Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
4.0 - 150 Newport Center Drive Study Session - PA2014-213
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 23, 2016 Study Session Agenda Item No. 4 SUBJECT: 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Anticipated Discretionary Applications: • General Plan Amendment No. GP2014-003 • Code Amendment No. CA2014-008 • Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2014-004 • Site Development Review No. SD2014-006 • Tentative Tract Map No. NT2015-003, County Tentative Tract Map No. 17915 • Development Agreement No. DA2014-002 • Environmental Impact Report No. ER2015-002 (SCH No. 2016011032) SITE LOCATION: 150 Newport Center Drive APPLICANT/OWNER: Newport Center Anacapa Associates, LLC PLANNER: Makana Nova, Associate Planner (949) 644-3249, mnova@newportbeachca.gov INTRODUCTION/STUDY SESSION The purpose of the study session is to introduce the project and provide the Planning Commission and general public with the opportunity to learn about the project and request specific information prior to or at the public hearing, which is tentatively scheduled for July 21, 2016. Staff will provide an overview of discretionary applications, General Plan policy analysis, Section 423 calculations, traffic analysis, and height limits that are applicable to the project. The applicant will provide a detailed overview of the project. The environmental consultant will be available to discuss the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process, draft findings, and mitigation in the draft EIR. No action on either the project or draft EIR will be taken by the Planning Commission at the study session. PROJECT SUMMARY The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing 8,500-square-foot carwash, convenience market, and gas station to accommodate the development of a 7-story 49-unit residential condominium building with three levels of subterranean parking. Development of the proposed project would require the following approvals from the City of Newport Beach: 1 Newport Center Villas Study Session (PA2014-213) June 23, 2016 Page 2 1. General Plan Amendment - to change the land use category from CO-R (Regional Commercial Office) to RM (Multi-Unit Residential) and establish an anomaly (Table LU2) designation for 49 dwelling units. 2. Zoning Code Amendment - to change the Zoning District designation from OR (Office Regional Commercial) to PC (Planned Community District) over the entire site. 3. Planned Community Development Plan - to establish a planned community development plan (PC) over the entire project site that includes development and design standards for 49 residential condominium units. In order to establish a planned community development plan, a waiver of the minimum site area of 10 acres of developed land is necessary. The applicant also requests an increase in the height limit to 75 feet 6 inches with mechanical appurtenances up to 83 feet 6 inches. 4. Site Development Review - to allow the construction of 49 multi-family dwelling units. 5. Tentative Tract Map - to establish a 49-unit residential condominium tract on a 1.3 acre site. 6. Development Agreement - review of a proposed development agreement that would provide public benefits should the project be approved. 7. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - to address reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts resulting from the legislative and project specific discretionary approvals, a draft EIR has been prepared to address the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The document was released for a 45-day public comment period from May 13, 2016, through June 27, 2016. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the proposed project and provide direction to staff as necessary. PUBLIC NOTICE Although not required, a courtesy notice of this study session was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site (excluding intervening rights-of-way and waterways) including the applicant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days before the scheduled meeting. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. 2 Newport Center Villas Study Session (PA2014-213) June 23, 2016 Page 3 Prepared by: Submitted by: Makana ova *na i, ICP, Deputy Director Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Vicinity Map PC 2 Project Plans 3 V� QP �P Attachment No. PC 1 Vicinity Map 5 V� QP �P VICINITY MAP e — i v ?0 t .4 AAvu' 150 Newport Center Drive (PA2014-213) • General Plan Amendment No. GP2014-003 • Code Amendment No. CA2014-008 • Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2014-004 • Site Development Review No. SD2014-006 • Tentative Tract Map No. NT2015-003, County Tentative Tract Map No. 17915 • Development Agreement No. 2014-002 • Environmental Impact Report No. ER2015-002 (SCH No. 201611032) V� QP �P g Attachment No. PC 2 Project Plans 9 V� QP �P 20 PA2014-213 ANachmenl PC 2-Project Plans ARCHnECTIIRAL SHEET INDEX NEWPORT CENTER CONDOMINIUMSVEx SHEET B PROJECT SUMMARY ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL 08.112015 AB 4 OPEN CHACE OwcRu,s-N11vn FLEE.SHARE AUTO I KEGS KAN-LEVEL BI All RE ROORKAN:LEVEELCAA L, ATE ooR qAx EVELa At AT FLOONKAN LEVEL AUR KEvAUCN IT � - SECTORS TE 1 AE, RUESEIRN�ATL.ENT�W EPCTNE N�PO RLd ANA RNE � CE L4IONSLAAR STCOWN1R E1-s- IURVALETVRI IS,, P nLINE S.HE E sEC,grvs I IVROHEURr LINE SE CIVIL SHEET INDEXo CON •— 1__i_. - _� — •- 'I 1T�I _ \� CA CdIV AWCCE-U,U,PLpxry 2 VIEW E« FRE"uCAlONE VIEW ES I IE MULAiIONE VIEW MU�XI?On�VEW< a nry «a�. ITLECONSTITSTRE II —T- �. . - 1i LINOSCAPE SHEET INOE% R; —{ P�R.IrvoPLµT. vlaxm NlAP nI• l ` ! - �l " !I RI f {4� -I� NEIVPdti CEMRi DRIVE j Newport Center Condominiums COVER SHEET } Y A R i N E R 5 pvp«gM.o.auCNn is Cxe�w. 11 i V wool y ♦ 4r le Jim' _ i, w , �!__. ' • - =3� ® ,. �1 y a l PA2014-213 Amaanment PG 2-Prolep Pians RENDERING3 Newport Center Condominiums PERSPECTIVE-AERIAL VIEW FROM ANACAPA DRIVE + r x x r x e x x „xoww,va.o.s,mxx r.cm�o. a�nor.s:nss.m 24 PA2014213 Atlaglment PC 2-Profeq Plans PROJECT SUMMARY GROSS FLOOR AREA: 14,193 S F.13,45x BUILDABLE AREA) MULTI-STORY PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION TOTAL PROPOSED GROSS FLOOR AREA: THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF(1)MULT-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, RESIDENTIAL: 163,260 S.F.(3.43 x BUILDABLE AREA) `- 7 STORIES OF RESIDENTIAL 3 LEVELS OF UNDERGROUND PARKING *NOTE:UP T049 RESIDENTIAL UNITS ARE PERMITTED BUILDING SHALL 8E COMPLETELY SPRINKLERED. WITH NO NEWPORT CENTER VILLAS.RESIDENTIAL UNIT ! BUILDING CODE:CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2013 AREA IS MEASURED ON A PER UNIT BASIS. DWELLING UNITS: aaESEre OCCUPANCY TYPE:R-2 �n . R 2 Bedroom 38 Units __ _ BUILDING TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: 3Bedroom 11 Units w.En7 - F TYPE I-A-FULLY SPRINKLERED Total 49 UnitsGOVERNING AGENCY, - OPEN SPACE: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH REQUIRED _ iaan aaoaann L,Aa LOT COVERAGE: COMMON OPEN SPACE 75 DUIUNIT 3,675 S.F. - serw.A LOT AREA(prior to dedications)', 54,686 S.F. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 30 S.F.PER 1,470 S.F. LOT AREA ° �T (after dedications plus setbacks): 47,592 S.F. EACH UNIT easemNT 9^I'� - roorvn BUILDABLE AREA: 47,592 S.F. TOTAL REQUIRED 5,145 S.F. BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 29,800 S.F. a LOT COVERAGE: 63% PROVIDED 5.�.. z ..rill ..1EerINE COMMON OPEN SPACE 13,392 S.F. t, 1L- BUILDING DEPARTMENT GROSS FLOOR AREA: =4f: IST FLOOR AREA: +I-27,294 S.F. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 12,851 S.F. - - ° roazecoc weaxon 2ND FLOOR AREA: +1-25,520 S.F. TOTAL PROVIDED 26,243dwaceEs ealmlua 3RD FLOOR AREA: +I-25,198 S.F. 1 ❑ 4TH FLOOR AREA: +1-25,198 S.F. SETBACKS: k STH FLOOR AREA: +1-25,196 S.F. PROVIDED 14�Nnar,�P—Tasa ABOVE PODIUM BELOW PODIUM .NNaGE E. rAJlA I 6TH FLOOR AREA: +1-21,680 S.F. ANACAPA FRONTAGE- 22.5 FT 15 FT Wn 7TH FLOOR AREA: +I-13.172 S.F. -PORTE COCHERE- '3 FT OFT TOTAL +I-163,260 S.F. NEWPORT CENTER DR- 24 FT 15 FT t] °10PE'Q1VLNE GROSS FLOOR AREA: +1-163,260 S.F. WESTERN PRTY LINE- 14 FT 0 FT 1a,•*m dh SOUTHERN PRTY LI NE- 22 FT 7FT ®g PARKING GARAGE GBA'. +1-133,671 S.F. 'NOTE:PORTE COCHERE ENCROACHES BUILDING SETBACK BY 12' F.TlEnl.NiE a 'NOTE:ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS ARE ALLOWED TO PROJECT - NEWRED aea.v PROJECT SALEABLE AREA: +1-149,535 S.F. 30"INTO SET BACK AREAS iB18 v PARKING ala Easaa,snr "' 00m NT REQUIRED `o°O "PAA�E-AP AA 7as = RESIDENTIAL 98 STALLS VISITOR 25 STALLS PROVIDED RESIDENTIAL 100 STALLS MOB i ADASGQSATIEVd 911 VISITOR 26 STALLS OIAUD®29ilff6ADIYeu AND i wasrul aT uut:A sl v as w +Tv A0.1 Newport NewpCenter Condominiums N ee+ or u SITE PLAN&PROJECT SUMMARY 2� PA2014313 AtasInmenc PC Y-Project Plans Mg IF WIIX NATTNE 6PECEa TtEPS.TNEE9 cNiV hLACEn INaIM11M LCC4TION5 NOHG MUCnP4 CF NE Z. O _ > 4 - xoi ucLuoEn nEl xnT]Na aEMrtL£MEM F O PLNPOS TOINMLMEETMEDPNN o ° MDEA TO MRNi41F R4FF C fL0 W GMNOEEWRV NFW.SN E _ E3 _ OBCI.PEll I _ I J I a a Z c" 8 o, a I r 0 I >r a xv.r v "NOTES: 7 • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET'EXHIBIT V TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE FEATURES - A0.1 Newport Center Condominiums PROPOSED OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS Oir�No�;.,6,m.N 2� PA2014213 Anachmant PC 2-Pmlect Plans d _P 1�11n�nl 1111 - a®sd:ew..cam�n..n Owns�tsamn • UNIT • • �*'a N'"* NIT 30�F '� 11 Esss n SPACE(cam n 1296 5F UNIT ®2 m m m UNIT •13V BF - 202 SF• I I U�NITT UNIT UNIT nom+ UNIT ^� UNIT UNIT T -'I - -- 16SF 2MW SF 20405E 20685. 156L6JSF 1 .In, I • • 20695E Lc • • • 1 uAury i. sF r 1 �LnxmcEv�ExEo Ea O m lux oulwaaecacs tEv "OF MLHrt.. of Frc LNIIET. O[0•ON-IXwOP9PKE �C VVALL i r _ _ __ - - -- Ili I 13733F 1318 9F I II UNIT o - - ,UNIT F 49 35823F 3H3 SF II UN IF _ UNIT f 5A9]SF CJ 2205 SF 22M SF I II I / I t � _____ �oa� w F ow.nNlwwallo.E +W' npm All Newport Center Condominiums OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS-COMMON OPEN SPACE +•••T x e•s m.a�naw.s,m..�ncn.no. PA2014213 AIU&Menl PC 2-Pmjac Plans —� P — - w.ao•e1 oPEe saw 11e.wx xm PRIV^TEq+EN.i sPACEe morel' OIu�M 1 �aeM1alu4CFmnm cpnspemnM:ael a • UNIT • • ; UNIT • srn> IrvoaoR SPACE IRCMmox Nl nSa sF 0 3010S 1296 SF UNIT a.me.. _�_•_ C UNIT •132J 3F ® Hpalwiwa lou^acau Pmneca-dmalp a.® 202]SF• An• wxoox aPtca coMMcx ass aF m m m olery sp^cE 6oMMarv1 mfi'BsaF LEGEND FLOOR SUMMARY UNIT UNIT UNITpnluE UNR I ovSx IN. UNIT as uwr �p. 6)4 18555E F 20"SF 20065Fy 20®SF 15865E wsF N` I.. sttt aF • • 20683E • • • &.2 FLIIN��ll IN E9 PRrvniE WEASF bsF Fg6G Fe.FE 909EF 3009E Iat65F Jbf55f DEIN 4 010 aeREEHARLXRECNWLL wALL b n �_ _PXNAIa t ________ j FT t I I I I • UNIT -. UNIT • I � 19 I UNIT 2361 SF 2346 SF UNI I • �F , �a..._,... .,_v...a...., • 2883.5E •� I .........,_..., me...SF I I j • n • • I LEGEND FLOOR SUMMARY UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT .�,I �UNIT� -K ® UNIT p8 63Op9 pTe.ovex apace a1BO 203E sP•u 9.P�ue nwwm wlrem To 236�43F 25365E 25365EF 20155E uxp u,�11sF1 op.n suu M 6F 7vu • • we e f l _ IT IF IF CASE a55p 6F � I i � I 900E <ffi OF aa53 EF 3005E IBI65f 0.30155E e m w 3x �w oa.x AO.4 Newport Center Condominiums OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS-PRIVATE OPEN SPACE p�1�5,A13.x3:,,=M PA2014-213 AtAchnnOM PC 2-Pmj.Pi. _____ __ __ __ __ __ noyr,eP•el lC _T ao sua2e cm�mm a xm —I m111 1 OPEN SPAC,CUkNI041 eP Lln.en ol_ j PEN 6PncE lc I NIT UNIT• xm acrwws cper Sue®.nwml UNIT UNIT 131 tl Y-0 p.o 18 30315E i6C5 8F ,'� 16455E 30315E Er n> Irvoaox sPAce lMNMON nSB OF AP amaB.I,..UaP.UH I —m..alll - , , UNIT uame ❑N3 , 1] xPnael�MM S., UNITUNI 2Pfi8 SF Ptn sPncE laevnTEl ID55i sF 2668 OF II LEGEND FLOOR SUMMARY zwAB Er 3666 SF ' UNIT UNIT PRIVATE-OPEN SPACE sox.o•rea • 14 • •• • 16 wwrz(e 2397 6F 23918F • / IDTB.B� mBF BBrzBF BBB 1erei SD:OPEN SPACE D ax BPT I UNIT uNr uNI 21 20 -0' SV 26 UNIT 30315F 1W SF 16455E 22 a s 3031 5E I I UNIT • _ • • _ •UNIT LEGEND FLOOR SUMMARY 26 2668�F UE 2668 SF OPS ATe.oP[X SPACE 3W8 SF soa+a Rwmm wlrele To ' • • UNIT • • U�NIT1xBtp wurvµsq M I _R73TT 32 m5F B�SF 2397 SF• • 2397 SF rzB IDB[ I • • ' � ID&F eszsP seees LL______ _ ___ ____ _______ __ __ __ _____ _________1 �'EVEp<-OPEN SPIE e m w as Iw oa.x A0.5 MWF Newport Center Condominiums OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS-PRIVATE OPEN SPACE wv>a.:.x.:Trz.M 2� PA2014213 AtAchnnOM PC 2-Pmisd Pl. vPNAre_ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ noyr,ePsal a Ervs>n wvel ao sua2e-em.mm L a xm I I W PFry sPACF 6onlrtlory mW SF seven ol_ I I • • AES tlu@ CpmmmCpnspemfMPel k30 UNIT U29 •NIT u ]NI U AA 36 L_. !Nt• 3 .; 3031 SF 1645 SF 1645 SF 30316E —N, Irvoaox E.I,P.Mmox nm sF I I 4�aae,mwe loxnss.0 Puleea-ow.11l UNIT Name y UNITTT ■ ■ ■ ■ xsamlPMM xlx sF TTUNIT 2688 SF PeaPncE lPxNnrEl ID6EF 26668 F ® I LEGEND FLOOR SUMMARY E�A3 EF 8 B 3F UNIT IINR' __ • ovex SPACE 2 Ps nrE 2397 SF wrzlaFl pNP,am To 2397 OF I ■ ■ / � m6F ��F eaS Sf EOSF AB 5 69!99 � F PPJ 7E lC _l _L I/ I UNIT I I I I • U®• 4. 10 FN UNIT F9 ® 30316E 18455E 16455E 303131 5E I � � I I it yLllI ■ — u o — ■ytll.T LEGEND FLOOR SUMMARY "LO°I L^J I I , ' 2668 SF 2668 SF I O PX PTE Plv&o.Ogn Pmue¢d OPEX BPICE MXO a pa0�� pug r ,ul UNIT UNIT • � • • 3 m5F x ef55F � 2397 SF• • 2397 SIT • msF msv etm I ■ ■ /I ftE I � gtlOPE oa.x A0.6 Newport Center Condominiums OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS-PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PI.�A.E.x.a.x 2� PA2014-213 Attachment PC 2-Projac(PIanB InveP x n. -. a xm 9flNAlE OPEN mlvniE CPE .Isa sf N c ol_ sPn • • • ^ �eeM1eyu4 Cwmm�CIA,ON..Mtie N I I � Mfs.: Nf 13788F 1378 SF —A,, INC.E.,IOOMMON n e[ IN 1 I I I UNIT -- IINR I I I a am. ..I���4P -O.ayll g 35825E M83 BF qy OOP SPecE coMMOu saF ovsN SPPOPI�MMOrv1 UNIT UNIT LEGEND FLOOR SUMMARY PEN SPACE IPPmnrelISF 1 xa1 sBei SF 2285 SF _ 22E5 SF / II • _ - • PRIVATE-OPEN SPACE ' pxrpp i Y I _ i unrzlBFj ap.a "P, 835E Res R65 eP SY{Y Sltl t3osF s7.EP 1tTsa � .s .5 tez�aF .w®sF PPNATEOPEN SPRCE O tE L 1�OPE PACE A0.7 Newport Center Condominiums OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS-PRIVATE OPEN SPACE +•••T x e•s m.N�naw.s,m..�ncn..o. PIr�.E.xa:m.N PA2014213 Awa met PC 2-Pmj=Plane ROOM LEGEND o Elevator Lobby o Generator o Main Electrical Meter Room o Mechanical 12 11 fo n n o private Garage o Resident Storage I I Service Lobby/Trash A DWV; o Stair vo vlrtrt ry iweaEa Switch ® Room — _ — _ P1. �Fs.6 - f- ---�- - --- -T f _ --f - f --f----f a VISITORS PARKING i m wag I I l R Y 40 n tl P Y NC pSF I 1111, ail � ry r SMIo 9 9'E y d Ix �� Pemam amia3a GMr�� 'P li II 1 _ yrt I 5 � -1 i xnuN� rid _ 6_„6F 11 .,. � eP _7--'-6m^,va.m re. ro 7F'__—___�l I_aT�_ / II IC rJI -_; ��- F"°n.� fix •�+fisi- --awsr �6rr— e¢ - �ofis�•_ - - -v.s�°• _ m==-•� � - - A.] ,. .r n,s a.m w:oscnvEanrvrEn uoxG g,gry, WMGE WPll 'NOTES: • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET'EXHIBIT 1'TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED - • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE FEATURES oaM • ROOM AREA CALLOUTS ARE BASED ON NET AREA.REFER TO OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ° ” "" A1.0.1 Newport Center Condominiums FLOOR PLAN-LEVEL B1 xn„d,e..•n.0 =f=L PA201¢213 AtvMmet PC 2-Pmlem Plane ROOM LEGEND o Electrical o Elevator Lobby —Gas Meter Room o Generator o Mechanical 12 11 10 9 8 ] A6 8 6 4 3 2 1 o Private Garage I I I I I II I I I I o RESIDENT PARKING A DL o Resident Storage mn —Service Lobby/Trash W aaaPEn xe�x ureE °Stair I I I I I I pl__ Shb F ^ n� �v4 p IPuk.M9nW Ew - I SF vw s sr a - Mw.Emew - Mvw 4up. PMM.GwL. nbem... .d4ame. I Q yOa Wt bbW 9x9ff i 5 ffib ¢ k A G p L i II e I I l -- �----a ---r - �- - ----T-- ibRF' e L— ' I I I B ID I A.6 I I I ' 9AC - F- s p4 UN0.5GPEPLW1Eq glgJG HSG^+ Goe.GE WPLL 'NOTES: • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET'EXHIBIT 1'TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE FEATURES oaM • ROOM AREA CALLOUTS ARE BASED ON NET AREA.REFER TO OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ° " " "` - - A1.0.2 Newport Center Condominiums FLOOR PLAN-LEVEL B2 23 PA201¢213 Asn&meM PC 2-Pmjeal Plans ROOM LEGEND o Electrical o Elevator Lobby o Garage o Mechanical o Private Garage 12 11 10 9 6 ] A.6 fi fi 4 3 2 1 o RESIDENT PARKING o Resident Storage AN ADRIVE Service Lobby/Trash ma ©Stair �sy „a. ExoaEAn LINE — --- --- -- ----- — — A ���rr E a �I b ana f e�a„ea. 4 e I I _ _ tee• man., i ' ' C m.a I xw Las Las ' wwac 1 - WP f 4GE WPLL � 'NOTES: • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET'EXHIBIT V TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE FEATURES oam • ROOM AREA CALLOUTS ARE BASED ON NET AREA.REFER TO OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ” " �° M 1f -• A1.0.3 Newport Center Condominiums FLOOR PLAN-LEVEL B3 xn„d,e..•n.0 } 11111 N E f f CugngMw•audwNCNnp PA2014-213 Avacnment PC 2 Pmlect Plans ROOM LEGEND I Concierge o Corridor o Elevator Lobby o IDF GRrEcpcXERE cnrvoPr Exc�caEsevlmlxc o Lobby 12 11 10 9 8 T A.6 fi o Lounge vv o- mn mn »a xra o Mail Room ®Service Lobby/TfashyA O PAUL roRroP mE"cpT�cpiieeE Es'ilsE«Eeiis�, rvc o TH-1 r. P Goa r—TH-1.1 _ P o TH-2 ; p oTH-2.1 F o THA oTH-4 E r—THS ,, T o Unisex Restroom o " '� !Ess"Ar '161°sx. - mXl@NinYv �y Y"n`� .. A l F vmr } 1 mT 1'II 9 D ZLxSEsMK ._.1. ff m L 2 ewnmr — h mr� pwaa - Txa LLLL TH Txs TId 1Nd n • DUAN g ®I 4 4 b _W _ g w�w w �m I��.,.x., Al wax. s �g � , � s �I I I iiiii HIM - 0 O A7 milli OM III �A TILEVEflEpl� Ax�xPEPLM�R,LGxG I ZI w� RCXrtECNRPI. Laaa / *NOTES: • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET'EXHIBIT 1'TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE HARDSCAPE FEATURES 7 • ROOM AREA CALLOUTS ARE BASED ON NET AREA.REFER TO OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ° 's a s' n. . A1.1 ■ - . - ` Newport Center Condominiums FLOOR PLAN-LEVEL 1 } �1 II T M E!6 pubo WMw•SidNn re cNno• PA2014213 Attachment PC 2�PmfW PWns ROOM LEGEND ®Corridor o Elevator Lobby o IDF Service Lobby/Trash 0 Sial( yp yd Ld 3PA LA' SJ HId ytl o TH-1 o TH-1.1 xnttx C A D TH2 m o TH-2.1 I T_ =TH4 I i i =THS MSF L � k I I ^ � � � IM WnNpt Yn I I I I g r' _ �L51, $_ 6 211iawarew i R x t I I I I I I a° a -�=��—T �---�-—�---a�-—�--tea----� --�---�---- - - I I I I I I I I I I I I I *NOTES: • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET'EXHIBIT 1'TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE FEATURES r „ • ROOM AREA CALLOUTS ARE BASED ON NET AREA.REFER TO OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ° >> A1.2 ■ • . - ` Newport Center Condominiums FLOOR PLAN-LEVEL 2 } �1 II T M E!6 pubo WMw•siSNn�e cNno• Yypmanm.mm 20 PA2014213 Rtl hmenl PC2-Project Plans ROOM LEGEND o A.1 o B-1 o C-1 o Corridor o D-1 12 11 10 9 � 8 7 A6 6 5 TT 2 1 moo• as o E-1 v< I�Elevator Lobby V0' a a o OF I I I I I I I I I I I Service Lobby/Trash �warexw o Stair __—__ __—__ i Tr Y I m< PL I —�oMa — — E — — — — — w moa F, k MR , r ' tt �r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I *NOTES: • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET'EXHIBIT 1'TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPEHARDSCAPE FEATURES r • ROOM AREA CALLOUTS ARE BASED ON NET AREA.REFER TO OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS a 1e >> AL3 ■ • . - ` Newport Center Condominiums FLOOR PIAN-LEVEL 3(4-5 TYP.) } �1 II T M E!6 pubo WMw.suSNn re cNno. Hypmanfmxm PA201¢213 Attachment PC 2-Pmjecl Plans ROOM LEGEND o A-1 o B_1 o C-1 ®Corridor oD-1.1 12 iT 10 9 B ] A.6 6 5 4 3 2:. 