. A consistency determination plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). It fulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to clean air goals contained in the AQMP. Only new or amended general plan elements, specific plans, and major projects need to undergo a consistency review. This is because the AQMP strategy is based on projections from local general plans. Projects that are consistent with the local general plan are considered consistent with the AQMP. The proposed project is consistent with residential land use designation for the project site. Implementation of the project would result in lower density residential land uses than currently existing on -site and emissions from construction and operation of the project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. The operational phase of the project would also result in a net reduction of emissions as compared to the existing uses, due to a net reduction in the number of residential units. Furthermore, the project is not considered by the South Coast Association of Governments (SCAG) to be a regionally significant project that would warrant a consistency review for criteria emissions or new GHG emissions Page 56 • The Planning Center February 2008 F I I I I I I I I L I I I I J I 3. Environmental Analysis control strategies under AB 32. As the proposed project is both consistent with the City of Newport Beach General Plan and would not exceed the SCAQMD emissions thresholds, the project would be considered to be consistent with the AQMP and no significant impacts would occur. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes construction and operation of 24 new residential units on a 1.49 -acre parcel in the City of Newport Beach. Air pollutant emissions associated with the project could occur over the short-term for site preparation and construction activities. In addition, emissions would result from the long-term operation of the completed project from facility- related energy consumption and automobile traffic traveling to and from the project site. The analysis below describes the project's short-term and long -term air quality impacts. Short -Term Air Quality Impacts Construction activities would result in the generation of air pollutants. These emissions would primarily be (1) exhaust emissions from powered construction equipment, (2) dust generated from demolition, earthmoving, excavation, and other construction activities, and (3) motor vehicle emissions associated with vehicle trips. Construction is estimated to begin in 2008 and is estimated to take approximately 18 months to complete. The proposed project would require demolition of 48,753 square feet of structures, which would take approximately 30 days to complete. Grading activities would also take approximately 30 days to complete. Construction of the residential buildings would be constructed in three development phases in order to stage construction activities. For the purposes of air quality modeling, it was assumed that all three phases would overlap. Approximately 0.67 acres, or 42 percent of the site, would be paved. These construction emissions were estimated using the SCAQMD's URBEMIS2007 and are included in Table 5; the model run is included in Appendix B. Table 5 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Source Pollutants (lbs /da CO NO VOC SO PM PM C a Demolition 17 37 3 <1 26 7 4,171 Site Preparation 15 28 3 0 2 1 2,372 Building Construction 18 24 13 <1 2 2 2,725 SCAQMD Threshold 550 100 75 150 150 55 NA Exceeds Threshold NO NO NO NO NO NO NA Source: URBEMIS2D07 Version 9.2.2. NA: Not Applicable i ConsWction equipment ma based on the URBEMIS2007 computer model, which is based on SCAQMD Construction surveys of mid - sited construction sites. z Fugitive dust emissions assumes application of Rule 403, which inckides replacing ground cover as quicldy as possible, watering exposed surfaces two times daily, equipment loadinglunloading measures, and reducing vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. See Appendix A for additional fugitive dust control measures detailed in SCAQMD Rule 403. a CO2 emissions are provided for informational purposes only. The SCAQMD, CPR, or CARB have yet to establish regional emissions thresholds for this pollutant Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 57 3. Environmental Analysis As shown in Table 5, all emissions are less than their respective SCAQMD threshold values. SCAQMD, OPR, or CARB have yet to establish regional emissions thresholds for CO. emissions. However, because the project is not a regionally significant project and the project would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for criteria pollutants (CO, NO, PM,,, and PM2,), which were established to identify substantial new sources of air pollution, CO, emissions are likely not to be considered substantial enough to result in a significant cumulative impact relative to GHG emissions and climate change impacts. Therefore the project's cumulative contribution to GHG emissions is less than significant. Long -Term Operation - Related Impacts Long -term air pollutant emissions generated by the project would be associated with project- related vehicle trips and stationary- source emissions generated on -site by sources, such as water heaters, gas stoves, and fuel consumed for landscaping activities. Long -term air quality impacts are typically associated with the emissions produced by project- generated vehicle trips. However, the proposed project would reduce the existing residential density from 54 residential units to 24 residential units. Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition (see Section 3.15, Transportation/Traffic), the 12- single - family and 12- condominium units would generate 185 average daily vehicle trips (ADT), while the existing 54 -unit apartment complex generates 363 ADT, resulting in a net decrease of 178 ADT. Furthermore, newer construction is typically more energy efficient than older construction, as a result of more stringent efficiency requirements adopted in the California Building Code. Consequently, the proposed project would result in a net decrease in operational emissions. Therefore the project's cumulative contribution to GHG emissions would also be less than significant. c) Result In a cumulatively considerable net Increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. The SoCAB is designated as a nonattainment area for ozone and particulates (PM,, and PM2,J under the state and federal AAQS standards. Emissions that contribute to the exceedance of these pollutants would cumulatively contribute to the region's nonattainment. Air pollutant modeling for construction emissions demonstrate that project implementation would not exceed the SCAQMD's construction phase pollutant thresholds. Furthermore, because the proposed project would result in a decrease in vehicle trips, the project would reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the project site. Therefore, the project is not considered by the SCAQMD to significantly contribute to the region's cumulative emissions. Impacts from short-term construction and long -term operation would be less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project could expose sensitive receptors to elevated pollutant concentrations 4 it would: (1) cause or contribute significantly to elevated pollutant concentration levels or (2) place the project in an area with elevated pollutant concentrations. Unlike the mass (weight) of operational emissions shown in Tables 4 and 5 (pounds per day), localized concentrations refer to the amount of pollutants in a volume of air (jug/ml and can be correlated to potential health effects. Because the project would result in a net decrease in operational emissions on- site, operational LSTs and CO hotspot analyses are not applicable for the project because the project I I I 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 IJ Ll Page 58 • The Planning Center February 2008 ' I i3. Environmental Analysis would result in a net decrease in air pollutant concentrations in the project vicinity as a result of fewer vehicle trips and less residential units. Construction LSTs Emissions generated from construction activities are anticipated to cause temporary increases in ' pollutant concentrations. The frequency and concentration of such violations would depend on several factors, including soil composition, the amount of soil disturbed, wind speed, the numbers and types of machinery used, the construction schedule, and the proximity of other construction and demolition I projects. LSTs are the maximum amount (in pounds per day) of air pollutants that a project can generate without exceeding the AAQS at the nearest sensitive receptor. LSTs are based on the ambient air quality in the SRA, which for the project is SRA 18. Because concentrations of air pollutants diminish with ' distance from the source, LSTs are also based on the distance to the nearest receptor, which for the project is within 25 meters (approximately 82 feet). LSTs are based on the AAQS; which are the most stringent. They are designed to protect those sensitive receptors most susceptible to further respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Table B shows maximum dally onsite construction emissions generated by the project ' compared to the air pollutant threshold (LST). i i Table 6 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Compared with the LSTs Source Pollutants lbs/day CO Nor PM 10 PMZ5 Demolition 5 9 25 6 Site Preparation' 14 28 2 1 Building Construction j 12 j 22 2 j 2 SCAQMD LST Threshold for SRA 18 400 189 5 I 4 Exceeds Threshold No No Yes d Yes As shown in this table, project emissions would not exceed LSTs for CO and NOa. However, PM,, and PM25 emissions would exceed the LSTs during grading activities. As shown in Table 7, with mitigation, project's construction emissions would not exceed the LSTs, and therefore air pollutant concentrations from project - related constructon activities would not exceed the California or federal AAQS. No significant air quality impact would occur from exposure of persons to substantial air pollutant concentrations with the implementation of the following mitigation measures. Seasbore Village Initial Study' City of Netuport Beacb • Page 59 �� Source; URBEMIS2007 version 922. ' Construction equipment mix based on the URBEMIS2007 computer model, which Is based on SCAQMD construction surveys of mid -sized construction sites. In accordance with SCAQMD methodology, only on-site emissions are included in the analysis. ' Fugitive dust emissions assumes application of Rule 403, which includes replacing ground cover as quicldy as possible, watering exposed surfaces two times daily, equipment Ioadingfunloading measures, and reducing vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles per hour. See Appendix A for additional fugidve dust control measures detailed in SCAQMD Rule 403. As shown in this table, project emissions would not exceed LSTs for CO and NOa. However, PM,, and PM25 emissions would exceed the LSTs during grading activities. As shown in Table 7, with mitigation, project's construction emissions would not exceed the LSTs, and therefore air pollutant concentrations from project - related constructon activities would not exceed the California or federal AAQS. No significant air quality impact would occur from exposure of persons to substantial air pollutant concentrations with the implementation of the following mitigation measures. Seasbore Village Initial Study' City of Netuport Beacb • Page 59 �� 3. Environmental Table 7 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Compared with the LSTS — With Mitigation Source' Pollutants ibs /day CO NOx PNIO PM2.5 Demolition' 5 9 4 1 Site Preparation' 14 28 2 1 Building Construction 12 22 2 2 SCAQMD LST Threshold for SRA 18 400 189 5 4 Exceeds Threshold No No No No Source: UPBEMIS2007 Version 9.2.2. ' Construction equipment mix based on the URBEMIS2007 computer model, which is based on SCAQMD construction surveys of mid -sized construction sites. ' Fugitive dust emissions reductions from demolition based on the particulate matter control efficiencies of Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measure of 84 percent described below, as quantified by the SCAQMD in Table XI -A, Mitigation Measure Examples: Fugitive Dust From Construction and Demolition. a Fugitive dust emissions assumes application of Rule 403, which includes replacing ground cover as quicldy as possible, watering exposed surfaces two times daily, equipment loading/unloading measures, and reducing vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 miles perhour. See AppendaA for additional fugitive dust control measures detailed in SCADMD Rule 403. Mitigation Measure The construction contractor for the property ownerldeveloper shall implement additional dust control measures during demolition as follows: • The project contractor shall apply nontoxic chemical dust suppressants (e.g., polymer emulsion) to buildings being demolished to reduce fugitive dust from active demolition activities. • The project contractor shall prohibit demolition activities when wind speed exceeds 25 miles per hour. • The project contractor shall install a temporary construction fence and silt barrier around the construction site as shown in the Construction Staging and Water Quality Control Plan submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. • The project contractor shall install construction tire wash areas at the entrance to the project site on River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. All construction clean -up shall be done in construction sediment basins. The construction tire wash area shall be installed in accordance with the Construction Staging and Water Quality Control Plan submitted to the City of Newport Beach for approval. • The contractor will sweep adjacent streets and roads a minimum of once per week. • Material haul trucks leaving the project site will have their loads either covered or maintain a freeboard distance of two feet from the stacked load to the top of the trailer. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust pollutants from on -site earth movement and from equipment bringing asphalt and other building materials to the site. With regards to nuisance odors, any air quality impacts would be confined to the immediate vicinity of the equipment itself. By the time such emissions reach any sensitive receptor sites away from the project site, they are typically diluted to well below any level of air quality concern. An Page 60 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I 1 3. Environmental Analysis occasional 'whiff' of diesel exhaust from passing equipment and trucks accessing the site from public roadways may result. Such brief exhaust odors are an adverse, but not significant, air quality impact. The operational phase of the project would replace the existing 54 apartment units with 12 single family and 12 duplex units. The existing residential complex is not a substantial source of odor generation. The proposed residential units would not generate substantial odors as well. Nuisance odors are regulated under SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits quantities of air contaminants or other materials to be emitted within the SoCAB that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or that cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property. No significant sources of odors would occur on -site. Therefore, impacts from objectionable odors are less than significant and no additional mitigation measures are necessary. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional �. plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The project site is currently occupied by an apartment complex and approximately 86 percent of the entire is impervious. A site survey was conducted by Phil Brylski, Senior Biologist with the Planning Center, which determined that there are no special status species or biological habitat located on the project site. Therefore, the proposed development would not have any effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. The project site is currently occupied by an apartment complex and approximately 86 ' percent of the site is impervious. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community located on the project site. A site survey was conducted by Phil Brylski, Senior Biologist with the Planning Center, which determined that there are no sensitive natural communities located on the project site. ' Therefore, the proposed development would not have any effect on any sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. The project site is developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex and does not contain any federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Redevelopment of the project site would not directly remove, fill, or hydrologically interrupt any wetlands. No impact would result from the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 61 88 3. Environmental Analysis d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? No Impact. The project site is developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex and is not being used for migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites. The project site does not contain any special status biological resources and redevelopment of this site would not interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. No impact would result from the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The project site is developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex and only contains ornamental landscaping trees and plants. There are two small ornamental pine trees at the northwest corner of the project site. The City Council Policy G3 (Retention or Removal of City Trees) was adopted with the intent to preserve views and to preserve and promote the aesthetic and environmental benefits provided by trees and it applies only to City trees, i.e., those located on public property and within public parkways. Removal of these trees and plants would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances. No impact would result from the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. Q Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project site is not located within an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plans. No mitigation measures are necessary. 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES a) Cause a substantial adverse change In the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact. Section 10564.5 defines historic resources as resources listed or determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register of historical resources, or the lead agency. Generally a resource is considered to be "historically significant," if it meets one of the following criteria: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; ii) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; iii) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or iv) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Page 62 • The Planning Center February 2008 I 1 3. Environmental Analysis IThe project site is developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex, which was constructed in 1972. The building is modem in style and, given the building age of 35 years, no historical significance is warranted. Implementation of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significant of a historical resource and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15!)84.5? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. A limited archaeological records search ' was conducted by McKenna at al. and found no archaeological evidence on or near the project site. The nearest recorded archaeological sites are located approximately one quarter mile north of Pacific Coast Highway and none would be impacted by the proposed project. A review of historic maps (USGS Santa Ana Quadrangles of 1896 and 1901, rev. 1945) illustrated the presence of the Southern Pacific Smeltzwe Branch Railroad alignment passing relatively close to the project area, but this was long gone by the time the 1965 USGS Newport Beach Quadrangle was prepared. Evidence of the historic railroad alignment may be identified within or near the current project area, including the project site, even though the project site has been previously disturbed. The lack of surface evidence does not preclude the discovery of subsurface evidence. However, the following mitigation measure would ensure that impacts related to archaeological resources remain less than 1 significant. Mitigation Measure 2. Prior to approval of a grading plan, the property owner /developer shall submit a letter to the Planning Department, Planning Division, showing that a qualified archaeologist has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemented: • The archaeologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of artifacts if potentially significant artifacts are uncovered. If artifacts are uncovered and determined to be significant, the archaeological observer shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner /developer for ' exploration and /or salvage. • Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. • Any archaeological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified archaeologist. If any artifacts are discovered during grading operations when the archaeological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. • A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Upon completion of the grading, the archaeologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted. tc) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site has been previously disturbed and is underlain by fill material and Quaternary-age alluvial. No unique geologic feature exists on -site and the likelihood of presence of a unique paleontological resource is minimal. However, the Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beacb • Page 63 3. Environmental Analysis project site has not been previously surveyed for cultural resources and the potential for subsurface evidence remains. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure that potential impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 3. The property owner /developer shall submit a letter to the Public Works /Engineering Department, Development Division, and the Planning Department, Planning Division, showing that a certified paleontologist has been hired to ensure that the following actions are implemente(i • The paleontologist must be present at the pregrading conference in order to establish procedures to temporarily halt or redirect work to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of fossils. If potentially significant materials are discovered, the paleontologist shall determine appropriate actions in cooperation with the property owner /developer for exploration and /or salvage. • Specimens that are collected prior to or during the grading process will be donated to an appropriate educational or research institution. • Any paleontological work at the site shall be conducted under the direction of the certified paleontologist. If any fossils are discovered during grading operations when the paleontological monitor is not present, grading shall be diverted around the area until the monitor can survey the area. • A final report detailing the findings and disposition of the specimens shall be submitted. Upon the completion of the grading, the paleontologist shall notify the City as to when the final report will be submitted d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of tormai cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed with an apartment complex and is surrounded by urban uses. No human remains are known to exist on the project site, and the site is not identified as a formal cemetery. The project site and its surrounding area are highly disturbed and the possibility of discovering human remains is unlikely. However, the lack of past evidence of a Native American burial ground or human remains at the project site does not guarantee the absence of subsurface remains. Therefore, if there is an unexpected discovery of human remains, then the District shall follow guidelines addressed in the Health and Safety Code section 7050.5, which states: In the event of discovery and recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with §27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. The coroner shall make his or her determination within two working days from the time the person responsible for the excavation, or his or her authorized representative, notifies the coroner of the discovery or recognition of the human remains... Page 64 • The Planning Center February 2008 ! 3. Environmental Analysis ' If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognized the human remains to be those of a Native American, or had reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. In accordance with state law, no further work in the area of concern (to be determined by the County Coroner and a qualified archaeologist) will be permitted until the remains are removed from the site. Once the remains are removed, construction activities may resume. If the remains are non - Native American and of no forensic significance, the City will make the proper arrangements with a qualified archaeologist to remove the remains and have them reburied in accordance with current Health and Safety guidelines. If the remains are recent, the Coroner will handle all necessary removal and reburial activities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.6 GEOLOGYAND SOILS The below analysis is based on result of the Geotechnical Investigation report dated June 13, 2007, prepared by EGA Consultants, included as Appendix B. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, Injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other AA substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not underlain by a known earthquake fault and is not delineated on the most recent Alquist - Priolo Earthquake Zoning map. No major fauns are known to exist within the immediate vicinity of the project site. The Newport- Inglewood fault system is located approximately 1.2 miles from the project site. No mitigation measures are necessary. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. One of the predominant effects of an earthquake is ground shaking. Similar to the rest of southern California, the project site is subject to ground shaking and potential damage in the event of seismic activity. The most likely source of strong seismic ground shaking within the region would be a major earthquake along either the Newport- Inglewood or San Andreas Fault. Both faults are classified as active, with a seismic capability over magnitude 7.0. The expected ground motion characteristics of future earthquakes in the region will depend on the distance to the epicenter and magnitude of the earthquake, as well as the soil profile of the site. IThe proposed project would be built to meet the seismic design parameters contained in the most current version of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) for Seismic Zone 4, as well as the standards of the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC). Therefore, seismic impacts associated with the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. 111) Seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Liquefaction of soils can be caused by strong vibration such as an earthquake. Loose, granular, sandy soils are susceptible to Seashore Village Initial Study City of Neqorf Beach • Page 65 3. Environmental Analysis liquefaction, while the more stable rock, gravel, clay, and silt are not significantly affected by Vibration. Liquefaction is generally known to occur only in saturated or near - saturated granular soils. The project site is underlain by fill and terrace deposits, which are characterized by clean beach sands and silty sands, therefore, the project site has a significant liquefaction potential if subjected to heavy vibration. However, provided that the project is constructed in accordance with the criteria and seismic design parameters of the UBC, standards of the SEAOC, and recommended measures in the site - specific geotechnical investigation (EGA Consultants 2007) impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure 4. During construction, the construction manager shall ensure that measures listed in the geotechnical investigation (EGA Consultants, 2007) or equivalent measures are Implemented to minimize the effects of liquefaction. The measures shall include but are not limited to: • Tie all pad footings with grade beams. • All footings should be a minimum of 24 inches deep, below grade. • Continuous footings should be reinforced with two No. 5 rebar (two at the top and two at the bottom). • Concrete slabs cast against properly compacted fill materials shall be a minimum of 6 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 rebar at 12 inches on center in both directions. The reinforcement shall be supported on chairs to insure positioning of the reinforcement at mid - center in the slab. • Dowel all footings to slabs with No. 4 bars at 24 inches on center. iv) Landslides? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is relatively flat and there are no hills in the vicinity of the project site that would pose a threat of landsliding. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Result insubstantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact. Erosion is a normal and inevitable geologic process whereby earthen materials are loosened, worn away, decomposed, or dissolved, and removed from one place and transported to another. Precipitation, running water, waves, and wind are all agents of erosion. Ordinarily, erosion proceeds so slowly as to be imperceptible, but when the natural equilibrium of the environment is changed, the rate of erosion can be greatly accelerated. This can create aesthetic and engineering problems. Accelerated erosion within an urban area can cause damage by undermining structures, blocking storm sewers, and depositing silt, sand, or mud in roads and tunnels. Eroded materials are eventually deposited into our coastal waters, where the carried silt remains suspended in the water for some time, constituting a pollutant and altering the normal balance of plant and animal fife. Due to the relatively flat topography and the developed nature of the site, erosion impacts would be minimal. In addition, the project site is relatively small in size (approximately 1.49 acres) and would be subject to local and state codes and requirements for erosion control and grading. The project would also be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting regulations, including the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), Page 66 • The Planning Center February 2008 I 1 3. Environmental A ' No Impact. The proposed project involves the construction of a 24 single and duplex units in Newport Beach. The project would be connected to the City's sewer system and would not need a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures ' are necessary. 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Operation The proposed project involves development of 24 residential units and would not use, store, handle, or dispose of hazardous materials other than typical household cleaning solvents and landscaping products. Seashore Village Initial Study City of Neuport Beach • Page 67 which is further discussed in Section 3.8 of this report. With the adherence to these codes and regulations, no impacts would occur. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact. Unstable soil is earth material that, because of its nature or the influence of related conditions, cannot be depended upon to remain in place without extra support. The project site is underlain by fill and native materials. The fill soils consist generally of dark brown and gray, dry, loose to medium dense sand with very low expansion potential. Underlying the fill materials are Quaternary-age alluvial and marine terrace deposits, consisting generally of light gray, moist, medium dense, non - cemented, fine- to medium - grained; beach sand with occasional shell fragments. Therefore, no sign of unstable soils has been identified during the geotechnical investigation. Furthermore, project compliance with the measures outlined in the project's preliminary geotechnical investigation (e.g., removal and replacement of near surface soils with engineered fill), the criteria and seismic design parameters of the UBC, California Building Code (CBC), and the SEAOC, and submittal of a detailed geotechnical investigation report would reduce potential unstable soil impacts to a less than significant level. No mitigation measures are necessary. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soil, with respect to engineering properties, refers to thossoils RIB that, upon wetting and drying, will alternately expand and contract, causing problems for foundations of buildings and other structures. No evidence of expansive soils was identified during the geotechnical investigation. In addition, the design of the proposed project would be in conformance with the UBC and the impacts relating to expansive soils would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ' No Impact. The proposed project involves the construction of a 24 single and duplex units in Newport Beach. The project would be connected to the City's sewer system and would not need a septic tank or alternative wastewater disposal system. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures ' are necessary. 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Operation The proposed project involves development of 24 residential units and would not use, store, handle, or dispose of hazardous materials other than typical household cleaning solvents and landscaping products. Seashore Village Initial Study City of Neuport Beach • Page 67 3. Environmental Analysis Construction The EPA only requires asbestos removal in order to prevent significant public exposure to airborne fibers during demolition or renovation activities. At other times, the EPA believes that asbestos removal projects, unless well- designed and property performed, can actually increase health risk. Project construction would include the demolition of the structures currently on the site. According to the Report for Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) (EMG 2007), a total of 44 samples were submitted to the laboratory for analysis and 17 samples were found to contain asbestos mineral type. Specified work practice requirements limiting asbestos emissions from building demolition and renovation activities are set forth in SCAOMD Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emission From Demolition /Renovation Activities). This rule, in whole or in part, is applicable to owners and operators of any demolition or renovation activity, and the associated disturbance of ACM. The requirements for demolition and renovation activities include asbestos surveying, notification, ACM removal procedures and time schedules, ACM handling and clean -up procedures, storage, and disposal requirements for asbestos - containing waste materials. The existing structures on -site are also required to be surveyed for lead -based paint (LBP) prior to demolition or renovation, in compliance with the applicable local, state, and federal regulations administered through the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. Compliance with the existing regulations and the following mitigation measure would reduce potential safety hazards pertaining to ACMs and IBPs to less than significant levels. Mitigation. Measure 5. Prior to demolition activity, a certified and licensed asbestos abatement contractor shall perform any removal of asbestos containing material (ACM). Also, an industrial hygienist must be present to perform engineering control and regulatory asbestos air monitoring during any abatement activity. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonable foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. As indicated above, there is a potential for asbestos to be released during the demolition stage of project construction. However, compliance with the existing regulations would reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significant. To reduce impacts from potential spills of hazardous materials during construction, the project would be required to comply with the requirements set forth under the Statewide General Permit for Construction Activities, pursuant to Section 402 of the federal Clean Water Act. Per the requirements, best management practices (BMPs) would be employed to control hazardous materials use and spills, as detailed within a SWPPP prepared for the proposed project. The proposed residential use would not create significant hazards through accidental release of hazardous materials. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. Page 68 • The Planning Center February 2008 ® 3. Environmental Analysis ' Less Than Significant Impact. Access to the site would be taken via three driveways: two along River Avenue and one on Neptune Avenue. The driveways and internal streets have been designed according to fire department standards for emergency access. In addition, the fire department would review project site plans for access and safety issues and building permits would not be issued until the project met fire department standards for access. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. H Seashore Village Initial Study City of Neuport Beach • Page 69 I c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact. There are no schools within one - quarter mile of the proposed project ' site. The nearest school is Whittier Elementary School, located at 1800 Whittier Avenue, Costa Mesa, California, approximately one mile north from the project site. No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed as a multifamily apartment complex. The project site is not identified in the Department of Toxic Substances Control's (DTSC) hazardous wastes and substances list, which includes the Federal Superfund Sites (National Priority List), State Response Sites, Voluntary Cleanup Sites, School Cleanup Sites, Permitted Sites, and Corrective Action Sites. Implementation of the proposed single and duplex residential units would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a ' safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is John Wayne Airport, approximately five miles north of the project site. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan and the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. No mitigation measures are necessary. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ' Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Hoag Memorial Hospital owns and operates a rooftop heliport, approximately 0.8 nautical miles to the east, and the nearest airport, John Wayne Airport, is approximately five miles north of the project site. Project implementation would not result in any airport- related safety hazards for anyone residing or working in the project area. No mitigation measures are necessary. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ' Less Than Significant Impact. Access to the site would be taken via three driveways: two along River Avenue and one on Neptune Avenue. The driveways and internal streets have been designed according to fire department standards for emergency access. In addition, the fire department would review project site plans for access and safety issues and building permits would not be issued until the project met fire department standards for access. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. H Seashore Village Initial Study City of Neuport Beach • Page 69 I 3. Environmental Analysis h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, Including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is located in a developed area and is not immediately adjacent to any wildland areas. The project site is not located within the Special Fire Protection Areas (SFPAs). Areas in SFPAs require fuel modification and a 100 -foot setback between the structure and the wildland areas. Because the site is not located in an SFPA, the project site would not constitute a wildland fire risk to the project site. No impacts from wildland fires would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would potentially discharge sediment and pollutants to the nearest receiving waters and result in a potential significant impact to water quality. Grading and excavation of the site would expose and disturb soils. The storage and use of hazardous materials on -site, including treated wood, paints, solvents, fuels, etc., would be potential sources of pollutants during construction. The proposed project would generate the following potential runoff pollutants • fertilizers and pesticides • household hazardous waste (e.g., paints, cleaning agents, etc.) • pet waste • outside building and cleaning • landscape maintenance debris • vehicle washing and repair The project site is located within the Newport Bay Watershed and the receiving water is Lower Newport Bay, which is identified by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board as impaired due to metals and pesticides. In addition, EPA Region IX has established Total Maximum Daily Loads for fecal coliform, nutrients, and sedimentation /siltation for Lower Newport Bay. Pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the EPA has established regulations under the NPDES program to control direct stormwater discharges. In California, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) administers the NPDES permitting program and is responsible for developing NPDES permitting requirements. For Orange County, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board would be responsible for implementation of the NPDES requirements. The NPDES program regulates industrial pollutant discharges, including, those from construction activities on sites larger than one acre. The proposed project would be subject to the NPDES program because the project would involve a site greater than one acre. The proposed project would then be required to develop and implement a SWPPP and be subject to BMPs designated to prevent erosion and siltation during the project's construction phases. In accordance with the requirements of the NPDES MS4 Permit, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared. The WQMP contains specific source- and treatment - control BMPs that Page 70 • The Planning Center February 2008 r 3. Environmental Analysis ' would reduce or eliminate the infiltration of pollutants into the stormwater system. The complete WQMP can be found in Appendix D of this Initial Study. The proposed project would involve asphalt paving at driveways with areas of groutless paver systems to allow filtering of first flush of the driveways. Patios and walks would be constructed with concrete that flows to an underground drainage system equipped with an inline perforated drain trench allowing the pollutants to filter through the gravel bed back into the soil. Additionally, landscaped areas would consist of small on -grade planters and two larger areas adjacent to the guest parking, all designed to catch flows in order to absorb the pollutants of the first flush. The proposed project has been designed so that all overflow would be drained through the underground system with the attached inline filters. The following lists outline source - control BMPs (routine nonstructural and routine structural) included in the proposed project. The project BMPs are designed to have any future pollutants be filtered directly ' into the ground, which would allow the BMPs to work naturally and avoid the need for regular maintenance to BMPs. Routine Nonstructural BMPs • education for property owners, tenants, and occupants. • activity restrictions ' BMP maintenance • Title 22 California Code of Regulations Compliance • Uniform Fire Code implementation ' common area catch basin inspection • sweeping of private streets and parking lots. Routine Structural BMPs I J L i 1 • Use efficient irrigation systems and landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, and source control. • Protect slopes and channels and provide energy dissipation. The following lists site- design BMPs that are included in the proposed project. The combination of paver systems, erosion resistant plants that absorb water better, gravel side yards, and gravel trench drains would filter pollutants naturally and would require only general property maintenance. Site - Design BMPs • Minimize impervious area/maximize permeability. • Minimize directly connected impervious areas. • Create reduced or "Zero Discharge" areas. • Conserve natural areas. • Porous pavement detention • Porous landscape detention • Infiltration trench Compliance with the NPDES permitting procedures would ensure the project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. Seashore Village Initial Study City of Netuport Beach • Page 71 3. Environmental Analysis b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre - existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less Than Significant Impact. The existing apartment complex has impervious site coverage of approximately 86 percent by building and parking areas with no water quality control measures. The proposed project would result in impervious site coverage of approximately 68 percent. The proposed project would increase the pervious surface area and any groundwater recharge occurring in the project area would be unhindered by the implementation of the project. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, In a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site encompasses approximately 1.49 acres and approximately 86 percent of the project site is impervious, covered by building and parking. The current use has no water quality measures, and the proposed project has been designed to allow drainage to be filtered directly into the ground. The on -site paved areas would be constructed with a combination of t) asphalt paving at driveways with groutiess paver systems to allow filtering of first flush of the driveways and 2) patios and walks with concrete that flows to an underground drainage system equipped with an inline perforated drain trench, allowing the pollutants to filter through the gravel bed back into the soil. The landscaped areas consist of small on -grade planters along with two larger areas adjacent to the guest parking, all designed to allow flow through them in order to absorb the pollutants of the first flush. As such, all overflow would be drained through the underground system with the attached inline filters and all private patios would also drain through the underground system. The altered drainage pattern of the site is projected to benefit the receiving water body. The proposed project would not involve alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner that would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site encompasses approximately 1.49 acres and approximately 86 percent of the project site is impervious, covered by building and parking. The proposed project would provide approximately 68 percent (44,121 square feet) of impervious surfaces and approximately 32 percent (20,987 square feet) of landscaping. The existing drainage pattern of the site would be altered but with the decreased impervious surface areas, the rate or amount of surface runoff would be less than the existing condition. Additionally, as discussed in Section 3.8c, the proposed project has been designed to allow drainage to be filtered directly into the ground. The project site is already developed and the proposed project would not involve alteration of the course of a stream or river or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. Page 72 • The Planning Center February 2008 I 3. Environmental Analysis e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ' Less Than Significant Impact. The project site encompasses approximately 1.49 acres and approximately 86 percent of the project site is covered by building and parking. Implementation of the proposed project would minimize the on -site impervious area to 68 percent and allow for groutless paver ' system and a landscape detention system, thereby reducing the volume of urban runoff. Anticipated urban runoff pollutants include fertilizers and pesticides, household hazardous waste such as paints, cleaning agents, etc., pet waste; outside building and cleaning, landscaping maintenance debris, and 1 vehicle washing and repairing. Currently there are no water quality management measures on -site. As discussed in Section 3.8c, the proposed project would provide filtering of first flush runoff waters from driveways and landscape areas and allow pollutants from walkways and patios to filter through the gravel bed back with an in -line perforated drain trench. Small on -grade planter along with two larger area 1 adjacent to the guest parking would allow flow through them so that they would absorb the pollutants of the first flush. In addition, all overflows would be drained through the underground system with the attached inline filters and all private patios would drain through the underground system. ' Potential polluted runoffs during construction would be controlled in accordance with the Construction Staging and Water Quality Control Plan. Therefore, it is anticipated that the proposed construction will ' start only when temporary driveway, fence, and control measures have been installed. The Plan requires construction of 24 inch deep and 16 feet wide temporary gravel pit sediment basin, entrance /outlet tire wash, sandbag barriers, and silt fence. The off -site storm drain inlet would also be protected with gravel bags. Development of the proposed project would not create or contribute more runoff water than the ' existing condition. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. bVU f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site encompasses approximately 1.49 acres and approximately 86 percent of the project site is covered by building and parking. Implementation of the proposed project would minimize the on -site impervious area to 68 percent and allow for porous ' pavement and a landscape detention system, thereby reducing the volume of polluted runoff. Implementation of the proposed project would result In beneficial impact to area water quality. No mitigation measures are necessary. g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? . Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not located within a 100 -year flood zone as indicated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) (No. 06059C0377H) covering the project area. The project site is located in Zone X, indicating that the area is outside of the 1 ' percent annual chance floodplain, or that the area has a 1 percent annual chance of sheet flow flooding to a depth of less than 1 foot (FEMA 2004). No significant impacts related to flooding would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. Ih) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ' Less Than Significant Impact. As mentioned above, the project site is not located within a 100 -year flood zone, as indicated on the FIRM, and would not place any structures within a 100 -year flood hazard area. No significant impacts would occur related to flooding and no mitigation measures are necessary. ' Seashore Village Initial Study City of Neuport Beacb Page 73 I 3. Environmental Analysis 1 i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan ' (July 15, 2004), the City of Newport Beach is subject to flooding hazards from Prado Dam and the Big Canyon Reservoir. In the event of failure of these structures, floodwaters from Prado Dam could inundate large portions of the City of Newport Beach, including the project site. However, the City of Newport Beach updated its Emergency Management Plan in 2004, which identified emergency evacuation procedures in the event of dam failure. No mitigation measures are necessary. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? , Less Than Significant Impact. ' A seiche is a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken, usually by earthquake activity. Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam, or other artificial body of water. Although there are no large water tanks in the area that could impact the project site, Prado Dam could ' inundate large portions of the City of Newport Beach. However, impacts from the Prado Dam would be less than significant as the City of Newport Beach updated its Emergency Management Plan in 2004, which identified emergency evacuation procedures in the event of dam failure. Additionally, dam failure inundation zones in the City are similar to the 100 -year flood zones and the project site is located outside ' of the 100 -year flood zone. Mudflows are landslide events in which a mass of saturated soil flows downhill as a very thick liquid. The project site is flat and is not located along steep slopes or hillsides. The project would be required to submit grading plans to the City of Newport Beach for review and approval. The potential for mudflow and landslide events is considered low. Implementation of the project would not expose people or structures to inundation by seiche or mudflows. The tsunami threat to the City of Newport Beach is considered low to moderate. The City of Newport Beach Emergency Management Plan indicates that local earthquakes would not generate a tsunami in this area, and no known tsunami has ever hit the Orange County coast. Newport Beach has southwestern facing beaches and is vulnerable to tsunamis, or more likely tidal surges, from the south and west. Predicted wave heights for a 100 -year occurrence are: • 4 feet minimum • 6.6 feet average • 9.2 feet maximum ' Predicted wave heights for a 500 -year occurrence are: • 6.8 feet minimum , • 11.4 feet average • 16.0 feet maximum ' 1 Page 74 • The Planning Center February 2008 ' ■ 1 3. Environmental Analysis A tsunami warning system is currently in effect as a function of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Weather Service. The Emergency Management Plan identifies suggested ' evacuation routes and evacuation sites in the case of a tsunami incident. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Physically divide an established community.) Less Than Significant Impact. The approximately 1.49 -acre site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex (Las Brisas Apartments). The project site would be developed as a 24 -unit residential community and would not physically divide an established community. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Less Than Significant Impact. Locally- adopted land use plans, policies, or regulations that would be applicable to the proposed project include the City of Newport Beach General Plan and the City's Local Coastal Land Use Plan. The project site is located outside of the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. The General Plan designation for the project site is RM (Multiple Unit Residential) and the project site is zoned Multiple - Family Residential (MFR). The MFR designation provides areas for single - family, two- family, and multiple - family residential land uses. Development of 24 single- and duplex units is consistent with the MFR designation. According to the Coastal Land Use Plan, the project site is designated as RH -A, High Density Residential with 20.1 to 30.1 dulac. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a density of 16.1 units per acre and would be consistent with the permitted use and density. The project site is located within the City's Shoreline Height Limitation Zone, which limits residential development height to 24 to 28 feet and nonresidential development to a height of 26 to 35 feet. The ridges of pitched roofs are permitted to exceed the height limit by 5 feet, provided that the midpoints of the roof planes are at 28 feet. The proposed single - family units along Seashore Drive would conform to the height limitation, with a maximum ridgeline height of 31 feet and 4 inches and midpoint height of 26 feet and 8 inches. However, duplex units along River Avenue would exceed the midpoint height limitation, with a maximum midpoint height of 29 feet and 6 inches. However, the intent of the height limitation zone was to regulate the visual and physical mass of structures consistent with the unique character and visual scale of Newport Beach (Policy 4.4.2 -2 of the Coastal Land Use Plan). The existing apartment structure has a height of 28 feet (three stories) with no breaks in building massing, and beachfront residential units across Seashore Drive are also three stories high with narrow setbacks in- between buildings. Therefore, views of the ocean are already compromised and the proposed project would not substantially deviate from the existing character and visual scale of Newport Beach. As discussed in Section 3.1a, the proposed project would not obstruct or restrict scenic vistas or public view opportunities. Therefore, the proposed project would also be consistent with Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.4.2 -3 that states: "Implement the regulation of the building envelope to reserve public views ' through the height, setback, floor area, lot coverage, and building bulk regulation of the Zoning Code in effect as of October 13, 2005 that limit the building profile and maximize public view opportunities." The proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulations. No land use impact would result from the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. ' Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newporr Beach • Page 75 eorljoo 3. Environmental Analysis c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The project site is not a part of any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impact would result from the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.10 MINERAL RESOURCES a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. The project site is developed with an apartment complex and no known mineral resources have been identified on the project site that would be of value to the region or to the residents of the state. No impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. The project site is not designated as a mineral recovery resource site, as indicated by the Department of Conservation Mineral Resource Maps, and does not contain any mineral resource recovery areas. No impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. all NOISE Noise is defined as unwanted sound, and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological effects, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the federal government, the State of California, and many local governments have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities. Characteristics of Sound Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. When an object vibrates, it radiates part of its energy as acoustical pressure in the form of a sound wave. Sound can be described in terms of amplitude (loudness), frequency (pitch), or duration (time). The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). The human hearing system is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies. Sound waves below 16 Hz are not heard at all and are "felt" more as a vibration. Similarly, while people with extremely sensitive hearing can hear sounds as high as 20,000 Hz, most people cannot hear above 15,000 Hz. In all cases, hearing acuity falls off rapidly above about 10,000 Hz and below about 200 Hz. Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency - dependent rating scale is usually used to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A- weighted decibel scale (d BA) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Because of the physical characteristics of noise transmission and noise perception, the relative loudness of sound does not closely match the actual amounts of sound energy. Table 8, Change in Sound Pressure Level, dB, presents the subjective effect of changes in sound pressure levels. Typical human hearing can detect changes of approximately 3 dBA or greater under normal conditions. Changes of 1 to Page 76 • The Planning Center February 2008 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 3. Environmental Analysis 3 dBA are detectable under quiet, controlled conditions, and changes of less than 1 dBA are usually indiscernible. A change of 5 dBA or greater is typically noticeable to most people in an exterior environment and a change of 10 dBA is perceived as a doubling (or halving) of the noise. Table 8 Change in Sound Pressure Level, dB Change in Apparent Loudness 3 d8 Threshold of human perceptibility :t 5 d6 Clearly noticeable change in noise level s 10 dB Half ortwice as loud ±- 20 dB Much quieter or louder Source: Bies and Hansen. 1988 Point and Line Sources Noise may be generated from a point source, such as a piece of construction equipment, or from a line source, such as a road containing moving vehicles. Because noise spreads in an ever - widening pattern, the given amount of noise striking an object, such as an eardrum, is reduced with distance from the source. This is known as spreading loss. The typical spreading loss for point- source noise is 6 dBA per doubling of the distance from the noise source. A line source of noise, such as vehicles proceeding down a roadway, would also be reduced with distance, but the rate of reduction is affected by both distance and the type of terrain over which the noise passes. Hard sites, such as developed areas with paving, reduce noise at a rate of 3 dBA per doubling of the distance while soft sites, such as undeveloped areas, open space and vegetated areas reduce noise at a rate of 4.5 dBA per doubling of the distance. These represent the extremes and most areas would actually contain a combination of hard and soft elements with the noise reduction placed somewhere in between these two factors. Unfortunately the only way to actually determine the absolute amount of attenuation that an area provides is through field measurement under operating conditions with subsequent noise level measurements conducted at varying distances from a constant noise source. Objects that block the line of sight attenuate the noise source if the receptor is located within the shadow of the blockage (such as behind a sound wall). If a receptor is located behind the wall, but has a view of the source, the wall would do little to reduce the noise. Additionally, a receptor located on the same side of the wall as the noise source may experience an increase in the perceived noise level, as the wall would reflect noise back to the receptor compounding the noise. ' Noise Metrics Several rating scales (or noise. metrics) exist to analyze adverse effects of noise, including traffic- generated noise, on a community. These scales include the equivalent noise level (L ,q), the community noise equivalent level (CNEL), and the day /night noise level (Ldj. L,q is a measurement of the sound energy level averaged over a specified time period. The CNEL noise metric is based on 24 hours of measurement. CNEL differs from Lq in that it applies a time - weighted factor designed to emphasize noise events that occur during the evening and nighttime hours (when quiet time and sleep disturbance is of particular concern). Noise occurring during the ' Searbore Village Initial Study City of Newport Hearb • Page 77 CQ 3. Environmental Analysis daytime period (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM) receives no penalty. Noise produced during the evening time period (7:00 to 10:00 PM) is penalized by 5 dB, and nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) noise is penalized by 10 d6. The L,,, noise metric is similar to the CNEL metric except that the period from 7:00 to 10:00 PM receives no penalty. Both the CNEL and L,,, metrics yield approximately the same 24 -hour value (within 1 dB) with the CNEL being the more restrictive (i.e., higher) of the two. Regulatory Environment State of California Standards The California Department of Health Services (DHS) Office of Noise Control has studied the correlation of noise levels and their effects on various land uses. The State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards are shown in Table 9. These noise standards are incorporated as part of the California Building Code and California Noise Insulation Standards (Titles 24 and 25 California Code of Regulations) and are the noise standards required for new construction in California. Table 9 State of California Interior and Exterior Noise Standards Land Use CNEL dBA Categories Uses Interior' Exterior? Single and multifamily, duplex 45' 65 Residential Mobile homes - 65, Hotel, motel, transient housing 45 - Commercial retail, bank, restaurant 55 - Office building, research and development professional offices 50 - Commercial Amphitheater, concert hall, auditorium, movie theater 45 Gymnasium (multipurpose) 50 - Sports Club 55 - Manufacturing, warehouse, wholesale, utilities 65 - Insifhrtional/ Hos ital, school ciassrooms/piayground 45 65 Public Church, library 45 - Open Space Parks - 65 24 and 25 California Code of Reg anment excluding bathrooms, l dr ironment limited to private yard of fconles 6 feet deeo or less are exe of the City of Newport Beach Noise Standards Noise Compatibility , closets, and corridors. p dwellings, multifamily private patios or balconles accessed from within the a home parks, park picnic areas, school playgrounds, and hospital patios. ventilation, orother means of natural ventilation shall be provided as per Is will not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. The City of Newport Beach General Plan Noise Element discusses the effects of noise exposure on the population and sets goals aimed at protecting its residents from undue noise. The General Plan Noise Element contains noise thresholds for developments located adjacent to mobile or transportation noise sources and thresholds for stationary noise sources. The City applies the state's Community Noise and Land Use Compatibility standards, summarized in Table 10, to assess the compatibility of new development with existing noise sources, such as vehicles and trains. Page 78 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I I u I r [J i I 1 H I 1 1 3. Environmental A Table 10 Community Noise and Land Use Cmmnatihility Land Uses CNEL dBA b b Ia e 0 m F o n O -A Residential — Single - Family, Two - Family, Multiple -Family Residential — Mixed Use Residential — Mobile Home Commercial (Regional, District) — Hotel, Motel, Transient Lodging t' Commercial (Regional, Village, Special District, Special) —Commercial Retail, Bank, Restaurant, Movie Theater Commercial Industrial Institutional — Office Building, Research and Development, Professional Offices, City Office Building Commercial (Recreational) & Institutional (Civic Center) — Amphitheatre, Concert Hag Auditorium, Meelmg Hall Commercial (Recreational) — Children's Amusement Park, Miniature Gaff Course, Go-cart Track, Equestrian Center, Sports Club Commercial (General, Special), Industrial, & Institutional — Automobile Service Station, Auto Dealership, Manufacturing, Warehousing, Wholesale, UhliNes , Institutional — Hospital, Church, Library, School' Classroom Open Space — Parks Open Space — Golf Course, Cemeteries, Nature Centers, Wildlife Reserves, Wildlife Habitat With no special noise reduction requirements assuming standard construction. New construction is discouraged. If new construction does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise Insulation features included in the design. Normally Compatible: Clearly Incompatible. New construction or development should be undertaken New constriction or development should generally not be only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction undertaken. requirement is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Source: City of Newport Beach, Newpod Beach General Plan, Adopted November 2006. Adapted from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. State of California General Plan Guidelines, 2003. Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 79 e(3111011 0a 3. Environmental A Table 10 identifies normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, and clearly unacceptable noise levels for various land uses. A conditionally acceptable designation implies new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is made and needed noise insulation features are incorporated in the design. A normally acceptable designation indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements. For the purposes of CEQA, the City of Newport Beach has adopted the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) incremental traffic noise impact criteria, which becomes progressively more stringent as the baseline traff ic noise levels increase. The City's incremental thresholds are shown in Table 11. Table I I City of Newport Beach Incremental Noise Impact Criteria for Noise - Sensitive Uses (dBA CNEL) Existing Noise Exposure Allowable Combined Noise Exposure Allowable Noise Exposure Increment 55 58 3 60 62 2 65 66 1 70 71 1 75 75 0 Source: City of Newport Beach General Plan and General Plan EIR. Adopted November 2006. Stationary (Nontransportation) Noise The City applies the Noise Control Ordinance standards (Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.26.025), summarized in Table 12, to nontransportation, stationary noise sources. These standards do not gauge the compatibility of developments in the noise environment, but provide restrictions on the amount and duration of noise generated at a property, as measured at the property line of the noise receptor. These noise standards do not apply to noise generated by vehicle traffic, because the state, counties, and cities are preempted from controlling vehicle noise under federal law. The C'rys noise ordinance is designed to protect people from objectionable nontransportation noise sources such as music, machinery, and pumps. Page 80 • The Planning Center February 2008 i I3. Environmental Analysis I 11 I I I I I I I I I i Table 12 City of Newport Beach Exterior Noise Standards (L Noise Zone Time Interval Maximum Da 'me Noise Levels dBA L Zone I - Single -, two -, or multiple- family residential 7 AM to 10 PM 55 75 10 PM to 7 AM 50 70 Zone If - Commercial 7 AM to 10 PM 65 85 10 PM to 7 AM 60 80 Zone III - Residential portions of mixed use properties 7 AM to 10 PM 60 80 10 PM to 7 AM 50 70 Zone IV- Industrial or manufacturing 7 AM to 10 PM 70 90 10 PM to 7 AM 70 90 Source: City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. Chapter 10.26.025, Exterior Noise Standards. Notes: • These noise standards do not apply to heating ventilation and air conditioning systems or construction pursuant to Chapter 10.26.035 of the Municipal Code. • In the event the ambient noise level exceeds the noise standard, the maximum allowable noise level under said category shall be increased to reflect the maximum ambient noise level. • The Noise Zone III standard shall apply to that portion of residential property falling within 100 feet of a commercial pmperty, ff the intruding noise on from that commercial pmperty. • If the measurement location is on boundary between two different noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the noise zone shall Equipment sound ratings of new heating ventilation and air condition (HVAC) equipment installed within the City of Newport Beach are reviewed during plan check and tested in the field after installation. According to the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code (Chapter 10.26.045), new permits for HVAC equipment in or adjacent to residential areas shall be issued only where the sound rating of the proposed equipment does not exceed 55 dBA and is installed with a timing device that will deactivate the equipment during the hours of 10 PM to 7 AM. Construction Noise The City realizes that the control of construction. noise is difficult and therefore provides exemption for this type of noise. According to the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.26.035, Exemptions, noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, or grading of any real property are exempt from the noise level limits shown in the Table 12 above. Such activities shall instead be subject to the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.28.040, Construction Activity - Noise Regulations. According to this chapter, construction is permitted on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Construction is not permitted on Sundays or any federal holiday. Federal Transit Administration Vibration Criteria The City of Newport Beach does not have specific limits or thresholds for vibration. The FTA provides criteria for acceptable levels of groundborne vibration for various types of special buildings that are sensitive to vibration. These criteria were used for this analysis. The human reaction to various levels of vibration varies. The upper end of the range shown for the threshold of perception, or roughly 65 VdB, may be considered annoying by some people. Vibration below 65 VdB may also cause secondary audible effects such as a slight rattling of doors, suspended ceilings /fixtures, windows, and dishes, any 1 Seashore Village Initial Study City of Neuport Beach • Page 81 93 3. Environmental Analysis of which may result in additional annoyance. Table 13 shows the FTA groundborne vibration and noise impact criteria. Table 13 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria — Human Annoyance Source: FrA 2006 ' 'Frequent Events" are defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. P "Occasional Events" are defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. 3 "Infrequent Events" are defined as fewer than 30 vibration events per day of the same Idnd per day. 4 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Mbration- sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. 5 Vibration- sensitive equipment is not sensitive to groundborne noise. In addition to the vibration annoyance standards presented above, the FTA also applies standards for construction vibration damage, as shown in Table 14. Structural damage is possible for typical residential construction when the peak particle velocity (PPV) exceeds 0.2 inch per second. This criterion is the threshold at which there is a risk of damage to normal dwelling houses. Table 14 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria — Structural Damage Building Categmy Groundborne Vibration Impact Levels Groundborne Noise Impact Levels I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) VdB re 1 microinch /sec o sca /s e Frequent Occasional Infrequentonal Ill. Nonengineered limber and masonry buildings 0.2 Infrequent IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage Land Use Category Events' Events' Events' s' Events' Category 1: Buildings where low "re20 ambient vibration is essential for 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 65 VdB4 NA4 interior operations. Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB A 43 dBA sleep. Category 3: Institutional land 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB 40 dBA 43 dBA 48 dBA uses with primarly daytime use. Source: FrA 2006 ' 'Frequent Events" are defined as more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day. P "Occasional Events" are defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events of the same source per day. 3 "Infrequent Events" are defined as fewer than 30 vibration events per day of the same Idnd per day. 4 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment such as optical microscopes. Mbration- sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. 