Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout19 - Megonigal ResidenceCITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. 19 January 12, 2010 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Planning Department James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644 -3210, jcampbell(&newnortbeachca.gov SUBJECT: Megonigal Residence (PA2007 -133) 2333 Pacific Drive Modification Permit No. MD2007 -080 APPLICANT: David R. Olson, Architect for Kim and Caroline Megonigal PROJECT SUMMARY The application consists of a Modification Permit to allow planter walls and a water feature to exceed the 3 -foot height limit in the 5 -foot front yard setback in association with the construction of a new, three -story single - family dwelling. A complete set of architectural plans is attached (Attachment CC -1). RECOMMMEDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt a draft Resolution certifying the Megonigal Residence Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2009051043) and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment CC -2); and 3) Adopt a Resolution approving Modification Permit No. 2007 -080 subject to findings and conditions (Attachment CC -3). INTRODUCTION The project was approved by the Planning Commission on August 21, 2008, and Council Member Gardner appealed the decision to ensure consistency with the General Plan. Before the appeal could be heard, the City had received information that supported a determination to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the hearing was continued. The City Council remanded the project to the Planning Commission for a recommendation. Megonigal Residence January 12, 2010 Page 2 LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON-SITE Single Unit Residential — Single - Family Residential Vacant, undeveloped land Detached RS -D R -1 NORTH Two -Unit Residential (RT) Two Family Residential Residential SOUTH Multiple -Unit Residential Multiple - Family Residential RM Residential MFR EAST Parks and R_1 Begonia Park PRRecreation WEST RS -D R -1 Residential Megonigal Residence January 12, 2010 Page 3 On October 22, 2009 and November 19, 2009, the Planning Commission considered the Draft Environmental Impact Report and the proposed project. The reports to the Planning Commission and minutes of the hearing are attached (Attachment CC -4). At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Commission adopted a resolution recommending certification of the DEIR and project approval (Attachment CC -5). The proposed three -story, 3,566 square -foot residence conforms to all Zoning Code property development regulations, with the exception of the planter walls and a water feature that exceed the maximum height permissible (3 feet) for structures within the 5- foot, front yard setback. The proposed residence conforms to the 24 -foot height limit and is single story at the Pacific Drive street level (two stories were previously proposed). Vehicular access is provided from Pacific Drive at the intersection of Begonia Avenue and Pacific Drive. An encroachment permit from the City's Public Works Department for non - standard improvements within the public right -of -way is being sought for the proposed planter walls, water feature and enhanced paving for pedestrian and vehicular access. Lastly, grading of approximately 630 cubic yards of export, landscaping and utility connections necessary for construction of the proposed residence are included. AERIAL PHOTO Megonigal Residence January 12, 2010 Page 4 DISCUSSION Environmental Review Keeton Kreitzer Consulting prepared all necessary environmental documents and the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and Responses to Comments (Attachments CC -6 and CC -7 respectively). The analysis supports the conclusion that the proposed project would have less than significant impacts or no impact on: Agriculture, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, HydrologyAlVater Quality, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Service and Facilities, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities. Mitigation measures are recommended to address several of these topics. The DEIR focused upon: Aesthetics, Biological Resources, and Land Use and Planning and mitigation measures have also been identified. Each of the mitigation measures has been included as conditions of approval and are listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which is an attachment to the draft resolution certifying the DEIR. The Planning Commission deleted a typical mitigation measure necessitating the need to retain a qualified archaeological /paleontological monitor during excavation, and staff is recommending that this condition be included. The need for the condition is due to the underlying Monterey formation that is known to contain marine fossils. The Commission deleted this condition due to the understanding that archaeological /paleontological monitoring is not required for all similar projects. This is indeed the case for ministerial projects that are not subject to environmental review (most projects) but the monitoring requirement is typically applied to discretionary projects that involve excavation and that require environmental review. The elimination of the mitigation measure is not advised without substantial evidence indicating that the rock formation under the site does not contain marine fossils. Since no such information is in the administrative record, staff recommends that the archaeological /paleontological monitoring condition be included. The condition is included within the draft conditions of approval and it is within the MMRP. Public Views The policies within the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan protect public views from identified vantage points and a list of public roadways. Public Views from Begonia Park are identified as protected and views from Begonia Avenue and Pacific Drive are not. The City Council has the discretion to identify additional points or roadways by amending these policy documents through a General Plan Amend ment/CoastaI Land Use Plan Amendment should a previously unidentified public view warrant protection. Visual simulations and story poles were utilized in evaluating the impact of the project on views from Begonia Park and the impact is considered less than significant; however, the City Council will need to make the final determination. The visual Megonigal Residence January 12, 2010 Page 5 simulations within the DEIR were taken before the City removed vegetation within Begonia Park, and later it was discovered during preparation of the Responses to Comments on the DEIR that the depiction of the project was inaccurate. A new simulation was prepared by the City's consultant. The City's independent environmental consultant who prepared the DEIR evaluated the new information and concluded that although the project would have a greater impact on the view than previously identified, the impact would remain less than significant. This was primarily based upon the fact that more than half of the view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean would remain. The applicant has agreed to record a view easement restricting further development and landscaping above that depicted on the project plans. Project Alternatives Alternatives within Environmental Impact Reports are to identify feasible project alternatives that meet most of the basic project objectives while lessening or avoiding any significant impacts of the project. In this case, no significant impacts were identified and the DEIR considers several alternatives (Alternative Site, No Development, No Project, Alternative Design, and Alternative Access) with the intent to provide additional analysis for informed decision - making. The "Alternative Site" scenario assumes a similarly designated vacant site for the development of a single - family home. None presently exist and sites inland would not meet the applicant's basic project objectives, and therefore, this alternative was rejected from further consideration. A "No Development" alternative was identified and rejected from further consideration as it would require the acquisition of the site to preserve it as open space. This alternative was rejected because the City recently reaffirmed the single - family land use designation for the site with the 2006 General Plan update and neither the City Council nor other entity has expressed an interest in acquiring the site, although some residents opposed to the project are suggesting that the City acquire the property. Economic use of the site must be afforded to avoid a claim of taking. The "No Project" alternative differs from the "No Development" alternative in that it assumes that the proposed project does not go forward, but development of the site consistent with the General Plan designation would occur in the future. In that case, potential impacts associated with that future project would be similar or possibly greater than the impacts of the proposed project. The "Alternative Design" scenario assumes the elimination of the 805 - square -foot upper level, which includes the entry foyer, office area and two -car garage. Vehicular access would be provided from Pacific Drive and vehicles would park on the roof of the house. This alternative achieves all the applicant's basic project objectives although this alternative would necessitate the consideration of a variance application as the Zoning Code requires at least one parking space for single family homes to be covered. This alternative, if implemented, would reduce impacts to public views from Begonia Park and provide views from Begonia Avenue or Pacific Drive (although parked cars and possibly a carport, if not waived with a variance application, would be in that particular Megonigal Residence January 12, 2010 Page 6 view). This alternative was rejected by the Planning Commission as enclosed parking is customary with custom, single - family home construction. The "Alternative Access" scenario assumes project redesign to take access from Bayside Drive below. In simple terms, it is the current design with the upper level garage being relocated and /or redesigned making it the lowest level thereby creating a residence that is below the Pacific Drive street level. Views from Begonia Park would be impacted to a lesser degree and views from Begonia Avenue or Pacific Drive (although not protected by General Plan policy) would be preserved. Excavation of the lower portions of the site would increase necessitating the construction of significant retaining walls to accommodate the proposed structure. A new separate driveway to access this alternative would cross several utility lines and would reduce open space area within the park itself. Public Works does not support an additional driveway through the park or shared use of the existing driveway in the park that provides access to the two existing homes on Bayside Drive. According to the City's Traffic Engineer, a new driveway would not meet minimum sight distance requirements and given the higher than average traffic volume and speed, additional vehicular access either at a new driveway or from the existing shared driveway would create additional traffic hazards. The City Traffic Engineer also reviewed traffic accident information that supports his opinion that access from Pacific Drive would be safer, and therefore, preferable. Lastly, the alternative access concept would not meet several project objectives including having access from Pacific Drive and views to the harbor and ocean from all levels of the structure. Encroachment Permit As noted previously, the applicant is proposing several non - standard improvements within the right -of -way. These improvements include planters, a water feature and non- standard pavement for the driveway, sidewalk and drive approach. Public Works finds these improvements, with the exception of the non - standard pavement within the driveway itself (not including sidewalk or drive approach) inconsistent with Council Policy L -6 and recommends their elimination. A condition of approval eliminates the planter and water feature from the public right -of -way altogether and requires standard pavement/designs for the sidewalk and drive approach. The City Council retains the discretion to approve the non - standard improvements as requested by the applicant pursuant to Council Policy L -6. Modification Permit The only features that are subject to the modification permit are the planter walls and a water feature proposed to exceed the 3 -foot height limit in the 5 -foot front yard setback. Approval of the modification permit would not create an impact to public views given the location of the features, their overall height and the height of the proposed residence. The required findings and facts that support the findings are provided within the draft resolution approving the project (Attachment CC -3). Megonigal Residence January 12, 2010 Page 7 Alternative Recommendations If the City Council believes that the project's impact on public views is significant, and therefore inconsistent with General Plan and CLUP policy, the Council should either deny the application or direct the applicant to revise the project to reduce the impact on public views. Public Notice Notice of the availability of the Draft EIR was provided in accordance with CEQA. Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site including the applicant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days prior to this hearing consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item was shown on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: ,,Ames Campbell, Princ460 Planner ATTACHMENTS Submitted by: David Lepo, P an ng Director CC 1 Project plans CC 2 Draft Resolution certifying the DEIR and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program CC 3 Draft Resolution approving Modification Permit No, MD 2007 -080, including findings and conditions of approval CC 4 Planning Commission Staff Report and meeting minutes CC 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 CC 6 Draft Environmental Impact Report CC 7 Responses to Comments CC 8 Additional correspondence received P:\PAs - 2007 \PA2007 - 133 \City Council \1 -12- 201012009 -10 -22 MD2007 -080 PC rpt final.docx M aio w.io, emu, :, a vasie . sasaso.00ss � . sasasoaosa i megonigal residence mmna dial mar Nine. Simulations are simdar to as a tars conception and scaling is appmwmated. Refer to pans end elevations for more aworste infonnalmn. SImplaboms prepared by SOWdage (Me sty's consultant) $hall take precadenca . 21 w 3 CD o d o n tom' m — F � o (D '< y m a 8 m a CD d� a £ m3A3 s oa yms 3 €� m a; �n� budding square footage C VRIONED vaw�+ na u' mu. mLa sr. xovxL. VNCCNVITIMEO .]xNCI. OUTDOOR PATIO qugAV - L19 Y. tiuxM site square footage CITY OF NWOU BEACH GVPOUINfS su[ Lµr,apuLe Lmmxixi WX,EW45xLMnxEI. 41.q - a,ENAL. q]p' p5LOi4140G 991.N ss6SL. RCPoSr➢BIIIdiYaLmIRENi "R, I.J. VPOwSFn SLE6VPM IIA% vicinity map megonigal residence ►N 2M 4 5 T megonigal residence ddva, mmna del mar tea.. r 6 megonigal residence 2333 yacMC New drive, corona del mar in SRWYY PAVME Mimi oma+se.�oae 7 megonigal residence corona del mar ri front elevation .� u w, 11 residence n- rear elevation Mimi 9 megonigal residence 2333 pacific view drive, mmna del mar left elevation right elevation rV'1 residence nW section a rJ'9 2a M 11 megonigal residence section b i,J'9 2333 padOc New drwa. cmane Gel mar — .M.zom 12 s residence section c r J„' 13 m A 4 CD 0 d CL CD i STAKE ELEVATKNIS Z4 24' ABOVE EXISTING GRADE Nom: USE DIFFERENT COLOR P.IBBON ON ENVELOPE $TAXES DATUM POINT TG 12.52' (fW of curb) STAKE ELEVATIONS slaking plan - .- _ -; -- - �;� e � b � O 62.5' 82.33' 37-W /l ® 82.5' MP 0 N T I r - _ �/ _ O 85.0' TW = 32.4 W t S .. _ , ' sw (lop of well_ ypg- coenecr as srnXES M1N STRINGUNE AND RIBBON INDICATED BY —• —:_ I I, m� �� 'J /j /, 369'_" UQ.a SMIINGLIPES ARE HOW NTAL I + /i FROM THE LOWEST POLE UNLESS I I/r a' / i e,. DENOTED WITH SLOPED" M D POINT POINT D,LU- TC PDINT v ., 12.52' TW (TOP of cmb) (top of wail) III _�� / J LI DATUM POINT TC = 12.52 lop of curb) 7 1 building staking pla megonigal residence all 2333 Pacific view drive, corona del mar awuc� n, OOO6 15 \ \ s V U SCALE, E_ v \ / Y. vpiE, RECORD EPSEKUiS PRf Npi PLpilfp IF 6u ^ SURVEYOR OR ENGINEER :RP PEPAA4CNLY ' npxUnExi PapPERiY CORxfaS pR OIISCiS ILD P BEEpRE SiPR)lNG 4R +LING. IF / T NO, PRCPfRfY LINES PRE SIRIECi ip 61 PP'iR µ / 'CHPLEiMU OF BWNBPRY SURVEY AND SEiiEMG ROPERiY CORNERS. ^// v — -- - x-�G"- / J V`./ \ NJ9.06'e2'W 6B.(2' µ Ao k oEacalcnBn � - -\ Yw na,E) s. ELI 6P-mxs'' eE;. ue4 alsr. O SI L —x '0, U, VGy? N yy iED XEiER I OI. IINISN 1100. OF WRPGE RUF mi EOV[. iR i IUD F ".S IINISN SURIeC[ nM An -MLLE i0P -piPiE _ _._... RdM SURVEYING INC. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY OvNeR. LEGPL Of3Uf1 =aa:� BENG nPRK AID acss OE PRplEa- RNV 1653 Rin Meaorvgul ea vncelea. Pertlen of PeJfIC�A CR Bnv'. iK28n66 ILA it 35 Pu1.1Y h 9FlVe, Xexyu�'i Seven. CP MIEBENP IS 2JUVO iLPKf IOXSi LRIVE Pio9 u ry HILLS, Cl o2E53 ISB >E IN— Pv a Irvhe, [P 261a Gty oC XeaPO�! � P tuiU) bYb -LY[P U�lIE[ ILI, tCPLNLP10PoPiE. i -ib -2006 1 RRNSIIN[YINIJP[[ILIIfi� e RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2009051043) FOR THE MEGONIGAL RESIDENCE (PA2007- 133) LOCATED AT 2333 PACIFIC DRIVE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND STATE AND LOCAL GUIDELINES, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS THERETO, AND APPROVING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM WHEREAS, an application was filed by David: R Olson on behalf of Kim and Carolyne Megonigal, property owners, with respPot to poperty located at 2333 Pacific Drive, requesting a modification permit to exceed tfie 3- footheight limitation in the front yard setback to allow for planter walls and a water feature and WHEREAS, it was determined pu 9..4ant to the Ca Iifomla'Ei vironmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et;seq. ( "CEQA ") and th ,QEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code of Regulations, Sections 1500 et s )that the Projec .could have a significant effect on the envirOfffnent, and thltsrN° °warranted the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report EIR" WHEREAS, on May 11, 2009 the City c E)lewport Beach, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared a �Intice°3rof..Preparation ( "NOP ") oftthe EIRSand mailed that NOP to {.: public agencies, ocgamzatiisr`t5.,and per orly�� likely t% be interested in the potential impacts of the and sed Proje WHEREAS, the City ttirixafte[ caused; #o be prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Rep rf CDEIR' in accordance with,tha CEQA, which, taking into account the commefts' it received on the,, NOP tlescribed the Project and discussed the environmental impacts resulting #here from 'and on August 24, 2009, circulated the DEIR for public and agency.ommeratsn and the 45- dapublic comment period closed on October 7, 2009; and WHEREAS, , on Nove ber 19, 2009, the City of Newport Beach completed a Final Environmental lirrpairt'Report ( "FEIR "), for the project, consisting of the DEIR, comments on the DEIR,' "responses to comments on the DEIR, and minor revisions to the DEIR; WHEREAS, staff of the City of Newport Beach has reviewed the comments received on the DEIR, has prepared full and complete responses thereto, and on December 23, 2009, distributed the responses in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5; and LIKA Resolution No. WHEREAS, on a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on November 19, 2009, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the aforesaid hearing was given. The application, plans, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting and at the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution No. 1795 recommending certification of the EIR and project approval; and WHEREAS, on January 12, 2010, the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, held a duly noticed public hearing to consider: (1) the certification of the FEIR, (2) the adoption of certain findings and determinations. (3) approval of the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council has read and considered all environmental documentation comprising the FEIR, including the comments and the responses to comments, and has found that the FEIR considers all potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and is complete and adequate, and fully complies with all requirements of CEQA and of the State and local CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. 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 are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are applied to the project and are incorporated as conditions of approval. WHEREAS, 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: SECTION 1. Based on its review and consideration of the FEIR, all written communications and oral testimony regarding the Project which have been submitted to and received by the City Council, the City Council hereby certifies that the FEIR, consisting of the Draft EIR (Exhibit A), Responses to Comments (Exhibit B) and Errata (Exhibit C) for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and local CEQA Guidelines. The City Council, having final approval authority over the Project, adopts and certifies as complete and adequate the FEIR, which reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council further certifies that the Resolution No. FEIR was presented to the City Council and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in it prior to approving the Project. SECTION 2. CEQA Finding and Statement of Facts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts as shown on the attached Exhibit D entitled "CEQA Findings and Statement of Facts," which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. _Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, the City Council has reviewed and hereby adopts the "Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program" which is included as Exhibit E, which exhibit is incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. Location and Custodian of Record of Proceedings. The Planning Department of the City of Newport Beach, located at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92263, is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's decision is based, which documents and materials shall be available for public inspection and copying in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act (California Government Code Section 6250 et seq.). SECTION 5. Notice of Determination. The Planning Director shall cause the filing of a notice of determination with the County Clerk of the County of Orange and with the State Office of Planning and Research within five working days of this approval. SECTION 6. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, applicant and property owner 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 this Project including, but not limited to, the approval of the Modification Permit No. MD2007 -080 and/or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the certification of the Environmental Impact Report, the adoption of a Mitigation Program. 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 the applicant or property owner, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing such proceeding. The applicant and property owner 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 finding. 31 Resolution No. SECTION 7. Certification, Posting and Filing. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, and the City Clerk shall certify to the vote adopting this resolution and shall cause a certified copy of this resolution to be filed. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 12th day of January 2010. AYES, COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES, COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS MAYOR Keith D. Curry ATTEST: Leilani Brown, City Clerk bra Resolution No. Exhibit "A" DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2009051043) Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133) N N N 1 M 9 1 Separate bound volume can be obtained in the Office of the City Clerk and the Planning Department. Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH N.o.Ag"944949 Z0010S OO MEGONIGAL RESIDENCE PA 2007 -133 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Prepared by: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Tustin, CA 92780 August 2009 9 Resolution No. Exhibit "B" RESPONSES TO COMMENTS (SCH NO. 2009051043) Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133) Separate bound volume can be obtained in the Office of the City Clerk and the Planning Department. Responses to Public Comments Draft Environmental Impact Report &CH No. 2909044940 70010.710q5 MEGONIGAL RESIDENCE PA 2007 -133 UCBrvV.D BY PLANNING MARTMEW Nov 12 2009 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92 658 Prepared by: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Tustin, CA 92780 November 2009 M Resolution No. EXHIBIT "C" ERRATA DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2009051043) Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133) Change all references to the State Clearinghouse Number from "2009041010" to "2009051043." 2. Change "Pacific Avenue" to "Pacific Drive" where indicated below: Page 1 -1 — Line 1 in Paragraph 2 Page 1 -13 — Line 6 in first impact under "Potential Impact" (Utilities and Service Systems) Page 3 -1 — Line 2 in the third paragraph in Section 3.1 (Project Location) Page 3 -8 — Line 1 under "Traffic and Circulation" Page 3 -9 — Line 2 in the last paragraph under "Public Services and Utilities" Change `Bayview Drive" to "Bayside Drive" where indicated below: Page 4.3 -5 — Line 5 in Paragraph 3 Page 10 -6 — Line 5 in Paragraph 1 (10.3.3.1) Page 10 -6 — Line 6 in Paragraph 1 (10.3.3.2) Page 10 -7 — Line 5 in Paragraph 1 (Ability to Achieve Project Objectives) Page 10 -7 — Line 3 in Paragraph 2 (Elimination/Reduced of Significant Impacts) Page 10 -7 — Line 8 in Paragraph 2 (Elimination/Reduced of Significant Impacts) Page 10 -7 — Line 2 in Paragraph 3 (Comparative Merits) 4. Page 9 -1: The first word (Aerie) in line 3 in the last paragraph will be deleted and replaced with "Megonigal Residence." MJ EXHIBIT "D" im Resolution No. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 15091 requires that a public agency consider the environmental impacts of a project before a project is approved and make specific findings. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subdivision (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. M Resolution No. Having received, reviewed and considered the Megonigal Residence Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2009051043 (the "EIR ") for the proposed Megonigal Residence project (the "Project "), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings set forth below are adopted by the City of Newport Beach (the "City ") in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency: A. Document Format These Findings have been organized into the following sections: (1) Section 1 provides an introduction to these Findings. (2) Section 2 summarizes the environmental review and public participation process. (3) Section 3 provides the background information and the Project Description. (4) Section 4 provides the City's findings as to why an Environmental Impact Report is the appropriate document for the Project. (5) Section 5 sets forth findings regarding those environmental impacts which were determined either (i) not to be relevant to the Project or (ii) clearly not manifested at levels deemed to be significant. Section 5 addresses both Project - specific and cumulative impacts. (6) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR which, after evaluation in the EIR, the City has determined are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of project design features, standard conditions, and/or mitigation measures. Section 6 addresses both Project - specific and cumulative impacts. In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of these measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project. Where potentially significant impacts can be avoided or substantially lessened through adherence to project design features and standard conditions, these findings specify how those potentially significant impacts were so avoided or substantially lessened. (7) Section 7 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the Project. B. Custodian and Location of Records The documents and other materials which constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the Project are located at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. The City Planning Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the Project. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The environmental review process for the Megonigal Residence is summarized as follows: In accordance with CEQA requirements, the City prepared and published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The NOP was filed with the State Clearinghouse on May 11, 2009. The State Clearinghouse assigned State Clearinghouse Number (SCH No.) 2009051043 for the document. 1 Resolution No. • The NOP was distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties on May 8, 2009 for a 30 -day public review. The review period ended on June 9, 2009. The Notice of Preparation was included in the Draft EIR as Appendix A. Comments received during the NOP comment period are included in Appendix A of the DEIR. • In accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse on August 24, 2009. The Draft EIR consisted of a single volume, including technical appendices. • The Draft EIR was distributed to agencies, interested organizations, and individuals by the City of Newport Beach. A forty -five (45) day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to CEQA, which commenced on August 24, 2009 and ended on October 7, 2009. • Comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were addressed in a Response to Comments document dated November 9, 2009, as published by the City, during a noticed public hearing of the Newport Beach Planning Commission. • The Final EIR (Responses to Public Comments) was distributed to responsible agencies, agencies and individuals submitting comments on December 24, 2009, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5. • The following components comprise the Final EIR on the Megonigal Residence Project (PA2007 -133): (a) Draft EIR, dated August 2009; (b) Comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments, included as Appendix D to the Final EIR, dated October 2009; (c) Errata to the Draft EIR included as Appendix E dated November 2009. (d) All attachments, incorporations, and references to the documents delineated in items a. through c. above, and submitted to the City as part of the EIR process. The Newport Beach Planning Commission considered the Final EiR on the Megonigal Residence Project at its duly noticed public hearing on November 19, 2009. The Newport Beach City Council considered the Draft EIR and Final EIR on the Megonigal Residence Project at its duly noticed public hearing on January 12, 2010. 3. BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project Site is located at 2333 Pacific Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The Project consists of the proposed development of the 0.1 -acre Project Site (4,412 square feet) with a 3,566 square -foot single - family residence. The proposed residence will consist of three levels: 1,827 square feet on the first floor; 934 square feet on the second floor; and 805 square feet on the uppermost level (includes a 428- square foot, 2- car garage). Vehicular access is from Pacific Drive at the intersection of Begonia Avenue and Pacific Drive. In addition to the indoor living area, 1,004 square feet of outdoor patio space on the three levels is provided. The applicant is requesting approval of Modification Permit No. 2007 -080 to allow planter walls and a water feature to exceed the three -foot height limit requirement in the front yard setback. In addition, because the proposed planter walls and water feature would also encroach up to 13 feet into the Begonia Avenue right -of- way, an encroachment permit from the City's Public works Department wi1I also be required. [H Resolution No. The following discretionary approval is requested or required by the City in order to implement the project: Modification Permit (MD2007 -080) 4. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT After determining that an EIR should be prepared to evaluate the Project's potential impacts, the City distributed a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") for the EIR on May 8, 2009. The NOP provided for a 30 -day review period. The NOP was distributed to the State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research, public agencies, utility and service providers, interested persons who requested notice, and the Orange County Clerk/Recorder. The City received five (5) written responses to the NOP (refer to EIR Appendix B). The initial NOP comments were used to establish the scope of the issues addressed in the EIR, which are as follows: Land Use and Planning Aesthetics Biological Resources 5. This Section 4 describes, by issue, those potential effects of the Project which were determined not to be potentially significant and which, therefore, are not discussed in the EIR. CEQA provides that an EIR shall focus on all potentially significant effects on the environment created by a project, with an emphasis upon their severity and probability of occurrence. The City has concluded that the Project would not result in significant impacts with respect to the following: Agriculture - No Prime Farmland, Farmland of State or Local Importance, or Unique Farmland occurs within or in the vicinity of the Project Site. The Project Site and adjacent areas are designated as "Urban and Built -up Land" and "Other Land" on the Orange County Important Farmland Map. Further, neither the Project Site nor the adjacent areas are designated as prime, unique or important farmlands by the State Resources Agency or by the Newport Beach General Plan. The Newport Beach General Plan, Land Use Element designates the Project Site as "Single Unit Residential - Detached (RS -D)." The project site is zoned R -1 (Single - Family Residential. Therefore, there is no conflict with zoning for agricultural use, and the property and surrounding properties are not under a Williamson Act contract. The Project Site is not being used for agricultural purposes and, as indicated previously, is not designated as agricultural land. The Project Site and the area surrounding the Project Site are developed with residential uses. Therefore, no agricultural uses on the Project Site or within the Project Site's vicinity would be converted to non - agricultural use. No significant impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Air Quality — neither short-term (i.e., construction) nor long -term (i.e., operational) emissions associated with the proposed project would exceed SCAQMD recommended significance thresholds. These thresholds were developed to provide a method of assessing a project's individual impact significance, and also to determine whether the project's impacts could be cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would not, therefore, result In a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Long -term emission sources associated with the proposed single - family residence include vehicular exhaust from daily traffic (i.e., based on about 10 vehicle trips per day), energy consumption, site and landscape maintenance, and incidental emissions from use of a variety of household cleaning and hair care products. Estimated long -term project - related emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD daily thresholds for all categories of pollutants. The project's long -term emissions would not violate any air quality standard established by the AQMD or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. M Resolution No. Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well- being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health - related problems. The State Legislature has directed the California Air Resources Board to consult with the Public Utilities Commission in the development of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reduction measures, including limits on emissions of greenhouse gases applied to electricity and natural gas providers regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. The Legislature has also directed the California Air Resources Board to assure that such measures meet the statewide emissions limits for greenhouse gases (GHG) to be established pursuant to Assembly Bill 32. Although the project would increase the resident population on the project site, the proposed project includes only one single - family residence. The incremental increase in potential greenhouse gases associated with the proposed single - family residence would not be significant in the context of the contribution of worldwide GHG impacts. Cultural Resources — The project site is currently undeveloped. No historic resources are identified either on the site or in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. The site is no identified by the City as possessing potentially important historic resources. Therefore, project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts to historic resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Based on the degree of disturbance that has already occurred on the site and in the vicinity of the project site, project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts to human remains; no mitigation measures are required. Geology and Soils —The subject property is located in the seismically active southern California region, several active faults are responsible for generating moderate to strong earthquakes throughout the region. Due to the proximity of the site to the Newport- Inglewood Fault zone, the subject property has a moderate to high probability to be subjected to seismic and associated hazards. The maximum credible earthquake on the NIFZ is estimated to be 7.6 with a probable magnitude of 6.6 on the Richter Scale. Estimated peak ground acceleration for the subject site from an earthquake with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in a 50 -year period is 0.39g. Similarly, the maximum credible earthquake on the Elsinore- Whittier Fault is 8.0, with a probable (Richter) magnitude of 7.2. Other faults capable of producing seismic activity that could affect the subject property include the San Jacinto and San Andreas Faults and the Whittier Fault, which is a northern branch of the Elsinore Fault. In addition to these faults, the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault is located less than 1.5 to 2.5 miles below the area. This fault and the Newport Inglewood fault (concealed segment), located approximately 750 to 1,000 feet from the subject site, are considered potential causative faults in the area. Even though the project site and surrounding areas could be subject to strong ground movements, incorporation of the recommendations included in the preliminary geotechnical report and adherence to current building standards of the City of Newport Beach would reduce the potential adverse effects of ground movement hazards to a less than significant level. Based on the geologic exploration undertaken on the subject property, the site is underlain by sedimentary rocks of the Monterey Formation. These rocks do not have the potential for liquefaction. Furthermore, no groundwater is present to the depths and no loose sands or coarse silt is present. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction is less than significant. Proper design of the proposed residence will ensure that ground failure, including that associated with liquefaction, will not pose a significant hazard to the development. Hazards and Hazardous Materials — Construction activities would involve the use of materials associated with the construction of a residential building, including oil, gas, tar, construction materials and adhesives, cleaning solvents and paint. Transport of these materials to the site and use on the site would only create a localized hazard in the event of an accident or spills. Hazardous materials use, transport, storage and handling would be subject to federal, state and 2 Resolution No. local regulations to reduce the risk of accidents. Equipment maintenance and disposal of vehicular fluids is subject to existing regulations, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Given the nature of the project in terms of scope and size (i.e., single - family residence on a 4,400 square foot lot), it is anticipated that normal storage, use and transport of hazardous materials will not result in undue risk to construction workers on the site or to persons on surrounding areas. The use and disposal of any hazardous materials on the site and in conjunction with the project will be in accordance with existing regulations. With the exception of small quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, cleaning solvents, paints, etc., that are typically used to maintain residential properties, on -going operation of the site for residential use will not result in the storage or use of hazardous materials. There is no indication that the subject site has been contaminated that would adversely affect site development. Although grading and site preparation activities will expose subsurface soils and result in the generation of fugitive dust, no hazardous emissions will occur as a result of project implementation. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur. Hydrology and Water Quality — No stream or river exists on site. Existing surface runoff generated on the subject property occurs as sheet flow and drains in a southerly direction over the bluff where it enters the City's storm drain system before discharging into Newport Bay, which has been identified as containing "environmentally sensitive areas" as defined by the 2003 Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the Water Quality Control Plans for the Santa Ana Basin. The actual amount of stormwater runoff generated from the building footprint and paved areas (totaling approximately 2,300 square feet) would be insignificant. Compliance with applicable building, grading and water quality codes and policies, which are performed during the plan check stage, will ensure that surface flows can be accommodate and water quality protected. . Project implementation will result in an increase in impervious surfaces on the site, which would generate additional surface runoff. However, the post - development impervious surfaces would be limited to approximately 2,300 square feet, which would not generate a significant amount of stormwater runoff. As previously indicated, the project will be designed to incorporate on -site retention or similar features. As a result, the existing storm drainage collection and conveyance facilities in the project area have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed project. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Newport Bay is listed as an "impaired" water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, with respect to metals, pesticides and priority organics. Changes in surface runoff are anticipated as a result of the development of the subject property with one residence that could result in potential impacts to water quality. However, the project will be designed to comply with all relevant building, grading and water quality codes and policies to ensure that there will not be an adverse effect on water quality, either during construction or during the operational life of the project. Final plan check include the preparation of an adequate drainage and erosion control plan that must be found to meet applicable standards. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. The subject property is not located within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the City of Newport Beach. No homes would be placed within the 100 -year flood plain and no significant impacts are would occur. Compliance with existing regulatory programs administered by the City of Newport Beach and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). While it is impossible to anticipate all potential environmental issues that could arise on a daily basis during the course of the project, the site will be designed to provide address sediment and erosion control for both temporary (i.e,, construction) and long -term (i.e., operational) activities occurring on the subject property. In addition, site design will also address pollutants other than sediment, including those intended to control spills for hazardous materials, solid waste management, hazardous waste management, etc. A on -site retention and /or filtration or clarifiers would be required to meet M Resolution No. water quality standards. The water quality features incorporated into the project will be selected to address the main pollutants of concern for a residential project, and for the impacted water body, i.e. Newport Bay. Newport Bay is listed as an "impaired" water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, with respect to metals, pesticides and priority organics. Implementation of the water quality features by the City prior to issuance of the grading permit will ensure that this project does not violate any water quality standards during construction or over the long -term operating life of the developed site. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no additional mitigation measures are required. Noise — Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration - sensitive uses. The effect of vibration on buildings near a construction site varies depending on the magnitude of vibration, geology, 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 minor cosmetic 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. It is anticipated that vibration levels generated by construction vehicles and during such activities as caisson drilling and excavation may exceed the Federal Transportation Agency annoyance threshold (i.e., 78 VdB) for residential uses. Therefore, potential short-term impacts from vibration- induced annoyance may occur at residences within 50 feet of the most vibration intensive construction equipment. However, these temporary annoyances will be less than significant and would cease upon completion of the gradinglexcavation and foundation. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Development of this property with a single - family residential dwelling unit would not result in any changes in land use that include significant new noise sources. Long -term noise associated with outdoor recreation activities and vehicular traffic generated by one home would be minor and compatible with adjacent and nearby residential uses. Long -term noise levels would not be expected to increase as a result of the additional vehicular trips when compared to existing conditions. Therefore, no significant long -term noise impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. The project site is not within an airport land use plan nor is the site within two miles of an airport or private airstrip. Noise in the vicinity of the project site associated with aircraft operations occurring at John Wane Airport are below 60 dBA CNEL and therefore, future residents will not be subjected to excessive noise levels. Population and Housing — The Project will result in an increase of one dwelling unit, consistent with the land use designation (RS -D). The proposed project is consistent with the adopted land use designation and zoning applicable to the subject property. Development of the site with one single - family residence in accordance with the adopted long -range plans for the subject property would not result in significant growth and, furthermore, would not result in the potential for unanticipated growth because the project is located in an area that is virtually built out. As "in -fill' development, construction of the proposed project would not necessitate the implementation of new infrastructure such as major roadway improvements and/or the extension of infrastructure that could induce unanticipated growth and development. All of the infrastructure, including sewer and water facilities, storm drains, roadways, etc., exist in the immediate vicinity of the project site and have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. Therefore, no significant growth- inducing impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. In addition, the increase of one dwelling unit will not contribute significantly to the cumulative loss of homes and /or displacement of occupants in the City. Together with the approved and planned development identified in EIR Table 9 -1 (the "Cumulative Projects "), a substantial increase in residential development is anticipated in the City, including 974 dwelling units alone on the Conexant and Koll properties in the Airport area. Other smaller residential developments are also 44Z Resolution No. proposed in the City, including the Aerie condominium project and other single - family and duplex dwelling units in the area. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on the reduction of housing in the City is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. The existing residential development is not included in the City's inventory of affordable housing. No low- and /or moderate - income households occupy the Project Site and, therefore, none would be displaced as a result of Project implementation. Further, proposed single - family residence will not adversely affect the jobs /housing balance because the Project will be consistent with the City's long -range plans, which are the basis of the jobs /housing projections. Therefore, Project implementation will not result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to population and housing. Recreation - The project will result in the construction of only one single - family residence on the site on the 4,400 square foot lot. Although residents of the proposed project would occasionally visit local and regional parks and beaches, use of those public facilities by the future residents would not represent a substantial change in the intensity of usage and the impact would not result in substantial physical deterioration of those park areas. The proposed project does not include any recreational facilities. Development of the site with one single - family residence will not require the construction of new or the expansion of existing recreational facilities in the City of Newport Beach given the small increase in population. On a cumulative basis, although the generation of additional residents associated with the Cumulative Projects could result in a demand for recreational amenities, the Project's incremental contribution to the cumulative demands created by the Cumulative Projects is not cumulatively considerable because only one dwelling unit is proposed for the Project, consistent with the City's General Plan projections. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on recreational resources is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. Mineral Resources - Neither the Newport Beach General Plan (Recreation and Open Space Element) nor the State of California has identified the already - developed Project Site or environs as a potential mineral resource of Statewide or regional significance. No mineral resources are known to exist and, therefore, Project implementation will not result in any significant impacts to regional or state -wide important resources. Furthermore, the Newport Beach General Plan does not identify the project environs as having potential value as a locally important mineral resource site. The proposed demolition and construction will not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource site and, therefore, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. On a cumulative basis, the Project, the Project's incremental contribution to the impacts to mineral resources created by the Cumulative Projects is not cumulatively considerable because the Project does not result in the loss of any important mineral resources. Although the Project will require the use of mineral resources (e.g., sand and gravel, wood, etc.), many are renewable and /or sustainable. Additionally, with the exception of the Newport Banning Ranch, which has been a producing oil field for several years, many of the sites on which development of the Cumulative Projects is proposed are either already developed (e.g., Conexant/Koll, Newport Beach Country Club, etc.) or are located in areas of the City that do not possess mineral resources. Therefore, there appears to be no significant cumulative impact to mineral resources from the Cumulative Projects. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on mineral resources is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. Public Services: Fire Protection - Fire protection facilities and service to the Project Site are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). In addition to the City's resources, the NBFD also maintains a formal automatic aid agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority 0 Resolution No. (OCFA) and all neighboring municipal fire departments to facilitate fire protection in the City should the need arise. The Project will result in the addition of one single - family residence on a currently vacant lot that is surrounded by existing residential development. As a result, there will not be a significant increase in residential units or persons requiring emergency services. The Project must comply with the City's current building and fire codes and is replacing a decades old structure which is not consistent with today's building codes. The Project includes all necessary fire protection devices, as required by the Newport Beach Fire Department and Uniform Fire Code. Adequate water supplies and infrastructure, including fire hydrants, exist in the vicinity of the Project, and there is no requirement for other new facilities or emergency services. A code compliance analysis will be conducted by City staff to ensure that adequate water pressure and related features required by the City are provided to ensure that the project complies with the CFC and related City codes. Adequate water supplies and infrastructure, including fire hydrants, exist in the vicinity of the project, and there is no requirement for other new facilities or emergency services. On a cumulative basis, the less- than - significant potential impacts associated with the Project will not alter the ability of the Newport Beach Fire Department to provide an adequate level of service to the Project, even when considering the potential development of the Cumulative Projects, because the Project Site is located in a residential neighborhood that is currently provided fire service. Development of the Cumulative Projects will also be evaluated by the Newport Beach Fire Department to ensure that adequate levels of service can be provided. These projects are within the long -range projections of the City's General Plan and, therefore, would not adversely affect the City's ability to provide an adequate level of protection. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on the provision of fire services is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. Public Services: Police Protection - The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) is responsible for providing police and law enforcement services within the corporate limits of the City. The Police Department headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, approximately two miles northeast of the Project Site. The NBPD currently has a ratio of 1.91 sworn officers for each 1,000 residents in the City. This ratio is adequate for the current population. Police and law enforcement service in the City is provided by patrols with designated "beats." Development of the site with one single - family residence will not require an expansion of local law enforcement resources and, therefore, will not require the construction of new law enforcement facilities. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. On a cumulative basis, the potential (less than significant) impacts associated with the Project would not alter the ability of either the Newport Beach Police Department from providing an adequate level of service to the Project Site, even when considering the Cumulative Projects, because the Project Site is currently provided police service. The potential development of the Cumulative Projects would also be evaluated by the Newport Beach Police Departments to ensure that adequate levels of service can be provided. The Cumulative Projects are within the long -range projections identified in the City's General Plan and, therefore, would not adversely affect the City's ability to provide an adequate level of protection. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on the provision of police services is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. Public Services: Schools - The provision of educational facilities and services in the City of Newport Beach is the responsibility of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. Residential and non - residential development is subject to the imposition of school fees. Payment of the State - mandated statutory school fees is the manner by which potential impacts to the District's educational facilities are mitigated. Government Code Section 65996 significantly limits the scope of evaluation of school facilities impacts under CEQA. Despite this limitation, the following information has been evaluated regarding the Project's potential generation of school age children and is provided for informational purposes. 7� Resolution No. At the present time, therefore, this property has no impact on the Newport Mesa Unified School District because it is undeveloped. It is estimated that, upon Project completion and occupancy, only one student would be generated by the Project. New or expanded school facilities would not be required to provide classroom and support space for the project's school age child. However, the Project is subject to the payment of any required school fee to the school district pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code in order to offset the incremental cost impact of expanding school resources to accommodate the increased student enrollment associated with new residential development. With the payment of the mandatory school fees, no significant impacts would occur as a result of Project implementation. Similarly, with the payment of the mandatory school fees, no potentially significant cumulative impacts would occur as a result of Project implementation. Public Services: Other Public Facilities — Although development of the site with one single - family residence will occur, the potential increased demand for other public services Is anticipated minor and there would be no need to construct any new public facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. On a cumulative basis, the potential increase in residents generated by the Cumulative Projects could result in an increased demand for other public facilities. However, because the Project would result in the development of only one dwelling unit, the Project's incremental effect on other public facilities will not be cumulatively considerable. These fees are used by the City to provide recreational facilities and amenities that serve the residents of Newport Beach. Therefore, the Project will not have a significant cumulative effect on other public facilities. Traffic and Circulation — There are no CMP roadways in the project vicinity and, as noted above, project - related traffic would have a negligible effect (i.e., 10 tripsiday) on traffic conditions. The proposed residential structure is under the 24 -foot height limit and would not encroach into any aviation - related air space. The proposed project is located approximately 4.5 miles from John Wayne Airport and is not located within an area that is affected by aircraft operations. This project would have no effect on the volumes of air traffic occurring at John Wayne Airport or any other airports in the region. During the construction phases, a variety of construction vehicles, including large delivery trucks, concrete pumpers, dump trucks, and a variety of passenger vehicles, will travel to and from the subject property. On some occasions, there will be a number of medium and heavy trucks that could add to local congestion levels and possibly affect through - traffic for short periods of time. Vehicular sight distance of vehicles entering and exiting the site must be found consistent at the time of building permit issuance with Standard Drawing 110 -L prescribed in the Public Works Design Manual to ensure safe vehicular access. Compliance with this standard will ensure that the project driveway will be designed safely. Traffic associated with the proposed single - family residence would include the same automobile trip characteristics typically associated with similar residential development in the project area and would be compatible with the existing mixture of vehicular traffic. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. The Newport Beach Fire Department will review the site plan and will conducted a code compliance analysis with the City's Building Department to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided to the residence. During construction, portions of Pacific Avenue fronting the project site will be disrupted by construction activities including construction vehicles. However, the use of flagmen would be required to facilitate circulation in the area. Pacific Avenue will remain open to vehicular and emergency traffic. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. During the construction phases, temporary displacement of public on- street parking may occur caused by construction crew members and possibly while large truck delivery and pick up of Resolution No. machinery and construction materials. This will occur during construction and will cease when construction concludes. The project provides parking in accordance with the Zoning Code (two enclosed spaces). No public parking is presently afforded along the curb in front of the project site as it is painted as a "red curb;" therefore, construction of the proposed driveway approach will not displace any existing public parking. Utilities - Wastewater generated by the Project will be disposed into the existing sewer system and will not exceed wastewater treatment standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water demand and wastewater generation will not increase significantly due to the increase in the number of occupants who will reside on the Project Site when the home is constructed. The Project will connect to existing water and wastewater facilities in the adjacent streets. No expansion of these facilities is necessary due to existing capacity and the addition of only one single- family dwelling unit. Future water demand based on the General Plan projections would not be increased significantly and would be within the long -range projections anticipated in the General Plan. Similarly, the Project will not result in a significant increase in solid waste production because only one dwelling unit will be constructed on the project site. Existing landfills are expected to have adequate capacity to service the Project. Solid waste production will be picked up by either the City or a commercial provider licensed by the City. All federal, state, and local regulations related to solid waste will be adhered to through this process. On a cumulative basis, the incremental increase in the demand for utilities as a result of the proposed project is within the long -range projections anticipated for the project site. When compared to other Cumulative projects proposed and approved in the City, the addition of one dwelling unit on the site would not represent a significant contribution to cumulative impacts. Therefore, the incremental effect of the Project on utilities is not cumulatively considerable and, when associated with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. 6. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The following potentially significant environmental impacts were evaluated in the Initial Study and EIR. In each instance, that evaluation demonstrated that as a result of either compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, the identification of feasible mitigation measures, and/or a combination of one or more of these factors, the potentially significant impact had been avoided or reduced to a level of less than significance. Therefore, for these effects and in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (Note: For the purposes of these Findings, Section 21081(a)(1)'s words "mitigate or avoid" are deemed to have the same meaning as Section 15091(a)(1)'s words "avoid or substantially lessen" and will be used interchangeably.) Because standard conditions, or regulations are considered "incorporated into the Project," where environmental effects have been avoided or reduced to less than significance solely due to these measures, no significant impact will be found and, therefore, no "mitigation" is required. Nonetheless, the City will, within these findings, include findings explaining how such measures are proposed to be incorporated within the Project with the result that the applicable environmental effect has been avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance. Where, on the other hand, a significant impact is identified despite the inclusion of project design features and the applicability of existing laws, codes, and statutes, that significant impact will be identified and, where feasible, mitigation shall be proposed. 6.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? q16 Resolution No. Finding: The City determines that the project will not conflict with the adopted General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, or any policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Discussion: As demonstrated in EIR Table 4.1 -1 (City's General Plan), EIR Table 4.1 -2 (Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan), and EIR Table 4.1 -3 (Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide), the Project is consistent with the City's Land Use Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the City's General Plan, the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, and with the long -range goals, policies and objectives adopted by the City in the General Plan Update. The Project is also compatible with the existing land uses in the area. Tables 4.1 -1, 4.1 -2, and EIR Table 4.1 -3, are incorporated into these findings by reference. Further, implementation of the standard condition identified for the Project (i.e., comply with the zoning district regulations, California Building Code, and other regulatory requirements) will ensure that no significant impacts will occur. No significant long -term unavoidable adverse land use impacts will occur as a result of Project implementation. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with the Newport Beach Planning and Zoning Code (Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code)? Finding: The City determines that the project will not conflict with the Planning and Zoning Code. Discussion: Development of the Project Site as proposed complies with the zoning district regulations and development standards prescribed for the R -1 zoning district. Therefore, no significant conflicts with the zoning would occur and no mitigation measures are required. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Finding: The City determines that the project will not conflict with the Natural Community Conservation Plan adopted for the area.. Discussion: The Newport Beach General Plan identifies the City's open space and conservation areas. However, because the area of the City in which the subject property is located is nearly completely developed, natural open space and habitat are limited in the project environs. The subject property, which encompasses approximately 0.1 acre (4,412 square feet) that is currently undeveloped, is located within the limits of the Central /Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of Orange. The NCCP is intended to ensure the long -term survival of the coastal California gnatcatcher and other special status coastal sage scrub (CSS) dependent plant and wildlife species in accordance with state - sanctioned NCCP program guidelines. The biological surveys conducted on the subject property revealed that although a small area encompassing 0.006 acre (approximately 261 square feet) of coastal bluff scrub exists on the site. However, the area is characterized as having a low overall habitat value as a result of habitat fragmentation, influence of surrounding human activities, and because it supports limited long -term habitat value. Furthermore, no federal- or state - listed or otherwise sensitive species identified as having a potential to occur on the property were observed during the biological surveys conducted for the project. Based on the findings of the project biologist, the habitat does not qualify as an ESHA under the Coastal Act, and therefore, cannot be afforded protection under the Newport Beach LCP /CLUP or the City's General Plan. As a result, the loss of the low quality, fragmented habitat would not conflict with the Central/Coastal NCCP. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: The City determines that project implementation will not result in the division of an established community. Discussion: The project proposes the landform alteration that would accommodate one single - family residence on the 4,412 square foot lot. The site is bounded by Pacific Drive and Begonia Avenue. As indicated previously, the area surrounding the subject property is developed with single - family residential N1 Resolution No. development on three sides; Begonia Park abuts the site on the north and east. Although development of the site as proposed would change the character of the site by introducing a single - family home on the vacant property, development of the site as proposed would not adversely affect adjacent properties, which also support single - family homes. In particular, no design component or feature of the project would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or significantly change an established community. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in substantial or extreme land use incompatibility? Finding: The City determines that the proposed project is compatible with the existing development and would not result in an extreme land use incompatibility. Discussion: Development of the site, which is currently vacant, would not result in a significant land use conflict. As previously indicated, the proposed single - family residence is consistent with the land use designation and zoning adopted for the site. The introduction of a single - family residence would be consistent and compatible with the existing residential development in the area, which is characterized by single - family and two- family residences. Furthermore, with the exception of the request for a modification permit that would allow a wall to extend above the three -foot height limit in the front yard setback, the proposed structure complies with the development standards (e.g., setbacks, building height, lot coverage, etc.) prescribed for the R -1 zoning district. Extension of the wall above the three -foot height limit would not result in substantial visual impacts. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (6) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in incompatible land uses in an aircraft accident potential area as defined in an airport land use plan? Finding: The City determines that project will not result in a conflict with the defined airport land use plan or result in incompatible land use in an aircraft accident potential area. Discussion: The project area is not located within two miles of any existing public airport. John Wayne Airport, which is located approximately 4.5 miles northwest of the subject property, is the nearest aviation facility. No portion of the project site is located within the accident potential area of such a plan. Further, the subject property is not located within two miles of a public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip. Development of the subject property as proposed would neither affect nor be affected by aircraft operations at such a facility that would generate noise in excess of regulatory standards. Therefore, no significant land use impacts would occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. (7) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Land Use and Planning impact? Finding: The City determines that the project will not result in a cumulative land use and planning impact. Discussion: Although the Project Site is currently developed, it is identified for development in the City's adopted long -range plans. The Project is consistent with the applicable goals, policies, and objectives of the Newport Beach Land Use Element and other general plan elements, as well as the City's CLUP. No design component or feature of the Project would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or significantly change an established community. In addition, the Project Site is located within the limits of the Central /Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of Orange. Although the biological surveys conducted on the Project Site revealed that some native species exist on the bluff property, potential impacts to those species resulting from Project implementation would not be significant due to the low habitat value caused by limited species diversity and fragmentation, the influence of surrounding human activity, and because natural functions have been compromised by the surrounding human influences. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to land use will occur as a result of Project implementation. M Resolution No. 6.2 AESTHETICS (1) Potential Impact: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not substantially damage scenic resources. No important view or aesthetic amenity would be destroyed or permanently affected by project implementation. Although no mitigation measures are required, the following measure, which requires the dedication of a view easement, will ensure that views through the site would be preserved. A mitigation measure was prescribed to minimize future potential aesthetic impacts: MM 4.3 -1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate in perpetuity a view easement over the "Outdoor Room" identified on the approved plans and all open space areas on the project site that shall restrict the maximum height of landscaping and accessory structures to that of the top of the guardrails of the "Outdoor Room." The view easement shall be a three - dimensional space projected vertically from a horizontal plane at the elevation of the top of the guardrails of the "Outdoor Room' and horizontally to all property lines. The restrictions of the view easement shall not apply to the building and structures depicted on the approved project plans or to patio furniture. The form and legal description of the view easement shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Discussion: The visual simulations included in the Draft EIR (refer to Exhibits 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2) illustrate the existing and post - development scenarios with vegetation that existed on the slope below Begonia Avenue (below the lower bench in Begonia Park) prior to its removal by the City in March 2009. As is evident in those prior simulations, the vegetation that existed along the slope blocked a substantial portion of views of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean from both the lower and upper benches when these simulations are compared to the views that exist after the vegetation was removed. In order to address the change that has occurred since the vegetation was removed; a new visual simulation was created from approximately the same lower bench location depicted in Exhibit 4.3 -1. In addition, the new visual simulation depicting the proposed Megonigal residence is based on the story poles that were erected on the site in August of 2008, in order to more accurately illustrate the effect that the proposed project would have on the view, both before and after construction. The existing view from the lower bench location illustrated in the attached exhibit reveals an enhanced view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula since the vegetation that existed on the intervening slope was removed, compared to that illustrated in Exhibit 4.3 -1 in the Draft EIR. This southwesterly view from Begonia Park (specifically the Lower Bench) encompasses a variety of features including residential development and open space located northwest of Carnation Avenue, residential development on eastern end of the Balboa Peninsula, waters of Newport Harbor, the Pacific Ocean (including the horizon) and residential development along Pacific Drive and Begonia Avenue. Similar to the views prior to the vegetation removal, landscaping "filters" the view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean especially on the right side of the image depiction. As a result, the view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean is not completely free of obstructions. The most significant obstruction affecting this view is the large tree located in front of the Megonigal property. Nonetheless, the portion of view that is the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean that is now visible from this Begonia Park vantage point since the removal of the vegetation is nearly three times that of the area previously reflected in Exhibit 4.3 -1. With the removal of the vegetation, this portion of the view area now extends from the bluff on the south (i.e., left side of the exhibit) to just beyond the large tree in front of the project site near the Begonia Avenue /Pacific Drive corner. These are the important elements that comprise the view from this vantage point. In the new visual simulation described above, the proposed Megonigal residence is more prominent than depicted in Exhibit 4.3 -1. The easterly portion of the structure (i.e., from the large tree in front of the project site and extending to the easterly end of the property) is now visible from the lower bench. This portion of the structure was previously blocked by the vegetation that existed on the slope before it was removed. In addition, the increased visibility of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean noted above that was previously not visible due to the vegetation that was removed, would largely be blocked instead by El Resolution No. the proposed residence. Based on the new visual simulation, it would appear that the implementation of the proposed project would result in the loss of approximately 35 percent of the expanded view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean, including the horizon, which would also be blocked by the proposed residence. The City has not adopted thresholds for determining the significance of visual impacts. Without an established threshold, such a determination is based on the subjective "parameters" in the City's environmental checklist (i.e., will the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or will the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings) and adopted General Plan view preservation policies. As indicated above, the view from Begonia Park would be altered by the introduction of the proposed residence into the overall viewshed. Although the proposed residence will be more prominent within the overall view and a portion of the view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean would be blocked with the development of the site as proposed, a substantial portion of the view that includes the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean will remain unobstructed from the public vantage point in the park. Additionally, the overall view includes elements of the built environment including residential development and the proposed residence is consistent with elements of the surrounding built environment. Given that a majority of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean view components will remain in the overall view after the home is constructed, the overall quality of the view will not be impacted significantly even with a reduction of the view's focal points. However, because the majority of the view's focal points (i.e., about 65 percent) would be preserved, the project is considered to be consistent with the intent of the City's adopted policies, which seek to achieve view preservation, even though the view will be altered by the construction of the home. No further loss of views to the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean would occur as a result of the proposed project. As previously indicated, the project was redesigned to eliminate one level of the proposed structure, which is below the maximum height limit permitted. In addition, a view easement will be dedicated (in perpetuity) above the building and all open space areas to ensure that no additional impacts to the views from Begonia Park would occur. Additional landscaping may also be incorporated into the landscape plan in order to "deemphasize" the appearance of the proposed structure within the Begonia Park viewshed. The proposed project represents a balance between private property /development rights and complying with the City's policies that are intended to protect the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. Therefore, potential visual impacts resulting from project implementation are considered to be less than significant. As described in EIR Section 4.1 (Land Use /Relevant Planning), the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan addresses aesthetic resources, with emphasis on coastal views. The City has identified several policies that are intended to guide development and avoid potential significant visual impacts to important coastal resources, including coastal bluffs, the harbor, and associated natural features. EIR Table 4.1 -1 summarizes the relationship of the Project with the applicable policies adopted with the Natural Resources Element that address aesthetics and visual resources. In addition, EIR Table 4.1 -2 in EIR Section 4.1 provides a summary of the relationship of the Project with the relevant aesthetics policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan. As revealed in the analysis presented in those tables, the Project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Natural Resources Element and the CLUP. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not substantially damage scenic resources. MM 4.3 -1 was included to avoid future potential visual impacts. Discussion: See discussion of Potential Impact No. 1, above. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Project Site and its surroundings? 50 Resolution No. Finding: The City determines that the Project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Project Site and its surroundings. MM 4.3 -1 was included to avoid future potential visual impacts. Discussion: See discussion of Potential Impact No. 1, above. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. Discussion: The Project has been designed to minimize glare by incorporating building materials that are not conducive to the creation of glare. As a result, no significant glare impacts from building finish materials anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (6) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative aesthetics impact? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in a cumulative visual impacts. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: Of the Cumulative Projects identified in EIR Table 9 -1, only one project, the Aerie Project that was approved by the City, would also potentially affect the aesthetic character of the Project area. The visual simulations prepared for the Project revealed that Project - related impacts would be less than significant from the Begonia Park Public View Point vantages as a result of the Project. Construction of the Megonigal residence at the Pacific Avenue location would virtually eliminate the entire harbor and more distant ocean view, including the Project Site, from this vantage. However, this location is not identified in the City's General Plan as a Public View Point. 6.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project have a substantial adverse effect either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in a substantial adverse effect on sensitive biological resources, including sensitive or special status species. Discussion: Based on the biological survey conducted by Chambers Group, the composition of the vegetation supported on the subject property is dominated by disturbed non - vegetated areas, ornamental species and weedy exotic species. Approximately five percent of the site (261 square feet) supports low quality coastal bluff scrub habitat. As indicated in the Robert Hamilton "biological observation," this habitat is recognized by the California Department of Fish and Game as a rare plant community. However, as documented in the biological survey conducted on the subject property, overall habitat value of the coastal bluff scrub occurring on the site is low due to habitat fragmentation, the influence of surrounding human activities, and because natural functions have been compromised by the surrounding human influences. Furthermore, no federal- or state - listed or other sensitive species were identified as having a potential to occur on the property. Therefore, the coastal bluff scrub habitat occupying the site does not qualify as an ESHA under the Coastal Act and, therefore, cannot be afforded protection under the Newport Beach LCP /CLUP or the Natural Resources Element of the City's General Plan as suggested in the Hamilton "biological observation." No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. 45i Resolution No. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (including protections provided pursuant to Section 1600 at seq.)? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Discussion: A survey conducted on the subject property revealed that only three habitat types occupy portions of the site, including disturbed (i.e., areas that are either devoid of vegetation such as dirt roads or those areas that have a high percentage of non - native weedy species), disturbed /ornamental (i.e., areas dominated by escaped or planted ornamental species with a high presence of non - native weedy species), and coastal bluff scrub (i.e., areas that support approximately 15 total native shrubs). No riparian habitat was identified on the site. No significant impacts to riparian habitat and/or species are anticipated as a result of project implementation; no mitigation measures are required. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project 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? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: No riparian habitat exists on the subject property and no wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act occur on the site. Project implementation will not result in any potential adverse affects to either wetlands or riparian species. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project 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? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not impact the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. The City also finds that that the Project will not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Discussion: Although the project site is currently vacant, the surrounding areas are developed and no migratory wildlife corridors occur on site or in the immediate vicinity of the project site that would be affected by development of the subject property. As a result, the proposed project will not interfere with resident, migratory or wildlife species. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: The City determines that the project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources . Discussion: No native trees exist on the subject property that would be protected, either as a result of adopted policies or other resources agency requirements. Although the subject property and environs are not identified on Figures NR1 and NR2 in the Natural Resources Element, which identify important biological resources and environmental study areas, respectively, in the City, several policies articulated in the Newport Beach General Plan address biological resources, including NR 10.1 (resource protection, NR 10.4 (new development siting and design). NR 10.5 (significant or rare biological resources, etc. The analysis included in Tables 4.1 -1 and 4.1 -2 document the projects consistency with the applicable General Plan and CLUP policies. !''ate Resolution No. (6) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in a substantial adverse effect on an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, NCCP, or other approved conservation plan. Discussion: There are no local, regional or state habitat conservation plans that would regulate or guide development of the project site. The subject property is located on a coastal bluff, which is not included in either a Habitat Conservation Plan or a Natural Community Conservation Plan. Although coastal bluff scrub habitat has been identified on the subject property, that habitat encompasses only 216 square feet, which is considered to be of low value and it is not connected or associated with any larger area of similar habitat and would not likely support any California coastal gnatcatchers due to its size and location. (7) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Biological Resources impact? Finding: The City determines the implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant cumulative impacts to biological resources. Discussion: Project implementation will not result in potential impacts to biological resources, as indicated in Section 4.2. Although a small area of coastal bluff scrub habitat exists on the subject property (i.e., 261 square feet), the habitat has been characterized as "low qualityllow value" habitat and does not support any sensitive species. Furthermore, no sensitive plant or animal species occur on the site that would be adversely affected by the proposed project. Due to the low value of the coastal bluff scrub habitat, its degraded condition associated with human activities and disturbance, and lack of species diversity, it does not meet the criteria established in the Coastal Act and the City's General Plan for ESHAs. Therefore, the elimination of this habitat, when considered with other projects listed in Table 9 -1, is not significant. 6.4 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Potential Impact: Will the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant traffic and circulation impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. The following mitigation measure is proposed to minimize the level of impact associated with temporary construction traffic: MM -7 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, which shall address issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, potential displacement of on- street parking, and safety. 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. If necessary, the construction staging, parking and traffic control plan shall provide for an off -site parking lot for construction crews which will be shuttled to and from the project ILL Resolution No. site at the beginning and end of each day until such time that the project site can accommodate off - street construction vehicle parking. Until that time, construction crews shall be prohibited from parking in the adjacent residential neighborhood. The plan shall identify all construction traffic routes, which shall avoid narrow residential streets unless there is no alternative, and the plan shall not include any streets where some form of construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the proposed route. Dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during weekday peak hour traffic periods. The approved construction staging, parking traffic control plan shall be implemented throughout each major construction phase. Discussion: Short-term traffic impacts are those resulting from site preparation (i.e., grading and site preparation) and construction activities. With the exception of heavy trucks traveling to and from the site in the morning and afternoon to be used during site preparation and construction that occurs on -site, the number of vehicle trips generated by the project will be small. During the construction phase, there will be periods of time when heavy truck traffic would occur that could result in some congestion on Pacific Drive and nearby local /residential street system. It is estimated that a total of 52 heavy trucks would be generated as a result of the grading that would be necessary to haul the estimated 630 cubic yards of soil export from the site. However, once grading has been completed, the number of heavy trucks entering and leaving the project area would be limited to those transporting equipment and materials to the site. Other construction - related traffic impacts are associated with vehicles carrying workers to and from the site and medium and heavy trucks carrying construction materials to the project site, which may result in some minor traffic delays; however, potential traffic interference caused by construction vehicles would create a temporary/short-term impact to vehicles using neighboring streets in the morning and afternoon hours. Therefore, aside from potentially minor impacts resulting from the increase in traffic that will occur as a result of construction - related traffic (e.g., construction materials, construction workers, etc.), no significant short-term impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. Nonetheless, the construction traffic impacts would be adequately addressed through the implementation of a Construction Traffic Control Plan. 6.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Potential Impact: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15604.5 or result in the destruction of a paleontological resource? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impacts to cultural and paleontological such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. The following mitigation measure is proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with cultural and /or scientific resources to a less than significant level. MM -1 A qualified archaeological /paleontological monitor shall be retained by the project applicant who will be present during the grading and landform alteration phase. In the event that cultural resources and /or fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground - disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. Any artifacts and /or fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. M Resolution No. Discussion: The subject site is undeveloped; however, the area surrounding the site (with the exception of Begonia Park) has been significantly altered by grading to accommodate the existing development located on the bluff and elsewhere in the vicinity of the subject site. No known archaeological resources are known to be present in the project area. Project implementation includes excavation of the property to accommodate the proposed single - family residence. It is unlikely that the disturbance of the subsurface soils would result in significant impacts to cultural resources due to the site alteration associated with the existing development in the area and the nature of the bedrock materials that underlie the site (i.e., marine). Although no significant impacts to cultural resources are anticipated, an archaeological monitor will be present during grading (to ensure that if any cultural materials are encountered, appropriate measures will be implemented in accordance with existing City policies. Therefore, no significant impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are recommended. Although the project site is currently vacant, the surrounding areas, including the bluff on which the existing homes are located, have been altered to accommodate development that includes predominantly residential uses. The site contains the Monterey Formation deposits, which are known to contain abundant fossilized marine invertebrates and vertebrates. The presence of recorded fossils in the vicinity of the project areas exists. Like other sites in the City that are underlain by the Monterey Formation, the site should be considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity and fossils may be encountered during grading and excavation. A mitigation measure in accordance with existing City policy has been included in the event that such resources are encountered during grading /excavation activities. 6.6 SOILS AND GEOLOGY (1) Potential Impact: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant soils and geology impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. The following mitigation measure is proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with cultural and /or scientific resources to a less than significant level. MM -3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a soils engineering report and final geotechnical report to the City's Building Department for approval. The project shall be designed to incorporate the recommendations included in those reports that which address site grading, site clearing, compaction, caissons, bearing capacity and settlement, lateral pressures, footing design, seismic design, slabs on grade, retaining wall design, subdrain design, concrete, surface drainage, setback distance, excavations, cut -fill transitional zones, planters and slope maintenance, and driveways. Discussion: A stability analysis was performed on the subject property by Borella Geology, Inc., as reflected in the preliminary geotechnical report (Borella Geology, March 20, 2007). Based on that analysis, it was determined that the orientation of the bedrock on the site is dipping into the slope, which is the preferred orientation for maintaining slope integrity. However, surficially, the cliff portions of the subject property are unstable as evidenced by the talus deposits that are present at the base of the steep slopes. However, all slopes on the site were determined to be grossly stable. The maximum slope height is 47 feet and slope angle ranges from 10 degrees to 90 degrees. Calculated factors of safety are in excess of 1.5 (static) and 1.1 (Pseudo- static) of factors of safety required by the City of Newport Beach. The preliminary geotechnical report indicated that temporary shoring or a "shotcrete" combination shoring /retaining wall must be placed on all vertical cuts exceeding five (5) feet if a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) layback cannot be achieved. However, temporary shoring is only anticipated in areas where retaining walls will be constructed to accommodate the lower floor level of the proposed residence. In addition, incorporation of the recommendations presented in the preliminary geotechnical evaluation and adherence to standard building code requirements will ensure that site development will not be subject to EeJ Resolution No. landslides. With the incorporation of those recommendations, potential landslide impacts will be less than significant. (2) Potential Impact: Would the project result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant soils and geology impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. The following mitigation measure is proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with cultural and /or scientific resources to a less than significant level. MM -2 Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit, an erosion control plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City's Chief Building Official. Discussion: Implementation of the proposed project will necessitate grading and excavation necessary to accommodate the proposed single - family residence that will temporarily expose on -site soils to potential erosion. In that interim period, it is possible that some erosion may occur, resulting in some sedimentation; however, in order to ensure that erosion and sedimentation are minimized, the applicant will be required to prepare and submit an adequate drainage and erosion control plan, which complies with current City standards prescribed by the Building and Grading Ordinances. Implementation of the mandatory appropriate erosion controls will avoid potential erosion impacts associated with site grading and development. Further, the proposed site will be engineered to ensure that surface /subsurface drainage does not contribute to erosion or adversely affect the stability of project improvements. Other efforts required to ensure that potential erosion is minimized include slope protection devices, plastic sheeting, inspection for signs of surface erosion, and corrective measures to maintain, repair or add structures required for effective erosion control. As a result, potential impacts occurring from project implementation, including those anticipated during grading and after development of the site, will be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. 6.7 NOISE Potential Impact: Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing with the project? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant noise impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. The following mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with cultural and /or scientific resources to a less than significant level. MM-4 All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices. All construction equipment shall be located or operated as far as possible away from nearby residential units. MM -5 A construction schedule shall be developed that minimizes the duration of potential project - related and cumulative construction noise levels. MM -6 The construction contractor shall notify the residents of the construction schedule for the proposed project, and shall keep them Informed on any changes to the schedule. The notification shall also identify the name and phone number of a contact person in case of complaints. The contact person shall take all reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. Discussion: The number, type, distribution, and usage of construction equipment will differ from phase to phase. The noise generated is both temporary in nature and limited in hours by the City's Noise Ordinance (Section 10.28.040). Compliance with the existing noise control ordinance and hours of -4 Resolution No. construction prescribed in the ordinance will minimize the potential noise impacts associated with project implementation. Other measures have been identified to ensure that construction noise is minimized. Typically, construction of single - family residential dwelling units on an individual basis in the City of Newport Beach, including on bluffs in the City, does not result in significant noise impacts because of their small size and the duration of construction is not anticipated to occur over a long period of time (e.g., less than two years for custom home construction). Furthermore, the highest noise levels occur from excavation and caisson drilling associated with bluff development, which takes place during the initial stage of development and does not last more than 5 to 6 months). Therefore, because the project encompasses only one single - family residence, which would employ typical construction techniques and be constructed in approximately 20 months like most single - family residential construction in the City, potential construction noise impacts will be less than significant with the incorporation of the prescribed mitigation measures. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT CEQA requires that findings be made for each alternative considered in an EIR. The EIR considered a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project to provide informed decision - making in accordance with Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The alternatives analyzed in the EIR included: (1) No Project/No Development; (2) Reduced Intensity /3 Single - Family Residences; (3) Reduced Intensity /5 Multiple - Family Residential Project; and (4) Existing Zoning /8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project with Reduced Grading. The City's findings, and facts in support of those findings, with respect to each of the alternatives considered are provided below: • NO PROJECT Description — The No Project Alternative evaluates the potential environmental effects resulting from the continuation of the existing conditions on the site at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published, "... as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services" Therefore, this alternative assumes that in the short-term, the site would remain vacant. As a result, no adverse environmental effects would occur until such time as development was proposed in accordance with the adopted land use and zoning designations. The site would remain undeveloped and would not be affected by grading and development. Specifically, without any landform alteration, the small area of coastal bluff scrub habitat would not be removed as a result of development in the near future; however, as indicated in Section 4.2, this habitat does not meet the criteria established for ESHAs by both the Coastal Act and the City in the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. Furthermore, without development of the site in the short-term, views from both Begonia Park and Pacific Drive /Begonia Avenue would not be affected by the introduction of structures that would be added into the viewshed from those vantage points. Without development of the site, no conflicts with the plans, programs and policies adopted by the City of Newport Beach would occur. o Attainment of Project Objectives — The "no project" alternative would not result in the realization of any of the project objectives in the short-term. However, in the long -term, it would be possible to achieve each of the objectives identified by the project applicant with the construction of a single - family residence that is similar to the proposed project. Avoidance of Protect Impacts — Implementation of this alternative would defer project - related effects, including less than significant visual impacts associated with the development of the site (assuming that the residence complies with the maximum building height standard. In addition, biological impacts would also be the same as the proposed project (i.e., loss of 261 square feet of coastal bluff scrub habitat) as a result of site preparation. Similarly, if designed properly, this alternative would also be consistent with the long -range plans and policies adopted by the City of Newport Beach- &7 Resolution No. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN (REMOVE UPPER LEVEL) Description — This alternative includes development of the site as proposed with a single - family residence with access from Pacific Drive; however, the third upper level above the average elevation of Pacific Drive would be eliminated. This possible alternative would result in the elimination of the garage and residential floor area (i.e., foyer and office area) comprising approximately 805 square feet. As a result, the total floor area of the residence would be reduced to 2,761 square feet. In addition, in order to accommodate on -site parking, the second floor roof structure would be designed to support automobile parking. Attainment of Protect Objectives — Implementation of this project would achieve all project objectives except for allowing a larger residence on the property, unless the project is redesigned to relocate the living space ([e., foyer and study) lost with the elimination of the third floor within the floor plan. This alternative would provide views from all levels (although one level that included a foyer and study would be eliminated). It would provide vehicular access from Pacific Drive (to uncovered roof parking), it minimizes the visual effects of the residence on views from Begonia Park, and outdoor living areas would be directly accessible from each level. o Avoidance of Protect Impacts — Although the proposed single - family residence would not result in significant impacts based on the significance criteria established for the project, the effects of the project could be reduced through the implementation of this alternative. Specifically, the residence would not extend into the viewshed of Begonia Park. • ALTERNATIVE ACCESS (BAYSIDE DRIVE) Description — Vehicular access to the subject property in this design alternative would be provided from Bayside Drive, below the bluff, rather than from Pacific Drive where direct vehicular access is currently available. In addition, the third floor of the proposed residence (i.e.. ground level floor at Pacific Drive that includes the garage, study and foyer) would be relocated as the first floor in order to remove that portion of the structure from the Begonia Park viewshed. As a result, the total floor area would be the same as the proposed project (i.e., 3,138 square feet, not including the garage). Attainment of Protect Objectives — Implementation of this alternative would achieve most of the project objectives except it would not allow for vehicular access from Pacific Drive as desired by the project applicant. In addition, If this alternative is implemented, views from all of the levels of the home would not be provided because the living spaces in the third floor (i.e., foyer and study) would be relocated with the garage element as a result of the Bayview Drive access, unless the plan is redesigned to accommodate these living areas higher above the bluff to create harbor and ocean views. o Avoidance of Protect Impacts - Although the Alternative Access would improve views from Begonia Park and from Begonia Drive and Pacific Drive, additional adverse effects would occur. For example, it would be necessary to extend a private drive or roadway from Bayview Drive through the southern limits of Begonia Park and up the lower elevation of the bluff to accommodate vehicular access. The extension of the road through the park would alter the park setting and would conflict with policies related to the preservation of the character of that facility. Furthermore, the applicant must be granted an access easement through the park. Finally, it is anticipated that in order to extend the roadway to the site from Bayview Drive, additional landform alteration would also be required. As a result, nearly the entire bluff face would be altered. 5t Resolution No. Exhibit "E" - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Megonigal Residence (PA 2007 -133) SC /MM Method of Timing of No. Standard ConditionNiti ation Measure verfication implementation Responsibility Land Use /Relevant Planning All development proposed for the proposed single - family residence shall SC 4.1 -1 be reviewed for consistency with applicable provisions of the California Plan Check Prior to Issuance of the Building Department Building Code, Noise Ordinance, Uniform Fire Code, and other Building Permit applicable codes and ordinances prior to issuance of building permits. Traffic and Circulation 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, which shall address issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, potential displacement of on- street parking, and safety. • 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. • If necessary, the construction staging, parking and traffic control Planning Department Traffic MM -7 plan shall provide for an off -site parking lot for construction crews Plan Check Prior to Commencement of Engineering Division of the which will be shuffled to and from the project site at the beginning Each Major Phase Public Works Department and end of each day until such time that the project site can accommodate off- street construction vehicle parking. Until that time, construction crews shall be prohibited from parking in the adjacent residential neighborhood. • The plan shall identify all construction traffic routes, which shall avoid narrow residential streets unless there is no alternative, and the plan shall not include any streets where some form of construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the proposed route. • Dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during weekday peak hour traffic periods. • The approved construction staging, parking traffic control plan shall be implemented throughout each major construction phase. ®` Resolution No. SClMM Method of Timing of No. Standard ConditionlMiti ation Measure Verification Implementation Res onsibil' Air Quality During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered at least four times per day. Stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or other dusty materials shall be covered or watered twice daily. On SC -7 windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the Monitoring During Grading and Contractor, Building proposed project site, additional applications of water shall be applied Construction Inspector to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Soil disturbance shall be terminated whenever windy conditions exceed 25 miles per hour. Truck loads carrying soil and debris material shall be wetted or SC -2 covered prior to leaving the site. Where vehicles leave the Monitoring During Grading and Contractor, Building construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be Construction Inspector swept dail . All diesel - powered machinery exceeding 100 horsepower shall be During Grading and Contractor, Building SC -3 equipped with soot traps, unless the Contractor demonstrates to the Monitoring Construction Inspector satisfaction of the City Building Official that it is infeasible. The construction contractor shall time the construction activities, including the transportation of construction equipment vehicles and SC -4 equipment to the site, and delivery of materials, so as not to interfere Monitoring During Grading and Contractor, Building with peak hour traffic. To minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes Construction Inspector adjacent to the site, a nag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways, if deemed necessary by the City. SC -5 The construction contractor shall encourage ridesharing and transit Monitoring During Grading and Contractor, Building incentives for the construction workers. Construction Inspector To the extent feasible, pre- coatedlnatural colored building materials shall be used. Water -based or low VOC coatings shall be used that comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits. Spray equipment with high During Grading and Contractor, Building SC -6 transfer efficiency, or manual coatings application such as paint Monitoring Construction Inspector brush, hand roller, trowel, etc. shall be used to reduce VOC emissions, where practical. Paint application shall use lower volatility aint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG p9r liter. Noise All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped MM -4 with properly operating and maintained muffling devices. All Monitoring During Grading and Contractor, Building construction equipment shall be located or operated as far as Construction Inspector possible away from nearby residential units. A construction schedule shall be developed that minimizes the Prior to Issuance of Grading MM -5 duration of potential project- related and cumulative construction noise Plan Check PennR Planning Department levels. The construction contractor shall notify the residents of the construction schedule for the proposed project, and shall keep them MM -6 informed on any changes to the schedule. The notification shall also Monitoring During Grading and Contractor, Planning identify the name and phone number of a contact person in case of Construction Department complaints. The contact person shall take all reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. R Resolution No. SClMM I Method of Timing of No. Standard ConditionlMiti ation Measure Yerifieation Im lementation Responsibli Aesthetics Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards of the Zoning Code. Exterior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site Prior to Issuance of a Building SC 4.3 -1 boundaries. No direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public Plan Check Permit Planning Department streets or adjacent sites or create a public nuisance. "Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building SC 4.3 -2 permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code Inspection Prior to Issuance of a Code and Water Quality and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confine control of light and Certificate of Occupancy Enforcement Division tare. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate in perpetuity a view easement over the `Outdoor Room' identified on the approved plans and all open space areas on the project site that shall restrict the maximum height of landscaping and accessory structures to that of the top of the guardrails of the "Outdoor Room." The view easement shall be a three- dimensional space projected Prior to Issuance of a Building Planning Department, City MM 4.3 -1 vertically from a horizontal plane at the elevation of the top of the Easement Permit Attorney guardrails of the "Outdoor Room" and horizontally to all property lines. The restrictions of the view easement shall not apply to the building and structures depicted on the approved project plans or to patio furniture. The form and legal description of the view easement shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Biolo icat Resources Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff SC 4.2 -1 environment. Invasive and non - native species shall be removed. Plan Check Prior to Issuance of a Grading Planning Department Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be permit temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed, Soils and Geology Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit, an erosion control Prior to Issuance or Grading MM -2 plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City's Chief Building Plan Check or Building Permit Building Department Official. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a soils engineering report and final geotechnical report to the City's Building Department for approval. The project shall be designed to incorporate the recommendations included in those reports that which Prior to Issuance of Grading MM -3 address site grading, site clearing, compaction, caissons, bearing Plan Check Pennit Building Department capacity and settlement, lateral pressures, footing design, seismic design, slabs on grade, retaining wall design, subdrain design, concrete, surface drainage, setback distance, excavations, cut -fill transitional zones, planters and sloe maintenance, and driveways. am Resolution No. SC1MM Method of Timing of No. Standard Condition/Miti a" — Measure Verification Im lamentation Res onsibili Cultural Resources A qualified archaeological /paleontological monitor shall be retained by the project applicant who will be present during the grading and landfonn alteration phase. in the event that cultural resources and /or fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground - disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or hatted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. Monitoring During Grading and Contractor, Planning Director MM -1 Any artifacts and /or fossils discovered during project construction Construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long- term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. SC – Standard Condition MM – Mitigation Measure il CC 3 Draft Resolution approving Modification Permit No. MD 2007 -080 M RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH APPROVING MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. MD2007 -080 FOR THE MEGONIGAL RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 2333 PACIFIC DRIVE (PA 2007 -133) WHEREAS, an application was filed by David R. Olson on behalf of Kim and Carolyne Megonigal, property owners, with respect to property located, at 2333 Pacific Drive, requesting a modification permit to allow structures (walls, Wrdrails) to exceed the 3 -foot height limitation in the 5 -foot front yard setback; " WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 2007 -3 uir�� �at a dev opment comply with applicable policies of the General Plan and ''uncil 0rd1 2007 -3 sets forth design criteria to insure that all new single -unit a unit residen sects are consistent with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newpo and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was evidence, both written and oral, were pr Commission at this meeting and at the cl adopted Resolution No. 1795 recomm g ce prepared for the project and approv 0 he mad 19,200 City Hall Council alifornia. tice of time, place, Iicati n, ans, staff report, and sidered by the Planning the Planning Commission n nvironmental Impact Report it application; and WHEREAS, the ro osed in substantial conformance with the public view protection policie al Pla Coastal Land Use Plan. The proposed project minimizes imp views aximum extent feasible by placing the developme rther down th I mitin et level development to a single story, and pulling b uilding elements t d signs ant impacts to public views from Begonia Park. Vproposed ed ect is in substantial conformance with the neighborhood compatibili en I Plan, Placing the development further down the bluff and limiting s p nt to a single story results in a reduced building mass that is consistent assing of the neighborhood and it reduces impacts to public view impacts ark. Providing clearstory windows on the front elevation and planters in ths the project to Pacific Drive and Begonia Avenue. WHEREAS, TI e proposed project is in substantial conformance with the landform alteration policies of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan and Criterion No. 7 of Ordinance No. 2007 -3. These applicable policies and Criterion No. 7 require that consideration be given to landform protection in order to maintain the City's environmental character and to preserve visual resources. The coastal bluff in this area is severely degraded to the extent that it cannot be considered a significant visual resource. Further alteration would not significantly impact the City's overall environmental character, but would assist in minimizing impacts to public views. Resolution No. Paae 2 of 9 WHEREAS, Section 20.93.030 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires findings and facts in support of such findings for approval of a modification permit, which are presented as follows: 1. The granting of this application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. Practical difficulties are the sloping topography of the site, orientation of the lot and the resulting small buildaZdfl sloping with grades exceeding 70 %. Site elevationt, 0 to 4 feet below the elevation of the curb. The s4,412 square feet and a maximum buildable area square feet. The depth of the buildable area of the re the flattest portion of the lot, is between 13 to 30 feet the small lot size, the keh ite is steeply ar e between a lot size of ode of 2,853 genrhich is The Zoning Code requires two off - street parking spaces th t meet a minimum width and depth standards and the Code limits the height of strut' it ' the 5 -foot front yard setback area to 3 feet from natural gr ict complia the Code would reduce the height of the proposed walls, ter uardrails i, a required front yard setback area that facilitate safe and cc nient r d pedestrian access to the structure. Denial of the application w re It a I hardship with a sloping driveway down toward the pro id a th Id exceed minimum.slope standards as determined by t e s Traffic ine or safe and convenient vehicular access. Additionally, denial application " .: iminate planters and or guardrails necessary to provide a safe f pedestrian ess to the proposed structure. The inte a is to t he growth of the City of Newport Beach in an or manner an ote a ect the public health, safety, peace, comfort an neral welfare, an otect th haracter and social and economic vitality of all is within the City, a assur the orderly and beneficial development of such he purpose of the cture height limit within the required front yard setback are inimize the vis impact of structures upon the public right -of -way and to provi uate sight di ce for pedestrians and vehicles. Developme a without providing off - street parking or a safe and convenient means of pro hicular access to off-street parking spaces or without providing adequate safety tures for pedestrian access to the structure would not be promoting the orderly dev pment of the City in a manner that would be considered safe. 2. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood for the following reasons: a) Properties on the south side of Pacific Drive are developed with single - family dwellings with front yard setback designs that include landscaping, driveways and accessory structures that are at or slightly above the grade of the abutting Resolution No. _ Page 3 of 9 sidewalk. The proposed structures subject to the requested modification permit will be at comparable heights when measured from the street grade. b) The proposed planters, along with the driveway and entry walkway redesigned to meet City Council Policy L -6, will provide a front yard that is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 3. The granting of this Modification Permit will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improve i e ghborhood based on the following: A, s a) The proposed water feature will be removed. b) The proposed driveway, entry walkway, and rs are co to be redesigned to meet City Council Policy L -6. c) Approval of the modification permit will not impact public t 4 greater degree than construction of the proposed reside out approva the position of the proposed features necessitating the ific ermit bei rn front of and below the roof line of the the proposed sin famiI by referenand a successful challenqe NOW THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED: Section 1. The recitals above are hereby declared to be true, accurate, and correct. Section 2. The City Council finds that notice of this hearing was provided in conformance with California law and the Municipal Code of the City of Newport Beach. Section 3. The City Council hereby finds that the Administrative Record which was considered by the City Council in adopting this Resolution consists, without limitation, of all (0 -? Resolution No. AN documents, correspondence, testimony, photographs, and other information presented or provided to the Planning Director, Planning Commission, City Council and City including, without limitation, testimony received at City Council and Planning Commission meetings, staff reports, agendas, notices, meeting minutes, police reports, correspondence, and all other information provided to the City and retained in the files of the City, its staff and attorneys (except for attorney /client communications, work product and other privileged documents), and such is hereby incorporated by reference into the Administrative Record and is available upon request ( "Administrative Record "). Section 4. Based on the aforementioned findings, t Wun hereby ap proves Modification Permit No. MD2007 -080 (PA 2007 -133) tons of approval attached as Exhibit "A ". This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoptidQfts , and A4ft by le City PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ABSENT, COUNCIL EM Resolution No. Exhibit "A" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Standard conditions regular type Project specific condition in italics of 9 1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (Except as modified by applicable conditions of approval). 1 1& 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinan , policie standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of appir al. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applican y any un istrative costs associated with the processing of this application to ning Depa 4. Disruption caused by construction work along roadwaysand vement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equ a flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and m all be con in accordance with state and local requirements. 9. All improveme" I co y with the City's sight distance requirement. As provided in City Standard 110 -L. 10. In case of damage one to public improvements surrounding the development site by the private constructio , additional reconstruction within the public right -of -way could be required at the discretion of the Public Works Inspector. 11. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements. 12. Water meter and the sewer cleanout will be located in the public right -of -way. If installed at a location that will be subjected to vehicle traffic, each shall be installed with a traffic -grade box and cover. Resolution No. _ Page 6 of 9 13. The existing street tree(s) shall be protected in place. Unauthorized tree removal(s) will trigger substantial penalties for all parties involved. 14. Paving in the public right-of-way shall be limited to the minimum necessary for the driveway and a walkway to the entry to the residence. A standard concrete sidewalk and driveway approach be shall be constructed per applicable City Standards. All remaining areas shall be landscaped. Non - standard encroachments within the public right -of -way shall comply with City Council Policy L -6, prior to the issuance of an Encroachment Agreement and Permit. 15. The proposed planters and water feature shall be removed 16. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applican ia>rded ' in perpetuity a view easement over the "Outdoor Room" identified on the proved d all open space areas on the project site that shall restrict the maxi hei of cipal itructurre, landscaping and accessory structures to that of the t guardra he Outdoor Room." The view easement shall be a three- dimension a projected y from a horizontal plane at the elevation of the top of the gull r I the "Outdoo oom" and horizontally to all property lines. The restrictions of the view a" nt shall not apply to the building and structures depicted on the approved project plans or iture. The form and legal description of the view easement sh ared by tii rcant and reviewed and approved by the Planning Director (MM 4 17. To the fullest extent permitted by law, app t s I in defend and hold harmless City, its City Council, its boards and i ns fficial ers, employees, and agents from and against any and all clai mands, ligat' s, damages, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments s, penalties costs and expenses (including without limitation, attorney's fe ursements urt costs) of every kind and nature whatsoever which, se tom any manner relate (directly or indirectly) to City's approval of t sidenc ct i cluding, but not limited to, the approval of Modificatio mit No. colle erred to as PA 2007 -133; and /or the City's related ornia Environm uality A eterminations, the adoption of a Environmental Impac port and a Mitigatio itoring4 rogram for the Project. This indemnification shall incl ut not be limited to mages awarded against the City, if any, costs of suit, r s, and other expe s incurred in connection with such claim, action, causes of action, roceeding whe r incurred by applicant, City, and /or the parties initiating or bringing s ceeding. applicant shall indemnify the City for all of City's costs, attorneys' fe damag hich City incurs in enforcing the indemnification provisions set forth in this con T pplicant shall pay to the City upon demand any amount owed to the City pursuant demnification requirements prescribed in this condition. 18. All development pWposed for the proposed single - family residence shall be reviewed for consistency with applicable provisions of the California Building Code, Noise Ordinance, Uniform Fire Code, and other applicable codes and ordinances prior to issuance of building permits (SC 4.1 -1). 19. 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, which shall address issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, potential displacement of on- street parking, and safety (MM -7). !0 Resolution No. _ Paqe 7 of 9 a. 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. b. If necessary, the construction staging, parking and traffic control plan shall provide for an off -site parking lot for construction crews which will be shuttled to and from the project site at the beginning and end of each day until such t' at th project site can accommodate off-street construction vehicle pa rking. a construction crews shall be prohibited from parking in the adjacent resid ral neigh d. c, The plan shall identify al/ construction traffic route ich 11 av ow residential streets unless there is no alternative, and the plan of include where some form of construction is underway within or adia the street t d impact the efficacy of the proposed route.., d. Dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during weekdqy peak hour e. The approved construction staging, throughout each major construction p 20. During grading activities, any expose Stockpiles of crushed cement, debris twice daily. On windy days or f project site, additional applicatio moisture content a ed whenever winds eed 2 21. Truck to carrying soil ;i site. a vehicles leave she wept daily (SC -2). 22. All dies red machinery unless Ath actor demon infeasible ( 14 be implemented at least four times per day. shall be covered or watered !9A;M erved leaving the proposed intain a minimum 12 percent D Rule 403. Soil disturbance shall be terminated per hour (SC -1). all be wetted or covered prior to leaving the and enter adjacent public streets, the streets ling 100 horsepower shall be equipped with soot traps, to the satisfaction of the City Building Official that it is 23. The construction r shall time the construction activities, including the transportation of construction equi nt vehicles and equipment to the site, and delivery of materials, so as not to interfere with ak hour traffic. To minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways, if deemed necessary by the City (SC -4). 24. The construction contractor shall encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction workers (SC -5). 25. To the extent feasible, pre- coated /natural colored building materials shall be used. Water - based or low VOC coatings shall be used that comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits. Spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, or manual coatings application such as paint brush, 1� Resolution No. _ Paqe 8 of 9 hand roller, trowel, etc. shall be used to reduce VOC emissions, where practical. Paint application shall use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per liter (SC -6). 26. All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices. All construction equipment shall be located or operated as far as possible away from nearby residential units (MM -4). 27. A construction schedule shall be developed that minimizes the duration of potential project - related and cumulative construction noise levels (MM -5). 28. The construction contractor shall notify the residents of `* n c schedule for the proposed project, and shall keep them informed on c ang the schedule. The notification shall also identify the name and phone nu ber of a arson in case of complaints. The contact person shall take all reasonab eps , esol ompl int (MM- 6). 29. Lighting shall be in compliance with applicable standards ing Code. E°kYWrior on -site lighting shall be shielded and confined within site boundaries. direct rays or glare are permitted to shine onto public streets or adjacent sites or create n "ance. 'Walpak" type fixtures are not permitted (SC 4.3 -1). 30. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupa or Jfi ildi permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code WQ orcement Division to confirm control of light and glare (SC 4.3 -2). gM 31. Bluff landscaping shall consist consistent with the California co be removed. Irrigaf bluff c used only to a s. Up system sha mov -1). plant species determined to be MVasive and non - native species shall re- vegetated areas shall be temporary and ent of the plantings, the temporary irrigation 32. Prior t nuance of the gradr buildinermit, an erosion control plan shall be submitted to a roved by the City's Building Official (MM -2). 33. prior to ce of a grading it, the applicant shall submit a soils engineering report and final geot I report to th ity's Building Department for approval. The project shall be designed to rate the ommendations included in those reports that which address site grading, rin ompaction, caissons, bearing capacity and settlement, lateral pressures, footin seismic design, slabs on grade, retaining wall design, subdrain design, concrete, s e drainage, setback distance, excavations, cut -fill transitional zones, planters and slope intenance, and driveways (MM -3). 34. A qualified archaeological /paleontological monitor shall be retained by the project applicant who will be present during the grading and landform alteration phase. In the event that cultural resources and /or fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground - disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. Any artifacts and /or fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, 1Z Resolution No. _ Page 9 of 9 shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant (MM -1), 73 CC 4 Planning Commission Staff Report and meeting minutes -15 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT October 22, 2009 Meeting Agenda Item No. 4 SUBJECT: Megonigal Residence (PA2007 -133) 2333 Pacific Drive ■ Modification No. 2007 -080 APPLICANT: David R. Olson, Architect for Kim and Caroline Megonigal PLANNER: James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644 -3210, icampbellQnewportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY The application consists of a Modification Permit to allow planter walls and a water feature to exceed the 3 -foot height limit in the 5 -toot front yard setback in association with the construction of a new, three -story single - family dwelling. A complete set of architectural plans is attached (Attachment PC -1). RECOMMMEDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt the attached draft Resolution recommending Certification of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and approval of Modification Permit No. 2007 -080 to the City Council with the findings and conditions provided within the attached draft resolution (Attachment PC -2). INTRODUCTION Background The Planning Commission first considered development of this property by the applicant on April 3, 2008 (Attachment PC -3). The application included a variance to exceed the height limit and modification permit for encroachment of the proposed residence into the required 5 -front yard setback. Staff was seeking guidance from the Commission as to General Plan policy compliance and the Commission provided the following direction to the applicant and staff: 1) Protection of public views has priority over protection of the coastal bluff; 2) Protection of public views from Begonia Park have priority over protection of public views from Begonia Avenue; 3) Reduce the scale and massing of the residence; 4) Shift portions of the residence above street grade to the west to reduce impacts upon public views from Begonia Park; and 5) Provide windows on street facing elevation to visually 'open" the residence to the neighborhood. 7� Megonigal Residence October 22. 2009 Page 2 LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE Single Unit Residential — Single - Family Residential ON -SITE Detached (RS-D) (R -1 Vacant, undeveloped land NORTH Tyro -Unit Residential (RT) Two Family Residential (RResidential SOUTH Multiple -Unit Residential Multiple -Family Residential RM) Residential MFR EAST Parks andPRRecreation R -1 Begonia Park WEST RS -D R -1 Residential Megonigal Residence October 22, 2009 Page 3 Subsequent to the hearing, the applicant revised the project to reduce the size of the proposed residence eliminating the need for a variance application, adding clearstory windows to the front elevation and eliminating the encroachment of the building within the front setback. The only remaining discretionary request is the modification permit to allow planter walls and a water feature to exceed the 3 -foot height limit in the front yard setback; the building no longer encroaches within the setback. The applicant installed story poles at the request of the Commission that showed the revised building and the maximum height allowable consistent with the Zoning, Code. The poles are currently in a state of disrepair and do not accurately reflect the height of the proposed building. On August 21, 2008, the Planning Commission considered the revised project (Attachment PC-4). The Commission approved it by adopting Resolution No. 1767 (Attachment PC -5). This decision was appealed by Councilmember Gardner, who stated that the appeal was to ensure consistency with the General Plan. On September 23, 2008, the City Council briefly considered the project (Attachment PC- 6). Staff recommended a continuance of the hearing at the hearing due to late correspondence indicating potentially significant biological resources were on the property. The intent of the request for a continuance was to reevaluate the environmental review of the project. The City Council continued the appeal and directed that the project be remanded back to the Planning Commission after a more thorough environmental analysis before having the project brought back to the City Council with Planning Commission's recommendation for action. Proiect Description The proposed three -story, 3,566 square -foot residence conforms to all Zoning Code Property development regulations, with the exception of the planter walls and a water feature that exceed the maximum height permissible (3 feet) for structures within the 5- foot, front yard setback. The proposed residence conforms to 24 -foot height limit and is single story at the Pacific Drive street level (two stories were previously proposed). The proposed residence will consist of three levels: 1,827 square feet on the first floor, 934 square feet on the second floor, and 805 square feet on the uppermost level (including a 428 - square foot, 2 -car garage). Vehicular access is from Pacific Drive at the intersection of Begonia Avenue and Pack Drive. In addition to the indoor living area, 1,004 square feet of outdoor patio space on the three levels is provided. In addition, an encroachment permit from the City's Public works Department for non- standard improvements within the public right -of -way is been sought for the proposed planter walls, water feature and enhanced paving for pedestrian and vehicular access. Lastly, grading of approximately 630 cubic yards of export, landscaping and utility connections necessary for construction of the proposed residence are included. 71 0 Megonigal Residence October 22. 2009 Page 4 0 . o 01 DISCUSSION Environmental Review Keeton Kreitzer Consulting prepared a Notice of Preparation based upon an Initial Study and a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed project (Attachment PC -7). The analysis within the Initial Study supported the conclusion that the proposed project would not have significant impacts on: Agriculture, Air Quality, Cultural Resources. Geology and Soils. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality. Mineral Resources. Noise. Population and Housing. Public Service and Facilities. Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities. Mitigation measures are recommended to address several of these topics. The DEIR focused upon: Aesthetics, Biological Resources. and Land Use and Planning and mitigation measures have also been identified (Attachment PC -8) A Notice of Availability /Notice of Completion of the DEIR was provided in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and public comments were solicited between August 24, 2009. and October 8, 2009. Comment letters were �O Megonigal Residence October 22, 2009 Page 5 received (Attachment PC -9) and responses to those comments are currently being prepared and will be forwarded to the Commission at the earliest opportunity. Public Views The DER includes photographic simulations showing the proposed project in the view from Begonia Park. These simulations were the basis for a conclusion that the proposed project does not impact the view significantly and the overall character of the view does not significantly change even though the proposed project is clearly visible within the viewshed. Public views from Begonia Avenue or Pacific Drive would be blocked by the proposed project; however this is not considered a significant impact given that this view is not a protected view pursuant to General Plan Policy (NR 20.3 & CLUP 4.4.1 -6) that only protects views from specific roadways and vantage points. In other words, views from Begonia Park are protected and views from Begonia Avenue or Pack Drive are not. Protecting the view from Begonia Park does not mean that the view must remain unaltered; however, several residents in the area feel that it should. The applicant has redesigned the project to eliminate the variance request and has limited the size of the third floor to reduce the impact of the project on the public views from the park consistent with General Plan and CLUP policies that require new development to minimize impacts to the protected public view. The Planning Commission previously included a condition requiring a view easement above the proposed building to restrict additions, permanent features or landscaping from encroaching within public views. Should the project be approved, staff suggests that the condition be applied and it is within the list of draft conditions for consideration (Attachment PC -2). The photographic simulations were prepared when vegetation within the park between the proposed building and important vantage points within the park (park benches) was more prominent. This vegetation was cut back by the City in March of 2009 at the request of residents to enhance the view. Today, more of the harbor entrance and homes beyond on the Balboa Peninsula are visible. Lower levels of the proposed residence that would have been screened from view by the vegetation will now be visible from the park until the vegetation grows back. Bluff AlterationlLandform Protection An analysis of relevant General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) policies regarding landform alteration is provided within Chapter 4.1, Land Use and Planning, of the DEIR. This site is unique in that it is the easternmost transition from the Pack Drive bluff to a gully or canyon landform that has been developed as Begonia Park. The predominant line of existing development was determined to be the 36.5 -foot contour based upon surrounding development that in some cases has altered the toe of the bluff and bluff face or the top of the bluff with residential development stepping down the bluff face. Additionally, this particular contour was identified based upon the minimum 0 r Megonigal Residence October 22, 2009 Page 6 dimension of the building footprint that allows a reasonable floor area on the property for its intended purpose, while simultaneously complying with the maximum permissible height of twenty -four feet, limiting the extent of grading on the bluff face, and producing a building profile that "steps down" the bluff face conforming to topography. This development pattern is consistent with the predominant development pattern on the Pacific Drive bluff. Project Alternatives Alternatives within Environmental Impact Reports are to identify feasible project alternatives that meet most of the basic project objectives while lessening or avoiding any significant impacts of the project. In this case, no significant impacts were identified and the DEIR considers several alternatives (Alternative Site, No Development, No Project, Alternative Design, and Alternative Access) with the intent to provide additional analysis for informed decision- making. The "Alternative Site" scenario assumes a similarly designated vacant site for the development of a single family home. None presently exist and sites inland would not meet the applicant's basic project objectives, and therefore, this alternative was rejected from further consideration. A "No Development" alternative was identified and rejected from further consideration as it would require the acquisition of the site to preserve it as open space. This alternative was rejected because the City recently reaffirmed the single - family land use designation for the site with the 2006 General Plan update and the City Council or other entity has expressed interest in acquiring the site. Economic use of the site must be afforded to avoid a claim of taking. The "No Project" alternative differs from "No Development' alternative in that it assumes that the proposed project does not go forward, but development of the site consistent with the General Plan designation would occur in the future. In that case; potential impacts associated with that future project would be similar or possibly greater than the impacts of the proposed project. The "Alternative Design" scenario assumes the elimination of the 805 - square 400t upper level, which includes the entry foyer, office area and two -car garage. Vehicular access would be provided from Pacific Drive and vehicles would park on the roof of the house. This alternative achieves all the applicant's basic project objectives although this alternative would necessitate the consideration of a variance application as the Zoning Code requires at least one parking space for single family homes to be covered. This alternative, if implemented, would reduce impacts to public views from Begonia Park and provide views from Begonia Avenue or Pacific Drive (although parked cars and possibly a carport, if not waived with a variance application, would be in that particular view). The "Alternative Access" scenario assumes project redesign to take access from Bayside Drive below. In simple terms, it is the current design with the upper level garage being relocated or redesigned making it the lowest level thereby creating a V 12 Megonigal Residence October 22, 2009 Page 7 residence that is below the Pack Drive street level. Views from Begonia Park would be impacted to a lesser degree and views from Begonia Avenue or Pacific Drive would be preserved. A new driveway would be necessary through the lower area of Begonia Park from Bayside Drive. Grading would also likely be more extensive. Public Works does not support an additional driveway through the park to provide access to a residence from Bayside Drive as it is their position that such an access would create hazards to vehicle travel on Bayside Drive. This alternative would not meet several project objectives including having access from Pacific Drive and views to the harbor and ocean from all levels. Encroachment Permit As noted previously, the applicant is proposing several non - standard improvements within the right -of -way. These improvements include planters, a water feature and non- standard pavement for the driveway, sidewalk and drive approach. Public Works finds these improvements, with the exception of the non - standard pavement within the driveway (not including sidewalk or drive approach) inconsistent with Council Policy L -6 and recommends their elimination. A condition of approval eliminates the planter and water feature from the public right -of -way altogether and requires standard pavement/designs for the sidewalk and drive approach. The Commission previously supported this change and applied a condition of approval requiring the elimination of these features. Staff has included the same condition within the draft conditions contained within Attachment PC -2. The only non - standard pavement that will be permitted within the public right -of -way is within the driveway area itself. The City Council retains the discretion to approve the non - standard improvements as requested by the applicant pursuant to Council Policy L-6. Modification Permit The only features that are subject to the modification permit are the planter wails and a water feature proposed to exceed the 3 -foot height limit in the 5 -foot front yard setback. Approval of the modification permit would not create an impact to public views given the location of the features, their overall height and the height of the proposed residence. Section 20.93.030 (Required Findings) of the Zoning Code requires that the following three findings must be made in order to approve a modification permit: A. The granting of the application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property and that the strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code. When addressing this finding, the physical aspects of the property and/or improvements and their relationship to adjacent properties may be considered. In this case, the lot slopes from a curb elevation of 72.5 feet above mean sea level (MSL) down to an Megonigal Residence October 22, 2009 Page 8 elevation of 64 feet MSL at the dwelling. The front portion of the lot needs to be filled in order to provide vehicular access to the residence and landscaping at street grade in a manner that is consistent with the development pattern of the neighboring properties. As a result, any structure in the front yard will exceed the 3 -foot height limit as measured from natural grade; however, these structures will not be more than 3 feet above the average elevation of the curb. B. The requested modification will be compatible with existing development in the neighborhood. When addressing this finding, Section 20.93.035.6 of the Zoning Code states that "the sum of qualities that distinguish the neighborhood from other areas within the City may be considered;" however, only "such characteristics as they relate to the direct impact of the proposed modification on the neighborhood's character and not development rights that would otherwise be enjoyed without the modification permit" may be considered. Most properties on Pacific Drive are developed with single - family dwellings with front yard setback designs that include landscaping and accessory structures at street grade. The proposed planters will be at comparable heights when measured from the finished grade. These planters, along with the driveway and entry walkway redesigned to meet City Council Policy L -6, will provide a front yard that is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The proposed planter and water feature would not be more than 3 feet above the average elevation of the curb. C. The granting of such an application will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. When addressing this finding, potential and adverse impacts on persons and property in the vicinity may be considered. These include, but are not limited to, modifications that would significantly interfere with the provision of adequate air and light on an adjacent property, adversely impact use of a public right -of -way, impede access by public safety personnel, result in excessive noise, vibration, dust, odors, glare, or electromagnetic interference, interfere with safe vehicular sight distances, or result in an invasion of privacy. With the recommended removal of the water feature and the redesign of the driveway, entry walkway, and planters redesigned to meet City Council Policy L -6, the proposed modification will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and will not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. As indicated previously, the proposed height of the planters would not impact public views given their height and location. � N Megonigal Residence October 22, 2009 Page 9 Altemative Recommendations If the Commission believes that the project impact on public views from Begonia Avenue or Pacific Drive are inconsistent with General Plan or CLUP policy, the Commission can recommend the City Council consider either the "Alternative Design" or "Alternative Access" alternatives identified within the DEIR. If the Commission believes that the project is inconsistent with landform alteration policies of the General Plan or CLUP, the Commission can recommend that the City Council reduce the building footprint to be consistent with applicable policies or deny the project if no level of alteration is deemed consistent with policy. Public Notice Notice of the availability of the Draft EIR was provided in accordance with CEQA. Notice of this hearing was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to all owners of property within 300 feet of the boundaries of the site including the applicant, and posted on the subject property at least 10 days prior to this hearing consistent with the provisions of the Municipal Code. Additionally, the item was shown on the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: `• a es Campbell, F5ridcipal Planner ATTACHMENTS Submitted by: David Lepo, Planning Director P:1PAs - 200APA2007- 133115Ianning CommissionlPC 10-22-2009\2009-10-22 MD2007 -080 PC rpt final.docx .I wrwMwwwwir Now P:1PAs - 200APA2007- 133115Ianning CommissionlPC 10-22-2009\2009-10-22 MD2007 -080 PC rpt final.docx .I I:4 IF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 10/2212009 oncerns of ministerial action and it is not good policy to place a decision in the h s of the City Council and they have no choice but to approve it if it meets a certa criteria. The CEQA finding is a finding of certainty that there could be no envir ental effect. When Council is mandated and compelled based only on p.m. pe hour traffic without knowing if there might be a significant affect on a.m. pea our traffic, let alone all the other categories of possible significant effects, ant' say we know that as a certainty. Commissioner Unswort ted it is a common sense CEQA exemption, not to a certainty. I think commo nse would indicate here that we are not making enough change to trigger a C challenge. Ayes: Unsworth, Peotter, McDan and Toerge Noes: Eaton and Hillgren Absent: Hawkins SUBJECT: Ong Parking Waiver (PA2009 -059) ITEM NO. 3 333 Old Newport Blvd. PA2009 -096 A use permit application to waive the additional off- Continued to the conversion of 3,061 square -feet of retail to me Xin 11/05/2009 multi- tenant building. Staff requests this item be continued to November 5, 2 Motion was made by Commissioner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner McDaniel to continue this item to November 5, 2009- Ayes: I Eaton, Unsworth, Peotter, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: None Excused: None SUBJECT: Megonigal Residence (PA2007 -133) ITEM NO. 4 2333 Pacific Drive PA2007 -133 A use permit application to waive the additional off - street parking required for Continued to the conversion of 3,061 square -feet of retail to medical office in an existing 11/1912009 multi- tenant building. In reviewing the comments received on the draft EIR and preparing responses, staff reviewed the images and view simulations that were included in the draft EIR and noted there may be some scaling error that could affect the size of the image of the dwelling shown in the view shed. These simulations need to be verified and staff needs time for this review. Staff requests this item be continued to November 19, 2009. Chairperson Hawkins noted that for reasons of having the entire new vie simulations available for public review this matter should be continued and no open the public hearing until everybody has the materials and then everyone will be on the same page. Page 9 of 10 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner McDaniel and seconded by Commissioner Hillgren to continue this item to November 19, 2009. At Commission inquiry, Mr. Lepo noted that if the revised simulation shows such a dramatic change, staff will let you know. Mr. Torres added if the consultant recommends a re- circulation of the draft EIR, staff will bring back that recommended action for Planning Commission determination. Nothing has been decided. Chairman Hawkins asked if staff could make that determination and therefore start the process. Mr. Torres answered if it came back and it was a clear decision by the EIR consultant that it needed to be re- circulated and if staff agrees, it could actually occur. Commissioner Peotter asked what images are in question. Mr. Lepo answered it is the view simulation contained in the EIR that is in question. Following a discussion on the process to be used, it was recommended that staff give an update at the November 5t' meeting during New Business. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, McDaniel, Toerge and Hillgren Noes: Peotter Excused:l None was made to forgo the rest of the agenda. All Ayes NEW BUSINESS: City Council Follow -up— Planning Commission reports. — Announcements on matters that Commissi embers would like placed on a future agenda for discussion, action, or report — Requests for excused absences —none. ADJOURNMENT: 8:30 p.m. CHARLES UNSWORTH, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION 10/22/2009 Page 10 of 10 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT November 19, 2009 Meeting Agenda Item No. 3 SUBJECT: Megonigal Residence (PA2007 -133) 2333 Pack Drive • Modification No. 2007 -060 APPLICANT: David R. Olson, Architect for Kim and Caroline Megonigal PLANNER: James Campbell, Principal Planner (949) 644 -3210, icampbell(&newportbeachca.aov PROJECT SUMMARY This project was continued from the October 22, 2009, meeting. The application consists of a Modification Permit to allow planter walls and a water feature to exceed the 3 -foot height limit in the 5 -foot front yard setback in association with the construction of a new, three-story single - family dwelling. RECOMMMEDATION 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Adopt the attached draft Resolution recommending Certification of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and approval of Modification Permit No. 2007 -080 to the City Council with the findings and conditions provided within the draft resolution attached to the October 22, 2009, staff report. The responses to comments on the DEIR have been completed and are attached (Attachment PC -1). Comments questioned the visual simulations and their depiction of the impact upon public views. The visual simulations presented in the DEIR showed the proposed project before the City removed several trees and shrubs within Begonia Park at the request of area residents. The removal of the vegetation expanded views of the harbor, peninsula and ocean. It was also discovered that the depiction of the proposed residence was not scaled properly, making it appear smaller than it would if constructed. Exhibits 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2 within Section 4.3 (Aesthetics) of the DEIR, , which were Prepared by a consultant under contract to the City, and Exhibits 4.3-4 and 4.3 -5 that were prepared by the project architect, were found to be inaccurate. The City had the contractor who prepared the City's simulations prepare a new simulation showing the view impact of the proposed project from the Lower Begonia Park bench (Attachment Megonigal Residence November 19, 2009 Page 2 PC -2). The photograph was taken in October of 2009, well after the intervening vegetation within Begonia Park was removed. The 3- dimensional depiction of the proposed residence was created using the electronic copy of the architect's plans to ensure accuracy. The scaling and position of the building representation were based upon clearly identifiable features within the image of known height and location including the story poles. The creator of the image, Softmirage Inc., believes the image to be as accurate a representation of the building within the photograph that can be created. Upon the realization of the inaccuracy in the City's simulations, the architect also reevaluated his visual simulations and discovered that they also depicted the proposed building smaller than it would be. The architect has updated his simulations; however, these images do not reflect the elimination of the intervening vegetation within Begonia Park (Attachment PC -3). The revised simulations include a revision of the front elevation to further reduce the structure's impact upon public views from Begonia Park. The roof of the building in the area of the internal staircase has been lowered by 3 feet, 6 inches. This creates a 3 foot, 6 inch by 7 -foot "notch" out of the upper left hand comer of the elevation. This change proposed by the appimant preserves views of the peninsula and ocean beyond. (Attachment PC 4). The new information provided by these simulations and revised elevation reopens the question of whether or not the project would have a significant impact upon public views. This determination is subjective and guidelines for this determination are provided by applicable land use policies and the questions, "Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista ?" and, "Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings ?" These questions come from the State guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, which the City uses within its initial Study checklist. Policies of the General Plan and Coastal land Use Plan do not protect public views from Begonia Avenue or Pacific Drive as it is not listed in Policy NR20.3 or identified in Figure NR3 of the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan. Public views within Begonia Park are the only public views protected in this case as these views are identified by Figure NR3 of the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan. The relevant General Plan policies are: "NR20.1 Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points, as shown in Figure NR3. NR 20.4 Design and site new development, including landscaping, on the edges of public view corridors, including those down public streets, to frame, accent and minimize impacts to public views." MTN 6 Megonigal Residence November 19, 2009 Page 3 "Protection" is a relative term and given that Policy NR20.4 indicates that a project's impact on public views must be minimized, protection cannot mean there can be no Impact whatsoever. It is important to note that the scenic vista is not limited to views of the harbor, peninsula or ocean (that have been expanded with the elimination of the intervening vegetation) and that the vista contains other elements such as the open space of the Begonia Park and Carnation Avenue bluff, residential development on Carnation Avenue, Pacific Drive and Begonia Avenue and the sky. The new simulation shows views of the harbor, peninsula and ocean are increased in comparison to the views shown within the DEIR visual simulations due to the removal of the intervening vegetation. The proposed residence would be more prominent within the view as well. The focal points within the view (harbor, peninsula and ocean) would be diminished; however, the majority of these portions of the view would remain. Views of the harbor, peninsula and ocean with project implementation would also be increased when considered in comparison to the view depicted in the DEIR. The question remains as to whether the projects impact upon the viewshed is significant The environmental consultant and staff believe that although the building will be more prominent in the viewshed, approximately 65% of the focal points within the view (harbor, peninsula and ocean) will remain, and therefore, the overall character and quality of the viewshed is protected. if views of the focal points are reduced to a point where they were not obvious, a significant impact might occur. Based upon this conclusion, the new information provided with the revised simulations and analysis is not considered "significant new information" as that term is defined by Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and therefore, the DEIR is not required to be recirculated. Section 15088.5 identifies 4 examples where recirculation is required: (1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance; (3).A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the projects proponents decline to adopt it; and (4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. The Guidelines also state that recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. The new information contained within the new simulation and analysis contained in this response provides greater clarity on the changed environmental baseline conditions upon which the analysis was originally based as well as greater accuracy of the degree of impact the project would have on protected public views. Although the degree of the potential visual impact is greater based on the new visual simulation, the conclusion CIO Megonigal Residence November 19, 2009 Page 4 related to the significance of that impact has not changed based on the (subjective) significance criteria identified previously and used in the visual analysis presented in the Draft EIR. As indicated above, the potential project- related impact remains less than significant. No new significant environmental impact has been identified. The inclusion of the new information has not deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental impact as such an impact has not been revealed by the new information. SUMMARY The Planning Commission is not bound by the environmental consultants or staffs opinion as to the significance of the impact upon public views. Ultimately, the City Council will make a determination and should they determine that the impact is significant, recirculation of the DEIR with revised analysis would be necessary unless they select and approve one of the project alternatives contained within the DEIR. Prepared by: Submitted by: C. L�J -? J--eo-'O" - � a es Campb il, Princi al Planner D4 26poo—Pvfiatn6Director ATTACHMENTS PC 2 Visual simulation prepared by Softmirage P: \PAs - 2007\PA2007. 133 \Planning Commission \11 -19.69 \2009 -11 -19 M02007-08D PC rpt drakdoa s PC 2 Visual simulation prepared by Softmirage 09 0 Page intentionally Blank w ji Ah it r NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/19/2009 nor to the issuance of a building permit. Pub comment was opened. Public co ent was closed. Chairperson Ha ins asked the applicant if he had reviewed all the conditions and the resolution, d if they are acceptable. Mr. Hohmann answered Motion was made by Commis ' ner Peotter and seconded by Commissioner Toerge to adopt a resolution a ting Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND2009 -001 and,approving Amend t No. 1 to Use Permit No. UP2001 -036 and Site Plan Review No. SR2009 -0 with the following changes to the revised conditions of approval: Add to Conditions No. 24 and No. 29 — as requi y code. Chairperson Hawkins asked where this change shou a added in Condition No. 24, as there are three sentences in the condition. Als , s required by code is not a complete sentence. Commissioner Peotter said add the following as a fourth sentence Condition No. 24 — This condition shall apply as required by code. Keep Con ''on No. 29 as originally worded and add as required by code to the end the sentence. Second to the motion, Commissioner Toerge, agreed to the edit. Ayes: J Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge, and Hillgren Noes: None Absent: None OBJECT: Megonigal Residence (PA2007 -133) ITEM NO. 3 2333 Pacific Drive PA2007 -133 The City of Newport Beach determined that the proposed project may have a Approved significant effect on the environment on Land Use, Aesthetics, and Biological Resources. The City determined that an EIR would be required to more full evaluate potential adverse environmental impacts that may result from development of the project. All other environmental effects were determined to be less than significant (with mitigation) or have no impact and were addressed in the Initial Study prepared for the project. As a result, the DEIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmentaf Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the State CEQA Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). This DEIR also complies with the City of Newport Beach' procedures for implementation of CEQA. Page 4 of 12 &15 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/19/2009 James Campbell, Principal Planner, gave an overview of the staff report. Mr. Campbell wanted to clarify that this project once included a variance to height and that was eliminated with the revisions of the project before it went to hearing. There is no variance to height associated with this project. In addition, there is a 5 -foot front yard setback, not a 20 -foot front yard setback for this project site. The only deviation from code that is being proposed by the applicant is the height of some planter walls, and a water feature in the front yard. Kim Megonigal, applicant, gave an overview of the history of this project, which originated in 2007. He was requested to get an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which his attorneys did not believe was necessary, but everyone involved told him by getting the EIR it would help the project through the process. He paid the $35,000 for the EIR, which took a long period to complete. When the EIR was presented to staff last month, he was informed that there had been a problem with the visual simulations provided for the EIR, thus postponing the hearing another month in order to correct the visual simulation issue. He then read a letter from a Mr. Cook to Chairperson Hawkins, in favor of the project, which is now part of the record. Mr. David Olson, architect, showed a visual simulation pointing out improvements to the view since the last time the Commissioner saw the project. He also address his concerns over the following conditions of approval in the EIR: • Limiting of time for grading operations; grading cannot be done during the summer months. • Requiring monitoring of the site by an archeologist and a Native American Indian. Mr. Olson feels these are onerous burdens not required of other properties currently under construction on Pacific Avenue. The grading operations are a concern. They do not want to grade during the rainy months, and 4 the summer months are removed this leaves very little time to do grading operations. They would like these conditions removed. Mr. Campbell answered that staff has provided a revised resolution to the Commission and public, that incorporated the following mitigation measures from the EIR into the resolution: *Mitigation Measure No. 1 or Condition No. 34, which talks about a qualified archaeological /paleontological monitor to be retained for grading. •Mitigation Measure No. 7 or Condition No. 19d, dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during weekday peak hour traffic periods or during the summer season. Chairperson Hawkins asked the applicant to take time to review the revised conditions and will be called back to address any of his questions. Page 5 of 12 6110 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/19/2009 Mr. Campbell noted that Keeton Kreitzer, the environmental consultant who authored the EIR, was present and ready to take any questions of the Commissioners. Chairperson Hawkins asked if the City contracted with another firm, BonTerra Consulting, who review the biological report. Keeton Kreitzer answered that the applicant brought the Chambers Group, the original biologists, on board. The City had a third party, BonTerra Consulting, review the biological report and some issues were raised. The Chambers Group was sent back out to the project to confirm findings based on the BonTerra Consulting report. The Chambers Group report stands as being accurate. Chairperson Hawkins asked Mr. Kreitzer to address the visual simulation Issue. Mr. Kreitzer noted the following eThe visual simulations used were previously prepared for another project *There was a request for vegetation clearance, which occurred between the time the visual simulations were originally prepared late last year and when the visual simulations were used in the draft EIR *The visual simulation issue was brought to the consultant's attention during the course of the public review period. •Because baseline conditions had changed, reflecting a different view or perspective from Begonia Park, they had the simulation recreated. *The recreated simulation still showed an inaccurate size of the house. *They revised the simulation to reflect what the architect prepared relative to the baseline conditions, which now shows a more open view with the pruning or trimming of the vegetation. Commissioner Unsworth asked if the visual simulations included in the staff report were the new set, considered an accurate depiction of the view with and without the proposed residence, and to scale. Mr. Kreitzer answered that was correct. Chairperson Hawkins asked if the DEIR needed to be re- circulated. Mr. Kreitzer stated he had discussed this with staff. Mr. Kreitzer's opinion wa; based on Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which specificall; discusses recirculation when there is new information. Examples when recirculation is required are: eA significant new impact that was not previously disclosed or discussed; which there wasn't. eThe severity of an impact that would be substantially greater and would require additional mitigation; which has not been incorporated. •Feasible alternative or mitigation measures that are required that are Page 6 of 12 91 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11119/2009 were evaluated in the draft EIR; which there wasn't. *The draft EIR was inadequate or conciusory that would have prevented the public from commenting on its adequacy. The new information was not substantial; in fact, the error was pointed out in comments. The public had the opportunity and were able to comment on something that was able to be re -done. It was his opinion that recirculation was not need because the view impact, even with the changed condition, was less then significant. Chairperson Hawkins asked if the representative from SoftMirage, who did the visual simulations, was present. Mr. Campbell answered no, but he could address specific questions on the simulations and could show the simulations on the overhead, if the Commissioners desired. Commissioners stated they would like to see the simulations on the overhead. Mr. Campbell pointed out the following: • A before and after view showing the vegetation before and after being removed. • A view with the proposed residence. Mr. Campbell stated that the consideration of the Commissioners to recommend the project to City Council would be based on the significant impact of the view. Staff and Mr. Kreitzer's position is that it is not a significant impact to the view. Commissioner Hillgren asked if the visual they were looking at was taken from the lower bench and depicts the worst case. Mr. Campbell answered yes. Commissioner Eaton asked the following: •This was a referral from the City Council. The Commissioners are only recommending to City Council, and Council will have the ultimate decision. *Could Council chose one of the project alternatives and not re- circulate the EIR, even if they find there is a significant impact? •Referring to Condition 19d, is the grading project substantial enough that it could not be done during the summer and would there be a significant impact if it were done during the summer. Mr. Campbell answered yes to Mr. Eaton's first question. Deputy City Attorney Michael Torres answered if the Council found there was a significant impact, it would be the discretion of the Council to re- circulate or Page 7 of 12 146 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/19/2009 go with an alternative and not re- circulate. It is ultimately the Council's decision. Mr_ Campbell answered the question regarding Condition 19d: *The estimate for the grading is 630 yards and may only take several weeks to complete, elt is a very small amount compared to the larger construction projects with 20,000 to 30,000 yards. •These larger projects are typical in areas that are a little more sensitive for coastal access and why we use this condition. •This project site is a little less sensitive. eWe may have overestimated the impact and might be able to loosen up the requirement. Public comment was opened. The following people spoke in opposition of the project and had similar comments regarding the impacted view: Ken Jaggers — submitted a supplement to his other letter into record and pointed out his error showing 45 percent instead of 35 percent obscured view. Mr. Jaggers pointed out there was a variance for the 20 -foot setback granted in 1942, and a 5 -foot setback would be unseemly for the neighborhood and a traffic danger. He asked that the Commissioners consider the danger involved and if it is prudent to proceed. Additionally, this is a red curb and, to his knowledge, the City has been denying permits to others on Begonia Avenue to make any cuts in their curb for garages. Walter Cruttenden — pointed out the percentage of view loss depends on if you are sitting on a park bench, walking, or driving down the street. It can vary from 35 percent to 100 percent and asked the Commissioners to consider this before approving the project. Patricia Ricks — submitted a letter for record and pointed out various references in the City's General Plan regarding the protection of public views. Clayton Gorrie — submitted a new picture from a different view; concerned there needs to be a re- examination. Gary Kerns — stated 35 percent view loss is significant; strongly urged the Commission to adhere the General Plan, have Mr. Megonigal enjoy his property rights to build his home and not obstruct a significant portion of the view. Commissioner Hillgren asked Mr. Kerns what he considered was insignificant and what is a significant portion of property right removal in terms of ability to build someone's home. Mr. Kerns said he could only address the definition of significant as far as Page 8 of 12 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/19/2009 would be considered significant. Lucy Souers — submitted a letter for record and stated what impact the loss of view would be for her and her husband. Karen Fleming — feels the driveway and garage could be built off Bayside, below the project, and save the view. Elizabeth De Lameta — gave some historic background on the site. Dan Splitter — co- chairman of Friends of Begonia Park, summarized his objections to the proposed project. Mark Simon — urges the Commission to find balance between the applicant's right to build and the rights of the many citizens to enjoy the public view. Asks the Commission to recommend that Council accept the alternate design scenario from Page 6, Paragraph 4 of the October staff report; if this affemate design is not recommended, then urges Commission to recommend Council accept access from. Bayside Drive, as it is not a hazard per the City accident reports. Would like item No. 7 on Page 16 of the resolution be modified. Kelly Nape — agreed with Mr. Simon regarding the garage. The following people spoke in support of the project: Laura Catalino — spoke briefly in support. Damien Jordan — he lives adjacent and below the proposed project; he and his wife feel this project will actually improve the hillside above his property. Chairperson Hawkins asked Mr. Campbell if he had any responses to these public comments. Mr. Campbell noted he wanted to add four new letters he just received, all opposing the project and with similar comments on the view impact. Commissioner Peotter requested Mr. Campbell to address the Bayside Drive issue. Mr. Campbell noted that in the EIR they identified the following alternatives One alternative would take access from Bayside Drive, below the project, and eliminate the garage at the upper level. • This is a difficult scenario due to the significant grade elevation changes, • An extra driveway down below was considered to be a hazardous condition or potential hazardous condition by Public Works. The other alternative discussed was to have a one -car carport in -lieu of a garage or no carport at all; in essence park on the roof. Page 9 of 12 100 NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/19/2009 City Traffic Engineer Tony Brine noted that having access from Bayside Drive is an issue of site distance and the location, as it is now, of the curves does not meet the City site distance standards. There is another option to access the property and Public Works could not support the driveway on Bayside Drive because it is non - standard site distance. Chairperson Hawkins noted there was also the factor that this driveway would abut against the other driveway on Bayside Drive. Commissioner McDaniel noted the following: *Mr. Megonigai had concerns about access from Bayside Drive and that he wanted to have the Pacific Drive address. •Is there any reason why he could not have the Pacific Drive address and have access from another location? Ot could possibly save the view. Mr. Campbell stated it could be possible, but may not be the most advisable, and noted the following: *Addressing is done in conjunction with the Fire Department to insure adequate emergency response. •A Pacific Drive address could pose a problem if any emergency response team arrived at the upper location and found out that access to the location was actually below, off Bayside Drive. Mr. Campbell wanted to clarify a statement made by one of the public speakers, about the General Plan being voter approved. The portion of the General Plan that was voter approved pertained to the increases in density, and intensity, and traffic citywide. The actual tent of the document, the policies that are contained therein, was something that the City Council adopted; therefore, the voters did not approve the actual policies that were addressed and looked at this evening. Chairperson Hawkins asked Mr. Olson if he had an opportunity to review the revised conditions and if he had any concerns. Mr. Olson said after reviewing the revisions, he had the same concerns regarding the term for the period for grading, as referred to in Condition No. 19d. Chairperson Hawkins asked how long the grading would take. Mr. Megonigal stated his contractor, who was in the audience, said it would take one week. Mr. Brine did not see a concern with the limited amount of truck traffic during the summer. Commissioner Toerge recommended that Condition No. 19d be change to read, Dirt haulier shall not be scheduled during weekda eak hour tragic Page 10 of 12 j O NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/19/2009 periods. Chairperson Hawkins asked if the mitigation measures and modification to Condition No. 19d was acceptable to Mr. Olson. Mr. Olson answered yes. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Eaton asked the applicant what his concerns would be with the rooftop - parking alternative. Mr. Olson noted the following: -The rooftop parking violates the City requirement to have two - enclosed garage spaces. • It would devalue the property by not having an enclosed parking space. .Access to the house would be limited. There needs to be some kind of structure to walk through the door, enter the house, and go down. Commissioner Toerge addressed his concerns on some of the public comments made tonight and how difficult it is protect views, where do you draw the line, and you cannot protect every view across the City. There is a balance but not enough to restrict someone from building a home. Motion was made by Commissioner Toerge and seconded by Commissioner Peotter to adopt a resolution recommending Certification of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and approval of Modification Permit No. MD2007 -080 to the City Council with the following modification to the Condition No. 19d that it reads as follows: Dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during weekday peak hour traffic periods. Commissioner Hillgren recommended to strike Condition No. 34, which talks about a qualified archaeological /paleontological monitor to be retained for grading. Commissioner Toerge amended his motion to delete Condition No. 34 and seconded by Commissioner Peotter. Mr. Lepo said staff would accept the deletion. Commissioner McDaniel said he would vote for the motion, but felt the rooftop alternative would resolve the view impact issue. Chairperson Hawkins asked staff if a variance would be required if the Commission required only the service and to delete the structure of the garage. Mr. Lepo answered it would require a variance from the code requirement and probably go to another level of approval as far as coastal development permit. Page 11 of 12 1 a t NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11/1912009 Commissioner Eaton asked Mr. Lepo if a variance was required would it have to go to the Coastal Commission. Mr. Lepo answered it could likely go to the Coastal Commission for the issuance of a coastal development permit. Ayes: Eaton, Unsworth, Hawkins, Peotter, McDaniel, Toerge, and Hillgren Noes: None Excused: None NEW BUSINESS: Ci ouncil Follow -up — Mr. Afford noted Council denied the extension of the hours the Port Restaurant appeal, approved live entertainment with a number o trictions, and lunch meal service on weekends. Council approved the North Ne Center Planned Community Amendment. Planning Commissio ports — Commissioner Eaton noted that the General Plan Update Committe at on November 17 and reviewed the issue on submerge lands. The next .ng is scheduled for December 16. Chairperson Hawkins noted that he General Plan Update Committee the Mayor announced the inclusionary h ing ordinance will not be within the jurisdiction of this body or within the zom code but will be in the subdivision code. The inclusionary housing ordinance it have its first reading at the Council meeting on November 24. Chairperson Hawkins reported that both EDC Ex ive and EDC Full Committee meetings for November were cancelled. Announcements on matters that Commission members would lik aced on a future agenda for discussion, action, or report — None Requests for excused absences — None. Commissioners and staff discusse future meetings. ADJOURNMENT: 9:00 p.m. CHARLES UNSWORTH, SECRETARY CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION Page 12 of 12 i !03 CC 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 li5- RESOLUTION NO. 1795 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MEGONIGAL RESIDENCE AND APPROVAL OF MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 2007 -080 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2333 PACIFIC DRIVE (PA 2007 -133) WHEREAS, an application was filed by David R. Olson on behalf of Kim and Carolyn Megonigal, property owners, with respect to property located at 2333 Pacific Drive, requesting a modification permit to exceed the 3 -foot height lim itation in the front yard setback to allow for planter walls and a water feature; and WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 2007 -3 requires that all new development comply with applicable policies of the General Plan and City Council Ordinance No. 2007 -3 sets forth design criteria to insure that all new single -unit and two -unit residential projects are consistent with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 19, 2009, in the City Hall Council Chambers, at 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California. A notice of time, place, and purpose of the aforesaid meeting was given. The application, plans, staff report, and evidence, both written and oral, were presented to and considered by the Planning Commission at this meeting; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds as follows: The proposed project is in substantial conformance with the public view protection policies of the General Plan a nd Coastal Land Use Plan. The proposed project minimizes impacts to the public views to the maximum extent feasible by placing the development further down the bluff, limiting street level development to a single story, pulling back elements to avoid impacts to the public views from Begonia Park, and imposing an important view easement. 2. The proposed project is in substantial conformance with the neighborhood compatibility policies of the General Plan. Placing the development further down the bluff and limiting street level development to a single story results in a building that is consistent with the scale and massing of the neighborhood. Providing clearstory windows on the front elevation and planters in the front yard opens the project to Pacific Drive and Begonia Avenue. 3, The proposed project is in substantial conformance with the landform alteration policies of the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan and Criterion No. 7 of Ordinance No. 2007 -3. These applicable policies and Criterion No. 7 require that consideration be given to landform protection in order to maintain the City's environmental character and to preserve visual resources. The coastal bluff in this area is severely degraded to the extent that it cannot be considered a I V? Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 significant visual resource. Further alteration would not significantly impact the City's environmental character, but would assist in minimizing impacts to public views. WHEREAS, Chapter 20.93 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code requires findings and facts in support of such findings for approval of a modification permit, which are presented as follows: In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.93, the granting of this application is necessary due to practical difficulties associated with the property. The strict application of the Zoning Code results in physical hardships that are inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Code for the following reasons: ■ The subject property slopes from a curb elevation of 72.5 feet above mean sea level (MSL) down to an elevation of 64 feet MSL at the dwelling. • The front portion of the lot needs to be filled in order to provide vehicular access to the residence and landscaping at street grade in a manner that is consistent with the development pattern of the neighboring properties. • Any structure in the front yard will exceed the 3 -foot height limit, which constitutes a practical difficulty. 2. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.93, the requested modification will be compatible with existing developments) in the neighborhood for the following reasons: Most properties on Pacific drive are developed with single - family dwellings with front yard setback designs that include landscaping and accessory structures at street grade. ■ The proposed planters will be at comparable heights when measured from the finished grade. The proposed planters, along with the driveway and entry walkway redesigned to meet City Council Policy L -6, will provide a front yard that is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 3. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 20.93, the granting of this Modification Permit will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property and not be detrimental to the general welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood based on the following: ■ The proposed water feature will be removed. •A Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Paae 3 of 31 ■ The proposed driveway, entry walkway, and planters are conditioned to be redesigned to meet City Council Policy L -6. ■ Public views will not be substantially impacted with approval of the modification permit given the position of the proposed features necessitating the modification permit and the proposed single family residence. WHEREAS, a draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2009041010) has been prepared pursuant to the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. The DEIR was circulated for a 45-day comment period beginning on August 24, 2009, and concluding on October 8, 2009. The DEIR and comments and responses to the comments were considered by the Planning Commission in its review of the proposed project. The Planning Commission has also considered draft Findings and Facts in support of Findings supporting the certification of the draft Environmental Impact Report and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. WHEREAS, on the basis of the entire environmental review record, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact upon the environment with the incorporation of mitigation measures. 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 are feasible and reduce potential environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation measures are applied to the project and are incorporated as conditions of approval. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that judicial challenges to the City's CEQA determinations and approvals of land use projects are costly and time consuming. In addition, project opponents often seek an award of attorneys' fees in such challenges. As project applicants are the primary beneficiaries of such approvals, it is appropriate that such applicants should bear the expense of defending against any such judicial challenge, and bear the responsibility for any costs, attorneys' fees, and damages which may be awarded to a successful challenger. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Section 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach recommends certification of the Megonigal Residence Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2009041010) attached as Exhibit A based upon the draft findings attached as Exhibit B. Section 2. The Planning Commission of the City of Newport Beach hereby recommends approval of Modification Permit No. 2007 -080 subject to the findings herein and conditions attached as Exhibit C. r01 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Paqe 4 of 31 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009. AYES: Eaton, Hillgren, Hawkins, McDaniel, Peotter, Toerge, Unsworth NOES: None BY: o art Hawki s, Chairman BY: � MA J� � � 'V�� Charles Unsworth, Secretary /it) Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 5 of 31 Exhibit "A" Megonigal Residence Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2009041010) Consists of. 1. Volume 1 - Draft Environmental Impact Report Dated August 2009 2. Volume 2 - Responses to Comments Dated November 2009 3. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program November 2009 4. Errata dated November 2009 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 6 of 31 Exhibit "B" INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21081, and the State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 15091 requires that a public agency consider the environmental impacts of a project before a project is approved and make specific findings. CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 provides: (a) No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. The possible findings are: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (b) The findings required by subdivision (a) shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) The finding in subdivision (a)(2) shall not be made if the agency making the finding has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. The finding in subdivision (a)(3) shall describe the specific reasons for rejecting identified mitigation measures and project alternatives. (d) When making the findings required in subdivision (a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. These measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures. (e) The public agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is based. (f) A statement made pursuant to Section 15093 does not substitute for the findings required by this section. c1?, Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Pace 7 of 31 Having received, reviewed and considered the Megonigal Residence Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2009041010 (the "EIR ") for the proposed Megonigal Residence project (the "Project"), as well as all other information in the record of proceedings on this matter, the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings set forth below are adopted by the City of Newport Beach (the "City) in its capacity as the CEQA Lead Agency: A. Document Format These Findings have been organized into the following sections: (1) Section 1 provides an introduction to these Findings. (2) Section 2 summarizes the environmental review and public participation process. (3) Section 3 provides the background information and the Project Description. (4) Section 4 provides the City's findings as to why an Environmental Impact Report is the appropriate document for the Project. (5) Section 5 sets forth findings regarding those environmental impacts which were determined either (i) not to be relevant to the Project or (ii) clearly not manifested at levels deemed to be significant. Section 5 addresses both Project - specific and cumulative impacts. (5) Section 6 sets forth findings regarding potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the EIR which, after evaluation in the EIR, the City has determined are either not significant or can feasibly be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of project design features, standard conditions, and/or mitigation measures. Section 6 addresses both Project-specific and cumulative impacts. In order to ensure compliance and implementation, all of these measures will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project Where potentially significant impacts can be avoided or substantially lessened through adherence to project design features and standard conditions, these findings specify how those potentially significant impacts were so avoided or substantially lessened. (7) Section 7 sets forth findings regarding alternatives to the Project. B. Custodian and Location of Records The documents and other materials which constitute the administrative record for the City's actions related to the Project are located at the City of Newport Beach Planning Department, 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92658. The City Planning Department is the custodian of the administrative record for the Project. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The environmental review process for the Megonigal Residence is summarized as follows: In accordance with CEQA requirements, the City prepared and published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The NOP was filed with the State Clearinghouse on May 11, 2009. The State Clearinghouse assigned State Clearinghouse Number (SCH No.) 2009041010 for the document. The NOP was distributed to all responsible and trustee agencies and other interested parties on May 6, 2009 for a 30-day public review. The review period ended on June 9, 2009. The Notice of Preparation was included in the Draft EIR as Appendix A. Comments received during the NOP comment period are included in Appendix A of the DEIR. 113 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 8 of 31 • In accordance with CEQA requirements, a Notice of Completion (NOC) of the Draft EIR was filed with the State Clearinghouse on August 24, 2009. The Draft EIR consisted of a single volume, including technical appendices. The Draft EIR was distributed to agencies, interested organizations, and individuals by the City of Newport Beach. A forty -five (45) day public review period for the Draft EIR was established pursuant to CEQA, which commenced on August 24, 2009 and ended on October 7, 2009. • Comments received during the public review period for the Draft EIR were addressed in a Response to Comments document dated November 9, 2009, as published by the City, during a noticed public hearing of the Newport Beach Planning Commission. • The Final EIR (Responses to Public Comments) was distributed to responsible agencies, agencies and individuals submitting comments on November _, 2009 in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5. The following components comprise the Final EIR on the Megonigal Residence Project (PA2007 -133): (a) Draft EIR, dated August 2009; (b) Comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments, included as Appendix D to the Final EIR, dated October 2009; (c) Errata to the Draft EIR included as Appendix E dated November 2009. (d) All attachments, incorporations, and references to the documents delineated in items a. through c. above, and submitted to the City as part of the EIR process. • The Newport Beach Planning Commission considered the Final EIR on the Megonigal Residence Project at its duly noticed public hearing on November 19, 2009. • The Newport Beach City Council considered the Draft EIR and Final EIR on the Megonigal Residence Project at its duly noticed public hearing on D _, 2009. 3. BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTI The Project Site is located at 2333 Pacific Drive in the City of Newport Beach. The Project consists of the proposed development of the 0.1 -acre Project Site (4,412 square feet) with a 3,566 square -foot single- family residence. The proposed residence will consist of three levels: 1,827 square feet on the first floor; 934 square feet on the second floor; and 805 square feet on the uppermost level (includes a 428 - square foot, 2 -car garage). Vehicular access is from Pacific Drive at the intersection of Begonia Avenue and Pacific Drive. In addition to the indoor living area, 1,004 square feet of outdoor patio space on the three levels is provided. The applicant is requesting approval of Modification Permit No. 2007 -080 to allow planter walls and a water feature to exceed the three -foot height limit requirement in the front yard setback. In addition, because the proposed planter walls and water feature would also encroach up to 13 feet into the Begonia Avenue right -of -way, an encroachment permit from the City's Public works Department will also be required. The following discretionary approval is requested or required by the City in order to implement the project: Modification Permit (MD2007 -080) 4. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT After determining that an EIR should be prepared to evaluate the Project's potential impacts, the City distributed a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") for the EIR on May 8, 2009. The NOP provided for a 30 -day review period. The 114 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Paae 9 of 31 NOP was distributed to the State Clearinghouse Office of Planning and Research, public agencies, utility and service providers, interested persons who requested notice, and the Orange County Clerk/Recorder. The City received five (5) written responses to the NOP (refer to EIR Appendix B). The initial NOP comments were used to establish the scope of the issues addressed in the EIR, which are as follows: Land Use and Planning Aesthetics Biological Resources S. This Section 4 describes, by issue, those potential effects of the Project which were determined not to be potentially significant and which, therefore, are not discussed in the EIR. CEQA provides that an EIR shall focus on all potentially significant effects on the environment created by a project, with an emphasis upon their severity and probability of occurrence. The City has concluded that the Project would not result in significant impacts with respect to the following: Agriculture - No Prime Farmland, Farmland of State or Local Importance, or Unique Farmland occurs Within or in the vicinity of the Project Site. The Project Site and adjacent areas are designated as "Urban and Built -up Land" and "Other Land" on the Orange County important Farmland Map. Further, neither the Project Site nor the adjacent areas are designated as prime, unique or important farmlands by the State Resources Agency or by the Newport Beach General Plan. The Newport Beach General Plan, Land Use Element designates the Project Site as "Single Unit Residential - Detached (RS -D)." The project site is zoned R -1 (Single - Family Residential. Therefore, there is no conflict with zoning for agricultural use, and the property and surrounding properties are not under a Williamson Act contract. The Project Site is not being used for agricultural purposes and, as indicated previously, is not designated as agricultural land. The Project Site and the area surrounding the Project Site are developed with residential uses. Therefore, no agricultural uses on the Project Site or within the Project Site's vicinity would be converted to non - agricultural use. No significant impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Air Quality — neither short -term (i.e., construction) nor long -term (Le., operational) emissions associated with the proposed project would exceed SCAQMD recommended significance thresholds. These thresholds were developed to provide a method of assessing a project's individual impact significance, and also to determine whether the project's impacts could be cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would not, therefore, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Long -term emission sources associated with the proposed single - family residence include vehicular exhaust from daily traffic (i.e., based on about 10 vehicle trips per day), energy consumption, site and landscape maintenance, and incidental emissions from use of a variety of household cleaning and hair care products. Estimated long -term project - related emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD daily thresholds for all categories of pollutants. The projects long -term emissions would not violate any air quality standard established by the AQMD or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic well - being, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health- related problems. The State Legislature has directed the California Air Resources Board to consult with the Public Utilities Commission in the development of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions reduction measures, including limits on emissions of greenhouse gases applied to electricity and natural gas providers regulated by the Public Utilities Commission. The Legislature has also directed the California Air Resources Board to assure that such measures meet the statewide emissions limits for greenhouse gases (GHG) to be established pursuant to Assembly Bill 32. Although the project would increase the resident population IT Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Paae 10 of 31 on the project site, the proposed project includes only one single - family residence. The incremental increase in potential greenhouse gases associated with the proposed single - family residence would not be significant in the context of the contribution of worldwide GHG impacts. Cultural Resources — The project site is currently undeveloped. No historic resources are identified either on the site or in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. The site is no identified by the City as possessing potentially important historic resources. Therefore, project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts to historic resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Based on the degree of disturbance that has already occurred on the site and in the vicinity of the project site, project implementation will not result in potentially significant impacts to human remains; no mitigation measures are required. Geology and Soils — The subject property is located in the seismically active southern California region; several active faults are responsible for generating moderate to strong earthquakes throughout the region. Due to the proximity of the site to the Newport- Inglewood Fault zone, the subject property has a moderate to high probability to be subjected to seismic and associated hazards. The maximum credible earthquake on the NIFZ is estimated to be 7.6 with a probable magnitude of 6.6 on the Richter Scale. Estimated peak ground acceleration for the subject site from an earthquake with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in a 50 -year period is 0.39g. Similarly, the maximum credible earthquake on the Elsinore - Whittier Fault is 8.0, with a probable (Richter) magnitude of 7.2. Other faults capable of producing seismic activity that could affect the subject property include the San Jacinto and San Andreas Faufts and the Whittier Fault, which is a northern branch of the Elsinore Fault. In addition to these faults, the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault is located less than 1.5 to 2.5 miles below the area. This fault and the Newport Inglewood faun (concealed segment), located approximately 750 to 1,000 feet from the subject site, are considered potential causative faults in the area. Even though the project site and surrounding areas could be subject to strong ground movements, incorporation of the recommendations included in the preliminary geotechnical report and adherence to current building standards of the City of Newport Beach would reduce the potential adverse effects of ground movement hazards to a less than significant level. Based on the geologic exploration undertaken on the subject property, the site is underlain by sedimentary rocks of the Monterey Formation. These rocks do not have the potential for liquefaction. Furthermore, no groundwater is present to the depths and no loose sands or coarse silt is present. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction is less than significant. Proper design of the proposed residence will ensure that ground failure, including that associated with liquefaction, will not pose a significant hazard to the development. Hazards and Hazardous Materials — Construction activities would involve the use of materials associated with the construction of a residential building, including oil, gas, tar, construction materials and adhesives, cleaning solvents and paint. Transport of these materials to the site and use on the site would only create a localized hazard in the event of an accident or spills. Hazardous materials use, transport, storage and handling would be subject to federal, state and local regulations to reduce the risk of accidents. Equipment maintenance and disposal of vehicular fluids is subject to existing regulations, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Given the nature of the project In terms of scope and size (i.e., single - family residence on a 4,400 square foot lot), it is anticipated that normal storage, use and transport of hazardous materials will not result in undue risk to construction workers on the site or to persons on surrounding areas. The use and disposal of any hazardous materials on the site and in conjunction with the project will be in accordance with existing regulations. With the exception of small quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, cleaning solvents, paints, etc., that are typically used to maintain residential properties, on -going operation of the site for residential use will not result in the storage or use of hazardous materials. There is no indication that the subject site has been contaminated that would adversely affect site development. Although grading and site preparation activities will expose subsurface soils and result in the generation of fugitive dust, no hazardous emissions will occur as a result of project implementation. Therefore, no significant impacts will occur. Hydrology and Water Quality— No stream or river exists on site. Existing surface runoff generated on the subject property occurs as sheet flow and drains in a southerly direction over the bluff where it enters the City's storm drain system before discharging into Newport Bay, which has been identified as 114 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 11 of 31 containing "environmentally sensitive areas" as defined by the 2003 Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) and the Water Quality Control Plans for the Santa Ana Basin. The actual amount of stormwater runoff generated from the building footprint and paved areas (totaling approximately 2,300 square feet) would be insignificant. Compliance with applicable building, grading and water quality codes and policies, which are performed during the plan check stage, will ensure that surface flows can be accommodate and water quality protected. . Project implementation will result in an increase in impervious surfaces on the site, which would generate additional surface runoff. However, the post - development impervious surfaces would be limited to approximately 2,300 square feet which would not generate a significant amount of stormwater runoff. As previously indicated, the project will be designed to incorporate on -site retention or similar features. As a result, the existing storm drainage collection and conveyance facilities in the project area have adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed project. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Newport Bay is listed as an 'impaired" water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, with respect to metals, pesticides and priority organics. Changes in surface runoff are anticipated as a result of the development of the subject property with one residence that could result in potential impacts to water quality. However, the project will be designed to comply with all relevant building, grading and water quality codes and policies to ensure that there will not be an adverse effect on water quality, either during construction or during the operational life of the project. Final plan check include the preparation of an adequate drainage and erosion control plan that must be found to meet applicable standards. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. The subject property is not located within the 100 -year flood plain as delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the City of Newport Beach. No homes would be placed within the 100 -year flood plain and no significant impacts are would occur. Compliance with existing regulatory programs administered by the City of Newport Beach and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). While it is impossible to anticipate all potential environmental issues that could arise on a daily basis during the course of the project, the site will be designed to provide address sediment and erosion control for both temporary (i.e., construction) and long -term (i.e., operational) activities occurring on the subject property. In addition, site design will also address pollutants other than sediment, including those intended to control spills for hazardous materials, solid waste management, hazardous waste management, etc. A on -site retention and /or filtration or clarifiers would be required to meet water quality standards. The water quatity features incorporated into the project will be selected to address the main pollutants of concern for a residential project, and for the impacted water body, i.e. Newport Bay. Newport Bay is listed as an "impaired" water body under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, with respect to metals, pesticides and priority organics. Implementation of the water quality features by the City prior to issuance of the grading permit will ensure that this project does not violate any water quality standards during construction or over the long -term operating life of the developed site. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no additional mitigation measures are required. Noise — Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the construction procedures, construction equipment used, and proximity to vibration - sensitive uses. The effect of vibration on buildings near a construction site varies depending on the magnitude of vibration, geology, 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 minor cosmetic 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. It is anticipated that vibration levels generated by construction vehicles and during such activities as caisson drilling and excavation may exceed the Federal Transportation Agency annoyance threshold (i.e., 78 VdB) for residential uses. Therefore, potential short -tens impacts from vibration-Induced annoyance may occur at residences within 50 feet of the most vibration intensive construction equipment. However, these temporary annoyances will be less III Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Pace 12 of 31 than significant and would cease upon completion of the grading /excavation and foundation. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. Development of this property with a single - family residential dwelling unit would not result in any changes in land use that include significant new noise sources. Long -term noise associated with outdoor recreation activities and vehicular traffic generated by one home would be minor and compatible with adjacent and nearby residential uses. Long -term noise levels would not be expected to increase as a result of the additional vehicular trips when compared to existing conditions. Therefore, no significant long -term noise impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. The project site is not within an airport land use plan nor is the site within two miles of an airport or private airstrip. Noise in the vicinity of the project site associated with aircraft operations occurring at John Wane Airport are below 60 dBA CNEL and therefore, future residents will not be subjected to excessive noise levels. Population and Housing — The Project will result in an increase of one dwelling unit, consistent with the land use designation (RS -D). The proposed project is consistent with the adopted land use designation and zoning applicable to the subject property. Development of the site with one single - family residence in accordance with the adopted long -range plans for the subject property would not result in significant growth and, furthermore, would not result in the potential for unanticipated growth because the project is located in an area that is virtually built out. As "in-fill' development, construction of the proposed project would not necessitate the implementation of new Infrastructure such as major roadway improvements and/or the extension of infrastructure that could induce unanticipated growth and development. All of the infrastructure, including sewer and water facilities, storm drains, roadways, etc., exist in the immediate vicinity of the project site and have adequate capacity to serve the proposed Project Therefore, no significant growth- inducing impacts will occur as a result of project implementation. In addition, the increase of one dwelling unit will not contribute significantly to the cumulative loss of homes and/or displacement of occupants in the City. Together with the approved and planned development identified in EIR Table 9 -1 (the "Cumulative Projects "), a substantial increase in residential development is anticipated in the City, including 974 dwelling units alone on the Conexant and Koll properties in the Airport area. Other smaller residential developments are also proposed in the City, including the Aerie condominium project and other single - family and duplex dwelling units in the area. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on the reduction of housing in the City is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant The existing residential development is not included in the City's inventory of affordable housing. No low- and/or moderate - income households occupy the Project Site and, therefore, none would be displaced as a result of Project implementation. Further, proposed single - family residence will not adversely affect the jobs/housing balance because the Project will be consistent with the City's long - range plans, which are the basis of the jobs/housing projections. Therefore, Project implementation will not result in potentially significant cumulative impacts to population and housing. Recreation - The project will result in the construction of only one single - family residence on the site on the 4,400 square foot lot Although residents of the proposed project would occasionally visit local and regional parks and beaches, use of those public facilities by the future residents would not represent a substantial change in the intensity of usage and the impact would not result in substantial physical deterioration of those park areas. The proposed project does not include any recreational facilities. Development of the site with one single - family residence will not require the construction of new or the expansion of existing recreational facilities in the City of Newport Beach given the small increase in population. On a cumulative basis, although the generation of additional residents associated with the Cumulative Projects could result in a demand for recreational amenities, the Project's incremental contribution to the cumulative demands created by the Cumulative Projects is not cumulatively considerable because only lit Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 13 of 31 one dwelling unit is proposed for the Project, consistent with the City's General Plan projections. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on recreational resources is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. Mineral Resources - Neither the Newport Beach General Plan (Recreation and Open Space Element) nor the State of California has identified the already - developed Project Site or environs as a potential mineral resource of Statewide or regional significance. No mineral resources are known to exist and, therefore, Project implementation will not result in any significant impacts to regional or state -wide important resources. Furthermore, the Newport Beach General Plan does not identify the project environs as having potential value as a locally important mineral resource site. The proposed demolition and construction will not result in the loss of any locally important mineral resource site and, therefore, no significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. On a cumulative basis, the Project, the Project's incremental contribution to the impacts to mineral resources created by the Cumulative Projects is not cumulatively considerable because the Project 'does not result in the loss of any important mineral resources. Although the Project will require the use of mineral resources (e.g., sand and gravel, wood, etc.), many are renewable and/or sustainable. Additionally, with the exception of the Newport Banning Ranch, which has been a producing oil field for several years, many of the sites on which development of the Cumulative Projects is proposed are either already developed (e.g., ConexanVKoll, Newport Beach Country Club, etc.) or are located in areas of the City that do not possess mineral resources. Therefore, there appears to be no significant cumulative impact to mineral resources from the Cumulative Projects. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on mineral resources is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. Public Services: Fire Protection - Fire protection facilities and service to the Project Site are provided by the Newport Beach Fire Department (NBFD). In addition to the City's resources, the NBFD also maintains a formal automatic aid agreement with the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) and all neighboring municipal fire departments to facilitate fire protection in the City should the need arise. The Project will result in the addition of one single - family residence on a currently vacant lot that is surrounded by existing residential development. As a result, there will not be a significant increase in residential units or persons requiring emergency services. The Project must comply with the City's current building and fire codes and is replacing a decades old structure which is not consistent with today's building codes. The Project includes all necessary fire protection devices, as required by the Newport Beach Fire Department and Uniform Fire Code. Adequate water supplies and infrastructure, including fire hydrants, exist in the vicinity of the Project, and there is no requirement for other new facilities or emergency services. A code compliance analysis will be conducted by City staff to ensure that adequate water pressure and related features required by the City are provided to ensure that the project complies with the CFC and related City codes. Adequate water supplies and infrastructure, including fire hydrants, exist in the vicinity of the project, and there is no requirement for other new facilities or emergency services. On a cumulative basis, the less- than - significant potential impacts associated with the Project will not alter the ability of the Newport Beach Fire Department to provide an adequate level of service to the Project, even when considering the potential development of the Cumulative Projects, because the Project Site is located in a residential neighborhood that Is currently provided fire service. Development of the Cumulative Projects will also be evaluated by the Newport Beach Fire Department to ensure that adequate levels of service can be provided. These projects are within the long -range projections of the City's General Plan and, therefore, would not adversely affect the City's ability to provide an adequate level of protection. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on the provision of fire services is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. Public Services: Police Protection - The Newport Beach Police Department (NBPD) is responsible for providing police and law enforcement services within the corporate limits of the City. The Police Department headquarters is located at 870 Santa Barbara Drive, at the intersection of Jamboree Road and Santa Barbara, approximately two miles northeast of the Project Site. The NBPD currently has a Im Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 14 of 31 ratio of 1.91 sworn officers for each 1,000 residents in the City. This ratio is adequate for the current population. Police and law enforcement service in the City is provided by patrols with designated "beats." Development of the site with one single - family residence will not require an expansion of local law enforcement resources and, therefore, will not require the construction of new law enforcement facilities. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. On a cumulative basis, the potential (less than significant) impacts associated with the Project would not alter the ability of either the Newport Beach Police Department from providing an adequate level of service to the Project Site, even when considering the Cumulative Projects, because the Project Site is currently provided police service. The potential development of the Cumulative Projects would also be evaluated by the Newport Beach Police Departments to ensure that adequate levels of service can be provided. The Cumulative Projects are within the long -range projections identified in the City's General Plan and, therefore, would not adversely affect the City's ability to provide an adequate level of protection. Therefore, the Project's incremental effect on the provision of police services is not cumulatively considerable and, as a result, when combined with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. • Public Services: Schools - The provision of educational facilities and services in the City of Newport Beach is the responsibility of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District. Residential and non - residential development is subject to the imposition of school fees. Payment of the State - mandated statutory school fees is the manner by which potential impacts to the District's educational facilities are mitigated. Government Code Section 65996 significantly limits the scope of evaluation of school facilities impacts under CEQA. Despite this limitation, the fallowing information has been evaluated regarding the Project's potential generation of school age children and is provided for informational purposes. At the present time, therefore, this property has no impact on the Newport Mesa Unified School District because it is undeveloped. It is estimated that, upon Project completion and occupancy, only one student would be generated by the Project. New or expanded school facilities would not be required to provide classroom and support space for the project's school age child. However, the Project is subject to the payment of any required school fee to the school district pursuant to Section 65995 of the California Government Code in order to offset the incremental cost impact of expanding school resources to accommodate the increased student enrollment associated with new residential development. With the payment of the mandatory school fees, no significant impacts would occur as a result of Project implementation. Similarly, with the payment of the mandatory school fees, no potentially significant cumulative impacts would occur as a result of Project implementation. • Public Services: Other Public Facilities — Although development of the site with one single - family residence will occur, the potential increased demand for other public services is anticipated minor and there would be no need to construct any new public facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. On a cumulative basis, the potential increase in residents generated by the Cumulative Projects could result in an increased demand for other public facilities. However, because the Project would result in the development of only one dwelling unit, the Project's incremental effect on other public facilities will not be cumulatively considerable. These fees are used by the City to provide recreational facilities and amenities that serve the residents of Newport Beach/ Therefore, the Project will not have a significant cumulative effect on other public facilities. • Traffic and Circulation — There are no CMP roadways in the project vicinity and, as noted above, project - related traffic would have a negligible effect (i.e., 10 trips/day) on traffic conditions. 'The proposed residential structure is under the 24 -foot height limit and would not encroach into any aviation - related air space. The proposed project is located approximately 4.5 mites from John Wayne Airport and is not located within an area that is affected by aircraft operations. This project would have no effect on the volumes of air traffic occurring at John Wayne Airport or any other airports in the region. (20 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Paae 15 of 31 During the construction phases, a variety of construction vehicles, including large delivery trucks, concrete pumpers, dump trucks, and a variety of passenger vehicles, will travel to and from the subject property. On some occasions, there will be a number of medium and heavy trucks that could add to local congestion levels and possibly affect through - traffic for short periods of time. Vehicular sight distance of vehicles entering and exiting the site must be found consistent at the time of building permit issuance with Standard Drawing 110 -L prescribed in the Public Works Design Manual to ensure safe vehicular access. Compliance with this standard will ensure that the project driveway will be designed safely. Traffic associated with the proposed single - family residence would include the same automobile trip characteristics typically associated with similar residential development in the project area and would be compatible with the existing mixture of vehicular traffic. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. The Newport Beach Fire Department will review the site plan and will conducted a code compliance analysis with the City's Building Department to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided to the residence. During construction, portions of Pacific Avenue fronting the project site will be disrupted by construction activities including construction vehicles. However, the use of flagmen would be required to facilitate circulation in the area, Pacific Avenue will remain open to vehicular and emergency traffic. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. During the construction phases, temporary displacement of public on- street parking may occur caused by construction crew members and possibly while large truck delivery and pick up of machinery and construction materials. This will occur during construction and will cease when construction concludes. The project provides parking in accordance with the Zoning Code (two enclosed spaces). No public parking is presently afforded along the curb in front of the project site as it is painted as a "red curb;" therefore, construction of the proposed driveway approach will not displace any existing public parking. Utilities - Wastewater generated by the Project will be disposed into the existing sewer system and will not exceed wastewater treatment standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Water demand and wastewater generation will not increase significantly due to the increase in the number of occupants who will reside on the Project Site when the home is constructed. The Project will connect to existing water and wastewater facilities in the adjacent streets. No expansion of these facilities is necessary due to existing capacity and the addition of only one single - family dwelling unit. Future water demand based on the General Plan projections would not be increased significantly and would be within the long -range projections anticipated in the General Plan. Similarly, the Project will not result in a significant increase in solid waste production because only one dwelling unit will be constructed on the project site. Existing landfills are expected to have adequate capacity to service the Project. Solid waste production will be picked up by either the City or a commercial provider licensed by the City. All federal, state, and local regulations related to solid waste will be adhered to through this process. On a cumulative basis, the incremental increase in the demand for utilities as a result of the proposed project is within the long -range projections anticipated for the project site. When compared to other Cumulative projects proposed and approved in the City, the addition of one dwelling unit on the site would not represent a significant contribution to cumulative impacts. Therefore, the incremental effect of the Project on utilities is not cumulatively considerable and, when associated with the effects of the Cumulative Projects, is not significant. 6. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS The following potentially significant environmental impacts were evaluated in the Initial Study and EIR. In each instance, that evaluation demonstrated that as a result of either compliance with existing laws, codes and statutes, the identification of feasible mitigation measures, and/or a combination of one or more of these factors, the potentially significant impact had been avoided or reduced to a level of less than significance. Therefore, for these effects and in accordance with CEQA Section 21081(a)(1) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(1), the City finds that "Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR." (Note: For the purposes of bay Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Paqe 16 of 31 these Findings, Section 21081(a)(1)'s words "mitigate or avoid" are deemed to have the same meaning as Section 15091(a)(lys words "avoid or substantially lessen" and will be used interchangeably,) Because standard conditions, or regulations are considered "incorporated into the Project" where environmental effects have been avoided or reduced to less than significance solely due to these measures, no significant impact will be found and, therefore, no "mitigation" is required. Nonetheless, the City will, within these findings, include findings explaining how such measures are proposed to be incorporated within the Project with the result that the applicable environmental effect has been avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance. Where, on the other hand, a significant impact is identified despite the inclusion of project design features and the applicability of existing laws, codes, and statutes, that significant impact will be identified and, where feasible, mitigation shall be proposed. 6.1 LAND USE AND PLANNING (1) Potential Impact: 111 the Project create a conflict with an applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Finding: The City determines that the project will not conflict with the adopted General Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan, or any policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Discussion: As demonstrated in EIR Table 4.1 -1 (City's General Plan), EIR Table 4.1 -2 (Newport Beach Coastal Land Use Plan), and EIR Table 4.1 -3 (Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide), the Project is consistent with the City's Land Use Element and Coastal Land Use Plan of the City's General Plan, the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, and with the long -range goals, policies and objectives adopted by the City in the General Plan Update, The Project is also compatible with the existing land uses in the area. Tables 4.1 -1, 4.1 -2, and EIR Table 4.1 -3, are incorporated into these findings by reference. Further, implementation of the standard condition identified for the Project (i.e., comply with the zoning district regulations, California Building Code, and other regulatory requirements) will ensure that no significant impacts will occur. No significant long -term unavoidable adverse land use impacts will occur as a resultof Project implementation. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with the Newport Beach Planning and Zoning Code (Title 20 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code)? Finding: The City determines that the project will not conflict with the Planning and Zoning Code. Discussion: Development of the Project Site as proposed complies with the zoning district regulations and development standards prescribed for the R -1 zoning district. Therefore, no significant conflicts with the zoning would occur and no mitigation measures are required. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Finding: The City determines that the project will not conflict with the Natural Community Conservation Plan adopted for the area.. Discussion: The Newport Beach General Plan identifies the City's open space and conservation areas. However, because the area of the City in which the subject property is located is nearly completely developed, natural open space and habitat are limited in the project environs. The subject property, which encompasses approximately 0.1 acre (4,412 square feet) that is currently undeveloped, is located within the limits of the Central/Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of Orange. The NCCP is intended to ensure the long -term survival of the coastal California gnatcatcher and other special status coastal sage scrub (CSS) dependent plant and wildlife species in accordance with state - sanctioned NCCP program guidelines. The biological surveys conducted on the subject property revealed that although a small area encompassing 0.006 acre (approximately 261 square feet) of coastal bluff scrub exists on the site. However, the area is characterized as having a low overall habitat value as a result of habitat fragmentation, influence of surrounding human activities, and because it supports limited long -term habitat value. Furthermore, no federal- or state - listed or otherwise sensitive species identified as having a potential to occur on the property were observed during the biological surveys 1ZZ Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Paqe 17 of 31 conducted for the project Based on the findings of the project biologist, the habitat does not qualify as an ESHA under the Coastal Act, and therefore, cannot be afforded protection under the Newport Beach LCPiCLUP or the City's General Plan. As a result, the loss of the low quality, fragmented habitat would not conflict with the Central /Coastal NCCP. (4) Potential impact: MY the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: The City determines that project implementation will not result in the division of an established community. Discussion: The project proposes the landform alteration that would accommodate one single - family residence on the 4,412 square foot lot. The site is bounded by Pacific Drive and Begonia Avenue. As indicated previously, the area surrounding the subject property is developed with single - family residential development on three sides; Begonia Park abuts the site on the north and east. Although development of the site as proposed would change the character of the site by introducing a single - family home on the vacant property, development of the site as proposed would not adversely affect adjacent properties, which also support single - family homes. In particular, no design component or feature of the project would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or significantly change an established community. No significant impacts will occur and no mitigation measures are required. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project result insubstantial or extreme land use incompatibility? Finding: The City determines that the proposed project is compatible with the existing development and would not result in an extreme land use incompatibility. Discussion: Development of the site, which is currently vacant, would not result in a significant land use conflict. As previously indicated, the proposed single- family residence is consistent with the land use designation and zoning adopted for the site. The introduction of a single - family residence would be consistent and compatible with the existing residential development in the area, which is characterized by single - family and two - family residences. Furthermore, with the exception of the request for a modification permit that would allow a wall to extend above the three -foot height limit in the front yard setback, the proposed structure complies with the development standards (e.g., setbacks, building height, lot coverage, etc.) prescribed for the R -1 zoning district Extension of the wall above the three -foot height limit would not result in substantial visual impacts. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (6) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in incompatible land uses in an aircraft accident potential area as defined in an airport land use plan? Finding: The City determines that project will not result in a conflict with the defined airport land use plan or result in incompatible land use in an aircraft accident potential area. Discussion: The project area is not located within two miles of any existing public airport. John Wayne Airport, which is located approximately 4.5 miles northwest of the subject property, is the nearest aviation facility. No portion of the project site is located within the accident potential area of such a plan. Further, the subject property is not located within two miles of a public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip. Development of the subject property as proposed would neither affect nor be affected by aircraft operations at such a facility that would generate noise in excess of regulatory standards. Therefore, no significant land use impacts would occur as a result of project implementation and no mitigation measures are required. (7) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Land Use and Planning impact? Finding: The City determines that the project will not result in a cumulative land use and planning impact. Discussion: Although the Project Site is currently developed, it is identified for development in the City's adopted long -range plans. The Project is consistent with the applicable goals, policies, and objectives of the Newport Beach Land Use Element and other general plan elements, as well as the City's CLUP. No design component or feature of the Project would physically divide or otherwise adversely affect or significantly change I ?!� Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 18 of 31 an established community. In addition, the Project Site is located within the limits of the Central /Coastal NCCP adopted by the County of Orange. Although the biological surveys conducted on the Project Site revealed that some native species exist on the bluff property, potential impacts to those species resulting from Project implementation would not be significant due to the low habitat value caused by limited species diversity and fragmentation, the influence of surrounding human activity, and because natural functions have been compromised by the surrounding human influences. Therefore, no significant cumulative impacts to land use will occur as a result of Project implementation. 6.2 AESTHETICS (1) Potential Impact: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not substantially damage scenic resources. No important view or aesthetic amenity would be destroyed or permanently affected by project implementation. Although no mitigation measures are required, the following measure, which requires the dedication of a view easement, will ensure that dews through the site would be preserved. A mitigation measure was prescribed to minimize future potential aesthetic impacts: MM 4.3-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall dedicate in perpetuity a view easement over the "Outdoor Room" identified on the approved plans and all open space areas on the project site that shall restrict the maximum height of landscaping and accessory structures to that of the top of the guardrails of the "Outdoor Room." The view easement shall be a three- dimensional space projected vertically from a horizontal plane at the elevation of the top of the guardrails of the "Outdoor Room" and horizontally to all property lines. The restrictions of the view easement shall not apply to the building and structures depicted on the approved project plans or to patio furniture. The form and legal description of the view easement shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Discussion: The visual simulations included in the Draft EIR (refer to Exhibits 4.3 -1 and 4.3 -2) illustrate the existing and post-development scenarios with vegetation that existed on the slope below Begonia Avenue (below the lower bench in Begonia Park) prior to its removal by the City in March 2009. As is evident in those prior simulations, the vegetation that existed along the slope blocked a substantial portion of views of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean from both the lower and upper benches when these simulations are compared to the views that exist after the vegetation was removed. In order to address the change that has occurred since the vegetation was removed; a new visual simulation was created from approximately the same lower bench location depicted in Exhibit 4.3-1. In addition, the new visual simulation depicting the proposed Megonigal residence is based on the story poles that were erected on the site in August of 2008, in order to more accurately illustrate the effect that the proposed project would have on the view, both before and after construction. The existing view from the lower bench location illustrated in the attached exhibit reveals an enhanced view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula since the vegetation that existed on the intervening slope was removed, compared to that illustrated in Exhibit 4.3 -1 in the Draft EIR. This southwesterly view from Begonia Park (specifically the Lower Bench) encompasses a variety of features Including residential development and open space located northwest of Carnation Avenue, residential development on eastern end of the Balboa Peninsula, waters of Newport Harbor, the Pacific Ocean (including the horizon) and residential development along Pacific Drive and Begonia Avenue. Similar to the views prior to the vegetation removal, landscaping "filters" the view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean especially on the right side of the image depiction. As a result, the view of the harbor; Balboa Peninsula and ocean is not completely free of obstructions. The most significant obstruction affecting this view is the large tree located in front of the Megonigal property. Nonetheless, the portion of view that is the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean that is now visible from this Begonia Park vantage point since the removal of the vegetation is nearly three times that of the area previously reflected in Exhibit 4.3 -1. With the removal of the vegetation, this portion of the view area now extends from the bluff on the south (i.e., left side of the exhibit) to just beyond the large tree in front of the project site near the Begonia Avenue /Pacific Drive corner. These are the important elements that comprise the view from this vantage point. i aq Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Paae 19 of 31 In the new visual simulation described above, the proposed Megonigal residence is more prominent than depicted in Exhibit 4.3 -1. The easterly portion of the structure (i.e., from the large tree in front of the project site and extending to the easterly end of the property) is now visible from the lower bench. This portion of the structure was previously blocked by the vegetation that existed on the slope before it was removed. In addition, the increased visibility of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean noted above that was previously not visible due to the vegetation that was removed, would largely be blocked instead by the proposed residence. Based on the new visual simulation, it would appear that the implementation of the proposed project would result in the loss of approximately 35 percent of the expanded view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean, including the horizon, which would also be blocked by the proposed residence. The City has not adopted thresholds for determining the significance of visual impacts. Without an established threshold, such a determination is based on the subjective "parameters" in the City's environmental checklist (i.e., will the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or will the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings) and adopted General Plan view preservation policies. As indicated above, the view from Begonia Park would be altered by the introduction of the proposed residence into the overall viewshed. Although the proposed residence will be more prominent within the overall view and a portion of the view of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean would be blocked with the development of the site as proposed, a substantial portion of the view that includes the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean will remain unobstructed from the public vantage point in the park Additionally, the overall view includes elements of the built environment including residential development and the proposed residence is consistent with elements of the surrounding built environment Given that a majority of the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean view components will remain in the overall view after the home is constructed, the overall quality of the view will not be impacted significantly even with a reduction of the view's focal points. However, because the majority of the view's focal points (i.e., about 65 percent) would be preserved, the project is considered to be consistent with the intent of the City's adopted policies, which seek to achieve view preservation, even though the view will be altered by the oonstrucfion of the home. No further loss of views to the harbor, Balboa Peninsula and ocean would occur as a result of the proposed project. As previously indicated, the project was redesigned to eliminate one level of the proposed structure, which is below the maximum height limit permitted. In addition, a view easement will be dedicated (In perpetuity) above the building and all open space areas to ensure that no additional impacts to the views from Begonia Park would occur. Additional landscaping may also be incorporated into the landscape plan in order to "deemphasize" the appearance of the proposed structure within the Begonia Park viewshed. The proposed project represents a balance between private property/development rights and complying with the City's policies that are intended to protect the scenic and visual qualities of the coastal zone. Therefore, potential visual impacts resulting from project implementation are considered to be less than significant As described in EIR Section 4.1 (Land Use /Relevant Planning), the Natural Resources Element of the General Plan addresses aesthetic resources, with emphasis on coastal views. The City has identified several policies that are intended to guide development and avoid potential significant visual impacts to important coastal resources, including coastal bluffs, the harbor, and associated natural features. EIR Table 4.1 -1 summarizes the relationship of the Project with the applicable policies adopted with the Natural Resources Element that address aesthetics and visual resources. In addition, EIR Table 4.1 -2 in EIR Section 4.1 provides a summary of the relationship of the Project with the relevant aesthetics policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan. As revealed in the analysis presented in those tables, the Project is consistent with the relevant policies in the Natural Resources Element and the CLUP. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rack outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not substantially damage scenic resources. MM 4.3 -1 was included to avoid future potential visual impacts. Discussion: See discussion of Potential Impact No. 1, above. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Project Site and its surroundings? Iz� Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 20 of 31 Finding: The City determines that the Project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Project Site and its surroundings. MM 4.3 -1 was included to avoid future potential visual impacts. Discussion: See discussion of Potential Impact No. 1, above. (4) Potential Impact: birth the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant Discussion: The Project has been designed to minimize glare by incorporating building materials that are not conducive to the creation of glare. As a result, no significant glare impacts from building finish materials anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative aesthetics impact? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in a cumulative visual impacts. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project. Discussion: Of the Cumulative Projects identified in EIR Table 9 -1, only one project, the Aerie Project that was approved by the City, would also potentially affect the aesthetic character of the Project area. The visual simulations prepared for the Project revealed that Project- related impacts would be less than significant from the Begonia Park Public View Point vantages as a result of the Project. Construction of the Megonigal residence at the Pacific Avenue location would virtually eliminate the entire harbor and more distant ocean view, including the Project Site, from this vantage. However, this location is not identified in the City's General Plan as a Public View Point 6.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (1) Potential Impact: Will the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in a substantial adverse effect on sensitive biological resources, including sensitive or special status species. Discussion: Based on the biological survey conducted by Chambers Group, the composition of the vegetation supported on the subject property is dominated by disturbed non - vegetated areas, ornamental species and weedy exotic species. Approximately five percent of the site (261 square feet) supports low quality coastal bluff scrub habitat. As indicated in the Robert Hamilton "biological observation," this habitat is recognized by the California Department of Fish and Game as a rare plant community. However, as documented in the biological survey conducted on.the subject property, overall habitat value of the coastal bluff scrub occurring on the site is low due to habitat fragmentation, the influence of surrounding human activities, and because natural functions have been compromsed by the surrounding human influences. Furthermore, no federal- or state- fisted or other sensitive species were identified as having a potential to occur on the property. Therefore, the coastal bluff scrub habitat occupying the site does not qualify as an ESHA under the Coastal Act and, therefore, cannot be afforded protection under the Newport Beach LCPlCLUP or the Natural Resources Element of the City's General Plan as suggested in the Hamilton "biological observation." No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (2) Potential Impact: Will the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California 124 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 21 of 31 Department of Fish and Game or U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service (including protections provided pursuant to Section 1600 et seq.)? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Discussion: A survey conducted on the subject property revealed that only three habitat types occupy portions of the site, including disturbed (i.e,, areas that are either devoid of vegetation such as dirt roads or those areas that have a high percentage of non - native weedy species), disturbedlomamental (i.e., areas dominated by escaped or planted ornamental species with a high presence of non - native weedy species), and coastal bluff scrub (i.e., areas that support approximately 15 total native shrubs). No riparian habitat was identified on the site. No significant impacts to riparian habitat and/or species are anticipated as a result of project implementation; no mitigation measures are required. (3) Potential Impact: Will the Project 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? . Finding: The City determines that the Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. No mitigation measures were identified for the Project Discussion: No riparian habitat exists on the subject property and no wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act occur on the site. Project implementation will not result in any potential adverse affects to either wetlands or riparian species. (4) Potential Impact: Will the Project 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? Finding: The City determines that the Project will not impact the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors. The City also finds that that the Project will not impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Discussion: Although the project site is currently vacant, the surrounding areas are developed and no migratory wildlife corridors occur on site or in the immediate vicinity of the project site that would be affected by development of the subject property. As a result, the proposed project will not interfere with resident, migratory or wildlife species. No significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required. (5) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Finding: The City determines that the project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Discussion: No native trees exist on the subject property that would be protected, either as a result of adopted policies or other resources agency requirements. Although the subject property and environs are not identified on Figures NR1 and NR2 in the Natural Resources Element, which identify important biological resources and environmental study areas, respectively, in the City, several policies articulated in the Newport Beach General Plan address biological resources, including NR 10.1 (resource protection, NR 10.4 (new development siting and design), NR 10.5 (significant or rare biological resources, etc. The analysis included in Tables 4.1 -1 and 4.1 -2 document the projects consistency with the applicable General Plan and CLUP policies. (6) Potential Impact: Will the Project create a conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 127 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Paqe 22 of 31 Finding: The City determines that the Project will not result in a substantial adverse effect on an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, NCCP, or other approved conservation plan. Discussion: There are no local, regional or state habitat conservation plans that would regulate or guide development of the project site. The subject property is located on a coastal bluff, which is not included in either a Habitat Conservation Plan or a Natural Community Conservation Plan. Although coastal bluff scrub habitat has been identified on the subject property, that habitat encompasses only 216 square feet, which is considered to be of low value and it is not connected or associated with any larger area of similar habitat and would not likely support any California coastal gnatcatchers due to its size and location. (7) Potential impact: Will the Project result in a cumulative Biological Resources impact? Finding: The City determines the implementation of the proposed project will not result in any significant cumulative impacts to biological resources. Discussion: Project implementation will not result in potential impacts to biological resources, as indicated in Section 4.2. Although a small area of coastal bluff scrub habitat exists on the subject property (i.e., 261 square feet), the habitat has been characterized as "low qualityllow value" habitat and does not support any sensitive species. Furthermore, no sensitive plant or animal species occur on the site that would be adversely affected by the proposed project Due to the low value of the coastal bluff scrub habitat, its degraded condition associated with human activities and disturbance, and lack of species diversity, it does not meet the criteria established in the Coastal Act and the City's General Plan for ESHAs. Therefore, the elimination of this habitat, when considered with other projects listed in Table 9-1, is not significant 6.4 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Potential Impact: Will the project cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant traffic and circulation impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant The following mitigation measure is proposed to minimize the level of impact associated with temporary construction traffic: MM -7 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, which shall address issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, potential displacement of on- street parking, and safety. • 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. • If necessary, the construction staging, parking and traffic control plan shall provide for an off -site parking lot for construction crews which will be shuttled to and from the project site at the beginning and end of each day until such time that the project site can accommodate off - street construction vehicle parking. Until that time, construction crews shall be prohibited from parking in the adjacent residential neighborhood. • The plan shall identify all construction traffic routes, which shall avoid narrow residential streets unless there is no alternative, and the plan shall not include any streets where some form of construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the proposed route. I Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 23 of 31 Dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during weekday peak hour traffic periods or during the summer season (Memorial Day holiday weekend through and including the Labor Day holiday weekend). The approved construction staging, parking traffic control plan shalt be implemented throughout each major construction phase. Discussion: Short-term traffic impacts are those resulting from site preparation (i.e., grading and site preparation) and construction activities. With the exception of heavy trucks traveling to and from the site in the morning and afternoon to be used during site preparation and construction that occurs on -site, the number of vehicle trips generated by the project will be small. During the construction phase, there will be periods of time when heavy truck traffic would occur that could result in some congestion on Pacific Drive and nearby local /residential street system. It is estimated that a total of 52 heavy trucks would be generated as a result of the grading that would be necessary to haul the estimated 630 cubic yards of soil export from the site. However, once grading has been completed, the number of heavy trucks entering and leaving the project area would be limited to those transporting equipment and materials to the site. Other construction - related traffic impacts are associated with vehicles carrying workers to and from the site and medium and heavy trucks carrying construction materials to the project site, which may result in some minor traffic delays; however, potential traffic interference caused by construction vehicles would create a temporary/short-term impact to vehicles using neighboring streets in the morning and afternoon hours. Therefore, aside from potentially minor impacts resulting from the increase in traffic that will occur as a result of construction- related traffic (e.g., construction materials, construction workers, etc.), no significant short-term impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation. Nonetheless, the construction traffic impacts would be adequately addressed through the implementation of a Construction Traffic Control Plan. 6.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES Potential Impact: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change In the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15604.5 or result in the destruction of a paleontological resource? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant impacts to cultural and paleontological such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant The following mitigation measure is proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with cultural and/or scientific resources to a less than significant level. MM -1 A qualified archaeological/paleontological monitor shall be retained by the project applicant who will be present during the grading and landform alteration phase. In addition, a qualified Native American representative will also be permitted to monitor grading activities and /or excavation of the site. In the event that cultural resources and/or fossils are encountered during construction activities, ground - disturbing excavations in the vicinity of the discovery shall be redirected or halted by the monitor until the find has been salvaged. Any artifacts and /or fossils discovered during project construction shall be prepared to a point of identification and stabilized for long -term storage. Any discovery, along with supporting documentation and an itemized catalogue, shall be accessioned into the collections of a suitable repository. Curation costs to accession any collections shall be the responsibility of the project applicant. Discussion: The subject site is undeveloped; however, the area surrounding the site (with the exception of Begonia Park) has been significantly altered by grading to accommodate the existing development located on the bluff and elsewhere in the vicinity of the subject site. No known archaeological resources are known to be present in the project area. Project implementation includes excavation of the property to accommodate the proposed single - family residence. It is unlikely that the disturbance of the subsurface soils would result in significant impacts to cultural resources due to the site alteration associated with the existing development in the area and the nature of the bedrock materials that underlie the site (i.e., marine). Although no significant impacts to cultural resources are anticipated, an archaeological monitor will be present during grading (to ensure that it any cultural materials are encountered, appropriate measures will be implemented in accordance with existing IZ9 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 24 of 31 City policies. Therefore, no significant impacts to archaeological resources are anticipated and no mitigation measures are recommended. Although the project site is currently vacant, the surrounding areas, including the bluff on which the existing homes are located, have been altered to accommodate development that includes predominantly residential uses. The site contains the Monterey Formation deposits, which are known to contain abundant fossilized marine invertebrates and vertebrates. The presence of recorded fossils in the vicinity of the project areas exists. Like other sites in the City that are underlain by the Monterey Formation, the site should be considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity and fossils may be encountered during grading and excavation. A mitigation measure in accordance with existing City policy has been included in the event that such resources are encountered during gradinglexcavation activities. 6.6 SOILS AND GEOLOGY (1) Potential Impact: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant sails and geology impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. The following mitigation measure is proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with cultural and/or scientific resources to a less than significant level. MM -3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a soils engineering report and final geotechnical report to the City's Building Department for approval. The project shall be designed to incorporate the recommendations included in those reports that which address site grading, site clearing, compaction, caissons, bearing capacity and settlement, lateral pressures, footing design, seismic design, slabs on grade, retaining wall design, subdrain design, concrete, surface drainage, setback distance, excavations, cut -fill transitional zones, planters and slope maintenance, and driveways. Discussion: A stability analysis was performed on the subject property by Boreila Geology, Inc., as reflected in the preliminary geotechnical report (Borella Geology, March 20, 2007). Based on that analysis, it was determined that the orientation of the bedrock on the site is dipping into the slope, which is the preferred orientation for maintaining slope integrity. However, surficially, the cliff portions of the subject property are unstable as evidenced by the talus deposits that are present at the base of the steep slopes. However, all slopes on the site were determined to be grossly stable. The maximum slope height is 47 feet and slope angle ranges from 10 degrees to 90 degrees. Calculated factors of safety are in excess of 1.5 (static) and 1.1 (Pseudo - static) of factors of safety required by the City of Newport Beach. The preliminary geotechnical report indicated that temporary shoring or a "shotcrete" combination shoring /retaining wall must be placed on all vertical cuts exceeding five (5) feet if a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) layback cannot be achieved. However, temporary shoring is only anticipated in areas where retaining walls will be constructed to accommodate the lower floor level of the proposed residence. In addition, incorporation of the recommendations presented in the preliminary geotechnical evaluation and adherence to standard building code requirements will ensure that site development will not be subject to landslides. With the incorporation of those recommendations, potential landslide impacts will be less than significant. (2) Potential Impact: Would the project result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant soils and geology impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. The following mitigation measure is proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with cultural and /or scientific resources to a less than significant level. MM -2 Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit, an erosion control plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City's Chief Building Official. JillAwd Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Paae 25 of 31 Discussion: Implementation of the proposed project will necessitate grading and excavation necessary to accommodate the proposed single - family residence that will temporarily expose on -site soils to potential erosion. In that interim period, it is possible that some erosion may occur, resulting in some sedimentation; however, in order to ensure that erosion and sedimentation are minimized, the applicant will be required to prepare and submit an adequate drainage and erosion control plan, which compfies with current City standards prescribed by the Building and Grading Ordinances. Implementation of the mandatory appropriate erosion controls will avoid potential erosion impacts associated with site grading and development Further, the proposed site will be engineered to ensure that surface /subsurface drainage does not contribute to erosion or adversely affect the stability of project improvements. Other efforts required to ensure that potential erosion is minimized include slope protection devices, plastic sheeting, inspection for signs of surface erosion, and corrective measures to maintain, repair or add structures required for effective erosion control. As a result, potential impacts occurring from project implementation, including those anticipated during grading and after development of the site, will be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level. 6.7 NOISE Potential Impact: Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing with the project? Finding: The City makes the finding set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1) that changes and alterations have been incorporated into the Project that avoid or substantially lessen this potentially significant raise impact such that the impact is considered Less Than Significant. The following mitigation measures are proposed to mitigate the potential impacts associated with cultural and/or scientific resources to a less than significant level. MM-4 All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained muffling devices. All construction equipment shall be located or operated as far as possible away from nearby residential units. MW6 A construction schedule shall be developed that minimizes the duration of potential project - related and cumulative construction noise levels. MM-6 The construction contractor shall notify the residents of the construction schedule for the proposed project, and shall keep them informed on any changes to the schedule. The notification shall also identify the name and phone number of a contact person in case of complaints. The contact person shall take all reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. Discussion: The number, type, distribution, and usage of construction equipment will differ from phase to phase. The noise generated is both temporary in nature and limited in hours by the City's Noise Ordinance (Section 10.28.040). Compliance with the existing noise control ordinance and hours of construction prescribed in the ordinance will minimize the potential noise impacts associated with project implementation. Other measures have been identified to ensure that construction noise is minimized. Typically, construction of single - family residential dwelling units on an individual basis in the City of Newport Beach, including on bluffs in the City, does not result in significant noise impacts because of their small size and the duration of construction is not anticipated to occur over a long period of time (e.g., less than two years for custom home construction). Furthermore, the highest noise levels occur from excavation and caisson drilling associated with bluff development, which takes place during the initial stage of development and does not last more than 5 to 6 months). Therefore, because the project encompasses only one single-family residence, which would employ typical construction techniques and be constructed in approximately 20 months like most single - family residential construction in the City, potential construction noise impacts will be less than significant with the incorporation of the prescribed mitigation measures. 7. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT CEQA requires that findings be made for each alternative considered in an EIR. The EIR considered a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project to provide informed decision- making in accordance with Section t 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 26 of 31 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The alternatives analyzed in the EIR included: (1) No Project/No Development; (2) Reduced Intensity/3 Single - Family Residences; (3) Reduced Intensity/5 Multiple - Family Residential Project; and (4) Existing Zoning/8 -Unit Multiple - Family Residential Project with Reduced Grading. The City's findings, and facts in support of those findings, with respect to each of the alternatives considered are provided below: NO PROJECT o Description — The No Project Alternative evaluates the potential environmental effects resulting from the continuation of the existing conditions on the site at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published, 0... as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services" Therefore, this alternative assumes that in the short -term, the site would remain vacant As a result, no adverse environmental effects would occur until such time as development was proposed in accordance with the adopted land use and zoning designations. The site would remain undeveloped and would not be affected by grading and development. Specifically, without any landform alteration, the small area of coastal bluff scrub habitat would not be removed as a result of development in the near future; however, as indicated in Section 4.2, this habitat does not meet the criteria established for ESHAs by both the Coastal Act and the City in the General Plan and Coastal Land Use Plan. Furthermore, without development of the site in the short-term, views from both Begonia Park and Pacific DrivelBegonia Avenue would not be affected by the introduction of structures that would be added into the viewshed from those vantage points. Without development of the site, no conflicts with the plans, programs and policies adopted by the City of Newport Beach would occur. o Attainment of Project Objectives — The "no project" alternative would not result in the realization of any of the project objectives in the short-term. However, in the long -term, it would be possible to achieve each of the objectives identified by the project applicant with the construction of a single - family residence that is similar to the proposed project. o Avoidance of Proiect Impacts — Implementation of this alternative would defer project - related effects, including less than significant visual impacts associated with the development of the site (assuming that the residence complies with the maximum building height standard. In addition, biological impacts would also be the same as the proposed project (i.e., loss of 261 square feet of coastal bluff scrub habitat) as a result of site preparation. Similarly, if designed properly, this alternative would also be consistent with the long -range plans and policies adopted by the City of Newport Beach. ALTERNATIVE DESIGN (REMOVE UPPER LEVEL) o Description — This alternative includes development of the site as proposed with a single - family residence with access from Pacific Drive; however, the third upper level above the average elevation of Pacific Drive would be eliminated. This possible alternative would result in the elimination of the garage and residential floor area (i.e., foyer and office area) comprising approximately 805 square feet. As a result, the total floor area of the residence would be reduced to 2,761 square feet. In addition, in order to accommodate on -site parking, the second floor roof structure would be designed to support automobile parking. o Attainment of Prolect Objectives — Implementation of this project would achieve all project objectives except for allowing a larger residence on the property, unless the project is redesigned to relocate the living space (i.e., foyer and study) lost with the elimination of the third floor within the floor plan. This alternative would provide views from all levels (although one level that included a foyer and study would be eliminated). It would provide vehicular access from Pacific Drive (to uncovered roof parking), it minimizes the visual effects of the residence on views from Begonia Park, and outdoor living areas would be directly accessible from each level. 132 Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 o Avoidance of Pfoieet Impacts — Although the proposed single - family residence would not result in significant impacts based on the significance criteria established for the project, the effects of the project could be reduced through the implementation of this alternative. Specifically, the residence would not extend into the viewshed of Begonia Park, ALTERNATIVE ACCESS (BAYSIDE DRIVE) Description — Vehicular access to the subject property in this design alternative would be provided from Bayside Drive, below the bluff, rather than from Pacific Drive where direct vehicular access is currently available. In addition, the third floor of the proposed residence (i.e., ground level floor at Pacific Drive that includes the garage, study and foyer) would be relocated as the first floor in order to remove that portion of the structure from the Begonia Park viewshed. As a result, the total floor area would be the same as the proposed project (i.e., 3,138 square feet, not including the garage). Attainment of Project Objectives — Implementation of this alternative would achieve most of the project objectives except it would not allow for vehicular access from Pacific Drive as desired by the project applicant. In addition, if this alternative is implemented, views from all of the levels of the home would not be provided because the living spaces in the third floor (i.e., foyer and study) would be relocated with the garage element as a result of the Bayview Drive access, unless the plan is redesigned to accommodate these living areas higher above the bluff to create harbor and ocean views. o Avoidance of Project Impacts - Although the Alternative Access would improve views from Begonia Park and from Begonia Drive and Pacific Drive, additional adverse effects would occur. For example, it would be necessary to extend a private drive or roadway from Bayview Drive through the southern limits of Begonia Park and up the lower elevation of the bluff to accommodate vehicular access. The extension of the road through the park would after the park setting and would conflict with policies related to the preservation of the character of that facility. Furthermore, the applicant must be granted an access easement through the park. Finally, it is anticipated that in order to extend the roadway to the site from Bayview Drive, additional landfonn alteration would also be required. As a result, nearly the entire bluff face would be altered. M Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Page 28 of 31 Exhibit "C" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Standard conditions regular type Protect specft condition in italics The development shall be in substantial conformance with the approved site plan, floor plans and building elevations stamped and dated with the date of this approval (Except as modified by applicable conditions of approval). 2. The project is subject to all applicable City ordinances, policies, and standards, unless specifically waived or modified by the conditions of approval. 3. 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. 4. Disruption caused by construction work along roadways and by movement of construction vehicles shall be minimized by proper use of traffic control equipment and flagmen. Traffic control and transportation of equipment and materials shall be conducted in accordance with state and local requirements. 5. 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. 6. Construction activities shall comply with Section 10.28.040 of the Newport Beach Municipal Code, which restricts hours of noise - generating construction activities that produce noise to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Noise - generating construction activities are not allowed on Sundays or Holidays. 7. All improvements shall be constructed as required by ordinance and the Public Works Department. 8. An encroachment permit is required for all work activities within the public right -of -way. 9. All improvements shall comply with the City's sight distance requirement. As provided in City Standard 110 -L. 10. 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. 11. All on -site drainage shall comply with the latest City Water Quality requirements. 12. Water meter and the sewer cleanout will be located in the public right -of -way. If installed at a location that will be subjected to vehicle traffic, each shall be installed with a traffic-grade box and cover. i sy Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Paae 29 of 31 13. The existing street tree(s) shall be protected in place. Unauthorized tree removal(s) will trigger substantial penalties for all parties involved. 14. Paving in the public right -of -way shall be limited to the minimum necessary for the driveway and a walkway to the entry to the residence. A standard concrete sidewalk and driveway approach be shall be constructed per applicable City Standards. All remaining areas shall be landscaped. Non-standard encroachments within the public right -of -way shall comply with City Council Policy L -6, prior to the issuance of an Encroachment Agreement and Permit. 15. The proposed planters and water feature shall be removed from the public right -of -way 16. Prior to the issuance of a building pen-nit, the applicant shall dedicate in perpetuity a view easement over the "Outdoor Room" identified on the approved plans and all open space areas on the project site that shall restrict the maximum height of the principal structure, landscaping and accessory structures to that of the top of the guardrails of the "Outdoor Room." The view easement shall be a three- dimensional space projected vertically from a horizontal plane at the elevation of the top of the guardrails of the °Outdoor Room" and horizontally to all property lines. The restrictions of the view easement shall not apply to the building and structures depicted on the approved project plans or to patio furniture. The form and legal description of the view easement shall be prepared by the applicant and reviewed and approved by the Planning Director (MM 4.3 -1). 17. 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 Megonigal Residence Project including, but not limited to, the approval of Modification Permit No. 2007 -080 collectively referred to as PA 2007 -133; and /or the City's related California Environmental Quality Act determinations, the adoption of a Environmental Impact Report and 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. 18. All development proposed for the proposed single - family residence shall be reviewed for consistency with applicable provisions of the California Building Code, Noise Ordinance, Uniform Fire Code, and other applicable codes and ordinances prior to issuance of building permits (SC 4.1 -1). 19. 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, which shall address issues pertaining to potential traffic conflicts during peak traffic periods, potential displacement of on- street parking, and safety (MM -7). 13T Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Paoe 30 of 31 a. 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. b. If necessary, the construction staging, parking and traffic control plan shalt provide for an off -site parking lot for construction craws which will be shuttled to and from the project site at the beginning and end of each day until such time that the project site can accommodate off - street construction vehicle parking. Until that time, construction crews shall be prohibited from parking in the adjacent residential neighborhood. c. The plan shall identify all construction traffic routes, which shall avoid narrow residential streets unless there is no alternative, and the plan shall not include any streets where some form of construction is underway within or adjacent to the street that would impact the efficacy of the proposed route. d. Dirt hauling shall not be scheduled during weekday peak hour traffic. e. The approved construction staging, parking traffic control plan shall be implemented throughout each major construction phase. 20. During grading activities, any exposed soil areas shall be watered at least four times per day. Stockpiles of crushed cement, debris, dirt or other dusty materials shall be covered or watered twice daily. On windy days or when fugitive dust can be observed leaving the proposed project site, additional applications of water shall be applied to maintain a minimum 12 percent moisture content as defined by SCAQMD Rule 403. Soil disturbance shall be terminated whenever windy conditions exceed 25 miles per hour (SC -1). 21. Truck loads carrying soil and debris material shall be wetted or covered prior to leaving the site. Where vehicles leave the construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept daily (SC -2). 22. All diesel - powered machinery exceeding 100 horsepower shall be equipped with soot traps, unless the Contractor demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City Building Official that it is infeasible (SC -3). 23. The construction contractor shall time the construction activities, including the transportation of construction equipment vehicles and equipment to the site, and delivery of materials, so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic. To minimize obstruction of through traffic lanes adjacent to the site, a flag person shall be retained to maintain safety adjacent to existing roadways, if deemed necessary by the City (SC -4). 24. The construction contractor shall encourage ridesharing and transit incentives for the construction workers (SC -5). 25. To the extent feasible, pre- coated /natural colored building materials shall be used. Water - based or low VOC coatings shall be used that comply with SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits. Spray equipment with high transfer efficiency, or manual coatings application such as paint brush, 13b Planning Commission Resolution No. 1795 Pape 31 of 31 hand roller, trowel, etc. shall be used to reduce VOC emissions, where practical. Paint application shall use lower volatility paint not exceeding 100 grams of ROG per liter (SC -6), 26. All construction equipment, stationary and mobile, shall be equipped with property operating and maintained muffling devices. All construction equipment shalt be located or operated as far as possible away from nearby residential units (MM -4). 27. A construction schedule shall be developed that minimizes the duration of potential project - related and cumulative construction noise levels (MM -5). 26. The construction contractor shall notify the residents of the construction schedule for the proposed project, and shall keep them informed on any changes to the schedule. The notification shall also identify the name and phone number of a contact person in case of complaints. The contact person shall fake all reasonable steps to resolve the complaint (MM- 6). 29. 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 (SC 4.3 -1). 30. Prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final of building permits, the applicant shall schedule an evening inspection by the Code and Water Quality Enforcement Division to confirm control of light and glare (SC 4.3 -2). 31. Bluff landscaping shall consist of native, drought tolerant plant species determined to be consistent with the California coastal buff environment. Invasive and non - native species shall be removed. Irrigation of bluff faces to establish re- vegetated areas shall be temporary and used only to establish the plants. Upon establishment of the plantings, the temporary irrigation system shall be removed (SC 4.2 -1). 32. Prior to issuance of the grading or building permit, an erosion control plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City s Chief Building Official (MM -2). 33. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a soils engineering report and final geotechnical report to the Citys Building Department for approval. The project shall be designed to incorporate the recommendations included in those reports that which address site grading, site clearing, compaction, caissons, bearing capacity and settlement lateral pressures, footing design, seismic design, slabs on grade, retaining wall design, subdrain design, concrete, surface drainage, setback distance, excavations, cut -fill transitional zones, planters and slope maintenance, and driveways (MM -3). i 97 CC 6 Draft Environmental Impact Report (separate bound volume) dsl Draft Environmental Impact Report SCH No "1 ZOO1OV&g5 MEGQNIGAL RESIDENCE PA 2007 -133 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Prepared by: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Tustin, CA 92780 August 2009 N CC 7 Responses to Comments (separate bound volume) t11�I Responses to Public Comments Draft Environmental impact Report SCH No. 261990 a0010sl0y3 MEGONIGAL RESIDENCE PA 2007 -133 City of Newport Beach Planning Department 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 Prepared by: Keeton Kreitzer Consulting 17291 Irvine Boulevard, Suite 305 Tustin, CA 92780 RRCENED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOV 12 2009 November 2009 OF NEWPORT BEACH ra David Kiff, Here are points that need to be considered re the Megonigal Residence Application(PA2007 -133) for 2333 Pacific Drive, Corona del Mar: 1. Economic Loss: We all have seen the value an ocean view has on residences. Two homes on the same street, but on opposite sides of the street, can have dramatically different values because of the view. If the view house loses its ocean view, it will lose a considerable part of its value, and an appraiser can easily determine that value loss. Similarly, a park loses not only its aesthetic value, but also part of its economic value, when significant amenities like an ocean views are lost. Just like with homes, the proposed park view loss could be determined by an appraiser that specializes in public facilities (I can recommend several). We need this appraisal to know how much of our public asset's value will be donated to the Megonigals for their enjoyment. Does the council have the right to degrade and devalue city assets, then transfer some of that lost value to a private party for his or her benefit? 2. Precedent Setting: A private party does have the right to benefit from the economic use of property that he owns. However, this right is impacted by various restrictions in local policies, ordinances, laws and codes that are widely accepted. In this case, the General Plan, in Policy number NR20.1 /LU, clearly places a restriction on this right in its statement that scenic vistas should be protected and enhanced. No one can say that the proposed construction will protect and enhance anything. Instead it will do the exact opposite in its degradation of the scenic vista from a publicly owned property. Is it right to ignore this policy just because it is not convenient to one property owner's desires? Do other property owners also get to ignore this policy, or are we doing it only for this one owner? What will the council say when the next rich applicant wants to build another castle that destroys another view area? Do we really want to go down this path? 3. Public Works claims that allowing another driveway access from Bayside Drive would be dangerous. Do they have any supporting data for their assessment or is this just their opinion? Before accepting this analysis we should hear what it was based upon. Directly across from the Bayside driveway is another driveway, also 20' in width, but with a 14' entry gate, that accommodates eight R -2 homes in Bayside Place. Are we to understand that one more R -1 home's garage would make this area more dangerous to drive in? This seems like a huge stretch. 4. Bayside Retaining Wall: Megonigal said that coming into a 1 Bayside Drive level garage would mean cutting into an eight foot retaining wall. In reality, this wall begins at one foot near the street, and rises to only four feet in the area that would have to be cut. Making this cut would not be a major engineering feat. 5. View Loss "Less Than Significant:" Planning Staff said that the view loss from the park viewing bench was only 35 %, and that this loss was "less than significant." Their opinion said the view included the hills, sky and ground as well as the water. The actual water view loss, which is clearly the major viewing point, is really 50% to 60o, and is easily determined from the viewing bench. one does not go to a water view park and look at the hills, sky and ground, which they can see anywhere, they come to look at the water. And neither can 35 %, or 500, or 60% be considered "less than significant" in any statistical manner, which was stated by two statisticians from our group in the Planning Commission Nov.19 hearing. 6. Investment Risk /Reward: John and Carolyn Pautch (now Caroline Megonigal) paid approximately $327,000 for 2333 Pacific Drive in 1997 according to the $360 tax stamps on the grant deed (taxes are 1.1% of the selling price) according to Fidelity National Title Company records. Only 10 months later, a smaller bluff lot (approximately 2,200 SF vs approximately 4,100 SF for the Pautsch lot) with a much smaller ocean view, sold for $1,070,000 according to tax stamps of $1,177. This discount of over 700, for a larger bluff lot with a better view, reflected the inherent development risk involved to the buyer of 2333 Pacific Drive. This lot has been vacant since it was sold by the city to a private party in 1941, another indication of the risk issues associated with trying to develop it. The City of Newport Beach and its residents are not required to reward Caroline Megonigal for the risk she took when she took sole ownership of this property on December 20, 2005. Nor does it owe a return to her current husband, Kim Megonigal who decided to invest his family trust fund in loaning her $1,500,000 to develop it on November 7, 2005 (Kim and Caroline were not married until 2007, so this was clearly an investment for both, not a dream home fantasy). 7. Legal Argument, Prescriptive Easement: Patt Bell, an attorney in our group made a legal argument for a "prescriptive easement or adverse possession." Planning never addressed Patt's argument although she made it in letters for two different Planning hearings. Patt's argument would seem to have merit for the property to have previously fit the abandonment category, meaning it should already be city property, or allowed to be taken over by the city for public use. B. Buying 2333 Pacific: Kim Megonigal has suggested the city or the neighbors can buy the property from him (really Caroline Megonigal since Kim does not own it) for $3,000,000 if they don't want it developed. This valuation comes out of thin air since fLir there is no basis to support it. Indeed, a 2,200 SF bluff view lot, at 2223 Pacific has been for sale for over two years with an asking price of $2,000,000. An appraisal could determine the value of 2333 Pacific, which is likely to be less than $1,000,000. A bond (this was discussed at the Nov.19 Planning hearing) could be issued with repayments from long term increases in local property taxes at a low interest rate to pay for this lot. Repaying a $1,000,000 at 6% interest for 25 years by 1,000 property owners would only amount to an increase of $77.28 yearly for each owner (or $154.56 yearly for a $2,000,000 bond). This tax increase would not seem to be a burden to owners in this affluent area. 1 st Campbell, James From: Lepo, David Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 10:47 AM To: Campbell, James Subject: FW: Megonigal - Bayside Drive proposed driveway Attachments: nb info balboa3780448260.jpg; Bayside driveway 007.jpg; Bayside driveway 002.jpg; Bayside driveway 003.jpg; Bayside driveway 006.jpg; Bayside driveway 009.jpg David Lepo, Planning Director City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92663 Office: (949) 644 -3228 Fax: (949) 644 -3229 dleoo@city.newport- beach.ca.us - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Badum, Steve Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 10:03 AM To: Curry, Keith Cc: Lepo, David; Hunt, David; Kiff, Dave Subject: Megonigal - Bayside Drive proposed driveway Keith, FYI - Below is our City Traffic Engineer's response to the proposal to allow the driveway to the Megonigal residence on Bayside. The driveway on Bayside is possible, but given the two alternatives, the driveway on Pacific is the safer alternative. The current residence on Bayside has an Encroachment agreement to cross the park to Bayside. This was the only way to provide access to that property. If we allow a second or a shared driveway, we would execute a second encroachment agreement that would require relocating some SCE facilities and possibly give up more park land (see aerial and pic #007). Steve - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Brine, Tony To: Badum, Steve Cc: Tse, Fong Sent: Fri Dec 11 11:50 :51 2009 Subject: Bayside Drive sight distance for proposed driveway Steve; Attached are photos taken from different locations along Bayside Drive in the area of the proposed driveway. At the Planning Commission meeting, I told the PC that I did not support a lower driveway access because there is inadequate sight distance. As far as I'm concerned, there is clearly not sufficient sight distance for a safe access. I have spoken with the neighbors and tried to provide answers to their questions and concerns. I'll summarize the issue in the following. 1 1) The measured sight distance from the proposed driveway is 170 feet. This is with the driver's eye at the curb -line. our minimum sight distance requirements for a local street is 200 feet. The 85th percentile speed through the curves is 28 mph. This speed would support the need for a minimum of 200 feet sight distance. Also, Bayside Drive is not a typical local road. This section of Bayside Drive has an ADT of 6,270 vehicles per day. Bayside Drive is functioning more as a Commuter Roadway than a local road. 2) Several of the neighbors have noted that there is an existing shared driveway on Bayside (adjacent to the proposed driveway location) for the sub - divided property with 2 homes. This driveway has existed for years (certainly before 1995), and this driveway provides the only available access to that particular property. The difference with the Megonigal project is that the Megonigal property could take access from either Bayside Drive or from Pacific Drive. I have told the neighbors that the access from Pacific Drive would be the preferred location because of the adequate sight distance, accident history, and the lower volumes on Pacific Drive. 3) I reviewed the accident files for Carnation @ Bayside (the nearest intersection) and for Pacific @ Begonia. Since 2000, there have been a total of 16 accidents at /or near the Carnation @ Bayside intersection. The most recent accident on April 19, 2009, involved an SUV hitting and shearing the Edison meter box at the location of the proposed driveway (see one of the pictures). At the Begonia @ Pacific intersection, there have been a total of 4 accidents since 1966. 4) Because there is another existing driveway adjacent to the proposed Bayside location does not support approving a new driveway, with an unsafe access, when a safe option exists. I am looking at this as an engineer. I understand the concerns with views, but from a traffic engineering standpoint, the proposed driveway location on Bayside Drive is not safe. If I can provide any other information, please let me know. Tony { ,53 2 ��{{ w `�.YTi M.M� :.�-.. Brown, Leilani From: Gardnerncy @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 12:32 PM To: Brown, Leilani Subject: Megonigal Categories: Red Category It has been requested that this be made part of the record: Dear City Council My wife and I live on Pacific Drive and we are very concerned about the proposed construction of the Megonigal garage on the corner of Pacific Drive and Begonia that would block a large portion of the public view (from Begonia Park and the surrounding area) in opposition to the Newport Beach General Plan. <! - -[if !supportEmptyParas] - -> <!-- [endif] - -> Most of the residents in our neighborhood support 90% of the Megonigal building plan. It is only the garage on the upper level that is the cause of concern — and that is easily solved. If the Megonigal's would locate their garage below the bluff and access it from Bayside Drive (as my wife and I do at our residence at 2209 Pacific Drive) then the view would be saved and all would be happy. <! - -[if !supportEmptyParas] - -> <t-- [endif] - -> This is one of the three "alternative" solutions suggested by the Planning Commission "staff' but it was dismissed by some of the planning commission members because it would require the relocation of some existing utilities. But I ask the Council to seriously consider what is more important: moving some existing utilities or losing part of the public view forever? <! - -[if !supportEmptyParas] - -> <!-- [endif] - -> Had the planning commission allowed additional comments at the last meeting they would have learned that neither gas nor sewers are located in the "alternate" garage area, thus the relocation of utilities is mostly a minor issue (I am a former board member of the Keith Companies — the largest engineering firm in the area prior to its sale to a public company). <! - -[if !supportEmptyParas] - -> <t- _[endif] - -> Bottom line, I hope the council members will reconsider the premature approval by the planning commission (made without utilities engineering report) before taking final action on the Megonigal application. Alternatively, the Council could approve the Megonigal application with the caveat that the plans include a garage off Bayside where it does not block the public view. <! - -[if !supportEmptyParas] - -> <!- -[endif] - -> By placing the garage at the "alternative" site, Megonigal can have his house, the view can be saved and the city can avoid an almost certain lawsuit that would come as a consequence of disregarding the General Plan. <! - -[if !supportEmptyParas] - -> <!-- [endif] - -> I would be happy to meet any time to discuss this project and the alternative garage site in more detail. Otherwise we plan to attend the council meeting on January 12tH <! - -[if ! supportEmptyParas ] - -> <-- [endif] - -> Sincerely <! - -[if ! supportEmptyParas] - -> <! -- [endif] - -> Walter W. Cruttenden COM resident since 1960 <! --[if !supportEmptyParas] - -> <!-- [endif] - -> d s Begonia 9. 673-8992 January 4, 2010 Newport Beach City Council 3300 Newport Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92658 -8915 Subject: Variance VA2007 -001, Modification MD2007 -080 & Megonigal DEIR Members of the City Council, RECEIVEp Zoo JAN -4 AN & 46 OFFIC OF THE QTY CLR QTY OF PI ?,s "RT BE" Had Mr. Megonigal submitted plans for a residence that conformed to the Newport Beach General Plan and Newport Beach Zoning Requirements, today he would already be living in his house. However, Mr. Megonigal chose to submit plans that did not conform with these requirements, points that brought his proposal to the attention of Newport Beach Residents. Mr. Megonigal addressed the zoning issues with his latest submission to the Newport Beach Planning Commission, but he has not addressed the proposed residence's conflict with the Newport Beach General Plan. Section LU 1.6 of the Newport Beach General Plan requires city officials to "Protect and where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." After review of the proposed Megonigal residence, the Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. As of the date of this letter, over 900 residents of Newport Beach and Corona del Mar have signed petitions stating to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. These documents are attached to this letter. Additional signed petitions are expected by January 12. To demonstrate their opposition to the Loss of the Protected Public View that would result from the current configuration of the Proposed Megonigal Residence, over 150 residences have posted yard signs that express views that parallel those in this letter. In addition, Pacific Coast Highway Businesses are also concerned with the loss of view from Begonia Park, as it diminishes an attraction that draws customers to the community. Over 30 Pacific Coast Highway Companies posted signs protesting the Loss of Begonia Park View. About thirty of these signs were stolen from the businesses during the evening of D000mber 29. Though a police report has been filed, the signs have not been recovered. These residents and businesses request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park. Please note that the residents do not state that Mr. Megonigal should not build on the property that he owns. All that we state is that Mr. Megonigal should comply with a clearly stated part of the Newport Beach General plan — a requirement that applies to all Newport Beach Residents. The granting of an encroachment into the Protected Public View for the Megonigal Residence presents City Officials with a conundrum. Were any encroachment into the Protected Public View permitted, the City of Newport Beach would be creating a precedent that could be cited by other applicants that wish to construct a building that encroaches into a Protected Public View. Granting this encroachment would seriously endanger effective implementation of the General Plan and would subject the City Council to more General Plan Variance Requests and possibly in legal challenges to your actions. Prudence dictates that this exposure should be avoided, especially as major parcels of land at the end of Avocado Avenue are now for sale and subdivision requests will likely be forthcoming. Granting any variance from the General Plan would place the City Council into an untenable situation. At two meeting of the Newport Beach Planning Commission that 1 attended, Mr. Megonigal garnered sympathy when he claimed that there had been significant costs associated with the project delay. He cited a financial burden on his family. In asking for variances to build larger structures that are permitted by the General Plan and Zoning Regulations, Mr. Megonigal, his architect and contractor clearly should have anticipated opposition to their proposal. Mr. Megonigal made statements to the Planning Commission and the audience that the delays and the requirement for an Environmental Impact Report put his family under economic stress. These comments do not correlate with statements that he made in an article that was first published in the Orange County Register on November 11, just two weeks before the Planning Commission meeting; Article on Kim Megonigal from Orange County Register Please Review Comments on Corporate Jet and Luxury Boxes at Staples Center and Honda Center November 12, 2009 12:00 PM The Permanent Temporary Guy By PEGGY LOWE THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER Story Highlights Work: Irvine one -man shop grows to $100 million temp business IRVINE - Through the ups and downs, the ins and outs, the peaks and downturns, Kim Megonigal has been there. Four recessions during 23 years in Orange County. Kim Megonigal's Irvine company, Kimco Staffing Service Inc., does more than $100 million in annual sales and has 35 branches across California. MICHAEL GOULDING, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER But it's this one, this Great Recession, in which Megonigal has seen the worst job market since he started his own company. Megonigal is in the business of jobs, temporary jobs, and the gig has been good to him. In 1986, Megonigal, then 33, created his one -man temp agency before people called such operations "start- ups." Now 57, Megonigal's Irvine -based company, Kimco Staffing Service Inc., does more than $100 million in annual sales and has 35 branches across California. So, who better to talk to about work than a guy who runs a staffing company? "I think most people get their self -worth from working," Megonigal said. "I think there are some young people today who haven't quite figured that out. I think the current recession will help them to figure it out. But certainly, I know from myself, if I don't work and accomplish something, it is hard for me to have fun. I have to have first, a self -worth and self- meaning before I can really truly enjoy my life." Did you hear that? The "young people today" part? Yep, here's the part where Megonigal, the father of three and step -dad to two, starts talking like, well, your dad. That guy who always talks about "kids these days." "We had a lot of kids coming out of school and felt entitlement to getting a job," Megonigal said. "And guess what? That entitlement is not there. So I think we have an awful lot of disappointed children that felt it was just the American Way to come out of school and get a great paying job." Megonigal's right about the lack of entitlement today, because the jobs just aren't there. It was those fresh, unemployed college graduates that helped push Orange County's joblessness rate in June to a modern -day record of 9.2 percent. Additionally, a study by the Economic Policy Institute last spring showed that the national unemployment rate for workers under the age of 27 with a bachelor's degree or higher education was nearly 6 percent -- that's a 26 -year high. Megonigal knows because he hears it from friends who call him, parents who figure a guy who owns a staffing company has the goods in a bad economy." I can't tell you how many people call me and say, 'Can you help my child get a job? They're home. They don't have money. They don't have a place to go. I come home and they're angry. They're disappointed in themselves, they're disappointed in our country, "' Megonigal said. "They felt an entitlement that isn't there. And they're very, very, upset and angry about it." Megonigal got a leg up in the business from his own dad. His father owned a temporary agency and Megonigal went to work in the Irvine office after he graduated from college in 1975. The young Megonigal saw an equally young, emerging industry in the staffing business, so he went out on his own. He's done well. Step into his modest office overlooking the 5 Freeway, and look at the pictures of those he loves. Megonigal has three grown children from his first wife, who died of cancer in 1999. He remarried in 2007 and there are pictures of him and his wife, Carolyne, from their Hawaiian wedding. Along with Kim's two stepsons and his children, the wedding pictures show a happy family — all tan and big smiles and dressed in island clothes. There are the other, certain trappings of success — a jet and big- ticket sporting events. Megonigal pilots a turbofan Cessna Citation and, given his love of basketball, the company has a luxury box at the Staples Center and the Honda Center. Obviously, he's making his daily bread. " 1 think making money is just part of the equation," Megonigal said. " I think, for me, 1 look around and see people who have been with me 10, 20 years, and I see the career progression, and the things it's done for them and their families, that's worth a lot. That's worth a lot of money." Talk to Megonigal today and he's a grateful man. Grateful his company rode out the recession, despite layoffs and despite posting its worst year in 2008. He thinks maybe —just maybe — the economy is turning around. In fact, the long- lasting effects of the Great Recession has proved a silver lining for the temp business. The last few weeks have brought what Megonigal calls "an uptick" in business. Companies may not have the confidence just yet to be hiring permanent, long -term employees, but they are busy enough to need temporary and contract workers, and that's good news for Kimco. So having weathered the four recessions, including this Great one, business is now looking up and Kim Megonigal will remain the permanent temporary guy. Mr. Megonigal's comments about the economic stresses on his family are inconsistent with the article and were evidently nothing more than a deliberate attempt to mislead the Planning Commission about his economic status. In view of the above, the attached 900 petitioners ask the City Council to return the Request for Variance for the Megonigal Residence to the Planning Commission and with instructions that future submissions comply with the Newport Beach General Plan. Thank you for granting us this time. n� Kenneth Jaggers R PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign 11.2 -123 14 , z l4 �� p.vLE 4 tQ�3 cv M a 6 L? g YAvAi 4,) a-�pl `x�vlck% a4q S37o M PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minipaum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park Is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Si n lf %jN�t�t Jo�n✓1 �"�z�� t�cz�.1Z ���� C M 7a741S1 6n�'6 C C(� r� (� , C. DM Li s ,� fr _70q h 'A- I &7j olio f %Q '15o y R , Y 1 � y r7 947 X73 <.