Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 - 328, 332 & 340 Old Newport Blvd GPA (PA2008-047)CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 12 March 9, 2010 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner 949 - 644 -3209, jmurillo @newportbeachca.gov SUBJECT: Old Newport Boulevard General Plan Amendment 328, 332, and 340 Old Newport Boulevard (PA2008 -047) • General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -001 • Use Permit No. UP2009 -005 • Modification Permit No. MD2009 -016 • Traffic Study No. TS2009 -002 APPLICANT: Micheal C. Adams Associates ISSUE Should the City Council approve a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to accommodate the development of a 25,000- square -foot medical office building? The following approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as proposed: 1. An amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to increase the allowable FAR from 0.5 to 1.0 for the project site. 2. A modification permit to allow the proposed subterranean parking area to encroach 3 feet into the 5 -foot rear yard setback. 3. A seven space off - street parking credit commensurate with the number of on- street parking spaces available along the project frontage. 4. A use permit to allow an elevator and stairwell enclosure to exceed the 32 -foot base height limit. 5. A traffic study pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Old Newport Boulevard GPA March 9, 2010 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. (Attachment No. CC1) documenting the following City Council actions: a. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and b. Find that, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including Traffic Study No. TS2009 -002, that the Project complies with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and c. Approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -001 increasing the allowable FAR for the site to 1.0; and d. Approve Use Permit No. UP2009 -005, Modification Permit No. MD2009- 016 and the requested off - street parking credit. DISCUSSION Project Overview The applicant is seeking a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to increase the allowable floor area to land area ratio (FAR) of the project site from 0.5 FAR to 1.0 FAR. An FAR of 1.0 could result in 25,725 square feet of development (an increase of 12,862.5 square feet of entitlement). The project site currently consists of three separate parcels (four legal lots) totaling 0.59 acres (25,725 square feet) and is developed with three buildings. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing buildings on site, consolidate the three parcels into one parcel, and construct a 25,000 square -foot medical office building. Please refer to the attached February 4, 2010, Planning Commission Staff Report for a detailed discussion and analysis of the proposed project, related application requests, and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project (Attachment No. CC2). Old Newport Boulevard GPA March 9, 2010 Page 3 LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE Old Newport Boulevard ON -SITE General Commercial Specific Plan /Retail General and medical office use Office (CO -G) Service Commercial (SP- and one residential unit 9 /RSC NORTH CO -G SP -9 /RSC Office buildin SOUTH CO -G SP -9 /RSC Office building EAST Single -Unit Residential Single - Family Residential Single -unit residential dwellings Detached (RS-D) I (R -1 WEST CO -G SP -9 /RSC Retail and office uses Old Newport Boulevard GPA March 9, 2010 Page 4 Staffs Recommendation to Planning Commission Staff supported a GPA to increase the intensity limit for the site as it may provide an economic incentive for redevelopment; however, staff was concerned with the equity of granting an increased 1.0 FAR intensity limit to one property owner within an existing commercial corridor area consisting of 49 parcels. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the GPA at a 0.75 FAR intensity limit, consistent with the commercial intensity limit that was previously achievable through a lot consolidation incentive that existed in the General Plan prior to the 2006 comprehensive update to the General Plan. Staff was also concerned that the scale and character of the proposed project would contrast with the older development in the area consisting of smaller parcels that could not take advantage of the lot consolidation incentive, as well as potential future development in the area that would be limited to a 0.5 FAR intensity. As illustrated by the discussion under the Zoning & Site Design section of the Planning Commission staff report, the site can accommodate a project with a 1.0 FAR; however, the project requires maximization of the building envelope and several deviations from development standards. Staff believed facts existed to support the modification permit and off - street parking credit requests; however, staff requested Planning Commission guidance with regard to the use permit request for the increased building height. Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed the project and related application requests on February 4, 2010 and voted 6 -1 to adopt Resolution No. 1799 recommending that City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approve the project, as proposed with a 1.0 FAR, together with related application requests. The Planning Commission hearing minutes have been attached for reference (Attachment No. CC3). With regard to the GPA request for a 1.0 FAR intensity limit, the Planning Commission agreed that, although the proposed project will appear significantly larger than older, less intense development in the area, the project is generally in scale with newer mixed - use developments and commercial development more recently constructed within the area. The Commission believed that a 1.0 FAR was appropriate in this case and would result in a good project that achieves the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan goals of redevelopment, lot consolidation, reduction of curb cuts, and elimination of vehicular ingress and egress from the alley accessible from Holmwood Drive. With regard to the use permit request for the increased building height to allow an elevator and stairwell tower to exceed the 32 -foot base height limit, the Planning Commission felt that the proposed design allows for an entry lobby that is clearly visible and accessible from the Old Newport Boulevard frontage and results in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building than an alternative design that complies with the height limit. Although the Commission believed sufficient facts exist to support the request, they added the following condition of approval: Old Newport Boulevard GPA March 9, 2010 Page 5 • The portion of the elevator and stairwell enclosure that exceeds the 32 -foot base height limit shall be redesigned in a manner that minimizes the bulk of the architectural appurtenance. The final design shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. The Planning Commission also modified /eliminated the following recommended conditions of approval: �Az W2604. • The final project design shall include 4utomated kitemal shades set to ebse in th evenitW for °u windows l Ging ,M° ,.,f°„ s ntag° an + an internal lighting system that would auto -dim after standard work hours, leaving small task lighting for janitorial and service activities and to light areas where employees may be working late. • The five -foot rear yard (alley) setback shall be landscaped with a combination of groundcover, shrubs, and vertical plantings to enhance the aesthetics of the alley elevation and to minimize the visual bulk and mass of the structure. The final landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the Public Works Department to ensure the landscaping will not negatively impact vehicular circulation through the alley right -of -way. It should be noted that one Commissioner voted against the project and believed that the project should have been designed to provide all required parking on -site and that the off - street parking credit could impact future demand for on- street parking in the area. Parking Credit The project proposes a total of 125 parking spaces, 7 of which are located on- street. Pursuant to Section 20.46.040.E of the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan, developments which maintain a 50 -foot (full height curb) separation between driveway approaches on Old Newport Boulevard may be granted an off - street parking credit equal to the number of on- street parking spaces available along that frontage. The project as proposed maintains a separation greater than 200 feet between driveway approaches; however, at the February 4, 2010, Planning Commission meeting, the City's Traffic Engineer identified a sight distance hazard associated with 3 of the proposed 7 on- street parking spaces. The remaining 4 spaces were determined not to Old Newport Boulevard GPA March 9, 2010 Page 6 pose a traffic hazard and the Planning Commission found the 4 space off - street parking credit to be appropriate. Final project design will need to account for the loss of 3 parking spaces by reducing the total gross floor area by 600 square feet. Charter Section 423 (Measure S) Charter Section 423 requires that major General Plan Amendments be voted upon by the electorate. A major General Plan Amendment is one that increases the General Plan by 40,000 square feet of non - residential floor area or increases traffic by more than 100 peak hour vehicle trips or increases residential dwelling units by 100 units. Council Policy A -18 requires that proposed amendments to the General Plan be reviewed to determine if a vote of the Newport Beach electorate would be required. The proposed GPA is located in Statistical Area H1 of the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan and will result in an increase of 12,862.5 square feet of non - residential entitlement. The proposed GPA does not create any new dwelling units and does not exceed the non - residential floor area threshold. Also, based on the trip generation rates contained in the Council Policy A -18 (blended commercial rate), the proposed GPA is forecast to generate an additional 39 a.m. peak hour trips and 52 p.m. peak hour trips. Therefore, none of the three thresholds that require a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 are exceeded. No other prior amendments have been approved within Statistical Area H1 since the adoption of the 2006 General Plan and no vote would be required based on cumulative amendments. If approved, this amendment will be tracked for ten years in accordance with Section 423. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. The environmental assessment process has also been noticed in a similar manner and all mandatory notices per the California Environmental Quality Act have been given. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Floor Area TSF Tbp Rate /1 0U0 s ft �' � �t 3 , 9 Cprr�rercia4 Tofu Peak HourTp�� _ �s� 12.8625 3 a.m. tri s 38.59 a m. tri 12.8625 4 p.m. trips 51.45 p.m. trips Therefore, none of the three thresholds that require a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 are exceeded. No other prior amendments have been approved within Statistical Area H1 since the adoption of the 2006 General Plan and no vote would be required based on cumulative amendments. If approved, this amendment will be tracked for ten years in accordance with Section 423. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. The environmental assessment process has also been noticed in a similar manner and all mandatory notices per the California Environmental Quality Act have been given. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Old Newport Boulevard GPA March 9, 2010 Page 7 Alternatives Should the City Council conclude that the project as proposed would not be compatible with the surrounding uses and /or that any increased intensity request is inappropriate, the project should be denied, or modified to address the issues of concern. If a redesigned project is advisable, staff recommends a continuance to allow the applicant to revise their plans accordingly should this course of action be sought. Prepared by: Mme Murillo, Associate Planner Submitted by: David Lepo, Plann} Director Attachments: CC 1 Draft Resolution of Approval with Findings and Conditions CC 2 February 4, 2010, Planning Commission Staff Report CC 3 February 4, 2010, Planning Commission Hearing Minutes CC 4 Additional Correspondence Received Attachment No. CC 1 Draft Resolution with Findings and Conditions C RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FINDING TRAFFIC STUDY NO. TS2009 -002 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2008 -001 WITH A 1.0 FAR INTENSITY LIMIT, APPROVING USE PERMIT NO. UP2009 -005, MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD2009 -016 AND THE REQUESTED OFF - STREET PARKING CREDIT FOR A MEDICAL OFFICE PROJECT LOCATED AT 328, 332, AND 340 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD (PA2009 -047) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by Michael C Adams Associates, with respect to properties located at 328, 332, and 340 Old Newport Boulevard, and legally described as Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11 of Tract No. 1136 requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to increase the allowable floor area to land area ratio (FAR) for the project site from 0.5 FAR to 1.0 FAR. An FAR of 1.0 could result in 25,725 square feet of development. Concurrent with the requested General Plan Amendment, the applicant is proposing the construction of a 25,000- square -foot medical office building. The following approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as proposed: a. An amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to increase the allowable FAR from 0.5 to 1.0 for the project site. b. A modification permit to allow the proposed subterranean parking area to encroach 3 feet into the 5 -foot rear yard setback. C. A seven space off - street parking credit commensurate with the number of on- street parking spaces available along the project frontage. d. A use permit to allow an elevator and stairwell enclosure to exceed the 32 -foot base height limit. e. A traffic study pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 2. The subject property is located within the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan (SP -9); Retail Service Commercial (RSC) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is General Commercial Office (CO -G). 3. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 4. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on February 4, 2010, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 2 of 26 time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the Planning Commission at this meeting. 5. At the February 4, 2010, Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission voted 6 -1 recommending that the City Council approve the project as proposed, subject to findings and conditions of approval. 6. A public hearing was held by the City Council on March 9, 2010, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place and purpose of the meeting was given in accordance with the Newport Beach Municipal Code. Evidence, both written and oral, was presented to, and considered by, the City Council at this meeting. SECTION 2. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DETERMINATION. 1. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (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 beginning on December 14, 2009 and ending on January 12, 2010. The contents of the environmental document and comments on the document were considered by the City Council in its review of the proposed project. 3. 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 affects on human beings that would be caused. Additionally, there are no long -term environmental goals that would be compromised by the project, nor cumulative impacts anticipated in connection with the project. The mitigation measures identified and incorporated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are feasible and will reduce the potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. 4. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit B is hereby adopted. The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. 5. The City Council finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. Tmplt: 11123/09 rel City Council Resolution No. Facie 3 of 26 SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. 1. The project site is located within the Old Newport Boulevard commercial corridor. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site General Commercial Office (CO -G), which is intended to provide for administrative, professional, and medical offices with limited accessory retail and service uses. The proposed medical office building would be consistent with this designation. 2. General Plan Policy LU 3.2 encourages the enhancement of existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, by allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. The policy states that changes in use and /or density /intensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. The proposed GPA for increased intensity is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 3.2 as follows: a. The General Plan recognizes the Old Newport Boulevard corridor as an area that has experienced reduced economic vitality. b. The increased intensity would provide an economic stimulus needed to accommodate the redevelopment of three separate, nonconforming and underperforming properties into one medical office building. c. As stated in the General Plan, Newport Beach residents desire high quality development and redevelopment of underperforming, nonconforming properties. d. Redevelopment of the subject property may help revitalize the corridor and encourage redevelopment of other underperforming properties within the Old Newport Boulevard corridor. e. The project site is served by existing infrastructure and public services. The proposed increase in intensity will not necessitate any expansion of existing infrastructure. f. The traffic impact analysis that was prepared for the project found that the addition of project - related traffic would not have a significant impact at any of the study intersections. 3. Charter Section 423 requires that all proposed General Plan Amendments be reviewed to determine if the square footage (for non - residential projects), peak hour Tmplt: 11/23/09 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 4 of 26 vehicle trip, or dwelling units thresholds would be exceeded as the means to determine whether a vote by the electorate would be required to approve the General Plan Amendment. Pursuant to Council Policy A -18, voter approval is not required as the proposed General Plan Amendment represents an increase of 12,862.5 square feet and an increase of 38.59 a.m. and 51.45 p.m. peak hour trips. Additionally, no prior amendments have been approved within Statistical Area H1 and, therefore, the project and prior amendments do not cumulatively exceed Charter Section 423 thresholds as to require a vote of the electorate 4. Municipal Code Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance, or TPO) requires that a traffic study be prepared and findings be made before building permits may be approved for project's that will generate in excess of 300 average daily trips (ADT). For the purposes of preparing the traffic analysis for this project, 25,725 square feet of medical office use was conservatively considered as the project size and forecast to generate 703 additional trips per day, including 35 additional a.m. peak hour trips and 63 p.m. peak hour trips. Pursuant to Section 15.04.030.A, the project shall not be approved unless certain findings can be made. The following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. That a traffic study for the project has been prepared in compliance with this chapter and Appendix A. Facts in Support of Finding: A -1. A traffic study, entitled "City of Newport Beach, Old Newport Boulevard Sub - Area Project Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised) dated September 30, 2009" was prepared by Kunzman Associates under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines. A -2. Pursuant to the TPO, only primary intersections in the City of Newport Beach are required to be analyzed; however, for the purposes of assessing project - related impacts pursuant to CEQA, the traffic analysis also analyzed intersections in the City of Costa Mesa and included a cumulative impact analysis. Based on consultation between the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa staff, a total of 17 intersections were evaluated. Finding: B. That based on the eight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, one of the findings for approval in subsection (8) can be made: 15.40.030.8.1 Construction of the project will be completed within 60 months of project approval; and Tmpit 11/23/09 I' - City Council Resolution No. _ Paae 5 of 26 15.40.030. B.1(a) The project will neither cause nor make an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted intersection. Facts in Support of Finding: B -1. Construction of the project is anticipated to start in 2010 and completed in 2012. If the project is not completed within sixty (60) months of this approval, preparation of a new traffic study will be required. B -2. The traffic study indicates that the project will increase traffic on three of the ten study intersections in the City of Newport Beach by one percent (1 %) or more during peak hour periods one year after the completion of the project. B -3. Utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis specified by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the traffic study determined that the three primary intersections identified will continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and no mitigation is required. B -4. Based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, the implementation of the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection within the City of Newport Beach. Finding: C. That the project proponent has agreed to make or fund the improvements, or make the contributions, that are necessary to make the findings for approval and to comply with all conditions of approval. Facts in Support of Finding: C -1. Since implementation of the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection within the City of Newport Beach, no improvements or mitigations are necessary. 5. The proposed project encroaches up to 3 feet into the required 5-.foot rear yard (alley) setback with portions of the subterranean parking levels. Although the encroachments are below grade, the Zoning Code does not include any exceptions for below -grade improvements and a modification permit is required. In accordance with Section 20.82.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code Tmpit: 11/23/09 13 City Council Resolution No. _ Page 6 of 26 results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. Facts in Support of Finding: A -1. The purpose and intent of the off -site parking regulations of the Zoning Code is to ensure sufficient parking is provided for new and expanded land uses, and to ensure efficiency, protect the public safety, and, where appropriate, insulate land uses from adverse impacts. Also, one of the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan goals is to minimize traffic and parking impacts on adjacent single - family residential areas by discouraging ingress and egress from the alley accessible from Holmwood Drive. A -2. Strict application of the parking requirements requires the proposed medical office building to provide a total of 125 parking spaces. A practical difficulty exists in that the project site is relatively shallow (approximately 100 feet deep between Old Newport Boulevard and the rear alley), which creates design constraints for providing adequate parking circulation and requires the use of the entire lot area to meet the on -site parking requirements. Given the constraints of the shallow lot, only one -way vehicular circulation can be accommodated on each level and ramps necessary to access an additional subterranean parking level would not be achievable. A -3. A practical difficulty also exists in that the rear property line curves slightly, necessitating the 3 -foot encroachment only within the middle portion of the site. If the site would have been rectangular in shape, the 3 -foot encroachment would not be necessary. A -4. Therefore, the required number of parking spaces cannot be accommodated on- site without the minor below -grade encroachments, unless an alternative parking layout is designed that provides an additional parking level accessible from the alley, which would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Specific Plan. Finding: B. The requested modification will be compatible with the existing de.velopment in the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: B -1. The 3 -foot encroachment into the rear 5 -foot setback occurs entirely below grade and will not be visible from the alley. B -2. At grade, only the two office levels of the building will be visible and will maintain a setback greater than the required 5 feet for a majority of the alley frontage. A condition of approval has been included requiring the above -grade rear setback Tmpit: 11123/09 ly City Council Resolution No. _ Paae 7 of 26 area to be entirely landscaped with a combination of groundcover, shrubs, and vertical plantings to enhance the aesthetics of the alley elevation and to minimize the visual bulk and mass of the structure. Finding: C. The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: D -1. Granting the modification for the subterranean encroachments allows the project to provide the required on -site parking, while limiting vehicular ingress and egress to Old Newport Boulevard and ensuring that the residential area across the alley is protected from vehicular disturbances associated with the project. D -2. The encroachments occur entirely below grade and vehicular maneuverability through the alley will not be impacted. At grade, the rear 5 -foot setback will consist of landscaping and will not impact vehicle maneuverability through the 20 -foot- wide alley. 