No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18 - Bayview Senior Affordable Housing - Use Permit 2003-003CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Supplemental Report Agenda Item No. 18 February 25, 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Department James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210 SUBJECT: Bayview Senior Affordable Housing, consisting of 150 units on approximately 5 acres & Upper Bayview Landing View Park. APPLICANT: The Related Companies of California 18201 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92612 INTRODUCTION: The Planning Commission considered the senior housing project on February 20, 2003. At the conclusion of public hearing, the Commission unanimously voted to approve the project. Staff is preparing the minutes for this item on an expedited basis for the Council's consideration. The draft minutes for this item will be made available prior to the meeting. ISSUES DISCUSSED: Parking adequacy— Both the Commission and the public questioned the adequacy of parking. The project provides 180 spaces for the 150 units. Based upon a comparison of parking ratios of other jurisdictions, information on similar projects in the area, testimony of actual parking usage of developed projects from the applicant and the opinion of the consulting traffic engineer, Mr. Joe Foust, the Commission concluded that the parking provided will be adequate. The density and potential occupancy of the project was also raised during the discussion of parking. Although some people had the perception that 2 people would occupy a one - bedroom unit and 2 -3 people would occupy a two - bedroom unit, testimony from the applicant indicated that that level of occupancy doesn't happen in Related's other senior affordable projects. Typically, 1 person will occupy a one - bedroom unit and either 1 or 2 people will occupy a two bedroom unit. One of the Supplemental Report for the Bayview Senior Affordable Housing & Upper Bayview Landing View Park February 25, 2003 Page 2 reasons for this is that a two person household likely would have an income higher than the limit for a one bedroom unit. Traffic congestion — The opinion that the project would contribute to traffic congestion in the area was expressed by the public. The traffic analysis prepared for the project concludes that impacts from the project are not anticipated. Grade alteration — The need to increase the grade was discussed. The geotechnical engineer for the project testified that the soil conditions, shallow water table and drainage engineering necessitates the increase in the grade. The Commission then considered the impact of this upon the measurement of building height and concluded that measuring the grade from natural grade was unworkable. Building height — The findings to establish 32.5 foot height limits, measured to the midpoint of roof of the building, were debated. The Commission concluded that the design of the project, with three buildings, increased open space and provided views through the project site from Jamboree Road. This design is believed to be superior to a lower building with a larger footprint, which would decrease open space and preclude views through the site. Public views — The only area where public views are altered in a remarkable way is the views from Jamboree Road. The Commission concluded that the alteration of these views was acceptable given the City's objective to provide affordable housing at the site. Limited views through the site are possible between the buildings. Private views — The City has no policy on the preservation of private views; however, the City prepared view simulations from Villa Point. These simulations showed that water views from Villa Point will be maintained, although slightly reduced. First floor units will be more affected than second floor units. Coastal sage scrub — A question of the difference in the amount of coastal sage scrub habitat identified in the CIOSA EIR biological assessment and the assessment prepared for the project was discussed. The difference is attributable to differing methodologies between the biologists. A more complete explanation prepared by the City's environmental consultant is included as Attachment B. Approximately Ya acre will be graded and the adjacent park site will provide a mitigation site where a minimum of 1.0 acre will be planted. The Commission concluded that adequate mitigation in accordance with the CIOSA program EIR is provided for within the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project. Supplemental Report for the Bayview Senior Affordable Housing & Upper Bayview Landing View Park February 25, 2003 Page 3 Archeology — A concern about possible impacts to archeological sites was expressed. Mitigation measures applied to the project include having supplemental archeological investigations prior to grading and on -site monitoring during grading activities. If resources are encountered, redirecting or stopping of grading activities will occur. An assessment of the resources by the archeologist in consultation with resource preservation groups will occur and appropriate protection and /or documentation will be required. This issued is also discussed in Attachment B. Coastal bluff alteration — The opinion suggesting that the grading for the project is inconsistent with existing policies to preserve the bluff in its present state was discussed. Staff expressed the opinion that the alteration of the bluff is minimized to the maximum extent practical given the City's objective expressed within the General Plan to provide affordable housing at the site and the desire to enhance views of the Bay from Coast Highway. The Commission concluded that the project is consistent with General Plan Land Use Policy D. Project Location - Several people expressed the opinion that the site is not ideal for senior housing due to its location. The location is not near shopping or medical resources and the steep grade surrounding the site were cited. The spokesman for the senior community said that the residents will likely use existing shuttle services thorough the Oasis Senior Center. Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) — The City received two comment letters on the environmental document (Attachment A). The first was from Jan Vandersloot and the second was from CalTrans. Mr. Vandersloot raised the concerns discussed previously about coastal sage scrub habitat, archeology and about coastal bluff preservation. The CalTrans letter indicated a need to further study the grade of the bike path from the park to Coast Highway for safety and that any work proposed to be conducted within the right -of -way of Coast highway requires a permit from CalTrans. These comments, and responses prepared by staff (Attachment B), were considered by the Planning Commission in their decision to adopt the MND. The Commission was concerned about the adoption of the MND as it relates to the park as they did not want to eliminate the flexibility of the City Council to further refine the design and landscaping. Supplemental Report for the Bayview Senior Affordable Housing & Upper Bayview Landing View Park February 25, 2003 Page 4 CONCLUSION: After weighing the facts and opinions on all sides of the issues summarized above, the Planning Commission concluded that the Mitigated Negative Declaration should be adopted and the findings for approval for the Use Permit, Site Plan Review and Lot Line Adjustment were adequately supported. The Commission modified the draft resolution for approval by amending one finding and one condition of approval related to maintaining landscaping in such a way as to not materially impact public views. The modified and approved resolution is attached as Attachment C. Finally, the City received two letters of support for the park project which are included as Attachment D. Prepared by: &Wc—,�4 James W. Ca pbell Senior Planner Attachments: Submitted by: lid Goa. Patricia L. Temple Planning Director A. Comment letters received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) B. Response prepared by the City's environmental consultant to comments on the MND. C. Approved, but unsigned, Planning Commission resolution approving the project. D. Support letters for the proposed park project received by the Public Works Department. ATTACHMENT A Comment letters received on the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) r This Page Left Intentionally Blank 0 Wednesday. February 19. 2003 11:26 AM To: Newport Beach Planning From: Jan Vandersloot. 949-54 8-6326 Department JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. 2221 E16 Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone (949) 548 -6326 Email JonV3(&aol.com Fax (714) 848 -6643 February 19, 2003 Chair Steven Kiser and Planning Commissioners Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 By Fax to Planning Department: 949 -644 -3229 Re: Agenda Item Number 4 February 20, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Chair Kiser and Planning Commissioners, These are my comments on the Bayview Landing Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project and the associated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (%IND). I will not be able to attend the February 20 Planning Commission meeting because I am at a medical seminar. In the past I have advocated the use of Lower Bayview Landing for affordable senior housing. The central location, proximity to Newport Bay, Newport Center, and the outstanding view opportunities will make these apartments highly desired in my opinion. My main concerns revolve around the issues of biologic mitigation, archeological mitigation, and consistency with the Newport Beach General Plan and Coastal Act issues relating to landform alterations and coastal bluffs. The Mitigated Negative Declaration ('vf 'D) seems to entirely omit the biologic value of the coastal bluff that will be cut down 6 to 12 feet to improve the view from Coast Highway. The biology report by Keane Biological Consulting, October 29, 2001, does not mention the possibility or the biological effects of cutting down the coastal bluff, which is a natural coastal bluff in the steep portion of the site above the Dunes. The vegetation on this bluff such as Box Thom (Lycium califomica) is not mentioned in the report, thus I do not think Keane analyzed this portion of the property for vegetation types. This habitat is contiguous with the rest of the habitat on the bluff face. Moreover, the EIR for the June 1, 1992 CIOSA Agreement identified some 4 acres of coastal sage scrub (CSS) that contained habitat for the threatened gnatcatcher bird, a male example of which was seen on the site in the Nelson biology report of May 13, 1992. For reasons unclear to me, the current biology report identifies only a fraction of that amount. The Page: 1 of 3 Wednesday, February 19, 2003 11:26 AM To: Newport Beach Planning From: Jan Vandersloot, 949 -548 -6326 Department JAN D. VANDERSLOOT, M.D. 2221 E16 Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 Phone (949) 548 -6326 Email JonV3(aaol.com Fax (714) 848 -6643 alterations of natural landforms. This is also a Coastal Act policy and should be discussed in the staff report in terms of compliance with appropriate Coastal Act sections such as Section 30240. As 1 stated at the previous Planning Commission hearing on the subject on January 23, 2003, I basically support the project, with the provisions that adequate mitigations and concerns be addressed as I enumerated above. I believe this project offers a win -win situation where development and environmental concerns can be addressed and the City will benefit from both a needed affordable senior housing project on the site and a natural view park that will be simultaneously created. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Jan D. Vandersloot, MD 3 Page: 3 of 3 RA ENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Irvine, CA 32612.8894 February 19, 2003 Post -it" Fax Note 7671 Date x of , .. F,oL m7b E�P�t Fhone JI Phone 4 -7&Q-- F03 # a Fax x Dan Trimbell File: IGR/CEQA City at Newport Beach SCH #: 2003011093 3300 Newport Boulevard Log #: 1195 Newport Beach, CA 92658 SR: PCH Subject: Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Dear Mr. Trimbell, f Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Sayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project dated January 2003. The project proposes to a 10 -acre park and 150 - unit senior affordable apartment project located at the intersection of on Pacifir. Const Highway (PCH) and Jamboree Boulevard. Caltrans District 12 status is a responsible agency on this project and has the following comments: 1. On Page 7 of the document the drawing shows proposed asphalt bike trail connecting to PCH, however, the document does not have any discussion on this subject. Please submit more detailed information on this proposal. 2. In the event of any activity in Caltrans' right -of-way, an encroachment permit will be required. Applicants are required to plan for sufficient permit processing time, which may include engineering studios and environmental documentation. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and other future developments, which could potentially impact our transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavf at (949) 724 -2267. Robert F. Josepih, 9Mh f IGR/Community Planning Branch C: Tarry Roberts. Office of Planning and Research Ron Helgeson, HQ IGR/Community Planning Saied Hashemi, Traffic Operations "CWtmns improves n biliy ocvoss Cnlrjnroln" n This Page Left Intentionally Blank ATTACHMENT B Response prepared by the City's environmental consultant to comments on the MND. This Page Left Intentionally Blank /z RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Bayview - Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project " February 20, 2003 Letter from Dr. Jan Vandersloot dated February 19, 2003 Issue 1: Biological Mitigation Comment: The letter raises questions regarding biological impacts of grading the bluff and the apparent discrepancy between the CIOSA EIR and the recent biological survey in the amount of Coastal sage scrub (CSS) on site. Response: Dr. Vandersloot raised this issue with staff prior to the Planning Commission study session of January 23`d. He correctly noted that the biological survey prepared as part of the CIOSA EIR in 1992 estimated the amount of Coastal sage scrub at approximately 4 acres while the recent survey estimated the total at about % acre. There are two possible explanations for this discrepancy. The first is that the actual amount of CSS plants could have changed between 1992 and 2001 when the most recent survey was done. CSS plants could have either died naturally or been damaged or removed during weed abatement. Staff is not aware of any instances of illegal removal of CSS since 1992, however. Conversations with the City's biologist suggest that a more likely explanation is a difference in characterization of the vegetation cover by the two biologists. Both su4reys noted that the CSS on this site was not high quality, and is mostly sparse or poorly - developed. Given these conditions, it is likely that any two biologists would differ in their mapping of vegetation types. It appears that the first biologist drew CSS boundaries broadly while the second biologist was more precise and identified only those areas actually covered by CSS plants. The biologist who prepared the 2001 survey, Kathy Keane, indicated that she discussed her methodology and results with a US Fish and Wildlife Service biologist who was familiar with the site and that he agreed with her approach. It should be noted that USFWS will be the entity to review and approve the City's mitigation plan under the existing NCCP agreement. Required mitigation ratios are affected by the quality of the habitat, the location relative to other habitat areas, and the likelihood of success of the revegetation plan. Ratios ranging from '/z to 1 up to 3 to 1 are typical. The final determination of the acreage of CSS revegetation will be determined in consultation with the USFWS and the Coastal Commission. l3 Response to Comments Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project February 20, 2003 Page 2 Issue 2: Archaeology Comment: The letter raises concerns about the existence of two archaeological sites on the property and recommends that research design and test excavations be required as mitigation. Response: Although the archaeological survey conducted in 2001 questions whether the two recorded sites are true cultural sites or only natural shell concentrations, mitigation Measures V -1, V -2 and V -3 have been included in the Negative Declaration to require surface collection and test excavations of both sites prior to any grading. These mitigations will determine the authenticity of the sites and recommend appropriate steps to protect cultural resources, if any exist. Issue 3: Bluff Alteration Response: Preservation of natural bluffs is one of many General Plan policies. This project presents a number of policy issues and competing priorities for the City. Two other policy objectives are provision of affordable housing, pursuant to state law and the City's Housing Element, and enhancement of public views of Upper Newport Bay. The primary purpose for grading the upper portion of the site is to enhance public views from Coast Highway. It is ultimately the decision of the City Council how to balance these competing priorities. It should be clarified that preservation of natural bluffs is a General Plan policy, not an outright prohibition on blufftop alteration. Letter from CalTrans dated February 19, 2003 Comment: CalTrans requests more information regarding the connection of the proposed bicycle trail to Coast Highway and notes that an encroachment permit would be required for any work in CalTrans right -of -way. Response: Public Works staff will work with CalTrans to provide the requested information and will obtain an encroachment permit if any work in CalTrans right - of -way is required. t,o= /N ATTACHMENT C Approved, but unsigned, Planning Commission resolution approving the project. T This Page Left Intentionally Blank /Z RESOLUTION NO. 1587 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. 2003 -003, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2003 -001 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2003 -011 (PA2002 -246) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1121 BACK BAY DRIVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were filed by The Related Companies of California on behalf of the property owner, The Irvine Company, with respect to property located at 1121 Back Bay Drive and legally described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 95 -137, requesting approval of Use Permit No. 2003 -003 to authorize the development of a 150 -unit senior affordable housing project and to establish development standards; Site Plan Review No. 2003 -001 to establish the grade of the site for the purposes of measuring structure height; and Lot Line Adjustment No. 2003 -011. The five -acre site is designated by the Land Use Element of the General Plan for Retail and Service Commercial and the site is zoned PC ( Bayview Planned Community. Section 2. A public hearing was held on February 20, 2003 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: 1. The proposed 150 -unit senior affordable housing project is consistent with the General Plan in that the Land Use Element designates the site for affordable senior citizen housing facilities as an optional use and provides for 200 units of miscellaneous residential uses within the Citywide Growth Projections, and meets the policies and objectives of the Housing Element to provide affordable housing units in meeting the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment. In addition, the project meets the purpose of the Bayview Landing Planned Community (SP -39) district in which the site is located in that the PC Text designates the site for 120 units of senior housing, and further, that the Housing Element provides that a Density Bonus of 25% shall be allocated when the units are designated affordable, resulting in an allocation for the site of 150 senior affordable units. Further, the project 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 in that the project's design was developed incorporating increase setbacks, low lot coverage and a design to optimize public and private views from surrounding properties. 2. The proposed grade is consistent with the provisions of Zoning Code Section 20.65.030.B.3 for the following reasons: a. The proposed grade is reasonable, will result in a more uniform grade throughout the project site, is comparable to other grades in the vicinity of the property, /-r City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1587 Paqe 2 of 9 particularly the grades in the Newport Dunes area, along Back Bay Drive and along Jamboree Road; and will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. b. The proposed grade and related development will not result in the loss of any public views and is consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. Tthe project has been designed to be below the grade of surrounding parcels to the east. c. The existing grade is inappropriate and unworkable for the purposes of measuring height in that the existing grades are low and are impacted by the shallow water table, will not allow property and safe on -site drainage, and the site in its current state is highly disturbed from past uses. In addition, the "useful height' of the buildings would preclude construction of two or three story buildings respectively of 26 and 35 feet, and the existing elevations are unworkable for the purposes of measuring height. d. The proposed grade is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights by the applicant in that the existing grade precludes the development of the property in that the existing grade of the property is required to be raised approximately five feet in order to develop the site in an economically viable fashion and in order to meet City goals to provide the maximum number of senior affordable housing units. 3. The proposed building height is consistent with the provision of Zoning Code Section 20.65.050 for the following reasons: a. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views in that the project has been designed with three buildings rather than a single building and two -story elements in order to decrease the overall building mass and bulk and to allow views between buildings, and the building coverage on the property has been maintained at a lower level and increased setbacks than typical multiple - family residential development in order to increase open space. b. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building in that the building design incorporates a full -pitch roof, and all mechanical equipment has been located on the ground or within the building structure. In addition, a decrease in height would result in a lower building with a larger building footprint resulting in more building coverage, less setback distances from public streets, less open space and more restricted views through the site. c. The increased building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structures and existing developments or public spaces in that the height of the buildings will be below the grade of the O City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1587 Paae 3 of 9 adjacent park and Coast Highway, and below the first floor level of Villa Point condominiums located to the east across Jamboree Road. The site and building design has resulted in less building coverage and increase setbacks, thereby allowing more open space around the buildings and parking lot and improved views through the site. Two -story elements have been incorporated at the ends of the buildings in order to soften the visual impact of the buildings, to offer building articulation and to improve views through the project site. In addition, the surrounding residential projects to the east and the hotel complex to the north have been constructed at maximum heights and at higher elevations; therefore, the subject project will not result in an abrupt or undesirable change in scale in comparison with those surrounding developments. d. The increased height will not result in the project having more floor area in that there is no floor area limitations in the PC -39 district, therefore the proposed increased height of 6.5 feet does not permit any more floor area than could be achieved with the increased height. 4. The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with Subdivision Code Section 19.76.030.B for the following reasons: a. The lot line adjustment will consist of the moving the boundary between two legal building sites and will not change the net land area within each parcel. b. The lot line adjustment will not result in additional parcels being created in that two parcels presently exist and two parcels will continue to exist. c. The parcels as adjusted will comply with all applicable Planned Community regulations and there will be no change in the land use, density or intensity on the property. d. The lot line adjustment, in and of itself, will not result in the need for additional improvements and /or facilities in that all street improvements and dedications presently exist. 5. The project proposal is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the policies of the California Coastal Act in that extensive visitor serving uses currently exist in the Newport Beach Coastal Zone and there is a full -range of existing visitor serving areas and uses within the City including 276 acres of public beaches, 220 acres of public parks, Newport Dunes Aquatic Park, the entire Newport Bay and Harbor, Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve, Crystal Cove State Park and Beach, Balboa Fun Zone, Balboa Village, Marine Avenue, and 37 commercial areas within the Coastal Zone portion of the City. Those uses and areas provide a broad range of visitor services and facilities including: 14 hotels, motels and other similar lodging facilities offering 2,287 rooms within the Coastal Zone and 3,520 rooms citywide; restaurants and snack bars; camping and recreational vehicle accommodations; boat rentals; sports equipment sales and rentals; boat tours; amusement and recreational facilities; golf courses; yacht clubs; tours and cruises; and specialty and souvenir City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. '1587 Paqe 4 of 9 shops. The five acres represents only one percent of the total 497 acres of commercially -zoned property within the Coastal Zone. The development of the five acres for the proposed affordable senior housing site will not substantially detract from the extensive visitor serving facilities within the City, will not preempt establishment of additional facilities on other sites in the City, and will not inhibit the expansion of existing facilities. The project furthers the stated Coastal Act policy to "provide lower cost visitor and recreational facilities" in that the project in being developed in conjunction with a 10 -acre passive park that will provide enhanced public views of Upper Newport Bay and will provide a riding and hiking trail linkage. 6. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 7. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration (ND) have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The Draft ND was circulated for public comment between January 21, 2003 and February 19, 2003. Comments were received from 2 parties and were considered by the Planning Commission. The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 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. There are no cumulative impacts that are anticipated in connection with the project. The project has been conditioned to mitigate any adverse conditions. The prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby approved. Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Use Permit No. 2003 -003, Site Plan Review No. 2003 -001 and Lot Line Adjustment No. 2003 -011, subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" and the Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth in Exhibit "B." Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is called for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. M City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1587 Page 5 of 9 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2003. Fin MA Steven Kiser, Chairman Shant Agajanian, Secretary AYES: Agajanian, McDaniel, Gifford, Selich, Toerqe and Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: Kiser 21 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. '1587 Page 6 of 9 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003 -003, SITE PLAN REVIEW 2003 -001 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 2003 -011 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plot plan, floor plans, elevations, preliminary grading plan, and preliminary landscaping plan reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 20, 2003, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions or mitigation measures contained in Exhibit "B." 2. Use Permit No. 2003 -003 and Site Plan Review No. 2003 -001 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 3. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this site plan review, or revoke this site plan review upon a determination that the implementation of the project which is the subject of this approval causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 4. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent City- adopted version of the California Building Code. The project shall meet all applicable disabled access requirements. 5. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use will be cause for revocation of this permit. 6. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code. No temporary "sandwich" signs or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the apartment complex, including any leasing information. 7. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of any public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 8. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 9. The applicant shall stripe and sign any fire lane as may be established by the Newport Beach Fire Department. The secondary emergency access driveway onto Back Bay Drive, including any gating and gate operational equipment, shall be designed and installed to the review and approval of the Fire Department. If gates are proposed for ZZ City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1587 Paae 7 of 9 the main entrance in the future, the gates shall be designed and installed in accordance with Fire Department approval. 10. Street, drainage and utility improvements shall be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer in accordance with Public Works Department standards. 11. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a drainage plan to the approval of the Public Works Department and /or the Building Department. The drainage plan shall also address any drainage from adjacent properties that currently cross the subject property and shall provide for adequate drainage facilities from those properties to be installed by the applicant. 12. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 13. Any Southern California Edison transformers serving the site shall be located outside the sight distance planes in accordance with City Standard 110 -L. 14. The project shall install and maintain a fire suppression sprinkler and alarm system subject to the review and approval of the Fire Department. Smoke detectors within the units shall be interconnected to waterflow switches on the fire sprinkler systems where determined by the Fire Department. 15. The final landscaping plans shall be prepared in a manner that all trees along the perimeter of the site as well as interior site trees, determined to be located within the line of sight of any public view corridor, shall be of a species that will not materially impair public view corridors or shall be trimmed and maintained so as not to materially impair view corridors. 16. No mechanical equipment shall be located on any exterior roof surface. All mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted and screened from view and /or incorporated into the interior building structure. 17. All construction - related activities shall be in accordance with the Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, and shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction shall not be allowed outside of these hours and days, and is prohibited at any time on Sundays and federal holidays. 18. Units within the project shall be rented to seniors of 55 years of age or older and all of the units shall be made affordable in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement between the applicant and the City of Newport Beach. 75 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1587 Page 8 of 9 19. Parking shall be provided at a minimum of 1.2 spaces per dwelling unit. Parking facilities shall meet applicable standards for commercial parking facilities, and parking and circulation shall be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 20. The mitigation measures as they pertain to the senior affordable housing project and as contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, included as Exhibit `B" of this resolution shall be met. Z City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. 1587 Paqe 9 of 9 Wag IM 4 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Z 5' This Page Left Intentionally Blank 26 ATTACHMENT D Support letters for the proposed park project received by the Public Works Department. L� This Page Left Intentionally Blank 21 EARTH RESOURCE February 20, 2003 Steve Batum Director of Public Works City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re'. Upper Bayview, Property Park Director Batum, FEB 1 3 2003 ru;d;comror's Depar6, f c Earth Resource Foundation, Costa Mesa loins Stop Pollming_Our Newport (SPON) in their support for the creation of a passive park on the "Upper Bayview Landing" property, located at the comer of Jamboree Road and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). This support is based on current plans (as of January-21, 2003) developed in conjunction with the proposed affordable housing project located on the "Lower Bayview Landing" property. ERF understands that the planning phase is still ongoing and plans still must pass commission, council, and various approvals, and like the support expressed by SPON, ERF support is based on the following conditions as publicly discussed at Parks, Beaches, and Recreation meetings over the last few years: • The park will be a passive park, with public access, but a minimum of facilities • No soccer fields, turf grass,. picnic areas and the like • An emphasis on view opportunities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists • Included in the park will be constructed wetlands to naturally-Veal runoff from the Upper and Lower Bayview Landing property • A bike/walkingpath will be constructed up the west side from the existingbike path turning east to the corner of Jamboree and PCH. o..Paved o 8 feet wide o Serves as terminus of the San Diego Creek, Backbay Drive bikeway • The plan includes the removal of the "pad' of dirt that was the former site of the service station located at Jamboree and PCH Some bluff top removal will take place. The greatest amount being 12 vertical feet. The park area will be 100% restored with native vegetation • Excepting a border area along PCH and the slopes facing Jamboree • The palette will include low growing plants and grasses • There will be an area of coastal sage scrub located out of the site line • The city will provide irrigation until the native plants arc well established A Swale flowing to the wetland area will be established back from the bluff edge to reduce erosion of the bluffs The above listed items are not intended to limit the areas of concern by ERF, but to convey our understanding of the conditions of the proposed park on which ERF bases support Sincerely, Dennis J Baker Board of Directors, President Earth Resource Foundation 230 East 17 th Street, Suite 208, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 — tel (949) 645 -5163 — fax (949) 645 -5173 — www.earthresource.org J P.O. BOX 102 BALBOA ISLAND, Febra.uy 18, 2003 Mr. Steve Batum Public Forks Director Newport Beach 3303 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Upper Bayview Landing Park Dear N&. Batum, CALIFORNIA 92662 = uA Ea � FEB I 9 mn FUDuL The intent of this letter is to express support by Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPCN) for the creation of a passive park on the "Upper Bayview banding" property, located at the corner of Jamboree Road and Pacif e Coast Highway (PCH). This support is based on current plans (as of January 21, 2003) developed in conjunction with the proposed affordable housing project located on the "Lower Bayview Landing" property. Understanding that the planning phase is still ongoing and plans still must pass Commission, Council, and other approvals, SP ®N's support is based on the following conditions as publicly discussed at Parks, Beaches, and Recreation meetings over the last few years: • The park will be a passive park, with public access, but a minimum of facilities. • No soccer fields, turf grass, picnic areas and the like • An emphasis on view opportunities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. • Included in the park will be constructed wetlands to naturally treat runoff from the upper and bower Bayview Landing property. • A bike /walking path will be constructed up the west side from the existing bike path, turning east to the corner of Jamboree and PCH. o Paved. o g feet wide o Serves as a terminus of the Sand Diego Creek- Backbay Drive bikeway. o The plan includes the removal of the "pad" of dirt that was the former site of the service station located at Jamboree and PCH. -2)6 : Sc o f -==Ilai y2 MKI .=.e1a13&.: _nz::i x erg : X5a' E:,;E-O3 :Ie a —ice » : a g-�Zse :.a will ycar-:« szpsa'£ £xI:rt. : 1 ap c a2— ei « ! w yam, : w£ ,K» e:«£=y2a e wk =C a :3 s . l a.a wma:- not menc-- a�-Zsc, 3y: 63 e zc2E2 «e « g4e » o « 7t fours y sow O �� T Sao: ,} . � � +� �E� �.� /� »i ! �� � �). ■. �> / : '.\ / � � � .■ § ;� F {� } \, � �,{ � {� y �/ � |�| �| \! ^ .| \(\ ! � \ {� r� : � \� ?t- Z{ I� y �2 . \ . �< � � � / � . \ ■ rc .I .Sol! rc .I .. I orr, E I I I 1 is E I I I F }} p (¥ . V, § }| ,{ \�| 4 77 T qr L I i MA Ilk of 4 I CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 18 February 25, 2003 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Planning Department James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210 SUBJECT: Bayview Senior Affordable Housing, consisting of 150 units on approximately 5 acres & Upper Bayview Landing View Park. APPLICANT: The Related Companies of California 18201 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92612 ISSUES: 1. Affirmation of Planning Commission action on Mitigated Negative Declaration, and land use and development applications for senior affordable housing project. 2. Conceptual approval of park plans, and authorization to submit park plans to California Coastal Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Hold a public hearing and take the following actions: 1. Adopt the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration; and, 2. Approve Use Permit No. 2003 -003, Site Plan Review No. 2003 -001 and Lot Line Adjustment No. 2003 -011, subject to the findings and conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission (PA2002 -246); and , 3. Approve the conceptual plans for the Upper Bayview Landing view park and authorize staff to submit a Coastal Development Permit application to the California Coastal Commission for the view park project as a joint application with the affordable senior housing project. Bayview Senior Affordable Housing & Upper Bayview Landing View Park February 25, 2003 Page 2 DISCUSSION: Background: The City Council requested this item be placed on the same agenda as the loan agreement to assist the senior affordable housing project using the City's affordable housing in -lieu fund, so that the Council can review the project plans at the same time as project funding. The Council's consideration of the housing project has been noticed as a public hearing, and the Council will be reviewing the project and acting as it would with a call for review. The senior housing project will be considered by the Planning Commission on February 20, 2003, and staff will report on their action in a supplemental report on Friday, February 21St The Planning Commission staff report regarding the senior housing project is attached to this report for the Council's consideration. The report fully describes the project and presents the analysis upon which the findings for project approval rest. The Planning Commission's consideration is limited to the discretionary applications summarized below related to the senior housing project. The City Council, in addition to the senior housing project, retains full authority over the proposed City view park. Three applications are required for the senior housing project as designed. 1. Use Permit No. 2003 -003 will establish the development standards under the provisions of the Bayview Landing Planned Community (PC -39) regulations, and will establish a height limit of 32.5 feet to the midpoint of the roof, measured from the finished pad elevation. 2. Site Plan Review No. 2003 -001 will establish the grade of the site for the purposes of measuring building height. 3. Lot Line Adjustment No. 2003 -011 will adjust the boundary between the site and the proposed park site to the south. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. This document covers both the senior housing project and the Upper Bayview Landing view park. The document concludes that the combined projects will not have a significant impact on the environment with the implementation of mitigation measures, project design features and standard City requirements. Bayview Senior Affordable Housing & Upper Bayview Landing View Park February 25, 2003 Page 3 Staff is also requesting the City Council approve the conceptual plans for the Upper Bayview Landing view park as described in the Negative Declaration and shown on the site, grading and landscape plans. The park will have a bike path linking Coast Highway to the existing bike path at the base of the bluff. The park will have a few benches, natural vegetation, and minimal omamental landscaping. The grade of the park is proposed to be lowered to improve the view of the Upper Newport Bay from Coast Highway. The park will also provide area for additional Coastal Sage habitat required as mitigation for a loss of approximately 1/a an acre due to the grading for the adjacent senior housing site. Public Notice: A public notice was prepared in accordance with the Municipal Code and was made mailed to property owners in the area of the project site no less than 10 days in advance of this hearing. The notice was also published in the Daily Pilot, posted at the site and mailed to nearby homeowners associations as required by Section 20.91.030 of the Municipal Code. Alternatives: The City Council has alternate courses to consider in addition to the recommended action, which is to approve the project subject to the findings and conditions adopted by the Planning Commission. The City Council can modify and approve the project. The Council can also continue the project for further study; however, a lengthy delay in project approval will likely cause the project to miss the April 2003 Coastal Commission meeting and the targeted submission of the senior housing project to the California Housing and Finance Authority for a key component of project financing, also in April. Prepared by: James W. Cam bell Senior Planner Attachments: Submitted by: / J/ Patricia L. Temple Planning Director A. Planning Commission Staff Report with Exhibits B. Draft Planning Commission Resolution for project approval C. Project Plans THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLAND Attachment A Planning Commission Staff Report with Exhibits J THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 4 February 20, 2003 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: William Cunningham, Contract Planner (949) 644 -3234 SUBJECT: Bayview Senior Affordable Housing Project, consisting of 150 units on approximately 5 acres. The Use Permit will establish the development standards under the provisions of the Bayview Landing Planned Community (PC -39) regulations, and will establish a height limit. The Site Plan Review will establish the grade of the site for the purposes of measuring building height. The Lot Line Adjustment will adjust the boundary between the site and the proposed park site to the south. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. (PA2002 -246) APPLICANT NAME: The Related Companies of California 18201 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92612 ISSUE: Should the Planning Commission grant approval of the application request by The Related Companies to develop a 150 -unit senior affordable housing project? RECOMMENDATION: Hold a public hearing, adopt the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approve Use Permit No. 2003 -003, Site Plan Review No. 2003 -001 and Lot Line Adjustment No. 2003 -011, subject to the findings and conditions of approval within the attached resolution (Attachment No. 1). DISCUSSION: Background: The project site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive. The site is currently vacant and has been altered in the past with l Bayview Senior Affordable Housing February 20, 2003 Page 2 road alignments for Back Bay Drive and Jamboree Road. The site also has been used for the disposal of dredged materials from Upper Newport Bay. The project is being developed concurrently with a public passive view park located on the adjacent ten -acre parcel to the south. The Planning Commission's review is limited to the senior housing portion only and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, as it covers both projects. The park project has been reviewed and preliminarily approved by the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission, and is within the jurisdiction of the City Council. The Planning Commission heard a presentation and received public comments on the project at a workshop on January 23, 2003. The City Council will consider the project along with an agreement to provide financing from the City's affordable housing fund on February 25, 2003. The project will also require approval of a Coastal Development Permit by the Coastal Commission. It is anticipated that the Coastal Commission will consider the project at its April, 2003 meeting, provided that the Planning Commission approves the project and the City Council reaffirms that approval on February 25th. Proiect Description: The senior affordable housing consists of 150 units in three buildings. The project has 120 one - bedroom and 30 two - bedroom units. The one - bedroom unit is 583 square feet and the two- bedroom unit is 810 square feet. Both unit types have one bathroom, a kitchen and a balcony. A total of 180 uncovered parking spaces, including 8 handicapped spaces, will be provided: 150 spaces for tenants and 30 spaces for guests /employees. The three buildings are three stories in height, with two -story elements located at each end of the buildings. Total height of each building to the ridge of the roof is 35 feet; height to midpoint of each roof is 32.5 feet. These heights are measured from the finished pad elevations. Offices and a recreation /community center consisting of lounge, exercise room and computer room will be located in Building No. 1 (center building). An outdoor pool, patio and BBQ area will be provided adjacent to the recreation room and located between Building Nos. 1 and 3. The project will include ornamental landscaping and site lighting along pedestrian walkways and in the parking lot. All of the 150 units will be affordable, with 30 of the units at 50% of Area Median Income (AMI), and 120 units at 60% AMI. In addition, all 150 units will be age restricted with the residents being 55 years or older. As noted above, the project is being developed concurrently with the adjacent passive park site. Grading for both the senior housing and park projects will consist of approximately 75,500 cubic yards of cut and fill, with a majority of the cut occurring on the park site, and with the housing site receiving a portion of the fill (see detailed discussion that follows under "Grading "). An objective in developing the park portion of the site is to lower the grade in the southwest portion of the park in order to improve I Bayview Senior Affordable Housing February 20, 2003 Page 3 public views of Back Bay from Coast Highway. Of the total graded earth, approximately 25,000 cubic yards are excess and will be exported from the site. A detention basin has been incorporated into the design, located at the northwest comer of the site adjacent to Back Bay Drive and the Newport Dunes entry drive. The basin is designed to retain storm waters from both the park site and senior housing site, improve water quality, and to prevent sheet flow onto Back Bay Drive. The detention basin is included in the land being included as part of the park site, and will not be a portion of the senior affordable housing site. 1 Hyatt \:' ' Newport Il .. Proposed Senior Housing �� ��. \ \\ �' \'• 'I Proposed View Park ..� sea •+ Cr � Island',- Newport Dunes �y'�.i. j• \;�E' - �:' Villa \, Point \ :o - / z 'ASTHVV Promontoryr Point OTn Lb _..«; I I �� `._ � --.,�` ggySIDE DR �. � �..�f j / / / j � �M•T,�,y�Q / /� ,- -- VICINITY MAP o ,n 250 500 Fee, 1 Bayview Senior Affordable Housing February 20, 2003 Page 4 Surrounding land uses are: • Hyatt Newporter Hotel and Resort to the north across Back Bay Drive • Villa Point Condominiums to the east across Jamboree Road • Vacant (passive park site) and Promontory Point apartments to the south across Coast Highway • Newport Dunes parking lot, RV parking and lagoon to the west. Analysis: General Plan - The Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan designates the site as Retail and Service Commercial. However, the General Plan for the Bayview Landing site provides as follows: `The lower level of the site which is on the corner of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive is designated for Retail and Service Commercial land use, and is allocated 10,000 sq. ft. for restaurant use, or 40,000 sq. ft. for athletic club use, excluding parking. Use of the site for affordable senior citizen housing facilities is also permitted as an optional land use (instead of restaurant or athletic club)..." As an incentive to develop the site for senior citizen housing, the Land Use Element also provides: "7f the site is used for senior citizen housing, 30, 000 sq. ft. of general retail use maybe transferred to Newport Center..." No dwelling units are included in the Land Use Element summary table for Statistical Area K1. However, 200 units of "miscellaneous residential" uses are included within the City wide Growth Projections table that are intended to be for development of affordable housing. The Land Use Element further states that the site may be developed with the senior affordable housing option "only if the Coastal Development Permit findings demonstrate that adequate visitor serving uses exist in the Newport Beach coastal zone consistent with the recreational and visitor serving commercial policies of the Coastal Act." This language was required by the Coastal Commission. Included in the draft Resolution (Attachment No. 1) is a finding, including supportive documentation, consistent with the foregoing requirement. Land Use Element Policy "D" states: "The siting of new buildings and structures shall be controlled and regulated to insure, to the extent practical, the preservation of public 1° Bayview Senior Affordable Housing February 20, 2003 Page 5 views, the preservation of unique natural resources, and to minimize the alteration of natural land forms along bluffs and cliffs." Even though the project being considered by the Planning Commission is limited to the senior affordable housing site, and does not include the park site, as explained above, the park site and the housing site are being graded and developed concurrently. The hillside to the south of the housing will be re- graded and will result in a 2:1 slope, and the southwestern portion of the park site will be re- graded to improve public views from Coast Highway. The areas being graded are highly altered and are not natural landforms or bluffs. However, the natural bluff located along the western portion of the park boundary has been preserved in its natural condition. With respect to the senior affordable housing site, a view analysis and computerized photographic simulations were undertaken in order to assess the impact on public views. The siting of the buildings, particularly Building No. 2 (the building closest to the park site) was done in a manner so as not to impede views from Coast Highway or the park. In addition, in order to meet the policies and objectives of the housing element, the project was designed to provide 150 affordable units. In order to meet that objective, the project could either be developed with the three 3 -story buildings, or a lower single building that would result in greater building mass. The three - building design provides more optimal public view opportunities by allowing view corridors between buildings that would not otherwise be possible. As discussed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, public views from Jamboree Road of Upper Newport Bay are minimal. While views from that location of the project site itself will be substantially changed, given the competing policies of the Housing Element, the intent of Policy "D" has been met "to the extent practical." Based upon the foregoing, staff believes that the project is consistent with the General Plan. Zoning - Both the park site and the senior affordable housing site are designated Bayview Landing Planned Community (PC -39). PC -39 further designates the upper 10- acre parcel for "Open Space /Park' use and the lower 5 -acre parcel for "Restaurant/Health Club /Senior Residential" use. The Statistical Analysis of the PC Text provides that if the senior residential alternative is implemented, the site could be developed with 120 units. Under the provisions of the City Housing Element, if affordable units are developed, a 25% density bonus is applied. Therefore, the site qualifies for a density bonus of 30 dwelling units (120 X .25 = 30) for a total of 150 units. The following discussion items cover the specific issues related to the project design: a. Development Standards - In addition to the provisions within PC -39 allowing for senior housing, Section IV of the Bayview Landing PC Text provides for flexibility in the design for the use. Under that section, the design standards are to be determined "at a later date... subject to review and approval by the City of Newport Beach." The mechanism for the establishment of specific development standards is Bayview Senior Affordable Housing February 20, 2003 Page 6 through the processing of a Use Permit. Even though specific site development standards were not specified in PC -39, staff compared the proposed project with the development standards of the Multiple - Family Residential (MFR) District standards: 'ti'Standard '- ZonirigCode roposed'Y_ Min. Site Area 180,000 212,500 Setbacks: Front" 20 ft. 20 ft. Side 4 ft. 12 ft/97 ft. Rear 10 ft. 16 ft. FAR 1.751 0.7 Distance Between 10 ft. 40 ft./82 ft. Buildings 'Back Bay Drive frontage used as front property line. The project as proposed exceeds the development standards of the MFR District, with the exception of building height and parking, which are discussed separately below. ,_ b. Parking - As noted above, no parking standard is contained within the Bayview Landing Planned Community text. The purpose of allowing specific standards, including parking to be developed as part of the project design, was the recognition that non - market rate seniors housing project would have unique parking demands, and that the Zoning Code parking ratio of 2.5 spaces per unit may not be appropriate for apartment complexes that are restricted to lower- income seniors. The applicant, The Related Companies, has developed other senior affordable apartment projects in the region in the past including Somerset Glen in the City of La Mirada (159 units /186 parking spaces), Vista Alicante in the City of La Mirada (98 units /95 parking spaces), The Village at Sierra in the City of Fontana (108 units /110 parking spaces), and Bowen Court in the City of Huntington Beach (20 units /29 parking spaces). The parking ratios for those developments range from .95 spaces per unit for the Vista Alicante project to 1.45 for the Bowen Court project. The applicant is proposing a total of 180 spaces (150 tenant and 30 guest spaces) for the Bayview project based on past operational characteristics and actual parking demand of other developments. The parking results in a ratio of 1.2 spaces per unit. In addition, the unit breakdown for the Bayview project is: 120 one - bedroom units and 30 two- bedroom units, resulting in a total of 180 bedrooms, for an overall per- bedroom parking ratio of 1.0. In analyzing the adequacy of the parking as proposed by the applicant, staff considered other communities that have adopted a specific parking standard for senior rental housing. A survey of various communities that have such a standard include the following: IN Bayview Senior Affordable Housing February 20, 2003 Page 7 Mountain View 0.35 space /unit Santa Clarita 0.5 space /unit San Mateo 0.25 space /unit San Francisco 0.2 space /unit Pasadena 0.5 space /unit Fremont 1.0 space /unit San Bernardino (city) 0.4 space /unit Manhattan Beach 0.7 space /unit + 1 space /employee Carlsbad 0.5 space /unit + 2 spaces Of the foregoing, with the exception of San Bernardino, all of the standards were for senior rental projects and did not differentiate between market rate and non - market rate housing. Given that residents of an affordable housing project would be less inclined and /or less able to afford to own and operate their own automobiles, the parking demand in affordable senior housing projects would be lower than market rate projects. In summary, of the cities that have a specific senior housing parking standard, the ratios ranged between .2 to 1.0 spaces per unit, and are all below the parking proposed for the Bayview project. In addition to the foregoing, staff reviewed the parking issue with Mr. Joe Foust, the traffic engineer who prepared the traffic analysis for the project. Mr. Foust noted that his firm has recently completed a parking analysis of apartment complexes. In that study, he stated that field counts were undertaken for apartment projects located throughout Orange County. In addition, the study evaluated apartment complexes that were either market rate or luxury rentals. The study also considered the size of the units within the respective complexes with respect to number of bedrooms. The Austin -Foust study concluded that parking demand averaged 0.9 per bedroom for all of the apartment complexes evaluated, which were not age- restricted. In discussing this project with Mr. Foust, he noted that the fact that the project is restricted to seniors only and is affordable. The parking demand would likely be less than the 0.9 spaces per bedroom. He concluded that in his opinion, the 1.0 parking per bedroom proposed by The Related Companies will be adequate for the project. In summary, given the survey of other cities that have established a senior housing parking standard and the review and conclusions of the consulting traffic engineer, it is staff's opinion that the proposed parking standard of 1.2 spaces per dwelling unit is appropriate for the project. c. Traffic /Circulation - A traffic analysis was prepared for the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The analysis concludes that the project, including the park portion, will generate 600 average daily trips (ADT). Under the Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA), which is a committed project, the combined project site is entitled to construct a 10,000 square foot restaurant and park that 15 Bayview Senior Affordable Housing February 20, 2003 Page 8 would have generated 669 ADTs. These trips are presently within the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model and the committed projects list maintained for the Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). Since the senior housing project and park generates less traffic than the CIOSA entitlements, and no further analysis is required under the TPO. d. Grading - The grading for the project is proposed to be done concurrently with the development of the park site located adjacent and to the south. A total of approximately 75,500 cubic yards will be graded, with approximately 40,000 cubic yards of fill and 25,000 cubic yards of export from the site. At the time of the preparation of this staff report, it is anticipated that most of the export (approximately 20,000 cubic yards) will be to the Big Canyon Country Club to a site in the vicinity of the clubhouse, located on the north side of San Joaquin Hills Road between Jamboree Road and MacArthur Boulevard. The balance of the export (approximately 5,000 cubic yards) will be trucked to an alternate site to be determined. The export will require approximately 2,500 truck trips. The route to the Big Canyon Country Club will be from the project construction entrance on Back Bay Drive, north along Jamboree Road to San Joaquin Hills Road to the clubhouse entrance, a distance of approximately 1.5 miles. The Mitigated Negative Declaration concludes that the grading operations and the truck traffic associated with the soil export will result in short-term air quality impacts during construction, but that these impacts are less than significant. As noted in the analysis undertaken within the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), the truck traffic associated with the export of 25,000 cu. yds. of soil is temporary and will not be disruptive to traffic. However, staff is concerned that any truck traffic occurring during the summer season (Memorial Day through Labor Day weekends) could impact tourist and beach goers. Therefore, a condition has been included in the draft Resolution requiring that any truck traffic occurring during that period be limited to no more than ten trucks per day. In addition, the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the CIOSA EIR restricts grading during the Gnatcatcher mating season, which is from February 1 to July 31. A Mitigation Measure has been included in the MND requiring that an ornithologist be retained to determine if any native bird nests are located in the area and remedial actions are outlined if any nests are detected. Related to the grading issue is the loss of natural vegetation habitat. Approximately one - quarter acre of coastal sage scrub exists on areas proposed to be graded. This loss is proposed to be mitigated at a four to one ratio, resulting in one acre of coastal sage scrub bein�q established on the adjacent park site. The question was raised at the January 23 workshop whether or not additional vegetation could be provided. The final designs of the park site are still being prepared and the issue is being considered to provide additional coastal sage scrub. 1C Bayview Senior Affordable Housing February 20, 2003 Page 9 e. Establishment of Grade - The project site is highly disturbed, having been used for street alignments in the past and as a placement site for dredged materials from the Bay. Due to these unstable soil conditions and a need to provide site drainage, grading of the site will result in the site being raised by approximately 5 feet over the "natural grade." In addition, these constraints would make it impossible to construct a three -story building without a variance. Zoning Code Section 20.65.030(B) provides that, for the purposes of height, the grade shall be the unaltered natural grade. However, the Zoning Code also recognizes that measuring building height from the existing natural grade is not feasible. Section 20.65.030(B -3) provides that the Planning Commission may establish grade in cases where the natural grade is "unworkable." In order to establish grade at a different elevation than natural grade, the following mandatory findings are required: 1. That the proposed grade being requested by the applicant is reasonable and comparable with the grades of surrounding properties and that the establishment of such grade will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. 2. That the proposed grade and related development will not result in the loss of any public views and shall be consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood in which the project is located. 3. That the existing grade on the subject property is inappropriate and unworkable for the purposes of measuring height. 4. That the proposed grade being requested by the applicant is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. The grading of the seniors housing site is dictated by two primary factors: structural requirements and drainage. The site is low and is characterized by very shallow groundwater, and bedrock located 25 to 30 below the surface. It was determined during preliminary geologic investigations that providing caissons to the bedrock would be prohibitive with respect to the project costs. In addition, it was determined that a minimum "utility zone" would need to be made between the finish floor elevations of the buildings and the groundwater table. The result of these structural requirements, as summarized in the Geologic Report (December 18, 2002, NMG Geotechnical, Inc.) is that the site will be graded into the hillside to the south, a 2:1 manufactured slope provided, and fill of approximately 5 feet will be provided in the lower northerly portion of the site. In addition, the lower fill portion of the site will require approximately 4 feet of surcharge soil (to be removed at a later date) and post tensioned building slabs for the two buildings located on the fill. The result of 15 y 'i Bayview Senior Affordable Housing February 20, 2003 Page 10 the grading will be that the southern -most building (Building No. 2) will be located approximately 6 feet below the average existing grade, the center building (Building No. 1) will be approximately 5 feet above average existing grade, and the building closest to Back Bay Drive (Building No. 3) will be approximately 5 feet above average existing grade. The following table summarizes the three buildings in relation to the existing and proposed grade elevations: BuildiPg`- k Nq.. ;f,Existirig -Grade ' Elevations. ? Mjd Pp nt ;'' Elevation ::. . Finish FloorA '# ' Elevaf on i%. 1 21 ft. - 23 ft. 22 ft. 27 ft. 2 23 ft. - 74 ft. 35 ft. 29 ft. 3 17 ft. - 21 ft. 20 ft. 25 ft. The Geotechnical report states that, optimally, the lower portion of the site should be raised approximately 10 feet over existing grade. However, in order to preserve views from the Villa Point units to the east, the report summarized that the minimum height of fill would need to be the 5 feet to avoid foundation problems or the need for caissons. The poor drainage conditions are also a driving factor in the design of the project and determination for raising the lower portion of the site by approximately 5 feet. The site is currently very low with a shallow water table. Both the park and housing portions drain to the northwest, and a detention basin is required to control storm water runoff and improve water quality. The engineering solution was to locate the detention basin at the northwest corner in the vicinity of Back Bay Drive and the entrance to Newport Dunes. The basin is required to be engineered to accept storm flows from a minimum 10 -year storm, and to maintain those waters on site. In order to provide flood protection from a 10 -year storm while avoiding the reliance on sump pumps, which can fail, it is necessary to raise the lower portion of the site, and provide drainage swales from the parking lot and around the buildings with a minimum of 2% slope. In order to meet these criteria, the Geotechnical report concludes that the minimum finished floor levels as proposed will be necessary. With respect to the mandatory findings, it is staff's opinion that the four findings can be made. 1. In comparing the proposed grade with surrounding properties, it is slightly higher than the Dunes located to the west. The grade of Back Bay Drive to the north is generally also lower, ranging from approximately 27 feet at the Jamboree Road intersection to about 15.5 feet at the western boundary of the project. The proposed new grade will result in the lower portions of the site being raised approximately five feet, with Building No. 3 (the building closes to Back Bay Drive) having a floor elevation of 25 feet. The proposed new grade, therefore, is comparable to the Bayview Senior Affordable Housing February 20, 2003 Page 11 existing grades along Back Bay Drive. With respect to the grades along Jamboree Road, the existing grades range from the 27 feet at the Back Bay intersection to approximately 60 feet at the projects northerly property line. The raising of the site by approximately 5 feet will have minimal visual impact when compared with the existing grades along Jamboree Road. The grades at the Hyatt Newporter, Villa Point and Sea Island are all higher than the proposed grade. Finally, the adjacent parcel to the south is the future park site. The park site will undergo grading on the western portion in order to improve public views. However, the finished grade of the portion of the park site adjacent to the project site will be approximately 49 feet above the finished grade of Building No. 2 (the building closest to the park site). In summary, it is staff's opinion that the modifications in the grade elevations on the project site reasonable when compared with the surrounding grades. 2. The grades as established will be similar to the surrounding neighborhood and will result in improved public views since the grades proposed in the park portion of the site are designed to improve views from Coast Highway. As noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, a goal of the park development is to improve the views of Upper Newport Bay from Coast Highway and the park. Building 2 is being lowered so that the top of roof is located below the grade of the park and Coast Highway and will result in no loss of public views from Coast Highway or the park. With respect to the views from Jamboree Road, also noted in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, is the lack of notable views from the Jamboree Road of Upper Newport Bay, although the project will substantially change the views of the site itself. 3. The existing grade, which has been highly modified in the past and is not a natural grade, is inappropriate and unworkable for the purposes of measuring building height. Staff considered the "useful height" that would remain if the existing grade were used to measure building height after the building pads are raised due to the soil and drainage conditions discussed previously. For example: the existing grades under Building No. 1 range from 21 to 23 feet. Subtracting the existing elevations from the proposed finished floor elevation of 27 feet, results in the finished floor being 4 to 6 feet higher than the existing grade, resulting in the "useful height" of Building 1 being 20 to 22 feet if the 26 -foot base height limitation is imposed (26 ft. less the 4 to 6 ft. grade differential), and a "useful height" of 29 to 31 ft. for a 35 -foot height limit (35 ft. less the 4 to 6 ft. grade differential). In the case of the 26 -foot height limit, the "useful height" of 20 to 22 ft. would preclude the construction of a two -story building, and in the case of the 35 -foot height limit, the "useful height of 29 to 31 ft. would preclude the construction of a three -story building. Extending the foregoing analysis to the other two buildings, the "useful height" for each building is summarized in the following table: I Bayview Senior Affordable Housing February 20, 2003 Page 12 ::Building's Proposed Finished Fbr_ i -: `Usefill Height :�l1 of 1o1 gCiit t ziNumber : Existir Grade .'26foot Lm LejRess °' '? 1 27ft. - 21 ft. = +6ft. 27ft. - 23ft. = +4ft. 20ft. to 22ft. 29ft. to 31 ft. 2 29ft. - 74ft. = -45ft. 29ft. - 23ft. = +6ft. 20ft. to 71 ft. 29ft. to 80ft. 3 25ft. -21 ft. = +4ft. 25ft. -17ft. = +8ft. 18ft to 22ft. 27ft. to 31 ft. Extending the foregoing "useful height' analysis to Buildings 2 and 3 results in the same conclusion: two and three -story buildings cannot be constructed within the height limits respectively of 26 and 35 feet. Therefore, the existing grade elevations are unworkable for the purposes of measuring height in this case due to the need to raise the grade as the intent of the 26/35 height limit is not supported. 4. The existing grade on the lower portion of the site is required to be raised a minimum of approximately 5 feet in order to develop the site in an economically viable fashion within the context of the City's goal to provide a maximum number of affordable senior housing units, resulting in the preservation of the ability to develop the property. f. Building Height - The site is located within the 26/35 Foot Height Limitation Zone. Zoning Code Section 20.65.030 provides that the height for structures with a sloping roof is measured from the established grade (finished floor elevations) to the midpoint of the roof plane, and overall height (to roof ridgeline) five feet over that midpoint height. The applicant's original proposal included an overall building height of 40 feet, and height to the midpoint of the roofline at 35 feet. In response to comments made at the Planning Commission workshop meeting on January 23, the applicant revised his plans to maintain the overall building height at 35 feet, and height to midpoint of the roof at 32.5 feet. Under the provisions of the 26/35 Zone, building heights may exceed the 26 height limitation up to a maximum of 35 feet through the adoption of a use permit. Code Section 20.65.055 requires the following findings to be made to allow the height of the structure to exceed 26 feet: 1. The increased building height would result in more pubic 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 applicant proposes to exceed the 26 -foot height limitation by 7.5 feet (32.5 feet at roof midpoint). The design of the project resulted in a three - building design rather I Bayview Senior Affordable Housing February 20, 2003 Page 13 than a single building in order to decrease building mass and to improve views through the site from Jamboree Road. The buildings have been located with setbacks in excess of the typical MFR standards and the overall building coverage is relatively low at approximately 25 %. Therefore, in staff's opinion this finding can be made. 2. The increase building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. The building design, in addition to the three - building concept discussed above, incorporates a pitched roof, and all mechanical equipment is proposed to be located and screened at ground level or incorporated into the roof structure of the buildings. Therefore, no mechanical or other equipment will be visible from either the surrounding public areas or from existing residences located at higher elevations around the project site. In addition, in staff's opinion, the three - building design is more appealing visually than a lower single - building with a larger building footprint in that the latter design would result in more building coverage and less open space, and views through the site between the buildings would be reduced or eliminated. Therefore, in staff's opinion this finding can also be made. 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 project as proposed has a low lot coverage (25 %), increased setbacks (40 to 133 feet along Back Bay Drive, and 100 to 147 feet along Jamboree Road), and two - story elements have been designed into the ends of the buildings. These design features help mitigate any abrupt relationships between the proposed project and surrounding developed properties. As noted above, a design feature of the project was to provide the units in three buildings rather than a single building in order to provide open landscaped areas and in order to maximize views through and over the project. Building No. 2 has been designed so as to be below the ultimate level of the grade of the park site in order to optimize the public views from Coast Highway. From that vantage point, the tops of the buildings will not be seen, and the park is being graded so as to improve the public views to the Back Bay. The height limits of surrounding developments are: 32 feet for Villa Point and Sea Island and 26 feet for the Hyatt Newporter. These developments have been built to the maximum height allowed and all three of these developments are at higher elevations than the proposed project. Therefore, in staff's opinion this finding can be made. I Bayview Senior Affordable Housing February 20, 2003 Page 14 4. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. There is no floor area limitation within the Bayview Landing Planned Community text or zoning regulations applicable to this project. Therefore, the increased height does not permit any additional floor area than would be achieved without the increased height. In summary, in staff's opinion the four mandatory findings can be made to allow the building height to be increased from 26 feet to 32.5 feet as requested by the applicant. g. Views - A view analysis was undertaken for the project in conjunction with the preparation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. As part of the analysis, photographs were taken from various locations surrounding the site, and computer simulations prepared showing the site after completion of the proposed project. The seniors affordable housing project is being constructed in conjunction with development of the park site. A primary objective of the park development is to enhance public views looking northwest from the vicinity of Coast Highway towards Upper Newport Bay. Even though the northwesterly portion of the park site is being lowered by approximately 10 feet in order to improve the public views, the senior housing will be below the level of the park and will be virtually unseen by the traffic along Coast Highway. While the project will substantially change the views of traffic along Jamboree, there are currently very limited view opportunities from that vantage point due to the elevation of the roadway and the grade of the senior housing site. The most notable private views in the area are from the Villa Point condominiums located across Jamboree Road. The units in Villa Point that parallel Jamboree Road and that view the site are located above the project site (the units are stacked, and the lower level units have floor elevations that are approximately 35 feet higher than the top of the roof lines of the proposed senior housing project). The building design and siting has been done in a manner to optimize both the public and private views. As demonstrated by the computer simulations (photos taken at both the ground floor and second floor levels of Villa Point), the views of the water in Newport Dunes and Upper Newport Bay will be maintained -- the units in Villa Point will continue to have views of the Bay and beyond over the roofs of the project, and view corridors are maintained between the buildings. h. Lot Line Adjustment - The application includes a Lot Line Adjustment. Currently, the property is divided into the upper portion (approximately 10 acres) park site, and the lower portion (approximately 5 acres) senior affordable housing site. The lot line adjustment will move the boundary between the two parcels, but will not result in a Bayview Senior Affordable Housing February 20, 2003 Page 15 change in the net land area within each parcel and no new parcels will be created. Subdivision Code Section 19.76.030.13 requires the following findings to be made: 1. The project site described in the proposal consists of legal building sites; 2. Any land taken from one parcel will be added to an adjacent parcel and no additional parcels will result from the lot line adjustment; 3. The parcels proposed to be created by the lot line adjustment comply with all applicable zoning regulations and there will be no change in the land use, density or intensity on the property; and 4 The lot line adjustment, in and of itself, will not result in the need for additional improvements and/or facilities. The two existing lots are Parcel 1 and Parcel A of Parcel Map No. 95 -137, and meet minimum acreage requirements and are, therefore, legal building sites. As noted above, the lot line adjustment will not result in additional parcels or change in the net size of each parcel, and all of the zoning regulations, including minimum parcel size and configuration, will be maintained. Also, no street improvements or street dedications are required per the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Therefore, all of the four mandatory findings can be made. i. Architectural Design - The three buildings will be three stories in height with two - story elements at the ends of the buildings. The architecture is Mediterranean, with beige smooth - trowel stucco finish, and medium to dark brown eave fascia and metal railings. The roof is full -pitch and is dark reddish -brown tile. Wall articulation in the form of building pop -outs and balcony alcoves has been included in the design. In addition, the applicant had considered the potential of designing the site with a single building or two buildings, but decided on the three building site design. In staff's opinion, the three - building concept provides for a more optimal design in terms of adding building interest, landscaping around buildings, decrease in overall building mass, and provision of view corridors between the buildings. j. Landscaping - The landscaping for the senior affordable housing portion of the site is proposed to consist of trees, shrubs and ground covers in the open areas between the buildings, parking lots and around the perimeter of the site. Staff is concerned that some of the tree species (camphor, California pepper, sycamore and Canary Island pine) are tall - growing and have a wide canopy, which could interfere with both public and private views across the site in the future. Therefore, a condition has been included in the draft Resolution requiring that the final landscaping plan incorporate lower- growing tree species, or that the trees be trimmed and maintained so that they are below the height of the buildings. k. Site Lighting - A lighting plan and specifications for on -site lighting have not been submitted as part of the application. On -site security lighting, parking lot lighting and Bayview Senior Affordable Housing February 20, 2003 Page 16 minimal accent lighting will be provided. It is anticipated that lighting along walkways will consist of low level bollard type fixtures, and parking lot light fixtures as well as building- mounted fixtures will be installed with shields to direct light rays downward. A condition has been included in the draft Resolution requiring that final lighting plans, fixtures and other lighting details be submitted for review by staff, and that the lighting be designed in a manner so as to restrict light and glare from impacting surrounding properties and that the site not be excessively illuminated. Additionally, staff suggests limiting parking lot light standard to no higher than 20 feet and prohibition of "wallpack" lighting. I. Signage - A sign program has not been submitted as part of the application. However, site identification signage is anticipated, most likely in the form of wall signs that will be visible from Jamboree Road, as well as small directional signage for the office and guest parking and a monument sign at Back Bay Drive. A condition has been included in the draft Resolution requiring that any eventual signage be consistent with the Zoning Code sign regulations for multiple family residential uses. Environmental Review: Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case due to specific mitigation measures and conditions of approvals associated with the approval of the project. The senior affordable housing project is being developed concurrently with the adjacent park site to the south since they are both related in terms of grading and storm drainage. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared for both projects, which outlines the environmental analysis and the proposed mitigation measures related to aesthetics, biological and cultural resources, geological and soils, including grading impacts, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services and utilities, and traffic. The Draft MND was published and made available for public comment in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. A Notice of the Availability of the Draft MND was sent to residents of the area, responsible agencies and those persons requesting copies of such notice. No comments have been received as of the drafting of this report. The comment period ends February 19, 2003. All comment letters received will be forwarded to the Commission for consideration. Public Notice: A public notice was originally prepared for the January 23, 2003 Planning Commission workshop to review this project. A public notice was also prepared in accordance with the Municipal Code and was made available approximately 30 days in advance of this M Bayview Senior Affordable Housing February 20, 2003 Page 17 hearing. In addition, the notice included the mandatory 30 -day public review for the Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and the notice distributed and posted more than 30 days prior to this hearing. The notice was also published in the Daily Pilot, posted at the site and mailed to property owners and nearby homeowners associations as required by Section 20.91.030 of the Municipal Code. Conclusion: Staff believes that the findings for approval of the Use Permit, Site Plan Review and Lot Line Adjustment can be made subject to the conditions of approval and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan contained within the draft resolution. The land use is consistent with the General Plan and the Bayview Landing Planned Community. The project also assists in meeting affordable housing production goals as mandated by the latest Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Staff also believes that the mandatory findings can be made with respect to the establishment of grade and building height and those findings are included within the draft resolution. Finally, staff also believes that the proposed use is compatible with surrounding uses and will not prove detrimental to the area. Alternatives: The Planning Commission has the following alternative courses of action in addition to the recommended action, which is to approve the project subject to the draft conditions. 1. Further modify and approve the project - staff recommends this action if the Commission believes that additional alterations to the project are minor in nature and need not be re- evaluated by the Commission before project approval. 2. Deny the project - this option is recommended should the Commission be unable to make the required findings for project approval. If the Commission decides to proceed with this alternative, it would be appropriate for the Commission to offer findings for denial that will be included in the Resolution for Denial. Prepared by: -ot'wr "A �v William Cunriingharh Contract Planner Submitted by: Patricia L. Temple Planning Director A3 Bayview Senior Affordable Housing February 20, 2003 Page 18 Attachments: 2. Mitigated Negative Declaration. 3. Applicant's explanation of technical site engineering constraints. 4. Traffic analysis report. 6. Lot line adjustment Aa Attachment 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration C� This Page Left Intentionally Blank a� INITIAL STUDY and MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION BAYVIEW SENIOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PARK PROJECT JANUARY 21, 2003 Submitted to: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Submitted by: Civic Solutions, Inc. 31726 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 223 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Contact: John Douglas, AICP Phone: 949.489.1442 ::::'•► . ... is' n: .I UI % H r- :rte NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND AVAILBII ITYOF NEGATIVE DECLARATION BayviewPatic and Senior Housing Use Permit No. 2003 -003 Site Plan ReviewNo. 2003 -001 (PA2002 -246) and Negative Declaration NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVIN that the Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will hold a public hearing on the joirrt application of Related Companies and City of Newport Beach, on behalf of The Irvine Company, property owner, for Use Permit No. 2003 -003 and Site Plan Review No. 2003 -001 on property located at the northwest corner of Coast Highway andJamboree Road The property is located in theBay-,iew Landing Planned Community (SP -39) District. Request to a develop a passive park on the southerly portion of the site consisting of approximately ten acres, and to construct 150 affordable senior housing units on the northerly Portion of the site consisting of approximately—five acres. The park design includes a bike trail that will run through the site and connect to the existing trail at Newport Dunes park benches, habitat restoration areas Landing Planned Community District Regulaitons. The Use Permit will also establish a maximum structure height of 35 feet as measured by the the Zoning Code. The Site Plan Review application will establish the grade of the site for the purposes of measuring structure height. The grade quested is approximately 4 to 5 feet above the existing —grade of the lower poriton of the site nearest the intersection of Back Bay -Drive andJamboree Road NOTICE IS HERESY FURTHER GIVIN that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The MND states that the subject project will not result in a significant effect on the environment, and any identified adverse environmental effects can be mitigated. It is the present intention of the City to accept the MND 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 supportng documents are available for public review at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, Calffomia, 92658 -8915, (949) 644 -3200. NOTICE IS HERESY FURTHER GIVIN that the public heating will be held on the 20th day of Februa 2003, at the hour of 66 ^30 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 heating. For information call (949) 644 -3200. 'ant Agajanian, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach. M TABLE OF CONTENTS A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Page 3 B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED and DETERMINATION Page 8 C. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED Page 9 D. REFERENCES Page 77 E. LIST OF PREPARERS and ORGANIZATIONS Page 78 AND PERSONS CONSULTED APPENDIX I. TRAFFIC STUDY Page 80 SOLUTIONS. INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21. 2003 Page 2 is ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT TITLE: Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 3, CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Daniel Trimble, Program Administrator City of Newport Beach Planning Department- 949-644-3230 4. PROJECT LOCATION: The project site is bounded by Jamboree Road on the east, Coast Highway on the south, Backbay Drive on the north, and Newport Dunes on the west in the City of Newport Beach (See Exhibit 1, Vicinity Map) 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Recreational & Environmental Open Space and Retail & Service Commercial ZONING: Bayview Landing Planned Community 8. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project consists of site preparation, grading of approximately 75,500 cubic yards with approximately 25,000 cubic yards of export, development of a 10 -acre public view park and 150 -unit senior affordable housing project. The park will be located at the northwest corner of Coast MC SOLLMONS, INC T .�..,_...4.".._. 3 Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 3 Highway and Jamboree Road and is designed primarily for passive uses. The park design includes a bike trail that will run through the site and connect to the existing trail at Newport Dunes; park benches for viewing Upper Newport Bay; habitat restoration areas; ornamental landscaping, and possibly future bollard lighting along the bike trail. The Newport Senior Apartments (Lower Bayview Landing) will be located on the vacant lot at the southwest corner of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive adjacent to the proposed view park. The parcel is approximately 5 acres in size and will include 150 senior apartments. The project will contain all affordable units with 20% of the units at 50% of Area Median Income (AMI) and 80% of the units at 60% AMI, all of which will be restricted to tenants aged 55 and older. The apartments will consist of 1 and 2 bedroom units, with all upper -floor units accessible by elevator. Approximately 80% of the units will be one - bedroom and 20% of the units will be two- bedroom. Included in the total will be an on -site manager's unit. The units will be located within three buildings, which are three - stories in height. The project will meet all local, State, and Federal regulations governing persons with mobility disabilities. The project also includes parking facilities with approximately 180 spaces, driveways and exterior security lighting. Vehicular access to the project will be controlled by a guard gate. A community center will house administrative functions, social programs, and recreational activities. A pool, sundeck and barbecue areas will also be included adjacent to the community center. Plans and specifications for the development of the passive view park must be approved by the Newport Beach Parks and Recreation Commissiop and the City Council. Use Permit and Site Plan Review applications for the development of the 150 senior apartments must be approved by the Newport Beach Planning Commission. The Use Permit application would authorize the use of the property for senior affordable housing and establish site development standards pursuant to the Bayview Landing Planned Community District Regulatlons. The Use Permit will also establish a maximum structure height of 35 feet as measured by the Zoning Code. The Site Plan Review application will establish the grade of the site for the purposes of measuring structure height. The grade requested is approximately 4 -5 feet above the existing grade of the lower portion of the site (approximately 5 acres) nearest the intersection of Back Bay Drive and Jamboree Road. SOLUTIONS. INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial StudyMegative Declaration January 21, 2003 Paoe 4 �I S� r `�r�� <�r /:i !��= �� .. �_ � �'� ,_ r ' [ .' ' • u e e e \ � 0 1 .. *.�.� ... .. . The project Site Plan is shown in Exhibit 2. It is anticipated that project construction will occur during a 2 -year period from mid -2003 to mid -2005. g. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING: The project site is surrounded by the Newport Dunes resort on the west, the Hyatt Newporter Hotel on the north, Villa Pointe condominium development across Jamboree Road to the east, and Promontory Point apartments across Coast Highway to the south. 10. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): The actions and approvals required to implement the project, which are part of this analysis, include the following: Approval of a Coastal Development Permit by the California Coastal Commission Other agencies having review or permit authority over the project may be identified during the environmental review process. CMC SOLUTIONS. INC. 33 Bayview senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 6 ' F q X La II m a J J i 1 Jill -I i �� i ie R- , 1 eeee is = ;g' 1 'tI f u 0 � bci e_ g�e€ r`_•i � ae[ 3 •e l °. LiQ Sc; 3: ca / if :1 3 !L� II m a J J ry 1 Jill -I i �� II m a J !' J c / c F. t ly, i L � Z� ry 1 Jill -I i �� ie R- , 1 'tI Sc; 3: !' J c / c F. t ly, i L � Z� B. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED 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 , har - kIiSt on the following pages. v Aesthetics Agricultural Resources I Air Quality Biolo ical Resources Cultural Resources Geol /Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology I Water Qual' Land Use I Plannin Mineral Resources Noise I Population/ Housing Public Services Recreation Trans rtation /Traffic Utilities / Service S stems Mandato Findin s of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: El I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ElI 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. QI find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. QI 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. ElI 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 a proposed project, nothing further is required. Flo j j7 () gn ture Da e Patricia Temple Planning Director INW—CIVIC SOLUTIONS. INC. Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 8 C. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 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). 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. 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. "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 (mitigation measures from Section XVII. 'Earlier Analyses'. may be cross - referenced). 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). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. In this case. a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis 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. SOLUTIONS. INC. Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declarationp January 21, 2003 Page 9 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 - specific conditions for the project. 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. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 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. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 10 CIVIC SOLUTIONS. INC. Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 11 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Issues Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated ,w� w.var,- ;_7 A_E$TyETL01%W05 Cd tW' ro Deal a) Have a substantial adverse effect on X a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, X rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its X surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect X day or nighttime views in the area? ~ll. " G ICU DTI It F: ESO R@ S '1 et' e m I : e h " o g cif` rualr eso ces re s�nl scant e_nvir me � . el a e'o ma e r o Fie. Cal' o. cu ura .'•a d - a vat I e s ss e. 9 - te a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland X Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act X contract? C) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of X Farmland, to non - agricultural use? e- g I Ise [U-I er a I e Ica a all e e I O a a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality X Ian? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or X projected air quality violation? CIVIC SOLUTIONS. INC. Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 11 CMC SOLun ONs. INC. !1 Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study/Negalive Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 12 i' Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Issues Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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 X standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X M. ROM a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species X in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional X plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department 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 X pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established X native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? CMC SOLun ONs. INC. !1 Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study/Negalive Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 12 i' E) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other X approved local, regional or state habitat conservation Ian? CIVIC SOLUTIONS, INC. p ••• ��b����lYfiYl+i �Y� Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration X' January 21, 2003 Page 13 .�/t7L?1J,F? ALA ;F3E.S'_OtJR�S'"11YnUrci;th a ect�: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as X defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological X resource pursuant to § 15064.5? C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique.- paleontological resource or site or unique X geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X GAO O�Y Ah D SO L*_S V1�oi%�d e_' rip e 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 X on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, X including liquefaction? iv Landslides? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topsoil? 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 or collapse? d) -Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 16-1 -B of the Uniform X Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or Property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? X I—CMC SOLUTIONS. INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 14 LI 10. IRDOU"Al 6 ,�-V -MAD' V1 923NA.... .. 16EVr "t RR W�M a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine X transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? 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? C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, X substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or 2roposed 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 or a public X airport or public use airport, would the project 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 X safety hazard for people residing or working in the projectarea? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency X response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildiands are adjacent to urbanized areas or X where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discha!ge requirements? SOLUTIONS. INC 01 Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 15 -CIVIC SOLUTIONS. INC. ••�or+rr�r4rrr+�r.r Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 16 A3 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Issues Significant with Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated 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 X (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 ranted )? C) Substantially alter 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 substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a X 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? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or X provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water X —quality? g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood X hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate or other flood hazard delineation map? —Map h) Place within 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or X redirect flood flows? I) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death X involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? D Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X -CIVIC SOLUTIONS. INC. ••�or+rr�r4rrr+�r.r Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 16 A3 SOLUTIONS. INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project initial Study/Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 17 4 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No ISSUeS Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated gly—K max YNOM-00M, a) Physically divide an established X community? -7 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 X coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or miti ating an environmental effect? C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1)4 UWM- 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? 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? 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? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or X groundbome noise levels? C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels In the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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? SOLUTIONS. INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project initial Study/Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 17 4 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area X to excessive noise levels? XTI ;Pb:P J. 'A_T(QN ANp b;USI G Vlloul € [ore llm-0,I9.5t 4 a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or X indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of X replacement housing elsewhere? a"Che:.�oj actsrass .a etl t 1}' `e'pr v f e y tell a eLi Q .er eti ' fa It�!?s `• ee n rtew � pfi , is , e r me a' a i t e s rua. t: f o se t m a n n e c >a e a m "► a cce. a ..[ a t s t of e n a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? )( c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Other public facilities? X I MRECREA O. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that X 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 might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X CMC SOLUTIONS, INC. Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 18 45 F —CIVIC SOLUTIONS. INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 19 0 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Issues Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated A-TION4 V-0 --Q SAO RA T " EF W -A �M�3 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 X number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic X levels or a change in location that results in substantial safe !y risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or X dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g, farm egllilpment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? 0 Result in inadequate parking X capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? CVI MS! RVSCM-%- V%— . . . . . . . . . . a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? F —CIVIC SOLUTIONS. INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 19 0 CIVIC SOLUTIONS, INC a� Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 20 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No ISSUES Significant With Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may Serve the project that it has adequate X capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the X roiect's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid X waste? �^c�Unn'� _ P1� '�F�NDI.tJ�S���aGNIF.;LGAN�E. 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 X 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? 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 X connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) C) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or X indirectly? CIVIC SOLUTIONS, INC a� Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 20 ENVIRON MENTAL ANALYSIS This section provides the explanations and supporting analysis for the impact categories and questions contained in the previous checklist, and identifies mitigation measures where applicable. 1. AESTHETICS Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact. Policies contained in the City's General Plan and the Coastal Act address impacts on public views. In order to assess the project's impact on scenic vistas, photos of existing views of the project site from several representative locations were taken and computer simulations were prepared showing how views would be altered if the project is built as proposed. The photo locations are shown in Exhibit 3. One of the primary objectives of the park component of the project is to enhance public views looking northwest across the park property from Coast Highway toward Upper Newport Bay. The topography of the park site currently blocks most views of the bay in this direction. The proposed grading plan would lower the elevation of the southerly portion of the park by up to 12 feet, creating substantial new public view opportunities of the bay for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. The senior housing project would be mostly hidden from view from Coast Highway due to the difference in grade between the upper and lower portions of the site. (see Exhibit 4). There are currently no noteworthy view opportunities of Upper Newport Bay from Jamboree Road due to the elevation of the roadway and the topography of the site. The senior affordable housing project would represent a substantial change in the appearance of the site but would not block any public views of the bay (see Exhibits 5 ). The view looking eastward toward the project site and Newport Dunes from the western side of the bay is shown in Exhibits 6. The simulation shows that this view would not be significantly altered. Although City and Coastal Act policies only address public views, the analysis of visual impacts has also included private views from the Villa Pointe residential development immediately east of the project site. The homes along Jamboree Road overlook the project site and have views of Newport Dunes and Upper Newport Bay. Exhibits 7a and 7b show representative views with the proposed project as seen from the first floor balcony elevation of a unit near the midpoint of the project's frontage along Jamboree Road. These exhibits show that the proposed buildings would not have a substantial impact on bay views. CIVIC SOLUTIONS. INC. n Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 21 J The project would have a beneficial effect on public views and private bay views would not be significantly obstructed. There would be a temporary negative visual impact due to grading and construction activities but this is not considered significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. CIVIC SOLUTIONS, INC. .�,.- +rte- .....W...r Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 22 qq 5 9a Y is r �w � al.• f :r I. c i r t IN c "X s v-ftx • s-1 i w � N u U yym T h m r.C. ; .O P4 a C R M F .y O 'O s w sg 9 C N . NT co W r 19 \ \ / \` \ : \\ ? 2 \ \� : \ : \� � {_ \ � � � � � � {� \ � 2 � � �� }. a � :� : � � y,. a C® .��3 � ^fit /'. \ .� \%. ƒ �.� : y.,� . « +�§ � � t�� � '�\ � / ��t� �•. S<\ � �� \� /� . � � \ � y/� . b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact. The primary scenic resource in the vicinity of the project site is Upper Newport Bay. There is also a coastal bluff along the southwestern border of the site adjacent to the Newport Dunes access road, which may be considered a scenic resource. The proposed grading plan would lower this bluff a maximum of 12 feet in order to enhance public views of Upper Newport Bay from Coast Highway (see Section I.a. above). The bluff is visible mainly from Newport Dunes, a private recreation area, and public views would not be substantially impacted. There are no other scenic resources on the site. No mitigation measures are necessary. C) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. See discussion under La and Lb, above. No mitigation measures are necessary. 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 With Mitigation. Since the site is currently undeveloped, the proposed project would create a new source of light. Since the park project does not include any active recreational facilities, the only lighting to be installed may be low -level illuminated bollards. Exterior lighting at the senior housing development could cause glare and adversely affect nighttime views primarily from adjacent residential developments if not properly controlled. In order to minimize the potential for light spillage and glare, the following mitigation measures will be imposed on the project. Mitigation Measures MM I -1 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 orglare 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 20 feet in height. MM I -2 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 SOLUTIONS. INC SayvieN Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 29 .�I l a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. These mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to a level that is less than significant. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Would the project: 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. No agricultural activities occur in the project vicinity. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The site is not zoned for agriculture and there are no Williamson Act contracts in the vicinity. 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 would not involve any changes that could result in the conversion of farmland. No mitigation measures are necessary. III. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district 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? No Impact. The project site is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes Orange County and the non - desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. Air quality conditions in the Basin are under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD). The SCAQMD and the Southern CMC SOLUIIONs, INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 30 California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for formulating and implementing an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Basin. The current AQMP was approved in 1997. Implementation of the AQMP is based on a series of control measures that vary by source type, such as stationary or mobile, as well as by the pollutant targeted. Since the AQMP is based on growth projections reflected in local general plans, only new or amended general plans, or projects that exceed the level of development contemplated in the general plan have the potential to conflict with the AQMP. The proposed park and senior housing project are consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan, therefore no conflict with the AQMP would occur. No mitigation measures are required. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would result in short -term emissions during construction (e.g., dust, construction equipment exhaust) and long -term emissions due to traffic generated by the project after construction is completed. Emissions Standards. California and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards are shown on Table III -1. In its CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the SCAQMD provides specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant. These thresholds are as follows: Thresholds of Significance for Construction Emissions 75 pounds per day of ROC or 2.5 tons per quarter • 100 pounds per day of NOx or 2.5 tons per quarter 550 pounds per day of CO or 24.75 tons per quarter 150 pounds per day of PM,o or 6.75 tons per quarter 150 pounds per day of sulfur oxides (SOx) or 6.75 tons per quarter Thresholds of Significance for Operational Emissions 55 pounds per day of ROC 55 pounds per day of NOx 550 pounds per day of CO • 150 pounds per day of PM10 • 150 pounds per day of SOx Localized Criteria Pollutants Concentration Standards California State 1 -hour standard of 20.0 ppm California State 8 -hour standard of 9.0 ppm Proiect Emissions. Tables 6-1 and 6-3 of the AQMD CEQA Handbook provide guidance for determining whether a project could exceed these thresholds of significance. For CMC SOLUTIONS. INC Q Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 31 construction emissions, the threshold for a residential apartment project is 1.41 million square feet of gross floor area. The proposed project would contain approximately 130,000 square feet of gross floor area, therefore it is below the threshold of significance. The threshold for grading is 177 acres. The proposed park and housing project combined would require that approximately 15 acres be graded, therefore the project is below the threshold of significance for grading activities. (See Table III -2) CMCSOWTIONS.INC rJ I Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 32 R� ♦•\l tf y }' i`Y''ySiR7 �'M1Y rFG M A ¢ f �: li �rL 41� �sY ?,Ambient. Airr,4ualityiL!tandard)ss - , ; C.111.," Shndird.' Federal SU..&rd.1 Pdlubnt Armplrq Tim CLnc.INationt IM1aU,id! pdrrrary Ar fiecw�N�.Vn.ryU 1Mihid' '" �O OWN S b. UmNdil.vem.�r1 't '7C } c(.,1;T"' r"'vF .tlb' "' y ={ �. .�: :x':: ..t...h. ,R: sNwl •. ic' Y. ii r'.0;0ppd {1S]P ..ti,• • Sme� 'Smd•N aS`^f:W �t . +c. e R..pimbh Whb Mlbr felVw: Ga+b,rasw lln. IMlM' S�nitvmy P,.bti IomalSgrriblmlC ' AriM.nb Meu itl.4r 1 pow M.i ipM70) = Aa.v�1m Fro _a lbv Ne Sgwstel, SawY,i apVW ParOwhb C am se.an' mnY SAM bvl5epn:wvd Gnr' AWna Hitler (PM2.5) ArimMCM.my�, _ .a.wca 1 pv'.� A�e�im 11 la. 5V'�.'rIHV �.'.Cg,YYAp�pmt�,(IOmib� +Ye4�%l K2 4 F .Corbin 1.1o1wsuli'i ?Jr ' r'�3a0Pilu d'.3j ai }` %iu n 0io:ide (NOr) Amel ArbmkM— QsP eD5)Rwlla)lib� SuxoPmory A+uYH Q+fi:r,eCbeiM:mam [ e 1100 a219Pe NalMiT�l — . j_ wa[ylo4lx.y. > �}:r rJQ}nitY6 �°_� '1�f�O,R�3 �r�� >t��y ?'.f ter• y�- 4tiSy�.s� L•+' �'��L'j� ?e?!I�''�li ����•J' Y '� �°t��"�.s y, ���:.� t�� �' i���� •'!.i1+y1YMa;:N,.- FbYn!IWJ!r�i r t. T dy Aregr IS li'>n — — Loidr Aunk Abwll R� VNiei.mlbotl CIIaN Q.vv — 111y:i Se:uAmvyS�ee� A,:mit AboPm �;r =�g,i '�f�.�'$� 4 ++ci >ty� r'G'�'y4'3•k ui mmlca..raxi - vir'�". >w: tim.aa Y rs :.c ", (, >' - :Yabgl Z+ R!dudn0 dW�v'44'Q, r'� <sa�� &.r.rrKn.6mweemwai biyrg,_ '„Y'l`ht i0'. �.N:pa '. '? :LT�!.Yi.CS.::.Yp�1:•�k'£.:,'4. IS.r Aaawe.bv!ei 'Federal _ _ d sulhni xs llw nlYm oDlrfypmiu �suMdi`SJ�.r�t.t:'iJ -.. li%J v,01 4 S Vinyl CMmidi ie 11� q7 "fte) OOlgwliilG'br) LrrCM1wwVWY r 'On Jana 20, 2002, em Air Ree m= Board appmed s1aRi reialm)miditol b m1.rr eu PMf 0 6lelual average 6bndard b 20110An 1.10 b establish an amuat evmage standard for PM2.5 if 12 ppW. these Garldarda wM Mka e0ea Ignrl0rlel approval by the OIAta of AmItlMlielM lmrv. which is expoded b Fabn1 2003. Inforawtion mgardhv these nnkiins ran I>0 found et MlplArwwmb. ca.yDrheaealWaaQSlctdre/s16mMm. Sw Nw liibpte. on wit and Park January 21, 2003 SOLUTIONS, INC Crlttfirdi Ak Rma... gierd (119103) Initial Study /Negative Declaration Page 33 TABLE 111-1 - 1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Taboe� sulfrr dioxide (1 and 24 hour) nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate mattar —PM10. PM2.5, and visibility reducing partidca, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others sic not to be equaled or acceded California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the Calfomia Code of Regulations. 2. National standards (other than ozouc, particulate matter, and those baud on annual averages or annual arithmetic mum) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest eight bour concentration in a yea4 averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. Far PMl0. the 24 hour standard is attained when 99 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. For PM23, the 24 hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three yews, are equal to or Less than the standard Contact U.S. EPA for further clarification and current federal policies. 3. Conuatration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in paradhesea are baud upon a mfacocc temperature of 25 °C and a reference pressvm of 760 ton. Most measurements ofair quality are to be corrected to a refercace tempmtmt of 25°C and a refacuee pressure of 760 tmr, ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or miaonioles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4. Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or ocar the level of the air quality standard may be used. S. National Primary Standards. The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health 6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare Sore any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant 7. Rciaraa method as described by the EPA. An "equivalent method' of measurement may be used but must have a "consistent relationship to the reference method" and must be approved by she EPA 8. Ncv federal 8-ho u ozone and Sue particulate matter standards was promulgated by U.S. EPA on July 18, 1997. Contact U.S . EPA for further clarification and current federal policies 9. The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air eenrs,ninamt with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined Than actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. California AIr Resources Board (W103) SOLUTIONS. INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 34 '.I J Table 111 -2 Screening Thresholds for Construction Emissions Bayview Landing Senior Housing and Viewpark Proposed Project Land Use Threshold of Significance Characteristics Residential -A artments 1,410,000 scift GFA 130,000 s .ft Grading 177.0 acres 15 acres total Source: AQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993 The screening threshold for operational emissions is 261 units for a residential apartment project. The project proposes 150 units, which is below the threshold. It is anticipated that the project would actually generate less emissions than a normal apartment development since low- income seniors have fewer cars and drive fewer miles than typical apartment residents. No screening threshold is provided for public parks, however it is highly unlikely that the park would generate traffic volumes that would cause the operational threshold to be exceeded. Project Design Features and Standard Conditions Sc 111 -1 In order to reduce construction related fugitive dust, SCAQMD Rule 403 will be implemented during construction. Rule 403 requires that fugitive dust be controlled with best available control measures so that the presence of such dust does not remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source, Implementation of these dust suppression techniques can reduce dust generation and PM10 by 50 to 75 percent. Implementation of the following measures will reduce short -term fugitive dust impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. • Apply non -toxic chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 10 days or more). • Water active sites at least two times daily. (Locations when; grading is to occur will be thoroughly watered prior to earthmoving.) • All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered, or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance with the requirements of California Vehicle Code Section 23114 (freeboard refers to the vertical distance between the top of the load and the top of the trailer walls). CIVIC SOLU MNS, INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 35 • Pave construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from the main road. • Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph or less. • Revegetate disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • All excavating and grading operations shall be suspended when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 mph. • All streets shall be swept once a day if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets. Water sweepers with reclaimed water are recommended.) • Install wheel washers when; vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip. SC 111 -2 Plan specifications shall include a statement that the contractor shall attempt to reduce VOC emissions by 1) using precoated/natural colored building materials; 2) using water -based or low -VOC coating, and 3) coating transfer or spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, such as high- volume low - pressure (HVLP) spray method, or manual coatings application, such as paint brush, hand roller, trowel, spatula, dauber, rag, or sponge. The plan specifications shall be approved by the City Building Department. SC 111 -3 In order to reduce operational energy usage and reduce energy production air emissions, the project is required to comply with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations established by the California Energy Commission regarding energy conservation standards. With the standard conditions listed above, potential impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. 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. See Section lll.a, above. CIVIC SOLUTIONS. INC. 4J Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration '1 January 21, 2003 Page 36 d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact See Section Ill.a, above. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. Diesel- powered equipment used for excavation and construction could cause odors and emissions that may be offensive to sensitive receptors. There are some residences, both permanent and temporary (i.e., hotel and short-term rental accommodations) in the immediate vicinity the project area, therefore this construction activity would occur in close proximity to sensitive receptors. This would be a temporary impact and is not considered significant, therefore no mitigation is necessary. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project: 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? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The CIOSA EIR noted that the vegetation cover on the upper Bayview Landing site included an unquantified amount of `open, localized coastal sage scrub" and surveys at that time (1992) found one California gnatcatcher on the site. The EIR also noted that grading of the park site could have a significant impact on the coastal sage scrub and gnatcatcher habitat. Mitigation measures were incorporated that would prohibit grading or stockpiling of soil above the 25 -foot contour in connection with development of the lower portion of the site, and required that all non - emergency grading shall occur between August 1 to January 31, which is outside the breeding season for gnatcatchers. In order to assess the biological impacts associated with the project as currently proposed, Keane Biological Consulting was retained to conduct a field survey of the site to determine current conditions, potential impacts and appropriate mitigation measures. The survey found that the site is primarily covered by non - native vegetation, and that only small, non - contiguous fragments (approximately _ acre total) of native coastal sage scrub are present. Directed surveys were conducted to determine whether any sensitive species such as the California gnatcatcher currently inhabits the site. The surveys found no indication that gnatcatchers or any other sensitive species are present. Mitigation measures would require that existing fragments of coastal sage scrub be replaced at a ratio of at least 4:1 as part of a habitat restoration program for the SOLUTIONS, INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration '1 ' January 21, 2003 Page 37 park site, and that no grading shall occur while occupied nests of migratory birds are present. The key findings from the biological report are summarized below. The complete report is available for review at the City Planning Department. Survey Methodology The biological assessment included both a review of existing literature and a series of field surveys. General surveys to map. plant communities and assess habitat quality were conducted during the morning hours of May 7, May 15, June 21 and July 12, 2001 to ascertain the existing biological resources of the project site and its surroundings. The surveys focused on identifying the presence and locations of plant communities, wildlife habitat and potential habitat for sensitive species. The survey also evaluated whether riparian (streambed) habitats were present on the site that may be subject to potential jurisdiction under Section 404 of the U.S. Clean Water Act and /or Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. Plant and wildlife species observed during the surveys were recorded. The surveys included botanical observations by walking through the entire project site noting plant species present on and adjacent to the site. Plant nomenclature in this report is consistent with The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California (Hickman 1993). Plant species were identified, where possible, in the field; plants that were not immediately identifiable were collected for identification at a later date by local expert botanist Dave Bramlet. Wildlife observed during general and botanical surveys was noted, and more focused surveys were conducted for southern spikeweed (Hemizonia parryl ssp. Australis) and the California gnatcatcher (Po/iopti/a califomica ca/ifomica), which are sensitive species that have the potential to occur on site. Vegetation The field survey found that the site supports a plant community referred to as 'ruderal', which means primarily non - native and invasive plant species, with little native vegetation. The predominant plant species were foxtail chess (8romus madritensis ssp. rubens), brome (8romus hordeaceus), wild oat (Avena sp.), barley (Hordeum spp.), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), Mediterranean mustard (Hirschfeldla incana), Russian thistle (Sa /so /a tragus), tree - tobacco (Nicotlana g /auca), Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), common horseweed (Conyza canadensis), horehound (Marrubium vulgare), and Indian sweetclover (Melilotus indica). Also present were iceplant (Carpobrotus sp.), and, dominating as ground cover among the non -native grasses and Russian thistle on the plateau, were small- flowered iceplant (Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum), crystal iceplant (Mesembryanthemum crystallinum), and dove weed (Eremocarpus setigerus). A clump of wild rye (E/ymus sp.) is present at where the site begins to narrow toward the west. Horticultural species included myoporum ( Myoporum /aetum), a few small olive trees (O /ea europaea), a non - native yucca (Yucca sp.) and an unidentified horticultural tree and unidentified horticultural shrub. SOLUTIONS. INC Bayview SenlorAffordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 38 Native plant species were limited to sparse and scattered individuals of coastal sagebrush (Artemisia califomica), with no understory or other components typical of a coastal sage scrub plant community present. A clump of saltbush (Atriplex lentiformis) was present on a small hill at the base of the slope leading down from the plateau, and saltbush dominates the Newport Dunes slope adjacent to the site on the west. Other native plant species included common tarweed (Hemizonia fasciculata), heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum ssp. oculatum), and cudweed aster (Lessingia frlaginifolia). Exhibit 8 shows the existing vegetation communities on the site. It is estimated that a total of _ acre of coastal sage scrub vegetation is present, although these areas are non- contiguous and scattered throughout the southern portion of the site. SOLUTIONS, INC sayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 39 �(p z 0 00 v xv 45 ta d z z "i 0 0 -q ,0 cr) 00 C-4 m � ,:a m m XA d z z "i 0 0 -q ,0 cr) 00 C-4 m � ,:a m m Wildlife The site's disturbed condition, its location isolated from other areas of open space, and the predominance of ruderal vegetation, limits its potential to support wildlife species other than birds and other species well- adapted to human - disturbed habitats. Some native reptiles may still occur on this site surrounded by developed areas but would likely be limited to the side - blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) and western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentaljs). The most common and numerous bird during the survey was house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus); also present were mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Anna's hummingbird (Ca/ypte anna), black phoebe (Sayomis nigricans), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), Anna's Hummingbird (Ca/ypte anna), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), bushtit (Psa/triparus minimus), Bullock's oriole (/cterus bullockb), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), black- headed grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus), Lazuli bunting (Passerina amoena), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), American goldfinch (Cardue/is tristis), and house sparrow (Passerdomesticus). Observed flying over the site during surveys were barn swallow (Petrochelidon rustica) and northern rough- winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis) as well as species associated with Upper Newport Bay including Caspian tem (Sterna caspia) and great blue heron (Ardea herodias). Mammalian fauna on the site is also limited due to isolation of the site from open space areas and the site's disturbed condition. Several California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) were observed on the site during all surveys; also expected to occur on the site are Botta's pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), domestic cats (Fells domesticus), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), and house mouse (Mus musculus). Wildlife Dispersal Corridors A wildlife corridor is a large patch of habitat connecting two or more larger areas of habitat and is essentially free of physical barriers such as fences and developed areas. A functioning wildlife corridor allows for ease of movement between habitat patches. Canyon bottoms with a well - developed tree canopy often serve as wildlife corridors and offer food, shelter, and water, as well as ease of movement, depending upon the density of the understory. Because the project site is surrounded by developed areas, its ability to function as a wildlife disperal corridor is severely limited. Sensitive Species Species are typically offered recognition as sensitive because of declining or limited population sizes resulting, in most cases, from loss of habitat. Those listed as threatened or endangered by the federal or California Endangered Species Act are protected by those acts. Other categories for sensitive species that do not afford legal SOLUTIONS. INC Sayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 41 � b protection are USFWS Category 1 candidates or CDFG Species of Special Concern;:: still other species are included on lists maintained by resource conservation organizations (California Native Plant Society [CNPS] or National Audubon Society [NAS]). Although these species are not protected as are those listed by Endangered Species Acts, measures to avoid or minimize impacts on these species are often considered during California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. As discussed above, because the project site supports no native plant communities aside from scattered patches of coastal sage scrub vegetation, sensitive plant or wildlife species expected on the site are limited to those discussed below, aside from rare, brief visits by some sensitive bird species during migration. Southern spikeweed (Hemizonia parryi ssp. australis) is included on the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS) List 1B, a list of plants considered rare, threatened or endangered in California and other states. It occurs along estuary margins and the edges of vernal pools, as well as in semi - saline soils of disturbed areas, such as along some of the lower trails on the west side of Upper Newport Bay. Southern spikeweed has been extirpated (no longer exists) from many locations because of coastal development, and many existing populations are threatened by development and habitat degradation. Although the typical species of tarplant was found on the site during surveys, southern spikeweed was not observed during the June 21 or July 12 surveys, or during surveys conducted for other sensitive species. The second focused survey for this species on July 12 occurred following mowing of non - native grasses so that this species would not have been obscured by other vegetation. The coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptera califomica) was listed by the USFWS as threatened in March 1993. In California, the majority of the population is located in Orange, San Diego and western Riverside counties. It is known to occur in the project vicinity on eastern slopes bordering Upper Newport Bay. Gnatcatchers are year -round residents and occur almost exclusively in coastal sage scrub. Although sparse patches of some coastal sage scrub plants occur on the project site, no habitat for California gnatcatchers is present on the project site, and gnatcatchers would not be expected to occur on the project site other than very rarely and temporarily. Nevertheless, focused surveys per USFWS protocol were conducted and no California gnatcatchers were seen or heard during any of the surveys. California horned lark (Eremophila alpestrfs actia) is a year -round resident that generally occurs along the coast of California from Sonoma County southward. This species requires open fields and grasslands for foraging and nesting, and because such habitats are declining in southern California, it is a California Species of Special Concern. California homed larks may occasionally forage on the project site, although this ground - nesting species would likely not nest here due to the presence of feral cats and other predators. It was not seen or heard on the project site during general or focused surveys, which occurred during the same time period the biologist conducting the surveys heard them at locations other than the project site. MC SOLUTIONS. INC (p Bayvtew Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 42 Loggerhead shrike (Lanus ludovicjanus) is an uncommon but widespread resident of southern California. This species typically occupies open habitats with scattered trees. Such habitats are becoming scarce in southern California; thus, Loggerhead Shrike is a California Species of Special Concern. Loggerhead shrikes may occur occasionally on the site but are unlikely to nest here; none were observed during any of the general or focused surveys. Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus) is a small rodent with isolated populations occurring close to the coast from Tijuana to El Segundo. According to mammalogist Steve Montgomery, who has conducted trapping studies for this species, it occurs in sandy soils in some ruderal habitats at Camp Pendleton Marine Base in San Diego County, although its favored habitat is coastal sage scrub. Because of the disturbed soils of the project site and its lack of preferred habitat, the potential for the site to support Pacific pocket mouse is very low; thus, trapping studies to document its absence on the project site were not considered warranted. Project Impacts The majority of the site would be disturbed during grading and construction. Since there are no sensitive species on site, this would not be considered a significant impact. Site preparation activities would destroy approximately _ acre of coastal sagebrush. Although this does not represent high quality habitat, the City proposes a habitat restoration program that would replace the disturbed coastal sage at a minimum 4:1 ratio. The City of Newport Beach is also a participant in the Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program for the Central and Coastal Subregion of Orange County. The project site is not part of the Reserve Area, therefore the proposed removal and replacement of coastal sage vegetation is permitted subject to consultation with the Resource Agencies. Project Design Features and Standard Conditions PDF IV-1 The landscaping plan for the park portion of the site shall include a habitat restoration component that provides a minimum of 1 acre of coastal sage scrub vegetation. Mitigation Measures MM /V -1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the proposed revegetation plan shall be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game and the Nature Reserve of Orange County for review. CIVIC SOLUTIONS. INC. Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 43 MM IV - -2 The City of Newport Beach shall retain the services of a qualified ornithologist to conduct a survey of the construction zone, if any of the phased construction activities (grubbing, grading, tree trimming or removal) are to occur during the breeding season for native birds (approximately February 1 through July 31). The ornithological survey shall occur not more than two days prior to the initiation of those construction activities. If the ornithologist detects any occupied nests of native birds within the construction zone, the City of Newport Beach will conspicuously flag off the area(s) supporting bird nests, providing a minimum buffer of 100 feet between the nest and limits of construction. The construction crew will be instructed to avoid any activities in this zone until the bird nest(s) Ware no longer occupied, per a subsequent survey by the qualified ornithologist. These requirements and mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to a level that is less than significant. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. See Section Ma. above. 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. There are no wetlands found on the site. See Section Ma. above. No mitigation is necessary. 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 See Section Ma. above. No mitigation is necessary. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. There are no applicable ordinances or policies related to tree preservation. No mitigation measures are necessary. CIVIC SOLUTIONS, INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 44 f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less Than Significant Impact. A Natural Communities Conservation Planning /Habitat Conservation Plan for the Central /Coastal Orange County area was approved by the Orange County Board of Supervisors on April 16, 1996 and by the California Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service on July 17, 1996. The project site is included within the NCCP area but is not located within the Reserve Area. (The Reserve Area is considered critical habitat to be permanently maintained while coastal sage scrub vegetation outside the Reserve Area may be removed subject to replacement.) Orange County's NCCP Program is now administered by the Nature Reserve of Orange County, and the Executive Director has requested that it be notified when the Department of Fish and Game is consulted on the revegetation plan. Since the site is not within the Reserve Area, the Nature Reserve has no approval authority over the project. Project Design Features and Standard Conditions PDF -IV -2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for any area containing coastal sage scrub vegetation, the City shall provide notification to the Nature Reserve of Orange County. No mitigation measures are required. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES The following discussion is based on the Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Bavview Landing Proiect Area report prepared by McKena et al on July 5, 2001. A complete copy of that report is available for review at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.57 No Impact. The project area was occupied by Native Americans during prehistoric times. After the arrival of Europeans in the 1500s, the Spanish missions were established along the California coast. The project site was within the territory of Mission SOLUTIONS. INC Sayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 45 1� San Juan Capistrano, which was established in 1775. Following the mission period the site became part of the Rancho San Joaquin land grant, which was later purchased by James Irvine. The Geotechnicai report for the site (NMG Geotechnical, December 18, 2002) notes that in 1927, the earliest date for which photos are available, the site was in its natural condition except for the old Backbay Drive, which extended through the western portion of the property. Between 1931 and 1947 there was a single residence on the site, and by 1952 the house had been removed. in 1953 the original Jamboree Road was constructed with the alignment crossing the southeastern hillside area. Newport Dunes was constructed in the late 1950s and Backbay Drive was relocated to its current alignment. In 1958, the new Jamboree Road was graded to the current alignment and the old Backbay Drive and Jamboree Road alignments were abandoned. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ENVIRON, 2001) the proposed park site was occupied by a gasoline service station from 1968 to 1984. Neither the site nor any of the previous structures are considered to be a historically sensitive resource. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.57 Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. Previous surveys identified two potential archaeological sites on or adjacent to the proposed project: CA -ORA -1098 and CA- ORA -66. The site investigation conducted by McKenna et al. found only shell scatter at both of these sites, and no artifacts were seen. Since shell concentrations are common around Newport Bay, there is some doubt whether either of these sites represent anything other than naturally occurring shell accumulations. Project Design Features and Standard Conditions City Council Policy K -5 outlines the City's requirements with respect to archaeological resources. The following applicable policies and requirements were identified in the CIOSA EIR (p. 320): PDF V -1 A. A qualified archaeologist shall be present during pregrade meetings to inform the project sponsor and grading contractor of the results of any previous studies. In addition, an archaeologist shall be present during grading activities to inspect the underlying soil for cultural resources. If significant cultural resources are uncovered, the archaeologist shall have the authority to stop or temporarily divert construction activities for a period of 48 hours to assess the significance of the find. �^ EON—cmc soLUrioNS. wc- Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 46 B. In the event that significant archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation and/or grading, all work shall stop in that area of subject property until an appropriate data recovery program can be developed and implemented. The cost of such a program shall be the responsibility of the project sponsor. C. Prior to issuance of any gradin g waive the provisions of AB 952 responsibilities for the mitigation acceptable to the City Attorney. Mitigation Measures or demolition permits, the applicant shall related to the City of Newport Beach of archaeological impacts in a manner The CIOSA EIR also contains the following mitigation measures that are applicable to the Bayview Landing site (p. 321): MM V -1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, CA -ORA -1098 shall be surface collected and subjected to test excavations by a City- approved archaeolotist to determine site integrity, extent and significance. A report shall be prepared detailing all findings and submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of completing test excavations. MM V -2 Prior to grading for the new park, the project sponsor shall retain a City approved archaeologist to conduct a surface collection and subsurface test excavation of CA- ORA -66 to determine site extent, integrity and significance. A report shall be prepared detailing all findings and submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of completing test excavations. MM V -3 Prior to grading for the view park, the project sponsor shall retain a City approved archaeologist to place a test unit on top of the knoll on the Bayview Landing site in the area containing shell scatter, to determine if the shell is representative of a subsurface archaeological deposit. A report shall be prepared detailing all findings and submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days of completing the test excavation. These standard requirements and mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to a level that is less than significant. SOLUTIONS. INC 14 Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 47 C) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The CIOSA EIR contains the following discussion of existing conditions related to paleontological resources on the Bayview Landing site: "Quaternary age terrace deposits are exposed in the Bay View Landing site. Fossils of both land and sea animals have been collected from these deposits at the Bay View Landing site. Fossils from the site include a horse jaw and several types of invertebrates. The widening of Jamboree Road destroyed this fossil site. Fossil shells were observed in two horizons in the terrace deposits in the road cut along Jamboree Road and as loose or float materials along the base of the cliffs facing the Newport Dunes Resort. No fossils were observed on the site during this study. °The Monterey Formation is exposed along the cliffs next to Newport Dunes, the north facing slope in the middle of the site, and in the north end of road cut along Jamboree Road. In the past fossil whale remains were found in similar exposures of the Monterey Formation on the cliff face along the western boundary of the nearby Newporter North site.' (p. 327) The CIOSA EIR also states that high potential for the future discovery of significant fossils exists for the site and that grading operations would be expected to unearth fossils (p. 329). Project Design Features and Standard Conditions City Council Policy K -6 outlines the City's requirements with respect to paleontological resources. The following applicable policies and requirements were identified in the CIOSA EIR (pp. 329 -330): PDF V -2 A. A qualified paleontological monitor shall be retained by the landowner, developer, and/or project sponsor to attend pregrade meetings and perform inspections during development. The paleontologist shall be allowed to divert, direct, or halt grading in a specific area to allow for salvage of exposed fossil materials. B. Paleontological resources within the coastal zone shall be investigated in accordance with acceptable scientific procedures and in compliance with any applicable requirements of the California Coastal Commission. Appropriate mitigation measures shall be adopted on a case -by -case basis in accordance with regular City policy. SOLUTIONS. INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 48 15 Mitigation Measures The CIOSA EIR also contains the following mitigation measures that are applicable to the Bayview Landing site (p. 330): MM V -4 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a collection plan shall be prepared and implemented by a City approved, qualified paleontological monitor for known exposed fossil localities on Say View Landing, Newporter North, and Upper Castaways. Because of the small nature of some fossils present in these rock units, matrix samples shall be collected for processing through fine mesh screens. The collection plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department. MM V -5 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall make provisions for the preparation and curation of all fossils possibly recovered from the sites during grading. This shall be done in a manner approved by the City's Planning Department. MM V -6 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall identify a repository approved by the City's Planning Department which shall receive all fossils collected from the sites. MM V -7 Cliff faces along Upper Newport Say that have served as a reference section for micro- paleontological studies should be protected from alteration. If bluffs along Newport Say need to be altered for bluff stabilization purposes, detailed measured sections and samples shall be made before and after alteration. Samples shall be prepared and analyzed as part of these efforts. The City of Newport Beach shall be responsible for retaining a qualified paleontologist to conduct the comparative study and sampling. A report shall be submitted to the Planning Department within 90 days. These standard requirements and mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to a level that is less than significant. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? SOLUTIONS. INC Sayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 49 11 Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. requirements and mitigation measures described in Section potential impacts to a level that is less than significant. Vt. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The following discussion is based on Geotechnical. A complete copy of Newport Beach Planning Department. Would the project: The analysis, standard V.b above would reduce the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for the riding, December 18, 2001 prepared by NMG the report is available for review at the City of a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 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 substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. According to the geotechnical report, there are no known major or active earthquake faults mapped at the site, and the site is not located in an Alquist- Priolo zone. The closest major active fault is the Newport - Inglewood, located offshore approximately 2 miles south of the site. The CIOSA EIR noted that several minor faults are exposed in the bedrock of the bluff face, and one possible fault zone, obscured by heavy deposits, may show offset of the terrace/bedrock contact, which would suggest the fault, if present, could be potentially active (p. 275). Like many areas of Southern California, the site would experience groundshaking during a seismic event in the area. The following existing City requirements and mitigation measures identified in the CIOSA EIR are relevant to the proposed project: Project Design Features and Standard Conditions PDF Vl -1 A. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant or successor in interest shall demonstrate to the City of Newport CIVIC SOLUTIONS. INC I Bayview SeniorAffordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 50 Beach Building Department that all facilities will be designed and constructed as specified in the City adopted version of the Uniform Building Code. B. Development of each site shall be subject to a grading permit to be approved by the Building and Planning Departments. The application for grading permit shall be accompanied by a grading plan and specifications and supporting data consisting of solid engineering and engineering geology reports or other reports required by the building official. H. That prior to the issuance of any building permits a specific soils and foundation study shall be prepared and approved by the Building Department. (pp. 283 -284) Mitigation Measures MM VI -1 Buildings less than four stories in height shall be designed by a Structural Engineer in accordance with UBC Chapter 23 requirements for Seismic Zone 4. Non - critical structures shall be designed to withstand strong ground shaking that may accompany a maximum probable earthquake along the Newport - Inglewood Fault. Critical structures (i.e., hospitals, fire /police facilities, schools, etc.) shall be designed to withstand strong ground shaking associated with a maximum credible earthquake on the Newport- Inglewood Fault. Structural plans, including seismic design calculations/parameters, shall be approved by the City Building Department prior to issuance of building permits. MM VI -2 In accordance with the Alquist -Priolo Special Studies Zone Act, a Registered Geologist shall further evaluate and make recommendations regarding the potential for ground surface rupture affecting proposed development on sites where 'Potentially Active Faults' have been identified (Bayview Landing and Freeway Reservation) or on any other sites where Potentially Active Faults are identified in the future. The study shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Building Department and shall be prepared prior to approval of a tentative tract map or a grading permit whichever comes first. Grading and building plans shall reflect the recommendations of the study to the satisfaction of the Building Department. SOLUTIONS, INC 10 Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration �f January 21, 2003 Page 51 /// ' These standard requirements and mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to a level that is less than significant. it) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. See item VI.a.i, above. iii) Seismic - related ground failure, Including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which earthquake - induced cyclic stresses generate excess pore water pressure in low density, saturated, sandy soils and soft silts below the water table. This causes a loss of shear strength and, in many cases, ground settlement. Liquefaction is generally thought to be a problem in earthquake -prone areas where conditions that promote liquefaction are present in the upper 50 feet of earth. The potential for surface damage due to liquefaction is dependent on the thickness of non - liquefiable surface cover. Soil tests performed by NMG Geotechnical found that the thickness of the non - liquefiable layer will be adequate to mitigate damage, and indicated a low potential for lateral spread (NMG, p. 10). No mitigation measures are necessary. IV) Landslides? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The project site contains slope areas, some of which show signs of previous landslides. The standard requirements and mitigation measures identified in Section Wa, above, will ensure that grading and construction will be done in a manner that reduces this potential impact to a level that is less than significant. No further mitigation is necessary. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The CIOSA EIR discusses erosion potential of the site (p. 280). Soil erosion can occur naturally, and may be accelerated during grading and construction when vegetation cover is removed and bare soil is disturbed. The relevant standard requirements and mitigation measures identified in the EIR are as follows: Project Design Features and Standard Conditions PDF -VI -2 E. An erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of grading permits and be subject to the approval of the Building /)9 SOLUTIONS, INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park project Initial Study /Negative Declaration ' January 21, 2003 Page 52 Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. F. The velocity of concentrated runoff from each project site shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the project design. I. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the design engineer shall review and state that the discharge of surface runoff from the project will be performed in a manner to assure that increased peak flows from the project will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. This report shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Department and Public Works Department. J. Erosion control measures shall be done on any exposed slopes within 30 days after grading, or as approved by the City Grading Engineer. (p. 284) Mitigation Measures MM VI -3 Any necessary diversion devices, catchment devices, or velocity reducers shall be incorporated into the grading plan and approved by the City Grading Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. Berms or other catchment devices shall be incorporated into the grading plans to divert sheet flow runoff away from areas which have been stripped of natural vegetation. Velocity reducers shall be incorporated into the design, especially where drainage devices exit to natural ground. MM VI -4 All fill slopes shall be properly compacted during grading in conformance with the City Grading Code and verified by the project Geotechnica/ Consultant. Slopes shall be planted with vegetation upon completion of grading. Conformance with this measure shall be verified by the City Grading Engineer prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. MM VI -5 Berms and brow ditches shall be constructed to the satisfaction and approval of the City Grading Engineer. Water shall not be allowed to drain over any manufactured slope face. Top -of -slope soil berms shall be incorporated into grading plans to prevent surface runoff from draining over future fill slopes. Brow ditches shall be incorporated into grading plans to divert surficial runoff from ungraded natural areas around future cut slopes. The design of berms and brow ditches shall be approved by the City Grading Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. SOLUTIONS, INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study/Negative Declarationf January21, 2003 Page 53 MM VI -6 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, appropriate artificial substances shall be recommended by the project landscape architect and approved by the City Grading Engineer for use in reducing surface erosion until permanent landscaping is well established. Upon completion of grading, stripped areas shall be covered with artificial substances approved by the City Grading Engineer. These standard requirements and mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to a level that is less than significant. 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 With Mitigation. No structures are proposed for the park portion of the project. The lower (northern) portion of the site where the senior housing development is proposed is characterized by soil conditions that could be unsuitable for development in its present condition. To ensure that the ground can support foundations and buildings, it is anticipated that overexcavation and soil surcharge will be necessary in order to reduce potential settlement to acceptable levels. ( Overexcavation refers to the removal and replacement of soil to improve its stability. Surcharge refers to the temporary placement of additional fill on a building pad in order to compress the underlying soil, thereby improving its stability.) A surcharge depth of 4 to 8 feet is anticipated for a period of 3 to 6 months, after which the excess soil would be removed and exported. The standard requirements and mitigation measures described in Section Wa, above, will ensure that this process complies with applicable engineering standards and that potential impacts are reduced to a level that is less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are required. 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 With Mitigation. Expansive soils are generally high in clay content. According to the NMG report, soils in the project area vary in their expansion potential from very low to very high depending on the location. The standard requirements and mitigation measures described in Section VI.a, above, will ensure that grading and site preparation complies with applicable engineering standards and that potential impacts are reduced to a level that is less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are required. SOLUTIONS. INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 54 c� 1 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 wastewater? No Impact. The project would not involve the use of septic tanks. All wastewater is proposed to be conveyed off -site via connections to the sanitary sewer system. No mitigation measures are necessary. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? No impact. No use, transport or disposal of hazardous materials is proposed in connection with the project. No mitigation measures are necessary. 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. During construction, gasoline- and diesel - powered equipment would be used. In the event of an accident, gasoline or diesel fuel could be spilled. Standard construction contract provisions would require that the contractor follow site maintenance and spill cleanup procedures as described in the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (the "Greenbook "). No additional mitigation measures are necessary. C) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The project is not located within _ mile of a school. The nearest schools are Newport Harbor High School (approximately 1 mile west) and Corona del Mar High School (approximately 1.3 miles north). No mitigation measures are necessary. 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? SOLUTIONS. INC I'i Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration C�- January 21, 2003 Page 55 /� No Impact. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by ENVIRON International Corporation indicated that the project site is not included on anyalist of hazardous materials sites (p.22). 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 project site is not located within 2 miles of an airport. The nearest airport (John Wayne) is approximately 3 miles north of the site. The project site is near the flight corridor of John Wayne Airport but is not within any hazard zone. 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? 1 No Impact. There are no private airstrips within the project vicinity. 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 With Mitigation. The proposed project would have no effect on any emergency response or emergency evacuation plan or procedures. Emergency evacuation routes could be affected during construction, however, due to temporary street or lane closures. The following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. Mitigation Measures MM VII -1 Prior to award of a construction contract or issuance of a grading permit, a traffic control plan meeting the approval of the City Traffic Engineer shall be prepared. The plan shall specify what measures shall be taken to minimize travel disruptions and safety hazards, including safety of pedestrians and bicyclists, minimize inconveniences to residents and businesses, minimize the loss of parking, and. ensure adequate emergency access at all times. The plan shall include haul routes and restrictions for soil export, if required. If soil export occurs during the peak summer period (Memorial Day through Labor Day) truck trips shall not exceed 10 during any one -hour period. The traffic control plan shall be incorporated into the contract specifications and shall be enforced by the construction inspector. SOLUTI ONS. INC �3_ Bayview SeniorAffordable Housing and Park Project Initial StudyrNegative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 56 F. 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 surrounded by urban development, and no wildland interface exists. No mitigation measures are necessary. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The project site is located in a sensitive area adjacent to Upper Newport Bay, which is an ecological reserve. Contaminants such as oil and grease, fertilizers, pesticides, and animal waste typically accumulate on ground surfaces and are then washed into storm drains and waterways by irrigation or rainfall. Construction activities could also temporarily increase the amount of soil erosion and siltation in the bay. In order to reduce the level of contaminants leaving the property, the project has been designed to include a stormwater detention basin in the northwestern portion of the site. The purpose of this detention basin is to hold the initial flush of stormwater, which typically contains the highest level of contaminants, so that these pollutants can be trapped and filtered as the water percolates into the ground. This project design feature would substantially reduce the amount of contaminants leaving the site. The CIOSA EIR includes the following standard requirements and mitigation measures to further reduce this potential impact: Standard Conditions SC Vlll -1 A. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, an erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be submitted and be subject to the approval of the Building Department and a copy shall be forwarded to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. B. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the design engineer shall review and state that the discharge of surface runoff from development of any site will be performed in a manner to assure that increased peak flows from the site will not increase erosion immediately downstream of the system. As part of this review, the velocity of concentrated runoff from the project shall be evaluated and erosive velocities controlled as part of the final project design. This report shall be reviewed by the Planning Department and approved by the Building Department CMC SOUMONS, INC. Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 57 C. Erosion control measures contained in the erosion, siltation and dust control plan shall be implemented on any exposed slopes within 30 days after grading, or as otherwise directed by the City Grading Engineer. D. Any existing on -site drainage facilities shall be improved as required or updated concurrent with grading and development to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Building Departments. Improvement plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading permit. E. Any modification of existing on -site drainage systems or extensions of culverts for contributory drainage from surrounding areas shall be studied during project design. Necessary improvements shall be installed in conformance with to cal ordinances and accepted engineering practices and in a manner acceptable to the Public Works Department and Building Department. Improvement plans shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. (pp. 298 -299) Mitigation Measures MM Vlll -1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall incorporate the following erosion control methods into grading plans and operations to the satisfaction of the City Grading Engineer and Building Department. a. An approved material such as straw, wood chips, plastic or similar materials shall be used to stabilize graded areas prior to revegetation or construction. b. Airborne and vehicle -borne sediment shall be controlled during construction by. the regular sprinkling of exposed soils; and the moistening of vehicle loads. c. An approved material such as riorap (a ground cover of large, loose, angular stones) shall be used to stabilize any slopes with seepage problems to protect the topsoils in areas of concentrated runoff. d. During the period of construction activity, existing vegetation which will be retained on site shall be protected from traffic by the use of fences. If appropriate, buffer strips or vegetative filter strips, such as tall stands of grass, can be used as an alternative and/or supplementary method to protect against sediment buildup. MM VIII-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the project geotechnica/ consultant CMC SOLVnoNS. INC .� Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration `, 1 January 21, 2003 Page 58 and/or civil engineer shall develop a plan for the diversion of stormwater away from any exposed slopes during grading and construction activities. The plan shall include the use of temporary right -0f -way diversions (i.e., berms or swa /es) located at disturbed areas orgraded right -of -ways. The plan will be approved by the City Engineer and Building Department and implemented during grading and construction activities. MM VIII-3 The applicant shall provide a temporary gravel entrance located at every construction site entrance. The location of this entrance shall be incorporated into grading plans prior to the issuance of grading permits. To reduce or eliminate mud and sediment carried by vehicles or runoff onto public rights -of- way, the gravel shall cover the entire width of the entrance, and its length shall be no less than 50 feet. The entrance plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and Grading Engineer concurrent with review and approval of grading plans. MM VIII-4 The applicant shall construct filter beans or other approved devise for the temporary gravel entrance. The berms shall consist of a ridge of gravel placed across graded right -of -ways to decrease and filter runoff levels while permitting construction traffic to continue. The location of berms shall be incorporated into grading plans prior to the issuance of grading permits. The plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Grading Engineer. MM Vlll -5 During grading and construction the applicant shall provide a temporary sediment basin located at the point of greatest runoff from any construction area. The location of this basin shall be incorporated into grading plans. It shall consist of an embankment of compacted soils across a drainage. The basin shall not be located in an area where its failure would lead to a loss of life or the loss of service of public utilities or roads. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the city Grading Engineer. (pp. 299 -300) These project design features, standard conditions and mitigation measures would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant. 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)? CIVIC SOUFf ONS. INC. Y Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 59 No Impact. The project would have no effect on groundwater supplies or recharge. Runoff from the project area currently flows into Upper Newport Bay or Newport Harbor via storm drains or surface drainage. 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 substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? No Im a . See Section Vlll.a. No stream courses are located on the site. No additional 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 With Mitigation. No change in runoff would be expected from the park site. The senior housing development would be expected to cause an increase surface runoff due to an increase in impervious surfaces such as buildings and paved areas. As discussed in Section Vlll.a, above, the detention basin incorporated in the project design would substantially reduce the amount of runoff leaving the site. The following mitigation measure contained in the CIOSA EIR would further reduce the likelihood of flooding: Mitigation Measures MM Vlll -6 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the master plans of water, sewer and storm drain facilities shall be approved by the City Engineer .Any systems shown to be required by the review shall be the responsibility of the developer, unless otherwise provided for through an agreement with the property owner or serving agency. (p. 300) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. See Sections Vlll.a and Vlll.d, above. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. IF) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. See Sections Vlll.a and Vlll.d, above. A gasoline service station was located on the park site from 1968 to 1984. During that time a gasoline release impacting groundwater occurred as a result of leaks from underground storage tanks. A remedial action plan was produced in 1995 and the SOLUTIONS, INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 60 Shell Oil Company has conducted remediation activities and is in the process of obtaining site closure from the Orange County Health Care Agency. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation reap No Impact. The site is not within a 100 -year flood hazard area. (CIOSA EIR p. 301) No mitigation measures are necessary. h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. The site is not within a 100 -year flood hazard area. (CIOSA EIR p. 301) No mitigation measures are necessary. 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? No Impact. The project is not located in a flood hazard area, is not near a levee or dam and would not expose additional people or structures to flood hazards. (CIOSA EIR p. 293) No mitigation measures are necessary. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? No Impact. The site is not located in an area that is subject to seiche or tsunami. (CIOSA EIR p. 293). No mitigation measures are necessary. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The site is surrounded on all sides by developed land. The project would have no effect on the established community. 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? CIVIC SOLUTIONS. INC. err.- i�r....r..... Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 61 4� No Impact. The proposed project is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation, zoning, and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. The General Plan and LCP/Land Use Plan designate the upper portion of the Bayview Landing site for Recreational and Environmental Open Spacetview park and the lower portion for Retail and Service Commercial /restaurant or athletic club or senior citizen housing as an optional use (GPA 92- 2(C)j. The General Pian/LCP/LUP specifies that "The site may be developed with the Senior Affordable Housing option only if the Coastal Development Permit findings demonstrate that adequate visitor serving uses exist in the Newport Beach coastal zone consistent with the recreational and visitor serving comercial policies of the Coastal Act.' The project proposal is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the policies of the California Coastal Act in that extensive visitor serving uses currently exist in the Newport Beach Coastal Zone in that there is a full -range of existing visitor serving areas and uses within the City including 276 acres of public beaches, 220 acres of public parks, Newport Dunes Aquatic Park, the entire Newport Bay and Harbor, Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve, Crystal Cove State Park and Beach, Balboa Fun Zone, Balboa Village, Marine Avenue, and 37 commercial areas within the Coastal Zone portion of the City. Those uses and areas provide a broad range of visitor services and facilities including: 14 hotels, motels and other similar lodging facilities offering 2,287 rooms within the Coastal Zone and 3,520 rooms citywide; restaurants and snack bars; camping and recreational vehicle accommodations; boat rentals; sports equipment sales and rentals; boat tours; amusement and recreational facilities; golf courses; yacht clubs; tours and cruises; and specialty and souvenir shops. The five acres represents only one percent of the total 497 acres of commercially -zoned property within the Coastal Zone. The development of the five acres for the proposed affordable senior housing site will not substantially detract from the extensive visitor serving facilities within the City, will not preempt establishment of additional facilities on other sites in the City, and will not inhibit the expansion of existing facilities. The project furthers the stated Coastal Act policy to "provide lower cost visitor and recreational facilities' in that the project includes development of a 10 -acre passive park that will provide enhanced public views of Upper Newport Bay and will provide a riding and hiking trail linkage. The portion of the project site consisting of the proposed 150 -unit affordable senior housing units is located on the lower portion of the site that is not a optimal location for visitor serving uses due to the location, size, topography and the proximity to other surrounding residential uses. No mitigation measures are necessary. C) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? CMC SOLUTIONS. ING ... ��..+.- rte.....,...... Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration / C January 21, 2003 page 62 Less Than Significant Impact. The site is located within the Central /Coastal Orange County NCCP area. The project's proposed habitat restoration component (see Section IV.f) is consistent with NCCP policies. No mitigation measures are necessary. X. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: 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. There are no known mineral resources on the site. 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. There are no locally important mineral resource recovery areas located in the project area. No mitigation measures are necessary. XI. NOISE Would the project result in: 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 With Mitigation Incorporated. The additional traffic generated by the senior housing project would contribute to a long -tern noise increase on roadways in the vicinity, but this increase would not be significant ( CIOSA EIR p.229). A short-term noise increase during construction would occur, however. The CIOSA EIR contains the following standard condition to address construction noise: Standard Conditions SC XI - -1 Pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, construction adjacent to existing residential development shall be limited to the SOLUTIONS. INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 63 El hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction shall not be allowed outside of these hours Monday through Saturday and at any time on Sundays and federal holidays. Verification of this shall be provided to the City's Advance Planning Manager. (p.233) Adherence to this requirement would reduce potential impacts from construction noise to a level that is less.than significant. . The proposed senior housing units would be located adjacent to Jamboree Road, a 6- lane major highway. Traffic noise from this roadway would impact residents of the project. The Noise Element of the General Plan contains Policy 4.1.2 requiring that noise mitigation be incorporated into new residential developments that are adjacent to major roads. The applicable noise standards are as follows (Table 2): Interior. 45 dB CNEL (with windows closed) 55 dB CNEL (with windows open) Exterior. 65 dB CNEL (private yards, patios or balconies) The CIOSA EIR contains the following standard City requirements and mitigation measures related to this issue: Standard Conditions SC XI -1 Prior to issuance of building permits for each of the planned units, an acoustical engineering study shall be performed based on actual pad, property, roadway grades, building locations, and orientations to assure that the exterior building shells of each structure will be sufficient to reduce existing and future noise levels to an acceptable intensity. Mitigation Measures INI,•E/6 The applicant shall ensure that all residential lots and dwellings are sound attenuated against present and projected noise, which shall be the sum of all noise impacting the project, so as not to exceed an exterior standard of 65 dB CNEL in outdoor living areas and an interior standard of 45 dB CNEL in all habitable rooms. Evidence shall be prepared under the supervision of a City certified acoustical consultant which demonstrates that these standards will be satisfied in a manner consistent with applicable zoning regulations shall be submitted as follows: SOLUTIONS. INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 64 A. Prior to the recordation of a final tract/parcel map or prior to the issuance of grading permits, at the sole discretion of the City, an Acoustical Analysis Report shall be submitted to the City's Advance Planning Manager for approval. The report shall describe in detail the exterior noise environment and preliminary mitigation measures. Acoustical design features to achieve interior noise standards may be included in the report in which case it may also satisfy "B° below. B. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, an acoustical analysis report describing the acoustical design features of the structures required to satisfy the exterior and interior noise standards shall be submitted to the Advance Planning Manager for approval along with satisfactory evidence which indicates that the sound attenuation measures specified in the approved acoustical report(s) have been incorporated into the design of the project. C. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, all freestanding acoustical barriers (if required) must be shown on the project plot plan illustrating height, location and construction in a manner meeting the approval of the City's Advance Planning manager. D. Prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Use and Occupancy, field testing in accordance with Title 25 regulations may be required by the Planning Director to verify compliance with STC and IIC design standards. MMXI -2 All freestanding acoustical barriers (if required) shall be a berm, wall or combination berm and wall. Walls shall not contain holes or gaps. Walls shall be constructed of materials suitable to meet sound attenuation standards. Final acoustical barrier heights and locations shall be determined when final grading plans are developed showing lot locations, house/building setbacks and precise pad elevations. These standard conditions and mitigation measures would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. A short-term increase in groundbome vibration and noise would be expected to occur during excavation and construction. Limitations on allowable hours of construction found in Standard Condition XI -1 would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. SOLUTIONS. INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration �{ January 21, 2003 Page 65 C) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels In the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? No Impact. The project would not result in significant long -term noise impacts (CIOSA EIR p.229). No mitigation is necessary. 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. See Section XI.a, above. 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? Less Than Significant Impact. The site is located near the flight path from John Wayne Airport; therefore construction workers, residents of the senior housing development, and park users would be subject to minor noise impacts due to aircraft overflight. These impacts are not considered significant, however, since the site is approximately 3.3 miles from John Wayne airport and is outside the 65 dB CNEL noise contour. 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 within the vicinity of the site. No mitigation measures are necessary. X11. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project: 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)? No Impact. The project would result in a population increase due to the construction of 150 senior apartments. This is not considered a significant impact since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan. No mitigation measures are necessary. SOLUTIONS. ING Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Dedaration i� January 21, 2003 Page 66 b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. There is' no existing housing that would be displaced by the proposed development. No mitigation measures are necessary. C) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. No people or existing housing would be displaced by the proposed development. No mitigation measures are necessary. XIII. 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 these public services: a) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would cause an incremental increase in demand for fire protection and paramedic service due to the construction of 150 senior apartments. An adequate level of service can be provided by existing Fire Department facilities and staff, therefore this is not considered a significant impact No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation. The proposed project would cause an incremental increase in demand for police protection due to the. construction of 150 senior apartments and a public park. An adequate level of service can be provided by existing Police Department facilities and staff, therefore this is not considered a significant impact. Traffic control during construction will be provided by the contractor in a manner meeting the approval of the City Traffic Engineer (see Mitigation Measure Vil- a). No additional mitigation measures are necessary. C) Schools? No Impact. The proposed project would have no effect on student generation or school operations since the housing project would be restricted to residents age 55 and over. No mitigation measures are necessary. SOLUTIONS. INC Bayview SeniorAffordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration r January 21, 2003 Page 67 4.0 d) Parks? No Impact. The proposed project includes the construction of a public view park and would have no effect on the demand or usage of other parks or recreation facilities. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Other public facilities? No Impact. The proposed project would have no effect on any other public facilities. No mitigation measures are necessary. XIV. 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? No Impact. The proposed project includes the construction of a public view park but would not increase the use of parks or other recreation 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? No Impact. See Section XIV.a, above. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC The following discussion is based on a project -level traffic analysis prepared by Austin - Foust Associates. The full report is provided in Appendix ll. Would the project: 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. Appropriate trip generation rates for the proposed project were obtained from the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM). These rates were derived from Institute of Transportation Engineers trip rates for senior /elderly SOLUTIONS. INC �J Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 68 / I housing. Table XV -1 summarizes the trip generation for the proposed project. As this table indicates, the proposed project will generate 600 trips daily. The project site is currently entitled with the original Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA) with 10,000 square feet of restaurant and a 10 -acre view park, which generates 669 average daily traffic (ADT). Since the proposed project generates less traffic than the entitled use, no further TPO analysis is required. Distribution of project - generated traffic was derived from observed travel patterns in the vicinity of the project site as well as from locations and levels of development in relation to the location of the proposed project. Project traffic is assumed to travel south along Jamboree Road with 25 percent assumed to travel west and 15 percent to travel east along Coast Highway. The remaining project traffic is assumed to travel north along Jamboree Road. Ten percent of the project's traffic is assumed to divert to Newport Center and five- percent to San Joaquin Hills Road east of the project site. Ten percent is assumed to travel east and ten percent west on the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR -73). Ten percent is assumed to continue north on Jamboree Road and five percent north on MacArthur Boulevard and five percent north on Von Karman Avenue. The remaining five percent is assumed to travel north on University Drive north of the SR -73. Table XV -1 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR LAND USE AMOUNT IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL ADT Previously Approved Project rtl TRIP GENERATION Restaurant 10 TSF 6 1 7 35 16 51 669 View Park 10 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total 6 1 7 35 16 51 669 Proposed Project TRIP RATES Elderly Residential DU .10 .30 .40 .30 .10 .40 4.00 TRIP GENERATION Elderly Residential 150 DU 15 45 60 45 15 60 6D0 Difference 9 44 53 10 -1 9 -69 (proposed-approved) nl = Newport Beach Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement Traffic Study, Reference 2 The City of Newport Beach identified 10 intersections for analysis to determine the impact of the proposed senior housing development These intersections are: SOLUTIONS. INC. 1, Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration 5 January 21, 2003 Page 69 W. Coast Highway & Dover Drive E. Coast Highway & Bayside Drive E. Coast Highway & Jamboree Road E. Coast Highway & Avocado Avenue E. Coast Highway & MacArthur Boulevard Jamboree Road & Backbay Drive Jamboree Road & Island Lagoon Drive Jamboree Road & Santa Barbara Drive Jamboree Road & San Joaquin Hills Road Jamboree Road & Eastbluff Drive -Ford Drive As part of a CEQA based traffic impact analysis, an examination of existing, background and background - plus - project conditions is required. This CEQA analysis utilizes the City's TPO criteria for determining significant impacts. City Staff provided the 2002 peak hour volumes (existing) for study area intersections. An expected completion date of 2005 was assumed. The analysis year, 2006, is one year after the project is completed. An ambient growth rate of 1.0 percent per year was added to volumes along MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, and Coast Highway. Approved projects consist of project developments that have been approved but are not fully completed. Cumulative projects are known but not approved project developments that are reasonably expected to be completed or nearly completed at the same time as the proposed project. The peak hour volumes of all approved projects and cumulative projects, also provided by City Staff, were added to the peak hour volumes. The resulting volumes (background volumes) represent the projected peak hour volumes prior to the addition of project traffic. One - percent of the projected peak hour volumes of each approach of each intersection was compared with the peak hour distributed volumes from the proposed project. A summary of this comparison is shown in Table XV-2 (the one - percent analysis sheets are included in Appendix II). If one - percent of the 2006 peak hour volumes of each approach were larger than the peak hour project volumes, no further analyses was performed. If project peak hour volumes were higher than one - percent of the projected peak hour volumes on any approach of any intersection, the intersection was analyzed using the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) method. Comparison of the one - percent of the peak hour volumes with the project peak hour volumes resulted in the following five intersections requiring additional analysis: E. Coast Highway & Jamboree Road Jamboree Road & San Joaquin Hills Road Jamboree Road & Island Lagoon Drive Jamboree Road & Santa Barbara Drive Jamboree Road & Backbay Drive SOLUTIONS. INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 70 q1 TABLE XV -2 SUMMARY OF ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS AM PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUMES LESS THAN 1% OF 2006 INTERSECTION NB SB EB WB PEAK HOUR 1. W Coast Hwy & Dover 0 0 2 11 Yes 2. E Coast Hwy & Bayside 0 0 2 11 Yes 3. E Coast Hwy & 0 18 2 1 No Jamboree 4. E Coast Hwy & Avocado 0 0 7 1 Yes 5. E Coast Hwy & 0 0 7 1 Yes MaWthur 6. Jamboree & Backbay 4 5 44 0 No 7. Jamboree & Island 26 5 0 0 No Lagoon 8. Jamboree & Santa 26 4 0 1 No Barbara 9. Jamboree & San 22 4 0 0 No Joaquin Hills 10. Jamboree & 20 4 0 0 Yes Eastbluff /Ford PM PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUMES LESS THAN 1 % OF 2006 INTERSECTION NB SB EB WB PEAK HOUR 1. W Coast Hwy & Dover 0 0 2 0 Yes 2. E Coast Hwy & Bayside 0 0 2 0 Yes 3. E Coast Hwy & 0 0 2 2 Yes Jamboree 4. E Coast Hwy & Avocado 0 0 0 2 Yes 5. E Coast Hwy & 0 0 0 2 Yes MacArthur 6. Jamboree & Backbay 4 6 -1 0 Yes 7. Jamboree & Island -1 6 0 0 Yes Lagoon 8. Jamboree & Santa 0 5 0 1 Yes Barbara 9. Jamboree & San 0 4 0 1 Yes Joaquin Hills 10. Jamboree & 0 4 0 0 Yes Eastbluff /Ford An ICU analysis was performed for these five intersections. Existing lane configurations were noted and a capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour (VPH) per lane with no clearance factor and a .75 right- turn -on -red (RTOR) adjustment was utilized. Table XV -3 summarizes the resulting existing, background and background - plus - project ICU values for these intersections: CIVIC SOLUTIONS, INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration y January 21, 2003 Page 71 .I d INTERSECTION TABLE XV -3 ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY EXISTING BACKGROUND AM PM AM PM BACKGROUND+ PROJECT AM PM 3, E Coast Hwy 8 Jamboree .69 .74 1.00 1.06 1.00 1.06 6, Jamboree 8 Backbay .35 .47 .51 .58 .52 .59 7. Jamboree 8 Island Lagoon .33 .48 .49 .59 .50 .59 8. Jamboree 8 Santa Barbara .46 .58 .62 .68 .62 .68 9. Jamboree 8 San Joaquin Hills .49 .56 .70 .71 .70 .71 Level of service ranges:. 00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91 -1.00 E Above 1.00 F As Table XV-3 indicates, the proposed project would not cause a one - percent increase at any intersection that is at Level C or worse. No mitigation is required. 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 Siqnificant Impact. Please see Section XV.a. The traffic analysis demonstrates that the project would not exceed any level of service standard. No mitigation is necessary. C) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or change in location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The project would have no effect on air traffic patterns. No mitigation measures are necessary. -CMC SOLUTIONS. INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 72 ,n 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 With Mitigation. The following analysis is provided in the traffic study prepared for the project: The proposed 150 unit senior residential development will be served from a single entrance off of Bayside Drive except for a gated secondary emergency access for use by the police and fire department only. The project is forecast to generate a total of 60 peak hour trips — 45 out and 15 in, in the AM peak hour and 45 in and 15 out in the PM peak hour. Storage for eight to nine vehicles (210 feet t) is provided on the exit throat. Additionally, even more vehicles could be stored, but would block the visitor parking area. The available storage is more than adequate to accommodate the peak demand of 45 vph, which is less than one vehicle per minute. Based on a worst case exit delay of two to three minutes, it is estimated that a maximum of two or three vehicles will ever be queued up wafting to leave compared to storage for roughly twice that many vehicles. Entering traffic will be controlled by a single gated entry. A typical and conservative storage requirement for vehicle storage in advance of a gate entry is one foot of storage for each unit served. With a total demand of 150 residential units, a typical storage of 150 feet would be required. This project has its entry gate located with over 300 feet from Backbay Drive. As a result, it is certain that entering traffic will never back up and interfere with thru traffic on Backbay Drive. The project's entry pattern also involves a traffic circle with a diameter of 80 feet. The main entrance (80' diameter) is adequate to serve all service and emergency vehicle access needs. The main entrance off Backbay Drive is offset from the Hyatt's gated access. However, this offset is such that there is no conflict between left- turning vehicles entering both sites simultaneously. Likewise, the main entrance utilizes curb returns to facilitate both entry and exit for right - turning vehicles. in summary, it is concluded that both the access and internal circulation for these 150 residential units are adequately designed to accommodate seniors driving characteristics and their vehicles. During construction the project could cause traffic safety problems as a result of lane closures or due to heavy truck traffic. It is estimated that site grading could require the export of up to 60,000 cubic yards of excess fill, which could result in a total of up to 6,000 truck trips. Mitigation Measure VII -1 would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? SOLUTIONS. INC `OC1 Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration y04' January 21, 2003 Page 73 Less Than Significant Impact. See Section XV.d, above. f) Result in Inadequate parking capacity? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Demand for additional parking would be created by residents of the senior housing project. A total of 180 parking spaces would-be provided for the .150 apartment units. Although the City's typical parking requirement is 2 spaces per unit plus _ space per unit guest parking (or a total of 375 spaces) and the California Coastal Commission uses a standard of 2 spaces per residential unit, the proposed ratio of 1.2 spaces per unit is considered acceptable since the project contains small units (approximately 80% 1- bedroom and 20% 2- bedroom units) that would be restricted to seniors with low incomes. Studies from comparable projects have shown that a ratio of 1.2 spaces per unit is adequate. Reports supporting this finding are available for review at the City Planning Department. The demand for parking for the viewpark is expected to be minimal since the park would have no recreational amenities attract visitors. Most park users would be expected to arrive on foot or bicycle. On- street parking is available along Bayside Drive near the site for park users or as a staging area for bicyclists. Parking is also available for a modest fee at the Newport Dunes resort, which is immediately adjacent to the park on the west. Temporary demand for additional parking would be created by workers during construction. Mitigation Measure VII -1 would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The park project would include the extension of a bicycle trail, which would support alternative transportation goals. Potential disruption of bus travel and bicycle lanes could occur during construction, however. Mitigation Measure VII -1 would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? M . SOUMONS. INC ...'�Mr,.a..-- - Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 74 No Impact No wastewater would be generated by the park. The senior housing project would generate typical wastewater flows with no unusual treatment requirements. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. The CIOSA EIR indicates that the project would not exceed the level of development assumed in current master plans, and no new facilities would be required (p.350). 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 With Mitigation. The developer of the senior housing project will be required to install new storm drainage facilities to serve the site (see Mitigation Measure VIII -6). This would reduce the potential impact to a level that is less than significant. No additional 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 would result in an incremental increase in demand for water, but adequate supplies and infrastructure are available to serve the site (CIOSA EIR p.347 -348). No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater 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. See Section XVI.b, above. 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. Construction of the project would result in an incremental increase in solid waste generation. The CIOSA EIR indicates that the project would not adversely affect landfill or refuse collection capacity (p.352). No mitigation measures are necessary. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? CIVIC SOLUTIONS. INC. Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 75 162 Less Than Significant Impact. The project could generate solid waste during construction. Standard contract specifications requiring the contractor to dispose of waste in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. 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 With Mitigation Incorporated. The project has the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, but project design features, standard conditions, and mitigation measures would reduce these potential impacts to a level that is less than significant. 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 With Mitigation Incorporated. The project would contribute to short-term cumulative impacts in the areas of air quality, noise and traffic during the construction period. The project's contribution to these cumulative impacts would be substantially reduced by the standard conditions and mitigation measures, however, and the incremental impacts of the project would be so small that they would make only a de minimis contribution to the cumulative impacts caused by other projects. C) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant With Mitigation incorporated. The project design features, standard conditions, and mitigation measures would substantially reduce the potential impacts of the project to a level that is less than significant. SOLUTIONS. INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 76 D. REFERENCES Building News Publications, Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 1997 (the "Greenbook ") City of Newport Beach, Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement Final EIR, 1992 City of Newport Beach, Newport Beach General Plan. City of Newport Beach, Newport Beach Municipal Code. County of Orange, Central and Coastal NCCP Program Map. 1996 ENVIRON International Corporation, Phase I Site Assessment, Vacant Land, Southwest Corner of Back Bay Road and Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, California, December 13, 2001 Keane Biological Consulting, Biological Resources Report. Bavview Landing Park. Citv of Newport Beach, California, October 29, 2001 McKenna et al., Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Bavview Landing Proiect Area, Newport Beach, Oranqe County, California, July 5, 2001 Nature Reserve of Orange County, personal communication with Lyn McAfee, Executive Director, January 15, 2003. NMG Geotechnical, Inc., Preliminary Investigation for the Newport Senior Lower Bavview Landing, Citv of Newport Beach, California, December 18, 2002 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993 I—cMc SOLUTIONS. INC ... "�� V •'tip. �1 " "Y/�� I,u� Bayview SeniorAffordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 77 Ib4 E. LIST OF PREPARERS Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach Steve Badum, P.E. Public Works Director Public Works Department Bill Patapoff, P.E. City Engineer Mike Sinacori, P.E. Principal Engineer Rich Edmonston, P.E. Manager, Transportation & Development Services City of Newport Beach Patricia Temple Planning Director Planning Department James Campbell Senior Planner Daniel Trimble Project Administrator Bill Cunningham Contract Planning Consultant City of Newport Beach Dennis Lockard Fire Marshall Fire Department City of Newport Beach Tim Newman Captain Police Department Environmental Consultant: Civic Solutions, Inc. John H. Douglas, AICP Director of Planning Projects Keane Biological Consulting Kathy Keane Principal Austin -Foust McKenna et al. Jeanette McKenna Principal ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED The Related Companies Gino Canori Project Manager Nature Reserve of Orange Lyn McAfee Executive Director County r SOLUTIONS. INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study /Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 78 APPENDIX SOLUTIONS, INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial Study/Negative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 79 (o�F APPENDIX I TRAFFIC STUDY SOLUTIONS, INC Bayview Senior Affordable Housing and Park Project Initial StudyfNegative Declaration January 21, 2003 Page 80 This Page Left Intentionally Blank r SENIOR HOUSING TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE Traffic Analysis January 2003 ��Al/SF /N FOIIS�' ASSOC /AYES, INC, �i i SENIOR HOUSING TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE Traffic Analysis Prepared for City of Newport Beach Prepared by: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2020 North Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705 -7827 (714) 667 -0496 January 16, 2003 SENIOR HOUSING TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed senior housing development on Jamboree Road near the Dunes in the City of Newport Beach consists of 150 dwelling units. The project site is located at the southwest comer of Jamboree Road and Backbay Drive. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the project, and Figure 2 illustrates the proposed site plan. Access to the proposed project will be provided from Backbay Drive. TPO ANALYSIS AND TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Appropriate trip generation rates for the proposed project were obtained from the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM). These rates were derived from Institute of Transportation Engineers trip rates for senior /elderly housing. Table 1 summarizes the trip generation for the proposed project. As this table indicates, the proposed project will generate 600 trips daily. The project site is currently entitled with the original Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA) with 10,000 square feet of restaurant and a 10 -acre view park, which generates 669 average daily traffic (ADT). Since the proposed project generates less traffic than the entitled use, no fwther TPO analysis is required. Distribution of project - generated traffic was derived from observed travel patterns in the vicinity of the project site as well as from locations and levels of development in relation to the location of the proposed project. The general trip distribution is illustrated in Figure 3. Project traffic is assumed to travel south along Jamboree Road with 25 percent assumed to travel west and 15 percent to travel east along Coast Highway. The remaining project traffic is assumed to travel north along Jamboree Road. Ten percent of the project's traffic is assumed to divert to Newport Center and five- percent to San Joaquin Hills Road east of the project site. Ten percent is assumed to travel east and ten percent west on the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR -73). Ten percent is assumed to continue north on Jamboree Road and five percent north on MacArthur Boulevard and five percent north on Von Karman Avenue. The remaining five percent is assumed to travel north on University Drive north of the SR -73. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the project's AM and PM peak hour lips, respectively. Trek Talric Auslio-Foust Associatm.Inc- Tmffic tcpon 03 -0I -14Aoc 1�� G,Q w J Z S JOAQUIN y��s SANTA BARBARA N e kn0�l o� PROJECT SITE` ISLAND LAGOON D BACKBAY COAST B A�(SDE G\F�G PP NEWPORT BAY OP�gOP . PACIFIC OCEAN Scnior HousmgTraffic Phasing Ordi -= Traffic Analysis Figum I PROJECT VICINRYMAP Austin -Foust ��a!