1 o Elevator Lobby '°4 °O o IDIF a vw o Pool Equip Rm I I I I I I I I I I I I I Service Lobby/Trash —I.a- Stair I I I I I I p1` I I II t 1 -1—I III rtL — a - ry <� - II Y. a t IL 1 — I k v� ru m � � t �J �tI •oo.�� —� I I A i �, sF I I 1 fie` „ e I I II - - - - a -�- - I I -a A.5 I Im I I I I 1 I Grp A I I I I may *NOTES: • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET'EXHIBIT 1'TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE7HARDSCAPE FEATURES 7 „ • ROOM AREA CALLOUTS ARE BASED ON NET AREA.REFER TO OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS a �° ”' AL6 ■ - . - ` Newport Center Condominiums FLOOR PLAN-LEVEL 6 } �1 II T M E!6 Iwbn PaMw•siSNn�e cNno• �'J YyPma.mfmm 2fS PA2014213 Atichmenl PC 2 Pmlecl Flans ROOM LEGEND o Club Room ®Corridor o Elevator Lobby 0 Fitness o ff-2 wa nn am ma aII vo o IDF mII fvn• o I-ZIs. I I AIIIA PA D Service Lobby/Trash ©Stair L'"e ery Ph_ - t- -- I LA I � 86 , p am9 aFl1196f p II h WI c r I I k .viw�rF t. wPwmo�rs m i �L _ g x I, I IL A �_ 9II A.1' meq ti.p "NOTES: • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET'EXHIBIT 1'TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPEJHARDSCAPE FEATURES • ROOM AREA CALLOUTS ARE BASED ON NET AREA.REFER TO OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS a le 1.1 . AL•g ■ • . - ` „Newport Center Condominiums �.,wpor,p, FLOOR PLAN-LEVEL 7 } �1 II T M E!6 pubo WMw•aidNn re cNno• v^^� �vI PA2014-213 Arcacnmem2-PmjeCMans 1S 11 10 9 8 ] A.6 6 5 4 3 2 1 ID•+11P.'n' EN S FAOMPVEM(' sEaae A D V pEuvi.r�. p lry uIMSU MEPN.SEA �'. EE N`r LIN� I I ee LINE II, a` II ! I o EF IIIIIIIIIIp 'I L PL F1 T•& I .ME ME� �• �EEgo �Ea�o .,.o ME� n E. El 7ri - I1 - 29, 9tl ffINX I I I I I I LEGEND: MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ZONE MECHANICAL SCREENING 'NOTES: • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET'EXHIBIT V TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE FEATURES ow., • ROOM AREA CALLOUTS ARE BASED ON NET AREA.REFER TO OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ° " " '° "` - - q1.9 ■ " . - ` Newport Center Condominiums xn.,d,e..•n,u ROOF PL4N +�A•r x e�s a..wnaw.s,m..ncn..o. 30 .. .. .. . i.. .. .. ..7■ �� 7 1/■1�1//1�1■���� ��I � -==1 -_-=1=_ -- --! I �I ����■1�1//1�1//I�_I//1�1.. �i�l i�b95 ■■ti99 . ti�i9 . �19ti�, Sic 9i' !7�'■� � � I �■y�' S� y� ����� ��� ����� ���i'i ■■! a� ■ a1la��!!la��a!!a■ ll��!l��I�IIa■�I�w1��1�11�11I��at■all��_■l��aa� !1[a��SIFa�.�!1!a�a!�!a��'�i ti�iiiil■Illl�llll�lllll�l�iiy� ■■s��,■■sl!s��:na��a� �Iaa��u�����:a ■wu.�aani�aaa' aal��u��ull�■�ICa'�nEa��e!u ��■sa I■■ ■■� '�^ ii iii --- - i i�iw � � i■■� iii--- ii■�i _ - �ti'���y'�����y�■■II�III�I11�11T■R--T �����y'����"����■■���'II�!r�"�!��■.��'���■.. _ - !■■aaa �■■:Ila ana__a a■ as u__;.afaiI■■! ■wuw�w!ewwsat.!■■::.. aa__u.!■■ella ■!!: ■!!a■■!_aaa■■� - i■■I�til ■■111 ��� ���■'� 11 11 f!■i■I■�I �I�II ■�III�Ii■■1� �� �� �■■I�11 111 111■�■� 111■i■I - . t�I■■ "�■■ " 'I ■I! I ', 1■II ■I■L�. ■w.■ . .w.I■■ IIII_' '1 III■■ 1I �.' ■I■II'� ■ri : 7lIY� ,r /ns__:/ __/a/.,� ■/_ ■■ //a i1 rrlin���a�■r■" // a a■..�. LL! _ 91J le/ it s/r 1 .1r ■it � IWWI Ise mo! fly .ice 1� a ='�.• _A` � �' •Iw� w1 "' I�I` • i �II£�Il.. .�I a' , • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET'EXHIBIT VTO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED r---L j • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS .. . LANDSCAPE11HARDSCAPE FEATURES A2.1 4:1 u11 1 1 11. u. u.l11l.� �d■�1 ILyyyi� °p ii■I i ii■■�I�■�ip Ii■y �jyy yyy yyyil-T pp ■i■I ii�i i•==0 8�'�i i3llS��'ItlE!!S'I'!!!��i��gat'i.�1 L■L■ L■ ■-7 ■.I u■I■.I'��8I�1■■ yy y' �lyy'I'111yy y�yr.1"°p".■+ I■■■■■ L■�_ !1l�-�-�- !!1�■ 7I • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET'EXHIBIT fiTiien,�.���fw ��^��w���n��4t`� `i�� ,•^ �! �:__�'� _��,...�.�i�_�=�II�111�:;II Il�:�=1■l,�:e�,E�:'�u..i�{ _. ��.� �" ' ��: . SHOW HOW THE BUILDING —�aaa�l i �fl�l��laa♦�� !�S la�l��laa♦ laal�il i lai_:�_ . IIh111'�"; ••■III;';I111■�■IIll�llli•�•'� � �'■"1111■'■1111■'allllp��•■III;;!!!:N•911 '. I�S_�IDfR.gii_i.a■Ld■■1 1■■1�1�■1��■� 1>a . .�:-ng■sl±s ai I�R�il�l■■.�1■■1�1■■1..1■L.�Ail•■M� ��1 ii116 1911 M�M11 SI g■■996 596 566�� �0 1 1 1 1 1A``iiilll 111 1111. 61 61." Idl 111..' ■■aas"I��aallr■■aa��sl�yi■aas,���a'��as■���I�I�III Ill�li■■asa��aaa�l�ew■��a���n■ill�•sa��l��•�:■.� ii556 166 iii�'1 11 iii156 . 596 966ii� 11 1 1 1 I If■ iiilll 111 Illi 11 11 Idl Ili�ii■ ■■5�����5��,■■aa�����, saa��:��: ������ ���� , ■aa��.A�l�■u ''�aa��ae ��.sa�����■ ii :Pq i—:4�i� i::y���,����u.:�����l�j�..�ll�ll�..� ii��i 1 iii■ �::111��1�����111• �I1��1�.,.�����1111���1�° ,� - � v �? � [¢ x911 + �1�. ■■ , :as__a■s _ssa.� �. ■ ■ ■ � �� .._..___a_I__a. a■__.ti. >n s7 +...sy`�^ , ��°` cif,�lEi3`azo`+.71-�.�.?,•��q�.�i�������.�������.�El���, ■�� i�n.wisa�"4 uu ��� i�' ''i aE ' `a�� ='F�i � _ li i _e ii i! .PiCi � e hi li®i' n' iii -'in� :hil li � • '��� 'iii..' ' gII,I'I'GIi1,iIM� ��f. _z .IIII�.I.. I�I779 _� � _, b�.,utilh..:F■.d..:.-.bpi 1 'IA�__C■■ i.3..�1A� � ■. JILL 71.r S:._.a ILi LANDSCAPE• REFERENCE DRAWINGS FOR • 1 PA2014-213 A1n&mem PC 2-Pmlest Pians I ILIL I — _ A L e i R 117 •. k hp 17 e I "NOTES: • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET'EXHIBIT 1'TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE FEATURES 4 '° - Az? ■ " . - ` Newport Center Condominiums por u WEST ELEVATION +e e e r x e�s m.wnaw.s•m..ncn..o. 34 � �� < <�e�.�a�t<kw■ k _ OFT 77�� .77 it IIIu7@@@II@@@7r1.� 3177 ,asa aaa„� ,- ,•..�,' E� io ui ui I a��Y~� ( -- I� 7AAAl11RRg71■� IrIINQtlCee� - !����Il�fl■III■I;- � • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET'EXHIBIT . J PA2014-213 AN chment PC x-Pryer Plans CC -- � l m _ _ _ _ �, a MMil V., I Al" Al-dVM6^ T � ]O t � f9T�S V rjH4 _ I'I a s ILII IIH "NOTES: • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET'EXHIBIT V TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE FEATURES n °" "" '°' "' «oar - - A3.2 ■ " . - ` Newport Center Condominiums por u SITE SECTION 2 a,lfya.a.r..M 3F� PA2014-213 AttaMmert Pc 2-Project Plans F IL - Ill EWPORT CENTER D 12 11 10 � T T Y' A.6 fi T T T T T I I I I I I I I -77 I - Vo - _uqul _ 61 eY� 0 Stab Al 0.1 Splr MB.1 � a 9 B TN/C—^ Bewb EMrem li a-le g e s`' Tl1 Mi Wunba 7X.21 - I -1Tl' e•V y• Twb - gic b � �,V•, F w bCCY I P. ` II�I�llI IIII M,.,, �oe,i ,mn, as „I.X, „,• o.,,b II III el plll Ill was+-9 dllill III II a.,.n. d.q. it mmr '� dw Fr.B. I, ebav ! II IIII : w � ,az aB PFSIOExi se xexrl nmm Lit � _ reassx.vuwxo esoEH7 I—I I—III—I—I I I mesv I Pexmxs 'i nePen Ixa c.,y. I I�nHHv I m,.e. nxxlxc i�1 cXwa I I=11I== I I EI I6 "NOTES: • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET'EXHIBIT V TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE FEATURES " `° "` abm - - A3.3 ■ " . - ` Newport Center Condominiums por u SITE SECTION 3 wvbr:.a.aoX 3 PA2014-213 AX amen PC 2-Purled Plare 6 6 7 I a, I I I I I I I —_—_—_—_—_— — r.: z : e x a --------�-- E., -- - - -� 71 — m S E., � e -- - n T. T" - e ma ma m< ,xs rxa{ ♦ .xa L — II lWj II—IL�II Earn. Ee,.Oe ""',,, ire e• E"M"-de, I E"",e°. Eara9a E.,,e. E-w• - - � -IIHHTIII n n,r.,. m.n on...e TF F HTr _ ;e xga E aP E y G nF ge Gv O wOe E iI�7lEflgtl I1=fT _ � ��� � T -- 1llW--�11�-,�T�I ,Fi�11,I�,�lI-11�,�ll,,, -11h-111,ill„Jl_L�,�f=i1Y=„ITi 1L-11t„W-L Il}-ll.f--�Il,,, L—I,II�111 LIL�if1=,1L-Q-111,-ll1—�11�Il-11� ID;LLQ-11�--„-11111„J�=11�W;—�W= - '<:�'S —Auld CSTa T "NOTES: • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET'EXHIBIT V TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE FEATURES °” °'” ”' "' A3.4 ■ " . - ` Newport Center Condominiums en.,dapor u SITE SECTION 4 AT LOWEST POINT +��e*x e E s maa.naw.s,m.ernen.ao. PA2014-313 AnacnmentP 2-PmjmtPians m� it x o .r, .,r ,br xa +.• A3.5 Newport Center Condominiums BUILLOING SECTION 1 39 ■�1 i 1 aro ' 777 ' II i yrs; I r � �� J■ r _ as_ p �- it I • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET'EXHIBIT VTO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPEIHARDSCAPE FEATURES A4.1 Newport Center Condominiums I ��� � ■/III�`�_�I,� Ali��� _ ��,r� - /I/II�� / II�� , ^ • � Il� 11 i' i..Hl' II. ... I( I �� /i/INS 'i i ■1111 11+ � 'q 11 ��!'zt..ic.■����I Imo' , ;a:�: � �.� - �J5 ' �" d p,l"I� , � s, � —•a� ` �� - �C'a..al �ii39�F-�. I IIS tea' r� • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS .. . LANDSCAPEIHARDSCAPE j$ A k y� t' I„ ��-CCC : ;\ `gas; ,Ij\ $�r,�,.� %• � q�)J� ,t a • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS .- . • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON . BUILDING ■-`I■I■ ' '�' �I h1' 1'�' 11■ - �/411■ . - t� I■■___- -'• -■ I _ _ �Ll■ '�I11_ 1'__It JI■■ 11 "I ■�■ 1 I■' i ■ I 11__ 1 _. C. IYa■ 9■■ ■■ Ill 0 1 ;1 loom �w��.�r' �•�aiJ r nra A DIAGRAMown IIIIII-wh • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR . �A� I I �� �� � � A�, � �; \ �� I� ��n���,I pP � � �. -y+ ■ �� � ��� =iiEu iii- � - � ■ 't:�l� �, __ _ - C L ,w� - .moi, ��� .t. - � ; �i iii �3' j, ��� h i� � _. i '�'i3 _�F� . . ® -. .-.•• PA2014313 / AnacnmentP 2-PmjmtPlans P. U. UM P. s i I g 3bmg B -Asa ID —319-8�� ,fx R �v —I_ �e 0o8r'9 va wW/ns,eeu �`- �OBFIGIX Sx !IY I I I I I I I of F 777 -- --�-- — I — �f� N<It I1 I1 T 6'V l9T.d V 1 �;�d I ,'•I� I � I I' I � I I �A 1�(5—_�_ ier s-& I I I �t C u liPoR4 6Wnxea,la- lnl q�LL41W5Et9+LY.f&NEPoPJ' 77 _r I l�ww l wl rmll HI IL�11- - ll l._1L �-+I HIM — �II.-JI ellen reYv eavw I- llGlll-I�II�IIII�r11 � I.I i I I-1 e, I II II -w I I II II-II ID __ , l STI 111-m-- m - -- dlFlu-w_ I I. il-r�I�FIILIu-u Hu III= �IIF�-II�I�II II-ILII-II-III-Ilr III-111 X11 Ildl-I�-I I�� k�!I��Hm,llr,iil--,�IwI�11ITll�l lll�l-_� I111�7 �iL=�lil'i1i-i-rr-I-m11-1�r�mwmlwRur�l�� =w-I�InI-II-ILII II-u�I�- HII-III_ I�II-IInIn11=1F-I-IF r=rr�—gym_—m-m�rr�m�rc �7i�lll—�l�.m�rl�r�n�m�r . .n�TER�WE-9JlinNG9�K a.a� �E.e 9 9 Asa ,P�eP�r�E.e �w 9 was -0„PeoP�n l E-WNG� EXHIBIT I Newport Center Condominiums PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS-SECTIONS 1 JT PA2014-213 AtIMmert Pc 2-Pmiecl Pians - IF ANACAPA DRIVE _ o e FIFMMI —_ _ re wwavmo-: � soaaaars PIL � I � fI w _ ____ ____ ___ ____ __ n ro-� fic� I I 7—i�Iii lil—Iii�Iil=T I � , 11-IlrIIL=II-III-IIL—IIL= I I — nlnm = —fl~I I ��II �lI�11-1 I SL=oLE - — _ = — dTl-m—I m�J7L— =7L— Em—I —ITI-iTEliL=1 EXHIBIT 2 Newport Center Condominiums PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS-SECTIONS 4c PA2014-213 At cement Pc 2-Project Pians 1 , y F I 1 -- Mme no otl3 li0 fi l e9a re sb e. -. fiP n� �'"�1 lit aPo z cry_m c e o PYNNAts Roo vNs ., ttr ter =1t eaM� EXHIBITS Newport Center Condominiums SHADE&SHADOW STUDY(EXISTING) +e•e*x e m s o..wtnaw.s,m..tncn..o. 1 PA2014-213 AVe mert Pc 2-Pmiecl Pians En l E%HIBITO ■ " . - ` Newport Center Condominiums poru SHADE&SHADOW STUDY PURPOSED) +e�•r x e�s wxmw�naw.s,m..nce..o. /� epyo¢.,azm em l g PA2014213 AIDD meat PC 2-Project Plane ANACAPA DRIVE a EMS AND BAN MACAPA AS LUC7� �T— y _ ap`$ DReVETMa sIIIIrsr�wn�o�`,`ANT f`. �s s i� �,�` ��s,w.sEo,E,usp,7xcE.BE Em.cr66O�c BE REPAIR PER BE. `NNA,�ASIA JI a6EE.EBNA MEEIN dPUSEC Pl PEI BE ANA APA DRIVE SEE HI NP E 57 7B PIPPIN ME�II� .1 d° 49g 1 ,p38 �f 0r AEN�N ED, s l —)SEE AN "PEAll H 11 r LEVEML GI.A .50 LLl ' � •ESA" "� � LOYIBt L GNUGE�13f dBr T-ro I E' LEGEND BEENNE— ,N BANE W 4°C•� I kl7 I _ ° �7 Ilfl Z 85 9 ED PDA. 3 _ xfa}e s; "O fgdA'iF 'P6Ri °f8{ �.�c� xM Qr .. BENCHMARK w u�.BE .. BEN cHNA6x esxAns AZ E - t7Bl BE—SEEK cE-.E-73 EARTHWORK= uo.nc x¢wEar:N 3 3/4. wnwcu. sr cm w Awnu EYPoPi 51.606 CY NEAo.M—I SET PD' ED W vrtM mE SmEWILE 1""� 5[M[. Et.0 Newport Center Condominiums FUSCOE _ E w..,o,E �n,� CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN •"'.""'"•.mm } e A 11 T M E 11 5 4� PA2014-213 Atlacbment PC 2-PmjecT Plane EI ITT ATH xvx Esus Ao. RICER HIxax - n. nT•+paw,,itn v uFI DRIVE ANA 'APA I IT .� a mOTT ,....... - r o , ... _. 33 wf _ a �5 _...... .:r r.: .._�_.... IT0 _c i I I W TO Q EOR - 8 T c t o.-ARE — Ed__Ft16 Q. r F F ARE E rP4V ESE MOYEe /` 'KATNER .rz T�Sx U ( oo , • • • • mE�O / 'rvv-ovEl THE suLL eE 1a2)) 1• • • i Sc. Ili' iaT�nuu ga eLE ar Ell mrx c __1 LEGEND - PER 1. NO AAR \ w :__R Z 'EI M. SEWER CONSTRUCTION NOTES WATER CONSTRUCTION NOTES STORM DRAIN CONSTRUCTION NOTES O w1-EENEvxEBifY�En4mx T TEE EED uIEML�iOOGnoN enoCry TO enEow THE Q E strep wrSEx sEIMCE.o SE KwWAEO.r win O mxEP ro Ewsix<awverz oeax 9.Six >owsm an ssAE urEu OR sm-.os_L FTER TIT on.it suas+uruRn.urta+L sway O rw PRETTEARED 2' a iRREGAn ENMETER s�Es AI O PwPow xRo EJEATE A UuiT HER ATER.wATEx Tu+nwr A EARE. QPI—E.e'EWER urzRra 0 lFTA.EE I FIRE uRxEE —HE.Pm sm.El-L Q TRETRAI x iaam.nax azcxnnx -�`S�e @ PRERO5M a AE ERWNO mU/ao EdwauNO METER/eacxREW AROEHOUT ORREF..a EAJ a c AREA.— tl AT OwowSE KAT ix mR VALVE x� Q aR 1.FIRE oE11.ra,N.N. Q..0 Newport Center Condominiums FUSCOE . 5E x..,o,x .n,� CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN �D PA2014213 JAtlaMmen PC2-Pmlett Plans ANACAPA m..._ DRIVE r uc I wt�,ewrtx m«wc III envw � � a�� �I I uN111 u ilRll R. SECTION A _-- Z vF` RIR KEY PLAN sEre.c.'u,",E�I wm.xn�a PL u R/W R/W I uss is.s S'f�Yan 2.. b'.�sa N ICA u¢ 25 PL3 24t j Imnm`aur� �urnwwn' .x e. z.r rr o spzawExn .1 RED— I cwE=ws a a s 5.n s3 a T e3o��m I SECTION S 1 n'"N' rooxw,wx zzrnw P01N°""o"sEmox SECTION D r=i szawa m SECTION C -� /� C3.0 FCOE ��F Newport Center Condominiums SECTIONS r`I1 PA 014213 Aro chment PC2-Pmject Plans -1y m i View 1 - Existing Conditions View 1 - Proposed Conditions MVE Newport Center Condominiums FU$�DE N,,,.,. „.�. VIEW SIMULATIONS - VIEW 1 • • �Lss. } I L N L R L PA 014213 Aro chment PC2-Pmject Plans 1 14 OL kk REDO r ij.. r View 2-Existing Conditions View 2 - proposed Conditions fi FUSCOE Newport Center Condominiums I,,,, ,,,, ,,,, .......�.� VIEW SIMULATIONS - VIEW 2 PA 014213 Aro chment PC2-Pmject Plans A LY View 3 - Existing Conditions View 3 - Proposed Conditions MVE Newport Center Condominiums FU$�DE N,,,.,. „.�. VIEW SIMULATIONS - VIEW 3 • • �Lss. } I L N L R L PA 014213 gluah MPC2-Project Plans View 4 - Existing Conditions View 4 - proposed Conditions i •r r FUSCOEW ` Newport Center Condominiums .� VIEW SIMULATIONS - VIEW 4 PA2014213 �� AVa mert PC 2-Pmje Plans i `" I- -- --- -^ -- -- --- -- ^- ❑ ❑ 4- ( i 1 B }—r f r- / d / sw ;. E%.FH _ Newport Center Condominiums ` FUSCOE µ yE m e U, FIRE HYDRANT LOCATION EXHIBIT PAzoiazla x mem Pe z Pmleea PPII LEGAL DESCRIPTION. w...,v A.+e,�..ewA..w,a�.• TITLE CONSTRAINTS ANACAPA OHNE n \ \ n m e e TITLE REPORT:o�Am,e.,a..mm. ....mrnuu wn ww unmmauvm u....u.a.a®.®.e ma..w wamA / El 11 P B —T.. a .G..a. � I ¢ lo: � / � — PARC9LA e PARCEL / PA1$%1 _ p D PAIKCL 1 f r U D l(f`j �\` PAPCEL 8 () (f\J lJ a. AA...e.a / E%ISTING ELEVATIONS RECORD BOUNDARY NOTE: s«.,..9..a..m..<.. .wo o....e J� LEGEND: BENCHMARK: /✓' mmwnm o..o-. m.R n� 1 21 , MAP M TITLE CONSTRAINTS ����a���� 6a l;�l�=FUSCOE �o� A. PA2014213 AVachmI PC 2-PNEjWCL PIans ABBREVIATIONS NOTES: PAVING LEGEND PHMMtlWlId' E51ff'%e" "w r M AM PIT R.P.Mvb.11,ve ml N,g9 A—, yrygy Xl I ..I. TRLUM A. MEN., LfrAll 4[G SEC. AEA AMER PANE W AL1 Nm1�e•iuA a nm1 UNI EMs Ibea aim,--°m n2M Nl! PMCiH (IA1WL NEAWAIYeI) SM m Y4 A Aee I.®sY M ewly xm!iMm eRM PANIM CINENSIMAL IIXII iW w OINFN90NAL UNIT PAPA OVER.MENNVNR RATED 9ASE MA�FPJAL — — u MARx TINE RaRMRI ® O PAVER:MAMMAL RPUTALL� Wame Im°�ilp°-,N A—I m.m ull..,e Pimp r°neee.a mr ee w+L" : I 5 W.ro.e Mqx Rm m�Hµ.-.m.. eTM M SMR Wu 3 RE emxe�x INnl�—I e°wm mm I,—ene CWRnPRO pAwx4 OIYENSIM11 R Ro EIENMMAL UNIT PAVING M MATEN o MIT PAMNC.PAMR rO MEET — — imeP bbllel lAe A.Nmv E.. I rM O PIIM.MAMMAL MINE BC ERIFWW ME CC611.N. El a CLF "E`S PER IAR(MCN'I.M IFMAIENst m—yu A MN N 1 " x YA,A.me a" nM CwMRFMK��1.AEAM - me Mme^ w°IP E..m m P.mr m PRIVAM..AY dXA"."I REAR RO wRW,LL 1.CONCIEIE w/EIMANCLO IN.M.SAM ai ANIS — — IGAWFNII» xme.n ANNA me—a'eeM. N O pAwxc c 111 P.E.RUER IEU PUR tELARIEXUAmmv ImIR - PAEP Imp emxvm1wR.ma w a AI 21 PURIM 9%wlLf C.LF ttNWLIC dM1 PAMC ME.COLOR,AND FRI TO WIa EXRPAQCW WEM ADEAALN .1. PAMPA' -'T mLl.NuvRM" Rbleem Ixmlm qm.I A,A�Wa ee qe fm�Wel IAM W,M � � PAwxc X IAE Aw".UNS) 1. ^rvu gw APAP bwn qe M°Ymm e.INI'xw'AAA'°• [^ ENTRAP.rWT uGLRYwp P. r xnpt—UAN WENAL 4N£PAVING OWMSiEAAL MET R IBU DIRNSONAL UNIT PA.OVEP P.TRAN RAR G4 NAMRVL PEA Re pmPmA ANI'EMEN'Mvue x qL E-1-IPANI ® O PAM,EMZMAL -- — '' wA 1°.m1R. R RW ee E. MPA IxI SUNRRrAR� me RA. SR�)AD SRRXC pIMENS MAL LU LT R RD EINEEMMAL UNIT PAHA MEP,PWESRMAN RAR Mff MATERIAL MM EAR(EMPLAIM) IANDSCAPEAREA QUANTITIES: � O AN° EPA PEEL HIuiws MSM" PAXND ExxANCED C4P. W MI INMWAL MW COI w/WANOM I MU VIW ar lM M HIpI PPM PALMMR IWANERLRI W .