Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.0_Mariner's_Pointe_PA2010-114CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT June 7, 2012 Agenda Item 5 SUBJECT: Mariner's Pointe - (PA2010 -114) 100 — 300 West Coast Highway • Architectural and Landscape Review • Substantial Conformance Review APPLICANT: VBAS Corporation PLANNER: Jaime Murillo, Associate Planner (949) 644 -3209, jmurillo @newportbeachca.gov PROJECT SUMMARY On August 9, 2011, the City Council approved the Mariner's Pointe project, a 19,905 - square -foot commercial building and a three -level parking structure. As a condition of project approval, the applicant is required to submit final architectural and landscaping plans for review and approval by the Planning Commission. The applicant is also requesting review of proposed revisions to the building design, which include minor increases in height to various tower elements of the parking structure and the addition and expansion of rooftop mechanical equipment enclosures. RECOMMENDATION 1) Conduct a public meeting; and 2) Adopt Resolution No. (Attachment No. PC1) approving the final architectural and landscaping plans for the project, and find the changes in the design to be in substantial conformance with the project design approved by Site Development Review No. SR2010 -001 and Conditional Use Permit No. UP2010 -024. Mariner's Pointe- Architectural and Landscaping Review June 7, 2012 Page 2 VICINITY MAP n , KING$ Ro l *� •� �' '6 A9 ♦ a i� ,jj/I 7 � Project Site �CG0.5i IIWY W - YJ 286D " 1 ' CRCswiEW DR GENERAL PLAN ZONING ES, ' / RS-0 d� g by ua W � C G.- g D.] FAR ­ST IMI zN • .a x `" e g = g A G ®RM211M � 5 8 .g cnesrviEwav - LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ZONING CURRENT USE ON -SITE General Commercial Commercial General Vacant CG CG NORTH Single Unit Residential Detached RS -D Single Unit Residential R1 Sing le -unit residential dwellings SOUTH RS -D R1 Single-unit residential dwellings EAST Recreational and Marine Commercial (CM) Castaways Marina Planned Community (PC- Construction staging 37 WEST CG CG Commercial retail buildings Mariner's Pointe- Architectural and Landscaping Review June 7, 2012 Page 3 INTRODUCTION Background On August 9, 2011, the City Council approved the Mariner's Pointe project, a 19,905 - square -foot commercial building and a three -level parking structure on a 0.76 -acre site located at the northwest corner of the intersection of West Coast Highway and Dover Drive. The exact tenant mix was unknown at the time of approval; however, it was anticipated two large restaurants (9,557 square feet) would serve as anchor tenants, with the remaining square footage to be used for retail (8,651 square feet) and medical office uses (1,697 square feet). The project included the approval of the following applications: a General Plan amendment; Zoning Code amendment; site development review; conditional use permit; variance; parcel map; and traffic study. As conditions of approval for the project, the applicant was required to submit final architectural and landscaping plans for review and approval by the Planning Commission to ensure the high level of architectural detail and landscape improvements are incorporated into the final construction drawings. City Council Resolution No. 2011 -86, including conditions of approval, is included as Attachment PC2 and the City Council hearing minutes are included as Attachment PC3. Architectural Review Condition No. 4 reads as follows: Prior to the issuance of building permits the final building elevations and roof plan of the final architectural plans for the commercial building and parking structure shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission to ensure that the high level of architectural detail and treatments illustrated on the approved conceptual plans is implemented and incorporated into the final construction drawings for building permit issuance. The specific colors and materials (including roof colors and materials), window and door specifications, fighting specifications, and any other information deemed relevant by the Community Development Director shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Any substantial changes to the approved final architectural plans shall require approval by the Planning Commission. In accordance with the above condition, the applicant has prepared final architectural plans for the review and approval by the Planning Commission. The plans include architectural sheets of the floor and roof plans, building elevations and sections; lighting plans and details; and select civil engineering sheets (Attachment PC4). To assist with the review of the plans, the applicant has also provided colored renderings of the elevations and roof plan, and a colors and materials exhibit (Attachment No. PC5). For reference, the approved conceptual plan is included as Attachment No. PC6. 