^ --°+� 17070b=.dn U !IF?t ••;ti.rrinar�._ i� _ avie- _ice =.! ..� • ,. ,,,,,� - Vii; fir!!//, - • . f F� S r Sa \� IA�I !. 1 \\ � �r ' V Figure 2 PROPOSED PROJECT SITE PLAN l J Senior Housing Traffic Pbasing Ordinance 3 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc Traffic Anabsis 17070base.dwg _i�` Table I TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Previously Approved Project"' TRIP GENERATION Restaurant .10 TSF 6 1 7 35 16 51 669 View Park 10 ACRE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sub -Total 6 1 7 35 16 51 669 Proposed P"Jecl TRIP RATES Elderly Residential DU .10 .30 .40 .30 .10 .40 4.00 TRIP GENERATION Elderly Residential 150 DU 15 45 60 45 15 60 600 Difrerence (proposed - approved) 9 44 53 10 -I 9 -69 trt= Newport Beach Circulation Improvement and Opco Space Agreement Traffic Study, Reference 2 11� Senior Housing Traffic Phasing Ordinance 4 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. ' Traffic Analysis Traffic report 03-01- 14.doe by o q� 5/0 s 10% 5% o� 5% 10% BRISTOL g m a g m� 10% > SJHTC DEL MAR BACK >m BISON BAY °y flp F 7J`re`G� fdv0 `9c�H S+ OR U� 5% v+rt 19TH 10% ucsw 17TH COAST y. HIGHWA 15% �10% G Q*aP NEWPORT BAY ON 15% °�, PACIFIC OCEAN Figum 3 PROJECT TRIP DIMIBVTION 1�J senior Housing Traffic Phasing Ordinance S AustinroustAssociates,Ine Traffic Analyse 17Mbase.dwg _'.;/ Figure 4 PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TURN VOLUMES �N %r Senior Housing Traffic Phasing Ordinance 6 Austin -Foust Asodates, Inc Traffic Analysis 17070base -dwB Figure 5 PROJECT PM PEAK HOURTURN VOLUMES `1 Senior Housing Traffic Phasing Ordinance 7 Austin-Foust Assodatcs, Ix. Tra&cAmb,sis 17070base.dwg CEQA TRAFFIC IMPACTS The City of Newport Beach identified 10 intersections for analysis to determine the impact of the proposed senior housing development. These intersections are: W. Coast Highway & Dover Drive E. Coast Highway & Bayside Drive E. Coast Highway & Jamboree Road E. Coast Highway & Avocado Avenue E. Coast Highway & MacArthur Boulevard Jamboree Road & Backbay Drive Jamboree Road & Island Lagoon Drive Jamboree Road & Santa Barbara Drive Jamboree Road & San Joaquin Hills Road Jamboree Road & Eastbluff Drive -Ford Drive As part of a CEQA based traffic impact analysis, an examination of existing, background and background- plus - project conditions is required. This CEQA analysis utilizes the City's TPO criteria for determining significant impacts. City Staff provided the 2002 peak hour volumes (existing) for study area intersections. An expected completion date of 2005 was assumed. The analysis year, 2006, is one year after the project is completed. An ambient growth rate of 1.0 percent per year was added to volumes along MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, and Coast Highway. Approved projects consist of project developments that have been approved but are not fully completed. Cumulative projects are known but not approved project developments that are reasonably expected to be completed or nearly completed at the same time as the proposed project The peak hour volumes of all approved projects and cumulative projects, also provided by City Staff, were added to the peak hour volumes. The resulting volumes (background volumes) represent the projected peak hour volumes prior to the addition of project traffic. A list of approved projects and cumulative projects is given in Table 2. v senior HousiogTraffx Phasing Ordinance 8 Austin-Fong Associates, Inc. � Traffic Analysis Traffic report 03 -01 -14Aoc Table 2 APPROVED AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS SUMMARY Balboa Bay Club Expansion 0% Occupancy Fashion Island Expansion 36% Occupancy Temple Bat Yahm Expansion 0°/. Occupancy Ford Redevelopment 95% Occupancy CIOSA — Irvine Project 91% Occupancy Newport Dunes 0°/. Occupancy City of Irvine Development 0% Occupancy Holtze Hotel 300A Occupancy Newport Center Block 600 0°,5 Occupancy Cannery Lofts Village 0%. Occupancy Hoag Hospital Phase 11 00/. Occupancy St. Mark Presbyterian Church Our Lady Queen of Angels Church Regent Newport Beach Resort Bonita Canyon- Blufrs Commercial Center Mariners Church Exodus Community Center and Turbot V Torah Expansion Newport Coast Newport Ridge Residential Project (SW comer of Bonita CynJNcwport Coast) }t-1 Senior Housing Traffte Phasing Ordinance 9 Austin -Foust Associate, -I.e. -r-' Tra6e Analysis Traffic report 03-01- 14.doc One - percent of the projected peak hour volumes of each approach of each intersection was compared with the peak hour distributed volumes from the proposed project. A summary of this comparison is shown in Table 3 (the one - percent analysis sheets are included in the Appendix). If one - percent of the 2006 peak hour volumes of each approach were larger than the peak hour project volumes, no further analyses was performed. if project peak hour volumes were higher than one- percent of the projected peak hour volumes on any approach of any intersection, the intersection was analyzed using the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) method. Comparison of the one - percent of the peak hour volumes with the project peak hour volumes resulted in the following five intersections requiring additional analysis: E. Coast Highway & Jamboree Road Jamboree Road & Backbay Drive Jamboree Road & Island Lagoon Drive Jamboree Road & Santa Barbara Drive Jamboree Road & San Joaquin Hills Road An ICU analysis was performed for the above five intersections. Existing lane configurations were noted and a capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour (VPH) per lane with no clearance factor and a .75 right - turn -on -red (RTOR) adjustment was utilized. The following table summarizes the resulting existing, background and background - plus - project ICU values for these intersections: INTERSECI70N AM ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY EXISTING BACKGROUND FM AM FM BACKGROUND + PROJECr AM PM 3. E Coast Hwy & Jamboree .69 .74 1.00 1.06 1.00 1.06 6. Jamboree & Backbay 35 .47 .5I 38 32 .59 7. Jambo= &Island Lagoon .33 As .49 59 SO 59 8. Jamboree &Santa Barbara .46 .58 .62 .68 .62 .68 9. Jamborec & San Joaquin Hills .49 56 .70 .71 .70 .71 Level of service ranges: .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71- .80 C .81 - .90 D .91- 1.00 E Above 1.00 F As this table indicates, the proposed project does not cause a one - percent increase at any location and will have no significant impact on any study area intersections. senior Housing Traffic Pbasing Ordinance 10 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. -I Traffic Analysis Traffic report 03-01.14.dm r' INTERSECTION Table 3 SUMMARY OF ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS AM PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUMES NB SB EB WB LESS THAN 1% OF 2006 PEAK HOUR VOLUMES 1. W Coast Hwy & Dova 0 0 2 11 Yes 2. E Coast Hwy & Bayside 0 0 2 11 Yes 3. E Coast Hwy & Jambom 0 18 2 I No 4. E Coast Hwy & Avocado 0 0 7 I Yes 5. E Coast Hwy & MacArthur 0 0 7 I Yes 6. Jamboree & Backbay 4 5 44 0 No 7. Jamborec & Island Lagoon 26 5 0 0 No 8. Jamboree & Santa Barbara 26 4 0 I No 9. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills 22 4 0 0 No 10. Jamboree & EastbluWFord 20 4 0 0 Yes PM PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUMES LESS THAN 1% OF 2006 INTERSECTION NB SB EB WB PEAK HOAR VOLUMES I. W Coast Hwy & Dom 0 0 2 0 Yes 2. E Coast Hwy & Bayside 0 0 2 0 Yes 3. E Coast Hwy & Jambom 0 0 2 2 Yes 4. E Coast Hwy & Avocado 0 0 0 2 Yes 5. E Coast Hwy & MacArthur 0 0 0 2 Yes 6. Jamboree & Backbay 4 6 -1 0 Yes 7. Jamboree & Island Lagoon -1 6 0 0 Yes 8. Jamborec & Santa Barbara 0 5 0 I Yes 9. Jambom & San Joaquin Hills 0 4 0 I Yes 10. Jamboree & EastbluH7Ford 0 4 0 0 Yes Senior Housing Traffic Phasing Ordinance II Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. TmtHc Analysis Traffic report 03-01.14.doc TRAFFIC ACCESS AND CIRCULATION The proposed 150 unit senior residential development will be served from a single entrance off of Bayside Drive except for a gated secondary emergency access for use by the police and fire department only. The project is forecast to generate a total of 60 peak hour trips - - 45 out and 15 in, in the AM peak hour and 45 in and 15 out in the PM peak hour. Storage for eight to nine vehicles (210 feet t) is provided on the exit throat. Additionally, even more vehicles could be stored, but would block the visitor parking area. The available storage is more than adequate to accommodate the peak demand of 45 vph, which is less than one vehicle per minute. Based on a worst case exit delay of two to three minutes, it is estimated that a maximum of two or three vehicles will ever be queued up waiting to leave compared to storage for roughly twice that many vehicles. Entering traffic will be controlled by a single gated entry. A typical and conservative storage requirement for vehicle storage in advance of a gate entry is one foot of storage for each unit served. With a total demand of 150 residential units, a typical storage of 150 feet would be required. This project has its entry gate located with over 300 feet from Backbay Drive. As a result, it is certain that entering traffic will never back up and interfere with thru traffic on Backbay Drive. The project's entry pattern also involves a traffic circle with a diameter of 80 feet. The main entrance (80' diameter) is adequate to serve all service and emergency vehicle access needs. The main entrance off Backbay Drive is offset from the Hyatt's gated access. However, this offset is such that there is no conflict between left - tuming vehicles entering both sites simultaneously. Likewise, the main entrance utilizes curb returns to facilitate both entry and exit for right - turning vehicles. In summary, it is concluded that both the access and internal circulation for these 150 residential units are adequately designed to accommodate seniors driving characteristics and their vehicles. CONCLUSIONS The project site is currently CIOSA approved with 10,000 square feet of restaurant and a 10 -acre view park which generates 669 ADT. The currently proposed elderly housing project will generate only 600 ADT which is less than entitled and therefore does not require a more rigorous TPO analysis. i as Senior Housing Traffic Phasing Ordinance 12 Austin -Foust Associatcs, Inc. Traffic Analysis Traffic report 03 -01- 14.doc However, ten intersections in the vicinity were investigated to determine if any significant impact occurred on the street system from a CEQA standpoint. An ICU analysis was performed on five intersections where traffic exceeded the criteria for a one percent analysis. However, the project does not cause any change in the resulting ICUs and it is concluded that no significant impact results. Finally, a review of access and on -site circulation reveals the plan is adequate to accommodate seniors and their unique driving characteristics. REFERENCES: 1. "Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM), Traffic Model Data," Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., September 1996. 2. "Newport Beach Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement Traffic Study," Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., February 1992. senior Housing Traffic Phasing Ordinance 13 Austin-Foust Assmiales, Ina Tralfie Analysis Traffic report 03 -01 -14.dm This Page Left Intentionally Blank JA Attachment 3 Applicant's explanation of technical site engineering constraints �l J � 3� Technical Discussion of Site Constraints related to Civil Engineering Project: Lower Bayview Senior Affordable Housing Southwest corner of Jamboree Road and Back Bay Drive Newport Beach, CA Date: January 30, 2003 Overview of Existing Drainage Patterns The existing site at the southwest corner of Jamboree Road and Bay Bay Drive is currently vacant and drains northerly to a primary low point within the site adjacent to the intersection of Bay Bay Drive and the primary entry road to Newport Dunes. In addition to this low point, there are two other small localized low points within the site where runoff currently ponds during the rainy season. These low points are located within areas where new buildings and improvements will be constructed. Drainage from adjacent city park site and protection of Lower Bayview from flooding The City of Newport Beach will be developing a passive park just to the south of Lower Bayview. While the park will be owned and maintained by the City, the park site will drain northerly toward the residential project. To protect the proposed structures and other improvements, portions of the site will need to be raised to achieve positive drainage around the buildings. Grading of Lower Bayview to achieve positive drainage The grading of Lower Bayview has been designed to require the least amount of earth fill while assuring that positive drainage away from the buildings will be achieved. In order to grade the level building pads, the existing localized low points within the site will need to be filled. Additional fill will be placed to raise the building structures: (1) above the potential 100 year flood level around the buildings, and (2) to provide positive drainage swales around the buildings. Drainage away from the structures will be a minimum of two percent. Drainage swales must flow at a minimum of two percent to an approved drainage inlet. These requirements have been achieved on the Conceptual Grading Plan. Detention Basin Drainage from Lower Bayview will be directed to the proposed detention basin shown on the plans. Drainage from the majority of the park site will also drain to the detention basin. Based on technical design criteria provided by the City, the size of the basin was determined through engineering calculations. The detention basin is required to meet current requirements of the City, County, State and Federal agencies. The purpose of the basin is two -fold: The basin will detain peak storm runoff flows such that runoff from the park site and housing site will be detained within the basin until such time as the "peak" of the storm has occurred. Hence, the basin will serve to mitigate any increased flow to the city �J streets during the peak of the storm. Additionally, a portion of the runoff detained in the basin will percolate into the soil, and, thus, never leave the site at all. The basin will address the County of Orange, State of California, California Coastal Commission, and Federal EPA requirements which require filtration of initial storm runoff flows. By detaining the runoff for several hours, settlement will occur within the basin. When the runoff eventually drains from the basin, the quality of the runoff will be improved due to the fact that there has been time for potential pollutants to settle to the bottom of the basin. The detention basin will be landscaped and be an aesthetically pleasing landscape feature of the project. Grading and Utilities Sewer Another advantage of the site grading design is its relationship to underground utilities. The proposed sewer system will drain by gravity and connect to an exiting Orange County Sanitation District Trunk main in Back Bay Drive. Due to the high ground water table at this site, it is necessary to provide a sufficient " utility zone" between the groundwater table and the finished grade elevations. Excavating for utilities (storm drain ,sewer, water, etc.) below the groundwater table would cause caving of trenches and would be cost prohibitive. Storm Drain To provide positive flow of the proposed on -site storm drain system, the grades as shown on the Conceptual Grading Plan are necessary . The storm drain system must outlet into the detention basin. Traveling upstream from the basin at a minimum pipe slope, the storm drain pipes will have minimal earth cover over the pipe at the most upstream catch basin. If the building site were lowered, the pipes would rise "out of the ground" and the essential storm drain system would not be feasible. Grading and Export of Excess Material As currently designed, the earthwork quantities for the project indicate a significant amount of soil export from the site. To balance the cut and fill quantities, it would be advantageous to increase the elevation of the existing site by 10 or more feet. Because there are other factors which would not allow us to do this, the grading design is the minimum quantity (depth) of fill required to make the project feasible from a drainage and utility standpoint. The fill to be placed on the Lower Bayview site, however, will help reduce the amount of export which will need to be transported from the site via trucks over city streets. The California Coastal Commission and the citizens of Newport Beach and its neighboring communities will look favorably on the reduction in truck trips leaving the project site. �} 1 OPTIONAL ITEM Existing elevations within site verses proposed elevations within site The existing elevations within the Bayview Landing site range from elevation 15 to elevation 75. The proposed elevations will not change dramatically; the elevations will range from 17 to 75. Technical Discussion of Geotechnical Findings The geotechnical consultant for this project (NMG Geotechnical, Inc.) has performed a preliminary geotechnical investigation to evaluate the existing subsurface conditions in order to determine the geotechnical constraints and provide preliminary remedial grading and design recommendations for the proposed development. The geotechnical report by NMG dated December 18, 2002 summarizes the findings and provides preliminary recommendations for the proposed site development. The primary geotechnical issues for the subject site are 1) the remedial grading and shallow groundwater conditions; 2) the settlement of underlying compressible materials as a result of fill and structural loading; and 4) the stability of the hillsides and graded slopes created by the design cuts. A summary of the geotechnical findings and the primary issues are provided below. The earth units underlying the lower area include uncertified fill overlying alluvium, with Monterey bedrock at a depth of 25 to 30 feet below the site. Elevations at the site vary from a low of approximately 16 feet (above mean sea level) in the northwest corner to a high of 30 feet in the southern portion of the site. The groundwater table underlying the site is shallow, on the order of 10 to 20 feet deep (elevation 7 to 12 feet above mean sea level). The groundwater is probably influenced by seasonal fluctuations. The earth units underlying the upper mesa area include approximately 15 feet of non - marine terrace deposits over 10 feet of marine terrace deposits, over bedrock of the Monterey Formation. The Monterey bedrock consists of diatomaceous siltstone. These materials are generally much denser than the earth units underlying the lower area. Groundwater is believed to be deeper below the mesa site, deeper than 70 feet. There are no known major or active faults located at the subject site; therefore, the potential for ground rupture is considered low. The subject site is not located within a Fault Rupture Hazards Zone as defined by the State's Alquist Priolo Act, but is located within a Seismic Hazard Zone as defined by the State's Seismic Hazard Mapping Act (Newport Beach Quadrangle). Based upon the current geotechnical studies at the site the potential for seismically induced liquefaction is considered very low. There is a mapped seismic hazard zone for "Earthquake Induced Landslides" along the hillside to the south of the subject site. J The recommended remedial removals will be shallow and limited by the existing shallow groundwater level. As a result, a temporary stockpile has been recommended to surcharge the lower area of the site and reduce the future settlement potential. The actual size (height and area) and the duration of the surcharge will depend on the actual design loading, construction schedule and settlement tolerances. As a result of the design cut into the existing hillside, one of the planned buildings will be underlain by bedrock and will not require surcharging. The proposed slopes created by the design cuts into the hillside are anticipated to be grossly stable however, a supplemental geotechnical investigation is currently in progress in order to provide remedial recommendations related to slope stability. Based on the anticipated design grading and recommended remedial measures a shallow foundation system is considered to be geotechnically acceptable. The proposed design finish grades will help reduce the impact of the shallow groundwater conditions and will provide a thicker fill cap for the building foundations. At this time, the building foundations are anticipated to be post- tensioned slabs to be designed based on Iow to medium expansion potential and differential settlement on the order of 1.0 inch over a 40 -foot span. Final foundation recommendations will be confirmed upon the completion of grading based on the evaluation of the final as- graded conditions. X30 SENIOR HOUSING TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE 'Traffic Analysis January 2003 igg UST /N FOUST ASSOC /R TES, /NC. I� SENIOR HOUSING TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE Traffic Analysis Prepared for: City of Newport Beach Prepared by: Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 2020 North Tustin Avenue Santa Ana, California 92705 -7827 (714) 667 -0496 January 14, 2003 X33 SENIOR HOUSING TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed senior housing development on Jamboree Road near the Dunes in the City of Newport Beach consists of 150 dwelling units. The project site is located at the southwest corner of Jamboree Road and Backbay Drive. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the project, and Figure 2 illustrates the proposed site plan. Access to the proposed project will be provided from Backbay Drive. TPO ANALYSIS AND TRIP GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION Appropriate trip generation rates for the proposed project were obtained from the Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM). These rates were derived from Institute of Transportation Engineers trip rates for senior /elderly housing. Table I summarizes the trip generation for the proposed project. As this table indicates, the proposed project will generate 600 trips daily. The project site is currently entitled with the original Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement (CIOSA) with 10,000 square feet of restaurant and a 10 -acre view park, which generates 669 average daily traffic (ADT). Since the proposed project generates less traffic than the entitled use, no further TPO analysis is required. Distribution of project - generated traffic was derived from observed travel patterns in the vicinity of the project site as well as from locations and levels of development in relation to the location of the proposed project. The general trip distribution is illustrated in Figure 3. Project traffic is assumed to travel south along Jamboree Road with 25 percent assumed to travel west and 15 percent to travel east along Coast Highway. The remaining project traffic is assumed to travel north along Jamboree Road. Ten percent of the project's traffic is assumed to divest to Newport Center and five - percent to San Joaquin Hills Road east of the project site. Ten percent is assumed to travel east and ten percent west on the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor (SR -73). Ten percent is assumed to continue north on Jamboree Road and five percent north on MacArthur Boulevard and five percent north on Von Karman Avenue. The remaining five percent is assumed to travel north on University Drive north of the SR -73. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the project's AM and PM peak hour trips, respectively. Senior Housing Traffic Phasing Ordinance I Austin -Foust Associates, ITC_. Traffic Analysis 017070ta.doc , .i Figure 1 PROJECT VICINITY MAP Senior Housing Traffic Phasing Ordinance 2 Austin -Foust Associates, Ina Traffic Analysis 17070base.dwg � 35 Figure 2 PROPOSED PROJECT SITE PL4.*I Senior Housing Traffic Phasing Ordinance 3 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 17070base,&g Table I TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY AM PEAK HOUR LAND USE AMOUNT IN OUT TOTAL Previously Approved Project m TRIP GENERATION Restaurant 10 TSF 6 1 7 View Park 10 ACRE 0 0 0 PM PEAK HOUR IN OUT TO 35 16 4 4 Sub -Total 6 1 7 35 16 Proposed Project TRIP RATES Elderly Residential DU .10 .30 .40 .30 .10 TRIP GENERATION Elderly Residential 150 DU 15 45 60 45 15 Difference (proposed- approved) 9 44 53 10 -1 ('r= Newport Beach Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement Traffic Study, Reference 2 51 669 0 0 51 669 .40 4.00 60 600 9 -69 131 Senior Housing Traffic Phasing Ordinance 4 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 017070t2.doc 5% x f10% 5% o� 5% C,4"OG S 4p CANYON 10% BRISTOL CALIF P ORNiq ��� 0 m A _ D � y g m 10% D SJHTC OEL MAR `9 BACK m� BISON BAY F vsre(L�� fOp,� �9c�r SAr�s yGR au = � F s z Q � N n.nnGnN 5% SnNTn erAeN+n 19TH No uwm I PROJEC SffE C„a„ e n 17tH a coast - HIGHWAY BaYS',pE �� 15% 10% 'GJ1 O\F�C y eN NEWPORT BAY OP 2� 6p1� 15% $,, PACIFIC OCEAN Figure 3 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUMN J Senior Housing Traffic Phasing Ordinance 5 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. l J Traffic Analysis 17070base.dwg BISON UT� � • 'L19 0 FpFz� c9pT 00 41S yG� OZ 000 0000 OY i 0 J�4—or o r p -s.�tr \ O�W SAN 0 —a O m 0 0 —b O o N JOAQUIN N \ YO �I 0 SANTA 0I0f0+ 0 V r 8AR0ARA YIY1,r 0 G Z0J.�tr 18 —y,00 ISLAND LAGOON c O 0G SACKSAY M ;0 0 COAST p00 o - o 000 Al x1r 0s��r n 00° 7 0 —► 0 0z NNo 00 2r 6p,YS10E xo� 000 PG\F�G I? NEWPORT BAY BF�gOP Senior Housing Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Analysis r)< 0Y10 7, PACIFIC OCEAN Figure 4 PROJECT AM PEAK HOUR TURN VOLUMES 6 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc 17070base.dwg I7� SJHTC +� BACK 7 eisoN BAY $ Fy STS 0a '11,9 0 a��tP 000 0.0+— 0 oe ,` 0 z o 1r +° o 00� Irr \ 0� Irr SAN 0 7.000 JOAOUIN 1,LLS 00 4 0 SANTA u00,` 0 BARBARA ,J r o \ 0 Ne„ 0 7. a00 ISLAND LAGOON o O OL � BACKBAY A 000 0 COAST 000 ri +-z !� 0 o ,r r O 0 0 p0 000 07 A 0 s0E 0 �� ' o yl�1 0 0 r Z ti� 1 0 QPG\F�° o NEWPORT BAY OP�g °P PACIFIC OCEAN Senior Housing Traffic Phasing Ordinance Traffic Analysis 7 Figure 5 PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR TURN VOLUMES _, G A Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. 17070base.dwg �r t CEQA TRAFFIC IMPACTS The City of Newport Beach identified 10 intersections for analysis to determine the impact of the proposed senior housing development. These intersections are: W. Coast Highway & Dover Drive E. Coast Highway & Bayside Drive E. Coast Highway & Jamboree Road E. Coast Highway & Avocado Avenue E. Coast Highway & MacArthur Boulevard Jamboree Road & Backbay Drive Jamboree Road & Island Lagoon Drive Jamboree Road & Santa Barbara Drive Jamboree Road & San Joaquin Hills Road Jamboree Road & Eastbluff Drive -Ford Drive As part of a CEQA based traffic impact analysis, an examination of existing, background and background -plus- project conditions is required. This CEQA analysis utilizes the City's TPO criteria for determining significant impacts. City Staff provided the 2002 peak hour volumes (existing) for study area intersections. An expected completion date of 2005 was assumed. The analysis year, 2006, is one year after the project is completed. An ambient growth rate of 1.0 percent per year was added to volumes along MacArthur Boulevard, Jamboree Road, and Coast Highway. Approved projects consist of project developments that have been approved but are not fully completed. Cumulative projects are known but not approved project developments that are reasonably expected to be completed or nearly completed at the same time as the proposed project. The peak hour volumes of all approved projects and cumulative projects, also provided by City Staff, were added to the peak hour volumes. The resulting volumes (background volumes) represent the projected peak hour volumes prior to the addition of project traffic. A list of approved projects and cumulative projects is given in Table 2. senior Housing Traffic Phasing Ordinance g Austin -Faust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 017070ta.dw l Table 2 APPROVED AND CUMULATIVE PROJECTS SUMMARY Balboa Bay Club Expansion 09A Occupancy Fashion Island Expansion 360% Occupancy Temple Bat Yahm Expansion 0% Occupancy Ford Redevelopment 95% Occupancy CIOSA— Irvine Project 91°A Occupancy Newport Dunes 00% Occupancy City of Irvine Development 0% Occupancy Holtze Hotel 30% Occupancy Newport Center Block 600 0% Occupancy Cannery Lofts Village 0% Occupancy Hoag Hospital Phase H 0% Occupancy St. Mark Presbyterian Church Our Lady Queen of Angels Church Regent Newport Beach Resort Bonita Carryon- Bluffs Commercial Center Mariners Church Exodus Community Center and Tarbut V'Torah Expansion Newport Coast Newport Ridge Residential Project (SW comer of Bonita Cyn./Newport Coast) Senior Housing Traffic Phasing Ordinance 9 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 017070ta.doc 1 {� One- percent of the projected peak hour volumes of each approach of each intersection was compared with the peak hour distributed volumes from the proposed project. A summary of this comparison is shown in Table 3 (the one - percent analysis sheets are included in the Appendix). If one - percent of the 2006 peak hour volumes of each approach were larger than the peak hour project volumes, no further analyses was performed. If project peak hour volumes were higher than one- percent of the projected peak hour volumes on any approach of any intersection, the intersection was analyzed using the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) method. Comparison of the one - percent of the peak hour volumes with the project peak hour volumes resulted in the following five intersections requiring additional analysis: E. Coast Highway & Jamboree Road Jamboree Road & Backbay Drive Jamboree Road & Island Lagoon Drive Jamboree Road & Santa Barbara Drive Jamboree Road & San Joaquin Hills Road An ICU analysis was performed for the above five intersections. Existing lane configurations were noted and a capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour (VPH) per lane with no clearance factor and a .75 right - turn -on -red (RTOR) adjustment was utilized. The following table summarizes the resulting existing, background and background- plus - project ICU Values for these intersections: INTERSECTION AM ICU ANALYSIS SUMMARY EXISTING BACKGROUND PINT AM PM BACKGROUND +PROTECT AM PM 3. E Coast Hwy & Jamboree .69 .74 1.00 1.06 1.00 1.06 6. Jamboree & Backbay .35 .47 .51 .58 .52 .59 7. Jamboree & Island Lagoon .33 .48 .49 .59 .50 .59 S. Jamboree & Santa Barbara .46 .58 .62 .68 .62 .68 9. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills .49 .56 .70 .71 .70 .71 Level of service ranges: .00 - .60 A .61 - .70 B .71 - .80 C .81 - .90 D .91- 1.00 E Above 1.00 F As this table indicates, the proposed project does not cause a one - percent increase at any location and will have no significant impact on any study area intersections. 1`�3 Senior Housing Traffic Phasing Ordinance 10 Austin -Foust Associates. Inc. Traffic Analysis 017070ra_doc INTERSECTION Table 3 SUMMARY OF ONE PERCENT ANALYSIS AM PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUMES NB SB EB WB LESS THAN I% OF 2006 PEAKHOURVOLUMFS 1. W Coast Hwy & Dover 0 0 2 11 Yes 2. E Coast Hwy & Bayside 0 0 2 11 Yes 3. E Coast Hwy & Jamboree 0 18 2 1 No 4. E Coast Hwy & Avocado 0 0 7 1 Yes 5. E Coast Hwy & MacArthur 0 0 7 1 Yes 6. Jamboree & Backbay 4 5 44 0 No 7. Jamboree & Island Lagoon 26 5 0 0 No 8. Jamboree & Santa Barbara 26 4 0 1 No 9. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills 22 4 0 0 No 10. Jamboree & EastblutT/Ford 20 4 0 0 Yes PM PROJECT PEAK HOUR VOLUMES LESS THAN I% Of 2006 INTERSECTION NB SB EB WB PEAK HOUR VOLUMES I. W Coast Hwy & Dover 0 0 2 0 Yes 2. E Coast Hwy & Bayside 0 0 2 0 Yes 3. E Coast Hwy & Jamboree 0 0 2 2 Yes 4. E Coast Hwy & Avocado 0 0 0 2 Yes 5. E Coast Hwy & MacArthur 0 0 0 2 Yes 6. Jamboree & Backbay 4 6 •1 0 Yes 7. Jamboree & Island Lagoon •1 6 0 0 Yes S. Jamboree & Santa Barbaro 0 5 0 1 Yes 9. Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills 0 4 0 1 Yes 10. Jamboree & Eastbluff/Ford 0 4 0 0 Yes 61 Senior Housing Traffic Phasing Ordinance I1 Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 017070ta.doc TRAFFIC ACCESS AND CIRCULATION The proposed 150 unit senior residential development will be served from a single entrance off of Bayside Drive except for a gated secondary emergency access for use by the police and fire department only. The project is forecast to generate a total of 60 peak hour trips - - 45 out and 15 in, in the AM peak hour and 45 in and 15 out in the PM peak hour. Storage for eight to nine vehicles (210 feet t) is provided on the exit throat. Additionally, even more vehicles could be stored, but would block the visitor parking area. The available storage is more than adequate to accommodate the peak demand of 45 vph, which is less than one vehicle per minute. Based on a worst case exit delay of two to three minutes, it is estimated that a maximum of two or three vehicles will ever be queued up waiting to leave compared to storage for roughly twice that many vehicles. Entering traffic will be controlled by a single gated entry. A typical and conservative storage requirement for vehicle storage in advance of a gate entry is one foot of storage for each unit served. With a total demand of 150 residential units, a typical storage of 150 feet would be required. This project has its entry gate located with over 300 feet from Backbay Drive. As a result, it is certain that entering traffic will never back up and interfere with thru traffic on Backbay Drive. The project's entry pattern also involves a traffic circle with a diameter of 80 feet. The main entrance (80' diameter) is adequate to serve all service and emergency vehicle access needs. The main entrance off Backbay Drive is offset from the Hyatt's gated access. However, this offset is such that there is no conflict between left- turning vehicles entering both sites simultaneously. Likewise, the main entrance utilizes curb returns to facilitate both entry and exit for right-turning- vehicles. In summary, it is concluded that both the access and internal circulation for these 150 residential units are adequately designed to accommodate seniors driving characteristics and their vehicles. CONCLUSIONS The project site is currently CIOSA approved with 10,000 square feet of restaurant and a 10 -acre view park which generates 669 ADT. The currently proposed elderly housing project will generate only 600 ADT which is less than entitled and therefore does not require a more rigorous TPO analysis. Senior Housing Traffic Phasing Ordinance 12 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. l Traffic Analysis 017070ta.doc However, ten intersections in the vicinity were investigated to determine if any significant impact occurred on the street system from a CEQA standpoint. An ICU analysis was performed on five intersections where traffic exceeded the criteria for a one percent analysis. However, the project does not cause any change in the resulting ICUs and it is concluded that no significant impact results. Finally, a review of access and on -site circulation reveals the plan is adequate to accommodate seniors and their unique driving characteristics. REFERENCES: 1. "Newport Beach Traffic Analysis Model (NBTAM), Traffic Model Data," Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., September 1996. 2. "Newport Beach Circulation Improvement and Open Space Agreement Traffic Study," Austin -Foust Associates, Inc., February 1992. Senior Housing Traffic Phasing Ordinance 13 Austin -Foust ASSnCiatesI C. Traffic Analysis 017070ra.doc X 1 J g �qM My TP CANYON L,P BRISTOL CgUF p �M /q 0 z m z a ~ h D D 0 D SJHTC DEL MAR BACK BAY ;o BISON Fy M �`LF� � () fOQ-O 9C9g1 5P�4^s � F f s 9 Q 5 m I-01CJq 8 su+r� Bi+O� 19TH y 7 G� no uwon PROJEC SITE O BAY 5 2 17TH A COAST 3 4 2 Htcr+wAr BAY9DO Gu, y eP NEWPORT BAY OP ZF � 8PL0 PACIFIC OCEAN LEGEND XX 0 STUDY INTERSECTION Figure A -1 TPO STUDY LOCATIONS Senior Housing Traffic Phasing Ordinance A -1 Austin -Foust Associates, Inc. Traffic Analysis 17070base.dwg �l �,YA 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Eastbound 2362 94 115 405 2976 30 Intersection: 1. W. Coast Kwy[Dover Westbound 2800 112 71 1151 4134 41 11 Fxisting Traffic Volumes Based on Average WintedSpr 2002 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 %of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Westbound 6405 256 102 552 7315 73 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or less of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. AM PEAK PERIOD Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak t Hour Traf0c Volume. Northbound 147 0 0 0 147 1 0 Southbound 1452 0 16 97 1565 16 0 Eastbound 2362 94 115 405 2976 30 2 Westbound 2800 112 71 1151 4134 41 11 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or less of Projected AM Peak 1 HourTraffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PEAK PERIOD Northbound 101 0 0 0 101 1 0 Southbound 1884 0 12 152 2048 20 0 Eastbound 1936 77 96 589 2698 27 2 Westbound 6405 256 102 552 7315 73 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or less of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak t Hour Traf0c Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. PROJECT: Senior Housing TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Southbound 66 0 62 0 128 Intersection: 2. E Coast Hwy/Dover- Bayside Or 0 Eastbound 3022 121 104 505 3752 38 Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spr 2002 Westbound 1928 77 53 1151 3209 32 11 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Southbound 56 0 100 0 156 2 0 Eastbound 2684 107 83 742 3616 36 AM PEAK PERIOD Westbound 5463 219 72 551 6305 63 Northbound 425 0 2 0 427 4 0 Southbound 66 0 62 0 128 1 0 Eastbound 3022 121 104 505 3752 38 2 Westbound 1928 77 53 1151 3209 32 11 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or less of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greaterthan 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 499 0 1 0 500 5 0 Southbound 56 0 100 0 156 2 0 Eastbound 2684 107 83 742 3616 36 2 Westbound 5463 219 72 551 6305 63 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or less of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis Is required. PROJECT: Senior Housing TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 1 J� 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Southbound 2718 109 92 361 3280 33 0 Eastbound 2187 87 123 739 3136 31 2 Westbound 2625 105 64 671 3465 35 2 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or less of Projected PM Peak 1 HourTraffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 %of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Senior Housing TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 , �' Intersection: 3. E Coast Hwy /Jamboree Rd Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter /Spr 2002 Peak1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 600 24 1 9 634 6 0 Southbound 1087 43 108 298 1536 15 18 Eastbound 3047 122 106 506 3781 38 2 Westbound 1363 55 45 1580 3043 30 1 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or less of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. =_> Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 %of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 346 14 4 0 364 4 0 Southbound 2718 109 92 361 3280 33 0 Eastbound 2187 87 123 739 3136 31 2 Westbound 2625 105 64 671 3465 35 2 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or less of Projected PM Peak 1 HourTraffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 %of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Senior Housing TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 , �' 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or less of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection: 4. E Coast Hwy /Avocado Ave Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spr 2002 PM PEAK PERIOD Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Northbound 348 0 0 0 348 3 Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 %of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour . Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 320 0 0 0 320 3 0 Southbound 169 0 0 0 169 2 0 Eastbound 2298 92 21 559 2970 30 7 Westbound 1617 65 32 1447 3161 32 1 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or less of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 348 0 0 0 348 3 0 Southbound 794 0 1 0 795 8 0 Eastbound 1706 68 35 796 2605 26 0 Westbound .1638 66 18 622 2344 23 2 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or less of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Tragic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. 