—I PtlhRMET I RW.rT CpifF ll, PECf.MN%N64 LL AMERM v R.L6V. RAAwxrtviY mlu em•An �, IRUNGR Op85 TAN R M MA Alp WC CWRI WI MUNE R o9E WVMXC SRIPLIMA : — — UR PER - IOCE IDLORMEN HNNAE) ALM AN NNEN'(GMM M1) Y P m /� ANAM.LhU55 mALN CMCREIf Wr R RRO MEIWLAR RAR DIMENSIONAL UNIT PAViA OVER VEHIPLLAR RAR DAX NAM,A- NET A PART (\ PAVERS NAIFPoIL R RATE,,RAaWmrtR Wm D. pPSR[N.u1WI,MGMEMENO RM P.WD 11 sawlM I1.1 NE.ANMRRNT) AMAE MENWALL LEGEND ME PEA v PAEAIE"EERY Alit W N 119AC#➢UX) SHOOL xEY Nd NAIWIN "C" PNfll 16NNIX9 Lf TAIL 4R'.9EC WA5 PGMEIER REI.VtlXG / R CD MA.YARY.SEE EAYOUi PLAN MEENR PzMwsEA.T..UEEr.Sua T nuL C 1® — — XTT 'd INAMPLATEwwIK P CWRtteL9 WALL CMl D@IE w{ iN1 IND Ay lALL WNL EPNEEE W6 O LLPLtHG R T11 WMR(Ante'D[VAMM) EXRRY ffAi wNt GW CME X/ R M R M'TALL%Ar WALL TE€ TR EE aTEM APAR�NIPL fE I, IM.' WS Rz — — TRTPTNUALL / MEN SOCUL'PAtE SEAR RD W. RO W 14L sAr WNL — — YPLL SHEET INDEX ® � "I PaxvflE suns I I PWPAE. RW PANWTI MANUEL — — — GENERALSHEETS REFERENCE SHEET NAME PL MREA MALL pN CRE w/ R M TED HE l R WAAO W IMAL M-sNNCnM TRAIN.1EPIH AVNLAMIF. O a.PXNDR L0.0 NOTES SE LAYOUT LEGEND LOT PLANTING PALETTE SITE FURNISHING LEGEND LO..2 PLANTING PALETTE (CONT.) 1. KEY mu MAMMALMXISN. aMaas WrAIL sEC XC. MATERIALS AND LAYOUT PLANS o sR wMY XXW Rw R WLW reo — — — REFERENCE SHEET NAME L1,0 MATERIALS &LAYOUT PLAN O sa ALAR Por TM PLANTING PLANS 11Au POT Mo R reo REFERENCE SHEET NAME o ss L2.0 PLANTING PLAN STAR HANIIAIL M R reo — se SS MVA CWRIYNW EAR TURN RNER, NVAR CW"AN, REM 1RI PREI R dlVFp MI FRAMLE WS ELEMENT,SRiPI qi PLANRO ® sfi WFL[ POT. CWRIYYN. RMI MR RRO (p S1 ® o MILES RMI RAM IXO — — — ""A1RR RMA RPO • 49 �RO ® �....ee.,. s e e e ee.R,�•e1 Newport Center Condominiums NOTES AND LAYOUT LEGEND } WIW TMFWS Pert n WaWnF 4NINN.ua P 2 lana TREE PALETTE HEDGE PALETTE SM00. MTNIIC NAME pA1XM XANf CMLNX[A iMY/BRANOWA'G V4 NIXIMIM YA CETAIL A5 XVCIXS RFNA9R5 SH9CL BpiAIYC XOHF [V�TWAND I NAME CIXITAIXLA LdIN/tl'iµLHXIG U4 MINIMUM Off WAIL A6. WW:OLS FEMNMS NBDA JIIU%159N EBY.IM£ 1811 $lIgE 1FllKK WJRIY.IPD IIl1 N/A MECINI FULL.MATCHED.DENSE GRDWIH, %D1$N.'GREEN CFM' 1'XYBPIp 1H1 LOW BRANOMNG FALL FRANC Mp N/A L%Y NLL/SYMMEtRIGAL IN NURSERY AND/pR PREMIVM$ELECT GRAVE SPECIMEN EMSIffCLE CONTAINER: PREMIUM SMOT GRADE: REFINED FREE OU ALIIY,SYMMEIRICA4 WELL- DENSE GROVTi WELL-ROOiEV: As ROOTED.AS NURSERY TAGGED AND FIELV-ACCEPTED BY LANDSCAPE FIELD DEMAENA LRAM FRAl.1R% Oe NOF 5%'RE RAW MIRTYAW IHR N/A WRY LOW ANCXNECiEPLEV BY LANDSCAPE gRCXBEC I. Q ACCENT LED UM d 1fNAID 1W LGW BPNIL111NG MEpUN HFIGMi IBC N/A MEDIUM 'IfYAND., NESSE HEMS Q RDWERGEMUX Mtw 1.1111" 181 SUNNI KYPoRT rtNIFR TM N/A -I SE L41O5CµE MEA9NA AFACANA ABROADNWASS TWO LOW BRANCHING LOW NESSE RC BOA LDW gyKiEp IEDGE qEA SIIRL@EA SXAN 3K.FEL TYPED EO WLP-1RVNY MJRIYNN HRR DO N/A NOW HLL FRURE55 WVF TACE DOWNS CAAGINIANA D TOR DO LGE BRANCXING NEMIN XEGXT IBC X/A MEDIUM WORTAND PENY CINA TEM£ EDGE dBY ,^� PCDIXOI IIANI ASORA RRN PINE IBD STANFORD NEWPORT NER AN 1M. N/A NEDIUY jfwvl`L$ ALO BU%ER GROUND COVER PALETTE CUMUAI WIATA AFRICAN ICP DOE IBD GRIND. 9REGNEN// . N/A MEDIUM S MMOL BOUNBC NAME GRED.NAME MiTAIXER DOMMUMAN'. U4 MIN6.IMUM SEE RETAIL AMUSED REMAINS UNDB LAUMSCAPE SACdAR15 ENLAY, 'PIGEON PUNY NRIU Ip SPREbpHG GROJIpCDVfR 1AU X/A LOW FULL/SYMMETRICAL IN NURSERY g6ipi 'NCEON PONT DWORF COYOTE RUSH DENNIS CONTAINER: PREMIUM SELECT GRADE: DENSE GROAFM WELL-ROOIEO. AS iAfr1ADA MRPGNCSI %NN TRUMPET FREE TONS DEAN. ANACTA 1.1M N/A NEOXUY FIELF-ACCEPTED BY LAN 05CAPE DUAL1NffDAE) TREE/ ANCWTECL NDCIMNT O 1ANTANA'NEW WXDE NAINSIRD 1W STEDMAN GOROWVER IBD N/A LOW IANrANA CORMCLONST TYV.WA PPU TNI FREE RO SNEIMED PNMMPA IDNE1 IW N/A RED. MMINST 4101IG DERIDE BRIE MUMM M 1W SPREADER GAWWCOW, RD X/A LGW 0.OUXCCOVER SHRUB PALETTE VINE PALETTE SDIBG COiAxlc xAME MUNI MANY cCMUNER FGEY/NMYOUMG IS: III ME NEW.A6 CORMS REUMXS ®AGAPNRMRS'SNOW NOW 1.FRAM. FOR RAfNMN @GY SNDED RED N/A NMW NLL/SVMMETRI CAL IN NURSERY SHBLL SMANC NWf MANN NAND LMTAINER BROTENICHIRG 14 NIMMUY 9S MEAIL REE. WYOLS. #MARKS SIGN' LY-Ci-ME-NAVE IMIZOIES %ANTN6 ERNCONTAINER I PREMIEN SELECT GRADE: USTI BUSSINARRA BCW]-ARD TRUMRi 1M STAND NINE NINE MD N/A MEDIUM NLL YNN ICAC IN NURSERY IRELD-VENSE GROWTH. B LLANDSCAP 4s R. / CONTAINER. PREMIUM SELECT MAX. ARCHITECT By LANDSCAPE nacw lECT. DENSE MORITA B LL-RDUTAP AS ® V YE AIIFNUAIA JAREGAID)EDMTNL MD 9MAXENI MORD IW N/A AOW NELO-ACCEPTED BY LAN OSC APE 'ygglEGAlb' AGAR RANTN6 ARLHITEL i. fIWS PEYILA LRQPWG f1G / STARED NNf WNL MIFENNIG IBD X/A MMUM ®AGAVE$UE FMK' 'BLUE PIAMEXRAID FIG GRADIENT SXRIB ROD N/A LOM AGAR %ANTNGS TURF ®LAIANLRINA ROLR PULEAW TRY MODR ED SURAD 1%1 N/A NDi LISTED LRANDILORA BLAND. LOW SIMBRL ADDED HOE MF4 CONTAINER FORMA AXCXIXG I R4 MINIMUM SCE RETAIL OF MEDLS PEMNMS AATDOAL NE IBD MA TURF YA'AFM N/A USTRUMAN ORBIWLATA'I WRY SHELL'FIBER FIND 91COAENT SEND N/A SUN®'IVpRY SHELL' %GS GR PANTNGS ®MPXCRBIA "A'TNAS FORE, NO xi SHRUB TM N/A NUT URI IEVCCttNfRq:'CAT NIMOi®A MN11NC5 Dry LOW TAILS' EVPNCANA TRUCNLI FNEC.; RC GBOUENI S4AN0 1N) N/A MAY LOW ROSEA' PIAUPNCS ®NVNCHRE WMF'NP TW UAd'H%RID WE 9UCCUENT SINEMN RD N/A XOi L JL.- 'P, PA COLE END EDMUNDS OR IEICEIXNpIGASPP. EEl@MIDRM TSG WCWY SHRUB BAN TM N/A LFW EDMUNDS ®PIIIMPORIN WHELI IRM, UBO WCWY SHRDB VAN.. BE N/A X/0. NEEDLED,DWARF FNRlp%TRAROORM NUMUNDS ®BEHIGf%5 NOILA 'CLORP FORD&MAN TBD WCWY MEND SHRUB TED N/A NEIIRN 'LIARA' XAWDIOPoI PIANTNGS 10.1 MW Newport Center Condominiums PLANTING PALETTE FA } W I R T M F R S xaxE G, n CMS.. AI GY-UP, v^� Ayvn T.AD, �J PA2014213 ANaOomeM PC Y Pmjecl Plans SOFT SUCCULENT PALATTE STBGL aoinNM xPNE fAMax"NE 9s EfNN/HVeNGwxc uY MIIBNN 4d DETAIL W NLW.. MNANNO q"I MIDDRUN '9NNµµ51'ry\gAA N1 SUQUIFNr SUGCNL NI-WN 1&; N/A L. NLL/S NNETRICAL IN NURSERY 'YM9URST' AWWM GRTON. A CONTNNER; PRENIVM SELECT URAUE: GENS,GRD.O WELL-RWiEU; CM'-NLD AND ATOM W s..RNwc ALMON 1]W' N".AYGGU... p1 SUIXULENT SUGi0.dr-WY 9G N/A LGW AR FEL-A.IDTTEU aY LANDSCAPE GA0.NLLGYFR CT ALM NAGUUTA DOM AGE p1 SUtl}LLENr EUCMAFNI-µC . N/A LM GACUNGGG. ALM VARIECATA TUR ALM DUWILDIT DOMENT-µR 1&; N/A LGW GIDMOD EN CRAMLLA AAGENIEA CCN PACT NM PLANT N1 SUWRENT SUCCLIENI-NIX 1® N/A L. 'CRGSEY'5 CGNPACT AROM PAVER COTY;FGCN gtµCULATA 1MRY 916L'NIB(0 LOW )N1RY YELL' I.,EpR GAOIXCCGVDN 11I1.1..'N dNll{WY£YA $1 SuI sucpALNT-WX DID N/A LIAY LGW cROWGGJVM [cx[VEreIA&u[AGY' VIMre05E xYRAN #1 SIIWJIfNr sULCULTNr-NIC .1 x/A LGW fNs ANN CHICKS cA0.WGCGVEA ECNEVERN MIL. 'F4AIE KH µ1 111 N..,-.x TOO x/A L. NIMVERC NGATNUEM HYNNIG DUN GC. EWII6AA ENI A CANTS"MIIrt WX aWGNYSRIG B1 SJI SUIXfAl.F W N/A LGN aWG' EWIMAA GR0.W.. GRAPTCPEuwN WGSr RANT #1 SUMUMNT SU6Y4WT-WN IM N/A LGW PAR AGUAYENSE GAWN0.'GVFR PAM"YNN NIXMDI WES p1 SUMMENT SUCCULENT-uIC M, N/A NOT LI OwERUN GRdING[GVER 1. SEOUN AUPRRIAE ITOWAOP S7 SUWRENr DUCMII1i-YIC M' 111 1. CACUICCGVEA SENPERNWN'If5.11, N HMID ..LENT DUCWLENT-NIX RG N/A LOW IIVE-EW-EVFR GRWNOCOVER YxPFANwu YMTFM' WRME"MIo #'1 SUDIULSNT sUCtl1L.1w IW N/A LGW LIYF-FW-EVER GAONAM VER LU.3 Newport Center Condominiums PLANTING PALETTE MW } W 111 T N F E b xaxaert n oaWnF 4wPr.+nss �O PA2014-213 Attachment PC 2-Project Plans PAVING LEGEND snaca uv irz. Ow r vvac Omxrv.ree a.vx, OPoria w wnr Owwc voe."tx 11 lll�NI�s^ m. tm rtsawauRmav P o sm.sA vnI o vam WALL LEGEND. mm. iry ��\i 1 _ m I swea xry itstwu,ry ws M/ � O ""reu ctw TfP. ryP. TP. rv.RU W. L'C sPo Il 9 yn a9 tm. m wn nr .OL 1 \ —� O 95 TMP ssni u Lj FIFE:167.50 w.a ff"t Po 9' I m of%PURIMOW nemw xeu I m O SITE O FURNISHING LEGEND rw�a° O O URR Poi O a r o m ror �wsowfavwM 'vVA wIYAI uvtuvrran LL tumv"rn � mor�wr�aeoao im° � rrv. wav"n cownneo aww mem a asx2cmRuww. rr°. m LLo O msrv.m um a 0 x Oca."Re N m .ciEN. v 11 n: x NO0.1M� L1.0 Newport Center Condominiums LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN PA2014-213 Attachment PC 2-Project Plane TREE PALETTE HEDGE PALETTE w wuw ..w, re,o M ossmwa rsrA. ems+. "oMom IRI sw,"v�r'01wircwA°�eo reu—Ui.,xIII.T wmm RRx:.wo r� rw. w.. p ._.. .._.._.._.._.._.. .._.._.._.._.. ._.. GROUND COVER PALETTE —1 w mr. ............ _.._.._.._.._.._ ._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._ U.r =7=7a •au >�aar nam�w.r.mwo / isM"I6 "w""u —I'M"m �. o ,rw .R e SHRUB PALETTE t. awo SOFT SUCCULENT PALATTE 99 .-I OF-11E NLE ®swMas W.w ri,n --M IMI ITIRO1w.11 I `� oFFE:167.50 -- �"M .tw �RWtm�M .,a ® r."wt u"c M.aut.° �rw a .a . -l..ra n� rwa "ate�xrz. aMr„r��r .u-,I.. rore—. ,w��.r.�wM.��.,ate MANme MIT— rownro� ®owns, i ®*� �.ta..Mt wg� .tµa"TI� II w"c 'w".xewc»reIw I. �s ®�weo.,Ml .r o WR „a z M, o eRrtuertuP ®aaww .wr w. w &� .rcxs tawt z A0 MAL L[U'.. w su " VINE PALETTE w s...rs J ♦vcxrtEcr✓wwu� � � K o �se M mnesroewoo O O O auuu wnL p 1— ®IIM axNu WCPS ceiKK J 2 w TURF `^ sr axru'. o ,” s: w. r:" .;r`, aar�w,r mw L20 :c'A^•`a "•^'• ,,,,.. Newport Center Condominiums PLANTING PLAN0 � MVE� n o°8MM.h, n VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17915 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE M. STATE OF CALIFORNIA MODEST ME AUGUST10, 2015 EX M PER f RUSUS NO. 25 ...... X PR VICINITY MAP ffL ------- DOE -J::- ::-_.-m_,_::,.� ------- - ------- ----- -- -------- ------ - V, I.......... ............. ....... --.-t-......................... ANACAPA DR r I. SITE ADDRESS 150 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE 282 e�, --- ---- A..... ill VI NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ............ ...... .... PER E UB,NO. RESUB NO 82 AREA y 1.9 1-1 1 11 D" " . e -,-. GROSS AREA 54,687 BE(1.25 ACT ................. . ........... C, UCNIC�L NOTES r---- j_ L LNI 6 23 1 A ZZ I. EXISRNG USE: CAR WASH (TO BE DEMOLISHED) ff J _-P! 2. PROPOSED USE: 7 STOW RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITH 3 STORIES OF UNDERGROUND PARKING (49 RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS) SrV! 3. NO NEW PUBLIC UTILITIES ARE PROPOSED. SITE TO UTILIZE EXISTING PUBLIC ML UTILITIES IN PLACE, A 4. SEWER DISPOSAL SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED BY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH -—------- 5. THERE IS NO PROPOSED PUBLIC AREA UNDERGROUND:�zi- ------- eole S. THERE 15 PROPOS 0 BOTH SIDES OF ANACAPA DRIVE J! `J 112 J. SITE IS NOT SUBJECT TO INUNDATION OR STORM WATER OVERFLOW LEGAL DESCRIPTION K AT. BE WALKWAY O=OE AYLISHED I: S THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SIRTATED IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE tl EX 18' (', , . OF CALIFORNIA,AND 19 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS WALKWAY PROP. GO i EX;:I 0ACP"PER ED PARCEL 1, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 29, PAGE 34, OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE 1 '{ �1' '-JOB NO 6685211 (To BE FROM r. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. -EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER PARCEL A, IN THE CITY SURGEATER LOT 1 ANON OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 76 PAGE 32 F PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF TRACT; -------- 28QE S % b JOB r C) SAID COUNTY. 8 (S-0.0328) Ns_ ........ EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY AND ALL OIL, OIL RIGHTS, MINERALS, MINERAL RIGHTS, NATURAL GAS RIGHTS, AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS BY WHATSOEVER NAME KNOWN, JOB NO. 65852 A -It-,---------- GEOTHERMAL STEAM,AND ALL PRODUCTS DERIVED FROM ANY OF THE FOREGOING,THAT )k t MAY BE WITHIN OR UNDER THE LAND,TOGETHER WITH THE PERPETUAL RIGHT OF L MINING, N�U. .CA XG A OPERATING THEREFOR AND STORING IN AND C C j EX k!) REMOVING THE �AM'E TRO TREND D OR ANY OTHER LAND. RUMORING THE RIGHT TO RILL AND MINE FROM LANDS OTHER THAN THOSE CONVEYED HERESY, OIL OR GAS WELLS,TUNNELS AND STATUS INTO, THROUGH OR -------------- 4 WHIPSTOCK OR DIRECTIONALLY DRILL _F>D-v�QR PER, I' ;11 1 TRACT NI ACROSS THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND, AND TO BOTTOM SUCH WHIPSTOCKED OR BEYOND THE EXTERIOR LIMITS THEREOF. AND TO RESELL, HERSHEL, EQUIP, MAINTAIN, rj ......... --- ------- WELLS, TUNNELS AND SHAFTS UNDER AND BENEATH OR (S-0.0132) REPAIR, DEEPEN AND OPERATE ANY SUCH WELLS OR MINES, WITHOUT HOWEVER. THE ------ JI-I RIGHT TO DRILL, MINE, STORE, EXPLORE AND OPERATE THROUGH THE SURFACE OR THE h UPPER 500 FEET OF THE SUBSURFACE OF THE LAND,AS RESERVED IN THE DEED 2 FROM THE]WINE COMPANY, A MICHIGAN CORPORATION, RECORDED FEBRUARY 20, 1992, c V_ AS INSTIRMENT NO, 92-099183, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. La Wi�w 71 NO. 1L.1"zIL L 111�U G. I , ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM ANY AND ALL WATER, RIGHTS OR INTERESTS THE N B_-t & 368, CONNECTION WITH OR WITH RESPECT TO THE LAND, TOGETHER WHY!THE RIGHT AND ---- --- PER RE MATTER HOW ACQUIRED BY GRANTOR, AND OWNED OR USED BY GRANTOR IN -------------- POWER TO EXPLORE,OTHERWISE REMOVE AND STORE THE SAME FROM THE LAND OR TO DIVERT OR OTHERWISE UTILIZE SUCH WATER RIGHTS OR INTERESTS ON ANY _j ff-i . ..... NO .. ......... ..................... OTHER PROPERTY OWNED OR LEASED BY GRANTOR, WHETHER SUCH WATER RIGHTS SHALL BE RIPARIAN, OVERLYING,APPROPRIATIVE, LITTORAL, PERCOLATING, PRESCRIPTIVE "A ADJUDICATED. STATUTORY OR CONTRACTUAL, BUT WITHOUT, HOWEVER,ANY RIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE SURFACE OF THE LAND IN THE EXERCISE OF SUCH RIGHTS,AS RESERVED IN THE DEC FROM THE IRVINE COMPANY, A MICHIGAN CORPORATOR, T A EE OB 0. 852 A SEI.GEQIER,�/ % S - RECORDED FEBRUARY 20, 1992,AS INSTRUMENT NO. 92-099183, OF OFFICIAL NO G� RE US NO, 355,5� RECORDS. APN; 442-231-12 LEGEND BENCHMARK EXISTING EASEMENTS OWNER/SUBDIVIDER PROPERTY LINE BENCHMARK DESIGNATION ORANGE COUNTY SURVEYOR BENCH MARK "3S-45-79" EASEMENT(S)FOR THE PURPOSE(S)SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL ADJ. ELEV. = 281.76V THERETO AS DELINEATED OR AS OFFERED FOR 20' 0' 10' 20 NEWPORT CENTER ANACAPA ASSOCIATES. LLC --------- EASEMENT LINE DEDICATION, ON THE MAP OF 2 04 LAFAYETTE AVE, MONUMENT RECOVERY TO. 3 3/+' OCS ALUMINUM BENCHMARK DISK STAMPED SAID TRACT/PLAR a NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 G — - — CENTER LINE 3S-45-99" SET IN THE TOP NORTHERLY CORNER OF SCALE: 1" 20' TEL:P949 723.c5854 —111- DIRECTION OF FLOW A 4' By 8' CONCRETE CATCH BASIN, MONUMENT IS PURPOSE:WALKWAY EXISTINGCABLECABLE TV LINE INTERSECTION IN THOF ME EAACARTHUR BOULEVARDSTERLY CORNER OF THAND SAN E AFFECTS: A FORMS OF SAID LAND AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP. CONTACT:TOD RIDGEWAY A EXISTING ELECTRIC LINE JOAQUIN HILLS ROAD, 70' SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF VACARI BOULEVARD AND 135' THE OWNERSHIP OF SAID LAND DOES NOT INCLUDE RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO OR CIVIL ENGINEER EXISTING GAS LINE NORTHEASTERLY OF THE CENTERUNE OF SAN JOAQUIN FROM THE STREET HIGHWAY, OR FREEWAY ABi SAID ----- - EXISTING SEWER MINE HILLS ROAD, MONUMENT IS SET LEVEL WITH THE LAND, SUCH RIGHTS HAVING SEEN RELINQUISHED BY THE DOCUMENT, FUSCOF ENGINEERING SIDEWALK, 16795 VON KARMAN AVE, SUITE 100 EXS7NG STORM LINE RECORDING DATE: SEPTEMBER 28, 1970 IRVINE, CA 92606 EXISTING TELEPHONE LINE RECORDING NO: BOOK 9415, PAGE 743, OFFICIAL RECORDS ---- ------ EXISTING WATER USE BASIS OF BEARING AFFECTS: A PORTION OF SAID LAND AS MORE PARDCULARLY DESCRIBED IN CONTACT: ORLMNA SIASOR, P.S. CE 63451 SAID DOCUMENT. TEL 949.474.1960 SLOG BUILDING FAX 949,474.5316 0" DRIVEWAY THE BEARING M07-16'23'W ALONG THE COMMERCE OF ANACAPA DRIVE PER PM 29/34 IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF HE Y� BONN EASEMENT CALIFORNIA, WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARING EX EXISTING FH FIRE HYDRANTOATS: 02/23/2016 PROP PROPOSED FLOOD HAZARD STATEMENT VESTING _S_rlK IG TENTATIVE SCALE AS SHOWN SD STORM GRAIN 13 ZONE'X"PER FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT MAP NO 06059CO382d JOB NO.: 17-001 EFFECTIVE DATE 12/03/2009, Ilk. FUSCOE TRACT MAP NO. 17915 E N 0 1 H I I R I IN 0 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH cRD,XM NO, DAR REOSON DESCRIPTOR f A I I A 1 r , I , I I I n k 1 n e SHEET OS1 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) June 23, 2016, Planning Commission Agenda Item Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item submitted by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(oo)yahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 4 NEWPORT CENTER VILLAS (PA2014-213) My current thoughts about this project are as follows: 1. In 2006, faced with what were expected to be large and continuing state-mandated Regional Housing Need Allocation requirements, Newport Beach voters agreed to amend the City's General Plan to include, among other things, a potential to add up to 450 new dwelling units to Newport Center over the next 20 years, and identified the parcels carrying an MU-H3 land use designation as suitable locations for them. a. Ten years into the 2006 General Plan, and facing no RHNA of which I am aware, the City Council has already allowed, without voter approval, adding 79 more dwelling units to Newport Center than the maximum contemplated in the 2006 Plan. b. I see no reason whatsoever to grant a deviation from the 2006 Plan, especially to add housing to an area where it was not planned to be. c. I also continue to wonder if the City gets credit for housing added in years when there is no RHNA requirement. If not, and if we had suitable sites, it would seem prudent to save those sites until they can be used to fulfill a need. 2. The review copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2016011032) characterizes the subject site as "an underutilized property' (Section ES.2.2, page ES-2). I find it hard to accept that characterization. My impression is that as a car wash it is a bustling business providing a well utilized and much appreciated service. 3. While the existing uses have coexisted peacefully for many years, approving this proposal is quite likely to create neighborhood incompatibilities manifested by complaints from the new residents about the existing restaurant and theater uses, much as the City has already seen from the allowance of residential uses adjacent to Woody's Wharf, as well as construction impacts from the new use on the existing ones. 4. The project description indicates there will be a request to have the City Council declare the 1.26 acre parcel to be a Planned Community District, but I am unable to find anything in the project description that convinces me it will have any of the characteristics of a Planned Community as defined in NBMC Chapter 20.56: it is too small and it does not involve a diversification of uses or large-scale community planning. Instead, it seems to me to be a straightforward example of what Table LU1 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan designates "Multiple Residential" (RM) development—only being proposed in an area not designated for that. 5. It additionally appears that by obtaining a "PC" designation the developer expects to be able to increase the normal RM heights of NBMC Section 20.30.060 ("Height Limits and Exceptions")to 75 to 84 feet. Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received June 23, 2016, PC agenda item 4 comments - Jim Mosher Newport CAVRPi las (PA2014-213) a. A close reading of Subsection 20.30.060.0 ("Increase in Height Limit") indicates that even with the declaration of a Planned Community and with the mandatory additional findings of Subsection 20.30.060.0.3, the maximum increase permissible for flat- roofed multiple family residential structures is to 32 feet. i. It must further be noted that among the many compulsory findings necessary to increase flat-roofed multiple family residential structures above 28 feet, is one that "The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the height increase" (Subsection 20.30.060.C.3.d). 