5 Vibration- sensitive equipment is not sensitive to groundborne noise. In addition to the vibration annoyance standards presented above, the FTA also applies standards for construction vibration damage, as shown in Table 14. Structural damage is possible for typical residential construction when the peak particle velocity (PPV) exceeds 0.2 inch per second. This criterion is the threshold at which there is a risk of damage to normal dwelling houses. Table 14 Groundborne Vibration and Noise Impact Criteria — Structural Damage Building Categmy PPV in /sec VdB I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) OS 102 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 Ill. Nonengineered limber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 Source: FrA 2006 Notes: RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (VdB) using the reference of one microinch/second. Existing Noise Environment The 1.48 -acre project site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex (Las Brisas Apartments), which includes a small on -site recreational area. Existing noise within the vicinity of the project site includes that generated by the apartment complex, such as landscaping noise (lawnmowers, blowers, etc.); noise generated by heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units; other on -site stationary noise; and noise generated by the vehicle trips made by the residents. In addition, the project Page 82 • The Planning Center February 2008 I 3. Environmental Analysis site is surrounded by residential and recreational land uses, including a park with tennis courts and a public beach. The existing noise environment is characteristic of a beach -side residential neighborhood. ' Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise and vibration. Noise- and vibration - sensitive uses include residential land uses where quiet environments are necessary for enjoyment and public health and safety. Residential receptors are located directly northeast, southeast, and southwest of the project site. Other noise - sensitive land uses include the small neighborhood park located directly to the northwest of the project site. Tennis courts within the park border the project site. ' Local Thresholds of Significance The analysis of impacts related to noise considers the impacts of project construction and operations noise as defined by the City of Newport Beach (for noise impacts) and the PTA (for vibration impacts). ' Based on the applicable Municipal Code and the PTA methodology, the proposed project would have a significant adverse noise impact if the project results in any of the following. ' Noise • Short-term construction activities occurring outside of the hours specified (weekdays from 7:00 ' AM to 6:30 PM, and Saturdays from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM, excluding Sundays and federal holidays) under Chapter 10.28.040 of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code. • Based on Policy N 1.8 of the Newport Beach General Plan, project - related traffic increases the CNEL at any noise - sensitive receptor by an audible amount of: (1) 3 dBA or more when the ' existing CNEL is 60 dBA or less, (2) 2 dBA or more when the CNEL is between 60 and 65 dBA, (3) 1 dBA or more when the CNEL is between 65 and 75, or (4) any amount when the CNEL exceeds 75 dBA in the vicinity of any noise- sensitive receptors (see Table 11). ' • Project - related stationary noise would result in stationary (nontransportation) noise that exceeds the standards of the City's Municipal Code (see Table 12) on noise - sensitive receptors. Groundborne Vibration • Construction equipment would produce levels of vibration that exceed the PTA's criterion for human annoyance for infrequent events (80 VdB) at off -site vibration - sensitive structures (see ' Table 13). • Construction equipment would produce levels of vibration that exceed the PTA criterion for structural damage at adjacent structures (see Table 14). a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ' Less Than Significant Impact The proposed project includes construction and operation of 24 new residential units in the City of Newport Beach. Project - generated noise during the operations phase of the project would be from project-generated traffic (mobile- source noise) and on -site operations ' (stationary- source noise). However, because the project would result in a net - reduction of trips, the project would result in a decrease in traffic noise levels on roadways within the vicinity of the project site. ' On-Site Stationary Noise Generation On -site stationary- source noise generated by the 24 new residential units would be similar to the noise generated by the existing uses and would be characterized by similar on -site stationary noise sources. However, the new residential complex and would be constructed at a lower density than the existing Seasbore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beacb I Page 83 3. Environmental Analysis apartment complex and would eliminate the on -site recreation area, thereby reducing stationary- source noise levels. Because the new residential units would replace the existing residential uses, no significant increase in noise levels from operation of the 24 residential units would occur. Noise Compatibility The proposed project is located off of small collector streets within an existing residential neighborhood. Noise generated by traffic on the adjacent River Avenue or Seashore Drive is not substantial for units facing these small collector streets; and therefore, exterior noise levels are anticipated to comply with the City of Newport Beach's noise compatibility criteria for new residential construction of 65 dBA CNEL However, a small portion of the project site is located within direct line -if -sight of Pack Coast Highway (SR -1). According to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Update (2005), SR -1 is projected to have volumes of 50,000 vehicles per day upon General Plan buildout. Traffic noise modeling of future General Plan buildout traffic volumes was conducted using the Federal Highway Administration's Traffic Noise Model. Traffic noise modeling was conducted at the building exterlor, approximately 180 feet from the centerline of Pacific Coast Highway, and took into account the approximately nine -foot tall masonry wall adjacent to the roadway. Traffic noise at the building facade closest to SR -1 is calculated at 59.1 dBA CNEL at the ground -floor units which is below the City's 65 dBA CNEL noise compatibility threshold for residential uses (Appendix F). For interior noise environments associated with the proposed project, the State of California requires that new construction achieve a noise environment of 45 dBA CNEL Standard windows and doors in a warm - weather climate typically achieve a minimum of 12 dBA noise reduction with windows open and a minimum of 24 dBA reduction with windows closed (SAE 1971). Because traffic on River Avenue and Seashore Drive is not anticipated to have substantial noise levels and ground floor units facing SR -1 would have exterior noise levels of 59 dBA CNEL (59 — 24 = 35 dBA CNEL), the interior noise environment is anticipated to comply with the California Building Code for standard building construction and no mitigation measures are necessary. Likewise, building facades with direct line -of -sight to SR -1, which includes second- and third -story building facades facing the highway, would have exterior noise levels of 67.3 dBA CNEL because they are not shielded by the noise wall, and would also comply with the California Building Code interior noise limits (67 — 24 = 43 dBA CNEL). HVAC systems are proposed for all units within the project site. Therefore, standard building construction would achieve the interior noise requirements for new building construction in the state of California. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would involve demolition of the existing apartment complex and construction and operation of 24 new residential units. The project site would not require pile driving, blasting, or other vibration - intensive activity. However, construction equipment used during project development would produce vibration from vehicle travel as well as grading and asphalt paving activities. Because the project is a residential complex, no significant sources of vibration would be present during project operations. Vibration is typically sensed at nearby structures when objects within the structure generate noise from the vibration, such as rattling windows or picture frames. Vibration is typically not perceptible in outdoor environments. The project would be constructed in three development phases in order to stage construction activities. The primary haul route for material deliveries and material haul trucks would be on River Street. A secondary construction access point would be located on Neptune Avenue. The staging areas for J u J ri V 1 11 -1 1 J 1 1 Page 84 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 iJ I 11 I J Lam' 1 I 3. Environmental Analysis construction activities would be located on the northwestern side of the property, away from the residential receptors. The nearest vibration - sensitive uses are residential structures approximately eight feet from where construction of the building pad of southernmost building would occur and four feet from the property line for two residential units constructed in Phases 1 and 3. However, the majority of construction activities would occur farther away for demolition activities and construction of the other residential buildings. In addition, it is anticipated that construction activities would involve removal of the existing asphalt pavement to the property line. Table 15 lists the average and maximum levels vibration that would be experienced at the nearest vibration sensitive structures. The maximum vibration level is associated with the highest levels of vibration if the construction equipment was operating directly adjacent to the property line. Because the majority of the time construction activities would be spread throughout the project site, impacts are based on whether or not average vibration levels (i.e., vibration levels that would be experience by sensitive receptors the majority of the time) would exceed the FTA criterion. Maximum Vibration dliment Levels Vd8 bulldozer 68 immer' 89 d trucks' 86 No 65 80 ti ment Maximum RMS Velocity in /sec bulldozer 0.0166 immer' 0.1933 Table 15 Average Vibration Threshold Significance Levels d8 dB Threshold? 44 80 No 65 80 No NA NA NA war — Average RMS I Threshold I Significance Loaded trucks` 1 0.0760 I NA i 0.2 I No Source: Based on methodology from FIA 2006. NA: Not Applicable. Notes: RMS velocity calculated from vibration level (Vd8) usblg the reference of one microinch/second. ' Determined based on use of jackhammers or pneumatic hammers that may be used for pavement demolition at a distance of 25 feet ' Maximum vibration levels based on proximity of the residential homes to the material haul route on River Street Because vibration levels from loaded trucks are a brief pass -by event and are not sustained vibration levels, the FfA significance threshold for vibration annoyance is not applicable but is shown for informational purposes only. The FTA has established vibration levels for vibration - induced structural damage. For wood -framed residential construction, the threshold is 0.20 inch per second for the PPV. Due to the scale of the proposed project and limited maneuverability on -site, it is assumed that construction activities associated with demolition of the existing structures would not require very large construction equipment ' such as scrapers or large bulldozers and therefore vibration levels would not cause structural damage. However, use of a jackhammer near the boundary of the site could generate levels of vibration that could be perceptible and are at the limits for minor architectural damage for wood - framed residential structures ' (i.e., plaster cracks). To ensure that even minor architectural damage would not occur, alternative demolition methods would be required for removal of asphalt within eight feet of the residential units directly to the southeast of the project site. �I Seashore Village Initial Study City of Neuport Beach • Page 85 3. Environmental Analysis The FTA criterion for vibration - induced annoyance is 80 Vibration Velocity (VdB) for residential uses for infrequent events, such as construction activities. Construction of the project would generate average levels of vibration that would not exceed the FTA criteria for nuisance for residential uses nearest the project site. While vibration would be perceptible when construction is operating in close proximity to the property line, the majority of heavy construction activities would be operating at farther distances. In addition, heavy construction equipment would only be in operation for a short period of time during project - related grading activities. Consequently, no significant impacts would occur from typical construction activities. Mitigation Measure 6. Demolition of the existing asphalt with a jackhammer within eight feet of the existing residential structures to the southeast of the site shall be prohibited. The construction contractor shall utilize alternative asphalt demolition methods such as a concrete saws and other nonvibratory construction equipment to remove the pavement. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels In the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. As noted in response 3.11 a, the project would not substantially increase ambient noise levels at residential uses in the vicinity of the project due to stationary-source or mobile - sources noise generated by the 24 residential units. Impacts would be less than significant. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. Noise levels associated with construction activities would be higher than the ambient noise levels in the project area today, but would subside once construction of the proposed project is completed. Two types of noise impacts could occur during the construction phase. First, the transport of workers and equipment to the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along site access roadways. Even though there would be a relatively high single -event noise exposure potential with passing trucks (a maximum noise level of 86 dBA at 50 feet), the expected number of workers and trucks is small relative to the background traffic. The truck trips would be spread out throughout the workday and would primarily occur during nonpeak traffic periods. Therefore, these impacts are less than significant at noise receptors along the construction routes, and no mitigation measures are necessary. The second type of impact is related to noise generated by on -site construction operations, and local residents would be subject to elevated noise levels due to the operation of on -site construction equipment. Construction activities are carried out in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and consequently its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise levels surrounding the construction site as work progresses. Construction noise levels reported in Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, were used to estimate future construction noise levels for the proposed project (USEPA 1971). Typically, the estimated construction noise levels are governed primarily by the highest noise - producing pieces of equipment. Table 16 presents typical noise levels generated from project construction sites during various construction phases from the nearest noise - sensitive uses, which include the adjacent residences and the neighborhood park. Page 86 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 11 ' 3. Environmental Analysis 1 L_J 11 II 1 1 I 1 I 1 Table 16 Average Construction Noise Levels Construction Phase Noise Levels for Residential Building Construction IdBA L Ground Clearing 75 Excavation/Grading 80 Foundation Construction 73 Building Construction 73 Finishing and Site Cleanup 80 Source: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, 1971 Construction staging areas would be located on the northwestern portions of the site, farther away from residential noise - sensitive receptors but adjacent to the tennis court area within the small neighborhood park. Due to the scale of the proposed project and limited maneuverability on -site, it is assumed that construction activities associated with demolition of the existing structures would not require very large construction equipment, such as scrapers or large bulldozers. In addition, construction of the project would take 18 months and noise generated by construction activities would cease once construction is completed. Average construction noise levels from typical construction equipment range from 73 to 80 dBA at the nearest sensitive receptors. Residential interior noise levels could be reduced by over 24 dBA from this value (SAE 1971). Furthermore, the project must abide by the most restrictive construction hours applied by the City of Newport Beach. According to the City of Newport Beach's Municipal Code, construction equipment shall not be operated weekdays between the hours of 6:30 PM and 7:00 AM, and Saturdays between the hours of 6:00 PM and 8:00 AM, excluding federal holidays. Impacts are therefore less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The John Wayne Airport is the closest airport to the project site. However, the project is located outside of the 60 dBA CNEL and 65 dBA CNEL noise contours, as shown on the John Wayne Airport 2006 Annual 60, 65, 70 and 75 CNEL Noise Contours. Therefore, no impacts would occur from exposure of persons to significant levels of aircraft noise as a result of the proposed project, and no mitigation measures are necessary. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. There are no private airstrips located within the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no impacts would occur from exposure to airport noise as a result of the proposed project, and no mitigation measures are necessary. Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 87 �� 3. Environmental Analysis 3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other Infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex in a residential neighborhood. Development of 24 single and duplex units would not induce substantial population growth in the area directly or indirectly. No growth impact would result from the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves demolition of a 54 -unit apartment complex and development of 24 single - family and duplex units, a reduction of 30 units. The 2006 American Community Survey (Census 2007) estimates that there are 43,851 housing units the City of Newport Beach, with 5,462 vacant units. The total vacancy rate for the City is 12.5 percent -7.7 percent rental vacancy rate and 2.1 percent homeowner vacancy rate. Displacement of 30 multrfamily rental units would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, since there are existing rental units to absorb the proposed displaced housing units. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves demolition of a 54 -unit apartment complex and would result in displacement of approximately 122 residents (based on average household size of 2.25). The recently approved General Plan would allow substantial numbers of new residential units to be constructed in areas where residential was not previously permitted and would commit the City to enforcing the requirements of its inclusionary housing program, which requires a proportion of affordable housing in new residential developments or payment of an in -lieu fee. The City's goal is that an average of 15 percent of all new residential development will be affordable to very low -, low -, and moderate - income households. In order to implement this Housing Element policy, the City Council has also established an Affordable Housing Task Force that works with developers and landowners to facilitate the development of affordable units and identifies the most appropriate use of in -lieu fee funds. The Task Force and staff continually investigate and research potential affordable housing opportunities. The project developer is required to comply with the California Government Code Section 65590 and 65590.1, commonly known as the 1982 Mello Act. The Mello Act is a statewide law which seeks to preserve housing for persons and families with low and moderate incomes in California's Coastal Zone. The Mello Act stipulates that the conversion or demolition of existing residential dwelling units occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, shall not be authorized unless provision has been made for the replacement of those dwelling units with units for persons and families of low or moderate income. However, it should be noted that the Mello Act contains exemptions whereby a project can be relieved of the replacement requirement if replacement is not feasible. Additionally, according to the Apartment Guide, a popular website and periodic publication that provides property specific rental information throughout country (http: / /www.apartmentguide.com), the current Page 88 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I i 1 1 1 J I L 3. Environmental Analysis rent for the existing apartments (Las Brisas Apartments) start at $1,650 for one bed and one bath unit and $2,200 for two bed and one bath unit. Another website, www.apartmentratings.com show rental prices in the City of Newport Beach: it identifies average rent for two -bed and two -bath unit as $2,137 in year 2007. While the presented information may not be 100 percent reliable, it provides snapshots of current rental market in Newport Beach. There are approximately 5,462 vacant units within the City, of which approximately 3,377 units are rental units. There are adequate vacant housing units in the City to accommodate the 122 residents displaced by the proposed project. Based on available rentals at comparable rates, the City's commitment to providing affordable housing units in the City, and project compliance with the Government Code Section 65590 and 65590.1 as required, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach is served by the Newport Beach Fire Department. The Newport Beach Fire Department operates eight stations in the City of Newport Beach. The fire department is divided into four divisions: Operations, Fire Prevention, Training, and Administrative. Each of the eight fire stations has one engine company, three have paramedic vans, and two have ladder trucks. Each engine or truck company has a staff of three persons per 24 -hour period: one captain, one engineer (driver), and one fire fighter, with the exception that on one engine the firefighter position is staffed with a paramedic firefighter. Each paramedic ambulance has a staff of two firefighter - paramedics per 24 -hour period. Station 2, the closest station to the project site, is located at 475 32ntl Street, approximately 1.2 driving miles east of the project site. Station 2 is equipped with one fire engine, one ladder truck, and one paramedic ambulance. The fire department's average response time to any area in the City is approximately five minutes. The project site is currently developed with the higher density multifamily residential units and the proposed project would decrease the on -site density. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse impact on the fire department's ability to serve the project site. Additionally, all development projects within the City of Newport Beach are required to comply with the most current adopted Uniform Fire Code and other City standards and ordinances. During the building permitting process, the Newport Beach Fire Department would review and approve development plans associated with the proposed project to ensure that they provided adequate access, traffic circulation, water, and hydrant systems to support fire department needs. Therefore, project implementation is not anticipated to have a signif icant impact on fire services and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Police protection Less Than Significant Impact. Law enforcement services for the City of Newport Beach are provided by the Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD), located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive. As of November 2005, the NBPD employed a total of 280 personnel, including 148 sworn officers. The NBPD is currently separated into three divisions (Support Services, Patrol/Traffic, and Detectives), all of which are overseen by the Office of the Chief of Police. ' Searbore Village Initial Study City of Neuport Beacb • Page 89 808 3. Environmental Analysis The proposed residential project would replace the existing 54 -unit apartment complex with 24 single and duplex units. Therefore, the proposed project would actually reduce the police service demand generated from the project site. In 2005, approximately 85,120 residents lived in the City with the police staffing ratio of 1.7 officers per 1,000 population. Based on the 2006 population of 86,820 total population in the City, a reduction of units from 54 to 24 would not result in changes to the existing staffing ratio. The City's General Plan specifies the staffing goal of 1.9 officers per 1,000 residents. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. c) Schools Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in reduction of residential units from 54 to 24. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on school facilities. Additionally, California Educational Code Section 17620 authorizes school districts to collect fees for the mitigation of new development projects. These fees are collected by the relevant school district prior to City issuance of building permits for new development: The project applicant would be required to pay developer fees to the Newport-Mesa Unified School District to reduce any impacts to the school system. Government Code Section 65595 establishes the allowable school impact fee, which may be assessed on commercial and residential development. Based on the current fee structure for residential developments, construction can be assessed per square foot. Payment of school impact fees is considered sufficient to mitigate any potential impacts to schools that may occur. No mitigation measures are necessary. d) Parks Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located in Service Area 1 in the Recreation and Open Space Plan of the General Plan. Although the City's Recreation Element indicates that Service Area 1 is currently underserved by parkland, the proposed project would result in net decrease in dwelling units. Furthermore, there are eight parks in this service area and West Newport Park is the nearest park to the project site, located immediately adjacent to the project site to the north. Additionally, Sunset Ridge Park is proposed to be developed on the north side of Pacific Coast Highway at Superior Avenue, approximately 0.5 mile to the southeast. According to the City's General Plan, the City has approximately 286 acres of developed parks and approximately 90 acres of active beach recreation acreage, for a total of 376.8 acres. Newport Beach's parklands range in size from mini -parks such as the Lower Bay Park (0.1 acre) to the 47.6 -acre Bonita Canyon Sports Park. In addition to the West Newport Park immediately adjacent to the project site, the project's proximity to the beach would ensure that the proposed project is not underserved by recreational opportunities. The proposed project would also provide some private outdoor areas. The proposed project is not subject to provisions set forth in Chapter 19.52 Park Dedications and Fees of the Municipal Code since the project would not result in a net increase in dwelling units. The proposed project would not create additional demands for parks and adequate open space demands would be met through the existing and planned parks and through the beach, one of the City's greatest open space assets. Therefore, park impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. e) Other public facilities Less Than Significant Impact. The project site and its surrounding area are developed with urban uses and with easily accessible existing public facilities. The proposed residential project would not result in Page 90 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 ' 3. Environmental Analysis substantial adverse impacts to any other public facilities. No significant impacts would result from the development of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.14 RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ' Less Than Significant Impact. The project as proposed is to construct 24 residential units on a 1.49 - acre parcel currently developed with an apartment complex. The number of new users at existing neighborhood or regional parks resulting from the proposed project would not produce substantial physical deterioration of recreational facilities. No mitigation measures are necessary. ' b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ' Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would result in a reduction of units from 54 to 24. Although no recreational facilities have been proposed as part of the 24 -unit residential ' project, the recreational facilities demand would decrease compared to the existing uses. It is anticipated that existing recreational facilities within the City would be able to accommodate the increase in demand. The proposed project would have a less than significant physical effect on the environment and no mitigation measures are necessary. ' 3.15 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ' a) Cause an Increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? ' Less Than Significant Impact. The project trip generation was calculated using the Institute of Traffic Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (7th edition, 2003), as shown in Table 17. The proposed project is anticipated to result in a net reduction of 178 average daily trips (ADT) in comparison to the number of ' trips estimated to be generated by the existing apartment use. The proposed project consists of 12 single - family units and 12 condo/townhouse (duplex) units; therefore, is anticipated to generate a total of 185 ADT. Since the project site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex that generates ' approximately 363 ADT, implementation of the proposed project would result in a net decrease of 178 ADT and the impacts would be less than significant. A project that generates fewer than 300 ADT is not subject under the City Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) and a project - speck traffic study is not warranted. No mitigation measures are necessary. 1 Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach •Page 91 3. Environmental Analysis Table 17 b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would result in a net reduction of 178 ADTs. The City of Newport Beach does not require the TPO analysis for projects that generate less than 30o ADTs. The proposed project would not cause the county congestion management agency's level of service standards to be exceeded. The proposed project would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation measures are necessary. c) Result in a change In air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results In substantial safety risks? No Impact. The proposed project involves redevelopment of a 54 -unit apartment complex to 24 single and duplex residential units. The proposed project would result in a decrease in traffic levels and would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. John Wayne Airport is the nearest airport to the project site, located approximately 1.5 miles from the site and the proposed project would not impact the air traffic pattern of this airport. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures would be required. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous Intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. Access to the project would be provided from River Avenue and Neptune Avenue. There are no sharp turns or incompatible uses in the vicinity of the project site. A total of three driveways would access the project site, two from River Avenue and one from Neptune Avenue. The western driveway on River Avenue would serve one single - family residential unit exclusively. The proposed project would not significantly change the existing on -site traffic pattern and since it would result in a net decrease in traffic volume, any hazards due to a design feature would be unlikely. The internal circulation system of the project provides proper access to individual units and guest parking with clear visibility. The project site access would be subject to approval by the City's fire and police departments for safety. No conflicts with the internal access system are anticipated. No mitigation measures are necessary. Page 92 • The Planning Center February 2008 I ' 3. Environmental Analysis te) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site would have egress and ingress from two streets, River ' Avenue and Neptune Avenue. These access points and street widths would provide adequate emergency access into and out of the project site. Additionally, the proposed project would be required to incorporate all applicable design and safety requirements as set forth in the UBC, Fire Code, and Newport Beach Fire and Police Department standards and requirements. For example, prior to final site ' plan approval for each phase of the project, the City of Newport Beach would coordinate with the fire and police departments to ensure that adequate circulation and access is provided within the traffic and ' circulation components of the proposed project. Therefore, impacts related to emergency access would not occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. f) Result in Inadequate parking capacity? ' Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed 24 units each include a two -car garage and 13 guest parking spaces, providing a total of 60 parking spaces. City of Newport Beach Municipal Code 20.66.040, Parking Standards for Residential Districts, requires at least one parking space for each dwelling unit for ' residential districts. Therefore, the proposed project would provide a surplus of 36 spaces and would not result in inadequate parking capacity. No mitigation measures are necessary. ' g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ' No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Public transportation is readily available in and around the project area. No significant 93 Impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. ' 3.16 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists solely of residential uses. The project site is already developed with higher density residential uses and implementation of the proposed project ' would not change the sewer quality. It would not include industrial uses and would not be subject to wastewater treatment requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. No mitigation is required. ' b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant ' environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact Water and wastewater service to the project she are currently being provided by the City of Newport Beach. Water ' The project site is within the City of Newport Beach water service area. The City provides water service to approximately 36 square miles of its planning area. The City water supplies are imported water purchased from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWD), groundwater pumped from the 1 Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 93 ' 3. Environmental Analysis 1 Orange County Groundwater Basin, and reclaimed water. Water is delivered via existing transmission ' mains and distribution lines totaling over 210 miles within the City's service area. Transmission mains convey water to various sections of the distribution system and the distribution lines deliver water to local , areas. There is a water main along River Avenue serving the existing 54 -unit apartment complex. The City's imported surface water supply is treated at one of two treatment plants: (1) the MWD Diemer , Filtration Plant, located in Yorba Linda; or (2) MWD's Weymouth Filtration Plant, which is located in the San Gabriel Valley. Treatment capacity at the Diemer Filtration Plant is approximately 520 million gallons per day (mgd), with existing average winter flows at approximately 140 mgd, increasing to approximately 375 mgd in the summer. ' Using the sewer generation factor of 370 gallons per day (gpd), and assuming water generation would be 110 percent of sewer generation, the proposed project is projected to generate the demand for ' approximately 9,768 gpd of water. The project site currently generates the demand for approximately 12,652 gpd (based on 110 percent of 213 gpd sewer generation rate for multifamily residential units). Implementation of the proposed project would result in a net decrease in demand of 2,884 gpd. The existing water infrastructure is currently serving the higher density development, so, no expansion of ' water infrastructure would be necessary. Wastewater ' Wastewater from the City's sewer system is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The OCSD is responsible for safely collecting, treating, and disposing the wastewater generated by 2.3 , million people living in a 470 - square -mile area of central and northwest Orange County. The City of Newport Beach is in Revenue Area 5, the smallest service area for OCSD. The City represents 2.57 percent of OCSD's service area population and generates 4 percent of OCSD's total flow. The two sewage water treatment plants operated by the OSCD are Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington ' Beach and Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley. A majority of the City's sewage flow is pumped to the OCSD Plant No. 2, while flows from the portion of the City north of the Corona del Mar (73) Freeway ' are pumped to Plant No. 1. The OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 1 currently maintains a design capacity of 174 mgd and treats an average of 90 mgd. Treatment Plant No. 2 maintains a design capacity of 276 mgd and currently treats on average a flow of ' 153 mgd. Currently Plant No. 1 and Plant No. 2 are operating at 52 percent and 55 percent of design capacity, respectively. Wastewater treated by the OCSD is discharged into the ocean through a 120 - inch- diameter ocean outfall pipe that extends five miles offshore to a discharge point 180 feet below the , ocean surface. The treatment levels meet all current state and federal requirements. OCSD also reclaims up to 10 million gallons of treated wastewater every day, which is sent for further processing and then used for landscape irrigation and for injection into the groundwater seawater intrusion barrier. ' The project site currently generates approximately 11,502 gpd of wastewater based on the sewer generation factor for multifamily residential unit as identified in the City of Newport Beach General Plan EIR. Implementation of the proposed project would result in approximately 8,880 gpd, by using 370 ' gpd /du sewer generation factor for single - family residential unit. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a net decrease of 2,622 gpd. However, assuming that the existing residents relocate to other parts of the City boundary, the proposed project would generate additional demand on the overall sewer ' treatment capacity. Page 94 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I 1 1 LJ 1 1 1 1 3. Environmental A The proposed 24 units would generate a total of 8,880 gallons per day of wastewater, which would comprise approximately 0.005 percent of the OCSD's average treatment volume and approximately 0.003 percent of the total treatment capacity. With the contribution of such a small percentage of the capacity of OCSD's facilities, construction of the proposed project would not result in the construction or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts from development of the proposed project would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently about 95 percent impervious and the proposed project involves design features that would reduce the on -site impervious coverage area to 45 percent. In addition, the proposed project would implement various BMP measures to detain stormwater on -site. Implementation of the proposed project would have beneficial impact compared to the existing use. The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently connected to the City of Newport Beach water system, which supplies services to the existing buildings on the project site. The City provides water service to approximately 36 square miles of its planning area. The City water supplies are imported water purchased from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC), groundwater pumped from the Orange County Groundwater Basin, and reclaimed water. Reclaimed water is used only for irrigation purposes and approximately 75 percent of the City's potable water is supplied by the Orange County Groundwater Basin and the remaining 25 percent of the potable water supply is from the imported sources. The project is not expected to require an unusual amount of water for proposed operations. Assuming 110 percent of the sewer generation factor of 370 gpd, the proposed project is projected to generate the demand for approximately 9,768 gpd. The project site currently generates the demand for approximately 12,652 gpd. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a net decrease in demand of 2,884 gpd. During the building permitting process the fire flow requirements would be submitted and the capacity of the existing water distribution system to supply the peak flow rate will be checked. The proposed project would not require the procurement of additional water entitlement. No significant environmental impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently connected to the City's sewer system. As discussed in Section 3.16 (b), the existing facilities are anticipated to have the capacity to accommodate Searbore Village Initial Study City of Negort Beacb • Page 95 ffl 3. Environmental Analysis the proposed project. The proposed project would not require expansion of any wastewater treatment facilities and therefore would have no physical impacts related to wastewater treatment facilities. No mitigation measures are necessary. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. Orange County has three landfills that could receive waste generated from the proposed project. The Olinda Alpha Landfill, located in the City of Brea, is authorized to receive an annual average of 7,000 tons of waste per day (tpd) and is permitted to receive a daily maximum of 8,000 tpd. The landfill opened in 1960 and is scheduled to close in 2013. The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill, located in the City of Irvine, is currently authorized to receive an annual average of 7,015 tpd and is permitted to receive a daily maximum of 8,500 tpd. The Frank R. Bowerman Landfill is scheduled to close in approximately 2024. The Prima Descheta Landfill, located in the City of San Juan Capistrano, is permitted to accept up to 4,000 tpd. This landfill is scheduled to close in approximately 2040. The proposed project would not generate significant amounts of solid waste. The total household waste disposal for the City of Newport Beach in 2005 was 33,478 tons per year, or approximately 21 percent of overall disposal. Based on the resident daily disposal factor of 2 Ibs per resident per day, the proposed project would generate 108 Ibs per day or 39,420 Ibs per year (19.71 tons). The solid waste generated by the proposed project would contribute approximately 0.06 percent of the total household waste disposal and even smaller percent in comparison to the City's overall disposal amount. The increase in solid waste generated by the proposed project would be minimal and no additional capacity would be necessary. There is sufficient solid waste disposal capacity in the region to accommodate the expected solid waste generation by the proposed project. Project - related impacts on solid waste disposal capacity would be less than significant. The proposed demolition of the existing structures would generate construction waste on a short-term basis. It is anticipated that these demolition /construction wastes would be taken to authorized landfills. Since hazardous materials are not accepted at county landfills, hazardous wastes, including abated asbestos containing materials and paints used during construction, would be disposed only at facilities permitted to receive them and in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. No mitigation measures are necessary. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. The proposed project would also comply with the City's established reduction, reuse, and recycling programs. Additionally, through the City's Development Impact Fee System, fees would be collected from the development of the proposed project to ensure that the project pays its fair share of future expansions of City solid waste collection facilities and equipment. No impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. Page 96 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 I ' 3. Environmental Analysis ' 3.17 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially ' reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate Important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex and does not support the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. Implementation of the proposed project would not impact any protected biological resources. Although the project site has been disturbed in the past and the potential for discovery of examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory is minimal, the potential for subsurface discovery ' remains and has been mitigated to a less than significant level. No further mitigation measures are necessary. ' b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current ' projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in the respective issue areas of this study, the proposed project would not have cumulatively considerable environmental impacts. Any potentially significant ' impact would be mitigated to a level of less than significant. The project would have no cumulatively considerable environmental impacts. ' c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The Initial Study reviewed the proposed ' project's potential impacts related to aesthetics, air pollution, noise, heath and safety, traffic, and other issues. As discussed in the respective sections of this Initial Study, implementation of the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts in the areas of air quality, cultural resources, t geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise, which may cause adverse effects on human beings. However, feasible mitigation measures have been identified to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, the proposed project would have no substantial adverse effects on human beings. No further mitigation measures are necessary. 1 1 1 1 Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 97 80*8 3. Environmental Analysis This page intentionally loft blank. Page 98 • The Planning Center February 2008 ' 4. References 4.1 PRINTED REFERENCES Bies and Hansen. 1988. Engineering Noise Control. Bolt, Beranek and Newman. 1971 December 31. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, prepared for the USEPA. City of Newport Beach. City Council Policy G -1. Retention or Removal of City Trees. Environmental Monitoring Group (EMG). 2007, March 28. Report for Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM). Mckenna et al. 2007, December 17. RE: Seashore Village, Orange County, California, Archaeological Records Check. Shaw Environmental, Inc. 2008, January 4. Phase 1, Environmental Site Assessment. wA Toss Schooler & Associates, Inc. 2007, May 3. Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). ` Ij�'tl_�) United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 4.2 WEB SITES Fire, Special Fire Protection Areas, Address Search & Map. http:// www .city.newport- beach.ca.us /FMD /. California Integrated Waste Management Board. Jurisdictional Profile for City of Newport Beach. hftp://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Juris/JurProfilel. asp ?RG = C &JU RID =340&JUR= Newport+ Be ach. Apartment Guide. California. Newport Beach. Las Brisas. http:// www. apartmentguide .com /Property0verview.aspx ?srch= lt_1_1••st 1 6••propertycity_l_n a_Newport+Beach••geo 20_33.6189_ 117.9281_50••listingpricelow 9_0_ 1 "listingid_2_77937 Apartment Ratings. Las Brisas Apartments. Pricing. http://www.apartmentratings.com/rate/CA- Newport- Beach- Las- Brisas- Apartments - Pricing. htm I 1 Seashore Village Initial Study City of Neuport Beath • Page 99 I 4. References I This page intentionally left blank. Page 100 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 5. List of Preparers THE PLANNING CENTER JoAnn Hadfield Director, Environmental Services Elizabeth Kim Associate Planner Tin Cheung Senior Environmental Scientist Nicole Vermillion Assistant Planner Cary Nakama Graphic Illustrator ' Seashore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beacb • Page 101 EVOU 5. List of Preparers I This page intentionally left blank. I I Page 102 • The Planning Center February 2008 1 IAppendices Appendix A. Air Quality Modeling Output I 1 i I I 1 1 1 1 Seasbore Village Initial Study City of Newport Beacb 1 AWNB -10-09 W R W. DmfADr* IS-*, Appendices This page intentionally left blank. The Diming Center February 2008 A. QVE- I"EVAP"Rim D,~&A. " , 0 r No M w .s pa ®6: 1 IW200 11:68:32 AM _ UrWmis 2007 Version 9.2.2 04ML lned Summer Emissions Reports (PcundslOay) File Name: P:tCN6-10AEff Technical 5wdieSWr\SeashoreWla9e.urb9 Project Name: Seaahore Village Project Location: orange County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Verslon : EmfacZ07 V2,3 Nov 12008 off-Road Vehtele Emissions Based on: OFFROAD200T CONSTRUOmON EMS sic ESTIMATES � � j4Mtoom PMt E At 185b O,OS 23.99 1.07 TOTALS 6K IW u lftatdd) 3.37 38.97 99 1.87 1855 003 23. aM7 iamust &Wt za VD 72 4,177 am E .d. a 1.72 6.01 25,86 DD 2386 5.00 1.72 8.72 4.171.01 2008 3.37 200B TOTALS U WOV n"09dtddl 3aw . 0.01 13.27 24A5 17.93 0,01 0.04 1.87 1.81 1.85 1.85 0.01 2009 TOTALS iWdav alW%v%d) 13.27 24A5 17.93 0,01 0.00 2009 TOTALS (Ihd/dmY 690ated) - AREA SOt1RCE EMISSION ESTIMATES @4S2 �gj Em 409.33 1.64 0,33 - 2.29 0.00 Oki 0.01 TOTALS (lb"Y, wm"' ated) OPERATIONAL( (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES pM[0 E9d26 1,958.34 I 1•+ 2.02 2.09 22,99 0.02 3.74 0.64 TOTALS pbslday, unm61941ad) SUM OF Al2EASOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES - i�11Qlg 2,361.87 no 3.88 3.02 25.28 0.02 325 085 . - TOTALS (IbWday, afteted) t_gg 1.66. 2.725.05 1.86 1.08 2725.05 Page: 1 1141200811:58:32 AM Pnase: Building Conduction 5/6/2008 - eO12009- Default Building Construction Description Off -Road Equipment. 1 Cranes (399 hp) operating as a 0.0 load factor for 4 hours per day 2 Forklifts (145 hp) operating at a 0.3 load factor for 8 hours tar day 1 TraetoretloatlerslBaekhosa (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase: AreNtectural Coating 718/2009 - N7 /2009 - Default Amhilectural Coating Description Ruts. Residential Interior Coatings begins 1/1/2005 ends 8130/2008 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Residential Interior Coatings begins 711 /2006 ends 12131 /2040 specifies a VOC of 50 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 1112005 ends 6130/2008 specifies a VOC of 250 Rule: Residential Exterior Coatings begins 7/1/2008 ends 12131 /2040 specifies a VOC of 100 Rule: Nonresidential Imarlor Coalinga begins 111 /2005 ends 12131 /2040 sPedflas a VOC m 250 Rule: Nonresidential Exterior Coatings begins 1/1 /2005 ends 12/311:2040 sped9es a VOC of 250 Sr4 §42 PMIODus1 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Dray. Mitigated PMIQ BOG NOx ',Y Time Slice 3r3/200844 12008 Active y,j &H I Demog8on 03103/2005- 04104/2005 3.37 36.97 Jp Fugitive Dust 0.00 0100 Demo Ott Road Diesel 1.31 8.68 Demo On Road Diesel 2.02 26.22 Demo Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 Time Slice 4120085152000 Active 3.35 28.07 Fine Grading 041052008451062008 3.35 26.07 Fire Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading Off Road Diesel 3.31 28.00 Fire Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 Fine Grading Worker Tdps 0.04 0.07 Time Slice 510x2008- 12/31 /2006 Active 1.54 11,35 Building 051082008. 061072009 1.54 11.35 Building Off Read Diesel 1.39 10.47 Building Vendor Tdps 0.06 0.70 Bull0ing Worker Trips 0.09 0.15 Sr4 §42 PMIODus1 pmIDEdlsust PMIQ PM25 Dus[ pfi42.5 Emoust PM2.5 �Q,7 16.55. 3 23.09 1,1117 25.86 M SL 5J2 41.71.01 16.55 0.03 23.99 1.87 25.86 5.00 1.72 6.72 4,171.01 0.00 0100 23.87 0.00 23.87 4.97 0.00 4.97 0.00 4.91 0.00 OAO 0.68 0.68 em 0.62 0.62 700.30 10.51 0.03 0.11 1,19 1,30 0.04 1.09 1,13 3,348.17 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 O.D1 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.55 14.69 0.00 0.59 1.41 2.00 0.12 1.30 1,43 2,371.86 14.69 0.00 0.59 1.41 2.00 0.12 1.30 1.43 2,371.86 0100 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.58 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.00 13,56 0.00 0.00 1.41 1.41 0.00 1.30 1.30 2,247.32 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0100 0.00 0.00 0100 0.00 0.00 1.13 00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 124.55 8.54 0.00 0.02 0.70 0.72 0101 0165 0165 1.329.07 6.64 0.00 0.02 0.70 0.72 0.DI 0.65 0.65 1,329.07 5.09 0.00 0.00 0167 0.87 0.00 0.61 0.81 893.39 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 112.86 2.94 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 322.82 w w r iw �s -w ,w wr ■w w� riw ■w w w w w� �w +w w Page: 1 1141200811:89:32 AM Time Slice 7x72009- 7p2009A,%Ve 1.44 70.87 8.16 0.00 0.02 6.0 0.69 Building 051082006- 08p72009 7.44 10.6t 8.16 0.00 0.� Q87 0.01 0.67 0.82 1,328Si 1,328.91 BmYdfre ORROed IXeael 1.30 9.79 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.01 0.6t 0.62 Building vendor Tripe 0.05 0.66 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.03 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.58 893.39 Building WDHW Trips 0.09 0,76 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.03 772.86 0.01 0.01 0.01 32266 Time S'8te 71812009- 7M42008ACtive 1S.2L 24.94 17.93 401 4,43 1,$1 L@'1 AsP61t 071082009. 071142009 2.47 13,81 9.32 0.00 0.02 1.14 0,82 Im i@@ 2.725.05 Paving OR-Oas 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 0.01 1.05 1.05 1,342.70 Paving OR Road Ousel 2.08 72.55 7.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.09 0.00 O.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving On Road Diesel 0.08 1.15 0.42 0.00 0.00 1.09 0.00 1.00 1.00 979.23 Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 1,86 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.04 145.62 Building 054)82008 -081078009 IAA 10,81 8118 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 217.85 Building O8 Rcad Diesel 1.30 9.79 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.69 0.01 0.81 0.62 1,328,91 Building Vender Trips 0.05 0.86 0.46 0.00 O.OD 0.63 QD3 0.63 0.00 0.68 0.68 893.39 Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.76 2.74 0100 0,02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 772.56 Coaling 07/082009 -0&072009 9.36 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0,02 0.01 0.01 0.01 322.86 Architecoaal Costing 9.35 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.44 Coaling Worker Trips 0.01 0.03 OAS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.44 I _Time Blicce 711512009411/2009 AcSYe 70.80 10.63 8.61 0.01 0,02 0.67 0189 Building 05/062008- 0&072009 704 10.61 8.78 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.01 0.62 0.62 1.382.35 Building OR Road Diesel 1.30 9.79 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.01 0.01 0.62 7,328.97 Building Veddw Trips 0.05 QOB 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.83 0103 0.83 0.00 0.58 0.58 893.39 Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.16 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 772.86 Coating 0702009. 081072009 9.38 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0101 0.01 322.06 ArcWtscWial Culing 9.35 0.00 0100 0.00 - 0.00 0.W 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.44 Coating Worker Trips O.Ot 043 0.45 0.00 0,90 0.00 AM 0.00 0.00 0.00 040 GOO 0.00 4100. 0.00 0.00 53.44 Page: 1 1/41200811:59:32 AM f dloo &Wpodl Mitigation measures The following ml69adon measures apply to Pham' Flee Grading 4/502008.5/512008 - Default Fine Site Grading/Exravotlon DescripUan For Soll Stabliling Measures, Me RePlaee ground Oover in diswmed areas quidly mitigation reduces emissions by: PM10: 5%PM23 5% For Sot) StebUang Measures, the Water exposed surfsces 2x daily Watering mitigation reduces emissions by PMIO: 55 %PM25: 55% For Soil Stablizing Measures, the Equipment loodin2Woading mitl9wOn reduces emissions by: PM10: 89 °%PM25:89% For Unpaved Roads Measure%, the Radute speed on unpaved made to less than 15 mph mi8ga8em reduces emissions by: PM10: 44 %PM25: 44% For Unpaved Road$ Measures, the Manage haul road dust 2x daily Watering mitigation reduces a oissiwa by: PM10: 55 %PM25: 55% �� 07�axk'yi�s AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmldgared 22um BQ2 HDA in S42 FMU EA= Natural Gas 0.02 0.31 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 399.73 Nears, -No Summer Eml%sions Landscape 0.23 0.02 2.18 0.00 0.01 0.01 3.80 Consumer Products 1,23 Architectural Coatings- 0,08 WERNMEREMME JM OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Dey, Unmitigated Does ma Inctude correction for passby hips Does not include double counting atqustrtlant lot Internal trips Analysis Year. 2009 Temperature (F): 80 Season: Summer Emfam Version : Emrac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2008 �■■ r r a� r ■■r M Mao M M M i rk. i r r r r r rr e r r tr r r r r r r r Pace: 1 114/200811189:32 AM Lend Use Type Siahmary of Land Lleee Acreage Trip Raft Unit Type No. Unite - Total Tripe Total VhiT 8trgle tarwly housing 1.00 9.57 dwdlingun88 12.00 114.84 1,160.21 Condatownhouae general 0.49 5.66 dwelling wits 12.00 70.32 710.43 165.16 1,870.64 VaNde Type yews Fleet Percent Type Mix No Caldyet Catalyst plead Light Aura 49.0 2.0 97.8 0.4 Light Truck s 37501hs 10.9 3.7 80.8 5.5 Light Truck 3751-575D lbe 21.7 0.9 98A - Mod Truck 57110-ND01ba 9.5 1.1 0.5 Ute -Heavy Truck 850140,000 Ins 1.8 0.0 98.9 0.0 UWHeevy Truck 10,00144,000 IM 0.8 0.0 75.0 25.0 Mad -Heavy Truck 14,001.33,000 lbs 1.0 0.0 $0.0 50.0 Ha&W -Heevy Truck 33,QoA-6o.GW Ira 0.9 0.0 20.0 80.0 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 100.0 Urban &m 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motorcryde 3.5 77.1. 0.0 22.9 100A Sdad eus 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 War Home 1.0 10.0 80.0 10.0 Travel CmdiBOne Reddeh6d Commerdd HM Work Hatte4tpp tiome4)dror Commute tlamWrnk Customer Urban Tdp Lalig "Ies) 12.7 7.0 g.5 133 7.4 8.9 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.8 15.4 9.6 12.6 Trip speedo (mph) 30.0 30.0 no 30.0 30.0 30.0 %of Tripe•Reeldensal 32.9 18.0 49.1 - %of Trips • Cormmerdd (by land use) Obemeonal lanes to Ddgufta . I Page: 1 12118/2007 04;33:38 PM OPERATIONAL {VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES Em Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 PM2.5 Eyhauat PM2.5 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds /Day) File Name: P:\CNB- 10.0E1Technical Studies%AITNzeashcmV0lage.urb9 5,00 1,72 Project Name: Seashore Village 4.171,01 25,88 5.00 Project Location: Orange County 6.72 4.171,01 1.85 On -Read Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 1,88 2,72545 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 0,01 1,88 . ,. .. CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES . , 3.44 3017 ROG u9s m PW Dust PMID Emausf 2008 TOTALS(Ibslday weniegated) 3.37 39.97 10.55 0.03 23.99 1.87 2008 TOTALS(IbaMay mitigated) 137 39.97 18.55 0.03 23.89 1.87 2000 TOTALS(Ib4/day mlm3pateQl 13.27 24.45 17.83 0.01 0.04 101 2009 TOfALS(awdey mitgated) 13.27 24.45 17.93 DM 0.04 1,81 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES 844 C1Qn &Q ;r42 PM14 TOTALS(18e/day, unmitigated) 5.07 0.62 1056 043 1.62 OPERATIONAL {VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES Em PM2.S owt PM2.5 Eyhauat PM2.5 PM14 25.86 5,00 1,72 6,72 4.171,01 25,88 5.00 1.72 6.72 4.171,01 1.85 0,01 1.66 1,88 2,72545 1.85 0,01 1,88 1.68 2.725,05 EMU 1.56 am t{9E 99 g42 PM14 Pfl'1u TOTALS (Ibalday. u Wgated) 1.92 2.92 19.71 0.02 2.95 0.57 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES 844 N23 0 @L14 PM2S TOTALS(Ibdday, wmftaled) 6.99 3.44 3017 0.05 4.47 243 �Z 620,42 1.562.01 2,382.43 0 M m m r W= = = M r = == M m M M Page; 1 1211812087 0011:38 PM man CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Wn* Po"a Per DaY. UrMi60ated SA. 894 Wk Tim Sloe 3aaDO8 U 2009 Active Lu 36.07 Demotion 03r03200 &041042008 3.37 36.97 Fugfte Duet 0.00 0100 Demo 00 Road Diesel 1.31 8.66 Demo On priced Doul 2.02 28.22 Demo Worker Tripe 0.04 0.07 Tim Slice 417=08,5152008 Active 3.36 28.07 Fine Gmdkg 041052008&0&0 &2008 3.36 28.07 Fite Greding Dust 0.60 0100 Fite Grading 00 Road Diesel 3.31 28.00 Fite Grading On Road Diesel 0100 0100 Fine Gradln9 Worker Trips 0.04 0.01 Tim Slice 5d8MB.t2212008 Active 1.54 11.35 Build'slg 0510&2006.0 &072009 1.54 11.35 Building Off Road Di tel 1.39 10,47 BuioOg Vendor Trips 0.06 0.70 Buildirg Worker Tripe 0.09 0.18 Time Sloe 111200&722009 Active 1.44 10.81 Bulld&g 66,482009-0&072009 1.44 10.61 StMV OS Reed DOsd 1.30 9.79 Btdit Vendor Tdps 0.05 0.00 Bwft Worker Tripe 0.09 OAS Time Slide 722009.71142009 Active 1127 auk ' ASpt6807A8M-071142W9 2.47 13.81 Pevkg Off-On 0.25 0.00 Paving 00 Road Diesel 2.08 12.55 Peviig On Rued Doss 0.08 1.15 Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 BuOdig 05x062008408/0712069 1.44 10.87' Su7dirg 08 Road Diesel 1.30 9.79 BWkling Vendor Trips 0105 0.86 Buldirg Worker Trips 0.09 0.16 COON 070 4iOOM&072009 9.38 0.03 Arciftctvd CosBlg 9,36 0.00 Coding Worker Trips 0.01 0.03 SA. fl42 P8110 Dust PM70'Exhws 25.86 .16.8a 4.43 33.63 1a2 16.88 0.03 .23.98 1.87 0.00 0100 23.87 0.00 4.81 0.00 0.00 OAS 10.51 0.03 0.11 1.10 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 14.89 0.00 3.61 1.41 14.69 0.00 3.81 1.41 0100 0100 3.80 0.00 13.59 0100 0.00 1.41 0.00 0100 0.00 0.00 1.13 0.00 0.01 0.00 8.54 0.00 0.02 0.70 8.54 0.00 0.02 0.70 5.09 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.51 0100 0.00 0.03 2.94 0100 0.02 0.01 OAS 0.00 0.02 0.67 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 4.94 am 0.00 0.63 OAS am 0.00 0.03 2.74 0100 0.02 0.01 im G.9.1 ga ].91 9.32 OAO 0.02 1.14 0.00 0.00 OAO 0100 7.05 0.00 0.00 1.08 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.05 1.85 O.DO 0.01 0.01 8118 0100 0.02 0.67 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.83 OAS 0100 0.00 0.03 2.74 0100 0.02 0.01 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OAO 0100 0.00 OAS O.00 0.00 0100 PId10 2§.93 ass Yi4 25.86 5.00 1.72 23.87 4.97 0.00 0.56 . 0.00 0.62 1.30 0.D4 1.09 0.01 0.00 0.00 5.02 0.75 1.30 5.02 0.75 1.30 3.80 0.75 0.DO 1.41 0.00 1.30 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.01 D.65 0.72 0.01 D.65 0.87 0.00 0.81 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.02 O.D7 0.01 0.69 0.01 0.81 0.69 0.01 0.81 0.83 0.00 0.58 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 im G.91 ].93 1.15 0.01 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.09 0.00 1.00 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.02 0100 0.00 0.69 0.01 0.81 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 =I Lora 6.72 4.97 0.62 1.13 0.00 2.06 206 0.75 1.30 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.65 0.61 0.03 D.OI 0.62 0.82 0.68 0.03 0.01 1.05 0.00 1.00 0.04 0.01 0.62 0.68 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.171.01 4,171.01 0100 700.30 3,346.17 12455 2.371.86 2,371.86 0.00 2.247.32 0.00 124.55 1,329.07 1,329.07 893.39 112.86 322.82 1.328.91 1,328.91 893.39 112.86 322.88 2,725.05 1,342.70 0.00 979.23 145.62 217.65 1,328.91 893.39 112.86 322.66 53.44 0.00 53.44 Page: 1 1211812007 041-3:39-0M Time Slice 71152009417Y1009 Aide 10.80 10.63 8.81 0.61 0.02 0.67 6.69 0.01 0.62 Building 05/082008487072009 1.44 10.51 11.18 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0,01 0.81 0.82 1,382.35 Building 08 Read Diesel 1.30 8.79 4.90 GA) 0.00 0.03 0.63 0.00 0.58 0.62 1228.81 S1Ad0VMolder Tdps 0.05 0.66 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.58 893.39 Bu6dirg Worker Trips 0.09 0.18 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.D2 0.01 0.03 112.86 C006N 07/0812009. 08/072009 9.36 0.03 045 0.00 000 0.00 (100 0.00 0.01 322.66 Architectural Cooing 8.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.44 Casting Worker Tripe 0.01 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.44 Un AournniWre Phase: Demolition 1W008 - 414i1W8 - Default Demolition Description RuddlN Volume Total (slob feet): 1706302 Striding Voksn , Daily (cubb feet): 58843.15 On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 789.49 Off -Road Equipmarn: 1 Concrate/InddaMel Sans (10 hN oPdratlip al 10.73 W'd factor for 81ou a Per day 1 Rubber 71red Dozers (357 hp) dperaGrg at a (159 hoed factor for 1 hours per day 2 Trectoia/Loeders/Baakhaee (108 hP) oPmatirg at 10.55 road rector for 6 hour per day I ~ p Phase: Fine Grading 4/S20D8. Sr52006- Default Flee Site Oredirg/Exoayalion Description TalWAcres Disturbed: 1.45 Manlmun Deily Acreage 01stuftd: 0,35 Fugitive Dug Lavel of Dote'i; Default 10 lbs per acre -day On Road Truck Trava( (ATI): 0 OftAoed Equipment 1 Graders (174 hp) operatkV at a 0.81 bard Motor for 8 ho= per day 1 Rubber Tired Dotms (357 hp) g5mft It a 0.59)oad factor fort) hours per day 1 Traclom/Loadets/Bs<khoas (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 bad factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) o'cratiry at a 0-5 load facto- for 8 h0un, Per day Plana: Paring 716009 - 7/14/2DD9 - Default Paring Deeaip6on Acres to be Paved; 0.87 Off-Rom Emdpmenc 4 Cemonl and Mortar Muers (t0 hp1 operatirg at a 0.58 Woo factor for 6 h0ura per day 1 Pavers (100 hP) operating at a 0.82100 factor for ? town, per day 1 Rotera 195 hp) oPSrMing 010 0.56 Wad factor for 7 no= per day 1 Trod c/LoadbnsBScMoas (106 hp) opanagrg at a 0.55 load factor for 7 h=5 par day M M M MM r V M M M r M M M M Mao M i Pap: 12N811007 04.33:33 PM Paeae: BuMlre Carnlrwlich'6feYt006- 81712009• pefaul(llW" Cerawbml DascrPBC^ . Oft -Road S*Vmekt ata0.49 badf3d*t,4haas Per day 1 cw*s(399 aP) oPaaBnp at a 0.3 bad&dwftr6 holan Per day 2 fddtll5a tl4S hp)opeTMfi9 0ta 0.66 Wad tact, fa 9 hou'b 0a day 1 Taaoren.aadarelRaad'can (108 hP1 opera5ro p. . A sa{ C 'ffM 7/012000 - &71710MM05 wws W3dka08 *, oetina DeaorP6 o Ruler RasWemlei bd,br Coe9eas WOW 1NFI005 ends 8190'1008 apse Ruia ReaWen89!mere+ Coa80ao bep0m 71 rAM eMS 16PMM0 sPedom a VCC o190 Rub: ft"Wen*4 E>.tedor C.Wvre bnh, Ihm15 enOS8F5011008 speoi8es•YOC 4250 Rub; Rosl6on I E1dOW COQ*W be98a 7/7)2009 ado e113V20sWa6iaea a" of 100 Rub; NoOresxbn8ai Ifftyo CeeB a be91B 1/112005 ands tl2fm 040 sep gbs a VOC d 20 Rub'. meneidal8a Edcder Cos6n9s b¢gim 1N1t905 adn 12Y31YLM0 epeeMm aVOC e<260 ., emasIoP E TE3 Wader Po�+�de Pa' Day. f+189au PM40 DuaS FCU4 CONSTRUCTION 1.72 flQ 4,171-01 Im 1 4.97 88x 3131200817'1)2DD8 AgNe + ° 36-W UA 0�3 23.87 .04 23.87 Time Demo0ba0'J0911008.0410a2We A37 D.DD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OM 0.68 1.30 1.+ Fu9'dNeOw1 OB Road Dleeel .0.00 1.31 8.68 28.22 4.81 10,51 0,09 0.11 0.01 0.09 0.01 t-' Damn Demo OaRad oWwl 2.02 0.04 0.07 1.13 0.00 0.12 0.00 1R9 Demo Worker Trips 0. 0 1.30 0 0.00. 0.57 tAt 1.99 S8ee4R200&6'5i2008 AcMa 8.35 28.07 28.07 14.80 14.89 OAO 0.57 0'57 5A1 a00 0.67 Time FIOe'Cimda'004yp 0080978 Mba 3.35 aoa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 tAt 1.41 0.00 Fine Gadra Dub 3.31 28,00 13.58 0.W 0.00 0.00 0.01 Fhe Credina Oft Raed Dlesai 0.00 0.00 0,03 OAO 0.01 0.90 Fyy C�(ed(kg Oa Road bbea p.M 0.07 113 fine Oradire Worer TKP& 0.00 0.92 0.70 072 O.YL TkSwMra 5 3.1213t71D08 AOth'e 1.54 11.39 11.35 8.64 8.94 0.00 0.02 O.00 0.70 0.67 0.87 w,2 8009 .. Butan908N&��Dies 1.54 10-07 5.09 0:03 0.00 Q0S 0.03 .0.02 Bu'Wire off Road Diesel 1.39 0.08 0.1D 0.91 0 -DO 0.00 9.02 0.01 Bu9dIn8VadorTrPe D.09 0.18 2.94 Bumwq Worker Tree o•n �t i� q 111.01 1.72 6.72 4,171-01 8.00 0-00 4.97 0'OD 4.97 0b2 700.90 0.00 0.82 1.43 3,gg8.17 0.M 0.00 124'6 0.00 0.00 0.00 T30 1.42 2,371.60 0. 1.42 2,371.66 O.12 1'30 0.12 0'00 0.12 0.00 1.30 2,247. 32 0. 0 1.30 0 0.00 0.. 00 0'� .00 0.00 124.85 OAO 0.00 0.155 0.85 0.65 1.329.07 0.01 0.65 1.329.07 0-01 0.81 893.39 0.00 0.61 043 112.85 0.00 0.03 0.01 32282 0.01 0.01 M M M M = M M M M M M r M r M M M M Page: 1 1211812607 04433:66 PM Time Slice 1 /112009 - 713/2009 Active 1.44 10.81 9.18 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.69 0.01 Mdng OSIOBn OOMS10720D9 1.µ 10.81 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.87 0.81 0.02 1,328.91 BuiWing OR Roed 01esel 1.30 on 4.94 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.69 0.83 0.01 0.00 0.61 0.62 1,328.91 8u0ding Vendor Tdps 0.05 0,66 048 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 000 0.58 0.58 893.39 Building Worker Trips 0109 0,16 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.03 112.86 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 322.20 Tims Slice 7/8MD0 9-711 4120 0 9 Ache 13.37 24.45 us M 9M 1.91 1.91 M 10 1.0_ 2.72505 AspAalt 07/08/'200&071142009 2.47 13.81 9.32 0.00 0.02 1.14 1.15 0.01 1.05 Pavly Ott-6a 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.05 1,342.70 Peeing Off Road Diesel 2.08 12.55 7.05 0.00 0.00 1.09 1.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 lowing On Road Diesel 0108 1.15 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 O.DO 0.00 1.00 1.00 979.23 Paving Worker Tdps 0.06 0,11 1,85 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 145.62 BUldirg DS1D8no"BM12DOP 1.44 10.61 8.16 0,00 0.02 0.67 0.09 0.01 0.01 217.85 8uilling Off Road Diesel 1.30 9.79 4.94 0.00 0.00 0,63 0.63 0.00 0.61 0.82 1,328.91 Building VwA(u Trips 0.05 0.68 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 040 0.58 0.02 0,58 89139 Building Worker Trips 0.09 0.16 2.74 0.00 0.02 OA7 OM 0.01 0.03 112.86 Coating 07/0BMO094B/07/2009 9.38 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0,01 322.66 Architectural Cooling 9.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53A4 Casting Worker Tripe 0.01 0.03 0.45 0.00' O.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 53.44 H Time Slice 711520MS WOO Active - 10.80 10.63 8.81 OAt 0.02 0.67 0,89 0101 0.62 [V Building 0510B/2DOS-08W12009 1.44 10.61 8.16 0.00 0.02 0.67 0.69 0.82 1,382.35 Building OR Road Diesel 1.30 9.79 4.94 0100 0.00 0.83 0.63 0.01 0.61 0.62 1,328.91 Bu➢ding Vendor Trips 0.05 0.88 0.48 0100 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.58 89138 Building Worker Tripe 0.09 0.18 2.74 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 112,88 Owdi g 071062009.0U72b09 9.38 0.03 0,45 0100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 322.68 Architectural Coating 9.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OAO 0.00 0.00 53.44 Costing Worker Trips 0.01 0.03 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.DD 0.00 0.00 0.00 53,44 M M M M = M M M M M M r M r M M M M r r H Page: 7 12118!2007 04:33:38 PM The fosaian9 mltlgetion meneiaes 40pN to Phess: FAm Grading 4152008.6/620p8 - Dal" Fine Site Gradag/Emovaticn Description For Son Stabbing Massuras. the Rdpbce prow cover Mreslurhed arses quddy motgakn redwas a i"Icna by: PM10: 5% PM26: 3% Far Sao StabLeg Mdssures. the Water acposed surfaces 2x daily watering imygallon reducea emhsbm by. P11,110: 56 %PM2& 55% For Sal Stoking Measures. the EgWprmnt IoadingAmbading mitigation reduces amisaicm by: P6tt9: 69 %PM25: 69% For Uromcd Roads Memues,"Reduce speed on unpaved roads to bas then 15 mph mhigatlon reduces weal" by: Pb110: 44% PM2S 44% For Unpaved Roads Meow". 6m Manage hsW road duet 2x dally mdoring mitigation reduces amiulcm or. PM10: 55 %PM2% 55% OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES VNder Pounds Per Day. UmrBgated Scum ROG NOX CO $02 PM70 PM25 CO2 Single familyhousAg - 1.04 1.53 1011 0.01 1.65 031 848.64 Cdndo1avmtxxde general 0.88 1.29 9.00 0.01 1.30 0.26 713A7 Operational Settings, Does not hdude cormctbn far many trips Daft not Allude d&AW ccurNg AdJuatmem far Internal trine AWWO Year: 2009 Temperature (F): 60 Season: Write, Wao: Version : Emfea2007 V2.3 Nov 12005 Page: 1' 12/18/2007 04:33:38 PM Land L Be Type A mmaN of Land A&aage Trp Rate . Ura Type No. UnBa Total Trips Total VMT Single famay lousing 1.00 7.35 d eakg unit 12.00 86.20 891.07 Condolovrtarouae general 0.45 6.18 dMilirg umHS 12.00 74.18 749.22 182.38 1.640.29 Vsllids Type Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non- Catalyst Catalyst Olesel Light Auto 49.0 2.0 97,6 0.4 Ughl Truck a 3750 The 10.9 3.7 90.8 8.5 Light Truck 3751,5750 g s 21.7 0.9 98.6 0.5 Mae Tmck 5751 -8500 lot 9.5 1.1 9819 0.0 Life -Heavy Truck 8501 - 10.000 lb, 1.8 00 75.0 25.0 URe -Heavy Truck 10.001-14.000 be 0.6 0.0 50,0 Med- HeevyTruck 14,001- 33,oDDb3 1.0 0,0 50,0 Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001-60.000 Ibs 0.9 0.0 20.0 80.0 OMer Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 Motorcycle 315 77.1 22.9 0.0 School Bus 0.1 0.0 0.0 100.0 Motor Home 1.0 10.0 80.0 10.0 Travel Conditions Residential Carnmardel Home -Wak Home -Shop Home-Other Commute Non, Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 915 13.3 7.4 8.9 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 15.4 9.6 Trip spseds(mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 12.6 %at Trips - Resfdemlel 32.9 18.0 49.1 30.0 of Trips - Commercial (by IaW uae) Ooerstim al Chortaft toP ty mm W IM ■iri M.Mmm M WI M M M IM M M IM M Page: 1 1/3/2008 12:02:55 FM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.2 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (Poundsmay) File Name: PACNV O.OEITechnical StudieslAirlExistingUses.urb9 Project Name: Existing- SeashoreVillage Project Location: Orange County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROO 021 0- s02 PM10 PM2.5 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 3.03 0.55 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 678.61 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES y Sae NOX 9_0 S02 PM14 M2 -8 CO2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 4.00 5.27 45.05 0.04 6.36 1.26 3,837,99 r Ln SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES OG- NOX Q—O S02 f'M10 M22.? CO2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 7.03 5.82 46.88 0.04 6.36 1.26 4,516.60 i AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated °� .ROG NQ 3t EM10 PM2.5 rr)2 r Page: 1 11312068 12:02 :55 PM Area Source Chances to Defaults Operational Settings Does not Include correction for passby taps Does not include double counting adjustment for Internal trips Analysis Year. 2009 Temperature (F): 80 Season: Summer Emfac: Version : Errifac2007 V2.3 Nov 12008 Land Use Type Apartments low rise Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 1.45 6,72 dwelling units 54.00 362,88 3,666.10 362.88 3,666.10 M W M r M M M � M M M M r IM W M M M M M M= M= = = M= M M M= M = M Page: 1 1/3/2008 12:02:55 PM Vehicle Type light Auto Light Truck 4 3750 Ibs Light Truck 3751 -5750 Ibs Mod Truck $751 -8500 Ibs Lite -Heavy Truck 8501. 10,060 Ibs Lite -Heavy Truck 10,001 - 14,000 Ibs Med -Heavy Truck 14,001 - 33,000 Ibs Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001- 60,000 Ibs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home I ,4 v Urban Trip Length (miles) Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) % of Trips - Residential % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Home -Work 12.7 17.6 30.0 32.9 Vehicle Fleet Mix Catalyst Diesel Percent Type Non - Catalyst 49.0 2.0 10.9 3.7 21.7 0,9 9.5 1.1 1.6 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.5 77.1 0.1 0.0 1.0 10.0 Travel Conditions Commute Non -Work Residential 13.3 7.4 Home-Shop Home -Other 9.6 7.0 9.5 30.0 12.1 14.9 30.0 30.0 18.0 49.1 Catalyst Diesel 97.6 0.4 80.8 5.5 98.6 0.5 98.9 0.0 75.0 25.0 50.0 50.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 100.0 0,0 100.0 0.0 100,0 22.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 80.0 10.0 Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 13.3 7.4 6.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 30.0 30.0 30.0 Page: 1 1(31200812:63:02 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.22 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (Pounds /Day) File Name: P: \CNB- 10.0E \Technical Studies\A r \ExistingLIses.urb9 Project Name: Existing- SeashoreVillage Project Location: Orange County On -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 Off -Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 ,r,3 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOX PM10 EdZ§, TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 11.36 1.17 23.66 0.07 3.63 3.50 1,541.41 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NQA 94 802 PM10 Elmaa 022 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 4.29 I 6.30 44.06 0.03 6.36 1.26 3,491.15 N co SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NQX sm $02 PM10 PM2.6 CO2 TOTALS (Ibs /day, unmitigated) 15.65 7.47 67.72 0.10 9.99 4.76 5,032.56 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitlgated Source BCy NO CLO PM10 PM2.5 Natural Gas 0.04 0.53 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 676.86 Hearth 8.46 0.64 23.43 0.07 3.63 3.50 865.55 Landscaping - No W intet Emissions Consumer Products 2.77 Architectural Coatings 0.09 MEMO ., -.. _ . - r Page: 1 1/3/2008 12:03:02 PM OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX CO S02 PM10 PM25 CO2 Apartments low rise 4.29 6.30 44.06 0.03 6.36 1.26 3,491.15 i Operational Settings: Does not Include correction for passby trips Does not Include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year. 2009 Temperature (F): 60 Season: Winter Emfac: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 12006 ko Land Use Type Apartments low Has Summary of Land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type 1 -45 6.72 dwelling units No. Units Total Trips 54.00 362.88 362.88 Total VMT 3,666.10 3,666 -10 1 Page: 1 Catalyst Diesel 97.6 113/2008 12:03:02 PM 90.8 5.5 96.6 0.5 Vehicle Fleet M& 96.9 0.0 Vehicle Type 75.0 Percent Type Non - Catalyst Light Auto 50.0 49.0 20.0 2.0 Light Truck < 3750 Ibs 0.0 10.9 3.7 Light Truck 3751.5750 lbs 21.7 100.0 0.9 Med Truck 5751 -8500 Ibs 0.0 9.5 0.0 1.1 UwHeavy Truck 8501,10,000 Ibs 80.0 1.6 0.0 Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001 -14,000 Ibs Commute 0.6 Customer 0.0 Med -Heavy Truck 14,001.33,000 Ibs 6.9 1.0 9.6 0.0 Heavy -Heavy Truck 33,001.60,000 Ibs 30.0 0.9 0.0 Other Bus 0.1 0.0 Urban Bus 0.1 0.0 Motorcycle 3.5 77.1 School Bus 0.1 0.0 Motor Home 1.0 10.0 Davef conditions Residential N Home-Work Home-Shop Home -Other Urban Trip Length (miles) 12.7 7.0 9.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 17.6 12.1 14.9 Trip speeds (mph) 30.0 30.0 30.0 • of Trips - Residential 319 18.0 49.1 • of Trips - Commercial (by land use) ■� r r r■r r� r r �■r r r ■r r r r r ar r r r Catalyst Diesel 97.6 0.4 90.8 5.5 96.6 0.5 96.9 0.0 75.0 25.0 50.0 50.0 20.0 80.