5 Mariner's Pointe- Architectural and Landscaping Review June 7, 2012 Page 4 Although minor adjustments have been made to the building elevations, the proposed final plans implement the principal architectural elements and high level of detail that was illustrated in the approved conceptual plans. The elevations include balconies, tower features, awnings, ornamental windows and railings, cornices and moldings, stone veneer, ornamental lighting fixtures, and variation in building elevations. To reduce the overall mass of the building and to enhance its visual quality, the design utilizes several vertical and horizontal offsets, includes variation in height through the use of entry and corner tower elements, and utilizes multiple materials and colors. Additional architectural enhancements have also been added; for example, the openings within the main tower element of the parking structure have been covered with decorative metal screen that will conceal vehicles accessing the parking structure ramps and interior lighting. It also provides an additional layer to the wall plane with accent lighting that increases visual interest. The proposed final plans also maintain the clean roof design with all mechanical equipment screened from view within equipment enclosures to enhance the aesthetics of the roof as viewed by the resident's above. The final design for equipment enclosures will not include a solid roof cover due to the need for ventilation; instead, the enclosures are covered with metal grate panels with closely spaced openings that completely shield the equipment when viewed at an angle (see Sheet ASK -01 of Attachment PC4). The flat portions of the roof are proposed to be constructed with materials that meet required "cool roofs" standards for energy efficiency, but will be tan in color to reduce glare. Also, a portion of the parking structure roof that consisted of wood trellis has been replaced with solid roof to provide increased screening. Project lighting is illustrated in Sheets LTG000 through LTG202 of Attachment PC4 and fixture cut sheets are included as Attachment PC7. The lighting plans illustrate that all exterior lighting fixtures have been designed, shielded, aimed, or located to shield adjacent properties and to avoid excessive light and glare inconsistent with the project conditions of approval and the outdoor lighting standards of the Zoning Code. The cupola and tower feature located at the southeasterly corner of the building includes accent lighting around its perimeter; however, lighting has been eliminated from the interior and rear of the feature to avoid unnecessary lighting that could impact residences above. As required by Condition No. 51, an evening inspection will be performed by Code Enforcement staff to confirm control of all light sources prior to final occupancy of the building. Landscapina Review Condition No. 20 reads as follows: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the final landscape and irrigation plan, prepared by a licensed landscape architect, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission to ensure that the landscaping improvements illustrated on the approved conceptual plan are implemented and incorporated into the final construction drawings for building permit issuance. These plans shall include 6 Mariner's Pointe- Architectural and Landscaping Review June 7, 2012 Page 5 specifications and details for all hardscape, water features, plant materials, planting sizes (including heights, box size, trunk diameters, etc), and growth characteristics. Any substantial changes to the approved final landscape plan shall require approval by the Planning Commission. In accordance with the above condition, the applicant has prepared final landscaping plans for the review and approval. The plans include specifications and details for all hardscape, water feature, plant materials, plant sizes, and irrigation (Attachment PC8). The approved conceptual landscape plan (Attachment No. PC9) included extensive decorative paving, a 280 - square -foot water feature, and approximately 3,700 square feet of planter area that included a variety of plant materials. The final proposed landscaping includes minor revisions. Overall planter area has been reduced from the approved conceptual plans to approximately 2,460 square feet due to increased decorative paving and an enlarged water feature area of 598 square feet. The plan continues to implement the landscape requirements of the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework by providing the minimum four - foot -wide planter area with continuous hedge and palms. Despite the reduction in planter area, the plans maintain a variation of ornamental groundcover, vines, shrubs, and trees to help soften and buffer the massing of the parking structure and commercial building from the surrounding areas and roadways. Substantial Conformance Determination Upon completing the structural drawings for the project, a number of revisions needed to be made to the approved conceptual building design. The most significant changes include the following: 1. The height of the primary entry elevator and stairwell tower increased from a 35- foot -high flat roof to a 39- foot -4- inch -high sloping roof to accommodate the elevator overrun (see Elevation 1A of Sheet A -201 of proposed final plans). The increased height is consistent with Section 20.30.060.D.6 of the Zoning Code that allows enclosed elevator shafts and stairwells that exceed 30 square feet in area to exceed the height limit provided they include a sloped roof with a minimum 3:12 pitch. The architectural finish of the elevator enclosure has also been changed from a glass finish to stone veneer with linear glass openings. 