1. That finding can clearly not be made here, where a 7 floor structure completely filling the lot is proposed on a parcel where only 2 or 3 floors could be built without the height increase. ii. It might be noted that most of the other required findings for a height increase cannot be made: the increased height is not being used to increase setbacks or open space, nor to protect public views, it is not being used to enhance visual interest and it will create abrupt changes in height relative to adjacent developments. 6. In addition to its many other problems, those considering this project should be aware that if the full request for 49 dwelling units were to be granted, many residents believe that would require a Charter Section 423 ("Green light") vote. The reason is that in 2014 the City Council added the aforementioned 79 dwelling units to the Newport Center Statistical Area (1-1) above and beyond what voters had approved in the 2006 General Plan. That means the Greenlight allowance of 100 new dwelling units every 10 years is no longer fully available. a. Rather than processing the 2014 modification to the General Plan limits as a formal amendment, the Council was asked to approve the 79 new dwelling units as a transfer and "conversion" of 79 voter-approved hotel rooms, "allowed," it was said, as long as it was traffic neutral. b. It turns out there is no provision in the 2006 General Plan allowing such conversions. And for good reason, since if the Council could convert voter approved categories of land use in the General Plan into other categories of use it would be incompatible with Section 423's requirement to keep separate track of non-voter-approved allotments in the residential, intensity and traffic categories. Moreover, City Council Policy A-18 explicitly states that there is no credit toward increasing residential for decreasing non-residential allotments, or vice versa. c. According to a November 9, 2011, memo from the City's Principal Planner, Jim Campbell, while transfers of voter-approved uses within a statistical area may be allowed, short of a General Plan Amendment it is not even possible to convert one voter-approved non-residential use (such as tennis courts) into another non- residential use (such as hotel rooms). Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4a Additional Materials Received June 23, 2016, PC agenda item 4 comments - Jim Mosher Newport CenTrAlaS (PA2014-213) d. As a result, whatever it was called at the time, the non-voter-approved addition of 79 units above those formerly allowed by the voter-approved General Plan has to be regarded as a non-voter-approved amendment and counted toward the cumulative Greenlight totals per Charter Section 423. Taking 80% x 79 = 63, the Council has used 63 of its 100 and has the discretion to add at most 37 more dwellings to Statistical Area L1 before a Greenlight vote is needed. e. Ironically the CEQA analysis of the 2014 conversion of hotel rooms to dwelling units as "not requiring a General Plan amendment' was performed by the same outside consultant at the same firm as is preparing the present DER. Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: Planning Commission Session re: condos From: Wisneski, Brenda Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 2:41 PM To: 'Katherine Meleski' Cc: Biddle, Jennifer Subject: RE: Planning Commission Session re: condos Thank you. We will add it to the public record for tonight's meeting. From: Katherine Meleski fmaiIto:kmeleskiCalsbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 2:28 PM To: Wisneski, Brenda Subject: RE: Planning Commission Session re: condos Yes, it is directed primarily to the development being considered where the car wash is located in fashion island, but also applies to the museum house project to some extent also. I appreciate your response, thank you. Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smarlphone -------- Original message -------- From: "Wisneski, Brenda" <BWisneskignewportbeachca.gov> Date: 06/23/2016 12:41 PM (GMT-08:00) To: 'Katherine Meleski' <kmeleskiaa,sbcglobal.net> Subject: RE: Planning Commission Session re: condos Ms. Meleski, Thank you for your comment. We would like to include it in our public records. Does it pertain to a specific project or agenda item? Thank you, Brenda Wisneski, AICP Deputy Community Development Director (949) 644-3297 City of Newport Beach I Planning Division 1100 Civic Center Drive I Newport Beach, CA 92660 A responsive, knowledgeable team of professionals guiding community development in the public interest. 1 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4b Additional Materials Received -----Original Message----- Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) From: Katherine Meleski [mailto:kmeleski(a,sbcelobal.net] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 12:32 PM To: Kramer, Kory; Brown, Tim; Koetting, Peter; Hillgren,Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Zak, Peter; Wisneski, Brenda Subject: Planning Commission Session re: condos To: Newport Beach Planning Commission Members I am writing to urge you to vote with your conscience and to ensure that the City follows the law and/or the spirit of the law behind the Greenlight initiative. It's very disconcerting to think our city leaders could be seeking loopholes to allow developers without the best interests of our city to skirt our laws. Thank you, Katherine Meleski 2 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: Newport Villas Comment Letter 06-22-16 Attachments: Newport Villas Comment Letter 06-22-16.docx From: RRCg1USRG.net rmailto:rr(o�usro.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 6:27 PM To: Nova, Makana Cc: Brown, Leilani Subject: Newport Villas Comment Letter 06-22-16 June 22, 2016 Makana Nova City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Delivered via Email Newport Beach, CA 92660 Via Email: mnova@newportbeachca.gov Re: Newport Villas Comment Letter 06-22-16 Dear Ms. Nova, We, a group of concerned Newport Beach residents, originally commented on the Mitigated Negative Declaration published by the City of Newport Beach on behalf of the Newport Center Villas on September 9, 2015 in a letter to this Commission dated September 25, 2015. We incorporate those comments by reference. There are many problems and insufficiencies with this project,few of which have been dealt with by this study. The environmental impact report prepared for the 150 Newport Center project("EIR")fails to appropriately and adequately analyze that project's significant environmental impacts. Its many serious flaws cannot be resolved without recirculation. As such, our concerns are clearly laid out, in detail, in the attached letter"Newport Villas Comment Letter 06-22-16." Please confirm your receipt of this email. Thank you. Sincerely, / R Z. R Robert L. Rush, Homeowner 5205 River Ave. and 29 year resident of NB Cc: Leilani I. Brown, City Clerk, Via Email: LBrown@newportbeachca.gov 1 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) June 22, 2016 Makana Nova City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Newport Center Villas Study Session Dear Ms. Nova, We, a group of concerned Newport Beach residents, originally commented on the Mitigated Negative Declaration published by the City of Newport Beach on behalf of the Newport Center Villas on September 9, 2015 in a letter to this Commission dated September 25, 2015. We incorporate those comments by reference. There are many specific problems and insufficiencies with this project, few of which have been dealt with by this study. The environmental impact report prepared for the 150 Newport Center project ("EIR") fails to appropriately and adequately analyze that project's significant environmental impacts. Its many serious flaws cannot be resolved without recirculation. The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires thorough analysis of a project's potentially significant environmental impacts and, if scrupulously followed, will provide the public with meaningful information about an agency's consideration of a project. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392. To promote its public disclosure requirements, CEQA must be interpreted to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of statutory language. Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259. CEQA contains an array of procedural and informational disclosure requirements — not suggestions. If an EIR fails to meet CEQA's standards, the lead agency responsible for its preparation (here, the City of Newport Beach) has prejudicially abused its discretion and any approval of that document constitutes a violation of law. Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 CalAth 412, 426 [an abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if its factual determinations are not supported by substantial evidence]. As discussed in this letter, the EIR fails to comply with the requirements of CEQA in the following key ways: • The EIR omits crucial analysis, including examination mandated by the EIR's own thresholds of significance. Page I 1 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) • Discussion and analysis of reasonably foreseeable significant environmental impacts is absent from the EIR. • The project would result in significant environmental impacts that are not identified in the EIR. Because the EIR must be revised to include the new significant impacts identified in this letter, it must be recirculated under California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Chapter 3 ("CEQA Guidelines") Section 15088.5. Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center v. County of Siskiyou (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 184, 217 [CEQA mandates recirculation when significant new information is added to an EIR after public comment has finished). Otherwise, the EIR is fundamentally flawed and its certification would constitute a prejudicial abuse of discretion by the City. In addition to the identified non-compliance with CEQA, any approval of the proposed project would also constitute improper spot zoning because it would create a small (1.26 acre) residential island surrounded by zoning that expressly prohibits residential uses. I. The EIR Relies on a Misleading Baseline That Is Not Supported By Substantial Evidence The determination of whether a project's environmental impacts are likely to be significant requires that a lead agency "use some measure of the environment's state absent the project, a measure sometimes referred to as the 'baseline' for environmental analysis." Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 CalAth 310, 315. The utilization of a proper environmental baseline is essential to the meaningful assessment of the project's impacts. Id. at 320. A lead agency may normally use the environmental setting at the time that environmental analysis is commenced as the baseline physical conditions against which a project's impacts are measured. CEQA Guidelines § 15125. However, the baseline conditions cannot be arbitrarily selected, and instead should be "realistically" measured. Neighbors for Smart Rail v. Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439, 449. Furthermore, the lead agency's selection of the baseline conditions must be supported by substantial evidence. Id. In fact, the California Supreme Court has held that the use of an environmental baseline that is misleading or without informational value to the public or decisionmakers constitutes an abuse of discretion in violation of CEQA. Id. The EIR is legally inadequate due to its use reliance on a baseline that is unrealistic, misleading, and not supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the EIR uses a baseline that assumes the continued operation of the existing car wash, which was presumably intended to reflect the physical conditions at the commencement of EIR preparation. However, this baseline fails to properly account for the fact that the existing car wash "will close in late 2016 regardless if the proposed Project goes forward." EIR at ES-6, 6-1, 6-7, 6-12 (emphasis added). Given the acknowledged cessation of car wash operations in the immediate future, it is improper and misleading to analyze the project's impacts against a baseline that assumes Page 12 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) continued operation. Instead, the EIR's baseline must reflect the absence of car wash operations. The EIR's reliance upon a misleading baseline obfuscates the analysis of the project's impacts and project alternatives and is not supported by substantial evidence. As indicated above, the car wash will cease operations in 2016 regardless of whether the project is developed. EIR at ES-6, 6-1, 6-7, 6-12. However, because construction of the project will not be complete, and project operations will not commence, until 2019 (EIR at 4.2-16), the measure of the "environment's state absent the project" should properly account for the closure of the car wash. Communities for a Better Environment, supra, 48 CalAth at 315. The EIR's impact analyses for the following areas unrealistically and misleadingly evaluates the project's net operational impacts above and beyond the existing car wash: • Aesthetics: The project's impacts resulting from new sources of substantial light or glare are evaluated in comparison to the operating car wash. EIR at 4.1-24. In reality, the car wash will be shuttered in late 2016 and will emit no light. • Air Quality: The project's air quality impacts, which are directly tied to vehicle emissions, are only evaluated in comparison to the operating car wash and its vehicle trips. EIR at 4.2-10, 4.2-16, 4.2-19, 4.2-23. The appropriate comparison should assume zero emissions from the car wash, which will close in late 2016. • Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The project's impacts on the implementation of, or physical interference with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan are based on a comparison to traffic generated by the exiting car wash. EIR at 4.6-15. Again, given the impending closure of the car wash, zero traffic should be assumed from the existing car wash. • Noise: The project's noise impacts are analyzed in comparison to the existing car wash operations and vehicle traffic related to the same. EIR at 4.8-8, 4.8-9, 4.8- 11, 4.8-12, 4.8-14. Neither assumption is accurate. The EIR's operational and vehicle noise should both be revised to reflect a closed car wash. • Transportation and Traffic: The EIR's traffic analysis only evaluates the project's net increase above the assumed trips generated by the car wash, thereby taking credit for 819 daily trips. EIR at 4.9-5, 4.9-7, 4.9-8, 4.9-9, 4.9-10, 4.9-15, 4.9-16. This is inaccurate, as a closed car wash generates no trips— much less 819 trips. • Utilities and Service Systems: The project's impacts on domestic water and wastewater are evaluated by comparing the proposed project's demands to those of the carwash. This false comparison underestimates wastewater generation and domestic water usage by 9,470 gallons per day (gpd) and 10,417 gpd, respectively. EIR at 5-16. All of the car wash's existing domestic and wastewater generation figures must be revised to reflect a closed car wash. In short, although the EIR unambiguously states that the existing car wash will cease operations regardless of whether the proposed project proceeds, the EIR assumes its continued Page 13 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) operation and only evaluates the project's net impacts. This methodology deceives the public about the project's impacts because the project is essentially given "credit" for eliminating operational features of the car wash (e.g., emissions, noise and traffic impacts from vehicle trips to and from the car wash, water usage from the car wash, etc.) that will cease even in the absence of the project. This is fundamentally misleading to decisionmakers and the public because it results in the understatement of— or failure to identify— significant project impacts as well as applicable mitigation measures. Moreover, this grossly distorts the EIR's alternatives analysis, which is based on mitigating impacts that the EIR fails to identify. Accordingly, the EIR's failure to support the selection of this baseline with substantial evidence constitutes an abuse of discretion and renders the entire EIR legally deficient. Wholesale revisions to the EIR's baseline assumptions are required in a recirculated EIR. In fact, there is substantial evidence that cessation of the car wash operations at the project site will not wholly eliminate car washing by the customers of the existing facility, but will instead only shift such car washing activity to other commercial or residential locations. Thus, there is no basis for the EIR's assumed reductions in the impact areas discussed above. Moreover, the EIR fails to evaluate the impacts of this reasonably foreseeable shift of car washing to other locations, which could have significant adverse environmental impacts. The reasonably foreseeable potential impacts resulting from the redistribution of these activities must be analyzed in the EIR. II. The EIR's Conclusions Regarding Aesthetic Impacts Are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence a. The Height of the Project Would Degrade the Existing Environment The EIR's aesthetics analysis is fundamentally flawed because, despite overwhelming substantial evidence to the contrary, it unreasonably concludes that the project will not degrade the existing environment. This conclusion is based largely on the assertion that the project's height will be consistent with other nearby high-rise developments. However, to reach this conclusion, the EIR mistakenly compares the proposed 83 foot tall project to developments outside the immediate vicinity of the project, and fails to acknowledge that the project's height is fundamentally inconsistent with existing development standards surrounding the project site. To assess the project's potential to degrade the existing environment, the EIR analyzes whether the project's 83-foot height would be consistent with the height of existing buildings and height limits within Newport Center. EIR at 4.1-22 [acknowledging that, although the project would be taller than