( IN v-"Z,°I *141;1 9-'b PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss Is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign % l YLA (� A� taav- rD / NarNAN 2R I �, CoffsT 7 23) NO t SiLA-04'c I Lm Su 3 _ gnu s% neq"' 92� 73 u P line of aI etrS% t s C�e9�h Ue CD �� 3 ` kjge- A + 1 h v� 2� Sbc �J t2a- �'icTh �I�ZAgCr�.c oX ��� DG72STd iv �t t� c� tr d Copp J M PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that Include open space, mountain*, ernyone, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard sign y�t3 `/y �taoNr� 6 J, n� q4q, (073 - Ha i 1 60 I Q 1 r-d -2107 7 < �%��Li�'1•"1',yf5(i� ! R fZ ?41 6 7077 �j t lci+ W3 ,g 7� �" ([`�tvl � 3S Ml�tr�,c tL- 3o�11z t(tZtcr>•dPt � 30 Cis 6&ITh' Duo 'A1iC� ,ly WIN i jol+ cq W 7 �#01 l LP PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard sign NOY pp / Fj Ayvca4& W� hm b x'316 ` �����' Ng g2.Cc� i��i� �r�s►�1 X 4 PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and N1120,1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park Is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign Li elJLta c"S te a - y�L, l9Jl,k} Z 35s �' LO Sc h CC- Nev i*'O �( COG � `�� C �2� � @CGa•./u� G �� plc LUJA I PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign lL � 5 �O�il4�tatr 03O rvcktti„MI ($ Z3 I.ocJtw�a�ra� (44c[) Scoi !eD �t SgSHA 30(0 1215g1�. #8 coo ize- m'V- PkEQN ,o 4s i�t ,;(L �f) Al Cif Gts Y� j 8 4.Y[ o i Pt-K 3-7,1f /3,t --&- ,:!�� cpM CA 2-S w U <- � ovA G?JA �2fo2 TESL /G 3 0 30 lReAg CDsoN C-0/' 19, OkA-CAI) 2 Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign qW� SEW Lew NeueT¢ox- (�hl'Li fiF 7q-7g LI-Z_ (� l5 9N9 w v is v� r Aoc A(--� sscx> U La- q v cit t�(c�t�7lAi 1Wre�� Cc �is�� Z41� C �� �t w, i�3 - i f*f cg of tc o t v� �n1K9 6 1 7140— ` t - r -715 �fLl d S ���� • ��,���e a ash ���°od s� /fie %S� ya(�a (v 77U �J 6 c 6 �� t%tNE -t Ti4 eo^ Y �`r Cov�N %R � 7�y , 412 46 PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL IM, The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign Kc�rc.J 332- p¢%hS 'u- lJIp Wi M�M�1u2 M Ww AV ClE`) :�A (OA4A ako -f (? l {� (j>`/,t" c o m fac Ua Vs k* f^ cam �,Q_ TvnE 3azo CjceaN, buq lzact¢-w 65 Painse/h'q !}✓4 Gv'aa igj 3 w 1_H1 Z 1 vec5 „'Iles JA- G�iS G ti-7 S�OIiN'�D Ci1nt L.0 ca(, 1 el ,43 qq PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign 3 Lis `5 49 `� r�i< �c.cl� R/cw ark CUo?Sf 2�9 -9 ct v ^10 y} L.Ow r� Ci (✓� 3312 �4 r�Klci�`( ittlN y. �yVC,t�/ S I..� O� (j 14} �Ar'�ytrs 3udr j i'f. C,- ->. � / /z -i1e:, r ��. �Z� > ; srs n � t PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Si n /t'lc#AIfY �Vik'rRA/11.�.� � 7 '72'1- G 7T 2 �ArRk5`d 9'f9- 67 S�- ka n. /owe <A. iti ou�e. ,Caw A ® yo +� T3 3 3 3C7-7 IV 5-7,.5— ~J d G -f y1/ o `I z Ce(o as e c.- M `124 C' 7z r 2.r 9-sZ (� -/ r C PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that Include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Si qql- gwV\ ce ��Q as 7658 � /; >:�,` /392 G > 4�/ l- IN A004404D I:, 05M MOW 41626 3 i11��c+� n POVbM •,\ t-1twP14 Pch J . 6 § "W fir- Qrlatsanclm c�o lLrC G) . M . U e�z262T r©< -M&61 ce,., I PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park Is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign �aYi Moroi 3f3 (avn_-rHwL qt( 9 -If i?_ d^rnC"roo GntId��e���A�C(�° T 1941JC �q(G uc.i� IE-D; �'TIA � S l /Vol , 3 3Ag l`t38 GDM , PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Si n 02, 44 k W.JB t�1 ao �pofQ. 8�3� `Fy4 -�19 (J�11 LA V/ 4le- yy 6015- k,)r,vty@ 9-)" *"p ,-�JILA,Cod J' � PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign 3,l Y-e [� Ke)M f 7 w _ N • Q � c °1 � 35S— (b c o ireh4-0. I% • tffM 3 `I ry Im 0,v, civ ti A QrYe-l-1 Ad �(� I" PA 1 If � (0`t- c14 'ws yi /� � �e 15 5� Terc 9ii 04V cv��>Oj S-49 0 6,'7 3 ,.S&-e c C.4 LId1,49rra. old 4Ar X09 q,- ic QL4C9 G yG Roe erePadn, ®tee CA �a� �© ST '�,2 i N �z6�6 x 663 C�O_C6rr) I 1 j PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.65 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email 1 Want a Yard Sign �,FV�`DtDN 3D q2(,; 3 1k)0 41 F rat, M,�fq/s /L.� /fkj /M - SaHOG�,.sIle- 6 DM 916 2J' 0 NiA2en i3l,�AKn/1n 261 SA���nR� Nv C11�1/yl 15 r� U tr% PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign C- 141 AV Cr/� Iar3y a6 DRWPJ auq VvC�i�C:�c_ & 75 Mary Les2r�U 4�. o l �a.c9.%t 4K4 640 �G 8�3�G ✓�� 9f9' t 31t �3 l Gr17 rr� aG orr cop, �� � C, a Yn WP* C.vr4 Ma 10 PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard sign fa I Ce lu.*) k' M k 4 G or > I U ( C61F' -0 WT)C-A- PAR CO3AA L-A Jpo 444 L-j �,Te (-Api -.i r-1 a. J po a�r COAST Mq sY4 IA I C.krzC CA gZ65 -4g6S- C+& aj.,0,o.ca � { a33�j� 0 eI>�S "Nom ry nA-t.M, �""'�~ 380 Ke j Qaal 999 0 cAnrivnbJ pit, ti es 4 3 A4 72-1 447W AI 2 q41 two 0411x, AVr,- Y 1(3 Z- Ga (-4 trod i►iw� c(�.,�w LOA t64 c Ok(r'N OW ntaw% �Ll r4ay Gyt'L haF�a.(, R;vo1, st+�R Sao- y�ti�o�a o(� 3k ld�ss. '-717� G PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, when feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park Is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign q1)3 Wy Ave tp ?-- �� cbi&/A 1. T211rCue 0-a v �Yy OS- v"J4 LL t2C ( c Oye yW f t�W -t_, A4- I&A-)port �[ 640-Cy a w. C7,A.,< Po ". CJ M oto — a yo(a �i�l,���? `J�QIti•1� I�1Gf1Lll� 6GfSbf pakoo.c�n�. GeIM 7z b t o Cpw� le (1 7 , PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials 'Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign S�VU1L{oLl� / ^;vim A/ C- . q u z2 -- — r NO 2,4 L10 z, C,ao SL L 1ti' L _ N&� PV R-'6 Cam/ 5 1 /, v Uc, mq�� ° J,8 RO- W T TAG(� J '4rv)e ;ley/ 2 C M�C�R�ic1 M FM PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Stan Ja�,r1 3� ti%t�iiavl �i 5 boeA f 6 -o1ll � V"k%'� CCA Ic kV 2 ) -70.1 A C r)��R915 (L C-0 (�v 7.zo -7o61? Njo can (,a7� (o+-7 t C I S 4C6 CA)A ` \ ,r^A % J JH:i 4i f •7/ np�i Mare L/ �" G x-(111 C � ✓v` ST�'�� �✓�� t 46 "'- �(( k.. ,� � S 4 n�, ( i PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign l 915 Cie- � �•OX . n it / / / /J /�Y� � v -Oka w a M �--- -- 6-6 C- V/,4— A%1A/JT -r WL Y" � b0°�'�Z wlatuca,9 J't FG 3oz � c,5s ✓S �..,. Ve v �• v PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard sign :3,7 lj�f,'TaaJ r lPi�* ?Y 9 1-1M Dr&j v DRru 7eos 9" 0 0�4 37 (If ) 1 e.c 1-j4did dFG,yP Lo G7/.-tus Aa isT3J� Jow b�V e� W�h LPG �l p p4l�l f4q w; K° pk � 3 ga Mull a48 U A4:;-) ��- ��r^-- �`�lia� � 3�� ✓,',� qua( � A a &/ , ��l �i6 1� �1Y PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of Me Publlo View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign 601 Qsu�i> 6 GDS 370 a,1Q �d�eiL � 33y -37 • oga {�ZCOre. ' S i 1 C �7 1, � J � "'cp.� ,r �. llhl.�5 040V (o tv0 GO�'Yl Woo I q 4 17 S A-w) i\( if I M nJ J�1o6�eti �i l i�.AJt l �o S�LC S Ayo 97_5 �i � S�i4C �oT� PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL M The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email 1 Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign Ld Aas4z ILL/)v- I `f j `•/ �F� � yi = ?.r�7.::1�i�� -fir - 1 !� jNM CAM c ri PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park Is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign (Wh,Cd 3�3 �o�I1bRl�Uq c V� kill Yoh V. II U� K }U �1�s crl SNP 11 ��5/Ces + 6(iN7- o,1g AA( q IM - Cal, . J ' M KSPUP AVE CAM _. PETITION TO THE n�D NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL 0 The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Si n 2T?�a 477/7' J:;w+.. 01`T LOX 7v ?2-iz N 920:4 s ,) �.._. Dr - 212pc U0 Pe rin~ �;v� (D1S �� ko 7ac� e' corn '12-62S r)14S v 1,C4 PETITION TO THE A'/ NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard sign 011W 114, -C l l� 6,172 s- 2`�b9/� S4m4ffAhl 6i 1°4' Ara Ccn Of CAM 00 6 z 02 5 (p18 c,La_ lo Acl c�, AV, C(,," o N Q, IJ` L M g I Jcih+� S'c� ^rtty` G d 2,0tw- �a�e/�/��� C°d 1;7 7 CO 14 emu LN `, 6/Z, A�� V M41A C�, P1 PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign -)Z ��rn�k�l� rAH9 a-on /c/y 9y jo 5d� i3� 1 �xuti- krre.�� Ter uuU N\ V)'v �if��fGt.��b�A ,322 I��thV��lf2 C� it Dpi M u,� PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign IVIAW.4-✓t Zf 1I Zt�,�h �� s>y r0S �4 9v '. kA ( AVZ6¢ q I ".I- v _ LJ �Xic �rfa5o,� °9 VZ , M," qqrr�� � J��s� e t ?0-+er ToKNSM 604 Aecrol)m 14 76 y .4 vc v i3tI-I Xyk qu -7 ff) 440Z 9' - �',,sas^ta A ✓L 2 7 t -- v PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, me4ntalmo, *anyone. ridpoe, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign LAWq ;� �00 CA �o� s \ ., ' � (��/ti'rr5fi L�o�6 off! 4a 3'cvd�7Ft L Gl /lam 1 �e �u A-$ I> 135 0�� S�lvt t3 -7 1-0�po- -`Y S�`r�,v W /[flit 3aa 4 «/9-iROPE c6RoNR DAL �R 71 y Y�g•asG 9�nAi� 40 Y%�(�✓)orl� S��t 5( �t�� C�J� l4dY ►��, WAA �iZbz� �73331� G C PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard sign i`Or4R� �OrA • �Io&(efk C. P 6Ycaoo(m ./ij.Ca 52G 7o iN is nda� lifthen�J `jlP2 Sf-AWkI i4A• cnM 121025 -n rill - C1 s k6� 4A,&4 /t,/ IZP • JO 71 d' 0lcn 3rs �%& rd�e Coro-%& . Dd{ Ma,- Qx 3An4tA G.' nA CA fts (20$. )t/r1�c��or Cl k, -An t,4- g, t) At, veo fu- A"e— V/ d PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public Vlew from Begonie Perk is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign /% k e;s�r'IUV / at 1 Dcw...- COc� Z77u Sau �� Wk gr4u-e. �. u�;s � ��0 9zGZ� No I)N LA 3z)2- cD C� MgS a 3� PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign S lkw RO K VI(ti -7- =ao6A F`�u C�5 /� v AM �Vic � °(P I�2— Yc-'" ✓far com f C bel (4Ul Ow lol� yZN, n A 0. �. 4 kVA- C'.AM u/ 04 I Ve� f.wV.P- PETITION TO THE /},� NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign ��vy�rl2 kc6ulre �/(q Fglwleal Cr0/y q4� 9b r�JL�' to '7.S / ,e. •a� �.I q g25 -rZ,64 �- ii5� �r�fhgf �'ys s�wa Ge assay `2�vj 271f Y�� oo - C PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL /00 The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials `Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard sign +^M0 ( ' n� Yq,(3 CAN -C-A 5�q c q) y?,y.I Fes,^ /.a{ �y�rs- L � > Ps r PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL �J The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign cv, rI n-e._- q4Ke Can '4liLp- cc , aO— Oq— C�vr r r S 1ya -� 7 rq 00/ a lC pnN ��GIY tb " °L NO I I 4� Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Si n re 41 t�ll¢tlzleli �C4'(iGde� - 01 y 35 �u , , 10 l zr� v le! a CAOV ,(dam / - / ,- I GG PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign S /� %A.✓%R c1 /� Q�/ �7/%2 "TO/G 6U/u65 %�� �� 4g7 ��Uf�ilu— j���.�, N �- Z ?� wl �d,w -�, 0,,QA ,,a4A M IP M) �UVJbA& y33 u l 650 /Z. Yeltdi ,-ape otjG�Dm� v4eqle-c . e6o" '9 /t,6� 1 PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, 3�1 mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." / The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigai Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign X J L�t�i �vyHU C� GAGE `'i3O%YIS�:ca q C_ 1) � �.si,�.w���. ivy IRV— , ��Cnn2 ��11c�I �)l I ✓!�Ia� f�uz �^�nn��� uci M !�`t 7 q •��1y -3o kviiJL fVv � 'f $ORC� Ito IMF 404 2 �a 2w' hoar �i y� NO 7/ /s 774' I iPrlCi><- q b1�5'f ohbla 56-7 A �W q � 6 M PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss -of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building. options forth% Megonigal Residence that.would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign /9N.ar M3¢mir 420" I�i�(a �aytnal�� 5Zo 08 lVVA 'k p M,�ocG S, 0/0 C61" 6aze4ft.A.- A/C d gaeac5 r7s7 �� ,sFgw,gR9 9q� �/ .. 4n GpM (;?S-- cj37)�OB�' ^c. Posy �0 4,� COW Q,P4 �� 6.,i , 4e N� 4<wfA b'8783(1 Kr' D J J-4z, I G Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign Qarh�lfranY.r�n %S'd9 Qldcea -6a -A a 973 ys�r C i�c7 0 CA 0C24(.6 i 6 MCA qIJ, l -q A— qb4i4D-(Pvt L�tit/V� al�'h C�w,�f-toh 949 tsL�S �1'L(a ZS 6�z I. e4 L-jr�J CO-t 7242 -J -- -��v ;C A,t1�1 car AA 5�-oi N� jhti Lk rn New d&eAcL MO AJ>04 �� AV1d GL -d � fD� JJ� �I a"oI""P -� � yes r fie( �var� Rio Fw�- c t°8 PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points:" The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigai Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign �OA i I t �P �o �szt U1 0�" j gig L S'u �np•w1 e �i '7 i^s j aS Y�GY lbYeNiLI 10 a`'S 0 -S CA ul UYw �S`1 Do"mo fdr yvl(Ar10Yt -oV loo (��gttal�cr S l , �5��(��vJ. nom-.. 0* —. ,: ,17-1Z1-JdA 246 Tpd rS5 111�Q 10 e r,�n "A 4an j�IQcG� NGw� 6�acL �uQMl— �AnnA SrbC ovt� Lb Mt qu 25 CA Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign O' IV` • zC-06, 6137'/ C�,N k-A a1��s'%itac K)e cA- sot r1►jjl,AJ Mt (tr, 6i�/ 4- / G oila ,c�' `\ A 4"4 AOT lVc VA(< % j3c-q.!ic b o L( S Sah'�,ta� -(V N ' SO cm Ral r s '�AM� �a-f �,'v2rsidG �4Fu►J G Q Na, « w ND,eA 172-WI Lib Cl MA 7) 3 PETITION TO THE 3% NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, . where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia•Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the . Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Si n f /1'G Sd Brf o�l� 4 G 7F- a a,/�(4c 41W' Cj�( la.. 5 � 'Suw..t� 51�'�,go>�• Avrr 939- Sr3.w.�t�9 LDM 1(at7q �leWn4't 465 it ��rt a�� 46 �,3 - 1 $Z S q)71() N / $Ifh ! fV5h Cl9rvC.ktj:11 M t 9yZy v (✓ dc�� 7?-O a 4 lz� �owly C41�rS �,V�cg cr, U (lb l a 1a c t,v ADAL� -D 0po�Ta46d C #I,, Signature Name Address Phone Email . I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign A6Wj frOw C H7t 7 Z 7 061/ DAd"Aee �7A6/1 r QCi CIA 1XI36 Vs����r• lc�r5 S� -��; - 2,�z- �Ec �i` �' S262S AD L . Can �a�u�(Qi 14�veN O'CQ�hel1 3Z1 tA(4 ud- ke C DM e6f,.1 e 0,6.4,zt/ - No C.IM '1Q) 38 AvSv4k%3 Ala fir-, i:�aGBEa - r'-I >\Jo �0 Y -\ Ge n I-eN 1. L,z 5 54 n S1CCA, -79 -7oppq �G CDaA low 1 ej 0 -uro LA 9A PETITION TO THE `o/ NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points" The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard sign AP ckq 2 lr 2S zL ll— :.f Y 11 � R1 OKs OW �z6xS �6 is ✓�rfiJ�s.a ell I q6 2�-1 rev �L7G ct��i 7/ Al GAlf GO , i d rz /�/ c �� 2 4 S L✓h r c C /I1 Si c AL.r�13 �/�/ /2A / /lli''s /I' ,Vq 0 OOP/ Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Si o St1e� � �i ut?5 7� 5cu✓v� Sa,rv-.e r,, � ^GS "Jial �d`•� �L ct�lA 378 c5JK J L �l 417 aGissa.s 9q Atj y Cv f! e-, 4� 1 cD d"L >GL.oa.�/ r7r0 s,9N1"r�tl0 *Jr- )i PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL 4 The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has.stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign c�� �tYli 1� 3bo� SeH i aya- em. iyn U" � � me-'s su n Dy m N�U�w' Mfc9a(n 30c in nV e s cP16L G,. Jeol � ._j_' ZaG 1'?.0i.o k„y 7nW �•• ?.lY azc6o 1y4.� iS<i'S j4i 'iai�-�PfQ '..,,+r�<.�.<� USA SC0'f1" �°I Pi1fmm�fi�w�Dr I�san�aesccft� rJ 6 Ci7 -UU0 ��w.tdv, v � �n bl l l` S g�si� NQ�I� u� 9vomon- }ov.�'D✓ eCC17 /CA Sus�e_neafvr yahvo,ca JP�hJ> -700 "A m 5 G G 1/ Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign 7 Q �c• ✓Vl Sohr� -� /9 r GX9;z-7 3 3 Jwd�¢�, clti� ti G v fl 6223 7 I QOGa:NlLIE M AD8 R -)k, N6 M(S M John J. " PTO J� V,!5ik6rd41dP— �A °5)q #Av �3 6-A Otvo- l7 Ult PETITION TO THE . NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL A�� The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons,.ridgesi ocean; and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that.a 35 %minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that .a 35% minimum view °loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options forthe Megonigal Residence that would at•a minimum protect -the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want - (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign_ z Cj�� �G 7o �13t�2sr�5 -1U0- dsysbibill- kov toK ,s�7Z e I& 3(a ocf • Tit,; 321 'c.ol -r6-A CJA gbop 145 54i GSM L-k Cie k Acroa 374 sa�o>J�1, 533 110O ii aj Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign ce55; c 0. C. A tkan 'I bD5 2 Carnaj'ioh G1�M GR 6194o25 (oftN V7 1 144, 4Z.4 ,,,,sec f, liq l l a -(y4� 9 i( 9 jay/ %�ctic�Ft�. �9si) 07M i1 h LOW) Q 6vV 554 11'J6) - o Ir ati�w L f�citl� M �ni US zYD 5t�1'�Z �Cacic� �na(�Q r`�Q� jq 706 7y &3 lt�►���ftN1 z� �c��� �Gr q c G(U C-bNA /70� El PETITION TO THE A17% NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for::the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the iPublic View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign 4 (� /&o -O 111Vf 44, CGPksoAl a L PIC DM � a s y4 vlR �K• Uc Kid 77 J,�J4 4 Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign �vv�, 1t� A I/vy d7 760 UUrl h�0? kzo"'C\ JJ LUl,��UUV VIOL qw, `jlIC:juvj1✓1 C �J� U01� � tV; of q24 ��gAlli'l u�r C�UW1 CDM S i �1 y 0.UJO, v n f�y1 ,z /khJaVl 1 �� 5v1 kt, �® ` � Nt 6Yt � rle# � �Z� � 2; To zz iftou zo 64 antct yU ka" to 1- Lw��`e�' LeA105 j%� �yM4i�.CO2 y 1 � � �V � ° �C l� �'� � � j Y'�b�UirL i� L �Yi ,. � V ✓F1 L �y �vkvL- l 37t' C;d� G r-� r PETITION TO THE t(al NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage:points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that .a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park Is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City'Councii that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider. alternative building options for the Megonigai Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign qy j - __ � uQ C � y sno � ' A C161) �CFU Jlsi N� ci' Qx i'v' Ha v Signature N Name A Address P Phone E Email I I Want Si n Y 5 taus f f L LoChwfaao 57 1 46041 &K - 6 60 M L*49#2r e eqfr' t ti d/wruil: �� i its/ vssrat- ,�`o.(p � �► -6� / /,�^cO4 � .T —T*0,M 4s i i a, F�oY� 9 949- N Nb Re +v e c,k,e 0 ive�ry✓3 n� Y Y4�' ova u ��hdw ��j`� � �.rd�. i•td. � �l Skys0.i� C 7 7Av � �!o 1a va Af> 42bba L Li1de 4qj 00 �.t � �pz3 0 ra•� 3 393 s� � s�� q q� Ora9anu A Al 4 r r,4 �r ` � �h 4 412i°Ui✓��FhG � � � � OIeWi �nS� C C,nrn,C� ° °I5q l �� heQe-e � �Z� 'A Ott) `:�t 0A I Ivy C3 ZcA[0t�('A 3 1 %12, Y Y�l� 3 1 1 1,71 9 9v l °rursE 9 Cos+pr !e1 rSH O Or - Vi /IrMtL R %I •Cc e PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park 5 Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard 1 i lS� 0q qiq -I cjr3 �Sign Goo �f�aNi�1 �/9 - 5316 n.• - --��� \ J�cE4 ncrJnn (.00�Egen�ACav4, R24q zs.\\CS % tY W\S- P, CA, 9 zcko �a GaldenmC Jinx % uue,v O-P 7We- �U R 9 3 �J ,<i.e.ICtl 137S= 0�3 s�Cjv,CLe h�'t� / aN1�n AVE b }q -bi0 U ( MOY A AW 3 a ry ry C/ &K, i ry n Cam- �- � -,,,�� � � ��� ✓'v�- - _ �� h 7t�tb� � TV C2 !! r `-Yfv/ SZ WpD oc i1 �� z/, QZ � A IS preA a gaeag "odmaK Ai (.11ama }Apd) ;ASM I pema aaogd ssaappd aweu aaAIeASfs a PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign [QAluv �N cdn g2ctr S -`iZu C�krN. •rj�,YLJVVi C -�'�'� °13(aa.5 Stop- 9aoo n . C.im� c(t t Po; .� ya. r 5 v j�,,F ,.., � ✓r � Cps 4z�ZS' S°us -i c. G� �(ay-�� ��- (3 Q.bUv-- -7-�5 5 �d'n�e co.^6� S .. a rr 4 �� � 3u�� (�0�6�1�4. 5 . o0 ew, L xk- ecor s ;96/ 6/ 42 Y-? AQ@ l�nJ PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL �a1cl The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials `Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign 61s pc;rrrs�i rig+ G.D 11'1 Gnrr, ( �vBO t f 2663 � ►V /�� c3 M cJ� -- IJ a.s,u, ftf ( ct'C ('A 5'd 6 elilftature f Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard sign j�uwn Gt V 3to 00 r4$L% .cam $3XIZ eu YES Q?�rl�l JS GD►In C'EA ���� rongdeOO /��� S /D� �ar-f•Cory� «.,..,,I f �� ►�e�T raos V. AV �1 13, C4 Geo tgi2 r Q/ �� / ' 1 ! is' e 4t16 jskksoh A& C ,4. gx643 n o (/ Ce7LbEU,t- CAM yi C75 Pa�el5aeJ G�i 9�t9 .,L v Cp "do Iiv; Va-Ai,9Y. zle (Pol PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include:open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport. Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss:is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign ON MAC Gv�Rr qJ2: NjZXa7Ra r �y9 M a ��f 9.9i09 il n V tj x/70 Gt/o� l ns 9�9 ,t 9z6�3 zy�,7 �C� -►^tiu- �,py t4% �i �(ZIv2S ally e 2(o I b CAZ-?-2�5- L��>t D�� 5� /z lXlca 65;r�Oe1 Ma-r '779- 74z- Cyrvor9l<aa qz.(P -z-5 573 °J 1 `.k„JU'l2 vlq-t Uy �I (422RLI GDM� G� BLS 2 VVI L G PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL j The Newport Baugh General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20A) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean; and harbor from public vantage. points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council .that .a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign Q S��l �(00-y1 I o� p1a 71 C-, -z - �, A.V«�,� �s4 '514'/Z y�Uk n v i 4j 9�� V7� CNalo L 9y9 5-� y- /� �j i'Fi(t5f(AiJL� S /2Jr4 SMiUt A� Co2NA1 7do - j�iJ D� 0 a I 0,/ Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign lam, D 1�4 �� /v ��,/t 941 �q s 73f /yz Z J ffd�. �So.✓ q zQ6 z Jti.�. IZ�l3 � 43 3 eb-�rnr1 s�z zl� QD(V\ MA R Zw te�71 lq,4 /t 3 don�( 1 A71�" ZWt k) 509 rG6W t c�� 5 LLo L�c� yLD Cbreq�d w&vt- 3�s5 (� 0 � l 13E1�'��� �w�7� Cam; PETITION TO THE (I NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL 5 The Newport Beach General Plan mandates that City Officials protect and enhance Public Views. The Newport Beach Planning Commission has.stat+ed that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Addrem Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign C-i^°'MU W-f Zg L 15 6 ) IV,v Avo60 o a- SIMS(? SUMS ✓e 73ZS 7"qn 4p 90MM P f— 9i9 7/9-17s yn e 3 qh e, �, yahoo. 0 pit M; e X13 Z`�Z NJ °�, 2� _ M, k�R�A PA K5 0 tsS . 92 25 M a law, V 73-7y 6� (0�6/� 6.1 � C� X00 � Cycy N8 Ir'71 i sir PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL 600 The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage. points. ". The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35 %minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign (mar, gR-a-N1Vp1,j (30LVV L< 677j 197-2 ^j 0 1 nl. x'15 clz C �iK y�/,r� , �-o' C.v a4� i3=Lj, ;y. /�.,� y Jl[�(O� L / Z GU - f 1 �7X) l Ca r D A) 9 cd cal 5877 8877 APAWID!J 9y9 -4 Jr / r2 c%i rJ M 0 406 MAi"r Lj (2 A K(T- S /o• S BE(aONLA I CDIVI 941- 33(,- 001(oi G/ PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL 01) The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersignedz state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign WhF/ t rIVR4C /Jdn ri /i� k/��t� 10('Z 1-/ Al (76 q+ �1 3 <� CD ti-- o�� � r, Cry -G z� t -D;r�z C4 �w PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH. CITY COUNCIL �j The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains; canyons, ridges,:ocean; and-.harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach. Planning Commission has.stated that a 35% minimum permanent toss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach-City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider- alternative building options for the Megonigal: Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign ,x Tr; 6 ot-0 J pt 6w �7 d 614 �l c.. AvoL ci� L VA i h� p 9iur�c%�l1c 9y9 4 4/y- ' /rcrVerg {a te 12 M,0Y( Its , -f r �� �3 U r ,i 00 J_ C4 � -w +- 5r i> 3b41 2, voLi (print Clearly) in Newport Beach �. A 'r 7h, ' r Me /iii - M/M .9-,. ►�0`_ ' A /4 r / r PETITION TO THE P01 NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials `Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points. ": The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign �c(r,ayr✓ a1��i'lls��(� �► �C LRrr-in pr j� U — N6 8j AA If �b 4 g" ow r, CA)v4Ai$ 51ty UL `lve4 L1�5 cgs S� -T&4 04q 30(0 - N -/ ZG WOO bl a S 0 ,� 2,0 PAYI3 L.^ qt�I- SL �z- _ QV\ y5a as s�� F-S a(001 o Dr _ V mC rl lG h4e wrcf (',x,h a 9'2lQ4p Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone. Email. I Want a Yard Sign ....... .. . q- 7! L, S,�l�iva� Uzi �a'•nse A hie. /,j, \�j�� ///jam Y'd'l �/���pVCYHI �'!l/1t�J�'Vi�"_ /IK• ]Zv CoI+PN D �� tic c� 9L� ���'cr,�� X,'L; /�,y�ri.✓s6t/ l�.�e.✓�' dxc 9�rP: t/xH'�LrS � ���� S�G�Q�� ✓M lit= (a� a, PETITION TO THE �D NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (W1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage.points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable.. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Si 2n Q-17o--, 3 '� 1 VV,S 7V Avc&Ao a 1byS FO-t 116 L2 � dL, I � S'G3iwcl,vv5 C, � . PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges; oeenn, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant.' The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonlgal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Si n - Q I ti z 25 C1,Ps4, S zo 15q6- —7;7�4 i�-,)7� 7�. �e �i•S�G /. o��� tt m J z PAUc �� Ct�ruv✓� MAZ 60 Zv�5-r CE bO A X5,rD .9ZG 204 �P Mq-cy �US� / �D✓C i SE�dJ��C � N --:113491 'Pay"i +1 Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign 3ax ca Z63 JI&S3 OJAOW) klb�� 15,W g1LthL 0 (ovI & OMA,&� f�tY DYeA' 3(31/1 j, (Aliotvape c�M, q�25 X02 d "v k-0 �9 orvi ' uo ,.�,rfi 83�5 SOS Q�can`�d Jule,w►a gyve, OW 9 (,s1+.�IJ�M� ,4 �� -�-�1 X�Y� t cfq c /ice t 1?6D ($K- &Ai —h?(5 Tr 2 �f�� Gi1lSciv NP �oknrrA Oft M+S2 6 %f3 5 0 Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign Alf+ r �-YSIs N N PETITION TO THE- NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General :Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent los&of the Public View from Begonia Park is-not°significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view•loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign 1ti Sb LA'GA-u � A r1, A- ��� 3id� r PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCII. The Newport Beach General Plan mandates that City Officials protect and enhance Public 1� Views. The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 359E minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 359E minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigai Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign A, 4 eGrna J m T J�q (�p+3�2- n^''r,e A �Mh. M�MAn) r 6r4 GD f� f.{e v�cTe So Q f�7.�,' 6 l4.A�.c, ,Si o f C arttml, �7 `l9 Mduaortl Af. �36� Oct L4 3> I C) 6, � (s d M�CcYti,� LIfs � pl/ q 41 1 0,�zwS W24p� \j Usl� G733d� °' P�St_2x w e -C-6 w, PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open.space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign Z7" n ebbi e C�cgnt tXs� i�,�� jeC,6� k' a-a � 0. K� �/ 1� a✓ CI G PETITION TO THE. � NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL A The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20:1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible; enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include -open. space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council:that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal.Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign a1V112�- Go y (.d KaA 12-6 (190q Acacia G✓�t Com �IZG2i 144 e t w,.I . ,tstn�3 L�SI 3iDD Doman iq - )clear Q_ cDM S33o J cNQ�af- , PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park Is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park UO/ Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard sign l�Ve -, /ion. LOS G t �� -�e-� f �ZfJ Sl1a�p `i9 N1,11C its CA Y9 jo 5 �r� yjfS A 411,A/ 3Aow i.J 316 F% (ia d,,,1sc. F p4 .vim /VA�h/tn� G4 M yyl161t, (o D/Li���scn� n� /fir k) "� low . tJ /+ ChAz e Signature Name (Print.Clearly) Address . in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign '1 Ri y2 r Yitr Llye; f .fne 7oy3 Logra.. NB �2F 4 , Oar`' AI K� 333'+ � cc C` c o m �z�cce ' �► N�s� So4 rE2N�'k� J�u -l�N Gc��� 2'1oc� ��0 ✓""" f}TASn la& 3 Oc t 5 om,! Ott FA V PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates:that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges,: ocean, and harbor from public vantage points. ". The Newport Beach Planning Commission has. stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view: loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council cons ider. alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email. I Want a Yard Sign N i KNr 7r Golyo yy 'A KVA s A c Ise Ma2{dr � 617 - fs A ✓e T5!!�Zf / I Da YYIi i1; G. M 8 ` k�R4 S N R� MPA�► 212 VIA 66NIA N.B. CA 92((f3 lr 13 N , 13'I 5 La•SotA 9 07'1 f.1.q. q2(.160 s- ot� 1/ Lavra 6pntAla '10$ �arlLSpur" 40 -6q �p►•t `(2625 1p o SO 3lOi/ C ti `1'11ol � AI<Ntigv�e /l/D I G C AV Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email... I Want a Yard Sign roSthaJ�, 5 P ��DuJ l�t�o�ra �1 r f -70 L c LQ&�n r) CvOcnrL � > s JYjC(i�s.M �l/GYN7K'r f I �dl r.� PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign Lk�o y w�wn s�� q ;Iyw 0" Jufr�e �u -1e� Avo— C M "Ct JAW SJA 0, AL S 10( 4 2- P N� //e C;L +vim KP M C2 %Z SOL er }j0to v��}IIA r G nal Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Si n Poo Sorft� liQ�. W t 43' D�-04, f9de- C,DM 700% TIN9p —AL- 603 IVlAe ✓ C D►�l Aoa R,,h /o oz 6zz8 �S; mGrr� �utimHr�Ati� N�f�Grr ��d, Wf e-Z� ���19 o/z v Iwl�i`'r c/c#33� 9a aS N- N ,i L 3 1 C�E'�1 1vJ � d �Eit^cxt�c t AaWY nf X2 4 C „All �itt,C7 PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL �1� The Newport Beaoh General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20:1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council.that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request.that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signatur Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign 7�C4 �:-� �PuYt�r�rr -tai G.� ors � L I RLL 1Aujo CAvaA � iz111- 7-Z) � C76.Ti8Ldja/ vlsTA MAe,-AgLC1 OP15 ISYY �sN.c.o.ti A ID 0 C:E �/�t9� 9�9 J; e (wo S S W I L �90 RaBc&- MoesolAmn E44 Vrs,i+ G 09 r SJ Sftnl ll�rJ� 'iZ�' �ft�IS�S �( �/o "`" �, l co q4p 0 r v✓ Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign C7��YJ�� t�✓ SCVZ � cue l.v�eF 4 �' eve -►'l V ie f � a� ✓1 of ��� Ll - 7 l 61 13135 /0 OWN PETITION TO THE t - NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from-BegQnia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign �1��:�'th'{�w'►' �1Wrl 2brJ � al4`1 (3oyd Aut�h� a3I Fb1kt*j"W Cc( ti.L 33-5 I D eehvr �'°. Uvo c7 Y.� 46A C,DwA,9jb25 Na . [(off U0 rfleAhil C Signature Name Address Phone -, Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign 5966 4 N s X719 30 Ls v � rem y697 T UA /If ���� �•�- �ta�nS �e.�io�o -�sl 9- i�'0� t ��•e 7SS' . � � cJ c S�. N 653 PromomMryDr. 4�{Q W. New p v y- B ee-ch qu60 - �Cq ✓,� L a� 1c°Ctnn� jC01) , +� ,e W,�I,Q 1 60C C3m�l Noe o PETITION TO THE /I NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that.the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email . I Want a Yard Sign C� J q�'r X0 %t ^ewr'f4q zg X 3)6p rMN-D Qa'I 1ST V101 Q9j) �tlNt��111 seawdv ���n ne G� yu Qaczac� DC•, C,,jrC.. 512 /Z (�t5 4y`t �f v G 8 3kg2. .vv ���� 4/,\t PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials. "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. . We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigai Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park ►, e� Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard sign �A7Zt e iA A-43 i"d s; 9 r .. 333 -/,E7 ?V I? C 2�rr Su tJ c C2 .?r ABry __ .y7�a Y - Aar N7 JJ r `I- �0.tler� lSs�i lcrt`�14�e 4�� � i�0.:10.rro Ua�)pvrt C.40gSUS )AA- �I 10� ply,', 0 bV(,T5�"jN M G M�� mo0WA '��� -� — C � 0Y b � Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email: I Want a Yard Sign C�,�lvmn�.�v Znclermdehle. 2828 Lich, +kwse. Ln. 336 F535 3 yahoo.«m � c0t r-O , w1463 "l� a� Jf{N�1/i�U /l� aa�7Q <c�l� GD •rl ���5 9q?- ?z�% � /V J FTE- Ap%so1j N PcoX, ) v-r All Rl7cPP u� SP 1 s $aY` laool pw r-�� �'{-Pr r� ✓� 9¢� gr 3 . �,l1rt� v PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL sl ,— The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard 6) 7L /,9 j-) 1 AJ r f 2 P ��1� � `�..`f�- ov (114uie jCr� w �IZd �1mtti� 5�� BIG -�5 M a PaLw iu< hexctMncn 2- /�u^- I��C i21� V ✓ $ �a �� 1« �e Qqf X137 tQ) SAl?✓� jby 69,x-(, �, n S'l 2 z Y4 Iwo 1 y PETITION TO THE '! NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL `b� The Newport Beach General Plan (1-111.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 36% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard r sign I rllb a �a Ll 4 c ;- Z�J x,-s 9 44- -71 AIA11 d 61r +M,44 CIO ' II 6,D9 J A 400 �'!T -I Ac,4fft @AOi Cam yes b a D PETITION TO THE 3� NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 36% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign /P 9 y� I 9 91- PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign )7" �,--� � �v 21 ��e ss �VAV�, 4311 Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Si n A No 4 where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is . unacceptable. i. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider(alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard sign 1.t19yaf,�iN %77 � /UGr'SI 9a.�6 (.��yr6^I g� ec�v+�,c1�i I'"lai'"rG '�I�fjAir� �'oeca+/a =a, PETITION TO THE�� NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign % ti 41� -z a� A,* tip PETITION TO THE 4:;4� NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign cl l�acKc FE'S A) a ) 9,24- l ✓ PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL ;..� he Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, jmountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." 6f 5 �y The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 36% minimum permanent loss of bl� ✓ the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. (�o 1 �V, The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 36% minimum view loss is L11 ✓ unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the 161 Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park �o 11 l� S Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign DI ! 1 L. f`/D i,V\ Ab L \W1 Q ne/ Vol 111 &,L Uy NCK OD; 31? (SJt14- ¢ -:c;Y1 oCl`I `-, � Na 6T ?f Jam ,. M C Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign L�/cILLF /To �3(v CAznf%1'! l0/✓ C9�ry) Z zs" h° L Gd�>1C�U s� C��i�ahlln� v 1/2Y M (L UX/JICi?6 n/ - IIrr -,�fs K<,r/�✓��TLf'/llBm; J l �, 0SS&Z9 �_ ..... < IS &V C- 7t> LOtk'-jYZO17 4%7 S 6772 PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign " / r 0& � f0jW ( 62 ��o Z :4i4t u+ MGC(,(( fD 42i C-01VOSI ON `I 9 l��Rr4160AI C]7 a E �T></ ZfoZ �) � fiTl'D �/2A'160 C1i Q/kl�UcJE/L �u d C v� vN ?�� � or✓G2 7Wd S�fp v e�}fje .COn Save the Begonia Park Public View! Petition Page 1 of 2 Steve(�Q..tpp��. yyy 9q��+�t"� n C1"Iang: uwwr��pc €aweifice. corns Ada by I¢ View Current. Signatures - Siun the Petition PLEASE INCLUDE NEWPORT BEACH ADDRESS: CITY COUNCIL DEEMS SIGNATURES INVALID WITHOUT IT!! I To: Newport Beach City Council The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35 \0/o minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35 \1/o minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Sincerely, The Undersigned Click Here to Sign Petition View Current Signatures The Save the Begonia Park Public View! Petition to Newport Beach City Council was created by and written by Dan Spletter, Co- President, Friends of Begonia Park (FriendsBegoniaPark @live.com). This petition is hosted here at wwwYetifionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice. Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition fie] p form. tags: ocean view ad( d tag) http:// www. petitiononline .com/Begonial /petition.btml 1/3/2010 Save the Begonia Park Public View! - Signatures Page 1 of 2 ID Save the Begonia Park Public View! We endorse the Save the Benonia Park Public View! Petition to Newport Beach City Council. Read the Save the Begonia Park Public View! Petition Sign the Save the Begonia Park Public View! Petition 30y fixed 4.25% No Fees Select us as your Realtor and get a unbeatable rate when buying a home! v .IPLrealestate.com COOSIC 40. Name Address in Newport Beach Phone Number 51, carol woodman 600 Begonia Avenue Judith Schuda 50, Alexandria Quader 208 1/2 Femleaf Ave, corona del mar, ca, 92625 949)903 -4896 49. david paz 2301 Arbutus Street 35. 48. Aliza Paz 412 avocado Eddie Uliasz 47. Rosanna Chila Kelly Dunn 46. Cherie Sharp 410 1/2 Acacia Ave 31. 45, Ron Manley 410 1/2 Acacia Ave Diane Chakmak 44. Jeff Derwin 2674 Bungalow Place, Corona del Mar 408 1/2 Acacia Ave, CdM 43, Ellen Derwin 2674 Bungalow Place, Corona del Mar 27. 42. Deborah Cruttenden 2209 Pacific Drive, Corona del Mar 949 -566 -0027 41. Walter Cruttenden 2209 Pacific Drive, Corona del Mar 949 -566 -0027 30y fixed 4.25% No Fees Select us as your Realtor and get a unbeatable rate when buying a home! v .IPLrealestate.com COOSIC 40. Jeffrey Cruttenden 2209 Pacific Drive, Corona del Mar 9498877325 39. Thomas Tackes 701 1/2 Acacia Ave 38. Judith Schuda 603 1/2 marigold 37. Brad Neglia 36. Chimeric Neglia 2301 Arbutus Street 35. Michele Wilhite 322 Heliotrope. Corona Del Mar 34. Eddie Uliasz 33. Kelly Dunn 32. Nathaniel Carton 410 1/2 Acacia Ave 31. Katy Tackes 701 1/2 Acacia Ave 30. Diane Chakmak 1510 Park Newport 29. Jennifer Burback 408 1/2 Acacia Ave, CdM 28. Courtney Gordon 427 Heliotrope 27. Gretchen Terry- Leonard 441 Carnation Ave Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 206 - 963 -2116 26. Lance Leonard 441 Carnation Ave Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 206 - 919 -2066 http: / /www.petitiononline.com /mod _perl /signed.egi ?Begonial &l 1/3/2010 Save the Begonia Park Public View! - Signatures Page 2 of 2 25. George Rider 24. Joni Stier 430 Begonia Avenue 949 - 933 -5317 23, Robert Stier 430 Begonia Avenue 949- 723 -0425 22. Larry Limoges 436 Mendoza Terrace Corona Del Mar 21. Shiva 20. courtney gordon 427 Heliotrope 19. Hilary Holland 412 Acacia 949 - 752 -4609 18. Cheryl Soos 517.5 Begonia 17. John Naheedy 16. Mary Rabaja 15. Shirin Tale -Yazdi 14. Jen Cunningham 13. Farideh Iravani 12. Mohamad Iravani 11. sara mizban 10. Bahman Mandavi 2330 2nd Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 9. Fahimeh Mandavi 8. Khosrow Mandavi 7. Bahram Mandavi 2330 2nd Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 6. Adam Duberstein 5. Glenn A. Souers 445 Begonia Ave., CdM, 92625 9) 673 -2014 4. LUCY SOUERS 445 Begonia Avenue, CDM, 92625 3. Dan Spletter 430 1/2 Begonia, CDM 949 - 675 -2500 2. gary keams 1. kate keams View Signatures: 51 PetitionOnline.com has disabled the display of email addresses for signatories who chose to make their address public. We have done this to reduce the spread of harmful Windows viruses which harvest email addresses from the web cache of infected computers. This also prevents spammers from harvesting email addresses from this site. The Save the Begonia Park Public View! Petition to Newport Beach City Council was created by and written by Dan Spletter, Co- President, Friends of Begonia Park (FrimdsBegoniaPark @live.com). The petition is hosted here at www- PetitionOntine.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice, Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Help form. ,send Petition to a Friend - Start a Petition - Pnvacv - Contributions - Comments and Suggestions PetitionOnline - DesignCommunity - ArchitectureWeek - Great Buildings - Search http: //w m.PeritionOnline.com /Begonial /Petition.hinil © 2009 Artifice. Inc. - All Rights Reserved. http:// www. petitiononline .com/mod _perVsigned.egi ?Begonial &l 1/3/2010 Save the Begonia Park Public View! Petition share: 0 blogger f deltdo.us I +Ri:;j digg Page 2 of 2 facebook 0 furl a 5 reddit p slashdot 9 send to a friend Send Petition to a Friand - Petition FAQ - Start a Petition - Contributions - Pdva - Media Kit loatitignOntine • pecianCommunity - AfchitectUreWeek - Great Buildings - Archiolanet - Search http: //t vw. PetitionOnline .con✓Begoniallpetition.himi (D 1999 -2007 Artifice. [tic. - All Rights Reserved. http:// www. petitiononline .comBegonial /petition.html 1/3/2010 Save Begonia Park Views - Signatures k � t �O �_ MEMO "'�'' `Ii1RE ' Page 1 of 1 We endorse the Save Begonia Park Views Petition to Newport Beach City Council. Read the Save Begonia Park Views Petition Sign the Save Begonia Park Views Petition Name Address in Newport Beach 2. Anne Balderston Susan Alpert View Signatures: 2 PetitionOnline.com has disabled the display of email addresses for signatories who chose to make their address public. We have done this to reduce the spread of harmful Windows viruses which harvest email addresses from the web cache of infected computers. This also prevents spammers from harvesting email addresses from this site. The Save Begonia Park Views Petition to Newport Beach City Council was created by and written by Dan Spletter, Co- President, Friends of Begonia Park (FriendsBegoniaPark @live.com). The petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied; by Artifice, Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Help form. Send Petition to a Friend - Start a Petition - Privacy - Contributions - Comments and Suggestions PetitionOnline - DesignCommunity - ArchitectureWeek - Great Buildings - Search hitp:// www. PetitionOnline .conVParkView/petition.html © 2009 Artifice, Inc. - All Rights Reserved. http://www.petitiononline.com /mod _perl /signed.cgi ?ParkView &l 1/3/2010 Save the Begonia Park Public View! - Signatures Save the Begonia Park Public View! We endorse the Save the Begonia Park Public View! Petition to Newport Beach City Council. Read the Save the Begonia Park Public View! Petition Sign the Save the Begonia Park Public View! Petition Name Address in Newport Beach Phone Number kate kearns View Signatures: 51 1 Page I of 1 PetitionOnline.com has disabled the display of email addresses for signatories who chose to make their address public. We have done this to reduce the spread of harmful Windows viruses which harvest email addresses from the web cache of infected computers. This also prevents spammers from harvesting email addresses from this site. The Save the Begonia Park Public View! Petition to Newport Beach City Council was created by and written by Dan Spletter, Co- President, Friends of Begotda Park (FriendsBegoniaParkolive.com). The petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice. Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Hell) form. Send Petition to a Friend - Start a Petition - Privacy - Contdbutions - Comments and Suggestions PetitionOnline - DesignCommunity - ArchitectureWeek - Great Buildings - Search http://www.PetitionOnline.com/Begonial/Petition.html © 2009 Artifice, Inc. - All Rights Reserved. http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?Begonial&Sl 1/3/2010 Through the ups and downs, the ins and outs, the peaks and downturns of 23 years, Kim ... Page 1 of 3 •li�. sa1e I Get$4,W0�" —ur— OAPR for7Lrew°r,- sMwa den!o!xam i::arx, on every new Saturn' .1,: .r:.:. ('l .l:'n n♦ n r.:n., .:.n , e::: '.:.. E.i. .� ..:. y..v 5 A:r.:. .,.:>: - ..I: = REALESTATE JOBS, CARS DEALS CLASSIFIEDS PLACE AN AC BUSINESS HOME NEWS SPORTS BUSINESS ENTERTAINMENT HEADLINES SIGN- IWsmil -UP Su%CREE E'REGISTER HELP TODAYm PAPER F_ SURF REPORT 153.0°F In Santa Am I TRAFFIC LIFE TRAVEL OPINION Acwmodfe news I Slags I Commas I Economy I OC Outlook I Personal Finance I Photos I Peal Enlace Ne,vs 1 Retail I Sai Stuslans Text: i= ii_I,cl I StOCk! and Tons I Videos 1 leorkolatt# November 12, 2009 7:47 AM The Permanent Temporary Guy By PEGGY Lci THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER COMMENTS RECOMMEND 1PRJrTI EMAIII SHNRE IM1MiF PHpiR Story Highlights Work: Irvine one -man shop grows to $100 million tamp business IRVINE - Through the ups and downs, the ins and outs, the peaks and downturns, Kim Megonigal has been here. Four recessions during 23 years in Orange County. But its this one, the Great Recession, in which Megonigal has seen the worst job marlret some he started his roan company. Megonigal is In the business oflobs, temporary jobs, and the gig has been good to him. In 1981 Megonigal, then 33, treated his one - an temp agency before people called such operations "start-ups" Now 57, Megonigal's Irvine -based company, Kim. Staling Service Inc., does more than $100 million in annual sales and has 35 branches so. Callficrue 6p, who better to talk to about work than a guy who rune a staling mmpanyl "I think most people get their self-worth from wwk'ug," Megwugal said "I Hunk there are some W. Meomiaal's' nand corlwrrv. Kmm damn, swvim lm., young People throw who haven't quite figured dams arms in- 3100 million in enema sales aM has 35 that Out, l think the current recession win help emmovs urvea caliromiax than to figure it cut. Boa cedainly, I know from MIG4AEL GOULOING THE ORANGE GOL'NTY REGISTER myself, Aldomi work antl aCCemplieM1 SOmeNing, MORE PHOTOf d Shard for me to have fun. I have to have first als, elf worth antl self - meaning before I can really y shay my IHe" Get$430��c lBack youhearthat 'The•Yonn,propletmday er t? Yep, heres the part where Megonigal the aer of three and steadied to two. starts talking �JAfa Aeaifiad well. your led. That guy who Sheayitals APR Tor /Gwy,.a about "kids these days" on every new Saturnl 'We had a lot of kids coming out of scdcol antl L.1 „rhos cMttat fat getting majua Me Animalism, Way "And giren what? That entitlement is not there. Sale 0 SoIthink we have an awful lot of disappointed children e o that sch H wadd get Hie Animalism have Way to mare out of achoel antl get a great paying lob" Ciiry b:r�.- LNrw Magi a right about the lack of entitlement +� ev.m;,:.r 1!: arnnwn v. ovi 1 -111 tuday, because the lots lust aren't thee. It was '�a - moss man. unemMoyed dotage graduates that vaii, re '' r - '- "- �_la helped push Cougar Co.rAYS joule.... rate in ADVERTISEMENT Tune le a modem -day record of 9.2 percent. Additionally, a study by the Economic Policy Institute last spring showed that the national unemployment rate for wareem under the age of 27 with a bachellai degree or higher education was nearly 6 Percent -- a 26 -year high. Megonigal Iaiows becauae he hears A from friends who call him, parents who figure a guy who owns a staling company has the goods in a bad sconomy"I can't tell you how many people call me antl say,' W n you help my ct15a get a jodi Rley're fiome. they dart have money they don't have a place N go. I come home and Hleyre angry They're disappointed in themselves, theyre disappointed in our country. "' Meganigal said "They matt an enfitlament that left there. And theyre very, very, upset and angry about R" Megonigal got a leg up in the busineas from his own dad. His father owned a temporary agency and Megonigal went to work in the Irvine office after he graduated from college in 191 The young Megonigal saw an equally young, emerging industry in the staging business, so he went out on his own. He's done well Step into his madest office merkwbng the 5 Freeway, and look at me pictures of these he loves. Megonigal has mace grown children Imam his first wife, who died of cancer in 1999. He remarried in tog) and theta are pidules of him and his wife, Carolyn, from their Hawaiian wedding. Along with dra'slwo s aatlfto vi10hMen, mewM,lingTkforeseh'J.ae �pp'{3tmiiy- aiitan a�M lsgarc6,+s aMdrt+aaadln islland and di domes. VIDEO latest I OC In Two Merin, —die Tina In,. make con Nr lM fir. iim, w"ri -0Y qM Play Play 0 011111 OCIn Twa: Grandmdnd luny 9 rad A fal arras Play ,MORE All videos I Your Videos (a Submit a video Mosrwewso MpT Cf EWM s TREmxrrt:NOea Investigator Gmddmchar likely killed 4in T slege Tolaga' Molestaton charges troubled judge Report Wife divorcing Tiger Nbods Michael in June 1991 is Xobe In December 21](0 http: / /www. ocregi ster. comlarticleslmegonigal- 218930- busines s- think. html ?pic =3 12/17/2009 Through the ups and downs, the ins and outs, the peaks and downturns of 23 years, Kim � .'E� �d i. stcl�}il�"e}3mr CCi�eel -�9et �il �glh f.�epOrnna� I Meguni6iiVlgri I ClasfitedsI Ps. An Ad Return to Top turbot-- CeSAne Ghetto, antl, given his love of basketha4 the company has a luxury bea at the Staples Center THINGS TO DO and the A Muj.Cfifii Oerkrusi iz's meat-- Irgyre'uv board. "f think makith} mnney+s jvM part M me eavadW Megonigar saPo. "I think for me, I look around and five people who have even ttith me 10, 20 years, and 1 see the career progrdsiOn, end the things its acne for them and their f- mi limits With a lot. Thel's were a IM of money." Talk to Megongal today and he's a grateful man. Gmtedol his company rode out the recess ion, despite byoMs and desotiv pelting its worst year in 2008. He thinks maybe -lust maybe -hie economy is turning around. In fact, the bng.las8ng ei of the Great Rddes9lpn has proved a silver Iining for the temp address. The last few weeks have NcuOM what Magr igal adds "an MoricK in business Companies may not have the confidence join yet to be hiring permenem, lon edun emplayeree, but Nay, are body enough to need temporary and conuael workers, and Mat'- goad neeSlpr Kedi So having weathered Me tier o des and s. including Nis Great one, eusiness is now leading up and KIM Megonlgal will remain the permewe Iempemry guy. CCvl?d%I -YouT 1 saAtj, I synrai Reader Comments comments; are encouraged, but you (rant follow, pb user Agreement. 