The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About13 - Appeal - Mariner’s Pointe (PA2010-114)0*41TY • P•. NEWPORT BEACH City Council Staff Report Agenda Item No. 13 August 9, 2011 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Community Development Department Kimberly Brandt, AICP, Director 949-644-3226, kbrandt@newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner APPROVED: TITLE: Appeal -Mariner's Pointe (PA2010-114) ABSTRACT: An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and related discretionary applications to accommodate the development of a new two-story commercial building and a three-story parking structure. Subsequent to the Planning Commission's action on the project, the applicant has modified the project reducing the gross floor area from 23,015 square feet (approx 0.7 FAR) to 19,905 square feet (approx. 0.6 FAR) and eliminating the need to utilize off-site parking. RECOMMENDATION: Uphold or reverse the Planning Commission's decision by either: 1. Adopting the draft resolution for denial without prejudice (Attachment No. CC 1); or 2. Adopting the draft resolution (Attachment No. CC2) approving the revised project by: a. Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and b. Finding that, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including Traffic Study No. TS2011-001, that the Project complies with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and c. Approving General Plan Amendment No. GP2010-009, Site Development Review No. SR2010-001, Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-024, Variance i 2 Appeal - Mariner's Pointe (PA2010-114) August 09, 2011 Page 2 No. 2010-004, and Parcel Map No. 2010-008, subject to findings and conditions: and 3. Introduce Ordinance No. 2011-22 (Attachment No. 3) approving Code Amendment No. CA2010-009, and pass to second reading on September 13, 2011. 3 fir' Appeal - Mariner's Pointe (PA2010-114) August 09, 2011 Page 3 Enlarged View of Site y L � ffYY- W r COAST MWYW ' m SURROUNDING LAND USES GENERAL PLAN ZONING g e P FIX /� 9 RS -D LG 0.0 FAR e � O.�FAR mwsr xwYw -1T � � E w� •ao T . to cassmsw oa LOCATIONS GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON-SITE General Commercial Commercial General Vacant commercial buildings CG CG Single Unit Residential Single Unit Residential NORTH Single -unit residential dwellings Detached RS -D R1 SOUTH RS -D R1 Single -unit residential dwellings Recreational and MaCastaways Marina Marine EAST Commercial (CM) Planned Comm unity (PC- Construction staging 37 WEST CG CG Commercial retail buildin s 5 0 Appeal - Mariner's Pointe (PA2010-114) August 09, 2011 Page 4 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There is no fiscal impact related to this item. DISCUSSION: Original Project Description The 0.76 -acre (33,036 -square -foot) project site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive. The property consists of six legal lots and is currently developed with two vacant buildings totaling 5,447 square feet (0.16 FAR combined). The property is currently fenced and is in a state of disrepair. The project, as originally proposed and reviewed by the Planning Commission, consists of the demolition the existing buildings on-site, merging the lots into one parcel (Attachment No. CC4- Parcel Map), and constructing a 23,015 -square -foot commercial building and a three-level, 50,274 -square -foot parking structure (Attachment No. CC5). The following applications were 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 floor area for the project site from 16,518 square feet (0.5 FAR) to a maximum development limit of 23,015 square feet (approx. 0.7 FAR); 2. An amendment to the Zoning Map of the Zoning Code to increase the allowable floor area limitation for the project site from 0.3/0.5 FAR to a maximum development limit of 23,015 square feet (approx. 0.7 FAR); 3. A site development review to allow the construction of a 23,015 -square -foot, two- story building and a three-story parking structure that will exceed the 31 -foot base height limit with a maximum height of 40 feet; 4. A conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a parking structure adjacent to a residential zoning district, to modify the off-street parking requirements, allow for the use of off-site parking, and to establish a parking management plan for the site; 5. A variance to allow the commercial building and parking structure to encroach five feet into the five-foot rear yard setback; 6. A parcel map to consolidate six lots into one parcel; and 7. A traffic study pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 7 Appeal - Mariner's Pointe (PA2010-114) August 09, 2011 Page 5 Please refer to the attached June 23, 2011, 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. CC6). The Planning Commission reviewed the project application on June 23, 2011, and unanimously voted 5-0 to deny the applicant's request without prejudice. The Planning Commission minutes are included as Attachment No. CC7. Although the Planning Commission agreed that the site is challenging and there is a need to redevelop this site, they had the following concerns: • The proposed on-site vehicular circulation and parking management plan is complex. Concerns included the location of handicapped parking spaces in conflict with the project entry driveway, steepness of parking structure ramp, limited ingress into the parking structure, and reliance upon valet parking operation. • The future tenants of the development are unknown and the proposed parking management plan and on-site circulation could negatively affect the future success and operability of the project. • The property owner is not an experienced shopping center developer/operator, which is a major concern given the complexity of the project. • The size and location of the parking structure in close proximity to the adjacent residences has the potential to negatively impact the neighbors. They were concerned that the partial roof over the third level of the parking structure does not fully enclose the parking structure roof and may not fully contain noise. • The lack of detail regarding the color and materials of the proposed flat roof elements and the potential aesthetic and glare impacts to the residences. • Concerned with the long-term availability of the proposed off-site parking. • The project is too intense for the site, required too many deviations and applications to accommodate the project, and that the intensity of the project and scale should be reduced in scale. 2 Appeal - Mariner's Pointe (PA2010-114) August 09, 2011 Page 6 Adjacent Resident's Concerns A total of 10 members of the public spoke in opposition of the project and primarily consisted of neighbors residing adjacent to or near the project site. They shared the following concerns or comments: • The height of the parking structure will result in the potential loss of privacy from the employees and patrons utilizing the third parking level. The proximity of the parking structure would also generate noise disturbances associated with vehicles, and employees and patrons loitering within the parking structures. • The height of the tower elements on the commercial building would impair their views of the harbor and bay. • Project lighting would create light pollution and glare. • The size and scale of the project is out of proportion to the size of the lot. • The potential restaurant operations would generate noise and odor disturbances. • The proximity of the development to their homes and the need to install a drainage swale across the rear of their lots. • Traffic and access constraints from West Coast Highway. • On-site circulation and the long-term operation of the project. • The precedence the project would set for similar sized projects in Mariner's Mile. of On July 1, 2011, Councilmember Selich appealed the Planning Commission's action. The appeal request states that since the project is located at the western entry into the Mariner's Mile corridor, which is a key area the City is fostering revitalization efforts, the project should be reviewed by the City Council. Pursuant to Section 20.64.030.0 of the Zoning Code, a public hearing on an appeal is conducted "de novo", meaning that it is a new hearing and the prior decision to approve the application by the Planning Commission have no force or effect. The City Council is also not bound by the Planning Commission's prior decision and it is not limited to the issues raised on appeal. On review, the City Council may sustain, or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. The City Council may also remand the matter to 9 Appeal - Mariner's Pointe (PA2010-114) August 09, 2011 Page 7 the Planning Commission for further consideration, which remand shall include either specific issues to be considered or a direction for a new hearing. Project Modifications Due to concerns expressed by the community and the Planning Commission at the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant has presented modified plans (Attachment No. CC8). Project modifications include: 1. Reduced Floor Area and Land Use Mix • Reduces the project gross floor area from 23,015 square feet (approx 0.7 FAR) to 19,905 square feet (approx. 0.6 FAR). • Changes the proposed land use mix as follows: • Increased restaurant area: 9,557 square feet (+35 sq. ft.) • Reduced retail area: 8,651 square feet (-1,842 sq. ft.) • Reduced medical office area:1,697 gross square feet (-1,303 sq. ft.) 2. Increased On -Site Parking (Off -Site Parking Eliminated) • Increases the size of the parking structure to include an additional 14 parking spaces (12 standard stalls and 2 tandem stalls) resulting in a total of 150 spaces provided on-site. • Through the combination of increasing on-site parking and reducing the total floor area of the development, the need to utilize off-site parking is eliminated. The modified project results in a total peak parking demand of 149 spaces based on Zoning Code requirements, which can now be entirely provided on site without any adjustment in parking requirements. • In addition, a revised shared parking analysis (Attachment No. CC9) prepared for the project indicates that because of the different peak hours of operation of the assumed mix of tenants, a peak parking demand of 141 spaces is actually expected to occur. This analysis further supports that sufficient parking is provided on site. 3. Circulation Improvements • Reduces the slope of the parking structure ramp from 15 percent to 12 percent, enhancing visibility and safety for motorists and pedestrians within the structure. z0 Appeal - Mariner's Pointe (PA2010-114) August 09, 2011 Page 8 • Relocates the handicapped parking spaces closest to the commercial building, enhancing safety by eliminating the path of travel across the drive aisles. Also, these spaces are no longer impacted by vehicles parked in the aisles when valet is in use. 4. Parking Structure Enhancements • The retail space located on the first level of the parking structure, under the ramp, has been enlarged, increasing the storefront appearance and retail presence in front of the parking structure. • An additional tower feature has been added to the southwesterly corner of the parking structure and a trellis has been added that runs along the entire front edge of the partial roof over the parking structure. These features enhance the appearance of the parking structure as viewed from both West Coast Highway and from the adjacent residential properties to the north. These features also provide increased variation in roof height and further cover a greater portion of the third level of parking structure for the adjacent residences. 5. Redesigned Drainage- The 3 -foot -wide drainage swale previously proposed at the rear of the development on the residential properties to the north has been removed. The development will incorporate a drainage element within the wall to collect the drainage, without needing to encroach on the adjacent properties. In summary, the modified plans address some, but not all, of the Planning Commission's concerns. The intensity of the project (reduced gross floor area and changed land -use mix) eliminates the request for a parking adjustment (i.e. parking waiver) and off-site parking. The modified plans also address many of the concerns pertaining to the on-site vehicular circulation and aesthetic views of the parking structure as viewed from the adjacent residents above. However, with respect to scale, the modified project maintains a three-level parking structure in proximity to the adjacent residential properties and continues to rely on valet parking to meet the project's peak parking demands. The height of the project was not changed; however, it is not anticipated that the project would block or significantly obstruct the residential neighbors 180 degree private view of the ocean and harbor, although the cupola feature may project slightly into the view plane toward the Back Bay Bridge. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure potential lighting, noise, and odor disturbances are minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Condition No. 5 has also been modified requiring the flat roofs of the building to meet "cool roofs" standards for energy efficiency, but prohibiting colors and materials that would result in glare as viewed from the residents above. Also, no mechanical equipment shall be permitted on the roof, 11 Appeal - Mariner's Pointe (PA2010-114) August 09, 2011 Page 9 except within the designated mechanical well and shall not be visible from West Coast Highway or the adjacent residential properties Revised Parking Management Plan In both the original and modified proposals, the applicant proposes the combination of standard stalls, tandem stalls, and valet only stalls in order to maximize the number of parking spaces that can be accommodated within the on-site parking structure. Table 1- Parking Stall Configurations Standard Stalls I Tandem Stalls I Valet Only Stalls Total Original Proposal 180 (5 H/C) 142 114 136 Modified Proposal 192 (5 H/C) 148 110 150 A parking management plan will be required to be implemented to ensure the parking structure adequately functions. Sunset Parking Services has prepared a revised parking management plan entitled "Daily Operational Plan" (Attachment No. CC10) that illustrates and explains in detail how the parking structure will be managed. In general, the revised plan indicates the following: • Employee Parking- A total of 52 spaces will be reserved as employee parking on the third level. Tandem stalls on the third level will be assigned to the same tenant. If needed, additional employee parking will be accommodated by valet. • Handicapped Parking- A total of five handicapped parking spaces are provided on the first and second levels of the parking structure as self parking at all times. • Customer Parking- Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and noon, a total of 34 customer parking spaces will be provided on the first level. Between the hours of noon and 5:00 p.m., a total of 34 parking spaces will be provided on the first level as self -parking and an additional 55 spaces will be provided on the first, second, and third level through valet operations. Between 5:00 p.m. and close, or when the need arises due to actual parking demand, all customer parking will be managed through valet operations to accommodate the queuing of vehicles within the first level. The revised parking structure plans and parking management plan have been reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer. Revised Charter Section 423 Analysis (Measure S) The June 23, 2011, Planning Commission staff report contains a detailed Charter Section 423 analysis. Although the results of that analysis indicate that the originally 12 Appeal - Mariner's Pointe (PA2010-114) August 09, 2011 Page 10 proposed general plan amendment (6,497 sq. ft. increase in intensity) did not exceed either of the three thresholds that require a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423, a revised table has been provided below to illustrate the revised the floor area and peak hour trips analysis based on the modified proposal (3,387 sq. ft. increase in intensity): Table 2 - Charter Section 423 Area and Peak Hour Trip Calculation Area A.M. Peak Trips P.M. Peak Trips Prior Amendment 0 sq.ft. (80%) 0 a.m. trips (80%) 0 a.m. trips (80%) GP2010-004 Proposed Amendment 3,387 sq.ft. (100%) 10.16 a.m. trips (100%) 13.55 p.m. trips (100%) Total 3,387 sq.ft. 10.16 a.m. trips 13.55 p.m. trips Alternatives 1. If the City Council finds the facts do not support the findings required to grant approval of the application requests, the City Council should adopt the draft resolution (Attachment No. CC1) upholding the decision of the Planning Commission and denying the project. 2. If the City Council finds there are facts to support the findings required to grant approval of the modified application requests, the City Council should adopt the draft resolution (Attachment No. CC2) and draft ordinance (Attachment No. CC3) reversing the decision of the Planning Commission and approving the modified project. 3. If the City Council finds that the applicant's modifications to the project request are substantial and warrant further consideration by the Planning Commission, the City Council should refer review of the modified project to the Planning Commission with direction to review specific issues and conduct a new hearing. 4. If the City Council finds that the modified project does not adequately address concerns regarding the bulk and scale of the project, the City Council may direct the applicant to further reduce the intensity of the project (e.g. in compliance with the General Plan's 0.5 FAR development limit). The City Council should direct the applicant to redesign the project accordingly and refer the project to the Planning Commission to conduct a new hearing. Conclusion The applicant has modified the project to address many of the Planning Commission's concerns by reducing the intensity of the project, increasing the on-site parking supply, improving the on-site vehicular circulation, and eliminating the requests for off-site 2s Appeal - Mariner's Pointe (PA2010-114) August 09, 2011 Page 11 parking. The aesthetics of the parking structure have also been enhanced with addition of the trellis and corner tower feature. However, the visual bulk and scale of the project remains substantially unchanged, which was a significant concern of the Planning Commission. The City Council has the option of either: 1) denying the project; 2) approving the modified project; or 3) referring review of the modified project back to the Planning Commission for further consideration. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by The Planning Center, in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. The MND is attached as Attachment No. CC11 and was routed to the City Council in advance of this staff report to allow additional time to review the report. A copy of the MND was also made available on the City's website, at each Newport Beach Public Library, and at the Community Development Department at City Hall. Please see the June 23, 2011, Planning Commission staff report for a detailed discussion pertaining to the preparation and conclusions of the MND, including the public review period and comments received. Although not required pursuant to CEQA, written responses have been prepared for each of the comment letters. The comment letters and responses have been attached as Attachment No. CC12. The modifications proposed by the applicant do not constitute "substantial revisions" that would warrant recirculation of the MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. The response to comments document attached as Attachment No. 12 also includes a topic -by -topic review of the potential environmental impacts associated with the project modifications and an explanation of why recirculation is not warranted. NOTICING: 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 consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the MND was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways), posted at the site and at City Hall, and e-mailed to all parties that have signed up to receive notification of the preparation of environmental documents in the City. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. 14 Appeal - Mariner's Pointe (PA2010-114) August 09, 2011 Page 12 Submitted by: Kimberly Brandt, AICP Director Attachments: CC 1 Draft Resolution for Denial CC 2 Draft Resolution for Approval CC 3 Draft Ordinance CC 4 Parcel Map CC 5 Originally Proposed Plans CC 6 June 23, 2011, Planning Commission Staff Report CC 7 June 23, 2011, Planning Commission Hearing Minutes CC 8 Modified Plans CC 9 Revised Shared Parking Analysis (July 22, 2011) CC 10 Revised Parking Management Plan (July 23, 2011) CC 11 Mitigated Negative Declaration (distributed separately) CC 12 Revised Response to Comments Document CC 13Additional Correspondence Received 15 10 Attachment No. CC 1 Draft Resolution for Denial 17 12 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2010-009, CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2010-009, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SR2010-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-024, VARIANCE NO. 2010-004, AND PARCEL MAP NO. 2010-008, FOR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT 100- 300 WEST COAST HIGHWAY (PA2010-114) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by VBAS Corporation, with respect to properties located at 100- 300 West Coast Highway, and legally described as Lots 1, 2, 3 ,4, 5, and 6 of Tract No. 1210 requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to accommodate the development of a 23,015 -square -foot, two-story commercial building and a three-story parking structure The following applications were 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 floor area for the project site from 16,518 square feet (0.5 FAR) to a maximum development limit of 23,015 square feet (approx. 0.7 FAR); b. An amendment to the Zoning Map of the Zoning Code to increase the allowable floor area limitation for the project site from 0.3/0.5 FAR to a maximum development limit of 23,015 square feet (approx. 0.7 FAR); c. A site development review to allow the construction of a 23,015 -square -foot, two-story building and a three-story parking structure that will exceed the 31 - foot base height limit with a maximum height of 40 feet; d. A conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a parking structure adjacent to a residential zoning district, to modify the off-street parking requirements, allow for the use of off-site parking, and to establish a parking management plan for the site; e. A variance to allow the commercial building and parking structure to encroach five feet into the five-foot rear yard setback; f. A parcel map to consolidate six lots into one parcel; and g. A traffic study pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 2. The subject property is located within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Commercial General (CG). 19 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 2 of 3 3. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 4. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 23, 2011, 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 Planning Commission at this meeting. 5. At the June 23, 2011, Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the project without prejudice. 6. On July 1, 2011, the Planning Commission's decision to deny the applicant's request was appealed by City Councilmember Edward Selich. The appeal was filed to allow the City Council an opportunity to review the project since the project sits at the western entry into the Mariner's Mile corridor, which is an area the City is trying to revitalize given the poor condition of the properties. 7. Due to the concerns expressed by the community and the Planning Commission at the June 23, 2011, Planning Commission hearing, the applicant modified the application request by reducing the project gross floor area from 23,015 square feet (approx 0.7 FAR) to 19,905 square feet (approx. 0.6 FAR), increased on-site parking supplies, and eliminating the need for off-site parking. 8. A public hearing was held by the City Council on August 9, 2011, 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. 9. Pursuant to Section 20.64.030.C, the public hearing was conducted "de novo," meaning that it was a new hearing and the decision being appealed has no force or effect as of the date the call for review was filed. SECTION 2. DECISION. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby deny without prejudice General Plan Amendment No. GP2010-009, Code Amendment No. CA2010-009, Site Development Review No. SR2010-001, Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-024, Variance No. 2010-004, Parcel Map No. 2010-008, and Traffic Study No. TS2011-001. 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Tmplt: 11/23/09 20 City Council Resolution No. Paqe 3 of 3 3. This resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 9th day of August, 2011, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS I►8A/_\'N]V ATTEST: CITY CLERK Tmplt: 11/23/09 21 22 Attachment No. CC 2 Draft Resolution for Approval 23 24 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, FINDING TRAFFIC STUDY NO. TS2011-001 IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRAFFIC PHASING ORDINANCE, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. GP2010-009, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. SR2010-001, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-024, VARIANCE NO. 2010-004, AND PARCEL MAP NO. 2010-008, FOR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT 100-300 WEST COAST HIGHWAY (PA2010-114) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by VBAS Corporation, with respect to properties located at 100- 300 West Coast Highway, and legally described as Lots 1, 2, 3 ,4, 5, and 6 of Tract No. 1210 requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to accommodate the development of a 23,015 -square -foot, two-story commercial building and a three-story parking structure The following applications were 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 floor area for the project site from 16,518 square feet (0.5 FAR) to a maximum development limit of 23,015 square feet (approx. 0.7 FAR); b. An amendment to the Zoning Map of the Zoning Code to increase the allowable floor area limitation for the project site from 0.3/0.5 FAR to a maximum development limit of 23,015 square feet (approx. 0.7 FAR); c. A site development review to allow the construction of a 23,015 -square -foot, two-story building and a three-story parking structure that will exceed the 31 - foot base height limit with a maximum height of 40 feet; d. A conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a parking structure adjacent to a residential zoning district, to modify the off-street parking requirements, allow for the use of off-site parking, and to establish a parking management plan for the site; e. A variance to allow the commercial building and parking structure to encroach five feet into the five-foot rear yard setback; f. A parcel map to consolidate six lots into one parcel; and g. A traffic study pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 25 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 2 of 48 2. The subject property is located within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Commercial General (CG). 3. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 4. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 23, 2011, 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 Planning Commission at this meeting. 5. At the June 23, 2011, Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the project without prejudice. 6. On July 1, 2011, the Planning Commission's decision to deny the applicant's request was appealed by City Councilmember Edward Selich. The appeal was filed to allow the City Council an opportunity to review the project since the project sits at the western entry into the Mariner's Mile corridor, which is an area the City is trying to revitalize given the poor condition of the properties. 7. Due to the concerns expressed by the community and the Planning Commission at the June 23, 2011, Planning Commission hearing, the applicant modified the application request by reducing the project gross floor area from 23,015 square feet (approx 0.7 FAR) to 19,905 square feet (approx. 0.6 FAR), increased on-site parking supplies, and eliminating the need for off-site parking. 8. A public hearing was held by the City Council on August 9, 2011, 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. 9. Pursuant to Section 20.64.030.C, the public hearing was conducted "de novo," meaning that it was a new hearing and the decision being appealed has no force or effect as of the date the call for review was filed. 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 April 11, 2011 and ending on May 11, 2011. The contents of the environmental document and comments on the document were considered by the City Council in its review of the proposed project. Tmplt: 11/23/09 20 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 3 of 48 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 modifications proposed by the applicant do not constitute "substantial revisions" that would warrant recirculation of the MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. 5. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit A 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. 6. 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. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. 1. The project site is located within the Mariner's Mile commercial corridor. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site General Commercial (CG), which is intended to provide for a wide variety of commercial activities primarily oriented to serve citywide or regional needs. The proposed commercial building is 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. Tmplt: 11/23/09 27 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 4 of 48 The proposed GPA and companion Code Amendment for increased intensity is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 3.2 as follows: a. The General Plan recognizes the Mariner's Mile corridor as a location that needs revitalization. b. The increased intensity would provide an economic stimulus needed to accommodate the redevelopment of six lots into one commercial development. c. As stated in the General Plan, Newport Beach residents desire high quality development and have identified the Mariner's Mile corridor is an area that needs revitalization. d. Redevelopment of the subject property helps implement the goal of revitalizing the corridor and may encourage the redevelopment of other underperforming properties within the Mariner's Mile corridor. The project's high quality and distinctive architectural features, such as the corner tower element and cupola, will serve as a focal point and anchor into the entry into the Mariner's Mile corridor. In addition, the project's landscaping and water feature within the public right-of-way will significantly improve the streetscape in the corridor. e. 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. f. The project site is served by existing infrastructure and public services. The proposed increase in intensity will not necessitate any expansion of existing infrastructure. The project will extend the transition area from three lanes to two lanes (lane drop extension) on West Coast Highway, which will improve safety of westbound traffic and improve access to the site. The removal of the three existing power poles and undergrounding of the power lines will provide a public benefit. 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 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 a cumulative increase (including prior amendments) of 3,387 square feet and an increase of 10.16 a.m. and 13.55 p.m. peak hour trips. 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 if a proposed project will generate in excess of 300 average daily trips (ADT). For the purposes of preparing the traffic analysis for this project, the originally Tmplt: 11/23/09 22 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 5 of 48 proposed 23,015 -square -foot commercial building was assumed to include 12,722 square feet of quality restaurant, 7,293 square feet of specialty retail, and 3,000 square feet of medical office. Combined, this land use mix is forecast to generate 1,292 additional trips per day, including 16 additional a.m. peak hour trips and 70 p.m. peak hour trips. This land use mix yields a higher project trip generation than the actual currently proposed land use mix of 9,557 square feet of restaurant, 8,651 square feet of retail, and 1,697 square feet of medical office and, therefore, the traffic analysis prepared for this project is considered to be a conservative as it over- estimates average daily 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 "Mariner's Pointe Traffic Impact Analysis dated February 17, 2011" was prepared by RBF Consulting under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines. A total of 12 primary intersections in the City 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 (B) 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: B-1. Construction of the project is anticipated to be 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 six of the 12 study intersections by one percent (1%) or more during peak hour periods one year after the completion of the project and, therefore, these six intersections require further Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis. Tmplt: 11/23/09 29 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 6 of 48 B-3. Utilizing the ICU analysis specified by the TPO, the traffic study determined that the six 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 mitigation are necessary. 5. The project consists of 19,905 square feet of commercial floor area and requires Site Development Review, and in accordance with Section 20.52.080 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. Allowed within the subject zoning district. Facts in Support of Finding: A-1. A commercial building with retail, office, and restaurant uses is a permitted use pursuant to Section 20.20.020 of the Zoning Code. The specific restaurants will be required to obtain separate minor or conditional use permits prior to occupying the building. Finding: B. Compliance with this Section (20.52.080], the General Plan, this Zoning Code, any applicable specific plan, and other applicable criteria and policies related to the use or structure. Tmplt: 11/23/09 30 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 7 of 48 Facts in Support of Finding: B-1. The proposed commercial building is consistent with the CG General Plan land use designation and CG zoning district. A General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment are requested to allow the proposed increase in intensity. B-2. As required by the Zoning Code, a variance has been requested to allow for the encroachment into the rear setback. B-3. Land Use Element Policy LU 6.19.6 requires the implementation of landscape, signage, lighting, sidewalk, pedestrian crossing, and other amenities consistent with the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework. Applicable to this project would be the landscape, lighting, and signage recommendations within the framework. Project signage has not yet been developed and will be submitted for a subsequent review. The project implements the landscaping requirements of the framework by providing the minimum four -foot -wide planter area with continuous hedge and palms plantings. With regard to lighting, the lighting has been designed to respect the views from above and to prevent any light spillage beyond the perimeter of the structure and to eliminate any sources of glare to the residents and motorists. The framework also includes architectural objectives that focus on responsible and sensitive design, with an emphasis on roofs and roof elements to respond to views from above. The proposed building has been designed with tiled tower elements and clean flat roofs with all mechanical equipment screened from view within an enclosure. The third level of the parking structure has been designed with a partial solid roof that screens the resident's view of vehicles and lighting. Finding: C. The efficient arrangement of structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design. Facts in Support of Finding: C-1. The commercial building is configured in such way to resemble a village of two- story buildings, with various roof heights, connected to parking on each of the two levels. C-2. Although the project is requesting an increase in height, the building will not block or significantly obstruct any views of the bay or harbor from the residential homes located on the 40 to 50 -foot high hillside above the project site. The residential neighbors will maintain their 180 degree private views, although the cupola feature may project slightly into the view plane toward the Bad Bay Bridge. Tmplt: 11/23/09 S1 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 8 of 48 C-3. The roof of the commercial building has been designed to respect the views of the residences above and consists of a combination of flat and sloped roof lines. Roof -top mechanical equipment would be fully enclosed within an equipment enclosure and would not be visible from the residences above. The enclosure will have louver vents directed away from the residential properties. C-4. The rear two-thirds of the parking structure would be enclosed and will screen the view of the parked vehicles and parking structure lighting from the residents located above the hillside. The parking structure roof will also provide an additional sound buffer to the residents above. C-5. The mechanical equipment enclosure has been located at the rear of the commercial building to minimize the bulk of the building as viewed from West Coast Highway. Finding: D. The compatibility in terms of bulk, scale, and aesthetic treatment of structures on the site and adjacent developments and public areas. Facts in Support of Finding: D-1. The building and parking structure includes modulated building masses and rooflines and a variation of building materials and colors that would provide visual relief. D-2. To break up the bulk and massing of the parking structure as viewed from West Coast Highway, a 1194 -square -foot commercial space has been located on the 1st level of the structure, below the ramp, providing a storefront and retail presence in front the of the structure. A tower element will extend this storefront along the face of the structure. D-3. The inclusion of architectural elements such as balconies, tower features, awnings, trellises, ornamental windows and railings, and the variation in building elevations and protrusions would also enhance the visual quality of the buildings and street frontage. D-4. The project's architectural style, with the use of stone, tile and glass materials, blends in color and form with some development within Mariner's Mile, will provide a high standard of quality for future neighboring development, and complies with the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework. D-5. The tower and cupola feature, the tallest portion of the building, is located at the southeasterly corner of the site, away from the nearest residential and commercial uses. To minimize the bulk of the parking structure as viewed from West Coast Highway, the parking structure roof has been setback 37 feet 5 Tmplt: 11/23/09 32 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 9 of 48 inches from the front edge of the structure. A trellis runs along the front of the roof to provide increased screening of the parking structure deck as viewed from above and improving the aesthetics of the parking structure as viewed from West Coast Highway. The height of the parking structure along the front fagade is 29 feet 4 inches providing a transition to the commercial properties to the west, with the exception of the two tower elements along the front of the parking structure which break up the massing of the parking structure and adds visual interest through a variation in roof heights. D-6. The west elevation of the building has been designed with no openings due to its proximity to the side property line and in anticipation that the commercial site to the west may be redeveloped in the future; however, until such time, the west elevation will be visible from motorist traveling south of West Coast Highway. To soften the appearance of this elevation and break up the mass of the parking structure, large green screens would be installed and separated by columns. Architectural detailing has also been added in the form of stoner veneer, columns and boarders around the green screens. D-7. The rear elevation of the building and parking structure has also been designed as a flat wall with no openings due to its placement on the rear property line and will range in height from approximately 20 feet to 35 feet from existing grade. However, the homes located on the hillside above are located a minimum of 60 feet away and approximately 40-50 feet above the project's pad elevation with views oriented predominately over the project site towards the bay and harbor, and therefore, will not be significantly impacted by the height and bulk of the structures. Finding: E. The adequacy, efficiency, and safety of pedestrian and vehicular access, including drive aisles, driveways, and parking and loading spaces. Facts in Support of Finding: E-1. The project would eliminate one existing driveway access off Dover Drive and would consolidate four existing driveways along West Coast Highway into two driveways. Therefore, the project minimizes the number of driveways along West Cost Highway, thereby reducing potential conflicts and increasing vehicular safety. The lane drop extension of Coast Highway will also enhance the safety of the highway, while providing safe access from the site, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. E-2. The project proves adequate sight distance at each driveway, as determined by the City Traffic. Tmplt: 11/23/09 33 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 10 of 48 E-3. The proposed parking structure has been designed to accommodate and provide safe access for emergency, delivery, and refuse collections vehicles, as determined by the City Traffic. E-4. The project would include enhanced pedestrian walkways that provide access between the various uses and areas within the project site and to the surrounding public sidewalks and uses. E-5. The existing bus stop along the project frontage would be relocated and a new designated 'Bus Only" area would be created between the two driveways. E-6. The project results in a total peak parking demand of 149 spaces, which can be entirely provided on site within the 150 -space parking structure without any adjustments in parking requirements. In addition, a shared parking analysis prepared from the project indicates that because of the different peak hours of operation of the assumed mix of tenants, not all of the uses within the project will require their full allotment of parking spaces at the same time. The analysis indicates that the total parking required has two separate peaks: 1) one peak during the early afternoon with a total demand for 122 parking spaces at 1:00 p.m.; and 2) a second peak in the early evening with a total demand of 141 parking spaces at 6:00 p.m. Therefore, the project provides a surplus of one parking space based on Code requirements and nine spaces based on the shared parking analysis. F. The adequacy and efficiency of landscaping and open space areas and the use of water efficient plant and irrigation materials. Facts in SUDDort of Findina: F-1. The project includes the enhanced use of landscaping, including a variation of ornamental groundcover, vines, shrubs, and trees, to help soften and buffer the massing of the parking structure and commercial building from the surrounding areas and roadways. F-2. A new water feature design would encompass the southeast corner of the project site. F-3. The landscape plan includes the requirements of the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework, but also incorporates non-invasive and water conserving plant types. F-4. The project is subject to the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Chapter 14.17 of NBMC). Tmplt: 11/23/09 /' ST City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 11 of 48 Finding: G. The protection of significant views from public right(s)-of-way and compliance with Section 20.30. 100 (Public View Protection). Facts in Support of Finding: G-1. The portion of West Coast Highway, on which the project is located, is not a designated coastal view road and is not considered a public view corridor requiring public view protection. Finding: H. Not detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed development. Facts in Support of Finding: H-1. The project has been conditioned to ensure that potential conflicts with surrounding land uses are minimized to the extent possible to maintain a healthy environment for both businesses and residents. H-2. The project's refuse area is located within the first level of the parking garage and will not result in odor impacts to residents above or noise associated with refuse collection. H-3. To minimize or eliminate odors associated with the restaurant uses impacting the residents above the site, the project has been conditioned to require the installation of Pollution Control Units with odor eliminators that take the exhaust from the hoods in the kitchens and filter it for particulates and odor. H-4. Any illumination of the proposed tower and cupola feature has been conditioned to consist of soft accent lighting so as not to become a visual disturbance to the views of the adjacent residents. H-5. The project is subject to the City's Outdoor Lighting requirements contained with Section 20.30.070 of the Zoning Code. H-6. The proposed 750 -square -foot outdoor dining area located within the public -right - of -away adjacent to Dover will be screened from view of the residents above the hillside and is not anticipated to result in a significant noise disturbance; however, until the specific operation of the restaurants are better known, the project has been conditioned prohibiting this outdoor patio and deferring review until the of the use permit applications for the future restaurant uses are submitted. Tmplt: 11/23/09 35 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 12 of 48 6. The project site is located in the Nonresidential, Shoreline Height Limit Area where the height of structures are limited to 26 feet for flat roofs/parapet walls and to 31 feet for sloped roofs with a minimum 3:12 pitch. The height of a structure can be increased up to a maximum of 35 feet for flat roofs/parapet walls and up to 40 feet for sloped roofs, subject to the approval of a Site Development Review. In accordance with Section 20.30.060.C.3 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. The project applicant is providing additional project amenities beyond those that are otherwise required. Facts in Support of Finding: A-1. The most significant amenity the project provides is the long desired redevelopment of this highly visible property that serves as a gateway into the Mariner's Mile corridor. This property is constrained due to its shallow depths and as such has proven difficult to redevelop and as fallen into disrepair. The proposed building exhibits a high level of architectural detail and includes design features that enhance the aesthetics of the building and the area. The most prominent design feature of the building is the octagonal tower and cupola at the southeasterly corner of the site intended to serve as a landmark feature and an anchor into the Mariner's Mile corridor area of the City. The proposed parking structure has been designed to incorporate a variety of materials and features (i.e. stone treatment and hanging vines) and includes vertical recessed openings and a storefront with a vertical tower element to break up the massing and monotony commonly associated with parking structures. A-2. The project includes enhanced landscaping of the public right-of-way along the West Coast Highway and Dover Drive. In addition to the continuous hedge and palm trees requirement of the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework, the landscaping plan incorporates additional ornamental groundcover, vines, shrubs, and trees, to help soften and buffer the massing of the parking structure and commercial building and enhance the streetscape of Mainer's Mile. To further improve the streetscape and improve the entrance into the corridor, the applicant is proposing the installation of 280-square—foot water feature that would encompass the southeast corner of the project site. Water effects are proposed to include a knife-edge water weir falling towards the street at the center, boarded by low walls at each end of the feature. The water feature will also include plant material and a combination or eroded, colored concrete and natural stone. A-3. The design and height of the building benefits the residential properties above and to the north by providing noise attenuation from the roadway noise generated from vehicles on West Coast Highway and Dover Drive. As Tmplt: 11/23/09 so City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 13 of 48 illustrated in Figure 14 of the MND, a net decrease in roadway noise of up to 9 dBA CNEL is expected as a result of the noise attenuation effect of the new structures. A-4. At minimum, City policy requires the applicant to underground their utilities from the nearest power pole, allowing the power poles to remain in place. In this case, the applicant is proposing to completely remove the power poles and underground the power lines around the eastern, southern, and western perimeter of the project site. A-5. Another amenity includes the elimination of the existing driveway access off Dover Drive and the consolidation of the existing four driveways along West Coast Highway into two main access driveways. Therefore, the project minimizes the number of driveways along West Cost Highway, ensuring that the desired traffic flow along this major road is maintained and ensuring that the continuity of the street -facing building elevations would not be interrupted. The extension of the lane drop on West Coast Highway also serves to enhance the safety of the highway by extending the length of the merge lane, which providing safe access from the site Finding: B. The architectural design of the project provides visual interest through the use of light and shadow, recessed planes, vertical elements, and varied roof planes. Facts in Support of Finding: B-1. The goal of the architectural design is to simulate the appearance of a small Mediterranean village of two-story commercial buildings, resulting in modulated building masses and rooflines. The project consists mainly of flat roofs with heights between 29 feet 4 inches and 32 feet 4 inches. Several vertical elements have been included in the design such as the tower features and elevator/stairwell enclosures which range in height from 35 feet to 40 feet. The main elevator and stairwell enclosure has been integrated into the building fagade as a prominent architectural feature and creates a transition between the commercial and parking structure components of the project. To break up the bulk and massing of the parking structure as viewed from West Coast Highway, a 1194 -square -foot commercial space has been located on the first level of the structure, below the ramp, providing a storefront and retail presence in front the of the structure. A tower element extends this storefront vertically along the face of the structure. B-2. The storefronts on both the upper and lower level will be setback from the edge of the balcony along the street elevation, creating light and shadow effects. Light and shadow will also be created through the extensive use of awnings and recessed openings. The massing of the parking structure is also minimized through the use of vertical opening openings along the street frontage. Tmplt: 11/23/09 37 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 14 of 48 Finding: C. The increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changes or relationships being created between the proposed structure(s) and existing adjacent developments or public spaces. Where appropriate, the proposed structure(s) provide a gradual transition to taller or shorter structures on abutting properties. Facts in Support of Finding: C-1. The tower and cupola feature, the tallest portion of the building, is located at the southeasterly corner of the site, away from the nearest residential and commercial uses. The height of the project transitions in height from east to west, minimizing the change in scale to the adjacent commercial priorities to the west. With the exception of the tower elements and mechanical equipment enclosure, the height of the commercial building is 32 feet 4 inches. To minimize the visual height and bulk of the parking structure as viewed in perspective from West Coast Highway, the partial parking structure roof cover has been setback 37 feet 5 inches from the front edge of the structure. With the exception of the two 37 -foot -high tower features, the resulting height of the parking structure along the front fagade is 29 feet, 4 inches providing a transition to the commercial properties to the west as viewed from the highway. Although the adjacent commercial property is currently with one-story commercial buildings, the site has the potential to be redeveloped at heights of 31 feet without discretionary approvals. C-2. The homes on the residential lots to the north are situated at the top of the hillside that ranges in height from 40-50 feet above the project's pad elevation. The homes are also located a minimum of 60 feet back from the rear property line. These vertical and horizontal separations between the proposed commercial building and the homes at the top of the slope minimize the impact of the proposed structure heights to the adjacent residences. Finding: D. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the height increase. Facts in Support of Finding: D-1. The requested increase in floor area does not drive the need for the increased height. The need for the third level of the parking structure is primarily driven by the need to provide parking for the two restaurants that will serve of anchor tenants to the development. Tmplt: 11/23/09 3g City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 15 of 48 D-2. Even if the project is designed with only the two restaurants at the currently permitted 0.5 FAR, the third level of parking would be needed to accommodate the 105 parking spaces parking anticipated for the restaurant uses. The height of the parking structure could be reduced from 35 feet to 29 feet 4 inches if the roof cover was removed; however, the roof cover provides a benefit to the residents located above the hillside as it shields parking structure lighting and glare, and buffers vehicle noise. D-3. With regard to the height of the commercial building, the need for height is driven by the need to provide desirable 1 2 -foot -h igh ceilings for the retail tenants ensuring that these commercial building will remain marketable to tenants. In order to provide 12 -foot -high clear ceilings and accommodate space for mechanical systems and fire sprinklers, a total plate height between 14 feet 6 inches and 17 feet 6 inches is necessary. Plate heights within the project utilize a 14 -foot -8 -inch dimension. It's also important to note that a majority of the structure will maintain a maximum height of 29 feet 4 inches, with the exception for the tower elements, designed to enhance the architecture of the building, and elevator/stairwell enclosures and mechanical equipment enclosure. 7. Pursuant to Sections 20.40.070.B.3 and 20.40.110.6.2 of the Zoning Code, a conditional use permit is required to allow for the construction of a parking structure adjacent to a residential zoning district and to establish a parking management plan. In accordance with Section 20.52.020.F of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. Facts in Support of Finding: A-1. The commercial building and related uses are consistent with CG General Plan land use designation. The parking structure is considered an accessory use that supports of the commercial uses. Parking structures and the use of valet are commonly associated with restaurant development and compatible with the other commercial uses located in Mariner's Mile. Finding: B. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code. Facts in Support of Finding: B-1. The commercial building and related uses are consistent with CG zoning district. The parking structure is considered an accessory use that supports of the commercial uses. Parking structures located adjacent to residential districts Tmplt: 11/23/09 39 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 16 of 48 requires review and approval of a conditional use permit to minimize impacts to the residential uses. Finding: C. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity. Facts in Support of Finding: C-1. The parking structure is proposed to be located at the base of the hillside adjacent to a residential district, where the neighboring residential properties are located along the top of the hillside approximately 40-50 feet above the project's pad elevation. The height of the covered portion of the parking structure is 35 feet at the rear of the property directly adjacent to the residential district. The residential dwellings will remain approximately 22 feet higher in elevation than the surface of the third level parking deck (25 feet, 10 inches) and 12 feet, 6 inches higher in elevation than the top of the parking structure roof. The closest residential dwelling is located approximately 60 feet from the rear property line. These vertical and horizontal separations between the proposed commercial building and the homes provide adequate distance so that the mass and bulk of the parking structure should not negatively impact residents. The rear two-thirds of the parking structure would be enclosed and will screen the view of the parked vehicles and parking structure lighting from the residents located above the hillside. The parking structure roof will also provide an additional sound buffer to the residents above Finding: D. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities. Facts in Support of Finding: D-1. The project results in a total peak parking demand of 149 spaces, which can now be entirely provided on site within the 150 -space parking structure without any adjustments in parking requirements. The applicant's Parking Operational Plan should ensure that employees and patrons are able to park on site. D-2. The Parking Operational Plan has been reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer. Also the Traffic Engineer and Fire Department have reviewed the parking lot design and have determined that the parking lot design will function safely and will not prevent emergency vehicle access to the establishment. Given the design constraints with providing parking in compliance with City standards on such a shallow lot, the proposed parking management plan is a reasonable solution. Tmplt: 11/23/09 40 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 17 of 48 Finding: E. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. Facts in Support of Finding: E-1. Parking structures have the potential to generate noise, such as car -alarms, car horns, car audio systems, people talking, vehicle pass-bys, and engine idling, which have the potential to disturb the adjacent residences. These individual noise sources last for short durations and their occurrences are infrequent; however, they can annoy neighbors. A noise analysis was prepared by The Planning Center as part of the MND to analyze the potential noise impacts associated with the previously proposed uncovered parking structure to the adjacent residents using sound modeling. The analysis concludes that the noise generated from vehicles and service trucks within the first and second level of the structure will be attenuated given that those levels are enclosed. With regard the uncovered third level, the analysis indicates that during the daytime, traffic noise from West Coast Highway and Dover Drive would be audible over the noise generated from the third level. In the evening, noise generated from the third level would be less than the City's 45 dBL Leq exterior noise standard at the residences. In addition, the third level of the parking structure will be reserved for employee and valet parking only, avoiding potential noise disturbances that may be associated with patrons loitering in the parking area after hours. Although noise from the third level of the parking structure is not anticipated to violate the Community Noise Ordinance standards, the applicant has since proposed to partially enclose and cover the rear two-thirds of the parking structure. This roof will have the effect of further attenuating noise generated from vehicles on the third level of the parking structure. E-2. The rear two-thirds of the upper parking level will be covered and will shield illumination of the parking structure from view of the resident's above. To illuminate the uncovered portion of the parking structure, light fixtures would be recessed into the southerly and westerly walls with very low light output and shields to eliminate glare from views above. In addition, the project has been conditioned to require a nighttime light inspection to confirm there are no light and glare impacts. E-3. The project has been conditioned to require a nighttime light inspection to confirm there are no light and glare impacts. Tmplt: 11/23/09 41 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 18 of 48 8. The proposed project encroaches five feet into the rear five -foot -setback adjacent to the residential lots to the north. In accordance with Section 20.52.090 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Finding: A. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification. Facts in Support of Finding: A-1. The subject property is wide (approx. 340 feet) and shallow (approx. 90 feet avg.). Although many of the lots along the inland side of the Mariner's Mile corridor consist of shallow lots, this property in particular is especially shallow given the acquisition of the property frontage in 1979 to accommodate the Bay Bridge realignment project. The realignment reduced the property depth approximately 27 feet on the westerly end and 47 feet on the easterly end of the property. A-2. The subject property is approximately 25 feet shallower than the adjacent properties to the west. The 60 lots on the inland side of West Coast Highway and located between the intersection of Dover Drive and the westerly boundary the Balboa Bay Club are the shallowest commercial lots within Marine's Mile corridor area. Of these 60 lots, only four lots have lot depths less than 100 feet (96.47 at its shallowest end). Over half of these lots consist of lot depths greater than 140 feet. The average lot depth of these 60 lots is approx. 120 feet. Finding: B. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification. Facts in Support of Finding: B-1. The reduced lot depths do not accommodate an optimal commercial center site configuration. To design an optimal commercial building, the commercial square footage has been consolidated on the eastern portion of the site as a two-level design in order to accommodate the required on-site parking on the western portion of the site where the lot depth is greater. B-2. Due to the shallow lot depths, strict compliance with the rear 5 -foot setback would result in a parking structure design that would be substandard to the minimum parking aisle and parking stall requirements resulting in a potentially Tmplt: 11/23/09 42 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 19 of 48 hazardous and difficult to access parking structure. Alternatively, the elimination of 49 spaces would be required to accommodate a parking structure that conforms both to setbacks and parking standards, depriving the property owner of the privilege of constructing a parking structure that could be constructed on the other 54 neighboring lots that have deeper lot dimensions. Finding: C. Granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant. Facts in Support of Finding: C-1. The reduced lot depths do not accommodate an optimal commercial center site configuration and in order to maintain a substantial property right of developing the site for commercial use, the elimination of the rear yard setback is required to allow for the development of a parking structure that complies with City standards for vehicular access and parking. The parking structure has been located on the western portion of the site where the lots depths are greater and the commercial building has been located on the eastern half of the site where is the lot depth is narrowest (approx. 85 feet). Without the granting of the variance, the development of a commercial retail building with adequate on-site parking would not be feasible on this wide and shallow site. Finding: D. Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district. Facts in Support of Finding: D-1. Granting of the variance would not constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the Mariner's Mile corridor as it allows the applicant the ability to develop an optimal commercial center with adequate parking on site as could be developed on adjacent lots with greater lots depths. Finding: E. Granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood. Tmplt: 11/23/09 -43 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 20 of 48 Facts in Support of Finding: E-1. Four residential lots abut the project's rear property line; however, these residential properties are located up the hillside approximately 40-50 feet above the project's pad elevation. In addition, the closest residential dwelling is located approximately 60 feet from the rear property line. These vertical and horizontal separations between the proposed commercial building and the homes provide adequate buffer equivalent to or superior to a five-foot rear setback. E-2. The five-foot encroachment will not result in a condition where the commercial development will endanger or create a hazard to those persons residing in the dwellings above. In addition, the hillside is heavily landscaped and the applicant has agreed to work with adjacent residential property owners to further landscape the slope to provide increased landscaped screening of the rear of the project. E-3. The development includes cutting into the toe of the slope; however, the preliminary geotechnical report indicates that the design and construction of the retaining wall is feasible, subject to the recommendations within the report and in compliance with Building and Grading Codes, and will not undermine the stability of the hillside. Finding: F. Granting of the Variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this Section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan). Facts in Support of Finding: F-1. Typically commercially zoned properties are not required to maintain rear setbacks, except when located adjacent to residentially zoned properties. The intent is to provide separation for light, air, and open space adjacent to these residential properties. In this case, four residential lots abut the project's rear property line; however, the houses are located on the hillside approximately 40- 50 feet above the project's pad elevation. The closest residential dwelling is located approximately 60 feet from the rear property line. These vertical and horizontal separations between the proposed commercial building and the homes provide adequate buffer equivalent to or superior to a five-foot rear setback. Therefore, the five-foot encroachment will not deprive the adjacent residential properties form the adequate enjoyment of light, air, and open space. 9. The property consists of six legal lots, which the applicant is proposing to consolidate into one unified site. The merger of five or more lots requires the approval of a parcel map. In accordance with Section 19.12.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, the following findings and facts in support of such findings are set forth: Tmplt: 11/23/09 44 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 21 of 48 Finding: A. That the proposed map and the design or improvements of the subdivision are consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and with applicable provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and this Subdivision Code. Facts in Support of Finding: A-1. The project is consistent with the CG General Plan designation of the site. A-2. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tentative map and believes it is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. A-3. The proposed project accommodates the potential future widening of Coast Highway and all utility lines will be undergrounded. A-4. Conditions of approval have been included to ensure compliance with Title 19. Finding: B. That the site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. Facts in Support of Finding: B-1. The existing site is entirely developed and does not support any environmental resources. B-2. Portions of the development require cuts into the slope on the northern portion of the site. The geologic investigation revealed that the portions of this slope which are not improved by the proposed development may be surficially unstable; however, mitigation measures have been incorporated, as recommended by the site-specific geotechnical investigation that will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. B-3. The subject site is located at the intersection of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive and serves as the gateway into the Mariner's Mile commercial corridor of the City. Given its location, this site is ideal for the development of a commercial building. B-4. The subject parcel map allows for the consolidation of six shallow lots into one unified site large enough to accommodate a viable commercial development. Finding: C. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or Tmplt: 11/23/09 415 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 22 of 48 wildlife or their habitat. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, the decision- making body may nevertheless approve such a subdivision if an environmental impact report was prepared for the project and a finding was made pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Facts in Support of Finding: C-1. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and concludes that no significant environmental impacts will result with proposed development of the site in accordance with the proposed subdivision map. Finding: D. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. Facts in Support of Finding: D-1. The proposed Parcel Map is for the consolidations of six existing commercial lot into one commercial development site. All construction for the project will comply with all Building, Public Works, and Fire Codes, which are in place to prevent serious public health problems. Public improvements will be required of the developer per Section 19.28.010 of the Municipal Code and Section 66411 of the Subdivision Map Act. All ordinances of the City and all Conditions of Approval will be complied with. D-2. All mitigation measures will be implemented as outlined in the Mitigated Negative Declaration to ensure the protection of the public health. D-3. No evidence is known to exist that would indicate that the planned subdivision pattern will generate any serious public health problems. Finding: E. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the decision- making body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these easements will be substantially equivalent to easements previously acquired by the public. This finding shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to the City Council to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within a subdivision. Tmplt: 11/23/09 40 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 23 of 48 Facts in Support of Finding: E-1. The design of the development will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development as there are no public easements that are located on the property. E-2. An easement through the site will be retained by the City to sewer and utilities purposes. E-3. No other public easements for access through or use of the property have been retained for use by the public at large. Finding: F. That, subject to the detailed provisions of Section 66474.4 of the Subdivision Map Act, if the land is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Williamson Act), the resulting parcels following a subdivision of the land would not be too small to sustain their agricultural use or the subdivision will result in residential development incidental to the commercial agricultural use of the land. Facts in Support of Finding: F-1. The property is not subject to the Williamson Act since the subject property is not considered an agricultural preserve and is less than 100 acres. Finding: G. That, in the case of a "land project' as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code: (a) there is an adopted specific plan for the area to be included within the land project; and (b) the decision-making body finds that the proposed land project is consistent with the specific plan for the area. Facts in Support of Finding: G-1. The property is not a "land project' as defined in Section 11000.5 of the California Business and Professions Code. G-2. The project is not located within a specific plan area. Tmplt: 11/23/09 47 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 24 of 48 Finding: H. That solar access and passive heating and cooling design requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 66473.1 and 66475.3 of the Subdivision Map Act. Facts in Support of Finding: G-1. The proposed Parcel Map and improvements are subject to Title 24 of the California Building Code that requires new construction to meet minimum heating and cooling efficiency standards depending on location and climate. The Newport Beach Building Department enforces Title 24 compliance through the plan check and inspection process. Finding: 1. That the subdivision is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need and that it balances the housing needs of the region against the public service needs of the City's residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. Facts in Support of Findinq: 1-1. The proposed Parcel Map is consistent with Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act and Section 65584 of the California Government Code regarding the City's share of the regional housing need. The project does involve the elimination of residential units and therefore will not affect the City's ability to meet it share of housing needs. 1-2. Public services are available to serve the proposed development of the site and the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project indicates that the project's potential environmental impacts are expected to be less than significant. Finding: J. That the discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into the existing sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Facts in Support of Finding: J-1. Waste discharge into the existing sewer system will be consistent with the existing commercial use of the property and does not violate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements. Tmplt: 11/23/09 42 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 25 of 48 J-2. Sewer connections have been conditioned to be installed per City Standards, the applicable provisions of Chapter 14.24 (Sewer Connection, Permits), and the latest revision of the Uniform Plumbing Code. Finding: K. For subdivisions lying partly or wholly within the Coastal Zone, that the subdivision conforms with the certified Local Coastal Program and, where applicable, with public access and recreation policies of Chapter Three of the Coastal Act. Facts in Support of Finding: K-1. The subject property is not located in the Coastal Zone. K-2. The subject property does not have access to any beaches, shoreline, coastal waters, tidelands, coastal parks or trails. 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 effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council 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. GP2010-009. Table LU2 and Figure LU9 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan shall be amended as provided in Exhibit "B". 3. The City Council determines that the Project complies with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including Traffic Study No. TS2011-001. 4. The City Council of the City of Newport Beach does hereby approve Site Development Review No. SR2010-001, Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-024, Variance No. 2010- 004, and Parcel Map No. 2010-008, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit C. 5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Tmplt: 11/23/09 /1 T9 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 26 of 48 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 resolution was approved, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, held on the 9th day of August, 2011, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Tmplt: 11/23/09 50 City Council Resolution No. _ Page 27 of 48 EXHIBIT "A" MARINER'S POINTE PROJECT MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (SCH# 2011041038) Phase of Responsible Completion Mitiqation Measure Implementation I Monitorinq Party I Date/Initials Bioloqical Resources 1. The construction contractor shall comply with During construction City of Newport the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. The grading permit Beach Community construction contractor shall do one of the Development following: Department • Avoid grading activities during the nesting season, February 14 to September 1; or • If grading activities are to be undertaken during the nesting season, a site survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to no more than three days prior to commencement of grading activities. If nesting birds are found in trees to be removed, removal shall be postponed until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed. Furthermore, the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone where construction activity may not occur until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed. If nesting birds are detected in trees being preserved, the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone where construction activity may not occur until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed. Cultural Resources 2. The project applicant shall have a qualified Prior to issuance of City of Newport archaeologist conduct a Phase II archaeological grading permit Beach Community investigation and a Phase III investigated if Development warranted by the Phase II study. The Phase II Department investigation, including trenching and analysis of any resources found, shall be completed before issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach. A Phase II archaeological testing program consists of a control subsurface investigation designed to extract a small sample of the subsurface deposits, but a sample large enough to draw a conclusion on the significance of the site (assuming the site is present). If intact features of an archaeological site, such as hearths, living surfaces, or middens, are discovered in the course of the Phase 11 investigation, then the project applicant shall have the archaeologist: • Conduct a feasibility investigation to preserve in place, any significant archaeological resource that is discovered. Feasibility can be based on but not limited to whether the significant archaeological Tmplt: 11/23/09 51 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 28 of 48 Tmplt: 11/23/09 152 Phase of Responsible Completion Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Party Date/Initials resource is beneath open space that can incorporate preservation in place. If preservation in place is feasible, such preservation shall be documented with the City's Planning Division, and no further mitigation is necessary; If preservation in place is not feasible, the applicant's archaeologist shall conduct a Phase III investigation prior to the issuance of a grading permit. A Phase III consists of extracting a larger sample of the site materials to document the function, age, and components of the site, allowing for interpretation and comparative analysis with respect to the larger area (e.g., occupation within the Newport Bay area). The City's Planning Division shall approve the report and related actions prior to grading permit issuance. 3. The Project Applicant shall have a qualified During construction City of Newport professional archaeologist onsite to monitor for Beach Community any potential impacts to archaeological or Development historic resources throughout the duration of Department any ground disturbing activities. The professional archaeologist shall have the authority to halt any activities adversely impacting potentially significant cultural resources until the resources can be formally evaluated. The archaeologist must have knowledge of both prehistoric and historical archaeology. Additionally, the archaeological monitoring program shall include the presence of a local Native American representative (Gabtielino and/or Juaneno). Resources must be recovered, analyzed in accordance with CEQA guidelines, and curated. Suspension of ground disturbance in the vicinity of the discoveries shall not be lifted until the archaeologist has evaluated discoveries to assess whether they are classified as historical resources or unique archaeological sites, pursuant to CEQA. 4. The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified During construction City of Newport professional paleontologist to monitor for any Beach Community potential impacts to paleontological resources Development throughout the duration of ground disturbing Department activities. In the event paleontological resources are uncovered, the professional paleontologist shall have the authority to halt any activities adversely impacting potentially significant fossil resources until the resources can be formally evaluated. If potentially significant fossils are uncovered they must be recovered, analyzed in accordance with CEQA guidelines, and curated at facilities at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, or other scientific institution accredited for curation and collection of fossil specimens. Suspension of ground disturbances in the vicinity of the discoveries Tmplt: 11/23/09 152 City Council Resolution No. _ Pace 29 of 48 Geology and Soils 5. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a detailed Phase of Responsible Completion Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Party Date/initials shall not be lifted until the paleontologist has Development evaluated the significance of the resources Department pursuant to CEQA. During construction City of Newport Geology and Soils 5. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a detailed Prior to issuance of City of Newport engineering -level geotechnical investigation grading permit Beach Community report shall be prepared and submitted with Development engineered grading plans to further evaluate Department expansive soils, soil corrosivity, slope stability, During construction City of Newport landslide potential, settlement, foundations, Beach Community grading constraints, and other soil engineering Development design conditions and to provide site-specific Department recommendations to address these conditions, if determined necessary. The engineering -level During construction City of Newport report shall include and address each of the Beach Community recommendations included in the geotechnical Development reports prepared by MACTEC (2010a and Department 2010b) and included as Appendix E. The geotechnical reports shall be prepared and signed/stamped by a Registered Civil Engineer During construction City of Newport specializing in geotechnical engineering and a Beach Community Certified Engineering Geologist. Geotechnical Development rough grading plan review reports shall be Department prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance. Noise 6. The contractor shall properly maintain and tune During construction City of Newport all construction equipment in accordance with grading permit Beach Community the manufacturer's recommendations to Development minimize noise emissions. Department 7. Prior to use of any construction equipment, the During construction City of Newport contractor shall ensure that all equipment is Beach Community fitted with properly operating mufflers, air intake Development silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective Department than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. 8. The construction contractor shall locate During construction City of Newport stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, Beach Community compressors, staging areas) and material Development delivery (loading/unloading) areas as far from Department residences as possible (e.g., eastern portion of the project site). 9. The construction contractor shall post a sign, During construction City of Newport clearly visible onsite, with a contact name and Beach Community telephone number of construction contractor to Development respond in the event of a noise complaint. Department Transportation and Trak 10.Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project Prior to issuance of City of Newport will be required to develop a Construction Traffic grading permit Beach Public Management Plan that includes the following Works Department elements: Restrict construction worker and equipment delivery trips to occur outside of the weekday AM and PM peak hours. • Identify and establish truck haul routes and restrict haul operations to occur outside of the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Tmplt: 11/23/09 153 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 30 of 48 Mitigation Measure Phase of Implementation Responsible Monitoring Party Completion Date/Initials Provide Traffic Control Plans for detours and temporary road closures (if necessary) that meet the minimum Caltrans, City, and County criteria. I I.The applicant shall contact OCTA and Prior to issuance of City of Newport coordinate operation of the Coast -Dover bus grading permit Beach Community stop along the project's West Coast Highway Development and frontage during project construction. Mitigation Public Works as required to suspend operation, or modify or Department temporarily relocate the bus stop during project construction activities shall be negotiated with OCTA. The applicant shall provide the plans/mitigation to the City as negotiated with OCTA for review and approval by the City of Newport Beach's Planning Division and Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall provide OCTA with a minimum 14 -day advance notice prior to the start of construction activities by contacting either the Detour Coordinator or Field Operations. Tmplt: 11/23/09 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 31 of 48 1�:/:11.3�iY-7Y Tmplt: 11/23/09 515 50 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 32 of 48 Table Anomaly Number Statistical Area Land Use Designation 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 1,052,880 2.1 L4 MU -H2 18,810 11,544 sf restricted to general office use only (included in total square footage) 3 L4 CO -G 734,641 4 L4 MU -H2 250,176 5 L4 MU -H2 32,500 6 L4 MU -H2 46,044 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 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 Tmplt: 11/23/09 57 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 33 of 48 Anomaly Statistical Land Use Development Number Area Designation Limit (s0 Development Limit (Other) Additional Information 33 1 M3 I PI 34 L1 CO -R 35 L1 CO -R 36 L1 CO -R 37 L1 CO -R 38 L1 CO -M 39 L1 MU -H3 40 L1 MU -H3 41 L1 CO -R 42 L1 CO -R 43 L1 CV 44 L1 CR 45 L1 CO -G 46 L1 MU-H3/PR 47 L1 CG 48 L1 MU -H3 49 L1 PI 50 L1 CG 51 K1 PR 52 K1 CV 53 K1 PR 54 11 CM 55 H3 PI 57 Intentionally Blank 58 J5 PR 59 H4 MU -W1 60 N CV 61 N CV 62 L2 CG Tmplt: 11/23/09 163,680 484,348 199,095 227,797 131,201 2,050 Theater Seats (not included in total square footar 443,627 408,084 1,426,634 425 Hotel Rooms (included in total Square Footage) 327,671 286,166 611 Hotel Rooms 1,619,525 1,700 Theater Seats (not included in total square R 3,725 1 24 Tennis Courts 337,261 45,208 25,000 20,000 479 Hotel Rooms 567,500 2,000 119,440 1,343,238 990,349 sf Upper Campus 577,889 sf Lower Campus 247,402 144 Dwelling Units (included in total square footage) 2,660,000 2,150 Hotel Rooms (included in total square footage) 2,300 Administrative Office and Support Facilitates: 30,000 sf Community Mausoleum and Garden Crypts: 121,680 sf Family Mausoleums: 12,000 sf Residential permitted in accordance with MU -H3. See Settlement Agreement In no event shall the total combined gross floor area of both campuses exceed the development limit of 1,343,238 sq. ft. ON City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 34 of 48 Table LIJ2 Anomaly Locations Anomaly Statistical Land Use Development Number Area Designation Limit (so Development Limit (Other) Additional Information 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 75 L1 PF offices of the City of Newport Beach, and related parking, pursuantto Section 425 of the City Charter. 1.0 FAR permitted, provided all four 76 H1 CO -G 0.5 FAR legal lots are consolidated into one parcel to provide unified site design 77 H4 CV 240,000 157 Hotel Rooms (included in total square footage) 78 B5 CM 139,840 Development limit of 19,905 sq. ft. permitted, provided all six legal 79 H4 CG 03./0.5 FAR lots are consolidated into one parcel to provide unified site design Tmplt: 11/23/09 59 Mo CITY of NEWPORT BEACH GENERALPLAN Figure LU9 STATISTICAL AREAS H1 -1-14 Residential Neighborhoods D] Sancti nil Residential Defamed �J Single -Un it Residential Attached Two -Unit Residential - Multlple-Unit Resltlenflel - Multiple -Unit Residential Detoured c�am�marolal Districts and corridors =0 Neighborhood commercial O CpMdd, Commercial _ Gereml Commercial - Vat., Sawing Commercial - Recreational and Marine Commerusl - Regnnel Commercial Commercial Office Districts co<Gen pal Commercial Office �., '.ledicei Commercial Once m I Rogianel Commemiel Office Industrial Districts = Inductor Airport Supporting Districts Alrport Office and Supppning Uses Mixetl Uss Districts IM Mixed Use VeNwl Mixed flee H.—tal ® Mixed Use Water Related Public, Semi -Public and Institutional Public Facilities - Private Institutions - Perks and Recreation OOpen Space OTrue.. and Sudnergaa Land. easkiras City of Newport Beach BowWary p� Statist®IAree SII Bauntlery Land use Danneator bre . Rater to anomaly table LUg_NP_Heightemod Jurrol 02 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 36 of 48 EXHIBIT "C" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (Project -specific conditions are in italics) PLANNING 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans, roof plans, building elevations, and landscape plans stamped and dated with the date of this approval. (Except as modified by applicable conditions of approval.) 2. Site Development Review No. SR2010-001, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2010-024, and Variance No. 2010-004 shall expire unless exercised within 24 months from the date of approval as specified in Section 20.54.060 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, unless an extension is otherwise granted. 3. The outdoor patio and block wall proposed to encroach into the Dover Drive public right-of- way shall be eliminated, unless this conditional use permit is amended or a new conditional use permit is approved in conjunction with an eating and drinking establishment that specifically approves the construction of the outdoor patio and an encroachment or lease agreement is approved by the Public Work's Department. 4. The final design of the commercial building and parking structure shall provide all the architectural treatments as illustrated on the approved plans. Any changes to the architectural treatment shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and may require an amendment to this Site Development Review. 5. Flat roof portions of the building shall be constructed to meet "cool roofs" standards for energy efficiency, however, the color and material shall not result in glare as viewed from the residents above. No mechanical equipment shall be permitted on the roof, except within the designated mechanical well and shall not be visible from West Coast Highway or the adjacent residential properties. 6. Uses shall be permitted, or conditionally permitted, within the project consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Code, so long as they do not increase the approved traffic generation for the project (TS201 1 -00 1). 7. Required parking for this project has been determined based on documentation and a number of assumptions, including: 1) the shared parking analysis prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., dated July 22, 2011; 2) a limitation that the maximum Net Public Area (NPA) of eating and drinking uses be limited to 5,210 square feet; and 3) the proposed floor area for eating and drinking uses will be occupied by fine dining establishments with very low turnover with a parking demand of 1 space per 50 square feet of NPA. Any changes to the assumed tenant mix or changes in the type of food use that would increase parking demands may require the preparation of a new shared parking analysis to ensure that Tmplt: 11/23/09 03 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 37 of 48 adequate parking can be provided on site and at the approved off-site parking lot, and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Department. 8. A total of 150 parking spaces shall be provided on site as illustrated on the approved plans and parking management plan for the project. 9. The upper level of the parking structure shall only be used for employee or valet parking, unless an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit and new parking management plan is prepared and approved. 10. Any minor changes to the parking management plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and City Traffic Engineer prior to implementation. Significant changes may require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit. 11. Should the applicant propose to alter the location and/or number of vehicular access points, or propose to take vehicular access across the adjacent property located at 320 West Coast Highway, such proposal shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director and the City Traffic Engineer. 12. Should this business be sold or otherwise come under different ownership, any future owners or assignees shall be notified in writing of the conditions of this approval by the current owner or leasing company. 13. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 14. 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 modification or revocation of Site Development Review No. SR2010-001, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2010-024, and Variance No. 2010-004. 15. 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. 16. This Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review, and Variance may be modified or revoked by the City Council or Planning Commission should they determine that the proposed development, uses, and/ 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. 17. Hours of operations for the uses within the project shall be limited to between 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. daily, unless otherwise permitted to maintain different hours of operation pursuant to a subsequent Conditional Use Permit. Tmplt: 11/23/09 04 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 38 of 48 18. All employees are required to park on site, unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Director, and may require an amendment to this Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit. 19. Any change in operational characteristics, hours of operation, expansion in area, or other modification to the approved plans, shall require an amendment to Site Development Review No. SR2010-001, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2010-024, and/or Variance No. 2010-004 or the processing of new permits. 20. All landscape materials and landscaped areas shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved landscape plan, including the proposed water feature. All landscaped areas shall be maintained in a healthy and growing condition and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing and trimming. All landscaped areas shall be kept free of weeds and debris. All irrigation systems shall be kept operable, including adjustments, replacements, repairs, and cleaning as part of regular maintenance. 21. Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan prepared by a licensed landscape architect. These plans shall incorporate drought tolerant plantings and water efficient irrigation practices, and the plans shall be approved by the Planning Division and the Municipal Operations Department. All planting areas shall be provided with a permanent underground automatic sprinkler irrigation system of a design suitable for the type and arrangement of the plant materials selected. The irrigation system shall be adjustable based upon either a signal from a satellite or an on-site moisture -sensor. Planting areas adjacent to vehicular activity shall be protected by a continuous concrete curb or similar permanent barrier. Landscaping shall be located so as not to impede vehicular sight distance to the satisfaction of the Traffic Engineer. 22. Prior to the final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm that all landscaping was installed in accordance with the approved plan. 23. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever available, assuming it is economically feasible. 24. Water leaving the project site due to over -irrigation of landscape shall be minimized. If an incident such as this is reported, a representative from the Code Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office shall visit the location, investigate, inform and notice the responsible party, and, as appropriate, cite the responsible party and/or shut off the irrigation water. 25. Watering shall be done during the early morning or evening hours (between 4:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.) to minimize evaporation the following morning. 26. All leaks shall be investigated by a representative from the Code Enforcement Division of the City Manager's Office and the property owner or operator shall complete all required repairs. Tmplt: 11/23/09 05 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 39 of 48 27. Water shall not be used to clean paved surfaces such as sidewalks, driveways, parking areas, etc. except to alleviate immediate safety or sanitation hazards. 28. Landscaping and plant selections shall be consistent with the applicable landscaping recommendations set forth by the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework. 29. New utility connections shall be placed underground unless the Public Works Department determines that undergrounding the connection is physically infeasible. Appurtenant and associated utility equipment such as transformers, utility vaults, terminal boxes, meter cabinets shall be placed underground unless the Public Works Department determines that undergrounding the appurtenant and associated equipment is physically infeasible. If appurtenant and associated utility equipment cannot be placed underground, the equipment shall be located in the least visible location practical and screened from public view on-site and off-site by fencing or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 30. The three existing power poles and overhead power lines shall be removed and the power lines shall be underground. 