Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 - 150 Newport Center Drive Study Session - PA2014-213 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSIONSTAFF REPORT July 21 , 2016 Meeting Agenda Item 3 SUBJECT: 150 Newport Center Residential Project (PA2014-213) 150 Newport Center Drive • 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 APPLICANT/OWNER: Newport Center Anacapa Associates, LLC PLANNER: Makana Nova, Associate Planner (949) 644-3249, mnova@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The proposed project consists of the demolition of an existing 8,500-square-foot car-wash, convenience market, and gas station to accommodate the development of a 6-story 45- unit residential condominium building with three levels of subterranean parking. The applicant, Newport Center Anacapa Associates, LLC, requests the following approvals: • 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 45 dwelling units. • Zoning Code Amendment - to change the Zoning District designation from OR (Office Regional Commercial) to PC (Planned Community District) over the entire site. • Planned Community Development Plan - to establish a planned community development plan (PC) over the entire project site that includes development and design standards for 45 residential condominium units. The request also includes a City Council waiver of the minimum site area of 10 acres. A height limit of 65 feet 6 inches with mechanical appurtenances up to 69 feet 6 inches is requested. • Site Development Review - to allow the construction of 45 multi-family dwelling units. • Tentative Tract Map - to establish a 45-unit residential condominium tract on a 1.3 acre site. • Development Agreement - review of a proposed development agreement that would provide public benefits should the project be approved. 1 V� QP �P 150 Newport Center Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 2 • Environmental Impact Report (EIR) - to address reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts resulting from the legislative and project specific discretionary approvals, the City has determined that an Initial Study and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) are warranted for this project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) Discuss the proposed residential land use, relevant General Plan Policies, Planned Community waiver of the 10-acre minimum, and project height. Planning staff believes the proposed residential land use and Planned Community waiver of the 10-acre minimum are appropriate for this location. A reduced project height is recommended at 55 feet to the top of roof (61-ft with appurtenances); and 3) Continue the item to the August 4, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting for further discussion. INTRODUCTION Analysis of the proposed project is considered in three segments: A) land use amendments, which include the General Plan, Zoning, and Planned Community Development Plan, including the establishment of the 150 Newport Center Planned Community; B) a waiver of the Planned Community 10-acre minimum; and C) proposed project height. A discussion of project specific considerations including compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Site Development Review, and Tentative Tract Map will be provided for the August 4, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting. DISCUSSION Existing Land Use/Setting 150 Newport Center Drive is located within the Newport Center area, presently occupied by a car wash with an ancillary service station and convenience market. The Property consists of a single parcel, which is 54,716 square feet (1.3 acres) and an ingress/egress access easement to the south of the Property. The Property is currently developed with an 8,500-square-foot car wash with ancillary convenience market and service station. On August 6, 1970, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. UP1461 for the construction of an automatic car wash with gasoline sales. The General Plan land use designation for the property is CO-R (Regional Commercial Office), (8,500 square feet maximum under Anomaly No. 35) and is the subject of the 3 150 Newport Center Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 3 proposed land use amendment to allow residential uses in the area. The existing CO-R land use designation is intended to provide for administrative and professional offices that serve local and regional markets, with limited accessory retail, financial, service and entertainment uses. This land use designation is based on the existing car wash development, which is developed with an 8,500-square-foot building. The site is located on the south side of Newport Center. To the north, across Newport Center Drive, is Fashion Island, a regional retail shopping center. Fashion Island restaurants, including Red-O and Fig & Olive, are located directly to the north across Newport Center Drive. To the east on the opposite side of Anacapa Drive (Block 200) are several office, retail, and service tenants. Edwards Big Newport Cinema and restaurants such as Muldoon's Irish Pub are directly across the street. To the south is an existing professional/medical office building located at 180 Newport Center Drive. To the west is Gateway Plaza which includes a series of six 2-story office buildings. The Gateway Plaza development shares driveway access with the subject property, where 150 Newport Center has a nonexclusive ingress/egress over the entire Gateway Plaza property as part of their grant deed. Access to the project site primarily occurs at the driveway immediately to the south of 150 Newport Center Drive. Newport Center Background The City's General Plan, approved in 2006, describes the City's overall vision and what the community hopes to have achieved by 2025. The General Plan establishes goals, policies, and development limits. Increases in development intensity beyond these limits require a review and recommendation from the Planning Commission and City Council approval through a General Plan amendment. As described in the General Plan, "Newport Center is a regional center of business and commerce that includes major retail, professional office, entertainment, recreation, and residential in a master planned mixed-use development. While master planned, the principal districts of Newport Center/Fashion Island are separated from one another by the primary arterial corridors. Fashion Island is developed around an internal pedestrian network and surrounded by parking lots, providing little or no connectivity to adjoining office, entertainment, or residential areas." Early in the 2006 General Plan Update Visioning process, a majority of residents and businesses supported little or no change to Newport Center, except for new hotels. However, some supported growth for existing companies, expansion of existing stores, and moderate increases for new businesses. Some participants favored mixed-use development and stressed the need for more affordable housing in particular. During development of the General Plan, public input reflected moderate to strong support for the expansion of retail and entertainment uses in Fashion Island, including the development of another retail anchor. Ultimately, the General Plan was approved by the voters with increases in development limits. 4 150 Newport Center Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 4 Several transfers of development rights and Planned Community text amendments have been approved since the General Plan adoption in 2006. For example, one of these amendments and transfers incorporated Block 100 into the PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community) in 2009. At this time, the height limit for the interior portion of Block 100 was raised to 50 feet with an additional 10 feet for mechanical appurtenances. Measure Y was a proposed update to the City of Newport Beach General Plan Land Use Element, Glossary, and Implementation Program (Amendment) in 2014. The Amendment was intended to alter, intensify, and redistribute land uses in certain subareas of the City, including major areas such as Newport Center/Fashion Island, Newport Coast, and the area near John Wayne Airport. Measure Y also included Land Use Element Policy revisions related to land use changes in support of recent neighborhood revitalization efforts and other updates/refinements. Since the Amendment exceeded Charter Section 423 thresholds, the Land Use Element Amendment was placed on the ballot as Measure Y. On November 4, 2014, the voters denied Measure Y in a 30.8% yes to 60.2% no result. Remaining unbuilt development in Newport Center (Statistical Area 1-1) consists of five unbuilt dwelling units and 27 hotel rooms, which are previously entitled as part of the Newport Beach Country Club project (PA2008-152), and a minimal amount of nonresidential floor area. The proposed General Plan amendment would add 45 additional dwelling units to the General Plan within Statistical Area L1 and would result in an additional residential land use at the most southerly portion of Newport Center where the development pattern is currently dominated by commercial uses. Land Use Amendments Prior to considering project specific design, the Planning Commission should consider whether the project site is appropriate for residential development. Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Plan and Zoning Code as well as the establishment of a Planned Community Development Plan are legislative acts. Neither City nor State Planning Law sets forth required findings for approval or denial of such amendments. However, when making a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission should consider applicable goals and policies to ensure internal consistency with the General Plan. The subsequent sections analyze consistency with the General Plan goals and policies, Charter Section 423, SB-18, and AB-52 (Tribal Consultation Guidelines), and the proposed Planned Community Development Plan. Proposed Land Use The applicant requests to amend the General Plan designation for the property at 150 Newport Center Drive from the existing OR (Office Regional Commercial) designation to a RM (Multiple Residential) designation, establishing an anomaly in Table LU2 of the General Plan for 45 additional dwelling units in Statistical Area L1 (Refer to Attachment No. PC 1 for an exhibit of the proposed land use change). The proposed RM land use 150 Newport Center Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 5 designation is intended to provide primarily for multi-family residential development containing attached or detached dwelling units. The resulting density is approximately 35.7 dwelling units per acre. The applicant's goal of the proposed land use amendment is to create a residential community that supports the vibrancy of the existing retail and professional office uses in Newport Center. Land Use Goals and Policies The General Plan identifies Newport Center/Fashion Island as a sub-area that includes goals and policies specific to this area. Goal LU 6.14 of the General Plan states Newport Center is intended to provide: A successful mixed-use district that integrates economic and commercial centers serving the needs of Newport Beach residents and the subregion, with expanded opportunities for residents to live close to jobs, commerce, entertainment, and recreation, and is supported by a pedestrian-friendly environment." The proposed land use amendment is in furtherance of this goal by providing additional opportunities for residents to live close to existing jobs, commerce, entertainment, and recreation in Newport Center. The property's location directly across the street from Fashion Island particularly lends itself towards this goal. Residential development at this location would provide a pedestrian-friendly environment by placing these uses within easy walking distance of each other. The proposed project would add residential units beyond the development limits specified in the current General Plan but would act in furtherance of the overall goal of Newport Center to provide opportunities for residents to live in proximity to existing commercial, retail, and recreational uses. However, the proposed project would provide high-end residential dwelling units that do not necessarily act in furtherance of feedback received during the General Plan Visioning process that stressed the need for affordable housing in particular. 150 Newport Center Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 6 Figure 1. Newport Center Residential Development I Existing Developments �p,k may'°/ \— O San Joaquin Hills Apartments ,YON DR O The Colony Apartments O The Meridian U� do O Sea Island O Villa Point O Granville C2 i n 4 0 O Entitled Developments O NB Country Club Bungalows CProposed Developments 4 O 150 Newport Center 0SM a 4y O OC Museum Houses 100 i 00' 245 un 117 unks i y lad say NA 778 unl �,yp7' Vlav © ® try13 �'''Qvroavp,_ viw. X O ,Q T. rwY Figure 1 illustrates existing, newly developed/entitled, and proposed residential development in Newport Center Statistical Area L1. Since the 2006 General Plan Update was adopted, the economic market has experienced a strong market demand for new residential development in the Newport Center area, as evidenced by the development of the residential units authorized by the General Plan such as Meridian (79 du) and the San Joaquin Plaza Apartments (524 du also known as Villas at Fashion Island). 150 Newport Center Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 7 General Plan Policy LU6.14.2 (Newport Center [MU-H3, CO-R, CO-M, and RM designations), states: "Provide for the opportunity for limited residential, hotel, and office development in accordance with the limits specified by Tables LU1 and LU2." Currently, only five undeveloped residential units remain under the General Plan limits that are entitled as part of the Newport Beach Country Club project. Due to market demand, new discretionary applications have been submitted by private developers requesting additional residential development in Statistical Area L1 of Newport Center. These requests include the subject application requesting 45 dwelling units as well as a request for 100 additional dwelling units at the existing Orange County Museum site (Location 9 on Figure 1). Analysis of Proposed Land Use Staff considered the impact of the proposed land use change on the ability to maintain and continue to provide for appropriate commercial and service uses in the Newport Center and the broader community. The existing development pattern in Newport Center is currently dominated by commercial and retail service uses. The loss of the subject property to this current commercial supply would not necessarily cause undue harm to the Newport Center area. There are other existing and proposed car wash developments throughout the City that would continue to serve the need for this service. For example, the nearest drive-through car wash in Newport Center is located at the Chevron Service Station at the southeast corner of Jamboree Road and San Joaquin Hills Road, with a second proposed car wash at the existing Shell Service Station located at the northeast corner of the same intersection. The current commercial land use and zone for the property do not limit the development of the property to its current use as a car wash. However, the existing 8,500-square-foot commercial development limit (0.16 FAR) under the General Plan is restrictive because it is based on the existing commercial development on the property. Concentrating development in existing developed areas provides more opportunities for people to live near places they work and thereby reduces impacts to traffic in the broader community. Impacts would be reduced by having a more intense stock of housing located closer to employment, commercial, and recreational opportunities. This also has other cumulative benefits and would lead to less pressure to extend new development into undeveloped areas, which would prevent sprawl, preserve open space, and prevent adverse impacts to sensitive habitats. Concentrating development in developed areas where it can be accommodated would maintain and enhance development patterns in other areas of the City. Additionally, the surrounding land uses should be considered. Residential and commercial uses within proximity of each other are a common development pattern throughout the City and typically operate in a compatible manner. Disclosures would be 8 150 Newport Center Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 8 made to prospective buyers/tenants of residential developments that there is an expectation for noise levels higher than in typical suburban residential areas as part of the Mixed-Use concept within Newport Center. Disclosures indicate that there is an expectation for lighting, odors, and similar occurrences in a mixed-use setting as compared to suburban residential areas. The goal laid out in the General Plan for Newport Center is to expand opportunities for residents to live close to jobs, commerce, entertainment and recreation, supported by a pedestrian-friendly environment. The proposed residential community would be consistent with this goal, by providing a residential use that creates a strong sense of place and connection to the surrounding resources in the Newport Center area. As a result, staff suggests that the proposed residential land use is appropriate for this location and the goals set forth for the greater context of the Newport Center area. Code Amendment/Planned Community-Waiver of Area Minimum The Property is currently within the OR (Office Regional Commercial) Zoning District. The purpose of the requested amendment is to establish a Planned Community (PC) Zoning District for the project site with site specific development standards and regulations. Refer to Attachment No. PC 2 for an exhibit of the proposed Zoning Map amendment. The establishment of a Planned Community Development Plan is regulated by Chapter 20.56 (Planned Community District Procedures). The project site is 1.26 acres in area. Section 20.56.020 (Area Requirements) of the Zoning Code identifies a minimum acreage requirement of 25 acres of unimproved land or 10 acres of improved land area for the establishment of a PC District. Under the provisions of this Section, the City Council may waive these minimum acreage requirements and establish the proposed PC. When considering a waiver of the minimum acreage to establish a PC, there are no required findings established in the Zoning Code. However, it is important to consider the purpose for PCs set forth in Section 20.56.010 (Purpose) of the Zoning Code to understand whether the proposed Planned Community is appropriate within the greater context of the community: A. "Classification and Development of Land. Provide for the classification and development of land as coordinated, comprehensive projects in order to take advantage of the superior environment resulting from large-scale community planning." As discussed in the land use analysis, the proposed residential land use would fit the context and vision for the Newport Center community and specifically Goal LU6.14. The placement of residential units in proximity to existing commercial office, retail, and recreation uses minimizes sprawl, reduces traffic impacts, and locates housing near jobs in Newport Center. The proposed planned community land use has been considered in the context of surrounding land uses and development standards by 9 150 Newport Center Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 9 coordinating a project as a component of the greater large-scale planning and vision already set forth by the General Plan and existing Zoning and Planned Communities in the Newport Center area. B. `Diversification of Uses. Allow diversification of uses as they relate to each other in a physical and environmental arrangement while ensuring substantial compliance with the spirit, intent, and provisions of this Zoning Code." The proposed introduction of residential land uses provides a diversification of the existing land uses in the southern portion of Newport Center, which is predominantly professional office, retail, service, and restaurants. This would allow for integration of new housing near jobs and services. Unlike other residential development in Newport Center, this project would be adjacent to Fashion Island rather than on the periphery. Office, restaurants, and other uses would be accessible by a short walk. The specific development standards proposed under the Planned Community Development Plan (Attachment No. PC 3) ensure substantial compliance with the spirit, intent, and provisions set forth for the multiple unit residential land use provisions of the Zoning Code, while fitting the proposed project into the greater context and more urban development pattern already present in Newport Center. C. "Development Plan and Text Materials. Include various types of uses, consistent with the General Plan through the adoption of a development plan and text materials that identify land use relationships and associated development standards. (Ord. 2010-21 § 1 (Exh. A)(part), 2010)." While the proposed residential land use is solely residential, the Planned Community emphasizes the connection and integration of the residential land use and its relationship with surrounding commercial development. The development plan and standards identify specific project components that will improve these relationships, such as careful consideration of each property edge condition and improvement of the pedestrian experience along each of the street frontages. Properties to the east are located in the standard OR (Office Regional Commercial) Zoning District as well as the other three corners of Block 100. Incorporating the proposed project into the existing Newport Center Planned Community was considered. A large majority but not all of the Newport Center area falls under the single ownership of Irvine Company. These properties are encompassed within 170.3 acres that comprise the PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community) Zoning District. The North Newport Center Planned Community district is comprised of seven sub-areas that include Fashion Island, Block 600, Block 800, and portions of Block 100, Block 400, Block 500, and San Joaquin Plaza. Residential uses are included in this Planned Community and have been constructed as part of San Joaquin Plaza and portions of Block 800 (The Colony). 10 150 Newport Center Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 10 After considering this possibility, staff rejected the option of incorporating the 150 Newport Center project into the PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community) Zoning District in favor of the opportunity to create more specific and clear development standards applicable to the proposed development. A separate set of development standards eliminates confusion between the other existing residential developments and creates a more enforceable and specific set of standards that are applicable to the project site. The greater context of the development pattern and development standards of the surrounding North Newport Center Planned Community were carefully considered in the drafting of the proposed 150 Newport Center Planned Community. For example, density, height and open space standards are generally consistent with the residential areas of North Newport Center. The North Newport Center standards were reviewed as examples for the proposed standards set forth in the proposed Planned Community Development Plan (Attachment No. PC 3). Further detail with regard to the proposed development standards will be provided as part of the August 4`h Planning Commission staff report. In summary, the Planned Community should ensure broader coordination and consistency with the surrounding neighborhood, including a higher level of architectural quality supporting an urban living environment with pedestrian connectivity. The 150 Newport Center Planned Community would provide for a comprehensively designed residential project that creates a mixed-use environment in the southern portion of Newport Center and is generally consistent with the residential development standards of the PC-56 (North Newport Center Planned Community). Thus, staff suggests that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve a waiver of the minimum site area in order to establish the proposed Planned Community for the 150 Newport Center project. Building Height in Newport Center A variety of building heights in Newport Center are allowed by General Plan and implemented through Planned Communities, the Zoning Code, and discretionary approvals. The guiding policy for building height in Newport Center is General Plan Policy LU6.14.4 Development Scale, which states the following: "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)" Attachment Nos. PC 4, 5, and 6 provide exhibits that demonstrate the height limits and the height of existing development (based on original building permits and LiDar data) in the southerly half of the Newport Center area. Existing building heights within Newport 11 150 Newport Center Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 11 Center range from 15 feet 8 inches (subject property) at the south end up to 300 feet in height at the end of Newport Center. Height limits range between 28 feet at the south end up to 300 feet at the north end. At the southerly half of Newport Center (Blocks 100 and 200), where building mass and height is intended to scale down to lower elevations according to the General Plan Policy, existing building heights range between 15 feet 8 inches (subject property) and 74 feet 4 inches feet (260 Newport Center Drive). Height limits range from 28 feet for flat roofs (Granville Residential Community) up to 60 feet (Block 100, including 10-foot mechanical appurtenances). Several nonconforming buildings currently exceed the 32- foot height limit established within Block 200 including: • 1333 Avocado Avenue- (32' 8") 1367 Avocado Avenue- (34' 6") 210 Newport Center Drive-Edwards Cinema (42' 6" building, 52' appurtenances) • 230 Newport Center Drive- (48') • 250 Newport Center Drive- (43' 2.5") 260 Newport Center Drive- Shea Building (74' 4") • 359 San Miguel Drive- (46' 6") • 366 San Miguel Drive- (34') • 369 San Miguel Drive- (40' 10") These existing nonconforming buildings range from 32 feet 8 inches up to 74 feet 4 inches in height. To the north, the height limits of nearby mall buildings in Fashion Island are 75 feet where mechanical appurtenances are permitted an additional 10 feet. Additionally, major buildings in Fashion Island are permitted up to 125 feet in height where mechanical appurtenances are permitted an additional 10 feet. The height limit of the interior portion of Block 100 is 50 feet where mechanical appurtenances are also permitted an additional 10 feet. This portion of the block is located within the North Newport Center Planned Community. The other corners of Block 100 have a 32-foot flat roof height limit with 37 feet for a sloping roof. The existing building at 180 Newport Center Drive is nonconforming and exceeds the existing 32-foot height limit at 38 feet 3 inches. The scaling down of building height and mass in Newport Center is relative, where the height limits at the south end range from 28 feet up to 74 feet 4 inches. The applicant proposes a building that is 65 feet 6 inches in height to the top of the roof with mechanical appurtenances that extend up to 69 feet 6 inches. The following table provides a comparison of existing building heights and height limits for other residential properties in Newport Center (Statistical Area L1): 12 150 Newport Center Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 12 Table 1. Residential Development in Newport Center(Statistical Area Ll) Residential Development Height Limit Actual Height Dwelling Units Granville 28'/33' 18' 67 du Villa Point 32' 2-3 stories 228 du Sea Island 32'/37' 2 stories 132 du The Colony*** 200' 50'+(appurtenances) 245 du Meridian*** 65' 65' 79 du San Joaquin Plaza*** 65' 65' 524 du NB Country Club* 31' N/A 5 du 150 Newport Center** 69'6" 69'6" 45 du Museum House** 300' 295' 100 du * entitled ** proposed ***communities in the North Newport Center Planned Community are measured from finished floor elevation It should be noted that both of these existing residential developments are located at the northwest portion of Newport Center. Existing multi-family residential building heights range from 18 feet up to 65 feet in height in Newport Center and height limits range from 28 feet up to 200 feet in height. The applicant is requesting a building height of 65 feet 6 inches to the top of the roof (six stories) with mechanical appurtenances up to 69 feet 6 inches (Project plans are provided as Attachment No. PC 11). This height is similar to that of the recently constructed Meridian and San Joaquin Plaza Apartments. Elevator overrides and other mechanical appurtenances would be centralized toward the center of the building footprint and their visibility would be minimized from the street frontage. Recommended Building Height After reviewing the existing building heights and height limits in the surrounding area at the south end of Newport Center, staff recommends a reduced project height of 55 feet to the top of the roof (five stories) with mechanical appurtenances up to 61 feet. This alternative creates greater equity with the height limit of 50 feet with mechanical appurtenances up to 60 feet established for the majority of Block 100. This alternative retains the same number of dwelling units (45) but increases the footprint of the building resulting in a shorter more squat building. The applicant has noted that this design removes several amenities for residents that are available in the taller alternative such as a lounge, work-out room, and catering facility. The applicant has provided a site plan and elevation of staff's recommended alternative (Attachment No. PC 12). The recommended reduced building height alternative at 5 stories results in a shorter building with a larger building footprint over the 1.26 acre property. The existing FAR for 13 150 Newport Center Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 13 the property is 0.15. Table 2 below provides a comparison of building setbacks and resulting FARs for each building height alternative. Table 2. Comparison of Building Setbacks NCD Anacapa South Driveway Westerly Setback Setback Setback Setback FAR 22 feet 6 Requested 6-story 24 feet inches 22 feet 15 feet 2.58 basement 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 0 feet Reduced 5-story 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 10 feet 2.59 basement 15 feet 15 feet 7 feet 0 feet Building setbacks are shortened under the reduced project alternative, although basement level setbacks would remain the same. The reduced building alternative from 6-stories down to 5-stories results in a proportionately longer and lower building. This creates a different product type that is more evocative of the lower office buildings found on surrounding properties in Block 100. General Plan Policy LU 1.6, Public Views, states, "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)" City policies protect public views and do not protect views from private property. The project site is not subject to Sight Plane View Ordinance No. 1371 that applies to properties to the south across Civic Center Drive. The project does not inhibit designated coastal view corridors along Newport Center Drive and MacArthur Boulevard as identified in Figure NR3 of the General Plan. The project applicant has provided view simulations of the proposed height contemplated in the EIR (75 feet 6 inches with appurtenances to 83 feet 6 inches) taken from these locations. Refer to these view simulations provided as Attachment No. PC 7. While the building may be visible from MacArthur Boulevard, it would not restrict coastal views of the ocean as vehicles travel southwest toward the Ocean. The building is comparable in building height and elevation to the existing office development located at 260 Newport Center Drive where the proposed project height is one level lower than this building at 65 feet in height. Height Findings Section 20.30.060.0.3 (Height Limits and Exceptions, Required Findings) requires findings to be made to adopt a Planned Community District with an increase in the height of the structure above the base height limit: 24 150 Newport Center Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 14 a. The project applicant is providing additional project amenities beyond those that are otherwise required. Examples of project amenities include, but are not limited to: i. Additional landscaped open space; ii. Increased setback and open areas, iii. Enhancement and protection of public views; and b. The architectural design of the project provides visual interest through the use of light and shadow, recessed planes, vertical elements, and varied roof planes; c. The increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changes or relationships being created between the proposed structure(s) and existing adjacent developments or public spaces. Where appropriate, the proposed structure(s) provides a gradual transition to taller or shorter structures on abutting properties; and d. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the height increase." In this case, staff believes that required findings can be made to authorize an increased height limit up to 55 feet with mechanical appurtenances up to 61 feet in height. The building design continues to provide a high level of design with open space, landscape, residential amenities, and building setbacks that are greater than what would be required under the RM standards of the Zoning Code and similar to the North Newport Center Planned Community. Additionally, minimum 15-foot setbacks along the street frontages would be maintained, consistent with the current OR development standards. The project does not negatively affect existing public views. Basement level setbacks would occur largely below grade and would not be immediately visible from the street frontage along Newport Center Drive and Anacapa Drive. The architectural design provides a significant amount of articulation with its two enclave design to fit with the context of surrounding office buildings in the Newport Center area. The residential use would not appear out of character and would utilize a building height limit similar to those applied to other properties in Block 100 of Newport Center. The reduced building height would also fit into the context of surrounding development at the south end of Newport Center, where nonresidential building heights range from 20 feet up to 74 feet 4 inches in height. Finally, the proposed floor area for the project would conform to the limit established through adoption of the 150 Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan. Airport Land Use Commission John Wayne Airport is located approximately 3.6 miles north/northeast of the Project site and is the nearest public airport. As detailed in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for JWA, the northerly one third of the Project site is located within the AELUP Part 77 Notification Area for JWA. The Project site is located approximately 19,200 feet from the nearest point of the JWA runway. By applying the imaginary surface slope of 100:1, at this distance from the runway, the Project would not penetrate the imaginary 15 150 Newport Center Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 15 surface extending 100 feet outward and one foot upward (slope of 100:1) from the JWA runway at a height of 191 feet. Therefore, the Project does not fall within the AELUP Airport Planning Area and does not require ALUC review. Additionally, the building would be 69 feet 6 inches in height, so FAA notification is not required because the structure does not exceed 200 feet in height. Charter Section 423 (Measure S) Analysis Pursuant to City Charter Section 423 and Council Policy A-18, an analysis must be prepared to establish whether a proposed General Plan amendment (if approved) requires a vote by the electorate. The amendment would be combined with 80 percent of the increases in traffic, dwelling units, and non-residential floor area allowed by previous General Plan amendments (approved within the preceding 10 years) within the same statistical area. The following thresholds are applicable: 100 dwelling units, 100 a.m. peak hour trips, 100 p.m. peak hour trips, or 40,000 square feet of non-residential floor area. If any of the thresholds are exceeded and the City Council approves the requested General Plan Amendment, the Amendment would be classified as a "major amendment' and be subject to voter consideration. Approved amendments, other than those approved by the electorate, are tracked for 10 years and factored into the analysis of future amendments within the same statistical area as indicated. The project site is located within Statistical Area L1 of the General Plan Land Use Element, and would result in an increase of 45 dwelling units to establish an anomaly in Table LU2 as shown in Attachment No. PC 1. There have been two prior amendments approved within Statistical Area L1 since the 2006 General Plan Update (GP2010-004). The first amendment changed the land use designation to accommodate the new Civic Center and Park Site under General Plan Amendment No. GP2008-009. The second amendment authorized the Newport Beach Country Club to construct a new 21,000- square-foot clubhouse under General plan Amendment No. GP2008-005. Neither of these prior amendments included projects which added new dwelling units to this statistical area. There are currently 100 units remaining in Statistical Area L1 toward the threshold for a vote of the electorate. Based on the trip generation rates contained in the Council Policy A-18 (commercial blended rate for the existing use and luxury condominium/townhouse rate for the proposed use), the proposed amendment is forecast to result in an increase of 2 a.m. peak hour trips and an overall reduction of p.m. peak hour trips. There would be no addition of nonresidential floor area with the amendment. Table 3 summarizes the changes created by the proposed amendment with the proposed 45 dwelling unit anomaly designation. The table also shows threshold totals under Charter Section 423. As indicated, none of the thresholds specified by Charter Section 423 would be exceeded, and therefore, a vote would not be required. The current Section 423 table before the proposed Amendment is provided as Attachment No. PC 8. 10 150 Newport Center Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 16 Table 3: Charter Section 423 Analysis Summary Statistical Area L7 Increase in Increase in Increase in P.M. Increase in Allowed Floor A.M. Peak Hour Allowed Area (sq. ft.) Trips Peak Hour Trips Dwelling Units GP2014-003 (PA2014-213) 0 2 0 45 150 Newport Center Drive Prior Amendments (80%) 1. Civic Center GP2008-009 0 0 0 0 (PA2008-182) 2. NB Country Club 21,000 0 0 0 GP2008-005 PA2008-152 TOTALS 16,800 2 0 45 Section 423 Thresholds 40,000 100 100 100 Vote No No No No If the proposed General Plan amendment is approved by City Council, this amendment will become a prior amendment and 80 percent of the increases will be tracked for 10 years. AB52 and S1318-Tribal Consultation Guidelines Pursuant to Section 65352.3 (SB18) of the California Government Code, a local government is required to contact the appropriate tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) each time it considers a proposal to adopt or amend the General Plan. If requested by any tribe, the local government must consult for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to cultural resources. The City received comments from the NAHC indicating that eight tribal contacts should be provided notice regarding the proposed amendment. The tribal contacts were provided notice on March 18, 2015, Section 65352.3 of the California Government Code requires 90 days prior to Council action to allow tribe contacts to respond to the request to consult. The City was not contacted by any tribal contacts during this 90-day period. Pursuant to Section 21080.3.1 (AB52) of the California Government Code, a local government is required to consult with California Native American tribes that have requested in writing to be informed of proposed project in the geographic area that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the tribe. Two tribes have requested notification in writing. The tribal contacts were provided notice on January 11, 2016. Section 21080.3.1 of the California Government Code requires 30 days prior to Council action to allow tribe contacts to respond to the request to consult and neither tribe responded to the formal notification letter requesting consultation for this project during the 30 day period. A letter was later submitted as a comment to the DER from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation on May 25, 2016, requesting that a monitor from their tribe oversee ground disturbing construction work. The response to comments on 1� 150 Newport Center Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 17 the DEIR suggest allowing a monitor on-site to watch over ground disturbing construction work, consistent with Historical Resources Policy HR2.2 (Grading and Excavation Activities). However, the applicant would not be required to contract with a specific monitor during construction activities on-site. The monitor will be required to be certified consistent with City Council Policy K-5 (Archaeological Guidelines). Environmental Review Prior to making a recommendation on the proposed project, the Planning Commission must first review, consider, and recommend City Council adoption of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), SCH No. 2016011032. The DEIR is comprised of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), Initial Study (IS), Environmental Analysis, Alternatives Analysis, and Appendices. The City contracted with T&B Planning, Inc., an environmental consulting firm, to prepare an Initial Study and Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed project in accordance with the CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.The DEIR was routed to the Planning Commission in advance of this staff report to allow additional time to review the report. A copy of the DEIR was also made available on the City's website (http://www.newportbeachca.00v/cegadocuments), at each Newport Beach Public Library, and at the Community Development Department at City Hall. Based upon the analysis of the Initial Study, the environmental categories within which the project would have either no impact or less than significant impact were: Agricultural/Forest Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology/Water Quality, Mineral Resources, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation, and Utilities/Service Systems. The following environmental topics were identified as potentially affected by the implementation of the proposed project: Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards/Hazardous Materials, Land Use/Planning, Noise, and Transportation/Traffic. These topics were the subject of the DEIR analysis, and potential impacts were identified. The document recommends the adoption of 17 mitigation measures to reduce the potentially significant adverse effects to a less than significant level. These mitigation measures are identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is included as Attachment No. PC 9. On the basis of the analysis provided in the draft EIR, City staff has concluded that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment. The draft EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and recognizes project design features, standard construction and engineering practices, and review and reevaluation of future projects as the means to avoid potential impacts. The project site does not include any sites on an Environmental Protection Agency hazardous waste site list pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. 