Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0 - The Residences at Newport Place - PA2014-150 P0 O CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT f 100 Civic Center Drive t� = Newport Beach,California 92660 �. 949 644-3200 14L<F069t newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment Memorandum To: Newport Beach Planning Commission From: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner, 949-644-3208, rung@newportbeachca.gov Date: June 9, 2016 Re: Item No. 5 - The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) The proposed application was originally scheduled for public hearing on the May 5, 2016, Planning Commission meeting and was continued to June 9, 2016. There have been no changes to the project, therefore, the May 5, 2016 staff report is submitted for the Planning Commission's consideration. The City has received several emails and written correspondence since the May 5, 2016, staff report was published. The correspondence is attached for consideration. A majority of the comments are supportive of the existing deli/restaurant and/or not in favor of affordable housing. One letter from Ms. Trottier provided late comments on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) suggesting the analysis of aesthetics, biological resources, public services (parks and schools), and transportation/traffic is inadequate. It is acknowledged that the scale of the proposed project is much larger than the existing development; however, the existing development and the surrounding area are not considered scenic. No protected public views through or near the site are present. Compatibility of the project with the area is a finding necessary for application approval. Redevelopment of underperforming commercial properties in the Airport Area with mixed-use developments up to 50 dwelling units per acre is allowed by the General Plan. Given that this would be the first project in the immediate vicinity, the project may be less compatible in the near term and more compatible as time goes on with anticipated future developments consistent with the General Plan. The site does not contain significant biological resources and with implementation of the conditions, mitigation measures and standard codes and regulations, water quality impacts will be avoided. The project requires implementation of a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) that will include structural and non-structural best management practices ensuring that storm water will not significantly impact Community Development Department the downstream receiving waters of the Upper Newport Bay. Storm water quality will improve over the existing condition given that the existing development provides no treatment and is not subject to a WQMP. The potential for nesting birds to be present that are protected by the Migratory Bird Act is acknowledged. Project approval does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility to comply. Should construction be planned during the bird nesting season, surveys must be prepared and active nests avoided. The comment letter asks how school buses will provide safe pick-up and drop-off for children living at the project. The letter goes on to suggest that the existing commercial area is not designed for infill residential land uses. The design of drop- off and pick-up locations for school-age children would be developed by the Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD). Long-term school facilities planning for the Irvine-Newport Development Area (INDA) is on-going. As growth continues in the INDA, more detailed planning will occur; however, at the present time, the SAUSD has indicated that busing is not consistent with the District's ideal neighborhood school model because it would result in long-term transportation costs. Nonetheless, the SAUSD would be involved in determining the most appropriate and safest locations for student pick-up and drop-off in the event that students generated by the project require busing. The comment makes the point that the requested waiver from the dedication of a one-half acre park and the provision of an undefined open space area does not support a conclusion of "No Impact" to parks. The project site is located in Service Area No. 4 and is not in deficit to the anticipated needs of the area. The no impact conclusion was also supported based upon the applicant's willingness to pay an in- lieu fee for the value of one-half acre of parkland, and allow public access to the open space area planned for the southerly portion of the project site. The General Plan policy that requires the one-half acre dedication also allows for the requirement to be waived. The applicant's proposal, as modified by staff's recommendation, provides one-half acre open space the park dedication would provide, funding for park improvements in the area, and public access through the site consistent with the General Plan during daylight hours. At most, the project's impact to park resources based upon these factors is "Less than Significant" if not "No Impact." Finally, Ms. Trottier's May 12, 2016 comment letter suggests there may be an impact related to traffic and multi-modal transportation options; however, the letter provides no facts to suggest the analysis in the MND is inadequate. As noted in the MND traffic analysis, there will be a net reduction in traffic to and from the site. The MND discusses the availability of public transportation provided by OCTA that serves the area and will serve the project. The MND also discusses the availability of bike lanes/trails and sidewalks to adequately serve future residents of the project site. In conclusion, the comments do not provide new information supporting a conclusion that the identified impacts of the project are more severe than described nor do the comments identify a potentially significant impact not previously identified in the MND. Therefore, staff and the environmental consultant conclude the MND to be adequate. Attachment: Written Correspondences Tmplt-02/05/15 Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 12:01 PM To: Biddle, Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional materials received for Newport Place From: Mendez, Christina [mailto:cmendez@swlaw.com],__.____.__..__.___...._._.__. Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 11:47 AM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: I Oppose The Housing Project 100 % Good morning, I have a strong feeling that everyone who believes in adding almost 400 more affordable housing units in this area will only take away from the city.There will be many people who will lose their business and their employees within. It is hard for me to make sense of the Project that is supposedly going to be affordable around this area. If by affordable you mean a 100 bucks or 200 bucks less than Irvine housing then are just saying what every other housing project managers say and it is a bunch of bologna that is not good for anyone except for the people profiting from the project just to put more money in their pockets and also overcrowd a very already busy area! I will talk to as many people that I can in regards to opposing this deal and also make sure that no one gives in to this housing project for the benefits of housing taxes that the city will earn in comparison to the taxes that are being made with the business center profits. I believe this is wrong and you are only hurting the lives for many who have worked hard to keep their business running and have established a good name by its customers and have earned a name for themselves, the American Way! O Again, I OPPOSE OF THE PROJECT FILE NO: PA2014-150, Located at Newport Place. 1 Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 12:56 PM To: Biddle,Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials Received for Newport Place From: Clemens, Todd [mailto:todd.clemens( tforoup.com] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 12:53 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Our Newport Place To Whom It May Concern, The proposed affordable housing project at Newport Place in Newport Beach would cause a large problem and inconvenience for hundreds of businesses and thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of employees and workers in this 1-3 mile radius.This location is being used for retail and restaurants and that is what we need, more places to eat and do commerce. Please understand that I share the same sentiment as thousands of other workers in this area. Keep Newport Place and Arnie's Manhattan Deli alive,we don't need affordable housing at this location. Todd Clemens Case Design TAX & FINANCIAL GROUP Tax& Financial Group 4001 MacArthur Blvd.,3"FI., Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel:949.223.8219, Fax:949.223.8697 Email:todd.clemens@tfaroup.com Tax&Financial Group,an affiliate of Securian,is independently operated Please do NOT send trade instructions via e-mail. Orders received via e-mail will NOT be honored,nor executed. 1 Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 12:58 PM To: Biddle,Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials Received for Newport Place From: Gabrielian, Mike [maiIto:Mike.Gabrielian@tfgroup.com] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 12:52 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: To Whom It May Concern, The proposed affordable housing project at Newport Place in Newport Beach would cause a large problem and inconvenience for hundreds of businesses and thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands)of employees and workers in this 1-3 mile radius.This location is being used for retail and restaurants and that is what we need, more places to eat and do commerce. Please understand that I share the same sentiment as thousands of other workers in this area. Keep Newport Place and Arnie's Manhattan Deli alive, we don't need affordable housing at this location. Thank you, Michael Gabrielian, CLU, CFP® Associate Partner CA Lic, No. 0730100 'laxi .s klaaGrogp R FWMIW 6¢nN:Oa Con�,.vA' "�`tlrsLinked 4001 MacArthur Blvd,Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Toll Free:800.373.2177 Direct:949.223.8507 Fax: 949.223.8101 Email: mike.gabrielian(ciltfgroup.com Website:www.tfciroui).com AiSttnM } 3� t 9185 em We are a proud supporter of the Make-A-Wish Foundation of Orange County and the Inland Empire. For more information please Click Here. 1 Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 12:59 PM To: Biddle, Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials received for Newport Place From: ]ulianel, Ben [mailto:Ben.3ulianel(cDtfgroup.com] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 12:41 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Project File No. PA2014-150 To Whom It May Concern, The proposed affordable housing project at Newport Place in Newport Beach would cause a large problem and inconvenience for hundreds of businesses and thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of employees and workers in this 1-3 mile radius.This location is being used for retail and restaurants and that is what we need, more places to eat and do commerce. Please understand that I share the same sentiment as thousands of other workers in this area. Keep Newport Place and Arnie's Manhattan Deli alive, we don't need affordable housing at this location. Ben Julianel Financial Strategist California Lic. No # OG75955 Tax 3��rlart €sG6arouy n K6wx;btsarvkox mpa� Tax&Financial Group 4001 MacArthur Boulevard 3,d Floor Newport Beach CA 92660 Direct:949.223.8292 Toll-Free:800.373.2177 Fax:949.223.8101. ben.julianelOtfgroup.com Investment Executive and Financial Advisor of Securian Financial Services,hlc,Member FINRA/SIPC&A Registered Investment Advisor. Tax&Financial Group,an affiliate of Secu.rian,is independently operated. Visit our website at www.tfgrouy com.Please do not send trade instructions via e-mail. Orders received via e-mail will not be honored,nor executed. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mall is intended only for its addressee and may contain information that is privileged,confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. if you have received this message in error,please immediately delete this e-mail transmission and notify Lis by telephone of this error. 1 Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 2:32 PM To: Biddle,Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials Received for Newport Place From: Iry Goldberg [mailto:irvbgoldberaCdamail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 2:29 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Project File No: PA2014-150 I am absolutely opposed to Project File No: PA2014-150 at Newport Place. Irwin B. Goldberg i Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 2:32 PM To: Biddle,Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials Received for Newport Place From: McCloskey, Dick [mailto:Dick.McCloskey@tfgroup.com] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 2:03 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Project File No. PA 2014-150 1 understand there is a proposal that effects Newport Place in Newport beach that is currently occupied by Arnie's Manhattan Deli a well as several other commercial enterprises. I would be greatly opposed to reclassifying for affordable housing. We need commerce and trade in this area as opposed to more traffic and noise The additional traffic over the last 10 years mostly caused by a flood of apartments and condos within a radius of a couple miles is nearly crippling. I hope this planned project will be reconsidered. Richard McCloskey Richard McCloskey Tax Fna$�ct�IGro_up 'A F6ian4fP18iM ea C.ampa,ry 4001 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tall Free: 800.373.2177 Direct: 949.223.8301 Fax: 949.223.8101 Email: dick.mccloskey(o tfgroup.com Website:www,tf.groul).com We are a proud supporter of the Make-A-Wish Foundation of Orange County and the Inland Empire. Please Join us in Celebrating our 20"'Annual Benefit Golf Tournament, Dinner&Auction. For more information visit us at: Securities and Investment Advisory Services offered through Securian Financial Services, Inc.,Member of FINRA/SIPC&A Registered Investment Advisor. Tax&Financial, an affiliate of Securian,is independently operated. Please do not send trade instructions via e-mail. Orders received via e- mail can not be honored,nor executed!Thank you! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended only for its addressee and may contain information that is privileged,confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this message in error, please immediately delete this e-mail transmission and notify us by telephone of this error. _ 1 Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Thursday,April 28, 2016 2:33 PM To: Biddle, Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials Received for Newport Place Attachments: image001.emz From: Anderle, Becky FinaIIto:Becky.Anderle(dtfgroup.com] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 1:48 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Affordable Housing Project in Newport Beach To Whom It May Concern, The proposed affordable housing project at Newport Place in Newport Beach would cause a large problem and inconvenience for hundreds of businesses and thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of employees and workers in this 1-3 mile radius.This location is being used for retail and restaurants and that is what we need, more places to eat and do commerce. Please understand that I share the same sentiment as thousands of other workers in this area. Keep Newport Place and Arnie's Manhattan Deli alive, we don't need affordable housing at this location. Regards, Becky Anderle Operations Specialist Tax & Financial Group 4001 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949)223-8329 - (949)223-8101 Fax Becky.anderle@tfgroup.com Visit our website at: www.tfgroup.com • Tax & Financial Group, an affiliate of Securian, is independently operated.11 Please do not send trade instructions via e-mail. Orders received via e-mail will not be honored, nor executed. Thank you! Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. i Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 2:34 PM To: Biddle,Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials for Newport Place From: Schoenek, Herbert [maiIto:herbert.schoenek@tfgroup.com] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 1:47 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Project File No. PA2014-150 To Whom It May Concern, The proposed affordable housing project at Newport Place in Newport Beach would cause a large problem and inconvenience for hundreds of businesses and thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands)of employees and workers in this 1-3 mile radius.This location is being used for retail and restaurants and that is what we need, more places to eat and do commerce. Please understand that I share the same sentiment as thousands of other workers in this area. Keep Newport Place and Arnie's Manhattan Deli alive,we don't need affordable housing at this location. Herbert Schoenek Financial Advisor California License No.0171399 Tax __ -inani is Group_ AFMaevtl SaMIX O pvry Tax&Financial Group 4001 MacArthur Blvd., 3rd Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Toll Free: 800.373.2177 r s Direct:949.223.8346 a4 Fax: 949.223.8101 Cell: 949.351.1113 " Ufdvlsa{ .�- Email: herbert.schoenek(o)tfgroup.com Website:www.tfaroUD.COM `m`a Linked Up � a We are a proud supporter of the Make-A-Wish Foundation of Orange County and the Inland Empire. For more information please Click Here. Securities and Investment Advisory Services offered through Securian Financial Services,Inc.,Member of FINRA/SIPC&a Registered Investment Advisor. Tax&Financial,an affiliate of Securian,is independently operated. Please do not send trade instructions via e-mail. Orders received via e- mail cannot be honored,nor executed!Thank you! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended only for its addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this message in error, please immediately delete this e-mail transmission and notify us by telephone of this error. 1 Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 2:35 PM To: Biddle,Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials for Newport Place From: Wilson, Kindra [mailto:Kindra.Wilson(&tfaroup.com] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 1:29 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Newport Place in Newport Beach (NO HOUSING) To Whom It May Concern, The proposed affordable housing project at Newport Place in Newport Beach would cause a large problem and inconvenience for hundreds of businesses and thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands)of employees and workers in this 1-3 mile radius.This location is being used for retail and restaurants and that is what we need, more places to eat and do commerce. Please understand that I share the same sentiment as thousands of other workers in this area. Keep Newport Place and Arnie's Manhattan Deli alive, we don't need affordable housing at this location. Kindra A. Wilson AIF@ Director of Advisor Professional Development "Integrity Is doing the right thing,even If nobody is watching." Tox a. tf Group r>"a��ect+si�Ar 4001 MacArthur Blvd.,Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Toll Free:800.373.2177 Direct:949.223.8291 Fax: 949.223.8101 Email: kind ramilson(gUgroup.com Website:www.tfgroup.com We are a proud supporter of the Make-A-Wish Foundation of Orange County and the Inland Empire. For more information visit us at: Securities and Investment Advisory Services offered through Securian Financial Services,Inc.,Member of FINRAISIPC&A Registered Investment Advisor. Tax&Financial,an affiliate of Securian,is independently operated. Please do not send trade instructions via e-mail. Orders received via e- mail can not be honored,nor executed!Thank you! CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail is intended only for its addressee and may contain information that is privileged,confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this message in error,please immediately delete this e-mail transmission and notify us by telephone of this error. 1 Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 2:35 PM To: Biddle, Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials for Newport Place -----Original Message----- From: Utley, Catherine fmailto:catherine.utlev@tfgroup.com] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 1:03 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Newport Place To Whom It May Concern, The proposed affordable housing project at Newport Place in Newport Beach would cause a large problem and inconvenience for hundreds of businesses and thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of employees and workers in this 1-3 mile radius.This location is being used for retail and restaurants and that is what we need, more places to eat and do commerce. Please understand that I share the same sentiment as thousands of other workers in this area. Keep Newport Place and Arnie's Manhattan Deli alive, we don't need affordable housing at this location. Catherine Utley 1 Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 2:59 PM To: Biddle, Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials received for Newport Place -----Original Message----- From: McMann, Erin [mailto:Erin.McMann@tfgroup.com] Sent: Thursday,April 28, 2016 2:54 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: PA 2014-150 To Whom It May Concern, The proposed affordable housing project at Newport Place in Newport Beach would cause a large problem and inconvenience for hundreds of businesses and thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of employees and workers in this 1-3 mile radius.This location is being used for retail and restaurants and that is what we need, more places to eat and do commerce. Please understand that I share the same sentiment as thousands of other workers in this area. Keep Newport Place and Arnie's Manhattan Deli alive, we don't need affordable housing at this location. Thank you for your consideration Regards, Erin McMann Sent from my iPhone 1 Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 4:03 PM To: Biddle,Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials Received for Newport Place From: Huston, Sheri [mailto:Sheri.Hustori@tfgroup.com] Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 3:28 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Project File No. PA2014-150 To Whom It May Concern, The proposed affordable housing project at Newport Place in Newport Beach would cause a large problem and inconvenience for hundreds of businesses and thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of employees and workers in this 1-3 mile radius.This location is being used for retail and restaurants and that is what we need, more places to eat and do commerce. Please understand that I share the same sentiment as thousands of other workers in this area. Keep Newport Place and Arnie's Manhattan Deli alive, we don't need affordable housing at this location. (Amn - 8411111 Sheri Huston 1 April 29, 2016 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, California To Whom It May Concern: I understand there is a public hearing scheduled for next Thursday, May 5, 2016,to discuss demolishing an entire center on Dove Street in Newport Beach. This center houses several restaurants (one of my favorites being Arnie's Manhattan Deli)which are busy every day during the lunch hour. They are very close to several businesses which makes it so easy for employees to have a nice lunch and be able to get back to work in a timely manner. I also understand that the plan is to put in approximately 400 affordable housing. Having 400 houses in this area is going to cause so much more traffic then we already have, and who would want to live in a house so close to an airport anyway?!? I hope you take my email seriously and think about how this will affect the several businesses in the area. There is already a shortage of restaurants in the area close enough to get in and out in an hour and be back to work on time. Thank you for your time. Ann Bergeman Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949)413-7319 (949)437-1000 Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Friday,April 29, 2016 11:54 AM To: Biddle, Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials received for Newport Place From: philipmatta ftahoo.com [mailto•philipmattaCalvahoo.com]�v_� Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 11:47 AM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Arnies Manhattan Deli! To whom it may concern, This email is to contest the closure / relocation of Arnies Manhattan Deli located at 1660 Dove Street in Newport Beach. I have been a resident of Newport Beach for a while now and enjoy having lunch at the place listed above. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Philippe Matta i Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 7:39 AM To: Biddle,Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials Received for Newport Place From: Newport Beach News [mailto:noreply(&newportbeachca aov] Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2016 2:02 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: WE DO NOT NEED MORE HOUSING I oppose project File#PA2014-150, located at Newport Place. We need places to eat and retail, not more affordable housing. Regards. i Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 7:38 AM To: Biddle,Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials Received for Newport Place From: Kent Paul [mailto:coach naul(a)att.net] Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2016 7:41 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Opposition to Project #PA2014-150 April 30,2016 Dear Ms. Ung: My name is Kent M. Paul. I have been a resident in the southeast section of Costa Mesa, bordering Newport Beach since 1957. 1 have also been an educator and a coach in the Newport Mesa Unified School District for the past 35+years. Consequently,throughout the years, I have been witness to tremendous changes in both communities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. These changes have not always been for the betterment of our cities and their residents. It is for that reason I am sending this e-mail. I'm writing in opposition to the project file#PA2014-150. The last thing this community needs is more so-called "affordable housing". We are already overrun with traffic, parking problems and overcrowding. Adding 400 more housing units to the area will just increase these already existing problems. Besides the area in question has been zoned for business for decades and that's how it should remain. It is not suitable for residential development. An increase of problems is just one issue.We would also lose valuable retail space. Arnie's Manhattan Deli has been a mainstay in the community for nearly 30 years. Running these types of establishments out of business is not fair to them and not fair to the many who patronize them. It's difficult enough running a small business without being faced with the possibility of being displaced too. Slowly throughout the years these independent"mom and pop" merchants have been disappearing because of needless developments such as the one which is now being proposed. News of this proposal and hearing has seemed to develop overnight. Was there notification to neighboring businesses and/or residents? Has there been any type of environmental study to determine the impact of the community if housing is allowed to be developed? Has the community been made aware of these plans and have they had the proper time to voice their opinions? I am hoping that significant consideration of the impact this development will have on the existing community will occur. Furthermore, that the "powers to be"which make this decision will conduct serious deliberation as to the far reaching outcomes of their conclusion. Respectfully, Kent M. Paul 2677 Santa Ana Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92627 coach oaulnatt.net 1 Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 9:45 AM To: Biddle,Jennifer; bjensen Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional materials received for Newport Place Attachments: image002.wmz From: Rodriguez, Mariana [mailto:maria na.rod riguez(cbtfaroup.com] Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 9:38 AM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Project File No. PA2014-150 To Whom It May Concern, The proposed affordable housing project at Newport Place in Newport Beach would cause a large problem and inconvenience for hundreds of businesses and thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of employees and workers in this 1-3 mile radius.This location is being used for retail and restaurants and that is what we need, more places to eat and do commerce. Please understand that I share the same sentiment as thousands of other workers in this area. Keep Newport Place and Arnie's Manhattan Deli alive, we don't need affordable housing at this location. I was also sad to see the Orange Chicken Chinese go. That was a good, honest business with delicious food. Should you have any questions, I can be reached at 949-223-8347. Warmest regards, Mariana Rodriguez Executive Administrative Assistant Tax F A @lAMf@ QBMCBS CPrtp�Y 4001 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 300 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949)223-8347- (949)223-8101 Fax Mariana.Rodriguez@tfgroup.com Visit our website at: www.tfgroup.com - Tax & Financial Group, an affiliate of Securian, is independently operated.El Please do not send trade instructions via e-mail. Orders received via e-mail will not be honored, nor executed. Thank you! i Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 7:37 AM To: Biddle,Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials Received for Newport Place -----Original Message----- From: Stacey [mailto:stace.cleveland@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 6:41 AM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Save Arnie's Manhattan Deli To whom it may concern: It has come to my attention that there is progress being made to demolish a shopping center in order to building more housing.This is an absolutely travesty. Newport Beach doesn't need more housing- it's overpopulated as it is. Housing near the airport will impede traffic considerably. Not to mention all of the businesses that would take huge personal and financial hardships. I have been eating at Arnie's for years and it is a staple in the community. Is delicious, reasonably priced, and within walking distance to so many large businesses. I beg you, please leave the shopping center aloneM Thank you, Stacey Cleveland Sent from my Whone 1 Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 12:07 PM To: Biddle, Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials received for Newport Place From: Andrew J. Littlefair [mailto:Andrew.Littlefair@cleanenerayfuels.com] Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 12:02 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Arnie's-housing and affordable housing Dear Newport Beach Planning: This is to question the recent plan for 400 units of affordable housing by the airport. Specifically, I wonder about displacing businesses that service this heavy office community. I am sure it is your thought to locate these units in a place of business where you won't get flak for other residential communities. Is placing these units and all the traffic in the best interest of these folks and for the businesses here, not to mention the businesses that serve our regional airport? We would be very upset to lose the restaurants that serve our office complex. I am President and CEO of a company, Clean Energy Fuels, with 250 employees that call MacArthur Court home. Restaurants are already scarce. I urge you to reconsider.Thank you for your consideration. Andrew J.Littlefair President&Chief Executive Officer Clean Energy 4675 MacArthur Court, Suite 800 1 Newport Beach,California 92660 office 949.437.1000 I fax 949.724.1457 email alittlefairgeleanenereyfuels.com 0 91 U This email fund attachments if my)is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which It Is adthessed,and may contain information that Is privileged,confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this emait is out the intended recipient,or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended ocipleed you are hereby notified that say dissemination,distribution or copying of this ,...ahem is strictly prdhibitcd.If you have received this communication in error,please oetifythe sender immediately by return email and destroy all eoplos ofihe email land attachments ifaay). 1 Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 7:42 AM To: Biddle,Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials Received for Newport Place -----Original Message----- From:Sharon Naidus [mailto:snaidus58Pyahoo.com] Sent:Tuesday, May 03, 2016 8:34 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Project File No: PA2014-150 Located at Newport Place Rosalinh Ung, This email is to confirm that we strongly disagree with the concept of demolishing long term successful business's in favor of creating space for low cost housing in the business district. It makes very little sense to eliminate jobs and tax revenue from a financial and sociological point of view. In the past the city had always been pro development in spite of the desires of the inhabitants. We hope that this email will not be ignored along with hundreds of others. Proximity to the airport runway makes this a very undesirable place for housing. We've been patrons of Arnies Deli for several decades and would dearly miss it if it were to be demolished. The Naidus Family 311 Goldenrod Ave Corona del Mar, CA Sent from my iPhone 1 Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 8:08 AM To: Biddle, Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials received for Newport Place From: Jan Bronell [mailto:jbronellCabyahoo.com]___ Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 2:37 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Project File PA2014-150, Newport Place I am writing to state my position against additional housing in this area. I worked across the street from this site for almost 10 years and the congestion from the traffic was bad then... and is worse now. A housing project of this size is going to add a lot of traffic - throughout the day - and make it nearly impossible to navigate to go out to lunch, run errands, pickup materials for work - function the way any working person and any business needs to. I have gone to Arnie's Manhattan Deli for more than a decade and believe that they provide a much needed service in this area. The food is excellent; the portions are large; and the service is friendly. It is one of the few moderate priced places in the area that is accessible by foot - avoiding the torture of sitting in traffic to drive to lunch. Jan Bronell t Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 12:46 PM To: Biddle,Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials received for Newport Place -----Original Message----- From:John Jenkins [mailto:iienkins()insishtdiligence.com] Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 12:30 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: PA2014-150 Newport Place Rosalinh- Please preserve the little bit of commercial space we have in this area. We don't want or need 400 affordable housing units and the traffic and parking congestion that brings. There is no place to eat or shop as it is. My employees at 4675 MacArthur Court patronize the deli, restaurants and the haircut place among others and asked me to write to voice our opposition to this project. Thankyou, John Jenkins Sent from my Phone i Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 12:47 PM To: Biddle, Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials received for Newport Place From: Jonathan Dennis [mailto:jdennis(a1DL0 US C0M] Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 12:39 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Project PA2O14-150 I write in support of the local businesses currently located at Newport Place and against the development of an affordable housing project. As a business owner in the area, I can attest that these businesses, particularly the restaurants, form a vital part of the community. While affordable housing may be needed generally, there are few places in the area where small business owners can establish and maintain a business. The current center should be preserved. Please do everything in your power to prevent the project from moving forward and keeping these important local businesses in place. Jonathan Dennis 4675 MACARTHUR.COURT I ,SUITE 1470 NEWPORT BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92660 t: (949)373-5235 11.- (949)274-8144 e-mail:jdennisPdlo.us.com This communication may be privileged and confidential and is intended only for the individual or entity named above and others who have been specifically authorized to receive it,If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use,disseminate or disclose this communication(including any attachments)to others.Also,please notify the sender by replying to this e-mail or by telephone at(949)373-5235, and then delete this corn rnunication (including any attachments)and any copies of it. 1 Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 7:57 AM To: Biddle, Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials received from Newport Place From:jaclyn martucci [mailto:Jaclvnms(Ti)msn.com] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 6:48 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: PA2014-150 Please do not take down Armies Manhattan Deli!! I work in the area and eat here almost daily!! It is the only restaurant of its kind!! Jaclyn Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device 1 Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 7:57 AM To: Biddle, Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials Received for Newport Place From: linmendia [ma ilto:linmend!a(&aol.com] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 4:29 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: PROJECT # PA2014-150 To whom it may concern, I am writing to oppose project number PA2014-50 located at newport Place! This is one of the only restaurants in the area of which I eat at regularly. The city does not need more housing, it needs more restaurants and shops. More housing will increase traffic! Please save Arnie's Manhattan Deli!! Thank you, Linda Mendia Sent from Samsung tablet i Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 7:59 AM To: Biddle, Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials for Newport Place From: David Ginsberg [mailto:davidnsupergfundino.com] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 3:35 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Oppose Project I am against the large project that is scheduled for the area where Arnie's Deli is located. David Ginsberg I Senior Underwriter 949-630-0273 Direct/Fax David( supergfunding.co Supergfiuiding com I biz cash.com Saasfunding com 23 Corporate Plaza Suite 135 Newport Beach CA 92660 t Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 8:00 AM To: Biddle, Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials for Newport Place From: Joe Cooper [mailtompcoast(dgmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 2:08 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: PROJECT FILE NO: PA2014-150, LOCATED AT NEWPORT PLACE I am writing to let the City of Newport Beach know that the idea of adding more "affordable" housing units in the same proximity to Irvine's already disasterous over building of high rise apartments & "affordable" housing off Jamboree is a horrible idea! We need more retail businesses &restaurants for the more permanet & established residences of Newport& nearby Irvine! You are selling out these 2 beautiful, clean & safe cities to foreign investors & your only interest is to create more housing for foreign nationals coming here on tem orary Visa's to take advantage of local wealth& education. Irvine has already over built Jamboree with "affordable" apartment complexes for this very reason & it is already aparent they are clearing out more older commercial buildings off Von Karman to build even more cheaply built apartment complexes. There's already too much traffic & crime is on the increase! Please STOP the over building of these 2 cities! i Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 8:01 AM To: Biddle, Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials Received for Newport Place -----Original Message----- From: Martin L. Flicker [mailto:mlflicker@cox.net] Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 12:07 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Project File No. PA2014-150; located at Newport Place Rosalinh Ung: I've eaten at Arnie's nearly every day for more than 15 years. There is no place like it. The food is wonderful and the owners and their family are even better. It will be nearly impossible for them to find premises comparable to their current restaurant. Please don't allow them to lose their location to undesirable "affordable" housing. Thank you. Marty Flicker Martin L. Flicker 3 Silver Creek Irvine, California 92603 mlflicker@cox.net Phone: 949-854-4392 DISCLAIMER: This e-mail message is intended only forthe personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and as such privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient,you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. 1 Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 2:54 PM To: Biddle,Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials Received for Newport Place -----Original Message----- From: Donna imailto:dstern7(@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 2:52 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Project PA2014-150 Newport place Dear Mr Rung, I understand that low income housing is planning on being built in Newport place. I have an office in the area. It is a great place to work.There is no need for more housing in this area. It is already being over built. In just a few years traffic will be as bad as Santa Monica. Roads here are not built for this new volume. What is needed are more jobs by upgrading that area with better retail and more affordable office space.There is enough commercial and residential people to support it. Please Keep this a business center near the airport. I vote no to this housing being built. Thank you. Sent from my iPhone Donna Stern i May 12, 2016 Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council c/o Ms. Rosalinh Ung,Associate Planner Newport Beach City Hall 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: CEQA IS/MND Analysis and Findings for the Residences at Newport Place Dear Ms. Ung, This letter is a follow up to our discussion last week to let you know that the analysis in the project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)does not fully support the findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines that the Planning Commission and City Council must make to approve this project. CEQA Statute and Guidelines require documented full disclosure of environmental analysis on short- term, long-term and cumulative project impacts. Likewise, Lead Agency's conclusions on Mandatory Findings of Significance must be clearly based on environmental analysis made available to the public, not on speculation and opinion. The intent of CEQA is to fully disclose project impacts to the public. Environmental analysis must include a full description of the project phases;full disclosure of short- term, long-term and cumulative impacts; and, a detailed description of the environmental setting of the project site and vicinity as a baseline from where impacts could be measured from. Environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA are any measureable changes resulting from project implementation. Therefore,the analysis must describe conditions at the project site and in the project vicinity, both with and without the project-completely identified, described, and to the greatest extent possible quantified,for all project phases -in order to support findings of"No Impact" and "Less Than Significant Impacts", especially when using a tiered environmental analysis such as an IS/MND in lieu of a full Environmental Impact Report. When environmental analysis falls short of this, it is in adequate pursuant to CEQA Statute and Guidelines. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency responsible for implementing CEQA,determining the adequacy of the CEQA IS/MND, for this project. The analysis presented in the IS/MND and Technical Appendices does not fully disclose potential project impacts listed in the City's Initial Study Checklist Form and does not provide adequate analysis as a basis for the conclusions presented therein; therefore,the IS/MND does not satisfy the statutory requirements of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines for this project. Furthermore,the analysis in the IS/MND and Technical Appendices does not adequately support the findings of Less Than Significant Page 2 of 5 Impacts stated in the document and would not support Findings of Fact for project approval related to the following technical areas: Section 4.1 (c)Will the Project: - Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Since visual resources are a subjective issue,justification for increased building height and reduced landscape setbacks should be discussed and quantified to support findings of"Less than Significant Impact". The scenic resources here are the existing retail setting developed with low-profile single-story buildings set back from the streets by 60 to 80 feet with mature trees bordering the streets. The project will introduce significant changes to this setting with four-story buildings over three times higher than existing structures. Proposed setbacks are over 300 percent less than existing setbacks and do not meet city standards. Components of proposed buildings are at heights nearly 50 percent greater than heights permitted by the City's codes and ordinances. Likewise, proposed setbacks are reduced by 20 to 40 percent from code required setbacks. It appears that the canopy for some of the mature trees along the site parameter would exceed the proposed building setback of 18 to 30'. Therefore,the project represents a potentially significant impact to visual resources as well as deviation from standards of the City's Codes and Ordinances. Additional information and mitigation is needed to support conclusions of this section. Section 4.1(d)Will the Project: - Create a new source of substantial light or glare,which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The project will introduce new sources of light and glare from the additional building stories and many additional windows proposed with the project. The IS/MND should identify this as a potential impact, as it is a substantial change from existing conditions at the site with over 3 additional stories and over 300 additional windows for proposed units. Furthermore, exterior finishes and treatments could be incorporated into the project design as mitigation to reduce impacts. Additional information is needed to support conclusions of this section. Sections 4.4(a, d,f)Will the Project: - Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? - Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use Page 3 of 5 of native wildlife nursery sites? - Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? Large shrubs and trees existing on the project site provide potential nesting opportunities for migratory birds,which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and enforced by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, construction during the nesting season could be a potentially significant project impact. Project mitigation measures are needed to reduce short-term impacts of construction, which are potentially significant,to less than significance. Additional information is needed to support conclusions of this section. Sections 4.4(b, c) Will the Project: - Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? - Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption,or other means? The site is tributary to environmentally sensitive areas of the Ocean and wetland areas and has increased potential to introduce pollutants into these receiving waters due to the increased intensity of the proposed land use. Therefore,the project has the potential to Impact these waterbodies without the incorporation of mitigation measures identified in the WQMP. Additional information is needed to support conclusions of this section. CEQA Statutes and Guidelines require environmental analysis which is not speculative. Environmental conclusions and Findings of Significance must be based on facts. Section 4.14(a) (3): - Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Schools? Where will school buses provide pick-up and drop-off for children living at this project? The IS/MND document does not fully address circulation and safety impacts related to residential land uses built into Page 4 of 5 an existing commercial area and served within a transportation infrastructure designed for commercial land uses. Additional information is needed to support conclusions of this section. Section 4.14(a) (4): - Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Parks? The City is required to take park dedication in exchange for approval of residential units per the General Plan and State Planning and Zoning Laws. Page 95 of the report states that the final dimensions and details of the open space on-site are not determined; howeverthis undefined open space is being used as a justification for park dedication waiver and as a basis for"No Impact". This is not consistent with General Plan Policies and is a potential impact requiring mitigation. Document the area on-site that will be dedicated to open space. Include distances between the project site and off-site park/recreation areas to document accessibility to off-site recreation,since less is proposed on site. These distances should be documented to support conclusions of this section. CEQA Statutes and Guidelines require environmental analysis which is not speculative. Environmental conclusions and Findings of Significance must be based on facts. Section 4.16 (d)(f) Will the Project: - Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? - Conflict with adopted policies, plans,or programs regarding public transit, bicycle,or pedestrian facilities,or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Circulation impacts are not adequately addressed. This section only describes trip generation. There are multi-modal traffic patterns associated with residential land uses that are not addressed here. Additional mitigation measures may be needed to support the stated findings. Additional information is needed to support conclusions of this section. Page 5 of 5 For the reasons stated herein,the IS/MND for The Residences at Newport.Place does not support findings of No Impact or Less Than Significant with Mitigation pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Furthermore, it is my opinion that the CEQA document dated January 2016 should not be used as a basis for project approval without additional information identified above. I have over 30 years of experience working as a City and Regional Environmental Planner and am a Certified Environmental Planner with the American Institute of Certified Planners. Sincerely, Lori E. Trottier,AICP CEP Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 4:46 PM To: Biddle, Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials received for Newport Place From: Sandy Moore [mailto:metrogal 44@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 4:40 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Project File No: PA2014-150, Located at Newport Place Dear Ms. Ung, Oh please...WE DO NOT NEED ANY MORE HOUSING!!! I live in Lake Forest and travel the 405 every single day. I have a 13 mile commute that USED to take around 20 minutes. When it is overly crowded or there is an accident, I get off and go to work (in Costa Mesa across from South Coast Plaza) either on Alton or Barranca, which are both becoming more crowded as others are doing the same. New homes are going up near the Irvine Spectrum. Behind Laguna Hills Mall. And on and on. WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO DO TO OUR ALREADY CONGESTED COMMUTES????? Why does every single corner need more housing? Arnie's Manhattan Deli has been a mainstay of ours for years. DON'T RUIN IT WITH MORE HOUSING!!! Nobody wants to live in a business center near the airport. Consider this please. And DON'T TEAR IT DOWN FOR MORE HOUSING! Sandra Moore Lake Forest Resident and Disgruntled Freeway Driver i Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 11:15 AM To: Biddle, Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials Received for Newport Place From: Lonnie Seide [mailto:lonnie@minvardmorris.com]� Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 1:41 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Project File No.: PA2014-150, located at Newport Place Rosalinh Ung: I am writing this e-mail in opposition to the above-referenced project. This area needs more restaurants and retail space, and not more traffic from an additional 400 housing units. Thank you for your attention and consideration. LONNIE K. SEIDE, ESQ. Minyard Morris Practice Limited to Family Law 1811 Quail Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 949-724-1111 ext. 133 949-724-1117 (fax) www.minvardmorris.com Privileged And Confidential Communication:This email and any attachments(1)are protected by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act(18 USC 44 2510-2521), (2)may contain confidential or legally privileged information,and(3)are for the sole use of the intended reel pient named above. If you receive this email in error, please notify the sender and delete.Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of information received in error is strictly prohibited. Tax advice disclosure:To ensure compliance with Treasury Department Circular 230, we inform you that unless otherwise specified, any federal tax advice contained in this email or any attachments is not intended for and cannot be used for the purpose of(1)avoiding penalties under the IRS Code or(2)promoting,marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein. 1 Ung, Rosalinh From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 8:05 AM To: Biddle,Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials Received for Newport Place -----Original Message----- From: Martin Flicker [mailto:mflicker@cox.net] Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 1:12 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Project File No. Pa2014-150, located at Newport Place I work in the area of this proposed project.There is already enough traffic and congestion without adding 400 apartments, especially in light of the only 700 parking spaces proposed. This project is far too intensive for the area and shouldn't be approved. Thank you. Susanlnce i CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT May 5, 2016 Meeting Agenda Item No. 2 SUBJECT: The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) 1701 Corinthian Way, 1660 Dove Street, 4251, 4253, 4255 Martingale Way, and 4200, 4220, 4250 Scott Drive • Mitigated Negative Declaration No. MD2015-009 • Planned Development Permit No. PL2014-001 • Lot Merger No. LM2014-003 • Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2015-001 APPLICANT: Newport Place Residential, LLC OWNER: MacArthur Square PLANNER: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner (949) 644-3208, rung@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY A Planned Development Permit application for the development of a mixed-use residential project consisting of 384 residential units and 5,677 square feet of retail use on a 5.70-acre property. The application includes requests for building height and setback adjustments and relief from a requirement to dedicate a 0.5-acre public park pursuant to General Plan Land Use Policy 6.15.13. A Lot Merger to consolidate three existing lots into one lot for development. Lastly, an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan related to the project's inclusion of 86 affordable housing units required pursuant to the Newport Place Planned Community Regulations and the City's Density Bonus Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; 2) Approve the project by adopting Resolution No. (Attachment No. PC 1) to: a. Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. MD2015-009; b. Approve Planned Development Permit No. PL2014-001, to approve the overall project including adjustments of building height and setback; c. Approve a waiver request for the dedication of a 0.5-acre neighborhood park to the City pursuant to General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.15.13, by requiring an easement for public access over the proposed 0.5-acre open 1 The Residences At Newport Place (PA2014-150) Planning Commission, May 5, 2016 Page 2 space area; and accepting a fee payment equal to the value of 0.5 acre of parkland established by Ordinance No. 2007-30; d. Approve Lot Merger No. LM2014-003, to allow the merger of three existing parcels into one lot; and e. Approve Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2015-001, to approve the program that specifies how the proposed project would meet the City's affordable housing requirements; or 3) Deny the project if the Planning Commission is unable to make one or more of the required findings. Staff requests the Commission identify the findings and reasons why the findings cannot be made and continue this item to the next meeting. The continuance will allow time to prepare a written resolution based upon the Commission's reasons for denial. 2 The Residences At Newport Place (PA2014-150) Planning Commission, May 5, 2016 Page 3 VICINITY MAP 4h Subject ,f� Property ,. r� e c� j P NMwN�IY n e� < .l GENERAL PLAN ZONING mum h fE xu rz .. .. e.r_nv x it LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON-SITE MU-H2 JlMjxed Use Horizontal 2 PC 11 New ort Place Retail NO F MU-H2 Mixed Use Horizontal 2 PC 11 New ort Place Hotel & Retail SOUTH MU-H2 (Mixed Use Horizontal 2) PC 11 (Newport Place) Office EAST MU-H2 (Mixed Use Horizontal 2) PC 11 (Newport Place) Office WEST CG (General Commercial) & CO-G PC 11 (Newport Place) Restaurant& Car (General Commercial Office) Wash V� QP �P The Residences At Newport Place (PA2014-150) Planning Commission, May 5, 2016 Page 4 INTRODUCTION Project Setting The subject property is located within the Airport Area and approximately 5.70 acres in size. The property is developed with a 58,277 square foot retail shopping center called MacArthur Square within the Newport Place Planned Community. The pentagonal- shaped site consists of three contiguous parcels and is bound by Corinthian Way to the northeast, Martingale Way to the east, Scott Drive to the northwest, and Dove Street to the southwest, and an office development to the south. Driveways are located on Dove Street, Scott Drive and Martingale Way. The shopping center was built in 1974. Tenants include retail stores, professional and medical offices, several restaurants, and a dance studio. Surrounding uses include a variety of low to mid-rise office buildings, commercial centers, restaurants, a car wash and service facility, and a hotel. Some buildings exceed 100 feet in height. More specifically, a 10-story Radisson Hotel and Staples office supply store are located to the north opposite Corinthian Way. A 2-story bank building and a 3-story office building are located to the east. A 4-story office building is located to the south of the subject site, separated by a surface parking lot. A single- story hand car wash and Benihana Japanese Restaurant are located to the northwest. Lastly, the single-story "Hangars" office complex is located to the southwest on Dove Street. Project Description The proposed project would replace the existing MacArthur Square shopping center with a mixed-use, residential development consisting of 384 rental units and 5,677 square feet of retail or restaurant uses to be located at the ground level at the corner of the intersection of Dove Street and Scott Drive. The proposed project consists of four, 4-story residential buildings built above a concrete podium parking that would be the first floor from the street. Two levels of parking would be below the podium and will provide 715 parking spaces. There are three access points to the parking structure — at each mid-block driveway on Dove Street, Scott Drive and Martingale Way. The driveways on Dove Street and Scott Drive would be available for all users, including residents, their guests, and the commercial tenants and patrons. The Martingale Way drive approach would be available only to the residents. The 4-story residential buildings would be a maximum height of 58 feet above the existing grade with several architectural elements of up to 83 feet. These architectural elements would accommodate elevators, stairwells and mechanical equipment. The 5 The Residences At Newport Place (PA2014-150) Planning Commission, May 5, 2016 Page 5 buildings and architectural features would exceed the 55-foot height limit allowed by the Newport Place Planned Community. The project will be set back between 18 to 25 feet from property lines abutting adjacent streets and will be 59 feet from the southerly property line abutting 1600 Dove Street that is developed with surface parking for a mid-rise, office building. Landscaping will be provided within the street setbacks, in addition to the on-site existing trees that will be preserved. The 59-foot setback will be improved with open space areas and a pedestrian walkway. Residential Units The 384 rental units include 54 studio units that average 616 square feet in size; 173 one-bedroom units that average 804 square feet in size; 136 two-bedroom units that average 1,178 square feet in size; and 21 three-bedroom units that average 1,422 square feet in size. Of the 384 units, 86 units will be affordable to low-income households and 298 units will be market-rate housing. The tentative unit mix for the affordable units is 12 studio units, 39 one-bedroom units, 30 two-bedroom units, and 5 three-bedroom units. The affordable units will have the same size and amenities as the market-rate units. Additionally, the affordable units will be equally distributed throughout the project. Architectural Design The applicant describes the project's architectural style as Mediterranean Revival, with some Art Deco nuances at the commercial corner of the site. Designed with archways and open corridors, the residential complex creates a "piazza-like" feel as one enters and exits each open area of the site. Architectural features resemble bell towers and add taller elements that house elevators, stairwells, and mechanical ventilation shafts. Variations of the roofline are intended to add visual interest to the project. Large windows, balconies and patios, awnings, and ground level "stoop" units will provide added visual interest to the interior and exterior building facades. A large public rotunda with a rooftop viewing deck is proposed for the corner of Dove Street and Scott Drive to provide an enhanced project identity. Warm earth tones are the main color theme with bolder color accents. The design incorporates stone and other accents that are intended to exhibit a sense of quality and should enhance the visual appearance of the project. Decorative paving will be used throughout the entire site and a decomposed granite surface will be used within the linear open space area allowing reduced runoff and a softer pedestrian experience. The Residences At Newport Place (PA2014-150) Planning Commission, May 5, 2016 Page 6 Project Amenities The project includes a range of private amenities for residents and their guests, including a centrally located swimming pool with two separate spas and private cabanas, a freestanding community clubhouse; a business center; a recreation and fitness center; courtyards/open space areas; two separate children's play areas; and barbeque and seating areas. Landscaping will also be provided in and around the various courtyards. A rooftop gathering space or "sky deck" and community room will be located above the commercial spaces. The submitted site plan includes a 59-foot wide linear open space area that is approximately 0.5 acre in size. The open space area will be located along the southern property line with a pedestrian walkway between Dove Street and Martingale Way. The applicant intends for this area to be gated and available for residents and their guests. This area also will be available to the public during daylight hours via a pedestrian path easement depicted on the submitted Project Plans (Attachment PC 14). The application for the proposed residential development consists of the following components: • Mitigated Negative Declaration No. MD2015-009: A mitigated negative declaration (MND) to evaluate the environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). • Planned Development Permit No. PL2014-001: A Planned Development Permit (PDP) pursuant to Section 20.52.060 of the Municipal Code to authorize the overall project including adjustments of building height and setbacks. The PCP shall satisfy the requirements of Section IV (Permitted Residential Uses) of the Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations, as the PCP is a substitute for a Site Development Review application as allowed for by the Zoning Code. • Lot Merger No. LM2014-003: A lot merger to merge three existing parcels into one lot, pursuant to Chapter 19.68 (Merger of Contiguous Lots) of the Municipal Code. • Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O15-001: The program specifies how the proposed project would meet the City's affordable housing requirements, pursuant to Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) of the Municipal Code The Residences At Newport Place (PA2014-150) Planning Commission, May 5, 2016 Page 7 and the 30 percent inclusionary requirement of the Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations. • General Plan Land Use Element Policy Waiver: The applicant requests a waiver of Policy LU6.15.13 that requires the dedication of a 0.5-acre neighborhood park to the City. Instead of the dedication of land, the applicant proposes the payment of a fee equal to the value of 0.5 acre of parkland established by Ordinance No. 2007-30. Background On March 3, 2016, a study session was held for the proposed project to provide the Planning Commission and the public an opportunity to review and discuss the proposed project and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. During the study session, the Planning Commission provided comments on the following subject matters: • Requirement for a Development Agreement • Adequacy of open space and private amenities provision • Necessity of building setback reduction and building height increase • Adequacy of architectural style and project integration with surroundings • Detail review of traffic/trip generation and parking analysis Comments by the general public were also considered. Excerpt of the March 3, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes is included as Attachment PC 2. Since the study session, the applicant has met with staff to discuss the requirement of a development agreement and expressed no interest in proposing one. The applicant has also submitted a revised site plan and landscaping plan, and lot merger (Attachment PC 15), depicting the proposed 0.5-acre open space (outlined in blue color) and public easement (outlined in red color) to be granted to the City for public access. The applicant's response to these topics is provided in Attachment PC 3. DISCUSSION Environmental Review An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared by Keeton Kreitzer Consulting in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. The MND concluded that the proposed development would have a less than significant impact to the environment with the inclusion of mitigation measures agreed to by the applicant and the application of standard codes and standard conditions of approval. 8 The Residences At Newport Place (PA2014-150) Planning Commission, May 5, 2016 Page 8 The MND was provided to the Planning Commission for review in advancement of the March 3, 2016 Study Session. The Draft MND was circulated and available for public review and comment from January 22, 2016 to February 22, 2016. The comment period was extended to March 4, 2016. The MND was also made available to the general public for review and comment at the Newport Beach libraries and City's website at: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?paqe=1347. Staff received eight comment letters from the following entities: • California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. • Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation • City of Irvine • Orange County Transportation Authority • Airport Land Use Commission • Gas Company (Sempra) • Frederick Roshan Written responses have been prepared for each comment submitted within the review period, provided as Attachment PC 4. An errata to the MND (Attachment PC 5) clarifies the location of a bicycle lane on MacArthur Boulevard, as originally discussed in Checklist question 4.16(f) of the Transportation/Traffic Section of the MND. The clarification is minor in nature. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c), recirculation of the MND is not required when new information is added which merely clarifies the MND, and no project revisions or potential significant effects are caused by this new information. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is provided for the Planning Commission consideration as Attachment PC 6. The MND, written responses to comments, errata and MMRP are available at City Hall, in the offices of the Planning Division located in Bay B, 100 Civic Center Drive and online at: http://www.newportbeachca.qov/index.aspx?page=1347 General Plan Consistency MU-H2 Land Use Category The subject property has a General Plan Land Use Element designation of Mixed-Use Horizontal 2 (MU-1-12). This category provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multi-family residential, vertical mixed-use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The MU-H2 land use category covers a significant portion of properties in the Airport Area, 9 The Residences At Newport Place (PA2014-150) Planning Commission, May 5, 2016 Page 9 including those located in the Newport Place Planned Community and Koll Center Newport Planned Community. The MU-H2 allows a maximum of 2,200 residential units of which 1,650 units may be developed as replacement of existing office, retail, and/or industrial uses. The maximum density is 50 units per net acre. The remaining 550 units are classified as additive units meaning they are not required to replace other units and they may be constructed as "in-fill" units to existing commercial or office development within the Conceptual Development Plan Area (CDPA) of the Airport Area as illustrated in Figure LU22 of the General Plan Land Use Element (Attachment PC 7). Any eligible density bonus allowed by Government Code Sections 65915 through 65917 and Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) of the Municipal Code are not included in the 2,200-unit allowance or the 50 dwelling units per acre standard. Table 1 lists the residential units approved, proposed and remaining within the MU-H2 designation of the Airport Area. The approved Uptown Newport mixed-use residential project is also included. Table 1 Residential Development in the Airport Area Allowed in MU-1-12 Density Bonus Properties (35% of base (Replacement + units) Additive Projects Replacement Additive Units Units Newport Place application —Total: 384 284 100 Koll application —Total: 260 260 Saunders—Total: 325 325 Uptown Newport (approved) — Total: 1,244 632 290 322 632+290+322 Replacement + Additive Sub-Total 1,466 1241 550 Density Bonus Sub-Total 422 Grand Total (replacement +additive + density 1791 (1241 + 550) 422 bonus): 2213 (1791 + 422) Remaining in MU-1-12 (replacement + potential 409 (2200— 1791) 143 density bonus): 552 10 The Residences At Newport Place (PA2014-150) Planning Commission, May 5, 2016 Page 10 General Plan Policies The subject property has 58,277 square feet of existing retail use. The existing center is slightly higher than the development limit of 56,880 per Anomaly No. 12 of the General Plan Land Use Element. By using the City's adopted use conversion factors to maintain traffic trip neutrality, the applicant can replace the existing shopping center with 284 residential units and reconstruct 5,677 square feet of retail development. The conversion factors provided in "Airport Area Residential & Mixed Use Adjustment Factors for Traffic Analyses in Newport Beach", are provided as Attachment PC 8. The additional 100 units requested are density bonus units authorized by the Government Code and Municipal Code. The General Plan contains a number of policies that provide for the orderly evolution of the Airport Area, from a single-purposed business park, to a mixed-use district with cohesive residential villages integrated within the existing fabric of office, industrial, retail, and airport-related businesses. Residential opportunities are to be developed as clusters of residential villages centering on neighborhood parks and interconnected by pedestrian walkways. These would contain a mix of housing types and buildings that integrate housing with ground level convenience retail uses and would be developed at a sufficient scale to achieve a complete neighborhood. Provided below is a summary of these policies and the project's consistency with each. Sizes of Residential Villages (LU6.15.6) and Regulatory Plan (LU6.15.10): Each residential village shall be at least 10-acres in size at build-out and be organized around a neighborhood park and other similar amenities. The first phase of residential development in each village shall be at least five gross acres, exclusive of existing rights-of-way. At the discretion of the City, the acreage can include part of a property in a different land use category, if the City finds that a sufficient portion of the contiguous property is contributing to the village fabric of open space, parking, or other amenities. A regulatory plan for each residential village is also required. The subject property is approximately 5.70 acres in size, which is less than the required 10-acre minimum for residential development. The project would be constructed in one phase. As required in the Newport Place Planned Community Residential Overlay, a minimum of 30 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households and subject to a 30-year affordable housing covenant. In exchange for the support of the City's need for lower-income households, the residential development is exempt from the minimum 10-acre site required by Policy LU6.15.6. The subject property is located within the Residential Overlay of Newport Place Planned Community that provides the regulatory plan or framework for residential projects with 11 The Residences At Newport Place (PA2014-150) Planning Commission, May 5, 2016 Page 11 affordable housing provisions. As result, a new regulatory plan required by Policy LU6.15.10 is not required. • Overall Density and Housing Types (LU6.15.7): In addition to providing a minimum land area for residential development, the General Plan also establishes minimum densities to ensure that a sufficient critical mass is created within each 10-acre village. As such, the overall minimum density for each village at build-out is 30 dwelling units per net acre, exclusive of existing and future rights-of-way, open spaces and pedestrian ways; a maximum net density of 50 units per acre is also established. Within the density envelope (30 to 50 du/ac), the General Plan promotes a diversity of building types, including row houses and podium mid-rise and high-rise buildings to accommodate a range of household types and incomes and to promote a variety of building masses and scales. The project has a base density of 50 units per net acre (284 units) which is consistent with a maximum of 50 du/acre allowance by this policy. This base density does not include the 35% density bonus of 100 units that is allowed by the Newport Place Planned Community in exchange for the 30% or 86 units set aside for affordable housing. Altogether, the project has an overall density of 68 units per net acre. The proposed residential project is a podium mid-rise style, for-rent development. Although the proposed residential development is limited to one particular housing product, the 384 apartment units include a variety mix of unit types, ranging from studio to three-bedroom units. Of the 384 units, 86 units will be affordable to low-income households and 298 units will be market-rate housing. The affordable units will have the same size and amenities as the market-rate units. Additionally, the affordable units will be equally distributed throughout the project. • Neighborhood Parks (LU6.15.13): The General Plan calls for residential villages to be centered on neighborhood parks to provide structure and a sense of community and identity. The General Plan requires a park dedication of at least 8 percent of land or 0.50 acre whichever is greater of the first phase development in each neighborhood; or a minimum of one acre in size, or at least eight percent of the total land area of the residential village, whichever is greater. The policy allows a waiver where it can be demonstrated that the development parcels are too small to feasibly accommodate a park or inappropriately located to serve the needs of local residents. The proposed project requires a park dedication of 0.5-acre and the applicant requests a waiver of this dedication provision. The proposed project currently includes a 0.5-acre open space area and pedestrian pathway along the southern property line between Dove Street and Martingale Way. This open space will be landscaped and improved with passive recreational areas. As proposed, the area would be gated, but a public easement would allow access during daylight hours. 12 The Residences At Newport Place (PA2014-150) Planning Commission, May 5, 2016 Page 12 The applicant requests a waiver of the dedication so they can maintain the requested density. If the area is dedicated the base density would exceed the maximum of 50 units per net acre (without density bonus units). The dedication would eliminate 0.5 acres from the area used to calculate density (5.7 existing acres - 0.5 acre dedication = 5.2 remaining acres). Based on 284 base units, the density would increase to 54.6 units per net acre (284 units / 5.2 acres = 54.6 units per net acre). Dedication of the 0.5-acre park would reduce the base to 260 units rather than 284 units. In turn, it would also reduce the number of density bonus units and affordable units provided. The result is an overall reduction of 33 units (351 total units vs. 384 units requested). As illustrated in Figure LU23 of the General Plan Land Use Element (Attachment PC 9), the proposed project is a large portion of a proposed neighborhood village. The concept diagram shows a potential neighborhood park and a pedestrian connection along the southerly portion of the project site. The 0.5-acre open space is located in the same location as illustrated in Figure LU23. However, it is too small to accommodate the desirable amenities that would qualify it as a neighborhood park. Additionally, the subject property is not located in an optimal location to serve the needs of local residents. As a result, staff supports the waiver provided the 0.5-acre open space is not enclosed and an access easement is established over the entire open space area for the lifetime of the project. Staff supports the 0.5-acre open space provision as it serves the intent of General Plan Policy in providing the needed open space and a full-access pedestrian connectivity for the proposed development. This open space also offsets the reduced street setbacks proposed along other areas of the project, as required by the Newport Place Planned Community. Additionally, the applicant would pay a fee in-lieu of dedicating 0.5 acres of parkland of approximately $1,250,000. (The value of the parkland would be $2,500,000 per acre equal to the value set by Ordinance No. 2007-30 for the parkland in-lieu fee ordinance applicable to subdivisions). Should the Planning Commission not support the waiver of the dedication, the applicant would be required to submit a Lot Line Adjustment application and redesign the project to reduce the number of dwelling units. • Pedestrian Improvements (LU6.15.20): Require the dedication and improvement of new pedestrian ways as conceptually shown on Figure LU23. The full length of pedestrian ways shall be visible from intersecting streets, should not be sized as fire lanes, and shall be open to the public at all hours. In addition to the public sidewalks located along the street frontages, a pedestrian pathway would be provided within the 0.5-acre open space area to be located along the 13 The Residences At Newport Place (PA2014-150) Planning Commission, May 5, 2016 Page 13 southern property line, between Dove Street and Martingale Way. This configuration resembles Figure LU23. As shown on the revised landscaping plans and lot merger (Attachment PC 15), the proposed public access easement would be limited to the pedestrian walkway within the 0.5-acre open space area. Staff finds this provision is undesirable as the public would be confined within the walkway and some landscaped areas. The public access easement should apply to the entire open space area in order to meet the intent of General Plan Policy LU6.15.13. Additionally, to create a welcoming environment which is visible from Dove Street and Martingale Way, staff recommends the open space area not be gated. • On-Site Recreation and Open Space (LU6.15.16): Require developers of multi- family developments on parcels eight acres or larger to provide on-site recreational amenities (public urban plazas for recreation and outdoor activity, swimming pools, exercise facilities, tennis courts, basketball courts, etc.), at a ratio of 44 square feet per each dwelling unit. In-lieu cash payment where there is insufficient land to provide on-site recreational amenities is required. The proposed project is approximately 5.70 acres in size which is under the eight-acre criteria for on-site recreational amenities provision. The project, however, proposes approximately 287 square feet of on-site recreational amenities per dwelling unit, which is more than the minimum square footage required for larger developments. The proposed amenities consist of a centrally located swimming pool with two separate spas and private cabanas; a freestanding community clubhouse; a business center; a recreation and fitness center; a bicycle shop; private patios and balconies; landscaped courtyards/open space areas; two separate children's play areas; and barbeque and seating areas. Landscaping will also be provided in and around the various interior courtyards. A rooftop gathering space or "sky deck" and community room will be located above the commercial spaces. • Buildings Massinq (LU6.15.22): Require high-rise structures be surrounded with low- and mid-rise structures fronting public streets and pedestrian ways or other means to promote a more pedestrian scale. The 4-story residential buildings will be at a maximum height of 58 feet above the existing grade with several architectural elements of up to 83 feet. These architectural elements would accommodate elevators, stairwells and mechanical equipment. The residential buildings are designed with steps and stoops fronting on public streets and along the interface of linear open space area to engage and promote pedestrian activities. The proposed development is the first residential project in the Newport Place Planned Community where the predominant uses are office and light industrial developments. -4 The Residences At Newport Place (PA2014-150) Planning Commission, May 5, 2016 Page 14 Surrounding developments range from single-story to four-story in height with exception of the 10-story Radisson Hotel located nearby. Staff believes the project's building mass is comparable and compatible to the existing surrounding developments. Staff acknowledged the Commission's comments regarding the project's architectural style as it may not be as contemporary enough in style when compared to some other developments within the Airport Area. However, the General Plan Policies do not have specific architectural style preferences for the Airport Area and there are no design guidelines specified in the Newport Place Planned Community. As a result, the appropriate architectural style of the proposed project is a subjective evaluation to be made by the Planning Commission. A detailed analysis of each of the applicable General Plan policies is available in the Land Use Section of the MND. The analysis concludes that the project is consistent with each of the adopted goals and policies with the exception of Policy LU6.15.13, which the applicant is requesting a waiver for the dedication of the open space area. Consistency with Newport Place Planned Community (Zoning Code) The subject property is currently zoned Planned Community and subject to the Newport Place Planned Community (PC-11) regulations. The site is designated General Commercial Site 6 which allows retail commercial, office, and professional and business uses. The site is also within the Residential Overlay zone where multi-family residential development is permitted as a stand-alone use pursuant to Part III (Residential Overlay) Section of PC-11. The proposed multi-family residential development complies with the Residential Overlay development standards as detailed in Table 2. Building height and setback deviations may be approved per the Planned Development Permit. 15 The Residences At Newport Place (PA2014-150) Planning Commission, May 5, 2016 Page 15 Table 2 Zoning Compliance Project Elements Standard Proposed Compliance Project Size 10 acres 5.70 acres Yes, allowed with affordable housing Density 30-50 50 (base) Yes 68 w/density bonus Total Residential 384 384 Yes Unit • Base Unit 284 284 Yes • Density Bonus 100 100 Yes 35% Affordable Unit @ 86 86 Yes 30% of base units Market-Rate Unit 298 298 Yes Non-Residential 5,677 sf. 5,677 sf. Yes (Restaurant Use) Building Height Yes, if Planned Limits 55 83 Development Permit approved Building Setbacks • Corinthian Way 30 ft. 18 Yes, if Planned • Martingale Way 30 ft. 20 Development Permit • Dove Street 30 ft. 22 approved • Scott Drive 30 ft. 24 Parking 1,031 Total 715 Total Yes, residential • Residential 960 (2.5/unit) 644 (1.68/unit) parking per Sec. (0-1 Bed/ 1 space) 20.32.040— Parking (2-3 Bed/2 spaces) Provision in Density Bonus Projects • Restaurant use 71 (1/40 of net public 71 area Neighborhood Park 0.50 acre minimum In-lieu park fee &0Yes, if park .5- per GP Policy (dedicated and dedication waived. LU6.15.6 improved) acre private open space Increase Building Height Pursuant to Section V (General Development Standards for Residential) of the Newport Place Planned Community Residential Overlay Zone, the maximum building height shall be limited to 55 feet. The proposed project includes a request to allow the residential buildings at a maximum height of 58 feet with architectural elements of up to 83 feet. Additional building height may be approved with a Site Development Review or Planned Development Permit application Pursuant to Section 20.30.060 (Height Limits and Exceptions). The increase in building height is also subject to the additional height restrictions per Section 20.30.060.E of the Zoning Code pertaining to the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. 10 The Residences At Newport Place (PA2014-150) Planning Commission, May 5, 2016 Page 16 As demonstrated in the draft Resolution for approval (Attachment No. PC-1), staff believes the findings can be made for approval of increased height. The proposed residential buildings are four stories over a two-level subterranean parking garage, which is typically described as "podium" or raised style construction. The semi-sub level parking structure necessitates the additional height to the buildings in providing vertical clearance and air and ventilation to the garage structure. It is also necessary to allow all larger vehicles utilized for loading/unloading and deliveries to be able to enter the garage for those purposes, eliminating an unsightly loading area within public view and outside the garage footprint. Additionally, architectural elements that exceed the 55-foot height limit serve dual purposes in providing the project with vertical articulations and space needed to house elevator/stair shafts and mechanical equipment. The increased height will not result in any undesirable or abrupt scale changes or relationships being created between the proposed structures and existing adjacent developments. The applicant has filed proper notification and received clearance from Federal Aviation Administration since the proposed building height will not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Building Setback Deviation The proposed residential buildings will be setback approximately 18 to 25 feet from the property lines while the required building setback is 30 feet along the public right-of- way. The building setback adjustments can be authorized with the Planned Development Permit as part of a project with quality site design. The building setback deviations allow the buildings to be situated closer to the public streets creating a more urban setting, a large interior footprint for on-site recreational amenities, and increased density for the project. Staff supports the setback deviation provided a public access easement is maintained on the 0.5-acre open space area for the lifetime of the project. Amenities and Neighborhood Integration Pursuant to the Residential Overlay zone, residential development shall incorporate sufficient amenities (parks, clubhouse, pool, etc.) for the use of the residents and incorporate necessary improvements (pedestrian walkways, open space, recreational space, pedestrian and bicycle connections) to allow integration into the existing community and larger residential development that may occur in the future. The proposed project includes a variety of quality-of-life provisions and enhanced amenities. The project provides for 110,426 square feet of on-site recreational amenities, which equates to 287 square feet per unit. In addition to the improved 17 The Residences At Newport Place (PA2014-150) Planning Commission, May 5, 2016 Page 17 sidewalks along the public streets, 0.5-acre open space will be available to the residents, their guests and general public as passive open area. A pedestrian connection will also be provided within this open space area. Staff believes the number and type of amenities provided for the proposed development, based on its size, density, and location are adequate. Parking Evaluation Parking requirements are prescribed in Section 20.40.040 (Off-Street Parking Spaces Required) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. As the proposed development includes a density bonus provision, the parking requirements for the residential component of the project are prescribed in Section 20.32.040 (Parking Requirements in Density Bonus Projects) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. As stipulated in this code section, the project would be required to provide one parking space for each studio and one-bedroom apartment unit and two parking spaces for the two- and three- bedroom units. As illustrated in Table 2 above, the minimum required parking for the residential component would be 541 spaces. Additionally, the retail commercial component would be required to provide 71 parking spaces, at a ratio of one parking space for each 40 square feet of net public area (NPA). Based on these parking ratios, the project would require a total of 612 parking spaces, which includes 227 for the studio and one- bedroom units, 314 parking spaces for the two- and three-bedroom units, and 71 parking spaces for the retail commercial (i.e., quality restaurant). The proposed project has been designed to include 715 parking spaces in the partially subterranean garage, which exceeds the required parking by 103 parking spaces. As a condition of approval, a parking management plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the Community Development Director and City Traffic Engineer detailing how the parking spaces will be managed to address the needs of residents, guests, restaurant patrons, and delivery services. Trip Generation and Construction Traffic Evaluation A trip generation and construction traffic evaluation has been prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Attachment PC10) for the proposed development, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). The traffic evaluation is an overview of the trip generation and correlated trip rates that are expected to be generated by the proposed development. By using the criteria specified in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (gth Edition), trip generation rates for apartment and restaurant uses are selected since they were established for the proposed project. The overall trip generation estimates take into account the trips associated with the existing retail uses on the subject site that will 12 The Residences At Newport Place (PA2014-150) Planning Commission, May 5, 2016 Page 18 be removed. The net difference between the trips generated by the existing uses and the estimated trips to be generated by the proposed uses (apartment and restaurant) on the subject property represent the project's net increase or decrease of trips to be used for traffic evaluation purposes. Per CEQA requirements, the project trip generation estimates reflect actual conditions on the ground at the time the project application was submitted, meaning no credits are given to the existing businesses that are vacant. Accordingly, the project has a net increase of 208 daily trips, with 118 additional trips in the morning peak hour, and 66 additional trips in the evening peak hour. Per TPO trip generation procedures, credit is allowed to apply to all existing businesses on the site, even if they are currently vacant. Accordingly, the project has a net reduction of 1,047 (-1,047) daily trips, with an increase of 105 (+105) trips in the morning peak hour, and a reduction of 39 (-39) trips in the evening peak hour trip. Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance) of the Municipal Code requires a traffic study to be prepared and findings be made prior to issuance of building permits if a proposed project will generate in excess of 300 average daily trips (ADT). Based on the trip generation estimates using both the CEQA and TPO standards, the project would generate less than 300 average daily trips, and therefore a traffic study including level- of-service calculations, etc., is not required for the project. In addition to CEQA and TPO traffic trip generation evaluations, construction traffic was also evaluated to address the impacts of heavy-duty vehicles and construction workers during the construction phases of the project. A Construction Traffic Management Plan will be required as condition of approval to ensure that short-term construction traffic impacts are properly addressed. Planned Development Permit Findings The applicant has submitted an application for a Planned Development Permit (PDP) requesting adjustment of the height and setback standards. The applicant could have requested the standards be modified via the Density Bonus provisions (Zoning Code Section 20.32.0500) upon demonstrating that the increased height and decreased setbacks are necessary to make the housing units economically feasible. The applicant opted not to pursue this approach. A PDP may be approved after finding that the project, in exchange for deviation of the development standards, offers a higher quality and greater excellence of design standards, efficient use of land and enhanced amenities. It is not a zone change request (i.e. planned community development district adoption or amendment). The proposed project is a redevelopment of an aging shopping center to a mixed-use residential that introduces residential within the Newport Place Planned Community. 19 The Residences At Newport Place (PA2014-150) Planning Commission, May 5, 2016 Page 19 Although not required by the Residential Overlay zone of Newport Place Planned Community, limited nonresidential uses will be provided. The proposed project's architectural style and scale are compatible and complementary to the overall Newport Place Planned Community. Besides the building height and setback requests, the proposed project complies with the development standards of the Residential Overlay. The proposed building would feature decorative and functional vertical elements of varying height up to 83 feet in height, and be set back between 18 to 25 feet from the surrounding public streets and approximately 59 feet to the adjacent southerly-bound property. The provision of stoops along the first floor residential units provides a pedestrian-oriented development that helps to ensure that the project is an integrated part of the area. The proposed linear open space will be providing the pedestrian connectivity as prescribed by the General Plan policies. The overall scale of the proposed project is in proportion to the other buildings within Newport Place. Staff supports the applicant's request for a PDP application submittal as it would provide appropriate findings in evaluating for higher quality and greater excellence of design standards to ensure efficient use of land and enhanced amenities in exchange of the deviations. Lot Merger Findings The subject property is a pentagonal-shape site and consists of three contiguous parcels. A lot merger is proposed to consolidate the parcels to accommodate the mixed- use residential development. As demonstrated in the draft resolution (Attachment No. PC 1), staff believes the findings for approval can be made. Approval of the proposed lot merger would remove the existing interior lot lines and allow the property to be used as a single site. The lot merger in and of itself would not change the land use, density, and intensity. The proposed merged parcel would comply with all design standards and improvements required for new development as required by the General Plan, Newport Place Planned Community and the Zoning Code. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan The Municipal Code requires the preparation of an Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) pursuant to Chapter 20.32 Density Bonus. The purpose of the plan is to prescribe the project's obligation to provide affordable housing. The applicant has requested a 35 percent bonus density and is obligated to provide 86 units which is the minimum of 30 percent of the base units for low-income households. Affordable units will be restricted for a minimum of 30 years. They also will be dispersed throughout the residential development and have comparable quality and facilities as the market-rate units. 20 The Residences At Newport Place (PA2014-150) Planning Commission, May 5, 2016 Page 20 The proposed affordable rental units in accordance with the draft AHIP (Attachment PC 11) is consistent with Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) and Part III (Residential Overlay) Section of the PC-11. Fiscal Analysis A fiscal analysis has been prepared pursuant to Implementation Program 12.1 of the General Plan (Attachment PC 12). The purpose of the fiscal analysis is to identify all costs for public services and revenues to be derived from significant development projects. The analysis concluded that the proposed development would require a higher level of City services as compared to the existing retail shopping center, and would produce a negative annual cost/revenue balance for the site. Accordingly, the proposed project would generate an annual net fiscal cost to the City of approximately $204,300, as compared to the estimated current fiscal surplus from the site of $33,300, a net cost of approximately $237,600 per year. However, it is important to recognize that the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. The 2006 General Plan anticipated an increase of commercial, lodging and residential uses. 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 General Plan was adopted, would result in a positive fiscal impact for the General Fund of $21.7 million per year. This positive projected fiscal outcome incorporates the negative fiscal impacts of some of the residential development included in the plan, as demonstrated by the proposed project. Summary Staff believes the findings for project approval can be made, with specific conditions of approval. The General Plan Land Use Element policies promote the introduction of residential and mixed-use development within the Airport Area provided that such development contributes to the creation of viable neighborhood clusters with appropriate infrastructure, pedestrian-oriented features and open spaces. The applicant proposes to redevelop the existing retail shopping center with a mixed- use residential project that meets the overall intent of the General Plan goal for the MU- H2 designation in providing a mixed-use residential village and with pedestrian-oriented amenities that facilitate walking and enhance livability. The proposed development contributes to the creation of viable mixed-use neighborhood clusters with appropriate infrastructure, pedestrian-oriented features and open spaces in the Airport Area. The General Plan Policy LU6.15.13 waiver of 0.5-acre parkland dedication requirement could be supported so long as the open space area be maintained at 0.5 acre in size and accessible by the general public to ensure that pedestrian connectivity will be 21 The Residences At Newport Place (PA2014-150) Planning Commission, May 5, 2016 Page 21 provided and maintained consistent with the General Plan policies. A payment of fees equal to the value of 0.5 acres of parkland established by Ordinance No. 2007-30 shall also be required. The required findings necessary for approving the Planned Development Permit including modification of building height and setbacks could be made in order to allow for a feasible mixed-use residential development that supports the City's need for lower income households. The proposed lot merger is necessary to accommodate the proposed development. A full-access easement over the 0.5-acre open space area for public access shall be included. The draft affordable housing implementation plan illustrates how the affordable housing will be provided and maintained and is consistent with Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) and Part III (Residential Overlay) Section of the Newport Place Planned Community. Alternatives The Planning Commission has the following alternatives: 1. Should the Planning Commission not approve any or all of the deviations (0.5- acre park dedication waiver, building setback and building height), the Planning Commission may take any of the following actions: a. Direct the applicant to revise the project consistent with the Planning Commission's direction. If the changes are substantial, the item should be continued to a future meeting to allow the applicant to make the necessary adjustments and to allow staff to prepare a revised resolution incorporating new findings and/or conditions; or b. Deny the project. 2. If the Planning Commission believes that there are other issues in addition to any other than the requested deviations and that there are insufficient facts to support the findings for approval, the Planning Commission should deny the application request. Public Notice Public notice of this meeting was published in the Daily Pilot; mailed to all property owners 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 a minimum 10 days before the scheduled meeting, consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. The environmental assessment process has also been noticed 22 The Residences At Newport Place (PA2014-150) Planning Commission, May 5, 2016 Page 22 consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. Additionally, the item appeared on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Correspondences Staff received additional written correspondences submitted after the March 3rd study session. They are attached as Attachment PC 13 for the Planning Commission consideration. Prepared by: Submitted by: (ka'c-at� - '� C Oalinh Ung - As ociate Planner *nas i, r ICP, Deputy Director ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft Resolution for Approval PC 2 Excerpt of the March 3, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes PC 3 Lester C. Smull Letter, April 6, 2016 PC 4 Response to Comments PC 5 Errata PC 6 MMRP PC 7 Figure LU22 of the General Plan Land Use Element PC 8 Airport Area Residential & Mixed Use Adjustment Factors PC 9 Figure LU23 of the General Plan Land Use Element PC 10 Traffic Evaluation by K-H PC 11 Draft AHIP PC 12 Fiscal Analysis PC 13 Correspondences PC 14 Project Plans (submitted for March 3rd Planning Commission Study Session) PC 15 Revised Plans 04/0714 23 V� QP �P Attachment No. PC 1 Draft Resolution for Approval 25 V� QP �P RESOLUTION NO. #### A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. MD2015-009 AND APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. PL2014-001, LOT MERGER NO. LM2014-003 AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPLEMENTATION PLAN NO. AH2015-001 FOR THE RESIDENCES AT NEWPORT PLACE PROJECT LOCATED AT 1701 CORINTHIAN WAY, 4251, 4253 AND 4255 MARTINGALE WAY, 4200, 4220 AND 4250 SCOTT DRIVE AND 1660 DOVE STREET (PA2014-150) THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Newport Place Residential, Inc., with respect to property located at 1701 Corinthian Way, 4251, 4253 and 4255 Martingale Way, 4200, 4220 and 4250 Scott Drive and 1660 Dove Street and legally described as Lots 1 of Tract 7770, and Parcels 1 and 2 of Book 53, Page 13 of Parcel Maps requesting an approval for the development of a mixed use residential project. The following approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as proposed: A. A Planned Development Permit pursuant to Section 20.52.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code to allow the construction of 384 multi-family residential units and 5,677 square feet of retail use with an adjustment request of the development standards to allow: 1. The maximum building setback encroachments into the required 30-foot street setback of 12 feet on Corinthian Way, 10 feet on Martingale Way, 8 feet on Dove Street and 6 feet on Scott Drive. 2. The residential buildings to exceed the 55-foot height limit by 3 feet for the main portion of the buildings and 28 feet for the architectural elements. B. A waiver of General Plan Land Use Policy 6.15.13 for relief from the requirement of a minimum 0.5-acre neighborhood park to the City, and to accept a fee payment equal to the value of the 0.5 acre of parkland established by Ordinance No. 2007-30. C. A Lot Merger pursuant to Section 19.68.030.H of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code to combine three parcels into one. D. An Affordable Housing Implementation Plan to specify how the proposed project would meet the City's affordable housing requirements pursuant to Part III (Residential Overlay) of the Newport Place Planned Community and Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) of the Municipal Code. 27 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 2 of 37 2. The subject property is located within General Commercial Site 6 of the PC 11 (Newport Place) Planned Community Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Mixed-Use District Horizontal-2 (MU-H2). 3. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 4. On March 3, 2016, the Planning Commission held a study session for the project in the Council Chambers, at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. 5. A public hearing was held on May 5, 2016 in the Council Chambers at 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. 2. The draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for a 30-day comment period from January 22, 2016 to February 22, 2016, and was extended to March 4, 2016. The Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project considered the contents of the environmental document and comments on the document. 3. An Errata has been prepared which clarifies the comments provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority pertaining to the location of the bicycle lane on MacArthur Boulevard, as originally discussed in Checklist question 4.16(f) of the Transportation/Traffic Section of the MND. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5(c), recirculation of the MND is not required when new information is added to the MND which merely clarifies the MND. 4. On the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project, with mitigation measures, will have a less than significant impact upon the environment and there are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long-term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and will reduce the potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. 5. The Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial 03-03-2015 22 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 3 of 37 challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. Planned Development Permit In accordance with Section 20.52.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. The proposed development would: 1. Include only uses allowed within the base zoning district, 2. Be substantially consistent with the purpose, intent, goals, policies, actions, and land use designations of the General Plan, and any applicable specific plan; 3. Be substantially consistent with the purpose and intent of the base zoning district; 4. Include sustainable improvement standards and protection of environmental resources; and 5. Be compatible with other development within the zoning district and general neighborhood of the proposed project. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The subject property is currently zoned Planned Community and subject to the Newport Place Planned Community (PC-11) regulations. The site is designated General Commercial Site 6 which allows retail commercial, office, and professional and business uses. The site is also within Residential Overlay zone where multiple-family residential development is permitted as a stand-alone use pursuant to Part III (Residential Overlay) Section of PC-11. The subject property is approximately 5.70 acres in size and in order to be qualified for residential development, the applicant is proposing a minimum of 30 percent of the units within the proposed residential development affordable to lower-income households and subject to a 30-year affordable covenant. This provision is consistent with the Newport Place Planned Community Residential Overlay Zone which exempts residential developments from the minimum 10-acre site development required by General Plan Land Use Element Policy LU6.15.6 in exchange for the support of the City's need for lower-income households. As designed, the project has an overall density of 50 units per net acre, which is consistent with the minimum of 30 units per acre and maximum of 50 units per acre allowance per the Newport Place Planned Community Residential Overlay Zone. The proposed multi-family residential development complies with the Residential Overlay development standards, except for the requested building height and setback deviations. 03-03-2015 �9 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 4 of 37 2. The subject property has a General Plan Land Use Element designation of Mixed-Use Horizontal 2 (MU-H2). This category provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multifamily residential, vertical mixed-use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The MU- H2 land use category covers a significant portion of properties in the Airport Area within both the Newport Place and Koll Center Newport Planned Communities outside higher noise levels from John Wayne Airport. The MU-H2 allows a maximum of 2,200 residential units of which 1,650 units may be developed as replacement of existing office, retail, and/or industrial uses. The maximum density is 50 units per net acre. The remaining 550 units are classified as additive units meaning they are not required to replace other units and they may be constructed as "in-fill" units to existing commercial or office development within the Conceptual Development Plan Area (CDPA) of the Airport Area. Any eligible density bonus allowed by Government Code Sections 65915 through 65917 and Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus) of the Municipal Code are not included in the 2,200-unit allowance or the 50-unit per net acre standard. The project is consistent with the MU-H2 designation in that the proposed residential units are replacing an existing retail commercial shopping center. The subject property has 58,277 square feet of existing retail use, as documented by the applicant and verified by staff. The existing center is slightly higher than the development limit of 56,880 per Anomaly No. 12 of the General Plan Land Use Element. By using the City's adopted use conversion factors to maintain traffic trip neutrality, the applicant can construct 284 residential units and reconstruct 5,677 square feet of retail development at the expense of the existing shopping center. 3. The proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU6.15.6 (Sizes of Residential Villages) and LU6.15.10 (Regulatory Plan) The subject property is approximately 5.70 acres in size, which is less than the required 10-acre minimum for residential development. The applicant is proposing a minimum of 30 percent of the units within the proposed residential development affordable to lower-income households and subject to a 30-year affordable covenant. This provision is consistent with the Newport Place Planned Community Residential Overlay Zone, which exempts residential developments from the minimum 10-acre site development required by Policy LU6.15.6, in exchange for the support of the City's need for lower-income households. 4. The proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU6.15.7 (Overall Density and Housing Types). The project has a base density of 50 units per net acre (284 units) which is consistent with a maximum of 50 du/acre allowance by this policy. This base density however, does not include the 35% density bonus of 100 units that is allowed by the Newport Place Planned Community in exchange for the 30% or 86 units set aside for affordable housing. Although the proposed residential development is limited to one particular housing product, the 384 apartment units include variety unit types, ranging from studio to three-bedroom units. Of the 384 units, 86 units will be affordable to low- income households and 298 units will be market-rate housing. The affordable units will have the same size and amenities as the market-rate units. Additionally, the affordable units will be equally distributed throughout the project. 03-03-2015 so Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 5 of 37 5. The proposed project is not consistent with General Plan Policy 6.15.13. The proposed project requires a park dedication of 0.5 acres and the applicant requests a waiver of this dedication provision. The proposed project currently includes a 0.5-acre open space area and pedestrian pathway along the southern property line between Dove Street and Martingale Way. This open space will be landscaped and improved with passive recreational areas. The 0.5-acre open space is located in the same location as illustrated in Figure LU23 of the General Plan Land Use Element. It is however, too small to be feasibly accommodated with the desirable amenities that would be qualified as a neighborhood park. Additionally, the subject property is not located in an optimum location to serve the needs of local residents. A waiver is supportive as long as the 0.5- acre open space shall be provided and made available to the general public via an easement over the entire open space area for the lifetime of the project. Additionally, the applicant shall pay a fee in-lieu for 0.5 acres of parkland of approximately $1,250,000. (The value of the parkland would be $2,500,000 per acre equal to the value set by Ordinance No. 2007-30 for the parkland in-lieu fee ordinance applicable to subdivisions). 6. The proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU6.15.20 (Pedestrian Improvements). In addition to the public sidewalks located along the street frontages, a pedestrian pathway is being provided within the 0.5-acre open space to be located along the southern property line between Dove Street and Martingale Way that resembles Figure LU23 of the General Plan Land Use Element. The pedestrian walkway will be conditioned to have an easement for public access over the entire open space area in order to meet the intent of General Plan Policy LU6.15.13, and will be more accessible and visible from Dove Street and Martingale Way, which is the intent of this policy. 7. The proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU6.15.16 (On-Site Recreation and Open Space). The proposed project is approximately 5.70 acres in size, which is under the eight-acre criteria for on-site recreational amenities provision of 44 square feet per unit. The project; however, proposes approximately 287 square feet of on-site recreational amenities per dwelling unit, which is more than the minimum square footage required for larger developments. The proposed on-site amenities are consisted of a centrally located swimming pool with two separate spas and private cabanas, a freestanding community clubhouse; a business center; a recreation and fitness center; a bicycle shop, private patios and balconies; passive courtyards/open space areas; two separate children's play areas; and barbeque and seating areas. Landscaping will also be provided in and around the various interior courtyards. A rooftop gathering space or "sky deck" and community room will be located above the commercial spaces. 8. The proposed project is consistent with General Plan Policy LU6.15.22 (Building Massing). The 4-story residential buildings will be at a maximum height of 58 feet above the existing grade with several architectural elements of up to 83 feet. These architectural elements would accommodate elevators, stairwells and mechanical equipment. The residential buildings are designed with steps and stoops fronting on public streets and along the interface of linear open space area to engage and promote pedestrian activities. The proposed development is the first residential project in the Newport Place Planned Community where the predominant permitted land uses are 03-03-2015 31 Planning Commission Resolution No. Ott Page 6 of 37 office and light industrial developments with limited retails allowed in certain sub-areas of the planned community. These surrounding developments are ranging from single- story to four-story in height with the exception of the 10-story Radisson Hotel located nearby. The project's building mass is comparable and compatible to the existing surrounding developments. 9. The proposed project is designed with an architectural style and scale that are compatible, and complementary to the overall Newport Place Planned Community. The proposed project is a redevelopment of an aging shopping center to a mixed-use residential that introduces residential within the Newport Place Planned Community. Although not required by the Residential Overlay zone of the Newport Place Planned Community, limited supporting retail services will be provided. Besides the building height and setback requests, the proposed project complies with the development standards of Residential Overlay. The proposed building would feature decorative and functional vertical elements of varying height up to 83 feet, and be set back between 18 to 25 feet from the surrounding public streets and approximately 59 feet to the adjacent southerly-bound property. The provision of stoops along the first floor residential units provides a more pedestrian-oriented development that helps to ensure that the project is an integrated part of the area. The proposed linear open space area will be conditioned to provide pedestrian connectivity as prescribed by the General Plan policies. The overall scale of the proposed project is in proportion to the other buildings within Newport Place. Finding: B. The project would produce a development of higher quality and greater excellence of design than that might otherwise result from using the standard development regulations. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The project is designed with a podium-style that incorporates a break in building massing to introduce view corridors running east-west and north-south through the entire site with centralized and accessible recreational amenities. Additionally, the applicant describes the project's architectural style as Mediterranean Revival, with some Art Deco nuances at the commercial corner of the site. The design incorporates stone and other accents that are intended to exhibit a sense of quality and enhance the visual appearance of the project. Archways and open corridors provide the residential complex with a "piazza-like" feel as one enters and exits each open area of the site. A large public rotunda with a rooftop viewing deck is proposed for the corner of Dove Street and Scott Drive to provide enhanced project identity. Architectural features resemble bell towers and add taller elements and height variations while housing elevators, stairwells, and mechanical ventilation shafts. Warm earth tones are the main color theme with bolder color accents. Variations of the roofline add visual interest to the project. Large windows, balconies and patios, awnings, decorative relief and projections, as well as ground level "stoop" units will provide added visual interest to the interior and exterior building facades. Lastly, the inclusion of stoops along the first floor residential units 03-03-2015 32 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 7 of 37 provide a more pedestrian-oriented development that helps to ensure that the project is an integrated part of the area. 2. The project includes a wide-range of private amenities for residents and their guests. The project proposes a centrally-located swimming pool with two separate spas and private cabanas, a freestanding community clubhouse; a business center; a recreation and fitness center; passive courtyards/open space areas; two separate children's play areas; a bicycle shop, private patios and balconies; and barbeque and seating areas. Landscaping will also be provided in and around the various courtyards. A rooftop gathering space or "sky deck" and community room will be located above the commercial spaces. 3. The proposed project includes a 0.5-acre open space area and pedestrian pathway along the southern property line between Dove Street and Martingale Way. This open space will be landscaped and improved with passive recreational areas. As conditioned, a full access easement shall be provided over this 0.5-acre open space. Finding: C. The subject site is adequate in terms of size, shape, topography, and circumstances to accommodate the proposed development. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The subject property is 5.7 acres and consists of three contiguous parcels to be combined via the proposed lot merger to accommodate the proposed development. The subject property is fairly flat; with a 4-foot difference in elevation over the length of approximately 500 feet (less than 1% slope) from Dove Street to Martingale Way. No changes are proposed to the site access which current being provided and maintained from the driveways located in Dove Street, Scott Drive and Martingale Way. Besides the building height and setback requests, the proposed project is adequate in terms of size, shape, topography and complies with the development standards of the Residential Overlay zone of the Newport Place Planned Community, which allows for less than the minimum 10-acres required for residential development and supports the City's need for lower income households. Finding: D. The project, as conditioned, will not have a substantial adverse effect on surrounding properties or allowed uses. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed project provides adequate separation from structures to adjacent properties. The recreational area is located towards the center of the property, which will reduce any potential noise impacts to the neighborhood. 03-03-2015 33 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 8 of 37 2. There are three access points to the parking structure — at each mid-block driveway on Dove Street, Scott Drive and Martingale Way. The driveways on Dove Street and Scott Drive are available for residents and their guests, and the commercial tenants and their patrons. The Martingale Way drive approach will be available to the residents. 3. The proposed project is designed with two levels of parking below the podium-designed buildings and will provide 715 parking spaces, which exceeds the required parking by 103 parking spaces. As a condition of approval, a parking management plan shall be approved by Community Development Director and City Traffic Engineer to mitigate potential impacts associated with the use of the parking structure and parking assignments. Finding: E. The project includes improved quality of life provisions and enhanced amenities, including an additional and appropriate variety of structure placement and orientation opportunities, appropriate mix of structure sizes, high quality architectural design, common open space, landscaping, parking areas, private open space, public art, recreational amenities for adults and/or children, private or separated entrances, sustainable improvement standards (e.g., energy efficient building design, construction, and operation; convenient pedestrian and bicycle circulation; water and resource conservation), etc. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed residential project is a podium mid-rise style, for-rent development and includes a variety mix of unit types, ranging from studio to three-bedroom units. Of the 384 units, 86 units will be affordable to low-income households and 298 units will be market-rate housing. The affordable units will have the same size and amenities as the market-rate units. Additionally, the affordable units will be equally distributed throughout the project. 2. The project proposes approximately 287 square feet of on-site recreational amenities per dwelling unit, which is more than the minimum square footage required for larger developments. The proposed on-site amenities consist of a centrally located swimming pool with two separate spas and private cabanas, a freestanding community clubhouse; a business center; a recreation and fitness center; private patios and balconies; a bicycle shop; passive courtyards/open space areas; two separate children's play areas; and barbeque and seating areas. Landscaping will also be provided in and around the various interior courtyards. A rooftop gathering space or "sky deck" and community room will be located above the commercial spaces. 3. The proposed project is designed with two levels of parking that provides a total of 715 parking spaces for the residents and retail component, which exceeds the required parking by 103 parking spaces. Parking for the residents will be assigned and separate from the guest parking. 03-03-2015 3'4 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 9 of 37 4. The proposed design includes several complementary materials, building articulation and modulation, and varied architectural elements to provide increased visual interest. The applicant describes the proposed design as Mediterranean Revival, with some Art Deco nuances at the commercial corner of the site. Designed with archways and open corridors, the residential complex creates a "piazza-like" feel as one enters and exits each open area of the site. The structures are designed to be energy efficient. The landscaping pallet for the development will be drought tolerant with an emphasis on low water demands. Finding: F. The design, location, operating characteristics, and size of the project would be compatible with the existing and future uses in the vicinity, in terms of aesthetic values, character, scale, and view protection. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed project is designed with the overall ambiance and varying architectural styles and scale to be compatible with the existing surrounding uses located in the Newport Place Planned Community. The proposed project as designed is comparable to the existing developments in terms of height and scale as these surrounding developments are ranging from single-story to four-story in height with exception of the 10-story Radisson Hotel located nearby. The proposed building would feature vertical elements of varying height with the majority of the building height up to 58 feet in height and tower elements that extend up to 83 feet in height, and be set back between 18 to 25 feet from the surrounding public streets and 59 feet from the adjacent property. The increased height will not result in any undesirable or abrupt scale changes or relationships being created between the proposed structures and existing adjacent developments. Landscaping will be provided within the street setbacks, in addition to the existing trees that will be preserved. The overall scale of the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding uses in terms of height and setbacks. The proposed design of the project allows for suitable open space and on-site recreational amenities to serve the needs of the residents and their guests. Height In accordance with Section 20.30.060 (Height Limits and Exceptions) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: G. The project applicant is providing additional project amenities beyond those that are otherwise required. Examples of project amenities include, but are not limited to: 1. Additional landscaped open space 2. Increased setback and open areas 3. Enhancement and protection of public views 03-03-2015 S5 Planning Commission Resolution No. Ott Page 10 of 37 Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The project proposes approximately 287 square feet of on-site recreational amenities per dwelling unit, which is more than the minimum 44 square feet required for larger developments. Landscaping will be provided within the street setbacks, in addition to the existing trees that will be preserved along the street setback between 18 to 25 feet and 59 feet along the south property line. There are no existing public views that will be impacted as a result of the proposed building height increase. Finding: H. The architectural design of the project provides visual interest through the use of light and shadow, recessed planes, vertical elements, and varied roof planes. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The proposed architectural design includes several complementary materials, building articulation and modulation, and varied architectural elements to provide visual interest. The applicant describes the proposed design as Mediterranean Revival, with some Art Deco nuances at the commercial corner of the site. Designed with archways and open corridors, the residential complex creates a "piazza-like' feel as one enters and exits each open area of the site. Architectural features resemble bell towers and add taller elements height variations while housing elevators, stairwells, and mechanical ventilation shafts. Variations of roofline add visual interest to the project according to the applicant. Large windows, balconies and patios, awnings, decorative relief and projections, and ground level "stoop" units will provide added visual interest to the interior and exterior building facades. A large public rotunda with a rooftop viewing deck is proposed for the corner of Dove Street and Scott Drive to provide an enhanced project identity. Finding: 1. 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. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The increased height will not result in any undesirable or abrupt scale changes or relationships being created between the proposed structures and existing adjacent developments. The tower elements of the buildings that would extend up to 83 feet in height are for architectural articulation, interest and to allow screening of mechanical equipment, including elevator equipment and will not be habitable. The tower elements that extend to a height of 83 feet are approximately less than 4% of the total roof surface area. The building setbacks from the existing streets and adjacent property line are a 03-03-2015 so Planning Commission Resolution No. Ott Page 11 of 37 minimum of 18 feet allowing for the height to be less abrupt and "imposing" to passersby and surrounding uses. Finding: J. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the height increase. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The project will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the height increase. The purpose of requested height increase is allowed the parking garage to have a higher ceiling clearance of 14 feet for larger vehicles to utilize for loading/unloading and deliveries. This provision would eliminate an unappealing and clutter loading areas along the public streets. The proposed architectural tower elements of up to 84 feet in height are for architectural articulation purposes and to allow screening of mechanical and elevator equipment. Lot Merger In accordance with Section 19.68.030.H of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: N. Approval of the merger will not, under the circumstances of this particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the City, and further that the proposed lot merger is consistent with the legislative intent of Title 19. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The subject property is currently improved with a 58,277 square-foot retail shopping center that has eight free-standing buildings spanned over three separate parcels. The proposed development where new residential buildings will be built across the existing parcel lines necessitates the removal of interior lot lines via the proposed lot merger. 2. The lot merger is consistent with the purpose and intent of Title 19 (Subdivisions). The proposed merger will protect land owners and surrounding residents, and will preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare of the City. Finding: O. The lots to be merged are under common fee ownership at the time of the merger. Facts in Support of Finding: 03-03-2015 3� Planning Commission Resolution No. ##I## Page 12 of 37 1. The subject property as described in Section 1 of the Resolution as Lots 1 of Tract 7770, and Parcels 1 and 2 of Book 53, Page 13 of Parcel Maps are under common fee ownership by the applicant. Finding: P. The lots, as merged, will be consistent or will be more closely compatible with the applicable zoning regulations and will be consistent with other regulations relating to the subject property including, but not limited to, the General Plan and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The subject property has a General Plan Land Use Element designation of Mixed-Use Horizontal 2 (MU-H2). This category provides for a horizontal intermixing of uses that may include regional commercial office, multifamily residential, vertical mixed-use buildings, industrial, hotel rooms, and ancillary neighborhood commercial uses. The project is consistent with the MU-H2 designation in that the proposed residential units are replacing an existing retail commercial shopping center. 2. The merged lot to accommodate the proposed development will retain the General Commercial Site 6 of the Newport Place Planned Community that allows retail commercial, office and professional and business uses, and the Residential Overlay zone will still be in place to allow the proposed mixed-use development. Finding: Q. Neither the lots, as merged, nor adjoining parcels, will be deprived of legal access as a result of the merger. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Neither of the merged parcels, nor the adjoining parcels, will be deprived of legal access as a result of the lot merger. Legal access is provided and will be maintained from Martingale Way, Scott Drive and Dove Street. Finding: R. The lots, as merged, will be consistent with the pattern of development nearby and will not result in a lot width, depth or orientation, or development site that is incompatible with nearby lots. 03-03-2015 32 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 13 of 37 Facts in Support of Finding: 1. The subject property is currently bound by Corinthian Way to the northeast, Martingale Way to the east, Scott Drive to the northwest, and Dove Street to the southwest, and an office development to the south. The lots, as merged, will be consistent with the existing pattern of development nearby by maintaining the same project size and orientation and no changes to the existing site access located at Dove Street, Scott Drive and Martingale Way are proposed. Waiver of Parcel Map In accordance with Section 19.08.030.A.3 (Waiver of Parcel Map Requirement) of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code, the Planning Commission may approve a waiver of the parcel map requirement in cases where no more than three (3) parcels are eliminated. The following finding and facts in support of such finding are set forth: Finding: S. That the proposed division of land complies with requirements as to area, improvement and design, flood water drainage control, appropriate improved public roads and property access, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability, environmental protection, and other applicable requirements of Title 19, the Zoning Code, the General Plan, and any applicable Coastal Plan or Specific Plan. Facts in Support of Finding: 1. Future improvements on the site will be required to comply with the development standards of the Newport Place Planned Community and General Plan. 2. The proposed lot merger combines the properties into a single parcel of land and does not result in the elimination of more than three (3) parcels. 