31. All ground -mounted equipment including, but not limited to backflow preventers, vents, air handlers, generators, boilers, trash bins, transformers shall be screened from view behind and fully below the top of a screen wall or a solid hedge. Screen walls shall be of same or similar material as adjacent building walls and covered with vines when possible. Chain link fencing with slats is not permitted. 32. All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view of adjacent properties and adjacent public streets within the mechanical screening equipment enclosure illustrated on the approved plans, and shall be sound attenuated in accordance with Chapter 10.26 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, Community Noise Control. 33. 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: 34. No outside paging system shall be utilized in conjunction with this development. 35. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise -generating construction activities that Tmplt: 11/23/09 00 Between the hours of TOOAM and 10:OOPM Between the hours of 10:00PM and TOOAM Location Interior Exterior Interior Exterior Residential Property 45dBA 55dBA 40dBA 50dBA Residential Property located within 100 feet of a commercial property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 5OdBA Mixed Use Property 45dBA 60dBA 45dBA 50dBA Commercial Property N/A 65dBA N/A 60dBA 34. No outside paging system shall be utilized in conjunction with this development. 35. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise -generating construction activities that Tmplt: 11/23/09 00 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 40 of 48 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. 36. The operator of the development shall be responsible for the control of noise generated by the subject facility including, but not limited to, noise generated by tenants, patrons, food service operations, and mechanical equipment. 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. 37. 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. 38. All trash shall be stored within the proposed trash enclosure located within the lower level of the parking structure or other approved enclosure. The trash dumpsters shall have a top, which shall remain closed at all times, except when being loaded or while being collected by the refuse collection agency. 39. Food uses shall be required to provide temporary refrigerated trash storage to control odors associated with food wastes, unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Director. 40. 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. 41. 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. 42. The applicant shall ensure that the trash dumpsters and/or receptacles are maintained to control odors. This may include the provision of either fully self-contained dumpsters or periodic steam cleaning of the dumpsters, if deemed necessary by the Planning Division. Cleaning and maintenance of trash dumpsters shall be done in compliance with the provisions of Title 14, including all future amendments (including Water Quality related requirements). 43. To minimize conflict within the parking structure, refuse collection and deliveries for the facility utilizing large vehicles shall be allowed between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., daily, unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Director, and may require an amendment to this Site Development Review and Conditional Use Permit. 44. Storage outside of the building or the parking structure shall be prohibited. 45. All proposed signs shall be in conformance with the provision of Chapter 20.42 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code and shall be approved by the City Traffic Engineer if located adjacent to the vehicular ingress and egress. Tmplt: 11/23/09 07 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 41 of 48 46. The final location of the signs shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer and shall conform to City Standard 110-L to ensure that adequate sight distance is provided. 47. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on- site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero cut-off fixtures. 48. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the outdoor lighting standards contained within Section 20.30.070 of the Zoning Code, or, if in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Community Development Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 49. Prior to the issuance of a building permits, the applicant shall prepare photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Division. The survey shall show that lighting values are I" or less at all property lines. 50. Any proposed illumination of the cupola and tower features shall consist of soft accent lighting so as not to become a visual disturbance to the views of the adjacent residences 51. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building ,permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Enforcement Division to confirm control of all lighting sources. 52. A covered wash-out area for refuse containers and kitchen equipment, with minimum useable area dimensions of 36 -inches wide, 36 -inches deep and 72 -inches high, shall be provided for all food uses, and the area shall drain directly into the sewer system, unless otherwise approved by the Building Official and Public Works Director in conjunction with the approval of an alternate drainage plan. 53. Kitchen exhaust fans shall be installed/maintained in accordance with the Uniform Mechanical Code. The issues with regard to the control of smoke and odor shall be directed to the South Coast Air Quality Management District. 54. The exhaust systems for any food uses shall be installed with pollution control units to filter and control odors. 55. The construction and equipment staging area shall be located in the least visually prominent area on the site and shall be properly maintained and/or screened to minimize potential unsightly conditions. 56. A six -foot -high screen and security fence shall be placed around the construction site during construction. Tmplt: 11/23/09 02 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 42 of 48 57. Construction equipment and materials shall be properly stored on the site when not in use. 58. 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 Mariner's Pointe Project including, but not limited to, the approval of General Plan Amendment No. GP2010-009, Code Amendment No. CA2010-009, Site Development Review No. SR2010-001, Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-024, Variance No. 2010-004, and Parcel Map No. 2010-008; 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, 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 59. Elevators shall be gurney -accommodating in accordance with Article 30 of the California Building Code (2007 edition). 60. Fire flow shall be provided to the property in accordance with Newport Beach Fire Department Guideline B.01. 61. Fire sprinklers shall be installed throughout the commercial building and parking structure. 62. Fire apparatus access is required onto the property. The first level of the parking structure shall accommodate an inside turning radius of 20 feet and an outside turning radius of 40 feet. A clear ceiling height of 13 feet 6 inches shall be required. 63. A manual fire alarms system is required that activates the occupant notification system in Group "M" occupancies when the combined occupant load of all floors if 500 or more persons or the Group "M" occupant load is more than 100 persons or below the lowest level of exit discharge. 64. The proposed fire curtain between the parking structure and the exit corridor shall require activation by a smoke detector, unless deemed unnecessary by the Fire Marshall. A Tmplt: 11/23/09 09 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 43 of 48 smoke detector in this location may be subject to nuisance alarms from car exhaust, which can result in false alarm fees from the City. Building Department Conditions 65. 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. 66. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the General Permit for Construction Activities shall be prepared, submitted to the State Water Quality Control Board for approval and made part of the construction program. The project applicant will provide the City with a copy of the NOI and their application check as proof of filing with the State Water Quality Control Board. This plan will detail measures and practices that will be in effect during construction to minimize the project's impact on water quality. 67. Prior to issuance of gradingpermits, the applicant shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) for the proposed project, subject to the approval of the Building Division. The WQMP shall provide appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to ensure that no violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements occur. 68. 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. 69. The applicant shall comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements as follows: Land Clearing/Earth-Moving a. Exposed pits (i.e., gravel, soil, dirt) with five percent or greater silt content shall be watered twice daily, enclosed, covered, or treated with non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications. b. All other active sites shall be watered twice daily. C. All grading activities shall cease during second stage smog alerts and periods of high winds (i.e., greater than 25 mph) if soil is being transported to off-site locations and cannot be controlled by watering. Tmplt: 11/23/09 70 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 44 of 48 d. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials off-site shall be covered or wetted or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., minimum vertical distance between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). e. Portions of the construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months shall be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized in a manner acceptable to the City. f. All vehicles on the construction site shall travel at speeds less than 15 mph. g. All diesel -powered vehicles and equipment shall be properly operated and maintained. h. All diesel -powered vehicles and gasoline -powered equipment shall be turned off when not in use for more than five minutes. j. The construction contractor shall utilize electric or natural gas -powered equipment instead of gasoline or diesel -powered engines, where feasible. Paved Roads k. All construction roads internal to the construction site that have a traffic volume of more than 50 daily trips by construction equipment, or 150 total daily trips for all vehicles, shall be surfaced with base material or decomposed granite, or shall be paved. I. Streets shall be swept hourly if visible soil material has been carried onto adjacent public paved roads. m. Construction equipment shall be visually inspected prior to leaving the site and loose dirt shall be washed off with wheel washers as necessary. Unpaved Staging Areas or Roads n. Water or non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied, according to manufacturers' specifications, as needed to reduce off-site transport of fugitive dust from all unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces. Public Works Conditions 71. The parking layout and circulation shall comply with City Standard STD -805 -L-A and STD -805 -L -B. The vehicular ramps within the parking garage should be a minimum of 24 feet wide. Ramp slopes shall not exceed 15 -percent maximum. The maximum percent change is 11 -percent at a minimum of five-foot intervals. The five-foot interval shall continue across the entire ramp. Parallel parking spaces shall be 8 feet wide by 22 feet long. Tmplt: 11/23/09 71 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 45 of 48 72. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the final parking layout and circulation shall be subject to the review and approval by the City Traffic Engineer. 73. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, a final valet operations plan is required to be reviewed and approved by the City Traffic Engineer. Any future changes to the approved valet plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and Traffic Engineer. The applicant shall immediately resolve any valet operational issues that impact the public right-of-way. 74. The ceiling height of the first level of the parking structure shall maintain an unobstructed vertical clearance of 14 feet clear. 75. Prior to the issue of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from the adjacent property owner for the proposed lane drop extension and sidewalk along West Coast Highway running through the property and shall obtain an easement/dedication for the City for Street and Sidewalk purposes. 76. The driveway entrances to West Coast Highway shall be designed to accommodate vehicular sight distance per City Standard STD -110-L. All planting shall be limited to 24 inches in height maximum within the limited use area. Walls or other permanent obstructions shall be limited to 30 inches in height maximum within the limited use area. 77. The westerly outbound only driveway shall be narrowed to 20 feet maximum and appropriate signage shall be installed to discourage vehicles from entering the driveway, unless otherwise approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 78. The proposed striping changes on West Coast Highway shall be reviewed and approved by Caltrans prior to implementation. 79. The water feature and other non-standard improvements within the West Coast Highway right-of-way requires approval from the State Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 80. Water feature along Dover Drive shall require the review and approval of a Building Permit and requires an encroachment permit and agreement from the City of Newport Beach Public Work's Department. 81. All landscaping within the public right-of-way shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department and Municipal Operations Department. An encroachment agreement is required for all planting within the public right-of-way. 82. No permanent structure shall be permitted within the required 10 -foot -wide sewer easement area, unless otherwise approved by the Public Work's Department. The applicant is required to replace the 8 -inch sewer main from the manhole located on the property line between 303 and 311 Kings Road and the manhole located on West Tmplt: 11/23/09 72 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 46 of 48 Coast Highway. Knock -out panels or other improvements approved by the Public Works Department shall be installed along the entire length of the required 10 -wide sewer easement. The final design of the parking structure shall take into account the sewer main and shall be subject to further review and approval by the Public Works Department. 83. Applicant shall bear all cost (design and construction) of the necessary water system and sewer improvements needed to support the proposed project, including minimum fire flow requirements. The water system improvements may include installation of a regulator and water main extension. The final design shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. 84. Prior to issuance of demolition and -grading permits, the applicant shall submit a construction management and delivery plan to be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The plan shall include discussion of project phasing, parking arrangements for both sites during construction, and anticipated haul routes. Upon approval of the plan, the applicant shall be responsible for implementing and complying with the stipulations set forth in the approved plan. 85. 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. Parcel Map Conditions 86. This Parcel Map shall expire if the map has not been recorded within three years of the date of approval, unless an extension is granted by the Community Development Director in accordance with the provisions of Section 19.16 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code. 87. A parcel Map shall be recorded. The Map shall be prepared on the California coordinate system (NAD88). Prior to recordation of the Map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the Map shall submit to the County Surveyor and the City of Newport Beach a digital -graphic file of said map in a manner described in Section 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. The Map to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach shall comply with the City's CADD Standards. Scanned images will not be accepted. 88. Prior to recordation of the parcel map, the surveyor/engineer preparing the map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Section s 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. Monuments (one inch iron pipe with tag) shall be set On Each Lot Corner unless Tmplt: 11/23/09 73 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 47 of 48 otherwise approved by the Subdivision Engineer. Monuments shall be protected in place if installed prior to completion of construction project. 89. All improvements shall be constructed as required by Ordinance and the Public Works Department. 90. The sidewalk, curb and gutter shall be reconstructed along the entire project frontage of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive. The sidewalk shall be a minimum width of 10 feet on West Coast Highway and 12 feet on Dover Drive. Limits of reconstruction are at the discretion of the Public Works inspector. 91. All unused driveway approaches along Dover Drive and West Coast Highway shall be replaced with a new driveway plug per City Standards. 92. All new driveway approaches shall be constructed per City Standard STD -166-L. 93. All existing overhead utilities shall be undergrounded. 94. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right-of-way. 95. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. See City Standard 110-L. 96. In case of damage done to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private construction, additional reconstruction within the public right-of-way could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 97. All on-site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements. 98. All proposed non-standard improvements within the public right of way, are subject to further review and approval by the Public Works Department and requires an encroachment permit and encroachment agreement. 99. A 10 -foot -wide sewer easement shall be provided through the lower level parking garage to accommodate the existing sewer main running through the property and connecting to West Coast Highway. 100. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a 20' by 27' area located at the southwest corner of the property to accommodate the new transition on West Coast Highway. 101. Relocation of the safety lighting on West Coast Highway requires approval from Caltrans. Tmplt: 11/23/09 74 City Council Resolution No. _ Paqe 48 of 48 Mitigation Measures 102. 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. Tmplt: 11/23/09 715 70 Attachment No. CC 3 Draft Ordinance 77 72 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING CODE AMENDMENT NO. CA2010-009 INCREASING THE MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT LIMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 100-300 WEST COAST HIGHWAY TO 19,905 SQUARE FEET (PA2010-114) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS. 1. An application was filed by VBAS Corporation, with respect to properties located at 100- 300 West Coast Highway, and legally described as Lots 1, 2, 3 ,4, 5, and 6 of Tract No. 1210 requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to accommodate the development of a 23,015 -square -foot, two-story commercial building and a three-story parking structure The following applications were 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 floor area for the project site from 16,518 square feet (0.5 FAR) to a maximum development limit of 23,015 square feet (approx. 0.7 FAR); b. An amendment to the Zoning Map of the Zoning Code to increase the allowable floor area limitation for the project site from 0.3/0.5 FAR to a maximum development limit of 23,015 square feet (approx. 0.7 FAR); c. A site development review to allow the construction of a 23,015 -square -foot, two-story building and a three-story parking structure that will exceed the 31 - foot base height limit with a maximum height of 40 feet; d. A conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a parking structure adjacent to a residential zoning district, to modify the off-street parking requirements, allow for the use of off-site parking, and to establish a parking management plan for the site; e. A variance to allow the commercial building and parking structure to encroach five feet into the five-foot rear yard setback; f. A parcel map to consolidate six lots into one parcel; and g. A traffic study pursuant to the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance. 2. The subject property is located within the Commercial General (CG) Zoning District and the General Plan Land Use Element category is Commercial General (CG). 3. The subject property is not located within the coastal zone. 79 City Council Ordinance No. _ Paqe 2 of 7 4. A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on June 23, 2011, 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 Planning Commission at this meeting. 5. At the June 23, 2011, Planning Commission hearing, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the project without prejudice. 6. On July 1, 2011, the Planning Commission's decision to deny the applicant's request was appealed by City Councilmember Edward Selich. The appeal was filed to allow the City Council an opportunity to review the project since the project sits at the western entry into the Mariner's Mile corridor, which is an area the City is trying to revitalize given the poor condition of the properties. 7. Due to the concerns expressed by the community and the Planning Commission at the June 23, 2011, Planning Commission hearing, the applicant modified the application request by reducing the project gross floor area from 23,015 square feet (approx 0.7 FAR) to 19,905 square feet (approx. 0.6 FAR), increased on-site parking supplies, and eliminating the need for off-site parking. 8. A public hearing was held by the City Council on August 9, 2011, 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. 9. Pursuant to Section 20.64.030.C, the public hearing was conducted "de novo," meaning that it was a new hearing and the decision being appealed has no force or effect as of the date the call for review was filed. 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 April 11, 2011 and ending on May 11, 2011. 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 Tmplt: 11/23/09 20 City Council Ordinance No. _ Paqe 3 of 7 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 were adopted by City Council Resolution No.. The modifications proposed by the applicant subsequent to the circulation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration do not constitute "substantial revisions" that would warrant recirculation of the MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. 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. SECTION 3. REQUIRED FINDINGS. 1. The project site is located within the Mariner's Mile commercial corridor. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site General Commercial (CG), which is intended to provide for a wide variety of commercial activities primarily oriented to serve citywide or regional needs. The proposed commercial 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 General Plan Amendment and Code Amendment for increased intensity is consistent with General Plan Policy LU 3.2 as follows: a. The General Plan recognizes the Mariner's Mile corridor as a location that needs revitalization. Tmplt: 11/23/09 City Council Ordinance No. _ Paqe 4 of 7 b. The increased intensity would provide an economic stimulus needed to accommodate the redevelopment of six lots into one commercial development. c. As stated in the General Plan, Newport Beach residents desire high quality development and have identified the Mariner's Mile corridor is an area that needs revitalization. d. Redevelopment of the subject property helps implement the goal of revitalizing the corridor and may encourage the redevelopment of other underperforming properties within the Mariner's Mile corridor. The project's high quality and distinctive architectural features, such as the corner tower element and cupola, will serve as a focal point and anchor into the entry into the Mariner's Mile corridor. In addition, the project's landscaping and water feature within the public right-of-way will significantly improve the streetscape in the corridor. e. 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. f. The project site is served by existing infrastructure and public services. The proposed increase in intensity will not necessitate any expansion of existing infrastructure. The project will extend the transition area from three lanes to two lanes (lane drop extension) on West Coast Highway, which will improve safety of westbound traffic and improve access to the site. The removal of the three existing power poles and undergrounding of the power lines will provide a public benefit. SECTION 4. DECISION. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Zoning Map shall be amended as provided in Exhibit "A" and as described below, with all other provisions of the existing Zoning Map remaining unchanged, for property located at 100-300 West Coast Highway, and legally described as Lots 1 through 6 of Tract No. 1210. 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses and phrases be declared unconstitutional. 3. This action shall become final and effective thirty days after the adoption of this Ordinance. Tmplt: 11/23/09 22 City Council Ordinance No. Page 5 of 7 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall be published once in the official newspaper of the City, and the same shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach held on the 9th day of August, 2011, and adopted on the 13th day of September 2011, by the following vote, to wit: AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR Michael F. Henn ATTEST: Leilani Brown, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM, FFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY: -David Hunt, City Attorneq 2)Ii for the City of Newport Beach Tmplt: 11/23/09 - - 24 City Council Ordinance No. _ Paqe 6 of 7 EXHIBIT "A" Tmplt: 11/23/09 25 20 Anomaly Development Limit Number (Square feet) Existing Zoning: Commercial General (CG) 0.3/0.5 FAR Proposed Zoning: Commercial General (CG) 19,905 s.f. (Approximately 0.6 FAR) 79 22 Attachment No. CC 4 Parcel Map �9 90 BASIS OF TEACHERS THE PAREEL UP A— LEND UP THIN — S THE 1-1�E OF AFFET —I BID— —A PREALL 1 .11 -1 AS ENTEND UP REENTE TH TUR BENCHMARK AN PARE ITHE FEE 11 HENT ANTENTHE IF THE ERE OF PRE FOUREAS MAPS ¢nuvw,n.zm ac rywegxs me MME ,nmuuan s so uv¢ TENTATIVE ]PARCEL MAP NO. 2010-133 A PORTION OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 6 INCLUSIVE OF TRACT NO. 1210, IN THE CIN OF NEWPORT BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 40, PAGES 45 AND 46 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. GENERAL NOTES 1. SUREFFEREE WAS RELIED UPON REATEREARES ."ME' I' THE LIFFEENT ITTLE IFTERE BE REARENTRA TRIP PARENT NO 17013M 'BE FARM FEREFULANT 17. MEN, TO INTERIM Brcuvo wraEers mes BURDEN OR Bsas.T THIS PROPENE. MR ME PARTIES RAFTED REFFER w6SLR TIE Mvo9RGiwR�OEDFA�ANTRAL IF RE .ANU RE 1.11 ITAND n/°i(SOr[n SUAREPIENTRU OF METAL FLOOD— 6 ABU' WED ARM IS THE REATTERNALLITE OF THE UNIDO SAID �RABN' WD/OP ANDEBIDEAN HIM. UPON THE REMEE OF THIS POOR OF END vwRrn -1'E —L mwEUE OF zuPLANT ou ANI wv Pus mumuEO HERew. IAWAl OF UNN-2 A PIRELLI OF MA -250-11, AID A- 9, WE FISHER 01 SWEETUT PROIENTY DOE' INT. AREN INUE ClEHB.. 'EF IF BEREFF 13 v. RDE USE UP BE RETWernrUwuc 1 ISPER IFFEELF 'I RE NFLUMMULD RE PRD _ ESPN16 PROMPLEM 10 ME FANTASY BEFER AMEAEIr TO HE PREENED. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION .1 1., FORMARE THE AN MAE REARS, I IN ON FAMEATMEN, EASEMENT NOTES PHIL T 11 SHAA AL MATURE 17 2111 81 uAA ERE SESTREAT 'INS ,rcu MIT' 11 TITLE Tm^,z EN AsnTwmDER—IU) SAID THE OF rnvmruT urtcrs calm. IEUMML su. Ire n,, omor PERST, FAMUM AHNUT suuu, HFttren uw D ewun x wiESS, FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION BEE I (—m ANN NUPA REAonM9 ZONING INFORMATION MMW RUNS I FLOOR Nm RDE.I MO.E URWIDED RI Ew PRMUME NAME I", TERE HEAD PROPMED I' THEIR I EIREARTHEIT I THER S- AS WERE THEAT ERNST A' IF OIL MUNTE I WAS 'ALLEN PAT REDEEM HAS ILL BEF EDITOR RES, ENTATERTLE MENTED, N LEE NNI OF ALL ISHOWL I I OF . A.. INESSEAREA ALI —TI. IF--, SUP, AN, NALUMEN, SEEM MAP NO PAPPEN !a SPAREFER .1 -1 IN FAR BE NO NET PULP —I, PAREARIN N A MAP RESEREE I FORE 'A PARES 18 AND .6 OF HRE'� MAW ANN TO W701 BLEAS ANDURCIDEF OR RE III MATENTER HERE THENTEREP HER TO NUMBEHI REARAPPERE PRE 1. EARREFFEEP ED—, I- MENTEENTI BEENDERED AS I—', ANDENI FARE . PREATI AND ATERITE ME ALAN BELLS OR HOLES. AFFEBUT HE OR THE HOW Al FEET OF THE WHETHER OF THE SURE PUBARBA, ILE ART, A OULTUDERES UP PROWL AIDS. NAL, TRAT FF I— BE. — RE, UP NEURNE I— III ssrcuR TO UND —1 HE UP NALL MAN. THAT, HETTERE RE RE —1 n. wsmss MATURE) wnaea9 AS m w REEPR- THE LANTENTHE USE UP 'HOURSRE ANS, TO III BARS, TET OF REIERI .1 UNPOR UP NATERE, ANDINHATHERAMENIS MAN OF ROD PDT I AN MAN REARTINATER LINE THERMSEWER NOR E. IMMONERETERAINUM,-HONFORMSEEMEM.-M, AS WAS 1 -1 BAD THETHEIRLINE 01 WHERE FRAMET WANAL STATER, I THE — 11 IM AFF MAN —I REARE PARANNIN SELF TO FEW '.I IF WE 11 RE WIEN 'MIT BASIN NAUT HAN 10 FEET A A ITEANPAL ANNUE UP 12 .2 AN AUTO DISTARESE UP 11 AU NEST TLETHERTHE SMITH "IFERISH 21 . THE TI ANI —RE' THER BE PEAD "A" RE I REPARE AND ITITHERNI LINE —I UTILITY STATEMENT n UP NALEFORNA sou mu=mr "ONE ell-BELF-0292 III PHONE I.-CLURNE" PHONE 711-237-HUSIF IMF —11 IHONE, ru-sm-Ens ME HAT NUMENT - 12.3 ABN UN-Bu-11.THE OF I PONT BEACHEAM I. ERE N- BEHEMENUM', RONALD M V2663PHONE, 919___UAH m nflUFARTHENT PRES.A NOF WE. NA, ROPED,MINI AN-TRA-IBLEm AM COURESE ALOATHE 01 TIME SEARS 'ERE DETERITHEIN AS A MEAN OF 11, OULDRES IN E ARE EITHER IN SELECT OU REARDELIED TIP SUBLESPER RE FURTHER DES 101 ANTRALATHERT '%I TIE UIREFERENUOUND UUMINES HISENT ME IN HE PARE LOCATION REOPEN SERIOUS' IF NOM FORTUNE III I'M AM STEVEN MAT .11 '1. .111 THE INIINFEENEW I.II MEM, I I— NAWN 11 (.—A MARM Ens M. LAND AREA ARCHITECT ATELESTENTRUJI ARCE THER AND NA RE BE IN O(e1-vs+ OWNER/SUB DIVIDER WAR SHIA M, "BTOO w n sEerwH Gg 92 ��. VRAC r NO, 12» W o I� .d IE -I + ]PAte- I°'C � - ., 'j771 lb - -iw J I � o_ 5,'l GRAPHIC SCALE I I I , /f Y o - I I W o I� .d IE -I + ]PAte- I°'C � - ., 'j771 lb - -iw J I � o_ 5,'l GRAPHIC SCALE 94 Attachment No. CC 5 Originally Proposed Plans 95 m Seelona — RomT anme�de Ground Level Plan on Site ll 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 7d E S t C O A S i H t G R W n 1 CPo! IHiuvw.TION: Rgecr m comply wllh now cone ro. cool w meavmNevpo eoocn-Jon-20lI Parking S. Type l eonm o- .11, p1roaretl om, .del fron [wnmmcbl eullmrcy r1. v om,",,mma l+pur Win 1+-3eporrim, mr plm the Road Striping 4et',n LOnwNrP NN _ _ TABULATION SUMMARY Net Site Area 33,036 at Building Mea Gross Leasable Gross Building Ground Level 9.940 at 11.71M of Second Level 9.795 at 11,221 at Total 19.735 at 23,015 at Groes Area Gros. Restaurant Area 9,522 Gross Retail Area 10.493 Gross Medical Area 3,000 Perking Provided On -Site Level K Standard Tandem Valet Total Stalls Stalls Stalls Only Ground Level Pt 2 33 0 D 35 Second Level P2 1 24 16 5 46 j Third Level P3 2 18 30 5 55 Total 5 75 46 1D 136 Mariner's Pointe a. West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA cv,s' a WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc IfIlUem"Il ulevaN, Sul,e336 Numingian.eaeMU936eB S 1 0 U I E N R 0 R 0 0 0 H Arc kilecl• •e0 Pla 4 1P ur. ru. a.r loin loo lane leen re "s, is, 1 ",In 3151 I ail Ilr 1111 I ... Ian Le....lain u. 92 Second Level Plan on Site ��/ II 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' Gross Restaurant Area 9.522 Gross Retail Area 16493 Gross Medical Mea 3,090 Total 23,015 at Parking Provided On -Site Level HC Standard Tandem Valet Total Slalla Stalls smile Only Ground Level P1 2 33 0 D 35 Second Level P2 1 24 16 5 46 Third Level P3 2 18 30 5 55 Total 5 25 46 10 136 Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc IBS63 Peae58aule dS„I,e336 Numingian BexMU936eB S 1 0 0 I E N R 0 R 0 0 0 H A rc Stlac l• e0 Pla _ l - I —_ 163 Exd Be Pt.r Ifr e 16 � r T- 6S I L �— L 4v rr I� —y-ARIfING14EYE6Y– 46 PARKING SPACES 8 T Heig Cle.r h R-201: R-202 R-203 R-204 —.1#P I's >B' -P 'r 11._e„ 122050 Fi 1615 So fi 1645Sic IT iQ'A SGH I _ O rjP onvEwdtE—__� —A -- d5S oev[nntL sande Stal Fs HCls � o „ ■ .let or mployeel e o miJ �1> 155 �.� ___ rnnP4Mre _ VR R Shal _ a o R 'he J mP Selb.-` (-1 pylt F3 e'T ZI l TABULATION SUMMARY \ NO Sits Area 33.036 st T H I G H E a /_ T C O A S Bolden, Area Gross Laaaabla Grose Banding 1p Groona Level 9940 at 11.79a ar Second Level 9,295 at 11,221 at Total 19,735 at 23,015 at / 7 Grose Area Second Level Plan on Site ��/ II 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' Gross Restaurant Area 9.522 Gross Retail Area 16493 Gross Medical Mea 3,090 Total 23,015 at Parking Provided On -Site Level HC Standard Tandem Valet Total Slalla Stalls smile Only Ground Level P1 2 33 0 D 35 Second Level P2 1 24 16 5 46 Third Level P3 2 18 30 5 55 Total 5 25 46 10 136 Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc IBS63 Peae58aule dS„I,e336 Numingian BexMU936eB S 1 0 0 I E N R 0 R 0 0 0 H A rc Stlac l• e0 Pla u4 ue. rue R.r 1.rR loo t.1.ne 1. e,i i. rlul 100 15.5 F----1 L L—=— L xe-a Tonle Stalls (Vale,or mpbI TI q}n wj I, �� L-- � •- �.� Access � Be1aw 127 I Lower Roof Plan on Site w,ss.m„ TII10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 7d L 3� \RKif�l(�i-LEVR3 J 55 PARKING SPACES SEE LIGHTING PIAN)'a' I Ezlt StuFJ � _ Acceu_ — Se1rnN � - -- -� S C O A S T H I G H W A Y 13,4 ■iiiti?it .. •.��'� [.Z' Q III= �i II Ofi - ..:. II+I. � :ii;iiii:i: •n u I - III — TABULATION SUMMARY 9.522 Gross Retail Area Net Site Area Gros. Medical Area 33,036 at Building Area Gross Leasable Gross Building Ground Level 9.940 at 11,794 at Second Level 9,795 at 11,221 at Total 19,735 a1 23,015 at Grose Area 30 5 55 Total 5 75 Grove Revaurant Area 9.522 Gross Retail Area 10493 Gros. Medical Area 3,090 Total 33,015 at Parking Provided On -Site Level HC Standard Tandem Valet Total stella stens scone Gny Ground Level P1 2 33 0 0 35 second Level P2 1 24 16 5 46 Third Level P3 2 10 30 5 55 Total 5 75 46 10 136 Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS do VBAS Properties, Inc ,8563 Peae58aulevaN, Sul,ex36 Numingian BexMU936ee S 1 0 0 I E N R 0 R 0 0 0 H Arc Silenla and Pla uP ru: Il.r luin loo ta.ne lee,l to "s, is, 1 Ilr In III, I ail I's Ill. I ... ,un..e.. r.leui ,.. 102 mol9oPe: 31n's p5tl' R _ 15% � I1Rn�s`ro - _ 4 _ -� � •� ✓ RE IC ATED6 S$lOP aM, I. bq I �i � ire�iNccure6 / to Mcsi6GYd OBF PFMOVEp / come NEW \ CURB ___ - IV SEWER LINE / DTE: '. el 0'-0'=+12'-6"above se4la. e( �iNc -_— AMMgLE 'artial Ground Level Plan on Site N npElevation 0, 20' 40' 50' 60' 20'gzt'W TPP W 610 r NN l 111 14PVGunM South Elevation- West Coast Highway R-102 R-703 1 a EeN4n9Fu4rm _�" Q A> 35 PARKING SPACES.. ,Alm --IIP,V9 O� 9Q B' P tl' 14T 144 O 1T tl' u-tl J o _y� He19111 q I b �l �` '.10 OPIVE g6LE - HC HC m IT tl a Mech sfi oiwa ITf` V n d{r' Cie:rn HelgM IfSM61 R _ 15% � I1Rn�s`ro - _ 4 _ -� � •� ✓ RE IC ATED6 S$lOP aM, I. bq I �i � ire�iNccure6 / to Mcsi6GYd OBF PFMOVEp / come NEW \ CURB ___ - IV SEWER LINE / DTE: '. el 0'-0'=+12'-6"above se4la. e( �iNc -_— AMMgLE 'artial Ground Level Plan on Site N npElevation 0, 20' 40' 50' 60' 20'gzt'W TPP W 610 r NN l ��-Unac9rtl"nC une311�3 Q E T C O A S T H I G H W A Y - Y Marine-ri Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc IBSB3 Beae�BaulevaN, sul,e336 Numingian BexMU936eB S 1 0 U I I N R 0 R 0 0 0 H AIc 611Rc1a Re0 PIR 4,@ uI,. ru, Suil. loo la..ne leen !e ^I]LII 1 ", n R.r Its, r M I's M. a'_p"GeorNegM YYY -ITd'aW+erealeM R-101 R-102 R-703 1 3230 $a 9 2685 Sq FT Usc SG FT Q O� - JO Q 14T 144 b G J o _y� He19111 q I �l ��-Unac9rtl"nC une311�3 Q E T C O A S T H I G H W A Y - Y Marine-ri Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc IBSB3 Beae�BaulevaN, sul,e336 Numingian BexMU936eB S 1 0 U I I N R 0 R 0 0 0 H AIc 611Rc1a Re0 PIR 4,@ uI,. ru, Suil. loo la..ne leen !e ^I]LII 1 ", n R.r Its, r M I's M. 1-04 T..& RIM ..,., - rvore: ,esr aa= «zaoma. � m.9i East Elevation - Dover Drive Pa N Elevations VIII fa,l Ma".,i h0'1 1.' 50' 160'1 70' W T View West Elevation Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS do VBAS Properties, Inc IBSB3 Peae�BaulevaN, Sul,e336 Numingian BexMU936eB S 1 0 0 I I N R 0 R 0 0 0 H A I c 611rc1• •e0 Pla tlP tb. nu. •.r t.n ioo ln..e fe.�l ie �roui 100 I� Ip �o 0.od levN ne P3 • Seaonalvl L m, HEai E Cwou� _ -------------------- _____-_______ _-______------ .... level pd'=.1 ]'d'. oEa'e rmlevd North Elevation - Bluff Side >� L R.6 ¢ -� r' o l O ��Ii HC W .O O l a _ ass R-103 R-102 R-101 ,Td—–ice-Fa'd+na-ksd-k ——u_,rla oe'�su r' u sr1 3250 SG F2685 SO Fr 3230 SO Fr — Tr 5� m.-c�eensa.J PARKING LEVEL 1 e< q__ E -r Euniw PrRea w cerrmP 35 PARKING SPACES i` mma.el.wa ttalcu S rvice - SSS o - EAISfa 3 ` l �j _ � dSWSe 6�f 351edaneTmuF () Partial Ground Level Plan on Site Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc L\ IBSB3 Peaea BaulevuO, Srl,e336 Numingian BexMU936eB Elevation ,xm„ S 1 0 U I E N R 0 R 0 0 0 H F I I' 10' 20' 1. 50' 60' 70' 80' 41CP ore T 's loo laf•�= f..�v c.fn oul f av of IM tsr r an nfr 102 Top of Blue wlom sce --- P3 _ EFl�12 v lGrountl rev �I Section C - C I _ 0 Building Sections ."Ilou � I I III 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' P3 h m P1 ld' Y' e PI w LGroontl level a' -m Section B - 8 7 nr Rlrrx _— .> of slopv:31, 12 Top of Bluff Roof level U 'ena �weic '9apv]In IY 6KPreSaOcrorbn rmlSbPa']In 1Y —fsh E i'i LL]lr p O rzes oww mk f secoRa level .14'-a' R-203 4 b' w -----------------n S -V aB'�0" nR��E An1.E Groom level o' -d' A'.rc - R-102 exn _ Groona level §> — _ bo '^ 4b iq IFAq e8 R-104 -- e:el a�=nz-dwore4eo bumf R-102 R-103 Section A - A w HtH wlom sce --- P3 _ EFl�12 v lGrountl rev �I Section C - C I _ 0 Building Sections ."Ilou � I I III 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' P3 h m P1 ld' Y' e PI w LGroontl level a' -m Section B - 8 7 nr Rlrrx _— .> Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc 18583 BxacF Narrleva.tl.5u1:e336 runringron NenchCA9a64fl S 1 0 U I B II B 0 R 0 U G U Arc Fllocl9 a n I Pla NB ]ll$ Vola tlaySur IBB. la9.na roar. 6 n%Ifl I IH ]II ]t5] I m1 o]If ]]]6 I .... uanerlorsaplba.ue Top of Bluff Beyond ounce rna iw»i - '9apv]In IY 6KPreSaOcrorbn rmlSbPa']In 1Y —fsh LL]lr p O rzes Roof tale,-rzs' f 4 b' w -----------------n S -V aB'�0" nR��E An1.E ry_ i. 31 - 1 R-202 R-203 �" R-204 seeena level cAMP r%R §> — _ bo '^ 4b iq IFAq e8 R-104 -- R-102 R-103 w HtH TYPPv..a Ms TIiorv. IrRv1r 4.rva_ePArsun _ Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc 18583 BxacF Narrleva.tl.5u1:e336 runringron NenchCA9a64fl S 1 0 U I B II B 0 R 0 U G U Arc Fllocl9 a n I Pla NB ]ll$ Vola tlaySur IBB. la9.na roar. 6 n%Ifl I IH ]II ]t5] I m1 o]If ]]]6 I .... uanerlorsaplba.ue 110 1S, c roclh,mC.et - - , 4.1'. Gros. Medical Area 3,990 Total icPol a. Parking Provided On -Site ]9 n', roe Mre ae 35 a a^pe olFn ' I 0 0 35 second Level P2 1 24 Wofeceaco aar MCI unfRO . 13, 30 5 55 �--oL Net Site Area Mariner's 33,036 at 7 \1opD,IP,opel' 0. Gross Building Ground Level 9.940 s1 11,794 sr TovorPYapl 9,795 at 11,221 at -R F OVER MECHANICAL AREA - 23,015 of Grose Area °li __— G H W A Y MeE ROOF ° e, -a O vt O p S T H I -ROOF OVER PARKING 1em� IE,5; Y. ryr. tl' 'doP EIn128m`Wvp��) 4 �� _ �✓ 6 13,4 a _ 1S, c roclh,mC.et - - , 4.1'. Gros. Medical Area 3,990 Total icPol a. Parking Provided On -Site ]9 n', roe Mre ae 35 a a^pe olFn ' I 0 0 35 second Level P2 1 24 Wofeceaco aar MCI unfRO . 13, 30 5 55 �--oL Net Site Area Mariner's 33,036 at 7 \1opD,IP,opel' 0. Gross Building Ground Level 9.940 s1 11,794 sr TovorPYapl 9,795 at 11,221 at Total 19,735 a1 23,015 of Grose Area °li __— G H W A Y O vt O p S T H I IE,5; 13,4 /12,7 ,rkk_> Upper Roof Plan on Site \Ja 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' Wzm loyal r 29'-I e56P wl� ' Gross Retail Wen _ Gros. Medical Area 3,990 Total icPol a. Parking Provided On -Site ]9 n', Tandem Valet Total Stalls Stalls a^pe olFn Ground Level P1 2 33 0 0 35 second Level P2 1 24 16 5 46 TABULATION SUMMARY 30 5 55 Total 5 75 Net Site Area Mariner's 33,036 at Building Area Gross Leasable Gross Building Ground Level 9.940 s1 11,794 sr second Level 9,795 at 11,221 at Total 19,735 a1 23,015 of Grose Area Grose Restaurant Area 9.522 Gross Retail Wen 10493 Gros. Medical Area 3,990 Total 33,015 of Parking Provided On -Site Level HC Standard Tandem Valet Total Stalls Stalls Smile Only Ground Level P1 2 33 0 0 35 second Level P2 1 24 16 5 46 Third Level P3 2 10 30 5 55 Total 5 75 46 10 136 Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc ,8563 Peae58aulevaN, Sul,e336 Numingian BexMU936ee S 1 0 0 1 1 N R 0 R 0 0 0 H F A rc Silecl• •e0 Pla nr]L11 ", Iba ..rn aar luil. loo tat.^e feel to 1 HF 11, 3211 r Fry Ili Ili, 112 4 FP�e,,, Garage Deck Lighting Plan Y LJ i I L----� June 10, 2011 Scale: 40' 1' 111W = 1'-0" p pi p -i, iNE 2EX 11Urcle SUIl62W }�/\Ifj[' ane. Catt 92510 R 3189 1`� V 1949)259,w+w. (eas) 25u0181 N COMPANY Nm Llghtrng Oesrgne.s+Theebe Consultants oiCaI�NG4RNNE14YMNN Wv Mariner's Point West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, C WINSTON S JEWELERS Go VBAS Properties I S T 0 U 1 E N R 0 R 0 U G H ..d Plnnn 114 IC J 0I !,5 F -i R Staking Plan 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' 131 R FOVERMECHANICALAREA- at ROOF ,aa�1RC- W d 9 3ftmr aeelbPlcdl� � .� ttl $TORY POLE HEIQHT ANC LOCATION CEIRIFICATICN A 13,5 Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc ,8583 PeaO,BculevaN, Sul,e336 Numingian BexMU936eB S 1 0 0 I I N R 0 R 0 0 0 H A rc Rltrcta •ea Pla IfP Lba Er,n Ilan tuir. Ioo laf.^e feet to ^r]L1I IpVRege I I`Qi Lo.nrs ranfm Rccl F H1 rn 1.3,7gFcm -a z _�o - — ---- G H W A Y 1' C 0 A S T H 1 1 S $TORY POLE HEIQHT ANC LOCATION CEIRIFICATICN A 13,5 Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc ,8583 PeaO,BculevaN, Sul,e336 Numingian BexMU936eB S 1 0 0 I I N R 0 R 0 0 0 H A rc Rltrcta •ea Pla IfP Lba Er,n Ilan tuir. Ioo laf.^e feet to ^r]L1I r_r_tr_tr_ $TORY POLE HEIQHT ANC LOCATION CEIRIFICATICN A 13,5 Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc ,8583 PeaO,BculevaN, Sul,e336 Numingian BexMU936eB S 1 0 0 I I N R 0 R 0 0 0 H A rc Rltrcta •ea Pla IfP Lba Er,n Ilan tuir. Ioo laf.^e feet to ^r]L1I 110 59 Zz Z� Za 4s Zai Z{fo ys 4z Zs 1 Qif 0:}a I°�.' Sa i.a 3.+ 'Ss i.o 5+ 5e Ss Se 3s as is: 5a {:e iu Ss 59 A 9 Za 5.a 5e 59 5, 5.o i9 1. Inlfial Illuminance LB fA A C] I. e iz 14LS is ie i ,> .+ i> 39 is 4 0 50 $.o lila to 5. O A as j 3 O -1a is as z9 5p� 5a rSo.e 59 a.e in 8.f ZA b Z.> Z:5 Zn 47 Z.a i.a 4e 4e 5.f Zs .e Z9 s iu y:s Z+ 3p Z+yA A, 5.a 4+ is i1 {A !,f 1B 09 SLO v v }3 i.f iA 11,8 a� 39 a Ze Zp. 3:e 4p 3.e be mR�wru.�m—,oMx eo>a� ie 1.a6L1 ♦64 52 A Maintained Illuminance rl! Mariner's Point West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, C n1E zE^e n C� s ne2W WINSTON S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties I .Cal! 925,4 19 912E9 34J9 x1rm 6 wN49 NununPmn BeevT, G 9. Preliminary GarageDeck Lighting Cabs jsve,9. zml i9191cn�u:xaeon, rm mm S T O U 1 E H R O R 0 0 0 H COMPANY uxa mm un<w.� ^ P a �/ o' to za sa as w So ,0 '-m' ugnrmg oesraners+rheetre consmranrs aE��er to 1111 Luo ^ .. rm ,P1„ix[omalllauwmrvwv 1111 111 I9H t,a ... e 112 GROUND LEVEL PARKING m nr.0 W,a, COAST XIOXW aY i µ CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN WSJ I • 1 V11 M IGAtA.f�V �- _ppWr;N1 - r. uvrwc.Gi. mraox�wwrt �` le��vae.OGpmWAylM Frla}NpY: c.. l -.T -1-4w• WYMOuGbNl*0�PryM M.MP,1 Mariner's Pointe ., +. .—.... .........-r_..,..._.....r WW COW Hg).ay at Dw Ne.PW Beam, CA JEWELERS do VBAS Peo Mes. Xw 120 Striping Plan xx.aw,x.3ore xo III 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS do VBAS Properties, Inc IBSB3 Peae�BaulevaN, Sul,e 336 Numingian BexMU936eB S 1 0 0 I I N R 0 R 0 0 0 H A I c 1Ilrcl• •e0 Pla tlP tb. nu. •.r t.n ioo ln..e feel ie �roui 1-22 Attachment No. CC 6 June 23, 2011, Planning Commission Staff Report 123 124 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 23, 2011 Agenda Item 2 SUBJECT: Mariner's Pointe - (PA2010-114) 100 — 300 West Coast Highway • General Plan Amendment No. GP2010-009 • Code Amendment No. CA2010-009 • Site Development Review No. SR2010-001 • Conditional Use Permit No. UP2010-024 • Variance No. VA 2010-004 • Parcel Map No. NP2010-008 • Traffic Study No. TS2011-001 APPLICANT: VBAS Corporation PLANNER: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner (949) 644-3209, jmurillo@newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The applicant is seeking a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to accommodate the development of a 23,015 -square -foot, two-story commercial building and a three-story parking structure. The following applications 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 floor area for the project site from 16,518 square feet (0.5 FAR) to a maximum development limit of 23,015 square feet (approx. 0.7 FAR); 2. An amendment to the Zoning Map of the Zoning Code to increase the allowable floor area limitation for the project site from 0.3/0.5 FAR to a maximum development limit of 23,015 square feet (approx. 0.7 FAR); 3. A site development review to allow the construction of a 23,015 -square -foot, two- story building and a three-story parking structure that will exceed the 31 -foot base height limit with a maximum height of 40 feet; 4. A conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a parking structure adjacent to a residential zoning district, to modify the off-street parking requirements, allow for the use of off-site parking, and to establish a parking management plan for the site; 5. A variance to allow the commercial building and parking structure to encroach five feet into the five-foot rear yard setback; 125 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 2 6. A parcel map to consolidate six lots into one parcel; and 7. 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: 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. TS2011-001, that the Project complies with the Traffic Phasing Ordinance; and c. Approve General Plan Amendment No. GP2010-009, Code Amendment No. CA2010-009, Site Development Review No. SR2010-001, Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-024, Variance No. 2010-004, and Parcel Map No. 2010-008, subject to findings and conditions. INTRODUCTION Project Setting The 0.76 -acre (33,036 -square -foot) project site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive. The property consists of six legal lots and is currently developed with two vacant buildings totaling 5,447 square feet (0.16 FAR combined). The property is currently fenced and is in a state of disrepair. The project site is narrow and elongated in an east -west orientation. The topography of the site is relatively flat, with the exception of the hillside located along the northern boundary of the site that ranges from approximately 40-50 feet in height. The hillside is heavily vegetated with ornamental trees, shrubs and groundcover. The single -unit residential neighborhood of Cliff Haven is located north of the project site along the hillside above and the single -unit residential neighborhood of Bayshores is located to the south across West Coast Highway. To the southwest is the Anchorage Apartments, a multi -unit residential development and marina. To the east is Lower Castaways, recently donated to the City and currently used for construction staging. To the west are several commercial retail buildings. 120 �•� • P m m 10 77 s. ... w fZ•1f 1 `�1.a-1.1�nllvi� ... • . . 1, .y Ar 122 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 4 SURROUNDING LAND USES GENERAL PLAN ZONING RBL jjjj -I 8 O.I FAR Q e Q e / xeea c a caASTm W e LC pp GG yy MM � 13 E Y $IRM 21178 LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON-SITE General Commercial Commercial General Vacant commercial buildings CG CG NORTH Single Unit Residential Single Unit Residential Single -unit residential dwellings Detached RS -D R1 SOUTH RS -D R1 I Single -unit residential dwellings Recreational and Marine Castaways Marina EAST Commercial (CM) Planned Community (PC- Construction staging 37 WEST CG CG Commercial retail buildings The project also includes the use of 20 parking spaces within an off-site parking lot located at 601 Dover Drive for the use of employee parking in the evenings. The off-site parking lot is developed with a 12,000 -square -foot medical office building and provides a total of 68 parking spaces. Single -unit residential dwellings are located to the north, west, and south. Castaways Park is located to the east, above the Lower Castaways construction staging lot. Prosect Description The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing buildings on-site, merge the lots into one parcel (Attachment No. PC2- Parcel Map), and construct a 23,015 -square -foot commercial building and a three-level, 50,274 -square -foot parking structure (Attachment No. PC3). Details of the project components are as follows: Commercial Building The proposed commercial building will be located on the eastern portion of the site and would be two levels; the first level would consist of 11,794 square feet of gross floor 129 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 5 area and the second level would consist of 11,221 square feet. The exact tenant mix is unknown at this time; however, it is anticipated that two large restaurants will serve as anchor tenants, with the remaining square footage to be used for retail and medical office uses. Potential tenants, in addition to the restaurants, may include a jewelry store, clothing stores, spa, and plastic surgeon's office. For the purpose of preparing the environmental, traffic, and parking analysis, the following land use mix was used: Proposed Land Use Mix Land Use Gross Floor Area Restaurants 10,493 sf Retail 9,522 sf Medical Office 3,000 sf Total 23,015 sf The building has been designed with varying roof heights. The majority of the building is 32 feet 4 inches to the top of the parapet, with the exception of two tower elements and a mechanical equipment enclosure. The octagonal tower element at the southeasterly corner of the property serves as the building's primary architectural element and measures 38 feet in height to the top of the cupola. An architectural finial is proposed on the top of the cupola, resulting in a total height of 40 feet. The second tower element is located over the middle portion of the building and measures 37 feet 6 inches in height. All the roof top mechanical equipment of the building will be located along the rear of the building and enclosed within an equipment enclosure that would measure 35 feet in height. A 700 -square -foot outdoor dining patio and 14 -foot -high screen wall is proposed to encroach into the public right-of-way adjacent to Dover Drive. The seating arrangement is undetermined at this time. The Public Works Department has indicated their support for an encroachment agreement for these improvements, pending Planning Commission and City Council review. Parking Structure A three-level parking structure is proposed on the western portion of the property, adjacent to the commercial building. A 755 -square -foot commercial space is located on the first level of the structure, below the ramp, providing a storefront and retail presence. The third level of the parking structure is proposed to be partially covered with a solid roof measuring 35 feet in height. The roof is proposed to be setback 37 feet 5 inches from the front edge of the parking structure as viewed from West Coast Highway. The uncovered portion of the parking structure would measure 29 feet 4 inches in height to the top of the parapet, with the exception of two elevator/stairwell enclosures, an architectural tower element over the parking structure ramp, and a trellis feature. The primary elevator/stairwell enclosure measures 35 feet in height, and the secondary stairwell enclosure measures 33 feet 1 inch in height. The architectural tower element 130 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 6 over the ramp measures 37 feet in height and the trellis measures 33 feet in height. The parking structure will have two driveways accessible from West Coast Highway; the easterly driveway will allow for both ingress and egress and the westerly driveway will allow for egress only. A total of 136 parking spaces can be accommodated within the parking structure through a combination of standard, tandem, and valet -only parking stalls (see Parking Strategy section of report for additional details). Landscaping The West Coast Highway frontage and Dover Drive frontage will be improved with approximately 3,005 square feet of new landscaping that includes a variety of plant palettes and decorative hardscaping. In addition, a water feature of approximately 280 square feet in area would encompass the southeast corner of the project site. The water feature and a majority of the landscaping are proposed to be located within the public right-of-way and will require an encroachment permit and/or agreement from Caltrans and the City to implement. A three -foot -wide planter area is also proposed along the westerly side property line. Infrastructure Improvements Shoring and a retaining wall ranging from 2 feet to 14 feet in height are proposed to be along the northern property line. The retaining wall is an integral part of the parking structure and commercial building. The existing three power poles and overhead power lines that transverse the northern property line and that currently provide electricity to the site would be removed. The power lines are proposed to be undergrounded and re- routed to run around the eastern, southern, and western perimeter of the project site before reconnecting to the existing overhead lines west of the project site. Coast Highway Lane Drop Extension Between Dover Drive and the western property boundary, West Coast Highway abruptly narrows from three westbound through lanes to two lanes. The applicant is proposing to extend the third lane for approximately 30 feet to accommodate the egress from the westerly driveway. The portion of the lane extension that occurs on the subject property would be dedicated to the City. The applicant will be required to obtain an offer of dedication or an easement from the adjacent property owner for the small portion of the lane extension that occurs on the adjacent property. The property owner has indicated he would be willing to provide the easement. If the easement is not provided, the western driveway from the proposed parking structure will need to be reconfigured and/or the parking structure circulation may need to be redesigned. The applicant is also proposing to restripe and reconfigure the project frontage to create a designated "Bus Only" loading area between the two driveways to accommodate the existing bus stop. 131 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 7 Background The subject property consists of six of the 17 lots that were originally proposed for the Be] Mare redevelopment project proposed in 2004 (100-600 West Coast Highway). In anticipation of project approval and demolition of the existing structures, the previous landowner vacated the eight detached retail/commercial structures. Entitlements to develop a 56,000 -square -foot retail center was approved on January 19, 2006; however, due to difficulties obtaining approvals to install a new traffic signal from Caltrans and litigation with former prospective tenants, the previous landowner was unable to implement the approved project. The properties fell into disrepair and the City worked with the landowner to correct dangerous conditions and public nuisances, including graffiti, abandoned signs, overgrown landscaping, weeds, debris, broken windows, and harboring vagrants. One of the City Council's goals in 2010 was to abate the nuisances and improve these properties. The properties were eventually sold to two separate buyers in 2010. The applicant purchased the easterly six lots and submitted this application to redevelop the property. Another buyer purchased the westerly 11 lots and has rehabilitated and re -used the six existing buildings that occupy the abutting site to the west for retail and vehicle sales uses. DISCUSSION General Plan General Plan Policies The project site is located within the Mariner's Mile commercial corridor. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the site General Commercial (CG) with a maximum allowable floor area to land area ratio (FAR) of 0.3 FAR (9,910 square feet). Where parcels are consolidated to accommodate larger commercial projects that provide sufficient parking, Land Use Element Policy LU 6.19.13 permits development intensity up to 0.5 FAR (16,518 square feet). The CG designation is intended to provide for a wide variety of commercial activities primarily oriented to serve citywide or regional needs. The proposed commercial building would be consistent with this designation and a parking strategy has been developed (see Parking Strategy section of report) to ensure the development will provide sufficient parking. With regard to the maximum 0.5 FAR limitation, the applicant is requesting to increase the maximum development limit to 23,015 square feet (approximately 0.7 FAR). The General Plan includes several goals and policies related to development in the City and includes a goal (LU 6.19) to improve the Mariner's Mile corridor to reflect and take advantage of its location on the Newport Harbor waterfront, support and respect adjacent residential neighborhoods, and exhibit a quality image for travelers on Coast Highway. During the visioning process for the General Plan update, participants identified Mariner's Mile as a location that needs revitalization, therefore, Land Use Element Policy LU 6.19.6 requires projects to be consistent with the Mariner's Mile 132 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 8 Strategic Vision and Design Framework. This plan was prepared to help improve the visual character of the corridor with new landscaping and streetscape amenities, as well as improvements in private developments through standards for architecture, landscaping, and lighting. A complete consistency analysis of each of the applicable General Plan policies appears within the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration on pages 87 through 99 and concludes that the project is consistent with each of the adopted goals and policies. General Plan Amendment — Increased Intensity (FAR) 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 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 applicant's primary objective is to construct two successful quality restaurants; however, the applicant asserts that it is financially infeasible to redevelop the properties at the currently permitted 0.5 FAR limit with a project that includes a high level of architectural detail and a parking structure needed to support the proposed restaurant uses. The construction of the third parking level would still be necessary even without the additional retail and office space due to the peak parking demands of restaurant uses during the evening hours. Therefore, in order to make the project feasible from a financial perspective, the applicant is requesting the additional intensity to offset the increased costs associated with the proposed architectural detail and construction of the parking structure. 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 Mariner's Mile corridor as a location that needs revitalization. • The increased intensity would provide an economic stimulus needed to accommodate the redevelopment of six lots into one commercial development. i33 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 9 • As stated in the General Plan, Newport Beach residents desire high quality development and have identified the Mariner's Mile corridor is an area that needs revitalization. • Redevelopment of the subject property helps implement the goal of revitalizing the corridor and may encourage the redevelopment of other underperforming properties within the Mariner's Mile corridor. The projects high quality and distinct architectural features, such as the corner tower element and cupola, will serve as a focal point and anchor into the entry into the Mariner's Mile corridor. In addition, the project's landscaping and water feature within the public right-of-way will significantly improve the streetscape in the corridor. • 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. • The project site is served by existing infrastructure and public services. The proposed increase in intensity will not necessitate any expansion of existing infrastructure. The proposed lane drop extension on West Coast Highway will improve safety of westbound traffic, while improving access to the site. The removal of the three existing power poles and undergrounding of the power lines will provide a public benefit. Notwithstanding the redevelopment benefits and improvements to the public right-of- way, the requested increase in intensity is of concern because the project maximizes the building envelope and requires several deviations from the development standards to accommodate the project. With the exception of the balconies and patio space along the front of the commercial building, minimal open space is provided on-site. A complex parking strategy is required to provide sufficient parking for the project and includes an adjustment to the parking requirements based on a shared parking analysis, use of a parking management plan that utilizes tandem and valet parking, and use of off-site parking for employees. Although designed to minimize visual and noise impacts to the resident's located on the hillside above, the bulk of the parking structure and commercial building remains in close proximity to the residents. General Plan Table Change As indicated above, the primary benefit of approving the proposed GPA would be the resulting redevelopment and consolidation of six 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 recommends that a new anomaly (Anomaly No. 79) be created within the Land Use Element that 13-4 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 10 limits the project site to a 0.3/0.5 FAR, but which includes provisions for a maximum development limit of 23,015 square feet, provided all six legal lots are consolidated into one parcel to provided unified site design. See Attachment No. PC4 for draft changes to Land Use Element. Charter Section 423 (Measure S) Charter Section 423 requires voter approval of any major General Plan amendment to the General Plan. A major General Plan amendment is one that increases allowed density or intensity 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. These thresholds apply to the total of increases resulting from the amendment itself, plus 80 percent of the increases resulting from prior amendments affecting the same neighborhood (defined as a Statistical Area as shown in the General Plan Land Use Element) and adopted within the preceding ten years. The project site for which the General Plan amendment is proposed is located within Statistical Area H4 of the General Plan Land Use Element, and would result in an increase of 6,497 square feet of non-residential floor area. Based on the trip generation rates contained in the Council Policy A-18 (blended commercial rate), the proposed project is forecast to generate an additional 19 a.m. peak hour trips and 26 p.m. peak hour trips. There has been one prior amendment approved within Statistical Area H4 since the adoption of the 2006 General Plan (GP2010-004), which was adopted on September 14, 2010. This prior amendment involved land use changes for the Holiday Express and the Balboa Bay Club from mixed-use designations to the Visitor -Serving Commercial designation and did not involve any changes in density or intensity. Table 1 below shows the floor area and peak hour trips analysis for the prior amendment and the proposed project: Table 1 - Charter Section 423 Area and Peak Hour Trip Calculation Area A.M. Peak Trips P.M. Peak Trips Prior Amendment 0 sq.ft. (80%) 0 a.m. trips (80%) 0 a.m. trips (80%) GP2010-004 Proposed 6,497 sq.ft. (100%) 19.49 a.m. trips (100%) 25.99 p.m. trips (100%) Amendment Total 6,497 sq.ft. 19.49 a.m. trips 25.99 p.m. trips The proposed GPA does not create any new dwelling units and as indicated in the above table, the proposed General Plan amendment does not exceed the non- residential floor area threshold, and does not exceed the a.m. or p.m. peak hour vehicle trips threshold. Therefore, none of the three thresholds that require a vote pursuant to Charter Section 423 are exceeded. If the proposed General Plan amendment is i35 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 11 approved by City Council, the amendment will become a prior amendment and 80 percent of the increases will be tracked for ten years for any proposed future amendments. Zoning & Site Design Zoning Compliance The project is located within the Commercial General (CG) zoning district. The intent of the CG zoning district is to provide for areas appropriate for a wide variety of commercial activities oriented primarily to serve City-wide or regional needs. Although the redevelopment of the project site as a commercial building with retail, office, and restaurant uses is consistent with the CG district, the development of the project requires a number of deviations from the developments standards. The following table provides a summary of the project's compliance with applicable development standards and deviations requested: Table 2- Zoning Compliance Development Required Provided Standards Lot Size 5,000 square feet min. 33,036 square feet requires parcel map Setbacks Front 0 3 feet Side 0 3 feet Rear 5 feet min. 0 feet (requires variance 26 feet for flat roofs or parapet walls 35 feet flat/parapet (requires site development review) Height 40 feet pitched roofs (requires site 31 feet for pitched roofs development review Floor Area 0.5 FAR with lot consolidation 23,013 sq. ft. (Approx. 0.7 FAR) Ratio (16,518 sq. ft.) (requires a GPA and Zoning Map Amendment 156 spaces total: 136 spaces on-site (requires a conditional use permit to modify 157 spaces total (estimate -see Parking parking requirements, allow for tandem Parking Requirements section of report for and valet parking, and to allow parking detailed discussion) structure adjacent to residential zoning district) 20 spaces off-site (requires a conditional use permit to allow off-site parking) Solid Waste 48 sq. ft. refuse 550 sq. ft. total and Recyclable 48 sq. ft. recycling refuse and recycling combined) Materials 96 sq. ft. total ISO Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 12 Zoning Map Amendment Should the project be approved, staff recommends that a new anomaly (Anomaly No. 79) be created on the Zoning Map that limits the project site to a 0.3/0.5 FAR. The anomaly should also indicate that a maximum development limit of 23,015 square feet is allowed provided all six legal lots are consolidated into one parcel to provided unified site design. See Attachment No. PC5 for draft changes to Zoning Map. Site Development Review Pursuant to 20.52.080 of the Zoning Code, nonresidential construction of 20,000 square feet or more of gross floor area requires site development review by the Planning Commission. These findings and the facts in support of these findings are discussed below: Table 3 -Site Development Review Findings and Facts in Support of Findings Finding Facts in Support of Finding 1) Allowed within the A commercial building with retail, office, and restaurant uses is a permitted subject zoning district use within the CG zoning district. The specific restaurants will be required to obtain separate minor or conditional use permits prior to occupying the building. 2) In compliance with all of the following applicable criteria a) Compliance with The proposed commercial building is consistent with the CG General Plan this Section, the land use designation and CG zoning district. A GPA and Zoning Map General Plan, this Amendment are requested to allow the proposed increase in intensity. The Zoning Code, any applicant is also requesting a conditional use permit and variance to allow applicable specific for a number of deviations from the zoning standards. These requests are plan, and other being reviewed concurrently with the site development review. In addition, applicable criteria and Land Use Element Policy LU 6.19.6 requires the implementation of policies related to the landscape, signage, lighting, sidewalk, pedestrian crossing, and other use or structure amenities consistent with the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework. Applicable to this project would be the landscape, lighting, and signage recommendations within the framework. Project signage has not yet been developed and will be submitted for a subsequent review. The project implements the landscaping requirements of the framework by providing the minimum four -foot -wide planter area with continuous hedge and palms plantings. With regard to lighting, the lighting has been designed to respect the views from above and to prevent any light spillage beyond the perimeter of the structure and to eliminate any sources of glare to the residents and motorists. The framework also includes architectural objectives that focus on responsible and sensitive design, with an emphasis on roofs and roof elements to respond to views from above. The proposed building has been designed with tiled tower elements and clean flat roofs with all mechanical equipment screened from view within an enclosure. The third level of the parking structure has been designed with a solid roof that screens the resident's view of vehicles and lighting. b) The efficient • The commercial building is configured in such way to resemble a village arrangement of of two-story buildings, with various roof heights, connected to parkin ZS7 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 13 structures on the site and the harmonious relationship of the structures to one another and to other adjacent developments; and whether the relationship is based on standards of good design on each of the two levels. • Although the project is requesting an increase in height, the building will not block or obstruct any views of the bay or harbor from the residential homes located on the 40 to 50 -foot high hillside above the project site. • The roof of the commercial building has been designed to respect the views of the residences above and consists of a combination of flat and sloped roof lines. Roof -top mechanical equipment would be fully enclosed and would not be visible from the residences above. The enclosure will have louver vents directed away from the residential properties. • The rear two-thirds of the parking structure would be enclosed and will screen the view of the parked vehicles and parking structure lighting from the residents located above the hillside. The parking structure roof will also provide an additional sound buffer to the residents above. • The mechanical equipment enclosure has been located at the rear of the commercial building to minimize the bulk of the building as viewed from West Coast Highway. c) The compatibility in • The building and parking structure includes modulated building masses terms of bulk, scale, and rooflines and a variation of building materials and colors that would and aesthetic provide visual relief. treatment of • To break up the bulk and massing of the parking structure as viewed structures on the site from West Coast Highway, a 755 -square -foot commercial space has and adjacent been located on the first level of the structure, below the ramp, developments and providing a storefront and retail presence in front the of the structure. A public areas tower element will extend this storefront along the face of the structure. • The inclusion of architectural elements such as balconies, tower features, awnings, trellises, ornamental windows and railings, and the variation in building elevations and protrusions would also enhance the visual quality of the buildings and street frontage. • The project's architectural style, with the use of stone, tile and glass materials, blends in color and form with some development within Mariner's Mile, will provide a high standard of quality for future neighboring development, and complies with the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework. • The tower and cupola feature, the tallest portion of the building, is located at the southeasterly corner of the site, away from the nearest residential and commercial uses. To minimize the bulk of the parking structure as viewed from West Coast Highway, the parking structure roof has been setback 37 feet 5 inches from the front edge of the structure. The resulting height of the parking structure along the front fagade is 29 feet 4 inches providing a transition to the commercial properties to the west. • The west elevation of the building has been designed as a flat wall with no openings due to its proximity to the side property line and in anticipation that the commercial site to the west may be redeveloped in the future; however, until such time, the west elevation will be visible from motorist traveling south of West Coast Highway. To soften the appearance of this elevation and break up the mass of the parking structure, the applicant is proposing to install three large green screens separated by columnar evergreen trees. Architectural detailing has also been added in the form of boarders around the green screens and columns. • The rear elevation of the building and parking structure has also been I -so Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 14 139 designed as a flat wall with no openings due to its placement on the rear property line and will range in height from approximately 20 feet to 35 feet from existing grade. However, the homes located on the hillside above are located a minimum of 60 feet away and approximately 40-50 feet above the project's pad elevation with views oriented predominately over the project site towards the bay and harbor, and therefore, will not be significant y impacted by the height and bulk of the structures. d) The adequacy, • The project would eliminate one existing driveway access off Dover efficiency, and safety Drive and would consolidate four existing driveways along West Coast of pedestrian and Highway into two driveways. Therefore, the project minimizes the vehicular access, number of driveways along West Cost Highway, thereby reducing including drive aisles, potential conflicts and increasing vehicular safety. The lane drop driveways, and extension of Coast Highway will also enhance the safety of the parking and loading highway, while providing safe access from the site, as determined by spaces the City Traffic Engineer. • The project proves adequate sight distance at each driveway, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. • The proposed parking structure has been designed to accommodate and provide safe access for emergency, delivery, and refuse collections vehicles, as determined by the City Traffic Engineer. • The project would include enhanced pedestrian walkways that provide access between the various uses and areas within the project site, and to the surrounding public sidewalks and uses. • The existing bus stop along the project frontage would be relocated and a new designated "Bus Only' area would be created between the two driveways. • See Parking Strategy and Conditional Use Permit Findings section for detailed discussion on adequacy of parking. e) The adequacy and • The project includes the enhanced use of landscaping, including a efficiency of variation of ornamental groundcover, vines, shrubs, and trees, to help landscaping and open soften and buffer the massing of the parking structure and commercial space areas and the building from the surrounding areas and roadways; however, the use of water efficient applicant is proposing a 700 -square -foot outdoor dining patio within the plant and irrigation public right-of-way along Dover Drive. Staff believes the proposed materials project can further benefit from additional landscaping along the Dover Drive frontage and has included a condition prohibiting the installation of the patio within right-of-way and requiring additional landscaping consistent with the proposed plant palette. • A new water feature would encompass the southeast corner of the project site. • The landscape plan includes the requirements of the Mariner's Mile Design Framework, but also incorporates non-invasive and water conserving plant types. • The project is subject to the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Chapter 14.17 of NBMC). fJ The protection of The portion of West Coast Highway, on which the project is located, is not a significant views from designated coastal view road and is not considered a public view corridor public right(s)-of-way requiring public view protection. and compliance with Section 20.30.100 (Public View Protection). 139 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 15 3) Not detrimental to the • The project has been conditioned to ensure that potential conflicts with harmonious and orderly surrounding land uses are minimized to the extent possible to maintain growth of the City, or a healthy environment for both businesses and residents. endanger, jeopardize, or • The project's refuse area is located within the first level of the parking otherwise constitute a garage and will not result in odor impacts to residents above or noise hazard to the public associated with refuse collection. convenience, health, * To minimize or eliminate odors associated with the restaurant uses interest, safety, or general impacting the residents above the site, the project has been conditioned welfare of persons to require the installation of Pollution Control Units with odor eliminators residing or working in the that take the exhaust from the hoods in the kitchens and filter it for neighborhood of the particulates and odor. proposed development. . The project is subject to the City's Outdoor Lighting requirements contained with Section 20.30.070 of the Zoning Code. • Illumination of the proposed tower and cupola feature has been conditioned to consist of soft accent lighting so as not to become a visual disturbance to the views of the adjacent residents. • The proposed 750 -square -foot outdoor dining area located within the public -right -of -away adjacent to Dover will be screened from view of the residents above the hillside and is not anticipated to result in a significant noise disturbance; however, until the specific operation of the restaurants are better known, staff is recommending that this outdoor patio not be approved at this time and that the public right-of-way remain landscaped. The outdoor patio request should be deferred until the review of the use permits for the future restaurant uses. Height Increase The project site is located in the Nonresidential, Shoreline Height Limit Area where the height of structures are limited to 26 feet for flat roofs/parapet walls and to 31 feet for sloped roofs with a minimum 3:12 pitch. The height of a structure can be increased up to a maximum of 35 feet for flat roofs/parapet walls and up to 40 feet for sloped roofs, subject to the approval of a Site Development Review. Section 20.30.060.C.3 of the Zoning Code requires the Planning Commission to make certain findings in order to allow an increase in the height of a structure above the base height limit. These findings and the facts in support of these findings are discussed below 1. The project applicant is providing additional project amenities beyond those that are otherwise required. The most significant amenity the project provides is the long desired redevelopment of this highly visible property that serves as a gateway into the Mariner's Mile corridor. This property is constrained due to its shallow depths and as such has proven difficult to redevelop and as fallen into disrepair. The building exhibits a high level of architectural detail and includes design features that enhance the aesthetics of the building and the area. The most prominent design feature of the building is the octagonal tower and cupola at the southeasterly corner of the site intended to serve as landmark feature and an anchor into the Mariner's Mile corridor area of the City. The parking structure has been designed to incorporate a variety of materials and features (i.e. stone treatment 140 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 16 and hanging vines) and includes vertical recessed openings and a storefront with a vertical tower element to break up the massing and monotony commonly associated with parking structures. The project includes enhanced landscaping of the public right-of-way along the West Coast Highway and Dover Drive. In addition to the continuous hedge and palm trees requirement of the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework, the landscaping plan incorporates additional ornamental groundcover, vines, shrubs, and trees, to help soften and buffer the massing of the parking structure and commercial building and enhance the streetscape of Mainer's Mile. To further improve the streetscape and improve the entrance into the corridor, the applicant is proposing the installation of 280-square—foot water feature that would encompass the southeast corner of the project site. Water effects are proposed to include a knife-edge water weir falling towards the street at the center, boarded by low walls at each end of the feature. The water feature will also include plant material and a combination or eroded, colored concrete and natural stone. The design and height of the building benefits the residential properties above and to the north by providing noise attenuation from roadway noise generated from vehicles on West Coast Highway and Dover Drive. As illustrated in Figure 14 of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment No. PC9), a net decrease in roadway noise of up to 9 dBA CNEL is expected as a result of the noise attenuation effect of the new structures. An additional amenity proposed by the applicant is to remove the three existing power poles and overhead power lines located across the rear property line on the adjacent residential lots. At minimum, City policy requires the applicant to underground their utilities from the nearest power pole, allowing the power poles to remain in place. In this case, the applicant is proposing to completely remove the power poles and underground the power lines around the eastern, southern, and western perimeter of the project site. An easement to Southern California Edison for the power lines will also be provided along the westerly property line. Another amenity includes the elimination of the existing driveway access off Dover Drive and the consolidation of the existing four driveways along West Coast Highway into two main access driveways. Therefore, the project minimizes the number of driveways along West Cost Highway, ensuring that the desired traffic flow along this major road is maintained and ensuring that the continuity of the street -facing building elevations would not be interrupted. The extension of the lane drop on West Coast Highway also serves to enhance the safety of the highway by extending the length of the merge lane, which providing safe access from the site. 2. The architectural design of the project provides visual interest through the use of light and shadow, recessed planes, vertical elements, and varied roof planes, 141 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 17 The goal of the architectural design is to simulate the appearance of a small Mediterranean village of two-story commercial buildings, resulting in modulated building masses and rooflines. The project consists mainly of flat roofs with heights between 29 feet 4 inches and 32 feet 4 inches. Several vertical elements have been included in the design such as the tower features and elevator/stairwell enclosures which range in height from 35 feet to 40 feet. The main elevator and stairwell enclosure has been integrated into the building fagade as a prominent architectural feature and creates a transition between the commercial and parking structure components of the project. To break up the bulk and massing of the parking structure as viewed from West Coast Highway, a 755 -square -foot commercial space has been located on the first level of the structure, below the ramp, providing a storefront and retail presence in front the of the structure. A tower element extends this storefront vertically along the face of the structure. The storefronts on both the upper and lower level will be setback from the edge of the balcony along the street elevation, creating light and shadow effects. Light and shadow will also be created through the extensive use of awnings and recessed openings. The massing of the parking structure is also minimized through the use of vertical opening openings along the street frontage. 3. The increased height will not result in undesirable or abrupt scale changes or relationships being created between the proposed structure(s) and existing adjacent developments or public spaces. Where appropriate, the proposed structure(s) provide a gradual transition to taller or shorter structures on abutting properties; and The tower and cupola feature, the tallest portion of the building, is located at the southeasterly corner of the site, away from the nearest residential and commercial uses. The height of the project transitions in height from east to west, minimizing the change in scale to the adjacent commercial priorities to the west. With the exception of the tower elements and mechanical equipment enclosure, the height of the commercial building is 32 feet 4 inches. To minimize the visual height and bulk of the parking structure as viewed in perspective from West Coast Highway, the parking structure roof has been setback 37 feet 5 inches from the front edge of the structure. The resulting height of the parking structure along the front fagade is 29 feet 4 inches providing a transition to the commercial properties to the west as viewed from the highway. Although the adjacent commercial property is currently with one-story commercial buildings, the site has the potential to be redeveloped at heights of 31 feet without discretionary approvals. The homes on the residential lots to the north are situated at the top of the hillside that ranges in height from 40-50 feet above the project's pad elevation. The homes are also located a minimum of 60 feet back from the rear property line. These vertical and horizontal separations between the proposed commercial building and the homes at the top of the slope minimize the impact of the proposed structure heights to the adjacent residences. 142 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 18 4. The structure will have no more floor area than could have been achieved without the approval of the height increase. The requested increase in floor area does not drive the need for the increased height. The need for the third level of the parking structure is primarily driven by the need to provide parking for the two restaurants that will serve of anchor tenants to the development. If the project is designed with only the two restaurants at the currently permitted 0.5 FAR, the third level of parking would still be needed to accommodate the 100 parking spaces anticipated for the restaurant uses. The height of the parking structure could be reduced from 35 feet to 29 feet 4 inches if the roof was removed; however, the roof provides a benefit to the residents located above the hillside as it shields parking structure lighting and glare, and buffers some vehicle noise. With regard to the height of the commercial building, the need for height is driven by the need to provide desirable 12 -foot -high ceilings for the retail tenants ensuring that these commercial building will remain marketable to tenants. According to the applicant, in order to provide 12 -foot -high clear ceilings and accommodate space for mechanical systems and fire sprinklers, a total plate height between 14 feet 6 inches and 17 feet 6 inches is required. Plate heights within the project utilize a minimum 14 -foot -8 -inch dimension. It's also important to note that a majority of the commercial building will maintain a maximum height of 32 feet 4 inches, with the exception for the tower elements, designed to enhance the architecture of the building, and elevator/stairwell enclosures and mechanical equipment enclosure. Parking Requirements Since the final land use mix is unknown at this time, the final parking requirements for the proposed project cannot be determined. However, based on the Zoning Code parking requirements of the assumed land use mix, approximately 157 parking spaces would be required based on the following formulas: 143 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 19 Table 4 - Assumed Parking Requirements Land Use Gross Square Feet s ' Leasable Restaurant Area Net Public Area NPA 2 Parking Ratio Required Parking Restaurant 9,522 8,280 sf 4,968 sf 1 per 50 sf of NPA 100 Retail 10,493 n/a n/a 1 per 250 gsf 42 Medical Office 3,000 n/a n/a 1 per 200 gsf 15 Total 23,015 157 An assumption was made with regard to the restaurant parking requirements given that the specific design (i.e., seating type, arrangement, bar area) and operational characteristics (i.e. live entertainment, dancing) are not known at this time. Additionally, since parking requirements for restaurants are based on NPA and not gross floor area, a conservative assumption of 60 percent of leasable area was used to determine expected NPA. Pursuant to Section 20.40.060 of the Zoning Code, Food Service uses (restaurants) are required to provide off-street parking within a range of one space for each 30 to 50 square feet of NPA, depending on the physical design, operational characteristics, and location of the establishment. It is the applicant's intent for these restaurants to be occupied by fine dining establishments, with very low turnover. Other fine dining restaurants located within Mariner's Mile and Corona del Mar are typically required to provide parking at the lower ratio of 1 space per 50 square feet of NPA; therefore, the same ratio was used for the project analysis. The physical design and operational characteristics that would lead to higher parking ratios include uses with higher occupant loads, such as bars or restaurants with large bar areas, the operation of live entertainment and/or dancing, or restaurants with higher turnover rates, such as a family restaurants or diners. Section 20.40.040 of the Zoning Code includes a provision that excludes a portion of outdoor dining area (equal to 25 percent of the interior NPA) from the required parking calculations. Based on the assumed total interior net public area of 4,968 square feet, 1,242 square feet of outdoor dining would be excluded from the parking calculations (4,968 x 0.25 =1,242 sf). As shown on the plans, the total outdoor dining area proposed is 1,230 square feet. It should be noted that each of the proposed restaurants will be required to apply for a minor or conditional use permit, at which time the final parking requirements can be calculated based on the specific design and operational characteristics. ' Gross square feet includes enclosed corridor behind each of the suites 2 Area, Net Public. The total area used to serve customers, including customer sales and display areas, customer seating areas, service counters, and service queue and waiting areas, but excluding restrooms and offices, kitchens, storage and utility areas, and similar areas used by the employees of the establishment. 3 Estimated as 60 -percent of leasable restaurant area 19=1 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 20 Parking Strategy The parking strategy for the project is complex and includes a request to adjust the parking requirements based on a shared parking analysis, use of a parking management plan that utilizes tandem and valet parking, and use of off-site parking for employees. Pursuant to Sections 20.40.110.13.2 and 20.40.100 of the Zoning Code, a conditional use permit is required for each of these requests. Pursuant to Section 20.40.070.8.3 of the Zoning Code, a conditional use permit is also required to allow the construction of a parking structure adjacent to a residential zoning district. The following sections of the report describe each of the parking related requests in detail. The Conditional Use Permit Findings section of the report summarizes whether the findings can be supported for each of these requests. Adjustment to Off -Street Parking Requirements Based on the parking requirements discussed above, a total of 157 parking spaces are anticipated to be required. Section 20.40.10.13.2 of the Zoning Code allows required off- street parking to be reduced with the approval of a conditional use permit where two or more distinct uses on the same site have distinct and differing peak parking demands. A shared parking analysis has been prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., (Attachment No. PC6) that indicates that because of the different hours of operation of the assumed mix of tenants, not all of the uses within the project will require their full allotment of parking spaces at the same time. The analysis indicates that the total parking required has two separate peaks: 1) one peak during the early afternoon with a total demand for 131 parking spaces at 1:00 p.m.; and 2) a second peak in the early evening with a total demand of 145 parking spaces at 6:00 p.m. The analysis concludes that the parking demand in excess of the 136 spaces provided on site does not manifest until 6:00 p.m. (145 spaces). Please see Conditional Use Permit Findings section below for a discussion of the required findings for approval. Parking Management Plan In order to maximize the number of parking spaces that can be accommodated within the on-site parking structure, the applicant is proposing a total of 136 parking stalls consisting of 80 standard stalls, 42 tandem stalls, and 14 valet -only specific aisle and corner stalls. A parking management plan will be required to be implemented to ensure the parking structure adequately functions. Sunset Parking Services has prepared a parking management plan entitled "Daily Operational Plan" (Attachment No. PC7) that illustrates and explains in detail how the parking structure will be managed. In general, the plan indicates the following: • Employee Parking- A total of 46 spaces will be reserved as employee parking on the third level. Tandem stalls on the third level will be assigned to the same 1.4.5 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 21 tenant. Additional employee parking needed before 5:00 p.m. will be accommodated by valet. After 5:00 p.m., 20 additional employee parking spaces may also be provided in the off-site parking lot located at 601 Dover Drive. • Customer Parking- Between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., a total of 32 customer parking spaces will be provided on the first level as self -parking. Between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., a total of 32 parking spaces will be provided on the first level as self -parking and an additional 58 spaces will be provided on the first, second, and third level through valet operations. Between 5:00 p.m. and close, or when the need arises due to actual parking demand, all guest parking will be managed through valet operations to accommodate the queuing of vehicles within the first level. The parking management plan has been reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer. Although tandem parking for employees and valet parking within a parking structure is not ideal, given the design constraints with providing parking in compliance with City standards on such a shallow lot, staff believes the proposed parking management plan is a reasonable solution. The approval of a parking management plan requires the approval of a conditional use permit. Please see Conditional Use Permit Findings section below for a discussion of the required findings for approval. Off -Site Parking To address the nine space parking deficit that is anticipated to occur after 6:00 p.m., the applicant is prepared to enter into an off-site parking agreement to provide 20 employee parking spaces. The off-site parking would be provided at the medical office parking lot located at 601 Dover Drive (see Vicinity Map). Pursuant to Section 20.40.100 of the Municipal Code, approval of a conditional use permit is required for a parking facility that is not located on the same site it is intended to serve. In addition to the standard conditional use permit findings discussed Conditional Use Permit Findings section of this report, the Planning Commission must also make each of the following findings: 1. The parking facility is located within a convenient distance to the use it is intended to serve; 2. On -street parking is not being counted towards meeting parking requirements: 3. Use of the parking facility will not create undue traffic hazards or impacts in the surrounding area; and 4. The parking facility will be permanently available, marked, and maintained for the use it is intended to serve. The parking lot is located approximately 1,050 feet (walking distance) north of the project site at the corner of Dover Drive and Cliff Drive. The lot would be used solely by 140 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 22 employees of the project and not by customers. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) suggests four feet per second as a normal walking speed; therefore, it would take an employee approximately 4 minutes and 22.5 seconds to walk from the off-site lot. This is considered a convenient distance for employee parking. The use of the parking lot will not create an undue traffic hazard as the proposed project and subject off-site parking lot are both located on the westerly side of Dover Drive. This allows employees to walk on the sidewalk and only needing to cross the signalized crosswalk at Cliff Drive. As indicated in the shared parking analysis, it is only anticipated that only 9 of 20 parking spaces will actually be needed. The sidewalk leading to the off- site parking lot is bordered by a hillside with residential uses located along the top of slope. Residences are also located behind the medical office site to the west; however, the residences are located at the top of a hillside and buffered from the parking area by the medical office building. Since the off-site parking will be used by employees only, typical noise disturbances associated with restaurant patrons loitering in parking lots is not expected. The off-site parking spaces will be made available for the use of employees of the project after 5:00 p.m. on a daily basis, once the medical office tenants are closed for business. The owner's of the medical office building, 601 Dover LLC, are subject to a ground -lease that expires in 11 years and have indicated they are agreeable to entering into an agreement allowing the use of up to 20 parking spaces. If the ground lease is not renewed and the applicant loses the ability to provide parking on the lot, the applicant will be required to notify the Community Development Director who will establish a reasonable time for substitute parking to be provided or reduce the size of the tenant spaces or change the tenant mix (i.e. less restaurant or medical floor area) in proportion to the parking spaces lost. Conditional Use Permit Findings —Parking Structure, Parking Adjustments, Parking Management Plan, and Off -Site Parking Pursuant to Sections 20.40.070.8.3, 20.40.110.B.2, and 20.40. 