6. The project proposes a total of 125 parking spaces, 7 of which are located on- street. Pursuant to Section 20.46.040.L of the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan, developments which maintain a 50 -foot (full height curb) separation between driveway approaches on Old Newport Boulevard may be granted an off - street parking credit equal to the number of on- street parking spaces available along that frontage. The project as proposed maintains a separation greater than 200 feet between driveway approaches; however, the City's Traffic Engineer has identified a sight distance hazard associated with 3 of the proposed 7 on- street parking spaces. The remaining 4 spaces do not pose a traffic hazard and a 4 space off - street parking credit is appropriate in this case for the following reasons: a. The project accommodates 4 on- street parking spaces along the project frontage. b. The parking spaces are so located to be useful in connection with the proposed use. c. Given the land -use mix in the area, use of the 4 parking spaces will not negatively impact parking for visitors to the area (i.e. on- street parking is not used for beach access or shopping). d. The parking credit allows for lot consolidation and unified site design. Tmplt: 11/23/09 I� City Council Resolution No. _ Paae 8 of 26 7. The project is located in the 32/50 -foot height limitation zone that permits buildings and structures to exceed the 32 -foot height limit up to a maximum of 50 feet through the approval of a use permit. Overall, the building design conforms to the natural topography of the site and includes step backs at each level while maintaining the 32- foot height limit; however, in order to provide an entry lobby clearly visible and accessible from the Old Newport Boulevard frontage, an elevator and stairwell enclosure is proposed to be located at the northwest corner of the site and will exceed the base height limit. The elevator and stairwell enclosure would be approximately 600 square feet in area and measure 44 feet 10 inches in height. In accordance with Section 20.65.055 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. Facts in Support of Finding: A -1. The project architect has designed an alternative plan that fully complies with the height limit and achieves the same floor area as the proposed design; however, in order to comply with the 32 -foot height limit and still provide a second means of egress from the upper office levels to the lower parking levels, the elevator and stairwell would have to be relocated to the northeastern corner of the project site where the natural grade elevations are higher. Also, the relocation of the elevator and stairwell to the rear of the building displaces office floor area and requires enlargement of the footprint of the 1 st office level to replace the displaced floor area (reducing above -grade setback at alley). Finally, it places the elevator and stairwell closer to the adjacent residential area. A -2. In comparing the proposed plan with the alternative plan, there is a difference in the above -grade building setback and landscaping planting area provided at the rear of the project adjacent to the alley. With the proposed plan, an above - grade building setback ranging from 5 feet to 16 feet is provided with an 877 - square -foot landscape planting area. This increased setback and landscaping significantly enhances the aesthetics of the project as viewed from the alley frontage and adjacent residential uses (public visual open space). In the alternative plan, the above -grade building setback is reduced and the area of landscaping that can be accommodated is reduced to 344 square feet (a 40- percent reduction). Tmplt: 11/23/09 IL1 City Council Resolution No. Pace 9 of Finding: B. The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Facts in Support of Finding: B -1. The proposed design allows for an entry lobby clearly visible and accessible from the Old Newport Boulevard frontage. Architecturally, this enclosure also serves as a design element that breaks up the long elevation of the project frontage and creates visual interest. B -2. The project architect has designed an alternative plan that fully complies with the height limit and achieves the same floor area as the proposed design; however, to provide access from the lower parking levels to the upper office levels, the subject elevator and stairwell would have to be relocated to the northeastern corner of the project site where the natural grade elevations are higher. B -3. The result of the alternative design would be a less desirable architectural treatment of the building in that the building's primary entry would be eliminated from Old Newport Boulevard and the building elevation visible from Old Newport Boulevard would be heavily dominated by the parking structure. Safe pedestrian access from the Old Newport Boulevard street frontage would be lost as patients parking on the street would have to walk through the driveway entries and through the parking structure to access the building lobbies. This design would also be inconsistent with General Plan Policy LU 5.4.1 which requires readily observable site access, entrance drives, and building entries to minimize conflicts between service vehicles, private automobiles, and pedestrians. It would also be inconsistent with Policy LU 5.4.2 which requires new developments to be designed to convey a unified and high - quality character in consideration of several principles, including clearly identifying the entry of the building through design elements. Finding: C. The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. Facts in Support of Finding: C -1. The project site maintains a relatively long frontage width of approximately 290 feet along Old Newport Boulevard. To minimize the massing and scale of the Tmplt: 11/23109 I-1 City Council Resolution No. _ Paae 10 of 26 building as viewed from Old Newport Boulevard, the proposed design includes step backs at each of the office levels following the natural topography of the site. C -2. As viewed from the alley frontage, the increased height of the elevator and stairwell enclosure will not be visible from the alley or residences to the east as the overall elevation to the top of the enclosure (101.33 feet) would remain lower than the elevation of the portion of the building facing the alley (103.00 feet). C -3. As viewed from the Old Newport Boulevard frontage, the increased height of the elevator and stairwell enclosure will be clearly noticeable as it is located immediately adjacent to the front property line and will measure approximately 40 feet in width, which is approximately 14- percent of the frontage width. However, given the fact that the upper office level adjacent to the alley is higher in overall elevation, the elevator and stairwell enclosure would not result in an abrupt scale relationship. Also, providing an entry lobby clearly visible and accessible from the Old Newport Boulevard frontage is desirable and encouraged by the General Plan. Finding: D. The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. Facts in Support of Finding: D -1. The proposed structures will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without requesting the increased height. SECTION 4. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find, on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant affect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit "A ". The document and all material, which constitute the record upon which this decision was based, are on file with the Planning Department, City Hall, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. 2. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -001. Table LU2 and Figure LU9 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan shall be amended as provided in Exhibit "B ". Tmplt: 11/23/09 8 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 11 of 26 3. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby find that the Project complies with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including Traffic Study No. TS2009 -002. 4. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby approve Use Permit No. UP2009 -005, Modification Permit No. MD2009 -016 and the requested off - street parking credit, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "C ". 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. 6. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach hereby directs the City Clerk to mail notice of this decision to the applicant and appellant within five working days of the date of this decision. Passed and adopted by the City Council of Newport Beach at a regular meeting held on the March 9, 2010, by the following vote to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Tmplt: 11/23/09 E City Council Resolution No. _ Pape 12 of 26 EXHIBIT "A" Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program Tmplt: 11/23/09 20 Method of Timing Responsible Verification Verification Party Date Aesthetics MM VA: The site shall not be excessively illuminated Plan check Prior to the Planning Dept. based on the luminance recommendations of the and field issuance of Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in inspection. permits and the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination after creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding construction. land uses or environmental resources. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. MM V.2: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Plan check. Prior to the Planning Dept. applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction issuance of with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning permits- Department. MM V.3: Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable Plan check. Prior to the Planning Dept. standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on -site lighting issuance of shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No permits. direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpal type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut -off fixtures and light standards shall not exceed 20 feet in height. Air Quality MM AQ.1: The applicant shall employ the following best Field During Building Dept. available control measures ( "BACMs") to reduce inspections, construction. and construction - related air quality impacts: Contractor to Contractor. Dust Control certify. - Water all active construction areas as needed. - Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. - Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas. - Sweep or wash any site access points within two hours of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway. - Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material. - Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph. Emissions - Require 90 -day low -NOx tune -ups for off road equipment. - Limit allowable idling to 5 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment. - The construction contractor shall utilize coatings and solvents with a VOC content lower than required under SCAQMD Rule 1113. - The construction contractor shall utilize materials that do not require painting, as feasible. Off -Site Impacts - Encourage car pooling for construction workers. - Limit lane closures to off -peak travel periods. - Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways. - Wet down or cover dirt hauled off -site as needed to Tmplt: 11/23/09 20 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 13 of 26 Tmplt: 11/23/09 21 Method of Timing Responsible Verification Verification Party Date reduce dust. - Sweep access points daily. - Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours. - Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. Excavation - The number and type of equipment for dirt removal will be limited on any day to ensure that SCAQMD significance thresholds are not exceeded. - Maintain and utilize a continuous water application system during earth movement to achieve a minimum 10 percent soil moisture content in the top six -inch surface layer, subject to review /discretion of the eotechnical engineer. MM AQ.2: Energy Conservation Plan check Prior to Planning Dept. - During demolition, to the extent feasible, recyclable and field issuance of and materials shall be separated from materials that cannot inspections permits and Contractor. be recycled. (recycling). during - Incorporate energy and water saving materials, features construction. and practices as feasible; maximize use of low- energy Contractor to lighting (LED, fluorescent) where feasible; require certify. acquisition of new appliances and equipment to meet Energy Star certification where appropriate. Cultural Resources MM CRA: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Plan check Prior to Planning Dept. applicant shall provide written evidence to the Planning and field issuance of and Director that a qualified archaeologist (with training in the inspections. permits and Contractor. recognition of paleontological resources, or a separate Contractor to during paleontologist) has been retained to observe grading certify. construction. activities and conduct salvage excavation of archeological resources as necessary. The archeologist shall be present at the pre - grading conference, shall establish procedures for archeological resources surveillance, and shall establish, in cooperation with the City, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit the sampling, identification and evaluation of the artifacts as appropriate. If archeological and /or paleontological features are discovered, the archeologist shall report such findings to the Planning Department. If the archeological resources are found to be significant, the archeological observer shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the City, for exploration and/or salvage. These actions, as well as final mitigation and disposition of the resources, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. MM CR.2: In accordance with the Public Resources Code Field During Building Dept. §5097.94, if human remains are found, the Orange inspections. construction. and County Coroner must be notified within 24 hours of the Contractor. discovery. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not recent, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento to determine the most likely descendent for the area. The designated Native American representative then determines in consultation with the City the disposition of the human remains. Hazards MM HZA: A survey for hazardous materials /wastes shall Plan check. Prior to Building Dept. be undertaken prior to demolition activities. In the event issuance of that hazardous materials are determined to be potentially permits. resent, a plan for safe storage and disposal shall be Tmplt: 11/23/09 21 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 14 of 26 Tmplt 11/23/09 22- Method of Timing Responsible Verification Verification Party Date developed. The Applicant shall provide evidence that ensures that any identified hazardous materials /wastes are handled and disposed of in the manner specified by the State of California Hazardous Substances Control Law (Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5), standards established by the California Department of Health Services and Office of Statewide Planning and Development, and according to the requirements of the California Administrative Code, Title 30. MM HZ.2: Prior to the issuance of any building permits Plan check Prior to Fire Dept. for new construction, the Applicant shall submit issuance of documentation to the City's Fire Department for review permits. and approval to ensure that either there are no hazardous materials /wastes on the site, or that any identified hazardous materials /wastes are stored, handled and disposed of in compliance with state and federal guidelines, and as directed by the City's Fire Department. MM HZ.3: The Applicant shall ensure that grading and Plan check Prior to Planning Dept. building plans include the following measures and that the issuance of measures shall be followed by the construction contractor permits. and crew: 1. The storage of hazardous materials, chemicals, fuels, and oils and fueling of construction equipment shall be a minimum of 45 meters (150 feet) from any drainage, water supply, or other water feature. 2. Provide secondary containment and /or proper covers or lids for material storage, trash bins, and outdoor processing and work areas (Source NPDES Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board [SARWQCB] 4th Term Permit R8- 2009 - 0030). 3. Whenever possible, all of a product shall be used up before disposal of its container. 4. If surplus product must be disposed of, methods for disposal recommended by the manufacturer or the City and the state shall be followed. 5. Spills shall be contained and cleaned up immediately after discovery. Manufacturers methods for spill cleanup of a material shall be followed as described on the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for each product. Any hazardous spills that enter the storm drains (also known as MS 4s) shall notify the City and the SARWQCB. Hydrology MM HYA: Prior to grading and building permit issuance, Plan check Prior to Building Dept. the applicant shall submit a Water Quality Management issuance of Plan ( "WQMP ") to satisfy the Citys requirements. This permits. plan will prescribe appropriate structural and non- structural Best Management Practices ( "BMPs ") to address pollutants generated by the project to ensure that no violations of water quality standards will occur. Noise MM NA: As feasible, pile driving shall utilize sonic pile Field During Building Dept. driving or caisson drilling in place of impact pile driving as inspections. construction. and appropriate for site conditions; sonic pile driving shall only Contractor to Contractor, be used after review by acoustical and structural engineers certify. to ensure that adjacent buildings would not be adversely affected by steady state excitation resulting in resonance response or other adverse geologic issues. The pile driving rig shall access the site from Old Newport and not the alley. Tmplt 11/23/09 22- City Council Resolution No. _ Pace 15 of 26 Tmplt: 11123109 �LJ Method of Timing Responsible, Verification Verification Party Date MM N.2: All construction equipment shall be equipped Field Prior to start Contractor. with residential -grade mufflers and other suitable noise inspections. of excavation/ attenuation devices. Contractor to grading. certify. MM N.3: A temporary six -foot solid wall (e.g., wood or Field Prior to start Building Dept. other noise baffling material) shall be constructed on the inspections. of excavation and project site such that the line -of -sight is blocked from Contractor to grading. Contractor. construction activity to the residential uses along the alley. certify. Additionally noise shrouds and /or noise blankets shall be used to screen and reduce noise from pile driving activity at the residences along the alley. MM NA: Prior to the issuance of the demolition permit, Field Prior to Public Works the project applicant shall prepare a construction staging inspections demolition Dept. plan that reflects the locations of the construction and permit. staging areas on the subject property, which shall be located as far away from the nearby residential development as possible to reduce temporary noise impacts. MM N.5: All residential units and site occupants located Field Prior to start Planning Dept. within 300 feet of the construction site shall be sent a inspections. of excavation/ and notice regarding the construction schedule of the Contractor to grading. Contractor. proposed project. A sign, legible at a distance of 50 feet certify. shall also be posted at the construction site. All notices and signs shall indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register complaints. MM N.6: The construction contractor shall establish a Field Prior to start Planning Dept. "noise disturbance coordinator ". The disturbance inspections. of excavation/ and coordinator shall be responsible for responding to any Contractor to grading. Contractor. local complaints about construction noise. The certify. disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and would be required to implement reasonable measures such that the complaint is resolved. All notices that are sent to residential units within 300 feet of the construction site and all signs posted at the construction site shall list the telephone number for the disturbance coordinator. Public Services Fire MM F.1: The project shall provide water and access to Plan check. Issuance of Fire Dept. meet fire department requirements; the building shall be building equipped with a sprinkler system that complies with Fire permit Department specifications if any). Traffic -- Safety MM T.1: Sight distance at the project access points shall Plan check. Issuance of Public Works be reviewed with respect to City o; Newport Beach building Dept. standards in conjunction with the preparation of final permit grading, landscaping, and street improvement plans. MM T.2: On -site traffic signing and striping shall be Plan check. Issuance of Public Works implemented in conjunction with detailed construction building Dept. plans for the project and as approved by the City of permit Newport Beach. Utilities — Water and Wastewater MM W.1: Prior to demolition, the applicant shall prepare a Plan check. Prior to start Public Works water system and sanitary sewer system demand study to of Dept. identify potential impacts to the existing City or Sanitation construction District's ability to provide adequate water and sewer service and sewage collection and treatment. The study will identify the need to upgrade any of the existing facilities currently serving the site. Tmplt: 11123109 �LJ City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 16 of 26 Tmplt: 11/23/09 24 Method of Verification Timing Responsible Party Verification Date MM W.2: Prior to the issuance of grading or building Plan check. Prior to the Public Works permits, the Applicant shall coordinate with utility and issuance of Dept. service organizations regarding any construction activities permits, to ensure existing facilities are protected and any necessary expansion or relocation of facilities are planned and scheduled in consultation with the appropriate public agencies. MM W.3: The project shall incorporate water Plan check. Prior to the Planning Dept. conservation measures including low flow fixtures, water- issuance of efficient equipment, drought tolerant landscaping, rain permits. capture and storage and other features as feasible to reduce water consumption. Tmplt: 11/23/09 24 EXHIBIT "B" Land Use Element Changes Tmplt: 11/23/09 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 17 of 26 City Council Resolution No. _ Pace 18 of 26 Anomaly Number Statistical Area Land Use Desf nation Development Limit (so Development Limit Other Additional Information 1 L4 MU -H2 460,095 471 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) 2 L4 MU -H2 1,060,146 3 L4 CO -G 734,641 4 L4 MU -H2 250,176 5 L4 MU -H2 32,500 6 L4 MU -H2 34,500 7 L4 MU -H2 81,372 8 L4 MU -H2 442,775 9 L4 CG 120,000 164 Hotel Rooms (included in total square footage) 10 L4 MU -H2 31,362 349 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) 11 L4 CG 11,950 12 L4 MU -H2 457,880 13 L4 CO -G 288,264 14 L4 CO- G /MU -H2 860,884 15 L4 MU -H2 228,214 16 L4 CO -G 344,231 17 L4 MU -H2 33,292 304 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) 18 L4 CG 225,280 19 L4 CG 228,530 21 J6 CO -G 687,000 Office: 660,000 sf Retail: 27,000 sf CV 300 Hotel Rooms 22 J6 CO -G 70,000 Restaurant: 8000 sf, or Office: 70,000 sf 23 K2 PR 15,000 24 L3 IG 89;624 25 L3 PI 84,585 26 L3 IG 33,940 27 L3 IG 80,000 28 L3 IG 110,600 29 L3 CG 47,500 30 M6 CG 54,000 31 L2 PR 75,000 32 L2 PI 34,000 Tmplt: 11/23/09 03 City Council Resolution No. Paae 19 of 26 Anomaly Number Statistical Area Land Use Designation Development Limit (so Development Limit Other Additional Information 33 M3 PI 163,680 Administrative Office and Support Facilitates: 30,000 sf Community Mausoleum and Garden Crypts: 121,680 sf Family Mausoleums: 12,000 sf 34 11 CO -R 484,348 35 L1 CO -R 199,095 36 1-1 CO -R 227,797 37 1-1 CO -R 131,201 2,050 Theater Seats (not included in total square footage) 38 L1 CO -M 443,627 39 11 MU -H3 408,084 40 L1 MU -1-13 1,426,634 425 Hotel Rooms (included in total Square Footage) 41 1-1 CO -R 327,671 42 1-1 CO -R 286,166 43 11 Cv 611 Hotel Rooms 44 L1 CR 1,619;525 1,700 Theater Seats (not included in total square footage) 45 L1 CO -G 162.364 46 1-1 MU -H3 /PR 3,725 24 Tennis Courts Residential permitted in accordance with MU -H3. 47 11 CG 105,000 48 L1 MU -H3 337,261 49 1-1 PI 45,208 50 11 CG 25,000 51 K1 PR 20,000 52 K1 Cv 479 Hotel Rooms 53 K1 PR 567,500 See Settlement Agreement 54 it CM 2,000 55 H3 PI 119,440 56 A3 PI 1,343,238 990,349 sf Upper Campus 577,889 sf Lower Campus In no event shall the total combined gross Floor area of both campuses exceed the development limit of 1,343,238 sq. ft. 57 Intentionally Blank 58 J5 PR 20,000 59 H4 MU -W1 487,402 157 Hotel Rooms and 144 Dwelling Units (included in total square footage) Tmplt: 11/23109 2-7 City Council Resolution No. Pace 20 of 26 .. Anomaly Statistical Land Use Development Number Area Designation Limit (so Development limit Other Additional Information 60 N CV 2,660,000 2,150 Hotel Rooms (included in total square footage) 61 N CV 125,000 62 L2 CG 2,300 63 G1 CN 66,000 64 M3 CN 74,000 65 M5 CN 80,000 66 J2 CN 138,500 67 D2 PI 20,000 68 L3 PI 71,150 69 K2 CN 75,000 70 D2 RM -D Parking Structure for Bay Island (No Residential Units) 71 L1 CO -G 11,630 72 L1 CO -G 8,000 73 A3 CO -M 350,000 74 L1 PR 35,000 City Hall, and the administrative offices of the 75 L1 PF City of Newport Beach, and related parking, pursuant to Section 425 of the City Charter. 1.0 FAR permitted, provided all four legal lots 76 H1 CO.O 0.5 FAR are consolidated into one parcel to provided unified site design Tmplt 11/23109 M City Council Resolution No. — Paqe 21 of 26 4* j Tmplt: 11/23/09 2 ^ \ \ \ \} {{ \\ \ } \\ /\\ \( \�(} \\ } z 7 \\ m Tmplt: 11/23/09 2 City Council Resolution No. _ Paae 22 of 26 EXHIBIT "C" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project- specific conditions are in italics) PLANNING The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, roof plans, and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval. (Except as modified by applicable conditions of approval.) 2. Use Permit No. UP2009 -005 and Modification Permit No. MD2009 -016 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.93.050 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 3. An off - street parking credit shall be granted equal to the number of on- street parking spaces provided along the Old Newport Boulevard frontage. The on- street parking spaces shall be subject to the review and approval of the Public Works Department. 4. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 5. The applicant shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws. Material violation of any of those laws in connection with the use may be cause for revocation of this Use Permit. 6. This approval was based on the particulars of the individual case and does not in and of itself or in combination with other approvals in the vicinity or Citywide constitute a precedent for future approvals or decisions. 7. This Use Permit and Modification Permit may be modified or revoked by the City Council or Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed uses or conditions under which it is being operated or maintained is detrimental to the public health, welfare or materially injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or if the property is operated or maintained so as to constitute a public nuisance. 8. Any change in operational characteristics, expansion in area, or other modification to the approved plans, shall require an amendment to this Use Permit or Modification Permit or the processing of new permits. 9. 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 Tmplt: 11/23109 '3G City Council Resolution No. _ Pape 23 of 26 systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 10. Landscaping shall comply with all applicable landscaping standards contained within Section 20.46.040 of the Zoning Code. No deviations are permitted. 11. The five -foot rear yard (alley) setback shall be landscaped with a combination of groundcover, shrubs, and vertical plantings to enhance the aesthetics of the alley elevation and to minimize the visual bulk and mass of the structure. The final landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the Public Works Department to ensure the landscaping will not negatively impact vehicular circulation through the alley right -of -way. 12. 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: 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Department. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in a trash enclosure that is recessed into the building. Also, to minimize noise and odor impacts to the adjacent resident, the enclosure shall be located at the southeast corner of the site and screened from view of neighboring properties, except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. Tmplt 11/23/09 -g I Between the hours of 7:OOAM and 10:OOPM Between the hours of 10:OOPM and T.00AM Location Interior Exterior Interior Exterior Residential Property 45dBA 55dBA 40dBA 50dBA Residential Property located within 100 feet of a commercial ropert 45dBA 6OdBA 45dBA 50dBA Mixed Use Property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA Commercial Property N/A 65dBA N/A 60dBA 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay any unpaid administrative costs associated with the processing of this application to the Planning Department. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. All trash shall be stored within the building or within dumpsters stored in a trash enclosure that is recessed into the building. Also, to minimize noise and odor impacts to the adjacent resident, the enclosure shall be located at the southeast corner of the site and screened from view of neighboring properties, except when placed for pick -up by refuse collection agencies. Tmplt 11/23/09 -g I City Council Resolution No. Paqe 24 of 26 17. Trash receptacles for patrons shall be conveniently located both inside and outside of the establishment, however, not located on or within any public property or right -of- way. 18. The exterior of the business shall be maintained free of litter and graffiti at all times. The owner or operator shall provide for daily removal of trash, litter debris and graffiti from the premises and on all abutting sidewalks within 20 feet of the premises. 19. 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 Department. 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). 20. Deliveries and refuse collection for the facility shall be prohibited between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., daily, unless otherwise approved by the Planning Director, and may require an amendment to this Modification Permit. 21. Storage outside of the building in the front or at the rear of the property shall be prohibited, with the exception of the required trash container enclosure. 22. The final project design shall include an internal lighting system that would auto -dim after standard work hours, leaving small task lighting for janitorial and service activities and to light areas where employees may be working late. 23. The portion of the elevator and stairwell enclosure that exceeds the 32 -foot base height limit shall be redesigned in a manner that minimizes the bulk of the architectural appurtenance. The final design shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Director. 24. 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 Old Newport Boulevard General Plan Amendment Project including, but not limited to, the approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -001, Modification Permit No. 2009- 016, Traffic Study No. TS2009 -002& requested Off - Street Parking Credit; and /or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the certification of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and /or the adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, attorneys' fees, and other expenses incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, suit or proceeding whether incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, Tmplt 11/23109 39i City Council Resolution No. _ Page 25 of 26 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. Fire Department Conditions 25. Elevators shall be gurney- accommodating in accordance with Article 30 of the California Building Code (2007 edition). 26. Fire sprinklers shall be installed in accordance with NFPA 13, 2002 Edition. 27. A Fire Department connection for the fire sprinkler system shall be provided within 150 feet and shall be located on the same side of the street as a public hydrant. 28. Class I standpipe connections are required in all parking levels in addition to the fire sprinklers. 29. Drain for the fire sprinkler system located adjacent to system riser is required to empty into sewer system. This connection shall be shown on plumbing plans. 30. Fire sprinkler monitoring system is required. If an "I" occupancy is proposed, a manual and an automatic fire alarm system is required. Building Department Conditions 31. The applicant is required to obtain all applicable permits from the City Building and Fire Departments. The construction plans must comply with the most recent, City- adopted version of the California Building Code. The construction plans must meet all applicable State Disabilities Access requirements. 32. An application for Alternate Methods and Materials shall be filed with, and approved by, the Building Department to allow the categorization of parking for employees and patients for the purpose of calculating disabled parking requirements. In addition, a covenant shall be recorded on the property reserving the eight parking spaces on the lower parking level and all the spaces on the upper parking level for employee parking only. The covenant shall be prepared by the applicant's legal counsel for approval by the City Attorney if deemed consistent with the intent of this condition. The applicant shall provide proof of recordation of the covenant, subject to the Planning Director's approval. 33. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Department and Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. Tmplt: 11/23/09 33 City Council Resolution No. _ Page 26 of 26 34. 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. Public Works Conditions 35. Traffic control and truck route plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department before their implementation. Large construction vehicles shall not be permitted to travel narrow streets as determined by the Public Works Department. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagman. 36. The project shall include appropriate signage and striping to emphasize the vehicular circulation. Proposed signage shall be per the California MUTCD and the proposed striping shall be per the most recent Caltrans Standard Plans, 37. No above or below ground structural encroachments are permitted within the public right -of -way, including tie backs, caissons, etc. 38. The alley shall not be closed during the course of construction unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department via a Temporary Street and Sidewalk Closure Permit. Mitigation Measures 39. The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures and standard conditions contained within the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit A) for the project. Tmpit: 11/23/09 -N Attachment No. CC 2 February 4, 2010, Planning Commission Staff Report 35 3L CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT February 4, 2010 Agenda Item No. 3 SUBJECT: Old Newport Boulevard General Plan Amendment 328, 332, and 340 Old Newport Boulevard (PA2008 -047) • General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -001 • Use Permit No. UP2009 -005 • Modification Permit No. MD2009 -016 • Traffic Study No. TS2009 -002 APPLICANT: Micheal C. Adams Associates PLANNER: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3209, imurillo(a-)newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant is seeking a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to increase the allowable floor area to land area ratio (FAR) for the project site from 0.5 FAR to 1.0 FAR. An FAR of 1.0 could result in 25,725 square feet of development. Concurrent with the requested General Plan Amendment, the applicant is proposing the construction of a 25,000 - square -foot medical office building. The following approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as proposed: 1. An amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to increase the allowable FAR from 0.5 to 1.0 for the project site. 2. A modification permit to allow the proposed subterranean parking area to encroach 3 feet into the 5 -foot rear yard setback. 3. A seven space off - street parking credit for the creation of seven on- street parking spaces along the project frontage. 4. A use permit to allow an elevator and stairwell enclosure to exceed the 32 -foot base height limit. 5. A traffic study pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. (Attachment No. PC1) recommending that the City Council: I Old Newport Boulevard GPA February 4, 2010 Page 2 a. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and b. Find that, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including Traffic Study No. TS2009 -002, that the Project complies with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and c. Approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -001 with a FAR of 0.75; and d. Approve Modification Permit No. MD2009 -016 and the requested off - street parking credit; and e. Deny Use Permit No. UP2009 -005. V Old Newport Boulevard GPA February 4, 2010 Page 3 MAP LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE Old Newport Boulevard ON -SITE General Commercial Specific Plan /Retail General and medical office use Office (CO -G) Service Commercial (SP- and one residential unit 9 /RSC NORTH CO -G SP -9 /RSC Office building SOUTH CO -G SP -9 /RSC Office building EAST Single -Unit Residential Single - Family Residential Single -unit residential dwellings Detached (RS-D R -1 WEST CO -G SP -9 /RSC Retail and office uses 3q Old Newport Boulevard GPA February 4, 2010 Page 4 INTRODUCTION Project Setting The 0.59 -acre (25,725 square feet) project site consists of three separate parcels (four legal lots) and is currently developed with three buildings totaling 14,012 square feet (0.54 FAR combined): 340 Old Newport Boulevard- 6,521- square -foot lot developed with a three -level mixed -use building consisting of 5,000 square feet of general office space and a 1,000- square -foot residential dwelling unit (0.92 FAR). Parking is accessible from Old Newport Boulevard and the alley. 332 Old Newport Boulevard- 13,341- square -foot parcel (consisting of two legal lots) developed with a 3,012- square -foot medical office building (0.23 FAR). Parking is accessible from Old Newport Boulevard and the alley. 328 Old Newport Boulevard- 5,890- square -foot lot developed with a two -level 5,000— square -foot general office building (0.85 FAR). Parking is accessible from the alley. Surrounding land uses include the Newport Heights single -unit residential neighborhood to the east across the alley, a three -level office building to the south, a one -level office building to the north, and three, one- to two -level commercial buildings to the west. The project site slopes up south to north along Old Newport Boulevard (approximately a 10 -foot difference in grade elevation) and steeply slopes up west to east from Old Newport Boulevard to the alley (approximately a 24 -foot difference in grade elevation). Project Description The applicant is seeking a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to increase the allowable floor area to land ratio (FAR) of the project site from 0.5 FAR to 1.0 FAR. An FAR of 1.0 could result in 25,725 square feet of development (an increase of 12,862.5 s�uare feet of entitlement). At the time the application was submitted, Council Policy K -1 required the submittal of a conceptual plan with any GPA application. The applicant's conceptual plan has since evolved into a detailed plan, which consists of demolishing the existing buildings on the site, consolidating the three parcels into one parcel, and constructing a 25,000- square -foot medical office building (Attachment No. PC 2). 1 The City Council removed the conceptual development plan requirement from Council Policy K -1 on August 11, 2009. k0 Old Newport Boulevard GPA February 4, 2010 Page 5 The proposed building would consist of four levels: two levels of parking and two levels of office space. The first office level (3`d level) would consist of 15,447 square feet of floor area. The second office level (4"' level) would consist of 9,553 square feet of floor area. Both parking levels would be partially below grade with vehicular access from Old Newport Boulevard. Due to the slope of Old Newport Boulevard, vehicular access to the lower parking level (1St level) would occur at the southwest corner of the site and vehicular access to the upper parking level (2nd level) would occur from the northwest corner of the site. No vehicular access from the alley at the rear of the site is proposed. A total of 125 parking spaces are proposed: 58 spaces on the lower parking level, 60 spaces on the upper parking level, and 7 on- street parking spaces along the Old Newport Boulevard frontage (see discussion in the Parking Credit section). The upper parking level is proposed to be reserved for employees only. Each parking level would provide for one -way vehicular circulation. Primary pedestrian access into the building would be from the elevator and stairwell lobby accessible from Old Newport Boulevard at the northwest corner of the site. This elevator and stairwell would also provide access to employees and customers parked in both parking levels. A secondary elevator and stairwell located at the southeast comer of the site would also provide access from both parking levels, and would provide pedestrian access from the alley. The proposed building height would not exceed the 32 -foot base height limit, as measured from natural grade, with the exception of the elevator and stairwell enclosure located at the northwest corner of the site. The building design would conform to the natural topography of the site and would include step backs at each level maintaining the 32 -foot height limit. The elevator and stairwell enclosure would be approximately 600 square feet in area and is proposed to measure 44 feet 10 inches in height. A total of 2,447 square feet of landscaping area is proposed. A 423 square -foot landscape planter is proposed at the front of the building adjacent to Old Newport Boulevard and an 877 - square -foot landscape planting area is proposed at the rear of the site adjacent to the alley. Decorative paving (totaling 1,147 square feet) is proposed within the 5 -foot rear yard (alley) setback to increase vehicular maneuverability through the 20 -foot alley. Background Prior to the 2006 comprehensive update to the City's General Plan, the 1988 Land Use Element permitted a maximum FAR of 0.75 for commercial uses located within the Old Newport Boulevard corridor area, provided existing lots are consolidated into a single development site. The Land Use Element also permitted mixed commercial /residential development up to a total FAR of 1.25 (0.5 commercial and 0.75 residential) and a total FAR of 1.4 (0.65 commercial and 0.75 residential), provided existing lots are consolidated into a single development site. �t Old Newport Boulevard GPA February 4, 2010 Page 6 When the 2006 comprehensive update to the General Plan was adopted, the provisions for mixed use development and the increased FAR limitations for lot consolidation were eliminated from the Old Newport Boulevard corridor area of the General Plan. The current Land Use Element of the General Plan limits development to a maximum FAR of 0.5 and no longer permits mixed -use developments. Unfortunately, the property owner began acquiring ownership of and developing plans for the subject properties prior to the 2006 General Plan Update with the assumption that he could consolidate the lots into a single development site and develop the site for mixed commercial /residential development up to the maximum 1.4 FAR. The property owner consulted with City staff early in the General Plan Update process and was assured the development limitations would not change; however, in the final phases of the General Plan Update, it was decided that development incentives for the increased FAR and provisions for mixed -use development should be removed. Subsequent to the approval of the 2006 General Plan Update, the property owner approached staff for early consultation on a proposed mixed -use development and was notified that project was no longer consistent with the General Plan and could not be approved. In March of 2008, the applicant submitted an application to amend the General Plan to allow the proposed mixed -use development consistent with the 1988 Land Use Element provisions and current Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan regulations; however, due to staffs concerns about bulk and mass, height, and creating an island of residential uses in a commercial area, the applicant subsequently revised his application to the currently proposed medical office development. DISCUSSION General Plan General Plan Policies The project site is located within the Old Newport Boulevard commercial corridor. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site General Commercial Office (CO -G) with a maximum allowable development limit of 0.5 FAR. The CO -G designation is intended to provide for administrative, professional, and medical offices with limited accessory retail and service uses. The proposed medical office building would be consistent with this designation; however, the applicant is requesting to increase the allowable FAR to 1.0. The General Plan includes several goals and policies related to development in the City and indicates that, with the completion of Newport Boulevard as the primary entry into the City, vehicular trips have shifted away from Old Newport Boulevard and resulted in a N 2- Old Newport Boulevard GPA February 4, 2010 Page 7 reduction in the corridor's economic vitality, which has significantly changed the land use mix in the area; therefore, the General Plan also includes a specific goal and policies pertaining to development in the Old Newport Boulevard corridor area. In the Old Newport Boulevard area, the General Plan provides for the development of professional offices, retail, and other uses that support Hoag Hospital, and retail uses serving the adjoining residential neighborhoods. A complete consistency analysis of each of the applicable General Plan policies appears within the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration on pages 51 through 57 and concludes that the project is consistent with each of the adopted goals and policies. In considering the proposed GPA to increase the development intensity of the project site, the Planning Commission should specifically consider the following Land Use Element policy: LU 3.2 Growth and Change Enhance existing neighborhoods, districts, and corridors, allowing for re -use and infill with uses that are complementary in type, form, scale, and character. Changes in use and /or densityAntensity should be considered only in those areas that are economically underperforming, are necessary to accommodate Newport Beach's share of projected regional population growth, improve the relationship and reduce commuting distance between home and jobs, or enhance the values that distinguish Newport Beach as a special place to live for its residents. The scale of growth and new development shall be coordinated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and public services, including standards for acceptable traffic level of service. (Imp 1. 1, 2.1, 5.1, 10.2, 16.2, 16.3, 17.1, 18.1, 19.1, 22. 1, 23.1, 23.2) The applicant asserts that it is financially infeasible to redevelop the properties at the currently permitted 0.5 FAR limit and construct the required subterranean parking. If this is the case, the proposed GPA for increased intensity could be considered consistent with LU 3.2 as follows: • The General Plan recognizes the Old Newport Boulevard corridor as an area that has experienced reduced economic vitality. • The increased intensity would provide an economic stimulus needed to accommodate the redevelopment of three separate, nonconforming and underperforming properties into one medical office building. • As stated in the General Plan, Newport Beach residents desire high quality development and redevelopment of underperforming, nonconforming properties. • Redevelopment of the subject property may help revitalize the corridor and encourage redevelopment of other underperforming properties within the Old Newport Boulevard corridor. k3 Old Newport Boulevard GPA February 4, 2010 Page 8 The project site is served by existing infrastructure and public services. The proposed increase in intensity will not necessitate any expansion of existing infrastructure. As described in more detail in the Traffic Study section of this report, a traffic impact analysis was prepared for the project and found that the addition of project - related traffic would not have a significant impact at any of the study intersections. Although the proposed GPA can be found consistent with the General Plan goals and policies, the Planning Commission should consider the fairness of granting an increased 1.0 FAR intensity limit to a single property owner within an existing commercial corridor area. Generally, staff supports a GPA for increased intensity as it will provide the economic stimulus needed to accommodate redevelopment of the properties; however, staff is concerned with the appropriateness of a 1.0 FAR intensity limit, given that the scale and character of the proposed project would contrast with the older development in the area consisting of smaller parcels with lesser commercial intensities. As illustrated by the discussion under the Zoning & Site Design section of this report, the project can be developed at a 1.0 intensity limit; however, it requires maximization of the building envelope and several deviations from development standards in order to accommodate the project. General Plan Table Change As indicated above, the primary benefit of approving the proposed GPA would be the resulting redevelopment and consolidation of three parcels (four legal lots) into one unified development. Amendments to the General Plan are legislative, and as such, conditions of approval may not be imposed on the GPA requiring that the consolidation of the three parcels actually occur. Therefore, should this proposed GPA be approved, staff is recommending that a new anomaly (Anomaly No. 76) be created within the Land Use Element that limits the project site to a 0.5 FAR, but which includes provisions for a 1.0 FAR, provided all four legal lots are consolidated into one parcel to provided unified site design. See Attachment No. PC3 for draft changes to Land Use Element. Charter Section 423 (Measure S) Charter Section 423 requires that major General Plan Amendments be voted upon by the electorate. A major General Plan Amendment is one that increases the General Plan by 40,000 square feet of non - residential floor area or increases traffic by more than 100 peak hour vehicle trips or increases residential dwelling units by 100 units. Council Policy A -18 requires that proposed amendments to the General Plan be reviewed to determine if a vote of the Newport Beach electorate would be required. The proposed GPA is located in Statistical Area H1 of the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach t4q Old Newport Boulevard GPA February 4, 2010 Page 9 General Plan and will result in an increase of 12,862.5 square feet of non - residential entitlement. The proposed GPA does not create any new dwelling units and does not exceed the non - residential floor area threshold. Also, based on the trip generation rates contained in the Council Policy A -18 (blended commercial rate), the proposed GPA is forecast to generate an additional 39 a.m. peak hour trips and 52 p.m. peak hour trips. 12.8625 3 a.m. trips 38.59 a.m. trips 12.8625 4 p.m. trips 51.45 p.m. trips Therefore, none of the three thresholds that require a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 are exceeded. No other prior amendments have been approved within Statistical Area H1 since the adoption of the 2006 General Plan and no vote would be required based on cumulative amendments. If approved, this amendment will be tracked for ten years in accordance with Section 423. Zoning & Site Desion Zoning Compliance The project is located within the Retail, Service & Commercial (RSC) land use designation of the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan (SP -9) District. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to establish policies to guide the orderly development and improvement of the Old Newport Boulevard area. Goals of the Specific Plan include: enhancing the appearance, access, and identifying the area as one of the primary entry points into the City; encouraging the redevelopment and upgrading of Old Newport Boulevard as a commercial district with retail sales and office opportunities; establishing guidelines and standards for new development, public improvements, and landscaping that will encourage harmonious transitions and minimize conflicts between different land uses; and improving access, viability, and parking in order to encourage visitor traffic and increase business activity within the district. The Specific Plan also implements the development incentives for lot consolidation of the 1988 Land Use Element, which are no longer applicable. Redevelopment of the project site as a medical office building is consistent with, and encouraged by, the Specific Plan. The project complies with the basic SP -9 /RSC development standards related to lot size, setbacks, height, landscaping, parking, and vehicular access. However, the project does not comply with a landscaping requirement pertaining to the planting of trees, the subterranean parking encroaches into the 5 -foot rear yard setback, and the elevator and stairwell located at the northwest 1_1S Old Newport Boulevard GPA February 4, 2010 Page 10 corner of the site exceed the base height limit. The following table provides a summary of the project's compliance with applicable development standards: Setbacks Front 0 0 Side 0 2 feet on north side; and 5 inches on south side Building above grade: varies from 5 feet to 16 feet. Rear 5 feet min. Subterranean Parking: 2 feet (requires modification permit) Main Building: 32 feet Height 32 feet max. Elevator and stairwell enclosure: 44 feet 10 inches (requires use permit) 30,687.5 square feet Bulk 0.75 or 19,293.75 square feet max. (1.25 or 32,156.3 square feet permitted if GPA approved) 125 spaces total 125 spaces total Parkin 9 (1 space /200 square feet) 118 spaces off - street 7 spaces on- street (requires approval of arkin credit Non - residential projects with ingress or egress from alleys accessed from No vehicular access is proposed from alley Vehicular Holmwood are subject to Site Plan adjacent to residential area. All vehicular Access Review to minimize traffic and parking access will occur from Old Newport impacts on adjacent single - family boulevard. No Site Plan review required. residential areas. 1. 8% of site (2,049 sf total); 1/2 1. 2,447 sf total (46% consists of of landscaping may consist of decorative paving) decorative paving Landscaping 2. 1 tree /50' of frontage (6 trees 2, 7 trees provided req'd) 3. Trees shall be planted within 5' 3. Trees are planted in public R.O.W. of front or side PL (does not meet Code, project has been conditioned to comply) On structures with FAR of 0.65 or higher, front walls shall be setback at Project complies. Front walls step back Wall least 1 -foot for every foot in excess of consist with the natural topography of the Articulation 24 feet above grade. 20% of the length site. The elevator and stairwell located at of the building fagade may exceed the the northwest corner of the site complies 24 -foot height limit up to the maximum with the 20% limitation. height limit. Uf, Old Newport Boulevard GPA February 4, 2010 Page 11 Modification Permit Request The proposed project encroaches up to 3 feet into the required 5 -foot rear yard (alley) setback with portions of the subterranean parking levels. Although the encroachments are below grade, the Zoning Code does not include any exceptions for below -grade improvements and a modification permit is required. Section 20.93.030 of the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make certain findings in order to approve a modification permit. These findings and the facts in support of these findings are discussed below: I. Finding: The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. Facts in Support of Finding: The purpose and intent of the off -site parking regulations of the Zoning Code is to ensure sufficient parking is provided for new and expanded land uses, and to ensure efficiency, protect the public safety, and, where appropriate, insulate land uses from adverse impacts. Also, one of the Specific Plan goals is to minimize traffic and parking impacts on adjacent single - unit residential areas by discouraging ingress and egress from the alley accessible from Holmwood Drive. If the GPA is approved to allow the increased intensity of a 1.0 FAR, strict application of the parking requirements requires the proposed medical office building to provide a total of 125 parking spaces. A practical difficulty exists in that the project site is relatively shallow (approximately 100 feet deep between Old Newport Boulevard and the rear alley), which creates design constraints for providing adequate parking circulation and requires the use of the entire lot area to meet the on -site parking requirements. Given the constraints of the shallow lot, only one -way vehicular circulation can be accommodated on each level and ramps necessary to access an additional subterranean parking level would not be achievable. A practical difficulty also exists in that the rear property line curves slightly, necessitating the 3 -foot encroachment only within the middle portion of the site. If the site were rectangular in shape, the 3 -foot encroachment would not be necessary. Therefore, the required number of parking spaces cannot be accommodated on- site without the minor below -grade encroachments. The alternative is a parking layout designed to provide an additional parking level accessible from the alley, which would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Specific Plan. 47 Old Newport Boulevard GPA February 4, 2010 Page 12 2. Finding: The requested modification will be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: The 3 -foot encroachment into the rear 5 -foot setback occurs entirely below grade and will not be visible from the alley. At grade, only the two office levels of the building will be visible and will maintain a setback greater than the required 5 feet for a majority of the alley frontage. The required 5 -foot setback area will be entirely paved with decorative paving and a landscaping planting area will be provided beyond, significantly improving the aesthetics of the project as viewed from the alley. 3. Finding: The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. Facts in Support of Finding: Granting the modification for the subterranean encroachments allows the project to provide the required on -site parking, while limiting vehicular ingress and egress to Old Newport Boulevard and ensuring that the residential area across the alley is protected from vehicular disturbances associated with the project. Also, since the encroachments occur entirely below grade, vehicular maneuverability through the alley will not be impacted. At grade, the rear 5 -foot setback will consist of decorative paving that, when combined with the 20- foot -wide alley, would ultimately allow for 25 feet of vehicle maneuverability through the alley. Use Permit for Increased Height The project site is located in the 32150 -foot Height Limitation Zone that permits buildings and structures to exceed the 32 -foot base height limit, up to the maximum height limit of 50 feet, through the approval of a use permit. Overall, the building design conforms to the natural topography of the site and includes step backs at each level while maintaining the 32 -foot height limit; however, in order to provide an entry lobby clearly visible and accessible from the Old Newport Boulevard frontage, an elevator and stairwell enclosure is proposed to be located at the northwest corner of the site and will exceed the base height limit. The elevator and stairwell enclosure would be approximately 600 square feet in area and measure 44 feet 10 inches in height. Section 20.65.055 of the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make certain findings in order to approve a use permit to exceed the base height limit. Staff does not believe sufficient facts exist in support of the first finding. The required findings and the facts in support of these findings are discussed below: _ -. V Old Newport Boulevard GPA February 4, 2010 Page 13 1. Finding: The increased building height would result in more public visual open space and views than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Particular attention shall be given to the location of the structure on the lot, the percentage of ground cover, and the treatment of all setback and open areas. Facts Not in Support of Finding (Staff seeks Planning Commission Guidance): This finding is difficult to support given the fact that developing a project at an intensity of 1.0 FAR requires utilizing the building envelope to accommodate the project, leaving limited opportunity to provide significantly increased public visual open space and views. The project architect has designed an alternative plan that fully complies with the height limit and achieves the same floor area as the proposed design (Attachment No. PC4); the elevator and stairwell would have to be relocated from the northwestern corner to the northeastern corner of the project site where the natural grade elevations are higher. The relocation of the elevator and stairwell to the rear of the building would displace office floor area and require enlargement of the footprint of the 1St office level to replace the displaced floor area (reducing above -grade setback at alley). The alternative plan places the elevator and stairwell closer to the adjacent residential area. In comparing the proposed plan with the alternative plan, there is little difference in regards to lot coverage, landscaping, setbacks, and open space. The difference is in the above -grade building setback and landscaping planting area provided at the rear of the project adjacent to the alley. With the proposed plan, an above -grade building setback ranging from 5 feet to 16 feet is provided with an 877 - square -foot landscape planting area. This setback and landscaping enhance the aesthetics of the project as viewed from the alley frontage and adjacent residential uses (public visual open space). In the alternative plan, the above -grade building setback is significantly reduced and the area of landscaping that can be accommodated is reduced to 344 square feet (a 40- percent reduction). With the exception of an increase in the above -grade building setback and landscaping provided at the alley, there is little change in public visual open space and no change in views. Staff does not believe this change is sufficient to support this required finding. It should also be noted that staff is not completely convinced that an alternative plan could not be designed that maintains the same above -grade setbacks and landscaping at the alley, but enlarges the footprint of the office levels toward the front of the building (reducing balcony area) in areas that would still remain under the height limit. 2. Finding: The increased building height would result in a more desirable architectural treatment of the building and a stronger and more appealing visual character of the area than is required by the basic height limit in any zone. Old Newport Boulevard GPA February 4, 2010 Page 14 Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed design allows for an entry lobby clearly visible and accessible from the Old Newport Boulevard frontage. Architecturally, this enclosure also serves as a design element that breaks up the long elevation of the project frontage and creates visual interest. As indicated above, the project architect has designed an alternative plan that fully complies with the height limit and achieves the same floor area as the proposed design; however, to provide access from the lower parking levels to the upper office levels, the subject elevator and stairwell would have to be relocated to the northeastern corner of the project site where the natural grade elevations are higher. The result of this design would be a less desirable architectural treatment of the building in that the building's primary entry would be eliminated from Old Newport Boulevard and the building elevation visible from Old Newport Boulevard would be heavily dominated by the parking structure. Safe pedestrian access from the Old Newport Boulevard street frontage would be lost as patients parking on the street would have to walk through the driveway entries and through the parking structure to access the building lobbies. This design would also be inconsistent with General Plan Policy LU 5.4.1 which requires readily observable site access, entrance drives, and building entries to minimize conflicts between service vehicles, private automobiles, and pedestrians. It would also be inconsistent with Policy LU 5.4.2 which requires new developments to be designed to convey a unified and high - quality character in consideration of several principles, including clearly identifying the entry of the building through design elements. 3. Finding: The increased building height would not result in undesirable or abrupt scale relationships being created between the structure and existing developments or public spaces. Particular attention shall be given to the total bulk of the structure including both horizontal and vertical dimensions. Facts in Support of Finding: The project site maintains a relatively long frontage width of approximately 290 feet along Old Newport Boulevard. To minimize the massing and scale of the building as viewed from Old Newport Boulevard, the proposed design includes step backs at each of the office levels following the natural topography of the site. As viewed from the alley frontage, the increased height of the elevator and stairwell enclosure will not be visible from the alley or residences to the east as the overall elevation to the top of the enclosure (101.33 feet) would remain lower than the elevation of the portion of the building facing the alley (103.00 feet). As viewed from the Old Newport Boulevard frontage, the increased height of the elevator and stairwell enclosure will be clearly noticeable as it is located 5-p Old Newport Boulevard GPA February 4, 2010 Page 15 immediately adjacent to the front property line and will measure approximately 40 feet in width, which is approximately 14- percent of the frontage width. However, given the fact that the upper office level adjacent to the alley is higher in overall elevation, the elevator and stairwell enclosure would not result in an abrupt scale relationship. Also, as discussed in the second finding above, providing an entry lobby clearly visible and accessible from the Old Newport Boulevard frontage is desirable and encouraged by the General Plan. 4. Finding: The structure shall have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the use permit. Facts in Support of Finding: The proposed structures will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without requesting the increased height. Parking Credit Based on the Zoning Code parking requirements for medical office uses, a total of 125 parking spaces are required (25,000 sf /200 = 125 spaces). As indicated in Table 2 above, the project proposes a total of 125 parking spaces; however, 7 parking spaces are proposed on- street. Pursuant to Section 20.46.040.E of the Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan, developments which maintain a 50 -foot (full height curb) separation between driveway approaches on Old Newport Boulevard may be granted an off - street parking credit equal to the number of on- street parking spaces available along that frontage. This parking credit is offered as an incentive for lot consolidation to provide unified site design. The project as proposed maintains a separation greater than 200 feet between driveway approaches. Staff believes that the 7 space off- street parking credit is appropriate in the case for the following reasons: • The project is creating 7 new on- street parking spaces where no on- street parking or sidewalks currently exists along the project frontage. • The parking spaces are so located to be useful in connection with the proposed use. • Given the land -use mix in the area, use of the 7 parking space will not negatively impact parking for visitors to the area (i.e. on- street parking is not used for beach access or shopping). • The parking credit allows for lot consolidation and unified site design. Employee Parking Reservations S-1 Old Newport Boulevard GPA February 4, 2010 Page 16 The applicant consulted with the Building Department to seek approval of an alternative method to satisfy the State Disabled Access Standard, which requires that 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces for medical office use meet accessibility requirements (13 spaces). Due to the required loading areas and paths of travel associated with disabled parking, combined with need to provide adequate parking circulation within the constraints of the shallow lot, accommodating the 13 disabled parking spaces would result in the loss of 7 parking spaces overall. The loss of the 7 spaces would reduce the amount of floor area that can be supported by approximately 1,500 square feet. The applicant contends that only 50 of the 125 required parking spaces are needed for patient parking and subject to the 10 percent disabled parking requirement for medical office use (5 disabled spaces). The remaining 75 employee spaces should be subject to the standard disabled access parking requirements, which is based on a graduated scale and would only require 3 disabled spaces. Using this categorization of patient/employee parking, a total of 8 disabled parking spaces would be required. The Building Director has reviewed the applicant's justification for employee and patient parking projections and has agreed to allow this categorization of parking, subject to submitting an application for Alternate Methods and Materials with the Building Department and recording a covenant on the property restricting the number of employee parking spaces as proposed. The proposed plan reserves eight parking spaces on the lower level and all spaces on the upper parking level for employee parking, consistent with the agreed upon parking categorization. Staff has recommended a condition of approval requiring the recordation of a covenant. Compatibility with Adjacent Residential Lot The residential property located at 325 Holmwood Drive (Mr. Vanderwal) shares the entire alley frontage with the subject property. Although the proposed building design conforms to the required setbacks (above - grade) and the height limit adjacent to the alley, the relatively long common alley frontage that results and the intensity of a 1.0 FAR increases the potential for land use compatibility impacts to the adjacent residential property (i.e. noise, odor, lighting, and privacy). Trash/Odor- A trash enclosure has not been identified on the proposed plans; however, after discussion with the project architect, the only logical location for refuse collection would be at the rear of the project site adjacent to the alley. The architect has indicated the enclosure could be recessed into the building, which would maintain the above -grade building setbacks adjacent to the alley, but would require the loss of a small amount of the proposed landscaped area. Staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring the trash enclosure to be recessed into the building as indicated. Also, to minimize noise and odor impacts to the adjacent resident, staff is recommending that the enclosure be located at the southeast corner of the site. 5-2- Old Newport Boulevard GPA February 4, 2010 Page 17 Lighting/Privacy- At the alley frontage, the proposed building design maintains a typical modern office building design and includes 39 sets of windows. In addition to the loss of privacy, spill -over lighting from these windows may also impact the adjacent residential property. Although mitigation measures have been included to minimize light and glare impacts, to further minimize lighting impacts and address privacy concerns, staff is recommending that the final project design include automated internal shades set to close in the evenings and an internal lighting system that would auto -dim after standard work hours, leaving small task lighting for janitorial activities and to light areas where employees may be working late. Another alternative to maintain privacy for the adjacent residences would be to require all windows facing east to consist of opaque glass, which will still allow natural light into the workspace. Similar controls were required for the new Civic Center project as a mitigation measures to protect adjacent residential areas. Traffic Studv Municipal Code Chapter 15.40 (Traffic Phasing Ordinance, or TPO) requires that a traffic study be prepared and findings be made before building permits may be approved for project's that will generate in excess of 300 average daily trips (ADT). For the purposes of preparing the traffic analysis for this project, 25,7252 square feet of medical office use was conservatively considered as the project size and forecast to generate 703 additional trips per day, including 35 additional a.m. peak hour trips and 63 p.m. peak hour trips. Pursuant to Section 15.04.030.A, the project shall not be approved unless certain findings can be made. These findings and the facts in support of these findings are discussed below: 1. Finding: That a traffic study for the project has been prepared in compliance with this chapter and Appendix A; Facts in Support of Finding: A traffic study, entitled "City of Newport Beach, Old Newport Boulevard Sub -Area Project Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised) dated September 30, 2009" was prepared by Kunzman Associates under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines (Attachment NO. PC5). Pursuant to the TPO, only primary intersections in the City of Newport Beach are required to be analyzed; however, for the purposes of assessing project - related impacts pursuant to CEQA, the traffic analysis also analyzed intersections in the City of Costa Mesa and included a cumulative impact analysis. Based on consultation between the Cities of Newport Beach and Costa Mesa staff, a total of 17 intersections were evaluated. s 25,725 square feet is the maximum square footage permitted on the project site with a 1.0 FAR. C Old Newport Boulevard GPA February 4, 2010 Page 18 2. Finding: That, based on the eight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, one of the findings for approval in subsection (8) can be made: 15.40.030.8.1 Construction of the project will be completed within 60 months of project approval; and 15.40.030. B.1(a) The project will neither cause nor make an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted intersection. Facts in Support of Finding: • Construction of the project is anticipated to start in 2010 and completed in 2012. If the project is not completed within sixty (60) months of this approval, preparation of a new traffic study will be required. • The traffic study indicates that the project will increase traffic on three of the ten study intersections in the City of Newport Beach by one percent (1 %) or more during peak hour periods one year after the completion of the project. • Utilizing the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis specified by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, the traffic study determined that the three primary intersections identified will continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and no mitigation is required. • Based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, the implementation of the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection within the City of Newport Beach. 3. Finding: That the project proponent has agreed to make or fund the improvements, or make the contributions, that are necessary to make the findings for approval and to comply with all conditions of approval. Facts in Support of Finding: Since implementation of the proposed project will neither cause nor make worse an unsatisfactory level of traffic service at any impacted primary intersection within the City of Newport Beach, no improvements or mitigations are necessary. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the traffic study has been prepared in compliance with the TPO. S(4 Old Newport Boulevard GPA February 4, 2010 Page 19 Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by Sirius Environmental, an environmental consulting firm, for the proposed project in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MND is attached as Attachment No PC6. The MND identifies nine issue areas with 23 mitigation measures. Those issues are: Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Air Quality, Hazards /Hazardous Materials, Hydrology -and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services, Traffic, and Utilities. The MND was circulated for public review on December 14, 2009, and concluded on January 12, 2010. Staff has received three comment letters from agencies and one comment letter from the resident (Mr. Jay Vanderwal) who lives directly behind the project site across the alley. Comment letters are attached as Attachment No. PC7). The letters from Southern California Gas Company and Metropolitan Water District indicate their capabilities to service the project. The letter from the State Department of Transportation focuses on the traffic study; responses to this letter have been provided as Attachment No. PC8). Staff has had conversations regarding the traffic study with the City of Costa Mesa, but they ultimately did not provide written comments. Summary Staff believes the project as proposed can be constructed at a 1.0 FAR, and with the exception of the requested use permit for the increased height, the required findings for the various approvals can be supported; however, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the GPA at a 0.75 FAR intensity limit, consistent with the limit that was previously achievable under the 1988 Land Use Element. A project re- designed at a reduced 0.75 FAR may eliminate the need for a second office level and for the use permit for the increased height of the stairwell, and should result in a project that is more compatible in scale to the surrounding commercial properties. A 0.75 FAR would also restore the commercial intensity limit that was previously available prior to the 2006 comprehensive update to the General Plan. It should be noted, however, that the applicant claims that the project would not be financially feasible at 0.75 FAR and /or it will require development of a site plan with parking accessible from the alley. Alternatives 1. Should the Planning Commission conclude that the increased intensity request of a 1.0 FAR is appropriate, the Planning Commission may modify the draft resolution recommending approval of the 1.0 FAR intensity limit to the City Council. 