3. Approval of the proposed lot merger would remove the existing interior lot line, and allow the property to be used as a single site. The lot merger in and of itself would not change the land use, density, and intensity. The proposed merged parcel would comply with all design standards and improvements as required by the Newport Planned Community and General Plan. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan The proposed affordable housing implementation plan (AHIP) is consistent with the intent to implement affordable housing goals within the City pursuant to Government Code Section 65915-65918 (State Bonus Density Law), Newport Place Planned Community Part III — Residential Overlay and Title 20, Chapter 20.32 (Density Bonus Code) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 03-03-2015 39 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 14 of 37 The State Density Bonus Law and the City's Density Bonus Code provide for an increase in the number of units of up to thirty-five percent (35%) above the maximum number of units allowed by the General Plan, provided the Project constructs a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of affordable units as required by the Newport Place Residential Overlay. At the maximum density bonus of 35%, the Project will provide 100 additional units above the 284 base units allowed by the General Plan for a total of 384 total units. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the Planning Commission's independent judgment and analysis. The Planning Commission hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration, including Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit "B". The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Division, City Hall, 100 Civic Center Drive, Newport Beach, California. 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby approves the following, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference: a. Planned Development Permit No. PL2014-001, to approve the overall project including adjustments of building height and setbacks; b. A waiver of General Plan Land Use Element Policy 6.15.13, to waive the dedication of a minimum 0.5-acre neighborhood park to the City and to accept the fee payment of equal to the value of 0.5 acre of parkland established by Ordinance No. 2007-30; C. Lot Merger No. LM2014-003, to allow the merger of three existing parcels into one lot; and d. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O15-001, to approve the program that specifies how the proposed project would meet the City's affordable housing requirements. 3. This action shall become final and effective 14 days following the date this Resolution was adopted unless within such time an appeal is filed with the City Clerk in accordance with the provisions of Title 20 Planning and Zoning, of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 03-03-2015 40 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 15 of 37 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED THIS 5TH DAY OF MAY, 2016. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: BY: Kory Kramer, Chairman BY: Peter Koetting, Secretary 03-03-2015 41 Planning Commission Resolution No. eft Page 16 of 37 EXHIBIT "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project-specific conditions are in italics) PLANNING 1 . The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval. (Except as modified by applicable conditions of approval.) 2. The project is subject to compliance with all applicable submittals approved by the City and all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. Planned Development Permit No. PL2014-001, Lot Merger No. LM2014-003 and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O15-001 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.91.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code(NBMC), unless an extension is otherwise granted. 4. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of NBMC Chapter 15.38, Fair Share Traffic Contribution Ordinance, and Chapter 15.42, Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program. Fair Share and Transportation Corridor Agency fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. The proposed development shall consist of the following: a. 384 apartment units b. 5,677 square feet of non-residential 6. The allocation of 715 on-site parking spaces shall be as follows: a. 644 on-site parking spaces for residents and guest parking;and b. 71 on-site parking spaces or at parking ratio of one space for every 40 square feet of net public area for the 5,677 square-foot restaurant use. The parking demand could be adjusted in accordance to the proposed retail use and subject to the parking standards as described in Chapter 20.40 (Off-Street Parking). 7. A minimum of 86 affordable apartment units shall be provided and consistent with Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O15-001. 8. The minimum building setbacks along the public right-of-way for the entire development shall be as follows: 03-03-2015 42 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 17 of 37 a. Martingale Way. 20 feet b. Corinthian Way: 18 feet C. Scott Drive: 24 feet d. Dove Street: 22 feet 9. Stoops and landings shall be allowed to encroach up to 10 feet into the approved building setbacks along the public right-of-way. 10. On-site private recreational amenities as illustrated on the Planned Development Permit shall be provided and maintained for the duration of the project. 11. The minimum building setback along the southern property line shall be 59 feet, inclusive of stoops and landings. 12. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay park in-lieu fee equal to the value of 0.5 acre of parkland established by Ordinance No. 2007-30. 13. A 0.5-acre open space area and pedestrian pathway located along the southern property line between Dove Street and Martingale Way shall be provided, maintained and openly accessible to the general public between Dove Street and Martingale Way. No gate and fencing shall be allowed. 14. The 0.5-acre open space area shall have proper signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft at the John Wayne Airport. 15. The applicant shall comply with all project design features, mitigation measures, and standard conditions contained within the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. MD2015-009. 16. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay applicable Level 1 Statutory school fees based upon assessed value of the residential and commercial uses in effect at the time of development. 17. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay applicable property development tax as required pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 3.12 (Property Development Tax). 18.Prior to the issuance of any residential building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and shall obtain the approval of the Community Development Director, plans indicating the location and type of unit address lighting to be installed. 19. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of use and occupancy for the last residential building, the improvements of the 0.5-acre open space shall be completed by the applicant. 03-03-2015 -4.3 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 18 of 37 20. A copy of the Resolution, including conditions of approval Exhibit "A" shall be incorporated into the Building Division and field sets of plans prior to issuance of the building permits. 21. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Division an additional copy of the approved architectural plans for inclusion in the Site Development Review. The plans shall be identical to those approved by all City departments for building permit issuance. The approved copy shall include architectural sheets only and shall be reduced in size to 11 inches by 17 inches. The plans shall accurately depict the elements approved by this Site Development Review and shall highlight the approved elements such that they are readily discernible from other elements of the plans. 22. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Division. 23. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 24. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Director of Community Development, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 25. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. The survey shall show that lighting values are "1" or less at all property lines. 26. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs and unpaid costs incurred by City retained consultants associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Division. 27. All noise generated by the proposed use shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 10.26 and other applicable noise control requirements of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. The maximum noise shall be limited to no more than depicted below for the specified time periods unless the ambient noise level is higher: 03-03-2015 44 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 19 of 37 Between the hours of 7:OOAM Between the hours of and 10:00PM 10:00PM and 7:OOAM Location Interior Exterior Interior Exterior Residential Property 45dBA 55dBA 40dBA 50dBA Residential Property located within 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA 100 feet of a commercial property Mixed Use Property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 5OdBA Commercial Property N/A 65dBA N/A 60dBA 28. Should the property be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified of the conditions of this approval by either the current business owner, property owner or the leasing agent. 29. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise-generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise-generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. 30. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in the trash enclosure (three walls and a self-latching gate) or otherwise screened from view of neighboring properties, except when placed for pick-up by refuse collection agencies. 31. The applicant shall ensure that the trash dumpsters and/or receptacles are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of either fully self-contained dumpsters or periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Division. Cleaning and maintenance of trash dumpsters shall be done in compliance with the provisions of Title 14, including all future amendments (including Water Quality related requirements). 32. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and commissions, officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, liabilities, costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fees, disbursements and court costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which may arise from or in any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of the Residences at Newport Place including, but not limited to, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. MD2015-009, Planned Development Permit No. PL2014-001, Lot Merger No. LM2014-003 and Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O15-001. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and/or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this condition. The applicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant to the indemnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 03-03-2015 45 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 20 of 37 Fire Department Conditions 33. All proposed and existing fire hydrants within 400 feet of the project shall be shown on the site plan. 34. Fire flow determination shall be required for the proposed buildings. Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline B.01 "Determination of Required Fire Flow" can be consulted for assistance with fire flow calculations. The fire flow shall be included with the plan submittal for the buildings. 35. Fire hydrants shall be located within 400 feet of all portions of the building. Additional hydrants may be required dependent on fire flow calculations. 36. Blue hydrant identification markers shall be placed adjacent to fire hydrants. 37. Apparatus access roads shall be constructed of a material that provides an all-weather driving surface and capable of supporting 72,000 pounds imposed load for fire apparatus and truck outrigger loads of 75 pounds per square inch over a two foot area. Calculations stamped and signed by a registered professional engineer shall certify that the proposed surface meets the criteria of an all-weather driving surface and is capable of withstanding the weight of 72,000 pounds per Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline C.01. 38. The proposed fire access on Scott Drive shall require calculations and a statement stamped and signed by a registered civil engineer which shall certify that the proposed alternative surface and its substrate meet the criteria for an all-weather driving surface as specified by the product manufacturer. The engineer shall also certify that the alternative surface is capable of withstanding the weight requirements as referenced in Condition #37 above. The manufactures specification for the product shall indicate that the product is approved for the application or consistent with the manufacturer's recommendations. Manufacturer's specifications, including details for the required substrate shall be included with the plan. Please consult Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline C.01 for alternative surface specifications. This access area shall be used exclusively for fire access only and cannot be shared for any other use, as per the California Vehicle Code. Access shall be marked for fire use only as per Newport Beach Fire Guideline C.01. 39. All security gates (including at entrance to garage and interior of garage area) shall have an approved remote opening device for emergency services. Consult N.B.F.D. Guideline C.01 for gate requirements. 40. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be required and installed as per C.F.C. Sec. 903. 41. The underground fire line shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department. A separate submittal shall be required which requires an "F" Permit. The underground 03-03-2015 40 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 21 of 37 fire line is a separate submittal (cannot be part of the overhead fire sprinkler plans, nor precise or rough grading plans) and must be designed as per N.B.F.D. Guideline F.04 "Private Hydrants and Sprinkler Supply Line Underground Piping." 42. Standpipe systems shall be provided as set forth in C.F.C. Sec. 905. Additional standpipes (due to access restrictions with design of project) shall be required in locations determined by the Fire Department. 43. A fire alarm system shall be required and installed as per C.F.C. Sec. 907. 44. 2A 10BC Fire Extinguishers shall be required for the R-2 Occupancy. This fire extinguisher will cover 3,000 square feet of floor area. The extinguisher shall be located so that it is not more than 75 feet travel distance to reach an extinguisher from the front door of each apartment. 45. The parking garage is classified as an ordinary hazard occupancy which requires a 2A 20BC Fire Extinguisher. This fire extinguisher will cover 1500 square feet of floor area and the extinguisher shall be located so that it is not more than 50 feet travel distance to reach an extinguisher from the garage floor area. 46. Effective emergency responder radio coverage (800 MHz) shall be required and comply with Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline & Standards D.05 Public Safety Radio System Coverage. 47. Premises identification shall be provided as City of Newport Beach amended C.F.C. Sec. 505.1.1. Addresses shall be placed over or immediately adjacent to all doors that allow fire department access. In no case shall the numbers be less than four inches in height with a one-half inch stroke. 48. Fire places and fire pit clearance shall be provided as per manufactures recommendations and/or California Mechanical Code requirements. 49. All buildings and structures with one of more passenger service elevators shall be provided with no less than one medical emergency service elevator to all landings. The elevator car shall be of such a size to accommodate a 24-inch by 84-inch ambulance gurney or stretcher with not less than 5-inch radius corners, in the horizontal, open position, shall be provided with a minimum clear distance between walls or between walls and door excluding return panels not less than 80 inches by 54 inches and a minimum distance from wall to return panel not less than 51 inches with a 42-inch side slide door as per California Building Code Sec. 3002. Phase I and Phase II recall shall be required. 50. Stairwell signage shall meet Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline & Standards D.01. 51. Smoke detectors shall be required for the individual dwelling units as per C.F.C. Sec. 907.2.11.1. 03-03-2015 47 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 22 of 37 52. Dumpster locations shall meet Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline & Standard A.16. 53. Exterior walkways shall be designed to accommodate hand carrying of firefighter ladders for use of "ground" laddering of buildings. (The largest ladder utilized will be 35-foot ladder with a storing length of 20.5 feet long.) 54. Laddering ground pads shall be provided for ground laddering and made large enough to accommodate a 35-foot ladder with a 70° climbing angle. The laddering pads shall be provided in the landscaped areas, if determined. 55. Exterior walkways shall be wide enough to accommodate gurneys. 56. Landscape shall not obstruct laddering to buildings. 57. Roof gardens and landscaped roofs shall comply with the requirements of the California Building Code and the California Fire Code. 58. Car charging shall meet requirements from National Electrical Code 625.5. 59. The emergency generator needs to be filled from the outside of the building via a remote fill pipe in a location approved by the fire department. Buildinq Division Conditions 60. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City's Building Division and Fire Department. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code (CBC). The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. 61. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the City with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. 62. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the City's Building Division and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 03-03-2015 42 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 23 of 37 63. A list of "good house-keeping" practices will be incorporated into the long-term post- construction operation of the site to minimize the likelihood that pollutants will be used, stored or spilled on the site that could impair water quality. These may include frequent parking area vacuum truck sweeping, removal of wastes or spills, limited use of harmful fertilizers or pesticides, and the diversion of storm water away from potential sources of pollution (e.g., trash receptacles and parking structures). The Stage 2 WQMP shall list and describe all structural and non-structural BMPs. In addition, the WQMP must also identify the entity responsible for the long-term inspection, maintenance, and funding for all structural (and if applicable Treatment Control) BMPs. 64. One-hour fire-resistance-rated elevator lobbies shall be required for all elevators connecting the parking garage levels with the residential units above. All elevators shall be gurney-size elevators. 65. Termination of interior exit stairways shall terminate at an exit discharge directly to the exterior of the building at a grade or shall provide a direct path if egress travel to grade. 66. All accessible parking stalls shall be located close to the elevators. 67. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit temporary shoring plans and calculation for review and approval by the Building Division. 68. The proposed construction shall comply with definitions of building height, grade plane, story and story above grade plane as defined in Section 202 of the CBC. 69. Allowable building height above grade plan, story limitation and building area limitation above the podium shall comply with Table 503 of the CBC. Final type of building construction shall be approved by the Building Division. 70. The proposed development shall comply with Section 510.2 of the CBC in order to consider building above podium as a separate and distinct building for the purpose of determining area and number of stories limitations, continuity of fire walls and type of construction limitations. 71. Shaft construction and continuity shall be in accordance with Section 713 of the CBC. Two-hour fire-resistance-rated construction shall be required for stairs and elevator shafts. 72. Buildings above the podium shall not be permitted to have Group A occupancy use with more than 300 occupants. 73. Corridors in R-2 buildings equipped with fire sprinklers shall be One-hour fire- resistance-rated construction. 03-03-2015 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 24 of 37 74. Travel distance to exit stairways shall be a maximum 250 feet from the most remote point in accordance with Table 1016.2 of the CBC. Maximum exit access travel distance with one exit shall be 125 feet. 75. All means of egress shall be accessible in accordance with Section 1003.1 of the CBC. 76. Walls separating dwelling units in the same building shall be constructed as fire partitions in accordance with Section 708 of the CBC. Walls shall have sound transmission class (STC) in accordance with Section 1207.2 of the CBC and Green Building Code requirements. 77. Horizontal assemblies separating dwelling units in the same building shall be a minimum of one-hour fire-resistance-rated construction in accordance with Section 711.3 of the CBC. Floor ceiling assemblies shall have STC in accordance with Section 1207.2 of the CBC and Green Building Code requirements.-All penetrations shall be protected per Section 714 of the CBC. 78. Podium deck area occupants shall have an accessible route to the street by ramps or elevators. Leasing office, pool and other amenity areas shall be accessible to disabled persons. 79. All buildings shall comply with the current Green Building Code requirements including environmental comfort Section 5.507. 80. Garage ceiling clearance shall be a minimum of 8'-2" for van accessible vehicles. 81. All construction assemblies, penetrations and joint details that will be used on plans shall be tested and listed for applicable use. Complete listing descriptions shall be required. 82. A grading bond shall be required prior to grading or building permit issuance. The bond shall be based on the total value of excavation and grading work. 83. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the geotechnical report shall be required and approved by the Building Division. 84. Retaining walls shall be designed for seismic loads as per the adopted codes. 85. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a drainage and hydrology study shall be required and approved by the Building Division. 86. Fire Sprinkler System shall be Type 13. 87. All dwelling units shall be accessible and adaptable for the disabled. 03-03-2015 50 Planning Commission Resolution No. Ott Page 25 of 37 88. A full building code review shall be done at time of the building permit application (plan review). Public Works Conditions 89. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 90. An encroachment agreement shall be obtained for any private improvements within the public right-of-way per City Council L-6, Private Encroachments in Public Rights- of-Way. 91. An encroachment permit shall be obtained for all work activities within the public right- of-way. 92. The curb and gutter shall be reconstructed along the Dove Street, Scott Drive, Corinthian Way and Martingale Way frontages per City Standards. 93. A minimum 6-foot wide sidewalk shall be reconstructed along the Dove Street, Scott Drive, Corinthian Way and Martingale Way frontages per City Standards. Sidewalk may be located at the back of curb upon the prior approval from the Public Works Department. 94. New ADA compliant curb access ramps shall be constructed at the intersection of Dove Street and Scott Drive, Scott Drive and Corinthian Way, and Corinthian Way and Martingale Way per City Standards. 95. Drive aisles shall be clear of all obstructions, including but not limited to, door swing, mechanical equipment, etc. 96. All residential parking spaces shall be assigned spaces, otherwise a dedicated turn around area and a 5-foot hammerhead shall be provided at all dead end drive aisles within the residential portion of the parking garage. 97. The proposed driveways shall be installed per City Standard STD-161-L with a minimum 15-foot radius. Pedestrian easements may be necessary to accommodate ADA compliant paths. 98. The proposed parking layout and on-site circulation shall be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. The proposed parking layout, including parking spaces and aisle widths, shall be per City Standard STD-805-L-A and STD-805-L-8. Turn around spaces and 5-foot minimum drive aisle extensions shall be installed at the location of the proposed gates within the parking garage, where commercial and guest parking is provided. 03-03-2015 .51 Planning Commission Resolution No. Ott Page 26 of 37 99. All proposed water and sewer connections for the proposed development shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and the Utilities Division of the Municipal Operations Department and constructed per City Standards. 100. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement per City Standard 110-L. Planting within the limited use area shall have a growth characteristic of less than 24 inches in height. 101. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right-of-way shall be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 102. An easement for sidewalk purposes and emergency vehicle access shall be granted to the City for the off-street emergency vehicle staging area on Scott Drive. 103. An easement for public access shall be granted to the City over the entire 0.5-acre open space area located along the southern property line. 104. The gated residential entry off of Martingale Way shall be set back a minimum of 60 feet from the property line to provide adequate stacking/queuing outside of the public right of way. The kiosk/call box shall be located near the gates to provide the largest queue area. Gated entry shall be monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week and be remotely opened to allow vehicles that inadvertently turn into the driveway to turnaround. Appropriate signage shall be placed at the entry to notify drivers that the entry is for residents only and a turnaround area is available within the garage by using the kiosk. 105. All move-ins/move-outs, deliveries and trash pickup shall be accommodated entirely on-site. Use of the public right of way shall be prohibited. 106. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a construction management plan shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and City Traffic Engineer. 107. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a parking management plan shall be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and City Traffic Engineer. 03-03-2015 52 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 27 of 37 EXHIBIT B MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 03-03-2015 53 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 28 of 37 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Newport Beach prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Initial Study for the proposed Residences at Newport Place Project located in the City of Newport Beach. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and the MND is scheduled for adoption by the City of Newport Beach, in conjunction with the approval of the project. In addition to the mitigation measures, several standard conditions have also been incorporated into the proposed project that avoid or reduce potentially significant impacts. The standard conditions are also listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) and CEQA Guidelines section 15097 require the Lead Agency for each project which is subject to the CEQA to monitor performance of the mitigation measures included in any environmental document to ensure that implementation does, in fact, take place. The PRC requires the Lead Agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program that is designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. In accordance with PRC Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15097, this MMRP has been developed for the Residences at Newport Place project. MITIGATION MEASURES The mitigation measures which are required to reduce or avoid the potentially significant adverse impacts of future development on the project site are listed in the table below, MMRP. Responsible parties, the time frame for implementation, and the monitoring parties are also identified for each measure. In order to determine if the responsible party has implemented these measures, the method of verification is also identified, along with the City of Newport Beach department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the responsible party has completed each mitigation measure. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Residences at Newport Place Project Newport Beach, CA Method of Timing of SC/MM Standard ConditioniMitigation Verification Implementation Responsibility No. Measure Aesthetics The proposed project shall comply with City Policy G-1 (Retention and SC 1-1 Removal of Trees), including but not Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Planning Division limited to removal of trees, Building Permit maintenance of trees, and tree trimming. The proposed project shall comply with Section 20.30.070 of the SCI-2 Newport Beach Municipal Code, Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Planning Division which requires that all outdoor Building Permit lighting fixtures shall be designed, shielded, aimed, located, and 03-03-2015 J�'4' Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 29 of 37 Method of Timing of SC/MM Standard Condition/Mitigation Verification Implementation Responsibility No. Measure maintained to shield adjacent properties and to not produce glare onto adjacent properties or roadways. Air Quality SC 3-1 The proposed project shall comply Monitoring During Grading and Building Division with all applicable SCAQMD Rules. Construction During all phase of construction (demolition, site preparation/grading, and building construction), the applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions and vehicle exhaust emissions. Fugitive Dust Control Measures Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive areas. Prepare a high wind dust control plan. Address previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. Water exposed surfaces as needed to avoid visible dust leaving the construction site (typically 2-3 times/day). Cover all stock piles with tarps During Grading and MM 3-1 at the end of each day or as Monitoring Construction Building Division needed. Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials. Minimize in-out traffic from the construction zone. Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material and require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site. Exhaust Emissions Control Measures Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment. Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or better heavy equip mant. 03-03-2015 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 30 of 37 Method of Timing of SC/MM Standard Condition/Mitigation Verification Implementation Responsibility No. Measure Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment. Biological Resources Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape SC 4-1 architect. These plans shall Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Planning Division incorporate drought tolerant Building Permit plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Division. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular SC 4-2 pruning, fertilizing, owing and Monitoring During Operation Planning Division 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. Cultural Resources Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Director of Community Development shall ensure that the following provision is included on the grading plan(s), and the applicant shall be required to comply with this provision. "If evidence of subsurface Community archaeological resources is found Prior to Issuance of Development SC 5-1 during construction, excavation and Plan Check Grading Permit Director/Planning other construction activity shall cease and the applicant shall Division contact the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. With direction from the Community Development Director, an archaeologist certified by the County of Orange shall be retained to evaluate the discovery prior to resuming gradin in the immediate 03-03-2015 +>0 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 31 of 37 Method of Timing of SC/MM Standard Condition/Mitigation Verification Implementation Responsibility No. Measure vicinity of the find. If warranted, the archaeologist shall collect the resource and prepare a technical report describing the results of the investigation. The test-level report shall evaluate the site including discussion with the depth, nature, condition, and extent of the resources, final remediation recommendations, and cost estimates." Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Director of Community Development shall ensure the following provision is included on the grading plan(s), and the applicant shall be required to comply with the provision. "If evidence of subsurface paleontological resources is found during construction, excavation and Community SC 5-2 other construction activity in that Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Development area shall cease and the applicant Grading Permit Director/Planning shall contact the City of Newport Division Beach Community Development Director. With direction from the Community Development Director, a paleontologist certified by the County of Orange shall evaluate the find. If warranted, the paleontologist shall prepare and complete a standard Paleontological Resources Mitigation Program for the salvage and curation of identified resources." In the event of the discovery of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone, all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find shall halt immediately and the area of the find shall be protected and the applicant shall immediately notify the Orange County Coroner of the find and comply with the provisions During Grading and SC 5-3 of the California Health and Safety Monitoring Construction Planning Division Code Section 7050.5, including P.R.C. Section 5097.98, if applicable. In the event that human remains are determined to be Native American human remains, the applicant shall consult with the Most Likely Descendent to determine the appropriate treatment for the Native 03-03-2015 ��L 5/ Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 32 of 37 Method of Timing of SC/MM Standard Condition/Mitigation Verification Implementation Responsibility No. Measure American human remains. Geology and Soils The proposed project shall comply with the requirements prescribed in Prior to Issuance of SC 6-1 the California Building Code and all Plan Check Grading Permit Building Division applicable requirements in the City of Newport Beach Building Code. All activities associated with the implementation of the proposed project shall comply with Section Prior to Issuance of SC 6-2 15.04 (Building Code) of the Newport Plan Check Grading Permit Building Division Beach Municipal Code and all other applicable development requirements prescribed by the City. The proposed project shall implement the recommendations stated in Chapter 7.0 (Conclusions and Recommendations) of the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by GEOCON, including those for: (1) soils and excavation characteristics; (2) minimum resistivity, pH, and water soluble Prior to Issuance of MM 6-1 sulfate; (3) grading; (4) shrinkage; Plan Check Grading Permit Building Division (5)foundation design; (6)foundation settlement; (7) lateral design; (8) concrete slabs on-grade; (9) preliminary pavement recommendations; (10) retaining walls and retaining wall drainage; (11) dynamic lateral forces; (12) temporary excavation; and other recommendations. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Prior to the issuance of the demolition permit, an asbestos survey shall be conducted at each of the onsite building structures. The asbestos survey must be overseen by a California-Certified Asbestos Prior to Issuance of SC 8-1 Consultant. The results of this Plan Check Demolition Permit Building Division survey should provide a description of the asbestos-containing materials, their locations, estimated quantity, and recommendations for removal, containment, and off-site transportation and disposal. Prior to issuance of the demolition SC 8-2 permit, all onsite building structures Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Building Division shall be assessed for the possible Demolition Permit resence of lead-based paint. This 03-03-2015 52 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 33 of 37 Method of Timing of SC/MM Standard Condition/Mitigation Verification Implementation Responsibility No. Measure study must be conducted by trained and/or licensed professionals. The results of this study should provide a description of the lead-based paint locations, estimated quantity, and recommendations for removal, containment, and off-site transportation and disposal. Hydrology and Water Quality Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain coverage under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (General Construction Permit) issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The applicant must also file a notice of intent (NOI) with the SWRCB. The applicant shall be required to prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) in compliance with the General Construction Permit. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall include a description of construction Prior to Issuance of SC 9-1 materials, practices, and equipment Plan Check Grading Permit Building Division storage and maintenance; a list of pollutants likely to contact stormwater; site-specific erosion and sedimentation control practices; a list of provisions to eliminate or reduce discharge of materials to stormwater; BMPs, and an inspection and monitoring program. Implementation of the SWPPP shall begin with the commencement of construction and continue through the completion of the proposed project. After construction is completed, the applicant shall be required to submit a notice of termination to the SWRCB. Land Use and Planning The applicant shall a-file Form Upon Project 7460-2, Notice of Actual Abandonment or Sc 10-1 Construction or Alteration, any time Notice Within 50 Days of Planning Division the project is abandoned or within 5 Construction days after the construction reaches Reaching Greatest its realest hei ht. Height Noise 03-03-2015 �9 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 34 of 37 Method of Timing of SC/MM Standard Condition/Mitigation Verification Implementation Responsibility No. Measure Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity-Noise Regulations) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts During Grading and SC 12-1 construction to the hours of 7:00 Monitoring Construction Building Division a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction is not permitted on Sunday and national holidays. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a detailed acoustical study prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant, based on architectural plans, and submitted to the Community Development Department to demonstrate that all residential units would meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for habitable rooms (i.e., bedrooms, living rooms, Prior to Issuance of SC 12-2 dens, and kitchens) and 65 dBA Plan Check Building Permit Planning Division CNEL exterior noise standard for all patios, balconies, and common outdoor living areas (i.e., swimming pool/spa and courtyard areas with exterior noise traffic and aircraft overflights. The measures described in the study shall be incorporated into the architectural plans for the project and implemented with the building construction. Any person who intends to sell or lease residential properties within an Lease SC 12-3 "airport influence area" shall Agreement Upon Lease of Each Planning Division disclose that fact to the person Unit buying or leasing the properties, Disclosure pursuant to Assembly Bill 2776. Stockpiling and staging activities shall Prior to Issuance of MM 12-1 be located as far as practicable from Plan Check Grading Permit Building Division surrounding office and restaurant. All mobile equipment shall have During Grading and MM 12-2 properly operating and maintained Monitoring Construction Building Division mufflers. The rock crusher shall be located in the center of the project site with the MM 12-3 screen end of the crusher oriented Monitoring During Grading Building Division away from the Radisson Hotel and La Salsa restaurant. MM 12-4 A partial wall of structures should be Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Building Division retained as Ion as practical to Demolition Permit 03-03-2015 00 Planning Commission Resolution No. #### Page 35 of 37 Method of Timing of SC/MM Standard Condition/Mitigation Verification Implementation Responsibility No. Measure interrupt the line-of-sight to surrounding off-site uses. Public Services The project shall comply with the following codes and regulatory requirements: • National Fire Protection Association 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. SC 14-1 • California Building Code Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Fire Department (California Code of Regulations, Building Permit Title 24, Part 2) • California Fire Code (CFC; California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9). Several City conditions of approval for the proposed project— listed above in Section 5.12.1 — are based on CFC requirements. • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code: Title 9, Fire Code. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay the applicable property development tax Prior to Issuance of SC 14-2 as required pursuant to City of Payment of Fee Building Permit Building Division Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 3.12 (Property Development Tax). Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay the Prior to Issuance of SC 14-3 applicable Level 1 Statutory School Payment of Fee Building Permit Building Division Fee in effect at the time of development. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay applicable SC 14-4 park in-lieu fee equal to the required Payment of Fee Prior to Issuance of Planning Division park dedication of 0.5 acre, based Building Permit on the current parkland value for the Cit of New ort each. Trans portation/Traffic Prior to issuance of building permits, Prior to Issuance of Public Works SC 16-1 the applicant shall submit a Plan Check Building Permit Department 03-03-2015 01 Planning Commission Resolution No. ; Page 36 of 37 Method of Timing of SC/MM Standard Condition/Mitigation Verification Implementation Responsibility No. Measure construction traffic management plan for approval by the Public Works Department, which shall include a discussion of project phasing, construction staging area(s), parking, traffic control, and traffic routes as follows • The plan shall identify the proposed construction staging area(s), construction crew parking area(s), estimated number and types of vehicles that will occur during that phase, the proposed arrival/departure routes and operational safeguards (e.g. flagmen, barricades, shuttle services, etc.) and hourly restrictions, if necessary, to avoid traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, displacement of on- street parking and to ensure safety. • The plan shall provide for an off- site parking lot for construction crews which shall be shuttled to and from the project site at the beginning and end of each day until such time that the project site can accommodate off-street construction vehicle parking, in the event that on-site parking for the construction crews could not be provided. In the interim, construction crews shall be prohibited from parking in the nearby public streets or on private properties. • The plan shall identify all construction traffic routes, which shall avoid residential streets, unless there is no alternative, and the plan shall not include any streets where some form of construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the proposed route. • Dirt and demolition debris hauling shall not be scheduled during 03-03-2015 02 Planning Commission Resolution No. ; Page 37 of 37 Method of Timing of SC/MM Standard Condition/Mitigation Verification Implementation Responsibility No. Measure weekday peak hour traffic periods and during the summer season (Memorial Day holiday weekend through and including the Labor Day holiday weekend). The plan shall be implemented throughout the construction phases. Utilities Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a detailed Public Works and sewer and water demand analysis Prior to Issuance of Municipal SC 17-1 for review and approval by the Plan Check Building Permit Operations Public Works and Municipal Departments O eration Departments. All new and existing wastewater Public Works and SC 17-2 laterals shall be designed to include Plan Check PrBuild Issuance of Municipal a new sewer cleanout. Building Permit Operations Departments All new and existing fire, domestic and landscaping water services/meters shall be protected Prior to Issuance of Municipal SC 17-3 by either a Double Check Detector Plan Check Building Permit Operations Assembly or a Reduced Pressure Department Backflow Assembly, depending on the application. 03-03-2015 63 V� QP �P Attachment No. PC 2 March 3, 2016 PC Excerpt Minutes 05 V� QP �P EWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/3/16 ITEM 1 MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18,2016 Reco ended Action: Approve and file It was noted that wri corrections to the minutes of February 18, 2016, were submitted by Mr. Jim Mosher and will be incorporated into me. Motion made by Secretary Ko ing and seconded by Vice Chair Brown to approve and file the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting o ebruary 18, 2016, as corrected. AYES: Brown, Krame , oetting,Weigand ABSTAIN: Lawler ABSENT: Hillgren, Zak VII. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ITEM NO.2 BRISTOL STREET VERIZON WIRELES ELECOM FACILITY (PA2015-215) Site Location: 2350 Bristol Street The aforementioned item was continued to the Planning Commi 'on meeting of March 17, 2016, under Request for Continuances. ITEM NO.3 BACK BAY LANDING(PA2011-216) Site Location: 300 E. Coast Highway The aforementioned item was continued to the Planning Commission meeting of rch 17, 2016, under Request for Continuances. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski requested the Planning Commission hear I No. 5 at this juncture. VIII. NEW BUSINESS ITEM N0.4 THE RESIDENCES AT NEWPORT PLACE (PA2014-150) Site Location: 1701 Corinthian Way, 1660 Dove Street, 4251, 4253, 4255 Martingale Way, 4200, 4220, 4250 Scott Drive Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski introduced the item and provided context in terms of what development applications are pending in the airport area (Statistical Area L-4), as well as development potential according to the General Plan. She addressed land uses, basis of development opportunities, pending applications, General Plan build-out table and mixed-use designations. She deferred to staff for a presentation of the project. Associate Planner Rosalinh Ung provided a PowerPoint presentation stating the purpose of the study session and providing a summary of the project application. She addressed the number of allowed residential units based on the redevelopment of the existing retail shopping center, density bonus calculations allowed by Code, square footage for future retail use, the number of affordable units required in order to get the density bonus, the subject property, surrounding properties and uses, General Plan designation, residential overlay zone, amenities, proposed open space area, residential unit mix, building height increase request, building setback reductions, lot merger for consolidation, affordable housing component, environmental review and environmental mitigation. She reported that the public hearing for this application is tentatively scheduled for March 17, 2016. Associate Planner Ung deferred to the applicant for a presentation. Brittany Jensen, representing Newport Place Residential, noted the site provides a great opportunity for redevelopment, but is currently being underutilized. She addressed existing conditions, property size and General Plan designation. She introduced her team and deferred to property owner Bud Smull. Page 2 of 10 07 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/3/16 Bud Smull, property owner, provided a detailed history of the property. In response to Secretary Koetting's inquiry, Mr. Smull reported that the leases of the current tenants are expiring. In order to make way for the project, he reported he had to buy out some of the leases. He added that the project will include a 5,000 square foot opportunity for a restaurant. Faramarz Jabbari, architect, addressed the site location, orientation, opportunities and constraints, views, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, creation of view corridors, open space, private courtyards, parking, amenities, architectural design, community rooms and the swimming pool. Commissioner Zak arrived at this juncture(7:49 p.m.). Matt Jackson, landscape architect, highlighted the amount of landscaping and open space proposed and addressed courtyard elements and opportunities for planting mature trees. He noted there will be open space available for the public and addressed connectivity throughout the community. Ms. Jensen addressed site coverage, the amount of landscaping and building footprints. In response to Secretary Koetting's question, Associate Planner Ung reported that in the Airport Area, there is a criteria for an open-space requirement of a minimum of 8% or half an acre, whichever is greater. She identified open-space areas proposed by the applicant. This particular property is not required to provide a minimum of private amenities, but the applicant chose to provide them. Additionally, she identified where the applicant is requesting setback reductions. She added that there is a required 30-foot setback,along the public right-of-way and ten feet for interior setbacks. She reported that staff believes the variety of setbacks proposed are adequate, in exchange for the half-acre open-space that is being provided at the southerly edge of the property. Additionally, Associate Planner Ung explained the applicant's request for a land-use policy waiver. She reported that the applicant is proposing a half-acre open-space area as a private park that will be available to the general public during daylight hours. The applicant is requesting to pay an in-lieu fee equal to the value of that half acre. In response to Commissioner Lawler's question, Associate Planner Ung confirmed that in return for the setback reduction, the applicant is proposing the half-acre park. However, the applicant is requesting to reduce it to a third-acre park. Discussion followed regarding the height increase from fifty-five feet to eighty-three feet. Associate Planner Ung reported that the bulk of the building is approximately fifty-eight feet. That would be the typical height for a four- story building. The additional requested height is to accommodate architectural elements such as the proposed towers seen on specific elevations that will also hide mechanical equipment and add character to the project. She added that staff is supportive of the setback reduction and the additional height. Relative to the half-acre park, staff would prefer maintaining the half-acre, as prescribed in the General Plan policy, rather than one-third acre. Commissioner Lawler asked why there is no development agreement proposed on this project and Associate Planner Ung stated that a development agreement is only required per the General Plan policy or per the Municipal Code and explained both. She stated that in this case, the application does not trigger a requirement for a development agreement per both criteria. Chair Kramer reported that the General Plan clearly states that a development agreement is required. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported the applicability of other sections of the General Plan and reported that this has been reviewed extensively by the Community Development Director. She pointed to the area for which the General Plan requires a development agreement for infill, additive, residential development. However, the applicant may opt to provide a development agreement if they desire. Chair Kramer opined there may be some dispute between zoning and the General Plan criteria for requiring a development agreement that may need to be resolved. He spoke in support of redevelopment in the Airport Area and indicated this project seems like a residential island in a sea of offices and wondered if the proposed Page 3 of 10 02 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/3/16 amenities are sufficient. He commented on the general design of the project adding that it is inward looking and wondered if it was well integrated with the neighborhood. Additionally, he commented on the lack of street access and felt that the architectural style seems out of place for the Airport Area. Chair Kramer stated that he believes this project should require a development agreement and addressed other projects in the airport area that required the same. In response to Secretary Koetting's question regarding a traffic analysis, City Traffic Engineer Brine reported that there is no traffic study required per the Traffic Phasing Ordinance. He added that there are no additional trips generated with this project. Associate Planner Ung reported that a traffic analysis was prepared in accordance the CEQA guidelines. In response to Secretary Koetting's question, Associate Planner Ung noted there are three points of entry to the project and identified their locations. Vice Chair Brown urged staff to include information in the packet relative to vehicle trips. Commissioner Lawler listed the height, setbacks, lack of a development agreement and the park issues that need to be discussed further. Chair Kramer opened public comments. Jim Mosher referenced the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) being circulated and noted that the time to respond ends tomorrow. He questioned its significance, as people can respond and ask questions up to the moment of the hearing when the Commission will consider adopting it. Additionally, he asked if this will be forwarded to City Council or if the Planning Commission is the final authority. He commented on the park issue, noted a concern with the City following its own procedure and wondered what the authority is for waiving what the General Plan declares to be the City's policy. He commented on the proposed height increase and questioned whether the zoning code allows that. Associate Planner Ung reported that CEQA guidelines require the City to provide opportunities for public comment within a thirty-day period. Public comments for this MND will close March 4, 2016. She stated that it is normal practice for the City to receive comments, provide written responses to the comments and provide these to the Planning Commission or City Council for their consideration. She addressed the General Plan policy waiver noting that the City has that authority. In this case, the approving entity is the Planning Commission because the project does not require a zoning or General Plan amendment. The Planning Commission has the authority to waive it as part of their consideration and approval. Additionally, the City has the authority to increase the height as long as it in compliance with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan. The applicant has filed and received the necessary Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) clearance. The additional height is only for the tower elements and to accommodate mechanical equipment. The bulk of the building is fifty-five to fifty-eight feet in height. Jennifer McDonald referenced another project considered by the Planning Commission in Newport Center and similar requests that were made. She reported that Chair Kramer had indicated the need for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for that project and Ms. McDonald felt that one is needed for this project, as well. She believed that one of the impacts is aesthetics adding that it does not look like "Newport Beach" to her in terms of height, intensity and bulk. She added that it could set an important precedent and stated she would feel more comfortable if an EIR was conducted. Dorothy Kraus, Board Member of SPON, expressed concerns about the planned developments coming before the Commission and felt that such a development should provide for amenities such as grocery stores and things that should be part of the community that keep people from having to drive. She expressed support of Ms. McDonald's comments regarding the need for an EIR, especially in relation to traffic. Discussion followed regarding the closest grocery store to the proposed project. Page 4 of 10 O9 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/3/16 Rick Roshan, property owner at 4299 MacArthur Boulevard, agreed that something needs to be done with the subject property but felt that it must be the right project. He expressed concerns with traffic and resident and guest parking and stated he would like to see a traffic study conducted. He noted there will be a much higher volume of people leaving and returning during peak hours than presently exists. Additionally, he expressed concerns with the proposed building height and the reduced setbacks. John Petry asked regarding the criteria to receive public comments and noticing of the matter. Associate Planner Ung reported that the public notice was sent to all property owners within three hundred feet of the subject site and posting of the project site. Mr. Petry felt the noticing doesn't give people affected by the project an opportunity to comment. He agreed that the site needs redevelopment but expressed concerns regarding increased traffic. He noted the need for a traffic study and a parking analysis. He indicated the Commission is being asked to make certain exceptions to the rules and stated that if the Commission allows for certain changes, it will affect future decisions. Additionally, he asked for clarification regarding"replacement units". Associate Planner Ung reported that staff has used a conversion formula to convert an existing use to a specific number of residential units. Lorian Petry asked about the proposed cost of the units and inquired about the mix of residential units. Chair Kramer closed public comments. Ms. Jensen commented on the proposed height noting that while they are asking for portions of the building to be built to up to eighty-three feet, this would be to accommodate tower elements for equipment storage and to add character to the skyline. She reported that attention has been given to strategically place them and to not create imposing views. She addressed the lack of nearby large shopping centers but noted the availability of dining establishments for residents and office uses. She listed nearby grocery stores and stated that they do not believe that would be too much of a burden for residents. Additionally, Ms. Jensen addressed parking and commented on the affordable component of the project which creates a potential for less vehicles than would be seen with market-rate apartments. She addressed the square footage of studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom apartments, noting there is a large range of different floor plans and addressed connectivity and traffic. In response to Chair Kramer's question regarding the architectural style, Ms. Jensen reported it was the intent to design something with a resort-style feel. Mr. Jabbed stated that his effort was to create something timeless and that the architecture is more of a Mediterranean Revival. He added that the intent was to maximize the view of the outside through a filter; a controlled means of views. Additionally, he commented on creating an open space so that the project doesn't look clumsy. Chair Kramer acknowledged a difference in taste and opined that the style is not appropriate for the Airport Area. He encouraged the applicant to review the architecture. In response to Commissioner Lawler's request, Ms. Jensen addressed the basis for the density as well as the bonus density units as a result of providing affordable units. Commissioner Lawler expressed concerns regarding the architectural style not fitting in with the Airport Area. He added that the number of requests for variances seems to be extensive and asked if the applicant is open to a development agreement. Ms. Jensen stated she would need to discuss the matter with the property owner, before she would be comfortable agreeing. She reported that livable space is up to fifty-eight feet. The increased height is only for the tower elements to screen mechanical equipment. Ms. Jensen noted challenges with creating an architectural Page 5 of 10 jD NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3/3/16 style that is compatible with varying uses. Additionally, she addressed community outreach and reported there is a lot of excitement and anticipation for the redevelopment of this area. Ms. Jensen reiterated the need to discuss the development agreement, internally. She felt that a decision could be made within two weeks. Associate Planner Ung reported that staff has noted the Commission's comments and concerns and that they will be addressed in the staff report for the on March 17, 2016, meeting. If the architect wants to make changes to the design,they would need additional time to do so. Chair Kramer stressed that study sessions should not be so close to the public hearing and need to be at least one month prior to the approval to allow for issues that come up. Secretary Koetting suggested the Commission could postpone the item. Associate Planner Ung asked for direction regarding traffic and parking analysis. Chair Kramer noted that the Planning Commission is the approving body for this matter and must do its due diligence. Secretary Koetting noted there are a lot of loose ends and felt that the project needs a little more refinement. Commissioner Lawler suggested directing staff to proceed with a report and bring it back to the Commission. He hoped that the report would address the concerns voiced and commented on the potential need for a development agreement. However, there needs to be a staff report for the Commission to properly review this matter. Deputy Community Development Director Wisneski reported that some of the issues raised tonight could be addressed in the staff report. However, some of the issues are up to the applicant. Staff needs more time to discuss the issues with the applicant and staff will schedule the appropriate date for the public hearing. Discussion followed regarding the targeted clientele, challenges and limitations with the greenlight initiative, demanding quality architecture and potential for development of nearby grocery stores. Chair Kramer noted that the developer has the ability to add mixed use but would need to sacrifice residential units. He spoke in support of providing additional amenities to residents and encouraged the applicant to speak with staff regarding same. ITEM NO. 5 GENERAL PLAN AND HOUSING ELEMENT ANNUAL REPORT(PA2007-195) Citywide Assistant Planne Iinda Whelan provided the staff report. She addressed State requirements, the current status of a comprehens database which will be available to the public, example of the database, the Housing Element portion of the repo and of Affordable Housing Funds and recipients and comments received from Mr. Jim Mosher. Secretary Koetting confirmed the number of r ' ential units in the Uptown Newport project. Chair Kramer noted the applicant has requested an a dment to add a 180-room hotel in Phase 1. That application will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in the r future. In response to Secretary Koetting's question, City Traffic Engineer Tony ' e reported that the fair-share traffic contribution is based on trips and stated that the process to update the fees an many years ago, but has been placed on hold. Secretary Koetting clarified that the update has been placed on hold but that the City still has a is fee for trip generation. Page 6 of 72 V� QP �P Attachment No. PC 3 Lester Smull Letter — April 6, 2016 73 V� QP �P BUSINESS PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT COMPANY 19931 FrrCR IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92814-8021 (949)494-8900 FAX(949)474-8939 Dated: April 6, 2016 BY E-MAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Chairperson Kramer and Members of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: The Residences at Newport Place(PA2014-150) 1701 Corinthian Way, 1660 Dove Street, 4251,4253, and 4255 Martingale Way, 4200, 4220, and 4250 Scott Drive Planned Development Permit No. PL2014-001 Lot Merger No. LM2014-003 Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No. AH2O15-001 Dear Chairperson Kramer and Members of the Planning Commission: On behalf of Newport Place Residential, LLC("NPR"),applicant for the above-referenced project approvals, I am writing to respond to some of the points that were raised at the March 3, 2016, Planning Commission study session for The Residences at Newport Place (the "Project"). My understanding is that the Planning Commission's public hearing for the Project is scheduled for your April 21, 2016, meeting. I request that a copy of this letter be entered into the public hearing record. Before addressing specific points, I do want to thank the Planning Commissioners for the insightful questions and comments you made at the study session. I also wish to thank the City's Planning Division staff for their very professional and detailed review. It has been a long and arduous process—the NPR team has spent over 2 years getting to this point—but with your staff s direction and support we hope you will agree that NPR has submitted an outstanding development proposal that will be a credit to the community and much enjoyed and appreciated by our future residents, business tenant(s), and neighbors. A. Development Agreement. One of the main questions the Chair and other members of the Commission raised at the March P study session was whether NPR would propose or agree to enter into a Development Agreement. On March 7`h, the NPR project team, including myself, met with City staff and staff reiterated this question. At about the same time your Community Development Director asked me to contact Councilmember Ed Selich, which I did,and when I spoke to Mr. Selich on March 8`h he urged me to agree to enter into a Development Agreement. I have given this subject much consideration and, while I certainly do wish to do be a good "corporate citizen" and do "the right thing," NPR must respectfully decline. We do so for the following reasons: I. No Development Agreement is required for the Project under either the City's General Plan or Municipal Code. This point was made repeatedly by two members of the City's Planning staff(Ms. Wisneski and Ms. Ung) during the March 3rd study session. 2. The issue about whether a Development Agreement is or is not required was one of the very fust issues the NPR project team addressed with City staff when we applied for approval over two years ago and City staff confirmed that, in fact,no DevelopmentAgreement is required In this regard, I wrote to Principal Planner Mr. Jim Campbell on January 22, 2014, setting forth NPR's reading of the applicable provisions of the City's General Plan(Section 13 of the Land Use Element, including Implementation Program 13.1)and Chapter 15.45 of the Municipal Code, and I asked Mr. Campbell to confirm NPR's understanding that no Development Agreement is required for the Project. Mr. Campbell replied on February 13,2014, and stated as follows: "First, in response to your earlier email regarding whether a development agreement is required, we have looked at that question and conclude that no development agreement would be required by the General Plan or Municipal Code. You may request one if that is what you want to do." (Emphasis added.) 