100 of the Zoning Code, a conditional use permit is required to allow for the construction of a parking structure adjacent to a residential zoning district, to modify the off-street parking requirements and to establish a parking management plan, and to allow for the use of off-site parking. Pursuant to Section 20.52.020.E of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission must make the following findings in order to approve a conditional use permit: 1. The use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; 2. The use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Zoning Code and the Municipal Code; 3. The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use are compatible with the allowed uses in the vicinity; 147 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 23 4. The site is physically suitable in terms of design, location, shape, size, operating characteristics, and the provision of public and emergency vehicle (e.g., fire and medical) access and public services and utilities, and 5. Operation of the use at the location proposed would not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use. As previously stated, the commercial building and related uses are consistent with CG General Plan land use designation and CG zoning district. The parking structure is considered an accessory use that supports of the commercial uses. Parking structures and the use of valet are commonly associated with restaurant development and compatible with the other commercial uses located in Mariner's Mile; however, due to its close proximity to the residential uses to the north, the design and operation of the parking structure has the potential to impact the adjacent residences. The parking structure is proposed to be located at the base of the hillside adjacent to a residential district, where the neighboring residential properties are located along the top of the hillside approximately 40-50 feet above the project's pad elevation. The height of the covered portion of the parking structure is 35 feet at the rear of the property directly adjacent to the residential district. The residential dwellings will remain approximately 22 feet higher in elevation than the surface of the third level parking deck (25 feet 10 inches) and 12 feet 6 inches higher in elevation than the top of the parking structure roof. The closest residential dwelling is located approximately 60 feet from the rear property line. These vertical and horizontal separations between the proposed commercial building and the homes provide adequate distance so that the mass and bulk of the parking structure should not negatively impact residents. Parking structures have the potential to generate noise, such as car -alarms, car horns, car audio systems, people talking, vehicle pass-bys, and engine idling, which have the potential to disturb the adjacent residences. These individual noise sources last for short durations and their occurrences are infrequent; however, they can annoy neighbors. A noise analysis was prepared by The Planning Center as part of the MND to analyze the potential noise impacts associated with the previously proposed uncovered parking structure to the adjacent residents using sound modeling. The analysis concludes that the noise generated from vehicles and service trucks within the first and second level of the structure will be attenuated given that those levels are enclosed. With regard the uncovered third level, the analysis indicates that during the daytime, traffic noise from West Coast Highway and Dover Drive would be audible over the noise generated from the third level. In the evening, noise generated from the third level would be less than the City's 45 dBL Leq exterior noise standard at the residences. In addition, the third level of the parking structure will be reserved for employee and valet parking only, avoiding potential noise disturbances that may be 142 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 24 associated with patrons loitering in the parking area after hours. Although noise from the third level of the parking structure is not anticipated to violate the Community Noise Ordinance standards, the applicant has since proposed to partially enclose and cover the rear two-thirds of the parking structure. This roof will have the effect of further attenuating noise generated from vehicles on the third level of the parking structure. Illumination of the third parking level is necessary for safety; however, it also has the potential to negatively impact the residents above if not properly designed and controlled. As currently designed, the rear two-thirds of the upper parking level will be covered and will shield illumination of the parking structure from view of the resident's above. To illuminate the uncovered portion of the parking structure, light fixtures would be recessed into the southerly and westerly walls with very low light output and shields to eliminate glare from views above. In addition, the project has been conditioned to require a nighttime light inspection to confirm there are no light and glare impacts. With regard to the modification of the off-street parking requirements, the LSA Shared Parking Analysis indicated that not all uses within the project will require their full allotment of parking spaces at the same time, therefore, the adjustment in parking requirements is justified. When demand for parking within the structure exists, the applicant's parking management plan should ensure that employees and patrons are able to park on-site. The parking management plan has been reviewed and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer. The Traffic Engineer and Fire Department have reviewed the parking lot design and have determined that the parking lot design will function safely and will not prevent emergency vehicle access. Although tandem parking for employees and valet parking within a parking structure is not ideal, given the design constraints with providing parking in compliance with City standards on a shallow lot, the proposed parking management plan is a reasonable solution. With regard to the off-site parking, the location of the off-site parking is convenient for the use of employee parking. It is not anticipated that the use of the off-site parking lot would create an undue traffic hazard or result in noise disturbances to the adjacent residences. Variance -Rear Setback Encroachment The proposed project encroaches five feet into the rear five -foot -setback adjacent to the residential lots to the north. Pursuant to Section 20.52.090 of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission must make the following findings in order to approve a variance: 1. There are special or unique circumstances or conditions applicable to the subject property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other physical features) that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification; 1-" Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 25 2. Strict compliance with Zoning Code requirements would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zoning classification; 3. Granting of the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the applicant; 4. Granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district; 5. Granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the harmonious and orderly growth of the City, or endanger, jeopardize, or otherwise constitute a hazard to the public convenience, health, interest, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood; and 6. Granting of the Variance will not be in conflict with the intent and purpose of this Section, this Zoning Code, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. The subject property is wide (approx. 340 feet) and shallow (approx. 90 feet avg.) Although many of the lots along the inland side of the Mariner's Mile corridor consist of shallow lots, this property in particular is especially shallow given the acquisition of the property frontage in 1979 to accommodate the Bay Bridge realignment project. The realignment reduced the property depth approximately 27 feet on the westerly end and 47 feet on the easterly end of the property. In comparison to the adjacent properties to the west, the subject property is approximately 25 feet shallower. The 60 lots on the inland side of West Coast Highway and located between the intersection of Dover Drive and the westerly boundary the Balboa Bay Club are the shallowest commercial lots within Marine's Mile corridor area. Of these 60 lots, only four lots have lot depths less than 100 feet (96.47 at its shallowest end). Over half of these lots consist of lot depths greater than 140 feet. The average lot depth of these 60 lots is approximately 120 feet. The reduced lot depths do not accommodate an optimal commercial center site configuration. To design an optimal commercial building, the commercial square footage has been consolidated on the eastern portion of the site as a two-level design in order to accommodate the required on-site parking on the western portion of the site where the lot depth is greater. To accommodate the project (even if developed at a 0.5 FAR with two levels of parking) encroachment into the rear five-foot setback would be necessary to comply with City standards for minimum drive aisles, parking stall dimensions, turning radiuses, and sight distance requirements. If the proposed parking structure and commercial building were located on the other 54 inland lots within this portion of Mariner's Mile, it could be accommodated without the need to encroach, and therefore, does not constitute the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the Mariner's Mile corridor. Typically, commercially zoned properties are not required to maintain rear setbacks, except when located adjacent to residentially zoned properties. The intent is to provide 150 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 26 separation for light, air, and open space adjacent to these residential properties. In this case, four residential lots abut the project's rear property line; however, the houses are located on the hillside approximately 40-50 feet above the project's pad elevation. The closest residential dwelling is located approximately 60 feet from the rear property line. These vertical and horizontal separations between the proposed commercial building and the homes provide adequate buffer equivalent to or superior to a five-foot rear setback; therefore, the five-foot encroachment should not prove detrimental to the abutting residences, nor result in a condition where the commercial development will endanger or create a hazard to those persons residing in the houses above. The development includes cutting into the toe of the slope; however, the preliminary geotechnical report indicates that construction of the retaining wall is feasible, subject to the recommendations within the report and in compliance with Building and Grading Codes, and will not undermine the stability of the hillside. In addition, the hillside is heavily landscaped and the applicant has agreed to work with adjacent residential property owners to further landscape the slope to provide increased landscaped screening of the rear of the project. Parcel Map — Lot Consolidation The property consists of six legal lots, which the applicant is proposing to consolidate into one unified site. Pursuant to Section 19.12.060 of the Municipal Code, the merger of five or more lots requires the approval of a parcel map. The approval of the parcel map is straightforward in the case and staff believes the facts clearly exist to approve a parcel map. These required findings and facts in support of these findings are included in the attached draft resolution. The subject site is located at the intersection of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive and serves as the gateway into the Mariner's Mile commercial corridor of the City. Given its location, this site is ideal for the development of a commercial building and the subject parcel map allows for the consolidation of six shallow lots into one unified site large enough to accommodate a viable commercial development. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed tentative map and believes it is consistent with the Newport Beach Subdivision Code (Title 19) and applicable requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. The proposed project accommodates the future widening of Coast Highway and all utility lines will be undergrounded. The design of the development will not conflict with any easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed development as there are no public easements that are located on the property. An easement through the site will be retained by the City for sewer and utilities purposes. 251 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 27 Traffic Study- Traffic Phasing Ordinance 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 if a proposed project will generate in excess of 300 average daily trips (ADT). For the purposes of preparing the traffic analysis for this project, the 23,015 -square -foot commercial building was assumed to include 12,722 square feet of quality restaurant, 7,293 square feet of specialty retail, and 3,000 square feet of medical office. Combined, this land use mix is forecast to generate 1,292 additional trips per day, including 16 additional a.m. peak hour trips and 70 p.m. peak hour trips. It should be noted that this land use mix yields a higher project trip generation than the actual currently proposed land use mix of 9,522 square feet of restaurant, 10,493 square feet of retail, and 3,000 square feet of medical office and, therefore, the traffic analysis prepared for this project is considered to be a conservative as it over-estimates average daily trips by 93 trips. Pursuant to Section 15.04.030.A, the Planning Commission must make the following findings in order to approve the project: 1. That a traffic study for the project has been prepared in compliance with this chapter and Appendix A; 2. That, based on the weight of the evidence in the administrative record, including the traffic study, one of the findings for approval in subsection (B) 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. 3. 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. A traffic study, entitled "Mariner's Pointe Traffic Impact Analysis dated February 17, 2011" was prepared by RBF Consulting under the supervision of the City Traffic Engineer pursuant to the TPO and its implementing guidelines (Attachment NO. PC8). A total of 12 primary intersections in the City were evaluated. The traffic study indicates that the project will increase traffic on six of the 12 study intersections by one percent (I%) or more during peak hour periods one year after the completion of the project and, therefore, these six intersections required further Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis. Utilizing the ICU analysis specified by the TPO, the traffic study determined that the six primary intersections identified will continue to operate at satisfactory levels of service as defined by the Traffic Phasing Ordinance, and no mitigation is required. 1152 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 28 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, no improvements or mitigation are necessary. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that the traffic study has been prepared in compliance with the TPO. Environmental Review A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared by The Planning Center, in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K-3. The MND is attached as Attachment No. PC9 and was routed to the Planning Commission in advance of this staff report to allow additional time to review the report. A copy of the MND was also made available on the City's website, at each Newport Beach Public Library, and at the Community Development Department at City Hall. The MND does not identify any component of the project that would result in a "potentially significant impact" on the environment per CEQA guidelines. However, the document does identify components of the project that would result in effects that are "less than significant with mitigation incorporated" as a result of construction of the project with regard to the following five environmental categories: Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, and Transportation and Traffic. The document recommends the adoption of 11 mitigation measures to mitigate the effects to a point where no significant effects would occur. These mitigation measures are identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which is attached as Exhibit A of Attachment No. PC1. The MND was made available for public review for a 30 -day comment period from April 11, 2011, to May 11, 2011. Staff has received three comment letters from agencies, one comment letter from the California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, and five comment letters from residents who live in the Cliff Haven neighborhood above the project site. Letters from the residents generally state concern with the size of the project, private view impacts, potential odors, noise from the parking structure and outdoor patios, potential lighting impacts, and traffic impacts. Although not required pursuant to CEQA, written responses have been prepared for each of the comment letters. The comment letters and responses have been attached as Attachment No. PC10. Summary The proposed project implements the City's goal of abating the dilapidated improvements on the constrained property, and will redevelop and improve the property with a new commercial building that exhibits a high level of architectural detail and amenities. The project will also serve as a prominent entry feature into the Mariner's Mile corridor of the City. With that said, the project is designed at a 0.7 FAR and would maximize the building envelope and would require several deviations from development 153 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 29 standards in order to accommodate the project. The parking strategy for the project is less than ideal and requires an adjustment to the parking standards based on shared parking, the use of tandem and valet parking for the parking structure, and off-site parking to function. Given the constraints of the property, the parking strategy remains a reasonable solution. The project has been designed to maintain clean roofs with all mechanical equipment screened from view within an equipment enclosure to minimize potential impacts to the resident's above. The third level of the parking deck has been designed within a roof enclosure that would screen the resident's view of vehicles, parking structure lighting, and would provide additional noise buffering. Also, the two smaller outdoor dining patios for the restaurants have been designed to be covered and screened from view from the residents, minimizing noise and visual disturbances. At this time, staff is not recommending approval of the larger 750 -square -foot outdoor patio within the right-of- way, but rather is recommending that the outdoor patio request be deferred until the review of the use permit for the future restaurant use. The increase in intensity, proposed land use mix, and required parking has resulted in a larger, bulkier development and has not allowed the applicant to provide increased open space to offset the increase in height. However, the project has been designed to a high quality architectural standard and incorporates a number of amenities beyond what would normally be required. Primarily the project had been designed with modulated building masses and roof lines to provide visual relief, vertical modulation in the form of tower elements with sloping roofs, and the addition of design elements such as balconies, tower features, awnings, trellises, ornamental windows and railings, that enhance the visual quality of the buildings and street frontage. To break up the appearance and massing of the parking structure, the design includes a variety of materials, the use of recessed openings, and incorporates a storefront with a vertical tower element. Enhanced landscaping within the public -right-of-way is proposed and would incorporate a water feature that would improve the streetscape and entrance into the corridor. In addition to the highway noise attenuation that the building will provide for the resident's above, the resident's will also benefit from the removal of the three existing power poles and overhead lines located along the rear of the property on the residential lots. Alternatives 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 the Commission's conclusion, staff recommends a continuance to allow the applicant time to revise their plans accordingly. 154 Mariner's Pointe June 23, 2011 Page 30 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 consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the MND was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways), posted at the site and at City Hall, and e-mailed to all parties that have signed up to receive notification of the preparation of environmental documents in the City. Finally, the item appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the city website. Prepared by: Submitted by: Jath Murillo, Associate Planner JlMhes W. Campbell', Principal Planner ATTACHMENTS Reporting Program PG 2 Pffeel Map PC E3 ShaFed Paking Analysis PC 8 Traffic Study PC n n...a M t gated Negat „e IDOGIaFat eR (d St, ti ted sepaFately El e to balk) F'\USERS\PLN\Shared\PA's\PAs - 2010\PA2010-114\Planning Commission\PA2010-114 PC rpt.docx 155 150 Attachment No. PC 8 Traffic Study 157 1152 MARINER'S POINTE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS Prepared for CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Prepared by ■ CONSULTING 14725 ALTON PARKWAY, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92618-2027 CONTACT: BOB MATSON 949.855.5736 bobmatson@rbf.com February 17, 2011 A 10-107807 2s9 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................2 StudyArea.................................................................................................................................... 2 AnalysisMethodology...................................................................................................................3 City of Newport Beach Performance Criteria................................................................................3 City of Newport Beach Threshold of Significance.........................................................................4 EXISTING CONDITIONS..............................................................................................................4 RoadwayDescription....................................................................................................................4 Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...........................................................................6 Existing Conditions Peak Hour Level of Service...........................................................................6 PROPOSEDPROJECT................................................................................................................7 Project Trip Generation.................................................................................................................7 ProjectTrip Distribution.................................................................................................................9 ProjectTrip Assignment................................................................................................................9 FORECAST EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS.............................................................9 Forecast Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes............................................................................9 Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions Level of Service........................................................10 FORECAST YEAR 2013 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS..................................................10 Forecast Year 2013 Without Project Conditions Level of Service...............................................12 FORECAST YEAR 2013 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS.........................................................13 Forecast Year 2013 With Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..................................13 Forecast Year 2013 With Project Conditions Level of Service...................................................13 FORECAST CUMULATIVE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS.............................................14 Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ............................15 Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions Level of Service.............................................15 FORECAST CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS.....................................................16 Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes.................................16 Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions Level of Service..................................................16 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS............................................17 SITEACCESS..........................................................................................................................18 100 ORANGE COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.............................................18 STATE HIGHWAY INTERSECTION ANALYSIS........................................................................18 V/C & LOS Ranges......................................................................................................3 State Highway Intersection Analysis Methodology.....................................................................19 Table 2 State Highway Intersection Thresholds of Significance.............................................................. 19 ExistingConditions.....................................................................................................................19 Proposed Project Trip Rates........................................................................................7 Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions..................................................................................20 Table 4 Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions........................................................................21 Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions.............................................................................21 Existing Project Site Trip Generation Displaced by Proposed Project .........................8 MITIGATION MEASURES..........................................................................................................22 CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................................................22 APPENDIX A EXISTING COUNT DATA APPENDIX B LOS ANALYSIS SHEETS APPENDIX C APPROVED/CUMULATIVE PROJECT INFORMATION APPENDIX D ONE PERCENT TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS WORKSHEETS LIST OF TABLES Table 1 V/C & LOS Ranges......................................................................................................3 Table 2 Existing Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS............................................6 Table 3 Proposed Project Trip Rates........................................................................................7 Table 4 Proposed Project Trip Generation...............................................................................8 Table 5 Existing Project Site Trip Generation Displaced by Proposed Project .........................8 Table 6 Net Forecast Project Trip Generation Utilized in TPO Analysis...................................9 Table 7 Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions AM & PM Peak Hour LOS.......................10 Table 8 One Percent Volume Analysis Forecast Year 2013 With Projects ............................12 Table 9 Forecast Year 2013 Without Project Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS .............................................................................................................................................13 Table 10 Forecast Year 2013 With Project Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS... 14 Table 11 Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS .............................................................................................................................................15 Table 12 Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS. 16 Table 13 Incremental Increase in Square Footage Per Proposed Project Site FAR Increase.. 17 Table 14 Proposed Project Trip Rates......................................................................................17 Table 15 Incremental Increase in Trips Per Proposed Project Site FAR Increase ...................18 Table 16 State Highway Intersection LOS & Delay Ranges.....................................................19 101 Table 17 State Highway Existing Conditions AM & PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS ..............20 Table 18 State Highway Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions AM & PM Peak Intersection HourLOS..................................................................................................................20 Table 19 State Highway Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions AM & PM Peak Hour IntersectionLOS........................................................................................................21 Table 20 State Highway Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions AM & PM Peak IntersectionHour LOS...............................................................................................22 LIST OF EXHIBITS Follows Page Exhibit 1 Regional Project Location.....................................................................................2 Exhibit 2 Project Site Location.............................................................................................2 Exhibit 3 Study Intersection Locations.................................................................................2 Exhibit 4 Existing Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes .................................................. 6 Exhibit 5 Existing Study Area Geometry ..............................................................................6 Exhibit 6 Proposed Project Site Plan...................................................................................7 Exhibit 7 Forecast Proposed Project Trip Distribution..........................................................9 Exhibit 8 Forecast Proposed Project AM/PM Peak Hour Trip Assignment Utilized for Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions and Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions............................................................................................................9 Exhibit 9 Forecast Proposed Project AM/PM Peak Hour Trip Assignment Utilized for TPO Analysis (Forecast Year 2013 With Project Conditions)........................................9 Exhibit 10 Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes.............10 Exhibit 11 Forecast Year 2013 Without Project Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes.... 11 Exhibit 12 Forecast Year 2013 With Project Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes ......... 13 Exhibit 13 Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes.. 15 Exhibit 14 Forecast Cumulative With Project AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes .........................16 Exhibit 15 Proposed Project Site Access Recommendations..............................................19 1('02 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study analyzes the forecast traffic conditions associated with the proposed Mariner's Pointe Project in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project site is located at the northwest corner of the West Coast Highway (SR-1)/Dover Drive intersection. The project applicant proposes to construct a 23,015 square foot commercial center that includes a 7,293 square foot specialty retail component, a 12,722 square foot quality restaurant component, and a 3,000 square foot medical office component. The proposed project includes a three-story parking structure that will provide both self parking and valet parking. Project site access is planned via one right-in/right-out driveway and one right -turn out only driveway on West Coast Highway (SR -1). The proposed project is expected to open in 2012; therefore, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), traffic conditions are measured during forecast year 2013 conditions. The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 1,292 net new daily trips, which includes approximately 16 net new a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 70 net new p.m. peak hour trips as analyzed in the TPO analysis. The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 1,533 daily trips, which includes approximately 48 a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 84 p.m. peak hour trips as analyzed in the cumulative analysis. Based on City of Newport Beach established thresholds of significance, the addition of project - generated trips is forecast to result in no significant TPO impacts at the study intersections for forecast year 2013 with project conditions. Also, based on City established thresholds of significance, the addition of project -generated trips to the study intersections is forecast to result in no significant impacts for forecast existing plus project conditions or forecast cumulative with project conditions. No traffic mitigation measures are required for the proposed project since no significant traffic impacts are forecast to occur based on agency thresholds of significance. los INTRODUCTION This study analyzes the forecast traffic conditions associated with the proposed Mariner's Pointe Project in the City of Newport Beach. The proposed project site is located at the northwest corner of the West Coast Highway (SR-1)/Dover Drive intersection. The project applicant proposes to construct a 23,015 square foot commercial center that includes a 7,293 square foot specialty retail component, a 12,722 square foot quality restaurant component, and a 3,000 square foot medical office component. The proposed project includes a three-story parking structure that will provide both self parking and valet parking. Project site access is planned via one right-in/right-out driveway and one right -turn out only driveway on West Coast Highway (SR -1). The proposed project is expected to open in 2012; therefore, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), traffic conditions are measured during forecast year 2013 conditions. Exhibit 1 shows the regional project location. Exhibit 2 shows the project site location. Study Area City of Newport Beach staff identified the following twelve signalized intersections for analysis in this study: 1. Newport Boulevard (SR -55) Southbound Off-Ramp/West Coast Highway 2 IM41 (SR -1); 2. Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway (SR -1); 3. Tustin Avenue/West Coast Highway (SR -1); 4. Balboa Bay Club Driveway/West Coast Highway (SR -1); 5. Irvine Avenue/Seventeenth Street; 6. Irvine Avenue/Dover Drive; 7. Dover Drive/Westcliff Drive; 8. Dover Drive/Sixteenth Street; 9. Dover Drive/Cliff Drive; 10. Dover Drive/West Coast Highway (SR -1); 11. Bayside Drive/East Coast Highway (SR -1); and 12. Jamboree Road/East Coast Highway (SR -1). Exhibit 3 shows the location of the study intersections, which are analyzed for the following study scenarios: • Existing Conditions; • Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions; • Forecast Year 2013 Without Project Conditions; and • Forecast Year 2013 With Project Conditions. 2 IM41 MOORPARK SIMI VALLEY THOUSAND OAKS VENTURA CO LOS ANGELES CO AGOURAHILLS CALABASSAS SANTA MONICA PACIFIC OCEAN v Not to Scale H:\pdaMa 1010]80]\Tr c\Exhihits\ExhOi.al AN FERNANDG FEB/2011 Exhibit 1 15 1 / ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST /a BURBANK �I 5 GLENDALE �/ � 15 PASADENA SAN RANCHO CUCAMONGA / W AZUSA, DIMAS WEST HOLLYWOOD 60 1 EL MONTE I ALHAMBRA FONTANA BEVERLY 10 HILLS 101 70 WEST COVINA POMgNA ONTARIO 10 WALNUT LOS MONTEBELLO CHINO J 110 ANGELES 5 WHITTIERSOUTH INGLEWO00 LI Ti RIVERSIDE R �FLES LaG GATE ORANGE co Oq't'� J 10 't r """22w,Cpy NORCO HAWTHORNE PARAMOUNT YORBA LINDA J FULLERTON o PZ CORONA Y ?�mpN REDONDO 405 0 PRESS 15 5 ORANGE cmc am BEACH O CARSON XO ANAHEIM RANCHO PALOS CLEVELAND VERDES LONG NATIONAL BEACH SANTA FOREST 0 ANA _ SAN IRVINE PEDRO HUNTINGTON BEACH COSTA 40 MESA MISSION VIEJO / NEWPORT / PROJECT BEACH SITE LAGUNA LAGUNA NIGUELEL BEACH J SANJUAN 5 CAPISTRANO Regional Project Location FEB/2011 Exhibit 1 " "Not to Scale •••••• Project Site Boundary Project Site Location H:\pdata\1010]80]\Traffic\Exhibits\ExhOl.ai FEB/2011 Exhibit 2 � � � �! of to Scale Study Intersection Locations H:\pdata\1010]80]\Traffic\Exhibits\Exh03.ai FEB/2011 Exhibit 3 � � � • Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions; and • Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions. Analysis Methodology Level of service (LOS) is commonly used as a qualitative description of intersection operation and is based on the capacity of the intersection and the volume of traffic using the intersection. The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis method is utilized by the City of Newport Beach and in the Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) to determine the operating LOS of signalized intersections. The ICU analysis methodology describes the operation of an intersection using a range of LOS from LOS A (free-flow conditions) to LOS F (severely congested conditions), based on the corresponding Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratios shown in Table 1. Table 1 V/C & LOS Ranges Signalized Intersections V/C Ratio LOS < 0.60 A 0.61 to < 0.70 B 0.71 to < 0.80 C 0.81 to < 0.90 D 0.91to<1.00 E > 1.00 F Source: City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance, Chapter 15.40. In accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), the ICU analysis assumes a capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) for each travel lane (including turn lanes) through an intersection, with no factor for yellow time included in the lane capacity assumptions. The City of Newport Beach TPO methodology calculates the ICU value to three decimal places, and then reports the resulting ICU value rounded down to two decimal places. City of Newport Beach Performance Criteria The City of Newport Beach target for peak hour intersection operation as stated in the Circulation Element of the General Plan is LOS D or better except at the following locations where LOS E or better is considered acceptable: • Intersections in the John Wayne Airport Area shared with the City of Irvine; • Dover Drive/West Coast Highway (SR -1); • Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway (SR -1); • Goldenrod Avenue/East Coast Highway (SR -1); and • Marguerite Avenue/East Coast Highway (SR -1). m The criteria for assessing a proposed project, as defined in the City's Traffic Phasing Ordinance, is to achieve LOS D or better at any impacted primary intersection within the City. City of Newport Beach Threshold of Significance To determine whether the addition of project -generated trips at a signalized study intersection results in a significant impact, the City of Newport Beach has established the following threshold of significance: • A significant impact occurs when the addition of project -generated trips causes the level of service at a study intersection to deteriorate from an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better in most cases) to a deficient LOS (LOS E or F); or • A significant impact occurs when the addition of project -generated trips increases the intersection capacity utilization at a study intersection by one percent or more of capacity (V/C >_ 0.010), worsening a projected baseline condition of LOS E or LOS F. EXISTING CONDITIONS Roadway Description The characteristics of the roadway system in the vicinity of the project site are described below West Coast Highway (SR -1) in the project vicinity trends in an east -west direction, and is designated State Route 1. East of Dover Drive, West Coast Highway (SR -1) changes names to East Coast Highway (SR -1). Between Balboa Bay Club Entry and Dover Drive, West Coast Highway (SR -1) is a four -lane divided roadway, with a continuous left -turn lane and some non - metered on -street parking permitted. From Tustin Avenue to Balboa Bay Club Entry, West Coast Highway (SR -1) transitions from a four -lane to five -lane divided roadway (three lanes in the westbound direction and two in the eastbound direction), with a continuous left -turn lane and both metered and non -metered on -street parking are permitted. Between Riverside Avenue and Tustin Avenue, West Coast Highway (SR -1) is a five -lane divided roadway (three lanes in the westbound direction and two in the eastbound direction), with a raised median and metered on - street parking permitted. From Newport Boulevard (SR -55) Southbound Off -Ramp to Riverside Avenue, West Coast Highway (SR -1) is a five -lane divided roadway (three lanes in the westbound direction and two in the eastbound direction) with a continuous left -turn lane and metered on -street parking permitted on the north side only. The posted speed limit on West Coast Highway (SR -1) ranges from 40 to 45 miles per hour. East Coast Highway (SR -1) is designated State Route 1. Between Dover Drive and Bayside Drive, East Coast Highway (SR -1) is a seven -lane undivided roadway (four lanes in the westbound direction and three lanes in the eastbound direction) with on -street parking prohibited. Between Bayside Drive and Jamboree Road, East Coast Highway (SR -1) is an eight -lane roadway, with a raised, landscaped median and on -street parking prohibited. The posted speed limit on West Coast Highway (SR -1) in the study area ranges from 35 to 45 miles per hour, with a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour adjacent the project site. a log Riverside Avenue between West Coast Highway and Avon Street is a four -lane undivided roadway, trending in a north -south direction, with on -street parking prohibited. North of Avon Street, Riverside Avenue is a two-lane undivided roadway. The posted speed limit on Riverside Avenue is 30 miles per hour. Tustin Avenue is a two-lane undivided roadway trending in a north -south direction that terminates on the south at West Coast Highway (SR -1). Metered on -street parking is permitted on Tustin Avenue. Dover Drive is a four -lane divided roadway with a raised landscaped median, trending in a north -south direction with on -street parking prohibited between West Coast Highway (SR -1) and Westcliff Drive. Between Westcliff Drive and Irvine Avenue, Dover Drive is a two-lane undivided roadway. On -street parking is permitted on Dover Drive, east of Irvine Avenue. South of West Coast Highway (SR -1), Dover Drive changes name to Bayshore Drive. Bayshore Drive is a two- lane undivided roadway with on -street parking prohibited. The posted speed limit on Dover Drive ranges in the study area from 25 to 40 miles per hour. Bayside Drive is a two-lane undivided roadway trending in a north -south direction, north of East Coast Highway (SR -1), with on -street parking permitted. The posted speed limit on Bayside Drive north of East Coast Highway is 25 miles per hour. South of East Coast Highway (SR -1), Bayside Drive is a four -lane divided roadway with a continuous left -turn lane and on -street parking prohibited from West Coast Highway (SR -1) to Harbor Island Drive. The posted speed limit on Bayside Drive is 40 miles per hour. Jamboree Road north of East Coast Highway (SR -1) is a six -lane divided roadway trending in a north -south direction with a raised landscaped median and on -street parking prohibited. South of East Coast Highway (SR -1), Jamboree Road is a four -lane undivided roadway with a painted median and on -street parking prohibited. The posted speed limit on Jamboree Road is 50 miles per hour. Cliff Drive is a two-lane, undivided roadway trending in an east -west direction with on -street parking prohibited. The posted speed limit on Cliff Drive is 30 miles per hour. Sixteenth Street is a two-lane undivided roadway trending in an east -west direction with on - street parking prohibited from Dover Drive to Seagull Lane. The posted speed limit on Sixteenth Street is 35 miles per hour. Westcliff Drive is a four -lane divided roadway trending in an east -west direction with a raised median and on -street parking prohibited. The posted speed limit on Westcliff Drive is 35 miles per hour. Seventeenth Street is a four -lane undivided roadway trending in an east -west direction with a continuous left -turn lane and on -street parking prohibited. The posted speed limit on Seventeenth Street is 35 miles per hour. Irvine Avenue is a four -lane divided roadway trending in a north -south direction with a raised median and on -street parking prohibited between Seventeenth Street and Dover Drive. The posted speed limit on Irvine Avenue is 35 miles per hour. 170 Existing Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes To determine the existing operation of the study intersections, this study utilizes 2009/2010 a.m. and p.m. peak hour intersection movement counts provided by City of Newport Beach staff. Additionally, a.m. and p.m. peak hour intersection movement counts were collected at the following two study intersections: • Dover Drive/Cliff Drive; and • Balboa Bay Club DrivewayANest Coast Highway (SR -1). An annual growth factor of 1.00% on primary roadways, based on the City of Newport Beach TPO, was applied to 2009 traffic counts as appropriate to reflect growth from the count year to year 2010 conditions. The counts used in this analysis were taken from the highest hour within the peak period counted. Detailed traffic count data is contained in Appendix A. Exhibit 4 shows existing conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes at the study intersections. Exhibit 5 shows existing study intersection geometry. Existing Conditions Peak Hour Level of Service Table 2 summarizes existing conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour LOS of the study intersections; detailed LOS analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B. Table 2 Existing Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Int. No. Study Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour V/C —LOS V/C —LOS 1 Irvine Ave/Dover Dr 0.543 —A 0.661 — B 2 Irvine Ave/17" St 0.496 — A 0.690 — B 3 Dover Dr/Westcliff Dr 0.368 —A 0.414 —A 4 Dover Dr/16'h St 0.588 — A 0.493 — A 5 Dover Dr/Cliff Dr 0.545—A 0.492—A 6 Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.839 — D 0.646 — B 7 Riverside Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.658-8 0.715 — C 8 Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.660 — B 0.580 —A 9 Balboa Bay Club Dwy/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.659 — B 0.694 — B 10 Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.639 — B 0.718 — C 11 Bayside Dr/E. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.601 — B 0.571 —A 12 Jamboree Rd/E. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.560—A 0.679—B Note: V/C = volume to capacity ratio; SB = southbound. As shown in Table 2, the study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) according to City of Newport Beach performance criteria. 171 /mom `58/66�25fi/25fi \ �'-307/671 / m m °' f256/256 \ / x27/98 `19/37 1- - - - - - mm \ / Oo 1 201/370, } (, I 1 478/577+ 53/63% 198!23 m u> m ! 1 omv 5/129+ omm \ 3 mei \ 2'en I \ 7 13 m � N / 56/68, 568/547 rn / i ! n ml `352!492 A \ ♦820/1841 1 O 2103/1274-+168/71 1\ 190/161~/1152177 / 0 0o� `53151 \\ 315/24693 ~ 13/11 \ = 1912/1387+ o—N / / Nm /k, 4/5 �'/ 1 \\ 4/51 aF3- / I r 1 I I pR J )+` % 62121 R1 } / I \ / 1 109/49% } ' 1 43/21- I 754176, N$ / \ 19/2,3—mom / vim / \ 171/27^ / / / _ _ s tu 1 \\ � // 16/40 31113 35/53 1 m m 1493/2810\ 1233/2252 1 \ + x55/85 1 I CLIFF DRQ I } I / Compo \ 1 42/95% 47/44- } ! 1. `77/145 \ 201211390 / 5' �- 2223/1968+ Z r 1 / GN - f 953/1896 "\ 1/20, o o / m� , \ 350/390 Q 12 / I + ` r 100/197 1 \ Q2 \ m m mo \ / 1 859/743-1# TC \ j \ 1560/1277+ e e ! pigs\ i W 5.......... i `1113 / M 7 1405/2046 J+� r60/43 1------- 1 5/4- 1882/1731—_m \ ""✓Y 1 \ 39/33-X / $i�� `474/7031S 474/7031 1224/2175 x42/51 I Q 1 7181146- Legend: \ 1931!1283+ Le j 25/25 �ot to Scale XX/XX AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes \ ...... Project Site Boundary \ — — � � / Existing Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes H\pdata\10107807\Traffic\Exhibits\ExhN.ai FEB/2011 Exhibit 4 � � � \ \ \ 1 1 F Co ov ` F O I Ak n / to Az t � R� \ Sp r tiJ 1 CLIZUpS. 1 ,—► �� Y 11 // FII~ \ �F\ c :!4- Cc v \\ 1\ / �T ....... � V / \ _- _ O A ___— _ 4D — — TC `1 Q 80 Legend: Existing Lane 1 fQ fe I m i 1 2U = 2 -lane Undivided roadwaySD = 5 -lane Divided roadway (3 West, 2 East) �F Free -Right Turn Lane \ / 2D = 2 -lane Divided roadway 6D = 5-1ane Divided roadway W '�ov Overlap Right Turn Lane \ / 4U = 4 -lane Undivided roadway 7D = 7 -lane Divided roadway (4 West, 3 East) Not to Scale \ 4D = 4 -lane Divided roadway •••••• Project Site Boundary � _ _ � y 8D = 8 -lane Divided roadway Existina Studv Area Geomc H\pdata\10107807\TratB Exhibits\Exh05.ai FEBI2011 PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project site is located at the northwest corner of the West Coast Highway (SR- 1)/Dover Drive intersection. The project applicant proposes to construct a 23,015 square foot commercial center that includes a 7,293 square foot specialty retail component, 12,722 square foot quality restaurant component, and a 3,000 square foot medical office component. The proposed project includes a three-story parking structure that will provide both self parking and valet parking. Project site access is planned via one right-in/right-out driveway and one right - turn out driveway on West Coast Highway (SR -1). The proposed project is expected to open in 2012; therefore, in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) traffic conditions are measured during forecast year 2013 conditions. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed project site plan. Project Trip Generation To calculate trips forecast to be generated by the proposed project, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates were utilized. Table 3 summarizes the ITE trip generation rates used to calculate the number of trips forecast to be generated by the proposed project. Table 3 Proposed Project Trip Rates Land Use Units AM Peak Hour Rates PM Peak Hour Rates Daily Trip Rate In Out Total In Out Total Specialty Retail tsf 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.19 1.52 2.71 44.32 Quality Restaurant tsf 0.66 0.15 0.81 5.02 2.47 7.49 89.95 Medical Office tsf 1.82 0.48 2.30 0.93 2.53 3.46 36.13 Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8 Edition Note: tsf = thousand square feet The ITE trip rates shown in Table 3 do not account for applicable trip reduction factors such as pass -by trips, and hence present a conservative condition for trip generation. Therefore, adjustment to trip generation estimates were made to the proposed project as appropriate in accordance with ITE trip reduction rates. Pass -by Trip Reduction A pass -by trip reduction is applicable to some retail and restaurant land uses located along busy arterial highways attracting vehicle trips already on the roadway; this is particularly the case when the roadway is experiencing peak operating conditions. For example, during the p.m. peak hour, a motorist already traveling along West Coast Highway (SR -1) between work and home could stop at the restaurant component of the proposed project. A pass -by discount diverts an existing through trip into and out of the project site. While the total project site trip numbers are not reduced, the new trips generated off-site on the surrounding roadway system 174 WESTWESTCOAST xy C6 -AST HVWYY,W 170 by the project site, or the net project trips, are reduced. Pass -by trips are always included in the site driveway movements. For the project site land use assumptions contained in this analysis, a pass -by discount is only applicable for the restaurant land use component of the proposed project in the p.m. peak hour according to ITE published research data. Table 4 summarizes the trips forecast to be generated by the proposed project utilizing the ITE trip rates shown in Table 3. Table 4 Proposed Project Trip Generation Land Use AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips In Out Total In Out Total 7.293 tsf - Specialty Retail 0 0 0 9 11 20 323 12.722 tsf - Quality Restaurant 8 2 10 64 31 95 1,144 Pass -by Discount (44% in p.m.) 1 0 0 0 -28 -14 -42 - 42* 3.000 tsf - Medical Office 5 1 6 3 8 11 108 TOTAL 1 13 3 16 48 36 84 1,533 Source: Pass -by discount determined using ITE Trip Generation Manual, 2"tl Edition Note: tsf = thousand square feet; *Daily trip reduction assumes total p.m. peak hour trip reduction. As shown in Table 4, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 1,533 daily trips, which includes approximately 48 a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 84 p.m. peak hour trips. Since the project site is currently occupied by 5,447 square feet of specialty retail planned to be displaced by the proposed project, trips associated with the displaced land use are subtracted from the project site trip generation forecast shown in Table 4 to determine the number of net new trips forecast to be generated by the proposed project. In accordance with City analysis methodology, the net trip generation accounting for the displaced land use is only utilized for the TPO traffic analysis (forecast year 2013 with project conditions), not for forecast existing plus project conditions or forecast cumulative with project conditions. Table 5 summarizes the existing project site trips forecast to be displaced by the proposed project utilizing the ITE trip rates shown in Table 3. Table 5 Existing Project Site Trip Generation Displaced by Proposed Project Note: tsf = thousand square feet 177 AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Daily Land Use Trips In Out Total In Out Total 5.447tsf — Specialty Retail 0 0 0 6 8 14 241 Note: tsf = thousand square feet 177 As shown in Table 5, the existing project site land use that will be displaced by the proposed project is estimated to generate 241 daily trips, which include approximately 0 a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 14 p.m. peak hour trips. Table 6 shows the net new trips forecast to be generated by the proposed project utilized in the TPO analysis (forecast year 2013 with project conditions). Table 6 Net Forecast Project Trip Generation Utilized in TPO Analysis Land Use AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips In Out Total In Out Total Existing Site (displaced) 0 0 0 -6 -8 -14 -241 Proposed Mariner's Pointe Project 13 3 16 48 36 84 1,533 TOTAL 13 3 16 42 28 70 1,292 As shown in Table 6, the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 1,292 net new daily trips, which includes approximately 16 net new a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 70 net new p.m. peak hour trips as analyzed in the TPO analysis. Project Trip Distribution Exhibit 7 shows the forecast trip percent distribution of project -generated peak hour trips. Project Trip Assignment Exhibit 8 shows the forecast assignment of project -generated a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips utilized for both forecast existing plus project conditions and forecast cumulative with project conditions assuming the trip percent distribution shown in Exhibit 7. Exhibit 9 shows the forecast assignment of net project -generated a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips utilized for the TPO analysis (forecast year 2013 with project conditions) assuming the trip percent distribution shown in Exhibit 7. FORECAST EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS Forecast existing plus project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes were derived by adding forecast project -generated trips to existing conditions traffic volumes. Forecast Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes Exhibit 10 shows forecast existing plus project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes at the study intersections. 172 M ll;;W...... Project Site Boundary Forecast Proposed Project Trip Distribution H:\pdaM\1010]8077ra 6Ex ihits\ExW.ai Exhibit 7 FEB/2011 `0/2 ,ISy f0/4 I �tl t 012 1----_- / \ ' \ // 1 2/7� } I o`o i \ 014 /Y 1/5 /p / �01 \ / / ¢ I 4/14 1/5 '- I i , \ ^ / \ t /s e _ _ � � � t \per �� \\ _—�� ` Tys fill I f 1/13 x-2/7 / \ 5/17+ I CLIFF DR` 0/4 ----A / m�Ir \ / I r f1/5 1 \ Q 2 \ m° o \ / 1 0/2J J \ � 0/4w l ' w I `2/23 1 5/17 / —3/12 1 me I1 5117- / Q Legend: \ 1/144, / XX/xX AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes 1�ot to Scale ...... Project Site Boundary \ , _ , , ' Forecast Proposed Project AM/PM Peak Hour Trip Assignment Utilized for Forecast Existing Plus Project & Forecast Cumulative With Project Analysis H\pdata\10107807\Traffic\Exhibits\Exh08.a1 FEB/2011 Exhibit 8 � � � / ry `0/1 1l \ I 1l4~f0/3 I I ��ON I__---- / \ J Q v / 00 114 \ /Q / 4/13+ \ T /. / / \ i —1/10 . .-2/6 / 5/15+ I CLIFF DR` 0/3 A / mfr \ / I � f1/4 1 \ Q 2 \ m° o \ / 1 0/3 J \ � 0/3w / \ STh ........... � w 2/18 1- 1 5/15 —3/11 1 m I 511 Legend:\ 1/11 Di 1/7— XX/XX AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes \ / Not to Scale ...... Project Site Boundary _ p Forecast Proposed Project AM/PM Peak \ � _ Hour Net Trip Assignment Utilized for TPO Analysis H\pdata\1010]80]\Traffic\Exhibits\ExhD9.ai FEB/2011 Exhibit 9 � � � / M m 5 ` 58/68 \ / C w 1"-256/258 \ ( v N ♦307/675♦106/149 x27/98 `19137 1 201/310, } (� I / m u> M ! I 53/63% 4791582+ } (� amv 135/129-+ aNm \ 198l233--,� m e`o N / \ , 56/68 aC nN `352!492 � \ r L y 7)T♦820/1845 1 O / ° 2104/1279-+ 68/73 ` I\ 190/161 (� ( nen �/-1136/2186 17111 i/ 3151246 1916/1401— Q o`o- I \ / 1 109/49! } \ , \ 155/121, N / ib T: / / ` /s q / rIL 1234/3 2265 1 f II CLIFF DR` 1 42/95% - _ - 2017/1407— ! e 1/20, o / co O W PSTCO\ / Q Za 91 p 1-1 Not to Scale f . W. `11/13 ;••••••••••' / M7 X1406/2059- 62/66 1------ w I 1 5/4J 1 r I \ \ 1887/1748-X Mo \ 39/33 `474/1031 \ 1227/2187 `42/51 I / 1 124/1777 } /� Legend: \ 1932/1292+ j 25/25 \ / XX/XX AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes \ � ...... Project Site Boundary � — — C�r�w.�c�4 Cvic��i r+t �a Oil ll� Dr, H\pdata\10107807\Traffic\ExhihitMExh 1 D.ai FEB/2011 ect Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes I / 1 I I 570/55454-N m / n / i i O \ ODM `53/51 \ —13111 %62/21 1 43/21 19/23- 9/23 172/123 \ 172/123 / \ m � X1 6/40 min r / M \ / �-4951 817 55/85 x56/as I 47/44) } I /\ m N -771145 \ 2223/1973—m \ 350/394 (� rn n om n n 1 / iO N f 954/1901 x1001197 1 \ n m 1 859/745%'N t (� 1560/1281+ O o 9S'Tl,1, > 0 1 VY SR o 1) i Z7 ect Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions Level of Service Table 7 summarizes forecast existing plus project conditions a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour LOS of the study intersections; detailed LOS analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B. Table 7 Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions AM & PM Peak Hour LOS Int. No. Study Intersection Existing Conditions Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions Increase in VIC Significant Impact? AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour VIC - LOS VIC - LOS VIC - LOS VIC - LOS AM I PM 1 Irvine Ave/Dover Dr 0.543 -A 0.661 - B 0.544 - A 0.663 - B 0.001 0.002 No 2 Irvine Ave/17" St 0.496 - A 0.690 - B 0.496 - A 0.692 - B 0.000 0.002 No 3 Dover Dr/Westcliff Dr 0.368-A 0.414-A 0.369-A 0.419-A 0.001 0.005 No 4 Dover Dr/16" St 0.588 -A 0.493 - A 0.590 - A 0.497 - A 0.002 0.004 No 5 Dover Dr/Cliff Dr 0.545-A 0.492-A 0.547-A 0.502-A 0.002 0.010 No 6 Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.839 - D 0.646 - B 0.839 - D 0.648 - B 0.000 0.002 No 7 Riverside Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.658 - B 0.715 - C 0.660 - B 0.717 - C 0.002 0.002 No 8 Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.660 - B 0.580 - A 0.661 - B 0.583 - A 0.001 0.003 No 9 Balboa Bay Club Dwy/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.659 - B 0.694 - B 0.662 - B 0.698 - B 0.003 0.004 No 10 Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.639 - B 0.718 - C 0.639 - B 0.730 - C 0.000 0.012 No 11 Bayside Dr/E. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.601 - B 0.571 -A 0.601 - B 0.573 - A 0.000 0.002 No 12 Jamboree Rd/E. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.560 - A 0.679 - B 0.560 - A 0.680 - B 0.000 0.001 No Note: VIC = volume to capacity ratio; SB = southbound; Deficient intersection operation shown in bold. As shown in Table 7, with the addition of project -generated trips, the study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) for forecast existing plus project conditions according to City of Newport Beach performance criteria. As also shown in Table 7, based on City -established thresholds of significance, the addition of project -generated trips to the study intersections is forecast to result in no significant impacts for forecast existing plus project conditions. FORECAST YEAR 2013 WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS The proposed Mariner's Pointe Project is planned to open in 2012. In accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), the analysis year is 2013. Forecast year 2013 without project conditions are analyzed first to measure potential project impacts against. Forecast year 2013 without project traffic volumes were increased by an annual growth factor of one percent per year as directed by City staff to account for ambient traffic growth in the project vicinity at study intersections. 10 183 Additionally, trips were added from sixteen (16) approved projects in the project vicinity identified by City staff, which have already been approved, but have not yet been constructed. These approved projects are expected to be built and generating trips by year 2013. Approved project trip generation and assignment data was provided by the City of Newport Beach and is contained in Appendix C. The sixteen (16) approved projects identified by City staff consist of • Fashion Island Expansion; • Temple Bat Yahm Expansion; • Ciosa-Irvine Project; • Newport Dunes; • Hoag Hospital Phase III; • St. Marks Presbyterian Church; • OLQA Church Expansion; 2300 Newport Boulevard; • Newport Executive Court; • Hoag Health Center; North Newport Center Santa Barbara Condo; • Newport Beach City Hall; • 328 Old Newport Medical Office; • Coastline Community College; and • Bayview Medical Office. Exhibit 11 shows forecast year 2013 without project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes at the study intersections. The initial stage of the TPO analysis consists of a one percent analysis at each study intersection. The one percent analysis compares proposed project traffic with the projected forecast year 2013 without project peak hour traffic volumes. If forecast peak hour traffic from the proposed project is less than one percent of the projected background traffic on each leg of the intersection then further ICU analysis is not required. If the proposed project is forecast to add more than one percent of the background traffic on any leg of the intersection then ICU analysis is required. Table 8 summarizes the results of the one percent analysis for forecast year 2013 with projects conditions. Detailed one percent analysis worksheets are contained in Appendix D. 11 124 `60/68\ / / m `= iL N \ 265/264 \ 322/699r ! m1♦110/155 x28/101 1 r + `20/39 I- - - - - - / mW 1 208/326, 495/610 1 54/65-l' '+ M m ! 205!24 1 e v 139/133-� e m \ 0 m e \ 3 I \ 7 59/70, n tz^ / 1 85/119- t 585/567 365/516 / \ ` 7)Ty / - / �k ♦891/1946 1 2197/1399-+ I m� / ^No X70/76 \\ / \ ST Ir \ 200/172 (� ( 7 8 1263/2391 1 \\ \32\51245/45�- S2 '58156 ♦`58!56 2095/1560 6412216/12 112/50- J1 45/22---4 159/120, 20/25— \ 0/2 \ 1771125 3� \/ 1I N o / i QCq ,� 11114X- 16/41 1364/mI 1600/3017 364/2470 1 `� I / + %58/88 1 44/88- I CLIFF DR` I / — 2202/1563� t r / > �- 1 83171- t r `80/160 \ --- N C \ 2385/2108+ S a r 104/208/70 1 \ 1/21, o o / C 2 \ 361/402 m / I / / m m\ " M / 1 937/859-1# j \ / 1692/1375+ M o / \ 22/20-N `11/13 / M7 X1547/2280 ------ - - - -- �ry J+� r62144 1------- 1 5/4ST 2072/1940-+ P m m \ ""✓Y ` \ 40/34 �� / / niOm �+i `497/1088 O `SR -1) 1 1344/2381 \ i `44/52 I m 126/157- 2109/1439+ v / Legend: \ 26/26-N Not to Scale XX/XX AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes `\ // Forecast Year 2013 Without Project MW •••••• Project Site Boundary � — — � / Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes HNpdata\10107807\Tra c\Exhibits\Exhll.ai Exhibit 11 FEB12011 Table 8 One Percent Volume Analvsis Forecast Year 2013 With Proiects Int. No Study Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour NB SB EB WB NB SB EB WB 1 Irvine Ave/Dover Dr 2 Irvine Ave/17<h St 3 Dover DrNVestcliff Dr X 4 Dover Dr/16th St X X 5 Dover Dr/Cliff Dr X X 6 Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 7 Riverside Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 8 Tustin AveM. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 9 Balboa Bay Club DwyNV. Coast Hwy (SR -1) X 10 Dover DOW. Coast Hwy (SR -1) X X 11 Bayside Dr/E. Coast Hwy (SR -1) X 12 IJamboree Rd/E. Coast Hwy (SR -1) Note: NB = Northbound, SB = Southbound, EB = Eastbound, WB = Westbound. X = Project peak hour traffic volume greater than one percent of projected background traffic. As shown in Table 8, the following City of Newport Beach intersections exceed the one percent test and thus require further ICU analysis for forecast year 2013 with projects conditions: • Dover Drive/Westcliff Drive; • Dover Drive/16th Street; • Dover Drive/Cliff Drive; • Balboa Bay Club Driveway/West Coast Highway (SR -1); • Dover Drive/West Coast Highway (SR -1); and • Bayside Drive/East Coast Highway (SR -1). Forecast Year 2013 Without Project Conditions Level of Service Table 9 summarizes forecast year 2013 without project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour LOS of the study intersections. Detailed LOS analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B. 12 sm Table 9 Forecast Year 2013 Without Project Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Int. No. Study Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour V/C —LOS V/C —LOS 3 Dover Dr/Westcliff Dr 0.38 — A 0.43 — A 4 Dover Dr/16`h St 0.61 — B 0.51 —A 5 Dover Dr/Cliff Dr 0.57 — A 0.51 —A 9 Balboa Bay Club Dwy/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.72 — C 0.77 — C 10 Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.69 — B 0.77 — C 11 Bayside Dr/E. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.65 — B 0.64 — B Note: V/C = volume to capacity ratio. As shown in Table 9, with the addition of trips forecast to be generated by the approved projects, the TPO study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) for forecast year 2013 without project conditions according to City of Newport Beach performance criteria. FORECAST YEAR 2013 WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Forecast year 2013 with project conditions were derived by adding the proposed project - generated trips to forecast year 2013 without project conditions. Forecast Year 2013 With Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 12 shows forecast year 2013 with project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections. Forecast Year 2013 With Project Conditions Level of Service Table 10 summarizes the forecast year 2013 with project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour LOS of the study intersections; detailed LOS analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B. 13 zg7 60/6925/265 ;E:N �-32Z'702\ / mIm°' 110/155 rI+ r281101 1 r `20/39 I- .- - - - - N M �m 1 208/326, 496/614+ 1 54/65-l' m m !1 e v 139/133-� e n m \ 205!240 m e \ sn I \ 7 59/70, n�� / 1 85/119) } 587/573 0o rn ! l / M/i'1 `3fi5/516 \ `�' / \ \ ` 7 A \ ♦891/1949 I 2198/1403-+ I mJJ / �No X70177 \ 200/172 / h ! nem —1264/2399 O I Ir y r 18/11 Q '� n M _� `58!56 \\ 1 325/254 } r / a o \ / `= \ 2 \ 2099/1573+ o�N / ! �` 1 C�//`p 16/12 4/5-N F3�'�' ! M`e ~64/22 1 '�I 112/50% } ' 1 45/22- } r 160/124-Nf / \ 20/25-- mrn ! / 178/127 `� o Pr /\ 1 / ,to Nom 16/41 36154 \ ` ! 1602/3023 —1364/2480 1 `\ I+ x58/88 1 ` I CLIFF pR\ I , 1 44/98% } (� 1 83/71 J } r `80/160 \ 2207/1578—f1031/2074 238512112+ m a m 1 ! n N "\ 1/21, o o / C I z \ 361 /405 n n a' / I +` r 104/208 1 \ Q 2 \ CO o \ " M / 1 937/860% j \ / 1692/1378+ M M o ! \ 22/20 254 , / \ !3R,1i N �........... / mow `11/13 rfi/asPz2so I - - _- -- - ----- .'' wSTC \\ Q I . e oy > 1 5/4J \ 2077/1955-+ g \ 40/34 nn / / QOM `49X7088 o R-1) \ \ `� `� / 1 ml �-1347/2392 \ i , r44/52 I m / 1 132/183, 1 } r I N ` \ 2110/1446+ 0 � v / p© 26/26ti Legend: \ "It to Scale ` xwxx AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes \ , _ _ _ / Forecast Year 2013 With Project Project Site Boundary Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes H\pdata\10107807\ Traffi6Exhihits\Exh12.ai FEB/2011 Exhibit 12 � � � Table 10 Forecast Year 2013 With Project Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Int. No. Study Intersection Forecast Year 2013 Without Project Conditions Forecast Year 2013 With Project Conditions Increase in V/C Significant Impact? AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour WC - LOS WC - LOS WC - LOS VIC - LOS AM PM 3 Dover Dr/Westcliff Dr 0.38 - A 0.43 - A 0.38 - A 0.43 - A 0.00 0.00 No 4 Dover Dr/16'"St 0.61-B 0.51-A 0.61-B 0.52-A 0.00 0.01 No 5 Dover Dr/Cliff Dr 0.57 - A 0.51 -A 0.57 - A 0.52 - A 0.00 0.01 No 9 Balboa Bay Club Dwy/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.72 - C 0.77 - C 0.72 - C 0.77 - C 0.00 0.00 No 10 Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.69 - B 0.77 - C 0.69 - B 0.78 - C 0.00 0.01 No 11 Bayside Dr/E. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.65 - B 0.64 - B 0.65 - B 0.65 - B 0.00 0.01 No Note: V/C = volume to capacity ratio. As shown in Table 10, with the addition of project -generated trips, the TPO study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) for forecast year 2013 with project conditions according to City of Newport Beach performance criteria. As also shown in Table 10, based on City of Newport Beach established thresholds of significance, the addition of project -generated trips is forecast to result in no significant TPO impacts at the study intersections for forecast year 2013 with project conditions. FORECAST CUMULATIVE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS Forecast cumulative without project conditions were derived by adding cumulative projects identified by the City of Newport Beach to forecast year 2013 without project conditions. Cumulative project trips were added from twelve (12) other projects in the project vicinity identified by City staff that are considered foreseeable, but have not yet been constructed and therefore are not currently generating trips. This section analyzes the impact of adding trips forecast to be generated by these nine cumulative projects to forecast year 2013 without project conditions to reflect cumulative without project conditions. Cumulative project trip generation and trip distribution data was provided by the City of Newport Beach for use in this analysis and is contained in Appendix F. The City of Newport Beach provided data for the following twelve (12) forecast cumulative projects: • Newport Beach Country Club; • Mariner's Medical Arts; • WPI -Newport, LLC; • Banning Ranch; • Sunset Ridge Park; 14 • Marina Park; • Pres Office Building; • Conexant; • Koll Conceptual Plan; • Aerie; • Dolphin Striker; and • Newport Coast. Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 13 shows forecast cumulative without project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes at the study intersections. Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions Level of Service Table 11 summarizes forecast cumulative without project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour LOS of the study intersections; detailed LOS analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B. Table 11 Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Int. No. Study Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour V/C —LOS V/C —LOS 1 Irvine Ave/Dover Dr 0.561 —A 0.682 — B 2 Irvine Ave/17t"St 0.514—A 0.718—C 3 Dover Dr/Westcliff Dr 0.391 —A 0.461 —A 4 Dover Dr/16'" St 0.613 — B 0.523 — A 5 Dover Dr/Cliff Dr 0.575 —A 0.530 — A 6 Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.973 — E 0.867 — D 7 Riverside Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.735 — C 0.791 — C 8 Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.739 — C 0.654 — B 9 Balboa Bay Club Dwy/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.738 — C 0.805 — D 10 Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.702 — C 0.809 — D 11 Bayside Dr/E. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.664 — B 0.670 — B 12 Jamboree Rd/E. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.664 — B 0.841 — D Note: V/C = volume to capacity ratio; SB = southbound; Deficient intersection operation shown in bold. As shown in Table 11, with the addition of cumulative project -generated trips, the study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) for forecast cumulative without project conditions according to City of Newport Beach performance criteria with the exception the Newport Boulevard Southbound Ramps/West Coast Highway (SR -1) study intersection during the a.m. peak hour which is forecast to operate at LOS E. 15 i9 D / yN `60/68 \ / 265/264 331/704♦1561183 \ / r + x28/101 1 r 1 `20/39 I- - - - - - mm \ / m- 1 208/326, 498/619 1 54/65% '+ M m !1 ev 152/183— emm \ 205/240 \ 59/70, 588/576' / Me `370/520 \ `� / \ \ \ ` 7 r ♦1004/2026 1 2364/1607-+ I mJJ / o �7017fi 206/176 `� �-1434/2509 / � / nem M \ \ \ / O I r `18/11 1 / Q 1 325/255-'4�58I56 \\ 2 \ 2152/1732+ R Q / / 1 C�/�`p .''' / N`e ~64122 1 16/12 4/5 _ r 112/50) } I ' 1 45/22 159/120, N / 20125 / 3N / \ 1771125 / A 1 Q' h= 16/41 36/54 \ ` ! 1814/3154 --1527/2588 1 `\ I �1 + x58/88 1 `� \ 1 44/99% I CLIFF D I / M 225911734 } / �- 1 83/71 J } (� �'^� o `192/253 \ --- A N Q r \ 2448/2327+ _o a 1 ! % NI I r 104/208/02 1 \ 1/21, o o / ¢ 2 \ 361/406 m / I / / m CO e \ " M / 1 937/880) TC / J \ 1763/1567+ N M o ! 25/26-N'Na / / N �........... / o w `11/13 / M7 X1711/2398 r+� r62144 1------5/4 - 2129/2111- 40 134 129/211-40/34 m'� `549/1119 '- vim �--1508/2494 \ 1 r44/52 I m 129/159, "� } r ' -- 2162/1608 w z v 1 Legend: \ 26/26--, Not to Scale XX/XX AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes `\ // Forecast Cumulative Without Project Project Site Boundary \ — � / Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes H:\pdata\10107807\Traffic\Exhibits\Exhl3.ai Exhibit 13 11 0 0 0 FEB/2011 FORECAST CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT CONDITIONS Forecast cumulative with project conditions traffic volumes were derived by adding proposed project generated trips to forecast cumulative without project conditions scenario. As previously noted, forecast cumulative with project conditions do not account for the displaced existing specialty retail land use as assumed in the TPO analysis. Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Exhibit 14 shows forecast cumulative with project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour volumes at the study intersections. Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions Level of Service Table 12 summarizes forecast cumulative with project conditions a.m. and p.m. peak hour LOS of the study intersections; detailed LOS analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B. Table 12 Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Int. No. Study Intersection Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions Increase in VIC Significant Impact? AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour VIC - LOS V/C - LOS VIC - LOS VIC - LOS AM PM 1 Irvine Ave/Dover Dr 0.561 -A 0.682 - B 0.562 - A 0.684 - B 0.001 0.002 No 2 Irvine Ave/171h St 0.514 - A 0.718 - C 0.514 - A 0.720 - C 0.000 0.002 No 3 Dover Dr/Westcliff Dr 0.391 - A 0.461 -A 0.392 - A 0.466 -A 0.001 0.005 No 4 Dover Dr/16th St 0.613 - B 0.523 - A 0.614 - B 0.521 -A 0.001 -0.002 No 5 Dover Dr/Cliff Dr 0.575-A 0.530-A 0.577-A 0.540-A 0.002 0.010 No 6 Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.973 - E 0.867 - D 0.973 - E 0.869 - D 0.000 0.002 No 7 Riverside Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.735 - C 0.791 - C 0.737 - C 0.794 - C 0.002 0.003 No 8 Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.739 - C 0.654 - B 0.740 - C 0.657 - B 0.001 0.003 No 9 Balboa Bay Club Dwy/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.738 - C 0.805 - D 0.741 - C 0.809 - D 0.003 0.004 No 10 Dover DrM/. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.702 - C 0.809 - D 0.702 - C 0.822 - D 0.000 0.013 No 11 Bayside Dr/E. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.664 - B 0.670 - B 0.664 - B 0.672 - B 0.000 0.002 No 12 Jamboree Rd/E. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 0.664 - B 0.841 - D 0.664 - B 0.843 - D 0.000 0.002 No Note: V/C = volume to capacity ratio; SB = southbound; Deficient intersection operation shown in bold. As shown in Table 12, with the addition of proposed project -generated trips, the study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) for forecast cumulative with project conditions according to City of Newport Beach performance criteria with the exception of the Newport Boulevard Southbound Ramps/West Coast Highway (SR -1) study intersection during the a.m. peak hour which is forecast to continue to operate at LOS E. 16 192 `60/70 t 265/266 / \ ( �N x-331/708 ! m1m°' ♦1561183 r + x28/101 1 r I `20/39 I- - - - - - mm \ 1 208/326, 1 54/65% 4991624+ m m ! 1 ee 152/183+ emm \ 2051240 m e \ sn m I \ 7 59/70, n�� / 1 85I719J f ( "/ `370/520 \ CO / \ \ \ ` 7�j, 1 ♦1004/2030 1 2365/1612-+ I mJJ / X70178 206/176 N� / h / mem —1435/2520 �n \ \ / O I Ir 5 rn r \ r 18/11 1 / �� _ \ Q n�X\\ 1 325/25} (� / a Mo \ `O 2 \ 2156/1746 o�� / ! �` 1 C�/Tp �'�' / ~516/12 8156 64/22 1 '�I \ / 1 112/50 } ' 1 45/22 160/125, / \ 20/25 N / / \ 1781127 . 7 \ / NOW 16/41 t JCO / ��`y' X36/54 181613161 —1528/2601 1 `\ I �J + � r58/88 1 ` 1 44/99% I CLIFF D I / M 2264/1751 � r / �- 1 83/71 J } (� n �^.� o` `192/253 \ N2448/2332+ 1218/2207 ---A 1/21, oo / mCz \ 361/410 a / I �+` x104/208 1 \ Q2 \ N M 1 937/882% �t r 1763/1571 NMO / p'9 25/26 ti i2 0 ............\ M / / N ...........e / mow `11/73 / �M7 1712/2411 i + � e x64/67 1- I / 09 1 5/4% 1r N 2134/2128-+ i? n / / M m \ 40/34-X�� / / M'o `549/1119 Nviml �--1511/2506 \ \ 1 x44/52 I m 1 1351190, } r 2163/1817p 1 UJ Legend: \-- \ zs/zs--, Not to Scale xx/xx AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes �\ // Forecast Cumulative With Project Project Site Boundary - / Conditions AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes H\pd.M\10107807\Tra1B Exhibits\Exhl4..i Exhibit 14 FEB/2011 As also shown in Table 12, based on City -established thresholds of significance, the addition of project -generated trips to the study intersections is forecast to result in no significant impacts for forecast cumulative with project conditions. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS The project site currently permits a 0.50 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) maximum. The project proposes to increase the maximum FAR on the project site to 0.68. This section calculates the proposed incremental increase in trips associated with the proposed increase in FAR at the project site. Table 13 summarizes the incremental increase in square footage based on the proposed 0.68 FAR and the permitted 0.50 FAR. Table 13 Incremental Increase in Square Footage Per Proposed Project Site FAR Increase Land Use Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Land Use Square Footage Based on FAR Proposed 0.68 23,015 square feet Permitted 0.50 16,923 square feet Proposed Net Incremental Square Footage Increase 6,092 square feet As shown in Table 13, the total net incremental square footage increase associated with the increase of 0.18 in FAR at the project site to accommodate the proposed project is 6,092 square feet. To calculate trips forecast to be generated by the net incremental square footage increase, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates were utilized. Table 14 summarizes the ITE trip generation rates used to calculate the number of trips forecast to be generated by the net incremental square footage increase. Table 14 Proposed Project Trip Rates Land Use Units AM Peak Hour Rates PM Peak Hour Rates Daily Trip Rate In Out Total In Out Total Specialty Retail tsf 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.19 1.52 2.71 44.32 Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, 8"' Edition Note: tsf = thousand square feet Table 15 shows the incremental increase of trips forecast to be generated by the proposed project assuming the proposed increase in FAR of 0.18 at the project site. 17 Table 15 Incremental Increase in Trips Per Proposed Project Site FAR Increase Note: tsf = thousand square feet; *Zero a.m. peak hour trips since ITE a.m. peak hour rate for specialty retail is zero. As shown in Table 15, based on the trip generation rates contained in Table 14, an increase in FAR of 0.18 at the project site is forecast to generate approximately 270 new daily trips, which includes approximately 0 new a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 16 new p.m. peak hour trips. Therefore, the proposed increase in FAR of 0.18 at the project site to accommodate the proposed project is not anticipated to cause any significant traffic impacts due to the small incremental increase in daily and peak hour trips. SITE ACCESS The proposed project plans to consolidate the project access locations at West Coast Highway (SR -1) from the three current right-in/right-out access locations to one proposed right-in/right-out driveway access location and one right -turn out only driveway access location. Striping is also proposed along West Coast Highway (SR -1) to guide westbound through traffic away from the project access locations and to provide a refuge for buses at the relocated bus stop between the two project access locations. Exhibit 15 shows recommendations for the proposed site access to further reinforce one access location is for entering/exiting and one location is for exiting only. ORANGE COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) states that if a project generating 1,600 or more trips/day will directly access, or is in close proximity to, a CMP Highway System link, a CMP traffic impact analysis is required. The proposed project is forecast to generate 1,533 trips per day; therefore, no CMP traffic impact analysis is required for the proposed project. STATE HIGHWAY INTERSECTION ANALYSIS This section evaluates the forecast impact of project -generated trips at the following State Highway study intersections: Newport Boulevard Southbound Ramps/West Coast Highway (SR -1); • Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway (SR -1); 18 29,5 AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Daily Land Use Trips In Out Total In Out Total 6.092 tsf — Proposed Specialty Retail 0` 0` 0* 7 9 16 270 Square Footage Increase Proposed Incremental Trip Increase 0* 0* 0* 7 9 16 270 Note: tsf = thousand square feet; *Zero a.m. peak hour trips since ITE a.m. peak hour rate for specialty retail is zero. As shown in Table 15, based on the trip generation rates contained in Table 14, an increase in FAR of 0.18 at the project site is forecast to generate approximately 270 new daily trips, which includes approximately 0 new a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 16 new p.m. peak hour trips. Therefore, the proposed increase in FAR of 0.18 at the project site to accommodate the proposed project is not anticipated to cause any significant traffic impacts due to the small incremental increase in daily and peak hour trips. SITE ACCESS The proposed project plans to consolidate the project access locations at West Coast Highway (SR -1) from the three current right-in/right-out access locations to one proposed right-in/right-out driveway access location and one right -turn out only driveway access location. Striping is also proposed along West Coast Highway (SR -1) to guide westbound through traffic away from the project access locations and to provide a refuge for buses at the relocated bus stop between the two project access locations. Exhibit 15 shows recommendations for the proposed site access to further reinforce one access location is for entering/exiting and one location is for exiting only. ORANGE COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The Orange County Congestion Management Program (CMP) states that if a project generating 1,600 or more trips/day will directly access, or is in close proximity to, a CMP Highway System link, a CMP traffic impact analysis is required. The proposed project is forecast to generate 1,533 trips per day; therefore, no CMP traffic impact analysis is required for the proposed project. STATE HIGHWAY INTERSECTION ANALYSIS This section evaluates the forecast impact of project -generated trips at the following State Highway study intersections: Newport Boulevard Southbound Ramps/West Coast Highway (SR -1); • Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway (SR -1); 18 29,5 �p lot to Scale H\pdata\1010]8077ra 6Exhihits\Exh15.ai FEB/2011 Project Site Access Recommendations %° g • Tustin Avenue/West Coast Highway (SR -1); • Balboa Bay Club Entrance/West Coast Highway (SR -1); • Dover Drive/West Coast Highway (SR -1); and • Bayside Drive/East Coast Highway (SR -1). State Highway Intersection Analysis Methodology Caltrans advocates use of Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) intersection analysis methodology to analyze the operation of signalized intersections. The HCM analysis methodology describes the operation of an intersection using a range of LOS from LOS A (free-flow conditions) to LOS F (severely congested conditions), based on the corresponding stopped delay experienced per vehicle as shown in Table 16. Table 16 State Highway Intersection LOS & Delay Ranges LOS Delay (in seconds) Signalized Intersections A < 10.0 B >10.0to<20.0 C >20.0to<35.0 D >35.0to<55.0 E > 55.0 to < 80.0 F > 80.0 Source:Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, HCM 2000 Edition (Washington D.C., 2000). Level of service is based on the average stopped delay per vehicle for all movements of signalized intersections. The Caltrans target for peak hour intersection operation is LOS C or better. State Highway Intersection Thresholds of Significance While Caltrans has not established traffic thresholds of significance at State Highway intersections, this traffic analysis utilizes the following traffic threshold of significance: • A significant project impact occurs at a State Highway study intersection when the addition of project -generated trips causes the peak hour level of service of the study intersection to change from acceptable operation (LOS A, B, or C) to deficient operation (LOS D, E or F). Existing Conditions Table 17 summarizes existing a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour LOS of the State Highway study intersections; detailed LOS analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B. 19 199 Table 17 State Highway Existing Conditions AM & PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Int. No. Study Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay -LOS Delay -LOS 6 Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 15.6 - B 18.0 - B 7 Riverside Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 12.3 - B 16.0 - B 8 Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 3.4 - A 6.4 - A 9 Balboa Bay Dwy/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 4.5-A 4.8 - A 10 Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 20.6 - C 22.1 - C 11 Bayside Dr/E. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 12.2 - B 12.6 - B 12 Jamboree Rd/E. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 27.3 - C 28.2 - C Note: SB = southbound. As shown in Table 17, the State Highway study intersections are currently operating at a acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) according to Caltrans performance criteria. Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions Table 18 summarizes forecast existing plus project conditions a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour LOS of the State Highway study intersections; detailed LOS analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B. Table 18 State Highway Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions AM & PM Peak Intersection Hour LOS Int. No. Study Intersection Existing Conditions M AM Peak Hour PPeak Hour Forecast Existing Plus Project Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Significant Impact?? Delay - LOS Delay - LOS Delay - LOS Delay - LOS 6 Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 15.6 - B 18.0 - B 15.6 - B 18.0 - B No 7 Riverside Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 12.3 - B 16.0 - B 12.3 - B 16.0 - B No 8 Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 3.4-A 6.4-A 3.4-A 6.4-A No 9 Balboa Bay Dwy/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 4.5 -A 4.8 -A 4.6-A 5.3 - A No 10 Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 20.6 - C 22.1 - C 20.7 - C 22.7 - C No 11 Bayside Dr/E. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 12.2 - B 12.6 - B 12.3 - B 12.7 - B No 12 Jamboree Rd/E. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 27.3 - C 28.2 - C 27.3 - C 28.2 - C No Note: SB = southbound. As shown in Table 18, with the addition of project -generated trips, the State Highway study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) according to Caltrans performance criteria for forecast existing plus project conditions. 20 200 As also shown in Table 18, the addition of project -generated trips is forecast to result in no significant impacts at the State Highway study intersections for forecast existing plus project conditions. Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions Table 19 summarizes forecast cumulative without project conditions a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour LOS of the State Highway study intersections; detailed LOS analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B. Table 19 State Highway Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions AM & PM Peak Hour Intersection LOS Int. No. Study Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Delay —LOS Delay —LOS 6 Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 23.3 — C 23.9 — C 7 Riverside Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 12.7 — B 16.6 — B 8 Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 3.7 —A 6.5 — A 9 Balboa Bay Dwy/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 5.0 — A 5.7 — A 10 over Dr/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 11 Bayside Dr/E. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 14.1 — B 15.1 — B 12 Jamboree Rd/E. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 29.0 — C 32.6 — C Note: SB = southbound. As shown in Table 19, the State Highway study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) according to Caltrans performance criteria for forecast cumulative without project conditions. Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions Table 20 summarizes forecast cumulative with project conditions a.m. peak hour and p.m. peak hour LOS of the State Highway study intersections; detailed LOS analysis sheets are contained in Appendix B. 21 201 Table 20 State Highway Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions AM & PM Peak Intersection Hour LOS Int. No. Study Intersection Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Significant Impact? Delay — LOS Delay — LOS Delay — LOS Delay — LOS 6 Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 23.3 — C 23.9 — C 23.3 — C 24.0 — C No 7 Riverside Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 12.7 — B 16.6 — B 12.7 — B 16.6 — B No 8 Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 3.7—A 6.5—A 3.7—A 6.5—A No 9 Balboa Bay Dwy/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 5.0—A 5.7—A 5.0—A 6.3—A No 10 Dover DAN. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 21.0 — C 23.7 — C 21.1 — C 24.4 — C No 11 Bayside Dr/E. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 14.1 — B 15.1 — B 14.2 — B 15.2 — B No 12 Jamboree Rd/E. Coast Hwy (SR -1) 29.0 — C 32.6 — C 29.0 — C 32.6 — C No Note: SB = southbound. As shown in Table 20, with the addition of project -generated trips, the State Highway study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) according to Caltrans performance criteria for forecast cumulative with project conditions. As also shown in Table 20, the addition of project -generated trips is forecast to result in no significant impacts at the State Highway study intersections for forecast cumulative with project conditions. MITIGATION MEASURES No traffic mitigation measures are required for the proposed project since no significant traffic impacts are forecast to occur based on agency thresholds of significance. CONCLUSIONS The proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 1,292 net new daily trips, which includes approximately 16 net new a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 70 net new p.m. peak hour trips as analyzed in the TPO analysis. The proposed project is also forecast to generate approximately 1,533 daily trips, which includes approximately 48 a.m. peak hour trips and approximately 84 p.m. peak hour trips as analyzed in the cumulative analysis. Based on City of Newport Beach established thresholds of significance, the addition of project - generated trips is forecast to result in no significant TPO impacts at the study intersections for forecast year 2013 with project conditions. Also, based on City established thresholds of significance, the addition of project -generated trips to the study intersections is forecast to result in no significant impacts for forecast existing plus project conditions or forecast cumulative with project conditions. No traffic mitigation measures are required for the proposed project since no significant traffic impacts are forecast to occur based on agency thresholds of significance. H:\pdata\10107807\Traffic\Ad mi n\7807_trf.doc 22 202 Attachment No. CC 7 June 23, 2011, Planning Commission Hearing Meetings 203 204 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Council Chambers — 3300 Newport Boulevard Thursday, June 23, 2011 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 p.m. CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. B. DGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Led by Chairperson McDaniel C. ROLL LL PRESENT: Ameri, Eaton, Hawkins, Hillgren, McDanielXToge, and Unsworth ABSENT (EXCUSED): None. Staff Present: Ki erly Brandt, Community D elopment Director, James Campbell, Princi I Planner, Gregg Ra ml ,Senior Planner, Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Atto ey, Tony Brine, y Traffic Engineer, Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner, an arlene Bur ,Administrative Assistant D. RECOGNITION OF CHAIRPERSON E MCDANIEL AND COMMISSIONER BARRY EATON FOR THEIR DEDICATION AND YEA OF RVICE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION Kimberly Brandt, Community Devel ent Director, Jbires Campbell, Principal Planner, and the Commissioners spoke briefly about mmissioner Barry Eaton' nd Chair Earl McDaniel's accomplishments and thanked them for their dedic n and years of service on the Ptanning Commission. E. PUBZreside, Dan Purcell,sed his concerns regarding excessive trash and siciousactivity in front of derelict propel Mar, presented the Commission with pictures of the 'rt and debris within the property, andhe properties be cleaned up. F. ,REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCES — None. rd- CONSENT ITEMS ITEM NO. 1 Minutes of June 9, 2011 Motion made by Commissioner Ameri and seconded by Vice Chair Unsworth, and carried (5 — 0) with two abstentions to approve the minutes, as corrected. AYES: Ameri, Eaton, McDaniel, Toerge, and Unsworth NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: Hawkins and Hillgren :01-1IDa: 1mr_1:71z[H:I4LT, 6' ITEM NO. 2 Mariner's Pointe - (PA2010-114) 100 — 300 West Coast Highway Page 1 of 7 205 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/23/2011 The applicant is seeking a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to accommodate the development of a 23,015 -square -foot, two-story commercial building and a three-story parking structure. The following applications are requested or required in order to implement the project as proposed: General Plan Amendment No. GP2010-009, Code Amendment No. CA2010-009, Site Development Review No. SR2010-001, Conditional Use Permit No. UP2010-024, Variance No. VA 2010-004, Parcel Map No. NP2010-008 and Traffic Study No. TS2011-001. Commissioner Ameri recused himself from this item and left the dais as he currently works at RBF, the company which completed the traffic study for the project. A staff report and PowerPoint presentation were provided by Associate Planner Jaime Murillo. Associate Planner Murillo stated that the project implements the City's goal of improving the Mariner's Mile Corridor, and results in the redevelopment of a dilapidated property. He stated that the City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the parking management plan and that the plan will function adequately. In response to questions from the Commission, Associate Planner Murillo clarified that the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework requires a minimum four (4) foot landscape strip from the back of the sidewalk and should have a row of palm trees and hedges to add to the continuity of landscaping along Mariner's Mile Corridor and that the project is consistent with the Mariner's Mile framework related to landscaping. As proposed there is approximately a 700 -square -foot outdoor patio for outdoor dining located within the right-of-way, and Staff is recommending that review of the outdoor patio be deferred until the restaurants actually come in with solid proposals so that Staff can understand the specific operational characteristics and operational hours. Until such time Staff is recommending that the portion of right-of-way be landscaped consistent with the approved landscape plan. Staff indicated that parking was difficult to determine at this time given that the project is a "shell" building and the specific restaurants are not known. A fairly conservative estimate was made with regard to net public area of the restaurants being sixty (60%) percent of the total gross floor area and there is some flexibility with the project once the restaurants do come in. If there is an increase in parking demand, Staff will be looking to limit the net public area of those restaurants concurrent with the reduction of parking needed. In regard to additional off-site parking and based on the parking demand study, the project only needs nine (9) off-site parking spaces, but the applicant is able to lease 20 parking spaces from the medical office complex. In the future, there may be opportunities on the adjacent commercial properties to lease additional parking spaces should those property owners be willing to do so. A letter of intent was received from the owner of the medical office building at Dover and Cliff Drive, stating that he is willing to provide the applicant with off-site parking for the duration of the 11 years and, if their lease is extended, the owner would be willing to provide an extension to the off-site parking agreement as well. If the off-site parking agreement is approved, the applicant will be required to enter into an off-site parking agreement with the City and the off-site parking owner ensuring that those parking spaces are available. The delineation of the suites on the floor plans can change since they are just illustrative and no uses have been proposed yet. Condition 19 in the recommended Conditions of Approval should read that "all employees are required to park on-site or at the approved off-site parking lot unless otherwise approved." Based on the proposal from the applicant indicating the that the restaurants will be high-quality, low - turnover restaurants, Staff used a parking ratio of one (1) parking space per 50 square feet of net public area and clarified that the Conditional Use Permit states that uses are permitted, or conditionally Page 2 of 7 200 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/23/2011 permitted, consistent with provisions of the Zoning Code and that commercial parking structures do not count toward the total floor area of any commercial project. Discussion ensued between Associate Planner Murillo, the Commission, and Staff regarding adequate signage for the entrance and exit -only driveways, location of the valet stand, turning radius conditions for passenger vehicles, grade of the driveway, handicapped spaces on each parking level, size of the parking stalls and Staffs recommendation in Condition 3 regarding the outdoor patio area and the parking structure dimensions. Tod Ridgeway, representing the applicant VBAS, thanked Commissioner Eaton and Chair McDaniel for their dedication and years of service on the Planning Commission. Mr. Ridgeway, noted that his personal residence is adjacent to the proposed project. He further stated that the Mariner's Mile Association was in support of the project, that the project complies with all components of the Mariner's Mile overlay, and that the project supports the demand for restaurant use on that site. Mr. Ridgeway stated commented on the parking components of the parking structure, and that the Environment Impact Report did not identify any negative impacts. All elements of the design were included to recognize and mitigate traffic, noise, and light impacts. He stated that after meeting with the neighbors, the roof heights were lowered and a new roof was placed over the parking structure. The roof was designed to not change the overall look of the project. In regard to proposed tenants, Winston Jewelers will occupy a suite on the ground floor, and restaurant and various other uses will occupy the remaining suites on both levels. It was noted for the record that Mr. Ridgeway was a former Councilmember. Mr. Ridgeway also affirmed that the developer would quickly "bulldoze" and clean up the property if the project is approved. In terms of the permanency of the Caltrans encroachments, Mr. Ridgeway stated his confidence that the landscape areas are in the project in perpetuity. Mr. Ridgeway clarified that the City and City Council are working on relinquishment of a highway in front of the property, but one of the issues is not putting the two bridges into the Capital Improvement Plan. He mentioned that it is not anticipated Caltrans would need additional right-of-way adjacent to the project site. He does not want to see a freeway or widening of the highway to go through that area and does not predict that Dover will be expanded. In response to an inquiry from the Commission, Mr. Ridgeway stated he requests approval of the project as submitted, along with the incremental increase in square footage which causes no impacts, and that he and the developer are not interested in redesigning the project. Todd Stoutenborough, Architect representing the applicant, utilized a PowerPoint presentation and spoke to specific details about the proposed project. Due to illness, Commissioner Eaton excused himself from the remainder of the meeting. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Stoutenborough clarified that the height of the fagade in regards to the parking structure is approximately 28 feet and stated that cars will not be seen because they are behind the wall, the view of the water will not be impaired, the entry way into the parking structure will be hard to miss because it is approximately 30 feet wide and 14 feet high, if a person missed the first entry into the parking structure they can still enter through the exit driveway because of the large space and mentioned that the height of the palm trees do not obscure the visibility of street signs. In response to questions from the Commission concerning parking management, Kynn Knight, Sunset Parking, clarified that there is guest parking until 5:00 p.m. on level one (1) of the parking structure. In response to questions from the Commission, Mr. Knight explained that the parallel valet parking spaces are only intended for peak summer months when the restaurants are extremely busy and an attendant Page 3 of 7 20 j NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/23/2011 would be stationed with the cars when parked behind handicapped stalls. The parallel parking stalls are included in the total number of parking stalls within the parking structure. Discussion ensued between Mr. Stoutenborough, Mr. Knight, the Commission and Staff regarding the potential danger of having parallel parking spaces within a parking structure and how it could constrict and slow down the circulation if a fire were to occur, if the handicapped parking stalls on level three (3) are employee -only are there enough handicapped stalls within the parking structure based on its square footage, the City rule regarding valet parking which states that you can move one car to get one car, whether a fire -truck can be pulled into level one (1) of the parking structure and the total number of valet attendants needed to run the parking structure effectively. Chair McDaniel opened the Public Hearing. Cameron Merage, resident, expressed his concerns regarding impairment of views of the bay, the height of the proposed three (3) story parking structure is an issue in regards to employees and customers loitering on the roof top, the parking structure will decrease the privacy of the adjacent backyards, the odor and fumes of food from the restaurants will constantly blow into the adjacent properties, the project will create a significant shadow over the rear end of the property making it nearly impossible for any vegetation and ground cover to grow and will result in unstable areas because the sun will be prevented from hitting the lowest areas of the adjacent properties, issues with the retaining wall and zero lot line variance, noise concerns from the restaurants and outdoor dining patio and stated that the addition of a roof on top of the parking structure will not completely block out all of the noise as proposed. Maury Dewald, resident, stated that it is a great project except it is in the wrong location and expressed his concerns regarding the variances, the parking management plan, potential traffic in front of the parking structure, and the size of the project. Mike Hilford, resident, expressed his concerns regarding light pollution issues, and that the actual height of the building will be much greater than what is being proposed. Laura Tarbox, private fiduciary representing an adjacent property, read a letter of concern from a potential buyer and stated that her property fell out of escrow again because potential buyers have concerns regarding the impact of this project and rumors that there are going to be many variances made that will increase the height and size of the project beyond what would normally be allowed, expressed her concern that the project is much bigger than what the space permits and mentioned her confusion regarding easements, the elimination of the five (5) foot setback and the need to encroach on adjacent property. Dave Kohn, resident, stated that the projects' proposed architecture is very beautiful but feels that the project requires overbuilding in that area and expressed his concerns regarding the number of assumptions being made, variances in heights and square footage, elimination of the setback, overflow parking at the medical office building, lack of solid restaurant proposals and potential late night noise from the restaurants. Dan Purcell, resident, expressed his concerns regarding how the restaurants plan on getting rid of waste, grease and food product, asked for a brief description of how the dumpster area will be accessed by the restaurants and what vehicles will be accessing the waste and picking up the trash. Michael Robertson, resident, expressed his concerns regarding traffic because Mariner's Mile is already a congested area, stated that the project is extremely ambitious but some changes can be made that will still yield the profits that the present owners desire, inquired as to whether the parking structure exit will be right -turn only, mentioned concerns regarding noise and odor from the restaurants, the precedent set by Page 4 of 7 202 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/23/2011 the project being built in such a congested area, impacts on the quality of tife for residents in that area, stated that he is opposed to the project as it stands but is encouraged by the thought given to developing that area and commended everyone for their hard work and time put into this project. Tom Lally, resident, stated that the noise factor will disturb the tranquility of the residents and their properties, expressed his concerns regarding noise from the parking structure and outside dinning patio and stated that this project is intolerable for residents living in Newport Beach. Ron Hendrickson, resident, stated that it is a beautiful project but it is over -scaled for the size of property in question, expressed his concerns regarding the project owners' lack of experience as a shopping center operator and the fear that the project might not be successful, actual access into the project from the street, the right -turn only exit requiring customers to travel a far distance in order to make a u -turn if they want to head east -bound, mandatory valet parking, the number of conditions that raise questions about the convenience of getting to the shopping center and suggested that the Planning Commission take into account the circulation situation getting to and from the shopping center. Jack Geerlings, resident, stated that he is opposed to the Mariner's Mile project as presented because the project is way over -built, the parking structure takes up more than half of the property cramping the retail space into the east part of the property, stated that if the parking structure were underground the project would not be as big of an issue as it its now, the parking structure exceeds the 31 foot height limit, noise from the parking structure, the proposed roof covering the parking structure is only partial leaving the front of the parking structure open allowing noise to filtrate out, granting of the five (5) foot variance setback should not be allowed because it constitutes a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on the other properties, traffic concerns including serious accidents that may occur due to the three lanes merging into two, vehicles exiting the right -turn only exit and the u -turns customers must make in order to head east -bound and the fact that these massive building structures will reduce the property values on adjacent homes on the hill. Chair McDaniel closed the Public Hearing. In response to public hearing comments and concerns, Mr. Ridgeway spoke regarding the requested height increase of the parking structure, a letter referencing the specific design of the project, stated that the variance goes into a cliffside on the projects' property, addressed noise concerns, stated that they have protected the view so there is no view blockage, stated that the hard surfaces on the back of parking structure will not allow for noise to emanate from the parking structure, addressed traffic concerns mentioning the highway allows for u -turns and capture intervals on the traffic signals at Dover and the Bay Club, stated that this project will not set a negative precedent due to the uniqueness of the property, stated that there are some issues with the way the codes are drafted and written, stated that the parking structure will attenuate noise and light impacts, stated that this is a high-end project that is much needed in Mariner's Mile by providing new jobs and redevelopment to the area, underground parking is not a consideration and stated that the front portion of the parking structure is not covered over a ramp but noise can be controlled because the third floor is employee and valet parking. Mr. Stoutenborough addressed lighting issues in the parking structure, noise emanating from the north side of the parking structure and the mechanism that will eliminate fumes and odor from the restaurants' kitchens. Discussion ensued between Bob Matson, RBF Consulting (Traffic Impact Analysis Consultant), John Vang, Environmental Consultant (The Planning Center), Mr. Ridgeway, Mr. Stoutenborough, the Commission and Staff regarding the 4 -hour concrete wall enclosing the parking structure which would eliminate any light or noise from escaping the structure, the proposed color and materials to be used for the roof of the parking structure, site plan for the third level of the parking structure, a potential light - Page 5 of 7 209 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/23/2011 colored roof for the parking structure, the varying roof heights of the parking structure, westerly elevation of the parking structure, whether or not the roof covers the ramp, the zero -lot line variance, the shadow and aesthetic impact because of the size of the structure on the adjacent properties, the potential precedent this project might set in Mariner's Mile, the project trip assignment, approximately 48 trips turning in and 36 trips exiting the parking structures' driveways in aggregate at p.m. peak hours, the lack of detail provided for the parking structures' roof, the partial roof design, the fact that the parking structure requires its own discretionary action, review and public hearing because it is adjacent to residential homes, the fact that this project is seeking variances from the Zoning Code, potential impacts on residents, the narrowness of the property, and the project owners' lack of experience as a shopping center operator. Commissioner Toerge stated his concerns regarding the roof and that the level of detail provided in the application or verbally by the applicant was not adequate. He also expressed his concerns regarding locating a parking structure adjacent to residential housing, placing parked cars thirty (30) feet closer to residents with only a partial roof. Mr. Toerge further stated that he felt that compensation was tendered to the property owner at the time property frontage was dedicated and sold to Caltrans and presumably the seller considered the negative affects such dedication would cause to the development of the property and took that into consideration when pricing the sale. He noted his concerns in approving this project and forwarding it to the City Council. His major concern was the parking structure and the impacts it will create and that he could not support approval of the project as currently presented by the applicant. Commissioner Hillgren expressed his thanks to staff and the applicant for their documentation of this issue. He further stated that the general CEQA issues have primarily been addressed, although the project as presented in terms of traffic, pedestrians, and patronage issues could create liability for the applicant and for the City. He stated that there is an opportunity to get to .5 FAR, and to push it to a .7, would require the applicant making a "more compelling" case. Part of his difficulty in making findings for approval of the project were the fact that the majority of future tenants were unknown and this provided a challenge in affirming the future success and operability of the project. Commissioner Hillgren made a motion to deny Items 1 — 7 as presented and to deny approval of the project. Commissioner Hawkins seconded the motion with a suggested amendment to "deny without prejudice." This would allow the project to be resubmitted earlier than allowed by the Zoning Code. Principal Planner Campbell stated that a "denial without prejudice' could allow the applicant to resubmit the project as soon as the following day. Chair McDaniel stated that during the public hearing, that the applicant was not interested in a redesign requires significant changes. the applicant's representative, Mr. Ridgeway, stated of the project. Mr. McDaniel stated that the project Commissioner Hillgren amended his motion to "deny approval of the project without prejudice'. Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill clarified that a motion to "deny without prejudice" gives the applicant the ability to resubmit the same project with no limitation in terms of subsequent applications and no limitation on the time frame for re -submittal. Commissioner Hillgren stated that the project, as submitted, requires significant change. Page 6 of 7 210 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 06/23/2011 Assistant City Attorney Mulvihill noted that the Community Development Director would notice the Planning Commission as to the future re -submittal of the project and whether it was the same or substantially the same as currently presented. Commissioner Hawkins stated that this particular site needs a similar -type project; however, he has serious concerns regarding the feasibility of the project as submitted. Community Development Director Brandt affirmed that it was the maker of the motion's intent to "deny without prejudice", which would not set limitations, such as the one (1) year requirement, as to when the applicant can resubmit the project. Commissioner Hawkins acknowledged that the site is challenged, underdeveloped and underutilized and that there is support for redeveloping the entirety of Mariner's Mile including this site. He would prefer to see a "somewhat reduced" project with a more feasible parking plan. Chair McDaniel stated that he would support the motion to "deny the project without prejudice." He further noted that a project is needed at that particular site; however, the project as proposed this evening left too many unanswered questions as to the actual successful operations of the project when completed. He stated his concerns regarding the lack of identification of long-term offsite parking, if it was determined to be necessary and that in his experience as a Planning Commissioner, this project required too many different items (deviations) to be approved. Motion made by Commissioner Hillgren and seconded by Commissioner Hawkins, and carried (5 — 0, one recusal, one absence) to deny the item without prejudice. AYES: Hawkins, Hillgren, McDaniel, Toerge, and Unsworth NOES: None. ABSENT: Ameri (recused), Eaton (excused) ABSTAIN: None. Chair McDaniel affirmed that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is not necessary because of the previous vote. NEW BUSINESS — None. J. STAFF AND COMMISSIONER ITEMS ITEM NO. 6—6ymunity Development Director's report. 817T ITEM NO. 7 Announcements atters that Comm' on members would like placed on a future agenda for discussion, a , or r Commissioner Toerge asked whether any progre as made on State legislation regarding solar panels. Staff explained that the draft solar ulations and P ng Commission recommendations would be going before the City Council late s summer. ITEM NO. 8 Re st for excused absences. None. The Planning Commission adjourned in honor of Susan M. Trager at 10:12 p.m. Page 7 of 7 211 212 Attachment No. CC 8 Modified Plans 2i3 214 �ne4.fvr¢ceiit Cdrrn b < PARKING LEVEL 1 �Ex m.pm0�v%� � PARKING SPACES ti' -O 'pal AI4IE I _a NeO I. I`1V dediCGi/ EMIEIING CURD log's "n / G thef 1 iT sea wne><eoa-1 Itl'SEWER urvE Ground Level 9,681 of pwmLd-�-llt 11'a ' nem Nolen m comply Wth now coo. io be Wopm'lw 1,820 of 19,905 of me av m lo,o, Oo«n-1mLw zol Gm. Mw Parkmg SMIcAR: N Type l ConsXucXon - R01114�QF e, — � - .=Exit — �� Untleglwntl Lines 1110EC I on; ` RELo ATeoO swop , — G H W A Y E S T C O A S T H I Frevmlx -+ TABULATION SUMMARY NeO I. I`1V dediCGi/ EMIEIING CURD log's "n / G thef 33098 of 1� J 8ervke Area torentiallmnel9 Itl'SEWER urvE Ground Level 9,681 of 1.135 of 10,808.E Ecal NG / CPo! IHEOvw.TION: Nolen m comply Wth now coo. io be Wopm'lw 1,820 of 19,905 of me av m lo,o, Oo«n-1mLw zol Gm. Mw Parkmg SMIcAR: N Type l ConsXucXon 111 8,59 nluv:prloolorea wimsn sea deleelce Uoes RanlPm )980 cmnm—W onlel, Fvpovcomnvmmn 155 1,697 I�ovr..lm e.HovrsapwnonmrmwnLlre Total 18p850 til sf igloos of do �21611011,a parking opposed! 0rt61h LnN HG Internal Tandem ended Tohl SLIT. Stall. Stall. Only 3moml Level P1 2 37 0 0 39 O Y6SS o Bel Service I _ e I"'mn opro:ae iq rmn.mr90e1 � of .1 rl v�P Column color Wee, ')Includes Etil Corrldor ama on It a E2, Eleramr 2$$ Eniry -_/ Mariner's Pointe =� xoa e TN WINSTON'S JEWELERS do VBAS Properties, Inc ItIlBeach ... doaN,5uMe336 "pompon... .g. W u Il mfrs S T 0 U I E N 1 0 eR EN'lE Ara kll•eIa and PI•..... R-10249soI R-103 iI EryIInP > I I III 111 I'll 1 ell ll, 125E 1 _ j 2396 So .439650 FI 2189 SQ FI 3602 50 Fi IL GnEa4E Jn MERCEPfpf n O - R01114�QF e, — � - .=Exit — �� Untleglwntl Lines 1110EC I on; ` RELo ATeoO swop , — G H W A Y E S T C O A S T H I Frevmlx -+ .1V11 IY1Grl XgbiW¢ Ground Level Plan on Site ,a,1>.2m, 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' 13r 4 Road Striping TABULATION SUMMARY NeO I. I`1V dediCGi/ EMIEIING CURD log's "n / G thef 33098 of 1� J 8ervke Area torentiallmnel9 Itl'SEWER urvE Ground Level 9,681 of 1.135 of 10,808.E Ecal NG / CPo! IHEOvw.TION: Nolen m comply Wth now coo. io be Wopm'lw 1,820 of 19,905 of me av m lo,o, Oo«n-1mLw zol Gm. Mw Parkmg SMIcAR: N Type l ConsXucXon 111 8,59 nluv:prloolorea wimsn sea deleelce Uoes RanlPm )980 cmnm—W onlel, Fvpovcomnvmmn 155 1,697 I�ovr..lm e.HovrsapwnonmrmwnLlre .1V11 IY1Grl XgbiW¢ Ground Level Plan on Site ,a,1>.2m, 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' 13r 4 Road Striping TABULATION SUMMARY WIN. Amo 33098 of Buldil GeneeeL—ble 8ervke Area torentiallmnel9 Ground Level 9,681 of 1.135 of 10,808.E Seetedl- 5,049 595 of 9,9999 Tobi Ill of 1,820 of 19,905 of Gm. Mw Gmea Reaburem Nea 6,683 111 8,59 v-_ Uoes RanlPm )980 791 8.051 3m. 9kdical Area 1,642 155 1,697 Total 18p850 til sf igloos of do �21611011,a parking opposed! 0rt61h LnN HG Internal Tandem ended Tohl SLIT. Stall. Stall. Only 3moml Level P1 2 37 0 0 39 f s—dl.eot P2 3 20 16 5 50 Third Level P3 0 24 32 5 61 Trod 5 87 a 10 150 Wee, ')Includes Etil Corrldor ama on It a E2, Eleramr Shafts and Scab 2 areae on one level only -_/ Mariner's Pointe =� West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS do VBAS Properties, Inc ItIlBeach ... doaN,5uMe336 "pompon... .g. S T 0 U I E N 1 0 1 0 U 6 0 F Ara kll•eIa and PI•..... 1]9 11'. 11— WeE fuel• 100 lelvnu leprl fe 19651 I III 111 I'll 1 ell ll, 125E 1 •.. ilev lv+h e'uvl Liv, ian 210 1611----T—_—� i--=T---�—L L I-Ia PMtKFIJG L�VEL�--L-- °fib 50 PARKING SPACES 03L_ .mu ll xnmak Second Level Plan on Site 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' IBJ 11655 uV 'e'vl SS ry lea. c v n 0 R-201 R-202 "'FFF 'I 15a2 Sp R 1781 SG R �I i II.I a ._z. 6 Nelen v/�y- I FLIP bell Slae� — Access Ay1G" E S T C O A S T H I G H W A Y J TABULATION SUMMARY Wn &h Wn 33,088 af Bal Are. Gress Leasable Mel G—SuIlem9l'1 Graune Leval 9,681 of 1,135 a1 I0,806.f &.ad Level B;dW of 696 of 0,099 a TOpI 18,085 If 1,820 f 19,905.f troas Area Gmea Real auranl Ma 6583 Graen Reran Area ],860 191 8.551 G—d deeiW Axa 1,512 155 1,697 T.WI 18,OBSsf 1,820 If 19,905 If Pal Rovll On -Me Level 1b; Mandate Tan Wel mall 6Wn. Man. Mau. Only Gonne Level m 2 37 0 0 39 Meand eavel P2 3 26 16 5 60 Third Level % 0 24 32 5 61 Town 5 07 48 18 150 NSW'. 1•I holudes Ewl Cnmdor area on Ll &L , Elevalor 5M1a16 and Sha r2 areas on one level ani, Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc 18502 Mach Boulevard, Sane 236 Xumland.Beae .a. S T 0 U I E N 1 0 1 0 U 6 0 F Ara Ulla era •nd Plan nWr. 1]9 11'. 11— Wef fuel• 100 reruns leprl fe 13651 I ,a, 111 I'll r all ll, 1251 1•vv ilev lv+h e'uvl Liv, ian 212 i Rendered Roof Plan * I Almr -- Elevation along West Coast Highway Lv Site Development Plan II10' 120' 30' 40 50' 60' 70' Location Map .mms� Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc IBSB3 Beac1,8aulevuO, Srlre336 Mumingian BeaeM1U93698 5 1 0 U 1 f N B 0 B 0 U f N AI i[ and P ar+srr 110 tb• r,. r a a 13 3:S! .. 220 155 IC W —. 1a - _ .MECNANIC>.. AREA WITH RODE � 1455 IB _ 'I_10T L �`S-PAIRKING UVfF3J ROOF rA —y o 61PARKINGSPACES v, n. sem )SEE UGHLNG PUN) 96'x" I]•o oOVEgISIE - Q DRI, 6LE — c n Wa nG (ryVlwll. t' cantle Stalls � 9 � a '�1< tlletw mplpyee) �eej we a aoo AL-25'-Itl' 5, NOif: Level 0'-U' =+12'4above 9e9Jevel )1 114 :ion Map nnme. Lower Roof Plan on Site ,.I919.ad. 1 111111 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' Ila 12 _ TABULATION SUMMARY eniwi,g a.. Gress Lea:sele xm[a rd Gwaewlemel'1 Grauntl Leval 9,681 rt 1,135 al 10,8U6 of Slwntl Level B;dW of 896 sf 9,099 W Topl 18,085 of 1.829 rt 19,905 of troaz Area Gmaa Walau2nl Ma 8;583 8]¢ 9,55] Gruen Rekll Area 7,860 191 8.551 Gross MetliW Axa 1,512 165 1,697 Tokl 1B,UASsf 1,829 sf 19,906m Parking Rovltletl On.Nk Level He Ranaae rane.m wet mkt sblle &ane Salle Onlr Gouna Level % 2 27 9 9 39 8ewnaLevel P2 3 26 16 5 50 Third Level P3 9 24 22 5 61 Tokl 5 A> 48 10 150 Wle'. (• Includes Eat (dmtloo area on L1 hL2 EleYalor 6M1at6 and 6dlr 2 amss on one level ony. Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS Vo VBAS Properties, Inc 18983 Aesea 8oulevaN,5uMe336 Xumin9lon Aea[MU9MW S T O U I E N I O I O U 6 N F Ara 1111• ala and PIWn nWra 1]9 vry IIT Wea fula 100 lelvnu lep�l fe 1]651 1111111 l]1! I all ll! lila i •vr rrev rv+h e'uvl Lrv� r[n 222 C TIP If mcl 1. .1 I.en", of 1 .1 on. al � I — — I L b L ,seen I" Upper Roof Plan on Site eI .... ... III � I � I � I � I � I � I � a 10, 20' 30' 40' 50' 60- 7V E=7 III IT _v., 'n /,� 4 To, 1-11 L AREA I ROOF TIP �l rL - , e- I TABULATION SUMMARY ago sh: a Car 0 Buildin.Are. Geseml-causable PIOPERTY I tNE (gramallullocal -22 9 681 f R 10,806 IT second L ... I so, g 695 ef 9ON or W., 18,045 of 1�820 of 135 -9 ROOF OVER PARKING 3Tc. Ressamnal ky. 6,683 1117 Gres. call jusla 7 NO �71 11 8:05, ,ade. khodboal man 1,642 165 1 697 Tom lasso 0 1,92. f igloos sf hurking Prormemed 0xv-Softs, Level HC Standand Tandem Valed Tonal Sol Real. III Onfly Cmsylld L. of 2 37 0 0 39 secondue,ot IT 3 26 16 5 50 Thinal Level P3 0 TIP If mcl 1. .1 I.en", of 1 .1 on. al � I — — I L b L ,seen I" Upper Roof Plan on Site eI .... ... III � I � I � I � I � I � I � a 10, 20' 30' 40' 50' 60- 7V E=7 III IT _v., 'n /,� 4 To, 1-11 L AREA I ROOF TIP �l rL - , e- I TABULATION SUMMARY ago sh: a Car 0 Buildin.Are. Geseml-causable Surnall (gramallullocal �Pmd Level 9 681 f IJ25 of 10,806 IT second L ... I so, g 695 ef 9ON or 7.1 18,045 of 1�820 of 19,905 of Gro. Areas 3Tc. Ressamnal ky. 6,683 1117 Gres. call jusla 7 NO �71 11 8:05, ,ade. khodboal man 1,642 165 1 697 Tom lasso 0 1,92. f igloos sf hurking Prormemed 0xv-Softs, Level HC Standand Tandem Valed Tonal Sol Real. III Onfly Cmsylld L. of 2 37 0 0 39 secondue,ot IT 3 26 16 5 50 Thinal Level P3 0 24 32 5 61 %I, I') Includes Ext Condom amo an I -I & U asunder Scafte and Starr 2 anne on one level only Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS do VBAS Properties, Inc Pul gal ... dvmml.m.�sl "nommus"...","ousamas S T 0 U I I I 1 0 1 0 11 6 H A a I I a a a . . . . . . , a do I a I I I I W 224 •,s, T 0.pd level � l - �C wall +• In --------------- Cwou� uoe Level ad'=+1 ]'d'. oEa'e rmleM North Elevation - Bluff Side n l l O O I s� I R-103 R-102 � �� 360254 FI 2489 SQ n Y ¢ a r � �l ExH3e S Partial Ground Level Plan on Site !v noElevation 0, 20' 40' 50' 60' 70' BO �U R-101�— -- 4396 SQ FT pR PARKING LEVEL 1 4a Ear �.casesFJ 39PARKING SPACES MERCFROR NMGL p 8tlJ-B'd-FBA'#Yd' Etl�ad E°� 3Aun P3 Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc IBSB3 Peaeb BaulevaN, sul,e336 Numingian BexMU936eB S 1 0 U I I N R 0 R 0 0 0 H A I c 611rc1a •BO Pla tlP Lb. nu. P.r tare loo ray..e veal ie �roul 220 7.P of BION N07 morel aa=«zao�.�io.9i East Elevation - Dover Drive Pa v�v ` !v T x3�.m View I20' 40' 50' 60' 70' W West Elevation Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS do VBAS Properties, Inc IBSB3 Peae�BaulevaN, Sul,e336 Numingian BexMU936eB S 1 0 0 I I N R 0 R 0 0 0 H AIc Bllrl• •e0 Pla 1F.",Il.r Fain 0, ;l, la..Lail '. ^I]Ifl 1 I.r In Itsr r " I's M. � ... ,un..e...."— u. 222 South Elevation - West Coast Highway Level Plan on Site !v Elevation V 10' 20' 40' 50' 60' 70' W H t G H w r e Top W 610 eerona � m - mporvo,ape " _-iz.sam�nreoie� Marine-r's-�Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS do VBAS Properties, Inc IBSB3 Peae�BaulevaN, Sul,e336 Numingian BexMU936eB S 1 0 U I E N R 0 R 0 0 0 H Arc 1Ilrcl• •e0 Pla tlP tb. nu. •.r tare ioo ln..e veal ie �roui 230 _iop d uvn Beyond Bnrroreevml � I P1 m -E• Section C - C w Building Sections ,d.n.mu IIIA 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70 iop d Blull .aa -a Top of NO - aoo.e:edbv - Beyond ror9ope:9ln lR 11Re U,1oNXan _ 12 PerrcuuE� u Rod Level .2v.p II ORN Rod Level .av'-a.. enr -. --_ a _— M HL mlea R-203 P3 .as'-im R-102 K 60ELL § N' second Level .0'-e mq T R-203IXi n n � m � Inear Etlapq GnOe 6_ Ground LQVd e'.a' R-101 - - GroundLevel o' -v OIF. D� p'.S= rl2.d'obove sea level ever G'tl'=.I2'-6'aboveseolevel Section A - A Section B - B _iop d uvn Beyond Bnrroreevml � I P1 m -E• Section C - C w Building Sections ,d.n.mu IIIA 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70 Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc IBSB3 PeaOr BaulevaN, Sul,e336 Numingran BexMU936eB S 1 0 U I I N R 0 R 0 0 0 H A rc RIIec1• •n0 Pla 4,@;.. ru, Il.r faire loo I...ne leer) re ^r]E11 1 Ill In Itsl r E.v Ilr 111. I ... Top of NO Beyond ror9ope:9ln lR 11Re U,1oNXan _ 12 Rod Level .2v.p II ORN - RAMP 1$ a b� a } _ _ u --ow::n°'a.E-� -R- d7_ - R-202 -- R-203 second WI a' -e � F�aRa R-l0A eg G �wE �F, I R-107 R-102 Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc IBSB3 PeaOr BaulevaN, Sul,e336 Numingran BexMU936eB S 1 0 U I I N R 0 R 0 0 0 H A rc RIIec1• •n0 Pla 4,@;.. ru, Il.r faire loo I...ne leer) re ^r]E11 1 Ill In Itsl r E.v Ilr 111. I ... 2S2 x Striping Plan 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 60' 70' Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS do VBAS Properties, Inc IBSB3 Peae�BaulevaN, Sul,e336 Numingian BexMU936eB S 1 0 0 I I N R 0 R 0 0 0 H AIc pllrcl• •e0 Pla uo u,e rl.n Ilar Fair. ioo l... ne 1.n1 to ^"', 1 r.r In Itsr F"" 315 33H � ....... e...."— u. 234 EOGEOFMARINA Eygaxccw,[5cw el,wx: m[ [xinwknrsovnw,.vu uxx:mu,xicwp �� FRGOIERtt LINE x _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A`s ,-------------- PROPERTY LINE —1 C (� Line of Sight Exhibit -100 King's Place Ma•,�ml O' 120' 60' 1120' 1200' Top of Bluff Pod -v -11...-I.-zr Sea Level 1 Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS do VBAS Properties, Inc ,8583 Peac�BaulevaN, Sul,e336 Numingian BexMU936eB S 1 0 U I I N R 0 R 0 0 0 H AIc 1,111[1• •e0 Pla uP uEn,e ru, Ilar taro 31loo la.. ne leen to ^13111 3 111 3351 r M I's 31 ... ,un..e...."e u. 2s o ------------ PROPERTY LINE LINE OF SIGHT I ...Ace — — — — — — — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — _ eeasoia --—— Top of Bluff � �\aEove 3a level ��J Jim � P3 P2 Seul-evell o Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA o ` WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc /v ,8583 Peae�BaulevaN, Sul,e336 Numingian BexMU936ee Line of Sight Exhibit - 303 King's Road a, pi S 1 0 u I I N R 0 R 0 0 0 H F Arc �Ilrcla s M..'•e0. a „v Praca,n•oc O' I2P 60' 1120' 1200' I tlo ur. nu. e.r ri....evA .u. f av of 11sr r an ,.e.r. 232 ------------ PROPERTY LINE LINE OF SIGHT IA4�^ce —_----_---__ ecw -------------- P3 P2 — Sea Level v -v Mariner's Pointe West Coast Highway at Dover Newport Beach, CA WINSTON'S JEWELERS c/o VBAS Properties, Inc o ` IBSB3 Peaea BaulevaN, Sul,e336 Numingian BexMU936eB Line of Sight Exhibit -311 King's Road M, lZ2n11 S 1 0 0 I E N R 0 R 0 0 0 H A',c �Ilrcl• e0 Prann a,", I2P 1120' 1200' "s, tlo ur. na. i....e. ,,,v O' 60' f av of 11sr r an rir nrr � ...e. �,. iou. I's M, 240 GROUND LEVEL PARKING EMuoE - F.N}011lf11110 MNIs — M� WESI 601ST M-4MNaT CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN I• 1 V 1 M Klta.r*V jLw-.Y1i:.•.a� N LY1ExmIV � a1i1M FKIaP M1M' �w.�n.rwr r4. lribewNw' J.V. W MV O V Yv BM Mwi111minl Pxtlaes R.MY.1 Mariner's Pointe VVWC MNipl wat Dw Ne.PW Beactt, CA .�..rr.*r... NMNSTON'S JEWELERS do VBAS Peopernas. Irw .1. 242 TRACT CO. 1210 I r� _ 'v �i 'p __. r —.M ram 4 . Wool' 1 .y �- rzEll— g EI. 0 SVR\'4/ORS fRRE1PIfATR '� maunrtvmuw w vtf vonri"'�R ¢, WEST COAST HIGHWAY 1 F Bl -� � w .a G o 18GENO 4 _ _ ® _ 1 .[mmIVA- n SVR\'4/ORS fRRE1PIfATR '� maunrtvmuw w vtf vonri"'�R ¢, WEST COAST HIGHWAY 1 F Bl -� � oes eseB[a[�wa C®i&RAL NM6 LOCAL p&4CflIPf1ON 18GENO 4 _ _ ® _ 1 awamnmw.wrvuvm n ® w . v ® om®u xnm •e ® '� It wwn.w.w wino mm n+mm `�vuaP ��i y d GRPYNIL SCPIY mwxrvv. wemrt�wm�m.rt.e[ �wnnsu[�.m. ® nw ara x>vvpnvinwm. yx m. SRE�. **nvmommm®inm rmm '��i�wvu�am.wcwuuay. w.wm.ww �ZONMC vo vvun uemrcnv nun m v mm. awm a. w,o h JM.... uwmr vuew INPORYAPION W SVR\'4/ORS fRRE1PIfATR '� maunrtvmuw w vtf vonri"'�R ¢, WEST COAST HIGHWAY 1 F Bl -� � oes eseB[a[�wa C®i&RAL NM6 LOCAL p&4CflIPf1ON 18GENO 4 _ _ ® _ 1 awamnmw.wrvuvm n ® w . v ® om®u xnm •e ® It wwn.w.w wino mm n+mm va v.n •p •O y d a mwxrvv. wemrt�wm�m.rt.e[ �wnnsu[�.m. ® nw ara x>vvpnvinwm. yx m. SRE�. **nvmommm®inm rmm '��i�wvu�am.wcwuuay. w.wm.ww �ZONMC vo vvun uemrcnv nun m v mm. awm a. w,o h JM.... uwmr vuew INPORYAPION W BKNCXMARKv� _ _ _ aw'a=139o. — oynov IANO ARRA PARKING COVM v..uwre,v. wm wr.r xwenvm.-.x nsom.m. v. nm....uwvavuw 0A3KYEM N%85 � om a>vm mw rz+vs ,� WSf pI',BNCPOACtlMKMS m ID wrm.newun. O ;� _ _ _ s...n�uex. n. n. amwe.ar ws,v.wo uxa„n m,cerrn�umvuwmov.ua n,n� unv. rznmrc,u wv,nmw.w Q mn wmv mo O uaw em nv mm� nwm ewmmmvun rmmw SVR\'4/ORS fRRE1PIfATR '� maunrtvmuw w vtf vonri"'�R 244 Attachment No. CC 9 Revised Shared Parking Analysis 245 240 t.1,, N 1 VER 1976 L S A�2011 July 22, 2011 RIVERSIDE LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. BERKELEY FRESNO ROCKLIN 20 EXECUTIVE PARK, SUITE 200 949.553.0666 TEL CARLSBAD PALM SPRINGS SAN LUIS OBISPO IRVINE. CALIFORNIA 92614 949.553.8076 FAX FORT COLLINS POINT RICHMOND SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Tod Ridgeway Ridgeway Development 2804 Lafayette Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 Subject: Shared Parking Analysis: Mariner's Pointe Dear Mr. Ridgeway: LSA Associates Inc. (LSA) is pleased to submit this analysis of the parking availability and demand at Mariner's Pointe, which is located on West Coast Highway at Dover Drive in the City of Newport Beach (City). The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the on-site parking supply versus the demand that will occur for parking throughout the day. The Mariner's Pointe site is proposed to contain a mix of retail stores, a medical office suite, and restaurants in 19,905 square feet (sf) of building area with an attached three-level parking garage. LSA evaluated the parking demand generated by each of these uses and compared that demand to proposed on-site parking spaces, valet parking spaces, and potential off-site parking spaces. Parking Supply The site plan for Mariner's Pointe includes plans for a proposed three-story parking garage. The parking garage plans include 37 standard stalls and 2 handicapped stalls on the ground floor (total of 39 spaces). On the second floor of the parking garage would be 26 standard stalls, 3 handicapped stalls, 8 tandem stalls (16 spaces) to be used by employees or valet operations, and 5 valet -only stalls during valet operations (total of 50 spaces). The third floor of the parking structure provides 24 standard stalls, 16 tandem stalls (32 spaces) to be used by employeesor valet operations, and 5 valet - only stalls during valet operations (total of 61 spaces). The two spaces in each tandem stall designated for employees will be assigned to the same suite. In this way, coworkers will share a tandem stall, ensuring access to their vehicles. Valet operations are planned to begin at 12:00 p.m. and continue until 1:00 a.m. Prior to beginning valet operations, 39 parking spaces are provided for patrons and 52 spaces are provided for employees on-site for a total of 91 spaces during self -park operations. During valet operations, 150 parking spaces are provided on-site. It should be noted that the applicant's valet parking service can park additional vehicles on the second and third floors. However, the 150 -space limit was determined using the City's "move one to get one" rule for valet parking plans. It should be noted that two Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus lines operate in the vicinity of Mariner's Pointe. Route 1 operates along Pacific Coast Highway between San Clemente and Long Beach. Service on Route 1 to/from the project is provided approximately once an hour between 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. Northbound Route 1 stops immediately adjacent to the project site. 07/21/11 ,P:\VBA 1001\Revised Site Plan\Shared Parking6.doc». PLANNING 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES 1 DESIGN 247 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. Route 55 operates between Fashion Island and the Santa Ana Civic Center and serves the property on Dover Drive. Service is provided approximately every 20 to 30 minutes between 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Parking Demand The City established minimum parking requirements in Newport Beach Municipal Code (NBMC) 20.40.040. The City requires I parking space for every 200 sf of gross area for medical and dental offices and 1 parking space for every 250 sf of gross area for retail sales. Mariner's Pointe does not qualify for the reduced parking provisions for shopping centers found in NBMC 20.40.050. Parking requirements for eating and drinking establishments are set by the City Planning Commission using criteria identified in NBMC 20.40.060. Unlike parking requirements for most land uses that are dependent on gross square feet, parking requirements for eating and drinking establishments are dependent on net public area. Requirements can range from 1 space per 30 sf of net public area to 1 space per 50 sf of net public area, depending on the number and arrangement of tables, presence of live entertainment, etc. For the purposes of this analysis, a parking requirement of 1 space per 50 sf of net public area was used. A new site plan dated July 18, 2011, has been prepared for the project, reducing the number of leasable suites. Table A provides the revised allocation of restaurant, retail, and medical/dental office space. The table also provides the number of spaces each land use would require if it were in separate parcels. Table A: Parking Requirements Land Use Gross Square Feet Leasable Restaurant Area (sf) Net Public Area, (sf) Parking Rate Required Parking Restaurant 9,557 8,683 5,210 1 per 50 sf 4 105 Retail 8,651 n/a n/a 1 per 250 sf 35 Medical Office 1,697 n/a n/a 1 per 200 sf 9 Total 19,905 149 Estimated as 60 percent of net restaurant area consistent with the project description. z From NBMC 20.40.040, 3 NBMC 20.40.030.E requires fractional spaces to be rounded up. ° NBMC 20.40.060 allows the Planning Commission to adopt a parking rate between 1/30 sf to 1/50 sf for restaurants. n/a = not applicable sf= square feet Shared Parking Because of different hours of operation and different offsetting parking activities, not all of uses at Mariner's Pointe require their full allotment of parking spaces at the same time. LSA used methodologies found in Shared Parking, Second Edition 2005 (Urban Land Institute) to identify the daily variations in parking demand for each of the Mariner's Pointe land uses. The time -of -day factors found in Shared Parking are based on empirical studies and result from multiple parking accumulation counts. 0721/11 <,PAVBA1001\Revised Site PIan\Shared Parking6.doc» 2 242 LSA ASSOCIATES. INC. Table B (attached) applies these time -of -day factors to the required parking for each land use. The total parking required for all three uses has two peaks: (1) one peak in the early afternoon with a demand for 122 parking spaces at 1:00 p.m., and (2) a second peak in the early evening with a demand of 141 parking spaces at 7:00 p.m. The Mariner's Pointe parking garage can accommodate 150 parking spaces on site with valet operations. The applicant is committed to providing valet operations from 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. Therefore, the site will be able to accommodate the demand for 122 parking spaces that occurs at 1:00 p.m. and the demand for 141 parking spaces that occurs at 7:00 p.m. Conclusion The shared parking analysis reveals that 8,651 sf of retail sales, 1,697 sf of medical/dental office, and approximately of 5,210 sf of net public restaurant area can be provided in the 19,905 sf Mariner's Pointe without exceeding available parking. Additional off-site parking spaces for employees would not be necessary to accommodate the parking demand on site based on the current plans. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. AA?W en W lhelm Principal Attachment: Table B: Time -of -Day Parking Requirements 0721/11 ,PAVBA1001\Revised Site P1.\Shared P.king6.doc» 3 ^^ / —" 250 Table B: Shared Parking Analysis Shared Parking Time -of -Day Factors Than, of Day Factors 6100 a.m. 7:00.... 8:00.... 900.... 1000.... 11,00a... 1200 p.m. 1:00p,.. 2:00p... 3:00p.m. 4:00p.m. 5:00p.m. 6.00 p.m. 7;00 p... 8:00 p.m. 900p... 10:00 p.m. t 1:00 p.m. eStaurant t 15% 40% 75% 75% 65% 40% 50% 75% 95% 100% 100% 100% 95% 75% 'calOffice 90% 90% 100% 100% 30% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 67% 30% 15% [ail 1% 5% 15% 35% 65% 85% 95% 100% 95% 90% 90% 95% 95% 95% 80% 50% 30% 10% Time of Day Parking estaurant 105 0 0 0 0 16 42.0 78.8 78.8 68.3 42.0 52.5 78.8 99.8 t05 105 105 99.8 78.8 PFlce 9 0 0 8.1 8J 9 9 2.7 SA 9 9 9 9 6.0 2.7 1.4 0 0 0 Retail 35 0.35 1.75 525 1225 2295 29.75 33.25 35 33.25 31.5 31.5 33.25 33.25 33.25 28 17.5 10.5 3.5 Total 149 0 2 13 20 48 81 115 12& 111 83 93 121 139 141 134 123 110 82 Naos: Timeo4Uay FM os wiMa edW Shad Puikiv SMoMd£dition. O:bm L lwiwm, 2705. ' FnelC-1 DITIm, P'\VBA10o1 Vtevwi SIM PLMshar Pukmatio,\T-M of nay Requireemd(7Y2}21111) 252 Attachment No. CC 10 Revised Parking Management Plan 253 254 AlMlhhk lAkSUNSET oaa«irc Family of Companies July 23, 2011 Tod Ridgeway Ridgeway Development 2804 Lafayette Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92663 Re: Mariner's Pointe Parking Operational Plan Version 7 Dear Mr. Ridgeway, Thank you for allowing Sunset Parking to consult on the parking for the Mariner's Pointe development. The following is a revised "Daily Operational Plan" for submission to the City of Newport Beach. If there are any questions or requested changes, please contact me at anytime. If there is anything we can help you with in the approval process, please let us know. Respectfully, / Kynn Knight Executive Vice President Kynn.knight@sunsetparking.com Cell 760-815-6193 Office 760-753-4004x205 2155 Ak SUNSET / PARKING Family of Companies Daily Operational Plan Employee Parking Monday — Sunday 6am — Close 52 Stalls Level 3 Employees are typically the first to arrive and the last to leave in a restaurant/retail setting. For this reason, we would have the staff of all the businesses in Mariner's Pointe, on the 3`" level of the parking structure with the following operational plan: 1. Stalls would be assigned to all suites. 2. Tandem stalls would be assigned within the same suite (28 total). 3. On Level 3, 3 Aisle spaces would be valet spaces and a valet would be stationed with vehicles until removed from the aisle. There would also be 4 tandem stalls and 2 angled stalls used for valet for a total of 9 valet use spaces on Level 3. 4. While Level 2 or 3 valet Lane Spaces are in use, any exiting employee vehicles would be driven from Level 3 to Level 1 by a valet attendant and retrieved by the employee on Level I by the west garage exit. 5. Signs on wall and striping on ground would label stalls as "Employee Parking". Signs would state municipal code to allow towing of vehicles if necessary. r Vale�Pa( i_ Mrc ureal cod aomc --------- 1—T11 - R= -95-1a Level 3 T o P rk► �- V.alef�'ar p P Y �g las lsei ' 16 — KI LE1 k 3 l Employee 0 67 PARKING SPACES 9 11 (SEE x.v aC n r y ., DRrvEhLilF = ass �I n=.x.-o Tande Stalls G 2 2150 Guest Parking Self -Parking 7am-5pm: Handicap Parking All Operational Hours 34 Standard and 5 Handicap (2 Handicap Stalls Level 1, 3 Level 2) 39 Stalls total. 1. Parking on Level l would be dedicated to Guest Self -Parking during weekday daytime hours. 2. There would be three parking stalls in the north east corner of the garage for valet greeting 3. Total stalls available on Level l = 34 regular Stalls + 2 Handicap Stalls + 3 Valet Greeting Stalls. 4. At 4pm each day, valet attendant would place a cone or vehicle in each empty stall on the first level to reserve for evening valet. 5. Drive lane would be kept clear until all self -parked vehicles have exited, expected between 5pm and 5:30pm. 6. Each daytime self -parking stall on the first level would be signed for 7am-5pm use and valet after 5pm. * H I G H 2� Valet Parkin Monday — Friday 12pm-5pm: 3 Greeting Stalls Level 1 + 75 Storage Stalls Level 2 + 9 Storage Stalls Level 3 (59 Stalls) After Guest Self -Parking fills on Level 1, guests would be valeted from Parking Level 1 and valet vehicles stored on parking level 2 & 3. Signs and striping on ground would label stalls "Valet Parking". Signs would state municipal code to allow towing of vehicles if necessary. Monday— Friday After 5pm and Weekends: 37 Stalls Level 1 +47 Storage Stalls Level 2 +9 Storage Stalls Level 3 (93 Stalls) Guests would be valeted from Parking Level 1 and valet vehicles stored on parking level 1,2 & 3. Signs and striping on ground would label stalls "Valet Parking" or "Valet Parking After 5pm7. Signs would state municipal code to allow towing of vehicles if necessary. Level 2 & 3 Plan for Lane spaces use: The valet spaces in the lane would be the last used by the valet staff. At such times that valet spaces in the lane are used, Valet will post an attendant with any vehicle(s) in the lane on each level. While Level 2 valet Lane Spaces are in use, any exiting employee vehicles would be driven from Level 3 to Level I by a valet attendant and retrieved by the employee on Level 1 by the west garage exit. Level 2 — Primary Valet Storage El 2152 Level 3 — Primary Valet Storage dale Pa k — -- 4kin - 1y\ Employee — - 1 I,SS L Valet ark► - la Zed 3v — j II !E L -3-I Employee $ 61 PARKING SPACES 2' xv (SEE _ .. acNtu4E Dave NSlE - 1a ng Tande Stalls Tande Stalls V ae °+ alpbres) Employee Parking Det or rnPlaYeel T 2 ,LM Stu � � 1 __ 4*ft"_ I EmploNee i 1 I •'RpmP� 1 EL]S - IP Parking 11 ' EaR Sialr7 1 — - - _ — —_ -.. - - --- Access Level 1 — After 5pm oavETluE ,T -L-- 7-- 4- 1- - 1-t6s51° Ewe a, 9'4 A6 Cd• Wb E P, C1 - I I Cw. carom PARKING LEVEL 1 i �Eon r +« occas 39 PARKING SPACES zsv •rl n 1- I oavETluE ,T -L-- 7-- 4- 1- - 1-t6s51° Ewe a, 9'4 A6 Cd• Wb E P, 2SIV8let - Cw. carom PARKING LEVEL 1 r 39 PARKING SPACES - alt -.955 I �G�ASEJ INIfRCEROR to � � Z >n m ��° ° n a c Meah. _owru VeC ,__. .._e... Exit Stoki . I I j - - - R-104 / 13 p 3. 7; IRA Fi �= st Onf9 R9. ALB STOP E H 1 G H 2159 Valet Operation Guests would be greeted and vehicles parked in the following manner for the valet parking operation: Guest Experience 1. Guest is greeted by valet attendant on Parking Level I in Level 1 Valet Greeting Stalls in the Northeast corner Monday — Friday 12pm-5pm and in spaces on Level 1 in the Southwest comer of the garage after 5pm and on weekends. 2. Guest is issued a valet claim check by valet attendant. 3. Guest leaves parking garage via elevator or sidewalk and enters Mariner's Pointe Shops & Restaurants. 4. Guest returns to Parking Level 1 and presents valet claim check to valet attendant. 5. Valet attendant retrieves guest's keys, runs to vehicle and pulls the vehicle up in the exit lane on Parking Level 1. 6. Valet attendant opens all doors for guest, thanks the guest and hands the driver the vehicle keys. 7. Guest departs in their vehicle through east exit. Double -Parkin¢ Procedures 1. A self-locking key box will be located on a wall or column in each row where vehicles are double-parked. Keys are stored in these boxes for vehicles that are double-parked. 2. When a blocked -in vehicle is requested, the valet attendant will retrieve the keys for the vehicle in the front tandem stall from the key box located on the row where the car is parked. The front vehicle will be pulled out and re -parked on a neighboring tandem stall and the keys hung in the key box. The rear vehicle will be pulled out and taken to the guest on Parking Level 1. 3. If the garage is completely full, the valet that pulls out from the front space of a tandem stall will pull out into the lane while a second valet pulls out the rear vehicle and proceeds to Level 1. The first vehicle will be re -parked in the rear tandem stall and the keys hung in the key box. 4. Vehicle keys will be locked in the locking key boxes at all times when parked. ri 200 Valet Vehicle Arrival and Departure Staging on Level 1 There would be two staging setups used in operating the valet parking operation. The first setup would be for non - peak times. The second is for peak business times. Both configurations are described in the following pages. Vehicles would be parked from the rear of the line first, so that the line of staged vehicles would quickly get shorter. Non -Peak Valet Operations 12p — 5pm Monday — Sunday 5pm — lam Sunday — Thursday (October — March) or until restaurants close 5pm — lam Sunday — Tuesday (April — September) or until restaurants close * Lunch or Dinner shifts during events, holidays, or periods of good weather may change to Peak Operation. Arrival: Vehicles would be greeted head -in via the spaces in the northeast corner of Level 1. We could greet 3 arriving vehicles at a given time. Departure: Departing guests' vehicles would be pulled up in front of the wall located on the south wall of Level 1, paying special attention not to pull up vehicles in the lane behind the parking stalls. Guests' vehicles would exit through the east exit. Arriving Departing Valet Stand 201 Peak Valet Operations 5pm — lam Friday - Saturday (October — March) or until restaurants close 5pm—lam Wednesday — Saturday (April —September) or until restaurants close Traffic would become one way on Level 1, going east to west while operating in this configuration. Arrival: Vehicles would be greeted in-line in the lane, stacking from the west lane before the ramp and following back along the north and east walls all the way to the entrance. 7 vehicles could be greeted at one time. Departure: Departing guests' vehicles would be pulled up in the three stalls at the southwest comer of the garage, as seen below. A traffic director/exit greeter would be stationed in the lane at peak times Arriving Departing Valet Stand Roll Away Valet Podium Example for Use on Level 1 20" deep x 29" wide x 47" high 202 Attachment No. CC 11 Mitigated Negative Declaration (Distributed Separately Due to Bulk) 203 INITIAL STUDY FOR: MARINER'S POINTE PROJECT �� prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Contact: Jaime Murillo Associate Planner prepared b).- THE ): THE PLANNING CENTER IDC&E Contact: JoAnn C. Hadfield Director, Environmental Services Gl;1:114p'z#M 203- 1 3300 Newport Boulevard INITIAL STUDY FOR: MARINER'S POINTE PROJECT C� prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Contact: PO Box 1768 Jaime Murillo Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Associate Planner 949.644.3209 1580 Metro Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: 714.966.9220 • Fax: 714.966.9221 E-mail: information@planningcenter.com Website: www.planningcenter.com prepared b) THE PLANNING CENTERIDC&E Contact., JoAnn C. Hadfield Director, Environmental Services CNB-11.OE APRIL 2011 2206- 2 Table of Contents Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................1 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION.........................................................................................................1 51 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING..............................................................................................1 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION................................................................................................... 2 1.4 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN.......................................................................37 1.5 CITY ACTION REQUESTED..............................................................................................37 =1 L,171:i41:IJ1I=1:Y01901:Ixd:1g63 2.1 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................39 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ............................................... 41 2.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) ................................. 41 2.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS...............................................................42 4� =1 L, Pl 1:-141:1 Ji I4: Y 0 W-1 L, /_1 Wk -16 3.1 AESTHETICS.................................................................................................................... 51 3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES...................................................................54 3.3 AIR QUALITY..................................................................................................................... 57 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES..............................................................................................63 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................65 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS.....................................................................................................68 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS....................................................................................73 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS..................................................................... 74 3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY..............................................................................77 3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING.............................................................................................82 3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES.................................................................................................. 101 3.12 NOISE.............................................................................................................................101 3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING........................................................................................120 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES.........................................................................................................121 3.15 RECREATION..................................................................................................................123 3.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC.........................................................................................123 3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS..............................................................................156 3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE................................................................159 4. REFERENCES....................................................................................................................161 4.1 PRINTED REFERENCES................................................................................................161 4.2 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS...................................................................................162 4.3 WEB SITES.....................................................................................................................162 4.4 MODELS.........................................................................................................................163 S. LIST OF PREPARERS........................................................................................................165 LEADAGENCY............................................................................................................................165 THE PLANNING CENTER I DC&E................................................................................................165 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page i 203- 3 Table of Contents APPENDICES A. Valet Plan B. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis C. Traffic Impact Analysis D. Cultural Report E. Geotechnical Evaluations F. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan G. Shared Parking Analysis H. Noise Analysis I. Service Letters List of Figures Figure1 Regional Location...............................................................................................................3 Figure2 Local Vicinity.......................................................................................................................5 Figure3 Aerial Photograph...............................................................................................................7 Figure4a Site Photographs................................................................................................................9 Figure4b Site Photographs..............................................................................................................11 Figure 5a Site Plan - Ground Level..................................................................................................13 Figure 5b Site Plan - Second Level..................................................................................................15 Figure 5c Site Plan -Third Level.......................................................................................................17 Figure 6a Building Elevations - South..............................................................................................19 Figure 6b Building Elevations - North...............................................................................................21 Figure 6c Building Elevations - East and West................................................................................23 Figure 7 Site Plan Cross-Section....................................................................................................27 Figure8a Landscaping Plan.............................................................................................................29 Figure8b Landscaping Plan.............................................................................................................31 Figure 9 Third -Level Parking Structure Lighting Plan.....................................................................33 Figure 10 Third -Level Parking Lot Lighting Analysis.........................................................................55 Figure 11 Existing Roadway Noise Contours................................................................................ 103 Figure 12 Opening Year 2013 Without Project Roadway Noise Contours.....................................107 Figure 13 Opening Year 2013 With Project Roadway Noise Contours ..........................................109 Figure 14 Change in Roadway Noise Levels between Opening Year 2013 With and WithoutProject................................................................................................................111 Figure 15 3rd Level Parking Structure -Generated Noise Contours.................................................115 Figure 16 Study Intersection Locations..........................................................................................127 Figure 17 Existing Conditions Peak -Hour Turning Volumes.......................................................... 129 Figure 18 Project Trip Distribution..................................................................................................133 Figure 19 Existing Plus Project Peak -Hour Turning Volumes .........................................................137 Figure 20 Forecast Cumulative Without Project Peak -Hour Turning Volumes...............................141 Figure 21 Forecast Cumulative With Project Peak -Hour Turning Volumes....................................145 Figure 22 Forecast Year 2013 Without Project Peak -Hour Turning Volumes.................................149 Figure 23 Forecast Year 2013 With Project Peak -Hour Turning Volumes ...................................... 151 Page ii • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri! 2011 203- 4 Table of Contents List of Tables Table Page Table 1 Proposed Land Use Mix....................................................................................................25 Table 2 Available Parking Structure Parking Spaces With and Without Valet Service..................35 Table 3 Preliminary Construction Schedule and Equipment Mix..................................................36 Table 4 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions..........................................................................59 Table 5 Maximum Daily Operational Phase Regional Emissions..................................................60 Table 6 Localized Onsite Construction Emissions........................................................................61 Table 7 Localized Onsite Operational Emissions..........................................................................62 Table 8 Project -Related GHG Emissions.......................................................................................74 Table 9 Water Quality Management Plan BMPs (Project Design and Operation) ........................79 Table 10 City of Newport Beach Parking Requirements.................................................................83 Table 11 Shared Parking Time of Day.............................................................................................85 Table 12 General Plan Consistency Analysis..................................................................................87 Table 13 Existing Traffic Noise Levels...........................................................................................105 Table 14 Project -Related Weekday Traffic Noise Increases ..........................................................106 Table 15 Construction -Related Architectural Damage..................................................................114 Table 16 Construction -Related Vibration Annoyance....................................................................117 Table 17 Average Construction Noise Levels................................................................................119 Table 18 Fire Protection Services..................................................................................................122 Table 19 Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria...............................................................................124 Table 20 State Highway Intersection LOS & Delay Ranges ..........................................................124 Table 21 Existing LOS, Study Area Intersections..........................................................................126 Table 22 Existing LOS, State Highway Intersections.....................................................................131 Table 23 Project -Related Trip Generation.....................................................................................132 Table 24 Existing Plus Project Level of Service at Study Area Intersections ................................136 Table 25 Existing Plus Project Level of Service at State Highway Intersections ...........................139 Table 26 Forecast Cumulative Without Project Level of Service at Study Area Intersections....................................................................................................................140 Table 27 Forecast Cumulative Without Project Level of Service at State Highway Intersections....................................................................................................................143 Table 28 Forecast Cumulative Conditions Level of Service at Study Area Intersections..............144 Table 29 Forecast Cumulative with Project Conditions Level of Service at State HighwayIntersections.....................................................................................................147 Table 30 Net Forecast Project Trip Generation Utilized in TPO Analysis......................................148 Table 31 Forecast Year 2013 Without Project Level of Service at Study Area Intersections....................................................................................................................148 Table 32 Forecast Year 2013 With Project Level of Service at Study Area Intersections..............153 Table 33 Incremental Increase in Trips Per Proposed Project Site FAR Increase ........................153 Table 34 Construction -Related Worker and Vendor Trips per Day...............................................154 Table 35 Estimated Project Wastewater Generation.....................................................................157 Table 36 Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation.....................................................................158 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page iii 203- 5 Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank. Page iv • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS- 0 1. Introduction The project applicant proposes to construct a two-story building that would provide 23,015 square feet of high end retail and restaurants in addition to office uses on an approximately 0.76 -acre site in the City of Newport Beach. A new three-story parking structure would provide up to 136 parking spaces with valet service. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan designation of General Commercial (CG) for the project site. However, development of the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendmentto allow for the floor area ratio (FAR; building floor area divided by land area) to be increased. The City of Newport Beach, as lead agency for the project, is responsible for preparing environmental documentation in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended, to deter- mine if approval of the discretionary actions requested and subsequent development could have a significant impact on the environment. This Initial Study will provide the City of Newport Beach with information to document potential impacts of the proposed project. 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The 0.76 -acre project site is in the northwest corner of the intersection at Dover Drive and West Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach. The project site consists of six legal lots and is legally described as Lots 1 through 6 inclusive of Tract 1210. The project consists of the following Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN): 049-280-51, 049-280-53, 049-280-55, 049-280-71, 049-280-72, 049-280-73, and portions of 049-280- 56 and 049-280-57. The project site is narrow and elongated in an east -west orientation. Onsite topography is relatively flat bordered to the north by a south -facing slope ranging from approximately 45 to 50 feet in height with a typical gradient of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical). The project would also include the use of the existing offsite surface parking lot at the northwest corner of the intersection of Dover Drive ad Cliff Drive. Figure 1, Regional Location, Figure 2, Local Vicinity, and Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, show the location of the project site and the offsite surface lot within the regional and local contexts of Orange County and the City of Newport Beach, respectively. 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1.2.1 Existing Land Use The 0.76 -acre site is currently enclosed by a chain-link fence and includes two vacant buildings on the western portion of the site totaling 5,447 square feet and a paved surface parking lot. The westernmost L- shaped building is 3,453 square feet and the building to the east is 1,994 square feet. These buildings, shown on Figures 4a and 4b, Site Photographs, are boarded up and in disrepair. Electrical and water utilities are currently disconnected. The site is characterized by cracked pavement, overgrown vegetation and weeds, and an old pole sign. The proposed offsite parking lotatthe northwest corner of Dover Drive and Cliff Drive is currently in -use and maintained as a surface lot with 69 parking spaces serving the existing businesses within the commercial plaza. Also as shown in Figures 4a and 4b, the south -facing slope north of the site is heavily vegetated with various ornamental trees and vegetation. Approximately 30 ornamental fig trees line the eastern half of the northern property line within the site. A large ornamental tree is situated in the northwestern part of the site at the inner corner of the L-shaped building. Three Southern California Edison (SCE) power poles are situated midslope Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page I 203- 7 1. Introduction along the northern property line, with the power lines traversing in an east -west direction. These power lines are currently functioning and delivering power. Existing site drainage is to the south and east. Drainage to the east enters Dover Street, then a catch basin in Dover Drive, leading to a storm drain that discharges into Lower Newport Bay. Drainage to the south enters Pacific Coast Highway, then a catch basin connecting to a storm drain that also discharges into Lower Newport Bay. The site has one unsignalized driveway access along Dover Drive and four unsignalized driveway accesses along West Coast Highway. The Coast -Dover bus stop for OCTA Route 1 is located along the property frontage along West Coast Highway. The property fronting the project site just beyond its setback line along Dover Drive is under the jurisdiction of the City of Newport Beach. Furthermore, the property fronting the project site just outside its setback line along West Coast Highway is under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1.2.2 Surrounding Land Use Surrounding land uses are depicted on Figure 3. The project site is surrounded by single- and multifamily residences to the north and south. The Cliff Haven community single-family residences abut the project site to the north and overlook the site. South of the project site across West Coast Highway is the single-family residential community of Bayshores and multifamily community at the Swale Anchorage Apartments. One- story commercial buildings are adjacent to the west of the project site. East of the project site is Newport Bay and undeveloped open space to the northeast. 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project applicant proposes to construct a two-story commercial/retail building totaling 23,015 gross building square feet and a three-level parking structure totaling 50,274 gross building square feet on the 0.76 -acre project site in the northwest quadrant of the intersection at Dover Drive and West Coast Highway. The development would include various commercial/retail uses such as restaurants, specialty retail, and medical office. The site plans for the proposed project are shown on Figure 5a, Site Plan - Ground Level, Figure 5b, Site Plan - Second Level, and Figure 5c, Site Plan - Third Level. 1.3.1 Proposed Land Use The project would introduce a new high-end commercial/retail complex that includes a two-story building totaling 23,015 gross building square feet and a three-story onsite parking garage. The existing building, curb, and asphalt pavement would be demolished and removed. Potential tenants for eight tenant spaces include: restaurants, a jewelry store, clothing stores, spa, and medical offices. As shown in Figures 6a through 6c, which depict the elevations of the proposed project, the buildings and parking structure would include modulated building masses and rooflines and a variation in building materials and colors. The inclusion of architectural elements such as balconies, towerfeatures (the cupola atop the rotunda), awnings, and ornamental windows and the variation in building elevations and protrusions would add to the visual aesthetics of the buildings and street frontage. The rotunda with the cupola designed at the corner of Dover Drive and West Coast Highway would anchor the east end of the redevelopment. Page 2 a The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203- 2 1. Introduction Regional Location V4estminster Santa .�. v- - Ana ..._ ,.,.,. Foupl tain-Alley ' - Tustin \�\ - Huntir gton Bead t Costa Mega 73 Irvine .... t( . Laguna Woods \ Newport Beach \ Viejo /Laguna Beach Pacific Ocean — — Site Boundary Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study Niguel 0 15000 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 1 20s- 9 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page ¢ • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203— 10 Pacific Ocean �nnTnmruiifTirTuun � �+�I� � .� /iii{ SIy/�J � wrriw rirrr �.�-1 I�S I� mu, � 00. +Iev Pull 0101 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 6 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203- 12 ♦ \ �� ' �y' CDI �� : I Offsite Empioyee Overflow Parking Lot {�^ ` Residential Cliff Dr ,n I Residerrtiall O West Coast Highway °' r--rsm ResidentialL iAnct y 'Crestview'Dr i r y TmApan Castaways Park Newport Bay 4 4,.4�1 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 8 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203- 1.4 O View of northwest corner of property looking northeast. © View of property parking lot looking northeast. — — Site Boundary Source: Google Earth 2011 Key Map r A Q View of property looking north. 1. Introduction Site Photographs © View of adjacent hillside looking northwest. d View of property parking lot looking east. s Scale (Feet) Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 4a 203- 15 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 10 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203— 10 1 0 View of West Coast Highway looking east. Property is on left. © View of West Coast Highway looking west. Property is on right. — — Site Boundary Source: Google Earth 2011 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study Key Map s © View of Dover Drive looking north. Property is on left. 1. Introduction Site Photographs r Q View of Dover Drive and West Coast Highway intersection (a looking south. Property is on right. vv Q View of eastside of property looking south. Property is on right. s Scale (Feet) The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 4b 263- i7 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 12 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2003- 12 1. Introduction Site Plan - Ground Level I MOPn OverRennhead ExistindUnig-)'Swobat>RnM�xU'+! PROPERTY LINE l �, 24' RedcwwIg• Wd Overhead Uses-a- -�. )'swde LObnbna+r de.a� ! _y --- -- --- ---- t T I he Hi, --u FaM SI — J —IL aa�y sa ..mRlw-_ em. Trash eha tc I anll orlon eov __ _ ! �-- t I a 650 SQ FT of �- r,�--Enalson nrvice I no.u. m°cscul ct �a �90 ae ea 74 edW O �. Entry 85S �� 1 °®rosllvowsa _ 7 Ca*n cx[wu 8 PARKING LEVEL I mnRcrRra o E�nwa Ea.wtp - D 7s 35 PARKING SPACES a7+1 glt o WoeaaMwe.e a — _ R-101 R-102 R-103 8, t O it m - ar 11 �R r to v 'r -Q 3230 SG FT 2685 SO ET 3250 SO Fl � 1 I , I ri ASU 1 ,�)-+ Ill 1Y O tT0 Mb1 0 �b% L j r' 10 .2 eRrvE mill I - HC HC ,b,,, ... A O O i, von 1417 I alt L11-7— See .1, a MQCh. Room -� b1'-'jF qc hm Mirwd � nsCorldn b l to t21 Vold for delus141-0" _ ICreatHeight f�f5101r1 i..a Pompme.�.R.rd 11 � I ' R-204"- Roan -° ° .. rr Romp UP b 75550 FTis 1 T 1Rw4S�MER M J l : — aT \ — _ I _ - — — I - -- - TABULATION SUMMARY OI -EriFOnl-� y BW SOP I- _ ll - -1' EW Entry _ Undergr°u' A Y Net Site Area 33.030 at AtF L H t G H W S T C O A S T Building AreaGross Leasable Grose Bulldlna- 1 I Nrb 10 I \ W Ground Level 9 940 at 11,794 sf dedicOled I EXISTING CM Second Level 9 795 at 11,221 at the city tO aR&AGM Total 19.735 d 23.015 of io NEW -- CURB _moo Gross Area armee -..r_ — I• Ia3knvu tA4 Groes Retail Ar a Area 9,522 Q1\ ' = Grose Rale,l Aree 10,493 NOTE: Level 0',G. � +17.6' �. _ p81� - � Grose Medical Area 3.000 l Total 23,015 of �� CODI Joc, to MATIOw i a a e Js¢ Parking Provided On -Site p.,b 01.1ort green- c°dobbeadop,edb/ `� rrb C,v °I Nawann aoach�lonvv9)n twat FIC Standard Tandem Valet Tad stalls Stalls Stalls Only rvkea sM1uclua .•. .arartalw Ground Level Pt 2 33 0 0 35 -rPe fnrnl,Kferl �� Fry rrv:ntared wfi vnotedebcbe - - _ - Second Level P2 1 24 16 5 M •' Third Level P3 2 18 30 5 55 Calvewcb'. Wldl,g - - _ - r Total 5 75 40 10 130 't) *vns v C.olana:aen ,Mw w'.m AHov SopvvrmmnaparylRr — _ — — — _ `r.. Location Map Ra a uk Road Striping arm a 0 30 Source: Stoutenbourough Architects and Planners 2011 Scale (Feet) Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E a Figure Sa 203- Au � J ac W O a 19 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 14 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS- 20 � I 1 s4 1 re_q on 16TH r — — ,— 1P 1r-0' Ird le -0 olavl A61e — �_ IF _ is State -letorI � f•T 1 pal lads • o -r { _ _ �n t Room N0 � 1455 Fsnd Exi - _ ass - PARkINGIEVEL 2- °V 6. 2.. 46 PARKING SPACES Cleor Height oervF Hart 655 -� � • u, �o e, 1 I� NC i� NG�tro+le _ Elevator R-201 I R-202 II R-203 1710 SO FT 1615 SO FT W 164550 F1 b " e Fl[6T5=3—r--- 1 — J J W E S T C G A S T i l I NOTE: L eve a-cr- M7-6' Location Map eon's•. Source: Stoutenbourough Architects and Planners 2011 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study H I G H W A 1. Introduction Site Plan - Second Level W Exit Star 2 -,a o �1 l ac ;r W R-204 I 5030 SO FT 0 I O o' I O 0 0 a 0 __— c�— S'Itocc _ TABULATION SUMMARY Net Site Area 33.036 of Building Mea Gross Leasable Gross Building Ground Level 9.940 $1 11,794 st Second Level 9,795 at 11.221 at Total 19.73521 23,015 at Gross Area Gross Restaurant Ares 9,522 Goss Retail Area 10.493 Goss Madlcal Area 3.000 Total 23.015 at Parking Provided On -Sita Leval NC Standard Tandem Valet Tout Stalls Suits Stalls only Gourd Level Pt 2 33 0 0 35 Second Level P2 1 24 16 5 48 Third Level P3 2 1S 30 5 55 Total 5 75 46 10 136 0 30 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center I DC&E - Figure 5b 203— 21 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 16 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS- 22 1. Introduction Site Plan - Third Level W -1 - - §I PROPERtt LINE •www __ - I p MECHANICAL AREA WITH RWh Ij 1 j3 4 IV I I r } I �a.c, I 111 I� TA rr --- - g=� PARKINd; LEVEL -3 ) i ROOF I+ — . JS PARKING SPACES I ($EE LIGHTING PLAN) arrc iTV 1T0 1 IN +ss={#4ki{ Stds .fi.11,'Hij`� T .Stab or '20 F5 # _ ##k�i##is-,.3•, tttHWt ��. .-..- _ •1, I _ \ , .MG vr,.na ratan 1 {� :i .,"._......... -tet - -� — \ ISS - - I ` F. -:4 r- De k Bed _ OWN 1 - E eta IC ACCW- J' TABULATION SUMM AIRY ` 4' N I` G H\ A Y J Not Site Area 33.036 at Building Area Gross Leasable Gross Building Ground Level 9.940 st 11.794 a1 ` \ ` Second Level 9.795 at 11.221 at Total 19.735 at 23,015 of - - - -- Grose Area \ Gross Reslawant Area 9.522 Gr \ oes Rated Area 10,493 MOTE Level 0'-0' - 073 \ Gross Medical Area 3.000 \ Total 23,0150 Parking Provided On -Site t Leval HC Standard Tandem Valet Total stalls Stalls Stalls Only Ground Level Pi 2 33 0 0 35 Second Level P2 1 24 16 5 46 Tied Level P3 2 18 30 5 55 Total 5 75 46 10 136 Location Map arltabk 0 30 Source: Stoutenbourough Architects and Planners 2011 Scale (Feet) 01 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E a Figure SC 263- 23 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 18 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS- 2.4 1. Introduction Building Elevations - South South Elevation - West Coast Highway X I i 35 PARKING SPACES a 6'P• q Tor VT 28P 4S5 _ ___ _ DRIVt AGUr ° 0 O HC HCi a .: Van 14, a, sP"`xNUO° Clear Height MFeeh. Room - - - „r PM. m1 -A, 0 Exit Stals I fl -tl Ptmnp j l lR-104 Rcom Ralnp Up 755 SO FTC T(__ _ rr=.1s I1S 1 +h 15% h ._ `VT +„ Z I Ill tSet I - fa -Entry=_- oma•- a L Exit -Only - RELOCATED BUS STOP -tee J l m W E S T C p A l Area t0 beI \_ E90MC CUR& _ dedicated TODERFMOVCD 0 the aty NEW CURB +o o �EowmenA NOTE 14 Level 0-17'a +12' 6" Exd1W- MArnLosE Partial Ground Level Plan on Site Source: Stoutenbourough Architects and Planners 2011 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study R-101 3230 SO FT R-102 2685 SO FT R-103 3250 SO FT O 0 0 �o ®i o 0 he - -I I S 1 H) G H w A Y 4 r t -w lull p6pp)Op1°vp1—� Tacdlw�eF ;�- 11 Level -i4-r $ $ I. $. Level v+¢ IS A—D 0 30 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center I DC&E - Figure 6a 2OS- 25 • •,f li I 1° a aR�wmlen l N� .I c a o- °I ' O 26 0' La _O DM VE A&F La Pient erpilf Ide'OM I7j4,� - Clear Height ➢.mrmg 9u,x-q II : d asmwmr�m X I i 35 PARKING SPACES a 6'P• q Tor VT 28P 4S5 _ ___ _ DRIVt AGUr ° 0 O HC HCi a .: Van 14, a, sP"`xNUO° Clear Height MFeeh. Room - - - „r PM. m1 -A, 0 Exit Stals I fl -tl Ptmnp j l lR-104 Rcom Ralnp Up 755 SO FTC T(__ _ rr=.1s I1S 1 +h 15% h ._ `VT +„ Z I Ill tSet I - fa -Entry=_- oma•- a L Exit -Only - RELOCATED BUS STOP -tee J l m W E S T C p A l Area t0 beI \_ E90MC CUR& _ dedicated TODERFMOVCD 0 the aty NEW CURB +o o �EowmenA NOTE 14 Level 0-17'a +12' 6" Exd1W- MArnLosE Partial Ground Level Plan on Site Source: Stoutenbourough Architects and Planners 2011 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study R-101 3230 SO FT R-102 2685 SO FT R-103 3250 SO FT O 0 0 �o ®i o 0 he - -I I S 1 H) G H w A Y 4 r t -w lull p6pp)Op1°vp1—� Tacdlw�eF ;�- 11 Level -i4-r $ $ I. $. Level v+¢ IS A—D 0 30 Scale (Feet) The Planning Center I DC&E - Figure 6a 2OS- 25 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 20 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS- 2/0 ;ate Topa Par°Pal _ ROW Leval .2, 4 — X Second Lena . I. i— ---- .- - , may. b I Ground Leta o—u NOR: Lev° °44--174'olwve soo love North Elevation - Bluff Side I_ o O I' I - OO 1, 0 0 R-103 3250 SO FT 3; t l�zo I t E0 Stair 2 Ra Nr 1. Introduction Building Elevations - North _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ S Swau a Dran to Dover INnC Partial Ground Level Plan on Site LI r__---- I 1 1 I I t 101 50 FT Enry Service a� a Gess SrxcYN�Y I O HC HC: a . Vbn o a a"T I o _ - 4.% _ - DRIVE ASU, PARKING LEVEL 1 a < rlJ g GREASE 35 PARKING SPACES R'£ -"..I wrracEProR d -rwKx SSS {_A'.D•-+Xs W -r erip, or 455 ° P 1 ROOM �bkrin0 tlonn rlrOh to L1n4elncottla r'ecnanrcol venrllallon _ _ _ — Ti - — — — — 24' Retaining S't'all =PROPERTY UNE N Ex15�lY+Or RemOVe Existing MAIWOIE OYerhead lines View SwaO 4 OraYi ra rxirer v�.e � --2aa- — P3 r25•Irt P2 Pt H'•b' + Ground Lift s• f 114 S o so Source: SYoutenbourough Architects and Planners 2077 Scale (Feet) Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E a Figure 6b 263- 27 —O DRIVEAKLE .O E.rep aulSLue - LL wroamanrna }i BSS % Trash 550S A SwaO 4 OraYi ra rxirer v�.e � --2aa- — P3 r25•Irt P2 Pt H'•b' + Ground Lift s• f 114 S o so Source: SYoutenbourough Architects and Planners 2077 Scale (Feet) Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E a Figure 6b 263- 27 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 22 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS- 28 i n c' too n u::o•e:wp'n um t Top of Bluff aaove tea :e.e a; � F too of Yctax• East Elevation - Dover Drive I L�a I ll U o R-103 O 3250 SO IT O l7 D O V E Partial Ground Level Plan on Site SO FT 1 \o J I° I� I I I I JI I La �puoe� - R p R L View Rool level o7 . R 4 b Second Level • i� 6 � Ground Level a Cr NOTE: Leve 0C' --I2'4' cove Lea level 1. Introduction Building Elevations - East and Wrest Top of Bluff -w a aeo ze mule ra'Qw' PROPERIV JNE it A -7 P'1 1 --'j{fkt __4(f '_L _ �t .l-�,l �K bmt"Gaae CifOYLMf Level-�f1-0' d NOTE Lem: 00' 12 6'dxlmree Mav/ West Elevation 35 Scale (Feet) nlo Source: Stoutenbourough Architects and Planners 2011 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E a Figure 6C 263- 25 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 24 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203— 30 1. Introduction The gross square footage of the first floor of the proposed two-story commercial/retail building would total 11,794 square feet and the second floor would total 11,221 square feet for a total of 23,015 gross building square feet. The anticipated land use mix and square footages are shown in Table 1. Table 1 As shown on Figure 7, Site Plan Cross -Section, the development would generally be built with a maximum building height of 40 feet and with a sloped roof that would have a 3:12 (vertical rise to horizontal run) pitch. The project would require a discretionary approval via a Site Development Review to exceed the 31 -foot base height limitation permitted for the site. Additionally, the planned cupola design atop the rotunda would have a maximum height of approximately 44 feet and would require a Modification Permit to exceed 40 feet. The project as proposed would have a zero lot line setback along the rear of the property. The proposed commercial and parking structures would encroach five feet into the existing slope on the northern portion of the site, which would require a variance. It is anticipated that the hours of operation for the development would generally be from 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM. 88 Some restaurants may be opened until 1:00 AM. Landscaping The proposed project would include a total of approximately 3,005 square feet of landscaping along the frontages of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive. As shown on Figures 8a and 8b, Landscaping Plan, the proposed project would include a variety of plant palettes and features with ornamental vegetation and hardscape landscaping designed along the southern and eastern boundaries of the project site. The proposed project would include outdoor patio areas for patron use and dining. The planned 750 -square -foot patio area along the eastern elevation would be enclosed behind a low wall and glass screen. A new water feature design of approximately 280 square feet in size would encompass the southeast corner of the project site. A partial encroachment into property under Caltrans jurisdiction along West Coast Highway and Dover Drive would require a Caltrans Encroachment Permit to install these features. Lighting Redevelopment of the project site would result in the creation of new light sources to provide nighttime illumination for the proposed buildings (interior and exterior), common areas, and parking areas. Other sources of light would include security lighting, nighttime traffic, and sign illumination. The project would also install lighting within and on top of the third level of the proposed parking structure. As shown in Figure 9, Third -Level Parking Structure Lighting Plan, the third level of the parking structure would consist of four different types of lightfixtures. The design and orientation of the lightfixtures would be designed to primarily illuminate the area atop the third level. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 25 203- 31 1. Introduction Infrastructure Shoring and a retaining wall with a height ranging from 2 to 14 feet would be constructed along the northern property line near the base of the existing slope. A three -foot -wide swale and an underground storm drain would be installed along the northern property line and would drain at Dover Drive. The applicant is coordinating with SCE for plans to remove the three power poles and underground the electrical lines traversing the northern property line. A shown in Figure 5a, the powerlines would be undergrounded to run along the project's eastern boundary down to the corner of Dover Drive and West Coast Highway, then run west along the project's southern boundary along West Coast Highway to the southwest corner of the site, and then would run north along the project's western boundary line (proposed SCE easement) to the northwest corner before reconnecting with the existing overhead. Access and Parking The proposed project would eliminate the existing five curb cuts at the project site and construct a parking structure to accommodate the project's parking demand. The proposed three-level above -ground parking structure totaling 50,274 gross building square feet would be constructed on the western half of the project site. The parking structure would be approximately 30 feet high, with the exception of a tower feature and stair case and elevator enclosure that would be a maximum of 40 feet high. Architectural treatment would soften the south -facing fagade to be consistent with the rest of the project. The proposed parking structure would have two driveways along West Coast Highway. The eastern driveway would allow both ingress and egress. The western driveway would be exit only. All access would be via westbound traffic along West Coast Highway as left turns across the highway at this location are prohibited. Between Dover Drive and the western property boundary, West Coast Highway narrows from three westbound through lanes to two lanes. The applicant would designate land to the City to extend the third lane for approximately 30 feet. The reconfigure and proposed striping plan would create a designated "Bus Only" area between the two project site driveways. The proposed parking structure would provide up to 136 parking spaces consisting of standard (single parking space) and tandem (double parking spaces) in addition to valet -only specific aisle and corner stalls. Employee parking would be reserved to the third floor. Valet services would be available to manage parking operations for both employees and patrons from 10:00 AM to closing, Monday through Sunday. Page 26 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS- 32 tva twa B A `� Savmtllanl 4 - cnW lwM bp2 Section A -A serauw .,, --._._— b '^ z — - b 4 f@ rl Section C -C 1. Introduction Site Plan Cross -Section Tap aru� .W 4 4 n R-106 .u. - 'wruu• ' • • � � O.rrvab.M a -o — _ .n.e Section B -B •. ' R-201 R-202 R-203 .... '• a R-106 aa:a.r R-101 R-101 uwncu.r uaei,.ow.. - I mr.m�eauomr. r.a«rw_ r yY Section C -C t= Section BB Section A -A — — Site Boundary Source: Stoutenbourough Architects and Planners 2011 R 103 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I Scale (Feet) %. 1 DCfaE Figure 7 rep a trblr 4 eara+a s bIJ R-204 ' b pp bIE Wo-ak U.N . .. o-v..vrsw.—... R 103 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I Scale (Feet) %. 1 DCfaE Figure 7 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 28 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 20S -S4 GROUND LEVEL PARKING WAAW _ S PIM • bow R'Mu WEST LOAS? HIOMWAY 10E4r[(Irrmn Km Source: MJS Design Group 2011 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study 1. Introduction Landscaping Plan •r�4ea 4urzyruve r+wnr.a+ort marruu Mr1�914r Please see Figure 8b for Plant Palette, Landscape Areas, Preliminary Planting & Irrigation Concepts, Management Practices, and Water Feature Narratives. C070 5 C Scale (Feet) The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 8a 20S -S5 , NET a : If �1, O I C lf.r1'•.'L' D •r�4ea 4urzyruve r+wnr.a+ort marruu Mr1�914r Please see Figure 8b for Plant Palette, Landscape Areas, Preliminary Planting & Irrigation Concepts, Management Practices, and Water Feature Narratives. C070 5 C Scale (Feet) The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 8a 20S -S5 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 30 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 20S-30 Preliminary Plant Palette Botanical Namo Common No. Size: PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY EDGE LANDSCAPE aper Section 1231: Palm. WUMnvonts mmum Moxican Fan Palm 20 b, 1.h Shoals: U,mtmm1. 7 ... nea Texas Prvffi 5gal. Had, P.C.H. and DOVER DRIVE LANDSCAPE SETBACK thrum beck of well, to area of bui dire): Tome and Palms: Arbutus Media' Hybrid Strawberry Tree 24 -tux A,enremphoanix oremsgrumiane Krog Palm curd 3G W. cmpreesmseemparvinew Italian Cypress 20 tom, Duseen. dreg. Gorgon Trea-mm.3 arms Ze B. MagnSk Y.mle Gem Gabon winners ]Marx O@a mmpeae'Swan Hill' Foulness Oliva -mut 4PWx Tlromma top TIDO Tied 2Pbox Torshyearyure drome Windiall Palm - His. Vary 6to 12-atJo Tamanio mlfeda Smears Box - low hranch 21 box Simulate Badstorms,/minimum 5anion allow) Pmnuw Wnshrumno'Bright and Tight' Carolina Cherry si2leab mealy Giant Birdof Ponalso Chamecropshurno. MKilsommuse. Fan Pdlm-mrrli Fall. esteems. Plneeppla Cu. Teromrs(ena Yellow Bella Weemrgle WXiw. Coast Rosemary Middlegauad: (nin�allon sued Anyozamlmssp'Bus' Gold Kangaroo Paw B.epanvllled memento story type eoupirminea caluxamw iLue Jahn' Dwmfemnebmst OireaesaknNr Butterfly ids Oradea specks Gmvlula Himemcares nybdds Evergreen Ouras Phimpwum speuas M.K pumps aaphiokpis kdra species India Hawmom Symons nagiiand BIN M Pimples Fa m m us,min( /mum telQ an sa.) Bougaviddoa Go La La' Baugalnr"lwa person in Hotlamtells' Natal Plum or wpeelan Sed,. Adds. .,in. "Amor Blue Fescue Hamemcaliahybdds Eve'nam pooriae RmmuMms o. Posta lua Dw.d Rosemary Tmchaosparmumiramumadm SIri'lg.no Accent l Colorshrabs(mrStrem 5 east Sze) Aeommmxgoribandum Ae..turn Hybrid Alco species Aloe strew, specks Agave cyt'aarevWUA sago Hespemaynor it le Red Yu¢a Missiles knuhshne Myousu Ardhor Goes sand smOus Fast., Crass Vlnwa and Espalllers (mmumar 5"albn sire) Bou"tiuviuea'Ia Jolla Red' Brmgainvilea Cttmsspwcka Thomlers cums oisecher buccinamna Blood Rud TrvmpOWv Jisaks. dversil Regl Tmmpat Vine Magndu'Lima Gem' Sompem Magmlia sMenumjesminoides Potato Via, LEVEL 3 PARKING STRUCTURE (clamed In 30-egarm wncmlo pool: Cuprawas s.mp.rvinens Iwhan Cypmsa 24'box NORTHSIDE of PARKING STRUCTURE Puloapwumm eniwdee'Varicaale' Wavy-L6af .mulaamm 15 gallon st s o.a. LINE OF SIGHT NOTE' Maiural. shmba.124• high inside MLine ISiml at ddmawri, and saeldimarsafions. Source: MJS Design Group 2011 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study 1. Introduction Landscaping Plan Water Feature Narrative: The proposed water feature, visible from the intersection of Dover Drive and West Coast Highway, will have a naturalistic form with Contemporary influences compatible with the architectural theme. The maximum water depth is 18". Water effects include a clean, knHeedge water weir falling towards the street at the center and a naturalistic, low water wall at each end of the feature. The edges, softened by the adjacent plant material will be a combination of eroded, moored concmle and natural stone. The recirculating water system equipment will be Concealed in a vault in the landscape area. The surface area of the water feature is included in the high water use hydrazone ama of the water budget calculation. Landscape Documentation Package Note: A landscape documentation package by me project applicant is required to be submitted to the City of Newport Beach pursuant to section 2.1 of the Water Efficient Ordinance Standards. Landscape Areas: WEST COAST HIGHWAY 2,450 S.F. DOVER DRIVE 275 S.F. WATER FEATURE 280 S.F. APPROXIMATE TOTAL 3,005 S.F. LANDSCAPE AREA EXCEEDS 2,500 S.F. and IS SUBJECT to N.B.M.C. 14.17'WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE" Preliminary Planting 8 Irrigation Concept Statement 1. Provide simple, bold and low maintenance landscape planting design which incorporates many non-invasive and water conserving plant types. Landscape elements visible from the public realm will blend with and appear W be an extension of the Mariner's Mile Design Framework landscape objective. 2. Each plant hydrozone shall have plant material with similar water requirements. 3. Provide a variety of plant material shapes, sizes and texture In an Informal arrangement compatible with the architectural theme. 4. The landscape potable water inigetion design will be designed to provide the most efficient and conserving means to distributor irrigation water with the latest technology for water Conservation. 5. All landscape improvements will meet the requirements Contained in the City of Newport Beach Manner's Mile Design Framework and N.B.M.C. 14.17 'Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance" 8. The Conceptual Landscape Plan has been prepared by a registered Landscape Architect. Water Quality Best Manaoement Practices (B.M.P 1. Planting areas have been Incorporated Into the hardscape layout. Hardscape paving pairs into the landsmpe areas wherever possible. 2. Sulam drainage is directed into the landscape areas to retain significant amounts of water on-site. 3. Roof downspouts daylight or flow into landscape areas wherever possible. Use of low water consumptive plant material and proper irrigation techniques take 4. into consideration hydrozones. sun and shade exposures and soil types. The Planning Center DCBE • Figure8b 0 20S -S7 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 32 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 20S-32 1. Introduction Third -Level Parking Structure Lighting Plan co 20 Source: SYoutenborough Architects and Planners 2017 Scale (Feet) Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 9 263- SJ° 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 34 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS- 40 1. Introduction As shown in Table 2, based on the Valet Plan (see Appendix A to this Initial Study), without valet service, a total of 78 parking spaces would be available. With valet service between the hours of 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM, the proposed parking structure would provide 136 parking spaces. After 5:00 PM, 20 additional offsite parking spaces at the Cliff Drive and Dover Drive intersection surface lot would be available for employees thereby increasing the total parking spaces available to 156 spaces. Approval of conditional use permits would be necessary to allow rooftop parking, to modify the off-street parking requirements, and to establish a parking management plan (valet) for the project. Table 2 Available Parking Structure Parking Spaces With and Without Valet Service Without valet Service Proposed Parking Structure P1- Ground Level 32 Standard (Spaces) Tandem (Spaces) valet only (Spaces) 0 Parking Level Patron Employee Patron Employee Patron Employee Total Without valet Service Proposed Parking Structure P1- Ground Level 32 32 0 0 0 0 0 32 P2- Second Level 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 P3 -Third Level 0 0 20 0 26 0 0 46 Total 32 60 20 0 26 0 0 76 With Valet Service 110:00 AM to 5:00 PMl 40 16 26 14 0 1 156 P1 - Ground Level 32 0 0 0 3 0 35 P2 -Second Level 25 0 16 0 5 0 46 P3 -Third Level 0 20 0 26 9 0 55 Total 1 60 20 16 26 9 0 136 With Valet Service (5:00 PM -Close) P1 - Ground Level 32 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 35 P2 - Second Level 25 0 16 0 5 0 46 P3 -Third Level 0 20 0 26 9 0 55 Offsite Lot 0 20 0 0 0 0 20 Total 60 40 16 26 14 0 1 156 Source: LSA 2011. Employee Parking Employees would be required to park in the designated employee parking stalls on the third level of the parking structure. As shown in Table 3, up to 55 employee parking stalls would be provided by the parking structure. All of the stalls would be assigned to specific suites and tandem stalls would be assigned within the same suite. Furthermore, 20 additional employee offsite parking spaces would be available after 5:00 PM. Employees arriving after this time would be directed to the offsite parking if there were no available employee parking spaces in the proposed parking structure. If no available employee parking spaces are available before 5:00 PM, employees would be valet parked. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 35 0 203- 4Z 1. Introduction Table 3 Preliminary Construction Schedule and Equipment Mix duration of 2 weeks Demolition (Building) - Anticipated duration of 3 days Excavator 1 Front End Loader 1 Excavator Front End Loader Rubber Tired Dozer Front End Loader Water Truck duration of 4.5 months Buildina Construction (Commercial Building) - Anticioated duration of 7 months Backhoe Buildina Construction (Parking Structure) -Anticioated duration of 3 months Backhoe Source: Ridgeway Development, 2011. Note: Construction dates provided by Ridgeway Development. Construction equipment mix based on comparable projects and verified by Ridgeway Development. Patron/Valet Parking On the first level, 32 of the 35 standard parking stalls would be solely reserved for patron use throughoutthe entire hours of operation of the project. These stalls would be self -parking. The remaining three standard stalls would be reserved for valet use. The second -level parking would be valet parking only. Additionally, this level would be primarily for patron use. In general, a valet kiosk or podium with a valet attendant would be near the elevator on the ground level to greet arriving patrons. 