2. Should the Planning Commission conclude that the findings can be supported for the increased height, the Planning Commission may recommend approval of the General Plan Amendment at either intensity (0.75 or 1.00 FAR) and recommend 5� Old Newport Boulevard GPA February 4, 2010 Page 20 approval of the Use Permit to exceed the base height limit, and other requested approvals, with facts to support the required findings to the City Council. 3. Should the Planning Commission conclude that the project as proposed would not be compatible with the surrounding uses and /or that any increased intensity request is inappropriate, the project should be denied, or modified to address the issues of concern. If a redesigned project is advisable, staff recommends a continuance to allow the applicant to revise their plans accordingly should this course of action be sought. Public Notice Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing consistent with the Municipal Code. The environmental assessment process has also been noticed in a similar manner and all mandatory notices per the California Environmental Quality Act have been given. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Prepared by: Jaime Munllo, Assoaate Planner ATTACHMENTS Submitted by: David Lepo, Plannigr Director PC 2 Project Plans PC 3 General Plan Text Changes PC 4 Alternative Plans- Height Compliant PC 5 Traffic Study PC 6 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration PC 7 Comment Letters PC 8 Responses to Department of Transportation Letter 5Y. Attachment No. PC 1 S_onrlitinnc _ -9F- Gov E---) S Attachment No. PC 2 Project Plans I b �yg 5. ';� � _ S� .. LOTAREA PARKING PROVIDED LOW ER LEVEL 58 STALLS' UPPER LEVEL V STALLS(] OF WHICH ARE ON THE STREET) -- TOTAL 125 STALLS BLDG AREA PROPOSED: 25,000 PARKING REQUIRED: 125 LANDSCAPE AREA: 1300 SF PERVIOUS AREA: 1861 SF I J 46. �I a5 ABOVE wee.eA 4850 BARRANCA PARKWAY ADVANCED MEDICAL W O O Cl SUITE 203 BURGHARD IRVINE CA. 92604 LOWER PARKING LEVEL S W A I N M) �s ss2 2.+ ARCHITF( —M (F.) "9 M2 can 6� N 328 -340 OLD NEWPORT BLVD. CRY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CA A -1 4850 BARRANCA PARKWAY SUITE 203 IRVINE CA. 92604 (ra) 949 M2 2061 (FM) 949 552 9442 ADVANCED MEDICAL 328-30 OLD NEWPORT eLVD UPPER PARKING - EMPLOYEE ONLY Cm OF NEWPORT BEACH, CA I 1 L� A -2 WBSA 4850 BASUITE 2 PARKWAY ADVANCED MEDICAL 32g-M OLD NEyyFp� gUyp W O O D SUITE 203 S W A IRD IRVINE CA. 92604 OFFICE LEVEL 1 MY°FNEV6?( ^ C^ TA-73 S W fAfGI�RN (m) sw ssx zam ARCHAB 3 (FA) 949 %x 942 W� 4850 BARRANCA PARKWAY ADVANCED MEDICAL W O O D SUITE 203 329 -340 OLD NEWPORT BLVD. /� BURGNARD IRVINE CA. 92604 OFFICE LEVEL 2 aTy OF NEWPORT BEACK CA A_4 S W A I N (m.) s.e ees saes ARCHrrF= (s.V) ew a sus i t :e,� Attachment No. PC 3 General Plan Text Changes (�-7 Table Anomaly Number -StgW$ aol Area . Land Use, Desl notion . Development Limit (s t) DeSelo meat llmif (Other)', Additional Information 1 L4 MU -H2 460,095 471 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) 2 L4 MU -H2 1,060,146 3 L4 CO -G 734,641 4 L4 MU -112 250,176 5 L4 MU -H2 32,500 6 L4 MU -H2 34,500 7 L4 MU -H2 81,372 8 L4 MU -H2 442,775 9 L4 CG 120,000 164 Hotel Rooms (included in total square footage) 10 L4 MU -112 31,362 349 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) 11 L4 CG 11,950 12 L4 MU -H2 457,880 13 L4 CO -G 288,264 14 L4 CO- GIMU -H2 860,884 15 1.4 MU -H2 228,214 16 L4 CO -G 344,231 17 L4 MU -H2 33,292 304 Hotel Rooms (not included in total square footage) 18 L4 CG 225,280 19 L4 CG 228,530 21 16 CO-G 687,000 Office: 660,000 sf Retail: 27,000 sf CV 300 Hotel Rooms 22 J6 CO-G 70,000 Restaurant: 8000 sf, or Office: 70,000 sf 23 K2 PR 15,000 24 L3 IG 89,624 25 L3 PI 84,585 26 L3 IG 33,940 27 L3 IG 86,000 28 L3 IG 110,600 29 L3 CG 47,500 30 M6 CG 54,000 31 L2 PR 75,000 32 L2 PI 34,000 33 M3 PI 163,680 Administrative Office and Support Facilitates: 30,000 sf Community Mausoleum and Garden Crypts: 121,680 sf Family Mausoleums: 12,000 sf Table ty Wyrhbi�, LU2 Anomaly Std,fistiaO, Area Locations Deiiandfyorhi' V61666ent "Prn-P Limes' (so," Dev4iaprn,4 UmN Other ) AddMoricitInformatkn 34 Ll -CO-R 484,348 35 Ll CO-R 199,095 36 Ll -CO-R 227,797 37 --- Ll CO-R 131,201 2,050 Theater Seats (not included in total square footage) 38 -1 CO-M 443,627 39 Ll MU-1-13 408,084 40 Ll MU-H3 1.426,634 425 Hotel Rooms (included in total Square Footage) 41 Ll CO-R 327,671 42 Ll CO-R 286,166 43 Ll CV 611 Hotel Rooms 44 ---- Ll CR 1,619,525 1,700 Theater Seats (not included in total square footage) 45 Ll CO-G 162,364 46 Ll MU-H31PR 3,725 24 Tennis Courts Residential permitted in accordance with MU-1-13. 47 Ll CG 105,000 48 LI MU-1-13 337,261 49 Ll PI 45,208 50 Ll CG 25,000 51 K1 -PR 20,000 52 K1 CV 479 Hotel Rooms 53 KI PR 567,500 See Settlement Agreement 54 it CM 2,000 55 H3 PI 119,440 56 - A3 PI 1,343,238 990,349 sf Upper Campus 677,889 sf Lower Campus In no event shall the total combined gross floor area of both campuses exceed the development limit of 1,343,238 sq. ft. 57 Intentionally Blank 58 J5 PR 20,000 59 H4 MU-W1 487,402 157 Hotel Rooms and 144 Dwelling Units (included in total square footage) 60 N CV 2,660,000 2,150 Hotel Rooms (included in total square footage) 61 N CV 125,000 62 L2 CG 2,300 63 GI CN 66,000 64 M3 CN 74,000 65 M5 CN 80.000 66 J2 CN 138,500 67 D2 PI 20,000 -70- Table Anoma`ty SfatisHcatCagdl/se Development Number , naffon `' Limif s 'Deve}o mentLlmtt Other Addition allnformaflonI 68 L3 PI 71,150 69 K2 CN 75,000 70 D2 RM -D Parking Structure for Bay Island (No Residential Units) 71 L1 CO -G 11,630 72 L1 CO -G 8,000 73 A3 CO -M 350,000 74 L1 PR 35,000 City Hall, and the administrative offices of the 75 L1 PF City of Newport Beach, and related parking, pursuant to Section 425 of the City Charter. 1.0 FAR permitted, provided all four legal lots are 76 H1 CO-G 0.5 FAR consolidated into one parcel to provided unified site design - -�i '-72- Attachment No. PC 4 Alternative Plans- Height Compliant -� q b -E" 5 -0" I p L / 21 M LOT AREAS 25.609 SF PA RKING PROVIDED LOWER LEVEL: 56 STALLS UPPER LEVEL: 67 STALLS (7 OF WHICH ARE ON THE STREET) TOTAL 125 STALLS BLDG AREA PROPOSED: 25,000 PARKING REQUIRED: 125 M 4850 BARRANCA PARKWAY 0 : SUITE 203 IRVINE CA. 92604 4 I N (> ) Sac 552 2.1 TEM (FAX) %9 552 cue 1 22E' 7LI I y� i 12 "1 i I_ 0 -s SLOG - SLOG ABOVE OLD NEWPORT DR. SHAOULIAN STUDIES /� ALLEY ENTRANCE - LOWER PARKING A -1 a oe-oHn eeusrya� s� W 0 0 D 4850 6ASUITE 2 PARKWAY OLD NEWPORT DR. SHAOULIAN STUDIES W O O D SUITE 203 BURGHARD IRVINE CA. 92604 S w A i N (m) 240 552 2MI ALLEY ENTRANCE — OFFICE LEVEL 1 —2 ARCHIITE'M (FAIL SQ 552 .µ2 DNE V 5' ^S1 0 SUITE TE 2 03 4aso BARR PARKWAY W 0 OLD NEWPORT DR. SHAOULIAN STUDIES WOOD 2 BURGHARD IRVINE CA. 92604 S W A N (> ) 9 +9 �2 �„ ALLEY ENTRANCE — OFFICE LEVEL 2 A-3 ARCI arse (W) W W2 9 «2 1 J 9620-.... 87.20 �I �B8.00 8220 88.80 4850 BA PARKWAY SUITE 2 03 OLD NEWPORT DR. SHAOULIAN STUDIES SUITE 2 IRVINE CA. MI ((M) 552 2 9 ALLEY ENTRANCE - ROOF PLAN OVER INTERPOLATED GRADING A -4 SIB (fPk) 9I9 552 B.2 N3 PMVECf(144MOtl W�pyq.� .. 10• .. -, 97.00 ROOF 103M erg{ ROOF SCREEN ...«� ezao 96M 95.50 ROOF s7.00 9e oo- 9620-.... 87.20 �I �B8.00 8220 88.80 4850 BA PARKWAY SUITE 2 03 OLD NEWPORT DR. SHAOULIAN STUDIES SUITE 2 IRVINE CA. MI ((M) 552 2 9 ALLEY ENTRANCE - ROOF PLAN OVER INTERPOLATED GRADING A -4 SIB (fPk) 9I9 552 B.2 N3 PMVECf(144MOtl W�pyq.� on M. is +58.00 +56.50 +46.50 +45.00 ALLEY - EAST ELEVATION MA 485o eASUITE 2 PARKWAY OLD NEWPORT DR. SHAOULIAN STUDIES SUITE 203 ;f{ IN IRVINE CA. 92604 ALLEY ENTRANCE — STREET EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A -5 A I N (,a) eta ssz za, IrrEM (FM) 919 552 902 y�y•� Te PflQECT W 9Y1 W �i�..A�IW19e�vMNavaM ,u:ma�n- mia °��r�M•:i..Z�— �� ,,,.,�m3_ " 7' "gat 3.n� `� »^.w:ry • no +�^SV % %'.ai 9CpJ IR': }kB cTaYaYffi � 55 t4q& YR F C.pi H@eSp F� , pNyk'w y9+li+^a2 ,3.5p5 gypYy�H p p pg?�Se +58.00 +56.50 +46.50 +45.00 ALLEY - EAST ELEVATION MA 485o eASUITE 2 PARKWAY OLD NEWPORT DR. SHAOULIAN STUDIES SUITE 203 ;f{ IN IRVINE CA. 92604 ALLEY ENTRANCE — STREET EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A -5 A I N (,a) eta ssz za, IrrEM (FM) 919 552 902 y�y•� Te PflQECT W 9Y1 W �i�..A�IW19e�vMNavaM ,u:ma�n- mia °��r�M•:i..Z�— +103.00 ROOF SCREEN +82.50 +69.50 +56.50 +97.00 +82.50 +69.50 +58.00 +46.50 132.00 FROM— EXISTING GRADE SIDE - NORTH ELEVATION 132.00 `ROM EXISTING GRADE OCEAN VIEW -SOUTH ELEVATION 4850 BARR PARKWAY W 0 0 D SUITE TE 2 03 OLD NEWPORT DR. SHAOULIAN STUDIES W O O D 2 p S W A IRD IRVINE CA. 2.1 SIDE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A -6 S W A I N (iF1) 949 S51 2051 ARCHITEM (F") N9 552 9H2 flIGECTN0.0lOPl wwiwuma ° �ewae`•�s'�°�4ixMO�a..� aa:'�^�..: �$�3_ i) 4850 BASUAE 21 PARKWAY OLD NEWPORT DR. SHAOULIAN STUDIES SUITE 203 IRVINE CA. 92604 SITE SEC -nON X) 919 Y b (FAX) 919 %3 2 9 N2 QGo A -7 - �Z Attachment No. PC 5 Traffic Study (Distributed Separately Due to Bulk) - �,,L1 Attachment No. PC 6 Draft MND (Distributed Separately Due to Bulk) ps- O�'C� Attachment No. PC 7 MND Comment Letters a �G+ STATEOFCALIFORNIA— BUSMESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD CrHWARZENEGGFR G DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION District 12 a 3337 Michelson Drive, Suite 380 Irvine, CA 92612 -8894 Tel: (949) 724 -2241 Fax: (949) 724 -2592 Flex your powers Be energy efficient! FAX & MAIL January 14, 2010 Jaime Murillo File: IGR/CEQA City of Newport Beach SCH #: None 3300 Newport Boulevard Log #: 2432 & 2432 -A Newport Beach, CA 92673 PCH Subject: Old Newport Boulevard General Plan Amendment (PA 2008 -047) Dear Mr. Murillo, Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS /MND) for the Old Newport Boulevard General Plan Amendment (GPA). The Project proposes to build an approximately 26,000 SF of Medical Center facility at the said location on a single parcel (currently three parcels) to replace the existing developments that consist of approximately 14,000 SF of total area. The Project is adding approximately 12,000 more square footage under an amendment that allows a FAR ratio of 1.0 instead of the current 0.5 at this site allow subterranean parking area to encroach into the 5 -foot rear yard setback. The nearest State route to the project area is Pacific Coast Highway. The Department of Transportation (Department) is a commenting agency on this project and has the following comments: 1. Traffic Operations Branch requests submittal of storage analysis for southbound Newport Boulevard to eastbound Hospital Road using Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology in analyzing this signalized intersection. The analysis should include current volumes with and without project trip generation for AM and PM Peak hours. 2. The project location is within an area near to the coast, therefore, summer traffic peak hour volumes could be higher. Please specify what part of the year or which season the existing traffic volumes and counts provided in the study were obtained. The analysis should investigate and demonstrate the seasonal variations in traffic patterns and volumes within the study area and the associated impacts on the intersections and street segments using HCM Methodology criteria. Existing daily and peak -hour volumes must be based on the worst case scenario or summer season for Newport Beach. Should the above analysis demonstrate any cumulative impacts as a result of this project, the applicant would pay their "fair share" to an established fund for future transportation improvements on the state highway system. The Department has an established methodology standard used to properly calculate equitable project share contribution. "Calirans improves mobility across California " This can be found in Appendix B of the Department's Guide for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies which is available at: http• / /www dot ca og v/ hq/ traffops /developserv/operationalsystems /reports /tisguide pdf. 4. In the event of any activity in the Department's right -of -way an encroachment permit will be required. For specific details on Encroachment Permits procedure, please refer to the Department's Encroachment Permits Manual, Seventh Edition. This Manual is available on the web site: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/devel2psenL/pertnits. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could potentially impact the State Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Maryam Molavi at (949) 724 -2267. Sincerely, Christopher Herre, Branch Chief Local Development/Intergovemmental Review �t °l "Caltrans improves mobility across California" January 14, 2010 Jaime Murillo File: IGR/CEQA City of Newport Beach SCH #: None 3300 Newport Boulevard Log #: 2432 Newport Beach, CA 92673 PCH Subject: Old Newport Boulevard General Plan Amendment (PA 2008 -047) CC: Terri Pencovic, Caltrans HQ IGR/Community Planning Ryan Chamberlain, Deputy District Director Mory Mohtashami, Permits "Caltrons improves mobility across California" q i southern Califomia Gas Company A I Sempra Energy utiuty° December 17, 2009 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92658 Attention: Jaime Murrillo RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 05 2010 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 1919 S. State College Blvd. Anaheim, CA 92506-6114 Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration for Old Newport Boulevard General Plan Amendment (PA2008 -047) This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project but only as an information senrice. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas facilities within the service area of the project could be altered or abandoned as necessary without any significant impact on the environment. Information regarding construction particulars and any costs associated with initiating service may be obtained by contacting the Planning Associate for your area, Dave Baldwin, (714)634 -3267. Sincerely, Eric Casares Technical Supervisor Pacific Coast Region - Anaheim rc/mr mitnegde.doc i C Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration Old Newport Boulevard General Plan Amendment (PA2008 -047) City of Newport Beach Notice is hereby given that the City of Newport Beach has completed a Mitigated Negative Declaration for a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to allow development at a floor area to land area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 (as compared to the currently permitted 0.5 FAR) for the site located at 328 to 340 Old Newport Boulevard. An FAR of 1.0 could result in 25,725 square feet (sq. ft_) of development. The applicant, Dr. Emanuel Shaoulian, intends to develop up to this amount of space subject to compliance with other Code requirements (such as parking). The currently proposed configuration of the project is. 25,000 sq. ft. of medical office space. Currently 14,012 sq. ft. of office, medical office and one apartment occupy the site. Development of the proposed project would require the following entitlements from the City of Newport Beach: • Amendment to the Land Use Element of the Newport Beach General Plan to increase the allowable FAR from 0.5 to 1.0 for the project site. • Use Permit to exceed the 32 foot base height limit with an elevator and stairwell enclosure. With the approval of a use permit; an increase in the height limit of up to 50 feet is allowable. Lot Merger or Parcel Map to consolidate the three parcels (four legal lots) into one parcel. • Modification Permit to allow the proposed subterranean parking area to encroach into the 5 -foot rear yard setback. • Approval of a seven space off - street parking credit pursuant to Section 20.46.040(L) of the Zoning Code for the creation of seven, on- street parking spaces along the project frontage on Old Newport Boulevard. Preparation of a Traffic Study pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. On the basis of the Initial Study, City staff has concluded that the project would not have a significant, impact on the environment and has therefore recommended preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). The MND reflects the independent judgment of City staff and recognizes project design features, previous environmental evaluations, and standard construction and engineering practices, requiring review and reevaluation of future projects as contributing to avoidance of potential impacts. The project site does not include any sites on an Environmental Protection Agency hazardous waste site list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The MND 'is available for a 30-day public review period beginning December 14, 2009 and ending January 12, 2010. Copies of the document are available for review at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The document can also be accessed online at: hffp://www.newportbeaghca.gov/index.asox?t)aqe-942. Any written comments on the proposed project must be received no later than January 12, 2010, at 5:00 p.m. to the attention of Jaime Muriilo at the address listed below. The City's Planning Commission is tentatively scheduled to consider this item at a regular meeting to be held on at 6:30 p.m. on January 21, 2010, at the City of Newport Beach Council Chambers, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. For additional information, please contact Jaime Murilio, Associate Planner, at (949) 644 -3209 or at JMurillognewportbeachca gov. Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner VEM0PCL ?TAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN City of Newport Beach CAOFORNIA HAS NO EXISTING FACILITIES OR RIGI 3300 Newport Boulevard WAY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PROJECT. Newport Beach, CA 92658 vi v I Vanderwal 325 Holmwood Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 January 6, 2010 Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner, City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA92658 Tel; (949) 63114964 Fax: (949) 6314996 Subject: Old Newport Boulevard.General Plan Amendment (PA2008 -o47) Dear Mr. Murillo, My residence is located accross the alley of the above project. Here are my comments: 1. Being a Real Estate developer/builder myself, I don't oppose reasonoble developments that comply with City /County regulations. 2. I also understand that projects that are too small often do not pencil out. 3 As to the involvement of a project's neighbors, I know all about that: Three years ago, when I as owner /builder in Riverside County was building 4 homes @ 3000 sq. ft. each, (total 12,000 Ft.), I was forced to put in $220,000.- of improvements for the benefit of the neighbors in order to get it approved. 4 My residence's property is located accross our joint back alley for about 80 percent of the new medical building's length, which will have a massive. - Impact on the 14 windows.of my •residence.e.along the entire medical building. As a consequence that will greatly reduce the value of my property. 5 I propose that we sit down so that this medical building can be built, and here are two ways to do that: A.. .I sell my residence to the owner of the medical office. B... The City rezones my property so that I with the assistance of the medical building's owner could build 2 condo's on the second level of my residence, which actually would serve as a transitional .zoning: between the commercial zoning.of'Old Newport Boulevard and the residential zoning of Holmwood Dr. Please note: My residence has already City- approved plans for a second story.. Please contact me if you have questions. RECET"D BY With regards, pLANN1NG DEPARTMENT J %���`�� JAN , 72010 y erwal CITy OF NEWPORT BEACH q c.o' ,� J qG Attachment No. PC 8 Responses to Department of Transportation Comment Letter q7 qR KUNZMAN ASS(OCLATES, OVER 30 YEARS OF EXCELLENT SERVICE January 29, 2010 Mr. David Keely CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Dear Mr. Keely: INTRODUCTION The firm of Kunzman Associates, Inc. is pleased to provide responses to comments regarding the proposed Old Newport Boulevard Sub -Area Project in the City of Newport Beach. The Old Newport Boulevard Sub -Area Proiect Traffic Impact Analysis was prepared by Kunzman Associates, Inc. (September 30, 2009). Comments were received from the California Department of Transportation in a letter dated January 14, 2010. The project site is located at 328, 332, and 340 Old Newport Boulevard in the City of Newport Beach. The project site currently has access to Old Newport Boulevard and the alley easterly of Old Newport Boulevard adjacent to the project site. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 1 Chapter 9 of the traffic study includes the delay calculations at the Newport Boulevard /Hospital Road intersection. The technique used to assess the capacity needs of the intersection is known as the Intersection Delay Method based on the 20.00 Highway Capacity Manual — Transportation Research Board Special Report 209. As shown in Table 11 of the traffic study, the Newport Boulevard /Hospital Road is projected to operate at Level of Service C or better during the peak hours for Existing, Existing + Growth (Year 2012) + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects, Existing + Growth (Year 2012) + Approved Projects + Cumulative Projects + Project, General Plan Buildout Without Project, and General Plan Buildout With Project traffic conditions. The Newport Boulevard /Hospital Road Level of Service worksheets in the traffic study show a reported average queue of 3 vehicles that calculates to a maximum queue of 6 vehicles (3 vehicles x 2) for the southbound left turn lane. The 6 vehicles require approximately 150 feet at 25 feet per vehicle. The Newport Boulevard southbound left turn lane at Hospital Road currently provides approximately 190 feet of storage length. 1111 TOWN & COUNTnv ROAD, Surre 34, ORANGE, CA 92868 PHONE (714) 973 -8383 • FAX: (714) 973 -8821 W W W.TRAFFIC-ENGINEER.COM C( n Mr. David Keely CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH January 29, 2010 In addition, a maximum of 66 vehicles are projected in the southbound left turn lane at the Newport Boulevard /Hospital Road intersection. The "rule of thumb" for left turn storage at a signalized intersection requires 1 foot for each vehicle per hour turning left during the peak hour. This would require a 66 foot left turn lane (with a minimum storage of 150 feet). RESPONSE TO COMMENT 2 Pursuant to the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance to analyze typical peak hours it is required that "the most current field counts for each Primary Intersection with counts taken on weekdays during the morning and evening Peak Hour Period between February 1 and May 31 ". The City of Newport Beach provided the Newport Boulevard /Hospital Road traffic counts dated April 2008. To account for regional growth on roadways, existing (Year 2009) traffic volumes have been calculated based on a 1 percent annual growth rate. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 3 As shown in Table 11 of the traffic study for General Plan Buildout traffic conditions, the project - generated traffic did not result in a significant impact at the study area intersections (increase of one - percent or more at a study area intersection operating at worse than Level of Service D during the morning/evening peak hours); therefore, no improvements are recommended at the study area intersections. RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4 So noted. In the event of any activity in the California Department of Transportation right -of -way, an encroachment permit will be required. It has been a pleasure to service your needs on this project. Should you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call at (714) 973 -8383. Sincerely, KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. �� �� fl Carl Ballard Principal Associate #4385 �QPpFESS /p,�,� Q� �, A• KU,� F`2 No. TR0056 z * 69 FF��' Q* W"N TRAFFIC-ENGINEER.COM KUNZMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. William Kunzman, P.E. Principal Professional Registration Expiration Date 3 -31 -2010 2 100 Attachment No. CC 3 Draft February 4, 2010, Planning Commission Hearing Minutes I0+ I'2- NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 02/04/2010 Makana Nova, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Public comment was opened. Applicant was not present for representation. No comments were made. 0901 Public comment was closed. Motion made by Commissioner Unsworth, seconded by Commissioner Hillgren, to adopt a resolution as follows: Deny the appeal and uphold and affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator and approve Parcel Map No. NP2008 -024. Substitute motion made by Commissioner Peotter, seconded by Commissioner Toerge, to continue item to April 8, 2010. Substitute motion failed with the following vote: Noes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, McDaniel and Hillgren and Ayes: Peotter and Toerge Amended motion made by Commissioner Unsworth, seconded by Commissioner Hillgren, to adopt a resolution, after debate and amendment, as follows: Deny the appeal and uphold and affirm the decision of the Zoning Administrator and approve Parcel Map No. NP2008 -024; and to insert the word "revised" before the word "conditions" in the title of the resolution to read as follows "approving Parcel Map No. NP2008 -024 with revised conditions" Amended motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: Peotter I Abstain: None xxx SUBJECT: Old Newport Boulevard General Plan Amendment (PA2008 -047) ITEM NO. 3 328, 332, and 340 Old Newport Boulevard PA2008 -207 The application consists of: Approved 1. An amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to increase the allowable FAR from 0.5 to 1.0 for the project site. 2. A modification permit to allow the proposed subterranean parking area to encroach 3 feet into the 5 -foot rear yard setback. 3. A seven space off - street parking credit for the creation of seven on -stree parking spaces along the project frontage. 4. A use permit to allow an elevator and stairwell enclosure to exceed the 32 -foot base height limit. 