Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout16 - AERIE Project - Staff ReportCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 16 August 14, 2007 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James Campbell, Senior Planner (949) 644 -3210, icampbell b- city.newport- beach.ca.us SUBJECT: AERIE (PA2005 -196) 201 -205 & 207 Carnation Avenue 101 Bayside Place APPLICANT: Advanced Real Estate Services, Inc. Richard Julian, President BACKGROUND The proposed project was considered by the Planning Commission at three public hearings and on May 17, 2007, the Commission recommended approval of the project provided the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was revised and recirculated before final action by the City Council. The MND has been revised and recirculated and is attached for consideration. RECOMMENDATION 1) Consider the revised draft MND (Attachment A) and any new comments received 2) Adopt the attached draft resolution adopting the draft MND and approving General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006, Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002, Newport Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TTM16882), Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 and Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 (Attachment B); and, 3) Introduce the attached draft ordinance amending the Zoning Districting Map thereby approving Code Amendment No. 2005 -009 (Attachment C). APPLICATION SUMMARY The AERIE project consists of the demolition of an existing 14 -unit apartment building and single - family residence and the construction of a new, 9 -unit residential condominium building. The project site is located bayward of the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard in Corona del Mar. The following discretionary approvals are requested or required in order to implement the project as designed: AERIE (PA2005 -196) August 14, 2007, Page 2 1. General Plan Amendment No. 2005 -006 would change the land use designation of a 584 - square -foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from RT (Two -Unit Residential) to RM (Multiple -Unit Residential, 20 dwelling units per acre). 2. Coastal Land Use Plan Amendment No. 2005 -002 would change the Coastal Land Use Plan designation of the same 584- square -foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from RH -D (High Density Residential - 50.1 to 60 dwelling units per acre) to RM -A (Medium Density Residential - 6.1 to 10 dwelling units per acre). 3. Zone Change No. 2005 -009 would change the zoning designation of the 584 - square -foot portion of 101 Bayside Place from R -2 (Two - Family Residential) to MFR (Multifamily Residential, 2178 square feet per unit). 4. Tract Map No. 2005 -004 (TT16882) combines the 584 - square -foot portion of 101 Bayside Place with 201 -205 Carnation Avenue and 207 Carnation Avenue and subdivides the air space for 9 residential, condominium units. 5. Modification Permit No. 2005 -087 would permit a 5 -foot subterranean encroachment within the 10 -foot front setback along Carnation Avenue, and a T -1" to 5' -7" above - grade and subterranean encroachment into a 10' -7" side yard setback between the project and 215 Carnation. 6. Coastal Residential Development Permit No. 2005 -002 is an application required by Chapter 20.86 of the Municipal Code to review the potential loss of affordable housing within the Coastal Zone. No low or moderate income households occupy the site and no replacement housing is required. These discretionary requests, analysis and respective findings are discussed in the Planning Commission staff reports attached as Attachment D. Facts to support the findings are contained in the attached draft resolutions recommending project approval to the City Council. DISCUSSION The record of the Planning Commission is attached and includes the three staff reports, minutes and Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723 recommending project approval. A complete discussion of the various findings and the facts that support them are contained in the attached Planning Commission reports and the attached Planning Commission resolution. The Project The site currently is developed with a 14 -unit apartment building, a single - family residence, a concrete staircase to the bay, a concrete patio at the water and a three - finger dock system. The apartment building and single - family home will be demolished to construct a new 73,418 square foot, 9 -unit condominium complex. The new structure will have a total of seven levels, three of which will be visible above the existing grade AERIE (PA2005 -196) August 14, 2007, Page 3 adjacent to the intersection of Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard and a total of 6 levels will be visible when viewed from the south and west from Newport Bay. The lowest level will be fully subterranean and will not be visible. The structure includes outdoor patios, decks and may include spas at each level. The project includes encroachments into the front and side setbacks. Most of the encroachments are subterranean. Approximately 31,524 cubic yards of earth will be excavated and removed from the site. The site currently consists of two parcels and a small portion of a third parcel (584 square feet) with a total area of 1.4 acres including approximately 11,300 square feet of land below mean low tide. Each unit will have a private storage room located in the lowest basement level. Additional amenities include a private spa, lounge, patio, locker room, exercise room, and a pool located on Level 1. Two parking spaces are provided for each unit, with a total of 5 guest and 2 golf cart parking spaces provided on Levels 1 through 4. Level 4 is approximately 3 