3. NPR has invested over 2 years and over$1,000,000 in processing its application(s) for the Project, and has terminated since 2014 over 91% of the leases in the current development in good faith reliance upon your City staff's (100% correct) representation that no Development Agreement is required. The issue of "fairness and equity" was raised at the March 3`d study session. I submit that it would be wholly unfair and inequitable for the City to reverse course at the I I 1 hour and insist that NPR sign a Development Agreement, particularly if laden with unnecessary and unreasonable conditions and/or exactions. 4. Other things being equal, NPR would like to have the benefit of a statutory Development Agreement that would vest its rights to develop in accordance with the City's land use regulations at the time the Development Agreement is approved. (See Government Code Section 65864 et seq.) The problem here, however, is that the City has apparently used Development Agreements as a means of extracting a $25,000 per unit fee from certain other residential projects which likely were in need of entitlements and vesting. If such an inappropriate fee were applied to all 384 residential units in NPR's Project it would drive up our development costs by $9,600,000 (384 DUs x $25,000/DU = $9.6M). Even if such a fee were applied "only" to the 298 market-rate units in the Project, the fee would drive up costs by $7,450,000 (298 DUs x $25,000/DU= $7,450,000). In short,the quid pro quo the City might demand for the added and unnecessary security of"vested rights" is simply too high a price to pay. Besides which, NPR does not need or request a Development Agreement as it does not plan to "sit" on its entitlement. We intend to move forward aggressively and build the Project as soon as possible. We do not request or believe we need the additional vesting rights that a Development Agreement provides for projects that may not break ground for many years after they are approved. -2- 5. An "agreement" is a voluntary transaction between 2 (or more) willing parties. (See, e.g., Government Code Section 65865(c), which speaks to cities being required, "upon the request of an applicant, [to] establish procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements upon application by, or on behalf of, the property owner. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Here, the City of Newport Beach appears to be using what is supposed to be a voluntary bilateral "agreement" process as a means of coercing developers to pay very large exactions—here, what the City calls "development agreement fees"--exactions that have no relationship whatsoever to the burdens placed on the public by their development projects and without regard to any of the procedural protections and limitations on development fees that are set forth in statutes such as the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and the "takings" clauses of the United States and California Constitutions (see, e.g., Dolan v. City of Tigard(1994) 114 S.Ct. 2309). This is not right or fair. 6. NPR's Project is an affordable housing project. Thirty percent(30%)of the "base" number of units in the Project-86 in total—will be set aside for lower income households(earning less than 80%of area-wide median income,adjusted for family size)and will be required to remain affordable(in general, with the maximum rent equal to 30% of household income) for a period of 30 years. This affordable housing serves an important community need and helps the City achieve its affordable housing targets under State law. This amount of affordable housing is an expensive burden for the Project to carry, and the added cost of any "development agreement fees"would render development of the Project financially infeasible. Without getting into the particulars, NPR submits it would be very much inconsistent with various provisions of State law (including without limitation Government Code Sections 65008, 65589.5, 65913, and 65913) and the City's own housing policies and programs(e.g., the Housing Element of your General Plan and your own local density bonus ordinance) to condition the Project on the obligation to sign a Development Agreement (and pay the associated Development Agreement fees) or, even worse, to disapprove the Project because NPR declines to do so. In summary, I do not know the circumstances of the other mixed-use projects in the Airport area that have been required or that have offered to enter into Development Agreements. I understand that some or all of them are subject to different land use regulations than the Newport Place property. In any event, I can speak only for NPR's Project and NPR must respectfully decline to apply for or agree to enter into a Development Agreement. B. Development Standards. Individual Planning Commissioners raised other issues/concerns at the March 3rd study session, including (1) setbacks, (2) building height, and (3) the park dedication/improvement/in- lieu fee requirement. NPR representatives have worked closely with Planning staff on these issues over the past 2-plus years and we are in full agreement with the supportive statements made by your staff on these subjects at the study session. I expect that your staff and NPR will provide additional input on these subjects at the April 21" public hearing, but since I have already addressed affordable housing law issues(Par.A.6 above) I thought it would be appropriate to make one additional point. To repeat, the Project is a density bonus project within the meaning of Government Code Section 65915 and Chapter 20.32 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Since 30% of the -3- J77 Project's "base" number of units are affordable to lower income households, in addition to the density bonus (additional units) the Project is entitled to receive three (3) "incentives or concessions"—with that term defined to include "[a] reduction in site development standards or a modification of zoning code requirements or architectural design requirements. . . . including, but not limited to,a reduction in setback and square footage requirements and in the ratio of vehicular parking spaces that would otherwise be required that results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions" and "[o]ther regulatory incentives or concessions proposed by the developer. . . that result in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions." (See Government Code Section 65915(b)(3), (d)(2)(C),and (k)(1).) NPR believes that it complies with applicable City codes(otherwise, we would have expressly asked you to approve these aspects of the Project under the"incentives or concessions" provisions of the density bonus law) but, to the extent there may be any question on this point I would request that the Commission give consideration to approving these aspects of the Project pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(b)(3), (d)(2)(C), and (k)(1) and the corresponding provisions of the City's density bonus ordinance. C. Architectural Style. Concern was raised regarding the architectural style of the project. It was expressed that the architectural style is "too classical" and "not cohesive" with the other uses within the Airport Area. The first point I'd like to make is that there are no design guidelines outlined or required for private development within this area and during the 2-plus years of working with City staff on the project staff never indicated that architectural style was an issue and no direction was provided in this respect. Secondly, the proposed project is a residential project surrounded by non-residential uses, so it has to be expected that it will not be a perfect "match" with its neighbors. Third, Mediterranean style architecture is much more commonly seen with residential developments than with office or industrial uses—and, in fact,has been widely used in other residential projects City- wide. Finally, even if one's attention is focused narrowly on the existing non-residential uses in the area, there is no true cohesive existing architectural style--some of the existing uses have been in place for over 30 years while some just recently completed construction. Taking all of these factors into consideration, discussion regarding the proper architectural style of the proposed project is entirely a subjective opinion. It would be a great hardship if, after all this time,the City were to require the architectural style of the project to be changed. D. Supporting Retail Use. Another area of discussion has been the desire expressed by one or two Planning Commissioners to incorporate more retail space into the proposed project at the expense of residential units. While the redevelopment of the site would displace the existing specialty retail and restaurant uses,retail within this location has struggled for years without enough support from surrounding uses. The number of residential units in the proposed project is not nearly enough to support a market (the one use specifically mentioned at the Planning Commission study session) or other similar service retail uses for the residents. To reintroduce additional commercial space beyond what is currently being provided is not a sound business strategy and would likely lead to vacant space and a blighting influence on an otherwise attractive project. Providing residential within this area will strengthen the existing nearby restaurants and retail establishments. Additionally, within the last several years, a number of new retail commercial businesses, -4- 72 including restaurants have been introduced in more viable retail locations in the immediate area. Sacrificing residential units for retail square footage does not make economic sense for the project as it would take 5.4 units to increase the retail component by a mere 1,000 square feet. Finally,the applicable development/use standards for the subject property do not require any non-residential development, much less a minimum ratio of commercial to residential, so we believe the determination as to the amount of commercial space should be market-based and voluntary, not compelled. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, By: CI J a I �- Lester C. Smull, Managing Generalner MacArthur Square, a California general partnership, and owner of property cc: E-MAIL DISTRIBUTION: Planning Commissioners Kory Kramer,Chair (kkramerna newportbeachca.gov) Tim Brown, Vice Chair (tbrown(c newportbeachca.gov) Peter Koetting, Secretary (pkoening(a newportbeachca.gov) Bradley Hillgren (bhillgren@newportbeachca.gov) Ray Lawler (rlawlert7a newportbeachca.gov) Erik Weigand (eweigand@newportbeachca.gov) Peter Zak (pzak(a)newportbeachca.gov) City Staff Kim Brandt, Community Development Director (KBrandtLa-)newportbeachca.gov) Brenda Wisneski, Asst. Community Development Director(bwisneskianewportbeachca.gov) Jim Campbell, Principal Planner (JCampbellna newportbeachca.gov) Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner(RUng@newportbeachca.gov Development James Kawamura (ikawamuraaa,np-residential.com) Brimae Jensen (biensenaa,,np-residential.coml -5- �9 V� QP �P go Attachment No. PC 4 Response to Comments 21 V� QP �P g� RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS THE RESIDENCES AT NEWPORT PLACE (PA2014-150) MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH No. 2105011057) NEWPORT BEACH, CA INTRODUCTION The 30-day public review period for the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was from January 22 through February 22, 2016, and was extended to March 4, 2016. The City of Newport Beach received eight (8) comment letters on the Proposed MND during the public review period. Responses to the comments included in each of the letters received by the City have been prepared and are included with the Proposed Final MND. The comment letters were received from: 1. California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, Inc. (January 22, 2016) 2. Gabrielefio Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation (No Date) 3. City of Irvine Community Development Department(February 8, 2015) 4. Orange County Transportation Authority(February 22,2016) S. Airport Land Use Commission (February 22, 2016) 6. Sempra (March 1, 2016) 7. Frederick Roshan (March 4, 2016) B. SPON/Marko Popovich, President(March 4, 2016) The Residences at Newport Place Project Responses to Public Comments April 2016 Page 1 Rs CCRPACalifornia Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, inc. P.O. Box 54132 An alliance of American Indian and scientific communities working for Irvine,CA 92619-4132 the preservation of archaeological sites and other cultural resources. January 22, 2016 Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: Notice of Intent to adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration: The Residences at Newport Place, City of Newport Beach Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above mentioned project. We concur with the findings that there is little likelihood for the presence of archaeological resources due to the fact that the project j area has been subjected to extensive grading and significant landform modification. In addition, as the existing structures were constructed after the passage of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), cultural resources would have been addressed at that time. Sincerely, e Patricia Martz, Ph.D. President g� 1. California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance,Inc.(January 22,2016) Response to Comment No.1 This comment reflects concurrence with the flndings presented in the initial study that it is unlikely significant cultural resources would be encountered during grading and construction of the site. This comment is acknowledged. No response is necessary. The Residences at Newport Place Project Responses to Public Comments April 2016 Page 2 815 r:.n „a.taw .` !'� CAI3KILLENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS- KIZH NATION I-Jistorically known as The San Gabriel Sari of Mission Indians v Kccownized by the State of California as the aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles basin Rosalinh Ung , Assosiate Planner New ort Beach Civic Center Council Chambers 100 civic Center Drive New Port Beach, CA 92660 Dear Rosalinh Ung, Thank you for your letter regarding your proposed project 1701 Corinthian Way; 4251, 4253 and 4255 Martingale way; 4200,4220 and 4250 Scott Drive; and 1600 Dove Street. We do in fact have concerns regarding your project's potential impact to cultural resources. The project location Sits on and around the Prehistoric Village of" Lupukugna " which covered 7 Square . Miles. We would like to request one of our Tribal monitors to be on site at this project location during all ground 1 disturbance (this includes but is not limited to pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, boring, grading, excavation and trenching). Our priority is to avoid and protect cultural resources without delay or conflicts to the lead agency or property owner. Our monitor will provide daily written reports (as well as photographic proof) of all activities including construction along with any cultural materials identified. Liability insurance, consultation with our Tribal archaeologists and Tribal biologists can also be provided and utilized if necessary. Often, we are told that an archaeological monitor will be present and there's no need for a Native American monitor. It is well known that archaeologists do not recognize sites that Native Americans do. Archaeologists are trained to recognize man made items even though they often misinterpret what the item is used for. This is what Tribal Monitors do —what we are trained to do. The purpose of SHPO, Section 106, ACHP and now AB52 is to provide Tribes with the laws necessary to protect potential cultural resources. In addition, we are also often told that an area has been previously developed or disturbed and thus there are no concerns for cultural resources and thus minimal impacts would be expected. I have two major recent examples of how similar statements on other projects were proven very inadequate. An archaeological study claimed there would be no impacts to an area adjacent to the Plaza Church at Olvera Street, the original Spanish settlement of Los Angeles, now in downtown Los Angeles. In fact, this site was the Gabrieleno village of Yangna long before it became what it is now today. The new development wrongfully began their construction and they, in the process, dug up and desecrated 118 burials. The area that was dismissed as culturally sensitive was in fact the First Andrew Salas,Chairman Nadine Salas,Vice-Chairman Christina Swindall Martinez,secretary Albert Perez,treasurer I Martha Gonzalez Lemos,treasurer II Richard Gradias, Chairman of the council of Elders FO 5--393 Cowne,CA 9 t 7Z9 www.gabf-icleiioindiansopq oo.com ga6rielenoindians@yahoo.com 20 Cemetery of Los Angeles where it had been well documented at the Huntington Library that 400 of our Tribe's ancestors were buried there along with the founding families of Los Angeles (Picos, Sepulvedas, and Alvardos to name a few). In addition, there was another inappropriate study for the development of a new sports complex at Fedde Middle School in the City of Hawaiian Gardens could commence. Again, a village and burial site were desecrated despite their mitigation measures. Thankfully, we were able to work alongside the school district to quickly and respectfully mitigate a mutually beneficial resolution. Given all the above, the proper thing to do for your project would be for our Tribe to monitor ground disturbing construction work. Because we are the lineal descendants of the vast area of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, we hold sacred the ability to protect what little of our culture remains. We thank you for taking seriously your role and responsibility in assisting us in preserving our culture. With respect, Andrew Salas, Chairman cell (626)926-4131 Andrew Salas,Chairman Nadine Sales,Vice-Chairman Christina Swindall Martinez,secretary Albert Perez,treasurer I Martha Gonzalez Lemos,treasurer II Richard Grades, Chairman of the council of Elders i o gon 39j !✓ovines, CA 91 J23 www.gabrielenoinJ,ans@uakoo.com ga6rielenoinJians@zJakoo.com 27 2, Gabrielefio Band of Mission Indians- Kizh Nation (No Date) Response to Comment No. 1 The comment letter indicates the presence of a prehistoric village of "Lupukugna" that covered an approximate 7 square mile area. The letter also indicates that the project site is "on and around" the village and expresses concerns that development of the project may potentially affect cultural resources.The letter requests a tribal monitor be on-site at the project location during all ground-disturbing activities.The letter further suggests that archaeologists do not recognize sites that Native Americans do and that archaeologists can misinterpret artifacts found. Lastly, the letter suggests that concluding there may be minimal impacts to cultural resources based on previous development and ground disturbance may be inaccurate. As indicated in the initial study, it is unlikely that the site would result in significant impacts to cultural resources based on the extent of grading and site alteration that has occurred in the past It is important to note that development in proximity to the project site in the past has not uncovered the presence of cultural resources. Nonetheless, the initial study includes standard conditions (refer to SC 5-1 and SC 5-3) to ensure that appropriate steps are taken in the event that cultural resources are encountered during grading to protect such resources. Although the recommendation to have a tribal monitor be present during ground-disturbing activities is acknowledged,the degree of sensitivity of the project site,or the surrounding area for that matter, with respect to the potential to encounter buried cultural resources has not been provided through the AB52 consultation process or the comment letter. on March 4, 2016, the City requested information from the Gabrielefio Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation to provide documentation of the potential likelihood of encountering cultural resources the City believes to be necessary to support the need for a Native American monitor too be present during grading as requested. To date a response to the City's request for additional information has not been received from the tribal representative, Without such additional documentation to support either the"high sensitivity"attributed to the site or the potential for encountering cultural resources identified in this comment letter,development of the project would not warrant requiring a Native American monitor to be present during all ground-disturbing activities. Standard conditions have been prescribed and included in the MND, which will be implemented during all ground-disturbing activities associated with the project Standard Condition 5-1 requires that should cultural resources be encountered during grading, all site disturbance activities would cease and an archaeologist certified by the County of Orange shall be retained to evaluate the discovery prior to resuming grading in the immediate vicinity of the find. If resources are encountered, the City would invite affiliated Native American groups to contribute to a treatment plan for such resources. In addition, SC 5-3 requires compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, including Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, if applicable if human remains are encountered. In the event that human remains are determined to be Native American human remains, the applicant shall consult with the Most Likely Descendent to determine the appropriate treatment for the Native American human remains. Implementation of these measures is adequate to reduce potential impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level. The Residences at Newport Place Project Responses to Public Comments April 2016 Page 3 22 O F �qL (� O m Community Development cityofrvine.org City of Irvine,One Civic Center Plaza, P.O. Box 1957?5�GrE`�DCalifornia 92623-9575 (949)724-6000 COMMUNITY FEB 112016 February 8, 2016 DEVELOPMENT GT OF NEWPOR, Ms. Rosalinh Ung, Associate P!arine City of Newport Beach Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject; Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration for The Residences at Newport Place located at 1701 Corinthian Way; 4251, 4253 and 4255 Martingale Way; 4200, 4220 and 4250 Scott Drive; and 1600 Dove Street in Newport Beach Dear Ms. Ung: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for The Residences at Newport Place. City of Irvine staff has reviewed the submittal and has the following comment: 1) While the project nets a decrease in ADT and PM trips compared to the existing uses, it also nets an increase of 105 AM peak hour trips. Staff would like to know if the City of Newport Beach's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) considers the change in directionality of traffic during morning and evening peak periods when there is the greatest volume of 1 traffic. Further, given the directionality of traffic changes in both AM and PM, particularly the net increase in morning peak hour trips, it may also be beneficial to conduct a traffic study to ensure the circulation system surrounding the project can support such changes during the peak periods of heavy traffic. Please note that the City of Irvine's Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, adopted in August of 2004, requires a traffic study be prepared for projects that result in significant increases in AM or PM peak hour trips. In this way, the City of Irvine ensures that the circulation system can support the additional traffic a development project may be contributing during peak periods. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER �/ Ms. Rosalinh Ung February S, 2016 Page 2 If you have any questions, please contact me at 949-724-6364 or by email at jeauina .cityofirvine,orq. Sincerely, Mina Associate Planner cc: Bill Jacobs, Principal Planner Sun-Sun Murillo, Supervising Transportation Analyst 9� 3. City of Irvine Community Development Department(February 8,2016) Response to Comment No.1 The City's comment suggesting that a traffic study prepared in accordance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance may be beneficial to ensure that the circulation system in the vicinity of the proposed project can continue to function adequately. This comment is acknowledged. As indicated in the Transportation/Traffic Section of the MND, the trip generation estimates based on the Traffic Phasing Ordinance(TPO) criteria showed that the proposed project would result in a net reduction of 1,047 (-1,047) daily trips, with an increase of 105 (+10S) trips in the morning peak hour, and a reduction of 39 (-39) trips in the evening peak hour. A TPO traffic study is not required for the proposed project as it does not generate more than 300 average daily trips The Residences at Newport Place Project Responses to Public Comments April 2016 Page 4 91- OCTA AFFILIATED AGENCIES February 22, 2016 Orange County Transit District Locat Transportation Ms. Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Authority City of Newport Beach Planning Division Service Aulhonly for 100 Civic Center Drive Freeway Emergencies Newoprt beach, CA 92660 Consolidated TransWralion Service Agency Congestion Management Subject: The Residences at Newport Place Initial Study and Mitigated Agency Negative Declaration Service Authority for Abandoned Vehicles Dear Ms. Ung: Thank you for providing the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) with the opporunity to review the above referenced document. The following comments are provided for your consideration: • On page 107 from section "4.16 Transportation/Traffic" under subsection 4.16(f), the existing bicycle facilities near the project site are discussed. 1 o According to the City of Newport Beach Bicycle Master Plan (Figure 3-3, Page 30) (Plan), no bicycle facilities currently exist on MacArthur Boulevard between Campus Drive and Jamboree Road. • The Plan also demarcates Jamboree Road as "Sidewalks —Bicycle 2 Riding Allowed" and is not under Class I type facility. Please add N Bristol between Campus and Jamboree as a Class II along with bicycle riding is allowed on sidewalks in that segment. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me by phone at (714) 560-5907, or by email at dphu@octa.net. Sincerely, Dan Phu Section Manager, Environmental Programs Orange County Transportation Authority 550 South Main Street/P.O.Box 14184/Orange/California 928634584/(714)560-OCTA(6282) 92 4. Orange County Transportation Authority(February 22, 2016) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment indicates that no bikeways exist on MacArthur Boulevard between Campus Drive and Jamboree Road. This comment is acknowledged. The text on p. 107 of the MND will be revised to state: "Other bicycle facilities identified on the Newport Beach Master RiQmI Plan in the project area include Class 2 bicycle lane (on-road striped lane) on Campus Drive, and on MacArthur Boulevard from Campus Drive to Jamboree Road: however. the bicycle lane does not currently exist on MacArthur Boulevard." Response to Comment No.2 This comment identifies North Bristol between Campus Drive and Jamboree Road as a Class 2 bicycle lane and that the Jamboree Road bicycle lane is not under Class 1. This comment is acknowledged. The text on p. 107 of the MND will be revised to state: "Bicycle and pedestrian paths also exist within the project area,including Jamboree Road(a Glass I off read- `i'---•ay3 which is currently designated on the Newport Beach Bike Map as "B4keSidewalk-Bicycle Riding Allowed." The Residences at Newport Place Project Responses to Public Comments April 2016 Page 5 93 ORANGE CCUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUNTY ./Ll)G 3160 Airway Avenue•Costa Mesa,California 92626-949.252.S]70 fax: 949.252.6012 February 22, 2016 Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660, CA 92628 Subject: The Residences at Newport Place Dear Ms. Ung: Thank you for the opportunity to review the initial study for the Residences at Newport Place Project in the context of the Airport Land Use Commission's(ALUC's)Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport (JWA AELUP). The proposed project includes demolition of an existing shopping center to accommodate the development of a mixed-use residential development located at 1701 Corinthian Way. The proposed project is within the Federal Aviation Regulation(FAR) Part 77 Imaginary Surfaces obstruction area for JWA and is in the FAR Part 77 Notification Area for JWA as noted in the initial study. As stated in the initial study,the proposed project received a Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on November 25, 2014 and includes the Newport Beach Zoning Code Policy stating that the proposed project shall not penetrate FAR Part 77 Obstruction Imaginary Surfaces for JWA unless approved by the ALUC. We appreciate that the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)addresses these imaginary surfaces given the close proximity of the proposed project to JWA (approximately 1,000 feet from JWA). The initial study states that the proposed project would not exceed 83 feet in height. The proposed project site is located within the horizontal surface for JWA. The Airport Land Use Commission continues to recommend that buildings be kept to a height not greater than 206 feet [using North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD88)] and has strongly 1 discouraged buildings in the vicinity of JWA that penetrate this imaginary horizontal surface. The MND discusses maximum building heights and ground elevation and states that the proposed project will remain below the imaginary surfaces for JWA. However, we recommend that the Draft MND also include discussion of the City's maximum allowable building height for the proposed project area as permitted through the City's General Plan or Zoning Code. 2 The proposed project falls within the 60 dbA CNEL noise contour for JWA. Per the AELUP for JWA, residential development located within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour should be sound attenuated to ensure that the interior CNEL does not exceed 45 94 ALUC Comments Residences at Newport Place 2,22 16 Page 2 I B. The initial study states that the proposed project will meet this criteria and the applicant will be required to submit an acoustical report showing that the noise level will be achieved prior to the issuance of a building permit. The proposed project has been designed to include several recreational amenities such as open space areas, courtyard gardens and children's play areas. Per the JWA AELUP, we 3 recommend that designated outdoor common or recreational areas within the 60 dB CNEL noise contour provide outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft. Because of the project's proximity to a noise impacted area, any prospective resident should be notified of the presence of aircraft overflight. The initial study does state, and we concur, that any residential development in the JWA airport influence area would be notified of potential aircraft overflight as follows: "NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY: 4 This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within H hat is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you. " In addition,the Draft MND should identify 1) if the project will be impacted by helicopter overflight due to the close proximity of helicopter arrival and departure operations at JWA, and 2) if the project allows for heliports as defined in the Orange County AELUP for Heliports. Should the development of heliports occur within your 5 jurisdiction, proposals to develop new heliports must be submitted through the City to the ALUC for review and action pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21661.5. Proposed heliport projects must comply fully with the state permit procedure provided by law and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by FAA, by the ALUC for Orange County and by CaltranstDivision of Aeronautics. Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the initial study. Please contact Lea Choum at (949) 252-5123 or via email at lchoum a.ocair.com should you have any questions related to the ALUC for Orange County. Sincerely, Kari A. Rigoni Executive Officer 9� 5. Airport Land Use Commission(February 22,2016) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment acknowledges that the height of the proposed multi-family residential structure (83 feet) would not exceed the 206-foot height limit recommended by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC); however, the comment also requests that the maximum building height permitted by the City also be discussed. This comment is acknowledged. As indicated in the initial study, the development of the project site is governed by the Residential Overlay Zone Newport Place Planned Community (PC-11) District regulations. The maximum building height is SS feet, which can be increased with the approval of a site development review. The building height increase is subject to required findings specified in Section 20.30.060.0.3 of the Newport Beach Zoning Code but shall not penetrate Federal Aviation Regulation(FAR) Part 77,Obstruction— Imaginary Surfaces, for John Wayne Airport unless approved by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). It also shall be in compliance with FAR Part 77,and comply with the requirements of Section 20.30.060.E of the Newport Beach Zoning Code (Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport and the Airport Land Use Commission Review Requirements)." Response to Comment No.2 This comment reiterates the findings and recommendations presented in the initial study regarding the interior noise standard required for residential development located within the 60 dBA CNEL of JWA. This comment is acknowledged. As required by Standard Condition (SC) 12-2 on p. 85 of the MND, the applicant will be required to prepare and submit a detailed acoustical study to show that all units meet the 4S dBA interior noise standard for habitable rooms. Response to Comment No.3 This comment recommends that the outdoor common areas located within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour should provide outdoor signage informing the public of the presence of operating aircraft. This comment is acknowledged;and the project will be conditioned to provide the recommended signage. Response to Comment No.4 This comment reflects concurrence with the findings and recommendation presented in the initial study regarding the notification to future residents that the site is subject to noise associated with aviation activities occurring at JWA. This comment is acknowledged. As indicated in SC 12-3, such notification will be provided to all buyers/renters of the proposed residential units the proposed dwelling units. Response to Comment No. 5 With regard to the project's potential exposure to helicopter noise associated with operations at nearby JWA and in the project area,the project site is in Safety Zone 6(Traffic Pattern Zone)of JWA and is in the vicinity of nearby heliports. As such, the project is subject potential noise from aircraft as well as helicopter operations in and around JWA. The Residences at Newport Place Project Responses to Public Comments April 2016 Page 6 90 This comment is acknowledged. As indicated in the initial study,the project site is located within the 60 dBA CNEL noise contour of the airport. SC 12-2 requires that a detailed acoustical study will be prepared documenting that all of the proposed residential dwelling units met the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standards for habitable rooms and the 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise standard for all exterior areas. It is important to note that a heliport is not part of the development proposal. Furthermore,heliports are not a permitted use per the Newport Place Planned Community District Regulations. The Residences at Newport Place Project Responses to Public Comments April 2016 Page 7 97 1919S 5....o Ca„ B-. SoCalGas A-- CA 928066114 A `x•1111)1,1 1.111 rg? unity March 8,2016 City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Dr Newport Beach,CA 92660 Attn: Rosalinh Ung Subject: Mititgated Negative Declaration for The Residences at Newport Place Located at 1701 Corinthian Way;4251,4253,and 4255 Martingale Way;4200,4220,and 4250 Scott Dr; 1600 Dove St;Newport Beach;PA2014.150 Thank you for providing the opportunity to respond to this Environmental Document.This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas facilities within the service area of the project could be installed,altered or abandoned as necessary without any significant impact on the environment. The availability of natural gas service is based upon conditions of gas supply and regulatory agencies. As a Public Utility,Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. Our ability to serve can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affect gas supply or the conditions under which service is available,gas service will be provided in accordance 1 with the revised conditions. This letter is also provided without considering any conditions or non-utility laws and regulations(such as environmental regulations),which could affect construction of a main and/or service line extension(i.e.,if hazardous wastes were encountered in the process of installing the line). The regulations can only be determined around the time contractual arrangements are made and construction has begun. Information regarding construction particulars and any costs associated with initiating service may be obtained by contacting our area Service Center at 800-427-2200. Sincerely, Katrina Regan Planning Supervisor SouthEast Region-Anaheim Planning&Engineering MH EM&c 92 6. Sempra (March 1, 2016) Response to Comment No.1 This letter indicates that the Gas Company can provide natural gas to the project without any impact on the environment. This comment is acknowledged. No response is necessary. The Residences at Newport Place Project Responses to Public Comments April 2016 Page 8 99 MacArthur Pacific Plaza Associates, LLC 4299 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 220 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 955-2328 March 4, 2016 Ms. Rosalinh Ung Associate Planner City of Newport Beach Planning Division 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: The Residences at Newport Place - Proposed Development 1701 Corinthian Way, Newport Beach Dear Ms. Ung, Thank you for the opportunity to express our comments and concerns about the impact of the proposed development,The Residences at Newport Place. Our company owns and manages the two-story office building directly across from the proposed development. Our building's entrance is on Martingale Way. First,we would like to say that we welcome redevelopment of this shopping center, as we have observed this center suffering with vacancy rates and deferred maintenance for many years. Having said that,we have some concerns about the project as proposed. We were not approached by the property owner/developer or any of the owner's contractors, employees, etc. regarding this proposed project. As a result,we were only able to gather information about the project in the last couple of days. At this time,we have the following concerns regarding the impact of this proposed project: 1. Traffic: We believe this project will generate substantially more traffic during peak hours and other times of the day than the numbers represented in the report considering 384 apartments with possibly up to two drivers per apartment, their overnight guests,and other visitors. It 1 appears that Martingale Way is the proposed main entrance for residents. Currently, during certain times of the day there is already an issue of some traffic congestion as MacArthur Blvd., Corinthian Way, Martingale Way, and the entrance to the Staples retail center all come together within a very short distance. There is a safety hazard in particular to pedestrians crossing the street and increased traffic in general. We 100 L believe a traffic study with a traffic count would be appropriate in this situation. 2. Parking: As owners and managers of apartment buildings in Orange County,we know that there are not enough parking spaces for the apartment complex that is proposed. Consequently,the nearby office buildings with open parking lots like ours will undoubtedly receive the 2 overflow of residents and their visitors. As we understand,the City of Newport Beach's standard for parking of multi-family properties of four or more units is 2.5 spaces per unit. We suggest a parking ratio that complies with this standard. In order to accomplish this, there would have to be additional parking such as an extra level or less apartment units. 3. Height and Setback: The building height of up to 83 feet and the requested waiver of the setback requirements would result in a property 3 that does not conform to the surrounding area. The resulting large block structure will stretch all the way down Martingale Way,very close to the street and sidewalk. We suggest adhering to the normal setback and height requirements rather than waiving them. As stated above,we do believe that some of these environmental impacts should be mitigating for the benefit of the community and surrounding area. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any further questions, please contact us at (949) 955-2328. Sincerely, Frederick Roshan Member, MacArthur Pacific Plaza, LLC 101 7. Frederick Roshan (March 4, 2016) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment suggests that a traffic study for the project would be appropriate as it will generate substantially more traffic during peak hours and other times of the day than identified in the trip generation analysis presented in the initial study. The pedestrian/vehicle conflicts in the area pose a safety hazard. As indicated in the Transportation/Traffic Section of the initial study,the trip generation estimates based on the Traffic Phasing Ordinance(TPO) criteria showed that the proposed project would result in a net reduction of 1,047(-1,047)daily trips,with an increase of 105 (+105)trips in the morning peak hour,and a reduction of 39 (-39) trips in the evening peak hour. A TPO traffic study is not required for the proposed project as it does not generate more than 300 average daily trips. Response to Comment No.2 This comment suggested that there are not enough of parking spaces for the propped project resulting in overflow parking to nonresidential properties.Additional parking provided or reduction of units to the project is recommended. Parking requirements for the proposed project are prescribed in Section 20.40.040 (Off-Street Parking Spaces Required) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. As the proposed development includes a density bonus provision and requested by the applicant, the parking requirements for the residential component of the project are prescribed in Section 20.32.040 (Parking Requirements in Density Bonus Projects) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. As stipulated in Section 20.32.040, the project would be required to provide one parking space for each studio and one-bedroom apartment unit and two parking spaces for the two- and three-bedroom units proposed. Accordingly, the minimum required parking for the residential component would be 541 spaces. In addition, the retail commercial component would be required to provide 71 parking spaces, at a ratio of one parking space for each 40 square feet of net public area (NPA). Based on these parking ratios,the project would require a total of 612 parking spaces,including 227 for the studio and one- bedroom units, 314 parking spaces for the two-and three-bedroom units,and 71 parking spaces for the retail commercial (i.e., quality restaurant). The proposed project has been designed to include 715 parking spaces in the partially subterranean garage,which exceeds the require parking by 103 parking spaces. Response to Comment No.3 This comment suggested that the proposed building height of up to 83 feet and waiver of building setback would result in a property that does not conform to the surrounding area. Adhering to normal setback and height is suggested. Additionally, the aeronautical study prepared for the project revealed that the proposed structure does not exceed obstruction standards established by FAA Part 77 and would not be a hazard to air navigation at John Wayne Airport The Residences at Newport Place Project Responses to Public Comments April 2016 Page 9 102 e ti loll mnurd�" Inspiring The Next Generation PO Box 102 Balboa Island , CA 92662 1 949 . 864 . 6616 March 4, 2016 OFFICERS PRESIDENT Ms. Rosalinh Ung,Associate Planner Marko Popovich Community Development Department City of Newport Beach VICE PRESIDENT Elaine Linhoff Subject: The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) TREASURER Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments Dennis Baker Dear Ms. Ung, SECRETARY Allan Beek SPON believes that the deadline for submitting comments for the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) should be postponed until such time as the issues 1 and questions raised by the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission at the BOARD MEMBERS March 3, 2016 study session are addressed by the Applicant and City staff, and Nancy Alston brought back to the Planning Commission for review at a future date. Don Harvey Dorothy Kraus Additionally, given that there was no previous informational meeting, it seems Donald Krotee unfair to expect SPON and the public to intelligently comment on the adequacy Andrea Lingle Bobby Lovell of an MND for a major proposed project less than 24 hours after the details of Jeanne Price that project have first been informally presented. Melinda Seely Jack skinner2 Please see issues raised by the Planning Commission below: Nancy Skinner Jean watt • Rationale for adjustment to setbacks Portia Weiss • Rationale for adjustment to height Terry welsh . Concern about overall design aesthetics and compatibility with Newport Beach • Question surrounding inward orientation of residential units • Question of reducing residential units to provide for onsite grocery store and other support services to reduce traffic STOP A 5O1(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. a Ouw www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 2o3 . . ,..... � ". „ s, Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation P O B o x 1 0 2 1 Balboa Island , CA 9 2 6 6 2 9 4 9 . 8 6 4 . 6 6 1 6 March 4, 2016 Ms. Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Newport Beach Page 2 The applicant and City staffs resolution of these issues may result in a very different project that calls for a revised initial study and possibly the need for a complete CEGA review and an Environmental Impact Report. 3 [the e respectfully request that any decision regarding acceptance of an MND forth is project is premature given nature of the issues and follow-up required for this proposed project. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. SSiiinn�cerely, President Copies to: Planning Commission Chair, Kory Kramer, kkramer@newportbeachca.gov Vice Chair Tim Brown, tbrown@newportbeachca.gov Commissioner Peter Koetting, pkoettine@newportbeachca.gov Commissioner Bradley Hillgren, bhillgren@newportbeachca.aov Commissioner Ray Lawler, rlawler@newportbeachca.gov Commissioner Peter Zak, pzak@newportbeachca.eov Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski, bwisneski@newportbeachca.gov Mayor Diane Dixon, ddixon@newportbeachca.aov City Council Member Duffy Duffield, dduffield@newportbeachca.gov STOP S a ' A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and 3,R environmental qualities of Newport Beach. OUR www,SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 104 8. Marko Popovich, President(SPON) (March 4, 2016) Response to Comment No. 1 This comment requests an extension of the public review period for the initial study/mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND) until the issues raised by the Planning Commission at the March 3, 2016 study session have been addressed by the applicant and City staff. The Draft MND was circulated for public comment from January 22,2016 to February 22,2016.The comment period was extended to March 4,2016.The MND was also made available to the general public for review and comments at the Newport Beach libraries and City's website at: http_//www.neimportbeachca.goy/index.aspx?page=1347.All requisite noticing and distribution of the initial study/mitigated negative declaration occurred pursuant to CEQA and the City s CEQA Guidelines. A 40-day review period,which was initiated on February 22,provided additional time for the public to comment on the environmental document. Response to Comment No.2 The letter provides a summary of issued raised by the Planning Commission. Lastly,the letter stated that the applicant and City staffs resolution of these issues may result in a very different project that calls for a revised initial study and possibly the need for a complete CEQA review and an Environmental Impact Report The issues that were summarized in this comment letter are more related to the planning and design aspects of the project These issues would be analyzed by City staff and presented to the Newport Beach Planning Commission for their consideration. Should the project be redesigned as a result of concerns raised by the public and/or Planning Commission,additional environmental analysis may be required. Response to Comment No.3 This comment, which suggests that adoption of the MND is premature, is acknowledged. No response is necessary. The Residences at Newport Place Project Responses to Public Comments Apri12016 Page 10 105 V� QP �P zoo Attachment No. PC 5 Errata 107 V� QP �P zog ERRATA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION THE RESIDENCES AT NEWPORT PLACE PROJECT (PA2014-150) The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been revised as follows: Response to Checklist question 4.16(f) on pp. 106- 107: Less than Significant Impact. The Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan contains several goals and policies related to public transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Public transit bus service in the area is provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). Bus routes currently operated by OCTA through the study area include Route 59 (between Anaheim and Irvine), Route 76 (between Huntington Beach and Newport Beach), Route 178 (between Huntington Beach and Irvine), Route 212 (between John Wayne Airport and San Juan Capistrano), Route 213 (between the Park-and- Ride in Brea and UCI), and Route 472, which provide Metrolink feeder route service for the Tustin Metrolink Station on Jamboree Road. Bicycle and pedestrian paths also exist within the project area, including Jamboree Road (a Class 1 off road bikeway) which is currently designated on the Newport Beach Bike Map as "&keSidewalk - Bicycle Riding Allowed." Other bicycle facilities identified on the Newport Beach Master Bicycle Plan in the project area include Class 2 bicycle lane (on-road striped lane) on Campus Drive, and on MacArthur Boulevard from Campus Drive to Jamboree Road: however, the bicycle lane does not currently exist on MacArthur Boulevard. All of the streets in the project vicinity have sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians. YD9 V� QP �P 220 Attachment No. PC 6 MMRP X22 V� QP �P �2� MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM THE RESIDENCES AT NEWPORT PLACE PROJECT (PA2014-150) �s W Pp) �9LIF0IVL Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Residences at Newport Place Project Apri12016 Page 1 2'13 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Newport Beach prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Initial Study for the proposed Residences at Newport Place Project located in the City of Newport Beach. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and the MND is scheduled for adoption by the City of Newport Beach,in conjunction with the approval of the project. In addition to the mitigation measures, several standard conditions have also been incorporated into the proposed project that avoid or reduce potentially significant impacts. The standard conditions are also listed in the MMRP. Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) and CEQA Guidelines section 15097 require the Lead Agency for each project which is subject to the CEQA to monitor performance of the mitigation measures included in any environmental document to ensure that implementation does, in fact,take place. The PRC requires the Lead Agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program that is designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. In accordance with PRC Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15097, this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed for the Residences at Newport Place project. MITIGATION MEASURES The mitigation measures which are required to reduce or avoid the potentially significant adverse impacts of future development on the project site are listed in the table below, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Responsible parties, the time frame for implementation, and the monitoring parties are also identified for each measure. In order to determine if the responsible party has implemented these measures, the method of verification is also identified, along with the City of Newport Beach department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the responsible party has completed each mitigation measure. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Residences at Newport Place Project April2016 1 Page 2 111 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Residences at Newport Place Project Newport Beach, CA Method of Timing of SC/MM Standard Condition/Mitigation Verification Implementation Responsibility No. Measure Aesthetics The proposed project shall comply with City Policy G-1 (Retention and SC 1-1 Removal of Trees), including but not plan Check Prior to Issuance of planning Division limited to removal of trees, Building Permit maintenance of trees, and tree trimming. The proposed project shall comply with Section 20.30.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which requires that all outdoor lighting fixtures shall Prior to Issuance of SCl-2 be designed, shielded, aimed, located, Plan Check Building Permit Planning Division and maintained to shield adjacent properties and to not produce glare onto adjacent properties or roadways. Air Quality SC 3-1 The proposed project shall comply Monitoring During Grading and Building Division with all applicable SCA MD Rules. Construction During all phase of construction (demolition, site preparation/grading, and building construction), the applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce fugitive dust emissions and vehicle exhaust emissions. Fugitive Dust Control Measures Apply soil stabilizers or moisten During Grading and MM 3-1 inactive areas. Monitoring Construction Building Division Prepare a high wind dust control plan. Address previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed. Water exposed surfaces as needed to avoid visible dust leaving the construction site (typically 2-3 times/day). Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Residences at Newport Place Project April 2016 Page 3 225 Method of Timing of SC/MM Standard Condition/Mitigation Verification Implementation Responsibility No. Measure Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials. Minimize in-out traffic from the construction zone. Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material and require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site. Exhaust Emissions Control Measures Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment. Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or better heavy equipment. Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment. Bin lo ical Resources Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape Prior to Issuance of SC 4-1 architect. These plans shall Plan Check Building Permit Planning Division incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Division. All landscape materials and irrigation systems shall be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive SC 4-2 regular pruning, fertilizing, owing and Monitoring During Operation Planning Division 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 art of regular maintenance. Cultural Resources Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Residences at Newport Place Project Apri12016 Page 4 110 Method of Timing of SC/MM Standard Condition/Mitigation Verification Implementation Responsibility No. Measure Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Director of Community Development shall ensure that the following provision is included on the grading plan(s), and the applicant shall be required to comply with this provision. "if evidence of subsurface archaeological resources is found during construction, excavation and other construction activity shall cease and the applicant shall contact the City of Newport Beach Community Community Development Director. With direction Prior to Issuance of Development SC 5-1 from the Community Development Plan Check Grading Permit Director/Planning Director, an archaeologist certified by Division the County of Orange shall be retained to evaluate the discovery prior to resuming grading in the immediate vicinity of the find. If warranted, the archaeologist shall collect the resource and prepare a technical report describing the results of the investigation. The test-level report shall evaluate the site including discussion with the depth, nature, condition, and extent of the resources, final remediation recommendations, and cost estimates." Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Director of Community Development shall ensure the following provision is included on the grading plan(s), and the applicant shall be required to comply with the provision. "if evidence of subsurface Community SC 5-2 paleontological resources is Found Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Development during construction, excavation and Grading Permit Director/Planning other construction activity in that area Division shall cease and the applicant shall contact the City of Newport Beach Community Development Director. With direction from the Community Development Director, a paleontologist certified by the County of Orange shall evaluate the find. If Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Residences at Newport Place Project April 2016 Page 5 22� Method of Timing of SC/MM Standard Condition/Mitigation Verification Implementation Responsibility No. Measure warranted, the paleontologist shall prepare and complete a standard Paleontological Resources Mitigation Program for the salvage and curation of identified resources." In the event of the discovery of a burial, human bone, or suspected human bone, all excavation or grading in the vicinity of the find shall halt immediately and the area of the find shall be protected and the applicant shall immediately notify the Orange County Coroner of the find and comply SC 5-3 with the provisions of the California Monitoring During Grading and Planning Division Health and Safety Code Section Construction 7050.5, including P.R.C. Section 5097.98, if applicable. In the event that human remains are determined to be Native American human remains; the applicant shall consult with the Most Likely Descendent to determine the appropriate treatment for the Native American human remains. G ology and Soils The proposed project shall comply with the requirements prescribed in Prior to Issuance of SC 6-1 the California Building Code and all Plan Check Grading Permit Building Division applicable requirements in the City of Newport Beach Building Code. All activities associated with the implementation of the proposed project shall comply with Section 15.04 Prior to Issuance of SC 6-2 (Building Code) of the Newport Beach Plan Check Grading Permit Building Division Municipal Code and all other applicable development requirements prescribed by the City. The proposed project shall implement the recommendations stated in Chapter 7.0 (Conclusions and Recommendations) of the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by GEOCON, including those for: (1) Prior to Issuance of MM 6-1 soils and excavation characteristics; Plan Check Grading Permit Building Division (2) minimum resistivity, pH, and water soluble sulfate; (3) grading; (4) shrinkage; (5) foundation design; (6) foundation settlement; (7) lateral design; 8 concrete slabs on-grade; Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Residences at Newport Place Project April 2016 Page 6 22� Method of Timing of SC/MM Standard Condition/Mitigation Verification Implementation Responsibility No. Measure (9) preliminary pavement recommendations; (10) retaining walls and retaining wall drainage; (11) dynamic lateral forces; (12) temporary excavation; and other recommendations. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Prior to the issuance of the demolition permit, an asbestos survey shall be conducted at each of the onsite building structures. The asbestos survey must be overseen by a California-Certified Asbestos Prior to Issuance of SC 8-1 Consultant. The results of this survey Plan Check Demolition Permit Building Division should provide a description of the asbestos-containing materials, their locations, estimated quantity, and recommendations for removal, containment, and off-site transportation and disposal. Prior to issuance of the demolition permit, all onsite building structures shall be assessed for the possible presence of lead-based paint. This study must be conducted by trained SC 8-2 and/or licensed professionals. The plan Check Prior to Issuance of Building Division results of this study should provide a Demolition Permit description of the lead-based paint locations, estimated quantity, and recommendations for removal, containment, and off-site transportation and disposal. H droloLv and Water Quality Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain coverage under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (General Construction Permit) issued by the State Water Resources SC 9-1 Control Board (SWRCB).The applicant Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Building Division must also file a notice of intent (N01) Grading Permit with the SWRCB. The applicant shall be required to prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) in compliance with the General Construction Permit. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall include a description Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Residences at Newport Place Project ApH12016 Page 7 22�' Method of Timing of SC/MM Standard Condition/Mitigation Verification Implementation Responsibility No. Measure of construction materials, practices, and equipment storage and maintenance; a list of pollutants likely to contact stormwater; site-specific erosion and sedimentation control practices; a list of provisions to eliminate or reduce discharge of materials to stormwater; BMPs, and an inspection and monitoring program. Implementation of the SWPPP shall begin with the commencement of construction and continue through the completion of the proposed project. After construction is completed, the applicant shall be required to submit a notice of termination to the SWRCB. Land Use and Planning The applicant shall a-file Form 7460-2, Upon Project Notice of Actual Construction or Abandonment or SC 10-1 Alteration, any time the project is Notice Within 50 Days of Planning Division abandoned or within 5 days after the Construction construction reaches its greatest Reaching Greatest height. Height Noise Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 (Construction Activity-Noise Regulations) of the Newport Beach Municipal Code,which SC 12-1 restricts construction to the hours of Monitoring During Grading and Building Division 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Monday Construction through Friday and 8:00 a.m.and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Construction is not permitted on Sunday and national holidays. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a detailed acoustical study prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant, based on architectural plans, and SC 12-2 submitted to the Community Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Planning Division Development Department to Building Permit demonstrate that all residential units would meet the 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard for habitable rooms (i.e.,bedrooms,living rooms,dens,and kitchens) and 65 dBA CNEL exterior Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Residences at Newport Place Project Apri12016 Page 8 120 Method of Timing of SC/MM Standard Condition/Mitigation Verification Implementation Responsibility No. Measure noise standard for all patios,balconies, and common outdoor living areas (i.e, swimming pool/spa and courtyard areas with exterior noise traffic and aircraft overflights. The measures described in the study shall be incorporated into the architectural plans for the project and implemented with the building construction. Any person who intends to sell or lease residential properties within an SC 12-3 "airport influence area' shall disclose Lease Agreement Upon Lease of Each planning Division that fact to the person buying or Disclosure Unit leasing the properties, pursuant to Assembly Bill 2776. Stockpiling and staging activities shall Prior to Issuance of MM 12-1 be located as far as practicable from Plan Check Grading Permit Building Division surrounding office and restaurant All mobile equipment shall have During Grading and MM 12-2 properly operating and maintained Monitoring Construction Building Division mufflers. The rock crusher shall be located in the center of the project site with the MM 12-3 screen end of the crusher oriented Monitoring During Grading Building Division away from the Radisson Hotel and La Salsa restaurant. A partial wall of structures should be MM 12-4 retained as long as practical to Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Building Division interrupt the line-of-sight to Demolition Permit surrounding off-site uses. Public Services The project shall comply with the following codes and regulatory requirements: • National Fire Protection Association 1710: Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Prior to Issuance of SC 14-1 Emergency Medical Operations,and Plan Check Building Permit Fire Department Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments. • California Building Code (California Cade of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2) • California Fire Code CFC; Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Residences at Newport Place Project April 2016 Page 9 222 Method of Timing of SC/MM Standard Condition/Mitigation Verification Implementation Responsibility No. Measure California Code of Regulations,Title 24, Part 9). Several City conditions of approval for the proposed project - listed above in Section 5.12.1 - are based on CFC requirements. • City of Newport Beach Municipal Code:Title 9,Fire Code. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay the applicable SC 14-2 property development tax as required payment of Fee Prior to Issuance of Building Division pursuant to City of Newport Beach Building Permit Municipal Code Chapter 3.12 (Property Development Tax). Prior to issuance of building permits, SC 14-3 the applicant shall pay the applicable payment of Fee Prior to Issuance of Building Division Level 1 Statutory School Fee in effect Building Permit at the time of development. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall pay applicable park SC 14-4 in-lieu fee equal to the required park payment of Fee Prior to Issuance of planning Division dedication of 0.5 acre, based on the Building Permit current parkland value for the City of Newport Beach. Trans ortation Traffic Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a construction traffic management plan for approval by the Public Works Department, which shall include a discussion of project phasing, construction staging area(s), parking, traffic control, and traffic routes as follows • The plan shall identify the Prior to Issuance of Public Works SC 16-1 proposed construction staging Plan Check Building Permit Department area(s), construction crew parking area(s), estimated number and types of vehicles that will occur during that phase, the proposed arrival/departure routes and operational safeguards (e.g. flagmen, barricades, shuttle services, etc.) and hourly restrictions, if necessary, to avoid traffic conflicts during peak traffic Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Residences at Newport Place Project Apri12016 Page 10 122 Method of Timing of SC/MM Standard Condition/Mitigation Verification Implementation Responsibility No. Measure periods, displacement of on-street parking and to ensure safety. • The plan shall provide for an off- site parking lot for construction crews which shall be shuttled to and from the project site at the beginning and end of each day until such time that the project site can accommodate off-street construction vehicle parking, in the event that on-site parking for the construction crews could not be provided. In the interim, construction crews shall be prohibited from parking in the nearby public streets or on private properties. • The plan shall identify all construction traffic routes, which shall avoid residential streets, unless there is no alternative, and the plan shall not include any streets where some form of construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the proposed route. • Dirt and demolition debris hauling shall not be scheduled during weekday peak hour traffic periods and during the summer season (Memorial Day holiday weekend through and including the Labor Day holiday weekend). • The plan shall be implemented throughout the construction phases. Utilities Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a detailed Public Works and SC 17-1 sewer and water demand analysis for Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Municipal review and approval by the Public Building Permit Operations Works and Municipal Operation Departments Departments. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Residences at Newport Place Project April2g16 Page 11 123 Method of Timing of SC/MM Standard Condition/Mitigation Verification Implementation Responsibility No. Measure All new and existing wastewater Public Works and SC 17-2 laterals shall be designed to include a Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Municipal new sewer cleanout. Building Permit Operations Departments All new and existing fire,domestic and landscaping water services/meters Municipal SC 17-3 shall be protected by either a Double Plan Check Prior to Issuance of Operations Check Detector Assembly or a Building Permit Reduced Pressure Backflow Assembly, Department depending on the application. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program The Residences at Newport Place Project April 2016 Page 12 124 Attachment No. PC 7 Figure LU22 125 V� QP �P 2�� \ z < » ) § Lu - ® ) z k ® r r I o : � / m ; r � • a � _ , * ) : [ 7 2 ) C.i \{ i j / { \ a ! { % 0 � $� �� $ z ; HE w . �. \ , ■ 7 �> � ■ ƒ■ a\ y 2 � ! ? ■ � 7 ^ ^ � ) � \ ■ / ~ : e % % ! < s ■ ; �- ` 9 � . � -- ; o0 - z < \� of � / �«d u a , 0 ` » ij }\ < x u ! / Z t U) .-< z = ! ± } . - ±2/ ` V� QP �P 2�g Attachment No. PC 8 Airport Area Residential & Mixed Use Adjustment Factors 12�° V� QP �P 130 AIRPORT AREA RESIDENTIAL i ADJUSTMENT FACTORS FOR TRAFFIC ANALYSES IN NEWPORT BEACH July 2009 Prepared by: fl l Richard M. Edmonston, PE Approved by; Antony E. Brine, E City Traffic Engineer 131 j INTRODUCTION The General Plan provides for the conversion of existing land uses in the area adjacent to John Wayne Airport to residential use on a traffic neutral basis. There is a cap of 1650 units that can be developed on a conversion basis in addition to 550 units allowed as infill development. It is necessary to have a standardized set of conversion rates in order for all conversions to occur in a consistent and fair manner. The General Plan also includes provisions for mixed-use development in several areas of the City. One benefit of mixed-use development is a reduction in traffic due to the interaction between the residential and non-residential uses. It is intended that this benefit be considered during the project approval process including traffic impact studies and transportation impact fees. Airport Area Conversions to Residential band Use The predominant land use in the Airport Area is office along with commercial, industrial, and some research and development. Both the AM and PM peak hour trip rates from the Newport Beach Transportation Model (NBTM) were reviewed and the more conservative of the two was selected for determining the conversion factors shown in the table below. Conversion factors were developed for each of these uses converting to mid or high-rise residential usage. If a different residential use is proposed, the Model Trip Generation Rates in the appendices can be used to calculate the appropriate factors. During the General Plan Update a residential use known as high-rise apartment was evaluated. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), high-rise residential is ten stories or more in height and the trip rates were found by ITE to be more than 20% lower than those of regular apartment developments. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation publication also includes a mid-rise residential category which applies to residential buildings of between three and ten stories. This category also has peak hour trip generation rates more than 20% lower than ITE's Apartment category. The use of a 20% trip reduction factor provides a conservative estimate for both mid-rise and high-rise residential development and was applied to all residential entitlement in the Airport Area provided for in the General Plan Update due to the expectation that all residential development in this area of the City would be in buildings with three or more floors of residential use. 7/28/2009 1 132 The factors in the following table were developed using trip generation rates from the Newport Beach Transportation Model (NBTM) including adjustments for the 20%lower trip generation rate applied to residential development in the Airport Area. 1 Airport Area Land Use Conversion Factors STARTING LAND USE UNITS ENDING LAND USE UNITS FACTOR General Office TSF Residential DU 2.29 DU/KSF Research&Development TSF Residential DU 1.49 DU/KSF General Commercial TSF Residential DU 5.40 DU/KSF Industrial TSF Residential DU 1.16 DU/KSF TSF=Thousand Square Feet DU=Dwelling Unit The following examples illustrate how the factors from the table would be used to determine the amount of existing use that would have to be removed to accommodate residential development generating the same amount of traffic during the critical peak hour. Example 1. Demolishing 200,000 s.f. of General Office would allow how many Residential units? Answer: 200 X 2.29 =458 apartment units. Example 2. How much R&D would need to be demolished to permit 300 Residential units? Answer: 300= 1.49=201.34 or 201,340 square feet. Mixed-Use Developments The General Plan allows for mixed-use development in several areas of the City. The Traffic Study for the General Plan utilized an adjustment factor to account for the reduction in trip generation associated with mixed-use development. The Traffic Study applied a ten percent (10%) reduction factor to both residential and non-residential trip 7/28/2009 2 133 j generation rates for new development in mixed-use areas with the exception of residential development in the Airport Area where the twenty percent (20%) trip reduction factor discussed above was applied to residential development. If an Airport Area project includes new, residential-serving commercial uses, the ten percent (10%) mixed-use trip reduction factor would apply to those uses. Because of the requirement that projects in the Airport Area be traffic neutral, the calculations for projects with both residential and residential-serving commercial uses, the calculations require either two steps and several iterations or simple algebra. The following example illustrates the two step process: Example: If a developer wishes to demolish an existing 225,000 s.f. general office building and develop 425 apartments, how many square feet of residential- serving commercial can be built? Answer: Begin by converting the square footage to be demolished to apartment units: 225,000 X 2.29 = 515.25 apartment units. Since only 425 units are proposed, the remaining 90.25 units worth of traffic can be converted using the General Commercial rate with a 10 percent mixed-use adjustment as follows: The conversion rate from the above table of 5.40 DU/KSF is reduced by 10% to 4.86 DU - ICFS and divided into the remaining number of eligible units: 90.25 _ 4.86 = 18.57 or 18,570 s.f. of residential-serving commercial can be developed.' This ten percent (10%) trip reduction factor should be applied to both residential and residential-serving commercial uses in future traffic studies for projects in the mixed-use areas (outside the Airport Area) specified by the General Plan if the projects are determined to meet the criteria for the mixed-use designation. Each project should be evaluated to ensure the quantities of residential and non-residential use are adequate to result in interaction between uses likely to achieve the anticipated trip reduction. Only new development is eligible for the mixed-use trip generation reduction factor. For example, if residential units are added in an area with existing commercial development, no credit can be taken for the potential reduction of commercial trips due to the proximity of the new residential development. The mixed-use trip reduction factor would apply to both single and multi-family development trip generation rates. Application of Trip Generation Reductions The City uses different sources of trip generation rates for different purposes such as the Traffic Phasing Ordinance and the Fair Share Fee. The trip generation rate factors discussed above are intended to be applied at all steps of project review, approval, and impact fee determination regardless of the source of the trip generation rates. 7/28/2009 3 13-�f I Appendices The following pages were extracted from various documents prepared by Urban Crossroads during the General Plan Update process. Also included are pages from ITE's Trip Generation, 8th Edition documenting mid and high-rise residential trip generation rates. Together they provide supporting documentation for the statements and factors contained in this report. i 7/28/2009 4 135 1 GRRBAIV AOS 41 Corporate Park, Suite 300 Irvine, CA 92606 i Prepared by: Carleton Waters, P.E. Marlie Whiteman, P.E. Archie Tan, E.I.T. Prepared for: Mr. Elwood Tescher EIP ASSOCIATES 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, CA 90025 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN TRANSPORTATION STUDY NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA ' March 22, 2006 JN:01232-32 CW:MW:mt 13C TABLE MODEL TRIP GENERATION RATES NBTM TRIP RATE _ LAND AM PEAK HOUR Phil PEAK HOUR USE CODE NBTM LAND USE DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNITS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL DAILY 1 Res-Low(SFD)-Coastal 1 DU 0.19 0.50 0.69 0.41 0.27 0,69 7.50 1 Res-Low(SFD 1 DU 0.21 0.64 0.84 0,49 0.30 0.79 8.63 2 Res-Medium(SFA)-Coastal 1 'DU 1 0.12 0.41 0.53 0.32 0.19 0.52 5.64 2 Res-Medium(SFA) 1 DU 0.13 0.55 0.68 0.40 0.21 0.61 6.66 3 Apartment-Coastal 1 DU 0.11 0.38 0.49 0.31 0.19 0.49 5.37 3 A artment 1 DU 0.12 0.48 0,60 0,36 0..20 0.56 6.12 4 Elderly Residential 1 DU 0.11 0.29 0,40 0.27 0.18 0.45 4.90 5 Mobile Home-Coastal 1 DU 0.10 0.34 0.44 0.29 0.18 0.46 5.06 ....5 .....Mobile-Home 1 DU 0.11 0.45 0:56- '0,34' '020 "0.54 5.92 6 Motel 1 .ROOM 0.40 0.13 0.53 0.23 0.34 0,57 6,08 . 7 Hotel 1' ROOM 0.51 0.17 0.6B 0.28 0.43 0.71 7.58 9 Re lona)Commercial 1 TSF 1.14 0.49 1,64 0.93 1.25 2.18 23.48 10 General Commercial 1 TSF 1.78 0.80 2.59 1.53 2.02 3.55, 38.24 11 Comm./Recreation. 1 ACRE 2.12 0.80 2.92 1.42 2.04 3.46 37.07 13 Restaurant 1 TSF 2.39 1.07 3.46 2.05 2.70 4.75 51,18 15 Fast Food Restaurant 1 TSF 2.94 1.32 4,25 2.51 3.32 5.83 62,78 1,6 Auto Dealer/Sales 1 TSF 1.74 0.74 2.48 1.38 1.86 3.24 34.84 17 Yacht Club 1 TSF 1.30 0.49 1.79 0.87 1.25 2.12 22.71 16 Health Club 1 TSF 1.30 0.49 1.79 0,87 1.25 2.12 22.71 19 Tennis Club 1 ' CRT 1.35 0.54 1.89 0.98 1.37 2.35 25,26 20 Marina 1 SLIP 0,12 0.05 0.17 0.09 0.13 0.22 2.39 21 Theater 1 SEAT 0.02 0.01 0,03 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.34 22 Newport Dunes 1 ACRE 0,96 0.42 1.39 0.80 1.06 1.86 20.02 23 General Office 1 TSF 0,84• 0.26 1.10 0.39 0.65 1.04 11.08 24 Medical Office 1 TSF 1.14 0.39 1.53 0,64 0.98 1.63 17.38 25' R&'D 1 TSF 0.57 0.17 0.'74 0.25 0.42 0.67 7.10 26 Industrial 1 TSF 0.48 0.13 0.62 0.18 0.33 0.52 5.48 27 Mini-StorageMarehouse 1 TSF 0,40 0.11 0.51 0.16 0,28 0.43 4.61 28 Pre-School/Da Care 1 TSF 2:08 0.65 2,73 1.04 1.68 2.72 29.05 29 Elements /Private School 1 STU 0.18 0.02 0:20 . 0.04 0.07 0.11 1.30 30 Junlor/High School 1 STT 0.18 0.02 0.20 0.04 0.07 0.11 1.30 31 Cultdral/Learning Center 1 TSF 1.13 0.35 1.48 0.54 0,89 1.43 15,22 32 Library 1 TSF 1.13 0.35 1.48 0.54 0.89 1.43 15.22 33 Post Office 1 TSF 1.54 0.49 2.03 0.78 1.25 2.03 21.63 34 Hospital 1 BEDS 1.10 0.32 1.42 0.47 0.80 1.27 13.57 35 Nursing/Conv. Home 1 BEDS 0.12 0.08 0.20 . 0.08 0.10 0.18 2.00 36 Church i TSF 0,48 0.14 0.62 0.21 0.36 0,57 6.09 37 Youth Ctr/Service 1 TSF 2.08 0.65 2.73 1.04 1.68 2.72 29,05 38 Park 1 ACRE 0,18 0,06 0.23 0109 1 0.14 0.23 2,49 39 Regional Park 1 ACRE 0.18 0.06 0,23 0.09 j0,25 14 0.23 2.49 40 Golf Course 1 ACRE 0.27 0.10 0.37 0.17 0.42 4.55 41 Resort Golf Course 1 ACRE 0.27 D.10 0.37 0.17 25 0.42 4.55 0AUcJobs\_01200\01232\TGcalc\[I Gcalculator5.xls)Rates 13� i i 3.0 MODEL TRIP GENERATION FOR SUBAREA LAND USE ALTERNATIVES This chapter documents trip generation for each subarea land use scenario identified for evaluation (existing, without project and with project) in this phase of the General Plan update process. Previously published analysis of a broader range of subarea land use alternatives identified by the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) was then considered in identifying these subsequent alternatives. Full analysis with the traffic model has been run on two comprehensive future alternatives derived from the subarea data and overall City-wide data for the remainder of the City. Thirteen subarea land use tables were provided to Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff. Each table contains land use data quantities and comparisons for existing, without and With Project conditions for the subarea. Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff has extracted trip generation results directly from the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) for each subarea. Daily and peak hour trips have been computed. Higher trip generation/volume may not necessarily increase congestion. The effects are dependent on many other factors, including peaking characteristics of traffic, directional split, even quantity of cross-street traffic. 3.1 Trip Generation Rates and Adjustments This section provides information on trip generation characteristics unique to the City of Newport Beach and/or the types of land uses contemplated in the General Plan (including adjustments to some standard/typical rates). Coastal trip generation for residential land use is compared with general residential trip generation by type. Mixed use trip rate refinements are discussed. High-rise apartments trip generation rates are evaluated in comparison to typical apartments. Trip generation for the subarea alternatives has been extracted directly from the traffic model. 3-1 138 1 3.1.1 Coastal Trip Generation As the Newport Beach Traffic Model (NBTM) was developed, Urban Crossroads, Inc. staff determined (during model validation) that the traffic patterns/trip generation rates in the coastal areas were different from elsewhere in the City of Newport Beach. The initial Existing conditions 3 (validation) traffic model volumes were higher in the coastal areas than the actual traffic count data. Specialized occupancy factors and trip rates were therefore developed for residential uses in the coastal areas during the validation process. The shoulder season (spring/fall) occupancy rate for typical City of Newport Beach residential uses is 95%. For Coastal areas, the estimated occupancy rate is 90%. For total AM, total PM, and Daily trip rates, the trip generation range in Coastal areas is between 79% and 88% of typical residential trip rates. The PM peak hour is the timeframe in which the highest number of operational deficiencies has been identified, and in the PM peak hour, the coastal trip rates are between 85% and 87% of typical trip rates. 3.1 .2 Mixed Use Developments Mixed use development is being contemplated in the General plan With Project scenario. Mixed use is anticipated in 8 of the 12 subareas, including: • Airport Area ® Balboa Village • Cannery Village ® Lido Village ® Mariners Mile • McFadden Square ® Newport Center • Old Newport Boulevard 3-2 139 1 Based on research presented in this chapter, ten percent (10%) for both residential and commercial components of the proposed mixed use developments represent a conservative reduction in trip generation. Mixed use trip generation information and research compiled by Urban Crossroads, Inc. has been included as Appendix "U". Information has been gathered from sampling done by ITE and documented in Trip Generation, 5th Edition (ITE, 1991). More recent versions of ITE's Trip Generation do not include information on mixed use sites. There are two examples of mixed use developments containing residential uses in the 5th Edition. Internal capture (the proportion of traffic that would typically be generated, then distributed to the surrounding system that is instead served on-site as a result of the land use mix) has been identified. The first example contains 606 dwelling units and 64,000 square feet of commercial/office. The internal capture rates are 27% for the PM peak hour and 17% for the daily. The second example is for a larger site, with 2,300 dwelling units and over 160 thousand square feet of total commercial, office, restaurant, and medical center uses. This site also includes schools, a church, and a day-care center. The internal capture for this site is substantially higher (45% or more for all time periods). An additional data resource was the Santa Monica Civic Center study. The Santa Monica Civic Center study included a 50% reduction for the retail component, but no reduction was done on other uses. The net result in the analysis was an overall reduction of approximately 10%. A final data resource consulted was the San Diego Association of Governments trip generation handbook. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL) trip generation handbook suggests up to a 10% reduction. 3-3 14 D I i Based on the examples cited, an adjustment factor of 10% of traffic for mixed uses will provide a conservative representation of trip generation. The factor is applied in cases where the land use has been defined as mixed use development. Where both the mixed use and coastal factors are applicable, only one is applied to avoid overstating trip generation benefits. Later sections of this report will discuss individual sub-area land use representation. Sample mixed use calculations showing internal capture are contained in Appendix "V". Sample calculations for Balboa Village reveal that 11-12% internal capture is predicted. Therefore, 10% is conservative. Sample calculations have been prepared to show the effect of introducing residential uses to a commercial and office environment. The introduction of residential uses results in an expected internal capture of 14%, greater than the 10% used in mixed use calculations for this study. In the Airport Area, the 20% high rise apartment reduction has been applied, with no accompanying reduction for mixed use. To assist with land use planning refinements in mixed use areas, conversion factors have been developed from the model trip generation rates. Table 3-1 contains the results of this analysis for the PM peak period. As shown in Table 3-1, for the PM peak hour, a reduction of one single-family detached residence allows 220 square feet of commercial without an increase in trip generation. A transfer the other direction (from commercial to single-family detached residential) could be performed to increase dwelling units by 4.49 for every thousand square feet of commercial lost. Similar conversion factors are included for single-family attached and apartment residential uses. The factors presented in Table 3-1 are related to the PM peak period (consistent with other trip generation calculations for Newport Beach modeling purposes). Conversion factors could potentially be related to 3-4 141 i TABLE 3-1 CONVERSION FACTORS BASED ON PM TOTAL ONLY i STARTING LAND USE UNITS ENDING LAND USE UNITS CONVERSION FACTOR rGeneral D) DU General Commercial TSF 0.22 (SFA) DU General Commercial TSF 0.17 DU General Commercial TSF 0.16 mercial TSF Res-Low (SFD) DUmercialTSF Res-Medum (SFA)mercial TSF Apartment DU G.32 TSF =thousand square feet DU =Dwelling Units U:\llcJ obs\_01200\01232\Excel\(01232-32.xls)T3-1 21 3-5 daily traffic or AM peak hour, or a subset of AM or PM peak hour total. These factors are included in Table 3-2. The worst case conversion for each type of residential use is included in Table 3-3. To provide the most conservative conversion, AM peak hour inbound rates should govern for converting residential uses to commercial (approximately 70 to 120 square feet per dwelling unit). To convert from commercial to j i residential using the worst case conversion factor, the AM outbound should be used (and 1.25 to 1.67 units would result from a reduction of 1 ' thousand square feet of commercial). 3.1 .3 High-Rise Apartments High-rise apartments are a special apartment use. As defined by ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th edition (2003), high-rise apartments have more than 10 floors and typically include one or two elevators. Trip Generation rates for high-rise apartments are compared to general apartment trip generation rates in Table 3-4. As shown in Table 3-4, the ratio of trip generation for high-rise apartments to apartments ranges from 0.56 to 0.63 trips, depending on the time period. Because the ITE rates show a trip reduction of 37 to 43%, the reduction factor of 20% used for high-rise apartments in this General Plan analysis is conservative. 3.2 Subarea Land Use Alternatives Trip Generation Summaries Exhibit 3-A depicts the various subareas where detailed land use alternatives have been evaluated. 3.2.1 Airport Area The With Project scenario contains a total of approximately 4,300 residential units developed at urban densities. There is no residential component for the Existing or Without Project (currently adopted General 3-6 143 TABLE 3-2 i OVERALL MIXED USE CONVERSION FACTORS PEAK HOUR AM PM STARTING LAND USE UNITS` ENDING LAND USE UNITS IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL DAC Res-Low(SFD) DU General Commercial TSF 0.12 0.60 0.33 0.32 0.15 0.22 0.23 Res-Medium (SFA) DU General Commercial TSF 0.07 0.68 0.26 0.26 0.11 0.17 0.17 Apartment DU General Commercial TSF 0.07 0.60 0.23 0.24 0.10 0.16 0.16 General Commercial TSF Res-Low (SFD DU 8.68 1.25 3.06 3.12 6.71 4.49 4.43 General Commercial TSF Res-Medium (SFA) DU 13.94 1.46 3.83 3.87 9.42 5.82 5.74 General Commercial TSF Apartment I DU 14.66 1.67 4.29 4.25 10.05 6.32 6.24 ' TSF =thousand square feet DU =Dwelling Units U:\UCJobs\ 01200\01232\Excel\[01232-32.xisIT3-2 144 3-7 i TABLE 3-3 ABSOLUTE WORST CASE CONVERSION FACTORS TIM PERI D V R I N STARTING LAND USE UNITS ENDING LAND USE UNITS DIRECTION FACTOR Res-Low(SFD) DU General Commercial TSF AM IN 0.12 Res-Medium (SFA) DU General Commercial TSF AM IN 0.07 Apartment DU General Commercial TSF AM IN 0.07 General Commercial TSF Res-Low (SFD) DU AM OUT 1.25 General Commercial TSF Res-Medium (SFA) DU AM OUT 1.46 General Commercial TSF Apartment DU AM OUT 1.67 i s TSF =thousand square feet DU =Dwelling Units U:\UcJ obsl_01200\01232\Excel\[01232-32.xis]T3-3 14,5 3-8 Mid-Rise Apartment (223) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. I Number of Studies: 7 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 120 Directional Distribution: 31% entering, 69% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 6.30 0.06 0.46 0.56 Data Plot and Equation so --- ----- x 80 � . . . i 1 z 70 ..1 . d U � N N Q i it 30 _�. . . :::: . . . . . 20 i . . ' . . . . r. . . . . . : . . . I 10 _� . . . . . . . : . . . r. . . . . . . . . . . .:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 x 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 X=Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ---- Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T=0.41(X)-13.06 R2=0.83 ' Mid-Rise Apartment (223) _ Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street•Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 7 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 120 Directional Distribution: 58% entering, 42% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit ---- -- ... S—d-a -D--viat—onnl ------ Average Rate Range.of Rates ------- F ------ - -- - 0.39 --- 0.15 - 0.54 0.63 Data Plot and Equation ---- . '-----..;.._-----...-- F90 . . . . ._ . . . ... . _ C U tu 70 66 ; m 40 m 11 H . . . :. .X. . ./.a . . . :. . . . . . . 30 20 10 x 0 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 X=Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: T=0.48(X)-11.07 R2=0.89 Trip Generation,81h Edition 382 Institute of Transportation Engine 1.47 High-Rise Apartment (222) 3 Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 7 and 9 a.m. Number of Studies: 17 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 420 Directional Distribution: 25% entering, 75% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rales Standard Deviation I 0.30 0.18 0.47. 0.55 I Data Plot and Equation 400 1�------------._.._.........----------- '---....-------...-------------------"'-I I ! l 300 -1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . � y j C W Ix j200 . . . . . . :. . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UJ .T !� F x 100 . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .:.j'. . . . . . . .. - . .5`. . , . . . . . . .:. . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . :x ire 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 X=Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ------ Average Rate Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T)=0.99 Ln(X)-1.14 R2= 0.88 Trip Generation,8th Edition 370 Institute of Transportation Engineer: 11{ g High-Rise Apartment (222) Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: Dwelling Units On a: Weekday, Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic, One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m. Number of Studies: 17 Avg. Number of Dwelling Units: 420 Directional Distribution: 61% entering, 39% exiting Trip Generation per Dwelling Unit Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation 0.35 0.23 0.50 0.59 Data Plot and Equation 400 300 x W n :' . : 200 ;• >. . . . . .. . . . . ro a>� X 00 . . . . 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 X=Number of Dwelling Units X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve ----- Average Pate Fitted Curve Equation: T=0.32(X) + 12.30 R2=0.92 :449 Trip Generation,81h Edition 371 Instituto of Tranenn mtin P-;-- V� QP �P 2�0 Attachment No. PC 9 Figure L23 151 V� QP �P 2�� CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure LU23 AIRPORT AREA RESIDENTIAL VILLAGES ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPT DIAGRAM •°•° °• Legend �^ OPPORTSITES ' PROPOSEDED OPEN SPACES IMPROVED RESIDENTIAL STREETS PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL STREETS ����� PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN WAYS -------- 65CNEL NOISE CONTOUR' CONCEPTUAL PLAN REQUIRED r r i r I \ •1 IQ 1 \, t 'The 65 CNEL Noise Contour is shown for illustretive purouses only. _ • s°uros:Ronnao stgnC up PROJEU NUMBER:1057Ml 8, Usti 0=3106 1 RPJl LU23_Airport_Area Concept_Diagram.mxd July/2007 153 V� QP �P 2�� Attachment No. PC 10 K-H Traffic Evaluation 155 V� QP �P 2�� THE RESIDENCES AT NEWPORT PLACE EVALUATION OF PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AND CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared for the proposed Residences at Newport Place project, to provide an evaluation of the project trip generation and construction traffic associated with the project. The Residences at Newport Place project site is the site of the existing MacArthur Square commercial center, located at the southwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Corinthian Way. The Residences at Newport Place project would remove the entire existing MacArthur Square development, and construct 384 apartments and a 5,677-square-foot restaurant. A copy of the project site plan is provided on Figure 1. The following is a discussion of the estimated project trip generation and construction traffic that would be associated with the project. PROJECT TRIP GENERATION The traffic expected to be generated by the proposed Residences at Newport Place was calculated using trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition). Trip rates for the project are based on ITE Land Use Category 220—Apartments,and Land Use Category 931—Restaurant. The trip estimates also take into account the trips associated with the existing MacArthur Square uses on the site,which will be removed. The difference between the trips associated with the existing uses and the trips estimated to be generated by the proposed Residences at Newport Place development will represent the Project trip generation for traffic evaluation purposes. Trip estimates were prepared using two sets of assumptions as it relates to the existing uses on the site— one for purposes of addressing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, and one for purposes of evaluating the project in accordance with the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO). For purposes of a CEQA evaluation,the Project trip generation estimates reflect actual conditions on the ground at the time the application for the project was submitted. At that time, 13,956 square feet of restaurant space in the MacArthur Square development was vacant. Therefore,the trips associated with the former restaurant space are not taken as trip credit in the CECIA trip generation estimates. The trip generation estimates based on the CEQA guidelines are summarized on Table 1, which shows that the project would result in a net increase of 208 daily trips,with 118 additional trips in the morning peak hour, and 66 additional trips in the evening peak hour. The TPO ordinance allows for trip credit to be applied to all existing uses on the site, even if currently vacant, based on the last known land use, if any, that could be resumed with no discretionary approval. Therefore,the trip generation credits for the TPO condition are based on the square footage of all existing buildings on the site, including the vacant restaurant space. The trip generation estimates based on the TPO Ordinance are summarized on Table 2,which shows that the project would result in a net reduction of 1,047(-1,047) daily trips,with an increase of 105(+105)trips in the morning peak hour,and a reduction of 39 (-39)trips in the evening peak hour. The Residences at Newport Place - I- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Trip Generation and Construction Traffic Evaluation Novembe�'81r Based on the City's TPO requirements, a Traffic Study would not be required of any project that generates no more than 300 average daily trips. Based on the trip generation estimates using both the CEQA and the TPO standards,the project would generate less than 300 average daily trips, and therefore, a Traffic Study is not required for the project. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC The following discussion has been prepared to address the anticipated construction traffic associated with heavy vehicles and construction workers during the construction phases of the project. Construction activities would include demolition, site clearing, grading and excavation, and construction of structures and site features. Large construction equipment such as bulldozers, loaders, scrapers, and pavers would be required during various construction phases. Large equipment is generally brought to the site at the start of the construction phase and kept on site until its term of use ends. A staging area would be designated on-site to store construction equipment and supplies during construction. Throughout construction,the size of the work crew reporting to the site each day would vary depending on the construction phase and the construction activities taking place at the time. Parking for workers would be provided on-site during all phases of construction. Construction workers would not be allowed to park on local streets. If needed during the peak construction periods, off-site parking will be provided, and workers will carpool or be shuttled to the worksite, if adjacent off-site parking is not obtained. The following information and details regarding construction activities and quantities has been provided by the Applicant. The construction activities would consist of four construction phases: • Demolition of the existing buildings on the site, • Excavation and grading, • Foundation construction,and • Above-ground construction. The demolition phase will include demolition and removal of the buildings,foundations and footings,and the asphalt parking lot and light fixtures. Demolition will result in approximately 8,400 tons of demolition debris, which will be crushed on site, and then hauled off-site. It is estimated that approximately 5,600 cubic yards of construction debris and concrete will need to be removed from the site. Assuming a capacity of 18 cubic yards per truckload, demolition activities will require removal of approximately 311 truckloads of demolition debris. Assuming a two-month period for the demolition phase (approximately 21 workdays per month),this would equate to an average of 7-8 inbound and 7-8 outbound trucks per day for demolition debris. All trucks will be staged on site; no staging will occur in the public right-of-way. The excavation and grading phase will involve a combination of cut and fill activity over a 2-to 3-month period, with an estimated 35,708 cubic yards of export. Assuming a capacity of 18 cubic yards per truckload,grading activities will require removal of approximately 1,984 truckloads of export. This would equate to an average of 31 to 47 incoming and outgoing truck trips per day. All trucks will be staged on site; no staging will occur in the public right-of-way. The Residences at Newport Place -2- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Trip Generation and Construction Traffic Evaluation November 5 The foundation and above-ground construction phase is estimated to take 16 months—four months for the foundation construction,and 12 months for the above-ground construction. It is estimated that there will be an average of 15 truck deliveries of construction materials per week during the foundation and building construction phases. All trucks will be staged on site; no staging will occur in the public right-of- way. The size of the construction crew will vary, depending on the construction phase, and is estimated to consist of the following: • Demolition-12 workers • Excavation and grading-12 workers • Foundation construction—25workers • Above-ground construction—60 workers Summarizing the construction phase information provided above,the resulting construction truck traffic and construction crew traffic is estimated to be as follows: The Residences at Newport Place Summary of Construction Traffic Construction Construction-related Daily Trips Phase Duration Vehicles Inbound Outbound Total Demolition 2 months Debris Haul Trucks 7-8 7-8 14-16 Construction Workers 12 12 24 Excavation and 2to3 Export Haul Trucks 31-47 31-47 62-94 Grading months Construction Workers 12 12 24 Foundation 4months Material Delivery Trucks 1 2-3 1 2-3 1 4-6 Construction Construction Workers 25 25 50 Above-ground 12 Material Delivery Trucks 2-3 2-3 4-6 Construction months Construction Workers 60 60 120 ' Source: Construction plan information provided by the applicant In each case,the heavy haul vehicles and delivery trucks would arrive and depart the site throughout the construction day. Construction workers would arrive in the morning, and depart in the evening. Trucks would use the existing regional and local truck route network to approach the site, getting as close as possible on the truck route to the destination site before turning off the designated truck route. The Residences at Newport Place -3- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Trip Generation and Construction Traffic Evaluation NovembeiL" The Applicant will be required to identify planned travel patterns for haul vehicles, and obtain a Haul Route permit from the City. All construction traffic will be required to use arterial roadways to get to and from the site. No residential streets can be used. Approach and departure routes for construction vehicles are assumed to be via MacArthur Boulevard. Depending on the origin/destination (the nearest landfill, or the deposit site identified for cut material),trucks will either arrive and depart on MacArthur Boulevard via the 1-405 Freeway,to the north of the site;or on MacArthur Boulevard and Jamboree Road via the SR-73 Freeway,to the south of the site. Temporary delays in traffic may occasionally occur due to heavy vehicles traveling at lower speeds on local streets. Such delays would be occasional, and of short duration, with the majority of them outside the peak hours. The project will be required to prepare a construction traffic management plan,which could include such things as requiring an encroachment permit for work in the public right-of-way, limiting heavy truck activity during peak hours, using flag men to manage short-term traffic control, requiring a formal traffic control plan for extended street and lane closures, limiting time and duration of closures, and/or requiring a minimum number of lanes to be open for travel during peak hours. The Residences at Newport Place -4- Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Trip Generation and Construction Traffic Evaluation Novembe_j7A C L .gl py IAS ` +�S wo y F i;il�llll;ll T W J (rr LL IL V, TABLE I RESIDENCES AT NEWPORT PLACE SUMMARY OF PROJECT TRIP GENERATION CEC,A Trip Generation Rates' ITE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Code Unit Daily In I Out I Total In I Out I Total Specialty Retail Center 826 KSF 44.320 * * * 1.192 1.518 2.710 Quality Restaurant 931 KSF 89.950 0.664 0.146 0.810 5.018 2.472 7.490 Medical-Dental Office Building 720 KSF 36.130 1.888 0.502 2.390 1.000 2.570 3.570 High-Turnover(Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 KSF 127.150 5.946 4.865 10.810 5.910 3.940 9.850 Apartment 220 DU 6.650 0.102 0.408 0.510 0.403 0.217 0.620 Trip Generation Estimates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Quantity Unit Daily In Out Total In I Out Total Existing Use Specialty Retail 22.967 KSF 1,018 * * 27 35 62 Quality Restaurant 10.174 KSF 915 7 1 8 51 25 76 Medical Office 5.467 KSF 198 10 3 13 5 14 19 High-Turnover(Sit-Down) Restaurant 5.713 KSF 726 34 28 62 34 23 57 Total Existing Trips 2,857 51 32 83 117 91 214 Proposed Use Apartment 384 DU 2,554 39 157 196 155 83 238 Quality Restaurant 5.677 KSF 511 4 1 5 28 14 42 Total Proposed Project Trips 3,065 43 158 201 183 97 280 Net Difference(Proposed Minus Existing) 208 -8 126 118 66 0 66 ' Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Trio Generation Manual,9th Edition Residences at Newport Place Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 11/9/201±0_48 PM TABLE 2 RESIDENCES AT NEWPORT PLACE SUMMARY OF PROJECT TRIP GENERATION TPO Trip Generation Rates' ITE AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Code Unit Daily In I Out I Total In I Out I Total Specialty Retail Center 826 KSF 44.32 * * * 1.19 1.52 2.71 Quality Restaurant 931 KSF 89.95 0.66 0.15 0.81 5.02 2.47 7.49 Medical-Dental Office Building 720 KSF 36.13 1.89 0.50 2.39 1.00 2.57 3.57 High-Turnover(Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 KSF 127.15 5.95 4.86 10.81 5.91 3.94 9.85 Apartment 220 DU 6.65 0.1 0.41 0.51 0.40 0.22 0.62 Trip Generation Estimates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Quantity Unit Daily In Out Total In Out Total Existing Use Specialty Retail 22.967 KSF 1,018 * * * 27 35 62 Quality Restaurant 24.130 KSF 2,170 16 4 20 121 60 181 Medical Office 5.467 KSF 198 10 3 13 5 14 19 High-Turnover(Sit-Down) Restaurant 5.713 KSF 726 34 28 62 34 23 57 Total Existing Trips 4,112 60 35 95 187 132 319 Proposed Use Apartment 384 DU 2,554 38 157 195 154 84 238 Quality Restaurant 5.677 KSF 511 4 1 5 28 14 42 Total Proposed Project Trips 3,065 42 158 200 182 98 280 Net Difference(Proposed Minus Existing) -1,047 -18 123 105 -5 -34 -39 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)Trip Generation Manual,9th Edition Residences at Newport Place Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 11/4/204±(�tg2 PM V� QP �P Attachment No. PC 11 Draft AHIP 105 V� QP �P 2�� Affordable Housing Implementation Plan The Residences at Newport Place Newport Beach, California October 14, 2014; Rev. 1 : March 2, 2015; Rev. 2: July 8, 2015; Rev. 3: September 14, 2015; Rev. 4: October 1 , 2015 111` OR 1 I _ - m , lil Prepared by C en ott `J2.&cc Qesidentid 0 0 The Residences at Newport Place Affordable Housing Implementation Plan Newport Beach, Californias by Newport Place Residential, LLC. r Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 ProjectDescription.........................................................................................................1 Affordable Housing Obligation ......................................................................................2 Methods to meet Affordability Requirements................................................................2 Definitions ......................................................................................................................3 Amendmentsof the AHIP..............................................................................................4 Successorsin Interest...................................................................................................5 Rightto Assign...............................................................................................................5 The Residences at Newport Place Affordable Housing Implementation Plan Newport Beach, California by Newport Place Residential, LLC. Affordable Housing Implementation Plan The Residences at Newport Place Newport Beach, California October 14, 2014; Rev. 1 : March 2, 2015; Rev. 2: July 8, 2015; Rev. 3: September 14, 2015; Rev. 4: October 1 , 2015 The site upon which The Residences at Newport Place is to be constructed currently consists of 5.691-acres of commercially developed land located in the City of Newport Beach. The odd, pentagonal-shaped site is bounded by Corinthian Way to the northeast, Martingale Way to the east, Scott Drive to the northwest, Dove Street to the southwest, and an office building development to the south. The site was originally developed as a shopping center with eight single-story commercial buildings that are leased to multiple tenants. The property is currently accessed via a driveway access on Dove Street, Scott Drive, and Martingale Way. The surface parking lot is shared by tenants and visitors. The City's Newport Place Planned Community Amendment allows for infill development and redevelopment of the Newport Place area within the Airport Area with up to 2,200 residential units. The Residences at Newport Place Planned Development Permit (PL2014-001) project will redevelop the subject property into a mixed use residential project including 384 residential units and 5,677 square feet of retail, and a private greenbelt that will provide public pedestrian travel during daylight hours between Dove Street and Martingale Way. The number of residential units planned to be developed as part of this project is based upon replacement units allocated to the site based on conversion of existing commercial uses to residential uses and density bonus units allowed pursuant to Government Code Section 65915-65918 ("State Density Bonus Law") and City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Chapter 20.32 (the "Density Bonus Code"). On The Residences at Newport Place site, 384 units would replace the existing commercial uses which are to be demolished. Of that total, 284 units are -1- 1(J° The Residences at Newport Place Affordable Housing Implementation Plan Newport Beach, California by Newport Place Residential, LLC. replacement units ("Base Units"), and 100 additional units will be developed as density bonus units pursuant to the State Bonus Density law and the Density Bonus Code. Replacement Units - Base Units 284 Density Bonus Units Q 35% 100 Total Units 384 The State Density Bonus Law and the City's Density Bonus Code provide for an increase in the number of units of thirty-five percent (35%) above the maximum number of units.allowed by the General Plan provided that the project constructs a minimum number of affordable units depending on which income category is served. At a bonus density of 35%, the project includes 100 units above the Base Units, for a total of 384 units. This Affordable Housing Implementation Plan (AHIP) is intended to implement affordable housing requirements for The Residences at Newport Place project pursuant to the State Bonus Density law, Chapter 20.32 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, and the Bonus Density Code. Projects within the Newport Place Planned Community area that do not meet the 10-acre minimum site requirement are permitted to develop or redevelop with residential uses by meeting the requirements given in Part III Section IV of the Newport Place Planned Community Development Standards, which includes the requirement to provide 30 percent (30%) of the Base Units as affordable to lower-income households and satisfy the minimum requirement of the Density Bonus Code set forth in Chapter 20.32 of the Municipal Code (combined, the "Affordability Requirements" or "Affordable Housing Requirements"). The Owner seeks to achieve a 35 percent (35%) density bonus, and will meet the Affordable Housing Requirements with the construction of affordable housing as follows: • By providing a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the Base Units (86 units) for rent by Low-Income households NIM The Owner shall meet its Affordable Housing Requirements by developing the affordable units on site. Pursuant to section 20.32.070 of the City Municipal Code, affordable units shall be dispersed throughout the Planned Development unless clustering of the affordable units in one or more sections of the Planned Development is approved by the Community Development Director. -2- 1j D The Residences at Newport Place Affordable Housing Implementation Plan Newport Beach, California by Newport Place Residential, LLC. The City's Affordability Requirements and Affordable Housing Requirements set out certain definitions and descriptions to assist in the implementation of the requirements, many of which are indicated below. These definitions and descriptions will be utilized in the interpretation of the requirements under this AHIP: A. Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA) Section 20.32,100 of the Density Bonus Code requires that an applicant that seeks a density bonus shall enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement ("AHA") with the City. Rent restrictions for rental units shall be in the form of a regulatory agreement recorded against the applicable property. B. Affordable Rental Price Affordable rental price is defined as an annual rent that does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the maximum income level for low-income, as adjusted for household size. In determining the maximum household income for a given affordable unit, it shall be based upon each bedroom being occupied by two persons, except for efficiency units (one person). C. Affordable Unit An Affordable Unit is defined as a rental-housing unit, including senior housing, affordable to households with very low-, low-, and moderate- incomes as defined herein. D. Low-Income Low-income is defined as income between fifty percent (50%) and eighty percent (80%) of the Orange County median income, adjusted for actual household size, as determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD"). Within this AHIP `low-income" shall have the same meaning. E. Annual Adjustments Orange County Area Median Incomes utilized for setting the Affordable Housing Price, Affordable Housing Costs, and Affordable Rental Price shall be those publicized annually by HCD. F. Permissible Residency Whenever an occupancy restriction identifies a particular household category for occupancy, households with less income may also occupy that unit. So, for example, if a unit has a Low-Income restriction, Very Low-Income households may occupy that unit. -3- 2�1 The Residences at Newport Place Affordable Housing Implementation Plan Newport Beach, California by Newport Place Residential, LLC. G. Rental Income Limits Established The permissible rental rates for the affordable units shall not exceed the Affordable Rental Price described earlier in this AHIP. H. Affordable Housing Costs Established The permissible Affordable Housing Costs for the affordable units shall not exceed the Affordable Housing Costs described earlier in this AHIP. I. Term of Affordability Restrictions a) The affordable rental units provided through the implementation of this AHIP shall be legally restricted to occupancy by, and affordable to, households meeting the income requirements designated herein for a minimum duration of thirty (30) years from the date of the certificate of occupancy for the affordable units. b) The affordability restrictions will be documented by the recording of the following documents against the affected units: i. In the case where the restricted units are rental units, a Regulatory Agreement or equivalent will be recorded against the apartment project assuring the continued affordability of the restricted units for a minimum of 30 years. The Regulatory Agreement will be subordinate to any conventional mortgage or bond financing which has a first trust deed position against the apartment project. J. Units Applicable against RHNA Requirements The City and Owner agree that any affordable units produced through the implementation of this AHIP may be used by the City to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessments ("RHNA") specified by the Southern California Association of Governments ("SCAG"). K. Income Limits Annually HCD publishes area median incomes ("AMP') for each county in California. HCD revised and updated its 2012 income limits on February 1, 2012. Income limits currently in effect now or in the future upon completion of the project will be used to determine eligibility of a particular household. This AHIP may be amended by mutual agreement of the parties which will . require City Council approval. -4- 1j 2 The Residences at Newport Place Affordable Housing Implementation Plan Newport Beach, California by Newport Place Residential, LLC. .J„ w-tart. sa The obligations and benefits applying to the Owner under this AHIP shall also apply tto any successors in interest to the Owner. Owner shall have the right to assign the AHA or this AHIP, including all benefits, covenants, duties, and obligations contained herein, upon the City's prior approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Owner shall notify the City in writing of the assignment at least thirty (30) days prior to completion of the assignment. Owner's notice of assignment to the City shall include the name of, and contact information for the assignee. Upon completion of the assignment, the assignee shall assume and perform all duties and obligations set forth in the AHA and this AHIP, excepting only those duties and obligations expressly retained by Owner, if any, as part of the assignment. -5- 1�3 V� QP �P Attachment No. PC 12 Fiscal Analysis 17,5 V� QP �P 2�� MEMO TO: Brenda Wisneski, AICP, Deputy Community Development Director City of Newport Beach FROM: Doug Svensson, AICP DATE: April 12, 2016 SUBJECT: Fiscal Analysis for The Residences at Newport Place 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 ,R 99 Pacific Street, #200 J, Monterey, CA 93940 ■ 831.324.4896 www.adeusa.com GREEN BUSINESS development, and the level of expenditure needed to expand services incrementally if existing capacity is not available. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project would convert the existing MacArthur Square retail center to a mixed use luxury apartment complex with a small retail center. The site is 5.7 acres and is generally bounded by Scott Dr., Corinthian Way and Dove St. in the Airport Area Planning Sub-Area of the General Plan. The project would include 384 rental apartments, of which 86 would be priced for lower income households. The retail center in the proposed project would include 5,677 sq.ft. of building space. 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 and taxable sales. The Initial Study for the project cites the Newport Beach Housing Element for the average household size of 2.2 persons. With 384 units planned, the total population in the project is estimated at 845 persons. In addition, the retail space would support nine retail jobs. The assessed value for the project has been derived from a review of multi-family property sales in 2014 and 2015 in Newport Beach, with comparisons of similar types of properties in Irvine and Huntington Beach. We analyzed average sales prices per sq.ft. for units of different size categories that approximately correspond to the proposed unit size at The Residences. The property values range from $420 per sq.ft. to $700 per sq.ft. as shown in Table 1. We also assumed the affordable units would be proportionally distributed among the unit types. The assessed values for affordable units are discounted from market rates based on the difference between affordable and market rate rents as shown in the City Housing Element.'The total residential assessed value in the project is estimated at $201.4 million, for an average of $524,500 per unit, including the affordable units. This approach assumes that the affordable units remain in private ownership and are counted in the tax rolls. If the units are sold to a tax-exempt non-profit or governmental organization, the total project assessed value would be reduced by $35.9 million. The analysis uses the updated rent levels from the Housing Element to estimate household income and taxable retail spending, as shown in Table 2. We assume that rent comprises 30 percent of household income. We then use a retail demand model to calculate the portion of income normally spent on taxable retail sales. 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. z City of Newport Beach, Housing Element. Table H13, page 5-20.The data in this table are for 2012.ADE updated the figures assuming income levels have grown 3% per year while market rents have grown 5% per year. Applied Development Economics I Page 2 172 TABLE 1: ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUES FOR THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE RESIDENCES AT NEWPORT MKT RATE AFFORDABLE TOTAL NO. OF NO.OF TOTAL ASSESSED UNIT TYPE SIZE UNITS AV S .FT. UNITS AV S UNITS VALUE Studio 616 42 420 12 348 54 $13,432,035 1 Bdrm 804 134 700 39 512 173 $91,515,879 2 Bdrm 1,178 106 $530 30 $407 136 $80,495,596 3 Bdrm 1,422 16 570 5 411 21 $15,958,026 Total 298 86 384 $201,401,536 Source:ADE,Inc., based on the project description In the Draft Initial Study,prepared by Keeton Kreitzer Consulting, January 2016,and property transactions downloaded from CoreLogic ListSource. TABLE 2: ESTIMATED HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND RETAIL TALES TAX MARKET RATE AFFORDABLE UNIT kRENT INCOME SALES FRENT INCOME SALES TYPE @30% TAX @30% TAX Studio 69046 6 204 57 155 1 482 1 Bdrm 89 286 25 700 65 338 5 4282 Bdrm 106 352 24 065 81 662 5 333 3 Bdrm $131,422 $4 592 $94,764 $956 Total $60,561 $13,198 Source:ADE,Inc. FISCAL IMPACTS The analysis, summarized in Table 3 below, estimates the current fiscal impact of the MacArthur Square retail center and compares it to the projected fiscal impact of the proposed Residences at Newport Place Project. The MacArthur Square center was built in 1974 and the current assessed value of the site is $5.1 million, well below the current market value for a retail center of this size (58,277 sq.ft.). Therefore, the existing property taxes are relatively low compared to what a new retail center would generate. In addition, it is likely the existing sales tax generated on the site is below market, although specific figures for the development are not available. ADE has estimated average taxable sales of $247 per sq.ft., which is well below the average in Newport Beach, but is intended to account for the fact that some of the tenants are office users rather than retail or restaurant businesses. The proposed project generates much more property tax, but about half the sales tax of the existing retail use on the site. Total revenues projected for the proposed project are about 3.5 times the estimated current revenue generated by MacArthur Square, at $691,300 compared to $197,000. Applied Development Economics I Page 3q -f TABLE 3: PROJECTED FISCAL IMPACT OF THE RESIDENCES AT NEWPORT PLACE . . THE ExiSTING MAcARTHUR SQUARE RETAIL CENTER Annual Revenues/Costs or'MacArthur Budget Category 5quare The Residences Difference,. REVENUES GENERAL FUND Property Tax $10,277 $409,161 $398,885 Property Tax in lieu of Sales Tax $1,019 $40,553 $39,534 Sales Tax $144,236 $73,759 ($70,476) Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $369 $369 Franchise Fees $2,948 $15,785 $12,836 Business Licenses $3,534 $6,394 $2,859 Other Intergovernmental $851 $7,795 $6,944 Charges for Service $7,228 $66,237 $59,008 Fines, Penalties, and Forfeitures $1,931 $17,692 $15,761 Licenses and Permits $332 $3,039 $2,707 Use of Property $1,931 $17,692 $15,761 Other Revenue $195 $1,791 $1,595 Interest Income 488 $1,846 $1,358 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $174,969 $662,112 $487,143 GAS TAX $0 $17,960 $17,960 MEASURE M $22,048 $11,275 $10,773 SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS 22 048 29 2357 187 TOTAL REVENUE 197016 691 347 494 330; EXPENDITURES GENERALFUND General Government $10,128 $73,861 $63,733 Police $71,589 $229,942 $158,353 Fire $18,352 $200,322 $181,970 Public Works $17,870 $163,747 $145,878 Community Development $1,110 $10,173 $9,063 Community Services $0 $190,158 $190,158 CIP Streets $18,567 $10,213 ($8,354) Other CIP Projects 333 $3,049 $2,716 SUBTOTAL GENERAL FUND $137,948 $881,466 $743,518 GAS TAX $9,907 $5,450 ($4,457) MEASURE M $15,875 $8,728 ($7,147) SUBTOTAL OTHER FUNDS $25 782 14 177 $11 605 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $I65:756 _ 89':6 643 731 913 NET COST /REVENUE $33,287 $204,296 ($237,583) Source:ADE,Inc. Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. However, the proposed project would likely require a much higher levels of services. The Initial Study indicates that the proposed project would not create adverse impacts on City services. However, the levels of service needed for residential development is typically higher than for retail commercial development. Therefore, the fiscal analysis assumes there would need to be an increase in City staff costs for most City services. Based on City service level standards as reflected in the fiscal model, police protection costs for the residential population are about three times the current retail use, while fire protection and emergency services would be more than ten times higher. In addition, the residential project would require parks and recreation, library and senior services provided by the City Community Service Department, which are generally not used by the existing retail use. The retail Applied Development Economics IPage 4 leo center does produce higher costs for streets maintenance, reflected in the Streets CIP, the gas tax and Measure M, based on assumptions in the fiscal model about relative traffic generation between residential and retail uses. Overall, City costs are more than five times higher for the proposed residential project than for the existing retail use. The proposed project would generate an annual net fiscal cost to the City of about $204,300, as compared to the estimated current fiscal surplus from the site of$33,300. CONCLUSION The proposed residential use of the site would require a higher level of City services than the current MacArthur Square retail center and would produce a negative annual cost/revenue balance for the site, considered by itself. However, it is important to recognize that the proposed project is consistent with the 2006 General Plan. 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.3 This positive projected fiscal outcome incorporates the negative fiscal impacts of some of the housing included in the plan, as demonstrated by the proposed Residences project. 3 Applied Development Economics, Fiscal Impact Analysis Land Use Element Amendment, April 4, 2014. p. 3. Applied Development Economics I Page 5 282 V� QP �P 2g� Attachment No. PC 13 Correspondences los V� QP �P 2g� Ung, Rosalinh Subject: FW: Letter in opposition to development involving Arnie's Manhattan Deli and II Barone Ristorante From: Carole Ciraulo [mailto:ciraulol earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 1:50 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Cc: schallita04@gmail.com Subject: Letter in opposition to development involving Arnie's Manhattan Deli and II Barone Ristorante Gentlemen: We respectfully request that you give serious consideration to opposing the subject development. It is questionable, in our opinion, that this type of density could pass a study regarding excessive traffic, especially during peak hours. The surrounding area is composed almost entirely of high density office buildings and these do not seem to be all rented. Additionally this blow could be fatal to the subject two businesses who have invested many years of hard work to achieve stability, not to mention probably their life savings. A survey of surrounding areas will reveal that there are very few establishments where the lessors of the surrounding buildings can eat. These two establishments are also favorites of many of the residents of Newport Beach. There does not seem to be any availability of rental space for this type of business. We wonder if the development of this property could not be reconfigured leaving the subject establishments intact? At any rate, we do hope the City will not approve the development as proposed. Sincerely, Joseph C. Ciraulo and Carole F. Ciraulo Former Mayor, City of Arcadia, California Newport Beach Resident 1 125 Ung, Rosalinh From: David Friedman <DFriedman@wbais.com> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 3:18 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Arnie's Manhattan Deli on Dove St, NB Recently I've heard rumblings that the space my favorite Deli is located at is being threatened for extinction! In my opinion and of those whom I have weekly lunch with at this Deli;this would be a very sad day for the local businesses in this area! Established niche and ethnic restaurants that cater to and actually serve the greater good of our community should not go away to higher occupancy construction. Among many reasons that I certainly feel would be shared with by my business friends who also work in this area, keeping the"character" in our community should be on top of the list of reasons for this area to keep our local Deli and restaurant . Having worked in this area for almost 18-years, I have seen several restaurants come and go for economic reasons... lack of uniqueness and inflated prices... none of which define how Arnie's does their business! They have many"regulars"just like us that would be somewhat unforgiving to our local regional planning directors that would replace a known success with expanded affordable living units in this area. Please reconsider your current development plans and leave the area as is and instead promote and entice small business growth. Respectfully, David Friedman t 1gC Ung, Rosalinh From: Ruiz-Vela, Danielle <Danielle.Ruiz-Vela@PacificLife.com> Sent: Monday,April 25, 2016 8:57 AM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Project File No. PA2014-150 To Whom it May Concern— I wanted to take a moment to voice my objection of tearing down the Newport Shopping center. For one it has options for eating(I frequent Arnie's Manhattan Restaurant& Delicatessen). Secondly, I feel that adding affordable housing will increase traffic. The last thing we need at that location is increased traffic. Please do not tear down this shopping center. Thank you, Danielle Ruiz-Vela, CSSC I Lead Internal Sales Associate Pacific Life I Structured Settlements Toll-Free 877-784-0622, Direct 949-219-1632, Fax 877-618-7661 New Video:An Alternative Option to COLA—The Index Linked Annuity Payment Adiustment rider The information in this e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient and may contain privileged or confidential information. Delivery to other than the intended recipient shall not be deemed to waive any privilege. Any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or distribution of this message or attachment is strictly prohibited. If you believe that you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete the e-mail and all of its attachments. t 1g� Inspiring The Next Still Protecting ur Newport Generation PO Box 102 Balboa Island , CA 92662 1 949 . 864 . 6616 OFFICERS March 23, 2016 PRESIDENT Marko Popovich VICE PRESIDENT City of Newport Beach Elaine Linhoff Planning Commission c/o Kory Kramer, Chair TREASURER via email: kkramer@newnortbeachca.gov Dennis Baker Subject:The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) SECRETARY Allan Beek Dear Chair Kramer and Commissioners, SPON appreciates the opportunity to provide additional comments regarding the BOARD MEMBERS proposed Residences at Newport Place, located in the Airport Area. Please consider these comments as a follow-up to our March 4, 2016 Mitigated Negative Declaration Nancy Alston comments. Don Harvey Dorothy Kraus Donald Krotee We have delved further into the General Plan,which has raised additional questions and Andrea Lingle concerns about this proposed mixed-use development that we'd like to share with you. Bobby Lovell Jeanne Price 1. The General Plan Land Use Element, Airport Area Policy Overview states: 'The Melinda Seely General Plan provides for the development of office, industrial, retail, and airport- lack Skinner related businesses in the Airport Area, as well as the opportunity for housing and Nancy Skinner supporting services. The latter would be developed as clusters of residential villages Jean Watt centering on neighborhood parks and interconnected by pedestrian walkways. These Portia Weiss would contain a mix of housing types and buildings that integrate housing with Terry Welsh ground-level convenience retail uses and would be developed at a sufficient scale to achieve a "complete"neighborhood..." STOP 6` A 501([)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and ' c m J environmental qualities of Newport Beach. H OUR www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 122 Inspiring The Next Still Protecting ur Newport Generation PO Box 102 Balboa Island , CA 92662 1 949 . 864 . 6616 March 23, 2016 Kory Kramer, Chair City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Page Two RE:The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) • The proposed project is of excessive height and mass, and seems contrary to a "residential village" like character. The applicant is requesting a height increase from 55' to 83' and setback reduction from the required 30' to 18' feet. These exceptions promote a building already of massive size and proportion, which do not align with a residential village concept described in the General Plan. • Although the interior of the project allows for private amenities with inward facing interconnecting courtyards, a pool, and community room, the concept of residences centering on a "neighborhood park" seems to be absent. • General Plan LU23—Airport Area Residential Villages Illustration Concept Diagram (attached separately) shows a swath of green "potential open space" and also "proposed pedestrian ways" that appear to be on or near the subject property location. At the March 3, 2016 Planning Commission Study Session, there was no mention made of the potential for open space as illustrated in the 2006 General Plan. Additionally, the strip of landscaping at the bottom of the "Site Plan" slide extracted from the March 3, 2016 staff presentation (also attached separately) appears to correspond to the "potential open space" in the General Plan LU23 Conceptual Diagram.The "pedestrian way" also appears to be an overflow parking area. STOP A 501([)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and c m J environmental qualities of Newport Beach. H OUR www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport :L R9 Inspiring The Next Still Protecting ur Newport Generation PO Box 102 Balboa Island , CA 92662 1 949 . 