existing buildings on immediately adjacent properties, the project would be comparable with heights elsewhere in Newport Center]. This analysis artificially minimizes the impact of the project's height, which should be judged relative to the height of other projects in the immediate vicinity only. The height of "the existing office towers 21 stories (300 feet) in height located along San Joaquin Hills Road," for example, is irrelevant to the project. EIR at Page 14 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) 4.1-22. That building, the tallest in Newport Center, is approximately 2,000 feet northeast of the project site and has no bearing on the project's aesthetic impact. EIR at 4.1-22. There is no reasonable basis for expanding the existing environment to include high-rise buildings outside the project's vicinity, especially when applicable development standards prohibit similarly sized projects in the area surrounding the project site. San Francisco Beautiful v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1027 [significant impacts should be measured in light of the context in which it occurs and aesthetic impacts should be analyzed to determine whether a project "would degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings"] (emphasis added). The inappropriateness of the EIR's methodology is exacerbated by the project's inconsistency with the General Plan. General Plan Policy LU 6.14.14 states that development of Newport Center should concentrate the greatest building mass and height in the northeasterly section along San Joaquin Hills Road and progressively scale down building mass and height toward East Coast Highway. The project site is located in the southeasterly portion of Newport Center where the General Plan requires "scale[d] down building mass and height." The project site is bordered to the west and south by Planned Community 56 (North Newport Center), which governs a large portion of Newport Center. The development standards in Planned Community 56 implement Policy LU 6.14.14 by restricting the height of structures immediately adjacent to the project site and by allowing for greater heights in areas in the northeaster section of Newport Center (Blocks 400, 500, and 600). However, the designated blocks with greater building heights (i.e., similar to the proposed project) are located more than 1,000 feet from the project site and do not represent the development standard applicable to the project site or its surrounding areas.' The development standards applicable to the area surrounding the project site limit heights to 50 and 32 feet, depending upon the zoning designation. Block 100, which borders the project site to the south and west, imposes a 50 foot height maximum. See Planned Community 56 at 15. Similarly, the property to the east across Anacapa Drive to San Miguel Drive (approximately 900 - 1,000 feet from the project site), mandates a 32 foot height maximum. Newport Beach Municipal Code § 20.20.030. Thus, the existing building heights and height limitations governing not just the "immediately adjacent" properties, as represented by the EIR, but properties extending significant distances in various directions are limited to approximately 32—50 feet, depending on zoning designation. It is against these height limits that the project should be judged, as they best represent the aesthetic characteristics and quality of the site and its surroundings. The height of "the ' Moreover, it is erroneous to analyze the impacts of the proposed project with reference to the larger buildings located more than 1,000 feet away because the project site is largely obscured from the areas of Newport Center that have high-rise buildings. Thus, the project site area is visually distinct from the areas of Newport Center that are designated for greater building heights. Page 15 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) existing office towers 21 stories (300 feet) in height located along San Joaquin Hills Road," for example, is irrelevant to the project. EIR at 4.1-22. Because the project would introduce a buildings substantially inconsistent with existing building heights, it would be "demonstratively inconsistent" with the character of the surrounding area.2 EIR at 4.1-11. b. The Project Would Have a Significant Adverse Impact on Scenic Views The EIR includes a limited number of carefully-selected images of viewpoints at various public vistas in the surrounding area that do not adequately demonstrate the project's impact. For instance, View 3 (Figure 4.1-7) appears strategically positioned to misrepresent the expansive ocean views looking south along Newport Center Drive (near the intersection between Newport Center Drive and San Miguel Drive). The view from the intersection of Newport Center Drive and San Miguel Drive provides a more accurate representation of how the project would severely impact ocean views from Newport Center Drive. Attached Exhibit A shows the southerly views of the ocean from near that intersection. As evidenced by that exhibit, the ocean is highly visible along Newport Center Drive and San Miguel Drive, and thus constitutes a scenic viewpoint. The Natural Resources Element of the General Plan states that the "City of Newport Beach is located in a unique and dynamic physical setting and enjoys ... spectacular ocean views to the southwest, including those of the open waters of the ocean and the bay...." General Plan at 10-16. Because the project would introduce a building that would significantly obscure a view of the "open waters" of the Pacific Ocean, it would have a significant impact on a scenic vista. General Plan at 10-16; Ocean View Estates Homeowner's Assn v. Montecito Water Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.AppAth 396, 400 ["Any substantial negative effect of a project on view and other features of beauty could constitute a significant environmental impact under CECA"]. That impact must be discussed and, to the extent such discussion is omitted, the EIR's conclusions regarding impacts to scenic vistas is without substantial evidence. Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 912, 934 [substantial evidence must support a lead agency's conclusions]. The EIR also concludes that impacts to View 3 would be less than significant partially because the proposed building "is not out of scale with existing commercial buildings" located near the project site. As discussed in detail above, this is factually incorrect. The existing buildings near the project site are substantially smaller (32—50 feet) than the proposed project (83 feet). Furthermore, the conclusion that the proposed building would be only partially visible from View 3 is based largely on the positioning of the view along the northern side of Newport Center Drive. The building would have a much greater impact, and would be z The EIR's flawed aesthetics analysis carries over to the No Project/Office Development Alternative. In the discussion of that alternative's aesthetic impacts, the EIR notes that "[a]lthough arguments could be made for whether a one- or two-story building or the proposed Project's seven-story building would be more in keeping with the existing visual character and quality of the site and area,"neither the project nor the alternative would result in significant impacts. There is simply no justification for the conclusions that a one- or two-story building and a seven-story building have the same level of consistency with a surrounding environment comprised of buildings primarily in the 20-40 foot range. Page 16 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) significantly more imposing, when viewed from the other side of the Newport Center Drive/San Miguel Drive intersection. C. The EIR's Analysis of Glare Impacts is Devoid of Meaningful Information and Substantial Evidence The EIR concludes that the project would not result in any significant impacts associated with glare because the building would not include components that would generate substantial amounts of reflective surfaces. EIR at 4.1-26. This conclusion, however, is curious given the that the project's elevations (EIR Figures 3-5 and 3-6) show that the building's exterior will be comprised largely of glass. The EIR attempts to dispense with this fact by stating that the windows "would not be mirrored and would have similar low-potential glare characteristics as do other" windows in the surrounding area. This factually-devoid analysis does not comply with CEQA.Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.AppAth 1383, 1390 [CEQA does not demand exhaustive analysis or perfection, but does require a factual analysis and a good faith effort at disclosure]. Simply put, the introduction of a substantial number of glass windows up to seven stories high will introduce a significant source of glare in the project area. This impact must be analyzed, both for possible safety and aesthetic impacts. III. The EIR's Analysis of Traffic Impacts Fails to Comply With CEG,A a. EIR Materially Underestimates Traffic Generation and Lacks Substantial Evidence to Support its Trip Generation Assumptions Like the MND, the EIR analyzes traffic impacts using an erroneous designation and trip generation rates from the Institution of Transportation Engineers ("ITE"). To calculate project vehicular trips, the EIR utilizes the High-Rise Residential Condominium designation, which it states was applied based on "review of land use categories and trip generation rates" of the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. Appendix G1 at 2 (emphasis added). This designation was applied without explanation. We can only guess that the High-Rise Residential Condominium designation was applied to the project because it would exceed three stories, since the EIR is devoid of a coherent explanation as to why that is an appropriate designation.3 EIR at 3-2. That designation is convenient because it has the lowest trip generation rate of any potentially-applicable condominium category.4 3 The ITE Trip Generation Handbook defines High-Rise Condominium/Townhouse as "high-rise residential condominiums/townhouses are units located in buildings that have three or more levels(floors)." 4 For example, the Residential Condominium/Townhouse designation has a trip generation rate of approximately 5.81 trips per dwelling unit,while the Luxury Condominium/Townhouse designation would generate peak hour trips almost double the High-Rise Condominium designation. Page 17 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) The High-Rise Residential Condominium designation does not accurately represent the project, which would include (1) 10 residential townhomes ranging from 3,581 to 5,371 square feet, (2) 35 residential flats ranging from 1,645 to 3,608 square feet, (3) four penthouse units ranging from 2,285 to 3,608 square feet, and (4) various amenities available for resident use, including a club room and appointed kitchen for catering, a fitness room, and a swimming pool. EIR at 3-5. Because these attributes and unit sizes are typically associated with luxury condominiums, the ITE Luxury Condominium designation better represents the projects Moreover, the project objectives explicitly describe the project as consisting of luxury condominiums. Section 3.2, Statement of Objectives, provides that the underlying purpose of the project is to "redevelop an underutilized property in the Newport Center area with multi- family, for-sale luxury high-rise (three + stories) residential units...." EIR at 3-2 (emphasis added). The project objectives also state that the project is intended to (1) "[r]espond to the demand for luxury, multi-family" housing, and (2) "[i]ntroduce a luxury, multi-family residential development in Newport Center...." Id. (emphasis added). The EIR's lack of substantial evidence explaining why the High-Rise Condominium designation is appropriate for the project is itself a violation of CEQA. Federation of Hillside & Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.AppAth 1252, 1259 [substantial evidence must support the agency's conclusions]. CEQA defines substantial evidence as "facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts." CEQA Guidelines § 15384(b). Here, there are no facts that support application of the High-Rise Condominium designation. Furthermore, as discussed above, there is substantial evidence that the Luxury Condominium designation is more appropriate for the project. The table below identifies the trip generation rates for High-Rise Condominiums and Luxury Condominiums, respectively: High-Rise Condominium Luxury Condominium AM Peak Hour 0.34 0.65 PM Peak Hour 0.38 0.65 The table above demonstrates that the Luxury Condominium designation would generate approximately twice the number of trips as the High-Rise Condominium designation. Because there is substantial evidence supporting the application of the Luxury Condominium designation, the EIR's analysis must be revised to appropriately assess the traffic impacts associated with the project. b. EIR's Conclusions About Construction Traffic Are Based on Inconsistent Information The ITE Trip Generation Handbook defines Luxury Condominium/Townhouse as "units in buildings with luxury facilities or services." Page 18 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) The construction traffic analysis notes that the project would require the export of demolition and earth material, which would generate approximately 24-26 round trip haul trips per day. EIR at 4.9-7. These trips, the EIR concludes, would not result in a significant traffic impact. However, this analysis greatly underestimates the number of truck trips associated with grading of the project site, and contradicts the EIR's prior statements on the topic. As noted in the Project Description, project grading would excavate 51,600 cubic yards of cut during a one-month period, generating approximately 2,580 haul trips during grading (172 round trips per day). EIR at 3-9. 172 round trips is substantially greater than the 24-26 assumed in the construction analysis and, because truck trips have a larger impact on traffic than do standard vehicular trips, the impact of these truck trips must be analyzed. Moreover, the EIR concludes that there would be no significant construction traffic impact because the number of construction trips generated by the project would be less than those associated with car wash's existing operations. As discussed above, this conclusion is based upon a fundamentally inadequate baseline and must be re-evaluated. The appropriate baseline for existing operations is zero given the pending closure of the car wash. IV. The Noise Analysis Omits Required Information and Analysis a. EIR Fails to Identify and Address Noise Impacts on Nearby Sensitive Receptors The EIR's noise impacts analysis falls short because it fails to identify nearby sensitive receptors. It concludes that there is only one sensitive receptor that could be impacted by the project–the Newport Center Women's Health Center, located approximately 100 meters south of the project site. EIR at 4.8-4. This assertion, however, fails to account for the broader definition of sensitive receptors used in the EIR, which requires characterization of additional nearby uses, particularly three restaurants with outdoor seating, as sensitive receptors. The EIR specifies that sensitive land uses are generally those "where people reside or where the presence of noise could adversely affect the use of land." EIR at 4.8-4 (emphasis added). Consistent with this definition, the EIR notes that "[s]ensitive land uses include but are not limited to uses such as schools, hospitals, residences, libraries, and recreation areas." Id. (emphasis added). Thus, in determining whether a given land use should be considered sensitive, the EIR provides that the pertinent question is whether the presence of noise could adversely affect the use. California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957, 986 [a lead agency is entitled to define the scope of analysis and methodology so long as it is supported by substantial evidence]. Here, the EIR has defined what uses should be considered "sensitive" and must apply that definition appropriately. Red O, Fig & Olive, and Muldoon's Irish Pub are all restaurants located directly across either Anacapa Drive or Newport Center Drive from the project site. Unlike most restaurants (which are generally are not considered sensitive receptors), all three restaurants have significant outdoor dining areas. These outdoor dining areas are sensitive receptors because the presence of noise—particularly during construction activities—could adversely affect their Page 19 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) use. See EIR at 4.8-4. The existence of these outdoor dining areas also undermines the assumption in the construction noise impact analysis that surrounding uses are primarily indoor uses. EIR at 4.8-12 ["...due to the commercial character of surrounding properties, persons on adjacent properties would spend a majority of their time indoors with windows closed and not be exposed to loud construction noise"]. In addition to failing to properly account for impacts at nearby sensitive receptors, the EIR also fails to appropriately analyze construction noise impacts, instead generally asserting that there would not be any significant impacts because (1) construction-related noise would only occur for approximately eight hours a day, and (2) the surrounding uses are predominantly commercial. As discussed above, the latter assumption is wrong and there are nearby sensitive receptors. Moreover, the EIR makes this conclusion without any meaningful analysis of actual noise impacts despite the acknowledgement that construction equipment could produce periodic noise levels nearing 90 dBA at adjacent property lines. EIR at 4.8-12. Such analysis fails to adequately address noise threshold (d), which asks whether the project would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise. To properly assess the impact under this threshold, the ambient noise must (obviously) first be quantified. The EIR fails to undertake this fundamental analysis, instead providing a general qualitative discussion of noise in EIR Section 4.8.2.6 This failure undermines CECIA's informational disclosure requirements, and constitutes a failure to proceed as required by law. Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1390 [when assessing the legal sufficiency of an environmental document, a court focuses on adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at disclosure]. The EIR apparently tries to alleviate the need to quantify ambient noise (despite the EIR's stated thresholds) by stating that under threshold (d) the project would only have a significant short-term impact if construction operations would generate noise levels experienced by persons at off-site locations of 90 dBA or greater for more than eight hours. According to the EIR, this is an appropriate standard because only such exposure can affect human health.7 EIR at 4.8-8. In so doing, the EIR fundamentally misapplies the threshold: the question is not whether construction noise would result in hearing loss, but whether there would be a temporary or periodic increase in ambient levels above existing levels without the project.$ Mejio v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 342 [a lead agency cannot apply a threshold of significance in a way that forecloses the consideration of substantial evidence showing there may be a significant impact]. To comply with the mandates of CEQA, a standard that more accurately represents potential noise impacts — for example, whether the ambient noise would be increased by 3 dBA (which represents a doubling of noise) — should be applied to assess whether noise would have an adverse impact on nearby uses. e The assessment of operational noise impacts also suffers from this fundamental flaw. See also EIR at 4.8-12, concluding that grading and excavation activities would not result in a significant impact because "construction-related noise would not occur for a period long enough or loud enough to cause hearing damage to receivers at off-site properties." "A requirement to quantify noise generated by the project is also inherently required by this threshold. Page 110 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) b. EIR Lacks Analysis of Ambient Noise as Required by CEQA and Applied Thresholds Finally, the EIR fails to provide any meaningful analysis of the noise created by the project's operation or analyze whether such noise would result in a significant impact. For example, under noise threshold (a), the EIR lists the applicable noise standards, but then concludes the project would not result in any exceedence of these standards because the project would represent an overall decrease in the amount of stationary noise that would be generated at the project site. EIR at 4.8-10. This conclusion is unsupported and without any meaningful, factual analysis, and does not represent a good faith attempt at full disclosure.9 Federation of Hillside & Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.AppAth 1252, 1259 [a lead agency's conclusions must be supported by substantial evidence]; Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1383, 1390. V. EIR's Land Use Conclusions Are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence With respect to consistency with the General Plan, the EIR's conclusion that the project would be consistent with the General Plan is not supported by substantial evidence and fails to satisfy the standard for General Plan consistency outlined by case law. A project is consistent with the general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment. Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 238. However, general consistencies with plan policies cannot overcome specific, mandatory and fundamental inconsistencies with plan policies. Id. at 239; Spring Valley Lake Assn. v. City of Victorville (2016) (D069442) (Ordered Published on June 15, 2016) [a "project's consistency with a general plan's broader policies cannot overcome a project's inconsistency with a general plan's more specific, mandatory and fundamental policies"]. Of particular importance, the EIR states that the project would be consistent with General Plan Policy LU 6.14.4, which presents the general height and massing vision for Newport Center. Policy LU 6.14.4 provides, in its entirety: Development Scale. Reinforce the original design concept for Newport Center by concentrating the greatest building mass and height in the northeasterly section along San Joaquin Road, where the natural topography is highest and progressively scaling down building mass and height to follow the lower elevations toward the southwesterly edge along East Coast Highway. e As further evidence of the EIR's failure to comply with CEQA, Section 4.8.7 concludes that,under Thresholds a) and d), there would be a"potentially significant impact." This is an inappropriate conclusion in an EIR, which is supposed to contain information sufficient to make a determination whether or not a project would have a significant impact or not. Page III Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) Policy LU 6.14.4 is, without a doubt, a "specific, mandatory and fundamental" policy of the General Plan, as it unequivocally identifies the development vision of Newport Center. Spring Valley Lake Assn., supra, D069442 [a project's noncompliance with a policy that required new projects to generate on-site to the maximum extent feasible was a specific, mandatory, and fundamental policy]. As with the policy in Spring Valley Lake Assn., Policy LU 6.14.4 requires ("by concentrating the greatest mass and height") height to be scaled down within Newport Center. Thus, any inconsistency with Policy LU 6.14.4 requires a finding of overall general plan inconsistency. Like the (flawed) aesthetics analysis, the EIR concludes that the project is consistent with Policy LU 6.14.4 largely based on the heights of buildings located over 1,000 feet away in the northeastern section of Newport Center. EIR at 4.7-11. This analysis is inappropriate because it fails to account for the explicit direction of Policy LU 6.14.4, namely concentrating the greatest building mass along San Joaquin Road and progressively scaling down height toward East Coast Highway. The General Plan also reinforces the general policy of scaled development in Newport Center, stating that "[h]igh-rise office and hotel buildings to the north of [Newport] Center form a visual background for lower rise buildings and uses to the south and west." General Plan at 3-94. The EIR's analysis actually highlights the inconsistency. For example, the EIR first states that the height of the proposed project would be less than the existing office towers located along San Joaquin Road. EIR at 4.7-11. The EIR is correct in this regard, but the analysis fails thereafter as it then notes that the project would be consistent with other buildings located closer to the project site, such as 260 Newport Center Drive, that extend to approximately 74 feet in height. This statement is also true, but it cannot be relied upon to support a conclusion of consistency with Policy LU 6.14.4 because a comparison with 260 Newport Center Drive, an anomaly within the southwestern portion of Newport Center, is inappropriate. The existence of a wrong, does not make adding another wrong a right. The project would still be inconsistent with Policy LU 6.14.4 because it would tower over nearby uses and would no longer progressively scale down development toward East Coast Highway. It would, in fact, do just the opposite. The EIR concludes that it the project would be consistent with Policy LU 6.14.4 because even if the project was constructed "the greatest building mass and height would remain concentrated in the northeasterly section of Newport Center along San Joaquin Road." This argument is a red-herring and illogical, and does not constitute substantial evidence. Applying this rationale, the City could reasonably conclude that a single building with a maximum height of 200 feet (which is shorter than the buildings concentrated in the northeasterly section of Newport Center) could be constructed along East Coast Highway and still be consistent with Policy LU 6.14.4 because the greatest building mass and height would still be concentrated along San Joaquin Road.to Clearly, that sort of tortured logic is not the intent of Policy LU 6.14.4, which expressly 10 The same logic could also be applied to multiple 200 foot buildings along East Coast Highway as long as the number of building did not exceed the number and height existing along San Joaquin Road. Page 112 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) requires "progressively scaling down building mass and height" towards East Coast Highway. Because Policy LU 6.14.4 represents the General Plan's height and massing vision for Newport Center and, as such, is a "specific, mandatory and fundamental" policy, the proposed project's inconsistency with Policy LU 6.14.4 is also an inconsistency with the General Plan and a significant aesthetics impact." VI. EIR's Water and Wastewater Analysis is Insufficient and Based on Faulty Assumptions With respect to water demand, which ultimately implicates wastewater generation, the EIR concludes that the project would demand approximately 10,417 gallons per day ("gpd"). EIR at 5-16. This figure was reached through a reverse engineering analysis based upon a projected wastewater generation of 9,470 gpd, which was based on a wastewater flow factor of 7,526 gpd/acre. Appendix at 80. This analysis artificially and severely underestimates both the water demand and amount of wastewater generated by the project. Moreover, it is inconsistent with water assessments conducted for other similar projects in the City. For instance, the Ebb Tide Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration analyzed water demand based upon a per capita water use of 178.9 gpd. This figure represents the baseline water usage (in daily per capita gallons) contained in the Mesa Consolidated Water District's 2010 Urban Water Management Plan.12 While water for the project is not supplied by the Mesa Consolidated Water District, the City of Newport Beach, which would supply water to the project, also has a Urban Water Management Plan ("Newport UWMP"). Like the Mesa Consolidated Water District's UWMP, the Newport UWMP identifies water demand figures. For 2015, the City's interim water use target is 228.1 gallons per capita per day ("gpcd"). Newport UWMP at 2. Using this figure as a realistic estimate of the water demand generated by the project, the 150 Newport Center would create a demand for approximately 22,091 (110 residents x 228.1 gpcd = 22,091), which is over twice the water demand assumptions used in the EIR. This analysis presents a far more realistic expectation of water demand, and is consistent with water demand analyses presented in other environmental documents. For example, the Ebb Tide MND and Lido Villas MND have significantly higher water demand estimates. For the 23 multi-family dwelling units proposed by the Lido Villas project, the MND analysis concluded that there would be a wastewater generation of approximately 172,800 gpd. This, like the water demand numbers contained in the Ebb Tide MND, is significantly higher than the water demand and wastewater generation numbers for 150 Newport Center. Thus, to adequately understand the potential impacts " Also, the project's proposed Planned Community, which would serve as the relevant zoning designation and provide development standards, would be inconsistent with the General Plan. City of Irvine v. Irvine Citizens Against Overdevelopment (1994) 25 Cal.AppAth 868, 879 [a zoning ordinance is consistent with a city's general plan where,considering all its aspects,the ordinance furthers the objectives and policies of the general plan and does not obstruct their attainment]. Again,because the height of the proposed project would be fundamentally inconstant with the height and massing vision for Newport Center in Policy LU 6.14.4, the Planned Community would be inconsistent with the General Plan. 12 The water for the Ebb Tide project was supplied by the Mesa Consolidated Water District. Page 113 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) associated with water demand and wastewater generation, including whether new infrastructure would be required, a new water analysis based upon realistic expectations must be conducted. VII. The Alternatives Analysis Does Not Contribute to a Reasonable Range of Alternatives a. The Project Objectives Are Written Artificially Narrow and Preclude Meaningful Consideration of a Reasonable Range of Alternatives An EIR must "describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly obtain most of the basic project objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a). As discussed below,the EIR's analysis of project alternatives fails to comply with this directive. First, the EIR's stated project objectives are written so narrowly that consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives is not possible. CEQA makes clear that the project objectives should drive the agency's selection of alternatives for analysis an approval and a lead agency may use its discretion when identifying particular objectives. California Native Plant Soc. v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.AppAth 957, 991. However, that discretion is not unlimited, and a lead agency may not draft objectives or the project's underlying purpose so narrowly to preclude meaningful consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives. North Coast Rivers Alliance v. A.G. Kawamura (2016) 243 Cal.AppAth 647, 654. Here, the project objectives are crafted intentionally narrow to preclude the consideration, and approval, of any potential alternatives. The objectives include, among other things, (1) redevelop an underutilized property in Newport Center, (2) add for-sale, owner-occupied housing units in Newport Center, (3) introduce a luxury, multi-family residential development in Newport Center, (4) provide new multi family residential development in Newport Center, and (5) implement a residential development that provides for on-site amenities for its residents. EIR at 6-6. These are all consistent with the underlying purpose of the project, which is to "redevelop an underutilized property in the Newport Center with multi-family, for-sale luxury high-rise (three + stories) residential units located within walking distance to employment, shopping, entertainment, and recreation." EIR at 6-6. The primary purpose and objectives are clearly written to foreclose meaningful analysis and consideration of non-residential alternatives. Predictably, and based on these narrowly drafted alternatives, the EIR states that the non-residential alternatives would not meet the project objectives. For example, the EIR concludes that the No Project/Office Redevelopment Alternative would only meet 4 of the 11 project objectives. EIR 6-19. Of course, the EIR can make this conclusion because 5 of the 11 project objectives include some reference to the provisions of residential uses.13 The duplicative nature of the objectives strongly suggests that " This does not include Objective B, which addresses financial feasibility, which appears to be applied to discriminately to conclude that any non-residential alternatives are financially infeasible. Page 114 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) they were drafted with the intention of rejecting alternatives for non-compliance with a majority of the project objectives.14 This runs afoul of CEOA's requirements, and such gaming of the system is not permitted. Likewise, consideration of alternative sites is rejected because there are no available sites "in or near" Newport Center. This rationale, however, fails to consider the possibility that alternative sites within the City of Newport Beach generally are available for development and would reduce the project's significant environmental impacts. Moreover, there is no evidence that any alternative locations were ever actively sought out or considered. Flanders Foundation v. City of Carmel-by-the-Sea (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 603, 622 [sufficient evidence of economic infeasibility when there was evidence that similar properties were looked for, but unable to be found]. Thus, the EIR's consideration of alternatives based upon the narrowly drafted objectives is inappropriate and precludes consideration of a reasonable range of alternatives. b. EIR Does Not Include Evidence of Financial Infeasibility Objective B of the project objectives states that the project is intended to "[r]edevelop an underutilized property with a use that is financially feasible to construct and operate." EIR at 6-6. Applying this objective, the EIR concludes that two alternatives — the No Project/Commercial Office Alternative and the Commercial/Restaurant Redevelopment Alternative — would be infeasible. These conclusions are not supported by substantial evidence, however, as required by CEQA. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 406 [if an agency finds an alternative to be infeasible, the reasons and facts that the agency claims support its conclusion must be explained in meaningful detail]. With respect to economic infeasibility, the burden on the lead agency is equally as significant and it must include factual evidence supporting its conclusion. The EIR relies solely on a verbal communication between Ronald Soderling, Managing Member of Newport Center Anacapa Associates, LLC and Tracy Zinn, Vice President of T&B Planning. See EIR Reference to Soderling, 2016b. Reliance on this verbal communication as the sole justification for economic infeasibility is wildly inappropriate and runs afoul of CEQA's informational mandates. SPRAWLDEF v. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 905 [holding that a determination of economic infeasibility must be supported by "some context" that allows for economic comparison such as, for example, providing side-by- side comparative figures showing cost, capacity, and life of project, and explaining why an alternative is not financially viable]. Furthermore, a lead agency preparing an EIR may not simply accept the project proponent's assertions about an alternative; the agency must independently participate, review, analyze and discuss the alternatives in good faith. Sierra Club v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2013) 916 F.Supp.2d 1098, 1159, citing Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo, 157 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1460. Therefore, to comply with CEQA, the EIR's alternative section must be revised to provide evidence of economic infeasibility. 