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 22.9 0.0 0.0 100.0 80.0 10.0 Commercial Commute Non -Work Customer 13.3 7.4 6.9 15.4 9.6 12.6 30.0 30.0 30.0 ■� r r r■r r� r r �■r r r ■r r r r r ar r r r Construction Phasing Assumptions Construction Defaults for Urbemis 2007 Phase Start Month Year Demolition March 2008 Mass Grading March 2008 Fine Grading June 2008 Trenching August 2008 Paving August 2008 Construction September 2008 Architectural Coatings April 2009 Demolition Assumptions Building Square -Feet Height Feet N N For Urbemis2007 48,743 35 Length/Width Total 220.8 feet Length/Width Per Day 40.3 feet 1=1 = = IM w a = = 1=1 = M Total Cubic Feet Total Daily Cubic Feet 1,706,005 56,867 Modified construction Phasing -Based on 18 month schedule provided by the project applicant which includes a 30-day demolition, 30-days of grading and no trenching for utilities because its and existing site, and overlap of phases Duration (Months) Start Month Year Duration (Months) 0.5 Demolition March 2008 1 3 Fine Grading April 2008 1 1.5 Paving July 2009 0.25 0.25 Construction May 2008 16 0.25 Architectural Coatings July 2009 1 9 1 * overlap of Paving, Construction and Architectural Coatings Total Cubic Feet Total Daily Cubic Feet 1,706,005 56,867 Acres 25 Source SRA No. Acres Receptor NOx 1 158 Distance ONEEMEMEEMEMMMMMMM 244 (meters) Source Receptor North Coastal Orange County Distance (meters) 25 408 NOx 191 194 CO 406 395 PM10 1 500 PM2.5 1 5870 Acres 25 50 100 200 500 NOx 1 158 164 189 244 382 2 226 226 244 288 408 191 194 216 266 395 CO 1 333 500 929 1785 5870 2 481 692 1247 2216 6405 406 594 1085 1996 6132 PM10 1 1 3 19 34 50 2 2 5 21 36 52 1 4 20 35 51 PM2.5 1 1 2 3 6 19 2 2 2 3 7 20 1 2 3 6 19 h Coastal Orange County 1.49 Acres 25 50 100 200 500 NOx 191 194 216, 266 395 CO 406 594 1085 1996 6132 PM10 1 4 20 35 51 PM2.5 1 2 3 6 19 Acre Below Acre Above SRA No. Acres SRA No. Aces 18 1 18 2 Distance Increment Below 25 Distance Increment Above 50 A -22 7 Acres Source Source BRA No. Acres Receptor Receptor 1 158 Distance Distance 244 382 maters -feel Source Receptor Area North Coastal Orange County Distance (meters) 25 408 PM10 Ptv12.5 NOx 191 194 Grading CO 406 CO Exhaust PM10 5 929 1785 PM2.6 4 2 481 7 'With Mitigation Assumes 84 percent controll efficiency of fugitive dust Acres 25 so 400 200 50o NOx 1 158 164 189 244 382 2 228 226 244 288 408 191 194 216 266 395 CO 1 333 500 929 1785 5670 y 2 481 692 1247 2216 6405 I 406 594 1085 1996 8132 N PM10 1 4 13 77 142 206 W 2 7 21 86 150 215 5 17 81 146 210 PM2,5 1 3 5 9 22 76 2 5 7 '12 26 83 4 6 10 24 79 North Coastal Orange County 1.49 Acres 25 60 100 200 Soo NOX 191 194 218 288 395 CO 406 594 1085 1996 6132 PM10 5 17 81 146 210 PM2.5 4 6 10 24 79 Acre Below ACre Above SRA No. Acres SRA No. Acres i6 1 16 2 Distance Increment Below 25 Distance Increment Above 50 'With Mitigation Assumes 84 percent controll efficiency of fugitive dust NOx 60 PMII0 Demolition Site PreparationlGrading Building Construction Demolition - With Mitigation Demolition Building Construction 22 12 2 2 Demolition LST Thresholds 191 0 Amount Exceeding Thresholds r r 20 'With Mitigation Assumes 84 percent controll efficiency of fugitive dust 1 1 Appendices ' Appendix B. ' Archaeological Records Search 1 Ser Om Village lnittal Study City of Newpw Beath ' r:iaas- ,aosysWmw,:mn,�nn.�i,r� I Appendices 1 This page intentionally left blank. , 11 1 I 1 11 1-1 The Planning Center February 2008 P.-WNR- 10.08U•Ms3 R- i.DfADngr i4.J. ' A McKenna et al. ' History /Archaeology/Historic Architecture/Paleontology ' Jeanette A. McKenna, MA Registered Prof. Archaeologist Owner and Principal Investigator ' December 17, 2007 RE: Seashore Village, Orange County, California. ' Ms. Hadfield: ' In response to your request, McKenna et al. completed a standard archaeological records check through the California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center. We also completed a limited amount of research ' through the Orange County Assessor's Office and confirmed the date of construction for the existing complex at 5515 River Avenue, Newport Beach (APN 424 - 471 -03). ' Assessor Data: ' The County Assessor data identified the existing building as a multi- family complex on an irregularly shaped parcel of 63,597 square feet. The initial construction was completed in 1972, rendering the building modern and of no historical ' significance. A formal evaluation of the structure is not required, given the relative age of only 35 years. Supporting documentation is attached. ' Archaeological Records Check: The proposed project area is located at 5515 River Avenue, Newport Beach, and can be seen on the attached maps and aerial photograph. The property is located between River Avenue Seashore Drive and west of Neptune Avenue. The Assessor data shows the property as consisting of 1.46 acres. 6008 Friends Avenue, Whittier, California 90601 -3724 email =imckena(@earthlink.net .(562) 696 -3852 OFFICE (562) 693 -4059 FAX (562) 693 -1305 LAS (562) 754 -7712 CELL B -1 THE PLANNING CENTER Attn: JoAnn Hadfield 1580 Metro Drive Costa Mesa, California 92626 RE: Seashore Village, Orange County, California. ' Ms. Hadfield: ' In response to your request, McKenna et al. completed a standard archaeological records check through the California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center. We also completed a limited amount of research ' through the Orange County Assessor's Office and confirmed the date of construction for the existing complex at 5515 River Avenue, Newport Beach (APN 424 - 471 -03). ' Assessor Data: ' The County Assessor data identified the existing building as a multi- family complex on an irregularly shaped parcel of 63,597 square feet. The initial construction was completed in 1972, rendering the building modern and of no historical ' significance. A formal evaluation of the structure is not required, given the relative age of only 35 years. Supporting documentation is attached. ' Archaeological Records Check: The proposed project area is located at 5515 River Avenue, Newport Beach, and can be seen on the attached maps and aerial photograph. The property is located between River Avenue Seashore Drive and west of Neptune Avenue. The Assessor data shows the property as consisting of 1.46 acres. 6008 Friends Avenue, Whittier, California 90601 -3724 email =imckena(@earthlink.net .(562) 696 -3852 OFFICE (562) 693 -4059 FAX (562) 693 -1305 LAS (562) 754 -7712 CELL B -1 -2- The archaeological records check was designed to address the project area and a one mile radius around the project area. Because of the proximity of the property to the Pacific Ocean frontage, the research emphasized areas to the north, east, and south of the project area. Research identified a minimum of twenty-six projects within one mile, including the following: Archaeological Associates (1978) Archaeological Planning Collaborative (1979) Archaeological Resource Management Corporation (1981 and 1983) Billat (2007) Bissell (2000) Boxt and Barretta (1992) Demcak (2002) Drover and Smith (1999 and 2000) Langenwalter and Brock (1985) Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. (1981) Leonard (1975a and b) LSA (1983a and b) Padon(2001) Padon and Breece (1989) Pettus (1991) Romani (1982a and b) Scientific Resource Surveys (1978a -c) Scientific Resource Surveys (1979) Steele (1982) None of these studies involved the current project area and none are adjacent to the project area. The nearest studies are those of Pettus (1991), involving a portion of the Pacific Ocean to the southwest of the project area, and Drover and Smith (1999), addressing the Newport Banning Ranch. Smaller surveys have been completed within one quarter mile, but all to the north/northeast of Pacific Coast Highway. As a result of the studies cited above, a minimum of eleven archaeological sites have been recorded within one mile of the project area, including: CA- ORA -59 thru 72 (Pilling 1949; Nelson n.d.) CA- ORA -60 (Nelson n.d.) CA -ORA -357 (Elliott 1973) 6008 Friends Avenue, Whittier, California 90601 -3724 email = imckenann earthlink.net (562) 696 -3852 OFFICE (562) 693 -4059 FAX (562) 693 -1305 LAB (562) 754 -7712 CELL IM ' All of these sites are located north of Pacific Coast Highway and none will be impacted by any project within the current study area. The nearest sites are CA- ORA -148, and cA -ORA -1599 thru CA -ORA -1602, all of which cluster north of Pacific ' Coast Highway and approximately one quarter mule north of the current project area. Each of these sites was identified as being of prehistoric origin. These sites are all small and none are expected to extent into or even near the current study ' area. The project area and surrounding properties were developed without the benefit of an archaeological investigation and, therefore, no data is available to ascertain the general level of sensitivity for similar resources to be present. ' Nonetheless, the Newport Beach coastal area is generally considered sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources, especially in areas between the Santa Ana River and Newport Bay. Therefore, despite earlier disturbances, the project area ' should be considered moderately sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources. A review of historic maps (USGS Santa Ana Quadrangles of .1896 and 1901, rev. ' 1945) illustrated the presence of the Southern Pacific Smeltzer Branch Railroad alignment passing relatively close to the project area (ca. 1901 - 1945), but long gone by the time the 1965 USGS Newport Beach Quadrangle was prepared. Evid- ence of the historic railroad alignment may be identified within or near the current project area and, therefore, the area should be considered moderately sensitive for historic archaeological resources. tSummary: ' The Seashore Village project area has not been previously surveyed for cultural resources and the existing structure dates to 1972, rendering it a modern resource. Research showed that there is a moderate level of sensitivity for both prehistoric ' and historic archaeological resources. Although the .property is currently deve- loped, evidence of prehistoric use of the area may still be present in a buried con- text. To insure accurate and adequate identification of any such resources, ' McKenna et al. would recommend that any project that involves the demolition of the existing structure include an archaeological monitoring program. ' 6008 Friends Avenue, Whittier, California 90601 -3724 email =imckena(@eardilink.net (562) 696 -3852 OFFICE (562) 693 -4059 FAX (562) 693 -1305 LAB (562) 754-7712 CELL 1 B -3 3 CA -ORA -148 (McKinney 1964; Smith et al. 1998) ' CA -ORA -843 (Murray 1979; Smith et al. 1998) CA -ORA -844 (Murray 1979; Smith et al. 1998) CA -ORA -1599 (Smith et al. 1998) CA -ORA -1600 (Smith et al. 1998) CA -ORA -1601 (Smith et al. 1998) CA -ORA -1602 (Smith et al. 1998) ' CA -ORA -1610 (Smith et al. 1998) ' All of these sites are located north of Pacific Coast Highway and none will be impacted by any project within the current study area. The nearest sites are CA- ORA -148, and cA -ORA -1599 thru CA -ORA -1602, all of which cluster north of Pacific ' Coast Highway and approximately one quarter mule north of the current project area. Each of these sites was identified as being of prehistoric origin. These sites are all small and none are expected to extent into or even near the current study ' area. The project area and surrounding properties were developed without the benefit of an archaeological investigation and, therefore, no data is available to ascertain the general level of sensitivity for similar resources to be present. ' Nonetheless, the Newport Beach coastal area is generally considered sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources, especially in areas between the Santa Ana River and Newport Bay. Therefore, despite earlier disturbances, the project area ' should be considered moderately sensitive for prehistoric archaeological resources. A review of historic maps (USGS Santa Ana Quadrangles of .1896 and 1901, rev. ' 1945) illustrated the presence of the Southern Pacific Smeltzer Branch Railroad alignment passing relatively close to the project area (ca. 1901 - 1945), but long gone by the time the 1965 USGS Newport Beach Quadrangle was prepared. Evid- ence of the historic railroad alignment may be identified within or near the current project area and, therefore, the area should be considered moderately sensitive for historic archaeological resources. tSummary: ' The Seashore Village project area has not been previously surveyed for cultural resources and the existing structure dates to 1972, rendering it a modern resource. Research showed that there is a moderate level of sensitivity for both prehistoric ' and historic archaeological resources. Although the .property is currently deve- loped, evidence of prehistoric use of the area may still be present in a buried con- text. To insure accurate and adequate identification of any such resources, ' McKenna et al. would recommend that any project that involves the demolition of the existing structure include an archaeological monitoring program. ' 6008 Friends Avenue, Whittier, California 90601 -3724 email =imckena(@eardilink.net (562) 696 -3852 OFFICE (562) 693 -4059 FAX (562) 693 -1305 LAB (562) 754-7712 CELL 1 B -3 -4- 1 Demolition of the existing building does not need to be monitored. However, once ' demolition is completed to ground level, an archaeological monitor should be on- site to oversee any ground disturbing activities that may yield evidence of buried resources. If evidence of such resources is identified, a Native American monitor or ' Gabrielino (or Juaneno) descent should be added to the overall monitoring pro- gram. The monitoring program should include provisions for handling any human ' remains that are determined to be of prehistoric or Native American origin, including notification of the Orange County Coroner and the Native American , Heritage Commission, Sacramento. The extent and duration of the monitoring program can be determined in con- , sultation between the project proponent, the City of Newport Beach, the archaeo- logical consultant, and the local Native American representative (to be determined at a later date). ' This document was prepared by Jeanette A. McKenna, Principal Investigator for , McKenna et al. Any questions should be directed to the author at (562) 696 -3852 or (562) 693 -1305. Jeanette A. McKenna, Principal Investigator Date ' 1 6008 Friends Avenue, Whittier, California 90601 -3724 email = imckena0earthlink. net ' (562) 696 -3852 OFFICE (562) 693 -4059 FAX (562) 693 -1305 LAB (562) 754 -7712 CELL 1 B -4 ' I ' -5- 1 ' REFERENCES Archaeological Associates ' 1978 A Compilation of Archaeological, Historical, and Paleontological Data for the City of Costa Mesa. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, ' California. (0 -299) Archaeological Planning Collaborative ' 1979 Archaeological Records Search and Reconnaissance Survey - Superior Avenue Realignment Route. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -442) Archaeological Resource Management Corporation ' 1983 Archaeological resources Survey of the Avon Street Project. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -688) ' 1981 Archaeological Resource Assessment for Three Parcels in Newport Beach, CA, General Plan Amendment 81 -2. On file, California State University, ' Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -893) ' Billat, Lorna 2007 FCC Form 620 (Section 106) Submittal: LA -2841B - New Tower. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information ' Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -3397) Bissell, Ronald M. ' 2000 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of the East Addition Parking Structure, Hoag Memorial Hospital, Newport Beach,. Orange County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -2228) ' 6008 Friends Avenue, Whittier, California 90601 -3724 email = jmckena(a)earthlink.net (562) 696 -3852 OFFICE (562) 693 -4059 FAX (562) 693 -1305 LAB (562) 7547712 CELL ' B -5 I -6- 1 Boxt, Matthew A. and Christine M. Barretta ' 1992 Archaeological and Paleontological Surveys for the Proposed Costa Mesa/Newport Brach Pipe Line Route, Orange County, California. On ' file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -1360) Demcak, Carol R. , 2002 Report of Archaeological Resources Assessment for Placentia Avenue Reconstruction Project, City of Costa Mesa, Orange County, California. , On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -3007) Drover, Christopher E. and David M. Smith 1999 A Cultural Resources Inventory for the Newport Banning Ranch, City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California, On file, California State , University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -2129) 2000 Research Design Outline for an Archaeological Test Evaluation of Five , Sites on the Newport Banning Ranch Property, Newport Beach, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central ' Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -3077) Elliott, T. 1973 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA -ORA -357. On file, California State t University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fuller- ton, California. Langenwalter, Paul E. and James Brock ' 1985 Phase 11 Archaeological Studies — Prado Basin and the Lower Santa Ana River. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -801) Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. ' 1981 Historic Property Survey — Pacific Coast Highway Widening Project, Newport Beach, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, ' South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -666 and 0 -2137) 6008 Friends Avenue, Whittier, California 90601 -3724 email = imrkenaRearthlink.net ' (562) 6963852 OFFICE (562) 693 -4059 FAX (562) 693 -1305 LAB (562) 754.7712 CELL B -6 ' 7 Leonard, N. Nelson ' 1975 Description and evaluation of Cultural Resources within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Santa An River Project. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, ' Fullerton, California. (0 -270) 1975 Environmental Impact Evaluation: Route Alternates between the ' Michelson Treatment Plant and Plants on the Santa Ana River, Orange county, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -1016) LSA 1983 Archaeology at the Superior Avenue Site. On file, California State ' University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fuller- ton, California. (0 -657) McKinney, (unk.) 1964 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA -ORA -357. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fuller- ' ton, California.. Murray, J.R. ' 1979 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA ORA 843. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. 1 1979 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA -ORA -844. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, ' Fullerton, California. Nelson, N.C. t n.d. Description of Ora -59. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (p /o 0- 666) n.d. Description of Ora -60. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (p /o 0- ' 666) 1983 Archaeology at 471 Old Newport Boulevard Site. On file, California State ' University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fuller- ton, California. (0 -658) ' 6008 Friends Avenue, Whittier, California 90601 -3724 email = imckena(Wearthlink.net (562) 696 -3852 OFFICE (562) 693 -4059 FAX (562) 693 -1305 LAB (562) 754 -7712 CELL 1 B -7 I -8- 1 Padon, Beth ' 2001 Results of a Phase 1 Archaeological Resources Study at the Newport Technology Center Project, Orange County. On file, California State ' University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -2231) Padon, Beth and William H. Breece , 1989 The Results of an Archaeological Reconnaissance on the Proposed Hoag Hospital Expansion Project Site, Newport Beach, Orange County, Califor- nia. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -1907) Pettus, Roy ' 1991 Marine Cultural Resources Survey within the Lower Santa Ana River Project Near Shore Disposal Area. On file, California State University, ' Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, Califor- nia.(0 -1119) Pilling, Arnold R. , 1949 CA- ORA -59 thru CA- ORA -72 Summary. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, ' Fullerton, California. (p /o 0 -666) Romani, John 1982 Archaeological Survey Report for the ORA -55 Corridor (PM 0.0/T4.22) , 07207 - 492201. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -643 and O- ' 1905) 1982 Archaeological Survey Report for the Proposed Route ORA -1 Widening ' Project (PM 19.80 - PM 25.89) 07210- 499850. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0-644) , Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. 1978 Archaeological Test Report on TT No. 10272, Site ORA 357, Located in ' the Newport Mesa Area of the County of Orange, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -242) ' 6008 Friends Avenue, Whittier, California 90601 -3724 email = imckena(dearthlink.net ' (562) 696-3852 OFFICE (562) 693 -4059 FAX (562) 693 -1305 LAB (562) 754 -7712 CELL 1 B -8 ' I 0 ' 1978 Archaeological Survey Report on Tentative Tract No. 10537 Located in the Unincorporated Area of the County of Orange, in the Vicinity of Newport Beach, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, ' South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -313) 1979 Archaeological Survey Rpeoprt on Tract 10849 (Spinnaker Cove II) ' Located in the Costa Mesa Area of the County of Orange. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. (0 -466) Smith, D.M., W. McManus, J. Paniaqua, H. Mills, D. Reeves, C. Reeves, and D. Juday 1998 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA -ORA -148 (Update). On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. ' 1998 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA -ORA -843 (Update). On file, Record: CA -ORA -1600. California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. ' 1998 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA -ORA -844 (Update). On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information ' Center, Fullerton, California. ' 1998 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA -ORA -1599. On file, California ' State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. ' 1998 Archaeological Site Survey State University, Fullerton, Record: CA -ORA -1600. On file, California South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. ' 1998 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA -ORA -1601. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, ' Fullerton, California. 1998 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA -ORA -1602. On file, California ' State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. ' 1998 Archaeological Site Survey Record: CA -ORA -1610. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, Fullerton, California. ' 6008 Friends Avenue, WWtder, California 90601 -3724 email = imckena(@earthlink.net (562) 696 -3852 OFFICE (562) 693 -4059 FAX (562) 693 -1305 LAB (562) 754 -7712 CELL B -9 -10- I 1 Steele, L.D. 1 1982 Historic Property Survey: 07- Ora -55 (PM 0:0/T4.22), Costa Mesa, and -Newport Beach, Orange County, California. On file, California State University, Fullerton, South Central Coastal Information Center, 1 Fullerton, California. (0 -2129) 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 6008 Friends Avenue, Whittier, California 90601 -3724 email = imckenaCdeart}ilink.net 1 (562) 696 -3852 OFFICE (562) 693 -4059 FAX (562) 693 -1305 LAB (562) 754 -7712 CELL 1 B -10 1 Appendices Appendix C. Geotechnical Investigation Seasbore Pillage Initial $tardy City of Neuport &wb AWNT MEVW',b&,w D,1arh Ltdr 1 Appendices ' This page intentionally left blank. ' 1 1 1 1 1 The Planning Center February 2008 P.iCN&IO.ftVS .6 Rm.Drwwmft I$,&, I 1 ■ M -O,:HMCAL INVOTI, , 0 CON OTO AT PRO. P.OSED. 24 .;UNIT RESIDENTIAL WCATt-b-'ATT tv , k ASE :NEWPORT MAW, O LWOR" p9 1 Ate Antkorr T�N TaW7,41-1. CA 1 9-2427 � (940,j 3014 0, C-1 ajr�IKatioti r' '01tv si; PMIOO tgo'; TS"44 jklortio boo" neat Ressinenda>�atl: ME= 4 A, M C-2 koo tit fNiifib June -1.1,3, 2007 DAVID k-,W-0 C-3 1.044AwjO9 June 13, 2007 Project No. TS474.1 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED 24 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX LOCATED AT 5515 RIVER AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA In response to your request and in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and the City of Newport Beach building requirements, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation at the subject site located at 5515 River Avenue in the City of Newport Beach, California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). The purpose of our investigation was to evaluate the existing geotechnical conditions at the subject site and provide recommendations and geotechnical parameters for site development, earthwork, and foundation design for the proposed residential construction. We were also requested to evaluate the potential for on -site geotechnical hazards. This report presents the results of our findings, as well as our conclusions and recommendations. SCOPE OF STUDY The scope of our investigation included the following tasks: • Review of readily available published and unpublished reports; • Geologic reconnaissance and mapping; • Excavation and sampling of six (6) exploratory borings to total depths of up to 10 feet below existing grade (b.g.); • .Laboratory testing of representative samples obtained from the exploratory borings; • Engineering and geologic analysis including liquefaction analysis and seismicity coefficients in accordance with the 2001 CBC; C -4 J IF I I Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations. GENERAL SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is a semi - rectangular shaped lot located at 5515 RiverAvenue in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). For the purpose of clarity in this report, the lot is bound by West Newport Park and tennis courts to the west, by River Avenue to the north, by Seashore Drive to the south, and by mufti- tenant single family dwellings to the east (see Figure 1). The subject property consists of a relatively flat, planar lot with no significant slopes on or adjacent to the site. Currently, the lot is occupied by a three -story structure, 54 -unit Apartment Complex known as the "Las Brisas Apartments ". Exterior improvements include asphalt parking areas, brick and wood fences and a common area swimming pool. The existing structures and common areas are shown in the Plot Plan, Figure 2. PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT It is our understanding that the proposed re- development shall include the construction of a new mufti - tenant residential complex including three -story single family dwellings and duplexes with attached garages. At this date, a total of 24 units are planned (12 stand- alone structures and 6 duplex structures). The proposed structures shall consist of slab -on -grade buildings with perimeter continuous footings. The proposed building layouts are shown in Figure 3, attached. We assume that the proposed buildings will consist of wood -frame and masonry block construction or building materials of similar type and load. The building foundations will consist of a combination of isolated and continuous spread footings. Loads on the footings are unknown, but are expected to be less than 2500 and 1800 pounds per square foot on the isolated and continuous footings, respectively. If actual loads exceed these assumed values, we should be contacted to evaluate whether revisions of this report are necessary. It is our understanding that the grade of the site is not expected to vary significantly, with maximum regrades consisting of approximately 2 to 3 feet in the building areas. SCHOOLERJOrent L:uw - 5515 Riwr Are.. Newport &h.. CA Project No. T$474.1 Soils Report June 13.2007 C -5 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our subsurface exploration consisted of the excavation of six (6) exploratory borings (B -1 through B -6) to a maximum depth of 10 feet below grade (b.g.). Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained for laboratory testing. Geologic logs of the soil borings are included in Appendix A, The borings were continuously logged by a registered geologistfrom our firm who obtained soil samples forgeotechnicai laboratory analysis. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2, Plot Plan. Geotechnical soil samples were obtained using a modified California sampler filled with 2 3/e Inch diameter, 1 -inch tall brass rings. Bulk samples were obtained by collecting representative bore hole cuttings. Locations of geotechnical samples and other data are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. The soils were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Classifications are shown on the boring logs included in Appendix A. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory testing was performed on representative soil samples obtained during our subsurface exploration. The following tests were performed: * Dry Density and Moisture Content (ASTM: D 2216 * Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM: D 1557 -02) * Direct Shear (ASTM D3080 -72) * Sulfate Content (CA 417) * Grain Size Distribution (ASTM D 422 -72) SCHOQLMGMnt Lane - 5515 Riwr Ave., Newport Bch, CA Project NO.'rS474.1 Soils Repon June 13,2007 C -6 FINDINGS ids eia 0untered in cur a'atl�arl s; itre # is wnd rfiairi Fey, fill arYd na ve Ate. as fokow ; a m ter n Dar #**zk or cor,#streo fjomm t* Aroo of ftopposod diekptnepi4fbecfeecFswr�as5tr +des artdsufnt�alfrftcr4i .:. S�t Q( iLEP /CFd'nt�tlt- 5�15.'F^iix!e�?Sve., Net�rt 9cfi..:Cr\ Fh51e�4NV T$d,7d,1 smis$gro�t C -10 compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM: D 1557), A copy of the Grading and Foundation Plan shall be reviewed and approved by this office prior to construction. Geotechnical Parameters The following Geotechnical parameters may used in the design of the proposed structure (also, see "Liquefaction" section, above): Foundation design Structures on property compacted fill may be supported by conventional, continuous or isolated spread footings. Footings should be a minimum of 24 inches deep by 15 inches wide for the two proposed two -story structures. At this depth; all proposed structures may be designed for an allowable bearing value of 1800 and 2500 psf (fordead- plus -live load) for continuouswall and isolated spread footings, respectively. These values may be increased by one -third for loads of short duration, including wind or seismic forces. Continuous perimeter footings should be reinforced with No. 5 rebar (two at the top and two at the bottom). These shall be considered minimum requirements and incorporated into the Foundation Plans submitted by the Structural Engineer. Concrete mix design should be based on sulfate testing with Table 19 -A4 of the 2001 CBC. Preliminary laboratory testing indicates the site soils possess negligible sulfate exposure (14 ppm, or 0.0014 %). Test Results are presented in Appendix B. New Garage Grade Beams A grade beam, reinforced .continuously with the garage footings, should be constructed across the garage entrance, tying together the ends of the garage footings. This grade beam should be embedded at the same depth as the adjacent perimeter footings. The 6 -inch thick garage slab should have a positive separation from the stem walls. The grade beam /slab edge should consist of a clean, cold joint. Settlement Utilizing the design recommendations presented herein, we anticipate that the majority of any post - grading settlement will occur during construction activities. We SCNOMER /GraM Lm - SS 15 River Ave., Newport Bob.. CA Pmjcol No. 75474.1 Soils Report Jmc 13,2007 10 C -12 estimate that the total settlement for the proposed structure will be on the order of 1 inch. Differential settlement is not expected to exceed %z inch in 30 feet. These settlement values are expected to be within tolerable limits for properly designed and constructed foundations. Lateral Load Resistance Footings founded in fill materials may be designed for a passive lateral bearing pressure of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. A coefficient of friction against sliding between concrete and soil of 0.35 may be assumed. Slabs -on -grade Concrete slabs cast against properly compacted fill materials shall be a minimum of 6 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 rebar at 12 inches on center in both directions. The slabs shall be doweled into the footings using No. 4 bars at 24 inches on center. The reinforcement shall be supported on chairs to insure positioning of the reinforcement at mid - center in the slab. Interior slabs shall be underlain by 2 inches of sand over a 10 mil visqueen moisture barrier, with all laps sealed, over 4 inches of very low or non- expansive materials: The site soils consist of granular beach sands and are considered non - expansive. Exterior slabs shall conform to the requirements for inter €or slabs except that the moisture barrier may be omitted and the slab thickness may be reduced to 4 inches and reinforced with welded wire mesh placed at mid- one -third height. Some slab cracking due to shrinkage should be anticipated. The potential for the slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of water /cement ratios. The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring of concrete in hot weather to minimize cracking of slabs. We recommend that a slipsheet (or equivalent) be utilized if crack- sensitive flooring is planned directly on concrete slabs. All slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations. Retaining Wall Design The following equivalent fluid pressures may be used in the design of site retaining walls assuming a free draining (clean sand or gravel) material is utilized as backfill. Active Pressures 40 PCF At -Rest Pressures 60 PCF Passive Pressures 300 PCF Coefficient of Friction 0.35 SCHOOLER/Omnt L=o - 5515 Rim Ave., Newport lick, CA Projea No.rS474.1 Soils Report June 13,2007 11 C -13 The active earth pressure value provided may be used for cantilevered retaining walls. Restrained retaining walls such as basement walls, that not free to rotate at top, should be designed using the at -rest earth pressures value. Depending on whether the wall is restrained (rigid) or unrestrained (free to deflect), an additional uniform lateral pressure equal to 50 or 33 percent, respectively, of the anticipated maximum surcharge load located within a distance equal to the height of the wall should be used in design. The retaining walls shall be provided with water proofing in accordance with the architects recommendations and be free draining. Back drains and weepholes shall be installed to collect and divert migrating groundwater. As a minimum, the wall may be drained by placing a 4 -inch diameter pipe perforated (faced down) PVC Schedule 40 pipe or approved equivalent, located behind the base of the wall. The pipe shall be covered by 3/4 inch crushed rock at a rate of not less than 2 sq. ft. per linear ft. of pipe surrounded in turn by geofabric such as Supac 4NP or equivalent. All wall backfill shall be compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with ASTM D- 1557 -78. Wall back drains shall outlet separately and not be combined with area drains. This office shall be contacted to provide additional recommendations if actual conditions are different than those assumed above. During construction, drainage devices shall be inspected by a representative of EGA Consultants. A/C Pavement Subbase Asphaltic concrete (AC) and Class 11 rock base should conform to, and be placed in accordance with the latest revision of the California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications. Pavement sections must be based on 'R' -Value tests using appropriate traffic indices or comply with Section 12.5 contained in the Orange County Grading Manual. We assume that Class 11 base with a minimum R -value of 78 will be used. RECOMMENDED MINIMUM DESIGN SECTIONS LOCATION DESIGN ASPHALTIC CLASS 11 TRAFFIC INDEX CONCRETE AGGREGATE BASE Car Traffic, 4.0 -5.0 3.5" 4.0" Parking Areas Heavy 5.0 -6.0 3.5" 6.0" Truck Traffic Aisles Trash 5.0 -6.0 6.0" 4.9' Pads (Concrete) SCHOOLER/Gmal Lane.5515 River Ave, Newport ecK, CA Project No. TS474.1 Soils Report June 13,2007 12 C -14 J I ' The minimum section of 6 inches concrete over 6 inches Class II Base Material applies to the site approaches. If off -site (surrounding roadways) work is anticipated, the Minimum Design Section shall conform with either the City or Caltrans specifications, depending on jurisdiction. Prior to placing pavement sections, the subbase soil should have a ' relative compaction of at least 90 percent, based on ASTM: D 1557. We also recommend that the base course be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM: D 1557). ' If pavement areas are planned adjacent to landscaped areas, we recommend that the amount of irrigation be kept to a minimum to reduce the possible adverse effects of water on pavement subgrade. Continuous sections of rigid concrete pavement should be constructed in an approximately 12 foot or less grid system. All longitudinal or ' transverse control joints should be constructed by saw - cutting, hand forming, or placing a pre- molded filler such as zip strips. Expansion joints should be used to isolate fixed objects abutting within the pavement area. ' Joints should run continuously and extend through integral curbs and thickened edges. We recommend that joint layout be adjusted to coincide with the corner of objects and structures. Surface Drainage Surface drainage shall be controlled at all times. Positive surface drainage ' should be provided to direct surface water away from structures and toward the street or suitable drainage facilities. Ponding of water should be avoided adjacent to the structures. Recommended minimum gradient is 2 percent for unpaved areas and one percent for concrete /paved areas. Roof gutter discharge should be directed away from the building areas through solid PVC pipes to suitable discharge points. Area drains should ' be provided for planter areas and drainage shall be directed away from the top of slopes, PRE - CONSTRUCTION MEETING I I I It is recommended that no clearing of the site or any grading operation be performed without the presence of a representative of this office. An on site pre - grading meeting should be arranged between the soils engineer and the grading contractor prior to any construction. SCHOOLF.Mrant Lano - 5515 Rim Ave., Newpm Each, CA Noj=NO. TS474.1 Soits Report Jun 13,2007 13 C -15 LIMITATIONS The geotechnical services described herein have been conducted In a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the geotechnical engineering profession practicing contemporaneously under similar conditions in the subject locality. Under no circumstance Is any warranty, expressed or implied, made in connection with 'the providing of services described herein. Data, interpretations, and recommendations presented herein are based solely on information available to this office at the time work was performed. EGA Consultants will not be responsible for other parties' interpretations or use of the information developed in this report. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of EGA Consultants. We recommend that all foundation excavations and grading operations be observed by a representative of this firm to ensure that construction is performed in accordance with the specifications outlined in this report. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of others. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. SO 10OLER/Crant Lane - 5515 River Ave, Newport Ddr., CA Projecl No. TS474.1 Soils Report June 17.2007 14 C -16 71 I I I I Cl I 1 1 REFERENCES "USGS Topographic Map, 7.5 minute quadrangle, Newport Beach, California Quadrangle," dated 1965, Photorevised 1981. 2. "Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet," Compilation by Thomas H. Rogers, 1965, fifth printing 1985. 3. "Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California," by Roger W. Reensfeider, dated 1974. 4. "Earthquake Hazards Associated with Faults in the Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan Area, Los Angeles County, California, Including Faults in the Santa Monica- Raymond, Verdugo -Eagle Rock, and Benedict Canyon Fault Zones, DMG Open -file Report 79 -16," published by the California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, dated 1979. Maps of Known Active Fault Near- Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada," prepared by California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, published by International Conference of Building Officials, dated February, 1998. 6. "Equations for Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A Summary of Recent Work: Seismological Research Letters," Volume 68, No. 1, by Boore, Joyner, and Fumal, dated 1997. SCHOOLERlOwnt Lane -5515 Rivcr Avc., Ncwpoa Bch., CA Pmjcci No. TS474.1 Soils Rcpon Jnm 13.2007 15 C -17 I $41 S„ i�� ��• ". 6 IX� +^ks�.tq }� h� ii. L all EGA consultants "giruesing Zwwhnical appNeanans I�S+AL.tiM .w•�, �f, -�. 1 Sif�' �NY.. .. ��•�!:� COAST HWY yy T YtlgS�uiN� � x � y �. •� 9{ r SITE LOCATION MAP 5515 RIVER AVE NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA C -18 0 Y Project No: TS474.1 Date: JUNE 2007 Figure No: 1 ry .j' nww R1i•,1F.R AVr. p "' �y u m _ — 84* a- h -- .*-- .._ —..- `�, t asq [w .. ,.v3. ,vCP �r�r4E nti�E. . '� wa .en II` .e .• m.� j.laa.W .ran. 1w D44; 1 � e.6 . ��+� •N.r � A I� 111114 N:3 n. wndnu 0S Op Re. avm g . fYY /uMN, Z,,,a,, ,,,K SEASHORE OR. 1now .au r B .. by EQA CONSULTANTS EGA PLOT PLAN consultants 5515 RIVER AVENUE engtneeringgeorechnica !applications NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA Project No: TS 4.1 Date: JUNE 2007 Figure No: g_ III I i 1 s TOPOGRAPTDC i4l!P 55f5 NIVER Avf. NEHa'0.47 8G cN cn. j yaM fGU19MM tll, 4Ae {[ KVMfs..o+r r.a� a ""11 ii WYww! wMl � MNi OR � ..T m == m= m s m m m= m m m == m m m 1 ' Appendices ' Appendix D. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Seashore Village initial Stu4 City of Newport &,wh ' P.'WNB- raoeusu,3 Ra"&*0* IS.& Appendices This page intention! IeR bank 0 The Planning Center February 2008 P.Iao -lo OMras a., O.D J{Uor%mA, I' 1 PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT ' Las Brisas Aparhments 5515 Rber Avenue ' Newport Beach, Cal oraia 1 Shaw Fr*cfNa 12994 &01 ' January 4, 2008 Prepared for: Todd Schooler & Associates 301 E. 17th Street, Suite 204 ' Costa Mesa, CA 92627 ' Prepared by: ' 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 200 3rvine, California 92612 ,. D -1 Las Brisas Aparftents Shaw Project Na. 129968.01 January 4, 2008 Prepared for: Todd Schooler & Associates 301 E. 17th Street, Suite 204 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Preparer: 'I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belie[ that I meet the definition of, or have otherwise prepared this document under the direct supervision of an individual that meets the definition of Environmental Professional as defined in 312.10 of 40 CFR 312, and I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the subject property. For. Greg Enos ' Environmental Technician Reviewer: I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of environmental professional as defined in §312.10 of 40 CFR Part 312, and I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, ' and setting of the subject property. I have developed and performed the all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312 Ramil G. Reyes, REA , Project Manager 1 Eg ' Phase l Environmental Site Assessment Report II 5515 River Ave.. NeMmt Beach, CA January 4, 2008 ' Table of Contents ' 1.0 Executive Summary ..............................................................................._........................ ............................1 -1 2.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... ............................2 -1 2.1 Detailed Scope of Services ..................................................................................... ............................2 -1 ' 22 Significant Assumptions ........................ .............................................................................................. 2 -2 23 Limitations and Exceptions ..................................................................................... ............................2 -2 ' 3.0 Property Description ......................................................... _ ......................................................................... 3 -1 3.1 Property Location .................................................................................................... ............................3 -1 3.2 Property Description ................................ ........................................................................................... 3 -1 3.3 Environmental Setting of Property .......................................................................... ............................3 -2 4.0 User Provided Information ....................... ...... ................................ _ ............... ............... _ ............... ........ 4 -1 ' 5.0 Records Review ...................................................... _ ......................................................................... 5.1 Standard Environmental Records Sources ............................................................. ............................5 _ ........ 5.1 -1 52 History ..................................................................................................................... ............................5 -1 521 Summary of Property History ................................................................... ............................5 -1 ' 52.2 Aerial Photographs .................... ........................................................................................... 5 -2 52.3 City Directories ......................................................................................... ............................5 -2 ' 5.2.4 Building Department Records ................................................................... ............................5 -3 525 Historical Fire Insurance Maps ................................................................. ............................5 -4 526 Other Historical Sources ........................................................................... ............................5 -4 527 Previous Environmental Reports .............................................................. ............................5 -4 6.0 Site Reconnaissance ........................................................ _ ................ ...................................... _ ................ 6.1 ' 6.1 Methodology ........................................................................................................... ............................6.1 62 Site Reconnaissance Observations ........................................................................ ............................6.1 621 Interior Observations ................................................................................ ............................6.1 62.2 Exterior Observations ............................................................................... ............................6 -2 623 Underground Storage Tanks .................................................................... ............................6 -3 62A Aboveground Storage Tanks .................................................................... ............................6.3 ' 7.0 Interviews ....................... ............ ......... ...... ...... _ ............................................... _ ......... --- ... _ ... ......_._....._.7 -1 7.1 Interview with Owner/Owner's Representative/Property Manager .......................... ............................7 -1 72 Local Government Officials ..................................................................................... ............................7 -2 ' 72.1 Orange County Health Care Agency, Environmental Health .................... ............................7 -2 72.2 California Regional Water Quality Control Board ..................................... ............................7 -2 ' 723 City of Newport Beach Zoning Department .............................................. ............................7 72A Newport Beach Fire Department .............................................................. ............................7 -2 -2 8.0 Other Environmental Considerations ............................................................... _ ... ---- .......................... 8.1 ' 9.0 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions.. ........ ............. ......... ............... ....................... ..... 9-1 10.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ........ ................. .... ..................................... ...................... --- .. ...... 10 -1 ' D -3 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report 5515 River Ave.. Newport Beach, CA 11.0 Opinions ........................... iii January 4, 2008 ............11 -1 Appendices A. Qualifications of Environmental Professionals B. Figures C. Photographs D. Environmental Regulatory Agency Database Report E. Historical Sources F. Statement of Limitations G. Photocopies of Selected Environmental Records D -4 L 1 1 Phase I Environmental Ste Assessment Report 5515 River Ave.. Newport Beach. CA Acronyms and Abbreviations AST AUL bgs CERCLA CERCLIS CESQG CERCLIS -NFRAP CFR CORRACTS CSM DOT 1 1 iv January 4.2008 Aboveground Storage Tank Activity and Use Limitation Below Ground Surface Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator CERCLIS- No Further Remedial Action Planned Code of Federal Regulations Corrective Action Site Certified Survey Map U.S. Department of Transportation Emergency Response Notification System U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Site Assessment Large Quantity Generator Leaking Underground Storage Tank No Further Remedial Action Planned National Priority List Natural Resource Conservation Service Recognized Environmental Condition Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System RCRIS- Corrective Action Soil Conservation Service Shaw Environmental, Inc. State Hazardous Waste Site Small Quantity Generator Solid Waste Facility/Landfill Facility Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facility United States Department of Agriculture United States Geologic Survey Underground Storage Tank ' D -5 ERNS EPA ' ESA LOG ' LUST NFRAP NPL ' NRCS REC RCRA ' RCRIS CORRACTS SCS ' Shaw SHWS ' SQG SWF/LF TSDF ' USDA USGS UST 1 1 iv January 4.2008 Aboveground Storage Tank Activity and Use Limitation Below Ground Surface Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator CERCLIS- No Further Remedial Action Planned Code of Federal Regulations Corrective Action Site Certified Survey Map U.S. Department of Transportation Emergency Response Notification System U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Site Assessment Large Quantity Generator Leaking Underground Storage Tank No Further Remedial Action Planned National Priority List Natural Resource Conservation Service Recognized Environmental Condition Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System RCRIS- Corrective Action Soil Conservation Service Shaw Environmental, Inc. State Hazardous Waste Site Small Quantity Generator Solid Waste Facility/Landfill Facility Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facility United States Department of Agriculture United States Geologic Survey Underground Storage Tank ' D -5 Phase I Enviranmental Ue Assessment Report 5515 River Ave.. Newport Beach, CA 1.0 Executive Summary u 1 'January 4, 2000 8 1 Shaw Environmental, Inc. (Shaw) is pleased to present this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I , ESA) prepared for Todd Schooler & Associates (TSA). Cited below is an overview of the project, including a summary of our significant findings: Las Brisas Apartments 5515 River Avenue, Newport Beach, California (Subject Property) Parcel No. 424 -471 -03 (Orange County Tax Assessor's Office) Todd Schooler & Associates The subject property is a candidate site for acquisition and redevelopment The purpose of the ESA is to identify, to the extent feasible, recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property. The term "recognized environmental conditions," as defined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM, 2005), means the "presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the groundwater, ground, or surface water of the property." December 12, 2007 January 4, 2008 December 14, 2007 The Subject Property, reported to be approximately 1.49 apes of land located at 5515 River Avenue in the City of Newport Beach, is developed with an approximately 64,885 square foot three -story, 54- unit apartment complex structure. The majority of the general area of the Subject Property is comprised of residential properties with the exception of a city park located west and northwest The interior consists of eight (8) studios, thirty-two (32) one - bedroom .units, and fourteen (14) two-bedroom units, and also includes an office, mailroom, laundry room, janitor's room, maintenance room, and RM. Phase f £nhmnmentat Sde Assessment Repot 5515 River Ave.. N"W Beach. CA 1 -2 January 4. 2008 exercise room. `fhe exterior consists of a fenced swimming pool, carpotts and asphalt -paved parking and drive access areas. Undefgtound utilities consisting of cable, electrical, and gas, water meter, power poles, stomt drain, ventilation shafts, and fire hydrant were noted along the northern and southern boundaries of the Subject Property. Wood fencing was noted along the southern and eastern boundaries- Chain link fencing was noted along the western boundary. 54 -unit apartment complex Prior to 1967 Vacant undeveloped land 1963-19,71 Vacant lot 1972 — present Apartment complex fs: sr xv,>Kr 7en _.. .rg `� 1 the Subject Property. D -7 -1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report 3 ' 5515 River Ave., Newport Beach, CA January 4, 2088 Shaw has performed a Phase I ESA in confonnance with the scope and limitations presented in Section 2.0 of this document of the Las Brisas Apartments property located at 5515 River Avenue, Newport Beach, Orange County, California (Subject Property). Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described in Section 2.0 of this report. • This assessment has revealed no evidence of recoiznized environmental conditions (RECs) in connection with the Subject Property. No further environmental assessment of the Subject Property is warranted at this time. . In addition to an evaluation of RECs, Shaw evaluated selected other "environmental business risks" as discussed in Section 8.0. This assessment has revealed evidence of the following "environmental business risks" in connection with the Subject Property: • Based on a review of an Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) Report conducted by Environmental Monitoring Group (EMG) dated March 28, 2007, ACM was detected in 17 of the 44 samples analyzed from the building located on the Subject Property. Shaw found no evidence of testing for lead -based paint (LBP) on the Subject Property. Since redevelopment of the Subject Property is planned, demolition of the buildings should be accomplished in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations, which may require that a lead -based paint survey be performed prior to demolition. In addition, abatement of all ACM detected within structure should be accomplished by a registered, licensed, and certified asbestos abatement contractor prior to any demolition activities. The results of the environmental assessment of the Subject Property have not revealed the presence of any recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Subject Property. 9W 1 1 i 1 1J Phase I Environmental Sae Azrseasment Repot 5515 RWrAve., New Beach, CA 2 -1 RBSwnk5 of the Environmental Professionals perf Appendix A orming the work described in this report are included in rr 21 Detailed Scope of Services 1. The scope of services was to prepare a Phase I ESA in accordance with the standards established by the Ameacan Society for Testing and Materials. (ASTM) for Phaso I Environmental Site Aali s established by he commercial real estate (ASTM:Dc"gnat" E 1527 -05); and Environmental protection Agency (EPA) Ao CFR fart 312, Standards and practices for All Appropriate Inquiry (AAf); Final Rule, November 1, 2005_ The project included the following five tasks; • assess v "historical ing infotion, i�luding aerial photographs, topographic maps, previous envircuum tat. ' assessments, and zoning infomrafion. ' Review of environmental databases and files or information obtained from federal, state, or [Deal regulatory agencies. I• Interviews with owners/operators, site contacts, or managers of the site. • Visual inspection of the property, which included photographs of the site and noting adjacent property uses I and conditions. ' Preparation of report. 1 �I a D -9 Phase I Envirmmenlal Site Assessment Report 5515 River Ave., Newport Beach, CA 2.2 Significant Assumptions The following assumptions have been made: 2 -2 January 4, 2008 • Conditions observed during the site reconnaissance are reasonably representative of conditions at other times. • Interview information is truthful and reliable. • Information provided by the public records database vendor is accurate. • Historical property use evidenced by historical records remained substantially unchanged during periods for which no records arc available. 2.3 Limitations and ExcepSons Report Litnitaliom are presented in Appendix F of this report. D -10 f ' Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report 3-1 5515 River Ave.. Newport Beach. CA Jwuary 4.2008 ' 3.0 Property Description ' 3.1 Property Location - Las Brisas Apartments ' 5515 River Avenue, Newport Beach, California (Subject Property) Parcel No. 424 - 471 -03 (Orange County Tax Assessor's ' Office) Figure I in Appendix B presents a Property Location Map showing the location of the Property and the general vicinity. ' 3.2 Property Description 1 Approximately 1.49 acres 97% 54 -unit apartment complex D -11 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report 5515 River Ave„ Newport Beach, CA I January 4, 2008 , The Subject Property is developed with an approximately 64,885 square foot three -story 54 -unit apartment complex and associated facilities constructed of wood framing on a cement slab foundation. The remainder of the Property consists of a swimming pool, carports, and asphalt -paved parking and drive access areas. Underground utilities are present onsile. The Subject Property is bounded by Seashore Drive to the south, residential properties to the east, West Newport Park to the west, and River Avenue to the north. Primary access to the Subject Property can be gained off of a driveway along River Avenue. River Avenue followed by residential Seashore Drive followed by residential properties and Pacific Ocean Residential West Newport Park 1 1 1 11 Figure 2 in Appendix B presents a not -lo -scale site plan of the Subject Property. Property photographs are provided ' in Appendix C. 3.3 Environmental Setting of Property The Subject Property's elevation is approximately 12 feet above mean sea level according to the United Stales Geological Survey's (USGS) "33117 -E8 Newport Beach, California" topographic quadrangle (1981), which provides coverage of the Property. The Subject Property and surrounding area has a generally Bat topography; however, the referenced lopogmphic map also indicates that the topography in the regional area slopes towards the general west - southwest. The Subject Property is underlain by a thin mantle of residual soils and/or engineered fill. The shallow soil layer is underlain by Quatemary-age terrace marine deposits which are described as clean beach sands_ Regionally, the Subject Property is located within the western boundary of the Coastal Plain of Orange County. According to the EDR Geocheck report, which provides information from the U.S. Department of Agricultural's (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS), the soil in the area of the Subject Property has a" sand" soil surface texture. Specifically, the soil profile in the area of the Subject Property is identified as consisting of sand to a depth of 6 inches; underlain by coarse sand to a depth of 60 inches. The sand and coarse sand are generally made up course- grained soils, sands, clean sands, and poorly graded sands. The soil component name for the area of the Subject Property is listed as °BEACHES°. D -12 1 11 1] 1 ' Phase I Emironmental Sit. Assessment Repoli 3� 5515 River Ave., Newport Beach. CA January 4, 2008 1 1 1 I The hydrologic group of the soil composition in the area of the Subject Property is identified as "Class D ", which has very slow infiltration rates. Soils are clayey, have a high water table, or are shallow to an impervious layer. The soil drainage class is listed as "poorly drained ", which indicates that the soils may have a saturated zone, a layer of low conductivity, or seepage with the depth to water table being less than one foot. Additionally, the soil does meet the requirements for a hydric soil and the corrosion potential is listed as high. The Pacific Ocean lies approximately 1/8 -mile south of the Subject Property. Groundwater flow is generally directed towards the ocean- Surface water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams can locally influence groundwater flow direction in the area. Based on a review of a Gcotechnical Investigation Report conducted by EGA Consultants dated June 13, 2007, the depth to groundwater was measured at depth of approximately six to eight feet below ground surface (bgs). The groundwater flow direction at the Subject Property is interpreted to be directed towards the west - southwest, consistent with the regional topographic surface gradient as groundwater flow direction often follows surficial topography_ However, local gradient could also be influenced by any nearby production wells and/or localized topographic features. The actual groundwater flow direction may vary, and cannot be determined without an actual subsurface investigation. There are no state - registered or Federal USGS wells located on the Subject Property or in its immediate vicinity- According ,rill@ + °•r5 "`511��5 err• DR overview rr which orr ran. s: from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Subject Property lies z °3v within a 500-year flood zone. does pose or - : r' Subject Property but \ r be noted .t r 1 • future redevelopment Unless otherwise stated, groundwater gradient was estimated based on Property and regional topography and surface features such as streams, lakes, and wetlands. Sources of this information include: • United Stated Geologic Survey (USGS ) Topographic Map, 33117 -E8 Newport Beach, California, 1981 • EDR Radius Map with GeoChecW, Inquiry Number. 20999232s, December 12, 2007 • United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service D -13 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report 34 , 5515 River Ave., Newport Beach, CA January 4, 2008 • California Division of Mines and Geology ' • Geotechnical Investigation Report, 5515 River Avenue, Newport Beach, CA, EGA Consultants L.L.C, June 13,2007 D -14 1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report _ 4 -1 ' 5515 River Ave.. Newport Beach, CA January 4, 2006 1 4.0 User Provided Information Information reviewed as part of this investigation and as provided by the User did not reveal evidence of any such lien. A copy of the Environmental Lien Search Report as provided by EDR is included in Appendix G. Information reviewed as part of this investigation and as provided by the User did not reveal evidence of any activity or use limitations, such as deed restrictions, engineering controls or institutional controls that have been placed on the Property or that have been filed or recorded in a registry. ii' '� No property plans provided by User;.property identified as "apartments" by F User User provided the following previous reports: • Geotechnical Investigation Report conducted by EGA Consultants (EGA) dated June 13, 2007 • Asbestos Containing - Materials Report conducted by Environmental Monitoring Group (EMG) dated March 29, 2007 The review of these reports revealed no current recognized environmental conditions associated with the Subject Property as it relates to a Phase I ESA. No specialized knowledge regarding the Subject Property has been communicated to Shaw. Shaw discovered no valuation reduction for environmental issues regarding the Subject Property. Appendix G contains copies of selected environmental records. D -15 Phase I Gr iiamedal Site Assessment Report 5515 River Ave.. Newport Beach, CA 5 0 Records Review 51 Standard Environmental Records Sources I 5-1 'January 4, 20013 The regulatory agency database was obtained from Environmental Data Resources (EDR). A complete copy of the database report, including the date the report was prepared, the date the information was last updated, and the definition of databases searched, is provided in Appendix D. Research into environmental regulatory agency database listings was performed by Environmental Data Resources (EDR). The purpose of the review was to identify reported environmental issues for the Property and other properties in the vicinity. The definition of the databases searched and the associated search distances from the Properly are identified in the regulatory agency database search report. Shaw reviews the results of the database search report to note reported release sites in the vicinity of the Property that were considered to have a potential to have adversely impacted the Property (ie., are ]mown to have or are expected to result in recognized environmental conditions). Reported release sites identified in the regulatory agency database search report were evaluated with respect to the nature and extent of a given release, the distance of the reported release site from the Property, the stratigraphy of soils, the expected soil permeability, and the topographic position of a reported release site with respect to known or expected local and/or regional groundwater flow direction. Generally, reported release sites located within Y. -mile upgradient or Va -mile cross- gradient or adjacent downgrsdient are considered to have a potential to have impacted the Properly. Sites that were listed in the database search report, but not identified as a release site, and sites that were fisted as being "closed" were not considered to have a potential to have impacted the Property. The Subject Property was not identified in any of the databases searched by EDR. Additionally, based on the above criteria, none of the listed surrounding sites in the database report represents a :potential recognized environmental condition to the Subject Property due to their regulatory status and/or presumed cross to down gradient position. 5.2 History Historical documents (i.e., aerial photographs, fire insurance maps, topographic maps, city directories), reviewed for this report are included in Appendix E and were provided by EDR- 5 21 Summary of Property History D-16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 phase I Environmenial5de Assessment Report 5 -2 January 4, 2006 5516 River Ave.. Newport Reach, CA 5.22 Aerial Photographs ubject Property and surrounding area were obtained from EDR. The Historical aerial Photographs of the S photographs were reviewed for indications of previous uses of the Subject Property and surrounding area. No potential environmental concerns were noted in the research of historical aerial photographs. 1927 I' =500 The Subject Property appears to be vacant undeveloped land. The majority of the vicinity is also undeveloped. Pacific Coast Highway appears to the north and the Pacific Ocean is present to the south. No significant changes from previous photograph with the exception of new 1938 i" =555' development to the south along the coastline and farther east. residential 1 °=666 No significant changes from previous photograph. 1947 1"=555' No significant changes from previous photograph with the exception of an 1953 increase in residential development to the south along the coastline and northwest and farther east. 1968 1'=480' The Subject Property appears as a vacant lot. A significant increase in residential development and road improvements is noted farther northwest, west, south, and east. 1' =ti66' The Subject Property appears with the existing apartment building. 1977 Residential development surrounds the Subject Property with the exception of a vacant parcel to the adjacent west. New residential and commercial properties are noted to the farther northwest. I ° =666' The Subject Property and surrounding areas appear the same as the previous 1990 photograph with the exception of the adjacent property to the west which is now occupied . by the existing park and tennis courts. 1994 1" =666' No significant changes from previous photograph. No significant changes from previous photograpb. 2002 1" =666' 5.2.3 City Directories Shaw reviewed information for the Subject Property and surrounding properties from various city directory sources that EDA provided fat 1820 through 2002. The city directory search was performed based on the address for the u[ rounding properties at multiple Subject Property (5515 River Avenue). The review also searched for adjoiaing/s adjacent addresses. The Subject Property was not listed unfit 1975 when multiple residential listings were identified. No potential ertvironmeatal concerns were noted in the research of city directory information. 1920 -1945 Subject Property: Not listed in Research Source Surrounding Area: Not listed in Research Source D-17 Phase 1 EMMemental Ste Aasessmaet%Vcst 5515 River Ave., Newport Beach, CA 5-3 January 4,2008 1946 Subject Property: Not listed in Research Source . Surrounding Area: Residential listings 1950 Subject Property: Not listed in Research Source - Surrounding Area: Residential listings, Macoil COT. Oil Producers (5800 Coast Highway) 1955 Subject Property: Not listed in Research Source Surrounding Area: Residential listings 1966 Subject Property: Not listed in Research Source Surrounding Area: Residential listings 1975 Subject Property: Individual apartment unit residential listings (5515 River Avenue) - Surrounding Area: Residential listings, Armstrong Petroleum Corp, General Crude Oil Company (5800 W. Coast Highway), Davidson Realty (5801 W. Coast Highway), Banner Carpets and Drapes (5708 Seashore Drive), Barton A. Kubela DDS (5316 River Avenue), Gibson Building & Construction (55 16 River Avenue) 1980 Subject Property: Individual apartment unit residential listings (5515 River Avenue) Surrounding Area: Residential listings, Armstrong Petroleum Inc. (5800 W. Coast Highway), Jacco Photography (5301 Seashore Drive) - 1986 Subject Property: Individual apartment unit residential listings (5515 River Avenue) Surrounding Area: Residential listings -- 1991 - Subject Property_ Individual apartment unit residential listings (5515 River Avenue) Surrounding Area: Residential listings - 1995 Subject Property: Residential listings (5515 River Avenue) Surrounding Area: Residential listings, Bodles Glass Service (5722 W. Coast Highway), Show Time Limousine (5208 Seashore Drive), Bullard Realty Inc. (5300 Seashore Drive), Lazarra's Salon Extraorditudre (5303 Seashore Drive), 2002 Subject Property: Individual apartment unit residential listings (5515 River Avenue) Surrounding Area: Residential listings, Lincoln Brokerage (5501 Seashore Drive), 5,24 Building Department Records Review of Building Department Records was not necessary to evaluate poteattal historical threats to the Subject Property or Properly use. Nevertheless, a search of available information on the Subject Property from the City of Newport Beach Department of Community Development revealed several permits associated with electrical, plumbing, fire alarms inspections, building repair, nou- building repair, and re- roofing purposes. No open Cases. .open permits, or code enforcement violations for the Subject Property were found According to the permits on .record at the City of Newport Beach Department of Community Development, the building located at the Subject Property (5515 River Avenue) was constructed in approximately 1972- MW 1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report 5515 River Ave.. Newpoit Beach. CA January 4.2008 5.2.5 Historical Fire Insurance Maps Historical fire insurance (Sanbornm) maps of the Subject Property and surrounding area were researched, but were found to be unavailable. There is no coverage for the Subject Property or the surrounding areas. 5.2.6 Other Historical Sources A review of historical topographic maps of the Subject Property and surrounding area dated 1901, 1902, 1951, 1965, 1972 and 1981, which were obtained from EDR, revealed that the Subject Property is shown at an elevation of approximately 12 feet above mean sea level. The Subject Property was not clearly depicted on the 1901 and 1902 maps as the majority of the area appears undeveloped. The map from 1951 shows no development on the Subject Property with residential development located along the coastline and farther east, southeast, and north. An oil field with numerous oil and gas wells is depicted farther north - northwest of the Subject Property across Pacific Coast Highway. The maps from 1965, 1972, and 1981 show that the area of the Subject Property is developed although no structures are depicted on the Subject Property. The vicinity is characterized by a mixture residential and commercial development with new road improvements noted. A sewage disposal plant was noted farther west - northwest. There were no other sources of historical information reviewed during this assessment. ' E27 Previous Environmental Reports Shaw reviewed an Asbestos Containing - Materials Report conducted by EMG dated March 28, 2007. The report findings and conclusions are presented as follows: The asbestos containing- materials (ACM) that were discovered are found to be in good condition and do not appear to pose an exposures hazard at this time. However; if future damage occurs, action must be taken as recommended. • The ACM listed in the "Table of ACM" shall be removed and disposed of prior to any demolition ' work in the building. All removal, disposal and handling of these asbestos containing - materials shall be in accordance with Federal, State and Local agency ordinances, laws and regulations. The disposal of the ACM less than one - percent is designated as general construction waste. Shaw reviewed a Geotechnical Investigation for the Subject Property conducted by EGA dated June 13, 2007_ The ireport findings and conclusions are presented as follows: • Based on the geotechnical study of the Subject Property, review of available reports and literature and experience, it was EGA's opinion that the proposed construction at the Site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. There appear: to be no significant geotechnical constraints on -site that cannot ' be mitigated by proper planning, design, and utilization of sound construction practices. The engineering properties of the soil and native materials, and the surface drainage offer favorable conditions for construction of the proposed multi- tenant residential development. I I ' D -19 Ptw I Environme W Site Assessment Report 5515 River Ave., Newport Beach. CA 6.0 Site Reconnaissance 6 -1 January, M The objective of the site reconnaissance was to obtain information indicating the presence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Property. 6.1 Methodology Shaw utilized the following methodology to observe the Property, as applicable: • Traverse the outer Property boundary 0 Traverse transects across the Property • Traverse the periphery of all structures on the Property • Visually assess accessible interior common areas; operations, maintenance, and repair areas: utility areas; and a representative sample of occupant spaces 6.2 Site Reconnaissance Observations 6.2.1 Interior Observations Shaw noted the following interior observations during the reconnaissance of the Subject Property: Electric — Southern California Edison City of Newport Beach City of Newport Beach Southem California Edison Approximately five - gallon container of gasoline for landscape equipment; approximately fifteen- gallon container ofpaim; two - gallon container of mmatic acid; two-gallon container of chlorine; five quart containers of motor oil; and various size containers of multi- purpose cleaners and several spray paints were observed in maintenance room. These materials were observed to be properly stored and are not considered a REC to the Property. None observed None observed D -20 I Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report 5575 River Ave., Newport Reach, CA None observed ss January 4, 2000 So=Shaw observed one pad - mounted transformer on the eastem side of the subject building. The -transformer appeared to be in good condition with no evidence of leaks or releases. I= The visual inspection revealed no evidence of wetlands on the Subject Property or visible portions of immediately adjacent properties. During the site walk, no plant, animals, or vegetative species recognizable as wetland species or species associated with wetlands was observed. None 6.2.3 Underground Storage Tanks Type of UST (Existing or Former) Number of USTs, Contents, Capacity REC (Yes or No) Rationale for it being a REC Existing USTs None N/A NIA Former USTs None NIA NIA NOTE: Shaw's assessment of USTs Included Interviews with the Property Owner/Operator and visuafyapparent observations including repairs to pavement, vent pipes, ancillary equipment, and fdl ports; as well as a reviewofreadily ascertainable records relating to current and historicat heating fuel sources and local and state records. 