864 . 6616 March 23, 2016 Kory Kramer, Chair City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Page Three RE:The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) 2. General Plan policies for Airport Area neighborhood parks are clearly articulated in LU 6.15-13: To provide a focus and identity for the entire neighborhood and to serve the daily recreational and commercial needs of the community within easy walking distance of homes, require dedication and improvement of at least 8 percent of the gross land area (exclusive of existing rights-of-way) of the first phase development in each neighborhood, or Y2 acre, whichever is greater, as a neighborhood park. Yet the applicant is requesting a waiver of this policy of/: acre parkland dedication to 1/3 acre. 3. "Complete Neighborhoods":Throughout the General Plan there are policies that state the desire to implement goals to reduce emissions as required by State laws while at the same time providing the additional benefit of a "livable,walkable"and "complete" neighborhoods. Recently the need to implement these goals has become more urgent. Governor Brown has set tough new targets to make sure California actually meets its climate goal of an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.The new interim target is 40% by 2030. "To reach that goal,we have to tackle transportation, the biggest source of carbon emissions." Yet The Residences at Newport Place make no accommodation to incorporate retail uses of a sufficient scale to achieve a "complete" neighborhood to minimize the need for residents to travel outside of the community for retail, and goods and services.All that the applicant is currently proposing is a restaurant on the subject property. STOP A 501([)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and c m J environmental qualities of Newport Beach. H OUR www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 29 L) Inspiring The Next Still Protecting ur Newport Generation PO Box 102 Balboa Island , CA 92662 1 949 . 864 . 6616 March 23, 2016 Kory Kramer, Chair City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Page Four RE:The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) SPON believes that an opportunity for a mixed-use project exists for the subject property. However, the proposed building design, scale and massiveness are not in character for Newport Beach nor aligned with the General Plan. Additionally, the absence of sufficient public open space and parklands as well as the lack of on-site retail uses to minimize residents having to get in the car for their daily needs should be resolved. Thank you for taking our concerns and suggestions into consideration. rSiinncerely, President CC: See Pg. 5 Attachments Pg. 6: Staff Site Plan: The Residences at Newport Place Pg. 7: City of Newport Beach General Plan Figure LU23 STOP A 501([)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and c m J environmental qualities of Newport Beach. H OUR www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 191 Inspiring The Next Still Protecting ur Newport Generation PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island , CA 92662 1 949 . 864 . 6616 March 23, 2016 Kory Kramer, Chair City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Page Five RE:The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Copies to: Vice Chair Tim Brown: tbrown@newportbeachca.gov Commissioner Peter Koetting: pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov Commissioner Bradley Hillgren: bhillgren@newportbeachca.gov Commissioner Ray Lawler: rlawler@newportbeachca.gov Commissioner Peter Zak: pzak@newportbeachca.gov Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski: bwisneski@newportbeachca.gov Associate Planner Rosalinh Ung: rung@ newportbeachca.gov Mayor Diane Dixon: ddixon@newportbeachca.gov Mayor Pro Tem Kevin Muldoon: kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov Council Member Duffy Duffield: dduffield@newportbeachca.gov Council Member Ed Selich: edselichc@roadrunner.com Council Member Keith Curry: keithcurrvl@vahoo.com Council Member Tony Petros: tpetros@newportbeachca.gov Council Member Scott Peotter: speotter@newportbeachca.gov City Clerk Leilani Brown: (brown@newportbeachca.gov STOP 6` A 501([)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and ' c m J environmental qualities of Newport Beach. H OUR www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport 192 4FACH i� ap uY� I 71 c 1r C c Y C C 0 ai D c v \ ` o v A ;u bAb ,J s N O N M t i f0 193 CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERAL PLAN Figure LU23 AIRPORT AREA RESIDENTIAL VILLAGES ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPT DIAGRAM �. Legend OPPORTUNITY SITES ' PROPOSED OPEN SPACES IMPROVED RESIDENTIAL STREETS (� PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL STREETS 41121 PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN WAYS _ — — ---- 65 CNEL NOISE CONTOUR' CONCEPTUAL PLAN REQUIRED 1 t 1 ♦♦ 41 II _ ^11 IQ �� �♦ / \ ♦ `w The 65 CNEL Noise Contour is shown for illustrative purposes only. i y � � A I t 1 �rf1P1 rr�l � •O• Il Source:ROMAOeslgn Emup PROJECT NUMBER:10579-01 0aW e8b310fi PIP LU23 Airport_Area Concept_Diagram.mxd July/2007 q Ung, Rosalinh From: Masa Stafford <mstafford@bawg.com> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 4:50 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: re: Project File No.: PA2014-150, Located at Newport Place I DO NOT think we need more housing. What we do need are places to eat and some retail. We have enough housing in this area 1 1J°S Ung, Rosalinh From: Gary Sequeira <Gary@ocflightcenter.com> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 4:42 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Arnies i As a patron of Arnies for over 10 years, all of my employees would be dearly disappointed to lose our favorite lunch spot. I know that I speak for a huge majority of employers and employees in the business community, that would stand together to support the restaurant. Gary Sequeira, Pres., Orange County Flight Center American Aircraft Sales Office 949-756-1300 Cell 949-922-5263 Fax 949-756-0727 i 1J°C Ung, Rosalinh From: Brett Swartzbaugh <bswarty@roadrunner.com> Sent: Monday,April 25, 2016 2:50 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: PA2014-150, Newport Place Hello Rosalinh, I am opposed to the subject site proposed for multifamily housing. Brett Swartzbaugh i 29� Ung, Rosalinh From: Drew Taylor <dtanthony@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 6:23 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Petition for Arnie's Manhattan Deli Hi, T would like to petition that Arnie's deli not be forced to move from their 1660 Dove St location. Thanks, Drew Taylor 650-454-5988 i -f q Ung, Rosalinh From: Wendy Valdes <design2lwv@aol.com> Sent: Monday,April 25, 2016 1:54 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Fwd: Project File#PA2014-150 Located at Newport Place To Rosalinh Ung I would like to be on record regarding #PA2014-150 I am sending this e-mail in opposition to the proposed high density development at Newport Place. The center there now provides much needed services for many who work in the area and we do not need more multi story in that area. What happened to the slow growth Greenlight Initiative that we voted on and passed? I live across the street from the huge five story apartment buildings going up on the corner of San Joaquin and Jamboree! I have also seen the proposed Tower at the Museum site. So I am vigorously opposing this Newport Place development of almost 400 units. thank you Wendy Valdes DESIGN21 2915 Red Hill Ave. B 201H Costa Mesa, CA 92626 949-275-0845 design2lwv(aD_aol.comdesign21wv@aol.com t 299 Ung, Rosalinh From: Michael Weinstein <mweinstein01@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 1:32 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: PROJECT FILE NO: PA2014-150, LOCATED AT NEWPORT PLACE. DEAR ROSALINH, MY NAME IS MICHAEL WEINSTEIN AND I'VE BEEN GOING TO ARNIES MANHATTAN FOR MANY YEARS NOW. IT SEEMS ODD TO ME THAT INSTEAD OF HAVING A GREAT JEWISH DELI, IT'S BEING DECIDED TO BUILD AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN IT'S PLACE. THE TRAFFIC IN NEWPORT AND PARTICULARLY IN THAT AREA IS ALREADY CONGESTION AND DIFFICULT TO GET AROUND. TO ADD MORE HOUSING WILL ONLY MAKE IT WORSE AND AT THE SAME TIME, ELIMINATE THE ONLY REALLY GOOD JEWISH DELI IN SOUTHERN ORANGE COUNTY. THIS MOVE MAKES NO SENSE TO ME OR MANY OF MY FRIENDS. PLEASE RETHINK THIS DECISION AND FIND A WAY TO KEEP ARNIE'S IN BUSINESS. THANK YOU MICHAEL WEINSTEIN 1809 E. DYER RD. # 313 SANTA ANA, CA. 92705 (949) 975-1900 1 200 Ung, Rosalinh From: Marty Tenebaum <marty@innovage.net> Sent: Monday, April 25,2016 12:06 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Arnies Manhatten Deli They just told me the disturbing news of putting Housing in place of their deli We don't have enough Food places as it is and to run another good one away isn't in the best interest of Newport Beach They have been there forever and I love the food I go there at least twice a week Marty T Martin Tenebaum I Vice President-Events Smart Circle International I martv()innovage.net smart CIrCIe- T: 949.587.92071 F: 949.587.90241 www.smartcircle.com ® ® 0 t 201 V� QP �P �o� Attachment No. PC 14 Project Plans (for March 3rd PC Study Session) 20S V� QP �P �o� I� PROJECT TEAM UNIT MIX AND AREA SCHEDULE 0 NEWPORT UNIT MIX OWNER: MACARTHUR SQUARE, A CALIFORNIA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 17631 FlTCH UNIT area TOT/LEVEL PROD/TOTAL % TOT AREA NOTES IRVINE, CA 92614-6021 (949) 474-8900 Ala 607 2 2 1,214 STREET LEVEL Ala 607 11 44 26,708 DEVELOPER: NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC Alb 625 2 8 54 14% 5,000 20411 SW BIRCH, SUITE 310 A3a 750 6 6 4,500 STREET LEVEL NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949) 672-8068 A3a 750 7 28 21,000 A3b 785 3 3 2,355 STREET LEVEL ARCHITECT: ARK ARCHITECTS, INC. 11855 SORRENTO VALLEY RD. A3b 785 16 56 43,960 SUITE 501 SAN DIEGO, CA 92121 A3c 774 3 12 9,288 (858) 792-5997 Aad 810 1 1 1 1 4 1 3,240 CIVIL ENGINEER: KHR ASSOCIATES A3L abs 1 1 1 a 1 7,080 LOFT 20411 SW BIRCH, A4a 815 1 14 1 1 56 1 173 1 45% 45,640 SUITE 310 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 (949)756-6440 B3 1,189 4 16 19,024 BSa 1,148 8 8 9,184 STREET LEVEL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: MJS DESIGN GROUP B5a 1,148 6 23 26,4D4 511 30TH ST, NEWPORT BEACH. CA 92663 - 65b 1,178 11 33 38,874 (949) 675-9964 _ BSc 1,216 6 24 29,184 B5d 1,184 3 12 14,208 V L : B5L 1,281 11 14,091 LOFT B6 1,093 1 4 4,372 67 1,137 1 1 1,137 STREET LEVEL - ® - i' �;, i __ _ B7 1,137 1 4 136 35% 4,548 LEGAL DESCRIPTION w. - --- � I _ _ Cla 1,344 11 1 1,344 1 STREET LEVEL 9Yl . Cla 1,344 4 1 1 15 1 20,160 THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE , T--- OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: _ :� / ,I II ---��- °.,' Clb 1,344 1 4 1 5,376 PARCEL A: I CIL 1,500 1 21 5% 1,500 LOFT LOT 1 OF TRACT N0. 7770, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE � � _ - -- -' ' TOTAL 91 21 1 384 384 100% 1 361,391 OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 299, PAGES 15 AND 16 OF MISCELLANEOUS -- i- MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. TOTAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVIDED 86 UNITS EXCEPT ALL MINERALS, PETROLEUM, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES EXISTING BELOW _500 FEET FROM THE SURFACE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT oil AFFORDABLE UNITS RREAKDOW: GRANTOR HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVES THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE SURFACE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLORING FOR OR PRODUCING THE MINERALS, PETROLEUM, ._r P i,. 12 STUDIO GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES SO RESERVED, AS RESERVED IN AN INSTRUMENT _ 38 1-BEDROOM RECORDED SEPTEMBERa 8, 1972 IN BOOK 10316, PAGE 114 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. _ "' 5 2-�� _ 3-Beoaaau PARCEL B: _ TOTAL AFFORDABLE UNITS 86 UNITS THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 OF TRACT NO. 7770 IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH COUNTY OF ORANGE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 299, PAGES 15 AND 18 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: - i PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 53, PAGE 13 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF DENSITY CALCULATIONS� � L.�� �� 1 THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY. a _ _ ■` _ - 384 DU / 56911 AC 674! DU/AC EXCEPT ALL MINERALS, PETROLEUM, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES EXISTING BELOW 500 FEET FROM THE SURFACE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT GRANTOR HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVES THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE SURFACE OF SAID REAL -- - - _ AREA CALCULATIONS PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLORING FOR OR PRODUCING THE MINERALS, PETROLEUM, __ _ ____ -- GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES SO RESERVED, AS RESERVED IN AN INSTRUMENT _ ---- -_- - _._ QUALITY RESTAURANT 5,677 S.F. RECORDED SEPTEMBER 4, 1973 IN BOOK 10883, PAGE 83 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. -- - - RESIDENTIAL AMENITY SPACE 5,311 S.F. PARCEL C: CABANA 2,353 S.F. THAT PORTION OF LOT 2 OF TRACT NO. 7770, IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, FITNESS CENTER 2,540 S.F. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 299, PAGES 15 AND 16 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LEASING OFFICE & COMMUNITY 4,640 S.F. PARCEL 2 AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 53, PAGE 13 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF GROSS RESIDENTIAL - BUILDING 1 76,500 S.F. THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. GROSS RESIDENTIAL - BUILDING 11 75,749 S.F. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, ALL MINERALS, PETROLEUM, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON GROSS RESIDENTIAL - BUILDING III 140,108 S.F. SUBSTANCES EXISTING BELOW 500 FEET FROM THE SURFACE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY DESCRIBED ABOVE; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT GRANTOR HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVES THE GROSS RESIDENTIAL- BUILDING IV 135,578 S.F. RIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE SURFACE OF SAID REAL PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLORING FOR OR PRODUCING THE MINERALS, PETROLEUM, GAS AND OTHER SCOPE O F WORK VICINITY MAP TOTAL 5 S.F. HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES, AS RESERVED BY DEED RECORDED MARCH 1, 1974 IN BOOK 11086, PAGE 2 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. APN: 427-172-02, 427-172-03, 427-172-05, 427-172-06 " FOUR (4) FOUR STORY TYPE V MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS CONTAINING A TOTAL OF 384 RENTAL UNITS (INCLUDING 86 AFFORDABLE HOUSING) OVER TWO LEVELS OF TYPE I STRUCTURE "'4" ,� � s vmi,iu wi•• PROJECT DESCRIPTION , y° PARKING SCHEDULE SITE DENSITY SHEET INDEX @z« SIT_ E e m NEWPORT PLACE PLANNED COMMUNITY AMMENDMENT NO. PD2011-005, GENERAL COMMERCIAL SITE 6. AO-1 TITLE SHEET � PARKING SCHEDULE A11-0 EXISTING SITE PLAN A 384 UNITS, MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL PROJECT WITH 4 RESIDENTIAL LEVELS OVER ONE LEVEL OF SUBTERRANEAN AIL OWED; MIN 30 DU/AC MAX 50 DU/AC W BONUS FOR A11-1 OVERALL GARAGE FLOOR PLAN - UNDERGROUND LEVEL A... P e PARKING AND OVER GARAGE, STORAGE, RETAIL AND ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS AT STREET LEVEL (BELOW PODIUM.) AFFORDABLE HOUSING Al-2 OVERALL GARAGE FLOOR PLAN - STREET LEVEL vd --.,.' y - PROVIDED PARKING Al-3 OVERALL FLOOR PLAN - PODIUM LEVEL / CLUBHOUSE m M "m, RESIDENTIAL PARKING - UPPER 321 PROPosLro 6247 DU/AC Al-4 OVERALL TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN - RESIDENTIAL / LEASING OFFICE �� r� 1 `� - ;.�„ '• A11-5 OVERALL ROOF PLAN A11-6 OVERALL COLORED SITE PLAN =°d� " � 'r ,,FP RESIDENTIAL PARKING - LOWER 323 A2-1 BUILDING I TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN "^ ,Win "°"Ma :n COMMERCIAL - RETAIL PARKING 71 A2-2 BUILDING 14TH FLOOR PLAN ,�y4 - A2-3 BUILDING 1 ROOF/LOFT PLAN TOTAL PARKING STALLS PROVIDED 715 A2-4 BUILDING I TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN " TOTAL ELE TRICAt CAR CHARGERS PROVIDED „ 14 EXISTING/PROPOSED USES A2-5 BUILDING 14TH FLOOR PLAN �m A2-6 BUILDING 1 ROOF/LOFT PLAN REQUIRED PARKING A2-7 BUILDING I TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN EXISTING: COMMERCIAL A2-8 BUILDING 14TH FLOOR PLAN Residential Apartments ( Studio/ 1-Bedroom - 1 stall/D.U.") 173 A2-9 BUILDING 1 ROOF/LOFT PLAN PROPDSFD: MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL/RETAILDEVELOPMENT FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) A2-10BUILDING I TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN OPEN SPACE Residential Apartments ( 2-Bedroom / 3-Bedroom - 2stall/D.U.') 314 A2-111 BUILDING 14TH FLOOR PLAN A2-12BUILDING 1 ROOF/LOFT PLAN Quality Restaurant Parking Total (1 space per 40 s.f. NPA) 71 A3-1 CONCEPTUAL UNIT PLANS GROSS SITE AREA., 5.6917 AC A3-2 CONCEPTUAL UNIT PLANS 558 A3-3 CONCEPTUAL UNIT PLANS ON-SITE OPEN SPACE PRONGED = 78, 755 SF. - REFER TO LS-2 TOTAL PARKING STALLS A3-4 CONCEPTUAL UNIT PLANS ° INCLUSIVE OF HANDICAPPED AND GUEST PARKING. GROSS FLOOR AREA: 448,458 S.F. A4-1 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A4-2 BUILDING ELEVATIONS CONSTRUCTION/OCCUPANCY ZONING. MU-HU MIXED USE HORIZONTAL A4-3 BUILDING ELEVATIONS REgUIRED COMMERCIAL/GUEST HANDICAPPED: 5 HANDICAPPED + 2 VANPOOL STALLS A4-4 BUILDING ELEVATIONS REQUIRED RESIDENTIAL HANDICAPPED: 13 HANDICAPPED + 3 VANPOOL STALLS A4-5 BUILDING ELEVATIONS A5-1 SITE SECTIONS CONSTRUCTION TYPE TYPE I NTH FOUR LEVELS OF TWE V ABOVE. A5-2 SITE SECTIONS STORAGE A6-1 CONCEPTUAL VIEWS A6-2 CONCEPTUAL VIEWS OCCUPANCY: LEVELS B1-82 SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE S-2 A7-1 ENLARGED PODIUM STAIRS FIRST FLOOR - GARAGE S-2 A7-2 ENLARGED PLANS FIRST FLOOR - RETAIL A A7-3 ENLARGED PLANS TW STORAGE SZE 5' X 5' X 8' - REFER TO A11-1 FOR STORAGE LOCATION AND LAYOUT FIRST FLOOR - RESIDENTIAL UTILITY SPACE/STORAGE SPACE a A7-4 CABANA ENLARGED PLAN AND ELEVATIONS FIRST FLOOR - RESIDENTIAL, LOBBY AND ACCESS SPACES R-1 384 D.0 / 5.6917 AC 87.47 D.U./AC PROVIDED STORAGE IN S.F.: 5' X 5' X 298 UNITS - 7,450 S.F. OF STORAGE PROVIDED (25 S.F. PER MARKET FLOORS 2-5: - RESIDENTIAL UNITS R-1 C1 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING SITE PLAN RATE UNIT) C2 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN PROVIDED STORAGE IN CUBIC FEET: 5' X 5' X 8' X 298 UNITS - 59,600 CUBIC FEET OF STORAGE PROVIDED C3 LID/BMP PLAN (200 CUBIC FEET PER MARKET RATE UNIT) L1 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN L2 LANDSCAPE NOTES AND PLANT PALETTE L3 PARK ENLARGEMENT ON-SITE BICYCLE PARKING STALLS PROVIDED : 77 STALLS - REFER TO AI-2 FOR LOCATION AND LAYOUT D POOL TERRACE ENLARGEMENT .-. v ROOFTOP ENLARGEMENT n L6 LANDSCAPE IMAGERY 0 L7 LANDSCAPE RIGHT-OF-WAY EXHIBIT (D Z O "`NADA"f : �'2S3S III�IIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIII� 2012-052 AAI NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC II �IIIIIILII KHRAMSOMAETE� A R K N Q ISSAIE AU RrAaoraol ANIIRmFF1118 N•nAxs CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 06/19/2015 ARCHITECTS. IWC. ?`) r•ICAM m RE INNE108,wr m 0141w11e 4100 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-6440ARE OINNED BY SAO I .aRIYrIP41&MC,AND W9E pEgTg1, �m' Pn[xmaxx Sxbbn,i,AIA h �9mNR�a� mr OT The Residences a t Newport Place Newport Beach,California 92660 Fax(949)756-6444 AO-1 mxeonm w11x TIE erersEo Rmecr. wore oP awn USE.BY OR]GOLD m Class O ruxs slue a:uoro wv m ownm®To r hove Suite (501) Road CD' AxrK3•az�mmwmAraxrm A1YxIRr au•aae wlwmryer wnxom Tre s xx Din,.,calif ...1. n m, MJSD si9n Group 92121-1313 mGG ^� Tel: 792 �997 NEWP RT BEH LIF RNI Landscape Architecture FJfJEM Pas: (838j 792-5 59 � fA / \ N O C) cri A \ \ I O / \ \ O \ PROJECTION OF STOOP ABOVE I ACCESSIBILITY N TES O x—►—►—rx—►—x—w' HANDICAPPED PATH OF TRAVEL \ . POOL AND RPA SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE. . COMMON A A AND LEASING OFFICES ALL BE FULLY ACCESSIBLE. \/ \ . AMENITY AREAS TO BE ON ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL. \ R/�TN�gH wqY PROPOSED 18' BUILDING SETBACK LINE ? \ \ STRUCTURAL COLUMN ITYP.) PROJECTION OF STOOP ABOVE PROPERTY LINE \ h, / / / � y •, •�Tl ��� ry O F.H. oky E O / / ? • -� Z STAIR= — I / > 26/ TO s STREET D STREET — p O _ ELEV / / { �+ ® PROPERTY LINE ® VicLOBBY / STi • f • _ _ � ® TAIR • t — —I� s ® ryO s STANDARD STALL o / °j b STAIR s = _! �n 26' 9X17 (NEXT TO COLUMN TVP.) STAR ~ • ARD STALL 8.5X17 7D)UNOBSTRUCTED TYP.) I EDGE OF STRUCTURE ESIDE RKIN t PROPOSED 20' BUILDING SETBACK LINE VE AL 323 P LLS ! I I �� t • 26DN F.H. � !• UP I s s v s Z �) RAMP = _ �� !s I D 2 I J1- STAIR= l = t EV TEC O •, ELEVI STREET 'P LOBBY \ \ .o /�` / � � _ •! ! _ �� "fit = ® nc 'n ® ��-. \ O MP = ! ! > = 1)UPPER GA t p s DN = 20' PROPERTY LINE \ � � � UP I I sraR V V X x x • M x • x w • x ,Qt 00N\1 ST tib In STAIR 24' nagead 102- 0 T 3 N ✓ PHU I —r r TH L fZCZs n �- -- \ o H. _ - -_ �- -- - - - - Ot 5 \ � 0.5 ACRE PARK/ I / \ PEDESTRIAN / PROMENADE ON F U GRADE v / F.H. p PROPERTY LINE 1 5 ' BUILDING SETBACK LINE N N 1 0' 20' 40' 80' 120' / \ 0 S , I / I D / \ E FLOOR PLAN P1 GARAGE (LOWER) 0 zT \ g 1 ao'-o• I 1 m z T0l CALIFORNIA# C155M PROJECT NO. NEVADA X', : 2238 '__ 2012-052 l J NEVADAR : 2]259 NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC ��� KHRAMMUMATEM A R K COLORADO g 4358 OREGON R : 3840 ISSUED CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 06/19/2015 ARCHITECTS, INC. ALL TED OENff!ARRANGEMENTS T AXD RAMS IWICATED OR REPREBENIEO BY iN8 ORAWHO • 4100 NNWpOR Place Ddve-Suite 200 Tel(949)756440 Tl Peramara labb at!,AIA V ARE ECTIONHNINED YAND THE PROPERTY PROJECT. T e R e s l e n c e s a t Newport Place SNA1 1 11855 0 Newport Beach,California 92660 Fax(949)756E444 serreate vane Read ARCHITECTS,NO.AND WERE CREATED, EVOLVED AND DEVELOPED FOR USE ON AND N NONE WITH THE EDRi. NCNE OF SUCH IDEAS, BYORDISCLARRANGEMENTS W PLANS SHALLPERSON BE USED CO OR ATON O i0 1) ANY PERSON,FRN CH CORPWIATpN THE Suite 501) ANY PWPOSE WINTSOEYRi WITHOUT THE San Diego,Californiaeli �H WRITTEN PERNSWON OF ARK ARCHITECTS. 92121.1313 INC. NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJSDesign Group" D�=*+� Tel: (858) 792-5997 CHECKED: FJ JEM PeK: (858) 792-5858 Landscape Architecture v U) N O A (31 O NEWPORT UNIT MIX- BUILDING 1 UNIT arta TOT/LEVEL PROI/TOTAL % TOT AREA NOTES Ala 608 1 1 1 STREET LEVEL Ala 608 - A1b 626 2 6 8 1 12% S,L'LS A3a '50 - - - STREETLEVEL AU 750 3 12 4,000 A31b 185 STREET LEVEL A3b 185 1 4 3,140 A& 774 2 B 61192 Pad 810 AA 895 - - LOFT jh OTAIR A4 815 2 8 32 47% 6,520 83 1.169 65a 1,143 - - - STREET LEVEL 115. 1,143 1 41 1 4,572 I 1,178 1,178 STREET LEVEL 85b 1,178 1 4 4,712 BSc 1,179 - - - B5d 1,215 5 17 zi L 85bL 1.291 - LOFF BSdL 1,329 3 3,987 LOFT ,� § 86 1,093 87 1,137 - - - STREET LEVEL �- 37 1,137 - - 28 411, - — — 1 C1 1,153 Sf BEET LFVCL 1 C1 1,353 - - x / CIL 1,5001 0'x. LOFT I O � I — I L T I � L I ® xl II I L J I — I — I IS-o' 181-8' ' L J n n L L IN IN I I w r , b1�1-B' II f UA4 __j UBSd UA3c FUAlb] L 1' t J UAlb UBSd J - I IIII Ili II II _I Ili \ F _T r II ----- II � II II II II II r II TRASH L } I J I L — J II — r 4th` r. � - — r-Jr- -1 � — L_— L_Lu ILL_( _, 1— +I I+ —1 .� 1LL( � H-i—1 -- -- L JJ I I { J C.ORRDOR LL J O rT T1 rT +- ® — +I X 10 X 1+ — ® ® �I X >< 14 — ® ® _ +-I X - X 1+ — ® ® F- X 1-+ { I A 1 I 1 1 1 7AY-r41 t II x J II L x % II 11 rV, 144 r x J L x % II II x J L x % II II L x II STAIR ----- II —J-- — — —�— —J-- — — --�-- -- — t'.IZ.VATOR II rti II I I T II II I I II 11 I I II I I II UBSb UA3a UA3a UA3a UA3b UA3b UBSa M MN °��"�� �J'f-B' 44'-®' Z4'-o' 44'-®' Y9'-a' 281-8' 191-I' •j&'-a' Y2JI"SIVf ?J/�JZ"all-oa 01 .-r v n S 3 CD 7 Z O �ROSS ��� PBauaT 2012-052 11� NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC �M� KHRAQUIDENB �® A R K CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 03/02/2015 ARCHITECTS, INC. (t.) raaam W annm•I7a9 a,nae ana3lxr 4100 Newport Place OrNe-3ulle 200 Tel(949)75&6440 1 I 1 ���ap WERE rm Newport BBech Cal kmiH 8Q660 Fax(949)756 444 T r........r.e e,.1.AIA The Residences a t Newport Place A2-1 8.neat.'S's Hood 0 14E 9>=w8x vy,ayl•883811R W PEEK HIM,0OMISMI°IITIMM 8uir. (SSI) (D- Nrf MOl t8a188l1l18118a1f M 88.Dicta.C.Ilrar.l. 0 Ye8r1•I P11111111111131 m H•MWxOM 9212,1313 JS NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MDesign Group" rArae Tel: (9f8) 191-5997 T Landscape Arditadure Oma FJ/JM Pax: (858) 792-5858 v N O A U1 O 271-20 5TAIR S — — 1 L D x J'� r — 5 I a L J as rT _ xI is UBSd ld, I 3 I IL J I 37'-0' 24'-o 18 as 100 37-oa L J a F L L p III f w Fw 1 w 0 r , 6i_0. III F I I III J UA3c FuAIb �' -i Eb UA4 i _j I II I 3 II II III I III m Y� + � II _� — II III III ____ II II III ---IL I II II III --- II III r 11 TRASH L J Ll 1 L �✓ I\ L — ® ® II L_LI U-1- _ I— +-1 I� —1 L L_�I LLi L J CORRIDOR LL J O 14 — I— fl 14 1+ —1 14 — rUFr —1 1 1 1— 4jo' rUFr — I m m L 0 5TAIR II ----- — II — _— I\ II III -- _ _ I� II III II II ---- II II II = © © _ _ -- © — — © --r-- _ _ --�-- ® — ELEVATOR II y s II III F s II III F II II II I I I e II III a I I e II III a I I II I II UBSb UA3a UA3a UA3a UA3b UA3b UBSa M M M M M M M 251-0° 251-0. 19i-le 223-&1's BI JILDING I 4TH FLOOR PLAN ✓/3211=11_011 O I v 0 zT 3 m z 0 ��A. m� ��� 9 n :� NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC e�� KHRAMIUMBATEM A R K orAe.maw MMIia611S Mo ru1B CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 03/02/2015 .MMuEmcDaRMm9®T8m.S1r�1Q M9lIEn®Mmna7m1re a8R8Maxll a RCHITECTS , INC. 4900 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-8440 O1 Newport Beach,CaliforniaClioia 92660 Fax(949,756-644 VM•!E m81a8 Paraarx]a66eri,AIA �mm e Residences at Newport ace ae8 - sarravrav.ii.r Read ffi wmm (. M PERM FSK OR(XVIGRODKIM rm Suite (501) MI PIao08l gaalO89e1 a1110Wr DE San Diego,11-133 California 7a verwox m as Mm1�7e. NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJSDesi n Group mMa: 92121-"" 9 A' GD Tel: (838) 792-599] Landscape Architecture m FJ JEM Fax: (858) 792-5858 U) U1 0 C:) I 11 I�' •��\i II� Ili --=-=---=Jl1 ---------------- LOFT, II �Y/ - ll III I � 11 IIi I � II IIi I II PLAT ROOF eaal2a PITCH.TYPICAL —I EAVE,TYP. RIDGE,TYP----------------�� 4 F -- ---- -------- ---- ---- --- SAVE.TYP. --- ---- ---- --- ROOF PARAPET,TYPICAL TILED ROOF.TYMCAL BUILDING I - CONCEPTUAL ROOF/LOFT PLAN ://32a=II_all O I v 0 3 m z 0 MIf4"t 2012-052 NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC eMbib.. KHRAREMBATEM Ye FD A R K 812 aFAB.8r8IW/mel®6aS elo rlAla CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 03/02/2015 ARCHITECTS, INC. f� " =m�te'^1O nma o9I0a1rrer o a m b 4100 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-6440 Newport Beach,Califomis 92660 Fax(949)756-6444 � AACKnW& Peraatv]a66 ar i,AIA 41 aQYaY e Residences at Newport ace '855m — sarrevteRead MPERINKORMFOR Suite (501) TVl �F all PIaP08l MM1801:Ye1 e11v00181Y San Diego,California ffMaE.a NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJSDesinGroul ORION: '2`21-,919 9 A' GO Tel: (838) 792-5997 Landscape Architecture aIECIaD: FJ JEM Tax: (858) 792-5858 0) 7 U) N O A T,pl 0 n �ti w L UBSb UA3b UA3b UA3a UA3a UA3a UBSa II IL I e II I ® ll II III 1 I fI IF ELEVATOR STIvR I — �l--f — �} I I -, I— I I— �1h' Lrtr` —I 1 — -{;flT' FIIC--41 I v LILj J iL-JI rt--i coRvot r IM T -I +_I IT—I _ r _ � it I , 14 14 I J " LI JL J L_J' , /II J L 11 -jRASH FT W7 11 I I I �I I I I I II w 7C II— _ t I UBSc •� , >` T7 r I — UBSd UA3c UAlb L -15 _ J UA1b UBSd -- L — J M M L J Ii II11 FIT E 0L UA4 _7- " 4 — j I F * II ii 374' a4' a' 18' o' 18' 0' g7 0' – _ 1; nj L xll UC1 NEWPORT UNIT MIX- BUILDING II + UNIT aroa 707/LEVEL PROYTOTA1 ti T07AREA NOTES — IF r L. 1 J STREETLEVEL — �— Ala baa - c I f Alb 1 6261 T B 3 127 S,C+J4 ^ i �\ I A3a 750 - - - STREETLEVEL IN UB�d x A3a 750 3 12 9,000 A3b 785 - - - STREET LEVEL A3b 785 2 7 5,495 } I J A3[ 774 1 4 3.036 Aad 810 - @ ASL 885 1 885 LOFT 71) A4 SIS 2 8 32 49% 6,520 r 83 1.188 J Ha 1]43 _ _ STBEETLEVEL BSa 5,143 1 3 3,429 BSh 1+178 - - 1,178 STREETLEVEL B5b 1,178 1 3 3,534 BSc 1,179 1 4 4,716 — � BSd 1,715 3 9 311,935 B5bL 1281 1 Taal LOFT 9J 656E 1329 3 3,287 LORI STAIR 06 1,093 - - - 67 1,137STREET LEVEL 87 1,137 23 34% Cl1,353 - - - STREETLEVEL C1 1.353 1 3 4,0A CIL 1,500 1 1 4 5`Y. 1 1,500 l0 27'41 74'-l0' BUILDINCTIT TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN V-34�=�I�O, OI r-t S Z O / ��� RSosT 2012-052 n NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC ��� o HRAM®C=oA7rfflM =m CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORSIPLALNNERS 03/02/2015 ARC9ITICTa, INC. Aaurlo OR 1u1maBL»ex rte oalwn • 4100 Newport Place Drlve-Sidle 200 Tal(949)75&6440 1 AFAMMM 1A N ff W� " Newp41t Beach.Cogomia 929M Fax(B49}758-6944 1 rar.m.ra J&bb.r1,ALA �+1 . ;.• The Residences at Newport Place o > V� m%xmraertLm ass a1,9n•vu.wm(a malnam In � A2-4 A.,aeR,.LwL(•m1arA3xw(al s^I+, lam) n AW pJ1V!'A8aTA1lNA WITN11111! 3.. DI.A a.C"i r;,ai♦ r-F 3OT191 iHa�l W AIX Ammfrmm 1212,1313- NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJScapeAr Group` oBwAa cc F (See, 792-•6e9 T LalldacapeArchilecture aux FJ JEM T.x: (asa7 792 56s9 v 7 N D N O A (T O 223'-Eys 9�-�2 •Ja/'-0° 25'-0' 29'-0' 24' 0° 24' 0° 10'-I° 24'—oa 36'-�a W w w w �00 f l , iLLU— UBSb UA3 UA3b UA3a UA3a UA3a � ,� �� II III X I A- F L � A- F L . '' J _ LJH LJIr- T r IC 5XVATOR 71 STaR � _ � - -� I I l J � L �J L �J LL J L-J LL J o CORRIDOR r' TI IT 1 rr � �-I I-F 7=j T IT 11 — ii r — J -- J -1 F J L I � III♦ III x _J II =_= L x �' ♦III ' --- II L_ x II ♦II L_JI — III ---- II I` III II II II II J L II TRA5N II= ._ I _ --0-- ^ I III 2 I 6 III I' II II I i I II w II r l 1_1_ ii X �I — BS - UA3c FUAIb L J t M M M � ♦ — v r r r Ii _ u — m 3 III — IF f ® "I \L = UC1L I r L1 I J L I I j I Mb = O ® M r — — J �N W 5TAIR IF BI JILDING 11 4TH FLOOR PLAN 74'-l0' ✓ !VI=II_all OI D v 0 3 m Z 0 ��A. m� ��� 9 n ARIZOSA ':� NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC I��� CCC�RAsMEMBATEM A R K ai•FM.oFeIW/m91�IS MD Pu1B CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS f� ♦oc♦7m m�n®n 71re 0R8Y•Ia 0 3/02/2015 ARCHITECTS , INC. 4100 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-6440 1 w ° m mmm Newport Beach,California 92660 Fax 949 756-6444 Par♦ ar12♦66♦ri,AIA • The Residences at Newport Place 1255-5 s♦crave♦viii♦rR .nw ffi wmm (D. M PERM INK OR 0111001MM Pm Seita (501) n BMP PIO'08l MIaT80lYel•111.01a• San Diego,121-1♦lifvrvi♦ 7a ierwox m a•Mmrtme. NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJSDesi n Group maYa: '2`21-,919 9 Y- GD Tel: (838) 792-599] Landscape Architecture mmoa FJ JEM Pax: (858) 792-5858 U) N A U7 O ROOF PARAPET,TYPICAL TILED ROOF,TYPICAL MAVe.TYP. ------------ --- ---- ----- ------ _ ---- �7-------------- -- — -- ---- -----x� II II`� — a--1 --- I % 111 \ �...I I VJAM I I >-- --RID�e, I \ 11 II . u I L enve, \ 11 II III RAT ROOF eid2" PITCH.TYPICALII _----, —_— _71 1 FF L 11 \ ,TYPICAL FF UCIL 5� IIS ��� SII V--------- `�I BUILDING II - CONCEPTUAL ROOF/LOFT PLAN D v 0 3 m Z 0 mx,# R I�� 2012-052 olilagallof NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC ��� KHRARRO UATME R m A R K CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 03/02/2015 ARCaITECT3, INC. ALL DEAR.00•I Amxl®ena A10 3IA1• RDDR6m a Re3EBeR®gr 71®mAwIR 4100 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-6440 �f-\ gRE orn��'�'�3Raerlr ff Newport Beach,Calibmis 92660 Fax(949)756-6444 •IM Tl ARomm m m Deni amyel, Taramarz[abbari,AIA V MK1.= FOR UVE ONJac eResidences atNewport ace A2-6 Sorrevto".55 Road 0 1855 8VI•RANY M REI®BYOI®0.D®TO Suite (Sol) AMY PAIPOE IAIRl8f1lYei FMK 0 0(flet)RAM �E San Diego.California ,rt 9212 -131 VMTVSi e.ael OF M ARaRR 7R NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJSDesign Group-Landscape Architecture Da•3R Ge Tel: (358)1 7 92355 9 9 7 clRrn: FJ JEM Pix: (358) 792-5858 � U) U) D IB4' b' N 0 ao'-o' ae'-d ae'-o` la's 18'-oa ��'-c' .�'•II' �' 0 NEWPORT UNIT MIX- BUILDING III I UN N area TILT/LEVEL PROJ/TOTAL `ffi TOT AREA NATES I Ala 6(18 - - I - I SREETLEVEL r AJ. 609. 1 4 2,132 Alb 1 6261 21 1 81 121 11%1 5,008 — � P33 750 - - - Sr"EErLE"E` ro UA3b UA3b "� . UAla UBSa UC1 Ma 750 1 4 3.0m II A3b 785 - STREETLEVEL II A3b 785 7 ?3 18,055 LUB A3c 774 1 4 3,036 7 MZVATOR II _ Aad 810 1 4 3,240 AK 885 5 4,425 LOFT _ M A4 815 4 16 13,044 I ® V Cl 63 1,169 1 2 8 1 9,512 Rya 1,143 - - - STREETLEVEL ----- RSa 1,143 1 4 4,572 )( — B5h 1,178 - - 1,178 STREETLEVEL 95b 1,178 271o5s f 7__I II / JT Rk 1,175 115d 1,215 z s 7,z5a �^^ ) II ML 1dFT 81 z 2,552 LO �- L— —� L— SUL 1,329 2 2,658 LO Fr BS 1,093 1 4 4,372 \� // ILL 4_ B7 1,137 - - - STBEFT LEVEL ` , �— I , B7 1,137 1 4 36 32% 4,548 UA3a \/ /% 71 13 coRRI�R I I �`f�" T Cl 1,353 1 - 1 - 1 - SLREETLEVEL 7` \ // _ _ 11� I C1 1,353 2 8 10,824 / av/ — — \� N ® cX —) rr --—�1 �— r\ r— — — — — —r CIL lsoo s 7% LOFT .� I STARK J- r _, -Y LTL L J II TRA5H II - J II rL x ,� a II J L-J' tial Ila 1 IL_J Ibs- K � a• IL I II w w v a • - UA4 ® � � �1- ii Ii L-� � � UA4 g U136 UA3bi •/ y V L r7 UA3b ' I UA4 L- J El UA4 / / / 7q a a 9 " ,n XI " P UA3b UA3b —11- L j IL J I- 3 — on IP r -�j rl 1 91 — H 1 I I IX x x x r P ti 11 E f / UBSd a 14 L J a �G.evATOR �t �"•,,,( . jam.\` SI R � \J `� r I 81 � I II F— F-1 — I II \ I— nom r� on STAIR I --_ 6TAIRJ � L iX / J L_ UC1 J / 3G'-7Yy' .T� BUILDTNG ITT TYPTCAL FLOOR PLAN It n S V1101'—oe 0 m z 0 i R zr ►�� 2012-052 C7 NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC �M� KHRAMIMMATIRM A R K ®emNmeaewa AAa CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORSIPLANNERS Newport sfE'r0: 3/02/2015 ARCHITECTS, INC. 4900 Newport Place Drhe-Sulte 200 Tel(949)75641440 om� var Newport Beach,Celromla 920 Fax 949 756 A444+ The Residences at Place Far.m.ra J.bbari.A1A oc a cal ew,Jrew�la w A2-7 ue95 13JIaaKK 9Ee®era Tiva®ro suere.ln 1.11e9 ay.t CD 0 JJrr reeot rx a ocebum Trn e.i la ISeD NM RR4E RMNiF.IaI IIIr11RR}� saa n 92121-1313 121.1 ,�.t 4aT1el i/llle�OF 9a[91O91fffle, 9z I S 1131] NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MADesign Group- cD Tal: (858) 792-5947 Landscape Architecture FJ JpA Pavo lase) 793-5111 7 C� D 184'-G" C) (T O II I r Te _ r � N r UAM - - UA3L UAla L UBSa UC1 ii UB7 ELEVATOR a wm illsi - / V III II III _Ij II II ® III - I r I— p F- _ y / _ l ( _ II — I II / L iii ® ® .� � LL+ J -JJ I � � � LL J - LL!F I I I 5 coRRIDOR FiL1J r T U. - 3 r III I ) J , �L J II i H i II �I L JI 5TAIR V i L JI \ 1 J Vi N �i Tr ® Ilr r L x /®+ III J ILL_JI ` ill \ / IIS F- --1 IL_J L N I—I I III II \—' - II A III � � ( \\ ® 1> \ UA3b h UA3b sl RRID UA4 J UA4 / FRIGO + / n / II S III v - II r III - UAIb all > Sba / f0 / / S BL Mb dM 0/1 J / , / \J `/ELEVATOR �� `�� II r III II � III v Q / F- F-1 II 5TAIR III F- n � p M p STAIR \ v 'y// X X inn J LL FUC �9f 0 M �ry 82'-f�Ya D v 0 B1 JILDING Ill 4TH FLOOR PLAN 3 (D z 0 CRISIS:. ��� r 2012-052 olimulinuotifNEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC I•�I• KHR AMEOCUATHE N�m A R K 5MFMN•AMnCNLI•NnYP5®N6a8I"8•1N8$auxN N.ffRN8qa8BRI(a,aK"8P6aC.11l•m NlNNer MIInN1gs:N dN NNNNARD NNe CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 03/02/2015 ARCHITECTS, . 4100 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)758-6440 Newport Beach,Caliornia 92880 Fax(949)75844 �� NNa�PF ® Taeamaca labbaci,AIAT e Residences at Newport Place 11855 TTll. A 9nereutp V.11eY Rn.d (D 9pi[c (W) Er m omoo®ro •M NIFGE•18T88EY91113180111'DN Baa Diego,Calif pee ix 181'1181 Pa86YN1 Oi NN N8]N®f8 92121-1313 TVNEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJSDesi9nGrouP" cc Tal: (858) ]92-599] Landscape Architecture cloa®: FJ JEM Pax: (858) 792-5858 Iv I U) N O TILYA ROOF.TYPICAL � i t'_AVE,TYF. (P �I` -_-= SII ------------------------- -_-_= f I I �; ,\oma �, �, �� �•�� %� II 11�-------------_-_-_---_---------� ��I \\ f VUA3L UA3L I �� ,!%; ,�� � %/ i' /% i� ��� II i / •\\. I II II �// �� � 111 SAVE.TYP. ROOF FARAPET,TYPICAL rj i \\ M. o s — -- T ROOF g sl2a PITGH,TYPICAL7L V/ ' U�A3II L Lorr,,v�cA1 II i % \. v A PLAT ROOF :le PITCH, PLAT ROOF ga:IZa PITCH,TYPICAL UM i 1 II ,h/ BUILDING III - CONCEPTUAL ROOF/LOFT D v 0 y zT ://3211=II_all O I PLAN D z 0 MISM10h 211311:� NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC ��� KHRAREMBATEM A R K aLCPM.oFeIW/metes,: 31140 CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 03/02/2015 O �euueac.oa■mwais.ear�eauo®nean r®maon9aa7ar1rexr aa0Rm8�aro11l•a ARCHITECTS , INC. 4100 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-6440 O1 NewportBeach, Fax s — 0BRCaaDR M M IME��, Paraerx labber5,AIA e Residences at Newport ace 1' 255 - sorrevla valley Ro.a. (D Suite (501) a1VITEMl MMAalO89e1 e1110Wr DE Sav Diego,11-133 California '. I,a 9raeeE.a NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJSDesi n Group aawx�: 92121-"" 9 Y- GD Tel: (838) 792-599] Landscape Architecture C1IECIO:D: FJ JEM Fax: (858) 792-5858 U) 188'-11' 41'41' 37,-a' Q 0 A : w I w 0 O I W II UC1 UBSb %'� i �J UAla UBSb UBSb F — III ELEVATOR I- r A -- I c cr II nr it II IIit Al + s _ -LL x-I ® LL] m GORKFORL JJ LLI _ I, i -� r- _- _ - L Ir Ti rF- STAIR I II II I { �• I - f II II TRASH II IIL � I lirrr IL II II -4I jII II - LIr L FE' - II - q - --_--__- - - -o UA4 v i_= III II ---1 UA4 '' LEI ^ UA3b i- UAIa r-I I UA40 UA4 So ' h UA4 � - I h _ a § l i r, I I N I7--1LR� I` I^ / I I I _ — UA3b JI X ,V �I l ` x UA3b �_ I ^ I� II �- { Q _ �+ x I =_ I I UBSa r I — I�1 — I r NEWPORT UNIT MIX-BUILDING IV } I 7- --1 — UNIT area TOT/LEVEL PRa1JTOTAL 'f. TOT AREA NOTES I Tr ^I, 6m 1 1 - I - - STREET LEVEL Ala I 60B 1 6 1 1 241 1 1 14.592 I �--�— Alb 1 6791 1 1 - 1 241 319!, \` _ r , Ma 750 - - - 5F RE€T LEVEL A3a 750 II II 4 I I A3b 785 - - - STREETLEVEL II II II II UBSd ® A3b 765 s is 11,775 i v a3� na aid slo - - II STAIR II �\ I ASL sas 5 4.425 OFT A4 815 8 24 44 ZFX. 19,560 B3 1,1892 B 9,812 -- — — -- I �� 89 Dc BSa 1.743 - - I I - STREETLEVEL B8a 1,143 3 12 13,716 T ® I ` B5b 1,178 - - 1,178 STREET LEVEL 161 —J II D D II L— 6111 L I BSb 1,178 3 10 11.780 JI UB3 UB3 IL x .J — BSc 1.179 - - II II 85d 1,215 2 G 7,290 85b1 1.261 2 2.56z LOFL ® i aSdL 1.329 2 2.658 OF _ B6 1,093 — 4 to 1,131 - - STREET LEVEL _ Y B7 1.737 4A 3a', TRA9h' II Cl 1,353 - - - STREET LEVEL CL 1,353 2 8 10,824 1 81 71, 1 . ILOFT WIAL 29 115 11JU IUN,612 ELEVATOR 82'-�' STAIR BUILDING TV TYPTCAL FLOOR PLAN 01 n y S z O a I�� ,? NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC �M� KHUR IOCLATEM R g CONSULTING ENGINEERSISURVEYCRS[PLANNERS 03/02/2015 �.,�., aogtmwraRrarW gr tns uMsSn rI�4i aP.s•Vr4r nE•Ear 7rt>+� aacallacrs, INC. OA 4100Newport PlaDdve-Suite2L8 Tel(949)75584 Wrnmma NapoLSaah,Clm2888 Fax 991758844 , ryl m IM pm b•rmlab b e.i,ASA -13mmm�mmmmm eResidences at Newport , � a • 6aG6 lN A �—+O sole-rovb'et Read Rr•c "Asua waooaa�ro WrwnL rar m OgNPL6C1t1I6 raL 6.1 In nngae sewispltlr SRHVJ1 r1E sen 921 U2,C1liPer.ia a1R111 lydml OF AR a11CIL 6 11 21-1113 1O NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJSDesign Group` OD/yy x41; (!56] rtda(ape491-sg99 �_ LaArrhitectum FJ/.EM R••: (es 5) 761-rays SU 7 N 18' 11" N 41'-II' 37'-0' IBl°" IQj' oa 6T 0. b7 0. O A i CP w w w I I II UC1 UBSb • '���� 5i �J UAla BSb BSb -- II J it eI.CVATOR o - I al9 ® — I I II ® ee-ee ® III u u u u u to I r r- x III III III° � —nL • / Ll F rL� • - _ /�-Ixl e UC1 III II r J — .x. i _ r _ �' L I` L ® ( -� ® L ® JJ LL J L 11 LL+ J CORRIDOR YI ru si ii �i� L / I It IH YI It L JI III — II IL-J III ®�I ® x J I L_JI tl- IEJ-- o III II III = IG a O \> ---- W \ I > UA3L F UAla 0 7 7 0 M O F r, II Z1 M I— I— � � UA4 � J UA4 � 29'-0' -- UA4 ee ee - I I F- - I t F-1 I � M \ UA3L x - ° - J - III r1 II- r YI - O ® YI � F x f 7- YI _ I x J N I LJ IJ LI IlV l -- Me L V ® ® V J aM B 6 L I J 3 I I I It L_ I J 7— —1 _ 17x1 _ 7— EW �7 I x - _ UoI I I I J o� I UB3 UB3 I, x JJ LL x L _ � T�cA`s61 YI • YI _ F 3G'-7Yi 9'-OYY ELEVATOR 821-'1�z BTAIR 60 4' D tv 0 zT BI JILDING TV 4TH FLOOR PLAN✓/3211=II_all m z 0 �� A. : 0� n ASUDSA ':�NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC e�� KHRAMIUMBATEM A R K a LCPM.meIW�.lor CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 03/02/2015 �' .uoEc.o]m merteao nen®mroarannq aau:we•a ARCHITECTS , INC. 4100 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-6440 O1 Newport Beach, Fax(949)756-6444 s — 0AACKn t nD°p�molal, Pa(amarv2a66ari,AlA e Residences at Newport ace 1855 - sarrevea v.iier Road ffi wmm 1 I (. M PERM FSK OR 0010011,110111 9m Suite (501 111WHEPOl wlaamerel rmxa E San Diego,12E-1elifvrvia "a �.'" ma� NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJSDesinGroup tea: (958) 1813 9 Y~ GD Tel: (858) ]92-599] Landscape Architecture mmoa FJ JEM Fax: (858) 792-5858 U) U1 D N O II TYP. —�-------------------/II 717 Ln CD II II II II ' � II U IBB 5� Sb II I `� i I IppI il �' / II IIS Jil PAVE,TYP------- TILED ROOF,TYPK•AI-. II PLAT ROOF 5•g alt•PITCH,IYPIGN- I � f LOFT,TYFIC SL I I \� l III I I I J III III I � III \ I II B5 I III I i S IfPLAT ROOF g`gIZ" ITCH,TYPICAL PLAT ROOF ga:IZa PITCH,TYPICAL ------- __-- \ \ \ III ROOF PARAPET,TYPICAL If K� ,` III IIS;------- ---�--=��► ;,, �, II 1 \ \ ! — BUILDING IV - CONCEPTUAL ROOF/LOFT D ,v 0 PLAN 3 y ://3211=11-a11 O I z 0 �� A. m� 1 9 n NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC ��� KHRAREMBATEM A R K RacPM.m•W�nor CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 03/02/2015 ARCHITECTS , INC. a=m ® maam 4100 Newport Place Drve-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-6440 w ®RaaemmNewport Bea ,California 92660 Fax(949)756-6444 BROKIMMI,M MTM Paravtx 2abberi,AIA ��. eResidences at Newport ace 1855 - sorreuan valley Read fwmm TOI Vl (D FOR Suite (501 RMr PIIPORl MMaIM ARK 111•Rr DE San Diego,California nalIBYIBIORma• NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJSDesi n Group �R: 92121-192- 9 A' GD Tel: (858J ]92-599] Landscape Architecture mmea FJ JEM Fax: (8581 ]92-5858 7 U1 D IV C) I I I I I I WH o WH F F BAI-CONY BA CONY BALCONY F 1 rT 58 5.P. 58 5.P• 58 5•P• r - -1-1 i- — —1-1 00 LIVING/PINNING i I ---- - -� LIVING/PINNING iry\ LIVING ROOM LIVING ROOM LIVING ROOM L - - / \� 0 - D 0 1 KITCHEN \��� I r L _ _ A m L - -iA I 1 12'-L�s lo'-lo' 13'-�i 10'_10' 12'-�i IO'-I0' I I I I0'-4' I _N _N o BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM ILI I I o N I III N I III is @ °� BEDROOM II III II III - BEDROOM III Ills 11 IIIN PINING _ DINING PINING II III11 III\ - - IN I III �I IIIN III III I I I II ��T II CLDy��T III III III III - — lu - — III III III iv I/I U ; UL cr, I/I I U ; UL iv I/I U ; UL ----- , III -------- , III ----- , III �I____-- —cx-oSeT ll------ —ra.o5er �I------ —cLOSeT III , III I.-- ✓�I ~ 1 I \ III III r---J \ III ,� III �i J r \z III i III- I� v\ III_ rQ O, x °- r--- III W III JI IIS IIS i \ III FCU I\ G� III- r0 O, ,x\ III FCU It O� dill p O i \ II FCU 1 \ U r- -- -- - G _ — I �� I BMi ROOM, I — J I BMi ROOM, I — J o I TI H I I r ♦ b L_L I IF T I H ® I I ® TCHENI I I I ♦ ® I e� I I I I I 11 1 uOyT I 11 I IT o g - - - 1 - - - I o g` _ I \ II�� yI r I - ® 1 � 11 yI F- In I - ® I IIf� / I I \ BATHR0014.1 I I I I \ I / 1 \ BATHROOM I 1 \I I I / I I \ 15ATHR0014.1 I 1 IIS IIIS r- - �I r- - r- - IIII III iii IIII 11 � � — ,I� I iI LI - - J �� — ,I� I 1 L- - JLL_ L _)I —I— L JI I— L_L_ , J L_L_ , J , J L ----- L-- IL y. , ---r----- ,\ , r----- I ,\ r----- I 11 I I I L-- `x' L----- `x L 5'-T I I 2'"8" ;� �`� I f � I I �� NN\ I f �]11! 1 f � I�. I 15'-0. II 6. Sr6, 5'_0• II' �. 6. 1 1 5, 0, I I['-&' L_ - - IJ L_- -_LJ . IS 0 18 0 L _L _24-0 L I 25 UNIT Ala UNIT Alb UNIT A3 a UNIT A3b UNIT A3 c Studio Studio 1 Bed, 1 Bath 1 Bed, 1 Bath 1 Bed, 1 Bath 608 s.f. 626 s.f. 750 s.f. 785 s.f. 774 s.f. BALCONY BALCONY 58 5.P• 58 5.P• LIVING ROOM LIVING ROOM \\ j BALCONY 8G 5.P• \\ i Nw v N n\\ LOFT BEDROOM i11 Q - OPE1V TO BEWW BeDROOM BeDROOM / \ / �w LIVING ROOM `\ DINING DINING /j \ \ 0 \ ,/fY N I/I Il UL N III j UL --------LL —CL05ET III , _-CLOSET III III I \¢/ I III III r J r \ i I p p l x - - I , � III ---- ----- III _ ---- ----- _ _ \ ✓ III i . i , III III 1Jfp, �I II -�- r I �• — \ \\Gi L III r r 1 \ \\Gi L III 14-Oy2 II-OYp — — — � II 11 L — J /li I IS �L-----JJ I / r � ® I kITCHENI I — — — -I 1 1 ® ® I KI cHeN I I I I ♦ 25' I' �II (I q I T11r — I� — I� 1 — — J �I cHEN cI oSET YI I Sill o o - - - fir - - � DINING III\ /III I I — - I 1 I 7 - - UNIT AM-Upper 100 s.f. _ _ Ill BATHR00�7I I r- - I II / I \ 15ATHR00141 I III III � I 1�i1 i � I � I 1�i1 i � I Ply I I I I \\ 1 I III III � I L- -_J — — �o � � I LI- -J III III / II ___-- UNIT AM Lill L----- `" L----- `" L---- %x , I ILao ;%x�,\ I I 1 Bed, 1 Bath + Loft $ I � yl I � yl 885 s.f. Ivl b'"G. 1 1 5'"0. II,-6, 8�_O. L _ — _25'-01 D UNIT Aad UNIT AM-Lower (785 sl) UNIT A4 L I — J 0 1 Bed, 1 Bath 1 Bed, 1 Bath V4 =�-o 810 s.f. " 1 'I � 815 s.f. z 0 2012-052 0 NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC ��� KHRARSoCuATION esum A R K u<oPAe.oeggg rm,reee�rg gro nue CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS g"o�cg°ne m�n'e^1O n®moagrannq oauuweea 0 3/02/2015 ARCHITECTS , INC. 4100 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-8440 Newport Beach,California 92660 Fax(949�756-6444 sr�r. Paraarv2,66,ri,AlA e The Residences at Newport Place "g„ � .3 gerre,e,v.iiw ffi wmm (1) W PERM FSK OR(XIMIGRhM FOR Suite (501) NR PaP01l MIea81g8e1 e11110111'11E San Diaga,California ra ierwox m ue,wmRD]e. NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJSDesi n Group- mgr„ 92121-„I' 9 ^- GD Tel: 921 ]92-599] Landscape Architecture mgaoa FJ JEM Pax: 98581 ]92-5858 7 D SL_ SL_ N O i HW HW o 13 �x BALCONY 6ALGONY BALCONY G5 5.P• DINING 54 5Y• 54 5.P• Nlon LIVING ROOM LIVING ROOM 10'-9YY 12'-9° II'-Jvz 10'"O•�2 I°JE'%e 11*2' BEDROOM 1 LIVING ROOM - x I �NN KITfHEN ---� ------� p S 61 I I 1 _0 A. 6i BATtIRPOM I r ----- 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM I BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM I J x \ l 91F _DINING — +� DINING O \ / 177 IIIW 0 III— � /�T T 1f1 CL05ET ------------ III \ y1f1CL05ET --------------- III IIIIII CL05ET III III I III CL05ET III ,rIF � ---II GL05ET / r III 1 \ � 1 _ LJL III I \ r _ UL, L___ I I \ r 1 L___IIIFCUx rp p� III III I x Lp pJL— —L__L —— J ____________ III I I \\ ___________III III [— -- ----- ---- III [----- 2�2 ---- III / I — — III r2/2I � r - � F- -- +I I \ r �- - --�'� �- - iii � • I I I � 1� �--- I S I I I ® I I • • I I ® I I • N I 1 1 I � IyI I - - I I I 1 1 I� � I I BEDROOM 2 I —— — I f I itI KITeH6N I r — I I r — — — v" I f �`II�I I KITiHEN I r — — — B 7HROOM 2 I" \\ 5? I BAtIROOM 2 r I \ I— I I O I BAtf�ROOM 2 \ — —� I 6ATHROOM I "L - - GL05ET\ S L - - L I\� I /\I — J J III _ _ _j J I J - - J ----- - _____ ____J 1 ------T r J \\ I r 12�_pj/' ✓ / / //, __\ __ x 1 i \\ L�-- x \ CIO I + I I I + I I G'-4Yx 3p'-3° II'_rVi L 9 o,L J II'-9y2 II''Sys L fi p'L J UNIT B3 UNIT B5a UNIT B5b 2 Bed, 2 Bath 2 Bed, 2 Bath 2 Bed, 2 Bath 1,189 safe 1,143 s.f. 1,178 safe HW HW BALCONY BALCONY 54 5.P• 54 S.P. LIVING ROOM LIVING ROOM 'N �N 5 S s s BEDROOM 2 BEDROOMI BEDROOM 2 BEDROOMI �N N — N c1 DINING — DINING — II I II I III III \3: III >I O O I / --_-- III iii I / --__- III Ill III— �"' III I\I III— ,F1 CL05ET III III` III CL05ET III III I ------------ III CLO5ET III I --------------- III G.05ET I I I Ilc---� Ilc---� O ___ _ III LJL LIII I FCU II \\ / Lp pJ L--- II UL VIII FCU III x IL VIII VIII 1 — III I 1 O I III — III I 11 z\\ 1 I II I III ---- ------ -- III [___________= III —_— ----- -----, _i_ III r------212 ---- - - r F -- T ii l ]I \ F t • I I I 1 1 --- I0 I II I I • • I I I / -- I III I I • I 1 pI1� 1 O I BA'1't�ROOM 2 / I f \`1y11 L�� — —� i —— —i i I BAtf+ROOM 2 / I �,I�i l Lq HEN I L- -J I( I \ I- �� L - I d- -J L - - J I( I I-�� - -i i I I BATHRooMI d- -J _i_J ----- ----- x Ir yl If y1 \ UNIT B5c i + i i UNIT B5d D v IIt- Ee L - o°L J 2 Bed, 2 Bath II'- f L - -5�-o°L J 8'_�° II'-�f 2 Bed, 2 Bath CONCEPTI JAL UNIT PLANS (D 1,179 safe 1,215 s.f. Z 0 ':� NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC �M� KHRA00009ATER A R K gLLFPM.oFeIW�g1og CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 03/02/2015 ARCHITECTS, INC. FF =m�m m Fum 4100 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-6440 1 w DFS FE m a 8RU8e11Y m egl —0 AACKnW&M AllF a TM Peramerv]a66eri,AIA V • eResidences a tNewport ace Newport Beach,California 92660 Fax(949)756-6444 F�c O A3-2 1855 RAI..UF2 FEU®nanIMFOE TO Sarrevtateii01) Read �. MY PERM FIRK OR 9q1 Suite Cann (� ggY PYPFFE MIFaxlYel e111101111XE Hav Diego,California "F ° WARK""C"EXI`° NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJSDesinGroup aaFgH: (958) 1813 9 Y~ GD Tel: (838) ]92-599] Landscape Architecture CIEECIFD: FJ JEM Fax: (858) 792-5858 7 s D N O 15ALZONY 54 S.F. \ / G LIVING ROOM \\ i \ / DEN h. \ LOFT y 15ATHROOM 2 CLOSET x 6? Oro To DAKOW \ 5WROOM 2 6EDROOM 1 +� DINING —1- 111 I - - - - i / \ LIVING ROOM/DINING 1I I I /� F a" -------------� closer u 1f1 r L _ III �yET LJL I I III I x r0 O� - r —1 \\v' III I — III I / \\ f III KITCHEN 1 /` III C____________ 11 1 r----- 2V2 -- \ I rr _ F - - - \ I� - - _ 1_J I II I I I • r I / --- III • 1a' a" u'-5' 69A yoP ® I I \ 15e �e — ------ -- ----J IKIT�HENIII r - - - � I 2G'-I° �Y/_1 L__1 0 J 15AtF�RooM 2 I \1 I I L1- - F I — I I `\ 1 tr 1 ------ 1I 1 6ATHROOM 1 I I UNIT B5K-U per 103 s.f.) 'yi - - 1 I LI -- � hp ( I I v l x ------J %� UNIT BSbL I f i CLOSI 2 Bed, 2 Bath + Lofty ; 1 I + I I 1 111 I 1,281 safe o PEDROOM I —— —— �,q�}{ROOM I UNIT B6 1 Bed + Den, 2 Bath UNIT B5bL-Lower (1,178 safe) IIS=--L -t/7 --- - I; 1,093 safe sL- 92'-0' Ll 15ALCONY 04 S.F. \ 15ALLONY 06 5.F. LIVING ROOM \\ i \\ i 4: IP-IV. \ / o• ` \\ % LOFT /x\ LIVING ROOM _!j� \\ 15WROOM I O OPCN To 15ELOW V-FROOM 2 15EDROOM I \\ , N / DINING DINING CLOSET I / IIS ' / r III I III --- - III avyET III / BATHROOM I III I VIII II \ix\ 1 �0 L `III __________L1L_ III I III I --\ 1 ----- -----� 1 III C------- — xy/' / III r----- 2� ---- /i/ \ / m DROOM 2 • I I J-- J \ III I I • 1a'-8" u'-5' <« CLOSET 6E ® IKlTeHENIII 6AtgROOM 2 I y II �t — �I — I ie � I I 6ATHROOM I L -- L I(\ UNIT B5dL-Upper (114 s.f.) -----�--- ----J ---r x UNIT BSdL BATHROOM 2 If � I — 111 I I I 2 Bed, 2 Bath + Loft KITCHEN v — 1j 5'-0' 8' 9" II' �'z 1,329 safe ; i — — — i iii D ® I 11 UNIT B7CLOS 9T �" ;' 1 ; 9a' --- � I "111 0 2 Bed, 2 Bath UNIT B5dL-Lower (1,215 safe) I�Qe�ll_px 01 - --,�------ 1,137 s.f. z 0 QPUFD111Af CHOSE —0 MISMID4 221311 —052 0iKZDSA ':� NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC ��� KHRA010009ATER esu2012 A R K u<oPAe.oemx rm9relealrs,5ro nue CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 03/02/2015 ARCHITECTS, INC. �w as ten®In 51re 0R,5Nea 4100 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-8440 � Newport Beach,Califomis 92660 Fax 949 756-6444 sir. e The Residences a t Newport Place ( � Peramar1'855 ri,AIA p A3-3 1855 naw.w.leu®enaaexaNro sorre.e.v111.r Ro.a (D W PERM FSK OR ii(XIORWOM rm Suite (501 n alPnNtlll weeae5ere1 w0N01R51e Sev Diego,121-1elifvrvil ' "a ° W"" ""�"E`° NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJSDesinGroul aw51: (958) 1813 9 Y~ GD Tel: (858) ]92-5959 Landscape Architecture alEClO:Ik FJ JEM Fvx: (858) '192-5858 U) D N O A Cn O 15ALCONY LIVING ROOM 65 5.P• 17'-5Vi ii°-4� HW 11'-bI'i �w I/I] iii BEDROOM I �w III N � III III in BEDROOM 2 CL09ET 'q N I II III III _ Ma / DINING cmt am \ FCU AB I I I r - - , p p BIATHROOMI _ III— I��--�,---------- it 90 x\ Ir0 0 I iii - -- — --- -- - le II BATHROOM 2 n� - -- -� � \ I lyl KITCEk �/J I J 11 LJ GI-05ET L 1 — 10-pyY1111 III ♦ \ i I 2 f 20'-5Yi I 514" I I 19' I�YI L - - - LJ 45'-51 UNIT C 1 3 Bed, 2 Bath 1,353 s.fe 12'-01 18'-4Yi BALCONY LIVING ROOM 65 5.P• II' x N – OIPEN TO 15151-0'`V BEDROOM 2 N I1 aD LOFT / \ CLOSETI IIS / \\ III DINING _ \ AB I �___ 15'-7yY 14'_9• III p 15ATHROOMI I III �\\ / ---------- ♦ $0'-4YY1 iii r \ / I III :\ 1 0, _ i- - -�-_ UNIT C1L-Upper (147 s.f.) �N_ I J I I I Iiia -- -- --- F -- - ✓X i I i- in BEDROOM°J —, �– I I , –�J I I I ® L — — — III BATHROOM 2 I / I I —I—— — — n� - -- -� \ I till KITC _ J ill T _�_! -iii 1 I� JIJ I CL05ETL I � yl 2o'-5Yi 51-0' 19'-0.Vi 45-5 UNIT C 1 L 0 UNIT C1L-Lower (1,353 s.fe) 3 Bed, 2 Bath + Loft I I I ��ONCEPTI JAL I JNIT PLANS m V4 =�-o 1,500 s.fe o CaLIVINIAf : CHOSE �mm 0iKZDNAC[ILDRODDIP °: —052 � NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC ��� KHRA010009ATER esu2012 A R K oPAe.oPuo11 Pm111ee81111 u19 nue CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 03/02/2015 ARCHITECTS, INC. �ucam 1111 ten®ar nq auwea 'N R"�81l°eNLL�E'^O1O®BI9aORo90aen010o11®u190 eResidences 4100 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-840 8110111110.W e419E QE81®, Newport Beach,Califomis 92660 Fax(949)756-6444 Perazrz Ta66 zri,AIA e at Newport ace '8554 gar reuteVoila, Read T� Vl Suite (501) n �F W PERM FSK OR ii(XIORWOM M 88PnNItl1110 WJIS e11N01 E Szv Diego,121-1zlifvrvio 11A ° �"" ""�"�`° NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJSDesinGroul fie: (958) 792- 9 Y~ GD Tel: (838) ]92-599] Landscape Architecture 011ECIaD: FJ JEM Pox: (858) 792-5858 U) U1 v N O A C31 O TRc�.xs 2 ARPI.RMB rOAN 1RIN yr.00w ree rue+ rMwtuwcry �� FecarrAnvepeuxr - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5r_ �I ' � t I 1 m IN1-- 11-_ ®® I�!► 1 ® pR 1 1 u _ ® w b _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - 5D.80T LINE OF THE OVERALL SITE ELEVATION A lI_ STOOPS STAIRS ELEV TOWER RESIDENTAL OVER PODIUM ENTRY �AL K" r TRM wlwa+r red nAN rraiac u:xa•r r;rtete FecortAnve earclan' a rFf=fll m 7m FH1 FM m 9 -. AM m 9119 o mffl Ljm E m an ® � _ q M mFm IM FmH 7m] 9 _4A 50.607'LINE OF THE OVERALL SITE ELEVATION STOOPS STAIRS ELEV TOWER RESIDENTAL OVER PODIUM ENTRY 01 10' 20' 40' so, CONCEPTUAL SITE ELEVATION - PARK / PEDESTRIAN PROMENADE n 1-_21 ' D m 0 c� z 0 NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC �i�` KHRAMN ATEN ®m A R g n 9u...• �wnw�em u•lva CONSULTING ENGINEERS[SURVEYORSIPLANNERS 03/02/2015 ARCHITECTS, INC. 1 I6G87.1 a 161®em m m o8I.R9• • 4100 1Plow Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-6440 �..' xe^� xo^•moleny •R N rt Beath,Califomia 92660 Fax 949 756-649H8Yf: Mgmrmcm I ���• The Resl ences at Newport Place ( ) 44 F aaa m a ra l a bb l d,A IA A4-1C06[OI MM TX8 SSRO 11661. IDC 6 d1Ol ld$dmilYBBlit OA alis OM E u®O F oeuu®ro � IWLRSL OR OOFIKRSIp Flat 11855 8omatu Vdlay Rand 0 8aitn (SOI) �' xe MJSDesi n Group- oAund .-. �IIMOFOF" M an 92121-1318 urns. 0 NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA s P- i Tel: (858) 792-5997 Landscape Architecture FJ JEM Far: (d 5d) 792 3958 0) 7 O '_I I f' a I I '- .-ten � ill•..... I'° � ,1 e, �� I �� �1 � 1�� in Ill - . .,�_ � ! ! II II II — I � '. n n II I _ 11401 I!1 I V `e0j .Jml I R • (�IYIIIIII 1111111 1 I i� ❑ n —".f .. '' --, I —' 71 -_ r 21 _ -- _— 2121 ..._..-. •- J MINIM ------ ------------ I_di_I,�l i_d _di_d _1,21,1,_1_,i_,li' _ b_di_iL_'i_iL_d_di_1,'�,'Eld n _ —2121 _ " "" "' - In _ n, 11 - ii ii ii t ii ii ,ill Il ..n In II II II II iulIRIii II II oil � II II �� �1 I n n nl n n n n ii ii II II ■ II _ - - . - = II ffffl'Fpo—M1 112121MM •• _. '2121 T 2121 T ■ii iiin lin, II ii II II n n II II ii n 11 n iini '�III�' I nilll � II '�Ill�i �I IIL.I L. - -1 - _1_uuu uuu � un tum r11 G1 r1 2121 2121_ - T � T 2121 1w uuuMIN ! II■9111 11 111°I�III°I°I1 II n IMI °Il�uu���llll�� 1111 II11 IIeaI _ 'I_I_•9_II_i 1111 1111 1_ II 11 II1���I iII1Cll �i i ��■'�� n �� °°IlNN II ■ II �.. - - 11 111.111 - -_ _ - _` f_III �_III - - '---' ' ' .' � �---' 1111 I— 2121 T _._L_._ L_ _,_ _L_,. _ --- .. _ _ i11ui 2121 fT uuuiuu .G1 2121__ ` .G1 .r1 ITuu—iulu 1w uu Tuu ■ ��11 ; ;I n n 11 ill l �� n Inl n I; ;I II11 II 1111 u11 n ■ ■ ■ I�� n 11111111 II u1111u11!1111I11111 11 n Inl 11 n n 11 n II 1: :1 II ■ II ■ 1111_ 1111 . 11111 1111 _III_ - II - - _III_ -�II I I II;I �- - -- -- .. _III_ .. , .. -=- --- - -2121 - - ♦� �„� �„� . a 000 Low0 a Io h'—i000 o aIs a = -10100 a o 000 �`-i oo0 Ix II III III IIIIIIIIII�i_I�� IIIIIIIIIII III VIII ulllllllllil Illilllllll �1■I .�R R R a � ry 0 0 fl L rom SWM Seca IIVSxwmrSH rt 2 OR I& is SSC�IlS 55 ll11 33 a� - ■I VIEW I■'■ �I ■ ■ rc ■ ', ■ f �I ■ iii _ __ _ _ _ -LINE OF THE OVERALL SITE ELEVATION RESIDENTAL OVER PODIUM STOOPS ELEV STAIRS ENTRY 5PXG0 hON5T�1 OGORAHVG MmOW 51/IRCR5 E2m m M Fiff® nm M7m ! s go I e � e >E "T e 50.607'LINE OF THE OVERALL SITE ELEVATION RESIDENTAL OVER PODIUM STOOPS ELEV STAIRS ENTRY 0' 10' 20' 40' BO' CONCEPTUAL SITE ELEVATION - CORINTHIAN WAY n J 1"=20'-0" D v 0 (D z 0 i.. \ INSNEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC ��� KHRARROCIATER ea•D A R K CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 03/02/2015 ARCHITECTS, IHC. n , �tr,,rm on or�e�er nr 9w,wr 4100 Newport Place Detre-Suits 200 Tel(949)758-8410 {W\1 NC 9�®!Y IYO M MOa11Y 6 NK R•o a�� Newport Beath.Calittmia 92680 Fax(949)756 444 a(tRD Feramer,3ebb.rl,AIA aa�•• W9�a••• eResidences atNewport ace _ O • a' aA•■WL E4®WOR M O•• 9.110NM N• 99X,A9l OSIeYsI WR ( 1 11855 NM a9•tE•N:1T90EIIFA•IDtlUS i1E 8enlDie so,Ca11fo n.� O suite 301 �• �"a'�1°d10iM1N1p"g" Grou MJSDesI n 93121-1313 0 NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA S P` cc Tal: (858) 7792-599'/ Landscape Architecture FJ Jai Pe=� (93e1 7793-3838 � 7 N O _ QML � � — — --- i ilii_ nn n IN 71. II 11 II �I �� a. f 1 r +. • rg '. -I III,; - _II ul I ��� I� I In II III I u III li J J • • 'I� I� I JI I !• - .... �� Ma' . X� '_ '�,'�' fir':. ilhd, p� F�ii ., i.. a,: ii n iu 1_�il�ui � . •- i "- �� II � -- � m � � � �=� �� . . � � • __III V,I�� I I—I + � � � I ! � - = - �_ _ .����. a> ��,; 6 �_ r�-i�` F 1 �- -- 1 lu I I��I I _! II I - r:; -• I �� o �!� _ _ , II II Mill �_ _ yy Val ° ',_ „ ' ,'VOL _ ._.., ■ .F. a .'or�rt �. . .r fi�W I ' I ! ... ! I _� I I GI i 11 I . _ • r• = _ _ I - I IMaw �- - lMMMM - - 111 _C 11 I�II�I - -I�n .. I�II_� _ ��►� 1 I "1 I� inn n -= n -- - -- �� 11, - 10.71111111 � �I � �IIIIIIII �W'� IIIIIIII II II n IIII IIII ��� n IIIIIIII � AP11111- II F-11WT T TTII SII �� :II II:�II I�III�� line I�III�I la�l II:�II �:III�I �� n I:III:I n n 11 II � Ioi .IIII G _ _I I_ _ I _ _ ___ nIIr:IInl n ' li - , _ nIIm, 11 �I ■IIII ' �III�I __ ■III: illiiiii �■ - _-;- - IL _L_,_._._,_L_�,_L_._�,_,�_L_L_._ �.. --- --- --- --- --- ■IL 1110 . - ■ I■ im •i 1i�,Ellis lll� l�l�l�l�l�l iii'ii uii T T � - II���� :III: �: : Inl �� n �� �� �� n �� -II- 1 -11 I I � � I I I I_ _I III I -- �� [11 F11 II 1[19 1 O 1 IHiTi-14-1 __ IJ�I A _=_�� ��I- 111 ■�I�u IIII ISI 111■ IIII ISI ISI 111 �IIIi 1 1= IIII=IIII 1=1� �Il '=I�l � f11= ■ . I��,�I 1 .���'=L■ .■J=3L1����--L■��■J=L■�����,-_-.��.--L1�._IL.IL:II_.��.��IL.II�LI��L�IL.II�LI�I�I��I� ��I �ILJI�1.�.��=,� L.11`I�I�I�I�I a�'I.M E=�I:= - � • � � � - � � � � F HSI �SSO_ C1�=.TSS a . N 0 0 STKSO RFBiCIS MCMC AWNNBS O[n1FOOR L1 tr9 STORTROHf 61A55 ROOrI'LT MDO 2 ... ,..-rY7�'!lf1�•V1.. .v'1� 33r,. .,:i1�.Zl f1�j!�•lil�f���r�'{�� 1 _ I I I I � a - y Q I� 0 a i 50807'LINE OF THE OVERALL SITE ELEVATION N ENTRY PLAZA RESTAURANT RESIDENTAL OVER PODIUM GARAGE ENTRY PARK ENTRY 9770000 R6911'I9 M[tAL AWMAYS GITOOOR W*" 0TOIe4ROMT 61 A ROWW■ATIO Q -------------------- Ir o LLL Q _ q ug ug 99 I EM-111 I Ug Ug 0I lilt ES MLL. O 50.607'LINE OF THE OVERALL SITE ELEVATION N ENTRY PLAZA RESTAURANT RESIDENTAL OVER PODIUM GARAGE ENTRY PARK ENTRY 0' 10' 20' 40' 60' CONCEPTUAL SITE ELEVATION - DOVE STREET n 1"=20'-0" D v 0 (D z 0 61, INS M ��� NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC ��� KHRARROCIATER ®•D2012-052 A R K CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 03/02/2015 ARCHITECTS, IHC- a ` mr rtm m�er m 9w,wr 4100 NewportPlace Detre-Suits 200 Tel(949)7564440 (WV NC O�®!Y IYO M MOa11Y 6 NK Mcxms m•0555•�� Newport Beach.Calittmia 92650 Fax(949)75G$ 44 4altRD F era m ar,3sbb.rl,AIA aa�••aASI�FOR�a••• eResidences at Newport Place RA•iWL FIa0WOR 10NM0 N•9.18.0X,F9LL M Oa•aO11gY Fal — (Wit 11855 � NM R8.POE 8.11a190EYG 5s1TtlU5 i1E 8enlDie so,Ca1VLil.1fo n.� O suite 301 (D• �"a'�1°d10iM1N1p"g" MJSDesI n Group- 9RA�Ik 93121-1313 0 NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA S m cc Tal: (858.) 7792-5998 Landscape Architecture FJ Jai P•=� (93e1 7793-3838 � 7 to Q y 3 IS c �s_•�, Jiµ,. ,}, r °, / _,,_,_.. � �,�� ., �:'- -. i1�� f _ �. ia -'r-- _r �J- ,,,, _ � '�[- - J.° � t;-'P.` . � . ' gyp• _ � .. r '.Ti— �: kit < _ _ ♦ I ' - '. 5 - ", r£ .'_; _ - _. :S' _ • it a : � ' i Wim u. .: �� � � Y;•'1. �, J.. __e. 11, dft Il lb A w r owl _ +-V 1. I lAsir It, arm low �� O _ � . rl, - l.`^� �, '�%•_y _ _ i 1�111I 111111 IiTfl !i �4 r . �.., � i ., ar �• , -��-�' �� ��19I •���I� � psi v � . 4 �. � � - IUllh�y �rrrr x. � � � it .���. � , � ��, • _. d !1111 '_u"-r � — ai4wl ; ai` - nrur � � rw��, �i'�; "y:°�� � K��",� - .- •t _..�tk -�;7�.-�► 4 "�."�.- �� _ °... ,_ b`�� ` =.�4ID' '�� 111 ;err► �y I � Y p I�j � -- 6 ..M'';Y + :tW'„'/' 't } •c�' �E.� .,tea +�,y,� =�� frJfn(rJJ ��I� -, e+i"'�;. ,. ,t�� �! �. a � _ —•vr Ulll! -' (llll f a�e 4 "'ffYC`= _.�• � :>n tp .q�L a 4A.• �. !' � . � �1: 7j i t o3 ii Imp 1! 1 ■ ■ i ■ ■ ■ ■ 1 ■ ■ ■ ` ink a■ O or • r O 1 , U .. d i F , 'lP s a r 3 r' ---- Icy �� - ,. :. ,L. ' �.:e` . ' . .�• A _ f .. - y .�7 y�� _ . ,R i AMU v�Ir!' 'IHfi r� • d' ,.'r •�� ,-- -b � ., '^';� I�r��N1 ^.. ,F k ;�: {�:'� �'"_ a a - ��-,,:^ im. .. .;�• s �i��lh � �' . . � • --� . .,. - r ` I '�pp� � Illill IItt i 6 •, � -,.. ems._. ,.P .__ Jia R ,4 � �i 4 . J 3 _ _ _ r -v -- 3 J „' i"i 'qru ft : '-r-r.�. •sae's � C �^g. . +:+��: .'., .-s ^�v-S.l�;Alfa-e-, 2ry - '"'�fi. i.. ...L {,.1 a if,`. - _. - - ,SSs�.-• �X i. .,�-.� _:{tom` Lq -: �,Y -. . ...•. .. fig• • qy. 1 a I... ! 31 y ....'h : A }••: _ �� ''Tp..�' 1.., Ail y io.. 1 , _\•' "`Mi' 'F�li .. '� ,.. .� '. r }.. .'iry�1 �•' r'1 �L FA ":: I I ; : I �I - d,'; � III;' � �I�� � -,,, -> : ,c 4 � I•u6 � A _ -' -- _ - • - rA a-4 =• � 1�!I �'� rt�1 vt. -„t f� ff 8 � ! �..,.. 1 ➢tom„ r ` !e 'y� I :. . . � e�. ? V �si1e l�+•e pg � �i�?', i k '� e e • - 1 C 4. � , - . I ,3 ii :- s. i;E 1-` .3 s eu;e LS�'JC .P. 2.' „r. _ ? 1 1.. 1.�C� _ y -, .. i• r+ " 'xs'h �,r ■3,, '�MM 1111110 "' \�' 1'�i r(l.;re+��.• ape � � ' ��.:I�1. �� �a�lY -el ���I ;j ,k ' I . f:' ^:�1';� ?s6 •�-e _ s a �'!. ' a.,r:., -4i�4y*�� y J:" '-,:• �e �`•• '�� _ �` _ 111 :11 ill Fill 111111111111 I , • I :. • . ■ ' ■ a . _ a D N O EXISTING CRESIDENTIAL UNITS OVER PODIUM SCAPIN O RES v EXISTING GUTTER URB ? I rD G N G E C) • UILDING ENT UPA!0 r NARDSCAPE PER LANDSCAPING PLAN/ O' • O PROPOSED 30' BUILDING SETBACK LINE EDGE OF STRUCTURE BELOW V O O PROPOSED BUILDING 20' TBACK LINE EXISTING TTER I EXISTING GUTTER EXIST G CURB Cj EXISTING CURB I LINE OF PROPERTY BOUND RY .. I PROPOSED CURB CUT p I \ r p \ P I / LL_ \ ON PODIUM I r \ I r / \ p ../' PLANTER \ \ / p STAIRS TO STREET \ PLANTER r r � I • Z •LANDSCAPING ON GRADE 1 I . . A PLANTER STAIRS / • ` // RESIDENTIAL UNITS OVER PODIUMUILDING.ENTRV • Nr/ m — — LANDS ING ON G E • sT STAIRS I I11' ISG I / -lei • 7 /\ N/ 1 I I 1 I X1{1 RESIDENTIAL UNITS OVER PODIUM cam L_ J � J . . • • • • ®/ / �/ \ \\ N -..-. 1 L /� CORRIDOR DECK STAIR A DECK STAIR B `p/ J I i ♦ ♦ I Kn o of -- EXISTING GUTTER ✓ \B �'I/ / I ) 1 • LLLIII NI EXISTING CURB • LINE OF PROPERTY BOUNDARY I III III I �' EDGE OF STRUCTURE AT • /b NII £ III III PROPOSED 26' BUILDING SETBACK LINE / / • \ / CANTER • _ / � / v ON PODIUM _ / RESIDENTIAL UNITS OVER PODIUM ®@\ CORRIDOR • / LANDSCAPING ON GRADE \ /� / OCORRIDOR ® RESIDENTIAL UNITS OVER PODIU BlJ1LDING ENTRY ELEV • / / �' BELOW ED Y PRIVATE SP • : HARDS CAPE'ON GRADE"• / \ DSCAPING ON GRADE I • Ufv! AY 00 • LANDSCAPING ON GRADE / \ I O E GATE STAIR U E �/ ...gr oP'...' O O LANDSCAPING ON GRADE / \ PLANTER / STOOPS ON GRADE FOR UNITS UNDER LID 0 0 / O PARK I PEDESTRIAN PROMENADE ` / LIE RESIDENTIAL UNITS OVER PODIUM COMMUNITY DECK STAIR C HARD8CAPE ON GRADE PER LANDSCAPING PLAN EDGE OF STRUCTURE AT DECK STAIR D PROPOSED 34' BUILDING SETBACK LINE 0' 4' 8' 16' 24' E ENLARGED STREET-PODIUM PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS 0 v m z 0 :� NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC �M� KHRARSOCUATER asp A R K gu 0Mc gaggg rmgre m gro nue CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 03/02/2015 ARCHITECTS, INC. geeAl®aR n51®a®aY Rg8 ewweg 4100 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-8440 I e The Residences a t Newport Place Newport Beach,California 92660 Fax(949,756-6444 sH>r _ g 55 O nw wu a:ueo erauexamro A so«eoi•V'a6.,•Reed FOR Suite (501) C7 Aw RRtle:MINT8QYe1 e1111011r 11E 8•v Diego,California '. Dated•W=ARCWrE= NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJSDesinGrout meg„ 9815.1) 313 9 ^- GG Tel: 9212 ]92-599] Landscape Architecture a1ECI0D: FJ JEM F•x: (8581 ]92-5858 7 D N O A (T O • WR MS Me M REST O S STOREFRONT ROOF TILE EXTERIOR STUCCO DECORATIVE STONE ROOF TILE RAFTER TAILS DECORATIVE STONE t 29 t t 4 t CABANA BUILDING 21400 S.F. - - - - - • REAR ELEVATION 3 SIDE ELEVATION 2 c� RAFTER TAILS ROOF TILE EXTERIOR STUCCO DECORATIVE STONE STOREFRONT j Lj U =Lj Ll 0 FRONT (POOL SIDE) ELEVATION 1 E 0' 4' 6' 16' 24' 0' 4' 6' 16' 24' D ENLARGED CABANA PLAN n CABANA ELEVATIONS n zT va•= r-o• va•= V-o• 3 M z O ��A. mH ��� 94 n cliumfialif :� NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC I��� KHRANIMMOATIMMagglomf A R K CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 03/02/2015 ARCHITECTS, INC. PFK oPaiw Pelu�ens,SIo PUIn �ucam m a:BiI�II®aY]118 m,38111a 4100 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-8440 1 --4-` "�° �'^1O movarr o n Newport Beach,California 92660 Fax 949 756-6444 sir. P9 :• The Residences a t Newport Place ( � Peramars2.66ari,AlA Y A7-4 1233 n.w ffiu wmoa m s.rr..e.v.ii.r R..n M. MSuite (501) P NR PEM MMa81GYe1 a1110Wr DE San Diego,California •wnai�er9am m a. NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJSDesi n Group fie: 92121-1813 9 A- GD Tel: (858J ]92.399] Landscape Architecture mPaoa FJ JEM Fvx: (83BJ ]92-3838 7 U1 D N O A i (T O \ \ \ Cp 1—STORY STAPLES RETAIL BLDG. I I 4343 MACARMUR BOULEVARD 1 I V 1 / '' \ \ \` I / `, 11�i SMF] 1 1-STORY BEN/HAMA RESTAURANT ) \ \�y i 4250 BIRCH STREET PROVIDE 18—FT. WIDE BY 150—FT. QL / /,� \\ \ 1-STORY RESTAURANTS & RETAIL ♦ " , \ ' 0 ,� OFF-STREET EMERGENCY VEHICLE �' `�� \ti EY ,� SHOPS BLDG 1 II � STAGING AREA so. � �� ' �v�� s ,;~ ! ' T 4341 MACARTHUR BOULEVARDJI 1 Y op 'opt J. / 6—INCH WATER �• \ ,' 1 � J. P.O.C.le �— ' 7� SYH 1 `�� IJ. � IMODIFY 27' DRIVEWAY WITH / / Q� i • •' ` '; � ,1 I t 1 / 10' RADIUS RETURNS FOR \ ACCESS TO PARKING GARAGE 1 op REUSE 6-INCH _ 6.0 �^ 24.0 1-STORY CAR WASH ,/,� / i` � � WATER SERVIC - `� ®� J 19 24.0' SIDEWALK �` 4200 BIRCH STREET / r / ♦ I , •• t.1 l J f PROP. TRANSFORMER / ,-, 4'0 2-STORY FIRST BANK BLDG. PAD SID 1 4301 MACARTHUR BOULEVARF `. / 0. 1 \ REU B-INCH t `%\ i ° P`S0' S LATERAL '• ,•' SETBACK ` 0 1010 J* / �� f 1 r IVEWAY do i \ � � / •, r----'____ FULL HEIGHT � I CURB D ALK \%. \ `, PRO✓ECTSITE--- RE - {I 1 PROP. 26' DRIVEWAY WITH 10' \\\ 69y4CRE MIXED-USE DEVELOPME SEWER LgiERAL 1 1 RADIUS RETURNS FOR ACCESS o I W H 384 APARTMENT UN/TS i TO PARKING GARAGE 677 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT \\ / VE R 2-LEVEL PARK/NG GARA REUSR 6-IN Z I 1 � I d PROP. 0• 4, :: RESTZ4N �L \` EXSm \\ \ \\�` �� �� ' a c i I ' `� v 1 \ \ 4• I 1—STORY OFFICE lob 2—STORY OFF/CE BLDG I CONDOMINIUM RECONSTRUCT CORNER & \ \ %�`f's 1 1601 DOLE STREET REPLACE ACCESSIBLE RAMP �� �� �• I ® 4299 MACARMUR 1 Q\• \\ • moo .• ® o y 1 BOULEVARD 1 �%` s\�e\� ` o j PROp:,.27' DRIVWY'WITH 10'J " I \ 4 RADIUS'RETURNS TDR ACC s�"T% \�o e % TO PARIEING GARAOt \\ %` Z REUSE S-INCH ` o \ \ ?, SEWER LATE ® m 2—STORY OFFICE \\ 7ca 1801 DOVE STREET sof �%a\ iLLL � PROP. TRANSFORMER s •'" ;. PAD 11 � Q' \ �% ` REUSE 6-INCH SWITCHGEAR ` 1 • ` \ \\ `� ` , WATER SERVICE --- V D D a --- DU_-- 1 \ I \ \\ \ ` --- -- I % 1 RELOCATE IX. STREET LIGHT •� SURFACE PARK/NG LOT a%\ \ % --- ---- ' \\\ cn =2 ` ,- PARKAREN4 � D• RELOCATE IX. CATCH \ o d BASIN do RE-ROUTE \ \ `aD REPLACE IX. DRIVEWAY L=2 I CONNECTION �/ S„H �\ \ V2 WITH FULL HEIGHT 319.96 �__� I 1 Q�/ \ Lx. ♦ CURB AND SIDEWALK NN 4gl�- . --� f i O\SDMH IX P SMH 1—STORY CLASSIC 0 RESTAURANT —��.aag. d 4251 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 1 ♦ . � afro ` o, \\A \, 1 1 0 3 N ♦,� CB et� \ \ �f 0' 20' 40' 80' 121Y 4—STORY OFFICE BLDG. 1600 DOVE STREET PRELIMINARY SITE ENGINEERING PLAN 1•- 40'-0' n zT 3 (ItiRMA mass 1 141 94 N�a;, � NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC G�CKHRARMCDCOATER MMA� zns9 A R K Z ' xao CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS m OY/1114 ,yy Ke^ppp(,p (g, q/Rg ARCHITRCTS, INC. N81Gla)m I10711a1 BY 1,NS BRI. Ni� • 4100 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-8440 reEr: � 81E O-0 BY NO 11E PReFRn 6 Bal � The Residences at Newport Place an Daum u o]an a �° Newport Beach,California 92660 Fax(949)756-6444 s �°- EMNFCIIa1 7111111E 0iFD FR1ECT Perzmerz lzbberi,AIA Nm 6 ant W-A IPR/11mo1R G W=F1% �4��W 1te ( RIIPOMN15QW1 Nn11WT 1HE II811FN Sen Di. 'o, SNaLKa wmaSDD. m Surreut°Vail., Rea Suite (501) 41 'Iw153D1 D•ue A9=&9%m MJSDesi n Group- oRAMN: 92`2'-']`3 ,4 NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA Be) 7e92-°r°i. 9 P- GG Tel: (838J ]92-399] V Landscape Architecture a1Eq� FJ , Fex: (838J ]92-5858 0 (D !v 7 D N O A (T O / / 40 yyt , 4'0 ' \l I %� y Jr 42 d oo y \ / � • ,/ i3' ' Jr.,� / ,�� � - �/ `yo• o �\moo �� 4 I Of If '2 / '2c � � •� `\ \ tet\ - - / / O J. • / j ' - - / / 011J b PODIUM COURTYARDn'mic( �� 51.64ITC `` -- ------ -_ I FlN. FLR=67.00 0 FL �. I ` If 0 .