14 If there were only one objective regarding the provision of residential uses, for example, the No Project/Commercial Office Alternative would satisfy 4 of 6 objectives. Page 115 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) VIII. Project Approval Would Result in Impermissible Spot Zoning The City's approval of the project approvals would constitute improper spot zoning. An impermissible "spot zoning" occurs when a small parcel of land is subject to either more or less restrictive zoning than surrounding properties. Foothills Communities Coalition V. County of Orange (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1302, 1312. It is now well-settled that an "amendment to a zoning ordinance that singles out a small parcel of land for a use different from that of the surrounding properties and for the benefit of the owner of the small parcel and to the detriment' of the surrounding owners is impermissible spot zoning. Id. at 1314. The essence of spot zoning is irrational discrimination, and a property may not be arbitrarily singled out for special treatment separate and apart from surrounding properties. Avendio San Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1268. Nevertheless, even if spot zoning occurs, courts recognize that such zoning may be justified if a substantial public need exists, even if the property will also benefit. Foothills Communities Coalition, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at 1314. The relevant question is whether the zoning ordinance is arbitrary and discriminatory. Reynolds v. Barrett (1938) 12 Cal.2d 244, 250 [holding that a zoning ordinance that would have zoned one lot completely surrounded by non-residential uses as residential was arbitrary and discriminatory]. Without a doubt, approval of the project would result in spot zoning. The proposed project site is surrounded by zoning (and existing uses) that are uniformly commercial and office oriented. The project site does not border any zones that would allow residential uses like the proposed project. The surrounding zoning is as follows: • West and South: Block 100 Sub-Area of the North Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan ("NNCPC"), a "Commercial Office" block that is generally comprised of administrative and professional offices and permits uses such as limited accessory retail, financial, service and entertainment. NNCPC at 1, 11. It does not allow residential uses. • North: Fashion Island Sub-Area of the NNCPC, a primarily retail hub that permits uses such as retail, dining, and commercial entertainment uses. NNCPC at 1, 11. It does not allow residential uses. • East: Office Regional Commercial zoning, which is intended to provide for areas appropriate for corporate office, administrative and professional offices that serve local and regional markets, with limited accessory financial, retail, services, and entertainment uses. It does not allow residential uses. NBMC §§ 20.20.010 and 20.20.020. The project approvals would, if approved by the City Council, result in an amendment to the City's Zoning Ordinance that would single out a small island parcel (1.26-acre) for residential development while keeping the adjacent properties zoned for commercial and office uses. Page 116 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) Foothills Communities Coalition, supra, 222 Cal.AppAth at 1314. This constitutes arbitrary special treatment for the project site. Avendia San Juan Partnership, supra, 201 Cal.AppAth at 1268 [spot zoning exists when a parcel is being singled out for special treatment]. Moreover, although the project could conceivably serve the public interest by expanding residential uses within the City, the project's inconsistency with the vision for Newport Center would render any public interest finding arbitrary. The General Plan states that Newport Center is a "master planned mixed-use development" consisting of retail, professional office, entertainment, recreation, residential uses. General Plan at 3-95. However, as a planned development, these uses have been allocated to various areas within Newport Center consistent with the overall vision for Newport Center. For example, the NNCPC notes that the sub-areas it created are intended to implement the General Plan's goal of creating a successful mixed-use district that integrates economic and commercial centers and expands opportunities for residential development. NNCPC at 1. With respect to expanded opportunities for residential development, the NNCPC allocated all residential uses to specific blocks located in the northern portion of Newport Center. NNCPC at 11. The other blocks, located in the southern portion of Newport Center (and located adjacent and nearest to the project site), are reserved for commercial and office uses. Id. Similarly, the Zoning Ordinance, which designates the project site and other nearby property as Office Regional Commercial, reserves the area for commercial and office uses. NBMC § 20.20.020. Furthermore, the proposed project would allow for the development of an over-height, residential building inconsistent with the surrounding environment and General Plan Policy LU 6.14.4. As discussed above, Policy LU 6.14.4 provides that development within Newport Center should reinforce the original design concept by locating high-rise development in the northeastern section along San Joaquin Road and progressively scaled down toward East Coast Highway. Policy LU 6.14.4. The project would be fundamentally inconsistent with this policy, further demonstrating how the project's special treatment is to the detriment of the surrounding properties which are limited by existing zoning and development standards. Finally, the City currently does not have a significant need for additional housing that would justify spot zoning the project site. As noted in the Initial Study, the City only needs a total of five new units to meet its Southern California Association of Governments projected regional housing needs. Initial Study at 66. Thus, because the project would be inconsistent with the development vision and standards of Newport Center and is not necessary to meeting housing needs within the City, any approval of the project based upon serving the public interest would be arbitrary. Foothills Communities Coalition, supra, 222 Cal.AppAth at 1314 [finding that a new senior residential housing zone was in the public interest, as supported by references to state law and the housing element, and as consistent with the general plan]. IX. The Project's Proposed Use of the Anacapa Drive Right-of-Way is Not Permitted by the Underlying Easement and Would Result in Traffic Safety Impacts Page 117 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) The project's proposed Site Circulation Plan, Appendix G2, appears to state that the project will utilize the Anacapa Drive right-of-way for both (1) staging of moving trucks, and (2) trash trucks. Appendix G2 at 2. With respect to trash, Appendix G2 notes that pick-up and loading is not permitted in the Anacapa Drive right-of-way. Id. It is unclear how such activities will be avoided, however, given the conceptual site plans for the project show little, if any, additional property near the parking structure entrance (where trash will be stored) that could handle such activities. See EIR Figures 3-3 and 3-7. The EIR appears to try and dispense with this issue by noting that the project would include rolled curbs along the Anacapa Drive right- of-way to allows waste disposal trucks to move partially outside the paved driveway to avoid impeding vehicular access. EIR at 4.9-11. First, it is unclear if the sidewalk along the right-of- way is sufficiently large to accommodate disposal trucks. If not, the parked disposal trucks will still impede vehicular access along Anacapa Drive, which will jeopardize traffic and pedestrian safety. Moreover, as noted in the Irvine Company's September 29, 2015 letter attached as Exhibit B, the proposed uses — moving trucks and disposal trucks — are inconsistent with the easement that dictates the use of the Anacapa Drive right-of-way. According to the Irvine Company, Anacapa Road is for the exclusive purpose of providing vehicular access to and from the properties within Block 100 of the NNCPC. Thus, the uses proposed by the project for the Anacapa Road right-of-way are not only not permitted by the underlying easement, but the right-of-way's design is not sufficient to accommodate such uses (as it was designed for vehicular ingress and egress only). The EIR must analyze potential traffic safety impacts associated with such uses within the right-of-way, and cannot simply rely on the statement that "vehicular access though the southern access drive" would not be blocked. There is still a potential for traffic safety impacts associated with vehicles using the Anacapa Drive right-of- way and forced to maneuver around trucks that are temporarily parked in/blocking the right-of- way. Also, if such activities cannot be accommodated in the right-of-way, the EIR must analyze the impacts associated with disposal and moving trucks at another location. X. The Project Violates a Recorded Declaration In connection with the Irvine Company's conveyance of the project site in 1992, a Declaration of Special Land Use Restrictions, Mortgage Lien and Option to Repurchase (the "Declaration") was recorded in favor the Irvine Company. The Declaration, attached as Exhibit C, requires all successive owners of the project site to comply with specific covenants, conditions and restrictions that limit development and uses on the project site, including the following: • Permitted Uses: Car wash, auto related services (e.g., minor service/repair), and the incidental sale of gasoline, car accessories and auto-related products. • Maximum Gross Floor Area: 25,000 square feet • Height Limitation: Not to exceed height of then-existing building in 1992. Page 118 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4c Additional Materials Received Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) The proposed project violates each of these express use and development limitations. First, the project proposes an unpermitted change in use to luxury residential, which is a radical deviation from the car wash or auto-related service uses that are allowed under the Declaration. In addition, the project's proposed gross floor area of 163,260 square feet is more than 6.5 times the Declaration's maximum permitted gross floor area. EIR at 4.2-17. Finally, according to the EIR, the existing car wash building located on the project site is approximately 12.5 feet high. EIR at 4.1-21. However, in clear excess of the height of the existing building, the proposed project consists of a seven-story, 75.5 foot high building. In addition to the use and development restrictions, the Declaration also prohibits the owner of the project site from pursuing discretionary entitlements, including subdivisions and zone changes, without the prior approval of the Irvine Company. However, the applicant is pursuing a broad range of entitlements, including, a General Plan Amendment, Zoning Code Amendment and Tentative Tract Map, among others, without having provided satisfactory evidence that the Irvine Company has given its approval to these requests. In fact, the Irvine Company's comments on the MND and the Notice of Preparation suggest that such approval has not been granted. If that is the case, it would constitute a clear violation of the Declaration. Although the City is not responsible for enforcing the Declaration, neither can it ignore the Declaration. Among other things, the Declaration's mandatory provisions fundamentally change the scope of the project as well as its environmental impacts. The project must be re- imagined to be consistent with the Declaration's restrictions. The Declaration constitutes "significant new information" under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 and therefore the EIR must be recirculated. Without recirculation, meaningful public review and comment were precluded (Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish and Game Com. (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1043)) and the public would be deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon the project's substantial adverse environmental effects and feasible ways to mitigate or avoid such an effect. Conclusion: The EIR is wholly insufficient to analyze the impacts of this Project. As stated above, The City of Newport Beach MUST recirculate the environmental review with the additional issues above properly studied before attempting to hold any hearings on this project. Failure to comply with State Environmental Law will subject the City and the applicant to a legal challenge of the sufficiency of the environmental determination. Additional comments will be forthcoming if the City insists on holding public hearings without further study. Signed on behalf of a Committee of Concerned Residents, Bob Rush Page 119 Miloil 15o Newport Center �•� 11+9' Yi€ . t ON ire YF� Planning Commission Study Session �► (PA2014-213) June 23, 2o16 , Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 ting 213) Introduction is iso Newport Center (PA2014-213) ■ General Plan Amendment No. GP2O14-003 ■ Code Amendment No. CA2014-008 ■ Planned Community Development Plan No. PC2O14-004 ■ Site Development Review No. SD2014-oo6 ■ Tentative Tract Map No. NT2015-003, County Tentative Tract Map No. 17915 Development Agreement No. DA2O14-002 Environmental Impact Report No. ER2015-002 Location: Newport Center area Southwest corner of Anacapa Drive and Newport Center Drive 15o Newport Center Drive Community Development Department - Planning Division 2 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 ting 213) fi .E• , , , '*c, r ;-�A:r.� - _ , �- 77 /, .4 zoo a y A f T zs Existing Car Wash _ � ISI• pp ( • 4 1 ��•�� 1. { • �. �I V~ 1 r .�_ -i � � t I�1 4� _IMP r��i��� 401 1 I/ �t•a� Islas,s ,_ i awl •. � X11 =,9 - �iee•' �� �1 • �1` �i 7 ° 1A--- -•- •- tI QII • 1 ttttt r4l ill � ��1► I Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 ting 213) Development Standards is Planned Community Unit density is 39 du/acre Deviations from RM standards for height and setbacks . Building setbacks are roughly 24 feet from the street frontages (exceptions for porte cochaire and minor architectural projections) . All required parking is provided on -site (z garage spaces and 0 . 5 guest parking space per unit) within the 3 level basement . Community Development Department - Planning Division 6 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 ting Planned Community 213) 20 . 56 .02o Area Requirements. A. Minimum Acreage . ■ 1 . In order to meet the objectives identified in Section zo . 56 . o3-o ( Purpose), an application for a PC District shall contain a minimum of twenty- five ( 25) acres of unimproved land area or ten (so) acres of improved land area . 2 . The Council may waive these minimum acreage requirements. Community Development Department- Planning Division 7 Planning Commission • 13) East Elevation 8 1611 107.!■■7�7..r�1�■___�7�•li__i 7.- =-� - _— _ _-- i___iln�_____■t �7■■7�_7■.7_�u■7_:Ia���i Trl11 �ll ,Ils��-�� iIC'��lHl�,��11 111 111 111 I ;ytil �� 9��� 1 1 idyl i.11l !. 111 i Illi yl yl �il'•�I�Illll�llll�llll�l�•fl fI� !V� y� ■•I�III� �A� lillll.i.!1 i�illl■iri ■■ 1'•• 11 " •I � 111 11111 ■ s■ IIL1 11 II �•■ 11■ 11■ .L'.1r fla I■.� if! r !1!! !moi ■! ■! r!f■i�r���1�1l.�!!l�r�f!!t ,. !!__!! .._Ir! 1!! !!l��1 ! I.� ; iilll iiilll 1111 I1111.� r!! ID- all ! �.. 11 •t1��11tlg :!!__.■� i1l--rAGifiIYP���aYY.r.r-■1 .1_ .■.. .--IFf__ 7f:•� 7!!•- ,flr� � _ ,_ ��.1!!.�'•1l+.!•�I�r�� � � !w sr-�!/� SII �•,R 7! eCi�_r`�a-n. �s.n.a��s' T I �Y.' • 3 � er•��7 ■ .tl ■ t� '_. aIII�IIIai�l I �'�III•s nlhl��+�k Yi }x :. �i Roof Plan Ivi .mammas � .. ====mass ow millmommimrl� n suu' 0.0=.44.2 _ _ "� —i..�� �— �� •_ --- a ___ -_ oo— .I I ■■■I■I I I. IIS ■■■■I i / oN 1'...,, @loolooloo ,� % opo®ol®oil®■ � � �„ 1:.. . . EI MPOjiloll Development07/13/2012 Community DepartmentDivision 9 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 ting 213) General Plan PolicyAnalysis d a.C'dt/FORN�P LU 6 . 14.4 Development Scale ■ "Reinforce the original design concept for Newport Center by concentrating the greatest building mass and height in the northeasterly section along San Joaquin Hills Road, where the natural topography is highest and progressively scaling down building mass and height to follow the lower elevations toward the southwesterly edge along East Coast Highway. (Imp 2 . 1, 3. 1, 4 . 1) „ Community Development Department - Planning Division 10 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4d Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 4-213) Legend HEIGHT 7 .28/33 feet Z .32 137 feet 5 40 feet Building/ 20-ft anourtenance 1 O S,qN 1 As tiC X150 feet Building 1 20-ft appurtenance ® Fa I ISI 75 feet Mall Buildings/ y 'SQ 20-ft m R 100 feet appurtenance o Newport Beach �e°Q- Country Club 611, C9 z � NrG`t'I 2 S Block 300 ylGe �o 0 Blo R Z $ Block 200 yEJ A Q" O P P ROW U� 26o NCD c7� J`i�OR AcZNTER DR Nonconforming Py at 74ft4in G„ QOPP JQF coy` 5 R W 150 Newport Center Drive If \ (PA2014-213) Clry of1Pori 8mch 0 340 660 cls IS ow�,lo� —\ > �Feet October 07,2015 PA201A 21311eigh, Eehibllmxd Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 ting 213) General Plan • lysis LU 1. . 6, Public Views "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points. (Imp 1. 