2. The height of the tower feature within the main parking structure that extends vertically from the retail storefront and covers the ramps increased from a 37- foot -high sloped roof to a 38- foot -7- inch -high sloped roof (see Elevation 1A of Sheet A -201 of proposed final plans). The increased height results from increased slab thickness and beam depths within the parking structure and the need to provide the minimum vertical clearances for vehicles accessing the third level of the parking structure. This feature remains below the maximum 40 -foot height limit for sloped roofs. r Mariner's Pointe- Architectural and Landscaping Review June 7, 2012 Page 6 3. The height of the western corner tower element of the parking structure increased from a 37- foot -high sloped roof to a 38- foot -3- inch -high sloped roof (see Elevation 1A of Sheet A -201 of proposed final plans). The increased height results from increased slab thickness and beam depths within the parking structure and the desire to complement the height of the main parking structure tower. This feature remains below the maximum 40 -foot height limit for sloped roofs. 4. A new 40- foot -high mechanical equipment enclosure was added to the roof of the northwesterly corner of the parking structure to house necessary parking structure ventilation equipment (see Sheets A -104A and A -203 of proposed final plans). Given that parking structure is fully enclosed on three sides, mechanical ventilation is required. The ventilation equipment will be equipped with a silencer to reduce noise. The height of the new roof - mounted equipment and screening enclosure is consistent with Section 20.30.060.D.11 of the Zoning Code that allows such improvements to exceed the maximum height limit by up to 5 feet. The enclosure will also be finished in stone veneer and is located toward the rear of the structure, minimizing its view from West Coast Highway. 5. The mechanical equipment enclosure located on the roof of the rear portion of the commercial building has increased in size to accommodate the installation of pollution control units to control odors and silencers to attenuate noise from the mechanical equipment (see Sheets A -10413, A -204, and M -103B of proposed final plans). Also, in order to meet the ventilation needs of the equipment, the roof of the enclosure has been designed with metal grate panels instead of a solid roof. The panels are removable to accommodate installation and maintenance of the equipment. When viewed from the residences above, the grates will screen the equipment within the enclosure. Since the equipment will not be under a solid roof, a noise assessment was prepared for the project by Mestre Greve Associates (Attachment No. PC10). In addition to the mechanical equipment system, the noise assessment analyzed the cumulative noise that may be generated from the project including the parking structure activity and outdoor dining activity. The results of the assessment verified that, with the specific mechanical equipment with silencers, the noise generated will be in compliance with the City's noise standards (NBMC Section 10.26). 6. The number of parking spaces provided has been reduced from 150 to 143 due to the inclusion of structural columns needed to support the weight of the roof over the parking structure. The project was conditioned to provide 150 parking spaces as required by the Zoning Code based on the anticipated land use mix, including the estimated gross floor area and net public area of restaurant uses. Since future restaurant tenants will be required to submit separate use permit applications for review and approval, the allowed floor areas and net public areas will be limited based on the number of available spaces at that time. The 2 Mariner's Pointe- Architectural and Landscaping Review June 7, 2012 Page 7 reduction of seven spaces would equate to a commensurate reduction in restaurant net public area of approximately 350 square feet. Environmental Review The environmental impacts of the project as a whole were analyzed under the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that was adopted for the project by the City Council on August 9, 2011. The MND was prepared in accordance with the implementing guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and City Council Policy K -3. With mitigation measures and standard conditions of approval indicated in the Initial Study and set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included with the MND, all potential impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level. The changes to the project are minor in nature and do not constitute substantial changes to the project that would involve new significant environmental effects or result in additional mitigation measures. Summary Staff believes that the final architectural and landscaping plans implement the high level of architectural detail and landscape improvements illustrated in the approved conceptual building plans. Furthermore, staff believes that the proposed revisions in building design are consistent with the approval of Site Development Review No. SR2010 -004 and Use Permit No. UP2010 -024, and can be found in substantial conformance with the approved plans. The increased height of the three tower elements comply with the maximum 35 -foot height limit for flat roofs and 40 -foot height limit for sloping roofs that was approved under Site Development Review No. SR2010 -001. These features within the context of the overall design will continue to provide visual interest as vertical elements that help break up the project massing consistent with the necessary findings for project approval. The changes in the design of the roof - mounted mechanical equipment screening enclosures are necessary to accommodate the installation of current and future mechanical equipment, including silencers to minimize noise and pollution control units to control odors. With regard to the seven -space reduction in parking, future restaurant tenants will be further limited and reviewed through the use permit process to ensure adequate parking is provided based on the proposed net public area. Altarnafivac Should the Planning Commission conclude that the final design does not exhibit the high level of architectural detail and landscape improvements illustrated in the approved conceptual building design, or conclude that the design changes are not in substantial conformance, the Commission should direct the applicant to make specific revisions needed to comply. 