18 150 Newport Center Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 18 The draft EIR was completed and circulated for a mandatory 45-day public-review period that began on May 13, 2016, and concluded on June 27, 2016. A total of 26 comments were received from interested parties. The consultant and staff are preparing detailed written responses to each of the comments received on the adequacy of the DER, which will be included as part of the August 4, 2016 Planning Commission staff report packet. Corrections and additions to the DER are also being prepared, which will be provided at the August 4, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting and incorporate additional or revised information required for the preparation of responses to certain comments. The revisions do not alter any impact significance conclusion disclosed in the DER, and therefore, do not warrant recirculation of the DER for public review. The revisions to the DER will be incorporated into the Final EIR, if certified. Fiscal Impact Model The City's consultant has prepared an independent fiscal impact model (Attachment No. 10) in accordance with General Plan Implementation Policies 12.1 and 12.2. The City's fiscal impact model is designed to calculate the average cost of public services required by new development, on the assumption that new development affects City services in the same way that existing development does. The net impact of the growth in land uses at build-out of the General Plan compared to existing land uses in 2006 when the plan was adopted, would result in a positive fiscal impact for the General fund of $21.7 million per year. The office and restaurant use alternatives contemplated in the EIR result in an overall neutral or positive fiscal impact to the City, although they are both less than the revenues to the City produced by the existing car wash facility. In contrast, all of the residential development alternatives contemplated in the draft EIR result in positive fiscal impacts resulting from property taxes, fees, and revenue expenditures from residents above that produced by the existing car wash facility. Due to the high market level targeted by the proposed project, the residential alternatives would exceed the fiscal benefit from the potential non-residential uses of the site under the existing General Plan. PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this application 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, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. A courtesy notice of the hearing was also emailed to the interested parties list for this project. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. 19 150 Newport Center Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 19 SUMMARY Staff believes that the facts associated with the subject property and reduced project height (55 feet to top of roof and 61 feet with appurtenances) support the proposed land use amendments and required findings for the project. The project would result in the redevelopment of an under-utilized and aging site with a new residential project that is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies for development of the Newport Center area. Although not currently zoned for residential use, the land use change at 150 Newport Center creates a functional residential project that integrates residential uses into the surrounding commercial uses within Newport Center. The project exhibits high quality architectural treatment of the building and given the constraints of the property, the recommended height (55 feet to top of roof and 61 feet with appurtenances) and setbacks are reasonable and consistent with the General Plan policies and proposed 150 Newport Center Planned Community development standards. The resulting setbacks are consistent with the development pattern and setback standards within Newport Center and enhance pedestrian connections along the project's street frontages. The recommended height (55 feet to top of roof and 61 feet with appurtenances) results in a development that is compatible and consistent with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of bulk and scale. Therefore, staff recommends Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of the proposed legislative land use changes and Planned Community Development Plan waiver of the 10 acre minimum with a reduction in the overall project height from that requested by the applicant. Staff believes that the residential land use for the proposed project is appropriate and recommends a reduced project height (55 feet to top of roof and 61 feet with appurtenances) for compatibility with existing building heights and surrounding height limits. In conclusion, the July 21, 2016, public hearing will provide the opportunity for a focused discussion on the proposed legislative amendments, the waiver of the 10-acre minimum size for a Planned Community, and the building height. Staff and the applicant will be available to answer questions from the Planning Commission and the public, and if warranted, the Planning Commission may provide direction to staff. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Planning Commission should continue this project to the August 4, 2016 Planning Commission meeting. Prepared by: It�• �_/ Maka& N a Associate Planner 20 150 Newport Center Planning Commission, July 21, 2016 Page 20 ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Proposed General Plan Land Use Map and Anomaly Table PC 2 Proposed Zoning Map PC 3 Draft Planned Community Development Plan PC 4 Height Limit Exhibit PC 5 Existing Building Height Exhibit PC 6 LiDar Building Height Data PC 7 View Simulations (75 feet 6 inches) PC 8 Current Section 423 Analysis Table PC 9 Draft EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program PC 10 Fiscal Impact Model PC 11 Requested Height Plans (65 feet 6 inches) PC 12 Reduced Height Plans (55 feet) Rpt.docx:04ios14 21 V� QP �P Attachment No. PC 1 Proposed General Plan Land Use Map and Anomaly Table 23 V� QP �P Q %V PI r `AV SAN ��EMENTE RM A G > r n Z I > CO-R m MU-H3 CENTER RM CO-R 0 m o5P sAMP -H3 U) c w m J> MU-H3 / co MU-H3 SAN U-H i S �R co- RM W CO-R Z c0- O-R o W U-H3/P C/CYC � CEN OS S CO-G o � PF q 0 500 1,000 04—' . GP2014-003 (PA2014-213) Feet General Plan Amendment 150 Newport Center Drive -Mr v Document Name:PA2014-213 GP2011-011 Reso Exhibit EXHIBIT A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO GP2014-003 Consists of: 1. Amending Table LU2 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to include the following modification to Anomaly No. 35 and one new anomaly: Table Anomaly Statistical Land Use Development Development Additional Number Area Designation Limit(so Limit Other Information 35 L-1 CO-R 199,095 190,595 82 L-1 RM 45 dweiiin-g units 2. Amending the Land Use Map of the Land Use Element to identify the locations of Anomaly Nos. 35 and 82 and to change the designation of the existing 1.26-acre project site at 150 Newport Center designated as CO-R (Regional Commercial Office, Anomaly 35) to RM (Multiple Residential, 49 du). 20 Attachment No. PC 2 Proposed Zoning Map 2� V� QP �P �g PC 19 J^ SAN U P 6 OR PC 56 CENTER C 54 PC 56 PC 8 �G oe P Roy C 56 SPN�P m C D PC 56 / cn PC 56 PC 47 SqN PC 56 C2 Q�OR Q/ W C-6 � OR PC Z C OR 47 W A (� OR PC 47 OR \ � PC 40 PC 17 �o R 0 500 1,000 //{ CA2014-008 (PA2014-213) Feet 1 SEW PORT °� e Code Amendment �VFORH�P 150 Newport Center Drive Document Name:PA2014-213 CA2014-008 Ord Exhibit `" " " V� QP �P 30 Attachment No. PC 3 Draft Planned Community Development Plan 31 V� QP �P 150 NEWPORT CENTER Planned Community Development Plan Date: May 9, 2016 Ordinance No. 2014 Adopted 12015 33 150 Newport Center Planned Community Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction and Purpose 3 2.0 Land Use and Development Regulations 4 2.1 Architectural Design 4 2.2 Permitted Uses 5 2.3 Building Setbacks 5 2.4 Density: Number of Units 6 2.5 Floor Area 6 2.6 Grade for Purposes of Determining Height 6 2.7 Height 7 2.8 Landscaping and Irrigation 7 2.9 Lighting 9 2.10 Mechanical Equipment 9 2.11 Open space 9 2.12 Parking 10 2.13 Signs 11 2.14 Site Walls 11 2.15 Trash Service and Container Storage 11 2.16 Construction Requirements 11 a. Archaeological/Paleontological b. Building Codes c. Grading d. Sewer Service e. Storm Water Management f. Telephone, Gas and Electrical Service g. Water Service 3.0 Site Development Review 13 3.1 Purpose 13 3.2 Application 13 3.3 Design (Elevations) and Site Development of Building 13 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibits Name Exhibit Number Conceptual Site Plan &Project Summary A Title Constraints Survey B 150 Newport Center Planned Community Page 13 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 150 Newport Center Planned Community Development Plan (PC) is composed of 45 condominium units totaling 141,013 square feet of gross floor area. The project is located at the southwest intersection of Newport Center Drive and Anacapa Drive in Newport Center. The vision presented in the conceptual plan is for a luxury residential enclave intended to integrate a sophisticated urban lifestyle with a timeless building design. The unit mix includes 15 residential townhomes on levels 1 & 2, 26 residential flats on Levels 3 through 5 and four penthouses on Level 6. Level 6 will also have a club room with fully appointed kitchen, fitness room/spa and a swimming pool. The project is designed for three levels of parking below grade. Level B-1 is partially at grade on the southern edge to allow tenant access and trash loading. Moving van access and general delivery will occur at the main building entry off of Anacapa Drive. Every unit will have a private 2-car garage located within the basement levels. The PC identifies land use relationships and associated development standards for the particular district. To that end, it coordinates and complements the broader scale and massing of the Newport Center area. The PC ensures a broader coordination and consistency with the surrounding neighborhood, to include a higher level of architectural quality supporting the Newport Center environment along with pedestrian connectivity. The proposed PC includes a specific set of standards and procedures for implementation and continuation of dwelling units within Newport Center while ensuring substantial compliance with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code. The PC ensures the following site development review objectives are met: 1. Ensure consistency with General Plan policies related to the preservation of established community character, and expectations for high quality development; 2. Respect the physical and environmental characteristics of the site; 3. Ensure safe and convenient access and circulation for pedestrians and vehicles; 4. Allow for and encourage individual identity for specific uses and structures; 5. Encourage the maintenance of a distinct neighborhood and/or community identity; 6. Minimize or eliminate negative or undesirable visual impacts; 7. Ensure protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way in compliance with Section 20.30.100(Public View Protection); 8. Allow for different levels of review depending on the significance of the development project(Newport Beach, 2015a). 35 150 Newport Center Planned Community Page 14 2.0 LAND USE AND DEVLOPMENT REGULATIONS Whenever the regulations contained in the PC conflict with the regulations of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the regulations contained in the PC shall take precedence. The Newport Beach Municipal Code shall regulate all development within the PC when such regulations are not provided within the PC Regulations. The following development standards shall apply to the residential condominium units. 2.1 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN The 150 Newport Center design was inspired by one of the most architecturally renowned buildings in New York City: Ralph Lauren's 5t" Avenue flagship store. Newport Center Villas is conceived as two classic and stately enclaves that are linked together via a modern glass and metal bridge which contain an atrium entry and lobby. The enclaves are perceived as the solid and the bridge as the void. Architecturally, the enclaves are proportioned classically with a defined base, middle, and top that is reinforced by cornices and belt bands. The elevation is presented through the use of reduced massing offsets and subtle variations in the terraced roof line. The building's material palate consists of warm neutrals and the building fagade is compatible with the surrounding development in Newport Center. The design will complement, enhance, and be compatible with the adjacent retail and office properties. In keeping with this philosophy, the exterior will be comprised predominately of a pre-cast concrete fagade, stainless steel finishes and glass. Massing offsets, variations of roof line, varied textures, recesses, articulation and design accents on the elevation are integrated to enhance the expression of a unique and sophisticated architectural style. Two-story townhome residences encompass the ground level and second story of the building with large front porches and resident entries wherein a direct physical connection is established with the public realm. Fenestration of the enclaves is developed around the "California Coastal" view of indoor — outdoor living. Openings above level 2 have the ability to slide open into recessed pocket allowing for the full aperture of fenestration to engage with interior living. Connections to the public realm are further reinforced via a pedestrian boardwalk, and a social gathering space at the corner of Anacapa Drive. A dog run is provided for the residents on the ground level at the northwest corner of the project. The exterior landscaping will further enhance the feel of a luxury lifestyle at the immediate intersection of Anacapa and Newport Center Drive. The crosswalks at the corner of Newport Center Drive and Anacapa Drive shall enhance the visual connection to the adjoining office, entertainment and medical districts. Along Anacapa Drive, the project will provide resident access into a double driveway served by a luxurious lobby. 3� 150 Newport Center Planned Community Page 15 2.2 PERMITED USES a. Condominiums (Multi-Family Residential). b. On-site recreational facilities, valet stations, conference rooms, wine storage, separate dedicated storage areas, and other structures ancillary to residential uses. c. Telecommunications facilities are permitted in accordance with Chapter 20.49 (Wireless Telecommunications Facilities) of the NBMC. d. Land uses that are not listed above are not allowed, except as provided by Chapter 20.12(Interpretation of Zoning Code Provisions) of the NBMC or as required by State Law. e. Temporary uses may be allowed only upon approval of a limited term permit pursuant to Section 20.52.040 (Limited Term Permits) of the NBMC. 2.3 BUILDING SETBACKS a. Above grade (as shown on the preliminary grading plan) Anacapa Drive 22.5 feet (including a 3-foot pedestrian walkway easement) Newport Center Drive 24 feet Western property line 14 feet Southern property line 22 feet (Including a 5-foot pedestrian walkway easement) b. Below grade (as shown on the preliminary grading plan) Anacapa Drive 15 feet Newport Center Drive 15 feet Western Property Line 0 feet for podium at Level 1 3 feet for basement walls Southern Property line 7 feet Decorative architectural features such as roof overhangs, brackets, cornices, and eaves may encroach up to 30 inches into a required setback area, provided that no architectural features shall project closer than twenty-four inches from a side property line and a minimum vertical clearance of at least eight feet above finished grade is maintained. 37 150 Newport Center Planned Community Page 16 2.4 DENSITY: NUMBER OF UNITS The maximum allowable number of condominium residential unit shall be 45 (35.7 units/acre). 2.5 FLOOR AREA a. Building Area The maximum gross floor area limit for the development is 141,013 gross square feet at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.58:1. This results in a floor area limit that is 2.96 times the buildable area (lot area less the required building setbacks). Gross Floor Area Definition: The following areas shall be included in calculations of gross floor area: 1. The surrounding exterior walls 2. Any interior finished portion of a structure that is accessible and that measures more than four feet from finished floor to ceiling. The following areas shall be excluded: 1. Stairwells and elevator shafts above the first level. 2. The sixth floor pool area. 3. Parking structures associated including private garages. b. Gross Floor Area per Unit. Residential uses are measured on a per unit basis. i. Townhomes (floors 1-2): 2,416 square feet minimum 3,455 square feet maximum ii. Units on floors 3 through 5: 1,645 minimum 3,608 maximum iii. Penthouses (floor 7): 2,286 minimum 3,570 maximum 2.6 GRADE FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING HEIGHT Grade for the purposes of determining height = 164 feet NAVD88 datum 32 150 Newport Center Planned Community Page 17 The site drops from an elevation of 170 feet above mean sea level at the immediate corner of Newport Center Drive and Anacapa Drive to 159.5 feet above mean sea level at the southwest corner of the site. The average grade plane is 164'0". The heights are measured from the average of the existing grade as shown on the survey/topographical map submitted as part of the submission to the city. 2.7 HEIGHT The building height shall not exceed 65 feet 6 inches from the average grade (164 feet NAVD88 datum) of the site. The resulting overall building height is 65 feet 6 inches (229.5 feet NAVD88 datum) as measured from the average grade plane to top of the roof deck. The height of the open area between the enclaves is 53 feet 6 inches above the average height of the site or 217 feet 6 inches above mean sea level. Rooftop appurtenances are permitted and may exceed the maximum building height by 4 feet up to 233.5 feet NAVD 88 datum. Rooftop appurtenances include, but are not limited to, mechanical equipment, stairwell and elevator shaft housing, antennae, window washing equipment, and wireless communication facilities. Rooftop appurtenances shall not exceed 30 percent of the overall roof area and shall be focused toward the interior of the building footprint adjacent to the elevator override. Rooftop appurtenances must be screened from view; the height of rooftop appurtenances shall not exceed the height of the screening. Supports for window washing equipment are permitted, and are not required to be screened from view. Rooftop appurtenances within the 6-foot limitation are subject to the review and approval of the Planning Division. Architectural features may exceed the maximum building height up to 2 feet. Architectural features include the building rooftop parapet and other decorative rooftop features defined as visually prominent or formally significant elements of a building that express its architectural language and style in a complementary fashion. Architectural features should be logical extensions of the massing, details, materials, and color of the building which complement and celebrate its overall aesthetic character. Such features must be an extension of the architectural style of the building in terms of materials, design and color. 2.8 LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION A minimum of 15 percent of the lot area shall be landscaped (8,203 square feet). Landscaping and irrigation shall be provided in all areas not devoted to structure, driveways, walkways, and private patios to enhance the appearance of the development, reduce heat and glare, control soil erosion, conserve water, screen adjacent land uses, and preserve the integrity of the PC. Site landscaping and irrigation will be designed and planted in accordance with Chapter 20.36 (Landscaping Standards) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) and Chapter 14.17 (Water-Efficient Landscaping) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Plants shall be adapted to the coastal climate of Newport Beach and appropriate to the specific soil, topographic, and sun/shade conditions of the project site. Drought-tolerant plants shall be used to the maximum extent practicable. Plant species having comparable water requirements shall be grouped together 39 150 Newport Center Planned Community Page 18 for efficient use of irrigation water. All plant materials shall conform to or exceed the plant quality standards of the latest edition of American Standard for Nursery Stock published by the American Association of Nurserymen, or the equivalent. Plant selection shall be harmonious to the character of the project and surrounding projects and shall not be listed as an invasive species by the California Invasive Plant Council. a. Minimum Landscape Requirements: 1. Landscaping shall incorporate a street tree species along Newport Center Drive and Anacapa Drive(Pink Trumpet, "Tabebuia Impetiginosa" or other tree to the satisfaction of the General Services Division). The same species street tree shall be planted on both sides of Anacapa Drive, north of the drive entry (upon the adjacent property owner's approval). 2. The Anacapa Drive parkway shall be maintained and landscaped to complement the existing on-site landscaping. Landscaping and irrigation shall consist of a combination of trees, shrubs, and groundwater and hardscape improvements. 3. The landscaped island at the southern entry within the ingress/egress easement shall be one continuous landscape area as shown on the attached Exhibit A (upon the underlying property owner's approval). 4. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the City Traffic engineer. 5. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular entrances shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar perimeter barrier. 6. The ground floor landscape area shall include a 1,038 square feet dog run for use by the occupants of the project. 7. Landscape areas shall provide a minimum width dimension of 3 feet to provide adequate planting area. 8. Evergreen planting a minimum of 5 feet high shall be used to screen the podium wall along the eastern property line. 9. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape and irrigation plans. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition in accordance with the NBMC and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 10. Landscape planting and irrigation plans and specifications shall be submitted by the applicant for review and approval by the Building Division or Planning Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. b. Irrigation Guidelines An irrigation system shall be installed and shall incorporate appropriate locations, numbers, and types of sprinkler heads and emitters to provide appropriate amounts of water to all plant materials. Application rates and spray patterns shall be consistent with the varying watering requirement of different plant groupings. 40 150 Newport Center Planned Community Page 19 Irrigation systems and controls shall include technology that minimizes over watering by either: (a) directly measuring soil moisture levels, plant types, and soil types and adjusting irrigation accordingly, or, (b) receiving weather information at least on a daily basis via satellite or similar transmission and adjusting irrigation accordingly. The irrigation system shall be designed so as to prevent over-watering and minimize overspray and runoff onto streets, sidewalks, driveways, buildings, fences, and window consistent with water conservation and pollution run-off control objectives. Should reclaimed water infrastructure be constructed along Newport Center Drive, the site's existing potable irrigation system shall be converted and connected to said infrastructure within one year of its availability. 2.9 LIGHTING All new outdoor lighting shall be designed, shielded, aimed, located and maintained to shield adjacent uses/properties and to not produce glare onto adjacent uses/properties. Lighting plans shall be prepared in compliance with Chapter 20.30.040 (Outdoor Lighting) of the NBMC. All lighting and lighting fixtures that are provided shall be maintained in accordance with the approved lighting plans. Light fixtures on buildings shall be full cut-off fixtures. Light spillover may not exceed one foot-candle at the subject property line. Lighting of building interior common areas, exteriors and parking entrances shall be developed in accordance with City Standards and shall be designed and maintained in a manner which minimizes impacts on adjacent land uses. Nighttime lighting shall be limited to that necessary for security. The plans for lighting shall be prepared and signed by a licensed electrical engineer and shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director or their designee. If in the opinion of the Director existing illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or sensitive habitat areas, the Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 2.10 MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT Roof-top mechanical equipment shall not exceed 6 feet above the maximum height of the building and shall comply with Section 20.30.020 (Buffering and screening) of the NBMC. All mechanical appurtenances on building roof tops and utility vaults shall be screened in a manner meeting the approval of the Director of Community Development or their designee. All new mechanical appurtenances (e.g., air conditioning, heating, ventilation ducts, exhaust vents, telecom antennas & support equipment, swimming pool and spa pumps, filters, transformers, utility vaults, and emergency power generators) shall be screened from the public view and adjacent land uses. The enclosure design shall be approved by the Community Development Department. All rooftop equipment shall be architecturally treated or screened from off- site views in a manner compatible with the building materials prior to final building 41 150 Newport Center Planned Community Page 110 permit clearance. The mechanical equipment shall be subject to sound rating in accordance with the Chapter 20.30.20 (Bufferin? and Screening) of the NBMC. 2.11 OPEN SPACE a. Common Outdoor Space A minimum of 75 square feet per dwelling unit (3,375 square feet for 45 dwelling units) of common open space shall be provided. Common outdoor space shall be provided either at grade, podium level, or roof level. Common outdoor space areas shall have a minimum dimension of 10 feet. A minimum of 10 percent of the common outdoor space must be landscaped. All common outdoor space must be accessible to all residents. Common outdoor space consists of land area within the residential development that is not individually owned or dedicated for public use that is designed, intended, and reserved exclusively for the shared enjoyment or use by all residents and their guests. Common outdoor space may be active or passive. Illustrative examples include areas of scenic or natural beauty, barbecue areas, landscaped areas,play areas, swimming pools, tennis courts, or turf areas. b. Common Indoor Space The building shall provide at least one community room of at least 500 square feet available for use by all residents of the project. The area should be located adjacent to, and accessible from, common outdoor space. This area may contain active or passive recreational facilities or meeting space, and must be accessible through a common/public area. c. Private Open Space Private open space shall be a minimum of 30 square feet per dwelling unit (6-foot by 5-foot minimum). At least 50 percent of all dwelling units shall provide private open space, on a balcony, patio, or roof terrace. Balconies should be proportionately distributed throughout the project in relationship to floor levels and sizes of units. Qualifying private open space areas shall be permanently open on one full side. Private open space consists of an outdoor or unenclosed area directly adjoining and accessible to a dwelling unit, reserved for the exclusive private enjoyment and use of residents of the dwelling unit and their guests (e.g., balcony, deck, porch, terrace, etc.). Boundaries are evident through the use of fences, gates, hedges, walls, or other similar methods of controlling access and maintaining privacy. 2.12 PARKING Parking to the project shall be underground and not visible from the public right-of-way and surrounding area. Parking spaces, driveways, maneuvering aisles, and turnaround areas shall be kept free of dust, graffiti, and litter. All components of the parking area including striping, paving, wheel stops, walls, and lighting of the parking area shall be permanently maintained in 150 Newport Center Planned Community Page 111 good working condition. Access, location, parking space and lot dimensions, and parking area improvement shall be in compliance with the Development Standards for Parking Areas Section of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. All required parking shall be provided on-site. Two (2) enclosed private parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit. One half(1/2) guest parking space shall be provided per unit for a total of 23 guest parking spaces plus 2 ADA stalls. Each two-car garage shall provide minimum clear interior dimensions of 17 feet 6 inches in width by 19 feet in depth and shall be maintained so that it is accessible to vehicles. Guest parking spaces shall maintain a minimum width of 8 feet 6 inches in width by 17 feet in depth. All resident and guest parking spaces shall be maintained clear of obstructions and available for the parking of vehicles at all times. Vehicle parking and maneuvering areas shall be restricted to the operation, maneuvering and parking of operable vehicles and shall not be used for storage of any kind including the long term storage of vehicles not in regular use. 2.13 SIGNS If three (3) or more signs are proposed for the development, a comprehensive sign program application for the Newport Center Villas shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director or their designee. Sign allowance and standards will be in accordance with Chapter 20.42 (Sign Standards) of the NBMC. 2.14 SITE WALLS Walls and hedges shall be in accordance with the NBMC except as shown on the Site Development Review plans. Where a nonresidential zoning district abuts a residential zoning district, consideration of a landscape buffer shall be reviewed as part of the Site Development Review. Retention walls (including the podium height to finished surface above) shall not exceed 8 feet 6 inches in height measured from existing grade as shown on the title constraints survey. (Refer to Exhibit A-Site Plan and Project Statistics attached.) 2.15 TRASH SERVICE AND CONTAINER STORAGE Trash disposal service will be provided by CR&R (or other provider) as contracted by the City of Newport Beach and shall be subject to applicable regulations, permits and fees as prescribed by the city. Trash container storage and bins shall be located within the basement level parking structure in an area to be designed and engineered for odor control and for access for pick-up. Common trash bins provided shall be a minimum of 192 square feet for Trash and Recycling in accordance with Chapter 20.30.120 (Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials) of the NBMC. The bins will be brought by a scout truck from their regular storage areas in the basement to the southerly residential access drive for pick-up by regular trash trucks. Trash pick-up and staging shall not -9-3 150 Newport Center Planned Community Page 112 block vehicular access through the southerly access drive. Trash pick-up and loading is not permitted within the Anacapa Drive right-of-way. 2.16 CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS a. Archaeological/Paleontological Grading of the site is subject to the provisions of the City Council policies K-4 & K-5 regarding archaeological and paleontological resources. b. Building Codes Construction shall comply with applicable provisions of the California Building Code and the various other mechanical, electrical and plumbing codes related thereto as adopted by the NBMC. c. Grading Grading and excavation of the development area shall be conducted and undertaken in a manner both consistent with grading manual standards and ordinances of the City of Newport Beach and in accordance with a grading and excavation plan approved by the City of Newport Beach Building Division. d. Telephone, Gas and Electrical Service All "on-site" gas lines, electrical lines and telephone lines shall be placed underground. Transformer or terminal equipment shall be visually screened from view from streets and adjacent properties. e. Sewage Service All sewer lines shall be designed in accordance with the Utilities Manger approval. f. Storm Water Management The project shall adhere to the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) approved in conjunction with the issuance of building permits. Drainage and water quality assurance measure will be implemented as per the City Public Works and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) requirements. Development of the property will be undertaken in accordance with the flood protection policies of the City. g. Water service Water service to the site will be provided by the City of Newport Beach and is subject to applicable regulations, permits and fees as prescribed by the City. The project shall provide the 44 150 Newport Center Planned Community Page 113 infrastructure for Fire Protection Water Service and Domestic water. Each dwelling unit shall be served by its own individual water meter. Each water meter shall be served and installed in accordance with the Public Works Department approval. Should reclaimed water infrastructure be constructed along Newport Center Drive, the site's existing potable irrigation system shall be converted and connected to said infrastructure within one year of its availability. 45 150 Newport Center Planned Community Page 114 3.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, SD2014-006 (PA2014-213) 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of the Site Development Review (SDR) process is to ensure new development proposal within the 150 Newport Center Planned Community Development are consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan, and provisions of the Planned Community Development Plan. 3.2 APPLICATION Prior to the issuance of building permits for the site development, a SDR application shall be required for the 150 Newport Center Planned Community Development in accordance with Section 20.52.080 (Site Development Reviews) of the NBMC. 3.3 DESIGN (ELEVATIONS) AND SITE DEVELOPMENT OF BUILDING The SDR shall be part of this PC and shall be reviewed concurrently with the PC. The submitted site pans and elevations shall be part of this application. 40 PROJECT SUMMARY TOTAL PROPOSED GROSS FLOOR AREA: MULTI-STORY PROJECT RESIDENTIAL: 141,013 S.F. (2.96 x BUILDABLE AREA) PROJECT DESCRIPTION DWIFLILING UNITS- THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF (1) MULT-STORY 2 Bedroom 43 Units RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. 3 Bedroom 2 Units 6 STORIES OF RESIDENTIAL Total 45 Units 3 LEVELS OF UNDERGROUND PARKING BUILDING SHALL BE COMPLETELY SPRINKLERED. REQUIRED BUILDING CODE: CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2013 COMMON OPEN SPACE 75 DU/UNIT 3,375 S.F. OCCUPANCY TYPE: R-2 PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 30 S.F. PER 1,350 S.F. BUILDING TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: TOTAL REQUIRED EACH UNIT 4,725 S.F. TYPE I-A- FULLY SPRINKLERED GOVERNING AGENCY- PROVIDIFI) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMON OUTDOOR OPEN SPACE 10,389 S.F. LOT COVERAGE: COMMON INDOOR OPEN SPACE 2,694 S.F. LOT AREA (prior to dedications): 54,686 S.F. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 13,564 S.F. LOT AREA TOTAL PROVIDED 26,647 S.F. (after dedications plus setbacks): 47,592 S.F. SETBACKS: BUILDABLE AREA: 47,592 S.F. PROVIDED BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 29,800 S.F. LOT COVERAGE: 63% ANACAPA FRONTAGE - PODIUM 22.5 FT 15 FT BUILDING DEPARTMENT GROSS FLOOR AREA: NEWPORT CENTER DR- 24 FT 15 FT 1ST FLOOR AREA: +l 27,294 S.F. WESTERN PRTY LINE- 14 FT 0 FT 2ND FLOOR AREA: +l 25,520 S.F. SOUTHERN PRTY LINE- 22 FT 7 FT 3RD FLOOR AREA: +l-25,198 S.F. *NOTE: ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS ARE ALLOWED TO PROJECT 4TH FLOOR AREA: +125,198 S.F. 30"INTO SETBACK AREAS 5TH FLOOR AREA: +1- 21,631 S.F. 6TH FLOOR AREA: +1- 16.172 S.F. TOTAL +1- 141,013 S.F. GROSS FLOOR AREA: +l 141,013 S.F. PARKING GARAGE GBA: +l 132,274 S.F. PROJECT SALEABLE AREA: +1- 125,494 S.F. PARKING: REQUIRED RESIDENTIAL 90 STALLS VISITOR 23 STALLS PROVIDED RESIDENTIAL 91 STALLS (INCLUDES I ADA STALL AT LEVEL BI VISITOR 25 STALLS INCLUDES 2 STALLS AT GROUND LEVEL AND 2 ADA STALLS AT LEVEL 31) PC-TEXT EXHIBIT 112 •PROJECT SUMMARY& T6NFO 9 J i 11 r ,eel •Ir ' Irl r, r,�ll, . , •-. 1 ►-__ I rr ■ �l1 ►_ IBM, _ 111.1 i • —— 100 .. ;���� ► �It� � IIII IAI I ►_ =_!�0� Ir1l��� r �i�► lto n� Ilr 11�1' ° lil- JFe=il _ter, 1 V � Lr y � .� �� - I I ! v v yr-_ ee vv.• n � Y rr Attachment No. PC 4 Height Limit Exhibit 49 V� QP �P �o Legend .28/33 feet m .32/37 feet � .40 feet Building/10 feet Appurtenance O S,yN []50 feel Building/10 feet Appurtenance �k Fa I ISI 4(/C, .75 feet Mall Buildings/10 feet Appurtenance Z� 7 9sp R .>100 feet O� �L Newport Beach eeo, Country Club J NES ��Q syti z ➢ 2'�� ITE GF! A BIo � v � z A lock 200 0k a O JSe A A 0 P ROW �U J9e'OR C/ NFNTER DR yaey R W NewrpyT 150 Newport Center Drive (PA 2014-213) "ep Gity of Newport Beach 0 340 680 GIS Di isioe Feet October 07,2015 PA2014-21 3_Height_Exhibit.mxd 51 V� QP �P Attachment No. PC 5 Existing Building Height Exhibit 153 V� QP �P Existing Building Heights in Newport Center ,'J. � Q�'>> . � �•�. " ,� '�� � .� � 7-stories Approx.75' � �.. � :.r. ���..s *, '� jP Or r y f x- � S ` 's♦ 9 vs 3 1 113' 6" r 18x 32'4" NEt1e ; c r s �� ' 42'6" building m t k " . t :: �• �' :y � � 46 AV jr6- �� 4 � 121' 6" f +a 3 stories architectural t x T 20' 3.5" e FM ' appurtenances 17'2" 40' 10" mz 2stories Pc+ y ,( � 3stories s, b � m W 2 fi I Ilk 34' 6" 23,6„ s t 27 6» >. r c 4� ' ♦ �e it .M 2stories � J .�-- vi� 32' 8" b S _ 38'3„ 43 2.5" .4 32' 2 stories a 25' 10.5" � y� c u _ � 31'4" 26'6" *data is based on building permit elevations V� QP �P Attachment No. PC 6 LiDar Building Height Data V� QP �P �g i 10 507.676994 4 94.105032 1 B 4 � 23.664423 �e, Vs 25.117218s .0131 ' 47.6390 29.903826 '1 49.0391 43. ♦ . x.94408244. 2619 _ 38.627992 1.35211 a ` 22.539269 36.078685 37.121131 .39x8334 :89395 - A 28:225 .7034 48.078882 \. %32.206706 ^ -� .136213 74.51289 - " • 24.60307 25473 . 155 .47 ;fi•�• r '' �'6 23 56 4 3089 46.` 335/ ,�. _ 38.627613 77881.7 +t - 24.651426 - 27.79429 / r 21.26797 27.094626 t _ 25.02745740.03117 38.679 - .21403 n .561804 32.38917 E �. ` . 28.572264 . .50211 36.950162 V� QP �P �o Attachment No. PC 7 View Simulations (75 feet 6 inches) 01 V� QP �P ■■ 150 NEWPORT CENTER ■� ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 4.1 AESTHETICS i y c Y` �.., � � 4�I � ..- �- YA. II III I n :I! �r •'* • �i } Y rv- / P 1-1 — � e View 1 - Existing Conditions View 1 - Proposed Conditions Key Map Figure 4.1-5 L' © VIEW SIMULATION - VIEW 1 Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page X-X �3 150 NEWPORT ENVIRONMENTAL .O , .1 AESTHETICS ,yy � I � i - .�... •n.... r I�--' Y ��L o.� ._"•`_ - RED �R View 2 Existing Conditions Proposed Key n n P II Figure 4.1-6 VIEW NOi SCNE SIMULATION Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page 150 NEWPORT ENVIRONMENTAL .O , .1 AESTHETICS View 3 Existing Conditions View 3 Proposed Conditions MIXIi.IXlllltlll ��. 'C t'�•I�I� ��I��wd� I . .1 qp � - v i ' S X iAll�Rl'AIiIIIINIIW r '� � � ���.d/WLY '•. � r .Slµ � �i i�lilillUl iIII911U�1111���1 IIIIUIIIIIIIIUIIII ©? Op Key Y ` 1 L ➢ o / / Figure / VIEW SIMULATION - VIEW 31 NOi SCNE Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page A'. , pi-O 4 r � 1ryR't ` 4 i.• fir.-•�' y'1�, <�rylfh r . r�.,t •rl l �, '. 1 / 1777 s + �I!llliltll • f � . ` rl�� �.. ;. . .' r a y fP1 1 , N' .iii ,� �. `., f����({lr�li � • ,. .- � . . jay ♦ �iy�/��•jyL']� W"iMl��_ , •���ti 1- 'T � (l rf J ..r�f;���� � '\.'^ _ , f r�' . . I � � ' ,' � . d 5- (T. •• /a ."�O j s ` r 1 �+ to/r .S , 1/• ,� J: '�. . .•r' 'r!. J.� `- '• r _ ��-�^11F/• � t �� i 1(�1 i w •mss „If• JL t , •,. - r.l:.. f �• jr � � •` ', 'I X � L, � �... � �Z� / V �r `. �•4 1• • 1 ���� / T i� � �,{• ••' . . • _•_Y i _rt n y� ` �, - ..- .. .. � � • f f aI ark `Z �� ,/ �' ,r.�., K'. T.� , � ) , /i.. � r - _ ,�� `. ♦ /` .i � 1. �1�Jl., '1^f f, � V���•�� j ��� rr,`, ..r ` . . + Y ra- . .�. • r�r-. ."a' r, ��t•-,-'`'•_' y �. �.. '� /`•�! � `\•' /1; 1/•� - -�t'�• I a ' Y.4�s 1___ i,� a , �.'j /, � `�. '/ � \ � ./� � ��� •�, _J •. •_ r f i- •'r�'�►4- � _ �+ .r '�� � _ +i' ♦ i J��� i-�►i• _ � i a . S � _ •l• •\ - I. -r., f • ♦ G�J•+w..+; `\wr9. i � V -� ••STs. �' �='arid J:1 �S'�<� �_ �- ��� - ., .. _ � ;. = ',. f 'tr 'r' - qr �.�' - .:��...i ''ol►� .� � - _ _ ,. t� ��� _ •.e d. ., .Yr.-! i. r . 1R \ ' ;.r y/' -/Y'yy�{� r•�i { , �+�� T - ..rtlu.•..� .u.rrr.•, _ — __ � �� - '•y • • •• 1 1� � \ /� � � rltl . •� C.SAr. .. .�• 'fr.s•(♦a_"IfL7/ Fd'r: ,l � � , v t ° � .� ' , r '•r '+ s t -'.Ls' i •• :. `e .. Pp u •Lr. - 4� -f itr F `7, Y .• ,S� s- � / � �D_;'• : .� -! ' .w.• � - ♦� '� 4 .'� - - b.1i ' . . -.e 4, :.FM-'�.1f�.�ori - t` 4�,L' •,'� "1!s ,7+ ' € s; t, V. ..4 t yDNK�t�. y . . + 'f' t Y .� 0.cf .!4 k r -,r . �' .�.�• VS' .i.: s'.• - ` 'yrp y t r.L;ai I AI IIIwA ,.. j rv' �• .�, aR .gra °:� J fi 'A: 1 - far 'l, rr.. ' d .� e - Nor ^o. \ . [ _ Crl :.t. f '• i > -..a r• ��+� ' - 1 r. -.«.y,R `i .,{ "�Iti",'r +'+� y� R - # s `• , �♦ r^. '� �.r. Ir LY- 1'N-•t f'7PQS N .,Jt . " . _ 061'V= \� o - t . 410 - . +r— - ; .y /-Y, `Y e* ' "^�'� ••.s.•� . a��.. ,1,+. fZ i>.'t ♦. �� r. { }`.• I� V �lj. Ql�a(���} �,•r a '1 a ` / f`• ,� f f - it 'i' , r . J • 1C '1f ' 'J• e . 'X '. r. ��+t �f - ,. . •� , •f u' ,•'1. i^ �1 711 PRO^IEaLOCATION �� * a ��'\� �Y \ M' Y1{ // ✓1 - 1 /r, i/ .♦.