� �� O p O O v °1: 51.79 TC \ / �•o� ': �IJP� y 51.17 FL I � PODIUM Ind FlN. fZR=67.50 ' �.,,�, �) z 1 5i,a TC PODIUM BUILDING s FL I 1 . FlN. FLR=67.50 � I %Neel \\ / e �. e 52.22 1 ) // � rr � a •' —— p9 II - 52.28 51.73 FL I PODIUM COURTYARD ''. 1. m \. 3 t -� RN. fZOF R--67.00 \` \ 'moi 0.��' `� ® ■ I 52.471 TC r �,2�' ' i o RESTAURANT ® POOL AREA LEVEL -�1 51.87 FL I \ • • . P2 PARKING - ` ate/e4, ,•.. . .• . FlN. fZR=50 50 FlN. FLR=50.50 FlN. `FlR-67® 1�uWAmum 4� N c• • f y PARKING BELOW 52.ss 'Tc LEVEL Pi FlN. fZR=44.50 \d 52.13 FL ' I G' �0 o p e LEVEL P2 FlN. FLR=54.50 PODIUM I r 1 �® ® RN. FLR=67.50 1 111 % \ �y�G r° ,• ® � 53.00 7C I 1 �% v, \`�?` PODIUM COURTYARD p 'so \ '�` FlN. FLR-67.00 � � I • 1��y `%% o PODIUM BUILDINGI® i ' • � '@,. 0 [. � 53.19 TC r, i � FlN. fZR=67.50 ® 52.54 FL %% `�'� \ • 53.32 'Tr I ' Vim& 'o• U\•�./ ,, T � STOOP UN���w �� I 1 FIN. FLR \ f �, \ .* / " ] — — — 53.39 TC 1 c 52.75 •. � PARK AREA V/� �` 1�6 FlN. GRADE'50.00 •, 7 53.48 TC I I o� // n • . . • . . �'' 52.85 FL 9 II � ulIlllllmp mffww� jaw1 GRADING QUANTITY ESTIMATE ��` ti� EX P/t u 4 n n n (( n n InI InI InI IuI InI InI InI InI InI InI InI InI a InI InI IuI InI IuI InI u u g` j CUT = 37,357 C.Y. EXPORT = 35,708 C.Y. FILL = 1 ,648 C.Y. IMPORT = 0 C.Y. A6' it (� 1 NET = 35,708 C.Y. G�� '/ / ,°P/ \, L1�6A `� / ` p6 \ 0' 20' 40' 80' 120' , W E D / / ` PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN '' 3 ,•- z 2012-052 M12IIMA If '"m NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC C�Co�o-�RARREBODATER A R K D�D, : .99I 3340lm CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERSm 07/2015 ARCHITECTS, INC. ur_orAs ff.7o1 xrlxm•r1rs MD H,1xs xrulm an 9E111FD ar 116 aGY11c 4700 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)758440 � M9°RFD•'" Dc •ff xR Newport Beach,Calitomia 92660 Fax(949)756-6444 * 1 MOMM INC.M°r1E M10%MM P a.exl lebtl AIA 41 Mu rcwa+9n lm 11gaxax eResidences atNewport Place Tl 9 1 OxECIY1 xIX 11E SRM aOEDf. 0 ( / XOE ff 91101 aus.MSalffllans art xN 6a9WIL �LyeDp4M1Y — Sovev[o Vele'Reed Q Suite 50l PMPOa'E Ma140EMR 81TIW111F rlllel See Diego,C.1if...ie tD Nr®01 ff NII AlxC 92121-1313 n NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJSDesign Group" Dwam Tal: (858) 792-599) c11inigi: FJ as Pax: (858) 792-5858 Landscape Architecture v U) D N O A (T O Y STAPLES RETAIL BLDG. '� \ \ \ 14343RMACARTHUR BOULEVARD I `♦ -Yry 1 I / "T 1—STORY BENIHANA RESTAURANT f // / 1 �t� 4250 BIRCH STREET \ I 1—STORY RESTAURANTS & RETAIL I I G 0,01 SHOPS \ \♦` '�# 4,341 MACARTHURLDG.BOULEVARD / / I N -- v O I I \ `♦ 1—STORY CAR WASH / i o. � I �` 4200 BIRCH STREET / / O \♦ 1 1 2—STORY FIRST BANK BLDG. i 4,301 MACARTHUR BOULEVARD ♦ / 4 I 1 v `+ P�b a OF n e � ' 1 > \ \\ ROJEC O I MIXED-US „ I C I IW72384APART 1JIM ♦� \\\\\ lo milli 4,129ap7�SO. FT, R,, ♦♦ \ \ PROP. g &2R VEL PARA GALA „ b \ 4 Iy d.gppp•4• PLAL4 RESTAURANT o a""D. , I \ son• 1 . : � 4\ 1010 ♦ I 1-STORY OFFICE ll CONDOMINIUM \\\� a% I i nI 2-STORY OFFICE BLDG. I 1601 DOLE STREET 4299 MACARTHUR ` ` � i ♦♦ \�\\ -- BOULEVARD i all, _ r 1 elle 4 \ \\\\ $ , _ _ 1nn�xnnc I \ \, 0-�` 1 \ i , 1 \" N 10 j ♦` 6 \\ \\ a i 4 4 :27A 39- \ I Spy, SURFACE PARK/NG LOTLaea fai E ` A � &RINPROMEtO PROMENADE I 1 I PEDEST1I I C) R-W�G \\ \� En:H a P " 59� i 1-STORY CLASSIC Q RESTAURANT I PTE ` 4251 MACARTHUR RO(JLF%ARQ BIR E 0 / I \`\ PTE 1 LOCATION i 3 /// ®/✓ \ \\ \ O B R E ON z LOCATION � / \ \ I v�' / / / ¢♦ \ \ \ \ 0' 20' 40' 80 120' W E m 4-STORY OFF/CE BLDG. Z 1600 DOLE STREET LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT/BMP PLAN 1-= 40'-0" E ' Z glue m I�� 1 141 94 , � NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC ��eKHRARNOCRATER A R K CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 09/2014 ARCHITRCTS, INC. AIL DFA4,fE9al AIaNMFRem AID flNLA 3m«IIIm w 116 aurD 4100 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-8440 n Aro TIE PMQ4Ptt a Ala gM AID IDE milli.lmS Feramere labberi,AIA HE m011 All The Residences at Newport Place Newport Beach,California 92660 Fax(949,756-6444 s�T: nAxs sw1 ge usn ar a awn®m pNIY N119pgIa6 fR6 OI W WafA1NM fOl NIY 1 to 55 1 a ' Nq � Sorrento Valley Road U Q PIgPo.E WATg1MP a1NWT THE MIREN Seo Diego,California a (D Shite wQ M M EM xMJSDesign Group- : 92121-1313NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA Tel: (885388) 7992- 558959] Landscape Architecture 014001400, FJ '� Fx1 72- 8 r 1-I 3 V z � 7 U) N ` NTy 14 N GARDEN TERRACE • barbecue counter j • shade trellis • dining tables • lawn - open play • pottery with patio trees ` KA • lounge furniture - P t{ FOUNTAIN RETREAT ENTERTAINMENT LOUNGE 'o PIT ' • double-sided fireplace � j� � � • barbecue counter • fireplace ; r � � farm table • trellis with festival lighting • metal trellis with festival lighting • lounge furniture � \x • enhanced paving • low pilasters with pottery CD _8" lil �I �� • fountain \. {` I�j EXISTING STONE PINES POOL TERRACE �' - ' �� � ' ` I P p —-__ -- rotect-in- lace � I y i see enlargement sheet L.4 �v 36 x 75 00l with 3 lap lanes • cabanas under tiles roof AA = I I • lounge chairs 1 - v • 2 - 8' x 12' spas with water effects ��� % y _ �` � y l _ I� PROMENADE • built-in benches with cushions � �� r, . matching height palm trees / �� - ' /�� _ (� _ - • matching height palms :9: • seating nodes with shade canvas • pottery i �L � < ,I�� w' • metal arched pergolas L F ,�„-i v , o enhanced paving f 77 �� '� 1 z • water feature rl I _ I RETAIL PLAZA = ti a ` Air ( = ENTERTAINMENT COURTYARD • dining furniture barbecue counter • decorative paving outdoor furniture • festival lighting O ���, _ ��� � _ �/ e • decorative metal diningtrellis • low wall O� �,, � � � �' \ �— � � _ ' � ' .�I � I II - — I� r� �� - � enhanced paving • matching height palms �` ,� low wall with pottery • pottery �� �� - �, _ �� � , � ,. - - -- , � • � � • � ' • metal arched pergolas 11 P 16� POP -- PARK VIEW TERRACE — = � • I _� i see enlargement sheet L.3 • bbq counter _ _ �-- —= i . California garden • fireplacek �� � �����'� �� ���i�-, '� I', • benches - • decomposed granite walkways • lounge furniture �v. � � � � � � i � , � ��� -� -- J � �- - - � • shade trellis • dining tables �� +� � - �� DN �� - _ - _ _ T • wood shade trellis with decorative lighting ' - -- - , r • dining tables • festival lighting attached to palm tree ��,� • lawn NA O D � I I r \ - - 15 30 60' 1 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN f 1 II \\ SCALE: 111=30' CALIFORNIA p C15528 1,T0,!L C'i N0. NEVADA{' 2830 '__ VIII♦ AflrzONA d zr258 1�I//JNN��NN 0 //��((c� /� I�((�� 2012-052 A V OREGON 3640 N : 4356 , I_ LUU-ll� L�l�J���O/T LS�J I_SUED A R ll ^ CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS Q��PU�S AacxlrEcrs, Ixc, l ALL IDEAS,DESIGN ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED OR REPRESENTED BY THAs UNAWARE • 4100 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-6440 Newport Beach,California 92660 Fax(949)756-6444 sePEc F.�.merz T.yc..i,AIA RE OWNED DY AND THE PROPERTY OF AT T e R e s 1 e n c e s a t Newport Place ........,e113QY Ro EVOLVED AN DEV' WERE CREATED. EVOLVED AND DEVELOPED FOR USE ON AND IN 41 NONE OF SUCH H D THE sPEclFlEO PRDJEcr. 41 NONE OF SUCH ID EAC.ARRANGEMENTS OR PLANS SMALL BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON,FIflM,OR CO' POTATION FOR SUIT , ( ) O ANY PEN""MISSWHATION OEV FAR WITHOUTTHECTS Sen Diego,-1,13 Fnie WRrtiEN PERMISSION DF ARK ARCHITECTS 92131-1313 INC NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJSDesign Group' DRAWN cc/vM TeI: (838) 792-3987 n Landscape Architecture CHFCKED: FJ/JEM F.,. (858) 992-5858 ,--r !y 7 D N O A (T O Landscape Documentation Package Note: Preliminary Plant Palette A landscape documentation package by the project applicant is required to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach pursuant to section 2.1 of the Water THE RESIDENCES AT NEWPORT PLACE - NEWPORT BEACH Efficient Ordinance Standards. TREES SHRUBS and GROUNDCOVERS Preliminary Planting & Irrigation Concept Statement Botanical Name Common Name Size: Botanical Name Common Name Street Trees Large shrubs (minimum 5 gallon size at 3'o.c.) 1. Provide simple, bold and low maintenance landscape planting design which To be Coordinated with City of Newport Beach 24" box Arbutus Unedo Strawberry Tree incorporates many non-invasive and water conserving plant types. Chamaerops humilis Mediterranean Fan Palm - multi trunk Perimeter Setback Trees Feijoa sellowiana Pineapple Guava 2. Provide a variety of plant material shapes, sizes and texture in an informal Cupressus sempervirens 'stricta' Italian Cypress 24" box Photinia x fraserii Red-tipped Photinia arrangement compatible with the architectural theme. Magnolia g. 'Little Gem' Little Gem Southern Magnolia 24" box Leptospermum lavigatum Australian Tree Tree Melaleuca quinquenervia Cajeput Tree 24" box Tecoma stans Yellow Bells 3. The landscape irrigation design will be designed to provide the most efficient and Olea europeae 'Swan Hill' Fruitless Olive 48" box Westringia fruiticosa Coast Rosemary conserving means to distribute irrigation water with the latest technology for Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine 24" box water conservation. Pinus eldarica Afghan Pine 24" box Medium Shrubs (minimum 5gallon size) Platanus racemosa California Sycamore (Standard Trunk) 24" box Callistemon 'Little John' Dwarf Bottlebrush 4. All landscape improvements will meet the requirements contained in the City of Tristania conferta Brisbane Box 24" box Bougainvillea species Bouganivillea Dietes vegeta Fortnight Lily Newport Beach. Project Entry Drives/Retail Plaza: Grevillia species Grevillia Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm 20' b.t.h Hemerocallis hybrids Evergreen Daylilies 5. The Conceptual Landscape Plan has been prepared by a registered Landscape Pittosporum species Mock Orange Architect. Perimeter Park: Raphiolepis indica species India Hawthorn Cinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree 36" box Rosemarinus 'Tuscan Blue' Upright Rosemary Erythrina caffra Coral Tree 36" box Salvia greggi Autumn Sage Olea europeae 'Swan Hill' Fruitless Olive 48" box Salvia leucantha Mexican Sage Bush Water Quality Best Management Practices (B.M.P.) Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm 20' b.t.h Strelitzia reginae Bird of Paradise Platanus x acerfolius 'Bloodgood' Plane Tree 36" box 1. Planting areas have been incorporated into the hardscape layout. Hardscape Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 24" box Low Shrubs and Groundcovers (minimum 1 gallon size) paving drains into the landscape areas wherever possible. Tipuana tipu Tipu Tree 36" box Arctostaphylos species Manzanita Tristania conferta Brisbane Box 24" box Baccharis pilularis 'Pigeon Point' Dwarf Coyote Brush 2. Surface drainage is directed into the landscape areas to retain significant amounts Washingtonia filifera California Fan Palm 16' - 24' b.t.h. Carissa M. 'Horizontalis' Natal Plum of water on-site. Carex species Sedge Residential Courtyards and Pool Recreation Area Ceanothus g. 'Horizontalis' Carmel Creeper Arbutus 'Marina' Hybrid Strawberry Tree 24" box Mahonia repens Creeping Mahonia 3. Roof downspouts daylight or flow into landscape areas wherever possible. Brachychiton acerifolius Flame Tree 24" box Myoporum parvifolium Myoporum Erythrina caffra Coral Tree 36" box Limonium species Statice 4. Use of low water consumptive plant material and proper irrigation techniques take Hymenosporum flavum Sweetshade 24" box Rosmarinus o. prostratus Dwarf Rosemary into consideration hydrozones, sun and shade exposures and soil types. Lagerstroemia hybrid Crape Myrtle 36" box. Magnolia 'Little Gem' Little Gem Southern Magnolia 24" box Accent/color shrubs (minimum 5 gallon size) Melaleuca quinquenervia Cajeput Tree 24" box Aeonium x floribundum Aeonium Hybrid Landscape Areas: Melaleuca nesophila Pink Melaleuca 36" box Anigozanthus species Kangaroo Paws Olea europeae 'Swan Hill' Fruitless Olive 48" box Aloe species Aloe Pinus eldarica Afghan Pine 24" box Agave species Agave TOTAL LANDSCAPE GROUND AND PODIUM LEVEL - 78,755 S.F. Prunus c.'Bright 'n Tight' Compact Carolina Cherry 15 gal. Cycas revoluta Sago Prunus c. Vesuvius Purple-leaf Plum 24" box Dasylirion wherlerii Desert Spoon Pyrus calleryana. 'Aristocrat' Ornamental Pear 24" box Hesperaloe parvifola Red Yucca LANDSCAPE AREA EXCEEDS 2,500 S.F. and IS SUBJECT to N.B.M.C. 14.17 Raphiolepis 'Majestic Beauty' India Hawthorne - Tree Form 15 gal. Muhlenbergia species Deer Grass "WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE" Rhus lancea African Sumac 24" box Rosa 'Iceberg' Iceberg Rose Syagrus romanzoffianum Queen Palm 16' - 22' b.t.h. Trachycarpus fortunei Windmill palm Heights vary Turf Tristania conferta Brisbane Box 24" box Sodded tall-type water conserving Fescue Washingtonia filifera California Fan Palm 16' - 24' b.t.h. Line of Sight Note: Maintain shrubs at 24" high inside of Line of Sight at street intersections. D v n ZT LANDSCAPE NOTES and PLANT PALETTE CALIFORNIA q cu528 1R0jFC1 H, 0 NEVADA p 20}8 '__ - ARIZGNA y : 2]2 59 �� /cam , C.LDRADOq .35G NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC A a K OREGON q zeaO o �� OIC o 2012-052 , CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 07/2015 ALL IDEASDESIGN ARRANGEMENTS ANO PLANE ,,Ia, Inns rs 1T� IN01CATED CR REPRESENTED BY THIS DRAWING • 4100 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-6440 E� ARE ow'ED 9Y AND THE PROPERTY OF ARK c{:EET., ARDnTECTS INC,AND WERE CREATED. Th 1 /� 1 ai Deli. T1A EVOLVED AND ITH TRE SPECIFIED ECR I15E Cry AND Iry e e s l e n c e s a t e w p o r t a c e L.- T^_ UVOLVA nory DEV THEDPOU PROJECT ONAN 11 Newport Beach,California 92660 Fax(949)756-6444 L NONE CF SUCH IDEAS.ARRANGEMENTS OR PLANS SHALL DE USED PY OR DISCLOSED TO 1 ANY PERS ON.FIRM.OR CORPORATION FOR S'o[ T'1Iy eaae ANY osE wSON OF AR wNHOUT THE Sail uEl Io.c q I rnin WRITTEN PERMISSION Or ARI(ARCHITECi9, Y?I?I Y I G NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA eS1 " , DRAWN 9Group GG/VM rel. tsssl ­1'-s99C7 Landscape Architecture C—CITED. FJ/JEM Sv 7 D N O A (T O —r _ ' SEATING AREA � : \� °:o - � • benches • decomposed granite walkway 1 I • / ���ILI���� ' ��IJ�6J�!iJ I IIIIKI�I� I � - ---I ---- — 7VL1 � G7 4 m I zk • t ILIL(L �:11�1 LJ l I I.J Lf �` -- O _. _. — _ - - - - - - - - - - — _. j \ 0 GATHERING AREA GREAT LAWN CALIFORNIA GARDEN • shade trellis • open play • benches • dining tables • matching height palms • decomposed granite path • enhanced paving • drought tolerant planting 0' 8' 16' 32' zT PARK ENLARGEMENT SCALE: 1/16"=1 '-0" NEVADANpAX �5y �__ N 0 ARRONAp 45D NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC ��� r, l A R K co�aNAD0 # assn OREDON k ]2ND L 2012-062 CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 02/2015 ARCHITECTS. INC ALL IDEAS. R REPRIGN ESENTEARRANGE BY T AND PLANS wDlcnTeD OR nEPHENENreD ar THIS DRAWING 4100 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-6440 AHE OWNED By AND THE PROPERTY of AHK Newport Beach,California 92660 Fax(949)756-6444 - APCSGECFS.'NO AND WERE CREATED. E.arnm nrz labbari,AIA 41 CNONNECTIONDWIITTTH ELOPED SPECIFIESCPp ECT IN e Residences a t Newport o r t a c e NONE DF SUCH IDEns.ARHANDEMINTS DR y� Mass PLANS SHALL DE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO 1'' L.3 Sortent o Valley Road ANY PEHSCR FIRM,DH CORPORATION FOR SNile (501) O WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ARK APCWTECTS. 92 1 21-1]13 ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE San Diego,California D NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJSDeslgn Group GD/VM T=I (858) N92-5997 Landscape Architecture - FJ/JEM To,. (.59) "192-5858 v 7 D N O A Ln SPA TERRACE ENTERTAINMENT TERRACE SEATING AREAS with CANVAS COVERS METAL PERGOLA 0 • 2 - 8' x 12' spas with water effects • Fireplace • built-in benches with cushions • Lounge furniture • matching height palms • Decorative paving • pottery •Y� mow O I i L� 44 H7 riC l — ✓r k' n X - P`o D � o I a n o 0 o n-.o a n<'� - — k Sao � Ote Z Xl e a , CABANAS • tiled roof - —I a • lounge furniture • pottery 2 . - O • i 7 IT n , I • Y i � I Y _ __ _ _ _ •4 ,/Xv v RESORT POOL — - - • 36 x 75 pool with 3 lap lanes • lounge chairs ,s • - v • matching height palms • pottery "kill 7�1 • decorative paving low UF dI nt } r A I SPA TERRACE DINING TERRACE RAISED PLANTERS RAISED PLANTER with SPECIMEN TREE • 2 - 8' x 12' spas with water effects . BBQ counter • built-in benches with D cushions • Dining furniture • matching height palms • Decorative paving 0' 8' 16' 32 zT POOL TERRACE ENLARGEMENT • pottery SCALE: 1/16"44' CALIFORNIA p 015528 EkOdI C' N0. NEVADA{' 2838 '__ IIII, ARIZONA d z7259 ��//JNN��NN 0 /�(c rte- /��r I�(� 2012-052 A T� V Ty OREGON : 4356 NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC , ` LUHR L RRIMMI��/A M8 ICSUED A 1V 1� ^ CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 02/2015 nacli lrEcrs, INC l ALL IDEAS,DESIGN ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS INDICATED OR REPRESENTED BY THIS DRIVING • 4100 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-6440 1 Newport Beach,California 92660 Fax(949)756-6444 oPE moa 3nnc.n,AIA (v ARE OR ED D I AND THE PROPERTY OF AT Th e R e s 1 e n c e s a t Newport w p o r t P a c e I .A 11855 41 ARCHIifCTB."CA Q ANO WERE CREATED. L ff Sorrento Velle ftoed EVOLVED AND DEV' FOR USE ON AND IN NONE OF SUCH HIDE THE SPECIFIED PRoJEcr. I NONE OF SUCH IO EAB.ARRANGEMENTS OR VIVI PLANS SMALL BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO Y ANY PERSON,FIflM,OR CO' PORATION FOR SHile (5011 O ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER WITHOUT THE Sen Di ego.C al i fnrn ie 2. WRITTEN PERMISSION OF ARK ARCHITECTS, 921 31-I 3I 3 INC NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA M.1$D@Slgfl CifOUp' oanwN. GG/VM Tel: (858) 792-6997 Landscape Architecture CHECKED FJ/JEM F.I 18581 7.2-5858 r�-r Sv 7 D N O A (T O --------------- -- -- ---- � I I � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I VIEW TERRACE I I • double-sided fireplace • festival lighting attached to trellis • enhanced paving DINING RETREAT • pottery with patio trees • barbecue counter • lounge furniture • dining tables • metal trellis with festival lighting I • enhanced paving • pottery I i I 17r ® I F I mw ----------------------------- - S®�s�e�®�e'"Y' N" ® y' 'N' + ( S ®r �I l g �se�F�c �e®®®ems®e® = YY — -- I I wit 1 ):1 _ I I I ei I I I I lin TTFW-7,77 7h, I --- I I ENTERTAINMENT TERRACE • outdoor kitchen with sit-up counter • shade trellis • dining tables • pottery with patio trees • lounge furniture • enhanced paving D 0' 4' 8' 16' iv n zT ROOFTOP TERRACE ENLARGEMENT SCALE: 1/8"=1 '-0" CALIFORNIA/ C15528 PROJECT NO, , , 0 NEVADA R2638 2012-062 ARIZONA, 9266 NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC K COLORADO P 6366 OREGON y 36J0 , ISSUED ALLIDEAS.DESIGN ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS n Lrr - - l CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 07/2015 AHCIrs Irv1 INDICATED OR REPRESENTED 6Y THIS DRAWING 4100 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-6440 Newport Beach,California 92660 Fax(949)756-6444 SHEET: Jonno AISv ARE FICTOOWNE °Y AND THE PROPERTY°F ARK e Residences a t Newport o r t a c e I . T EVOLVED AN INC,AND WERE GREATEN. 11 L V EVOLVED AND DEVELOPED FOR USE ON AND IN CONNECTION HWiIID i1�E SPEGFlEn PROJECT. NONE°F ALL BE EAG.ARRANGEMENTS°R PLANS SHALL BE USED fiY OR DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON.FIRM.OR CORPORATION FOR S a r en l o Valle Hun d ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER W THE O WRITTEN PERMISSION Or ARK ANCRITECi6. NC. NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJSDesign Group Landscape Architecture cnecKED: FJ JEM v 7 I l .�. . a � - - -1r L. •rY_ --•. � .. •w - ✓ �.;r at »! ,\\ a �f+ �,,ti .�� 1 +� �� �j ( �. de. ,. Iii ^.� 1 �,'. _ - IL I ,• II ' I Y ter' _. f �• 5- a ( � . Ile It _ - JI� *A _ T 'v+- ! �' 1, r 9a a� ai _ i 4 �� X. y7 ,ti J�IF � :i„ - _ .i •+.'�G. *�� �� I,I � I.,r,� I 1 __ _ y 1{ 1 u I� u ' IT"i,.l` iy•' r I —y '^' ._ .._ tea: T�� L. ,' - _ ":�° � .:4'+t1" est a#� .'�• �'� : 1 • f - ^ §-4 � °r - T =e y 1 yi -r" ►z -� ,t ^ - • J _ y '. r 1 '�Mr 1 -•. 441r•a� F +e-� � F 'L: l T .1f- r � �' ..".: . :'i.. '- _ ...+ ♦ /. l J " , IJI=' 1�• '�yu � � , i�� III, 4 j t "`F SIM,' l •.� - � • 11 �y r It A AM IM •� 'jam/ 1y ,V !' _ � 5,t � t y -, 1 / I f �'_-'tl' 1 ♦ �.F'a� �1fFhw ♦ •-1- •' �IM�J��•Y1.lr,•-•>- r/•" 1 • i. ... 1 Fr•. [ � L . , , ' /" .may ♦ ^'�'•° -+ w .' YcrtiMk f. 'w'k�'.�EtQt a -:.^,-,E ••.!F _ 'F' 'r-' ci r. - ■t � C • I I 4 1 ■ J '. I1 �',: a a, f' �. - .. r '4 �\ -..•� fr 1 '.R•i`�•]� a-.� 4V •+ . . • � � - t�'c� -. . ���"c 'Ih::. 'I !:_, . -_•- •....-, �,�-�Y. ,, ' I y- •�,� ��' 1 'r rl 1 l�` ,a I f l♦. . �,1 S�1 I T� h `fti1 - > i p - t ��. y, �p a I y �. • - ; .•� �-- �. �, a - 2'. ,� L ' W ,I � ' ,,� F. , _ .s- ' _. •t • ,•r• - ri�� e+ lam. I -r .•. - I s' . •_ ' � ',.. - I 1AT . i f-;' ' �' - - � IriF .•`moi*- r\ ._ I ,�., f� MON v I •V �+f� M ,.11'� + '+', � '. `!•t - IAF. :� ''a �dl v,p.F ,' a. V -'t!. ^ 1 ��.• il' ; • _ : T a - •� �, �r.J�:eUr�•� RX ,�� _ � !,-'i , '�1.--- #''r�3� Is' � � -. ` -J-�i - % i '1' I t � ,ti.. _— � s �, 11 h--� •ar a __ �Aw�� - �`� �,*1 , ' �1 ' 1+ �' T '� � '- 1\ - a I J •A 1�1�/ 1 I 4; . I"�Il: ' Fyf - - _ � _-- - - , I _ hL IF , t I , I 1 ® J r y A LA jAD� - I f • a a • Fes . , L - r � ' " 10 nf f - 141 _ •- - . . •. ` r� IF • �.�. ...ra} a ms- "•�1� IV � I� r I • • ' I I 0'Q/ 0 4 y14 N 1114 y TURF BLOCK - �l / tillr `A- ALL / ,�� �' � ` ALL TREES LOCATED 5' FROM BACK OF SIDEWALK. _ ekA. is r , �� � � ��199s•"1f L� II �� � � — �� r / • v _ • L CIT A IN r rJ I ° I - Preliminary Plant Palette S I (R.O.W.) J . —_ SHRUBS ' INNINr I Botanical Name Common Name Low Shrubs and Groundcovers (minimum 1 gallon size) ' ��<' <� - Carissa M. 'Horizontalis' Natal Plum y �j } y - Rosmarinus o. prostratus Dwarf Rosemary LPil — Bougainvillea species Bou anivillea We, z Raphiolepis indica species India Hawthorn •�. �� � � . . . ° . • '� , � � �� � � ,, I � Trachelospermum jasminoides Star Jasmine D Line of Sight Note: Maintain shrubs at 24" high inside of Line of Sight at street intersections. I � JI �; t - P � G -4 \_ " 0 0 OV NY Via d o ,-N, i Ii NO I I r N � 4-� --__ t NP Q F i — RAP F — rI IL I I i OL TTT IT AT, I I iy ' ti fI t ti T, ai TO ♦ \ • ^ 4 p / 117-1L IL HALT r 3 LANDSCAPE RIGHT-OF-WAY EXHIBIT ° � � 77 � � � � � � `° 0 IA_10111A p 111 PROJECT NO. Z PAS 94 NEVADA "' NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL LLC ��� [<[L �n�-R 2°,2-052 n ARaGNA k v Ls- COLORADO IT 3hb OREGON k ' 3.IS 'SSVEO A R K CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 02/2015 ARCHITECTS. INC n ` ALL IDEAS,DESIGN ARRANGEMENTS AND PLANS (� INDICATED OR PERNESEeTED BY THIB l lNc • 4100 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-6440 , ARE OWNED BY AND THE PROPERTY OF ARK ARCHITECTS,ING,AND WERE CREATEDTh P ( ) F aremar F Jebb or i,AIA O EVOLVED AND WITH TH SPECIFIED FOR VSE EO PND IN e e s t e n c e s a t e w p o r t a c e L., CONNECTION WITH THE D FORU E ON A r Newport Beach,California 92660 Fax 949 756-6444 SHEET NONE OF SULY11GcA5.ARRANGEMENTS OR PLANS SHALL BE USED BY OR DISCLOSED TO 1855 Y O ANY PERSON,FIRM,OR CORPORATION FOR Sorrento Valle Read ANY PURPOSE WRITTEN PERMISPE NSOr ARK A CHHITECHTHOUT TS, San DM 31_1-1 31 3 INC MJSDesI n Group DRAWN. SO.591112 Tu 1a _ NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 9 P °°/�M te.'I �aSa; 792.5858 Landscape Architecture cNEcaeO: FJ/JEM 7 Attachment No. PC 15 Revised Plans 251 V� Q� �� �� �� �� �� ��� �� �� 252 T1114 41 GARDEN TERRACE �1 • barbecue counter • shade trellis - • dining tables • lawn - open play • pottery with patio trees t • lounge furniture - FOUNTAIN RETREAT \ y • double-sided fireplace ENTERTAINMENT LOUNGE �C, w9 barbecue counter • fireplace • farm table • trellis with festival lighting "\ AN metal trellis with festival lighting O - �- ` enhanced paving • lounge furniture \ � , - • �,� I � � � �� � ,� � • low pilasters with pottery 11F, • • fountain • I D 2 \ ` EXISTING STONE PINES POOL TERRACE P / - - rotect-in-P lace see enlargement sheet L.4 • 36' x 75' pool with 3 lap lanes • cabanas under tiles roof • lounge chairs �, 1 �- • 2 - 8' x 12' spas with water effects � , / ; I - v , PROMENADE `��' �' • built-in benches with cushions � -_= -- '' � ` , - • matching height palm trees�- ., • �, — • seating nodes with shade canvas • matching height palms • pottery / _ o �-�� ;i .� • dv � - I . metal arched pergolas • I l • enhanced paving y - • water feature i e tie �� r e. ' • L JL RETAIL PLAZA i ENTERTAINMENT COURTYARD Is dining furniture c *� \ ®® -II • barbecue counter Is decorative paving _ outdoor furniture _ I - - - - \ _ decorative metal dining trellis • festival lighting Is low wall lid ., - I enhanced paving • matching height palms ���� �� ° - - `� ��� • low wall with pottery • pottery ,�; . • metal arched pergolas F ,y • - --- % I — II r ` V TII F �< OPEN SPACE AREA VIEW TERRACE see enlargement sheet L.3 • bbq counter 6 • California garden � �< �� � � � � - � i � • r. �/�� fire lace • � � � _ � i benches I'I �k _ i 1 • lounge furniture • decomposed granite walkways � � � � i • dining tables ��: - �� � � , , • IDN �� ��i --I I� - i - - � ��.� • shade trellis • wood shade trellis with decorative lighting �, !/ - - - ,� tiT r. r _ _ i • dining tables • festival lighting attached to palm tree s . • lawn 9 9 P E� - — /✓� . HIP 0' 15' 30' 60' CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN ` t SCALE: 1 "=30' NEA111154h 94 VADAaiNIA B c12e '=wo r.': rvo. ARIZONA d : 27259 �� /� CDLOR60pN : 4356 NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC ��� :, �� OREGON p as<o _ 2012-052 ����� /,�\�,�7o1(�Il/��I I� A R K OREGON,ossmry ARRANGEMENTS ARE PUNS CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 7777 02/2015 ARCnIII C'rs. INC ALL INDICATED OR REPRESENTED BY HAD DRAWING • 4100 Newport Place Drive-Suite 200 Tel(949)756-6440 ARE OR ED By ND THE PROPERTY OF FNk T e Res 1 e n c e s a t Newport Place Newport Beach,California 92660 Fax(949)756-6444 I l'I Nari_♦14 E5,7 VOLVED AN DEV'AN WERE CPEAtED. Sor V I1,a koaA EVOLVED AND DEVELWED FOR USE ON AND IN NONE OF SUCH H IDA sPECIFEo NTOPROJECT. NONE OF SUCH IO EA S.APRANGEMENi9 OR Till PLANS SMALL BE USED By DP DISCLOSED TO ANY PERSON,FIflM,OR GOP PORATION FOR ANYPURPOSEESSION OF WITHOUT ARCHITECTS San I>YI II C'ali rnin INC PEAMIBBI°"°`"RNARDNI7EDte, NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJSDesi n Group DRAWN: R, ] :I' INC. 9 P (`i�`i/VM Tel (881 ;12 5117 Landscape Architecture c"ra<ED: FJ/JEM ra.. ,USN ,9a-Sasn 0 SEATING AREA i • benches • decomposed granite walkwayON °e •° LIMITS of 0.5-ACRE OPEN SPACE ° I C . — - - -- D LIMITS of PUBLIC EASEMENT TO BE GRANTED F ® • • �- . F p F j. GATHERING AREA GREAT LAWN CALIFORNIA GARDEN • shade trellis • open play • benches • dining tables • matching height palms • decomposed granite path • enhanced paving • drought tolerant planting 0' 8' 16' 32' OPEN SPACE ENLARGEMENT SCALE: 1/16"=1 '-0" NEVADR a n2Ns �� D..r s- 2 61, ARIZONA .# : 2]259 NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC _ A R K COLOflADO M M1:556 2012-052 CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 03/2016 ABunTCCTs. IrvC. "EGON M : 3G,G S—ED P0.IDEAS,OR RESIGNEPRESENTED ESENTEARRANGBY AND PLANS INDICATED Ow BEPREs xreD ar Tms DRAwwc • 20411 SW Birch Street Tel(949)756-6440 9 ARE ENDED 9Y AND THE PROPERTY OF ARK Newport BeachD NERE CREATED, ,California 92660 Fax(949 756-6444 -+-11 IANCHIECT INC = ((Ury EVOLVED AND DEVELOPED FOR EE ON AND IN p I'ai bbarl,AlA v CONNECTION ON H LL THE A S ARNANGESPECIFIED PROJEPT Th e e s t en c e s a t e w p o r t a c e (ry PLANS SXALL BE USED BY OR DISCLOEPSSED ID V Say V Ilev 1t°atl ANY PERSON FIRM, S GOR>WOHDON ED' • 5 u 1 C a h ANYWRI TENPEPURPOSE N'SON OF AR VARCHI I' !NF Ran c i e g o-C a l i to[n i e NR9TENPERNIESIEx OF ARK ARDRiTEGT$. NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA MJSoeslgn Group- IRArAN GG/T ra. `e51s 111 11 u7 �x0 Landscape Architecture E-1- FJ/JEM ra.. 1a1B17 :Y 8sx EXHIBIT "All PAGE 1OF5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT MERGER NO. LM - (LEGAL DESCRIPTION) OWNER EXISTING PARCEL PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBERS REFERENCE NUMBER MACARTHUR SQUARE,A CALIFORNIA 427-172-02,427-172-03 PARCEL 1 GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 427-172-05,427-172-06 PARCELI THOSE CERTAIN PARCELS OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH,COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 1 OF TRACT NO. 7770 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 299, PAGES 15 AND 16 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS;TOGETHER WITH PARCELS 1 AND 2,AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 53, PAGE 13 OF PARCEL MAPS, BOTH IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. CONTAINING AN AREA OF 5.691 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. ALL AS SHOWN ON EXHIBITS"B"AND"C',ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF. QROFESS/c* PREPARED BY: SN KAyyyggq KHRASSOCIATES No. 0 6 A ES H. AMURA- 1STRATION NO.305 JT9T EVIL �zl REGISTRA ON EXPIRES: MARCH 31,2018 f OF CA \V 25� EXHIBIT "BB PAGE 2OF5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT MERGER NO. LM - (MAP) OWNER EXISTING PARCEL PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBERS REFERENCE NUMBER MACARTHUR SQUARE,A CALIFORNIA 427-172-02,427-172-03 PARCEL 1 GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 427-172-05,427-172-06 AREA TABLE EXISTING PROPOSED LOT/PARCEL AREA PARCEL AREA LOT 1 1.837 ACRES PARCEL 1 1.944 ACRES PARCEL 2 1.910 ACRES 1 5.691 ACRES NET EASEMENT NOTES: - AN EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF MACARTHUR SQUARE,A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP,FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES RECORDED SEPTEMBER 8, 1972,IN BOOK 10316,PAGE 114,OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.(TO BE QUITCLAIMED) - AN EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF SOUTHER CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES PURPOSES RECORDED FEBRUARY 27, 1973 IN BOOK 10571,PAGE 384, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.(TO BE QUITCLAIMED) - PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PER SEPARATE DOCUMENTS. - VEHICLE STAGING PURPOSES TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT - SEMENT TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PER THIS MAP HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. 4/512016 JAME .KAWAMU E.30560 DATE MYLI NSEIREGISTRATION EXPIRES3/31/18 QROFESS/ONgj H KA No. 0 6 A PREPARED BY: Expimbm: 0/71/18 \�\ KHG9l �Tq�OFIvo- CAUF���\v CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 20411 SW Birch Sheat-Suite 310 Newport Beach,Califomia 92860 (949)756-6440 Fax(949)758$144 257 EXHIBIT nBn PAGE 3OF5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT MERGER NO. LM - (MAP) OWNER EXISTING PARCEL PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBERS REFERENCE NUMBER MACARTHUR SQUARE,A CALIFORNIA 427-172-02,427-172-03 PARCEL 1 GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 427-172-05,427-172-06 LEGEND EXISTING LOT LINE TO REMAIN ———— EXISTING LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED - - EMSTINGSTREETCENTERLINE % 6SOS6N \ - EASEMENT NOTES(SEE PAGE 2) A=73023'53" j R=15.00' 19.22' \ / A=58057'19" 6v R=15.00' j Ir 15.43' % J 1 n- , k` IR. nv. i'i'i'v rvi.ni. -00-9/15-16 a b n w c f v EXISTING LOT LINE j m j $04 TO BE REMOVED r— — EXISTING LOT LINE % A=90000'00" PARCEL 2 / TO BE REMOVED R=15.00' P.Iri.P. : i BIB' \ Ir 23.56' 34! 'I 34' •\ yo?a 1 D.IVII.B. 53/1113 \ EXISTING LOT LINES P \O�GF �Jj TO BE REMOVED / A=27039'38" R=90.00' } Ir 43.45' \!PF A-24044'30" Q\ R=50.00' t2 // Ir 21.59' N85055'37"E (RAD•) 319.97' SCALE: 1"=100' 25g EXHIBIT licit PAGE 4 OF 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT MERGER NO. LM - (SITE PLAN) OWNER EXISTING PARCEL PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBERS REFERENCE NUMBER MACARTHUR SQUARE,A CALIFORNIA 427-172-02,427-172-03 PARCEL 1 GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 427-172-05,427-172-06 CURVE TABLE CURVE RADIUS ANGLE LENGTH Cl 15.00' A=90°00'04" 23.56' C2 15.00' A=73023'53" 19.22' C3 15.00' A=58057'19" 15.43' C4 90.00' A=27°3938" 43.45' C5 50.00' A=24044'30" 21.59' EASEMENT NOTES: - AN EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF MACARTHUR SQUARE,A GENERAL PARTNERSHIP,FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS PURPOSES RECORDED SEPTEMBER 8, 1972, IN BOOK 10316,PAGE 114,OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.(TO BE QUITCLAIMED) - AN EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF SOUTHER CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES PURPOSES RECORDED FEBRUARY 27, 1973 IN BOOK 10571,PAGE 384, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.(TO BE QUITCLAIMED) - PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PER SEPARATE DOCUMENTS. - VEHICLE STAGING PURPOSES TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT - SEMENT TO THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PER THIS MAP HAS BEEN PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTION. AM/Ainzu 4/512016 QROFESS/pN JAME .KAWAMU E.30560 DATE 8 9� MY U NSE/REGISTRATION EXPIRES 3131118 yF D N KA No. 0 6 Eryiration: /31/18 PREPARED BY: pp�mmJ'p CIVIL �P \�\ CSC-,IR AssOonWrRs 9rFOF- chv\ CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS/PLANNERS 20411 SW Bimh Street-Suite 310 Newport Beach,Califomia 92660 (949)756-6440 Fax(949)758$144 EXHIBIT INCH PAGE 5 OF 5 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH LOT MERGER NO. LM - (SITE PLAN) OWNER EXISTING PARCEL PROPOSED PARCELS AP NUMBERS REFERENCE NUMBER MACARTHUR SQUARE,A CALIFORNIA 427-172-02,427-172-03 PARCEL 1 GENERAL PARTNERSHIP 427-172-05,427-172-06 LEGEND C,R/ISI EXISTING LOT LINE TO REMAIN // C2 ———— EXISTING LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED - - EXISTING STREET CENTERLINE % 6s"s6'S0 - EASEMENT NOTES(SEE PAGE 4) BGRNMO M �1 J ti d. ly IX511NG BUILDING g, IG) 6 / ENmImBE w IIID IIm / IXIBIING BUILDING / M BE RENO N I L W / E)USTING LOT / UNE TO BE / MRNG BUIONG j REMOVED / M BE RENMD \ C1 ,< M BE BUILDING pA EL 1 68' TO BE RENO'A➢ LINE TO TE O BES IXTO K BUIRDIW IN M BE RENwm \SJ. •� REMOVED 'I / I taa C4 I 41 C5 5eo/Gz N85055137"E (RAD•) 319.97 SCALE: 1"=100' Q �� 2�0 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5a Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2O14-150) Subject: Additional Materials received for Newport Place Attachments: Shopoff -The Residences at Newport Place - Planning Commission Letter.pdf From: Cora Newman [maiIto:mraraao\,sd mml Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 1:40 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: FW: Shopoff-The Residences at Newport Place Dear Ms. Ung: On behalf of Shopoff Realty Investments, please find attached a letter concerning the Residences at Newport Place. It is our understanding that this item is going to the Planning Commission on June 9th. If that schedule has changed,we would appreciate being notified. Yours, Coralee Newman LJ ■ _ Coralee S. Newman Government Solutions, Inc. 881 Dover Drive, Suite 390 Newport Beach, CA 92663 tel: [949] 717-7944 cora@govsol.com cell: [949] 244-4242 1 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5a Additional Materials Received SHOPOFF The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) REALTY INVESTMENTS I•ransforming Opportunity into Value June 1, 2016 Chairman Kory Kramer &Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 1000 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: The Residences at Newport Place (PA 2014-150) 1701 Corinthian Way, 1660 Dove Street,4251, 4253, 4255 Martingale Way, & 4200, 4220,4250 Scott Drive • Mitigated Negative Declaration No. MD2015-009 • Planned Development Permit No. PL2014-001 • Lot Merger No. LM2014-003 Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No.AH2O15-001 Dear Chairman Kramer&Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission: We have reviewed the above referenced application for The Residences at Newport Place (RNP),and wish to express our concerns with the extent this Airport Area application is requesting waivers from General Plan requirements and Zoning requirements. While we recognize the Newport Place zoning standards provide for residential development on sites smaller than 10-acres with a 30% affordable component, we believe that a Development Agreement and a 1 acre park are required by the General Plan. Additionally,we believe the applicant needs to live within the height and setback standards as defined by the Newport Place Zoning. The project per your staff report, is 5.7 acres in size and includes 384 residential units and 5,677 square feet of retail use. Development Agreement Requirement We believe there is no justification for the lack of a Development Agreement and the fees associated,which are required by the General Plan as follows: Land Use Element-Airport Area-Mixed Use Districts (Subarea C. MU-1-12 Designation) LU 6.15.12 Development Agreements P. 3-109 "A Development Agreement shall be required for all projects that include infill residential units. The Development Agreement shall define the improvements and 2 Park Plaza, Suite 00 Irvine, California92614 949-417-1396 9'999 shopoff.com Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5a Additional Materials Received SHOPOFF The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) REALTY INVESTMENTS Transforming Opportunity into Value public benefits to be provided by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density,and location of housing units." (Imp. 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 13.1) This project is definitively infill residential in nature and should have a Development Agreement and the fees associated. We disagree with staffs rationale that the General Plan Development Agreement requirements were only intended for"additive units" and not for those projects like the RNP that provide 384 "replacement units". As the Planning Commission is aware,in February of 2013,Uptown Newport was the first Airport Area project to be approved by the City of Newport Beach,and was required to have a Development Agreement and Public Benefit Fee on all of its 1,244 units - both replacement and additive. These fees, originally set at$32,500 per unit on the document effective date of April 2013, increase by CPI annually on each first day of January and as of January 1, 2016 have increased to $33,798.05 per unit. CPI has increased from 232.531 in April 2013 to 236.525 at the end of December 2015, a 3.994 point increase,which equates to a 1.718% increase. Based on staffs recommendation for the RNP project,the Uptown Newport project should only be paying fees for the 290 "additive" units and not the 954 "replacement units" and density bonus units. With CPI-adjusted DA fees of$33,058.35 per dwelling unit,that reduction in fees equates to approximately$31,537,665.90 (Thirty-one Million, Five Hundred Thirty- seven Thousand, Six Hundred Sixty-five Dollars and Ninety Cents) for Uptown Newport. 954 Dwelling Units x$33,058.35 Per Unit= $31,537,665.90 Or said a different way,if the same DA Fees were imposed on the RNP project, the fees would be approximately$12,694,406.40 (Twelve Million, Six Hundred Ninety- four Thousand, Four Hundred Six Dollars and Forty Cents). 384 Dwelling Units x$33,058.35 Per Unit= $12,694,406.40 Based on the magnitude of the fees in question here,we strongly urge the Planning Commission to seek the City Council's review of this project so that the requirement of a Development Agreement can be sought. Lack of a Development Agreement on this project would be unfair and inequitable to all other Airport Area residential projects. 2 Park Plaza, Suite 00 Irvine, California92614Main: 949-417-1396 949 , 99 111 1 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5a Additional Materials Received SHOPOFF The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) REALTY INVESTMENTS Transforming Opportunity into Value Park Requirement: We believe there is no justification to grant a General Plan Land Use Policy (Neighborhood Parks (LU6.15.13) waiver of the park dedication. The General Plan states, "In every case,the neighborhood park shall be at least 8 percent of the total Residential Village Area or one acre in area,whichever is greater, and shall have a minimum dimension of 150 feet." We believe the General Plan clearly requires and anticipated all Airport Area residential communities would provide a public park. Granting a deviation from this requirement would create a precedent for future Airport Area residential projects and establishes an inequity in which the city is applying its standards. The requested waiver of the 1 acre park for public dedication also allows the applicant to generate additional density on the site as the park acreage is not deducted from the total land. With a 1 acre park,the net acreage would be 4.7 acres creating a maximum of 235 units based on the maximum density of 50 upa before the density bonus and 317 units with the 35% density bonus. This is a reduction in 50 allowable units and 67 units with the density bonus. Deviation from Newport Place Zoning Standards The Newport Place zoning sets forth a maximum building height of 55 feet. The height of a structure can be increased with approval of a site development review and subject to required findings. The height requested by the applicant exceeds the 55 foot height limit by 28 feet. We understand that the height deviations can be approved if the Planning Commission approves a set of findings and a Planned Development Permit. The staff report indicates that the additional height to 83 is only for architectural elements, but the plans indicate there are living spaces within the additional height. We believe the request is far reaching (over a 50% increase in height) and the findings can't be made. Deviation from the Newport Place Setback Standards The applicant is also requesting deviation from the 30' setback standard on all streets the project abuts; Corinthian Way, Martingale Way, Dove Street,and Scott Drive. The applicant's representative stated that the request was based on the fact that the Newport Place Zoning Standards never anticipated residential. The staff report suggests they are supportive of the setback deviation provided the applicant builds a 0.5 acre park with public access. I Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5a Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) REALTY INVESTMENTS Transforming Opportunity into Value We contend if the zoning standards needed to be modified to accommodate residential,the applicant should have requested a Zone Change as part of its application as is the case with all other Airport Area residential projects. In conclusion,we believe this project is too far reaching and doesn't meet the basic standards and requirements that are mandated for the Airport Area residential developments. This development project should be held to the same standards as others in the Airport Area and as such should have a Development Agreement and the associated fees; should adhere to the park requirement,which would reduce the density; and should comply with the Newport Place height and setbacks or submit for a zone change. The applicant's requests for deviations are an attempt to circumvent the appropriate zone change,which would in itself trigger a legislative action requiring a Development Agreement. If the Planning Commission can modify the project to a form they believe can be approved,we strongly urge the Planning Commission to forward this project to the City Council for their review of the Development Agreement requirements. Thank you for considering our thoughts and concerns. Sincerely, 4:1 ohn Santry Executive Vice President-Acquisitions and Development 2 Park Plaza, Suite 00 Irvine, California92614 949-417-1396 94991 shopoff.corn Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Subject: SPON Additional Comments: The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Attachments: PlanningComments_TheResidences_160606.pdf; Planning Comments_TheResidences 160323.pdf From: Mike and Dorothy Kraus [mailto:medikraus(a)vahoo.coml Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 2:39 PM To: Kramer, Kory Cc: Brown, Tim; Koetting, Peter; bhilgren(alnewoortbeachca.00v; Lawler, Ray; Zak, Peter; Weigand, Erik; Brandt, Kim; Wisneski, Brenda; Ung, Rosalinh; Brown, Leilani; Dept - City Council; marko@)uci.edu Subject: SPON Additional Comments: The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Dear Chair Kramer and Commissioners, The Residences at Newport Place development is coming before you once again at the June 9 meeting. SPON wishes to respectfully provide you with our June 6 correspondence outlining our concerns. SPON's request is that before taking action on this project or any other near the Airport, that the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council embark upon a Specific Area Plan or comprehensive plan for the Airport Area. SPON's March 23 correspondence to the Planning Commission is also attached for reference. Thank you in advance for your careful review of our concerns at the June 6 meeting. Sincerely, Dorothy Kraus On behalf of Marko Popovich 1 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Received OwThe Residences at New Place (PA2014 150) k.19,11119 7PW- Still Protecting Our Newport inspiring The Next - - Generation P O B o x 1 0 2 1 Balboa Island , CA 9 2 6 6 2 1 9 4 9 . 8 6 4 . 6 6 1 6 OFFICERS March 23, 2016 PRESIDENT Marko Popovich VICE PRESIDENT City of Newport Beach Elaine Linhoff Planning Commission c/o Kory Kramer, Chair TREASURER via email: kkramerCcDnewportbeachca.eov Dennis Baker Subject:The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) SECRETARY Allan Beek Dear Chair Kramer and Commissioners, SPON appreciates the opportunity to provide additional comments regarding the BOARD MEMBERS proposed Residences at Newport Place, located in the Airport Area. Please consider these comments as a follow-up to our March 4, 2016 Mitigated Negative Declaration Nancy Alston comments. Don Harvey Dorothy Kraus Donald Krotee We have delved further into the General Plan,which has raised additional questions and Andrea Lingle concerns about this proposed mixed-use development that we'd liketo share with you. Bobby Lovell Jeanne Price 1. The General Plan Land Use Element, Airport Area Policy Overview states: 'The Melinda Seely General Plan provides for the development of office, industrial, retail, and airport- Jack Skinner related businesses in the Airport Area, as well as the opportunity for housing and Nancy Skinner supporting services. The latter would be developed as clusters of residential villages Jean Watt centering on neighborhood parks and interconnected bypedestrion walkways. These Portia Weiss would contain a mix of housing types and buildings that integrate housing with Terry Welsh ground-level convenience retail uses and would be developed at a sufficient scale to achieve a "complete"neighborhood..." s1 0 c A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and E _ environmental qualities of Newport Beach. OUR www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Received OW The Residences at New Place (PA2014 150) 4 d Still Protecting Our Newport inspiring The Next Generation P O B o x 1 0 2 1 Balboa Island , CA 9 2 6 6 2 1 9 4 9 . 8 6 4 . 6 6 1 6 March 23, 2016 Kory Kramer, Chair City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Page Two RE:The Residences at Newport Place(PA2014-150) • The proposed project is of excessive height and mass, and seems contrary to a "residential village" like character. The applicant is requesting a height increase from 55' to 83' and setback reduction from the required 30' to 18' feet. These exceptions promote a building already of massive size and proportion, which do not align with a residential village concept described in the General Plan. • Although the interior of the project allows for private amenities with inward facing interconnecting courtyards, a pool, and community room, the concept of residences centering on a "neighborhood park" seems to be absent. • General Plan LU23—Airport Area Residential Villages Illustration Concept Diagram (attached separately) shows a swath of green "potential open space" and also "proposed pedestrian ways" that appear to be on or near the subject property location. At the March 3, 2016 Planning Commission Study Session, there was no mention made of the potential for open space as illustrated in the 2006 General Plan. Additionally, the strip of landscaping at the bottom of the "Site Plan" slide extracted from the March 3, 2016 staff presentation (also attached separately) appears to correspond to the "potential open space" in the General Plan LU23 Conceptual Diagram.The"pedestrian way" also appears to be an overflow parking area. 51 0 c A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and E _ environmental qualities of Newport Beach. OUR www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Received OW The Residences at New Place (PA2014 150) 4 d Still Protecting Our Newport inspiring The Next Generation P O B o x 1 0 2 1 Balboa Island , CA 9 2 6 6 2 1 9 4 9 . 8 6 4 . 6 6 1 6 March 23, 2016 Kory Kramer, Chair City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Page Three RE:The Residences at Newport Place(PA2014-150) 2. General Plan policies for Airport Area neighborhood parks are clearly articulated in LU 6.15-13: To provide a focus and identity for the entire neighborhood and to serve the daily recreational and commercial needs of the community within easy walking distance of homes, require dedication and improvement of at least 8 percent of the gross land area (exclusive of existing rights-of-way) of the first phase development in each neighborhood, or % acre, whichever is greater, as a neighborhood park. Yet the applicant is requesting a waiver of this policy of 1/2 acre parkland dedication to 1/3 acre. 3. "Complete Neighborhoods":Throughout the General Plan there are policies that state the desire to implement goals to reduce emissions as required by State laws while at the same time providing the additional benefit ofa "livable,walkable"and "complete" neighborhoods. Recently the need to implement these goals has become more urgent. Governor Brown has set tough new targets to make sure California actually meets its climate goal of an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.The new interim target is 40% by 2030. "To reach that goal, we have to tackle transportation, the biggest source of carbon emissions." Yet The Residences at Newport Place make no accommodation to incorporate retail uses of a sufficient scale to achieve a "complete' neighborhood to minimize the need for residents to travel outside of the community for retail, and goods and services.All that the applicant is currently proposing is a restaurant on the subject property. s1 P c A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and E _ environmental qualities of Newport Beach. OUR www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Received - The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014 150) Still Protecting Our Newport inspiring The Next Generation P O B o x 1 0 2 1 Balboa Island , CA 9 2 6 6 2 9 4 9 . 8 6 4 . 6 6 1 6 March 23, 2016 Kory Kramer, Chair City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Page Four RE:The Residences at Newport Place(PA2014-150) SPON believes that an opportunity for a mixed-use project exists for the subject property. However, the proposed building design, scale and massiveness are not in character for Newport Beach nor aligned with the General Plan. Additionally, the absence of sufficient public open space and parklands as well as the lack of on-site retail uses to minimize residents having to get in the car for their daily needs should be resolved. Thank you fortaking our concerns and suggestions into consideration. rSiin,�cerely, President CC: See Pg. 5 Attachments Pg. 6: Staff Site Plan: The Residences at Newport Place Pg. 7: City of Newport Beach General Plan Figure LU23 s1 0 c A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and E _ environmental qualities of Newport Beach. OUR www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Received OW M The Residences at New Place (PA2014-150) Still Protecting Our Newport inspiring The Next Generation P O B o x 1 0 2 1 Balboa Island , CA 9 2 6 6 2 1 9 4 9 . 8 6 4 . 6 6 1 6 March 23, 2016 Kory Kramer, Chair City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Page Five RE:The Residences at Newport Place(PA2014-150) Copies to: Vice Chair Tim Brown: tbrown@newportbeachca.gov Commissioner Peter Koetting: pkoetting@newportbeachca.gov Commissioner Bradley Hillgren: bhillgren@newportbeachca.gov Commissioner Ray Lawler: rlawler@newportbeachca.gov Commissioner Peter Zak: pzak@newportbeachca.gov Deputy Community Development Director Brenda Wisneski: bwisneski@newportbeachca.gov Associate Planner Rosalinh Ung: rung@newportbeachca.gov Mayor Diane Dixon: ddixon@newportbeachca.gov Mayor Pro Tem Kevin Muldoon: kmuldoon@newportbeachca.gov Council Member Duffy Duffield: dduffield@newportbeachca.gov Council Member Ed Selich: edselich@roadrunner.com Council Member Keith Curry: keithcurrvl@vahoo.com Council Member Tony Petros: tpetros@newportbeachca.gov Council Member Scott Peotter: speotter@newportbeachca.,zov City Clerk Leilani Brown: (brown@newportbeachca.gov s1 0 c A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and E _ environmental qualities of Newport Beach. OUR www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Info@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach I Twitter @SPONNewport �e (PA2�1 Site Plan C9</FOµN\P 1 j �1 1 1 I March 3, 2oz6 Community Development Department- Planning Division zq Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Received The Residences at P wp®ft0aApq)kP j4- 150) GENERAL PLAN Figure LU23 AIRPORT AREA RESIDENTIAL VILLAGES ILLUSTRATIVE ------- - ----- --------..---- ---- ----.— - -- - - CONCEPT DIAGRAM • " " Legend OPPORJLNf SUES 1 i PROPOSED OPEN SPACES IMPROVED RESIUENIIALSTREETS PROPOSES RESIDENTIAL STREETS PROPOSED PEDESTR14N�ESTRWN WRVS tigCNEL NOISE CONTOUR' CONCEPTUAL PIAN REQUIRED y • �.I i r .e • \ r 1 • ♦ '" � � � 'ThefE CNELNoi�COMov is shovs�Por r I ---- - — illu9ra[ive puryosesody 4 r � r e Source: ROMANi,(coup PROJECT NUMBER'. 10579-01 r ... • ire' 08T3A8 '-E4P LU23_Airport_Area Concept_Diagram.rrad July/2007 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) .644V �0_ IOU 1, Still Protecting Our Newport 1rlspiring The Next Generation PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island , CA 926'62 1 949 . 864 . 6616 OFFICERS June 6,2016 PRESIDENT Marko Popovich To: City of Newport Beach Planning Commission VICE PRESIDENT c/o Kory Kramer, Chair Elaine Linhoff via email: kkramer ,newportbeachea.gov TREASURER Subject: The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Dennis Baker SECRETARY Dear Chairman Kramer and Members of the Planning Commission: Allan Beek We would like to request that, before taking action on this project, The Residences at Newport Place, or any other near the Airport, the City of Newport BOARD MEMBERS Beach Planning Commission and City Council embark upon a Specific Area Plan or comprehensive plan for the Airport Area bounded by: Bristol Street to the Nancy Alston South, Jamboree to the West,Campus Drive to the East and North. Bruce Bartram Don Harvey We have attached our prior letter of March 23,2016 with more description of the Dorothy Kraus expectations approved by voters in 2006. Donald Krotee Andrea Lingle . The essential reason for our request is the lack of comprehensive planning Bobby Lovell q p p g Jennifer McDonald including that anticipated in the Implementation Program 13.Lb of the 2006 Jeanne Price General Plan. Although the number of residential units was established in Melinda seely that plan,the placement and design was left entirely for future determination. Jack Skinner Nancy skinner . As it is the projects are being proposed on a piecemeal basis starting with Jean watt Portia Weiss Uptown Newport and now the Residences at Newport Place. The projects are Terry Welsh very large and because of underground parking, changing the characteristics of the neighborhood significantly. Prior on-ground parking availability is removed along with some of the at-grade retail opportunities that are needed by area businesses. A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. STOP WN ` www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Irfo@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach Twitter @SPONNewport Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) 11111ilr 11 Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island , CA 926'62 1 949 . 864 . 6616 June 6,2016 Kory Kramer, Chair City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Page Two RE: The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) • The area has no cohesive plan calling for nearby amenities for residents such as a grocery store. Business owners are concerned about loss of parking and other amenities. Any "complete" neighborhood concept presumes a mixed use development and should include: neighborhood parks, green space, pedestrian ways that are not parking lots, 30' setbacks from the curb, retail amenities and community amenities to sustain a work/live environment. • The area needs a streetscape plan such as that being developed for the West Newport Mesa so that there are appropriate setbacks, walkability, greenery and good feeling of neighborhood ambiance. • Without an overall plan, each project will be taken up individually, some subject to a public vote under Greenlight, some subject to lawsuits and even referenda. • A cohesive plan would allow for properly planned use of Public Benefit funds that could benefit the area and encourage the right infrastructure and facilities appropriate for the area. The Airport Area is an important part of our community and should be taken as seriously as other planning areas. The character of the Airport area should be carefully defined and the impact of interspersing residential within commercial zones should be understood prior to approving new projects. A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. STOP WN ` www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Irfo@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach Twitter @SPONNewport Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5b Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) 11111ijr 11 Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island , CA 926'62 1 949 . 864 . 6616 June 6,2016 Kory Kramer, Chair City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Page Three Thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, W4240 ;Dow" Marko Popovich President Copies to: Vice Chair Tim Brown: tbrownLaiiewportbeachca.gov Commissioner Peter Koetting: pkoetting(a),newportbeachea.gov Commissioner Bradley Hilgren: bhilgrenLy),newportbeachea.gov Commissioner Ray Lawler: rlawler(aJnewportbeachca.eov Commissioner Peter Zak: pzakAnewportbeachca. og_v Erik Weigand: eweigand(knewportbeachea.gov Community Development Director,Kim Brandt: KBrandt a newportbeachca.gov Deputy Community Development Director BrendaWisneski: BWisneski(? newportbeachca.gov Associate Planner Rosalinh Ung: runggnewportbeachea.gov City Clerk Leilani Brown: lbrown&newportbeachca.gov City Council: citvcouncilknewportbeachea. oovv A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. STOP WN ` www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Irfo@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach Twitter @SPONNewport Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 EW PO Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received r' Rr The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) F � 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach,California 92660 d �+q `p. 949 644-3200 �1FONN newportbeachca.gov/communitydevelopment Memorandum To: Newport Beach Planning Commission From: Rosalinh Ung, Associate Planner, 949-644-3208, rung@newportbeachca.gov Date: June 7, 2016 Re: June 9, 2016, Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 5 — Supplemental Memo for The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) The purpose of this memo is to provide the Planning Commission with an up-to-date summary of emails and written correspondence received since the May 5, 2016, staff report. Staff received a total 32 emails that are attached to the June 9, 2016, supplemental memorandum included in the Planning Commission agenda packet. Eleven emails do not support the proposed land use change. Twenty-one emails support an existing deli/restaurant and are not in favor of affordable housing at the site. Parking, traffic and overall project compatibility are the predominant concerns cited. The May 12, 2016, letter from Lori Trottier provided comments on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The letter was received after the close of the comment period and staff provided a summary response in the earlier memorandum. Staff and the environmental consultant have prepared a more detailed written response to the comments (attached). The June 1 , 2016, letter from The Shopoff Group (attached) expresses concerns about the lack of a development agreement, the park dedication waiver request, and lack of compliance with building height and setback standards. The June 6, 2016, letter (attached) from SPON requests the adoption of a specific plan or comprehensive plan for the Airport Area before taking action on any project. Attachments: 1 . Responses to May 12, 2016, comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration from Lori Trottier 2. June 1 , 2016, letter from The Shopoff Group 3. June 6, 2016 letter from SPON Development Department Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Attachment No. PC 1 Responses to May 12, 2016, comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration from Lori Trottier Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) May 12, 2016 Newport Beach Planning Commission and City Council c/o Ms. Rosalinh Ung,Associate Planner Newport Beach City Hall 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: CEQA IS/MND Analysis and Findings for the Residences at Newport Place Dear Ms. Ung, This letter is a follow up to our discussion last week to let you know that the analysis in the project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)does not fully support the findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)and CEQA Guidelines that the Planning Commission and City Council must make to approve this project. CEQA Statute and Guidelines require documented full disclosure of environmental analysis on short- term, long-term and cumulative project impacts. Likewise, Lead Agency's conclusions on Mandatory Findings of Significance must be clearly based on environmental analysis made available to the public, not on speculation and opinion. The intent of CEQA is to fully disclose project impacts to the public. Environmental analysis must include a full description of the project phases;full disclosure of short- term, long-term and cumulative impacts; and, a detailed description of the environmental setting of the 1 project site and vicinity as a baseline from where impacts could be measured from. Environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA are any measureable changes resulting from project implementation. Therefore,the analysis must describe conditions at the project site and in the project vicinity, both with and without the project-completely identified, described,and to the greatest extent possible quantified,for all project phases- in order to support findings of"No Impact" and "Less Than Significant Impacts",especially when using a tiered environmental analysis such as an IS/MND in lieu of a full Environmental Impact Report. When environmental analysis falls short of this, it is in adequate pursuant to CEQA Statute and Guidelines. The City of Newport Beach is the Lead Agency responsible for implementing CEQA,determining the adequacy of the CEQA IS/MND, for this project. The analysis presented in the IS/MND and Technical Appendices does not fully disclose potential project impacts listed in the City's Initial Study Checklist Form and does not provide adequate analysis as a basis for the conclusions presented therein; therefore,the IS/MND does not satisfy the statutory requirements of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines for this project. Furthermore,the analysis in the IS/MND and Technical Appendices does not adequately support the findings of Less Than Significant Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Page 2 of 5 Impacts stated in the document and would not support Findings of Fact for project approval related to the following technical areas: Section 4.1(c)Will the Project: - Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Since visual resources are a subjective issue,justification for increased building height and reduced landscape setbacks should be discussed and quantified to support findings of"Less than Significant Impact". The scenic resources here are the existing retail setting developed with low-profile single-story buildings set back from the streets by 60 to 80 feet with mature trees bordering the streets. The project 2 will introduce significant changes to this setting with four-story buildings over three times higher than existing structures. Proposed setbacks are over 300 percent less than existing setbacks and do not meet city standards. Components of proposed buildings are at heights nearly 50 percent greater than heights permitted by the City's codes and ordinances. Likewise, proposed setbacks are reduced by 20 to 40 percent from code required setbacks. It appears that the canopy for some of the mature trees along the site parameter would exceed the proposed building setback of 18 to 30'. Therefore,the project represents a potentially significant impact to visual resources as well as deviation from standards of the City's Codes and Ordinances. Additional information and mitigation is needed to support conclusions of this section. Section 4.1(d)Will the Project: - Create a new source of substantial light or glare,which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 3 The project will introduce new sources of light and glare from the additional building stories and many additional windows proposed with the project. The IS/MND should identify this as a potential impact, as it is a substantial change from existing conditions at the site with over 3 additional stories and over 300 additional windows for proposed units. Furthermore, exterior finishes and treatments could be incorporated into the project design as mitigation to reduce impacts. Additional information is needed to support conclusions of this section. Sections 4.4(a,d,f)Will the Project: Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications,on any 4 species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 5 r - Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife Ispecies or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Page 3 of 5 L of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? Large shrubs and trees existing on the project site provide potential nesting opportunities for migratory 6 birds,which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and enforced by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, construction during the nesting season could be a potentially significant project impact. Project mitigation measures are needed to reduce short-term impacts of construction, which are potentially significant,to less than significance. Additional information is needed to support conclusions of this section. Sections 4.4(b,c) Will the Project: - Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community 7identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? - Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to, marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption, or other means? 