5. A traffic study pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. Page 2 of 5 103 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 02/04/2010 Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Nuft oft Public UKAFT comment was opened. Emanuel Shaoulian, applicant and owner, Mike Swain, architect and Bill Holman, consultant, presented a slide show and made comments. Comments in support, opposition and of concern were given by the following: • Mark Wilson, 325 Old Newport Boulevard • Brion Jeannet, 470 Old Newport Boulevard • Jay Vanderwal, neighboring resident • Don Krotee, President of Newport Heights Improvement Association Public comment was closed. Motion made by Commissioner Toerge, seconded by Commissioner Peotter, to adopt a resolution, after debate and amendment, as follows: City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; find that, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including Traffic Study No. TS2009 -002, that the Project complies with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -001 with a FAR of 1.0; approve Modification Permit No. MD2009 -016, and the requested off - street parking credit of four spaces; approve Use Permit No. UP2009 -005 with the requirement to minimize the bulk of the architectural appurtenance of the elevator and stairway feature; delete Condition No. 4; modify Condition No. 22 to read "The final project design shall include an internal lighting system that would auto -dim after standard work hours, leaving small task lighting for janitorial and service activities and to light the areas where employees may be working late" modify Condition No. 37 to read "The five -foot rear yard (alley) setback shall be landscaped with a combination of groundcover, shrubs, and vertical plantings to enhance the aesthetics of the alley elevation and to minimize the visual bulk and mass of the structure. The final landscape plan shall be subject to the review and approval by the Public Works Department to ensure the landscaping will not negatively impact vehicular circulation through the alley right -of- way". Motion carried with the following vote: Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Peotter, Hawkins, Toerge, and Hillgren Noes: McDaniel Abstain: None SUBJECT: Balboa Center Renovation (PA2009 -153) ITEM NO. 4 3101 -3121 Newport Boulevard and 3100 -3138 Balboa Boulevard PA2008 -207 The application consists of two use permits and a parcel map associated with Approved the renovation and expansion of an existing retail shopping center. The parcel map would allow the merger of six existing parcels into one parcel for redevelopment. One use permit would allow portions of a new fa ade to Page 3 of 5 1dLI Attachment No. CC 4 Additional Correspondence Received Ids loo, KLEIN & WILSON BUSINESS TRIAL LAWYERS A Partnership of Professional Corporations 326 Old Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 92663 Telephone (949) 631 -3300 Facsimile (949) 631 -3703 February 5, 2010 City Council City of Newport Beach www.kleiiiandwilson.com RECRIWD BY PLANNING D11PAP TM)li l i" FEB z 9 2010 3300 Newport Boulevard CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Newport Beach, CA 92658 Re: Dangerous Conditions of Property on Old Newport Boulevard Application of Michael C. Adams Associates /Dr. Emanuel Shaoulian Dear City Council: We own the property located at 326 Old Newport Boulevard. The purpose of this letter is to notify you of two dangerous conditions of the property on Old Newport Boulevard, which we are very concerned will result in personal injury, death, and/or property damage. We strongly urge you to consider this letter before you make a decision on the application of Michael C. Adams Associates /Dr. Emanuel Shaoulian, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 1. DANGEROUS SIGHT DISTANCE CONDITION Attached as Exhibit 2 is a Google satellite map of Old Newport Boulevard. Our building is highlighted in yellow. Highlighted in pink are two street parking spaces on Old Newport Boulevard, just south/west of our driveway. When vehicles park on these street parking spaces, people exiting mybuilding have no ability to see traffic traveling north/east on Old Newport Boulevard. Consequently, people exiting my building must slowly pull their cars into harm's way before they can see oncoming traffic. A terrible accident is inevitable. We strongly urge you to paint the curb at these locations red to prevent parking at these locations, in order to increase the sight distance for people exiting my building. DANGEROUS INTERSECTION Attached as Exhibit 3 is another Google satellite map of Old Newport Boulevard. Highlighted in yellow is the intersection at issue on Old Newport Boulevard, just north/east of the intersection of Catalina and Old Newport Boulevard. We witness accidents at this intersection 10-7 KLEIN & WILSON BUSINESS TRIAL LAWYERS City Council February 5, 2010 Page 2 approximately once every two months. We are concerned these accidents have not all been reported to you because we attended a Planning Commission meeting on February 4, 2010, and heard accident statistics that are far lower than our experience has shown. Accidents range from minor fender benders to accidents requiring emergency medical treatment. Cars frequently travel at high rates of speed on Old Newport Boulevard which contribute to this dangerous intersection. Consequently, we urge you to take steps to slow traffic and perhaps signalize this intersection. Something must be done to mitigate this dangerous condition before you allow the owner at 328, 332, and 340 Old Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California to build its project and further burden Old Newport Boulevard. Sincerely, Mark B. Wilson, P.C. c: City of Newport Beach Building Department (w /enclosures) City of Newport Beach Planning Commission (w /enclosures) Newport Beach City Attorney (w /enclosures) Enclosures I bg NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Thursday, February 4, 2010, at 6:30 p.m., a public hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: Old Newport Boulevard General Plan Amendment - A request for a General Plan Amendment (GPA) tc increase the allowable floor area to land area ratio (FAR) for the project site from 0.5 FAR to 1.0 FAR. E FAR of 1.0 could result in 25,725 square feet of development. Concurrent with the requested General Plar Amendment, the applicant is proposing the construction of a 25,000- square -foot medical office building. In addition to the requested GPA, the following approvals are requested or required in order to implement th( project as proposed: 1. A use pen-nit to allow an elevator and stairwell enclosure to exceed the 32 -foot base height limit. 2. A modification permit to allow the proposed subterranean parking area to encroach 3 feet into the foot rear yard setback. 3. A'seven space off - street parking credit for the creation of seven on- street parking spaces along th project frontage. 4. A traffic study pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with th application noted above. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will n result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present intention of the.City to accept the Mitigate Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by tl City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment c this documentation. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available f public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevar Newport Beach, California, 92658 -8915, (949) 644 -3200. All. interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. If you challenge tt project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the pub hearing (described in this notice) or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the pub hearing. The agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the Planning Department (Building C, Floor), 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663, or at the City of Newport Beach website yPA /yy.newportbeachca.eov on the Monday prior to the hearing. For questions regarding details of the project please contact Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner, at (949) 5� 3209 or imurilloCa?newportbeachca.gov. Project File No.: PA2008 -047 Zone: Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan (SP -9); Retail Service Commercial (RSC) Activity No.: General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -001, Use Permit No. UP2009 -005, Modification Permit No. 2009 -016, and Traffic Stuc No. TS2009 -002 General Plan: General Commercial Office (CO -G; Location: 328, 332, and 340 Old Newport Boulevard Applicant: Micheal C. Adams Associates Charles Unsworth, Secretary, Planning Commission, City of Newport Beach EXHIBIT I Tmplr: 11/23/04 l 06 tZ t » 3 € 71 9 e k j t Yt R i :e ryle ,o Klein R r W *;on .. nmy Heaiin7 GentGr „ 1ps w ,C: y —r Fti M t. O4 1 yr 1 VI a�p a g f ! � d , Cuat� �� '� Hoieelwg4 ,o Klein R r W *;on .. nmy Heaiin7 GentGr „ 1ps w ,C: y —r Fti M t. O4 1 yr 1 VI Brown, Leilani From: Murillo, Jaime Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 8:22 AM To: Brown, Leilani Subject: FW: newport heights resident opposed to following re development Can you please add this email to the correspondence for the Old Newport GPA project? - - - -- Original Message---- - From: richard walton [ mailto :richardwalton @sbcgloba[.net] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 10:01 PM To: Murillo, Jaime Subject: newport heights resident opposed to following re development please, doubling the FAR is inconsiderate of the residential neighbors. Please do NOT APPROVE THIS APPLICATION ABOVE: PA2008 -047 SHAOULIAN ONB GPA ND2009 -003 - Negative Declaration MD2009 -016 - Modification Permit TS2009 -002 - Traffic Study UP2009 -025 - Use Permit GP2008 -001 - General Plan Amendment Address 328 OLD NEWPORT BLVD 332 OLD NEWPORT BLVD 340 OLD NEWPORT BLVD Contact: J. Murillo - 949 - 644 -3209 Status:PENDING Applied:3 /14/2008 Follow -up Rev: Approved: Final: Effective: Expired: Denied: Pending: 4/18/2008 I City of Newport Beach Attention: Mayor Curry Council Member Rosansky All other Council Members Planning Department Subject: Disapproval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -001 and associated applications We, the Newport Heights residents, whose residential neighborhood is adjacent to the Old Newport Boulevard commercial area, strongly oppose the approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -001 and the associated applications of Michael C. Adams Associates (328, 332 and 340 Old Newport Boulevard). Details: General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -001 requests a 100 % increase in the allowable FAR from 0.5 to 1.0 (an increase of 12,862.5sq. ft. of entitlement) and will result in the diminution of the quality of life for Newport Heights and specially for the nearby residents of streets, including but not limited to, Westminster, Holmwood, Catalina, Broad and Clay. The existing GP FAR of 0.5 represents to the residents (nearby Old Newport Boulevard) the sincere desire by the City via the updated GP to minimize the impact on the residents, the residential streets and the commercial/residential neighborhood in general. The impact of GP2008 -001 with its proposed associated development on our neighborhood safety, health, traffic, noise, and parking is detrimental to our quality of life and this impact will only be augmented by additional future redevelopment of the remaining portions of Old Newport Boulevard. This compromise of the general plan for this project also establishes undesirable precedent for future commercial projects on Old Newport Boulevard. These concerns have become of paramount importance since the demographics of our residential area has recently changed with a significant increase in the number of children in the neighborhood. Per the Planning Commission Staff report, 14,012 sq. ft. of office / medical office and one apartment currently occupy the site. We would support the General Plan FAR of 0.5 for a smaller development which sincerely takes into account below listed concerns /issues and any approved plan would have to include no vehicular access from the alley, no vehicular parking on the alley, thus all vehicular access would be limited to Old Newport Boulevard. General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -001 and associated applications should be disapproved. 1. The following is a list of specific detailed concerns /issues to be resolved for the currently proposed development of 328, 332 and 340 Old Newport Boulevard. • The 2006 comprehensive update to the City's General Plan (GP) specifies a FAR of 0.5 which should not be changed to 1.0 Details: The applicant is to be complimented on proposing a new development on Old Newport Boulevard and the defined vehicular access; however, the applicant of the proposed development is requesting the City to ignore the GP standards and policies which reflects a significant effort and expenditures by the City and its citizens on the development of an updated GP. The existing GP FAR of 0.5 represents to the residents (nearby Old Newport Boulevard) the sincere desire by the City to minimize the impact on the residents, the residential streets, and the commercial/residential neighborhood in general. Additionally, the existing GP FAR of 0.5 maintains compatibility with the existing businesses and results in small increments of additional traffic. Currently, the Old Newport Boulevard area has existing businesses of smaller sites /structures with predominately low commercial intensity and the proposed FAR of 1.0 would result in a contrasting gross structure (a leviathan) for the area and with a significantly increased commercial intensity. The existing businesses as a result of the proposed doubling of the FAR will experience a twofold increment in traffic and associated traffic circulation on Old Newport Boulevard which is heavily traveled. The increased traffic circulation is further complicated by the proximity of this oversized project to the bi- directional "interchange" of Old Newport Boulevard/Newport Boulevard. The proposed project requires seven spaces of on- street parking which results in the existing businesses losing seven public parking spaces. Additionally, the Planning Commission Staff Report, dated 4 February 2010, addressed a concern of fairness associated with the requested FAR change to 1.0 and requested the Planning Commission to consider the fairness of granting an increased 1.0 FAR intensity to a single property owner within an existing commercial corridor area. The City Council is asked to consider the fairness and the effects on the future development in this existing commercial corridor area and the fact that such precedent might establish new expectations' for future applicants which are above and beyond the general plan. The City Council is requested to disapprove this project, return it to the Planning Commission for downsizing and request the applicant to consider a redesign reflecting a smaller development with the General Plan FAR of 0.5 and possibly consider developing the separate parcels individually with smaller structures with low commercial intensity to maintain compatibility with the existing businesses. This proposed commercial project is too large for the Old Newport Boulevard area (advantageous for the applicant), is not compatible with the existing businesses (disadvantageous to the existing business owners), does not minimize the impacts on the nearby residents (disadvantageous to the residents), requires an unacceptable amendment (100% increase in FAR) to the General Plan and additionally still requires a modification permit, a parking credit approval permit, and a use permit. The proposed project is too large and represents an egregious disregard of the 2006 GP developed by the City and its citizens. The proposed project fails to comply with three basic development standards (setback, height, and parking) of Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan (SP -9) and requires the creation of an Anomaly. Details: 1. The project requires an encroachment (2 feet ?) into the 5 -foot rear yard setback (necessitating a modification permit). 2. The project has an elevator and stairwell in the northwest corner which exceeds the base height limit (necessitating a use permit). 3. The project requires seven spaces of on- street parking (necessitating a parking credit approval permit). In addition to an amendment to the General Plan, this project requires the generation of an Anomaly. • The number of projected Peak Hour Trips for any development on this site should be considered with respect to potential future cumulative amendments in this existing commercial corridor area (Reference Charter Section 423). Details: The understanding is that the 51.45 evening trips (P.M.) (Charter Section 423 Peak Hour Trip Calculation) results in the utilization of approximately 40% of the cumulative 100 peak hour vehicle trips constraint of Charter Section 423. Is the 40% of the cumulative 100 peak hour vehicle trips associated with this site development (0.59 acre) judiciously appropriate /proportional to the total acres in the existing commercial corridor area and associated future cumulative amendments? Are other future development sites penalized by this proposed project? Does the Planning Department/Commission have a method/procedure to address this concern? • The proposed project will result in the reduction in the value of the residential property. Details: Mr. J. Vanderwal states in his letter (Reference letter, Attachment # A received by the Planning Department 7 Jan 2010) that he is a Real Estate developer/builder and the value of his property will be greatly reduced as a consequence of the proposed project. The concern is that a proposed project of this size will not only reduce the value of Mr. J. Vanderwal's property, but will reduce the value of other nearby residential properties. • Lighting impacts and privacy concerns of the adjacent residential properties for any development on this site should be minimized by acceptance of the recommendations specified on page 17 under the Lighting/Privacy paragraph of the Planning Commission Staff Report, dated 4 February 2010. Details: To minimize lighting impact and address privacy concerns, the finalized project design should include automated internal shades set to close in the evenings and an internal lighting system that would auto -dim after standard working hours, leaving limited task lights illuminated for the janitorial activities. • The Vehicular Access currently contained in this proposed project should not be changed in future project modifications. Details: Non - residential projects with ingress and egress from alleys accessed from Holmwood are subject to Site Review to minimize traffic and parking impacts on adjacent single - family residential areas. No vehicular access from the alley adjacent to the residential area is proposed. No vehicular parking on the alley adjacent to the residential area is proposed. All vehicular access will occur from Old Newport Boulevard. There should be no change to the Vehicular Access in future project downsize modifications. 2. The following is a list of specific detailed concerns /issues to be considered for any and every future proposed development of 328,332 and 340 Old Newport Boulevard. • Historically, the type of business conducted at the subject sites has been from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM with minimal or no business on weekends (and no Sunday business). Any approved development for these sites should be limited to the historical usage. Details: The commercial property at 328, 332 and 340 Old Newport Boulevard is unique in that it is adjacent to residential property. The nature and type of business conducted at 328, 332 and 340 Old Newport Boulevard directly affects the quality of life of the local residents. Historically, the type of business at this site has been from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM with minimal or no business on weekends (and no Sunday business). Any approved development for these sites should be limited to the historical usage. During construction all deliveries /pickups (materials, construction trash, etc.) to the site under development should be restricted to Old Newport Boulevard and prohibited from the alley. Details: This will minimize the safety, health, traffic, noise and odor impacts on the quality of life of our neighborhood. • Trash pickup from the completed site should be from Old Newport Boulevard and prohibited from the alley. Additionally, all deliveries /pickups (business, laboratory specimens, supplies, etc.) should be restricted to Old Newport Boulevard and prohibited from the alley. Details: This will minimize the safety, health, traffic, noise and odor impacts on the neighborhood quality of life. The restaurant in the area (which has a parking structure) was restricted by the Planning Commission to trash pickup using Old Newport Boulevard. Several years ago, the restaurant moved trash pickup to Westminster Avenue (residential area). The neighbors complained to the city and subsequently the restaurant shifted the trash pickup back to Old Newport Boulevard. (Reference letter Attachment # B received by the City Planning Dept. on July 13, 2006 and subsequently included in Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 2 dated July 20, 2006). Trash pickup from the completed site and all business deliveries /pickups (laboratory specimens, office supplies, medical supplies, etc.) should be from Old Newport Boulevard and prohibited from the alley. • No on- street parking credit should be permitted. Details: Currently existing businesses including the businesses at 400/404/408 Westminster, 350 Old Newport and 300 Old Newport, three being medical complexes / establishments and the others being traditional commercial business, already generate significant parking on the residential streets of Beacon, Holmwood, Westminster and Catalina. Further large developments with allocated street parking will only exacerbate the already existing issues / concerns. • The Employee Parking Spaces should be designated with posted signage stating "Employee Parking Only." Details: This will minimize the safety, traffic, noise and parking impacts on the quality of life our neighborhood. The current parking concerns noted earlier which are due to existing businesses are generally due to employees of such stated businesses parking in residential areas in order to accommodate already limited parking for their said customers. 6 • The storage of vehicles and/or trailers on decorative paving, defined landscape area or parking spaces should be prohibited. Details: A tent trailer is currently stored on an existing medical business site. This concern has existed since July 10, 2006 and is documented in the attached letter which is part of Planning Commission Agenda Item No. 2 dated July 20, 2006 (Reference Attachment #B). It is not known if the tent trailer occupies an approved parking space or a defined decorative / landscape area. If the tent trailer occupies an approved parking space, then the medical business parking area is unable to accommodate one less employee / patron who must consequently park on the street where there are few parking spots on Old Newport Boulevard and the commercial portion of Beacon. If the storage of vehicles / trailers is on decorative paving or landscape areas, the intended aesthetics of the site are diminished. • Parking should be prohibited on any area specified as decorative paving or landscape areas by signage. Details: Current businesses have decorative paving and / or landscape areas which are currently being used for parking. Such should be prohibited and marked accordingly with proper signage. This ensures the desired aesthetics of the site is maintained. • An on -site employee area for smoking and conducting personal business on cell phones should be established away from the common residential alley. Details: This will minimize the safety, health, noise and odor impacts on the neighborhood quality of life. In the past, various employees of the existing businesses (medical, commercial, etc.) would lean on residential walls or stand on residential property lines along the alley while smoking and/or engaged in disruptive noisy cell phone conversations. (Reference Attachment # C, letter dated 14 December 2003) 7 Several items to be considered in the downsizing of this project include. 1. Elimination of office level two in order to address many of the concerns about alley activities including but not limited to (noise, parking, trash, deliveries, lighting, height intrusion, privacy, etc.). Elimination of office level two also addresses the unfair precedent of approving the applicant's currently proposed project beyond the scope of the General plan FAR of 0.5 2. Increase the turning radius of the parking levels for safety of patrons using the southeast stairwell (Reference Attachment # D) 3. Eliminate the need for on- street parking 4. The residents strongly support the "no vehicular access from the alley" and "all vehicular access from Old Newport Boulevard" for any development on the proposed site. 5. In assisting the neighbors in making final recommendations, we suggest the planning commissioners and city council members meet with the neighbors in order to conduct a visual inspection of the proposed property space and the current traffic / parking situation as presented by current businesses. The neighborhood coalition requests such a review occur between the days of Monday through Thursday between the hours of 9:OOam and 5:OOpm. The finalized project should be equitable and judicious to all parties. Attached is a signed list of the residents who are greatly concerned about the aforementioned issues. We thank you in advance for your considerations of these issues and the associated impacts on the quality of life for Newport Heights and specifically for the residents of nearby streets. If Sincerely, Tom 13a g f"' F 5 413 Holmwood Drive tomlubaker@hotmaii.com Eri de 400 Holmwood Drive ande @sbc lobal.ne (V:ed:rick Rawlins 300 Holmwood Drive frawlins @sbc lobal.net 41.E �'� °t� % `J'�.,� Gregg Schaeberle 323 Holmwood Drive 2re225@sbe2lobal.net Peter erriga 405 Holmwoo Drive peter.kerrigan@gmail.co m ve Alan Szabo // 308 Holmwood Drive \o*, `T vet P'-, aWs er ne. Sh eye G��lvl�YiC�S ShGS�0Y�l 4--L(6 WCiS AA 45&C Ave— e P ' 6" /j / i, ((. !� (17i1u1Q�y .'Alt� ��t2 G�ht�N 3225 32L�) Ca�(n P ��rW if. JC C6r�Pan 332 (�c-FCt. I y �c AAA& kAdos ()ai-cA 106 330 Ca%linct .r I bYYt f % z PST ` Sam flcR�,A -�J '�28 c.•r,- r4(...��Fg2 % m A 9 , 933 -bo ✓c C' /P� i mot V-0 MCCL) I (Oct rV--e o � � r ,,�, Ruh n Name (Print) Address Si' nature I -11n C16 Q IlLej Vill C CA 967 IM I L, i'u 61"X fl �4VI'cz �4 t N ks f A S-I*) 30 OGY6A t An -V 3,),oAlo LJ-lw000 Pie, H7) (MW409 L 4m pav F--� , L ne- bak-er- °-1 I ?� Yo/m wod Dylq rPdMaYlb 4l, 3 3-2 A(D/ 4el S,(e ),-C-L,pR,CSS 1'9;rZ,-R9,A1C-7' ?24 C-13 -04-c,� 6 ,� oLs& - =6-k)0)4 i KIM F , r +4 Name (Print) Address Signature o — & C-1 L b WI J0Ale7 �L / "� W —k� St- r– CNN 4LtCA iZ1 J �t13Ti�r ikSc.Q 4 = _ z �e� �' �,rrada fchne r 1 �' 3�.ly Cry St - NQw or-+ k3each i �- y� A ,v r L �vo cta S:. e'b14r�� �.