� t6. j . •� �;�r'R/i, t� ��r " i r �' ( ` •j •�,1 v .,� 4. - - _ �. f - ,,? ,♦� - �' � / � i^ � � � 4 v -,ti'L•- i. ,!'r ,- '1 . /'� ^�a 1�, ,�� .1/_ '-�'� '♦ 1/�'rL .c:. � s i •+-'s- i �. - _ ,. .. � ' - �. �_� / ♦ - �r� '�S3 �� - .a'• •.�• 1/�'�' 'r y .y ,y_. _ _ ,r •I . r � �, '�•��,�yww.,_ ¢ �-�-- .cam ' � - �j�R ami. `f,,, � ',- �'.. -.. _ _ � _. _ _ ' .4.� i _ y:• .w•� \�M r.' .' '��+,1 's `• L ' .. . y _ i, ",.T. R',�"'R"'r": •./yah. ..eJ�/'fw �� a •t �, � •q ... � / `>�� -1/ � .Tr -\. .. _ � *r .r!'s•Y d,. .� jr.` w, }l.' •;► .r. MX •\.• 4'�1d,j . :Yl. .i � .. - <e-' 1 �� � J.• + _ •-.Lr�r.�-j�-` � �_ \ ' may' � .� cr�S''!`i•�}y,. . . � . 1 • �' ��. .- �f +. '.� t -.�:-'rleit - .L• " ..� �' , .• a a:. •'- .�� r Attachment No. PC 8 Section 423 Analysis Table 07 V� QP �P �g PORr City of Newport Beach U Charter Section 423 Tracking Table C941FOft Statistical Area L3(Newport Center) Post 2006 General Plan Amendments Approved Land Use Element July 1, 2015 (Updated April 15, 2016) Project Name Date Project/GPA Amendment Square Footage Dwelling Unit AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Address Approved Number Description Change Change Trip Change Trip Change Civic Center and Park Site' 11/25/2008 PA2008-152 Open Space (OS)to N/A 0 N/A N/A GP2008-005 Public Facilities (PF) Newport Beach Country Club 1/24/2012 PA2008-152 Parks and recreation 21,000 0 N/A N/A (Clubhouse) GP2008-005 (PR)- No Change 100%Totals 21,000 0 0 0 80%Totals 16,800 0 0 0 Remaining Capacity Without 23,200 100 100 100 Vote GPA—General Plan Amendment CLUP—Coastal Land Use Plan 100%Totals—Cumulative increases resulting from approved GPXs. Decreases are not included. 80%Totals-Charter Section 423 requires that 80%of square footage, dwelling unit and peak hour trip increases of"Prior Amendments" be tracked for a period of 10 years and added to proposed general plan amendments located within the same Statistical Area to determine if the 423 GPA Thresholds are exceeded and a vote of the electorate required. Decreases in any category are not tracked. Charter Section 423 Thresholds: 40,000 square feet of non-residential floor area, 100 dwelling units, 100 AM or PM Peak Hour trips 'City Council resolution No 2008-097 includes the following finding: The proposed amendment is not subject to Charter Section 423 because any increase in vehicle trips or intensity from the City Hall facility will not result from the proposed amendment. Rather, these increases in traffic and intensity will result from and have been mandated by the voter approval of Measure 8 and the resulting addition of Charter Section 425. V� QP �P �o Attachment No. PC 9 Draft EIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ;7- V� QP �P ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY STA(ic AFTER MITIGATION Threshold b_The Project would not exceed No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A Less-Them-Significant the SCAQMD Regional Emissions Impact Thresholds for any criteria pollutants during construction. Accordingly, the Project's construction activities would not violate any an quality standard or contribute to a evsting or projected ah quality violation. Therefore, a less-Wan-significant impact would occur from the construction missions sesodmed with the proposed Project. The proposed Project's aperahcaum-source emissions would not exceed applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds of significance during the operation of the proposed Project Therefore, impacts associated with long-term air emissions would be less than significant. Threshold c Near-term cman oction No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A Less-Than-Significant missions and long-term operational Impact emissions would not substantially contribute to a net increase of any criteria pollutant for which one Project's region is in n-anamment. Impacts would be less Wan significant. Threshold d.The Project would not result in No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A Less-Th.Silamb,am r contribute to a CO "Hct Spot" The Impact Project also would rat result in a sigmficaut adverse health impact to sensitive receptors. Thus a less-than-significant impact to sensitive receptors during both construction and opemm nal activity is expected. Threshold e:The Project does not propose No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A Less-Than-Significant any uses or activities that would resuh in Impact potentially significant operational-source odor impacts. Potential sources of Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-12 73 ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY STA(ic AFTER MITIGATION operational odors generated by the Project would include disposal of solid waste generated by the residents onsite. Trash areas for the Project would be located on parking levels lil through 132, each of which has separate trash areas. Consistent with City requirements, all Project- generated reins,would be stared in covered containers and removed at regular intervals at ompliance with solid are regulations. Accordingly, operational-source odor impacts would be less than significant. 4.3 Biological Resources Summary of Impacts Threshold a No sensitive vegetation No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact communities,special-slams Plant species,or special-stains wildlife species am located on r near the P jest site. The Project would have he substantial impact either directly or through habitat modifications, on any other candidate,sensitive,or special status plant or wildlife species. Threshold b:The Project would have no No Mingadon is Required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact potential to impact riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in I..[at regional plans,policies,regulations, or by the CDFW and USFWS. No impact would occur. Threshold a No federally protected No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact wetlands are located on the Project site; therefore, no impact to wedends would occur. Threshold d: There is no potential for the MM 4.3-1 Prior to the issuance of a demolition Director ofCommuniConstruction Corrosion, Prior to the issuance of a Less-Than-Significant Project to interfere with the movement of pemilt, the Director of Continually Development Development demolition permit,during Impact fish or impede the use of a native wildlife shall ensure that any tree removal activities occur are minimal acrivitics nursery site. The Project has the potential outside of the nesting season(February I st to August Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-13 74 ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY $TA(iL AFTER MITIGATION to dircctly and cumulatively impact nesting 31st). If it is detumined necessary for nee removal bit& pmmcted by federal and State activities to occur between Febmary Ist and August regulations, if tree restrovals during 31x4 the Director of Community Development shall emrar num activities were on occur during require a pre-construction nesting bird survey to be the nesting season. conducted by a qualified biologist within seven(7) days prim any tree removal activities. Any active Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM nests identified shall have a buffer area established 4.3-1 would ensure that a pre-construction wiNw a 100-foot aditus(200 foot for birds of prey) nesting bird surveys conducted to of the active nest. Disturbance shall not occur within determine the presence orabsence of arrive the buffer area until the qualified biologist detertnines nests prior to tree removal. If present,the that the young have fledged. Demolition and mitigation measure mandates a buffer area consuuction activity may only occur within the mound active nests until the young have buffer area at the discretion of the qualified biologist. fledged. With implementation of the required mitigation, potential direct and umulatively considerable impacts to nesting birds would be reduced to below a level of significance. Threshold e:The Project would not conflict No Mitigation is Required N/A N/A N/A No Impact with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Threshold L The Project would not cpnNct No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan. Natural Communitv Conservation Plan,or other approved local, regional,or state habitat conservation plan, including the Orange County Central and Coastal Orange County NCCPIHCP. 4.4 Cultural Resources summary of impacts Thresholds: Although the Project would No Mitigation is Required N/A N/A N/A No Impact demolish the existing building and remove it from the property,the structure is not a historical resource pursuant to Section Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-14 75 ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY STALL AFTER MITIGATION 150645 of the CEQA Guidelines No impact to historic resources would occur mid mitigation is not reputed. Threshold b: Although uNikely,there is a MM 4.4-I Prior to the issuance of grading permits, Director of Community Construction Contractor prior to the issuance of Less-ThumSiguficam more possibility that archaeological the Director of Community Development shall ensure Development grading permits,during Impact resources could be encountered during site that following provision is included on the gmding ground disturbing priding activities. Mitigation is required to plan(s), and the construction courrector(s)shall be activities on. that potential impacts to required to comply with the provision. archaeological resources, if uncombed during coustructioa activities,are reduced "If evidence of subsurface archaeological resources to a level below significance, is found during epnsmucnon, excavafion and ether resurrection activity shalt cease acrd the co struction Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM contractor shall contact the Cie of Neupori Beach 4.4-1 would ensure then potential impacts m CommaNry Develipr-1 Direron, With direcnan archaeological resources, if unearthed jiam is, Community Develapment Outdo,, a during construction activities,are reduced peddiind archeologist meeting Its secreta,,of the to a less Nan significant level. interior been..metal Qualhcadon far.4rcteolog shall he retained to evahmre the disscovery prior to owunding,gradhig in the variations vicuna, of the find. If warrented,the arcboeohnev shall collect she resmrrce and prepare a technical repos describing the results of Me tnvestigaean. The teablow sport shall evaluate Me site including discussion cf the depth,unsure,condition,and extent of the resources, final remediation recommendations, and cost indurates." Threshold c. Although unlikely,there is a MM 4.4-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, Director of Community Construction Connector Prior to the issuance of Laws Th.to,andianni remote possibility that paleontological the Discover of Connally Development shell ensure Development posting pamdts,during Impact resources could be encountered during site that following provision is included on the grading ground disturbing grading activities. Mitigation is repaired to plans), and the construction commuters)shall be activities ensure that impacts to paleontological required to comply with the provision, resources,if unearthed during construction activities, are reduced to a level below "If insulation of subse lao,paleratchwtcol resources significancso is found during cneavolice,es avmian and other construction activity in that area shall cence,and the Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM construction contractor shall contact the Gry of 4.4-2 would ensure that potential impacts to Nevport Beach Contmunin,Development Ditncter. Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-15 70 ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY STAfic AFTER MITIGATION poleomologiezl resources, if unearthed Irth direoNon from he Commzmn, Development during construction activities,are reduced Director, a ynaldiled paleenmlogiet meering the to a less than significant level. So ocra,of dm Gnerm,Professional Qualifitcalum Jin Paleontology shall evaluate the find. If warranted, rhe paleontologlsr shall prepare and complete a stmrdard Paleontological Resources Mitigation Program f r the salvage and curation of i&eophiedresaurces." Tlaesholdd In the unlikely event that No Mitigmictris Required. MA NIA N/A Less-Than-goomream human smaurs are discovered during Impact Project grading or other ground disturbing activities,the Project would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of Cahfomia Head and Safety Code§7050.5 and Califomia Public Resources Code § 5097 et seq. Mandatorycompliance with State law would ensure that human remmns, if encountered,are appropriately treated and would preclude the potential for signifienot impacts to human remains. Threshold e: No signiticant tribal cultural No Mitigatmet is Required. NIA N/A N/A Leas-Than-Significant uses were identified at the Project site. Impact Therefore, a less than-significant impact would occur. 4.5 Geology and Soils Summary of Impacts Threshold a:The Project would not expose No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A Less-Than-Significant people or structures to substantial adverse Impact effects from earthquake fault rupture, ,emoric-oclated ground fail., or landslides. As with all properties in the southern California region,rhe Project site is subject to We,seismic ground shaking associated with earthquakes. Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-16 77 ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY STAfic AFTER MITIGATION Threshold b_ The Project would not result No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A Less-Than-Significaut in substantial soil erosion or Ne loss of Impact topsoil. The Project Applicant is required to obtain a NPDES Permit for construction activities and adhore to a SWPPP as well as SCAQMD Rule 403-Fugitive Dust during Project construction activities. With mandatory compliance to these regulatory requirements.the potential for soil erosion r the loss of topsoil on the Project site would be minimized,as the areas disturbed during consuvcrion would be landscaped or covered with impervious surfaces and drainage an the Project site would be controlled through the m ns of a surrm drain system. Furthermore,the Project is required by law to implement a WQMP during long-term operation, which would preclude substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil during long-term.,.Lou of But Project. Threshold c: During excavation for the MM 4.5-I Slopes created during subsurface Building Official for the Construction Contractor Prior to the issuance ofa Less-Than-Significant subterranean parking garage,there may be excavations associlood with the Project's construction City of Newport Beach grading permit.during Impact local seepage and wet sands within the process shall be shared to accordance with OSTIA (or his/her designee) subsurface excavation filVterrace and terracebedrock contacts. excavated safely regulations (Title 29 Code of activities Locally, Nese slopes could slough or Pedeml Regulath os,Part 1926.650.652[Subpar P]) potentially slump along the contact, and to the satisfaction of the City of Newport Beach would he subject to instability during Building Official. Prior to the issuance of a grading Project excavation. With implementation of permit,the Building Official or his/her designee shall Mitigation Measure MM 4.5-1 the Project ensure that the grading plan indicates the methods by would result in less-than-signifcant impacts which adequate shoring will occur. The shoring associated with unstable souk during methods most ensure that the subsurface excavation cmnstmetion. will not slough or slump. The Construction Contractor shall implement the shoring requirements The implementation of the mandatory throughout the subsurface excavation period and requirements of the CBSC and the allow inspection of the shoring method by the City of recommendations identified in the Project's I Newport Beach. Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-17 72 ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY SIO,L AFTER MITIGATION Oemech o.1 Feasibility Reform (required through City-imposed conditions of appmval oa the P,oect)would ensure that impacts associated with unstable geologic units during long-term Project operation would be less than signitiesi Threshold d: There is a potential for MM 4.52 Expansive soils shall nor be present as fill Building Official for the Construction Contractor Prior to the issuance of a Lela-Than-Significant expected ve soils to be encountered during the material below the building slab and fcatings. City ofNewpon Beach building permit,during Impact Project's grading operation. with the During the property's site preparation and grading (or his/her designee) subsurface excavation incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM phases,expansive soils shall be mixed with other soil activities 4.5-2,as well az the mandatary eamphamce material to provide a uniform blend of material, with CBSC requirements, the impacts compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relevant associated with expansive soils would be compaction,to the satisfaction of the City of Newport reduced to less than significant. Beach Building OfLcisl. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Building Official or his/her designee shall ensure that lite grading plan indicates a subsurface soil correct that is ream-expansive and ompacted to at least 90 percent. The Construction Counsel., shall implement the requmements throughout the site preparation and grading process and allow inspection of grading by the City of Newport Beazh. Threshold e:The Project would not insmli No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact septic taddi or altemative wastewater disposal systems. Accordingly,no impact would occur. 4.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Summary of Impacts Threshold a and b: Based an the findings of No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A Less-Than-Significant a Phase I ESA and Phase 11 ESA conducted Impact for the Proper site,the property does rut contain any environmental hazards that could pose a significare threat to human health or the environment The existing building that would be demolished and removed from the site as part of the Project Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-18 �J ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY STdcc AFTER MITIGATION could potentially contain asbestos containing materials and lead based paint, but compliance with mandatory regulatory requirements during the demolition and removal process would ensure that impacts would be less than significant. Threshold c. The Project would not emit No Mitigation is Required N/A WA N/A No Impact hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or pmposed school. No impact would occur add mitigation is not requved. Threshold d: The Project site is not No Mirigamm is Required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact identified on a list compiled prromm to Goverrmrent Code Section 65962.5; therefore, the P jem has ao potential m create s significant hazard to the public or environment as the result of listed properties. Threshold w The Project site is ant located No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A Lela-ThanSigoifeant in an,airport safety zone;the Project would Impact thus not significantly expose people residing or working in the area to safety hazards associated with operstions at John Wayne Aupo t. Threshold f:No private airships are located No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact in the vicinity of the Project site;therefore, the Preject has no potential to result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the area caused by private airships. Threshold aThe Project would not impair No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A Less-Than-Significant implementation of or physically interfere Impact wish an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Thresholdh;The Project site is not located No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact wildladd f hazard area. The P jeer Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-19 20 ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY SIbtGP: AFTER MITIGATION ,ould thus not expose people or stmcmres to a significant risk of loss,injury,or death involving wildland fires. 4.7 Land Use Planning Threshold a: The proposed Project would No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact not physically divide an established community. Threshold b: Although the Project would No Mitigation is Required. MA N/A N/A Less-Thaa-Sigoificaut change the [.ad use designation of the Impact Project site fiom commercial to readentisl. the land use change would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts to the environment Thus,the Project would not conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adapted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating a eovironmental effect. Threshold c: No habitatconservation plans No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A No Impact or named co unity co rvati0n plans are applicable to the Project site;thus,am impact would occur. 4.8 Noise Threshold x Noise levels during MM 4.8-1 Construction staging before 7:00 a.m. City of Newport Building Construction Contractor During construction Less-Than-Significant construction would not significantly impact shall only be permitted with the express written Official,Comwction activities Impact off-site properties and construction consent of the Building Official. Residents of the Contractor activities are required at comply with the Granville community shall be notified in advance of provisions specified in Municipal Code § the proposed consrmctiot hours and sound blankets 10.28 (Loud and Unreasonable Noise). shall be installed on-site to minimize noise during However, because construction activities these hours. A sound blanket is a sound-absorbing re proposed to occur in early morning material that can be hung on construction fencing or hours an two days that would fall outside of other surface located between the noise source and the time of day provisions for conswctionrreceiver to duce mise levels at the receiver activities specified in the City's Noise location. reBack-up alarms on construction vehicles Ordinance § 10.28.040 (Consumer. shall be disabled when construction vehicles are Activity-Noise Regulations), potentially I operating on the Projem site before 700 a.m. Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-20 21 ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY STA(ic AFTER MITIGATION signiGcnnt impacts could arca, on those two days. Mitigation Measures MM 4.8-1 MM 4.&2 The construction contractor shall inspect City ofNe"M Building Conswction Contractor Duringconstruction Less-Than-Signifcant and MM 4.9-2 would reduce this impact to all motorized construction equipment operating on Official,Construction activities Impact below a level of significance. the site monthly,to ensure the proper installation of Contractor noise-attenuating mufflers. Inspection records shall Operational noise associated with be made available to the Cary of Newport Beach upon residential use of the property would be less request. Nan significant. Also,because the Project would reduce the total number of avemge daily vehicular trips traveling to and earn the site by 614 trips,compared to existing conditions,vehicular-related also would be less Nan significant. Threshold b: Impacts associated wash No Mitigation is Required WA N/A N/A Less-Than-Significant excessive groundbome vibration or Impact groundbome noise levels during Project construction and long-term operation would be less than siguificant. Threshold c: The Project would not result No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A Less-"ahSignificaut in a substantial permanent increase in Impact ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Threshold d: Construction noire would be MM 4.8I and MM 4.8-2 apply(see above) MM 4.8-1 and MM 4.8-2 MM 4.8-1 and MM 4.8-2 h41,14.8-1 and MM 4.&2 Less-Than-Significant generated outside of the hours specified in apply(see above) apply(see above) apply(see above) Impact the City's construction noise ordinance for two days during Be, corsouctaon period, resulting in a potentially significant impam. Threshold e.The Project site is located out No Mitigation is Required. MA N/A N/A No hoped outside of the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour for Jahn Wayne Airport. Thus,the Project would not expose people residing o working an the Project area to excessive airport-related nolle levels. Threshold f:The Project site is not located No Mitigation is Required. MA N/A N/A No Impact nora private airstrip;thus,here would be mpact due to the exposure of people Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-21 22 ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY SI ,('L AFTER MITIGATION residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels associated with private airstrips. 4.9 Transportation&Traffic Threshold a:The Project would reduce the No Mitigation is Required. N/A N/A N/A Less-Than-Significant total number of average daily vehicular trips Impact traveling to and from the site by 614 trips, compared to existing conditions. Thus,the Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy cstabliaNng measures of effectiveness for the performance tithe circulation syatem. Threshold b.The Project would not conflict No Mitigationle Required. NIA WA N/A No Impact with the OCTA CMP's level of service standards or travel demand measures. No impact would occur. Threshold c There are no components of No Mitigation is Required. N/A WA N/A No Impact the Project that would result in an Increase in traffic levels or result in substantial safety risks.No impact would occur. Threshold d: The Project would not No Mitigation is Required. N'A WA WA Less-Than-Significant substantially immerse harands due to a Impact design feature or incompatible uses. There may be the need for temporary lane closures for Anacapa Drive and Newport Cemex Drive to install tie-backs along the Newport Center Drive and Anacapa Drive fromages, however,these temporary impacts would be leas than significant. Threshold e: The Project would result in No Mitigation is Required. NLA N/A N/A No Impact adequate emergency access and would not impact a designated emergency access roux, No impact to emergency access would occw. Threshold f:The Project would not conflict No Mitigation is Required. NA N/A N/A No Impact with adopted policies,plans, or programs Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-22 e'er ®® 150 NEWPORT CENTER ® ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ES.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY LEVEL OF THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES RESPONSIBLE MONITORING IMPLEMENTATION SIGNIFICANCE PARTY PARTY STd(ic AFTER MITIGATION rsgarding vansiq bicycle, or pedesrrian facilities. No impact would decor. Lead Agency: City of Newport Beach SCH No. 2016011032 Page ES-23 24 Attachment No. PC 10 Fiscal Impact Model 25 V� QP �P g� MEMO TO: Brenda Wisneski, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director City of Newport Beach FROM: Doug Svensson, AICP DATE: July 11, 2016 SUBJECT: Fiscal Analysis for 150 Newport Center INTRODUCTION The fiscal analysis uses the Newport Beach Fiscal Impact Model to help calculate revenue and cost impacts of the proposed project. This model was initially developed in support of the General Plan Update, which was adopted in 2006.1 The model has been updated to reflect Fiscal Year 2015-2016 costs and revenues from the Newport Beach City Budget. The fiscal impact model calculates public service impacts for specific land uses that support the residential population, the employment base and the visitor population in Newport Beach. It also calculates the public revenues that each type of land use typically generates for the City, including property taxes, sales taxes and other taxes as well as a variety of user charges and fees. The fiscal impact model is designed to calculate the average cost of public services required by new development, on the assumption that new development affects City services in approximately the same way that existing development does. The model nets out certain costs that are unlikely to change with expansion of City government, such as the number of City Department Directors and Division managers, as well as the City Council and City Clerk expenditures, but otherwise assumes that City administrative support and overhead tends to increase as City government activities grow to provide services to an expanding population and employment base. Over the long term, this is clearly the dynamic that local governments experience. In the short term, development projects may have lower or higher cost impacts depending on the existing capacity of City services to accommodate more 'A technical description of the fiscal impact model may be found in: Applied Development Economics, Fiscal Impact Analysis and Model, Newport Beach General Plan Update, January 2004. 255 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 200, walnut Creek, CA 94596 ■Tel 925.934.8712 99 Pacific Street, #200 J, Monterey, CA 93940 ■ 831.324.4896 www.adeusa.com GREfX INfff development, and the level of expenditure needed to expand services incrementally if existing capacity is not available. PROJECT DESCRIPTION THE PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project would convert an existing car wash/gas/convenience store development consisting of 8,500 sq.ft. of building space on 1.26 acres to 49 residential units in a seven story building of 163,260 gross sq.ft. The project would consist of 10 townhomes on the first two floors, 35 residential flats on the middle floors and 4 penthouse units on the top floor. The units would range in size from 1,645 sq.ft. to 5,371 sq.ft. The proposed project would include underground parking and other amenities such as a club room, a pool and a catering kitchen, as well as underground parking. The site is located adjacent to the Fashion Island Regional Retail Center and is bounded by Newport Center Drive to the North and Anacapa Drive to the west. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The fiscal analysis analyzes the same project alternatives as the DEIR. The alternatives include the existing carwash use on the site, two other non-residential uses consistent with the existing General Plan designation on the site, including office use and a retail/restaurant use, and two reduced size residential developments. No Project: Existing Use. The existing use is an 8,500 building occupied by a car wash and small convenience store. The business also sells gas. No Project: Office Use. This alternative assumes the car wash would be replaced with an 8,500 sq.ft. office building housing administrative and professional offices serving local and regional markets, with limited accessory retail, financial, service, and entertainment uses. Commercial/Restaurant Redevelopment. This alternative would also include an 8,500 sq.ft. building but with a restaurant use supplemented by ancillary retail. For purposes of the analysis, ADE has assumed this would be a national chain fine dining type of establishment. Multiple Unit Residential (RM) Alternative. The Multiple Unit Residential (RM) Alternative evaluates redevelopment of the project site with a multi-family residential building that offers 25 market-rate rental or ownership units. For purposes of the fiscal analysis, ADE has assumed these units would be similar to the residential flats in the proposed project. Reduced Dwelling Units Alternative. This alternative reduces the height of the building by 14 feet and one floor, thus eliminating the penthouse from the proposed project. This development would have 45 units, which ADE has assumed would be similar to the townhomes and residential flats in the proposed project. Applied Development Economics I Page 2 gg SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS In order to calculate the fiscal effects of the proposed changes, it is necessary to estimate certain socio-economic characteristics of the land uses, including population and employment, assessed value, household spending on taxable retail goods in Newport Beach, and direct sales taxes from the non- residential uses in the alternatives. The DEIR for the project indicates that the average household size in Newport Beach is 2.24 persons, and calculates a projected population for the proposed project of 110 persons. The RM Alternative and the Reduced Units Alternative would have 56 and 101 residents, respectively. ADE estimated employment onsite for the non-residential alternatives based on industry surveys for specific types of land use, as shown in Table 1. For the car wash use, ADE assumed a full service detail operation, given the size of the site, rather than a fully automated, self-service system. While there are no industry guidelines for employment densities in this type of facility, they tend to be relatively labor intensive, although less so than a full service restaurant or an office development of the same size. Table 1 also shows the factors used in the analysis to estimate the assessed value and taxable sales for each of the non-residential land uses. SOCIOECONOMICTABLE 1: FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES T TAXABLE SQ.FT./ MARKET ASSESSED SALES LAND USE $ .FT. EMPLOYEE JOBS VALUE $ .FT. VALUE $ .FT. Car Wash 8,500 400 21 $200 $1,700,000 $323 Office 8,500 274 31 $250 $2,125,000 $555 Retail 8,500 234 36 $350 $2,975,000 $120 Sources:Employee densities based on The Natelson Company, Employee Density Study:Market values based on Colliers International, Office and Retail GLA Reports for Orange County, Q1 2016. Taxable Sales based on Urban Land Institute, Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers. Bureau of the Census, Census of Retail Trade,and CA Board of Equalization. The assessed value for the proposed project has been derived from projected sales data provided by the project sponsor, in comparison to the recent Meridian development which also includes luxury residential housing.2 The sales values are projected to range from $1,500 per sq.ft. to $1,800 per sq.ft. A review of recent new home construction in Newport Beach identifies a number of units priced above $1,000 per sq.ft. so it is likely in today's market the upper end of luxury residential units could reach these price levels. The total residential assessed value in the project is estimated at $193.7 million, for an average of $3.95 million per unit (Table 2). The analysis uses similar factors for the two residential alternatives, also shown in Table 2. The outcome of the fiscal analysis is highly affected by the assessed values of the units, which generate property taxes for the City. The alternatives may feature units with lower average values, but for sake 2 Makana Nova, Associate Planner, City of Newport Beach, personal communication, July 8, 2016. Applied Development Economics I Page 3 gJ of consistency ADE has assumed all of the residential alternatives would serve the same high end market levels as the proposed project. TABLE 2: ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUES FOR THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE PROJECT AT 150 NEWPORT TOTAL AVERAGE NO.OF ASSESSED VALUE ASSESSED UNIT TYPE UNITS ZE UNITS AV S .FT. PER UNIT VALUE Proposed Project Townhome 3,500 10 $1,500 $5,261,000 $52, 07,000 Residential Flat 2-11-0-0- 35 $1,500 $3,087,000 $108,045,000 Penthouse 4 600 4 $1,800 $8,276,000 $33,105,000 Total 49 $193757000 RM Alternative Residential Flat 2,100 25 $1,500 $3,087,000 $77,175,000 Reduced DU Alternative Townhome 3 500 10 $1,500 $5,261,000 $52,607,000 Residential Flat 2,100 35 $1,500 $3,087,000 $108,045,000 Total 45 $160,652,000 Source:ADE,Inc., based on the project description in the DEIR and information provided by the project sponsor. The analysis uses the residential unit values to estimate household income and taxable retail spending, as shown in Table 3. For units in this price range, it is difficult to know the financial circumstances of the buyers. Frequently high wealth individuals will pay a higher amount in down payment and the remaining mortgage payments may be well below their financial capacity in terms of their annual income levels. However, for purposes of the analysis, ADE assumed buyers would put 30 percent down on the townhomes and residential flats and 50 percent on the penthouses. Assuming the rest of the purchase price is financed for 30 years at 4 percent per year, the monthly payments are shown in the third column of Table 3. We assume that monthly housing cost comprises 30 percent of household income, resulting in household incomes ranging from $413,000 to $790,000 per year. ADE has analyzed consumer expenditure surveys published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and at these income levels, households typically spend less than 20 percent of their income on retail goods. Of those expenditures, about 87 percent are taxable items (non-food). We have assumed for purposes of these calculations that households would spend two-thirds of their annual retail budget in Newport Beach, and the remaining one-third would be spent at retail centers in other cities or on out-of-town trips. The City receives sales tax at the rate of one percent of taxable sales. The resulting sales tax figures are shown with the other revenues and costs in Table 4 below. Applied Development Economics IPage 4 9a MONTHLY ANNUAL MORTGAGE INCOME SALES TAX 77$8,276,000 UNIT VALUE PAYMENT @30% PER UNIT 5 261000 17600 703 000 800 3087000 10300 413 000 470 $19,800 $790,000 $900 Source:ADE,Inc. FISCAL IMPACTS The analysis, summarized in Table 4 below, estimates the current fiscal impact of the proposed project and each of the alternatives. For the residential project and alternatives, the primary revenue source generated for the City is the property tax. The City receives about 20 percent of the base property tax that property owners pay, but in addition the City gets a share of property tax from the state in lieu of vehicle license fees, which adds about ten percent to the total property tax revenues for Newport Beach. In contrast, for the non-residential alternatives the sales tax is a greater revenue generator. To a large extent this is because the buildings for the non-residential uses are much smaller than the residential options, but also the values per sq.ft. of building space are lower than the luxury residential units proposed for this project. There is no information on the actual sales tax produced by the existing car was use on the site, but gas sales typically are a relatively high sales tax generator. In addition, convenience stores have a high proportion of taxable goods for sale. ADE estimates this facility likely generates about $27,500 per year in sales tax for Newport Beach, assuming full operation of this use on the site. The office alternative would house business uses that have relatively little potential to generate sales tax. At times, office-based businesses have a point of sale operation that generates sales tax even though it is not a store front retail operation, but most often professional services, financial offices and other businesses that occupy office space do not provide taxable goods or services. Therefore, the office use is projected to generate about $10,100 in sales tax and $22,600 total in various City revenues. Nearly all of this revenue would be expended to provide incidental City services to the site, so the office use has a neutral fiscal impact. The potential restaurant alternative could be a relatively high sales tax generator, as the fine dining business is 100 percent taxable. However, one issue is that visitor-serving, entertainment uses tend to generate higher levels of police calls for service and therefore can generate higher costs for the City than other non-residential uses. This is not unique to Newport Beach, but is exacerbated for the City due to the high volumes of visitors during peak tourist seasons. It is difficult to say whether the retail/restaurant use that would occupy this site would contribute to demand for higher police services, but the fiscal model uses a conservative assumption that this use would be similar to other visitor serving uses, and estimates that the facility would require police costs of up to $27,900 per year. Applied Development Economics I Page 5 9:L While the restaurant use would generate higher revenues overall than the other non-residential alternatives, it has a lower net fiscal benefit than the existing car wash/gas sales use of the site. TABLE 4: PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 150 NEWPORT CENTER AND THE ALTERNATIVES Annual Revenues Costs Proposed Existing Office RestaurantRM Reduced Budget Category Project Use Alternative Alternative Residential Residential REVENUES GENERALFUND Property Tax $387,513 $3,400 $4,250 $5,950 $154,349 $321,304 Property Tax in lieu of Vehicle License Fees $38,407 $337 $421 $590 $15,298 $31,845 Sales Tax $27,923 $27,498 $10,133 $47,128 $11,693 $24,341 Transient Occupancy Tax $48 $0 $0 $0 $26 $47 Franchise Fees $2,014 $672 $980 $1,149 $1,027 $1,849 Business Licenses $786 $1,403 $1,050 $1,378 $401 $722 Other Intergovernmental $1,002 $194 $283 $332 $511 $920 Charges for Service $8,514 $1,648 $2,403 $2,818 $4,344 $7,819 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $2,274 $440 $642 $753 $1,160 $2,089 Licenses and Permits $391 $76 $110 $129 $199 $359 Use of Property $2,274 $440 $642 $753 $1,160 $2,089 Other Revenue $230 $45 $65 $76 $117 $211 Interest Income $1,318 $101 $59 $171 $532 $1,100 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $472,695 $36,254 $21,037 $61,225 $190,819 $394,694 GAS TAX $2,333 $0 $0 $0 $1,191 $2,143 MEASURE M $4,268 $4,203 $1,549 $7,204 $1,787 $3,721 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $6,602 $4,203 $1,549 $7,204 $2,978 $5,864 -OTAL REVENUE $479,296 $40,457 $22,586 $68,429 $193,797 1 $ 400 558 EXPENDITURES GENERALFUND _ General Government $12,643 $1,194 $1,733 $3,967 $6,039 $11,283 Police $28,969 $4,218 $6,148 $27,907 $14,780 $26,604 Fire $59,943 $4,293 $6,185 $7,352 $26,156 $51,520 Public Works $21,049 $4,075 $5,940 $6,966 $10,739 $19,330 Community Development $1,308 $253 $369 $433 $667 $1,201 Community Services $24,706 $0 $0 $0 $12,605 $22,689 CIP Streets $1,092 $543 $792 $7,238 $589 $1,060 Other CIP Projects 392 76 111 130 200 360 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $150,102 14,652 1 $21,278 $53,992 $71,776 $134,048 GAS TAX $583 $290 $422 $3,862 $314 $566 MEASURE M $933 $464 $677 $6,188 503 $906 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $1,516 754 $1,099 $10,050. 818 6" TOTAL EXPENDIT1 1 NET COST REVENUE 327 679 L$25,051 209 $4,387 $121,203 265 038 Source:ADE, Inc. Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. The proposed project and the other residential alternatives all have a much higher fiscal benefit than the non-residential alternatives, and the variation in net revenue is mainly due to the number of dwelling units in each alternative. In terms of City costs, the DEIR indicates that the proposed project would not have a significant impact on police, fire or other City services. The project site is in an intensely developed urban area of the City and existing service capacities are sufficient to provide services to the proposed uses on the site. However, with the more intensive residential uses, it may Applied Development Economics I Page 6 92 be expected that there would be some additional calls for service, particularly for public safety and perhaps traffic related incidents, compared to the existing use on the site. The fiscal model, therefore, shows some incremental cost for City services, but the annual expenditure amounts are all well below the amount needed to support an additional full staff person, meaning that the service impacts would be an incremental increase of service activity for existing personnel. The proposed project would generate the most revenue for the City and would have a proportionally higher net fiscal benefit, of about $327,700 per year, compared to $121, 200 for the 25-unit Multiple Residence alternative and $265,000 for the Reduced Dwelling Unit and Height alternative. CONCLUSION The proposed residential use of the site would generate a positive fiscal benefit for the City due to the building intensity and high value of the proposed development. The smaller residential alternatives would also produce positive fiscal impacts provided they are developed for the same luxury residential market as the proposed project. The 2006 General Plan designated the site for non-residential use, consistent with the office alternative or the restaurant use (if a Conditional Use Permit were granted). These alternatives would also have a positive, or at least neutral, fiscal benefit, although much lower than the existing car wash use or the residential alternatives as proposed. Overall, the General Plan increased development potential for commercial and lodging uses substantially, in addition to the new residential units it would permit. The net impact of the growth in land uses at buildout of the General Plan compared to existing land uses in 2006 when the plan was adopted, would result in a positive fiscal impact for the General Fund of$21.7 million per year.' Due to the high market level targeted by the proposed project, it would exceed the fiscal benefit from the potential non-residential uses of the site under the existing General Plan. 3 Applied Development Economics, Fiscal Impact Analysis Land Use Element Amendment, April 4, 2014. p. 3. Applied Development Economics I Page 7 93 V� QP �P 9� Attachment No. PC 11 Requested Height Plans (65 feet 6 inches) 95 V� QP �P 9� ARCHITECTURAL SHEET INDEX 150 NEWPORT CENTER A0.0 COVER SHEET A0.1 SITE PLAN & PROJECT SUMMARY 02.29.2016 A0.2 PROPOSED OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS A0.3 OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS - COMMON OPEN SPACE A0.4 OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS - PRIVATE OPEN SPACE A0.5 OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS - PRIVATE OPEN SPACE A0.6 OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS - PRIVATE OPEN SPACE A1.0.1 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL B1 A1.0.2 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL B2 A1.0.3 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL B3 A1.1 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 A1.2 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 A1.3 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 (3-4 TYP.) A1.5 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 5 A1.6 FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 6 A1.7 ROOF PLAN A2.1 NORTH ELEVATION A2.2 EAST ELEVATION A2.3 SOUTH ELEVATION A2.4 WEST ELEVATION A3.1 SITE SECTION 1 A3.2 SITE SECTION 2 A3.3 SITE SECTION 3 A3.4 SITE SECTION 4 AT LOWEST POINT A3.5 BUIILDING SECTION 1 A4.1 PERSPECTIVE - NEWPORT &ANACAPA A4.2 PERSPECTIVE - ANACAPA TOWARDS FASHION ISLAND Y A4.3 PERSPECTIVE - SOUTHWEST CORNER BIRD'S EYE rl A4.4 PERSPECTIVE - ANACAPA DRIVE I A4.5 PERSPECTIVE - VIEW FROM VALET DROPOFF EXHIBIT 1 PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS - SECTIONS EXHIBIT 2 SHADE & SHADOW STUDY (EXISTING) EXHIBIT 3 SHADE &SHADOW STUDY (PURPOSED) CIVIL SHEET INDEX 1 rte. C1.0 CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN C2.0 CONCEPTUAL UTILITY PLAN C3.0 SECTIONS EX.1 VIEW SIMULATIONS -VIEW 1 IJ - _ EX.2 VIEW SIMULATIONS -VIEW 2 II i VIEW SIMULATIONS -VIEW 3 VIEW SIMULATIONS VIEW 4 i - I i I I EX. FH FIRE HYDRANT LOCATION EXHIBIT I , 'I � . I � � ' � j� � ► � I, I ', , � ', I r� II � I I j i EX. TC TITLE CONSTRAINTS EX. VTTM IVESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP - t- ' LANDSCAPE SHEET INDEX 70 II I I I YI 5 i T x L0.0 NOTES AND LAYOUT LEGEND : . i I _ .� . � r ffffff ¢� i T L0.1 PLANTING PALETTE I r I I '� � _. L0.2 PLANTING PALETTE L0.3 PLANTING PALETTE o I. �' -1�1 r �� i -. �� l L1.0 LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN 0 0 PLANTING PLAN VICINITY MAP I I I - ' I _ i ���-------"'LF4------- - , I _ Y CENTER NEWPORT CE DRIVE I L. I N ■. A jr. ;. I ; . . . a .� F'• -yam'- \ rl --- - I I ul l T I v 1-10 G m `o1vo N 1) A0.0 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA COVER SHEET {- P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 2/29/2016 10:57:13 A 7 PROJECT SUMMARY TOTAL PROPOSED GROSS FLOOR AREA: MULTI-STORY PROJECT RESIDENTIAL: 141 ,013 S.F. (2.96 x BUILDABLE AREA) PROJECT DESCRIPTION EL UNITS: 3 THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF (1 ) MULT-STORY , CENTER �RivE 2 Bedroom 43 Units NEWPORT E _ 3 Bedroom 2 Units '�`` n°"T °` RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. Total 45 Units 6 STORIES OF RESIDENTIAL 3 LEVELS OF UNDERGROUND PARKING OPEN SPACEm BUILDING SHALL BE COMPLETELY SPRINKLERED. REQUIRED J BUILDING CODE: CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2013 PROPERTY LINE COMMON OPEN SPACE 75 DU/UNIT 31375 S. F. b Ej ml U± EUIRED OCCUPANCY TYPE: R-2 LNE SETBACKPROPERTY m o o PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 30 S.F. PER 11350 S.F. r \ � o EACH UNIT FOOTPRINT BASEMENT o — � t, 9,1 BUILDING TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION. TYPE I-A - FULLY SPRINKLERED TOTAL REQUIRED 41725 S.F. PROPERTY LINE PROVIDED GOVERNING AGENCY: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMON OUTDOOR OPEN SPACE 10,389 S.F. REQUIRED PROPERTY LINE LOT COVERAGE: COMMON INDOOR OPEN SPACE 2,694 S.F. ° '' _l , --226" - SETBACK - LOT AREA (prior to dedications): 541686 S.F. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 13,564 S.F. gLDGSETBACK LOT AREA TOTAL PROVIDED 26,647 S.F. (after dedications plus setbacks): 47,592 S.F. FOOTPRINT , ,'N `I ° _ o BASEMENT BUILDABLE AREA: 477592 S.F. SETBACKS: ' _ _ g I PROVIDED L '� BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 297800 S.F. a i i ❑� I �w ❑I _ a � w LOT COVERAGE: 63% ABOVE PODIUM BELOW PODIUM '' ANACAPA FRONTAGE - 22.5 FT 15 FT w y A I N BUILDING DEPARTMENT GROSS FLOOR AREA: NEWPORT CENTER DR - 24 FT 15 FT Nm�m� II ❑,L WESTERN PRTY LINE - 14 FT 0 FT 1ST FLOOR AREA: +/- 271294 S.F. 2ND FLOOR AREA: +1- 251520 S.F. SOUTHERN PRTY LINE - 22 FT 7 FT o ❑ 3RD FLOOR AREA: +l- 25, 198 S.F. *NOTE: ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS ARE ALLOWED TO PROJECT �� ' , ° 4TH FLOOR AREA: +1- 25, 198 S.F. 30" INTO SETBACK AREAS < ; - EXISTING T SIDEWALK EASEMENT 3-0" LANDSCAPE PLANTER 5TH FLOOR AREA: +l- 211631 S.F. ALONG GARAGE WALL UNDER 6TH FLOOR AREA: +/- 16, 172 S.F. CANTILEVERED PODIUM BLDG SETBACK I, g TOTAL +1- 1417013 S. F. ° - _-lr PROPERTY LINE GROSS FLOOR AREA: +1- 141 ,013 S. F. PARKING GARAGE GBA: +1- 132,274 S.F. 4 ► - �' -- - PROPERTY LINE PROJECT SALEABLE AREA: +/- 125,494 S.F. e - REQUIRED PROPERTY - LINE SETBACK PARKING: BASEMENT REQUIRED � pow A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMEN FOOTPRINT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS RESIDENTIAL 90 STALLS OVER PARCEL A P.M.B. 76/32 VISITOR 23 STALLS - - PROVIDED RESIDENTIAL 91 STALLS (INCLUDES 1ADA STALL ATLEVEL BI) VISITOR 25 STALLS (INCLUDES 2 STALLS AT GROUND LEVEL AND 2 ADA STALLS AT LEVEL 31) TRUE Inn-i{ PROJECT 0' 30' 60' 120' `RTH As indicated AO.1 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA SITE PLAN & PROJECT SUMMARY + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 3/1/2016 9:11:21 Aye i NOT INCLUDED UNDER CONDITIONS FOR ENTITLEMENT SUBMITTAL PURPOSE TO REMOVE EXISTING TREES AND % REPLACE WITH NATIVE SPECIES TREES. TREES SHALL BE SYMMETRICALLY PLACED IN SIMILAR LOCATIONS ALONG ANACAPA DRIVE X77° 16'23"W 65.00' 330.7+' 35.15 333'-0" A AC APA D VE +1 \ / \ Ln 7' WIDE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY) \ / 0 0 s -V " 12 9 F, 3.0' L/A 12 9 7 6 I CD I /A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15' S SIDE (Si G r C4 S.F.) ° ET W o +) � - - - - - - > F °� - - _ ylli NOT INCLUDED UNDER - - - - - - - - --- - - - -- - II PLATE CONDITIONS FOR ENTITLEMENT 1 O ii OH SUBMITTAL II CARWASH AREA CONC . Is - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — — — — — — — — — — — — — PURPOSE TO INFILL STREET MEDIAN IN LLf � I I r � ; � I � B JILDiN3 O ORDER TO MITIGATE TRAFFIC FLOW II (B.=. = 98' S.F.) 0, — - - - - - - - - -\ TO/OUT FROM PURPOSED SOUTHERN OPB.� '. ) A- - - - - --- -- -\ V SIR, — I I _ _ GARAGE ENTRY/EXIT. INFILL SHALL BE �I STORY B R C K \\ \ \ PAI APPROPRIATELY LANDSCAPED. U i CO LLJ Co moo- 0 Q GP CID i--14.65' jL A 4/A SMH IRS 15 F.S. I 0 ° O o 8.0' A/C L/a C SVH CANOPY A/C I I I GP GP FL AREA 3 W (W. FACE, C I 9.6' E. OF P.L.) I ' I L/A I I � SA � 12 PA G STALL i------------------------------------------ 4 I � 3 PAR ING S ALLS - i I I i I I I CJ 354'-1" /c, *NOTES: cF�TF� 0 *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 A0.2 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA PROPOSED OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 2/29/2016 10:57:15 Aya LAX LAW. • +168.25 1163.50 Area Schedule - Common Open Space (Outdoor) +161. 0 Level Name Area 66.25 R LeII vel 1 OPEN SPACE (COMMON) 4527 SF Level 6 OPEN SPACE (COMMON) 5862 SF - - - 10389 SF 1 115S - IT - - Area Schedule - Common Open Space (Indoor) I 0 UNIT ■ ■ 0 ■ 11 Level Name Area nI #2 UNIT 57 UNIT r f099 SF #1 #15 o Level 6 INDOOR SPACE (COMMON) 2694 SF 4 9 c UN T °0 2694 SF 1190 SF 1296 SF ❑ #14 0 e l - UNIT 1213 SF - ° o #3 Ll° 1788 SF ® ® UNIT ° o ❑ c_ 895 SF o 7innnr- +1s .50 +166. 0 I +167.50 0 I I I I I 3 ° UNIT I #4 UNIT 0 1329 SF #12 1228 SF °❑o ss.a O UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT ❑❑ o UNIT #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 UNIT #5]Q #11 1485 SF 1406 SF 1366 SF 1406 SF 1485 SF / % O +167 50 DOG RUN 991 SF 991 SF o 126,SF Co) s6s 1,038 SF s� � 0 I / 11 YIff 4 2126SF I - ❑❑❑❑❑ ❑❑ ❑❑❑❑ ❑ +1-75. +165. s , +16766 is7. 0 R L.o.w. � L.0 W. LANDSCAPE UNDER LEVEL 1 - OPEN SPACE CANTILEVERED COMMON - OUTDOOR SPACE 11 = 20'-011 ARCHITECTURAL DECK TO BE COMPRISED OF VINES & SHRUBS TO COMMON - INDOOR SPACE SCREEN ARCHITECTURAL WALL. ---L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I- - - I I I 1 I I 1 1347 SF 1347 SF I II II II II I I II II II II � I I II II UNITUN,IT I I � II II I u #42 #45 II II a' 3570 SF 3570 SF I II II � II I I I I u -- O — I I I I Y II g II UNIT 5862 SF UNIT I I #43 #44 ITTI i 2286 SF ET 2286 SF If Do Do 0 o 14' d'd• � I II � I � II I I L n LEVEL 6 - OPEN SPACE U 1" = 20'-0" COMMON - OUTDOOR SPACE COMMON - INDOOR SPACE PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH 0' 100' 200' 400' 800' 1" = 20'-0„ A0.3 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS - COMMON OPEN SPACE + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 2/29/2016 10:57:17A© � D L.O.VV 10 W. Area Schedule - Common Open Space (Outdoor) 46 • • +168.26 • • • +163.50 • Level Name Ar PRIVATE OPEN 164. 0 +ifi9.25 a Lz\ SPAC 4 7� 71 - ---- - - -1 evel 1 OPEN SPACE (COMMON) 4527 SF ® PRIVATE Level 6 OPEN SPACE (COMMON) 5862 SF OPEN SPACE 10389 SF if o i 2 , - ® Area Schedule - Common Open Space (Indoor) Level Name Area I ❑ UNIT ■UNIT ■ 11 o ° #2 #1 UNIT 8' 11" 6,.00 Level 6 INDOOR SPACE (COMMON) 2694 SF 2 e 1099 SF 1190 SF #15 UNIT e e 2694 SF (T NHOME AREA PER LE EL) (TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVE Ir 1 1296 SF #14 ° o (TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) 1213 SF o j UNIT IT WNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) I ° ■ #3 ° I Area Schedule (Open Space Provided - Overall) ° 1788 SF a a UNIT ° '� ° (TOWNHOMEAREA PER LEVEL) _ #13 Name Area I ° 895 SF LEGEND FLOOR SUMMARY INDOOR SPACE (COMMON) 2694SF I .> _ (TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) °, 1 OPEN SPACE (COMMON) 10389 SF rss. ° I +1s7so I nnnnr- +16 .5o Private Open OPEN SPACE (PRIVATE) 13564 SF ■ uuuL_ 3 UNIT � UNIT ° PRIVATE • OPEN SPACE Space Required Provided Private Total Unit 26647 SF H Unit# Per Unit (SF) Open Space Area I #4 #12 I 8'-9' ° 1329 SF 1228 SF ° °❑°0 1 30 SF 606 SF 2869 SF (TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) ❑❑ +159'0 O — NIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UN HOME"REA'� ° �° 2 30 SF 728 SF 2768 SF �� ; �- I 1 ° #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #1171TC Fc - 3 30 SF 1605 SF 3455 SF OQ991 SF 1485 SF 1406 SF 1366 SF 1406 SF 1485 SF 991 SF +1s�so 4 30 SF 908 SF 2627 SF II 'ul (TOWNHOMEAREA PER LEVEL (TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) (TOWNHOMEAREA PFR LEVEL) (TOWNHOMEAREA PER LEVEL) (TOWMHOME AREA PER LEVEL) (TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) OWNHOMEAREA PER LEVEL5 30 SF 369 SF 2452 SF) ° 6 30 SF 243 SF 3107 SF PRIVATE OPEN e - 7 30 SF 342 SF 3121 SF D D SPACE ° p e = : r. ( 8 30 SF 547 SF 3045 SF 11 - - 25 ❑❑ _ ❑❑❑ L] 9 30 SF 342 SF 3121 SF - � � 10 30 SF 243 SF 3100 SF Ila 11 +167.50 +167. 0 11 30 SF 369 SF 2416 SF W LOW / PRIVATE 12 30 SF 1281 SF 2536 SF OPEN SPACE 13 30 SF 221 SF 2474 SF LEVEL 1 - OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPE UNDER 14 30 SF 1064 SF 2954 SF 1" = 20'-0" CANTILEVERED 15 30 SF 8869 SF 2973 SF ARCHITECTURAL DECK TO BE COMPRISED OF VINES & SHRUBS TO SCREEN ARCHITECTURAL WALL. - - - - - - - - - - - - - — - - - - PRIVATE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I- - - �� 0 9'-11" 9'-11" - -- --- - o I I I I UNIT UNIT ■ ■ UNIT UNIT ■ #15 #14 1668 SIF 1678 SF = 1677 SF 1741 SF °� I UNITWNHOMEAREAPERLEVEL) (TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) O (TOMHOME AREA PER LEVEL) #3 (TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) UNIT I I o I ■ 1668 SF 1579 SF ° (TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) I TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL o ( ) @ItI LEGEND FLOOR SUMMARY UNIT UNIT I I I I ° ■ Pvate Open ® #12 ■ ° PRIVATE • OPEN SPACE Space R quuiired Provided Private Total Unit I 1298 SF 1307 SF [unit# Per Unit (SF) Open Space Area (TOWTlHOME AREA PER LEVEL) UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT (TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) ° #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #1� I 1 30 SF 606 SF 2869 SF 1461 SF 1622 SF 1715 SF 1679 SF 1715 SF 1615 SF 1425 SF ° 2 30 SF 728 SF 2768 SF (TOWNHOMEAREA PER LEVEL) (TOMHOMEAREAPERLEVEL) (TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) (TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) (TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) (TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) (TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) 3 30 SF 1605 SF 3455 SF I I ° 4 30 SF 908 SF 2627 SF 5 30 SF 369 SF 2452 SF I I I o • •, o I 6 30 SF 243 SF 3107 SF ° / 7 30 SF 342 SF 3121 SF I 8 30 SF 547 SF 3045 SF I I i 9 30 SF 342 SF 3121 SF 10 30 SF 243 SF 3100 SF 11 30 SF 369 SF 2416 SF 12 30 SF 1281 SF 2536 SF 13 30 SF 221 SF 2474 SF n LEVEL 2 - OPEN SPACE 14 30 SF 1064 SF 2954 SF 1" = 20'-0" 15 30 SF 8869 SF 2973 SF PROJECT 450 SF 43017 SF NORTH TRUE NORTH 0' 20' 40' 80' 160' 1" = 20'_0" AO.4 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS - PRIVATE OPEN SPACE + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 2/29/2016 10:57:19 AM 1 PRIVATE OPEN SPACE AreaSchedule Common .pen pace (Outdoor) Level Name Ar I — I— — — Level 1 OPEN SPACE (COMMON) 4527 SF / Level 6 OPEN SPACE (COMMON) 5862 SF I l I l 10389 SF I I I UNIT UNIT ■ ■ UNIT UNIT Area Schedule - Common Open Space (Indoor) I #17 #16 Level Name Area '-0" I 3031 SF 1645 SF 1645 SF 3031 SF Level 6 INDOOR SPACE (COMMON) 2694 SF 2694 SF I = I Area Schedule (Open Space Provided - Overall) I Name Area � < ■ UNIT UNIT INDOOR SPACE (COMMON) 2694SF #22 ® OPEN SPACE (COMMON) 10389 SF I #18 UNIT 2 68 F OPEN SPACE (PRIVATE) 13564 SF Ila 2668 SF 668 S LEGEND FLOOR SUMMARY I #20 26647 SF I 3608 SF I I Private Open UNIT UNIT PRIVATE - OPEN SPACE Space Required Provided Private Total Unit I ■ El #19 ❑ ❑ ■ o #21 ■ ■ Unit# Per Unit (SF) Open Space Area 1 I 2397 SF 2397 SF 16 30 SF 45 SF 1645 SF /I -LL - - �- 20 30 SF 293 SF 3608 SF -- 24 30 SF 45 SF 1645 SF I 90 SF 382 SF 6898 SF I J LEVEL 3 - OPEN SPACE 1" = 20'-0" PRIVATE OPEN SPACE L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — �- - / I UNIT UNIT ■UNIT ■ I #26 #25 51-011 5'-0, #33 UNIT 3031 SF 1645 SF 1645 SF #32 3031 SF I o I I I I I ■ UNIT , __ , _ I UNIT LEGEND FLOOR SUMMARY I I I #27 #31 I 2668 SF #29 2668 SF Private Open I 3608 SF PRIVATE - OPEN SPACE Space Required Provided Private Total Unit I UNIT UNIT Unit# Per Unit (SF) Open Space Area I ■ ■ #28 ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ #30 ❑ ■ 25 30 SF 45 SF 1645 SF 2397 SF 2397 SF 29 30 SF 293 SF 3608 SF 33 30 SF 45 SF 1645 SF /I 90 SF 382 SF 6898 SF I I — � - -�� n LEVEL 4 - OPEN SPACE 1" = 20'-0" PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH je 0' 20' 40' 80' 160' 1" = 20'_0" AO.5 MW 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS - PRIVATE OPEN SPACE + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 7111 2/29/2016 10:57:211AM PRIVATE OPEN SPACE _ _ - - - Area Schedule - Common Open Space (Outdoor) ��- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - Level Name Ar � I % - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I- - Level1 OPEN SPACE (COMMON) 4527 SF I Level 6 OPEN SPACE (COMMON) 5862 SF I I 10389 SF I I I I UNIT UNIT ■ ■ ■ I Area Schedule - Common Open Space (Indoor) UNIT UNIT Level Name Area I #3� #34 '-0" 5'-0" #41 #40 3031 SF 1645 SF 1645 SF 3031 SF Level 6 INDOOR SPACE (COMMON) 2694 SF F] o o I 2694 SF I Q I L I I IArea Schedule (Open Space Provided - Overall) Name Area I UNIT I ■ N I ■ I INDOOR SPACE (COMMON) 2694 SF UNIT I I OPEN SPACE (COMMON) 10389 SF 2668 SF 2668 SF LEGEND FLOOR SUMMARY OPEN SPACE (PRIVATE) 13564 SF I 26647 SF I I I I UNIT UNIT PRIVATE • OPEN SPACE Private Open Provided Space Required Privated Open Total Unit / ❑ ■ #37 ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ #38 Ll ■ Unit# Per Unit (SF) Space Area 2397 SF 2397 SF I _ I 34 30 SF 45 SF 1645 SF LF LL 41 130 SF 45 SF 1645 SF I I 60 SF 90 SF 3290 SF I I � 1 I � C; LEVEL 5 - OPEN SPACE 1" = 20'-0" ��- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I I - - — — - - - - 51-0- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -51-0"- - - - — — — — — I- - - - - - — — / I I PRIVATE I PRIVATE OPEN SPACE - _ I OPEN SPACE ■ ■ ■ ■ I I I 1 1347 SF 1347 SF I I FYI li I I �I I UNIT _ UNIT I - I #42L11 #45 3570 SF 3570 SF �--I ❑ FE]L11:11 ILILEGEND FLOOR SUMMARY 511 F-51 I 5862 SF PRIVATE • OPEN SPACE Private Open Provided I UNIT UNIT JAI Space Required Privated Open Total Unit I 131-811— _ #43 #44 _ 13�-8" I Unit# Per Unit (SF) Space Area / 2286 SF 0 2286 SF E I 0 10 ■ ■ ■ ■ �` a 42 30 SF 1029 SF 3570 SF 43 30 SF 891 SF 2286 SF I 44 30 SF 891 SF 2286 SF I 45 30 SF 1031 SF 3570 SF I o 120 SF 3841 SF 11712 SF / 51'-0" 51'-0" I I PRIVATE n LEVEL 6 - OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE 1" = 20'-0" PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH je 0' 20' 40' 80' 160' 1" = 20'_0" AO.6 MW 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS - PRIVATE OPEN SPACE + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 7111 2/29/2016 10:57:2410s AM ROOM LEGEND 0 Elevator Lobby o Gas Meter Room 0 Generator o Main Electrical Meter Room 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 A3.2 A3.1 o Mechanical 0 Private Garage I o Resident Storage ANACAPA DRIVE I I I I I i I I I I I I — Service Lobby / Trash 333'-0" 15'1 37-11" PROPERTY LINE 0 Stair I SETBACK PL —_ - -- - -7-7 -- - 7 - -- - -- - -- - - - - - - 7- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - -- � - - 0 Switch Gear / 0 VISITORS PARKING- - - - " _ - - 24-0 30 0 30141 30-0 30-0 0" 60'-6" 30'-4" 21'-1 11 0" 1 F 1111 1111 I Main P ivate arag vate arag Prl, ate G rage ivate arag `� ivate arag o vate arag � E ectrica II GasM95SFter �onl ° 66 F „ „ 66 F „ „ „ „ „ „ RESIDENT ADA (RMeter oom I MeterI 12'-0"� I 12'-0" 2410" '„ 534 „ „ „ 66 F „ 66 F 66 F STALL —I RESIDENT RESIOENP RESDENf RESIDENT RES®Eaf RE�ENf RESIDENT RESIDEPtlY RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENP I C Lu 15'-01, 16L Up�I - - - - - - I - — II I - - - G - - 5'-2" 17'•6" T-11" 17'-6" 12'1.6" 11'-6" 12'-6" 17'-6" 12'-6" 17'-6" 12'-6" 11'-6" � BLDG SETBACK � I I Private Gara I 4 1 cn ������������������������������������ ����������������� ���������� SwitC m �y I r RESIDENT ADA VISITOR ADA Gear �.L I STALL 10" 1'�" 1'-4" 1-0 STALL I 71-411 111 I w I 1'-4" 8'-6" 8'-6" FRI 2'-6" 8'-01, 9'-0" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'-6" 8'6" 8'6" 9'-0" 8'-011 Resident 640 SF I p Storage I BLDG SETBACK WI — —c I ao sn aausn aDusn aoasn aDuwn aDilsv - -1 I tV i aOLSN - .IMRDISRa I — f i 1 1 o i I I A3.3 if ~ I I Elevato I 11 levator I I O I Private Ga ra I Lobby Lobby -3- I o I o I IMechan cal I Genera�or L a 1 M I '` _ I 570 Si 1 I 191-51, 26'-4" ce rvl e - 348S 181-011 W I21'-11" I Lby/ o Lbb / ras 4 16 11 56v�RDR rash UP VISROR V18ROP ROR VISITOR VISROR VISITOR JJ,I 1 _�, I VBROR VISITOR V181TOR I 1 I I 8'-6" 8'-6" FRI FRI 84" 8'-6" T.6" 8'-6" 8'-6" 9'-0 VISITORS I I w_ I I VISITOR 11-411-7 A 1'-4" 10" 1'-4" p 4" VISITOR ADA PARKING I �, I PARKING CAR STATIONRCHGING STALL I o DNI 1 I L--- ---------?----------r---------?� -------?----------r----------r------L--?------ — ----�--- — W 1 I 17.6 7.11 17.6 12-6 11.6 12.6 17-6 12.6 17.6 12.6 17-6 12.6 17'-6" 12-6 11.6 10.0 17.6 I I I I I I I I I I iN3DIs3a aaaDlssa umis3a ulsDls� ix�53a uraassa uisas� �NSDlsaa iN3assa ix3Dls3a iN3DIs3a aHNSDIssa ' iNSDlssa uusDisaa nraDlssa iN3ars3a ' LaDIs3a ursasaa 1 71JIIII u u u II u u o o u u u " u A3.4 II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II I / I tai II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II I II II II II II II II II II o II II II II II II II II � — I I I I I I - - - A.5 / vate arag ivate arag ivate arag ivate arag P ivate arag rivat Gara e I / Mechani al P /- - 738 SF - -946 SF- - —946 SE - 946�F 94-6 SF - -946-SF - -946--51 - -946-5E - 1.07_LSF - - - A.7 I 1 I I 00, 23'-10" 231•4" 30'-0" 30141 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 301•0" 33'-8" .111117 311'-5" 151.01t 339 111 T-0" LANDSCAPE PLANTER ALONG SETBACK 1354'-1" GARAGE WALL PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH le 0' 16' 32' 64' 128' 1/16" = 1'-0" A1.0.1 MW 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 131 + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 3/1/2016 9:10:42 AM 14 ROOM LEGEND o Electrical Elevator Lobby o Mechanical 0 Private Garage o Resident Storage 12 11 10 9 8 07 6 5 4 3 2 1 ® Service Lobby / Trash A3.2 A3.1 I I I I I I I I I I I I Stair A AC PA DRIVE I I I I I I I I I I I I 333'-0" 15-0" 317'-11" PROPERTY SETBACK LINE PL � � �C - -- - - -- - -- - - -- - - -- - -- t - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- - - -- - -- � - - 23'-2" 24'0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" " 30'-0" 90'0" 30'-5 — — Stair Electrica P ivate Garage rivet Gara a rrivateGarage � � - -- Mechanical P ivate arag II . rivat Gara p . 1 667 F o Resident Storage Electrical _- 6 SF 6 SF534 F 6 SFEB�NT ��,�, II II RESIDEM RESIDEM II II PESIDEM RESIDENT II II ��� RODENT II II RESIDENT RESIDENT II C u C W 151.01, I I II ' - - 17'-6" T-11" 1 T-6" 12'6" 11'-6" 12'-6" 17'-6" 12'-6" 11'-6" I 1 BLDG SETBACK 0 I Pri ate Gara N u 1 ---- ------------- ---------- --------- ---- - 71-411 1 h - - - echani��I BLDG SETBACK V � 1 I o I - - Private Garage Private Garage Private Garage Private Garage Private Garage j I I A3.3 9 Elevato Elevato I I 1034 SF Lobb Redundant Lobb 1035 SF 26''0" 19'8" tL Pri ate Gara _ I y 980 SF Room 1968 SF y I W I I o Z I I I 1 „ lectric lectrica � II II II II II II II II II II - - C) - 1 [V RESIDENT RESIDENT RESI�NT RESIDENT RESIDBYT RESIDENT RESS]ENf RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT II I I I � I I I B I T-2" 174" 1T•6" 124" 17'-6" 12'-6" 17'6" 1T-6" T-2" Pa I I = I Private Gpra a riate GarII I �' — n I �� II II II 1 11 II C 11 II 1 " 11 I II n n II 1 " 19'0" I I 1 I - 17.6 1.11 17.6 12-6 11.6 12.6 17.6 12.6 11.6 12.6 17.6 12.6 17.6 12.6 17.6 12.6 171-611 _ m — ' I II llfi�a II II llEI0153a lNi0f93a II II 1N301S3tl lN3DIS3a ,I „ iN3Dlsaa 1Ifa0R3n II II 1NiDIS3L 1N301S3n II I, maDlssa iNSD�a II I, iN30163tl 1TEIDIS3a II II 1N301S3a 1N301S3tl „ \.,.. „ MIII'm1w iN34 m II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II II 1 I II II II II II II II II II b II II II II II II II II I I � EDI P v r riv r e rivat Gara a rivet ara " A.5 I chani�ai X38 SF — —94frSF — �J46 SF — X46 SF P _te LGarage riv 946 SFr ivat946 946S 1071 P vat�0e74 SF a - — I 946 SF 946 SF A.7 I 23'•10° 23'4" 30'0" 30'0" 30'0" 30'0" 30'0" 30'0" 30'-01' 33'-8" i 311'•5" 339'-1" 3'-0" LANDSCAPE PLANTER ALONG SETBACK 354'-1" GARAGE WALL I *NOTES: • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET 'EXHIBIT 1 ' TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED PROJECT NORTH • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPEMARDSCAPE FEATURES TRUE NORTH • ROOM AREA CALLOUTS ARE BASED ON NET AREA. REFER TO OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 0116' 32' 64' 128' 1/16" = 1'-0" A1.0.2 MW 150 Newport Center FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL B2 Newport Beach, CA + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 2/29/2016 10:57:25 AM ROOM LEGEND 0 Electrical � Elevator Lobby Garage Mechanical o Private Garage 1 A3.2 A3.1 � 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 � �I RESIDENT PARKING o Service Lobby / Trash ANAC A DRIVE Stair 333'-0" 15'-0" 317'-11" PROPERTY ( SETBACK — - - — - - - -Ole - - - - - - — - - — — - - — - - — - - — - - LINE �C-- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - -� - - - - - PL - - - - - - - - - r- - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - � Y I I I I 12'-4" — — gchanic I �I Stai ' I LLI 15'-0" BLDG SETBACK I Mechanical I r----- �_ -------I----1 � — —�-- ---� � I I I N W I I I I 251-8111 N 714" II I I II JOG SETBACK I 1 D 1 Elevato I I - Elevato Private Garage 126'-0" 1 Lobby 26'-0" Lobby Lam.. 1 Q I b;' / _ ; Private G13rao L G. I I a I :� W I I I I _ I � I Z I I 7 Electric 1 01 — — � I- _ - nasrnz3. rn3aie3a II - 1 - r I I I 1 I r RESIDENT T-0" 11'-6" 7'-2" Garage I PARKING I Private Carr II 742 RE 4--1 1T-6" 12'11-6" 1T-6" N 12'.6" 1T-6" � 19'-0" I I� ' I I I 1hH01S3tl llHOIS3tl 1N30 1N301S3tl 1N30153L 1N3OIS3tl u' I II II II II II II A3.4 u o u II a li II I I II II II II _ II II II �� II II II o II III jII I Mechanical I A.5 � 1 rivet ara iv a ara Pri ate ra e � �— — — 946 SE- — — 1985€ — 30'-0" 30'4" 34'-0" i o � A 311'-5" 15'-0" 339'-1" T-0" LANDSCAPE PLANTER ALONG SETBACK 354'-1" GARAGE WALL *NOTES: • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET 'EXHIBIT 1 ' TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED PROJECT NORTH • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPEMARDSCAPE FEATURES TRUE NORTH • ROOM AREA CALLOUTS ARE BASED ON NET AREA. REFER TO OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 0116' 32' 64' 128' 1/16" = 1'-0" A1.0.3 150 Newport Center FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL B3 Newport Beach, CA + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 3/1/2016 8:56:55 AM D0 ROOM LEGEND o Concierge Corridor Elevator Lobby o IDF FI Lobby 12 11 10 9 1 8 7 1 6 5 � � 4 A3.2 A3.1 Lounge 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'.0" 30'-0" 30'4" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'.0" 333'-0" Mail Room 15-0" 317'-11" EXISTING T ® Service Lobby / Trash SETBACK AC A DRIVIli EASEMENT SIDEWALK VISITOR PARKING STALLS I� T H 1 L.O.W. _ ���. •• • • • • • PROPERTY +168.25 +163.50 LINE 0 TH-1. 1 +169.00 PL +161. 0 +16925 0 Y U U o 0 N o TH-3 - - _ N - - - - - 57 F m ® N Z • W 1g ® o DN o rT TH-4 UHL1 w ResidentGara e` 2410" N 24'- M. o.. ® . ® Entry o T H-5 0 33'-0" 18'•0" 12' 1' o ' I 12'-0" 12'-0" —I — — TH-2 _ T 29' 11" L — TH=1 1 — — LU 1 #2 1 #1 0 +161.o0 E TH-6 ) 2Bedrooms 2Bedrooms #15 DA Compliant:Yes ADA Compliant:Yes 2 Bedrooms T H 71099 SF 1190 SF ounge ADA Compliant:Yes o _ D _ R2U OWNHOMEAREAPERL TOWNHOMEAREAPERLEVE 1059 SF �oncier 1296 SF "' 18-0' 15'-6" 21'•0° o o W Lobby TOWNHOMEAREA PER LEVEL) ❑ p I� bo TH-8 4-0 M I 36-1011 i 2Bedrooms o 1 TH-3 ADA Compliant:Yes D Z BLDG SETBACK #3 ° 1213 SF J r _ 121-6n 52'-611 10�-Cn 1 I ITONTIHOME AREA PER LEVEL) ❑ I� T H-9 ADA2-Bedrooms B mpliant Yes — e — L U — TH-9 Lj El o A3.3 o T H 10 T ADA ME ComBEliaER nt:Yes Elevatto by estro 1 s. Elevaty i 6'-0" #13 0 1 - I Lobby nls Lobby it Ro o ❑ O CIP A3.5 =__ " " 2Bedrooms ❑ estr -- ADA Compliant:4L TT_�_ i s o L I� Unisex Restroom I - _ _ - _ _ 895 SF L UP o IDFLU - 1 IDF - "1 (TONMHOME AREA PER LEVE cD Z Corridor +166. 0 Cord r Corr! r +16 :50 +167.50 — — 36'-0" — — — TH-a 2210" ., l I ® TH-6 TH-7 TH-8 TH-7 TH-6 #12 BLDG SETBACK w I 2Bedrooms #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 2Bedroomsj ❑❑ ADA Compliant:Ye ADA Compliant:Yes ❑❑' 241.011 __w o I 2 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms o 1329 SF - 1228 SF ❑�' m 10 I HOMEAREAPER , TH-5 ADA Compliant:Yes ADA Compliant:Yes ADA Compliant:Yes ADA Compliant:Yes ADA Compliant:Yes �_ H� HOME AREA PER L I 1485 SF 1406 SF 1366 SF 1406 SF 1485 SF #11 ❑ (TOWNHOMEAREAPERLEVEL) (TONMHOMEAREA PER LEVEL) (TO HOME AREA PER LEVEL) (TOM AREA PER LEVEL) (TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) ) 2 Bedrooms 2 drooms - / ompliantYes liant:Yes — 15'-01. 991 SF 60'0" 60'0" 30'0" — 7 lSHo 911 SF LEVEL) — — — (TONMH MEAREA PER LEVEL) I I S FE HAI I I ° . if L A.5 REFERENCE LANDSCAPE - ¢ ° j , DRAWING 6' m o � - - - 167.50 - c� +167: 0 + 64.0 +165. 0 m A L.O.W. 283'•6" 15'-0" CANTILEVERED 339'-1" 3'-0" LANDSCAPE PLANTER ALONG SETBACK O BE COMPRISED OF 354'-1" GARAGE WALL SCREEN ARCHITECTURAL WALL. *NOTES: • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET 'EXHIBIT 1 ' TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED PROJECT NORTH • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPEMARDSCAPE FEATURES TRUE NORTH • ROOM AREA CALLOUTS ARE BASED ON NET AREA. REFER TO OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 0116' 32' 64' 128' 1/16" = 1'-0" A1.1 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 1 + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 2/29/2016 10:57:27 AM ROOM LEGEND IDF ® Service Lobby / Trash Stair TH-1 1 1 12 11 10 9 A3.2 8 7 A3.1 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 T H-2 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'1 3014" 30'.0" 304" 3011 30'-0" I� 3334"'-0" 15'-0" 31T-11" TH-4 SETBACK ANACAPA DRIVE I I I I I I I I I I I o TH-5 PROPERTY 0 TH-6 PL LINE TH_7Y 0 TH-g I " � _ _ _ - - - - � — - - - - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - I - - - F N `� GJ - i I I� TH-9I , I o TH-10 —I - — — — — - — — 93' LLI I TH-2 TH-1 TH-1 `V I I ® gmp TH-1025'-9" 2 Bedrooms 2 Boms 2 Bedrooms ADA Compliant:No ADA Cant:No ADA Compliant: No 2 Bedrooms11 fl I I o W24'0" 21 0 1668 SF 1678 SF 1 1 1677 SF ADA Compliant:No I I M (TOWNHOMEAREAPER LEVEL) (TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) o ONTlHOME AREA PER LEVEL) 1741 SF THS I I D IBLDG SETBACK THS (TOWNHOMEAREA PER LEVEL) #13 Lu I #3 2 Bedrooms V V I i �� — —I rt Bedrooms Stair tair AEomPtiank N° 1 1 ADA Compliant:No 1579 SF I I As.a i 1668 SF IRI __ (TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) I ROWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) ¢- — a' N- CO a I I D 1 M= - ° L o 1 tair IDF it St IDF I `� Lu izt Z I 1 TH-4 — — St ' TH-4 I 24'-0" 2 Bedrooms 2 BedroomsI 22.0 I ADA Compliant:8 SF No ADA Compliant:No I TH-5 TH-6 TH-7 THp-8 TH-7 TH-6 TH-5 1 SIF BLDG SETBACK ' 21.0CrOHOME AREA PER LEVEL) ❑ ❑ #7 #8 0 ® #1O #11 (TO HOME 3AREA PER LEVEL) II I ,I I 0 2 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 21 0 0 I I o ADA Compliant:No ADA Compliant:No ADA Compliant:No ADA Compliant:No ADA Compliant:No ADA Compliant:No ADA Compliant: No BUB 1461 SF 1622 SF 1715 SF 1679 SF 1715 SF 1615 SF 1425 SF I (TONMHOMEAREA PER LEVEL) (TOANHOME AREA PER LEVEL) (TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) (TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) (TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) (TOWNHOME AREA PER LEVEL) (TOVMHOMEAREAPERLEVEL) C? t — 240'-0"— — r A3.4 I — - — — - - 1 — I — 1 — — - A.5 CP 71 i o A.7 L — T - m = I I I I I I I I I I I I 2831.6" 15'-0" 339'1 SETBACK 354'-1" *NOTES: • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET 'EXHIBIT 1 ' TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED PROJECT NORTH le • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE FEATURES TRUE NORTH • ROOM AREA CALLOUTS ARE BASED ON NET AREA. REFER TO OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 0116' 32' 64' 128' 1/16" = 1'-0" A1.2 MW 150 Newport Center FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 2 Newport Beach, CA + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 71111 2/29/2016 10:57:28 A 8 ROOM LEGEND o A-1 o g-1 C-1 o Corridor o D-1 12 11 10 9 A3.2 8 7 A3.1 6 5 4 3 2 1 30'-0" 30'.0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 0 E-1 333'-0" o Elevator Lobby 15'-0" 311'-11" SETBACK 0 IDF ® Service Lobby / Trash PROPERTY LINE o Stair , '7- - - – – – - - - - - - - - - - –PL— - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � . -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t _T= T T _ � w M I 45'-8" — — — i — — A-1 #24 �„ B 1B-1 2 Bedrurs M ” 2 Bedrooms it 3ADA nt:Yes M M o ' 251-9" 1 21'-0" #17 1645I SF SF I APA Compliant:Yes 2 Bedhooms 21'•0" 1 I I - 2edrooms 1645 IF ADA Com liant:Yes ADA 03PISFt:Yes 303 IF I D - Sim n I I A3.3 p� I 50'.8" T-1" 7'-1" 50'•8" ELobby - it 3s Elevator 11 o ' I St 1 M ID F — - � ID F air C-1 Corridor Corridor 1 24'-0" I C — #18 = M I 2 Bedrooms C 1 I I ADA Compliant:Y s #22 I E-1 21-0 2668 IF ti Bedrooms 21'-0" I7 1 D_1 1 1 #24 1 1 p_1 ADW Compliant:Y I _ I2 Bedrooms 2668 IF I M / #21 #19 ADA Compliant:Yes I 2 Bedrooms 3608 IF 2 Bedrooms 12'3" B I ADA Compliant:Yes ADA Compliant:Ye,.: 1 o 2397 IF 2397 IF I I — — — — — — — — - — � 32'-7" � -5T-10" — 59'-3"— —51.10"- — � 32'-7" � I 1 0 — 1 — CP A.5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � A.7 - I � / ----------- 283'-6" 283-6 I I I I I I 15-0" 339'-1" SETBACK 354'-1" I I I I I I I I I *NOTES: • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET 'EXHIBIT V TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED PROJECT NORTH • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPEMARDSCAPE FEATURES TRUE NORTH • ROOM AREA CALLOUTS ARE BASED ON NET AREA. REFER TO OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 0116' 32' 64' 128' 1/16" = 1'-0" A1.3 150 Newport CenterMW Newport Beach, CA FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 3 (3-4 TYP. ) + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 71111 2/29/2016 10:57:28�AD' ROOM LEGEND o A-1 o g-1 C-1 Corridor o D-1 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" ]A3>01, 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" Elevator Lobby 333'-0" o IDF 15'-0" 317'-11" SETBACK Mechanical o Service Lobby / Trash PROPERTY LINE PL Stair . ' �� - - - - � - - - - � - - - - T - - - - � - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - � o / - - - - - - `V _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � - - - - — — — — - - - — - - - — II O O I N I � I I —i N �5'8" — — — — — — 45'-8" A-1 I �� 34 I #41 - B 1 1 I B-1 M ADA Compfanm as 2 Bedrooms M I o ' 21'-0" #35 1645 SF AQA Compliant:Yes 2 Bldooms i 210edprooms 1645 SF ADA Com liant:Yes ADA03ISFt:Yes 303 SF I D o I - - - - - - - - - - - - JE fo 1 SimF 11 I A3.3 i 50.8 7.1 - A3.s 7'-1" 50'-8" I JI — t IFLobbevatle or Stair Elevator L — Y Y 1 I , - IDF air C-1 Corridor Corridor 24'-0" — — — — — — — - - - — 1 C-1 I I 2 Bedrooms 1 - - #39 ADA Compliant:Y s = = I p 21'•0" 2668 SF Bedrooms 21'-0" 1 I D-1 POOL ABOVE D-1 ADk 26681SFt Y II _ 1 I 1 I 2 Bedrooms Mechanical 2 Bedrooms 1P-3 I I I I I _ — ADA Compliant:Yes � - ADA Compliant:Yeses - I ' o 2397 SF 1 2397 SF I 32'-7" 51'-10" 59'-3" 410"- 7 N — — — — — — A.5 1 - - - - A.7 CIP 1 / I 1 "0'- - - - - - - - - - - I ' 283'-6" Pt 15'-0" 339'-1" SETBACK 354'-1" 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 PROJECT NORTH • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPEMARDSCAPE FEATURES TRUE NORTH • ROOM AREA CALLOUTS ARE BASED ON NET AREA. REFER TO OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 0116' 32' 64' 128' 1/16" = 1'-0" A1.5 MW 150 Newport Center FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 5 Newport Beach, CA + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 71111 2/29/2016 10:57:29 AM ROOM LEGEND Club Room Corridor Elevator Lobby o Fitness H-2 12 11 10 9 A3.2 8 7 A31 6 5 4 3 2 1 30'0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'.0" 3T41 30'-0" 30'.0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'.0" o IDF 333'-0" -2 15'-0" 37-11" SETBACK Service Lobby / Trash Stair PROPERTY LINE pL _ — _ — _ — — _ — _ — _ - -� _ — _ — _ _ _ _ _ _ _— — — — — I - - � � w I 45'1 — — — � 43'-3" I I o Club Room Fitness C? 25'1 I 14'3" 1347 SF 1347 SF I o I I II i D - - 0- J-y - — -2 I I A3.3 I 3 Bed ooms #45 I ADA Compliant: s 3 Bedrooms I L o _ - � I I DA Compliant:Yes I A I - 0 p o I I - 3570 SF _ - I _- � I ic� - 3570 SF ' I -Y I I 7 n - I II I IF I I I ll H-y H-2 C ' I I I 251-511 #43 #44 Co ADA Compliant:Yes 41 251-511 2 Bedrooms uPD REFERENCE LANDSCAPE u 2 Bedrooms o I I M 1 M DRAWINGS N ADA Compliant:Yes o o I I 2286 SF DN 2286 SF M ' 1 7-10° 48'•6" 48'1 13'8"rFig I 11 77 I - - - - - 4- - - - - - - - CA)�1 — _ — — - - — — �— _ 284'-0" 339'1 SETBACK 354'1 I I I I I I I I I I I I INN= 11EM *NOTES: • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET 'EXHIBIT 1 ' TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED PROJECT NORTH • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE FEATURES TRUE NORTH • ROOM AREA CALLOUTS ARE BASED ON NET AREA. REFER TO OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 0116' 32' 64' 128' 1/16" = 1'-0" A1.6 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA FLOOR PLAN - LEVEL 6 + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 2/29/2016 10:57:29 AM II 12 11 10 9 (A 8 7 � 6 5 4 3 2 1 30'-0 — 30'-0" 30'-0" — 30'-0' 30'-0" A3.130'-0" 30'1 - 30'-0" — 30'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0" 333'-0" 31 T-11" MEASUREMENTS FROM AVERAGE SETBACK AC PA DRIVE GRADE PLANE (AGP). MEASUREMENTS FROM MEAN SEA L 0 LO N, LEVEL (MSL). . - -- _- +163.50 PROPERTY +168.25 I LINE yyo I PL - - - - -- - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- -t - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_- - - -- - - - - -- - - - - Y I o — r �F - I II 67,_6„ AGP6 67•_6•, _ 231' 231'-6" MSL - - - - - - - - - - i i I 66,_6„ 66'-6„ MSL I 1 6r-s" PARAPET AGE AGP 66-6-1 ROOFING ROOFING = 16,667 SF - 6T-6", I SCREEN NG — f ROOFING = 16,667 SF 6s'-6" AGP ° Q AGP P► 230'-6" 30% = 5,000 SF GP 25'6" -„ 30% = 5,000 SF AGP 6T-s MSL MSL 229'-6"� 1 I o �L221 , 9' ,MSL � 31'-6" W I I MSL _ I I Y—MSL► MSL I I I I MSL I I � Z 69'-6" AGP I 233' 6" I 1 MSL I33'-6"/ PSL 33'6" ELEVATOR — ELEVATOR AQP MECHANICAL ZONE 1 _ I - MECHANICAL ZONE � � i s9'-6^ - 2,500 SF MSL OVERUN OVERUN 2,500 SFS L � _ MSL AGP m q I o r, ,� � I - II SPA SPA SPA 53,_6„ 23M� ` W II 1 v Z I I 87.50 --,- 16 _ r - IN - 1 I I - I I I - II o I POOL uP +159.0 ' I' _ I 1 MSL- I I 1 1 t�� r� I— I 76 . .. .. - AGP I AGP . ; _-- - I - - - - _ , - I 6T-6 A 5 MSL i MSL - - M , - 1 _ _ - _-�a- - - _ I. r I - A7 — -- - 7] +.164.0 l T +165.50 - - � — " +167.so - - _ L.o.w, 284'-0" 1511 339'-1" SETBACK 354'-1" I I I I I I I I I I I LEGEND : MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ZONE MECHANICAL SCREENING *NOTES: / • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET 'EXHIBIT 1 ' TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED PROJECT NORTH • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE FEATURES TRUE NORTH • ROOM AREA CALLOUTS ARE BASED ON NET AREA. REFER TO OPEN SPACE DIAGRAMS FOR FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS 0116' 32' 64' 128' 1/16" = 1'-0" A1.7 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA ROOF PLAN + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 2/29/2016 10:57:311AM 1 3 ') 5 8 I � � 229'-6' 231'-6" 65'-6" 233' - 6" 231'-6" AVG GRADE PLANE MEASURED TO i TOP OF STRUCTURAL ROOF DECK -N N — 217'-6" - 229' - 6" AVG GRADE PLANE MEASURED TO TOP OF STRUCTURAL ROOF DECK Level 6 217' - 6" 0 0 - Level s w 20T 6" 0 CD o � c.7 o S j All ZZo [If o _ 197' - 6" m u, LP 77 177 60 CD �o m 187' - 6" 0 _ o L Level 2 - - 177' - 6" M gr 0 lullLail Ll L 0 Level 1 c 167' - 6" rage Grade r 164' - 0" B1 156' - 6" 0 0 - M M r V ff''>)fVl) 14fjJ B2 145' - 6" 0 B3 134' - 6" ep 1 . *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 1°' 2°' 4°' 80' 1 1°'-a" A2.1 mw 150 Newport Center NORTH ELEVATION Newport Beach, CA {- P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 2/29/2016 10:57:50A1 13 D E F 229'-6" 233'-6" AVG G DE PLANE MEASURED TO 231'-6" TOP OF STRUCTURAL ROOF DECK ROOF - - - —229' - 6" Level 6 217' - 6" 0 - Level5 , - — 207' - 6" w / \ EE o CD = c S2 D _\ o C-9 Level 4 197' - 6" w CD \1 qlr\ Level 3 187 - 6 . �o 0 0 a / \ o 0 Level 1 167' - 6" - o Average Grade 164' - 0" — - — - B1 —�J 156' - 6" - 0 sf € .. B2 . ;'• 145' - 6" aF 133 -; 134' - 6" *NOTES: SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET 'EXHIBIT 1 ' TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED- - 1/8 — 1 0 • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE FEATURES °' 1°' 2°' 4°' 80' ° - � ° A2.2 150 Newport Center EAST ELEVATION Newport Beach, CA {- P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 2/29/2016 10:58:11 AM 12 9 ;i 2 229'- 1 6" 233' - 6" 65-6" 231' - 6" 231' - 6" AVG GRADE PLANE MEASURED TO TOP OF STRUCTURAL ROOF DECK c c –229' - 6" Mar Level 6 217' - 6" o Level 5 0 o cn �- - — — — — CD C) Level o �_ 197' - 6" j411O 1-f— li- mb IL T 4: T Pr — — — _ _ Level 3 187' - 6" nu 11211 ZEN Level 2 – - 177' - 6" LIU 11 Hill ULLILlo Level 1 167' - 6" Average Grade 164' - 0" -------- B1 ---- –156' - 6" 0 B2 145' - 6" 0 ... .. .. ✓. 1 t i J .. ,' F Sf 134' - 6" t ,. ,. .:. , . .. . ... , ... . . ... -. a .....,.. . .. ,., x. „ . . . f ..,. ,.,., ., _. „ 4 I ,�.r ,. l ., _.: ,t .. ..r l .. s •t .n Frl,i f dfFf{far *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 1°' 2°' 4°' 1" = 10'-0 A2.3 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, Ca SOUTH ELEVATION {- P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 2/29/2016 10:58:29�A M A.5 ; A.Ti A T ,_I 229'-6" ih 233'-6" 65'-6" VG GRADE PLANE MEASURED TO R 1 TOP OF STRUCTURAL ROOF DECK - o o ROOF 229' - 6"- Level "Level 6 217' - 6" 0 Level 5 207' - 6" - o � o � � CD Level — - - o 197' - 6., o z o Z \ / o o � � 0 I yfl m Level o OW 0;1• 187' - 6" o o 0 Level 2 177' - 6" 0 or— Ar Level 1 167' - 6" Average Grade . 