9 Mariner's Pointe- Architectural and Landscaping Review June 7, 2012 Page 8 PUBLIC NOTICE Although this agenda item does not require a public hearing, notice was published in the Daily Pilot, mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the property (excluding roads and waterways) and posted at the site a minimum of 10 days in advance of this meeting consistent with the Municipal Code requirements for public hearings. The item also appeared upon the agenda for this meeting, which was posted at City Hall and on the City website. Prepared by: Submitted by: ,Jgiffie Willo Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS PC 1 Draft resolution of approval PC 2 City Council Resolution No. 2011 -86 PC 3 August 9, 2011 City Council Minutes PC 4 Proposed Final Architectural Plans PC 5 Colored Renderings & Colors and Materials PC 6 August 9, 2011 Approved Conceptual Plans PC 7 Lighting Fixture Cut Sheets PC 8 Proposed Final Landscaping Plans PC 9 August 9, 2011 Approved Conceptual Landscaping Plan PC 10 May 21, 2012 Mestre Greve Associates Noise Assessment , Deputy Director FAUSERS \PLN \Shared \PA's \PAs - 2010 \PA2010 - 114 \Planning Commission \June 7, 201220120607 PA2010 -114 PC rpt.docx 10 1►17 Ni.71s 7 0 ` w 0 :.a If A 3oa jN224 y HWY W 1 4 It1 B m (m 0 ` w 0 :.a If A 3oa jN224 y HWY W 1 4 It1 B IIMk6 Approved Project a Two -story 19,905 sf commercial building and three - level structure 0 9,557 sf restaurants, 8,651 sf retail & 1,697 sf medical R- City Council Approved on August 9, 2011 ons of Approval - PC review of final building aof plan to ensure that high level of IML.nd treatments illustrated on nted. No. 20- PC review of final landscape and Man to ensure landscape improvements on conceptual plan are implemented. a An y substantial changes shall require PC approval. .7w� -J 7 I .r+eti, ' '� to O . r1 �• _ 11 ❑ D Q Q H b1■ 1. 1 �AQMI'1 -. I1 1c 1 0 17 .. l� 7 n G.i� Pow, - - . .Nmm l` ■■■■■■ Is "I I No ■o■ eu❑ 3: fines If mom ago ONE [a 1.'.p nl Rluq l L) I ■ ConrpnttjAf Dprian I ROOF OVER PARKING v � C OAS T "^ 1 G M RE C O A S T H G N W A Y Mm ME OVER MAIL Lll•�� ' �L 1 ais st OU [AM1N! tS r 1 -r11 P11 i• � II•{�•MA[Ilr. M2 I it Vt. 1.1 Ll EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE NATMAL I FEBI A WEROP EE1@IT RANI EP - OVEOR. MORTE%. SVOOTN.WT PMW • f%TERONCFAA31i 0.A•iED_MEOA COLO•T6L APDNT. OASHFOIGH too G PMrFONPNR O S !b N • R"ALS".0"It -GP WPPOIINIJ,fiC tN W VPSK NPGI[tl P Q ME -7 PIECE ETEOVM q•NOV O N g Cb . Y PNfta O Om - W OIDNONf@ tAOE.L PANEL EMLVEIP L SEE LTp•6wR N wVN1VOF J OELORATTVE&ETAL - SEE DETAIBABIgCiEO X OECVRATNf PEAG1A'1PfW9- `Y£OEfart6 AY Nfa41Ftl Vf ORAINFIGNINRIVNE N OECORALNf OCNl1.Uu JON1.6fE LfTwIt ARNpG1ED N IApflC MNHV -OY V•N[n, GG TO PPOVII[SuiM1VP -T: OLOR31aC95X @R[ P 4X1E- N41G,[L VETA1 COPN6rfnA[AS(]A t NJT ♦ A000 - ` VO VPTq TN iAW ETC BEE 0T NLSNMOSKTTDN F➢5 YQD4i iRMX11NWVJ1N Ry191 CEMENT A VEETO PTAA L. 5EE DETAAN AIO NKfK'M] CWEPI@ 6ff 0ElwE•AHD6KTONfi. I OXW UAtOiOUIN[NHl1NVl0114ls [M'MIN ue . eMlI ANt..,A. .r K D[Iwla I Iw ernmcate •nIS AYN NAF wIM TAN CMOR f FOINFE PE Pl/ Omop NPEARMEv R R TEPO0.0P 1509LFI"nE M RA5*Eil VS, AiP wlU OUAPTA M PAhTLOIOP. XETA PANT pY tW P6 PANT W= NBTA PANTWIN N PANTCAWP VNTA PANT COP no PI MINI ..LM .1. PANT CN IM n "A" CVIM ZA PANT NH IVJCART/N R PAN' COIM XGTA"I'm NtNTIGFNIII PN P,Ahl=IOP XNTA PANT RI6E RNBSOPF+W hl P.WTCOIM HtiA aANT tbR N61T AN NLYNlPAOUOPAIRLADA NTANDIIPRJOUOPVWN NE WAIL UCI[611ARWRAARiIwcolNw GNVON PI 'A- P%OPSO.ES 10A1PN I@1R#v i4 CAP /Alg M AWTT Mdl6TRE6 CMVM. 0E . tl ABBCT MWNTRE6 CAAVAS OPfEN %AS]1 M MMTT MpINTRE6 GAVVA&BTMPEp NNE IWOPONATWDI n NiPVFE1KWPA N %- P.WCOY BPOI XA. uIH'ip. •w1 Mariner's Pointe Uk9 Wml hq ^way ai Waw '.eA ,n Been. CA WINSTON'S JBVELIRS c!o VBAS Properties, Inc -mm Rano*To ---------- - -- - -- - - - -.. - r•• I GROUND LEVEL PARKING ..t ocsr `uAas ry (� .nu• ' •wua II v a ' O it _ • � • ^ < � .. iu�, - -- -_ - • `�,.y__ - -j —� I WEST COASt Ht4MW� ,&r,SIVED &k COMMUNITY JUN 0 7 2012 DEVELOPMENT rZ- op IvEwwk'l r<y /uOy 04:2.010-llq Cnq Aj hnl ?012 Via Facsimae and Hand Delivcry Michael Toerge, Chairman Members of the Planning Commission CityotNewport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, California 92663 Re,: Dear Chairman Toerge and Members of the Planning Commission: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the captioned Project and on the captioned review of the Project. My name is Cameron Merage, and I own the property at 100 Kings Place, Newport Beach, which lies on the bluff top directly above the captioned Project. During the administrative review and hearing on the captioned Project, 1 provided comments to the City Council. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a copy of those comments that I incorporate herein. At the outset, i note that, although the captioned Project has been approved, many of our earlier concerns have. not been addressed. The new plans provided by the Applicant foil to comply with (lie approved Project and exacerbate the impacts of the approved Project on the neighborhood including my property, The revised Project will have significant impacts on my plans for this wonderful site which overlooks the Newport Bay. It will also have significant impacts on the entire neighborhood of Kings Road and Kings Place. None of these impacts have been properly analyrtxl. Moreover, the new plans conflict with the approved plans and are not in compliance, let alone substantial compliance, with the approved plans. I. The Final Architectural Plans Conflict with the Approved Plans. As noted below and as noted in the Staff Report., the Final Architectural Plans are not consistent with the approved plans for the Project. Among other things, these Final Plans exceed the height of the permitted development and the approved plans. The Mitigated Negative Declaration ("'MN D") acknowledged a concern that building height might affect residences above the Projeet: "Elevations of the ploposcd buildings and structures are shown in Figures 6a, 6b, and 6e. Figure 7 shows a cross- section of a portion of the project site. As shown in Figure 6a, Building Elevations — South, the proposed development would be two stories in height and include appropriately scaled framework of architectural and landscape architectural elements and design, including enhanced landscaping along its frontage and street edge and a water feature. (see Figure 6a)." Id. at 52. It continues: "Adherence to the requiretnentsigtmidclincs of Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Plan would ensure high quality site design, architecture, landscaping, and sireetscapes within the project development and along the project fiontage. Project Page 2 design zv'ould also he su[,,jc.I fip review by the City's Planning d ".r�nrrnissinn.'Iluz Proposed proicst would he :.ornpat:ibl,, witl; the adjaccnt land uses and would not dq rade. the visual character of the site and surroundings. Impacts would be less than significant: and no mitigation measures are necessary." ld. (Empihasis supplied.) Although the In9ND concluded that the aesthetic impacts would he less than significant, the Final Architectural Plans create significant impacts because, in addition to the mass, various features of the building increase in height more than four (4') feet in close proximity with the above residences. As discussed below, the Final Architectural Plans conflict with the approved plans in six respects; five of which require an increase in height. With the Final Architectural Plans, the revised Proje;;t furthei degrades and threatcns the, visual character ol•the: site arid its surroundings. Further. the Final Architectural Plans conflict with the findings in Resolution No. 2011 - 86. Finding C, �vhich discusses the Project increased height notes that the Project will not affect residences above: "With the exception of the tower elements and mechanical equipment enclosure, the height of the commercial building is 32 feet 4 inches. To minimize the visual height and bulk of the parking structure as viewed in perspective from West Coast Highway, the partial parking structure roof cover has been setback 37 feet 5 inches from the front edge of the structure." Resolution No. 2011-86, Finding C- 1, page 14. Further, Finding C -2 provides: "The homes on the residential lots to the north are situated at the top of the hillside that ranges in height from 40 -50 fret above the project's pad elevation. The homes are also located a minimum of 60 feet back from the rear property line. 'These vertical and horizontal separations between the proposed commercial building and the homes at the top of the slope minimize the impact of the proposed structure heights to the adjacent residences." Resolution No. 2011 -86, Finding C -2, page 14. With the Final Architectural Plans, the Project will further impact the residences above. These Plans are not consistent with the approved plans. I'he two towers that are increased in height by the Final Architectural Plans are 4 feed four inches and 1 foot 7 inches above the height of those towers in the approved plans. Please note that these two towers are directly between my property and the bay and significantly hinder my view. They of course also hinder the views of the other residences above the project. Also a third tower in the Final Architectural Plans has been raised by 1 foot 3 inches that affects all of our views but the tower appears to have little or no operational use, Also, please note the towers are now proposed to be substantially 40 feet in height. The Planning Commission Staff Report notes at Page 23; that residences above the project are "approxirnately40 -50 feet above the projects pad elevation. The mechanical equipment enclosure located at the rear portion of the commercial building has dramatically increase) in size over the approved plans and now includes metal grate panels instead of a solid roof. This increase in size affects all of the residences above the project. While a noise assessment was prepared, no such assessment was attempted for the odors that wll! be (treated