1J:L PROJECT: Senior Housing TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 r I_ 1 %Traffic Volume Analysis Eastbound 1712 68 32 1509 3321 33 Intersection: 5. E Coast Hwy/MacArthur Blvd Westbound 2043 82 28 480 2633 26 1 _=> Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or less of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spr 2002 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilisation (ICU) Analysis is required. Peak Hour Approved Cumulative PM PEAK PERIOD Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 912 36 16 204 1168 12 0 Eastbound 1712 68 32 1509 3321 33 7 Westbound 2043 82 28 480 2633 26 1 _=> Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or less of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilisation (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southbound 2527 101 14 314 2956 30 0 Eastbound 1775 71 40 672 2558 26 0 Westbound 2769 111 16 734 3630 36 2 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or less of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. � 53 PROJECT: Senior Housing TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Westbound 47 0 0 0 47 0 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be I% or less of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1557 62 91 372 2082 21 4' Southbound 2029 at 92 360 2562 26 6 Eastbound 72 0 0 0 72 1 -1 Westbound 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or less of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Senior Housing TPC I CJ FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 r/ e Intersection: 6. Jamboree Rd/Back Bay Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average W Inter/Spr 2002 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 %of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1516 61 69 641 2287 23 4 Southbound 984 39 108 298 1429 14 5 Eastbound 58 0 0 0 58 1 44 Westbound 47 0 0 0 47 0 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be I% or less of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1557 62 91 372 2082 21 4' Southbound 2029 at 92 360 2562 26 6 Eastbound 72 0 0 0 72 1 -1 Westbound 30 0 0 0 30 0 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or less of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Senior Housing TPC I CJ FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 r/ e a 1 °,6 Traffic Volume Analysis Southbound 994 40 109 298 1441 14 5 Eastbound 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 Westbound 23 0 0 0 23 0 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or less of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1493 60 93 372 2018 20 -1 Southbound 2032 81 88 360 2561 26 6 Eastbound 73 0 0 0 73 1 0 Westbound 25 0 0 0 25 0 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or less of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Senior Housing TPO \55 FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR 2006 1 J Intersection: 7. Jamboree RdlIsland Lagoon Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WinterlSpr 2002 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1532 61 61 641 2295 23 26 Southbound 994 40 109 298 1441 14 5 Eastbound 20 0 0 0 20 0 0 Westbound 23 0 0 0 23 0 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or less of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1493 60 93 372 2018 20 -1 Southbound 2032 81 88 360 2561 26 6 Eastbound 73 0 0 0 73 1 0 Westbound 25 0 0 0 25 0 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or less of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Senior Housing TPO \55 FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR 2006 1 J 1 % Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 8. Jamboree Rd/Santa Barbara Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average WlntedSpr 2002 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1 %of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1529 61 61 641 2292 23 25 Southbound 1259 50 110 298 1717 17 4 Eastbound 97 0 6 0 103 1 0 Westbound 125 0 5 0 130 1 1 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or less of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1460 58 93 372 1983 20 0 Southbound 1955 78 95 360 2488 25 5 Eastbound 44 0 3 0 47 0 0 Westbound 858 0 5 0 863 9 1 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or less of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 %of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Senior Housing TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 �. 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Southbound 1631 65 119 439 2254 Intersection: 9. Jamboree Rd/San Joaquin 4 Eastbound 377 0 0 0 377 Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Winter/Spr 2002 0 Westbound 98 0 12 114 224 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative 0 Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1707 68 96 372 2243 AM PEAK PERIOD 0 Northbound 1306 52 70 641 2069 21 22 Southbound 1631 65 119 439 2254 23 4 Eastbound 377 0 0 0 377 4 0 Westbound 98 0 12 114 224 2 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or less of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1 % of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 1707 68 96 372 2243 22 0 Southbound 2650 106 103 423 3282 33 4 Eastbound 157 0 5 0 162 2 0 Westbound 1049 0 50 81 1180 12 1 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1% or less of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Senior Housing TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 t t 1% Traffic Volume Analysis Intersection: 10. Jamboree Rd /EastbluR•Ford . Existing Traffic Volumes Based on Average Wlnter/Spr 2002 Peak 1 Hour Approved Cumulative Existing Regional Projects Projects Projected 1% of Projected Project Approach Peak 1 Hour Growth Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Peak 1 Hour Direction Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume Volume AM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2023 81 66 715 2885 29 20 Southbound 1559 62 124 346 2091 21 4 Eastbound 771 0 1 95 867 9 0 Westbound 699 0 13 251 963 10 0 Project AM Traffic is estimated to be 1 % or less of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project AM Traffic is estimated to be greater than 1% of Projected AM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PM PEAK PERIOD Northbound 2508 100 131 395 3134 31 0 Southbound 2077 83 112 385 2657 27 4 Eastbound 492 0 2 118 612 6 0 Westbound 328 0 10 137 475 5 0 Project PM Traffic is estimated to be 1% orless of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Project PM Traffic is estimated to be greaterthan 1% of Projected PM Peak 1 Hour Traffic Volume. Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) Analysis is required. PROJECT: Senior Housing TPO FULL OCCUPANCY YEAR: 2006 � 5y �r 3. E Coast Hwy 8 Jamboree Rd Existing Background AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 29 .02 27 .02 NBT 2 3200 483 .18* 259 .10* NBR 0 0 88 60 SBL 1 1600 177 .11* 237 .15* SBT 2 3200 270 .08 626 .20 SBR f 640 1855 EBL 3 4800 1047 .22* 682 .14* EBT 4 6400 1986 .31 1473 .24 EBR 0 0 14 32 WBL 2 3200 123 .04 254 .08 WBT 4 6400 1134 .18* 2241 .35* WBR f 106 130 Background TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .69 .74 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.00 Background +Project AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 29 .02 28 .02 NBT 2 . 3200 508 .19* 274 .11* NBR 0 0 88 62 SBL 1 1600 340 .21* 503 .31* SBT 2 3200 314 .10 738 .23 SBR f 882 2039 EBL 3 4800 1186 .25* 919 .19* EBT 4 6400 2580 .41 2185 .35 EBR 0 0 15 32 WBL 2 3200 123 .04 257 .08 WBT 4 6400 2243 .35* 2852 .45* WBR f 677 356 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .69 .74 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.00 Background +Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.00 1.06 1.06 AN PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 29 .02 28 .02 NBT 2 3200 508 .19* 274 .11* NBR 0 0 88 62 SBL 1 1600 347 .21* 503 .31* SBT 2 3200 314 .10 738 .23 SBR f 893 2039 EBL 3 4800 1188 .25* 921 .19* EBT 4 6400 2580 .41 2185 .35 EBR 0 0 15 32 WBL 2 3200 123 .04 257 .08 WBT 4 6400 2243 .35* 2852 .45* WBR f 678 358 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 1.00 1.06 1.06 6. Jamboree Rd 6 Back Bay Dr Existing Background AN PE HOUR PN PR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 35 .02 54 .03+ NBT 3 4800 1472 .31+ 1477 .31 NBR f 9 26 SBL 1 1600 9 .01+ 22 .01 SBT 3 4800 943 .20 1962 .41+ SBR f 32 45 EBL 0 0 30 33 EBT 2 3200 0 .02+ 0 .02+ EBR 0 0 28 39 WBL 0 0 13 (.01 )+ 20 (.01 )+ WBT 3 4800 1 .00 2 .00 WBR 0 0 33 .02 8 .01 Background TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .35 .47 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .51 Background +Project AN PE HOUR PH PE HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 35 .02 54 .03+ NBT 3 4800 2243 .47+ 2002 .42 NBR f 9 26 SBL 1 1600 9 .01+ 22 .01 SBT 3 4800 1388 .29 2495 .52+ SBR f 32 45 EBL 0 0 30 33 EBT 2 3200 0 .02+ 0 .02+ EBR 0 0 28 39 WBL 0 0 13 (.01 )+ 20 (.01 )+ WBT 3 4800 1 .00 2 .00 WBR 0 0 33 .02 8 .01 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .35 .47 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .51 Background +Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .52 .59 58 ^� �b �r I AR PR HOUR PH PR HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 39 .02 58 .04+ NBT 3 4800 2243 .47+ 2002 .42 NBR f 9 26 SBL 1 1600 9 .01+ 22 .01 SBT 3 4800 1388 .29 2495 .52+ SBR f 37 51 EBL 0 0 56 32 EBT 2 3200 0 .03+ 0 .02+ EBR 0 0 46 39 WBL 0 0 13 (.01 )+ 20 (.01 )+ WBT 3 4800 1 .00 2 .00 WBR 0 0 33 .02 8 .01 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .52 .59 58 ^� �b �r I 7. Janboree Rd 6 Island Lagoon Dr Existing Background AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C HBL 1 1600 27 .02 37 .02* HBT 3 4800 1498 .31* 1431 .30 HBR 1 1600 7 DO 25 .02 SBL 1 1600 4 .00 23 .01 SBT 3 4800 971 .21 1957 .42* SHE 0 0 19 52 EBL 1 1600 11 .01* 45 .03* EBT 1 1600 0 .01 0 .02 EBR 0 0 18 28 WBL 0 0 14 15 WBT 1 1600 0 .01* 0 .01* WBR f 9 10 Background TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .33 .48 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION Background +Project AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C HBL 1 1600 27 .02 37 .02* NET 3 4800 2261 .47* 1958 .41 HBR 1 1600 7 .00 25 .02 SBL 1 1600 4 .00 23 .01 SBT 3 4800 1418 .30 2486 .53* SBR 0 0 19 52 EBL 1 1600 11 .01* 45 .03* EBT 1 1600 0 .01 0 .02 EBR 0 0 18 28 WBL 0 0 14 15 WBT 1 1600 0 .01* 0 .01* WBR f 9 10 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .33 .48 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION Background +Project 'DOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .50 .59 49 59 ��I AM PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C HBL 1 1600 27 .02 37 .02* NET 3 4800 2287 .48* 1955 .41 HBR 1 1600 7 .00 25 .02 SBL 1 1600 4 .00 23 .01 SBT 3 4800 1423 .30 2492 .53* SBR 0 0 19 52 EBL 1 1600 11 .01* 45 .03* EBT 1 1600 0 .01 0 .02 EBR 0 0 18 28 WBL 0 0 14 15 WBT 1 1600 0 .01* 0 .01* WBR f 9 10 'DOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .50 .59 49 59 ��I 9. Jamboree Rd E San Joaquin Rills Rd Existing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .49 .56 Background +Project AN PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 28 .02 74 .05 Of 3 4800 1149 .24* 1540 .32* OR 1 1600 129 .08 93 .06 SBL 2 3200 519 .16* 507 .16* SBT 3 4800 1071 .22 1943 .40 SBR 1 1600 41 .03 200 .13 EBL 0 0 276 91 EBT 3 4800 51 .07* 28 .03* EBR 0 0 50 .03 38 .02 WBL 0 0 69 205 WBT 3 4800 11 .02* 54 .05* WBR f 18 790 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .49 .56 Background +Project TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .70 .71 Background AN PK HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C EL 1 1600 28 .02 75 .05 OT 3 4800 1893 .39* 2041 .43* OR 1 1600 170 .11 127 .08 SBL 2 3200 699 .22* 621 .19* SBT 3 4800 1518 .32 2465 .51 SBR 1 1600 41 .03 200 .13 EBL 0 0 276 92 EST 3 4800 51 .07* 32 .03* EBR 0 0 50 .03 38 .02 WBL 0 0 100 246 WBT 3 4800 11 .02* 54 .06* WBR f 113 881 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .70 .71 Background TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .70 71 AN PR HOUR PH PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C NBL 1 1600 28 .02 75 .05 BHT 3 4800 1873 .39* 2041 .43* OR 1 1600 168 .11 127 .08 SBL 2 3200 699 .22* 621 .19* SBT 3 4800 1514 .32 2461 .51 SHE 1 1600 41 .03 200 .13 SBL 0 0 276 92 SBT 3 4800 51 .07* 32 .03* EBR 0 0 50 .03 38 .02 WBL 0 0 100 245 WBT 3 4800 11 .02* 54 .06* WBR f 113 881 Note: Assumes E/W Split Phasing TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .70 71 Attachment 6 Lot line adjustment X63 9�- 4, C:) LU W Vol I O CI] Av. 1_7 0, z 1:5 L 0 AN 9j bb a'b Cc: CQ _M SMIKA � 250 t4 Al ol CA -,t ,t ,I Z 4 6i w 0 6 oz IN •(11'. I R EX: LU cc I All' IL 7 1, *4 A to S EA HWY! COAST. Epst Attachment B Draft Planning Commission Resolution for project approval J(,5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK i�(D RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. 2003 -003, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2003 -001 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 2003 -011 (PA2002 -246) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1121 BACK BAY DRIVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Applications were filed by The Related Companies of California on behalf of the property owner, The Irvine Company, with respect to property located at 1121 Back Bay Drive and legally described as Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 95 -137, requesting approval of Use Permit No. 2003 -003 to authorize the development of a 150 -unit senior affordable housing project and to establish development standards; Site Plan Review No. 2003 -001 to establish the grade of the site for the purposes of measuring structure height; and Lot Line Adjustment No. 2003 -011. The five -acre site is designated by the Land Use Element of the General Plan for Retail and Service Commercial and the site is zoned PC ( Bayview Planned Community. Section 2. A public hearing was held on February 20, 2003 in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting. Section 3. The Planning Commission finds as follows: 1. The proposed 150 -unit senior affordable housing project is consistent with the General Plan in that the Land Use Element designates the site for affordable senior citizen housing facilities as an optional use and provides for 200 units of miscellaneous residential uses within the Citywide Growth Projections, and meets the policies and objectives of the Housing Element to provide affordable housing units in meeting the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment. In addition, the project meets the purpose of the Bayview Landing Planned Community (SP -39) district in which the site is located in that the PC Text designates the site for 120 units of senior housing, and further, that the Housing Element provides that a Density Bonus of 25% shall be allocated when the units are designated affordable, resulting in an allocation for the site of 150 senior affordable units. Further, the project 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 in that the project's design was developed incorporating increase setbacks, low lot coverage and a design to optimize public and private views from surrounding properties. 2. The proposed grade is consistent with the provisions of Zoning Code Section 20.65.030.B.3 for the following reasons: a. The proposed grade is reasonable, will result in a more uniform grade throughout the project site, is comparable to other grades in the vicinity of the property, )61 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 2 of 9 particularly the grades in the Newport Dunes area, along Back Bay Drive and along Jamboree Road; and will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City. b. The proposed grade and related development will not result in the loss of any public views and is consistent with the exiting character of the neighborhood in that views from Coast Highway and park site will be improved by the project, and the project has been designed to be below the grade of surrounding parcels to the east. c. The existing grade is inappropriate and unworkable for the purposes of measuring height in that the existing grades are low and are impacted by the shallow water table, will not allow property and safe on -site drainage, and the site in its current state is highly disturbed from past uses. In addition, the "useful height' of the buildings would preclude construction of two or three story buildings respectively of 26 and 35 feet, and the existing elevations are unworkable for the purposes of measuring height. d. The proposed grade is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights by the applicant in that the existing grade precludes the development of the property in that the existing grade of the property is required to be raised approximately five feet in order to develop the site in an economically viable fashion and in order to meet City goals to provide the maximum number of senior affordable housing units. 3. The proposed building height is consistent with the provision of Zoning Code Section 20.65.050 for the following reasons: a. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views in that the project has been designed with three buildings rather than a single building and two -story elements in order to decrease the overall building mass and bulk and to allow views between buildings, and the building coverage on the property has been maintained at a lower level and increased setbacks than typical multiple - family residential development in order to increase open space. b. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building in that the building design incorporates a full -pitch roof, and all mechanical equipment has been located on the ground or within the building structure. In addition, a decrease in height would result in a lower building with a larger building footprint resulting in more building coverage, less setback distances from public streets, less open space and more restricted views through the site. c. The increased building height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structures and existing developments or 1'w� City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 3 of 9 public spaces in that the height of the buildings will be below the grade of the adjacent park and Coast Highway, and below the first floor level of Villa Point condominiums located to the east across Jamboree Road. The site and building design has resulted in less building coverage and increase setbacks, thereby allowing more open space around the buildings and parking lot and improved views through the site. Two -story elements have been incorporated at the ends of the buildings in order to soften the visual impact of the buildings, to offer building articulation and to improve views through the project site. In addition, the surrounding residential projects to the east and the hotel complex to the north have been constructed at maximum heights and at higher elevations; therefore, the subject project will not result in an abrupt or undesirable change in scale in comparison with those surrounding developments. d. The increased height will not result in the project having more floor area in that there is no floor area limitations in the PC -39 district, therefore the proposed increased height of 6.5 feet does not permit any more floor area than could be achieved with the increased height. 4. The proposed lot line adjustment is consistent with Subdivision Code Section 19.76.030.13 for the following reasons: a. The lot line adjustment will consist of the moving the boundary between two legal building sites and will not change the net land area within each parcel. b. The lot line adjustment will not result in additional parcels being created in that two parcels presently exist and two parcels will continue to exist. c. The parcels as adjusted will comply with all applicable Planned Community regulations and there will be no change in the land use, density or intensity on the property. d. The lot line adjustment, in and of itself, will not result in the need for additional improvements and/or facilities in that all street improvements and dedications presently exist. 5. The project proposal is consistent with the Newport Beach General Plan and the policies of the California Coastal Act in that extensive visitor serving uses currently exist in the Newport Beach Coastal Zone and there is a full -range of existing visitor serving areas and uses within the City including 276 acres of public beaches, 220 acres of public parks, Newport Dunes Aquatic Park, the entire Newport Bay and Harbor, Upper Newport Bay Nature Preserve, Crystal Cove State Park and Beach, Balboa Fun Zone, Balboa Village, Marine Avenue, and 37 commercial areas within the Coastal Zone portion of the City. Those uses and areas provide a broad range of visitor services and facilities including: 14 hotels, motels and other similar lodging facilities offering 2,287 rooms within the Coastal Zone and 3,520 rooms citywide; restaurants and snack bars; camping and recreational vehicle accommodations; boat rentals; sports equipment sales and rentals; boat tours; amusement and recreational 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 4 of 9 facilities; golf courses; yacht clubs; tours and cruises; and specialty and souvenir shops. The five acres represents only one percent of the total 497 acres of commercially -zoned property within the Coastal Zone. The development of the five acres for the proposed affordable senior housing site will not substantially detract from the extensive visitor serving facilities within the City, will not preempt establishment of additional facilities on other sites in the City, and will not inhibit the expansion of existing facilities. The project furthers the stated Coastal Act policy to "provide lower cost visitor and recreational facilities" in that the project in being developed in conjunction with a 10 -acre passive park that will provide enhanced public views of Upper Newport Bay and will provide a riding and hiking trail linkage. 6. The design of the proposed improvements will not conflict with any easements, acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development. 7. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration (ND) have been prepared in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The Draft ND was circulated for public comment between January 21, 2003 and February 19, 2003. (No comments were received from any responsible agency, member of the community, or other interested party and no responses were prepared.) or (Comments were received from and were considered by the Planning Commission.) The contents of the environmental document have been considered in the various decisions on this project. 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. There are no cumulative impacts that are anticipated in connection with the project. The project has been conditioned to mitigate any adverse conditions. The prepared Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby approved. Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, the Planning Commission hereby approves Use Permit No. 2003 -003, Site Plan Review No. 2003 -001 and Lot Line Adjustment No. 2003 -011, subject to the Conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" and the Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth in Exhibit "B." Section 5. This action shall become final and effective fourteen days after the adoption of this Resolution unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk or this action is called for review by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Title 20, Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 20th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2003. AYES: NOES: 1'I�` M Steven Kiser, Chairman Shant Agajanian, Secretary City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. __ Paee 5 of 9 �I City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Paee 6 of 9 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-003, SITE PLAN REVIEW 2003 -001 AND LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 2003 -011 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the plot plan, floor plans, elevations, preliminary grading plan, and preliminary landscaping plan reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 20, 2003, unless otherwise amended by the following conditions or mitigation measures contained in Exhibit "B." 2. Use Permit No. 2003 -003 and Site Plan Review No. 2003 -001 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 3. The Planning Commission may add to or modify conditions of approval to this site plan review, or revoke this site plan review upon a determination that the implementation of the project which is the subject of this approval causes injury, or is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the community. 4. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent City- adopted version of the California Building Code. The project shall meet all applicable disabled access requirements. 5. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use will be cause for revocation of this permit. 6. All signs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 20.67 of the Municipal Code. No temporary "sandwich" signs or similar temporary signs shall be permitted, either on -site or off -site, to advertise the apartment complex, including any leasing information. 7. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. Arrangements shall be made with the Public Works Department in order to guarantee satisfactory completion of any public improvements, if it is desired to obtain a building permit prior to completion of the public improvements. 8. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 9. The applicant shall stripe and sign any fire lane as may be established by the Newport Beach Fire Department. The secondary emergency access driveway onto Back Bay Drive, including any gating and gate operational equipment, shall be designed and installed to the review and approval of the Fire Department. If gates are proposed for 11�' City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. _ Page 7 of 9 the main entrance in the future, the gates shall be designed and installed in accordance with Fire Department approval. 10. Street, drainage and utility improvements shall be shown on standard improvement plans prepared by a licensed civil engineer in accordance with Public Works Department standards. 11. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a drainage plan to the approval of the Public Works Department and /or the Building Department. The drainage plan shall also address any drainage from adjacent properties that currently cross the subject property and shall provide for adequate drainage facilities from those properties to be installed by the applicant. 12. Overhead utilities serving the site shall be undergrounded to the nearest appropriate pole in accordance with Section 19.24.140 of the Municipal Code unless it is determined by the City Engineer that such undergrounding is unreasonable or impractical. 13. Any Southern California Edison transformers serving the site shall be located outside the sight distance planes in accordance with City Standard 110 -L. 14. The project shall install and maintain a fire suppression sprinkler and alarm system subject to the review and approval of the Fire Department. Smoke detectors within the units shall be interconnected to waterflow switches on the fire sprinkler systems where determined by the Fire Department. 15. The final landscaping plans shall be prepared in a manner that all trees along the perimeter of the site as well as interior site tree determined to be located within the line of sight of any public or private view corridor, shall be of a species that does not exceed a total height of 35 feet, or shall be trimmed and maintained so as not to exceed the height of the buildings. 16. No mechanical equipment shall be located on any exterior roof surface. All mechanical equipment shall be ground mounted and screened from view and/or incorporated into the interior building structure. 17. All construction - related activities shall be in accordance with the Newport Beach Noise Ordinance Section 10.28.040, and shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction shall not be allowed outside of these hours and days, and is prohibited at any time on Sundays and federal holidays. 18. Units within the project shall be rented to seniors of 55 years of age or older and all of the units shall be made affordable in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement between the applicant and the City of Newport Beach. �13 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 8 of 9 19. Parking shall be provided at a minimum of 1.2 spaces per dwelling unit. Parking facilities shall meet applicable standards for commercial parking facilities, and parking and circulation shall be subject to further review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 20. The mitigation measures as they pertain to the senior affordable housing project and as contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, included as Exhibit 'B" of this resolution shall be met. 0A City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Resolution No. Page 9 of 9 EXHIBIT "B" MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM � -15 I2( � $�\ �§ ƒ /) k§ ¥ % . C _ CL EL CL %o E6] U) §{ § #` §{g 2k 2% \ - -_ �' 2 w2- -- z- -- - CL co a X E .0 k - 2r £a ¥- �5 a2 t5 - t5 ƒ > } 2n CL C CL [ \\ _ _ CL - jam# 2 - co E £ / o= C eel& CL CL .� ca ca r kk�\ 2� § § § �o2= // 120] ) ) §\ o a G Q) ) t- t mf \>{ J cc Q) $� @§ \7« §0 C# /\ \2%�]) ^\a2 t «m@=A.«= ©2#� 2« /m\�))m {A�® a • _ %� ¥ \ of ��§o :J,> :Gr ! (#;2(# \2\\ eel\ E -CoQ) \ eQ) m,z %,) -af» 333�r \)%§ § }afC -rr� t`` «`% sf, _� >Gca 0Q) Q) 2 &, «0 '■ o « =@e,®� )26.2!« ems® °�„ \2 22\0) ° ® /f( pQ %� e Co E&o����Q@ %¥ Q_ , § \Z« /k7 \$t )' �2f ;+»§E2± ek7§ t \ /��{ #j ' /�kk§ /\\ +\\\ \�)ƒt «$��& §k 0,,m }f���33�� §E- ` ` 22#\\ §\ ;a(& \§em 2 %Gate =§�e�moo� \ {>tt ®��% `tf §{ /Q F.132»IX �27A\! % %t r2�o \»»E�a -$a§ -®�® >E 92Eaf�& \»a2 §A 2;k; \ \\\ \ \\ \k \)Ql)Q') \\ / \\ %( \\ I2( � �jl � 227 . 0 < . �a CL Cc cc o) §{ §f e\ S& Cc rL - - �f \- ƒ a . Jv § (L .0 \ ■. £ a 0 2fa �� ) /f 2 2B@ 5z# - - 2� Uk §2 0 M ( §§ ;_ §0 2 §fit[ _ ƒ� §/\ Q §\ o a m : . , E 2 i4: 76 zz Et 2 - as y $ % m �) /!g » \!t /« ® ~# - : i\ me£&+\\ \ #® +�� {Z §\) \/ Q) S! . m '.Zati*oG,�voo i ®'0 - , ,f�§§e`���aa &m�saf e��E& .<caz M ca 'Z U) o��% 7 ®I'Z0,0 ~ & / $ {�fo . .@,oE` #!3w- eo�ea£•# ¥! {7$kt§® .§ wa§>,¥nb ®o�&■�;t2� loef2ik . - %a�ke,- ■ ®� =� $.t®;§EEje%�ma); �o,�o� §%e« §� # @�@y a3[ «[]{ 77_7 f` »� «2��% a{ > /§%�@ »{�()&a $e�E f 2 \# \-E� t 2£wcx w£o �Q , w%=» �jl � � a X a 0 afQ 2 ;@ 0 \k/ $fI a4 �j m , � m 4) §§ ki m %) 2k §- w� %§ k) )) > 2e 0 0 20 § I k f « ca CL co CL \ �) Q) Cc «!]m«t% Cc Q) � ` CU Q) rz / ra§i�m�. !B{e \+g# \2; \t)f§ j)� #) #2f�mm77 �w�\(() Ix �e «£Q { [ -0 Q) Co 2) Q)0rz{ 2 /\)`(§[ 2cx ,w +QU� {[ a \ {) 7�Z\ . « »to %&E® &E*�a2`f§ »¥ - % =f Q) 0) Q) CU ! § ^ fnGa)Q)0, tz, \rQ). -- } t f \(f] «22 )&§«§a) /( ®{J)k {2rr °w,u), ]2 2( \ \ \2c\f n2Q)Q)Q) a w�,)m ® ®ca §k\\\ ( \ \% ca CL CL co 0c 0 ~� (\\/ U) Q) \ /)§`®mom$ ¥f \f \) / \Q) cu- Q)a 6) cu ca � £ m E }$ \)#( \ff\ ��\ /0ZQQ) U) 01: f § r -3 Or Q) UCL ) Z77` »S£22J 2) 5 IQ,) \ f m b% \$@`$k`\ ¢\,�%eee(« Jf ƒ/�§ \« @\ mQ) t E m�mm met;sG){k* �j / r \� \� \ CL CL co CL co CL ca co CL \ �) Q) Cc «!]m«t% Cc Q) � ` CU Q) rz / ra§i�m�. !B{e \+g# \2; \t)f§ j)� #) #2f�mm77 �w�\(() Ix �e «£Q { [ -0 Q) Co 2) Q)0rz{ 2 /\)`(§[ 2cx ,w +QU� {[ a \ {) 7�Z\ . « »to %&E® &E*�a2`f§ »¥ - % =f Q) 0) Q) CU ! § ^ fnGa)Q)0, tz, \rQ). -- } t f \(f] «22 )&§«§a) /( ®{J)k {2rr °w,u), ]2 2( \ \ \2c\f n2Q)Q)Q) a w�,)m ® ®ca §k\\\ ( \ \% ca CL CL co 0c 0 ~� (\\/ U) Q) \ /)§`®mom$ ¥f \f \) / \Q) cu- Q)a 6) cu ca � £ m E }$ \)#( \ff\ ��\ /0ZQQ) U) 01: f § r -3 Or Q) UCL ) Z77` »S£22J 2) 5 IQ,) \ f m b% \$@`$k`\ ¢\,�%eee(« Jf ƒ/�§ \« @\ mQ) t E m�mm met;sG){k* �j / r a �1� -�r a y N C Q) Q) Q) O N Q L U U Y m _N m d d d O O O C 5.2 m =F € N ,F. € m G O) R m m m m ya m N ya ya .•C N m N m N m (Yj O N O CIO O W G Ol Ol G OI •O a m d m d m (L L �La o 0 Ea aR O s U U .L d U d Q) d U d �o W > U •7 m m m N _C L O O o N of > > > d T C a: 0:5 M •- _ _,E `O CL E O w o ca cc cc cis (�.co 0 0 .� LL C O O O O £ O O Q o 0 0 W UJ _ m • m Om� .�. - ) t �a N m EON yd- =O°, as E `y €�Q o .°y, R Q) U) nn� m.��m�E°°oat jz m ... �y O�(j r U) I-- Q) pNj y 0 Q3 Nn G CT N y m m o u 'G Q) c m y .c m t � Q m 0) G N �. 0) N 0 U) aCL Z O t O N n •O y °n�ayE °mrncm w.. Q)i Amy mU �c> v n° N'Q3nno°imyo�nm O Z,o m m n 0 a ° m i.t S U t G N U O N N O :- N N G N n N N m QL � r N 0) � O m m m N . ((f m Z EmN c N N O UO� N O� G N N m n G C mNU Q) NtU m ." �° ot°„ c E m �� Rca N .0 U) J cc c m m ° m �.a m y p E t N,a O Q G N U j N O G�' J m ry N.O? U m m C G m N •2 G A O U'v •O N m G Z U N O 2-2 U C 1) � .0 N N U G O B G m 0 m .� CIO b n N N G ��m >oc n y'y �mUo ^ N G U J m� E m �m0mmN mU;E; �roro cc U) m°n't�o�m QQ, Q) Q) cc :k °m a �1� -�r ƒ a t a 0 CO ;Q /I# \$g n ƒk .Z3 f$ m ■ / 2� I §§ \i m 02 §{ CL 2t ! E #_ �> ) { CL co %§ k) )� > ekE �M G §f Ef2 k0 « F- 0 R e Q) / /©)] 2 2) _ =2) U)'a om �Q) (k -cCcQ ! a© `6crz ! - c C: , \ \(kkQ ee /2\)$) k)r\( \�6 Q2¥ea2 \ \\k C: ,.- �Q0C o «a �A2 /2 /k.U)Q) � o��ma- ���,@� m,e ¥maWQCw© - ±mE =EaEL -Qa k t :x) ccygm§�tE\ )mt Q- V �&� -Z Zw � aka«ca :, `& °7 CEO �� �C: Q Q) © \���sa &® © «® ©;�b2�&m� -m »�@\®t :x) C: a §k)ki ƒkk\(\))\'I §f E§ co " 0 "- ƒ co co �� /!] \ /(k k ` 2 « @ 4t ;: :C: ) c AEQ���( «>t2�\ ]�` ©$2Q) _n -f§�� %§ { *\mfUe�§Jjk k C: Q) CLte£� t` °� +]SEe -I& \iq §22ak \ °La U) 2®a2QEQ) � ;, «§ Qa -U) (e. &��/ #% °2; £. /a,%,� Q) Q) LA :cc /t$®¥�k \32]22 «� =CLcc Q,5CL \ |a@E�k£ §�Z(�`a�)Q) Q) U)—Z 2222 # %E +:Q, U) � � t 2t »%E \ \ \ /\c cc t`raccoQ) ° � E � ms cc cc ■� ` �o d: 9 'N C OC Y c C . Q. L. d m m m m L N Y cp >1 C1 EL vw 0w 6 0 € o C Q) Q m m CL Q) rnR m m m m m ya C U yO_ y cc . •Fw d N Of .O N O_ .O U N p1 .O "GO 2 `O UO "GO `O CC d 01 a a m 01 d •o m m L a Y l0 w C 0.0 v £ 0. -0 - w i C O i w U U G U G C •� L L V U V > G G O_ G O_ (L C tl) O m m N m vl L O O S� C:. cc m Y_ m �. o air.. O.. > . cC. J3 to C N Y �o CL Io CL CL Io CL CL a a C C (0 m m m C' 0 d- E :.: V O O O +:. , NC C N O O O D7 L G.++ L -O O 'c Q O U O U O U d Cct� m m° cQ) e 3 d �Q) a. a m o m y m o0c °��m c3j.rnm c Q) Q) E a y `c �. o �� U) r a U G a N cn G a m m O� C> O °,�' m> m N a-- O a m .mi H a G m: cc G U ° m° E . O j rn U U �. .G m y U a y '- ° .O U C C " j Q G . m_ m a W m N a >= m m � U U G y t m p_kj ` t d cc ,O m �. `O .G 0) t N a O" a. m O ,O y N� 2 � a '° N C G 3 Gam._ Envoy G Q O) �' m oJz aU)ot` O yamoc`oEmaycua t O m c`p d. O O m m cn N �° m G 4 N O `O y cc .. .': �. �acc C 2)"C a Q'• m j a 4o� m° (ry a cc a �Gma°.'ooaycm�C9 a U C j a `�° ° c O cc rEm. Em`m c-Gi U o� ��`a°�om O ". m 0Q) cc°rn Z m 0 0 0 G� p m. 0) C E 2 G N 0� G O E m G U N G . y > O m G m G Q- G rn O G U) a ; y gym, 2o��Gp-C G— cyW M'C•°M U) c°ir jz Wm.c3m a 2- oUa�acW� mm�Eyymrnaaa c�cc���aa�m = cG°Uc3c E`WmEca�rnmG� cc .cam °mama °acc :,. ' mtt c y 3 N a n y m ¢a o v m �° V G m m (� U raa G> o m° m U O a� p Z N m ch E oy rnU) Q) m -°a Y ° rnL) j E r � '� : � G U) ° t o m u��rna °jca°.mrn �UC`7Um3U�0 U) CL oy \\ J a CY � *)) 2 / § /w \w G 2) ){ )) \ 2k - �J - - ; } ) \ 7 CL _ = o £ a � -0 E 2 = 2 _ @-0 fJ - o§ 2 �> 2n )7 )f ƒ 2k § o - - - -° r)E EMSe2 �2� § §R co co co 0 t °� § f k 4 4 3 a° +_ a 3/® k u k�� �§ ��o� /M \ / K #\ \(%ter Mt CL . 7©!aQ) e %�® 2ag\ f& ® { /t \(2k\ \ /Jf)\ §U)CLa 2A) ) £ k a © m £ U.Z a Q,~ ® Q2 " :3 ` \)km tz ®® °��t\\ \r§.q oMCL Z / °' *\ *)(k ( �#7 \�m� mk \G§ /k\ ]\ /� / /\33\&][ e % f\)\i)$\2 -- O,m / M ))\ //k2} t; \ \ \)f )2m \ \U)CLQ) \ f \&\\) \[@ §kCLCLm * \$ § 7 {tom %�a�2 �®22t22\q§2 / / « :2£� ®) -£ie 2 § ¢2f2&7\] %w2oget ¥Q) U)U) (Z%, Q)U) $2 . ( ! 92 ©(�g�»Q aEa` 2a` - =tQ,,§=C:Q)C: \ «Ga ' § | / {t) ®]§ LX 2 f SeE,goe-f » «2 | -7 * @ k 3+ / /|k \q@ -,a 3aCR2 /U§»|:(ktQ) 3 3,©`�_ 3w&a +rtarQt�Ukaat 3 \\ J 1�3 d � N C O G 0 Q L d N U O w US o.2, mg a` c v n C c _ ~ >, tYi m � d •o m L IL Y r- C O O Ea v 0 l0 d i ° U 0 d >a CL moo c C = N .- O C o = N O = =w oam Ri 3 L C CiC Rf C d O' E v 0 o ud C.d lO Q Q O 01L £ O .0 G d U? G a _ a y Q U 'G c0 Q N O G 0 O C N V 0 N cp . m o o mIO 'c ` N 2 E N N U) 0 2 `- a d o o c 3mo c° Nay a o a cc cc r c N o m 3oa W 3 o y U C N? y —10 cc m cc ESE a aym° cc a �•° z N y> a y c o m m d0 E m jz cc Cc U) r2 N a y. U y `• E O co U cc N° N- O U N ` G• V O N N OO E O U- O� N N 0�— N G 3^ y °t haN E CL o... EL cc m m a m 2 0 cc G 3 °.0 'C �° �'.co =m a3L�o c c tca °aay� >> -' c G E N O E'y m > a° E o y o c° �� o c d o�Q cry >Ua c mS° y >a co cc II mmm� yG.E °a cc m o� m ma oa Q am ao cc a�a� Eaao a°N� a >aa =°.>y N a N d N O a N N cc N N N�da G N'�N g O .y 4 �GV z U GN��N, ¢ O��CL A2. a° U [O c m o cOoNo o Gam ,OUN> o N° UU a ° a aa�N =NMM 1�3 ; 7 a t a 0 �f0 2;@ )�# \ §\ §°LL tm ak $ % � _ %o -0 2 2& )% > 0 gM C ] 0£ 20 § £ k f 2 L �a) .I� �0Mk CL \� cc CL {� - - - / \) /f\]2 \ \k( /� \ . / {§\ /J \§\ L)W CL 02 }f /{ k{ 2k § - �> \\ j\ j\ %o -0 2 2& )% > 0 gM C ] 0£ 20 § £ k f 2 CL CL cc /7 ®J\ -,- [2\ /R -r£# «k \o - -Z a cc ))� \$ \2`f \ \(j ��� \) \ § L§ o cc .- oE®7 %k �C 5\{[t -t# \� \tt`® * *t �) U)Q)2\\\ £k \!� =a&@�� 22%2 cc C: a 7 y C: -C: D mtt #® § cc Q) U)m (\a Q) cc CL C: U) \{Z) �k� \` /k� / \ \. 3C : C: 2Q�! =r k [ { L| .t= CL J ®o�W°*@» cc 2` ©mat 2£J42 Z=C , i§\f§fU)0- %o 2t\\ {m!7« /ka \6 C: {I \e \®= @`@G[ �k aE.2{ /) \\�m��t� {22k »- §(ff /f� +/+ m2 #o232lCm M Q) Q) e a 'CO - Q)S ��« CX k( \ \ \k� cx i \c 0-QG tr Cc \)t \§( \\2)\ \7 Q E U) ( *]3( /)/ / (/ ]c.0 �k(�2�\ \[t \\(, �% \ ti CL C CL cc CL CL CL cc /7 ®J\ -,- [2\ /R -r£# «k \o - -Z a cc ))� \$ \2`f \ \(j ��� \) \ § L§ o cc .- oE®7 %k �C 5\{[t -t# \� \tt`® * *t �) U)Q)2\\\ £k \!� =a&@�� 22%2 cc C: a 7 y C: -C: D mtt #® § cc Q) U)m (\a Q) cc CL C: U) \{Z) �k� \` /k� / \ \. 3C : C: 2Q�! =r k [ { L| .t= CL J ®o�W°*@» cc 2` ©mat 2£J42 Z=C , i§\f§fU)0- %o 2t\\ {m!7« /ka \6 C: {I \e \®= @`@G[ �k aE.2{ /) \\�m��t� {22k »- §(ff /f� +/+ m2 #o232lCm M Q) Q) e a 'CO - Q)S ��« CX k( \ \ \k� cx i \c 0-QG tr Cc \)t \§( \\2)\ \7 Q E U) ( *]3( /)/ / (/ ]c.0 �k(�2�\ \[t \\(, �% \ 0 I�5 W O Q = G L G G O. y O c c0 Ul O c ~ da Q) C: G W —W cS' W �,+•m c O- >• c y ccc c y U W U C U U C 0. cOi C O O C O .G y y Q' £ H> m m O S � m�t ppaf-m 0-m m O G C c O G O U U O N O N cc O c0 0 .� _ D N N C •O .G d c0 .G m d c0 .G N d cm ED U a- Y W w C O O v Ea a o 0 o NQ)i O U U do W �> ca U c U c p c0 y c0 c0 c aN a a a C C. y a CL a CL 3. �R3' r C C W m m m coy O £0 � 0 0 0 .� LL d r y O O O � � E .2 0 •O •O •O :. O "a ° U U a Ui N cc =0 C N . y N C y N O C N •O W Cl •O N G` _ 3 E •, G N �! O cc •i N G Z G O N N G cp U N cQ 0 iG N G N O G G= N N O W T y 'e Cc C •c G Ul G h O NoL• -m �' EE�tWa =y� .G N N 0 N Z C N mrc comU `oVac ao Q) (5 u U Q y d y 0- ujJzmam c m°Q a N m G �c3`a�°aU 2y� =�_`mym� aa�����°o� Q N " V _ G G `- y N O N L N Ci a UI N G N ,U) a W tm. U p 2 G N c0 y NtN.. •� N N N c c'GN.. ° •Ul vj C w W a y a u o o m> rnc0a o o o rn m 1-0 a� cc ON c aQ oa mE�'cc =a1° a�mo6E -m a Q) U) d OOC U.am °Z (pM—.G r�W`UGmEZ m °' N `�° U c.) a c0 c m Q o : y c 3 •o a v`Ni c .`°'Q to :. m a ma o� ° o c �� c y 3 a ._ o o c N cc CL, m 0 g a O y - o a N o> g Ol O G G C N 3 Q O O cap S•' 0 N N 2 C G N N (p m lb m e -0 Q) E�� o m o C: US 3 � m 0 c x m� • C (p a O m N cu 2 3c t U N OG�cm cam• -•, G CO I— N N `0 0 42m o a U1 O N C Ol cc U t�ym G GG c m y o O cc Z N c� U El E N N N . G E t �- m- ._ a 0 °i N Ul Ul Q) G Ul ma o m ,_ m o ) Q) U N W N 'O vl y N Ul y a` ` CO N ,O W Ul N cn U O G N G_ N Ol U .�.. O �v a U G G cc N N co Ol •U �. cp cc fn co N a U N G Q.O W cp Q O N E 'G N ,G G �v c0 U,O Oa 33 W Ul t Ul C G t Z..OQ N O E m N N Ol O m Q) �v cc s Oa N C 0 I�5 )\\ � I )k 4) _ %2 /k / f a /k ea- k § tm ƒ En �i rk\ )I # . 2� r/E 0M• fea ., 0a Ea 0 1 ■ 4) X02 �{ Ia0 « §\ % ® c t » § cc {(\!$) ®%AE22)® ®m \/« mGlrQ Z� ®� -'- 2 �� k�7/)7 | ƒ{ k#`0, «k� §}#)® . \ §, ®k22t`$ -& S�a�N7: � ® ^kemkZE 3c., E \ \`+ �(I § 0 U) C: fa!):. r�((2 22� \ZrJZ ^o ; }] {% ®�£-\E\% {§Z�\ £ �� { \f�\)co C :cc \\ §G§k| { \])/ ]2 ` ©Eccu: tz)k §{ «_�`-cc�, to-I /Q +2 A« ` §}kk cc \2)) a \ \ {Q a%0Z 2 )\ \) -'Z tou ){ )C: / Z Ze Qa2 \T C :- !-%a Q: «]zz - :z Q °� §\k\ \2f]\{!f(\ cc r \r 0U) �§k \\) /k «)\)at |Gt2 «� \it7t(ta ®7f§ -kk7 aa�� - / /)�` ® ®f; /§§fr.- /t\( cto, w2k#Z /t)m§ mkZFmlm@Et 0 C )\\ � � 2 §( (C: IL i)® EIL ƒ {� . acc /§/ . % 2 CL CL Co CL ca E�r�s E ;E® &uEe!» 76 0 - CO - - _ "6 \ / CL LO mo ƒ - t \0 - §a -0 § -_ k] (J _ 17 n �� . /ƒ 2k] 0 Cq - .�� �$w 0 #�2 CL ��e § §§ ca § °I get c� E0■ _ \ $0 E00 §\ G .22' m [ ) _a :.k . j Q) a2R Q) 2220) & tr&&§a�o ))- 2 \]&$§[)$ » ■ :: »0,0% cba% -JCL § \ /; {') I,CoQ)%\ ...��r 777/ t. - 522 #k7) .. .. \ \\ ,� &m \k\ {Q . 0k &( . k §E +w- °. «°`� ..y§ C2 ©HQ) \ Geeooar. - � /® /f ® : § \- � /0r r2)�p �- ~ ` �( �§ \ '0 »/ ko(\ \\£tom\ \ /. '¥ ��a¥� . . - %k7B Cc - -c } m&1 ®$Efa� o\%I% »»%2E2,2$ � Attachment C Project Plans )�I This Page Left Intentionally Blank 15t) 1 m ti Z b 0 h�INX W • O 1 m 3 m m m m Z Tv „x s y • A #G a _ .g .0 O i 0 0 a 3 i bJ �� iVINI t AY9YJY6 k= ;J E FL -- - --rte "rD Al F �. i yI' 4e '- a r � -Sql Sggc 9 Oj5 E�51 G” it F4ip �ixh g..� QL 3 Q Y /LIB, 25 -S 9." c9°� ' j t z ^vs. N g O gv /rr �rr r / / bJ �� iVINI t AY9YJY6 k= ;J E FL -- - --rte "rD Al F �. i yI' 4 A W,,W<r OAST E�St a° Q m 2 v e U Tv �qa / r Oj5 E�51 4 A W,,W<r OAST E�St a° Q m 2 v e U Tv �qa z Q J d 0 0 J LL N K FL 3 0 0 LL Q Z S w N K 0 0 J LL H _Z N 0 Y 0 z LU m� W N� IL 0 OL K W z Ma t €!s @a w o oTya sF ds �, IG ts) CL NI fin r--,-TT — T-T z O LL �i ly! IL; Z! LL i o I LU of LL z iii FEZ LU 7— o� z m z Q m Q d °o LL N K LL z 5 0 0 LL Q z 0 U w N Z Q J K 0 0 J LL 2 z FRI V / 5 e who O C w W�f�-9 V� e r �3 Y v m 0 OL K W Z 1 R �_ FS ��5 d) 0 Q IQn TTT LL mm NF YHA LL mm Qm 'k L t, to XT 0 w J W z a J [A �I 1 �I F� m Im 0.! kD 0 T- ,nl V1 XVX W 0 z 1A E u° 8 s" r F 0 X11 m m ry m C <y 9 V`o K �I 1 �I F� m Im 0.! kD 0 T- ,nl V1 XVX W 0 z 1A E u° 8 s" r F 0 X11 z 0 �i J Ul z m 0 Z �r� E I V 1 z 0 0 z w m 0 z li M. _I- s r �m C� l? �� Ui Il,j 1 ij Ii w� Iii i 'tpl Ili Elil Ifil{ 1!III it il -i t !fill ,II iii!1 Iljt I'il!i I i!! it {il 4 Ir111JJii 11 -,.— Jj_._ .rl , �1711� �1 �t�711t jt� al'Il 11111 \� IhL I t. l�u >LeLtllltual .., II 1 1 f,1li Illln!ihl��illit'l'ilt!I cV 1LILIL t 1 11 a1._O Offal li, it 1 a! ' I I t 1 � i %!j i .✓ � f 0Y b 1..A `.i' r ✓ y i K-;� yyy $ c , 1, � b A.q fir' II e 3 FLTI I "T N i Fli 1 i ftlVi i i I u� .. i —I T17 F� 1 1 —1j �1 I ?r- ,11111 I�III1/ I' � I � �1 1,� I I I it I 1 1 I I! 1 1 Il 11 I iy 11 I I ' hi! i I III t 1i tl l: II I� {r 11 I I Ii Il 11 h-a fli- Arl- lli.l' I1 L�jiiJi{: ii! I. Iliii��l�Jiu .1111IIJtullllllL��II<uh jQ .c 4 ``Q2 a 4 Q0 � m 4 �m �w Ll Io VJ O V 3 „rte o -- m iv, W' C U �tl �ppi �g di99 �r A N W Z , O O d w z .V r f x4 ,n ✓�' rPpsY Fpit �y pY �SY fA51 0 Q 1 1� 1 � ail rr � ety ICE c II11 - 3. _ ria I ,n ✓�' rPpsY Fpit �y pY �SY fA51 0 Q 1 1� 1 J N (6 m m n omit U) O T. O O m O O N _ LO •V N C :3 C6 O U � � U LL 0) .U) O L U) cu coW Ca G U LU n W. IL N �L cu Y N m Ir_I cu O N a) cu 3 O c L U a) a) � U O N V/ Lo O U N J C!J O CN i L N cn 0 U m vi c c cn 0 Co M Q 2 L O �n O L O E L a_ O U N U Q C2 L 0 N L a) i n V a_ a) co a) U L U cm �L U a) U 0 N N L L L 0 CU cu a) v -0 C: M m U N +� Y O 1 O CO U co M N Cm _0 + E � E c: w O N O U uj U N -0 O U CU Q N U O _ L N O �; a) cu (n O C a 0 C N �' `, E CN L �' r- `U v L U N X I �^i C: C: r c cm E cn E �Q. —.0 O E -O L O O-0 Lo O C: cu CO M r- Uca n fA �n O L O E L a_ O U N U Q C2 L 0 N L a) i n V a_ a) co a) U L U cm �L U a) R � -�i- ��.