1) " Community Development Department- Planning Division 12 Figure NR3 ofthe General Plan View SimulationV7' .4 rAl N 1 p � T ' 'Ib rll! - rrr • r i r r Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 ting 213) CEQA uL�rSiit.S.. �)ew Cq</P00.N\P. Environmental Impact Report No . ER2015 -002 Public comment period May 13, 2016, through June 27, 2016 . Public comments ongoing . ■ Mitigation Measures for Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, and Noise are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program . Community Development Department - Planning Division 15 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 ting EIR Alternatives 213) No project-existing carwash to remain 2 . No project-8, 500 sq . ft . office building developed on -site 8, 500 sq . ft . restaurant developed on - site 4. Reduced project alternative -45 du, 6 stories at 70-foot 5 - inch maximum Community Development Department- Planning Division 16 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 ting 213) Traffic Existing car wash generates 819 daily trips . ( based on traffic counts in the field ) Proposed : high - rise residential condo (3 -10 stories) generates 205 daily trips . Overall reduction of 63.4 daily trips . Community Development Department- Planning Division 17 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 ting Water/Wastewater Demand 213) Water Existing car wash : 12, 395 gpd Proposed residential use : 10,417 qpd Net Decrease in water demand : -1, 978 gpd Wastewater Existing car wash : 11, 156 gpd Proposed residential use : g, 47o gpd Net Decrease in sewer generation : -4536 gpd Community Development Department- Planning Division 18 Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 ting Airport Land Use Plan 213) Project site is located in the JWA notification area but is not considered part of the " Planning Area " requiring Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) approval because the project height does not exceed the imaginary conical surface . Community Development Department- Planning Division ig Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 ting 213) Next Steps ai a cqC/FORN�P ■ Planning Commission Public Hearing is tentatively scheduled for July 21, 2016 . Community Development Department - Planning Division 20 r *i a ti 4 M is *=&S - 231111 ONE 9.0 46 I _ For more information contact: - Makana Nova,Associate Planner 949-644-3249 — mnova(a new port beach ca.gov www.newportbeachca.gov Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) PRESENTATION OVERVIEW � 1. INTRODUCTION+EXISTING CONDITIONS } w 2. PUBLIC BENEFITS 3. PROJECT PLANS+STATS 4. HOUSING THAT BENEFITS A COMMUNITY'S NEEDS 5, THE VIEW LINES 6. DISCUSSION ! ir A , , I M� '1 150 _ M/E N WPORT CENTER + a r x s n s Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting NewportCenter-Villas-(PA2014-21a)- THE )- THE INSPIRATION Timeless. Beautiful. Newport Beach. M +. The story of 150 Newport Center and the r story of Newport Beach itself are inseparably entwined.This is a story of thoughtful design and development.A story of lives well-lived rr� and futures well-planned.A story of timeless beauty and uncompromising standards, coming to fruition here on the West Coast, \4 where all dreams come to thrive.The dream of fine coastal living was born right here in our very community,and in 150 Newport Center,the next stage of that dream has found its home.While ours may be a new development,it is built upon the same foundations,and caters to the same A' aspirations,as the community into which it I = A arrives.So as we welcome 150 Newport Center to our community,we celebrate the vision and values that have made Newport Beach itself possible. RENDERING -AERIAL PERSPECTIVE 150 MW EWPOPT CENTEPI + ass rxsss Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting HOUSING THAT BENEFITS A COMMUNITY'S NEEDS: Pedestrian Connectivity and Amenity: Urban Form: Encourage that pedestrian access and Encourage that some new uses within the district be improved with development be located and additional walkways and streetscape _ designed to orient to the inner side amenities concurrent with the i' '— — — — of Newport Center Drive, development of expanded and new uses. . establishing physical and visual i ----- �'� continuity that diminishes the • � �• I j •` dominance of surface parking lots - ------- - -------� / i i------,--------, , i — ' and encourages pedestrian activity / i I.. / AV :i Fashion Island Architecture and --------- _ -------- Streetsca0e: I l ' '' `• • 'i 0.75 MI. 0.50 MI. Encourage that new development in i I I I 5 M�.Walk 10 na N Walk- Fashion Island complement and be of j---- ----------- -----------;11_ equivalent or higher design quality than j j \ % ! 1 ---Development Scale: existing buildings. Reinforce the existing % �7 ! ! Design of 150 Newport Center promenades by encouraging retail t• \ ;1•/ / Drive's massing has evolved through expansion that enhances the storefront \. �' _ ___ A/' / considerable study of the visibility to the promenades and \• / surrounding context including provides an enjoyable retail and building height that transition RETAIL eastern ' '� / , consistent with neighboring pedestrian experience.Additionally, � �• = g g new buildings shall be located on axes OFFICE A.A. uses,a scale that protects existing connecting Newport Center Drive with "E"IC•` •�. .,.A"'� residential and Newport Center view existing building to provide visual and `aa""M. � — — — — corridors and a massing that breaks physical connectivity with adjoining —RQOESTRIARIMICIE " the enclave into two villa clusters VEMCUTAR •.. uses,where practical. _______ � � -J `� � linked by a visual bridge. V MVE NEWPORT E N T E + r A R E R E R s A!. li a A t • r - - Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Newport Center Vil as (PA2014-21, LEXIITINGCONOITIONS PROPOSED CONDITIONS 1 150 P!F WP RT CFNTF Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting HOUSING THAT BENEFITS A COMMUNITY'S NEEDS: I. PROXIMITY: ' CIVIL CENTER/RECREATIONAL: CIVIL CENTER/RECREATIONAL: - 0.20-MILE RADIUS FROM CITY HALL+PUBLIC LIBRARY - 0.40-MILE RADIUS FROM NEWPORT BEACH COUNTRY CLUB E - 0.40-MILE RADIUS FROM IRVINE TERRACE PARK -4P - 0.75-MILE RADIUS FROM JASMINE VIEW PARK MARKET: MARKET: OFFICE: - 0.30-MILE RADIUS FROM WHOLE FOODS N- 0.40-MILE RADIUS FROM BRISTOL FARMS MEDICAL: 0.25-0.50-MILE RADIUS FROM VARIOUS MEDICAL FACILITIES Ow- - MEDICAL: RANSPORTATION HUB: OFFICE: t t - 0.5-MILE RADIUS FROM NEWPORT CENTER OFFICE BUILDINGS RESTAURANT: - 0.30-MILE RADIUS FROM 13 HIGH-END RESTAURANTS RETAIL/ENTERTAINEMENT: RETAIL/ENTERTAINEMENT: �1 - 0.25-MILE RADIUS FROM FASHION ISLAND&THEATERS - ` TRANSPORTATION HUB: - 0.15-MILE RADIUS TO VARIOUS BUS STOPS - 0.50-MILE RADIUS FROM TRANSPORTATION CONTROL DOCK 1 RESTAURANT: II. BENEFITS: • Close proximity to various offices and retail. • Close proximity to medical facilities for elderly/senior housing. • Policy CE 5.1.2 Pedestrian Connectivity: Link residential areas,schools,parks,and commercial centers so that residents can travel within the community without driving. (Imp 16.11,20.1) • Policy CE 5.1.12 Pedestrian Street Crossings: Implement improved pedestrian crossings in key high volume areas such as Corona Del Mar,Mariners'Mile,West Newport,Airport Area,Newport Center/Fashion Island,and the Balboa Peninsula.(Imp 16.11) 1 MW N E W P RT CFNTF + r e• t e c x s Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Newport Genter—gttl •�, •�,1 SURROUNDING ELEMENT KEY LEGEND: �• O RETAIL I ENTERTAINMENT �• O MARKET �• EIRE DEPT. —•� \ O RESTAURANT '. O4 OFFICE �•�• _--�_-_- GOLF COU0.5E �•� / o- r �'o •\ O5 MEDICAL / �r�0 '• ___ .!'f. \ \ © CIVIC CENTER I RECREATIONAL / �• a E BIG CANYON \ •\ T COUNTRY CLUB \ % 4 '\ •\ \ OT OCTA(TRANSPORTATION HUB �• � USES: r 2 RETAIL/RESTAURANT / \ / GOIf COURSE/• 4EE \, r TRANSPORTATION '\ •1 / 3 3 �^! ' S HUB \I ,. _ OFFICE MEDICAL T 1' 1. CIRCULATION: � 5 1 NEWPORT BEACH T 3 /' 1 PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE COUNTRY CLUB 1 - 015mi. 0.50 MI. 1 0.75 MI. 5 Min.Walk 10 Mm.Walk' ISM... Wall kl ZO Min. VEHICULAR / p I ZONING I PC MAP: I — o A �r / Q / 6 rc \ 4r1 �. Em % F If HALL LIBRARY RETAIL •\ •\ '\ �• CENTER \ i /* Ion .. 1 J U iLA*- .... n 2MVE '.lrn! T FNTFI'f + i 1R TNF R S Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting NewportCenter-Villas-(PA2014-213)- THE �J COMMUNITY A NEW BENCHMARK OF - VALUE FOR THE COMMUNITY a Every aspect of 150 Newport Center has been thoughtfully considered and designed with the value and best interest of the community in mind. The timeless,classic design complements the surrounding architecture beautifully. Increased setbacks from the property line ensure an appropriately sized building,and i simulation studies have confirmed that 150 �q Newport Center will not block or obscure the incredible views that are so integral to _ Newport Beach. I . .— — - _ RENDERING FROM ANACAPA DRIVE+NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE 150 MVE NEWPORT T R + a s s r x s s s Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Newport Center Vil as (PA2014-21, 'k.--4. M01p I I SECTIONS+ARTICULATION 1 J v MW [NEWPORT NT + n••t efns Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213 PROJECT STATS: LOT BUILDABLE AREA zJ1.09 Acre)47,592 SF BUILDING FOOTPRINT= 29,800 SF LOT COVERAGE= 63% NUMBER OF UNITS= 49 UNITS 2 BEDROOM= 1,632,3,608 SF)38 UNITS FOIL ERVICE CESS+ OVE-IN _ _ 3 BEDROOM= (3,483-3,566 Sr)11 UNITS ' VALET pARKINGT—_ PARKING= 126S DROP-OFF q ACAPADRIVE ENTRY RESIDENTIAL= 100 STALLS 22.5'SETBACK 22'SETBACK PUBLIC PARK 169 _-_ _ _ _ �� �+ 61.5 VISITOR= 26 STALLS OPEN SPACE= 26,243 SF j i COMMON= 13,392 S W I+239.5 +239.5 i i PRIVATE= 12,8515 i GROSS FLOOR AREA X3.43 FAR)163,260 SF ti AGP= 164' ' ___�� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: aPARKING THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF(1)MULT- ___ -+ ' STORY W -+158 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. Z + 7 STORIES OF RESIDENTIAL ' +162 3 LEVELS OF UNDERGROUND PARKING 4' ETBACK 14'S B CK BUILDING SHALL BE COMPLETELY SPRINKLERED. PU LIC PAR R SIDENTA ENITY ECK CIRCULATION: ---------- PEDESTRIAN I BICYCLE /7� --------- VEHICULAR SITE PLAN+STATS 1 0 MW NEWPORT CENTER + R A R T N E R 5 `M'V �� - I • O. Irrt ^� I r� Jr�L �' ' - o Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Newport Center Vil as (PA2014-21, 12 11 10 9 B 7 �� A6 6 5 a 3 2 t r r ANACAPA DRIVE mr nr mlr rRaPalrr . ale�4IeNE ---------------Pl------------------------ f ry Pmw aupl aN.a a...w L, n awaNemnw t w^ I 'I M1.le..s P^'�EQIr'Y' star a,s ^"mr3"w PNw.O.rll',„ ws -ly E Fri li I rr w rr rr als ws D }h• �•• 7 _#' x 45unKE PL jE�� I 1 IFM.W - 1Elrvaoi 1 I I I LeNtr/ troev I I pII 9 � •.w i - L Mr Swk. 1 I i � nvartws B f k A.5 r luu•.Nwl r 1 PNra.O.ry. m.ma.w PVrrwnE. PN.u.o..w �;PNwaaNp. vma.r+.w mmavq. PXV.aa.r.w PNVm O.r.w r Al n,> e.n Er.s >ibr %i�r IvF rni. Pi•s _+'nom Inl yr if _—--- A —__—__—__—__—__—__ fit_—__—__—_ rrr Br Or SV LHIMfiVERN1IFA MONO g,yp br _ G.pMaµµL y xED FLOOR PLANS-LEVEL Bl 150 MW t!F W P O P T CFNTF TPARTNERS Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting DEVELOPMENT SCALE - PROXIMITY + HEIGHT CONTEXT TO SURROUNDING BUILDINGS: SURROUNDING BUILDINGS O1 260 Newport Center Or 300 Newport Center Or +478 �- - +238 O 385 San Miguel Or +431' _- +525' _ .\�•+191_/219' +285/300 ® 101 Newport Center Dr-IMacy'sl 10/75 315' +53/98' - _ r 500 O313R60 1275 1401 Avocado Ave 74130 520 Newport Center Or 9 8 545 O 610 Newport Center Or 10 ''-375' 305/315 650 Newport Center Or �_. e_E O 750 Newport Center Or •' n ' " -- 10 800 Newport Center Or +86/107'a ,•6 .F j��� 77 Meridian Apartments 1.0� gqg +321' _ L 12 900 Newport[enter Or-Marriott Hotel O� �5 _• � +325' - .��, p q 350' P 244' /70' 240' +0/75.5' LEGEND 01 5 MSL MSL-ELEVATION MEAN SEA LEVEL i. 20 Mile 3 X/Y X- GRADE HEIGHT DELTA FROM PROPOSED 240'ROOF HEIGHT M + 247' u P 6' Y- OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT O N- BUILDING ADDRESS/NAME �V�► xoxnt Urban Form: O Encourage that some new development be located and designed to orient to the inner side of Newport Center Drive, -150 establishing physical and visual continuity that diminishes the dominance of surface parking lots andencourages pedestrian activity NEWPORT F N T E + v A R i s c x 5 • • • • S ' • • ■ • E I e ki I I WN m • • i a ' `ir 1 �!IL 7;�- 00 1a Nit 1 1 ,. ' • L Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Newport Center Villas (PA2014-21, 12 11 10 9 i 8 7 �� AB6 5 4 9 2 1 as a• ae as a• as as as sa ne .. nra re m+r ••a� PROPEvi. cmc ----- ------------- _-------P1'----------------- . 1 x 1 1 1 b • as • • ed • b I E bl p pi • h h ntc b aA 1 SI Fa yn�l tq� 1@S • • • '��M1 F SB•�p�• SP I P IfM[M1 I Mna 1 b aXY b 1 ,v.. 1` s ' eq cm•w <anar xv 1 k .3 ® . ® . C, q C. 1 J=M1 III1�fy� ' IIP yS _ bt q6 - NMGWtV Sd 1 IN }NOme �' t10 , HiS I P 1 �nrupn re I rG�u�q•n ama �uu�r M1t nv 1 B / x yr q • aiv • • sr • a.a • a a� 1 /��\ I b .: — s • g A.5 A.7 i L------- -------------------P[-----v:--------- ------------- e A as mr• SIGp Mr n C FLOOR PLANS-LEVEL 3(4-5 TYP.) 15 n M` NFWPOPT ENTE + v .nixe as Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213) THE INDIVIDUAL A home for the Ki. next chapter of the American Dream i More than a work of public art, 150 Newport Center addresses a vital community need and fills an important role for the existing residents of our city. M As our community evolves and matures, as many residents'own children move out and come into their own,residents find themselves searching for a way to maintain their quality of life and lifestyle, I with less space to maintain. 150 Newport Center serves their needs,offering all of the luxuries of modern urban resort living in a more compact and efficient footprint. I 15 0 M/E RENDERING OF BUILDING ENTRY N T + 7. Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 12 11 10 B 8 7 A.6: 6 5 4 7 2 1 nH YI MRr ANACAPA MOVE r�mrroRsmEWru rNgTps y/mina . 1 RRavFnx !' /'_ � YP,Pd�PfIPPPIP�P9APP'rirn rnrr�s in r rl" P111 IIITIMI p p ReagEm G..pa ; ry k! K y — � LOE4y - E. ; �Y I.i ]bSrom p LOUM. ]66na R YI ♦� T,,,Y'�C, � q yLL�' 1 a.l X4Y lu4 ItM9 � I I- >soagm � - h )xtlay. W I c5s[vG ` OS I I Y ms p Y Q � , I T ' E:W1P!:I 1 bnc, I Y 1 I Il. .—.. laE4v� I M.JR 'III P Os 1 f1 � �y 1 I` � tr 4 > C , f J U Of L — W I QTRa Na TRa nu Txa TEu _ _-` ' F �r B ' l6Yw.V )&Ormw 190tw ]Stlmn qR J41eY. 1i ]b1mIR f ISS A9Y Y APY SIS ]i$ ITS . E O —1! — rLp ❑ I a A7 A y ea I .-�4�RfD iClf nr xalwDHGwF ruminnaq YM1'b Y TOBECOERR w Mr —OM.�WNL ♦♦♦ 9lAfEHMC112GlUPK WILL � FLOOR PLANS- LEVEL 1-TOWNHOMES 150 MW N F W P R T CFNTF + R e R T R x x s Planning Commission • Item No. • • • ' • at Meeting �O I w: Ff Kv 14 o a _ Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting i 0AFilfw it U� _ s - RENDERING OF LOBBY INTERIOR+CONCIERGE 150 MW N F W P R T CFNTF Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Newport Center Vil as (PA2014-21, 12 11 70 8 8 7 AS 6 5 4 3 2 1 >m va vv rr/ ra /vv r. vv vv my 41iA I WAGAPA DRIVE morEm. Im _____—_______________ P1______—__—_____—__—__—__ - / r � F I ip III - -+va __ _ -` yr •, -- —�I I E li IIa fli Itv * p tlW llaw h F1 2 I _ C 1 D i 0 PL IL IDI rr J l cow�awl .a I I � -•i 11111 IJ i I � � t O Iyyfn��es xxxra N ✓ C IId y 1 y Ea P NIGrw�rw -Yi- ALpgYl re P .. FI I p B 1 IInY • wel, ` C1Y vw w ww 1 ' —-_-- -- a A.6 -- Al e / L------------- ------ _—__—__—__—__�C------ ------- _—__—__ « A YM1q w-- ED FLOOR PLANS- LEVEL 7(AMENITY DECK) 150 M - ,i f W P O R T CENTE + n -n ♦e E n s Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting New-port Center ),(Miias (R11,9014-2134- PROJECT AMENITIES: 150 Newport Center Drive is designed to be a social Collection of Garden Space around the Perimeter of the Enclave __ "__'___-______�__:___�____ enclave through common amenities that promote a • Corner of Newport Center and Anacapa Drive privileged lifestyle for a handful of likeminded residents. Small Gathering Space where Neighbors can meet prior to going a local venue • North Western Corner along Newport Center Drive • Dual Core Building with Unequivocal Resident Services Intimate Enclosed Resident Park where one may bring their Doga, • 2 Passenger Elevators Per Core • South Western Corner • 1 Freight Elevator Per Core A Small Sitting Garden Along the Boardwalk Trail g g g 1 'i ...:: • Total of Six Elevators for 49 Homes • Sothern Corner along Anacapa Drive Nearly 1 Elevator for Every 8 Homes A Small Sitting Garden Along the Boardwalk Trail — L --� • Project Boardwalk Dual Core Building • Each Residential Home will have Private Garage -An Urban Trail that Links Ground FloorTownhomes Directly to the Community • Porte Cochere with Valet Service • Porte Cochere with Valet Service -Townhomes Patios Directly Connect to this Social Pathway Allowing Neighbors . Concierge+Guest Reception at Lobby • Concierge and Guest Reception at Lobby to Casually Stroll Around the Community and Interact • Resident Living Room under Lobby Atrium • Package Storage • Resident Lounge off of Lobby • Reservation Services Fitness/Wellness Center • Security • At Penthouse Level • Gym • Resident Living Room under Lobby Atrium • Yoga ' • Grand Seating Space • Resident Health Care Services a :-1 • Intimate Meeting Space • Kitchenette Club Room Space for Caterer Setup • Entertainment Space at Penthouse Level r Coffee and Tea Service Fitness/Wellness Center • Space for Enclave Events Sky Garden and Vista Pool • Club Room • Premier View with Enclave Serving Amenity Space • Sky Garden and Vista Pool • Resident Lounge off of Lobby • All 49 Homes Share in the Projects Premier View • Fireplace The Amenity Visually Provides Architectural Relief • Entertainment Center • The Amenity is Defined by Three Stepping Garden Spaces • Resident Bar • The First Space has Three Large Spaces and a Social Gathering Space • Wine Room • The Second Tier is Composed by the Enclaves Central Pool • Card Room • The Third Tier is the Barbecue Sunset View Bar • Collection of Garden Space around the 150. Perimeter of the Enclave MW N E W P RT CFNTF + r•• t•z x z Planning Commission - June 23, 2016 Item No. 4e Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Newport Center Villas (PA2014-213)- PUBLIC BENEFITS: LIGHTENING YOUR CONSERVING OUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Preserving View lines COMMUTE PRECIOUS RESOURCES PUBLIC DONATION For Our Neighbors Imagine 2 miles worth of fewer As a coastal community, we're Newport Center Villas will as a Quite simply, it wouldn't be cars along MacArthur deeply sensitive to sustainable Development Agreement Newport Beach without Bouldevard on a typical day. water usage to preserve the establish a Public Benefit based breathtaking views of the That's the promise of 150 beauty of Newport Beach for on a year vesting Period of Pacific coastline. In developing Newport Center—to reduce future generations. With its low- 67,000 per Door. This Public the plans for 150 Newport average daily trips by 75%, impact footprint, 150 Newport Benefit equates to 3.28 Million Center, our team has studied from the current 819 to a Center is projected to create an dollars to the residents of the the issue very carefully and projected 215 car trips per day. immediate 16% reduction in water City of Newport Beach. These ensured that wherever they usage, an estimated savings of funds are unrestricted in the use. live, our residential neighbors nearly 2,000 gallons per day. will never lose their view lines. For more details on view lines. ru7 1 MVE PORT CFNTFP + vis rMe ss 6 ICl i d�l 4. f I / r i � \