1. Keep It civil end stay on topic. 2dla.prahrM.Y.- vaNVr!(a, rxbi stars or.?aesmadentpai. 3. People who hand; others orjoke about tragedies will be bbeked, Oldest First Newest First You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login I Re ister .rv, Mae I Article Phi More from 6uslness n rw.aa —lie3 plude. EVErus I OWING 1 Movies 1 veNUES 1 ALL 1, Saks FihAAVdds.. w y. ACM1risanas WUp... 3. P. Ckhodus e+dy 4 John Heeton 5. SuEamut Pmxnts.. e. KQV Elecee panty... T. on Enders, u>a..eel I— en eem,a, o,enaacwnn.don AniunSEs i AM1UImkI HW80.0 relreWAa NEWS ALERTS 8 NEWSLETTERS Sign up to receive breaking newt and your onerhe newelegers Enter Your E -mail Adana mmom View all newsletters POLL Tahoe deaths: Did judge blow it? Yes, he should daw anrclpref the mayhem. fits, he w s... she. MY VnulC haapen ENx lrB eddy To tare Read Relate - Article Qom-- Yourfirsttwopaymentsareonus. �d� 2�. S Certified Pre -Owned = socalbmw.comlcpa httpillwww. ocregister .comlarticleslmegonigal- 218930- busines s- think. html ?pic =3 Page 2 of 3 12/17/2009 AOVERTISEOPTIONS CONTACT. OCREOISTER OCRSMVIOES NP YOVRWAY AOVERTISNG F.61 /Een'ICe At ut US ArchNux B!gs Cas5le6s Platter OnlmeAd Car¢¢rs Buy Our Phoros EMaII NewskMers Cars Plawa Print Ad C..dUa CaliMnie Lotlary E -R"d., peels Place a Clessif dAd a «eNonx Ikais Moblk -bs MMI.K Co.N ,Semlce OCP.,i9d, Fanslrop RSe Raul E.tite Aderlsing COMacl Info Sulucnt TOaay Orar3 C..1d, BUSinaxgs site Map Plare a Olassitied Ad Svbscnb.r Serv;tt Register Insider Video View our Midi, Kl Sh Help gegiger in Education PARTNERS sire Feedback KWGGTV M%d3c OC FACe. coast Magslne Preklred Cedlnation OlgngMnunty.rum FreetlomPdMCS.com REGISTER < X)M,MURIC:AI'k, %S ®CPydigM..O pang. County Regi,ld,r Communvaponx NI RgM Reserved, Pm.,Y, of ly I Sne Help I bur Ayieenif See.Wap http:// www. ocregister .comlarticleslmegonigal- 218930- business- think.httnl?pic =3 12/17/2009 • rF ` 1 t 4. A�i-, '. 10 .A li &- Mn "RECEIV • D AFTER AGENDA PRINTED" 2 Brown, Leilani * om: Campbell, James nt: Monday. January 11, 2010 8:07 AM o: Brown, Leilani Subject: FW: Proposed Megonigal Home From: Peter Denniston [ mailto :Peter@denn!stonrealty.com) Sent: Mon 1/11/2010 3:58 AM To: Curry, Keith; Henn, Michael; Rosansky, Steven; Webb, Don (City Council); Daigle, Leslie; Seikh, Edward; Gardner, Nancy Cc. Campbell, James Subject Proposed Megonigal Home Mr. Mayor and Members of the Newport Beach City Council, Enough is enough! Until now, I have enjoyed being a resident of the City of Newport Beach and appreciated the strong leadership from City staff and the City Council. We seem to be lacking this leadership with the proposed Megonigal home. I have watched this convoluted review and approval process wind through the City of Newport Beach and it causes me to question whether private property rights have been eliminated in our City. I can understand the City trying to fulfill its civic and moral responsibility to protect the public health, safety and welfare but this is absurd. The Megonigals are pursuing something that they have by right. Their proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning for the City of Newport Beach. They are not asking for any variances and their project complies with all fight limits, setback and lot coverage requirements. They have been required to complete a full Environmental Impact eport which is absolutely unheard of by me and my real estate industry peers for a project this small. They have been required to repeatedly update view studies to satisfy the City's review requirements. They have responded to every request that the City has made. With the completion of all these studies, it's finally time for the City to approve this project. While some adjoining property owners want to see this property confiscated for open space purposes, no one has this right without paying fair compensation. At this point, the City has crossed the line in what looks to me to be approaching an illegal taking. The City should approve the project as recommended. If not, then the City should stop this charade and deny this project so that the Megonigals can sue the City for an illegal taking. Please feel free to call me with any questions. Thank you. Best regards, Peter Peter Denniston President DENNISTON REALTY GROUP 140 Sidney Bay Drive Newport Coast, CA 92657 Cell: 310.383.1810 Facsimile: 949.715.5047 E -mail: peterGDdennistonrealtv.com NOTICE TO RECIPIENT mail and any attachments Including doc uments. Wes and previously sent e- mads are Mended solely for the named addressees. It may contain & Wabort that Is confidential, legally privileged and protected by copyright Unless you are a named addressee (or authorized to receive on behatl of an addressee), you may not review. use, disseminate. distribute nor copy the emall and any attachments. N you received this aaeall in error, please Immediately r=y the sender and delete the e-mail and any atfadments from your system. Thank you in advance for your 000peretlon. "RECEI AFTER AGE Dl l7 CITY OF NEVP6§Y OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DATE: January 12, 2010 TO: Honorable M or and Ity Council FROM: David R. ity Attorney Matter: CEQA Processing Policies; A09 -00178 RE: Reviewing and Certifying Environmental Impact Reports At the January 12, 2010 City Council meeting the City Council will review and potentially certify the Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR ") prepared for the Megonigal Residence Project. This memorandum is intended to provide the City Council with guidance on its role in the EIR review and certification process. It is not intended to address the Megonigal Residence Project specifically. 1. The Purpose of the Callfomia Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") is a procedural statute. It is intended to protect the environment by requiring that environmental effects of projects be studied and taken into account when approving a project. Contrary to popular misunderstanding, CEQA does not dictate the decision of any public agency on whether that agency can approve and permit a project. CEQA simply requires that (1) the environmental review process be followed; (2) the public be noticed and have an opportunity to be involved in the process; (3) all significant environmental effects identified in the process be mitigated to a level of "insignificance' where "feasible;" and (4) where not feasible, the public agency consider reasonable alternatives to a project in order to minimize environmental effect. In the end, however, CEQA will not prevent the approval of a project. A public agency may approve a project that has unmitigated significant environmental impacts by adopting a statement of overriding considerations. You just made that type of decision on the City's Civic Center Project. So, the process is the critical part of CEQA, not the ultimate decision on a project. 2. Environmental Impact Reports. An EIR is the most important tool available under CEQA to achieve the goals of the CEQA statutory scheme. In spite of that fact, not all projects require EIRs. Some do not require an EIR because it cannot be fairly argued that they might have a significant impact on the environment. If no such fair argument exists, then a negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration, will satisfy the requirement for environmental review. Reviewing and Certffying Environmental Impact Reports January 12, 2010 Page: 2 Other projects may be exempt from the requirement of environmental review based upon statutory or regulatory exemptions adopted at the state level. Where it may be fairly argued that a project could have significant environmental impact, and the project is not exempt, then an EIR is required. "The EIR is an informational document which is intended to provide [the City] and the public in general with detailed information about the effect [the project] will have on the environment, and ways to minimize the significant effects that may be caused by [the project]." (Miller & Star Caftmia Real Estate, Ch. 25A:1.) As such, and EIR must be adequate and comply with CEQA. When a decision maker' "certifies" an EIR, the decision maker is saying the EIR, and the process of its preparation, were consistent with and satisfied CEQA. Certification does not mean the decision maker must approve the project Certification only means that the requirements of CEQA have been satisfied. The decision maker then, after considering the information provided by the environmental review, decides whether to approve the project. The specific findings for certification are articulated in the CEQA Guidelines ( "Guidelines ") set out in the California Code of Regulations. Pursuant to Guidelines Section 15090(a) the City Council must certify the following regarding a projects EIR before taking action approving the project: (1) The final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA; (2) The final EIR was presented to the decisionmaking body of the lead agency and that the decisionmaking body reviewed and considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project; and (3) The final EIR reflects the lead agencys independent judgment and analysis. The City Council must also make one of three findings for each significant environmental effect that results from the Project• 1) The City Council must find that changes or atterations2 have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect(s) identified in the EIR; or 2) The City Council must find that the required changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City. The City Council must also find that the required changes or alterations have been adopted by the other public agency or can and should be adopted by the other public agency; or 3) The City Council must find that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly ' Under CEQA, the decision maker is usually referred to as the "lead agency." As such, the City is the lead agency" when it has primary responsibility to prepare and certify an EIR. 2 These changes or alterations are what we call "mitigation measures." Reviewing and Certifying Environmental Impact Reports January 12, 2010 Page: 3 trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR .3 (14 CCR Section 15091(a).) Once these findings are made, the EIR is considered "certified' and the Council may take action to approve a project. 3. "Substantial Evidence." You are probably tired of hearing about "substantial evidence." You seem to have this phrase thrown at you during your consideration of many controversial topics lately. Unfortunately, the term is critical in the EIR certification process. When certifying an EIR you are acting like a court. You are deciding facts.` When reviewing a decision by a public agency to certify an EIR the Califomia Supreme Court has held that all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the decision to certify the document (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of Califomia (1993) 6 CalAth 1112, 1135.) Thus, your decision to certify a projed EIR is given great deference by a reviewing court The courts look to whether there is "substantial evidence" in the record of proceedings to make their decision. Guidelines section 15091(a) requires that all of the findings made in certifying an EIR must to be supported by "substantial evidence" in the record. That means substantial evidence must have been presented to you at the time you made your decision to certify an EIR. That requirement is one reason why there is so much paper devoted to the environmental review process. 'Substantial evidence" under CEOA is defined as - enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached..... Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion[,] narrative [or] evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate... does not constitute substantial evidence." (Guidelines section 15384(a); Mira Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 Cal.AppAth 477, 486.) Let me try to put this concept into understandable, and useable, language. Evidence is "substantial' if a reasonable person could rely on it to make a decision. It is not substantial if a reasonable person could not rely on it. Specifically, substantial evidence is: • "Facts ": Basically 'facts* are those things that are real and identifiable. Facts are established by either relevant documents, such as deeds or minutes of meetings, or testimony that is offered by a person who has a reason to know what he or she is talking about, i.e. a basis or "foundation' for what is being said. For example, a testimony from a person who saw an event has a "foundation; but does not have a "foundation° if offered by a person who did not see it. • "Reasonable assumptions predicated on facts': We call these inferences. They are those things that naturally follow from "fads." For example, if a proposed structure is in a person's view plane, it is reasonable to assume that it will block 3 This finding is documented by adoption of a statement of overriding considerations, as you did on the Civic Center Project. This We of decision is called 'quaslyudiclal" since you are an administrative body acting like a court and are given the privileges of a court Reviewing and Certifying Environmental Impact Reports January 12, 2010 Page: 4 the view if it is built. These assumptions can be dangerous since sometimes a "fad° raises many 'inferences" and a decision maker must take care to not assume only one possible result when a fad supports potentially a number of conclusions. • Expert opinions: Experts have a unique status in the law. They are the only individuals whose "opinions" are substantial evidence. Lay people who do not have the training to offer a valid opinion cannot offer opinion evidence. For example, an attomey who opines that a bluff will fall if it the supporting structure behind lt is excavated is not offering substantial evidence. An architect who studied the bluff and identified its qualities can offer an opinion and that opinion is considered substantial evidence. "Substantial evidence' is not: • Amument This is where people try to persuade a decision maker to a conclusion based upon existing fads, but does not offer any facts of their own. For example, an attomey, individuals who are notorious for offering "argument," who posits that a certain democratically operated residential living arrangement is a "single housekeeping unit" is offering "argument' and not fads. • Speculation: Speculation exists where an individual testifies as to "fads' that they have no basis for knowing them to be true or not. For example, if an individual says a structure will interrupt a view from a certain spot, but was never at the spot and did not know the proposed size of a structure that would be speculation. • Unsubstantiated opinion: This type of testimony occurs when either an individual is not qualified to render an opinion or is qualified but has not performed a reasonable inquiry to know the fads upon which an opinion can be based. I know this can be "dear as mud." I hope I have at least thinned the "mud" for you. I will, of course, be at the meeting to address the issues tonight, but feel free to let me know if you have any questions regarding the City Council's role in certifying a project's EIR or if I can be of any further assistance. a,RW Cc: Dave Kiff, City Manager Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager David Lepo, Planning Director 140400718] - Cwxl fmm Hue re EIR C rft ibm -� N i O 4ewpon Reach City Map a •Y -c �t r. hap:!%µ w w6.city.newport- beach.ca.us' nhmap% Jot - st �� . d- { AIL I 12/2112009 11:12 AM RECORDING REQUESTED AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: Public Works Department City of Newport Beach Post Office Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 82859 -1768 4Iq- Recorded in Offiiciat Records, County of Orange Tom Day, Clark- Recorder 111111110111119MINNINO FEE 200300133878102:50pm 1013QIp3 211 44 Al2 E o.W 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Space above this line for Recorder's use only. ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT (EPN2003 -0380) THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this i 5 r4 day of -0&&C2,— , 2003, by and between Edward A. and Helen L. Foster, (hereinafter "OWNER'), and the City of Newport Beach, California, a municipal corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of its Charter and the Constitution and the laws of the State of California, (hereinafter 'CITY'). OWNER is the owner of property located at 2340 Bayside Drive Newport Beach, California, 92625 and legally described as parcel 1 and 2, of the City of Newport Beach Resub #2, as recorded in Page 420, Book 2896, of Official Records in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California. WITNI, SSETH: WHEREAS, OWNER desires to construct certain non- standard improvements (hereinafter "PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS ") within the Begonia Park Property and Bayside Drive right- of-way (hereinafter "RIGHT -OF -WAY") that is located adjacent to parcel land 2, of the City of Newport Beach Resub #2, as recorded in Page 420, Book 2896, of Official Records in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California, also known as 2340 Bayside Drive Newport Beach, California, 92625 and WHEREAS, said PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS may Interfere in the future with CITY'S ability to construct, operate, maintain, and replace CITY and other public facilities and improvements within RIGHT -OF -WAY; and 1 WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to execute an agreement providing for fulfillment of the conditions required by CITY to permit OWNER to reconstruct and maintain said PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. It is mutually agreed that PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS shall be defined as extension of the existing masonry retaining wall, installing driveway faced with interlocking concrete pavers, 5 feet wide walk, sprinkler system, plant new shrubs, maintaining the existing hedge (height not to exceed 10 feet) and appurtenances as shown on EXHIBIT "A' attached hereto and as approved by the Public Works Department. In addition, the proposed PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS may vary at the time of construction. Hence, any changes must be approved by the Public Works Department and shall be shown on the "As Built" plans. 2. CITY will permit OWNER to construct, reconstruct, install, maintain, use, operate, repair and replace said PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS and appurtenances incidental thereto, within a portion of RIGHT -0F -WAY, all in substantial conformance with plans and specifications on file in the CITY. CITY will further allow OWNER to take all reasonable measures necessary or convenient in accomplishing the aforesaid activities. 3. Rights granted under this Agreement may be terminated by CITY at any time by giving 60 days' notice, specifying in said notice the date of termination. CITY shall incur no liability whatsoever in the event of the termination of this Agreement, or subsequent removal of improvements by CITY. 4. OWNER and CITY further agree as follows: a. OWNER may construct and install PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS and appurtenances incidental thereto, in substantial conformance with plans and specifications therefore on file in the CITY's Public Works Department, and as described on Exhibit "A" hereto attached. b. OWNER shall maintain the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS in accordance with general prevailing standards of maintenance, and pay all costs and expenses incurred in doing so. However, nothing herein shall be construed to require OWNER to maintain, replace E or repair any CITY -owned pipeline, conduit or cable located in or under said PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS, except as otherwise provided herein. C. If City or other public facilities or improvements are damaged by the installation or presence of PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS, OWNER shall be responsible for the cost of repairs. d. That should CITY be required to enter onto said RIGHT -OF -WAY to exercise its primary rights associated with said RIGHT -OF -WAY, including but not limited to, the maintenance, removal, repair, renewal, replacement or enlargement of existing or future public facilities or improvements, CITY may remove portions of the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS, as required, and in such event: (i) CITY shall notify OWNER of its intention to acoomplish such work, if any emergency situation does not exist. (ii) OWNER shall be responsible for arranging for any renewal, replacement, or restoration of the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS affected by such work by CITY. (iil) CITY agrees to bear only the cost of any removal of the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS affected by such work by CITY. (iv) OWNER agrees to pay all costs for renewal, replacement, or restoration of the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS. 5. In the event either party breaches any material provision of this Agreement, the other party at its option may, In addition to the other legal remedies available to it, terminate this Agreement, and, in the event the breaching party is OWNER, CITY may enter upon the RIGHT -OF -WAY and remove all or part of the improvements installed by OWNER. Termination because of breach shall be upon a minimum of ten (10) days' notice, with the notice specifying the date of termination. In the event of litigation, commenced with respect to any term of condition of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys fees and costs incurred. 6. OWNER shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless CITY, its City Council, boards and commissions, officers and employees from and against any and all loss, damage, 3 liability, claims, suits, costs and expenses whatsoever, including reasonable attorneys' fees (when outside attorneys are so utilized), regardless of the merit or outcome of any such claim or suit arising from or in any manner connected with the design, construction, maintenance, or continued existence of the PERMITTED IMPROVEMENTS. 7. OWNER agrees that this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect from execution thereof; shall nm with the land; shall be binding upon the heirs, successors, and assigns of OWNERS' interest in the land, whether fee or otherwise, and shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: By: Al city Clerk CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH, a Municipal corporation mw,0020 OWNER: ,, f A. and Helen L. Foster 2 By: y�'wl A c-, Edward A. Foster 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss: COUNTY OF ORANGE ) On ��b `� 2003, before me, K^�QNI �• ��L��� N_ +� �W1��G personally appeared A • I-� �• }%1' personalty known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the perso s) se name ssl(rTe)ubscrlbed to the within instrument and ackno to me that he/ has executed the same in hi� nzed capa and that by his/he air signatur>�on the instrument the perso s or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. LEIUWI I. &10WN WITNESS my hand and official seal. � °�C&womu - leWcwom r.rp. CoaerY r�In. J.n 25.2008 Notary Public in and for said State (This area for official notarial seal) STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss: COUNTY OF ORANGE } On C) e_4 _ ate- 2003, before me, ~T ti rJ J �c fir c personally appeared vv A L. b 1 Ap,� `I— t- ���� � , Ii�tn•� dew, personally known to me to be the perso s) Nhose name (sisl re subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that helsh hey has executed the same in his/her e authorized capac' ies and that by hisfherlj�ignatura(2 on the instrument the person eor the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. QI�AA � A�9� Notary Public in Md for said State f-Wws aQMMrA ft\200MM3.3M 2340 bwol" doc IG'MY F1,8r{Ep Cd�rrrMCf Y 1341008 tmmry PubhC - cuuoalr. Oren" county, * - C'MVn Em+e4F4b21 2MI (This area for official notarial seal) EXIST. kOUSE 2340 BAYSIDE DRIVE �L rS y� i MAL 0AOWn0 t )aLroN 0" LOT o� Cana OIL OIL WA O Caw" or GJLfOTPM wtwnt txwmo comma nwaAAT AND ASSESSORS KOM IAIJJSIN: Ott - OJT -is 2w M m Ohrt CaONJ (4 ". CAtfnNLU own �gtVE (OW" w NLLIN rosg4 (IN( R) -tom �St�E ml Ist M, [ ,C �A CONSM or CAlVnb4 SMOS o .coomo.". Wr TOR EKWMO SITE PLAN s vTw' - V -D' O O w a e TO A 10 Im EXHIBIT "A" milk4pip BEGONIA PARK erl/oLs L90M b.L tQ (M Jo Y AwNwcRmt. PROJECT SCOPE O IOPLMZ QNFNAY wtwnt txwmo comma nwaAAT AND wilm,L NCI WVMOnSC mm"m "". �gtVE �St�E COMPACTED Man M LOCATOR SHOM. �A EMING CLAM CN To NDAMM RIUM SITE PLAN s vTw' - V -D' O O w a e TO A 10 Im EXHIBIT "A" milk4pip BEGONIA PARK erl/oLs L90M b.L tQ (M Jo Y AwNwcRmt. PROJECT SCOPE O IOPLMZ QNFNAY wtwnt txwmo comma nwaAAT AND wilm,L NCI WVMOnSC mm"m "". s" me lDOf IRSTAiwrs OVER Pw[PMASO COMPACTED Man M LOCATOR SHOM. EMING CLAM CN To NDAMM RIUM AMMM COMCw n A-am. O AW 4emp" K.OLt Emma CCmCWM WNTUM mcs. an YJCY "MIRE. MMM4 SOD W I mnt W, CONUSTE sUlww (s' mot To Tmm M cuu1 totRtw OF tr 1104 molm .t11 cn. !1 raTowf. AMU $ 1D10fl61 YMOEpY WALLB m� Le Ww� � Ew, slot of DW~ TO K "A 1�.MAAD. 4 w100rY WOOOAI'MKATIO" REWOK y WOME a ml 110W IMME M CLiOIL, woof. M TON AT LM a OwNTM.. l M W11- 1-N-10 PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "ProteRand, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Reach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign 1002- Amoml4vf- Wt -2�& OwIt y. fi Ills -3433 l�tUi�e.Co 500 Tfq- 9 -7 �?Syer" �F 4115 �Nz�u -sue, ec aw, ;' -zu U ; AFUndU �al 4, Co0' Mo tgr> m TOvu Zoo IYl 5t� 61 ��Rxe l zaF a ` �3zi Ned e 6 e G v el ;4y Cres -erriWW S3 3 i 19 q .2664 i i r IN Signature Name Address Phone Email ! Waat (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Size NV TI-2 4q� � /0y LJ U,J5 { Q �Crt14D O S r b,5o3 3GSSu CANE san y �.� -W 0' 14" " �i9 379 Warta- 1Q,( 3�v YrunrP ✓rte e!>M. l7'-1-4Z q �✓RN(aty a13V,a Ikwu q Ayv IV T 5� vzf ! zt, z- IFA C PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign / #4 C4'- QPltj0n {Sl.�r9 ��1' 3 �-� S'(017 n Bn��L �p,� c No Z 2 Dve L J IC-IJCL J7Roar •7a� �' L�� /�O N61U ecru y 2 )I" z FaJx 9/7 WAace V;)d C PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park Is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email 1 Want a Yard Sign Af V c ie (oz s (b,)12 ill.(, �� 9 2W -7 S- i ) v s (.)*Ark (¢t �(p c"� t QSP�i � a VO �4 is Mo CIA_ hi /rS L /7C/�i(�� NQ4JtCrf �Qai� U U4 SC .7OktN N C b � �o °I `f9 S cc.ot �(2 Ch roo, q-a ¢131 ioin" -vial' R PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect a a where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 350/6 minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email 1 Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard sign T o' V4 g ,,; 6 d 5� ��l a y �! a •P�vt i3-e4i e 103 c u"-1L0u/%cxoa F RGc A eM q l-O7C �tZlo' P cAtM S� Yicf 7J�s ,(�[ YI q�4� — IWIJ I ti— SiCJLh �.�,`i� Ng Ca Auto yt3i3 Mt. Leh � Z! ;'1 Cobs 14 31a Tir1ti.. R�r)ti�j f`Rj C�'' 4Zf+6o LfG l -- j, 1V� A 2ls ST• �/in�t�i �(}' oak /_J +'f X004 vim. � r JaJt-4 U! h26(j� mi port rf Uqo- 14 �►I 'C M G Name (Print Clearly) W��. Wye, MiErm zz ", r. imp M loin mraox., M-INIM '. mfmz loin q loin MM E1011 Sh MR rs 1 NO PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach Gbneral Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard S' o F4jrHMO' o2ao��oervNw (�°undre.� 1�'T Tur�uol,Sc 33�, Z- � y�S NI S �LCy MCA 2zG —Ctz, / 04, c>/ D cw P�+�S aiu C v�¢s5 pa AL Eo.Qc ,a ,,V65A �Vf CIA puN&- q�bo kh r � V_ — ft PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign { �✓' " �� �.�� DIN° �(�' �� awAad {�kLL o GI.B -7 d - �h Ih�a e 9 w y C: D i /D l� // PA `e 9 Y _ t ,[,LsG1 /fjj Mary 3So/>lmbreis� �� �uaS i�ow� ,t� B. ya-bda 4-it 1-�D7 *b o44Viri d w asp a d PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LUTA and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that Include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park Is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email 1W t (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Y d Si n i are,�d�li�►' Ll/ iNICf L/�lAnly o�ANr/�iv6c[ qZ111' wesir-16 t Cao w i a mares cvla " Rnf Tun ►?�� c I�.m4 0'1 L 460-6 -< - 3asr ;4,14 q,N v 10 Z'3- 9� PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials °Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that Include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from /egonia Park Is not •ignifloant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign w _ I, L. l 7, p � 7 �A►`� t> C. t t o 4`19 --- C o Igo 'Por ft r il►1P�^ 4log, a/� RR y 1.o0 N. f-3. 9a 66 n M 9aM Sa 6 l0 AW e - GDM 44 3 PETITION TO THE �~ NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials 'Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard SiLrn /Zr y CtMAJ S ubo� 7 hekk kam Eat 6A, CI�n? �6Z ti�+er�e(Q U.k>dalt� tJew�i- oeuy,c� $igyhlvoD - ass�"'� 9264 . Joaliap' Fey,)-0� The Newport Bich Generai Hen (LU -1.0 ano MKCO. 1) oauwwws ..w► . Sky R where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that Include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocom, and harbor from public vantage points." The Nswpot Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanwt Iola of the Public View from Begonia Park Is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% mkdrrmm view loss Is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a rrdnimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park alga t.re Name (lrW Clearly) Address in Newport Be&& Mae Smaa I waet a Yard Sly �A- G� %Qo�arnt l3 ,owj J Na G� i�lv G/OLL,�isis �jt� S A10 1073 Vi 6� 5i C yAh +, • �M N p j a l C r rJA C SUS�r, Q Knvx I D I S c o Mrs3 5 The Newport Bown venerm rran iLN i.o mw nn&v..r ........a.00 ...... _ ., -•_ -- — whom feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commisalon has stated that a 36% minimum pernmient loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% ndnimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the 61 Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park HIM _IIJMM rx'WR I Rm 0" 140 �" I MQU Wil If WIM, M MO Nampa %vi%* %i Win. /i+_.► -._•; ILI..Oise F, i LWO IM. PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that Include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email 1 Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard SiRn Ivr WA TIA ",Lj „:0 earrr- 1�w16 e r't- 77. 23c7 19f r- r' rtlYl,t �7CflAtii CrLrfrS 1-4 IQpc�o,P'" M rn 11 i O � J COW 4 i �/� .J�i N �• 3 `1a1 �NDUIIIE. IW14 -4 eL/ S O�OM �24a� J 1 W If 6uptild', mer 1, PETITION TO THE �I NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach Mneral Plan (LU7.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Reach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss Is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email 1 Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard ff Sign -ewe Cam. Iy17 6ar����'rc6v� 76v 3,9 t9 7 co,-�e ail - bnyo 4o �t77 75 i 0 AA 4- '7e y'0- KdL14 O W1- ok M� q e ' (/w /�G I PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach "neral Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that Include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park Is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email 1 Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign ccLLee '-(IS'lyCcOdec%Q 4 4:"— G 24,7- ! z 01 /7167 � ��. u4e azc •=>,r T41 Z °I3C ewm 0. K I l.Z %<cn h11 JlP l Q vrv+°0�7w Y: c '6-o -I IiF,�IfE0. LE-,f rW e-lc S Co 193C/ ?o"� RWorf /3y tJ.Ajf D 7G6 Ij/LAp 4.73 7 PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL A9, 4�b The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Si a �73 Vk ( T74 G�/• LG� 959 �pFl= Csu (I� -70`1 ZG�uSC I, Q�U f 6YY- `JA 1 lv Q/" ��. rid V!�SSPI� 13R l Uffi 2D. Uii-Gc4 �x� Kuk PC 4 7 S 9 y X. i��/ �L* PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officlals "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that Include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email 1 Want a Yard Sign =�'' / �l z 1. '►tit �i' 44 Saint Okauv N ACA yy 0y9'I 13i�iz /�� �z b C(,rus SACZ / N `cf 9 -703 ° 993 Par_ vicc( ��V T C �-/c7 S S 2 -2� 4v,.-,Ln ne-_ 2- 12- �c a r�+r L -206 14 , - °, 7133 PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park Is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park b� l Address In Newport Beach 1 / 0"J• r� =' b� l C C Ir PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach Cameral Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss Is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) to Newport Beach a Yard SI n N -7 '7 eo / I V,*4.0 f 5 $ e e cover i4 S 05-1�0 v iG /V V o �jrvai� fyy--j SAN u 1 "7 /°1 ,A Lau( i Pl✓` -` V. U-) K f l,�" / CYI�RLcSLLNt�13 J`Y /V011 --pff, a� 2 LA 1z tL 6 Ike6 V e� 2-?/ ic, 4 Do Ly nc 313A If n PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach GVneral Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35 % minimum permanent loss of the Publlc View from Begonia Park Is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sista E`! w a ✓1 01& 202? 0 «ta q49 /a cs.a a a l . '760 A*Joa X 706_ L� (141 AOL) Gb4c/kw1 9Peac(itcovesl0 �q i0- CD I"1 g v (41 :. �IIeC� 9D /Famtrk Ch L /I/ .6 , .4y � v M4tl& 6A .ca,•�► j v/ evet 460.1 C149 92 02S 3 61lo l wd, D 641 PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that Include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Reach Planning Commission has stated that a 35 % minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email 1 Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign YJVI' lilt?/ Ot' tTT r Cl/ es <'W tgt;-<e port' at4 M,e�rg.► -t e- -1ot5 < qvq PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials °Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that Include open space, mountains, oanyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard /Sign S+C. �( �/A7l cy e17 fAL �o i 3 3 � Asti u otr k N.0 .d .0 9A GGO b N�Pdrd —�c� tfl- VWL ��,es� magi 25 Ubsevv4fs� C. CA q2aS-4 PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points" The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 36% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 36% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign O 1 2uw t,�e, i z 3o pa.�t- f'r�a,� gtiq 3exzlr �� «cam- o y`lk St�.. V- �, PAI 611 yl- -TI) A.) (,Vfjr % 10 I-1 i I I SC 01 a DfiVi? q 4 4 bq Flo M S 'lob QGt �.No,'jV1 �i l �LJ �2 c� I w a, h ti r h t2 w•s 1 r PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign -t L �ec,vo Cep YYLI �0$ W gunk Gt},eIS 96454dflgrq 9f8'tS f�S2f��2/Nt^ ►3y S��YBA ��y ��e1�udtti 4 r1ttn17A C,Qsr 9y9 ��311 N ssq' � I S>4N0 aq l/ dZ-Z JO;�j O/y M C C AM l� ill . r ' PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach GTaneral Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that Include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign -gnn rl e C. p �fll�' I I,� SI�IOW All ,+rf �`tn.;l�3 jCearn� .O�Iw-- .xtlo� CC11'1 lC( UJ-QtaQe t00 63weo,7 6Yr>tiiC c6t PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that Include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address In Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign �Aan -�•y�• c.0.. o I ��n vQ� � (( -I � `Y G �t y R 1q Q I1l �z� Q�q Qy9 \/-V ti M PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that Include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points" The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard SI n A214 �alo,�it� ledl ;d „ty Imo/ by NOc. gz6s ao f6f e A„� e� . 1' 4ZJ � ilk j L ld(-ei 33 �- sq Nis 9� -bled 3�z 153'7 - 'J1.uRa4t:r 6tPC4 cQ 382,4 o� �� �� I/ PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address In Newport Beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign JG a )01 s q49 , L> I lD� A, a,nak3s Dg C DM. C6 vU c ►4. ``�"' - efl2v,4 y1V o SSA} Li Of -1"4 AA PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials 'Protect a where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that Include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Pbone Email 1 Want a Yard Sign I /e is ��._ M 07v-7 07`fI 47 1 1 Q ' u/ �`�� -- i7P,1 roo" s 6f�0 PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL �Y The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that Include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name Address Phone Email I Want (Print Clearly) in Newport Beach a Yard Sign ,57 ( JiJ- Z ,y X60 &c C .tvJcc� -+r.� 1�J�. -k ✓ y! �f%i✓�a r� �° �'4 4' Q4 I' IiZ S f> l 9A00) l /Y - r Y9 7-P N,Q 9,i 0103 so - /L � 09-73 eARk3P2t+ X329 PAC-tric OR 9Y 673 cu (n,g -D/?WKrNS Czcm,9 Dam /+e 52(1 Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport Beach Phone Email 1 Want a Yard Sign na/1 �39 Q�ntu S-99R! PETITION TO THE NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL The Newport Beach General Plan (LU1.6 and NR20.1) mandates that City Officials "Protect and, where feasible, enhance significant scenic and visual resources that Include open space, mountains, canyons, ridges, ocean, and harbor from public vantage points." The Newport Beach Planning Commission has stated that a 35% minimum permanent loss of the Public View from Begonia Park is not significant. The undersigned state to the Newport Beach City Council that a 35% minimum view loss is unacceptable. We request that the Newport Beach City Council consider alternative building options for the Megonigal Residence that would at a minimum protect the Public View from Begonia Park Signature Name (Print Clearly) Address in Newport beach Phone Email I Want a Yard Sign lty Mec.f\e Wt" W44h 4e14 AI�t14 6.aj tL bs s1Y *uv o�IAO 400 .Gt.GtQ 17 Ytw b3b tl vs kfi% tt uintta VIM SMY6 tCi! Save Begonia Park Views - Signatures �J J Save Begonia Park Views Page 1 of 1 We endorse the Save Begonia Park Views Petition to Newport Beach City Council. Sign the Save Begonia Park Views Petition Address in Newport Beach 425 Carnation Avenue 709 Acacia, Corona del Mar View Signatures: 7 ... ........... . ... .................... . . ....... I . ... PetitionOnline.com has disabled the display of email addresses for signatories who chose to make their address public. We have done this to reduce the spread of harmful Windows viruses which harvest email addresses from the web cache of infected computers. This also prevents spammers from harvesting email addresses from this site. The Save Begonia Park Views Petition to Newport Beach City Council was created by and written by Dan Spletter, Co- President, Friends of Begonia Park (FriendsBeganiaPark @live.com). The petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice, Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Helo form. $end Petdion to a Friend - Stan a Petltlon - P rgt:y - Contribulions - Commends and Suoaestbro PetitionOnline - DesignCommunity - ArchitectureWeek - Great Buildings - Search hV lAvww .PetwonOnline.comiParkYie%Vpew on.hon! ® 2009 Artifice. Inc. - All Rights Reserved http://www.pedfionoriline.com/mod_perUsigned.cgi?ParkView&1 1 /11 /2010 Name 7. Chelsea Gutmann 6. michaellayne 5. Connie Layne 4. sarah 3. Natasha Sinkinson 2. Anne Balderston I. Susan Alpert Sign the Save Begonia Park Views Petition Address in Newport Beach 425 Carnation Avenue 709 Acacia, Corona del Mar View Signatures: 7 ... ........... . ... .................... . . ....... I . ... PetitionOnline.com has disabled the display of email addresses for signatories who chose to make their address public. We have done this to reduce the spread of harmful Windows viruses which harvest email addresses from the web cache of infected computers. This also prevents spammers from harvesting email addresses from this site. The Save Begonia Park Views Petition to Newport Beach City Council was created by and written by Dan Spletter, Co- President, Friends of Begonia Park (FriendsBeganiaPark @live.com). The petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice, Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Helo form. $end Petdion to a Friend - Stan a Petltlon - P rgt:y - Contribulions - Commends and Suoaestbro PetitionOnline - DesignCommunity - ArchitectureWeek - Great Buildings - Search hV lAvww .PetwonOnline.comiParkYie%Vpew on.hon! ® 2009 Artifice. Inc. - All Rights Reserved http://www.pedfionoriline.com/mod_perUsigned.cgi?ParkView&1 1 /11 /2010 Save the Begonia Park Public View! - Signatures 0 Save the Begonia Park Public View! We endorse the Save the Beaonia Park Public View! Petition to Newport Beach City Council. Read the Save the Be¢onia Park Public View! Petition 70. VICTORIA CHAKMAK Sign the Save the Begonia Park Public Viewl Petition Page I of 2 Address in Newpon Beach Name 80. Jeanine Paquette 79. Ernest Bastien 78. Patricia Bastien 77. Phillip Reich 76. Michael Spak 75. Edie Barvin 74. Sandra Chalmrak 73. sandra chakmak 72. Susan S, Baker 71. Jason Krupoff 70. VICTORIA CHAKMAK Sign the Save the Begonia Park Public Viewl Petition Page I of 2 Address in Newpon Beach Phone Number 211 Goldenrod Av., Corona del Mar 92625 959/675 -2225 1215 Surfline wy, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949 278 1600 1215 Surfline wy, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 949 278 1600 1510 Park Newport 2500 First Ave. 716 Jasmine Ave. 1936 port laurent pl newport beach 306 Jasmine 3 SILVER PINE DR. NEWPORT COAST, CA 92657 30vr fixed 4.76% No Fees Buyers Advantage Program! Get an unbeatable rate when buying with us rw.w.IPL("esWle,=n Aw by C•oogle 69. James H. Curtis 68. Alyssa Omen 67. Helen I Wiley 66. Danielle Brandenburg 65. Steven Smith 64. joanne capetan 63. Renee Wood 62. Suzanne Joe 61. I do not agree - let them build! 60. Elaine Mitchell 59. wally working 58. Marcia Working 57. Marcia Working 422 Carnation Avenue, Corona del Mar 407 Jasmine Ave Corona Del Mar 92625 408 Avocado Ave 308 Jasmine Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 429 Dahlia 422 goldenrod 9 Turtle Bay Dr, NB 3135 Colony Plaza dr. NB 92660' 3135 Colony Plaza Dr. NB 92660' 3135 Colony Plaza Dr. NB 92660' 949.723.4170 949 6907878 9496734921 949- 2445633 http://www.pefitiononline.com/moc�erl/signed.cgi?Begonial& 1 1/12/2010 Save the Begonia Park Public View! - Signatures 56. Marci Tillison 55, Barbro Harvey 54. Jennifer Dauderman 53. Kent Brawner 52. Nancy Goldman 51. carol woodman 50. Alexandria Quader 49. david paz 48. Aliza Paz 47. Roslmm Chila 46. Cherie Sharp 45. Ron Manley 44. Jeff Derwin 43. Ellen Derwin 42. Deborah Cruttenden 41. Walter Cruttenden 40. Jeffrey Crunenden 39. Thomas Tackes 38. Judith Schuda 37. Brad Neglia 36. Chimene Neglia 35. Michele Wilhite 34. Eddie 1Jliasz 33. Kelly Dunn 32. Nathaniel Carton 31. Katy Tackes 30. Diane Chakmak 519 Acacia Ave. Page 2 of 2 422 Acacia Ave. Corona Del Mar 512 1/2 Marguerite CDM 714/ 863 -0865 600 Begonia Avenue 208 1/2 Femleaf Ave, corona del mar, ca, 92625 949)903 -4896 412 avocado 410 1/2 Acacia Ave 2674 Bungalow Place, Corona del Mar 2674 Bungalow Place, Corona del Mar 2209 Pacific Drive, Corona del Mar 2209 Pacific Drive, Corona del Mar 2209 Pacific Drive, Corona del Mar 701 1/2 Acacia Ave 603 1/2 marigold 2301 Arbutus Street 322 Heliotrope. Corona Del Mar 410 1/2 Acacia Ave 701 1/2 Acacia Ave 1510 Park Newport View Signatures: 80 �Q 949 - 566-0027 949 -566 -0027 9498877325 PetitionOnline.com has disabled the display of email addresses for signatories who chose to make their address public. We have done this to reduce the spread of harmful Windows viruses which harvest email addresses from the web cache of infected computers. This also prevents spammers from harvesting email addresses from this site. The Save the Beeonia Park Public View! Petition to Newport Beach City Council was created by and written by Dan Spletter, Co- Presldeay Friends of Begonia Park (FriendsBegoniaPark@live.com). The petition is hosted here at www.PetiGonOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice. Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Helo form. S" Petition to a Fnend - Stan a Petition - P - Contriautiora - commarm end Suaeeelbra PetitionOnline - DesianCommunity - ArchitectureWeek - Great Buildings - Search hup.11w . PetitionOnl ine.com/Begonlallperirion.himl ® 2009 Artifice, Inc. - All Rights Reserved. h"p://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/siped.cgi?Begonial & 1 1/12/2010 Save the Begonia Park Public View! - Signatures Page I of 2 Save the Begonia Park Public View! We endorse the Save the Begonia Park Public Viewl Petition to Newport Beach City Council. Read the Save the Begonia Park Public View! Petition Sign the Save the Begonia Park Public View! Petition AUwi out if - S"KRVPTCY is R14HT for you'. ."ftti YAW Name Address in Newport Beach Phone Number 30. Diane Chakmak 1510 Park Newport 16. 29. Jennifer Burbeck 408 1/2 Acacia Ave, CdM 14. 28. Courtney Gordon 427 Heliotrope 12. 27. Gretchen Terry-Leonard 441 Carnation Ave Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 206 - 963 -2116 26. Lance Leonard 441 Carnation Ave Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 206 -919 -2066 25. George Rider Bahram Mandavi 6. 24. Joni Stier 430 Begonia Avenue 949- 933 -5317 23, Robert Stier 430 Begonia Avenue 949- 723 -0425 22. Lang Limoges 436 Mendoza Terrace Corona Del Mar 21, Shiva 20. courmey gordon 427 Heliotrope AUwi out if - S"KRVPTCY is R14HT for you'. ."ftti YAW 19. Hilary Holland 18. Cheryl Soos 17. John Naheedy 16. Mary Rabaja 15. Shinn Tale -Yazdi 14. Jen Cunningham 13. Farideh Iravani 12. Mohamad Iravani 11. sera mizban 10. Bahman Mandavi 9. Fahimeh Mandavi 8. Khosrow Mandavi 7. Bahram Mandavi 6. Adam Duberstein 5. Glenn A. Souers 412 Acacia 517.5 Begonia 2330 2nd Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 2330 2nd Avenue, Corona del Mar, CA 92625 445 Begonia Ave., CdM, 92625 Gh M (wmM 949- 7524609 9) 673 -2014 http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_peri/signed.cgi?Begoriial&51 1/12/2010 Save the Begonia Park Public View! - Signatures Page 2 of 2 4. LUCY SOUERS 445 Begonia Avenue, CDM, 92625 3, Dan 8plattar 430 1/2 Begonia, CDM 949- 675 -2500 2. gary kearns 1. kate kearns View Signatures: 80 30 PetitionOnline.com has disabled the display of email addresses for signatories who chose to make their address public. We have done this to reduce the spread of harmful Windows viruses which harvest email addresses from the web cache of infected computers. This also prevents spammers from harvesting email addresses from this site. The Save the Begonia Park Public View! Petition to Newport Beach City Council was created by and writtes by Dan Sptetter, Co-Presideat, Friends of Begonia Park (FriendsBegoniaPark@live.com). The petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice. Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Help form. Send Petition to a Frio - Stan a Palitipl - Pdyaw - contgubons - Comm rb and Suo26309M PetitionOnline - DesianCommunity - Archite,=reWeek- Great Buildings - Search hirp:llw . PeritionOnliw .rnm/Begonial/pelition. him/ m 2009 Artifice, Inc. - All Rights Reserved. http: / /www.petitionontine.com /mod _perl /siped.cgi ?Begonial &51 1 /12/2010 Save Begonia Park Views - Signatures I Save Begonia Park Views Page 1 of 1 We endorse the Save Benonia Park Views Petition to Newport Beach City Council. Read the Save Begonia Park Views Petition Sign the save Begonia Park Views Petition Address in Newport Beach 425 Carnation Avenue 709 Acacia, Corona del Mar View Signatures: 8 PetitionOnline.com has disabled the display of email addresses for signatories who chose to make their address public. We have done this to reduce the spread of harmful Windows viruses which harvest email addresses from the web cache of infected computers. This also prevents spammers from harvesting email addresses from this sire. The Save Begonia Park Views Petition to Newport Beach City Council was created by and written by Dan Spletter, Co-President, Friends of Begonia Park (FriendsBegoniaPark @live.com). The petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice. Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Help form. $and Petition to a Friend - SM a NOW - Pte - Cantrioutlons - Compx MS and Suaoestlons PetitionOnline - DesignCommunity - ArchitectureWeek - Great Buildings - Search hrip:// www. PetitionOn line.com/ParkView/petition.htm! C 2009 Artifice. Inc. - All Rights Reserved. http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perUsigned.cgi?ParkView&l 1/12/2010 Name 8. Sarah Jones 7. Chelsea Gutmann 6. michaellayne 5. Connie Layne 4. sarah 3. Natasha Sinkinson 2. Anne Balderston 1. Susan Alpert Read the Save Begonia Park Views Petition Sign the save Begonia Park Views Petition Address in Newport Beach 425 Carnation Avenue 709 Acacia, Corona del Mar View Signatures: 8 PetitionOnline.com has disabled the display of email addresses for signatories who chose to make their address public. We have done this to reduce the spread of harmful Windows viruses which harvest email addresses from the web cache of infected computers. This also prevents spammers from harvesting email addresses from this sire. The Save Begonia Park Views Petition to Newport Beach City Council was created by and written by Dan Spletter, Co-President, Friends of Begonia Park (FriendsBegoniaPark @live.com). The petition is hosted here at www.PetitionOnline.com as a public service. There is no endorsement of this petition, express or implied, by Artifice. Inc. or our sponsors. For technical support please use our simple Petition Help form. $and Petition to a Friend - SM a NOW - Pte - Cantrioutlons - Compx MS and Suaoestlons PetitionOnline - DesignCommunity - ArchitectureWeek - Great Buildings - Search hrip:// www. PetitionOn line.com/ParkView/petition.htm! C 2009 Artifice. Inc. - All Rights Reserved. http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perUsigned.cgi?ParkView&l 1/12/2010 "RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA PRINTED:" 2 Brown, Leilani From: Campbell, James Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 8:07 AM To: Brown, Leilani Subject: FW: Proposed Megonigal Home From: Peter Denniston [ maitto:Peter@dennlstonrealty.comj Sent: Mon 1/11/2010 3:58 AM To: Curry, Keith; Henn, Michael; Rosansky, Steven; Webb, Don (City Council); Daigle, Leslie; Sellch, Edward; Gardner, Nancy Cc: Campbell, James Subject: Proposed Megonigal Home Mr. Mayor and Members of the Newport Beach City Council, Enough is enough[ Until now, I have enjoyed being a resident of the City of Newport Beach and appreciated the strong leadership from City staff and the City Council. We seem to be lacking this leadership with the proposed Megonigal home. I have watched this convoluted review and approval process wind through the City of Newport Beach and it causes me to question whether private property rights have been eliminated in our City. I can understand the City trying to fulfill its civic and moral responsibility to protect the public health, safety and welfare but this is absurd. The Megonigals are pursuing something that they have by right. Their proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning for the City of Newport Beach. They are not asking for any variances and their project complies with all height limits, setback and lot coverage requirements. They have been required to complete a full Environmental Impact Report which is absolutely unheard of by me and my real estate industry peers for a project this small. They have been required to repeatedly update view studies to satisfy the City's review requirements. They have responded to every request that the City has made. With the completion of all these studies, it's finally time for the City to approve this project. While some adjoining property owners want to see this property confiscated for open space purposes, no one has this right without paying fair compensation. At this point, the City has crossed the line in what looks to me to be approaching an illegal taking. The City should approve the project as recommended. If not, then the City should stop this charade and deny this project so that the Megonigals can sue the City for an illegal taking. Please feel free to call me with any questions. Thank you. Best regards, Peter Peter Denniston President DENNISTON REALTY GROUP 140 Sidney Bay Drive Newport Coast, CA 92657 Cell: 310.383.1810 Facsimile: 949.715.5047 E -mail: peter &dennisionrealtv.com NOTICE TO RECIPIENT This e-mad and any attachments Including documents, Ides and previously sent e-malls are intended solely for the named addressees. It may contain infonnadon that is confidential, legally privileged and protected by copyright. Urdess you are a named addressee (or authorized to receive on behalf of an addressee), you may not review, use, disseminate, distribute nor copy M emal and any attachments. If you received this einaY in error, please immediately notify dre sender and delete the e-mai and any attachments from your system. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.