164' - 0" B1 156' - 6" - S{nf {iar�4fte, 'u�p� >r'� 12�Y It ildv'dr i Y � nfl�a�j yl j ri 145' - 6" 0 i; 133 — s;f� 'r � ' 3.4'IYYnrrY`J,. 134' - 6„ 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' 8' 16' 32' 1/8 1'-o A2.4 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA WEST. ELEVATION {- P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 2/29/2016 10:58:50 A10 F E DA3.3 B A3.4 A. A.7 . A 1 I I I I I EMU 231'-6" l ROOF 229' - 6„ 12,17'-6" _Level 6 — — — — — — - — — o — 217' - 6„ m o w - i Level s it \ o -- _ — _ _Level 4 n 197' - 66" 7 o mLu CD Level 3 n = DOE] I TH-8 Ill o m Level 2 177' - 6" ' – I TH-8 o RIV - . FRI I _— wA _ _ _ _Levell � — - — — Private VISITORS VISITORS Private 167 - 6 -- - Garage Average Gr e — Garage PARKING PARKING = 164' - 0" PrivatePrivate RESIDENT RESIDENT 1 -III=III=III Garage PARKING PARKING Garage 156' - 6" III=I I�I='��' I—I =�1 I- I�� III 11 ISI - 145' 62 RESIDENT -IIIIII—III RESIDENT PARKING PARKING _ � IIIIIIIII I� _ _ B3 I1t 1 I1 �t 134 - 6 � III=IIIIII= IIIISIISII — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — III;III;, III;III;III;III;III;III;III;III;III;III;III;III;III;III;III;III;III;III;III;III;III;III;III; *NOTES: PROJECT NORTH SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET 'EXHIBIT 1 ' TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED- TRUE • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE FEATURES 16' 3Z' 64' 128' 1/16" = 1'-a" A3.1 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, Ca SITE SECTION 1 + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 2/29/2016 10:58:561AM F E D A. A.7 A3.3 B A3.4 A Tic Sim A3.5 Elm _ I zzs -sAh^ - ---_� _T 230'-6" AVG GRADE PLANE MEASURED 23V-6- TO TOP OF STRUCTURAL ROOF I o oO OF DECK — — — — — — , . 229' - 6" I- I ' Club Room ,D H- _ Level -- - - — — — 0 21T - 6" — — -- A-1 14 CORRIDOR D CD _ Level 5 o CD20T - 6,. --- A4I o DOR D-1 -- I I - _ CD _ Level o w � J g o n J 197' - 6" A-1 ID DOR D-1 --- ` ' - - - - i " w Level 3 n 18T - 6,. - 17 TH-1 Lev TH-6 7'e16" TH-1 TH-g o _ Level1 — — — i� Tft — RS VISITO 167' - 6" I� _ = Private Garag �SITO = RS private Ga age _Average Gr e PARKING PARKING r - 164' - 0 I RESIDENT RESIDENT 4 ' _ Private Garag Priva e Garage 156 6 IIII IIII PARKING PARKING t 1 —1 t1 tt 145' 6� _- IIIIIIIIIIIIIII—III RESIDENT PARKING RESIDENT PARKING III o —III—III- IIII IIIIIIIi rI I I I B3 III 1 —III = 134' - 6" =III=III=III=III=III=III=III= _ � _ III=III=III=I : -_� I 1IIIIIIIII-III III III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-III 1 III=III 1 III *NOTES: PROJECT NORTH SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET 'EXHIBIT V TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED- TRUE • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE FEATURES 4''''' g''''' 16')' 32''' 1/16" = 1'-a" A3.2 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, Ca SITE SECTION 2 + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 2/29/2016 10:5 9:0312 g YI r. •Il f }y,�,�,. � 1111 � IIII ����� � �- !•II �f'� �f' � ��R'Yi�1 1�� ��I i �� � ion u.N.a■ —a _ � I _ III'•h�! ` � �} �y !" � .�. � 'mac _ � �• ,'�. ' t � �. ..r.Ii . T � i�.� tl J i•Sc I �. !,• 1 ... 11� ILII �.. IN - •_. ' �h�1 I .-� f .�' • f}. _ti.. ern ��.) ��� C..o��I� ��■II X11 — _ �. ,,• - a _ — � '�o '-e A :: I�IfJ'.�� . �,�,. ■F� j1�111 i Io11 oil II �I� I min 77 ;i _ I MI f L `II IIII n �� ull�•�Ilro-;�.� I�I I� I Iii111 �� ,1■� � � I. � u� t- .. .I- - -� � - � III � --� __ � •i �� II �� I,I.a ..a■.IIS:- I.m.. { IIS � .'•., ,I �®III ■ �®� .,- . . . • � � VIII � - - - � IIs Mo®III ■ Im . .. • 0 V - IIII1 - _ _ - • , rill 0 IBM®III ®n 1.smo m m EM m 11 1 �Ilr . I I��iw—I■ ■■moi• �I�. •, I \ • • • • • • . • - • . W 1 • • 1 1 1 12 11 10 9 A3.2 8 07 A3.1 6 5 4 3 2 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2!9'-6" PAG 6^ - - - - 231'-6" — — — GRADE P ANE MEASUREDP OF STRUCTURAL ROOF DE o o ROOF 229' - 6� H-2 H-2 � � � H-2 H- -� _ — — — — — — — — — - �- — — — — Level n Nmml 21T - 6' �7 C-1 C-1 D-1 —� D-1 C-1 C-1 �� A o 0 — — — — — - -5H [ HUI — — Levels n 207' - 6" C-1 C-1 D-1 ' ] D-1 C-1 C-1 o w + o &_Level 4 n — — — _ z " 19T - 6" J = C-1 C-1 D-1 D-1 E-1 1 D-1 C-1 C-1 "—, 1-1 Level3 r s TH-4 I TH-5 I � I � I - ,�,. ` TH-6 TH-7� TH-8 TH-7 TH-6 TH-5 TH-4 0 — — � 0 17T Level6�7 TH-4 TH-5 TH-6 TH-7 TH-8 TH-7 TH-6 TH-5 PH-4 INV-ate Leve71 Private - Average Grade Gara a Gara a Private II Private Private Private Private Private 164' - 0"Stair g g Gara a Gara a a e -gg Garage Garage `, Garage Garageg �� Private Private rivate Private Private Private Private Private Private o IIIIIIIIIII —III Stair I . �� III I � IE, IIIIIIIIIIII—III III— Garage Garage Garage Garage Garage Garage Garage Garage Garage III—III III - _ _ B2 — 145' - 6" �II�I1�1IfiI I IL I I I - _ RESIDENT PARKING RESIDENT RESIDENT Private Private —� Private III IIIIIIIIIIIIIII—III PARKING PARKING Garage Garage . � Garage _ B3 . I . . . - 134' - 6„ III—III—III—III=IIIIII - - 1111 — — III—III *NOTES: PROJECT NORTH • SEE BUILDING HEIGHT DIAGRAM ON SHEET 'EXHIBIT 1 ' TO SHOW HOW THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS BEING CALCULATED NTRUE e ORTH • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR ALL LANDSCAPE/HARDSCAPE FEATURES 0147T 87Y 16T 327 1/16 V A3.4 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA SITE SECTION 4 AT LOWEST POINT + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 2/29/2016 10:59:11 AM 8 9 I I I I 233'-6" 69'-6" AVG GRADE PLANE MEASURED TO TOP OF STRUCTURAL ROOF DECK 0 0 ROOF /1 229' 6" L7 I I Levl I 217' -65 I I I Level 5 207' - 6" ----- ------- 0 ----- ------- I I � CD CD ------- w a Level 4 ----- s o LL 1.7e J � H m CD -- -- CD — -- z 0 --- FF-7 4:::: 1 ------- m Level3 ----- ------- — — — 2 187 - 6 A3.5 I I ----- �,= - ------- — — 177' - 62 Level 1 167' - 6" Average Gr e 164' - 0" B 156 - 6" n Level 3 - Callout 1 1/4" M B2 145' - 6" I I 134' - 6 B-6 " n Detail 0 U 1/8" = 1'-0" 0' 47)' 8T)' 16T 327 As indicated A3.5 mW 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA B U I I L D I N G SECTION 1 + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 2/29/2016 10:59:11 AM wl �,p•,' .. tow 02 ' .�" �� it --�-___ ./� N� ,�' � �► I� I /�.� .1- �If SOUL �II��1■1� � �[ "-- ��II� - ��/1 ♦llaf i;j 1111�.� �I �_ _� �.-iY�l ' � I r !�`. ,. � 1 NF�,'� - -` — ; I ,1�kr � "a ? �� I�s� " � •' �'� ��' 1��'V� ''�.J tyllj- � �I �>7III 1 1� �I►�#j� , _ ,YYII ,_I! i'➢ I a1riY�' `� I = - -- N J I `��� � ►-I I �' p II',, � � I IL .� a I � - I 1 �`�il� 1 , '.r �I' ■I�' � �I It I ..� � 14 + I�,a /I�i y Nis + ■�rr!1 �11,� „ u•�11 r r I I!■I �� i, �II � � - ._ ( �� � � � � ��► � -� 1 rll�l�. _�,� ��� ��"�l� ii II r�'• 1►� � IY � �II _l- � I � ~C t 4 '� .�� �■!'_�M I_ 11 it , � , , I i I�9 �:,'. . � �1� , —1 ' V � �� 1 �'9�.�,,y�j� 3� f I '111 � I �, �AIA's�+l I� � ' \ �I � / �' � ,�_?' � � I lug Y�. �: � I � I, 11, °► I � � ��I I '. � 4 �� ., !� . ,__/��� .' � ��` ./ � ORgM X111 r'+ el ;Ali yy i. ■ , � I ■■ f r , r �-� . I ■r��i I '� al rglll' r "' I ��i����rlc�»"���w. - _ rilt ' _ � -. ,.._ - � a r '__ Jrl ' IIY. ■w�il� _ r. - .111 II - i,'i_• r.:;1.�. ■'.I�r �_ _ _ _�+'► , -- 1■II■- II��:L.r' Ific .: �IAIi - -!' I�' llll■III'1,,1►'_ _�I.• •_r.c �.'t� -,A '{. r.,, ,A' 1 ne. Yin 1.1.r �u' �r__- •_ 'I' p 1 w .� .. . � ��� I , MII `II+I ANA � JP ► . _ � �. ,,II 1 r r�ii.: - __ �!�Ilfll I_ � I 1111f',I� eI��-Y� I Iff�i •�1■I IrIR �'��III{ � �I� ) ,� ... t �--__ .__._ _..r- _... — .. _ . t�.� ��� ' A � _ a-�...- _ ��� I I • IpNNI,,,,11 , 'I �� � I'! I i'.I _� 1• 14111 � �, 'IJI. -w-1 � •11 I . ,. -�J,n.ja+ I�y6 NI::�'� ��1� -.1®� = t..� ... I■�,rn '�--��■.r.. � H �I I �I■I�11. l.,fc I■ �I I ��I' If���h ,I ' � � �'' YI1'��, i, Z�\I ,', �' �I � , . , L�.o 114011111 ■■IMEE1=1 ■ ,frq. -- ter! &' �. ISI ;' �IBIT�'I �I i��. . �'P II I �I■w�� , � ,� I„ II �u ur ���� I�I�� r"1_..711�. 'I .?;a—_nla�.�I�.�s�:��Yr..�����■ lyu■pe��.��i i' 71 I l��' �_ I'�I,IiIi r_off�Il_�ii�ml�ii'1� �il�ii �ii Mii��_ii 1ii� I�—u i �_L. , �. I■�III��I � 1■ 1 �i� I'M 1 ' t I ELM = � I 1 I IHHII NEW !am •�■IAI��I_r� : �� _ °nII,�I� :0'■� IIA�1!; �1Y�E �-�.:_� I £1 '■tfi11�� 1'� SII �Y � _-�1,!� i� �' , I j •y}IIr .-; �w�{I it }}�a I I ■■ ■ I _ Lam. ._ I �I■� �I�IV 'll■ I� - � 1111 � I � �� I ,I ' 'lll■A I I Ir .1 _ � .�1 r 11+�1 ii ■ ■f r■ ■■ 'll' .f..■ I� ■ III Ilr� ;I .c� �s :y _ 16 �' I�.rl•� �I■_�1®il 11■ I■'�, I I �•I I ilii it �� - __ r. I .. .■ ■ nn llnu I ii�I •'`I 111■ I■ IY �'�••I � s.�; !■� - 1 'Y__. 17 a n I n■ rr s. fr ■� ■■ r I 11 71n��,' j >• ■I� all ii, I � II 1 u I I i ii ii I l oiir�"i11nl I� Li�nr�(_. � s! � :r ■. ■■ e , r ■ � I �■ �unr {■IIS � I � - - _ _ �IIH a � - i, - �■.IJiu{I�IIY III 1 I �. 6..� w:.Se ,.t r■ ■R ':! . I _ _ _ 11 �1,. '� _- I i i _ - - _ _ � � :n III p p � R l IIII .'_-� __ _ _ i '�R•� � ■I,�-111�1 11■ I�;,� ' � .i I11♦�.I1 li I . �. I I - - _ 1i7: - i°. -s-'-_`'o- _i{I��.�' 1. � II li;lf - _ a+it��-=_�_ • .: I .. -..: _ _ _ __ _ll �1 � � I _I __ I __ ..� i f io . ee�n I I _ ill ��- �! �"lam_ L e - 1 i�Y�II■ --- IEa - 5'4 • 412 :1 MLI 41 • ' ' i . . r r r r • r � � � � r � • r rr r: r ylr, J _ _ ONW w } MM I{ ON— oile• low I�■ ) Ir �! 6' 'Lill � ����Ili� r�� �I■ �I� r■ �', �III�� ; I I � I ' I ',� �� I � � �— �r� 1 �II��� I �I�V�1 ■ ■ ��� �1111�. I�l I -�` Ilk �■ � - -- w �I1 I , ally Olalll � �� �NI � I jl . ��li��' � ,����. ■�� I�I I � i�44 ■II ��C 1��� ; �IIIr I � ' ;'��� ��I ��1 IN�� � + � � �_-- ;��-- -1��=�11� �■ � , ; �III I � .�'1� �1:� ' IV I I '� ' I V�.Ir �' i I`. --_�_ � �� +�_ — —=r•E,_a.A,�__ _.� ���i — 1I � 1 � .�1rll � ■ �r� I I _ �- I I �� ��I, �■ �� �I - �lil� ■. ■����� � �i J II ,...�p I y � `' ,� �'�li� �'�!I��. .I I I / I 1. I �II_ � �r I �.��1' .r , , 1 tri I I�. IIII - - I� I I■I� i ��CC„ 'Ilk ;: Ian ��■ II�i��"��7�II��� .'�y ��I�I��I 1 �i��.11,Y,: r• I i�,,�� � d r'i■�il� I� �� , I - ♦r,f J � ■I �Iv `� ._ Y�■� I � �_ e���� I �� �R'll� ¢�� �I���� I� �111� _'FMS"Ite, ■!��!� �., �� - �� i �'-_ I� ■ii��� �l !I I �, i� � �1=�1, '/�� ■ll�.l .e0' I i II / I. r III 4'I A' IV 1'1 � � II - I I� w(r�. -a: �IIr � 111 I 1�'��� I■I I I MINIM �I �� I , ,i. ��� 'l � ,®I 11 ■l�l � al R ;' d � r I I ■ 1 Imo' � I 'y . ,. _ I ♦ y r.- ��A ''I:r � � I �r I I !� I�r _ �� �I�V,_� III I� I i � 1 I I� '� � l � � I `1�I . I I. ,r 1�I11■.. I, d 1 � �. I .i �.�� • 1 '�.. '� IL.,� � ���I���� �Iii■+r��' - ��- �� I��_� � N� ��1 � �- `—y �I�_-_ � !����i�j{jllf ��I I '� � I I � f�� ■�- r. I■.I.�..��i- .�wlrn� _ I � 'I - � I I. ~ I' 1,Yi .� I 2 �II■I■. �� f� + '►j���+r � ti � � � _ � - - � +' "'�`�_- ISI' • r1 sar��+ri ��.rl+r� -.�.,t � '�If I! ■ I N`'�i, ill Z�� +' ��Y�^ !�� � ` R.0 ANNOM1 �N� . . _ -Imr r g'., .I� II�-!� ! II V51� - �� I■ �,�t�'�._, -- � �' A 'f.I—' '•II✓nf11ls' N���i�>♦r Anal. ._.� -�-- i r--I-`a 1 �. .. .�, ` �_•. II IIl, 1 �I. r ti� S9� f�t\" I I ..� � =�_ �Y . I .. 7" . v .`i" _"u_ --okC I■.J��� �I ' t �_-_ r �! � '� '' ' 1■■ I I`� �L �` � -= -_"' "�� -i` -' III(/ ��I dill� �1 � ■1,�1�9�1- � i I I l' I� •,�+:: ,�nl�.r . �����— - •a ■1. ~ � I 7f1 ((� �j ILII ' '� ■Ih ' r ;.�Ih6�� ���i X51 I ��llrl ,l . I -\: + P ,I Ij� "',�'- �+- I-- :aJ.{".Y11■I.fYll _ Elm - cl -� I��►, Illrllh171 ' L, ■�, 1 � ■11■I■�ill� ��I , I i � n`I I IN 11;1 i 11� lily,,.-. ■� . _ �=��_� --_... - I (YII ■iYa a �t i �� Ir- _ �I , 11: I' I I ` I� YY: �.w�. I, . Y±�a!I�Is�r■ aa,.-■.�:. ■�■ •~ 'Ci��';. •' I Y r. � I It �il� �I' � I■■■ ■1■I■ a ,----F � �I •"R �I�` — IAI '!�II ��ImIRIIHHI■ !�■I '-'-- -lyl� .• �... �..�_����1► � , 1� .i �* i 1►- � 1 � ` �/�.� � I T � ■11■I■ 1 , III �1 11' Ery 1 II - --- 11■"��91iIH■ III I I'. 1 ��'-�; •wG�- 1 « � �i`i �..,,: „1 ,. , . ��I : ■ ■Ii .1!�.>N�I X111 !I/ I ■ �1 t .I' IIII r I �' I I�� ► �I 't Imo' I I�. ��•i.;,�`1w�11.I■'� '; �'1�►rL...._-rnll.llJlm�a�.P,�ilI 2t1!9"C.! IL■! I�1 ®-II!IIIrp H■�II�I■■■iH■lnI!!!I■■I■III■H■��1 l,l��_ l®�li.i_��.Ia�I►{�r' II�uJr��ui���1�r.11i,_ �.��I�i ' ■�r Her. II �',: IIIII���� .�■I.III, �•II■■■IIIIf L�._12 ' II hI1i� I��I'II,�r s•i�i,�:. WaI■as■.I(��1J1 � I !i��I I Il1�ly� �`{Il�I r�IlIuIII■I �I I I�I�r,��.�s I r'I ir;l wI I l _ 1■ i.1 SMMI! ■ ■.-=e. r I — I r.+�l - _ — .w �'�� ■r i I. r. -M �i.�lll'_ ._ dl�!'lel ItiI ��'� .■� �, :ra�.�l.- pl I I IIII, r : ■ulel'. i � I IJ' . � , ��� � - �I j • � Z �J III . IIII ■II■■b ■11■I� II ,, � �,■ � II �� _ ■ fl■Iflill{Y� ��� I''�:i 7IN:�II` ;h °��I � L(. III =— - 4 Imo' L I ll 1 11■ Si ii ii it 11 1 f II III ..� � ■— � ! 1 X11 1 I '�� �a1 lil !Ilrl■II'■■I' ■ r — � �. . I �� . . I Iil:u' �` .i �,Ico s IB'I�"■ IL.1 •- .� ,�;;�. IYIy - - - !. .! II 11'. 11 h '1 I IIII it N II) J'1■II■II� , !'I�I pll r� �; -_..�� .. ■. I l I'i H■ H i■ 1 1�11�Ir1 (f11 II■ ■ ■® I 1 1 �/ J I 1 I n II d! .8 Ii 111 f 7IH■■ II III : , ,al�Hjs I l 6iC Id ARM!■IIq� :: ■ � ■_I � i r ■ �, ■1_■dlll ■__ _:.!___ I! _ h1E_■I■_■_II ■_ f■_ _ 1_ _111�111I'�i�r i I1 Iyer u� Fi Iii" �I 1 i� i1rjlHr, �lilrr IG.d ■ I _. ■G Imo.■ - e. _ I _ �.i111111e It♦ I 11 1 S i III ■■il f _wry �il�:la�lIIIINI�IVIII ■ S 1 ! '!! I It Sl I I III �� arm ._'f; .A 14 _ 1 dl LI a I .. . _ I "�II IIII �i I NI! I�:IL: III foe I<. I�ilIII:�I' [. �rlI 1 h 1• s�'r\a 3, Lind,ZMM A TV JAL, MEL ANN 150 Newport Center PERSPLECTIVE - ANACAPA TOWARDS FASHION ISLAND Newport Beach, CA I - — I' I iC ti i a Y • I� - • Change • 1 1 1 i ~ y , 1 .y , i NIr i I t-' I I . �I i � o / f i Com' js i � ri �1 , i� ff fj 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 A4.3 150 Newport Center PERSPECTIVE - SOUTHWEST CORNER BIRD'S EYE Newport Beach, CA {- P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 2/29/2016 11:02:07 AM L Ac �■ 77- Mal ►�� � Ii :�`" '�' ■11■ '+ ■I!■ ,"a■11■ s 01111111 MIN: �■ ■ - - ,� I p�l i �■ ■� _= -- _= ;__ -=_ � �_ I�_I- iii■ ■ `'i ��■� i■�■ [Nil �►�■l ,�l_��_! ■IIII �i11�i■ + I{ ��■ _ - ��_ ��I fl a — �i ►� !■q■ '_ I■SII■1--—— _ - - !!■II ■` ■ m �;� !1 i I� �11 � �■e:,—I— 1 , �— I■ .�,�, _ . ,,�. !�■II■ ���■ I � � Iia �9 I d �1 1=11� ��� _ I � I � — I �� _ ��, ,. • , .,a �. *�} � „ - . .,, I .F PI _ Y pl I � 01 I�■ ■- ��■ ��,p , I =�� � I� ■ � ��,' �I I �� ' - � �■�■ .� ,- ����'..� �,� � � '•'• "���: ��� WIFE i iI �:� �■ ��_II�NOMIII, -�lii' 1 i�- � —�� '� a�l �.�I�II ■■ uI� � _ I�,�iF'lll I � �: I - � � �h �11 � =r� _ ;, I � iJI � � 111 i■_ ! � 4' I� I■ '� � � � � �� �� I1■� � - - ������i �I�■1 i � � I� . . , •.. � ■I I�I�I■i■N�I�� �- �1 — I � I 1_ I�i: �I _ � � �I ." ' I i �� ill �) __. �� � ■ ■�a ,. �� .� — _— . IIS ��■� ■ � �e�"r- ' - ■ lolls � �� �� �� ��i�■ - { �' l I. I , ti � I.r.. p—•I —I�''-11 � ��� -�I�■1■ ��.._— �':� — '�' ri � . � .'tib' .^�. .v '' It'll,'■ I■Il■ I lfi �� I -r� - III �i� SII■ ■ c , - � � � I�rl��� I �� � � 1. I I, � 'I � I �� ' I �■ � � � ■,,, -r,_,,,���,: �• '�—�s�,G�- �1�' II=.,_.�I ■� � I ��i.__�_!IIrS_�s��l�Xn11.-�r,��1_ l�_—_ ISL,��..e■_ _�■.�I � � _,�...,,, inIK■ ■..��- "� ���h I,���,�I I��■��_�mil�■'' � 'i� ■� �� � �. r L l \� ,_ .>•��.,v. _ __ — _ — __ !S� �t.r� ! loses ^!s ' ./ ti• l/,rl .►''v> '`.�. y _. �� I■_r,i�■� � ii■Ir■ I ■ri■I t■j■I i �i7.:. �:!:lC� F!■\ �� �I�111 � .__ _ _ __ _ �Y• ._ail ■ ■il� uel■11_ li■ —1--� 1■ ■ I�.• ■ �" \... � 'r�. . ^i�. L'R-►! ISI i �:.:,I a 1� I' lrl■� V1■I�r ffJ e-711®�f� j� >I1■i■ ■I�111 ■�� r _-_ ■ !Z■1�i .11�1■�� I■ 1�11♦I _ ■al■(� -■ISI■■����■�I I�II�Il II! ■I■1 ■I�NI r �wi'i■r1 ��u■w� I■ ■ E!'■; It .�l■11� �I� ■ I■ �� I L Il ■ i �7��IE �� c� . ,I•� I 1 7 E {� 111111 mMR, I-I_II I� I■ . i1� VCYiI■I� ��l ■ I■� 11 Rif ■�R !�``I' 1�1 �I ■■f;�ll�_�■ �I�a 111I�II�1111 �I t■lil ■11111 t7 ■ fi bjFli■11�� ■ ■ _iV.l� - -W,-- - -- i ��i e�l�■ ■� ni 4/■I. c�,r�r ■ ' ■■■■■■■, ■ �. I .e nacnxne_I I ■ri ■ :_I■ �t ; ®��� '�� '�'� �®� ■III;`�G'=11 i.1�@■iai ^�..il■ui1•:141 til■`1_ - - - — - - - ?i! �:� � '.��. 7f' �° i 8111■:1�',ta� I■� ■'JIt ■ _ ■` i i =�'I■ -- ��� - - IIII ■11■' I■1�1111 . ■ dV■1 �' 'moi �■ li � 'rn■I ■■ �ri1■■"fill rr xN m i .■1!_I �JR S � II■1111■ ��-,._.�,ee■ Imo, 1• �i 7111n'�!1 I I 9 I xe ui■ ■en ■■ m■ w e If ■ - !I:�l� ■II iy�l III I Ill=IJ ■-_1 I ■a l/1 a xe ni■ ■w ■■ ex■ n�= '_® e ■11 �;-.■, I i. 1JI■■_li�f'j n V'•I ■ ■ dam—�,.. MOM _ . ■; 111 ■,1_I x■ son xu■ ■■ u■ i w■ - �- I ' moi■, ■:�/i ■I■11�.■ !■ni ■' .. --- - �,�� 1� �1, ■III I�1 1 I I ■ e01 e::i■ ■■ 1 ea■ ' �� nx �, 11'� ■� ■. - /I ■111I!•1 . . ! Moil Mom I, Imo!1�1 ■ `■ nn ■m u�■ i s ex I!�I��; _ _1.���1� !■I 1■� ■D• ILi I■.. . e� 4. ■ 44 _� _ _ 111 � � � - I - `11111 ee .� •■ ■ :7■', mill, 1 � ISI .. ■, so el,i _s 111 - ., �■ rMX11. m■e� �e�■_ _1111= _I�_.eNI _ [!!■exee�llia■ : • • e e e i u z- / It - / or lip WWI woo nil Ili I' i l ... rile uI I I Ic - _ ,. _ .� � �i� PrP I�; �■� �1 � � ,, �� I - � --I. � h A ,.. -�I ��� h :�� IU �1��■�� P1�1 ill - ON milli Nil 11 }1 � f umll �. I o I ! �� it I a �.�rl_■mNEW %I �' .'i, �I' �■ ■ I �1 I,� �i�►� ■I■■ --- I ri� IF� I �p I 1 I,fl l _ I I , NFit EW VMS �� -- �y,�, ��1 ,`� _ —! �I�■ I � ISI - � � _ it ' �` OWNS ��►� II. 150 Newport Center VIEW FROM VALET DROPOFF Newport Beach, CA PERSPECTIVE • Note: i • . - 11 F E 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I PROPERTY PROPERTY PROPERTY PROPERTY LINE LINE LINE I I LINE 15'-0" I I I II 11 15 0 ANACAPA SETBACK 14 8 NCD SETBACK " SOUTHERN SETBACK 22 9" 229'-6" 33'3" zzs -s" 31.6 229'-6" 30.9 229'-6" 31'-6" 231'-6" 231'-6" I 31'-6" I I _ROOF I _ _ _ _ - _ - ROOF _ I _ _ _ ROOF � _ _ _ ROOF 229' - 6" 229' 6" 1 229' 6" 1 I 229' - 66 I I I II I I I I Level 6 - _ _ - 1 _ _Level 6 _ _ _ _ 21 T e166 _ _ 217'e166 217 - 6 V ZT 217 - 6 _Level 5 Level 5 20e�e165 _ I _ _ Level 5 I 20T - 6" - - - - 20T - 6" I 20T - 6" 24'3" 25'•9" 1 24'-0" I I 1 15'-9" _ f _Level 4 _ 1 _ _ Level 4 _Level 4 _ _ Level 4 197' - 6" 19T - 6" - 197' - 6" 19T - 6" c- I _ _Level 3 _Level 3 87 e163 Level 3 - 6" o ham' I 18T � — � — — 18T - 6„ 1 — 18T - 6„ 241-0" 14'-0"22'-6" 22'.0" I BUILDING SETBACK-ABOVE PODIUM _ BUILDING SETBACK-ABOVE PODIUM BUILDING SETBACK•ABOVE PODIUM BUILDING SETBACK-ABOVE PODIUM Level 2 n 15'-0" _ 7'•6" _ _Level 2 - 14 8„ 7 4 _Level 2 �I _ Level 2 17T - 6" 7 Ilk17T - 7 6" 17T - 6" 17T - 6�7 1 1 1 1 Level1 Level1 _ _ _Level1 _ Level 16T - 6" 167' - 6" 167' - 66" 167 - 6 1IIIIAve Grade 1IIIIII—III Average Grade 1 Average Grade _ _ =Average GradeAL 164' - 0" I = I 1 = — — 1 — 164' - 0" — — — 164' - 0', �—ISI—ISI ISI—ISI—ISI—ISI 1 I�—ISI—III—III ISI—ISI—ISI—ISI I 11 1 11 1 11 I R11-1111 B1 _ 111 �I _ _ B1 _ B1 B1 156 - 6 V FI III 1i5ia�l I -1 1=1 1=1 1=1 =1 III III I 156 6 I —III 156 6 —III I 156 6 III= BUILDING SETBACK-BELOW PODIUM 1- 411 _ III III III—III— 15 0 =1IIIII1 IIIIIIIIII — IIIIIIIII—III —111IIIIII-BUILDING SETBACK-BELOW PODIUM 1 BUILDING SETBACK-BELOW PODIUM =1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 B2 = iti 111 111 111 11 1 I 1I 1 1 1 1 62 I I� 1 OL 62 —� I 1= III 145' - 6" � III 145 - 6" —III 145' - 6" _ 145' - 6" -1I1II1111=1 11111=1 1 1I —II11I11111 11111 11-1111 1 _I1 I—III —III 1 �—III—III IIIIII—III—III 1 I� 111-111—III 111-111-111—III I ' —III IIII I _I I I I 1 -III—IIIIIIIIIIII—II II —1111 1 11 11111 1 I111I 1 I1 1 1 I I1 11 —I 11 I �—II I—III III—III—II I—III I 111-111-111 I I I111111-111 1 -III 11 II 1 1 111 I1� �1 SII I=I�1 _ 63 _ 1 11Il=III— 11�1I — 1 63 II 134' 63 — 1 1 zw 63 134 _ IIIIII-111-111-1111II 1111-111-1111 11111 11 1 —11111II1 =III=III=III=III=III=III1 _ —111111-111-111111111-111-111 — I=III=111 _ -111=I _ 1=1 I =1 I I=1II=III=III=III=III=11 =11 =11 =11 =11 =11 =11 1�=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=11 -III=I 1 I=III=III=I 1=I 1=I 1=I 1=III=II1= I=III=I 1 I=III=I 1=I 1=I 1=I 1=II1— =1 I I1 11III=111=111=111=III=I 11=1 I I=III=1 I I=III=1II=1 I I— -1II111=1II111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=1 11— I=11 I=11 I=1 I I=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1II=1II=1II -I 1 I=11 I=1 I I=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1II=1 I I I I ; I ;III;II77. I;III;III ;III ;III;III;III �=III=III=III=III=III1 IIII1 1=III=1 1=III=1 1=III=1 -III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III= 1III=III=III=I 11=II1=I 1=II1=II1— _� n NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE - BUILDING SETBACK ANACAPA FRONTAGE - BUILDING SETBACK n SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE - BUILDING SETBACK n WESTERN PROPERTY LINE - BUILDING SETBACK 1/8" = 1'-0" EXHIBIT 1 150 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS - SECTIONS + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 2/29/2016 11:03:46 AM � 7 „ ►:r �. I � lot oil .� n Shadow Study- Summer Solstice (Existing) - 06/21/2015 (3:00 PM) Shadow Study- Winter Solstice (Existing) - 12/21/2015 (3:00 PM) n Shadow Study - Spring Equinox (Existing) - 09/22/2015 (3:00 PM) n Shadow Study- Fall Equinox (Existing) - 03/20/2015 (3:00 PM) U 1.1 = 40'-0” 2 1" = 40'-0" 1" = 40'-0" 1" = 40'-0" PROJECT NORTH TRUE NORTH 01 4)) 8)) 167 32 ) 1" - 40'-0 EXHIBIT 2 MW150 Newport Center Newport Beach, CA SHADE & SHADOW STUDY ( EXISTING ) + P A R T N E R S Note: Design Subject To Change 2/29/2016 11:03:57 AM 122 Illi _ low •.r->r •.rfs-: fffff.fffff•fff 1�1 1 f,.-^=^•E _ _� ._- z � •`4. 1. ... 1^--°-! ;.y - !, -�' 7 r-f — .pro fr yr _ ll r • I t F �� ,_ s Y -34 Itc ,, 11►.I � ____ +tl t���l _ (��; 1��I _ _ � 11��1 • J _ l _ _ • 1 ®'�flllllllllllllllll - `{{`I�. — 1■� ;�, . .�--. - t;_ _ - q ;-''�' ""' y __ lil Y '--;-•,• -- i,� � `` Iii -'+�- �?I ■ I r+ . - it r.,� . Y `�- i �� ■ .. , r � � '�i-� - __ u ; 1. ; � —' �_.... pp r+ 111111 =� • r'. +��� � • Ilu' .f � -'. = `�`i • 11111, �+' r'. = � � :'► �1 �" _.. = �.� - M9 • 'f'r � � � _' _ ��: .■ ., 1• nn r:� � � inn .., �, _ IIIItVilllliltll,l __,- —'' � -�- • _— � --- , • `-- � _ --- __ Ink If Imo_ t1 � � u_ ■� j � u IRV elk ■ ►i.i1a�{' , __ __� 4�--- `� � 1�.-i.r . _ , 1+-: ■ . -- 'IC �, ■.. II �1�1• st+r_ ` � \ b '.. � +. �■■,■■i!1 ■ 1 S`:•;.ii III � = u . ` 11111111 ■■ ' • '! •' ,� �•� JI ■.,• , ■ :,Vnii iii�■�■„E �. �..75..... n■•.■ ,■!,,... 411 , �` III 1 r71 1111141-. • .• • • — • mirs — 1 . 1 11 © . • • • — • 1 11 . • • • • • • • 1 1 1 11 . •• • • • 1• 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 160229 150 NCD- Unit Matrix Unit Type/BR Count: Count Area Range [Min-Max] (SF) Unit Average Size(SF) Total Areas Per Unit Type (SF) Standard-21311 26 1,645-3,608 2,526 65,666 Townhome-2BR 15 2,869-2,973 2,868 43,017 Penthouse-21311 2 2,286-2,286 2,286 4,572 Penthouse-31313 2 3,570-3,570 3,570 7,140 Grand Totals: 45 1,645 -3,570 2,675 120,395 Unit Bedroom Count: Count Area Range[Min-Max] (SF) Unit Average Size(SF) Total Areas Per Unit Type(SF) 2 Bedroom 43 1,645 -2,973 2,634 113,255 3 Bedroom 2 3,570-3,570 3,570 7,140 Grand Totals: 45 1 1,645 -3,570 2,675 120,395 130 Attachment No. PC 12 Reduced Height Plans (55 feet) 131 V� QP �P 2�� PROJECT SUMMARY TOTAL PROPOSED GROSS FLOOR AREA: MULTI-STORY PROJECT RESIDENTIAL: 141,788 S.F. (2.98 x BUILDABLE AREA) '- --------- PROJECT DESCRIPTION DWELLING UNITSt THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF(1)MULT-STORY 2 Bedroom 31 Units RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. 3 Bedroom 14 Units 5 STORIES OF RESIDENTIAL Total 45 Units I 2 LEVELS OF UNDERGROUND PARKING OPEN qPACF- BUILDING SHALL BE COMPLETELY SPRINKLERED. REQUIRED BUILDING CODE:CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2013 PROPERTYUNE COMMON OPEN SPACE 75 SF/UNIT 3,375S - -- ;-- N OCCUPANCY TYPE:R-2 U 'UBETBACRED �ERTM BUILDING TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 30 SF PER 1,350 SF FOOTPRINT EACH UNIT BASEMENT TOTAL REQUIRED TYPE I-A- FULLY SPRINKLERED T4725 SF PROPERTY LINE GOVERNING AGENCYl PROVIDED 1Iw CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 4 ❑ 5� / COMMON OUTDOOR OPEN SPACE 8,351 SF LOT COVERAGE: COMMON INDOOR OPEN SPACE 2,141 SF l REQUIRED PROPERTY LINE LOT AREA(prior to dedications): 54,686 S.F. PRIVATE OPEN SPACE 11,963 SF ` d 23 UNIT INSTANCES LOT AREA plus setbacksS.F. TOTAL PROVIDED 22,455 SF , BASEMENT (after dedications P )' 47 i592 Sg.OG5E1BAt'M1 � FOOTPRINT BUILDABLE AREA: 47,592 S.F. F �H i BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 34,307 S.F. SETBACKS: LOT COVERAGE: 72% PROVIDED ABOVEt e ANACAPA FRONTAGE- 15 FT 15 FT s BUILDING DEPARTMENT GROSS FLOOR AREA: ` NEWPORT CENTER OR- 15 FT 15 FT t VALET DROP-OFF/PICKUP 1ST FLOOR AREA: +/ 31,055 S.F. &SERVICE 2ND FLOOR AREA: +l 30,523 S.F. WESTERN PRTY LINE 10 FT 0 FT 3RD FLOOR AREA: +l 30,105 S.F. SOUTHERN PRTY LINE- 15 FT 7 FT ` LL EXISTING 3'SIDEWALK 4TH FLOOR AREA: +/ 30,105 S.F. 'NOTE:ARCHITECTURAL PROJECTIONS ARE ALLOWED TO PROJECT EASEMENT 5TH FLOOR AREA: +l 20.001 S.F. B o LANDSCAPE PLANTER 30"INTO SETBACK AREAS ALONG GARAGE WALL UNDER I II a TOTAL +l 141,788 S.F. / CANTILEVERED PODIUM ❑ I GROSS FLOOR AREA: +/ 141,788 S.F. /// � PROPERTY UNE PARKING GARAGE GBA: +/ 87,298 S.F. PROJECT SALEABLE AREA: +! 126,000 S.F. - , PROPERTY LMEtiREQUIRED PROPERTY PARKING: �I4 Qy NE SETBACK REQUIRED GARAGE STRUCTURE ^� RESIDENTIAL 90 STALLS j , / INGRESS/EGRESS +� FBASE OOTPRINT VISITOR 23 STALLS %i A FOR AN EASEMENT '1 FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS � � PROVIDED / OVER PARCEL A P.M.B.TG32 l RESIDENTIAL 90 STALLS � VISITOR 25STALLS (INDIADESIADASTALLATLEVEL 81) AO.1 MVE 150 Newport CerleE Nawnon e"ucn,CA SITE PLAN & PROJECT SUMMARY + P A R T H E R 5 N.W.De& n Subjxa T',change 3 I '125-P 218'-P ery ra M1P -P — _ — _ — — — — — — -_ - 21RQ T LP _ — 200T-71-6" " 1 L, 91 4-HIPi- e LevNS a u 16T _ m Level2 � ]]'-6"V 16T-6' Le .tom � �J�_p — .:. .��: .: •... b T.. I V II ! I I ' I I - -- - - ---- r j - - CFFI I r I _ i - - L- -- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------------------- _ eM K' I--,vimPRZ.1 150 M/E NEWPORT CENTER } P A R T N E R S /� NA lit � 1 274Ar11 ri � r 7A �' C6R�f�111�'i !a Itam�l+� \ �gg�� � JJ � i � 'Si.�urF3l.7r,�]��nnn_. FYI � l �. ■ ���.�� -��;f ' ! .u.....vc�lb ,'' 'I� I� �_, �;®'_ _���r_nr�■�s��.--- "���. �.���icr%� �'1,L�r'��iu�� �IJ�B'�� ° iii�� i�I I���` � �'� �–�—s:��_ir ��T �a�.�7k1�'i.�r ��cna�w��_���iC�►aV .e%.r�1- r s+w��nJi��'[�'�4. i in'��''�iM� ci y it ti- I��l�lAlll I'�HA. t1. nr. �� .. < MWff t rice. un= eA d �t 1■ �� � .a:. ��\!h r 1 s i- F tri . i7 t{I.I -� �e1 �� • • 1�Ii"a fl 1��� �1111i1 [ A •'Y. 1� + lit ►� r1� lin>•= ®n�lliii Ilp � i k► ' ',�+�a� • u '• ,•� rr�.lt.i I�l�., fit "r '1':k. i s� ��/ 1LES . SSP t4 -I!\ lupi n., Ci i iii "r te 1 .-"' 'i�° . tel■� F■�.��.,,u.� 11 SIV • ��r ..:..r , : 5 P.' hN ill .. 4��1� I'll= '1!mii ,Ir. ■1 Itl•�'�ItIj JI� tiv4� II: ■ i Y/Se liy I{i�Al !1 _ FC i! �11�c n LV iL711lIall �I SII ii�� �li'1; H ter . • ! I �i� � i . j� Is II I IIL L'l 11 iF 11 ' 111 ,,� l� im� lili/��I�I i� �1 Im�E1 r 1 .. Tim �` 4 r �, � a f to�-- Fi'-�'�' \ t � '!!!! ►"� � _ }'liIt Ilk ,gyp - o"'9. �"` INR !!\�•, \'-. J/iiy !fes r` II �y � ` � ..<. �4 Y i 0' � Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3a Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: PA 2014-213 150 Newport Center From: Dianna Madison rmailto:madisondianna8@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 10:49 AM To: Nova, Makana Subject: PA 2014-213 150 Newport Center Good Morning: Are these units planned to be tenant-occupied or owner-occupied? As you know,there is a shortage of new owner-occupied living units being developed in this area. Residents need more choices for purchasing living units. Thanks for your assistance. Dianna R. Madison Attorney at Law BRE#01347709 Broker 559 681-4964 1 Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3b Additional Materials Received Mackinen, Traci 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: 150 Newport Center Drive PA2014-213 From: Ron Yeo [mailto:ronyeo@me.com] Sent: Friday,July 15, 2016 4:28 PM To: Nova, Makana Subject: 150 Newport Center Drive PA2014-213 I feel that this project will not be consistent with the surrounding properties and should remain zoned as CO- R. t Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3c Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: Proposed condo project at former Beacon Bay site @ Fashion Island From: Vikki Swanson rmailto:vikki(avikkiswanson.coml Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 8:39 PM To: Kramer, Kory; Brown, Tim; Koetting, Peter; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Zak, Peter; Brandt, Kim; Nova, Makana; Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office Cc: I nfoCc 0 SPON-NewoortBea ch.ora Subject: Proposed condo project at former Beacon Bay site @ Fashion Island I'm very sad. 14 Years ago I purchased what I thought was my'forever home' in Corona del Mar. I'm beginning to second guess my decision to choose Newport Beach as my adopted hometown. Why you ask? The character of this charming beach community is quickly changing, and not for the better. While there has been a relatively constant state of'McMansionization' going on both CdM and Balboa Island where I lived previously, development, particularly over the past few years, is running amok in throughout Newport and it seems that the city is bending over backwards to encourage it through spot zoning and other variances, which I find disheartening...or shall I say appalling. Abraham Lincoln put forth the notion that government is supposed to be 'of, by and for the people'. Over the last 15-20 years,the residents (aka the 'people')of Newport Beach have made their wishes very clear in the form of passage of the Greenlight initiative, the sound defeat of Measure Y(despite the city's best attempts at confusing the issue by disguising Measure Y as a 'traffic reduction initiative'), and the pending supreme court review of the City's approval of the development proposed at Banning Ranch,that we are not ok with growth outside that allowed in the General Plan. The general plan is supposed to be just that. It is supposed to set the 'rules', as it were,that the City's staff is supposed to work within. One current example of development that can only occur should the City not enforce its own rules is the project proposed on the site of the Beacon Bay Autowash at Fashion Island. In the spirit of this'of, by and for the people' notion I ask that you vote NO on the proposed project at the site of the former Beacon Bay Autowash, as this project fails to meet height and density restrictions of the General Plan...in other words, the only real option is to vote NO. Respectfully submitted, Vikki Swanson 419 Marguerite, CdM 1 Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3d Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center Importance: High From: Paul Christ rmailtomaulchrist(olsbcglobal.netl Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 6:31 PM To: Kramer, Kory; Brown, Tim; Koetting, Peter; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Zak, Peter; Info(e1SPON- NewportBeach.oro; Brandt, Kim; Nova, Makana Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center Importance: High The purpose of this email is to express my opposition to the 150 Newport Center Dr. project as proposed. We ordinary citizens are again faced with a developer backed proposition that increases density, traffic, requires monumental changes to our city governing documents and for absolutely no plausible reason other than to enrich the property's owners/developers at the expense of the environmental concerns that have frequently been expressed and regrettably remain unaddressed. Yes, perhaps a small two story residential development with up to ten units would be appropriate for the site but definitely not a grandiose five story with underground parking, etc. etc. etc.. Thank you for taking the time to read this evaluation. Paul Christ 1143 Granville Drive Newport Beach CA 92660 949-644-7308 t Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3e Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: 150 Newport Center -----Original Message----- From: Gail Finnell [mailto:akfinnell@aol.com] Sent,Monday,July 18, 2016 11:11 PM To: Nova, Makana Subject: 150 Newport Center The residents surrounding this proposed project VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE it going forward. How dare our City have no regard for PRIVATE ocean views and state that PUBLIC views are the only views they consider important, the only views worth protecting. The original planners of our neighborhoods took great pains to assure that views would be taken advantage of from every view lot within the City. To presume to know more that the original planners of this City is misguided and arrogant. Please apply this email to the side against this project going forward. Isn't it time for our City to start doing the RIGHT THING for it's residents? GAIL FINNELL 2601 BLUE WATER DR BROADMOOR HILLS HOA Sent from my iPad t Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3f Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) To: Nova, Makana Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Knapp [mailto.bgknapp7@gmail.coml Sent:Monday,July 18, 2016 7:08 PM To: Kramer, Kory; Brown, Tim; Koetting, Peter;Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray;Weigand, Erik; Zak, Peter; Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org;Brandt, Kim;Nova,Makana Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center This is a poor idea( I have sent just now further comments to council. Sincerely, Bruce G. Knapp CDM Sent from my iPad i Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3g Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) From: Milvi vanderslice <Milvivander@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday,July 19, 2016 7:46 AM To: Dept- City Council; City Clerk's Office; Info@LineintheSandPAC.com Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center Project I hate the project and it looks ugly. We have no water-and you are harassing us now....why are you building more? Parking and congestion at Fashion Isle are intolerable ...you will make it a grid lock .PEople will not want to come here. my Sent from my iPad t Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3h Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) From: Bruce Knapp <bgknapp7@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 7:07 PM To: Dept- City Council; City Clerk's Office; Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center Please vote NO on this projectl The townhouse apartments near police station are bad enough. Anyone's guess who will be able to rent.......many have a good idea. Poor taste for sure! Building height, location and traffic are out of reasonable and thoughtful control for-our Newport Beach environment. Sincerely, Bruce G. Knapp CDM Sent from my Wad i Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3i Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) From: Pat Wright <ptwright@cox.net> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 6:53 PM To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office; Info@LineintheSandPAC.com Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center Project NO ON 150 Newport Center Project Please listen to your residents..... t Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3j Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2O14-213) From: carrol hochschild <cdmhochschild@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 5:45 PM To: Dept- City Council; City Clerk's Office; Info@spon-newportbeach.org Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center I object to this project. It seems that such projects are suddenly popping up without much publicity. These projects are not in keeping with the general plan of Newport Beach and such projects are changing the character of Newport Beach. Instead of being a special place Newport is quickly becoming a city of high rises, traffic problems and over population. Carroll Hochschild Corona del Mar i Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3k Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: RE: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center From: John Petry rmailto:johncoetry(o�hotmail.com1 Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 11:16 AM To: Kramer, Kory; Brown, Tim; Koetting, Peter; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Zak, Peter; InfoC1aSPON- NewportBeach.org; Brandt, Kim; Nova, Makana Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center Some residential development in Newport Center may be appropriate, but it needs to be properly planned rather than approved on a first-come, first serve basis through spot zoning, Planned Community waivers, etc. Also, as one resident stated the projects currently proposed (150 Newport Center and The Museum House) take the McMansionization syndrome to new heights (pun intended). The residents of Newport Beach do not want our city turned into a Santa Monica-like concentration of high-rises.This was most recently made perfectly clear with the overwhelming defeat of Measure Y. Please listen to the people who live and love it here. Thanks. t Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 31 Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center From: nbseely@aol.com rmaiIto:nbseelvCcbaol.coml Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 11:56 AM To: Kramer, Kory; Brown, Tim; Koetting, Peter; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Zak, Peter; Info(&SPON- NewportBeach.ora; Brandt, Kim; Nova, Makana Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center It is my understanding you will be reviewing the 150 Newport Center (F I Car wash) proposal at your meeting on the 21. 1 am hoping you will recommend to the City Council that they not approve this project. Because this project requires a General Plan Amendment, a Zoning Code Amendment and a waiver of the 10 acre minimum requirement for a Planned Community Development (not to mention an increase in allowable height limit) - it appears to me it is in conflict with the legal requirements of the City of Newport Beach. Melinda Seely 2833 Carob St. Newport Beach, 92660 Sent from Windows Mail i Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3m Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: RE: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center Project -----Original Message----- From: Mary Ann Bubonic [mailto:npbmary@cox.net] Sent:Tuesday,July 19, 2016 1:46 PM To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office;Info@LineintheSandPAC.com Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center Project This growth has got to stop. It is related to danger for all Newport Beach residence driving on PCH, MacArthur, and Jamboree. How many times a day do we have to listen to sirens,ambulances and fire trucks. Not including dead or injured passengers. The apartment complex on jamboree and San Joaquin Hills Road is not even completed and drivers are constantly running red lights. What about our water shortage?This growth has got to stop. See you at the meeting!! Sent from my iPhone t Planning Commission - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3n Additional Material Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: RE: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center From: Lila Crespin rmailto:babaiov28@gmail.com1 Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 11:34 AM To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office; Info(c sgon-newoortbeach.org Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center I am totally opposed to the the development of the condominium high-rise that denies complying with the general plan now in existence. Please do not give "special;" approval to this project. IT DOES NOT FIT WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE existing building plan requirements. Thank you, Lila Crespin Lila Crespin. Ph.D babaioy28(ii,Pmail.com i Planning Commission -July 21, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received p 150 Newport Center(PA2014-213) CITY C y0 e� COMMUNITY DEVELOP+ '_IVT F f n 100 Civic Center Drive V )1C~j Z Newport Beach,California 92660 4W `p. 949 644-3200 Gq<�F00.P newportheachca.gov/communitydevelopment Memorandum To: Planning Commission From: Makana Nova, Associate Planner Date: July 21, 2016 Re: Item No. 3 — 150 Newport Center Residential Project (PA2014-213) Public Comments The attached public comments were received as part of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) public comment process that do not pertain to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) but are still relevant to the project and land use decisions requested. As a result, these comments are attached for the Planning Commission's consideration as part of the public hearing process. All other letters received as part of the EIR public comment period will be provided to the Planning Commission along with formal responses to comments in preparation for the August 4, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting. Attachments: Public Comment Letters: • Bill Cool • Chuck Hardy • Pat Nangle • Joan Kreuter • Enrique Gonzalez • Jim Place • Marsha Kendall • Ronald Schwartz Community Development Department Planning Commission -July 21, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center(PA2014-213) Nova, Makana From: Ramirez, Gregg Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 8:12 AM To: Nova, Makana Subject: FW: Comments on Car Wash -----Original Message----- From: Bill [ma ilto:wiIlia mcool@sbc¢loba1.net] Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 11:26 AM To: Ramirez,Gregg Subject: Comments on Car Wash Hello, The city is abusing the Planned Community ordinance frequently. It is meant for an area of at least 10 acres and the car wash area is only one and a quarter acres. This should NOT be allowed. The plans to build a structure 7 stores in a statistical zone which currently has no building over 32 feet is also wrong. This would open a flood gate for additional structures in that area to build ever taller buildings. The city should not allow this to happen. Bill Cool t Planning Commission -July 21, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center(PA2014-213) Nova, Makana From: Chuck Hardy <CHardy@lee-associates.com> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 2:44 PM To: Nova, Makana Subject: EIR Comments: 150 Newport Center Project This project needs to be stopped in its tracks. If there was any change in use, it should be for the same type of product, Namely low rise office. But to put a large residential project in there makes no sense at all. Its up to the planning commission and City Council to stop this, NOW Chuck, homeowner at 516 Narcissus, Corona Del Mar Chuck Hardy I Principal Lee&Associates Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. -Orange Direct: 714-564-7131 Cell:714-396-6728 Fax:714-543-5285 1004 W.Taft Avenue,Suite 150 Orange, CA 92865 chardy@lee-associates.com LEE ASSOCIATES- COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES A Member of the Lee&Associates Group of Companies Corporate ID#01011260—Agent ID#00482557 k f IMT Confidentiality Notice:The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s)is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential.If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient,unauthorized use,disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited,and may be unlawful.If you have received this communication in error,please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail,and delete the original message and all copies from your system.Thank you. 1 Planning Commission -July 21, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center(PA2014-213) Nova, Makana From: Pat Nangle <patnangle@att.net> Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 12:43 PM To: Nova, Makana Subject: 150 Newport Center Drive Another condo/apartment complex is not needed in Fashion Island / Newport Center. The apartment complex at Jamboree & San Joaquin Hills Road is a monstrosity and will be creating more traffic and water usage in an area already congested. The car wash that is currently there serves many community residents. Why is there a proposal to replace it with something that is not needed. Traffic in this area is already congested, why congest it further. We are supposed to be conserving water. Building another apartment/condo complex will not ease the water shortage. Thank you, Pat Nangle Resident Newport Beach i Planning Commission -July 21, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center(PA2014-213) Nova, Makana From: Kreuter <kreutermail@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 5:30 PM To: Nova, Makana Subject: EIR Comments: 150 Newport Center Project I oppose the high density and lack of setbacks of these buildings. The new buildings along San Joaquin Hills Rd. are too close to the street and way too dense. This new plan looks like more of the same. A lovely and appealing commercial area it being ruined by overbuilding, lack of open space and too little landscaping. The traffic is already too heavy for our roads to handle during rush hours. Joan Kreuter i Planning Commission -July 21, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center(PA2014-213) Nova, Makana From: Enrique J Gonzalez <enriquethinktank@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday,June 22, 2016 11:51 AM To: Nova, Makana Subject: EIR Comments: 150 Newport Center Project We have until the 27 for comments, classic snick it through while people is distracted,obviously to have more apartments in our City is going on o Ruin the Way of life. Over crowding, traffic, demand on our services, I wish you would put those apartments next door to every Council Member.When are we going to realize that More Growth will destroy our City.And the Council is going to go doing the same as long as they are Properly Rewarded. Sent from my iPhone t Planning Commission -July 21, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center(PA2014-213) Nova, Makana From: Jim Place <jimplace@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 11:37 AM To: Nova, Makana Subject: 2 Newport Center projects Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Makana: You may not remember me as I spoke, a few months back, against the 150 Newport Center condominium project. I live in Newport Coast. Add to that project the museum house project noted in an article in the Daily Pilot in April and you got the Irvine Company getting accomplished what they wanted to do with measure Y which we defeated along with voting in four new city council members. What I fear is that Newport Beach will no longer be a destination city like Beverly Hills or Paris, but more like Santa Ana. The whole concept of live where you work is totally invalid and a ruse by the Irvine Company.The impact on traffic would be dramatic. We do not need to build on every square inch of the city. I think the planning commission should take the next five years off as we don't need any more development including Banning Ranch which should remain untouched. What I would like to know is when the planning commission will be reviewing these two projects as I would like to be present and add my thoughts as a long term resident. Please keep me posted. Thanks Jim Place 39 Anjou 949-636-0866 Sent from my iPhone t Planning Commission -July 21, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center(PA2014-213) Nova, Makana From: Campbell,James Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 6:04 PM To: Nova, Makana Subject: FW:Argument against the car wash project.. 