anr! 6`aYl%1- iet'If)el.l.by the residences above tilt; proj(bt:a lvith the new graded panels than, CL.lii t_e the roof "phis (--1 . osurc will concertuate ll!e fi nes and odorS of the entire structure and rolea. c, them by the residences. it appears that no curWderation has keen given to the effect on the residences above the project of sunlight)'heat reflection and shadows resulting from the inec ised height of the tosvr rs and the dramatic enlargement of the mechanical equipment enclosure, Moreover, as discussed below, the Filial Landscaping Plans decrcast; the amount of landscaping by fully oiw -third (1!3). That is not consistent with the approved plans or the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework, 11. Mile the As noted above and in the Staff Report, the Final Landscaping Plans reduce the landscaping required by the approved plans by fully one -third (1/3). As the Staff Reports states: "The approved conceptual landscape plan (Attachment No. PC9) included extensive decorative paving, a 280- square -foot water feature, and approximately 3,700 square feet of planter area that included a variety of plant materials. The final proposed landscaping includes minor revisions. Overall planter area has been reduced from the approved conceptual plans to approximately 2,460 square feet due to increased decorative paving and an enlarged water feature area of 598 square feet. "Staff Report, page 5 (Emphasis supplied). '['his reduction is significant for several reasons. First, as noted above, the MND relied of the extensive landscaping to soften the building mass. With landscaping reduced by one - third (1/3), the mass of the building will create an aesthetic impact. Second, the reduction of landscaping conflicts with the Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework. "illis Framework has stringent landscaping requirements for Mariner's Mile and for this site in particular- For instance, the Framework requires: "Therefore, trees and shrubs at all sites in Mariner's Mile need to be coordinated to promote visual coherence and consistency and to hide the bumpers and tires of parked vehicles. Existing unused paved areas should be converted to planting areas. "The creation of strong, coherent streetscapes, scaled appropriately to vehicular and pedestrian activities, land uses and planting conditions should be promoted over time to improve property values and boost the overall sense of place within Mariner's Mile." Mariner's Mile Strategic Vision and Design Framework, page 40. Page 4 As 1 discussel:l rn nlj'vrl gi n a I cons m ertis tic IIio i V.%! 15111 w€ iVc al lit oFlt of charactk;I `�iiai .11G' nee, ,Ihbolr'h hod. Red Ilet rlt the landscaping b: tr, I . -t: "Ili (33'X) percen X5 t 111 exacCrbc e this, tort) wt Moreover, the Framework provides spec.rlre. guidelines for the project site. Section 3.,� i4quirer; :'hat the landscaping at Dover Ave. and Pacific Coast Highway mirror that at the Arches Bridge. None, Of that occurs here. The reduction landscaping increases this conflict. 18_9. The Final Plans Do Nor Cornp9y with the Approved iPlans and Must be Revised. As indicated above. the Final Architectural Plans ;ind the revised Project conflicts with the approved plans in six respWs. Five of these concern height: (1) The height of the primary elevator and stairwell tower (35' [flat root] in the approved plans to 39'4" [sloped rootl in the Final Architectural Plans): (2) The height of the tower feature within the main parking structure (38' 7"[slopcd roof] in the approved plans to 39'4" [sloped roof] in the Final Architectural Plans; ('3) The height of the western corner tower element of the parking structure 3T [sloped roof] to 38' 3" [sloped roof]; (4) A new, 40' high mechanical equipment enclosure over the roof of the northwesterly corner of the parking structure' (5) The mechanical equipment enclosure located on the roof of the rear portion of the commercial building has increased in size to accommodate the installation of pollution control units to control odors and silencers to attenuate noise from the mechanical equipment Each of these creates significant impacts to the neighborhood above especially to Mr. Merage's residence. Any increase in height over the approved plans impacts the resident's above. As indicated above, the MNO indicated that the Project would have no impacts based on the proposed and now approved plans. But the Final Architectural Plans create impacts to the residences on Kings Road and Kings Place including ;Vic Mcragc's residence. All Five of these will affect Mr. Merage's residence and will have significant aesthetic impacts. Moreover, the mechanical equipment enclosure which has increased in size to house the pollution control devices will emit noise that was not analyzed in the MND. Mestre Greve's noise analysis cannot substitute for environmental review. This is a new Project feature which will have many impacts including aesthetics and noise, and the MND did not analyze it. Further, assuming that the noise analysis is sufficient, the public has not had the statutory adequate time to review and analyze this noise analysis. The Mtil) should have included this analysis: the fact that it did not means that the Project includes mitigation measures which will have impacts which were not analyzed in the MND. The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources I i'!' I: �B; �i" _.IY: '�if : ^" l�ii' •_i ��. :. G. �.