1.3.2 Project Construction Construction is anticipated to commence upon project approvals and permitting and would also be dependent on coordination of the removal of the three existing power poles and undergrounding of powerlines with SCE. Construction activities are estimated to be completed in 12 months and are preliminarily scheduled to commence in Fall 2011. Construction would consist of demolition and removal of the existing buildings and surface parking lot. Shoring and the planned retention wall would be constructed along the northern property line of the project site. Approximately 1,600 cubic yards of material removed Page 36 •The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS- 42 1. Introduction during trenching operations and construction of the retention wall would be exported to an offsite landfill or dumpsite location using haul trucks. The construction staging area would occur on the project site. However, the applicant is coordinating with the property owner west of the project site to possibly permit use of the site during shoring and retention wall construction and for staging area purposes. The project would be developed in the following sequence using the construction equipment shown in Table 3. 1.4 EXISTING ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN The current General Plan designation is General Commercial (CG) and the current Zoning is Commercial General (CG). The permitted FAR under the General Plan and zoning designation is 0.3, and the zoning designation of CG provides for a wide variety of commercial activities oriented primarily to serve Citywide or regional needs. The permitted FAR is 0.5 for projects that consolidate parcels to develop larger commercial developments and for which adequate parking is provided. 1.5 CITY ACTION REQUESTED As part of the project, the project applicant is seeking approval of • General Plan Amendment: increase the allowable floor area to land area ratio (FAR) for the project site from 0.5 FAR to 0.68 FAR • Zoning Code Amendment: change the specific floor area limitation forthe project site on the Zoning Map from 0.3/0.5 FAR to 0.68 FAR■`www_��=yyy(__��' • Site Development Review: to allow the construction of a 23,015 -square -foot, two-story building and a three-story parking structure with a maximum height of 40 feet which is greater than the permitted 31 -foot base height limit • Modification Permit: to allow architectural feature (cupola and finial) to exceed the 40 -foot maximum height limit (proposed total height with cupola is 44 feet) • Conditional Use Permits: to allow rooftop parking, to modify the off-street parking requirements, and to establish a parking management plan for the site (rooftop parking, valet service, and restaurant/ABC) • Variance: to allow the building to encroach 5 feet into the 5 -foot rear yard setback (rear -yard encroachment) • Parcel Map: to consolidate six lots into one parcel • Building and Grading Permit Other approvals required by other agencies include: • Caltrans: Approval of encroachment permit Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 37 2.63- 43 1. Introduction This page intentionally left blank. Page 38 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS- '{ 4 2. Environmental Checklist 2.1 BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Mariner's Pointe. 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Jaime Murillo (949) 644-3209 4. Project Location: The 0.76-acre project site is in the northwest corner of the intersection at Dover Drive and West Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach. The project consists of the following Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN): 049-280-51, 049-280-53, 049-280-55, 049-280-71, 049-280-72, �� 049-280-73, and portions of 049-280-56 and 049-280-57. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Glenn Verdult 1775 Newport Boulevard, #13 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 6. General Plan Designation: General Commercial (CG). 7. Zoning: Commercial General (CG). 8. Description of Project: The existing building and surface parking lot would be demolished and removed to construct the proposed two-story commercial/retail building and three-level parking lot. The gross square footage of the first floor of the proposed two-story commercial/retail building would total 11,794 square feet and the second floor would total 11,221 square feet for a total of 23,015 square feet. The uses would consist 10,493 gross square feet of restaurants, 9,522 gross square feet of retail, and 3,000 square feet of medical/office. Additionally, the project would construct a three-level parking structure that would provide 136 valet and self-parking stalls. A more detailed description of the project is provided in Section 1.3, Project Description. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 39 2OS- 4.5 2. Environmental Checklist 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The project site is surrounded by single- and multifamily residences to the north and south. Single-family homes abut the project site to the north and single- and multi -family land uses are south of the project site across West Coast Highway. One-story commercial buildings are adjacent to the west of the project site. East of the project site is Newport Bay and undeveloped open space to the northeast. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required: Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board California Department of Transportation Page 40 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2.63- 40 2. Environmental Checklist 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED Thee nvironmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agricultural and Forest Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/ Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Land Use/ Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation / Traffic ❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance 2.3 DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an COO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Jaime Murillo Printed Name Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Star!), Date City of Newport Beach For City of Newporr Beach • Page 4.1 2O3- 4j 2. Environmental Checklist 2.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project - specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect maybe significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effectfrom "Potentially Significant Impact to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5) Earlier analyses maybe used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Page 42 • The Planning Center I DC&E April2011 2OS- 42 2. Environmental Checklist 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page ¢3 2. Environmental Checklist I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than X X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not Significant X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings Potentially With Less Than X within a state scenic highway? Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings X within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality X of the site and its surroundings? X X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which X would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of X Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps X prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring X Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a X X Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources X Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51 104 g ? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land X to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of X Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air qualityIan? X b) violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to X an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air X quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Page 44 • The Planning Center I DC&E April2011 2OS- 5O 2. Environmental Checklist IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly orthrough Less Than X habitat modifications, on any species identified as a Significant candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or Potentially With Less Than regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Significant Mitigation Significant Ivo Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X X IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly orthrough X habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or X X regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife X Service? J) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California X Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, X etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with X established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as atree preservation policy or X ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, X or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of X an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological X resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred X outside of formal cemeteries? Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page ¢5 folmn CO 2OS- 51 2. Environmental Checklist VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse Less Than effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Significant X i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on Potentially With Less Than the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: X i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or X X based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? X Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X X iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv Landslides? X J) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and X potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks X to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems X where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the X environment? J) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of X X greenhousegases? VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous X materials? J) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident X conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- X quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code X Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Page 46 • The Planning Center I DC&E April2011 2OS- 52 2. Environmental Checklist IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge Less Than X requirements? Significant b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere Potentially With Less Than substantially with groundwater recharge such thatthere Significant Mitigation Significant Ivo Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project X result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would X the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or X working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency X evacuation plan? X h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where X wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? X IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such thatthere would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of X pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a X stream or river, in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount X of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage X systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood X Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? IT) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a X result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page ¢7 2OS- 53 2. Environmental Checklist X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? Less Than X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or Significant X X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project Potentially With Less Than (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, Significant Mitigation Significant Ivo Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or X X regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, X X local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted forthe X purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or X X natural community conservation plan? X XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the X X residents of the state? J) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general X an, specific plan or other land use Ian? X XII. NOISE. would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or X noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X groundborne vibration or grounc horne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in X the project vicinity above levels existing without the X project? X d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing X without theproject? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project X expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project X area to excessive noise levels? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and X businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? J) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing X elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Page 48 • The Planning Center I DC&E April2011 2OS- 5.4 2. Environmental Checklist XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? Less Than b) Police protection? X c) Schools? Significant X d) Parks? substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur Potentially With Less Than X or be accelerated? Significant Mitigation Significant No issues Impact Incorporated impact Impact XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur X e) Other public facilities? X XV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that X substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which X might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized X travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards X established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results X in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible X uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise X decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page ¢9 �� 2.63- 55 2. Environmental Checklist XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the Less Than X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Significant b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste Potentially With Less Than water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, Significant Mitigation Significant Ivo Issues Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or waste water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, X the construction of which could cause significant x environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X from existing entitlements and resources or are new or X expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has X adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand X in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and X regulations related to solid waste? XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range x of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a X project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either X directly or indirectly? Page 50 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS- Gro 3. Environmental Analysis Section 2.4 provided a checklist of environmental impacts. This section provides an evaluation of the impact categories and questions contained in the checklist and identifies mitigation measures, if applicable. 3.1 AESTHETICS a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The proposed project would not have an adverse effect on scenic vistas. Vistas provide visual access or panoramic views to a large geographic area and are generally located at a point where surrounding views are greater than one mile away. Panoramic views are usually associated with vantage points over a section of urban or natural areas that provide a geographic orientation not commonly available. Examples of panoramic views might include an urban skyline, valley, mountain range, the ocean, or other water bodies. The Natural Resources Element of the General Plan under Policy NR20.1 and Policy NR20.3 identify public view corridors and public view points to protect significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points. As shown on Figure NR3 of the City's General Plan, the portion of West Coast Highway, on which the project site is located, is not a designated coastal view road and not considered a public view corridor. Therefore, the proposed project would not obstruct, interrupt, or diminish a valued panoramic view and no scenic vista impacts would occur. No mitigation measures are required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. According to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Scenic Highway Mapping System and the City of Newport Beach General Plan, the project site is not located on or near a major state -designated scenic highway and is not located on a portion of West Coast Highway that is a City designated coastal view road (Caltrans 2010; Newport Beach 2006). Highway 1 (West Coast Highway) is an eligible state scenic highway; however, it has not been officially designated as a state scenic highway.' There are no scenic resources, including native or heritage trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings, on the project site (McKenna 2011). No adverse impacts to scenic resources would occur as a result of the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is in a highly urbanized area of the City. As shown in Figures 4a and 4b, Site Photographs, the existing visual makeup of the site's street frontage consists of chain-link fencing and patches of dirt. The interior of the site is comprised of two vacant commercial buildings that are boarded up and in disrepair, worn-out and cracked pavement, overgrown vegetation and weeds, and an old pole sign. The south -facing slope north of the site is heavily vegetated. Approximately 30 ornamental fig trees ' A state scenic highway changes from eligible to officially designated when the local jurisdiction adopts a scenic corridor protection program, applies to Caltrans for scenic approval, and receives notification from Caltrans that the highway has been designated as a Scenic Highway (Newport Beach GP EIR Aesthetics Section). Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 51 2OS- 57 3. Environmental Analysis are located within the site's northern property boundary along the eastern half of the property. Three Southern California Edison (SCE) power poles are situated mid -slope beyond the northern property line with the power lines traversing in an east -west direction. These power lines are currently functioning and delivering power. The surrounding area is characterized by commercial and residential development to the north, south and west and Newport Bay to the southeast and east. The immediately adjacent commercial development to the west is vacant, as are several other commercial buildings in the near vicinity westerly of the project site. The site is visible from the residences to the south across West Coast Highway and from the residences in the southeast quadrant of the intersection at West Coast Highway and Dover Drive. Limited views of the project site are afforded to the residences to the north of the site atop the bluff. As shown in Figures 4a and 4b, the existing commercial building and surface parking lot are not currently in use, and have not been for many years, and are in a highly deteriorated condition. Development of the proposed project on the site would improve the visual and aesthetic conditions of the site and surrounding area. The project site is the eastern gateway for the Mariner's Mile area and the project development would provide an aesthetically improved entryway into this area of the City. The southern elevation of the proposed project would be visible from West Coast Highway and from some of the multi -family developments to the south across West Coast Highway. While views of the vegetation on the northern slope may be blocked from West Coast Highway due to development of the proposed project, the vegetation is ornamental and not unique along this corridor. Elevations of the proposed buildings and structures are shown in Figures 6a, 6b, and 6c. Figure 7 shows a cross-section of a portion of the project site. As shown in Figure 6a, Building Elevations — South, the proposed development would be two stories in height and include appropriately scaled framework of architectural and landscape architectural elements and design, including enhanced landscaping along its frontage and street edge and a water feature (see Figure 6a). Although the massing would be greater than the existing and adjacent buildings, the proposed scale would be comparable to some development farther west along West Coast Highway such asthe Balboa Bay Club. Land Use Policy LU 6.19.6 of the City's General Plan requires implementation of the architecture, landscaping, signage, lighting, sidewalk, etc. requirements/guidelines of the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan. For example, as outlined in Section 3.2, Pacific Coast Highway Edge Landscape, a minimum four -foot wide planting area (from back of sidewalk to parking lot or building) is required along the entire property frontage for sites fronting Pacific Coast Highway. As shown in Figure 8a, the proposed project would provide a minimum four -foot wide landscaped area along the project frontage. Adherence to the requirements/guidelines of Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan would ensure high quality site design, architecture, landscaping, and streetscapes within the project development and along the project frontage. Project design would also be subject to review by the City's Planning Commission. The proposed project would be compatible with the adjacent land uses and would not degrade the visual character of the site and surroundings. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is currently vacant and unused and no sources of light or glare exist within the confines of the site. However, sources of light and glare do exist in the project area, including those associated with streetlights along West Coast Highway and Dover Drive and from residential and commercial uses to the north, south, and west. Another source of nighttime light in the project area includes vehicular traffic along these roadways. Page 52 •The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS- 52 3. Environmental Analysis Redevelopment of the project site would result in the creation of new light sources to provide nighttime illumination for the proposed buildings (interior and exterior), common areas, and parking areas. Other sources of light would include security lighting, nighttime traffic, and sign illumination. The project would also install lighting within and on top of the third level of the proposed parking structure. Lighting from the project site would be visible from surrounding residences to the north (atop the bluff) and south (across West Coast Highway). These new sources of nighttime lighting have the potential to increase nighttime light and glare in the project area. The City has adopted policies and standards that apply to the installation and illumination of light fixtures. For example, Land Use Policy 5.6.3 of the City's General Plan requires that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significant increase in the overall ambient illumination. The following City standard conditions would also apply to the proposed project: • Standard Lighting Condition 1. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on-site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Parking area lighting shall have zero -cut-off fixtures. • Standard Lighting Condition 2. The site shall not be excessively illuminated based on the luminance recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, or, if in the opinion of the Planning Director, the illumination creates an unacceptable negative impact on surrounding land uses or environmental resources. The Planning Director may order the dimming of light sources or other remediation upon finding that the site is excessively illuminated. 88 • Standard Lighting Condition 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall prepare a photometric study in conjunction with a final lighting plan for approval by the Planning Department. • Standard Lighting Condition 4. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or of final building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare specified in conditions of approval. Additionally, existing municipal code regulations require that light be shielded and confined within the site boundaries to prevent spillage. The lights associated with the overall project would be directed toward the interior of the site so as not to create impacts to motorists on adjacent roadways or on surrounding residential uses. More specifically, all exterior lighting would be designed, arranged, directed, orshielded in such a manner as to contain direct illumination onsite, in accordance with Section 20.30.070, Outdoor Lighting, of the City's Municipal Code, thereby preventing excess illumination and light spillover onto adjoining land uses and/or roadways. Lighting would be installed to accommodate safety and security while minimizing impacts on surrounding residential areas. Parking area lighting would be the minimum necessary to ensure safety for circulation and pedestrians. Development of the proposed project would also be required to comply with California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, which outlines mandatory provisions for lighting control devices and luminaries. As shown in Figure 9, Third Level Parking Structure Lighting Plan, the third level of the parking structure would consist of four different types of light fixtures. The BB1-type light fixtures would be installed on top of the northern and eastern walls of the parking structure. Light from the BB1 fixtures would be designed with full cut-offs, emitted into the parking lot, and emit no light above horizontal. The FF1 light fixtures would be Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 53 203— �9 3. Environmental Analysis installed between trellis member, which would shield the fixture from view and prevent lighting from leaving the project site. The SL1 light fixtures would be recessed into the western and southern walls of the parking structure and are anticipated to have a light output of 2,400 lumens. As shown in Figure 10, Third Level Parking Structure Lighting Analysis, the relatively low lumens rating, design, and orientation of the SL1 fixtures would result in low illumination. The AA1 light fixture would consist of a shielded metal halide floodlight with asymmetric reflect. These light fixtures would be mounted on top of the planned trellis structure. This light fixture would have the highest lumens rating and result in the highest illumination. However, as shown in Figures 9 and 11, its design and orientation would result in primarily lighting the area in proximity of its location and would limit light spillover off the project site, including the residences north of the site. Overall, the parking structure light fixtures would be oriented and designed to restrict lighting to the parking structure and to limit light spillover to the adjacent areas, in accordance with the provisions outlined in Section 20.30.070, Outdoor Lighting, of the City's Municipal Code and the standard conditions outlined above. Land Use Policy LU6.19.6 of the City's General Plan also requires implementation of the specific lighting standards outlined in the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan. For example, as outlined in Section 5.3, Lighting, all parking lot lighting should have zero cut-off fixtures in order to prevent light glare spill -off from the project site. All parking area light fixtures would be installed in accordance with the provisions outlined in the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan. With implementation of provisions of the City's Municipal Code, the City's standard conditions, the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, and compliance with the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan, nighttime lighting and glare impacts and potential light spillover of the proposed project would not occur on surrounding land uses or roadways. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. 3.2 AGR/CULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The proposed project site is completely developed with urban uses. There are no agricultural resources on the site, and the site is not listed on any of the State Farmland maps. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The proposed project site is completely developed with existing urban uses. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and the site does not fall under a Williamson Act contract. No significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. Page 54 •The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS- 60 3. Environmental Analysis Third -Level Parking Structure Lighting Analysis 168- -19- 3,4 1, 9 �.8 :.] 2.4 31 b,5 '.5 �.J '�] 13 =J.] !16�i.5 / 1.4 ^?\2.Q--'4.�y \ \ 2.J r1,E 3c 2.2 % 2.3 °i.2 ?.] 2.4 32 2.0 3'�_/_�,Z\\.ria 6c 1.5 6 1.9 2,1 21 Ib 1P� 1.2 [,2 1.}; �.I t2 12 1�3�'b2:4=;r;6 b Nletlpn � w • 1.3 L] �.s <3 4.0 10 I0 :,0 1.0 10 tj 1.0 LC 1.0 }.2 .2 q,1 -11:9-.I 1.7 .I 5,E3c 35 V. %9 60 48 15 i L7 '69 9 20 %v x3 20 1.9 3.0 2.8 is 28 9. ii.' j� `S .;e> \ �,5 1,3 1.8 1.4 10 LI 1.8 c6 }.0 1A 2d 3.5 0 7.5 55 E] 1J L---J__--JL---_L-_-J F cy,t '10 :.0 1.,0 3,1 p.9 32 b,e 1.3 1.7 3,4N6 t.a b,5 is 5.2 14 b,9 1.3 .3 =s ,,i In a. �s @.4 L�� n 2.3 1.3 "9 1,4 '?..]X53 1.4 t0 \ 3•\ JJ 3 \. 4,4 10'. 6.: t] F.2 a..• ES ..3 3.� 6J 1.5 �••�f•511 B9 ?,6 4.6 168- -19- 3,4 1, 9 `2.].9 IG i / \ \ ;'.I 19 2: i l___ _J _' 1.2 1.4 1,6 1.6 12 _ }.o b Nletlpn � w • w wi - - - - a. cat< ab n 0.5 1,9 25 b,,6 bA a.5 i ` b v..knp a ,wnnrce nl2N .1 2.1 :,0 I.J 5 `/.5 l.J j 6 �] Source: Stoutenborough Architects and Planners 2011 �,6\ `2.].9 IG �i.6 / ;'.I 19 2: i 1,P 1.2 1.4 1,6 1.6 12 b.9 }.o b 39 11,9 L---J__--JL---_L-_-J :.0 1.,0 3,1 p.9 32 b,e t.n b;e b.8 39 b,e t.a b,5 is 5.2 .3 =s ,,i In a. �s @.4 L�� n 2.3 1.1 S,a '_s 1.4 t0 4,4 10'. 6.: t] F.2 a..• ES ..3 3.� 6J 1.5 ILB B9 ?,6 4.6 3.7 t 3 1.3 12 '.16 05 v.9 /v.�•. �`v v'1 °.0 2.t 12 1P 04 02 0,n 1 '1.2 @5 3a Initial Illuminance \\ \\ \\ \ \ \ Maintained Illuminance 0 30 Scale (Feet) Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 10 0 3. Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank. Page 56 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS- 62 3. Environmental Analysis c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The project site and immediate surrounding area are urbanized. There is no forest land on the project site or in the vicinity of the project site. The project would not affect or conflict with forest land or timberland. In addition, the site is zoned as Commercial General (CG) and therefore would not conflict with or cause a rezoning of any timberland production zoned areas. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No Impact. The project site and immediate vicinity are urbanized. In addition, the project site is already developed commercial site. Therefore, project would not result in the loss of forest land or otherwise impact or affect forest land. No impacts would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? No Impact. The project site and surrounding area do not have any agricultural uses or forest land and there would not be any potential loss of agricultural or forest land. No impact would occur as a result of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are required. 3.3 AIR QUALITY 88 The primary air pollutants of concern for which ambient air quality standards (AAQS) have been established are ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), coarse inhalable particulate matter (PM,o), fine inhalable particulate matter (PM,.,), sulfur oxides (SO,), oxides of nitrogen (NOJ, and lead (Pb). Geographic areas are classified under the National and California Clean Air Act as either in attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the AAQS have been achieved. The South Coast Air Basin (SoCAB), which is managed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAOMD), is designated as nonattainment for 03 and PMI,, under the National and California AAQS, and nonattainment for PM,,, NO., and Pb (Los Angeles County only) under the California AAQS.2 The analysis in this section is based partly on the following analysis, which is included as Appendix B to this Initial Study: • Air Qualify and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis, The Planning Center I DC&E, March 2011. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact. A consistency determination plays an important role in local agency project review by linking local planning and individual projects to the air quality management plan (AQMP). Itfulfills the CEQA goal of informing decision makers of the environmental efforts of the project under consideration 'California Air Resources Board (CARB), based on 2010 State Area Designations, current as of March 25, 2010, and National Area Designations, current as of February 2009. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 57 2OS- 03 3. Environmental Analysis at an early enough stage to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It also provides the local agency with ongoing information as to whether they are contributing to clean air goals contained in the AQMP. The most recent adopted comprehensive plan is the 2007 AQMP, which was adopted on June 1, 2007 (see Appendix B to this Initial Study for a description of the 2007 AQMP). The proposed project is not a regionally significant project that would warrant Intergovernmental Review by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG 2010). Therefore, the proposed project does not have the potential to substantially affect housing, employment, and population projections within the southern California region, which is the basis of the AQMP projections. Furthermore, regional emissions generated by construction and operation of the proposed project would be less than SCAQMD emissions thresholds, and would not be considered by SCAQMD to be a substantial source of air pollutant emissions. The project would not conflict or obstruct implementation of the AQMP and impacts are less than significant in this regard. b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The following describes project -related impacts from short-term construction activities and long-term operation of the project. Short -Term Air Quality Impacts Construction activities would result in the generation of air pollutants including: exhaust emissions from powered construction equipment and motor vehicles; dust generated by grading, earthmoving, and other construction activities and; volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from application of asphalt, paints, and coatings. Construction emissions estimates are shown in Table 4 and are based on the schedule and equipment assumptions included in Table 3 and also on the export of the 1,600 cy of soil material to an offsite landfill. As shown in the Table 4, all emissions from construction -related activities are less than the SCAQMD regional significance threshold values. Therefore, short-term regional air quality impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Page 58 •The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203- 04 3. Environmental Analysis Table 4 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions Pollutants (Ib/day) Source' 110C NO Co so PM10 PM Utilities/Trenching SCE powerlines 2 13 6 <1 1 1 Demolition Building 2 15 10 <1 2 1 Demolition Parking Lot 2 14 10 <1 2 1 Grading' 2 16 10 <1 2 1 Retention Wall Construction 2 15 11 <1 6 1 Building Construction Parking Structure 4 21 16 <1 2 2 Utilities/Trenching 2 13 9 <1 1 1 Building Construction Commercial Building 4 26 23 <1 7 2 Architectural Coating 38 3 2 0 <1 <1 Maximum Daily Emissions 42 39 32 <1 8 3 SCADMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod, Version 2011.1.1. 1 Air quality modeling based on construction phasing and equipment list provided and verified by project applicant. ' Fugitive dust emissions assume application of Rule 403, which includes watering exposed surfaces at least two times daily, and managing haul road dust by watertwo times daily, and restricting speeds on onsite to 15 miles per hour. ' Assumes air pollutant emissions generated from soil haul operations related to the export of 1,600 cubic yards of soil material to an offsite landfill. Long -Term Operation Impacts Long-term air pollutant emissions generated by a project are typically associated with burning fossil fuels in cars and trucks (mobile sources), and in building heating systems and landscaping equipment (stationary sources) in addition to energy usage. Air pollutant emissions associated with project -related vehicular trips and stationary sources are calculated and are shown in Table 5. Vehicle trips generation is based on the project traffic study included as Appendix C to this Initial Study. As shown, all emissions from operation - related activities are less than the SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. Therefore, long-term regional air quality impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 59 0 20S-05 3. Environmental Analysis Table 5 Maximum Daily Operational Phase Regional Emissions Winter Area Sources 2 0 0 0 0 0 Energy Sources <1 1 1 <1 <1 <1 Mobile Sources' 16 12 68 <1 16 1 Total Emissions 18 13 69 <1 17 1 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55 Significant? No No No No No No Source: CalEEMod, Version 2011.1.1. ' Based on land use mix that would that would yield a higher project trip generation compared to the actual land use mix proposed, therefore the mobile source emissions shown are conservative. Please see Table 23 for comparison of trips between the land use mix assumed in the RBF traffic study and the actual proposed land use mix proposed for the project. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD methodology, any projectthat does not exceed, or can be mitigated to less than, the daily threshold values will not add significantly to the cumulative impact. Construction and operational activities would not result in emissions in excess of SCAQMD's dailythreshold values, and therefore the project would not result in cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact. Unlike the regional construction and operational emissions shown in Tables 4 and 5, which are measured in pounds per day, the localized emission concentrations are measured in parts per million and refer to the amount of pollutant in a volume of air. These emissions can be directly correlated to health effects. The localized air pollution is evaluated against the localized significance thresholds (LST), which are based on the ambient concentrations of a pollutant within the project Source Receptor Area, the size of the project site, and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project site that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent national or state AAQS. LSTs are based on the CaliforniaAAQS, which are the most stringent AAQS established to provide a margin of safety in the protection of the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those sensitive receptors most susceptible to respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. The closest receptor distance for the LST methodology is within 25 meters. Projects with boundaries located closer than 25 meters to the nearest receptor should use the LSTs for receptors located at 25 meters Page 60 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS- 60 3. Environmental Analysis (SCAQMD 2008). If emissions exceed the LST for the site and no mitigation is available to reduce emissions below the LSTs, then dispersion modeling should be conducted. Construction LSTs The closest sensitive receptors surrounding the site include the adjacent residences to the north of the project site, within 82 feet (25 meters) of the boundary of the site. Emissions generated by construction activities would temporarily increase pollutant concentrations from onsite equipment (primarily mobile emissions) and fugitive dust (PM,0 and PM2.,). Table 6 shows the localized maximum daily construction emissions. As shown, project -related construction emissions would not exceed the LST screening level criteria for NOx, CO, PM10, and PMIS and therefore, construction emissions would not exceed the CAAQS. The project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and short-term local air quality impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. Table 6 Localized Onsite Construction Emissions (in pounds per day) Source' N0, CO PM,e M 5 Utilities/Trenching SCE powerlines 13 5 1 1 Demolition Building 11 7 1 1 Demolition (Parking Lot) 11 7 1 1 Grading' 16 10 2 1 Retention Wall Construction 10 7 1 1 Building Construction Parking Structure) 19 12 2 2 Utilities/Trenching 13 8 1 1 Building Construction Commercial Building 19 12 2 2 Architectural Coating 3Ma 2 <1 <1 ximum Daily Onsite Construction Emissions 34 22 3 2.93 SCAQMD Localized Threshold 92 1 647 1 4 3 Exceeds Localized Significance Threshold? No I No I No No Source: CaIEEMod, Version 2011.1.1, SCAQMD 2003, and SCAQMD 2006: Based on LSTs for a project site in SRA 18 for a 0.76 -acre site within sensitive receptors located at a distance of 82 feet 125 meters). Only onsite air pollutant emissions as per SCARMD guidance. Air quality modeling based on construction phasing and equipment list provided and verified by project applicant. ' Fugitive dust emissions assume application of Rule 403, which includes watering exposed surfaces at least two times daily, and managing haul road dust by watertwo times daily, and restricting speeds on onsite to 15 miles per hour. ' Project -related maximum daily onsite PM,s emissions would be 2.9 lbs/day and would not exceed the PM, s LST screening criterion of 3 lbs/day. Operational LST Operational activities would generate air pollutant emissions from onsite equipment (primarily stationary emissions). Table 7 shows localized maximum daily operational emissions. As shown in this table, maximum daily operational emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LST; therefore, operational emissions would not exceed the CAAQS and project operation would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Operational LST impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 61 co 2OS- 67 3. Environmental Analysis Table 7 Localized Onsite Operational Emissions Source Pollutants (lbs/day NO, c0 PM,o PM, Area Source 0 0 0 0 Energy Source 1 1 <1 <1 Maximum Daily Onsite Operation Emissions 1 1 <1 <1 SCAOMD LST 92 647 1 1 Exceeds Threshold No No No No Source: CalEEMod, Version 2011.1.1, and SCARMD 2606, Appendix B: Based on LSTs for a project site in SRA 18 for a 0.76 -acre site within sensitive receptors located at 25 meters (82 feet). Carbon Monoxide Hotspots An air quality impactwould be considered significant if the generated CO emission levels exceed the state or federal AAQS, which would expose receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Because CO is produced in greatest quantities from vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, adherence to AAQS is typically demonstrated through an analysis of localized concentrations. Vehicle congestion has the potential to create elevated concentrations of CO called "hot spots." Thresholds for CO are state 1 -hour standard of 20 ppm or the 8 -hour standard of 9 ppm, and federal 1 -hour standard of 35 ppm or the 8 -hour standard of 9 ppm. Thus, a significant impact would use the more restrictive state standard prior to the federal standard. Typical hot spot locations are where traffic congestion is highest such as at intersections where vehicles line up or slow down. CO hotspots have been found to occur only at intersections that operate at or below level of service (LOS) E (Caltrans 1997). Based on the traffic impact analysis prepared by RBF Engineering (2011), the study area intersections would operate at LOS D or better with the proposed project. Therefore, sensitive receptors in the area would not be substantially affected by CO emissions generated by operation of the proposed project. Localized air quality impacts related to mobile -source emissions would therefore be less than significant. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not emit objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. The threshold for odor is if a project creates an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, which states: A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, orwhich cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. The provisions of this rule shall not applyto odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary forthe growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals. The type of facilities that are considered to have objectionable odors include wastewater treatments plants, compost facilities, landfills, solid waste transfer stations, fiberglass manufacturing facilities, paint/coating operations (e.g., auto body shops), dairy farms, petroleum refineries, asphalt batch plants, chemical manufacturing, and food manufacturing facilities. The proposed commercial development would not include Page 62 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS- 62 3. Environmental Analysis these types of uses and would have an enclosed trash area. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate objectionable odors that would lead to a public nuisance and operational impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. During construction activities, construction equipment exhaust, application of asphalt and architectural coatings would temporarily generate odors. Any construction -related odor emissions would be temporary, intermittent in nature, and would not constitute a public nuisance. Impacts associated with construction - generated odors would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact. The site is developed with buildings and an asphalt parking lot and includes a strip of ornamental vegetation behind to the north of the L-shaped building. Other existing vegetation onsite includes two ornamental trees in the western part of the site as well as some small herbs (that is, flowering plants without woody stems) that are growing through cracks in the parking lot. The project would remove all of the existing vegetation onsite including the fig trees (Ficus sp.) growing next to the eastern part of the northern site boundary. There are records of observations of 38 sensitive species in the Newport Beach quadrangle on the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFG 2011). Fifteen of those species are plants, six are arthropods including insects, one is a mollusk, one an amphibian, two are reptiles, eight are birds, and five are mammals. There is no native habitat, and no sensitive plant species, onsite. There is no vegetation onsite that would be of sufficient importance to any sensitive animal species that removal of the vegetation would have a substantial adverse effect for any such species. The project site is not within an area deemed biologically sensitive in the Natural Resources Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan (Newport Beach 2006). Impacts to sensitive species would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No Impact. Riparian habitats are those along banks of rivers or streams. There are no rivers or streams, and no riparian habitat, onsite. In addition, per the Natural Resources Element of the City of Newport Beach General Plan, the project site is not located within an area deemed biologically sensitive (Newport Beach 2006). Occurrences of four sensitive natural communities within the Newport Beach Quadrangle are listed in the CNDDB (CDFG 2011). None of those natural communities occur on or nextto the site. The project site is not within an area deemed biologically sensitive in the City of Newport Beach General Plan (Newport Beach 2006). No impact to riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities would occur. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No Impact. There are no US Geological Survey (USGS) streams or other water bodies on the site. The National Wetlands Mapper does not show any wetlands on or next to the site (USFWS 2010a). Wetlands are Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 63 20s- o5 3. Environmental Analysis defined under the federal Clean Water Act as land that is flooded or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally does support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in saturated soils. Wetlands include areas such as swamps, marshes, and bogs. The entire site is developed with buildings and a parking lot, and thus there are no wetlands onsite. No project impacts would occur. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is developed and surrounded by urbanized land uses, including West Coast Highway, Dover Drive, and commercial and residential development. Therefore, the site is not available for overland wildlife movement. The project would remove two ornamental trees onsite and the fig trees growing next to the northern site boundary; these trees could provide foraging and nesting habitat for birds. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) implements the United States' commitment to four treaties with Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia for the protection of shared migratory bird resources. The MBTA governs the taking, killing, possession, transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests. The USFWS administers permits to take migratory birds in accordance with the MBTA. The applicant would be required to comply with the MBTA, as described in the mitigation measure below. Adherence to the MTBA regulations would ensure that if construction occurs during the breeding season, appropriate measures would be taken to avoid impacts to nesting birds. Impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation. Mitigation Measure The construction contractor shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. The construction contractor shall do one of the following: a) Avoid grading activities during the nesting season, February 14 to September 1; or b) If grading activities are to be undertaken during the nesting season, a site surveyfor nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to no more than three days prior to commencement of grading activities. If nesting birds are found in trees to be removed, removal shall be postponed until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined thatthe nest has failed. Furthermore, the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone where construction activity may not occur until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed. If nesting birds are detected in trees being preserved, the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone where construction activity may not occur until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The City of Newport Beach has several ordinances and policies that relate to the protection and preservation of trees. Regulations for the retention, removal, maintenance, reforestation, and supplemental trimming of City trees are included in Title 13, Streets, Sidewalks and Public Property, of the City's Municipal Code. In addition, City Council Policy G-3, Preservation of Views, was adopted with the intent to preserve views and to preserve and promote the aesthetic and environmental benefits provided by trees. Both the tree Page 64 •The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS- 7o 3. Environmental Analysis ordinance and the City's policies relating to trees are applicable only to City trees, i.e., those on City property and within public parkways. The proposed project would not involve removal or replacement of any Citytrees. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the City's tree ordinances and policies and no impacts would occur. No mitigation measures are necessary. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. The project site is in the plan area of the Orange County Central/Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan (OCCCNCCP). However, the project site is not in an area designated as a reserve under the OCCCNCCP (Nature Reserve 2010). Project development would not conflict with this NCCP and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES The analysis in this section is based partly on the following analyses, which are included as Appendix D to this Initial Study: • Mariner's Point, Newport Beach, California. McKenna at al., February 2, 2011. Paleontological Resources for the Proposed Commercial Property at Coast Highway & Dover Drive Project, in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, (Sect. 27, T 6 S, R 10 W), project area. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, February 11, 2011. 88 a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? No Impact. Section 15064.5 defines historic resources as resources listed or determined to be eligible for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission, a local register of historical resources, or the lead agency. Generally a resource is considered to be "historically significant" if it meets one of the following criteria: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; ii) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; iii) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or iv) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The project site is developed with a commercial building that was constructed in the 1950's. No known historic properties are located within or adjacent to the project site. Due to the fairly recent construction date, lack of historic architectural characteristics; lack of apparent association with historic events or important people; and lack of evidence that the site could yield important historic information, the vacant building does not appear to be eligible as an historical resource under CEQA (McKenna 2011). Therefore, no impacts to Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 65 203— 71 3. Environmental Analysis historical resources would occur due to development of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is developed with a commercial building and parking lot constructed during the 1950's. The project area has not been previously surveyed for cultural resources. However, 28 cultural resources investigations have been completed within a 1 -mile radius of the project site. One cultural resources site, CA -ORA -62, partially encroaches the eastern portion of the project site and extends to the terrace above. Site CA -ORA -62 is a campsite; a number of skeletons, as well as artifacts such as mortars and pestles, are reported to have been dug up at the site (McKenna 2011). Therefore, the project site has a high probability that historic or prehistoric cultural deposits exist beneath the current modern ground surface and possible that potentially significant cultural resources may be uncovered during earthmoving and demolition activities (McKenna 2011). If so, such sites (excluding isolated artifacts) should be tested for significance prior to continued impact. The following mitigation measures would ensure compliance with state historical guidelines. Impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation. Mitigation Measure 2. The project applicant shall have a qualified archaeologist conduct a Phase II archaeological investigation and a Phase III investigated if warranted by the Phase II study. The Phase If investigation, including trenching and analysis of any resources found, shall be completed before issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach. A Phase II archaeological testing program consists of a control subsurface investigation designed to extract a small sample of the subsurface deposits, but a sample large enough to draw a conclusion on the significance of the site (assuming the site is present). If intact features of an archaeological site, such as hearths, living surfaces, or middens, are discovered in the course of the Phase If investigation, then the project applicant shall have the archaeologist conduct a Phase III investigation. A Phase III investigation, if required, shall be completed before issuance of a grading permit. A Phase III consists of extracting a larger sample of the site materials to document the function, age, and components of the site that would allow for interpretation and comparative analysis with respect to the larger area (e.g. occupation within the Newport Bay area). 3. The Project Applicant shall have a qualified professional archaeologist onsite to monitor for any potential impacts to archaeological or historic resources throughout the duration of any ground disturbing activities. The professional archeologist shall have the authority to halt any activities adversely impacting potentially significant cultural resources until the resources can be formally evaluated. The archaeologist must have knowledge of both prehistoric and historical archaeology. Additionally, the archaeological monitoring program shall include the presence of a local Native American representative (Gabrielino and/or Juaneno). Resources must be recovered, analyzed in accordance with CEQA guidelines, and curated. Suspension of ground disturbance in the vicinity of the discoveries shall not be lifted until the archaeologist has evaluated discoveries to assess whether they are classified as historical resources or unique archaeological sites, pursuant to CEQA. Page 66 •The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS- 72 3. Environmental Analysis c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is generally situated over recent marine terrace deposits (Quaternary) which is underlain by the Tertiary age Capistrano Formation (Mactec 2010a; Rue 2011). At the base of a bluff, the Tertiary age Capistrano formation is locally exposed on the slopes and also underlies the recent marine Quaternary deposits (Mactec 2010b; Rue 2011). The Quaternary and Tertiary deposits have been known to contain paleontological resources (McKenna 2011; Rue 2011). Excavations anywhere in the proposed project area would likely encounter significant fossil vertebrates from the marine and terrestrial Quaternary terrace deposits (Rue 2011). Additionally, potentially significant paleontological resources may also be uncovered during earthmoving if the proposed project involves excavations that impact the Tertiary sedimentary deposits (McKenna 2011; Rue 2011). Tertiary sediment is generally at depths of 8 to 16 feet below the parking lot surface grade (Mactec 2010a). Based on the preliminary geotechnical assessment, it is expected that grading operations would require removal of the existing fill and Quaternary marine deposits in order to allow for a minimum of five feet of properly compacted fill beneath the bottom of the footing. Additionally, the development of the proposed project may also require footings to extend into the Tertiary formation (Mactec 2010a). Furthermore, the planned earthwork along the slope related to shoring and construction of the retaining would also result in disturbance of the Quaternary and Tertiary deposits. With adherence to the mitigation measure below, impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure 4. The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified professional paleontologist to monitor for any potential impacts to paleontological resources throughout the duration of ground disturbing activities. In the event paleontological resources are uncovered, the professional paleontologist shall have the authority to halt any activities adversely impacting potentially significant fossil resources until the resources can be formally evaluated. If potentially significant fossils are uncovered they must be recovered, analyzed in accordance with CEQA guidelines, and curated at facilities at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, or other scientific institution accredited for curation and collection of fossil specimens. Suspension of ground disturbances in the vicinity of the discoveries shall not be lifted until the paleontologist has evaluated the significance of the resources pursuant to CEQA. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.5(b), as the project site has a high probability that historic or prehistoric cultural deposits exist beneath the current modern ground surface, there is a possibility human remains may be discovered during site clearing and grading. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that in the event that human remains are discovered within the project site, disturbance of the site shall remain halted until the coroner has conducted an investigation into the circumstances, manner and cause of any death, and the recommendations concerning the treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority and if the coroner recognizes or has reason to believe the human remains to be those of a Native American, he or she shall contact, by telephone within 24 hours, the Native American Heritage Commission. Compliance with existing law would reduce potential impacts to human remains to less than significant. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 67 2OS- 73 3. Environmental Analysis 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS The analysis in this section is based partly on the following technical study, which is included as Appendix E to this Initial Study: Report of Geotechnical Consultation Proposed Mariner's Pointe Retail and Parking Structures, Northwest Corner of Dover Drive and West Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California, MACTEC, July 14, 2010. • Preliminary Geotechnical Consultation Proposed Mariner's Pointe Retaining Wall, Northwest Corner of Dover Drive and West Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California, MACTEC, July 1, 2010. Site Specific Geology Based on the subsurface evaluation and background literature review of the site conduced by MACTEC, the site consist of both fill and natural soils. One of the test borings indicated fill soils up to 5 feet in thickness and it is anticipated that deeper fill soils may be found elsewhere atthe site (MACTEC 2010a). The fill soils in the street level portion of the site consist of sand and silt deposits. Natural soils at the site consist of recent marine deposits, colluvium, and siltstone bedrock of the Capistrano formation. The recent marine deposits occupy the lower, more level portions of the site and consist of silty sand, silt, clayey silt, sand silt, and silty clay extending to depths ranging from 8 to 15 feet below the existing surface. Below the recent marine layer lies the Capistrano formation which consists of siltstone, clayey siltstone, and diatomaceous siltstone. The colluvium layer consists of silty sand and sand with siltstone fragments and locally mantles the slope. The onsite clayey soils are medium expansive. a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: I) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. No Impact. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to mitigate the hazard of surface faulting to structures for human occupancy. The primary purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act is to prevent construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface of active faults. Unlike damage from ground shaking, which can occur at great distances from the fault, impacts from fault rupture are limited to the immediate area where the fault breaks along the surface. No known major or active faults traverse the project site. The project site is not located within an Alquist- Priolo Zone. The closest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, established for an on -shore portion of the Newport -Inglewood Fault, is 4.8 miles to the northwest of the site. No active or potentially active faults have been identified in the project's vicinity. The nearest known active fault with potential surface rupture is the offshore segment of the Newport -Inglewood fault zone 1.5 miles southwest of the project site. Development of the project would not put people or structures at risk from surface rupture of a known fault, and no impact would occur. Page 68 •The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS- 74 3. Environmental Analysis ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact. As is the case for most locations in Southern California, the subject site is located in a region that is characterized by moderate to severe seismic activity. The project site is within the influence of several fault systems that are considered to be active or potentially active and are capable of producing potentially damaging seismic shaking at the site. Motion at the ground surface during an earthquake is measured as horizontal ground acceleration in "g," where "g" is the acceleration of gravity. Accelerations of 0.41 g and 0.55 g correspond approximately to an intensity of VIII on the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale (Wald 1999). Ground shaking effects on buildings and people are measured by the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale, a qualitative scale. The MMI is a 12 -point Intensity Scale ranging from "l," which is rarely felt by people, to "XII," where damage to structures is total and objects are thrown into the air (USGS 2009). In an Intensity "VIII" earthquake, damage is slight in specially designed structures; ordinary substantial buildings are damaged considerably and partially collapse; and damage is great in poorly built structures. Objects such as chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, and walls fall, and heavy furniture is overturned (USGS 2009). The project site could be subjected to moderate to strong ground shaking during the life of the proposed residences from several active faults in the region, including the Newport -Inglewood fault zone approximately 1.5 mile from the site. The peak horizontal ground acceleration forecast to occur at or near the project site during an earthquake is approximately 0.42 g3 and 0.61 g4 Compliance with seismic design criteria contained in the California Building Code (CBC) would minimize impacts related to earthquakes to the extent feasible. Hazards from ground shaking would be less than significant. 0-0 iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact. Secondary effects of seismic shaking from earthquakes include ground lurching and shallow ground rupture (see Section 3.6(c)), soil liquefaction, dynamic settlement (see Section 3.6(a)(v)), seiches, and tsunamis (see Section 3.90)). Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to afluid when subject to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density noncohesive (granular) soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Studies indicate that saturated, loose, near -surface cohesionless soils exhibit the highest liquefaction potential, while dry, dense, cohesionless soils and cohesive soils exhibit low to negligible liquefaction potential. In general, cohesive soils are not considered susceptible to liquefaction. Effects of liquefaction on level ground include settlement, sand boils, and bearing capacity failures below structures. Dynamic settlement of dry sands can occur as the sand particles tend to settle and density as a result of a seismic event. Other types of ground failure typically associated with liquefaction include lateral spreading, flow failure, ground oscillation, loss of bearing strength, and ground lurching (see Section 3.6(c)). The project site is on the margin of a Liquefaction Hazard Zone as designated by the State of California and maybe partially or wholly within the zone (MACTEC 2010a). The localized onsite recent marine deposits below the water level are anticipated to be susceptible to liquefaction. Overall, liquefaction - induced settlement of about 1/2inch is expected to occur primarily due to the shallow depth of the top of 3 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years (Design Basis Earthquake). 410 percent probability of exceedance in 100 years (Upper Bound Earthquake). Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 69 2OS- 7s 3. Environmental Analysis the Capistrano formation (MACTEC 2010a). However, it is not anticipated that the Capistrano formation material will liquefy. Therefore, potential for liquefaction is considered remote. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. iv) Landslides? Less Than Significant Impact. Landslides are movements of relatively large landmasses, either as nearly intact bedrock blocks, or as jumbled mixes of bedrock blocks, fragments, debris, and soils. Landslide materials are commonly porous and very weathered in the upper portions and along the margins of the slide. They may also have open fractures and joints. Gravity inexorably pulls hillsides down and earthquakes enhance this ongoing process. The project site is located within an area identified as having a potential for slope instability and a slope portion of the site is located within an area identified as having a potential for earthquake -induced landslides (MACTEC 2010a). The existing slope along the northern boundary line is 45 to 50 feet in height and the upper portion of the slope comprised of Pleistocene terrace deposits is located within the boundaries of the properties bordering the site to the north. The stability of existing and proposed slopes is dependent upon a variety of factors that include height, gradient, geologic materials, geologic structure and orientation of bedrock units, and moisture content. Additionally, the type of vegetation and degree of vegetation coverage also factors into slope stability. Several factors present indicate the overall slope stability to be considered grossly stable from a geologic perspective (MACTEC 2010a). The orientation of the geologic structure in the bedrock materials (dipping into slope) is favorable with respect to slope stability. Additionally, the dense nature of the Pleistocene terrace deposits that overlie the bedrock exposed in the slope is favorable for gross slope stability. Furthermore, there are no known landslides nearthe site nor is the site in the path of any known or potential landslides. Therefore, impacts from landslides are considered less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Development of the proposed project would involve excavation and grading of the site and trenching for the installation and connection of underground utilities. These site preparation activities (demolition and removal of vegetation, asphalt, and building) would result in the disruption of onsite soils and the exposure of soils to potential wind and water erosion impacts. Although some erosion may result from grading and construction operations, it is not anticipated that substantial soil erosion would occur due to the relatively flat topography and the developed nature of the site. However, development of the proposed project would also require construction cuts into the slope on the northern portion of the site. Portions of this slope which are not improved by the proposed development may be surficially unstable. Implementation of ordinary control measures can control erosion and sediment delivery for the majority of the site which is relatively flat. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 5 would ensure that erosion from the upslope area would be minimized. In addition, the project would be subject to local and state codes and requirements for erosion control and grading. The project would also be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Eliminating System (NPDES) permitting regulations, including the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is further discussed in Section 3.8 of this report. With the adherence to these codes and regulations and implementation of mitigation, impacts would be less than significant. Page 70 •The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS- 70 3. Environmental Analysis Mitigation Measure 5. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a detailed engineering -level geotechnical investigation report shall be prepared and submitted with engineered grading plans to further evaluate expansive soils, soil corrosivity, slope stability, landslide potential, settlement, foundations, grading constraints, and other soil engineering design conditions and to provide site-specific recommendations to address these conditions, if determined necessary. The engineering -level report shall include and address each of the recommendations included in the geotechnical reports prepared by MACTEC (2010a and 2010b) and included as Appendix E. The geotechnical reports shall be prepared and signed/stamped by a Registered Civil Engineer specializing in geotechnical engineering and a Certified Engineering Geologist. Geotechnical rough grading plan review reports shall be prepared in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Grading Ordinance. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not be located on unstable soils. The project would not result in significant hazards from liquefaction and earthquake - induced landslides (see Section 3.7(a)(iii) and Section 3.7(a)(iv) for detailed discussion). Lateral Spreading Lateral displacement of surficial blocks of soil as the result of liquefaction in a subsurface layer is called 88 lateral spreading. Once liquefaction transforms the subsurface layer into afluid-like mass, gravity plus inertial forces caused by the earthquake may move the mass downslope toward a cut slope or free face (such as a river channel or a canal). Lateral spreading most commonly occurs on gentle slopes that range between 0.3 and 3 degrees, and can displace the ground surface by several meters to tens of meters. Such movement damages pipelines, utilities, bridges, roads, and other structures. Because the liquefiable deposits onsite are isolated, the potential for lateral spreading is considered low (MACTEC 2010a). Lateral spreading is not a significant hazard associated with the site. Subsidence Ground subsidence is the gradual settling or sinking of the ground surface with little or no horizontal movement. In the areas of southern California where ground subsidence has been reported, this phenomenon is usually associated with the extraction of oil, gas, or groundwater, or the organic decomposition of peat deposits, with a resultant loss in volume. Ground subsidence can also occur as a response to natural forces such as earthquake movements and the folding and subsiding activity of sedimentary basins. Earthquakes have caused abrupt regional elevation changes in excess of one foot across faults. Ground -surface effects related to regional subsidence can include earth fissures, sinkholes or depressions, and disruption of surface drainage. Damage is generally restricted to structures sensitive to slight changes in elevations, such as canals, levees, underground pipelines, and drainage courses; however, significant subsidence can result in damage to wells, buildings, roads, railroads, and other improvements. The project site is not within an area of known subsidence associated with ground water or petroleum, peat oxidation, or hydrocompaction (MACTEC 2010a). Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 71 2OS- 77 3. Environmental Analysis Settlement Strong ground shaking can cause soils to become more tightly packed and settle due to the collapse of voids and pore spaces. This type of settlement typically occurs in soils that are loose, granular, and cohesionless, and can occur in either wet or dry soils. Unconsolidated young alluvial sediments are especially susceptible to this hazard. Seismically induced settlement can cause damage to structures and buried pipelines. Ground rupture (subsidence) due to active faulting is not likely to occur onsite because there are no known active fault traces that traverse the site. Minor cracking of near -surface soils due to shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a significant hazard. Collapse Soil collapse typically occurs when saturated, collapsible soils undergo a rearrangement of their grains and a loss of cementation, resulting in substantial and rapid settlement under relatively light loads. An increase in surface water infiltration, such as from irrigation, or a rise in the groundwater table, combined with the weight of a building or structure, can initiate rapid settlement and cause foundations and walls to crack. The site is underlain by natural soils and fill materials associated with previous grading for the existing development. The onsite clayey soil has a medium -expansive index and the existing fill soils are not suitable for support of the proposed structures (Mactec 2010a). The onsite sandy soils, less any debris and organic matter, can be used in required fills. The onsite silt and clay soils are not suitable to be reused for fill as these soils may be very wet and soft and difficult to compact. The project applicant would complete and submit a final soils and engineering geology report to the City of Newport Building Department in compliance with the City Municipal Code, Title 15, Chapter 15.10, Section 15.10.060. Summary The project design and development would incorporate all recommended measures outlined in the final geologic reports to ensure that safety is not compromised. With adherence to the Mitigation Measure 5, impacts would be less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Soils containing expansive clay minerals can shrink or swell substantially as the moisture content decreases or increases. Structures built on these soils may experience shifting, cracking, and breaking damage as soils shrink and subside or expand. Laboratory testing of soil onsite indicates an expansion index ranging from 65 to 66, which corresponds to the Medium category of expansion potential in the CBC. Laboratory test results also show that soils onsite are rated as having a severe sulfate content with respect to sulfate exposure to concrete. Onsite soils are considered corrosive to ferrous metals and severe for sulfate attack on concrete. While expansive and corrosive soils are present onsite, incorporation of Mitigation Measure 5 and adherence to the recommendations in the final soils and geologic report(s) would ensure that potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. There are no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems existing on or currently proposed for use at the project site. The project will require sewer system service which will be served by the existing City sewer system. No project impacts are anticipated. Page 72 •The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2003- 78 3. Environmental Analysis 3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS The analysis in this section is based partly on the following analysis, which is included as Appendix B to this Initial Study: • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis, The Planning Center I DC&E, March 2011. a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. Global climate change is not confined to a particular project area and is generally accepted as the consequence of global industrialization over the last 200 years. A typical project, even a very large one, does not generate enough greenhouse gas emissions on its own to influence global climate change significantly; hence, the issue of global climate change is, by definition, a cumulative environmental impact. The State of California, through its governor and its legislature, has established a comprehensive framework for the substantial reduction of GHG emissions over the next 40 -plus years. This will occur primarily through the implementation of Assembly Bill (AB 32) and Senate Bill (SB 375), which will address GHG emissions on a statewide cumulative basis. GHG emissions generated by the project are associated with the new area sources (natural gas use, landscape equipment, etc.) from the new building structures, transportation emissions associated with vehicles traveling to and from the project site, and indirect emissions associated with purchased energy, energy associated with water (conveyance, treatment, distribution, and treatment of wastewater), and waste disposal. In addition, annual average construction emissions were amortized over 30 years and included in the emissions inventory to account for GHG emissions from the construction phase of the project. In 88 addition, annual average construction emissions were amortized over 30 years and included in the emissions inventory to account for GHG emissions from the construction phase of the project. GHG emissions from project -related operational activities are included in Table 8. The proposed project would generate approximately 1,640 metrictons (MTons) of GHG emissions per year. Currently, there are no adopted thresholds for GHG emissions for projects within the SCAQMD region. However, SCAQMD has convened a Working Group to identify GHG thresholds for use in the SoCAB. For projects that are not exempt or where no qualifying GHG reduction plans are directly applicable, SCAQMD requires an assessment of GHG emissions. SCAQMD is proposing a screening level threshold of 3,000 MTons annually for all land use types. This threshold is based on a review of the Governor's Office of Planning and Research database of CEQA projects. Based on their review, 90 percent of CEQA projects would exceed 3,000 MTons per year. Projects that exceed the screening threshold would require additional technical analysis to determine the level of significance (see Appendix B to this Initial Study for further details). Because the GHG emissions associated with the project would be below the SCAQMD's proposed screening threshold, the proposed project's cumulative contribution to GHG emissions would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 73 203— tJ 3. Environmental Analysis Table 8 Project -Related GHG Emissions GHG Source MTons/Pearl Percent of Project Total MTons/Year Energy 371 23% Mobile 1,271 74% Waste 24 1 % Water 21 1 % Amortized Construction Emission S2,3 14 1% Total 1,640 100% SCAQMD Proposed Screening Threshold 3,000 MTons NA Exceeds the Screening Threshold No NA Source: CalEEMod, Version 2011.1.1. Assumes implementation of the California Green Building Code and 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. MTons: metric tons ' Based traffic study prepared by RBF (2011) which assumed a land use mix that would yield higher COTE emissions from all sources compared to the actual proposed land use, therefore results shown in this table are conservative. Please see Table 23 for comparison of trips between the land use mix assumed in the RBF traffic study and the actual proposed land use mix proposed for the project. Total construction emissions are amortized over 30 years. ' Assumes GHG emissions generated from soil haul operations related to the export of 1,600 cubic yards of soil material to an offsite landfill. b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? No Impact. CARB adopted the Scoping Plan on December 11, 2008. The Scoping Plan is California's GHG reduction strategy to achieve the state's GHG emissions reduction target established by AB 32, which is 1990 levels by year 2020. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), California Appliance Energy Efficiency regulations, California Renewable Energy Portfolio standard, changes in the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards, and other early action measures would ensure the state is on target to achieve the GHG emissions reduction goals of AB 32. The project's GHG emissions would be further reduced from compliance with these statewide measures. The state of California recently adopted the 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards and the 2010 Green Building Code. The project would be constructed to achieve the energy efficiency standards of the 2008 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The 2008 Standard is 15 percent more energy efficiency compared to the 2005 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. CARB and the EPA have also adopted new fuel efficiency standards for model years 2012 through 2016. The Scoping Plan also calls for more stringent fuel efficiency standards model years 2016 through 2020 under Pavley II. Because the proposed project would not exceed the SCAQMD's proposed screening threshold for GHG emissions and would achieve the 2008 efficiency standards, the proposed project would not have the potential to interfere with the State of California's ability to achieve GHG reduction goals and strategies. 3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not cause a substantial hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Page 74 •The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203- go 3. Environmental Analysis The term "hazardous material" is defined indifferent ways by different regulatory programs. For purposes of this environmental document, the definition of "hazardous material" is similar to that in the California Health and Safety Code, § 25501: Hazardous materials that, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, pose a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. "Hazardous waste" is a subset of hazardous materials, and the definition is essentially the same as that in the California Health and Safety Code, § 25517, and in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, § 66261.2: Hazardous wastes are those that, because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, may either cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Hazardous materials can be categorized as hazardous nonradioactive chemical materials, radioactive materials, and biohazardous materials (infectious agents such as microorganisms, bacteria, molds, parasites, viruses, and medical waste). Project construction would involve use of small quantities of hazardous materials such as fuels, greases, paints, and cleaning materials. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials by the project would be required to comply with existing regulations of several agencies, including the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational 88 Safety & Health Administration (OSHA), Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA), and the Orange County Environmental Health Division. Compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials would ensure that all potentially hazardous materials are used and handled in an appropriate manner, and would minimize the potential for safety impacts to occur. Long-term operations of the proposed project would not involve routine transport, storage, use, and disposal of substantial amounts of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not create substantial hazards to the public or the environment due to accidental release of hazardous materials. For the most part, the health and safety procedures that protect workers and other individuals in the immediate vicinity of hazardous materials would also protect the more distant community and environment. The pathways through which the community or the environment (e.g., local air quality and biota) could be accidentally exposed to hazardous materials include air emissions, transport of hazardous materials to or from the site, waste disposal, human contact, and accidents. The small quantities of hazardous materials, such as fuels, greases, paints, and cleaning substances, may be used during project construction. This small amount would not pose a significant risk to the public or the environment if an onsite accident were to occur. Based on the Phase 1 conducted for the project site, the existing buildings, which were built by 1968, are suspected to have asbestos containing materials (ACM) (AES 2010). SCAOMD Rule 1403 governs the demolition of buildings containing asbestos materials. Rule 1403 specifies work practices with the goal of minimizing asbestos emissions during building demolition activities, including the removal and associated disturbance of ACMs. The requirements for demolition Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 75 203- 81 3. Environmental Analysis activities include asbestos surveying; notification; ACM removal procedures and time schedules; ACM handling and cleanup procedures; and storage, disposal, and landfill disposal requirements for asbestos - containing waste materials. The existing buildings may also contain lead-based paints (LBP). According to the Phase 1 report, the suspected LBP present is considered to be a de minimis environmental condition since it can be disposed of as demolition debris (AES 2010). The project applicant would be required to comply with existing local, state, and federal regulations, which would reduce the risk of accidental releases of hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. No school facilities are within one-quarter mile of the project site. Furthermore, the proposed commercial/retail/office land uses would not involve handling, use, or disposal of significant quantities of hazardous materials. No significant impacts related to hazardous emissions would occur due to project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. The project site is not included on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Geotracker 2010). No impact to the public or to the environment would occur as a result of the proposed project, and no mitigation measures are required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. The nearest airport is John Wayne Airport (JWA), located approximately 3.75 miles north of the project site (Airnav 2010). The project site is located outside of the airport impact zones of JWA as determined in the Orange Count Airport Environs Land Use Plan (AELUP) for JWA. Additionally, the project site is also outside of the height restriction overlay zone of the AELUP. Therefore, no impact to or from an airport would occur as a result of the proposed project, and no mitigation measures are required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The project site is notwithin the vicinity of a private airstrip or heliport. The nearest heliport is the Hoag Memorial Hospital Heliport approximately 1.5 miles west of the site and the Newport Beach Police Heliport 1.6 miles east of the site (Airnav 2010). The proposed project would have a maximum height of 44 feet, and would be similar in size and scale to the other buildings in the general area of the project site. Due to the size and nature of the proposed project, no safety hazard would result from the proximity of the proposed project to the two nearby heliports. No mitigation measures are necessary. Page 76 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203- 22 3. Environmental Analysis g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The Orange County Operational Area Emergency Operations Center (OCOA/EOC) coordinates emergency response of county agencies and departments in the operational areas, which include the City of Newport Beach. The Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) is the state -mandated framework for emergency response and recovery. The EOC acts as a central point for coordination of operational, administrative, and support needs of emergency workers. The project is not a critical facility and would not have the potential to interfere with OCOA/EOC's emergency response plans. No impact would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? No Impact. The project site is located in a developed area and is not immediately adjacent to any wildland fire areas. According to Figure S4, Wildfire Hazards, of the Safety Element of the City's General Plan, the project site is designated as an area of low -to -no fire hazard (Newport Beach 2006). Additionally, although Newport Beach has a number of areas designated as Special Fire Protection Areas (SFPAs), the project site does not fall within one of these SFPAs (Newport Beach 2011a and 2011 b). Areas in SFPAs require fuel modification and a 100 -foot setback between the structure and the wildland areas. For these reasons, the project site would not constitute a wildland fire risk. No impacts from wildland fires would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.9 HYDROLOGYAND WATER QUALITY 88 The analysis in this section is based partly on the following technical study, which is included as Appendix F to this Initial Study: Water Quality Management Plan for Mariner's Pointe 100-300 West Coast Highway, Development Plan No. DP 2010-133, Parcel Map No. 2010-133, Anacal Engineering Company Inc., February 28, 2011. a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the Newport Bay Watershed and the receiving water is Lower Newport Bay. Under the Clean Water Act Section 303(d), Newport Bay is identified by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board as impaired due to excess sedimentation, nutrients, toxics, and fecal coliform OC Watersheds 2011). Construction of the proposed project could potentially discharge sediment and pollutants to Lower Newport Bay, resulting in a potential significant impact to water quality. Grading and excavation of the site would expose and disturb soils. The storage and use of hazar- dous materials on-site, including treated wood, paints, solvents, fuels, etc., would be potential sources of pollutants during construction. Storm water pollutants from operations on the site may include sediment (soil erosion), oil, and grease left in the parking areafrom motor vehicles, and trash and debris blown or dropped onto the site. Construction Phase Short-term construction best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented to eliminate sediment and construction debris runoff into area storm drains during the construction period. Implementation of Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 77 203- 23 3. Environmental Analysis BMPs is required by the federal Clean Water Act. In the City of Newport Beach, for construction sites under one acre in area, BMP compliance is administered by the City Public Works Department. Categories of BMPs that are used for construction sites include: • Erosion controls: cover and/or bind soil surface, to prevent soil particles from being detached and transported by water or wind. Erosion control BMPs include mulch, soil binders, and mats. • Sediment controls: Filter out soil particles that have been detached and transported in water. Sediment control BMPs include barriers, and cleaning measures such as street sweeping. Wind Erosion Control: the aims and methods of wind erosion control are similar to those of erosion control described above. • Tracking controls: Tracking control BMPs minimize the tracking of soil offsite by vehicles; for instance, stabilizing construction roadways and entrances/exits. • Non-stormwater management: Prohibit discharge of materials other than stormwater, such as discharges from the cleaning, maintenance, and fueling of vehicles and equipment. Non-stormwater management BMPs also prescribe conducting various construction operations, including paving, grinding, and concrete curing and finishing, in ways that minimize non-stormwater discharges and contamination of any such discharges. • Waste and Materials Management: management of materials and wastes to avoid contamination of stormwater. Waste and materials management BMPs include spill prevention and control, stockpile management, and management of solid wastes and hazardous wastes. Implementation of the BMPs would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less than significant level. Operations Phase The project is classified as a Priority Project by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB 2009). Anticipated stormwater or urban runoff pollutants associated with this project are: • Heavy Metals: Metals of concern as water contaminants include cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc. Lead and chromium have been used as corrosion inhibitors; metals are also raw materials used in nonmetal products such as fuels, adhesives, and paints. • Nutrients. Nutrients, including nitrogen, phosphorous, and other compounds can be anticipated to be generated by or found in organic litter, fertilizers, food waste, sewage, and sediment. • Pesticides. Sources of pesticides include bug -spray, weed killers, and other sources. • Sediment. Driveways, rooftops, and landscape areas are expected to be common sources of sediment due to wear or erosion. • Trash and Debris. These sources include common litter, biodegradable organic matter, such as leaves, grass cuttings, and food wastes from landscaped areas and restaurant uses. Page 78 • The Planning Center I DC&E April2011 2OS- 2 4 3. Environmental Analysis Bacteria and Viruses. Anticipated sources include sanitary sewer overflow and trash container handling areas. • Oxygen -Demanding Substances. Potential sources include biodegradable organic materials and various chemicals, which deplete dissolved oxygen levels in watercourses. • Oil and Grease. Potential sources of oil and grease include motor vehicles. The existing site has approximately 85 percent impervious area. At project completion the site would consist of approximately 90 percent impervious area and 10 percent landscaped area. A Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (P-WQMP) has been prepared for the project and is included as Appendix F to this Initial Study. The P-WQMP specifies BMPs that the project would implement to use to reduce, prevent, minimize, and/or treat the above -listed pollutants and prevent degradation of downstream receiving waters. BMPs identified in the P-WQMP are listed below in Table 9 and are described further in the P-WQMP. Table 9 Water Quality Management Plan BMPs (Project Design and Operation) BMPs Routine Structural BMPs Provide storm drain system stenciling and sianaae Design and construct trash and waste storaoe areas to reduce pollution introduction Treatment Control BMPs Porous Landscape Detention Infiltration Trenches equipped with filters to catch trash and debris before stormwater enters receiving waters Project Operation Routine Nonstructural BMPs Education for Property Owners, Tenants and Occupants Activity Restriction Uniform Fire Code Implementation Maintenance and cleaning (landscape maintenance, litter control, BMP maintenance, street/parking lot sweeping, and catch basin inspections, ) Source: Anacal Engineering Co. 2011. The project would implement BMPs specified in the P-WQMP. As a result, impacts to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements would be less than significant. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 79 0 203- 85 3. Environmental Analysis b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is situated over the Coastal Plain of Orange County Groundwater Basin. However, the site is above an area where surface water and shallow groundwater are blocked from percolating into deeper layers of sediment by clay and silt layers within 50 feet of the ground surface. There are no groundwater wells for municipal water supply near the site, and the nearest such well is roughly five miles north of the site (OCSD 2009). Project development would slightly increase the amount of impervious surfaces onsite from 85 percent to 90 percent of the site. However, the project would include infiltration trenches to infiltrate some stormwater into the soil before stormwater leaves the site and flows into the storm drains. The project would not cause a net increase in runoff leaving the site (Gwatney 2011). The project would not have substantial adverse effects on either groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge, and impacts would be less than significant. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river. in a manner which would result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site Less Than Significant Impact. Existing site drainage is to the south and east. Drainage to the east enters Dover Street, then enters a catch basin in Dover Drive, leading to a storm drain that discharges into Lower Newport Bay. Drainage to the south enters Pacific Coast Highway, then enters a catch basin connecting to a storm drain that also discharges into Lower Newport Bay. At project completion, site drainage would be similar to the existing pattern except that on-site drainage would be directed first into infiltration trenches with filtered inlets, and perforated pipes for infiltration; overflow from the infiltration trenches would follow the same routes as existing drainage. At project completion the entire site would be developed with impervious surfaces and with landscaping, and thus substantial erosion or siltation would not occur. Project construction would implement BMPs for erosion control and sediment control (described further above in Section 3.9.a) that would minimize erosion. The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern on and next to the site, and would not cause substantial erosion. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not substantially change the drainage pattern onsite, as described above in Section 3.9.c. The project includes drainage improvements, infiltration trenches that would percolate some drainage into soil and release overflow to adjoining streets. The project would not cause a net increase in runoff leaving the site. The project would not cause flooding on- or off-site, and impacts would be less than significant. Page 80 • The Planning Center I DC&E April 2011 203- 20 3. Environmental Analysis e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less Than Significant Impact. Impacts to drainage and storm drainage systems are described above in Section 3.9.d, and impacts to pollution of runoff are discussed above in Section 3.9.a. Impacts would be less than significant. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Less Than Significant Impact. Project water quality impacts would be less than significant, as substantiated above in Section 3.9(a). g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Map Panel No. 06059C0381J, the project site is not within a 100 -year flood hazard area. It is within a Zone X designated area (area of minimal flood hazard) (FEMA 2010). Therefore, no impact would occur as a result of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No Impact. The project site is not within a 100 -year flood hazard area (FEMA 2010). Therefore, no significant impacts related to redirecting flood flows would occur. No mitigation measures are necessary. I) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. As noted in 3.9(g) and (h), the project site is not within a 100 -year flood zone. Additionally, the project site is not within the downslope of any large bodies of water that could adversely affectthe site in the event of an earthquake -induced dam failure (MACTEC 2010a). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or muciflow? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The following describes potential impacts to structures from seiches, tsunamis, and muciflows: Seiche A seiche is a surface wave created when a body of water is shaken, usually by earthquake activity. Seiches are of concern relative to water storage facilities because inundation from a seiche can occur if the wave overflows a containment wall, such as the wall of a reservoir, water storage tank, dam, or other artificial body of water. There are no water bodies upslope from the project site that could pose a flood hazard to the site due to a seiche (MACTEC 2010a), and no impact would occur. Tsunami A tsunami is a series of ocean waves caused by a sudden displacement of the ocean floor, most often due to earthquakes. The project site is one mile inland from the Pacific Ocean and at an elevation of Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 81 2OS- g7 3. Environmental Analysis approximately 20 feet. The site is outside of areas that would be flooded by a tsunami as defined by the California Geological Survey and mapped on the Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Newport Beach Quadrangle (CGS 2009). Flooding hazards due to tsunamis would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. Mudflow A mudf low is a landslide composed of saturated rock debris and soil with a consistency of wet cement. As previously discussed in Section 3.6(a)(iv), the slope stability of the existing slope north of the site is considered to be geologically stable. However, terrace deposits are moderately erodible and susceptible to surficial instabilities. The potential for erosion and small debris flows is evidenced by observation of accumulation of debris at the base of an erosion gully on the slope near the northern portion of the project site during field investigation. The project design and development would incorporate all recommended measures outlined in the final geologic reports to ensure that safety is not compromised. With adherence to the Mitigation Measure 5, impacts would be less than significant. 3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not physically divide an existing community. The existing neighborhood surrounding the project site is a mix of residential and commercial uses. The proposed commercial uses are consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation for the project site and would not create any new land use barriers nor divide or disrupt the physical arrangement of the surrounding community. The project site is on the edge of the Mariner's Mile commercial corridor and backs against the Cliff Haven neighborhood and does not possess any design features or characteristics that would disrupt the land use pattern of the area or impede or block physical connections in the area. There would be no impact and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The City of Newport Beach regulates land use within its jurisdiction through a General Plan and a Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the proposed plan would be subject to the guidelines within the Mariner's Pointe Strategic Vision and Design Plan. General Plan Land Use and Zoning The project site is designated General Commercial (CG) under the City's General Plan and Commercial General (CG) under the City's Zoning Map. The proposed project would result in the construction of a two- story structure totaling 23,015 gross building square feet in addition to the three-level parking structure on the 0.76 -acre site. The CG land use and zoning designation permits a 0.3 FAR. For projects that consolidate parcels for the purpose of developing a larger commercial development and that provide adequate parking, a FAR of up to 0.5 is permitted. The project would construct a 23,015 gross building square -toot structure on a 33,036 -square -foot property, which would result in an FAR of approximately 0.7 (69.6 percent). A General Plan Amendment and zoning code change would be required to increase the permitted FAR for the project site. Page 82 •The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203- gg 3. Environmental Analysis The City's development standards for the CG zoning district include a height limitation of 31 feet with a sloped roof that has a 3:12 or greater pitch. The height may be increased up to 40 feet with a sloped roof through discretionary approval process via approval of a Site Development Review. The maximum building height proposed for the project is 40 feet with a sloped roof that would have a 3:12 pitch and would therefore require discretionary approval to exceed the 31 feet height limitation. Variance and Modification Permit The project would also require a variance under the City's Municipal Code Section 20.52.090 for the encroachment onto the rear yard setback. Additionally, a modification permit would be required under City Municipal code Section 20.52.050 for the cupola feature as it exceeds the 40 feet height maximum by 4 feet. Parking Pursuant to the parking requirements outlined in the City's Municipal Code, the proposed project would be required to provide 157 parking spaces as shown in Table 10 (see Appendix G to this Initial Study). Table 10 City of Newport Beach Parking Requirements Land Use Gross Square Feet' Leasable Restaurant Area' (st) Net Public Area' (sl) Parking Rate' Required Parkings Restaurant 9,522 10,493 8,280 4,968 1 per 50 sf s 100 Retail n/a Na 1 per 250 sf 42 Medical Office 3,000 n/a n/a 1 per 200 sf 15 Total 23,015 157 Source: LSA 2011. Notes: sf = square feet ' Gross square feet of restaurant includes enclosed outside area behind R-103 and R-204. P Estimated as 60 percent of net restaurant area consistent with the project description. 3 From NBMC 20.40.040. 4 NBMC-20.40.030(E) requires fractional spaces to be rounded up. ' NBMC 20.40.060 allows the Planning Commission to adopt a parking rate between 1/30 sf to 1/50 sf for restaurants. Table 11, Shared Parking Time of Day, show the parking demand by the time of day. Due to the different hours of operation and different offsetting parking activities, not all of the uses at the project will require their full allotment of parking spaces at the same time. As shown in the table, peak parking demand is estimated to occur at 1:00 PM and at 6:00 PM.S The afternoon peak would demand 131 parking spaces and the evening peak would demand up to 145 parking spaces. As shown in Table 2, between the hours of 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM with valet service, the parking structure would provide 136 parking spaces. After 5:00 PM, the offsite surface lot would provide 20 additional parking spaces for employees. Therefore, a total of 156 total parking spaces would be available after 5:00 PM. Overall, the project would be able accommodate the parking demand that would be generated. Approval of a CUP would be required to allow rooftop parking, to modify the off-street parking requirements, and to establish a parking management plan for the site. s Includes both patron and employee parking demand. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 83 0 2(03— gq 3. Environmental Analysis General Plan Policies A detailed analysis of the proposed project's consistency with the applicable policies of the various elements of the Newport Beach General Plan is provided in Table 12, General Plan ConsistencyAnalysis. As shown in the table, the proposed project would be consistent with the applicable policies of the Newport Beach General Plan. Page 84 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2O3- 90 3. Environmental Analysis Table 11 Shared Parking Time of Day Time of Day 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 a.m. a.m. a.m. a.m. a.m. a.m. D.M. a.m. D.M. D.M. P.M. D.20 P.M. D.M. D.m. D.M. P.M. a.m. Time of Day Factors' Restaurant' 15% 40% 75% 75% 65% 40% 50% 75% 95% 100% 100% 100% 95% 75% Medical Office 1 90% 1 90% 1 100% 1 100% 1 30% 1 90% 100% 1 100% 1 100% 100% 1 67% 1 30% 15% Restaurant 0 0 0 0 15 40.0 75.0 75.0 65.0 40.0 50.0 75.0 95.0 100 100 100 95.0 75.0 Office 0 0 13.5 13.5 15 15 4.5 13.5 15 15 15 15 10.1 4.5 2.3 0 0 0 Retail 0.42 2.1 6.3 14.7 27.3 35.7 39.9 42 39.9 37.8 37.8 39.9 39.9 39.9 34 21 12.6 4.2 Total 1 0 2 20 28 57 1 91 1 119 131 120 93 103 130 145 144 136 121 108 79 Source: LSA 2U11. Bold: Peak demand ' Time -of -Day Factors referenced from Shared Parking, Second Edition, Urban Land Institute, 2005. 2 Fine/Casual Dining Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E City of Newport Beach • Page 85 April2011 203- g1 3. Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E City of Newport Beach • Page 86 April2011 263- 92 Table 12 General Plan 3. Environmental Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies I Project Consistency Land Use Element Goal LU 1 —A unique residential community with diverse coastal and upland neighborhoods, which values its colorful past, high quality of life, and community bonds, and balances the LU 7.5 Economic Health (page 3-6). encourage a local economy that Consistent. I tie proposed project would contribute to the Uity's economy tnrougn the development of a new provides adequate commercial, office, industrial and marine -oriented commercial/retail complex that will offer a wide range of new employment opportunities within Newport Beach. opportunities that provide employment and revenue to support high quality Potential tenants for eight tenant spaces include: restaurants, a jewelry store, clothing stores, fitness center and community services. spa, and offices. The proposed uses would attract additional visitors to the City by expanding the retail and Goal LU 2 —A living, active, and diverse environment that complements all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Newport Beach unique. It contains a diversity of uses that support the needs of residents, sustain and enhance the economy, provide job opportunities, serve visitors that enjoy the City's diverse recreational amenities, and protect its important environmental Bettina, resources, and aualitv of life. LU Z 1 Resident Serving Land Uses (page 3-6). Accommodate uses that Consistent: The proposed project would introduce a new commercial/retail complex that will offer a wide range of support the needs of Newport Beach's residents including housing, retail, retail, and destination service, and employment opportunities for existing residents of Newport Beach. services, employment, recreation, education, culture, entertainment, civic engagement, and social and spiritual activity that are in balance with community natural resources, and open spaces. LU 2.4 Economic Development (page 3-7). Accommodate uses that Consistent., See response to Policy LU 1.5. Additionally, the proposed project would contribute to the quality of life maintain or enhance Newport Beach's fiscal health and account for market by providing a new commercial venue that provides opportunities for employment and retail goods and services demands, while maintaining and improving the quality of life for current (see Figure 6a, Building Elevations—South), a comprehensive landscape and lighting plan (see Figure 8a, and future residents. Landscaping Plan, and Figure 9, Third -Level Parking Structure Lighting Plan, respectively), and an onsite parking and circulation plan that would adequately serve the proposed uses (see Figures 5.a, Site Plan—Ground Level, 51b, Site Plan — Second Level, 5c, Site Plan —Third Level). LU 2.6 Visitor Serving Uses (page 3.8). Provide uses that serve visitors See response to Policies LU1.5 and LU 2.4. to Newport Beach's ocean, harbor, open spaces, and other recreational assets, while integrating them to orotect neighborhoods and residents. LU 3.2 Urowth anti Change (page 3-9). Unanges 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 Consistent. I he project request includes a General Plan Amendment to Increase the allowable floor area ratio from 0.5 FAR to a 0.68 FAR. The project site is located on the corner of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive, and serves as an entry into the Mariner's Mile corridor of the City. The project site itself consists of six lots that have sat vacant for several years as a result of a redevelopment plan that never materialized, resulting in dangerous conditions and public nuisances, including graffiti, abandoned signs, overgrown landscaping, weeds, debris, and broken windows. Without action to stimulate development, the desired goals of redeveloping the site may be difficult. Providing the requested 0.68 FAR for the project site would provide an economic stimulus needed to redevelop the six lots into one unified commercial/retail complex. As stated in the General Plan, Newport Beach Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E City of Newport Beach • Page 87 Apri12O11 263- 93 3. Environmental Analysis Table 12 General Plan project site is served by existing infrastructure and public services. The proposed increase in intensity will not necessitate any expansion of existing infrastructure. The 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 LU 5.2 — Commercial centers and districts that are well designed and planned, exhibit a high level of architectural and landscape quality, and are vital places for shopping and LU 5.2.1 Architecture and Site Design (page 3.55). Require that new development within existing commercial district centers and corridors complement existing uses and exhibit a high level of architectural and site design in consideration of the following principles: Seamless connections and transitions with existing buildings, except where developed as a free-standing building Modulation of building masses, elevations, and rooflines to promote visual interest Architectural treatment of all building elevations, including ancillary facilities such as storage, truck loading and unloading, and trash enclosures Extensive on-site landscaping, including mature vegetation to provide a tree canopy to provide shade for customers Clearly delineated pedestrian connections between business areas, parking, and to adjoining neighborhoods and districts (paving treatment, landscape, wayfinding signage, and so on) Integration of building design and site planning elements that reduce the consumption of water, energy, and other nonrenewable resources consistent: i ne proposed project wows exninn architecture and site design that are consistent with the unys policies. For example, as shown in Figure 6a, Building Elevations—South, the buildings and parking structure would include modulated building masses and rooflines and a variation in building materials and colors that would provide visual relief and aesthetically -pleasing building fagades. As shown in Figure 6a, the proposed architectural design has a European motif and is characterized by aesthetic detail and interest with varying colors, materials, and fagades. The inclusion of architectural elements such as balconies, tower features (the cupola atop the rotunda), awnings, and ornamental windows and the variation in building elevations and protrusions would also enhance the visual quality of the buildings and streetfrontage. Additionally, as shown in Figure 6a, the building masses and landscaping throughout the project site would be designed to create a sense of unity and would be in accordance with the requirements/guidelines outlined in the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan. Furthermore, the proposed project would include a comprehensive landscaping plan that would include a variation of trees, shrubs, and ornamental groundcover (see Figures Sa and 8b, Lighting Plan). Part of the overall site improvements would include new landscaping treatments and trees along the project frontage, which would help provide a visual buffer and soften the project edge and also help complement and highlight the buildings and the site. The proposed landscape plan would also include new landscaping treatments and areas throughout the project site. The proposed project would include an enhanced and efficient pedestrian walkway system that would not only provide access between the various uses and areas within the project site, but also to the surrounding public sidewalks and uses. All pedestrian walkways and connections would be developed in accordance with Title 24 and all applicable City requirements and standards. The proposed project would be constructed to achieve the energy efficiency standards of the 2008 Building and Enerav Efficiencv Standards. The proposed oroiect would also incorporate drouaht-tolerantlandscaoina. LU 5.2.2 Buffering Residential Areas (page 3-56). Require that Consistent: The proposed project would be designed and developed in a manner that would be compatible with the commercial uses adjoining residential neighborhoods be designed to be surrounding residential uses to the north atop the bluff and south across West Coast Highway. This would occur compatible and minimize impacts through such techniques as: through the provision enhanced architectural treatment (see Figure 6a, Building Elevations—South), a Incorporation of landscape, decorative walls, enclosed trash comprehensive landscape and lighting plan (see Figure 8a, Landscaping Plan, and Figure 9, Third -Level Parking containers, downward focused lighting fixtures, and or Structure Lighting Plan, respectively), and an onsite parking and circulation plan that would adequately serve the Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E City of Newport Beach • Page 88 Apri12O11 263- 94 Table 12 Plan 3. Environmental Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies I Project Consistency neighborhood Location of automobile and truck access to prevent impacts on neighborhood traffic and privacy As shown In Figures 4a and 4b, Site Photographs, the existing commercial buildings and surface parking lot are not currently in use, and have not been for many years, and are in a highly deteriorated condition. Development of the proposed project on the site would improve the visual and aesthetic conditions of the site and surrounding area. The roof of the commercial building has been designed to respect the views of the residences above and consists of a combination of flat and sloped roof lines. Roof -top mechanical equipment would be enclosed within an equipment enclosure and would not be visible from the residences above. The equipment enclosure vents would be louvered and orient toward to the front elevation minimizing noise impacts. The lights associated with the proposed project would be directed toward the interior of the site so as not to create impacts to motorists on adjacent roadways or on surrounding residential uses. More specifically, all exterior lighting would be designed, arranged, directed, or shielded in such a manner as to contain direct illumination onsite, in accordance with Section 20.30.070, Outdoor Lighting, of the City's Municipal Code, thereby preventing excess illumination and light spillover onto adjoining land uses and/or roadways. Lighting would be installed to accommodate safety and security while minimizing impacts on surrounding residential areas. Parking area lighting would be the minimum necessary that is consistent with the City's Municipal Code. Development of the proposed project would also be required to comply with California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, which outlines mandatory provisions for lighting control devices and luminaries. are intermixed that are are of high quality design reflectina the traditions of Newport Beach. 3.58). Require that buildings located in pedestrian -oriented commercial and mixed-use districts (other than the Newport Center and Airport Area, which are guided by Goals 6.14 and 6.15, respectively, specific to those areas) be designed to define the public realm, activate sidewalks and pedestrian paths, and provide "eyes on the street' in accordance with the following principles: Location of buildings along the street frontage sidewalk, to visually form a continuous or semi -continuous wall with buildings on adjacent parcels Inclusion of retail uses characterized by a high level of customer activity on the ground floor; to insure successful retail -type operations, provide for transparency, elevation of the first floor at or transitioning to the sidewalk, floor -to -floor height, depth, deliveries and trash storage and collection assure Compatibility among the uses, that they are highly livable for residents, and Consistent., See response to Policy LU1 5.2. Additionally, as shown in Figure 6a, Building Elevations—South, the location and orientation of proposed ground -level retail uses would be characterized by a high level of customer activity and engagement, transparency, and transition to the sidewalk. The variation in the elevations, materials, articulation and modulation of the building elevations fronting West Coast Highway would promote interest and character. Additionally, the proposed project would include outdoor patio areas for patron use and dining. As shown in Figure 5a, Site Plan—Ground Level, the proposed patio area along the eastern building elevation fronting Dover Drive would be enclosed behind a low wall and glass screen. A new water feature design would also encompass the southeast corner of the project site, further enhancing the pedestrian, patron and employee experience. The project site has one unsignalized driveway access along Dover Drive and four unsignalized driveway accesses along West Coast Highway. As shown in Figure 5a, Site Plan—Ground Elevation, the proposed project would eliminate the driveway access off of Dover Drive and would provide two main driveway accesses along West Coast Highway. Therefore, development of the proposed project would minimize the number of driveways and ensure that that the continuity of street -facing building elevations would not be interrupted. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E City of Newport Beach • Page 89 Apri12011 263- 95 3. Environmental Analysis General Plan Articulation and modulation of street facing elevations to promote interest and character Inclusion of outdoor seating or other amenities that extend interior uses to the sidewalk, where feasible Minimization of driveways that interrupt the continuity of street facing building elevations, prioritizing their location to side streets and allevs where feasible adequate parking be provided and is conveniently located to serve tenants and customers. Set open parking lots back from public streets and pedestrian ways and screen with buildings, architectural walls, or dense landscaping. and properties be designed to ensure compatibility within and as Table 12 Consistent: Pursuant to the parking requirements outlined in the City's Municipal Code, and as shown in Table 11, City of Newport Beach Parking Requirements, the proposed project would be required to provide 157 parking spaces. The proposed parking garage includes a total of 136 spaces through the use of valet parking. To address the reduction in the minimum number of required parking spaces, the applicant is requesting the approval of a parking management plan that takes into account joint use of parking spaces, the use of valet parking, and the use of off-site parking. The applicant is also providing an additional 20 off-site parking spaces to be used for employee parking after 5:00 PM, daily. Therefore, a total of 136 parking spaces are available before 5:00 PM and a total of 156 spaces are available after 5:00 PM. Because of the different hours of operation and different offsetting parking activities, not all of the uses at the project will require their full allotment of parking spaces at the same time. Based on the Shared Parking Analysis prepared by LSA Associates, Inc., the total parking required for the proposed uses has two peaks: 1) one peak in the early afternoon with a demand for 131 parking spaces at 1:00 PM, and 2) a second peak in the early evening with a demand of 145 parking spaces at 6:00 PM. Therefore, as illustrated by the shared parking analysis, the proposed mix of land uses can be provided without exceeding supply of available parking during the two peak hour parking demands. As shown in Figures 5a, Site Plan—Ground Level, 5b, Site Plan—Second Level, and 5c, Site Plan—Third Level, the new parking structure would be located in a manner that would be convenient to employees and patrons of the proposed uses onsite. As illustrated in Figure 6a, Building Elevations—South, the proposed project's enhanced landscaping plan, which would include trees, shrubs and vines, would help soften and buffer the massing of the oarkina structure from surroundino areas and roadways. response Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E City of Newport Beach • Page 90 April2011 263- 90 3. Environmental Analysis Table 12 General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City o/ Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Protect Consistency LU 5.6.2 Form and Environment (page 3-62). Require that new and Consistent: See response to Policies LU 5.2.1 and 5.2.2. renovated buildings be designed to avoid the use of styles, colors, and materials that unusually impact the design character and quality of their location such as abrupt changes in scale, building form, architectural style, and the use of surface materials that raise local temperatures, result in glare and excessive illumination of adjoining properties and open LU5.6.3 Ambient Lighting (page 3.62). Require that outdoor lighting be located and designed to prevent spillover onto adjoining properties or significantly increase the overall ambient illumination of their location. consistent. I ne nights associated with the proposed project would oe mrected toward the interior or the site so as not to create impacts to motorists on adjacent roadways or on surrounding residential uses. More specifically, all exterior lighting would be designed, arranged, directed, or shielded in such a manner as to contain direct illumination onsite, in accordance with Section 20.30.070, Outdoor Lighting, of the City's Municipal Code, thereby preventing excess illumination and light spillover onto adjoining land uses and/or roadways. Lighting would be installed to accommodate safety and security while minimizing impacts on surrounding residential areas. Parking area lighting would be the minimum necessary that is consistent with the City's Municipal Code. Development of the proposed project would also be required to comply with California's Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations, which outlines Goal LU 6.19 — A corridor that reflects and takes advantage of its location on the Newport Bay waterfront, supports and respects adjacent residential neighborhoods, and exhibits a quality landscape, signage, lighting, sidewalk, pedestrian crossing, and other amenities consistent with the Mariners' Mile Specific Plan District and Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan. Consistent. I he project site IS the eastern gateway for the Mariner's Mile area. the proposed project would be required to be consistent with the applicable architectural, landscaping, signage, lighting, sidewalk, etc. requirements/guidelines outlined in the Mariners' Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan. For example, as outlined in Section 3.2, Pacific Coast Highway Edge Landscape, a minimum four -foot wide planting area (from back of sidewalk to parking lot or building) is required along the entire property frontage for sites fronting West Coast Highway. As shown in Figure 8a, the proposed project would provide a minimum four -foot wide landscaped area along the project frontage. Adherence to the requirements/guidelines of Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan would ensure high quality site design, architecture, landscaping, and streetscapes not only within the project LU 6.19.12 Properties Abutting Bluff Faces (page 3-129). Require that Consistent., Alteration of the bluff is necessary due to the shallow lot depth of the property. The bluff itself has been development projects locate and design buildings to maintain the visual altered such that it is no longer a unique natural resource and the plateau above have been altered during the quality and maintain the structural integrity of the bluff faces. development of the homes above. The face of the slope that extends onto the project site that is to be excavated to extend the building pad has been graded over the years to accommodate the development of the Coast Highway corridor. As outlined in Section 1.3.2, Project Construction, the proposed project would include some shoring and the construction of a retention wall along the northern boundary of the project site. Grading and construction activities related to shoring and the retention wall would be performed in accordance with all aoplicable Citv Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E City of Newport Beach • Page 91 April2011 263- 97 3. Environmental Analysis Table 12 General Plan regulations and standards. This would be ensured through the City's development review process. Additionally, Mitigation Measure 5 requires that a detailed engineering -level geotechnical investigation report be prepared and submitted prior to the issuance of grading permits to further evaluate expansive soils, soil corrosivity, slope stability, landslide potential, settlement, foundations, grading constraints, and other soil engineering design conditions and to provide site-soecific recommendations to address these conditions, if determined necessary. Goal HR 2 — Identification and protection of important archeological and paleontological resources within the City. HR 2.1 New Development Activities (page 6-12). Require that, in Consistent. As detailed in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources, the project site has a high probability that historic or accordance with CEQA, new development protect and preserve prehistoric cultural deposits exist beneath the current modern ground surface and possible that potentially paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid significant cultural resources may be uncovered during earthmoving and demolition activities. Additionally, it is and mitigate impacts to such resources. Through planning policies and possible that potentially significant paleontological resources may be uncovered during earthmoving. Mitigation permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and measures, including the requirement for a Phase II archaeological investigation prior to grading permit issuance and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any monitoring by a professional archaeologist and paleontologist during grading activities assure that significant development be mitigated in accordance with CEQA. impacts to cultural resources would not occur see Section 3.6, Cultural Resources HR 2.2 Grading and Excavation Activities (page 6.13). Require a Consistent: See response to Policy HR 2.1 and Section 3.6, Cultural Resources. qualified paleontologist/archeologist to monitor all grading and/or excavation where there is a potential to affect cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. If these resources are found, the applicant shall implement the recommendations of the paleontologist/archeologist, subject to the approval of the City Planning Department. HR 2.3 Cultural Organizations (page 6-13). Notify cultural organizations, Consistent., See response to Policy HR 2.1 and Section 3.6, Cultural Resources including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites. HR 2.4 Paleontological or Archaeological Materials (page 6-13). Consistent: See responses to Policy HR 2.1 and Section 3.6, Cultural Resources Require new development to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach, or Orange County, whenever possible. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E City of Newport Beach • Page 92 Apri12011 2/03- 92 Table 12 General Plan 3. Environmental Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies I Proiect Consistency access on arterial streets to maintain a desired quality of traffic flow. Wherever possible, consolidate driveways and implement access controls during redevelopment of adjacent parcels. Consistent: I he project site has one unsignalized driveway access along Dover Drive and tour unsignalized driveway accesses along West Coast Highway. As shown in Figure 5a, Site Plan—Ground Elevation, the proposed project would eliminate the driveway access off of Dover Ddve and would consolidate the four driveway accesses along West Coast Highway into two main access drives. Therefore, development of the proposed project would minimize the number of driveways along West Coast Highway and ensure that the desired traffic flow along this major road is maintained. Additionally, as outlined in Section 3.16, Transportation and Traffic, striping under the proposed project would provide adequate sight distance for exiting purposes at each project driveway. The exit - only driveway would only be 20 feet in width to discourage vehicles from entering. Additionally, signage indicating commercial, and industrial areas with efficient and safe access for efficient and safe access for emergency vehicles. As outlined in Section 3.16, Transportation and Traffic, California emergency vehicles. Fire Code (CFC), Section 503 requires approved fire access roads within 150 feet of the exterior walls of the first story of each building. The proposed project includes driveways that would meet the requirements of CFC Section 503. Project plans would be reviewed by the Newport Beach Fire Department to ensure that project driveways would provide adequate turning radii for firefighting vehicles and gates could be accessed by emergency vehicles. (page 7-22). Require new development projects to include safe and attractive sidewalks, walkways, and bike lanes in accordance with the Master Plan, and, if feasible, trails. Consistent. I ne proposed project would include an ennanceo ano efficient pedestrian walkway system tnat would not only provide access between the various uses and areas within the project site, but also to the surrounding public sidewalks and uses. As shown in Figure Be, Building Elevations—South, the existing street edge and sidewalk experience would be enhanced with high-quality architecture and landscaping. All pedestrian walkways and connections would also be developed in accordance with Title 24 and all applicable City requirements and standards. As shown in Figure CE4, Bikeways Master Plan, of the City's General Plan, West Coast Highway between Dover Drive and Riverside Avenue which includes the project site frontage is designated as a Class III bike lane. Additionally, the northbound direction of Dover Drive starting at West Coast Highway is a designated as and contains an existing Class II bike lane. The designated and existing Class II bike lane along the southbound direction of Dover Drive terminates near the mid -point between Cliff Drive and the northern boundary of the project site. CE 6.2.1 Alternative Transportation Mode (page 7-29). Promote and Consistent: See response to Policy C 5.1.3. Additionally, in addition to walking and bicycling opportunities, the encourage the use of alternative transportation modes, such as Orange County Transit Authority provides bus services to the project area. There is an existing bus stop (Coast- ridesharing, carpools, vanpools, public transit, bicycles, and walking; and Dover) for westbound OCTA Route 1 on the north side of West Coast Highway along the midway point of the Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E City of Newport Beach • Page 93 Apri12011 2OS- 99 3. Environmental Analysis Table 12 General Plan driveways of the proposed parking structure, slightly west from its current location (see Figure 5a, Site Plan— Ground Level). Under the proposed striping plan (see Appendix C), a designated "Bus Only" area would also be created between the two driveways. The other bus stops in close proximity of the project site, which includes the Dover -Coast and Dover -Cliff bus stops along Dover Drive north of the project site and the Coast-Bayshore stop near the southeast corner of the West Coast Highway and Dover Drive intersection, would also serve the patrons Goal 7.1 — An adequate suooly of convenient oarkina throughout the City. CE 7.1.1 Required Parking (page 7-29). Require that new development Consistent., See response to Policy LU 5.3.6. provide adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business Patrons, and visitors. CE 7.1.8 Parking Configuration (page 7.30). Site and design new development to avoid use of parking configurations or management Goal 7.2 — An efficient) CE 7.2.3 Shared Valet Service (page 7-31). Explore the feasibility of shared valet parking programs in areas with high parking demand and less conveniently located parking facilities, such as Mariners' Mile and Natural Resources Element development to comply with the regulations under the City's municipal separate storm drain system permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. response to consistent. see response TO Policy Lu S.S.b. Consistent: I Me slty of Newport Beach Is listed as a copermlttee for the Santa Ana Regional Water (lualny Control Board's (SARWQCB) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and is bound to comply with all the aspects of the permit requirements. Therefore, the proposed project is under the jurisdiction of the SARWQCB. The City holds an NPDES permit to operate its municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). Newport Beach's MS4 permit (adopted January 2002) directs it to keep pollutants out of its MS4s to the maximum extent practicable and to ensure that dry -weather flows entering recreational waters from the MS4s do not cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality standards. The proposed project would be required to comply with the City's NPDES permit requirements, including the submittal and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution NR 3.9 Water Quality Management Plan (page 10.20). Require new Consistent. As required by City of Newport Beach water quality ordinances and City Council Policies L-18 and L - development applications to include a Water Quality Management Plan 22, at the time of submittal of an application for a new development or redevelopment, project applicants are (WQMP) to minimize runoff from rainfall events during construction and required to submit a Water Quality Management Plan to the City of Newport Beach that outlines approved post -construction. postconstruction BMPs including site -design and source- and treatment -control BMPs selected for the project to reduce pollutants in postdevelopment runoff to the best available technology economically achievable /best conventional pollutant control technoloav performance standards. Additionallv, prior to the issuance of a aradina Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E City of Newport Beach • Page 94 Apri12011 263-2oa 3. Environmental Analysis Table 12 General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Protect Consistency permit by the City, project applicants are required to prepare a SWPPP that describes the BMPs to be implemented during the project's construction activities. As discussed in Section 3.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, the project applicant prepared a Preliminary Water Quality Management (P-WQMP) (see Appendix F), which outlines a number of site -design, and source- and treatment -control BMPs. Refer to Section 3.6 and the P-WQMP for a detailed list of the proposed BMPs. Collectively, the BMPs outlined in the P-WQMP and the required preparation of a SWPPP would address the anticipated and expected pollutants of concern from the operational and construction phases of the proposed project. Additionally, through the development -review process, the City of Newport Beach complies with various statutory requirements necessary to achieve regional water quality objectives and protect groundwater and surface waters from pollution by contaminated stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff generated from within the project site would be managed in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local water quality rules and regulations in order to effectively minimize the project's impact on water quality. NR 3.10 Best Management Practices (page 10-20). Implement and Consistent., See response to Policy NR 3.9. improve upon Best Management Practices (BMPs) for residences, businesses, development projects, and City operations. NR 3.11 Site Design and Source Control (page 10-20). Include site Consistent: See response to Policies NR 3.4 and 3.9. design and source control BMPs in all developments. When the combination of site design and source control BMPs are not sufficient to protect water quality as required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), structural treatment BMPs will be implemented along with site design and source control measures. NR 3.14 Runoff Reduction on Private Property (page 10-20). Retain Consistent., See responses to Policies 3.9 and 3.19. runoff on private property to prevent the transport of pollutants into natural water bodies, to the maximum extent practicable. NR 3.15 Street Drainage Systems (page 10-20). Require all street Consistent., See response to Policy 3.9. All street drainage systems and other physical improvements created by drainage systems and other physical improvements created by the City, or the proposed project would be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water developers of new subdivisions, to be designed, constructed, and quality. This would be ensured through the City's development review process. maintained to minimize adverse impacts on water quality. Investigate the possibility of treating or diverting street drainage to minimize impacts to water bodies. NR 3.17 Parking Lots and Rights -of -Way (page 10-21). Require that Consistent: The project site management, tenants and personnel would be required to comply with all applicable parking lots and public and private rights-of-way be maintained and City codes and regulations regarding the maintenance and keeping of public and private rights-of-way. For cleaned frequently to remove debris and contaminated residue. example, Section 6.04.220, Persons Required to Clean Sidewalks, of the city's Municipal Code states that the occupant or tenant, or in the absence of an occupant or tenant, the owner, lessee, or proprietor of any real estate in Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E City of Newport Beach • Page 95 Apri12O11 263-101 3. Environmental Analysis Table 12 General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency the City in front of which there is a paved sidewalk shall cause said sidewalk to be swept or otherwise cleaned as frequently as necessary to maintain said sidewalks reasonably free of leaves, dirt, paper, litter, or rubbish of any kind. Sweepings from said sidewalk shall not be swept, or otherwise made or allowed to go into the street or gutter, but shall be disposed of by being placed in a refuse container by the person responsible for the cleanliness of said sidewalk. Additionally, implementation of the operational -related BMPs outlined in Section 3.6 and further detailed in the P- WQMP (see Appendix F) would ensure the maintenance and keeping of public and private rights-of-way. For example, as outlined in Table 10, Water Quality Management Plan BMPs (Project Design and Operation), during project operation, one of the routine nonstructural BMPs that would be implemented includes regular site maintenance and cleaning (e.g., landscape maintenance, litter control, BMP maintenance, street sweeping, and catch basin inspections, pet waste disposal stations and bags NR 3.19 Natural Drainage Systems (page 10-21). Require incorporation Consistent., As discussed in section 3.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, and further detailed in the P-WQMP (see of natural drainage systems and stormwater detention facilities into new Appendix F) the operational phase of the proposed project would include various natural water quality design developments, where appropriate and feasible, to retain stormwater in features, including porous landscape detention and infiltration trenches equipped with fitters to catch trash and order to increase groundwater recharge. debris before stormwater enters receiving waters. Implementation of these hydraulic and drainage design features would assist in the retention of stormwater and the recharge of groundwater. NR 3.20 Impervious Surfaces (page 10-21). Require new development Consistent., As outlined in Section 3.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the existing site has an impervious area of and public improvements to minimize the creation of and increases in approximately 85 percent. As shown in Figure 3, Aerial Photograph, the majority of the impervious landscaped area impervious surfaces, especially directly connected impervious areas, to occurs along the northern boundary of the project site, which abuts the sloped area and bluff, with little to none the maximum extent practicable. Require redevelopment to increase area occurring throughout the remainder of the site. At project completion, the site would consist of approximately 90 of pervious surfaces, where feasible. percent impervious area and 10 percent landscaped area. As shown in Figure 8a, Landscaping Plan, the majority of the impervious landscaped areas would occur along the western, southern and eastern project frontages. Although development of the proposed project would increase the amount of impervious surfaces on the site by approximately five percent, the operational phase of the proposed project would include various project -related water quality design features that would ensure the minimization of site runoff. The permanent treatment -control BMP features that would help minimize site runoff would include porous landscape detention and infiltration trenches. Collectively, implementation of the BMPs outlined in the P-WQMP and the project's proposed water quality design features and enhanced landscape plan would help minimize site runoff during the operational phase of the proposed project. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E City of Newport Beach • Page 96 Apri12O11 263-102 Table 12 General Plan 3. Environmental Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies I Project Consistency Goal NR 4 — Maintenance of water quality standards through compliance with the total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) standards. NR 4.4 Erosion Minimization (page 10-22). Require grading/erosion control plans with structural BMPs that prevent or minimize erosion during and after construction for development on steep slopes, graded, or disturbed areas. Consistent., As discussed in section 3.6, Hydrology and Water Quality, and detailed in the P-WOMP (see Appendix F), the operational phase of the proposed project would include various project -related water quality design features that would ensure the minimization of erosion. The permanent erosion and sihation treatment -control BMP features would include porous landscape detention and infiltration trenches. Collectively, implementation of the BMPs outlined in the SWPPP and the project's proposed water quality design features would address the anticipated and Goal NR 18 — Protection and preservation of important paleontological and archaeological resources. NR 18.1 New Development (page 10-34). Require new development to Consistent: See responses to Policy HR 2.1. protect and preserve paleontological and archaeological resources from destruction, and avoid and minimize impacts to such resources in accordance with the requirements of CEOA. Through planning policies and permit conditions, ensure the preservation of significant archeological and paleontological resources and require that the impact caused by any development be mitigated in accordance with CEOA. NR 18.3 Potential for New Development to Impact Resources (page Consistent: See responses to Policy HR 2.1. 10-34). Notify cultural organizations, including Native American organizations, of proposed developments that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Allow qualified representatives of such groups to monitor grading and/or excavation of development sites. NR 18.4 Donation of Materials (page 10-34). Require new development, Consistent., See responses to Policy HR 2.1. where on she preservation and avoidance are not feasible, to donate scientifically valuable paleontological or archaeological materials to a responsible public or private institution with a suitable repository, located within Newport Beach or Orange County, whenever possible. Noise Element Goal N 1 Noise Compatibility — Minimized land use conflicts between various noise sources and other human activities. N 1.1 Noise Compatibility of New Development (page 12.25). Require Consistent: As discussed in detail in Section 3.12, Noise, the noise analysis demonstrates that the proposed that all proposed projects are compatible with the noise environment project would comply with the requirements as outlined in the City of Newport Beach's noise standards. through use of Table N2, and enforce the interior and exterior noise Additionally, mitigation measures have been outlined in Section 3.12 that would ensure that construction -related standards shown in Table N3. noise impacts would be reduced a level of less than significant. Refer to Section 3.12 for a detailed analysis on of noise mitigation measures for existing sensitive uses when a significant I Increases, the increase in traffic from operation of the proposed project would not significantly increase noise Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E City of Newport Beach • Page 97 Apri12011 2O3-103 3. Environmental Analysis General Plan an increase in the ambient CNEL produced by new development impacting existing sensitive uses. The CNEL increase is shown in the table below. CNEL dBA dBA increase 55 3 60 2 65 1 75 1 Over 75 Any increase considered significant Table 12 potential to reduce traffic -related noise levels at the Cliff Haven residences elevated above the site to the north atop the bluff. Noise contours for the area in proximity to the project site are shown in Figure 12, Opening Year 2013 Without Project Roadway Noise Contours, and Figure 13, Opening Year 2013 With Project Roadway Noise Contours. As shown in Figure 14, Change in Roadway Noise Levels Between Opening Year 2013 With and Without Project, implementation of the proposed project would reduce the traffic noise levels in the rear yards of these residences by 1 to 7 dB. As also discussed in detail under Section 3.12, new stationary noise sources from long-term operation of the proposed project would not substantially elevate noise levels in the vicinity of noise -sensitive land uses to the south and north. For example, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and other mechanical systems (e.g., trash compactors) would be installed to comply with the City's noise regulations outlined in the Municipal Code. For example, Section 10.26.025 of the Municipal Code requires such equipmentto be installed to achieve 55 dBA L25 between the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM (daytime) and 50 dBA L25 between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM (nighttime). The maximum noise levels from the equipment are also prohibited from exceeding 75 dBA Lmax during the daytime and 70 dBA Lmax during the nighttime hours. The proposed HVAC equipment would also be required to be reviewed during plan check and tested in the field after installation. Additionally, the trash compactor and electric room would be located inside the first floor of the parking structure and the fan room would be located inside the second floor of the parking structure. These areas would be completely enclosed to prevent noise intrusion. Furthermore, as outlined in Chapter 10.28, Loud and Unreasonable Noise, of the City's Municipal Code, stationary equipment or onsite facilities used in a manner that violates the City's noise standards is defined as a public nuisance and is not permitted within the City. N 2.1 New Development (page 12.26). Require that proposed noise- Consistent: See response to Policies N 1.1, N 1.8 and 4.6. sensitive uses in areas of 60 dBA and greater, as determined the analyses stipulated by Policy N1.1, demonstrate that they meet interior and eMerior Goal N 4 Minimization of Nontransportation-Related Noise — Minimized nontransportation-related noise impacts on sensitive noise receptors. N 4.1 Stationary Noise Sources (page 12-29). Enforce interior and Consistent: See response to Policies N 1.1, N 1.8 and 4.6. exterior noise standards outlined in Table N3, and in the City's Municipal Code to ensure that sensitive noise receptors are not exposed to excessive noise levels from stationary noise sources, such as heating, ventilation, and air conditioning eauioment. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E City of Newport Beach • Page 98 April2011 203104 3. Environmental Analysis Table 12 General Plan Consistency Analysis Applicable City of Newport Beach General Plan Goals and Policies Project Consistency N 4.2 New Uses (page 12-29). Require that new uses such as Consistent: See response to Policies N 1.1, N 1.8 and 4.6. restaurants, bars, entertainment, parking facilities, and other commercial uses where large numbers of people may be present adjacent to sensitive noise receptors obtain a use permit that is based on compliance with the noise standards in Table N3 and the City's Municipal Code. N 4.3 New Commercial Developments (page 12.29). Require that new Consistent: See response to Policies N 1.1, N 1.8 and 4.6. commercial developments abutting residentially designated properties be designed to minimize noise impacts generated by loading areas, parking lots, trash enclosures, mechanical equipment, and any other noise generating features specific to the development to the extent feasible. N 4.6 Maintenance or Construction Activities (page 12.30). Enforce the Consistent: See response to Policies N 1.1 and N 1.8. Additionally, all project -related construction activities would Noise Ordinance noise limits and limits on hours of maintenance or be subject to the provisions of the City of Newport Beach Municipal Code Section 10.28.040, Construction Activity construction activity in or adjacent to residential areas, including noise that — Noise Regulations. As outlined in this section, construction is permitted on weekdays between the hours of 7:00 results from in-home hobby or work related activities. AM and 6:30 PM and Saturdays between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Construction is not permitted on Sundays or any federal holiday. Exceptions to these construction hours can be made when the maintenance, repair, or improvement is of a nature that cannot feasibly be conducted during normal business hours, as outlined in Section 10.28.040 of the City's Municipal Code. All construction activities proposed within the project site would be required to adhere to these standards. Furthermore, any project -related maintenance activities would be required to adhere to the standard outlined in Section 10.28.045, Real Property Maintenance -Noise Regulations, of the City's Municipal Code. Goal N 5 — Minimized excessive construction -related noise. N 5.1 Limiting Hours of Activity (page 12-30). Enforce the limits on j Consistent: See response to Policies N1.1 and N Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E City of Newport Beach • Page 99 April2011 203-105 3. Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E City of Newport Beach • Page 100 Apri12011 203-10x0 3. Environmental Analysis Summary Applications have been submitted for a General Plan Amendment, Modification Permit, CUP, and variances as discussed above. Upon review and approval of these requests, the proposed project would comply with applicable City plans and policies including the guidelines within the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan. Therefore, land use impacts would be less than significant. c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The project site is in the plan area of the Orange County Central/Coastal Natural Community Conservation Plan (OCCCNCCP). However, the project site is not in an area designated as a reserve under the OCCCNCCP (Nature Reserve 2010). Project development would not conflict with this NCCP and no mitigation measures are necessary. a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a value to the region and the residents of the state? No Impact. According to the Natural Resources Element of the City's General Plan Update, Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) within the City are either classified as containing no significant mineral deposits (MRZ-1), or the significance of mineral deposits has not been determined (MRZ-3). According to Figure 4.5- 4, Mineral Resource Zones, of the City's General Plan Update EIR, the project site is located within MRZ-1. The project site and surrounding areas are not recognized as sources of important mineral resources. No significant impacts would occur to mineral resources of regional or statewide importance as a result of the 88 proposed project. Therefore, no impacts to mineral resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No Impact. Designation of a site as a mineral resource recovery site is a process limited to the identification of significant mineral resources within existing MRZ-2s only. MRZ-2s are areas where the available geologic information indicates that there are significant mineral deposits. The project site is not located in an MRZ-2. As mentioned above, the project site is located within MRZ-1.Therefore, the project site is not designated as a mineral resource recovery site, as indicated by the Department of Conservation Mineral Resource Maps, and does not contain any mineral resource recovery areas. No impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.12 NOISE Noise is defined as unwanted sound, and is known to have several adverse effects on people, including hearing loss, speech and sleep interference, physiological responses, and annoyance. Based on these known adverse effects of noise, the federal government, the State of California, and the City of Newport Beach have established criteria to protect public health and safety and to prevent disruption of certain human activities. The analysis in this section is based partly on the following analysis, which is included as Appendix H to this Initial Study: Noise Analysis. The Planning Center, March 2011 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 101 20S—:L0:7 3. Environmental Analysis Terminology and Noise Descriptors The following are brief definitions of terminology used in this chapter: • Noise. Sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or otherwise undesirable. • Decibel (dB). A unitless measure of sound on a logarithmic scale. • A -Weighted Decibel (dBA). An overall frequency -weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear. • Equivalent Continuous Noise Level (L•q). The mean of the noise level averaged over the measurement period, regarded as an average level. • Day -Night Level (Ldd. The energy average of the A -weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. • Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The energy average of the A -weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period with 5 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM and 10 dB added to the sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM. Ldp and CNEL values rarely differ by more than 1 dB. As a matter of practice, Lm, and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment. Existing Noise Environment The primary source of noise is local traffic on West Coast Highway and Dover Drive that abuts the project site to the south and east, respectively. Other sources of noise in the vicinity are from mechanical systems (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC]) and other stationary sources of noise from the nearby residences and activity from Newport Bay. Modeling of Existing Traffic Noise In order to assess the potential for mobile -source noise impacts, it is necessary to determine the noise currently generated by vehicles traveling through the project area. Noise modeling was conducted using the Federal Highway Administration's Traffic Noise Model (FHWA TNM) Version 2.5. Average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were based on the existing daily traffic volumes provided in the traffic study (RBF 2011). The results of this modeling indicate that average 24-hour noise levels along roadways currently range from approximately 70 dBA to 77 dBA CNEL. Noise levels for existing conditions along analyzed roadways are presented in Table 13.8 Additionally, the SounclPlan computer model developed by Braunstein and Berndt, GmbH was also utilized to prepare roadway noise contours for the area proximate to the project site as shown in Figure 11, Existing Roadway Noise Contours .7 s See Figure 16, Study Intersection Locations, of this Initial Study for roadway segment locations. 7 Noise modeling of traffic noise in SoundPlan is based on the FHWA's Traffic Noise Model (TNM), which is integrated into the SoundPlan computer model. Page 102 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203-108 3. Environmental Analysis Existing Roadway Noise Contours 60. o r 5LhwaY West Coast Hi9 Noise Level in dB(A) CNEL Project Site 60 65 70 75 80 f o tso r Source: Google Earth Pro 2011 Scale (Feet) coo Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&L • Figure 11 203-105° 3. Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank. Page 104 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS-110 3. Environmental Analysis Table 13 Traffic Noise Levels Noise Levels Riverside Ave to Tustin Ave` 76.8 Tustin Ave to Balboa Bay Club' 71.5 Balboa Bay Club to Dover DO 70.7 Dover Dr to Bayside Drz 77.0 16th St to Cliff Dr° 1 72.6 Note: Based on traffic volumes provided by RBF (February 2009) and speed limits obtained using Google Maps. ' For purposes of this analysis, only segments where the project would increase traffic volumes by 25 percent or more were modeled. 2 At the nearest non-residential property line, excluding noise reduction from existing sound walls. a At the nearest residential property line. " At the nearest residential property line, includes noise reduction from landscape areas. a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would construct a 23,015 -square -foot two-story commercial building that would provide restaurant, office, and retail uses. The following describes project 88 - related impacts from long-term operation of this project. Mobile -Source Noise Impacts The proposed projectwould generate 1,533 average daily trips (RBF Consulting 2011).8 Project -related traffic would access the project site along West Coast Highway. Traffic noise modeling was completed for opening year with and with out the proposed project. The modeling results are shown in Table 14. As shown in the table, the column labeled "Increase in CNELfrom Existing (dBA) Due to Project" represents the incremental increase in the ambient noise level attributable to project -related traffic. The column labeled "Increase in CNEL (dBA) from Existing" represents the cumulative noise increase due to project -related traffic plus future ambient traffic growth at buildout. In accordance with General Plan Policy N1.8, project -related noise impacts may occur if there are substantial noise increases (3 dBA or more when the existing CNEL is 60 dBA or less, 2 dBA or more when the CNEL is between 60 and 65 dBA, 1 dBA or more when the CNEL is between 65 and 75, or any amount when the CNEL exceeds 75 dBA in the vicinity of any noise -sensitive receptors) in comparison to Without Project conditions. e The land use mix assumed in the RBF traffic study yields a higher project trip generation in comparison to the proposed land use mix. Please see Appendix H for comparison of trips between the land use mix assumed in the traffic study and the actual land use mix proposed for the project. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 105 203-111 3. Environmental Analysis Table 14 Project -Related Weekday Traffic Noise Increases West Coast Highway Newport Blvd to Riverside Ave' 76.9 Year 2013 77.6 0.7 Increase in Riverside Ave to Tustin Ave' 76.8 Without Year 2013 Increase in CNEL from Tustin Ave to Balboa Bay Clubs Existing Project With Project CNEL (dBA) Existing Balboa Bay Club to Dover Drs CNEL' CNEL CNEL from (dBA) Due to Location' (dbA) (dBA) (dbA)z Existing' Project° West Coast Highway Newport Blvd to Riverside Ave' 76.9 77.6 77.6 0.7 0.0 Riverside Ave to Tustin Ave' 76.8 77.6 77.6 0.8 0.1 Tustin Ave to Balboa Bay Clubs 71.5 72.3 72.3 0.8 0.1 Balboa Bay Club to Dover Drs 70.7 71.4 71.4 0.7 0.0 Dover Dr to Bayside Drs 77.0 77.6 77.6 0.6 0.0 Westcliff Dr to 16th St° 69.8 70.2 70.2 1 0.4 I 0.0 16th Stto Cliff Dr' 72.6 73.11 73.1 0.5 0.1 Source: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Traffic Noise Model (TNM), Version 2.5. Btwn: Between; No: North of; s/o: South of; a/o: East of; w/o: West of ' For purposes of this analysis, only segments where the project would increase traffic volumes by 25 percent or more were modeled. Based on land use mix that would that would yield a higher project trip generation compared to the actual land use mix proposed, therefore the noise levels shown are conservative. Please see Table 23 for comparison of trips between the land use mix assumed in the RBF traffic study and the actual proposed land use mix proposed for the project. ' Incremental increase in noise due to project -related traffic plus future ambient traffic growth. ° Incremental increase in noise due to project -related traffic. ' At the nearest nonresidential property line, excluding noise reduction from existing sound walls. e At the nearest residential property line. ' Atthe nearest residential property line, includes noise reduction from landscape areas. As shown in the table, ambient noise levels along the segment of West Coast Highway from Riverside Avenue to Tustin Avenue would be over 75 dBA CNEL and the project would contribute 0.1 dBA. However, there are no noise -sensitive uses along this roadway segment. Development of the project would increase noise along the segment of Dover Drive from 16th Street to Cliff Drive where residences are present by a maximum of 0.1 dBA. However, future noise levels at the residences would not exceed 75 dBA CNEL. Therefore, a project -related noise increase of less than 1 dBA along this roadway segment would not significantly contribute to the impacted noise environment in the vicinity of noise -sensitive receptors. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. Additionally, the proposed structures would have the potential to reduce noise levels at the Cliff Haven residences elevated above the site to the north. Noise contours for the area in proximity to the project site are shown in Figure 12, Opening Year 2013 Without Project Roadway Noise Contours, and Figure 13, Opening Year 2013 With Project Roadway Noise Contours. As shown in Figure 14, Change in Roadway Noise Levels Between Opening Year 2013 With and Without Project, implementation of the project would reduce the traffic noise levels in the rear yards of these residences by 1 to 7 dB. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a beneficial noise impact. Page 106 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203-112 3. Environmental Analysis Opening Year 2013 Without Project Roadway Noise Level in dB(A) CNEL Project Site 60 65 70 75 80 Noise Contours o iso Source: Google Earth Pro 2011 Scale (Feet) tOWN C070 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 12 203-113 3. Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank. Page 108 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203-11.4 3. Environmental Analysis Opening Year 2013 With Project Roadway Noise Contours — — Project Site ---- Proposed Parking Structure ---- Proposed Commercial Building Source: Google Earth Pro 2011 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study 4 a C070 Noise Level in dB(A) CNEL 60 65 70 75 80 0 160 r Scale (Feet) The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 13 20S-11,5 3. Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank. Page 110 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS-1-10 3. Environmental Analysis Change in Roadway Noise Levels between Opening Year 2013 With and Without Project — — Project Site ---- Proposed Parking Structure ---- Proposed Commercial Building Change in Noise Level in dB(A) CNEL -8.0 -7.0 -6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 * Net decrease in roadway noise north and northwest of the project site would result due to noise attenuation effect of new structures. 0 160 Scale (Feet) L!J Source: Google Earth Pro 2011 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study C070 The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 14 2OS-117 3. Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank. Page 112 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2003-118 3. Environmental Analysis Stationary -Source Noise Impacts Mechanical Systems The proposed commercial development would lead to the introduction of new stationary -source noise at the project site, including heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units and other machinery (e.g., trash compactors). HVAC and other mechanical systems would be installed to comply with the City's municipal code regulating noise (Section 10.26.025), which requires such equipmentto be installed to achieve 55 dBA L25 between the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM (daytime) and 50 dBA L25 between 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM (nighttime). In addition, the maximum noise levels from the equipment are prohibited from exceeding 75 dBA L.. during the daytime and 70 dBA Lm. during the nighttime hours. Furthermore, the trash compactor and electric room would be inside the first floor of the parking structure and the fan room would be inside the second floor of the parking structure. These areas would be completely enclosed to prevent noise intrusion. Additionally, rooftop mechanical equipment would be fully enclosed with vents directed toward the highway. Therefore, noise impacts from mechanical equipment would be less than significant. Parking Structure Typical parking lot/structure noises include car -door slams, car horns, car audio systems, people talking, vehicle pass-bys, engine idling, and car beeps. Other types of noise that could occur within the parking structure that would be most disruptive would be car alarm noise and horns, because of the high magnitude of noise they generate. Each of these individual noise sources lasts for short duration and their occurrences would be infrequent. The proposed project would construct athree-level parking structure thatwould provide a mix of self- and valet parking. The parking structure enclosures on the first and second floors would attenuate noise from vehicles and service trucks. The third floor of the parking structure would be used for employee parking and would generate noise. Figure 15, 3rd Level Parking Structure - Generated Noise Contours, prepared using SoundPlan, shows the noise contours that would be generated from use of the rooftop area of the parking structure.' The rooftop parking would be generally 20 feet below the top of the bluff. As shown in the figure, noise contours generated from the rooftop area of the parking structure would be less than 45 dBA Leq at the nearest residences to the north, which is below the City's nighttime exterior noise standard in the Municipal Code. Similarly, it is anticipated that the noise the existing offsite parking lot at Dover Drive and Cliff Avenue would also only minimally contribute to the overall ambient noise environment. The offsite parking lot is currently in use and the project would not create new types of noise. Additionally, the number of parking spaces would be limited and would be restricted to employees only or valet. It is anticipated that on average, only 9 of the 20 spaces would be needed. Furthermore, during the daytime, traffic noise from West Coast Highway and Dover Drive would be audible over the noise generated at the parking structure. Therefore, impacts from the parking structure and offsite surface parking lot to nearby noise -sensitive receptors would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ground borne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. Operation of the project would not generate substantial levels of vibration; however, project construction may expose people to groundborne vibration. Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration -sensitive uses. Operation of construction equipment generates ' Noise contours are based on sample data from parking lots as provided in SoundPlan. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 113 200-115° 3. Environmental Analysis vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. Vibration is typically noticed nearby when objects in a building generate noise from rattling windows or picture frames. It is typically not perceptible outdoors, and, therefore, impacts are based on the distance to the nearest building. The effect on buildings near a construction site varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and receptor building construction. The generation of vibration can range from no perceptible effects at the lowest vibration levels, to low rumbling sounds and perceptible vibrations at moderate levels, to slight damage at the highest levels. Ground vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that can damage structures, but can achieve the audible and perceptible ranges in buildings close to a construction site. Construction -related vibration impacts are described below. Vibration -Induced Architectural Damage The closest offsite vibration -sensitive structures are the adjacent single-family residences to the north on top of the bluff overlooking the site and the commercial buildings to the west of the project site. The nearest residential structure is approximately 65 horizontal feet from the northern project boundary and is approximately 30 feet higher than the closest point of the proposed construction activity at the site. The FTA has established vibration level thresholds that would cause architectural damage to building structures. The FTA criterion for vibration -induced architectural damage is 0.2 inch per second for the peak particle velocity (PPV) for wood -framed structures and 0.5 inch per second for the PPV for steel -reinforced buildings. Vibration levels from construction equipment that would be generated at the nearest structures are shown in Table 15. Table 15 Construction -Related Architectural Damage Northern Residents Large Off -Road Construction Euipmen1 65 0.021 Significance Exceeds Small Off -Road Construction Equipment Distance to RMS Velocity Threshold Significance Construction Equipment Receptor (feet)' (in/sec)' (in/sec) Threshold? Northern Residents Large Off -Road Construction Euipmen1 65 0.021 0.2 No Small Off -Road Construction Equipment 65 0.001 0.2 No Jackhammer 1 65 0.008 0.2 No Loaded Trucks 1 65 0.018 0.2 No Western Commercial Building Large Off -Road Construction Equipment 100 0.011 0.2 No Small Off -Road Construction Equipment 100 0.0004 0.2 No Jackhammer 100 0.004 0.2 No Loaded Trucks 100 0.010 0.2 No Source: Based on methodology from FTA 2006. RMS velocity calculated from vibration level using the reference of one microinch/second. NA: Not Applicable ' Distance as measured between structure and nearest project property line. As shown in the table, project construction activities would not result in PPV levels that exceed the FTA's criteria for vibration -induced architectural damage at the surrounding structures. Therefore, architectural vibration impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. Page 114 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS-120 3. Environmental Analysis 3rd Level Parking Structure—Generated Noise Contours Noise Level in dB(A) Leq Project Site 45 50 55 60 65 — — ---- Proposed Parking Structure ---- Proposed Commercial Building Source: Google Earth Pro 2011 0 80 Scale (Feet) C070 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&L - Figure 15 203-121 3. Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank. Page 116 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS-122 3. Environmental Analysis Vibration Annoyance Maximum vibration is based on construction equipment operating directly adjacent to the property line. Although the maximum vibration levels associated with certain construction activities could be perceptible in certain instances, its impact would be limited because it would not occur frequently throughout the day. It would occur in the daytime when people are least sensitive to vibration levels and would only occur for a very limited duration when equipmentwould beworking in close proximity. Further construction activities are typically distributed throughout the project site. Therefore, construction vibration is based on average vibration levels (levels that would be experienced by sensitive receptors the majority of the time) that exceed the FTA's criteria forvibration-induced annoyancefor residential land uses. Table 16 lists the maximum and average vibration levels for construction equipment anticipated to be used at the project site as measured to the nearest offsite residential structures. Table 16 Construction -Related Vibration Annoyance Vibration -Sensitive Use Distance to Construction Area (Feet) Velocity Level (VdB) Large O/f-Road Construction Equipment' Small Of/ -Road Construction Equipmene Jackhammer Loaded Truck Maximum Vibration Levels Northern Residences 65 79 50 1 71 78 Northern Residences 115 74 45 66 73 Southern Residences 205 69 40 61 68 Significance Threshold (VdB) Na 78 78 78 78 Exceeds Significance Thresholds? Na No No No No Source: Based on methodology from FTA 2006. Avg=Average ' Vibration levels from the listed off-road construction equipment are equivalent to vibration levels generated by a large bulldozer. Vibration levels from the listed off-road construction equipment are equivalent to vibration levels generated by a small bulldozer. The FTA's criterion for vibration -induced annoyance is 78 VdB for residential uses. While construction equipment could be operating as close as 65 feet to the nearest residential structure, the majority of heavy construction activities would be operating at greater distances. As shown in the table, average vibration levels would not exceed the FTA criterion for vibration annoyance. Because project construction activities would not generate average vibration levels that exceed the ETA's vibration annoyance threshold, no significant vibration impact from exposure of persons to excessive levels of vibration would occur during project construction activities. Therefore, project development impacts related to vibration annoyance would be less than significant. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not generate a substantial permanent increase in the ambient noise level. Increases in noise levels related to stationary sources associated with the proposed project would not substantially increase the existing noise environment. Similarly, noise from project traffic along local roadways would not significantly increase noise levels in the project area. Impacts from project -related increases to the ambient noise environment would be less than significant. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 117 2OS-123 3. Environmental Analysis d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Short-term construction activities would periodically increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity and would subside once construction of the proposed project is completed. Construction Vehicles The transport of workers and equipment to the construction site would incrementally increase noise levels along site access roadways. Even though there would be a relatively high single -event noise exposure potential with passing trucks (a maximum noise level of 86 dBA at 50 feet), the expected number of workers and trucks is minimal (Caltrans 1998). The truck trips would be spread throughout the workday and would primarily occur during nonpeak traffic periods. The existing roadway volumes along the analyzed roadway segments of West Coast Highway average between 38,000 to 55,000 daily vehicle trips per day and between 10,000 to 25,000 daily vehicle trips per day along Dover Drive (RBF 2011). Construction worker, vendor would be negligible compared to the volumes of traffic currently generated. Therefore, these impacts are less than significant at noise receptors along the construction routes and no mitigation measures are necessary. Construction Demolition and Soil Haul Trips Demolition of the existing buildings and surface parking lot would generate haul trips. Based on CalEEMod, demolition of the existing buildings would generate 25 total hauls trips while demolition and removal of the parking lot would generate 13 total haul trips for total of 38 haul trips. As demolition activities would be spread through a 5 to 8 day period, daily haul trips would be minimal. Export of the 1,600 cy of soil material would generate atotal of up to 200 haul trips. As the existing roadways volumes for West Coast Highway and Dover Drive average more than 10,000 plus daily vehicle trips, the contribution of demolition and soil haul trips to the ambient noise levels would be negligible. Additionally, the duration period for both hauling operations would be relatively short-term. Therefore, noise impacts from demolition and soil haul trips would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. Construction Equipment Noise generated during construction is based on the type of equipment used, the location of the equipment relative to sensitive receptors, and the timing and duration of the noise -generating activities. Noise levels are the average noise levels for each construction phase. Each stage involves the use of different kinds of construction equipment and, therefore, has its own distinct noise characteristics. Noise levels from construction activities are dominated by the loudest piece of construction equipment. Noise levels from project -related construction activities were calculated from use of all applicable construction equipment at the same time at average distances (center of construction areas to nearest property line of nearest noise -sensitive receptor offsite) and are shown in Table 17. Page 118 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2O3 12.4 3. Environmental Analysis Table 17 Average Construction Noise Levels Northern Residences Southern Residences Construction Phase NBA LJ I (dBA L.Y 64 Source: Bolt, Beranek and Newman 1976, "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances," prepared for the USEPA, December 31, 1971 based on analysis for industrial construction. ' The Minimum Required Equipment in Use noise levels as reported in Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, 1976 are used based on the construction equipment mix verified by project applicant. Measured at average distance of 110 feet from center of site to northern residences and 195 feet from center of site to southern residences. ' Measured at average distance of 100 feet from center of commercial building construction area to northern residences and 200 feet from center of commercial building construction area to southern residences. Measured at average distance of 90 feet from center of parking structure construction area to northern residences and 195 feet from center of parking structure construction area to southern residences.' 88 As shown in the table, average noise levels at the surrounding residential properties would range from 59 to 76 dBA Leq for approximately one year from project -related construction activities. The highest potential noise exposure would be from grading operations. However, it is anticipated that grading would only occur for several days and therefore exposure of residences would be brief. Trenching (excavation) operations would last 4 to 5 months and would have an average noise level of 64 dBA Leq at the northern residences. Construction of the commercial building would generate average noise levels between 60 to 71 dBA Leq for approximately eight months. Construction of the parking structure would generate average noise levels between 60 to 72 dBA LeQ for a duration of three months. While the magnitude of the average noise levels may at times be slightly higher compared to the ambient noise environment, construction activities would fluctuate throughout the workday because equipment would not be in use at one location for an extended period of time. Furthermore, construction activities would comply with the City's Municipal Code that limits the hours of construction from 7:00 AM and 6:30 PM during the weekday, 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturday, and at no time on Sunday or any legal holiday. Overall, construction activities would generally be restricted to the least noise -sensitive portions of the day, and maximum noise levels would be infrequent throughout the workday. Implementation of mitigation measures would further reduce noise levels from construction activities. Therefore, construction -related noise with the implementation of the following mitigation measures would result in less than significant impacts. Mitigation Measures 6. The contractor shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations to minimize noise emissions. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 119 203-126 3. Environmental Analysis 7. Prior to use of any construction equipment, the contractor shall ensure that all equipment is fitted with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. a. The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise sources (e.g., generators, compressors, staging areas) and material delivery (loading/unloading) areas as far from residences as possible (e.g., eastern portion of the project site). 9. The construction contractor shall post a sign, clearly visible onsite, with a contact name and telephone number of construction contractor to respond in the event of a noise complaint. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project site is not within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport. The nearest airport is John Wayne Airport, located approximately 3.75 miles north of the project site (Airnav 2010). Therefore, people residing or working in the project area would not be exposed to excessive noise levels and no noise impacts from a public airport or public use airport would occur. No mitigation measures are necessary. Q For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip or heliport. The nearest heliport is the Hoag Memorial Hospital Heliport approximately 1.5 miles west of the site and the Newport Beach Police Heliport 1.6 miles east of the site (Airnav 2010). No noise sensitive receptors would be present on-site due to the nature of the planned potential uses of the proposed project. People residing or working in the project area would not be exposed to excessive noise levels and no noise impacts from a private airstrip would occur. No mitigation measures are necessary. 3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly or indirectly. The project does not propose the development of any residences. The project involves the development of two-story structure and associated parking structure that would provide 23,015 gross square feet of retail and commercial uses. The proposed uses are consistent with the property's land use designation in the General Plan and can be accommodated without expanding the capacity of existing infrastructure (water, sewer, roadway, and drainage, etc.). The size and scope of the proposed project would not be of a regional scale that would directly induce substantial population growth within the City of Newport Beach. Therefore, no significant impacts to population growth are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. Page 120 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 20S_120 3. Environmental Analysis b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. No housing is currently onsite. Therefore, the project would not displace any existing housing and no impacts would occur. c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. No housing is currently located onsite. Therefore, the projectwould not displace any people and would not necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impact would occur. 3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD) is responsible for reducing loss of life and property from fire, medical, and environmental emergencies. In addition to fire suppression, NBFD also provides fire prevention and hazard reduction services. The Fire Prevention Division works in conjunction with the City's planning, public works, and building departments to ensure that all new 88 construction and remodels are built in compliance with local and State building and fire codes, including the provision of adequate emergency access and on-site fire protection measures. The NBFD currently employs 151 full-time employees to provide 24-hour protection and response to the City's residents and visitors. NBFD is divided into five divisions: Fire Operations, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), Fire Prevention, Training and Community Education, and Fire Administration. The Fire Operations Division contains the fire suppression and emergency medical services personnel and consists of 117 full-time fire fighters spread over eight fire stations. NBFD divides its staff into three shifts per day, with approximately 39 personnel working each shift. Three stations have paramedic ambulances, and two have ladder trucks. Of the 117 employees, 8 paramedics serve per shift. There are always two paramedics on duty at Stations 2, 3, and 5 with paramedic ambulances. Station 8 and Truck 2 also has one paramedic firefighter (Gamble 2011). The locations of fire stations available to respond to the project are shown in Table 18. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 121 2OS 127 3. Environmental Analysis Table 18 Fire Protection Services Fire Station Location Equipment Number of Personnel Stationl -110 E. Balboa One Engine 3 Station 2 - 475 32nd Street One Tractor Drawn Aerial Ladder Truck, 4 One Engine, 3 One Paramedic Van 2 Station 3 - 868 Santa Barbara One Tractor Drawn Aerial Ladder Truck, 4 One Engine, 3 One Paramedic Van, 2 One Battalion Command Vehicle 1 Station 4 -124 Marine Ave. One Engine 3 Station 5-410 Marigold Ave One Engine, 3 One Paramedic Van 2 Station 6 -1348 Irvine Ave. One Engine 3 Station 7 - 20401 SW Acacia St. One Engine 3 Station 8 - 6502 Ridge Park Road One Engine 3 Source: NBFD 2011. Station 6, approximately 1.5 miles from the project site and paramedics from Station 2, approximately 2 miles from the project site, would be the first response in engine and medic units for medical aid. For a first alarm assignment for a fire, these units would be joined by crews from Station 4 and Station 2. The average response time for fire incidents from the 911 call to the first unit to arrive is 5 minutes and 43 seconds. For medical emergencies, the average response time is 5 minutes and 8 seconds (Gamble 2011). According to the NBFD, there is sufficient fire and emergency medical service capacity to serve the proposed project without the need for any increases in facilities, equipment, or staff (Gamble 2011). Therefore, impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) provides police service to the proposed project site. The police department is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive and provides services in crime prevention and investigation, community awareness programs, and other services, such as traffic control. NBPD currently has authorization for 149 sworn officers. The average police response time to emergency calls is under 4 minutes, while the average response time for nonemergency calls is under 10 minutes. (Hartford 2011). NBPD would be able to provide police protection to the project using existing police facilities without adverse effect on levels of police protection to either the project or the surrounding community. No new or expanded police facilities would be needed (Hartford 2011), and impacts would be less than significant. c) Schools? No Impact. The project does not propose any residences and would not directly generate any students. It is anticipated that employees would either live in the City of Newport Beach or within the surrounding area and commute to the project site. New housing to support project employees is not anticipated. The project involves the development of two-story structure and associated parking structure that would provide 23,015 gross square feet of retail and commercial uses. Due to the type of project that is proposed, no direct impacts to schools are anticipated. The project, however, will be subject to the payment of fees at the time of Page 122 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203-128 3. Environmental Analysis building permit issuance in accordance with Senate Bill 50 for school facilities. No mitigation measures are necessary. d) Parks? No Impact. The project does not propose any residences. The project involves the development of two-story structure and associated parking structure that would provide 23,015 gross square feet of retail and commercial uses. Due to the type of project that is proposed, no impacts to parks are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. e) Other public facilities? No Impact. The project does not propose any residences. The project involves the development of two-story structure and associated parking structure that would provide 23,015 gross square feet of retail and commercial uses. Due to the type of project that is proposed, no impacts to other public facilities such as libraries are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.15 RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The project does not propose any residences. The project involves the development of two-story structure and associated parking structure that would provide 23,015 gross square feet of retail and 88 commercial uses. Due to the type of project that is proposed, no impacts to recreational facilities are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? No Impact. The project involves the development of two-story structure and associated parking structure that would provide 23,015 gross square feet of retail and commercial uses. The project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. 3.16 TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC The analysis in this section is based partly on the following technical study, which is included as Appendix C to this Initial Study. Mariner's Pointe Traffic Impact Analysis, RBF Consulting, February 17, 2011. Methodology City of Newport Beach The intersection impacts analysis is based on the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology as utilized by the City of Newport Beach for signalized intersection analysis. Table 19 shows the relationship Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 123 203-12J° 3. Environmental Analysis between the various volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratios and the corresponding Level of Service (LOS) for signalized intersections. Table 19 Sianalized Intersection LOS Criteria <_ 0.60 0.61 to s 0.70 0.71 to < 0.80 0.81 to < 0.90 In accordance with the City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO), the ICU analysis assumes a capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour for each travel lane (including turn lanes) through an intersection, with no factor for yellow time included in the lane capacity assumptions. The City of Newport Beach TPO methodology calculates ICU value to three decimal places, and then reports the resulting ICU value rounded down to two decimal places. State Highway Intersection Caltrans advocates use of Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) intersection analysis methodology to analyze the operation of signalized intersections. The HCM analysis methodology describes the operation of an intersection using a range of LOS from LOS A (free-flow conditions) to LOS F (severely congested conditions), based on the corresponding stopped delay experienced per vehicle as shown in Table 20. Table 20 State Hiahwav Intersection LOS & Delav Ranaes Intersections I Level of Service > 35.0 to < 55.0 > 55.0 to < 80.0 > 80.0 Level of service is based on the average stopped delay per vehicle for all movements of signalized intersections. The Caltrans target for peak hour intersection operation is LOS C or better. Page 124 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203-130 3. Environmental Analysis Threshold of Significance City of Newport Beach The traffic impact analysis measures intersection performance using LOS, a qualitative measure describing the efficiency of traffic flow on a roadway or at an intersection. LOS range from A, indicating free flow with minimal delays, to F, indicating severely congested conditions. LOS calculations in the traffic impact analysis were based on 2009 and 2010 traffic counts. The City of Newport Beach target for peak hour intersection operation as stated in the General Plan Circulation Element is LOS D or better (RBF 2011). However, LOS E or better is considered acceptable at the following locations: • Intersections in the John Wayne Airport Area shared with the City of Irvine • Dover Drive/West Coast Highway (SR -1) • Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway (SR -1) • Goldenrod Avenue/East Coast Highway (SR -1) • Marguerite Avenue/East Coast Highway (SR -1) To determine whether the addition of project -generated trips at a signalized study intersection results in a significant impact, the City of Newport Beach has established the following threshold of significance: • A significant impact occurs when the addition of project -generated trips causes the level of service at a study intersection to deteriorate from an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better in most cases) to a deficient LOS (LOS E or F); or • A significant impact occurs when the addition of project -generated trips increases the intersection 88 capacity utilization at a study intersection by one percent or more of capacity (V/C > 0.010), worsening a projected baseline condition of LOS E or LOS F. State Highway Intersections While Caltrans has not established traffic thresholds of significance at State Highway intersections, the following traffic threshold of significance is utilized: • A significant project impact occurs at a State Highway study intersection when the addition of project -generated trips causes the peak hour level of service of the study intersection to change from acceptable operation (LOS A, B, or C) to deficient operation (LOS D, E or F). Existing Traffic Conditions The study area includes 12 signalized intersections, which are shown in Figure 16, Study Intersection Locations. The study area is bounded by West Coast Highway to the south and Dover Drive to the east. The 12 signalized intersections identified for analysis are: • Newport Boulevard (SR -55) Southbound Off-Ramp/West Coast Highway (SR -1) • Riverside Avenue/West Coast Highway (SR -1) • Tustin Avenue/West Coast Highway (SR -1) • Balboa Bay Club Driveway/West Coast Highway (SR -1) • Irvine Avenue/17th Street • Irvine Avenue/Dover Drive Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 125 203-131 3. Environmental Analysis • Dover Drive/Westcliff Drive • Dover Drive/16th Street • Dover Drive/Cliff Drive • Dover Drive/West Coast Highway (SR -1) • Bayside Drive/East Coast Highway (SR -1) • Jamboree Road/East Coast Highway (SR -1) West Coast Highway, which is designated as State Route 1 (SR -1), trends in an east -west direction with four - to five -lane divided roadway segments. The segment between Balboa Bay Club Entry and Dover Drive is a four -lane divided roadway with a continuous left -turn lane. Dover Drive trends in a north -south direction and is a four -lane divided roadway with a raised landscaped median. For a more complete description of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive, and a description of the other roadways within the project study area, please see the traffic study included as Appendix C of the Initial Study. Existing LOS at the 12 study intersections are shown in Table 21 and the existing intersection peak -hour turning volumes are shown on Figure 17, Existing Conditions Peak -Hour Turning Volumes. The existing LOS are based on 2009/2010 AM and PM peak hour traffic counts provided by the City of Newport Beach and traffic counts performed by RBF Consulting for the intersections of Dover Drive/Cliff Drive and Balboa Bay Club Driveway/West Coast Highway (SR -1). All study area intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during both peak hours. Table 21 Existing LOS, Studv Area Intersections No. Intersection I LOS V/C I LOS V/C 1 Irvine Ave/Dover Dr A 0.543 B 0.661 2 Irvine Ave/17th St A 0.496 B 0.690 3 Dover Dr/Westcliff Dr A 0.368 A 0.414 4 Dover Dr/16th St A 0.588 A 0.493 5 Dover Dr/Cliff Or A 0.545 A 0.492 6 Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) D 0.839 B 0.646 7 Riverside Ave/W. Coast Hwy SR -1 B 0.658 C 0.715 8 Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy SR -1 B 0.660 A 0.580 9 Balboa Bay Club Dwy/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) B 0.659 B 0.694 10 Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwv (SR -1) B 0.639 C 0.718 0.560 Page 126 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203-132 3. Environmental Analysis Study Intersection Locations Source: RBF Consulting 2011 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study NOT TO SCALE The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 16 2O3-133 3. Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank. Page 128 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203 13.4 3. Environmental Analysis Existing Conditions Peak -Hour Turning Volumes `301fill1 / nmo411 `256256 1 `27l98 1 i ) 1 119 3!]49 1- - - - - - 1 aisisi°� } / 1 53163 1 1982331 , 1 1358168 JA- / 3521492 J \ � 820/184 210311274 I m `fia/Ti o`t ✓ i L rvT 1v1inizm \V / 1 315246% 1912/1387— L 1��39�-12`��CLIFF DR,20121390 f t'��1120 50SR�.........• /-1405204fi - _ _ - Source: RBF Consulting 2017 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study 1 1 6311sJ } \ sefirs4zti N r \ r �� ts31s1 l m X1311 X62/2, 1 43121 J 1 1711121y , 2 mE,n ,6/40 \1 / 1) , 1, (56/852810 1 I /22231968— o ( l 350390 � , T — tt11145 1 X953/1896 (10019] 1 I 659/]43 I I ' 11560/1£77— vee 2019, 47411031 12 241217 6 C `42151 , 118146 S�R-il 1931/1283 2525 ++ / \ Source: RBF Consulting 2017 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study 1 1 6311sJ } \ sefirs4zti N r \ r �� ts31s1 l m X1311 X62/2, 1 43121 J 1 1711121y , 2 mE,n ,6/40 \1 / 1) , 1, (56/852810 1 I /22231968— o ( l 350390 � , T — Legend: / NOT TO SCALE XXlXX AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes ...... Project Site Boundary T88 The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 17 20S -I35 tt11145 1 X953/1896 (10019] 1 I 659/]43 I I ' 11560/1£77— vee 2019, g S�R-il � 1 r Legend: / NOT TO SCALE XXlXX AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes ...... Project Site Boundary T88 The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 17 20S -I35 3. Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank. Page 130 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 20S-130 3. Environmental Analysis State Highway Intersections Table 22 summarizes existing AM and PM peak hour LOS of the State Highway study intersections. Table 22 Existing LOS, State Hi hway Intersections Intersection No. AM Peak- Hour Intersection LOS Delay PM Peak -Hour LOS Delay 6 Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast Hwy SR -1 B 15.6 B 18.0 7 Riverside Ave/W. Coast Hwy SR -1 B 12.3 B 16.0 8 Tustin Avert. Coast Hwy SR -1 A 3.4 A 6.4 9 Balboa Bay Club Dwy/W. Coast Hwy SR -1) A 4.5 A 4.8 10 Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwy SR -1 C 20.6 C 22.1 11 Bayside D11. Coast Hwy SR -1 B 12.2 B 12.6 12 Jamboree Rd/E. Coast Hwy (SR -1) C 27.3 C 28.2 Saurce: RBF 2011 As shown in the table, the State Highway study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) according to Caltrans performance criteria. a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation 88 system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Project trip generation was estimated in the traffic impact analysis using trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, (8th edition). The analysis in the traffic study as summarized in this section is based on the land use mix detailed in Table 23 (Traffic Study Land Use Mix). Subsequent to preparation of the traffic study, the proposed land use mix was refined to include slightly less restaurant square footage and slightly more specialty retail square footage (2,229 SF was reallocated from restaurant to retail use). The overall square footage for the project, 23,015 did not change. To assure that the traffic study conservatively addresses potential project impacts and does not underestimate trip generation, a comparison of trip generation forthe land uses as analyzed in the study versus the refined land use was quantified and is shown in Table 23. As detailed, the traffic study as prepared reflects the generation of 93 more daily trips than would be anticipated from the project as currently proposed. Similarly, with the exception of the peak hour, 'out' trips that increases by one trip) trip generation for each of the peak hours would be slightly less than analyzed in the traffic study. The study therefore was determined to be conservative for the project as currently proposed. the project is forecast to generate 16 AM peak -hour trips, 84 PM peak -hour trips, and 1,533 total weekday daily trips. Project trip assignment onto study area roadways is shown in Figure 18, Project Trip Distribution. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 131 2OS13:7 3. Environmental Analysis Table 23 Pro'ect-Related Trip Generation Land Use AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips In Out Total In Out Total Trip Generation Rates Specialty Retail (tsf 0.0 1 0.0 0.0 1 1.19 1 1.52 2.71 1 44.32 Quality Restaurant (tsf) 0.66 0.15 0.81 5.02 2.47 7.49 89.95 Medical Office (tsf) 1.82 0.48 2.30 0.93 2.53 3.46 36.13 Specialty Retail - 9.522 tsf 0 0 0 11 14 25 422 Quality Restaurant -10.493 tsf 7 2 9 53 26 79 944 Pass -by Discount 44%inp.m.' 0 0 0 -23 -11 -34 -342 Medical Office - 3.000 tsf 5 1 6 3 8 11 108 Total 12 3 15 44 37 80 1448 Source: RBF 2011. Nates: tst = thousand square feet ' Pass -by discount determined using ITE Trip Generation Manual, 2nd Edition 2 Daily trip reduction assumes total p.m. peak hour trip reduction. Alternative Modes of Transportation Public Transit There is an existing bus stop (Coast -Dover) for westbound OCTA Route 1 on the north side of West Coast Highway along the midway point of frontage of the project site. The bus stop would be relocated to between the two driveways of the proposed parking structure, slightly west from its current location. Additionally, under the proposed striping plan (see Appendix C), a designated "Bus Only" area would also be created between the two driveways. The other bus stops near the project site which includes the Dover -Coast and Dover -Cliff bus stops along Dover Drive north of the project site and the Coast-Bayshore stop near the southeast corner of the West Coast Highway and Dover Drive intersection would continue to operate as normal. Development of the proposed project would therefore not impact public transit operations. Page 132 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203-138 3. Environmental Analysis Project Trip Distribution Source: RBF Consulting 2011 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study NOT TO SCALE 00 The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 18 263-z39 3. Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank. Page 134 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS 1-40 3. Environmental Analysis Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities The eastbound and westbound directions of West Coast Highway between Dover Drive and Riverside Avenue, which includes the project site frontage, is designated as a Class III bike lane.10 Additionally, the northbound direction of Dover Drive starting at West Coast Highway is a designated as and contains an existing Class II bike lane." The designated and existing Class II bike lane along the southbound direction of Dover Drive terminates near the mid -point between Cliff Drive and the northern boundary of the project site and would not be physically impacted by development of the proposed project. Development of the proposed project would also not conflict with the Class II and Class III bike lane designations. The existing Class II bike lanes would not be altered or affected by development of the proposed project. Development of the project would not substantially change the location of the existing curb fronting the project site exceptfor the portion located at the planned "exit -only" driveway. While project construction may temporarily disrupt sidewalks along the project site frontage on West Coast Highway and Dover Drive, the sidewalks would be restored before project completion, and the project would not have any lasting adverse impact on pedestrian facilities. Existing With Project Conditions Existing year plus project LOS conditions at study area intersections are shown below in Table 24 and in Figure 19, Existing Plus Project Peak -Hour Turning Volumes. Project traffic conditions were estimated by adding project -generated trips assigned to study area roadways to the existing conditions without -project traffic condition estimate shown above. 12 As shown in this table, based on the City traffic impact standards, all of the study intersections operate at LOS D or better and would not result in a significant impact. 88 10 Class III bike lanes provide a shared use with motor vehicle traffic and may be identified by signage (Newport Beach 2006). " Class II bike lanes provide a striped and stenciled lane for bicycle travel on a street or highway (Newport Beach 2006). 12 The land use mix assumed in the RBF traffic study yields a higher project trip generation than the actual proposed land use mix. Please see Table 23 for comparison of trips between the land use mix assumed in the RBF traffic study and the actual proposed land use mix proposed for the project. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 135 2O3-1.4-1 3. Environmental Analysis Table 24 Existing Plus Project Level of Service at Study Area Intersections Source: RBF 2011. ' The land use mix assumed in the RBF traffic study yields a higher project trip generation than the actual proposed land use mix. Therefore, project impacts to LOS as shown are conservative. Please see Table 23 for comparison of tips between the land use mix assumed in the RBF traffic study and the actual proposed land use mix proposed for the project. Page 136 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12O11 20s -:L42 Without Project With Project' AM Peak Increase in Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour V/C Significant Intersection LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C AM PM Impact? Irvine Ave/Dover Or A 0.543 B 0.661 A 0.544 B 0.663 0.001 0.002 No Irvine Ave/17th St A 0.496 B 0.690 A 0.496 B 0.692 0.000 0.002 No Dover Dr/Westcliff Dr A 0.368 A 0.414 A 0.369 A 0.419 0.001 0.005 No Dover Dr/16th St A 0.588 A 0.493 A 0.590 A 0.497 0.002 0.004 No Dover Dr/Cliff Dr A 0.545 A 0.492 A 0.547 A 0.502 1 0.002 0.010 1 No Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast D 0.839 B 0.646 D 0.839 B 0.648 0.000 0.002 No Hwy SR -1 Riverside Ave/W. B 0.658 C 0.715 B 0.660 C 0.717 0.002 0.002 No Coast Hwy SR -1 Tustin Av Coast B 0.660 A 0.580 B 0.661 A 0.583 0.001 0.003 No Hwy SR-11) Balboa Bay Club Dwy/W. Coast Hwy 8 0.659 B 0.694 B 0.662 B 0.698 0.003 0.004 No SR -1 Dover Dr/W. Coast B 0.639 C 0.718 B 0.639 C 0.730 0.000 0.012 No Hwy SR -1 Bayside Dr/E. Coast B 0.601 A 0.571 B 0.601 A 0.573 0.000 0.002 No Hwy SR -1 Jamboree Rd/E.-1 A 0.560 B 0.679 A 0.560 B 0.680 0.000 0.001 No Coast Hw SR Source: RBF 2011. ' The land use mix assumed in the RBF traffic study yields a higher project trip generation than the actual proposed land use mix. Therefore, project impacts to LOS as shown are conservative. Please see Table 23 for comparison of tips between the land use mix assumed in the RBF traffic study and the actual proposed land use mix proposed for the project. Page 136 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12O11 20s -:L42 3. Environmental Analysis Existing Plus Project Peak -Hour Turning Volumes / X58/68 \ / ^'E� `25fi/258 27/98 4 -19137 479/s8i- } ssnze- l } ( m m `352/492 / \ :820/18456 1 2104/1279`6803 \ 190/1fi1 7 / 17/112188 \ /20 315/246- er 1916/1401— / I \ 4/5-� l / sr ry ro \ 35/53 V 11 f �--1234/2265 1 1 CLIFF OHI 201711407— �� ----"A 1/20-, oo / rtrQ so 01ST _ �U •...........' �1406I2059 -- wiNca -47411031 � 1227/2187 \ `42151 I I 124/17]- 193211292— I \ 25125 Source: RBF Consulting 2017 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study \ J{ 1 I I 83/555- 1 \ 5701554} n / �a X53/51620 1 \ R J I ' 1 1923, \ 172/123, / \ n / v `146140 951 \ / I ` 817 56185 6fA5 1 1 41144- 1' 1 2223/1973+ u. / \ 350/394, mo / \ n / 1 / O _O 1� m Legend: XX/XX AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes ...... Proper Site Boundary / ' - \ \ Q, L77/145 \ l01 1 1197 1 1 659045- 156811281 ( � gI q I 11 NOT TO SCALE I % The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 19 20s—:L43 3. Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank. Page 138 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 20s -:L44 3. Environmental Analysis State Highway Intersections Table 25 summarizes forecast existing plus project conditions AM peak hour and PM peak hour LOS of the State Highway study intersections. Table 25 Existing Plus Project Level of Service at State Highway Intersections Source: RBF 2011. ' The land use mix assumed in the RBF traffic study yields a higher project trip generation than the actual proposed land use mix. Therefore, project impacts to LOS as shown are conservative. Please see Table 23 for comparison of trips between the landuse mix assumed in the RBF traffic study and the actual proposed land use mix proposed for the project. As shown in the table, with the addition of project -generated trips, the State Highway study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) according to Caltrans performance criteria for forecast existing plus project conditions. Therefore, no significant traffic impacts would result from development of the proposed project. Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions Forecast cumulative without project traffic conditions was derived from adding trips from 12 foreseeable projects within the project vicinity as identified by City staff to the baseline year 2013 traffic conditions. The 12 foreseeable projects include the following: • Newport Beach Country Club • Mariner's Medical Arts • WPI -Newport, LLC • Banning Ranch • Sunset Ridge Park • Marina Park Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 139 0 2 03 :L 45 Without Project With Project' AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Significant Delay, Delay, Delay, Delay, Intersection LOS sec. LOS sec. LOS sec. LOS sec. Impact? Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast Hwy B 15.6 B 18.0 B 15.6 B 18.0 No SR -1 Riverside Ave/W. Coast B 12.3 B 16.0 B 12.3 B 16.0 No Hwy (SR -1 Tustin Ave/W. Coast A 3.4 A 6.4 A 3.4 A 6.4 No Hwy SR -1 Balboa Bay Club Dwy/W. Coast Hwy A 4.5 A 4.8 A 4.6 A 5.3 No SR -1 Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwy C 20.6 C 22.1 C 20.7 C 22.7 No (SR 1) Bayside Dr/E. Coast B 12.2 B 12.6 B 12.3 B 12.7 No Hwy SR -1 Jamboree Rd/E. Coast C 27.3 C 28.2 C 27.3 C 28.2 No Hwy SR -1 Source: RBF 2011. ' The land use mix assumed in the RBF traffic study yields a higher project trip generation than the actual proposed land use mix. Therefore, project impacts to LOS as shown are conservative. Please see Table 23 for comparison of trips between the landuse mix assumed in the RBF traffic study and the actual proposed land use mix proposed for the project. As shown in the table, with the addition of project -generated trips, the State Highway study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) according to Caltrans performance criteria for forecast existing plus project conditions. Therefore, no significant traffic impacts would result from development of the proposed project. Forecast Cumulative Without Project Conditions Forecast cumulative without project traffic conditions was derived from adding trips from 12 foreseeable projects within the project vicinity as identified by City staff to the baseline year 2013 traffic conditions. The 12 foreseeable projects include the following: • Newport Beach Country Club • Mariner's Medical Arts • WPI -Newport, LLC • Banning Ranch • Sunset Ridge Park • Marina Park Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 139 0 2 03 :L 45 3. Environmental Analysis • Pres Office Building • Conexant • Koll Conceptual Plan • Aerie • Dolphin Striker • Newport Coast The baseline year 2013 traffic conditions includes ambient traffic growth, based on an annual growth factor of one percent, and trips from 16 approved projects as identified bythe City of Newport Beach added to the existing traffic conditions. The 16 approved projects include the following: • Fashion Island Expansion • Temple Bat Yahm Expansion • Ciosa-Irvine Project Newport Dunes Hoag Hospital Phase III • St. Marks Presbyterian Church • OLQA Church Expansion • 2300 Newport Boulevard Newport Executive Court • Hoag Health Center • North Newport Center • Santa Barbara Condo Newport Beach City Hall; • 328 Old Newport Medical Office • Coastline Community College • Bayview Medical Office Forecast cumulative without project LOS conditions at study area intersections are shown below in Table 26 and in Figure 20, Forecast Cumulative Without Project Peak -Hour Turning Volumes. Table 26 Forecast Cumulative Without Project Level of Service at Study Area Intersections Intersection No. Intersection AM Peak Hour LOS VIC PM Peak Hour LOS V/C 1 Irvine Ave/Dover Dr A 0.561 B 0.682 2 Irvine Ave/17th St A 0.514 C 0.718 3 Dover Dr/Westcliff Dr A 0.391 A 0.461 4 Dover Dr/16th St B 0.613 A 0.523 5 Dover Dr/Cliff Dr A 0.575 A 0.530 6 Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast Hwy SR -1 E 0.973 D 0.867 7 Riverside Ave/W. Coast Hwy SR -1 C 0.735 C 0.791 8 Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy (SR -1) C 0.739 B 0.654 9 Balboa Bay Club Dwy/W. Coast Hwy SR -1 C 0.738 D 0.805 10 Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwy SR -1 C 0.702 D 0.809 11 Bayside Dr/E. Coast Hwy (SR -1) B 0.664 B 0.670 12 Jamboree Rd/E. Coast Hwy SR -1 B 0.664 D 0.841 Source: RBF 2011 Page 140 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203140 3. Environmental Analysis Forecast Cumulative Without Project Peak -Hour Turning Volumes %-60I68 m=�t \ \ —331RU \ / 10"10 �._, 158%18 \ I J / 1� 281101 I I J t \ %20139 1- - - - - - \\ 4557091 s4rssJ 11 xn4/15571295140-N 910 0 // / ^7 L3r015s0 \ m� • • J ' \ � IOM12026 I o Sys I z3WI117 I ' / Mans �--14 20811]6 / m / r�$1 346509 J}\-1434 325'255) 215211732 _ \ 4/51 15577 501 —R 1 tiJy , `3�eq `36154 \ ♦152712568 'I CLIFF "Ire -.X f 225911734-+ ----A 1121 aa S m¢m 0'9S/. .......... X1/116398_----- -- \- -- -- I �1i`\�sva4 ,—— ' 212912 `54911119 ` $ 1508/24941, 1504 1 94 \ \ %44/52 1 _ - - I 1291159) \ 216211606+ .F4 / Legend: 251251 XX/XX AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes \ / / ...... Project Site Boundary — Source: RBF Consulting 2011 R I //�^m' `181413154\\ 1 I '\ 244812321 } m / \ 361/406-X / \ m / `1921253 �F;'i` / ' X121]/2202 \ I J %1041208 1 93]1880) \ 1]63/156]+ \ 25/26, \ / W t , vsr� SR -1) 1 NOTTO SCALE r&;, Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 20 263 :L47 3. Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank. Page 142 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2 03 :L4 2 3. Environmental Analysis As shown in the table, with the addition of cumulative project -generated trips, the study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) for forecast cumulative without project conditions according to City of Newport Beach performance criteria with the exception the Newport Boulevard Southbound Ramps/West Coast Highway (SR -1) study intersection during the AM peak hour which is forecast to operate at LOS E. State Highway Intersections Table 27 summarizes forecast cumulative without project AM and PM peak hour LOS of the State Highway study intersections. Table 27 Forecast Cumulative Without Project Level of Service at State HighwaV Intersections Intersection No. Intersection AM Peak Hour LOS Delay PM Peak Hour LOS Delay 6 Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast Hwy SR -1 C 23.3 C 23.9 7 Riverside Ave/W. Coast Hwy SR -1 B 12.7 B 16.6 8 Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy SR -1 A 3.7 A 6.5 9 Balboa Bay Club Dwy/W. Coast Hwy SR -1 A 5.0 A 5.7 10 Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwy SR -1 C 21.0 C 23.7 11 Bayside Dr/E. Coast HwySR-1 B 14.1 B 15.1 12 Jamboree Rd/E. Coast Hwy SR -1 C 29.0 C 32.6 Source: RBF 2011 As shown in the table, the State Highway study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) according to Caltrans performance criteria. Forecast Cumulative With Project Conditions Forecast cumulative conditions plus project LOS at study area intersections are shown below in Table 28 and in Figure 21, Forecast Cumulative With Project Peak -Hour Turning Volumes. Project traffic conditions were estimated by adding project -generated trips assigned to study area roadways to the forecast cumulative conditions without -project traffic scenario.13 " Please see Appendix C to the Initial Study for the complete description. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 143 0 3. Environmental Analysis Table 28 Forecast Cumulative Conditions Level of Service at Study Area Intersections Source: RBF 2011. The land use mix assumed in the RBF traffic study yields a higher project trip generation than the actual proposed land use mix. Therefore, project impacts to LOS as shown are conservative. Please see Table 23 for comparison of trips between the land use mix assumed in the RBF traffic study and the actual proposed land use mix proposed for the project. As shown in the table, with the addition of proposed project -generated trips, the study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) for forecast cumulative with project conditions according to City of Newport Beach performance criteria with the exception of the Newport Boulevard Southbound Ramps/West Coast Highway (SR -1) study intersection during the AM peak hour which is forecast to continue to operate at LOS E. However, the project would not result in increasing the intersection capacity utilization by one percent or more of capacity (V/C > 0.010). Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact. Page 144 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS-250 Without Project With Project' AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Increase in Hour Hour Hour Hour VIC Significant LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C AM PM Intersection Impact? Irvine Ave/Dover Dr A 0.561 B 0.682 A 0.562 B 0.684 0.001 0.002 No Irvine Ave/17th St A 0.514 C 0.718 A 414 C 0.72 0 0.002 No Dover Dr/Westcliff Or A 0.391 A 0.461 A 0.392 A 0.466 0.001 0.005 No Dover Dr/16th St B 0.613 A 0.523 B 0.614 A 0.521 0.001 -0.002 No Dover Dr/Cliff Dr A 0.575 A 0.53 A 0.577 A 0.54 0.002 0.01 No Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast Hwy E 0.973 D 0.867 E 0.973 D 0.869 0 0.002 No SR -1 Riverside Ave/W. Coast Hwy SR -1 C 0.735 C 0.791 C 0.737 C 0.794 0.002 0.003 No Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy SR -1 C 0.739 B 0.654 C 0.74 B 0.657 0.001 0.003 No Balboa Bay Club Dwy/W. Coast Hwy SR -1 C 0.738 D 0.805 C 0.741 D 0.809 1 0.003 1 0.004 No Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwy SR -1 C 0.702 D 0.809 C 0.702 D 0.822 0 0.013 No Bayside Or/E. Coast Hwy SR -1) B 0.664 B 0.67 B 0.664 B 0.672 0 0.002 No Jamboree Rd/E. Coast H SR -1 B 0.664 D 0.841 B 0.664 D 0.843 0 0.002 No Source: RBF 2011. The land use mix assumed in the RBF traffic study yields a higher project trip generation than the actual proposed land use mix. Therefore, project impacts to LOS as shown are conservative. Please see Table 23 for comparison of trips between the land use mix assumed in the RBF traffic study and the actual proposed land use mix proposed for the project. As shown in the table, with the addition of proposed project -generated trips, the study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) for forecast cumulative with project conditions according to City of Newport Beach performance criteria with the exception of the Newport Boulevard Southbound Ramps/West Coast Highway (SR -1) study intersection during the AM peak hour which is forecast to continue to operate at LOS E. However, the project would not result in increasing the intersection capacity utilization by one percent or more of capacity (V/C > 0.010). Therefore, the project would not result in a significant impact. Page 144 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS-250 3. Environmental Analysis Forecast Cumulative With Project Peak -Hour Turning Volumes ~331I]08`161063 \\ \ �26n01 1 I J } 1` 120139 1- - - - - - \\ 4)6a1} / 54165) 1G 1 n<x152J183:, 2051 910 `\ } 0 // j 2365/1612+ I / v g `]0118 ` P 20511]6 / / - �--14352520 \ / / "• ` ^ ` ` \\ /QOQ' I Jit. `18111 1 325255) , } r I 21561IM— _ \ 4/51 a - 1605, �� I -R n 136154 \ \ +152812601 44199) f I CLIFF " - A vz 226411121-� 2t I e -_ lti as S m¢m C � �� QJ i' 09ST _ roU / \ 3R,1 r `11113 ' 213412,2'8) 1 r , , `�amL°`54911119 \ R 8+ f151112sOfi \ l4a52 1 w 1 } r I \ 2163/1617— .F4 / Legend: \ z6261 / / XX/XX AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes \ , ...... Project Site Boundary - Source: RBF Consulting 2011 / m \ 291zs+ mad / \ mam `181613161\\ I i i ` r58/ee I I '\ 2448/2332- 361/410-N 446Iz332 3611410-N / 921253 \ X1218/2207 \ I J l l mmz9a 1 \ 1]63!15]1+ � / W 1 9Sr�SR,7) `1 NOTTo SCALE r&;, Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study The Planning Center I DC&E • Figure 21 263-151 3. Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank. Page 146 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS-152 3. Environmental Analysis State Highway Intersections Table 29 summarizes forecast cumulative with project conditions AM peak hour and PM peak hour LOS of the State Highway study intersections. Table 29 Forecast Cumulative with Project Conditions Level of Service at State Highway Intersections Source: RBF 2011. 'The land use mix assumed in the RBF traffic study yields a higher project trip generation than the actual proposed land use mix. Therefore, project impacts to LOS as shown are conservative. Please see Table 23 for comparison of trips between the land use mix assumed in the RBF traffic study and the actual proposed land use mix proposed for the project. As shown in the table, with the addition of project -generated trips, the State Highway study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) according to Caltrans performance criteria for forecast cumulative plus project conditions. Therefore, no significant traffic impacts would result from development of the proposed project. City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Analysis The above Existing Plus Project and Forecast Cumulative Plus Project analyses address project traffic impacts pursuantto CEQA requirements. The following scenario is evaluated pursuant to the City's TPO and is provided for informational purposes only. Pursuantto the City's TPO, trips thatwould be generated bythe existing 5,447 square -foot buildings would be credited against the total trips that would be generated bythe proposed project. As shown in Table 30, the resulting net trips of 1,292 ADT would be utilized only for the TPO traffic analysis (forecast year 2013 with project conditions). Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 14 7 ffl 2OS-163 Without Project With Project' AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Significant Delay, Delay, Delay, Delay, Intersection LOS sec. LOS sec. LOS sec. LOS sec. Impact? Newport Blvd SB Ramps/W. Coast Hwy C 23.3 C 23.9 C 23.3 C 24.0 No SR -1) Riverside Ave/W. Coast B 12.7 B 16.6 B 12.7 B 16.6 No Hwy SR -1 Tustin Ave/W. Coast Hwy A 3.7 A 6.5 A 3.7 A 6.5 No SR -1 Balboa Bay Club Dwy/W. A 5.0 A 5.7 A 5.0 A 6.3 No Coast Hwy (SR -1) Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwy C 21.0 C 23.7 C 21.0 C 24.4 No SR -1 Bayside Or/E. Coast Hwy B 14.1 B 15.1 B 14.2 B 15.2 No SR -1 Jamboree Rd/E. Coast C 29.0 C 32.6 C 29.0 C 32.6 No Hwy (SR -1) Source: RBF 2011. 'The land use mix assumed in the RBF traffic study yields a higher project trip generation than the actual proposed land use mix. Therefore, project impacts to LOS as shown are conservative. Please see Table 23 for comparison of trips between the land use mix assumed in the RBF traffic study and the actual proposed land use mix proposed for the project. As shown in the table, with the addition of project -generated trips, the State Highway study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) according to Caltrans performance criteria for forecast cumulative plus project conditions. Therefore, no significant traffic impacts would result from development of the proposed project. City of Newport Beach Traffic Phasing Ordinance (TPO) Analysis The above Existing Plus Project and Forecast Cumulative Plus Project analyses address project traffic impacts pursuantto CEQA requirements. The following scenario is evaluated pursuant to the City's TPO and is provided for informational purposes only. Pursuantto the City's TPO, trips thatwould be generated bythe existing 5,447 square -foot buildings would be credited against the total trips that would be generated bythe proposed project. As shown in Table 30, the resulting net trips of 1,292 ADT would be utilized only for the TPO traffic analysis (forecast year 2013 with project conditions). Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 14 7 ffl 2OS-163 3. Environmental Analysis Table 30 Net Forecast Project Trip Generation Utilized in TPO Analysis AM Peak Hour Trips Land Use In Out Total PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total Daily Trips Existing Site displaced 0 01 6 8 14 241 Proposed Mariner's Pointe Project 13 3 16 48 36 84 1,533 Total 13 3 16 1 42 1 28 1 70 1,292 Source: RBF 2011. Forecast Year 2013 Without Project Conditions Forecast year 2013 without project LOS conditions at study area intersections are shown below in Table 31 and in Figure 22, Forecast Year 2013 Without Project Peak -Hour Turning Volumes. As stated, year 2013 traffic conditions were estimated by adding the ambient traffic growth, based on an annual growth factor of one percent, and trips from the 16 approved projects as previously listed. Per the TPO, the table only shows the LOS for intersections where the proposed projectwould add more than one percent of the background traffic during the peak hours. Table 31 Forecast Year 2013 Without Project Level of Service at Study Area Intersections Intersection No. Intersection AM Peak Hour LOS V/C PM Peak Hour LOS V/C 3 Dover Dr/Westcliff Dr A 038 A 0.43 4 Dover DO 6th St B 0.61 A 0.51 5 Dover Dr/Cliff Dr A 0.57 A 0.51 9 Balboa Bay Club Dwy/W. Coast Hwy SR -1 C 0.72 C 0.77 10 Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwy SR -1 B 0.69 C 0.77 11 1 Bayside Dr/E. Coast Hwy SR -1 B 0.69 B 0.64 Source: RBF 2011. As shown in Table xx, with the addition of trips forecast to be generated by the approved projects, the TPO study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) for forecast year 2013 without project conditions according to City of Newport Beach performance criteria. Forecast Year 2013 With Project Conditions Forecast Year 2013 with project LOS conditions at study area intersections are shown below in Table 32 and in Figure 23, Forecast Year 2013 With Project Peak -Hour Turning Volumes. Project traffic conditions were estimated by adding project -generated trips assigned to study area roadways to the forecast year 2013 without -project traffic scenario.'" As shown in this table, based on the City's traffic impact standards, the project would not result in a significant impact. " Please see Appendix C to the Initial Study for the complete description. Page 148 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 20s—:L54 3. Environmental Analysis Forecast Year 2013 Without Project Peak -Hour Turning Volumes 0`265/266 1i 28118 I' 0/83 ✓0 1 I 2239vI ---- -- 208/3 f 1\ \ 24994✓ 54,111 20601s5� f mI / ! ^Itet 13]0/520 1004/2030 L 1 23(35/1612+ 2061116 m ^ �� I ! ]OIlB \ —143512520 1 3251255✓ / eW 2156/1746+ \ _ � i \ / 1 ,12150✓ `� f I --- 1 P e ;+ 1 I 154654 —/2601 1 CUFF 1 22641 ]51J ---A 121' oo / MT11: mm • ' D�srh 41p / / �2_ X11/13\ ~ ........• / A) V L ,]1212411 ✓ 646] 1--�--------- _ _ - I 514✓ �� ,/ \ 21341212B- 134/2126 40134 40)34 --X / ' n27 no -�112506 �ry 1 1351190 A ✓44152 1 N t " 2163/1611+ / \ 2626, Source: RBF Consulting 2011 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study 1 JI 1 I I 1 es/1191 1 f \ 5901583, -N ! J + L ✓64122 1 ' 1 45/22% , I (I I 20125+ m \ 176/12]} , \ N X16141 \ ! l ✓981883161 1 1 83171 2448/2332— \ N / 0 o `1921253 \ / ) `1216220] + 04208 1 1 9371882✓ \ 1]63115]1+ N ! 251261 Oie / W - - ; O 1 g 1 C Legend: 1 NOT TO SCALE XXIXX AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes •••••• Project Site Boundary T % The Planning Center l DC&E • Figure 22 2 OS -1515 3. Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank. Page 150 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 20S-150 3. Environmental Analysis Forecast Year 2013 With Project Peak -Hour Turning Volumes / mmo X69/fig V / @nn _285/264 1 i r2811004 1 1 J i lzmis83 vI_ - - - - - Iv 49a/619 1} T / 1 54/ssJ i I \ 205/240,m21183— Z / \ 15591]0, 1370/520 1 —1004/2026 236411607— I / ' No 17096 \ 2asms, /' i l 1 e34'2599 Q7 �F1 1 325/255) 2152/1]32+ \ / 1 112/50✓ 1 , / sr O� - ----I 22574 /21, `1527/2588 \/1 CLIFF DY— A 1 C O c qsr / �...........' 1 216211608— \ 26126, Source: RBF Consulting 2017 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study i t I 85/119) \ 5881576 � / \ 7 Y / `Vey 158156 \ `64122 1 1 45122) I 1 t 20125— ^ \ 1]11125 m / ^ `16!41 / �i + L X581 13 188 154 \I I I 24482321) \ n / r/ O >O mQ Legend: 1921253 \ �1217L2202 I Wil" ` `11o4no6 1 I 937J880 -14t 1763M567- 26126-,, 763/1567-25126' \ , t 0 r l XXIXX AMIPM Peak Hour Volumes NOT TO SCALE ...... Project Site Boundary T The Planning Center DC&E • Figure 23 20s 25�;L %821442398 I 5/4JI \ 212912111+ 1 r m 1 / \ co A ^ - - `44/52 12911591 509/1119 812494 1 \1 1 216211608— \ 26126, Source: RBF Consulting 2017 Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study i t I 85/119) \ 5881576 � / \ 7 Y / `Vey 158156 \ `64122 1 1 45122) I 1 t 20125— ^ \ 1]11125 m / ^ `16!41 / �i + L X581 13 188 154 \I I I 24482321) \ n / r/ O >O mQ Legend: 1921253 \ �1217L2202 I Wil" ` `11o4no6 1 I 937J880 -14t 1763M567- 26126-,, 763/1567-25126' \ , t 0 r l XXIXX AMIPM Peak Hour Volumes NOT TO SCALE ...... Project Site Boundary T The Planning Center DC&E • Figure 23 20s 25�;L 3. Environmental Analysis This page intentionally left blank. Page 152 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203-168 3. Environmental Analysis Table 32 Forecast Year 2013 With Project Level of Service at Study Area Intersections Int. No Study Intersection Forecast Year 2013 Without Project Conditions Forecast Year 2013 With Project Conditions Increase in VIC Significant Impact? AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak PM Peak Hour Hour LOS VIC LOS VIC LOS VIC LOS VIC AM PM 3 Dover Dr/Westcliff Dr A 038 A 0.43 A 038 A 0.43 0.00 0.00 No 4 Dover Dr/16th St B 0.61 A 0.51 B 0.61 A 0.52 0.00 0.01 No 5 Dover Dr/Cliff Dr A 0.57 A 0.51 A 0.57 A 0.52 0.00 0.01 No 9 Balboa Bay Club Dwy/W. Coast HwySR-1 C 0.72 C 0.77 C 0.72 C 0.77 0.00 0.00 No 10 Dover Dr/W. Coast Hwy SR -1) B 0.69 C 0.77 B 0.69 C 0.78 0.00 0.01 No 11 Bayside Dr/E. Coast Hwy SR -1 B 0.69 B 0.64 B 0.69 B 0.65 0.00 0.01 No Source: RBF 2011 As shown in the table, with the addition of project -generated trips, the TPO study intersections are forecast to continue to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) for forecast year 2013 with project conditions according to City of Newport Beach performance criteria. Based on City of Newport Beach established thresholds of significance, the addition of project -generated trips is forecast to result in no significant TPO impacts at the study intersections for forecast year 2013 with project conditions. General Plan Amendment The project site currently permits a 0.50 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) maximum, which would allow development of a building up to 16,923 building square feet. The project proposes to increase the maximum FAR on the project site to 0.68, which would permit development of 23,015 square -foot building. Therefore, the proposed project would increase the maximum FAR by 0.18 and increase the allowable total square footage by 6,092 square feet. Table 33 shows the number of trips forecast to be generated by the net incremental square footage increase. Incremental Increase in Trips Table 33 Per Proposed Project Site FAR Increase Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily Trip In Out Total In Out Total Trip Hate Specialty Retail (tsf) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.19 1.52 1 2.71 1 44.32 Trips Generated Proposed Specialty Retail Square Footage Increase - 0' 0' 0' 7 9 16 270 Note: tat thousand square feet 1 Zero a.m. peak hour trips since ITE a.m. peak hour rate for specialty retail is zero. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 153 0 3. Environmental Analysis As shown in the table, the increased floor area allowed by the respective FAR increase of 0.18 for the project site would be responsible for generation of approximately 270 of the new daily trips. No new AM peak trips would be attributed to this increase and approximately 16 new PM peak hour trips could be attributed to the FAR increase. Under the City's TPO, projects that are estimated to generate less than 300 daily trips are not required to prepare a traffic study. This nominal level of traffic generation would therefore, not be anticipated to result in significant impacts. Construction Worker and Vendor Traffic During project construction, construction workers, vendors, and the haul trucks used to move debris would be entering and leaving the site throughout the workday, creating some impacts on traffic volume. Table 34 shows the estimated number of daily trips for each construction activity. Table 34 Construction -Related Worker and Vendor Trips per Day Construction Phase Worker Trips Per Day Vendor Trips Per Day Haul Trips Per Day' Demolition buildings 5 0 6 Demolition parking lot) 5 0 4 Grading 8 0 0 Retention Wall Construction 13 0 9 Parking Structure Construction 30 12 0 Trenching and Utilities 5 0 0 Building Construction 30 2 0 Architectural Coating 6 0 0 Maximum Daily Construction Trips' 1 351 121 10 Source: CaIEEMod, Version 2011.1.1. Note: These figures are based on CalEEMod calculations in determining worker, vendor, and haul trips for each construction phase. ' Based on 25 total demolition (building) haul trips divided by four days (expected duration),13 total demolition (parking) haul trips divided by 3 days (expected duration), and 200 total soil haul lips divided by 23 days. 1 Based on the total number of trips from trenching and building construction phases. As shown in the table, each construction phase would generate a minimal number of trips per day. The project would generate the highest number of construction -related trips during the trenching and parking construction and trenching and building construction operations as these activities partially overlap. During overlap of these construction activities, the project would generate up to 36 worker trips and 12 vendor trips for total of 48 maximum daily construction trips. This is estimated to occur over a four-month period. The worst-case day for haul trips would occur during the anticipated one day overlap between demolition of the building and parking lot which would generate approximately 10 demolition haul trips. Soil haul operations would generate up to nine daily haul trips. Overall, the amount of construction -related traffic would be minimal compared to the amount of traffic volumes on the roadways surrounding the site and would be temporary. Development of a Construction Traffic Management Plan under Mitigation Measure 10 would ensure that construction -related traffic impacts are further reduced. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with incorporation of mitigation. Page 154 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203-1('00 3. Environmental Analysis Mitigation Measure 10. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project will be required to develop a Construction Traffic Management Plan that includes the following elements: • Restrict construction worker and equipment delivery trips to occur outside of the weekday AM and PM peak hours. • Identify and establish truck haul routes and restrict haul operations to occur outside of the weekday AM and PM peak hours. • Provide Traffic Control Plans for detours and temporary road closures (if necessary) that meet the minimum Caltrans, City, and County criteria. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. West Coast Highway (Hwy 1) is a Principal Arterial on the County's Congestion Management Plan Highway System. However, the project would not generate significant trips (i.e., 1,600 or more vehicle trips per day) to any CMP intersection. Therefore, the project would not have the potential to conflict with the CMP. No significant impact would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in 88 location that results in substantial safety risks? No Impact. The commercial nature of the project would not result in a population increase in the City of Newport Beach. Thus, the project is not expected to result in a substantial increase in air traffic levels. In addition, the project would not construct structures that would pose a hazard to air navigation, and the project site is not in an areawhere there are substantial crash hazardsfrom aircraft approaching or departing from an airport. Therefore, there would be no impacts from implementation of the proposed project and no mitigation measures are necessary. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. The setback for the buildings under the proposed project would provide adequate sight distance and an unobstructed view of westbound traffic along West Coast Highway for exiting vehicles at each project driveway. Additionally, signage indicating "Do Not Enter" and/or "Exit Only" would be installed along with a striped outbound -only arrow. Furthermore, a dedicated bus only zone would be created which would serve as a refuge for buses at the relocated bus stop and also to discourage vehicles from using as a secondary driveway. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. California Fire Code, Section 503 requires approved fire access roads within 150 feet of the exterior walls of the first story of each building. Such roads must be at least 20 feet wide, have a minimum of 13.5 feet of vertical clearance, and must provide all-weather driving capabilities for firefighting Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 155 203-1/'01 3. Environmental Analysis vehicles. The project site plans have been designed incoordination with the NBFD to ensure that the project would provide adequate access for firefighting and emergency vehicles and to meet the requirements of CFC Section 503. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. Development of the proposed project would accommodate bus service as currently available along the frontage of the project site. Although the location of the existing bus stop would be relocated slightly westerly from its existing location, it would continue to operate after completion of the proposed project. Striping under the proposed project would create a dedicated "bus only" zone which would serve as a refuge for buses at the relocated bus stop which would be consistent with Policy CE 6.2.2 of the City General Plan (Newport Beach 2006). Additionally, adherence to Mitigation Measure 11 would ensure that potential impacts to public transit during project construction would be minimized. As shown on Figure CE4, Bikeways Master Plan, of the City's General Plan, the segment of West Coast Highway along the project site frontage is designated as a Class III bike lane. Development of the proposed project would accommodate this segment to operate as a Class III bike lane and would not conflict with this designation. Additionally, the existing Class II bike lanes along Dover Drive would not be altered or affected by development of the proposed project. Furthermore, development of the project would be consistent with Policy CE 5.1.3 of the City General Plan as it would improve the sidewalks along Dover Drive and West Coast Highway (Newport Beach 2006). Overall, improvements from development of the proposed project would be consistent with City policies. Therefore, impacts to bicycle and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure it. The applicant shall contact OCTA and coordinate operation of the Coast -Dover bus stop along the project's West Coast Highwayfrontage during project construction. Mitigation as required to suspend operation, or modify or temporarily relocate the bus stop during project construction activities shall be negotiated with OCTA. The applicant shall provide the plans/mitigation to the City as negotiated with OCTA for review and approval by the City of Newport Beach's Planning Department and Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading permits. 3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS a) Exceed waste water treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach is the wastewater service provider for the project site. Wastewater from the City's sewer system is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). Wastewater treatment at the OCSD facility is required to meet applicable Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. The project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. Page 156 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 20S_102 3. Environmental Analysis b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. Wastewater from the City's sewer system is treated by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The two sewage water treatment plants operated by the OSCD include Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach, and Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley. A majority of the City's sewage flow is pumped to the OCSD Plant No. 2 which would serve the proposed project. Treatment Plant No. 2 maintains a design capacity of 276 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently treats on average a flow of 153 mgd and is operating at 55 percent of design capacity (Newport Beach 2006). The existing uses are currently not generating any wastewater. The proposed project would generate the following amounts of wastewater as shown in Table 35. Table 35 Estimated Project Wastewater Generation Land Use Square Feet Wastewater Generation Rate al/ ear/st Wastewater Generated at ear Total (gallyear) Indoor Outdoor Indoor Outdoor Restaurant 10,493 303.53 19.37 1 3,184,979 203,297 3,388,276 Commercial -Retail 9,522 74.07 45.40 705,335 432,292 1,137,627 Medical Office 3,000 125.48 23.90 376,442 71,703 448,145 Total 4,974,948 ' Calculated from wastewater generation rates used in CalEEMOD. As shown in the table, the project would generate 4,974,048 gallons of wastewater per year or about 13,628 gallons per day which is about 0.005 percent of the design capacity of Plant No. 2. There is adequate treatment capacity in the region for the amount of wastewater the project would generate. Project development would not require building new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities and impacts would be less than significant. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less Than Significant Impact. The project would include onsite construction of infiltration trenches equipped with filters; drainage from the site would be routed into the infiltration trenches where some drainage would infiltrate into soil before stormwater leaves the site and flows into storm drains. The project would not result in any net increase in runoff leaving the site, in compliance with Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements (Gwatney 2011). Thus, project development would not require construction or expansion of off-site drainage facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are necessary. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Less Than Significant Impact. Water services for the project site are provided by the City of Newport Beach. Domestic water for the project site is supplied by both groundwater and imported surface water. Local wells are not a source of water supply for the areas serviced by the City's water services, which Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 157 0- 2OS-103 3. Environmental Analysis includes the project site. Currently, a majority of water supplied to the City, including the project site, is supplied by groundwater from the Lower SantaAna Basin (Basin). Specifically, approximately 75 percent of the water supplied by the City's service area, including the project site, is supplied by groundwater from the Basin, and the remaining 25 percent of water is imported and purchased from the Municipal Water District (MWD). According to the City of Newport Beach, there are sufficient existing water supplies in the City to meet the project's estimated water demand, and project development would not require new or expanded water supplies (Parks 2011). Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. e) Result in a determination by the waste water treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Less Than Significant Impact. Less As discussed in response 3.16b above, adequate wastewater treatment capacity would be available for the proposed project. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Newport Beach is under contract with Waste Management of Orange County for solid waste hauling and disposal. The Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, located at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road in Irvine, is the closest facility for solid waste disposal. The Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, which is owned and operated by the Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department (IWMD), opened in 1990 and is scheduled to operate until approximately 2053. The current average disposal rate at the landfill is roughly 5,000 tons per day, and the maximum permitted disposal rate is 8,500 tons per day. The landfill's remaining capacity is approximately 200 million cubic yards (Arnau 2010), or 107 million tons of solid waste. Table 36 shows the estimated solid waste generation by the proposed project, using solid waste generation rates from CalRecycle. Table 36 Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation Land Use Square Feet Solid Waste Generation, pounds/day Generation Rate Total abs/sol(lbs/day) Restaurant 10,493 0.064 672 Commercial -Retail 9,522 0.042 400 Medical Office 3,000 0.178 534 Total 1^606 lbs/day Calculated tram solid waste generation rates used in CalEEMOO and obtained from CalRecycle: Quality Restaurant: 11.65 tans/1,000 square feet/year Specialty Retail: 7.6 tons/1,000 square feet/year Medical Office: 32.4 tons/1,000 square feet/year 1 ton/1,000 square feet/year = 0.00548 pound/square foot/day. As shown in Table 29, development of the proposed project would result in an additional 0.827 tons per day of solid waste to be disposed of at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, representing approximately 0.01 percent of the amount of solid waste the landfill is allowed to accept daily. With the remaining capacity of approximately 107 million tons, as well as a 42 -year lifespan at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, the Page 158 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS 10.4 3. Environmental Analysis increase in solid waste generated by the proposed development would not exceed the capacity of the landfill. No deficiencies currently exist at the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill, as there is adequate daily surplus capacity to accept the additional solid waste generated from the proposed project. Therefore, as the Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill would have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed project, impacts associated with solid waste disposal would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are necessary. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. The project would comply with federal, state, and local laws and regulations governing solid waste. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965 govern solid waste disposal. The EPA administers these laws. Assembly Bill 939 AB 939 (Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989; Public Resources Code 40050 et seq.) established an integrated waste -management system that focused on source reduction, recycling, composting, and land disposal of waste. AB 939 required every California city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills by the year 2000; and also requires each county to prepare a countywide siting element specifying areas for transformation or disposal sites to provide capacity for solid waste generated in the jurisdiction that cannot be reduced or recycled for a 15 -year period. Jurisdictions select and implement the combination of waste prevention, reuse, recycling, and composting that best meets the needs of their residents while achieving the diversion requirements of the act. Cities and counties also have the flexibility to work cooperatively toward the 50 percent goal by forming a regional agency. In 2009 the target disposal rates for the City of Newport Beach under AB 939 were 9.6 pounds per person per day (PPD) for residential solid waste, and 11.5 pounds per employee per day for solid waste from businesses. Actual disposal rates in the City in 2009 were 5.5 PPD from residences, and 7 PPD for businesses (CalRecycle 2010b). Therefore, the City of Newport Beach is complying with AB 939 goals. The project would not affect the City's ability to meet the required AB 939 waste diversion requirements. No impact would occur. Assembly Bill 1327 AB 1327, the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991, added Chapter 18 to Part 3 of Division 30 of the Public Resources Code. Chapter 18 required the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) to develop a model ordinance requiring adequate areas for the collection and loading of recyclable materials in development projects. Local agencies were then required to adopt and enforce either the model ordinance, or an ordinance of their own, by September 1, 1993. The project would include areas for the collection of recyclable material and comply with federal and state laws regulating solid waste disposal. No impact would occur. 3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 159 20S_105 3. Environmental Analysis the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located in an urbanized area that does not contain any sensitive natural resources that could be disturbed as a result of the proposed project. Because of the highly urbanized nature of the project area, the project is not expected to: reduce the habitat of fish and wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. The buildings within and adjacent to the project area, individually or collectively, are not significantty associated with events or persons important in history, and they are not architecturally distinctive. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would involve the development and operation of a two-story commercial/retail building in an urbanized area where supporting infrastructure currently exists. All of the impacts generated by the proposed project would be reduced to less than significant levels with mitigation measures incorporated. In consideration of the preceding factors, the project's contribution to cumulative impacts would be rendered less than significant; therefore, project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in the respective sections of this Initial Study, implementation of the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts in the areas of noise and traffic which may cause adverse effects on human beings. However, feasible mitigation measures have been identified to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, the proposed project would have no substantial adverse effects on human beings. Page 160 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS 100 4. References 4.1 PRINTED REFERENCES Anacal Engineering Company Inc. 2011, February 28. Water Quality Management Plan for Mariner's Pointe 100-300 West Coast Highway, Development Plan No. DP 2010-133, Parcel Map No. 2010-133. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2008, November. Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. 1971. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipmentand Home Appliances. Prepared for the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 1997, December. Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. UCD-ITS-RR-97-21. Prepared by Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. . 1998, October. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. 88 California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association (CAPCOA). 2010, August. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures. California Geological Survey (CGS). 2009, March 15. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning: Newport Beach Qaudrangle. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/geologic hazards/Tsunami/Inundation_Maps/Orange/Docu ments/Tsunami_I nundation_NewportBeach_Quad_Orange. pdf. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006, May. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. United States Department of Transportation. FTA -VA -90-1003-06. LSA Associates, Inc. 2011, February 25. Shared Parking Analysis: Mariner's Pointe. MACTEC. 2010a, July 14. Report of Geotechnical Consultation Proposed Mariner's Pointe Retail and Parking Structures, Northwest Corner of Dover Drive and West Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California. MACTEC. 2010b, July 1, 2010. Preliminary Geotechnical Consultation Proposed Mariner's Pointe Retaining Wall, Northwest Corner of Dover Drive and West Coast Highway, Newport Beach, California. McKenna at al., 2011, February 2. Mariner's Point, Newport Beach, California. Nature Reserve of Orange County (Nature Reserve). 2005, August 25. Central and Coastal Reserve Design. http://www.naturereserveoc.org/NCCP%20Reserve%2ODesign%2011-17-2004b. pdf. Newport Beach, City of. 2006, July 25. City of Newport Beach General Plan. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 161 203 16:7 4. References Orange County Water District (OCWD). 2009, July 9. Groundwater Management Plan 2009 Update. hftp://www.ocwd.com/ca-43.aspx. RBF Consulting, February 17, 2011. Mariner's Pointe Traffic Impact Analysis. Rhue, Vanessa R., 2011, February 11. Paleontological resources for the proposed Commercial Property at Coast Highway & Dover Drive Project, in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, (Sect. 27, T 6 S, R 10 W), project area. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. (SAE). 1971, October. House Noise — Reduction Measurements for Use in Studies of Aircraft Flyover Noise. AIR 1081. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1993. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Handbook. Revised 2008, July. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Wald, et al. 1999, August. Relationships Between Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Modified Mercalli Intensity in California. Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 15, No. 3. 4.2 PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS Gamble, Ron (Division Chief/Fire Marshal/). 2011, March. Written response to questionnaire. City of Newport Beach Fire Department. Gwatney, Glen. 2011, March 16. Email. Anacal Engineering Company. Hartford, Bill (Lieutenant). 2011, March 17. Email. City of Newport Police Department. Parks, Casey (Utilities Supervisor). 2011, March 30. Phone conversation. City of Newport Beach Utilities Department. 4.3 WEB SITES Airnay. 2010. Airport Information. http://www.airnay.com/airports/ California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2011. California Natural Diversity Database. hftp://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/ California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm. Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2010. Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Summary. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Tools/MARS/DrmcMain.asp?V W = Disposal Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2008, August 25. Glossary of Environmental Terms. http://www.dtsc.ca. gov/I nformationResources/Glossary_of_Envi ron mental_Terms. cfm. Page 162 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS-168 4. References Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2010a. Current FEMA Issued Flood Maps. http://www.msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogld=10001 &storeld=l 0001 &categoryld=12001 &langId=-1 &userType=G&type=l &future=false .2010b. Definitions of FEMA Flood Zone Designations. http://www. msc.fema. gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/info?storeld =10001 &catalogld =10001 &Ian gld=-1 &content=floodZones&title=FEMA%20FIood%20Zone%20Designations. Newport Beach, City of. 2011 a. Map Viewer. http://www6.city.newport-beach.ca.us/nbmap/ . 2011 b. Wildland Urban Interface. http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=1067 Orange County Watersheds Program (OCWatersheds). 2011, March 15. OCWatersheds TMDLs. hftp://www.ocwatersheds.com/TMDL.aspx. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2009. Waste Discharge Requirements for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the Incorporated Cities of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region. Areawide Urban Storm Water Runoff Orange County Order No. R8-2009- 0030. State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker. http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010a, April 16. National Wetlands Mapper. http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/imf/imf.jsp?site=NWI CONUS. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010, November 22. Habitat Conservation Plans. http://ecos.fws.gov/conserv_plans/serviet/gov.doi.hcp.serviets.PlanReport. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2009. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/mercalli.php. Page Last Modified: October 27, 2009. 4.4 MODELS South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), California Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod), Version 2011.1.1. SoundPLAN LLC, Braunstein, Berndt GmbH. SoundPlan Computer Model. Version 6.5. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1998, February. FHWA Traffic Noise Model (FHWA TNM) Technical Manual. FHWA-PD-96-010. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study City of Newport Beach • Page 163 0 2('03—:L o5 4. References This page intentionally left blank. Page 164 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203 170 5. List of Preparers LEAD AGENCY Jaime Murillo THE PLANNING CENTER I DC&E JoAnn Hadfield Jorge Estrada Michael Milroy John Vang Cary Nakama Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study Associate Planner Director, Environmental Services Associate Planner Assistant Planner Assistant Planner Graphic Artist City of Newport Beach • Page 165 203-171 S. List of Preparers This page intentionally left blank. Page 166 • The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS 1 j 2 Appendix A. Valet Plan Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study Appendix City of Newport Beach 2003 173 Appendix This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 20317.4 Appendix B. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study Appendix City of Newport Beach 2OS175 Appendix This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 20s—:L70 Appendix C. Traffic Impact Analysis Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study Appendix City of Newport Beach 2OS 177 Appendix This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2003 172 Appendix D. Cultural Report D1: Cultural Report, February 2, 2011. 132: Paleontological Resources Letter, February 11, 2011. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study Appendix City of Newport Beach 203179 Appendix This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203-120 Appendix E. Geotechnical Evaluations E1: Site Geotechnical Study, July 14, 2010. E2: Retaining Wall Study, July 1, 2010. Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study Appendix City of Newport Beach 203-181 Appendix This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203-182 Appendix F. Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study Appendix City of Newport Beach 203-183 Appendix This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2 03 :LR 4 Appendix G. Shared Parking Analysis Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study Appendix K City of Newport Beach 203-185 Appendix This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 2OS-1-00 Appendix H. Noire Analysis Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study Appendix City of Newport Beach 203 187 Appendix This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203-188 Appendix I. Service Letters Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study Appendix Ki City of Newport Beach 2OS-18q Appendix This page intentionally left blank. The Planning Center I DC&E Apri12011 203-"O 204 Attachment No. CC 12 Revised Response to Comments 205 200 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS MARINER'S POINTE PROJECT �� prepared for: - CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Contact: Jaime Murillo Associate Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTER IDC&E Contact: JoAnn C. Hadfield Director, Environmental Services AUGUST 2011 207 3300 Newport Boulevard PO Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658-8915 Tel: 949.644.3209 1580 Metro Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: 714.966.9220 • Fax: 714.966.9221 E-mail: information@planningcenter.com Website: www.planningcenter.com RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FIT, F, t4 PROJECT C� prepared for: CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Contact., Jaime Murillo Associate Planner prepared by: THE PLANNING CENTERIDC&E Contact: JoAnn C. Hadfield Director, Environmental Services CNB-11.OE AUGUST2011 202 Section Table of Contents Page 1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 PROJECT SUMMARY .................................... .................................................................. 1-1 1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND...............................................................................................1-1 1.3 PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF DOCUMENT.........................................................1-2 Revised Lower Level Site Plan.......................................................................................2-11 2. PROPOSED PROJECT MODIFICATIONS........................................................................ 2-1 2.1 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS............................................................................................2-1 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS..........................................................................................2-5 Revised South Building Elevation..................................................................................2-15 3. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS........................................................................................... 3-1 List of Figures Figure Page Figure 1 a Revised Ground Level Site Plan......................................................................................2-7 Figure 1 b Revised Second Level Site Plan......................................................................................2-9 Figure 1 c Revised Lower Level Site Plan.......................................................................................2-11 /�o 0070 Figure 1 d Revised Upper Roof Site Plan........................................................................................2-13 Figure 2a Revised South Building Elevation..................................................................................2-15 Figure 2b Revised North Building Elevation..................................................................................2-17 Figure 2c Revised East and West Building Elevations..................................................................2-19 Figure 3 Revised Site Plan Cross Section....................................................................................2-21 Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page i Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank. Page ii • The Planning Center I DC&E August 2011 270 1. Introduction 1.1 PROJECT SUMMARY As originally proposed in the circulated Mariner's Pointe Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), the project would construct a two-story building that would provide 23,015 square feet of high end retail and restaurants in addition to office uses on an approximately 0.76 -acre site in the City of Newport Beach. A new three-story parking structure would provide up to 136 parking spaces with valet service. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan designation of General Commercial (CG) for the project site. However, development of the proposed project would require a General Plan Amendment to allow for the floor area ratio (FAR; building floor area divided by land area) to be increased. As described in this Response to Comments document, minor modifications to the project description have been proposed subsequent to public circulation of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and are disclosed in this document. The project site is in the northwest corner of the intersection of Dover Drive and West Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach, Orange County, California. The project site is surrounded by single- and multifamily residences to the north and south. Single-family homes abut the project site to the north, and single- and multifamily land uses are south of the project site across West Coast Highway. One-story commercial buildings are adjacent to the west of the project site. East of the project site is Newport Bay and undeveloped open space to the northeast. 1.2 PROJECT BACKGROUND As lead agency for the project, the City of Newport Beach has prepared and circulated an IS/MND for the Mariner's Pointe project. The IS/MND was forwarded to the State Clearinghouse on April 11, 2011, for distribution to responsible and trustee agencies for a 30 -day public review period. Notice was sent to the Orange County Clerks Office for posting and also mailed to owners of the surrounding area in addition to other stakeholders. A notice was also posted on the property, at City Hall, and posted on the City's website. The posted and mailed notices indicated that the 30 -day review period would begin on April 11, 2011, and end on May 11, 2011. However, because the Orange County Clerk's Office did not post the notice until April 12, 2011, comment letters were accepted through at least May 12, 2011. On June 23, 2011 the proposed project was presented before the City of Newport Beach Planning Commission. The project as presented included modifications from the project as proposed in the circulated IS/MND. These modifications included a partial enclosure over the rooftop level of the parking structure and a reduction in height of the cupola and tower features (see Section 2.1 of this Response to Comments document for further details). Inclusion of the rooftop parking level enclosure was in response to concerns of the surrounding residents regarding potential lighting and noise impacts from operation of the proposed parking structure. As discussed in Sections 3.1, Aesthetics, and 3.12, Noise, of the IS/MND, lighting and noise impacts were determined to be less than significant. Therefore, the rooftop enclosure and lowering of the cupola and tower were not required by CEQA. During the Planning Commission hearing, the City Planning staff presented the proposed project to the Planning Commission. Representatives of the project applicant were also given the opportunity to address the public and Planning Commission. Additionally, the public was given an opportunity to make oral comments. After discussion by the Planning Commission members, the body passed a motion denying the project without prejudice on a vote of 5-0. Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 1-1 271 �� 1. Introduction 1.3 PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF DOCUMENT In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15074(b): "Prior to approving a project, the decision-making body of the lead agency shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process....... Although not required by CEQA, this document includes a formal response to comments received on the IS/MND. This document also provides a description of modifications to the project proposed by the applicant subsequent to public circulation of the IS/MND and Planning Commission hearing. To assure that none of the proposed changes would result in environmental impacts that would warrant recirculation of the IS/MND, an analysis of the potential impacts resulting from the project modifications is provided. This Response to Comments document has been organized as follows: Section 1. Introduction. This section provides a brief summary of the project and the CEQA process to -date. It also describes the purpose, contents and organization of this document. Section 2. Proposed Modifications to the Project. This section provides a brief narrative and exhibit to describe the proposed changes to the project subsequent to public circulation of the IS/MND and includes a topic -by -topic review of potential environmental impacts associated with those changes. Section 3. Response to Comments. This section includes a copy of each comment letter received on the IS/MND and a response to each comment. Page 1-2 •The Planning Center August 2011 272 2. Proposed Project Modifications 2.1 PROJECT MODIFICATIONS Prior to Planning Commission Hearing The following outlines modifications to the project as proposed in the IS/MND submitted for public review as presented at the July 23, 2011 Planning Commission hearing. The proposed modifications included: • A partial roof over the parking structure. The partial enclosure would cover approximately the rear two-thirds portion of the rooftop parking level and would be setback 37.5 feet from the face of the parking structure. The top of the rooftop enclosure would be approximately 35 feet in height. • Height reduction in cupola and tower features. The original project includes these features at a maximum height of 44 feet. Based upon City staff review of the application, it was determined that the appropriate findings to approve a Modification Permit to exceed the allowed 40 foot height could not be made. Therefore, the applicant has agreed to reduce the height of these elements to a maximum 40 feet and withdrew their request for a Modification Permit. Subsequent to Planning Commission Hearing The following are further modifications in addition to the partial roof enclosure and height reduction of the cupola and tower features. These modifications are in response to concerns raised by the Planning Commissioners and public during the June 23, 2011 Planning Commission hearing and include the following: General Reduction of overall total gross building square footage. As shown in Table 1, the applicant is proposing to reduce the overall gross building square feet from 23,015 square feet to 19,905 square feet, a reduction of approximately 14 percent. Table 1 Proposed Land Use Mix Comparison Gross Building Square Feet Net Change Net Change Land Use IS/MND Proposed (Square Feet) (Percent) Restaurant 10,493 9,557 -936 -9% Retail 9,522 8,651 -871 -9% Medical Office 3,000 1,697 -1,303 -43% Total 23,015 19,905 -3,110 -14% • Decrease in the floor -area -ratio. The newly proposed changes by the project applicant would reduce the floor -area -ratio from approximately 0.70 as originally proposed in the IS/MND to approximately 0.60. Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 2-1 ��3 �� 2. Proposed Project Modifications • Reduction in required parking. The reduction in the overall total square footage of the proposed land uses would reduce the total required number of parking spaces from 157 to 149 as shown in Table 2. The offsite parking for employees as proposed in the (S/MND would no longer be required with the proposed modifications. Table 2 City of Newport Beach Parking Requirements Land Use Gross Square Feet Leasable Restaurant Net Public Area (st) Area' (sf) Parking RateZ Required Parking' Restaurant 9,557 8,683 5,210 1 per 50 sf 4 105 Retail 8,651 n/a n1 a 1 per 250 sf 35 Medical Office 1,697 n/a n/a 1 per 200 sf 9 Total 19,905 1 0 149 Source: LSA. 2011, July 22. Shared Parking Analysis: Mariner's Pointe. Notes: sf = square feet ' Est mated as 60 percent of net restaurant area consistent with the project description. From NBMC 20.40.040. ' NBMC-20.40.030(E) requires fractonal spaces to be rounded up. ^ NBMC 20.40.060 allows the Planning Commission to adopt a parking rate between 1/30 sf to 1/50 sf for restaurants. • Increase the number of parking spaces contained within the parking structure. The number of parking spaces contained within the parking structure would increase from 136 parking spaces as originally proposed to 150 parking spaces under the new proposed plan as shown in Table 3. Table 3 Available Parking Structure Parking Spaces With and Without Valet Service Without Valet Service (7:00 AM to 12:00 PM) Proposed Parking Structure P1- Ground Level 36 Standard (Spaces) Tandem (Spaces) Valet Only (Spaces) 0 Parking Level Patron' I Employee Patron Employee Patron I Employee Total Without Valet Service (7:00 AM to 12:00 PM) Proposed Parking Structure P1- Ground Level 36 0 0 0 0 036 39 P2 - Second Level 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P3 -Third Level 1 0 24 0 28 0 0 52 Total 1 39 24 0 28 1 0 0 88 With Valet Service (12:00 PM to 1:00 AM) Proposed Parking Structure P1- Ground Level 36 0 0 0 3 0 39 P2 -Second Level 29 0 16 0 5 0 50 P3 -Third Level 0 24 0 32 5 0 61 Total 68 24 16 32 10 0 150 Source: LSA. 2011, July 22. Shared Parking Analysis: Mariner's Pointe. ' Includes both non -handicapped and handicapped parking spaces. Page 2-2 • The Planning Center August 2011 2�4 2. Proposed Project Modifications • Increase in total square footage of the parking structure. The inclusion of the additional 14 parking spaces would extend the parking structure eastward by approximately 15 feet. As the parking structure would be able to accommodate all the required parking, the offsite parking requirement would be eliminated. • Elimination of the 3 -foot wide swale. The 3 -foot wide swale proposed in the IS/MND to traverse along the northern property line would be eliminated. An alternative drainage system built either within the retaining wall or structure would collect and carry stormwater to the offsite storm drain. Ground Floor • Reduction of overall ground floor gross leasable area. As shown in Table 4, the applicant is proposing to reduce the ground floor gross leasable area from 9,920 square feet to 9,681 square feet, a reduction of approximately 2 percent. • Increase in the number of ground floor parking spaces from 35 parking spaces to 39 parking spaces (includes handicap and non -handicap spaces). • Expansion of the parking structure. • Relocation of the two handicap designated parking spaces closer to the commercial building that would eliminate the need to cross the drive aisle. Second Level • Reduction of overall second level gross leasable area. As shown in Table 5, the applicant is proposing to reduce the second level gross leasable area from 9,510 square feet to 8,404 square feet, a reduction of approximately 12 percent. Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 2-3 2715 Table 4 Proposed Ground Floor Gross Leasable Area Comparison Gross Building Square Feet Net Change Net Change Retail Suite /S/NND Proposed (Square Feet) (Percent) R-101 3,230 2,396 -834 -26% R-102 2,685 2,489 -196 -7% R-103 3,250 3,602 352 11% R-104 755 1,194 439 58% /1) Total 9,920 9,681 -239 -2% v • Increase in the number of ground floor parking spaces from 35 parking spaces to 39 parking spaces (includes handicap and non -handicap spaces). • Expansion of the parking structure. • Relocation of the two handicap designated parking spaces closer to the commercial building that would eliminate the need to cross the drive aisle. Second Level • Reduction of overall second level gross leasable area. As shown in Table 5, the applicant is proposing to reduce the second level gross leasable area from 9,510 square feet to 8,404 square feet, a reduction of approximately 12 percent. Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 2-3 2715 2. Proposed Project Modifications Table 5 Proposed Second Level Gross Leasable Area Comparison Gross Building Square het Retail Suite IS/MND Proposed Net Change (Square Feet) Net Change (Percent) R-201 1,220 1,542 322 26% R-202 1,615 1,781 166 10% R-203 1,645 5,081' -1,595 -24% R-204 5,030 Total 9,510 6,404 1,106 -12% Notes: ' Retail suite R-204 would be eliminated under the new proposed plan. • Retail suite R-204 would be combined into retail suite R-203. • Increase in the total number of Parking Level 2 parking spaces from 46 parking spaces to 50 parking spaces (includes handicap and non -handicap spaces). • Increase in the number of handicap designated parking spaces from one to three and relocation of these spaces closer to the commercial building to eliminate the need for pedestrian crossing of the drive aisle. Additionally, the handicap -designated parking spaces would no longer be blocked by the aisle designated parking spaces. • Expansion of the parking structure. • Decrease in the maximum slope of the parking ramp between the ground floor to Parking Level 2 from 15 percent down to 13 percent. Third Level • Increase the total number of Parking Level 3 parking spaces from 55 parking spaces to 61 parking spaces. • Expansion of the parking structure. • Elimination of the two handicap designated parking spaces. • Decrease in the maximum slope of the parking ramp between Parking Level 2 to Parking Level 3 from 15 percent down to 13 percent. Rooftop • Addition of tower element with a sloped rooftop with a maximum height of 37 feet at the southwest corner of the parking structure. • Extension of the trellis feature along the entirety of the front of the partial rooftop enclosure. • Increase in the area of the central tower feature over the parking structure retail suite. • Decrease in the area of the tower feature over retail suites R-201 and R-202. Page 2-4 • The Planning Center August 2011 270 2. Proposed Project Modifications The proposed modifications to the site plan are shown in Figure 1a, Revised Ground Level Site Plan, Figure 1b, Revised Second Level Site Plan, Figure 1c, Revised Lower Roof Site Plan, Figure 1d, Revised Upper Roof Site Plan. Additionally, the modifications to the project are also shown on Figure 2a, Revised South Building Elevation, Figure 2b, Revised North Building Elevation, Figure 2c, Revised East and West Building Elevations, and Figure 3, Revised Site Plan Cross Section. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This section has been prepared to review the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed project modifications outlined in Section 2.1 and to substantiate that the changes do not warrant recirculation of the IS/MND. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, Recirculation of a Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption, a lead agency must recirculate a negative declaration when the document must be substantially revised after public notice of its availability, but prior to its adoption. In accordance with Section 15073.5(b): (b) A "substantial revisions" of the negative declaration shall mean: (1) A new, avoidable significant effect is identified and mitigation measures or project revisions must be added in order to reduce the effect to insignificance, or, (2) The lead agency determines that the proposed mitigation measures or project revisions will not reduce potential effect to less than significance and new measures or revisions must be required. 900 In accordance with Section 15073.5(c), recirculation is not required under the following circumstances: 9 (1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section ''�� 15074.1. (2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects. (3) Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect. (4) New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration. The new changes to the project as proposed in the IS/MND meet CEQA Guidelines Sections 15073.5(c)(2) and 15073.5(c)(3). Inclusion of the rooftop parking level enclosure was in response to concerns of the surrounding residents regarding potential lighting and noise impacts from operation of the proposed parking structure. Subsequent modifications including the reduction of the overall square footages and FAR were also in response to concerns of the surrounding residents regarding the size of the proposed project. As discussed in Sections 3.1, 3.10, and 3.12 of the IS/MND, massing, lighting, and noise impacts were determined to be less than significant. Therefore, these modifications are not required by CEQA. Furthermore, as described below, the proposed project modifications would not result in new avoidable significant effects on the environment. Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 2-5 4�� 2. Proposed Project Modifications Aesthetics Project modifications as outlined in Section 2.1 would include the addition of the partial rooftop parking level enclosure, lowering of the cupola and tower elements, extension of the trellis across the entire rooftop enclosure, and reduction in the overall building square footage. As shown in Figure 1d and Figure 2a, the rooftop enclosure and other modifications as outlined in Section 2.1 would not result in major changes to the aesthetics of the proposed parking structure. The height of the parking structure would be increased in comparison to the previous plan, but it would not exceed the height of the commercial building. The change would not alter the view from Dover Drive, and the view of the roof over the parking structure to the south would be limited due to the 37.5 -foot roof setback. The height reduction of the cupola and tower would reduce potential view impacts. Therefore, no new significant impacts on a scenic vista or scenic resources would occur. The overall project design including the rooftop enclosure would still be subject to review by the City's Planning Commission and City Council. Additionally, the partial rooftop enclosure would eliminate some of the rooftop lighting fixtures and it would, along with the trellis extension, further minimize any light and glare from the rooftop parking level. Therefore, no new significant aesthetic impacts would occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required. Agricultural and Forest Resources The modifications to the project outlined in Section 2.1 would not change the nature of the project and the project would be comparable to the project as evaluated in the IS/MND. Therefore, no new significant impacts to agricultural and forest resources would occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required. Air Quality Modifications to the project such as inclusion of the partial rooftop parking level enclosure and lowering of the cupola and tower elements would not result in use of additional heavy construction equipment or additional construction vehicle trips generated compared to the project as proposed in the IS/MND that would affect daily emissions. In addition, a reduction in the total square footage of the proposed commercial uses would reduce pollutant air emissions from area sources. Mobile source emissions would also be slightly reduced, as the number of project -generated trips would decrease in comparison to the project analyzed in the IS/MND (see Table 7). Therefore, proposed project modifications are anticipated to result in beneficial impacts to air quality. No new short- and long-term significant impacts to air quality would occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required. Biological Resources Although the project would include the modifications as outlined in Section 2.1, the project in regards to both construction and operation would be comparable to the project as evaluated in the circulated IS/MND. The site disturbance area would not be modified. No new significant impacts to biological resources would occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required. Page 2-6 • The Planning Center August 2011 272 ;_ nw ' sawn Rw�b+•BbM1p . �_ pNlo{iM1IWF m :l t.luvp Wy - O�Pto]4M I : PARKING LEVEL I R:Y Jp 1—.0 PA'Z�I 2. Proposed Project Modifications Revised Ground Level Site Plan 1 w Soo-&cutenb rwgh NchiWtsn dPlanners Tett Madndr Pointe P 1,a Rerponre to Co..,.tr Road Striping TNUTATgRRwruLr WR. Pr.1�M 1-o —war•R Orrl�l W iIT ltl+ NY• d•Ir •.«• •qY bN9 �y •,: `.--,' I _T <I J by j I ml C O A S 1 N G 14 W A Y y�i1 i }{ V! E S Ntlb4 r4 w...rr .. Ground Level Plan on Site rs n. r.�Nr. W. .w• i.�va••�lt•Aow•aorNl ra m m ro \•YI w•�aw.wm I w�N rsWYlWev wr•w•.•Nsr Soo-&cutenb rwgh NchiWtsn dPlanners Tett Madndr Pointe P 1,a Rerponre to Co..,.tr Road Striping TNUTATgRRwruLr �.r 0 30 Scale (FeO) The Planning CenterIDCPE • Figure la WR. Pr.1�M YOA•• —war•R Orrl�l N�• ltl+ NY• d•Ir •.«• •qY T•a YIY• rYI NJNN r4 w...rr uv rs n. r.�Nr. W. .w• +a •w \•YI Na•1 •YN w�N .. � wr•w•.•Nsr ur s rear. ww •r r r r r a.ru. n • N • • s - �•Iti R l 1 N • a Mu. N I N O • n rr • a w w H � rR•w••w•ra...u•urrrrra�. r..r. �.r 0 30 Scale (FeO) The Planning CenterIDCPE • Figure la 220 2. Proposed Project Modifications This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-8 •The Planning Center August 2011 221 222 1 r e S;' �YrlSi COAST NIG W AY 12 7 t..r oa-•�r e'.w. �� D13Saurt-&cslebnrwgh kchilecls and Plennmo Tell WManner's Pointe P jea Response to Comments Second level Man m Site »..•, b 1V w w .e w w M t - l 2. Proposed Project Modifications Revised Second Level Site Plan 1 mom.= -7 = ' t W � O O rariund=ritrwtr rrr mr rrbu. b. r.r bwu. b.rbrt brrr ut. m• ear rn•.. .r. r• 1% � Urs Ara rr a.rr�r w w uo I r rrr uu m e. I Tr wrr M1 rrr w s �sM • iI Y' rr 1 ny a.. 4 b..Ur R = • M = i tis n a �mtcpM T IC ! fl .YYI.D.Y�rllallO.YYrb=.�.• rwH e S;' �YrlSi COAST NIG W AY 12 7 t..r oa-•�r e'.w. �� D13Saurt-&cslebnrwgh kchilecls and Plennmo Tell WManner's Pointe P jea Response to Comments Second level Man m Site »..•, b 1V w w .e w w M t - l 2. Proposed Project Modifications Revised Second Level Site Plan 1 mom.= -7 = ' t W � O O rariund=ritrwtr rrr mr rrbu. b. r.r bwu. b.rbrt brrr ut. m• ear rn•.. .r. r• u• .r rrr Urs Ara rr a.rr�r w w uo r rrr uu m r Tr wrr tdr rrr w s rrr.w. r rr rr rr rr a.. b..Ur R = • M = i tis n a r n ! fl .YYI.D.Y�rllallO.YYrb=.�.• rwH 0 30 Scale (Fen) The Planning Center I OCGE • Figure 76 224 2. Proposed Project Modifications This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-10 • The Planning Center August 2011 225 220 K ,"V Sooree'SYautenbowoigh Nchifinns entl Plnorme 2011 -9 Manner's Pointe Project Rerponse to Comments _ � P PM1 InS 1 ' � re , • o FF== - 1 9 �} ■oor L tl� Itva-s S e..' -=w Tv PaudrnlD.uN � w —r ate. MIY � pEtW� ✓! A_�. ivaenn_ 0 Tr ___--- wT'1..C O A f Y N 1 G N W A Y :U ' 1.3.4 Lower Rooffilanw9te ,..., 2. Proposed Project Modifications Revised Lower Roof Site Plan W L K_ l_ I— O O I __MT WTn ori..r y aw T_. v T_T Lar TAS o�Tru. 1w 1T �� tV. T_w tY• N.W/ wr.r..n.Ts_ IwY K W twr W TIY Os.Llti II ) Y 0 0 T TY n WwN4.YrwwL1.1}.9r Yw. T.i�ww �..wv 0 30 Scale (Fen) The Planning Center DC6E • Figure 7e 222 2. Proposed Project Modifications This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-12 • The Planning Center August 2011 2 eq 29 D ROOF OVER PARKING P 3 Soo2e-&oWenbwrwgh Nchilects a dPlenners Tell _ M.', Pointe Pr jett Itsrponre to Comment, M —` I 4rOw _' y T G N I G N W A Upper Roof Planon Ate 0 10' a 10 bw w a 134 ROOF 2. Proposed Project Modifications Revised Upper Roof Site Plan '— yw� P 4arami - L_- -rwamr .aa � —7 / °t Ji — 12.7 o Soo2e-&oWenbwrwgh Nchilects a dPlenners Tell _ M.', Pointe Pr jett Itsrponre to Comment, M —` I 4rOw _' y T G N I G N W A Upper Roof Planon Ate 0 10' a 10 bw w a 134 ROOF 2. Proposed Project Modifications Revised Upper Roof Site Plan 0 30 Scale (FeO) The Planning Center IOCGE • Figure ld .aa � —7 / °t _J o ueuunax euNwm rra. nYw o..N.r Y,OYw Yr�Yirel �Yr= Pv ,.ar mor �.r \\wr ar Tmr rr Naw \mw nYw oe.rwrr uo w rar rNiTFr m rr rad IWrYNrNbi \aw Yrw Iww IC Yrlrar W T\YI r r r or. odor n r n a e a r.rrr n o a • e Mlrl\ Il 0 a II ! P LYI P P 1 N \a n1 li r,YYOrrrwN�\Ia42S�rrY�irlwww �Ma1 0 30 Scale (FeO) The Planning Center IOCGE • Figure ld ;92 2. Proposed Project Modifications This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-14 • The Planning Center August 2011 29 3 294 2. Proposed Project Modifications Revised South Building Elevation South Elevation - West Coast Highway I & � a� 9 ` Partial Ground Level Plan on She rh S x one- &oo1enha urwgh Architects anti Planners Tel l v I Mariaer'r Pointe Pmject Rupome to Cammenn S O A 5 7 H 1 C H W A Y 13, 4View I>ni I,wi 15wi ,ai IT Ian O a 0 30 Stale (Feet) The Planning Center DC&E • Figure 2a ;go 2. Proposed Project Modifications This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-16 • The Planning Center August 2011 297 �9 g r i I - - �, co .a... Elevation North Elevation - Bluff Side 2. Proposed Project Modifications Revised North Building Elevation Partial Ground Level Plan on Site 0 30 Sou-&outenhwiwgh Architects wtl Planners 2011 Swle(Feet) Mariner'r Pointe Project Rupoose to Cammentt The Plann(ag Center I OCGE • Figure 2b 300 2. Proposed Project Modifications This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-18 • The Planning Center August 2011 301 S02 raar — Emt6euUon-OowgMe 10 2. Proposed Project Modifications Revised East and West Building Elevation Elevations ..,.. 0 10' 10' e0 W 00 70' a0 T View W0 w fOf.` Sxone-&outeobouiweh Architects wtl Planners 2011 Scele(Feet) Vv Mariner's Pointe Project Relpoose to Cammentt The Planning Center DC6E • Figure 2e SO4 2. Proposed Project Modifications This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-20 • The Planning Center August 2011 305 Soo 1W twW .s.i fYeuM WY v -o nvx u.�vr-aurw�wv Sg&n t: View looking west Building ScNa� Mont 0, lof IVB I i 1,01 hWI I,�i hW n .r.v R-104 � pwklwN a -v iw�. or--nru..ew ec WIo%% B: View looking west 2. Proposed Project Modifications Revised Site Plan Cross Section �.I SeokOg9 C6 View looking north w ,O Soo-&outenhootwgh NchiWts entl Pleooe 2011 \�'V1 Ma*inn} Pointe Pmject Respoose to Cammenn o W Scale (Fen) The Planning Center I DC&E - Figure 3 S02 2. Proposed Project Modifications This page intentionally left blank. Page 2-22 • The Planning Center August 2011 2. Proposed Project Modifications Cultural Resources The modifications outlined in Section 2.1 would not change the nature of the project. The project in regards to both construction and operation would be comparable to the project as evaluated in the IS/MND. The site disturbance area and ultimate footprint of the project would be substantially the same. No new significant impacts to cultural resources would occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required. Geology and Solis The partial rooftop parking level enclosure would be designed and built to comply with the seismic design criteria contained in the California Building Code as with the rest of the proposed parking structure and commercial building. In addition, the proposed development would still be subject to Mitigation Measure 5, which would require the project to be designed and built to comply with the recommendations of the project geotechnical report(s). No new significant geological impacts would occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required. Greenhouse Gas Emissions As with Air Quality, the modifications to the project such as the inclusion of the partial rooftop parking level enclosure and lowering of the cupola and tower elements would not result in use of additional heavy construction equipment or additional construction vehicle trips in comparison to the project as evaluated in the IS/MND. In addition, reduction of the overall square footage of the land uses and /�0 therefore project -generated trips (see Table 7) would reduce operation -related GHG emissions `' compared to the project as evaluated in the IS/MND. Therefore, no new significant GHG impacts would C occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Modifications to the project as outlined in Section 2.1 would not change the commercial/retail nature or operation of the proposed project. The remainder of the project would remain unchanged to the project as proposed in the IS/MND. Therefore, no new significant hazard impacts would occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required. Hydrology and Water Quality Aside from the modifications as outlined in Section 2.1, the remainder of the project in regards to both construction and operation would be comparable to the project as evaluated in the circulated IS/MND. In addition, the parking enclosure may reduce the amount of oil and grease from motor vehicles in the project's stormwater runoff as vehicles and the area underneath would be better protected from rain. Therefore, proposed project modifications are anticipated to result in beneficial impacts to water quality. No new significant impacts to hydrology and water quality would occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required. Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 2-23 310 2. Proposed Project Modifications Land Use and Planning Land use and planning impacts were determined to be less than significant in Section 3.10 of the IS/MND. Aside from the modifications as outlined in Section 2.1, the design of the remainder of the project would be comparable to the project as evaluated in the IS/MND. The partial rooftop parking level enclosure in addition to the other modifications have been designed in coordination with City staff to ensure compliance with City's design standards. Lowering of the cupola feature from 44 feet to 40 feet would eliminate the need for a Modification Permit. The reduction in the overall total square footage of the land uses would also lower the overall parking demand. The project results in a total peak parking demand of 149 spaces, which can be entirely provided on site within the 150 -space parking structure without any adjustments in parking requirements. In addition, Table 6, Shared Parking Time of Day, shows the parking demand by the time of day based on the new proposed modifications to the project. Due to the different hours of operation and different offsetting parking activities, not all of the uses at the project will require their full allotment of parking spaces at the same time. As shown in the table, peak parking demand is estimated to occur at 1:00 PM and at 7:00 PM.' The afternoon peak would demand 122 parking spaces and the evening peak would demand up to 141 parking spaces. As shown in Table 6, between the hours with valet service (12:00 PM to 1:00 AM), the parking structure would provide 150 parking spaces. The project would be able accommodate the parking demand that would be generated. Therefore, no new significant land use and planning impacts would occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required. Mineral Resources The modifications as outlined in Section 2.1 would not change the location of the proposed project. The remainder of the project would be comparable to the project as proposed in the IS/MND. Therefore, no new significant impacts to mineral resources would occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required. Noise Construction noise and vibration impacts in addition to operation -related noise impacts were determined to be less than significant in Section 3.12, Noise, of the IS/MND. The addition of the partial rooftop parking level enclosure and the other proposed modifications would not introduce any new construction noise or vibration impacts different from the project as proposed in the IS/MND. The extension of the parking structure 15 feet to the east and increase of parking spaces by six spaces may extend the noise contours shown on Figure 15, 3rd Level Parking Structure - Generated Noise Contours, of the IS/MND eastward. However, the noise contours would still be less than 45 dBA Leq at the residences. Furthermore, the partial rooftop enclosure would screen the vehicles and associated activity from the residents above, which would further minimize noise and therefore result in a beneficial impact. In addition, reduction in the total square footage of the land uses would also decrease the number of project -generated trips (see Table 7), which would reduce the project's mobile -source noise impacts. No new significant noise impacts would occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required. ' Includes both patron and employee parking demand. Page 2-24 • The Planning Center August 2011 SIT 2. Proposed Project Modifications Table 6 Shared Parking Time of Day Restaurant I I I 1 1 15% 1 40% 1 75% 1 75% 1 65% 1 40% 1 50% 1 75% 1 95% 1 100% 1 100% 1 100% 1 95% 1 75% Time of Day Parking Restaurant Time of Day 0 6:00 a.m. 7:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. 9:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. 11:00 a.m. 12:00 p.m. 1:00 p.m. 2:00 M. 3:00 P.M. 4:00 P.M. 5.00 P.M. 6:00 p.m. 7:00 P.M. 8:00 p.m, 9:00 p.m. 10:00 p.m. 11:00 P.M. Restaurant I I I 1 1 15% 1 40% 1 75% 1 75% 1 65% 1 40% 1 50% 1 75% 1 95% 1 100% 1 100% 1 100% 1 95% 1 75% Time of Day Parking Restaurant 0 0 0 0 16 42 48.8 48.8 42 52.5 78.8 99.8 105 105 105 99.8 78.8 Office 0 0 8.1 8.1 9 9 2.7 8.1 %1 9 9 9 9 6 2.7 1.4 0 0 0 Retail 1 0.35 1 1.75 1 5.25 1 12.25 22.75 1 29.75 1 33.25 35 33.25 31.5 31.5 33.25 33.25 33.25 28 17.5 10.5 3.5 Total 0 1 2 1 13 1 20 48 1 81 1 115 122 111 83 93 121 139 141 134 123 110 82 Source: LSA 2011. Bold: Peak demand ' Time -of -Day Factors referenced from Shared Parking, Second Edition, Urban Land Institute, 2005. 2 n.,eir--i ni„i.,,. Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments Page 2-25 • City of Newport Beach The Planning Center August 2011 W W 2. Proposed Project Modifications This page intentionally left blank. Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments Page 2-26 • City of Newport Beach The Planning Center August 2011 Population and Housing The modifications to the project as outlined and the project would be comparable to tf impacts to population and housing would required. Public Services 2. Proposed Project Modifications in Section 2.1 would not change the nature of the project ie project as evaluated in the IS/MND. No new significant occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are The modifications as outlined in Section 2.1 would not increase the need for additional fire or police services compared to the project as proposed. The remainder of the project would be comparable to the project as evaluated in the IS/MND. No new significant impacts to public services would occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required. Recreation The modifications as outlined in Section 2.1 would not change the nature of the project and the project would be comparable to the project as evaluated in the IS/MND. No new significant impacts to recreational facilities would occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required. Transportation and Traffic The modifications to the project as outlined in Section 2.1 would result in the reduction of the overall total square footage of the land uses and project -generated vehicle trips compared to the project as evaluated in the IS/MND. As shown in Table 7, the proposed modifications would result in a land use mix that would generate 1,273 ADT compared to the 1,440 ADT that would be generated under the IS/MND proposed land use mix. The proposed modifications would result in a beneficial impact as it would further lessen project traffic impacts on the local roadway network in comparison to the project as discussed in the IS/MND. Therefore, no new significant traffic impacts would occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required. Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 2-27 314 �� 2. Proposed Project Modifications Table 7 Trip Generation Comparison Land Use AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips In Out Total In I out Total Quality Restaurant (tsf) 1 0.66 1 0.15 1 0.81 1 5.02 1 2.47 1 7.49 1 89.95 Traffic Study Land Use Mix 7.293 tsf - SDecialty Retail 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 9 1 11 1 20 1 323 IS/MND Pr000sed Land Use Mix 9.522 tsf - Specialty Retail 0 0 0 11 14 25 422 10.493 tsf - Quality Restaurant 7 2 9 53 26 79 944 Pass -by Discount (44% in p.m.)' 00 0 -23 11 -34 -341 3.000 tsf - Medical Office 5 1 6 3 8 11 108 Total' 12 3 1 15 1 44 1 37 80 1,440 Land Use Mix' - UUQIILY Pass -by Discount (44% in p.m.)' I00 0 21 10 -31 -311 1.697 tsf - Medical Office 1 3 1 1 1 4 1 2 1 4 1 6 1 61 Nates: tsf = thousand square feet ' Pass -by discount determined using ITE Trip Generation Manual, 2nd Edition ' Daily trip reduction assumes total p.m. peak hour trip reduction. ' Based on trip generation rates provided by RBF. ^ Based on modifications outlined in Section 2.1 of this Response to Comments document. Utilities and Service Systems The modifications to the project as outlined in Section 2.1 would not result in additional water demand or generation of solid waste. As the proposed modifications would reduce the number of trips, the overall water demand and solid waste generation would also reduce and result in beneficial impacts to the utilities and service systems. Therefore, no new significant impacts to utilities and service systems would occur and no new or additional mitigation measures are required. Page 2-28 • The Planning Center August 2011 3115 3. Response to Comments This section provides written responses received on the Initial Study prepared for the Mariner's Pointe Project and the City's responses to each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the Initial Study are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the Initial Study text are shown in bold and double underline for additions and strikeout for deletions. The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the Initial Study during the public review period. Number Reference Commenting Person/Agency Date of Comment Page No. Al Orange County Sanitation District April 15, 2011 3-3 A2 California Department of Toxic Substances Control May 6, 2011 3-7 A3 California Department of Transportation May 10, 2011 3-13 A4 State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit May 16, 2011 3-17 A5 Orange County Transportation Authority May 11, 2011 3-21 01 California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance April 26, 2011 3-25 R1 Neighborhood Letter May 3, 2011 3-29 R2 Cameron Merage May 9, 2011 3-35 R3 Jack M. Langson May 9, 2011 3-41 R4 Mike Hilford May 10, 2011 3-45 R5 William R. Steel (on behalf of Laura Tarbox) May 11, 2011 3-49 A: Agency 0: Organization R: Resident Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3-1 STO 3. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 3-2 •The Planning Center August 2011 3z7 3. Response to Comments LETTER Al - Orange County Sanitation District (2 pages) ORANGE COUNTY SANITATIOhj DISTRICT We {n etact Public health and the anvlvrcrrent by FraidI g affouive msmiew aeUminn. Minim and mead M. RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT April 15, 2011 APR 212011 Jamie Murillo, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard CTTYOFNEglrpORTBEACH Newpurl Beach, CA 92658 Annhe;n, SUBJECT; Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Declaration for Mariner's a. Pointe Project City of Newport Beach Beene Part OCSD records show that this area has a sewer system that eventually Cy as This letter is in response to the above referenced Notice of Intent to Adopt Fnanas"We,. Mitigated Declaration for Mariner's Pointe Project City of Newport Beach Lan 9a (NOI), for a project within the City of Newport Beach (City). The project site is F �, °w located near the intersection of Dover and West Coast Highway, within the GnM. ca,aa City. , w'en'wn Beech provide corrected information about our records on the city sewers. This The proposed project involves the construction of 50,274 square feet of could be done by a figure to display how wastewater will be routed to the commercial/retail space with a parking structure. The project site is within the Le Hahn jurisdiction of the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). The density of w ra,M ym development is higher than current OCSD planning projections. Las Rd ea Camry of 3enryn Al -1 .+Fa.: 0".1, OCSD records show that this area has a sewer system that eventually Also, please note that any constructiondewatering operations that involve connects to an OCSD sewer in West Coast Highway, near the project site. One. Mese &,n-d"De.treat Lan 9a This is a 30 -inch sewer that will collect theproject's sanitary sewer flows. y Ca"h° Please indicate if the project will require any modifications to city sewers, or nmawwarcar snow Ana provide corrected information about our records on the city sewers. This see eaaah could be done by a figure to display how wastewater will be routed to the Al -2 nenwa OCSD system. It should also be noted that OCSD anticipates the lower two w ra,M ym to the sanitary sewer system. floors of the parking structure may need to be connected to the sanitary Camry of 3enryn sewer system. OCSD has a fee structure for these types of facilities and they ,Ara aa,« should be included in the sanitary sewer flow analysis. Ywba Lynda Also, please note that any constructiondewatering operations that involve One. Mese &,n-d"De.treat discharges to the local or regional sanitary sewer system must be permitted by OCSD prior to discharges. OCSD staff will need to review/approve the nmawwarcar Al 3 water quality of any discharges and the measures necessary to eliminate mw,nan�h materials like sands, silts, and other regulated compounds prier to discharge w ra,M ym to the sanitary sewer system. Camry of 3enryn 10844 Ellis Avenue - Fwnain Valley, CA 9909-7019 - 01418-2.2411 - vnva.owdeum [Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beady • Page 3-3 S:L 2 �� 3. Response to Comments Jamie Murillo Page 2 April 15, 2011 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed development. If you have any questions regarding sewer connection fees, please contact Wendy Smith at (7141593-7880. For planning issues regarding this project. please contact me at (714) 593-7335. /,f ames L Bur r, Jr. P.E. Engineering Supervisor JBsa EOMS:000O3515811.12a Page 3-4 •The Planning Center AnguJt 2011 S�q 3. Response to Comments Al Response to Comments from James L Burror, Engineering Supervisor, Orange County Sanitation District, dated April 15, 2011. At -1 The project applicant will coordinate with the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) to verify to verify adequate sewer capacity for the project prior to issuance of grading permits. A1-2 The project site has three existing 6 -inch sewer laterals that feed into the existing 8 - inch main in West Coast Highway. This existing 8 -inch main flows into a manhole located on the western end of the project site that feeds into the 30 -inch main that runs along West Coast Highway. Commenter is correct in noting that the two lower floors of the parking structure would be connected to the sanitary sewer system. The project applicant will coordinate with Orange County Sanitation District in preparing the sewer flow analysis to include the calculation of applicable fees. Al -3 Comment acknowledged. �� Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3-5 S20 3. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 3-6 •The Planning Center August 2011 321 3. Response to Comments LETTER A2 - California Department of Toxic Substances Control (4 pages) Mr. Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 02658 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE MARINER'S POINTE PROJECT, (SCH#2011041038), ORANGE COUNTY Dear Mr. Murillo: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted draft Initial Study (IS) and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the above- mentioned project. The following project description is stated In your dccumenl: " The project applicant proposes to construct a two-story commercial/retail building totaling 23,015 gross building square feet and a three-level parking structure totaling 50,274 grass building square feet on the 0.76 -acre project site in the northwest quadrant of the intersection at Dover Drive and West Coast Highway. The development would include various commercial/retail uses such as restaurants, specialty retail and medical office. The project site is surrounded by single-family and mullifamily residences to the north and south. One-story commercial buildings are adjacent to the west of the project site. East of the project site is Newport Bay and undeveloped open space to the northeast. The project site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection at Dover Drive and West Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach. The project site consists of six legal lots. The site is currently enclosed by a chain-link fence and includes two vacant buildings on the western portion of the site and a. paved surface parking lot". Based on the review of the submitted document DT SC has the following comments: 1) The NiND should evaluate whether conditions within the Project area may pose a A2-1 threat to human health or the environment. Following are the dalahases of some of the regulatory agencies: [Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beady • Page 3-7 S22 �� Department of Toxic Substances Control Llnda v". Atlams Leonard E. Robinson Acllny DirectorxaVagy1IOdM Edmund G. Brown✓r. A tlna 5acmtary lar Enoonmenlal P.,eal.n 5796 Corporate. Avemre �N dO A LI root +7 Cypress, California 90630 noaarA114 yntaw.4avaaa Da NINNbV'r May 6, 2011 AO (33AI9:)n Mr. Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, California 02658 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE MARINER'S POINTE PROJECT, (SCH#2011041038), ORANGE COUNTY Dear Mr. Murillo: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted draft Initial Study (IS) and a draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the above- mentioned project. The following project description is stated In your dccumenl: " The project applicant proposes to construct a two-story commercial/retail building totaling 23,015 gross building square feet and a three-level parking structure totaling 50,274 grass building square feet on the 0.76 -acre project site in the northwest quadrant of the intersection at Dover Drive and West Coast Highway. The development would include various commercial/retail uses such as restaurants, specialty retail and medical office. The project site is surrounded by single-family and mullifamily residences to the north and south. One-story commercial buildings are adjacent to the west of the project site. East of the project site is Newport Bay and undeveloped open space to the northeast. The project site is located at the northwest corner of the intersection at Dover Drive and West Coast Highway in the City of Newport Beach. The project site consists of six legal lots. The site is currently enclosed by a chain-link fence and includes two vacant buildings on the western portion of the site and a. paved surface parking lot". Based on the review of the submitted document DT SC has the following comments: 1) The NiND should evaluate whether conditions within the Project area may pose a A2-1 threat to human health or the environment. Following are the dalahases of some of the regulatory agencies: [Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beady • Page 3-7 S22 �� 3. Response to Comments Mr. Jaime Murillo May 0, 2011 Page 2 • National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA). • Envirostor (formerly CalSites): A Database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, accessible through DTSC's website (see below). • Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA. • Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS): A database of CERCLA sites that is maintained by U.S.EPA. • Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): Adatabase provided by the California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both open as well as closed and inactive Solid waste disposal facllllles and transfer stations. • GeoTracker. A List that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control Boards. • 'Local Counties and Cities maintain lists far hazardous substances cleanup sites and leaking underground storage tanks. • The United Stales Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a lis( of Formedy Used Defense Sites (FUDS). A2-1 cont'd. 2) The MND should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation andlor remediation for any site within the proposed Project area that may he contaminated, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory A2-2 oversight. If necessary, DTSC would require an oversight agreement in nrder to review such documents. 3) .Any environmental Investigations, sampling and/or rernedialion for a site should be conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulainry agency that has Jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of A2-3 any investigations, including any Phase I or II Environmental Site Assessment Investigations should be summarized in the document. All sampling results in which hazardous substances were found above regulatory standards should be Page 3-8 •The Planning Center Aagust 2011 s2s 3. Response to Comments Mr. Jaime Murillo May 6, 2011 Page 3 clearly summarized in a table. All closure, certification or remediation approval A2-3 reports by regulatory agencies should be included in the MND. I cont'd. 4) If buildings, other structures, asphalt or concrete -paved surface areas are being planned to be demolished, an investigation should also be conducted for the presence of other hazardous chemicals, mercury, and asbestos containing materials (ACMs). If other hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints (LPB) or A2-4 products, mercury or ACMs are identified, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities. Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. 5) Future project construction may require soil excavation or filling in certain areas. Sampling may be required. If soil is contaminated, it must be properly disposed and not simply placed in another location onsite. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to such soils. Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. 6) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during any construction or demolition activities. If necessary, a health risk assessment overseen and approved by the appropriate government agency should be conducted by a qualified health risk assessor to determine if there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the environment. 7) If the site was used for agricultural, livestock or related activities, onsite soils and groundwater might contain pesticides, agricultural chemical, organic waste or other related residue. Proper investigation, and remedial actions, if necessary, should be conducted under the oversight of and approved by a government agency at the'site prior to construction of the project. 8) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the proposed operations, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). If it is determined that hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should also obtain a United Slates Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting (600) 618-6942. Certain hazardous waste treatment processes or hazardous materials, handling, storage or uses may require authorization from the local Certified Unified Program Agency (COPA). Information about the requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local COPA. A2-5 A2-6 �� A2-7 II A2-8 lff riner'r Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Ner oorx Beady *Page 3-9 324 3. Response to Comments Mr. Jaime Murillo May 6, 2011 Page 4 9) DTSC can provide cleanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight Agreement (EOA) for government agencies ghat are not responsible parties, or a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VGA) for private parties. For additional information on the EOA or VCA, please see A2-9 www.dtsc.co.gov/SiteCleanup/Broxvnfields, or contact Ms. Maryam Tasnif- Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 484-5489. 10) Also, in future CEQA document, please provide your e-mail address, so DTSCI A2-10 can send you the comments both electronically and by mail. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Rafiq Ahmed, Project Manager, aI. rahmed0chsc.ca _g or by phone at (714)484-5491. Sincerely, Greg Holmes Unit Chief Brownfields and Environmental Restoration Program cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research Slate Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 sta le.clea dnclhouse(a),00 cca.gov. CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control Office of Environmental Planning and Analysis P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812 ADelacr1(aldtsc.ca.gov CEQA 9 3195 Page 3-10 0 The Planning Center Aagr st 2011 A2 3. Response to Comments Response to Comments from Greg Holmes, Unit Chief, Department of Toxic Substances Control, dated May 6, 2011. A2-1 Potential project impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials were analyzed in Section 3.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the IS/MND. This section was based on the Phase I report (a copy is available with the City for viewing) prepared for the proposed project which utilized the databases listed by the commenter, such as Geotracker, RCRIS, and CERCLIS. A2-2 The Phase I report identified a former Arco service station onsite. However, the former use is considered a historical recognized environmental condition (HREC) because records indicate the underground storage tanks have been removed and the case was closed on May 11, 1998. Therefore, the Phase I report does not recommend any further action. A2-3 See response A2-2. The Phase I report does not recommend any further action. A2-4 The proposed project would result in demolition of the existing buildings onsite. As discussed in Section 3.8(b) of the IS/MND, the Phase I report prepared for the project identified the presence of asbestos -containing material (ACM) in the existing buildings. Removal of ACM would be conducted in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1403. The existing buildings were also observed to contain lead-based paint (LBP). However, the suspected LBP is considered to be a de minimis environmental condition and no further action is recommended. A2-5 See response A2-2. If contaminated soil were encountered during grading and construction activities, the soil would be profiled and shipped to an appropriate permitted disposal facility. Should the need for imported soil arise, care would be taken to ensure that the soil is not contaminated with hazardous substances. A2-6 See response A2-4. Removal of ACM would be conducted to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1403, which would minimize any potential health impacts. Suspected LBP is considered to be a de minimis environmental condition and no further action is recommended. Furthermore, as discussed in Section 3.9(a), Hydrology and Water Quality, of the IS/MND, best management practices as required under the federal Clean Water Act would be implemented to eliminate sediment and construction debris runoff into area storm drains during the construction period. A2-7 The project site has not been used for agricultural, livestock, or related activities. There are no agricultural resources on the site, and the site is not listed on any of the State Farmland maps. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the soil or groundwater would contain pesticides, agricultural, chemical, organic waste, or other related residue. A2-8 As the project would consist of restaurants, office, and retail use, long-term operations of the proposed project would not involve routine transport, storage, use, and disposal of substantial amounts of hazardous materials. A2-9 Comment acknowledged. A2-10 Comment acknowledged. Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3-11 S2 3. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 3-12 • The Planning Center August 2011 327 3. Response to Comments LETTER A3 - California Department of Transportation (1 page) SYLUU12jyp.IMANY U=itV&cs7 S,]0Ffi[Y�71SNVLpa .l1\f Vnn%aNf:GGjRS,yi r��u DUAIU'M EN I' OD' TRANSPORTATION Disiricf 12 3337 Michelson Drive, Suae 380 linin. CA 92412-889A---- ---- --- 70; (9,D) 724.2267 Fix: (949) 724-2592 Post -IP Fwx NnlMe 7677 Data g,10- 11 May 10, 2011 � � rM6 I'r,r ,i 0 Fram ['li 1A V15 Co.leePt Pl,annMq Co. C.G\LT[LRH-$ Phonon "Wil Rntl dept -'u i l"1 Jaime Murillo City of Ncwport Beach 3300 NewportBoulevard Newport Beach, CA 92453 Subject: Mariner's Point Project Dcur Mr. Murillo MI Fl. lavr pommi 0, rangy'Pe.1d n: rile: IGR/CEQA SCR£#: 2011041033 Log R:. 2704 SR -1 Thank you for ilio opportunity to review amid comment on the Mitigated Negative Duclarallun fur the Ainriner's Pointe Project., Toe project proposes to demolish the existing building and conenilct the proposed two-story' commercialtretail building and three-level parking lot. The gross square footage of the proposed project would be 23,015. The uses would consist 1D,493 gross squere feet of restaurants, 9,522 gross square feet of retail, and 3,000 gross square feet of medical/office. Additionally, the project would construct a three-level parking structure that would provide 136 valet and self parking stalls. The nearest State route to the project site. is SR -1. The California Department of Transportation (Department), District 12 is a cortnnenting agency on this project and we have no comment at this time, however, in the event of any activity within the Depadment's right-of-way, an encroachment permit will be required. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments, which could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Damon Davis ar (949) 440.3487. Sinccr^ /� Chris Fiore, Branch Chief Local Developmont/Intergovernmental Review Q Terry Roberts, Office of Planning and Research 'Cnilmur impeanr nlnhllill' Aatip)l,RI fOrrin" [Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments A3-1 City of Newport Beady • Page 3-13 S22 COO 3. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 3-14 • The Planning Center August 2011 3�9 3. Response to Comments A3 Response to Comments from Chris Herre, Branch Chief, Caltrans, dated May 10, 2011. A3-1 Comment acknowledged. The proposed water feature would encroach upon Caltrans right-of-way along West Coast Highway. The project applicant will coordinate with Caltrans to obtain an encroachment permit. �� Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3-15 330 3. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 3-16 • The Planning Center August 2011 331 3. Response to Comments LETTER A4 - State Clearinghouse (1 page) STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH STATE CLEARINGHOUSEAND PLANNING UNft�'r` JMYeROVM RECEIVED SY GGv6aaoR PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAY 16 2011 Jaime Murillo City of Newport Reach CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Bubjeet: Matinees Pointe Project SCB#: 2011041D38 Dear Jaime Murillw The State Clearinghouse submitted the abova ro—d Mitigated Negative Declaration to'elecud state agencies for review. The review period closed on May 10, 2011, and no slate agencies submitted comments by that data This lemr aclmowledgea that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental document; pursuant to the Califomia Envbomnental Quality Act. Name call the State Clearinghouse et (9 16) 445-0613 if you have any questions mencregarding (be to die environmental review process. if you have a question about the cove -named project, pl ton -digit State Cleeriughnmse number when contacting this office. Sii e.OyJy Sc%goQM4 an Director, State Clearinghouse 140010th Sheet p.C.Eoa3041 Sacemelltoi Ca)Ifomla 95B12.3064 (91;) 44.54613 PAX(916)323-3018 www.opr.ca,gry A4-1 � 5 Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3-17 332 3. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 3-18 • The Planning Center August 2011 333 3. Response to Comments A4 Response to Comments from Scott Morgan, Director, State Clearinghouse, dated May 16, 2011. A4-1 Comment acknowledged. C� Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments Cite of Newport Beach • Page 3-19 SS 3. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 3-20 • The Planning Center August 2011 335 LETTER A5 - Orange County Transportation Authority (2 pages) M OCTA May 11, 2011 3. Response to Comments pp6niJeP BV PLAH"ll DU ART MAY 17 2011 Mr. Jaime Murillo Associate Planner CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92656 Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mariner's Pointe Project Dear Mr. Jaime Murillo: The Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) has reviewed the above referenced document. The following comments are provided for your consideration: <- �",., On Page 132, it is suggested that an existing bus stop would be relocated to an area slightly west of its current location on the north side of Pack Coast Highway, west of Dover Drive. Please note that a 12' by Pew 1., 80' concrete bus pad should be placed adjacent to the proposed relocation area. Place a shelter at the proposed bus stop boarding area. This will give passengers a centralized location in which to wait for the bus and would minimize any potential impacts to adjacent businesses if passengers wereto use the building awnings during inclement weather. expu.iv.+.. uP=^The developerwill need to work with OCTA staff to identify an alternate N.rw bus stop location to be used during the construction project. axur 6 ww..wna . Provide OCTA with a 14 -day advance notice prior to the start of the project by calling the Detour Coordinator at (714) 2654359 or Field Operations at (714) 265-4497. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Carolyn Mamaradlo by 6NrEFExE drIVE rnCE phone at (714) 550-5748 or by email at cmamaradlo@octa.net. MKW .. LRM Enam.. C or."C ryrdnap calm A Wly ssoC OhM Fli..l/Pnp it lea/0.� haft .9286811 /(/r.)5 OCTA (6282) Mariner'.( Pointe Project Response to Comments A5 1 A5-2 City of Newport Beach • Page 3-21 Ss o 3. Response to Comments OCTA .: nW.YRtl1S Pm aCu Sincerely, e� Charles Larwood Manager, Transportation Planning c: Bill Batory, OCTA e:u:a .µ a� wn n4im /exw Nyren Qraae �:wv Ww Mem. ram a+ dYW C.•p W4Yfwm•n dv® C+N/ Wn (LTMw S E.fNA004MpN :'fELUIrvE OFFl,;f IW Nwigpi M Eraua QYm Orarge Ca 9n 0 Tmn:purtalgn Avinwity 9ASV�.In Mean ¢pIi PO IJp Bw 'di /e•ye i CeMb•w 181, /)rel �1A (6202) Page 3-22 • The Planning Center August 2011 337 A5 3. Response to Comments Response to Comments from Charles Larwood, Manager, Transportation Planning, Orange County Transportation Authority, dated May 11, 2011. A5-1 Comment acknowledged. Project applicant will coordinate with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) regarding the configuration of the relocated bus stop. A5-2 Mitigation Measure No. 11 requires the applicant to contact and coordinate with OCTA to modify or relocate the Coast -Dover bus stop during construction activities. This mitigation also specifies that such plans as negotiated with OCTA shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of grading permits. In response to this comment, Mitigation Measure No. 11 is supplemented as follows: it. The applicant shall contact OCTA and coordinate operation of the Coast -Dover bus stop along the project's West Coast Highway frontage during project construction. Mitigation as required to suspend operation, or modify or temporarily relocate the bus stop during project construction activities shall be negotiated with OCTA. The applicant shall provide the plans/mitigation to the City as negotiated with OCTA for review and approval by the City of Newport Beach's Planning Department and Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading permits. The applicant shall provide OCTA with a minimum 14 -day advance notice prior to the start of construction activities by contacting either the Detour Coordinator or Field Operations. Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3-23 338 3. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 3-2¢ • The Planning Center August 2011 339 3. Response to Comments LETTER 01 — California Cultural Resources Preservation Alliance (1 page) COPA California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, inc. P.O. sos 64132 An alliance of American lndian Hall scientific camnnmittes working t'ur ]Nine,f 52619-4132 the preservation oftlrchaeological 9ileaflnd other cultural resource,,. April 26, 201 1 PLANNINO MOARTMENT Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Reach, CA 92658 Dear Jaime Murillo, APR 2 8 2011 CITYOPT EWPORTBEACff Thank you fur the opportunity to review the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mariner's Pointe Project. Weagree that the proposed project has a high probability for the presence of prehistoric cultural deposits beneath the current modern ground surface and that they may be impacted by earthmoving and demolition activities. The mitigation measures appear to be appropriate, however we on old like to see a requirement that if significant cultural deposits such as intact midden or features and especially human remains are located during Phase II studies, rather than going directly to Phase III data recovery mitigation, a determination will be made as to whether preservation in place is a feasible option. This may be feasible if the cultural deposits are within areas designated for parking or laudsviaping. Site burial beneath parking lots and open spaces is recommended in California Public Resources Code 21083.2 (b) (3) and (4). This can also save the developer money as Phase III data recovery mitigation is labor intensive and expensive. 01-1 In addition, since the project involves a General Plan Amendment, SB 18 requires that prior to the adoption of an amendment of a city's general plan, the city conduct consultations with California Native 01-2 American tribes. Finally, the City of Newport Beach is to be commended for their diligence in addressing environmental concerns, including cultural resources. If you have any questions, please contact me at (949) 559-6490, m p.mmlz@Wx.ncl. Sincerely, y� n` -yam/' �r"lriztcw `'ZVI, Patricia Martz, Ph.D. President Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach a Page 3-25 340 5� 3. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 3-26 • The Planning Center August 2011 3.41 3. Response to Comments 01. Response to Comments Patricia Martz, President, California Cultural Resource Preservation Alliance, dated April 26, 2011. 01-1 Comment acknowledged. Per the commenter's suggestion, Mitigation Measure 4 has been revised to the following: The project applicant shall have a qualified archaeologist conduct a Phase II archaeological investigation and a Phase III investigation if warranted. The Phase II investigation, including trenching and analysis of any resources found, shall be completed before issuance of a grading permit by the City of Newport Beach. A Phase II archaeological testing program consists of a control subsurface investigation designed to extract a small sample of the subsurface deposits, but a sample large enough to draw a conclusion on the significance of the site (assuming the site is present). If intact features of an archaeological site, such as hearths, living surfaces, or middens, are discovered in the course of the Phase II investigation, then the project applicant shall have the archaeologist conduct a Phase III investigation. A Phase III investigation, if required, shall be completed before issuance of a grading permit. A Phase III consists of extracting a larger sample of the site materials to document the function, age, and components of the site that would allow for interpretation and comparative analysis with respect to the larger area (e.g. occupation within the Newport Bay area).: Conduct a feasibility investigation to preserve in place, any significant archaeological resource that is discovered. Feasibility can be based on but �� not limited to whether the significant archaeological resource is beneath C open space that can incorporate preservation in place. If preservation in place is feasible, such preservation shall be documented with the City's Planning Division, and no further mitigation is necessary; If preservation in place is not feasible, the applicant's archaeologist shall conduct a Phase III investigation prior to the issuance of a grading permit. A Phase III consists of extracting a larger sample of the site materials to document the function, age, and components of the site, allowing for interpretation and comparative analysis with respect to the larger area (e.g., occupation within the Newport Bay area). The City's Planning Division shall approve the report and related actions prior to grading permit issuance. 01-2 Pursuant to SB 18 requirements, on October 13, 2010, the City of Newport Beach submitted a written request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) requesting a list of whom to consult. On October 19, 2010, the City received the Native American Tribal Consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places within the project planning area from the NAHC. The City sent out letters on October 20, 2010 to each of the tribes on the list inviting each to consult and declare the importance of their tribe's participation in the planning process of an amendment to the City's General Plan as required by Government Code Section 65352. The City did not receive any responses or requests for consultation. The Tribes listed on the NAHC's consultation list were also included on the distribution list for the Notice of Intent for the IS/MND and will be provided Planning Commission and City Council public hearing notices. Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments Cite of Newport Beach • Page 3-27 342 3. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 3-28 • The Planning Center August 2011 343 LETTER R1 - Neighborhood Resident Letter (4 pages) May 3, 2011 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Attention: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner Subject: Mariner's Pointe Project City of Newport Beach 3. Response to Comments RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAY 10 8911 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH Reference is made to your Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Declaration for Mariner's Pointe Project, a copy of which is attached hereto. We note the City Staff has concluded that the project would not have a significant impact on the environment and therefore has recommended a negative declaration. However, we homeowners in Newport Beach, mainly on the ocean side of Kings Road, arestrongly opposed to the project as presented. It is way overbuilt for the size of the property! The existing zoning, and the requirements therein, are presently fair to the homes on the rim and to the business properties below. As far as we can tell, all other businesses along the North side of the highway have complied. Why. should there ben exception in this case? R1-1 We are most concerned about the Parking Structure: massive size, way over the 31 foot height limit, parking on the roof., lights on the roof, noise from car doors shutting, hom sounds, etc. Or even more concern is the fact that the entrance and exit are close to the comer of Dover and PCH. There have been many accidents on this comer and in the R1-2 vicinity thereof. The ingress and egress to the Parking Structure are in an area where three traffic lanes merge into two. Traffic going East on PCH would have to make a Il - tum at the comer to enter the parking structure. �� Furthermore, if you accept these radical changes to the zoning requirements for this project, you probably will set au unwanted precedent. Also, we believe such musbive structures will reduce the property values of homes directly above PCH. The property in R1-3 question warrants a more reasonable development which complies with existing zoning and is more compatible with the neighborhood. HOMEOWNERS ADDRESSES A/' StI 114ariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3-29 S44 3. Response to Comments f L�HOMEOWNQtS Ali �r�Ly i'`�f Page 3-30 • The Planning Center ADDRESSES ./16/ 32! k'•,�S Rr, 3 3 /cc ry August 2011 345 3. Response to Comments Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Declaration for Mariner's Pointe Project City of Newport Beach Notice is hereby given that the City of Newport Beach has completed a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the construction of a new commercial building at 100 - 300 West Coast Highway at the intersection of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive, Newport Beach, California. The 0.76 acre project site consists of two existing connected one-story buildings and a surface lot The project applicant, Glenn Verdult, proposes.to demolish the existing structures and pavement onsite and construct a two-story commercial structure of -23,015 cross building square feet and a three-story parking structure. The development would include various commercial/retail uses such as restaurant=_ (10.z93 so, specialty retail (9,522 so, and medical office {3,000 so. Development of the proposed project would require the following entitlements from the City of Newport Beach. • General Plan Amendment: increase the allowable floor area to land area ratio (FAR) for the project site from 0.5 PAR to 0.68 rAR Zoning Code Amendment: change the npecitic floor area limitation for the project site on the Zoning Map from 0.3!0.5 FAR to 0.68 FAR • Site Development Review: to allow the construction of a 23,015 -square -foot, two-story building and a three -stem parking slruchire the( will exceed the 31 -foot base height limit with a maximum height of 40 feet • Modification Permit: to allow architectural feature (cupola and finial) to exceed the 40400l maximum height limil (proposed height of 44 feet) • Conditional Use PermiC to allow rooftop parking, to modify the orf -street parking requiremems, and to establish a parking management plan for the site • Variance: to allow the building to encroach 5 feet into the 5 -fool rear yard setback • Parcel Map: to consolidate six lots into one parcel 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 ronstmcfnn 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 -dal public review period beginning April 11, 2011 and ending May 11, 2011. 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 5100 p.m., Monday through Friday. The document can also be accessed online at: http://www.nev✓poilbeachca.gov;index.aspx?oage=942. Additionally, copies of the document are also available for review at the following City public libiaiie5. Newport Beach Public Library Newport Beach Public Litrary Corona del Mar Branch Mariners Branch 4120 Marigold Ave. 1300 Irvine Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Newpod Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach Public Library Newport Beach Public Library Balboa Branch Central l,ihrnry 100 East Balboa Boulevard 1000 Avocado Avenue Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 114ariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3-31 S40 CID 3. Response to Comments Page 3-32 • The Planning Center August 2011 347 3. Response to Comments R1. Response to Comments Neighborhood Residents Letter, dated May 3, 2011 R1-1 The commenter's opposition to the project as proposed is acknowledged. As described in the IS/MND project description, project implementation as proposed would require a General Plan Amendment to increase the floor area ratio (FAR) and a Site Development Review to exceed the building height limitation of 31 feet. The Aesthetics section of the IS/MND provides a description and graphic representation of the project as proposed, and concludes that the development would improve visual and aesthetic conditions of the site and surrounding area, and would not result in significant impacts. Subsequent to the preparation of the IS/MND, the applicant has revised the project reducing the heights of the proposed cupola and tower elements, and has added a roof structure over the rear two-thirds portion of the parking structure to screen the vehicles and associated activity from the residents above (See Section 2.1 of this Response to Comments document). Additionally, subsequent to the Planning Commission hearing held on June 23, 2011, the project applicant has also proposed to decrease the FAR from 0.70 to 0.60. Aesthetic impacts, including the scale of the project, are, however, subjective by nature. The discretionary power to either grant or deny the requested entitlements lies wholly with the City. These comments will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration. R1-2 As summarized in the previous response, the scale of the project requires a General Plan Amendment as requested by the project applicant to increase the allowable FAR for the project site. Similarly a Site Development Review is required for the building to exceed the 31 foot height limit. The discretionary power to either grant or deny the requested entitlements lies wholly with the City. These comments will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration. The original project design included uncovered rooftop parking, access and lighting. The impact analysis for uncovered rooftop related impacts are analyzed in IS/MND sections 3.1, Aesthetics, and 3.12, Noise, respectively. Figure 9, Third -Level Parking Structure Lighting Plan, shows the various types of lighting that would be installed on the parking structure's rooftop level. As shown and noted on the figure and as discussed in Section 3.1(d), the design, arrangement, and orientation of the lighting fixtures would prevent light spillover into the areas beyond the parking structure. Additionally, as shown in Figure 10, Third -Level Parking Lighting Analysis, the lighting fixtures would be directed inward to the parking structure. Therefore, lighting impacts were concluded to be less than significant in the IS/MND. Potential rooftop parking noise was analyzed in Section 3.12(a). As shown in Figure 15, 3rd Level Parking Structure — Generated Noise Contours, noise generated from the rooftop parking level would be less than the City's nighttime exterior noise standard of 45 dBA Laq. Therefore, in accordance with the CEQA significance threshold, noise impacts from the parking structure were concluded to be less than significant. The proposed modifications outlined in Section 2.1 of this Response to Comments document would increase the number of parking spaces within the parking structure by six spaces, extend the parking structure 15 feet eastward, and add a roof structure over the rear two-thirds portion of the parking structure. The extension of Marine;'s Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3-33 342 3. Response to Comments the parking structure and increase of parking spaces may extend the noise contours as shown on Figure 15 of the IS/MND eastward. However, the noise contours at the residences would still be less than 45 dBA L., Furthermore, the partial rooftop enclosure would screen the vehicles and associated activity from the residents above, which would further minimize noise and would also further minimize lighting impacts. The environmental analysis and conclusions related to the proposed project modifications are included in Section 2.2 of this Response to Comments document. Regarding the commenter's concerns over potential traffic safety impacts, as discussed in Table 12, General Plan Consistency Analysis, of the IS/MND, the project would be consistent with policy CE 2.2.4, Drive and Access Limitations, of the City's General Plan. This policy states that driveways and local street access on arterials should be limited to maintain a desired quality of traffic flow and also that driveways should be consolidated wherever possible. The proposed project would eliminate the driveway access off of Dover Drive and would consolidate the four driveway accesses along West Coast Highway into two main access drives. The proposed plan and circulation has been reviewed by the City's traffic engineering department. The design, including ingress and egress to the parking structure meets City standards. The commenter is correct in noting that traffic going east on West Coast Highway would be required to make a U-turn at the West Coast Highway/Dover intersection. This turning movement has a dedicated left -turn light. R1-3 Please see response to comment R1-1 regarding commenter's concern that approval of the proposed project and granting of the requested entitlements would set an unwanted precedent. Regarding the commenter's concern that property values of homes above the project site may be affected, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15382, "an economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment" and therefore is outside the purview of CEQA. These comments will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for their consideration. Page 3-34 • The Planning Center August 2011 LETTER R2 - Cameron Merage Letter (2 pages) May 9, 2011 3. Response to Comments RECEIVED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner MAY 09 2011 City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92659-8915 CM OF NEWPORT BBACfi Subject: Comments on the Initial Study Mariner's Pointe, West Coast Highway at Dover (hive Newport Beach, California As the owner of the residuntial property adjacent to the subject development site, this letter is submitted to state my concerns and objections in reference to this development's potential impacts to my property. I purchased my property, 100 Kings Place, which is located immediately north of the subject commercial development site years ago for its high value in terms of location and view in hopes of building a residence that, similar to my neighbors' homes, would enjoy the panmmnic views of Balboa island, Lido Isle, and the Pacific Ocean. However, upon review or the plans and per the Initial Study dated April 2011, my family and I are extremely concerned that the value of our property and quality of .life would be significantly impacted by the proposed project, due to the following reasons: L Scenic View/Privacy: The height of the proposed two -stay building and three-story parking structure, including the rotunda and cupoln, would partly obstruct: our views R2 1 of Balboa Islnnd, Lido Isle, and the Pacific Ocean. In addition, employees and customers parking, walking, and/or loitering on the rooftop parking structure would decrease the privacy of our backyard; 2. Aesthetics/Lighting: The rooftop parking turd lights rising above the parapet walls would create an unpleasant view, with sunlight reflecting in the day through the R2-2 puked cars and lights installed above the parapet wall generating nighttime glare; 3. Air Quality: The odor and fumes of food from the kitchen exhaust of two restaurants I R2-3 operating from 9:00AM to 1:00AM daily would constantly blow onto aur property; 4. Native Vegetation: Aside from its unpleasant aesthetic, this project will create a significant shadow over the rear end of our property, making it nearly impossible for R24 nature vegetation and ground cover to grow and would result in an unusublu area; S. Dern lot Variance: The developer proposes to encroach 5 feet into the 5 -foot rear yard setback and build it retaining/shoring wall and 3 -foot wide drainage swats on our property. Due to this we would lose 3' x 110' (330 Sq. Ft.) or our property. In R25 addition, the retaining wall under -pining would extend about 40` to 50' into our property at 8' on center. This would Balt the future development of our rear lot; and 6. Noise: There will be an increase in noise for a prolonged period of time due to the proposed project's commercial/retail uses including restaurants operating frau 9:OOAM mit 1:OOAh4. Noise will originate from the restaurants' kitchens, dining o R2-6 patios, and bar areas, with music playing overhead and patrons talking, laughing, and yelling, especially while alcohol is being served. In addition, the noise source would [Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beady • Page 3-35 �� 3. Response to Comments be 5 feel closer to our properly due to the the proposed zero lot variance. Also, with the addition of rooftop parking; ears would be driving approximately 26 feet higher R2-6 than on PCH, and furthermore the 15' wide x 140' long mechanical area located on the north end of the proposed rooftop along our properr,' line at 35' height would cont'.d. significantly elevate the noise level. As a good ncighboy 1 would like to offer tire following suggestions: 1. The height ol'the building and parking structure shall be no taller than the per a fined 31 -foot base height limit,including any architectural features, as stated in the current zoning ordinance; 2. No roof top cars and associated structure lightingshall be exposed to the sky. A tiled. roof over the parking structure (within the above slated height limit of 3 P) would be acceptable. This may reduce the noise, lighting, and privacy issues associated with parking as previously mentioned. Therefore, we request thatthe developer shall not receive a Conditional Use permit to allow rooftop parking; 3. The restaurants' operation shall be limited to 10:00PM as most conuncrcial businesses in the neighborhood close by then; 4. The retaining wall shall be hunt higher and include back fill to raise die grade to an appropriate level so the vegetation can grow to screen die Boise and view of the structure and to prevent the ground cover vegetation from dying; 5. The structures shall not be built within the 5 -fool rear yard setback; and 6. The current FAR of 0.310.5 for the project site as designated on the Zoning Map shall not be amended. This would. decrease the number of cars and traffic congestion on and around the property. I appreciate your consideration of the above. If you have any questions, you can much ane at (714) 321-2668. Cameron Meiage, Owner 100 Kings Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 R2-7 Page 3-36 0 The Planning Center August 2011 3. Response to Comments R2. Response to Comments Cameron Merage, Owner of 100 Kings Place, Newport Beach, California 92663, dated May 9, 2011. R2-1 The commenter currently owns the property at 100 Kings Place and is concerned that development of the proposed project would partly obstruct views of Balboa Island, Lido Isle, and the Pacific Ocean. As shown on Figure 6a, Figure 6c, and Figure 7 of the IS/MND, the majority of the proposed buildings' rooftop lines including the rotunda and cupola would be below the top of the bluff. Subsequent to the preparation of the IS/MND, the applicant has proposed modifications to the project including the addition of a partial parking structure rooftop, extension of the trellis, and height reductions in the cupola and tower elements (See Section 2.1 of this Response to Comments document). The proposed rooftop would screen the vehicles and associated activity from the residents above. Any encroachment into the commenter's view would be minor and likely limited to landscaping (tall trees). Moreover, the City of Newport Beach view protection policies are limited to public views. Private, residential views are not protected. As discussed in Section 3.1(a) of the IS/MND, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts on public views. The commenter believes that the rooftop parking level would decrease the privacy of his backyard. As shown on Figure 6a, the top of the bluff is at 60 feet, and the maximum height of any part of the structure is 56 feet. Employees and customers of the project would not be able to view the commenter's property and privacy would not be affected. However, with the addition of the partial enclosure over the rear two- thirds portion of the rooftop parking, resident's view of activities in the parking structure would be screened. R2-2 Lighting related to the previously proposed uncovered rooftop parking was discussed in Section 1.3.1 and analyzed in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, of the IS/MND. Figure 9, Third -Level Parking Structure Lighting Plan, shows the various types of lighting that would be installed on the rooftop level of the proposed parking structure. As shown and noted on the figure and as discussed in Section 3.1(d), the design, arrangement, and orientation of the lighting fixtures would prevent light spillover into the areas beyond the parking structure. Additionally, as shown in Figure 10, Third -Level Parking Lighting Analysis, the lighting fixtures would be directed inward to the parking structure and shielded from view above. Therefore, the IS/MND determined nighttime glare to be less than significant. Regarding sunlight reflecting off of the vehicles on the rooftop level parking, as noted in the previous response, the parking structure is below the top of the bluff. There would not be a direct line of sight from the property to the proposed rooftop level parking. Note also that the project has been revised to enclose the rear two-thirds portion of the rooftop parking and extend the trellis along the entirety of the rooftop enclosure that would further minimize potential impacts associated with parking on the top level of the structure. R2-3 Comment acknowledged. As discussed in Section 3.3(e) of the IS/MND, the proposed project would not develop the type of the facility that would be considered to have objectionable odors (e.g., wastewater treatment plants, dairy farms, chemical manufacturing, etc.), and odor impacts were determined to be less than Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3-37 S52 3. Response to Comments significant. In response to commenter concerns, however, the applicant is proposing, and the project has been conditioned, to install a pollution control unit that would filter odors generated from any restaurant kitchens. To report any future potential odor issues, the commenter should contact the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at 1-800-288-7664. R2-4 The proposed project would be built in an east/west orientation. The Commenter's property is directly north of the project site. As the path of the sun generally moves in an east to west direction, the slope face would still receive sunlight for portions of the day throughout the year. R2-5 It is the applicant's preference to negotiate easements to accommodate minimal encroachments into adjacent properties as required to construct the retaining wall and facilitate site drainage. These improvements would ultimately require the approval of each adjacent property owners. If easements cannot be negotiated, alternative construction methods are feasible to avoid the encroachments. The proposed modifications outlined in Section 2.1 of this Response to Comments document would eliminate the 3 -foot wide swale along the northern property line of the project site. 1`12-6 Any restaurants that operate within the proposed project would be mostly enclosed, which would attenuate interior -to -exterior noise transmission. The planned ground - floor outdoor patio areas along West Coast Highway and the patios along Dover Avenue would be shielded by the proposed commercial building. The outdoor patio areas would not have a direct line of sight to the northern residences above the project site, and the proposed commercial/retail building would provide noise attenuation. Operation of any uses at the project site would be subject to the City of Newport Beach noise ordinances and nuisance laws. Additionally, subsequent approval of a use permit will be required to permit the operation of any food uses within the project, at which time the specific operational characteristics, hours of operation, seating plans, etc, will be reviewed and conditioned. The commenter is concerned that having the proposed project five feet closer in addition to rooftop parking and rooftop mechanical systems would significantly elevate noise. As shown in Figure 15, 3rd Level Parking Structure - Generated Noise Contours, the noise from use of the rooftop parking level would be less than the City's nighttime exterior noise standard of 45 dBA L.., Therefore, the IS/MND determined noise impacts from the parking structure would be less than significant. The applicant has revised the project by increasing the number of parking spaces within the parking structure, extending the parking structure 15 feet eastward, and adding a roof structure over the rear two-thirds portion of the parking structure (See Section 2.1 of this Response to Comments document). The expansion of the parking structure and increase of parking spaces by six spaces may extend the noise contours as shown on Figure 15 of the IS/MND eastward. However, the noise contours at the residences would still be less than 45 dBA Laq. Furthermore, the partial rooftop enclosure would screen the vehicles and associated activity from the residents above, which would further minimize noise (See Section 2.2 of this Response to Comments document). Page 3-38 • The Planning Center August 2011 353 3. Response to Comments Additionally, as discussed in section 3.12(a) of the IS/MND, all mechanical systems would be fully enclosed, any vents would be oriented toward the highway, and the systems would have to comply with Section 10.26.025 of the City's Municipal Code, which regulates noise. Therefore, noise impacts from mechanical systems were also determined to be less than significant. Although these impacts were determined to be less than significant in the IS/MND, the applicant has since designed a partial enclosure over the rear two-thirds portion of the rooftop parking that would further minimize impacts associated with the rooftop parking. R2-7 See Comment R2-6. The commenter's suggestions have been noted and forwarded to decision -makers for consideration. As noted above, the applicant has designed a partial enclosure over the rear two-thirds portion of the rooftop parking level, which would reduce noise and lighting impacts from the rooftop parking level even further and shield the resident's view of activity within the parking structure. Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3-39 354 3. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 3-40 • The Planning Center August 2011 355 3. Response to Comments LETTER R3 - Jack M. Langson Letter (1 page) From: Jack Lanasor To: Murillo. )aime.�_ Subject: Mariner's Point draft MND Date: Monday, May 09, 20115:56:42 PM Mr. Murillo, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mariner's Point project. As I understand it, City Staff is laking public comment into consideration in determining whether to recommend the currently proposed project without further mitigation and without a full EIR. TRAFFIC IMPACT: It seems tome that the transportation/traffic impact has NOT been adequately mitigated to justify the requested scale of this project on such a small parcel. While the amount of traffic from this small parcel will be a tiny share of the traffic at this very busy intersection, I request that City Staff uphold the principle of adhering to the existing FAR specified in the General Plan regardless of the parcel size. Since there are 3 proposed building uses (i.e. restaurant, retail, and medical office), there apparently is no compelling need for the proposed exception to the General Plan specified FAR which will result in increased traffic at the site. R3-1 R3-2 BUILDING MASS: The requested variance in allowable building height from the 31' existing zoning to 40' (plus 44- at the architectural cupola) will introduce a new standard for buildings so Gose to the highway in our neighborhood. Again, I R3-3 request that City Staff adhere to the exiting zoning regulations. PARKING STRUCTURE STALL COUNT: The parking structure has been "engineered" to the limit to meet the requested project size. There wlll definitely need to be a valettgarage traffic manager around whenever a delivery truck is parked on the ground floor given the tight turning radius of the driveway and the fact that the valet cannot take a car out to PCH to get back to the valet station due to wrong -way traffic flow. It will be interesting to see how the developer engineers the transition from the level parking stalls to the 15% grade on the ramp without scraping the bottoms of cars or encroaching on the level handicapped path of travel. Finally, counting "tandem" parking stalls as fully usable is optimistic. Hence, this awkward parking facility seems to need further review. Again, thank you for the opportunity to have my comments considered. Cordially, Jack M. Langson, neighbor 2616 Bayshore Drive R3 -a �� Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3-41 i Fi 3. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 3-42 • The Planning Center August 2011 35 R3. 3. Response to Comments Response to Comments Jack M. Langson, Owner of 2616 Bayshore Drive, Newport Beach, California, dated May 9, 2011. R3-1 The commenter is correct. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15074 (b): (b) Prior to approving a project, the decision-making body of the lead agency shall consider the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The decision-making body shall adopt the proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration only if it finds on the basis of the whole record before it (including the initial study and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis R3-2 Based on the analysis included in the technical traffic study (IS/MND Appendix F) as summarized in Section 3.16(a), Transportation/Traffic, project -generated traffic in addition to forecast cumulative conditions would not significantly impact traffic. As shown in IS/MND Tables 23 and 24, area intersections would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. In addition, as shown in Table 7 of this Response to Comments document, the reduction in the overall total square footage of the land uses would result in fewer project -generated vehicle trips compared to the project as proposed in the IS/MND. The commenter's request that the City uphold the existing FAR (not grant the General Plan Amendment) is acknowledged. R3-3 As described in the IS/MND project description, project implementation as proposed would require a Site Development Review to exceed the building height limitation of 31 feet in addition to a General Plan Amendment to increase the floor area ratio (FAR). The Aesthetics section of the IS/MND provides a description and graphic representation of the project as proposed, and concludes that the development would improve visual and aesthetic conditions of the site and surrounding area, and would not result in significant impacts. Subsequent to the preparation of the IS/MND and the Planning Commission hearing held on June 23, 2011, the applicant has revised the project reducing the heights of the proposed cupola and tower elements, adding a roof structure over the rear two-thirds portion of the parking structure, and extending the trellis along the entirety of the rooftop enclosure to screen the vehicles and associated activity from the residents above (See Section 2.1 of this Response to Comments document). Aesthetic impacts, including the scale of the project, are, however, subjective by nature. The discretionary power to either grant or deny the requested entitlements lies wholly with the City. These comments will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration. R3-4 Delivery trucks would not be scheduled during the peak usage times of lunch and dinner. During peak usage, a valet/traffic director would be on the ground floor to direct traffic flow as necessary. Also, valet vehicles would not be taken onto West Coast Highway at any time. When returning vehicles to guests during daytime hours, two-way traffic flow would be maintained on Level 1 and vehicles would exit to the east. During the peak dinner hours, when there is one-way traffic flow on Level 1, Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3-43 358 3. Response to Comments vehicles would come down the ramp and be dropped off for guests in the spaces directly in front of the ramp so that traffic flow is maintained. Regarding the 15 percent grade of the ramps, the design of the ramp as proposed in the IS/MND would comply with City's Parking Layout Standard STD -805 -L-A and STD -805 -L -B, which allow a maximum ramp slope of 15 percent. As shown on Figure 7, Site Plan Cross -Section, of the IS/MND, the first and last five feet of the parking structure ramps have an 11 percent slope. As part of the modifications outlined in Section 2.1 of this Response to Comments, the slope of the ramps would be decreased to have a maximum slope of 13 percent. All of the tandem stalls would be utilized either by valet or by employees. The valet service would maximize all parking spaces (single and tandem) as needed. The tandem parking stalls reserved for employees would be assigned to specific tenants, which would prevent a scenario where employees would not park in a tandem parking stall for fear they would be closed in. Page 3-44 • The Planning Center August 2011 359 3. Response to Comments LETTER R4 - Mike Hilford Letter (1 page) From: nn ifford To; Murillo. aime cc: Mike Hilford Subject: Mariner's Pointe Project: Variances Date: Tuesday, May 10, 20112:02:19 PM I rind no mention of the Mariner's Pointe Project at the suggested website: htto://w w✓,newoortbeachca.00vlindex.asoxvoaoe=942. R4-1 Developers of the project, located at 100-300 PCH, have requested some code variances that includes building height & roof -top parking that will, if approved, set a precedent and standard for all PCH buildings in this area. It would be naive to believe that the variances, if allowed, will be limited to 100-300 PCH. For example, years ago, building height limits at 530 Kings Rd., were Increased, or Ignored, and now the street Is lined with three & four story high -mega -houses that are incompatible with the neighborhood's scale. Noise & commotion related to parking on these high structures, built in close proximity to many residences on Kings Rd., will negatively impact home -owner's quality of life and property values. Therefore, I recommend the requested variances be denied. Thank you, Mike Hill 511 Kings. Rd. 949/548-1495 R4-2 R4-3 Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3-45 COO 3. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 3-46 • The Planning Center August 2011 3O1 R4. 3. Response to Comments Response to Comments Mike Hilford, Owner of 511 Kings Road, Newport Beach, California, dated May 10, 2011. R4-1 The Mariner's Pointe Project IS/MND can be accessed through the following website address: http://www.newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=1347. Upon receiving this comment letter, staff called Mr. Hilford to assist him with accessing the document on the City website. R4-2 The potential impacts for the proposed project, including requested entitlements have been analyzed in the IS/MND. The potential that granting such entitlements would set up a precedent is speculative and beyond the realm of environmental documentation for the project under the California Environmental Quality Act. The commenter's concerns are acknowledged, however, and will be forwarded to the appropriate City decision makers for their consideration. R4-3 Noise related to the previously proposed uncovered rooftop parking was discussed in Section 3.12, Noise, of the IS/MND. As shown in Figure 15, 3rd Level Parking Structure — Generated Noise Contours, the noise contours generated from use of the rooftop parking would be less than the City's nighttime exterior noise standard of 45 dBA Leq. Therefore, the IS/MND determined that noise impacts from the parking structure would be less than significant. However, subsequent to the preparation of the IS/MND, the applicant has revised the project by increasing the number of parking spaces within the parking structure by six spaces, extending the parking structure roughly 15 feet eastward, and adding a roof structure over the rear two- thirds portion of the parking structure (See Section 2.1 of this Response to Comments document). The extension of the parking structure and increase of parking spaces may extend the noise contours as shown on Figure 15 of the IS/MND eastward. However, the noise contours at the residences would still be less than 45 dBA L., Furthermore, the partial rooftop enclosure would screen the vehicles and associated activity from the residents above, which would further minimize noise. Regarding the commenter's concern that property values of homes above the project site may be affected, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15382, "an economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment" and therefore is outside the purview of CEQA. These comments will be forwarded to the appropriate City decision makers for their consideration. Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3-47 302 3. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 3-48 • The Planning Center August 2011 SOS 3. Response to Comments LETTER R5 - William L. Steel Letter (4 pages) Sm': It. Albmcln srepoen S. Chants' Won A. Deters MnWmly A. Goldstein°' Philip W. Coma Jell S. Griner Meym G. Mayer ZZre,. V. M.K. nifer A. Needs Mel Pieter I lerted N. Smnuehs'+• Hugh A. Slanders William L. Sim] Mania J. s,eia 'Alm admitted in Col.n'.do "Also ndaniaad in Ali.. "-Also admired in Ncw York and Florida May ll, 20t VIA EMAIL JMurillo(tUnewpoitbc eliea.eov Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beech, CA 92658 RE: Notice of Intent to Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration. For Mariner's Pointe Projcct Dear Mr. Murillo: Oreo.nwl Orland. P. Calianday Ernest Mooney File No.: 5657-001 This law firm represents Laura Tarbox, Trustee of the Frank. A. Eisendrath Trust, the owner of the home at 104 Kings Place, Newport Beach ("Flume"). The ]-tome is located directly above the proposed project. The owner believes the proposed project will have a significant impact on the environment and that the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") is insufficient and flawed in many respects. The owner acknowledges the }tome is located adjacent to a commercial zone and that development of the subject property for commercial uses is appropriate. Ilowever, the owner believes the proposed project is too massive for the subject property and that the requested amendments to lire General Plan, Zoning Code, height limits and encroachment restrictions should not be granted. The owner's principal environmental concerns are as follows: Noise. a. Roofloo Open -Air Parking, Lot. The MND at Section 3.12 admits drat noise will emanatefrom proposed rooliopopen-airparking lot from Slamming doors, car alarms and beeps, horns, loud talking, etc., but the MND afters to mitigating solutions other than a R5-1 statement thatonly autos of employees and that are valet parked will be allowed or that level, which is 110 Solution at all because all of the sanro noise issues are likely to occur even with that 99800 MaeAr lair Doulcva d • Suite 1000 - Irvine, CA 97612-2933 Telephone: (949) 2630004 • Facsimile: (949) 263-0005 [Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beady • Page 3-49 �� 3. Response to Comments Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner City of Newport Beach May It, 2011 Page 2 restriction. Also, Section 3.12 says that there are only 20 rooftop parking spaces but the plans show 47 spaces. The owner also does not believe the applicant will limit rooftop parking only to employees and valet parking. The applicant's representative, Tod Ridgeway, told the owner wad ruuytalcrday that the applicant proposes at least two alcohol serving restaurants, at least one of which will only be accessible from the rooftop parking leve!. It seems unlikely patrons of such a restaurant would tolerate not being allowed to park on the same level as the restaurant's entry. The proposal for open-air parking for patrons of alcohol serving restaurants located below many residences is already in practice with disastrous consequences in Crystat Covo. The exiting putruru of Javicr's and Maestro's restaurants and their cars are extremely loud and insensitive to the adjacent homes, and most if not all of those homeowners hate living there. The owner requests that the City not allow upon -air rooftop parking, and that if rouHop parking is allowed that the City require it to be totally covered with appropriatenoise attenuation material, and that gate system or other access barrier be required as a condition to restaurant use that allows access to the rooftop level only by valet parking attendants and employees. b. Restaurant Outdoor Seating Areas. The applicant's plans currently call for outdoor restaurant sealing areas on the cast side of the project on both the ground level and Ute second level, directly below the Home. The likely noise front those arcus is not addressed in the MND. The owner requests that the City not allow any outdoor restaurant seating areas, and that if such seating is allowed that the City restrict the hours of access to those areas to prevent their use after I0pm, require scrccniug walls or other appropriate noise attenuation solutions, and prohibit any music (live or otherwise) or other amplified noise within these. areas. 2. Odors. a. Food. The applicant intends to have nt lead two rostaurmis in the prejeot, which will require cooking facilities with appropriate rooftop ventilation. The food odurs appear likely to rise directly into the residential area including die Home. The MND is silent about the likelihood of foododors emanating from the restaurants and therefore offers no mitigating solutions. The owner requests that the City require the applicant to prevent food ndnm from emamaling into the residential arca as a condition to restaurant use. It. Cigamues and Cigars. The applicant intends to have at least two alcohol - serving restaurants, one on each level, and both of which have proposed outdoor seating areas. It can be expected that asignilicant number of patrons of these restaurants will be smokers, hut. the MND is silent abotn the likelihood of cigarette and cigar smoke and odors emanating from the project, including from the outdoor seating areas, the areas between the proposed elevator mid die restaurant enttatues, and the proposed open-air rouHop parking Int.,. and therefore offers no mitigating solutions. The owner requests that the City prohibit cigarette and cigar smoking everywhere within and around the project, including without limitation. in any outdoor scaring areas, walkways and parking arens. R5-1 cont'd. R5-2 Page 3-50 • The Planning Center August 2011 0;� 3. Response to Comments Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner City of Newport Bcach May 11,2011 Page 3 3. Light Pollution. The applicant's plans providefor many lights in the rooftop open-air parking. area and glass elevator area that will be located within the parking area's suutlwrn and western boundary walls, which will be shining in tite Home's direction and therefore can reasonably be expected to have a material adverse impact on the Home's nightfimu environment. The owner requests that the City require the top level of parking be covered to prevent such glare and if the City does not require such cover that the City require lighting that will not be shining in the Home's direction or will shine in that direction withminimal. glare. 4. Views. it. Proiecl's Rooftop. The Home will look down directly onto the commercial structure's rooftop. Therefore, to minimize view degradation from the Hone the owner requests that the City prohibit the placement of any vents, heating and air conditioning equipment, or similar fixtures or equipment on the roof and that the City require appropriate roofing materials. b. Cupola. The proposed cupola will be the highest point of the structure and will be about 44 feet above the ground level (not including its proposed spire, which may extend several feet above that). This requires a modification permit because it will be located above the maximum allowable height. While it does not appear that the cupola will block dtc Home's view of Newport Bay, it will he the most visible part of the commercial building from the Home and the spire may interfere with the Honrc's view of Newport Bay. Therefore, the owner requests that the City not approve a modification permit and instead require that any cupola including its spire be built within the 40 foot maximum height limit. C. Landscanina. The applicant's renderings of (he project in the MND show about 10 proposed palm trees in the front of the project along Coast Highway, all of which are shown as extending substantially above the highest points of (he proposed buildings. The owner believes that the height of these palm trees as shown in the drawing will extend into the Home's view corridor of ibe Newport Bay and ocean, and therefore the owner requests that die City require all landscaping within the project to at no time be higher than any of the buildings within. the project. In addition to the owner's environmental concerns, the owner has these aesthetic objections: I. Rear Wall. The applicant's representative Tod Ridgeway indicated to the owner and me yesterday that the northern boundary of the project, which will be facing thel-Come, will be a long and very high solid block wall (which will be over 300 feet long and about 30 feet (all. The massiveness of this wall will be very unattractive in appearmrce from the Nome and neighboring homes, and the Owner requests that the City require that the side of this wall facing theHotne have an attractive design or other covering, and/or that the applicant be required to R5-3 R5-4 R5-5 [Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beady • Page 3-51 �� 3. Response to Comments Jaime Murillo, Associate Plmmer City of Newport Beach May I L 2011 Page 4 place lall landscaping between the wall and the Home within die applicant's property (and notI R5-5 within the.. owner's property). cont'd. 2. Privacy. The applicant proposes two outdoorrestaurant seating areas on the east side of the project, both of which: will be located directly below the home. Imaddition, the rooftop elevator's doors will open directly toward the t -lame. it appears likely that patrons in those areas will he able to look directly into the owner's rear yard and into the Home's proposed R5-6 second floor. The owner requests that the City require appropriate view screening from the outdoor seating areas grid from the elevator access mea so that patrons cannot see into the Home's proposed second floor or its rear yard. J. Overall Mass. The overall mass of the project appears to the owner to be too large for the available space and will be very out of character with existing conic eroial uses in R5-7 the area and as will have too many negative impacts on the.I ionic and adjacent homes. Lastly, the owner believes die project as proposed will only be possible if die applicant is able to use adjacent property. including the owner's property and property owned by adjacent homeowners, because it appears the proposed project may require encroachments into the owner's property for retaining wall footings end/or tiebacks, drainage wales andlor landscaping. The owner does not intend to grant to the applicant any easements or other rights to use die owner's property for any purpose, and the owner therefore requests that the City require the project to be located entirely within the npplicant's property and that no physical encroachments occur within any adjoining properties. Sincerely, Wv4 William L. Steel WLS:H cc: Client 565noly. rtuH11. Iv it 14 L6oc[ Page 3-52 0 The Planning Center August 2011 R5. 3. Response to Comments Response to comments by William L. Steel, Attorney, SG&S Lawyers, on behalf of Laura Tarbox, owner of 104 Kings Place, Newport Beach, California, dated May 11, 2011. R5-1 As analyzed in Section 3.12(a) of the IS/MND, noise impacts from the rooftop level parking lot was determined to be less than significant. Therefore, per CEQA, incorporation of mitigation is not required. The commenter's assertion that Section 3.12 of the IS/MND states there are only 20 rooftop parking spaces is incorrect. There is no reference to the exact page, but on page 113, the "20 spaces" is in reference to the existing offsite parking lot that would be utilized as an employee overflow lot. As outlined in Section 2.1 of this Response to Comments document, the proposed changes would eliminate the need for offsite parking. Regarding potential noise issues from patrons accessing the rooftop level parking, these parking spaces would be marked "employee only." Additionally, valet service would begin at 12:00 PM until closing of all businesses, thus preventing patrons from parking on the rooftop level, which would minimize potential noise issues. Furthermore, the project has been revised to include a partial enclosure for the rear two-thirds of the rooftop parking, which would further minimize noise. Comments regarding the circumstances at the other restaurant establishments are acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate City decision makers for their consideration. Regarding noise from the proposed outdoor seating areas, the planned ground -floor outdoor patio areas along West Coast Highway and the patios along Dover Avenue would be shielded by the proposed commercial building and would be consistent with the commenter's suggestion of requiring screening walls. The outdoor patio areas would not have a direct line of sight to the northern residences above the project site, and the proposed commercial/retail building would provide noise attenuation. Furthermore, noise associated with the operation of the project is regulated through the City's Municipal Codes. These Codes include Chapter 10.26, Community Noise Control and Chapter 10.28.010, Loud and Unreasonable Noise. Project occupants and patrons would be required to comply with these municipal code limits, which would minimize noise generated by the proposed project to a level considered acceptable by the City, and consequently would not result in a significant noise impact. Additionally, subsequent approval of a use permit will be required to permit the operation of any food uses within the project, at which time the specific operational characteristics, hours of operation, seating plans, etc, will be reviewed and conditioned. R5-2 As discussed in IS/MND Section 3.3(e), the proposed project would not be the type of the facility considered to have potentially significant objectionable odors (e.g., wastewater treatment plants, dairy farms, chemical manufacturing, etc.). Potential project -related odor impacts were therefore determined to be less than significant in the IS/MND. Moreover, the potential odor from patrons smoking in the outdoor patio areas would not meet the SCAQMD Rule 402 Nuisance threshold as reproduced in the IS/MND, page 64. Smoke odors would be anticipated to dissipate due to the horizontal and vertical separation between the project and residences at the top of Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3-53 s: 3. Response to Comments bluff. Potential project -related odor impacts were therefore determined to be less than significant in the IS/MND. The applicant is also proposing, and the project has been conditioned to require, the installation of a pollution control units to filter odors generated from any restaurant kitchens. To report any future potential odor issues, the commenter should contact the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) at 1-800-288-7664. R5-3 Lighting related to the previously proposed uncovered rooftop parking was discussed in Section 1.3.1 and analyzed in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, of the IS/MND. Figure 9, Third -Level Parking Structure Lighting Plan, shows the various types of lighting that would be installed on the rooftop level of the proposed parking structure. As shown and noted on the figure and as discussed in Section 3.1(d), the design, arrangement, and orientation of the lighting fixtures would prevent light spillover into the areas beyond the parking structure. Additionally, as shown in Figure 10, Third -Level Parking Lighting Analysis, the lighting fixtures would be directed inward to the parking structure and shielded from view above. Therefore, the IS/MND determined nighttime glare to be less than significant. Note also that the project has been redesigned to enclose the rear two-thirds portion of the rooftop parking and extend the trellis feature which would further minimize potential impacts associated with parking on the top level of the structure (See Section 2.1 of this Response to Comments document). R5-4 Mechanical systems would be within enclosures that would be designed to be consistent with the architectural theme and style of the rest of the project. The project has been designed to be within the design guidelines of the City Zoning Code, General Plan, and Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework and would be reviewed by the City's Planning Commission for consistency and compliance. Regarding the comment on the cupola and spire features and the planned palm trees along West Coast Highway, as shown on Figure 6a, Figure 6c, and Figure 7 of the IS/MND, the majority of the proposed buildings' rooftop lines including the cupola would be below the top of the bluff as noted by commenter. Any encroachment into the commenter's view would be extremely minor, and likely limited to landscaping (tall trees). Subsequent to the preparation of the IS/MND, the project applicant has revised the project design reducing the height of the cupola and tower by 4 feet, and thus eliminating the need for the Modification Permit (See Section 2.1 of this Response to Comments document). Moreover, the City of Newport Beach view protection policies are limited to public views. Private, residential views are not protected. As discussed in Section 3.1(a) of the IS/MND, the proposed project would not result in significant impacts on public views. R5-5 The project has been designed to be within the design guidelines of the City Zoning Code, General Plan, and Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework and would be reviewed by the City's Planning Commission for consistency and compliance. This comment will be forwarded to the appropriate City decision makers for their consideration. Page 3-54 • The Planning Center August 2011 3. Response to Comments R5-6 As shown in Figure 6a, Figure 6c, and Figure 7 of the IS/MND, while it may be possible for a person to have an unobstructed view of the face of the bluff from the rooftop level of the parking structure, that person would not be able to see onto the plateau. Additionally, the project applicant has revised the design to include a partial enclosure over the rear two-thirds portion of the rooftop parking and extension of the trellis feature that would minimize the resident's view of activities in the parking structure. The planned ground -floor outdoor patio areas along West Coast Highway and the patios along Dover Avenue would be shielded by the proposed commercial building. Therefore, the outdoor patio areas would not have a direct line of sight to the northern residences above the project site. Furthermore, as outlined in Section 2.1 of this Response to Comments document, the ground -floor patio area along eastern side of the commercial building would be eliminated. 115-7 As described in the IS/MND project description, project implementation as proposed would require a General Plan Amendment to increase the floor area ratio (FAR), a Site Development Review to exceed the building height limitation of 31 feet. Subsequent to the preparation of the IS/MND, the applicant has revised the project as outlined in Section 2.1 of this Response to Comments document. Some of the modifications include reducing the heights of the proposed cupola and tower elements, reducing the FAR from approximately 0.70 to approximately 0.60, and adding a roof structure over the rear two-thirds portion of the parking structure to screen the vehicles and associated activity from the residents above. The Aesthetics section of the IS/MND provides a description and graphic representation of the project as proposed, and concludes that the development would improve visual and aesthetic conditions of the site and surrounding area, and would not result in significant impacts. Aesthetic impacts, including the scale of the project, are, however, subjective by nature. The discretionary power to either grant or deny the requested entitlements lies wholly with the City, These comments will be forwarded to decision makers for their consideration. R5-8 It is the applicant's preference to negotiate easements to accommodate minimal encroachments into adjacent properties as required to construct the retaining wall and facilitate site drainage. These improvements would ultimately require the approval of each adjacent property owners. If easements cannot be negotiated, alternative construction methods are feasible to avoid the encroachments. The proposed modifications outlined in Section 2.1 of this Response to Comments document would eliminate the 3 -foot wide swale along the northern property line of the project site. Mariner's Pointe Project Response to Comments City of Newport Beach • Page 3-55 370 3. Response to Comments This page intentionally left blank. Page 3-56 • The Planning Center August 2011 371 S72 Attachment No. CC 13 Additional Correspondence Received 373 S74 I)YCO, INC. RECEIVED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT •2025 Newport Blvd., Ste. 2*r (J* Mat. JA 9�?7 j 9) 6452251 FAR: (949) 645-4137 July 29, 2011 MAYOR MICHAEL HENN CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OFf�71i%ORi BEACH RE: PROPOSED PROJECT - CORNER OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY & DOVER - AUGUST 9, 2011 APPROVAL APPEAL Dear Mayor Henn: I am a property owner within the Mariner's Mile district, located at 3300 West Pacific Coast Highway, and have watched the Mariner's Mile business district flounder for years. The barriers and hurdles which have been placed in front of owners and developers has contributed largely to a stagnation along this corridor of Newport Beach, which is sad to see. Multiple attempts have been made to develop the comer of Dover and Pacific Coast Highway and each time, for one reason or another, these projects have fallen apart. Once again the City is faced with deciding whether or not to approve a project on the this site. From all that I have seen on the design and plans for this development, it appears that a responsible, attractive, and well- balanced project has been submitted to the City for approval but has been denied by the Planning Commission. I understand that on August 9, the City Council will be taking up this issue on appeal. Please accept this letter as my support for this project and recommendation that the City Council move to approve its development. This project will not only be good for Mariner's Mile, but also the City at large dad the surrounding res cnta..It'a Lime io- realize. that if ihust who are empowered with deciding what gets built in this City continue to make the effort and cost overbearing, very little or nothing will be done and we'll be left with unhealthy business districts and 20 more years of boarded -up buildings and weeds on this particular corner. Please approve this project. Very yttruly �yours, Mark R. Byers Senior Vice President cc: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner, City Hall 375 S70 Ned 424 East 16th StaeetRECEIVED Costa, Mesa, CA 92627 August 1, 2011 Mayor Michael Henn Assistant Planner Jaime Murillo City Hall City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA. 92658-8915 Re: Mariners Pointe, August 9, 2011 Council Meeting Dear Mayor Henn, 2011 AUG -3 AM 9. 12 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF INFITORT BEACH The city is planning to revitalize areas that could bring economic benefit to all its residents, beginning with Lido Marina Village. Soon after comes Mariners Mile, but you can cross it off your list if you allow the June 23, 2011 decision of the Planning Commission regarding Mariners Pointe to stand. If the comer of Dover Drive and West Coast Highway must remain as is, please spare us a parody entitled "revitalization." Your choice is nearly either/or. For that comer to be a suitable entrance to the district, a developer must have a chance to profit. Manners Pointe has already been scaled back closer to standard parking and density requirements. The parcel is not standard in size or in orientation to traffic. The variances requested are necessary. The staff report says that it will not adversely affect nearby property owners. Their demands to further diminish or eliminate the project are unreasonable. If the Council follows the Commission in heeding them, the project will die. Then who would buy the parcel? Probably no one. What would become of it? It will revert to the transitory, low-end uses it has known for decades. Mariners Mile has several such parcels in need redevelopment. No other part of the city has the potential to transform itself. The forward- looking property owners along the Mile do not envision another Miami Beach. We know that traffic and view lines to the bay and ocean concern the residents. Mariners Pointe meets their concerns. Your vote is pivotal. Only the private sector has the resources and imagination to make Mariners Mile vibrant, a place where the city's early history comes alive with visitor -serving business. We know that the Council will guide, and sometimes constrain, development. But it must not consign Mariners Mile to stagnation and decay. Sincerely, � Chairman Manners Mile Business Owners Association S77