150 Newport Center FYI -----Original Message----- From: Marsha Kendall ImaIIto:r)md81CcDaOl.com] Sent: Monday,June 27, 2016 5:05 PM To: Campbell,James Subject: Argument against the car wash project.. 150 Newport Center I feel that if you allow the height of this project to be as they have specified, it will set a precedent and open pandora's box for the rest of the properties around. Please adhere to the same height if the block and no higher. Thankyou Marsha Kendall t Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received LAW OFFICES OF 150 Newport Center(PA2014-213) B.Schwr AMERICAN BOARD OF RONALD 8 SCHWARTZ b�bwnalartz@wintnals.com TRIAL ADVOCATES A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Telephone:(949)644-7283 THE MULDOON'S BUILDING Facsimile: (949)644-2159 202 NEWPORTCENTER DRIVE,2ND FLOOR NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 June 27, 2016 Subject: 150 Newport Center Proposed Residential Project — Objections Draft EIR - Comments To: Newport Beach City Council, Planning Commission & City Staff Attention: Makana Nova, Associate Planner mnova@newportbeachga.gov My name is Ron Schwartz. My wife Sindi and I own the property at 202 Newport Center Drive known as the Muldoon's Building. For 42 years, our family has operated Muldoon's Irish Pub at that location. Working in hospitality, we follow a tradition of saying yes! However, sometimes the request is such, we must say no! I've been observing the evolution of the 150 Newport Center proposed project. We quietly informed the applicant of our objections, without results. At this time, I regretfully must say No! Currently, the car wash operates in an 8,500 square foot building. Yet, applicant seeks approval for a 163,000 square foot residential building requiring waivers, exceptions and modifications to every conceivable regulation applicable to this commercial parcel. The project is superimposed on a neighborhood never intended for residential. Muldoon's Irish Pub is just 50 feet from the residences. Entrances, windows, balconies, and patios directly face Muldoon's and Design Plaza, which is comprised of nine buildings. There is existing 160,000 square feet of office and commercial businesses in Design Plaza. Attached is a photo from applicant's packet depicting the proposed building's orientation. These businesses require maintenance and janitorial services in the evening and early morning hours. Trash removal and parking lot sweeping are provided by noisy trucks early in the a.m. Landscaping is done in the morning. Muldoon's receives deliveries as early as 6:00am where drivers stop their big rig trucks with noisy brakes, opening their back gates and sliding out onto the pavement with a bang steel ramps to dolly metal beer kegs and hundreds of pounds of restaurant I of 2 Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center(PA2014-213) items over and over again till everything is received in our kitchen and pubs. The beeping sounds of all size trucks backing up creates noise and sound which will disturb potential residents who are very close to Muldoon's and the rest of Design Plaza. Did you know Edwards Theatres, a number of years ago, obtained the right to use Design Plaza for theater parking. That means patrons are accessing their vehicles into the night. The opening of Star Wars type blockbuster films generates persons of all ages camping out on Anacapa Drive in the middle of the night. There are months when the FedEx facility operates 24 hours. Muldoon's is licensed to be open 7 days a week from 6a.m. through tam. For over 40 years, these uses have not caused a problem for nearby businesses or anyone in the community. Inserting a residential component and exposing the occupants to unwelcomed sounds in the early morning and night time (even from people happily talking outside Muldoon's) introduces with absolute certainty stress and friction between neighbors. The applicant tacitly acknowledges the sound problem, then counters that triple glazed glass will stifle the sound. This won't solve the problem as residents of Newport Beach prefer to keep their windows, french or sliding doors open for fresh air. Interestingly, applicant recently responded at a planning commission study session that no one should worry about this problem since applicant will obtain signed disclaimers from the purchasing residents for this noise problem. Unfortunately, if allowed, the developer will be long gone when the stress and friction hits the fan! Dealing with chronic complaints will fall on our police department, City staff and officials and most directly on Muldoon's. No matter how personable the applicants are, this massive proposed residential project will not result in good public policy. Thank you for your consideration. V,epry_ truly yours, Ronald B. Schwartz Enclosure 2 oft Planning Commission -July 21, 2016 Ronald Schwartz Enclosure Item No. 3o Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center(PA2014-213) Pa 45" Anchmenl PC 2-Prolacl Plana T T`. 'k —asallil now I, i, R i. _ I it n I RENDERINGS Newport Center Condominiums PERSPECTIVE-VIEW FROM VALET DROPOFF x E`x S xewwnaezon. pvvpn PZMme9uhM,Ie CMnao -T Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center -----Original Message----- From: Marsha Kendall [mailto:pmd81@aol.com] Sent:Tuesday,July 19, 2016 9:39 PM To: Kramer, Kory; Brown,Tim; Koetting, Peter; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik;Zak, Peter; SPON; Brandt, Kim; Nova, Makana Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center I request that the City Planning Commission please adhere to the zoning code that is currently in effect regarding the proposed 150 Newport Center project. If you were to change the zoning, it will definitely set a precedent for other builders and the entire Fashion Island landscape of buildings will change and I don't think for the better. In addition, Fashion Island does not yet have the new 500+ Irvine Company apartment units occupied in the corner of Jamboree and San Miguel which will affect the amount of cars racing around Newport Center Drive causing traffic and noise for the residents all ready existing in the area. Thank you for your consideration from a local resident. Marsha Kendall t Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Biddle, Jennifer Subject: FW:July 21 Planning Commission Hearing o n150 Newport Center Project Attachments: Ron Schwartz - 150 Newport Center Project- DEIR Comments.pdf, Sindi R. Schwartz- Comments - 150 Newport Center Drive.pdf, 150 Newport Center DEIR Comments - SPON-2.pdf From: Ronald Schwartz [mailto:rbschwartz(alwintrials.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 4:20 PM To: Nova, Makana Subject: July 21 Planning Commission Hearing o n150 Newport Center Project Dear Ms. Nova, Please consider this e-mail as a request to incorporate the submissions by SPON and specifically the comments letter by Michelle Black of Chatten-Brown and Carstens on June 27 commenting on the DEIR for the 150 Newport Center project. The attachments were described as 150 Newport Center DEIR Comments- SPON-2.pdf. I request these submissions be incorporated and made a part of the prior comments of the 150 Newport Center project submitted by Sindi Schwartz and myself on or about June 27, 2016. Thank you, Ron Schwartz Ronald B. Schwartz LAW OFFICES OF RONALD B. SCHWARTZ, APC The Muldoon's Building 202 Newport Center Drive, 2nd Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-644-7283 phone 949-644-2159 fax Website: www.wintrials .com American&uN NAn0NAL u('I'nale4lcixJllY Super lawyers ••, TRIA�UWYERS MBestLawyers' PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information in this electronic mail (e-mail) is intended for the named recipients only. It may contain confidential, proprietary or legally privileged information and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above and is protected from disclosure. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mis- transmission. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive e-mail for the addressee), you are hereby notified that you must not use, disseminate, copy it in any form or disclose to anyone this message or any information contained in this e-mail message. You must also not take any action in reliance on this e-mail. If you think you have received this message in error, please notify the sender at the Law Offices of Ronald H. Schwartz, APC immediately by reply e-mail at the address specified above or by calling (877) 640-0100. Please delete this e-mail and any copies of it as well. Do not disclose the contents to anyone. The Law Offices of Ronald R. Schwartz reserves the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Thank you. 1 Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 LAW OFFICES OF Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received AMERICAN BOARD OF RONALD 8 SCHWARTZ 150 Ne pvCpe, �42014-213) TRIAL ADVOCATES rbschwartz@vintrials.com A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Telephone:(949)644-7283 THE MULDOON'S BUILDING Facsimile: (949)644-2159 202 NEWPORTCENTER DRIVE,2ND FLOOR NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 June 27, 2016 Subject: 150 Newport Center Proposed Residential Project — Objections Draft EIR - Comments To: Newport Beach City Council, Planning Commission & City Staff Attention: Makana Nova, Associate Planner mnova@newportbeachga.gov My name is Ron Schwartz. My wife Sindi and I own the property at 202 Newport Center Drive known as the Muldoon's Building. For 42 years, our family has operated Muldoon's Irish Pub at that location. Working in hospitality, we follow a tradition of saying yes! However, sometimes the request is such, we must say no! I've been observing the evolution of the 150 Newport Center proposed project. We quietly informed the applicant of our objections, without results. At this time, I regretfully must say No! Currently, the car wash operates in an 8,500 square foot building. Yet, applicant seeks approval for a 163,000 square foot residential building requiring waivers, exceptions and modifications to every conceivable regulation applicable to this commercial parcel. The project is superimposed on a neighborhood never intended for residential. Muldoon's Irish Pub is just 50 feet from the residences. Entrances, windows, balconies, and patios directly face Muldoon's and Design Plaza, which is comprised of nine buildings. There is existing 160,000 square feet of office and commercial businesses in Design Plaza. Attached is a photo from applicant's packet depicting the proposed building's orientation. These businesses require maintenance and janitorial services in the evening and early morning hours. Trash removal and parking lot sweeping are provided by noisy trucks early in the a.m. Landscaping is done in the morning. Muldoon's receives deliveries as early as 6:00am where drivers stop their big rig trucks with noisy brakes, opening their back gates and sliding out onto the pavement with a bang steel ramps to dolly metal beer kegs and hundreds of pounds of restaurant I of 2 Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) items over and over again till everything is received in our kitchen and pubs. The beeping sounds of all size trucks backing up creates noise and sound which will disturb potential residents who are very close to Muldoon's and the rest of Design Plaza. Did you know Edwards Theatres, a number of years ago, obtained the right to use Design Plaza for theater parking. That means patrons are accessing their vehicles into the night. The opening of Star Wars type blockbuster films generates persons of all ages camping out on Anacapa Drive in the middle of the night. There are months when the FedEx facility operates 24 hours. Muldoon's is licensed to be open 7 days a week from 6a.m. through tam. For over 40 years, these uses have not caused a problem for nearby businesses or anyone in the community. Inserting a residential component and exposing the occupants to unwelcomed sounds in the early morning and night time (even from people happily talking outside Muldoon's) introduces with absolute certainty stress and friction between neighbors. The applicant tacitly acknowledges the sound problem, then counters that triple glazed glass will stifle the sound. This won't solve the problem as residents of Newport Beach prefer to keep their windows, french or sliding doors open for fresh air. Interestingly, applicant recently responded at a planning commission study session that no one should worry about this problem since applicant will obtain signed disclaimers from the purchasing residents for this noise problem. Unfortunately, if allowed, the developer will be long gone when the stress and friction hits the fan! Dealing with chronic complaints will fall on our police department, City staff and officials and most directly on Muldoon's. No matter how personable the applicants are, this massive proposed residential project will not result in good public policy. Thank you for your consideration. V,epry_ truly yours, Ronald B. Schwartz Enclosure 2 oft P` 11 1 I I It-2 7 Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received SINDISCHWARTZ-COMMENTS- 150 NEWPORT'CE_NTE1tWI%dyportCenter (PA2014-213) Sindi R. Schwartz 202 Newport Center Drive -The Muldoon's Building Newport Beach CA 92660 June 27, 2016 To : Mahana Nova Associate Planner mnova&newportbeachca.gov 150 Newport Center Drive Dear Planning Staff , Planning Commission and City Council My name is Sindi Schwartz. My husband Ron and I are owners of the Muldoon's Building and operate Muldoon's Irish Pub and Celtic Bar at 202 Newport Center Drive since 1974. Both Ron and I have attended several of the hearings regarding 150 Newport Center Drive Res- idential project. This residential project for people who can afford condo living as primary , 2nd and 3rd homes is just 50 feet from the hustle and bustle of one of California's award winning pubs and restaurants. As Ron stated at the study session on June 23rd , Design Plaza is the 200 Block of Newport Center Drive . There are over 160,000 sq. feet of vibrant commercial businesses and profession- als in these office buildings and 2 restaurants , one of which is Muldoon's just an ear shot from the windows and doors of the proposed residences at 150 Newport Center. Adding a massively tall and wide residential building for 49 couples will cause a terrific strain on all neighbors , especially for those residents asleep in their beds when Muldoon's begins her morning as early as 6:00 am. The applicant's representatives responded to this problem by saying they have triple glazed win- dows to block out all sound, then added , each resident will have to sign applicant's disclosure statements saying there will be noise coming from restaurants and others. 1 Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received SINDISCHWARTZ-COMMENTS- 150 NEWPORTCE_NTE1tWI%dWportCenter (PA2014-213) 1.23 acres vs 10 acres : Applicant's decision to propose a 163,000 square foot building on 1.23 acres causes us to re- sist,and it should, because it is known a building of this mass , breadth,width and height is cal- culated to be on a parcel of 10 acres . Also, set backs both on Newport Center Drive and Anacapa were calculated for buildings under 50 feet , with most buildings as low as 32 feet. Applicant's building is 75 feet , with 83 foot high appurtenances . The massive height will simply overshadow the community of buildings on blocks 100 , 200 and 300. Natural View Corridors : Attachment 1 If you look at applicants overhead photo -Attachment 1, you will see where the Muldoon's building is set on the corner of NPCD and Anacapa. Mul- doon's currently does have natural view corridors both to the south end of the Car Wash prop- erty and to the north end over looking Newport Center Drive. Attachment 2 If you look at the applicant's architectural drawing you will see this massively wide and tall building blocks Muldoon's southerly view corridor as well her northerly view ,where applicant has set this giant building only 20 feet from NPCD. Under any redevelopment, we would wish to preserve our view corridors. Heights: The General plan called out that each block would rise from the lowest slope closer to the ocean progressively rising up as the land changes . The 100 block was called out to be 32 feet in height. The applicant is asking for a variance of an additional 43 -plus feet and their response, when asked , why not 5 stories or 4 stories ? It's not economically feasible. 2 Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received SINDI SCHWARTZ-COMMENTS- 150 NEWPORT'CENIEltwWWport Center (PA2014-213) Applicant's response to the Planning Commission was consistent with it's tactic with City Staff , claiming any alternative plan , other than this one , is not economically feasible. Apparently , applicant's only definition of what is economically feasible is a return of $400 million . Thank you for your consideration. Best Regards, Sindi Schwartz 3 Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) VICINITY MAP r _Z >:. 1 AllS 'n r 1 44 ✓ . �µ s = vu' 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) Planning Commission1 Item • 3p Additional 50 Newpurt-Center ■-`I■I■ ' '�' �I h1' 1'�' ■. �/411■. . - t� I.■__-_ -�y� --.■ I _ _ �Ll■ LLE1' It JL■ 11 "t .�■ FIN I DIAGRAM• SEE BUILDING HEIGHT • REFERENCE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS FOR . Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Hermosa Beach OfficeKMichelle Black Phone: (310) 798-2400 C9, Email Address: Fax: (310) 798-2402 Chatten-Brown & Carstens LLP mnb@cbcearthlaw.com San Diego Office 2200 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 318 Phone: (858) 999-0070 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Direct Phone: Phone: (619) 940-4522 www.cbcearthlaw.com 310-798-2400 Ext. 5 June 27, 2016 Via Email mnovaAnewportbeachca Qov Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Makana Nova, AICP, Associate Planner Community Development Department Planning Division City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 150 Newport Center Project; SCH No. 2016011032; General Plan Amendment (GP2014-003); Zoning Code Amendment (CA2014-0008); Planned Community Development Plan (PC2014-004); Development Agreement No. 2014-002; Site Development Review (SD2014-006); Tentative Tract Map (2015-003) Dear Ms. Nova: These comments are submitted on behalf of Stop Polluting Our Newport (SPON) regarding the 150 Newport Center Project ("Project"). Founded in 1974, SPON is a non- profit public education organization dedicated to protecting and preserving the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. The Project would construct 49 condominiums in a single, 163,260-square-foot, seven-story building and three levels of subterranean parking on 1.26 acres located at the southwest corner of Newport Center Drive and Anacapa Drive. The Project's 49 units exceed the number of additional units that may be approved for Newport Center without triggering a Greenlight vote. As proposed, the Project would conflict with the General Plan's designation of Regional Commercial Office, the Zoning Code district designation of Office Regional Commercial, the requirement that a Planned Community Development Plan cover 10 acres, and the existing height limit for the site. Consequently, the Project cannot be built unless the City grants amendments to the General Plan and the Zoning Code as well as a waiver of the Planned Community Development Plan requirements. A grant of these approvals would set a precedent for changing, rather than respecting, the City's governing land use plans. Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received City of Newport Beach 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) June 27, 2016 Page 2 of 19 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) serves two basic, interrelated functions: ensuring environmental protection and encouraging governmental transparency. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 564.) CEQA requires full disclosure of a project's significant environmental effects so that decision-makers and the public are informed of these consequences before the project is approved, to ensure that government officials are held accountable for these consequences. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn of San Francisco v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The environmental impact report (EIR) process is the "heart of CEQA" and is the chief mechanism to effectuate its statutory purposes. (In Re Bay-Delta Programmatic EIR Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 1143, 1162.) SPON is concerned that the draft environmental impact report ("DEIR") fails to adequately disclose, analyze, and mitigate many of the Project's significant adverse environmental impacts. Instead, the EIR discounts the Project's potential for significant impacts. The EIR also fails to satisfy its core purpose of identifying and analyzing feasible alternatives to the Project that would avoid its significant environmental impacts. The 150 Newport Center Project fails to comply with the City's governing land use plans and policies, and the draft EIR fails to properly disclose, analyze, and mitigate all of the Project's significant adverse environmental effects and the effects of the poor precedents its approval would establish. SPON respectfully requests that these deficiencies be corrected and that a revised draft EIR be recirculated. I. A Planned Community Development Plan is Inappropriate and Unnecessary for the Project. The concerns SPON raised in October 2015 about the Project's consistency with the City's Zoning Code have not been addressed by the Project presented in the DEIR. Planned Community Development Districts (PCDs) are governed by Newport Beach Planning and Zoning Code section 20.56.010, and exist to "provide for the development of land as coordinated, comprehensive projects in order to take advantage of the superior environment resulting from large-scale community planning." Further, "A Planned Community is intended to ... include various types of uses, consistent with the General Plan through the adoption of a development plan that identifies land use relationships." Thus, the PCD should be used to ensure consistency with existing land use plans and to provide cohesive community planning. For this reason, PCDs must exceed 10 acres in size. The 150 Newport Center Project claims to "ensure substantial compliance with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code," but fails utterly to do so. While a 10-acre or larger Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received City of Newport Beach 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) June 27, 2016 Page 3 of 19 parcel may require planning flexibility to achieve feasibility and consistency with surrounding land uses, there is no reason why a 1.26-acre parcel needs to employ the PCD to provide for a coordinated, comprehensive Project. Instead, the Project appears to be misusing the PCD designation to skirt regulations of the Newport Beach Municipal Code intended to provide consistency in land use planning. Although the Project is located in the southern section of Newport Center, which is governed by height limits of 32 and 37 feet, the Project would be seven stories tall and reach a height of 83 feet, 6 inches once rooftop appurtenances are included. Allowing an 83-foot-tall building in the southern section of Newport Center would create a significant change to the existing overall plan for Newport Center. Such a large change, which no doubt would become precedent for future developments in the area, should not be undertaken with a waiver of the area limits for a PCD. The Project also fails to fulfill the purpose of the PCD, Zoning Code section 20.56.010, and other zoning laws that require consideration of the relationship of the proposed development plan to the goals, policies, and actions of the General Plan because the Project is inconsistent with the General Plan. The Project proposes a Planned Community Development District in an "effort to ensure broader coordination and consistency with the surrounding neighborhoods, and to include a higher level of architectural quality supporting the Newport Center environment with pedestrian connectivity." This language is meaningless, misleading, and misrepresents the Project contained in the application. Instead of providing for greater consistency, this Project would be five to six stories higher than surrounding buildings; it could not be less consistent with its surroundings. The Project would also completely change the appearance of the neighborhood. In addition to the change in height, the building is much bulkier and provides for less open space than surrounding parcels. The result is that the Project would change the visual characteristics of the area from an area of low-rise commercial and office space with considerable landscaping and large setbacks to an area more representative of central city mass, bulk, and height. An example of the change in building intensity is the Project's proposal for three stories of underground parking and its inclusion as a project objective. Underground parking has not yet been requested in the southern, low-rise section of Newport Center because it is not needed under the existing lower-intensity land uses provided by the City's governing land use plans. If the City intends to increase the intensity and density of uses in the southern portion of Newport Center, it can only do so with the adoption of a full-scale General Plan Land Use Amendment for the southerly portion of Newport Center between Newport Center Drive and Pacific Coast Highway. Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received City of Newport Beach 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) June 27, 2016 Page 4 of 19 Granting the Project's application for a PCD for a Project that is up to six stories higher and much more intense in use than surrounding properties, based on a policy of ensuring land use consistency, undermines the integrity of the PCD District and the Newport Beach Zoning Code. The Project's application for a PCD must be denied. Further, the City cannot make the findings required for approval of a PCD. The City cannot approve a PCD that would "allow an increase in the height of a structure above the base height"until it finds: • The project is providing additional amenities beyond those that are otherwise required, such as additional landscaped open space, increased setback and open areas, and enhancement and protection of public views; • The project is architecturally designed to provide visual interest through the use of light and shadow, recessed planes, vertical elements, and varied roof planes; • The project's increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changes; and • The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without approval of the height increase; (Municipal Code section 20.30.060(0)(3).) Since the Project proposes 49 units on a parcel just over one-acre in size, the Applicant's ability to provide landscaped open space and setbacks is limited. The Project's 83-foot height has the potential to block and disrupt public views, but not to protect them. If the City were to approve the Project, the precedent set for future development in the area would harm, not protect, public views. The City cannot make the first required finding. The City also cannot make the third finding, that the Project's increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changes. Buildings surrounding the Project site are one- and two-stories in height. The transition from a single-story to a 7-story building will be abrupt as no gradual transition is provided by the Project. Finally, the City cannot make the fourth finding. The Project proposes 163,260 square feet of development on a 1.26-acre parcel. However, the base height for the area is only 32 or 37 feet, depending on the selected roof line. The Applicant could not get 163,200 square feet into a building of this height that otherwise complies with setback requirements. The City cannot make at least three of the findings required to grant the requested PCD application. In order to grant the Project's application for a site plan, the City must find that the Project (1) is allowed within the subject zoning district; (2) is in compliance with the applicable criteria of Municipal Code section 20.52.080 (C)(2)(c); and (3) is not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City. (DEIR p. 4.7-19.) The Project fails to meet all three requirements. Even if the City were to approve the Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received City of Newport Beach 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) June 27, 2016 Page 5 of 19 Project's requested zone change to satisfy the first requirement, the Project would still fail to meet the second two requirements. Pursuant to Municipal Code section 20.50.080(C)(2)(c), site plan review cannot occur unless the Project complies with the General Plan and the Zoning Code; the Project has a harmonious relationship with adjacent developments; the Project is compatible in terms of bulk and scale; and the Project protects significant views from public rights of way. The Project does not meet any of these criteria. Finally, the approval of a Project that requires so many deviations from the General Plan and other governing documents would be "detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City." The Project must be revised before the City may legally consider approval. II. The Project is Inconsistent with the General Plan's Land Use Element. The Project remains inconsistent with the General Plan's Land Use Element, as well. As discussed in SPON's October 2015 comments, all projects approved in a city must be consistent with the general plan and its elements. "The general plan is atop the hierarchy of local government law regulating land use." (Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1183.) For this reason, the General Plan has been described "the constitution for future development." (DeVita v. Napa (1995) 9 CalAth 763, 773, internal citations omitted.) The 150 Newport Center Project is inconsistent with several policies of the City's Land Use Element and cannot be approved. Policy LU 6.14.4 of the Land Use Element focuses on reinforcing "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 elevation toward the southwesterly edge along Pacific Coast Highway." Instead, the Project proposes constructing a seven-story building in the southeasterly section of Newport Center. At this site, only a low-rise Project would be consistent with the City's Land Use Element and General Plan. Policy LU 1.6 of the Land Use Element requires the City to "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." Regarding the Project's 83-foot-plus height, the DEIR claims that the Project's architectural design is complementary in type, form, scale, and character with existing and proposed surrounding land uses. This statement relies on the existence of high-rise buildings in the upper/northerly portion of Newport Center. However, these taller buildings with which the Project would be consistent are not actually located near the Project. In order to Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received City of Newport Beach 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) June 27, 2016 Page 6 of 19 protect views consistent with the policies of the Land Use Element, the plans for Newport Center provide for taller buildings to the north along San Joaquin Hills Road with gradually decreasing heights toward the ocean and low-rise buildings abutting Pacific Coast Highway and nearby neighborhoods. The placement of an 83-foot-tall building in an area of low-rise development would block important public views of scenic resources. For example, public views of the Pacific from Fashion Island would be compromised. Thus, the Project is inconsistent with General Plan policies designed to protect and enhance such views. As proposed, the 150 Newport Center Project is inconsistent with at least two policies of the City's Land Use Element and General Plan. The Project should be revised to respect the City's constitution for development. III. The Project Requires a Vote Pursuant to the Greenlight Initiative. The City's Greenlight Initiative permits the construction of 100 dwelling units beyond those contained in the General Plan without a vote. While the Project proposes only 49 units in Statistical Area L 1, 79 of the 100 units that could be constructed without a vote were already constructed in the San Joaquin Plaza development. If the Applicant wishes to proceed without a vote, only 21 units could be developed. The City cannot circumvent the Greenlight Initiative. The DEIR defers the analysis of the impact of the Greenlight Initiative on the Project until future Planning Commission and City Council review of the Project. (DEIR p. 4.7-20.) However, if the Project would be subject to a vote of the electorate, which could substantially delay the Project, this is information that is appropriate now. Based on information available to SPON, a maximum of 21 units could be developed without a vote. In other arenas, the City has claimed that additional dwelling units above the 100 are permissible without a vote because there are unconstructed hotel rooms at the Marriott Hotel site. However, residential "dwelling units" and visitor-serving commercial "hotel rooms" are not the same thing as defined and regulated by the City's governing documents. In order for the City's claim to have support, these hotel rooms would first need to be legally converted into dwelling units and then be transferred to some project site. The existing planning documents for these sites prohibit these results. The land use planning for the Marriott Hotel site does not permit residential uses, and while the Newport North Planned Community text governing San Joaquin Plaza permits the transfer of development rights among sub-areas, "Residential use may be relocated, but may not be converted to or from another use." (emphasis added.) Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received City of Newport Beach 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) June 27, 2016 Page 7 of 19 Therefore, the City must rely on its implementation procedures for the Greenlight Initiative, which provide that the City Council shall submit an Amendment to the voters if"[t]he Amendment authorizes an increase in the number of dwelling units for the property or area that is the subject of the Amendment that exceeds one hundred (100) dwelling units when compared to the General Plan before approval of the Amendment." The Project would bring the area beyond the 100 units permissible without a vote. Compliance with the Greenlight Initiative is required. IV. The Draft Environmental Impact Report Must Be Revised and Recirculated to Comply with CEQA. 1. The Alternatives Analysis is Inadequate. CEQA provides, "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." (Pub. Resources Code § 21002.) To that end, CEQA requires an EIR to contain an alternatives analysis that examines feasible alternatives to a proposed project that would "avoid or substantially lessen" the significant impacts. (Ibid.) The alternatives analysis is the "core of the EIR." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal 3d 553, 564.) CEQA imposes a high standard when a lead agency is proposing to reject an alternative considered in an EIR. "One of[an EIR's] major functions . . . is to ensure that all reasonable alternatives to proposed projects are thoroughly assessed by the responsible official." (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n. v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 400.) Further, "Under CEQA, the public agency bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating that...the agency's approval of the proposed project followed meaningful consideration of alternatives and mitigation measures." (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish and Game Commission (1997) 16 CalAth 105, 134.) The adoption of a less damaging feasible alternative is the equivalent of the adoption of feasible mitigation measure. (Laurel Heights, supra, 47 Cal. 3d at 403.) Such an alternative or mitigation measure must be adopted by the lead agency unless the lead agency can demonstrate that the mitigation is "truly infeasible." (City of Marina v. Board of Trustees of the California State University (2006) 39 Cal. 4th 341, 368.) The alternatives analysis of this DEIR is constrained by artificially narrow project objectives. What constitutes a reasonable range of alternatives is determined by the project objectives. (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a).) As written, in order to satisfy most of the Project objectives, any alternative studied in the EIR must be a multi-family luxury condominium tower with maximum lot coverage and underground parking. (DEIR p. ES-3.) In fact, 5 of the 11 project objectives require construction of a residential project. (Objectives E, F, G, H, J.) Residential use of the site is not currently permitted and Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received City of Newport Beach 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) June 27, 2016 Page 8 of 19 requires approval of both an amendment to the General Plan land use designation and a zoning change. However, the objectives presented in the DEIR prevent serious consideration of a non-residential project alternative. The objectives are impermissibly narrow in violation of CEQA. (In Re Bay Delta Coordinated Environmental Impact Report Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal. 4th 1143, 1166 ["a lead agency may not give a project's purpose an artificially narrow definition"].) The lead agency must exercise its independent judgment on project objectives, and must not uncritically accept the applicant's objectives. (Pub. Resources Code § 21082.1 (c)(1); Uphold Our Heritage v. Town of Woodside (2007) 147 Cal.AppAth 587; Preservation Action Council v. City of San Jose (2006) 141 Cal.AppAth 1336, 1352; Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.AppAth 1437, 1460.) The DEIR rejects the No Project/Office Redevelopment Alternative for meeting only 4 of the Project's unusually specific objectives. (DEIR p. 6-19.) Per the DEIR, the Office Redevelopment Alternative is an 8,500 square foot office building with surface parking. The alternative, as designed, automatically fails to meet the 5 objectives focused on providing residential uses and the objective of providing underground parking. As discussed above, the objectives are impermissibly narrow. However, the DEIR also claims that the Office Redevelopment Alternative could not meet the objective of being financially feasible to construct and operate (Objective B). (DEIR p. 6-19.) No justification for this is provided, considering that the Office Redevelopment Alternative is certainly less expensive to develop than the Project. Additionally, no justification or substantial evidence is provided for why this alternative could not be developed with underground parking to meet objective D. This alternative should be reconfigured as an alternative that meets all of the Project's non-residential objectives and analyzed in a recirculated DEIR. The DEIR improperly rejects the Commercial/Restaurant Redevelopment Alternative for the same reasons —it was designed to fail. Just like the Office Redevelopment Alternative, this alternative fails to meet the 5 residential objectives, and just like the Office Redevelopment Alternative, the Commercial Restaurant Redevelopment Alternative is inexplicably devoid of underground parking (Objective D) and financially infeasible (Objective B). This alternative must be redesigned to meet these objectives, and the DEIR must be recirculated. This alternative is also designed with another flaw—the DEIR admits that it was "developed to the highest traffic- generating use per existing land use and zoning designations." Unsurprisingly, the DEIR then concludes that the alternative is not environmentally superior because it would generate significant, adverse traffic impacts that the Project allegedly would not. (DEIR p. 6-26.) A DEIR cannot choose to analyze only infeasible alternatives and alternatives that would have greater impacts than the Project. Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received City of Newport Beach 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) June 27, 2016 Page 9 of 19 The DEIR's use of only straw men alternatives violates CEQA's requirement that the alternatives analysis analyze feasible alternatives developed to avoid or reduce a Project's environmental impacts. Here, the DEIR analyzes alternatives that are either designed to be infeasible, designed to have greater environmental impacts, or both. The DEIR does not even analyze what seems like the most obvious use of the property that would conform to current planning and zoning limits —redevelopment of the existing car wash business. Instead, the DEIR dismisses this viable option as financially infeasible because other car washes in Newport Beach have recently renovated. (DEIR p. 6-4.) The DEIR provides no substantial evidence for the conclusion that the alternative is financially infeasible just because two other car washes have renovated. If anything, renovation of the car wash would help it compete with the other car washes in the area. The DEIR also claims that the Applicant plans to stop operating the existing car wash regardless of whether the City approves the Project, but no rational explanation is provided for why a property owner would stop operating a profitable business before obtaining the necessary approvals for its next venture. Also improperly constrained by the Project's impermissibly narrow objectives is the consideration of off-site alternatives. The Project description states, "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 located within walking distance to employment, shopping, entertainment, and recreation." (DEIR p. 3-2.) The DEIR then uses the "in the Newport Center area" language in Objective A to reject the consideration of off-site alternatives. (DEIR p. 6-5.) Yet the Project seeks several components that are prohibited at the Project site by the City's governing documents: a height above 32 or 37 feet, residential uses, and large square footage. The failure of off-site alternatives to be located in Newport Center is not a sufficient justification for rejecting off-site alternatives. Alternatives are not required to meet all project objectives, and in reality it "is virtually a given that the alternatives to a project will not attain all of the project's objectives." (Watsonville Pilots Assn v. City of Watsonville (2010) 183 Cal.AppAth 1059, 1087.) The DEIR should evaluate moving the proposed Project off-site. Off-site alternatives should be considered when "significant effects of the project would be avoided or lessened by putting the project in another location." (Guidelines §15126.6(f)(2)(A).) The DEIR claims that the analysis of off-site alternatives is unnecessary because the Project would not have significant environmental impacts. (DEIR p. 6-4.) As discussed below, this conclusion is unsupported. The CEQA Guidelines take a narrow view of what constraints would render an alternative site infeasible (for example, the lack of extractable resources on a site for a resource extraction project). (Guidelines §15126.6(f)(2)(B).) Furthermore, California Courts have Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received City of Newport Beach 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) June 27, 2016 Page 10 of 19 endorsed the use of rigorous off site alternatives analyses. (See, for example, Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553 [upholding EIR in part because of adequate analysis of an off site alternative] and Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal. App. 4th 1437 [EIR found inadequate for failure to assess an offsite alternative that would have reduced impacts].) The DEIR must be recirculated with an analysis of off-site alternative locations where the Project could be built without the adverse land use impacts and harmful precedent that would occur with approval in the proposed location. 2. The DEIR Fails to Disclose or Mitigate the Project's Adverse Impacts on Land Use. Where a local or regional policy of general applicability, such as an ordinance, is adopted in order to avoid or mitigate environmental effects, a conflict with that policy in itself indicates a potentially significant impact on the environment. (Pocket Protectors v. Sacramento (2005) 124 Cal.AppAth 903.) Indeed, any inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable land use plans must be discussed in an EIR. (CEQA Guidelines § 15125(d); City of Long Beach v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2009) 176 Cal. App. 4th 889, 918; Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency (2003) 108 Cal. App. 4th 859, 874 (EIR inadequate when Lead Agency failed to identify relationship of project to relevant local plans).) A Project's inconsistencies with local plans and policies constitute significant impacts under CEQA that must be disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated or avoided. (Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.AppAth 777, 783-4, 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 177; see also, County of El Dorado v. Dept. of Transp. (2005) 133 Cal.AppAth 1376 (fact that a project may be consistent with a plan, such as an air plan, does not necessarily mean that it does not have significant impacts).) The DEIR purports to use the correct threshold of significance for determining whether an impact on land use is significant. The threshold adopted by the DEIR is whether the Project or any component of the Project would "[c]onflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect." (DEIR p. 4.7-4.) Here, the Project conflicts with several policies and designations of the City's General Plan, as well as its zoning ordinance. (See, e.g., DEIR p. 4.7-10 ["the proposed Project would be inconsistent with Policy LU 6.14.2"].) Yet the DEIR fails to deem these impacts significant so that they can be mitigated or eliminated with redesign of the Project. (DEIR p. 4.7-5; See DEIR p. 4.7-10 ["the proposed Project would be inconsistent with Policy LU 6.14.2, however, no impacts would be significant and unavoidable".) Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received City of Newport Beach 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) June 27, 2016 Page 11 of 19 In addition to Policy LU 6.14.2, the Project conflicts with at least three other policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, Policies LU 1.6, LU 3.2 and LU 6.14.4. Instead of properly admitting these inconsistencies and redesigning the Project for consistency, the DEIR distorts its description of the existing conditions at Newport Center in order to claim consistency with the General Plan. (DEIR p. 4.7-9.) With regard to General Plan Policy LU 1.6, regarding public views, the DEIR states, "The Project's architectural design has been designed to be complementary in type, form, scale, and character with existing and planned surrounding land uses...Accordingly, the Project would be consistent with Policy LU 1.6." (Ibid.) The Project is 7 stories tall, as compared to surrounding uses, which are only one or two stories tall. The Project would also occupy most of the property, as compared to the much smaller surrounding uses which feature large setbacks and surface parking. Thus, the Project is not "complementary in type, form, or scale." An 83-foot-tall building cannot "protect, and...enhance significant scenic and visual sources" as mandated by the General Plan. The DEIR's conclusions with regard to the Project's consistency with General Plan Policy LU 1.6 lack substantial evidence. The DEIR's analysis of consistency with other land use policies is similarly flawed. For example, the DEIR claims that the Project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 3.2, which calls for enhancing existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors with "uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character." (DEIR p. 4.7-9.) The Project conflicts with this policy for the same reasons it conflicts with Policy LU 1.6. Policy LU 3.2 also states "Changes in use and/or density/intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship, and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs..." (DEIR p. 4.7-9.) Newport Center is not underperforming economically, nor is the change in use or intensity "necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of the projected regional population growth." On the contrary, the Initial Study prepared for the Project concluded that the DEIR did not need to address population impacts because the 5 dwelling units assigned to the City in the 2014-2021 Regional Housing Needs Assessment would be established elsewhere. (IS pp. 65-66.) This change is unnecessary, and the Project is inconsistent with General Plan LU 3.2, a significant, unmitigated impact on land use. The DEIR's analysis of the Project's consistency with General Plan Policy LU 6.14.4 results in a failure of the DEIR to disclose the Project's significant land use impacts, environmental impacts, and a failure to provide an accurate baseline. An EIR must accurately describe the existing conditions at the project site in order to provide a baseline for environmental analysis. (CEQA Guidelines 15125.) Use of an improper baseline infects the adequacy of the analysis and violates CEQA. Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received City of Newport Beach 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) June 27, 2016 Page 12 of 19 In analyzing Policy 6.14.4, pertaining to reinforcing 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," the DEIR skews the environmental baseline with regard to the heights of existing buildings. In reality, existing structures near the Project site include office buildings ranging from 24 to 27 feet in height, situated to the southwest; buildings of 2 to 3 stories buildings located across Anacapa Drive to the east; buildings of 23 to 25 feet in height located across Newport Center Drive to the north; and an approved height limit of 50 feet for buildings located in Block 100, although existing buildings are shorter. By contrast, the DEIR compares the Project to the 16 to 21-story high-rise buildings along San Joaquin Hills Road to conclude that the Project would not have a significant impact. (DEIR p. 4.7-11.) Specifically, the DEIR states, "Although the Project would result in the construction of a building that is higher than the immediately surrounding buildings, the proposed building would be much lower in scale than other developments within the northeasterly area of the Newport Center Area." (Ibid.) While this may be correct, the Project would still be ten feet taller than the tallest mall building across Newport Center Drive and 50 to 60 feet taller than the surrounding buildings. As a result, the Project would not be consistent with the Policy 6.14.4 goal of"scaling down building mass and height to follow the lower elevations toward the southwesterly edge along Pacific Coast Highway." The Project is inconsistent with the policy, and the DEIR must be revised to reflect this significant environmental impact. The Project's proposal to use a Planned Community Development District to provide for changes in zoning that include changes in use and increased height and mass would have a significant impact on land use that is not disclosed in the DEIR. At 1.26 acres in size, the Project is less than the 10 acres in size required for use of a PCD. The Project does not satisfy the City's requirements for a waiver of the 10-acre minimum. Additionally, the City cannot make the findings required to approve a PCD for a height increase required by Municipal Code section 20.030.060(C)(3). Therefore, any proposed use of the waiver and PCD for this Project would create a significant land use impact. The DEIR does not address whether use of a PCD presents a land use impact. The Project is also an example of"spot zoning," wherein zone and land use changes are applied to a single property. This applicant requests a land use change to a land use that differs from that provided for surrounding parcels. Spot zoning is discouraged by the courts because it thwarts comprehensive land use planning. "Case- by-case reconsideration of regional land-use policies, in the context of a project-specific EIR, is the very antithesis of that goal." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 572 -573.) This spot zoning is another significant land use impact that the DEIR fails to disclose, analyze, and mitigate. Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received City of Newport Beach 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) June 27, 2016 Page 13 of 19 The EIR is required to analyze the Project's potential for cumulative impacts related to land use planning in the Newport Center region. As defined by CEQA, "The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time." (CEQA Guidelines § 15355(b).) The cumulative impacts analysis exists to prevent cities from considering projects in a vacuum and to avoid a piecemeal approach to project decision-making. The Court of Appeal has stated than an improper cumulative impact analysis "avoids analyzing the severity of the problem and allows approval of projects which, when taken in isolation, appear insignificant but when viewed together, appear startling." (Kings County Farm Bureau, supra 221 Cal.App.3d at pp. 739-740). As pointed out by SPON and other commenters during the comment period for the mitigated negative declaration, this Project sets a precedent for relaxing height limitations in an area that has been developed with primarily two-story buildings. The Project would also set a precedent for permitting use of PCDs to avoid existing land use restrictions for small parcels. The DEIR's failure to analyze the impacts of relaxed height limits, spot zoning, and increases in bulk, mass, and residential development in the Newport Center area violates CEQA. The City's Greenlight Initiative (City Charter section 423) permits the construction of 100 dwelling units beyond those contained in the General Plan without a vote. While the Project proposes only 49 units, 79 of the 100 units that could be constructed without a vote were already constructed in the San Joaquin Plaza development. Thus, the Project would construct a number of dwelling units in the Project area that the City lacks the authority to approve. This is a significant impact on land use that must be eliminated unless the City plans to subject the Project to a vote of its residents. A general plan must be integrated and internally consistent both among the different elements, and within each element. (Government Code § 65300.5.) If the existing general plan is inadequate in any manner relevant to the uses sought by the land use approval, that land use approval is necessarily void. (Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176, 1184, see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 741.) The City has claimed that these 79 dwelling units were lawfully converted to residential dwelling units and do not count against the 100 units permitted under the Greenlight Initiative without a public vote. But even if these land use conversions were authorized and not considered general Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received City of Newport Beach 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) June 27, 2016 Page 14 of 19 plan amendments, implementing transfers and conversions without amending the general plan land use tables leads to inconsistencies with and within the City's General Plan. Thus, the Project would cause a significant impact on land use by contributing to the disparity between the General Plan land use tables and approved development and by contributing to internal inconsistencies within the General Plan. As required by Government Code section 65302, the General Plan's land use element includes standards of population density (measured in numbers of persons) and building intensity(using measures such as site coverage, floor-to-area ratio, building type and size, or units per acre). However, these tables have not been updated to reflect changes in use in the Newport Center area. This has resulted in City approvals that are inconsistent with the General Plan land use table limits, as well as inconsistencies within the General Plan itself. The City may not lawfully approve the Project as proposed. 3. The DEIR Ignores the Project's Adverse Impacts on Aesthetics. CEQA requires consideration of impacts to public views. (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn, Inc. v. Montecito Water Dist. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396.) The Project's height in excess of 83 feet would result in diminished views of the Pacific Ocean from Fashion Island, as well as likely cumulative impacts as nearby properties seek to use PLDs and other means to evade height and bulk restrictions in the area. Despite these potential impacts to public views, which require disclosure, analysis, and mitigation in an EIR, the DEIR fails to acknowledge that the Project will have any significant impacts on views. This conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence. On the contrary, the Project will diminish public and private views from Harbor View neighborhoods situated along MacArthur Blvd. as well as from public roadways. Members of the public situated in these areas will see lighted buildings and a much taller skyline when looking toward the ocean, resulting in obscured ocean views. In order to protect the City's treasured views, the City of Newport Beach adopted a Sight Plane Ordinance in 1971 (Ordinance 137 1) which provided height limitations for buildings within the Civic Center sites, known as the "Civic Center Sight Plane." (DEIR p. 4.7-4.) The Corporate Plaza Planned Community, Ordinance 1496, was adopted in 1975 for the Civic Center site, bounded by Pacific Coast Highway, Avocado Avenue, Farallon Drive (now Civic Center Drive), and Newport Center Drive. Pursuant to this Sight Plane, buildings within this area are limited to 32 feet in height. The Project site is immediately adjacent to the Corporate Plaza Planned Community subject to the Sight Plane Ordinance. (DEIR p. 4.7-4.) In addition to providing for inconsistent land use, the Project's 83-foot-height will also result in impacts to these Sight Planes. The DEIR denies this, claiming that because the Project is located east of the affected area, it cannot Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received City of Newport Beach 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) June 27, 2016 Page 15 of 19 violate the Site Plane Ordinance. While this is correct, the Project's increase in height will obscure views from the east westward across the Sight Plane Ordinance area, a significant aesthetic (and land use) impact that would violate all of the General Plan policies outlined on pages 4.1-8 and 9 of the DEIR. The DEIR compares the Project to the 200 and 300-foot-tall buildings located in taller portions of Newport Center in order to obscure its inconsistency with the heights of buildings located near the Project site. (DEIR p. 4.1-22.) The height of existing structures in the vicinity of this Project are: • Office buildings to the southwest: approximately 24 feet to 27 feet; • Buildings directly across Anacapa Drive to the east: 2-3 stories; • Buildings located to the north across Newport Center Drive: 23 -25 feet; • Height limits for Block 100 are 50 feet although current buildings are lower. The DEIR's comparison to the higher-rise buildings located in the northern part of Newport Center is misleading, at best. The Project is proposed for the southerly section of Newport Center intentionally planned as low-rise in order to maintain a Sight Plane consistent with views toward the ocean and surrounding neighborhoods. Any development to the contrary will result in significant adverse impacts on both aesthetics and land use that were not properly disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated in the DEIR. As requested by SPON during the MND comment process, the DEIR provides view simulations. Unfortunately, these simulations appear to have been chosen to obscure, rather than disclose, the Project's aesthetic impacts. For example, View 1 purports to show the Project's aesthetic impact from Newport Center Drive looking southeast toward the Project site. (DEIR p. 4.1-15.) The DEIR claims that impacts to public views are less than significant because only a few building floors will be visible behind vegetation. The specific trees in the view simulation only screen the Project if a pedestrian is standing in the exact spot. Any substantial movement forward or backward along the street will result in the Project dominating southeast views. The image of View 3, purporting to show potential impacts from Newport Center Drive looking southwest, is too small. A viewer can barely ascertain the landmarks in the image, let alone locate the Project. (DEIR p. 4.1-17.) View 4 is plagued by the same deficiency. The image of the Project's likely impact of views from MacArthur Boulevard is barely one inch tall. (DEIR p. 4.1-18.) If it were possible to enlarge the image further, the Project's impact would likely seem significant. Larger simulations are needed to provide substantial evidence that the Project would not have significant impacts. The DEIR does not provide view simulations from the public open space areas next to Macy's and the Fashion Island escalators as requested by SPON during the MND Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received City of Newport Beach 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) June 27, 2016 Page 16 of 19 comment period. This vantage point looks south directly over the existing carwash toward the ocean and would be dominated by the proposed Project's 83-foot-tower. The DEIR admits that views of the ocean from Fashion Island might be affected, but claims that this need not be addressed or mitigated. (DEIR p. 4.1-23.) It is unclear why the DEIR finds that the Fashion Island corridors and parking lot are publicly accessible for purposes of determining a significant impact but implies that the shopping center itself and the open space areas to the south are not. Although on private property, the center is publicly accessible, and disclosure of these admittedly significant impacts to public views is required. This significant aesthetic impact must be disclosed to the public and mitigated or avoided by redesign of the Project. The recirculated DEIR should also provide view simulations of the Project's impacts on views from these corridors and parking lot. View simulations from the bridge over San Miguel Drive near the Civic Center have also been requested and not provided. 4. The DEIR Fails to Study Potentially Significant Population and Growth-Inducing Impacts. The DEIR did not study the Project's potential for population and growth-inducing impacts, even though City approval of the 150 Newport Center Project would set a precedent for a change of non-residential uses to high-density housing. This precedent could have a potentially significant effect if surrounding property owners seek permits for similar projects with increased height, bulk, mass and change in use. The initial study's conclusion that this would not occur lacks substantial evidence. The Project's population and growth-inducing impacts must be analyzed in a recirculated DEIR. 5. Adverse Cumulative Impacts are Inadequately Analyzed. Cumulative impact analysis is important because "One of the most important environmental lessons evident from past experience is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources." (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720.) While the City has included a list of cumulative projects in the DEIR, this list is limited to those that are foreseeable under the current zoning and General Plan. (DEIR p. 4.7-22.) This analysis omits any discussion of the precedent-setting nature of this Project, which would permit spot-zoning and use of a PCD to evade height and other limitations that would otherwise apply to the Project site. The Project sets a whole new precedent for heights in the lower Newport Center area. The adjacent properties in Block 100 are limited to 50 feet in height but are currently only 22 feet tall. The properties immediately adjacent to Block 100 to the south are currently limited in height by the Sight Plane Ordinance. The City's proposed precedent could result in these height limits being lifted at any time, resulting in significant new growth, mass, bulk and height inconsistent with surrounding Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received City of Newport Beach 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) June 27, 2016 Page 17 of 19 neighborhood that has not been analyzed under CEQA or in connection with the City's Land Use Element or other planning documents. The cumulative impacts analysis is therefore incomplete, as there is substantial likelihood that the increase in bulk, mass and heights of the Project will set a precedent for new applications of similar size and impact. In San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 61, the Court of Appeal found that, absent meaningful cumulative analysis, there would never be any awareness or control over the speed and manner of development in downtown San Francisco. In that case, the court found the city's refusal to take into account other similar development projects to be a violation of CEQA. (Id. at 634.) "Without that control, `piecemeal development would inevitably cause havoc in virtually every aspect of the urban environment."' (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720.) Similarly, without adequate cumulative analysis of the City's disregard for existing height and bulk limitations in Newport Center, the City will lose control over development of the area. The City's conclusion that the Project has no potential to contribute to cumulatively significant impacts lacks substantial evidence. (DEIR pp. 4.7-22; 4.1-26, 27.) 6. The DEIR Fails to Disclose or Analyze Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The DEIR fails to analyze the Project's contribution to climate change impacts, in reliance on the initial study's conclusion that the Project would not emit more than 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent gases per year. (ES-9, IS p. 52.) There must be a basis within the record to support the conclusions reached by the initial study. (Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4' 1170, 1201.) The initial study states that the City relies on the South Coast Air Quality Management District's draft screening guidelines, which provide a greenhouse gas (GHG) threshold of significance of 3,000 metric tons per year. (IS p. 52, Appendix E p. 30.) However, these are draft guidelines that have never been adopted and are not yet enforceable or applicable to the Project. The technical appendix admits this, "Currently, there are no adopted thresholds for GHG emissions for projects within the SCAQMD region." (Appendix E, p. 29.) This unadopted threshold of significance fails to provide substantial evidence for the DEIR's failure to analyze the Project's greenhouse gas emissions. A GHG analysis must be provided in a recirculated DEIR. Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received City of Newport Beach 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) June 27, 2016 Page 18 of 19 7. Project Mitigation is Inadequate. The DEIR claims, "after application of all feasible mitigation measures, the Project would not result in any unavoidable effects." For this statement to be true, the Project's mitigation measures must be enforceable and 100 percent effective. Unfortunately, this is not the case. MM 4.8-1 prohibits construction staging before 7:00 a.m. without the "express written consent of the Building Official,"but it does not prevent this staging, or its potentially significant early morning noise, from occurring. The measure also requires notification of the Granville community before early morning construction would occur, which, again, does not prevent adverse noise impacts from early morning construction activities. The measure states that sound blankets would be used to minimize early morning noise, but a sound blanket does not eliminate all of the construction that occurs within. A sound blanket's effectiveness is also limited by the height of the fence upon which it is hung, the height of potentially affected receptors, and the open air nature of construction. Mitigation measure 4.8-1 will not reduce the Project's potentially significant early morning noise to a level below significance. Such impacts could be reduced by prohibiting construction staging before 7:00 a.m. altogether. MM 4.8-2 requires the construction contractor to inspect motorized construction equipment on a monthly basis to ensure that noise-attenuating mufflers are properly installed. The measure does not require that all construction equipment contain noise- attenuating mufflers, however, so equipment without such mufflers could conceivably be used. The measure also does not require that mufflers that are found not to be properly installed be fixed or replaced within an enforceable time frame. These loopholes must be removed from this mitigation measure for it to be effective and achieve the noise reductions claimed by the DEIR. V. The Development Agreement Must Be Made Available. The DEIR lists the Project's development agreement as part of the project studied within, but the development agreement has not been released for public review. The development agreement must be released for public review so that the public and City decision makers can ensure that the DEIR has disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated all aspects of the Project before it is considered for approval. Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received City of Newport Beach 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) June 27, 2016 Page 19 of 19 Conclusion Due to the 150 Newport Center Project's failure to comply with the City's General Plan and other governing land use documents and the DEIR's failure to adequately disclose, analyze, and mitigate the Project's likely significant impacts on land use, aesthetics, and other areas of environmental impact, SPON asks the City to revise and recirculate the DEIR. Compliance with CEQA will require additional analysis of the Project's direct and cumulative impacts, the development of efficacious mitigation measures, and the analysis of feasible alternatives that are directed at reducing the Project's significant impacts while respecting the City's General Plan. The City must also analyze and disclose the Project's compliance with the Greenlight Initiative, since the election requirement will affect further processing of the Project. SPON looks forward to reviewing the revised DEIR for the Project. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, - 1 Michelle N. Black, on behalf of Stop Polluting Our Newport cc: Kimberly Brandt AICP, Community Development Director kbrandt(&newportbeachca.gov Brenda Wisneski, Deputy Director, Community Development bwi sne ski(a,newportbeachc a.gov Patrick Alford, Planning Program Manager palford@newportbeachca.gov Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: From a citizen, Mary Schiendler From: Dick and Mary Schiendler [mailto:schiendlercacox.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 11:06 AM To: Nova, Makana Subject: From a citizen, Mary Schiendler I support the very crucial work that SPON is doing on our behalf. To us, the citizens, residents and neighbors in this community, it is heart sickening to watch the massive over development of Newport Beach. It is apparent that the over building and complete disregard for us, the tax payers, water and power users, the people who can hardly find a parking place in our own neighborhoods and Fashion Island even before the new developments are completed, is due to the greed on all parts. What has happened to the importance of keeping the existing long time and supportive residents a first priority? The knowledge that our city government and the developers could care less about us is truly disheartening. There seems to be a lack of vision on our city government's part. These days, people are fleeing even from the Westside of LA due to traffic congestion, over population, the difficulty in even getting to the market, let alone finding a place to park. Businesses are moving, and Clubs, such as L A Country Club are losing members due to the impossible amount of time it takes to get there and home again. Maybe this expansion in Newport Beach will keep going, again with total disregard to its citizens, until one day it, too, will reach a breaking point and residents, businesses and more will start to leave. Where is the future vision of our leaders? Can't they be content with what we already have, a gorgeous, accessible, easy and wonderful place to live. Why break this? Who is willing to listen to us who live here? Who is going to take responsibility for the future demise our own quality of life here in Newport Beach? The words heart breaking and heart sickening hardly begin to describe the feelings I have about this irresponsible overdevelopment. Mary Schiendler 2706 Wavecrest Drive Corona del Mar, CA 92625 i Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center, Banning Ranch, Museum House and MacArthur Square Shopping Center as specifics -----Original Message----- From: Lynn Friedman [mailto:haus2ful@gmail.coml Sent: Wednesday,July 20, 2016 11:42 AM To: Kramer, Kory; Brown,Tim; Koetting, Peter; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik;Zak, Peter; Brandt, Kim; Nova, Makana Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center, Banning Ranch, Museum House and MacArthur Square Shopping Center as specifics Dear City Planners and Staff, The citizens and city have drawn a General Plan to address the concerns of over-development and to protect the qualities of Newport Beach that most of us moved here to enjoy. It is outrageous that the City Council would choose to accept development projects which do not fit in the General Plan, and not even with asking the citizens to decide if they would agree to have it built. This development of 150 Newport Center is yet another of these developments, along with Banning Ranch development (cited AS OPEN SPACE TO PRESERVE in our General Plan of 2005-who changd it???? Not the citizens), the Museum House skyskraper being proposed (do we not have height restrictions in our general plan???), and the MacArthur Square Shopping Center specifically, although there are others already in building phase I could add to the list. Why are we cutting back on water uses as residents if it is only to be stretched once again because of the huge amount of added residents you are bringing in with these developments???? We already have water issues. What about all the concerns about MORE traffic??? We already have issues here. What about our commitment to preserving Open Space???? What about the residents request to keep the Newport Beach feel as a small beach town??? Why did we even take the time to construct a General Plan if the City Council ignores it??? Please regard the General Plan as a working tool, not something to ignore. Also please regard the citizens input as an integral part of any additional building in our lovely Newport Beach. We have a treasure of a city but it is losing out to builders which can end up creating another Huntington Beach. We would live there if that is what we wished for our city to look like. Thank you for listening, Lynn Friedman 31 year resident Newport Beach 1 Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) From: Brandt, Kim Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 3:28 PM To: Biddle,Jennifer; Mackinen, Traci Subject: FW: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center F<.I.Vk& From: TOMLU BAKER [mailto:tomlubaker(cbhotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 3:24 PM To: Kramer, Kory; Brown, Tim; Koetting, Peter; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Zak, Peter; InfOCCDSPON- NewoortBeach.org; Brandt, Kim; Nova, Makana; Dept- City Council; City Clerk's Office Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center The proposed 150 Newport Center contains many negative factors including: 1) Inappropriate change in height 2) Incorrect Spot Zoning 3) Detrimental Growth Precedent for the lower portion of Newport Center. This project should be disapproved, until it is revised to conform to the General Plan and the associated Commercial Building Height constraints (32 feet). Sincerely, Lu Anne and Tom Baker 150 Newport Center is on our WATCH LIST for three important reasons: 1. It is an abrupt change my in height 2. It is a classic example of spot zoning 3. It sets a terrible precedent for growth in the lower 1 Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3p Additional Materials Received 213) portion of Newport Center If the project is not revised to comply with General Plan rules, which allow commercial buildings up to 32 feet tall, then it must not be approved. z Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3q Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) July 21 , 2016, Planning Commission Agenda Item Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item submitted by: Jim Mosher( iimmosher(o),vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 3. 150 NEWPORT CENTER (PA2014-213) In my opinion, this proposal has at least four major problems: 1. It requires major deviations from the current General Plan, developed over several years of planning and negotiation and approved by the voters in 2006. The City is not required to grant such deviations, and in this case no compelling reason for doing so is offered. 2. It would add to the General Plan a number of residential units which, when combined with previous non-voter-approved additions, exceeds the threshold found in the City Charter requiring voter approval of the change. 3. It fails to meet the criteria for a Planned Community. 4. The proposed height exceeds the City's longstanding hard (but often misunderstood or ignored) limit on the maximum height allowed for multifamily structures, whether in a Planned Community, or not. The General Plan Problems As indicated on handwritten page 4 of the staff report, the voter-approved 2006 General Plan anticipated that a certain mix of increased residential, hotel, retail, commercial and office uses might need to be added to Newport Center over the time period 2006-2025. But the present proposal conflicts with that voter-approved vision in at least these ways: 1. It adds housing beyond the quantity anticipated in the 2006 Plan, and in an area not planned for it. 2. In doing so it both takes away from the planned mix of commercial development and, as eloquently articulated by Ron Schwartz (the owner of Muldoon's Irish Pub) at the Commission's June 23, 2016, study session, creates unwanted incompatibilities with the uses that do comply with the Plan — namely, the new residents will likely be disturbed by the existing and permitted adjacent uses that are part of the 2006 Plan. 3. It is likewise incompatible with the longstanding vision of Newport Center as sloping down from high-rise to low-rise in going from the San Joaquin Hills Road/Avocado corner to Coast Highway and Jamboree. In fact, when a proposal for a boutique hotel at 150 Newport Center was presented by the same applicants to the Land Use Element Amendment Advisory Committee in 2013, the incompatibility of such a proposal with General Plan Policy LU 6.14.4 ("Development Scale") was noted, and various changes to it were considered. It is unclear how the present proposal could be approved by amending only the land use and not the policy and vision —yet no compelling reason for changing the General Plan has been offered. For example, based on the applicants' presentation at the study session, and the staff report, it most definitely does not offer the affordable housing which the report says was the primary vision in 2006 for the character of the needed increased housing at Newport Center. Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3q Additional Materials Received July 21, 2016, PC agenda item 3 comments - Jim Mosher 150 N t4dnter (PA2014-213) The Greenlight Problem Since 2000, Section 423 ("Greenlight") of the Newport Beach City Charter has required voter approval of changes to the General Plan when the accumulation of non-voter-approved changes crosses specified thresholds for dwelling units, floor area or traffic. Since the Charter is the constitution of the City, any interpretation of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinances or other Council policies that could be read as allowing additions to the General Plan in these categories and over these thresholds without voter approval is clearly invalid. In 2006, the voters approved a maximum potential for 450 future dwelling units to be added to the MU-H3 land use areas of Newport Center through 2025. On July 24, 2012, without further voter approval, the City Council approved converting 79 of the voter-approved potential future hotel rooms in Newport Center into 79 future Newport Center residential dwelling units, via Resolution 2012-63. This was processed as a "conversion and transfer' rather a formal General Plan Amendment, but no known authority for converting voter- approved uses without a GPA exists. Indeed, the possibility of adding a policy to the General Plan allowing administrative conversion of Newport Center hotel rooms (non-residential)to dwelling units (residential)was considered by the City Council during the debate over the 2006 General Plan update, and rejected because of its inconsistency with Greenlight; and NBMC Section 20.46.030.0 explicitly affirms that transfers involving residential units have to be unit for unit, and cannot be justified by equivalency of traffic, or some other reasoning. Moreover, Planning staff has acknowledged that the Land Use Tables need to eventually be updated to reflect the changed General Plan. Together with these 79 previously added units, the present proposal for 45 more units brings the number of non-voter-approved residential units added to the General Plan for the Newport Center statistical area to 79 + 45 = 124, which is clearly over the Greenlight threshold of 100. Any interpretation suggesting this action does not require a vote of the people is inconsistent with the people's Charter to which this City government is bound. The Planned Community Problem The applicants are seeking for their property to be declared a Planned Community District, but it does not fit the vision for use of future Planned Communities in the 2006 General Plan, nor does it appear to meet any of the criteria for creating a Planned Community in the Planning and Zoning Code: 1. It is not one of the anticipated "large scale development projects permitted by the General Plan" (2006 General Plan Implementation Program, Chapter 4/Program 4.1). 