[ :. -'I_ �°t C:odesections 21000 et seq. requires that new In itigatiot: a :easruis xhich cause unanalyzed impacts: req'oise re + :i1'CUlatlim OPthr- er! \`irnrurx :nlal doc.l.nne_?i. iierc. that r$ Ll "le it41 1). As indicated above, the RIND noted that the Ptoj+ et did not have aesthetic impacts due to its limited height and landscaping. itaisin0 the building and the appurtenant features eliminate this advantage, is not in compliance with the approved plans, and creates significantucsthetie impacts. Indeed, mitigation measures inscr(cd as pail orthe Project approval have (lie potential to create significant and unanalyzed impacts us demonstrated by the C'i:y's requirement of the Mestre Greve Noise Assessment require that the MND be revised and ri- circulated for public review and cominciv The City's including this study without adequate and timoly notice to the public cannot satisfy this st ltutorY obligation. The sixth change concerns the loss ol'parking. Parking at this site is at a premium. The valet parking plan will be difficult enough on this tight site. The elimination or any parking spaces will create significant circulation impacts, which must be analyzed. Indeed, the elimination of even seven parking spaces will affect the Project circulation but it wifl aiso affect circulation on Pacific Coast Highway when Project visitors back onto the roadway because parking spaces are not available. IV, Conclusion: the Final flans Conflict with the Approved Plans and Must be Revised. As discussed 'above, the Final Plans change the; Project and rcquirc environmental review. It is a new Project with a third less landscaping, several increases in height and the loss of prennitun parking spaces. We encourage you to Lind these plans not in compliance and reject the requested changes. Also the community should be provided with another opportunity to continent on this project. Please note that the notice for this meeting appears to indicate that the Planning Commission has already made its determination regarding this matter. The notice states that the building designs to be reviewed "include minor increases in height" (underlining added) and "all significant environmental concerns for the proposed project have been addressed...." This notice leads interested residents to believe that attendance at the meeting is unnecessary and would be ineffective because there is nothing to comment on and nothing for the Planning Commission to consider. in the circumstances the notice misleads interested residents and fails to provide the required notice. I have attached the comments of a Newport Beach Architect, Masum Azizi as Exhibit "B" of Azizi, Architects, Inc. Please provide me with all notices in connection with the Project and the captioned Application including notices of public hearings, notices of determination, if any, and notices of approvals if any. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. cc: Leilani Brown, City Clerk EXHIBIT A August 9, 2011 fhe Honorable i\,Ia.yor i\- fic:hael Henn a:r <,i K(-,5 pr_'cv--d <<ou) -tcd kli'rttbers city or icwport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 9265E -3915 Subject: Comments on the Initial Study Mariner's Pointe, West Coast Highway at iaover Drive Newport Beach, Cali Fornifl The Honorable Mayor, Attached is our letter of comments that we have presented to the Planning Commission on ,tune 23, 2011. First of all I sincerely commend the Plmining Commission Members for reviewing and addressing all parties' concerns to the above referenced development, i believe they all understood the magnitude of the negative impacts that this development would inflict upon the neighboring properties and the community at large. As a result, with thorough consideration of all issues, they canto up with excellent Findings to avoid excessive negative impacts from this project and denied all the requested variances. I trust that Your Honor and the Council Members will give this development a thorough review as well. As f stated in my letter as well as before the Planning Commission, the project could be beneficial for the City and will have lesser negative impacts if it is implemented within the allowed provisions of the zoning ordinance. 1 understand this is why we have these codes and regulations so that developments don't get out of hand, ignoring the general public welfare and environmental impacts ror self interest and greed. However, along with my neighbors and with the assistance of'professional architects and engineers, we have determined that this development as proposed with all the horizontal and vertical increases will undoubtedly increase the negative impacts on our properties as outlined in my letter. Regretfully, I am deeply concerned an(] disappointed that the City Planning Staff have supported and approved such a project with unreasonable variances on a very small parcel of land. i share their reasoning that the City's goal is to improve the Mariner's Mile Corridor to redevelop the current dilapidated property. However, this must not be accomplished on the expense of inflicting increased negative impacts to the neighboring properties. Further, the Initial Study under CEQA did not address some of the issues such as shadow and noise level correctly. This was evident during the last public hearing when the environmentul consultant did not even realize. that the proposed development could actually have a shadow on my property as well as my