- 1 1 ,f1/1,t kIIel �3n4 71,b lqd vac t TV s nW 16,5 61MU-bDd ti I� w M,��s�� ) 5, q h a4.,e Cc u v is ct Name (Print) Address Signature EFf 7 1,11X 'n i_ %'�!. o- Yisti• � \teiiur� Tt+cKSy �.cc� (A (Acl,�a u2 Ip�y�- nL�� 400 CA- AL-if-'A Nl-kV ; { t9� rS 221 3/'co -� -8y-'o ad .5f C �2iti�Z a `J2i-� �U. USi K A{��J' fZ �e51".a�,�5fi2r ��iCCL y 1/ Nc ame (Print) Address Signature TC-!i'P'f4WA�'A ". I .p�4- /`�' _— ` /CJ' ��, �, ��T�T�T•B' + +" ®- 6l..iA °f-7J�"'f�17,.M Wo-p_]1 j�,�.iV.' J �JC .,..p� (y ' 4QN v lY E.p^ Q- �n 1 JCL- L1�l.Zl VVV1 cc z/13 C 1/ f D SynA*k�-&- 60Uin* � 16 1 Name (Print) Address Signature L VA - LA o J� i� l�L 3as, OG/Yj /y y4<4 i 4JI74a0.arT, } I JI. Vanderwal 325 Holmwood Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 January 6, 2010 Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner, City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA92658 Tel:.(949) 6314984 Fax: (949)631-4996 Subject: Old Newport Boulevard.General Plan Amendment (PA2008 -o47) Dear Mr. Murillo, My residence is located accross the alley of the above project. Here are my comments: 1. Being a Real Estate developer /builder myself, I don't oppose reasonoble developments that comply with City /County regulations. 2. I also understand that projects that are too small often do not pencil out. 3 As to the involvement of a project's neighbors, I know all about that: Three years ago, when I as owner /builder in Riverside County was building 4 homes @ 3000 sq. ft. each, (total 12,000,Ft.), I was forced to put in $220,000.- of improvements for the benefit of the neighbors in order to get it approved. 4 My residence's property is located accross our joint back alley for about 80 percent of the new medical building's length, which will have a massive impact on the 14 windows.of my residence.:.along the entire medical building. As a consequence that will greatly reduce the value of my property. 5 I propose that we sit down so that this medical building can be built, and here are two ways to do that: A.. .I sell my residence to the owner of the medical office. B...The City rezones my property so that I with the'assistance of the medical building's owner could build '2 condo's on the second level of my residence, which actually would serve as a transitional-, zoning: between the commercial zoning. of -old Newport Boulevard and the residential zoning of Holmwood Dr. Please note: My residence has already City- approved plans for a second story.. Please contact me if you have questions. With regards, Jay Vanderwal RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT JAN 7 X010 CITY OF NMORT BEACH 0 7 City of Newport Beach Gregg B. Ramirez Planning Department 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: General Plan Update Dear Sir, n'WNNIA105"" °' cay 0 IVEIRir; j THE /VJ- JUL Y'3 2006 Our Newport Heights residential neighborhood is adjacent to the Old Newport Boulevard commercial area. The current increasing impact of this commercial area on our neighborhood has resulted in the diminution of the quality of life for the residents. Generally affected areas include: and safety concerns from commercial trash pick -up, on residential streets instead of utilization of assigned commercial C) in reased traffic volume on residential streets, with associated safety concerns. Specific current problems which significantly affect the residential neighborhood include: A 1) commercial trashlrestaurant garbage bins located on Westminster Avenue and adjacent to the residential portion of said Avenue - -which is predominately residential. (Does the city have code/planning requirements in the updated general plan that prohibit the location of trash/garbage bins adjacent to residential areas to minimize the resultant noise, traffic and safety impact on the residents ?) A 2) commercial trash/garbage trucks after the noisy pick -up of trash/garbage on Westminster Avenue drive in reverse with limited visibility out of the trash/garbage storage area onto Westminster and partially block both lanes of the Avenue resulting in a significant safety problem. (Does the city have code /planning requirements which address the location and access of trash/garbage bins and associated traffic safety concerns ?) A 3) commercial tmsb/garbage trucks after the noisy . pick -up of trash/garbage quite frequently drive an unnecessary circular route through the residential neighborhood. (Does the city have code /planning requirements in the updated general plan that prohibit these large commercial trash/garbage trucks from driving unnecessarily through the residential neighborhood when there have been no service requests made by the residents ?) 0 B 1) employees and/or patrons of nearby businesses (medical, restaurant, commercial, etc.) have been using the residential streets for commercial parking. This leaves the streets of Westminster, Beacon, Broad and Holmwood with serious parking for the residents of said streets. (Does the city have code /planning requirements in the updated general plan that specify that employees must park on their business employment parking area and not on the residential streets? Is there a requirement that the parking spaces be specifically and clearly marked/reserved for employees ?) In addition, the alley parallel to Holmwood is predominately residential but is currently used extensively for commercial parking and traffic. This significantly detracts from the residential quality of life. Is this addressed in the updated general plan by prohibiting parking and through traffic in such situations? B 2) additionally, if there is an off -site parking agreement, what are the city requirements for lease duration, legal recordation with accessibility by the public and individual parking spaces signage specifications to assure the markings are clear and specific in the intended usage? What actions are taken by the city and imposed upon the commercial business upon the expiration of said agreement? B 3) again, related to parking, a tent trailer is presently stored on a medical business property - -it is not known if the tent trailer occupies an approved parking space of the business. (Does the city have code /planning requirements in the updated general plan that prohibit the storage of tent trailer, vehicles, etc, on commercial property?) Many of the above current problems have been previously submitted to Code Enforcement under a separate cover. The future impact of the Old Newport Boulevard commercial area on our neighborhood traffic, safety and parking is very important to our quality of life and will only become more of a concern as the adjacent commercial area continues to undergo redevelopment under the current and Updated General Plan. The future redevelopmentladdition of several medical and multi - purpose buildings will create more traffic and associated safety on our residential streets and potentially more parking issues. These issues have become of paramount important since the demographics of our residential area has recently changed with a significant increase in the number of children in the neighborhood. Attached is a signed list of the residents who are concerned about the various issues. We would like to be assured that the General Plan Update and the associated updated City Code will adequately address and resolve the issues and restore a good quality of life to the neighborhood. We thank you in advance for your prompt consideration of our requests and ask that you please contact us via e-mail. Sincerely, Tom Baker, tomlubaker @hotmail.com Ral h Kafesjian, raffikaf@yahoo.com 6 Signed, �Z E. t I 11 0 pad Signed, IV Planning Department 14 December 2003 City of Newport Beach Newport Beach, California Dear Planning Director, We strongly oppose the approval of the application, User Permit UP2003 -048 (PA2003- 280), by Andrew Noakes. The commercial property at 408 Westminster Avenue is unique in that it is adjacent to residential property (i.e., it is not surrounded entirely by other commercial property). The nature and type of business conducted at 408 Westminster Avenue directly affect the quality of life of the local residents. Historically the type of business at 408 Westminster Avenue has been basically from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM with minimal or no business on weekends and is conducted inside the building. Adults and children of the neighborhood are affected directly by the type of business at 408 Westminster Avenue -- noise, traffic, Datron /em to ees s oki n in the alley near the resident' �rooertX /awav from the comiercial buildretc. The use of the bui ding for a limited vehicle sales facility is inapporpriate in an area adjacent to a residential neighborhood. It is strongly recommended that the application be rejected. Sincerely, ` Moim"cd D( ��up�o�T B�ALif � '�� -l�- figlmo -�s� � r�� �� �➢.��p ;3 .G r File: NB Planning Department ca r i c r. c I Ml� D 4850 BASUITE 2 PARKWAY I ADVANCED MEDICAL 32B- MCIDNEWPairBLVD. WOOD RRAN A IRVINE CA. 92604 CITY OF tlEWP�if MACK CA BURG. s m a, m =I UPPER PARKING - EMPLOYEE ONLY AoPY}�CI^IC RW No W Osi A I�' 1 Advanced Medical r7o 1 OA 40 W I 332 -.qq q t ,N ,A_'i► J 'nn f IF, 'PM nrl Existing Site Conditions Vehicular access and parking for existing uses are provided from both Old Newport Boulevard (27 spaces) and a public alley shared with Holmwood Drive residences (22 spaces) i iA h .... ..... 6bblaw,_ Advanced Medical I a___ LOT AREA 25,809 Sf PARKINGPROVIDED LOWER LEVEL 58 STALLS UPPER LEVEL: BT STALLS (7 OF WHICH ARE ON THE STREET) TOTAL: 125 STALLS BLOGAREAPROPOSED, 25.000 PARKING REWIRED: 125 LANDSCAPE AREA 1300 SF PERVIOUS AREA: 1881 SF %BSA 4850 BARRANCA PARKWAY SUITE 203 W O O D BURGHARD IRVINE CA. 92604 S W A I N ARCHITECTS (FAX) ow M2 0 2 ADVANCED MEDICAL LOWER PARKING LEVEL / 328 -340 OLD NEWPORT BLVD. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CA I l I 1 111 6 I 1 / A -1 RiuwR uO WMA 4850 BARRANCA PARKWAY ADVANCED MEDICAL W O O D SUITE 203 328 -340 OLD NEWPORT BLVD. BURGHARD IRVINE CA. 92604 UPPER PARKING - EMPLOYEE ONLY CITY NEWPORT BEACH, CA A -2 S W A I N (m� w. xn eoruirFrrc [suq ow su w.z i ARE 15,447S tp. I I OPEN CORRIDOR PARKING BELOW I W53A 4850 BARRANCA PARKWAY W O O D SUITE 203 ADVANCED MEDICAL 328- 3400LD NEWPORT BLVD. BURGHARD IRVINE CA. 92604 OFFICE LEVEL 1 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CA A -3 S W IT I N (FAX) Wp 551 W R ARCHITECTS �ywmeae�gyy�y� ,n.�,m�yanas,. <w.s „�,e.aa�r�MS!cro:�. %VBA 4850 BARRANCA PARKWAY ADVANCED MEDICAL W O O D SUITE 203 328 -340 OLD NEWPORT BLVD. A -4 BURGHARD IRVINE CA. 92604 OFFICE LEVEL 2 CffY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CA S W A I N M) cw ssx mm eD('MRF("i! (�ss1 exv ssx ewx +32 W FROM EXISTING GRADE +58.00 4650 BARRANCA PARKWAY SUITE 203 IRVINE CA. 92604 M M M2 MI (1..% B5B 153 9N2 P.J�S�`ACf`5�'L warm axp +56.50 +45.00 ALLEY - EAST ELEVATION ADVANCED MEDICAL 328 -340 OLD NEWPORT BLVD. STREET EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CA A -5 �IIIIII■ 111111■ 111111■ 111111■ 111111■ 111111■ 111111 ■IIIIII■IIIIII■_IIIIII■1��_ —. _ ROOF WREEN *a- . +58.00 4650 BARRANCA PARKWAY SUITE 203 IRVINE CA. 92604 M M M2 MI (1..% B5B 153 9N2 P.J�S�`ACf`5�'L warm axp +56.50 +45.00 ALLEY - EAST ELEVATION ADVANCED MEDICAL 328 -340 OLD NEWPORT BLVD. STREET EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CA A -5 +103.00 ROOF SCREEN +82.50 ■■ ■■ +69.50 +56.50 +45.00 SIDE - NORTH ELEVATION 32.00 FROM +97.00 — — — — — — sxsr�GBm� +62.50 / +32.00 FROM— — E%WNG GRACE +69.50 +58.00 +46.50 OCEAN VIEW - SOUTH ELEVATION WBSA 4850 BARRANCA PARKWAY ADVANCED MEDICAL SUITE 203 328 -340 OLD NEWPORT BLVD. W O O D IRVINE CA. 92604 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, CA A -6 BURGHARD SIDE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS S W A I N (M) W2 ARCHITECTS mo[c-r w ®c ogre my -vao 4�aessa�+ ��aa�ew.e Mewic.._*rr.LWi�. WIMA 4850 BARRANCA PARKWAY ADVANCED MEDICAL 328 -340 OLD NEWPORT BLVD. W O O D SUITE 203 BURGHARD IRVINE CA. 92604 SITE SECTION CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, °A A -7 S W A I N (+) ow eat MI wrumc (FAX) eu W2 w42 Traffic Analysis City conducted traffic analysis concluded that the proposed project would have a less than one percent increase in any intersection during peak hours, therefore, NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT No traffic mitigation measures are required Access and Parking All vehicular access and parking will be provided from Old Newport Boulevard Sidewalk, curb, gutter and driveway improvements will be constructed on Old Newport Boulevard New on- street parking I� Access and Parking Existing uses on the site use the shared alley for parking and access to office and residential uses The proposed project would consolidate parcels, demolish existing buildings and uses, and replace them with a single use The proposed project will reduce traffic through the residential neighborhood on Holmwood, Catalina and Beacon a� w §A 4850 BARRANCA PARKWAY I OLD NEWPORT DR. SHAOULIAN STUDIES BBURIGHARD SUITE 203 IRVINE CA. 92604 ROOF PLAN OVER INTERPOLATED GRADING -8 SWAIN FA* aw M zaei Ao/LfRl7C 6u.7 90 su Volume Exhibit - - -7 asp W1 m"� xx o n�i.ul x+�wemvr•�� ��ir -•9 u 1!1■■ I[ ■ ■ ■1',�, ■AR ,■■iii �i ■i ■ ■i 1' ._0 0l MIMIM ■ml w . toll M Old Newport Blvd Elevation Alley Side Perspective From Terrace West Side Perspective #12 .- 3 -q -1a L av , L� J. Vanderwal 325 Holmwood Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 The Honorable Members of the City Counsel, Newport Beach, CA. "RECEIVED IiT� AGENDA PRINTED:" � I Tel: (949) 6314984 3-9-10 Fax: (949) 631 -4996 March 5, 2010 Subject: The proposed medical offices at 328, 332 and 340 Old Newport Blvd. Dear Counsel, As a neighbor and plant engineer /designer of automobile assembly lines for factories that produced 50 cars /hour, I feel I have this knowhow of my past that allows me to comment on the proposed design : 1... This proposed design will have a massive visual impact on this area, in particular the residents of Newport Heights.who will lose their feel of living in a family - friendly neighborhood, due to this large building, shown on page 2, Design W. 2 ... This proposed design follows the City's rules to somehow incorporate the former presence of a hillside at that location into the design. As a result therof, the allowable office square footage is split into two jagged pieces that on top of each other fail to produse a pleasing sight but instead become a massive wall that dominates its surroundings. 3...I am offering here three alternate designs: a. The garage's Entry /Exit near Reacon St. must go, it is dangerous. b. The 2 separate garages must be connected,..and I worked out a design that makes then every stall available to patients and staff alike. c. The two elevators must be side by side in the center of the garage, because if one is busy or defect then the other one is available. 4... Design B: The total square footage of the offices is 25,000 sq. ft. and.it happens to be nearly exactly alike to the size of the garage. By splitting this 25,000 sq. ft. in 2 equal halves of 12,500sq. ft, then we can stack them on top of each other on the north half of the garage, and then we have reduced the visual impact of the offices by 50 percent. 5... Another possibility is to spread out all of the 25,000 sq. ft of the office space in one layer, which will then all by itself cover the entire roof of the garage, see design C. The disadvantage of it would be the length of the facility for patients having to walk, they would be better served by a 2 -story office building that has shorter distances and has an elevator. 6... This is the design that has half the offices if the building was designed along the guidelines of 0.5FAR, see design D. 7... In either case, design the garage ceilings as low as possible, thus limiting the building's visual impact. With Regards, Ja 'Vanderwal PAGE 1 �o q Li LJ � 4mc" Ell � � ORIGIONAL PROPOSED --orPICSS �. -� �� =irrxcsE 0 J__I DESIGN ALLEY /7'I�"PTtlTTl7TS /T'Rf7. T.'TTfs %r� '9 -rfn .GARAGE RAGE GA RAM— — — — — — — — -- — ARAGE Il 1 . 0 FAR RT — — — — — — — — — ^ — — Ow'mwpO BLw NEW orrlcES F—] f _ COMPACT 6LLEY OFFICES r — �' 125 CARS DESIGN ALLEY Iul PT'r1T�/TTJ"r+s '7TTrT� T.•Tha l9'TTITr T1-m7 `J GARAGE GARAGE ' GARAGE GARAGE — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —. — — — — 1.0 FAR LD O REVPORT BLVD T . ALLEY 4 —I Tm' r- I 1- 01'PICEB �1 1 : GARAGE ti GARAGE 1.0 FAR t1i 0.:) rnn NEW 125 CARS LOW LEVEL DESIGN ALLEY �!T /Tr7'In T7TITT) TiT1Y) lTTTT`r� rr I Dw.M WDORT BLVD PRESENTLY ALLOWED DESIGN i �v Y C+1 W ALLEY _ f OLD NEMPOQT BLVD OW NEWPORT BLVD UPPER GARAGE LEVEL 65 CARS LOWER GARAGE LEVEL 60 CARS M 74 72(elevation, typ. These topographic contours were used for the original design. TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS 48 72 arnate graphic contours the hereby posed changes the design. 48 328 - 332 - 34D - OLD NEWPORT BLVD, NEWPORT BEACH PAGE 4 Tuesday, February 02, 2010 To: Clerk of the Planning Commission City of Newport Beach Members of the Planning Commission Re: Old Newport Blvd: Dr. Shaoulian project Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I am retired from Mariners Library after working there for over 20 years and have lived in the neighborhood for 40 years. I currently volunteer a the Environmental Nature Center and at the Muth Interpretive Center. I have been a member of the Steering Committee of the oldest environmental group in the city — SPON. I have become familiar with the project images, site, and the proposal. I write in support of this improvement to a pretty dilapidated portion of Old Newport Boulevard. I understand that there is an amendment to the General Plan and that the project also must gain relief, through this process, for a small portion of the height regarding an entry stair and elevator. This is a minor technical infraction and essentially is, in my opinion, not disruptive to the view or the images of this project. These facts and a traffic analysis, as part of the CEQA document, allow me to support the amendment and the granting of approval of what will be a very beneficial project for this neighborhood. The greatest asset to the area and to the project is that the owner has reached out to his community and received a clean bill of health. The project would eliminate the poor quality of the existing buildings and the traffic that currently uses these old buildings near the Newport Heights area of the Holmwood Drive. This is a breakthrough for the issue of children's safety as well as the reduction of traffic. I hope this project receives the full support of the Planning Commission and Council. Sincerely, Andrea Lingle Pc; City Council, Don Krotee AIA Improvement Association Newport Beach, CA. 92883 Tel 949. 355 -3280 Qonibnewporthelah ( s.ora www.newportheiahts.ora To: Murillo Jaime <JMurillo @city.newport- beach.ca.us> Project planner Meeting Feb 3, 2010 The Board has conducted a review of the project and we find that, in that the residential component of the project has been removed and the residential traffic in the existing condition is eliminated, we support the height issues with the zoning request and the GPA. We understand that the traffic increase explained in the CEQA document indicates little impact and none of that significant and we are in support of the project. Further a review of the site and a poll of the neighborhood show general support and no real opposition. Don Krotee, President Newport Heights Improvement Assoc. Ms. Barbara Rawlings 535 Tustin Newport Beach, CA 92663 To: Distinguished members of the Planning Commission Date: January 26, 2010 Ec; Clerk of the Commission and Council, Donald Krotee AIA Re: Old Newport Blvd.- Dr. Shaoulian project Distinguished Members: As you might recall, I live in Newport Heights and currently work and own a business on Old Newport Boulevard. Additionally, I hold a Board seat on the Newport Heights Improvement Association. Recently I have come to understand that the subject project will come to Commission and eventually Council to resolve an amendment to the General Plan and to gain relief, through the discretionary action public meeting process for possible relief of a portion of the height portions of the zoning for the project. I am in full support of this amendment and granting approval of what I have come to know as an exceptional project and improvement to this area. As you might know, our Association has been working with the design staff for over 2 years and has eliminated the residential component from past and the current project. This eliminates not only the existing blight and the traffic associated with the existing surrounding buildings but, also the ever increasing auto access to the Holmwood Drive and alley area- a great improvement for life style as well as safety. I understand and I am sensitive to the amount of traffic in our area. Our neighborhood is essentially not impacted according to the traffic study done as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and we are relieved and appreciate this. We would hope this CEQA companion document also be approved. We give the project high marks for the design and look forward to seeing this fine improvement in the ground. Sincerely, Barbara Rawlings 'To: City Councel Ref.: Gen.Plan Amendment lFrom: Date: March 8, 2010 Newport Beach, CA (PA2008 -047) Jay Vanderwal SUBJECT: The proposed Medical Office building located at 328, 332, 340 Old Newport Blvd, Newport Beach, CA. This 250 feet long new building is subject to a permissable building height of 32 feet, and yet its proposed height exceeds that by 19 -26 BECAUSE OF THAT VERY SERIOUS VIOLATION, THIS PROJECT MUST BE DENIED. 4� Z 4Jy . r y line Existing parking area property line This hillside r has to be removed, for this project.' 1` THE NEW GROUND ZERO r- - -- - -- iproposed offices � - I I proposed offices proposed 66 parking st 58`RarkihQ s feet. 20' Alley 32 feet building envelop 20' Alley `:Some comments on the above design: a.. The shaded portions of half the garages' capacity are illegal, because they are not within the permissable 32 feet high building envelop. b.. Because of that illegality, these parking stalls can not be used to calculate the permitted square footage of the office space, thus reducing the proposed office space by half. c.. Accordingly, a permissable design will have a single 62 -car garage and with the existing 0.5 FAR office space on half the garage. 1 SEE PAGE 2 "RECEIV AFTER AGENDA PRINTED:" Z -ID March 9, 2010 Mayor Curry and member of the City Council, City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, Ca. 92663 Re: Agenda item #12 Project # PA2008 -047 Dear Mayor Curry and members of the City Council, I write in support of the above referenced project which you will review this evening (319110) for the following reasons: Old Newport Blvd is a sorely neglected commercial street. It is often a gateway to travelers through our city and yet offers absolutely no pedestrian pleasures. It's a 'drive -by, drive- through' street. It's proximity to Hoag Hospital and the medical profession's need for growing office space makes it an obvious location for medical offices and services. This trend has been growing visible for the last 20 years. Encouragement of this use supports the needs of our community and Hoag hospital. Residential and Commercial property have always existed side by side in this case. It was zoned this way in the beginning. No transitional zoning ever existed, however, an alley exists and serves as a buffer so that these different uses do not share the same property line but rather have some distance between these neighbors. Trying to extract a greater transition from this property owner than the existing alley would be inconsistent and unfair. The residential community that resides south of the alley to the subject property (specifically Holmwood) existed in this location since the inception of this community; when Old Newport Blvd was in fact, the main thoroughfare in our city. Still residential occupancy flourished even with the obvious presence of both Hoag Hospital and the commercial endeavors on Old Newport Blvd. 3. Commercial property owners are entitled to enjoy the full rights of the zoning codes. Two story buildings are permitted on both sides of the alley. This property owner is entitled to build a two story structure. 4. There is no zoning code designed to protect private views. We are not discussing 'Public' views which are entirely another issue. I believe tt is not in the best interest of the City to depart from a long standing precedent in regard to protecting private views at the expense of a property owner being forced to build a lower structure than zoning codes permit. In this case, a simple 6 foot high Page 2 of 2 3 -9-10 fence built on the property line of the commercial property would block the same private views - and would not require a special permit 5. Approximately 3 years ago the City Council adopted an Amendment to the General Plan for this street which eliminated of The Specific Area Plan of Old Newport Blvd; down zoned the FAR, eliminated the residential/commercial zone which had permitted 1.25 x's buildable area (making Old Newport Blvd solely commercial). By doing this approximately 6 properties became 'legal/non- conforming.' This was done without notification to the Old Newport Blvd property owners and has resulted in a stagnation of development on this street. No one, including the city, has benefited from this action. 6. This project, designed at one times (1 x's) buildable area is a compromise on the original and new FARs and makes good sense. This property owner purchased and combined multiple parcels prior to the change in the FAR (reference #5 above) resulting in a large enough parcel to attain a 1x's buildable and still provide for required parking. It is a relatively isolated condition that could not occur on many other of the properties on this street as this street was originally subdivided into very small parcels that must adhere to a .5 FAR because of parking requirements, and the difficulty (if not impossibility) of attaining underground parking on these small parcels. This project would be an asset to Old Newport Blvd., to the City and to the support of Hoag Hospital. Sincerely, Brion Jeannette, AIA Architect Old Newport Blvd property owner AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING On Z/ e& & , 2010, I posted the Notice of Public Hearing regarding: 328, 332, and 340 OLD NEWPORT BOULEVARD Date of Hearing: March 9, 2010 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, March 9, 2010, at 7:00 p.m., a public hearing will be conducted in the City Council Chambers (Building A) at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application: Old Newport Boulevard General Plan Amendment - A request for a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to increase the allowable floor area to land area ratio (FAR) for the project site from 0.5 FAR to 1.0 FAR. An FAR of 1.0 could result in 25,725 square feet of development. Concurrent with the requested General Plan Amendment, the applicant is proposing the construction of a 25,000 - square -foot medical office building. In a addition to the requested GPA, the following approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as proposed: 1. A use permit to allow an elevator and stairwell enclosure to exceed the 32 -foot base height limit. 