8 The site is tributary to environmentally sensitive areas of the Ocean and wetland areas and has increased potential to introduce pollutants into these receiving waters due to the increased intensity of the proposed land use. Therefore,the project has the potential to impact these waterbodies without the incorporation of mitigation measures identified in the WQMP. Additional information is needed to support conclusions of this section. CEQA Statutes and Guidelines require environmental analysis which is not speculative. Environmental conclusions and Findings of Significance must be based on facts. Section 4.14(a) (3): - Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance (j objectives for any of the public services: Schools? Where will school buses provide pick-up and drop-off for children living at this project? The IS/MND document does not fully address circulation and safety impacts related to residential land uses built into Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Page 4 of 5 an existing commercial area and served within a transportation infrastructure designed for commercial land uses. Additional information is needed to support conclusions of this section. Section 4.14(a)(4): - Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Parks? i0 The City is required to take park dedication in exchange for approval of residential units per the General Plan and State Planning and Zoning Laws. Page 95 of the report states that the final dimensions and details of the open space on-site are not determined; however this undefined open space is being used as a justification for park dedication waiver and as a basis for"No Impact'. This is not consistent with General Plan Policies and is a potential impact requiring mitigation. Document the area on-site that will be dedicated to open space. Include distances between the project site and off-site park/recreation areas to document accessibility to off-site recreation,since less is proposed on site. These distances should be documented to support conclusions of this section. CEQA Statutes and Guidelines require environmental analysis which is not speculative. Environmental conclusions and findings of Significance must be based on facts. Section 4.16 (d)(f) Will the Project: 11 Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous Lintersections) or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? Conflict with adopted policies,plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle,or pedestrian facilities,or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Circulation impacts are not adequately addressed. This section only describes trip generation. There 12 are multi-modal traffic patterns associated with residential land uses that are not addressed here. Additional mitigation measures may be needed to support the stated findings. Additional information is needed to support conclusions of this section. Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Page 5 of 5 For the reasons stated herein,the IS/MND for The Residences at Newport Place does not support findings of No Impact or Less Than Significant with Mitigation pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Furthermore, it is my opinion that the CEQA document dated January 2016 should not be used as a basis for project approval without additional information identified above. I have over 30 years of experience working as a City and Regional Environmental Planner and am a Certified Environmental Planner with the American Institute of Certified Planners. Sincerely, Lori E. Trottier,AICP CEP Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) 9. Lori E.Trottier,AMP,CEP(May 12,2016) Response to Comment No. 1 The Initial Study provides a detailed description of the project setting and project description. it also includes an analysis of the project-related impacts, including both short-term and long-term, as required by CEQA. Where potentially significant impacts have been identified, mitigation measures have been prescribed to ensure that the impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Without specific information as to analysis inadequacies suggested in this comment,it is not possible to provide a detailed response. Response to Comment No.Z The comment expresses the belief that the existing retail setting developed with low-profile story buildings setback from the streets by 60 to 80 feet with mature trees bordering the streets is a scenic resource.While it is acknowledged that the existing uses and development contribute to the visual or aesthetic character of the area,the existing uses and development including the trees are not considered important or significant scenic or visual resources warranting special protections by the Natural Resources Element of the Newport Beach General Plan. Furthermore, the project site is not located along a designated view corridor as shown in Newport Beach General Plan Figure NR-3.The mature trees that generally surround the site are planned to be retained to the greatest extent within the proposed street setbacks. Many of the existing structures occupying the site and in the project area are over 40 years old and are showing signs of aging and physical deterioration. As indicated in the analysis presented in Section 4.1(c) of the initial study, redevelopment of the site as proposed "...will change the character of the site significantly .." due to the increased site coverage, building mass, building height, proposed architecture, and other project-related features including the proposed use. Although the change in the visual character would be substantial, the Newport Beach General Plan anticipates this substantial change in the Airport Area where underperforming commercial properties are redeveloped with mixed-use residential development with residential densities between 30 to 50 dwelling units per acre (not including potential density bonus units). While it is acknowledged there will be a substantial change to the visual and aesthetic qualities of the area,the change is not considered to be a significant environmental impact as the change is factored into the threshold of significance. Implementation of the proposed project would result in structures rising up to a maximum height of 58 feet with architectural features/element of 83 feet exceeding the allowable building height of 55 feet; however, taller structures are allowed provided the findings provided by Section 20.60.030.C.3 of the Zoning Code are met. A request to exceed the allowable height requires City decision-makers to determine project compatibility and to ensure that the aesthetic and visual character of the area is not compromised. Implementation of the proposed project would reduce setbacks by 20 to 40 percent by reducing the minimum setbacks from 30 feet to 18 feet These setbacks are less than the distance between the existing commercial development and property lines that ranges between 60 and 80 feet As with building heights, the Planned Development permit process (Section 29.52.060) allows flexibility to modify and reduce setbacks if the findings for approval can be made by City decision-makers. If the findings to increase the height and reduce the setbacks can be made, potential aesthetic and visual impacts associated with project approval including the potential increased building height or setback reductions would be less than significant Approval of Planned Development Permit No. PL2014-001 will ensure that the proposed project reflects the efficient use of land and a better living environment, high standards of environmental quality, and enhanced amenities. Therefore,as indicated in the initial study,potential aesthetic impacts are less than significant The Residences at Newport Place Project Responses to Public Comments April 2016 Page I 1 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Response to Comment No.3 As indicated in this comment and, furthermore,as acknowledged in the initial study,project implementation will result in the introduction of"new'light sources on the site.These new light sources would replace those that currently exist on the site in the form of parking lot lighting, security lighting for existing business, and sign/building illumination.The lighting associated with the proposed project would be mostly associated with exterior security lighting, architectural lighting, and lighting from interior spaces visible through exterior windows. As required by the City of Newport Beach,exterior lighting must comply with Section 20.30.070 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which requires that all outdoor lighting must be designed, shielded, aimed, located, and maintained to shield adjacent properties and to not produce glare onto adjacent properties or roadways. Additionally, standard conditions of approval require the preparation of a photometric analysis to ensure that lighting levels are appropriate for the area and future residents. Furthermore, standard conditions also require a nighttime inspection and the dimming of lighting to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.Interior lighting would be diffused by windows and any window coverings and would not be significantly different than lighting of office buildings in the area. The project would not penetrate Federal Aviation Regulation(FAR) Part 77,Obstruction—Imaginary Surfaces, for John Wayne Airport unless approved by the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), and it must be in compliance with FAR Part 77,and comply with the requirements of Section 20.30.060.E of the Newport Beach Zoning Code (Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport and the Airport Land Use Commission Review Requirements). Compliance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code and related Federal Aviation Administration regulatory requirements will ensure that the project would not adversely affect aviation operations at John Wayne Airport. As noted in the previous response, project site is not located along a designated view corridor as shown in General Plan Figure NR-3 so the introduction of project related lighting even 40 to 50 feet above existing development will not degrade a scenic vista. As concluded in the initial study, potential impacts associated with light and glare associated with the proposed project would be less than significant The comment suggests the inclusion of exterior finishes and treatments to reduce impacts. Without acknowledging a potential impact, the exterior elevations include the use of stucco and other non-reflective materials. The proposed use of warm earth tones and darker colors reduces the visual prominence of reflected light from exterior elevations and could be employed to promote project compatibility. Response to Comment No.4 As indicated in the initial study, the project site and environs have been significantly altered in order to accommodate the existing development within the Airport Area. A biological survey was not conducted because the site and surrounding area have been substantially altered and support only urban development and introduced landscaping. The site is devoid of native habitat and no known candidate,sensitive,or special status species are known to inhabit the site. It is acknowledged that existing,mature non-native trees on the site could provide nesting areas for protected species under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA). In order to ensure that nesting birds are not impacted,construction activities should be scheduled outside the breeding season (February 15 through July 31); however,if it is not feasible to schedule construction to avoid breeding season, a pre-construction survey of the trees for native bird nests would need to be performed. If nests are found, construction activities would need to be redirected away from active nests a minimum of 200 feet Alternatively,the project applicant could consult as appropriate with the USFWS to discuss the potential loss of nests of native birds covered by the MBTA to obtain the appropriate permit from the USFWS. Compliance with the MBTA is mandatory and does not require a mitigation measure. The Residences at Newport Place Project Responses to Public Comments April 2016 Page 12 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Response to Comment No.5 The project site and environs are located in an intensively developed area of the City of Newport Beach. The site does not support native animal species that would utilize wildlife corridors and, furthermore, large expanses of open space and/or natural drainage courses do not exist in the project area that would neither serve as potential wildlife corridors nor facilitate wildlife movement in the intensively developed airport area. John Wayne Airport is located northwest of the project site and the site is surrounded by urban development and circulation,including Jamboree Road,which effectively preclude connections to large areas of open space and natural habitat (e.g.,Upper Newport Bay,etc.). As a result,redevelopment of the project site as proposed would not interfere with wildlife movement. Response to Comment No. 6 As discussed in the initial study, the project site is devoid of native habitat and is not located within an adopted Natural Communities Conservation Plan(NCCP) or other conservation plan area. No sensitive plants and/or animals would be directly affected as a result of project implementation and the project would not conflict with an adopted NCCP. Response to Comment No. 7 The site does not support any riparian habitat and/or sensitive natural community. As discussed in Section 4.9 (Hydrology and Water Quality) of the initial study, the subject property is within a drainage area that ultimately discharges water into Newport Bay via San Diego Creek. In addition, the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve is identified as an Environmentally Sensitive and Special Biological Area. The applicable 303(d) impairments listed in the Drainage Area Master Plan (DAMP) include DDT,toxaphene,fecal coliform, nutrients, selenium, chlordane, copper, metals, PCBs, sediment toxicity, and sediment A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for the proposed project that addresses discharge requirements and appropriate best management practices (BMPs) that must be implemented to ensure that the sensitive biological ecosystems noted above are not adversely affected. The Preliminary WQMP prepared for the proposed project includes a variety of BMPs,including non-structural and structural features as well as biotreatment BMPs to minimize potential pollutants entering the storm runoff generated by the proposed project Implementation of the BMPs will ensure that potential impacts to the environmentally sensitive habitat areas would and fragile biological habitat would be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. Response to Comment No.8 As indicated in the initial study, the site has been extensively altered and does not support any federally protected wetlands. However, the project site is located within the San Diego Creek watershed. As such, surface runoff generated on the site would ultimately be discharged into Newport Bay via San Diego Creek. However,as indicated in Section 4.9 of the initial study and in the preceding response,the Preliminary WQMP has included BMPs to address the treatment of surface runoff to ensure that downstream biological resources would not be adversely affected. As a result,potential impacts would be less than significant Response to Comment No. 9 The design and location of drop-off and pick-up locations for school-age children would be developed in consultation with the Santa Ana Unified School District(SAUSD). Long-term school facilities planning for the Irvine-Newport Development Area (INDA) is on-going. As growth continues in the INDA, more detailed planning will occur;however,at the present time,the SAUSD has indicated that bussing is not consistent with the District's ideal neighborhood school model because it would result in long-term transportation costs. Nonetheless, the SAUSD would be involved in determining the most appropriate and safest locations for student pick-up and drop-off are identified in the event that students generated by the project require bussing. In the event the pick-up and drop-off location are identified,the SAUSD would review each potential location The Residences at Newport Place Project Responses to Public Comments April 2016 Page 13 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) and base its feasibility,in part,on safety. The potential need for appropriate pick-up and drop-off area would not physically impact existing schools or cause the construction of a new facility causing significant environmental effects. Response to Comment No. 10 The project site is located in the City's Service Area 4,which has a surplus of parkland. The two-acre Bayview Park and the proximity of the Upper Bay recreation area provide substantial recreational opportunities for the service area.There is also a planned pocket park and the City is planning a joint use community center project with the YMCA.Although there is a surplus of park land,a shortfall in active playfields exists in Service Area 4 and the population within this service area is expected to increase under the General Plan.As indicated in the Recreation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan, future development is subject to special provisions that require the provision of on-site recreational amenities,and dedication of land or payment of in-lieu fees in order to ensure that adequate park and recreational facilities exist to serve residents in the community. Land Use Element Policy LU6.15.13 requires the dedication of eight percent of a site or a minimum 0.5 acres for park purposes. The policy allows the City to waive the requirement The applicant is requesting a waiver based on the premise that the area would not meet the description of a neighborhood park defined in the Newport Beach General Plan,and therefore, it would be unsuitable to serve the needs of the neighborhood.As previously indicated in the Initial Study,in consideration for the waiver being approved,the project would be conditioned to pay an in-lieu fee equal to the required park dedication of 0.5 acre that would be based on the current park land value for the City of Newport Beach.Additionally,in place of the required park dedication, the applicant is proposing an open space area along the southern limits of the site between Dove Street and Martingale Way that will provide passive areas for recreation both to project residents 24-hours a day and the public during daylight hours. Although final dimensions and setback of the proposed open space have not been determined,the applicant is requesting the flexibility to allow the open space area to be a minimum of 40 feet wide, measured from the property line (it could be greater once a final design for the area has been completed). The intention of the open space area is to provide pedestrian connectivity between Dove Street and Martingale Way consistent with Policy LU6.15.6 and General Plan Figure LU-23.The open space will also provide a landscaped "buffer" between the proposed buildings and the existing office building and surface parking lot to the south of the project The potential waiver of the dedication would not be a significant impact to parks given the surplus of park land in the service area, inclusion of the passive open space accessible to residents 24-hours a day and the public during daylight hours,and the payment of an in-lieu fee for the value of 0.5 acres of parkland. Response to Comment No. 11 The City determined that a traffic impact analysis for the proposed project is not required because the project would generate fewer than 300 new vehicle trips per day. Furthermore, based on the limited number of additional vehicular trips that would be generated by the project, impacts to roadways and intersections would be less than significant The trip generation estimates based on the Traffic Phasing Ordinance are summarized in Table 16-3 of Initial Study, which shows that the proposed project would result in a net reduction of 1,047 (-1,047) daily trips,with an increase of 105 (+105) trips in the morning peak hour,and a reduction of 39 (-39) trips in the evening peak hour. Based on the trip generation analysis, the proposed project is consistent with LU Policy 6.15-5. Response to Comment No.12 The Circulation Element of the Newport Beach General Plan contains several goals and policies related to public transit,bicycle and pedestrian facilities.Public transit bus service in the area is provided by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The discussion in Section 4.16(f) of the initial study identified the bicycle trails in the project vicinity that would serve future residents of the proposed project In addition,all The Residences at Newport Place Project Responses to Public Comments April 2016 Page 14 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) of the streets in the project vicinity have sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians. The proposed project includes public sidewalks and a pedestrian connectivity along the southern edge of the property, between Dove Street and Martingale Way for public access and use during daylight hours. This connectivity is consistent with the pedestrian walkway identified on the Figure LU 23 of the Newport Beach General Plan. Access to public transit and bicycle and pedestrian facilities are located in the project area to accommodate future residents of the project The project is consistent with relevant adopted policies regard public transit No significant impacts to public transit,bicycle or pedestrian facilities will occur. The Residences at Newport Place Project Responses to Public Comments April 2016 Page 15 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Attachment No. PC 2 June 1 , 2016, letter from The Shopoff Group Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received SHOPOFF The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) REALTY INVESTMENTS I•ranstorming Opportunity into Value June 1, 2016 Chairman Kory Kramer &Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 1000 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 RE: The Residences at Newport Place (PA 2014-150) 1701 Corinthian Way, 1660 Dove Street,4251, 4253, 4255 Martingale Way, & 4200, 4220,4250 Scott Drive • Mitigated Negative Declaration No. MD2015-009 • Planned Development Permit No. PL2014-001 • Lot Merger No. LM2014-003 • Affordable Housing Implementation Plan No.AH2O15-001 Dear Chairman Kramer&Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission: We have reviewed the above referenced application for The Residences at Newport Place (RNP),and wish to express our concerns with the extent this Airport Area application is requesting waivers from General Plan requirements and Zoning requirements. While we recognize the Newport Place zoning standards provide for residential development on sites smaller than 10-acres with a 30% affordable component, we believe that a Development Agreement and a 1 acre park are required by the General Plan. Additionally,we believe the applicant needs to live within the height and setback standards as defined by the Newport Place Zoning. The project per your staff report, is 5.7 acres in size and includes 384 residential units and 5,677 square feet of retail use. Development Agreement Requirement We believe there is no justification for the lack of a Development Agreement and the fees associated,which are required by the General Plan as follows: Land Use Element-Airport Area-Mixed Use Districts (Subarea C. MU-1-12 Designation) LU 6.15.12 Development Agreements P. 3-109 "A Development Agreement shall be required for all projects that include infill residential units. The Development Agreement shall define the improvements and 2 Park Plaza, Suite 11 Irvine, California92614 949-417-1396 949 , 99shopoff.corn Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received SHOPOFF The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) REALTY INVESTMENTS Transforming Opportunity into Value public benefits to be provided by the developer in exchange for the City's commitment for the number, density,and location of housing units." (Imp. 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 13.1) This project is definitively infill residential in nature and should have a Development Agreement and the fees associated. We disagree with staffs rationale that the General Plan Development Agreement requirements were only intended for"additive units" and not for those projects like the RNP that provide 384 "replacement units'. As the Planning Commission is aware, in February of 2013,Uptown Newport was the first Airport Area project to be approved by the City of Newport Beach,and was required to have a Development Agreement and Public Benefit Fee on all of its 1,244 units - both replacement and additive. These fees, originally set at$32,500 per unit on the document effective date of April 2013, increase by CPI annually on each first day of January and as of January 1, 2016 have increased to $33,798.05 per unit. CPI has increased from 232.531 in April 2013 to 236.525 at the end of December 2015, a 3.994 point increase,which equates to a 1.718% increase. Based on staffs recommendation for the RNP project,the Uptown Newport project should only be paying fees for the 290 "additive" units and not the 954 "replacement units" and density bonus units. With CPI-adjusted DA fees of$33,058.35 per dwelling unit,that reduction in fees equates to approximately$31,537,665.90 (Thirty-one Million, Five Hundred Thirty- seven Thousand, Six Hundred Sixty-five Dollars and Ninety Cents) for Uptown Newport. 954 Dwelling Units x$33,058.35 Per Unit= $31,537,665.90 Or said a different way,if the same DA Fees were imposed on the RNP project, the fees would be approximately$12,694,406.40 (Twelve Million, Six Hundred Ninety- four Thousand, Four Hundred Six Dollars and Forty Cents). 384 Dwelling Units x$33,058.35 Per Unit= $12,694,406.40 Based on the magnitude of the fees in question here,we strongly urge the Planning Commission to seek the City Council's review of this project so that the requirement of a Development Agreement can be sought. Lack of a Development Agreement on this project would be unfair and inequitable to all other Airport Area residential projects. 2 Park Plaza, Suite 00 Irvine, California92614Main: 949-417-1396 949 , 99 111 1 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received SHOPOFF The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) REALTY INVESTMENTS Transforming Opportunity into Value Park Requirement: We believe there is no justification to grant a General Plan Land Use Policy (Neighborhood Parks (LU6.15.13) waiver of the park dedication. The General Plan states, "In every case,the neighborhood park shall be at least 8 percent of the total Residential Village Area or one acre in area,whichever is greater, and shall have a minimum dimension of 150 feet." We believe the General Plan clearly requires and anticipated all Airport Area residential communities would provide a public park. Granting a deviation from this requirement would create a precedent for future Airport Area residential projects and establishes an inequity in which the city is applying its standards. The requested waiver of the 1 acre park for public dedication also allows the applicant to generate additional density on the site as the park acreage is not deducted from the total land. With a 1 acre park,the net acreage would be 4.7 acres creating a maximum of 235 units based on the maximum density of 50 upa before the density bonus and 317 units with the 35% density bonus. This is a reduction in 50 allowable units and 67 units with the density bonus. Deviation from Newport Place Zoning Standards The Newport Place zoning sets forth a maximum building height of 55 feet. The height of a structure can be increased with approval of a site development review and subject to required findings. The height requested by the applicant exceeds the 55 foot height limit by 28 feet. We understand that the height deviations can be approved if the Planning Commission approves a set of findings and a Planned Development Permit. The staff report indicates that the additional height to 83 is only for architectural elements,but the plans indicate there are living spaces within the additional height. We believe the request is far reaching (over a 50% increase in height) and the findings can't be made. Deviation from the Newport Place Setback Standards The applicant is also requesting deviation from the 30' setback standard on all streets the project abuts; Corinthian Way, Martingale Way, Dove Street,and Scott Drive. The applicant's representative stated that the request was based on the fact that the Newport Place Zoning Standards never anticipated residential. The staff report suggests they are supportive of the setback deviation provided the applicant builds a 0.5 acre park with public access. Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) REALTY INVESTMENTS Transforming Opportunity into Value We contend if the zoning standards needed to be modified to accommodate residential,the applicant should have requested a Zone Change as part of its application as is the case with all other Airport Area residential projects. In conclusion,we believe this project is too far reaching and doesn't meet the basic standards and requirements that are mandated for the Airport Area residential developments. This development project should be held to the same standards as others in the Airport Area and as such should have a Development Agreement and the associated fees; should adhere to the park requirement,which would reduce the density; and should comply with the Newport Place height and setbacks or submit for a zone change. The applicant's requests for deviations are an attempt to circumvent the appropriate zone change,which would in itself trigger a legislative action requiring a Development Agreement. If the Planning Commission can modify the project to a form they believe can be approved,we strongly urge the Planning Commission to forward this project to the City Council for their review of the Development Agreement requirements. Thank you for considering our thoughts and concerns. Sincerely, ohn Santry Executive Vice President-Acquisitions and Development 2 Park Plaza, Suite 00 Irvine, California92614949-417-1396 94999 shopoff.com Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Attachment No. PC 3 June 6, 2016 letter from SPON Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) 6cm W i wo]a Still Protecting Our Newport 1rlspiring The Next Generation PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island , CA 926'62 1 949 . 864 . 6616 OFFICERS June 6,2016 PRESIDENT Marko Popovich To: City of Newport Beach Planning Commission VICE PRESIDENT c/o Kory Kramer, Chair Elaine Linhoff via email: kkramer ,newportbeachea.gov TREASURER Subject: The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Dennis Baker SECRETARY Dear Chairman Kramer and Members of the Planning Commission: Allan Beek We would like to request that, before taking action on this project, The Residences at Newport Place, or any other near the Airport, the City of Newport BOARD MEMBERS Beach Planning Commission and City Council embark upon a Specific Area Plan or comprehensive plan for the Airport Area bounded by: Bristol Street to the Nancy Alston South, Jamboree to the West,Campus Drive to the East and North. Bruce Bartram Don Harvey We have attached our prior letter of March 23,2016 with more description of the Dorothy Kraus expectations approved by voters in 2006. Donald Krotee Andrea Lingle . The essential reason for our request is the lack of comprehensive planning Bobby Lovell q p p g Jennifer McDonald including that anticipated in the Implementation Program 13.Lb of the 2006 Jeanne Price General Plan. Although the number of residential units was established in Melinda seely that plan,the placement and design was left entirely for future determination. Jack Skinner Nancy skinner . As it is the projects are being proposed on a piecemeal basis starting with Jean watt Portia Weiss Uptown Newport and now the Residences at Newport Place. The projects are Terry Welsh very large and because of underground parking, changing the characteristics of the neighborhood significantly. Prior on-ground parking availability is removed along with some of the at-grade retail opportunities that are needed by area businesses. A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. STOP WN ` www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Irfo@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach Twitter @SPONNewport Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island , CA 926'62 1 949 . 864 . 6616 June 6,2016 Kory Kramer, Chair City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Page Two RE: The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) • The area has no cohesive plan calling for nearby amenities for residents such as a grocery store. Business owners are concerned about loss of parking and other amenities. Any "complete" neighborhood concept presumes a mixed use development and should include: neighborhood parks, green space, pedestrian ways that are not parking lots, 30' setbacks from the curb, retail amenities and community amenities to sustain a work/live environment. • The area needs a streetscape plan such as that being developed for the West Newport Mesa so that there are appropriate setbacks, walkability, greenery and good feeling of neighborhood ambiance. • Without an overall plan, each project will be taken up individually, some subject to a public vote under Greenlight, some subject to lawsuits and even referenda. • A cohesive plan would allow for properly planned use of Public Benefit funds that could benefit the area and encourage the right infrastructure and facilities appropriate for the area. The Airport Area is an important part of our community and should be taken as seriously as other planning areas. The character of the Airport area should be carefully defined and the impact of interspersing residential within commercial zones should be understood prior to approving new projects. A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. STOP WN ` www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Irfo@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach Twitter @SPONNewport Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5c Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Still Protecting Our Newport Inspiring The Next Generation PO Box 102 1 Balboa Island , CA 926'62 1 949 . 864 . 6616 June 6,2016 Kory Kramer, Chair City of Newport Beach Planning Commission Page Three Thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, W4240 ;Dow" Marko Popovich President Copies to: Vice Chair Tim Brown: tbrownLaiiewportbeachca.gov Commissioner Peter Koetting: pkoetting(a),newportbeachea.gov Commissioner Bradley Hilgren: bhilgrenLy),newportbeachea.gov Commissioner Ray Lawler: rlawler(aJnewportbeachca.eov Commissioner Peter Zak: pzakAnewportbeachca. og_v Erik Weigand: eweigand(knewportbeachea.gov Community Development Director,Kim Brandt: KBrandt a newportbeachca.gov Deputy Community Development Director BrendaWisneski: BWisneski(? newportbeachca.gov Associate Planner Rosalinh Ung: runggnewportbeachea.gov City Clerk Leilani Brown: lbrown&newportbeachca.gov City Council: citvcouncilknewportbeachea. oovv A 501(c)(3) non-profit public education organization working to protect and preserve the residential and environmental qualities of Newport Beach. STOP WN ` www.SPON-NewportBeach.org I Irfo@SPON-NewportBeach.org FB SPON-Newport Beach Twitter @SPONNewport Subject: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED - PC MEETING - JUNE 9, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION —JUNE 9, 2016 ITEM NO. 5d: ADDITIONAL MATERIALS RECEIVED THE RESIDENCES AT NEWPORT PLACE (PA2014-150) From: Tana [mailto:sailsandflvs(a)vahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 1:17 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Project File No : PA2014-150 LOCATED AT NEWPORT PLACE Dear Councilwoman Ung , PLEASE OPPOSE building "affordable" housing at Newport Place a BUSINESS CENTER next to SNA . Arnie's Manhattan Deli , our favorite lunch place and the best deli in O.C. is located there . There are very few good ,affordable , sit down lunch restaurants for workers in Newport businesses , we need Arnie's to stay here . Also , building 400 housing units there will cause even more traffic in an already congested area and deteriorate our Newport Beach lifestyle. THANK YOU Sincerely , TANA FRIEND i Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5e Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Subject: FW:Additional Materials received for Newport Place Attachments: NPR Applicant PA2014-150 et al LTR Chairman Kramer and Planning Commission - June 6,2016.pdf From: Britnae Jensen [mai Ito:biensen(a)no-residentiaLcom] Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 10:59 AM To: Kramer, Kory; Lawler, Ray; Weigand, Erik; Koetting, Peter; Hillgren, Bradley; Zak, Peter; Brown,Tim Cc: Brandt, Kim; Campbell, James; Ung, Rosalinh; Wisneski, Brenda; 'James Kawamura' Subject: The Residences at Newport Place, Applications & Permits: PA2014-150, PL2014-001, LM2014-003, AH2O15- 001 Please refer to the attached letter dated June 6, 2016,to Chairperson Kramer and Members of the Planning Commission. Sincerely, Britnae Jensen, Development Manager Newport Place Residential, LLC—Project Developer 1 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5e Additional Materials Received ences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) a V fi ® Y June 6, 2016 Chairman Kory Kramer &Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission City of Newport Beach 100 Civic Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: The Residences at Newport Place (PA 2014150) 1701 Corinthian Way, 1660 Dove Street, 4251, 4253, 4255 Martingale Way and 4200, 4220, 4250 Scott Drive Dear Chairman Kramer&Members of the Newport Beach Planning Commission: In a letter dated June 1, 2016, Mr. John Santry of Shopoff Realty Investments provided comments regarding his concerns, including the Development Agreement "requirement" for the proposed Residences at Newport Place project. In his letter, Mr. Santry references the Development Agreement requirement for the approved Uptown Newport project, which was then and now necessary and called for under the General Plan and Municipal Code, and argued this Development Agreement `requirement" should be applied to the Residences at Newport Place. This is incorrect. These projects, in this and many other regards, cannot simply be compared in such a superficial manner and are "apples and oranges" and this letter will highlight the very fundamental differences between the proposed project and the approved Uptown Newport development which negate any Development Agreement requirement for the Residences at Newport Place. Below is a matrix which demonstrates the approvals necessary for each of the two respective developments and why, between the two, only Uptown Newport ever required, or needed, a Development Agreement. DemlopntentAlsreenlent ReguirernentlNeed Comparison Residences c IPptown Newport Newport ]'lace Pursuant to General Plan Section LU6.15.12 Utilizing additive units No Yes Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15.045.020.A.2.a&c General Plan Amendment No Yes Zoning Code Atnendinent No Yes Legislative Action Required No Yes Other Subdivision Map Required No Yes Traffic Study Rea uired No Yes Vested Rights Re uiredlNeeded No Yes "77 OSCE arm- 5/0 (,W)9736SX3 cACapxt i& 92660 (9i9)67Z8068 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5e Additional Materials Received ,2016 pKramer Jun 6 June 6,2The Residences at Newport Place PA2014-150 Jun Page 2 The Uptown Newport project not only required a Development Agreement under the General Plan and Municipal Code, but needed and requested the vested rights and benefits of a Development Agreement. The Residences at Newport Place is not requesting a Development Agreement, or the benefit of vested rights as the projected timeframe for the completion of the project is relatively short and none of the approvals requested dictate that one is necessary otherwise. In short, as the Staff has confirmed from the very beginning of this Project, and as the Municipal Code and General Plan clearly confirm, a Development Agreement is not required, or needed on this Project; nor has the Residences at Newport Place ever requested the benefit of same. As to the other points raised within the same letter referenced above, they will, if necessary, be addressed within the Residences at Newport Place meeting presentation during the Planning Commission public hearing. Thank you for your consideration of our response to these comments. Sincerely, Britnae Jensc� Development Manager Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5f Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Wednesday,June 08,2016 12:52 PM To: Biddle,Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials Received for NEWPORT PLACE -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Heenan [mail to:kdrdikC@yahoo.coml Sent: Wednesday,June 08, 2016 12:47 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Project File No: PA2014-150 NEWPORT PLACE Dear City of Newport Beach, I am writing to voice my opinion of the above referenced project. I in no way favor the approval of 400 or more housing units in the airport area and particularly this property on Newport Place. This IS NOT an area to be putting housing units. It might be a way to look at the city making revenues through property taxes etc, but that can be done with allowing the current property to be rehabilitated to bring in even more people during the business week and weekend. I vote a resounding NO on this approval. Please do not approve this property for housing units. Thank you. Kevin Heenan 1201 Dove Street, Suite 570 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 851-0424 Office (949) 851-8540 Fax NMLS#253318 BRE #00883915 1 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5f Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Subject: FW:Additional Materials received for Newport Place From: Larry [mailto:DBLL(a)mindspring.coml Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 12:47 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Project file no. PA2014-150 I would like to register my opposition to the Newport Place conversion from retail/food service to housing. Thank you. Larry Levenstone 1000 Quail, Suite 190 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone 1 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5g Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Thursday,June 09, 2016 2:03 PM To: Biddle,Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials received for Newport Place Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed From: Linda Bertone [mailto:llbertone(a)yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 11:06 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Project File No. PA2014-150 Located at Newport Place Dear Ms. Ung, When is enough going to be enough? Between our city and Costa Mesa, new apartments and condominiums are springing up everywhere! What happened to the Greenlight Initiative of 2000? Traffic is already out of control, so what is it going to be like after the pro-growth activists build hundreds of more of these high-density residences? And what happened to the extreme water shortage/drought? If there isn't enough water for the existing residences, what will the impact be on our resources after all these proposed new residences are built? Specifically, in the Newport Place area, how many businesses and restaurants will be closed and jobs lost? I urge the City Council to refuse to allow any more high-density building. Not doing so will negatively impact the property values for all homeowners and reduce the quality of life in Newport Beach. Sincerely, Linda Bertone i Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5g Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Thursday,June 09, 2016 2:04 PM To: Biddle,Jennifer Cc: bjensen Subject: Additional Materials received for Newport Place From: Dannicastri@aol.com [mailto:Dannicastri@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 5:09 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Arnie's NY Deli Hi Rosalinh, I work in the immediate area and utilize the restaurants, especially Arnies, in this particular business area for many years. Please do not permit the new housing project to take place, there is need for good restaurants, like Arnies, it's a business district. It's conjested enough, it can't take 400 housing units, too much traffic as is. It is the wrong place to put Affordable Housing, no food stores or special need amenities for that type of project in proximity. it would be doing an injustist for that community. Business Firms in the area need the type of restaurants that are presently there. NO New Housing, Pleasellll Dan Nicastri Arnie's NY Patron 1 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5h Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2O14-150) From: Ung, Rosalinh Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 2:37 PM To: Biddle, Jennifer Subject: Additional Materials received for Newport Place Attachments: DOC 060816-06082016141209.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Britnae Jensen [ma iIto:6jensenann-resident iaLmml Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2016 2:16 PM To: Ung, Rosalinh Subject: Newport Place I will bring hard copies of this aswell to distribute if needed, attached is a petition in support of the project signed by local business owners. I ar - " '.Y Bri[n aeJensen Development Manager �� ,i Nevport Place Resdenti al, LLC l bien sen On o-resid ential.com - ' 20411 SW Birch,Suite 3101 Nearp ort Beach,CA92560 I C-9 49 672 8068 1 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5h Additional Materials Received m mla Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) 3' 1 x iv v c�Ca pe t dace Cele identtal, L2,426 June-8,-2016 - To: Newport Beach Planning Commission From: Newport Place Business Owners Subject: Support & In Favor of Proposed Residences at Newport Place We, the business owners/representatives, within close proximity to the proposed Residences at Newport Place, support and are in favor of the 384 luxury apartment units and 5,677 square feet of commercial space, to be constructed on the MacArthur Square Shopping Center site. No additional commercial/retail space is needed. Name Business Name Address Telephone# E-mail Address 2 S - Z615 �w�blbIVa Ayvem c ce K M e .o' VeY'c�>° 7 1i11Y� ////••��eV1G���el�� 1�2� � t03ouv f s� ggti 3si61 min 81 �/'A2t. �Ccwxnt 4:cvR 34�� C�M�I< �1 91q 4Zl 670 $C"Q(_Uaa LU ey V-G✓ 'Flo A410 20 11 C6WddM 0bvw-&idm310 (9Y9)97MS33 cYCwp& 6Dhf""92660 (949)672-8068 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5h Additional Materials Received rNV , Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) MIP ,, w c�`Ses�art 'dace C�errdeMtta(, ��O -June 8 2016 To: Newport Beach Planning Commission From: Newport Place Business Owners Subject: Support & In Favor of Proposed Residences at Newport Place We, the business owners/representatives, within close proximity to the proposed Residences at Newport Place, support and are in favor of the 384 luxury apartment units and 5,677 square feet of commercial space, to be constructed on the MacArthur Square Shopping Center site. No additional commercial/retail space is needed. Name Buie Name Addr_^ Telephone# E-mail Address lel uxs u Z'l � Z 660 f1Z,�Y L"nS 30' CA-P th otz- @ xee. y1 d-n1A5 G.AW ',2rt (,C -*X/, N3 CA g2(a6o30 ti L6oVb5u+W inn,. cs/ lzG6o G J S,9oa+ Y6y� ,v46eav4. Y4 3oz G3cn rn�_C/ Oz-vb of 9,218 co Tew YKc ar-.+ Y(oV? N4�+cw•�• /lam 3 S Ht IJA JO ( V C/' M C J la i Z .bran X t . c tlarra�c \ `�� ptrwn�r �� of �� ISjaa�l � {owe 4 e FITiRtSTOL Ss. Norr�-y�r - a ® _ Faeor� n(r�rvt �ra,`lu�s C�� � c3 9s�J1co rzo r��.�v op, oU Q 0 o 4 _ �No bra 4?42 gI74 4,WeeW 6&o icC 949"b0600 TS1*-MM ceW&ieA 20991GKWC% Qbmt-Obxto310 (949)9736533 c}Cngw 6&aA &Wow (949)672-8068 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Newport Beach Planning Commission Item No. 5h Additional Materials Received June 8,2016 The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Page 2 L 5/deS r� �d 2e 1t�SoV� PCaSC�d tY � '�4�5z 6 S`C. _ 69R �+� 15 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5i Additional Materials Received The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) June 9, 2016, Planning Commission Agenda Item Comments Comments on Newport Beach Planning Commission regular meeting agenda item submitted by: Jim Mosher ( i immosher(o).vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229). Item No. 5. THE RESIDENCES AT NEWPORT PLACE (PA2014-150) 1. The applicant appears to be seeking a number of discretionary approvals to build something he could not build by right. Apparently the Planning Commission can grant these approvals without any further oversight provided it can make certain findings. However, to the best of my knowledge, the PC is under no circumstances obligated to grant most of these. In other words, even if the findings described in the staff report and resolution can be made, I believe the approvals are matters of"may," not "shall." I hope the Commission will exercise that discretion for the reason stated in the SPON letter: the lack, at this time, of cohesive planning for the Airport Area with a clear vision for the future. 2. In addition, I believe the impetus for anticipating in the 2006 General Plan a need to accommodate 2,200 housing units in the Airport Area was that the City was then, and expected it would continue to face large state-mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation requirements. Yet I believe that in recent years that externally imposed pressure has disappeared, with a current RHNA of just 5 units, citywide, by 2021. Even if Newport Place was a suitable site for housing of the sort proposed, from a planning perspective it would seem prudent to save the development until such time as an external requirement is re- imposed and this housing could be credited towards the City's new quota. 3. Whatever the merits of the project, I also have great difficulty reconciling its proposed height with NBMC Section 20.30.060 (Height Limits and Exceptions) which, outside of a recently- approved Height Overlay District in West Newport Mesa, sets the base height for multi- family residential development in Newport Beach at 28 feet (33 feet with a sloped roof). It is true that if certain findings can be made, this code allows 4 more feet via several mechanisms, including "the adoption of a Planned Community District." But the multi-family residential height standards in the Newport Place Planned Community text already appear to fly in the face of this, and the applicant wants still more. Even if 58 feet is somehow allowable, the request for an additional 25 feet above that for "architectural features" seems extraordinary, and wholly out of sync with standards elsewhere in the City. 4. Some further random comments: a. Handwritten page 9 mentions receipt of eight comment letters on the MND, but lists only seven. b. The responses to the comments on the MND seem hastily prepared, incomplete and sometimes not understandable. i. For example, on handwritten page 93, Response to Comment 2 purports to address a comment about North Bristol, but appears to say nothing about it. Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5i Additional Materials Received June 9, 2016, PC agenda item 5 comments - Jim Mosh he Residences at RNVZiqff2lace (PA2014-150) ii. On handwritten page 96, Response to Comment 1 appears intended to assure decision makers and the public that the proposed 83 foot height of the structures will not exceed the 206 foot height limit recommended by the Airport Land Use Commission. But it seems clear the ALUC is speaking of roof heights above sea level, not building heights from grade. If the land surface was 150 feet above sea level, an 83 foot building on top of that could easily exceed the ALUC recommendation. As best I can tell the response does not mention what the surface elevation is. iii. On handwritten page 102: 1. In Response to Comment 2, in the first line, "propped' should be "proposed." In line three of the following paragraph, "provision and requested' should be "provision as requested." In the last line "require parking" should be "required parking." 2. In Response to Comment 2, the meat of the response appears to be completely missing. Instead, the comment is restated followed by a disconnected paragraph beginning "Additionally,..." iv. As a final example, Response to Comment 1 on handwritten page 105 appears to inform decision makers that in addition to the initial 30-day comment period from January 22, 2016, to February 22, 2016, a separate 40 day comment period was "initiated" on February 22, 2016. Such a comment period would have ended on April 2, 2016. But I believe the response may mean only that the initial 30 day comment period was extended by 10 days for a total of 40. c. I am unable to understand the applicant's statement on handwritten page 79 that 5.4 residential units would have to be sacrificed to add 1 ,000 sf of retail. From handwritten page 6, even the smallest units provide 616 sf of floor space. 5.4 of those would seem to be over 3,000 sf. Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 ing 0) Is oil The l i r Residences at NewportPlace �EWPpRT Planning Commission •Juner} n • r • • C"9</FOnH Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 ing 0) Introduction r; Redevelopment of MacArthur Square 0 . 57 acre project site, Airport Area Removal of existing 58, 277 square foot center Construction of Mixed - use project 384 residential units (Zoo density bonus units) 5, 677 square feet retail 86 affordable housing units included June g, 2ol6 2 • • • - • 1 • rt Vicinity Map r \ f JJJ I Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 ing e�Ew POR 0) Plan > b �3eneral T F 0 iro a`" MU - Hz Subject Property Mixed-Use Horizontal A ' ~ ' Multifamily residential up to z, Zoo u n its Commercial, light . � industrial & hotel uses Replace existing uses on a traffic neutral to-acre minimum villages �. public parks, enhanced pedestrian access and walkable streets June g, 2oi6 4 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 ing 11 0) Airport Area- Figure LUX. AL CITY of NEWPORT BEACH Subject GENERAL PLAN Property % Figure LU23 AIRPORT AREA RESIDENTIAL ` VILLAGES ILLUSTRATIVE \ CONCEPT DIAGRAM f �... Legend M OPPORTUNITY SITES _ PROPOSED OPEN SPACES MPROVED RESIDENTIAL STREETS PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL STREETS 11111 PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN WAYS 65 ' •••• COONCEPTUAL PLAN REQUIRED June g, 2ol6 5 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 ing 0) e Newport Place Planned Community Area Summary 1 °° n,a< . c — _ sub;ect Newport Place Planned 01lm 16.5 a PHaUGmenlComner<iy a< Property ti mMa Laac wale° CanmmrdaNlnbl Motel IU.1 ,�a�.[ - �, �,a,, Community (PC-ii.) �m�fidea a,,��l d, TWI Ibfiac. G mC..rd! • General Commercial Site 6 0.esi.Nm O,D.° orurM.niy Y@6 MU-H2 wiNlnthe General Plan __ LaM Use ElanenlFgua Wfl) Rua6ra (commercial office & � tanw ale° � - xa,s°aM aae, hotels) Pm_a aa.. �� Sile9 M.S a... 001[e 51OI °roB, 3W Residential Overlay MR. s,.5 v ,tea a o� A =i Allows less than Zo-acre 5i,n P.o ;a,. STS<STR ="'° minimum site requirement w/ 30% affordable housing � �° No commercial/retail - .. �.; ,�e;a,ameq w irid iil0ol lA required Land Use Plan Newport Place �e 'a' ay� �o� • Overlay Created per Planned Community June 9, 2ol6 Housing Element 6 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 ing 0) Project r; ■ 4 separate buildings above parking garage 4 levels of residential units z levels of subterranean parking (up to 71.5 spaces) 58 foot buildings (architectural elements up to 83 ft. ) 1.8- 25 foot street building setbacks Centralized private amenities including a pool, community rooms and interconnecting courtyards ■ 1/2 acre linear open space area (with option to reduce to 1/3 acre by applicant) June g, 2ol6 7 is • • - • 1 • I. 1 Site Plan June t� 1 G • NNN • 2oi6 8 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 ing 90) Residential r; 384 total apartments 54 Studio units 173 One - bedroom units 136Two- bedroom units 21Three - bedroom units 298 market rate units 86 affordable units (ao% of base units) June 9, 2ol6 9 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 ing Planned Development Permit 0) r Process in - lieu of Site Development Review Consideration of adjustments to development standards : Building height increase from required 55 ft. Residential Buildings at 5-9 55' — 6" max. Architectural Elements up to g-� 79' Building setback reduction from required 30 ft. 1.8 ft. - Corinthian Way ® 20 ft. — Martingale Way • 22 ft. — Dove Street • 25 ft. — Scott Drive June g, 2ol6 10 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 ing 0) O`rWioR^ 6 General Plan PolicyWaiver N/_ nO PH General Plan Policy 6 . 15-13 requires '/2 acre parkland dedication allows for a waiver Waiver requested as site does not meet neighborhood park definition Applicant offers in - lieu payment equal to land value of/z acre of parkland ($1, 125, 000) Project provides 1/2 acre passive open space Public access easement - daylight hours June g, 2o16 11 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 ing 0) Lot Merger Lot Merger - 3 lot consolidation Existing 3 contiguous parcels Consolidate to accommodate project June 9, 203.6 22 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 ing 11 0) Affordable Housing Affordable Housing Implementation Plan ■ Required pursuant to Chapter 20. 32 Density Bonus ■ Describes project obligation to provide affordable housing 86 units for low or very- low income households Rent restricted for a minimum of 30 years Units dispersed throughout the project June g, 2o16 13 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 ing 0) Environment • l Review Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared pursuant to CEQA guidelines ■ Circulated for public comments for 41 days (from January 22 through March 4, 2016) 8 Comment letters received ■ Response to Comments & Errata prepared Mitigation monitoring & reporting program prepared 14 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 ing 0) e Marchc, ciFo a" ■ Project summarized and public input received ■ Planning Commission comments : Requirement of a Development Agreement; Adequacy of open space and private amenities provision; Necessity of building setback reduction & building height increase; Adequacy of architectural style & project integration; & Traffic/trip generation and parking analysis June g, 2o16 15 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 ing 11V0) Revised Landscape Plan Ii IM- -7% M � � Ir r < �...r��T! � a IL_ 41C J.• I 1 I I -fir '-��� l II Il fl 0. 5-acre open space (outlined in blue) Easement boundary for public access (outlined in red) Gated at either end at public sidewalk June g, 2ol6 i6 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 ing 11 0) Additional Correspondence +3o emails and 3 written correspondences received after May Stn Staff Report published Supportive of existing deli/restaurant and/or not in favor of affordable housing Written comments on : Draft MND — responses provided Lack of Development Agreement and concerns about the park dedication waiver, and proposed building height & setbacks Adoption of specific plan or comprehensive plan for Airport Area before taking action on any project June g, 2ol6 17 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 ing 0) Recommendatione n r Conduct Public hearing; Approve project with findings included in draft resolution; or ■ Deny project if findings could not be made Identify findings ( reasons) for denial & Continue to next hearing for preparation of written resolution June g, 2ol6 A ,. • • l rr r • V I - - • - r Vl - - • 1 w' = Z 1 w For more information contact: Rosali4'3nh Ung 94914zo8 rung@newportbeachca.gov www.newportbeachca.gov 1 M i L 11 JI ■■ r;t A �� - - - \�\ KNFI ASSOCIATES e Con SWSMh —t 511tarw-SurvaY Oa11 WBbt,Sree SL 901 NewponBmcti.Lal�kmre 92660 Z.t sa4��s-.a. �l�c �csl�cnccs a ort `Z&cc Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) PROJECT INFORMATION Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Project Statistics • 5.691 Acres (MacArthur Square shopping center site) • Mixed-use development with 4 levels of apartments over 1 .5 levels subterranean parking (715 parking spaces) and 5,677 square feet of ground-floor retail space. • 384 Apartment units including 86 units that will be affordable to low- income households. • Unit Mix — 54 Studio (average 616 square feet) — 173 One-Bedroom (average 804 square feet) — 136 Two-Bedroom (average 1 , 178 square feet) — 21 Three-Bedroom (average 1 ,422 square feet) • Overall building footprint vs. landscaping/open space percentage: — 55% landscaping/open space — 45% building footprint rF '; \\ el 1 1 i P ♦ / '. ..'� � � ®� '�'•" .'.,yrs • � � � y • # 1g 1 r\ M se ,t 1 Wm a. i- V � �. .z ��'� � � � '� •� Ino� � __ Ae dr i 4, C 4p X t y s� •i y T � i\ i' T � • Fv .. Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) -' '�' FLOOR PLAN-P1 GARAGE(LOWER) NEWPORT PLACE RESIDENTIAL, LLC ® G6 wm�w�mwm N _ The Residences at Newport Place A,_, NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA A- Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Criteria for Development Aoreement Requirement Residences at Newport Place Pursuant to General Plan Section LU6.15.12 Utilizing additive units No Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15.045.020.A.2.a & c General Plan Amendment No Zoning Code Amendment No Legislative Action Required No Other Subdivision Map Required No Vested Rights Required/Needed No Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) ARCHITECTURE 1 Mem• " y 4 All CORNER OF DOVE ST. & SCOTT DR. Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences a ewe 50) 1� 1e ;_I111� =LIL 1!= Planning Commission - June • 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting :adm_ 1 I I ,I 9 • , jl- ER OF SCOTT DRIVE & CORINTHIAN � s Y W Am I 4 - ry1 '��v �fvSy� had � •;.j �^ ���1,i�j4 �'1 � ,9{ n A e\ 9 ._ .: 'ru'?i.3E,9���` �-�3s•.Ti�1*-:y�.�fh.�n,$k:�.s t� .. � �..r. ' / I�II`�e�� ry � t CORNER OF CORINTHIAN WAY & MARTINGALE WAY �1 'i 4u� BII y F/ v s � op 7-7 loft im r GARAGE o R ENT'S GARAGE ENTRY ON MA ALE WAY to Mej It I It 116-11.1 Lei - • 1 • ti. ` I�� 5 E II �I 11Ll - . :" MA GALE WAY C r9q�iv Z, l(f/ ,rk�o- 47 ' J nti SrYt7� rr� ^ �� r r � � r, IS P r IN low �� 3�� E• ' iia MIN r s I L 11 77 RD AININT COURTYA ' e"„ ♦arm "�.. � i _ OOHAlMOW � r NE If IFJJ J ? N a: / kms.! _ • ,4p � � .� r � x M Ali r • - - 1 - • �; _ - 1 ` y w IW ` 3- _ f CABANA & DINING TERRACE uN W"3 1 7�>a. �� � `def t . .i R •t'a.t .,cd. � ` 'F�. ° I yy NK,9"o ,_ p S.' • _ ..,mob t ./• h Y e�. •�. at,f� Req � I j J Xi 6 Y 4 J f'f r pi PIP f Pf r f f� PIPR� �jjll%i gg f� �as fr�GfiFRFG- E3a$f�kingE S "a& �i�a$" • • �� - .r,.i 1 fi 3 - ` ` 4.. T :yam— a."s+aaee_ Wit/' -, ,tom �.x ���a'" s�l :: p - .�"��' .`.Star \ T, �� w•A �i�y, c[ �t. r y a� -.� a �i���.� .rfi 'V t' �'P.,.� YS� a"�� s..� {I��Y��Is`"'v — , 1` •^ �'w �'�'� J � y"' ,.�\.I:✓< • t: • ,fit ,���" ' „�., . � ,_ � [ ::}• `� nay`. i � 1r7 Lv Aldi / if Al r ti v rr� 911111NOON all F{ �yy y�A� -Rini I►r��r�� t , fir. , rte/ , gg V' i � r NIT .00 ll $S M •�1 � � � �,�-mow».. �. w�.y:=:.!_ i , 1 I I i I 9 aoa.� CORNER OF DOVE ST. & SCOTT DR. 1 c oo 7 iTk ♦ �9R� t � i .� i'r� I � gyrro ' � a3 �. �' f x t o s 'i fl!•. . f C tS �F� ~ � �� � � t si? ~ '■. �I. I� 3 y. Y� l T f � )3� j 1 t' `• �S- AM - CORNER OF CORINTHIAN WAY & SCOTT DR. Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) CONCRETE TILE ROOF (FLAT/BARRELL) DECORATIVE SOFFIT BRACKET -�- IIIII�.T.iL PRE-FINISHED FOAM TRIM STUCCO FINISH PRIMED 8 PAINTED ME ®A METAL TRELLIS -�I EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE PRE-FINISHED FOAM TRIM . _ _I - STUCCO FINISH PILASTER VINYL GLASS DOOR 77 STUCCO FINISH PILASTER --- - WROUGHT IRON METAL RAIL FABRIC CANOPY _ - PRIMED AND PAINTED WROUGHT IRON METAL RAIL ® II��I PRE-FINISHED FOAM TRIM CLERESTORY WINDOWS VINYL WINDOW SIMULATION WINDOW SHUTTER WROUGHT IRON METAL RAIL PRE-FINISHED FOAM TRIM ANODIZED ALUMINUM AWNING STOREFRONT DOOR 8 GLASS STONE VENEER OR EQUIVALENT " GRADE I PIP CONCRETE STAIRS ENLARGED ELEVATION �Y W.'rerentro7m. WARM M- IMUMT-2--no Me j r p ik. w - Tr y a ur palatine � � - 5 ry Villa Siena KI gig]I •IM191 i I I i A]Mic-C-11 Lei - • 1 - c - Q `G' }_ 11 j J 00 . y YI� • � - X1`1 � I �} `- Villa Siena / rOra, 8=0 r 1 1 .,0 5 lid MOW wF: f a w: r r - ruins Spectrum r • • Eel I1 • fi l OF IL The Mage at Irvine Spectrum =- - _ w r r 1 Y1Y1 _ 14 illage at Irvine Wctrum y y 1 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) BUILDING HEIGHTS & SETBACKS Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (3A2014-150) - v , �PERN E c _ MAX HEIGHT 79'-0"(3.2 %) i MAX HEIGHT 69'-11" 21.60%) ��MAX HEIGHT 63'-5"(20.15°/) � a -�� � � � ' MAX HEIGHT 55'-6"(50-47%) x Ilk — oa�EAr "E E ��. `v - OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHTS Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) SKY DECK i� i U, EXERCISE COMMUNITY ON PODIUM i uuuuo 4 RESTAURANT SECTION @ RESTAURANT Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) N I RESIDENTIAL N RESIDENTIAL N I I RESIDENTIAL Ln N RESIDENTIAL o ON PODIUM LO BY GARAGE tD - - GARAGE SECTION @ SHALLOW LOBBY Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) RESIDENTIAL `N RESIDENTIAL LN c RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL o ON PODIUM N RESIDENTIAL STOOP @ GARAGE STORAGE SECTION@ STOOP Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) .o LOFT ° N RESIDENTIAL iv RESIDENTIAL a, `cv RESIDENTIAL N RESIDENTIAL 0 ON PODIUM z RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES SECTION @ AMENITIES Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) ROOFACCESS ROOF 0 N o 0 N 0 P1 LEVEL OF SECTION ar7 TOWER EGRESS +50.607 ESTABLISHED GRADE ELEVATION Pz MOM I _. n _ �I�' I •yam , ` fl I ..'� ��, ef of �-f c Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) 24' 34' SS' j /41 I Y3 m 1 m D'BUILDIN h _ N 5 G M // \ � SETBACK LINE ri PROPERTY BOUNDARY �� \ uNE of CURB DOVE STREET CENTERLINE OF STREET - za .w + SITE PLAN w DOVE STREET n ' wn � 1 r / 9 r _ r M� r.�'S4� jsi1�� l4`N.�F.r '.�« Y+�+IJis'•,� '] �dfaq,�5`t '�}�a�,�#t �"� � �1!T�alM'�r�ti1';����t' ,h: �i DOVE �lw Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) i5 p' S� m A �A ml m\ WWI nye 71 \ m c a N N �I PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE OF CURB SCOTT DRIVE/ CENTERLINE OF STREET �i� w SITE PLAN- SCOTT DRIVE Nurs 1 10 �w► ,Milo - JO - -- - - 00 > AM .y,,' �� � �1� `i � �,.. -,$�LK� • :.,a y',y�,.� may.. � _- - � IFA IVA Alt - - SCOTT DR. Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) X75, si, 9 \ -- -- > i PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE OFF CUURBB CORINTHIAN WAY CENTERLINE OF STREET 20 SITE PLAN - CORINTHIAN WAY 't1, r Is • 11 1111 • - • 1 • ^� ii8 re m a wq b 1 xNAMMILI i t 1 li y� •�.�� w /fir a ya,♦+ � � � n ` Ani P 1 � 4 0 �i imil .sr�uSR's '.'Is•. �,... ar } F„ +'-+i lay. ORINTHIAN WAY Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) 50'BUILDING SETH LINE 5T , r PROPERTY BOUNDARY MARTINGALE WAV uNE GF CURB CENTERLINE OF STREET SITE PLAN w MARTINGALE STREET n to Mej It I It 116-11.1 Lei - • 1 • ti. ` I�� 5 E II �I 11Ll - . :" MA GALE WAY C Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) OPEN SPACE Planning Commission - June • 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) 1 MAN M a11fiI111i➢nllllo:.,:n9,< � et'«�.*` =-x' `� _ � � — ". �, ti —__ mJ ,� �� ■�' 1111 g. 1.: � a OE iA�'.P � ■■ I� '�/IEW e �y tl e r 1 r e . 9 �} jiqr ,JowIlk- IWO wk ol Jim i I � I ( Ij r �`-� AllNJ^I ! H I� � a v► L'r JN lig,, � p ( l I 1 s m - VIEW OF4WEN SPACE FROM DOVE ST. 1 t i VIEW OF OPE Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) RETAIL SPACE • • AM • • • tet? ��� � '� r � � x :_ �-� . ♦♦* � _ _ ♦ `/ .'h+S,'`. 4f .}� ✓ �. ��� .w� �✓ vim. 1 �" __ , - , ti t, 1 I. • fir, �- •1 _ ` r � _y V Fs ' Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Existing Inventory of Retail Space • Restaurant/Food Service: 34,691 square feet • Medical/Dental: 5,467 square feet • Nail/Hair Salon: 1 ,661 square feet • Liquor Store: 2,542 square feet • Fitness/Dance Studio: 9,341 square feet • Specialty Retail : 2,382 square feet • Dry Cleaning: 1 ,655 square feet • General Office: 538 square feet • Total existing inventory: 58,277 square feet ! v4° WPI aaeAll } \\ 1rl. { u pop 91 P �II 1 . � , I � - t it i� • + r Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5k Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) �:. INV-4 27, lel: [ e � a xa... - Agewigi kj y , � V t j F LEGEND ' Goods&Services I' ;dt. r -:w n• QHail/WilRan Salons _i - _ -ifT •Dry Cleaner I x :Pharmacy ®Veternary Hospital OMetlbal i,rtal Fitness&Health Service Station Car Wash /- LAP-6 Misc.ShopslServices •Convenience Store EXISTING RETAILISERVICES Its IL 4 _ IRS t _I mow Pn &IRA fillAII loll iyu isr�, '►fir � I�.w R �� �• li I� i� Ir I� a ii ii �" 4 COR/NTjy�Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Pe°EST.,,.°,w°°�.I°N Ite ddilt6mmal Materials Presented at Meeting The Res' es at Newport Place (PA2014-150) O D Z VEHICLE - — ACCESS .CO 9110~ VEHICLE TACCESS 4' Y G A - PARR _' - F - I 00`s _ Kz f 1 VEHICLEAl ACCESSy„' yy �v 0 Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 s- at EXTERIOR CIRCULATION es at •• • • v� 4 IT f •a `'.. 'R �pf1. G 689�.. �i� _ �_�.�''. �y ■ �.. 1 �yyP �. NST Planning Commission - June • 2016 51 AdclLional terials Presented at Meeting • ; NNewport Place • 12 , • EL I FROM ACC FSS Ta1110! ('RCM TO OR�N GARAGE, ' v _ � 5'(REFF `i SPApp�� LOBBYDEEP " (DOVE r T ELEA F � IF_ IRS � DINGART _._ L ® 'IMIRM LOBBY POOI 1 � r. OPEN SPACE - - h I.. 11 ■ I � M 11 Mol � VE - Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 51 Ad Is Presented at Meeting The Residences at Ne ort Place (PA2014-150) i . �fl f LOBBY(SCOTT/CORINTHIAN) Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 51 Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) Yt up A C C NVS LANDSCAPE AFI �J M A_F ON GRADE K , MARTINGALE WAY SHALLOW LOBBY(MARTINGALE) Planning Commission - June 9, 2016 Item No. 5m Additional Materials Presented at Meeting The Residences at Newport Place (PA2014-150) x VA ir� _ � 1 . My t t t A �