• yr: yy -.`' pc .� •, � - � 1. y^ -( n r w c O c� L) O J O O .0 ,roll C O tC E N Opa 2i I it i 0 t. II i ar 0 :-I 1 1 4l[`S2 J r'l , A' ` di �I ;c Y ti �f. e' 0 �r - . I- t .' i, i N r a E—M7 4 • l Y1 . Ne. JJ 71 'I: or F i. A. -+ U O �O L. CL O 0 _O A. -+ U O O L. CL 0 i 6w • 0 t 1 C -1 4i r vii . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z z- ER i. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Z z- ER ji 1. cz 11114 O flat Q � � Z � fill CZ Lij 4L-: oQ IF M- F" r AppSt EAST -41 Aw :e �, 1 n 7 'd 4 , �IL �1 f =r. ,r r City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 City Council Agenda Item No. 16 SUBJECT: Bayview Affordable Senior Housing Development (PA2002. 246) Bayview Senior Affordable Housing Project, consisting of 150 units on approximately 5 acres. The Use Permit will establish the development standards under the provisions of the Bayview Landing Planned Community (PC -39) regulations, and will establish a height limit. The Site Plan Review will establish the grade of the site for the purposes of measuring building height. The Lot Line Adjustment will adjust the boundary between the site and the proposed park site to the south. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. Use Permit No. 2003 -003 /Site Plan Review No. 2003-001/Lot Line Adjustment No. 2003 -011. Senior Planner, James Campbell gave an overview of the staff report as well as proposed changes since the last presentation of the project to the Planning Commission noting: • Project changes resulting from concerns expressed at the January 23, 2003 workshop are: lowering the building one foot on the third level, change the average roof height to 32'/2 feet, and the roof peak to 35 feet high. • Revised view simulations on location of buildings on the site and boundary encompassing the site. • Findings for establishing the grade at a different elevation than natural grade. • Findings for establishing the height limit of the structure between 26 feet and 35 feet. Commissioner Tucker noted the following: • The Negative Declaration was prepared for both the affordable housing site and the park. Two letters were received from the public. • How much of the coastal sage scrub was on the affordable housing site as opposed to the park site? • Is the Planning Commission being asked to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration in conjunction with the project, just the portions that pertain to the affordable housing site? Does this mean that there is not an approval of the park site later? What is the significance of approving this whole document? • This is just a Use Permit and a Lot Line Adjustment, does this go any further? Jim Campbell responded: • The park site does not come back to the Planning Commission; it is within the jurisdiction of the City Council. • The Negative Declaration does cover both sites. The decision to go forward with the park requires an environmental review that will rest upon this particular document. • This particular item has been set on the agenda for the next week for the 3 Il,`l Item No.4 (PA2002 -246) Approved DRAFT City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 SUBJECT: Bayview Affordable Senior Housing Development (PA2002- 246) Bayview Senior Affordable Housing Project, consisting of 150 units on approximately 5 acres. The Use Permit will establish the development standards under the provisions of the Bayview Landing Planned Community (PC -39) regulations, and will establish a height limit. The Site Plan Review will establish the grade of the site for the purposes of measuring building height. The Lot Line Adjustment will adjust the boundary between the site and the proposed park site to the south. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project. Use Permit No. 2003- 003 /Site Plan Review No. 2003 -001 /Lot Line Adjustment No. 2003-011. Senior Planner, James Campbell gave an overview of the staff report as well as proposed changes since the last presentation of the project to the Planning Commission noting: • Project changes resulting from concerns expressed at the January 23, 2003 workshop are: lowering the building one foot on the third level, change the average roof height to 32'/2 feet, and the roof peak to 35 feet high. • Revised view simulations on location of buildings on the site and boundary encompassing the site. • Findings for establishing the grade at a different elevation than natural grade. • Findings for establishing the height limit of the structure between 26 feet and 35 feet. Commissioner Tucker noted the following: • The Negative Declaration was prepared for both the affordable housing site and the park. Two letters were received from the public. • How much of the coastal sage scrub was on the affordable housing site as opposed to the park site? • Is the Planning Commission being asked to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration in conjunction with the project, just the portions that pertain to the affordable housing site? Does this mean that there is not an approval of the park site later? What is the significance of approving this whole document? • This is just a Use Permit and a Lot Line Adjustment, does this go any further? Jim Campbell responded: • The park site does not come back to the Planning Commission; it is within the jurisdiction of the City Council. • The Negative Declaration does cover both sites. The decision to go forward with the park requires an environmental review that will rest upon this particular document. • This particular item has been set on the agenda for the next week for the INDEX Item No. 4 (PA2002.246) Approved City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 INDEX City Council at their request because they are considering the financial arrangements. They will also rule on the use permit. Commissioner Toerge asked: • Is the age restriction of 55 years under the discretion of the Planning Commission authority, can it be increased? • Upon approval of this project, an additional 30,000 square feet accrues to Fashion Island, when does that occur? Ms. Wood answered: • Discretion on the age restriction is limited by the financing. This project is financed through state tax exempt bonds and tax credits; 55 is the age specified for those programs. Ms. Temple added that the General Plan states that if the affordable senior housing project is implemented on the project site, an additional 30,000 square feet of retail entitlement would go to Fashion Island. The City would not finalize that transfer until the project is constructed. The City Council and the Irvine Company would discuss a mechanism in order to memorialize that particular transfer. Commissioner Toerge continued: • The retention basin, how does that drain or is it an evaporative pond? • Is there parking provided for the Upper Bayview Landing? • Lawns or ground cover on the park, is that within our purview or does it go to the Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission? Mr. Edmonston answered: • The basin is constructed to retain a ten -year storm and would seep through the bottom into the ground. A heavier storm would be designed to flow over and out into the bay. • There is no parking for the Upper Bayview Landing being provided. Ms. Wood added: • The Parks, Beaches and Recreation Commission make recommendations to the City Council about the ground cover. It would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to talk about it in terms of the Negative Declaration if you view it as creating or correcting an environmental impact. Mr. John Douglas of Civic Solutions, a consultant for the City, answered that the CIOSA Environmental Impact Report says that virtually none of the coastal sage scrub was on the housing site; it was all on the park site. Because of the adjustment in the lot line that is now being proposed, there would be a very small portion of the coastal sage scrub on the housing site, but still the vast majority would be on the park site. 4 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 Mr. Bill Truxaw, civil engineer for the project noted that the detention basin is designed to capture the runoff from the senior site and the park site in a ten -year event over a 24 hour period. During that time the water would collect and be detained in the basin. Should there be a longer term event, then the water would spill out through some small pipes into the adjacent street. For the day to day nuisance flow, they will be contained within the basin and percolate down into the ground. A ten year storm intensity over a 24 -hour period if it rains continuously for 16 to 20 hours would fill the 4 to 5 foot capacity and it would begin to spill out into the adjacent street. There is good ground water percolation there so we don't expect to reach the capacity very often. Gino Conori, project manager for the Related Companies affirmed that no parking is being provided for the adjacent park site. Commissioner Tucker asked: • Why are we getting involved in environmental aspects on parts of the project that are not on the affordable housing site? Ms. Wood answered because the Mitigated Negative Declaration is being reviewed by the Commission. It was then noted that the site plan, conceptual landscape and grading plans were part of the packet. Ms. Temple clarified: • In terms of the CEQA document itself and what was needed, because there is an integrated grading plan and drainage plan and it is intended to construct both projects at the some time, in order to have an adequate document, we had to assess it all together so that we did not fall on the issue of CEQA regarding project segmentation for purposes of avoiding a full environmental analysis. • The Planning Commission is a body that is capable of certifying an environmental document and can be done even if the Planning Commission is the entity that actually approves portions of the project. • We have a document intended to be adequate under CEQA and it is being used and certified but in association with the Planning Commission consideration of the senior housing project. Ms. Clauson added that this document will be used in the evaluation of the park subject to the project description that the Planning Commission is approving. If there are changes in the design or park, then the environmental document that is being used will have to be evaluated for any subsequent evaluations or changes that might occur against the CEQA regulations are. Commissioner Gifford noted that the draft resolution only refers to the housing site. Under Section 3.28 'views from Coast Highway and park site will be improved by the project', is that really the park project and the reduction of the grade there? She noted that it is not really this project that is the subject of the finding so we can just strike this as it is not discussed in the staff report that there is an improvement under the grading. 5 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 Mr. Campbell answered that it deals also with the environmental document, which is the broader scope. Mrs. Wood added that the grading of the park site will improve the views. She agreed that language from this finding could be stricken from the resolution. Commissioner Selich noted: • He did not look at the Mitigated Negative Declaration in terms of the park site, but rather in terms of the affordable housing site. • If we approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration in the form it is in now, does that limit the discretion of the Parks Commission to make that area meadow or grass, or do they still have that flexibility? Ms. Temple answered, it would not necessarily limit future discretion. If a change is made in the project description that would warrant further environmental review, then we would have to do that prior to their action. They or the City Council would then have to take action on the new environmental review process, if necessary. Mr. Gino Conori noted the comments made at the last workshop have been. integrated within the new plan to date as for as raising the existing grade, changing roof pitches and covering the parking analysis. He has read and understands the findings and conditions contained in the staff report. Commissioner Tucker asked that a technological answer be given for why the site has to be raised by five feet and that there are no viable alternatives. Karlos Markowizos, MNG Geotechnical, geotechnical engineer noted that the geotechnical reasons has to do with the shallow ground water condition. As the site exists now, there are poorly compacted soils near the surface and the ground water table is approximately ten feet below that. During the remedial grading, that will limit what can be done. The removal and recompaction will be limited by the ground water. Increasing the site elevation will allow us to put a thicker compacted fill cap making a better foundation platform for the proposed buildings that will help mitigate the settlement issues. In addition, the shallow ground water conditions could pose adverse conditions for any deeper excavations, the elevator pits, deeper utilities both in the construction and maintenance of those. Raising the site and adding the additional fill also reduces the amount of export by placing that material that is generated by the grading on site. It is feasible to de -water to go down a little, but there is an expense and design considerations associated with that. Commissioner Toerge asked how many employees are expected on site at any one time. He was answered that there will be three, a manager, leasing manager and maintenance personnel during the day. Commissioner Tucker noted the following for members of the audience: 6 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 The Planning Commission is into the technical review of the details. We are not the group to hear about the need for the facility. The Planning Commission is looking for physical issues with building the project on this property. Public comment was opened. Vice Chairperson McDaniel asked for a show of hands of speakers pro and con on this matter and then determined that the people who are against were to speak first. Speaking in opposition: Steve Morse, resident of Villa Point noted: • Parking issue for a 55 year old senior housing project - 55 year old people do not stop driving, they continue. • This project has 130 one bedroom and 20 two bedroom units. Parking is grossly inadequate. • Comparisons used for parking came from San Mateo, San Francisco, and San Bernardino, nothing from the area over here. • This project is not within walking distances to anything for the seniors, therefore, vehicle transportation will be needed for anybody to go anywhere. • Thirty visiting parking places for 150 senior units where there are families is a lot of visiting. 30 parking places for 150 units seems grossly inadequate. • Living across the street from the project, I see what the traffic is like now. There are times when traffic backs up from Pacific Coast Highway well beyond the Hyatt Newport Hotel in the rush hours. • Perhaps the scale of the project could be lower in view of this because I feel the parking is inadequate, there will be overflow and intrusion into our project and visitors will be encroaching into our property when they come to visit. • At Commission inquiry, he noted that he had concerns about the view from Jamboree and the open space there; there are potential new sites for affordable housing in the areas being annexed such as Newport Coast and the Santa Ana Heights area. Walt Nutting, Villa Point resident noted the following: • Concerned with the density of the area. • Most of the people will have their own cars. With a density of around 300 from these 150 units, the amount of parking is not enough. • Concerned with what happens to the senior citizens trying to cross eight lanes of Pacific Coast Highway. • There are many- activities that happen on this property that happen with special permits. They will no longer be allowed. Edward Murphy, Villa Point resident: Asked why the elevation sitings were not taken from the first floor ground IRI BIWI City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 from Villa Point. I feel you are hiding something that is going to obstruct my view of the Back Bay. He asked that some kind of indicator be made by the developer to show what kind of roof line people living on the ground floor at Villa Point will be looking at towards the Back Bay. I don't want my view obstructed. Mr. Campbell answered that the view simulations were done from both the ground level and the second floor at Villa Point. Kon Lee, resident of Villa Point asked: • If the building was lowered by five feet and now the ground is raised by five feet, how has the building been lowered? • Has the civil engineers calculations on the catch basin been reviewed by the Commission? • Why is there so much concern about the drivers on PCH? How about the residents of Villa Point? Those drivers on PCH, may not live in Newport Beach, they just pass by. Why is the project emphasized so much on the views for drivers on PCH. Matthew Gilbert, licensed land surveyor, stated: • He had been retained by the Villa Point Homeowners Association to do a view impact study from an aerial perspective taken from two points along top of slope that currently look out over into the back bay area. • He noted he had been provided with a conceptual plan two weeks ago. • He then explained his exhibit that portrays a shaded area that will no longer be seen from residents at Villa Point from their back patio on the ground floor three and half feet above ground surface where a person would sit. Commissioner Tucker noted that: • The Planning Commission enforces the policies of the City. The City has no policy on view protection. • These buildings can be built to 35 feet by use permit or 26 feet by right. If you want to argue about the view, if that is really what you are arguing about, then you need to discuss why we are unable to make the findings that justify a 35 foot height limit. • At the start of the meeting, I asked the people who wanted to talk about the need not to address us, that is not what we are here for. We have no control over that. Likewise, we do not have any ability to grant view protection. If you have specific technical reasons for why the four findings that staff went over at the beginning of the meeting can't be made, that is what we are going to listen to, it's the Code. The City Council will be hearing this of their next meetirg. Commissioner Gifford noted that when we talk about the views and they are Ilk, City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 discussed in the staff report and in the Negative Declaration it is not ' dthin our purview to protect private views. It is within our charge to look at the impact on public views. Egan Vanderberg, resident of Villa Point noted the following: • Those who bought into Villa Point didn't just buy the structure: they bought Newport Beach with its amenities, demographics of people with high education and income, low density, etc. • What we paid for property was based on how it looked and what it was. • If this proposed project had been there before Villa Point we would not have paid what we did because the project reduces the overall value based on the fact it is not in the some character as everything else that is built in Newport Beach. • If I had wanted to buy property next to low income housing, I could have done so in Garden Grove for a third of the money. • I am in support of the philosophy for providing some subsidy for housing for people who can't afford it but why do they have to have the supreme location in all of Newport Beach with the waterfront property. Why can't you take them out to Norco or some place like that? • People are parking in our facility with overflow parking daily and we are the overflow parking lot for Balboa Island. There is no parking on Back Bay or on Jamboree. We will be heavily impacted by the parking situation. Dean Smart, attorney for Villa Point Association noted the following: • Any approval given to the findings or resolution tonight would be premature and abbreviates the rights of the public to have due process to determine whether your actions are appropriate. • The people within the community have not been adequately notified and should be here to review your findings that are being changed by the hour. How does anyone from the community have an opportunity to come and challenge the findings' and resolution if you are getting new information this evening? • The Mitigated Negative Declaration is seriously flawed. I challenge you on several points, i.e., the parking that is supposedly a part of the EIR and the traffic, neither one of those has been adequately addressed. The areas from which the consultants for the applicant have drawn their information range from San Bernardino to San Francisco. That is ridiculous, there is plenty of opportunity to do studies within the surrounding areas to determine what the affect would be on the community in which the project is going to be placed. • We believe there is no indication that the traffic effect has been adequately valued. I don't know how you can have a finding that a mitigated declaration is appropriate until you have those kinds of studies. • Additionally, the archeological aspect of this has not been adequately addressed. Not only do we have evidence within the surrounding community that there is extremely important archeological finds within the Newport Beach area that are important to the residents and to the native Americans of our state, there is no indication that there is any provision for INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 am safe guarding whatever is found. • The catch basin sounds to me like one big mosquito pond. Until we have some kind of information that the environmental impact has such a holding basin, the percolating rates, evaporation rates, the volume of water, I think there has not been a showing that a mitigated negative declaration is appropriate. • If necessary, I know that the association as a concerned citizen will contemplate bringing a petition as is appropriate in order to obtain an environmental impact report. Commissioner Tucker asked the speaker if had had an opportunity to review the traffic study that was included in the staff report. Mr. Smart answered he read all that was on the internet. Commissioner Tucker noted the following: • There was a traffic study that was part of the package. To hear that traffic is bad without telling us what is wrong with the report that we are relying on doesn't help us. • The water quality regulations want catch basins everywhere. They would rather the water percolate than run off directly into the bay. Peter O'Hearn, resident of Villa Point noted he likes to walk on the path around the bay. He asked if that road (Back Bay Drive) could be closed to vehicular traffic as it is a one -way road and could be used to access the proposed project. Mr. Edmonston answered that the topic of the use of Back Bay Drive for joggers and bicyclists is something that is under the purview of the City Council. They are concerned that closing it to all vehicular traffic would deprive access to people who were not able to walk that distance and access it via foot. It is an ongoing issue. The following people spoke in favor of the proposed project: H. Ross Miller, Advocacy Chairman and Senior Housing Chairman of the Friends of the Oasis Senior Center noted the following: • We appreciate the concerns of Villa Point, but you have told us that you can not do anything about their views. • There is an enormous senior population of almost 20% and when you compare that to the number of property owners at Villa Point you can see which side is the biggest and which has the need. • We have been working for this project for a long time and accept the site. • Seniors come with no car or one car and as they get older and are unable to drive, their cars are sold off by their families. • Additionally, we will be operating a van system for the project for seniors who do not have their own automobiles. • The senior center will be closely linked with this operation. • This is a quality developer who was selected by the Irvine Company. 10 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 We have a delegation from the senior population and we hope you will approve the use permit, site plan and the lot line adjustment so that we can move onto the Council meeting Tuesday night. There is a need to get this project done because there are factors that will increase the cost by 15 %. At Commission inquiry, he noted that seniors come with one car or no car; do not drive during peak hours; and do not create traffic. Ms. Temple noted a 100 unit senior citizen affordable housing project on Pacific View Drive in Corona del Mar that is age restricted. It has 33 parking spaces and to date, no problems have been incurred with that. This was not included in the staff report because it has slightly higher age requirements. In the City's experience there is a substantially reduced parking demand from these projects. There are projects around in Orange County where for less than half a parking space per unit is provided without problem. Commissioner Tucker suggested that a few more numbers close by should be found by the applicant as this issue will be brought up at the Council meeting. Dennis Baker, resident of Corona del Mar and Board President of Earth Resource Foundation and a member of the steering committee for SPON noted the following on the park issue: • Pleased that the archeological issue is being addressed with an archeologist on site. • The park has been intended to be a passive park and that is what we are supporting as organizations. We have written letters in support and would have strong objections if this was to change from a passive, natural landscaped park in the direction of turf grass. • We support the building project and the park project as well. • Comments with regards to public access to materials, as a member of the public I attended the study session for this, attended Parks Committee meetings, met with and talked with staff and have had easy access to staff who have provided all the information that I needed. I see absolutely no argument that can be made that says public access was not provided. Anyone who claims they did not have public access made no effort to access. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Selich noted the following concerns: • The Mitigated Negative Declaration and the park relationship with the senior housing project is certainly confusing. I say get it into the minutes so that the Council can consider it and take a quick review of the declaration. Unless the Council addresses the issue of the project description on the park part of it they are going to be inhibiting the Parks and Recreation Commission to make some determinations on what the nature of the landscaping is going to be on that park, primarily whether it is going to be natural grasses or irrigated turf and it is not within our 11 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 INDEX jurisdiction. • My major concern with regards to public views, there has been a lot of work in siting these buildings irrespective of raising the pad five feet to minimize the impact of the public views on Jamboree. We just got the resolution this evening so I would like consideration to changes to condition 15, which addresses the issue of the landscape plans and public views. Looking at the landscape plans, the type of materials on Jamboree Road appears to be a type of tree that will grow relatively rapidly and very thick. In my opinion, that would impede the public views, so I suggest the word change to, '.........shall be a species that will not impair the view corridor deer ^et exeeed 0 tGtG! height of 35 feet, or shall be trimmed and maintained so as to not impair the view corridor net te E)xGeed the height Gf the buildi+gs.' The view corridor is well below the 35 feet in the areas going between those buildings. Commissioner Gifford asked for an explanation of deleting the height requirement thinking that the trees not within the view corridor would be limited to 35 feet. Commissioner Selich answered that he is deleting the words, does not exceed a total height of 35 feet and the last part of the condition, exceed the height of the buildings. A lot of the view is below the 35 feet. Looking at the site plan you can see there is an attempt to create view corridors between the buildings. My condition is more restrictive than the 35 feet. This condition only refers to where a view corridor occurs that the height would be restricted to 35 feet. We could have the final landscape plan come back to the Planning Commission and review it or we can leave it up to staff's interpretation. Commissioner Tucker asked why the words 'private view corridors' are in there. Does that get into an area that we have no authority to do anything about. Ms. Wood answered those words should be deleted. Commissioner Toerge noted the following: • This project is in a highly visible location and the two dimensional drawings do not give a good enough perspective on really what these buildings would look like. Story boards are helpful to show the windows, railings, texture, colors, roof and we haven't seen that. The landscape plan I am not sure that I can understand it without more detail. I have not seen any information on the site lighting or site signage. There is no design of the entry gate. • 1 recognize the need to move this item forward given the time constraints, but I wonder if we can call those items back for our review, significantly the site lighting. How will that be reviewed and how will the public be given information on this issue? • When we review projects, there generally are standards that we have to go by in the Zoning Coce. Apparently, there is not standard for senior affordable housing and the parking required in our Zoning Code. 12 City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 • A multi - family project of this size that was not senior affordably restrictive would require 300 resident parking and 75 guest parking places. In this particular case, the parking provides less than 1 resident parking space per bedroom. There are 180 bedrooms, thus 180 parking spaces, of which 3 are to be used for employees and 30 of them are to be reserved for visitors, that leaves 150 parking spaces for 180 bedrooms. • There is a potential that this facility could house up to 360 seniors and we are providing 150 parking spaces. • Looking at this project with the lack of service amenities within walking distance, such as recreational, shopping, medical services and eating establishments indicates to me that the people at this site are going to be driving more than the typical senior site. • A provision of seniors at age 65 or higher might help with the parking ratio. • Given that there is no standard and having asked for more information at the last meeting. I believe that this project is underporked. I am having a hard time right now with this project. I know there is support for it and I support the concept. However, I believe there is physically going to be a parking problem on that site. • Given that there is no standard in our City books, and given the justification from the traffic engineer and the staff report does not get me there. I can't support it. • I ask the applicant if there is any area on the site where more parking can befound? Public comment was opened. Bill Whittey, partner of Related Companies noted the following in response to the previous comments: • You can increase the number of parking spaces relative to the number of units by reducing the number of units. • This project is not only age restricted, it is income restricted. • A similar project in La Mirada that has 161 units with the some income level, further from shopping, with 1.1 parking spaces per unit, is very successful. This project is the some mix of 20% 2 bedrooms and 80% 1 bedroom. • The average age of the resident is between 72 and 75 because that is where the demand comes for affordable living. Those ages have a significant impact on the parking demand. • There is no additional area on the land without getting further into the hillside or the retention basin to put additional parking. • The one bedroom units are almost exclusively occupied by a single person, usually a woman. • The two bedroom units are an even equal mix of single people and couples. • The income is a total household income. Ms. Wood added that the maximum income for a two person household at this 13 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 time would be $36,800 and that would be at the slightly higher 60% median income, and would be a little lower for those units restricted to 50 %. She added that both state law and the City's Housing Element require that for projects that are 100% affordable, as this one is, that we provide a 25% density bonus. The base allocation of the units for this site and zoning is 120 and when we apply the 25% density bonus, we reach 150. If we needed to eliminate a few units to make the project work physically that would be one thing, but to reduce the number significantly would, 1 fear, have us running afoul of those policies. Mr. Whitley added that there is a covenant running with the land guaranteeing this affordability for 55 years. These conditions apply now and will not allow this to become condominiums or become unaffordable. At Commission inquiry he added that there has not been a parking problem at any other of his facilities given the similar ratios. The suburban locations typically even affordable have the highest parking demand. These are among the highest I have seen. Our managers would address any problem with multiple cars, however, it has never been an issue. If we design this project as a suburban location with a San Francisco type requirement of .3 or .4 to 1, then it certainly would be a problem. We are not attempting to apply one standard to all projects, they are different. In our experience, the parking will be sufficient, including in a higher income suburban location. Public comment was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Selich for approval of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, Use Permit No. 2003 -003, Site Plan Review No. 2003 -001 and Lot Line Adjustment No. 2003 -011, subject to the findings and conditions of approval within the attached resolution with the following modifications: • Condition 15 to read: The final landscaping plans shall be prepared in a manner that all trees along the perimeter of the site as well as interior site trees, determined to be located within the line of sight of any public view corridor, shall be of a species that will not impair the public view corridor or shall be trimmed and maintained so as not to impair view corridors. Commissioner Toerge asked how the issue of site lighting will be addressed. Commissioner Tucker answered that it is covered with the mitigation measures specifically on page 29. He then asked that the word materially be added twice before the words impair. The maker of the motion agreed. Commissioner Gifford asked to include in the motion the deletion of certain language in Section 3.2b, which would then read: b. The proposed grade and related development will not result in the loss of any public views and is consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. The project has been designed to be oeiow the grade of surrounding parcels to the east. 14 INDEX City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Minutes February 20, 2003 The maker of the motion agreed Commissioner Gifford noted that Mr. Lee was concerned that the height had been lowered but the grade had been elevated. When the Planning Commission looked at this project before, we were talking about a grade that was elevated, so the lowering is a 'true' lowering. Vote on the motion was called: Ayes: Toerge, Agajonion, McDaniel, Gifford, Selich, Tucker Excused: Kiser SUBJECT: Thai Del Mar - (PA2003-002) 2754 East Coast Highway Request to amend Use Permit No. 3153 to allow a change in operational characteristics from a take -out restaurant to a full service, small scale restaurant and to permit the addition of customer seating which is prohibited by the existing Use Permit Mr. Bob Wynn, representing the applicant noted the following: • The restaurant is 52 feet long and 11.5 feet wide. • The current use on this restaurant violates the existing use permit that had been issued in 1985 and had no sit down sitting allowed without an amendment. • In 1997, Thai del Mar bought the restauarnt and at that time there were seats and chairs in the restaurant. The present owners thought that the seating was a legal use and knew that Gelato's next door to them also had sit down seating. • It was an obivious assumption that sit down seating was allowed, but it was erroneous. We have read the staff report and concur with staff's findings with one exception, the restroom. Two bids were obtained for the construction of the unisex restroom. Ask that you remove this condition as the bids come in at $18,500 and $17,950 just to replace the current restroom. The Code will require a handicap accessible restroom and in order to do that the price would be increased to $53,850 and $55,500 which is about 30% more than the current bids to replace the one that is in the back of the restaurant now. • They have one year remaining on the lease and an expense of this kind would be difficult to agree to and to meet. Commisisoner Selich asked if the Planning Commisison had the ability to waive the restroom requirement. 15 INDEX Item No. 5 PA2003.002 Continued to 04/03/2003 ERRATA SHEET INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION BAYVIEW SENIOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PARK PROJECT CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH February 25, 2003 Page Correction 3 Revise the first sentence of the Project Description section as follows: The proposed project consists of site preparation, grading of approximately 75;500 82,000 cubic yards with approximately 25,000 32.000 cubic yards of export, development of a 10 -acre public view park and a 150 -unit senior affordable housing project. 37 Insert 1/4 acre total coastal sage scrub 39 Insert 1/4 acre total coastal sage scrub 43 Insert Y4 acre total coastal sage scrub 72 Insert the following text at the end of Section XV.a: IShort-Term Construction Impacts. Short-term construction impacts would occur due to construction traffic and hauling of excess soil from the site. It is estimated that a maximum of 32,000 cubic yards of material would be transported off -site Assuming 10 cu vd per load this would vield a maximum of 3.200 truck trios Mitigation Measure VII -1 would require that a traffic control plan be orepared to specify measures to minimize travel disruptions and safety hazards If soil export occurs during the peak summer months truck trips will be limited to 10 per hour. This mitigation measure would reduce Potential short-term construction traffic impacts to a level that is less than significant. 74 Paragraph 2 of Section XV.f is revised as follows: The demand for parking for the view park is expected to be minimal since the park would have no recreational amenities attract visitors. Most park users would be expected to arrive on foot or bicycle. 9a- 6tFeet is available aIGRg Q.,yside OFiVe th A- i .. 4 paF!('.. neaF a fGF biGyGIi6t6. Parking is a{se available for a modest fee at the Newport Dunes resort, which is immediately adjacent to the park on the west. Finding: These changes represent only minor changes and clarifications to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and none of the conditions requiring recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(b) are present. rrom: Larry ana aevy Kerr lo: VrrNt Ur l Nt Ul IT ULtKKUr NNW Vafe: LZ4 1tuns IMe: a:60 "1a MI February 21, 2003 TO: Members of the City Council of Newport Beach Mr. Steven Bromberg Mr. Tod Ridgeway Mr. bon Webb TO: The Related Company Mr. Gino Canori Subject: Affordable Senior Housing Development From: Larry and Betty Kerr 132 Villa Point Drive Newport Beach, California 92660 Hello City Council and The Related Company, rage .i of t if :vY 1 LUD V1=D AFTER AGENDA - f'R1NTE13: "=AB 2- 25.0:3 We live directly across the street from the proposed Affordable Senior Housing Development at Lower Bayvlew Landing, and have a lovely view. We are original owners. We knew that at some time the owners, the Irvine Company, would develop the Lower Bayvlew Landing. We have never been concerned. In our opinion they always knock themselves out to do everything in the best of taste, and in everyone's best interest. So, when we were notified of the first Planning Commission meeting in January of this year, we went, with an open mind, not at all opposed to the development. At the end of the meeting we became very concerned, and to our surprise some of the members of the planning commission are concerned as well, particularly about the selection of this location for the subject project. Apparently the location decision is finalized.... we can accept that. However, 3 buildings, 3 stories high, with increased grade level..... concerns us a lot. The views in Villa Point will be significantly impacted. rrom: Larry ana berry Kem lot Orrice Ur IHt ca IT cLLM& Ur new ware: azaamus lime: b:ce °ie ^m rage Z or Z If this project is developed as presently proposed we and our neighbors will not be enjoying our wonderful view of the back bay, we will be looking at three 3 story buildings with a considerably diminished view over the roof tops. It will definitely have an affect on the property values of 228 condominium owners. We sincerely hope that you will take a more creative look at this and in the interest of all of the homeowners in Villa Point come up with a better plan. Sincerely, Larry and Betty Kerr c.c: office of the city clerk Page 2 of 2