6.2.4 Aboveground Storage Tanks Type of AST (Existing or Former) Number of ASTs, Contents, Capacity REC (Yes or No) Rationale for it being a REC Existing ASTs None N/A N/A Former ASTs None NIA NIA NOTE Shaw's assessment of ASTs included interviews with the Property Owner/Opendorand vfsuafy apparent observations including - repairs to pavement lank pads and andgery equipment, and spilt containment berms,' as wed as a review ofreedily ascertainable records relating to cement and historical heating fuel sources and beat and state records. D -22 phase 1 Environmental Sae Assessment ROW 5515 River Ave_ NeMOF11" h, GA 7.0 Interviews 7 -1 bnuary 4.2008 7.1 interview with Owner /Owner's Representa&&PrOPOOY Manager ngkas Wang, were manager, Sally Frattarole, and POPOV owner, �o ��� &� ate As part of this assessment, the pr °Pe of Their responses to the intervie 4 of�eSubject interviewed regardmg their knowledge of the Subject properly the best of their personal knowledge summarized below. All of the below questions were answered to property- m 1. Has an environmental assessment anarn report ever tmen completed for the facility? 2 Have areas of the faritity that contain her ever been flooded? 3. Has the tacaity eve_ bean Ile ma8ad by err could cause wntamination? 4. Has the location for the fscifity ever bean I ourDbses Pda to its curra use_ nt J? m hazardous west,, in on, or under the PmPam r S. Has the facilty ever had any ea at may have released PCBs capaottors. or hydraulic equipm ui m over tested or oil to the environment? (If YE8. was dra e9 P att on the properly aver _evealad possaae C,nWmma °�.., analytical test data. 8. Oo any Photographs. geophysk,*' raPortG. andlor air sampling data eudst that indicate the Pombta Presence of hazardous materials andtor waste in Unwarranted or uuexpeded areas of the tacdw? wntaInment areas. 4. Has the facility ever had gquWfs1udga V surface impoundments, wilection Ponds, and/or lagoons? battedes at the r r„dste ma+RdaVs. flres.Or autom 12- Have ash andfor wmbushon residuals been disP the facaitlr? 13. Have any underground storage tanks been rem, abando+lity? � 14. Has any Gonwn....a - __.. - ranediated at the facility wlthout oversight by an aPProPnate 15. Have tram uee., n� o° - - or materiats? may have caused a release of bazardous w? �� D -23 7 -2 4hasalF nmonmenimrAe Assessment Raw .lamlary 0,2008 5515 Rivet Ave.. HZwpod&tach, GA FI=IjIy? s the facility ever received complaint from any emptoyeea, X ors, w the Public about the fadlitys practices far managing dous wastes. or any actual or potential releases to air, soil, or ottuer ernironmenai issues? ave nearby residents comptainad to a gmremmented agency X type of if nesses or unusual amasses as having bem d w suspeaedly caused by ar related to activities at the (If YES. has any evidence bean submitted to a physician to substamlate the claim ?) 16. Are there any areas at facility that v m formally used fro X hazardous waste w hazardous materials transter (e.g. tank loading areas. drum transfer areas)? pmceedmgs coneemvV An actual. aNeged, or threatened release of any t\azsldcus sub ta,,, against the facility by another pally? 7.2 Local Government OffictatS Shaw interviewed the following local government officials, and learned the following. 7.2.1 Orange County Health Care Agency, Environmental Health The Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) was contacted to determine if there were any environmental health violations, hazardous materials, environmental investigatiots or cleanups associated with the Subject Property. No response had been communicated to Shaw from the health department at the time of report preparation, if the heath department provides any do=teutatron of any environmental related violations, which lead Shaw to revise its evaluation of the concems for the Subject Property, Shaw will provide TSA a letter addendum separate from this report. 7.2.2 California Regional Water Quality Control Board The California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) online database system ((ieotratket maintained by the State Water Resources Control Board) was accessed to determine if any violations, wells, spills, leaks, investigations, or cleanups are associated with the Subject Property. No records were available for the Subject Property. 7.23 City of Newpwt Beach Zoning Departrnent The Subject Property is currently zoned for °Multiple - Family Residential' (1vlFli.) with a general Plan laud use described as "Muffip(e -Unit Residential- (R1N). 714 Newport Beach Fire Department The Newport Beach Fire Department was contacted to detemtine if any fires, emergency responses, or hazardous ,,gilts have oceurreci on the Subject Property. The fire department stated the only records for the Subject Property show that it is was a former hazardous material handler dated in 1487_ However, the fire department retards on file did not indicate the type of hazardous materials associated with the Subject Property (although it is believed that the RgIF I I I I I I I L I Phase I Environmental Site Assesanent Report 7-3 5515 River Ave., Newport. Beach, CA January d, 2008 materials referenced were associated with landscape and/or pool maintenance). No other information was on fife at the fire department for the Subject property. D -25 Phase I Euiim ntal Site Assessment Report 8-1 5515 River Ave., Newport Beach, CA January 4, 2008 8.0 Other Environmental Considerations As part of this assessment, Shaw evaluated the potential presence of asbestos containing materials and lead based paint, radon, and wetlands on the Subject Property. Shaw was not asked to investigate other non -scope considerations, as defined by ASTM E 1527 -05, as part of this Phase I ESA. D -26 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report 5515 River Ave -, Newport Beach, CA 9.0 Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions 9 -1 January 4, 2088 ��a.. ,� !;s�`"�a.st��' <6 �? �u sec iui� G.�;�• i�i1;�„�,r'�� Property. viith the Subject D -27 Phase 1 Env WMffltal Sde Assessment Repat 5515MVv Ave., Newport Beach, CA Jaaeary,t, 2Q 100 Conclusions and Recommendations Shaw has perforated a Phase L ESA in conformance with the scope and limitations presented in Section 2.0 r this document of the Las Brisas Apartments property located at 5515 River Avenue, Newport Beach, oraag County, Califamia (Subiect Property). Any exceptions to, or deletions from, this practice are described i Section 2.0 of this report. '�iwpcct ACM and Lead- - Based on a review of an ACM Report conducted by EMG dated March 28, Based Paint in building 20()7, ACM was detected in 17 of the 44 samples analyzed from the building located on the Subject property. Shaw found no evidence of testing for lead - based paint on the Subject property. Since redevelopment of the Subject Ptperty is planned, demolition of the buildings shouts be accomplished in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations, which may require that a lead -based paint survey be performed prior to demolition. lu addition, abatement of all ACM detected within Structure should be accomplished by a registered, licensed, and certified asbestos abatement contractor prior to any demolition activities. ams assessment has revealed n, o Vidence Of teco nized environmental eond;t ;ons ea E s) in connection wil the Subject Property, No fmilter environmental assessment of the Subiect Property is warranted at this time. :Phase I Envimmealal Site Assessment Report 5515 River Ave., Newport Reach, cA 11.0 Opinions 11 -1 January 4, 2008 The following lists the Environmental Professional's opinion on the Environmental Condition of the property: The results of the environmental assessment of the Subject Property have not revealed the presence of any recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Subject Property. D -29 IAppendices ' Appendix E. Water Quality Management Plan I I I I I 1 11 I 1 I Seashom Viliage Initial Study ' �PACNB- lQ.*fUS ab:Rsv &.fiO fi lid, City of Nmpw Beach Appendices This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center Fel moy 2008 p-toae- raoevsw a,e. or plongr7cro Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) SEASHORE VILLAGE, 5515 RIVER AVENUE, NEWPORT SEACH,CA. LOT 104, TRACT 3813, City ofNewportheach Contract No. INSERT GRADING PERMIT NO, BUILDING PERMIT NO., TRACT NUMBER, CUP, SUPANDJOR APN (SPECIFYLOTN(1MBERSIFS 15A PORTION OFA TRACT)- THEN TAB TO NEXT FIELD. OWNER'S CERTIFICATION WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR PERMIT/PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER & TRACT/PARCEL MAP NUMBER This Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for SEASHORE VILLAGE has been prepared for Seashore Village, LLC by Todd Schooler & Assoc inc. This WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach, Planning & Public Works Dept., Tract /Parcel Map No. Tract /Parcel Map number, Condition Number(s) Condition Numbers, and/or Site Development Permit/ Application Number Enter number, Condition Number(s) Condition Numbers requiring the preparation of a Water Quality Management Plan. The undersigned, while it owns the subject property, is responsible for the implementation of the provisions. of this plan and wiII ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up -to -date conditions on the site consistent with the current Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP), and the intent of the non -point source NPDES Permit for Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region .Stormwater Runoff Management Program. A copy of this WQMP will be maintained at the .project site or project office. This WQMP will be reviewed with the facility operator, facility supervisors, employees, tenants, maintenance and service contractors, or any other party having responsibility for implementing portions of this Water Quality Management Plan. Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the property, its successors -in- interest shall bear the aforementioned responsibility to implement and amend the WQMP. An appropriate number of approved and signed copies of this document shall be available on the subject site in perpetuity. Signed: Name: Todd Schooler Title: President Company: Todd Schooler &Associates inc. SEASHORE VILLAGE, LLC Certification WQmp.Goc srasho "boe 05/03/07 E -2 Water QaarityNaaWmentPlan (WQNP) SEASHORE WLLAGE, 5515 RIVER AVENUE, NEWPORT BEACKCA. LOT 104, TRACT 3813, City ofNewportbeach C0nb3aN& fAMRTGRADING PERNITNO, BUILDING PERMIT NQ, TRACTNUNBER, CUP, SVPAND /OR ' APN (SPEcrFYLOT Nt/MBERSIf57TEISA PORTIONOPA )FACT)- THEN TAB TO NEXT FIELD. Address: 301 E. 17th # 204 Costa Mesa, CA. 92627 Telephone #: 949 - 646 -8805 Date: 05/03/07 'I L� I1 1 1 II II u SEASHORE VILLAGE, LLC Cert fication ' WQW.aac seashore weax _ 05/03/07 ' E -3 wafer quality Management Plan (WQMP) SEASHORE VILLAGE, 5595 RIVER AVENUE, NEWPORT BEACH, CA. LOT 904, TRACT 3813, CRY ofNewpodbeach Con &actNo.INSERTGRADINGPERmxrNO., BUILDINGPERMITNQ, TRAcrNUMBER, CUP, SUPAND /OR APN (SPEaFY LOT NVMBERSIFSM ISA PORTYONOFA TRACT) - THEN TAB TO NEXTFiELD. Contents Section I Tract or Discretionary Permit Number(s), Water Quality Condition(s) Number(s) and Conditions 1 SectionII Project Description ......................................................................... ............................... 2 SectionIII Site Description ............................................................................. ............................... 5 Section IV Best Management Practices (BMPs) .............................................. ............................... 7 Section V Inspection /Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs ........................... .............................12 Section VI t,ogtion Map, Plot Plan & BMP Details .......................................... .............................13 Section VII Educational Materials Included .................................................. ............................... 16 Attachments AttachmentA ................................................................... ............................... Educational Materials SF.ASHORMLLAGE,LLC ContenCs wQ'*P.6w seaft" v4ww Page i 05/03/07 E -4 Fri -I Mater quality Management plan MVMP) SEASHORE VILLAGE, 5515 RIVER AVENUE, NEWPORT BEACH, CA. LOT 104, TRACT 3813, City of Newport beach Contract No. INSERT GRADING PERMIT NO., BUILDING PERMIT NO., TRACT NUMBER, CVP, SUP AND /OR APN (SPEr -MY L0T NUMBERS IF SITE 15 PORTION OF M CT) - THEN TAB TO NEXT FIELD. Section I Tract or Discretionary Permit Number(s), Water Quality ' Condition(s) Number(s) and Conditions ' CLICK AND TYPE DISCRETIONARY PERMIT(S) AND WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS HERE I J F SEASHORE VILLAGE, LLC Section W(PPAX Wage Page 1 05/03/07 ' E -5 Oeso secuixi a. "64 E-7 Water QualltyManagemenf Plan (WI (WIMP) , SEASHORE VILLAGE, 5515 RIVER AVENUE, NEWPORT BEACH,CA. LOT 104, TRACT 3813, City of Newport beach Contract No INSERT GRADING PERMIT NO„ BUILDING PERMIT NO., TRACT NUMBER, CUP, SUP AND /OR ' APN (SPECIFY LOT NUMBERS IFSYTEISA PORTION OFA TRACT) - THEN TAB TO NEA7FIELD. Routine Structural BMPs Site Design BMPs I 1 L-1 F The following table shows site design BMPs that are included in this project. A description of each BMPs follows: Site Design BMPs Check One Name If not applicable, state brief reason Brief Description of Method Not Included Applicable No Provide storm drain system stenciling and Minimize impervious ArealMaximize ® ❑ Interlocking paver system & gravel side signage yard, erosion resistant landscaping Minimize Directly Connected Impervious Areas Design and construct outdoor material storage ❑ Al underground drainage shall be DCIAs (C-Factor Reduction areas to reduce poiluflon Introduction through a gravel filters stem. Create Reduced or 'Zero Discharge" Areas Design and construct trash and waste storage El Drainage through paver system and into areas to reduce pollution introduction Use efficient irrigation systems & landscape design, water conservation, smart controllers, VN ® and source control ❑ Protect slopes and channels and provide ® E] ena dissipation incorporate requirements applicable to ❑ El project features a. Dock areas ❑ b. Maintenance hays ❑ c, Vehicle wash areas ❑ d. Outdoor processing areas ❑ e. Equipment wash areas ❑ LeLN I. Fueling areas ❑ IK g. Hillside landscaping ❑ ® erosion resistant plants shall be used h. Wash water control for food ❑ preparation areas I. Community car wash racks ❑ Site Design BMPs I 1 L-1 F The following table shows site design BMPs that are included in this project. A description of each BMPs follows: Site Design BMPs SEASHORE VILLAGE, LLC section IV vXW.da SeBW� VOW Page 6 05/03/07 E -10 i Lam' Included? Technique Brief Description of Method Yes No Minimize impervious ArealMaximize ® ❑ Interlocking paver system & gravel side Permeability (C-Factor Reduction yard, erosion resistant landscaping Minimize Directly Connected Impervious Areas ® ❑ Al underground drainage shall be DCIAs (C-Factor Reduction through a gravel filters stem. Create Reduced or 'Zero Discharge" Areas ® ❑ Drainage through paver system and into Runoff Volume Reduction planters Conserve Natural Areas (C- Factor Reduction) ® ❑ SEASHORE VILLAGE, LLC section IV vXW.da SeBW� VOW Page 6 05/03/07 E -10 i Lam' F I I 1 11' 11 wa ter Quality ManagementPlan (twMP) SEASHORE VILLAGE, 5595 RIVER AVENUE, NEWPORT SEACH,CA. LOT 104, TRACT 3813, City of Newportbeacb Contract No INSERT GRADING PERMIT NO., BUILDINGPERMIT NO., TRACT NUMBER, CUP, RIPAND /OR APN (SPEaFYLOT NUMBERSIFSITE ISA PORTION OFA TRACT) - THEN TAB TO NEXT FIELD. Interlocking paver systems shall be constructed as part of the driveway to filter polutants. Additionally any water run through an underground drainage system shall be filtered through a gravel filter. Treatment BMPs The following table shows treatment BMPs that are included in this project. A description of each BMP follows: Treatment BMPs Name Included? If not applicable, state brief reason Yes No Vegetated (Grass) Strips 0 Vegetated (Gress) Swales El Proprietary Control Measures El N Dry Detention Basin Wet Detention Basin Constructed Welland Detention Basin/Sand Filter El Porous Pavement Detention Porous Landscape Detention Infiltration Basin Infiltration Trench Media Filter Proprietary Control Measures The proposed BMP's are designd to filter pollutants naturally back in the ground on site. The combination of paver system, erosion resistant plants that absorb water better, gravel side yards, and gravel trench drain all contribute to this goal and will not require any special maintenance program for an owner besides general property maintenance. SEASHORE VILLAGE, LLC Section IV wQmr.eacseasho Mtge Pagel 05/03/07 E -11 Water QWaBfyManayementPlan (W,2/NP) SE45HOREVILLAGE, 5515 RIVER AVENUE, NEWPORT SEACH,CA. LOT 104, TRACT 3813, City ofNewport beach Contract No INSERT GRADING PERMIT No. xauvm PERMIT NO., TRACT NUMME& CUP, SUPAND /OR APN (SPECIFY,(OT NUMBERSIFSITEISA PORTION OFA TRACT)- THEN TAB TO NEXT FIRQ Section V Inspection/ Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs The individual owners will be responsible to maintain the project irrigation system & planters to be able to properly impliment the BMP's. SEASHOR@ VIUAGF. WC SeCdOn V WQF1PAOC $CLAbt MH3C Page 8 05/03107 E -12 I WaterQaaAW Management Plan (WQNP) SEASHORE VILLA GE, 5515 RIVER AVENUE, NEWPORT BEACH, CA. LOT 104, TRACT 3813, City of Newport beach Contract No INSERT GRADING PERMIT NO., BUILDING PERMIT NO„ TRACTNUMBEI, CUP, SVPANO /OR APN (SPECIFY LOT NUMBERS IF SITE 15 PORTION OFA TRACT)- THEN TAB TO NEXT FIELD. Section 1/I Location Map, Plot Plan & BMP Details I 7 I I I I I I I I ' SEASHORE VILLAGE, LLC SecHon VI VJW dm Seashore VfUage Page 9 05/03/07 E -13 Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) , SEASHORE VILLA GE, 5515 RIVER AVENUE, NEWPORT BEA CH, CA. LOT 104, TRACT 3813, City ofiYewpartbeach ContractNe. I1VSFRTGR4DINGPERMITN0, BUILDINGPERMITNO., TRACENUMBER, CUP, SUPAND /OR ' APN (SPECIFYLOT NUMBERSIFSITEISA POR710N OFA TRACr)- THEN TAB TO NEXT FIELD. Section VII Educational Materials Included , The following is a list of educational materials included in this WQMP. ■ When it rains, it drains ' ■ Do you know where the water in your storm drain goes ? ■ "The ocean begins at your front door" • Stormwater best management practices (BMPs) , • a) Home repair and remodeling • b) Heavy equipment and earth moving activities , • c) Painting ' • d) Landscaping, gardening and pest control it f) Fresh concrete and mortor control ' ■ Before you stop ... stop!, drop!, and swap 1 ■ Disposal of household waste ' ■ INSERT ADDITIONAL NARRATIVE TEXT HERE OR DELETE THIS LINE (Use the ' "FORMAT OPTIONS" button to insert subtitles and/or paragraphs) 1 1 1 i SEASHORE VILLAGE, LLC Section VII , wgnv.axseaznomweye Page 10 05/03/07 E -14 , In 4t K. wPk -1 WhIll voum ar LI Appendices Appendix F. Noise Modeling Oaatpaat Sewhm Village Initial Study City of Newport Beach PiW64O.MW" R.*wD,~ U.AC Appendices This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center February 2008 P:ICN&10.OWS4W Reaiew Dnq� ad. Construction Noise at 120 Feet (dBA Leq) Average Feet at Site: 120 All Applicable Equipment in Minimum Required Construction Phase Use' Equipment in Use' Ground Clearing /Demolition 75 75 Excavation 80 67 Foundation Construction 73 73 Building Construction 73 57 :Finishing and Site Cleanup 80 64 Source: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances," prepared forthe USEPA, December 31, 1971. Based on analysis for Domestic Housing F -1 rr] I SJ Truck Passbys - � 2S Feet Construction generated Vibration Average Vibration Levels Construction Equipment 120. Feet Approximate RMS a - Approximate RMS a Approximate Velocity Velocity at 25 ft, Approximate Velocity Velocity at 180 ft, bman uuimuzer — Jackhammer 79 0.035 65 0.0033 Loaded trucks ... 66. 0.076 86 0.0760 NA Criteria 80 0.2 Average vibration levels based on the average distance of construction activities to the closest residential receptor for each construction phase Construction generated Vibration Maximum Vibration Levels Construction Equipment 8. Feet Approximate Velocity Leval at 25 ft. VdB Approximate RMS a Approximate RMS a Velocity at 25 ft, Approximate Velocity Vefoctty at 340 ft, *marl uwmocer �— -- - -- Jackhammer 79 0.035 89 0.1933 Criteria - 80 0.2 Maximum vibration levels based on the distance of the closest residential receptor to the closest proposed residential building mined based on use d laddlammers or lineumadc hammers that maybe used fmpavemenroer RMS velocity calculated from vibration level ivda) using the reference of one McroincNsecond. Based on methodology from the United States Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration, Transit Nose and Vibration Impact 1 1 t 1 Seashore Village - Sound Levels on Pacific Coast Highway Sound Levels ATMOSPHERICS; 68 dep F, 50% RH Receiver Name Lden Calculated dBA Noise Compatibility Threshold Building Farade Fvtorior lnfnAnr Windows Windows nnnn M—A At Project Site 67.3 65 45 55.3 43.3 At Project Site with a 9 -Foot Wall on Jamboree 59.1 65 45 47.1 35.1 �ry of Automoave Engineers V�AE) YNemat*rtW- 1971, October. House N*e- Reduction Measurernents fa Use in SRMies of AircrA Flyover Nois@_ SAE PutAwtion AIR 1081. ]•—✓ Seashore Village - Pacific Coast Highway INPUT: ROADWAYS Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use of a different type with the approval of FHWA Roadway Points Name Width Name No. Coordinates (pavement) Segment X Y Z Pvmt ft I t ft ft Type Link1_WB_ right 16 pointl 1 - 2,501.00 45 0 Average point2 2 - 3,500.00 45 0 Link1_WB_ middle 16 point3 3 - 2,501.00 29 0 Average point4. 4 - 3,500.00 29 0 Link1_WB_left 16 point5 5 - 2,501.00 13 0 Average point6 6 - 3,500.00 13 0 Link1_EB_Ieft 16 point7 7 - 3,500.00 -13 0 Average point8 8 - 2,501.00 -13 0 Link1_EB_middle 16 point9 9 - 3,500.00 -29 0 Average pointl0 10 - 2,501.00 -29 0 Link1_EB_ right 16 pointl1 11 - 3,500.00 -45 0, Average pointl2 12 - 2,501.00 -45 0 F -4 Seashore Village - Pacific Coast Highway ' INPUT: RECEIVERS Receiver Name No. Coordinates (ground) Height X Y Z above Ground ft ft ft ft At Project Site 1 - 3,000.00 -180 0 4.92 F -5 ti7 s Seashore Village -Traffic Levels on Pacific Coast Highway INPUT: TRAFFIC FOR Lden Roadway Points Name Name Seament DtlJCV Vfl RUduwdy VuluilluS wnfllll Lim Vlly VI lwwixill DtltlUl. LVVV. Vlly U11Wwpult ouawf UG1101G! rfffi1 up tv I_ III- IIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIIII' IIIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIIII' IIIIIIIII, ADT Autos MTrucks HTrucks Buses Motorcycles %D %E %N S %D %E %N S %D %E %N S %D %E %N S %D %E %N S veh/24hrs % % % m % % % m h % % % m h % % % m h % % % mph Link1_WB_right point1 8333 99 99 99 45 1 1 1 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 point2 Link1 WB_middle point3 8333 99 99 99 45 1 1 1 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 point4 Link1_W13_left point5 8333 99 99 99 45 1 1 1 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 point6 Link1_EB_left point] 8333 99 99 99 45 1 1 1 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 point8 Link1_EB_ middle point9 8333 99 99 99 45 1 1 1 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 point10 Link1 EB_right point11 8333 99 99 99 45 1 1 1 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oint12 49998 kDT _ DtlJCV Vfl RUduwdy VuluilluS wnfllll Lim Vlly VI lwwixill DtltlUl. LVVV. Vlly U11Wwpult ouawf UG1101G! rfffi1 up tv I_ III- IIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIIII' IIIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIIII, IIIIIIIIII' IIIIIIIII, (Plan View Run name: PacificCoastHighway ❑ Tree Zone: dashed polygon -- ) Contour Zone: polygon Row: Parallel Barrier. Line: Skew Section: —� -3400 -3200 -3000 -2800 -2600 -2400 -2200 F -7 LEGAL OWNER er..w�.uc - c- SEASHORE VILLAGE IEGALDESCRIPTTONu Ir YATMRIA F" ref�vilFy, WrJCiMY � W � W NEWPORT BEACH CA T ` - Q 8ULvo@GCOee: - 2661 CYC. t{61 CMC. 2»1 CTC, N 2661 CLC,l,2Ad Q �' la 0�p7. o use ypld: MPII O O of d OCCUPANCY GROUP. R.l I U-1 �j � � z � CONSTYUC110N TYPe: A' -N t��Yl P W W N BUILDING USE: ally pwAl.pd On With plva YP d Q UI M With AIkebM Cin {e . ".. _- ISQUA_ RE_FOO_TAGE� - -- . �Lj_ . - - . Pb.A 21Y- arkioe 4tY I.Mbk- 2sssrq.ft 1 Pis. A -2 G.r.g. 12 G.r.ge- 366rq.ft Pk.8- 243.T.g. u Tad - 3268.q.R 6 Pbn C an N U.R A- I G.r.g. 6 Linbk- 2431.q.ft -I C.Tpal 6 G..q.- 360.q.ft U.k B - I Garage 6 T.W - 27W7.q.ft 6 - I C.TP.o 6 ray Pk. C GoNd x5 U.hA 6 Sk,Ni,M -- Id' Llv.bk- 1635.q.ft Hmdk"pld 1 G.T.g.- 201M1•ft Un11B 6 LMbk - 1536.q.ft G.r.ge- 236.q.ft T1 W1 - 3Nk.q.R FlanAm lAWI- Ll4 Abw.bk -L)5 C Lvab e- - 5964eq.ft ea . m6: {CYgw— n1 {�fkq.IL- 151.% . a O 69A2.q.ft Umift r.ft � xl•6ri,rv°.- =ft %I u VI, z ABBREVIATIONS SYMBOLS DESIGN TEAM SHEET INDEX 'wa. wlwm ut tva.. a u as C) eawroalm.rAmmXAm.vnwnc IOQ6G1C41•dtrt d a Y v T as .D u.W Ml.pw uu RU ww.Vm a. aaa'r � r®MAwHa1r ®anlYlrn.Nn ➢w �Y•TnNraAV aAi °- � WIAbRwwvpA 61 OF&4N OAlA M .ar �rgmmmnD�R ®muxfruna 4erAnr.rte Wm Mwe nw.fAia rt°W' ARCW'fLl-19PA1. P0lD6RRn8 07. rGla Mr soar .wrWxi .uwwr ®d[AOOartvw�nlrvarm _.___ -_.._ 9U-1 20PW:PMtlIC 9URVLV m.a w.l BfIY PLAN 6R6 \C®9 .IaYI. AL t =-Q:a Apw6yggX ®XIVO®rl°Iyq�wyrrLLXX[ ��r�1U601NICALCOMVLTAifr T41 YNOfiCAPF/6NY. PLAN 6[ waa y aatr � w.t Q ae ®rucr4.ua®uarlw.gXV ®mrmim �ww.At'AIDaAIA vmr "" A&( AWAL PIWIO uv Gaar W wA.v.T rtweptrm fnl w I PPHtAOn'ANY f:BAD1NG PLAN 4 art.W �.cVam vaf Wle to ° ®m°"VA°� ID e °wee 1 T6NTATIV PIAMAP nc � wx..rn® ry aM11q A -i PLAN A PMATAMS( rwa Boa.m.mple^IVU°XU ° rrrµ°D° ®mn°r1D A-li PLAN AB.L¢VATIONB (CPAIIFMANI MX WMn � drAV ma1�V. vgroeen $ WunAmvrR�a®rwvAwr u- .sm.Rm RQr�rv�ll1'�N.RTANT _. ...__ M11 TIAIIA CIYVAnON6R1ANrAT10N) �.� MR YVI.1. rc n.am..Y.ru $ ava irv..uMma.maavwsnaem.pwzr Wl vtemv� rli. A -] PIANBPIAOR WANT ra �a vaamv.rmes. wai el.urarlwvwnar.(®.ArISA1Atq r �r:.cY. wo wa ®a.° mrrte�a.rlmn w'"�a .... .was rLANawsvAnav6 RlwNrnrmNl cr. AW.eiv vc .a�m.ven T&G eomWaamrr A r...w.am,.v.u,tvr,WU . ellvmmXO.a, rtln, � - "•, i Asl run6Mlwmeo rlgoarun mR a°, ,� Aas eLAN BMW°RB n2:vwnon vA vmmrAl. r°°wwr gq ava Xrl i.mm.WNriaruwYlr�rtolvnnm mivrtem®nwc AJ W CYLUUNnwre s mover. v as 1O °w .enaavwrtA vm �� a�A � rnY- aauoo.mawr«rtm..XDa wsrAlmona.° I uXV �atlrDDAan �� Alas nwnC �CELKVAysoN6(CRAFIVAAX) am ry I.weev .�. ras.AATlnrrttm�al A41W. PuNCF1cvATmmaIALS{eNwn) qaa i m....r.arrarml eMATLRwI.(XM6N.TAM- 8L1 61RLE'I'6L2Nr. mwan ar�D u aav tAVM - arww.vw PLI LWD9CAP. PI.W (PHIVAIE YARUB) ml.aa mw Xmm..la lW tin mnoaAVn.Vr �T.mrew ®urrearm ®mlrmaR �'mQr vw swan r® � ws DRI OWrHdIIOIV PLAN AAr vArer r.gry mev®xunvmuuweuaw,ii . wYnM X.1LL nWSaY A _ IC8-1 CON31AUIlUN NrAUN'GA WATER gUALf1Y P1AN vY°avnA `a"'"°w01 PB1I voavvo - - m iWt RT.Em v+R Y.1MarN, Iry � ®6 M1 -mfla XW.aYY eraWw. .v® w r� D �a.ur....V�Dr.TOi.m�I.w,Dm�.x+X VICINITY MAP Saw IY1®MROAO ' IY r�lawa rPlWI6 YL.YWO! eo v�a.�r ® AwMYnIm.NUY WiR "1 _ 1®Ytla(OJW MOI mw. I..® MILI.4.VtWl11DP = J ®Y1O R IA 9 Ououv amtwumnY IA ImpV r,iDD r0ml.aA .X ..A Mwra ar. rTll .41W1T M v11rPR. RICIW NYaruarIIaADMaYmWa i �v � 6 1 XOmf S Y �' � ® .OmIS.TR.uYMmVID v� r®atraM Y4. YIm1YaYE i M ®�' ® MIamAMila Vm.Y�Y ®r i — a�f �. °i° IOl IllPart_ mm mBwmr ®y MnAm�LB.R[VR,Vfm ®m It�1ls : MIEOna N .Ymai ¢ •T r4 ®NYY4ve :I I.I. rwO�a W atwal � � .rY® k _r9e_ rm� ®va® w® w rear �..v - a�m.mmarviM '• ✓�` 9i 5 {i di ....WrAA, v°Amm °o ®"°m �a®:a.., ..® 1®vwvanA.ATOI i v •y' ... w aaert� ml.rwrmaAV r � mlamRUtvemaw.aaaa..um ' WHEN '"%r%EA 4 -- C -1 n SEASHORE VILLAGE PLAN S PLANTATION & CRAFCSMAN SEASHORE VILLAGE PLAN A PLANTATION & CRAFTSMAN SEASHORE VILLAGE PLAN C PLANTATION & CRAFTSMAN s 0 aG w uj 7F F' O 'WJ N F 001 dArwi��� r, 0 J z dU �a �z a H 11 ^ C -2 Ill uorr am uwram {} onx-P AVE. ❑� ah J — I FOR TOP ROBE w �- EP - EDGE PAVEMENT NG - NATURAL GROUND wv = WATER MA SEASHORE DR. SW = BACRWALR rF = FlN/SN RL w M = TBP STEP - VE 00% ?,q F- FS- I � I I ti �.I ti TOPOGRAPHIC MAP rB S ALE .AME 05 LOT I04 TRACT NO. 3873 5515 RIVER AVE. NEWPORT BEACH CA. SOUM COAST 9MTflTNG =4 CLAY v.. TE11PCL r BEACL1 CA aes T1FA`LIIMARI( w m NGwsa DATUM T V.. - ).%T RI VER AVE. - 0 aF I�pC7F 1rn���m O 4Cam.. W� eU ~Z h J a VALL! l3 F4 SEASHORE DR.r baMA6mlet4l raee�on6Be.+ $ Y' PSJ'�� Y EVNO S alu"A , BafllW VboP 16.1% 1 s3aar I e lia•SY/16HR. � a�vw�AFi�e Bd3Wy W�?b!! w�S��Arar OS Xl% a itieapm y..�w- aWim�u foYoa 'i r�r�us .. AOowableopmryem l ]0.6'x2916'- 2B,661 w.8. s. n PW�ar py��tw5� 163a5a Amd.rya sere - 675,116 —L SM PLAN YAIt 1l.C.• 6• SWEE'TSHADE Slenacal7Fns .rinualn, Firewheel Tree now BRISBANE BOX PLANT LFfRNI)- COMMON A]IF.AB �.o cASi LAWN TREES: SWEETSHADE 4 Be9B>.n yak ' CAMORE GRAVEL, TYPICAL PAVING, TYPICAL NEPTUNE MA'ILNE I l m a MTIPIUSPV0.VM itAWM ICBM 1MLU L i%F b' 10.115' 5. 9nN A Y LOPX091FAIOKCW, PEXTV9 IS OAL l0.N' 10.11' Bn WIKem ,METRUSIDFRUE EW:EL¢V9 N "80X W' W' NN TA WM CANImI Tme -pyfyp LANIANAAXINFF.VIOkNYp wuf 5d IX" LAVANIXISn "IIIM.fY1F:111M'1" 3lLV. Ia.aMn LIOfSTM14'.I TPL:AV31 3WL F :a Mm xnYVINn INlA1ESP.CA fOAI. _ 6' N IVIAPNIO Hlf lEP19- VALLflRIN. \" fMf ]' Ids I {,MR,111e RWMLEPIS'S'KMTIMC' uw. xNaomK 5GAL Si' RMMARMIA WAIL 1FfeVP'R V%LINXT' fW. !' In-]' BpWyy nr'1559CnN BLUE" Rf/f1.1ARMUR KIAYLOR- R—, 30AL IS' 41 9GEWxA moo cL11 msl MNr CAwe. SGM 1' ]' GnWan'91p:MlL nitnw - iLfTt 611ro.4 ryxW Uwr (IVNiR cO nNhvrtu .'.sMxnnluN ^i£SLI)E rflnss s+]ooeB INRIGATX]N NOTES '..COMNOK ARFAS SNAl .t1@C£IV£AUTYAA169PMklER6Y91@I Wf]il PLAMYfG l.(MES SEPAM]EL BV FXM]64FE IWMTM/LL9i tiFS94T 9MIIXINESTIANOI� BAFREgI@ SKANAssn TECT 9XYAR ], C+MtNLYI AREA9ISWWTAIH 9Y\TL'M4HALL BE PROTECTED RYARMVCFD K THE ERE MC WALL IREVENI£P. L BMLZR WALL REN VE lOFF DEV E1.PfTNf ALTOAIATM:69PPRIXLFR C0.YFAMAEREYA ARwMeNVALL EVKE ,. ALL NWATF YARD AP Ax 91 {ALLeEIRR10ATE0 RYABURRLTA NnWOIXI 5 ST } PRNA TE YARD A LLER F ALL CH IBATR011IIS flY.W AMJ.W \TIC fgUAl({ER CONR!]LLER FGRPACX t11RT NEW ZEALA LAN CI]RISTMAS TREE PIVFR AVE. SHRUBS ; GROUND COVER Lim �L e �s' 1�'v1 S O� O t Y t LAVENDER e. W L1• r- PRIVET ,y A p •jj:( >�HAVVTU ROSEMAR' u I {"' • � IVa E' .JWGT� a IZ pGWC co� n C MAUVE CLUSTERS 1091. f RvnUnW STREET TREE: — --� —� QUEEN PALM (SYAGRUS ROMANZOFFIANUM) LAWN T y r _.. i —f? Sys -� 0` TR SCREEN: L BRISBANE BOX WA �I �.o cASi LAWN TREES: SWEETSHADE 4 Be9B>.n yak ' CAMORE GRAVEL, TYPICAL PAVING, TYPICAL NEPTUNE PATIO TREES: WATER GUM (TRLSTANIOPSIS LAURINA) I 101L WINDMILL PALM (TRACHYCARPUS FORTUNF:I) vA E _ ❑ V mr FIREWHEEL TREE(STENOCARPUS SINUATUS) STRAWBERRY TREE (ARBUTUS UNEDO) INDIAN HAWTHORNE(RHAPHIOLEPIS "MAJESTIC BEAUTY' SEASHORE DR. PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN - SITE PLAN Bcua IIw, 1'A' MNr111ASTOn oxrvc II ucu]IA e[n. 31, cn 95as I TELA FAX. INS) RfF�fMf i PL -1 I I e. . yqq� f♦'Y i` Y yfpl ti �Y i � '•1 b•/ _ 'Z EXISTING 1�7,Ti(I : wl W I •I 1� � 1 r y f ' y14 PROPOSED a u F , W zaw0e w> � a5 �Op�Ha Z ev Wa o p� a U N W -1 n z 11 M -1 11 I I rI „ • I i, f 1 .• Fi e. . yqq� f♦'Y i` Y yfpl ti �Y i � '•1 b•/ _ 'Z EXISTING 1�7,Ti(I : wl W I •I 1� � 1 r y f ' y14 PROPOSED a u F , W zaw0e w> � a5 �Op�Ha Z ev Wa o p� a U N W -1 n z 11 M -1 11 11 qlm�p DIOYIO�Bd f9Yf S AMMO M ALL M AcMM WIM PLUX A1A1R-0 . I LEGEND v wwn MW D4FAL WAN . Wscore CW% SEMM .1 "M oll lll� O GRMMJ:SS PMPLDHM�o .1 . . AVE EASEMENTS WATER SERVICE SEWER CONSTRUCTION NOTES CONSTRUCTION NOTES 01 wamm ram v via (D 11111 CIS 11(i P-N .A ell -T amt wt LVL i'.A' SITE DATA a �nnew<91� �m�^IN a Flq_�vTJx�. tR w>HM Iu'rcnN � It1 u f ; SEASHORE VILLAGE PLAN A uT A ATT A TT"W R, V12 A FTRM AN 0 d 00 OEMOOM I' BEDROOM 2 13 Q V -_ -. _ . . .. - o 0 ' J m IL ma _.. . 'I�iGF.AOM , "PLAN A G..g - t888sq.ft Geroge- 248s.ft p Tatol - 3248aq.ft S{� +w1 TEMWFLOORPLAN SECOMFLOORPLAN scnr.eue,c¢ FIRSTFLOORPLAN ora�F� �o• r PLAN A CRAFTSMAN - l ra!_- ryya..MmmY.a'sY.Yw Il OWlv�s del — RIGHT SIDE FAXVATION..w, +• -.'r a U� �W r W R7 A,OON c � U o E; i a u O J v � W v, � Y 11— mid a awsr- er -�,. o PLAN A PLANTATION S7IIT11RI0 R KWAUOI � - -===' 7 s 4 U �W a� a ro aW��m dCirA w .. .r u w� O �o o a� J h ,H h O a` A -2.3 .�l SEASHORE VILLAGE PLAN B PLANTATION & CRAFTSMAN f. r 1 i IrL�v s U"":_ o..00- M%qe rw - rmyn 1 0 aW O o� vh �aW °p0� W�> dV � P4 L' O o aa�cc 5 �w u � 0 J °a 1 MD FLOM M AN SVAMND FIAOR PLAN 11 1 PLAN B - CRAFTSMAN U� �w -- EXYMOaELEVA*00KKvNQIZ kj 6d Cw7 EIGHT SIDE ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION �•.- REAM ELEVATION (DMVEWAYv W)ur, - -_ .4 :• dNTELEVATION (sreEE. vww ) ._..,a a r CU x J h n P IL PLAN B PLANTATION rrs[�et.evwawnusvNmBa ,....mow... LEFP SIDEFIXVATION mmkw-r . -- - -- .FRONT ELEVATION Mmmrviwmq we-r> a W a� m oo0 za PO P CL �u �a 0 . h A -33 i PLAN B rake- 360,.n - 3]90eq. folt ALTERNATE tW e �F WW p CW.7F GGGrrr m a F soon azd* auWi�� U �a a ..W A -3A! _ RASTELRVATYOlT,'- 91'NFI /MI'Y w v'^'o *�1RRLVA'[[ON IBYNO"1 "!8 _. i. Oile�Lln�1n0YPYn�f•JS� 1 doua+��4� � wtlrM rY f�ivnb�rn a wad+• aw �� a aw•..Ml.l�+.rrf.aa It Mtl�"yf.seneMa/ @a ILd1Y„�Mm 6r1� W 1 . 1 . NORTH RLI✓VATION ._ A -1 � 0 F UG W0.40- rA Qv V Z o '^ J SEASHORE PLAN C GE PLAN'T'ATION & CRAFTSMAN I Af •r�rJ N �`K71i'1�L ,' y,�,�'"••H � �sr" ...':'° 11111.1.'^ �III����� i�l,` '� � ,�; II lu ri ,lilt � I � _--��- 1 e. 1'iY Ir .rte ..� ��a -. • rr �\ '� I i lut 161 � 41�1_A1141 Hllllq ull'lldi•Idll dllli dlN�ihifYll�oirlYhll IV l':Jgn li �+ r� '� t ! � , � -u,.H. SA ''. , 1 r -. T_,, •„ ��: �Ar1"� r,� i'ICY'��r -+� - - _, ✓.1 ?�l�l ��,t•'°`.P11 /` 1� �AiJ �(�� i'' _. :G/r� " _.\ n1li1A a' 'W� a �yj���(L. a� ✓.yam i^` � , M1 rJ►'C t'� xa '�� c Ijy (..i 11 /11 '11, 1,6 r!)1�„TTTrfff, ,4, 1 FLOOR PLAN z ux w ro- I it Q 1• aOO� it � pazaT r I� SECOND H9.00R PLAN :w,•o- PLAN C 3F llnit A } IA.W- 1635.q.ft 3E Cnago 201sq.ft UOIt ■ IJnbk - ISlftq.ft M•.y�ri G.,.ge- 33Uq.tt TOW - 360hq.ft ww. A -4 F[RST FLOOR PLAN O s ry o- IPLAN C CRAFTSMAN 6R'[6RIOR1�* &'VA�T10N I0+�0'CFY '� ry�.rµ��.nbS -PMY•� w -rrr. v vpo-+.a ♦ ar.r.yr ua.I 0 Ux �W �WW >d dU J � V h O a` arm 5- 7wil , Mill ffiliiiig: FUR INS �771 up 11IM110:1 ��HEIGHT LIMIT OVERLAY PLAN C CRAFTSMAN .r- RIGaTSIDEELEVATION r Wu W ILiI I�il li�l Ili II��I — + �•�; i� �� mini ilai -- IN... /i LEFT SIDE ELEVAUON MXRFOR RLRVATION RBYiWM v .re..ab.wwM.. v mr�- y.sra.. f�l • W�.�SYu u.rr�.rr.rr -o REAREI.FVATION (DRN AY V w) suer -, FRONF ELF,VA 1Gb 4slR mr.VIEW) , -- e H zmd c� a °pow w w >d dV �a • V�'i q. .HEIGHT LIMIT OVERLAY co�oa� sze��� PLAN U CRAFTSMAN RIGIITSIDEELEVATION MOST a + - -*- PROPOSED 1i0NCOMFORMm lmmm grrvnlOR Rt FVATION IOiYNOTES - — - MAX pwuw- !I? _ R /GH7'BERE ELEVATION x FRONT ELEVATION tsTREET vR Vn � � . .r - -, 4i i _„ � ,.. s �i "� .ii i LEMON BOTTLEBRUSH INDIAN HAWTHORNE F LA NT W,M— FBI V AMA9 MATURE MATIRL HIM RPBOA!! ARBVIIIRINEII(� N" W15. 10' TWnyTrt CAtL13IFMl1N CIIRMU9 M'tiv 14P 10'11' I+mu Bwleerutl RN.V'NIOIEPL9 "MNESIIC BEAUT' U'M% IS' 10' Ipd.e lhxllmnv AIIAPANMUti "VF.1 F.0. PAN' IOAL 1' 1' LIIYroROeµle A LE WOICA IML P T Av NEPNROLEPIE CORUIinLIA IOAL }]' gpyw SwoN ivn PHWNII'WEE I IW. ryWL PM1glm� PRIU]iORVM'rtlYllu fOAL Ipk m RHAM1011'PL9'9PNNOTIMF' APHJ Ipl 15• IS ImIM wMw�. 5 0.ELrtZ1A REGII:AF. IOAL 35 4W BW e(PVWrz TN UR wLOAN I ML 1' la• u— ft, PRIVATE YARD PLANTING. TYPICAL BIRD OF PARADISE I LILYAF- THE -MLE PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN PRIVATE YARDS .I 4C �� y. O Iai W W IOA a2am z :4 sxz� eqWg� 0 n. ]NMI PL -2 a. v l91! 1R .1 SR tS ntt {E'P AVF. i J ❑0.6N y p Y T I n1N - NAWR METER SW - ^PKR WNHOF Rm - roP Pw tP = FpOE PAV MMT PI: = rr{.RL4G1. :R',?JNO N{ _ NGrfk {AL{ HW = BACNWALa FF II FNWSN FLOOR B- TM S1 {yl],S ➢.N — I q 1 ° I I 0 1 'd 1 1�f'T/HOU7i MiP VE. '1J ti I u7 I I ti f` I FT- ➢. R.r On!", DlMY mnt PLC e!a TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 1A SCALE JUNE 05 LOT 104 TRACT NO. 3813 5515 RIVER AVE. NEWPORT BEACH CA awm wwal wrt¢rmla sry wT v. ncmuvr scow OGS aRIG ft W -74e NGW OAI ELE .. - ).Yat T YaZ ➢IS \Al }_ eY Demolition Staging Notea: 1. ,....n..m..,.m�m.m•...n.ndl l,. ✓ul,nm..J ml.J.xe m. ary n.u..,...mma. v. nn,.n..m�.n.n n. nm.r.a n...m..e.Lr. mYmmm.Yl. br .. ✓rv....0 nmmd... 1. l_umlrvnlae JumoI111.n.M1all alvn,0.v. mM1nm, nmerol hmmphl.. 1.0 .... 111'..11✓n {b ✓Il be mlllyelnl pr. !'M1Y..INrvxnn llrn.b rpnlnme.tt !..1rtnl, npl.0.nMI16a pr.rlJNJ✓III vr,. rt.1vI.N. b.IMmdlllnn.ul,.ler.h.b.I1 L..11Gl.lb.11ly vl Nanlwn tln.R meJ.Ma , 11.m. IMn i.nvn A Iry, N.1 b, x.!;Ny nr.Yev .an h.d reVUh.menm. a n.m.nn ✓. ,.mm.m..ba mlmn ...nn NL. r. nlmmi. n.mxmr n ✓aa..n.nn. h.a<J er.�. Ix omn. ...�x.n haaxl.n.0 rml•m n..nl,dnl �, n..ur. n. rv. ,a.wa,v ay..n ✓n b✓ mhaaa.u.unnl. b.amm..a v.......n,rm'.x . n6 n 0.w. �mlll.ne,rry navXy ruvbl..l.a. VE. '1J ti I u7 I I ti f` I FT- ➢. R.r On!", DlMY mnt PLC e!a TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 1A SCALE JUNE 05 LOT 104 TRACT NO. 3813 5515 RIVER AVE. NEWPORT BEACH CA awm wwal wrt¢rmla sry wT v. ncmuvr scow OGS aRIG ft W -74e NGW OAI ELE .. - ).Yat Storm Drain IMet Protection C.7 Entrai IyiRl Fnnoe Gt Ayt, j (ya uuW 9 -tn) �Ta. el tlry. YT- I I 7 r°i. &WI A IW SECTION A -A. I .xtf.il� [1J1 v h ree • rwn.�w. �W / w.�.. +•MY 1 w.� ffi�'ASN L_° Jnxu rs .— _._ - -. — r--t y�Wl"IE F➢I.YW >slvr a _ \_�— - -��— ❑Mar r Coast— iou Stmmg NW Ara+•uu.. v.M a.o.ww.x..ywYlyv.M.n.N •�- nraaw .x....•= a.0 tl..•.wv...vw lN..l.m, u- wNrarv....r.,....e.r.l C. /J maM aa..Y b mp.v.. nAnvn. lC�..m� mot. N.6.YXb..IWe aMY n• rv.npn I4+a.uvC.M S Atl�tlnYlGFea.amb ebtlW v. tl�.. 6 fmlMb. p.rn +s.w. anW h I.M M.n aiv.. A.e. rw�viv1{ a.Y Y m•Yb a aa... Nnu.nm of mu a a..v o. e. �rvu +nl P.l.w�m V•NMNan Cr Mtl.p�yW ev a. a SEASHORE DR. Tb. elmlWmbtiuV°`bm + wfay.aae idbwt �v ru 65108 q.ft Neti.86Mwa�;e 1M,ft. 11.N4 Pt"Ilosq �.lio8 imgvnauv awTeux .11. W11WAJ11% p.ypmd�mpsrow.mf.,m MI ?I q.R JT.mm ryue WmNUOnuufdbw.. Allow.6le apm y► 00.6'.]1'86' -M,6n wR. nw.Lgm pw •615.116 m.n. WE PLAN KEYNOTES tl..rx.ww....w. ). WyWlp••nr.. i IY.4tluVr.N..aN u, MnMaaw-p•tlr P ..0 e ti U� dW W io o I e k ira) � i o0 .I a�za iy� �vww, dAm�S 7 �U F QO�tltl h5 v, Ica-i �1 RIVF_R AVF. R-1 B E A L / G ..... ......................... ............................... \� l/ M " ✓� II � lLISp� wA1 SFASHORF UR. 0 III 7 a z �Wza� �o � 6�F�8 zQza a om W a W zoz�& z� in aW� d > W d dU i vii Z t a 0 14 11,11 -111 lA 4f," 1.1 VIEW CORRIDOR ANALYSIS V pp 3 9d :E us 7L "V Li (0- TOPOGPAPHIC PAP icy 14 11,11 -111 lA 4f," 1.1 VIEW CORRIDOR ANALYSIS V pp 3 9d :E us 7L "V Li (0- TOPOGPAPHIC PAP c L r U C LEFP SIDE ELEVATION KALE,,-, O c 0 a m U J V N O a` ti s x� Bs 5a c B Q Q fee . c 4 r7 1 CU CZ) L0 m 7 L r U C LEFP SIDE ELEVATION KALE,,-, O ,/ W I v --Zl- -.16 iir — e A t If C PLAN A PLANTATION c 0 a m U J V N O a` s x� Bs 5a c B Q Q fee . 