2. It is not even close to having the 10 acres considered a minimum to achieve the purposes of NBMC Chapter 20.56 ("Planned Community District Procedures"), and in part because of that it cannot offer the intended diversity of uses. Planning staff appears to view something as a potential "Planned Community" if it simply complements surrounding uses. But that would make sense only if the small parcel were formally incorporated into a larger existing Planned Community, allowing for legally enforceable, comprehensive coordination, as is expected in the code. Creating a series of small balkanized Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3q Additional Materials Received July 21, 2016, PC agenda item 3 comments - Jim Mosher 150 N $t46nter (PA2014-213) individual properties, each calling themselves a Planned Community with its own separate rules, on the rationale that together they are somehow "planned," makes no sense. Ironically, the Planning Commission minutes from October 2009 indicate that the then-owners of this property were among those asking to be incorporated into the "North Newport Center Planned Community District" when the interior portion of Block 100, and other Irvine Company owned properties, were being considered for addition to it, but they were rebuffed. The Height Problem Planning staff appears to believe that with the declaration of a Planned Community District, any building height can be allowed, provided only the findings of current NBMC Section 20.30.060.C.3 can be made. Although a number of projects have been approved on that basis, that is clearly a misinterpretation of the intent of the current code, arising, it would seem, from a lack of appreciation for the history of where the current provisions came from. During an earlier phase of Newport's history(see for example Ordinance 635 from 1951), most development, including residential, was allowed to go to 35 feet, with structures of four units or more (including hotels) being allowed to go to 75 feet (or possibly higher in some commercial areas) with a use permit. Public backlash against residential towers appearing around the harbor led, in 1971, to an emergency one-year moratorium on all construction over 35 feet in a newly-declared Shoreline Height Limitation Zone (Ordinance 1408), and a year later to the adoption of strict, permanent height limits throughout the City (Ordinance 1454). This placed three unit or more multifamily housing, anywhere in the City, within a 28/32 foot Height Limitation Zone, meaning that 28 feet was the normal maximum, but it could be increased to a maximum of 32 feet with the adoption of a Planned Community, a Specific plan or a Use Permit, provided the findings of what is now Section 20.30.060.C.3 (and was then Section 20.09.040) could be made. No subsequent amendments have been intended to change that regulatory structure. Indeed, the Summary of Changes in the Comprehensive Zoning Code Update of 2010 assured the public and the Council that "Height limits are not changing" (line 5 from bottom on page 6 of the 17 page PDF), and the immediately preceding Zoning Code (see Section 20.65.050 of Ordinance 97-9) made the by then historic policy regarding allowable heights in Planned Communities crystal clear: "the height limits shall be established as part of the Planned Community Development Plan;provided, however, that in no event shall the development exceed the height limits permitted in the height limitation zones as set forth under Section 20.65.040." Although this language does not seem to have been carried over into the "new" Title 20 of 2010, if"Height limits are not changing" this remains the land use policy in Newport Beach. As a result, and despite the past errors and misinterpretations, independent of whether this parcel could be called a "Planned Community," the Planning Commission cannot approve a plan for a multifamily residential structure exceeding the height limits set for an RM zone in the current NBMC Section 20.30.060.C.2.b, namely an absolute "maximum of thirty-two (32) feet with a flat roof or thirty-seven (37) feet with a sloped roof." Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3q Additional Materials Received July 21, 2016, PC agenda item 3 comments - Jim Mosher 150 N@VQ§oftQtdnter (PA2014-213) The only way a 55 or 65.5 foot tall structure could be approved would be with a variance to the Zoning Code, and it is difficult to see what the justification for that variance would be (I don't personally believe that parity with past erroneously approved permits is a justification). Other Problems with the Staff Report Since the present proposal has all the glaringly obvious problems noted above, and more, a more thorough scrutiny of the staff report seems largely superfluous, but it might be observed that it contains a host of curious statements that cast doubt on the reliability of its other parts. Here is a somewhat random sampling of a few that caught my eye on the pages I read: Handwritten page 3: "On August 6, 1970, the Planning Commission approved Use Permit No. UP1461 for the construction of an automatic car wash with gasoline sales." The permit was actually approved on December 18, 1969. The latter date was merely a change in business name and signage. Handwritten page 4: "This land use designation is based on the existing car wash development, which is developed with an 8,500-square-foot building." This is a curious reversal of how one would hope planning is done. If the 2006 General Plan simply memorializes whatever is present, then it isn't really a plan. The fundamental problem with the current proposal is it isn't consistent with the current zoning. Hopefully the car wash was approved because it was consistent with the then existing zoning and Master Plan (if the City had one), and not the other way around. Handwritten page 4: "Edwards Big Newport Cinema and restaurants such as Muldoon's Irish Pub are directly across the street." To the best of my recollection, Edwards Cinema is not directly across the street. Handwritten page 5: "At this time, the height limit for the interior portion of Block 100 was raised to 50 feet with an additional 10 feet for mechanical appurtenances." The 2009 incorporation of the interior of Block 100 into the North Newport Center Planned Community did indeed raise the height limit from 32 feet to what was acknowledged as the maximum allowed with adoption of a PCD (50 feet), but that seems to have been done quite arbitrarily and without making the required findings (see Item 2, October 22, 2009, PC meeting). And the "10 feet for mechanical appurtenances" was not added until 2015. Handwritten page 5: "On November 4, 2014, the voters denied Measure Yin a 30.8% yes to 60.2% no result." 69.2% voted no —a number the Planning Commission, as representatives of the public, may wish to keep in might regarding public attitudes toward expanding Newport Center beyond the limits allowed in the 2006 General Plan. Handwritten page 13: Table 1 places the Meridian project in the North Newport Center Planned Community (PC-56). It is in fact in the Santa Barbara Residential Planned Community (PC 54). Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3r Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center -----Original Message----- From: Gordon Beach [mailto:ebeach07@me.com] Sent: Wednesday,July 20, 2016 3:46 PM To: Dept-City Council; City Clerk's Office; InfoC@SPON-NewportBeach.org Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center We are opposed to eliminating the car wash at Newport Center and building a high rise for the privileged few. Congestion is already a problem at Newport Center and Fashion Island-traffice and parking getting impossible with more coming with the 540 units at Jamboree and San Joaquin. Traffic on Mac Arthur and Jamboree seems to be getting heavier by the day. Lowering the proposed complex by 10 feet is laughable. How much density is enough? How much traffic is enough? It seems to us that this doesn't really fit the Master Plan-this constant increasing density no longer makes any sense. Common sense is always a good idea-seems to be missing here. Greer and Gordon Beach 32 Long Bay Or Newport Beach t Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3r Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) From: Cindy <Cindy@itsawonderfulworld.org> Sent: Thursday,July 21, 2016 9:35 AM To: Dept- City Council; City Clerk's Office; Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center A 52 year resident votes NO to the illegal high rise on the Car Wash site in Newport Center! 1 Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3r Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center From: Chuck Hardy [mailto:CHardy cblee-associates.com] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 10:41 AM To: Nova, Makana Subject: RE: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center Makana: I think its important for me to point out that I am a resident of Newport Beach. I live at 516 Narcissus, Corona Del Mar Phone No 949 720 9728 Thank you. Chuck Chuck Hardy I Principal Lee&Associates Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. -Orange Direct:714-564-7131 Cell:714-396-6728 Fax: 714-543-5285 1004 W.Taft Avenue,Suite 150 Orange,CA 92865 chardv@lee-associates.com LEE � Ass©ciarEs• COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES A Member of the Lee&Associates Group of Companies Corporate ID#01011260—Agent ID#00482557 l L t f In Confidentiality Notice:The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attachment(s)is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential.If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient,unauthorized use,disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited,and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error,please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail,and delete the original message and all copies from your system.Thank you. From: Nova, Makana [mailto:MNova@newportbeachca.govl Sent:Thursday,July 21, 2016 10:34 AM To: Chuck Hardy<CHardy@lee-associates.com> Subject: RE: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center Chuck, 1 Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3r Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Thank you for your comments regarding 150 Newport Center. I will have your comments distributed to the Planning Commission for their consideration. HOLAOLsa. ADVOL I ASSOCIATE PLANNER, AICP Planning Division I Community Development Department City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive I Newport Beach, CA 92660 P. 949.644.3249 m nova 5 new oortbeach ca.aov www.new Do rtbeach ca.a ov From: Chuck Hardy [mailto:CHardy@lee-associates.coml Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 10:02 AM To: Kramer, Kory; Brown, Tim; Koetting, Peter; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Zak, Peter; InfoCoISPON- NewoortBeach.org; Brandt, Kim; Nova, Makana Cc: kentmooreCnlroadrunner.co Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center APPROVAL FOR RESIDENTIAL AT THE CAR WASH SITE IS A TERRIBLE IDEA, EVEN WITH THE REDUCED HEIGHT. WHAT ARE YOU GUYS THINKING? THIS IS CRASS POLITICAL INFLUENCE AT ITS WORST AND A COMPLETE REDUCTION IN THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR NEWPORT RESIDENTS ANY CHANGE SHOULD BE TO AN OFFICE USAGE Chuck Hardy Chuck Hardy I Principal Lee&Associates Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.-Orange Direct: 714-564-7131 Cell:714-396-6728 Fax: 714-543-5285 1004 W.Taft Avenue,Suite 150 Orange,CA 92865 chardv(@Iee-associates.com LEE SI ,A$SQCIATE$' COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES A Member of the Lee&Associates Group of Companies Corporate ID#01011260—Agent ID 400482557 " I Ir—�, la" t f h Confidentiality Notice:The information contained in this electronic e-mail and any accompanying attach ment(s)is intended only for the use of the intended recipient and may be confidential.If any reader of this communication is not the intended recipient,unauthorized use,disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited,and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error,please immediately notify the sender by return e-mail,and delete the original message and all copies from your system.Thank you. 2 Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3r Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) From: Brandt, Kim Sent: Thursday,July 21, 2016 11:26 AM To: Biddle,Jennifer; Mackinen, Traci Subject: FW: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center Project Kivu. From: BethKiley rmailto:emkai)r)Oaol.coml Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 11:17 AM To: Kramer, Kory; Koetting, Peter; Zak, Peter; Dunlap, Bill; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Brandt, Kim; Nova, Makana; infoalineinthesandoac.com Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center Project Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to express my concern and opposition to any change in the general plan to allow for more high densit development in the Fashion Island area. As a longtime resident of Corona del Mar I appreciate our current General plan, quality of life,manageable traffic and services. The current economic cycle which makes multi-family development exceedingly profitable for the developers leaves the community with high-density projects which will forever change the face & lifestyle within the area. I hope that you feel your job is to represent the population and people in your community rather than high-net- worth individuals looking to increase their profit margins. Please support and maintain the existing General plan with no exceptions. I appreciate your hard work and consideration of my letter and opposition to this and any other high-density projects being proposed within the city at the current time. Respectfully, Elizabeth Kiley 2 Sandbar dr Corona del Mar Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device 1 Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3s Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center From: Beverly Moosmann rmaiIto:bblaisesaColvahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 2:34 PM To: Kramer, Kory; Brown, Tim; Koetting, Peter; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Zak, Peter; Info(a7SPON- NewportBeach.org; Brandt, Kim; Nova, Makana Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I am unable to attend the meeting this evening and wish to express my opinion regarding the 150 Newport Center proposed development. First, it is important to consider the lengthy and involved process in developing the Newport Beach General Plan, which was approved by the residents of Newport Beach. The General Plan, as submitted to the voters, focused on conserving the existing pattern of land use and established policies for protecting our community. It also provides guidance to preserve the qualities that define the development of Newport Beach. The proposed 150 Newport Center development requires a General Plan Amendment, a zoning amendment, a height restriction exception and a waiver of the planned community 10-acred minimum. The Green Light Initiative and the sound defeat of Measure Y in 2014, which sought to update the General Plan through redistribution of land uses, including in Newport Center, should serve as an indicator as to how the residents of Newport Beach feel about the continued development of Newport Center through projects such as 150 Newport Center. The property on which this project has been proposed, is surrounded by 2-story commercial buildings. There are no residential structures in this area. To construct two 7-story residential building (or two 5-story buildings with the same number of units) at this location is inconsistent with the General Plan and incompatible with the esthetics and character of this area of Newport Beach. Furthermore, one must ask if 150 Newport Center is allowed to proceed, how many more residential complexes will be proposed and how many more people will be brought into Newport Beach to use our city services, water and our infrastructure? As a 37-year resident of Newport Beach, I have seen significant changes in our city that appear to be at the whim of the developers and inconsistent with the residents of Newport Beach, who have strongly voiced their opposition to continued development. Such development has done nothing to enhance life in our beautiful city. Instead, we routinely experience dramatically increased traffic issues and have to question if our water usage is already restricted, how can Newport Beach provide more people with water and city services? Furthermore, to the extent that the reason for allowing developments such as this proposed project is to provide people working in Newport Center/Fashion Island with new housing options, it must be noted most of the housing built thus far and that which has been proposed, is hardly affordable housing. 1 Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3s Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) In closing, based on the above, I strongly urge that this proposed project be denied in full. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Beverly Blais Moosmann 2 Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3s Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center Project From: suz9921Cabamail.com [mailto:suz9921Cabamail.com] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 2:27 PM To: Kramer, Kory; Koetting, Peter; Zak, Peter; Dunlap, Bill; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Brandt, Kim; Nova, Makana; info(cNineinthesandpac.com Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center Project No to this project—It Crosses the Sand and has received special treatment, disregards the General Plan and sets a character-changing precedent in Fashion Island. Suzanne Wyrick t Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3s Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) From: karen99 <karen99@roadrunner.com> Sent: Thursday,July 21, 2016 2:53 PM To: Dept- City Council; City Clerk's Office; Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center No to increasing the height limit in Fashion Island. Karen Lyons Coronal del Mar t Planning Commission - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3s Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) From: suz9921@gmail.com Sent: Thursday,July 21, 2016 2:26 PM To: Dept- City Council; City Clerk's Office; Info@LineintheSandPAC.com Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center Project No to this project. It Crosses the Sand, has received special treatment, disregards the General Plan and sets a character-changing precedent in Fashion Island. Suzanne Wyrick t Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3t Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: RE: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center Project From: Lila Crespin rmailto:babaiov28Calomail.com1 Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 4:51 PM To: Kramer, Kory; Koetting, Peter; Zak, Peter; Dunlap, Bill; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Brandt, Kim; Nova, Makana Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center Project Please do not change the requirements under the PRESENT GENEERAL PLAN for residential buildings. I am opposed to condominium high rises in Newport Beach. They change the aesthetic of our beautiful city and we end up looking like the west side of Los Angeles. Think of what you are approving for future developments if this goes through. Lila Crespin. Ph.D babaioy28Azmai1.com t Planning Commision - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3u Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center From: Christine Daily [mailto:christine dailv(ovahoo.coml Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 9:22 AM To: Kramer, Kory; Brown, Tim; Koetting, Peter; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Zak, Peter; InfoC1aSPON- NewportBeach.org; Brandt, Kim; Nova, Makana Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center Dear Commission, Our family is against the Museum House project, 26 story office tower at Newport Center. We love our small city by the sea and do not want to live in a version of itself that no longer resembles itself but rather that it resembles Century City. There are strains on water, traffic, and many more caused by this project and others like it. To continue adding residential space, the city must prepare the infrastructure. MacArthur and Jamboree will not be able to handle the traffic. First responders will have difficulty reaching those who need them because we do not have lanes of space in traffic to allow egress. The high school traffic is already at issue. Thank you for your concern. Best regards, Christine Daily Cell: (949) 677-8881 t Planning Commision - July 21, 2016 Item No. 3u Additional Materials Received 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) Subject: FW: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center From: Judy Bernstein [mailto:iudvbb12@amail.com] Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 9:54 AM To: Kramer, Kory; Brown, Tim; Koetting, Peter; Hillgren, Bradley; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Zak, Peter; Info@soon- newportbeach.org; Brandt, Kim; Nova, Makana Subject: Public Comments: 150 Newport Center am opposed to the proposed residential high rise at 150 Newport Center Drive. Most residents are also opposed. The only party in favor is the builder, so why would our beautiful city bend the rules to accommodate a proposal which enriches an outsider and leaves us forever with a precedent changing eyesore? Approving this project requires a General Plan amendment, a Zoning Code amendment, an increase in height limit and a waiver of the 10-acre minimum requirement for Planned Community Development. The proposed project sets a precedent for spot zoning, increasing height limits and a terrible precedent for undesired growth in the lower portion of Newport Center. The height limit in this area is 32'for a flat roof and 37'for a sloped roof. The applicant should be made to conform to our existing rules, proposing a shorter building with a smaller footprint. Our City staff has proposed all the ways to manipulate the system and the existing rules to make this project work. Why would we do that? Projecting minimal car trips is ludacris. The occupants are expected to be over 50 years old. They will drive, even from the condo across the street to Fashion Island, because they want to put their packages into their car trunk. Residents will not be captives of Fashion Island; hopefully, they would patronize all of the restaurants and stores of CDM, Mariner's Mile, the peninsula. It is foolhardy to belief you won't be adding car trips. Plus, those who patronize the current Car Wash will add car trips traveling through Newport Beach to reach a car wash further from home The height of the building is a major objection. Regardless of studies and photos, it does block residents' views. Additionally, it sets a dangerous precedent. If this building can go to 55', 61' with appurtenances, what prevents the next one from going to 65', etc? We have restrictions for a reason. It is your responsibility to apply them! The footprint is too massive. Again, it sets a precedent. If we allow 45-49 units to be built with minimal setbacks, what happens when the next application is submitted? Pretty soon our beautiful open spaces become built up like Manhattan. I am against approving the proposal for 150 Newport Center Drive. Please deny the application and enforce our planning code restrictions as written and voted upon by the residents! Thank You, Judy Bernstein, 2815 Blue Water Dr„ CDM 1 15o Newport Center �� .!I� �L' ■'SNI i 1 � �'il `'�• �.r u� rr....� ��__■�.�■r �_ � l1j Ir, I'' ■■DINT ■Mle I V- ir _ ■!�' �F Q u _15 lq .e �11�1— moi■ I •�I�-�� �Lr Planning Commission Public Hearing �► (PA2014-213) July 21, 2016 , Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 If 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 Commision - July 21 , 2016 ting Applicant"s Revised 11 213) Project Description 45 Condominium Dwelling Units proposed 65 -ft 6 - inches in height to top of roof (6 - stories) 69 feet 6- inches to top of mechanical appurtenances All code required parking is provided on -site in a 3 - level basement 07/21/2oi6 Community Development Department- Planning Division 3 Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 It ting 213) Presentation Outimine General Plan Land Use Amendment 2 . Zoning Code Amendment/Planned Community Development Plan Project Height 07/21/2oi6 Community Development Department- Planning Division 4 Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 ting 213) W PpQT 77 ,1 � � •1 zo2 '$•' zoo � t TI if LN IV E® ir� 1 , o � n 3L y.' "40 General Plan Land Use Amendment 07/21/2016 Community Development Department- Planning Division 6 Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 It ting 213) Newport Center GP Goal LU16 - 14 ■ "A successful mixed - use district that integrates economic and commercial centers serving the needs of Newport Beach residents and the subregion, with expanded opportunities for residents to live close to jobs, commerce, entertainment, and recreation, and is supported by a pedestrian - friendly environment . " Community Development Department- Planning Division 7 Planning Commision • 213) General Plan Land Use Map ULLM 74 41 4U •� ♦ ���� 43 44 39 Land Use Change: 1- PF LU COA Regional Commercial Office(CO-R) Anomaly 35 to Multiple Unit Residential(RM)Anomaly 62 I H � � 82 37 .Z 46 06 ��• . . ♦ , I I • • ,, 34 75 ��;,. Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 ltpm Uc) 3v Additinpal Materials, Presented atting '1 3) Residential in Newport Center Existing Developments 0 San Joaquin Hills Apartments ® The Colony Apartments @ The Meridlan Q Sea Island +7 _ Villa Point _- d Granville C Entitled Developments � NB Country Club Bungalows Proposed Developments 10 150 Newport Center 0524 units GC Museum House 100 ung (L FJ �: Q + t.A 245 units b un 4r 132 unkacs - �Bock$orY O V4.Pork 228 ��/`��,; 67 u ' 45 units - ''+rQ,vr..ae vg4P c F �'4$T Ptti, aPLy \G Dvg.. rk 07113/2012 \C 9 Zoning Code Amendment and Planned Community Development Plan 07/21/2016 Community Development Department- Planning Division 10 Zoning Land Use Map AL Zone Change: ' ♦ ,. Office Regional Commercial OR to � \\ Planned Community(PC-60) s� Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 It ting 213) Planned Community 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 12 Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 It ting 213) Planned Community = Purpose ■ "A. Classification and Development of Land . Provide for the classification and development of land as coordinated, comprehensive projects in order to take advantage of the superior environment resulting from large-scale community planning . ■ B. Diversification of Uses. Allow diversification of uses as they relate to each other in a physical and environmental arrangement while ensuring substantial compliance with the spirit, intent, and provisions of this Zoning Code. C. Development Plan and Text Materials. Include various types of uses, consistent with the General Plan through the adoption of a development plan and text materials that identify land use relationships and associated development standards." 07/21/2oi6 Community Development Department- Planning Division 13 Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 It ting 213) Planned Community = Purpose Residential in proximity to existing commercial office, retail, and recreation uses Minimizes sprawl, reduces traffic impacts, and locates housing near jobs in Newport Center. Coordinated as a component vision already set forth for the Newport Center area . Diversifies existing land uses in Newport Center PC creates more enforceable and specific standards . 07/21/2oi6 Community Development Department- Planning Division sq _____--�_--�!___-�•�_-1I_'_ _--._-��-•--�-•--11 Wil_ • Project Height 07113/2012 Community Development Department- Planning Division 15 Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 ting 213) 20 . 30 . o • ( Height Limits and Exceptions) Part C (Increase in Height Limit) I. "Procedure . The base height limits established in Part 2 of this title (Zoning Districts, Allowable Land Uses, and Zoning District Standards) may be increased within specified areas with the adoption of a Planned Community District, adoption of a specific plan, or approval of a planned development permit, or site development review. The maximum height limit is not guaranteed by right and shall require approval of a discretionary action when all applicable findings are met in compliance with subsection (C)(3) of this section (Required Findings) . Height limits established as part of an adopted planned community shall not be subject to this subsection. " 07/21/2016 Community Development Department- Planning Division 16 Planning Commision - July 21 , 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 17 Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3v Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 4-213) Legend HEIGHT 7 .28/33 feet m .32 137 feet i40 feet Building/10 feet Appurtenance O 150 feet Building 1 10 feet Appurtenance enance A �7C0 (� Fa I ISI ®75 feet Mall Buildings!10 feet Appurtenance .>100 feet m13 Newport Beach Country Club NES s s C99ti Block 300 y'0 �o 0 Blo R � Z $ Block 200 Q yEJ A Q".;'0 p ROW gT NFNTER DR IPJ Q� R W 150 Newport Center Drive If \ (PA2014-213) Clry of Ne W pori 8mch 0 340 660 cls r 07,2015 � m Feet onobo�,20 I s PA201A 21311eigh, Eehibllmxd Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 ting 213) Jr gPPr�ox 75' _ � _ ' I' �t �r t _ 113 \ e i r 'eP�r11 / 33 9 •1• 2a 42'6"building gb.y. RR S1 t gyp f ��� 3 stories architectural appurtenances w 17'2" 24 11 2 stories 14 3 stories 3 stones 's 3 64F. ! 6" r1Y ,y� t�a 2 stories ,> / :'+ 'a ✓ 71 tit27 ;2.9` y 3tl 3 t 43'2 6" 74.4" 3 , �j, 41 Ist ' % d ` r q1+� r 2stories 25'10.5" PIS1�Q v-- jr�•� �.lOJ 4� �w4 Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 ting 213) LiDar Data c '� La 1�3- � � • . �i A / 5 � 7.676994 4p" t� ' r4; cif. •. + 3` / :r • ' 1. 1 i } •� ;<. .� 23 66.1-t23 •�• • \+, 4 '-�-. / '� ii 125117218 �� •; � `,�,� � \ + ,� n / • 14 Co,a,o;�, Yf 76.,,. '► -\ '� n r `(jl 47.639025 29 903625 6914515 11 6'41552 \ 39.944062 38.527992 41.J5211 f22.b39269 d8?398334'12 893955 j 34.078685 c3Z 121131 �n� r 14W. ` 48 o7E8E2 .�' �,24.703438 1% r 16 67960J •, 32. '06 '04 ,24729007 �1 r, I . 12 586983 . . 7�A24803079 ' 25.4315p5 _ 3472 9 +� ` 1 Y" .563089 1!2 583069 4..7.ea. 27.79496 jb 267974l 27.094525 25.027457� `r/ 38.57088 65.21 137 �AIR p • "� :' ' `' !I:•3'r'" �., f' 27.561804 32 389177f4, 8917 f _ i. . '!7' 1 26 572264 " r 5438373 X291242616'„ z4s6zn � ;tel la•o!� e 1 li Planning Cornmision • 213) Applicant Requested East Elevation 691611 F- . . 11 -� Ik a - � siy95 is 1 ! 91W Ifl.l� yi li 1l:i:i!l1111 11 �I1 I1 li ELI .i�il.,lg„hl•,�l.,,, � �.■y9�i ��■■99y i61y�'1�: islisi�����lt■■�._.II._.II._.II._.0■Il:ill'ifli�ll f li■■111' 111 111■.��111■■ 07/21/2016 Community Development Department - Planning Division 22 ;r�a� 1! I:: � 1�■I� ' ■!__l! s!�■��l���lll����M�ll..._ !!__!! .!��SII! •ILIA L llls:�--_!lli:�, :,�� �E�'�'°�'� }��I:�::�: �3�:i'������1111�111111���•�iiili�ilu�iiiii���=�111111�1�113� I1a.�.����l��k�l����.,.11����. � ►■ a.e ' ka � �zs u _u rim •s_ rr . 1e...a•. . _as► ~ ♦?►rbc t®i �f!!�� i�llq� _i�� = ��'���s��,..� I y� I�_. e. I��I I��1 I��I .� .• � ? i � �' 3 F,moi I��,; ir■� iii � , 1011111ia�11111�1��,`oa"'-��_, -sy ,..���■ pialI'��a� ��`�,,,� 18�,1A19i11��������l�l���a'��,.■a G ��{fi l as���•+�I�f li!I�lagia�hll� c i �y� 111111_ 9iill�I_.,=:�=16■ hE�iir���il�!1��I�[�.� v�� � � �t_� �...����'i,� ' '���EEI��L_.-t1=1._...I�.��, ; = Applicant Requested Roof Plan Y •Ivi ---MIT. r I► , EEN J6"xw:u7wwC'cMAMMI sem / �I�'i a, ill _ tlli Im:9l. Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 If ting 213) Staff Recommended = Site Plan REQUIRED PPOPERIY —- _— _ - 55feet tothe top of roof _ ` '" r ❑ fIEWIRE➢PRQPERIV II NB r 61 feet to theSE ' g top of mechanical • L a ERS�NCE i appurtenances !, BOEWAIK TV UNMM PUNIER 1 I KOHL GPRPGE WALLUNDER � CPNLLEVEREQ PDDIUN 1 I , PROPERIYUNE' -- PNOPERrvLINE / REDUIREDPROPERIV 81 R� LNE SE�CK MRE IEGU MRE� "- NORE55/EGRESS 6tSEMEM FOOiPRWI PND CLUSIVEEPSEMEM 07/21/2016 Co m m u n it 0W INGRESS Mn EGRESS GVER PMCEL P P M.B.)S?L Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 Item Uc) 3v Additinpal Materials, Presented atting '1 3) Comparison of Building . . . South Driveway Setback - r . ck Setback zz feet Requested . . 24 feet 6 inches 22 feet 15 feet 2.58 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet o feet Reduced 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 10 feet 2.59 15 feet 15 feet 7 feet o feet 07/21/2oi6 Community Development Department- Planning Division 25 Staff Recommended Height • ■''rsifI111'"II11��1111��1 s1�1111■■1111= IIII�I� ■ •I 1_Isi it=Iwo 1 1.■1 1..1-moi I„�1i11 .e --1 - 1_ F. :111II�n� �l ..J_L.F_i.a� ����_I �t���.l���•� 1•�.�r_•��ii..rjJ�i.�l�•1����.��i••�•�__! ��������r• ii■666 1..466 . 666 666 ��a i�@ 9i'lii:�: :�: :�: :�:iiif� 66 46 I..I @d i'i�i� I1i11�ii1 l�@i��Gi "i..l114111!"SHE �I!!i'L! II!!u!1�lilMOMMMOMMInldll���■lII�!!Il..111!'LIr�•�'iu4..l".p.�r C In 'i. I.JII ■•III III III 11 11 i ,l+JI111■'i'-I'I-'il■IIf it "1II�II IliIp.1I1...111 ■� a� �• '1 '� � . �I fl'll •-n •1 I� wilI. .=G�r_�IIIIi����Y� YR►_- 1�� g17 1..1 1 ->i'.IF ■• NI ■ '11.1..1 t 1� ZF ice• r( 1.! i�lrl�l`` i Iti !�! _ M. i® - `�: � �alr..l1 _- I I III n!I IIS I !1l�I ... �'I[`.. l�!'1.11�illsLIMM Planning Commision • 213) Staff Recommended Height zz v� itl n , Planning Commision • 213) Staff Recommended Height 07/21/2oi6 Community Development Department- Planning Division 28 � " Ih•: �I` ' �e��_ Iii f _ . - ■ u ' �•!�r■ay ��i.c"""''.�ii�R� +� I �� '' �� lyll� 1�I•]III II II 1 �_ ��—a��."�) I'• I � ' ■ i in, a� .ru � �■`'n �'....,, , _, s�Yrw� 'ltv �I�YY.v�M � r I ■b,e• �'J' q,,• ■e �� r r -��M•ri■ �.�w•)) Rn ��-.,�c.;�_ ��.± -r11 r�!I_���■■�,u �I. , '. I�� 11 � ■sf^ , "—.7 ',i mow : r.�i ••� -p: r � t.=V � iiil iiol�Ev I � �'i �, � ,I II I Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 It 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 29 Figure NR3 ofthe General Plan View Simulation = Applicant's Proposed ri � �--1 L 6 -,"•� d .:. _grab „ -W. , fWit �� '� Y r 1 1•r /1 1 1 1, , �. 1"/AiI' �.d � � 1� ��`�'��, 11 I) �� ���I�f��. �1 ��+ �'� �r� � � �1 � �� �• F' 1.L�I' Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 It ting 213) 20 - 30 - o6o . C - 3 a . The project applicant is providing additional project amenities beyond those that are otherwise required . Examples of project amenities include, but are not limited to: i . Additional landscaped open space; ii . Increased setback and open areas; iii . Enhancement and protection of public views; and b. The architectural design of the project provides visual interest through the use of light and shadow, recessed planes, vertical elements, and varied roof planes; c. The increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changes or relationships being created between the proposed structure(s) and existing adjacent developments or public spaces. Where appropriate, the proposed structure(s) provides a gradual transition to taller or shorter structures on abutting properties; and d . The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the height increase. 07/21/201.6 Community Development Department - Planning Division 32 Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 ting 213) Public Comments ■ A total of 42 comments have been submitted by the public . Eight DER comments that do not pertain to CEQA issues were also forwarded for the Planning Commission 's consideration . 07/21/2oi6 Community Development Department- Planning Division 33 r *i a ti 4 I _ For more information contact: - Makana Nova,Associate Planner 949-644-3249 — mnova(a new port beach ca.gov www.newportbeachca.gov Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3w Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS OF "GREENLIGHT"? " Greenlight " or Charter Section 423 requires voter approval for major General Plan amendments. A major amendment means that one of these thresholds is exceeded : • Over 100 peak hour vehicle trips (traffic) • Over 100 dwelling units (density) ; and/or • Over 40,000 square fee of floor area (intensity) IMPORTANT! These thresholds are applied by Statistical Area and these thresholds are cumulative . 1 Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3w Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) STATISTICAL AREAS There are over 50 Statistical Areas in the City u L3 A2 Al M6 B1A3 H1 JP JJ J, LR B HF R1 BE Ci � 01 �. L1 M6 C1 M3 W EI F! II. F1 M1 b Ft M1 Di FL F3 FE H F] K FE 2 Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3w Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) WHEN IS A GREENLIGHT VOTE REQUIRED? IF any one of the thresholds is exceeded , which includes all previously-approved amendments approved in a Statistical Area over a 10-year period Then VOTER APPROVAL is required for the Project that causes the threshold to be exceeded . * The threshold calculation includes 80% of the cumulative total of previously-approved amendments. Voter approved amendments are not included in this cumulative total, 3 Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3w Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) THE CUMULATIVE TOTALS ARE TRACKED ,4�CwrpRT O R Y j y r n City of Newport Beach U 1y CharterSection ,king Table Statistical Ar .It(Neuwport Center) Poet ZW6 General Plan Amendments Approved Example ea4roa Land Use Elem.M July 1,2015(Updated April 15,2016( project Name Dant Project/GPA Amendment Square Footage Dwelling Unk AM peak Hour PM peak Hour Address Approved Number Dasaiption Cange Chop TIP Change TriPChage Civic Center and Park Site 11/25/2008 PA2008-152 Open Space(OS)to N/A 0 N/A N/A GP2008-005 Public Facilities(PF) Newport Beach Country Club 1/24/2012 PA2008-152 Parks and recreation 21,000 0 N/A N/A (Clubhouse) GP2008-005 (PR)-No Change 100%Totah 21,000 0 0 0 W%Totals 16,800 0 0 0 Remaining Capacity Without 25,200 100 100 100 Vista GPA—General Plan Amendment CLUP—Coastal Land Use Plan 100%Totals—Cumulative increases resulting from approved GPA's.Decreases are not included. SM Totals-Charter Section 423 requires that 80%of square footage,dwelling unit and peak hour trip increases of"Prior Amendments'be tracked for a period of 10 years and added to proposed general plan amendments located within the same Statistical Area to determine if the 423 GPA Thresholds are exceeded and a vote of the electorate required.Decreases in any category are not tracked. Charter Section 423 Thresholds:40,000 square feet of non-residential Floor area,100 dwelling units,100 AM or PM Peak Hour trips i City Counclresdution No200&W7includesthefolb ngfinding-The proposed amendmentrsref suyecf to Charter Sectim423becauseany rocossre in vehicle hips amteradybom pre GM Haff/amitymilrat result hom thepvposedamerMment Hafher dose aareases�n liaRlcaM�hfawty nNl resuMlran arM have been mxidalM by die vdaapprova'olMeasure Gant the resuiGrg addition dGharler BeNon 425 4 Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3w Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) HOW IT WORKS • Imagine each threshold as a Bucket • Once it is "filled"- voter approval is required for a General Plan Amendment 400 4M00001 4990 .1 9000001 100 Units 40,000 SF 100 AM Trips 100 PM Trips 5 Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3w Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) HOW IT WORKS PROJECT 1 • Project 1 is approved and it is below the threshold limits • No voter approval is required • Going forward Project I is reduced by 20 % and it remains in the "Bucket" for 70 years 100 Units 40,000 SF 100 AM Trips 100 PM Trips 6 Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3w Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) HOW IT WORKS PROJECT 1 • Project 1 is approved and it is below the threshold limits • No voter approval is required • Going forward Project I is reduced by 20 % and it remains in the "Bucket" for 70 years 100 Units 40,000 SF 100 AM Trips 100 PM Trips Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3w Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) HOW IT WORKS PROJECT 2 • Project 2 is approved • By itselfit is below the threshold limits • BUT when added to the Buckets with Project 1 (Past Approval) • Voter approval is required 100 Units 40,000 SF 100 AM Trips 100 PM Trips 8 Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3w Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) HOW IT WORKS PROJECT 2 • Project 2 is approved • By itself it is below the threshold limits • BUT when added to the Buckets with Past Approvals • Voter approval is required 9 0 400004 t77 • g i ptoject 1 1Y ' 100 Units 40,000 SF 100 AM Trips 100 PM Trips 9 Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3w Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) SO WHAT ARE THE NEWPORT CENTER BUCKET NUMBERS? For Newport Center- Wha t is the "a vailable " (Shown in GOLD) threshold in each Bucket before voter approval of a GPA is required? 101" 40000001 4000 6 100 Units 40,000 SF 100 AM Trips 100 PM Trips 10 Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3w Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) NEWPORT CENTER if 150 Newport Center Drive is approved, it will add: 100 units 23,2D0 SF 100 AM Trips 100 PM Tri �s -7- V 45 units 16,800 S ��� 2 trips 100 Units 40,000 SF 100 AM Trips 100 PM Trips Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3w Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) NEWPORT CENTER Then the 150 Newport Center #s are Reduced by 20% & Will Remain in the Buckets for 10 Years 100 units 23,200 SF 100 AM 'Trips 100 PM Tri s 4 36 units 7, 100 Units 40,000 SF 100 AM Trips 100 PM Trips Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3w Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) NEWPORT CENTER Then the revised 150 Newport Center Threshold #s would be: 64 units 23,200 SF 361" 100 Units 40,000 SF 100 AM Trips 100 PM Trips Planning Commision - July 21 , 2016 Item No. 3w Additional Materials Presented at Meeting 150 Newport Center (PA2014-213) 14