2. A modification permit to allow the proposed subterranean parking area to encroach 3 feet into the 5 -foot near yard setback. 3. A seven space off - street parking credit commensurate with the number of on- street parking spaces available along the project frontage. 4. A traffic study pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Newport Beach in connection with the application noted above. The Mitigated Negative Declaration states that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the environment. It is the present Intention of the City to accept the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or denial by the City of the subject application. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department, City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92658-8915, (949) 6443200. All interested parties may appear and present testimony in regard to this application. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing (described in this notice) or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at, or prior to, the public hearing. The agenda, staff report, and documents may be reviewed at the City Clerks Office (Building B), 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California, 92663, or at the City of Newport Beach website at www.newaortbeachca.gov on the Thursday prior to the hearing. For questions regarding details of the project please contact Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner, at (949) 644-3209 or jmurilbtrr�newaortbeachca.aov. Project File No.: PA2008 -047 Zone: Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan (SP- 9); Retail Service Commercial (RSC) Location: 328, 332, and 340 Old Newport Boulevard Applicant: Micheal C. Adams Associates Activity No.: General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 -001, Use Permit No. UP2009-005, Modification Permit No. 2009 -016, and Traffic Study No. TS2009- 002 General Plan: General Commercial Office (CO-G) 4L P _V� Lellahl I. Brown, City Clerk T Y � ,,, M® 1 inw Ms-i; a I !., ®pgLSMANE a =MfI 425 38106 EMANUEL SHAOULIAN 332 N NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425 381 11 ALFRED BEASLEY 337 HOLMWOOD DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425 381 14 KEVIN BARNETT 350 OLD NEWPORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425 382 17 ALAN CHEE PO BOX 10 LOS ALAMITOS CA 90720 425 382 20 ANTONY & KATHY SHAW 320 CATALINA DR RA NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 937 21009 STOBART FAMILY TRUST 325 LA JOLLA DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 93 0 23 GERA KLE 326 OLD WPO BLVD NEWPORT ACH CA 92663 APPLICANT /CONTACT Michael C. Adams Associates Bill Holman 21190 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Michael C. Adams Associates 1 man 21190 Ivd H on Beach, CA 92648 « a peter -- - - -- . - -- •Uttllspz 1e 960W p � ►S 425 381 07 425 108 33 ILCJEI�O T BL 0 L SH�OULIAN 332 OL NE PORT BLVD 0 NEWPO B CH CA 92663 425 381 12 425 381 13 JEFFERY ATKINS VANDERWAL FAMILY TRUST 333 HOLMWOOD DR 325 HOLMWOOD DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425 382 15 425 382 16 VALERIE DURANT WOODCO INVESTMENT CO INC 731 SAINT JAMES RD 3740 CAMPUS DR N 100 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 425 382 18 425 382 19 SUSAN LINDGREN CYNTHIA MIRANDA 128 27TH ST 316 CATALINA DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425 382 21 937 210 08 WILLIAM DAVIS JOSEPH BAIRIAN 16485 LAGUNA CANYON RD 328 CATALINA DR IRVINE CA 92618 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 937 210 21 93 10 22 GERALD KLEIN GE D 326 OLD NEWPORT BLVD %EIDN 326 p ORT BLVD NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPO CH CA 92663 Kosmont Companies Attn: Susan Perry Thomas Baker 865 S. Figueroa Street, 35'" Fl. 413 Holmwood Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 Los Angeles, CA 90017 COMMUNITY ASSOC. Newport Heights Improvement Association — Don Krotee 2916 Clay Street Newport Beach, CA 92663 FILE COPY PA2005 047 for OP2008 -M - - - - -- -- - - 326. 33� 8 340 Old Newport &vd .. _ ._. . T- ammn Qg& `i � f4EETINO:. 0(1915 W=Ikv1 �Mr Wn at am amp pun -v- qeqvj_&pm Ana T AV3AV-09U094 f .�M40d Pjoad N j19^w ' 4' ems pAv3Av wew6 at �IIRn Ries M , AP uga or se01M�_�i3 0%A� TE 5Mw ® I ail PaPef �Ea�ye I � V�Rr ®�yov � it 049 081 16 049 081 17 049 081 19 THEODORE BARRY PETER JAMES KERRIGAN ROBERT LAFONT 409 HOLMWOOD DR 405 HOLMWOOD DR 6747 E WATERTON AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 ORANGE CA 92867 049 081 22 049 082 01 049 082 02 CARROLL ALM ALAN SZABO KENNETH EVANS 401 HOLMWOOD DR 308 HOLMWOOD DR 320 HOLMWOOD DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049 082 03 049 082 04 049 082 05 LAZ EDWARD ELLIS NSC ENTS INC 326 HOLMWOOD DR 332 HOLMWOOD DR 3125 BAYSIDE DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 CORONA DEL MAR CA 92625 049 082 06 049 082 30 049 082 31 FLOYD JONES JOHN LARSEN T ORBACH 344 HOLMWOOD DR 345 CATALINA DR 339 CATALINA DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049 082 32 049 082 33 049 082 34 LAWRENCE & GOLDA RAINS CHARLES & TAMMY WOODS LAWRENCE EDWARDS 333 CATALINA DR 327 CATALINA DR 321 CATALINA DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 049 082 35 04909236 049 082 37 ANDERSON HINSCH FRANK SELBY WEBB FAMILY TRUST 315 CATALINA DR 307 CATALINA DR 24751 VALDERAS NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 MISSION VIEJO CA 92691 049 082 38 049 082 39 423 011 30 ERIC SANDERS EDITH MARTIN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL HOAG 400 HOLMWOOD DR 404 HOLMWOOD DR I HOAG DR NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 425 271 15 425 271 16 425 272 01 LLC RDB ORANGE COAST ASSOCIATION NEWPORT MEDICAL CENTER LLC 415 OLD NEWPORT BLVD #200 401 OLD NEWPORT BLVD #100 2441 HEALTH CTR DR #600 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 LAGUNA HILLS CA 92653 425 272 02 425 272 03 425 283 18 NEWPORT MEDICAL CENTER LLC HUNG ONG LE BIARRITZ RESTAURANT 2441 HEALTH CTR DR #600 1431 HIGH BLUFF DR 414 OLD NEWPORT BLVD LAGUNA HILLS CA 92653 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 i 425 38102 425 381 03 425 38104 MIE KATAYAMA JACQUELINE JOY HUMPHRIES VICTOR & C BUCCOLA 2233 MARTIN #402 1836 GALAXY DR 1826 TRADE WINDS LN IRVINE CA 92612 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 �( AMqu@tW fads A adw mAn owdxa M dad PMI *onnom la }."wis Wq 41AB16dPA�i1WA 5%ow s .. ii de dOW �ItlMtPwB ♦ i telemonrtlnn lm Dear Council, The acual subject here is Section 20.65.030, Measurement of Height, Paragraph 'A', 20.65.030 Measurement of Height A. Height of Structure. The height of a structure shall be the vertical distance between the highest point of the structure and the grade directly below. In determining the height of a sloped roof, the measurement shall be the vertical distance between the grade and the midpoint of the roof plane, as measured from the ridge of the roof to where the wall plate intersects the roof plane, provided that no part of the roof shall extend more than 5 Feet above the permitted height in the height limitation zone. The first sentence, underlined here, very clearly defines the height of a structure, and it cannot be misunderstood. Section 20.65.030 -'B' -1 starts out with the following sentence: B. Grade. For the purpose of measuring height, the grade shall be the unaltered natural vertical location of the ground surface unless one of the following applies: 1. At the time of subdivision, the City has approved a grading plan or map, under which circumstances grade shall be finished grade as shown on the plan or map so approved. For sites that were developed without or prior to the requirement for a grading plan or map, the Planning Department shall exercise its best efforts to determine the location of grade for the purpose of measuring height. In so doing, the Planning Department shall use existing on -site elevations and contours, as well as the elevations and contours of adjoining and nearby properties to determine the natural profile of the site. In cases where retaining walls have been constructed or tilled surfaces have been used for the purpose of measuring height prior to October 12, 1972, the 1 finished grade established in conjunction with the filled condition shall be used or'fhe measurement of eig t. Under no circumstances shall height be measured from excavated surfaces such as basements and wine cellars which have been used to artificially lower the ground surface. The problem here is that the 3 words 'in conjunction with' are not _nderstood,or being .ignored. 1 I Vanderwal 325 Holmwood Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 41 /ED � (�, �b Tel: (949) 631.4984 Fax: 631.4996 flECE1, (949) April 6, 2010 2fl10 APR -7 PM 2 53 - f�ityManager tL�City CFFICE QF — Attorney The City Council, THE CITY CLERK —File Newport Beach, CA. CITY Or PIEWPORT BE9,H Subject: An examination of the wording of the city's Measurement of G Height of structures, Section 20.65.030 indicates that the city has not complied with its directives when it approved on March 9, 2010 the Medical Offices at 328, 332,340 Old Newport Blvd. Dear Council, The acual subject here is Section 20.65.030, Measurement of Height, Paragraph 'A', 20.65.030 Measurement of Height A. Height of Structure. The height of a structure shall be the vertical distance between the highest point of the structure and the grade directly below. In determining the height of a sloped roof, the measurement shall be the vertical distance between the grade and the midpoint of the roof plane, as measured from the ridge of the roof to where the wall plate intersects the roof plane, provided that no part of the roof shall extend more than 5 Feet above the permitted height in the height limitation zone. The first sentence, underlined here, very clearly defines the height of a structure, and it cannot be misunderstood. Section 20.65.030 -'B' -1 starts out with the following sentence: B. Grade. For the purpose of measuring height, the grade shall be the unaltered natural vertical location of the ground surface unless one of the following applies: 1. At the time of subdivision, the City has approved a grading plan or map, under which circumstances grade shall be finished grade as shown on the plan or map so approved. For sites that were developed without or prior to the requirement for a grading plan or map, the Planning Department shall exercise its best efforts to determine the location of grade for the purpose of measuring height. In so doing, the Planning Department shall use existing on -site elevations and contours, as well as the elevations and contours of adjoining and nearby properties to determine the natural profile of the site. In cases where retaining walls have been constructed or tilled surfaces have been used for the purpose of measuring height prior to October 12, 1972, the 1 finished grade established in conjunction with the filled condition shall be used or'fhe measurement of eig t. Under no circumstances shall height be measured from excavated surfaces such as basements and wine cellars which have been used to artificially lower the ground surface. The problem here is that the 3 words 'in conjunction with' are not _nderstood,or being .ignored. 1 WEBSTER'S NEW UNIVERSAL UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY explains: Webster writes that the word 'conjunction' is the same as 'joining together' or being 'joined together'. The two entities that are involved here together are the finished grade that was created by putting the excess soil behind the retaining wal we can now substitute the word conjunction for the word og to Tier as shown erg e below: g6nlyficltion n. [ME. conjunccion; OFr. conjunction; L. conjunctio, from pp. of con - jungerei see conjoin.] 1. a loinin to ether or being_i -pined ta- gether; unions associa ion; combination; as, care essness, in conjunction wi—'t tl—lainess, made her a poor worker. 2. coincidence; as, the conjunction of events. 3. in astronomy and as ro ogy, a meeting of two or more stars or planets in the same degree of the zodiac; as, the conjunction of the moon with the sun, or o upiter and Saturn. Heavenly bodies are said to be in con unction when they are seen in the same partotth e eavens, or have the same longitude. i The inferior conjunction of a planet is its position when in con unction on the same side of the sun wit a ear —*,the superior con- junction is its position when on the side of the sun most distant from the earth. 4. in grammar, an uninflected word used to connect words, phrases, clauses, or sentences! cULLIiCCLivC: conjunctions may be co- ordinat-ing e.g., and, but, or), subordinating (e.gg., if, when, as, because, though, etc.), or correla- tive (e.g., either ... or, both ... and, etc.). for the purpose of measuring height prior to October 12, 1972, the finished grade established in conjunction with the filled condition shall be used for the measurement of height. WHAT IT MEANS IS THIS: for the purpose of measuring height prior to October 12, 1972, the finished grade established together with the filled condition shall be used for the measurement of height. Accordingly, todav's on -site situation is that about 70 percent of the former hillside that is fronting on Old Newport Blvd. has a flat finished grade from which a building's height needs to be measured. T e remaining 30 percent of the hillside is too narrow to be useful to overcome the impact of the low finished grade,which then dictates a building design as shown in my letter dated April 5, 2010. With regards, Jay Vanderwal CC, Planning Director 2 J. Vanderwal F Tel: (949) 631-4984 325 Holmwood Drive Newport Beach, CA 92663 � � I,/` D Fax: (949) 631.4996 April 5, 2010. OFRCE OF The Cit y Council of THE CITY CLERK Newport Beach, CA. CITY OF I'!F') ?ORT BEACH Ref. The Council's approval on March 9, 2010 of a new Medical Office Building at 328, 332,340 Old Newport Blvd. Dear Council, In reviewing this project's actual design the past weeks, I have discovered that its designers used the wrong approach as to dealing with the hillside that used to be at that location. Had there actually been an actual hillside today, then their design would have been correct, but there is no hillside there now. Enclosed herewith on page 2, The City's Measurement of Height Section 20.65.030, §B -1 starts out with mentioning the height of an unaltered natural vertical location of the ground surface, UNLESS one of the following applies:, Etc. See Page 2. The underlined description deals with retaining walls that already existed prior to October 12, 1972, in which case the finished grade in conjunction with the filled condition shall be used for the measurement of height. That is what it is the case right here. Page 3 shows that the present structures on the three properties were built well before that, so that therefor those pre- existing grades need to be incorporated in the design. Those sloped former hillsides of the architect's drawings are therefor wrong, very wrong, and are in violation of the required measuring procedure. This whole project needs to be redone, all the way from square one. I am helping you and the developer with a proposed design that will fit within the 32 feet ceiling, it will be about 30 percent smaller, but it will fit within 2 building levels rather than 4 building levels. This will make it fit in Old Newport Blvd's building style, it also complies more with the overall character of the neighborhood. The present 4 -story design cannot be salvaged, it is unfortunate for the owner, his achitect should redesign the whole project for 2 levels, at no cost to Dr. Shaoulian. With regards, ay Vanderwal. Page 1 20.65.030 Measurement of Height A. Height of Structure. The height of a structure shall be the vertical distance between the highest oint oft the structure and the grade directly below. In determining the height of a sloped root, the measurement shall be the vertical distance between the grade and the midpoint of the roof plane, as measured from the ridge of the roof to where the wall plate intersects the roof plane, provided that no part ofthe roof shall extend more than 5 feet above the permitted height in the height limitation zone. B Grade. For the purpose of measuring height, the grade shall be the unaltered nature vertical location of the ground surface unless one of the following applies: �--- pifASE NOTI:�►t111111111111111 1. At the time of subdivision, the City has approved a grading plan or map, under which circumstances grade shall be finished grade as shown on the plan or map so approved. For sites that were developed without or prior to the requirement for a grading plan or map, the Planning Department shall exercise its best efforts to determine the location of grade for the purpose of measuring height. In so doing, the Planning Department shall use existing on -site elevations and contours, as well as the elevations and contours of adjoining and nearby properties to determine the natural profile of the site. /Tn cases where retaining walls have been constructed or filled surfaces hav? U3�U IUI IIIC Illoasuremem or neigm. unaer no circumstances shall heighNbe measure om excavated sur aces such as basements and wine cellars which have been used to artificially lower the ground surface. This is the required finished grade determination for this project, because of its prior to Oct. 12, 1972 established finished grade. ewmew caruw �' gY a.a lirie�� Y ESTABI,ISHF,D�FINI GRADE SOUTH ELEVATION OLD NEWPORT DR. SHAOULIAN STUDIES -SIDE EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS rr O a a w T E u w E H x U a w x E A -6 ai $4 v 3 'O v c a) � v ro aU2 En 3 ar O .•-I � H U) o m a .H N M u m U 4 N Nroa J.J q 4 N a G C al •� q U b cw iJ o w a o .a a.uro -a (1) 0 M +J e c m 4 fa b O H N a a to O (a 3 Z v u) +J iJ UJ m a) .0 X H +J ro 0 0 u (D N 4J a A N M a) ro v x U ro 4J J-J ro (V a) Pgge 2 ROOF SCREEN __— __`---- 250FT.ta�C�— n ve ALL 8,200 sq. ft- 16,400 sq. ft. Parking N�8,200 sq, ft. Offices 16,400 sq. ft. Parking Because of its 32 feet height limitation for this project as it is now measured from the ground floor, it has the surpising outcome that, when compared with its earlier design, that its loss of one third Of its office space gets compensated by having to build only two building levels instead of the origional four levels. This is based on the assumption that the 0.5FAR gets doubled to 1.OFAR, as approved for the former design. This two -story building would fit well in the area, but the architect should make a serious effort not to design a bland building without style. Page 3 Shown below are the records of the buildings that will be razed. ' Parcel: 425 - 381 -06 Owner SHAOULIAN, EMANCEL -- - ? Site: 328 N NEWPORT BLVD-ORANGE CA - 92869 Use:OFFICE - LOG] RISE Zn: I$620 300 W. Sale: 5620, 000F5/13/198B COAST HWY *NE'APDRT BENCH CA 9 663 Lns:340C,000 Doc :225095 Map Blk: Lot: S BgdBath: h: Yb:19eo 4,533 S1, 0'S6, 120 -- LLsz5,90o Imp: 118 k"p. Un: Un: Parcel: 425- 381 -07 Owner: SEWULIAN,EMMUEL ' ­3w S" :332 OLD NEW ?ORT BLVC *NEW?ORT BEACH CA 92663 Use: MISCELLANEOUS Zn: Mad :3300 W COAST HWY *NEWPORT BEACH CA 92663 Lns: Sala: $540 30OF DaOe: 09/30/1996 Nap: Elk: DOc:21 % Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds Including public notices by Dgcrcc of Abe Supenot Court of Orange County, California . Number A - ()211, September 29, 1961, and A -24831 June 11. 1963 RECEIVED PROOF OF PUBLICATION 1010 MARS -5 /AM ? 03 OI CF� fir STATE OF CALIFORNIA) . ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: February 27, 2010 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 1, 2010 at Costa Mesa, California. gJl�Yt 1. �Q K Y�i -a' l Signature Nana O WK RfA1110 NOTICE IS NMGY OWEN that on Taeadry, I tltrmdt 9, 4010, at 7:00 r., a public hearne .,If be conducted n the !;' Council Chambers lBurldmy Al at 3300 Newport Boulevard. Newport Beach The City Council of the City of Newport Beach will consider the following application Old Newport Boulevard General Plan Amendmenl A request for a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to increase the allowable flow area to land area ratio (FAR) for the Project site from 0.5 FAR to ID FAR. An FAR of 1.0 could result in 25.725 square feet of development Concurrent with Abe requested General Plan Amandmenl. the applKaot is proposing the construction of a 25.000 square foot medical office building. In a addition to the requested GPA, the following approvals are re- quested or required in order to implement the project as proposed I. A use permit to allow an elevator and stairwell enclosure to exceed the 32 toot base height limit. 2 A modification Permit to allow the proposed subterranean parking area to encroach 3 feel into the 5 loot rear yard setback. 3. A seven space off- street parking credit com mensurate with the number of on street parking spaces available along the pron, frontage. A A traffic study pursuant to roe City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been Pre pared by the City of Newport Basch In connection with the application noted above, The Mitigated Negative Declaration States that, the subject development will not result in a significant effect on the eevttonment It n the present mtlntmn of the City to accept the Mitigated Negative Declara. tion and supporting documents. this is not to be construed as either approval or demal by the City of the subject application The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation Copies of the Mitigated Negalwe Decwalusn and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department. City of Newport Beach. 3300 Newport Boulevard. Newport Beach, California. 97658-8915. (949)6443200. All interested partves may appear and Present testimony in regard To this application If you challenge this protect m court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing (described in this notice) or in written correspondence delivered to the City, at. w poor to, the public hearing The' agenda. staff report. and documents may be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office (Budding B), 3300 Newport Boulevard. Newport Beach. Caliton- nia. 92663, or at the City of Newport Beach website at www."imper Mavai a.pr on the Thursday prior to the hearing. TV questions regarding details of Abe wojed please contact Jaime Munllo. Associate Planner. at (949) 643209 or Mnrrlb a.: PA20 8 0dwe.Per. Mere Old a.: rt Bouleva7 Retail Old Newport Boulevard Specific Plan ($P9). Retail Service Commercial (RSC) baaeiem 328. 332, and 340 Old Newport Boulevard !rat Plan Amendment No ,mil No. UP2009005. Mod. 2009016, and Traffic Study Oewnd Planar General Commercial Office Ledanl 1. Brown, Published Newport Beach /Coate MW C February 27, 2010 Authurlad to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public mica by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County. California Number A -6214, September 29, 1%1, and A -24831 3unc 11, 1963. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the NEWPORT BEACH - COSTA MESA DAILY PILOT, a newspaper of general circulation. printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following dates: February 27, 2010 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 1, 2010 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature if a l RECEI�/ED ?MO FAR -S M 9'03 OFFICE OF THE C(T CLERK CN1 NOW OiNp! KW16 _ NOTICE If NIJ1t1l GIVEN that On Trieadwy, Mwca 9, 2010, at 740 r., a public hearing will be conducted n the City Council Chambers IBuddmQ A) at 3300 Newport Boulevaad, Newport Beach. The City Council of the City of Newport) Beach will consider, the following aopliaabon'. Old Newport Boulevard General Plan Amendment A request for a General Plan Amendment (GPA) !n increase the allowable floor area to land area ratio (FAR) for the protect sale from 0.5 FAR to 1.0 FAR An FAR of 1.0 could result is 25.725 square feet of development. Concurrent wdh is requested General Plan Amendmenl, the aDDbcant is proposing the construction of a 25.000 square - fool medical ofl¢e building. In a addition to the requested GPA. the following approvals are re- quested w required in order to implement the protect as proposed 1. A use permit to allow an elevator and stairwell enclosure to exceed the 32 fool base height limit 2. A modification permit to allow the proposed subterranean parking area to encroach 3 feet into the 5 fact rear yard setback 3. A seven space oil sheet parking credit cam mensurale wdh the number of on sir"t parking spaces available along the prolecl frontage 4 A traffic study pursuant to the City's Traffic PEaamg Oi dmance A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been pre pared by the City at Merat Beach m connection with the application noted above. The Mitigated Negative Declaration stales Nat, the subject development will not result an a signdmant etfecl on the envnonmenl It as the present intention of the City to accept the Mitigated Negative Declara too and supporting documents. This is not to be construed as either approval or dental by the City of the subject applcation. The City encourages members of the general public to review and comment on this documentation. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning Department. City of Newport Beach, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach. California. 92658-8915, (949) 6" 3200. All interested parties may appear and present testimony In regard to this application. n you challenge this protect in court, you may be limited to raising Only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing (described in this notice) w in written correspondence delivered to the City. at, a prior lo, the public hearing. The agenda, staff report. and documents MAY be reviewed at the City Clerk's Office (Budding 8), 3300 Newport Boulevard. Newport Beach. Caldor nia. 92663, or at the Cityy of Newport Beach website at yr owpreMeeliu.gw on the Thursday pow to the heating. For questions regarding details of the project please contact Jaime Murdln. Associate Planner. .1(949) 644 3209 w IAWIBO @@MMA20M 047 A Old Newport p rt Boulevard va7 ReM: Service NMport Boulevard $poetic Plan (SP 9), Retail wit 3280 32, and 3 0 Old 1w hossi 328. 332. and 340 Old Newport Boulevard Apvity Micheal General Adams GP2008 N. General Plan Amendment No. GP2008 GO I. Use Permit No UP2009 005, Study No TS Permit ss iates 6, and Traffic Study No.TS2009.0U General GeMnl Mewv General Commercial Office (COG) L /Cost I. Brown. City Clerk published Newport Beach/Costa Mesa Daily ao% February 27. 2010 Sao%