4 r7 1 CU CZ) L0 ,/ W I v --Zl- -.16 iir — e A t If C PLAN A PLANTATION c 0 a m U J V N O a` s x� Bs 5a c B Q Q fee . PLAN C CRAFTSMAN m (.0 o �ai c 0 00 CL v 0 1- _ =000 Lis n W �� h LIC RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION u e -rva• e 0 V O J V m �O a` ° CL LL �� ad LU y - W o.V) Mu Z,Sf.f�S ,�L fitZ Li U LL- Lr) f v) e 0 V O J V m �O a` CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. Oct �12'!;0o7 -oil. N .z .7, cn/ UPzC�7 c1�YN� 7 q�PT MN7- t - QPSGo t APPROLIn�6 Y�Px S/� Name of Appellant , or personfiling: � Phone: Address: C ,�' °1�(hz I��,�^ 1�1c ;'Ti.) iJt r - LfU` Date of Planning Commission decision: AVCV i -- , 20 ( e� Regarding application of: NI ri for (Description of application filed with Planning Commission) Tevtlz +v e Tst rye vn� p �w� �� t �1CtSl'iiJh fi U, 6 '76' SWI) �W-T- ':j� -b(!Ey IU L � 4 -I- C"_bY�605, fZ c, Cbdnc, I C6h4Q,,,+ ,4-- . IU Reason for appeal: Improper Notice /Public Hearing. Improper approval. Planning commission did not consider additional 17 pg. comments, emails, & objection letters submitted prior to ruling on entire project that included discretionary permits. (P.C. Eaton stated he did not finish reading my objections). Email & letters objecting to project not available /included at 4/17/08 hearing. Interrupted during 3 min. speech, allowed applicant rebuttal, refused my rebuttal. Appears to been attempt to circumvent public hearing process. Appellant comment letters 1 & 2, (total 50 pates) are considered part of this appeal, as well as the emails, & resident /tenant letters of objection. City has record of these letters. Several emails & letters of objection were not part of the public hearing and were not available + for public review. Ap nt requests copy of P.C. audio meetings 3/20/08 & 4/17/08 and city to retain. Date FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date Appeal filed and Administrative Fee received: �Q C 1 a� 20000. Hearing Date. An appeal shall be scheduled for a hearing before the City Council within :sixty (60), days of the filing of the appeal unless both applicant and appellant or reviewing body consent to a later date (NBMC Sec. 20.95.060) cc: Appellant *� Planning (furnish one set of mailing labels for mailing) APPEALS: Municipal Code Sec. 20.95.050(6) ' Appeal Fee: $340 pursuant to Resolution No. 2006 -4 adopted on 1- 10 -06. 1 (Deposit funds with Cashier in Account #2700 -5000) ��Fr�RT CI'T'Y Of - NEWPORT BEACH l n' ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES V S 3300 NEWPORT BLVD.. c a P.O. BOX 1768, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 -8915 RECEIVED BY: PERRY2 TODAY'S DATE: 04/29/08 27005000 ZONING & SUBDIVISION F CASH RECEIPT RECEIPT NUMBER: 02000130389 PAYOR: DECARO, R REGISTER DATE: 04/29/08 TIME: 12:45:45 $340.00 --------------- - TOTAL DUE: $340.00 CASH PAID CHECK PAID CHECK NO TENDERED CHANGE $.00 $340.00 226 $340.00 $.00 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Seashore Village Residential Development Appeal (PA 2007 -100) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the following item: An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Sch. No. 2008021075) and to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001, Use Permit No. 2007 -011, Modification Permit No. 2007 -044, and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001, associated with an application filed by Seashore Village, LLC, for property located in the Multi - Family Residential (MFR) District at 5515 River Avenue. The appeal was filed by Lennie DeCaro. The project, as approved by the Planning Commission, permitted the development of 12 detached single -unit residential structures and 6 detached two -unit (duplex) residential structures (24 units total) on a 1.49 -acre site. The site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. Project implementation required the approval of the following applications: 1) a tentative tract map to create a 24 -unit condominium subdivision; 2) a use permit to allow each of the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City's base height limit; 3) a modification permit to allow encroachments into the required front and side yard setback areas and a reduction in the required distance between detached buildings; and 4) a coastal residential development permit to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act), which regulates the demolition of low and moderate income (affordable) dwelling units in the Coastal Zone. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment with mitigation measures incorporated. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658 -8915, (949) 644 -3232. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on June 10, 2008 at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. y141/�//l • �y4il�C.L/.C/1/1� LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach Jam.and Smudge Free Printing i www.avery.com AVERY® 51600 Use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 1- 800 -GO- AVERY, , * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO30 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO30 * * * * *AUTOCR * *C030 114 - 222 -28 114 - 222 -29 -114- 222 -30 Melvyn B & Ruth Ross *M* Larry Moon i 'Ann Schmitz 5401 Lido Sands Dr i 5405 Lido Sands Dr i:j 5409 Lido Sands Dr Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2204 ''; Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2204 . '.Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2204 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO30 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO30 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO30 424 - 501 -02. 424 - 502 -03 424- 502 -04 Frank X & Margaret Muscatellc Florence Golonka Nancy Nelson *M* 5403 River Aver: 5315 River Ave .15309 River Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2238 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2208 -' :Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2208 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO30 ! - * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO30 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO30 424 - 502 -06 424 - 502 -11 424- 502 -12 Jody Sharp j: Virginia E Keys Lavonne Sherman . 5301 River Ave 5308 Neptune Ave 5310 Neptune Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2208 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2207 'Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2207 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO57 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO38 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO38 424 - 501 -01 114- 170 -67 - .114- 170 -69 Robert E & Lenora De Caro ! State Of California State Of California 30987 Steeplechase Dr 2501 Pullman St ;2501 Pullman St San Juan Capi, CA 92675 -1930 Santa Ana, CA 92705 -5511 Santa Ana, CA 92705 -5511 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO20 * * * * *AUTOCR * *C004 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO34 424 - 502 -02 42.4 - 484 -02 '424- 482 -06 Richard Stanford Citrano Family 2006 Trust Salvatore A & Ramona Scaffidc 1144 W Valencia Mesa Dr 637 E Las Palmas Dr - 620 Richfield Rd Fullerton, CA 92833 -2219 Fullerton, CA 92835 -1617 .. Placentia, CA 92870 -6727 * * * * *AUTOCR * *B017 I * * * * *AUTOCR * *BO17 * * * * *AUTOCR * *B017 424 - 483 -03 - 939 -29 -048 939 -29 -049 Ernest Kroener -':i Kudenoff & Kroener Julia & Pete Kudenoff PO Box 2010 PO Box 2010 PO Box 2010 Paso Robles, CA 93447 -2010 i Paso Robles, CA 93447 -2010 j' Paso Robles, CA 93447 -2010 * * * * *AUTOCR * *B011 I * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO09 i * * * * *AUTOCR * *C001 424 - 506 -05 i 424 - 501 -03 :424- 502 -09 Richard Felling *M* I Scipio M Carnecchia Claus H & Carolyn Lund - PO Box 5961'1 2484 Ramona St 176 Madrona Ave . Fresno, CA 93755 -5961 i:;i ` Palo Alto, CA 94301 -4234 .I Belvedere Tib, CA 94920 -2451 .... .. .. ....__ . .... __....... _.. ..... ...._ _.... .. * * * * *AUTOCR * *BO03 * * * * *AUTOCR * *BO32 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO06 424 - 491 -04 114 - 222- 01 424- 506 -04 Bastanchury Partnership Joseph H Parker Blake A & Rebecca Nonweiler PO Box 306 ij PO Box 3147 1620 Sisters Ct Nw Soulsbyville, CA 95372 -0306 Bowman, CA 95604 -3147 Salem, OR 97304 -2089 ;West Newport Beach Association * ** 84 Printed * ** Lido Sands Community Association ;Attn: Paul Watkins Attn: Bob Leonard 6408 W. Oceanfront Newport Beach, CA 902663 'Newport Beach, CA 92663 PA2007 -100 for UP2007.011 & CR2007. 007_._,________ . PA2007A00 for MD2007.044 & NT2007.001 5515 River Avenue DATE QF MEETING: - �3Ad -09 -008 -1, BLS W� el �,ip ® os�s ®wanner ®D w071AAaAennnnnn epidea al5etp9s @ 49 a6eLnoggue uoisseudwl Jam and Smudge Free Printing www.averycom AVERY® Snob lase Avery@ TEMPLATE 51600 1- 800 -GO- AVERY.' - b 1 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO21 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO21 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO21 424 - 485 -01 424 - 495 -01 :424 - 501 -04 City Of Newport Beach City Of Newport Beach City Of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd - 3300 Newport Blvd 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3816 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3816 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3816 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO24 -� * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO24 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO24 424 - 482 -01 424 - 483 -02 :424- 483 -06 Marcia Nordlund William Meyer Behzad Barouti 5710.Seashore Dr 5011 Seashore Dr 5601 Seashore Dr Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2224. Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2427 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2221 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO24 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO24 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO24 424 - 484 =03 424 - 484- 05!i424- 491 -01 Robert Moody Jeffrey G & Diane Heimstaedt Connable Wills 5507 Seashore Dr 5503 Seashore Dr ;5411 Seashore Dr Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2219 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2219 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2217 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO24 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO24 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO24 . 424 - 491 -02 424 - 491 -06 ;424- 492 -01 Jeffrey L Morris Peter T & Gloria Hoffman 'Eric & Kimberly Hamann 5409 -1/2 Seashore Dr 5401 Seashore Dr 5311 Seashore Dr Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2217 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2217 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2215 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO24 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO24 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO24 424 - 492 - 03424- 492 - 05424- 492 -06 Geoffrey Escalette Daniel Lazzarevich Mark Aolansky 5307 Seashore Dr 5303 Seashore Dr 5301 Seashore Dr Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2215 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2215 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2215 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO24 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO24 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO24 424- 505 -02 424 - 505 -03 424 - 506 -01 John Messerchmitt Russell Beaumont Gerald Lingelbach 5404 Seashore Dr 5400 Seashore Dr 5316 Seashore Dr Newport Beach, CA 92663 -22118 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2232 1" Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2216 * * * * *AUTOCR * *C030 * * * * *AUTOCR * *C030 * * * * *AUTOCR * *C030 114- 221 -01 114 - 221 -02 114- 221 -04 Dennis M Gimpel Mark Lambert Donald L Rogers Dev Corp Al . 5600 River Ave 5520 River Ave 5512 River Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2214 -i Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2213 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2213 * * * * *AUTOCR * *C030 * * * * *AUTOCR * *C030 l * * * * *AUTOCR * *C030 114 - 221 -05 114 - 221 -06 114 - 222 -03 John Durio *M* Robert W Beveridge Robert Gaughran 215 Jo Anne P1 209 Jo Anne P1 5400 River Ave Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2206 -' Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2206 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2211 * * * * *AUTOCR * *C0301; * * * * *AUTOCR * *C030 * * * * *AUTOCR * *C030 114 - 222 -04 114 - 222 -05 114 - 222 -07 Leslie Deladurantey John B & Cheryl Lessley Keith R Forrester 5316 River Ave 5312 River Ave 5304 River Ave . Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2209 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2209 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2209 * * * * *AUTOCR * *C030 * * * * *AUTOCR * *C030 * * * * *AUTOCR * *C030. 114- 222 -08 114- 222 -24 114- 222 -27 Nicolai Glazer *M* -; Christopher Natland Gregory S & Shirley Rein *M* 5300 River Ave 5305 Lido Sands Dr 5319 Lido Sands Dr Newport Beach, CA 92663-2209 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2203 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2203 A113Atlb9.008-L ®09L5 umgeb ei zesum ®09L5 ®AZ18AV \ W l w0Y4aneNMM apidej 96ey)s q w a6emnogi3ue uomwdwi Easy Peel Labels ® 1 A 11�111 See Instruction Sheet 1 _ Q i AVERT( ®5160® use Avery® TEMPLATE 51600 jFeed,Paper for Easy Peel Featurei 1 * * * * *AUTOCR* *0003 j . * * * * *AUTOCR * *RO01 * * * * *AUTOCR * *BO08 . 424 - 041 -04 424 - 483 -01 424- 502 -10 Newport Cherokee j Medford Bragg •.Elizabeth J Kreuter 702 Oberlin Rd 150 2653 Slow Flight Dr PO Box 662 Raleigh, NC 27605 -3316 Port Orange, FL 32128 -6766 `Elm Grove, WI 53122 -0662 * * * * *AUTOCR* *0003 i. i * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO66 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO14 424 - 482 -03 424 - 483 -05 ;424- 502 -05 Harold Linick Newsom Properties Calvin Schneider 2250 Canyonback Rd 8330 Catalina Ave '5150 E Pacific Coast Hwy Los Angeles,' CA 90049 -1177 Whittier, CA 90602 -2806 '.Long Beach, CA 90804 -3312 * * * * *AUTOCR* *0006 ''i * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO21 * * * * *AUTOCR* *0001. 424. 484 -01! 424 - 502 -01 i 424- 502 -07 Jacob Maarse �_ Roger A & Lynda Brown Darren L Stewart . 310 E Highland Ave 2550 Lombardy Rd 5343 Riverside Dr Sierra Madre, CA 91024 -2017 San Marino, CA 91108 -1512 Chino, CA 91710 -4252 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO41 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO32 * * * * *AUTOCR * *000S� - 114 - 222 -02 114 - 222 -25 424 - 484 -06 Daniel W & Michelle Parke Miyo Himeno Richard Ridgway 735 N Banna Ave : 1142 Ridgeside Dr 1 6752 Karin P1 Glendora, CA 91741 - 2161 Monterey Park, CA 91754 -3731 San Gabriel, CA 91775 -1107 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO31 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO13 I * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO18 424 - 506 -02 114 7221 -03 114 - 221 -08 Glen & Rahil Kim Donald Rogers ' Lawrence Raphael 513 Kristen Ct - 11020 Muirfield Dr 1510 Smiley Heights Dr Encinitas, CA 92024 -2700 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 -1431 ' Redlands, CA 92373 -6531 * * * * *AUTOCR* *Coll * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO14 I- * * * * *AUTOCR * *C011� . 424 - 505 -01 - !'� 424 - 482 -05 �:'; 114 - 221 -07 Samuel M Trout William Jacoby! Evelyn Dolan *M* 1735 Labrador Dr I 1905 Lanai Dr 910 W 20Th St Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -2315 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 - 3507;1 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 -4108 * * * * *AUTOCR* *0009 j I * * * * *AUTOCR * *B067 ij * * * * *AUTOCR * *B004; . 424 - 492 -02 i 424- 506 -03 .11- 114 - 222 -31 Irene Brown *B* i�l ' Anthony Carlini ;l Lido Sands Community Assn - 5028 Avenida Del Sol I; PO Box 12649 ;'! PO Box 1373 Laguna Woods, CA 92637 -1802 i, Newport Beach, CA 92658 - 5070:',. Newport Beach, CA 92659 -0373 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO28 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO60 � i * * * * *AUTOCR* *Coll'. 424 - 482 -04 �i 424 - 502 -08 ! 114 - 222 -06 Dan Kassel I Gary Anderson Jamieson Family Trust 10 Seabluff ! -!. 2182 Mesa Dr ! 5308 River Ave Newport Beach, CA 92660 -9104 Newport Beach, CA 92660 -1710 1 Newport Beach, CA 92663 - 2209,, * * * * *AUTOCR * *C011 * * * * *AUTOCR* *Coll * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO2l1 424 - 491 -03 424 - 491 =05 424 - 471 -02 Huberman Living Trust ' Albin Second Family City Of Newport Beach 5407 Seashore Dr 5403 Seashore Dr 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 -2217 Newport Beach, CA 92663 - 2217,1 Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3816 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO21 * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO21.; * * * * *AUTOCR * *CO21. 424 - 471 -04 424 - 471 -05 :,, 424 - 471 -06 City Of Newport Beach City Of Newport Beach City Of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd j,f 3300 Newport Blvd -.; 3300 Newport Blvd Newport Beach, CA 92663 - 3816:. Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3816 '.' Newport Beach, CA 92663 -3816; Ctiquettes fadles A peler A C,onsuttez lafeugte rrWWAVerycom I Ifai.n In neha.if Awcave c1f.A9 SAnt do fhAMPmant .Ign*en..Nnn �- RM1..P!'1_A�ICW NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Seashore Village Residential Development Appeal (PA 2007 -100) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the following item An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Sch. No. 2008021075) and to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001, Use Permit No. 2007 -011, Modification Permit No. 2007 -044, and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001, associated with an application filed by Seashore Village, LLC, for property located in the Multi- Family Residential (MFR) Dished at 5515 River Avenue. The appeal was filed by Lennie DeCaro. The project, as approved by the Planning Commission, permitted the development of 12 detached single -unit residential structures and 6 detached two - unit (duplex) residential structures (24 units total) on a 1.49 -acre site. The site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. Project implementation required the approval of the following applications: 1) a tentative tract map to create a 24 -unit condominium subdivision; 2) a use permit to allow each of the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City's base height limit; 3) a modification permit to allow encroachments into the required front and side yard setback areas and a reduction in the required distance between detached buildings; and 4) a coastal residential development permit to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act), which regulates the demolition of low and moderate income (affordable) dwelling units in the Coastal Zone. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment with mitigation measures incorporated. it is the present intention of the City to accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658 -8915, (949) 6443232. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on June 10. 2008 at the hour of 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and ail persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Seashore Village Residential Development Appeal (PA 2007 -100) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that One City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the following item An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Sch. No. 2008021075) and to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001, Use Permit No. 2007 -011, Modification Permit No. 2007 -044, and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001, associated with an application filed by Seashore Village, LLC, for property located in the Mufti- Family Residential (MFR) District at 5515 River Avenue. The appeal was filed by Lennie DeCaro. The project, as approved by the Planning Commission, permitted the development of 12 detached single -unit residential structures and 6 detached two- unit (duplex) residential structures (24 units total) on a 1.49 -acre site. The site is currently developed with a 54 -unit apartment complex that would be demolished to accommodate the proposed development. Project implementation required the approval of the following applications: 1) a tentative tract map to create a 24 -unit condominium subdivision; 2) a use permit to allow each of the 6 duplex structures to exceed the Citys base height limit; 3) a modification permit to allow encroachments into the required front and side yard setback areas and a reduction in the required distance between detached buildings; and 4) a coastal residential development permit to ensure compliance with Government Code Section 65590 (Mello Act), which regulates the demolition of low and moderate income (affordable) dwelling units in the Coastal Zone. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment with mitigation measures incorporated. It is the present intention of the City to accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658-8915, (949) 6443232. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on June 10. 2008 at the hour of 700 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Newport Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, at which time and place any and all persons interested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only Ouse issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. For information call (949) 644 -3200. LaVonne M. Harkless, City Clerk City of Newport Beach AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING 9: C;q On 2008, 1 posted the Notice of Public Hearing regarding: Seashore Village Residential Development Appeal (PA 2007-100) Date of Hearing: June 10, 2008 w OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERIC CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH a 3300.Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE LAW OFFICES EUGENE C. GRATZ A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION ALSO MEMBER N.Y. Ea, 301 FOREST AVENUE -SUITE 300 POST OFFICE BOX 4197 LAGUNA BEACH. CALIFORNIA 996594197 TELEPHONE (91) 69)5954 FACSIMILE (949) 4974954 June 10, 2008 "RECEIV D A ER AGEN A PRINTED` o — E -MAIL GRAT.1.ARQ..X NET IN RESPONSE REPLY TO FILE NO. VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ^' Hard Copy Follows Via Personal Delivery ! J David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach CD "I 3300 Newport Boulevard — Newport Beach, California 92660 vi Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of 24 -Unit Condominium Project 5515 River Avenue, Newport Beach, California Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001; Modification Permit No. 2007 -044 Use Permit No. 2007 -011: Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2007 -001 Newport Beach City Council - Hearing Date: June 10, 2008, Agenda Item No. 26 Dear Mr. Lepo: I represent the Applicant on the above- captioned project, Seashore Village, LLC., which presently set for a hearing on June 10, 2008 (i.e., today) before the City Council on an appeal by Ms. Lennie DeCaro of the Planning Commission's approval of the Project on April 17, 2008. I am in receipt of an application from Appellant DeCaro requesting a continuance of that hearing. The Applicant strenuously opposes the request for continuance as set forth herein. The Code section that Ms. DeCaro cites, Newport Beach Municipal Code §20.95, does state that a hearing shall be held within 60 days of the date the appeal is filed — which the applies to the hearing set for tonight. However, although the date Ms. DeCaro requests would be within the 60 day period, the Code section says nothing about a continuance of the hearing; although the City Council of course always has discretion to control its own calendar, the only actual ground that the Code sets forth for a continuance is that "both the applicant and the appellant or the appellate body consent to a later date." [Emphasis added.] In this case, the applicant does not consent to the continuance — and not arbitrarily, as stated below, but for extremely good cause. Ms. DeCaro's request, although it uses the catch -all phrase "the ends of justice," states no reason that justice requires such continuance; it also says that a ground for the request is "due to the unavailability of witnesses," but does not identify any witnesses expected to testify who are unavailable or why their testimony is essential, or even important. (The only witness who testified in support of Ms. DeCaro's contentions at the Planning Commission hearing was her husband Robert DeCaro, who Ms. DeCaro has admitted to me is in town.) LAW OFFICES EUGENE C. GRATZ City of Newport Beach Mayor and Councilmembers Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Project at 5515 River Avenue June 10, 2008 Page 2 Moreover, contrary to Ms. DeCaro's implication that there is something improper about staff's summary of her objections, in fact, first, that is the very function of a staff report, and second, Ms. DeCaro's own letters and comments are not only contained within the staff report, but the included Planning Commission staff reports examine Ms. DeCaro's timely comments on the Mitigated Negative Declaration exhaustively and in detail. (The second commentary on the MND was also examined by staff for the Planning Commission, notwithstanding that it was untimely.) Finally, Ms. DeCaro makes this request not only at the very last moment, when substantial resources have been expended on preparing for the hearing, but after having requested the applicant's consent to such continuance last week and had it denied. In connection with that denial, I explained to Ms. DeCaro in detail why a continuance of the hearing could be ruinous to the applicant because of "hard" deadlines on financing commitments, including contingencies based upon approvals, and the damage that the loss of the financing commitment could do in the current market. Ms. DeCaro therefore knows that her statement that "a two week continuance cannot be considered detrimental to the applicant" is factually untrue — especially in light of the fact that, as you know, it was she that caused the need for the continuance of the Planning Commission hearing. Over the past several weeks — and continuing up to last night — I conducted extensive negotiations with Ms. DeCaro, and my client actually agreed to meet her price, notwithstanding that we thought it substantially beyond the actual market value of her property — conditioned only upon her withdrawal of her request to continue this hearing. Nonetheless, she refused, making this opposition necessary. For all of the foregoing reasons, Irespectfully request that the City Council deny Ms. DeCaro's request for continuance. Very truly yours, LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE C. GRATZ a ECG /hs 0610.1 EUGENE C. GRATZ "RECEIV�� E�44�ASTER AGEND PRINTED;" _SC.'L0 Harkless, LaVonne From: Washington, Lillian Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 4:19 PM To: 'paradigm@aol.com'; Webb, Don (City Council); Daigle, Leslie; 'Edward Selich'; Gardner, Nancy; Curry, Keith;'mfhenn @verizon.net' Cc: Harkless, LaVonne Subject: FW: request for continuance to 6 -24 -08 (from 6- 10 -08) on planning commission appeal "5515 River" Seashore village project. (DeCaro appellant) GO � From: justice4l < mailto:j ustice4l@cox. net> co To: Harkless, LaVonne < mai Ito: LHarkless @city.newport- beach. ca. us> ; Lepo, David - U <mailto: DLepo @city. newport- beach.ca. us> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 12:42 PM Subject: request for continuance to 6 -24 -08 (from 6- 10 -08) on planning commission appeal "5515 River" Seashore village project. (DeCaro appellant) Friday June 6, 2008 To the city of Newport Beach Planning Department, Please cause this request to be forwarded to the appropriate parties and provide confirmation of continuance. In order to serve the ends of justice I am requesting the hearing on my appeal to be rescheduled /continued to 6- 24 -08. This is within the 60 day time limit as set forth for hearing the appeal without the consent of the applicant. Since I am the aggrieved party and my request falls within this 60 day time limit from filing appeal (4- 29 -08), and there are no provisions to the contrary to disallow this, I request this action be initiated due to the unavailability of essential witnesses and in fairness to the ability to present my entire case. I additionally object to the placement on the agenda at the end of the evening, and it is clear it may need to be continued due to the heavy agenda anyway. Further, in reviewing the posted agenda today, staff has taken the liberty of summarizing my objections. The primary component to my appeal is regarding a CEQA challenge if a ruling to require an EIR is not found and council votes to adopt the mitigated negative declaration. Staff has not made obvious the fact that the 50 pages of objections as part of my appeal are to present a fair argument to demand an EIR, objecting to the MND, as well as requesting rejection of project as presented. This appeal hearing is primarily to demand an EIR and to raise the many issues that are objectionable. Additionally, there are 10 attachments as stated in the agenda, yet they are not accessible. I also need the time to have these reviewed for adequate preparation for the public hearing. At the initial public hearing at planning commission, we were informed they would not continue hearing date and would be taking public comments as the applicant was ready but would be late as he had some bugs to work out in his power point presentation. We were never informed during the hearing that they decided to continue the hearing and we waited until 10:30 p.m. to speak, only to have the commission close the hearing without taking public comment. Other continuances on this hearing were initiated by staff and the final hearing placed us once again at the end of the agenda, wherein we had to present at nearly 11:00 P.M.. The applicant & his attorney however, were not only allowed to present but were given the opportunity to rebut my speech. On the other hand, I was not allowed to rebut their comments. Given this past treatment, the city of Newport should make every effort to avoid impartiality and I therefore request immediate notification to the applicant that the continuance be granted and heard on 6- 24 -08. The city must provide this request as I am the one who paid for the appeal and a continuance is justified and within legal time frame of 60 days. For a fair and just hearing, I am requesting this reschedule /continuance to 6-24 -08 be confirmed. This request for continuance is timely in that I am the appellant and all council members will have had the opportunity to be made aware of the change in agenda. A two week continuance cannot be considered detrimental to the applicant, given the history of the past continuances from planning commission that were not objected to and the fact that consent of applicant is only required for continuance beyond 60 days after appeal was filed. Further, the interest of justice is best served with a two week continuance. Regards, Lennie DeCaro Per Municipal Code 20.95 procedures for appeals. Wherein it states, "A. Hearing Date. A hearing on the appeal shall be held before an appellate body within sixty (60) days of the date the appeal is filed. The hearing may be scheduled more than sixty (60) days after the appeal is filed, provided both the applicant and the appellant or the appellate body consent to a later date." Harkless, LaVonne From: Gene Gratz [GratzLaw@cox.net] Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 3:19 PM To: Lepo, David Cc: Harp, Aaron; Harkless, LaVonne; 'Todd Schooler A. I. A.'; 'Karen Sully'; Sherry Brinckerhoff; grant @laneco.us; 'justice4l'; Rosansky, Steven Subject: 5515 River Avenue Project - Newport Beach City Council Hearing, June 10, 2008, Agenda Item 26 David, As you may know, I am the attorney for Seashore Village, LLC, the applicant on the above captioned matter, which is set on the City Council's calendar for tomorrow, June 10, 2008 as Agenda Item 26. I have recently been made aware that the Appellant, Lennie DeCaro, has today filed an application for a continuance of the hearing. The applicant is strenuously opposed to any such continuance, and I was in the process of preparing a response to her application to send to you. However, Ms. DeCaro and I are presently discussing an agreement that may result in the withdrawal of her request for continuance, and may make the appeal hearing itself less contentious, and I thought it best to divert my energy to that agreement, resulting in delay of the opposition to the request for continuance. I hope and trust that you and the City Councilmembers will understand. If there is no complete agreement to withdraw the request for continuance by close of business today, I will send the opposition to you by first thing tomorrow morning. Thank you for your attention to this matter; if there are any questions or problems, please do not hesitate to call. Gene Gratz Eugene C. Gratz, Esq. Law Offices of Eugene C. Gratz, APLC 301 Forest Avenue - Suite 200 Post Office Box 4197 Laguna Beach, CA 92652 -4197 Telephone: (949) 497 -3234 Cell Phone: (949) 322 -3661 Facsimile: (949) 497 -4934 E -Mail: GratzLawCct7cox.net NOTICE: This E -mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510 -2521, 6 confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. and that use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. 06/10/2008 N "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA From: Harkless, LaVonne Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2008 5:25 PM To: Washington, Lillian Subject: Fw: 5515 River Avenue Project - Newport Beach City Council Hearing, June 10, 2008, Agenda Item 26 For tonight. Please confirm receipt. Sent from Blackberry - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Gene Gratz <GratzLaw @cox.net> To: Lepo, David - Cc: Harp, Aaron;. Harkless, LaVonne; 'Todd Schooler A. I. A.' <sk000ler @aol.com>; 'Karen Sully' <karen @thesullygroup.com>; Sherry Brinckerhoff <sherry.gratzlaw @cox.net>; grant @laneco.us < grant @laneco.us>; 'justice4l' <justice4l @cox.net>; Rosansky, Steven; Law @RexLowe.com <Law @RexLowe.com >; Murillo, Jaime Sent: Tue Jun 10 17:11:52 2008 Subject: 5515 River Avenue Project - Newport Beach City Council Hearing, June 10, 2008, Agenda Item 26 David, The Applicant, Seashore Village, LLC and the Appellants, Robert and Lenora DeCaro, have worked out an agreement. Ms. DeCaro will be calling you to inform you that Appellants are withdrawing their request for a continuance and that, although they are not formally dismissing their appeal, they will not be making any presentation in support of it, but making an appearance "for the record" to maintain their status as "aggrieved parties." It is therefore not the intention of the Applicant team to make a substantive presentation, except to the extent that staff or members of the City Council want us to do so to explain the Project. Because the agreement contemplates a consummation when the Applicant has received all approvals for its Project, I shall be proposing to the City that we all - the DeCaros as putative Petitioners, the City of Newport Beach as putative Respondent and Seashore Village LLC as putative Real Party in Interest - enter into a stipulation to toll the statute of limitations on a Petition for Writ of Mandate to appeal the.City's approval of the Project. I will address a request to the City Attorney, with a copy to you, unless you have any alternative suggestion for handling that procedure. Thank you for your attention to this matter, as well as your assistance in facilitating this process over the past several days - and weeks and months. Please also accept, and convey to Jamie Murillo, my sincere admiration for the quality of the staff work that went into this Project. The City of Newport Beach is fortunate indeed in the quality of it staff. Gene Gratz 1 Eugene C. Gratz, Esq. Law Offices of Eugene C. Gratz, APLC 301 Forest Avenue - Suite 200 Post Office Box 4197 Laguna Beach, CA 92652 -4197 Telephone: (949) 497 -3234 Cell Phone: (949) 322 -3661 Facsimile: (949) 497 -4934 E -Mail: GratzLaw @cox.net <mailto:GratzLaw @cox.net> NOTICE: This E -mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510 -2521, is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. and that use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, then delete it. Thank you. 2 Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Number A -6214, September 29, 1961, and A -24831 June 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years. and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: May 31, 2008 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 3, 2008 at Costa Mesa, California. !MF OI�/M Signat re NOTNE OE PUBUf NEARING � AppW RA 2007 -100) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- EN that the City Council of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the following' item; An appeal of the Plan- ning Commission's de- cision to adopt a Mlti gated Negative' Declaration (Sch. No. 2008021075) and to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 2007 -001, Use Permit No. 2007 -011, Modification Permit No. 2007 -044, and Coastal Residential Devebyment I Permit No. 2007 -001, an ap v Sea- Avenue. The ap- was filed by Lennie The project, as ap -I proved by [he Planning Commission, permitted the development of 12 detached single -unit residential structures and 6 detached two unit (duplex) residential structures (24 units to- tal) on a 1.49 -acre site. The site is currently de- veloped with a 54 -unit apartment complex that would be demolished to accommodate the pro- posed development. Project implementation required the approval of the following applica- tions: 1) a tentative tract map to create a 24 -unit condominium subdivision; 2) a use permit to allow each of the 6 duplex structures to exceed the City s be height n limit; 3) a modi- ficatio permit to allow encroachments into the required front and side yard setback areas and I reduction in the re- quired distance between detached buildings; and 4) a coastal residential development Permit to ensure compliance with Government Code Sec- tion 65590 (Mello Act), which regulates the demolition of low and moderate income (af_ -- �- / fordable) aweumg mnu in the Coastal Zone. I NOTICE IS HEREBY FUR- THER GIVEN that a Miti- gated Negative Declare - ton has one n prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the appl(catipn noted above. The Miti- gated Negative Declare- firm states that. the subject development will not result in a signifi- cant effect on the envi- I ronment with mitigation measures incorporated. It is the present inten- tion of the City to ac- cept the Mitigated Neg- ative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be con- strued as either apProv- a) or denial by the City of the subject applica hon. The City encour- ages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Mitgated Neg. ,five Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Depart- ment. City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. 92658-8915, (949) 644- 3232. NOTICE IS HEREBY FUR- THER GIVEN that said public hearing will be held on June 10, 2008 at the hour of 7:00 p.m in the Council Chambers of the Newport 'Beach City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard. Newport Beach, California. at which time and place any and all persons in- terested may appear and be heard thereon. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to rais- ing only those issues else you raised r at o the nepublic hearing described in this notice or in written cor- respondence deliveded to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. Fnr information call LaVonne M City of New{ Published Beach /Costa A Pilot May