neighbors' properties because we are immediately north of this development. In addition, the Staff approved this project despite too many unknowns and assumptions ns documented in :heir finding with a lot of I do not believe this is how the intent of tic law and regulations should he i inplcn'uented I urge the City Council to review this project as thoroughly as the Planning Commission has done, for which we arc very grateful for. we trust that with all issues considered, this development's variances could all bejuslitiably denied as it was unanimously done so by the Planning Commission. Rest assured it is obvious that the negative impacts of this development's increases are siftnificant and vary serious for myself as well a:; my rieighbors;. We shall pursue all possible legal avenues individually as well as Cilll00iVelV to prntcct our interest. For your consideration, our chronological responses to the Response to Comments are as allows: R2 -1 Page 3 -37: The mass of roof structure higher than the allowed height and 5 foot closer than the allowed set back is still in front of my property and will be blocking the view of open space, which is a negative impact. Adding a partial roof top structure may screen some vehicles, but it will increase building height and subsequently create more shadow on to my property. This is again a partial structure and will not block airborne noise. These are negative impacts. R2 -2 Page 3 -37: The partial roof top structure (although may screen a few roof top parking cars and lights), however as a flat roof with unpleasant looking rooting material without any architectural details about 35 feet above the street level and 5 feet closer to my property will bring the sun light/heat reflection from the roof on to my property and this is a negative impact. In regards to the restaurant odors, you may walk by any restaurant in Newport Beach and realize that you can not argue that the various smell of a commercial Kitchen would not be a concern next a residential neighborhood. R2 -4 Page 3 -39: It seems like the environmental study including its response to comments has Cc-tiled again to understand the sun movement and its changing angle throughout the year. If you look into a model of this condition: any object on an average throughout the year, will put equal to half of its height as shadow to its north side. In this case on an average about 20 feet of my property will be in the shadow of this building. This is a negative impact. R.2-5 Page 3 -38- The swale is designed to protect the proposed devclopriuerut front the running rainwater from the slopes-, however, it reduces 3 feet width of my property for the entire length (110 feet) about 330 'Phis is .a nel_, ;;five iarpaet. R21 -6 Page 3 -38; The airborne noise from the Mechanical rooni through its southward openings and roof top parking is a serious concern as it is brought 5 `eet closer both vertically and horizontally to my property. The partial roof tol..) structure is for screening supposedly and not for sound isolation. R2-6 page 3 -38: Adding a partial roof top structure has introduced new increased negative impacts as addressed above such as shadow and aesthetic problems. I appreciate o o ideration of the above, if you have any questions. you can reach me at 1 '1668. Cameron Merage, Owner 100 Kings Place Newport Beach, CA 92663 EXHIBIT B Ql C-4 O O L11 1 4=1 CN A E O U1 yN E E yi (D m E F, 43 V a) O E r Lj 0 O cU L. zN O OI CL do 0) (Z m > 0 (U In O m < In Ed. Comments on the Latest Drawings Sub x,t: i1i tT:'r' :i Puintc" we;dl Coast li;LhwaV ai Dover f)riv�, Newpoil Beach, California Cuineron, Per your requr:st, 1 revia�ved breiliy some of the latest drawings ofthe subject project under the Pl:a,nitin ; C onunisr; :oner's ils;enda. Below is some of the concerns: 1. They have added Grating Cover over their mechanical enclUSUre (meaing it is now mostly open to the sky). Under the initial approved plans, they had a roof over this area and louvered opeings were on the west wall. Now with the grated cover instead of a roof; they have oped the mechanical equipment more to your side of the property. This will sevearly increase the noise level from the mechanical equipment as well as the fumes and odors of this entire strucure which is adjacent to your property. Z. Thev have increaed the parking structure mass and Night to 35' by putting a roof over the entire parking structure. Under the initial approved plans, they had a roof top parking with a campy only over the northern portion of the building. 3. Thcy have added a Garage Exhaust Duct Enclosure on the North -West corner of the parking structure up to 40' high. This enclosure also includes a mechanical fan that ventilates the three parking garage levels [containing cars gas -finnes and odors of Trash .Room (on the ground level of parking garage)j and dumps it infornt of the residential propertires on the north side including your property. In addition this mechanical Pan would have a significant noise impact as well. Further, the concentration of contaminated air from the parking structure closer to your property now would make your living environment unhealthy. This is a rnttjor concern. In addition to the negative impacts of this project as you have outlined before in your letter to the city of Newport Beach. the above increases only added sevear impacts to the quality of air, health, noise and aesthetics for the properties on its north side in partictilre.