feet below the grade of Carnation and it will house residential units, 2 two -car garages, and 3 guest spaces. All other parking is below street grade and is accessed from Carnation Avenue utilizing two automobile elevators. Public Access The Coastal Act requires the provision of maximum public access to coastal resources such as Newport Bay; however it is not required in all cases. If the resource is so sensitive or if military needs dictate or if adequate public access exists nearby, access can be waived. The Coastal Land Use Plan contains policies to be used to guide the AERIE (PA2005 -196) August 14, 2007, Page 4 analysis and the Planning Commission, Staff and the applicant were in agreement that requiring public access through or across the site is unwarranted given the steep topography, lack of lateral access to connect to, proximity of residential uses and the provision of public access nearby. Public Views An existing public view exists between the existing apartment building and the abutting house to the east from Carnation Avenue and Ocean Boulevard. The proposed design increases the distance between the buildings and opens the view slightly. The applicant has depicted a public bench and fountain at the corner on the plans to further enhance the experience. The view of the site from Begonia Park was also considered. A depiction of the project from the upper part of the park was included in the draft MND. Although the project will be in that view and a portion of the view of the water and harbor entrance will be affected, the finding is that it does not rise to the level, of a significant environmental impact nor is it inconsistent with policy to protect public views. The view of the coastal bluff, a public coastal resource, is also considered a public view pursuant to the CLUP. The project will extend further down the bluff than existing development; however, there is no significant impact to the view provided the project does not extend beyond the predominant line of existing development. Predominant Line of Existing Development Coastal bluff -face development is prohibited in the City with the exception of properties on Carnation Avenue, Pacific Avenue and Ocean Boulevard where principal structures already exist on the bluff face (CLUP Policies 4.4.3 -8 & 4.4.3 -9). The project meets these criteria and development of the bluff face is permissible provided it is within the predominant line of existing development. One purpose of the predominant line of existing development is to protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs. Staff and the applicant have disagreed as to the meaning and intent of the policies and the location of the predominant line of existing development. With the assistance of the City Attorney's office, the predominant line of existing development was determined to be a line the applicant is entitled to build to. Inherent in the determination of the location of the predominant line of existing development is the understanding that the predominant line of existing development protects the visual quality of the coast, public views and minimizes alteration of the bluff. The location of the predominant line of existing development was determined by the Planning Commission and is reflected in their recommendation. The Planning Commission identified the predominant line of existing development as a sloping line drawn between the two adjacent developments (2494 Ocean Blvd. and 215 Carnation Ave.) that might best be described as the proposed projectibluff interface line. Planning Commission's recommended line, Staffs AERIE (PA2005 -196) August 14, 2007, Page 5 line and the applicant's line are depicted in the draft MND and are on Sheets A -18 and A -19 of the plan set. A complete discussion of the issue is contained within the draft MND and Planning Commission staff reports. The Council can accept the Planning Commission's recommendation and approve the project or the Council can identify a different predominant line if the project does not meet the CLUP policy to protect and, where feasible, enhance the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone, including public views to and along the ocean, bay, and harbor and to coastal bluffs. If a line is identified that does not accommodate the proposed project, a change in design would be necessary and a continuance of this item would be warranted. Parking Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 2.9.3 -1 and Circulation Element Policy CE7.1.1 require new development to avoid the use of parking configurations or parking management programs that are difficult to maintain and enforce; and require adequate, convenient parking for residents, guests, business patrons and visitors. The below -grade parking accessed by vehicle elevators is not the most convenient and could lead to vehicle queuing within the public right -of -way. Residents, guests and service providers might be more inclined to park on the street when it is more convenient to do so. Lastly, a portion of the guest parking spaces is located below grade. Given the density proposed by the applicant, there is no efficient way to provide the required number of parking spaces without using a vehicle elevator. The elevator access directly from the street could be internalized to avoid vehicle queuing on the street; another option is to require all guest parking to be located on Level 4 to avoid guest use of elevators. The first option would require a significant redesign where the latter option might not. The Planning Commission discussed these options and dismissed them them. The Commission concluded that although the parking configuration is not perfect, it can be found consistent with policy. Construction Management Concerns related to construction and construction parking led staff to include a condition of approval requiring a detailed construction management plan for each major phase of construction. Implementation of this condition should ensure that the construction phase of the project minimizes conflicts. The condition reads as follows: Prior to commencement of each major phase of construction, the Contractor shall submit a construction staging, parking and traffic control plan for approval by the Public Works Department. This plan shall identify the proposed construction staging area(s), construction crew parking area(s), estimated number and types of vehicles that will occur during that phase, the proposed arrival /departure routes and operational safeguards (e.g. flagmen, barricades, shuttle services, etc.) and hourly restrictions, if necessary, to avoid traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, displacement of on- street parking and to ensure safety. The construction staging; parking and traffic control plan shall provide for an off -site parking lot of construction crews which will be shuttled to and from the project site at the beginning of and end of each day until such time that the project site can accommodate construction vehicle parking. Construction AERIE (PA2005 -196) August 14, 2007, Page 6 traffic routes shall be included and shall avoid narrow residential streets, unless there is no alternative, and shall not include any streets where some form of construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the proposed route. Grading and dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during the summer season (Memorial Day holiday weekend through and including the Labor Day holiday weekend). The approved construction staging, parking traffic control plan shall be implemented throughout each major construction phase. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration The initial draft MND was first circulated in February and March of this year. The first draft needed substantial revisions and was recirculated for public comment in April and May of 2007. The second draft MND was reviewed by the Environmental Quality Affairs Committee and their comments, along with other comments received, were considered by the Commission. The second draft MND was deemed insufficient by the Commission as it included a specific conclusion as to the predominant line of existing development and a mitigation measure requiring the project to be redesigned to comply. The problem was that the applicant had not agreed to the mitigation measure and the definitive identification of the predominant line of existing development did not provide for the discretionary process to potentially identify a different predominant line even though it was acknowledged that discretion was involved. If a predominant line of existing development were identified beyond the one identified by Staff, the MND might be suspect. Rather than proceeding forward, it was decided that the draft MND would be revised once again to eliminate seemingly conflicting analysis in the record and to provide the public the opportunity to comment. The final draft MND attached to this report includes a narrative describing the prior drafts, conflicting analysis, as well as changes in the project volunteered by the applicant and directed by the Commission as a result of the public participation process. The draft MND includes a new mitigation measure indicating that the project must be revised to fall within the predominant line of existing development as established by the City Council. The applicant has agreed to this mitigation measure, and with this measure in place, the project will not have the potential to create a significant impact to the environment. The revised MND was recirculated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the comment period concludes on August 12, 2007. PUBLIC NOTICE A hearing notice indicating the subject, time, place and location of this hearing was provided in accordance with the Municipal Code. Notice was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property and the site was posted a minimum of 10 days in advance of this hearing. Notice of the hearing is also provided with the agenda for the meeting, which was posted in accordance with applicable law and appears on the City's website. AERIE (PA2005 -196) August 14, 2007, Page 7 SUMMARY The Planning Commission recommends project approval subject to findings and conditions of approval. The findings and conditions are attached to the draft resolution. Should the City Council believe that any of the findings are not supported by the facts identified, a change to the project may be necessary. The central issue for the project is the predominant line of existing development. If the Council establishes a different predominant line that does not accommodate the project as designed, the applicant will need additional time to redesign the project accordingly. This same statement would be true for any other project - related issues such as the parking configuration, public views, public access, the setback encroachment or other aspect of the project. Prepared by: James Campbell, Senior PI nner ATTACHMENTS A. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration B. Draft resolution C. Draft ordinance D. Planning Commission record Submitted by: r David Lepo, PI Ong Director 1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1723 2 Staff Report dated May 17, 2007 3. Excerpt of minutes from May 17, 2007 hearing 4. Staff Report dated April 5, 2007 5. Excerpt of minutes from April 5, 2007 hearing 6. Staff Report dated February 22, 2007 7. Excerpt of minutes from February 22, 2007 hearing E. Correspondence F. Project Plans (separate)